Man made Global Warming Is Our Greatest Threat

[Weatherman2020]

Right, because Winston Churchill telling the British during WW2 that they had to conserve fuel for the military, and then getting in a car to go to his house, was just absolutely unforgivable! How can you say one thing and then do the other? Churchill should have walked everywhere if he was serious!

Could it be because the argument linking the two is a fallacy? Hmm, yes.

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - only after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill -


The denier cult's days are numbered. Reality cannot be ignored.

Winston Churchill had Skype?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Speaking of the lack of brains and critical thinking skills...

....and you pop right up.....moronically serving as one of the best example of brainless stupidity on this forum.....and there is a LOT of competition for that position from your fellow denier cult retards....

toiletpaper://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/certaintychannel_ipcc_reality.png?w=72

Like all of the other denier cult wackos, you inevitably try to cite worthless anti-science propaganda from a fossil fuel industry sponsored blog, while ignoring the actual science from reputable scientists published in the peer-reviewed science journals.

As far as your bogus graph goes....

...[Graph] comparing the global surface temperature projections from each of the first four IPCC reports to the subsequent observed temperature changes. We show that not only have the IPCC surface temperature projections been remarkably accurate, but they have also performed much better than predictions made by climate contrarians (Figure 1).



Figure 1: IPCC temperature projections (red, pink, orange, green) and contrarian projections (blue and purple) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASAGISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; black and red) for 1990 through 2012.



Figure 3: IPCC FAR BAU global surface temperature projection adjusted to reflect observed GHG radiative forcings 1990-2011 (blue) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.



Figure 5: IPCC SAR Scenario IS92a global surface temperature projection (blue) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.



Figure 7: IPCC TAR model projection for emissions Scenario A2 (blue) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.

Rahmstorf et al. (2012) Verify TAR and AR4 Accuracy
A paper published in Environmental Research Letters by Rahmstorf, Foster, and Cazenave (2012) applied the methodology of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), using the statistical technique of multiple regression to filter out the influences of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the global surface temperature data to evaluate the underlying long-term primarily human-caused trend. Figure 11 compares their results with and without the short-term noise from natural temperature influences (pink and red, respectively) to the IPCC TAR (blue) and AR4 (green) projections.



Figure 11: Observed annual global temperature, unadjusted (pink) and adjusted for short-term variations due to solar variability, volcanoes, and ENSO (red) as in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). 12-month running averages are shown as well as linear trend lines, and compared to the scenarios of the IPCC (blue range and lines from the 2001 report, green from the 2007 report). Projections are aligned in the graph so that they start (in 1990 and 2000, respectively) on the linear trend line of the (adjusted) observational data.

Frame and Stone (2012) Verify FAR Accuracy
A paper published in Nature Climate Change, Frame and Stone (2012), sought to evaluate the FAR temperature projection accuracy by using a simple climate model to simulate the warming from 1990 through 2010 based on observed GHG and other global heat imbalance changes. Figure 12 shows their results. Since the FAR only projected temperature changes as a result of GHG changes, the light blue line (model-simuated warming in response to GHGs only) is the most applicable result.



Figure 12: Observed changes in global mean surface temperature over the 1990–2010 period from HadCRUT3 and GISTEMP (red) vs. FAR BAU best estimate (dark blue), vs. projections using a one-dimensional energy balance model (EBM) with the measured GHGradiative forcing since 1990 (light blue) and with the overall radiative forcing since 1990 (green). Natural variability from the ensemble of 587 21-year-long segments of control simulations (with constant external forcings) from 24 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) climate models is shown in black and gray. From Frame and Stone (2012).
(excerpts from: Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate)

As the lie of AGW becomes more evident, they lie bigger about their confidence in that lie, in the hopes that no one will look closely.. Empirical evidence shows them frauds liars and deceitful pukes, but the faithful will believe the lies without question..

More of the usual anti-science denier cult crackpot conspiracy theory insanity about the entire world scientific community plotting to fool the rightwingnuts. Laughable and very pathetic!

Wow... Copyright infringement boy blunder.. Do you have even an inkling of what is "fair use".. and not one cognitive thought from boy blunder. Nice of you to show us all that you have no idea what it is you cut and paste or about CAGW in general.

Every time you left wing nut jobs use your "denier" and other 2 year old tantrum throwing bull shit, you loose the Argument before your start..

What is truly pathetic, is you cant even use your own words or cognitive ability to describe what it is you fear. Your 2 year old antics tell me that you fear capitalism and America being great.

