Slashdot Mirror

What you are saying is "never scientific" is in fact the core of the scientific process, and it makes no difference if the original data were taken today or fifty years ago: they are open to justifiable correction by anyone who sees fit. If you have the idea that the corrections applied are unjustified, feel free to challenge them

I agree with you on the principle. But here's the thing: when you go to the GISS data download, there isn't a link to the uncorrected data; you just get one data set and you must trust that the GISS did the "adjustments" properly. That is not science.

How do we even know that the GISS has adjusted the data? Because someone saved a copy of the data back in 2008. If nobody had a saved copy we wouldn't have any idea whether the changes had been made or how large they were. You comfortable with that?

What I want to see is the original data set, plus a program (MATLAB script or whatever) to apply the adjustments, along with the final output. Anyone should be able to reproduce the final data set from the historical data, and anyone should be able to review the adjustments program to see what it does.

I remind you also of "Climategate" and the CRU. Those guys had an endlessly tweaked data set, and when asked for the original, unmodified, historical data they said they had lost it. For any scientist that is a pretty major WTF right there but the only people who called them on it were the reviled "denialists".

Aren't adjustments, done with scientific reasoning, just a form of processing?

GP referred to image processing. An example would be a filter that improved contrast or made edges more visible. These are well-understood and repeatable. Also, nobody is talking about hiding the raw data, so you would be free to grab the raw data and try processing it yourself.

The temperature data records have been adjusted by government agencies (NOAA, NASA, GISS) and the adjustments seem to just be "fudge factors"; someone just changed the numbers. The changes might be justifiable, but (a) the changes were done very quietly, and (b) the changes mostly go the same way: the past always gets cooler and the recent decades always get warmer.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/18/hansens-nasa-giss-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/

Yup - and the alarmist predictions have been laughably wrong.

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

Because of shenanigans like this.

Do enlighten us - please link to an example of "sketchy science" that has been proved wrong by more solid, peer-reviewed science.

Strangely, all the examples I can find just support the consensus view.

How does 95 different climate models, returning 95 different results, all of which fail to approximate real-world data support a consensus view, and what does a consensus have to do with science in the first place? Here's a clue, if you want me to make an effort to reduce my "carbon footprint" and spend more of my hard earned money to achieve the same, don't hide your supporting original research behind a paywall. I'm not convinced by the interpretations of a Journalism Major that graduated from a liberal arts college in matters of real science, most of those dwebes couldn't pass a real laboratory science class if their lives depended on it; let's see what Journalists have to say after they've passed Calc I &II, DifEq, Stats and a Physics class!

I did read the Press Release and found an interesting reference to the fear of an impending ice-age back in the '70s

The authors dug up historical data to show that the cooling in the three decades between 1945 to 1975 – which caused people to worry about the start of an Ice Age – was during a cooling phase. (It was thought to have been caused by air pollution.) Earlier records in Central England show the 40- to 70-year cycle goes back centuries, and other records show it has existed for millennia.

Changes in Atlantic Ocean circulation historically meant roughly 30 warmer years followed by 30 cooler years.

seems like that means that all of the Warmists who claimed that fear of an ice age during the 1970's was denialist propaganda, are either incompetent researchers or bald-faced liars. Oh by the way if you want to know more about the 30/60 year quasi-periodic warming and cooling cycles due to the ADO and PDO, ther is tons of info over at WattsUpWithThat to get you started.

An explanation why this article is nonsense:

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

WUWT is one of the absolute worst sites you can go to for any kind of "scientific analysis". They wouldn't make it through a first year statistical analysis course, let alone any sort of rigorous review process.

An explanation why this article is nonsense:

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

G'day Ozzie. I'm a kiwi. How about you check out the statistics of carbon emission, and see whether destroying your economy with a carbon tax that achieves absolutely nothing for the environment:

"What an Engineer Finds Extraordinary about Climate" http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

We all want to preserve our environment. But we have to look at it objectively rather than emotionally. Please also note that ***pollution*** (which everyone rightly shuns) is not the same as CAGW in any way.

Coldest June ever recorded in the Antarctic, a full 6.6 deg C below normal. That drop would offset a ~2.2 deg C rise in Asia (given that Asia is about 3X the size of Antarctica). Most curious!

I think you should be taken seriously for the same reasons Jenny McCarthy should - the utter garbage you spew on a regular basis could lead innocent people with pitiful levels of scientific literacy to make harmful choices.

Since you have never once showed me to be actually "spewing garbage", I don't think my credibility is the one in question here.

BTW everything roughly matches up with GISS.

Since it is apparently GISS, that's hardly surprising.

There's nothing wrong with adjustments as Rei helpfully explained below.

