Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming a Hoax?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
    Again, as with yesterday, my schedule prevents me from giving a detailed response until later, but you guys bring up a few interesting (if a bit misguided) points.

    For one thing, thanks to all posters (in particular G David Bock and Savez) for citing actual evidence this time, instead of just opinions.

    With regard to AGW and animal life, the situation pertains to the organisms of the here and now, and their inability to adapt rapidly enough to the pace of climate change AGW is contributing to.

    BTW, this is more than just the 'save the Polar Bears' spiel that many are preaching about (Polar Bears actually do not truly constitute their own separate species, they are more a subgroup of Brown Bears).

    With regard to the sun, G David Bock is mostly correct in terms of the sun's effect on the climate, but he cites this information out of context (again, I will expound upon these issues later.)

    The "Global Cooling" craze of the '70s was largely media hyping a group of scientists that was even then in the minority (much of my response will be dedicated to this topic).

    I will get back to you in about 7 hours...
    Understand the schedule thing, have one of my own. As for "misguided" that seems to be a subjective and perspective matter on this topic.

    Coming from an exo-biology perspective the Sun's influence could hardly be out of context, without it and it's energy output, there is no life on Earth.

    The main foundation of AGW/ACC is the issue of CO2 levels. 400 ppmv, "dry atmosphere" works out to only 0.04% of atmosphere supposedly retaining heat enough to cause/increase warming. Yet it seems the other 99.96% of atmosphere that's not retaining heat is of no consequence.

    There's also the frequent mis-statement of CO2 being a "pollutant" yet it is a basic ingredient of the atmosphere and an essential one for over 99% of the biomass of life on this planet.

    So when you get back, consider the numbers and consider finding proof, not learned opinions, that the metaphorical twitching hair (0.04% CO2) is wagging the tail that shakes the dog, the other 99.96%
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    Comment


    • #92
      "How high's the water, MaMa?"

      "Four foot high and risin..."

      Old Southern folk song
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post

        [...]

        With that out of the way, let's continue:
        There is actually quite a lot of evidence that the Sun and its modulation of cosmic radiation is the primary driver of Holocene climate change. I'll post more on this later.



        Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
        You continue to reference Ljungqvist as a means to debunk the notion that we are currently in an anomalous warming period relative to the past, as well as to refute the findings of Mann et al.
        I can also use Moberg et al, 2005, Esper et al, 2003, Loehle 2007, McIntyre & McKitrick 2004, 2005 & 2009, O'Donnell et al, 2011, McKitrick et al, 2010, McIntyre et al, 2011 or any other non-hockey stick reconstruction.

        Once again, from Esper et al, 2005 in Quaternary Science Reviews...
        So, what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger (Esper et al., 2002; Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; Moberget al., 2005) or smaller (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999) temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future predicted scenarios. If that turns out to be the case, agreements such as the Kyoto protocol that intend to reduce emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, would be less effective than thought.

        Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
        Let's see what Ljungqvist himself has to say about this:
        “Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.”


        The reconstructions are in general agreement. The difference is in Mann's fraudulent splicing of the instrumental record onto the end of his reconstruction (Mike's Nature Trick).
        Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
        Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

        I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

        Thanks for the comments, Ray.

        Cheers
        Phil

        Prof. Phil Jones
        Climatic Research Unit

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/2...-nature-trick/

        Mike is Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann. Ray and Macolm were his coauthors on MBH98 and MBH99. Keith is Keith Briffa of the UEAClimatic Research Unit.

        This is one of the "eight emails which... warranted further examination to clarify any possible issues involving the scientific integrity" according to the NOAA OIG report...
        CRU email #1140039406. This email, dated February 15,2006, documented exchanges between several climate scientists, including the Deputy Director of CRU, related to their contributions to chapter six ofthe IPCC AR4. In one such exchange, the Deputy Director of CRU warned his colleagues not to "let [the Co-Chair of AR4 WGl] (or [a researcher at Pennsylvania State University]) push you (us) beyond where we know is right" in terms of stating in the AR4 "conclusions beyond what we can securely justify."

        The CRU's Keith Briffa was warning his colleagues to not allow NOAA's Susan Solomon or Penn State's Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann to coerce them into going along with unsupportable conclusions. This particular e-mail exchange dealt extensively with paleoclimate reconstructions. Briffa also urged his colleagues not to "attack" Anders Moberg, who had recently published a climate reconstruction which actually honored the data and used proper signal processing methods.
        • Susan Solomon is the NOAA official who claimed that NOAA work related to the IPCC was not subject to FOIA.
        • Michael Mann was the lead author of the thoroughly debunked original Hockey Stick.
        • Keith Briffa was the lead author of one of the problematic reconstructions in which "Mike's Nature Trick" was employed to "hide the decline."




        Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
        As for the notion that any point in the Medieval Warming Period was hotter than today:
        Did you get that misquote from SkepSci?
        The decadal mean temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere seem to have equalled or exceeded the AD 1961–1990 mean temperature level during much of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature since AD 1990 is, however, possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia if we look at the CRUTEM3+HadSST2 90–30°N instrumental temperature data (Brohan et al. 2006; Rayner et al. 2006) spliced to the proxy re-construction. The proxy reconstruction itself does not show such an unprecedented warming but we must consider that only a few records used in the reconstruction extend into the 1990s.

        http://www.academia.edu/381635/A_new..._two_millennia


        Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
        But even then, the main point is not the absolute temperature, which, according to Ljungqvist, is higher now than even the peak of the MWP, but rather the rate of warming compared to the historical record.
        Ljungqvist said that "the temperature since AD 1990 is, however, possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia if we look at the instrumental temperature data spliced to the proxy reconstruction." The dashed red curve is the instrumental data set...



        Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
        All this graph shows is the periodicity of the Holocene Climate Cycle. NASA's claim was not that the periodicity of the cycles was being altered, but that the temperature is currently climbing at a speed 10 times greater than the historical average. Nothing to do with the periodicity of the climate cycle.
        It is a power spectrum. The x-axis is period and the y-axis is relative amplitude. The amplitude of the ~60-yr cycle is about 7 times background, The ~1000-yr cycle is about 23 times background.

        The instrumental data always show faster (higher amplitude) temperature variations than the proxy reconstructions...




        Many multi-decadal periods have warmed at 7-13 times the background rate.

        Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
        http://cdiac.ornl.gov/CO2_Emission/gridded

        Click on the image to start the video. Note the sudden crash in emissions by Europe and East Asia just after the arrow crosses "1941."



        [...]
        I don't watch videos. I download data.





        The post-war recession did cause a slight drop in emissions in 1945; however the emissions were above the 20-yr trend line for most of WWII.

        More later.
        Last edited by The Doctor; 11 Feb 15, 17:03.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #94
          I just think all this money spent on global warming research could have been used for something more environmentally worthwhile like saving our wetlands and historical battlefields, not from rising sea levels but strip malls and urban sprawl.
          “I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
          --Salmon P. Chase

          Comment


          • #95
            Public being misled about temperature

            http://humanevents.com/2015/02/11/pu...tm_campaign=nl


            The Global Warming Scandal Is Political; Not Scientific

            http://www.redstate.com/2015/02/10/g...al-scientific/
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
              [...]

