Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[Abraham3]

Temp tracked TSI within a couple years prior to 1980, then it went the opposite way.

Your need to explain why the decades-long delay you posit didn't exist prior to 1980. If you can't give a mechanism for that, you're obviously just tossing in a arbitrary fudge factor. And a theory that doesn't work without miraculous fudge factors isn't going to get any respect.

BINGO.

The sun is not responsible for the increasing temperatures the world has experienced the last 150 years.

 

[Abraham3]

U really didn''t understand I thing I said did ya?

You're not the easiest person to follow. You jump around too much. You use too many unreferenced pronouns and you make way too many unsupported assertions.

Nothing needs to be immediate.. NOTHING needs to look exactly like the other. We are not doing Sesame Street "one thing does not look like the other" science.

Until you're talking abouts mainstream AGW, then you demand perfect correlation. Sheesh. Your comments here are absurd. Of course you need to demonstrate a correlation. If you cannot, you cannot claim to have one. This shit doesn't come out of thin air, no matter how easy that makes the process seem to you.

I'd love to do all the things you suggest.. But I'm not getting paid for that right now.

What a convenient out.

There is an INCREASE in TSI that proceeds both the warming in the 40s and the warming in the 90s by about 30 to 50 yrs.. And the CURRENT PAUSE in temp? Go back 30 yrs in the TSI record and you'll find it.. No magic.. No fudge factors. Just a more complete view of the math and science than demanding ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL looking plots..

The problem, of course, is that the plots of GHG levels vs temperatures look DRAMATICALLY more similar than anything anyone has ever produced using TSI. It just doesn't work. And you have no mechanism to justify your 30-50 year delay. None. If you're going to claim that no correlation is required, I will assert that the Earth's temperature is controlled by a wart on my left big toe.

TSI could dither about the values of only +/- .3W/m2 for ever and influence the warming/cooler cycle just by HOW LONG it was at high state versus HOW LONG it was at low state. Doesn't have to pass the Sesame Street test.. Temp. would still go and down linearly. Just like the HVAC system in your house gets a linear temp. response from non-linear pumping of energy..

Your TSI arguments are simply not supported by the data. You're pushing crap.

 

[Abraham3]

Slow down pardner.. It's actually EASY to explain..

I think you may actually believe that.

AGW has had a JUVENILE expectation that the entire Earth climate system can turn on dime.

Temperatures rising 0.9 C in 150 years is not turning on a dime. It is not turning at all. More of a wee nudge. And to characterize the position of 97% of the world's active climate scientists as "JUVENILE" tells a great deal more about you than it does about them.

They needed INSTANT gratification that the Earth would assume a new equilibrium IMMEDIATELY after any spike in a forcing function..

No. You need to claim this position by forceful assertion (and naught else) in order to fabricate a correlation between temp and TSI out of wholecloth.

Well of course --- like the rest of the AGW folk tale -- that's ridiculous. The Energy STORAGE from an increase step or linear ramp of power could take 40 years. Crap -- it could be 100 years to a new equilibrium.. Seems like the "settled science" is just NOW discovering that.

Bullshit. No one on the AGW side of the argument is suggesting that temperature rise lags changes in forcing by anything like that. They are suggesting - with real evidence - that the temperature changes and change rates in the atmosphere, the land and the ocean can and do alter as major processes (like ENSO) change in response to total system energy content and major independent factors (like vulcanism) put their two cents in. The correlation between temperature and GHG levels is NOT dependent on any delay or sequestration. And, just for fun, where is it that you believe the thousands of septillions of joules of energy was hiding for 30-50 years? U-Stor-It? Lock-n-Go? Where is the intermediary between the arrival of that energy and its appearance in the environment today? If you ain't got it, you ain't got it.

(You on the other hand haven't adapted to the new scientific "equilibrium" that we don't EXPECT earth surface temps to exactly track ANY forcing function.

How about some links to mainstream climate science sources indicating that is the new understanding. Cause, I don't think I've seen that from anyone but you.

Take that chart and roll the TSI plot about 50 years to the right.. And while you're at it -- add the last 13 years of missing data.

And while YOU'RE at it, explain why there's about a 50 year lag.

TSI paused about 30 yrs ago -- the temperature pauses about now.. Now that would be REAL science based on radiative physics and heat storage.

As we've been hearing from every denier, temperature paused 17 years ago. So your delay is down to 13 years. From 50. That's quite a range. Just about the size of the range of climate sensitivity values. Hmmm....

In fact -- it's on my list of things to do to produce a lag plot like that and show the maximum correlation with surface temp.. Perhaps, we could even guess at the time it takes the climate system to respond to changes in forcings...

Perhaps you could guess? You've got a mighty flexible set of principles on these things. I think I'll stick with the folks with the training, the peer reviewed publications and the idea that ignoring the laws of physics is just not a good idea.

 

[Abraham3]

We WILL be keeping track of this. Believe you me!

 

[gslack]

Well... someone has an issue - we both know what you said:

Yes, THE ARCTIC ICE MELT HAS SLOWED ONE MONTH EARLIER

So simple a moron could understand it. What's stupider than a moron?

Even your lies are sophomoric:

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

For a self-proclaimed "climate scientist" you don't understand the written word very well do ya.. LOL

Sea ICe melt slowed one month early, was his point. You just pulled a report in that does not refute his claim and called him a liar...

Your link does not support your claim.. I think you need to apologize, mr. fake scientist...

 

[Abraham3]

Total and complete BULLSHIT...

Yell it louder. Maybe you'll convince some one.

As far as "every planetary scientist will tell you..." Complete nonsense... ASk 10 scientists anything and you will get 10 different answers. They may agree on a theory, but not all will agree on the method or cause.. Hence why there is no FACT but theory on Venus's condition..

This statement is complete bullshit. There is near universal agreement that the cause of Venus' abnormally high temperature is the enormous amount of Greenhouse gases in her atmosphere. Among those with some actual training in the field, I have heard no other theory. You claimed the temperature was due to the high pressure at the surface. That's a very interesting theory. Let me ask you, though. What is the temperature (water or sediment) at the bottom of the Challenger Deep?

Characteristics determined from spectral observations of Venus constitute facts, not theories. The same goes for temperatures determined by direct observation. The climatic situation on Venus that Orogenicman described is not a theory, it is a fact.

As far as your contention about "soemthing catastrophic happened" another bit of nonsense.. You don't know why venus is the way it is. It could have evolved that way due toany number of things. There is no factual account of it's history to check, all we have is conjecture based on what we can see and/or study. Get a grip loon...

