Stellar Piece on Gore, Media and Enviro-movement

[Smiling Assassin27]

Read it all, as it explains a lot about Gore, the movement, skeptics, and the general public with regard to environmentalism at large, and climate change specifically. Very timely, very incisive, and flat out true, IMO.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/24/the-failure-of-al-gore-part-one/


But you cannot be a leading environmentalist who hopes to lead the general public into a long and difficult struggle for sacrifice and fundamental change if your own conduct is so flagrantly inconsistent with the green gospel you profess.

A fawning establishment press spares the former vice president the vitriol and schadenfreude it pours over the preachers and priests whose personal conduct compromised the core tenets of their mission; Gore is not mocked as others have been. This gentle treatment hurts both Gore and the greens; he does not know just how disabling, how crippling the gap between conduct and message truly is. The greens do not know that his presence as the visible head of the movement helps ensure its political failure.



Consider how Gore looks to the skeptics. The peril is imminent, he says. It is desperate. The hands of the clock point to twelve. The seas rise, the coral dies, the fires burn and the great droughts have already begun. The hounds of Hell have slipped the huntsman’s leash and even now they rush upon us, mouths agape and fangs afoam.

But grave as that danger is, Al Gore can consume more carbon than whole villages in the developing world.

[W*GS]

Just another attack on Al Gore. Snore.

As if Al Gore lived in a cave and global warming would go away as a result.

[Tombstone RJ]

well, he did invent the interwebz, so he's got that going for him...

[alkemical]

Just another attack on Al Gore. Snore.

As if Al Gore lived in a cave and global warming would go away as a result.

I agree also W*gs, but at the same time - I'm an actions over words kinda guy. If you want to preach these things, try to walk the walk. He doesn't have to live in a cave, but he's got some $, so why not invest in some 'green' tek? Maybe use his life/style as an example of how 'green' isn't living in a cave...

Just a thought.

[BroncoInferno]

Another worthless contribution from the deniers. Whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite does not change the validity of the science. Whether or not you like the policy solutions to global warming offered by liberals is irrelevant to the validity of the science. If you don't like liberal solutions to GB, fine; formulate your own. But stop this BS where you think discrediting Al Gore somehow discredits the science. It doesn't.

[Tombstone RJ]

Another worthless contribution from the deniers. Whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite does not change the validity of the science. Whether or not you like the policy solutions to global warming offered by liberals is irrelevant to the validity of the science. If you don't like liberal solutions to GB, fine; formulate your own. But stop this BS where you think discrediting Al Gore somehow discredits the science. It doesn't.

The point is that Al Gore doesn't really believe the science either because he's not changing his behavior. Funny that you are missing this one very substantial point.

[Rigs11]

The point is that Al Gore doesn't really believe the science either because he's not changing his behavior. Funny that you are missing this one very substantial point.

bs. you yahoos keep pointing out gore as a way to discredit global warming.Im sure the polar bears don't give a shet about gore.

[barryr]

The point is that Al Gore doesn't really believe the science either because he's not changing his behavior. Funny that you are missing this one very substantial point.

That´s true, he stands to make a lot of money from it, but won´t change his lifestyle like he thinks everyone else should.

[W*GS]

The point is that Al Gore doesn't really believe the science either because he's not changing his behavior. Funny that you are missing this one very substantial point.

Is the science validated by Gore's behavior, or are the two unrelated?

[BroncoInferno]

The point is that Al Gore doesn't really believe the science either because he's not changing his behavior. Funny that you are missing this one very substantial point.

No, you don't get it. Al Gore's behavior is irrelevant to whether or not the science behind GW is valid. Period. Funny how many dumbasses think nothing more complex than Gore's electric bill invalidates countless peer reviewed studies on the subject.

[BroncoInferno]

I guess all Al Gore needs to do is move into an igloo and use a dog sled as transportation, and all the deniers will change their stance.

[DenverBrit]

Regardless Gore's behavior..........


"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

http://climate.nasa.gov/images/evidence_CO2.jpg
This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: NOAA)


http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[TonyR]

Stellar thread. Stellar.


AMSTERDAM (AP) — When a 43-foot (13-meter) gray whale was spotted off the Israeli town of Herzliya last year, scientists came to a startling conclusion: it must have wandered across the normally icebound route above Canada, where warm weather had briefly opened a clear channel three years earlier.

On a microscopic level, scientists also have found plankton in the North Atlantic where it had not existed for at least 800,000 years.

The whale's odyssey and the surprising appearance of the plankton indicates a migration of species through the Northwest Passage, a worrying sign of how global warming is affecting animals and plants in the oceans as well as on land.

"The implications are enormous. It's a threshold that has been crossed," said Philip C. Reid, of the Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science in Plymouth, England.

"It's an indication of the speed of change that is taking place in our world in the present day because of climate change," he said in a telephone interview Friday.

http://my.news.yahoo.com/whales-plankton-migrate-across-northwest-passage-060036296.html

[cutthemdown]

1 whale means all that?

[sirhcyennek81]

Just another attack on Al Gore. Snore.

As if Al Gore lived in a cave and global warming would go away as a result.


Kind of hard to listen to a man whose family was made rich because of fossil fuels lecture people with far less then he has on how to live. Owning a mansion where that house alone consumes and uses as much energy as his entire neighborhood is a bit much, or flies to speaking engagements using "horrible" airplanes.

Its hypocritical.

:Broncos:

[epicSocialism4tw]

Kind of hard to listen to a man whose family was made rich because of fossil fuels lecture people with far less then he has on how to live. Owning a mansion where that house alone consumes and uses as much energy as his entire neighborhood is a bit much, or flies to speaking engagements using "horrible" airplanes.

Its hypocritical.

:Broncos:

He's nothing but a Jimmy Swaggart type televangelist asking the liberal faithful to fill his coffers for some good karma.

Liar, swindler, fraud. Snake oil salesman supreme.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Stellar thread. Stellar.


AMSTERDAM (AP) — When a 43-foot (13-meter) gray whale was spotted off the Israeli town of Herzliya last year, scientists came to a startling conclusion: it must have wandered across the normally icebound route above Canada, where warm weather had briefly opened a clear channel three years earlier.

On a microscopic level, scientists also have found plankton in the North Atlantic where it had not existed for at least 800,000 years.

The whale's odyssey and the surprising appearance of the plankton indicates a migration of species through the Northwest Passage, a worrying sign of how global warming is affecting animals and plants in the oceans as well as on land.

"The implications are enormous. It's a threshold that has been crossed," said Philip C. Reid, of the Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science in Plymouth, England.

"It's an indication of the speed of change that is taking place in our world in the present day because of climate change," he said in a telephone interview Friday.

http://my.news.yahoo.com/whales-plankton-migrate-across-northwest-passage-060036296.html


We should be extremely frightened by the reality that organisms adapt to changing environments.

[W*GS]

Its hypocritical.

And how does that change the science?

[epicSocialism4tw]

And how does that change the science?

The "science" has its own problems aside from the fact that Al Gore lives his life like he doesn't believe it either.

[W*GS]

The "science" has its own problems aside from the fact that Al Gore lives his life like he doesn't believe it either.

Does it matter what Al Gore believes about the climate system?

You deniers are weak - you think attacking Al Gore will make the problem go away.

Give me a list of the "problems" with the science. Show me you understand it as well as I do - don't waste my time with a bunch of denier blogosphere mathturbation.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Does it matter what Al Gore believes about the climate system?

Yes. It obviously does.

He has been the major public advocate for global warming. He undercuts his own credibility by living his life like he doesn't believe a word of it, and he thus undercuts the credibility of the movement. It doesn't help that the climategate controversy illustrated that the researchers were colluding to doctor information, and made sure that they ignored data that didn't suit their models.

[W*GS]

Yes. It obviously does.

Does the climate system care what Al Gore believes? If so, explain.

It doesn't help that the climategate controversy illustrated that the researchers were colluding to doctor information, and made sure that they ignored data that didn't suit their models.

Which researchers did these things? According to whom? What information was "doctored"? What data was "ignored"?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Does the climate system care what Al Gore believes? If so, explain.

Which researchers did these things? According to whom? What information was "doctored"? What data was "ignored"?

Climategate, holmes.

Read the emails.

[W*GS]

Climategate, holmes.

Read the emails.

I read them. And?

What do you think they showed?

[epicSocialism4tw]

I read them. And?

What do you think they showed?

Um...have you read anything I have written?

[W*GS]

Um...have you read anything I have written?

Yes. And?

You need to come up with something concrete and specific. Vague smears do not impress.

You'd be best off cutting your losses now - on this subject, you don't stand a chance.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Yes. And?

You need to come up with something concrete and specific. Vague smears do not impress.

You'd be best off cutting your losses now - on this subject, you don't stand a chance.

Ha!

Funny.

Kind of like this joke:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_blnN-QHR9C4/S0PSgrNU2vI/AAAAAAAAAPg/DQO6_3KAw88/s400/12-07-Ramirez-Climategate.jpg

[W*GS]

Ha!

Truth.

One thing folks who dismiss science (like you) don't get is that the process is ultimately self-correcting. No-one can "collude" to fake observations of an ongoing event, like weather. Since climate is the statistical average of weather, if you really believe that scientists worldwide are working together to fake the climate changes we've observed, well, there's really nothing more I can say. That view makes gaffe sane in comparison.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Truth.

One thing folks who dismiss science (like you) don't get is that the process is ultimately self-correcting. No-one can "collude" to fake observations of an ongoing event, like weather. Since climate is the statistical average of weather, if you really believe that scientists worldwide are working together to fake the climate changes we've observed, well, there's really nothing more I can say. That view makes gaffe sane in comparison.

"Dismiss science" Ha!

That's exactly what climategate was about...dismissing data that didn't fit what their models projected.

They should have dismissed their models instead.

[W*GS]

That's exactly what climategate was about...dismissing data that didn't fit what their models projected.

What data and what models, and, who did the "dismissing"?

Be specific.

[Bronco Bob]

well, he did invent the interwebz, so he's got that going for him...

At least according to the right wing propagandists.

[Boomhauer]

..Whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite does not change the validity of the science.
..Whether or not you like the policy solutions ... offered by liberals is irrelevant to the validity of the science.
..stop this BS where you think discrediting Al Gore somehow discredits the science. It doesn't.

The scientific conclusions themselves are faulty and Gore/liberals tried building on such foundationless ground.

[W*GS]

The scientific conclusions themselves are faulty

How so? Be specific.

[BroncsRule]

I agree also W*gs, but at the same time - I'm an actions over words kinda guy. If you want to preach these things, try to walk the walk. He doesn't have to live in a cave, but he's got some $, so why not invest in some 'green' tek? Maybe use his life/style as an example of how 'green' isn't living in a cave...

Just a thought.

yep.

More Ed Begley Jr., less Al Gore.

[BroncsRule]

And WAGS, just admit that Big Al has done more harm than good to the movement, and get past it.

[alkemical]

yep.

More Ed Begley Jr., less Al Gore.

If Al Gore had some bad ass house that really was off the grid, yet was very comfortable AND sustainable - it'd really take much more notice and he'd get a lot further in many ways.

[W*GS]

And WAGS, just admit that Big Al has done more harm than good to the movement, and get past it.

The deniers would like to believe that if they can crush Al Gore, the problem goes away.

Think again.

[BroncsRule]

The deniers would like to believe that if they can crush Al Gore, the problem goes away.

Think again.

While I agree that Al being a douche doesn't change the science in any way, Al being a douche does negatively affect the political movement in a big way.

[BroncoInferno]

The scientific conclusions themselves are faulty and Gore/liberals tried building on such foundationless ground.

The author didn't give any examples of how the science is faulty. He just argued that Al Gore is a hyprocrite, ergo GW is a hoax. That doesn't cut it.

[W*GS]

While I agree that Al being a douche doesn't change the science in any way, Al being a douche does negatively affect the political movement in a big way.

The bigger problem with the political movement is the campaign of FUD sponsored by Big Carbon. See the latest on Willie Soon.

And see Monckton comparing those who advocate mitigation to Nazis. No joke:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2011/06/moncktonhitler.jpg

[cutthemdown]

Nothing Al Gore does or doesn't do will change the weather. Nothing I do, or don't do will change the weather. All this shows is that people changing there lives thinking it will change the weather patterns on the Earth are way off base. There isn't one thing you can do, you are a grain of sand in universe. I will buy the cars and toys i want, do what i want, and not worry about co2. Al Gore isn't worried about it you can bet on that. He's just enjoying his millions, and i will enjoy my thousands. God please bring us football!

[cutthemdown]

Go ahead and waste money on an electric car that is overpriced, will need a new battery at 120 thousand miles, and end up being worst for the environment then a regular car.

[W*GS]

It's true that what any one person does will not make a difference in the global sum.

That's also why libertarian-style hardcore individualism and their complete rejection of any kind of collective action, and personal responsibility, is a total non-starter.

[Garcia Bronco]

Does it matter what Al Gore believes about the climate system?

You deniers are weak - you think attacking Al Gore will make the problem go away.

Give me a list of the "problems" with the science. Show me you understand it as well as I do - don't waste my time with a bunch of denier blogosphere mathturbation.

Put simply; there is not enough directly observed data over a long enough period of time to draw conclusion. That's what wrong with the conclusions on the "science"

[alkemical]

It's true that what any one person does will not make a difference in the global sum.

That's also why libertarian-style hardcore individualism and their complete rejection of any kind of collective action, and personal responsibility, is a total non-starter.

Even 'they' can be marketed too....


;)

[cutthemdown]

It's true that what any one person does will not make a difference in the global sum.

That's also why libertarian-style hardcore individualism and their complete rejection of any kind of collective action, and personal responsibility, is a total non-starter.

Even 1 million people won't make a difference. There is no way for humans to control the weather. We are on a hunk of rock, with an iron core, hurtling through the cosmos.

[cutthemdown]

When it is all said and done the planet will do what it wants. We may be able to collectively work as a nation, but no way you get China and India to cut.

[W*GS]

Put simply; there is not enough directly observed data over a long enough period of time to draw conclusion.

Baloney. That's just a dodge to avoid responsibility and change.

Manmade climate change comes down to basic physics and chemistry. Unless you're willing to pitch those, you have to accept the foundational premise - that we are changing the climate system.

[W*GS]

Even 1 million people won't make a difference. There is no way for humans to control the weather. We are on a hunk of rock, with an iron core, hurtling through the cosmos.

We don't need to "control" the weather (we can't) nor the climate. We just need to quit ****ting our nest.

[W*GS]

When it is all said and done the planet will do what it wants. We may be able to collectively work as a nation, but no way you get China and India to cut.

So?

Why do you look to China for our energy policy? Are you so terrified that they'll "beat" us by sticking with dirty, costly, finite fossil fuels that we should race them to see who can burn the most the fastest? That's inane.

[cutthemdown]

So?

Why do you look to China for our energy policy? Are you so terrified that they'll "beat" us by sticking with dirty, costly, finite fossil fuels that we should race them to see who can burn the most the fastest? That's inane.

No because we can make fossil fuels very clean its just they will still make co2. We should use up all our coal and oil and gradually make the shift to cheaper sources. Not force the shift and have it be 100 times too expensive. Also hindering our economy right now just doesn't make sense to me.

[W*GS]

No because we can make fossil fuels very clean its just they will still make co2.

Doesn't it strike you as inane to take the carbon that's in the ground, burn it, creating CO2, then trying to take that CO2 out of the air and put it back underground?

We should use up all our coal and oil and gradually make the shift to cheaper sources. Not force the shift and have it be 100 times too expensive.

It's not that non-carbon-based energy sources are expensive, it's that fossil fuels are too cheap. Compute how much money we send to other countries given that we import ~9 million bbl oil/day, at ~$100/bbl.

Also hindering our economy right now just doesn't make sense to me.

We can start the transition now, or we can keep delaying until we're forced to. Which will hinder the economy more, over the long run?

[Boomhauer]

The scientific conclusions themselves are faulty and Gore/liberals tried building on such foundationless ground.
How so? Be specific.
Specifically, the conclusion that global warming is caused by increases in CO2 concentrations.

~~following reposted from 6.25~~
Though CO2 levels fluctuate, the Earth has a feedback system to prevent heating - water. If the Earth warms, more clouds are produced that reflect sunlight back into space and rain transports CO2 back down where it's dissolved. A sustained rise in surface temps cannot be cause by CO2 levels or the greenhouse effect.
A second feedback system, to prevent a permanent freeze, is volcanism. On Venus volcanism is soley responsible for its extremely high temps, not its CO2 levels, which makes refering to it as a runaway greenhouse completely inaccurate. Almost no sunlight reaches its surface because the density and composition of its clouds. Likewise, the hottest temps in Earth's history were not due to CO2 levels, but the accompanying volcanism.

Yes, the Earth is getting warmer, but there are many possible reasons. It could be a natural rise lasting centuries. It could be a temporary rise caused by a spike in CO2. But I'd bet it's a sustained climb caused by an increase in surface heat, mimicking volcanism. This increase is man made, which means global warming is man made, but the solution is not a war on CO2. It's to reduce the heat output of major cities and metropolis' who's development exactly matches the rise in Earth's temp.

[DenverBrit]

The increase of CO2 is well documented. Why is there still doubt??

http://climate.nasa.gov/images/evidence_CO2.jpg
This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: NOAA)


http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

[Boomhauer]

The increase of CO2 is well documented. Why is there still doubt? ...

The rise in CO2 levels, temperatures and decline in ice are all well documented. It's the conclusion reached by climatologists that CO2 levels are responsible for the latter two that is faulty.

Here's a map giving an idea of the BTUs mankind is pumping out 24/7, equivalent to volcanism.
http://www.hellasmarine.com/_borders/Earth%20at%20night.bmp

[W*GS]

Specifically, the conclusion that global warming is caused by increases in CO2 concentrations.

CO2 is the primary driver of climate fluctuations in the system - as you know, with no CO2, the average temperature of the surface would be well below freezing - a snowball earth.

H2O cannot be a driver of temperature increases, as H2O (as vapor) is a feedback, not a forcing.

Though CO2 levels fluctuate, the Earth has a feedback system to prevent heating - water. If the Earth warms, more clouds are produced that reflect sunlight back into space and rain transports CO2 back down where it's dissolved. A sustained rise in surface temps cannot be cause by CO2 levels or the greenhouse effect.

CO2 isn't much carried to the surface by rain - and where does it "dissolve"? Clouds also trap heat energy - consider the difference between a clear night and a cloudy one.

The CO2 concentration has increased ~40% in the last 150 years or so, from our burning of fossil fuels. All known non-anthropogenic factors have been considered by the climate science community to explain the climate changes we've observed, and none have been found to work.

A second feedback system, to prevent a permanent freeze, is volcanism.

Only on very long timescales - certainly not a century is less. Besides, volcanic eruptions cool temperatures, from the injection of aerosols into the atmosphere. And no, Plimer is wrong when he asserts that volcanoes emit more CO2 than we do. He's off by at least a factor of 100 - in other words, in one week, we humans put about twice as much CO2 into the air as all the volcanoes in the world do in a year.

On Venus volcanism is soley responsible for its extremely high temps, not its CO2 levels, which makes refering to it as a runaway greenhouse completely inaccurate. Almost no sunlight reaches its surface because the density and composition of its clouds.

Venusian volcanism has not been observed to be at a sufficient level to account for the extremely high surface temperatures there - but the CO2 levels in its atmosphere account very well for those temps. Venus' surface isn't near pitch-black; the Venera probes proved that. There is light there.

Likewise, the hottest temps in Earth's history were not due to CO2 levels, but the accompanying volcanism.

I don't get your reasoning - volcanoes reside primarily along tectonic plate boundaries; those aren't the areas that consistently have high surface temperatures as well.

Are you saying having a volcano nearby makes a place hot?

Yes, the Earth is getting warmer, but there are many possible reasons. It could be a natural rise lasting centuries. It could be a temporary rise caused by a spike in CO2.

Now you're saying CO2 does increase temperatures - but just above, you said the "greenhouse effect" was fake and CO2 has nothing to do with temperature. Which is it?

But I'd bet it's a sustained climb caused by an increase in surface heat, mimicking volcanism. This increase is man made, which means global warming is man made, but the solution is not a war on CO2. It's to reduce the heat output of major cities and metropolis' who's development exactly matches the rise in Earth's temp.

Actually, no - a friend of mine has studied the waste heat generated by us, and (no surprise) it's concentrated near cities, not globally. The magnitude is still far too small - and waste heat from us cannot explain polar amplification, which has been observed. There aren't any cities of any real size in the Arctic, for example, but surface temperatures there have increased more than in the midlatitudes or the tropics.

Your ideas are interesting, but on further skeptical examination, fall short.

