# The science against climate change



## Saigon (Sep 15, 2012)

I thought it might be good to have a thread where those who do not believe humans play a role in climate change could present their science. 

Much of the debate here seems political to me, which at the end of the day does not prove anything. We know polar ice is melting, we know glacier are retreating - what I want to know is why, and what will happen next. 

Please leave the politics to one side here, and stick to strong scientific reasoning.


----------



## IanC (Sep 16, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I thought it might be good to have a thread where those who do not believe humans play a role in climate change could present their science.
> 
> Much of the debate here seems political to me, which at the end of the day does not prove anything. We know polar ice is melting, we know glacier are retreating - what I want to know is why, and what will happen next.
> 
> Please leave the politics to one side here, and stick to strong scientific reasoning.



skeptics dont believe that humans have a _dominant_ role in climate change. presumably everything in the environment has an effect on the climate system.

artctic sea ice is shrinking, antarctic sea ice is growing, glaciers and ice caps grow or retreat due to temperature and local conditions. blaming CO2 for such things is a _non sequitur_. the majority of glacial retreat happened before we started pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the air. why are you so sure that the natural cause for melting stopped and the unnatural CO2 seemlessly took its place?

if we put politics to the side and stuck to strong scientific reasoning there would be no claims of CAGW in the first place.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 16, 2012)

Thanks, Ian, those are interesting points. 

The case might be stronger in Antarctic ice were growing, whereas unfortunately it is only growing and cooling in Eastern Antarctica. The Western Antarctic is experiencing unprecedented calving and warming, meaning the net effect is negative. 

You mention temperature and local condititions, but when was the last time we saw glacial retreat and polar melting on a global level, and with apparently increasing speed?

Some 97% of the world's glaciers are in retreat, in Alaska, South America, Europe and Asia. The Arctic ice hit new lows this year. Temperatures are becoming more extreme. 

These are global trends, with local weather patterns acting on top of those wider trends. 

As for CO2, the science is not now terribly new. I believe it was first suggested in the 1860s, and we have a fairly clear picture of CO2 levels in the atmopshere going back several thousand years.

We certainly know that the CO2 level is increasing dramatically, of course. 

When I look at these charts:

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

it seems clear that there is a link between CO2 and temperature. 

Yes, temperatures have risen before, but not at this rate, and not with this apparent acceleration. 

Of course there have always been natural cycles and high and lows - but they alone do not describe the trend we see in the chart linked above. 

If the current trends are not unprecedented, they are certainly unprecedented in recorded history as we know it, anyway.


----------



## IanC (Sep 16, 2012)

saigon- surely you are not saying the rate of retreat of glaciers is faster now than it was 150-100 years ago? it was obviously much more massive in nature back then.

I spoke of sea ice. apples to apples. planes and satellites can accurately measure sea ice. the two poles seem to balance each other out.

WAIS is warming, the rest of the continent is cooling. that much is agreed upon. whether the effect is net negative is not. GRACE is a wonderful tool but it hasnt been around long enough to work out the bugs in the calculations, corrections and conclusions.

you seem to think glacial retreat and sea ice shrinking has never happened before. what about the MWP or the RWP, etc? weather extremes? why dont you guys read some history. the last 50 years has been some of the most benign weather in written records.

the real point is how much do you think CO2 has changed the equilibrium temperature of the earth's surface, at which latitudes, and to what extent that affects local conditions. equatorial regions receive the bulk of the sun's energy, have the smallest temperature increases, and the most efficient ways of shedding energy(ie. radiation is not that important, many other pathways are available, some of which are triggered by *increased temperatures*). the cell systems which carry energy from the equator to the poles are driven by temperature differentials. if the poles warm and the equator stays the same there is less energy to power weather patterns.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 16, 2012)

I agree that the real issue is with CO2, but just to look at a few of the other points you touch on here:



> surely you are not saying the rate of retreat of glaciers is faster now than it was 150-100 years ago?



I am. I believe that this trend is unprecedented in both scale and for how global it is. 






The Little Ice Age was a period from about 1550 to 1850 when the world experienced relatively cooler temperatures compared to the present. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed substantially. Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed temporarily, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. Since 1980, a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existence of a great number of the remaining glaciers of the world is threatened.

Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thi graphic shows the historical curve going back to 1500. The falls in the 1850s were severe, but also relatively brief, although many glaciers never entirely recovered. You might also ask yourself if the industrial revolution played any part in that. 

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other


----------



## Saigon (Sep 16, 2012)

> the real point is how much do you think CO2 has changed the equilibrium temperature of the earth's surface, at which latitudes, and to what extent that affects local conditions



I agree, and of course this is not an easy thing to measure accurately. There is a subjective element to this at the moment, although hopefully we will see clearer patterns emerging as time passes. 

But I call this pattern alarming:






If it is not caused by CO2 - what is it?

Is this really part of a normal cycle that happens to coincide with a rise in the concentration of atmospheric CO2?


----------



## IanC (Sep 16, 2012)

I think if you compare the amount of retreat up to 1950 compared to the supposedly CO2-induced recent retreat, you will find the overwhelming majority of the loss was in the earlier era.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 16, 2012)

Ian C - 

In Alaska that may well be. 

But the IPCC link above alo includes glaciers from Europe, NZ, South America and Asia.


----------



## IanC (Sep 16, 2012)

Saigon said:


> > the real point is how much do you think CO2 has changed the equilibrium temperature of the earth's surface, at which latitudes, and to what extent that affects local conditions
> 
> 
> 
> ...



there have been dozens of threads about the actual measuring of global temperatures. much of the increase is simply 'adjustments' to the raw data, and changes to the weightings of individual areas. I really dont want to rehash the same points over and over again. global temperature is almost a useless concept except to create fear by massively overstating the precision and accuracy of the readings , and hiding the methodologies of the adjustments.


----------



## IanC (Sep 16, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Ian C -
> 
> In Alaska that may well be.
> 
> But the IPCC link above alo includes glaciers from Europe, NZ, South America and Asia.




great- hook me up with a handful of maps showing the actual measured retreat of those glaciers over the last 150 years. thanks in advance.


on a slightly different tack, why do you think glacier melt is intimately conected with CO2? is it just the temperature component over and above whatever the temp would have been without CO2. or do you think CO2 actually affects the local conditions as well?

are you worried about land use change and particulate effects as well? where does human population fall in your worldview?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 16, 2012)

IanC said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ian C -
> ...



I'm sure each glacier has map available - certainly the ones that I have visited have usually had them in the visitors centers, but I am not going to spend an hour finding links of them for you. If you want to see them I'm sure you'll find them. 

My take on this topic is largely from spending time in countries like Chile and Argentina where glacial retreats have been dramatic, and have had a dramati effect on local people. In parts of Peru growing vegetables is much harder now than 20 years ago because each there is less snow-melt for them to use in irrigation. 

Of course urbanisation and rising populations stress the environment in many ways, but in the upper reaches of the Andes there really are no people and no land use. When a glacier collapse there, it does so without any direct influence from very local factors such as farming. 

I believe CO2 is the key factor here because I have not yet seen any rational alternative presented. Also because graphs showing the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere so closely correspond to the rise in temperatures.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 16, 2012)

IanC said:


> there have been dozens of threads about the actual measuring of global temperatures. much of the increase is simply 'adjustments' to the raw data, and changes to the weightings of individual areas. I really dont want to rehash the same points over and over again. global temperature is almost a useless concept except to create fear by massively overstating the precision and accuracy of the readings , and hiding the methodologies of the adjustments.



Thi may have been true in the 1970s when the science was still learning as it went along (e.g. by learning not to place urban thermometers directly over subway vents!!) but it is absolutely not the case today. 

This chart produced by the UK Met Office is very useful here:

Climate monitoring - Met Office

The Met Office uses three entirely different set of data:

Met Office scientists have compared the three datasets. The long-term trends and large-scale patterns of temperature are similar, but the three analyses do not agree on all the details. These differences arise from slight differences in source data and the different choices made by the three centres in processing the data. The charts also show el Nino effects.

I do not consider this chart represents a "useless concept. "


----------



## IanC (Sep 16, 2012)

Saigon said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > there have been dozens of threads about the actual measuring of global temperatures. much of the increase is simply 'adjustments' to the raw data, and changes to the weightings of individual areas. I really dont want to rehash the same points over and over again. global temperature is almost a useless concept except to create fear by massively overstating the precision and accuracy of the readings , and hiding the methodologies of the adjustments.
> ...



sorry, your MO link doesnt work for me. I am somewhat dubious that the MO uses 3 'entirely different set of data'. all of the datasets use different combinations of the same measurements with their own version of adjustments. 

GHCN and GISS have been especially volatile during the last year. here is a link (GHCN adjustments) to get you started on just how unreliable many of the station data are. there are also a few embedded links, many to Paul Homewood's site, that illustrate the mess we are in with respect to data presentation.

of course I dont really expect you to look into it. hahaha it would mean that you would have serious doubts in one area. and that would lead you to examine another area which would also have discrepancies causing more doubt. etc. more discrepancies, more doubts....

every chain of evidence proposed by CAGW wildly diverges from the simple data at one end to the rapidly escalating claims of catastrophe at the other end. temperature, sea level, energy budget, proxies, renewable energy sources....none of the evidence supports the conclusions they want you to draw.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 16, 2012)

> of course I dont really expect you to look into it. hahaha it would mean that you would have serious doubts in one area. and that would lead you to examine another area which would also have discrepancies causing more doubt. etc. more discrepancies, more doubts....



I'll look at anything that looks credible and coherent, and I don't know why anyone wouldn't. 

The material looks fine, but if you prefer to discount the GHCN data entirely and use only the other two sources, then go with that. Even assuming the site you link to is correct (and honestly, I have no idea either way. It's impossible to tell without spending weeks studying the material) I don't see that it changes much of what we know about global temperatures.   

It is not as if what we know about climate change is based an temperature alone. 

Consider these factors a being the main element of climate change:

- arctic and antarctic ice melt
- ocean PH
- global mean temperatures
- glacial melt
- drought patterns
- storm patterns
- changes to wind patterns and the gulf stream

and you have a lot of science, a lot of data, and a lot of material and models. Within that, there will undoubtedly be some variations, some errors and so forth. 

But what we see from those is a very clear general trend, and a very clear pictured painted from a thousand different sources and researchers. 

I don't see that questioning data from one station in Iceland means much - simply ignore it, and look at others you consider more reliable.

As for alarmists - of course some website (in particular) have made ridiculous claims, and I think that is unfortunate. But actually most scientific papers do not make claims, becaue that isn't their brief. Most stuff I have read on glaciers stops shorting of claiming anything not specifically measured in their research. I think it is widely understood that the world is not going to end next year or the year after - but that does not mean we should just assume everything science record is normal and has precedent. It isn't, and it doen't.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Sep 16, 2012)

None of it matters.

Less pollution is better.  Period.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 16, 2012)

IanC said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ian C -
> ...



We can start here;

USGS Repeat Photography Project Documents Retreating Glaciers in Glacier National Park | Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK)

Sizing Up the Earth's Glaciers : Feature Articles

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/glaciers19.pdf

BBC News - Rivers of ice: Vanishing glaciers

POET IN RESIDENCE: Austria's vanishing glaciers

Bavarian Glaciers to Melt Within the Next 30 Years - SPIEGEL ONLINE

And I have not even posted the effects visible from my home on the glaciers in the Cascades.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 16, 2012)

IanC said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > the real point is how much do you think CO2 has changed the equilibrium temperature of the earth's surface, at which latitudes, and to what extent that affects local conditions
> ...



Now Ian, I am calling bullshit on you. When Muller started his study, you were posting how that would settle, at last, the debate on the accuracy of the temperature measurements of the ground stations. Then, when he finished his study, and stated that the study had found the temperatures stated were accurate, and that the temperature increase was as Hansen and the rest stated, you immediatly disavowed Muller.

You, like the all the rest that would deny reality because you do not like the results, will not accept the truth.

The present rapidly increasing warming is driven almost entirely by GHGs, GHGs that we humans are responsible for. And we are now in the consequence phase of this global experiment.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 16, 2012)

IanC said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > the real point is how much do you think CO2 has changed the equilibrium temperature of the earth's surface, at which latitudes, and to what extent that affects local conditions
> ...


Yeah, you don't want to rehash your bullshit, you just want to restate it unchallenged!

How many times have we heard the deniers bitch about measuring stations being located near heat sources and that they should be removed and the data stricken and adjusted without them. Then when the stations are removed and the data adjusted these same deniers bitch about fewer stations and adjusted data. These morons, who have no understanding of how anomalies work, expected the temps to go down when data from stations near heat sources was removed and then cried foul when the temps rose with the more accurate data. 

Anomalies are measured against a 30 year average and if the station is near a heat source the 30 year average measuring stick will be higher giving lower current readings. Removing these false lows, as the deniers demanded, gives higher and more accurate warming trends, but the deniers never wanted more accurate data so they whine and cry like little babies that the more accurate data that they demanded is fudged because it was adjusted according to their demands!


----------



## IanC (Sep 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...





finished his study??????

none of the four papers has even completed peer review!!!!

it has been over a year since they were submitted, I can only assume there have been serious problems to be overcome. I hope they manage to do it right the first time, unlike so many climate papers that have come out lately only to be retracted.


----------



## IanC (Sep 16, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



You are conflating two. Problems. Bad siting and a meat grinder set of adjustments that spit out warming trends regardless of the input.. Both are important and relevant


----------



## Saigon (Sep 16, 2012)

> You are conflating two. Problems. Bad siting and a meat grinder set of adjustments that spit out warming trends regardless of the input.. Both are important and relevant



They were problems back in the 1970s, definitely. 

But these days there are enough measuring stations and science units accessing the data from them that we are able to discount any compromised stations or research units and go with the others. 

I've met the people here in Finland who work in this field and have been ery impressed by their credentials and lack of interest in politics!

I haven't seen compelling evidence to suggest warming has _not_ been occuring steadily for the past 150 years , have you?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2012)

AVG-JOE said:


> None of it matters.
> 
> Less pollution is better.  Period.



Pollution has almost NO significance in Global Warming. CO2 does.. But CO2 is not a pollutant in scientific terms. Only in warped legal-political terms.. 

The effort to EQUATE CO2 with pollution is indicative of how far astray the warmers will go to force their views on energy and Earth's Salvation on the rest of us.. Not YOU of course, just the EPA and the politicians..


----------



## Saigon (Sep 16, 2012)

Flac - 

I'm very keen to stay away from the politics on this thread, as we're never going to agree on that. 

But if CO2 is NOT a factor in rising global temperatures and artic melt - what is?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2012)

Saigon said:


> > You are conflating two. Problems. Bad siting and a meat grinder set of adjustments that spit out warming trends regardless of the input.. Both are important and relevant
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which do you prefer? ONE SENSOR on a satellite or 20,000 stations randomly spaced around the globe? Warmer scientists want to concentrate on the 20,000 earth-based stations. Why? Because they can "massage" the data.. 

It is extremely easy to find artifacts induced into the surface record by fiddling by comparing to satellite data. I'll show you -- if you're TRULY interested. Which I doubt from past dialogues with you.

Don't care about the surface temp record really. The earth is warming.. We move on from there to answer questions about WHY that's happening. And CO2 is a poor excuse for the entire answer. In fact, it's a poor answer. 

Ian's already told you that those Ice Melt rates were likely higher in the 30's and 40s BEFORE the CO2 started to climb. Just that one observation should give you pause to ponder. Melt rates are REALLY HIGH when you come out of a Ice Age.. You got a REALLY HIGH C02 observation to go with that? No -- you don't....


----------



## Saigon (Sep 16, 2012)

> Ian's already told you that those Ice Melt rates were likely higher in the 30's and 40s BEFORE the CO2 started to climb.



Ian produced evidence from a single glacial area in Alaska. 

If you go back to a post early in this thread you'll see I linked a chart showing glaciers around the world dating back a thouand years or so. 

The warming from the 1850s was not global.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Flac -
> 
> I'm very keen to stay away from the politics on this thread, as we're never going to agree on that.
> 
> But if CO2 is NOT a factor in rising global temperatures and artic melt - what is?



Look Shill --- I was only FIXING the common misconception that POLLUTION is LINKED to Global Warming.. Nothing more than that.

I'm dubious about having any kind of discussion with you after that whine fest about Grapes being plowed under in Australia. I've wasted too much time already trying to track down YOUR VERSION of the truth...


----------



## Saigon (Sep 16, 2012)

> And CO2 is a poor excuse for the entire answer. In fact, it's a poor answer.



Ok - then what IS the answer?

We have the evidence - from increasing droughts and cyclones to melting poles to changing ocean pH - what is the cause?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2012)

Saigon said:


> > Ian's already told you that those Ice Melt rates were likely higher in the 30's and 40s BEFORE the CO2 started to climb.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now see.. Here's where you go off the rails with "The warming from the 1850s was not global"... Neither was your GREAT GRAPE DIEOFF GLOBAL jerk-off, but yu still managed to blame THAT on Global Warming.. How damn convienient and unscientifically hypocrital is that?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 16, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> ... Neither was your GREAT GRAPE DIEOFF GLOBAL jerk-off, but yu still managed to blame THAT on Global Warming.. How damn convienient and unscientifically hypocrital is that?



To take the grape issue first:

What was proven on the previous thread was that:

- droughts have hit the Australian NSW wine industry 12 times in the past 15 years or so

- in 2008 droughts were so severe that some farmers in NSW stopped farming grapes

- the total land area devoted to grape farming fell every year from 2008 onwards

- local farmers and scientists both link the change in drought patterns with climate change. 

To get back to the topic:

Current melting of glaciers is global. Some 97% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat. 

Previous melting periods - such as the 1850s - were more regional in nature. 

How do you explain the current melting?


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2012)

Saigon said:


> > You are conflating two. Problems. Bad siting and a meat grinder set of adjustments that spit out warming trends regardless of the input.. Both are important and relevant
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Weather Stations Disappearing Worldwide | Watts Up With That?
Amazing as this sounds, weather stations used to monitor near surface temperature for the global climate record are disappearing worldwide at and alarming rate. There are two things going on here: 1) Stations are actually being closed down, particularly in Canada and in Russia in the early 1990&#8242;s. 2) Some stations while open, have disappeared off the reporting radar for global temperature metrics such as GISS.

--

In response to that, Steve McIntyre recently found that a number of stations that went missing from the NASA GISTEMP dataset are still actually in operation, and producing data, are not being updated into the GISTEMP dataset for some reason.  Irregardless of the reason, the problem of dwindling data for the ROW as demonstrated by the video above is real.

What is strange though is that some obviously easy to locate data, (link to data) such as Bern, Switzerland, where the headquarters of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) are located, are missing from NASA GISTEMP. Nearby stations such as Zurich, Switzerland are included in the GISTEMP database.

Other stations, such as Crater Lake, OR, are removed from the GISS source code released last year, with a citation saying they are excluded (but exist online in GISTEMP), but no reason is given. yet other stations like this terrible rooftop station cum heat anomaly (and closed by NWS for that reason) in Baltimore, MD are included.​
The number of stations has decreased:  Historical Station Distribution « Climate Audit

And the data from the remaining stations is cherry-picked:
Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming &#8211; Telegraph Blogs
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.​
NASA and NOAA cherry-picking Canadian weather stations (but it could have been much worse!)
Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.
These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts. 
It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).   
For example, Canada's reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That's right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left "one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65." And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as "The Garden Spot of the Arctic" due to its unusually moderate summers.

--

Not just Canadian data, but data sets everywhere were torqued so that cold data simply melted away, or so say these researchers.

For instance, Hawaiian data (taken on hot airport tarmacs, of course) was used as stand-in data for cooler ocean waters 1200km away.​
You ask skeptics to provide science?  We don't have to.  It's up to AGW supporters to provide good science to back up their claims.

They've provided science -- but not good science.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2012)

Saigon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > ... Neither was your GREAT GRAPE DIEOFF GLOBAL jerk-off, but yu still managed to blame THAT on Global Warming.. How damn convienient and unscientifically hypocrital is that?
> ...



You presented NO NONE NADA evidence that the wine grape YIELD in Australia has suffered. Because there IS NONE... But you presented an amazing case of stubborn refusal to address the FACTS in front of you... It doesn't rain in NAPA and SONOMA for 6 months out of the year and their grapes are WORLD RENOWNED.. Get over it... You got crushed.

