In summary...

[IanC]

Rational people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.

That is what I hate about climate science alarmism. The conclusions publicized are typically exaggerated towards worst case scenarios that are given undue certainty.

 

[LaDexter]

And if you really think it hasn't warmed in 18 years, you're woefully out of touch

LOL!!!

That chart is 99% surface ground, 1% ocean (flat line).

The "warming" on surface ground, the only series showing any warming in the raw data, is all about the urban heat sink effect. In short, as land goes from grass and trees to Tokyo, it warms 10 degrees on the surface. That is all the real "warming" the "warmers" have - all of it...


Scientists: Urban heat, pollution wreak havoc with precipitation

"Cities also generate and trap tremendous amounts of heat and are on average 1 to 10 degrees warmer than surrounding undeveloped areas."



As an urban area grows, it warms and moves up the 1-10 degree scale. Nashville TN was 1 100 years ago, more like 4 now. If you are just measuring from the surface of growing urban areas disproportionately in the northern hemisphere and you are dishonest as hell and editing out rural areas that remain undeveloped, you get the warmers' "Surface Ground" temp series... Once again, CO2 isn't doing jack.

 

[IanC]

For a change I can agree with LaDexter.

The UHI effect has been folded into the surface station record.

GISS in 2012 (the last time they made UHI adjustments available) showed zero change for total UHI.

BEST has gone even further and declared UHI a cooling influence worthy of ADDING to recent temps.

What Orwellian doublespeak!

 

[LaDexter]

The actual UHI adjustment "correction" for the entire Surface Ground is 0.05 F, laughably small. Raise it to 1+ and you wipe out the warming in organic Surface Ground and then all raw data shows NO WARMING at all...

 

[IanC]

Phil Jones' original UHI paper claimed 0.005C/ decade. It also spawned a fraud investigation. In the 2000's he 7pdated it and got 0.05C/decade. Still pathetically small. And as I said GISS and BEST weren't even that high.

An example to show the difficulty of adjusting for local changes in conditions.

Temperatures were enclosed in Stevenson Screens that were painted white. Often they were only painted every 5-10 years. As the paint decayed the temperature readings went up. After fresh paint the temp would drop. Homogenization techniques could not capture the gradual increase but they could recognize the abrupt cooling which was adjusted for.

 

[LaDexter]

Despite the warming of the surface of growing urban areas, the planet is not warming, the oceans are actually dropping, and the atmospheric and ocean temps still show no statistically significant change... despite the raw data in both showing minuscule COOLING.

 

[Crick]

For the umpteenth time, let's see data that shown ocean temperatures are dropping, the atmosphere shows no statistically significant warming and raw data that shows them to be cooling.

 

[boedicca]

1. climate change is a science, not a theory
2. Global Warming is a fraudulent theory with precisely no evidence to support it
3. the amount of ice on Earth is dictated by the amount of land near the two Earth poles
4. the amount of ice on Earth dictates Earth's climate
5. CO2 has precisely nothing to do with Earth climate change

You forgot about that flaming ball in the sky and its impact on the climate.

 

[LaDexter]

No ocean warming

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds the 18+ year 'pause' of global warming is not due to missing heat hiding in the deep oceans


Highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed no warming before being FUDGED in 2005...

Hiding the Hiatus: Global Warming on Pause


"The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 225 months, from October 1996 to June 2015."

 

[Crick]

"Highly correlated satellite and balloon data"

You have to be the most One-Trick-Pony that's ever existed.

 

[LaDexter]

When you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and both return highly correlated data, you have to be a completely corrupt taxpayer funded leech to claim that either series needs to be "corrected" with UNCORRELATED "corrections" no less, but that is what your heroes did to preserve their $20 billion per year taxpayer funding....

 

[SSDD]

You have to be the most One-Trick-Pony that's ever existed.

Project much? All you have is incessant claims of evidence that doesn't exist...at least he has actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data...and it tells a much more truthful story than anything you have been able to produce.

 

[Boss]

When you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and both return highly correlated data, you have to be a completely corrupt taxpayer funded leech to claim that either series needs to be "corrected" with UNCORRELATED "corrections" no less, but that is what your heroes did to preserve their $20 billion per year taxpayer funding....

That's the part I have difficulty understanding about these dunderheads who believe this Warming nonsense. There are literally thousands of people who are making good livings on the government funding of research concerning AGW. It is totally NOT in their best interest to find any evidence to suggest man-made global warming isn't happening. To do that would be to cut their own livelihoods. What moron would ever do that?

So what we continue to get are all these "studies" which conclude the narrative. No government-funded researcher in their right minds are going to ever publicly admit there is inconsequential effects on the climate from man's activities. They will prop up the lie with all kinds of gross speculations and conjecture, manipulate data and even make it up on the fly if they need to. Whatever it takes to keep the government grants coming.

