Boehner does belly flop on climate change

[IanC]

there is still no evidence that adding some CO2 to the open atmosphere can cause warming.

WILLFUL LIE

We know that the present ice age began with CO2 above 1000ppm...

Irrelevant. The CO2 levels were NOT the cause of our most recent ice age. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, right SiD?



No, we do not. We know that it can because it has but this does NOT tell us that it cannot lead temperature. Once again, post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The temperature anomaly in 1900 was about -0.23C. In 1940 it was +0.08C for a change of +0.031C

Obviously, you are cherry-picking and taking advantage of the lengthy hiatus between 1941 and 1979 - the one for which you have NO explanation and despite being orders of magnitude more of a change than has occurred in the last 15 years, did NOT mark the end of global warming.

Despite that - at the end of the 20th century, the temperature anomaly was +0.50C. Measuring from the local peak at 1940 we get a change of +0.42C, GREATER than the pre-1940 change. Measuring from the local minimum in 1948, we get a change of +0.60C.

So, you are incorrect - YOUR STATEMENT IS FALSE - no matter which way we look at the data.



No, we do not. Surface warming slowed. Ocean heating accelerated. The ToA radiative imbalance increased telling us that the Earth's accumulation of heat has done nothing but ACCELERATE.

We know that temperatures have remained static for damned near 20 years now while CO2 has increased steadily.

Again, only surface warming slowed. Ocean heating accelerated and, above it all, for every second of every day, more radiative energy has struck the Earth than has departed and this imbalance has done nothing but get worse. We have NOT stabilized. Anyone that tells you we have is lying. Like you. LYING.

The observed evidence points to some other cause for warming....perhaps that big ball of fire in the sky.

The behavior of the sun has been thoroughly observed. It simply has NOT produced or transmitted the energy that would be required for it to be responsible for the warming we have experienced. The warming from greenhouse gases, on the other hand, HAVE. And, as we have seen here over and over again, attempting to blame anything else for the warming requires ignoring the basic physics that tells us increased greenhouse gases increase temperatures. It requires MORE bad science, MORE dishonesty, MORE LYING.

SSDD is incorrect that the temperatures have remained static. they change every year for every year's data!

look at the 0.6C line and the 0.4 line. compare the clustering of points above and below the lines in the 2007 graph compared to the recent one. apparently the world warmed up while we werent looking.

but wait.........look at the (-)0.4C line! the world got colder while we werent looking!

oh well, Im sure the warming of the recent years and cooling of the historic years simply cancel each other out for no overall change, right? except perhaps for the trend.

 

[Crick]

Oh well, I'm sure without even the skimpiest of investigations we can safely assume the adjustments were made solely for political reasons and that there was no valid justification for them whatsoever. That's good science. Right Ian?

 

[IanC]

The temperature anomaly in 1900 was about -0.23C. In 1940 it was +0.08C for a change of +0.031C

Obviously, you are cherry-picking and taking advantage of the lengthy hiatus between 1941 and 1979 - the one for which you have NO explanation and despite being orders of magnitude more of a change than has occurred in the last 15 years, did NOT mark the end of global warming.

Despite that - at the end of the 20th century, the temperature anomaly was +0.50C. Measuring from the local peak at 1940 we get a change of +0.42C, GREATER than the pre-1940 change. Measuring from the local minimum in 1948, we get a change of +0.60C.

So, you are incorrect - YOUR STATEMENT IS FALSE - no matter which way we look at the data.

your math is a bit wobbly crickham, you may want to check it.

You're right. I said the change from 1940 to 2000 was +0.42C. I misread. I should have said +0.46.

crickham- I asked you to check your math and you didnt.

first and most obvious. the difference between -0.23 and 0.08 is 0.31 not 0.031.

next, you said that you were using temp anomalies not the five year running means. without dredging up the numerical data for your graph, I will simply eyeball it.

1900 -0.15 5yr -0.23
1910 -0.45 5yr -0.43
1940 +0.06 5yr +0.05
1941 +0.08 5yr +0.05
1948 - 0.10 5yr -0.10
1979 +0.12 5yr +0.17
1976 -0.02 5yr 0.00 (the end of the cooling period)
2000 +0.41 5yr +0.52
2003 +0.61 5yr +0.59 plateau

so your stated range of 1940-2000 is 0.06 to 0.41, 0.35 degrees celcius not 0.42 or 0.46. using the five year running mean figures is 0.47, is that what you meant?

1948- 2000 is either 0.51 (anomalies) or 0.62 (5yr mean). it is becoming obvious that you are using the 5 yr average not anomalies. thats fine but you should say so. I was going to add more but it is boring to repeat things over and over again.


but you did get my point that the range between low temperatures and high temperatures between 1910 and 2005 increased by ~0.13C? apparently we did not know how to how to read thermometers correctly in 2007 but we fixed that in 2013. and we will probably 'fix' it again this year, and next year, and.......