[W*GS]

The rise in CO2 levels, temperatures and decline in ice are all well documented. It's the conclusion reached by climatologists that CO2 levels are responsible for the latter two that is faulty.

Check out Richard Alley's 2009 lecture at AGU, and the website "scienceofdoom", especially the articles on CO2 and its effects on the earth's radiative balance.

Here's a map giving an idea of the BTUs mankind is pumping out 24/7, equivalent to volcanism.

That's just a mosaic picture of our lights as seen from space, not quite the same as the waste heat we generate.

[Boomhauer]

A)...The CO2 concentration has increased ~40% in the last 150 years or so, from our burning of fossil fuels.
B)...in one week, we humans put about twice as much CO2 into the air as all the volcanoes in the world do in a year.
C)...Venus' surface isn't near pitch-black; the Venera probes proved that. There is light there.

Your ideas are interesting, but on further skeptical examination, fall short.

I left the three accurate statements you made in that speech. I'd also point out it was a rebuttal overwhelmed with inaccuracies, misinterpretations and misinformation, not a "skeptical examination" as you called it.

[W*GS]

I left the three accurate statements you made in that speech. I'd also point out it was a rebuttal overwhelmed with inaccuracies, misinterpretations and misinformation, not a "skeptical examination" as you called it.

Please, point out the "inaccuracies, misinterpretations and misinformation" (especially the latter) in my post. Provide the evidence - no handwaving.

BTW, here's a map of the geothermal heat flow:

http://geophysics.ou.edu/geomechanics/notes/heatflow/q12.gif

Note the scale.

Nowhere near enough energy to account for all the observed changes in the climate system. On the other hand, the increase in CO2 from us does so nicely.

[W*GS]

I did, through exclusion, but already stated such.

Not saying isn't a kind of saying.

What, specifically, in the rest of my commentary was deceptive? If you're going to accuse me of being dishonest, at least have the decency to give details and the reasons why. Provide evidence that contradicts what I wrote.

[barryr]

Meanwhile Gore will be looking to go green any day now. The rest of us need to start right now though since Gore needs to use his pollutant resistant jets to fly around the world and help save us all.

[W*GS]

"I left the three accurate statements you made in that speech." - Not sure what part of that is confusing.

The rest you called "overwhelmed with inaccuracies, misinterpretations and misinformation".

Be more specific. Show me that the rest was any or all three of those.

Prove your claims.

[W*GS]

Meanwhile Gore will be looking to go green any day now. The rest of us need to start right now though since Gore needs to use his pollutant resistant jets to fly around the world and help save us all.

Yep - the state of the climate system depends on whether or not Gore walks the walk. Since he doesn't, there's nothing to be concerned about.

Heck, if Gore didn't exist, there would be no manmade climate change. It's all his fault, right?

[Boomhauer]

F*GS, If you're really going to be a whiney bch about getting called out on the diarrhea-of-the-mouth essay you wrote, here's the listing you begged for of how, specifically, all but three of your statements were false.
CO2 is the primary driver of climate fluctuations in the system inaccurate- as you know, with no CO2, the average temperature of the surface would be well below freezing - a snowball earth.misinformation
H2O cannot be a driver of temperature increases, as H2O (as vapor) is a feedback, not a forcing. misinterpretation
CO2 isn't much carried to the surface by rain - and where does it "dissolve"? misinterpretation Clouds also trap heat energy - consider the difference between a clear night and a cloudy one. misinformation
The CO2 concentration has increased ~40% in the last 150 years or so, from our burning of fossil fuels. TRUE All known non-anthropogenic factors have been considered by the climate science community to explain the climate changes we've observed, inaccurate and none have been found to work. inaccurate
Only on very long timescales - certainly not a century is less. inaccurate Besides, volcanic eruptions cool temperatures, from the injection of aerosols into the atmosphere. misinformation And no, Plimer is wrong when he asserts that volcanoes emit more CO2 than we do. He's off by at least a factor of 100 misinterpretation- in other words, in one week, we humans put about twice as much CO2 into the air as all the volcanoes in the world do in a year. TRUE
Venusian volcanism has not been observed to be at a sufficient level to account for the extremely high surface temperatures there inaccurate- but the CO2 levels in its atmosphere account very well for those temps. inaccurate Venus' surface isn't near pitch-black; the Venera probes proved that. There is light there. TRUE
I don't get your reasoning - volcanoes reside primarily along tectonic plate boundaries; those aren't the areas that consistently have high surface temperatures as well. misinterpretation
Are you saying having a volcano nearby makes a place hot? misinformation
Now you're saying CO2 does increase temperatures - but just above, you said the "greenhouse effect" was fake and CO2 has nothing to do with temperature. Which is it? misinterpretation misinformation
Actually, no - a friend of mine has studied the waste heat generated by us, and (no surprise) it's concentrated near cities, not globally. The magnitude is still far too small - and waste heat from us cannot explain polar amplification, which has been observed. misinterpretation There aren't any cities of any real size in the Arctic, for example, but surface temperatures there have increased more than in the midlatitudes or the tropics. misinformation
Your ideas are interesting, but on further skeptical examination, fall short. inaccurate

[W*GS]

F*GS, If you're really going to be a whiney bch about getting called out on the diarrhea-of-the-mouth essay you wrote, here's the listing you begged for of how, specifically, all but three of your statements were false.

You're losing.

Now, instead of just labeling my statements, show why they're as you claim. Try providing some evidence against them, instead of yet more handwaving. It's boring and means nothing.

PS - I provided points that counter your original claims; the least you can do is provide the same against mine. I didn't just label your post as having "inaccuracies, misinterpretations and misinformation", and leave it at that. That's lazy and unscientific.

[Boomhauer]

You're losing. ...
If you actually knew anything about science, you'd know there is no 'winning' or 'loosing', only truth and falsities. No surprise truth has no relevance to you after the BS you've been posting and makes the idea you understand the science, or even scientific method, unlikely. Several of your comments are also completely out your tailpipe, which adds credence the the possibility you don't know anything about the rest of your claims, which would explain their inaccuracies.
Now, instead of just labeling my statements, show why they're as you claim. Try providing some evidence against them...
Are you asking me to disprove falsities? That's like asking for evidence the sky isn't green. Pull your head out to see for yourself. Have you ever studied any sciences, or just parrot crap you read like Gaffo, LA-BF'er or McGruber?

[W*GS]

If you're going to claim I'm wrong, then provide evidence that I'm wrong.

So far, all you've done is state that I'm wrong, with no evidence or data to support your view. Any moron can do that - a scientist supplies data to support their claims. You have not.

And that's why you're losing the argument - that and the *ad hominem* and the lame insults ("F*GS").

Try again, son.

[DenverBrit]

The rise in CO2 levels, temperatures and decline in ice are all well documented. It's the conclusion reached by climatologists that CO2 levels are responsible for the latter two that is faulty.

Here's a map giving an idea of the BTUs mankind is pumping out 24/7, equivalent to volcanism.


The info I posted earlier in the thread came from NASA, do you have an equivalent source that has evidence to refute NASA's assertion??

[TonyR]

...here's the listing you begged for of how, specifically, all but three of your statements were false.

LOL Just becase you say so? You didn't explain or prove anything.

[Boomhauer]

http://climate.nasa.gov/images/evidence_CO2.jpg
The info I posted earlier in the thread came from NASA, do you have an equivalent source that has evidence to refute NASA's assertion?

You've made the same mistake F*GS and the uber-left CO2-Nazis lives off. Data on atmospheric composition, which you posted, is not the same as data on global temperatures. The argument for a link between them is the scientific fallacy, supported by evidence that's, at best, circumstantial and dependent on calculations designed to fit the data - no surprise it works out nicely.
It should be noted that the majority of interglacial periods during the Pleistocene were warmer than today, but with lower CO2 levels, and 115,000yrs ago was significantly warmer. The last 10,000yrs of global temperatures has also been relatively stable in comparison, despite the increase in CO2, while the preceding Pleistocene period, going back to over 1mil yrs ago, was marked by major temp variations.

From the Smithsonian Institute, Department of Paleobiology
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlVersion/pleistocene3.html
"... The causes of the Pleistocene cycle of glacial and interglacial episodes are still being debated. It appears that continental positions, oceanic circulation, solar-energy fluctuations, and Earth's orbital cycles combined to generate these glacial conditions, so perhaps it is inappropriate to pinpoint any single cause.
Some scientists have calculated that changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases were a partial reason for large (5-7° C) global temperature swings between the ice ages and interglacial periods. ..."

[W*GS]

You've made the same mistake F*GS and the uber-left CO2-Nazis lives off.

Now you're just being an idiot and showing your true colors.

Why am I not surprised?

You don't like the policy implications of manmade climate change, so you attempt to attack the science - but you're really just pissed about what could happen politics-wise.

So typical.

Data on atmospheric composition, which you posted, is not the same as data on global temperatures. The argument for a link between them is the scientific fallacy, supported by evidence that's, at best, circumstantial and dependent on calculations designed to fit the data - no surprise it works out nicely.

False. Watch Dr. Richard Alley's 2009 Bjerknes Lecture at AGU, <a href="http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml">The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History</a>.

[BroncsRule]

Wow, WAGS - I haven't seen you pwn someone this bad in a long time.

nice.

[DenverBrit]

You've made the same mistake F*GS and the uber-left CO2-Nazis lives off. Data on atmospheric composition, which you posted, is not the same as data on global temperatures. The argument for a link between them is the scientific fallacy, supported by evidence that's, at best, circumstantial and dependent on calculations designed to fit the data - no surprise it works out nicely.
It should be noted that the majority of interglacial periods during the Pleistocene were warmer than today, but with lower CO2 levels, and 115,000yrs ago was significantly warmer. The last 10,000yrs of global temperatures has also been relatively stable in comparison, despite the increase in CO2, while the preceding Pleistocene period, going back to over 1mil yrs ago, was marked by major temp variations.

From the Smithsonian Institute, Department of Paleobiology
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlVersion/pleistocene3.html
"... The causes of the Pleistocene cycle of glacial and interglacial episodes are still being debated. It appears that continental positions, oceanic circulation, solar-energy fluctuations, and Earth's orbital cycles combined to generate these glacial conditions, so perhaps it is inappropriate to pinpoint any single cause.
Some scientists have calculated that changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases were a partial reason for large (5-7° C) global temperature swings between the ice ages and interglacial periods. ..."

From the NASA Site:

Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.

In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more. The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf.

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

[W*GS]

From the NASA Site:[...]

Don't bother. Boomhauer isn't interested in the facts, evidence, data, or reason.

He just doesn't like potential policies to address global warming, and he's decided attacking the science is the way to avoid that potentiality. He's wrong, just like all the other deniers, but he's not amenable to having his views changed.

[alkemical]

wgs,

maybe you and i can have a discussion about petrol use in ag.

[tnedator]

Regardless Gore's behavior..........


"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


http://climate.nasa.gov/images/evidence_CO2.jpg
This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: NOAA)


http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

A couple things. I'm not a scientist, so I am not going to claim one method is better than the other, just that this is only one method and version of historical CO2.

There are many scientists that don't believe that antarctic ice cores properly show atmospheric concentrations of the past.

These scientists have looked at Greenland ice cores, which have higher CO2 levels, but pro-AGW scientists say are inaccurate measures of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations. They also look at plant stomata data. All of these are "proxy" data, like tree rings for temperature.

Anyway, looking at CO2 proxies other than antarctic ice cores shows much higher historical CO2 levels then in your graph and show a fairly consistent lag between temperature rise and CO2 rise. Meaning that historically, temperature rises first, and then the CO2 rise follows by about 250 years. The man theory is that warming oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere.

So, which group of scientists is right? Beats me, but regardless of what may have heard a few thousand times, the debate on AGW is not over.

[W*GS]

A couple things. I'm not a scientist, so I am not going to claim one method is better than the other, just that this is only one method and version of historical CO2.

There are many scientists that don't believe that antarctic ice cores properly show atmospheric concentrations of the past.

These scientists have looked at Greenland ice cores, which have higher CO2 levels, but pro-AGW scientists say are inaccurate measures of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations. They also look at plant stomata data. All of these are "proxy" data, like tree rings for temperature.

Anyway, looking at CO2 proxies other than antarctic ice cores shows much higher historical CO2 levels then in your graph and show a fairly consistent lag between temperature rise and CO2 rise. Meaning that historically, temperature rises first, and then the CO2 rise follows by about 250 years. The man theory is that warming oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere.

So, which group of scientists is right? Beats me, but regardless of what may have heard a few thousand times, the debate on AGW is not over.

Here's a good starting point to learn about the relationship between CO2 and temperature:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

As Richard Alley noted, just because you've seen a chicken lay an egg doesn't mean chickens don't come from eggs.

[tnedator]

Here's a good starting point to learn about the relationship between CO2 and temperature:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

As Richard Alley noted, just because you've seen a chicken lay an egg doesn't mean chickens don't come from eggs.

That's an interesting article written by a site that's tag line is being skeptical of AGW skeptics.

Ok, anyway, it's also interesting that AGW proponents choose to use ice cores for atmospheric CO2, but tree ring data for temperatures, except when those tree rings show a medieval warming period, and then they discount that as a local anomaly (even though European, Siberian and south American tree rings all show a medieval warming period). Since they claim it's a local anomoly (big ****ing locality), they exclude the tree ring proxy data that shows the AGW spike. Then, when the tree rings stop coinciding with ground station temperatures in the 1960's or so, they claim that due to rapid warming, tree ring data is no longer reliable, so we won't use it after that point, because the rings NO LONGER reflect the rising temperature we can clearly see.

Those scientists that use ice core for temperature proxies show much different historical temperature graphs than Mann and Jones do.

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/Moberg_Mann_Esper_Alley.png

Ok, so using your chicken/egg thing, they (Mann, Jones, pro-AGW scientists) say historically, we KNOW tree ring data was accurate, even though we didn't have ground stations to confirm it, but now we know that tree ring data isn't accurate, because we do have ground station to prove it's inaccurate. So, we will use the old tree ring data that shows low temperatures and proves our theory, but not tree ring data from the second half of the 20th century, because that does not prove our theory, and we have temperature stations for that time anyway... Say what, dude??

Anyway, my point here is that anyone that has decided to peruse a hundreds of the Climategate emails will have seen is that Mann, Jones and others discussing the selective use of proxy data, specifically to not show a medieval warming period that was at least as warm as today, and in the case of multiple temperature proxies, much warmer than today.

[W*GS]

That's an interesting article written by a site that's tag line is being skeptical of AGW skeptics.

Can skepticism only run one way? Why not be skeptical of the claims of the deniers?

The "divergence problem" of tree rings is well-known and has been studied for some time now. It's not the case that paleoclimatologists discard tree rings when they're inconvenient.

Anyway, my point here is that anyone that has decided to peruse a hundreds of the Climategate emails will have seen is that Mann, Jones and others discussing the selective use of proxy data, specifically to not show a medieval warming period that was at least as warm as today, and in the case of multiple temperature proxies, much warmer than today.

The MWP is not yet known to be global and warmer that now.

It doesn't really matter. Just because some time in the past it was warmer does not mean we cannot be causing the climate changes we've observed. We know that the earth has been ice-free in the geologic past - but that does not prove that the current melting of sea ice and land ice is nonanthropogenic.

Oh, and the emails don't change the science. I realize they've been a godsend to the denier blogosphere, but they don't change a thing about the science.

[tnedator]

Can skepticism only run one way? Why not be skeptical of the claims of the deniers?

Don't you think it's funny that scientists use a religious like term in "denier"? I find that pretty ironic. What happened to the days when you just let the science fall where it may, and didn't treat it like a religion?

The "divergence problem" of tree rings is well-known and has been studied for some time now. It's not the case that paleoclimatologists discard tree rings when they're inconvenient.

The MWP is not yet known to be global and warmer that now.

Correct, and as you are well aware, Mann and company made clear in the Climagegate/East Anglia CRU emails that it was critical to not mention the words medieval warming period or use any proxy data showing a temperature rise at that time.

They also used 'adjustment fudge factors' to reduce the decrease in temperatures during the little ice age.

Again, it seems like real science would have that out front, and state where the data diverged from expectations and what theories there are for that.

It doesn't really matter. Just because some time in the past it was warmer does not mean we cannot be causing the climate changes we've observed. We know that the earth has been ice-free in the geologic past - but that does not prove that the current melting of sea ice and land ice is nonanthropogenic.

Agreed. It doesn't prove it isn't and it doesn't prove it is. There is still much that isn't know. We do know that a great deal of what was predicted in the AGW computer models hasn't come true, but again, that doesn't mean that AGW isn't real.

Oh, and the emails don't change the science. I realize they've been a godsend to the denier blogosphere, but they don't change a thing about the science.

Change the science? No, they just show at times it wasn't science. It was selectively using and at times manipulating data to reach a predetermined conclusion.

Have you read them? Or, are you just parroting the "it doesn't change the science" mantra?

I'm one of the guys looking at the science on both sides. As you know, because I believe you posted in it (might have even created the thread), there was a thread recently which was not science based, but repeated a "consensus opinion" that the ocean is dieing faster than expected. The consensus were leaders from a bunch of activist groups like Greenpeace and was not science based.

Now, we just have a new study done by a university in Australia that shows contrary to IPCC and other claims to the contrary, the great barrier reef coral is not dieing off and has had no change in the last 20-30 years or however long they have solid data. The bleaching and other affects that pro-AGW people (as they aren't the deniers, I guess they are the "true believers", which is kind of ironic given the stance most of them have on religion) claim is killing the coral.

So, there are many of us that look at the science being published on both sides and simply want the media to report studies that support and dispel the man made global warming theory, and for people like Mann, Jones and others not pressure and threaten scientific journals to steer clear of any studies that don't support AGW (again, confirmed in the CRU emails).

[Boomhauer]

...You don't like the policy implications of manmade climate change, so you attempt to attack the science - but you're really just pissed about what could happen politics-wise.

So typical.

"So typical" is right. This is the same straw-man argument LA-BF'er makes as last resorts when being pwned. Not once have I mentioned specific policies, but that doesn't stop clowns like yourself when the science, which you clearly have zero understanding of, fails you. You've "shown your true colors" F*GS - as a parrot towing miseducated party lines disguised as science.

If I ever what to here what BS the uber-left is selling their sheep, I'll ask you and LA-BF'er. But when it comes to climatology and global warming, you should stop embarrassing yourself by showing what a poser you are and stop trying to deceive others. That's a disservice to those that are actually concerned about global warming and anyone trying to learn about it.

[Boomhauer]

Wow, WAGS - I haven't seen you be pwned by someone this bad in a long time.

nice.

Fixed that, but don't hold hope you can recognize the difference.

[tnedator]

The MWP is not yet known to be global and warmer that now.

It doesn't really matter. Just because some time in the past it was warmer does not mean we cannot be causing the climate changes we've observed. We know that the earth has been ice-free in the geologic past - but that does not prove that the current melting of sea ice and land ice is nonanthropogenic.

Oh, and the emails don't change the science. I realize they've been a godsend to the denier blogosphere, but they don't change a thing about the science.

I dug back through some of my old files. Here here are a couple of the East Anglia CRU emails (Climategate).

The first one (send to Mike Mann from either Phil Jones or Tom Osborne -- my notes don't indicate, which. It was sent by one of them and copied to the other) talks about the data and that depending on which proxies it uses, that it shows temperatures during the medieval warming period comparable with modern temps. In addition, he states that it's fine not to point this out or reveal this by showing those proxies, because the IPCC report only said that it was "'likely' that modern is warmer than MWP."

Further, you will say they admit that they have no calibration between the tree ring proxies and actual temperatures for the last 50 years, which they tacked on to the end of the graph to create the famous hockey stick. They even joke, and put a smiley in, about how Science (the journal) agreed to let them use the proxy data the way they did:

Mike,

yes, you’re right: figs S4-S6 in our supplementary information do indeed show results leaving out individual, groups of two, and groups of three proxies, respectively. It’s attached.

I wouldn’t say we were immune to the issue — results are similar for these leave 1, 2 or 3 out cases, but they certainly are not as strong as the case with all 14 proxies. Certainly in figure S6, there are some cases with 3 omitted (i.e. some sets of 11) where modern results are comparable with intermittent periods between 800 and 1100. Plus there is the additional uncertainty, discussed on the final page of the supplementary information, associated with linking the proxy records to real temperatures (remember we have no formal calibration, we’re just counting proxies — I’m still amazed that Science agreed to publish something where the main analysis only involves counting from 1 to 14!

:-) ).

But this is fine, since the IPCC AR4 and other assessments are not saying the evidence is 100% conclusive (or even 90% conclusive) but just “likely” that modern is warmer than MWP.

In this one, Michael Mann (head of the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit - CRU) emails someone who asked for data. He explains some of it and then with a PS that says "This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…"

This one appears to be talking about the uncertainty of some of the data.

