Global Warming Scientist Get Stuck in Growing Antartic Ice

[Meister]

Five IPCC reports and roughly 12,000 peer reviewed studies.

Riiiight. Proven to be manipulated data and the leaked emails, not to mention your very own scientists are changing their position should have sent up red flags for those who do some critical thinking. But, it wouldn't for those who have an agenda.
Sorry you got sucked into all the chic hype, abe.


12,000 studies huh?

Nice try, Abe

 

[elektra]

Five IPCC reports and roughly 12,000 peer reviewed studies.

12,000 peer reviewed studies? A lie, prove their are 12,000.

Hell, prove that there is one, not and abstract, press release, or an article about the mythical study that is peer reviewed, but actually produce one study. Should be easy with 12,000 of them out there.

go ahead, we all can not wait to see, produce one.

 

[itfitzme]

Five IPCC reports and roughly 12,000 peer reviewed studies.

Riiiight. Proven to be manipulated data and the leaked emails, not to mention your very own scientists are changing their position should have sent up red flags for those who do some critical thinking. But, it wouldn't for those who have an agenda.
Sorry you got sucked into all the chic hype, abe.


12,000 studies huh?

Nice try, Abe

What proof?

 

[Meister]

Five IPCC reports and roughly 12,000 peer reviewed studies.

12,000 peer reviewed studies? A lie, prove their are 12,000.

Hell, prove that there is one, not and abstract, press release, or an article about the mythical study that is peer reviewed, but actually produce one study. Should be easy with 12,000 of them out there.

go ahead, we all can not wait to see, produce one.

I did find this:
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change | Science Codex

I guess this is called consensus these days when there is an agenda.

 

[itfitzme]

Five IPCC reports and roughly 12,000 peer reviewed studies.

12,000 peer reviewed studies? A lie, prove their are 12,000.

Hell, prove that there is one, not and abstract, press release, or an article about the mythical study that is peer reviewed, but actually produce one study. Should be easy with 12,000 of them out there.

go ahead, we all can not wait to see, produce one.

I did find this:
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change | Science Codex

I guess this is called consensus these days when there is an agenda.

So that would be that, among the papers where the authors presented a position,

11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW = 3910.044

11 994 papers, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW = 83.958

11 994 papers, 0.3 per cent uncertain = 35.982

Total papers with an opinion. 3910.044 + 83.958+35.982 = 4029.984

Percent endorsing AWG, 3910.044/4029.984 = 97 %

That is a 97% of scientists that stated an opinion endores AWG.

The problem you have is you are imagining what the unstated opinion authors believe. We could simply count them as agreeing with AWG, just as well as you are counting them as disagreeing, and get

99% of scientiists do not disagree with AWG.

My question is why you count a non-statement from a paper on the mating habits of tree frogs as being a denial of AWG? It is, after all, simply a non-statement.

Oh, BTW, are everyone of those 11994 papers by 11994 different authors?

 

[Meister]

Five IPCC reports and roughly 12,000 peer reviewed studies.

Riiiight. Proven to be manipulated data and the leaked emails, not to mention your very own scientists are changing their position should have sent up red flags for those who do some critical thinking. But, it wouldn't for those who have an agenda.
Sorry you got sucked into all the chic hype, abe.


12,000 studies huh?

Nice try, Abe

What proof?

NCAR’s Wigley once complained to Mann, “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.…”

Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office warned Phil Jones, head of the CRU: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere, unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary.… I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it, which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

Suppressed critical knowledge: Phil Jones wrote, “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on the IPCC 5th Assessment Report would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder [the U.S. Department of Energy] in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

The U.S. government was colluding with the hiders, who received tens of millions of dollars over the years.

Jones wrote to Mann, “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith Briffa re AR4 [the IPCC 4th Assessment Report]? Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar Ammann to do likewise.”
Climategate leaker: Our civilization is being killed by lying ?science? elitists

Please feel free to read more

 

[Zander]

 

[Meister]

12,000 peer reviewed studies? A lie, prove their are 12,000.

Hell, prove that there is one, not and abstract, press release, or an article about the mythical study that is peer reviewed, but actually produce one study. Should be easy with 12,000 of them out there.

go ahead, we all can not wait to see, produce one.

