Slashdot Mirror

First off, that's a horrible chart to be referencing, as it's a prediction output from a simple climate model. But let's look at it anyway. At 2000Gt of CO2, we have about 1.2C. double the output to 4000Gt (although I don't know if that will double the concentration in the atmosphere) and we get around 2.4C. Double that agian to 8000Gt, and that puts us up around the 4C mark. So even though this chart is talking about human CO2 output and not the concentration in the atmosphere, it is still giving us roughly 1.2C per doubling.

There are numerous sources for this value, including the IPCC. They give a value of 3.7W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2. You can derive the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and calculate the temperature increase.
References to 1.2C per doubling found using a quick google search:
http://www.nuceng.ca/refer/cli...
http://www.climate-skeptic.com...
https://judithcurry.com/2010/1...
https://climateaudit.org/2008/...
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
http://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ri...

Oh the irony! A consensus of scientists agreed that fat was the culprit for heart disease and obesity. The consensus scientists, led by Ancel Keys, verified time and again through peer-reviewed experiments and studies (albeit with falsified data) that fat was the problem. They destroyed the life and work of John Yudkin, the lone scientist who disagreed with the consensus and had the research and data to prove that sugar, not fat, was the culprit. And now you're here in slashdot posting about another consensus of scientists who must be believed because they've verified time and again that their theory is valid.
http://thedogatemydata.blogspo...
http://www.climate-skeptic.com...
https://notalotofpeopleknowtha...
https://stevengoddard.wordpres...
https://stevengoddard.wordpres...
I look forward to the dozens of responses my post will generate in which all of these links are denounced and dismissed because the authors are hacks, frauds, not real scientists, or whatever else in order to justify ignoring the actual data.

1 degree of global warming isn't enough for you?

No, it is not enough. Because there are legitimate questions as to how it is measured, how the measurements are calibrated (including the scandal of some raw data disappearing), and what swings are normal. For example, Tasmania used to be connected to Australian mainland not too long ago. It is now an island. Do you think, the shamans of the aborigines living there blamed the sins of their contemporaries for the rising seas back then? Same question about Kodiak archipelago — it used to be reachable from Alaska, but is not any more. The Kodiak bears are now considered different species from mainland grizzlies... Is humanity to blame for that?

And there is a big difference in falsifiability

You try to find a prediction by "climate scientists", that uses a falsifiable "will" instead of the evasive non-falsifiable "may"... The scarcity of such statements itself is an indication, of the state of this sorry non-science... What you can find is as scientific and meaningful as the Geico's commercials: "15 minutes could save you up to 15% or more..."

If you ever found a point where the teachers told you the equivalent of 2+2=5, you could point that out to the world

I don't need to find errors — the purported "scientists" need to demonstrate, their discipline is really a science. And the only way to do that is by showing useful predictions, that have come true. I'm yet to see any.

Try it yourself: assemble a list of link-pairs:

1. The first link in each pair shall be to the prediction.
2. The second link each pair shall be to confirmation of the prediction materializing within, say 20% of the predicted value(s), if quantifiable.
3. The link-targets in each pair must be several years apart — predicting tomorow's weather, for example, would not count.
4. The prediction must be somewhat meaningful: a promise, that it will get hotter or colder, is not acceptable.

Give it your best... Can you offer at least 3 such link-pairs?

Here is the most accurate climate model to date:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com...

The best models that they have are ones that have as part of them global warming. Can you point us at other models that have produced better predictions ?

No, I thought not ... so let us go with the best models that we have, even if they do have flaws.

Here's someone's model that is beating the prediction of all the pro's:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2013/09/update-on-my-climate-model-spoiler-its-doing-a-lot-better-than-the-pros.html

When the best prediction by a "climate sceptic" predicts rising temperatures in the future, you know things are bad.

The best models that they have are ones that have as part of them global warming. Can you point us at other models that have produced better predictions ?

No, I thought not ... so let us go with the best models that we have, even if they do have flaws.

Here's someone's model that is beating the prediction of all the pro's:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2013/09/update-on-my-climate-model-spoiler-its-doing-a-lot-better-than-the-pros.html

Does this look like agreement to you?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/17/worlds-oldest-tree-rewrites-climate-history-challenges-global-warming http://www.climate-skeptic.com/temperature_history/ http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm Everybody can make the data do tricks for them. First it was Global cooling, then it was Global warming, then it was Climate change Because you know that change is good right ?

If we can suspend the rhetoric for a moment and stick to actual science, can somebody tell me if there is a flaw in the logic or premises of page 8 of this document: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/Climate%20Presentation%20Annotated%201-1-2010.pdf

Danke.

In the 80's they were getting us all apeshit over a hole in the ozone layer.

In the 70's it was the coming Ice Age.

Each iteration has allowed these Bilderberger manipulators opportunity and experience to refine their forays against reality.

NOAA data is fudged and tampered now:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/yet-more-stuff-we-always-suspected-but-its-nice-to-have-proof.html

Good lord, what a load of rubbish. The surface temperature, mostly measured in the USA (as it has by far the majority of sensors), mostly with stations cited next to air conditioning units, tarmack and barbeque's, surrounding by half a century of urban growth, has shown a small increase

Three major fallacies in one sentence -- good job!