The incremental changes are modest after 1600–its pretty clear that key predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and the notably larger uncertainties farther back… You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files. I can’t even remember what the other columns are!

Let me know if that helps. Thanks,

mike

p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…

[barryr]

It does seem so ironic that those that typically believe man is causing GW, GC, climate change, or whatever the catchy term they next invent, do not believe in religion because they think there is a lack of facts or manipulating of facts to support a God. Yet believe without a doubt despite contradictions of facts, or admitted manipulation of facts in those emails to support their theories in science. Seems science is more religion for them, but much of what they believe is also based on faith and lack of evidence at times too. Any scientist who does believe in man having been so much involved in GW is treated as not genuine and attacked personally. Science can no longer be treated as an objective identity with so many motives and agendas having infiltrated it, which started long ago. It is just with more media choices, the lies and manipulations are no longer hidden.

[W*GS]

Don't you think it's funny that scientists use a religious like term in "denier"? I find that pretty ironic. What happened to the days when you just let the science fall where it may, and didn't treat it like a religion?

I use denier specifically because some individuals are not merely skeptical of the science - they deny the science itself. They deny that there is a "greenhouse effect", they deny that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas", they deny that we have observed the climate changing, they deny that our burning of fossil fuels have anything to do with it.

There are likely a few folks out there who deny that smoking causes cancer - to call them "skeptical" does a grave disservice to the concept. They're merely denying what is an obvious truth. Same with climate change deniers - they're not skeptical, they're deniers.

Correct, and as you are well aware, Mann and company made clear in the Climagegate/East Anglia CRU emails that it was critical to not mention the words medieval warming period or use any proxy data showing a temperature rise at that time.

Baloney. The <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html">MWP is mentioned</a> in the IPCC AR4 a number of times. Mann et.al. obviously failed in their attempt to "censor" the subject, as you allege.

You're also going to have to provide proof that Mann and the other authors of that chapter deliberately did not use some proxy data for the purpose of "hiding" the MWP. Good luck with that.

They also used 'adjustment fudge factors' to reduce the decrease in temperatures during the little ice age.

If you're referring to the comment in the Harry README file, that code was never used in the work done for the AR4. There is no "smoking gun", despite the smears of the deniers.

Again, it seems like real science would have that out front, and state where the data diverged from expectations and what theories there are for that.

Have you read the relevant portions of the AR4? They're all online - as are the articles upon which the assessment is based.

You're merely parroting what the denier blogosphere says, without the least bit of skepticism of the claims. What happened to your ardor for the truth and letting the science be the science?

Agreed. It doesn't prove it isn't and it doesn't prove it is. There is still much that isn't know. We do know that a great deal of what was predicted in the AGW computer models hasn't come true, but again, that doesn't mean that AGW isn't real.

There are no "AGW computer models", there are climate models. And yes, we're not omniscient about the climate system - doesn't mean we know nothing.

Can you be more specific about the "a great deal" claim? What was projected by the GCMs that has not happened? If anything, the climate models of the AR4 era were too conservative in their projections; for one instance, Arctic sea ice extent and volume are much lower than even the SRES A2 projections showed.

Change the science? No, they just show at times it wasn't science. It was selectively using and at times manipulating data to reach a predetermined conclusion.

Prove it. What data was "selectively" used and what data was manipulated? How do you explain that other paleo reconstructions from other groups have shown "hockey sticks"? And please don't reference that abysmal Wegman Report - it's a plagiarized and cherry-picked mess that should never have seen the light of day.

Have you read them? Or, are you just parroting the "it doesn't change the science" mantra?

Yes, I've read them. I also know that they were selectively chosen to put as much bad spin on the science and the scientists as possible, with as little context as possible, and that the denier blogosphere has swallowed them without question. The stolen emails and files were designed to cast doubt on the credibility of the entire subject. They're just another element in the campaign of FUD directed against the climate science community - the deniers and Big Carbon know that they can't battle with straight-up science and evidence; they have to resort to dirty tricks, attacks, smears, death threats, and so on, to attempt to forestall the inevitable changes we need to make. Why? Because there's money to be made - lots and lots (hundreds of billions) maintaining our addiction to fossil fuels, and the big players aren't going to let science get in the way of those profits. Therefore, the relentless campaign against the science and the scientists, our future and the planet be damned. Simple as that.

I'm one of the guys looking at the science on both sides. As you know, because I believe you posted in it (might have even created the thread), there was a thread recently which was not science based, but repeated a "consensus opinion" that the ocean is dieing faster than expected. The consensus were leaders from a bunch of activist groups like Greenpeace and was not science based.

I don't recall that thread.

Now, we just have a new study done by a university in Australia that shows contrary to IPCC and other claims to the contrary, the great barrier reef coral is not dieing off and has had no change in the last 20-30 years or however long they have solid data. The bleaching and other affects that pro-AGW people (as they aren't the deniers, I guess they are the "true believers", which is kind of ironic given the stance most of them have on religion) claim is killing the coral.

I'm not familiar with that work - I'll have to check with my friend, who's a coral reef expert, to see what the truth is.

So, there are many of us that look at the science being published on both sides and simply want the media to report studies that support and dispel the man made global warming theory, and for people like Mann, Jones and others not pressure and threaten scientific journals to steer clear of any studies that don't support AGW (again, confirmed in the CRU emails).

The media is already spinning the story in your favor, with their bogus claims of "controversy" in the scientific community about AGW. The media wants it to appear that there's conflict, but there's not. 97% of publishing climate scientists agree that the earth's climate is changing and that we're the cause. You can't get much more solid than that.

And the reason Mann, Jones, et.al. dismissed "Climate Research" as an unworthy journal is because CR published the horrible paper by Soon and Bailunas, which was so bad that the majority of the editorial board resigned in protest and the publisher repudiated the paper itself. Plus, as we now know, Soon has received over $1 million from Big Carbon for his "work". He's corrupted, and all his work on climate change is suspect. That S&B paper should never have been published - it was lousy science.

[W*GS]

"So typical" is right. This is the same straw-man argument LA-BF'er makes as last resorts when being pwned. Not once have I mentioned specific policies, but that doesn't stop clowns like yourself when the science, which you clearly have zero understanding of, fails you. You've "shown your true colors" F*GS - as a parrot towing miseducated party lines disguised as science.

If I ever what to here what BS the uber-left is selling their sheep, I'll ask you and LA-BF'er. But when it comes to climatology and global warming, you should stop embarrassing yourself by showing what a poser you are and stop trying to deceive others. That's a disservice to those that are actually concerned about global warming and anyone trying to learn about it.

The irony in the above is rich.

The "science" you've presented has fallen apart on the most cursory examination - and that you've resorted to lame insults and *ad hominem* attacks shows that you know your science is bull.

Your credibility on the subject of manmade climate change is pwned, son.

[W*GS]

Fixed that, but don't hold hope you can recognize the difference.

You're living in a fantasyland.

You've not presented much in the way of evidence to support your view that manmade global warming is a farce or irrelevant; what you have done is shown that you can't take criticism without resorting to pathetic smears, cheap shots, and personal attacks.

As expected.

[W*GS]

I dug back through some of my old files. Here here are a couple of the East Anglia CRU emails (Climategate).

You've fallen exactly where those who had the emails stolen want you to be.

Obsessing over shorthand context-free exchanges between scientists, believing that they reveal some sort of grand conspiracy or "smoking gun" that will make the science fall apart completely.

Didn't happen when the emails were released to the denier blogosphere, and hasn't happened by now, and will not ever happen.

No matter how much you deeply desire that the stolen material will make anthropogenic climate change just disappear, it will not. Indeed, the criminal act of hacking into the UEA is a sign of desperation on the part of Big Carbon and the other powerful interests who perceive that the science threatens their interests and their profits. They can't win on the science, so they feel they need to resort to criminality and dirty tricks. Very Nixonian - and we know what happened to him.

[tnedator]

You've fallen exactly where those who had the emails stolen want you to be.

Obsessing over shorthand context-free exchanges between scientists, believing that they reveal some sort of grand conspiracy or "smoking gun" that will make the science fall apart completely.

Didn't happen when the emails were released to the denier blogosphere, and hasn't happened by now, and will not ever happen.

No matter how much you deeply desire that the stolen material will make anthropogenic climate change just disappear, it will not. Indeed, the criminal act of hacking into the UEA is a sign of desperation on the part of Big Carbon and the other powerful interests who perceive that the science threatens their interests and their profits. They can't win on the science, so they feel they need to resort to criminality and dirty tricks. Very Nixonian - and we know what happened to him.

After reading this, I won't even both piece by piece responding to your long email, because apparently if I'm a "denier" (ironic you would talk about falling where the denier blogosphere wants me, when you parrot their derogatory term -- it's a sheep following the herd thing), then you are a true believer, someone who follows with blind faith.

The the emails above, and others (which you clearly haven't read), they admit to using only three, three, proxies during the MWP (which Mann now terms the Medieval Climate Anomaly), while using 11-14 for the rest of their temperature graph. Hey, but that's ok, because we all have "true faith" that the earth is warming and it's caused by fossil fuel, so it doesn't matter if they used 3 or 30 proxies, "faith" is all we need.

My God man, this isn't about "faith" or "believing", this is about science and what's actually happening, and in some cases not happening.

As to "selectively choosing" the emails that were stolen that is laughable and again, that PROVES you haven't read them. There are a huge number of emails and the vast majority do not cast Mann, Jones, et. al. in a bad light. Clearly all the emails that existed on a server or more likely an individual machine, were released. I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant the ones talked about is "selective," but based on everything else you have posted, I doubt it -- you have "faith."

Finally, as to your assertion about other temperature graphs/data showing a hockey stick, that's not entirely true. Some do if you only look at the temps from the early 1800's or after the MWP, however a number of researchers using more or different proxy data than Mann, Jones, Hansen, and the like have shown various points as warm as today, so I guess you could say multiple "hockey sticks."

Few people that have looked at the data would claim it hasn't warmed. The difference between the "those with faith" in the teachings of AGW and the rest, is that the earth goes through natural heating and cooling.

During 80's, 90's and early 2000's, we had a number of things come together. We had a warm PDO, a great deal of strong El Nino's and we had the two strongest solar cycles ever recorded (one in terms of intensity -- highest number of sunspots at its peak, the other in terms of duration of the solar max). Yet, the those "true believers" in AGW, who are "deniers" when it comes to other factors influencing the heating and cooling of the earth simply ignore those factors, or brush them off having little impact.

This is the problem with the "debate." Guys like you bought in so heavily years ago when Gore said "the debate is over" and you are now slaves to that faith and unwilling to even consider alternative views or data. Any time a study is released with an alternative view, you discount it as done by deniers or paid for by big oil. When there is serious question as to Mann's recent sea level rise data, you discount it as propaganda from the deniers.

Quite honestly, one of the things I can never get my head around is how often what seem like very, very intelligent people on the left, the very ones that often laugh at the concept of God and church, will show cult-like loyalty to whatever the liberal cause de jour is and never really question it, just believe and promote it on 'faith'.

[W*GS]

It does seem so ironic that those that typically believe man is causing GW, GC, climate change, or whatever the catchy term they next invent, do not believe in religion because they think there is a lack of facts or manipulating of facts to support a God.

If the name of the phenomena changes due to political whim, then why has the IPCC been the IPCC since 1988?

Yet believe without a doubt despite contradictions of facts, or admitted manipulation of facts in those emails to support their theories in science.

Wrong. You're willing to believe in a global conspiracy stretching back at least 100 years, which makes gaffe's nonsense about 9/11 truly child's play. Do you even realize how stupid that is?

Seems science is more religion for them, but much of what they believe is also based on faith and lack of evidence at times too. Any scientist who does believe in man having been so much involved in GW is treated as not genuine and attacked personally. Science can no longer be treated as an objective identity with so many motives and agendas having infiltrated it, which started long ago. It is just with more media choices, the lies and manipulations are no longer hidden.

Typical right-wing anti-science stance. Science is just another belief system, no better than religious bunkum, and can be discarded whenever it's just too troublesome or difficult to accept, with no harm done.

Would you fly on a plane or cross a bridge built by engineers who prayed for guidance, and who examined the Bible for how to do it? Why not, if science is just as corrupt as anything else?

Science isn't perfect - nothing done by humans is - but that doesn't mean it's just as frail and weak of a belief system as religion. Perhaps to those whose lives are run by their religious beliefs, that's some kind of comfort, but the rest of us know better.

[tnedator]

Here's the GBR coral study:

Abstract:

Coral reef ecosystems worldwide are under pressure from chronic and acute stressors that threaten their continued existence. Most obvious among changes to reefs is loss of hard coral cover, but a precise multi-scale estimate of coral cover dynamics for the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is currently lacking. Monitoring data collected annually from fixed sites at 47 reefs across 1300 km of the GBR indicate that overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% cover across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009. Subregional trends (10–100 km) in hard coral were diverse with some being very dynamic and others changing little. Coral cover increased in six subregions and decreased in seven subregions. Persistent decline of corals occurred in one subregion for hard coral and Acroporidae and in four subregions in non-Acroporidae families. Change in Acroporidae accounted for 68% of change in hard coral. Crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreaks and storm damage were responsible for more coral loss during this period than either bleaching or disease despite two mass bleaching events and an increase in the incidence of coral disease. While the limited data for the GBR prior to the 1980's suggests that coral cover was higher than in our survey, we found no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995. Instead, fluctuations in coral cover at subregional scales (10–100 km), driven mostly by changes in fast-growing Acroporidae, occurred as a result of localized disturbance events and subsequent recovery.

Abstract and full study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053361/

[W*GS]

Here's the GBR coral study

The study doesn't say "The GBR is just fine and there's nothing to be concerned about."

[tnedator]

The study doesn't say "The GBR is just fine and there's nothing to be concerned about."

No, it says there has not been any decline since '95, which is contrary to both the "predictions" and repeated alarmist news coverage of the coral reefs (and the GBR is typically mentioned) disappearing.

You mentioned "selective" a few posts ago, but have no problem with AGW alarmists selectively choosing events and science to further the "faith." Every time there is a coral bleaching event, those with "true faith", the "believers" talk about how global warming, strike that, climate change is killing the oceans -- as the death of the coral proves.

Yet, here we see no net decline in GBR coral from '95 to '09, even though the believers claim we have seen significant temperature increases and bleaching events.

[W*GS]

No, it says there has not been any decline since '95, which is contrary to both the "predictions" and repeated alarmist news coverage of the coral reefs (and the GBR is typically mentioned) disappearing.

You mentioned "selective" a few posts ago, but have no problem with AGW alarmists selectively choosing events and science to further the "faith." Every time there is a coral bleaching event, those with "true faith", the "believers" talk about how global warming, strike that, climate change is killing the oceans -- as the death of the coral proves.

Yet, here we see no net decline in GBR coral from '95 to '09, even though the believers claim we have seen significant temperature increases and bleaching events.

Obviously, you didn't read the article.

Nowhere do they say that the GBR is just fine, nothing to see there, move along, AGW is a myth, etc., etc., as you seem to wish the article to say. Besides, the study period (1995-2009) is short - assessing decadal- and longer-term trends is virtually impossible with that length of record.

I gravely doubt any of the authors would claim what you seem to have deduced from the article, based on your own bias.

[tnedator]

Keep the faith, it helps you justify the myopic nature of AGW science.

While I'm on my tablet and will only post brief replies, I'm curious as to what role you think the last two solar cycles, the positive PDO and strong El Nino's (from the positive PDO) had on the warming of the last thirty years?

[W*GS]

Keep the faith, it helps you justify the myopic nature of AGW science.

What is truly myopic is the belief that we humans cannot possibly change the climate system - only God can do that.

While I'm on my tablet and will only post brief replies, I'm curious as to what role you think the last two solar cycles, the positive PDO and strong El Nino's (from the positive PDO) had on the warming of the last thirty years?

The PDO and ENSO do not change the energy in the system - they move it from one place to another. Internal modes of variability do not and cannot account for the warming of the last 30 years.

If the climate system followed the solar cycles as much as the deniers claim, then we should be cooling due to the low level of solar activity. We are not. And, if the sun is the sole cause of the changes we've seen, then the sensitivity of the climate system is huge - which contradicts the claims of Lindzen, who says it's extremely low. The deniers create a paradox which they don't even realize.

[tnedator]

What is truly myopic is the belief that we humans cannot possibly change the climate system - only God can do that.



The PDO and ENSO do not change the energy in the system - they move it from one place to another. Internal modes of variability do not and cannot account for the warming of the last 30 years.

If the climate system followed the solar cycles as much as the deniers claim, then we should be cooling due to the low level of solar activity. We are not. And, if the sun is the sole cause of the changes we've seen, then the sensitivity of the climate system is huge - which contradicts the claims of Lindzen, who says it's extremely low. The deniers create a paradox which they don't even realize.

First, what does God have to do with this discussion?

Second, sounds like the denier label better fits you, since you deny any influence or theory not touted by the church of AGW. Science be damned, we have"faith."

[tnedator]

P.S. This is why I don't discuss religion with people, and rarely discuss global warning, because in both cases the religious/anti-religious fervor and zealotry (AGW is like a religion) blind people to any beliefs not in line with their sect.

[W*GS]

First, what does God have to do with this discussion?

Many deniers are of the belief that we humans cannot make a mess of God's creation, so we aren't the ones changing the climate system. It's a very old belief.

Second, sounds like the denier label better fits you, since you deny any influence or theory not touted by the church of AGW. Science be damned, we have"faith."

I had hopes you might be willing to discuss the issue rationally, with facts and evidence, but it's clear you're not. You're clinging to the denier memes circulating in the blogosphere, taking their nonsense as correct, without really understanding the science at all. If you'd actually done solid research, you'd realize that the deniers are basically throwing and seeing what sticks, and that they count on the ignorance of their fanboys to spread their bull. They don't do science - what they do is attack, smear, and slur. They're useful tools, by and large, but that's it.

[W*GS]

P.S. This is why I don't discuss religion with people, and rarely discuss global warning, because in both cases the religious/anti-religious fervor and zealotry (AGW is like a religion) blind people to any beliefs not in line with their sect.

The science is what it is - and no matter how much you demean climate science by calling it a religion, it changes nothing.

We cannot explain what we have observed in the climate system without a strong anthropogenic component, and no amount of obfuscation, doubt-sowing, and name-calling changes that.

[tnedator]

You talk about throwing things against the wall and seeing what sticks, but don't call out the UN for claims like "there will be 50 million climate refuges by 2008", due to rising sea levels. When it didn't happen and not even close, they simply change the claim/prediction to "there will be 50 million climate refugees by 2018."

Talk about throwing things against the wall to see what sticks...

I'm sure you posted about this and decried it.

[W*GS]

After reading this, I won't even both piece by piece responding to your long email, because apparently if I'm a "denier" (ironic you would talk about falling where the denier blogosphere wants me, when you parrot their derogatory term -- it's a sheep following the herd thing), then you are a true believer, someone who follows with blind faith.

Not at all. It's you whose knowledge of the science comes only from the blogosphere - primarily McIntyre's "climatefraudit". He's still obsessing over MBH98, and is still trying, in vain, to show that the "hockey stick" is broken, even though the science has moved on and reinforced the HS with every relevant paleoclimate study. Even having the US Senate on his side via the Wegman Report (which has crumbled into dust), McIntyre still hasn't made any headway - even when he deceives and dances right to the edge of libel.

The the emails above, and others (which you clearly haven't read), they admit to using only three, three, proxies during the MWP (which Mann now terms the Medieval Climate Anomaly), while using 11-14 for the rest of their temperature graph. Hey, but that's ok, because we all have "true faith" that the earth is warming and it's caused by fossil fuel, so it doesn't matter if they used 3 or 30 proxies, "faith" is all we need.

Wrong. One can use just about any number of just about any kind of proxies and get a "hockey stick".

The real irony is that while the factoid that it's warmer now than it has ever been in the last 500-2,000 years, it's just a factoid. The idea that we're warming and changing the climate with our burning of fossil fuels doesn't depend on the HS in any way - something McIntyre and the other HS-obsessed bloggers have yet to figure out. They still think if they nitpick various aspects of MBH98, the whole science will come apart and cease to exist. Science doesn't work like that - it's more of a jigsaw puzzle than a house of cards. You need to learn that, too.

My God man, this isn't about "faith" or "believing", this is about science and what's actually happening, and in some cases not happening.

So present some science - not extracts from stolen emails - to make your argument.

Do you really believe that if Mann, Jones, et.al. are exiled in shame, far away, that climate science will be irrevocably changed and that AGW will no longer be a problem, and we can merrily engage in business-as-usual with nary a concern? You see, nature doesn't give a care about the politics of humans. CO2 won't cease being opaque to IR because you and the other deniers pore over emails.

