Why is climate science political?

[code1211]

The true instrument record started in about 1980 when the satellite measuring was documented. This method lends itself well to worldwide measurements and is not subjected to the constant rigging needed for the various land stations to be made sensical.

So, in view of what we can actually rely on as accurate measurements of the wold's climate, we are limited to a period of about 35 years for the mid Troposphere and about 5 years for the oceans.

You are recommending destroying the already shaky economies of the world based on this?

I'm recommending we utilise what we can learn from ice core samples, and what we know about climate dating back at least hundreds of years.

Of course our understanding of climate improves as our ability to monitor climate improves - but we have temperature records going back to the 1850s, and I see no reason not to consider it.

Seriously, what is the quality of those records? We are talking about hundredths of a degree based on some old guy wandering out to his thermometer that may or may not have been accurate, was definitely the old glass tube on the wooden plank style, he was squinting through bifocals that may or may not have been prescription, and then he wandered back to his desk and wrote down what he thought he remembered.

After he did this, the date he recorded was extrapolated to represent the areas not measured so if this guy was on the Arctic Circle, as an example, that temperature was applies to the whole northern portion of the Globe.

After that, this temperature was and all of the extrapolations were used to average the whole Globe and after that James Hansen and company pretty much just threw them out and wrote down whatever the hell they felt were better temps to use to make their argument.

This is just a slight notch above the proxy tree rings and mud cores. Maybe a notch below.

However, using the best proxies available from science today, we find that we are cooler right now than we've been for about 5 million years sliding down by 7 degrees C over that period.

Over the last 65 million, we are down about 12 degrees.

We are not unusually warm right now. We are unusually cool.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.png

 

[code1211]

That really is the most staggering drivel.

Denial. It's not just a vector for Schistosomiasis anymore, is it?

Denial of what.....?

You base your position on Gore's fame in the wider world entirely on your experience in the US - I base mine entirely on my experience in a dozen other countries. A dozen countries in which Gore's name has simply never been a factor one way or the other.

It really is the most Americo-centric view imaginable that just because Gore is a famous politician in the US, he must be a famous politician everywhere.

Do you really think the average person in Germany, South Africa or Brazil really follows the lives of people like Dan Quayle or Michael Dukakis?

I don't know why they would. The average American doesn't.

For the record, though, Gore's film was being shown to school children in Britain.

BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Gore climate film's nine 'errors'

 

[code1211]

In passing, I am a person that is quietly amazed when I flip the switch and the lights turn on on those occasions when I think of it.

Being able to carry on a conversation with so many folks far flung around the country and globe is truly awe insuring to an old codger such as me.

Also, Saigon, your English is excellent. People who can master more than one language are, to me, like those who can play musical instruments like I hum or whistle. An enviable and impressive ability.

 

[Saigon]

For the record, though, Gore's film was being shown to school children in Britain.

BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Gore climate film's nine 'errors'

It had a brief run at the movies here, too, and may have been on TV at some stage.

Likewise the Michael Moore movies do get a run in theatres, but for most people they just aren't particularly relevent outside US borders.

PS - thanks for the compliment! Much appreciated! I did live in New Zealand for a while, so that helped!

 

[Saigon]

Seriously, what is the quality of those records? We are talking about hundredths of a degree based on some old guy wandering out to his thermometer that may or may not have been accurate, was definitely the old glass tube on the wooden plank style, he was squinting through bifocals that may or may not have been prescription, and then he wandered back to his desk and wrote down what he thought he remembered.

After he did this, the date he recorded was extrapolated to represent the areas not measured so if this guy was on the Arctic Circle, as an example, that temperature was applies to the whole northern portion of the Globe.

After that, this temperature was and all of the extrapolations were used to average the whole Globe and after that James Hansen and company pretty much just threw them out and wrote down whatever the hell they felt were better temps to use to make their argument.

This is just a slight notch above the proxy tree rings and mud cores. Maybe a notch below.

However, using the best proxies available from science today, we find that we are cooler right now than we've been for about 5 million years sliding down by 7 degrees C over that period.

Over the last 65 million, we are down about 12 degrees.

We are not unusually warm right now. We are unusually cool.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.png

I imagine the quality of those records is limited - although they may be useful for spotting trends year-on-year more than they are for comparisons with today.

But in general I think we have a fairly good knowledge of the past, based on ice core samples and so forth. And certainly we have fairly solid records going back long enough that certain trends are immediately apparent.

Like this one for instance....tell me you don't see an upwards trend there, and a particularly intense period in the past 5 years....

 

[code1211]

For the record, though, Gore's film was being shown to school children in Britain.

BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Gore climate film's nine 'errors'

It had a brief run at the movies here, too, and may have been on TV at some stage.

Likewise the Michael Moore movies do get a run in theatres, but for most people they just aren't particularly relevent outside US borders.

PS - thanks for the compliment! Much appreciated! I did live in New Zealand for a while, so that helped!

For me, the reason that Gore is a good poster child for this topic is that he was either deeply uninformed or was running a swindle. His science was trash, his conclusions were baseless and the film was both disingenuous, to be generous, and unvarnished propaganda.

The result? It was held up as a masterpiece by the Liberal Elite and he was awarded both an Academy Award over here and a Nobel Peace Prize over there.

It reveals him, the Liberal Elite and the Warmers for exactly what they are.

You may deduce what that is by the quality of the film and the research that went in to making it.