What I wish these supporting morons would realize is, this is billions and billions of dollars being poured into this thing... that's money we could be using to feed the hungry, house the homeless, care for the sick and needy... etc. Instead, it's going to "researchers" who live in $200k homes and "advocates" who fly around in private jets to preach the gospel of AGW. Not one single penny that has been spent on this boondoggle has changed ANY aspect of the climate. It never will!

 

[Old Rocks]

Boss

Sure you would. Marxists would still want to shake down Capitalists, so something HAS to be wrong somewhere. In the 70s, they ran around with their charts and graphs claiming "scientific consensus" we were heading for another Ice Age and we needed more government. Turns out we weren't heading for another Ice Age. Then in the 90s, they said the Earth was warming and we needed more government. Turns out the Earth wasn't warming. Now, they say we have "Climate Change" and we need more government. You see the common thread there?

.............................................................................................................................................

No, what I see is extreme ignorance on your part. There was no consensus in the 1970's concerning global cooling.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

Scientific Consensus
In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…

And by 1981, the leading atmospheric physicist of that time, Dr. James Hansen, made this prediction;

Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

The whole article is linked to at that site. And it did miss the opening of the Northwest Passage. The paper predicted that opening toward the end of the 21st century, and it opened for the first time in 2007.

There was no consensus in the 1970's concerning global cooling...A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total).

Oh, so it was just like the "97% of scientists consensus" lie being promoted today about AGW?

I was around in the 70s, I remember how it was promoted... man was churning out all this smog and pollution and it threatened to block out the sun and bring on the next ice age if we didn't ACT! Man was driving down global temps and Government needed to step in! That's how we got the EPA.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle

This article exposes the FRAUD of the "97 percent consensus" claims. It's actually more like 0.3%

OK, Boss, find me a single Scientific Society that claims that AGW is a fraud, and is not happening. How about one National Academy of Science? Even of Outer Slobovia. How about a major University? You cannot because they do not exist. Not here, not in any nation.

Meanwhile, almost every Scientific Society in the world has a strongly worded statement that says AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Every National Academy of Science makes that statement. Almost every major University states the same. And what, Boss, do you have spreading false statements concerning the science involved? An obese junkie on the AM radio, a fake British Lord.

 

[Old Rocks]

Photosynthesis REQUIRES the energy input of sunlight to convert CO2 and water to sugars. Without sunlight, it does not take place. Plants do not CREATE energy. You can consider it a conversion process if you like: solar energy into chemical energy, but they are producing food, not energy. Again, you comments indicate some educational shortcomings on this general topic

This is now becoming a semantics argument. "Food" is energy! YES... plants create energy (food) from sunlight and CO2. Now this does not mean the laws of conservation are broken... energy can't be created or destroyed... but plants convert energy just like all living things convert energy. And that is what we're talking about.

Which is not what you said it says. CO2 levels got to those "starvation" points at the height of glaciation, not just prior to the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution did not - as you suggest - save the plant kingdom.

I didn't say it saved the plant kingdom. I'm growing tired of having to correct your twisting and pretzeling of things I say into straw men you can torch. I said that botanists say, up until about 200 years ago, plants were starving for CO2. I'm not a botanist, I don't study plants, I deffer to their expertise. I'm merely repeating what I've read. If you have some argument you should take that up with them.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the process is already underway. Not as fast as we ought to be switching, but underway.

Not really. I doubt we've reduced our usage of fossil fuels by more than a few percent. Certain efforts, such as Ethanol, actually use more fossil fuel than they save. It will be many, many years before we see man eliminate his need for fossil fuels. It's not going to happen in our lifetime.

No, they are not. We are taking these actions to PREVENT people from starving and dying.

But that's not the effect of implementing government mandates and restrictions on production.

So, you reject all science? That IS what you're saying. We have thousands of studies which show that the planet has been warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and that greenhouse warming from increasing levels of CO2 is the primary cause. These studies do not "suggest" that is what's happening. Those are their conclusions.

So here, you try to talk from both sides of your mouth. You have not shown me where science has concluded anything. When I challenge you, I'm told science can't conclude things... then you return promptly to explaining to me how science has concluded! And so it goes... over and over... rinse and repeat!

Boss, you are playing free and loose with words. Crick stated that science does not prove anything. And he was correct. But you can make conclusions when science points out that the evidence shows this is the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Conclude and prove are words with a very different meaning. You really need to retake your literature and english classes.

 

[Old Rocks]

When you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and both return highly correlated data, you have to be a completely corrupt taxpayer funded leech to claim that either series needs to be "corrected" with UNCORRELATED "corrections" no less, but that is what your heroes did to preserve their $20 billion per year taxpayer funding....