Well, except:

a) his first reference was a graph without proper labels such that we can't even really tell what it is a graph OF, and

b) his second reference was a paper submitted 5 years ago, long before some of the problems with the adjustments came to light, and

c) as I mentioned elsewhere, NCDC recently admitted there was a serious problem with some of their adjustments...

Arctic sea ice is trending near record lows for this time of year

Conveniently omitted from the report is a mention of Antarctic ice — which continues to set a record after a record.

In the case of Michael Mann, there is, since he is a megalomaniac delusionary fraudster, bent on world domination. We need to every single email he's ever sent or received.

See this and that.

No, sorry, the paper was nonsense. The link is to a skeptical blog that copies an open letter sent by a scientist who wanted to check their work. What Professor Tol was able to check revealed serious problems, but most of the source data was stubbornly held onto by Professor Cook, who didn't want anybody to refute his work. :p

Besides, if you read carefully above, you will see that the OP claimed that 97% of scientists believe in AGW catastrophism, which is obvious nonsense as well (there's a difference between 97% of scientists and 97% of published climate scientists that happened to be evaluated by Cook's highly arbitrary and secretive study).

1. Data Adjustments. Look at your own link. Look at the graphs. If NOAA is adjusting a data point DOWNWARD by .13degrees Fahrenheit... I... This does not point to massive falsification. You often have to adjust data due to instrument drift. One point does not make a trend. Neither does two, not in that many data points. History is NOT constantly being revised....

2. I really don't care about your last 18 year thing. Lots of data sets show a flat in the last decade (within a HUGE upwards trend over the last 100ish years). You can't cherry pick a decade within a century and call it the norm.

3. I'll look at this. He seems to be published, and have some decent scientific chops. Alas, some of the first google hits on him come up with how he's ... wrong. http://www.skepticalscience.co..., http://www.skepticalscience.co..., and it even looks like the site you linked to had some questions about his predictions... http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... At a cursory glance, it looks like he's working qualitatively instead of quantitatively, and it looks like he's pretty much just cutting and pasting old data into new data and calling it a prediction... ? So, basically, No, he's not more accurate. He's wrong. He's also a geologist, which is like asking my electrician to fix my plumbing.... Anyway.

You're wrong. It took me 5 minutes to look at your data and find it to be, not just holey, but flat out wrong.

Maybe you should look at the science behind those consensus figures. You'll laugh. You'll cry.
For 97%, here are several articles related to that number.

What is your opinion on upside-down Tiljander, anyway?

Seriously? Wow.

Read this carefully, and with an open mind. At least this is an example of the sort is analysis that can lead a skeptic to distrust the scientists trying very hard to prove their hypothesis.

Some temperature records are constantly adjusted in the past. Given that the history is constantly being revised - how do we know what the actual trends are?

The RSS data set is about the most accurate we have, given it has a constant reference background (deep space), and covers the entire globe equally with the same set of instruments, and has done so for the last 35 years. And that record shows no warming for nearly 18 years.

One scientist, Don Easterbrook got it right. His model - based upon the cycles of the oceans - appears to fit the current pause quite nicely as well as matches the past. Perhaps he's on to something, in that his model more accurately tracks historical records AND the current situation than the IPCC/CO2 driven models.

Some temperature records are constantly adjusted in the past. Given that the history is constantly being revised - how do we know what the actual trends are?

The RSS data set is about the most accurate we have, given it has a constant reference background (deep space), and covers the entire globe equally with the same set of instruments, and has done so for the last 35 years. And that record shows no warming for nearly 18 years.

One scientist, Don Easterbrook got it right. His model - based upon the cycles of the oceans - appears to fit the current pause quite nicely as well as matches the past. Perhaps he's on to something, in that his model more accurately tracks historical records AND the current situation than the IPCC/CO2 driven models.

God damn are you disingenuous.

Back at you.

I challenge you to post one, just one even remotely honest thing from his damned website. Mr. I'll-defend-the-worst-scumfuckers-for-no-reason.

Here you go. As a bonus, it's a defense from the very sort of libel you've been engaging in.

Here's what a non-shill might have: Any sort of real standing credentials(he has some low-grade expired credentials for appearing on air as weatherman), scientific papers published in an appropriate and notable journal, nuance in position based on available data, and a big one not take money from a partisan organization with a history attempting to confuse the public regarding science for profit

It's interesting how you gussy up the fallacy of argument from authority. The credentials have to be of a sort you approve of. The scientific papers have to be in journals you approve of. The nuance has to be of a sort you approve of. And the funding has to come from sources you approve of. Fuck you.

It's not hard to do that.