 

[code1211]

Seriously, what is the quality of those records? We are talking about hundredths of a degree based on some old guy wandering out to his thermometer that may or may not have been accurate, was definitely the old glass tube on the wooden plank style, he was squinting through bifocals that may or may not have been prescription, and then he wandered back to his desk and wrote down what he thought he remembered.

After he did this, the date he recorded was extrapolated to represent the areas not measured so if this guy was on the Arctic Circle, as an example, that temperature was applies to the whole northern portion of the Globe.

After that, this temperature was and all of the extrapolations were used to average the whole Globe and after that James Hansen and company pretty much just threw them out and wrote down whatever the hell they felt were better temps to use to make their argument.

This is just a slight notch above the proxy tree rings and mud cores. Maybe a notch below.

However, using the best proxies available from science today, we find that we are cooler right now than we've been for about 5 million years sliding down by 7 degrees C over that period.

Over the last 65 million, we are down about 12 degrees.

We are not unusually warm right now. We are unusually cool.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.png

I imagine the quality of those records is limited - although they may be useful for spotting trends year-on-year more than they are for comparisons with today.

But in general I think we have a fairly good knowledge of the past, based on ice core samples and so forth. And certainly we have fairly solid records going back long enough that certain trends are immediately apparent.

Like this one for instance....tell me you don't see an upwards trend there, and a particularly intense period in the past 5 years....

NOAA and GISS are pretty much joined at the hip in terms of sharing data.

The link below shows the same period of time as represented by GISS first in 1999 and then in 2008.

I don't know all of the ins and outs of Climate Science, but the results of the ins and outs seems to be doing something unkind to the data.

“The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained…” | Watts Up With That?

And then there is this:

March: American Heat Vs. Global Temps - Science News

<snip>
While I normally rely on the UAH satellite record, when the University of East Anglia released their 2011 surface temperature data, I sorted their 20 warmest years in a reponse to someone who often claims "9 out of the 10 warmest years on instrument record have occurred since 1998". While recent years have been warm, the data suggests that we're at a plateau and may start cooling. &#8216;*&#8217; marks the last 10 years, ** marks the last 5:

1994 0.333
1991 0.343
1988 0.348
2000 0.361
1990 0.431

1997 0.463
1995 0.468
1999 0.489
2008 0.528 * **
2011 0.536 * **

2001 0.552
2004 0.611 *
2009 0.642 * **
2003 0.646 *
2002 0.664 *

2006 0.669 *
2007 0.678 * **
2010 0.713 * **
2005 0.747 *
1998 0.820

So, only eight of the last ten years now are in the top 10 and two of the last five years are in the top five. Various recent events may suggest a cooling trend - the negative PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation(, the week sun spot cycle, etc. Future events suggest more cooling - the AMO (Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation) should flip negative in a few years, sun spots may fade from view due to weakening magnetics on the Sun, and a new 2,500 year Tibetan tree ring study has retrospectively suggested that 2006 was the warm point and that there will be cooling to 2068 or so.
<snip>

 

[Saigon]

Code -

I hear a lot here about a cooling period, but I see little evidence of it. While the rate of temperature rise may not have been as steep in the past decade as in the preceeding decade, I understand 2009 still marked the end of the warmest decade on record.

While predictions made 20 years ago may have overstated the case (as in that issue with how many of the warmest years occured in the past decade), but the figures you present still show a clear warming trend to me....

 

[Old Rocks]

The only way that one can get a 'cooling trend' is to compare all the years since 1998 with 1998, without any referance to the preceding years. And even then, 2010 matched 1998 for warmth. If one includes the polar regions, 2005 also matched 1998.

And April was the last month of a double La Nina. Yet it exceeded any month prior to 1998 in warmth. How one can say we are cooling looking that the present troposphere temperature is beyond me.

UAH Global Temperature Update for April 2012: +0.30°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[IanC]

Westwall -

Haven't we covered this about 20 times already?

I can never understand why posters ask questions, when they already know the answers.

Have you EVER heard ANYONE claim that people are the only factor influencing CO2 levels and/or the climate?

If not - then why ask at all?

he asks because the reason behind the time lag in temps and CO2 is an important piece of his effort to understand what is going on with the climate.

Have you EVER heard ANYONE claim that people are the only factor influencing CO2 levels and/or the climate?

good question! I have heard both sides make strawman arguments but it is especially true that warmists project stupid views on the skeptics. skeptics dont deny that there has been some warming and some portion of that warming is attributable to man. skeptics dont deny that CO2 has risen and some portion of that rise is due to man.

what are the legs that CAGW stand upon? 1. we are warmer now than in past human history. 2. burning fossil fuel produces CO2 3. CO2 has a physical mechanism to decrease the loss of heat to space. 4. climate models with incomplete inputs project large temp increases due to positive feedbacks. 5. every Tom, Dick and Harry put catastrophic conclusions about the effects of warming in their papers despite the unlikelyhood of the temperature rise happening that would be needed.

1. historical records by long dead people with no axe to grind in the climate wars show that the MWP was real. no one is farming in Greenland today. averaging all the proxy records shows a distinct MWP, cherrypicking select proxies and using incorrect mathematical processing methodologies produces Hockey Sticks. temperature readings from the last 150 years should be reliable. are they? the amazing amount of 'adjustments' in the last 15 years makes me leery. and why do all the changes lead to higher temp trends? (except the short lived Y2K bug fix)

2. there is no doubt that we have put CO2 into the air. what is in doubt is where it will end up and how long it takes for CO2 to turn over. old estimates of 15 years have now been replaced new numbers as variable and numerous as the papers producing them. what's the latest? 500 years? 1000 years?

