2016 Arctic sea ice thread

[CrusaderFrank]

Look:

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER JULY 28, 2012

Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Berkeley, Calif.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. [...]

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. [...]

What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.​

"These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming...."

Consensus is a cult word, you never hear real scientists say "Consensus" or "Denier"

 

[Crick]

Really? I suggest you review the two Wikipedia articles on the surveys, studies and polls on which our knowledge of the consensus exists and see if you might find the scientists involved using the term now and then. You will find you're simply wrong. And besides, what bearing does it have on the validity of AGW? None, like all denier arguments.

 

[IanC]

So, we're actually talking about Muller and a dozen other scientists. Did they ALL join the Grand Global Conspiracy?

I think i have answered this question a few dozen times now.

no evil intention is needed...groupthink and/or incompetence is sufficient.

add in a dash of
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

 

[Old Rocks]

So, we're actually talking about Muller and a dozen other scientists. Did they ALL join the Grand Global Conspiracy?

I think i have answered this question a few dozen times now.

no evil intention is needed...groupthink and/or incompetence is sufficient.

add in a dash of
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Well, here we go again. The accusation of scientific fraud when your opinion is denied by the evidence a scientist presents. When you were just so sure that Muller would present evidence that agreed with your opinion, you could not say enough positive things about him. But then the Son of a Bitch went and reported the facts. And now you are calling him a fraud.

 

[IanC]

I have been through all this at the time that it was happening. I had great faith that Muller was going to do what he originally said he was going to do, create a fully accessible databank with all the temperature info, with various types of adjustments that could be implimented singly or in combination. this did not happen. between concept of the idea and the four BEST papers that were finally published in the first issue of a new Indian journal years after the initial preview, a lot of changes were made. perhaps he abdicated a lot of the actual grunt work to his daughter and his statisticians. Judith Curry actually requested that her name be taken off the papers.

the method for homogenization uses kriging and scalpel cuts. I believe this puts a constant pressure to increase the temperatures. while Muller admitted that roughly a third of all long term temperature series were cooling, after homogenization no series have a cooling trend. the use of data breaks with realignment with no metadata reasons is highly problematic to me. everything is simply adjusted to meet 'expectations'.

the paper on UHI is even more troubling, at least to me. concluding that urbanization is a cooling effect rather than a warming one goes against commonsense and measurement of reality.

That's a lot of assertions, with some innuendo mixed in, with nothing by way of support in the form of links, quotes, and I suspect that you got most of that from, say, "interested" sources.

As to your last paragraph: Urbanization, while resulting in heat islands, may still have a partly cooling effect, if urban areas reflect more (short wave) sunlight back into space than, say, forests do, while forests emit more water vapor, adding to the greenhouse effect more than cities do. Yeah, I know, that is counter-intuitive, but sometimes "common sense" doesn't suffice to understand the complexities of the earth's climate system.

that is an admirably clever red herring to lay down but....we are talking about measuring temperatures not the total effect of all factors on the greenhouse effect. cities are warmer than suburbs which are warmer than rural. up until GISS changed their methodology in 2012 it was possible to check their UHI adjustments, they added up to zero change. the amount now is a black box mystery.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Really? I suggest you review the two Wikipedia articles on the surveys, studies and polls on which our knowledge of the consensus exists and see if you might find the scientists involved using the term now and then. You will find you're simply wrong. And besides, what bearing does it have on the validity of AGW? None, like all denier arguments.

Remember when Einstein called Max Planck a "Relativity Denier!!!"

yeah me neither.

"Consensus" is what people say whenever they consider the results of the lab work to be a "denier!!"

 

[Olde Europe]

that is an admirably clever red herring to lay down but....we are talking about measuring temperatures [...]

Yeah?

"urbanization is a cooling effect"​

You know, Ian, if you don't understand the whole of the climate change complexity, that's okay. I suspect none of us does, and I most assuredly don't. On the other hand, trying to deny that which you have quite clearly stated is just stupid bullshit. "Cooling effect" clearly implies a radiative balance, and "measuring temperatures" is the beginning of that, but just barely.

Moreover, trying to use Muller as a star witness against AGW, blithely dismissing his retraction, and then, now that he's retired, trying to use the old "when his salary depends on his not understanding it" line against him is really beyond stupid. I am sure you can do better than that, for at the time you are doing yourself a huge disservice.

 

[jc456]

that is an admirably clever red herring to lay down but....we are talking about measuring temperatures [...]

Yeah?

"urbanization is a cooling effect"​

You know, Ian, if you don't understand the whole of the climate change complexity, that's okay. I suspect none of us does, and I most assuredly don't. On the other hand, trying to deny that which you have quite clearly stated is just stupid bullshit. "Cooling effect" clearly implies a radiative balance, and "measuring temperatures" is the beginning of that, but just barely.

Moreover, trying to use Muller as a star witness against AGW, blithely dismissing his retraction, and then, now that he's retired, trying to use the old "when his salary depends on his not understanding it" line against him is really beyond stupid. I am sure you can do better than that, for at the time you are doing yourself a huge disservice.

Now wait, do you know or don't you? What are you arguing if you don't know it all? You sure behave as if you have every fkn answer on climate? But funny, to admit you don't and post as you do is amazing.

me I'm merely an observer of my time on earth. I research and find historical records. I research and find new records trashing historical records to which you and others bless as gospel. And then you come to this post and state you don't know. wow.