              I was responding to the phrasing of the OP.

              We also have yet to address:

              1. Damage to the Ozone layer

              At AGU, NASA says CFC reduction is not shrinking the ozone hole – yet

              Posted on December 11, 2013 by Anthony Watts

              NASA Reveals New Results From Inside the Ozone Hole – Dec. 11, 2013

              NASA scientists have revealed the inner workings of the ozone hole that forms annually over Antarctica and found that declining chlorine in the stratosphere has not yet caused a recovery of the ozone hole.

              More than 20 years after the Montreal Protocol agreement limited human emissions of ozone-depleting substances, satellites have monitored the area of the annual ozone hole and watched it essentially stabilize, ceasing to grow substantially larger. However, two new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size.

              [...]

              http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/1...ing-the-ozone- uhole-yet/


              Well... No schist, Sherlock! The freaking thing is natural...

              The annual thinning of the ozone layer over Antarctica is an artifact of the polar winter. Although it is claimed that the ozone hole didn't exist prior to the 1980's... It has occurred during every Antarctic spring in which anyone was trying to measure it.

              Ozone in the upper atmosphere is created when UV radiation from the Sun strikes oxygen molecules. This leads to the creation of ozone. The ozone layer doesn't so much act as sunscreen as it acts like reactive armor. During the Antarctic winter very little sunlight hits the upper atmosphere over Antarctica and the Antarctic polar vortex prevents much in the way of atmospheric mixing between the polar and higher latitude air masses. This leads to an annual depletion of Antarctic ozone from mid-August through mid-October (late winter to mid spring). As the Antarctic spring transitions to summer, there is more exposure to sunlight and the ozone layer is replenished.

              This process has occurred since the dawn of continuous ozone measurements in 1986. NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory / Global Monitoring Division used to feature a very disingenuous chart on their ozone page.



              Figure 1: NOAA ESRL/GMD South Pole Ozone


              The NOAA ESRL/GMD chart implied that the annual ozone hole did not exist during an earlier period of measurements from 1967-1971. This is wrong. NOAA has replaced this image with one no longer referencing 1967-1971.

              The actual data from 1967-1971 clearly show that the annual ozone hole did exist. It may have been less pronounced at higher altitudes and it may have bottomed out in September rather than October; but it did exist. At low altitude (200 MB and 400 MB) it was nearly identical to the present-day...



              Figure 2: Comparison of 1967-1971 and 1986-1991 Antarctic ozone (Oltmans et al., 1994)


              There are a lot of reasons why earlier measurements differ from the modern data:
              1. The older data were sparsely sampled (1/4 the number of profiles) and the earlier ozonesonde balloons rarely, if ever, reached higher altitudes (40 MB and 25 MB).

              2. The error bars of the two data sets almost overlap.

              3. Natural climate oscillations. 1967-1971 was during a period of global cooling. 1986-1991 was during a period of global warming. Without having a continuous series of profiles across a full wavelength of the ~60-yr PDO/ENSO cycle, it's impossible to know if the annual ozone depletion has a cyclical nature.

              4. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's). It is possible that CFC's did exaggerate the Antarctic ozone hole. However, the data clearly show that CFC's did not create it.

              The ozone hole scare cost many people a lot of money. Refrigerating fluids, particularly in automobile air conditioners, had to be replaced. If you were the owner of a 1980's motor vehicle in need of air conditioner repairs in the 1990's, you may as well have traded your vehicle in; because the cost of repairs became almost prohibitive due to new environmental regulations related to CFC's.

              The economic cost of this particular chapter of environmental junk science was minuscule in comparison to that of the current environmental swindle (anthropogenic global warming)... But this should serve as one more reminder that no one ever bothered to check the work prior to Steve McIntyre's debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick.

              References:

              Data Visualization >> South Pole Ozone Hole >> South Pole Total Column Ozone

              Oltmans, S. J.; Hofmann, D. J.; Komhyr, W. D.; Lathrop, J. A. Ozone vertical profile changes over South Pole. NASA. Goddard Space Flight Center, Ozone in the Troposphere and Stratosphere, Part 2, p 578-581
              Last edited by The Doctor; 12 Feb 15, 06:15.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
                2. Rise in sea levels over the past century

                [IM...G]
                Sea level changes over the past century have been insignificant.

                All of the estimated sea level rise since 1700 is represented by the light blue blob and dark blue line inside the black oval. Sea level isn't doing anything now that it wasn't already doing before All Gore invented global warming. And Holocene sea level changes have been insignificant relative to the Holocene transgression...



                If mankind and our infrastructure adapted to this...



                We can adapt to this without breaking a sweat...



                Particularly since sea level rose just as fast from 1931-1960 as it has risen since 1985...



                Anyone threatened by 6-12 inches of sea level rise over the next 85 years is already being flooded by high tides and/or storm surges. The red areas on this EPA map would be threatened by 1.5 meters of sea level rise.



                Bear in mind the fact that it would take an average rate of sea level rise nearly twice that of the Holocene Transgression for sea level to rise more than 1.5 meters (~5 feet) over the remainder of this century.

                This caused sea level.to rise by ~10 mm/yr for about10,000 years...



                Approximately 52 million cubic kilometers of ice melted during that 10,000 year period.
                52,000,000 km^3 ÷ 10,000 yr = 5,200 km^3/yr
                The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets have recently been estimated to be losing ~213 gigatonnes of ice mass per year (Shepherd et al., 2012).. This is equivalent to 213 km^3/yr.
                5,200 km^3/yr ÷ 213 km^3/yr = 24
                Polar ice sheetts are currently melting at about 1/24th the rate of the Holocene Transgression, if they are actually melting.(see Appendix ).

                Appendix 1. Isostacy, Eustacy, Cycles, Supercycles, Paracycles and Sequence Stratigraphy

                Some have disagreed with the use of the words "cycle" and "oscillation" as they pertain to climate change and sea level. From a purely mathematical standpoint they are correct. Climate and sea level cycles and oscillations are technically quasi-periodic fluctuations. However, cycle and oscillation have become the accepted nomenclature for a wide range of quasi-periodic fluctuations and they are easier words to type.

                Firstly, a couple of definitions:
                Isostacy: 1. n. [Geology]

                The state of gravitational equilibrium between the lithosphere and the asthenosphere of the Earth such that lithospheric plates "float" at a given elevation depending on their thickness. The balance between the elevation of the lithospheric plates and the asthenosphere is achieved by the flowage of the denser asthenosphere. Various hypotheses about isostasy take into account density (Pratt hypothesis), thickness (Airy hypothesis), and pressure variations to explain topographic variations among lithospheric plates. The current model consists of several layers of different density.

                See: asthenosphere, eustasy, isostatic, isostatic correction, lithosphere, plate tectonics, topographic map


                Eustacy: 1. n. [Geology]

                Global sea level variations. Changes in sea level can result from movement of tectonic plates altering the volume of ocean basins, or when changes in climate affect the volume of water stored in glaciers and in polar icecaps. Eustasy affects positions of shorelines and processes of sedimentation, so interpretation of eustasy is an important aspect of sequence stratigraphy.