When you're arguing technical topics with someone and they fall back on "its only a theory, no one knows, you can be pretty certain that you've taken up with the product of an educational vacuum.

I showed you facts why we cannot consider venus a model of what could happen due to GH gas proliferation. And you ignored it and kept on anyway...

Pathetic..

You were.

 

[Abraham3]

It would be all the National delegations to the UN who have hijacked the science lead on this circus. All their heads of state waiting for me to cut them a check for their fair redistribution of damages.

It has been almost universally the case, since the IPCC was formed and throughout every new report's composition, that the political representatives have urged or forced the science authors to downplay the chances, the risk and the danger. That is why with the exception of the unpredictable current hiatus, the IPCC's predictions to date have all erred on the side of conservatism. Politicans are not telling the IPCC to be alarmist. Quite the opposite. And this has been WIDELY reported.

That is a stupendous act of naivety and blatant avoidance of reality right there..

The political directors of this inquisition from the UN to Congress has been misinterpretating the science, and embellishing the most outrageous claims.. I can only ask that you educate me about all the SKEPTICISM AND RESTRAINT that ANY of the leading pols worldwide (western nations) have demanded of the process.

Do you agree with the Dear Leaders comments last week about "the warming has accelerated faster than predicted?" Did you miss the Senate panel blaming the death of 19 firefighters on Global Warming?

Please DO tell...

Very well. From Wikipedia's article on the Global Warming Controversy

Political pressure on scientists

Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications". These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of former oil-industry lobbyist Phil Cooney, who worked for the American Petroleum Institute before becoming chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (he resigned in 2005 before being hired by ExxonMobil).[249] In June 2008, a report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that NASA staff appointed by the White House had censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order to protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election.[250]
U.S. officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists,[251] many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.[252][253][254] Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by journalist Chris Mooney in his book The Republican War on Science.
Climate scientist James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in a widely cited New York Times article[255] in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public". NASA denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints;[256] once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.
The BBC's long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed".[257]
On the other hand, some American climatologists who have expressed doubts regarding the certainty of human influence in climate change have been criticized by politicians and governmental agencies. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski publicly clarified that Oregon does not officially appoint a "state climatologist" in response to Oregon State University's George Taylor's use of that title.[258][unreliable source?][259]
Scientists who agree with the consensus view have sometimes expressed concerns over what they view as sensationalism of global warming by interest groups and the press. For example Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, wrote how increasing use of pejorative terms like "catastrophic", "chaotic" and "irreversible", had altered the public discourse around climate change: "This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as 'climate change is worse than we thought', that we are approaching 'irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate', and that we are 'at the point of no return'. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric".[260]
According to an Associated Press release on 30 January 2007,
Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.
The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report".[261]
Critics writing in the Wall Street Journal editorial page state that the survey[262] was itself unscientific.[263]
In addition to the pressure from politicians, many prominent scientists working on climate change issues have reported increasingly severe harassment from members of the public. The harassment has taken several forms. The US FBI told ABC News that it was looking into a spike in threatening emails sent to climate scientists, while a white supremacist website posted pictures of several climate scientists with the word "Jew" next to each image. One climate scientist interviewed by ABC News had a dead animal dumped on his doorstep and now frequently has to travel with bodyguards.[264]
In April 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli claimed that leading climate scientist Michael E. Mann had possibly violated state fraud laws, and without providing any evidence of wrongdoing, filed the Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation as a civil demand that the University of Virginia provide a wide range of records broadly related to five research grants Mann had obtained as an assistant professor at the university from 1999 to 2005. This litigation was widely criticized in the academic community as politically motivated and likely to have a chilling effect on future research.[265][266] The university filed a court petition and the judge dismissed Cuccinelli's demand on the grounds that no justification had been shown for the investigation.[267] Cuccinelli issued a revised subpoena, and appealed the case to the Virginia Supreme Court which ruled in March 2012 that Cuccinelli did not have the authority to make these demands. The outcome was hailed as a victory for academic freedom.[268][269]
Exxon Mobil is also notorious for skewing scientific evidence through their private funding of scientific organizations. In 2002, Exxon Mobil contributed $10,000 to The Independent Institute and then $10,000 more in 2003. In 2003, The Independent Institute release a study that reported the evidence for imminent global warming found during the Clinton administration was based on now-dated satellite findings and wrote off the evidence and findings as a product of "bad science."[270]
This is not the only consortium of skeptics that Exxon Mobil has supported financially. The George C. Marshall Institute received $630,000 in funding for climate change research from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. Exxon Mobil also gave $472,000 in funding to The Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow from 1998 to 2005. Dr. Frederick Seitz, well known as "the god father of global warming skepticism," served as both Chairman Emeritus of The George C. Marshall Institute and a board member of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow from 1998 to 2005.[271]

249. ^ US climate scientists pressured on climate change, NewScientist, 31 January 2007
250. ^ Goddard, Jacqui (4 June 2008). "Nasa 'played down' global warming to protect Bush". The Scotsman (Edinburgh). Retrieved 12 February 2010.
251. ^ Campbell, D. (20 June 2003) "White House cuts global warming from report" Guardian Unlimited
252. ^ Donaghy, T., et al. (2007) "Atmosphere of Pressure:" a report of the Government Accountability Project (Cambridge, Massachusetts: UCS Publications)[dead link]
253. ^ Rule, E. (2005) "Possible media attention" Email to NOAA staff, 27 July. Obtained via FOIA request on 31 July 2006. and Teet, J. (2005) "DOC Interview Policy" Email to NOAA staff, 29 September. Originally published by Alexandrovna, L. (2005) "Commerce Department tells National Weather Service media contacts must be pre-approved" The Raw Story, 4 October. Retrieved 22 December 2006.
254. ^ Zabarenko, D. (2007) "'Don't discuss polar bears:' memo to scientists" Reuters
255. ^ Revkin, Andrew C. (29 January 2006). "Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him". New York Times. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
256. ^ Eilperin, J. (6 April 2006) "Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House" Washington Post
257. ^ "Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear". BBC Panorama. 1 June 2006. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
258. ^ "HinesSight: Facts about George Taylor and the "state climatologist"". Hinessight.blogs.com. 8 February 2007. Retrieved 29 August 2010.
259. ^ Local News|kgw.com|News for Oregon and SW Washington[dead link]
260. ^ Hulme, Mike (4 November 2006). "Chaotic world of climate truth". BBC News. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
261. ^ "Groups Say Scientists Pressured On Warming". CBC and Associated Press. 30 January 2007. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
262. ^ Donaghy, Timothy; Jennifer Freeman, Francesca Grifo, Karly Kaufman, Tarek Maassarani, Lexi Shultz (February 2007). "Appendix A: UCS Climate Scientist Survey Text and Responses (Federal)". Atmosphere of Pressure – Political Interference in Federal Climate Science (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists & Government Accountability Project. Retrieved 14 April 2007.[dead link]
263. ^ Taranto, James (1 February 2007). "They Call This Science?". OpinionJournal.com. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
264. ^ "ABC World News Sunday". ABC News. 23 May 2010.
265. ^ "Statement of the AAAS Board Of Directors Concerning the Virginia Attorney General’s Investigation of Prof. Michael Mann’s Work While on the Faculty of University of Virginia" (PDF). AAAS. 18 May 2010. Retrieved 30 July 2010.
266. ^ Gentile, Sal. "Climate scientist calls Va. attorney general’s fraud probe ‘harassment’". PBS.org (PBS). Retrieved 7 September 2010.
267. ^ Judge Dismisses Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's Misguided Investigation of Michael Mann | Union of Concerned Scientists
268. ^ Kumar, Anita (2 March 2012). "Va. Supreme Court tosses Cuccinelli’s case against former U-Va. climate change researcher - Virginia Politics". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
269. ^ Goldenberg, Suzanne (2 March 2012). "Virginia court rejects sceptic's bid for climate science emails : Environment". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
270. ^ Reddy, Sudhakara (2009). "The Great Climate Debate.". Energy Policy 37 (8).
271. ^ de Granados, Oriana Zill. "The Doubters of Global Warming". PBS.

