I've never wanted to be North Korean, until now. I will gladly welcome our nuclear-armed North Korean overlords if they can get rid of the decadent capitalist imperialist degeneracies of Facebook and Twitter. We'll keep Youtube, it's too good at distributing cultural Marxist Political Correctness - and the proletariat don't even realize it !
The drop in the price of oil is due to:
1) Saudi Arabia making oil so cheap so that its aggressive rival Iran is weakened
2) Saudi Arabia making oil so cheap to put North American fracking operations out of business
3) North American fracking operations supplying so much oil and gas that the US was poised to be an energy exporter.
We do live an illusion of a Free Market (voluntary exchange producing win-win trades) because many Governments introduce all sorts of tricks to change the voluntary win-win aspect of mutual benefit to involuntary win-lose exchanges because taxpayer money is used to prop up some politically-favored company, or regulate some of the trades. The Free Market is an ideal that has not existed for a long time. The best we have today are hampered Free Markets, where the economically-illiterate control freak sociopaths that self-select into Government are constitutionally prevented from meddling too much.
He is the enemy of the corrupt DC cartel.
He is the enemy of international banksters.
He is the enemy of the privately-held "Federal Reserve"
He is the enemy of the controlled opposition (Republican Establishment).
he is the enemy of "globalists"
He is the enemy of Collectivists
He is the enemy of the propagandists "mainstream" media
He is the enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood
He is the enemy of the Islamic State jihadis
He is the enemy of bad trade deals
He is the enemy of those that seek to exploit the US workers
He is the enemy of those that steal US secrets
He is the enemy of bad trade deals
Because Trump is the enemy of all those, he is the friend of US Free Citizens, US sovereignty, US prosperity, and the Free World.
Isn't it interesting how Slashdot takes the political stance to measure the effect of Trump, but not of other candidates. This is the perfection of propaganda folks - it is called "Disinformation" when it is lots of little suggestions from many, many different sources. Those in power want the US citizens to remain serfs, and will take down anyone (like Trump) who think the citizens should be in the driving seat and not the 'elites'. That is why the Borg Drones lose their mind when Truymp says "Make America Great Again!" - because the Borg Drones have been indoctrinated from birth that America and Americans are bad, greedy, stupid, ignorant, racist, xenophobes and only if they adopt Statist Collectivism and Rule by the Elites (a club which no Slashdotter is a member of) can your "sins" be ignored for now (but never forgiven).
Now watch the rabid Borg Drones rant based on irrationality and emotion, and without any evidence-based policy positions. 3... 2... 1
How can people believe in "equality" yet still claim to believe in "uniqueness".
If people are unique then they are, by definition, not equal.
If people are equal they cannot be unique.
The pursuit of absolute equality cannot be achieved in practice, and the movements pursuing it currently are clearly resulting in the suppression of uniqueness - rigid ideological conformity is sought by those who hold absolute equality as a goal.
Personally I prefer a World where people are at liberty to be unique, and merely Equal before the Law (Justice is Blind and favors no person). This is attainable.
Are you really so ignorant of your own sides predictions that you are defending something you don't understand ? that would make you zealot no less than any religious nutbar. No wonder the Climate Realists call you guys members of the "Cult of Climate Alarmism". Your anger is based on 'righteous fury' and not on the Scientific Method.
But since the ability to Google simple claims is apparently beyond you I'll do you the favor
For global observations since the late 1950s, the most recent versions of all available data sets show that the troposphere has warmed at a slightly greater rate than the surface, while the stratosphere has cooled markedly since 1979. This is in accord with physical expectations and most model results, which demonstrate the role of increasing greenhouse gases in tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling; ozone depletion also contributes substantially to stratospheric cooling.
Oh, and I bet you don't even know why the IPCC doesn't care about the science and why it was set up by sociopath Maurice Strong http://green-agenda.com/
I should also add that while the TLT is warming, and the surface is warming faster, BOTH of these are warming at rates that are much, much lower (a factor of 4) than the IPCC's predictions. There is no cause for alarm. There is no need for the United Nationa/Angela Merkel/Barack Obama/Donald Trump/Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi/ to regulate and control every aspect of your life in the name of "saving the planet". There is no need for de-industralization nor energy poverty. There is no need to condemn BILLIONS to lives of misery. hunger, sickness and poverty. Instead we can lift people up to better lives through innovation and energy wealth. Don't you want that?
The claim of the IPCC's model is that the TLT will warm faster than the surface. What is seen observationally is the opposite. The TLT is warming, but the surface is warming faster. That means not only is the IPCC's AGW theory not confirmed observationally, the OPPOSITE is seen. Thus, the Scientific Method requires the AGW to be discarded or amended.
As usual, skepticalscience is too credulous and tells you exactly HALF the story. They omit the important part that it is the relative warming rate that matters- and then they DELIBERATELY misrepresent the Climate Realists position.
You are being lied to - and people are trying to inform you of the WHOLE story. You can make up your own mind based on ALL the evidence - but we believe once you have the correct and complete picture you will agree with the Climate Realists rather than Climate Alarmists. Which means you will not be a slave to the UN's control freak Green Agenda: http://green-agenda.com/
So sue me if you don't want to hear ALL the observational evidence, which falsifies the IPCC's AGW Hypothesis.
You have a very distorted view of science. Theories are bodies of evidence and models, and in the course of making them one expects some false predictions. When they happen, the theory is adjusted (possibly slightly, possibly greatly) to conform with observation. You're doing the rough equivalent of releasing helium balloons, observing them, and claiming that the Theory of Gravity is falsified, and we must therefore accept the null hypothesis and drift off into space.
Completely 180 degrees from the truth. It is you who looks at the balloons rising and says that humans have changed how Gravity works on the planet - despite it having kept the planet in a stable equilibrium for a billion years (that is, perturbations do not cause runway catastrophes).
It is YOU who asserts the Law of Gravity no longer functions because of the small perturbation of Industrialized Civilization !
We're dumping carbon dioxide into the air, it's warming up the surface, and you come up with something you claim is a prediction, a handwave at supposed evidence against it, and conclude that it's actually cooler out there.
The specific prediction of the IPCC's AGW Theory is that the TLT will warm faster than the surface. This is their prediction, not mine. What is seen in observational REALITY is the OPPOSITE. That means the IPCC's AGW theory must be amended or discarded, as you point out in your first post. But what you are doing is clinging to the Theory and discarding and dismissing the observational evidence that contradicts the theory. That makes your approach anti-scientific. You also don't seem to understand the specific test of AGW theory, which is why you cling to it despite the observational data falsifying it.
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quo...
-- Richard P Feynman
You claim that a theory can survive contradictory data. Richard Feynman disagrees with you. I agree with Feynman, and am trying to get you out of your anti-scientific habit. AGW could be true at some point in the future, but the OBSERVATIONAL REALITY shows it is not true at this time. You have to let your prejudices and preconceptions go and follow the Scientific Method. AGW cannot be sustained at this time.