                See: accommodation, basin, hiatus, isostasy, Milankovitch cycles, plate tectonics, regression, sequence stratigraphy, systems tract, transgression


                Simply put... Isostasy is the land moving up and down; while eustasy is the water moving up and down.

                And now, the pièce de résistance... Cycles, Supercycles, Paracycles and Sequence Stratigraphy!



                For a detailed explanation of "relative changes of sea level from coastal onlap" see the following...

                C.E. Clayton, ed., Seismic stratigraphy - applications to hydrocarbon exploration: Tulsa, Oklahoma, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 26, p. 49-212.

                Or you can check out the University of Georgia's online guide to sequence stratigraphy.


                Appendix 2. The Holocene Highstand

                There are at least two schools of thought regarding Holocene sea level changes. The view favored by the IPCC and the so-called scientific consensus is that of a rapid rise in sea level during the early Holocene followed by a static quiescence from about 6,000 years ago up until the dawn of the "Anthropocene" (generally the Industrial Revolution). The second school of thought, favored by many (if not most) sedimentary geologists, is that of a dynamic Holocene sea level and a pronounced Holocene Highstand.



                Evidence for a Holocene Highstand is global in nature, consisting of stranded beaches and other facies associated with shorelines 1-2 meters higher than present day from 4-7 kya.

                Appendix 3. Amazing GRACE

                Greenland is alleged to have lost between 93 and 191 gigatonnes of ice per year from 1992 (ten years before GRACE was launched) and 2011. If we assume 1 Gt of ice = 1 km^3 of ice and that the current volume of the Greenland ice sheet is ~5 million km^3 and that Greenland continues to melt at a rate of 142 km^3/yr over the next 90 years... The Greenalnd ice sheet will lose a bit more than 0.3% of its ice volume.

                ~142 Gt of ice per year equates to about 0.003% of ice mass loss per year. At 142 Gt/yr, Greenland will be ice-free in 35,211 years.

                GRACE (Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment) consists of two satellites, launched in 2002, that measure subtle variations in Earth's gravitational field. GRACE is the ideal tool for measuring changes in Earth's polar ice caps.


                Figure 1. GRACE Mission (Source University of Texas).

                One of the most prolific authors on GRACE has been Dr. Isabella Velicogna, UC Irvine (one of Sheppard's co-authors). Back in 2009 Dr. Velicogna published this paper in GRL:

                Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE

                Dr. Velicogna concluded that the ice mass-loss was "accelerating with time." She found that "in Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009."

                Since the launch of GRACE, Dr. Velicogna has participated in several papers on GRACE and ice mass loss estimates for Antarctic and Greenland. Each paper has presented a more dire situation than the previous one, yet GRACE has not actually measured a significant ice mass loss in Antarctica. The actual GRACE measurements indicate a net mass gain (44 ±20 Gt/yr) from October 2003 through February 2007.


                Figure 2. Total Mass Difference: TMD = Actual GRACE measurements. TMD - IJ05 and TMD - ICE5G = GRACE measurements adjusted for GIA (Riva et al., 2007).

                Furthermore, the GIA-adjusted Total Mass Differences (TMD) from the TU Delft publication are significantly lower than those of Velicogna 2009.


                GIA is the abbreviation for "glacial isostatic adjustment," sometimes referred to as post-glacial rebound (PGR). The areas of the Earth's crust that were covered by thick ice sheets during the last glacial maximum were depressed by the ice mass. As the ice sheets have retreated over the last 15-20,000 years, the crust has rebounded (risen) in those areas. So, the GRACE measurements have to be adjusted for GIA. The problem is that no one really knows what the GIA rate actually is. This is particularly true for Antarctica.

                Riva et al., 2007 concluded that the ice mass-loss rate in Antarctica from 2002-2007 could have been anywhere from zero-point-zero Gt/yr up to 120 Gt/yr. Dr. Riva recently co-authored a paper in GRL (Thomas et al., 2011) which concluded that GPS observations suggest "that modeled or empirical GIA uplift signals are often over-estimated" and that "the spatial pattern of secular ice mass change derived from Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) data and GIA models may be unreliable, and that several recent secular Antarctic ice mass loss estimates are systematically biased, mainly too high." (I don't have access to the full text of Thomas et al., 2011, just the abstract).

                So, there's no evidence that the Antarctic ice sheets have experienced any significant ice mass-loss since GRACE has been flying. The GIA has generally been as large or larger than the asserted ice mass-loss.

                In 2009, Velicogna asserted that Antarctic ice mass loss "increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006-2009." In the current paper, supposedly showing accelerated melting, they claim that Antarctica is lost an average of 71 Gt/yr from 1992-2011. Both of those estimates add up to about 1,400 Gt from 1992-2011. This would mean that Antartica didn't lose any ice before 2002 or after 2009.

                The steepening of the trend occurred in mid-2006. So there were 5.5 years of +72 Gt/yr and 3.5 years of -70 Gt/yr measurements. Velicogna didn't repeat the mistake she made in 2006, when she actually published the pre-GIA (PGR) measurements...


                Figure 3. Antarctic ice mass from GRACE, no GIA applied. From Velicogna and Wahr, 2006

                Before the GIA adjustment, GRACE indicated a gain in ice mass. This means that from 2002-2006, GRACE was measuring a mass gain of 72 ±76 Gt/yr. Note: the error bar of the GIA is larger than the measured anomaly. From 2006 to 2009, GRACE recorded a net loss of 70 ±76 Gt/yr.

                Now, there should be some PGR or GIA. However, prior to Thomas et al., 2011 PGR/GIA had been model-derived. Now it appears that PGR/GIA is actually much smaller than the models indicated and its distribution is highly variable.

                But... Let's assume that the Velicogna GIA/PGR adjustment is correct and ice mass loss did accelerate from 2002-2009. Where did the water go?

                The rate of sea level rise has decelerated since 2002. Where did all that meltwater go?



                More fun with numbers... Let’s assume that Antarctica is losing 190 Gt of ice mass per year. 190 Gt sounds like a really big number, doesn’t it?

                360 Gt of ice melt will yield 1 mm of sea level rise. 190 Gt is good for ~0.5 mm/yr of sea level rise.

                The volume of ice in the Antarctic ice cap is ~30,000,000 km3. 190 Gt is roughly 0.0006% of 30 million km3. GRACE is measuring no net change in the ice mass; yet a 0.0006% annual change is being calculated from the PGR adjustment.

                At 0.0006% per year, Antarctica will have lost 0.06% of its ice mass by the end of this century (99.94% of Antarctica will not have melted)! And sea level will have risen by… (drum roll)… 46 millimeters!!!…{ SARC} Almost 2 inches!!! Very extreme!!! {/SARC}

                Appendix 4. Is Sea Level Really Rising?

                I think it probably is rising, barely rising. The two main sub-tectonic components of sea level change are 1) thermal expansion of seawater and 2) glacial retreat (negative mass balance, ice ablating faster than accumulating).

                Thermal expansion only occurs when the climate is warming. There has been little to no net thermal expansion since the most recent phase of warming stopped.