3. CO2 has an important effect on heat loss, specifically in the first handful of doublings. now that we are working on the ninth doubling, not so much. one degree kelvin per doubling is not going to put us over the edge anytime soon.

4. the climate models focus on CO2 as an important driver instead of the small factor that it is. water in all it's facets drives the system. a small error in how the models handle clouds would totally overwhelm CO2's impact. a few billions of years ago the sun was perhaps 30% dimmer than now. yet there was still liquid water because of clouds and the water cycle. the biggest problem with the models is the unknown variable fraud. when you ignore aspects like solar and clouds (to a large extent) then all of that significance is misappropriated to the remaining variables, in this case CO2. the chance that increased evapouration is a positive feedback is very unlikely, why is there a limit to how warm the water gets at the equator? even mathematically positive feedbacks are unlikely because they lead to tipping points which have not happened in the past.

5. worst of all are the unwarranted conclusions of so many of the peer-reviewed climate science papers. they take a set of data (often poorly selected), torture it to show a predetermined response (often inappropriate methodologies), and at the end make proclaimations that are irrelevent to the evidence even if the data and methods were somewhat correct! remember such wonderful papers as Santer using wind shear as a proxy for temperature to show that maybe, perhaps the missing Hotspot wasnt totally, irrefutably ruled out? and not only did it get through peer review it was hailed as an important new advancement! when Mann got caught using a proxy upsidedown after it was OKed by peer review was he forced to retract the paper? No! and his temp recontruction is still being used as the basis for other climate science papers.


Saigon, I can understand your wish to believe all is well in climate science but it isnt. peer review has failed, group think has prevailed, and the disinfecting agent of open data release is still being denied. you have been told a pretty story that seems to make sense because you dont seem to be open to hearing any of the criticisms. personally I dont know if the whole AGW theory has been proven wrong or not but I certainly know when you have to twist as many of the details as these guys do, then it is probably wrong. I dont buy into the whole "we have to lie because otherwise people wont believe us" story.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well Code, I will give you credit for at least having the balls to make your prediction. Most of the deniars here will not do that.

My prediction? Continued increase, with a real bump at the next El Nino. By 2030, once again exceeding any one's expections, with the consequences far greater than the predictions.

 

[Old Rocks]

Westwall -

Haven't we covered this about 20 times already?

I can never understand why posters ask questions, when they already know the answers.

Have you EVER heard ANYONE claim that people are the only factor influencing CO2 levels and/or the climate?

If not - then why ask at all?

he asks because the reason behind the time lag in temps and CO2 is an important piece of his effort to understand what is going on with the climate.

Have you EVER heard ANYONE claim that people are the only factor influencing CO2 levels and/or the climate?

good question! I have heard both sides make strawman arguments but it is especially true that warmists project stupid views on the skeptics. skeptics dont deny that there has been some warming and some portion of that warming is attributable to man. skeptics dont deny that CO2 has risen and some portion of that rise is due to man.

what are the legs that CAGW stand upon? 1. we are warmer now than in past human history. 2. burning fossil fuel produces CO2 3. CO2 has a physical mechanism to decrease the loss of heat to space. 4. climate models with incomplete inputs project large temp increases due to positive feedbacks. 5. every Tom, Dick and Harry put catastrophic conclusions about the effects of warming in their papers despite the unlikelyhood of the temperature rise happening that would be needed.

1. historical records by long dead people with no axe to grind in the climate wars show that the MWP was real. no one is farming in Greenland today. averaging all the proxy records shows a distinct MWP, cherrypicking select proxies and using incorrect mathematical processing methodologies produces Hockey Sticks. temperature readings from the last 150 years should be reliable. are they? the amazing amount of 'adjustments' in the last 15 years makes me leery. and why do all the changes lead to higher temp trends? (except the short lived Y2K bug fix)

2. there is no doubt that we have put CO2 into the air. what is in doubt is where it will end up and how long it takes for CO2 to turn over. old estimates of 15 years have now been replaced new numbers as variable and numerous as the papers producing them. what's the latest? 500 years? 1000 years?

3. CO2 has an important effect on heat loss, specifically in the first handful of doublings. now that we are working on the ninth doubling, not so much. one degree kelvin per doubling is not going to put us over the edge anytime soon.

4. the climate models focus on CO2 as an important driver instead of the small factor that it is. water in all it's facets drives the system. a small error in how the models handle clouds would totally overwhelm CO2's impact. a few billions of years ago the sun was perhaps 30% dimmer than now. yet there was still liquid water because of clouds and the water cycle. the biggest problem with the models is the unknown variable fraud. when you ignore aspects like solar and clouds (to a large extent) then all of that significance is misappropriated to the remaining variables, in this case CO2. the chance that increased evapouration is a positive feedback is very unlikely, why is there a limit to how warm the water gets at the equator? even mathematically positive feedbacks are unlikely because they lead to tipping points which have not happened in the past.

5. worst of all are the unwarranted conclusions of so many of the peer-reviewed climate science papers. they take a set of data (often poorly selected), torture it to show a predetermined response (often inappropriate methodologies), and at the end make proclaimations that are irrelevent to the evidence even if the data and methods were somewhat correct! remember such wonderful papers as Santer using wind shear as a proxy for temperature to show that maybe, perhaps the missing Hotspot wasnt totally, irrefutably ruled out? and not only did it get through peer review it was hailed as an important new advancement! when Mann got caught using a proxy upsidedown after it was OKed by peer review was he forced to retract the paper? No! and his temp recontruction is still being used as the basis for other climate science papers.