As to "selectively choosing" the emails that were stolen that is laughable and again, that PROVES you haven't read them. There are a huge number of emails and the vast majority do not cast Mann, Jones, et. al. in a bad light. Clearly all the emails that existed on a server or more likely an individual machine, were released. I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant the ones talked about is "selective," but based on everything else you have posted, I doubt it -- you have "faith."

There were about 1075 emails in the FOIA2009.zip file; the datestamps range from 1996 to 2009 (about 14 years) and there are dozens of senders and recipients. If you think that's "all the emails" over that time period between all those individuals, think again. The total number of emails is likely in the tens of millions - so that careful extraction of 1075 represents perhaps 1/20,000 or 1/50,000 of the total. I've heard that the CRU mail server had all the emails taken (about 95 million) and then the zipfile was created using keyword searches to be as damaging as possible to the climate science community.

In any case, you and the others infatuated with the stolen emails and files are getting a very distorted picture of the science and the scientists - which was the intent all along. The interests that had the hacking done were counting on the denier blogosphere to run with it, and like good little toadies, they have.

Finally, as to your assertion about other temperature graphs/data showing a hockey stick, that's not entirely true. Some do if you only look at the temps from the early 1800's or after the MWP, however a number of researchers using more or different proxy data than Mann, Jones, Hansen, and the like have shown various points as warm as today, so I guess you could say multiple "hockey sticks."

The deniers can't even decide when the MWP was. The dates they pick for it range over centuries. Decide a fixed date range, then make your case. Oh, and Hansen isn't primarily a paleoclimatologist, but he is a target for the denier movement.

Few people that have looked at the data would claim it hasn't warmed. The difference between the "those with faith" in the teachings of AGW and the rest, is that the earth goes through natural heating and cooling.

Yes, it does. Over the last 150 years or so, not much cooling - lots of warming.

During 80's, 90's and early 2000's, we had a number of things come together. We had a warm PDO, a great deal of strong El Nino's and we had the two strongest solar cycles ever recorded (one in terms of intensity -- highest number of sunspots at its peak, the other in terms of duration of the solar max). Yet, the those "true believers" in AGW, who are "deniers" when it comes to other factors influencing the heating and cooling of the earth simply ignore those factors, or brush them off having little impact.

Wrong. Do you really believe the climate science community ignores the sun? It's the driver of the climate system - the scientists know that! However, there are no trends in its activity that we can determine that can explain the changes in the climate system that we have observed - and its activity has not generally increased. Indeed, now it's at a quite strong low, yet last year was statistically tied as the warmest year of the last century+. If all this change is just due to the sun, that fact cannot be, yet it is.

And, like I said, ENSO, PDO, AMO, QBO, etc., do not change the total energy of the system. Take away those modes of internal variability, and the trend in global temperatures is even more obvious and relentless.

This is the problem with the "debate." Guys like you bought in so heavily years ago when Gore said "the debate is over" and you are now slaves to that faith and unwilling to even consider alternative views or data.

Gore didn't create global warming as an issue. That's another mistake the deniers make - that the science didn't even exist until Gore made his movie, and that the science community takes Gore as its leader and does whatever he says. That's utter nonsense.

Go to Youtube and search for "global warming 1958", and watch the clip. Now explain why the science community said those things back then, when Gore was all of 10 years old.

Any time a study is released with an alternative view, you discount it as done by deniers or paid for by big oil. When there is serious question as to Mann's recent sea level rise data, you discount it as propaganda from the deniers.

You guys keep yourselves preoccupied with Mann, don't you? Even to the point of a witch hunt against the man - as if destroying him as a scientist will make global warming go away.

We now know that Willie Soon's "work" was indeed paid for by big oil - and he's one of the key scientists of the deniers. The more the money trail is followed, the more we find Big Carbon behind the so-called "science" of Soon, et.al.

But please, keep being a McIntyre fanboy - it's amusing. Also a bit depressing, because you take what he says as truth, rather than being skeptical of him.

Quite honestly, one of the things I can never get my head around is how often what seem like very, very intelligent people on the left, the very ones that often laugh at the concept of God and church, will show cult-like loyalty to whatever the liberal cause de jour is and never really question it, just believe and promote it on 'faith'.

You're no different than Boomhauer - you use bigger words, and sound sciencey in your posts, but at the core, both of you believe the manmade climate change is just a conspiracy invented by the hardcore left to take away your God-given freedoms as an American. Get over yourselves.

[W*GS]

You talk about throwing things against the wall and seeing what sticks, but don't call out the UN for claims like "there will be 50 million climate refuges by 2008", due to rising sea levels. When it didn't happen and not even close, they simply change the claim/prediction to "there will be 50 million climate refugees by 2018."

Talk about throwing things against the wall to see what sticks...

I'm sure you posted about this and decried it.

The UN said something silly. So?

Oh wait - that's right; take a shot at the UN and deliver the red meat to your political ilk. The UN is an easy target for the ire of the hard right.

[tnedator]

For the record, I hope you are right and those predicting global cooling area wrong. People thrive during warm period and suffer cold periods.

As to your other assumptions about me, believe what you want. You are so off base that your not even playing the same sport, but if trying to discredit me with fanboy comments helps you with your superiority thing, I'm glad to help.

[W*GS]

For the record, I hope you are right and those predicting global cooling area wrong. People thrive during warm period and suffer cold periods.

As to your other assumptions about me, believe what you want. You are so off base that your not even playing the same sport, but if trying to discredit me with fanboy comments helps you with your superiority thing, I'm glad to help.

It's abundantly clear that your knowledge comes from the denier blogosphere - your talking points are taken directly from the usual bilge that circulates around. You're completely unfamiliar with the core science.

Take some years to read the literature, then come back with knowledge and understanding.

[tnedator]

The UN said something silly. So?

Oh wait - that's right; take a shot at the UN and deliver the red meat to your political ilk. The UN is an easy target for the ire of the hard right.

It's the typical behavior and propaganda of those "promoting" AGW, rather than just proving it with open and honest science. Your political ilk, to use your words.

[W*GS]

It's the typical behavior and propaganda of those "promoting" AGW, rather than just proving it with open and honest science. Your political ilk, to use your words.

The science is open and honest - go looking yourself.

Use some of that skepticism towards the denier blogosphere - and you'll find that they're a paper tiger, no matter how loudly they scream and yell.

[Boomhauer]

... You've not presented much in the way of evidence to support your view that manmade global warming is a farce or irrelevant; ...

Again, you've made the mistake of crossing arguments and trying to portray them as one in the same. I stated clearly that man is responsible for the current global warming and that data on global warming is accurate. The baseless addition you make is that it's from CO2.

You've provided no evidence that CO2 is causing global warming and given no accurate rebuttal to my claim other factors are at work. Of course, I've also not elaborated on the science behind other causes, but out of intent. The intent being to make equal ground of claim without support -sparring- to see if you actually know what you're talking about. (My absence of comments while drawing you out should have been obvious to anyone older than twelve.) Instead, you've fallen back on straw man political arguments -I'm happy to pwn you there as well- ,parroting party claims and make completely inaccurate claims or half-azzed arguments from info you got from Google to try and defend false science which you don't understand.

I'd be happy to debate the science behind global warming and all the possible causes, but you've shown it's a waste of time discussing with you. You're a parroting hack, uninterested in the truth or science, just trying to 'win' what cannot be 'won' for political cookies - further proof of what a clown you are. If you know anyone that understands the science behind global warming, I'll welcome them over, but you should really stop embarrassing yourself, your party and anyone concerned with global warming with the diarrhea-of-the-mouth you spew here. Poser.

[barryr]

Again, you've made the mistake of crossing arguments and trying to portray them as one in the same. I stated clearly that man is responsible for the current global warming and that data on global warming is accurate. The baseless addition you make is that it's from CO2.

You've provided no evidence that CO2 is causing global warming and given no accurate rebuttal to my claim other factors are at work. Of course, I've also not elaborated on the science behind other causes, but out of intent. The intent being to make equal ground of claim without support -sparring- to see if you actually know what you're talking about. (My absence of comments while drawing you out should have been obvious to anyone older than twelve.) Instead, you've fallen back on straw man political arguments -I'm happy to pwn you there as well- ,parroting party claims and make completely inaccurate claims or half-azzed arguments from info you got from Google to try and defend false science which you don't understand.

I'd be happy to debate the science behind global warming and all the possible causes, but you've shown it's a waste of time discussing with you. You're a parroting hack, uninterested in the truth or science, just trying to 'win' what cannot be 'won' for political cookies - further proof of what a clown you are. If you know anyone that understands the science behind global warming, I'll welcome them over, but you should really stop embarrassing yourself, your party and anyone concerned with global warming with the diarrhea-of-the-mouth you spew here. Poser.

Wow! Now that is truly owning someone :thumbsup:

[W*GS]

Again, you've made the mistake of crossing arguments and trying to portray them as one in the same. I stated clearly that man is responsible for the current global warming and that data on global warming is accurate. The baseless addition you make is that it's from CO2.

Sigh. There is no other forcing of the climate system that we know of other than our burning of fossil fuels, increasing the atmospheric CO2, that explains the changes in the climate system that we've observed. I don't mean just warmer surface temperatures, either - there's the cooling of the stratosphere, the increasing acidification of the oceans, the rising tropopause, and lower atmospheric oxygen concentrations. For a start.

You've provided no evidence that CO2 is causing global warming and given no accurate rebuttal to my claim other factors are at work.

Hardly. Increasing CO2 must cause increased temperatures - that's been known for over 100 years, and is part of the intrinsic nature of CO2 and its rising concentration in the atmosphere.

There are other forcings in the climate system, certainly. None show a trend that explains what has been observed. Your attempt to pin waste heat as a cause, but, as Flanner (2009) noted:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Waste_Heat.jpg

Of course, I've also not elaborated on the science behind other causes, but out of intent. The intent being to make equal ground of claim without support -sparring- to see if you actually know what you're talking about.

No, you just labeled my arguments without evidence, data, reason or fact. You were lazy and revealed your own ignorance of the subject - I took apart each of your claims one by one, illustrating their errors, and all you came back with was basically "Nyaaah, nyaaah, nyaaah, I can't hear you", which is what an immature child does.

(My absence of comments while drawing you out should have been obvious to anyone older than twelve.) Instead, you've fallen back on straw man political arguments -I'm happy to pwn you there as well- ,parroting party claims and make completely inaccurate claims or half-azzed arguments from info you got from Google to try and defend false science which you don't understand.

In how many papers, presentations and articles in climate science are you an author or co-author? I've got 21. Don't you tell me I don't understand. I understand a hell of lot more than you do. Almost infinitely more.

The ideas you presented were half-baked and unsupported by any data or evidence. They weren't scientific at all - just the ramblings of someone who hasn't gotten beyond the blogosphere for his opinions.

I'd be happy to debate the science behind global warming and all the possible causes, but you've shown it's a waste of time discussing with you. You're a parroting hack, uninterested in the truth or science, just trying to 'win' what cannot be 'won' for political cookies - further proof of what a clown you are. If you know anyone that understands the science behind global warming, I'll welcome them over, but you should really stop embarrassing yourself, your party and anyone concerned with global warming with the diarrhea-of-the-mouth you spew here. Poser.

You'd prefer pretty pictures and one-line soundbites?

It's a complicated subject, which, if you actually knew as much as you claim about it, would be obvious. However, your comments above belie you as someone who's made a cursory skim of the topic, found a few blog entries (if that, even), and tried to engage someone with years of experience and knowledge, and failed miserably. It was obvious from the get-go that you were out of your element, and since then, it's become painful to watch you flop around.

Go ahead, debate me on anthropogenic climate change. I'll roast you to a cinder every time on the science. Guaranteed.

[W*GS]

Wow! Now that is truly owning someone

Snicker. Boomhauer's knowledge of the science is pathetic, cereal-box level at best. He's in no position to take me on - that you think he has just shows that you're as ignorant as he is.

[tnedator]

Snicker. Boomhauer's knowledge of the science is pathetic, cereal-box level at best. He's in no position to take me on - that you think he has just shows that you're as ignorant as he is.

What are the papers you have authored?

[W*GS]

What are the papers you have authored?

I'm not going to tell you - someone else likely will in a PM.

I've been a co-author, not the primary author, on all but one.

[tnedator]

I'm not going to tell you - someone else likely will in a PM.

I've been a co-author, not the primary author, on all but one.

I'll see if I get a PM. I'm typically skeptical of any claims like that. Over the years I've seen a lot of claims of "expert status" during internet debates, and most of them have turned out false.

[tnedator]

Snicker. Boomhauer's knowledge of the science is pathetic, cereal-box level at best. He's in no position to take me on - that you think he has just shows that you're as ignorant as he is.

How do you address the fact that global temperatures appear to be flat (possibly a little up or little down) since '02 or so, even though CO2 has continued to rise?

Even Hansen last year stated that there was no statistically significant (or something to that effect) evidence of temperature rise over the last ten year. Now, he has revised his statement and now says there is a statistically significant rise in temps.

So, can you explain how we had a sharp rise in temperatures in the '80's and '90s, but for the most part it leveled off after the peak of '98/'99?

As you indicated in an earlier post, there are a LOT of different temperature readings, and different ones have shown different results (land/ocean, near earth satellite, surface stations, atmospheric, etc.).

Another question, do you completely discount the skeptics that point to the fact that many of the NOAA surface monitoring stations were not in accordance with NOAA specs (in terms of distance from buildings, pavement, etc.), but have been used to show temperature rises. Do you consider these insignificant anomalies?

Bonus questions. I know you said that solar activity plays little to no part in the surface temperatures, but do you believe:

1. That three solar minimums during the little ice age (loosely defined time frames) around the maunder minimums, and then the do subsequent minimums with the last being the early 1800's were coincidental to the decades long severe cold stretches that took place during those minimums?

2. Do you consider it a coincidence that the sharp rise in temperatures in the '80s and '90s coincided with the very strong solar cycle 22 and 23 (one having a record max, and the other record in terms of how long the max lasted)?

3. Follow on to number 2, do you consider the stop in the rise of surface temperatures that is coincident with the end of the solar max for solar cycle 23 a coincidence?

The bonus questions surrounding the solar cycles is because I know there is great disagreement between solar scientists and climatologists (and the many other scientists that have become "climate experts") in terms of the role the sun plays in the earths temperature. There seems to be great debate in terms of how the solar activity impacts the earth and whether it can affect temperature increases and decreases.

[Boomhauer]

... Your attempt to pin waste heat as a cause, but, as Flanner (2009) noted ...

Actually, I never said anything about waste heat. That was a red herring argument made by you that I already labeled misinformation. Further, the pretty picture you left compares waste heat to a theoretical claim of CO2-induced global warming (from calculations meant to fit the data, not independant calculations meant to verify data). So how much hotter is the diarrhea of your mouth than waste heat? 100 times?

[W*GS]

The trend is mankind's industrialization, which has many factors. You've just gone psycho down a dead end, CO2 road. May as well make the revitalizing healthy effects of radium your life's work and sell that snake oil like there's no tomorrow.

OK, so "mankind's industrialization" is the trend, not anthropogenic CO2, and not waste heat.

What do you mean, then? Be specific.

[W*GS]

Actually, I never said anything about waste heat. That was a red herring argument made by you that I already labeled misinformation. Further, the pretty picture you left compares waste heat to a theoretical claim of CO2-induced global warming (from calculations meant to fit the data, not independant calculations meant to verify data). So how much hotter is the diarrhea of your mouth than waste heat? 100 times?

What do you believe about the radiative properties of CO2? Why is it so at variance with what is known and has been shown via laboratory experiment?

[W*GS]

I highly recommend <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org">this website</a> for doing quick-n-dirty analyses of a fair number of interesting datasets. Play around and make some plots of your own.

How do you address the fact that global temperatures appear to be flat (possibly a little up or little down) since '02 or so, even though CO2 has continued to rise?

Even Hansen last year stated that there was no statistically significant (or something to that effect) evidence of temperature rise over the last ten year. Now, he has revised his statement and now says there is a statistically significant rise in temps.

So, can you explain how we had a sharp rise in temperatures in the '80's and '90s, but for the most part it leveled off after the peak of '98/'99?

1998 was a "super" El Niño - a convenient place to start a too-short time series, if one is interested in showing that temperatures aren't rising. The standard length of time in climate science for determining a trend is 30 years, and examining temps since 1980 or 1981 shows a definite and strong trend upwards.

I don't know if it was Hansen who said that. Jones made a statement along those lines, but it was mangled by the media, implying that he said that there had been no warming since 1995. That summary of his statement was utterly false.

Nothing in climate science says that temps must increase lockstep with CO2 increases.

As you indicated in an earlier post, there are a LOT of different temperature readings, and different ones have shown different results (land/ocean, near earth satellite, surface stations, atmospheric, etc.).

Well, no. The different means of measuring surface temperature all agree with each other very well. The old dispute that claimed that satellite-based estimates didn't show warming was because of errors in the processing of the data. Interestingly, while much of the code that uses surface temperature records to calculate global average surface temp is publicly available (and has been replicated many times, even by "skeptics"), the code that UAH and RSS use on the satellite data has never been released, AFAIK. That code would be interesting to examine.

Another question, do you completely discount the skeptics that point to the fact that many of the NOAA surface monitoring stations were not in accordance with NOAA specs (in terms of distance from buildings, pavement, etc.), but have been used to show temperature rises. Do you consider these insignificant anomalies?

Anthony Watts' Big Picture Book of Weather Stations was a damp squib, even though he kept claiming that microsite issues were the real cause of the warming signal. <a href="http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf">This paper</a> (PDF) by Menne et.al. showed that Watts' allegations about spurious trends in the USHCN by siting issues were wrong, and that analyses of the USHCN properly took those problems into account. Watts' <a href="http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/r-3671.pdf">response</a> (primarily written by others, as Watts hasn't the analytical chops to do the work himself) verified the Menne et.al. results. Watts' and D'Aleo's <a href="http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf">attempt</a> to smear NOAA by claiming that the USHCN had been manipulated and/or altered to meet some political goal was a complete non-starter, and served no purpose other than as red meat for deniers.

Watts has pretty much dropped his whole surfacestations.org project - when his paper came out, it barely made a ripple over at WTFWT. He has also managed to toss Muller and the BEST project under the bus, because it didn't show what he so desperately wanted it to show - that the warming signal isn't from CO2. Watts is now preaching to an ever-smaller and ever-more-hysterical (and idiotic) choir.

Bonus questions. I know you said that solar activity plays little to no part in the surface temperatures, but do you believe:

Not what I said - what I did say was there has been no trend in solar activity that can account for the warming signal. Of course changes in TSI have a powerful effect on the climate system - but it is not the only driver, and that it can be overwhelmed by anthropogenic causes.

1. That three solar minimums during the little ice age (loosely defined time frames) around the maunder minimums, and then the do subsequent minimums with the last being the early 1800's were coincidental to the decades long severe cold stretches that took place during those minimums?

Like I said just above, changes in TSI can, and often do, change the climate. However, that does not preclude that we're changing the climate now.

2. Do you consider it a coincidence that the sharp rise in temperatures in the '80s and '90s coincided with the very strong solar cycle 22 and 23 (one having a record max, and the other record in terms of how long the max lasted)?

Go to the woodfortrees.org site I linked at the top and plot the WFT temperature index (a composite of a number of temp analyses) versus the TSI, and normalise both. What you'll get is a plot that clearly shows that temperatures have continued to rise despite a drop in TSI - the correlation is very low. Temps do not change in lockstep with TSI - as the last 10 years or so of very low TSI and very warm temps shows.

3. Follow on to number 2, do you consider the stop in the rise of surface temperatures that is coincident with the end of the solar max for solar cycle 23 a coincidence?

Warming hasn't stopped.

The bonus questions surrounding the solar cycles is because I know there is great disagreement between solar scientists and climatologists (and the many other scientists that have become "climate experts") in terms of the role the sun plays in the earths temperature. There seems to be great debate in terms of how the solar activity impacts the earth and whether it can affect temperature increases and decreases.

No-one says that the Sun has no impact on the climate system - that's a strawman. What is said is that trends in solar activity cannot explain the observations of climate change. For example, the sun's changes don't explain ocean acidification. They don't explain stratosphere cooling. They don't explain the changing ratios of carbon isotopes in the climate system. Those can be very well explained by our burning of fossil fuels.

[tnedator]

In a number of your posts in this thread what I have taken from them (but maybe I'm reading them wrong) is you saying something akin to "there has been warming, and the only thing that makes sense as to what's caused the warming is burning of fossil fuels - co2". Is that correct?

You go on to say that even though the earth has warmed and cooled in the past (without man burning fossil fuels), it doesn't mean this warming isn't caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. I'm struggling with this.