 

[Wyatt earp]

That's right, if the President doesn't travel by either skateboard or horseback, it proves global warming isn't real.

What is it with all these conservatives demanding that everyone live in caves and hug trees and swear off deodorant and modern technology?

Its called leadership, when you start to do it I will.

Ya know I turned my phone off for a about a month between Febuary 19th and March 15 th?



No phone, no internet ...

You should try to break my record

Now why should I want to go back to what I experianced as a child. No phone, no internet. And a very small library in the nearest town for reading material. No thank you. I love the fact that the knowledge of the world is at my fingertips.

 

[Crick]

Did you have something you wanted to say?

 

[RollingThunder]

Speaking of the lack of brains and critical thinking skills...

....and you pop right up.....moronically serving as one of the best example of brainless stupidity on this forum.....and there is a LOT of competition for that position from your fellow denier cult retards....

toiletpaper://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/certaintychannel_ipcc_reality.png?w=72

Like all of the other denier cult wackos, you inevitably try to cite worthless anti-science propaganda from a fossil fuel industry sponsored blog, while ignoring the actual science from reputable scientists published in the peer-reviewed science journals.

As far as your bogus graph goes....

...[Graph] comparing the global surface temperature projections from each of the first four IPCC reports to the subsequent observed temperature changes. We show that not only have the IPCC surface temperature projections been remarkably accurate, but they have also performed much better than predictions made by climate contrarians (Figure 1).



Figure 1: IPCC temperature projections (red, pink, orange, green) and contrarian projections (blue and purple) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASAGISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; black and red) for 1990 through 2012.



Figure 3: IPCC FAR BAU global surface temperature projection adjusted to reflect observed GHG radiative forcings 1990-2011 (blue) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.



Figure 5: IPCC SAR Scenario IS92a global surface temperature projection (blue) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.



Figure 7: IPCC TAR model projection for emissions Scenario A2 (blue) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.

Rahmstorf et al. (2012) Verify TAR and AR4 Accuracy
A paper published in Environmental Research Letters by Rahmstorf, Foster, and Cazenave (2012) applied the methodology of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), using the statistical technique of multiple regression to filter out the influences of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the global surface temperature data to evaluate the underlying long-term primarily human-caused trend. Figure 11 compares their results with and without the short-term noise from natural temperature influences (pink and red, respectively) to the IPCC TAR (blue) and AR4 (green) projections.



Figure 11: Observed annual global temperature, unadjusted (pink) and adjusted for short-term variations due to solar variability, volcanoes, and ENSO (red) as in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). 12-month running averages are shown as well as linear trend lines, and compared to the scenarios of the IPCC (blue range and lines from the 2001 report, green from the 2007 report). Projections are aligned in the graph so that they start (in 1990 and 2000, respectively) on the linear trend line of the (adjusted) observational data.

Frame and Stone (2012) Verify FAR Accuracy
A paper published in Nature Climate Change, Frame and Stone (2012), sought to evaluate the FAR temperature projection accuracy by using a simple climate model to simulate the warming from 1990 through 2010 based on observed GHG and other global heat imbalance changes. Figure 12 shows their results. Since the FAR only projected temperature changes as a result of GHG changes, the light blue line (model-simuated warming in response to GHGs only) is the most applicable result.



Figure 12: Observed changes in global mean surface temperature over the 1990–2010 period from HadCRUT3 and GISTEMP (red) vs. FAR BAU best estimate (dark blue), vs. projections using a one-dimensional energy balance model (EBM) with the measured GHGradiative forcing since 1990 (light blue) and with the overall radiative forcing since 1990 (green). Natural variability from the ensemble of 587 21-year-long segments of control simulations (with constant external forcings) from 24 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) climate models is shown in black and gray. From Frame and Stone (2012).
(excerpts from: Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate)

As the lie of AGW becomes more evident, they lie bigger about their confidence in that lie, in the hopes that no one will look closely.. Empirical evidence shows them frauds liars and deceitful pukes, but the faithful will believe the lies without question..

More of the usual anti-science denier cult crackpot conspiracy theory insanity about the entire world scientific community plotting to fool the rightwingnuts. Laughable and very pathetic!

Wow... Copyright infringement boy blunder.. Do you have even an inkling of what is "fair use"..

Actually, you moronic troll, that material from Skeptical Science is free to use with no copyright issues whatsoever under a Creative Commons License.

You are welcome to reuse this content in any non-commercial use with attribution. Skeptical Science is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. For commercial use, please contact me.[/QUOTE]

 

[elektra]

Speaking of the lack of brains and critical thinking skills...