LOL. All we have to do is change your ridiculously high standards for disagreement. That is pretty easy, but you have to be willing to change your ways first.

I honestly think people define "learning" differently. For instance, you became educated by repeating "Steven Goddard's" accusations that scientists were somehow fraudulently manipulating temperature data to argue that the globe isn't warming, after saying only totally uninformed idiots with "half a brain" hurl those baseless accusations. Here's another example where I have seen no noticeable improvement:

Since NCDC has already admitted not only that some of "Steven Goddard's" criticisms were known and that they "intended" to "fix" them at some undefinable time in the future, this is a completely specious argument. Note also that any claims of "fraud" were quoting Heller, not my own words. You should follow current events. You might learn something.

Jane and Lonny Eachus's conspiracy theory ignores all the evidence showing that our carbon pollution is responsible for ~200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2. Let's review:

One reason nobody talks about oxygen pollution is that atmospheric oxygen is decreasing. Why? CO2 outgassed from the oceans comes out as complete CO2 molecules, so that doesnâ(TM)t decrease atmospheric oxygen. But burning carbon uses up oxygen.

At WUWT, Ferdinand Engelbeen cites TAR Fig 3.4 (p206) which plots atmospheric O2 vs. CO2 from 1990-2000. If the rise in CO2 were due to ocean outgassing (or volcanoes) the line would be horizontal because O2 wouldnâ(TM)t decrease. If 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 were due to burning carbon, the line would point down at a 45 degree angle because each added CO2 molecule removes an O2 molecule from the atmosphere.

I have responded to this elsewhere. You fail to distinguish between carbon anc CO2, which I have repeatedly told you was my whole point. Except for the special case of fine particulates (more on that below), carbon is simply NOT normally a pollutant.

"Carbon pollution" is a politically-driven loaded phrase INTENDED TO sway public opinion, for clear and obvious political reasons. NOT a "conspiracy", that was YOUR word used elsewhere, not my own.

The reason carbon particulates in the atmosphere are a special case is that just about ANYTHING that is turned into fine particulates and spewed into the atmosphere can be considered a pollutant. So there is absolutely nothing unusual about carbon in that regard, and removes any justification for singling it out as a pollutant.

I'll repeat what I asked you elsewhere: do you deny that elemental or molecular carbon, versus CO2, are different things? Yes or no?

Again you make a specious argument that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Apparently for no reason other than to try to make me look bad. Whether CO2 is due to burning carbonaceous materials is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. It is a straw-man, nothing more. And a pretty ridiculous one, at that.

That's why I asked if you'd retract your misinformation and acknowledge that our carbon emissions are responsible for the CO2 rise, rather than dismissing it as disingenuous. If not, will you at least acknowledge that many people you know of have disputed this fact, including you and Lonny Eachus? I'm trying to see if you're actually learning, rather than backsliding like with the warming you're now denying.

Loaded statement. I do not retract my comment, because it was honest and true. It was not "misinformation", it was correct in both a scientific and common-sense context.

I have been trying to see if YOU'RE learning, about how to have a logical argument without straw-man, insults, ad-hominem, taking others' commen

I honestly think people define "learning" differently. For instance, you became educated by repeating "Steven Goddard's" accusations that scientists were somehow fraudulently manipulating temperature data to argue that the globe isn't warming, after saying only totally uninformed idiots with "half a brain" hurl those baseless accusations. Here's another example where I have seen no noticeable improvement:

Since NCDC has already admitted not only that some of "Steven Goddard's" criticisms were known and that they "intended" to "fix" them at some undefinable time in the future, this is a completely specious argument. Note also that any claims of "fraud" were quoting Heller, not my own words. You should follow current events. You might learn something.

Jane and Lonny Eachus's conspiracy theory ignores all the evidence showing that our carbon pollution is responsible for ~200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2. Let's review:

One reason nobody talks about oxygen pollution is that atmospheric oxygen is decreasing. Why? CO2 outgassed from the oceans comes out as complete CO2 molecules, so that doesnâ(TM)t decrease atmospheric oxygen. But burning carbon uses up oxygen.

At WUWT, Ferdinand Engelbeen cites TAR Fig 3.4 (p206) which plots atmospheric O2 vs. CO2 from 1990-2000. If the rise in CO2 were due to ocean outgassing (or volcanoes) the line would be horizontal because O2 wouldnâ(TM)t decrease. If 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 were due to burning carbon, the line would point down at a 45 degree angle because each added CO2 molecule removes an O2 molecule from the atmosphere.

I have responded to this elsewhere. You fail to distinguish between carbon anc CO2, which I have repeatedly told you was my whole point. Except for the special case of fine particulates (more on that below), carbon is simply NOT normally a pollutant.

