Great. You pay all the taxes you want. But you are WRONG to use the coercive power of the STATE (implicit threat of violence) to FORCE other citizens to FUND ***YOUR*** sanctimony. I didn't call for 0% tax - although clearly your only argument requires you to parse my statement that way - I said that 23% is the optimum tax rate that balances tax take verses long-term growth. But you don't address that, because you cannot, so instead you bring out a straw man. It is you that is silly.
If high tax is so grand, then why can the State not persuade citizens to pay more to fund illegal wars, gunrunning, corruption, cronyism, boondoggles, and propaganda against its own citizens?
Why don't you VOLUNTARILY pay more tax to show us how 'superior' you are. But hey, chances are you are one of the 47% that has no skin in the game and is looking for more handouts.
"Rolling Stone" ? you mean the Far Left rag that lionized the Tsarnaev's? *that* is your argument for wanting Big Government, financial bankruptcy and subsequent social collapse? all so you can avoid the economic FACT that decreasing taxes to around 23% produces a higher long-term tax take? wow, just wow.
Ah, this is another fallacy you might like to think about: "You'd think so, but check the US deficit and national debt during Republican vs Democratic terms". Does the party of the President matter when the Power of the Purse is assigned to the Congress? how about you check national debt as a function of the party dominating the Congress:)
If a Democrat President is in power with a Republican-dominated Congress then spending will be resisted. If a Republican President is in power with a Democrat-dominated Congress then spending will be unopposed and debt will mount quickly. However, we could probably agree that in terms of spending habits today's 'Establishment' Republicans and Democrats are both Big State parties who want to tax more and more money and power from the citizens (the Government has no money nor power except that which it takes from individual citizens who are powerless to resist it).
This is why the USA stands on the brink of financial collapse (perhaps Cloward-Piven in action?). The only difference between two parties is one is taking you to bankruptcy quickly, and the other is also taking you to bankruptcy but just a little more slowly. Either way, the result will be the same - and if you care about the poor (as I do) then you understand that a financial collapse of the USA is bad for everyone except ISIS and the Extreme Left, especially the poor (not only in America, but for workers around the globe).
To me, the fundamental problem is not even the politicians and their parties, nor self-serving corporations (although both of those have their part), but the majority of irresponsible citizenry who will not elect anyone who doesn't give them vote bribes (using the citizens own money, as well as unethical promises that their children and grandchildren will pay off debt for which these children and grand children will receive no benefit from, nor could they vote to approve or disapprove of this great robbery).
The only people in the USA who are preaching financial discipline seem to me (as an outsider) as the citizen-initiated 'Tea Party' - they are the only ones trying to turn the bus around from its current trajectory over the financial cliff which would be disastrous to everyone (except ISIS and the Extreme Left). But unfortunately most citizens seem neither to understand how bad the situation in the US is (and it's not actually due to wars, but due to massive unfunded liabilities from 'entitlement' vote-bribes and the cost of Big Government pensions etc), nor how you got to this position.
But humans being humans most cannot think strategically, and will try and enjoy the party as long as you can until the economic collapse - all the while demonizing those who are trying to talk financial sense. Unfortunately, too many Slashdotters also fall into this trap of wanting more handouts and Bigger Government while demonizing those who are saying "Do you think that's really a good idea?". We can only lead horses to water, but we cannot make them think.
Peace - and when the collapse happens, please don't come to my country and bring your insanity (we nearly made the same mistake as Greece and Europe and the USA - but rejected that madness with great pain the 1980 and 90's and have done pretty well economically and socially ever since).
Wow. You don't understand economics at all, do you?
Where do taxes come from? the Real Economy (outside the Government).
Every dollar taken out of the productive Real Economy and put into unproductive and wasteful Government Economy means there is less dollar for investment and growing the economy. Which means, in the long term, less economic growth and a lower tax haul.
Now , it is obvious that if you lower taxes too much you get less Government Revenue (as if this was a bad thing - when the State steals money from the industrious and innovative). Also, if you raise taxes too much it also strangles the economy too, resulting in lower economic growth which means lower tax take in the long term.
So this is a 'Goldilocks Problem' where you want some tax but not too much. It turns out that optimal tax rate to maximize Government tax income while simultaneously maximizing economic growth (which helps citizens, as well as increasing future tax take) is around 23%. Most Governments are filled with economic illiterates that are strangling their economies (when they aren't simultaneously debasing their currency through inflationary printing).