....and you pop right up.....moronically serving as one of the best example of brainless stupidity on this forum.....and there is a LOT of competition for that position from your fellow denier cult retards....

toiletpaper://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/certaintychannel_ipcc_reality.png?w=72

Like all of the other denier cult wackos, you inevitably try to cite worthless anti-science propaganda from a fossil fuel industry sponsored blog, while ignoring the actual science from reputable scientists published in the peer-reviewed science journals.

As far as your bogus graph goes....

...[Graph] comparing the global surface temperature projections from each of the first four IPCC reports to the subsequent observed temperature changes. We show that not only have the IPCC surface temperature projections been remarkably accurate, but they have also performed much better than predictions made by climate contrarians (Figure 1).



Figure 1: IPCC temperature projections (red, pink, orange, green) and contrarian projections (blue and purple) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASAGISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; black and red) for 1990 through 2012.



Figure 3: IPCC FAR BAU global surface temperature projection adjusted to reflect observed GHG radiative forcings 1990-2011 (blue) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.



Figure 5: IPCC SAR Scenario IS92a global surface temperature projection (blue) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.



Figure 7: IPCC TAR model projection for emissions Scenario A2 (blue) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.

Rahmstorf et al. (2012) Verify TAR and AR4 Accuracy
A paper published in Environmental Research Letters by Rahmstorf, Foster, and Cazenave (2012) applied the methodology of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), using the statistical technique of multiple regression to filter out the influences of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the global surface temperature data to evaluate the underlying long-term primarily human-caused trend. Figure 11 compares their results with and without the short-term noise from natural temperature influences (pink and red, respectively) to the IPCC TAR (blue) and AR4 (green) projections.



Figure 11: Observed annual global temperature, unadjusted (pink) and adjusted for short-term variations due to solar variability, volcanoes, and ENSO (red) as in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). 12-month running averages are shown as well as linear trend lines, and compared to the scenarios of the IPCC (blue range and lines from the 2001 report, green from the 2007 report). Projections are aligned in the graph so that they start (in 1990 and 2000, respectively) on the linear trend line of the (adjusted) observational data.

Frame and Stone (2012) Verify FAR Accuracy
A paper published in Nature Climate Change, Frame and Stone (2012), sought to evaluate the FAR temperature projection accuracy by using a simple climate model to simulate the warming from 1990 through 2010 based on observed GHG and other global heat imbalance changes. Figure 12 shows their results. Since the FAR only projected temperature changes as a result of GHG changes, the light blue line (model-simuated warming in response to GHGs only) is the most applicable result.



Figure 12: Observed changes in global mean surface temperature over the 1990–2010 period from HadCRUT3 and GISTEMP (red) vs. FAR BAU best estimate (dark blue), vs. projections using a one-dimensional energy balance model (EBM) with the measured GHGradiative forcing since 1990 (light blue) and with the overall radiative forcing since 1990 (green). Natural variability from the ensemble of 587 21-year-long segments of control simulations (with constant external forcings) from 24 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) climate models is shown in black and gray. From Frame and Stone (2012).
(excerpts from: Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate)

As the lie of AGW becomes more evident, they lie bigger about their confidence in that lie, in the hopes that no one will look closely.. Empirical evidence shows them frauds liars and deceitful pukes, but the faithful will believe the lies without question..

More of the usual anti-science denier cult crackpot conspiracy theory insanity about the entire world scientific community plotting to fool the rightwingnuts. Laughable and very pathetic!

You realize that ALL of charts show no warming since the mid-90's right?

LOLOLOLOLOL......well CrazyFruitcake, since all of those charts very obviously show major warming since the mid-90s, it is obvious that you are trying to use the Argument from Insanity fallacy.....as usual for you.

Why use charts when they could simply state is is 30 degrees F.? Simple, cause they are liars.

 

[Crick]

Can't follow 'em, can you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, the "Observations" line never moves. Are you perhaps looking at one of Don Easterbrooks' predictions?

Oh, I see what you mean. This graph shows the pause. That's not very surprising Frank. Until Karl 2015, almost every graph did.

Check this out Frank. Before 1998, every astrophysicist on this planet assumed the expansion of the universe was slowing in response to the gravity field of the mass of the universe. Worst case was that it had reached a terminal velocity and would expand at its current velocity forever. But, in that year, " the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-Z Supernova Search Team simultaneously obtained results suggesting a totally unexpected acceleration in the expansion of the universe by using distant type Ia supernovae as standard candles."

