Slashdot Mirror

"Most" are from the 2000s only because those are the easiest to find and falsify (i.e. in the internet age)! You specifically asked for a failed prediction from Al Gore, of which there are many, and easy to find! Makes me believe that perhaps you are choosing not to see a certain perspective. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

See this is part of the movement. When it comes to nuanced hard data, Environmentalists cite Science...but when it comes to INTERPRETATION of that data they have no problem using every hyperbolic, apocalyptic prediction in every news article they can get their hands on. If these "predictions" don't come to pass it isn't a problem because they can just ask for "peer-reviewed papers" making these predictions. I don't suppose you're old enough to remember the Global Freezing predictions of the 70's? Anyway, failed climate predictions from prominent news and political sources abound if you care to look. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

" "Historic central/eastern Pacific outbreak- 3 major hurricanes at once for the first time on record!""

Yep, ON RECORD. But since the records barely go back more than 120 years, and the sats needed to spot storms that form so far from any habitable area have only been in geostationary orbit for about 50 years, the record is extremely short and says NOTHING about global warming.

Odd, just 7 years ago, the deniers claimed exactly the opposite: http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...

Oh well, I guess that knowledge was lost in the mean time (yes, time is mean, pun intended).

So, if my questions are answered by someone who has financial interest in the answer given should all skepticism be put aside?

Oh look! It's about vaccines, but it has nothing to do with Autism so it doesn't really count.

What happens when the historical records are altered to fit the modern imposed belief? But the science is settled. The science was settled when the global cooling scare of the 70's was settled science, we're in an ice-age already, right now. Then the global warming scare of the 90's was settled. New York City is underwater, right now. Now climate change is settled - I'm on-board with that.

It sounds like you're arguing both sides of the argument: "Water vapor contribution to GW is not insignificant. Unless it is water vapor due to positive feedback from CO2" So the H2O molecules have labels "FEEDBACK" and "NO FEEDBACK" to allow them to make decisions about absorbing IR photons?

Truth is that H20 dominates GW, with or without CO2. The climate-alarmists know this so have made 'positive feedback' the kingpin of their AGW hypothesis ("man-made CO2 has caused or will cause climate catastrophes"). Without it, Earth is Mars, in effect.

Another truth is that, according to RSS and UAH satellite record (the most reliable way to measure "average global temperature"), there has been virtually no GW for the past 18 years. Yet CO2 levels have consistently risen during the same period. Cause and effect?

Yes, the positive feedback effects can be calculated ("modeled"), but it has not been actually measured, with verified attribution to CO2 GHG effect.

Here's what Roy Spencer (UAH, whose team manages the UAH temperature records) has to say about positive feedback. Hint: it's not "settled science":
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
[BTW, completely off this topic, did you know that Isaac Newton believed in monotheistic God whose existence was manifested and proven by the grandeur of creation. That would probably make him a "Creationist" in today's world.]

So, let a reasonable dialog about CO2's effect on climate begin now. Dump the political activism and polemics (on both sides) which has kept this dialog in a dialectic gulag for many years.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...

And the next prediction of pretty much the same thing:

https://climatesanity.wordpres...

Clinton Plan To Power Every US Home With Renewables By 2027 Is Achievable

Many things are achievable but still not worth doing:

Dude 1: "So I got wasted, hooked up with that skanky 60-year old fat chick from the bar, lost my car keys and walked home in the rain, slipped and fell in a pile of dogshit."
Dude 2: "That's...achievable!"

Anyway, the kind of people who work for a living and pay taxes might ask, "so how much is this going to cost me?"

Well it might not be as bad as Obama's plan which, in his own words, would cause electricity prices to "necessarily skyrocket."

Though if we emulate Denmark or Germany then our electric bills will be about 2.5x what they are now. Over at Watts Up With That, Willis Eschenbach plots renewable energy adoption of nations vs. their respective consumer electric price. As he explains, he derives the plot from two graphs first presented together here by Paul Homewood.
 

As I stated earlier: you can save all your misdirection. All it takes is simple logic to clearly show that Karl et al. results are an outlier.

I didn't exactly make this up, either. Lots of others have been saying it. In fact, even many of the big news sources haven't dared to touch Karl with a 10-foot pole. It's just that -- ahem -- "credible".

Serious (and valid) critiques of it started to appear even before it was officially published. And several papers have come out since which disagree.

I'm not going to go look them all up. But if you want a good idea of just how *desperate* this paper appears to be, have a look here.