It turns out that Republicans understand this, but you apparently do not. Disclaimer: I'm not a Republican, nor an American - but I LISTEN to what the Republican and Democrat arguments are (unfiltered) from the source. The Scientific Method requires this of me.
Unfortunately too many people do not LISTEN to the other side's arguments and reasoning. They listen to the propaganda one side makes against the other, and they form very strong opinions based on their ignorance. We all need to get out of this bad habit. From what I can see, Democrats mean well but never check whether their policies actually produce more harm than good, thus they cannot understand the Republicans who also mean well but have to temper idealism with practicality. Thus, Republicans cannot understand the ignorance of Democrats (like the silly, economically-ignorant argument made by the parent), and likewise the Democrats consider the Republicans "meanies" because they don't understand the Republican arguments at all.
How about we all learn to LISTEN with OPEN MINDS to the arguments made by people we disagree with. This is not only required by the Scientific Method, but is the true root to wisdom. Diversity of Opinion is the only diversity that actually matters - so let us embrace it.
It has already been 18 years according to the satellite. How many more people and birds are you prepared to kill with your alarmist scam? your windmills murder endangered birds by the tens of thousands, and your push toward energy poverty is already killing the poor and elderly in Britain and Europe (who freeze to death as they cannot afford the tripling of heating energy costs that comes through your 'green' energy projects). So how many more people and animals are you prepared to kill with this CAGW nonsense before you finally admit that the satellites are correct and CAGW is falsified ?
In the case of ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood, their ideology is laid out precisely (Koran and hadith and life of the barbaric Mohammed, which they are emulating exactly), yet the US Government's principle action is to prohibit any association of Islamic "jihad" with "Islam". Obama refuses to utter the words - which is strange since he's not an authority on Islam, only Allah and Mohammed are (and they agree with ISIS on what it is).
My point is - no matter how good the US could have gotten with remote viewing, they still will not act on it - just as they have not acted decisively on the information gained in the Holy Land Foundation trial which laid out exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood and Organization of Islamic Cooperation were up to - and as a result we have the 'leadership' of the West aiding the agenda of these groups against the citizens of the World. We live in a time of mass insanity.
I believe in Free Speech. I believe you should always have you say, no matter whether I agree with it or not. The more Climate Cult nonsense you post just gives me more opportunity to highlight and debunk the anti-scientific rejection of the Scientific Method that you've been displaying. The observational data falsifies the AGW hypothesis. This is why at least half of the World's scientists reject AGW as either a valid hypothesis or significant, and that number is increasing every day as more and more and more people stop taking the Climate Cult press announcements on faith and start looking at all the OBSERVATIONAL DATA for themselves - and once they do that (especially looking at the satellite data) then they ALWAYS conclude that AGW is falsified. This is why you will not talk about the mass of observational data, except for the one adjusted set cherrypicked to promote the Climate Cult narrative. Fare well - hopefully one day you might learn the Scientific Method and apply it to what you think you know - but I see that as unlikely in your particular case.
Nope. I'm looking at ALL the data. You are looking at one suspect data set and a bunch of models. I am following the Scientific Method. You are not. But no matter how much data you are given you CHOOSE not to understand what it is saying - because you are a zealot in the Cult of Climate science. Only the observational data matters, and it falsifies the AGW hypothesis.
Then there is nothing magical about 1979. Because of AGW we will never see a year like 1979 in the lifetime of anyone alive today and probably for many thousands of years.
Based on what? The GISS data I've already shown you again and again shows your statement is nonsense and has no basis in observed data. Furthermore, you have NEVER explained why the weather needs to be returned to the conditions of 1979. Never. As the ultimate Reactionary you hate the thought of the climate changing from that data - but based on irrationality, refusing to acknowledge the massive benefits increased CO2 and modest temperature rises bring, as Burt Rutan and Freeman Dyson and Nobel Laureate in Physics Ivar Giaever have all examined and explained.
For the most part it's bullshit.
Because it confronts your climate religion? be specific. Explain why, and you can use all the physics you like. What was wrong with Salby's correlation analysis? (could you even follow the argument, probably not).
Turns out they were doing a good job.
Notice I always specify "well-sited" stations. Thanks to Watts we know about 80% of stations are ok, and these also show no net warming. The other 20% are affected by UHI and other effects and these do show the apparent warming. In addition, Goddard/Heller showed that the amount of estimate data is large and increasing - and removal of estimate data also removes any warming trend. This is the REALITY that you want to deny.