Saigon, I can understand your wish to believe all is well in climate science but it isnt. peer review has failed, group think has prevailed, and the disinfecting agent of open data release is still being denied. you have been told a pretty story that seems to make sense because you dont seem to be open to hearing any of the criticisms. personally I dont know if the whole AGW theory has been proven wrong or not but I certainly know when you have to twist as many of the details as these guys do, then it is probably wrong. I dont buy into the whole "we have to lie because otherwise people wont believe us" story.

#1. Calling bullshit on you, Ian.

Changing Greenland - Viking Weather - National Geographic Magazine

Erik's bald-faced marketing worked. Some 4,000 Norse eventually settled in Greenland. The Vikings, notwithstanding their reputation for ferocity, were essentially farmers who did a bit of pillaging, plundering, and New World discovering on the side. Along the sheltered fjords of southern and western Greenland, they raised sheep and some cattle, which is what farmers in Greenland do today along the very same fjords. They built churches and hundreds of farms; they traded sealskins and walrus ivory for timber and iron from Europe. Erik's son Leif set out from a farm about 35 miles northeast of Qaqortoq and discovered North America sometime around 1000. In Greenland the Norse settlements held on for more than four centuries. Then, abruptly, they vanished.

And the present day farmers are also raising potatoes.

#2. In other words, we are seeing that the amount of time is far longer than we initially thought. And this bolsters your case for the harmlessness of the increase how?

#3. What the hell are you talking about? We started with the CO2 at 280 ppm. It is now above 390 ppm. To double, the CO2 level will have to be 560 ppm. We have not reached even the first doubling, and the glaciers are in rapid recession worldwide, the Arctic Ocean looks like it will be essentially ice free in the summer by 2030, possibly even 2020. By the records kept by the insurance companies of the world, the extreme weather events have increased by a factor of at least 3 in the last 40 years.

#4. Arrhenius, in 1896, accounted for water vapor in his estimate of the increase in temperature from rising CO2. No respectable researcher has negleced it since then. That you would repeat that old lie is amazing.

The tipping points in the past involved clathrates in the ocean, and they, indeed, did happen. With catastrophic results for life at that time.

#5. You know, Ian, you simply full of shit. The Mann graph has been replicated in other scientific studies, using differant proxies and data, over a dozen times. You are calling thousands of scientists liars and frauds. And the real research continues and is available to the public at sites such as this;

AGW Observer

 

[IanC]

Westwall -

Haven't we covered this about 20 times already?

I can never understand why posters ask questions, when they already know the answers.

Have you EVER heard ANYONE claim that people are the only factor influencing CO2 levels and/or the climate?

If not - then why ask at all?

he asks because the reason behind the time lag in temps and CO2 is an important piece of his effort to understand what is going on with the climate.

Have you EVER heard ANYONE claim that people are the only factor influencing CO2 levels and/or the climate?

good question! I have heard both sides make strawman arguments but it is especially true that warmists project stupid views on the skeptics. skeptics dont deny that there has been some warming and some portion of that warming is attributable to man. skeptics dont deny that CO2 has risen and some portion of that rise is due to man.

what are the legs that CAGW stand upon? 1. we are warmer now than in past human history. 2. burning fossil fuel produces CO2 3. CO2 has a physical mechanism to decrease the loss of heat to space. 4. climate models with incomplete inputs project large temp increases due to positive feedbacks. 5. every Tom, Dick and Harry put catastrophic conclusions about the effects of warming in their papers despite the unlikelyhood of the temperature rise happening that would be needed.

1. historical records by long dead people with no axe to grind in the climate wars show that the MWP was real. no one is farming in Greenland today. averaging all the proxy records shows a distinct MWP, cherrypicking select proxies and using incorrect mathematical processing methodologies produces Hockey Sticks. temperature readings from the last 150 years should be reliable. are they? the amazing amount of 'adjustments' in the last 15 years makes me leery. and why do all the changes lead to higher temp trends? (except the short lived Y2K bug fix)

2. there is no doubt that we have put CO2 into the air. what is in doubt is where it will end up and how long it takes for CO2 to turn over. old estimates of 15 years have now been replaced new numbers as variable and numerous as the papers producing them. what's the latest? 500 years? 1000 years?

3. CO2 has an important effect on heat loss, specifically in the first handful of doublings. now that we are working on the ninth doubling, not so much. one degree kelvin per doubling is not going to put us over the edge anytime soon.

4. the climate models focus on CO2 as an important driver instead of the small factor that it is. water in all it's facets drives the system. a small error in how the models handle clouds would totally overwhelm CO2's impact. a few billions of years ago the sun was perhaps 30% dimmer than now. yet there was still liquid water because of clouds and the water cycle. the biggest problem with the models is the unknown variable fraud. when you ignore aspects like solar and clouds (to a large extent) then all of that significance is misappropriated to the remaining variables, in this case CO2. the chance that increased evapouration is a positive feedback is very unlikely, why is there a limit to how warm the water gets at the equator? even mathematically positive feedbacks are unlikely because they lead to tipping points which have not happened in the past.