No, I do not claim Watts is any kind of "final authority". It's just one example among many. If you haven't found at least 10 takedowns of the "science" in Karl et al., you haven't been looking. (Or paying attention.)

Your other rantings about past things you disagree with are of no interest to me. I stated it clearly enough in that last quote of me you supplied above. You're still doing the same old shit. Calling it something else wouldn't make it any more "charming". Actually, it would be lying.

Yay for vaccine, some day, even for infants.
Yay for FREE mosquito nets.
But you do realize however... these are measures that we --- the countries who have already eradicated Malaria --- would not tolerate, if WE were as affected as they?

THE WHITEWASHED VERSION OF HISTORY
You're living it. Most people have no real perspective on DDT at all, it is simply something evil which allowed persons in developed countries which had already eradicated Malaria to claim its discontinuance as "the greatest environmental victory for everybody, ever"... though actually, taking lead out of gasoline was the real greatest victory. Most are too zero-tolerance enviro-Puritan even to consider a distinction between a light regimen of spraying walls inside homes versus the (mind bogglingly huge) agricultural applications throughout North America up to 1972, which everyone agrees was a bad idea. DDT is simply some 'evil banned substance'. Anyone talking about it is a loon. Anyone asking, where could they possibly get some is a subversive. It has come to this. That is the extent of this modern ugly.

THE UNWASHED VERSION OF HISTORY: BLOOD ON OUR HANDS
How do you calculate the value of 50 million lives, most of them in sub-Saharan Africa, most of them children? Sadly, you have to go to a politically motivated website to find this figure in proper context, and an an excellent summary of DDT's history:

"As recently as 2005, 500 million people around the world (approximately one-twelfth of the earth's population) were contracting malaria on an annual basis; and each year, 2 to 3 million of them died as a result. Since the 1972 U.S. ban on DDT, more than 50 million people--about 90 percent of whom resided in sub-Saharan Africa, and most of whom were children younger than five--have died of malaria. Said the World Health Organization, "more people are now infected [with malaria] than at any point in history," with "up to half a billion cases [being reported] every year." Anywhere from 1 to 2 million of those people die from the disease. Dr. Wenceslaus Kilama, chairman of Malaria Foundation International, placed this figure into perspective: "This is like loading up seven Boeing 747 airliners each day, then deliberately crashing them into Mt. Kilimanjaro." "The resurgence of a disease that was almost eradicated [many] years ago is a case study in the danger of putting concern for nature above concern for people," said Nizam Ahmad, a Bangladeshi analyst who focuses on the problems that affect developing countries.

Or find this Wayback New Yorker article describing the human triumph of malaria eradication that may well be from the point of view of DDT itself, for no other measure taken deserves near as much praise. Or this which cites a telling South African infection/mortality study with a particularly chilling graph.

Or the paper The Burden of Early Exposure to Malaria in the United States, 1850-1860: Malnutrition and Immune Disorders [2007] which not only describes the direct impact of malaria in the United States, but also suggests some previously-unexplored side effects of such an endemic disease on populations that made life really suck. For example, "Union Army recruits who spent their early years in malaria-endemic counties were 1.1 inches shorter at enlistment due to malnutrition and were 13 percent more susceptible to infections during the U.S. Civil War as a result of immune disorders than were those from malaria-free regions."

I'm not bringing all this up because I'm trying to convince you that Malaria is bad. We know it's bad. But in the early 1970s something happened within the United States and

Wrong

About the Bloomberg graph.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

About the IPCC reports. Indeed I have read them.
You would like to imply I have not, as if reading should automatically turn me into a believer.

It has not.

Its unfortunate your superiority complex prevents any proper discussion.
You are assuming I am wrong and thus linked, off offhandedly to the IPCC reports saying I'm wrong.

As usual, your side doesnt debate anything, only appeals to authority.

I didn't just cite one source, half wit.

I cited a lot of things. And mostly recently I cited a peer reviewed paper.

Choke on it.