I've got news for you: the Universe doesn't care about your misguided nitpicks. The surface of the Earth is warming up regardless.
So you are saying you don't care about the science. Typical. You are just like the control freak sociopaths in the UN trying to control everyone's life: http://green-agenda.com/
The Earth is indeed warming. But the observations indicate it is natural warming expected due to the end of the Little Ice Age as well as oceans transeferring heat in complicated ways. Does CO2 have an effect? yes! does the AGW's water-vapor feedback have an effect (which is the thing the Alarmists claim is the problem)? NO! in fact, the observational reality shows the water vapor effect is neutral or even slightly negative. This is excellent news which means there is no need for de-industralization, or the UN regulating and controlling every aspect of your life, and energy poverty can be a thing of the past and we can improve the lives of BILLIONS. Do you not want this?
Thanks for posting. The prediction of AGW is that the TLT will warm faster than the surface. You seem to be gravely mistaken that the Climate Realist position is that the TLT will not warm. This is completely wrong on your part. The prediction is that the TLT will warm faster than the surface - yet the OPPOSITE is seen.
Don't you think it is a testament to Christy's intellectual integrity that he follows the data? you don't the same integrity from the Alarmist camp cf. Climategate.
So no, you don't understand the argument of the Climate Realists, nor do you seem to understand the arguments of your own Alarmist position.
So observationally we see that the TCS is around 1.2, which means that the IPCC's AGW model is wrong. The IPCC's position for alarm is based on the assumption (and it is an assumption, since the system is too complex to model accurately) that a CO2 increase will cause a positive feedback due to water vapor that will result in rapid and high temperature changes. This is NOT seen observationally. The water vapor feedback seems neutral or slightly negative and this is an OBSERVATIONAL result. That means the effect of human emitted CO2 (a mere 5% of the global CO2 emissions) is not catastrophic.
So will you follow the science or not, now I have pointed out your misunderstandings of the actual OBSERVATIONAL reality ?
You keep writing this, but it's still wrong (in several ways):
The Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) is a theoretical expectation of both natural and anthropogenic warming scenarios so it's not a key signature of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). It's also an expected result of natural global warming (for example from an increase in solar radiance).
Both the Satellite and balloon data both show actually do show warming in the TLT.
One satellite set (UAH) shows slower warming than the balloons and other satellite sets, your argument is based on assuming the outlier is the accurate data set. This runs contrary to all logic and any rational application of the scientific method.
There are identified (and uncorrected) errors in the UAH data set that biases towards colder temperatures.
No, you don't seem to get it, the signature of AGW is the TLT warming faster than the surface. What is observed is the surface warming faster than the TLT. It is the relative rate of change that matters. You have missed this completely. This is not observed (the counter is) and the Null Hypothesis must be accepted instead. Why are you unable to grok that it is the relative rate that is the signature, not whether one or more has been warming - the prediction is about the relative rate.
Only in a single data set with a known cold bias.
Nope. There is divergence in the predicted *rate* of warming from the IPCC predictions in multiple data sets.
Actually the IPCC says between 1.5 and 4.5 [wikipedia.org].
And the observed rate is 1.2 C / doubling. Why is it so for you to accept that the computer simulations don't match reality ? you defend failed predictions just like a religious zealot would. But let us say that you are correct and global temperatures will increase by 1.5 C by the middle of next century, so that they are similar to the Roman Warm Period (but still colder than the Minoan Warm Period). Is that a problem? the world is already greening due to CO2 (plants are currently starved for CO2, and need less water when they get more CO2), and vast tracts of Eurasia would become inhabitable. Why is this a problem ?
Unfortunately (for you), the scientific method actually doesn't work like that. Otherwise, everyone in my high school science classes would have disproved gravity because no one got a measurement that was very close to 9.8 m/s^2. You need to show a real (and critical) divergence from the predictions of the theory to falsify it. The bungled results of two bumbling scientists who refuse to correct previously identified errors in their methodology doesn't cut it, especially when their results contradict a minor theoretical side effect that's not even specific to the theory in question.
Because you don't understand the prediction you don't understand how it is falsified. The opposite of the prediction is seen, which means the Null Hypothesis must be accepted instead until AGW is mended or discarded. I have a PhD in Physics bro, I know exactly how this works, and what significance tests mean.
Yet, we measure the solar activity and it has not only not been for the last 25 years, it's been slightly decreasing, and yet warming continues. If your theory is that the sun did it [skepticalscience.com], that theory is not consistent with the evidence. It is a worse fit in every way that anthropogenic climate change.
You don't think the oceans moderate heat transfer in complex ways ? you have never considered it?
These studies keep coming out but they all miss an important distinction: pay gap versus earnings gap
The PAY gap, which is currency paid per unit-hour, does not exist. It is illegal to pay vaginaz less than penisez for the same work. It doesn't happen - otherwise we'd see masses of lawsuits. If it did exist then companies would hire masses of lower paid vaginaz and all the penisez would be out of work (and they'd reap colossal profits as a result). It doesn't happen, because the PAY GAP doesn't actually exist. It is a FALSE meme that is deliberately propagated by those that don;t know the difference between earnings and wages/salaries.
The EARNINGS gap is real, and is at the rate stated in the study. This is the integral of currency over a career. This difference is for numerous reasons, which the good folk of Slashdot have already covered. However, this does not indicate inequity between vaginaz and penisez - simply different life choices, different job preferences, different amounts of time worked.
So, the 'wage gap' is mythical. There is no Pay Gap but there is an Earnings Gap which is perfectly explainable. However, those pushing the myth clearly do not understand the difference between pay and earnings, or don't want to know - because they can use it as guilt tactics for obtaining better positions in desirable fields (executive positions, professional positions) or higher pay rates to 'compensate' - as well as the contemptible practice of emotional blackmailing to bludgeoning penisez into submission.
There is one important point though. Motherhood is a major source of the earnings gap, as well as critical to our society (especially in the Ponzi-scheme welfare state that requires pyramid demographics and unpaid mothers are required to fill the base of the pyramid - or you end up with economically catastrophic demographics like Greece and Japan [although fewer people are good for the environment, so it's not all downside]). Since the purpose of life is to propagate life, families are very important and most families/mothers could use more support - but our economic system doesn't account well for this.
ps. for those affronted by my use of "vaginaz" and "penisez", tough! I'm affronted by these SJW gender-war myths that are counter-factual and are intended to divide the penisez from the vaginaz and set them at odds so that people can divide and rule (as well as extort money via counter-factual myths like the 'wage gap'). I use these words so that you can understand that pro-family Slashdotters are even more affronted by your deliberate divisive use of false memes than you are of my choice of words. Stop dividing men from women. Stop using falsehoods to cause rancor in the workplace. Normal humans are sick of it !
NASA has lost its way. It no longer has the capability to fly Americans into space, yet it still draws a similar budget to when it was flying Space Shuttles.