"Carbon pollution" is a politically-driven loaded phrase INTENDED TO sway public opinion, for clear and obvious political reasons. NOT a "conspiracy", that was YOUR word used elsewhere, not my own.

The reason carbon particulates in the atmosphere are a special case is that just about ANYTHING that is turned into fine particulates and spewed into the atmosphere can be considered a pollutant. So there is absolutely nothing unusual about carbon in that regard, and removes any justification for singling it out as a pollutant.

I'll repeat what I asked you elsewhere: do you deny that elemental or molecular carbon, versus CO2, are different things? Yes or no?

Again you make a specious argument that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Apparently for no reason other than to try to make me look bad. Whether CO2 is due to burning carbonaceous materials is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. It is a straw-man, nothing more. And a pretty ridiculous one, at that.

That's why I asked if you'd retract your misinformation and acknowledge that our carbon emissions are responsible for the CO2 rise, rather than dismissing it as disingenuous. If not, will you at least acknowledge that many people you know of have disputed this fact, including you and Lonny Eachus? I'm trying to see if you're actually learning, rather than backsliding like with the warming you're now denying.

Loaded statement. I do not retract my comment, because it was honest and true. It was not "misinformation", it was correct in both a scientific and common-sense context.

I have been trying to see if YOU'RE learning, about how to have a logical argument without straw-man, insults, ad-hominem, taking others' commen

I honestly think people define "learning" differently. For instance, you became educated by repeating "Steven Goddard's" accusations that scientists were somehow fraudulently manipulating temperature data to argue that the globe isn't warming, after saying only totally uninformed idiots with "half a brain" hurl those baseless accusations. Here's another example where I have seen no noticeable improvement:

Since NCDC has already admitted not only that some of "Steven Goddard's" criticisms were known and that they "intended" to "fix" them at some undefinable time in the future, this is a completely specious argument. Note also that any claims of "fraud" were quoting Heller, not my own words. You should follow current events. You might learn something.

Jane and Lonny Eachus's conspiracy theory ignores all the evidence showing that our carbon pollution is responsible for ~200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2. Let's review:

One reason nobody talks about oxygen pollution is that atmospheric oxygen is decreasing. Why? CO2 outgassed from the oceans comes out as complete CO2 molecules, so that doesnâ(TM)t decrease atmospheric oxygen. But burning carbon uses up oxygen.

At WUWT, Ferdinand Engelbeen cites TAR Fig 3.4 (p206) which plots atmospheric O2 vs. CO2 from 1990-2000. If the rise in CO2 were due to ocean outgassing (or volcanoes) the line would be horizontal because O2 wouldnâ(TM)t decrease. If 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 were due to burning carbon, the line would point down at a 45 degree angle because each added CO2 molecule removes an O2 molecule from the atmosphere.

I have responded to this elsewhere. You fail to distinguish between carbon anc CO2, which I have repeatedly told you was my whole point. Except for the special case of fine particulates (more on that below), carbon is simply NOT normally a pollutant.

"Carbon pollution" is a politically-driven loaded phrase INTENDED TO sway public opinion, for clear and obvious political reasons. NOT a "conspiracy", that was YOUR word used elsewhere, not my own.

The reason carbon particulates in the atmosphere are a special case is that just about ANYTHING that is turned into fine particulates and spewed into the atmosphere can be considered a pollutant. So there is absolutely nothing unusual about carbon in that regard, and removes any justification for singling it out as a pollutant.

I'll repeat what I asked you elsewhere: do you deny that elemental or molecular carbon, versus CO2, are different things? Yes or no?

Again you make a specious argument that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Apparently for no reason other than to try to make me look bad. Whether CO2 is due to burning carbonaceous materials is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. It is a straw-man, nothing more. And a pretty ridiculous one, at that.

That's why I asked if you'd retract your misinformation and acknowledge that our carbon emissions are responsible for the CO2 rise, rather than dismissing it as disingenuous. If not, will you at least acknowledge that many people you know of have disputed this fact, including you and Lonny Eachus? I'm trying to see if you're actually learning, rather than backsliding like with the warming you're now denying.

Loaded statement. I do not retract my comment, because it was honest and true. It was not "misinformation", it was correct in both a scientific and common-sense context.

I have been trying to see if YOU'RE learning, about how to have a logical argument without straw-man, insults, ad-hominem, taking others' commen

As explained in the link in my previous post (did you even read it?), if you take a set of data that fluctuates noisily but has an long-term upwards trend, you truncate it carefully so that the beginning of your truncated subset falls near a high point in the random fluctuations, and you use that to deny the upwards trend, then you are using a trick called "cherry-picking". You can argue you're presenting "simply facts", but it's dishonest. Watt's also dishonest is failing to declare a rather blatant conflict of interest.