Did you say check on it? OK! Here's a complete list (as of this writing) of your citations in this thread in chronological order:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatg (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.populartechnology.n... (Site is a one man operation that doesn't identify the operator or his alleged "staff". Attempts to debunk Cook paper by cherry-picking results from a nebulous survey.)
http://www.nature.com/news/pub... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://articles.mercola.com/si... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://arstechnica.com/science... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.the-scientist.com/?... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja... (opinion piece written by a lawyer (who doesn't appear to have ever practiced law) who claims to be a "trained scientist". The article relies exclusively on research done by unnamed "investigative journalists" at populartechnology.com - a blog that by all appearances is operated by a single unidentified individual.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... (first mention of a legitimate source rebutting the Cook paper)
http://link.springer.com/artic... (legitimate source debunking Cook)

So what have we got here...looks like a bunch of citations that have nothing to do with the Cook paper, one citation from a clearly bogus website, One citation written by a hack lawyer relying exclusively on the aforementioned bogus website, one citation from a pop-sci website alluding to an authoritative source, and (finally) a citation pointing to a legitimate source. And guess what? I've recognized your final source's potential legitimacy multiple times. You should probably take that as a win and call it a day.

In any event, don't you think you could've saved yourself a lot of time, effort, aggravation and ridicule if you'd have just kept your mouth shut until you actually come across a legitimate source? Instead, your process (if you can call it that) of supporting your arguments is to link to sources that you haven't subjected to any scrutiny whatsoever. It's a textbook example of a lack of critical thinking skills.

As to your claim that there is only one peer reviewed paper refuting your peer reviewed paper...

You're making things up again. I made no such claim. And for the last time, Cook's paper isn't MY paper. The only time I addressed it's validity I expressed skepticism of it's conclusions. Since you're having trouble remembering, here, let me help you:

"To be honest, I

You keep attacking the source as if there was only one source that verified the problem.

If there was another source challenging the validity of the Cook et al paper, you didn't provide one. If you did provide one, I would've taken a hard look at the source and made a judgement as to it's trustworthiness. But since the only source you provided was populartechnology.com, I took a hard look at the quality of the information there and found it lacking.

BTW, I've made no claims about the validity of the Cook et al paper. To be honest, I've always been highly skeptical that there could be anything close to a 100% consensus on the subject. Be that as it may, the only thing I'm attacking here is your contention that citing a sketchy site like populartechnology.com provides authoritative support for ANY argument.

Since you're addicted to ad hominem...

Popular Technology puts itself up as a publication with editors and writers. Pointing out that there is but a single author for all their articles, pointing out the complete lack of methodology/data regarding "Andrew's" survey (which on the face of it is blatant cherry-picking) certainly speaks to their credibility or lack thereof. Sorry, providing facts about Popular Technology in order to support my contention that the site isn't trustworthy doesn't qualify as an ad hominem attack.

I'll shift sources and we'll see if you're able to form a coherent thought without resorting to fallacious logic again: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

That cites a peer reviewed audit of the study that showed Cook's methodology and conclusions to be in error.

Other than your little "fallacious logic" falsehood, you may actually have something here. It would've been a helluva lot better for you to cite the paper directly, instead of wrapping it in the rampant hyperbole of wattsupwiththat.com. Do you have a link to the full papery?

*gets out lube*

Bend over. I'm jamming your pretensions right back up the slimy hole they came out of... :-)

You're not helping yourself. Juvenile comments like that don't speak very well about your level of maturity.

You keep attacking the source as if there was only one source that verified the problem.

Since you're addicted to ad hominem, I'll shift sources and we'll see if you're able to form a coherent thought without resorting to fallacious logic again:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

That cites a peer reviewed audit of the study that showed Cook's methodology and conclusions to be in error.

Also noted in that article is that Cook submitted another paper along the same lines and this time his paper did not even pass peer review.

*gets out lube*

Bend over. I'm jamming your pretensions right back up the slimy hole they came out of... :-)

but what evidence do you have that NASA has manipulated any of their work for political reasons?

The thing about NASA's surface measurements is that they come from sparse temperature stations that are badly compromised by encroached urban heat islands, various other changes, and declining numbers, and the sea observations are way more sparse. Add to this that NASA has made "adjustments" to the data about ten times over the past 30 years and each time, of the six possibilities, they have always managed without fail to cool the past and warm the present. The chance of this happening randomly from correcting random faults in the data is 1 in 6 = 1 in 60-million. In other words, they couldn't me more naked about cooking this data that a great deal of Climate Science depends on to match NASA's agenda (presumably to create an artificial temperature gradient to get more "crisis" funding from the US government). For example, if you compare the raw surface data for the US vs. the cooked data, you will find that the 1930's were actually warmer than today, whereas the cooked data shows the 1930's being cooler:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