Bureaucracies that eat taxpayer dollars without producing anything useful are the real problem America (and the World) faces.
Stop giving bureaucracies more and more and more taxpayer money to do less useful things !
The AGW Hypothesis makes a specific prediction that the Tropical Lower Troposphere will warm faster than the Earth's surface. Not only is this not observed but the OPPOSITE is observed. Thus, the Scientific Method REQUIRES us to accept the Null Hypothesis instead.
Furthermore, the IPCC's computer models predict that the effect of water vapor will result in a TCS and ECS of the order of 4 - 7 C / doubling of CO2. This is mostly a guestimate as water vapor effects (convention, heat exchange through storms etc) are very complex to model - and currently beyond our computing power to do accurately. The observed reality is that the TCS is 1.2 C / doubling. Thus the IPCCs predictions are way, way off. Again, this is observational reality.
The question is whether you'll deny the observed reality and also whether you'll refuse to use the Scientific Method and accept the Null Hypothesis over the AGW Theory's failed predictions ?
The AGW industry is worth $29 Billion / annum. If you want to play Quo Bono? then you should start there.
The AGW hypothesis makes the specific prediction that the Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) will warm faster than the Earth's surface. The opposite is seen in reality. Thus, the Scientific Method REQUIRES you to accept the Null Hypothesis instead. Will you use the Scientific Method or are you anti-scientific ?
Furthermore the observed TCS and ECS are of the order of 4 -7 C / doubling of CO2 according to the IPCC. This is based on guestimates of the effect of water vapor. The observed reality is that the TCS is around 1.2 C, which means water vapor has little effect over CO2's direct effect (which itself is quite small at the current concentration of CO2 - the effect diminishes logarithmically). Again, will you accept observational reality over a hypothesis whose predictions are not only not true, but the opposite is seen?
AGW Theory makes a specific prediction, that the Tropical Lower Troposphere will warm faster than the surface. The opposite is seen. Thus, the AGW hypothesis is invalidated by observational reality. The Scientific Method requires you to accept the Null Hypothesis instead. Will you follow the Scientific Method, or not?
Furthermore, the IPCC computer simulations make specific predictions that the TCS and ECS are of the order of 4 - 7C / doubling of CO2. Most of this effect is based on guestimates of water vapor increasing warming above CO2's effects. What is observed is a TCS of around 1.2 C. In this case the computer simulations are shown to be completely inadequate for modelling the effects of water vapor (because convection and the heat transport for water vapor is very, very hard to model and the whole system is intrinsically a chaotic, dynamic system).
The question is, will you follow the computer simulations of the IPCC, or will you accept observational reality and follow the Scientific Method to accept the Null Hypothesis instead of the failed predictions of AGW ?
AGW makes a specific prediction, that the Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) will warm faster than the surface. The OPPOSITE is seen, the surface is warming faster than the TLT.
Furthermore, the computer simulations estimate the ECS and TCS to be of the order of 4-7 C / doubling of CO2. The Observational values of these is currently 1.2. This is a fault of computer simulations that enormously overestimate the effect of CO2 on water vapor.
This is the Science, and according to the Scientific Method the AGW theory is falsified. Do humans have an effect on the climate? yes. Is AGW the dominant effect? NO !!!!! Are the changes we are observing occurring at a catastrophic rate? NO !
The present warming started at the end of the Little Ice Age. It started a century before humans started emitting significant quantities of CO2. Now, please consider what you would expect to see when solar magnetic activity started increasing after the Maunder and Dalton minimums - would you expect to see warming starting a century and a half ago? do you see warming? yes you do. Svensmark and Shaviv explain the mechanism and this fits observations.
The Scientific Method REQUIRES you to amend or discard a theory when it does not agree with observations. AGW's predictions do not agree with observations, it thus falsified. This would be cut and dried if people actually followed the Scientific Method instead of practicing Groupthink and Lysenkoism.
AGW makes a specific prediction- that the Tropical Lower Troposphere will warm faster than the surface. The OPPOSITE is seen. Thus, AGW is falsified according to the Scientific Method and the Null Hypothesis MUST be accepted instead.
AGW theory makes a specific prediction - that the Tropical Lower Troposphere will warm faster than the surface. The UAH and RSS satellites, as well as thousands of weather balloons show not only that this is not the case, but that the OPPOSITE is happening - the surface is warming faster. That means AGW is FALSIFIED according to the Scientific Method. There are no ifs, buts or maybes about this - the theory made a prediction that is falsified. The Null Hypothesis MUST be accepted instead.
People still clinging to AGW are the ones who are refusing to use the Scientific Method. They seem to believe computer simulations which predict TCS and ECS of 4-7 when the observed value is around 1.2. Again, this falsified the claims of AGW theory as presented by the IPCC.
This is the SCIENCE according to observed reality. Whether one likes it to be true or not is irrelevant - the science is now settled, the AGW hypothesis cannot be sustained based on observations. It is back to the drawing board to either improve AGW and make another prediction, or come up with another theory (such as the Svensmark one where solar magnetic activity and oceanic thermal mediation produce natural climate changes that are greater than human-induced ones).
You can post stuff from ClimateAudit and WUWT all you want but I'm not going to read them. In the time I spent looking at them 8 or 10 years ago what they post is mostly bullshit.
Bingo! here you admit you have not been using the Scientific Method for a decade. You expect us to look at your evidence but you refuse to do the same at the DATA (not opinions) presented. This is an admission of defeat on your part - you will not look at any new data (although the Scientific Method REQUIRES you to look for contrary evidence constantly).
Regarding your list of T/F questions, it's not clear at all that any of those places were warmer at any time in the last 2000 years than they are today (2015/2016). Even if it was it's not likely to remain so for very long given the ongoing warming. Regarding some of the specific ones.
The questions come from the data of YOUR OWN CITATION. Of course you simply ignore the inconvenient truth. You have already admitted you don't care for the Scientific Method at all.
9) All of the graphs I've seen from GISP2 cut off some time in the 1850s so it's impossible to tell if your statement is true.
A failure of analysis here. The AGW claim is that the warming since 1850 is unprecedented, yet the GISP2 data clearly shows greater and more rapid rises in the past, multiple times even in the last 100 centuries. This AGW claim is thus falsified.
10 & 11) There was global cooling from the 1300s to the 1800s, most likely due primarily to volcanic effects with some help from low solar output and albedo effects where after the volcanoes got it started the polar ice started to grow.
So changes in magnetic activity resulting in heliospheric changes, which mediate cosmic ray intensity in the atmosphere, which changes cloud seeding rate, which changes the global climate since water vapor is the dominant Greenhouse gas. So if the solar (and volcanic) effects can cause cooling, and those effects
end, then we should EXPECT to see warming after a cooling period like the Little Ice Age, right? EXACTLY what we do see. AGW is not necessary to explain what we see. Sure, humans will have some impact, but the effect seems small compared to solar (and volcanic) effects. Why can you not understand that the end of natural cooling means natural warming - which is consistent with the relative rates of warming between the surface/sea and Lower Tropical Troposphere (which are warming at rates consistent with natural effects and counter to that predicted if AGW were the cause).