Bullshit about crap being REGIONAL..  According to the IPCC the Med. Warm Period was regional when a preponderous OF GOOD EVIDENCE contradicts that. You'll find that ANYTIME the warmers are face with a logical dissonance they will declare that "it's not GLOBAL", but anytime a LOCAL EVENT happens -- THAT'S AGWarming.

*And before I answer any more of YOUR QUESTIONS, why don't you address ANY of the questions I've given you? Like where is the CO2 LINKAGE for ending the last Ice Age or ANY of the last 4 ICE AGES?? Eh? And the MELT RATE for ice was EXTRADORINARLY HIGH in the 30s and 40s -- very well documented. Where was the lethal amount of CO2? Eh?*
I need you to answer those first and then we can discuss the REASON the glaciers are retreating since the Dark Ages. And WHY there was accerelated melting back in recent history. Which is that someone turned up the thermostat on the sun and LEFT IT THERE for several HUNDRED years..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2012)

Saigon:: 

You also never commented on my satellite vs ground station question to you or showed any interest in SEEING warmer induced artifacts in the ground record.. 

*Sooo --- this is not really a conversation is it? More like an  Inquisition by clowns.*.. Think I'll just take a raincheck...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 16, 2012)

CO2 lags climate.

Always did

Always will

There not a single lab experiment that shows how even a 200PPM increase in CO2 can raise temperature.

Let it go, Warmers


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Really, Truely, didn't happen that way.. The observation was the parking lots, asphalt and air conditioners had encroached on already sited stations over those 30 years. Which caused a differential trend in those readings. And when the lead author of BEST validated that complaint -- he then proceeded to process the data without tackling the task of sorting all that out.. In fact, most of data preps for surface temp readings still ignore Urban Heating Island effects and hand wave the justifications for doing so. When CLEARLY, any idiot can see that urban/suburban readings are different and biased. 

Doesn't matter. Because the whole concept of measuring 0.1degC change in surface temperature by averaging spotty and irregular surface temp measurements from 20,000 thermometers all over the globe is obsolete. and I will prefer to believe the satellite data or REGIONAL preps of the surface stations.

A SINGLE averaged number like that --- doesn't really describe Global Climate Change very well anyway.. And that's a fact..


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 16, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Of course nothing you posted is true!

Richard Muller on BEST, skeptics, the Urban Heat Island and future plans - transcript | Carbon Brief

There were issues about station quality - Anthony Watts had shown that many of the stations had poor quality. We had studied that in great detail. Fortunately, we discovered that station quality did not affect the results.* Even poor stations reflect temperature changes accurately.*

Two more things. The urban heat island effect. That was something we studied I think in a clever and original way. [As opposed to] using all the stations,* we could derive the temperature rise based only on rural stations.* We got the same answer.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Of course you get the same rise.. I'm truly not impressed by that. I could probably mount a thermometer on the outside of my oven and know that the temp is rising inside.  But that doesn't mean that when you COMBINE those biased readings you get the correct AVERAGE. And its from the summation of all those readings that you are trying discern a fractional degree all over the globe. 

Your revelation that you get the same RISE doesn't really impress me if you're gonna try to average all those readings LEAVING IN a known bias.. Which is exactly the cop-out that Muller took after realizing what a job it would be to actually FIX the bias in the data. 

His excuse that both urban/rural readings show the same rise isn't even correct. Because it's largely dependent on population density and growth rate. Something that the folks at UAH have corrected using population density adjustments. And guess what? THEIR DATA prep matches the SATELLITE observations MUCH MORE CLOSELY than any of the sloppily assembled data preps from folks who IGNORE UHIsland effects...


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> Two more things. The urban heat island effect. That was something we studied I think in a clever and original way. [As opposed to] using all the stations,* we could derive the temperature rise based only on rural stations.* We got the same answer.



Of course you did.  The models were built to provide a rise no matter what data was input.  You could have entered all the phone numbers for the 506 area code and gotten a temperature rise.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 16, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


You got caught lying and you think that makes you credible!

UAH have already been caught fudging the data, no wonder you like their data.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Lying about what? I said that Muller ACKNOWLEDGED the bias in the surface data and then waved his hands to ignore doing the work to remove it..  You're the one that doesn't understand the diff between Muller's statement of "DERIVING the rise in temp." from biased data and promulgating that bias into an averaged data set... 

UAH hasn't fudged ANYTHING with the surface data. Their US data prep does match closer to satellite observations BECAUSE they rationally  correct for urbanization. To see how badly Muller is covering his ass --- go to NOAA and see what they've done to justify UPPING the temperatures for UHI effect. THEY don't agree it doesn't exist. Wanna argue with them? They've used that as a further excuse to muck incessantly with the datasets.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 16, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





flacaltenn said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


The dumb act!

And UAH got caught using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift turning global warming into global cooling.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Water LONG gone under the bridge.. You ever work in high-end science? Can you tell the diff between a mistake and data larceny?

Here's what data larceny looks like.... 







If you take the OFFICIAL US temp record (USHCN) from NOAA with all the tinkering and adjustments and SUBTRACT from that the SIMPLER UAH data prep using population density adjustment ONLY -- you get THAT.. WhatevertheFuck it is.. That jump of 0.35degC in 1997-1998 --- You think that happened? Of course not. That's a decade of warming in just a couple years. It's an artifact left from screwing so much with the data set.

There's a motivation for beating up on UAH because they are a lead facility for satellite analysis. And warmers don't like satellites.. They like 20,000 thermometers randomly placed and picked over the globe.. Makes discussions like this even relevent. Otherwise, we'd all be using the same numbers..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2012)

The lead author of the BEST STUDY DID validate that claim...   ---- silly Cynic.. When you're dealing with a slimy press hound like Muller --- you just have to pull the proper QUOTE... 



> Richard muller...
> 
> Richard A. Muller: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ.com
> 
> ...



Don't accuse me of lying so carelessly... You'll have a very hard time finding me lying.. Problem here is NOT ME LYING.. It's a scientist that LOVES the attention and will say anything to appear to be the great moderator for AGW...


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 16, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> The lead author of the BEST STUDY DID validate that claim...   ---- silly Cynic.. When you're dealing with a slimy press hound like Muller --- you just have to pull the proper QUOTE...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


like all deniers, you can't stop yourself from being dishonest!!!

From your OWN link:

Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. *But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.*

*Over the last two years, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project has looked deeply at all the issues raised above.* I chaired our group, which just submitted four detailed papers on our results to peer-reviewed journals. We have now posted these papers online at Home|Berkeley Earth to solicit even more scrutiny.

Our work covers only land temperaturenot the oceansbut that's where warming appears to be the greatest. Robert Rohde, our chief scientist, obtained more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world. Many of the records were short in duration, and to use them Mr. Rohde and a team of esteemed scientists and statisticians developed a new analytical approach that let us incorporate fragments of records. By using data from virtually all the available stations, we avoided data-selection bias. Rather than try to correct for the discontinuities in the records, we simply sliced the records where the data cut off, thereby creating two records from one.

We discovered that about one-third of the world's temperature stations have recorded cooling temperatures, and about two-thirds have recorded warming. The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2ºC, much greater than the IPCC's average of 0.64ºC.

To study urban-heating bias in temperature records, we used satellite determinations that subdivided the world into urban and rural areas.* We then conducted a temperature analysis based solely on "very rural" locations, distant from urban ones. The result showed a temperature increase similar to that found by other groups. Only 0.5% of the globe is urbanized, so it makes sense that even a 2ºC rise in urban regions would contribute negligibly to the global average.*

What about poor station quality? Again, our statistical methods allowed us to analyze the U.S. temperature record separately for stations with good or acceptable rankings, and those with poor rankings (the U.S. is the only place in the world that ranks its temperature stations). Remarkably,* the poorly ranked stations showed no greater temperature increases than the better ones.* The mostly likely explanation is that *while low-quality stations may give incorrect absolute temperatures, they still accurately track temperature changes.*

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find.* Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.*

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The lead author of the BEST STUDY DID validate that claim...   ---- silly Cynic.. When you're dealing with a slimy press hound like Muller --- you just have to pull the proper QUOTE...
> ...



See notes above.. 
Seems like Muller has a very low threshold for going from "the data is crap", to we don't care -- we got the same results everyone else did... So was he lying in the FIRST PART OF THE WSJ article ---- or the latter part???


----------



## mamooth (Sep 16, 2012)

daveman said:


> Of course you did.  The models were built to provide a rise no matter what data was input.  You could have entered all the phone numbers for the 506 area code and gotten a temperature rise.



Where do you get such total nonsense? 

Don't bother answering. You parroted it from WUWT, or Spencer, or Goddard. All of the denialists simply parrot the same liars' club.

Watts is just a chronic liar.

Spencer is a lonely crank, who regularly humiliates himself because he refuses to let anyone sensible review his work, which always has some fundamental error in it that would have been caught early if he'd let anyone sensible review his work.

Goddard is a vicious crybaby who spends his days shrieking hatred at his enemies list, meaning anyone who had the audacity to point out how badly he pooched the science.

And that's the best of what denialism has to offer the world.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 16, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


NO, he was stating the SKEPTICS position in the first part, which he then debunked in the second part.

And regarding a thermometer being off by 3 degrees, that is why they use ANOMALIES to determine the TRENDS. If the thermometer is off by 3 degrees the 30 year average will be off by the same 3 degrees but the anomaly will be accurate. That is why real scientists use anomalies rather than the absolute temperature reading. But as a self anointed data expert you knew that already.


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2012)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you did.  The models were built to provide a rise no matter what data was input.  You could have entered all the phone numbers for the 506 area code and gotten a temperature rise.
> ...


This may come as a shock to you, but your say-so is insufficient.

The leftist echo-chambers you frequent have left you woefully unprepared to debate with those you disagree with by mindlessly accepting everything you say without corroboration.

I'll give you a moment to come to grips with reality.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 16, 2012)

daveman said:


> This may come as a shock to you, but your say-so is insufficient.



Not a problem, given that pretty much all of humanity on planet earth says the same. I'm in very good company.

On my side, planet earth. On your side, a tiny handful of bitter right-wing-kook political cultists. Sucks to be you, but not my problem.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 16, 2012)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > This may come as a shock to you, but your say-so is insufficient.
> ...



That's the same group that thought the Earth was a flat plane at the center of the Universe supported on the back of turtles.

That was peer reviewed and consensus too


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Let's start from the beginning of confusing and weak list of excuses that Muller pulls out.



> By RICHARD A. MULLER
> Are you a global warming skeptic? *There are plenty of good reasons why you might be.*
> As many as 757 stations in the United States recorded net surface-temperature cooling over the past century. Many are concentrated in the southeast, where some people attribute tornadoes and hurricanes to warming.
> 
> *The temperature-station quality is largely awful. *



THat's not --- SKEPTICS say "the quality is largely awful".. It's a statement that the "quality is largely awful" observation. And he goes to note that this QUALITY issue casts doubt on the accuracy of the IPCC ability to measure accurately fractions of a degree in the surface record. 

And as I pointed out before (and it completely went over your head) this biz about measuring as an anomaly would only wash out if the bias were CONSTANT over the averaging period. Certainly, the type of station situations that are widely documented show that the bias is dynamic from accelerated development in the vicinity of the stations. Parking lots, compressors, other buildings and stuff have increasing encroached on many of these sites. So it is NOT a static error bias. It is a temporally changing bias that has increased over the most recent years of the record average. 

Anyway --- none of this matters. The satellite data is the preferred means of averaging the planet's "temperature". And I don't spend much time watching NOAA and others constantly FIDDLE with decades old surface data. Having spent several years in the Earth Resource Satellite Analysis biz --- I do have some "self-appointed" data skills. I've done stuff A LOT MORE COMPLICATED than reading temperatures. 

BTW --- you had no comment on that difference plot showing the 0.35degC jump in the "official" US record for 1997 to 1998.. Any idea HOW such an artifact gets induced? It certainly didn't HAPPEN that way that over a decade of warming occurred in such a short period. WAAAY too much mucking with the data sets. Time to move on.


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2012)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > This may come as a shock to you, but your say-so is insufficient.
> ...


More say-so, no proof.

You're really not very good at this, are you?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 16, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


As with all dishonest quote-mining deniers, you take your snippet out of context and leave out what he said afterward:



> Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. *But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.*


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 16, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...







Comparison of ground based measurements of surface temperature (blue) and satellite based records of mid-tropospheric temperature (red: UAH; green: RSS) since 1979.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2012)

edthecynic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



"Without Good answers....."

 Yup --- still waiting for those.. Not dishonest.. He stated the problems that skeptics have with the surface data, agreed with most of it and proceeded to wave hands in a futile attempt to make it right.... 

Like I said, I'm not really into quibbling about the temp record.. It is what it is.. The main issues are in the modeling, the panic inducing alarmism and misrepresentations, and the focus on blaming SOLELY CO2 for the warming..


----------



## Saigon (Sep 16, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> The lead author of the BEST STUDY DID validate that claim...   ---- silly Cynic.. When you're dealing with a slimy press hound like Muller --- you just have to pull the proper QUOTE...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Um...I think you were just caught having vmasivrly misrepresented this material, weren't you?

I do think honet poster could 'fess up to these things when you are caught as obviously as that!


Dave, Frank - 

Can you either post something other than spam, or comment on the topic sensibly?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 16, 2012)

> You presented NO NONE NADA evidence that the wine grape YIELD in Australia has suffered. Because there IS NONE... But you presented an amazing case of stubborn refusal to address the FACTS in front of you... It doesn't rain in NAPA and SONOMA for 6 months out of the year and their grapes are WORLD RENOWNED...



Now this one I think we can call a lie!

Do you no recall seeing that the total amount of land used for growing grapes in Australia fell every year from 2008?

Shall I post it again?

You know, that thread ran or a week - at no point did any poster offer any explanation for the change in drought patterns other than climate change.


----------



## IanC (Sep 17, 2012)

Saigon said:


> > You are conflating two. Problems. Bad siting and a meat grinder set of adjustments that spit out warming trends regardless of the input.. Both are important and relevant
> 
> 
> 
> ...




personally, I dont like to be adversarial. and neither did you a few months ago when you joined the board. I respect your position because I can see how you arrived at it even though I dont agree with many of the conclusions drawn from AGW and CAGW climate science.

I dont think you understand the skeptical side of the argument. 


> I haven't seen compelling evidence to suggest warming has _not_ been occuring steadily for the past 150 years , have you?[/



do you really think that is my position?!? I think the globe has been under conditions that lead to warming for probably the last 200ish years. glaciers were melting long before 1950, or whenever you want to say that manmade CO2 supposedly took over from natural causes. do _you_ think that glaciers wouldnt be melting right now if we hadnt put CO2 into the air? I think either scenario would have shrinking glaciers therefore I find it hard to understand how reasonable people have such fervent belief that melting glaciers is proof positive of CO2 cause doom.

as far as people working in the field...I agree with you. most people do their work faithfully, but look the other way when their data is at odds with the AGW meme.

Iceland&rsquo;s &ldquo;Sea Ice Years&rdquo; Disappear In GHCN Adjustments « NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT



> Not just sea temperatures, but land ones too. The Iceland Met Office tell us &#8220;The 20th century warm period that started in the 1920s ended very abruptly in 1965. It can be divided into three sub-periods, a very warm one to 1942, a colder interval during 1943 to 1952, but it was decisively warm during 1953 to 1964.The cold period 1965 to 1995 also included a few sub-periods. The so called "sea ice years" 1965 to 1971, a slightly warmer period 1972 till 1978 and a very cold interval from 1979 to 1986&#8221;.
> 
> The effects on fishing and agriculture were immense, for instance &#8220;In a single year, 1967, yields of hay per hectare were 870 kg lower than the average over the previous 25 years. Over 1000,000 ha there was a decrease in production of 87,000 tonnes, at that time worth 260 million krónur, reducing the basic productivity of Icelandic agriculture by 20 per cent (Grove 1988). The year 1967 was not the only one with severe icing; 1970 and 1975 were similar in many respects.&#8221;
> 
> Unsurprisingly these times are indelibly printed in the minds of Icelanders who lived through them. It therefore must come as a bit of a shock to them when they learn that the experts at GHCN seem to have decided these events never happened. Their statistical programmes are designed to weed out sudden changes that could be due to factors such as station location changes. Their latest Version 3.1, issued last November, appears to have decided that the warming from 1920 &#8211; 1964 never really took place, and, consequently, it could not have become colder again in the following years. The GISS graphs below, which use GHCN temperatures, makes this abundantly clear. The first is the new version introduced in December, the second the original version.













how many changes have been made to stations around the world? hundreds or thousands. I challenge you to find any GISS temp graph more than 2 years old and then compare it to today's version at Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Station Data. 

science is all about doing things right. even right answers derived by incorrect methods are still wrong. as I found out from physics and surveying instructors all too often. forcing data to fit the theory is common in climate science and that is why I distrust much of it. there are many, many examples of this. what I dont understand is why the honest scientists are not condemning the 'bad apples' like M Mann who is still continuing to use the 'upsidedown Tiljander cores'.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 17, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I thought it might be good to have a thread where those who do not believe humans play a role in climate change could present their science.
> 
> Much of the debate here seems political to me, which at the end of the day does not prove anything. We know polar ice is melting, we know glacier are retreating - what I want to know is why, and what will happen next.
> 
> Please leave the politics to one side here, and stick to strong scientific reasoning.





Of course it is political.............its called life. The scientific reasoning isnt the point........it just doesnt matter. No politician is going to go balls to the walls in 2012 being the superhero for a war on invisible. Why? Because youd get about 2 votes the next election and they would be from Rolling Thunder and Old Rocks. "Out of touch" would need a whole new operational definition when the epilogue was written. Imagine the platform of one of these people..........."We need to go back to wodden ships and candlelight! Close the coal mines......we'll find the 2.2 million mining people other work. Park your cars and take your bikes to work. Stop the oil wells NOW!! And dont get too used to the new iPhone technology because we'll soon be having to lose our iPhones because it'll be no more plastics. But............We are all in this together!!! We can do it people.............we can do it!!!"







Saigon.........like alot of actvists, you are hopelessly naive. You're going to spend your whole fucking life gettting behind these hysterical dead end causes, but hey.............whatever floats your boat s0n!! I guess everybody has to have an interest or a hobby. If you set the bar low, it'll be ok.


Perception is 95% of reality and none of this "consensus science" is going to EVER add up to dick = 100% certainty. What can change that? 70 degrees in mid-January in northern Alaska for 3 weeks..............and not a MOMENT sooner. Dont hold your breath s0n............


----------



## IanC (Sep 17, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Thanks, Ian, those are interesting points.
> 
> _*The case might be stronger in Antarctic ice were growing, whereas unfortunately it is only growing and cooling in Eastern Antarctica. The Western Antarctic is experiencing unprecedented calving and warming, meaning the net effect is negative.*_
> 
> ...




once again, not to prove you wrong, but to show you that the interpretations of data from many areas of climate science are often confused and open to reversal--


NASA report on Antarctic ice net accumulation, by Jay Zwally who is famous for his prediction of an ice free arctic by Sept 2012. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf




> During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded
> the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gtlyr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser
> measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gtlyr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and
> East Antarctic ice sheets (W A and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to
> ...




I dont put a whole lot more weight on this paper than others with the opposite conclusion  but it is interesting that a known alarmist is actually reporting ice accumulation on the continent of Antarctica to go along with the near record amount of sea ice surrounding it. you dont hear that story being broadcast much in the media though, do you?


----------



## daveman (Sep 17, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Dave, Frank -
> 
> Can you either post something other than spam, or comment on the topic sensibly?



I did.  You pretended it doesn't exist.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 17, 2012)

The other thing that is fascinating to me about the level of naive amongst the environmental radicals.........that think that these people investing in renewable technology are in it to save the environment. LMAO.......these are clever opportunists making money in bushels because there are alot of suckers out there to take advantage of. Just a fringe energy market, but these fuckers like to steal public money to line their pockets. The environmental radicals who buy into it are the same people who wake up in the middle of the night and get out ther credit card to buy some scam product on cable TV channel 392...........its hysterical.