 

[Abraham3]

1) Certainly WILL explain the bias in the CO2 accounting charged to man.. Domestic cattle should be accounted for on what biosystems they replaced. Certainly huge clouds of buffalo roaming the plains were a CO2 offset to domestic cattle.. Same with the reduction of deer, elk, beaver, and others that were hunted to their limits before the settlement of most of our ag land.. Same goes for charging man with every forest fire that occurs on claimed land.. Particularly when the "let it burn" practices that were prevailing were based on the eco-naut philosophy of "natural" processes and NOT modern land management science. Least you think this is a minor false charge to the account. Domestic cattle is a LARGE portion of the bill..

2) What the mental midget admins of the political class have been doing exactly is making pronouncements like "the science is settled" (boxer) and "the ice is melting so fast, the tundra is in danger of floating away" (waxman).. They aren't really following the science, they are defining the outcome of the science.

ALREADY flushing BILLIONS of dollars per year down the toilet SPECIFICALLY on the excuse of AGW. Without even agreeing on what the expected benefit of such flushing might actually be. It has become a JUSTIFICATION for energy jihad rather than a cure to any particular effects of global warming..

3) So are you suggesting that 2degC or less by 2100 is what we should expect? Why don't you give me the CONSENSUS on that?
Everytime anyone points to the LACK OF CONSENSUS on key elements of AGW hype --- you come back with the "let's be rational about this" act.. TIL --- you make inferences to catastophic COLLAPSE of our climate --- like you and Oroman just did by hinting that Venus is our future if we don't repent and become believers...

1) Methane emissions from domestic cattle represent about 2% of the GHG load creating current global warming (http://www.animal-science.org/content/73/8/2483.full.pdf). Agriculture as a whole, however, is responsible for approximately 20% of greenhouse gases released every year. IPCC methods to estimate methane production from domestic cattle have been verified for accuracy by independent industry sources. (Model for estimating enteric methane emissions from United States dairy and feedlot cattle) Even so, they represent an enormous increase over the GHG production of the population of wild animals they replaced. Bison did not roam on groomed, fertilized fields with antibiotics, medical care and hormone laced feed. The population density of farmed animals is many times that of animals in the wild. Additionally, farms are responsible for 20% of the world's fossil fuel usage and, besides the enteric methane from ruminants (and rice paddies in the east), release large quantities of nitrous oxide from nitrogenous fertilization.

2) Most Democrats and many Republican accept the findings of the IPCC and will speak accordingly - as allowed by their individual level of science education. If the thought of a politician making a scientifically inaccurate statement really gets your goat, their have been many a faulty word expressed regarding science in general and climate science in particular before now. Look at the work of Representatives King and Inhofe if you want to see examples of dangerous ignorance in play. But I see little chance of ever having a congress with an adequate science education. Our best hope lies in making sure that - by statute and codification - they always have qualified, OBJECTIVE, scientific advice available to them. And voters should always make certain that their elected representatives understand that support is based on their continued use of the best, objective data. It would also be nice if politicians rated their constituent's physical safety higher than the thickness of the pocketbooks their industrial donors so often wave under their collective noses.

3. 97% of active climate scientists believe that the primary cause of current global warming is human GHG emissions. If you'd like to debate the validity of that statement, we can start aother thread. I have not seen a survey on this point, but I would bet a dollar to a doughnut that a very large majority of active climate scientists believe humans will fail to successfully check their GHG emissions in time to save us from much of anything. As a whole, we're just too stupid and too cowardly to do anything difficult. I mean, look at all of you.

No one here has implied that Venus is our future. We have stated outright that Venus clearly illustrates it is possible to have a runaway greenhouse effect. Venus used to have oceans. They boiled away. I'd call that a catastrophe no matter how long it took. And the evidence indicates that it didn't take that long.

 

[flacaltenn]

U really didn''t understand I thing I said did ya?

You're not the easiest person to follow. You jump around too much. You use too many unreferenced pronouns and you make way too many unsupported assertions.

Nothing needs to be immediate.. NOTHING needs to look exactly like the other. We are not doing Sesame Street "one thing does not look like the other" science.

Until you're talking abouts mainstream AGW, then you demand perfect correlation. Sheesh. Your comments here are absurd. Of course you need to demonstrate a correlation. If you cannot, you cannot claim to have one. This shit doesn't come out of thin air, no matter how easy that makes the process seem to you.



What a convenient out.

There is an INCREASE in TSI that proceeds both the warming in the 40s and the warming in the 90s by about 30 to 50 yrs.. And the CURRENT PAUSE in temp? Go back 30 yrs in the TSI record and you'll find it.. No magic.. No fudge factors. Just a more complete view of the math and science than demanding ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL looking plots..

The problem, of course, is that the plots of GHG levels vs temperatures look DRAMATICALLY more similar than anything anyone has ever produced using TSI. It just doesn't work. And you have no mechanism to justify your 30-50 year delay. None. If you're going to claim that no correlation is required, I will assert that the Earth's temperature is controlled by a wart on my left big toe.