I did find this:
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change | Science Codex

I guess this is called consensus these days when there is an agenda.

So that would be that, among the papers where the authors presented a position,

11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW = 3910.044

11 994 papers, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW = 83.958

11 994 papers, 0.3 per cent uncertain = 35.982

Total papers with an opinion. 3910.044 + 83.958+35.982 = 4029.984

Percent endorsing AWG, 3910.044/4029.984 = 97 %

That is a 97% of scientists that stated an opinion endores AWG.

The problem you have is you are imagining what the unstated opinion authors believe. We could simply count them as agreeing with AWG, just as well as you are counting them as disagreeing, and get

99% of scientiists do not disagree with AWG.

Just what are you going to do with that big number of 66.4% that stated no position on global warming? That number just torpedoes the rest of your numbers.
Go ahead and spin it until the cows come home, you needed that 66.4% to make your case and you fell flat.
But, you just go ahead with your agenda, it's all that you and your ilk have left.

 

[itfitzme]

Ah, here is the complete analysis

"In fact, not all scientists do agree that humans are causing global warming. As researchers under the guidance of John Cook at Skeptical Science discovered in a "citizen science" survey of 11,944 peer-reviewed articles, 1.6 percent of the authors expressing an opinion on the subject rejected or were uncertain about the consensus that the earth is undergoing anthropogenic (human-generated) global warming (AGW). And 97.1 percent of the nearly 4,000 articles in which the author(s) took a position endorsed the AGW consensus. (The survey was published May 15 in Environmental Research Letters as an open access article.)"

Daily Kos: Skeptical Science flattens deniers: 97% of peer-reviewed papers say humans causing climate change

Oh, shit. That's exactly what I got.

 

[Meister]

Ah, here is the complete analysis

"In fact, not all scientists do agree that humans are causing global warming. As researchers under the guidance of John Cook at Skeptical Science discovered in a "citizen science" survey of 11,944 peer-reviewed articles, 1.6 percent of the authors expressing an opinion on the subject rejected or were uncertain about the consensus that the earth is undergoing anthropogenic (human-generated) global warming (AGW). And 97.1 percent of the nearly 4,000 articles in which the author(s) took a position endorsed the AGW consensus. (The survey was published May 15 in Environmental Research Letters as an open access article.)"

Daily Kos: Skeptical Science flattens deniers: 97% of peer-reviewed papers say humans causing climate change

Oh, shit. That's exactly what I got.

Yeah, sure you did....go back to your agenda dude.
You still can't back away from what the leaked emails were stating, all you can do is go to kos and try a lame attempt at damage control.
PS to get to your 97% you had to throw out nearly 8,000 papers to get your so called consensus.
I'm through with you.

 

[itfitzme]

Riiiight. Proven to be manipulated data and the leaked emails, not to mention your very own scientists are changing their position should have sent up red flags for those who do some critical thinking. But, it wouldn't for those who have an agenda.
Sorry you got sucked into all the chic hype, abe.


12,000 studies huh?

Nice try, Abe

What proof?

NCAR’s Wigley once complained to Mann, “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.…”

Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office warned Phil Jones, head of the CRU: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere, unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary.… I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it, which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

Suppressed critical knowledge: Phil Jones wrote, “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on the IPCC 5th Assessment Report would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder [the U.S. Department of Energy] in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

The U.S. government was colluding with the hiders, who received tens of millions of dollars over the years.

Jones wrote to Mann, “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith Briffa re AR4 [the IPCC 4th Assessment Report]? Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar Ammann to do likewise.”
Climategate leaker: Our civilization is being killed by lying ?science? elitists

Please feel free to read more

That isn't proof. Thats just a bunch of bullshit. No, really, it is.

Yeah, people get grants to do science. Oh wow. Yeah, so Phil Jones said. So? So the troposphere doesn't show rising tems? Yeah, so? The troposphere isn't the globe. Yeah, so? So some dude named Wigly complained. So?

None of that is proof of anything, unless you discard 99.9% of evidence and pick some obscure details that completely contradict the body of evidence.

Temperature readings are proof. CO2 readings are proof. Absorbtion spectrum of CO2 is proof. Correlation of temp to CO2 is proof.