14) Why? If you take a long term view you can say the Earth has been cooling for over 10 million years or going back to the PETM over 50 million years or you could even go back nearly 100 million years ago. Speaking more recently over the past 8000 years there has been a cycle of glaciations and deglaciations of about 100,000 years. Since the Holocene Climatic Optimum 6,000-8,000 years ago the Earth has been gradually cooling as you would expect sliding toward the next glacial period.
Sure, that's the First Order effect. What about Higher Order effects? do you think only one mechanism can be in play at once? again, this position is a result of a failure of your analysis.
15) There is regional climatic variation and nowadays it's a combination of natural and anthropogenic effects.
We agree on this. There are two questions that follow: what proportion is natural, and what is AGW? based on the answer to that, then is the rate and expected peak temperature a cause for concern. Looking at the observational evidence it is not - which means killing BILLIONS of poor people through energy poverty as well as empowering unelected, anti-democratic trans-national regimes to enforce the wealth redistribution scheme is scientifically unjustified (as well as being fundamentally immoral).
The PAGES 2K study on "Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two milennia" seems to be the most comprehensive round up of the science. Here is a PDF copy of the paper. [nerc.ac.uk]
Now I'm going to take the data in your Pages 2k report and ask you some questions about it:
1) True or false: Antarctica was MUCH warmer from 0 to ~1300 AD than it is today?
2) True or false: Europe war much warmer from 0 to 150 AD, and 725-750 Ad than it is today?
3) True or false: Asia was as warm in 1300 -1325 as it is today, and 40% of the data ia missing (so could have been warm when Europe and Antarctica were) ?
4) True or false: North America was VERY MUCH warmer from 700 - 1200 AD than it is dot, and over 50% of the data is missing ?
5) True or false: Australasia is warmest today, but was nearly as warm from 1225 -1275 AD, has 50% missing data, and is based on the cherry-picked Gergis
data ?
6) True or false: South America was as warm as it is today from 1250 - 1325 AD, and 40% of its data is missing ?
7) True or false: Antarctica was VERY MUCH warmer from 150 - 1050 AD and 1150 - 1225 AD and 1675 - 1700 than today, with 7% of its data missing?
8) True or false: Statistically it was globally as warm in 0 - 250 AD (Roman Warm Period) and 850 - 950 AD as it is today ?
9) True or false: based on the GISP2 data it was much warmer before between 8000BC - 0 AD than it is today?
10) True or false: there was global cooling around 1700 and 1800 (with some apparently latitude based lag) ?
11) True or false: the global cooling is likely to be due to volcanic and solar effects?
12) True or false: the end of global cooling in 1825 cannot be due to humans but is probably due to changes in volcanic and solar effects?
13) True or false: the modern warming we see started in North Latitudes started before humans could have any impacts?
14) True or false: after cooling we expect warming ?
15) True or false: there is regional climatic variation and this is all natural ?
16) True or false: there have been periods of global climate variation (both warming and cooling) in the past and this has been all natural ?
17) True or false: even Michael Mann admits that the nearly two decades of 'Pause' is real ?
18) True or false: people who think politicians can control the climate are insane ?
19) True or false: water vapor is the dominant 'greenhouse gas' that controls the climate ?
20) True or false: the TCS and ECS due to water vapor is observed to be slightly negative and thus the CAGW theory is impossible ?
21) True or false: humans will run out of easily recoverable fossil fuels well before CO2-induced heating becomes dangerous ?
Of course I know about the Hockey Stick graph (which has been confirmed by more than a dozen similar studies done since it first came out). What does that have to do with your claim that Mann and others are saying there is no natural warming for the last 1000 or 2000 years? The Hockey Stick graph clearly shows that it was warmer 1000 years ago and was gradually cooling until the recent sharp uptick in temperatures.
The Hockey Stick is completely debunked. Its statistical analysis is invalid and has been comprehensively shot down by McIntyre et al. As "A Disgrace to the Profession" points out, hundreds of climate scientists refute the Hockey Stick analyses due to the overwhelming evidence of higher temperatures in the past
That will be my pleasure. But this is how it works: I have made a statement and presented some data. You dispute this statement and now you present your supporting data. Then I will gladly respond with the oodles of data from Oman (near equator) to New Zealand (mid-southern) to support the Greenland data (far northern) data. So now you simply need to provide the data you say proves that Greenland was regional only. It should be easy for you, right? opinions don't count, only data.
Wow, I don't have a clue how you could claim that AGW proponents and Michael Mann have said there is no natural warming for the last x amount of years. I've never read anything like that from him/them.
Have you never heard of Michael Mann's notorious "Hockey Stick". Surely you know that in IPCC reports from 2001 to 2007 it featured prominently, but then has been quietly removed because it has now been thoroughly debunked both on improper (to the point of fraudulent) analysis technique and improper sample selection. Here is the Hockey Stick from the IPCC reports: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreport... https://www.ipcc.ch/publicatio...
Don't you think it is wonderful that the Internet never forgets? that every denial and false and disingenuous statement that climate Alarmists make is going to live on forever for all to see - like the claim you just make that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick doesn't exist (he used to caim that natural variability has been negligible for the last two millenia and all change must be anthropogenic in origin).
Yes, in the long run the quantity of most interest in the Arctic is the summer sea ice minimum but generally the Arctic sea ice hits its maximum extent in February/March. 2016 is threatening to set a new record for the lowest maximum extent on record. Here's the report. [nsidc.org]
Thank you for the reference. The reference I gave was from the Danes and is not corrupted like the NSIDC who are funded by NASA and NOAA who are now known to altering data to support their Lysenkoist agenda. The Danish data shows that the 2016 ice cover for this month is GREATER than 2015, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for the ice to become "teh lowest evah !" unless something unrelated to cold produces a large change (such as winds in the Barents sea driving ice northward which increases ice concentration but reduces surface cover). However, these are details, the point is abundantly clear - the Arctic summer ice has not disappeared as was predicted to happen by 2015 AGW theorists. AGW has not only failed another prediction, it has got it 180 degrees away from reality, again. Just as AGW failed in its prediction of LTT warming faster than the surface and got it 180 degrees wrong when the surface warmed naturally more than the LTT.
The internet is remembering what you post, riverat1 - this will be a very good thing in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never wanted to be North Korean, until now. I will gladly welcome our nuclear-armed North Korean overlords if they can get rid of the decadent capitalist imperialist degeneracies of Facebook and Twitter. We'll keep Youtube, it's too good at distributing cultural Marxist Political Correctness - and the proletariat don't even realize it !
Happy Revolutionary April Day, comrades.