TSI could dither about the values of only +/- .3W/m2 for ever and influence the warming/cooler cycle just by HOW LONG it was at high state versus HOW LONG it was at low state. Doesn't have to pass the Sesame Street test.. Temp. would still go and down linearly. Just like the HVAC system in your house gets a linear temp. response from non-linear pumping of energy..

Your TSI arguments are simply not supported by the data. You're pushing crap.

You don't need a LITERAL correlation of two variables to prove ANYTHING. Correlation specifically is a mathematical process measuring the SIMILIARITY of two vectors at different alignments. If the temperature derives from the INTEGRAL of a variable --- then they are RELATED BY an equation and whether they have a high CORRELATION is irrelevent. Go correlate for me the actions of your thermostat and the temperature in your home...

And you STILL didn't address why and where the (at least) 0.3W/M2 of TSI addition since 1750 was left out of the IPCC.. It is the Kryptonite of the CO2 as the sole driver of GW that is required for the fairytale..

It was only AFTER the theory you've been brainwashed into went off the rails in the past 12 years that we even GET to the science of how the Earth establishes a new equilibrium temp. And the realization of how juvenile it is to EXPECT to find a simple correlation with no time delay explaining it all..

You need to stop believing in how simple this all is and start using the tools that science gave you..

 

[Abraham3]

Yes, THE ARCTIC ICE MELT HAS SLOWED ONE MONTH EARLIER

So simple a moron could understand it. What's stupider than a moron?

Even your lies are sophomoric:

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

For a self-proclaimed "climate scientist" you don't understand the written word very well do ya.. LOL

Sea ICe melt slowed one month early, was his point. You just pulled a report in that does not refute his claim and called him a liar...

Your link does not support your claim.. I think you need to apologize, mr. fake scientist...

The only person here who has made any sort of claim to being a climate scientist is WestWall (and that just because he's claimed to be better at their subjects than they are at his). Orogenicman is a geologist. I am an Ocean Engineer. None of us here on either side of this argument are climate scientists. So YOU have lied and YOU owe US an apology.

I have not "pulled a report" about anything. I have posted an alternate picture of Arctic sea ice extent. I will continue to post them as NSIDC updates them daily. We will see whether or not sea ice melt has slowed one month early.

While you're here, do you still wish to contend that Venus's high temperatures are due to the high pressure at her surface?

 

[Old Rocks]

U really didn''t understand I thing I said did ya?

You're not the easiest person to follow. You jump around too much. You use too many unreferenced pronouns and you make way too many unsupported assertions.



Until you're talking abouts mainstream AGW, then you demand perfect correlation. Sheesh. Your comments here are absurd. Of course you need to demonstrate a correlation. If you cannot, you cannot claim to have one. This shit doesn't come out of thin air, no matter how easy that makes the process seem to you.



What a convenient out.



The problem, of course, is that the plots of GHG levels vs temperatures look DRAMATICALLY more similar than anything anyone has ever produced using TSI. It just doesn't work. And you have no mechanism to justify your 30-50 year delay. None. If you're going to claim that no correlation is required, I will assert that the Earth's temperature is controlled by a wart on my left big toe.

TSI could dither about the values of only +/- .3W/m2 for ever and influence the warming/cooler cycle just by HOW LONG it was at high state versus HOW LONG it was at low state. Doesn't have to pass the Sesame Street test.. Temp. would still go and down linearly. Just like the HVAC system in your house gets a linear temp. response from non-linear pumping of energy..

Your TSI arguments are simply not supported by the data. You're pushing crap.

You don't need a LITERAL correlation of two variables to prove ANYTHING. Correlation specifically is a mathematical process measuring the SIMILIARITY of two vectors at different alignments. If the temperature derives from the INTEGRAL of a variable --- then they are RELATED BY an equation and whether they have a high CORRELATION is irrelevent. Go correlate for me the actions of your thermostat and the temperature in your home...

And you STILL didn't address why and where the (at least) 0.3W/M2 of TSI addition since 1750 was left out of the IPCC.. It is the Kryptonite of the CO2 as the sole driver of GW that is required for the fairytale..
It was only AFTER the theory you've been brainwashed into went off the rails in the past 12 years that we even GET to the science of how the Earth establishes a new equilibrium temp. And the realization of how juvenile it is to EXPECT to find a simple correlation with no time delay explaining it all..

You need to stop believing in how simple this all is and start using the tools that science gave you..

And just who has claimed that CO2 is the sole driver of the warming? No climate scientist that I know of. What has been claimed is that it is the primary driver of the warming. And that has been confirmed by the fact that with increasing aerosols from China and India, a decreasing TSI, and a couple of strong La Nina's as opposed to one weak and one moderate El Nino, we still are having temps above what we had prior to 1997. Well above those temps.

Now you speak of the tools that science has given us, yet you deny those very tools. And try to state that the Scientific Societies such as the American Institute of Physics;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The American Geophysical Union;

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

And the American Meteorlogical Society;

2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

are all in on some great conspriracy to delude us as to the fact of AGW. Now I could add many statements from other Scientific Societies in other nations, such as the Royal Society, and the list of National Academies of Science statements about their concerns about global warming, but you would simply revert to the silly arguements of people like Watts, someone with no qualifications to address the issue at all.

 

[Old Rocks]

Even your lies are sophomoric:

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

For a self-proclaimed "climate scientist" you don't understand the written word very well do ya.. LOL

Sea ICe melt slowed one month early, was his point. You just pulled a report in that does not refute his claim and called him a liar...

Your link does not support your claim.. I think you need to apologize, mr. fake scientist...

The only person here who has made any sort of claim to being a climate scientist is WestWall (and that just because he's claimed to be better at their subjects than they are at his). Orogenicman is a geologist. I am an Ocean Engineer. None of us here on either side of this argument are climate scientists. So YOU have lied and YOU owe US an apology.

I have not "pulled a report" about anything. I have posted an alternate picture of Arctic sea ice extent. I will continue to post them as NSIDC updates them daily. We will see whether or not sea ice melt has slowed one month early.

While you're here, do you still wish to contend that Venus's high temperatures are due to the high pressure at her surface?

Westwall claims to be a Phd Geologist. But claims that the AGU is nothing but a collection of cranks. I keep asking him when he is going to present his views and evidence on the podium at the fall meeting, and he keeps avoiding the subject.