                Glacial retreat will generally occur whenever the climate isn't significantly cooling. The most recent period of significant glacial advance (positive mass balance, ice accumulating faster than melting/ablating) was during the Little Ice Age. Most alpine/valley glaciers, like Glacier National Park, reached their maximum Holocene extent during this period. Most glaciers will remain in a state of negative mass balance until the climate begins to cool on a similar scale as the Little Ice Age.

                This is why the average rate of sea level rise dropped from 3.6 mm/yr to ~2.7 mm/yr since 2003. However, many other factors affect sea level, it's not rising everywhere and the rate is extremely variable locally and regionally.

                However, Mörner, 2003 makes a very strong case that the adjustments applied to the raw TOPEX/POSEIDEN data actually account for all of the apparent sea level rise from October 1992 through April 2000.





                Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
                3. The Fact that the United Nations, (not just individual governments) believes that 'anthropogenic emissions' represent a 'dangerous interference' to the climate system, and educated, first-world nations have taken steps to combat these emissions that would otherwise be considered fundamentally harmful to their economies.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Climate_Change

                Number of Ratifier States: 196
                Number of Countries in the World: 196
                This isn't even a good argumentum ad populum fallacy... Plus, the US never ratified it.
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Part 1

                  Apologies... It seems I accidentally closed the window before I hit "save," in an attempt to navigate tabs. I just lost a huge amount of text...how infuriating.

                  On a side note, can we get one of the mods to make this a "sticky" thread? Going back to an earlier post about 'Sea Lion,' this debate will in all likelihood be repeated over and over to the point of it becoming clutter on the boards. It might be a good idea...


                  Addressing the issues raised by Mr. Bock and Mr. Savez:

                  1. The Sun and its role in climate change

                  Originally posted by G David Bock
                  Yet your author reaches for a subjective and seemingly politically motivated conclusion. ...

                  So much for "science" from the American Political Leftest!
                  There can be no argument over the fact that the Sun plays a huge (but not all-encompassing) role in long term climate effects on the Earth. After all, it is the primary source of energy in the Solar System! However, as to any 'subjectivity' in his statement, the sentence immediately following the one you bolded is quite clear: the natural solar activity (relative to 'recent' history) is insufficient to by itself produce the rapid changes in climate observed throughout the 20th century.

                  When one examines the possible effects that solar fluctuations have had on Earth's climate, specifically pertaining to the so-called "AGW period," one must look at the Sun's history of activity. It is true that the Sun's longer term cycles have played a significant role in the Earth's environmental past, and are likely having an impact on the events of today. However, the only cycle with a period short enough to take place within the century or so of the modern AGW period, the 11-year 'sunspot cycle,' has shown to have little to no effect on global climate change. Any studies attempting to link the two have failed to produce a strong favorable comparison.

                  From The American Institute of Physics (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm):

                  Since it is the Sun's energy that drives the weather system, scientists naturally wondered whether they might connect climate changes with solar variations. Yet the Sun seemed to be stable over the timescale of human civilization. Attempts to discover cyclic variations in weather and connect them with the 11-year sunspot cycle, or other possible solar cycles ranging up to a few centuries long, gave results that were ambiguous at best. These attempts got a well-deserved bad reputation. Jack Eddy overcame this with a 1976 study that demonstrated that irregular variations in solar surface activity, a few centuries long, were connected with major climate shifts. The mechanism was uncertain, but plausible candidates emerged. The next crucial question was whether a rise in the Sun's activity could explain the global warming seen in the 20th century? By the 1990s, there was a tentative answer: minor solar variations could indeed have been partly responsible for some past fluctuations... but future warming from the rise in greenhouse gases was far outweigh any solar effects.(1)

                  ...

                  Sources:
                  1. This essay is partly based, by permission, on an essay by Theodore S. Feldman, "Solar Variability and Climate Change," rewritten and expanded by Spencer Weart. For additional material, see Feldman's site.
                  Let's take a more visual approach to this 'relationship' (or lack of it).

                  This graph depicts the total solar irradiance (energy received from the Sun), as measured by NASA satellites from 1979 to 2010:

                  (Image courtesy of NASA-GISS)

                  This is compared to the rate of temperature increase from 1970 to 2013:


                  (Derived from the HadCRUTv4 dataset, version 2.0 'Long Reconstruction.' The temperature difference is compared with 1961-1990 average using data from Cowtan & Way (2014). The rate of warming from 1970-2013 (red trend line) is larger than the rate of warming between 1998-2013 (orange line))

                  Which brings me back to my earlier post:

                  Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
                  According to the NASA Earth observatory, the rate of warming from 1900 to 2000 is still "roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
                  Then again, as I mentioned earlier, if we could get our hands on some raw data for the 20th century as opposed to say, the first 100 years of the Medieval Warming Period, we could do a comparative linear regression to determine just how accurate this claim is...

                  So we can now see that, whatever the Sun's role is in the present warming, it is superseded by that of anthropogenic emissions.



                  2. CO2, its effect on the biosphere, climate history, and importance for life

                  Originally posted by G David Bock
                  There's also the frequent mis-statement of CO2 being a "pollutant" yet it is a basic ingredient of the atmosphere and an essential one for over 99% of the biomass of life on this planet.
                  Yes, CO2 is a vital component to the Earth's atmosphere. However, to put it simply, 'too much of anything as a bad thing.' The ratio of CO2 to other atmospheric gasses is being unnaturally increased by the activities of man.

                  http://www.skepticalscience.com/huma...termediate.htm


                  Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatonnes (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).


                  About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
                  Interesting what a difference we can make?

                  Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

                  Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4)

                  Originally posted by G David Bock
                  Once again, what is it, why do you and so many in support of ACC/AGW hate about 99.9% of life on this planet and want to harm and degrade it?!
                  As mentioned earlier, CO2 is vital for life as we know it. However, the unnatural 'contributions' of man ensure that the climate is changing faster than many animal species can adapt. While these species may have rode out past fluctuations relatively unharmed, this time it's different, and they are in for a real struggle:

                  http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth...pacts/species/

                  This article is fairly straightforward, so I won't bother taking up space posting specific excerpts.

                  Originally posted by G David Bock
                  [In exo-biology, the more carbon a world/planet has, the better odds it might have and sustain 'Life'. ]
                  With regard to exobiology, balanced proportions of the so-called CHONPS elements (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Sulfur, especially the first four), being the most common elements in organic life, are naturally among the most telling hallmarks of a planet's viability for life. While high levels of one element are no guarantee of the presence of life, the presence of CO2 means almost nothing in this regard:



                  Atmospheric Composition: 96.5% Carbon Dioxide, 3.5% Nitrogen.
                  Average Surface Temperature: 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius).
                  Average Surface Pressure: 92 Earth-Atmospheres.


                  Originally posted by G David Bock
                  Reduce an already scarce essential life ingredient (CO2) that biomass depends upon to exist?
                  CO2? Scarce? You are exhaling some now!



                  3. 'Global Cooling' in the 1970s

                  Originally posted by Savez
                  Remember this?

                  Or maybe this?

                  or this?

                  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...679C946990D6CF

                  perhaps this?
                  This 'phenomenon' started, and persisted, mainly due to media hyping either minority fringe scientists who were dead wrong, or predictions made using solid science (Rasool et al, 1974) that did not come to pass (increased aerosols in the atmosphere).

                  http://www.skepticalscience.com/What...l-cooling.html

                  Another often misinterpreted quote (from a 1972 National Science Board report):

                  "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading to the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now. However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path.