Oh, and we'll replace Facebook and Twitting with The People's Cube
http://thepeoplescube.com/
Pobeda !
The drop in the price of oil is due to:
1) Saudi Arabia making oil so cheap so that its aggressive rival Iran is weakened 2) Saudi Arabia making oil so cheap to put North American fracking operations out of business 3) North American fracking operations supplying so much oil and gas that the US was poised to be an energy exporter.
We do live an illusion of a Free Market (voluntary exchange producing win-win trades) because many Governments introduce all sorts of tricks to change the voluntary win-win aspect of mutual benefit to involuntary win-lose exchanges because taxpayer money is used to prop up some politically-favored company, or regulate some of the trades. The Free Market is an ideal that has not existed for a long time. The best we have today are hampered Free Markets, where the economically-illiterate control freak sociopaths that self-select into Government are constitutionally prevented from meddling too much.
Trump is clearly The Enemy !
He is the enemy of the corrupt DC cartel.
He is the enemy of international banksters.
He is the enemy of the privately-held "Federal Reserve"
He is the enemy of the controlled opposition (Republican Establishment).
he is the enemy of "globalists"
He is the enemy of Collectivists
He is the enemy of the propagandists "mainstream" media
He is the enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood
He is the enemy of the Islamic State jihadis
He is the enemy of bad trade deals
He is the enemy of those that seek to exploit the US workers
He is the enemy of those that steal US secrets
He is the enemy of bad trade deals
Because Trump is the enemy of all those, he is the friend of US Free Citizens, US sovereignty, US prosperity, and the Free World.
Isn't it interesting how Slashdot takes the political stance to measure the effect of Trump, but not of other candidates. This is the perfection of propaganda folks - it is called "Disinformation" when it is lots of little suggestions from many, many different sources. Those in power want the US citizens to remain serfs, and will take down anyone (like Trump) who think the citizens should be in the driving seat and not the 'elites'. That is why the Borg Drones lose their mind when Truymp says "Make America Great Again!" - because the Borg Drones have been indoctrinated from birth that America and Americans are bad, greedy, stupid, ignorant, racist, xenophobes and only if they adopt Statist Collectivism and Rule by the Elites (a club which no Slashdotter is a member of) can your "sins" be ignored for now (but never forgiven).
Now watch the rabid Borg Drones rant based on irrationality and emotion, and without any evidence-based policy positions. 3 ... 2. .. 1
How can people believe in "equality" yet still claim to believe in "uniqueness".
If people are unique then they are, by definition, not equal.
If people are equal they cannot be unique.
The pursuit of absolute equality cannot be achieved in practice, and the movements pursuing it currently are clearly resulting in the suppression of uniqueness - rigid ideological conformity is sought by those who hold absolute equality as a goal.
Personally I prefer a World where people are at liberty to be unique, and merely Equal before the Law (Justice is Blind and favors no person). This is attainable.
So you are dismissing the IPCC ? well, we agree then. Thanks for confirming the Climate Realist position.
So I have to argue your side for you? lame.
Are you really so ignorant of your own sides predictions that you are defending something you don't understand ? that would make you zealot no less than any religious nutbar. No wonder the Climate Realists call you guys members of the "Cult of Climate Alarmism". Your anger is based on 'righteous fury' and not on the Scientific Method.
But since the ability to Google simple claims is apparently beyond you I'll do you the favor
For global observations since the late 1950s, the most recent versions of all available data sets show that the troposphere has warmed at a slightly greater rate than the surface, while the stratosphere has cooled markedly since 1979. This is in accord with physical expectations and most model results, which demonstrate the role of increasing greenhouse gases in tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling; ozone depletion also contributes substantially to stratospheric cooling.
From: http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
Oh, and I bet you don't even know why the IPCC doesn't care about the science and why it was set up by sociopath Maurice Strong
http://green-agenda.com/
I should also add that while the TLT is warming, and the surface is warming faster, BOTH of these are warming at rates that are much, much lower (a factor of 4) than the IPCC's predictions. There is no cause for alarm. There is no need for the United Nationa/Angela Merkel/Barack Obama/Donald Trump/Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi/ to regulate and control every aspect of your life in the name of "saving the planet". There is no need for de-industralization nor energy poverty. There is no need to condemn BILLIONS to lives of misery. hunger, sickness and poverty. Instead we can lift people up to better lives through innovation and energy wealth. Don't you want that?
The claim of the IPCC's model is that the TLT will warm faster than the surface. What is seen observationally is the opposite. The TLT is warming, but the surface is warming faster. That means not only is the IPCC's AGW theory not confirmed observationally, the OPPOSITE is seen. Thus, the Scientific Method requires the AGW to be discarded or amended.
As usual, skepticalscience is too credulous and tells you exactly HALF the story. They omit the important part that it is the relative warming rate that matters- and then they DELIBERATELY misrepresent the Climate Realists position.
You are being lied to - and people are trying to inform you of the WHOLE story. You can make up your own mind based on ALL the evidence - but we believe once you have the correct and complete picture you will agree with the Climate Realists rather than Climate Alarmists. Which means you will not be a slave to the UN's control freak Green Agenda: http://green-agenda.com/
So sue me if you don't want to hear ALL the observational evidence, which falsifies the IPCC's AGW Hypothesis.
You have a very distorted view of science. Theories are bodies of evidence and models, and in the course of making them one expects some false predictions. When they happen, the theory is adjusted (possibly slightly, possibly greatly) to conform with observation. You're doing the rough equivalent of releasing helium balloons, observing them, and claiming that the Theory of Gravity is falsified, and we must therefore accept the null hypothesis and drift off into space.
Completely 180 degrees from the truth. It is you who looks at the balloons rising and says that humans have changed how Gravity works on the planet - despite it having kept the planet in a stable equilibrium for a billion years (that is, perturbations do not cause runway catastrophes).
It is YOU who asserts the Law of Gravity no longer functions because of the small perturbation of Industrialized Civilization !
We're dumping carbon dioxide into the air, it's warming up the surface, and you come up with something you claim is a prediction, a handwave at supposed evidence against it, and conclude that it's actually cooler out there.
The specific prediction of the IPCC's AGW Theory is that the TLT will warm faster than the surface. This is their prediction, not mine. What is seen in observational REALITY is the OPPOSITE. That means the IPCC's AGW theory must be amended or discarded, as you point out in your first post. But what you are doing is clinging to the Theory and discarding and dismissing the observational evidence that contradicts the theory. That makes your approach anti-scientific. You also don't seem to understand the specific test of AGW theory, which is why you cling to it despite the observational data falsifying it.
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quo...
-- Richard P Feynman
You claim that a theory can survive contradictory data. Richard Feynman disagrees with you. I agree with Feynman, and am trying to get you out of your anti-scientific habit. AGW could be true at some point in the future, but the OBSERVATIONAL REALITY shows it is not true at this time. You have to let your prejudices and preconceptions go and follow the Scientific Method. AGW cannot be sustained at this time.