Now, at present I am just a steel mill millwright, with a life long interest in Geology and climate. And I just added another 22 credits at Portland State University last year toward getting a BS in Geology. Imagine, a BS to back up my BS

 

[Abraham3]

You don't need a LITERAL correlation of two variables to prove ANYTHING. Correlation specifically is a mathematical process measuring the SIMILIARITY of two vectors at different alignments. If the temperature derives from the INTEGRAL of a variable --- then they are RELATED BY an equation and whether they have a high CORRELATION is irrelevent. Go correlate for me the actions of your thermostat and the temperature in your home...

And you STILL didn't address why and where the (at least) 0.3W/M2 of TSI addition since 1750 was left out of the IPCC.. It is the Kryptonite of the CO2 as the sole driver of GW that is required for the fairytale..

It was only AFTER the theory you've been brainwashed into went off the rails in the past 12 years that we even GET to the science of how the Earth establishes a new equilibrium temp. And the realization of how juvenile it is to EXPECT to find a simple correlation with no time delay explaining it all..

You need to stop believing in how simple this all is and start using the tools that science gave you..

How many PhDs in atmospheric sciences, physics, geology, planetology, chemistry and whatever other field can get into the climate sciences, do you think haven't had a semester or two of calculus?

If you're going to contend a delay of decades, you need to identify the storage location.


Waiting...

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Three quarters, and stastitics just for a lowly BS in Geology.

 

[Abraham3]

Now, at present I am just a steel mill millwright, with a life long interest in Geology and climate. And I just added another 22 credits at Portland State University last year toward getting a BS in Geology. Imagine, a BS to back up my BS

The day you stop learning is the day you start dying.

 

[flacaltenn]

Slow down pardner.. It's actually EASY to explain..

I think you may actually believe that.

AGW has had a JUVENILE expectation that the entire Earth climate system can turn on dime.

Temperatures rising 0.9 C in 150 years is not turning on a dime. It is not turning at all. More of a wee nudge. And to characterize the position of 97% of the world's active climate scientists as "JUVENILE" tells a great deal more about you than it does about them.

"Turning on dime" refers to the TIME relationship between the forcing function and the temperature response. You warmers have been rejecting ANY evidence of forcing that does not produce IMMEDIATE and CORRELATED temperature response.

The latest studies of "GWarming HIDING in the Oceans --- changes all that" In that NOW the science is better at accounting for ENERGY storage and TIME lag in between the forcing variable and the temperature effects. It also begins to realize with this new Trenberth hiccup that the climate system SHOULD show a delay to a new temp. equilibrium. Did you miss this capitulation in the study?


No. You need to claim this position by forceful assertion (and naught else) in order to fabricate a correlation between temp and TSI out of wholecloth.



Bullshit. No one on the AGW side of the argument is suggesting that temperature rise lags changes in forcing by anything like that. They are suggesting - with real evidence - that the temperature changes and change rates in the atmosphere, the land and the ocean can and do alter as major processes (like ENSO) change in response to total system energy content and major independent factors (like vulcanism) put their two cents in. The correlation between temperature and GHG levels is NOT dependent on any delay or sequestration. And, just for fun, where is it that you believe the thousands of septillions of joules of energy was hiding for 30-50 years? U-Stor-It? Lock-n-Go? Where is the intermediary between the arrival of that energy and its appearance in the environment today? If you ain't got it, you ain't got it.

Of course they are junior.. I already cited the Trenberth Study.. HE'S the brilliant fucker who told you it wasn't U-Stor-It ---- it was Davey Jones lockers..

Maybe not thousands of septillions. I believe it was on the order of 10 or 15 to 22nd power of ten. Actually better science than his 1st "energy" accounting". The natural result of this thinking is to allow that all variables of forcing may have a DELAYED response on temperature.. And thus --- the juvenile assumption of looking for graphs with IMMEDIATE correlations is now pretty much dead.. Maybe not TODAY -- but when this "excuse for where the warming has gone" has sunk in and been digested --- that's what the result will be.




How about some links to mainstream climate science sources indicating that is the new understanding. Cause, I don't think I've seen that from anyone but you.

Just fixed your lack of ability to assimilate the frontiers of climate science. You can thank me later.



And while YOU'RE at it, explain why there's about a 50 year lag.

TSI paused about 30 yrs ago -- the temperature pauses about now.. Now that would be REAL science based on radiative physics and heat storage.

As we've been hearing from every denier, temperature paused 17 years ago. So your delay is down to 13 years. From 50. That's quite a range. Just about the size of the range of climate sensitivity values. Hmmm....

Temperature is the DEPENDENT variable (OMG -- i actually have to explain this to you). As such it MAY HAVE a delayed response to it's inputs as result of storage. It may also look NOTHING LIKE it's inputs in terms of shape or fit. So it has paused for at least 13 years. That has nothing to do with how far we MIGHT LOOK BACK to see where the forcing function also took a rest.. It's doubtful the two numbers should be the same. Right? So if thermal equilibrium from a change in forcing function takes 50 years, you would look 50 years BACKWARDS in the forcing variables to find one that also took a pause. Why is this so difficult? Because you only know what you've been previously told that CO2 tracks temp. immediately and must have a similiar curve?

In fact -- it's on my list of things to do to produce a lag plot like that and show the maximum correlation with surface temp.. Perhaps, we could even guess at the time it takes the climate system to respond to changes in forcings...

Perhaps you could guess? You've got a mighty flexible set of principles on these things. I think I'll stick with the folks with the training, the peer reviewed publications and the idea that ignoring the laws of physics is just not a good idea.

You've mangled my quotes AGAIN.. Next time I will mangle yours.. Because you're not playing nice.. And please --- before you ATTACK --- think... I may be obtuse because I expect you are following developments closer than you actually are.. I ASSUME you're up to speed on the implications of Septillion joules of energy "hiding" in the oceans. Maybe you're not.. Because the old AGW fairytale required little expenditure of knowledge to parrot.

 

[Abraham3]

It has been almost universally the case, since the IPCC was formed and throughout every new report's composition, that the political representatives have urged or forced the science authors to downplay the chances, the risk and the danger. That is why with the exception of the unpredictable current hiatus, the IPCC's predictions to date have all erred on the side of conservatism. Politicans are not telling the IPCC to be alarmist. Quite the opposite. And this has been WIDELY reported.

That is a stupendous act of naivety and blatant avoidance of reality right there..

The political directors of this inquisition from the UN to Congress has been misinterpretating the science, and embellishing the most outrageous claims.. I can only ask that you educate me about all the SKEPTICISM AND RESTRAINT that ANY of the leading pols worldwide (western nations) have demanded of the process.