There ya go Saigon.........you can find one on the internet someplace, Im sure!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 17, 2012)

Saigon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The lead author of the BEST STUDY DID validate that claim...   ---- silly Cynic.. When you're dealing with a slimy press hound like Muller --- you just have to pull the proper QUOTE...
> ...



Sure Saigon, sure. Just as soon as you post that repeatable lab experiment that show how a 200ppm increase in CO2 raises temperature


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 17, 2012)

Saigon said:


> > You presented NO NONE NADA evidence that the wine grape YIELD in Australia has suffered. Because there IS NONE... But you presented an amazing case of stubborn refusal to address the FACTS in front of you... It doesn't rain in NAPA and SONOMA for 6 months out of the year and their grapes are WORLD RENOWNED...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You ARE a fool.. Land under cultivation is NOT YIELD... The Aussie wine grape harvest is LARGER because it takes DECADES for a vineyard to reach maximum yield. You're a fool because you don't realize how silly your GW claim is here. 

There are MANY VARIABLES in this simple example.. Including the rush to plant out MARGINAL LAND in the past decade.. They have farmed out ALL the viable land and some of the "last one's in" are gonna experience failure.. The land under cultivation PEAKED and now some of those wagers are gonna fail.. BUT YIELD is going up.... 



> Winebiz | Wine Industry Statistics
> 
> From 2010 to 2011
> 
> ...



You hang on single facts without a cohesive understanding of the topic. How do you explain that EVERY YEAR is a DROUGHT SUMMER in Napa and Sonoma --- yet the grapes are excellent? It doesn't RAIN FOR 6 or 7 straight months.. BECAUSE --- it has the proper climate to sustain grapes. DROUGHT --- is not an indicator of yield. RAIN IS!!

*You post SPECULATION about 2008 harvest in the NYTIMES (multiple times) after being shown that IT WAS A FALSE ALARM for that year.. *

You will be negged everytime you call me a liar on this witchhunt of yours... Because what I've given you above here should be an ample response to your assertion that GW is KILLING the Aussie grape industry.. If you want to clown around and become an obnoxious pest --- be my guest...


----------



## westwall (Sep 18, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I agree that the real issue is with CO2, but just to look at a few of the other points you touch on here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...








In case no one else has posted it.  Your supposition is wrong.  Here is a map showing the glacial retreat in one section of Alaska.  As you can see the VAST majority occured before 1890.


----------



## tjvh (Sep 18, 2012)

The Planet has gone through *naturally occurring* climate changes long before man was ever an issue, and it still is. We had an Ice Age once, and I don't think we can blame it on Coal, and exhaust emissions from cars. You don't need science when common sense suffices just fine.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 18, 2012)

tjvh said:


> The Planet has gone through *naturally occurring* climate changes long before man was ever an issue, and it still is. We had an Ice Age once, and I don't think we can blame it on Coal, and exhaust emissions from cars. You don't need science when common sense suffices just fine.



You do realise that everyone, but everyone, agrees with your statement, right?

What you have said in no way contradicts the scientific positions on climate change.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 18, 2012)

> Here is a map showing the glacial retreat in one section of Alaska. As you can see the VAST majority occured before 1890.



One glacier.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 18, 2012)

> You hang on single facts without a cohesive understanding of the topic. How do you explain that EVERY YEAR is a DROUGHT SUMMER in Napa and Sonoma --- yet the grapes are excellent? It doesn't RAIN FOR 6 or 7 straight months.. BECAUSE --- it has the proper climate to sustain grapes. DROUGHT --- is not an indicator of yield. RAIN IS!!
> 
> You post SPECULATION about 2008 harvest in the NYTIMES (multiple times) after being shown that IT WAS A FALSE ALARM for that year..
> 
> You will be negged everytime you call me a liar on this witchhunt of yours... Because what I've given you above here should be an ample response to your assertion that GW is KILLING the Aussie grape industry.. If you want to clown around and become an obnoxious pest --- be my guest...



A-ha. 

And yet we know that every year from 2008 - 2012, less Australian land was used for grape farming. 

And we know that farmers say this is because of the increasing severity of drought. 

It just takes my breath away that after 2-3 week of discussing this, you still can not admit that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 18, 2012)

What part of "drought is not a neccessary indication of wine grape yield" don't you understand? 

How do Napa and Sonoma do it with NO ZERO NADA precipation expected for 5 or 6 STRAIGHT drought months during the summer and 7 or 8 rainless months over the year? 

There was an ASTRONOMICAL INCREASE in land under grape cultivation in Australia since the mid 90s.. *So much so that much of the newer land added was marginal ----- AND YET THERE IS GLUT of grape yield... *
What the Australian Wine Groups call "an UNSUSTAINABLE LEVEL of production.. 
I don't even think you understand the basic requirements for growing grapes.

Dispute any of that............

Ian gave some weather charts showing no exceptional changes in weather over the past 10 years. What part of that do you want to dispute? You have NO ARGUMENT for Global Warming here.... 

To THINK you do illustrates how flimsy and comical you AGW alarmists really are... 

Tell me --- WHat's the weather gonna be like in Australia in 2014 DUE TO GW?

PS -- Probably shouldn't be picking grape fights with a guy who's GROWN THEM and LIVED in a wine producing region.... I'm now gonna teach you a few basics about grapes and rainfall. 



> Turning water into wine / To water grapevines or not -- the roots of the wine industry's next great controversy - SFGate
> 
> But in addition to Dominus, such long-standing Napa properties as Grgich Hills and Frog's Leap dry-farm. John Williams, founder of Frog's Leap Winery in Rutherford, recalls buying his vineyards in 1987. *"The vineyards were dry-farmed but then I started to irrigate, because I came from UC Davis. By God, we know how to take care of a vineyard!" he says.
> 
> ...



DRY -FARMED to prevent outbreaks of disease and pests. DRY Farmed to use drought resistance varieties. DRY-FARMED in Napa and Sonoma where it NEVER RAINS from April to October.

When grape farmers "plow their vines under" -- it is USUALLY because of DISEASE and improper selection of variety. OR -- the location of the vineyard is just not comfortable enough to produce GREAT quality because of soil, humidity, pests, etc.. 

Your assertion is SOOO simplistic, SOOO baseless, and SOOO unproven  -- it's really time to move on....


----------



## Saigon (Sep 18, 2012)

> Tell me --- WHat's the weather gonna be like in Australia in 2014 DUE TO GW?



There will be more droughts, and more intense droughts, especially in WA and NT.

There will be more floods, and more intense floods, especially in QLD, VIC and SA. 

The Australian Government site suggests:

Australia and the globe are experiencing rapid climate change. Since the middle of the 20th century, Australian temperatures have, on average, risen by about 1°C with an* increase in the frequency of heatwaves* and a decrease in the numbers of frosts and cold days. Rainfall patterns have also changed - the northwest has seen* an increase in rainfall *over the last 50 years while much of eastern Australia and the far southwest have experienced a decline.

Climate Change

This is much as I have been saying for the past 2 weeks, in other words.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 18, 2012)

RAINFALL is the far LARGER enemy of grape producers in Australia... 



> Grapes left on vines after 'challenging' harvest - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
> 
> Upper Hunter wineries are wrapping up their harvests for 2012, with the wet weather forcing one to leave 10 per cent of its grapes on the vine. Constant rain this year delayed the start of vintage and has disrupted the entire process.
> 
> ...



Plow it under Jack --- you've got NOTHING.... No PROOF of a Global Warming induced disaster here --- YET.. So let's move on..


----------



## Saigon (Sep 18, 2012)

Flac - 

Do you understand that different places can experience different weather patterns?

Do you understand that it is possible to experience drought in 2008 - and damp weather in 2012?

From your posting it does not seem clear that you do understand these fairly obvious points.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 18, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I agree that the real issue is with CO2, but just to look at a few of the other points you touch on here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Picture says you're wrong


----------



## Saigon (Sep 18, 2012)

Frank - 

Are you actually willing to discuss this like an adult, or will you just run away as soon as facts are presented?

If you want me to explain this I am quite happy to do so as best I am able - but there seems little point finding the links if you are just going to wave the white flag as soon as I post it.

Also - don't forget the links for your graphic.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 18, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Flac -
> 
> Do you understand that different places can experience different weather patterns?
> 
> ...



Oh I understand them perfectly .... It's YOU have lept to the conclusion that CO2 is the cause of this.. It's YOU who thinks a 0.25 deg change in GLOBAL AVERAGE temperature is the cause of any LOCAL drought or LOCAL flooding.. It's you that doesn't understand the myriad of complex issues that determine a good grape harvest. It's YOU that's reading tea leaves instead of science. 

That's the problem bro....


----------



## Saigon (Sep 18, 2012)

> It's YOU who thinks a 0.25 deg change in GLOBAL AVERAGE temperature is the cause of any LOCAL drought or LOCAL flooding



Actually, the Australian govenrment concur:

Australia and the globe are experiencing rapid climate change. Since the middle of the 20th century, Australian temperatures have, on average,* risen by about 1°C* with *an increase in the frequency of heatwaves* and a decrease in the numbers of frosts and cold days. Rainfall patterns have also changed - the northwest has seen *an increase in rainfal*l over the last 50 years while much of eastern Australia and the far southwest have experienced a decline.

Climate Change


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 18, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> Are you actually willing to discuss this like an adult, or will you just run away as soon as facts are presented?
> 
> ...



Are you denying that North America was covered with an ice sheet a few thousand years ago?

You only present local weather stories. They may be "facts" but they are not evidence that back up your insane and false theory that a wisp of CO2 is driving "Climate change"

The Vostok ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature, why do you think today's CO2 is any different?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 18, 2012)

> Are you denying that North America was covered with an ice sheet a few thousand years ago?



No, of course I'm not denying that! I think we can take it as read that everyone understands that. 

So what?

(btw. Ozone is not "a local weather story")


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 18, 2012)

Saigon said:


> > Are you denying that North America was covered with an ice sheet a few thousand years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So what?

If you were living in NY 14,000 years ago, you'd be decrying the retreat of the glaciers due to campfires

So all this ice melted, then it stopped, but because we're burning "Fossil fuels" it's melting again?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 18, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Are you denying that North America was covered with an ice sheet a few thousand years ago?



We're pointing out how cowardly and stupid you look for trotting out that pathetic evasion every time you get spanked by reality. It's an amazingly stupid basic logic failure on your part. The present is not required to act like the past, especially when conditions in the present are wildly different from conditions in the past.

In the manner of patiently explaining things to a slow child, this has been explained to you, over and over. Since you refuse to grasp the obvious, it means you're either an imbecile or a cult liar. Either way, that means the correct response to your 'effed-up logic is to point and laugh, which would be why the entire planet is doing so.


----------



## westwall (Sep 18, 2012)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Are you denying that North America was covered with an ice sheet a few thousand years ago?
> ...







And that statement shows just how scientifically crippled you are.  The AGW cultists have made a extraordinary claim that man is the root cause of all the weather happening today.  We have stated that it is all natural cycles and variability.  We have millions of years of history on our side.  You don't.

It is up to you to prove your statement.  So far, you have failed, and failed so miserably that your side has resorted to extreme unethical behavior and outright fraud to perpetuate your claims.

Occams Razor is on OUR side.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 18, 2012)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Are you denying that North America was covered with an ice sheet a few thousand years ago?
> ...



Personal insults take the place of scientific experiments.

What's so different now than a short 14,000 years ago?  That's a lot of ice that had to melt over that time to deglaciate the US and Canada, no?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 18, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Personal insults take the place of scientific experiments.



I suggest you stop relying so much on personal insults.



> What's so different now than a short 14,000 years ago?



The orbit of the earth.

Come on, these are the basic basics. Make some effort to learn, will ya?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 18, 2012)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Personal insults take the place of scientific experiments.
> ...



Did someone hack your account?

I don't understand your "earth orbit" comment 

Are you saying that we changed orbits recently

Can you expand on that startling remark


----------



## mamooth (Sep 18, 2012)

westwall said:


> We have stated that it is all natural cycles and variability.  We have millions of years of history on our side.  You don't.



Sure, you've stated it, and then failed to ever demonstrate any evidence for it. We have millions of years on our side, showing no significant natural cycles are operating now. Millions of years of history say the AGW side is correct.

I'll ask again, what specific natural cycles are forcing the climate now, and what evidence do you have to back that up? You can't just vaguely wave your hands, invoke the magic natural cycles fairy, and declare that settles it.



> It is up to you to prove your statement.



The whole world agrees it's been proven, due to the evidence proving it. A handful of senseless protests from right-wing cultists about how it offends their cult dogma doesn't change that.



> So far, you have failed, and failed so miserably that your side has resorted to extreme unethical behavior and outright fraud to perpetuate your claims.



Until you can admit to the rank fraud that your denialist buddies were caught trying to perpetrate there, your side will remain permanently banished to the kiddie table. No one is going to waste time talking to unrepenetant liars.



> Occams Razor is on OUR side.



No. Your theory fails hard in accounting for the observed data. The AGW theory does account for all observed data, and is the simplest theory that does, therefore Occams supports it.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 18, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Are you saying that we changed orbits recently



Look up Milankovitch cycles.

Over the span of thousands of years, Earth wobbles like a spinning top (precession). And the shape of the orbit changes, due to influences from Jupiter and Saturn (eccentricity). And the amount of axial tilt changes (obliquity). This changes the amount of sunlight hitting the earth, and whether it hits land or sea, being that most of the land is in the northern hemisphere. And that brings about or ends ice ages.

From such orbital factors, we're supposed to be in a cooling trend for the next 25,000 years or so. So that can't be the "natural cause" causing warming.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 18, 2012)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying that we changed orbits recently
> ...



When did the warming trend that caused north America and Canada to deglaciate end?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 18, 2012)

> If you were living in NY 14,000 years ago, you'd be decrying the retreat of the glaciers due to campfires
> 
> So all this ice melted, then it stopped, but because we're burning "Fossil fuels" it's melting again?



If you had been following earlier threads, you would know that is not what anyone has been saying.

Everyone on these thread knows there have been ice ages and melting cycles before - though why each melting period would necessarily be caused by the same factors I have no idea. 

Why don't you tell us why YOU think glaciers are melting - then and now - and go from there.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 19, 2012)

Mamooth/Saigon:

Listen up.. Last time I'm gonna answer you guys about "natural cause for the current warming".. I posted the answer before --- you BOTH claim you've never seen a SHRED of evidence or any explanation other than CO2.. 

Now remember --- NOT sunspots.. Total Solar Irradiance --- THat's the thermostat on the total sun's radiation hitting the earth.. About 1.2W/m2 increase in 300 years AND it's held steadily on BROIL for awhile now... 






Remember ---- NEITHER of you can now claim you haven't seen a single alternate NATURAL reason for warming the planet.. That 1.2W/m2 increase in TSI ALONE --- is about 1/2 of the forcing function we're looking for to explain the temp. rise.. And it TAKES a couple decades after you turn up the stove to boil water or melt ice --- doesn't it?

Got it? Good.. I'm done with this for awhile..


----------



## Saigon (Sep 19, 2012)

Flac - 

I've seen a few references to 'natural warming', but I've never really understood what people mean by that.

Can you post a link or something that expands the theory a bit?


And PLEASE do not post chart/graphs without links!


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 19, 2012)

I've done more than enough work for you.. Do some yourself. I doubt you even understand what you were just presented with... Do you understand the significance of 1.2W/m2 increase in TSI?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 19, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> I've done more than enough work for you.. Do some yourself. I doubt you even understand what you were just presented with... Do you understand the significance of 1.2W/m2 increase in TSI?



Let me get his straight - you are refusing to provide links or sources for your material?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 19, 2012)

Saigon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I've done more than enough work for you.. Do some yourself. I doubt you even understand what you were just presented with... Do you understand the significance of 1.2W/m2 increase in TSI?
> ...



Saigon -- I've posted all that MANY TIMES before in response to your inquiries.. Problem is you IGNORED it... Now that you're interested ---- you want me to make up for your lack of interest? 

I'll pull the post and delete it before I do ANYTHING more for you.
It's not that important to me...

Hell -0-- you didn't even ANSWER MY LAST QUESTION DIDYA?
\


----------



## Saigon (Sep 19, 2012)

Flac - 

OK, so you won't provide sources or links for your material. 

Great posting - very persuasive.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 19, 2012)

Sorry I was snippy.. Hard day --- and you're not playing fair with ignoring questions... 

Start here... 

TSI Data


----------



## Saigon (Sep 19, 2012)

No problem, Flac! 

I can't really answer questions until I've seen the material. I'll read it now.

I have understood that solar variations functioned on an eleven year cycle, which would do little to explain current changes in the climate or temperature.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 19, 2012)

Obviously TSI and sun spot activity can and do influence climate, so in that sense I think it is an area worth considering, but when we look at charts like this:






Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see a very close link with sunpot activity, at least, and climate change as being likely. 

I do think the SORCE project and studies are valid and important, and do contribute to our understanding of climate as a whole. 

However, NASA themselves are very clear on their website that:

 Earth is currently in a period of warming. Over the last century, Earth's average temperature rose about 1.1°F (0.6°C). In the last two decades, the rate of our world's warming accelerated and scientists predict that the globe will continue to warm over the course of the 21st century. Is this warming trend a reason for concern? After all, our world has witnessed extreme warm periods before, such as during the time of the dinosaurs. Earth has also seen numerous ice ages on roughly 11,000-year cycles for at least the last million years. So, change is perhaps the only constant in Earth's 4.5-billion-year history.

Scientists note that there are two new and different twists to today's changing climate: (1) The globe is warming at a faster rate than it ever has before; and (2) Humans are the main reason Earth is warming. Since the industrial revolution, which began in the mid-1800s, humans have attained the magnitude of a geological force in terms of our ability change Earth's environment and impact its climate system. 

How is the global earth system changing? - NASA Science

This page links from NASA's page on SORCE.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 19, 2012)

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf

5. Conclusions
We have shown that there is an evident causal decoupling between total solar irradiance and global temperature in recent periods. Our work permits us to fix the 1960s as the time of the loss of importance of solar influence on temperature. At the same time greenhouse gases total radiative forcing has shown a strong Granger causal link with temperature since the 1940s up to the present day.

Our results obviously suggest the need for further research to investigate in greater depth the causes of this Sun-temperature decoupling, but, at the same time, they appear as a clear contribution to the debate on the causes of recent global warming.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 19, 2012)

Saigon said:


> > If you were living in NY 14,000 years ago, you'd be decrying the retreat of the glaciers due to campfires
> >
> > So all this ice melted, then it stopped, but because we're burning "Fossil fuels" it's melting again?
> 
> ...



The glaciers have been melting for the past 14,000 years as part of an overall long term warming trend.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 19, 2012)

LOL @ Warmers ignoring the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky


----------



## Saigon (Sep 19, 2012)

And.....Frank concedes the debate and goes back to mindless spamming. 

And for a moment there, I actually thought you were going to discuss the topic!


----------



## IanC (Sep 19, 2012)

a change in natural conditions brought the world out of the Little Ice Age, increasing temperatures and melting glaciers. until the 'thermostat' is turned down the earth will continue to warm. why do the alarmists think the 'thermostat' was turned down at exactly the same moment that CO2 took over? we have a rudimentary understanding of conditions in the recent past but basically a very limited and general idea of the measurements of only 100 years ago. 

the hubris of scientists that claim the cause of warming _must_ be CO2 because they can't figure out any other explanation is ridiculous in the extreme.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 19, 2012)

Saigon said:


> No problem, Flac!
> 
> I can't really answer questions until I've seen the material. I'll read it now.
> 
> I have understood that solar variations functioned on an eleven year cycle, which would do little to explain current changes in the climate or temperature.



No... Listen very carefully... YOU'VE BEEN TOLD that solar functions are on an eleven year cycle (which is a true statement when you're talking about sunspots) to HIDE THE MORE relevent fact that TOTAL SOLAR output has increased over 300 yrs and is stuck at a relatively high point in recent history.. 

EVERYTIME anyone posts a historical chart of TSI --- YOUR gurus pull a sunspot chart out their ass and tell you nothing's happened.. *To understand the TRUE story -- you first have to realize that you've PURPOSELY been deceived*.... So the myth of CO2 induced warming can survive....