I've got news for you: the Universe doesn't care about your misguided nitpicks. The surface of the Earth is warming up regardless.
So you are saying you don't care about the science. Typical. You are just like the control freak sociopaths in the UN trying to control everyone's life: http://green-agenda.com/
The Earth is indeed warming. But the observations indicate it is natural warming expected due to the end of the Little Ice Age as well as oceans transeferring heat in complicated ways. Does CO2 have an effect? yes! does the AGW's water-vapor feedback have an effect (which is the thing the Alarmists claim is the problem)? NO! in fact, the observational reality shows the water vapor effect is neutral or even slightly negative. This is excellent news which means there is no need for de-industralization, or the UN regulating and controlling every aspect of your life, and energy poverty can be a thing of the past and we can improve the lives of BILLIONS. Do you not want this?
Thanks for posting. The prediction of AGW is that the TLT will warm faster than the surface. You seem to be gravely mistaken that the Climate Realist position is that the TLT will not warm. This is completely wrong on your part. The prediction is that the TLT will warm faster than the surface - yet the OPPOSITE is seen.
Don't you think it is a testament to Christy's intellectual integrity that he follows the data? you don't the same integrity from the Alarmist camp cf. Climategate.
So no, you don't understand the argument of the Climate Realists, nor do you seem to understand the arguments of your own Alarmist position.
So observationally we see that the TCS is around 1.2, which means that the IPCC's AGW model is wrong. The IPCC's position for alarm is based on the assumption (and it is an assumption, since the system is too complex to model accurately) that a CO2 increase will cause a positive feedback due to water vapor that will result in rapid and high temperature changes. This is NOT seen observationally. The water vapor feedback seems neutral or slightly negative and this is an OBSERVATIONAL result. That means the effect of human emitted CO2 (a mere 5% of the global CO2 emissions) is not catastrophic.
So will you follow the science or not, now I have pointed out your misunderstandings of the actual OBSERVATIONAL reality ?
You keep writing this, but it's still wrong (in several ways): The Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) is a theoretical expectation of both natural and anthropogenic warming scenarios so it's not a key signature of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). It's also an expected result of natural global warming (for example from an increase in solar radiance). Both the Satellite and balloon data both show actually do show warming in the TLT. One satellite set (UAH) shows slower warming than the balloons and other satellite sets, your argument is based on assuming the outlier is the accurate data set. This runs contrary to all logic and any rational application of the scientific method. There are identified (and uncorrected) errors in the UAH data set that biases towards colder temperatures.
No, you don't seem to get it, the signature of AGW is the TLT warming faster than the surface. What is observed is the surface warming faster than the TLT. It is the relative rate of change that matters. You have missed this completely. This is not observed (the counter is) and the Null Hypothesis must be accepted instead. Why are you unable to grok that it is the relative rate that is the signature, not whether one or more has been warming - the prediction is about the relative rate.
Only in a single data set with a known cold bias.
Nope. There is divergence in the predicted *rate* of warming from the IPCC predictions in multiple data sets.
Actually the IPCC says between 1.5 and 4.5 [wikipedia.org].
And the observed rate is 1.2 C / doubling. Why is it so for you to accept that the computer simulations don't match reality ? you defend failed predictions just like a religious zealot would. But let us say that you are correct and global temperatures will increase by 1.5 C by the middle of next century, so that they are similar to the Roman Warm Period (but still colder than the Minoan Warm Period). Is that a problem? the world is already greening due to CO2 (plants are currently starved for CO2, and need less water when they get more CO2), and vast tracts of Eurasia would become inhabitable. Why is this a problem ?
Unfortunately (for you), the scientific method actually doesn't work like that. Otherwise, everyone in my high school science classes would have disproved gravity because no one got a measurement that was very close to 9.8 m/s^2. You need to show a real (and critical) divergence from the predictions of the theory to falsify it. The bungled results of two bumbling scientists who refuse to correct previously identified errors in their methodology doesn't cut it, especially when their results contradict a minor theoretical side effect that's not even specific to the theory in question.
Because you don't understand the prediction you don't understand how it is falsified. The opposite of the prediction is seen, which means the Null Hypothesis must be accepted instead until AGW is mended or discarded. I have a PhD in Physics bro, I know exactly how this works, and what significance tests mean.
Yet, we measure the solar activity and it has not only not been for the last 25 years, it's been slightly decreasing, and yet warming continues. If your theory is that the sun did it [skepticalscience.com], that theory is not consistent with the evidence. It is a worse fit in every way that anthropogenic climate change.
You don't think the oceans moderate heat transfer in complex ways ? you have never considered it?
No mod points, but ROFL ! +10 Hilarious.
These studies keep coming out but they all miss an important distinction: pay gap versus earnings gap
The PAY gap, which is currency paid per unit-hour, does not exist. It is illegal to pay vaginaz less than penisez for the same work. It doesn't happen - otherwise we'd see masses of lawsuits. If it did exist then companies would hire masses of lower paid vaginaz and all the penisez would be out of work (and they'd reap colossal profits as a result). It doesn't happen, because the PAY GAP doesn't actually exist. It is a FALSE meme that is deliberately propagated by those that don;t know the difference between earnings and wages/salaries.
The EARNINGS gap is real, and is at the rate stated in the study. This is the integral of currency over a career. This difference is for numerous reasons, which the good folk of Slashdot have already covered. However, this does not indicate inequity between vaginaz and penisez - simply different life choices, different job preferences, different amounts of time worked.
So, the 'wage gap' is mythical. There is no Pay Gap but there is an Earnings Gap which is perfectly explainable. However, those pushing the myth clearly do not understand the difference between pay and earnings, or don't want to know - because they can use it as guilt tactics for obtaining better positions in desirable fields (executive positions, professional positions) or higher pay rates to 'compensate' - as well as the contemptible practice of emotional blackmailing to bludgeoning penisez into submission.
There is one important point though. Motherhood is a major source of the earnings gap, as well as critical to our society (especially in the Ponzi-scheme welfare state that requires pyramid demographics and unpaid mothers are required to fill the base of the pyramid - or you end up with economically catastrophic demographics like Greece and Japan [although fewer people are good for the environment, so it's not all downside]). Since the purpose of life is to propagate life, families are very important and most families/mothers could use more support - but our economic system doesn't account well for this.
ps. for those affronted by my use of "vaginaz" and "penisez", tough! I'm affronted by these SJW gender-war myths that are counter-factual and are intended to divide the penisez from the vaginaz and set them at odds so that people can divide and rule (as well as extort money via counter-factual myths like the 'wage gap'). I use these words so that you can understand that pro-family Slashdotters are even more affronted by your deliberate divisive use of false memes than you are of my choice of words. Stop dividing men from women. Stop using falsehoods to cause rancor in the workplace. Normal humans are sick of it !
NASA has lost its way. It no longer has the capability to fly Americans into space, yet it still draws a similar budget to when it was flying Space Shuttles.