The expansion of the universe was not decreasing. It was increasing. This was like finding that a ball rolling uphill accelerated. What this suggested caused a major revision in our fundamental understanding of cosmology and the nature of the universe. However, within two years it was the new dogma. So stand back and watch as the real experts demonstrate what its like to NOT have an agenda, to NOT have a theory you just won't give up, to NOT be wiling to go where the evidence leads, no matter the cost.

^ squid ink defense

Crick, are you saying dark matter caused the pause?

 

[elektra]

Can't follow 'em, can you.

My posts followed the post on charts?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Karl et al 2015: who are you going to believe, us or your lying so-called observations?

 

[Crick]

HAHAHAHAaaaaa... right.

I believe the science. I believe the evidence. I believe the scientists. I believe the world is getting rapidly warmer and that the primary cause is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. That's what I believe.

What, precisely, do YOU believe? You guys just spend your time nit-picking and brainstorming conspiracies out the ass. What do you believe the world's rising CO2 levels are doing? What do you believe the Earth's temperatures are doing? What significance do you believe any of that has for us and the rest of the Earth's inhabitants?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

HAHAHAHAaaaaa... right.

I believe the science. I believe the evidence. I believe the scientists. I believe the world is getting rapidly warmer and that the primary cause is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. That's what I believe.

What, precisely, do YOU believe? You guys just spend your time nit-picking and brainstorming conspiracies out the ass. What do you believe the world's rising CO2 levels are doing? What do you believe the Earth's temperatures are doing? What significance do you believe any of that has for us and the rest of the Earth's inhabitants?

All that belief sounds like Catechism.

BTW, observations are not Evidence

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hide the decline
Mann's Nature trick
Adjust the baseline
The ocean ate my global warming
Pay no attention to the pause behind the curtain, I am the great and powerful Kart et al!

 

[Crick]

You see a man shoot another man and get into his car and drive away. Are those observations not evidence?
You take your wet bulb thermometer outside and give it a swing. You write the readings down on some paper and walk back inside. Are those observations not evidence?
You send a satellite up which take pictures showing a huge storm approaching your location. Are those observations not evidence?

I don't know if your problem is your understanding of the meaning of the term "observation" or "evidence" or both, but your assertion is laughably wrong.

Tell you what. Why don't you explain what you mean when you say observations are not evidence. Perhaps I've misinterpreted you. Explain what you mean by the phrase without using the terms "observation" or "evidence".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When you tell us that you "believe" the temperature increase (or decrease) is caused by a minute change in an atmospheric trace element, it's on you to show us the evidence. That is, lab experiments that control for eliminating all variables save for minute changes in an atmospheric trace element.

If you can't show us the lab work, what you're putting forth is an article of faith on your part.

You believe CO2 is the culprit, but you presented no evidence to back up your claim

In your car analogy, the car was full of other passengers, other variables, but you're telling us you believe a minute changes in an atmospheric trace element was the shooter.

Show us the residue test

 

[Crick]

First off, you did not state that some specific observation was not evidence. You stated that no observations were evidence. That is what I was hoping you would explain.

When you tell us that you "believe" the temperature increase (or decrease) is caused by a minute change in an atmospheric trace element, it's on you to show us the evidence. That is, lab experiments that control for eliminating all variables save for minute changes in an atmospheric trace element.

There are thousands of lab results that show CO2 behaves precisely as it is universally understood to do - absorbs IR radiation in certain bands. Attempting to dispute that is simply assinine. That it behaves in the same manner in the atmosphere - and I assure you it's absorption tendencies have been tested at all ranges of pressure and temperature - and that it is responsible for a portion of the greenhouse warming we undergo, is supported by mountains of evidence. If you would like us to believe that for some reason it does NOT behave in the atmosphere as it has been found to do in the lab, YOU are the one who needs to provide additional evidence - additional observations. That its atmospheric increase is responsible for the concurrent global increase in temperature is supported by mountains of evidence most conveniently seen at WG-I, The Physical Science Basis of AR5 from the IPCC.

If you can't show us the lab work, what you're putting forth is an article of faith on your part.

You believe CO2 is the culprit, but you presented no evidence to back up your claim

What's actually needed is a better understanding on your part as to how science operates. Tell me, what lab work does one find in the field of astrophysics? Astronomy? Cosmology? Do you perhaps believe them not be sciences and unable to formulate or test hypotheses?