5. worst of all are the unwarranted conclusions of so many of the peer-reviewed climate science papers. they take a set of data (often poorly selected), torture it to show a predetermined response (often inappropriate methodologies), and at the end make proclaimations that are irrelevent to the evidence even if the data and methods were somewhat correct! remember such wonderful papers as Santer using wind shear as a proxy for temperature to show that maybe, perhaps the missing Hotspot wasnt totally, irrefutably ruled out? and not only did it get through peer review it was hailed as an important new advancement! when Mann got caught using a proxy upsidedown after it was OKed by peer review was he forced to retract the paper? No! and his temp recontruction is still being used as the basis for other climate science papers.


Saigon, I can understand your wish to believe all is well in climate science but it isnt. peer review has failed, group think has prevailed, and the disinfecting agent of open data release is still being denied. you have been told a pretty story that seems to make sense because you dont seem to be open to hearing any of the criticisms. personally I dont know if the whole AGW theory has been proven wrong or not but I certainly know when you have to twist as many of the details as these guys do, then it is probably wrong. I dont buy into the whole "we have to lie because otherwise people wont believe us" story.

#1. Calling bullshit on you, Ian.

Changing Greenland - Viking Weather - National Geographic Magazine

Erik's bald-faced marketing worked. Some 4,000 Norse eventually settled in Greenland. The Vikings, notwithstanding their reputation for ferocity, were essentially farmers who did a bit of pillaging, plundering, and New World discovering on the side. Along the sheltered fjords of southern and western Greenland, they raised sheep and some cattle, which is what farmers in Greenland do today along the very same fjords. They built churches and hundreds of farms; they traded sealskins and walrus ivory for timber and iron from Europe. Erik's son Leif set out from a farm about 35 miles northeast of Qaqortoq and discovered North America sometime around 1000. In Greenland the Norse settlements held on for more than four centuries. Then, abruptly, they vanished.

And the present day farmers are also raising potatoes.

#2. In other words, we are seeing that the amount of time is far longer than we initially thought. And this bolsters your case for the harmlessness of the increase how?

#3. What the hell are you talking about? We started with the CO2 at 280 ppm. It is now above 390 ppm. To double, the CO2 level will have to be 560 ppm. We have not reached even the first doubling, and the glaciers are in rapid recession worldwide, the Arctic Ocean looks like it will be essentially ice free in the summer by 2030, possibly even 2020. By the records kept by the insurance companies of the world, the extreme weather events have increased by a factor of at least 3 in the last 40 years.

#4. Arrhenius, in 1896, accounted for water vapor in his estimate of the increase in temperature from rising CO2. No respectable researcher has negleced it since then. That you would repeat that old lie is amazing.

The tipping points in the past involved clathrates in the ocean, and they, indeed, did happen. With catastrophic results for life at that time.

#5. You know, Ian, you simply full of shit. The Mann graph has been replicated in other scientific studies, using differant proxies and data, over a dozen times. You are calling thousands of scientists liars and frauds. And the real research continues and is available to the public at sites such as this;

AGW Observer

1. june 2010? hahaha find something pre 1980

3. 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512

4. we've argued this in the past. even the methane recently released was caused by conditions hundreds of years ago. at least according to the scientists studying it.

5. after all the available info you still stand steadfastly behind Mann. an amazing feat. how long have you been wearing blinkers? how many lies does he have to get caught in before you have even a little doubt?

the hockey stick has only been rehabilitated by using the same set of obnoxious proxies except that Mann used the upsidedown Tiljander core. you cant make a HS without at least one of the controversial proxies and a methodology that overweights outliers to the exclusion of all the other data.

 

[bobgnote]

O.R.:
#1. Calling bullshit on you, Ian.

Changing Greenland - Viking Weather - National Geographic Magazine

Erik's bald-faced marketing worked. Some 4,000 Norse eventually settled in Greenland. The Vikings, notwithstanding their reputation for ferocity, were essentially farmers who did a bit of pillaging, plundering, and New World discovering on the side. Along the sheltered fjords of southern and western Greenland, they raised sheep and some cattle, which is what farmers in Greenland do today along the very same fjords. They built churches and hundreds of farms; they traded sealskins and walrus ivory for timber and iron from Europe. Erik's son Leif set out from a farm about 35 miles northeast of Qaqortoq and discovered North America sometime around 1000. In Greenland the Norse settlements held on for more than four centuries. Then, abruptly, they vanished.

And the present day farmers are also raising potatoes.

#2. In other words, we are seeing that the amount of time is far longer than we initially thought. And this bolsters your case for the harmlessness of the increase how?

#3. What the hell are you talking about? We started with the CO2 at 280 ppm. It is now above 390 ppm. To double, the CO2 level will have to be 560 ppm. We have not reached even the first doubling, and the glaciers are in rapid recession worldwide, the Arctic Ocean looks like it will be essentially ice free in the summer by 2030, possibly even 2020. By the records kept by the insurance companies of the world, the extreme weather events have increased by a factor of at least 3 in the last 40 years.

#4. Arrhenius, in 1896, accounted for water vapor in his estimate of the increase in temperature from rising CO2. No respectable researcher has negleced it since then. That you would repeat that old lie is amazing.

The tipping points in the past involved clathrates in the ocean, and they, indeed, did happen. With catastrophic results for life at that time.

#5. You know, Ian, you simply full of shit. The Mann graph has been replicated in other scientific studies, using differant proxies and data, over a dozen times. You are calling thousands of scientists liars and frauds. And the real research continues and is available to the public at sites such as this;

AGW Observer -end O.R.