Bureaucracies that eat taxpayer dollars without producing anything useful are the real problem America (and the World) faces.
Stop giving bureaucracies more and more and more taxpayer money to do less useful things !
The AGW Hypothesis makes a specific prediction that the Tropical Lower Troposphere will warm faster than the Earth's surface. Not only is this not observed but the OPPOSITE is observed. Thus, the Scientific Method REQUIRES us to accept the Null Hypothesis instead.
Furthermore, the IPCC's computer models predict that the effect of water vapor will result in a TCS and ECS of the order of 4 - 7 C / doubling of CO2. This is mostly a guestimate as water vapor effects (convention, heat exchange through storms etc) are very complex to model - and currently beyond our computing power to do accurately. The observed reality is that the TCS is 1.2 C / doubling. Thus the IPCCs predictions are way, way off. Again, this is observational reality.
The question is whether you'll deny the observed reality and also whether you'll refuse to use the Scientific Method and accept the Null Hypothesis over the AGW Theory's failed predictions ?
You mean their own statements?
http://green-agenda.com/
The AGW industry is worth $29 Billion / annum. If you want to play Quo Bono? then you should start there.
The AGW hypothesis makes the specific prediction that the Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) will warm faster than the Earth's surface. The opposite is seen in reality. Thus, the Scientific Method REQUIRES you to accept the Null Hypothesis instead. Will you use the Scientific Method or are you anti-scientific ?
Furthermore the observed TCS and ECS are of the order of 4 -7 C / doubling of CO2 according to the IPCC. This is based on guestimates of the effect of water vapor. The observed reality is that the TCS is around 1.2 C, which means water vapor has little effect over CO2's direct effect (which itself is quite small at the current concentration of CO2 - the effect diminishes logarithmically). Again, will you accept observational reality over a hypothesis whose predictions are not only not true, but the opposite is seen?
AGW Theory makes a specific prediction, that the Tropical Lower Troposphere will warm faster than the surface. The opposite is seen. Thus, the AGW hypothesis is invalidated by observational reality. The Scientific Method requires you to accept the Null Hypothesis instead. Will you follow the Scientific Method, or not?
Furthermore, the IPCC computer simulations make specific predictions that the TCS and ECS are of the order of 4 - 7C / doubling of CO2. Most of this effect is based on guestimates of water vapor increasing warming above CO2's effects. What is observed is a TCS of around 1.2 C. In this case the computer simulations are shown to be completely inadequate for modelling the effects of water vapor (because convection and the heat transport for water vapor is very, very hard to model and the whole system is intrinsically a chaotic, dynamic system).
The question is, will you follow the computer simulations of the IPCC, or will you accept observational reality and follow the Scientific Method to accept the Null Hypothesis instead of the failed predictions of AGW ?
So you don't know about the Frankfurt School then? of course you deny the existence of things you know little history about.
AGW makes a specific prediction, that the Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) will warm faster than the surface. The OPPOSITE is seen, the surface is warming faster than the TLT.
Furthermore, the computer simulations estimate the ECS and TCS to be of the order of 4-7 C / doubling of CO2. The Observational values of these is currently 1.2. This is a fault of computer simulations that enormously overestimate the effect of CO2 on water vapor.
This is the Science, and according to the Scientific Method the AGW theory is falsified. Do humans have an effect on the climate? yes. Is AGW the dominant effect? NO !!!!! Are the changes we are observing occurring at a catastrophic rate? NO !
The present warming started at the end of the Little Ice Age. It started a century before humans started emitting significant quantities of CO2. Now, please consider what you would expect to see when solar magnetic activity started increasing after the Maunder and Dalton minimums - would you expect to see warming starting a century and a half ago? do you see warming? yes you do. Svensmark and Shaviv explain the mechanism and this fits observations.
The Scientific Method REQUIRES you to amend or discard a theory when it does not agree with observations. AGW's predictions do not agree with observations, it thus falsified. This would be cut and dried if people actually followed the Scientific Method instead of practicing Groupthink and Lysenkoism.
AGW makes a specific prediction- that the Tropical Lower Troposphere will warm faster than the surface. The OPPOSITE is seen. Thus, AGW is falsified according to the Scientific Method and the Null Hypothesis MUST be accepted instead.
AGW theory makes a specific prediction - that the Tropical Lower Troposphere will warm faster than the surface. The UAH and RSS satellites, as well as thousands of weather balloons show not only that this is not the case, but that the OPPOSITE is happening - the surface is warming faster. That means AGW is FALSIFIED according to the Scientific Method. There are no ifs, buts or maybes about this - the theory made a prediction that is falsified. The Null Hypothesis MUST be accepted instead.
People still clinging to AGW are the ones who are refusing to use the Scientific Method. They seem to believe computer simulations which predict TCS and ECS of 4-7 when the observed value is around 1.2. Again, this falsified the claims of AGW theory as presented by the IPCC.
This is the SCIENCE according to observed reality. Whether one likes it to be true or not is irrelevant - the science is now settled, the AGW hypothesis cannot be sustained based on observations. It is back to the drawing board to either improve AGW and make another prediction, or come up with another theory (such as the Svensmark one where solar magnetic activity and oceanic thermal mediation produce natural climate changes that are greater than human-induced ones).
You can post stuff from ClimateAudit and WUWT all you want but I'm not going to read them. In the time I spent looking at them 8 or 10 years ago what they post is mostly bullshit.
Bingo! here you admit you have not been using the Scientific Method for a decade. You expect us to look at your evidence but you refuse to do the same at the DATA (not opinions) presented. This is an admission of defeat on your part - you will not look at any new data (although the Scientific Method REQUIRES you to look for contrary evidence constantly).
Regarding your list of T/F questions, it's not clear at all that any of those places were warmer at any time in the last 2000 years than they are today (2015/2016). Even if it was it's not likely to remain so for very long given the ongoing warming. Regarding some of the specific ones.
The questions come from the data of YOUR OWN CITATION. Of course you simply ignore the inconvenient truth. You have already admitted you don't care for the Scientific Method at all.
9) All of the graphs I've seen from GISP2 cut off some time in the 1850s so it's impossible to tell if your statement is true.
A failure of analysis here. The AGW claim is that the warming since 1850 is unprecedented, yet the GISP2 data clearly shows greater and more rapid rises in the past, multiple times even in the last 100 centuries. This AGW claim is thus falsified.
10 & 11) There was global cooling from the 1300s to the 1800s, most likely due primarily to volcanic effects with some help from low solar output and albedo effects where after the volcanoes got it started the polar ice started to grow.