Do you agree with the Dear Leaders comments last week about "the warming has accelerated faster than predicted?" Did you miss the Senate panel blaming the death of 19 firefighters on Global Warming?

Please DO tell...

Very well. From Wikipedia's article on the Global Warming Controversy

Political pressure on scientists

Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications". These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of former oil-industry lobbyist Phil Cooney, who worked for the American Petroleum Institute before becoming chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (he resigned in 2005 before being hired by ExxonMobil).[249] In June 2008, a report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that NASA staff appointed by the White House had censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order to protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election.[250]
U.S. officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists,[251] many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.[252][253][254] Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by journalist Chris Mooney in his book The Republican War on Science.
Climate scientist James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in a widely cited New York Times article[255] in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public". NASA denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints;[256] once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.
The BBC's long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed".[257]
On the other hand, some American climatologists who have expressed doubts regarding the certainty of human influence in climate change have been criticized by politicians and governmental agencies. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski publicly clarified that Oregon does not officially appoint a "state climatologist" in response to Oregon State University's George Taylor's use of that title.[258][unreliable source?][259]
Scientists who agree with the consensus view have sometimes expressed concerns over what they view as sensationalism of global warming by interest groups and the press. For example Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, wrote how increasing use of pejorative terms like "catastrophic", "chaotic" and "irreversible", had altered the public discourse around climate change: "This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as 'climate change is worse than we thought', that we are approaching 'irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate', and that we are 'at the point of no return'. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric".[260]
According to an Associated Press release on 30 January 2007,
Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.
The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report".[261]
Critics writing in the Wall Street Journal editorial page state that the survey[262] was itself unscientific.[263]
In addition to the pressure from politicians, many prominent scientists working on climate change issues have reported increasingly severe harassment from members of the public. The harassment has taken several forms. The US FBI told ABC News that it was looking into a spike in threatening emails sent to climate scientists, while a white supremacist website posted pictures of several climate scientists with the word "Jew" next to each image. One climate scientist interviewed by ABC News had a dead animal dumped on his doorstep and now frequently has to travel with bodyguards.[264]
In April 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli claimed that leading climate scientist Michael E. Mann had possibly violated state fraud laws, and without providing any evidence of wrongdoing, filed the Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation as a civil demand that the University of Virginia provide a wide range of records broadly related to five research grants Mann had obtained as an assistant professor at the university from 1999 to 2005. This litigation was widely criticized in the academic community as politically motivated and likely to have a chilling effect on future research.[265][266] The university filed a court petition and the judge dismissed Cuccinelli's demand on the grounds that no justification had been shown for the investigation.[267] Cuccinelli issued a revised subpoena, and appealed the case to the Virginia Supreme Court which ruled in March 2012 that Cuccinelli did not have the authority to make these demands. The outcome was hailed as a victory for academic freedom.[268][269]
Exxon Mobil is also notorious for skewing scientific evidence through their private funding of scientific organizations. In 2002, Exxon Mobil contributed $10,000 to The Independent Institute and then $10,000 more in 2003. In 2003, The Independent Institute release a study that reported the evidence for imminent global warming found during the Clinton administration was based on now-dated satellite findings and wrote off the evidence and findings as a product of "bad science."[270]
This is not the only consortium of skeptics that Exxon Mobil has supported financially. The George C. Marshall Institute received $630,000 in funding for climate change research from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. Exxon Mobil also gave $472,000 in funding to The Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow from 1998 to 2005. Dr. Frederick Seitz, well known as "the god father of global warming skepticism," served as both Chairman Emeritus of The George C. Marshall Institute and a board member of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow from 1998 to 2005.[271]

249. ^ US climate scientists pressured on climate change, NewScientist, 31 January 2007
250. ^ Goddard, Jacqui (4 June 2008). "Nasa 'played down' global warming to protect Bush". The Scotsman (Edinburgh). Retrieved 12 February 2010.
251. ^ Campbell, D. (20 June 2003) "White House cuts global warming from report" Guardian Unlimited
252. ^ Donaghy, T., et al. (2007) "Atmosphere of Pressure:" a report of the Government Accountability Project (Cambridge, Massachusetts: UCS Publications)[dead link]
253. ^ Rule, E. (2005) "Possible media attention" Email to NOAA staff, 27 July. Obtained via FOIA request on 31 July 2006. and Teet, J. (2005) "DOC Interview Policy" Email to NOAA staff, 29 September. Originally published by Alexandrovna, L. (2005) "Commerce Department tells National Weather Service media contacts must be pre-approved" The Raw Story, 4 October. Retrieved 22 December 2006.
254. ^ Zabarenko, D. (2007) "'Don't discuss polar bears:' memo to scientists" Reuters
255. ^ Revkin, Andrew C. (29 January 2006). "Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him". New York Times. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
256. ^ Eilperin, J. (6 April 2006) "Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House" Washington Post
257. ^ "Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear". BBC Panorama. 1 June 2006. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
258. ^ "HinesSight: Facts about George Taylor and the "state climatologist"". Hinessight.blogs.com. 8 February 2007. Retrieved 29 August 2010.
259. ^ Local News|kgw.com|News for Oregon and SW Washington[dead link]
260. ^ Hulme, Mike (4 November 2006). "Chaotic world of climate truth". BBC News. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
261. ^ "Groups Say Scientists Pressured On Warming". CBC and Associated Press. 30 January 2007. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
262. ^ Donaghy, Timothy; Jennifer Freeman, Francesca Grifo, Karly Kaufman, Tarek Maassarani, Lexi Shultz (February 2007). "Appendix A: UCS Climate Scientist Survey Text and Responses (Federal)". Atmosphere of Pressure – Political Interference in Federal Climate Science (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists & Government Accountability Project. Retrieved 14 April 2007.[dead link]
263. ^ Taranto, James (1 February 2007). "They Call This Science?". OpinionJournal.com. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
264. ^ "ABC World News Sunday". ABC News. 23 May 2010.
265. ^ "Statement of the AAAS Board Of Directors Concerning the Virginia Attorney General’s Investigation of Prof. Michael Mann’s Work While on the Faculty of University of Virginia" (PDF). AAAS. 18 May 2010. Retrieved 30 July 2010.
266. ^ Gentile, Sal. "Climate scientist calls Va. attorney general’s fraud probe ‘harassment’". PBS.org (PBS). Retrieved 7 September 2010.
267. ^ Judge Dismisses Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's Misguided Investigation of Michael Mann | Union of Concerned Scientists
268. ^ Kumar, Anita (2 March 2012). "Va. Supreme Court tosses Cuccinelli’s case against former U-Va. climate change researcher - Virginia Politics". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
269. ^ Goldenberg, Suzanne (2 March 2012). "Virginia court rejects sceptic's bid for climate science emails : Environment". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
270. ^ Reddy, Sudhakara (2009). "The Great Climate Debate.". Energy Policy 37 (8).
271. ^ de Granados, Oriana Zill. "The Doubters of Global Warming". PBS.