The thing about the RSS and UAH satellite data is that it is direct, full-coverage, and objective. The satellites whiz around the Earth several times a day, so every spot on the Earth is monitored pretty much in real time. This is most important for the oceans which cover 70% of the Earth where the surface observations are extremely sparse and large areas are extrapolated to conjure up quesionable numbers. Numbers that directly contradict the direct satellite observations. And other surface data sets for that matter.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/

NASA's cooking of the books for the surface data is generally unknown to the public, but this round of the next, the public might just catch on.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, 1984

1) read this http://judithcurry.com/2014/07...
2) tell us whether Judith Curry is in collusion with the AGW fraud or not.
3) " they have always managed without fail to cool the past and warm the present"
"The most significant adjustment around the world, according to NOAA, is actually for temperatures taken over the oceans, and that adjustment acts to lower rather than raise the global temperature trend." http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...

As well as us having hit peak oil like 5 times already, over the past nearly 50 years! One bout of peak oil was supposed to nearly kill us, I am surprised to find that we could have survived 5 of them!

Also I have a hard time taking climate scientologists seriously, as it seems to my feeble human brain that the fix of dumping rust (or perhaps a more soluble iron salt) into certain areas of the worlds oceans would cause algal blooms to fixate a great deal of carbon, thereby reversing this horrific trend of weather pattern changes. The fact that they brush the simplest, most straight-forward solution aside, and instead go for increased central government (carbon cap & fail), makes my puny ape brain go into 'suspicion' mode. I don't trust people who want to control energy; our society lives, or dies by it.

The sun drops nearly 2 horsepower per square meter at the outside of Earths atmosphere (1400 Watts), every second. To think that Sol's output varies by an entire .1% over an 11 year cycle, and that has to have nothing to do with changing temperatures on this ball of dust, no it must my SUV idling. Damn Chevy, trying to kill us all.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

but what evidence do you have that NASA has manipulated any of their work for political reasons?

The thing about NASA's surface measurements is that they come from sparse temperature stations that are badly compromised by encroached urban heat islands, various other changes, and declining numbers, and the sea observations are way more sparse. Add to this that NASA has made "adjustments" to the data about ten times over the past 30 years and each time, of the six possibilities, they have always managed without fail to cool the past and warm the present. The chance of this happening randomly from correcting random faults in the data is 1 in 6 = 1 in 60-million. In other words, they couldn't me more naked about cooking this data that a great deal of Climate Science depends on to match NASA's agenda (presumably to create an artificial temperature gradient to get more "crisis" funding from the US government). For example, if you compare the raw surface data for the US vs. the cooked data, you will find that the 1930's were actually warmer than today, whereas the cooked data shows the 1930's being cooler:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

The thing about the RSS and UAH satellite data is that it is direct, full-coverage, and objective. The satellites whiz around the Earth several times a day, so every spot on the Earth is monitored pretty much in real time. This is most important for the oceans which cover 70% of the Earth where the surface observations are extremely sparse and large areas are extrapolated to conjure up quesionable numbers. Numbers that directly contradict the direct satellite observations. And other surface data sets for that matter.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/

NASA's cooking of the books for the surface data is generally unknown to the public, but this round of the next, the public might just catch on.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, 1984

This latest attempt to shore up the crumbling global warming agenda is another obvious attempt to manipulate the data and create momentum for the Paris meeting later this year.

This new study (or mangling the data to get the conclusion you want) is full of holes. They have extrapolated land temps to sea areas where no data exists. They have adjusted (the favorite warmists method, warm new temperature while adjusting old temperature data down to create a trend) sea surface temperatures to agree with a less reliable data set instead of the other way around.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/a-first-look-at-possible-artifacts-of-data-biases-in-the-recent-global-surface-warming-hiatus-by-karl-et-al-science-4-june-2015/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

are two critiques of this tendentiously timed data mangling.

Indeed, our best temperature data in the USA (I know, not the whole world) the USCRN (US climate reference network) uses triple redundant aspirated platinum temp sensors in pristine rural locations. It has been operating for >10 years, and shows NO warming at all. This data is not adjusted like so much of the surface record. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

The satellite temp record (also with no hokey adjustments to create warming like GISS) also shows NO warming for the past 15-20 years.

So, this new data mangling is just another last ditch attempt to ram through the UNIPCC agenda, of controlling the energy infrastructure of the world for a green socialist fantasy.