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 19, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf
> 
> 5. Conclusions
> We have shown that there is an evident causal decoupling between total solar irradiance and global temperature in recent periods. Our work permits us to fix the 1960s as the time of the loss of importance of solar influence on temperature. At the same time greenhouse gases total radiative forcing has shown a strong Granger causal link with temperature since the 1940s up to the present day.
> ...



Total yip yap... Do you see any evidence that TSI in the 1960s allows them to rule out  solar influence? Look at the damn chart... And understand what you're reading...


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 19, 2012)

Saigon said:


> And.....Frank concedes the debate and goes back to mindless spamming.
> 
> And for a moment there, I actually thought you were going to discuss the topic!



And YOU ignore that the output of sun has INCREASED by 1.2W/m2 since 1700s.. I'll take Franks comment over your investment in understanding the issue anyday...


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 19, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > And.....Frank concedes the debate and goes back to mindless spamming.
> ...



One seeks their own peer level


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 19, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf
> ...



http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf

between solar radiation and global
temperature

Antonello Pasini1,3, Umberto Triacca2 and Alessandro Attanasio1
1 CNR, Institute of Atmospheric Pollution Research, Monterotondo Stazione, Rome, Italy
2 Department of Computer Engineering, Computer Science and Mathematics, University of LAquila,
LAquila, Italy
E-mail: pasini@iia.cnr.it
Received 26 June 2012
Accepted for publication 16 August 2012
Published 4 September 2012
Online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/7/034020
Abstract
The Sun has surely been a major external forcing to the climate system throughout the
Holocene. Nevertheless, opposite trends in solar radiation and temperatures have been
empirically identified in the last few decades. Here, by means of an inferential methodthe
Granger causality analysiswe analyze this situation and, for the first time, show that an
evident causal decoupling between total solar irradiance and global temperature has appeared
since the 1960s.
Keywords: suntemperature relationship, Granger causality, causes of recent global warming


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 19, 2012)

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf

Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034020 A Pasini et al
In a previous paper (Attanasio et al 2012), we considered
bivariate analyses between natural or anthropogenic forcings
and global temperature, and found GHG Granger causality
effects on temperature since the 1940s, while TSI and other
natural forcings do not Granger-cause temperature in the
same period. Here, due to the evidence that natural variability
affects temperature behavior on decadal time scales&#8212;see,
for instance, DelSole et al (2011) and Wu et al (2011)&#8212;we
extend our information set to one of the indices of the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation (AMO) or El Ni&#732;no Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
As is well known, a trivariate extension gives to the Granger
technique a better reliability with respect to a bivariate
analysis (see, for instance, L¨utkepohl 1982).
In this paper the recent climatic role of the Sun is
investigated in this trivariate framework.
2. Data
Time series of mean annual data since the middle of the 19th
century to 2007 are considered for the following variables:
 HadCRUT3 combined global land and marine surface
temperature anomalies (Brohan et al 2006): data available
at Data available from CRU (since 1850);
 TSI (Lean and Rind 2008), with background from Wang
et al (2005): data available at www.geo-fu.berlin.de (since
1850);
 CO2, CH4 and N2O concentrations (Hansen et al 2007):
data available at Data.GISS: Data and Images (since 1850);
greenhouses gases total (CO2 C CH4 C N2O) radiative
forcing (GHG) has been calculated as in Ramaswamy et al
(2001);
 Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), related to ENSO
(Ropelewski and Jones 1987, Allan et al 1991, K¨onnen
et al 1998): data available at Data available from CRU
soi/soi.dat (since 1866);
 Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) (Smith and Reynolds
2004): data available at ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ersstv2/
pdo.1854.latest.st (since 1854);
 Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (Enfield et al
2001): data available at Climate Research Data
timeseries/AMO (since 1856).


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 19, 2012)

Saigon said:


> And.....Frank concedes the debate and goes back to mindless spamming.
> 
> And for a moment there, I actually thought you were going to discuss the topic!



What caused the Northern US and Canada to deglaciate?

Any thoughts?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 19, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



I'm PROUD of the level of investment MY SIDE has made in this topic.. I find them a LOT less arrogant, less panicked, and more open-minded. 

Seems like the same folks who were arguing that the Soc Sec LockBox had $Trills of dollars in REAL CASH --- are much the same gullible creatures who toe the official baggage of AGW.. Don't you find that correlation a little strange???


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 19, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf
> 
> Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034020 A Pasini et al
> In a previous paper (Attanasio et al 2012), we considered
> ...



Let's chat for minute about this load of academic ejaculate you've stumbled upon.. 

There is NO REASONABLE expectation that the Climate temp response NEEDS to be directly correlated with ANY forcing function.. What we know is that there are HUGE LAGS in heating, powerful feedbacks, and long settling times to a stimulus either man-made or natural. *The idea that CO2 has to be culprit because it has such an excellent record of tracking temp YEAR TO YEAR is juvenile.. It's not required.. *  IT's not even EXPECTED that CO2 would need to perfectly correlate with the temp curves given the climate complexities I noted above.

So -----



> A number of studies have indicated the major role of the
> Sun in contributing to drive climate throughout the Holocene:
> see, for instance, Jansen et al (2007) and references therein.
> *Recently, however, by simple correlation and graphical
> ...



BULLSHIT ----  If you have a Solar insolation GAINING 1.2W/m2 over 300 years and SITTING THERE for a couple decades at the highest relative level.. It doesn't mean that because it's not CURRENTLY increasing on a timescale so small to be irrelevent to climatic change --- that it's NOT a SERIOUS contribution to warming.. 

I don't CARE that TSI hasn't EXACTLY tracked temp since the 80s.. That's math masturbation. It's NOT REQUIRED that TSI tracks temperature. 

How long does it take to boil water AFTER you've turned on the burner and let it get to it's highest temp? What happens if you add salt or place a cover on the pot. The BURNER doesn't get any hotter -- but the water will eventually boil away... 

The climate IS NOT LINEAR.. Does not require a LINEAR correlation between forcing function and temperature. And MANY of the critical "tipping points" will EXTEND the heating effect beyond the curve of the underlying forcing function.. 

Next pile of academic masturbation you want to chat about????


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 19, 2012)

(It's a subtle way of calling the Warmers total douchebags)


----------



## daveman (Sep 19, 2012)

mamooth said:


> No. Your theory fails hard in accounting for the observed data. The AGW theory does account for all observed data, and is the simplest theory that does, therefore Occams supports it.



Sure, when the observed data is cherry-picked and massaged and altered and invented.


----------



## daveman (Sep 19, 2012)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Dave, Frank -
> ...



Saigon, you claim to want to debate -- then you ignore parts of posts or posts in their entirety.

Just say you want people to agree with you.  That would be honest.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 19, 2012)

daveman said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > No. Your theory fails hard in accounting for the observed data. The AGW theory does account for all observed data, and is the simplest theory that does, therefore Occams supports it.
> ...



Floods = manmade global warming
droughts = mamade global warming
forest fires = manmade global warming
mudslides = manmade global warming

see how it accounts for every event reported on the Weather Channel?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 19, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf
> ...



In other words, "I don't care what no stinkin' pointy headed librul scientists says".


----------



## IanC (Sep 19, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I think a more realistic interpretation of flacaltenn's word would be-

"the solar conditions that brought the globe out of the LIA have  not noticeably decreased therefore we have reason to believe a significant portion of the warming both in the past and recently have a solar component, unlike what we have been told by many climate alarmists who claim that solar activity has no impact on the imbalance that is causing an increase in temperature".

sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning flac


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 19, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



C'mon OldieRocks.. Describe for me the "tipping point" argument of AGW.. Doesn't it say that non-linearities in the Climate sensitivity will kick in and ACCELERATE the temp curve BEYOND a direct correlation with CO2? 

So why do these jackasses get off and DEMAND that temperatures HAVE TO FOLLOW a directly correlated natural forcing variable? Discuss your own damn article.. Defend it. Don't just mock me. If you did a great job of mocking me -- I wouldn't mind. But your mocking is just mediocre and boring.

And no --- I really don't care about nitpicking a 20 or 30 year period. I'm looking at a genuine 300 year climatic trend in TSI..

Not only that -- but with our satellite real-time experience limited to just about ONE solar cycle -- we've RECENTLY noticed a considerable SPECTRAL shift in solar output.. Seems like the UV/IR bands CHANGE relative power over the cycle --- just as I suggested a while back could be a natural cause. This is exciting insight into atmospheric science. But if it doesn't promote AGW theory -- it never makes USA Today... 

Can you imagine the difference this makes to basic GreenHouse theory?? That the "window" effect might be varying due to spectral shifts in solar output?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 19, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > And.....Frank concedes the debate and goes back to mindless spamming.
> ...



No, I answered that in #97.

I answer every ontopic and coherent comment I see - unfortunately thus far neither Daveman nor Frank have made one. 

You have posted a few - I've responded to them all.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 19, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> EVERYTIME anyone posts a historical chart of TSI --- YOUR gurus pull a sunspot chart out their ass and tell you nothing's happened.. *To understand the TRUE story -- you first have to realize that you've PURPOSELY been deceived*.... So the myth of CO2 induced warming can survive....



Yes...and the CIA blew up the Twin Towers, the Jews faked the Holocaust...

This makes no sense at all. Scientiists all over the world, in perhap a thousands univerities and reearch labs in a hundred countries and a doen disciplines - all part of some massive evil conspiracy. 

It simply is not a creidible argument - anymore so than Dave's idea that the UN is bent on installing a gobal socialist government led by German conservatives.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 19, 2012)

IanC said:


> "the solar conditions that brought the globe out of the LIA have  not noticeably decreased therefore we have reason to believe a significant portion of the warming both in the past and recently have a solar component, unlike what we have been told by many climate alarmists who claim that solar activity has no impact on the imbalance that is causing an increase in temperature".
> 
> sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning flac



I think thi is a valid argument - except for the fact that the solar project Flac presents here SORCE is a Nasa project, and Nasa specifically state that human acitivity is linked to climate change. 

If NASA is part of this global conspiracy - why are they conducting research of solar activity?

I think there is a lot to learn form SORCE and from studying solar activity - but NASA are also clear about what it is and what it is not likely to reveal.


----------



## Bigfoot (Sep 20, 2012)

> Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year). Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data.



..and meanwhile down south..


----------



## daveman (Sep 20, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Manmade global warming causes everything.

warmlist


----------



## daveman (Sep 20, 2012)

Saigon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


You're a damned liar.


----------



## daveman (Sep 20, 2012)

Saigon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > EVERYTIME anyone posts a historical chart of TSI --- YOUR gurus pull a sunspot chart out their ass and tell you nothing's happened.. *To understand the TRUE story -- you first have to realize that you've PURPOSELY been deceived*.... So the myth of CO2 induced warming can survive....
> ...


Where did I say that?  Oh, I didn't.  Just another lie from Saigon.


----------



## daveman (Sep 20, 2012)

Saigon said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > "the solar conditions that brought the globe out of the LIA have  not noticeably decreased therefore we have reason to believe a significant portion of the warming both in the past and recently have a solar component, unlike what we have been told by many climate alarmists who claim that solar activity has no impact on the imbalance that is causing an increase in temperature".
> ...


So you're saying NASA has arrived at its conclusions before the research is complete?

Yes, most AGW supporters do that.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 20, 2012)

Dave - 

If you want to have a go at the topic, by all means do so, and I promise to respond to it. 

The topic here is scientific evidence or alternative theories to so-called "AGW".


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 20, 2012)

1.2W/m2.. When you understand the significance of that number -- you'll be able to look beyond the spin and the hype.. 

Can you explain the significance of 1.2W/m2 to me yet Saigon??? If you can't --- we're done...


----------



## Saigon (Sep 20, 2012)

Flac - 

I understand what you think the importance of the number is - but I don't see terribly many scientists backing your position. 

Given I am not a trained climatologist nor expert on solar radiation myself, I tend to rely on the opinion of people who are. People such as the NASA people running the SORCE program, for instance.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 20, 2012)

Please continue relying on POLICY STATEMENTS and not Science.. However --- until you want to follow REAL scientific arguments and DEFEND your position -- We are totally done here. 

O.R. at least ATTEMPTS to provide SCIENCE to refute the significance of the 1.2W/m2 increase in solar heating.. like HERE ---->  http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...nce-against-climate-change-8.html#post6019844

But you don't weigh in because you don't realize how ridiculous it is for NASA to inject that certainty statement about all this warming is SOLELY DUE TO MAN on the same page as that graph of solar TSI.. 

If you understood -- you'd laugh and cry at the same time.. I can't help you... Have a nice day...


----------



## Saigon (Sep 20, 2012)

Fac - 

Does NASA do real science?

I notice you used them as a source yesterday, so I assume you believe they are. 

Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Climate Change: Causes


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 20, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> 1.2W/m2.. When you understand the significance of that number -- you'll be able to look beyond the spin and the hype..
> 
> Can you explain the significance of 1.2W/m2 to me yet Saigon??? If you can't --- we're done...



Their models assign a zero value to the effect that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky might have on our climate


----------



## Saigon (Sep 20, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > 1.2W/m2.. When you understand the significance of that number -- you'll be able to look beyond the spin and the hype..
> ...



Please try and post honestly, Frank - you don't look smart when you post gibberish like this.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 20, 2012)

Saigon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You're admitting you ignore Old Rock posts?!

Wow

That's fucking harsh


----------



## IanC (Sep 20, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Fac -
> 
> Does NASA do real science?
> 
> ...




NASA has a lot of departments. I have seen many of their reports that contradict the findings of GISS. UHI and clouds come to mind


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 20, 2012)

Saigon what caused the northern US and Canada to deglaciate these past 14,000 years?

Any thought?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 20, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Bad news OR, Saigon ignored this. I don't think he even skimmed it


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 20, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf
> 
> Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034020 A Pasini et al
> In a previous paper (Attanasio et al 2012), we considered
> ...



Saigon missed this too, OR


----------



## westwall (Sep 20, 2012)

Saigon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...








Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 20, 2012)

Frank - 

If you wish to present a case that climate change is caused by solar radiation or sunpots - by all means go ahead. 

If you wish to have a go at making a point based on Old Rock's material - feel free to do so.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 21, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Saigon what caused the northern US and Canada to deglaciate these past 14,000 years?
> 
> Any thought?



This thread is intended for people like yourself to present the science which you believe best undermines climate change, or which presents alternative theories. 

Present a case on glaciers, and I will respond to it. 

My own thinking is along the lines of Milankovitch's theory of changes in the worlds tilt. This seems to be widely accepted by experts in the field, but I'll look at anything sensible you present which puts forward a counter case.


----------



## daveman (Sep 21, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Dave -
> 
> If you want to have a go at the topic, by all means do so, and I promise to respond to it.
> 
> The topic here is scientific evidence or alternative theories to so-called "AGW".



You really are dishonest.  You mentioned measuring stations -- I showed you there are problems with them.

You don't want discussion.  You want agreement.  Just admit it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 21, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> If you wish to present a case that climate change is caused by solar radiation or sunpots - by all means go ahead.
> 
> If you wish to have a go at making a point based on Old Rock's material - feel free to do so.



The point is that you're ignoring variables based on the "just because we say so" method.  

If AGW were anything resembling science, you'd be able to show us experiment that control for a wisp of additional CO2, but you never do that

You link to local weather event and say, "See that?! Manmade Global Warming"

That's not science


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 21, 2012)

Saigon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon what caused the northern US and Canada to deglaciate these past 14,000 years?
> ...



So we were warming enough for the entire Northern US and Canada to deglaciate relatively recently but for your "Theory" to make sense you'd have to assume that the deglaciation stopped (like yesterday) and then CO2 started it back up again.

Is that what you're saying?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 21, 2012)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Dave -
> ...



No, you did not. The satellite observations and the ground weather station observations match. Muller's study settled this issue once and for all.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 21, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So we were warming enough for the entire Northern US and Canada to deglaciate relatively recently but for your "Theory" to make sense you'd have to assume that the deglaciation stopped (like yesterday) and then CO2 started it back up again.
> 
> Is that what you're saying?



No, I don't see anyone saying that, or anything remotely like that. 

Milankovitch described a cycle. To put this in simple terms, it's a bit like saying that we expect it to be cooler in winter and warmer in summer. When it is cooler in winter - that matches the cycle as we understand it. When it is warmer in winter - it does not match the cycle.

I'd happily explain this in more detail, but I don't believe you will front up for any real discussion.



> That's not science



It also is not what anyone is saying. Not by a million miles.  



I don't get the point of all of these strawmen and deflections at all. You spend a fair amount of time on these climate threads - why not actually discuss the issue sensibly and honsetly?


----------



## westwall (Sep 21, 2012)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Dave -
> ...








AGW cultists don't want discussion.  They just want to talk AT you.


----------



## westwall (Sep 21, 2012)

Saigon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So we were warming enough for the entire Northern US and Canada to deglaciate relatively recently but for your "Theory" to make sense you'd have to assume that the deglaciation stopped (like yesterday) and then CO2 started it back up again.
> ...







Explain the 600 to 800 year lag from the onset of warming temperatures, and the eventual increase in CO2 levels, as demonstrated in the Vostock ice cores.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 21, 2012)

Saigon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So we were warming enough for the entire Northern US and Canada to deglaciate relatively recently but for your "Theory" to make sense you'd have to assume that the deglaciation stopped (like yesterday) and then CO2 started it back up again.
> ...



A very short while ago the entire northern US and Canada were under a sheet of ice, that ice melted and those areas are now ice free. That process apparently was not started by anyone burning "Fossil fuels"

The ice continue to melt up in the northern hemisphere and now suddenly, this melting is due solely to burning "fossil fuels" 

Your "theory" (Exactly what is this "theory" can you state it?) doesn't make a lick of sense and If it doesn't make sense, it's usually not true. &#8213; Judy Sheindlin


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 21, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



AGW the only "Science" that is "Settled once and for all"

LOL

Relativity does not enjoy the certainty of AGW


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 21, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



lag? what lag? I've heard it explained away, the explanation is pretty funny


----------



## rickeybj (Sep 21, 2012)

No loss of life should go without acknowledgement. But the comparison between lives lost under the Bush administration (including 9/11) and the current administration is like comparing an ocean to a creek.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 21, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> And YOU ignore that the output of sun has INCREASED by 1.2W/m2 since 1700s.



You ignore that temperature and solar activity have been going the opposite way since 1980, thus conclusively disproving your "the sun did it!" theory.

Okay, you don't ignore it. You just wave your hands around and shout "It doesn't have to be linear!". That is, when increased solar activity raises temps, it supports your theory, and when decreasing solar activity raises temps, that supports your theory. Your theory is not disprovable, meaning it's pseudoscience. That's the opposite of how AGW theory works, since if temps started dropping over the long term, AGW theory would be disproved.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 21, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Their models assign a zero value to the effect that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky might have on our climate



Being Frank is a gibbering cultist, he probably actually believes this. His cult masters have told him those silly eggheads at NASA have no common sense. Since Frank so badly wants to believe anything that helps him hate liberals, it's easy to get Frank to swallow even the most insane claims.

Now, back in the real world, the sun was the first thing everyone looked at, and which everyone continues to look at it closely.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 21, 2012)

westwall said:


> Explain the 600 to 800 year lag from the onset of warming temperatures, and the eventual increase in CO2 levels, as demonstrated in the Vostock ice cores.



First explain why you think it needs to be explained.

All you've shown is you have a poor grasp of logic. Your logic here is that the present must behave like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different. That's really bad logic. Since present conditions are not like past conditions, the present will not behave like the past.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 21, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Saigon what caused the northern US and Canada to deglaciate these past 14,000 years?



Like we've been telling you, Milankovitch cycles. Orbital factors. And it's more like 11,000 years.

The cycle is a fast warmup to end the ice age, then a slow cooldown into the next ice age. The warmup ended 10,000 years ago. We're way into the cooldown phase now. That's what "natural cycles" say should be happening, a slow cooling, but instead we're warming strongly.


----------



## daveman (Sep 21, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


Oh, is that the one where they changed the data to fit the model?  You know, exactly the way real scientists don't do it?


----------



## daveman (Sep 21, 2012)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Dave -
> ...


Saigon negged me for this post, calling me "liar".

He took the time to neg me, but still refuses to discuss the post in question.

So he's a liar AND a coward.