                  For instance, widespread deforestation in recent centuries, especially in Europe and North America, together with increased atmospheric opacity due to man-made dust storms and industrial wastes, should have increased the Earth’s reflectivity. At the same time increasing concentration of industrial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should lead to a temperature increase by absorption of infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface.

                  When these human factors are added to such other natural factors as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, and resonances within the hydro-atmosphere, their effect can only be estimated in terms of direction, not of amount"
                  The bolded statment was, and still remains, correct. We are still headed for a relapse into Ice Age conditions thousands of years into the future, AGW or not. However, AGW still poses a great disruption for the here and now.

                  As for actual scientific consensus on 'global cooling' or an 'imminent ice age:'


                  Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers. (Source: Connelly, Peterson, and Fleck, "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus," 2008.)

                  (Sorry for how this one came out, only online version I could find...)

                  Figure 2. The number of citations for the articles shown in Figure 1 and listed in Table 1. The citation
                  counts were from the publication date through 1983 and are graphed on the year the article was
                  published. The cooling papers received a total of 325 citations, neutral 424 and warming 1958. (ibid.)



                  4. Bob is a dirty liberal Enviro-Marxist who hates nature and wants to crush the economy

                  While I may possess different beliefs regarding the environment than some here, may I be the first to state that I am hardly supportive of the current Liberal regime. Like many, I have long ago grown weary of broken promises and blatant lies. Not to mention, I am infuriated at this administration's shameful conduct overseas, combined with its new moral direction, which has trampled underfoot and spat upon the ideals outlined by the Founding Fathers and upheld by generations of previous loyal, hardworking Americans. I think my post in the ISIS 'moral equivalence' thread speaks for itself:

                  Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                  Obama is being sympathetic towards the Arabs, because he is trying to defend his 'soft stance' towards Iran/Iranian affiliated groups. It is passive-aggression towards his critics in the government. Obama is an idealist, but he is hopelessly naive. He thinks everyone "should just get along." Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but he mistakenly believes the Iranians/ other Middle Eastern enemies think the same way: that they want peace and reconciliation with the West.

                  He believes that by making himself appear sympathetic towards Muslims/Arabs, they will reciprocate those feelings and alienate Iran, who will then have no choice but to be friendlier towards the West. This is what he plans to be his 'legacy:' peace and reconciliation with America's enemies. Look at what he has done in Cuba. It is the same principle.

                  What he does not realize, though, is that his actions are viewed as weakness. They will only precipitate more violence and anti-Americanism. Once you show weakness, all respect and credibility you have immediately goes out the window in the eyes of these people. We can see it unfolding in Cuba: Castro wants Guantanamo Bay back.

                  The United States must not forget its role in the world. We should always strive for peace, but the moment we turn into a doormat for dictators and extremists is the moment we abandon everything that made this country great. To do so, as Obama is mistakenly doing out of admirable, but misguided desires for world peace, would be a catastrophic mistake.
                  "We are determined that before the sun sets on this terrible struggle our flag will be recognized throughout the world as a symbol of freedom on the one hand, of overwhelming power on the other."
                  - G.C. Marshall
                  So, really, I can't be all that bad, can I?




                  Part II coming soon: because of the incredibly obnoxious slip up that took place just as I was about to post, I regret that I will now be unable to post the second part of my response until tomorrow.

                  So don't worry, Doc. I didn't forget about you!

                  Cheers,
                  -Bob.
                  Last edited by BobTheBarbarian; 11 Feb 15, 23:40.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                    THESE NEXT TWO POSTS ARE GOING TO REQUIRE AN EXCEEDINGLY LENGTHY PERIOD OF TIME TO COMPOSE. PLEASE BE PATIENT. WHEN THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN REMOVED, THE POST WILL BE COMPLETE. THE NEXT POST WILL ARRIVE IN SIMILAR FASHION.

                    EDITING...


                    On a side note, can we get one of the mods to make this a "sticky" thread? Going back to an earlier post about 'Sea Lion,' this debate will in all likelihood be repeated over and over to the point of it becoming clutter on the boards. It might be a good idea...
                    Well Bob,

                    More bad news for the Gorebots...
                    From 14 Aug 2013, 834 posts and going;
                    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=139117


                    "It's Official: 2014 Was The Hottest Year On Record, NOAA Says"
                    From 16 Jan 15, 14 posts,
                    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=155790

                    Global Cooling - on its way ...
                    From 03 Dec. 14; 24 posts
                    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=154269

                    Good news for the Gorebots, Libtards........
                    From 18 June 14; 262 posts,
                    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=148788

                    Global Climate change - a layman's guide
                    From 24 June 14, 47 posts,
                    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=148996

                    Sea level rise... A big yawn.
                    From 19 Dec 13; 55 posts;
                    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=143261

                    Carbon dioxide level breaks 3-million-year record
                    From 10 May 13; 64 posts;
                    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=135890

                    Greenhouse gases hit record high
                    From 20 Nov 12, 60 posts,
                    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=129804

                    That's just some of the main ones going back only about six pages of threads
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                      Apologies... It seems I accidentally closed the window before I hit "save," in an attempt to navigate tabs. I just lost a huge amount of text...how infuriating.
                      Been there, done that, you got my sympathies ...

                      ... yadda, yaddda ... (I gotta leave something for others to work ... )



                      Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                      2. CO2, its effect on the biosphere, climate history, and importance for life
                      Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post

                      Yes, CO2 is a vital component to the Earth's atmosphere. However, to put it simply, 'too much of anything as a bad thing.' The ratio of CO2 to other atmospheric gasses is being unnaturally increased by the activities of man.
                      You talked to the planet's Flora on this ??? ....

                      http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

                      Real OBJECTIVE, non-biased source you've cited here ...


                      Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatonnes (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).[/QUOTE]

                      More ... yadda, ... yadda, ... (got ta leave 'Doc' and others something to work with ... )

                      Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                      So don't worry, Doc. I didn't forget about you!

                      Cheers,
                      -Bob.
                      The above visual/graphic boils it down for we "science illiterates" ; out of 800 emitted CO2, "claims" that 788 is recovered, leaving "12" ~ 'Maybe not(?)' .... *

                      12 versus 800 = 12/800 or reduces to 3/200 which converts to 0.015%!

                      Say 100% equals dollars, then we are talking about 10,000 pennies total and the issue of: if one or two pennies out of the 10,000 can raise total temperature by the amount of heat they retain ... ???

                      BIG Common Sense FAIL here it looks to me ...

                      * = Considering claims towards both sides of data fudging, any data/graph/chart could be suspect, hence the need to reort to more "base" arguments/examples.
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post

                        [...]

                        2. CO2, its effect on the biosphere, climate history, and importance for life



                        Yes, CO2 is a vital component to the Earth's atmosphere. However, to put it simply, 'too much of anything as a bad thing.' The ratio of CO2 to other atmospheric gasses is being unnaturally increased by the activities of man.

                        http://www.skepticalscience.com/huma...termediate.htm

                        [IM...SkepSci...Fraud...MG]
                        Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatonnes (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).