OBSERVATIONAL DATA shows that the Earth continues to warm, ice continues to melt, sea level continues to rise and the oceans continue to acidify, all things predicted by current climate theory and the rise of carbon in the carbon cycle. We could quibble about numbers but all of those things continue to happen and I expect they will for the foreseeable future.
Warming is not evidence of AGW. You don't seem to grok that at all. It is only evidence of AGW if ALL OTHER CAUSES OF WARMING HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED. This is the burden of proof required by the Scientific Method. Do you not understand this?
BTW no one has been able to find any causal link between magnetism and climate. About 41,000 years ago during the Laschamp Event [wikipedia.org] there was a reversal of the Earth's magnetic for about 440 years. There are no climate effects found in the paleoclimate record for this time. The Earth's magnetic field (at Earth's orbit) is over 100 times stronger than the Sun's magnetic field.
WOW! you don't understand the solar magnetic effect and the resulting climate mechanism researched by Svensmark, AT ALL. The fact you wrote this paragraphs which is UTTERLY IGNORANT of the mechanism I have explained to you again and again is a complete EPIC FAIL on your part. You clearly understand nothing of the physics, no matter how many times you've been led to understand of the most likely candidate to explain observed climate warming and cooling. A complete fail on your part.
I would guess your political leanings are toward the Libertarian side preferring minimal government regulation of business. But I could be wrong. Based on the time of your replies and other statements by you I think you must be in Australia or New Zealand (or somewhere near there).
No matter what part of the World I live in, the FACT is your ad hominem about my following the Scientific Method instead of your irrational Climate Cultism being politically motivated is FALSE. However, you are not self-aware enough to look at yourself in the mirror - where your own political leanings lead you to reject objectivity and ignore observational data (that is, reality) you don't like. Hence you have extremely strong views about things you actually know very little about. Your paragraph about Earth's magnetism shows you know nothing about the actual physical processed being discussed. I'm embarrassed for you.
I'm interested in the difference between the adjustments in 2001 and 2016 and the reasons those changes were made.
Was the organization so massively incompetent in 2001 that such radical adjustments were required? if so, then surely the quality of their work is in question? why is there no explanation for the changes? why are the adjustments not normally distributed but systematic in nature, which produces the claimed trend? does the data look like the satellite and weather balloon data sets if the adjustment is not made? Did you not think to ask these, because these are critical to your claim of AGW ?
What's "magical" about 1979 is that's the year the satellite that allowed us to continuously monitor and get detailed records of sea ice were launched. Here's a report [typepad.com] on a study of Arctic sea ice extents back to 1935 using at least in part ships logs. As one of the authors of the report says it's not the last word on the subject but it does advance the science.
No. You don't get it (again). What is "magical" about 1979 that requires the Earth to be return to the *same exact conditions* as in that year? because that is the basis for the warmista argument.
As for the rest of it I've been holding back but I have to say that most of the cites you make (WUWT, Steven Goddard, Murry Salby, etc) have no credibility with me.
More anti-scientific garbage from you. I have NEVER appealed to their authority, only to their data. And you REFUSE to look at the data - which makes you anti-scientific. Another fail on your part.
You might as well resign yourself to continued frustration because unless your side can put together a coherent narrative and make climate models that explain the current situation better than existing models you will continue to be ignored by most scientists.
False. We don't have to do anything. You don't understand the Scientific Method at all, do you? it is YOU who has to prove your case, and if you cannot prove your case using OBSERVATIONAL DATA then the Null Hypothesis MUST be accepted. We are simply showing data that falsifies your hypothesis, and since YOU are unable to explain this data using your hypothesis it means your hypothesis is falsified and the Null Hypothesis MUST be accepted over CAGW/AGW instead. The burden of proof falls on YOU, and you are unable to prove anything. Furthermore, you also don't seem to understand that climate models mean NOTHING, they are hypothesis and not OBSERVATIONAL DATA. You fail to grok this - because you don't understand the Scientific Method at all.
Your "wiping the floor" comment made me laugh out loud. What I see in you is someone whose political leanings color your understanding of climate science.
Nice ad hominem. But what are my political leanings, riverat1? I'm not a US citizen so your pathetic ad hominem is not only false, it is idiotic - and shows how you must argue about everything except the observational data that falsifies the claims of CAGW/AGW warmistas. FAIL.
You don't like the obvious solutions so you seek out evidence that is counter to the mainstream, ignoring the stuff that doesn't fit your view.
This is not only false, and not only stupid, but is completely anti-thetical to the Scientific Method where it is REQUIRED to try find data that falsifies your hypothesis. To avoid contrary data is anti-scientific - which is exactly what you are. Again, you don't understand the Scientific Method at all.