It seems first, that you have an effect, and you are trying to make a cause fit. Also, how/why do you assume that current warming is not 'natural' (for lack of a better word) like in the past, rather than man made?

Finally, with this line of thinking. We are in an interglacial, and I believe near the predicted end of one based on the length of the four or five previous. The previous four interglacial saw a steady rise in temperatures prior to the interglacial ending and return to a glacial period. Why do you believe this interglacial is different, and this time it's man made not part of the natural cycle seen over the last half million years?


Go to the woodfortrees.org site I linked at the top and plot the WFT temperature index (a composite of a number of temp analyses) versus the TSI, and normalise both. What you'll get is a plot that clearly shows that temperatures have continued to rise despite a drop in TSI - the correlation is very low. Temps do not change in lockstep with TSI - as the last 10 years or so of very low TSI and very warm temps shows.

Warming hasn't stopped.

I will check out woodfortrees.

Help me understand these graphs. Granted, I am looking at these as a lay person and they are only surface temps (land, ocean, and land/ocean), but it looks to me like we had a sharp rise in temps in the '80s and '90s, which leveled off to no growth in the 2000's.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201001-201012.gif

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual_bar.png

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly.png

[W*GS]

In a number of your posts in this thread what I have taken from them (but maybe I'm reading them wrong) is you saying something akin to "there has been warming, and the only thing that makes sense as to what's caused the warming is burning of fossil fuels - co2". Is that correct?

Correct - but the changes we've observed aren't limited to just warming temps. There's also ocean acidification, decreasing oxygen, the cooling stratosphere, and so on. All those can be explained best by increasing CO2, and from the isotopic concentrations of C in the atmosphere, we know that the ~40% increase in CO2 over the last ~150 years is from our burning of fossil fuels.

You go on to say that even though the earth has warmed and cooled in the past (without man burning fossil fuels), it doesn't mean this warming isn't caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. I'm struggling with this.

People used to die, by the millions, of the plague in the Middle Ages. People don't die in those numbers of the plague today, but that doesn't mean people don't die today.

The changes in the climate system aren't just from us, or just from not-us, where the "or" is exclusive. There are many forcings of the climate system - the sun, us, volcanoes, and so forth. However, many of the non-anthropogenic forcings of the climate system operate on much longer timescales than what we have observed to have taken place in the last century or so.

It seems first, that you have an effect, and you are trying to make a cause fit. Also, how/why do you assume that current warming is not 'natural' (for lack of a better word) like in the past, rather than man made?

Because of the rate of change, because of the known observed changes, and because we know the increase in CO2 is from our burning of fossil fuels. If there was a non-anthropogenic cause, the climate science community would have likely found it by now. That's not to say there cannot be some big as-yet-unknown forcing, but that's not likely. One could posit hidden space aliens fiddling with the climate system, but then one would have to provide some evidence for them. Let's stick with Occam's Razor.

Finally, with this line of thinking. We are in an interglacial, and I believe near the predicted end of one based on the length of the four or five previous. The previous four interglacial saw a steady rise in temperatures prior to the interglacial ending and return to a glacial period. Why do you believe this interglacial is different, and this time it's man made not part of the natural cycle seen over the last half million years?

It's the rate of change, and all the other aspects of changes in the earth system, that point to CO2.

Help me understand these graphs. Granted, I am looking at these as a lay person and they are only surface temps (land, ocean, and land/ocean), but it looks to me like we had a sharp rise in temps in the '80s and '90s, which leveled off to no growth in the 2000's.

(One of the plots you show is of ocean heat content down to 700m, not surface temps).

If the 2000s were flat or cooling slightly, then how come the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s? And how come 2010 was tied as the warmest year we've observed?

This issue gets back to Trenberth's "travesty" comment from the stolen emails. It was mangled to make it seem like he didn't believe global warming was happening, but what he was really talking about was that we don't have a good enough accounting of the earth system's energy budget to figure out where the heat is going. Is it being used to melt Arctic sea ice and polar land ice? Is it being sequestered in the deep ocean? He wrote <a href="http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf">a paper</a> talking about just those issues...

[NUB]

There was temperature growth in the 2000s, per NASA. In fact, the hottest years on record were in the 2000s and it proved to be the warmest decade as well even though some particularly fierce winters also occurred during these years.

[tnedator]

A newly released peer reviewed study (by pro-AGW scientists) starts with this statement:

Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising
greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global
surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find
that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase
in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar
insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical
change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of
anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur
emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations.
As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent
with the existing understanding of the relationship among
global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative
forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known
warming and cooling effects.

Copy of study: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pnas-201102467.pdf



So, on the topic of whether or not surface temperatures have risen in the last decade, we have yet another source that says they haven't.

Now, granted, as indicated above, this is from very pro-AGW authors. They claim that the reason that temperatures haven't risen in the last decade is the rapid increase in the amount of coal that China is burning. The claim is that China's increase in burning coal has had a 'short term' cooling affect. This short term cooling effect ('short term', as I read it, because sulphur will dissipate, but the CO2 will still be there, so I guess the coal has a lag warming effect) offset the increased CO2 from burning other fossil fuels, and therefore the declining solar cycle, La Nina, etc. temporarily overpowered the man made gases.

Because of the resultant
increase in anthropogenic sulfur emissions, there is a
0.06 W∕m2 (absolute) increase in their cooling effect since 2002
(Fig. 1). This increase partly reverses a period of declining sulfur
emissions that had a warming effect of 0.19 W∕m2 between 1990
and 2002

It sounds like if we just go back to "dirty coal" burn more of it and just keep burning it, we'll all be ok.

[W*GS]

A newly released peer reviewed study (by pro-AGW scientists) starts with this statement

(The Michael L. Mann of this PNAS paper is not the same Michael E. Mann of "hockey stick" fame.)

The paper also says:

The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"

Therefore, the paper does not "refute" AGW in any way.

So, on the topic of whether or not surface temperatures have risen in the last decade, we have yet another source that says they haven't.

1998-2008 isn't the "last decade"; 2001-2010 is (in terms of complete years). 2009 and 2010 have occurred, and 2010 was tied as the warmest year.

Now, granted, as indicated above, this is from very pro-AGW authors. They claim that the reason that temperatures haven't risen in the last decade is the rapid increase in the amount of coal that China is burning. The claim is that China's increase in burning coal has had a 'short term' cooling affect. This short term cooling effect ('short term', as I read it, because sulphur will dissipate, but the CO2 will still be there, so I guess the coal has a lag warming effect) offset the increased CO2 from burning other fossil fuels, and therefore the declining solar cycle, La Nina, etc. temporarily overpowered the man made gases.

Fair summary. Sulfate aerosols tend to rain out in a short time, even when inject high into the stratosphere, as was seen after Pinatubo. Same goes for aerosols from coal burning.

It sounds like if we just go back to "dirty coal" burn more of it and just keep burning it, we'll all be ok.

Well, no. The likely changes in precipitation as well as ongoing ocean acidification from the burning of "dirty coal" are unpleasant effects. Besides, once the coal runs out, the masking effect of all those aerosols will end, and all that pent-up CO2-based warming will take place rapidly. Most unpleasant. Toss in the air pollution too, and burning coal to delay AGW is a foolish option.

[tnedator]

(The Michael L. Mann of this PNAS paper is not the same Michael E. Mann of "hockey stick" fame.)

If it was the Mann of hockey stick fame, I would have pointed that out. As it is, I didn't mention any of the authors.

The paper also says:

Therefore, the paper does not "refute" AGW in any way.

I pointed that out. This paper is very pro AGW, so neither the paper nor I claimed it refuted AGW.

1998-2008 isn't the "last decade"; 2001-2010 is (in terms of complete years). 2009 and 2010 have occurred, and 2010 was tied as the warmest year.

No, but you and others have stated that there has not been a slow down/halt in warming, which simply isn't the case based on a number of sources. It's disingenuous (to be kind) to on the one hand say that warming hasn't stopped, and then on the other hand say, "it wasn't the last decade, it was a decade that ended two years ago" or something akin to that.

Fair summary. Sulfate aerosols tend to rain out in a short time, even when inject high into the stratosphere, as was seen after Pinatubo. Same goes for aerosols from coal burning.

Yet, the short time has lasted for 10 years (at least, that was the time frame of the study). Also, for some reason they focused on the doubling of China's coal use from 2003-2007, the second half of their study period, and that the previous doubling of Chinese coal consumption took 20 years ending in 2002, but the increase in warming stopped before that second 'doubling'. Now, I realize that they were likely still increasing their coal usage, but if it had been as fast an increase, the authors would certainly have used a coal consumption time range in the first half of their study period, to further 'prove' their theory as to why warming hasn't continued.

Well, no. The likely changes in precipitation as well as ongoing ocean acidification from the burning of "dirty coal" are unpleasant effects. Besides, once the coal runs out, the masking effect of all those aerosols will end, and all that pent-up CO2-based warming will take place rapidly. Most unpleasant. Toss in the air pollution too, and burning coal to delay AGW is a foolish option.

Yes, I know. That was meant half in jest, to point out that no matter what new data comes along, AGW is proven.

Katrina hits, AGW is the cause and we hear about how strong hurricanes like Katrina will be the norm, due to AGW. Five years of minimal hurricanes, one of the weakest periods on record, and we hear claims of how that's caused by AGW.

A horrible spring outbreak of tornadoes, it's AGW.

Three or four vicious winters in a row, AGW.

This, not the denier blogosphere, is what has most people very skeptical of those that promote AGW. They sell it like snake oil, so even if some of the science is sound, the fanatical, religious-like promotion of it makes people doubt the 'scientists' and politicians promoting it.

[W*GS]

If it was the Mann of hockey stick fame, I would have pointed that out. As it is, I didn't mention any of the authors.

Well, yes, but anyone can read the author list - and interestingly, none of the authors are familiar.

No, but you and others have stated that there has not been a slow down/halt in warming, which simply isn't the case based on a number of sources. It's disingenuous (to be kind) to on the one hand say that warming hasn't stopped, and then on the other hand say, "it wasn't the last decade, it was a decade that ended two years ago" or something akin to that.

What's disingenuous about noting the difference between "last decade" and 1998-2008? 2010 still stands as the statistically warmest year that we've observed - and that the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, and so on, is still true.

Yet, the short time has lasted for 10 years (at least, that was the time frame of the study). Also, for some reason they focused on the doubling of China's coal use from 2003-2007, the second half of their study period, and that the previous doubling of Chinese coal consumption took 20 years ending in 2002, but the increase in warming stopped before that second 'doubling'. Now, I realize that they were likely still increasing their coal usage, but if it had been as fast an increase, the authors would certainly have used a coal consumption time range in the first half of their study period, to further 'prove' their theory as to why warming hasn't continued.

Going from (say) 2X to 4X is smaller than going from 4X to 8X, even though both are doublings.

Yes, I know. That was meant half in jest, to point out that no matter what new data comes along, AGW is proven.

It's not easy to attribute specific weather events as having an AGW component - but given what we know and expect from AGW, certain weather events fit. For example:

Katrina hits, AGW is the cause and we hear about how strong hurricanes like Katrina will be the norm, due to AGW. Five years of minimal hurricanes, one of the weakest periods on record, and we hear claims of how that's caused by AGW.

This is an ongoing area of study and research.

A horrible spring outbreak of tornadoes, it's AGW.

AGW has increased the energy available in the system, so it stands to reason that some of that increased energy will be seen in more-severe thunderstorms, MCCs, and reflected in more-intense tornadoes.

Three or four vicious winters in a row, AGW.

AGW has increased water vapor, so, combine moister air with the cold air available in wintertime, yes, we get more snow.

This, not the denier blogosphere, is what has most people very skeptical of those that promote AGW. They sell it like snake oil, so even if some of the science is sound, the fanatical, religious-like promotion of it makes people doubt the 'scientists' and politicians promoting it.

(No need to put quotes around scientist. That's unnecessary.)

Don't forget that there is an extremely powerful and wealthy interest group that maintains its power and wealth by fomenting and supporting fear, uncertainty, and doubt about AGW. Remember Willie Soon and the fact that his work is compromised to the point of being not credible. I suggest you read "Merchants of Doubt", by Oreskes. It's hardly the case that the credibility of the science behind AGW is being damaged by the scientific community itself. There are a lot of extremely powerful interests who perceive AGW as a threat to their power, and are reacting to the science just as one would expect - they attempt to dismiss it, attack it, and smear and slur the scientists who create it. Think Big Tobacco in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and the 1990s. Remember the execs swearing before Congress that nicotine was not addictive? Now, why would they lie so breathtakingly? When billions of dollars are perceived to be at risk, the ability of some people to tell the truth becomes extremely malleable.

[tnedator]

Well, yes, but anyone can read the author list - and interestingly, none of the authors are familiar.

What's disingenuous about noting the difference between "last decade" and 1998-2008? 2010 still stands as the statistically warmest year that we've observed - and that the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, and so on, is still true.

Going from (say) 2X to 4X is smaller than going from 4X to 8X, even though both are doublings.

It's not easy to attribute specific weather events as having an AGW component - but given what we know and expect from AGW, certain weather events fit. For example:

This is an ongoing area of study and research.

AGW has increased the energy available in the system, so it stands to reason that some of that increased energy will be seen in more-severe thunderstorms, MCCs, and reflected in more-intense tornadoes.

AGW has increased water vapor, so, combine moister air with the cold air available in wintertime, yes, we get more snow.


(No need to put quotes around scientist. That's unnecessary.)

Don't forget that there is an extremely powerful and wealthy interest group that maintains its power and wealth by fomenting and supporting fear, uncertainty, and doubt about AGW. Remember Willie Soon and the fact that his work is compromised to the point of being not credible. I suggest you read "Merchants of Doubt", by Oreskes. It's hardly the case that the credibility of the science behind AGW is being damaged by the scientific community itself. There are a lot of extremely powerful interests who perceive AGW as a threat to their power, and are reacting to the science just as one would expect - they attempt to dismiss it, attack it, and smear and slur the scientists who create it. Think Big Tobacco in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and the 1990s. Remember the execs swearing before Congress that nicotine was not addictive? Now, why would they lie so breathtakingly? When billions of dollars are perceived to be at risk, the ability of some people to tell the truth becomes extremely malleable.

I'm in a rush, so don't have time to break down your quote, so please forgive the lumped together response.

I put quotes around scientists, because there are many, many people sticking their toes in the AGW pool, with very diverse backgrounds. Many of which it would be a stretch to call scientists. As you are aware, I'm not sure if it was IPCC4 or which one where they claimed 2500 scientists and researches involved, but as we all know with a lot of those 2500, it is a real stretch to call them experts or scientists in the field of climatology.

We also know that there is a LOT of money and power behind the research and promotion of AGW. That doesn't mean it isn't real, but you have to be honest about the fact that the special interest groups and money behind AGW is very powerful.

Also, as you are often quick to accuse others of using logical fallacies, I think I should point out you have been guilty of this more than a few times yourself. Your big tobacco example being one, your black plague being another, extra terrestrials playing with an HVAC thermostat or whatever you cracked, and there have been others I noted at the time, but aren't popping into my head. I don't mind, but I just think if you are going to accuse others of using the logical fallacies in their debates, than you should not do so yourself.

As to the temperature since '98. Yes, there is no question that the past decade has been the hottest based on surface temperature data, which there seems to be debate as to how far back the accurate data exists (I've heard 100-150 years, but you could probably address this). There is great debate over whether this is the hottest decade ever, or even in this interglacial, so it is dangerous to say the hottest decade ever or on record, etc. I'm glad you said that we've observed, because that does put a more modern time frame on it.

I would hazard a guess based on your political stance that you do not believe that the earth was created 5,000-6,000 years ago, and as such, I know you would agree that there is much discrepancy between the various temperature proxy data (antarctic ice cores, greenland ice cores, tree rings from various parts of the world showing different aspects, etc.).

If you look at the last 130 or so years, we've had about 20 odd years that are basically on the average for the 20th century temperatures, about 60 years below that average, and about 40 years above the average.

So, it is very possible that all of the theories and computer models that AGW proponents have put forth are correct, and that temperatures will continue rising, but the sample is too small to know for sure. We are talking a very small sample even when only comparing it to this glacial or interglacial period, forget going back farther than that.

You can't even say with 100% confidence that you are interpreting the proxy data correctly, because what's to say that there haven't been other times in history where tree ring data and actual temperatures have diverged, as is claimed is the case since the '60s or so? I've read that very argument from pro-AGW people when they didn't like certain proxy data (I believe it was in the CRU emails when discussing how to defend against claims of a MWP).

I'm not closed to the theory that fossil fuels are driving AGW as the primary cause of the warming we've seen coming out of the last of the little ice age in the mid 19th century, but at this point it is still a theory. We have all seen (and of course read in history books) examples of the scientific community being sure something is a fact, and it isn't just ET interference that could be a factor that you haven't considered.

Also don't have time to proof, so if there were even more typos than normal, I'm sorry.

[cutthemdown]

No way I am smart enough to really understand either argument. Just like we don't understand cancer either but you have to trust your doctor that he is right. Same with science. I think the world is getting warmer, i just dispute that if it is co2 we can stop it. Also the dire consequences they talk about will never happen. Weren't we supposed to have 50 million climate refugees by now? its stupid claims like that which give people pause.

[cutthemdown]

Like someone who didn'g go to school for climatology can just look at some graphs and say oh yeah I totally get it now. Those graphs could be total forgeries and I would not have the background to say either way. Now someone put up a chord and I will tell you what notes are in it. :)

[tnedator]

No way I am smart enough to really understand either argument. Just like we don't understand cancer either but you have to trust your doctor that he is right. Same with science. I think the world is getting warmer, i just dispute that if it is co2 we can stop it. Also the dire consequences they talk about will never happen. Weren't we supposed to have 50 million climate refugees by now? its stupid claims like that which give people pause.

You cancer analogy is a good one. When you have cancer, do you go to the dentist or chiropractor? How about a vet? A GP/family doctor? Maybe an orthopedic surgeon? Maybe a neurologist or cardiologist?

Now, it's possible all of those "doctors" will have some knowledge in diagnosing and treating cancer, but ideally you want to go to an oncologist, someone trained in the treatment of cancer. Then, once you start looking for oncologists, you are going to find different ones specializing in different cancers, or that have varying skills.

The more I've dug in, the more I find that our climate experts are all over the map. Some meteorologist. Some geologists. oceanographers or maybe physicists. Some are data geeks. Some have formal education in climate sciences, many don't have any formal climate or meteorological background. Take Hansen, one of the most well know global warming proponent in the US (not counting celebrities and politicians), he's education was in physics, astronomy and the like. Now, he's had a lot of on the job training, but many of the other people that are the scientists telling us what's happening to the earth have neither formal or significant hands on training.

Take the current warming, there are studies of ice cores, sentiment and other items from the last interglacial (basically we've been in an ice age of sorts for over a half million years, and about every 90,000+ years there is a 10-15,000 warm period. We are currently in one of those. In the last one, temperatures were much higher than today, 3-6* higher. Sea level was much higher, in the neighborhood of 15-30' higher or more. Then, after about 14,000 years of this warm period, over a period of a few hundred years, things turned bitterly cold (think ice age) with sea levels dropping, glaciers extending, snow increasing, etc. Even as advanced as our civilization is today, I'm not sure how well it will survive when this interglacial ends.

This is the very crux of the debate, which contrary to what Mr. Gore may have told you is not over. We are in a brief period of warming (currently around 14,000 years I believe) of warming, between glacial periods. Based on recent interglacial, we should be getting very close to the end. The past interglacials had temperatures warmer than now, and also had fluctuations, as we have seen over the last 14,000 years, with multiple periods of this interglacial that were warmer than today (without man mad CO2).

Pro-AGW scientists are looking at the past 150 years (staring at the last section of the little ice age) and saying "it's warmed, and the only thing to explain it is our burning of fossil fuels."

Now, if we only look at the last 150 years, or even the last 700 years (after the medieval warming period), and ignore all we know about the thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years before that, then I could understand that the release of CO2 from burning fossil fuels would seem like a very likely driver of warming.

However, since we do know about what happened over the last thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years, we know that the temperatures this high that we are seeing is within the range not only seen in past interglacial periods, but also in this one.

While the Pro-AGW guys will just scream big oil, deniers, etc., the fact is that many skeptics are skeptics with very good reason. We have trouble with the 'science' when it is guilty of selective use of data about past temperature, sea level, sea ice expanse, glacial expanse and CO2 data all in order to prove that this 150 years is COMPLETELY different than the tens and hundreds of thousands of years that have come before. All of those past heating and cooling cycles are history, now the only driver of significance is CO2 from mans burning fossil fuels. That is, unless it's China's burning dirty coal with high levels of sulfur, because by doing that they have a convenient excuse for why warming stopped in 1998.