----------



## westwall (Sep 21, 2012)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Explain the 600 to 800 year lag from the onset of warming temperatures, and the eventual increase in CO2 levels, as demonstrated in the Vostock ice cores.
> ...







Because it absolutely refutes your claim that CO2 causes temperature increases.  That's kind of how science works.  Not that you would understand that.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 22, 2012)

Daveman - 

For the love of God - what question do you want answered?

I will anwer any question which is coherent and on-topic. If your question fits thi description, give me a post # and you have my word I will answer it.


----------



## westwall (Sep 22, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Daveman -
> 
> For the love of God - what question do you want answered?
> 
> I will anwer any question which is coherent and on-topic. If your question fits thi description, give me a post # and you have my word I will answer it.








How about answering mine


----------



## Saigon (Sep 22, 2012)

Westwall -

What question?

With all due respect guys, this thread is 11 pages long. I have addressed every sensible question or comment that I have seen, and tried to skip through the usual spamming. I may well have missed something useful, in which case tell me what the thread# is, and I'll take a look at it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 22, 2012)

None of these fellows want answers. What they want is for the real scientists to shut up. They were messing in their pants when Muller stated that he was going to run a complete check on all known data. Stating that, at last, it was going to be shown how badly the stations were off because of the heat island affect. The Koch Brothers even funded a good deal of that study. 

Then, when Muller stated that the study confirmed the scientists study completely, all of the sudden, Muller was persona non grata.

The denialists do not want science, they deny science, much prefering to live in a world where things are what the think they ought to be. Not even the increase in the extreme weather events will wake them up. Nothing is allowed to disturb their little alternative reality.


----------



## IanC (Sep 22, 2012)

saigon- you havent really addressed my statement about solar output and why it is considered a non issue for increased temps.

even skeptical-science seems to show an increased output for the last 60 years at least.






if a lower level of TSI contributed to pulling us out of the LIA, why shouldnt an even higher level not continue to heat the planet? TSI has been going down for the last decade and no appreciable warming has occured. 

I certainly dont understand all of the ramifications but it seems very unlikely that solar output has no portion of the warming trend. the computer models dont allot TSI as a significant factor therefore any temperature increase due to solar is smeared and transported over to the factors they do take into account, such as CO2.


----------



## IanC (Sep 22, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> None of these fellows want answers. What they want is for the real scientists to shut up. They were messing in their pants when Muller stated that he was going to run a complete check on all known data. Stating that, at last, it was going to be shown how badly the stations were off because of the heat island affect. The Koch Brothers even funded a good deal of that study.
> 
> Then, when Muller stated that the study confirmed the scientists study completely, all of the sudden, Muller was persona non grata.
> 
> The denialists do not want science, they deny science, much prefering to live in a world where things are what the think they ought to be. Not even the increase in the extreme weather events will wake them up. Nothing is allowed to disturb their little alternative reality.



Muller's _preliminary_ report has not passed peer review, there must be significant problems to hold up the publication of the 4 BEST papers for over a year now.

didnt NATURE just have an article on how extreme weather cannot be linked to AGW in any meaningful way?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 22, 2012)

Ian C- 

I know a few posts have touched on TSI earlier (Flac asked much the same question) and I do think this is a very valid point. 

In fact, this is probably the last remaining plausible theory which remains as an alternative to so-called 'AGW'. 

I think there is no quetion that solar radiation CAN effect the climate. But not being an expert in these fields, I am guided by what the experts say. 






This graphic does not show any trend which resembles anything I have seen on climate change. It does show upwards curves at times which COULD explain warming cycles, but they do not match the current changes in temperature anything like as closely as CO2 levels do. 

Though some of the material on TSI is difficult for me to understand, I found this interesting:

"A paper by Benestad and Schmidt[62] concludes that "the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980." This paper disagrees with the conclusions of a Scafetta and West study,[63] who claim that solar variability has a significant effect on climate forcing. Based on correlations between specific climate and solar forcing reconstructions, they argue that a "realistic climate scenario is the one described by a large preindustrial secular variability (e.g., the paleoclimate temperature reconstruction by Moberg et al.)[64] with the total solar irradiance experiencing low secular variability (as the one shown by Wang et al.).[65] Under this scenario, according to Scafetta and West, the Sun might have contributed 50% of the observed global warming since 1900.[10] Stott et al. estimate that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity *during the last 30 years account for between 16% and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999.*"

So in conclusion, maybe we can say that:

Does the sun/TSI impact our climate and climate change?

Yes. 

Does the sun/TSI fully explain the current changes in our climate or cancel out the impact of AGW?

No, it does not.


----------



## IanC (Sep 22, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Ian C-
> 
> I know a few posts have touched on TSI earlier (Flac asked much the same question) and I do think this is a very valid point.
> 
> ...



I think your graph is a little misleading, going over and under a zero origin. the output was warming the globe even back in the 1800's. also, it is like turning up the gas on your stove. you dont have to keep increasing the flame to warm your pot of water. the original setting brought us out of the Little Ice Age. in the last half of the 20th century the output was even _higher!_.

again, I dont see how a Solar Grand Maximum can just be handwaved away as a significant reason for warming.

edit- oh, and I dont think anyone thinks that the grand maximum is going to continue uninterupted for another 40 years either.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 22, 2012)

Ian - 

I agree that it can't be 'handwaved' away. I think it is important that we have the SORCE project and as many studies as needed to determine the facts. 

But also in this graph:






It is interesting to see the sunspot pattern from the left being almost the opposite of temperature for the first 6,000 years of the graph. 

It's an interesting theory - but I don't see it as being as compelling a theory as CO2.


----------



## IanC (Sep 22, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Ian -
> 
> I agree that it can't be 'handwaved' away. I think it is important that we have the SORCE project and as many studies as needed to determine the facts.
> 
> ...



sorry, your link doesnt work.

here is an interesting paper on solar output. no temp or AGW angle though

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf

it demonstrates that the sun is as active now as it has been in 10,000 years.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 22, 2012)

Ian - 

Sorry, I forgot the link. 

Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I'll take a look at your material.


----------



## IanC (Sep 22, 2012)




----------



## IanC (Sep 22, 2012)

IanC said:


>



even eyeballing it, it looks like the r2 ~ 0.6 or 0.7  with most of the discreapancy in the far past. also, the temp graph looks a little different than others that I have seen. I'll try to check it tomorrow.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 22, 2012)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > And YOU ignore that the output of sun has INCREASED by 1.2W/m2 since 1700s.
> ...



Unfortunately for you -- my observations weren't "hand-waving".. Since they are in line with the science of Climatology not making snap decisions based on any 10 or 20 year period. There are NATURAL CYCLES that have 60 and 1000 yr periods that ARE KNOWN and acknowledge due to orbital mechanics and longer solar phenomenons than sunspots. These SAME THINGS that have driven the climate for 1000s of years. They HAVE NOT dispersed. Again -- unfortunate for you... 

So when you see a 1.2W/m2 trend in SOLAR radiation over the past 300 yrs --- that's a VERY VALID climate driver. And the fact that every skeptic-slaying blog on the net instructs the "useful tools" of alarmism to drag out the last 22 yrs or so of solar SUN SPOT activity to counter that VALID observation about TSI --- you KNOW they are deflecting -- not discussing. 

We have JUST DISCOVERED because of ORBITING solar observatories that the very SPECTRUM of solar radiation MAY VARY over the sun spot cycle. Meaning that the fundament greenhouse effect is actually temporaly variant -- that the WINDOW depends on the relative balance of IR versus UV and that is NOT static.. So much we don't know about the sun because we've only had real-time space observation for the last 20 yrs or so.

Like I said --- it is not REQUIRED that the temperature be driven from a LINEARLY CORRELATED variable like CO2. In fact, the "tipping point" argument of AGW theory says and CONFIRMS what I just said. The time lags and feedbacks take DECADES or CENTURIES to reach equilibrium. And none of the models are THAT good to include the REAL time response to any forcing function --- either MAN-MADE or NATURAL..... 

Those lags in the CO2/Temp history are 1,000 years !!!!!! And YOU want to ding me about 20 years???? Now THAT'S scientific... 

PS --- Hey MAMOOTH ---- why did you buds at Skeptical Science NOT SHOW THE ENTIRE historical reconstruction of TSI since the Maunder min in 1700 ?   Didn't want to SHOW that is was increasing consistently for the past 300 years??? Or is that adding another 150 years of INCREASING SOLAR WARMING to the horizontal axis would make the little blip at the right side look small and insignificant?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 22, 2012)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




Here we have the PERFECT EXAMPLE of what I said in the previous post... The alarmist tools have been schooled to drag out the SUNSPOT number charts in order to refute any reference to TSI (Total Solar Irradiance).. I'm only gonna say this one more time... 

In that 300 year study of TSI that's was posted here previously showing a STEADY RISE in the output of the sun over 300 years, the tiny squiggles in that graph are warming due solely to SUNSPOT ACTIVITY.. The chart shown here has removed the LONG TERM TSI differences completely. So that SunSpot activity DOES NOT and never will be the same as the Forcing Function that changes the Watts/squaredmeter warming on the face of the earth... 

It's dishonest -- it's a purposeful deflection away from the truth and the units of any graph showing "sunspot number" as the vertical axis has NO MEANING in terms of warming. All it is -- is an indicator of solar volatility with the long term heating effect REMOVED.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 22, 2012)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Explain the 600 to 800 year lag from the onset of warming temperatures, and the eventual increase in CO2 levels, as demonstrated in the Vostock ice cores.
> ...



See what I mean?  Lag? What lag?

Vostok shows CO2 lagging temperature increase because....


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 22, 2012)

IanC said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ian C-
> ...



Just ...."a little misleading"????????????? I think it was drawn by HAND and BIASED by someone trying to minimizing the effect of TSI.. Doesn't even show VARIATION in the height of Sun Spot influenced activity... Looks totally phoney.. And not just because it's got that those Negative forcing values....

PS --- OK NOW I understand.. It's the f'ing input/output of a GISS MODEL.. Of course it's baloney and not REAL data...  And it's the reason why the models are TOLD that solar radiation is not a factor.      More NASA fiddling and fudging...

Ian --- you are just TOO Diplomatic.. Try to be meaner and more agressive..


----------



## daveman (Sep 22, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Daveman -
> 
> For the love of God - what question do you want answered?
> 
> I will anwer any question which is coherent and on-topic. If your question fits thi description, give me a post # and you have my word I will answer it.


You don't have to answer a question.  You have to acknowledge that your claim was wrong.

Post #30, http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/247309-the-science-against-climate-change.html#post5998894.

Stations which were chosen to provide data were chosen because they're generally warmer than surrounding stations in the area.

From the second link:
Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.​Real scientists want all the data they can get their hands on.  Climate scientists, however, want to limit data.

And how do they decide?
For example, Canada's reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That's right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left "one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65." And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as "The Garden Spot of the Arctic" due to its unusually moderate summers.

--

Not just Canadian data, but data sets everywhere were torqued so that cold data simply melted away, or so say these researchers.

For instance, Hawaiian data (taken on hot airport tarmacs, of course) was used as stand-in data for cooler ocean waters 1200km away.​Do you _really_ think using data from ONE station accurately represents ALL the area above Latitude 65N?  Do you _really_ think using data from Hawaiian airports accurately represents ocean waters 1200 klicks away?

Actually, you do have questions to answer.  Start with those.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 22, 2012)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Daveman -
> ...




This is EXACTLY why the Arctic temp graph back to the 1920s that I pulled a couple days ago  looks better (more resolution, less fakey) and much different from any newer GISS versions of Arctic temp.. They CONTINUE to muck with the data to change history..  Cooling the 30s, and warming the 60s , so that the High priests can claim that today's TODAY'S Arctic warming is unprecendented in recent history..


----------



## daveman (Sep 22, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


It's many things -- but it's NOT science.  

But good luck getting the Troo Beleevers to open their eyes.


----------



## westwall (Sep 22, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> What question?
> 
> With all due respect guys, this thread is 11 pages long. I have addressed every sensible question or comment that I have seen, and tried to skip through the usual spamming. I may well have missed something useful, in which case tell me what the thread# is, and I'll take a look at it.







Then you havn't been looking.  The Vostock ice core data shows that first there is a warming period (that usually lasts for around 300 to 500 years, then after a further 600 to 800 year lag the CO level rises.

Explain how your theory survives that simple fact.


----------



## daveman (Sep 22, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall -
> ...


"Ummm...errrr...ah-ha!  They're looking at the ice cores _upside down!!_"


That's as reasonable as one can expect from an AGW supporter.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 22, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Then you havn't been looking.  The Vostock ice core data shows that first there is a warming period (that usually lasts for around 300 to 500 years, then after a further 600 to 800 year lag the CO level rises.
> ...


----------



## Saigon (Sep 22, 2012)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > And YOU ignore that the output of sun has INCREASED by 1.2W/m2 since 1700s.
> ...



This is a very good post, and an interesting graphic. 

I do thing IanC and Flac have asked very fair questions about TSI (certainly Dave and Frank could learn something from them!) and I would agree that we need to know more about this element, but it certainly does seem apparent that solar activity and climate change do not follow each other very closely. 
On one graphic I posted earlier they almost form a mirror image for a thousand years, then do seem to be in parallel for another thosand, but again in the past decade edging apart. 

I think it is likely that as one report linked yesterday suggested, TSI has an impact on temperature - but a relatively small one.

IanC - 

I did read most of the report you linked yesterday, which I thought was excellent. It is difficult to evaluate either solar activity and CO2 in isolation, and it would be interesting to read more about how scientists consider the two aspects overlap or influence each other.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 23, 2012)

Daveman - 

Your points about data sets certainly has been discussed, though perhaps not in the detail you were hoping for.

There are different set of data, there are different weather stations, there are different interpretations of that data. The British Met Office has supplied three entirely different data sets recently, and yet all show a very similar pattern.

If you have question about any one set of data, then I'd suggest ignoring it and using one of the others. 

Certainly Muller's review of all of the data has been very useful in this, and I would have thought largely ended that aspect of the debate for most objective parties. 

There is an overview of the 3 sets of data interpretations. 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/monitoring


----------



## westwall (Sep 23, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


----------



## Saigon (Sep 23, 2012)

Westwall - 

OK, I've rad that. So why not present a case?

What do YOU think this means?

Again - this thread is really an invitation for you guys to present your theories about climate change.


----------



## IanC (Sep 23, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Daveman -
> 
> Your points about data sets certainly has been discussed, though perhaps not in the detail you were hoping for.
> 
> ...



Sorry, that link doesnt work for this computer, and isnt easily found on my phone. could you paste the relevent info?


----------



## westwall (Sep 23, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> OK, I've rad that. So why not present a case?
> 
> ...







I've allready told you what I think it means.  It means that the claim that CO2 is the prime driver of climate is wrong.  CO2 has no impact on climate, it's GH effect is so small compared to the water vapor (that operates in the same wavelengths) that there is no measurable effect.

The ice core data and historical record support that view.  Furthermore, the policies that the AGW fraudsters wish to implement will actually do MORE harm to the environment than the actual processes going on now.

Add to that the significant negative impact on the developing world, plus the outrageous cost to the poor in the first world countries and it becomes clear that the schemes put forth by the IPCC and its minions are counterproductive at best and criminally harmful at worst.


----------



## daveman (Sep 23, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Daveman -
> 
> Your points about data sets certainly has been discussed, though perhaps not in the detail you were hoping for.
> 
> ...


The Met Office is hardly an objective party.

Look, it's okay if you can't explain why climate "scientists" want to use less data than what's available.  It's okay if you can't explain why they cherry-pick which stations to use.

But what's not okay is insisting their claims are credible.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 24, 2012)

Better time resolution and I've blown up and circled a couple instances that are being referred to here. CO2 is red trace.

This is discussed and explained here::::: 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...aper-uses-hide-the-incline-5.html#post5418644


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2012)

If CO2 drives temperature, how come it's lagging temperature in the chart, is today's CO2 new and improved?

Also, the temperature seems to have been increasing for the past 20,000 years, which would explain the deglaciation of Canada and northern USA. Did this trend stop 200 years ago and then magically restart when CO2 (which lags temperature) increased?

"When something doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true" -- Judge Judy


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If CO2 drives temperature, how come it's lagging temperature in the chart, is today's CO2 new and improved?
> 
> Also, the temperature seems to have been increasing for the past 20,000 years, which would explain the deglaciation of Canada and northern USA. Did this trend stop 200 years ago and then magically restart when CO2 (which lags temperature) increased?
> 
> "When something doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true" -- Judge Judy








One should not bring logic into a religious discussion Frank.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2012)

westwall said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > If CO2 drives temperature, how come it's lagging temperature in the chart, is today's CO2 new and improved?
> ...



Or probably not Judge Judy either -----


----------



## mamooth (Sep 25, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If CO2 drives temperature, how come it's lagging temperature in the chart, is today's CO2 new and improved?



Idiot logic, relying on the implication that AGW scientists have said "CO2 is the _only_ thing driving temperature". Since that would be a dumb thing to say, you only find denialists saying it.



> Also, the temperature seems to have been increasing for the past 20,000 years, which would explain the deglaciation of Canada and northern USA. Did this trend stop 200 years ago and then magically restart when CO2 (which lags temperature) increased?



Not only does he get the temperature trend wrong, he assumes the present must act like the past, even if conditions are wildly different in the present.

The lesson we learn here? That those who stink at logic tend to fall for the denialist conspiracy theory.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 25, 2012)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > If CO2 drives temperature, how come it's lagging temperature in the chart, is today's CO2 new and improved?
> ...






Im laughing............the far left assholes of the world walk around telling everybody how smart they are and how dumb everybody else is who doesnt buy into their k00k narrtive. But for all the years of bloviating about the world abuot to melt, in the last few years, the public looks at them and yawns!! But guys ike me, FlaCalTenn and West use "stink logic".


Well then......heres to those with the stink logic who also happen to be winning!!!!








yuk.....yuk...........from this past February.........Pew Research. LOL....last year, "global warming" ranked 22nd ( dead last) and this year, doesnt even make the list.



Heres to stink logic!!!!!!!!


----------



## mamooth (Sep 25, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> There are NATURAL CYCLES that have 60 and 1000 yr periods that ARE KNOWN and acknowledge due to orbital mechanics and longer solar phenomenons than sunspots.



No, there's just one scientist who claims such cycles exist, but who fails even at his cherrypicked curve-fitting attempts to support such a claim, and who fails completely at explaining what the phsyical mechanism is which explains how those cycles affect temperature. Without a testable physical mechanism, it most certainly is just handwaving.



> PS --- Hey MAMOOTH ---- why did you buds at Skeptical Science NOT SHOW THE ENTIRE historical reconstruction of TSI since the Maunder min in 1700? Didn't want to SHOW that is was increasing consistently for the past 300 years??? Or is that adding another 150 years of INCREASING SOLAR WARMING to the horizontal axis would make the little blip at the right side look small and insignificant?



It would have made no difference, since no one has ever denied TSI has an effect, except for denialists who are trying to misrepresent the mainstream AGW position.

To be taken seriously, you need to explain why TSI and temp started going the opposite way around 1980, after more or less staying together before that. AGW science has explained that perfectly. Your side has just waved its hands around. Vague statements about magical cycles is not a theory. A theory explains specific physical mechanisms, and a theory makes predictions. Please tell us the specific mechanism behind the temperature changes according to your theory, and what your theory predicts for the future. That way, we can compare results in a few years and see who was correct.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 25, 2012)

The climate k00ks blew their own faces off a few years ago as they ramped up the hysteria and angst to mental case levels..........and are now laughed at............


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 25, 2012)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2012)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > If CO2 drives temperature, how come it's lagging temperature in the chart, is today's CO2 new and improved?
> ...



You didn't actually answer anything.  Let's take one sentence, one thought at a time.

1. Do the Vostok ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 25, 2012)

Skook, I thank you for so conclusively proving the point I keep bringing up, which is that most denialists are purely political cultists, possessing zero knowledge of science and logic. 

If you could talk about the science, you would. You can't, so instead you spend your days ranting about how Al Gore is out to steal your precious bodily fluids.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 25, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:
			
		

> You didn't actually answer anything.  Let's take one sentence, one thought at a time.



Because I've answered it many times before, the result being you always turn and run. But hey, I'm always up to see it happen again.