Also, your own post contains contradictions. You're saying "...OBSERVED warming trend is significantly less than the IPCC 1990 PREDICTED..." (implying there is still a warming trend), and then you're saying "it has leveled off". Only one of them can be true, and it's the first one. There is still a warming trend, and yes, it's lower than the low-end 1990 predictions. Scientists have been debating over why that is for a while now. Heat getting trapped in the depths of the pacific ocean seems to be gaining traction as the most prevalent hypothesis, which is worrisome because once this finite heat reservoir is saturated, the heating will pick up with a vengeance. More info here, here, here and here (the 3 first links are all discussing the study in the 4th; I'll let you pick which source you like best).

After a grueling 5 seconds of googling... http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

It would be virtually impossible to put anything into space that didn't have some sort of computer on-board.

Apparently, ISEE-3 proves you wrong, because it fails the very definition you have given yourself:

according to instructions given to it in a variable program

. ISEE-3 does not have a variable program. It just has hardwired logic to perform actions based on the commands received over the radio.

Fortunately, the spacecraft does not have a computer!! It has a sequencer that looks pretty much like a printer looks like to a computer.

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

"The big scary headline claim in almost all of these alarmist articles which screamed that the rate of Antarctica ice loss has “doubled” compared to prior estimates is wrong. The alarmist reporters have managed to confuse two distinct issues addressed in this latest study which dealt with both continental Antarctic ice loss as well as the contribution of this Antarctica ice loss to sea level rise.

This latest study (abstract link below) clearly establishes that the continental Antarctica ice loss estimates based on past satellite gravimetry surveys are “consistent” with the latest study radar altimetry total ice loss findings. Specifically the full study says:

“At the continental scale, the most recent estimates of Antarctic ice sheet mass balance are based solely on satellite gravimetry surveys [Barletta and Bordoni, 2013; Velicogna and Wahr, 2013; Williams et al., 2014]. According to these studies, the rate of ice mass loss from Antarctica has increased progressively over the past decade and, between 2010 and 2012, fell in the approximate central range 105 to 130 Gt yr-1. Our survey puts the contemporary rate of Antarctic ice sheet mass loss at 159 ± 48 Gt yr-1, a value that, although larger, is nevertheless consistent given the spread of the gravimetry-based uncertainties (16 to 80 Gt yr-1). A possible explanation for the discrepancy is the exceptional snowfall event of 2009, which saw an additional ~200 Gt of mass deposited in East Antarctica [Boening et al., 2012; Lenaerts et al., 2013; Shepherd et al., 2012] that, although absent from the CryoSat-2 record, does factor in the gravimetry-based estimates of imbalance.”

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com..."

An endless line of guys needing to pee :) Not sure if I buy the analogy, but it's funny :)

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

"A hot-topic in the media these days has to do with the West Antarctic Ice Shelf (WAIS), a region comprising about 8% of the ice covering Antarctica. Within that region, there are two glaciers that are sliding down to the sea at a steady pace, as glaciers always do. They comprise about 10% of the WAIS, less than 1% of Antarctic ice. This descent has been in progress for several thousand years, and is neither new nor man-caused. It will go on for a few thousand more, after which they’ll be gone. In the parlance of geology, those two glaciers are collapsing."

That's part of it, but not all of it - if CO2 levels are actually moderated by ocean temperatures, rather than the other way around say, then it's also back to the drawing board. And there are certainly others - you've got to add much more :)

Congrats, you've demonstrated that climate is complex, which means you can't really give a one or two line hypothesis, which according to you means climate science doesn't exist.

Let's be precise on what we mean by "evolution" - we're really talking about natural selection moving from simplicity to complexity and other adaptations. Evolution is not the precise claim of a chain of steps from prokaryotes to humans, or any other arbitrary life form, but a specification of how such chains can happen.

So your definition of evolution seems to be moving further from a testable hypothesis.

I'm certain you're not suggesting that in order to make AGW falsifiable you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis for every moment of weather in all history :)

No, just like a surprising adaption showing up in some beetle, or a version of eyes popping up earlier than we'd expect in the fossil record, doesn't mean evolution isn't science.

Not that I agree with everything this guy says, but here's an interesting recent article on hard and soft sciences that touches on this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Climate science is a hard science, it's just that the important questions also happen to be very hard.

The question we're discussing is whether they're right on one of the biggest questions, is AGW happening and is it significant.

Btw, here's another necessary and mostly sufficient falsifiable hypothesis. The majority of the warming in the past 100 years can be attributed to human CO2 emissions.

There's no scientific consensus about the effects of violence on TV.