 

[IanC]

Oh well, I'm sure without even the skimpiest of investigations we can safely assume the adjustments were made solely for political reasons and that there was no valid justification for them whatsoever. That's good science. Right Ian?

NASA GISS are currently the only group calculating global temperature estimates that explicitly adjust their weather station data for urbanization biases. In this study, their urbanization adjustment procedure was considered.

A number of serious problems were found with their urbanization adjustments: 1.) The vast majority of their adjustments involved correcting for “urban cooling”, whereas urbanization bias is predominantly a warming bias. 2.) The net effect of their adjustments on their global temperature estimates was unrealistically low, particularly for recent decades, when urbanization bias is expected to have increased. 3.) When a sample of highly urbanized stations was tested, the adjustments successfully removed warming bias for the 1895-1980 period, but left the 1980s-2000s period effectively unadjusted.

In an attempt to explain these unexpected problems, a critical assessment of their adjustment procedure was carried out. Several serious flaws in their procedure were identified, and recommendations to overcome these flaws were given.

Overall, NASA GISS’ urbanization adjustments were found to be seriously flawed, unreliable and inadequate. Until their adjustment approach is substantially improved, their global temperature estimates should be treated with considerable caution.

an interesting article- Cooling The Past In Siberia | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

To construct a rural average for an urban station, they require several neighbouring rural stations whose records at least partially overlap with that of the urban station. “Neighbouring" is initially defined as being within 500km of the urban station, but if that does not include enough rural stations, this is increased to 1000km. The contribution each neighbour makes to the rural average decreases as the distance from the urban station increases. If there are not at least three neighbouring, rural, stations with a common period of at least 20 years with the urban station, then they are unable to adjust the urban station’s record, and the station is not included in their global temperature estimates.



So the nearest “rural” station to Krasnojarsk happens to be Bratsk, 567 km away. There are two other rural stations, Bor and Bajkit, 639 and 661 km away respectively, so there are three stations to satisfy the criteria. However, because Bratsk is nearest to Krasnajarsk, this station makes the most contribution to the calculation. And the temperature trend at Bratsk?

Unsurprisingly, with such a hefty influence from UHI, the trend at Bratsk is upwards. As a result the flat trend at Krasnojarsk is adjusted from a flat one to a rising one as well.



This leaves the question – why is Bratsk regarded as rural? The clue lies in the Metadata.

The location given puts the weather station in the middle of the Bratsk Reservoir, with the result that the Brightness Index is zero.

The RussiaTrek website suggests a possible reason for the error:

On July 15th, 1955, the construction of Bratsk hydro power station and the city of Bratsk was announced as an All-Union construction. On July 26th, 1961, Bratsk reservoir began to be filled with water, September 1st, 1961, is considered the date of the Bratsk Sea coming into being.

Due to forming Bratsk water reservoir, the settlement Bratsk was transferred to a new place. In 1955, it was united with some other settlements and reformed into the city of Bratsk on December 12th, 1955.

It is likely that the original location of the station was in the original settlement, now under water, and that this information has never been updated.

 

[jc456]

Hah!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

I'd put money on the cry-baby for a 1st round knockout of Nancy Pelosi in a grudge match over Climate Change..

Featured bout would be John Fraud Kerry versus Newt Gingrich.. Newt might tap out tho...

uh.. .ok.

now tell us what that has to do with the fact that the right has made science denial into policy.

Sure... Statements by politicians have NO BEARING on scientific truth. Never has -- never will.
They are irrelevant to the discussion...

 

[Kosh]

Climate change is real and it does happen, however it is not caused by human activities.

 

[Crick]

The primary cause of the global warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is human GHG emissions.

 

[Stephanie]

the chicken little of globull warming at it again

folks we are all going to perish, die, burn up, because you know us humans had never ADAPTED before

How did we ever survive the great dust bowl without these warmer nut jobs ?

 

[Crick]

The Dust Bowl lasted less than ten years and affected less than one one-thousandths of the Earth's surface.

Global warming will last for centuries and is affecting the entire planet.

The people who suffered the effects of the Dust Bowl would hardly have called it trivial or insignficant. Tens of thousands of midwestern families were forced to abandon their farms and migrate out of the area. Hundreds of thousands were plunged into abject poverty and, of course, this coincided with the Great Depression.

First, I think it is rather thoughtless of you to trivialize the suffering American farmers underwent during the Dust Bowl. And then to attempt to trivialize a process that will give us a hundred Dust Bowls and worse... you exhibit a reckless disregard for the suffering of others Missy.