Ian Crapforbrains:

1. june 2010? hahaha find something pre 1980

3. 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512

4. we've argued this in the past. even the methane recently released was caused by conditions hundreds of years ago. at least according to the scientists studying it.

5. after all the available info you still stand steadfastly behind Mann. an amazing feat. how long have you been wearing blinkers? how many lies does he have to get caught in before you have even a little doubt?

the hockey stick has only been rehabilitated by using the same set of obnoxious proxies except that Mann used the upsidedown Tiljander core. you cant make a HS without at least one of the controversial proxies and a methodology that overweights outliers to the exclusion of all the other data.

"1. hahaha find something pre-1980" OK, queers were in bath-houses, turning tricks, shooting speed, having unprotected anal sex, and hahaha, HIV went off the charts, and full-blown AIDS killed a lot of you guys

IanCrapforbrains, you are a zombie-fugitive, from a birther debate, trying to lalalalalalol your way out of playing some real hockey, for which you need a STICK.

But you're too damn gay for anything but puckey:
"4. we've argued this in the past. even the methane recently released was caused by conditions hundreds of years ago. at least according to the scientists studying it."

This is the phenomenon, which will generate a lot of bend in the stick. The warming and acidification are accelerating, and you are still denying four decades of progressive warming and acidification, with the same, Log Cabin-style rants, just like freaks who want more bath-houses, so they can turn more tricks, shoot more speed, and get the HIV rate up to Africa's: "the hockey stick has only been rehabilitated by using the same set of obnoxious proxies except that Mann used the upsidedown Tiljander core. you cant make a HS without at least one of the controversial proxies and a methodology that overweights outliers to the exclusion of all the other data."

You can't argue with hockey. It's a game you will have to play, with observation of ENSO, which you won't admit, with the same sort of tard-rants Trump uses, to prove Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.

 

[code1211]

Well Code, I will give you credit for at least having the balls to make your prediction. Most of the deniars here will not do that.

My prediction? Continued increase, with a real bump at the next El Nino. By 2030, once again exceeding any one's expections, with the consequences far greater than the predictions.

The credit is misdirected. The prediction was from Janet Raloff who authored the article from which the quote was cut and pasted.

Science News Staff Bios - Science News

 

[code1211]

Westwall -

Haven't we covered this about 20 times already?

I can never understand why posters ask questions, when they already know the answers.

Have you EVER heard ANYONE claim that people are the only factor influencing CO2 levels and/or the climate?

If not - then why ask at all?

he asks because the reason behind the time lag in temps and CO2 is an important piece of his effort to understand what is going on with the climate.

Have you EVER heard ANYONE claim that people are the only factor influencing CO2 levels and/or the climate?

good question! I have heard both sides make strawman arguments but it is especially true that warmists project stupid views on the skeptics. skeptics dont deny that there has been some warming and some portion of that warming is attributable to man. skeptics dont deny that CO2 has risen and some portion of that rise is due to man.

what are the legs that CAGW stand upon? 1. we are warmer now than in past human history. 2. burning fossil fuel produces CO2 3. CO2 has a physical mechanism to decrease the loss of heat to space. 4. climate models with incomplete inputs project large temp increases due to positive feedbacks. 5. every Tom, Dick and Harry put catastrophic conclusions about the effects of warming in their papers despite the unlikelyhood of the temperature rise happening that would be needed.

1. historical records by long dead people with no axe to grind in the climate wars show that the MWP was real. no one is farming in Greenland today. averaging all the proxy records shows a distinct MWP, cherrypicking select proxies and using incorrect mathematical processing methodologies produces Hockey Sticks. temperature readings from the last 150 years should be reliable. are they? the amazing amount of 'adjustments' in the last 15 years makes me leery. and why do all the changes lead to higher temp trends? (except the short lived Y2K bug fix)

2. there is no doubt that we have put CO2 into the air. what is in doubt is where it will end up and how long it takes for CO2 to turn over. old estimates of 15 years have now been replaced new numbers as variable and numerous as the papers producing them. what's the latest? 500 years? 1000 years?

3. CO2 has an important effect on heat loss, specifically in the first handful of doublings. now that we are working on the ninth doubling, not so much. one degree kelvin per doubling is not going to put us over the edge anytime soon.

4. the climate models focus on CO2 as an important driver instead of the small factor that it is. water in all it's facets drives the system. a small error in how the models handle clouds would totally overwhelm CO2's impact. a few billions of years ago the sun was perhaps 30% dimmer than now. yet there was still liquid water because of clouds and the water cycle. the biggest problem with the models is the unknown variable fraud. when you ignore aspects like solar and clouds (to a large extent) then all of that significance is misappropriated to the remaining variables, in this case CO2. the chance that increased evapouration is a positive feedback is very unlikely, why is there a limit to how warm the water gets at the equator? even mathematically positive feedbacks are unlikely because they lead to tipping points which have not happened in the past.

5. worst of all are the unwarranted conclusions of so many of the peer-reviewed climate science papers. they take a set of data (often poorly selected), torture it to show a predetermined response (often inappropriate methodologies), and at the end make proclaimations that are irrelevent to the evidence even if the data and methods were somewhat correct! remember such wonderful papers as Santer using wind shear as a proxy for temperature to show that maybe, perhaps the missing Hotspot wasnt totally, irrefutably ruled out? and not only did it get through peer review it was hailed as an important new advancement! when Mann got caught using a proxy upsidedown after it was OKed by peer review was he forced to retract the paper? No! and his temp recontruction is still being used as the basis for other climate science papers.