"(I know, not the whole world)" Knowing it isn't enough. You have to understand why the behavior of less than 7% of the planet's surface is completely useless as evidence for your bias, much as you'd love it to be really really really convincing; never mind that only one piece of that 7% lies in the polar regions which AGW predicts are the most affected.

This latest attempt to shore up the crumbling global warming agenda is another obvious attempt to manipulate the data and create momentum for the Paris meeting later this year.

This new study (or mangling the data to get the conclusion you want) is full of holes. They have extrapolated land temps to sea areas where no data exists. They have adjusted (the favorite warmists method, warm new temperature while adjusting old temperature data down to create a trend) sea surface temperatures to agree with a less reliable data set instead of the other way around.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/a-first-look-at-possible-artifacts-of-data-biases-in-the-recent-global-surface-warming-hiatus-by-karl-et-al-science-4-june-2015/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

are two critiques of this tendentiously timed data mangling.

Indeed, our best temperature data in the USA (I know, not the whole world) the USCRN (US climate reference network) uses triple redundant aspirated platinum temp sensors in pristine rural locations. It has been operating for >10 years, and shows NO warming at all. This data is not adjusted like so much of the surface record. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

The satellite temp record (also with no hokey adjustments to create warming like GISS) also shows NO warming for the past 15-20 years.

So, this new data mangling is just another last ditch attempt to ram through the UNIPCC agenda, of controlling the energy infrastructure of the world for a green socialist fantasy.

"(I know, not the whole world)" Knowing it isn't enough. You have to understand why the behavior of less than 7% of the planet's surface is completely useless as evidence for your bias, much as you'd love it to be really really really convincing; never mind that only one piece of that 7% lies in the polar regions which AGW predicts are the most affected.

You've done the experiment? This experiment? The one that can't work?

I've not really followed Antarctica. However, back in the 80s I'm pretty sure it was "tens of millenia to melt all of Antarctica if it's possible at all". More recently I've seen comments along the lines of "It can't happen in less than 5-10 thousand years" with the assumption that it will happen eventually if we continue dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Currently, global sea ice is well above normal. That is largely because antarctic sea ice is at or near a record high, while arctic sea ice is slightly lower than (but approximately within one standard deviation of) average.

Now, while I know that overall ocean temperature and surface ice may not be a direct correlation, it's a bit of a mystery to me how they can claim that ice is melting due to unusual ocean warming, when we know that ocean surface ice has been at record levels.

On the contrary. I ignore nothing.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

I stated a fact. Lack of proper data for a proper conclusion and you say I reject science? ok...

Fossil fuels are not linked to millions of deaths or trillions of cost. That is again conjecture.

99.9% of scientists? Now your inventing numbers? I thought the latest PR pieces where about 97% of real "climate" scientists cherry picked.

Indeed, there is no point in talking with you, as you cannot see past your ideology.

There's a volcano under West Antarctica that might have something to do with it.

You do know that Anthony Watts is paid to lie and spew half truths on that site, right?

There's a volcano under West Antarctica that might have something to do with it.

Lewandowsky's paper has been retracted by the publisher and has left the University he published from.

Both your questions answered here.
And BTW RSS global mean shows a flat line.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

There could be a volcano under the antarctic ice!

Cool, you can read minds? Who am I? What argument was implied, and are you sure it was ad-hominem? Remember:

"Note, however, that none of these are 'ad hominems', as I make no claim that Muller being a snake has affected his mathematics or altered his results in the slightest. The data is the data, it says what it says despite Muller's reptilian ways. I am not arguing against the data, there is no ad-hominem."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Also remember that the context here was that I pointed out why the people Jane's disagreeing with might claim to have studied something for years, even though their absurd conclusions might suggest otherwise to students of the Constitution like Jane Q. Public.

Nah, I didn't take you all that seriously ("Space Hippies" was a giveaway), but I thought I'd answer pragmatically, because I've seen people talk about it fairly often. So, yeah, sorry for sounding so humor-impaired. It annoys me when people don't get my jokes too.

As an apology, here's an interesting nuclear waste disposal plan. Here's a hint: Nuclear Lawn Darts.

I hope you're just being sarcastic, but in case you aren't

http://www.mercurynews.com/sci...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
http://news.nationalgeographic...

a five minute internet search for "California drought history" can point to the fact that California has had water issues for centuries (it can be said of any area as well), it had destroyed Native American Cities and entire empires long before European settlers arrived. A statement in the National Geographic article pretty well sums it up "Unfortunately, she notes, most of the state's infrastructure was designed and built during the 20th century, when the climate was unusually wet compared to previous centuries."