Are you coming back on this one?

 

[flacaltenn]

Slow down pardner.. It's actually EASY to explain..

I think you may actually believe that.

AGW has had a JUVENILE expectation that the entire Earth climate system can turn on dime.

Temperatures rising 0.9 C in 150 years is not turning on a dime. It is not turning at all. More of a wee nudge. And to characterize the position of 97% of the world's active climate scientists as "JUVENILE" tells a great deal more about you than it does about them.



No. You need to claim this position by forceful assertion (and naught else) in order to fabricate a correlation between temp and TSI out of wholecloth.



Bullshit. No one on the AGW side of the argument is suggesting that temperature rise lags changes in forcing by anything like that. They are suggesting - with real evidence - that the temperature changes and change rates in the atmosphere, the land and the ocean can and do alter as major processes (like ENSO) change in response to total system energy content and major independent factors (like vulcanism) put their two cents in. The correlation between temperature and GHG levels is NOT dependent on any delay or sequestration. And, just for fun, where is it that you believe the thousands of septillions of joules of energy was hiding for 30-50 years? U-Stor-It? Lock-n-Go? Where is the intermediary between the arrival of that energy and its appearance in the environment today? If you ain't got it, you ain't got it.



How about some links to mainstream climate science sources indicating that is the new understanding. Cause, I don't think I've seen that from anyone but you.



And while YOU'RE at it, explain why there's about a 50 year lag.

TSI paused about 30 yrs ago -- the temperature pauses about now.. Now that would be REAL science based on radiative physics and heat storage.

As we've been hearing from every denier, temperature paused 17 years ago. So your delay is down to 13 years. From 50. That's quite a range. Just about the size of the range of climate sensitivity values. Hmmm....

In fact -- it's on my list of things to do to produce a lag plot like that and show the maximum correlation with surface temp.. Perhaps, we could even guess at the time it takes the climate system to respond to changes in forcings...

Perhaps you could guess? You've got a mighty flexible set of principles on these things. I think I'll stick with the folks with the training, the peer reviewed publications and the idea that ignoring the laws of physics is just not a good idea.

You don't need a LITERAL correlation of two variables to prove ANYTHING. Correlation specifically is a mathematical process measuring the SIMILIARITY of two vectors at different alignments. If the temperature derives from the INTEGRAL of a variable --- then they are RELATED BY an equation and whether they have a high CORRELATION is irrelevent. Go correlate for me the actions of your thermostat and the temperature in your home...

And you STILL didn't address why and where the (at least) 0.3W/M2 of TSI addition since 1750 was left out of the IPCC.. It is the Kryptonite of the CO2 as the sole driver of GW that is required for the fairytale..

It was only AFTER the theory you've been brainwashed into went off the rails in the past 12 years that we even GET to the science of how the Earth establishes a new equilibrium temp. And the realization of how juvenile it is to EXPECT to find a simple correlation with no time delay explaining it all..

You need to stop believing in how simple this all is and start using the tools that science gave you..

How many PhDs in atmospheric sciences, physics, geology, planetology, chemistry and whatever other field can get into the climate sciences, do you think haven't had a semester or two of calculus?

If you're going to contend a delay of decades, you need to identify the storage location.


Waiting...

Your wait was over a post or two ago.. THERE is your "septillions of stored joules" right from the mouth of your hero.. As for the system analysis ability of climate science -- Trenberth didn't even get the UNITS right on his 1st famous "energy" diagram. And if those jewels are now in the possession of Davey Jones, he needs a NEW energy diagram doesn't he??

Didn't have much respect for Climate science UNTIL this latest round of excuses.. NOW -- it's suddenly resembling a science..

 

[flacaltenn]

That is a stupendous act of naivety and blatant avoidance of reality right there..

The political directors of this inquisition from the UN to Congress has been misinterpretating the science, and embellishing the most outrageous claims.. I can only ask that you educate me about all the SKEPTICISM AND RESTRAINT that ANY of the leading pols worldwide (western nations) have demanded of the process.

Do you agree with the Dear Leaders comments last week about "the warming has accelerated faster than predicted?" Did you miss the Senate panel blaming the death of 19 firefighters on Global Warming?

Please DO tell...

Very well. From Wikipedia's article on the Global Warming Controversy

Political pressure on scientists

Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications". These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of former oil-industry lobbyist Phil Cooney, who worked for the American Petroleum Institute before becoming chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (he resigned in 2005 before being hired by ExxonMobil).[249] In June 2008, a report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that NASA staff appointed by the White House had censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order to protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election.[250]
U.S. officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists,[251] many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.[252][253][254] Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by journalist Chris Mooney in his book The Republican War on Science.
Climate scientist James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in a widely cited New York Times article[255] in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public". NASA denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints;[256] once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.
The BBC's long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed".[257]
On the other hand, some American climatologists who have expressed doubts regarding the certainty of human influence in climate change have been criticized by politicians and governmental agencies. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski publicly clarified that Oregon does not officially appoint a "state climatologist" in response to Oregon State University's George Taylor's use of that title.[258][unreliable source?][259]
Scientists who agree with the consensus view have sometimes expressed concerns over what they view as sensationalism of global warming by interest groups and the press. For example Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, wrote how increasing use of pejorative terms like "catastrophic", "chaotic" and "irreversible", had altered the public discourse around climate change: "This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as 'climate change is worse than we thought', that we are approaching 'irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate', and that we are 'at the point of no return'. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric".[260]
According to an Associated Press release on 30 January 2007,
Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.
The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report".[261]
Critics writing in the Wall Street Journal editorial page state that the survey[262] was itself unscientific.[263]
In addition to the pressure from politicians, many prominent scientists working on climate change issues have reported increasingly severe harassment from members of the public. The harassment has taken several forms. The US FBI told ABC News that it was looking into a spike in threatening emails sent to climate scientists, while a white supremacist website posted pictures of several climate scientists with the word "Jew" next to each image. One climate scientist interviewed by ABC News had a dead animal dumped on his doorstep and now frequently has to travel with bodyguards.[264]
In April 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli claimed that leading climate scientist Michael E. Mann had possibly violated state fraud laws, and without providing any evidence of wrongdoing, filed the Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation as a civil demand that the University of Virginia provide a wide range of records broadly related to five research grants Mann had obtained as an assistant professor at the university from 1999 to 2005. This litigation was widely criticized in the academic community as politically motivated and likely to have a chilling effect on future research.[265][266] The university filed a court petition and the judge dismissed Cuccinelli's demand on the grounds that no justification had been shown for the investigation.[267] Cuccinelli issued a revised subpoena, and appealed the case to the Virginia Supreme Court which ruled in March 2012 that Cuccinelli did not have the authority to make these demands. The outcome was hailed as a victory for academic freedom.[268][269]
Exxon Mobil is also notorious for skewing scientific evidence through their private funding of scientific organizations. In 2002, Exxon Mobil contributed $10,000 to The Independent Institute and then $10,000 more in 2003. In 2003, The Independent Institute release a study that reported the evidence for imminent global warming found during the Clinton administration was based on now-dated satellite findings and wrote off the evidence and findings as a product of "bad science."[270]
This is not the only consortium of skeptics that Exxon Mobil has supported financially. The George C. Marshall Institute received $630,000 in funding for climate change research from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. Exxon Mobil also gave $472,000 in funding to The Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow from 1998 to 2005. Dr. Frederick Seitz, well known as "the god father of global warming skepticism," served as both Chairman Emeritus of The George C. Marshall Institute and a board member of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow from 1998 to 2005.[271]