Saigon, I can understand your wish to believe all is well in climate science but it isnt. peer review has failed, group think has prevailed, and the disinfecting agent of open data release is still being denied. you have been told a pretty story that seems to make sense because you dont seem to be open to hearing any of the criticisms. personally I dont know if the whole AGW theory has been proven wrong or not but I certainly know when you have to twist as many of the details as these guys do, then it is probably wrong. I dont buy into the whole "we have to lie because otherwise people wont believe us" story.

#1. Calling bullshit on you, Ian.

Changing Greenland - Viking Weather - National Geographic Magazine

Erik's bald-faced marketing worked. Some 4,000 Norse eventually settled in Greenland. The Vikings, notwithstanding their reputation for ferocity, were essentially farmers who did a bit of pillaging, plundering, and New World discovering on the side. Along the sheltered fjords of southern and western Greenland, they raised sheep and some cattle, which is what farmers in Greenland do today along the very same fjords. They built churches and hundreds of farms; they traded sealskins and walrus ivory for timber and iron from Europe. Erik's son Leif set out from a farm about 35 miles northeast of Qaqortoq and discovered North America sometime around 1000. In Greenland the Norse settlements held on for more than four centuries. Then, abruptly, they vanished.

And the present day farmers are also raising potatoes.

#2. In other words, we are seeing that the amount of time is far longer than we initially thought. And this bolsters your case for the harmlessness of the increase how?

#3. What the hell are you talking about? We started with the CO2 at 280 ppm. It is now above 390 ppm. To double, the CO2 level will have to be 560 ppm. We have not reached even the first doubling, and the glaciers are in rapid recession worldwide, the Arctic Ocean looks like it will be essentially ice free in the summer by 2030, possibly even 2020. By the records kept by the insurance companies of the world, the extreme weather events have increased by a factor of at least 3 in the last 40 years.

#4. Arrhenius, in 1896, accounted for water vapor in his estimate of the increase in temperature from rising CO2. No respectable researcher has negleced it since then. That you would repeat that old lie is amazing.

The tipping points in the past involved clathrates in the ocean, and they, indeed, did happen. With catastrophic results for life at that time.

#5. You know, Ian, you simply full of shit. The Mann graph has been replicated in other scientific studies, using differant proxies and data, over a dozen times. You are calling thousands of scientists liars and frauds. And the real research continues and is available to the public at sites such as this;

AGW Observer

Without gong to the trouble of searching for the link again, researchers have proven that the Norse who lived on the south tip of Greenland had diets that shifted from grain to meat, then fish as the centuries that they lived there. I don't recall what the evidence was, but it was conclusive.

The obvious conclusion is that farming was eliminated for some reason as the years moved on.

 

[bobgnote]

Without gong to the trouble of searching for the link again, researchers have proven that the Norse who lived on the south tip of Greenland had diets that shifted from grain to meat, then fish as the centuries that they lived there. I don't recall what the evidence was, but it was conclusive.

The obvious conclusion is that farming was eliminated for some reason as the years moved on.

Without going through the narcissism of quote in quote in quote and then raising a birther argument or suggesting we all razz Obama and hit the hot-tub at FastBoyz, I suggest the obvious conclusion is the Vikings didn't get along with the natives, called them 'skraeling,' and Vikings didn't learn to adjust their diet and habits, to changing conditions, and so, the Vikings died out, in the New World. Shit happens, wingnuts. You're next!

The Vikings perished, in the New World, just like petroleum over-consumers will do, all over the world, which is the hot-tub-meth-and-tricks outcome, which Tard1211 and his Log Cabin wingmen are all flying at.

 

[Trakar]

How many trillions do you want us to waste on CO2 reduction?

How much is western civilization worth to you?

How much lower will the temperature be in 2080 if we follow your advice?

Unlikely enough lower to avoid a lot of expensive consequences, but hopefully enough lower to avoid the irrecoverable consequences. Most of the next century is already in the pipeline, at least as far as the changes we are likely to see in the next 50 years, we can make things worse, but due to lags in system response and the momentum the system has already been given, there isn't much we can do that will make the next half century retreat from the course we are currently influencing.

Western civ is worth a tremendous amount to me.

Obviously not, unless it is some bizarre "kill the one you love" relationship, as you seem to be willing to do anything necessary to bind it, set it on fire and push it off a cliff in the deranged belief that there is more personal gain in doing so, than in correcting self-destructive behavior and investing in the technologies needed to progress into a difficult future filled with the consequences of past actions.

Why do you insist on destroying it?

What do you feel I am trying to destroy?

More importantly how about doing something to prevent an asteroid strike which really can wipe us out. We finally have a means of averting that particular method of destruction but you folks are so wrapped around your non-existant hysteria...all for the sake of money and power, that you'll watch the damned asteroid slam into the Earth and say "whoops, never thought that would happen..."

I'm glad that you support an expansion of funding for space exploration and ground-based science research in general, it is unfortunate that so many of the same people trying to deny, obsfucate, and defund science in so many important areas (to include general space exploration and ground-based astronomy) do not seem to understand or care about the consequences of their actions.

 

[Trakar]

I agree, how do you explain the multi hundred year lag from the onset of warming to the subsequent increase in CO2 levels?

as a quick summary

Climate change has many potential causative factors. You seem to be referring to events like the early Holocene warming and most of the ice expansions and recessions of the last ~2 million years or so. These particular warmings were primarily driven by planetary orbital cycles. In these types of climate change, environmental CO2 acts as a feedback mechanism. Insolation changes due to incremental and cyclical orbital variation result in gradually warming surface conditions, as the surface conditions gradually warm, CO2 sinks in the environment begin emitting their stores of CO2 in a feedback cycle that accelerates and enhances the warming initially driven by cyclic orbital variations that create insolation changes.