So changes in magnetic activity resulting in heliospheric changes, which mediate cosmic ray intensity in the atmosphere, which changes cloud seeding rate, which changes the global climate since water vapor is the dominant Greenhouse gas. So if the solar (and volcanic) effects can cause cooling, and those effects end, then we should EXPECT to see warming after a cooling period like the Little Ice Age, right? EXACTLY what we do see. AGW is not necessary to explain what we see. Sure, humans will have some impact, but the effect seems small compared to solar (and volcanic) effects. Why can you not understand that the end of natural cooling means natural warming - which is consistent with the relative rates of warming between the surface/sea and Lower Tropical Troposphere (which are warming at rates consistent with natural effects and counter to that predicted if AGW were the cause).
14) Why? If you take a long term view you can say the Earth has been cooling for over 10 million years or going back to the PETM over 50 million years or you could even go back nearly 100 million years ago. Speaking more recently over the past 8000 years there has been a cycle of glaciations and deglaciations of about 100,000 years. Since the Holocene Climatic Optimum 6,000-8,000 years ago the Earth has been gradually cooling as you would expect sliding toward the next glacial period.
Sure, that's the First Order effect. What about Higher Order effects? do you think only one mechanism can be in play at once? again, this position is a result of a failure of your analysis.
15) There is regional climatic variation and nowadays it's a combination of natural and anthropogenic effects.
We agree on this. There are two questions that follow: what proportion is natural, and what is AGW? based on the answer to that, then is the rate and expected peak temperature a cause for concern. Looking at the observational evidence it is not - which means killing BILLIONS of poor people through energy poverty as well as empowering unelected, anti-democratic trans-national regimes to enforce the wealth redistribution scheme is scientifically unjustified (as well as being fundamentally immoral).
That's
The PAGES 2K study on "Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two milennia" seems to be the most comprehensive round up of the science. Here is a PDF copy of the paper. [nerc.ac.uk]
Thanks for posting data. The PAGES 2k study is analyzed and the techniques and proxies are pretty well independently analyzed here
http://climateaudit.org/2013/0...
http://climateaudit.org/2013/0...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Now I'm going to take the data in your Pages 2k report and ask you some questions about it:
1) True or false: Antarctica was MUCH warmer from 0 to ~1300 AD than it is today?
2) True or false: Europe war much warmer from 0 to 150 AD, and 725-750 Ad than it is today?
3) True or false: Asia was as warm in 1300 -1325 as it is today, and 40% of the data ia missing (so could have been warm when Europe and Antarctica were) ?
4) True or false: North America was VERY MUCH warmer from 700 - 1200 AD than it is dot, and over 50% of the data is missing ?
5) True or false: Australasia is warmest today, but was nearly as warm from 1225 -1275 AD, has 50% missing data, and is based on the cherry-picked Gergis data ?
6) True or false: South America was as warm as it is today from 1250 - 1325 AD, and 40% of its data is missing ?
7) True or false: Antarctica was VERY MUCH warmer from 150 - 1050 AD and 1150 - 1225 AD and 1675 - 1700 than today, with 7% of its data missing?
8) True or false: Statistically it was globally as warm in 0 - 250 AD (Roman Warm Period) and 850 - 950 AD as it is today ?
9) True or false: based on the GISP2 data it was much warmer before between 8000BC - 0 AD than it is today?
10) True or false: there was global cooling around 1700 and 1800 (with some apparently latitude based lag) ?
11) True or false: the global cooling is likely to be due to volcanic and solar effects?
12) True or false: the end of global cooling in 1825 cannot be due to humans but is probably due to changes in volcanic and solar effects?
13) True or false: the modern warming we see started in North Latitudes started before humans could have any impacts?
14) True or false: after cooling we expect warming ?
15) True or false: there is regional climatic variation and this is all natural ?
16) True or false: there have been periods of global climate variation (both warming and cooling) in the past and this has been all natural ?
17) True or false: even Michael Mann admits that the nearly two decades of 'Pause' is real ?
18) True or false: people who think politicians can control the climate are insane ?
19) True or false: water vapor is the dominant 'greenhouse gas' that controls the climate ?
20) True or false: the TCS and ECS due to water vapor is observed to be slightly negative and thus the CAGW theory is impossible ?
21) True or false: humans will run out of easily recoverable fossil fuels well before CO2-induced heating becomes dangerous ?
Of course I know about the Hockey Stick graph (which has been confirmed by more than a dozen similar studies done since it first came out). What does that have to do with your claim that Mann and others are saying there is no natural warming for the last 1000 or 2000 years? The Hockey Stick graph clearly shows that it was warmer 1000 years ago and was gradually cooling until the recent sharp uptick in temperatures.
The Hockey Stick is completely debunked. Its statistical analysis is invalid and has been comprehensively shot down by McIntyre et al. As "A Disgrace to the Profession" points out, hundreds of climate scientists refute the Hockey Stick analyses due to the overwhelming evidence of higher temperatures in the past
So show us some of that stalactite data too.
That will be my pleasure. But this is how it works: I have made a statement and presented some data. You dispute this statement and now you present your supporting data. Then I will gladly respond with the oodles of data from Oman (near equator) to New Zealand (mid-southern) to support the Greenland data (far northern) data. So now you simply need to provide the data you say proves that Greenland was regional only. It should be easy for you, right? opinions don't count, only data.
Wow, I don't have a clue how you could claim that AGW proponents and Michael Mann have said there is no natural warming for the last x amount of years. I've never read anything like that from him/them.
Have you never heard of Michael Mann's notorious "Hockey Stick". Surely you know that in IPCC reports from 2001 to 2007 it featured prominently, but then has been quietly removed because it has now been thoroughly debunked both on improper (to the point of fraudulent) analysis technique and improper sample selection. Here is the Hockey Stick from the IPCC reports:
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreport...
https://www.ipcc.ch/publicatio...
Don't you think it is wonderful that the Internet never forgets? that every denial and false and disingenuous statement that climate Alarmists make is going to live on forever for all to see - like the claim you just make that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick doesn't exist (he used to caim that natural variability has been negligible for the last two millenia and all change must be anthropogenic in origin).
Yes, in the long run the quantity of most interest in the Arctic is the summer sea ice minimum but generally the Arctic sea ice hits its maximum extent in February/March. 2016 is threatening to set a new record for the lowest maximum extent on record. Here's the report. [nsidc.org]
Thank you for the reference. The reference I gave was from the Danes and is not corrupted like the NSIDC who are funded by NASA and NOAA who are now known to altering data to support their Lysenkoist agenda. The Danish data shows that the 2016 ice cover for this month is GREATER than 2015, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for the ice to become "teh lowest evah !" unless something unrelated to cold produces a large change (such as winds in the Barents sea driving ice northward which increases ice concentration but reduces surface cover). However, these are details, the point is abundantly clear - the Arctic summer ice has not disappeared as was predicted to happen by 2015 AGW theorists. AGW has not only failed another prediction, it has got it 180 degrees away from reality, again. Just as AGW failed in its prediction of LTT warming faster than the surface and got it 180 degrees wrong when the surface warmed naturally more than the LTT.
The internet is remembering what you post, riverat1 - this will be a very good thing in the future.