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade
March temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.26 C (about 0.47 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.41 C (about 0.74 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.10 C (about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.
Tropics: +0.08 C (about 0.06 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.
February temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.30 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.43 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.16 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.01 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.) ....
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
UAH Global Temperature Report: March 2015 – down slightly

And just what do you suppose is driving this Climate change, it's hard to accept that it's temperature when there is so little difference in it.

Because there is clearly a high level and consistent level of loss each and every year as is quite clear from the graphs.

It is true, deforestation in places like rainforest is very bad and we should do something about it. But as usual, this alarmist paper only covers one aspect of a much larger picture.

Total carbon sequestration due to plant life has actually been increasing.

Due to RE-forestation in China, and many other factors, the actual total mass of photosynthesizing plants has gone UP.

Also according to satellites. But this time, not just from eyeballing pictures.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/temperatures-were-warmer-than-today-for-most-of-the-past-10000-years/question-4723358/
Fifteen thousand years ago, temperatures rose 10 to 20 degrees in just one century.........

About 12,800 years ago we plunged into the Younger Dryas...... When we came out of the Younger Dryas, temperatures again
shot upward, rising 15 degrees in just 40 years.

The end of the Younger Dryas cold period warmed by 9F ( 5C) over 30-40 years and as much as 14F (8C) over 40 years.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/
Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., commenting on claims that 2014 was the warmest year on record: 'We have found a significant warm bias. Thus, the reported global average surface temperature anomaly is also too warm.'

Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years.

Oh...sorry....you just wanted me to post a single already-posted graph. I guess I didn't follow your instructions properly, huh?

A recent study which actually looked at the climate concluded that the maximum the climate can change is about 1.45 degrees.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Don't expect it to be quoted in AR6 because it effectively puts a verification now on climate models. If the climate model says >2 degrees, then it's within the 99% error range, therefore the author has some entropy problems with their code ;)

The fact that it's not exactly in the format you want or dumbed down enough for you to understand is not my problem.

It is your problem — you answered my challenge (for the second time in a month) and failed.

The links are in 30 different references at the bottom that the paper cites with enough information for you to look them up.

If it were this easy, you would've done it yourself long ago instead of extending this silly thread well beyond the point, where your inability to meet my challenge became painfully obvious.

you refuse to meet me half way and address what the paper says

I don't want to argue with somebody else's words — history of this very thread shows, how easy it is for you to throw other people statements under the proverbial bus:

• "Maslowski's colleagues didn't agree with him", you said,
• "Al Gore is an asshole" (dave420 implied — without any objections from you),
• "Viner was talking to a popular publication, rather than a peer-reviewed magazine" (as if it makes any difference)

— whatever. Like I said already, I don't want to think through an argument only to find myself attacking something you consider inconsequential...

When you asked for an example, I gave you some — summarizing both the failed predictions and their disproofs in my own words instead of simply referring you to other people's articles (of which there are plenty). Because to do otherwise — as seems your wont — is to appeal to authority.

You knew, what the "format" needs to be from the beginning. That you could not meet it is not my fault — it is your failure. Or, more likely, it is the failure of this belief, which you continue to call "science".

You're arguing like a lawyer, not a scientist.

I'm not a scientist — nor do I need to be in order to be convinced (rather than compelled ) to do something about "the dangers of humanity's contribution to global warming". I am just a somewhat educated man, who knows of humanity's long history of fads and beliefs, and is aware of some of the scientific and philosophical mechanisms invented to help prevent our falling into the same holes and stepping on the same rakes again...

Nothing like condemning someone for what you assume they must think.

On the chance that you're interested in facts--as opposed to your opinions--here's an article at a skeptic's website about the danger from asteroids: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.... You'll notice that the author (and most of the respondents) take the asteroid threat seriously, e.g. "I really do think there is more of a threat from space, than there is from CO2." You can search for "asteroid" at the website and come up with more articles about the threat.

I'm quite sure that the sole reason is to lower the ranking for http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Which is in error of course - that website has more actual science than all propaganda websites put together. I switched to DuckDuckGo a while ago, and now I'm going to move away from Google's services completely.

BUT, also...

Regular old glass blocks the vast majority of infrared. No special IR "emitters" are necessary. The lenses just look black to IR cameras.