> 1. Do the Vostok ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature?



Of course they do.

Now why do you think that matters? 

That is, why do you think the present must act exactly like the past, even if conditions are wildly different now?

And why do you pretend that AGW scientists say that CO2 is the only climate driver, when none of them has ever said or implied such a thing?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2012)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > There are NATURAL CYCLES that have 60 and 1000 yr periods that ARE KNOWN and acknowledge due to orbital mechanics and longer solar phenomenons than sunspots.
> ...



Let's just fix this one large gap in your knowledge of climate change first.. You are embarrassing yourself here by fixating on Scaffetta and your ad hominems when you should be recognizing how many natural oscillations exist in climate. 

Go look up AMO, PDO, SOI ---- which all contain a STRONG 60 yr Fourier component in their cycles. And tell me how warmers like yourself want to deny what I said about KNOWN natural cycles that have 60 and 1000 yr cycles.. As in -----

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01...els-20th-century-temperature-reconstructions/



> The more interesting feature, though, is the inability of the models to mimic the rapid warming before 1940, and the lack of warming from the 1940s to the 1970s. These two periods of inconvenient temperature variability are well known: (1) the pre-1940 warming was before atmospheric CO2 had increased very much; and (2) the lack of warming from the 1940s to the 1970s was during a time of rapid growth in CO2. In other words, the stronger warming period should have been after 1940, not before, based upon the CO2 warming effect alone.
> 
> Natural Climate Variability as an Explanation for What The Models Can Not Mimic
> 
> The next chart shows the difference between the two curves in the previous chart, that is, the 20th Century temperature variability the models have not, in an average sense, been able to explain. Also shown are three known modes of natural variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO, in blue); the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO, in green); and the negative of the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI, in red). The SOI is a measure of El Nino and La Nina activity. All three climate indicies have been scaled so that their net amount of variability (standard deviation) matches that of the &#8220;unexplained temperature&#8221; curve.


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2012)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > If CO2 drives temperature, how come it's lagging temperature in the chart, is today's CO2 new and improved?
> ...








What was that about failing logic ol spideytoobertrakertrollingblunderfraud?  How many socks did you create anyway?  I know you carry on lots of conversations with yourself but this is becoming ridiculous!


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2012)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey --- You just told me CO2 EXPLAINS EVERYTHING about the past 40 yrs or so in climate. And that natural cycles were garbage.. Which is it midget?



> To be taken seriously, you need to explain why TSI and temp started going the opposite way around 1980, after more or less staying together before that. *AGW science has explained that perfectly.* Your side has just waved its hands around.



Isn't that saying that CO2 IS THE ONLY climate driver required?  I sense some "hand-waving" coming on...


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2012)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






What conditions are wildly different now?  ever heard of Occam?  Basic scientific principle which you clowns seem to either never have heard about or ignore, but very very relevant.

Unless you're a religious zealot...then science matters not at all.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2012)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bravo. We're making some progress!

See, you raised three other issues.

2. I'm not pretending "that AGW scientists say that CO2 is the only climate driver" that's what the AGW "Scientists" have been saying.  For the record can you state the hypothesis of AGW?

3. Do the Vostok ice cores show that we are in a 20,000 year warming trend?

4. If CO2 lags temperature as demonstrated in the ice cores, how can it now drive the temperature?  For the past 600,000 years increase in CO2 never drove the temperatures higher, what's different about today's CO2?


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...







Today we have SUPERDUPERPOOPER CO2.  It's real special.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 25, 2012)

> What conditions are wildly different now?



That would be the quickly dumping a massive amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in a very short amount of time.



> ever heard of Occam?



The Razor says your theory is wrong, being that your theory fails to account for the observed data. For example, your theory fails to explain the divergence of TSI and temperature after 1980. Hard to be more specific though, given how your side is so reluctant to actually state any specific theory, preferring vague handwaving instead.

In contrast, AGW theory is the simplest theory that does correctly account for the observed data, therefore Occam's says it is most likely to be the correct theory. Helps, of course, that's it currently the _only_ theory that correctly accounts for the observed data.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 25, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Skook, I thank you for so conclusively proving the point I keep bringing up, which is that most denialists are purely political cultists, possessing zero knowledge of science and logic.
> 
> If you could talk about the science, you would. You can't, so instead you spend your days ranting about how Al Gore is out to steal your precious bodily fluids.




meh


climate change science has become nothing more than an internet hobby and you're right.....as long as its having zero impact on public policy ( ie: no doubling of my electric rates) Im happy as a pig in shit and will point out the climate k00ks for exactly what they are: the religion of perpetual angst that dont give a flying fuck about regular people with real responsibilities.

ANd I never rant about Gore......he's irrelevant in 2012.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2012)

mamooth said:


> > What conditions are wildly different now?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



600,000 years of observation showing CO2 lagging temperature > TSI "divergence" since 1980 (and again you're saying that CO2 is the sole driver of climate change --- you see that you're doing that, right?)


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2012)

mamooth said:


> > What conditions are wildly different now?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not so fast -- TSI is a LOT more significant than the IPCC or warmers claim -- but it is not the ONLY Natural Forcing that's in play here. PLENTY of other factors to be added when you're ready to discuss them.. Right now -- you should go play with the ice wars... 

BTW: Man may have thrown up some CO2 in the past 40 yrs, but every year the lands and the ocean thrown up 20 TIMES that amount. And we still don't have an accounting for the variations in CO2 sinking abilities and how they change over time do we? 

*In fact --- TERMITES aren't far behind man when you combine their CO2/Methane production... *  Go get them to sign Kyoto...


----------



## mamooth (Sep 25, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> 2. I'm not pretending "that AGW scientists say that CO2 is the only climate driver" that's what the AGW "Scientists" have been saying.



Now you're just flat out making crap up.

If you disagree, simply prove your bizarre assertion by showing some of these climate scientists stating how "CO2 is the only climate driver". You made the insane claim, so it's up to you to support it. If you can't, we'll correctly take that as your admission that you're just making crap up.



> For the record can you state the hypothesis of AGW?



That due to human activity, increased greenhouse gas levels are starting to trap more heat and warm the planet. 

And that isn't anything even close to saying "CO2 is the sole driver of climate."



> 4. If CO2 lags temperature as demonstrated in the ice cores, how can it now drive the temperature?



Because, since CO2 is not the only driver of climate (as every single climate scientist has known and stated for decades), other factors were driving the climate in the past. Those identifiable factors are having no significant effect now, but the massive CO2 dump we're putting out is having a big effect.



> For the past 600,000 years increase in CO2 never drove the temperatures higher, what's different about today's CO2?



Why do you think today's CO2 is different? That's just bizarre. Any other denialists want to explain why they think today's CO2 is different? Westwall, why do you think today's CO2 is supercharged? That's just bizarre.

(Guys, your strange strawmen just make you all look like you're all too chicken to address the real arguments.)


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2012)

mamooth said:


> > What conditions are wildly different now?
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Wrong as usual.  Look back at those graphs that have been posted.  Note the 800 year lag between warming and CO2 level increases.  My theory is the CO2 level increases we see now are attributable to the MWP which occured....wait for it... 800 years ago.

Absolutely matches observed data.

Your theory doesn't at all.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 25, 2012)

westwall said:


> Note the 800 year lag between warming and CO2 level increases.  My theory is the CO2 level increases we see now are attributable to the MWP which occured....wait for it... 800 years ago.
> 
> Absolutely matches observed data.



Er, no. Your strange theory fails entirely to explain the shift in the isotopic signature of the CO2, which shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that the CO2 change came from ancient fossil fuels. As in millions of years old, not thousands.

Plus, your theory isn't a theory. It's handwaving. Where is your magic CO2 suddenly shooting out from, 800 years after the MWP? What's the mechanism? What's the evidence for that mechanism?



> Your theory doesn't at all.



Again, totally wrong. AGW theory perfectly explains both the levels and the isotopic signature of the CO2.


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2012)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Note the 800 year lag between warming and CO2 level increases.  My theory is the CO2 level increases we see now are attributable to the MWP which occured....wait for it... 800 years ago.
> ...







Wrong again buckwheat.  The isotopic change is for a vanishingly small amount of CO2.  Man contributes a paltry 5% of the total CO2 budget.  That means the overwhelming majority of CO2 increase is due to natural processes.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 28, 2012)

Sorry that I haven't been in to anwer comments for the past week, but perhaps time for a bit of an oerview of the science against climate changes presented. 

TSI and solar forcing has been prsented by Flac and Matthew, and although it certainly is an issue that warrants further study and is certainly a major player in our climate, most experts are clearly of the opinion that the current warming trend can not be explained by TSI. Certainly charts seem to show periods where temperature rises and solar focing are in sync - and then very long periods where they are not. 

Dave and Frank presented no scientific alternatives to 'AGW' at all.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 29, 2012)

Thank-you Alex --- I'll take "Fakey Pretenious ScoreKeepers" for $100 please..


----------



## Saigon (Sep 29, 2012)

mamooth said:


> > What conditions are wildly different now?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I couldn't agree more. 

Look at any decent graph of atmospheric CO2 and temperature change and we see a chillingly close connection. It's undeniable to any objective observer.

Look at any decent graph showing sunspot activity and temperature change and the connection seems episodic and stuttering. I think it is clear that solar acitivty plays a role, but Occams Razor would clearly conclude what scientists conclude - which is that CO2 is the key driver here.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 29, 2012)

Geez............talk about a complete waste of time..............the AGW Alarmist nutters might as well be throwing themselves off buildings so they can get another plate in their heads!!!


They're still talking abut "graphs" and "data" and "temperature change" and "atmospheric CO2"..........as if it is contributing to this enormous world green movement.



Yuk.........yuk...............it is a hoot to see them fall all over themselves with ther efforts!!!



*Coal makes a comeback in Europe *


While regulation limits coal power in the US, Hunt writes that the energy source is on the rise in Europe.

 By Gary Hunt / September 26, 2012 

*A funny thing is happening on the way to the clean energy future.  While the US government wages a regulatory war on coal fired generation, in Europe, the land of the oh so politically correct the drive for greenhouse gas emissions reduction is meeting a new competitorreality!*

Coal makes a comeback in Europe - CSMonitor.com


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 29, 2012)

Saigon said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > > What conditions are wildly different now?
> ...



Hey moron.. We see the SAME "chillingly close connection" between CO2 and Temperature during those successive Ice Ages -- but there's not a pair of scientists who will say that CO2 caused those Ice Ages is there? In fact -- the temperature CAUSED the CO2 to vary during those periods..  

Now tell me --- when atmosph. CO2 was 10 TIMES higher than it is today during the Dinosaur age -- -how come the world didn't come to an end?????


----------



## Saigon (Sep 30, 2012)

Flac - 

I think we're really going back over questions answered earlier now. 

This has been covered by the discussion on Milankovitch cycles, surely?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 30, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > > What conditions are wildly different now?
> ...



The denier cultists have long fastened on the Vostok ice cores as evidence that increasing  CO2 was caused by warming in the distant past and therefore (somehow) rising CO2 levels from human activities couldn't possibly be the cause of the current rising trend in world average temperatures. Their logic is demented and their understanding of the physical processes is nonexistent. Scientists have known for some time that CO2 was a powerful driver of climate changes and that even if some other factor, like orbital variations, was the trigger for some initial warming, that the CO2 released by that warming was itself the driver and feedback mechanism for far greater further warming. Now further research has revealed that the Vostok ice core record was inadequate and inaccurate at reflecting the global temperature variations. Studies of other proxie records at many different locations around the world indicate that at the initial transition point from the last period of glaciation to our current interglacial period, CO2 increases led the temperature increases.

Here's some of the scientific info on all this. I've posted this material elsewhere as well in rebuttal to the same mistaken denier cult propaganda points.

*Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost
Nature* 484, 8791 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10929
Published online 04 April 2012
Robert M. DeConto, Simone Galeotti, Mark Pagani, David Tracy, Kevin Schaefer, Tingjun Zhang, David Pollard & David J. Beerling
(abstract) 

*Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the PalaeoceneEocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5&#8201;°C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climateecosystemsoil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. This massive carbon reservoir had the potential to repeatedly release thousands of petagrams (1015 grams) of carbon to the atmosphereocean system, once a long-term warming threshold had been reached just before the PETM. Replenishment of permafrost soil carbon stocks following peak warming probably contributed to the rapid recovery from each event9, while providing a sensitive carbon reservoir for the next hyperthermal10. As background temperatures continued to rise following the PETM, the areal extent of permafrost steadily declined, resulting in an incrementally smaller available carbon pool and smaller hyperthermals at each successive orbital forcing maximum. A mechanism linking Earths orbital properties with release of soil carbon from permafrost provides a unifying model accounting for the salient features of the hyperthermals.*


*Study suggests rising CO2 in the past caused global warming
A paper in Nature shows how increased CO2 in the atmosphere led to warming  rather than the other way round*


*Research breakthrough: CO2 rises caused warming that ended last ice age*
By Tierney Smith
4 April 2012
(excerpts)
*Compelling new evidence suggests that rising CO2 caused much of the global warming responsible for ending the last ice age. The study, published in Nature, confirms what scientists have believed for sometime, and further supports the view that current rises in human-driven CO2 will lead to more global warming. CO2 was a big part of bringing the world out of the last Ice Age and it took about 10,000 years to do it, said Jeremy Shakun from Harvard University and lead-author of the report. Now CO2 levels are rising again, but this time an equivalent increase of CO2 has occurred in only about 200 years, and there are clear signs that the planet is already beginning to respond. While many of the details of future climate change remain to be figured out, our study bolsters the consensus view that rising CO2 will lead to more global warming.

While previous studies only compared carbon dioxide levels to local temperatures in Antarctica, the current study aimed to reconstruct global average temperature changes, using 80 core samples from around the world. Looking only at local temperatures in Antarctica, warming appears to precede rising CO2, an argument often adopted by sceptics to disprove carbon dioxides role in global warming. Shakun however, says this is leaving a huge gap in the research. Putting all these records together into a reconstruction of global temperature shows "a beautiful correlation with rising CO2 at the end of the Ice Age, said Shakun. Even more interesting, while CO2 trails Antarctica warming, it actually precedes global temperature change, which is what you would expect if CO2 is causing warming.
*


*Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Nature* 484, 4954 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu,  Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard
Published online 04 April 2012 
(Abstract)

*The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 30, 2012)

Ah, but Rolling Thunder, those are just scientists. What the hell do they know about anything? Much better to get one's information from undegreed ex-TV weathermen or obese junkies.

The wingnuts have made a scientific issue poltical. And it is going to bite their ass in a most serious manner.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah, but Rolling Thunder, those are just scientists. What the hell do they know about anything? Much better to get one's information from undegreed ex-TV weathermen or obese junkies.
> 
> The wingnuts have made a scientific issue poltical. And it is going to bite their ass in a most serious manner.



Are you seriously saying that the CO2 stayed "local" in Antarctica for 10,000 years, but today's CO2 is "Global" in under 200?

What is different about today's CO2?  How did it earn so many frequent flyer miles?

Here's what they're basing this "Science" on


----------



## Saigon (Sep 30, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Are you seriously saying that the CO2 stayed "local" in Antarctica for 10,000 years, but today's CO2 is "Global" in under 200?
> ]



Why do you always insist on ridiculing points no one has made?

Why not try and address the topic honestly?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Are you seriously saying that the CO2 stayed "local" in Antarctica for 10,000 years, but today's CO2 is "Global" in under 200?
> ...



You might want to read the article you comment on, apparently neither the CO2 nor temperature effect, over 10,000 years, were "Global"


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 30, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Ah, CrazyFruitcake, it is really too bad that you're too retarded to understand what you read. It's hard to tell sometimes whether you're deliberately making up strawman arguments or whether you're just so stupid you don't realize that you can't understand what was said.

Nowhere in those articles did anyone say what you apparently imagine that they said.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 30, 2012)




----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 30, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> ****


Ah, ol' kookiepukie, the bitter, confused denier cult retard.....what will he say?......well, actually nothing meaningful or relevant, ever......but then, well, he is completely retarded and somewhat insane so....what else can we expect, anyway.....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



It's OK, keep talking like that, you keep proving my point that there's no real science to your ridiculous "CO2 is turning the oceans to acid and melting the ice caps!" theory


----------



## Saigon (Sep 30, 2012)

Frank - 

Of course there is science behind it - that is not the question. By all means start a thread on the topic and we can present it. 

The question is whether you have the integrity to discuss it sensibly. I think it is fairly clear at this stage that you do not.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> Of course there is science behind it - that is not the question. By all means start a thread on the topic and we can present it.
> 
> The question is whether you have the integrity to discuss it sensibly. I think it is fairly clear at this stage that you do not.



Linking to today's story and adding "see that right there that's manmade global warming" is the farthest thing from science

Running out and making up proxies to explain away data that falsified your theory is also not science

But keep insulting because you prove time and again that you're a cult member


----------



## Saigon (Sep 30, 2012)

Frank - 

And there you go again attacking something no one is doing or saying. 

Weather is not climate, and I think most posters here are well aware of the difference. 

Why will you NEVER address this topic sensibly and honestly?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 1, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > ****
> ...






Im laughing............what a genius............


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2012)

*A study showing not only does base ignorance affect the assimulation of scientific information, but political views, as well. To the point that people with very strong political views see the science through the lens of their views, and totally misinterpret and misrepresent what the scientists are stating.*

Did the Arctic ice recover? Demographics of true and false climate facts

Lawrence C. Hamilton
Department of Sociology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824. email: Lawrence.Hamilton@unh.edu, phone: 1-603-862-1859

Abstract

Beliefs about climate change divide the U.S. public along party lines more distinctly than hot social issues. Research finds that better educated or informed respondents are more likely to align with their parties on climate change. This information-elite polarization resembles a process of biased assimilation first described in psychological experiments. In nonexperimental settings, college graduates could be prone to biased assimilation if they more effectively acquire information that supports their beliefs. Recent national and statewide survey data show response patterns consistent with biased assimilation (and biased guessing) contributing to the correlation observed between climate beliefs and knowledge. The survey knowledge questions involve key, uncontroversial observations such as whether the area of late-summer Arctic sea ice has declined, increased, or declined and then recovered to what it was 30 years ago. Correct answers are predicted by education, and some wrong answers (e.g., more ice) have predictors that suggest lack of knowledge. Other wrong answers (e.g., ice recovered) are predicted by political and belief factors instead. Response patterns suggest causality in both directions: science information affecting climate beliefs, but also beliefs affecting the assimilation of science information.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 1, 2012)

I've always supported passing out free testosterone supplements to those in need of them, as that would wipe out denialism almost immediately. If the simpering semi-men who make up most of the denialists had a more normal hormonal balance, they'd stop it with the pathetic attempts to overcompensate which are the root of much of the denialist conspiracy whining.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 1, 2012)

AGW has been listed as the cause of everything from acne to butter prices.... it's a moron's folly.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> I've always supported passing out free testosterone supplements to those in need of them, as that would wipe out denialism almost immediately. If the simpering semi-men who make up most of the denialists had a more normal hormonal balance, they'd stop it with the pathetic attempts to overcompensate which are the root of much of the denialist conspiracy whining.



Oh, so now ignoring the farce that is AGW means one's testosterone levels are off?

My God you folks are fucking stupid.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> And there you go again attacking something no one is doing or saying.
> 
> ...



Vostok ice cores set forth 600,000 years of CO2 and temperature but because it shows CO2 lagging temperature, your side discounts it as "local" then runs out to create phony data to fit your foregone conclusion.  Is 600,000 years weather or climate?

That's not science!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> *A study showing not only does base ignorance affect the assimulation of scientific information, but political views, as well. To the point that people with very strong political views see the science through the lens of their views, and totally misinterpret and misrepresent what the scientists are stating.*
> 
> Did the Arctic ice recover? Demographics of true and false climate facts
> 
> ...



AGW, it can't be proven, it cam only be believed in. Have faith!


----------



## mamooth (Oct 1, 2012)

Frank, no one is going to waste time shooting down your idiot ramblings for the hundredth time. You've demonstrated you're far too stupid and brainwashed to ever understand the simple explanations, hence the reason why everyone now just points at you and laughs.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 1, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Oh, so now ignoring the farce that is AGW means one's testosterone levels are off?