But physics doesn't care. It is what it is. As the future unfolds we'll see who is right but I'm pretty confident that the scientists in the mainstream are honestly reporting what they find.
The physics is clear - CAGW is not happening, because the models (hypothesis) are completely wrong. The physics shows that the observational ECS and TCS are incompatible with CAGW - hence CAGW is falsified and the Null Hypothesis MUST be accepted instead.
As the future unfolds we'll see who is right but I'm pretty confident that the scientists in the mainstream are honestly reporting what they find.
Your confidence is irrelevant. Consensus is irrelevant. The only thing that matters in the Scientific Method are OBSERVATIONAL DATA. And the Observational Data from RSS and UAH and tens of thousands of weather balloons and the well-sited surface stations all show REALITY does not match the CAGW hypothesis - hence the hypothesis is falsified.
You don't understand the Scientific Method at all !
It's true that water vapor is the greenhouse gas that causes the most greenhouse effect but it's also true that water is present in all three phases of normal matter on the Earth and it easily transforms from one to the other. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly limited by temperature and to some extent by the availability of water to evaporate. If there's too much it precipitates out. And while there's a relationship between water vapor and clouds they are two quite different things when it comes to the greenhouse effect. Again the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly limited by temperature. If we could magically reduce CO2 in the atmosphere to 200 ppm the cooling would cause the level of water vapor to also drop and pretty quickly we would be starting a new glacial period. Water vapor by itself can not drive climate change but is strictly a feedback of other things that do drive climate.
Nearly, but not quite. However, you do have an inkling of the idea - that temperature drives water vapor and that has a large effect on the climate. Now we have already established that the effect of CO2 on water vapor is negligible, with the low *OBSERVED* ECS and TCS.
We've already covered the effect of solar magnetic activity on cloud formation (and thus, climate) through the work of Dr Nir Shaviv and Professor Svensmark. Now you can learn more from the man who literally wrote the (post-graduate) textbook on atmospheric physics (although you probably cannot follow the math):
"Climate Scientist Murry Salby Demolishes the Global Warming Alarm" https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Climate Scientist Murry Salby Returns! - Presents NEW SCIENCE" https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Ok, the optimum CO2 level from my point of view would be somewhere between 300 and 350 ppm, enough to conteract the slow cooling trend from changes in Milankovitch Cycles but not so much that it causes major warming. But it's still an irrelevant question.
Ah, here we have the reactionary wanting to head back to pre-industrial levels. Do you not understand that dropping the CO2 to this level will cut crop yields massively, and thus starve BILLIONS? as a zealot you don't care, right? the only thing that matters is your sanctimony and feeling of self-worth for propagating the warmunist groupthiink.
After the sea ice low minimum in 2012 (which was more than 2 standard deviations below the trend line) Arctic sea ice rebounded to slightly above the trend line in 2013. In science this is commonly called regression to the mean. 2014 ASI minimum was lower than 2013 and in 2015 it was the 4th lowest on record. None of the ASI minimums after 2006 are greater than the lowest records before 2006 (back to 1979 when the satellite measurements started).
And? What is magical about the cold year 1979? why is it superior to 2006? you don't know ! because there is no reason - apart from the fact you warmunists are the ultimate in conservative reactionaries. What matters is that the derivative of ice change is basically zero, with natural variability on top (dominated by wind effects, as it tuns out). You have no reason to worry about this - since the polar bears are increasing in number - but you are simply afraid of any change at all. It is irrational.
Baffin Island is really close to Greenland so it doesn't surprise me it shows similar trends. How about some records from Siberia, China, Chile or New Zealand?
WRONG! You cannot even interpret a simple graph. This is the adjustment that NASA have made to their OWN data between 2001 and 2016. They have altered the SAME data set to increase the warming - but cooling the past and warming the present. This is FRAUD. But you don't even know how to read information shown on the graph so you support the FRAUD in your ignorance. Please stop talking and LISTEN and LOOK to what people are trying to show you, to cure you of your dreadful ignorance. Sheesh.
True, but utterly irrelevant. Both sets of satellites (UAH and RSS) do not show it is the 'hottest year evah!" and ground records show that it has been hotter in the USA and many other countries in the past.
NASA and NOAA have been putting in unexplained adjustments into their data, by cooling the past and warming the present: https://i1.wp.com/realclimates...
This is the greatest (anti-)scientific fraud in history. And you are defending the fraudsters.