There's as much consensus with violence on TV as there is with AGW :)

The climate scientists don't strike me as the people to be and spectacularly wrong as you suggest.

That's awfully optimistic of you :) I've got a lot of respect for Judith Curry (a lukewarm), but not so much for Michael Mann. :)

Show that CO2 doesn't trap heat in the atmosphere, and it's back to the drawing board.

That's part of it, but not all of it - if CO2 levels are actually moderated by ocean temperatures, rather than the other way around say, then it's also back to the drawing board. And there are certainly others - you've got to add much more :)

But how do you prove evolution over millions of years?

Let's be precise on what we mean by "evolution" - we're really talking about natural selection moving from simplicity to complexity and other adaptations. Evolution is not the precise claim of a chain of steps from prokaryotes to humans, or any other arbitrary life form, but a specification of how such chains can happen.

In terms of AGW, meteorology to explain why it rained last tuesday in Padova is a specific assertion of an evolutionary chain; the whole of "AGW" therefore is the parallel to the whole of evolution by natural selection.

I'm certain you're not suggesting that in order to make AGW falsifiable you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis for every moment of weather in all history :)

Bottom line is this - the argument isn't that AGW can't possibly be true, the argument is that AGW is thus far lacking the very first step of the scientific method - the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.

Not that I agree with everything this guy says, but here's an interesting recent article on hard and soft sciences that touches on this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

If your asking about the rise in sea-level its after adjustment; and the adjustments have been bumped up a couple times, Watts published an article on it with lots of links to the "value added product" over at CU Sea Level Research Unit if you want to crunch data on your own.

The CO2 Alarmists are incapable of rational thought. Of all the Global Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere, CO2 is only a small percentage of total Global Greenhouse Gases

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...

Water is approximately 95% of all Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and CO2 is roughly 3%. Life needs greenhouse gas CO2 to survive; plants need at least 200-300OPPM to survive, and actually thrive with higher levels (meaning grow bigger faster). Increasing CO2 is not proven, nor even likely, to be the catastrophic problem the Alarmists claim it to be.

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

The problem I have, is that while everyone is saying CO2 is bad, the only "bad" they can come up with are leaps in judgement and assumptions, none of which are fact, but rather simply opinions. This is why the whole "Global Warming is bad" thing is at best a "guess", and at worst pure Myth and the newly rediscovered "mother earth" Religion of the left.

That being said, there are greater issues related to our planet, and our poisoning of it. The amount of debris, trash and other waste is what is going to kill our planet, long before CO2 does. We should be addressing THAT problem first IMHO.

Glacier bay used to be green in the 1700s. The indians lived there. And then the glacier came and filled the bay to where the wall of ice was 2 miles from the entrance. Without any help from mankind, over the next 200 years it receded. By the mid 1800's, it had retreated 44 miles and by the early 1900's it had retreated 65 miles.

The earth undergoes a constant state of change.

Climate change and all of the knee jerk reactions to save our planet are merely a scam to extract more money from the world serfs. Cap and Trade. California passed it. Electric rates are going up. The net effect for California's CaT is to take more from the middle and lower class.

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

is a nice rebuttal to the whole climate warming...eh no...climate change...eh no....climate chaos and we must do something....anything in the next 500 days or it will be too late group..

People are stupid sheep.

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

A rebuttal for the Obama's FUD piece.

What's up with all the climate alarmism on Slashdot. Next, we'll have horoscopes and astrological papers.

If CO2 is *NOT* a following temperature, what is your explanation for the fact that temperatures are not rising along with it?

Short term natural variability. The 17 years of supposed no rise in temperature is too short a period for the signal to rise above the noise and that can be proven statistically.

Not according to noted climatologist Dr. Benjamin Santer. Seventeen years is, in fact, plenty of time to "discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere".

I am a fan of both Anthony Watts' site Watts Up With That *AND* John Cook's Skeptical Science... both are run by real people who go the extra distance find the best links to their sources (not some blog chain) and both are considerate of the reader.

Here's a small research journey: Direct CO2 rise causes temperature rise (CO2drivesT)? YES or NO?

There has been a demonstrated correlation between CO2 and temperature shown by Antarctic ice core data (within ~800-1000y). If a rise of CO2 in this data should consistently lag behind rises in temperature then CO2drivesT is not ruled out (both may be responding to some other factor but at different rates) BUT CO2drivesT has fallen down a notch... it now requires more extraordinary proof.

Even though human-driven global CO2 has risen 'terrifyingly fast' to 400ppm -- empirically speaking I am not terrified -- because the temperature rise that should accompany such a SHOCK by any reasonable interpretation of CO2drivesT, and to any reasonable extent, has not arisen. The effects of this 'causation' are missing.