Now you want to talk about feedback systems that are becoming more active in our current episode of climate change, and the consequences of them matching and exceeding humanity's emissions? Situations where atmospheric CO2 levels could bump up to 3, 5, possibly even 10x their current values over the period of a few centuries.

Many of our

 

[IanC]

Saigon- I realize that you think the politics behind the climate science wars, and the Hockey Stick in particular, are just tempests in a teapot and a case of he said/she said.

unfortunately the integrity of climate science is at stake. I wish I could send you my copy of 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' but I can point you to 2 essays that describe the timeframe and two main points of an ongoing problem that is still festering.

the first one is about Yamal. cherrypicking and data hiding. this has been going on since 2005! a FOI court decision has finally come out in 2012 and it looks very bad for Briffa. but read about it for yourself and make up your own mind by investigating other sources.

- Bishop Hill blog - The Yamal implosion

The bristlecone pines that created the shape of the Hockey Stick graph are used in nearly every millennial temperature reconstruction around today, but there are also a handful of other tree ring series that are nearly as common and just as influential on the results. Back at the start of McIntyre's research into the area of paleoclimate, one of the most significant of these was called Polar Urals, a chronology first published by Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. At the time, it was used in pretty much every temperature reconstruction around. In his paper, Briffa made the startling claim that the coldest year of the millennium was AD 1032, a statement that, if true, would have completely overturned the idea of the Medieval Warm Period. It is not hard to see why paleoclimatologists found the series so alluring.

Keith BriffaSome of McIntyre's research into Polar Urals deserves a story in its own right, but it is one that will have to wait for another day. We can pick up the narrative again in 2005, when McIntyre discovered that an update to the Polar Urals series had been collected in 1999. Through a contact he was able to obtain a copy of the revised series. Remarkably, in the update the eleventh century appeared to be much warmer than in the original - in fact it was higher even than the twentieth century. This must have been a severe blow to paleoclimatologists, a supposition that is borne out by what happened next, or rather what didn't: the update to the Polar Urals was not published, it was not archived and it was almost never seen again.

With Polar Urals now unusable, paleclimatologists had a pressing need for a hockey stick shaped replacement and a solution appeared in the nick of time in the shape of a series from the nearby location of Yamal.

The Yamal data had been collected by a pair of Russian scientists, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, and was published in 2002. In their version of the data, Yamal had little by way of a twentieth century trend. Strangely though, Briffa's version, which had made it into print before even the Russians', was somewhat different. While it was very similar to the Russians' version for most of the length of the record, Briffa's verison had a sharp uptick at the end of the twentieth century -- another hockey stick, made almost to order to meet the requirements of the paleoclimate community. Certainly, after its first appearance in Briffa's 2000 paper in Quaternary Science Reviews, this version of Yamal was seized upon by climatologists, appearing again and again in temperature reconstructions; it became virtually ubiquitous in the field: apart from Briffa 2000, it also contributed to the reconstructions in Mann and Jones 2003, Jones and Mann 2004, Moberg et al 2005, D'Arrigo et al 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006 and Hegerl et al 2007, among others.

and another one describing the contortions that the Hockey Team and the IPCC went through to keep the HS in AR4.

- Bishop Hill blog - Caspar and the Jesus paper

Shortly after its publication, the hockey stick and its main author, Michael Mann, came under attack from Steve McIntyre, a retired statistician from Canada. In a series of scientific papers and later on his blog, Climate Audit, McIntyre took issue with the novel statistical procedures used by the hockey stick's authors. He was able to demonstrate that the way they had extracted the temperature signal from the tree ring records was biased so as to choose hockey-stick shaped graphs in preference to other shapes, and criticised Mann for not publishing the cross validation R2, a statistical measure of how well the temperature reconstruction correlated with actual temperature records. He also showed that the appearance of the graph was due solely to the use of an estimate of historic temperatures based on tree rings from bristlecone pines, a species that was known to be problematic for this kind of reconstruction.

The controversy raged for several years, involving blue riband panels, innumerable blog postings, endless name-calling and dark insinuations about motivations and conflicts of interest. In May 2005, at the height of the controversy, and on the very day that McIntyre was making a rare public appearance in Washington to discuss his findings, two Mann associates, Caspar Amman and Eugene Wahl, issued a press release in which they claimed that they had submitted two manuscripts for publication, which together showed that they had replicated the hockey stick exactly, confirmed its statistical underpinnings and demonstrated that McIntyre's criticisms were baseless. This was trumpeted as independent confirmation of the hockey stick. A few eyebrows were raised at the dubious practice of using a press release to announce scientific findings. Some also noted that on the rare occasions that this kind of announcement is made, it tends to be about papers that have been published, or at least accepted for publication. To make such a dramatic announcement about the submission of a paper was unusual in the extreme.

there is much, much more about all this stuff available. it is really interesting to go back and read both Climate Audit and Real Climate (back when they were the heavyweight blogs) and see which side appeared more honest. since then the Climategate I and II emails have come out and supported all the shenanigans that the skeptics were bitterly complaining about. faulty methods, cherrypicking, journal interference, and outright scoffing at the principles of doing science.