Wooah!! Top scientists to examine "fiddled" global warming figures!!!

[orogenicman]

What? Did you expect them to hold a parade? And so you are upset because you didn't get the memo? Really?

I am upset that press releases get sent out with faulty conclusions favoring CAGW and the scientists involved don't try to correct them. Eg Marcott. On the other hand when a press release favours the skeptical position there is an immediate response that clouds the issue leaving the impression that it has been rebutted. Eg Stevens.

I don't see Marcott's work as being faulty. I know of few who do. I don't know about the "Stevens" issue. Perhaps you could elaborate.

I bumped two Stevens a and one Marcott threads for you.

I posted Marcott, ET AL's response right after your post that included Roger's complaint.

Yes, and my post included that link as well. I have no problem linking at both sides. In this case it was sleazy to let reports make incorrect assertions for days, and then run away and hide behind the fine print

I can't claim to have the ability to read Marcott's mind, nor that of reporters.

 

[Old Rocks]

Research Highlight Arctic Sea Ice Loss Likely To Be Reversible Scripps Institution of Oceanography UC San Diego

During the past several years, scientists using global climate models (GCMs) that are more complex than process models found sea ice loss in response to rising greenhouse gases in their computer simulations is actually reversible when greenhouse levels are reduced.

“It wasn’t clear whether the simpler process models were missing an essential element, or whether GCMs were getting something wrong,” said Wagner, the lead author of the study. “And as a result, it wasn’t clear whether or not a tipping point was a real threat.”

Wagner and Eisenman resolve this discrepancy in the study in an upcoming Journal of Climate article, “How Climate Model Complexity Influences Sea Ice Stability.

So, if we reduce the GHGs, then the sea ice will come back. But only after those levels are reduced. Considering that the Arctic is beginning to emit a lot of GHGs on it's own, at some point, we may find that we cannot go back by reducing our output. Also, even if we reduce our output of GHGs, the GHGs currently in the atmosphere are going to take decades before the natural processes reduce them to the point that the ice can start coming back.

And yet the Arctic didn't reach a tipping point in the MWP, or the Roman WP, or any of the other periods of warm temps in this interglacial.

Ian, is it that you don't think that GHGs have any affect? First, neither the MWP nor the RWP were as warm as we are today. And there was no significant increase in GHGs at either time. During the warming 8000 years ago, it was warmer, but, again, no significant increase in GHGs. This time we will see a substancial increase in warmth over that of 8000 years ago. We are presently at over 400 ppm of CO2, 1800 ppb of CH4, and have GHGs in our atmosphere that we have never had before, manmade compounds with thousands of times the effect of CO2 per unit.

Ah well, time is going to tell who understands what.

 

[Muhammed]

The global warming scare was proven to be a farce a long time ago.

 

[jc456]

Research Highlight Arctic Sea Ice Loss Likely To Be Reversible Scripps Institution of Oceanography UC San Diego

During the past several years, scientists using global climate models (GCMs) that are more complex than process models found sea ice loss in response to rising greenhouse gases in their computer simulations is actually reversible when greenhouse levels are reduced.

“It wasn’t clear whether the simpler process models were missing an essential element, or whether GCMs were getting something wrong,” said Wagner, the lead author of the study. “And as a result, it wasn’t clear whether or not a tipping point was a real threat.”

Wagner and Eisenman resolve this discrepancy in the study in an upcoming Journal of Climate article, “How Climate Model Complexity Influences Sea Ice Stability.

So, if we reduce the GHGs, then the sea ice will come back. But only after those levels are reduced. Considering that the Arctic is beginning to emit a lot of GHGs on it's own, at some point, we may find that we cannot go back by reducing our output. Also, even if we reduce our output of GHGs, the GHGs currently in the atmosphere are going to take decades before the natural processes reduce them to the point that the ice can start coming back.

And yet the Arctic didn't reach a tipping point in the MWP, or the Roman WP, or any of the other periods of warm temps in this interglacial.