249. ^ US climate scientists pressured on climate change, NewScientist, 31 January 2007
250. ^ Goddard, Jacqui (4 June 2008). "Nasa 'played down' global warming to protect Bush". The Scotsman (Edinburgh). Retrieved 12 February 2010.
251. ^ Campbell, D. (20 June 2003) "White House cuts global warming from report" Guardian Unlimited
252. ^ Donaghy, T., et al. (2007) "Atmosphere of Pressure:" a report of the Government Accountability Project (Cambridge, Massachusetts: UCS Publications)[dead link]
253. ^ Rule, E. (2005) "Possible media attention" Email to NOAA staff, 27 July. Obtained via FOIA request on 31 July 2006. and Teet, J. (2005) "DOC Interview Policy" Email to NOAA staff, 29 September. Originally published by Alexandrovna, L. (2005) "Commerce Department tells National Weather Service media contacts must be pre-approved" The Raw Story, 4 October. Retrieved 22 December 2006.
254. ^ Zabarenko, D. (2007) "'Don't discuss polar bears:' memo to scientists" Reuters
255. ^ Revkin, Andrew C. (29 January 2006). "Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him". New York Times. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
256. ^ Eilperin, J. (6 April 2006) "Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House" Washington Post
257. ^ "Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear". BBC Panorama. 1 June 2006. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
258. ^ "HinesSight: Facts about George Taylor and the "state climatologist"". Hinessight.blogs.com. 8 February 2007. Retrieved 29 August 2010.
259. ^ Local News|kgw.com|News for Oregon and SW Washington[dead link]
260. ^ Hulme, Mike (4 November 2006). "Chaotic world of climate truth". BBC News. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
261. ^ "Groups Say Scientists Pressured On Warming". CBC and Associated Press. 30 January 2007. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
262. ^ Donaghy, Timothy; Jennifer Freeman, Francesca Grifo, Karly Kaufman, Tarek Maassarani, Lexi Shultz (February 2007). "Appendix A: UCS Climate Scientist Survey Text and Responses (Federal)". Atmosphere of Pressure – Political Interference in Federal Climate Science (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists & Government Accountability Project. Retrieved 14 April 2007.[dead link]
263. ^ Taranto, James (1 February 2007). "They Call This Science?". OpinionJournal.com. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
264. ^ "ABC World News Sunday". ABC News. 23 May 2010.
265. ^ "Statement of the AAAS Board Of Directors Concerning the Virginia Attorney General’s Investigation of Prof. Michael Mann’s Work While on the Faculty of University of Virginia" (PDF). AAAS. 18 May 2010. Retrieved 30 July 2010.
266. ^ Gentile, Sal. "Climate scientist calls Va. attorney general’s fraud probe ‘harassment’". PBS.org (PBS). Retrieved 7 September 2010.
267. ^ Judge Dismisses Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's Misguided Investigation of Michael Mann | Union of Concerned Scientists
268. ^ Kumar, Anita (2 March 2012). "Va. Supreme Court tosses Cuccinelli’s case against former U-Va. climate change researcher - Virginia Politics". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
269. ^ Goldenberg, Suzanne (2 March 2012). "Virginia court rejects sceptic's bid for climate science emails : Environment". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
270. ^ Reddy, Sudhakara (2009). "The Great Climate Debate.". Energy Policy 37 (8).
271. ^ de Granados, Oriana Zill. "The Doubters of Global Warming". PBS.

Are you coming back on this one?

Of course.. Right after you tell me why the IPCC screwed the solar forcing number..

Looks like petty political infighting to me. Hansen gets reprimanded.. Titles being fought over --- NOT the stuff from the UN and Congress that DRIVES this bus is it?

Seriously man.. Promised the family that I'd install a new wireless router tonight. GTG...

 

[orogenicman]

And let's just ignore the fact that Venus is about 26 million miles closer to the sun.

Every planetary scientist will tell you that Venus being slightly closer to the sun than the Earth is did not cause its runaway greenhouse effect. Something catastrophic happened to that planet, something that caused it to have a retrograde rotation about its axis that is slow in the extreme, something that melted the entire surface 500 million years ago, something that released virtually all of the CO2 on and in the planet into its atmosphere. Now, none of that has to do with the point I am trying to make. The point is that at some point, the concentration of CO2 in Venus' atmosphere made it not only uninhabitable by virtue of it becoming toxic to life, but at some point, the surface temperature simply became too hot to support life, or to support the ocean of water that is believed to have once existed there. There is no evidence that Venus started out this way. But it certainly is this way today. So my question is how much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours? How much CO2 are you willing to allow to be released into our atmosphere before you decide that enough is enough? And when you finally do come to that decision, will it be too late for our children, and their children?

So my question is how much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours? How much CO2 are you willing to allow to be released into our atmosphere before you decide that enough is enough?

You should post a graph of CO2 levels for all of Earth's history and then we can further discuss your awesome questions. Thanks!

That you believe that what CO2 levels were throughout Earth's geologic history are relevant to the CURRENT inhabitants of the planet only indicates the level of delusion to which you are willing to stoop to promote unethical and greedy corporate behaviors.