And, again, there is an ENORMOUS amount of evidence that CO2 absorbs IR as has been understood for quite some time. I know it would be handy for deniers if it did not, but, hey, if you didn't want a challenge, you wouldn't have chosen to reject a theory that has earned almost universal acceptance among the experts.

In your car analogy, the car was full of other passengers, other variables, but you're telling us you believe a minute changes in an atmospheric trace element was the shooter.

Car analogy? You mean the observing-a-murder analogy?

My belief that increased CO2 is the cause of our warming is not an act of faith. It is supported by mountains of EVIDENCE driving extremely robust science and that belief is shared by virtually every scientist and educated individual on the face of this planet.

Show us the residue test

Sorry, I've installed bidets in both my bathrooms. Just for fun, though, to what "residue test" do you refer?

 

[jc456]

I have no issues with mama nature....

....you just have massive issues with reality!

dude, mother nature is reality. wow, you have issues dude.

 

[jc456]

First off, you did not state that some specific observation was not evidence. You stated that no observations were evidence. That is what I was hoping you would explain.

When you tell us that you "believe" the temperature increase (or decrease) is caused by a minute change in an atmospheric trace element, it's on you to show us the evidence. That is, lab experiments that control for eliminating all variables save for minute changes in an atmospheric trace element.

There are thousands of lab results that show CO2 behaves precisely as it is universally understood to do - absorbs IR radiation in certain bands. Attempting to dispute that is simply assinine. That it behaves in the same manner in the atmosphere - and I assure you it's absorption tendencies have been tested at all ranges of pressure and temperature - and that it is responsible for a portion of the greenhouse warming we undergo, is supported by mountains of evidence. If you would like us to believe that for some reason it does NOT behave in the atmosphere as it has been found to do in the lab, YOU are the one who needs to provide additional evidence - additional observations. That its atmospheric increase is responsible for the concurrent global increase in temperature is supported by mountains of evidence most conveniently seen at WG-I, The Physical Science Basis of AR5 from the IPCC.

If you can't show us the lab work, what you're putting forth is an article of faith on your part.

You believe CO2 is the culprit, but you presented no evidence to back up your claim

What's actually needed is a better understanding on your part as to how science operates. Tell me, what lab work does one find in the field of astrophysics? Astronomy? Cosmology? Do you perhaps believe them not be sciences and unable to formulate or test hypotheses?

And, again, there is an ENORMOUS amount of evidence that CO2 absorbs IR as has been understood for quite some time. I know it would be handy for deniers if it did not, but, hey, if you didn't want a challenge, you wouldn't have chosen to reject a theory that has earned almost universal acceptance among the experts.

In your car analogy, the car was full of other passengers, other variables, but you're telling us you believe a minute changes in an atmospheric trace element was the shooter.

Car analogy? You mean the observing-a-murder analogy?

My belief that increased CO2 is the cause of our warming is not an act of faith. It is supported by mountains of EVIDENCE driving extremely robust science and that belief is shared by virtually every scientist and educated individual on the face of this planet.

Show us the residue test

Sorry, I've installed bidets in both my bathrooms. Just for fun, though, to what "residue test" do you refer?

again with the thousands of lab results. Well dude, can't you post one of them? I mean shit, one thousand and yet you've presented none. You keep say you have, and we're still here requesting it. just saying there are thousands of lab results isn't evidence, it is your statement and it isn't fact until you present something. We've been waiting. Please show your a man of integrity and post at least one. And BTW, not one that says model in it, one that says conclusion.

And BTW, again, IPCC stated that there was a 15 year pause which contradicts your CO2 statement. So you lose that argument based on science.

 

[Muhammed]

That's right, if the President doesn't travel by either skateboard or horseback, it proves global warming isn't real.

What is it with all these conservatives demanding that everyone live in caves and hug trees and swear off deodorant and modern technology?

Why can't you see that the leaders of your beloved Global Warming Doomsday Cult do not believe the BS in the repeated messages that they used to brainwash your pathetic ass?

 

[jillian]

Shot: Leonardo DiCaprio: We Can’t Elect a Candidate Who Doesn’t Believe in Climate Change.

Chaser: Obama takes two Air Force One planes to Argentina for sightseeing.

Hangover: Leonardo DiCaprio the ‘eco warrior’ flew on a private jet from NY to LA SIX times in SIX weeks, Sony hack documents reveal.

When those screaming it's a crisis start acting like its a crisis we'll start listening to what they have to say.

how do you "act like it's a crisis" when the right refuses to address the issue at all and lies and says it doesn't exist?