[tnedator]

Like someone who didn'g go to school for climatology can just look at some graphs and say oh yeah I totally get it now. Those graphs could be total forgeries and I would not have the background to say either way. Now someone put up a chord and I will tell you what notes are in it. :)

I have no idea what the number is but many, many of the scientists working on AGW studies, the IPCC reports and other papers did not go to school for climatology. I would be afraid to guess at the number, but I think it would utterly shock most people.

[Requiem]

W*GS, talk about a hole in one.

http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/h/happy_gilmore-10587.jpg

[tnedator]

W*GS, talk about a hole in one.

http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/h/happy_gilmore-10587.jpg

Welcome back.

[Requiem]

Thanks, Tned.

Hope you were able to get out of the dry county for the Fourth.

Tell Sneakers I can't ever come back!

[Boomhauer]

... In how many papers, presentations and articles in climate science are you an author or co-author? I've got 21. Don't you tell me I don't understand. ...

I did a report on cultural changes of the 60's back in high school. If someone was willing to pay me for reports, I'd probably have done another 20. (that's a total of 21 for calculation-impaired posters like F*GS) Each time maybe tweaking the findings more and more to fit the purchaser's request since, if I've already decided to publish for cash, I'd have already abandoned ethics and turned science into a business case instead of pursuit of truth. Al Gore and his media marketing is a very good example.

Thing is, I wasn't alive in the 60's and don't know anything about it except for repurposing others reports. If the information I found was faulty and my goal was to supply a demand, those reports would be just as accurate as CO2-based global warming hysteria. aka; diarrhea of the mouth. Simple question F*GS; how many of your works are accredited and by whom?

[W*GS]

That must be another of your Google factoids passed on from a like-minded poser.

Wrong. I get my data from Mauna Loa via CDIAC.

I'm guessing it's the 0.28% of current CO2 emissions attributed to mankind and multiplied it by 150yrs = 42% increase. The actual figure is about 33%; from 280ppmv pre-industrial to 375ppmv CO2 today.

Also wrong. The latest CO2 from Mauna Loa is 393.69 ppm; (393.69-280)/280 = 40.6% increase.

You're missing almost 19 ppm, son.

[W*GS]

I did a report on cultural changes of the 60's back in high school. If someone was willing to pay me for reports, I'd probably have done another 20. (that's a total of 21 for calculation-impaired posters like F*GS) Each time maybe tweaking the findings more and more to fit the purchaser's request since, if I've already decided to publish for cash, I'd have already abandoned ethics and turned science into a business case instead of pursuit of truth. Al Gore and his media marketing is a very good example.

Do you think software engineers like myself get paid to publish in science journals?

Do you know how science publishing works?

Most of my publications have passed peer-review; lemme guess, you're gonna claim peer-review is just "pal review" and thus corrupt. If so, then be prepared to toss out most science of the last several decades - rather a strong reaction to the fact that our emissions of CO2 are changing the climate.

BTW, do you know how CO2 lasers work?

[tnedator]

Thanks, Tned.

Hope you were able to get out of the dry county for the Fourth.

Tell Sneakers I can't ever come back!

Stuck in the dry county on the fourth, but am now in Bavaria, so dry no more. lol

[W*GS]

I put quotes around scientists, because there are many, many people sticking their toes in the AGW pool, with very diverse backgrounds. Many of which it would be a stretch to call scientists. As you are aware, I'm not sure if it was IPCC4 or which one where they claimed 2500 scientists and researches involved, but as we all know with a lot of those 2500, it is a real stretch to call them experts or scientists in the field of climatology.

Climate science is more "earth system science", which includes things like solar experts, meteorologists, oceanographers, biologists, ice experts, geologists, biologists, and many more. True, many climate scientists don't have a Ph.D. in climatology, but that doesn't mean they aren't experts in a relevant realm.

Who would you want to research the ocean? A climatologist, or an oceanographer?

We also know that there is a LOT of money and power behind the research and promotion of AGW. That doesn't mean it isn't real, but you have to be honest about the fact that the special interest groups and money behind AGW is very powerful.

How much money do you think there is? How much goes to the science, and how much goes to climate change science specifically?

Now compare that to, say, the revenues from Big Carbon. There are orders of magnitude difference there, not in favor of climate science.

Also, as you are often quick to accuse others of using logical fallacies, I think I should point out you have been guilty of this more than a few times yourself. Your big tobacco example being one, your black plague being another, extra terrestrials playing with an HVAC thermostat or whatever you cracked, and there have been others I noted at the time, but aren't popping into my head. I don't mind, but I just think if you are going to accuse others of using the logical fallacies in their debates, than you should not do so yourself.

Those aren't fallacies, they're analogies.

As to the temperature since '98. Yes, there is no question that the past decade has been the hottest based on surface temperature data, which there seems to be debate as to how far back the accurate data exists (I've heard 100-150 years, but you could probably address this). There is great debate over whether this is the hottest decade ever, or even in this interglacial, so it is dangerous to say the hottest decade ever or on record, etc. I'm glad you said that we've observed, because that does put a more modern time frame on it.

The factoid that this past decade is the hottest in a very long time (much more than 150 years) is just that, a factoid. If it hadn't been, that doesn't mean we're not warming the planet and changing the climate system.

Just because some guy got to 1,000 pounds eating Ding-Dongs doesn't mean another guy can't get to 1,100 pounds eating M&M's.

I would hazard a guess based on your political stance that you do not believe that the earth was created 5,000-6,000 years ago, and as such, I know you would agree that there is much discrepancy between the various temperature proxy data (antarctic ice cores, greenland ice cores, tree rings from various parts of the world showing different aspects, etc.).

The discrepancy isn't as wide as you seem to think - but I'm not a paleoclimatologist, and my knowledge of the field is limited. AFAIK, most, if not all, proxies show pronounced warming over recent decades.

If you look at the last 130 or so years, we've had about 20 odd years that are basically on the average for the 20th century temperatures, about 60 years below that average, and about 40 years above the average.

That's not how one calculates trends or means. The highest annual means are higher, absolutely, than the lowest annual means. That's why we see a warming trend.

So, it is very possible that all of the theories and computer models that AGW proponents have put forth are correct, and that temperatures will continue rising, but the sample is too small to know for sure. We are talking a very small sample even when only comparing it to this glacial or interglacial period, forget going back farther than that.

This is just a restatement of Garcia's "we don't have enough data, so we can't say". That's incorrect. We know enough about past climate to know that we are outside of past states by quite a bit - certainly most of the period of human civilization. We also know that CO2 concentrations haven't been as high as they are now for at least <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm">15 million years</a>.

You can't even say with 100% confidence that you are interpreting the proxy data correctly, because what's to say that there haven't been other times in history where tree ring data and actual temperatures have diverged, as is claimed is the case since the '60s or so? I've read that very argument from pro-AGW people when they didn't like certain proxy data (I believe it was in the CRU emails when discussing how to defend against claims of a MWP).

I'm not a proxy expert, but it's not the case that paleoclimatologists dismiss an MWP - it's that claims that it was global and synchronous are not at all clear. Besides, like I said several times now, an MWP doesn't get us off the hook for changing the climate now.

I'm not closed to the theory that fossil fuels are driving AGW as the primary cause of the warming we've seen coming out of the last of the little ice age in the mid 19th century, but at this point it is still a theory. We have all seen (and of course read in history books) examples of the scientific community being sure something is a fact, and it isn't just ET interference that could be a factor that you haven't considered.

The science community use of the word "theory" and common parlance are not identical. In science, "theory" means something extremely well-supported, like gravity, general relativity and so forth. In colloquial English, it sometimes means "wild-ass guess". That's not how science uses it.

So far, the climate science community has tried to find a non-anthropogenic explanation for the changes in the climate system that have been observed, and has always come up short. It's not for a lack of trying. The activities of the deniers certainly do muddy the waters - which of course, is their intent.


Also don't have time to proof, so if there were even more typos than normal, I'm sorry.[/QUOTE]

[Boomhauer]

The latest CO2 from Mauna Loa is 393.69 ppm; (393.69-280)/280 = 40.6% increase. ...

Pwned your az again poser. Both numbers were inaccurate, but you chose to boost the later for greater effect. Over the last 10,000yrs (some exceptions) CO2 levels have been within 270ppmv and 325ppmv. The 280 figure is a low point chosen by hysteric climatologists long before any human activity could have affected the atmosphere.

Arguments could be made that significant contributions to CO2 levels didn't begin until 1900 to 1935, but a better measure is to say around 300ppmv of CO2 at the time, and the average of historic records. Others may point out CO2 levels didn't rise above 325ppmv (a natural high mark) until around 1970.

The 375ppmv level I dangled was earlier this century and the 393ppmv you left (during the high point of the year I may add) is from last month, but by not correcting the comparative low point you again showed fabricating, or winning as you call it, is more important to you than truth. Here's truth;

300ppmv figure (historic average) -> 392ppmv(current avg) = 30.7% increase. But to stick to your babbling about "atmospheric forcing", you'd have to go with CO2 levels above the historic high mark, above natural equilibrium. That would be the 325ppmv reached around 1970.
325ppmv -> 392ppmv = 20.6% increase

Another key point is just how little this affects global temperatures. The "greenhouse effect" is almost entirely cause by water vapor and accounts for 15*C - the difference between what the Earth is with atmosphere and what it would be accounting for just solar radiation. Man made increase in CO2 concentrations -67ppmv- raises the effect by 0.0975%, but doesn't account for greater convective loss through the upper atmosphere, environmental osmosis or precipitation changes.

Above theoretic possibility-
Today's CO2 levels can only raise average temps by 0.015*C
Yet there has been a steady climb of 0.15*-0.20*C every decade since 1970, when the theoretic increase was 0.0*C, and temps in the Northern Hemisphere have increased 1.1*C - key in driving up the average. This discrepancy in regional temperature changes, which cannot be explained by atmospheric composition, and CO2 only able to account for, at best, 2% of global temperature rise or 1% of the rise in the N.Hemisphere means the affects of CO2 are negligible when considering global warming.

[tnedator]

Climate science is more "earth system science", which includes things like solar experts, meteorologists, oceanographers, biologists, ice experts, geologists, biologists, and many more. True, many climate scientists don't have a Ph.D. in climatology, but that doesn't mean they aren't experts in a relevant realm.

Who would you want to research the ocean? A climatologist, or an oceanographer?


I have no problem with a wide range of people being involved in the research, but this goes back to why I had "scientists" in quotes, and that is that the term is muddied when it comes to climate scientists, especially when looking at the 2000-2500 people they list as having contributed to various IPCC reports.

How much money do you think there is? How much goes to the science, and how much goes to climate change science specifically?

Now compare that to, say, the revenues from Big Carbon. There are orders of magnitude difference there, not in favor of climate science.

I guess that's why we see media and newspapers touting the benefits of fossil fuels on a daily basis. Only that power and money going to good use. Liberals and their causes love to play the victim card.

Those aren't fallacies, they're analogies.

They most certainly were. Rather than calling others for doing what you do, maybe you need to take a refresher on the various logical fallacies and be more careful.

The factoid that this past decade is the hottest in a very long time (much more than 150 years) is just that, a factoid. If it hadn't been, that doesn't mean we're not warming the planet and changing the climate system.

This is one of the major flaws in your logic. 150 is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a very long time. Whether you believe in the Biblical or scientific version of how the earth was created (or the hybrids that have become popular), 150 years is a blink of the eye.

Within this current interglacial we have had many 70-400 year blocks of extreme weather in both directions. We've had lush lands become deserts, the rain forest massively expand, sea levels vary by tens of meters or more.

That's all within this interglacial. 150 years is NOT a long time.

Just because some guy got to 1,000 pounds eating Ding-Dongs doesn't mean another guy can't get to 1,100 pounds eating M&M's.

A ridiculous analogy. Based on that one could just as easily say:

Even though the warming of the '80s and '90s was from AGW, the ten year pause, doesn't mean if the warming restarts it will be from CO2 and other anthro causes. It could be an ET flicking his fingers, or natural warming.

Your use of fallacies and ridiculous analogies only go to diminish your otherwise solid posts.

The discrepancy isn't as wide as you seem to think - but I'm not a paleoclimatologist, and my knowledge of the field is limited. AFAIK, most, if not all, proxies show pronounced warming over recent decades.

I'm not doubting that they show warming in recent decades, but instead that the likes of Mann, Jones and other hardcore AGW promoters selectively use the proxy data on past temperature data to try and make the case this is the warmest it's been. This simply isn't true.

Same with sea level rise. They are quick to point out the current rate of sea level rise (although some are claiming bad data in Mann's newest paper, but I haven't dug into that yet), but fail to talk about how many times in this current interglacial, or even the last couple thousand years, sea levels have been significantly higher than today.

Even if some of their science is sound, the fact they cherry pick historical data to prove their claims, rather than sticking with something like, "while this isn't the warmest the earth has been in recent times, and the sea level is far from it's highest point, we see trends we haven't see before and believe the speed and nature of the increases will be a problem......."

It's foolish to think that just because somebody built a condo on a piece of land that only a few thousand years ago was under water, that we should conclude that the water level would never re-rise to that point, except as a result of burning fossil fuels.

That's not how one calculates trends or means. The highest annual means are higher, absolutely, than the lowest annual means. That's why we see a warming trend.

The problem with your trends and means and the data driven computer models in general, is that you guys are convinced you THEORY is correct, and are proving it. Hence the reason that no matter what occurs (warming, cooling, bad winters, warm winters, bad storms, weak storms, etc.) it's from AGW.

Anyway, that aside, my point is that even in this TINY sample of 130 years, we have had many years below the average. If you included the 15th-19th centuries (full 19th), it would likely increase the number of years below the average.

Again, you are looking at a tiny sample size, and using an exclusionary approach of "the temps are rising and the only thing that makes sense as to what could be causing it is the burning of fossil fuels."


This is just a restatement of Garcia's "we don't have enough data, so we can't say". That's incorrect. We know enough about past climate to know that we are outside of past states by quite a bit - certainly most of the period of human civilization. We also know that CO2 concentrations haven't been as high as they are now for at least <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm">15 million years</a>.

Ok, so it's your position that we are warmer now than we've been in the current interglacial?

As to CO2, I'm out of town and don't know if I will have time to research it, but I believe I have read that there are big discrepancies between the CO2 readings in Antarctic ice cores (used by AGW proponents because they are low) and the historical CO2 levels using other proxy data (northern hemisphere ice cores, plant stomata, etc.).

I'm not a proxy expert, but it's not the case that paleoclimatologists dismiss an MWP - it's that claims that it was global and synchronous are not at all clear. Besides, like I said several times now, an MWP doesn't get us off the hook for changing the climate now.

That's not entirely true. In the now infamous CRU emails, they discussed limiting the number of proxies used during that time to minimize the rise, with the excuse that they didn't want to give critics ammunition by showing warming during the MWP equal to or higher than today. Yea, that's sound "science." Manipulate the data to not give critics ammunition.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that Jones, Mann, Hansen and others believe there was no MWP, or that it was global in scope (far too much evidence to claim it was localized), but instead, like you, they believe that even if it's true that the MWP (or Roman warming period for that matter), was higher than today, doesn't change the fact that the CURRENT warming is from man, so the simplest thing to do is hide past temperature rises so as not to give ammunition to the deniers that they can use to 'confuse' the lay person that can't really think for themselves.

It's a standard "ends justify the means" approach, which is clearly evident in much of what goes on with climate science.

The science community use of the word "theory" and common parlance are not identical. In science, "theory" means something extremely well-supported, like gravity, general relativity and so forth. In colloquial English, it sometimes means "wild-ass guess". That's not how science uses it.

True, science isn't my field, so after school, I have not spent much time on the terms used on going from idea, to theory, to ??, to proven theory.

So, based on your explanation, AGW is probably barely even at the theory stage, and certainly is far from proven.

So far, the climate science community has tried to find a non-anthropogenic explanation for the changes in the climate system that have been observed, and has always come up short. It's not for a lack of trying. The activities of the deniers certainly do muddy the waters - which of course, is their intent.

Care to give us a walk through history and list all of the "consensus" scientific theories (of which this is not a true consensus, anyway) that turned out to be mostly or completely debunked?

Even without the fact that just because a given theory is popular today, doesn't mean it is correct, we are left with the fact that even within the current interglacial (a small blip of time in the earth's history), we have warming and sea levels that are significantly higher than today.

[W*GS]

Pwned your az again poser. Both numbers were inaccurate, but you chose to boost the later for greater effect. Over the last 10,000yrs (some exceptions) CO2 levels have been within 270ppmv and 325ppmv. The 280 figure is a low point chosen by hysteric climatologists long before any human activity could have affected the atmosphere.

(Grow up. Making your argument big and purple and bold doesn't make it better. How old are you? 14?)

The accepted value for pre-industrial CO2 concentration is 280 ppm, as you noted <a href="http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3211622&postcount=136">in this post</a>.

The average value for CO2 in 2010, according to CDIAC, was 389.78ppm. Therefore, (389.78-280)/280 = 39.2% increase from pre-industrial CO2 levels to 2010.

Like I said, about 40% over the last 150 years or so.

Arguments could be made that significant contributions to CO2 levels didn't begin until 1900 to 1935, but a better measure is to say around 300ppmv of CO2 at the time, and the average of historic records. Others may point out CO2 levels didn't rise above 325ppmv (a natural high mark) until around 1970.

Your "natural high mark" is for a relatively short period - CO2 has been much higher over geologic time. For example:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

The 375ppmv level I dangled was earlier this century

Yes, in 2003. It's now 2011.

and the 393ppmv you left (during the high point of the year I may add) is from last month, but by not correcting the comparative low point you again showed fabricating, or winning as you call it, is more important to you than truth.

Whether one uses the latest monthly CO2 value or the average from 2010, it really doesn't make much difference.

CO2 has increased about 40% in the last 150 years or so.

I didn't lie, or "fabricate", anything. You, on the other hand, keep picking and choosing values which support your argument, and aren't consistent from one choice to another. That's called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)">cherry-picking</a>.

Here's truth;

300ppmv figure (historic average) -> 392ppmv(current avg) = 30.7% increase. But to stick to your babbling about "atmospheric forcing", you'd have to go with CO2 levels above the historic high mark, above natural equilibrium.

280 ppm is the accepted pre-industrial value, as you originally noted.

And, given that over many millions of years, CO2 has been much higher than your "historic high mark" of 325 ppm, it's clear you're just picking numbers at random just to argue and do a little happy dance.

That would be the 325ppmv reached around 1970.
325ppmv -> 392ppmv = 20.6% increase

(Again, making your argument big and bold doesn't make it stronger).

Another key point is just how little this affects global temperatures. The "greenhouse effect" is almost entirely cause by water vapor and accounts for 15*C - the difference between what the Earth is with atmosphere and what it would be accounting for just solar radiation. Man made increase in CO2 concentrations -67ppmv- raises the effect by 0.0975%, but doesn't account for greater convective loss through the upper atmosphere, environmental osmosis or precipitation changes.

H2O is indeed a powerful "greenhouse gas" - but it is only a feedback, not a forcing. Without CO2 (and the other GHGs), H2O would condense out as precipitation, dropping its concentration so low that it would cease to be an effective GHG.

Where did you get this "0.0975%" value? What's the calculation?

What do you mean by "greater convective loss through the upper atmosphere"? Convection primarily takes place in the lower atmosphere.

What do you mean by "environmental osmosis"? I've not heard that phrase in this context before.

What effect would precipitation changes have on what? H2O, CO2?

Above theoretic possibility-
Today's CO2 levels can only raise average temps by 0.015*C
Yet there has been a steady climb of 0.15*-0.20*C every decade since 1970, when the theoretic increase was 0.0*C, and temps in the Northern Hemisphere have increased 1.1*C - key in driving up the average. This discrepancy in regional temperature changes, which cannot be explained by atmospheric composition, and CO2 only able to account for, at best, 2% of global temperature rise or 1% of the rise in the N.Hemisphere means the affects of CO2 are negligible when considering global warming.

Where's the cite for your claim that "CO2 levels can only raise average temps by 0.015°C"? How is that value derived?

Where does this "theoretic increase was 0.0°C" come from?

Do you have a reference for your "CO2 only able to account for, at best, 2% of global temperature rise" claim? Who says that, where, and when?

You're tossing out a lot of unsupported assertions, which directly contradict the known science. You're going to have to work a lot harder to show you're correct - much harder than just using bigger and bolder fonts.

[Requiem]

Poor Boomhauer.

[W*GS]

I have no problem with a wide range of people being involved in the research, but this goes back to why I had "scientists" in quotes, and that is that the term is muddied when it comes to climate scientists, especially when looking at the 2000-2500 people they list as having contributed to various IPCC reports.

I don't get your objection. Do you believe that only climate scientists, preferably with Ph.D.s in climatology, should author the IPCC assessments? Should there be no work assessed by anyone else?