Which is to say the historical correlation is broken.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a thing,
Something we should be concerned about.
The rise to 400ppm is definitely humans' fault. It is 'massive'.
Temperature has not risen.
So such a causation, if any may exist, is unlikely to be significant.
We'd see it by now.

For example, head for Skeptical Science [SS] [SS] CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean which acknowledges that CO2 lags behind temperature but introduces 'CO2 amplification' which asserts a feedback where "the increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming.". This in itself is another extraordinary claim. While such a feedback might certainly exist I cannot just swallow it as a flat-fact when pursuing a simple answer to the CO2drivesT question. Where are the computer models incorporating this feedback that match observed temperature?

There is a stir these days among CO2drivesT proponents that some mechanism must exist that is hiding or delaying the warming that the models predict. Immature 'skeptics' jeer at this, implying that it is all about protecting the sacred forced-feedback hypothesis at any cost. Immature CO2drivesT proponents accuse them of attempting to derail the scientific method. There is a germ of truth in both. I think everyone should grow up a little.

Aside from the modern lack of warming, one thing seemed odd about amplification. In the Vostok ice core CO2+T graph clearly at ~75,000YA there is a massive injection of CO2 (~225-230ppm) that I think is Toba era volcanism. If such amplification exists and is significant, that would have been a fine time for CO2 feedback to jump in and 'save the day' with a slowing or a plateau of the declining temperature trend. Or even a rise? But 6,000 years after its onset -- on the Vostok graph at ~220ppm temperature and CO2 are once again in lock-step, both in steep decline. After some six millennia of 'higher' CO2 and 'lower' temperature. Plenty of time for particulates to settle and 'amplification' to occur. If it does. Did it?

But never mind, it's all changed, that [SS] Lag, what does it mean? page also said something astounding: "In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase." 90%... is that a fact.

Since when?

Which led me to the next step where the game-changer is supposed to be [SS] Shakun et al. Clarify th

Here: chew on some better data

...because everyone knows a blog that is heavily funded by the Heartland Institute must be better than direct satellite measurements.

And no, this is not an ad hominem; I'm not necessarily saying WUWT must necessarily be terrible purely because they have undeclared conflicts of interest, I'm just attacking your ridiculous qualifier better. How can you possibly argue that the quality of data on a blog with undeclared conflicts of interest is better data than direct satellite measurements? Your "better" just seems to mean "confirms my preconceptions".

Though let's not kid ourselves, WUWT is terrible. Every time I visit it, I find huge embarrassing mistakes any BA in science could spot.

The ice sheet may be coming apart up in the whitw continent, but that's where several volcanoes are located. Active volcanoes. As in HOT. As for the rest of Antarctica, the ice is at a 30 year high. Here: chew on some better data http://judithcurry.com/2014/02... http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... http://wp.me/P7y4l-5Kc http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

The ice sheet may be coming apart up in the whitw continent, but that's where several volcanoes are located. Active volcanoes. As in HOT. As for the rest of Antarctica, the ice is at a 30 year high. Here: chew on some better data http://judithcurry.com/2014/02... http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... http://wp.me/P7y4l-5Kc http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Your first cite shows someone changing their mind - it doesn't have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement :)

Heck, people convert to Christianity all the time, but that doesn't make Christianity science :)

Are you the one of the Taubes followers?

The insulin hypothesis is backed up by observations - the fat-heart hypothesis is not. Taubes is just reporting the science, he's not making it.

The fact of the matter is that even if we are "correcting", it's taken us over 40 years - by that measure, we'll finally realize the error of AGW in about 20 more years :)

So 97% of climate scientists agreeing isn't consensus

That's a political number, not a factual one.

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

But I again remind you, consensus isn't science :)

In specific "Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation". CO2 trapping more heat in the atmosphere means that there will be less radiation emitted from the atmosphere in the related wavelength. That's a falsifiable hypothesis and it's a hypothesis they tested by looking at the thermal radiation.

That certainly may be *necessary* for AGW to be true, but it's clearly not *sufficient*. Heck, it doesn't even begin to touch on the origins of CO2, or the lack of any sort of relation between human CO2 emissions and measured CO2 levels (CO2 emissions vary widely both seasonally and yearly, but global CO2 levels have been monotonically increasing, as if governed by completely different drivers than simply human input).

Futhermore, the outgoing longwave radiation hypothesis is, in fact, subject to significant question:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

"We further examine the impact of cloud overlapping assumptions on the results of linear regression of spectral differences with respect to predefined spectral fingerprints. Cloud-relevant regression coefficients are affected more by different cloud overlapping assumptions than regression coefficients of other geophysical variables. These findings highlight the challenges in constructing realistic longwave spectral fingerprints and in detecting climate change using all-sky observations."