Ian, is it that you don't think that GHGs have any affect? First, neither the MWP nor the RWP were as warm as we are today. And there was no significant increase in GHGs at either time. During the warming 8000 years ago, it was warmer, but, again, no significant increase in GHGs. This time we will see a substancial increase in warmth over that of 8000 years ago. We are presently at over 400 ppm of CO2, 1800 ppb of CH4, and have GHGs in our atmosphere that we have never had before, manmade compounds with thousands of times the effect of CO2 per unit.

Ah well, time is going to tell who understands what.

 

[skookerasbil]

I really have to laugh reading peoples posts in here.........particularly when one member tries to upstage another with figures and science BS.

Why is it so funny?

Because most people ( emphasis on "most" ) know the scientists are fucking with the data.

Which is why in 2015..........nobody gives a fuck about global warming.



duh

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[cnm]

And yet the Arctic didn't reach a tipping point in the MWP, or the Roman WP, or any of the other periods of warm temps in this interglacial.

Neither of those periods are considered global.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And yet the Arctic didn't reach a tipping point in the MWP, or the Roman WP, or any of the other periods of warm temps in this interglacial.

Neither of those periods are considered global.

They both are by empirical evidence. Your models are what is deficit.

 

[cnm]

Because most people ( emphasis on "most" ) know the scientists are fucking with the data.

What you don't seem to realise is that pretty much all science involves scientists fucking with data. Really, you should stop trying to explain things; just content yourself with denial.

 

[cnm]

They both are by empirical evidence. Your models are what is deficit.

Trot the evidence out.

edit...I'm assuming you mean 'your models are what are deficient'.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Global warming is nothing more than doomsday rants to get the public to believe the socialist agenda will save the world. A story, myth, lie whatever you want to call it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

They both are by empirical evidence. Your models are what is deficit.

Trot the evidence out.

edit...I'm assuming you mean 'your models are what are deficient'.

Your models failed.. Empirical evidence globally tells us the warming periods were global.

 

[skookerasbil]

Global warming is nothing more than doomsday rants to get the public to believe the socialist agenda will save the world. A story, myth, lie whatever you want to call it.

Exactly why they need to screw around with the data........the ends justifies the means. The AGW true believers are the greatest suckers alive.

 

[cnm]

Your models failed.. Empirical evidence globally tells us the warming periods were global.

Ah. Why then will you not produce this evidence?

They're not my models.

 

[jc456]

Your models failed.. Empirical evidence globally tells us the warming periods were global.

Ah. Why then will you not produce this evidence?

They're not my models.

Exactly, produce your proof. Models don't count

 

[cnm]

Here is some evidence of temperatures for the northern hemisphere....

[...] The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Mann et al. 2008 Temperature Reconstructions​

 

[cnm]

Exactly, produce your proof. Models don't count

And your evidence the Medieval warming period was global?

Oh, who am I kidding? You don't have evidence for anything.

 

[jc456]

Here is some evidence of temperatures for the northern hemisphere....

[...] The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Mann et al. 2008 Temperature Reconstructions​

so, that isn't temperature, it is the anomaly of a bench marked number. The data is fudged and reconstructed, admitted by every organization that produces such data. So that's a fail to provide evidence of anything. blowed up sir!!!

Edit: And using Mann's dataset? Really, hahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaha I didn't pay close enough attention originally. holy crap are you losing with that dataset. oh....hahahahhahahaahhaahahahahahahha

 

[jc456]

Exactly, produce your proof. Models don't count

And your evidence the Medieval warming period was global?

Oh, who am I kidding? You don't have evidence for anything.

my evidence is that the history of the planet has put your claims to shame, and that current temperatures are not rising, nor is sea level and ice in the arctic is recovering and not continuing to decrease, so my evidence is the arctic and antarctic. They both still have ice, and sea levels are normal. blowed up sir!!!

 

[RKMBrown]

Here is some evidence of temperatures for the northern hemisphere....

[...] The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Mann et al. 2008 Temperature Reconstructions​

What a load of shit.