It's a bit more complicated. A lack of masculinity -- that is, being a pudgy doughboy, a Limbaugh-type who declares feminists are to blame for shrinking his genitals -- strongly correlates with being a conservative political cultist. AGW denial is just one part of the general cult dogma of the extremist conservative political cult. Helping such pudgy doughboys with their hormonal issues would encourage them to break from that political cult, and could result in the collapse of many crazy right-wing conspiracy theories, not just AGW denial.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, so now ignoring the farce that is AGW means one's testosterone levels are off?
> ...


'

Sez the metro who loves his cats !!!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Frank, no one is going to waste time shooting down your idiot ramblings for the hundredth time. You've demonstrated you're far too stupid and brainwashed to ever understand the simple explanations, hence the reason why everyone now just points at you and laughs.



You never have "simple explanations" or even lab experiments

If its so simple can you please post the lab experiment that shows how a 120 PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature a few degrees as your theory supposes?


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 1, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, no one is going to waste time shooting down your idiot ramblings for the hundredth time. You've demonstrated you're far too stupid and brainwashed to ever understand the simple explanations, hence the reason why everyone now just points at you and laughs.
> ...



Such experiments have been shown to you many times but, as Mamooth just pointed out, you are 'far too stupid and brainwashed' to accept the evidence. Crawl back into your hole, retard


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> Of course there is science behind it - that is not the question. By all means start a thread on the topic and we can present it.
> 
> The question is whether you have the integrity to discuss it sensibly. I think it is fairly clear at this stage that you do not.







You've shown that you can't discuss anything logically and with integrity.  We use your inane posts to show those who actually wish to know something what is truly going on.  As evidenced by your increasingly shrill whines and the ever sinking polls, it appears we are winning the battle of science over faith.


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> I've always supported passing out free testosterone supplements to those in need of them, as that would wipe out denialism almost immediately. If the simpering semi-men who make up most of the denialists had a more normal hormonal balance, they'd stop it with the pathetic attempts to overcompensate which are the root of much of the denialist conspiracy whining.








  That's rich!  You and yours couldn't survive three days in my desert area!

I spend weeks there and enjoy the hell out of myself every day...let me guess you're a vegan too!


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Frank, no one is going to waste time shooting down your idiot ramblings for the hundredth time. You've demonstrated you're far too stupid and brainwashed to ever understand the simple explanations, hence the reason why everyone now just points at you and laughs.








Wrong again buckwheat, it's you and yours who continually espouse religious faith preferentially over science.


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, so now ignoring the farce that is AGW means one's testosterone levels are off?
> ...









Gosh I would love to see a picture of you in your momma's basement, swilling a coke, and playing Dungeons and Dragons!


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...







As usual you are wrong.  The experiments shown (in addition to being really poorly done) are demonstrating the IDEAL GAS LAWS, not CO2 induced warming.  But you would have to have at least a minimal education to know that and clearly you havn't.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 1, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Frank -
> ...



LOLOLOLOL.....the ol' walleyedretard is getting desperate and his posts are getting ever more insane and out of touch with reality.

*In Poll, Many Link Weather Extremes to Climate Change*
The New York Times
By JUSTIN GILLIS
Published: April 17, 2012
(excerpts)
*A poll due for release on Wednesday shows that a large majority of Americans believe that this years unusually warm winter, last years blistering summer and some other weather disasters were probably made worse by global warming. And by a 2-to-1 margin, the public says the weather has been getting worse, rather than better, in recent years. The survey, the most detailed to date on the public response to weather extremes, comes atop other polling showing a recent uptick in concern about climate change. Read together, the polls suggest that direct experience of erratic weather may be convincing some people that the problem is no longer just a vague and distant threat.

A large majority of climate scientists say the climate is shifting in ways that could cause serious impacts, and they cite the human release of greenhouse gases as a principal cause. But a tiny, vocal minority of researchers contests that view, and has seemed in the last few years to be winning the battle of public opinion despite slim scientific evidence for their position. The poll suggests that a solid majority of the public feels that global warming is real, a result consistent with other polls that have asked the question in various ways. When invited to agree or disagree with the statement, global warming is affecting the weather in the United States, 69 percent of respondents in the new poll said they agreed, while 30 percent disagreed. ...When people were asked whether they attributed specific events to global warming, recent heat waves drew the largest majorities. Scientists say their statistical evidence for an increase of weather extremes is indeed strongest when it comes to heat waves. Asked whether they agreed or disagreed that global warming had contributed to the unusually warm winter just past, 25 percent of the respondents said they strongly agreed that it had, and 47 percent said they somewhat agreed. Only 17 percent somewhat disagreed, and 11 percent strongly disagreed. Majorities almost as large cited global warming as a likely factor in last years record summer heat wave, as well as the 2011 drought in Texas and Oklahoma. Smaller but still substantial majorities cited it as a factor in the record United States snowfalls of 2010 and 2011 and the Mississippi River floods of 2011. Those views, too, are consistent with scientific evidence, which suggests that global warming is causing heavier precipitation in all seasons.

Since 1989, Gallup has asked, how much do you personally worry about global warming? The percentage of people saying they were worried peaked at 66 percent just before the recession, then fell to a low of 51 percent in 2011, as the economy overwhelmed other concerns. Gallups most recent survey, in March, showed an uptick to 55 percent. Its certainly possible that this is the start of a trend back up, said Frank M. Newport, Gallups editor in chief.*


----------



## mamooth (Oct 1, 2012)

westwall said:


> That's rich!  You and yours couldn't survive three days in my desert area!



But we'd just do like you. You know, stay in the air conditioning all the time.



> I spend weeks there and enjoy the hell out of myself every day...let me guess you're a vegan too!



Perhaps they'll make reality TV show about it, and we'll get to observe your keen desert survivor skills. You know, driving the truck, opening the cooler, that kind of manlyman stuff.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



And yet you didn't post the experiment because....?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *A study showing not only does base ignorance affect the assimulation of scientific information, but political views, as well. To the point that people with very strong political views see the science through the lens of their views, and totally misinterpret and misrepresent what the scientists are stating.*
> ...



Ever the fucking dumb shit. 

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Posted, dumb ass. Just because you are incapable of understanding it does not mean the rest of us are.


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 1, 2012)

how many cars are ont he road today and how many will be on the road tomorrow? Same goes for coal-fired powerplants in china. I heard they have a new one brought online just about daily. 

Anyway, Here's something for the AGW deniers to figure out how to discount too: Great Barrier Reef coral seeing 'major decline,' scientists report - World News


> They also noted that reducing starfish is a short-term step that can "only be successful if climatic conditions are stabilized, as losses due to bleaching and cyclones will otherwise increase."


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2012)

Arctic ice, corals, food production in the world's breadbaskets, wildfires, droughts, floods, and the northward extension of tropical diseases, none of this means anything to the denialists. It does not agree with their politics, therefore cannot be true.

Interesting, as President Obama's second term draws to a close, there will be another election. And, by then, the affects of the warming will be all too apperant. And guess who has been on the very wrong side of the debate?


----------



## Saigon (Oct 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Arctic ice, corals, food production in the world's breadbaskets, wildfires, droughts, floods, and the northward extension of tropical diseases, none of this means anything to the denialists. It does not agree with their politics, therefore cannot be true.
> 
> Interesting, as President Obama's second term draws to a close, there will be another election. And, by then, the affects of the warming will be all too apperant. And guess who has been on the very wrong side of the debate?



Yes, exactly. 

Which is absolutely baffling, especially in an age where so much information is available from so many different sources and across such a vast range as aspects of climate. 

I have been genuinely surprised how little science many so-called Deniers have as the basis for their beliefs. On a thread like this one it has been clear very few posters actually wish to present or debate scientific alternatives to AGW.


----------



## westwall (Oct 6, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic ice, corals, food production in the world's breadbaskets, wildfires, droughts, floods, and the northward extension of tropical diseases, none of this means anything to the denialists. It does not agree with their politics, therefore cannot be true.
> ...







That's because we don't have to.  You have made the claim that man is causing the climate to change.  That means it is you who have to prove your point.  All we have to do is show that the weather we are seeing is nothing unusual.  We have done so repeatedly.

I can go back to the 1500's and show that weather back then is the same as today.  In fact it was worse back then.  We have further shown that the fundamental theory of AGW (CO2 drives temperatures) is wrong.  The Vostock ice cores prove that.

Come back when you want to talk about science, and not computer models that are less accurate than random guessing as shown in the study published in the Journal of Forecasting.


----------



## IanC (Oct 6, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic ice, corals, food production in the world's breadbaskets, wildfires, droughts, floods, and the northward extension of tropical diseases, none of this means anything to the denialists. It does not agree with their politics, therefore cannot be true.
> ...




saigon- you are confusing the vast pile of data which has many possible interpretations with the alarmist conclusions that many climate scientists add on to the end of their studies even when the actual evidence shows no actual conclusive support.

add to that the outright hostility of many or most climate publications to publishing any studies that show skeptical results and you end up where we are now with two camps with differing viewpoints and no way to even settle the points of agreement or to have the concensus side back down from some of its more exaggerated claims.

the skeptics dont have to produce the correct hypothesis and models. they arent funded to do that. they only have to show the weakness in the consensus science, and they have done that albeit to deaf ears.


----------



## Saigon (Oct 6, 2012)

Ian C - 

Not only do climate deniers have every bit as much funding as th opposing camp; there is also a wealth of data and science produced by entirely neutral scientists which both sides can use as they wish. 

Despite all of the hysteria to the contrary, I think it is clear that the overwhelming majority of genuinely scientific papers are sound, objective and meet acceptable standards.

As for you other point, if deniers can not produce any other credible theory to explain the changes in climate, then I would have thought they were bound to accept the theory most scientists accept. 

While I agre solar acitivity warrants further analysis, it does seem that for mos objective observers, solar acitivity alone can not explain many of the changes we know for a fact are taking place.


----------



## IanC (Oct 6, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Ian C -
> 
> Not only do climate deniers have every bit as much funding as th opposing camp; there is also a wealth of data and science produced by entirely neutral scientists which both sides can use as they wish.
> 
> ...



hahahaha, how can you seriously state that climate deniers have every bit as much funding as AGW proponents?

anyways, let's discuss one major area of contention. positive feedbacks that supposedly increase the temperature increase of doubling CO2 from ~1C (by reasonable but not necessarily correct theoretical calculation) to the 3-4C claimed by the IPCC and incorporated into climate models. most of the dire predictions are predicated on the much higher climate sensitivity but the reality of temperature data (which may also be itself exaggerated) show that climate models are statistically wrong. there are many indications thatthere are no net positive feedbacks, by many methods and more everyday, yet established science is finding it very hard to publically back down from their inflated numbers because their prediction scenarios would melt away to next to nothing.

if the next IPCC report carries an estimate of, say, 1.1-4C per doubling with a best guess of 2.2, will you see that as a victory for skeptics who worked tirelessly to correct faulty mathematics in consensus side papers, or just a new estimate from recent and better data and calculation records?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 6, 2012)

This forum is hysterical............


You talk about a place to visit that exemplifies the definition of clueless..........this is the place. How many times do we come on here and read about "peer reviewed", "scientific papers", "consensus", "the IPCC says.....", "established science......".


But its not mattering for dick in the real world.

These people are like the guy who walks around with a museum piece gorgan, brags about it plenty but never gets to poke a single babe!!









You stupid oddball social invalids.................the level of inability to connect the dots is profound. You assholes come in here daily and post up the same BS year after year after year.......and where has it gotten you? Go look up the definition of "mental case"................  http://rodgerv.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/insanity-doing-the-same-thing-over-and-over-again-and-expecting-different-results/


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 6, 2012)

You climate change nuts should broaden your science horizons a bit.............theres lots of interesting stuff out there to be dabbling in that wuld be more productive...................

Here ya go.......some new information about nut hoarding squirrels....... Fox squirrels show long-term investment savvy when hoarding nuts


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 6, 2012)

http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Korchinski-Limits-of-Wind-Power.pdf


----------



## Saigon (Oct 6, 2012)

> hahahaha, how can you seriously state that climate deniers have every bit as much funding as AGW proponents?



Because of the massive funding ploughed into research by the coal, oil and nuclear industries. 

These industries generate several hundred times as much revenue as renewables, and spend several hundred times more on research as a result. 

It's common sense and common knowledge, I would have thought.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 6, 2012)

What is interesting here is that if we launch a satellite to observe the weather, the denialists count that as funded for AGW. If there is a study of glaciers, they count that as funded for AGW. A study of permafrost is counted as for AGW. You see, even though these studies are neutral in and of themselves, just providing data, since that data shows AGW to be a fact, they have to state that it is all part of a conspiracy. 

Even as the predictions of the climatologists are coming true, they stand and deny that it is happening. No amount of evidence is going to change their minds. It is a political matter with them, reality be damned.


----------



## IanC (Oct 6, 2012)

Saigon said:


> > hahahaha, how can you seriously state that climate deniers have every bit as much funding as AGW proponents?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




if 97% of scientists believe in AGW that leaves 3% as sceptical scientists. you are saying those 3% are getting 30 times as much funding as the other 97%? would you care to name the skeptical scientists and the amounts they are getting to fund their work? it doesnt seem to make sense to me because it  only retired or successfully established and tenured climate scientists have the temerity to buck consensus and speak against AGW. 

actually it seems like people like Willie Soon were publically castigated for taking a few hundred thousand dollars over a decade, from the oil industry. surely you arent saying a few million dollars here and there amounts to anything more than a rounding error to the money passed out to study AGW?


----------



## Saigon (Oct 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> What is interesting here is that if we launch a satellite to observe the weather, the denialists count that as funded for AGW. If there is a study of glaciers, they count that as funded for AGW. A study of permafrost is counted as for AGW. You see, even though these studies are neutral in and of themselves, just providing data, since that data shows AGW to be a fact, they have to state that it is all part of a conspiracy.
> 
> Even as the predictions of the climatologists are coming true, they stand and deny that it is happening. No amount of evidence is going to change their minds. It is a political matter with them, reality be damned.



Exactly, and well said. 

I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of scientists are honest, hard-working people who are far more interested in science than politics. 

As a journalist I interviewed the head of physics at Finland's largest university a while ago. He is involved with research into cloud formation. This guy has dedicated his life to physics, loved it from the time he was a child. He has lectured in the US and is heavily involved in CERN. 

And yet according to many of our posters here, we should ignore his research because Aalto University is funded by the Finnish government, and they are are biased. They are also conservatives and also support nuclear energy, but apparently they are biased and must be ignored, purely and simply because they listen to scientists.

This kind of thinking can ONLY be political.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> What is interesting here is that if we launch a satellite to observe the weather, the denialists count that as funded for AGW. If there is a study of glaciers, they count that as funded for AGW. A study of permafrost is counted as for AGW. You see, even though these studies are neutral in and of themselves, just providing data, since that data shows AGW to be a fact, they have to state that it is all part of a conspiracy.
> 
> Even as the predictions of the climatologists are coming true, they stand and deny that it is happening. No amount of evidence is going to change their minds. It is a political matter with them, reality be damned.





Actually Ray......its more a matter of economics than anything.


Id love to take a 10 minute drive this morning down to the local Nissan dealer and drive out with a new R35GTR. Unfortuantely, my financial obligations prohibit me from doing so..........doesnt take me long to reconcile that.


A couple of posts back, I threw up a link on the reality of wind power ( GlobalWarming.com or soemthing ike that............ ironically!!!! ) and its inherent flaws in making any appreciable difference in meeting our energy needs. At this point in the 21st century, my reality > your reality. And nothing is going to change that. Hopefully for your side, somebody becomes innovative with the technology and we can apply effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions. Short of that, indeed, any further discussion is economically and politically infeasible.


I admire the hell out of you for presenting your side Ray, but its simply not feasible................its like the analogy I made with a dripping faucet for a homeowner. Its ALWAYS last on the list of thngs to do. When a pipe bursts on the other hand, people pay attention..........when people are waterskiing in northern Alaska for three weeks in mid-January, the pipe will have burst.


----------



## IanC (Oct 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> What is interesting here is that if we launch a satellite to observe the weather, the denialists count that as funded for AGW. If there is a study of glaciers, they count that as funded for AGW. A study of permafrost is counted as for AGW. You see, even though these studies are neutral in and of themselves, just providing data, since that data shows AGW to be a fact, they have to state that it is all part of a conspiracy.
> 
> Even as the predictions of the climatologists are coming true, they stand and deny that it is happening. No amount of evidence is going to change their minds. It is a political matter with them, reality be damned.




OK. you have a point. but the data that is collected is also held by pro-AGW scientists who decide if it will be released. Lonnie Thompson is the poster boy for making inconvenient data disappear if it is not useful for AGW and probably would be a boon for the sceptics.

I wish Big Oil would pony up the cash so that Steve McIntyre could have a couple of interns to do the grunt work for his investigations. I wish some University would assign some of their statisticians to audit the methodologies of climate science. I wish _Science_ and _Nature_ and many of the other peer review paper publishers would actually follow their rules for making data available.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 6, 2012)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > What is interesting here is that if we launch a satellite to observe the weather, the denialists count that as funded for AGW. If there is a study of glaciers, they count that as funded for AGW. A study of permafrost is counted as for AGW. You see, even though these studies are neutral in and of themselves, just providing data, since that data shows AGW to be a fact, they have to state that it is all part of a conspiracy.
> ...




For what end s0n? For what end exactly?


Not going to change dick on the landscape...........hate to burst your bubble but that is just the way it is.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 6, 2012)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > What is interesting here is that if we launch a satellite to observe the weather, the denialists count that as funded for AGW. If there is a study of glaciers, they count that as funded for AGW. A study of permafrost is counted as for AGW. You see, even though these studies are neutral in and of themselves, just providing data, since that data shows AGW to be a fact, they have to state that it is all part of a conspiracy.
> ...



Or how about the IPCC just changing it's mission statement to "INVESTIGATE CLIMATE CHANGE" --- rather than *only* investigating those "contributions of MAN-MADE climate change".. 

Funny thing about skeptics.. Even in the case of OTHER political hijinks.. They FEED on the less than FULL AND HONEST disclosure from the KEEPERS of that info.. Skeptics multiply because information is whitewashed or withheld in the first place. 

OPEN UP the process on AGW that has amply been demonstrated to be closed and restricted to the normal scientific enquiry ----- and you'd kill A LOT OF US skeptics faster than just calling us names.. 

And NO O.R. --- I don't count an orbiting solar observatory as an expenditure on AGW. That would be ridiculous. What is NOT ridiculous --* is when a group of pro-AGW academics HIJACK the data set from that satellite and start applying ARBITRARY corrections OVER THE OBJECTIONS of the creators of that instrumentation and directors of it's mission and the IPCC blesses those corrections in order to PRESERVE their mission of pushing ANTHROPOMORPHIC influences. *.. 

Because then -- they've turned a valuable scientific tool into a weapon of propaganda dissemenation and they SHOULD be charged for the total cost of that mission.


----------



## westwall (Oct 6, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







I agree they should be "charged", tried, convicted and sentenced to long terms in the state prison.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 6, 2012)

Check this out boys.........the k00ks are back at it this am..........

Arctic Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise May Pose Imminent Threat To Island Nations, Climate Scientist Says



And what a surprise............always talking about the Arctic ice. As if the south pole doesnt exist!!!


----------



## konradv (Oct 7, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Check this out boys.........the k00ks are back at it this am..........
> 
> Arctic Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise May Pose Imminent Threat To Island Nations, Climate Scientist Says
> 
> And what a surprise............always talking about the Arctic ice. As if the south pole doesnt exist!!!



How about reading an article once in a while?  Antarctica IS mentioned.  *FAIL!!!*


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 8, 2012)

konradv said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Check this out boys.........the k00ks are back at it this am..........
> ...






LOL........where the ice is expanding!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Except for a tiny area in the western part of Antarctica, the whole fucking thing is expanding faster than Oprah coming off her twinkie diet.........the dickhead scientist conveniently ignores that though!!!


----------



## Saigon (Oct 9, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> LOL........where the ice is expanding!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Except for a tiny area in the western part of Antarctica, the whole fucking thing is expanding faster than Oprah coming off her twinkie diet.........the dickhead scientist conveniently ignores that though!!!