I guess that's why we see media and newspapers touting the benefits of fossil fuels on a daily basis. Only that power and money going to good use. Liberals and their causes love to play the victim card.

If you're going to claim that AGW science is rich and powerful (and that's really what is driving the whole enterprise), then you're going to have to provide some evidence.

As for playing the victim card, you should see McIntyre, Watts, Gray, Lindzen and the others play it. According to them, there's a small cabal of frauds that control all of climate science, and if you don't play by their rules, you don't get published or taken seriously. Do you find their whining to be credible?

They most certainly were. Rather than calling others for doing what you do, maybe you need to take a refresher on the various logical fallacies and be more careful.

Analogies aren't fallacies.

This is one of the major flaws in your logic. 150 is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a very long time. Whether you believe in the Biblical or scientific version of how the earth was created (or the hybrids that have become popular), 150 years is a blink of the eye.

True, in geologic terms, 150 years is epsilon. However, you now need to realize that most nonanthropogenic drivers of climate change operate on far far longer timescales, so, by harping on 150 years being too short a period to assess a trend, you automagically dismiss virtually all nonanthropogenic drivers, because we have indeed observed significant climate changes in that 150-year timespan.

Within this current interglacial we have had many 70-400 year blocks of extreme weather in both directions. We've had lush lands become deserts, the rain forest massively expand, sea levels vary by tens of meters or more.

Still doesn't preclude that we're changing the climate now.

Even though the warming of the '80s and '90s was from AGW, the ten year pause, doesn't mean if the warming restarts it will be from CO2 and other anthro causes. It could be an ET flicking his fingers, or natural warming.

The warming didn't stop - remember, 2010 was a record warm year.

What would cause "natural warming", if not manmade GHGs? What are you left with? The sun, alone, pretty much. Do you expect solar activity to increase over the next few cycles? That would put you at odds with some in the solar science community, who believe we may be heading for a period of decreased solar activity.

I'm not doubting that they show warming in recent decades, but instead that the likes of Mann, Jones and other hardcore AGW promoters selectively use the proxy data on past temperature data to try and make the case this is the warmest it's been. This simply isn't true.

There are other scientists using other proxies that broadly confirm Mann's results. Are these other scientists also engaging in dishonest tactics?

Same with sea level rise. They are quick to point out the current rate of sea level rise (although some are claiming bad data in Mann's newest paper, but I haven't dug into that yet), but fail to talk about how many times in this current interglacial, or even the last couple thousand years, sea levels have been significantly higher than today.

Don't you think that if "sea levels have been significantly higher than today" in "even the last couple thousand years", we would know about it, directly, without proxies? We have written records from all over the planet over that period. Don't you think someone would have written it down? Likewise, there are many places on the coasts that have been continuously inhabited over that period.

You need to define what you mean by "significantly higher". 1m? 10cm? 10m? 50m?

Even if some of their science is sound, the fact they cherry pick historical data to prove their claims, rather than sticking with something like, "while this isn't the warmest the earth has been in recent times, and the sea level is far from it's highest point, we see trends we haven't see before and believe the speed and nature of the increases will be a problem......."

It's all a matter of timescale. If we pick the entire age of the earth, we can easily say it's been much warmer and sea levels much higher. As we reduce the time period to shorter and shorter lengths, it becomes much more difficult to claim that's been warmer or sea levels higher. Reduce that period to the existence of human civilization, and it's just about impossible to claim that today's climate has existed in that time.

We have not seen, nor can we deduce, such a rapid rate of climate change as has been observed in the last century or so.

It's foolish to think that just because somebody built a condo on a piece of land that only a few thousand years ago was under water, that we should conclude that the water level would never re-rise to that point, except as a result of burning fossil fuels.

We know what drives the major changes in sea level over the timescales of millenia - glaciation and deglaciation. For longer periods, it's plate tectonics. The planet is indeed deglaciating, but not because of nonanthropogenic forcings, because the rate is far too high. It's because we're changing the system to retain more energy by our increases in GHGs. Period.

The problem with your trends and means and the data driven computer models in general, is that you guys are convinced you THEORY is correct, and are proving it. Hence the reason that no matter what occurs (warming, cooling, bad winters, warm winters, bad storms, weak storms, etc.) it's from AGW.

Yes, sometimes people perform improper attributions, or do so with very weak evidence.

Anyway, that aside, my point is that even in this TINY sample of 130 years, we have had many years below the average. If you included the 15th-19th centuries (full 19th), it would likely increase the number of years below the average.

Merely counting "years above average" and "years below average" and using that as a metric makes no sense, since you're leaving out the magnitude of the difference. Would you say that in a group of three numbers, say

-5, 0, 104 (mean = 33)

That since two values were below average, and only one above, that the 104 is "outweighed" by the -5 and 0?

Again, you are looking at a tiny sample size, and using an exclusionary approach of "the temps are rising and the only thing that makes sense as to what could be causing it is the burning of fossil fuels."

No other nonanthropogenic factor has yet been found that can explain what we have observed changing in the climate system - and it's not just increasing temps, too.

All the claims of the "skeptics" have fallen apart on critical examination. All of them.

Ok, so it's your position that we are warmer now than we've been in the current interglacial?

Like I said, I'm not an expert on paleoclimate, but I would claim, based on what I have read, that such a statement is probably true. There are some folks claiming that the Holocene is over - what we are in now should be called the Anthropocene, because of what we've been doing to the earth system.

As to CO2, I'm out of town and don't know if I will have time to research it, but I believe I have read that there are big discrepancies between the CO2 readings in Antarctic ice cores (used by AGW proponents because they are low) and the historical CO2 levels using other proxy data (northern hemisphere ice cores, plant stomata, etc.).

When you have a chance, find your references.

That's not entirely true. In the now infamous CRU emails, they discussed limiting the number of proxies used during that time to minimize the rise, with the excuse that they didn't want to give critics ammunition by showing warming during the MWP equal to or higher than today. Yea, that's sound "science." Manipulate the data to not give critics ammunition.

Again, whether or not the MWP was warmer than today isn't the critical piece of science that if it was shown incontrovertibly true, the entire edifice of AGW would come crashing down. It's not the mountain, it's a molehill.

Besides, as I've shown, the stolen emails are not where one acquires knowledge about the science.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that Jones, Mann, Hansen and others believe there was no MWP, or that it was global in scope (far too much evidence to claim it was localized), but instead, like you, they believe that even if it's true that the MWP (or Roman warming period for that matter), was higher than today, doesn't change the fact that the CURRENT warming is from man, so the simplest thing to do is hide past temperature rises so as not to give ammunition to the deniers that they can use to 'confuse' the lay person that can't really think for themselves.

Sigh. Take a look at this:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/full/ngeo865.html

Abstract:
Instrumental observations suggest that Lake Tanganyika, the largest rift lake in East Africa, has become warmer, increasingly stratified and less productive over the past 90 years (refs 1,2). These trends have been attributed to anthropogenic climate change. However, it remains unclear whether the decrease in productivity is linked to the temperature rise3, 4, and whether the twentieth-century trends are anomalous within the context of longer-term variability. Here, we use the TEX86 temperature proxy, the weight per cent of biogenic silica and charcoal abundance from Lake Tanganyika sediment cores to reconstruct lake-surface temperature, productivity and regional wildfire frequency, respectively, for the past 1,500 years. We detect a negative correlation between lake-surface temperature and primary productivity, and our estimates of fire frequency, and hence humidity, preclude decreased nutrient input through runoff as a cause for observed periods of low productivity. We suggest that, throughout the past 1,500 years, rising lake-surface temperatures increased the stratification of the lake water column, preventing nutrient recharge from below and limiting primary productivity. Our records indicate that changes in the temperature of Lake Tanganyika in the past few decades exceed previous natural variability. We conclude that these unprecedented temperatures and a corresponding decrease in productivity can be attributed to anthropogenic global warming, with potentially important implications for the Lake Tanganyika fishery.

It's a standard "ends justify the means" approach, which is clearly evident in much of what goes on with climate science.

Supply some of this "clearly evident" stuff.

You do realize you just smeared an entire community, don't you?

True, science isn't my field, so after school, I have not spent much time on the terms used on going from idea, to theory, to ??, to proven theory.

So, based on your explanation, AGW is probably barely even at the theory stage, and certainly is far from proven.

Sigh. Science is never "proven". That's another mistake non-scientists make.

Care to give us a walk through history and list all of the "consensus" scientific theories (of which this is not a true consensus, anyway) that turned out to be mostly or completely debunked?

There are lots of them - and they were shown wrong because other theories explained the observations better, or more elegantly. So far, the "skeptics" haven't proffered a theory that does better than AGW to explain the observations. Indeed, many of their theories contradict each other, or, at best, only partially explain the observations, or, fail to explain some observations at all.

For example, if all the observed climate changes are driven solely by the sun, why is the stratosphere cooling? Why is the ocean acidifying?

Even without the fact that just because a given theory is popular today, doesn't mean it is correct, we are left with the fact that even within the current interglacial (a small blip of time in the earth's history), we have warming and sea levels that are significantly higher than today.

I'd like to see some cites.

[Boomhauer]

1) The accepted value for pre-industrial CO2 concentration is 280 ppm, as you noted <a href="http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3211622&postcount=136">in this post</a>.

2) Your "natural high mark" is for a relatively short period - CO2 has been much higher over geologic time.

3) Without CO2 (and the other GHGs), H2O would condense out as precipitation, dropping its concentration so low that it would cease to be an effective GHG.

4) What is "greater convective loss through the upper atmosphere"? Convection primarily takes place in the lower atmosphere. What is "environmental osmosis"? What would precipitation changes have on H2O, CO2?

5) Where did you get this "0.0975%" value? ... "CO2 levels can only raise average temps by 0.015°C"? How is that value derived? Where does this "theoretic increase was 0.0°C" come from? ... "CO2 only able to account for, at best, 2% of global temperature rise"?

Re1) As noted; I dangled that 'well accepted' fallacy, along with an early 2000's figure, as bait for posers which you promptly gobbled up - balls deep I may add. Though 280ppmv may be the CO2 level just before industrialization, that doesn't mean any rise after is attributed to industrialization.

Re2) That's a pretty retarded argument, like considering the temp extremes over a full year to to guess what tomorrow will be. For that, you'd consider July temp extremes.

Re3) That's a flat-out lie and shows you have no understanding of atmospheric processes. Even without GHGs other than water, Earth would have a precipitation cycle, greenhouse effect and remain above 0*C. See; Sublimation

Re4) Each is self explanatory, if you new what the terms meant. The rest, again, shows your understanding is non-existent, only parroting political garbage.

Re5) That's called math and you'd be able to do it yourself if you'd passed 3rd grade.

[W*GS]

Re1) As noted; I dangled that 'well accepted' fallacy, along with an early 2000's figure, as bait for posers which you promptly gobbled up - balls deep I may add. Though 280ppmv may be the CO2 level just before industrialization, that doesn't mean any rise after is attributed to industrialization.

Who *ever* said that *all* the CO2 increase from 280 ppm to 390 ppm has been due only to industrialization?

Strawman on your part.

Re2) That's a pretty retarded argument, like considering the temp extremes over a full year to to guess what tomorrow will be. For that, you'd consider July temp extremes.

I don't get your analogy. You claimed 325 ppm was a "natural high mark", but CO2 has been many times higher at times in the distant past.

Again, you picked 325 ppm out of the blue just to make your argument "work".

Re3) That's a flat-out lie and shows you have no understanding of atmospheric processes. Even without GHGs other than water, Earth would have a precipitation cycle, greenhouse effect and remain above 0*C. See; Sublimation

How does an endothermic reaction increase temperatures?

You're going to have to substantiate your "flat-out lie" with some evidence - do you have cites to literature that provide evidence? One thing you didn't consider - suppose we remove all the GHGs from the atmosphere. As the temperature drops, H2O must condense out - but note that the heat released does not replace the energy lost from the removal of GHGs. Eventually, the temp will drop low enough that it will snow - polar areas at first, but spreading equatorward. As the ground becomes covered in snow, the albedo will go up - thereby reducing the effective incoming solar. It's a positive feedback. Eventually, virtually all the H2O will be removed from the atmosphere, most of the land surface will be white, and nearly all the incoming solar will be reflected.

Re4) Each is self explanatory, if you new what the terms meant. The rest, again, shows your understanding is non-existent, only parroting political garbage.

I've been careful to explain my comments and claims; you seem to be of the school of "You're too dumb to understand and I'm not telling", which isn't very educational, and comes off as mere dodging, because you yourself really don't know.

Re5) That's called math and you'd be able to do it yourself if you'd passed 3rd grade.

So show the math. I have.

I must say I'm not very impressed by your bird-slipping style of discussion.

[Spider]

Poor Boomhauer.

If the mane had a ref , he would have stopped the beatdown boom and Tned are taking

[Boomhauer]

Who *ever* said that *all* the CO2 increase from 280 ppm to 390 ppm has been due only to industrialization?
Strawman on your part.

... Eventually, the temp will drop low enough that it will snow - polar areas at first, but spreading equatorward. As the ground becomes covered in snow, the albedo will go up - thereby reducing the effective incoming solar. It's a positive feedback. Eventually, virtually all the H2O will be removed from the atmosphere, most of the land surface will be white, and nearly all the incoming solar will be reflected.

earlier; (Again, making your argument big and bold doesn't make it stronger).

1) Strawman is right. I never said such, but you did; "...we know that the ~40% increase in CO2 over the last ~150 years is from our burning of fossil fuels." You've done a great job showing honesty and credibility, along with education and intelligence, aren't traits of yours. Probably why you love to cheerlead false CO2 = global warming hysteria.
2) Misinformation. Seems you don't know what sublimation is, even after I pointed it out. I understand why not, it's science.
3) Why would you imply I think it does? What makes you think highlighting was directed at you? They're headlines for others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W*GS, talk about a hole in one.
http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/h/happy_gilmore-10587.jpg
http://www.whiskeyforbreakfast.com/pics/post29/monocle1.jpg

[Boomhauer]

Should list all the 'facts' F*GS has given us;

- Admitted to not being in any way educated in environmental sciences.
- Repeatedly shown a clear lack of basic science fundamentals and important specifics.
- Standardized the use of lies, strawman and red herring arguments instead of scientific arguments.

- Shown no calculations or valid arguments, yet demanded such of others.
- Given no explanation for why warming isn't even across the globe, as would be the case if it was atmospheric.

- Main argument is the climate community (which sounds very much like 'them', not 'we') has found no reason for global warming, and CO2 has risen with mankind''s industrialization, so it must be CO2.
- Has not addressed all the other sources for global warming, only made a red herring argument for CO2.
- Secondary argument is big bad corporations and righties are all deniers that haven't looked at facts.

F*GS = Epic Poser

[W*GS]

Methinks Boomhauer needs a vacation...

[W*GS]

Should list all the 'facts' F*GS has given us;

Do you really need to use big fonts and attempts at insults ("F*GS")? That does your cred no good, you know.

- Admitted to not being in any way educated in environmental sciences.

Well, no. What are your qualifications? From what I've read, it's a mishmash of various science-y sounding stuff, but without any genuine understanding.

- Repeatedly shown a clear lack of basic science fundamentals and important specifics.

How so? Be specific. What have I written that's so blatantly wrong? And, please, use some references other than just your say-so. Based on your performance so far, I don't believe anyone is impressed. Any moron can shout (which is what you do, basically).

- Standardized the use of lies, strawman and red herring arguments instead of scientific arguments.

How so? Be specific.

You're the one tossing out all kinds of unsupported assertions, vague and ill-defined terms and calculations (without references) and the like; I've asked you to provide some evidence for your positions, and all you've done in response is have a temper tantrum.

- Shown no calculations or valid arguments, yet demanded such of others.

Wrong. Remember how I showed how CO2 has increased 40%? You tried something similar, but merely picked numbers to make your claims "work". That's not persuasive.

- Given no explanation for why warming isn't even across the globe, as would be the case if it was atmospheric.

Who *ever* said warming would be equal across the entire globe? Can you provide a quote from someone who did? I'd be most obliged.

- Main argument is the climate community (which sounds very much like 'them', not 'we') has found no reason for global warming, and CO2 has risen with mankind''s industrialization, so it must be CO2.

Increasing CO2 from our burning of fossil fuels fits the observations best; until you and the other deniers can come up with something *better* (and it must explain *all* observations, not just the ones you deem important), then we use what we have. Like I pointed out, even the deniers can't agree - and some of their "theories" directly contradict others.

Perhaps you can try. I'm not optimistic that you can.

- Has not addressed all the other sources for global warming, only made a red herring argument for CO2.

So what other sources do you have in mind? I've read vague claims, without any evidence or support, so I've not had a whole lot to go on, from you. Do you want to try again?

- Secondary argument is big bad corporations and righties are all deniers that haven't looked at facts.

Not really - I've tried to stick to the science, dipping only into the motivations of those who would deny it when I thought appropriate.

F*GS = Epic Poser

Again, your statements don't really count for much. About all they've been is personal attacks and utterly unsubstantiated claims, despite multiple opportunities to provide some sort of corroboration. You've never provided any, so far as I've seen.

[W*GS]

1) Strawman is right. I never said such, but you did; "...we know that the ~40% increase in CO2 over the last ~150 years is from our burning of fossil fuels."

That explanation works best. Do you have another, that also takes into account all the other observations?

You've done a great job showing honesty and credibility, along with education and intelligence, aren't traits of yours. Probably why you love to cheerlead false CO2 = global warming hysteria.

How have I been hysterical? I'm not the one using big fonts, colors, and lame attempts at insults. That would be you.

2) Misinformation. Seems you don't know what sublimation is, even after I pointed it out. I understand why not, it's science.

I don't understand how sublimation matters. All you wrote was just the word, with no explanation as to its relevance. Perhaps you can do so now.

3) Why would you imply I think it does? What makes you think highlighting was directed at you? They're headlines for others.

You're seeking popular approval or rep from others. I'm seeking the truth.

Which really matters?

[Boomhauer]

Without CO2 (and the other GHGs), H2O would condense out as precipitation, dropping its concentration so low that it would cease to be an effective GHG.
...and...
... the temp will drop low enough that it will snow - polar areas at first, but spreading equatorward. ... Eventually, virtually all the H2O will be removed from the atmosphere, most of the land surface will be white, and nearly all the incoming solar will be reflected.
...and...
I don't understand how sublimation matters. All you wrote was just the word, with no explanation as to its relevance. Perhaps you can do so now.


That bold part clearly shows you don't know what the heck you're talking about, just reciting script. Here's the easily accessible Wikipedia - Sublimation. How could something so obvious get by someone that claims to know what he's talking about?

"Water - Snow and ice sublime, although more slowly, below the melting point temperature. This allows wet cloth to be hung outdoors in freezing weather and retrieved later in a dry state. In freeze-drying the material to be dehydrated is frozen and its water is allowed to sublime under reduced pressure or vacuum. The loss of snow from a snowfield during a cold spell is often caused by sunshine acting directly on the upper layers of the snow. ..."

F*GS pwned again, and again, and again..........etc

[tnedator]

Analogies aren't fallacies.



Technically, a weak analogy is a logical fallacy, but yours have gone beyond that. If you want to dance in this arena, and claim you have not been using them, while accusing others of the same, I'll point them out down the road when I have time.

Yes and no.

True, in geologic terms, 150 years is epsilon. However, you now need to realize that most nonanthropogenic drivers of climate change operate on far far longer timescales, so, by harping on 150 years being too short a period to assess a trend, you automagically dismiss virtually all nonanthropogenic drivers, because we have indeed observed significant climate changes in that 150-year timespan.


There have been nonantro drivers that have taken place over smaller time frames. The last phase of the little ice age, for instance, was about 70 years (going by memory). There are many examples of wild climate changes lasting 70-400 years within the current interglacial.

Still doesn't preclude that we're changing the climate now.


Nor does anything prove that we are changing the climate now (or that we are the primary driver of change).

The warming didn't stop - remember, 2010 was a record warm year.
There was at least 10 year period where temperatures didn't increase, therefore warming stopped. Remaining at the higher temp level is not the same as continuing to warm.

Now, we are waiting to see if the warming pause from '98-'08 continues, or if the temps begin to rise again (your position with the '10 comments) or begins to cool.

However, stating that temps didn't stop rising for 10 years is wrong.

What would cause "natural warming", if not manmade GHGs? What are you left with? The sun, alone, pretty much. Do you expect solar activity to increase over the next few cycles? That would put you at odds with some in the solar science community, who believe we may be heading for a period of decreased solar activity.


Quite the contrary, I think it's very likely that the sun will experience a period of low activity. Hence, my position is that a lot of today's arguments will get flushed out over the next 5-15 years, if the sun does transition into a sustained minimum. If this happens, and we have another Dalton, or worse, a Maunder, and temperatures begin to rise again rather than fall, then I think a legitimate case for AGW can be made. That will finally show a true reversal of past observations of the sun and temperature.