 

[itfitzme]

Ah, here is the complete analysis

"In fact, not all scientists do agree that humans are causing global warming. As researchers under the guidance of John Cook at Skeptical Science discovered in a "citizen science" survey of 11,944 peer-reviewed articles, 1.6 percent of the authors expressing an opinion on the subject rejected or were uncertain about the consensus that the earth is undergoing anthropogenic (human-generated) global warming (AGW). And 97.1 percent of the nearly 4,000 articles in which the author(s) took a position endorsed the AGW consensus. (The survey was published May 15 in Environmental Research Letters as an open access article.)"

Daily Kos: Skeptical Science flattens deniers: 97% of peer-reviewed papers say humans causing climate change

Oh, shit. That's exactly what I got.

Yeah, sure you did....go back to your agenda dude.
You still can't back away from what the leaked emails were stating, all you can do is go to kos and try a lame attempt at damage control.
PS to get to your 97% you had to throw out nearly 8,000 papers to get your so called consensus.
I'm through with you.

You can't do simple arithmetic.

You clearly have an agenda. There was nothing in the "leaked emails" that meant anything except to people with an agenda, like yourself.

I just do the honest math.

Funny, though, how when it gets down to it, your only real basis is "you have and agenda", "they lied."

 

[Kosh]

And yet the AGW cultists still can not prove one link to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

 

[Kosh]

;8407334Correlation of temp to CO2 is proof.

No it is not!

 

[itfitzme]

;8407334Correlation of temp to CO2 is proof.

No it is not!

Yeah it is. Do you even know how to do a correlation? Tell me, what is the difference between the R^2 value and the coefficient of correlations? What does the R^2 value mean, exactly?

Yeah, it is proof.

 

[Theowl32]

First there the planet warms, then the CO2 levels rise. That is what all of the data says, but the morons on the left believe it to be the other way around. The simple fact is the earth came out of the last mini-ice age around 1850. Long before the combustion engine was invented.

This famous Leutze painting from Christmas night 1776. One thing most prominent in the painting is the ice choked Delaware River in Trent, NJ.

Well, that river has not been frozen over that time of year since around 1850.

Liberals have no clue. They have been utterly ruined and it is just hilarious watching all of the liberals try and insist that man has caused this mass warming.

As though any of them have any freaking clue about climatology.

Some more factual data that the left will reject, as that global warming ship hull is being crushed by thick ice packs.

--------------------------------------------------

CO2 lags temperature
"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)
Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:

The Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected in the the Arctic.

This Arctic warming caused large amounts of ice to melt, causing large amounts of fresh water to flood into the oceans.

This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic Ocean circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.

The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect.

 

[itfitzme]

You are aware that it is 2014, not 10,000 BC? Right?

You do understand what a feedback system is, right? That if aany one of the signals in the feedback loop is changed, it changes the others. There is no,"what comes first". It all depends on what outside factors affect it.

Oh, and the solar irradience doesn't account for all the temperature change.

 

[itfitzme]

I got a question for that diatribe of irrelevant information about the climate some 10,000 years ago.

What is your position, that there is no global warming because a ship got stranded or that the global warming isn't anthropogenic.

Because your diatribe presents both.

"that global warming ship hull is being crushed by thick ice packs"

Then a long presentation of paleotological warming. I suppose to demonstrate that current warming is due to solar insulance not AWG.

"The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun"

 

[itfitzme]

First there the planet warms, then the CO2 levels rise. That is what all of the data says, but the morons on the left believe it to be the other way around. The simple fact is the earth came out of the last mini-ice age around 1850. Long before the combustion engine was invented.

This famous Leutze painting from Christmas night 1776. One thing most prominent in the painting is the ice choked Delaware River in Trent, NJ.

Well, that river has not been frozen over that time of year since around 1850.

Liberals have no clue. They have been utterly ruined and it is just hilarious watching all of the liberals try and insist that man has caused this mass warming.

As though any of them have any freaking clue about climatology.

Some more factual data that the left will reject, as that global warming ship hull is being crushed by thick ice packs.

It's is interesting how you use only some factual data instead of all factual data.

Here is one for you,

Record Cold Expected to Freeze Much of US

Record Cold Expected to Freeze Much of US

You should go with that.

 

[Kosh]

CO2 does NOT drive climate!

No amount of AGW propaganda has proven that.

If it did there would be datasets with source code to prove it.