You are a silly, pathetic little child, really, aren't you Skooks?

The Antarctic as a whole IS losing ice. Fact.

"Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too."

NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?

An honest poster would admit this, and thus come a little closer to understanding something of the topic- Do you have those kind of balls?

Let's see.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 9, 2012)

Saigon said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > LOL........where the ice is expanding!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Except for a tiny area in the western part of Antarctica, the whole fucking thing is expanding faster than Oprah coming off her twinkie diet.........the dickhead scientist conveniently ignores that though!!!
> ...



Let's see, in relatively recent geological times the ice melted from entire North American continent -- including all of Canada, but that process stopped and is only restarting because of the "extra" CO2 as a result of burning "Fossil fuels"?

Is that right?

The temperature rose enough to melt an entire continent of ice....but then it stopped -- and then restarted in the last 100 years.

Does that even sound sane to you?


----------



## westwall (Oct 9, 2012)

Saigon said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > LOL........where the ice is expanding!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Except for a tiny area in the western part of Antarctica, the whole fucking thing is expanding faster than Oprah coming off her twinkie diet.........the dickhead scientist conveniently ignores that though!!!
> ...








Parts of the Antarctic peninsula may indeed be losing ice.  However, the vast bulk of Antarctica is gaining ice.  So much so that there is a net positive increase in the ice on the continent.  

An honest poster would admit this.


Even Nat Geo admits it...so why don't you?


"Satellite data show that, over the past 30 years, Arctic sea ice has declined while Antarctic sea ice has mysteriously expanded, according to study leader Jiping Liu, a research scientist at Georgia Tech in Atlanta."

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

Why Antarctic Sea Ice Is Growing in a Warmer World


----------



## Saigon (Oct 10, 2012)

No answer from Skooks there I see. What a surprise. 

It just amazes me that posters would rather mouth of and be wrong and then get up to speed and be right. 

Westwall - 

And yes - the Antarctic is losing LAND ice. It's a plain, simple verifable fact, and one I think we can assume you know yourself. How often do we see that on these threads? 

I don't understand at all what posters like yourself gain by pursuing arguments you know full well have no merit whatsoever. It's just so mindless - particularly when you must realise anyone with google can establish that you are either stupid or lying in about 1.5 seconds. 

For anyone actually interested in the topic, here is an overview:

Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice range from losing 100 Gt/year to over 300 Gt/year. Because 360 Gt/year represents an annual sea level rise of 1 mm/year, recent estimates indicate a contribution of between 0.27 mm/year and 0.83 mm/year coming from Antarctica. There is of course uncertainty in the estimations methods but multiple different types of measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm


----------



## konradv (Oct 10, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Hardly the point.  You said Antarctica wasn't mentioned, but it was.  So, either you didn't read the article or you lied.  Either way it puts all your posts in question.


----------



## Saigon (Oct 10, 2012)

Konrad - 

I think the fact that Skooks can't read or write might also reflect on the credibiity of his threads...!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 10, 2012)

Ice continues to melt as part of the recent overall warming trend that melted the ice off of North America and all of Canada. 

Shocking, I tell you.


----------



## Saigon (Oct 10, 2012)

Frank - 

It is shocking, but I think we both realise that you lack the honesty and balls to discuss the issue.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 10, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> It is shocking, but I think we both realise that you lack the honesty and balls to discuss the issue.








See how the blue temperature line starts to spike up 20,000 years ago?  That melted an entire continent of ice off of northern America and all of Canada

The temperature today is still in the "Melting a continent of ice" range of 8 degrees warmer than it was 20,000 years ago.

That's what's melting the ice.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 10, 2012)

Er, no. The warmup ended 8,000 years ago, as your own graph clearly shows. Natural cycles had the earth in a very slow temperature decline. Until very recently, when the earth suddenly flipflopped into fast warming.

The AGW side has an explanation for that which matches all the observed data, accounts for all natural cycles, and which has made accurate predictions for decades. That's why AGW theory has credibility.

To have credibility yourself, you need to have a theory that explains the observed data. Your "natural cycles" theory fails completely in that regard.


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Er, no. The warmup ended 8,000 years ago, as your own graph clearly shows. Natural cycles had the earth in a very slow temperature decline. Until very recently, when the earth suddenly flipflopped into fast warming.
> 
> The AGW side has an explanation for that which matches all the observed data, accounts for all natural cycles, and which has made accurate predictions for decades. That's why AGW theory has credibility.
> 
> To have credibility yourself, you need to have a theory that explains the observed data. Your "natural cycles" theory fails completely in that regard.









Wrong again buckwheat.  You and Saigon love to state untruths about how we won't "discuss" the issues, yet it's you who won't address historical fact and current scientific papers that refute your POV.  

You two, instead,  wish to discuss nothing you merely wish to spew invective AT people.

There is no discussion in anything you present.

For your info mamooth, 8000 years ago witnessed a warming spike that is called the HOLOCENE THERMAL MAXIMUM.  Amazingly enough it was MUCH warmer than it is today and no CO2 drove it.  In fact CO2 levels began to spike hundreds of years AFTER the fact.

You wish to "discuss" things?  Start with that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 10, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Er, no. The warmup ended 8,000 years ago, as your own graph clearly shows. Natural cycles had the earth in a very slow temperature decline. Until very recently, when the earth suddenly flipflopped into fast warming.
> 
> The AGW side has an explanation for that which matches all the observed data, accounts for all natural cycles, and which has made accurate predictions for decades. That's why AGW theory has credibility.
> 
> To have credibility yourself, you need to have a theory that explains the observed data. Your "natural cycles" theory fails completely in that regard.



That's not much different from honestly saying that for 10 or 12 years, the CURRENT warming has ceased.. We both know in both cases -- we're sitting at RELATIVE thermal maximums for those periods. 

You say the warming ended 8000 years ago --- then I can say the current warming ended in 1998. Both of us would playing fast and loose with math and science, but neither of us are lying... 

And BTW --- AGW attempts to HIDE and OBSCURE any "natural cycle" that doesn't sign their checks. The 1.2W/m2 solar TSI increase since 1700 is ALSO at a relative MAXIMUM.
The time to reach equilibrium in the oceans is??????


----------



## Saigon (Oct 10, 2012)

Westwall, Flac - 

Before moving on, would both of you mind acknowlding that Antarctica is experiencing net loss of land ice? 

This might mean we don't have to go through the same nonsense on the next thread.


----------



## IanC (Oct 11, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall, Flac -
> 
> Before moving on, would both of you mind acknowlding that Antarctica is experiencing net loss of land ice?
> 
> This might mean we don't have to go through the same nonsense on the next thread.



why on earth would anyone acknowledge that??????????

when satellite altimetry was started the first figures were along the lines of 50GT/yr loss plus or minus 60GT/yr.

then we got the moving rivers of ice graphics with claims of unprecedented ice loss to the tune of up to 300GT/yr with a sea level rise of almost 1mm/yr just from the Antarctic alone.

and who could forget Steig's cover story in _Nature_ showing warming all over Antarctica? too bad they wouldnt print the rebuttal paper that showed the calculations were wrong in a very Mann-like way, with typical principal components screwups.

and the oceans melting the land-footed ice sheets from below. as if the oceans hadnt always melted the ice from below.

H. Jay Zwally is an alarmist scientist who wrote many of those papers claiming doom from out of control sea level rise via Antarctica melting, and shrilly announced that the Artic would be ice free by 2012 after the 2007 minimum. what does _he_ say about Antarctic melting now? in 2011(http://www.waisworkshop.org/presentations/2011/Session4/Zwally.pdf ) he had seemingly reversed his direction and said there was a 38GT/yr 
increase.  and in 2012(http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf) that increase has gone up to 49GT/yr.

personally I think ice shrinkage or growth at both of the poles is governed by natural variation and is certainly not proof or disproof of AGW. but to ask people to acknowledge the factual nature of Antarctic ice decrease (at lease you didnt describe it as the _rapidly accelerating decrease)_ is preposterous.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 11, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall, Flac -
> 
> Before moving on, would both of you mind acknowlding that Antarctica is experiencing net loss of land ice?
> 
> This might mean we don't have to go through the same nonsense on the next thread.



Oh -- I guess I forgot that this ENTIRE thread is nothing but a theatrical inquisition and not a debate.. 

I've seen YOUR standards of proof -- and they suck...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 11, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Er, no. The warmup ended 8,000 years ago, as your own graph clearly shows. Natural cycles had the earth in a very slow temperature decline. Until very recently, when the earth suddenly flipflopped into fast warming.
> 
> The AGW side has an explanation for that which matches all the observed data, accounts for all natural cycles, and which has made accurate predictions for decades. That's why AGW theory has credibility.
> 
> To have credibility yourself, you need to have a theory that explains the observed data. Your "natural cycles" theory fails completely in that regard.



How did the warm up "end" if its still 8 degree warmer than when the trend started? 

Did you mean to say that the warming that melted the ice, the same trend that melted the ice sheet shown below, continues and has plateaued in a + or - 1 degree range that is still 8 degrees warmer than when the trend started?

The sudden "flip flop" into warming started 20,000 years ago, was not driven by CO2 and uncovered Northern USA and all of Canada


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 11, 2012)

I have it up to HERE w/ Deniers!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 11, 2012)

Dot Com said:


> I have it up to HERE w/ Deniers!!!



600,000 year data set is a denier!  Tear into the chart!  Let the butthurt flow through you!  A Warmer draws his strength from his hatred of science


----------



## westwall (Oct 11, 2012)

Dot Com said:


> I have it up to HERE w/ Deniers!!!






I AGREE!  You science and history DENIERs piss me off!  Read a darned book and educate yourselves.  You are so woefully ignorant of the science and actual historical fact it is offensive.

Opinion is one thing.  Uniformed opinion, such as yours, is an abomination!


----------



## Bigfoot (Oct 11, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall, Flac -
> 
> Before moving on, would both of you mind acknowlding that Antarctica is experiencing net loss of land ice?
> 
> This might mean we don't have to go through the same nonsense on the next thread.



LOL, that is untrue. Just this morning I was reading that the antarctic ice pack was increasing and that global warmists were blaming the increase in antarctic ice on global warming! You guys are killing me here!


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 11, 2012)

meh on all of this shit......the south pole ice is expanding except for a tiny area of the western shelf........

Anybody notice that the k00ks ALWAYS post up North Pole photos????!!!


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 11, 2012)

Dot Com said:


> I have it up to HERE w/ Deniers!!!



Cool.. Where exactly are you up to?


----------



## mamooth (Oct 12, 2012)

Everyone except the craziest cranks has abandoned the denialist fringe cult. All of planet earth mocks them now. That's got to wear on their sanity, knowing everyone considers them to be clowns. And it shows, with many denialists here clearly in sanity death spirals. But all is not lost, as they may still be able to post while institutionalized.


----------



## westwall (Oct 12, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Everyone except the craziest cranks has abandoned the denialist fringe cult. All of planet earth mocks them now. That's got to wear on their sanity, knowing everyone considers them to be clowns. And it shows, with many denialists here clearly in sanity death spirals. But all is not lost, as they may still be able to post while institutionalized.









  Really, you need to go seek help there moothy old girl.  The sceptics have been soundly kicking your asses all over creation since the CLIMATEGATE emails were released.  With the exception of a few places like Australia and Germany your cult is in decline the world over.

Get used to failure.  Your religion has failed and soon it will be classed the same as Zoroastrianism.  Yes there are still practitioners but they are a dying breed.


----------



## Bigfoot (Oct 12, 2012)

Is Manmooth female? I thought she was male based on the amount of always present rudeness. Hardly ever any substance but always much trolling.


----------



## westwall (Oct 12, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Is Manmooth female? I thought she was male based on the amount of always present rudeness. Hardly ever any substance but always much trolling.







mammy is one of the inumerable socks created by a couple of enviro whackos to attempt to support their silly religion.  Hence mammy is asexual, I just call mammy a girl because of the avatar.  Bastet was a female Egyptian Goddess that took the form of a cat.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 12, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Everyone except the craziest cranks has abandoned the denialist fringe cult. All of planet earth mocks them now. That's got to wear on their sanity, knowing everyone considers them to be clowns. And it shows, with many denialists here clearly in sanity death spirals. But all is not lost, as they may still be able to post while institutionalized.



You're completely right.. Just yesterday a couple squirrels mocked me by knocking down some hickory nuts on my head. And the planet also mocked me last Sunday when I nearly dumped my lawn tractor in a mole hole on the back hillside.. 

Could be I end up institutionalized.. But I swear I'll use all that spare time to mock these faux enviro-nuts to my last breath. 

Take a breath.. Hold in the CO2... Don't pollute...


----------



## Saigon (Oct 13, 2012)

westwall said:


> Really, you need to go seek help there moothy old girl.  The sceptics have been soundly kicking your asses all over creation since the CLIMATEGATE emails were released.  With the exception of a few places like Australia and Germany your cult is in decline the world over.
> 
> Get used to failure.  Your religion has failed and soon it will be classed the same as Zoroastrianism.  Yes there are still practitioners but they are a dying breed.



Do you honestly believe that, Westwall?

I think we can be fairly sure you don't. 

We know that more than 60 national science academies and international research units all support the AGW theory - while not a single one opposes the idea.

That hardly fits with your statement, does it?


----------



## westwall (Oct 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Really, you need to go seek help there moothy old girl.  The sceptics have been soundly kicking your asses all over creation since the CLIMATEGATE emails were released.  With the exception of a few places like Australia and Germany your cult is in decline the world over.
> ...








Why yes I do mr. puppet.  Cap and Trade is dead here in the States.  The carbon trading schemes are dying worldwide.  Carbon credits are trading for pennies per ton where once they were selling for dollars.  Most major trading companies have closed down their carbon trading desks as a result.

Al Gores investment portfolio contains NO GREEN ENERGY companies!  It does however contain a natural gas fracking company.

All those organisations derive most of their funding from perpetuating the fraud so that argument and its concurrent appeal to authority matters not a whit.  Some day you may understand the difference between science and appeals to authority but I doubt it.

So yes, I believe everything I said.  Your anti-science religion is dying and in ten years it will be a bad, bad memory save for the fanatics like yourselves who will forever strive to keep it alive.


----------



## Saigon (Oct 13, 2012)

Westwall - 

Carbon trading has nothing whatsoever to do with the science behind climate change. Obviously.


----------



## IanC (Oct 13, 2012)

Richard Feynman's great 'Carco Cult' speech was a warning to the graduating students to not lie to themselves. in science you are not supposed to 'fool' anyone, and the easiest person to fool is yourself.

climate science needs its own Feynman to come in and clean up the prevailing attitude that seems to pressure its members into distorting the findings to accomodate the 'noble cause'. while there have been sins of commission done, I am much more worried about sins of ommission. it is bad that Michael Mann used the 'upsidedown Tiljander cores' in defense of his hockey stick graph and has thus poisoned numerous downhill papers, but it is worse that the rank and file of climate scientists have not come out publically to denounce it.

here is another example of 'sin of ommission'. just about everybody shades their story to accent the positive evidence and hide the negative but in science you are supposed to be brutally honest and even your own worst critic.

over the last two decades we have had satellite altimetry to study Antarctica and a decade's worth of GRACE. we have been told of ever increasing ice loss by various means and the supposed sea level increase of possibly up to many 10s of metres. hundreds of articles have been written in the media and many others in the Journals. so what would happen if a team was given the job of collating and reaccessing the available data and the results were not what they expected? would they make the findings obvious and inform the media? or would they accentuate the localized ice losses and hide the overall ice mass increase in plain sight by not pointing it out? I think we all know the answer to that question.

http://www.waisworkshop.org/presentations/2011/Session4/Zwally.pdf

first graphic contains-


> &#61553; 1900 Gt/yr approximate total input from
> precipitation &#8211; evaporation less blowing snow
> removal.
> &#61553; Negligible output from surface melting and
> ...



second graphic contains-


> &#61553; The wide range of published values of the rate of Antarctic
> net mass change (+50 to -250 Gt/yr) showed a large uncertainty
> in the current (and recent) contribution to sea level rise (-0.1 to
> +0.7 mm/yr). Range is about 15% of input.
> ...



final graphic contains-


> Climate warming in Arctic and increasing
> ice loss in Greenland (-171 Gt/yr)!
> 
> West Antartica (-38 Gt/yr) and Peninsula
> ...



!?! Greenland hadnt been talked about but here it is with bold colouring!

the overall results did not have any highlighted colours _and_ the text was superimposed over a snowmobile graphic which made the remark about the overall positive balance almost impossible to read!

hide the decline, hide the incline, cherry picking, etc are all very bad for the reputation of science but they seem to be a staple of what passes for research.

postscript- Zwally made another presentation in 2012 where he stated the overall gain in ice was now increased to 49GT/yr but no reference data was presented for public consumption.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 13, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Everyone except the craziest cranks has abandoned the denialist fringe cult. All of planet earth mocks them now. That's got to wear on their sanity, knowing everyone considers them to be clowns. And it shows, with many denialists here clearly in sanity death spirals. But all is not lost, as they may still be able to post while institutionalized.





Honey.........you have the political IQ of a small soap dish. Im guessing too youre one of those feminist bulldog crazies..............


Heres to those who are mocked............and who are winning >>>>>>


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Carbon trading has nothing whatsoever to do with the science behind climate change. Obviously.




West......he's right ya know. Its a hobby.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 13, 2012)

yuk...yuk................*death spiral winning.*


Purple is gay


----------



## westwall (Oct 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Carbon trading has nothing whatsoever to do with the science behind climate change. Obviously.







Ahhhh yes, but carbon trading was a direct financial component of the fraud of AGW climate change.  For a journo you sure seem to be painfully uninformed.  When it became clear that AGW theory was fraudulent (thanks to the CLIMATEGATE emails) the carbon market collapsed.  All carbon regulating schemes died here in the legislature so the Obama admin ghas had to resort to EPA fiat to try and implement their bullshit.  And that too has failed with the further attack on the EPA in the form that there is a serious effort afoot now to dismantle it or at the least defund it to render it impotent.

Your "theory" is false.  It's been proven comprehensively that CO2 lags temperature by hundreds of years, it has also become quite apparent that the leading lights of AGW "theory" have engaged in a years long effort to falsify the historical temperature record and they have been caught doing it.  In New Zealand they were handed a major defeat and the original record had to be used, not their fraudulent one.

The sam will be happening here in the US soon as well.  As soon as Obama isout of office you will see a wholsale house cleaning in NASA and GISS as the fraudsters are sent packing.  Hopefully we will see the likes of Mann and Trenberth and company prosecuted for fraud and imprisoned.

Allready Mann is in serious trouble in Canada where the arrogant twerp sued Dr. Tim Ball and found out to his horror that he would have to release his raw data during discovery.  He has refused (gee I wonder why) and will be in Contempt of Court very soon (if he isn't allready) and very soon after that he will most quietly drop his suit and repay Dr. Balls legal fees.

So you see dear cultist, your religion's days are numbered.  There is ZERO empirical data to support your precious "theory" and loads to refute it.  That is the nature of scientific enquiry.....which is ENQUIRY!  Not appeals to authority and "consensus".

Consensus is a political term, not a scientific one.


----------



## Saigon (Oct 14, 2012)

Westwall - 

Unfortunately what you are posting is simply fantasy - and I have no doubt that you would ignore all and any evidence of that, there is rally very little to discuss. 

You are entitled to your own beliefs, of course, but you must realise yourelf that there can't be more than a couple of hundred people in th entire world who would agree with most of your claims here. 

Climategate proved climate change was bullshit?

I somehow don't think you'll get many takers for that one!



> In New Zealand they were handed a major defeat and the original record had to be used, not their fraudulent one.



This sentence did catch my eye though - what do you mean by this?


----------



## IanC (Oct 14, 2012)

from a UK paper, attributing this graph to the Met Office-









> The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
> The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
> This means that the &#8216;plateau&#8217; or &#8216;pause&#8217; in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
> 
> ...



I am agnostic on the reality and the reasons behind global warming/climate change/weather disruption. but science moves forward by synthesizing an idea, collecting data to test the idea, making predictions according to the ideas, and having third parties test the ideas and predictions. so far climate science has struck out big time on predictions and making data and methodology available for replication of their work. how much longer before we have to call this experiment a failure?


----------