There are other scientists using other proxies that broadly confirm Mann's results. Are these other scientists also engaging in dishonest tactics?


I have not doubt that some would, because as the CRU emails showed, there is a group that conducts their 'science' in a very insidious way. That said, I am sure that there are many others that try and remain pure.

It's one of the reasons people shouldn't be picking and choosing when trying to get policymakers to change whole economies. For example, if there are 3 studies of different proxies that should result A, and 11 studies of different proxies that show result B, you shouldn't choose only to use the result A studies when making your case.

Don't you think that if "sea levels have been significantly higher than today" in "even the last couple thousand years", we would know about it, directly, without proxies? We have written records from all over the planet over that period. Don't you think someone would have written it down? Likewise, there are many places on the coasts that have been continuously inhabited over that period.

There are many studies and accounts of higher sea levels of the last few thousand years. Here are a couple studies.


Geomorphic evidence for mid–late Holocene higher sea level from
southeastern Australia
Adam D. Switzer a,*, Craig R. Sloss b, Brian G. Jones c, Charles S. Bristowd

An elevated sheltered pocket beach sequence at Batemans Bay, NSW, Australia, composed of shelly
fine- to medium-grained sand provides geomorphic evidence of higher than present sea level during the
mid–late Holocene. The sequence is composed of a sand facies with variable amounts of shell and
contains a number of well-defined dipping reflectors identified in ground penetrating radar (GPR)
profiles indicative of a small prograded beach system. This beach succession is overlain by storm or
tsunami deposits. The beach deposit accumulated between 2500 and 5000 cal BP under relatively high
energy conditions within a more open immature estuary during a period of higher sea level. Both
deposits have been preserved by a low energy mangrove facies that accumulated after the recent fall in
sea level cut off ocean wave activity from the area approximately 2000–2500 cal BP. This beach sequence
provides new evidence for a period of higher sea level 1–1.5 m higher than present that lasted until at
least c. 2000–2500 cal BP and adds complementary geomorphic evidence for the mid to late Holocene
sea-level highstand previously identified along other parts of the southeast Australian coast using
other methods.

Testing models of mid to late Holocene sea-level change, North Queensland, Australia.

Woodroffe, S. A. (2009) 'Testing models of mid to late Holocene sea-level change, North Queensland, Australia.', Quaternary science reviews., 28 (23-24). pp. 2474-2488.

Abstract

Understanding the nature of global ice-equivalent eustatic sea-level changes during the mid to late Holocene is important to our understanding of how ice sheets will respond to future climate change. This study re-analyses the indicative meaning and age control of existing relative sea-level (RSL) data from Cleveland Bay, North Queensland, Australia and presents new RSL data from a foraminifera-based transfer function as a preliminary test of global geophysical models in this region during the mid to late Holocene. The foraminifera-based transfer function produces reliable RSL estimates, consistent through the mid to late Holocene at different locations in Cleveland Bay. Analysis of the combined RSL database reveals that RSL rose above present between 8 and 6.2 ka cal. BP, with the peak of the sea-level highstand c. 2.8 m above present at c. 5 ka cal. BP, remaining relatively stable above +1.5 m from 6.2 until at least 2.3 ka cal. BP, falling to present in the last millennia. This long period of sea level above present in the mid to late Holocene suggests a gradual rather than abrupt end to global ice melt, which must have continued into the late Holocene. This new analysis also shows no evidence for episodic fluctuations within the highstand, although they cannot be entirely ruled out by this study. This study demonstrates that more sea-level data needs to be collected from locations uncontaminated by glacio-isostasy, hydro-isostasy and tectonic effects, in order to better constrain the late Holocene melt histories of the large polar ice sheets


You need to define what you mean by "significantly higher". 1m? 10cm? 10m? 50m?


At this rate, I would say 1-5 meters are so. That is based on the sea level rise claimed by some (.5 - 2 centimeters per year) and extending that over time. Even at the debated 2 centimeter rise, it would take 100 years to get a 2 meter rise in sea levels (200 years based on the .5 number). Therefore, 1.5+ meters is significant.


It's all a matter of timescale. If we pick the entire age of the earth, we can easily say it's been much warmer and sea levels much higher. As we reduce the time period to shorter and shorter lengths, it becomes much more difficult to claim that's been warmer or sea levels higher. Reduce that period to the existence of human civilization, and it's just about impossible to claim that today's climate has existed in that time.

We have not seen, nor can we deduce, such a rapid rate of climate change as has been observed in the last century or so.

Be precise. You have not seen or reduced the climate change of the last 100 years in how many years before that?

We know what drives the major changes in sea level over the timescales of millenia - glaciation and deglaciation. For longer periods, it's plate tectonics. The planet is indeed deglaciating, but not because of nonanthropogenic forcings, because the rate is far too high. It's because we're changing the system to retain more energy by our increases in GHGs. Period.

Not period. This is still s supposition/theory that is being proven. At this point in time, it is not a given that the deglaciation is being driven fully, or even significantly by AGW.


Yes, sometimes people perform improper attributions, or do so with very weak evidence.

Yep.

Merely counting "years above average" and "years below average" and using that as a metric makes no sense, since you're leaving out the magnitude of the difference. Would you say that in a group of three numbers, say

-5, 0, 104 (mean = 33)

That since two values were below average, and only one above, that the 104 is "outweighed" by the -5 and 0?


I understand that and it's the power of the statistics games you guys can play with in proving your idea, but that doesn't change the fact that the rapid warming and time above the average is a blip, a few decades. It is not clear whether it will stay here, increase or decrease in the coming decades.

No other nonanthropogenic factor has yet been found that can explain what we have observed changing in the climate system - and it's not just increasing temps, too.


Not entirely true, because you have discounted previous non-antho cycles that have taken place for thousands of years and beyond.


Like I said, I'm not an expert on paleoclimate, but I would claim, based on what I have read, that such a statement is probably true. There are some folks claiming that the Holocene is over - what we are in now should be called the Anthropocene, because of what we've been doing to the earth system.


That is true believer speak or propaganda speak, and nothing more. Snake oil sales tactics aside, what does that actually mean?

What exactly is going to happen in our new Anthropocene that hasn't happened in this current interglacial or past ones? Are we going to prevent the next round of glaciation (most humans would consider that a good thing)? or, are we going to speed up how soon it happens?

Be specific, what does that mean?

When you have a chance, find your references.


I will.

Again, whether or not the MWP was warmer than today isn't the critical piece of science that if it was shown incontrovertibly true, the entire edifice of AGW would come crashing down. It's not the mountain, it's a molehill.


It's a mountain from two perspectives.

First, if the medieval or Roman warming periods were as warm or warmer than today, it goes a long way to show the propaganda nature of the hockey stick and claims of "warmer now than ever before."

Second, and arguably worst, is that it shows a collusion by the top names in climate science who were attempting to hide data that didn't make their case.

Besides, as I've shown, the stolen emails are not where one acquires knowledge about the science.


No, it's just a place to see the dishonest and insidious nature of some "scientists."

Sigh. Take a look at this:


Yes there are a number of studies showing that outcome, while there are many showing a different outcome. Which begs the question of why.

[cutthemdown]

It was hot today!. Who let out the extra Co2?

[Boomhauer]

A CO2=Global Warming parallel: The Planet Nibiru
Quotes from Believers In Mysterious Planet Nibiru Await Earth's End 07.07.2011 used to show similar logical fallacies and intent to profit off the gullible.

-snips- "Renowned astrophysicist Carl Sagan once described a "baloney detection kit" — a set of tools that skeptical thinkers use to investigate any new concept. A few of the key tools include a healthy distrust of information that isn't independently verified, critically assessing an idea rather than becoming irrationally attached to it simply because it's intriguing, and a preference for simple explanations over wildly speculative ones.

The waxing obsession with Nibiru, which conspiracy theorists say is a planet swinging in from the outskirts of our solar system that is going to crash into Earth and wipe out humanity in 2012 — or, in some opinions, 2011 — shows that an astonishing number of people "are watching YouTube videos and visiting slick websites with nothing in their skeptical toolkit," in the words of David Morrison, a planetary astronomer at NASA Ames Research Center and senior scientist at the NASA Astrobiology Institute.
...
The Nibiru conspiracies are so nonsensical that Morrison wonders whether even their purveyors believe them. Because many websites sell Nibiru books, tapes and even "survival kits," Morrison thinks they are purposely taking advantage of people who aren't able to distinguish credible sources from crackpot ones. ..."

Full article at: http://www.space.com/12194-comet-elenin-planet-nibiru-doomsday-2012.html

[W*GS]

A CO2=Global Warming parallel: The Planet Nibiru

How so?

Just your say-so? Again?

I've asked you a number of questions, replied to every point you tried to make with the truth, and you persist in being deceitful and ignorant.

What's your problem?

[W*GS]

That bold part clearly shows you don't know what the heck you're talking about, just reciting script. Here's the easily accessible Wikipedia - Sublimation. How could something so obvious get by someone that claims to know what he's talking about?

I know what sublimation is. How is it relevant on the subject of AGW?

Think of it this way - if sublimation could replace evaporation in the hydrological cycle, then how come Antarctica is the driest continent? Shouldn't there be huge dumps of snow there, all the time? Since we know there is not, then sublimation runs a very poor second to evaporation in maintaining the hydrological cycle.

[tnedator]

Wags, I know you are not a fan of Watts, but in regards to the topic of badly placed sensors, you might want to read this post relating to a conversation among NOAA guys about faulty and badly placed sensors.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/07/record-highs-noaa-staffers-are-beginning-to-doubt-the-measurment-system/

[W*GS]

Wags, I know you are not a fan of Watts, but in regards to the topic of badly placed sensors, you might want to read this post relating to a conversation among NOAA guys about faulty and badly placed sensors.

The interesting thing is that the satellite observations track those derived from surface stations very well, and, the analysis that NOAA does of the USHCN matches the USCRN extremely well over the same period of record.

Watts' entire "global warming comes only from badly sited stations" claim is crap.

[tnedator]

The interesting thing is that the satellite observations track those derived from surface stations very well, and, the analysis that NOAA does of the USHCN matches the USCRN extremely well over the same period of record.

Watts' entire "global warming comes only from badly sited stations" claim is crap.

All of it, yea, I agree it's crap. i posted that for you, to see that there are issues with stations. Whether it's so small as to be insignificant or not, that's another question.

There is also question as to excluding some station data. I know there was some question as to Mann, Jones, Hansen (not sure exactly which studies/hockey stick this was in) selectively using station data from China and Australia to make it appear warmer than it has been. I don't have time now to look for those links, but I'm sure you remember when that came up.

[W*GS]

Are the logical fallacies and misrepresentations in that post due to ignorance or are they lies?

Which post is "that post"?

You seem to believe sublimation will maintain the hydrologic cycle in a system in which the atmosphere contains no GHGs. Do you evidence for that?

[W*GS]

All of it, yea, I agree it's crap. i posted that for you, to see that there are issues with stations. Whether it's so small as to be insignificant or not, that's another question.

I already posted a link to the Menne et.al. analysis; other than having a hissy fit about it, Watts never read it. Perhaps he read it, but didn't understand it.

Watts will keep raising bogus issues and trumpeting irrelevancies because that's what his fanboys want. Never mind the science - Watts doesn't do science, he does entertainment. He's channeling Rush - truth be damned.

There is also question as to excluding some station data. I know there was some question as to Mann, Jones, Hansen (not sure exactly which studies/hockey stick this was in) selectively using station data from China and Australia to make it appear warmer than it has been. I don't have time now to look for those links, but I'm sure you remember when that came up.

IIRC, there was some question about some station data in China that Jones used (Mann and Hansen had nothing to do with it). But, once again, the denier blogosphere made a big noise about it, but in the end, it amounted to nothing - as per usual.

Besides, the Clear Climate Code project has replicated the GISTEMP analysis, and others, even some residents of the denier blogosphere, have done so. Watts' tactic of flogging away at the surface station record is a total non-starter, but he's put so much of his credibility (not that he's ever had much) into it that he can't back down, no matter how idiotic it makes him look. Watts is playing games, that's about it.

[tnedator]

I already posted a link to the Menne et.al. analysis; other than having a hissy fit about it, Watts never read it. Perhaps he read it, but didn't understand it.

Watts will keep raising bogus issues and trumpeting irrelevancies because that's what his fanboys want. Never mind the science - Watts doesn't do science, he does entertainment. He's channeling Rush - truth be damned.



IIRC, there was some question about some station data in China that Jones used (Mann and Hansen had nothing to do with it). But, once again, the denier blogosphere made a big noise about it, but in the end, it amounted to nothing - as per usual.

Besides, the Clear Climate Code project has replicated the GISTEMP analysis, and others, even some residents of the denier blogosphere, have done so. Watts' tactic of flogging away at the surface station record is a total non-starter, but he's put so much of his credibility (not that he's ever had much) into it that he can't back down, no matter how idiotic it makes him look. Watts is playing games, that's about it.

This is one of the biggest issues I have with trying to have a discussion with liberals like you. Rather than simply try and discuss things, you have to minimize, ridicule and discredit anyone that disagrees with you -- whether it be fellow posters are otherwise.

[W*GS]

This is one of the biggest issues I have with trying to have a discussion with liberals like you. Rather than simply try and discuss things, you have to minimize, ridicule and discredit anyone that disagrees with you -- whether it be fellow posters are otherwise.

The litany of errors, ignorance, and outright lies spread by Watts would take hours to digest. He's declared AGW dead so many times it's a pathetic joke.

At some point, you have to see him for what he is - a fraud and a charlatan. He has done absolutely nothing to advance the science. He's a mere nuisance who plays to his ignorant audience, basking in their approval of his antics.

Watts is a pud.

[W*GS]

That water vapor is a GHG? - Are you saying you don't, or don't think so?

Yes, water vapor is a GHG. What happens when it condenses out because the air is cold, as will happen when all other GHGs are removed?

Are you familiar with the recent climate model experiment that did just that?

[Boomhauer]

What happens when [water vapor] condenses out because the air is cold...
Are you familiar with the recent climate model experiment that did just that?

Already informed you, that's an impossibility due to sublimation. I'm familiar with a number of "Snowball Earth" studies, none of which accurately account for sublimation of snow/ice on the ground. One even based their argument on sublimation at .0001m/yr ~ only short about 5 x10^4 ~ because they didn't account for the main driver of sublimation. Also didn't account for sublimation occurring in the atmosphere, preventing condensation. Science that bad is SOP for CO2 hysterics.

*edit: Should have quantified that 5m/yr figure of surface sublimation even though I stated I've seen no studies that accurately account for sublimation on a global scale proposed. Figure based on my latitude during winter under clear skies. Equatorial regions and my latitude during summer would be higher, but even that doesn't account for clouds.

[W*GS]

Already informed you, that's an impossibility due to sublimation.

What's the rate of sublimation of ice compared to the rate of evaporation of liquid water in terms of kg m-2 s-1?

I'm familiar with a number of "Snowball Earth" studies, none of which accurately account for sublimation of frozen water.

According to whom?

One even based their argument on sublimation at .0001m/yr ~ only short about 5 x10^4 ~ because they didn't account for the main driver of sublimation.

Cites for both values, please.

What's the "main driver of sublimation"?

[Boomhauer]

...What's the "main driver of sublimation"? Cites for both values, please.

First, If you're hoping I'll explain what you already said you don't understand, you're SOL for being too far retarded.
Second, that's the same logical failure you posed earlier ~ asking to disprove a fallacy. Show one accurate study or calculation for CO2 induced global warming or H2O "condensing" out of the atmosphere to create a Snowball Earth. You haven't yet and I know you can't because none exist, only diarrhea of the mouth you want others to disprove. May as well say aliens are responsible and ask that be disproven ... Oh yeah, you did that too.

Despite my recommendation you stop embarrassing yourself with such idiotic statements, claims and logical failures, you just can't seem to help rowing your failboat in circles of the same failed arguments. see: 'too far retarded'. Like LB-BF'ers partisan lunacy, you do a great disservice to the cause you claim and prevent any discussion on problems that need addressing.

[W*GS]

That's the same logical failure you posed earlier ~ asking to disprove a fallacy.

How is asking you to provide references for your claims "disprove a fallacy"? You keep tossing out numbers seemingly pulled from left field, and asking you for sources isn't asking too much.

Show one accurate study or calculation for CO2 induced global warming

Start with Arrhenius.

or H2O "condensing" out of the atmosphere to create a Snowball Earth.

Do you know that there's a relationship between air temperature and the amount of water vapor a parcel of air can hold?

You haven't yet and I know you can't because none exist, only diarrhea of the mouth you want others to disprove. May as well say aliens are responsible and ask that be disproven ... Oh yeah, you did that too.

I haven't asked you to disprove much of anything - I *have* asked you to provide references and sources for your claims, which you have only rarely done.

[W*GS]

Your earlier post, shown below, makes it seem you do not. Me calling you out on it seems I do.

The only reason I posed the Antarctica question was because it's not clear to me that you understand the relationship between temperature and water vapor capacity.

You stated two numbers earlier - ".0001m/yr" and "only short about 5 x10^4". What are your sources for those values?

If the air is too cold, then it can hold only a very small amount of water vapor. Not only that, evaporation virtually ceases and only sublimation can take place. You seem to think that sublimation from ice can replaced evaporation from liquid water in the hydrological cycle, so H2O content in the atmosphere will remain high enough for H2O to be an effective GHG.

I find your idea interesting, because it's in direct contradiction to what we know. Would you be willing to provide some references for your beliefs, rather than the usual handwaving, misdirection, and lame insults?

Thanks.

[W*GS]

Re1) Interesting backtrack, but a lie as that was the first time the issue was brought up - clearly meant as deception and misinformation - and I called you out on it.

Hunh? What was the lie? What was the "deception and misinformation"? You keep claiming those sorts of things, but so vaguely it's not clear what it is that I said that you're calling out. Can you try to be more specific?

Re2) Considering your words from earlier "BTW, do you know how CO2 lasers work?", it seems the facts of sublimation is in "direct contradiction to what [you] know."

Another "Hunh?" You're just spraying stuff all over the place, making random comments that aren't connected to each other in any reasonable way that I can see.

I'm not interested in inane game-playing. Since you've accused me of lying, without evidence, and claimed that the entire science of manmade climate change is also a lie, without evidence, it's become clear to me that you're just monkeying around. Until you can grow up and decide to be mature, quit posting on this thread.

[W*GS]

Re1) Specifically ~ about 95% of what you've posted in this thread is diarhea of the mouth.

How is it what I've written lies, "deception and misinformation"? Just because it's lengthy doesn't mean it's wrong. And the subject is complicated - and I've tried to explain as clearly as I can. Not everything fits on a bumper sticker.

Re2) Another lie. I've stated explicitly that man is warming the planet.

Only by ill-defined and vague comments about "industrialization", and you've made it clear you believe CO2 has nothing to do with manmade climate change.

Please explain more of this theory of yours for anthropogenic global warming, that has nothing to do with the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion, that explains better all the observations.

Re3) It's clear from your total lack of understanding and policies of lies, misinformation and misinterpretation that "game-playing" and "monkeying around" is your MO, just like LB-BF'er. What should be clear, considering my statement it's a waste discussing science with you, is this is a "F*GS Pwned Thread" now that I've used to "spar" or study and test your system, understanding and processes while mimicking your "style" to better learn it and avoid revealing all of mine.

Whatever - declaring yourself the winner (and with an ulterior motive) doesn't mean much, since you've dodged most all of my questions, meandering from ill-defined point to vague assertion all the while. It's very difficult to understand your argument, even the points you've tried to make, because there isn't any coherence.

F*GS = still getting epically pwned, along with his system.

Believe what you want. Reality is something else.

[W*GS]

In other words, you're running away...

I'm interested in your claims, and the evidence supporting them, but you've never supplied a thing. Rather difficult to debate someone who just makes up ****.

[W*GS]

Pot, meet kettle. Nice try F*GS, but I'm still your huckleberry.

You keep claiming I'm lying, but never offer evidence to show that I am.

You just handwave, dodge, and assert without proof. You're just 'bating, not debating.

[Boomhauer]

You keep claiming I'm lying, but never offer evidence to show that I am.
You just handwave, dodge, and assert without proof. You're just 'bating, not debating.

Pot, meet kettle. Nice try F*GS, but I'm still your huckleberry. If you were looking for insight, not getting beatdown, you should have changed your game. Too late now sucka. :lombardi:

[W*GS]

Now you're just getting repetitious.

Good-bye. Enjoy being ignored from now on.

[Boomhauer]

http://media.247sports.com/Uploads/Boards/968/20968/140394.jpg