                        Interesting what a difference we can make?



                        [IMG...SkepSci...Fallacy...MG]
                        Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4)



                        As mentioned earlier, CO2 is vital for life as we know it. However, the unnatural 'contributions' of man ensure that the climate is changing faster than many animal species can adapt. While these species may have rode out past fluctuations relatively unharmed, this time it's different, and they are in for a real struggle:

                        [URL...WWF propaganda...URL]

                        This article is fairly straightforward, so I won't bother taking up space posting specific excerpts.



                        [...]



                        CO2? Scarce? You are exhaling some now!

                        [...]


                        Cheers,
                        -Bob.
                        Assuming Antarctic ice cores yield an accurate depiction of pre-industrial Quaternary atmospheric CO2 concentrations, Late Pleistocene glacial stages routinely experienced CO2 starvation and the modern levels are barely elevated.The entire instrumental record (Mauna Loa Observatory) doesn't even break out of the Cenozoic noise level. (Older is to the left).



                        CO2 levels have been cycling downward for half-a-billion years. (Older is to the right).



                        Modern CO2 levels are almost indistinguishable from the carbon starvation levels of the Pleistocene glacial stages. (Older is generally to the right).



                        The SkepSci carbon cycle diagram is so wrong, it's hard to believe it's not fraudulent. The anthropogenic component is less than 13 Gt/yr and less than the range of uncertainty of the natural cycle...



                        Measurements of δ13C depletion have often been cited as anthropogenic “fingerprints,” proving human culpability for the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 200 years or so…



                        The so-called Suess Effect from SkepSci's "The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism"

                        While δ13C depletion certainly could be evidence of the Suess Effect, it is not a unique solution; therefore, not a “fingerprint.”

                        δ13C depletions were associated with warming events ~5,000 years ago in India, ~9,100 years ago in Poland and ~150,000 years ago in the Indian Ocean. It appears to me that δ13C depletion has been a fairly common occurrence during periods of “global warming.” It also appears that δ13C increases have occurred during periods of global cooling…



                        δ13C rise and depletion across the Little Ice Age in the Yucatan compared to recent δ13C depletion in the Coral Sea.

                        The red curve in Figure 5 is the Flinders Reef δ13C that was cited as “Human Fingerprint #1″ in Skeptical Science’s The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism. The rate of δ13C depletion is quite similar to that of the lacustrine deposit on the Yucatan. The Flinders Reef data do not extend back before the Little Ice Age; so there is no way to tell if the modern depletion is an anomaly, if the δ13C was anomalously elevated during the 18th and 19th centuries and the depletion is simply a return to the norm or if δ13C is cyclical.

                        Is it possible that Skeptical Science’s “Human Fingerprint #1″ is not due to the Suess Effect? Could it be related to the warm-up from the Little Ice Age?

                        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/2...-the-holocene/
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post

                          [...]

                          Addressing the issues raised by Mr. Bock and Mr. Savez:

                          1. The Sun and its role in climate change



                          There can be no argument over the fact that the Sun plays a huge (but not all-encompassing) role in long term climate effects on the Earth. After all, it is the primary source of energy in the Solar System! However, as to any 'subjectivity' in his statement, the sentence immediately following the one you bolded is quite clear: the natural solar activity (relative to 'recent' history) is insufficient to by itself produce the rapid changes in climate observed throughout the 20th century.

                          When one examines the possible effects that solar fluctuations have had on Earth's climate, specifically pertaining to the so-called "AGW period," one must look at the Sun's history of activity. It is true that the Sun's longer term cycles have played a significant role in the Earth's environmental past, and are likely having an impact on the events of today. However, the only cycle with a period short enough to take place within the century or so of the modern AGW period, the 11-year 'sunspot cycle,' has shown to have little to no effect on global climate change. Any studies attempting to link the two have failed to produce a strong favorable comparison.

                          From The American Institute of Physics (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm):



                          Let's take a more visual approach to this 'relationship' (or lack of it).

                          This graph depicts the total solar irradiance (energy received from the Sun), as measured by NASA satellites from 1979 to 2010:
                          [IMG...IMG]
                          (Image courtesy of NASA-GISS)

                          This is compared to the rate of temperature increase from 1970 to 2013:

                          [IM...MG]
                          (Derived from the HadCRUTv4 dataset, version 2.0 'Long Reconstruction.' The temperature difference is compared with 1961-1990 average using data from Cowtan & Way (2014). The rate of warming from 1970-2013 (red trend line) is larger than the rate of warming between 1998-2013 (orange line))

                          Which brings me back to my earlier post:



                          Then again, as I mentioned earlier, if we could get our hands on some raw data for the 20th century as opposed to say, the first 100 years of the Medieval Warming Period, we could do a comparative linear regression to determine just how accurate this claim is...

                          So we can now see that, whatever the Sun's role is in the present warming, it is superseded by that of anthropogenic emissions.

                          [...]

                          -Bob.
                          The last sentence is nonsense. If natural forcing was being "superseded by that of anthropogenic emissions," the climate models would have demonstrated some predictive skill.

                          From Remote Sensing Systems [with my commentary]:
                          Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:
                          • Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).

                            [All of the warming occurred in one step-shift in the late 1990's.]

                          • Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.

                            [Only because climate models are programmed to do so. The models are programmed with very high sensitivities to CO2. Then they are paramaterized (fudged) with assumptions about albedo effects of past anthropogenic aerosol emissions in order to retrocast past temperature changes. The climate models almost totally fail to incorporate cloud albedo effects and natural climate oscillations.This is why they lack predictive skill.


                          • The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.

                            [Yep. Most of the warming is occurring at night and in the coldest air masses in the Northern Hemisphere.]



                          But....
                          • The climate has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.
                          [Because the models lack predictive skill.]


                          To illustrate this last problem, we show several plots below. Each of these plots has a time series of TLT temperature anomalies using a reference period of 1979-2008. In each plot, the thick black line is the measured data from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band shows the 5% to 95% envelope for the results of 33 CMIP-5 model simulations (19 different models, many with multiple realizations) that are intended to simulate Earth's Climate over the 20th Century.

                          […]




                          […]

                          http://www.remss.com/research/climate

                          RSS shows no warming since 1997...



                          In fairness, the models have demonstrated precision. They precisely miss the mark to the high side...



                          he first modern AGW model from 1988 has essentially proven that the climate is relatively insensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2. Subsequent models have confirmed that the Gorebots are wrong...




                          James Hansen, formerly of NASA-GISS and now a full time criminal, first proved that AGW was wrong 25 years ago and then delivered an endless stream of idiotic alarmism.

                          Back in 1988, he published a climate model that, when compared to his own temperature data, substantially disproves AGW...






                          GISTEMP has tracked the Hansen scenario in which a greent@rd utopia was achieved more than a decade ago.

                          Hansen's model used an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 4.2°C per doubling of pre-industrial CO2. The IPCC "consensus" is 3.0°C. The maximum physically possible ECS is 2.0°C. The maximum physically possible ECS, consistent with the observations, is 1.0°C. Recent papers have concluded that solar forcing has been underestimated by a factor of six and CO2 forcing is much lower than the so-called consensus estimate.