That's the part I have difficulty understanding about these dunderheads who believe this Warming nonsense. There are literally thousands of people who are making good livings on the government funding of research concerning AGW. It is totally NOT in their best interest to find any evidence to suggest man-made global warming isn't happening. To do that would be to cut their own livelihoods. What moron would ever do that?

So what we continue to get are all these "studies" which conclude the narrative. No government-funded researcher in their right minds are going to ever publicly admit there is inconsequential effects on the climate from man's activities. They will prop up the lie with all kinds of gross speculations and conjecture, manipulate data and even make it up on the fly if they need to. Whatever it takes to keep the government grants coming.

What I wish these supporting morons would realize is, this is billions and billions of dollars being poured into this thing... that's money we could be using to feed the hungry, house the homeless, care for the sick and needy... etc. Instead, it's going to "researchers" who live in $200k homes and "advocates" who fly around in private jets to preach the gospel of AGW. Not one single penny that has been spent on this boondoggle has changed ANY aspect of the climate. It never will!

So, what you are stating is that the vast majority of scientists, worldwide, are in on a conspiracy to commit fraud. Scientists from every nation and culture.

Boss, have you been fitted for your little tin hat yet?

 

[jc456]

LOL

So what we have here is a fruit loopy anonymous poster on a message board claiming that he knows more than all the scientists on this planet. As for #'s 1 and two;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The American Institute of Physics is the largest Scientific Society on this planet. And it and every other Scientific Society, as well as all the National Academies of Science and the major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The amount of land at the poles is a factor in the ice ages, but more important factors are the GHGs in the atmosphere and the Milankovic Cycles. There have been vast geological periods when there was land covering the South Pole, and there was no continental ice sheets there.

The two primary drivers of climate are the amount of energy the sun recieves from the sun, and the amount it retains. The latter is controlled by the Earth's albedo, and the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. Land distribution, Milankovic Cycles, effect the distribution of the heat and cold on earth, but are not primary drivers.

CO2, being the primary GHG, not the strongest one, that is water vapor, but the primary one. CO2 controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. All the physicists state that.

so where is the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man is increasing the global temperature in that link. Can you post up the snippet that explains that?

 

[Old Rocks]

And if you really think it hasn't warmed in 18 years, you're woefully out of touch

LOL!!!

That chart is 99% surface ground, 1% ocean (flat line).

The "warming" on surface ground, the only series showing any warming in the raw data, is all about the urban heat sink effect. In short, as land goes from grass and trees to Tokyo, it warms 10 degrees on the surface. That is all the real "warming" the "warmers" have - all of it...


Scientists: Urban heat, pollution wreak havoc with precipitation

"Cities also generate and trap tremendous amounts of heat and are on average 1 to 10 degrees warmer than surrounding undeveloped areas."



As an urban area grows, it warms and moves up the 1-10 degree scale. Nashville TN was 1 100 years ago, more like 4 now. If you are just measuring from the surface of growing urban areas disproportionately in the northern hemisphere and you are dishonest as hell and editing out rural areas that remain undeveloped, you get the warmers' "Surface Ground" temp series... Once again, CO2 isn't doing jack.

Now LaDumbkopf, this is Dr. Roy Spencer's graph, from satellite data. Looks like major increase to me since the data started.

UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2016: +0.44 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[jc456]

LOL

So what we have here is a fruit loopy anonymous poster on a message board claiming that he knows more than all the scientists on this planet. As for #'s 1 and two;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The American Institute of Physics is the largest Scientific Society on this planet. And it and every other Scientific Society, as well as all the National Academies of Science and the major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The amount of land at the poles is a factor in the ice ages, but more important factors are the GHGs in the atmosphere and the Milankovic Cycles. There have been vast geological periods when there was land covering the South Pole, and there was no continental ice sheets there.

The two primary drivers of climate are the amount of energy the sun recieves from the sun, and the amount it retains. The latter is controlled by the Earth's albedo, and the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. Land distribution, Milankovic Cycles, effect the distribution of the heat and cold on earth, but are not primary drivers.

CO2, being the primary GHG, not the strongest one, that is water vapor, but the primary one. CO2 controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. All the physicists state that.

There have been vast geological periods when there was land covering the South Pole, and there was no continental ice sheets there.

you have evidence to make this statement?

 

[Old Rocks]

1. climate change is a science, not a theory
2. Global Warming is a fraudulent theory with precisely no evidence to support it
3. the amount of ice on Earth is dictated by the amount of land near the two Earth poles
4. the amount of ice on Earth dictates Earth's climate
5. CO2 has precisely nothing to do with Earth climate change

You forgot about that flaming ball in the sky and its impact on the climate.

And you forgot to check whether we have been receiving less or more energy from the sun in the last couple of decades. The answer is less. So, why don't you actually do a bit of research before proving yourself an ignorant ass?