 

[Olde Europe]

Now wait, do you know or don't you? What are you arguing if you don't know it all? You sure behave as if you have every fkn answer on climate? But funny, to admit you don't and post as you do is amazing.

me I'm merely an observer of my time on earth. I research and find historical records. I research and find new records trashing historical records to which you and others bless as gospel. And then you come to this post and state you don't know. wow.

Chuckle. We're now supposed to follow the "shut up unless you know it all" principle? You go first.

 

[jc456]

Now wait, do you know or don't you? What are you arguing if you don't know it all? You sure behave as if you have every fkn answer on climate? But funny, to admit you don't and post as you do is amazing.

me I'm merely an observer of my time on earth. I research and find historical records. I research and find new records trashing historical records to which you and others bless as gospel. And then you come to this post and state you don't know. wow.

Chuckle. We're now supposed to follow the "shut up unless you know it all" principle? You go first.

well s0n, just post up your CO2 based experiments? Bill Nye the science guy tried and failed. I have witnessed his stupid experiment. It didn't prove his position so he neglected to process the video accurately as a slight of hand to his position. It's frkn hilarious. CO2 gas cools the planet. It absorbs the heat and leaves the world to outer space. hey, it might go to Venus since it has such a hot atmosphere.

 

[Crick]

CO2 gas cools the planet. It absorbs the heat and leaves the world to outer space.

Let's see the experiments that demonstrate this. I won't even demand that they take place in a lab.

 

[jc456]

CO2 gas cools the planet. It absorbs the heat and leaves the world to outer space.

Let's see the experiments that demonstrate this. I won't even demand that they take place in a lab.

Posted it just like you

 

[Crick]

Something equivalent to www.ipcc.ch?

 

[jc456]

CO2 gas cools the planet. It absorbs the heat and leaves the world to outer space.

Let's see the experiments that demonstrate this. I won't even demand that they take place in a lab.

hey let me ask a question in the middle of this discussion, do you believe that the atmosphere acts as a heat sink?

 

[jc456]

CO2 gas cools the planet. It absorbs the heat and leaves the world to outer space.

Let's see the experiments that demonstrate this. I won't even demand that they take place in a lab.

Crick enjoy the read:

http://www.ke-research.de/downloads/ClimateSaviors.pdf

Excerpt:
"This also goes for the earth. Earth's surface, clouds and atmosphere
constantly radiate energy into space - and the resulting
loss of energy causes cooling. However, in spite of variations in
the lengths of days and weather, the earth remains "warm" because
the sun constantly supplies new energy. As a simplification
we can draw the earth’s energy dynamics as a “stock flow
model”: with an “influx” (heating: the sun), to an energy stock
and a “drain” (cooling: radiation into the universe). The temperatures
depend on the energy stock – if it decreases, it gets cold. 24)'

 

[jc456]

CO2 gas cools the planet. It absorbs the heat and leaves the world to outer space.

Let's see the experiments that demonstrate this. I won't even demand that they take place in a lab.

some more:
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: June 2010
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Physicist: Cooling Effect of CO2 is 100x Greater than Warming Effect

Charles Anderson PhD, a materials physicist, has a new post today which calculates the cooling effect of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases to be 100 times greater than the heating effect.
"the cooling effect due to keeping incoming solar IR radiation away from the surface is about 100 times the re-heating effect proclaimed by greenhouse gas alarmists"

 

[jc456]

Something equivalent to www.ipcc.ch?

which document do you wish me to look at?

 

[jc456]

Something equivalent to www.ipcc.ch?

from the WG1 there is this gem:

"As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)."

Dude that means there was less warming, in other words a pause in warming. Dude this kills any CO2 reference for warming of the planet. It's own words bubba.

 

[mamooth]

Crick enjoy the read:

I read it. The guy got some very basic things wrong. For example, he claims the earth can't warm unless the sun warms, because it would make the earth radiate more, which would remove the heat. However, by that stupid logic, it's impossible for a blanket to make a person warmer, because the person would radiate more heat as he got warmer, removing the heat. Hence, that stupid logic is obviously wrong.

So, that source fails hard at elementary physics, just like all of your sources.

You'd be more convincing if, instead of just linking to conspiracy cult web pages and yelling "I WIN!", you'd actually explain your claim in your own words. So do so. Tell us, in your own words, why CO2 has a cooling effect. Now I could summarize the crackpot argument in a sentence, but you're the one who needs to do so. After all, if you don't even understand your own theory, why should we take you seriously?

 

[mamooth]

from the WG1 there is this gem:

"As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)."

Dude that means there was less warming, in other words a pause in warming. Dude this kills any CO2 reference for warming of the planet. It's own words bubba

Actually, it means you've reached shocking new lows in cult-parrot cut-and-paste dishonesty.

That sentence is taken from here, section 1.1.1.

Topic 1: Observed changes and their causes
---
In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, the globally averaged surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (Figure 1.1). Due to this natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade; see Box 1.1). {WGI SPM B.1, 2.4.3}
---

The report presented your sentence as an example of what _not_ to do ... so your cult web page did it, after stripping out the context that said not to do it. Then you saw it, and copied the mess here.

You didn't understand at first how dishonest it was. But now you do understand ... and you'll still defend the dishonesty of it. Cultists are like that. That's why it's a waste of time to engage you as if your were a rational and honest person.