                          "Scenario B" might be the most relevant prediction because CH4 and CFC's have followed closest to the "C" trajectory, while CO2 has tracked "A".

                          If you look at the model results, there is little difference between "A" and "B" in 2010...



                          Hansen describes "A" as "business as usual" and "B" as a more realistic or "Lite" version of "business as usual." "C" represents a world in which mankind essentially undiscovered fire in the year 2000. The actual satellite-measured temperature change from 1988 to last month tracks below "C", apart from the monster ENSO of 1998...



                          Since CO2 tracked "A", CH4 and CFC's tracked "C" and temperature tracked below "C"... The atmosphere is far less sensitive to CO2 than Hansen modeled... The atmosphere was essentially insensitive to the ~50ppmv rise in CO2 over the last 24 years.

                          Hansen may have inadvertantly provided solid support for this "inconvenient truth."

                          The Gorebots have already proven that AGW is wrong - Part Quatre: A model of failure.

                          Let's give Gorebot Prime, Jimbo Hansen, a pass. His 1988 model reflected old science and old computers and surely the models have gotten better over the last quarter-century... Or not.
                          STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means

                          June 6th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

                          [...]



                          In this case, the models and observations have been plotted so that their respective 1979-2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models’ results for comparison to the observations.

                          In my opinion, the day of reckoning has arrived. The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years, despite the fact that some of us have shown that simply confusing cause and effect when examining cloud and temperature variations can totally mislead you on cloud feedbacks (e.g. Spencer & Braswell, 2010). The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time.

                          It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the coming years. I frankly don’t see how the IPCC can keep claiming that the models are “not inconsistent with” the observations. Any sane person can see otherwise.

                          If the observations in the above graph were on the UPPER (warm) side of the models, do you really believe the modelers would not be falling all over themselves to see how much additional surface warming they could get their models to produce?

                          Hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into the expensive climate modelling enterprise has all but destroyed governmental funding of research into natural sources of climate change.

                          [...]

                          Dr. Roy Spencer
                          [Assuming whiny Gorebot voice]... Oh... That tricky Roy Spencer. That's just the tropics and it goes way back to 1979... That's unfair! The science is verified! The models are right!

                          Or not... The following CMIP5 model was parameterized (fudged) to accurately retrocast HadCRUT4 from 1950-2004.



                          Eight years and out! Within eight years, the observed temperature is on the verge of dropping out of the lower error band.

                          This model from Kaufmann et al., 2011 simulated natural and anthropogenic (primarily CO2) forcing mechanisms from 1999-2008. Natural forcing won by a score of 3-1.

                          [/I]

                          More on the Sun and stars to follow.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • Before I post a more at length response to Doc's claims, I have to cite the following trend: Why are you all questioning the integrity of my sources when the sites you've been linking to/quoting are far more politically biased than anything I've posted thus far?

                            Doc, I've noticed that, in terms of your post content, a large percentage is culled directly from segments you've written for the (pseudo)scientific blog "Watts Up With That?" (WUWT). While your articles appear to be your own interpretations of original research, and thus I have not questioned their integrity solely based on their appearance on that site, if we are now going to object to others' argument based solely on perceived bias in their sources (or in WUWT's case, its very scientific legitimacy), then allow me to start with this:

                            WUWT, as you know, was created in 2006 by Anthony Watts, a retired TV weatherman who lacks any formal degree in climate science or physics. His works mainly center around contesting the surface temperature record, which he believes flawed.

                            As you might not know, Watts also is a paid spokesman for the Heartland Institute, which, in addition to the damning citations posted earlier in this thread, also is guilty of possible bribery:

                            From the Wiki article:

                            On February 22, 2012, Congressman Raúl Grijalva requested a House Committee on Natural Resources hearing to investigate whether alleged Heartland payments to Indur Goklany, a senior adviser to the Interior Department, violated Federal ethics rules. Greenpeace also requested an investigation into this allegation on the same date. Golklany told Politico he had previously cleared his activities with his department's ethics unit. On February 28, 2012, the Committee announced that it was planning to ignore Congressman Grijalva's request.
                            In 2011, Watts staked his reputation about the inaccuracy of the historical record on the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study (set up just for critics like him that questioned the data record), confident that he would be validated. He even stated on his blog:

                            "I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results."
                            That was posted on March 6, 2011.

                            However, when the moment of truth arrived, the BEST study confirmed the reliability of the past temperature records. It also affirmed that the methods of collection of said record was more or less sound. Watts, after the publication of this study, did everything in his power to distance himself from his earlier statement, apparently chalking up this embarrassment to so-called 'political bias.' So it seems Watts will only rely upon independent research if it agrees with his beliefs.

                            Even before this study, in 2010, Watt's hypotheses were shaky, even in the eyes of fellow AGW deniers.

                            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8694544.stm

                            'Anti-climax'
                            And the fervour reached a peak when the reluctant hero, Steve McIntyre, shambled on to the stage.

                            Mr McIntyre is the retired mining engineer who started enquiring into climate statistics as a hobby and whose requests for raw data from the UEA led to a chain of events which have thrown climate science into turmoil.

                            The crowd rose to applaud him to the stage in recognition of his extraordinary statistical battle to disprove the "Hockey Stick" graph that had become an emblem of man-made global warming.

                            There was a moment of anticipation as Mr McIntyre stood nervously before the podium - a lugubrious bear of a man resembling a character from Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon.

                            "I'm not used to speaking in front of such big crowds," he mumbled. And he winced a little when one emotional admirer blurted that he had travelled 10,000 miles from South Africa for the thrill of hearing him speak.

                            But then came a sudden and unexpected anti-climax. Mr McIntyre urged the audience to support the battle for open source data on climate change - but then he counselled them to stop clamouring for the blood of the e-mailers. McIntyre does not want them jailed, or even punished. He just wants them to say they are sorry.

                            The audience disappointment was tangible - like a houndpack denied the kill.

                            Mr McIntyre then advised sceptics to stop insisting that the Hockey Stick is a fraud. It is understandable for scientists to present their data in a graphic way to "sell" their message, he said. He understood why they had done it. But their motives were irrelevant.

                            The standard of evidence required to prove fraud over the Hockey Stick was needlessly high, he said. All that was needed was an acknowledgement by the science authorities that the Hockey Stick was wrong.
                            Besides the BEST disaster, Watts is also well-known for his earlier Surface Stations Project, meant to refute the validity of surface stations based on their location. He assumed, without any statistical analysis or direct evidence, that the location of these stations would overstate the warming trend and therefore produce invalid results. His evidence for this? Photographs of the locations produced by volunteers.

                            In response to Watt's claims, the Journal of Geophysical evidence decided to analyze the data record from the centers in question. And, it turns out that Watts was right! The stations were unreliable: they consistently understated the temperature maximums!

                            (Menne et al. (2010) "Reliability of US Surface Temperature Records." Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 115, link https://surfacestations.googlecode.c...e-etal2010.pdf)

                            Undaunted, Watts, in 2011, announced that he had come up with 'new evidence' that would refute the Journal of Geophysical Research study and prove that the climate stations had exaggerated global warming trends.

                            However, when he actually published his study, its conclusion was essentially the same as that reached by Menne et al: the temperature minimums were biased toward a slight increase over the reality, and temperature maximums were biased toward a slight decrease over the reality. These biases more or less eliminated each other when averaged out.