1) The US is not the world. The US has been warming slower than the rest of the world.
2) Surface stations are only one method of measuring the planet's temperature.
3) If you knew anything about how surface station temperature measurements are used, you'd know that this is already compensated for *and* validated. First off, each individual station is de-trended. This means looking for periods where it goes out of whack with other stations in its area. So, for example, someone puts an exhaust fan up near a station, its temperature spikes, and it is detrended to compensate for the artificial input or removed from collection entirely if a statistical analysis shows that its data is no longer useful. City stations are compared with rural stations to determine the urban heat island effect, and this is removed. The removal of the urban heat island effect is validated by comparing data on windy days with data on calm days, since windy days reduce the heat island effect by bringing in rural air faster. The validation checks out almost flawlessly. The detrended urban station data is compared with the rural data and the results must coincide; they do. Surface station temperature trends for specific regions are compared with satellite data readings for the same regions; the strength of artificial heat sources is validated. And about twenty other validation and detrending steps.

What, you thought they just dumped the raw data from all stations and averaged them out? Perhaps if you actually read papers on the subject you wouldn't be so ignorant.

An increase, I have to say, well within the bounds of natural variation

No.

It just so happens that I'm reading a book right now called, "Irrationality" - there is a chapter in it for the Warmists. It's called: Distorting the evidence.

Well, good to know that you keep up on climate science by reading a book by a psychiatrist! If you'll excuse me, I need to go take a class on biology taught by a carpenter and then get a patent prepared by a stonemason.

We aren't planting 10 trees each per year for carbon storage because trees are not a long-term storage place. Yes, trees absorb carbon as they grow, but when they reach maturity they become carbon-neutral. When the tree dies it releases all that stored carbon as it decomposes.

What some want to do is chop down and bury mature trees then grow new ones.

Falcon

Yeah, we have sources. Mine was written by a large chunk of the world's climate scientists summarizing several thousand peer-reviewed papers. Yours is one guy going who thinks they're wrong. Same thing, really, right?

Let's check the quality of this great work of yours. :) The core section on your page is Alternate Explanations of Warming. Surely *they* have read what they're debating against, right?

If you really want to irritate an AGW supporter, ask about the sun. To AGW supporters, only a Luddite would check the sun?s output when they could instead be obsessing over the increase in CO2 by 0.009% of the atmosphere. When they looked at the problem, the IPCC decided that over the last 50 years, the sun has been irrelevant to warming

BZZT, wrong! They did no such thing. The entire 106 page chapter 2 is titled, "Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing". Most of the several hundred peer-reviewed references have to do with solar input reaching the Earth in one way or another. Around fifty to a hundred of them have to do with the sun itself.

Seeing yet why you should read this report before you debate? No? Then let's continue.

Note that the blue band in this chart (described in more detail in the last section), the IPCC thinks that without man, the world would have cooled over the last 50 years

That graph does not appear in the WG1 report on solar variability. They do, however, cite papers reconstructing solar variability through many completely different, independent means (Schatten and Orosz, 1990; Lean et al, 1992; Lean et al, 1992; Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al, 1995; Solanki and Fligge, 1999; Lean, 2000; Foster, 2004; Y. Wang et al, 2005; Dziembowski, 2001). The results are all quite small -- an RF increase of 0 to 0.65 W/m^2 since the Maunder Minimum (the planet currently receives about 1300W/m^2). The older studies, especially the Lean ones, tend to be higher, and the newer studies lower. The report discusses how an underlying assumption of those studies was disproven, and the newer studies take that into account. If you want to learn more about any of those methods, the references are right there. They go on to explain the reasons with half a dozen more references.

But it turns out, interestingly, that solar irradiance may be close to its highest point in centuries. Al Gore says that current global temperatures are the highest they have been in 1000 years. A new study by the Institute of Astronomy in Zurich says that the "sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years." Related?

*Included*. What, you think they just ignore studies they don't like? Sami Solanki, the author of the report linked, is even a contributor to the IPCC report. Amazing how they try to spin him as being part of their little denial group when he doesn't believe that at all.

We can look at solar output over large time frames by looking at the production of carbon-14 (less is produced in years of high solar activity, and vice versa). The analysis below used the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the stalagmites to estimate the water temperature at the time they were formed.

You're right -- you can! And so did the IPCC, which further makes obvious that the author of your page never even read the report. "An initial effort reported exceptionally high levels of solar activity in the last 70 years, relative to the preceeding 8,000 years (Solanki et al, 2004). In contrast, when differences in isotopes records are taken into account and the C14 record corrected for fossil burning, current levels of solar activity are found to be historically high, but not exceptionally so (

Well, here is some material. You can dig up some more by yourself if you're interested. http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html
Obvious bias? Well duh. Just like your sources. Problem is: yours do not address the inconsistencies and mistakes in mine. Mine DO point out the ones in yours. So far, I've found them much more correct.
But really, you and I both have our own idea and I believe we're not going to change it. So in the end this whole debate is just a waste of time.

Well, here is some material. You can dig up some more by yourself if you're interested. http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html
Obvious bias? Well duh. Just like your sources. Problem is: yours do not address the inconsistencies and mistakes in mine. Mine DO point out the ones in yours. So far, I've found them much more correct.
But really, you and I both have our own idea and I believe we're not going to change it. So in the end this whole debate is just a waste of time.