Here's just one example which illustrates this very well.

So the infrared energy from sunlight just magically stops when it hits the glass of my car windows... And it never gets 40-50F warmer inside my car cabin (but not the trunk, which stays cool) than outside. Yep. Infrared is just afraid of glass. And fear, apparently, is the best motivator of all.

BUT, also...

Regular old glass blocks the vast majority of infrared. No special IR "emitters" are necessary. The lenses just look black to IR cameras.

Here's just one example which illustrates this very well.

The holes are not mysterious at all. There is even a name for them.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Here ya go Sparky. Here for a summary article.

Happy?

He probably made the mistake of reading the Slashdot comments section. That would rapidly lead to the conclusion that programmers are know-nothing egomaniacs.

Ad-hominem will get you nowhere.

Billy Nye DEMONSTRATED that he knows squat about AGW by co-hosting THIS video with Al Gore... showing an experiment to "prove" CO2 warming that could never have actually worked.

While Anthony Watts also gets part of it wrong -- actual greenhouses do not actually work by "trapping infrafed radiation" -- he still demonstrates conclusively that the Nye-Gore "demonstration" was 100% a crock of made-up shit.

To publicly DEMONSTRATE his ignorance and dishonesty in that manner, then call others half-stupid, is very strong evidence that Bill Nye is a chronic sufferer of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. Or just plain a liar. Choose one.

It doesn't actually remove any CO2, so things like ocean acidification will continue to get worse,

The ocean is getting more neutral if anything, but absolutely not "more acidic".

And whatever changes come from CO2 are far less than natural variance over the course of a month (read article)...

I despair that alarmists can't understand even the most basic aspects of material science.

Kind of makes you sweat that people who can't even understand the pH scale are casually fine messing with the atmosphere for the entire Earth because "volcanoes already do it". Well if a volcano jumped off a cliff would you do that too?

Considering the way he and Al Gore were savaged for blatant scientific fraud over at WUTWT in Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment, his opinion doesn't carry much weigjht. If somebody is going to tell us we are scientifically illiterate, at least find somebody with more chops than Science Fair Baking Soda Vulcanoes.

Oh, and in case someone poo-pooh's my claim of arguments against, it's Freeman Dyson making some reasoned points(*) against the predictions of climate science.

Again, I make no judgement on the movement, but it's hard to refute Freeman Dyson as an acceptable authority.

(*) Point one is that everything is predicated on models which are shot through with fudge factors. Real models shouldn't have fudge factors, or should be able to show that the factors are derived from first principles.

(*) Point two is that topsoil is an enormous carbon reserve that has largely been overlooked. He calculated how much extra topsoil is needed to offset the carbon in the atmosphere (spread out, it's on the order of 1/100 of an inch) and opined that changing agriculture might be able to offset the CO2.

It isnt because your bias makes you refuse to read sceptical scientific discussions that they dont exist.

Projection isn't a river in Egypt.

Stop reading media crap or rebuttals by propaganda sites and, just for your educational purposes, read some scientific sceptical sites and make up your own mind.

Or maybe read some original papers on the issue! Of course, if it doesn't agree with Anthony Watts, then you'll probably consider it propaganda. Bet you never read these.

It isnt because your bias makes you refuse to read sceptical scientific discussions that they dont exist.

Projection isn't a river in Egypt.

Stop reading media crap or rebuttals by propaganda sites and, just for your educational purposes, read some scientific sceptical sites and make up your own mind.

Or maybe read some original papers on the issue! Of course, if it doesn't agree with Anthony Watts, then you'll probably consider it propaganda. Bet you never read these.

Then it's probably a good thing that 2014 was in the 3% coldest years in the last 10,000?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Whew, I was terrified there for a second!

No, the NOAA proclamations say the 10 hottest years have been since 1998, but the actual data with confidence levels included say there's around an average of 18% confidence those years were the hottest. A bit different when you include the error and tolerance and actual confidence about the hottest levels, eh?

I think you sorely overestimate the impact a few degrees can have on global climate

Thought I'd FTFY.

If you'd take the trouble to actually study the materials spewed forth my the IPCC and it's goons (people like Michael E. Mann, et al you know, the faux nobel laureates) and also read what the critics have to say, you'd soon see through the scam very clearly.

This is how good a little warming is: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

And how was was it fairly recently? A few centuries ago: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

This is not hard. It only becomes hard if you have an agenda and try to make the data fit your agenda.