So there's a question as to whether or not anyone has constructed a "realistic longwave spectral fingerprint".

But here's the real problem - your SS cite throws a bunch of stuff at the wall, but does not actually specify falsification observations. And if you're honest, you'll admit that when there *are* observations of falsifications, the AGW trope is protected by ad hoc special pleadings asserting that they aren't "consequential" :) It's a very typical astrology trick :)

You may not care to look at facts, but they exist (search for droughts).

I love how your response contained no links refuting what I said... because you are not basing your arguments from data, but from emotion.

I expect your response to be something about the source of the link, without any more real facts on the matter. Good luck with that approach in life...

Get that hat on the grill.

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

Sea ice you moron.

CO2 traps energy in the atmosphere heating up the air, the warmer the air is the less energy is transferred from the water or ground into the air

And according to your hypothesis, this warmer air causes more ice to form because salinity is reduced. So, warm air makes ice.

Without the thick sea ice surrounding them the land sheets will flow into the oceans and raise sea levels.

Over a period of hundreds, if not thousands of years :) The changes in sea ice and land ice are driven by forces other than atmospheric temperature.

I might as well write an article about how guns can't kill people because the kinetic energy in a bullet is nothing compared to the mass of a human.

So now you're saying that the heat from the atmosphere magically concentrates and targets a very small portion of the ice to melt it down, the way a bullet transfers its kinetic energy to just one small spot on a human's body? :)

Can you at least admit that the article over hyped the issue?

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

Compare the specific heat of water to the specific heat of the atmosphere.

The amount of heat that it takes to melt ice is pretty significant compared to any sort of atmospheric changes.

Ocean vs. atmosphere:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Now, ice is only a fraction of the ocean, but atmosphere is also only a tiny fraction of the ocean. My bet is that back of the napkin, you're looking at the same order of magnitude...

Specific heat capacity, ice: 2.108 kJ/kg-K
Specific heat capacity, water: 4.187 kJ/kg-K
Heat capacity of air: 1.005 kJ/kg/K

The atmosphere has a mass of about 5×1018 kg

http://nov79.com/gbwm/icemelt....

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

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/the-guardians-suzanne-goldenberg-jumps-the-shark-again-gets-called-out-by-nyt/ Check out the link. A lot of things could happen in a thousand years. We could get hit by an asteroid... We could get wiped out by an epidemic...

More global warming alarmism.

In a related story, antarctic ice is a a record high level sinc3e satellite observations began. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

So your argument against fighting climate change is that we might already be all dead before it matters?

"Antarctic Sea Ice At Record Levels" Posted on May 12, 2014 by Anthony Watts

"Antarctic sea ice has expanded to record levels for April, increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometres."

Leaked internal documents from Heartand say differently.

Incidentally, both Heartland Institute and Watts say with considerable evidence support, that the above linked document (which is the only document of the "leaked documents" to make these claims) was fake. I agree with that assessment.

Your sourcewatch link fails to note this defense except in passing (Heartland apparently issued take-down notices to several blogs which were hosting the allegedly defamatory work) which is quite dishonest.

Also Watts is not a scientist.

Which is incorrect. He has for example been a coauthor on several research papers, organized the "Surface Stations Project" (a volunteer effort to document the condition of US weather stations) in 2007, and of course, commented on the state of climatology research since 2006.

If they were really interested in obtaining an honest, accurate appraisal of the temperature data they should have hired someone who had actual experience or qualifications.

Typical erroneous application of the argument from authority fallacy. I note that as of 2012, the time of the above document you refer to, he would have been engaging in his above efforts for around six years. That actually would have made him qualified for this imaginary role.

I find your accusations quite dishonest, hypocritical, and irrational. It is enough for you to accept a wayward bit of fraudulent documentation and of course, your own optimistic interpretation of what it says as firm evidence that Watts is "lying". But what would it take for you to accept an opponent as a "scientist"? Why he would need "actual experience or qualifications" with actual experience or qualifications not actually counting as such. One very low standard for you and one very high standard for your opponents.

Earlier, I noted a similar bit of calumny associated with Judith Curry who does meet your standards for "actual experience or qualifications" by saying:

We know that Judith Curry was lying when she said she had seen AR5 prior to publication.

First, that wouldn't have been particularly difficult to achieve. She would just need a confederate with access to the AR5 report. The way the report is assembled, there are hundreds of people with access to part or all of the drafts of the document. Second, where is actual evidence that she might have said falsehoods in this case?

Financial Times: ‘No one trusts Washington on climate change’