                            (Source: http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpr.../05/r-3671.pdf)

                            (link: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011...ntradicted-by/)

                            More refuting of Mr. Watts:

                            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM

                            And AGW denialists in General:

                            https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/clim...he-week/#polar



                            By the way, G David Bock, if you are so quick to dismiss my sources as politicized, then why do you provide links to:

                            "humanevents.com," which has as its subtitle "Powerful Conservative Voices," links to subcategories like 'Guns & Patriots (yee-haw!).' (Not like they might be trying to influence single-issue voters or anything... )

                            As for its statment on 'number fudging,' see post # 16.

                            "www.redstate.com." Come on man, it has 'Red State' in its name! Combined with liberal sprinklings of intelligent vocabulary such as

                            2014 – !THE HOTTEST YEAR EVAH!
                            ...

                            The politicos who peddle this garbage will be tumbled from their high horses and left rumpled in dismounted disgrace.

                            ...

                            a well-documented cradle of filth

                            ...

                            The next time someone brags about how they love science sexually, just search whatever idiocy they are spouting on Retraction Watch.

                            ...

                            The people doing the worst damage to Post-modern America with cracked science aren’t holding PhDs in Chemistry and Physics.
                            My Edit: you mean like Mr. Watts and Mr. Casey?
                            Insightful.

                            The point of this is that basing a website's validity solely upon perceived political leanings, without direct, concrete evidence that is so self-evident and overwhelming as to completely discredit said site (as I have done with the Heartland Institute and the Space and Science Research Corporation), amounts only to a shallow and groundless ad hominem attack.

                            This is not an attack against anyone in this thread, rather the notion that every piece of information that one disagrees with (or, dare I say, has no counter to ) can be flippantly dismissed as 'propaganda' from 'biased sources.'

                            If one intends to discredit a site based on its sources of information, feel free cross-check that information with authoritative data from an organization such as NASA or NOAA, otherwise this is going to devolve into 200 pages of The Doc, G David Bock, and myself slinging graphs and websites at each other, only to have the other side categorically reject it on the grounds of 'political bias.'

                            While Part 2 of my response is coming later, for now, I'll post this. There is a strange incongruity in this statement compared to its parent source:

                            Originally posted by The Doctor
                            The actual data from 1967-1971 clearly show that the annual ozone hole did exist. It may have been less pronounced at higher altitudes and it may have bottomed out in September rather than October; but it did exist. At low altitude (200 MB and 400 MB) it was nearly identical to the present-day...
                            From the study in question:

                            During the period 1986-1991 strong ozone depletion
                            during the spring in the layer 14-22 km is a feature not seen
                            in anything like its present form in an earlier set of
                            soundings made from 1967-1971.

                            ...

                            Current summer ozone levels
                            are also much lower in the 10-20 km layer than they were in
                            the earlier period. It appears that ozone transported into
                            Antarctica after the breakdown of the vortex now goes
                            toward replenishing ozone lost during the spring rather than
                            toward building the marked late spring and summer
                            maximum that existed previously.

                            ...
                            There is therefore no strong correlation between the two time periods. Whatever dips in the Ozone layer that occurred before the widespread release of CFCs are in no manner comparable to what was experienced afterwards.

                            With regard to this:

                            Originally posted by The Doctor
                            This isn't even a good argumentum ad populum fallacy... Plus, the US never ratified it.
                            The United States is an Annex II party to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

                            Annex I countries
                            There are 43 Annex I Parties including the European Union. These countries are classified as industrialized countries and economies in transition. Of these, 24 are Annex II Parties, including the European Union, and 14 are Economies in Transition.

                            Australia
                            Austria
                            Belarus
                            Belgium
                            Bulgaria
                            Canada
                            Croatia
                            Cyprus
                            Czech Republic
                            Denmark
                            Estonia
                            European Union
                            Finland
                            France
                            Germany
                            Greece
                            Hungary
                            Iceland
                            Republic of Ireland
                            Italy
                            Japan
                            Latvia
                            Liechtenstein
                            Lithuania
                            Luxembourg
                            Malta
                            Monaco
                            Netherlands
                            New Zealand
                            Norway
                            Poland
                            Portugal
                            Romania
                            Russian Federation
                            Slovakia
                            Slovenia
                            Spain
                            Sweden
                            Switzerland
                            Turkey
                            Ukraine
                            United Kingdom
                            United States of America
                            And these are only the Annex I parties. The rest of the UN, (plus the remaining 4 countries) are all party to this agreement. You think this is a conspiracy of sorts? I suppose the nefarious tentacles of Overlord Obama extend all the way to the depths of... IRAN and NORTH KOREA? (They ratified this too.)

                            As for argumentum ad populum, IIRC this is the first time all governments of the world have unanimously agreed to anything, especially in a formal international plan. That argument is weak to nonexistent.


                            Part II coming soon...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                              Before I post a more at length response to Doc's claims, I have to cite the following trend: Why are you all questioning the integrity of my sources when the sites you've been linking to/quoting are far more politically biased than anything I've posted thus far?

                              Doc, I've noticed that, in terms of your post content, a large percentage is culled directly from segments you've written for the (pseudo)scientific blog "Watts Up With That?" (WUWT). While your articles appear to be your own interpretations of original research, and thus I have not questioned their integrity solely based on their appearance on that site, if we are now going to object to others' argument based solely on perceived bias in their sources (or in WUWT's case, its very scientific legitimacy), then allow me to start with this:
                              I have written a couple of dozen articles for WUWT.

                              My comments regarding SkepSci are more of a note of caution. The site largely consists of "canned arguments" written by AGW zealots. Most of these fall apart when evaluated in detail. I've pretty well dismantled every one I've evaluated. If you want a more reliable pro-AGW blog, I would recommend Real Climate.

                              I will never say that something is wrong or dishonest simply because it came from SkepSci. However, I will find the underlying data and/or sources and demonstrate how is is wrong and/or dishonest.



                              Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
                              The United States is an Annex II party to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.


                              [...]
                              Kyoto has never been submitted to the US Senate for ratification. The US has not ratified it.

                              Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
                              As for argumentum ad populum, IIRC this is the first time all governments of the world have unanimously agreed to anything, especially in a formal international plan. That argument is weak to nonexistent.
                              Argumentum ad populum is not an argument. It is a logical fallacy.

                              A governmental consensus about science is not even a good ad populum fallacy. SkepSci's fraudulent claim of a 97.3% scientific consensus is at least a good ad populum fallacy... Well it would be good if it wasn't 95% fraudulent.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                                [...]


                                1. The Sun and its role in climate change



                                [...]

                                Cheers,
                                -Bob.
                                Solar Modulation of Cosmic Rays

                                The CLOUD experiment at CERN.

                                • Increased solar activity attenuates the GCR flux ---> Less cloud cover.
                                • Decreased solar activity amplifies the GCR flux ---> More cloud cover.


                                HadCRUT4 and cloud cover...



                                Can't see the relationship? Flip the y-axis...



                                See it now?

                                Unfortunately, the cloud cover data only go back to 1983... However, sunspots are highly correlative with solar activity...

                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X