Don't believe NASA scientists would like to keep funding going? Richard Feynman disagrees with you (1986-06-11): https://i1.wp.com/realclimates...
The Pricipia Scientific article was interesting in that it shows a correlation between insolation and cloud cover when looked at hemispherically. It does not however show anything about a long term trend in insolation that could account for rising temperatures. Particularly since the trend in insolation is slightly downward since the 1950s.
You seemed to have missed the point entirely (again). Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas - vastly more so than CO2. That is what makes determining the ECS and TCS so important. The computer simulations to determine the ECS and TCS have failed utterly to predict what is observed - and the most-likely values of the observed ECS and TCS are entirely due to CO2 (which is small, and diminishing, at the current CO2 concentration) because the effect on water vapor is neutral or even slightly negative. This is another observation that falsifies the CAGW/AGW hypothesis (in addition to the failure of the tropical lower troposphere to warm before the surface which also falsifies CAGW/CAGW).
Don't try to tell me what I think. I've never said anything like that ever. What I think is industry needs to work toward sustainability.
Ah, playing the victim by deliberately mis-reading what I wrote. I said the aim of the people pushing this scam is to convince you of the need to de-industralize, and they are halfway there. What exactly does "sustainability" mean? it means a roll-back of the industrialization of the World.
Ah, it appears to me that your objection to the current consensus on climate science is more rooted in your politics than science and you're desperately seeking anything you can throw at it. The IPCC's Working Group I report is entirely written by credentialed scientists even though you may not consider them to be scientists.
Here you go, Appeal to Authority. I don't give a flying fsck who said what - all I care about is the Scientific Method - and the OBSERVATIONAL DATA shows that CAGW/AGW is falsified and the Null Hypothesis MUST be accepted instead at this time. Because you don't actually have the data you have to appeal to authority. It is YOU who is failing to do science because of your political position. Of course I will use all the data there is - that IS the POINT of the Scientific Method. You anti-scientific warmistas always throw away data you don't like, and then accuse others of 'cherry picking' - but it is the anomalies that MUST be explained in order to do actual science.
The first thing you need to know about that graph is that it ends 95 years before the present and by convention in those types of graphs 1950 is considered the present. So the graph ends in 1855. I wonder what it would look like if you could add 1856 to 2015 to it?
Nice talking points you have there. Again you demonstrate an utter inability to do objective analysis. The point of that graph was not to do with data after 1950 - but to demonstrate NATURAL VARIABILITY in the paleo record that is vastly greater and faster than what we see today - and appears correlated with solar magnetic activity (and thus, water vapor concentration, which is the dominant greenhouse gas that is NOT modeled accurately by the IPCC). But you need to deliberately ignore this point so you can continue with your anti-scientific CAGW/AGW hypothesis lest it be falsified by you actually folllowing the Scientific Method.
The other thing is I want to corroborating evidence from geographically dispersed sites before I consider it anything but indicative of the GISP2 site itself.
It's out there in total abundance - go and look yourself you lazy sod ! I'm not your servant. And looking yourself will turn over a wealth of GLOBAL evidence.
Again the optimum CO2 and mean global temperature are irrelevant questions. The question is how fast can they change so that we c
What was the old saying, "In order for Microsoft to win, the customer must lose"? Microsoft had been much better of late, particularly with regard to developer engagement - but now they do this - and ruin all the excellent work of people like Scott Hanselman.
Ah, but when you agree with the Borg you must not clap as that is 'triggering' The Borg are sensitive to clapping. You must use 'jazz hands': http://www.breitbart.com/londo...
And when a SJW tells you that disagreeing with them is rape, but you are a racist if you oppose traditional Muslim gang rape (Taharrush gamea) of 'infidel' girls, then you must also use jazz hands to show you are one with the SJW Borg Collective: http://www.breitbart.com/londo...
#GamerGate invictus ! down with all Orwellian Thought Police SJWs !
I know of Henrik Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis. There may be some relationship between cosmic rays and clouds but it's far from clear how much of an influence GCRs are. There are plenty of cloud condensation nuclei in the atmosphere even without the influence of GCRs.
t's impossible to understand anthropogenic climate change without also understanding natural variability and the scientists who put together the IPCC WG1 reports are well aware of this.
Of course it is impossible, that is the point!
This analysis makes it clear that the Franework Convention defines 'climate change' as that change which is due to human activity"
http://www.mclean.ch/climate/d...
Of course humans have an effect on the climate. Of course nature has an effect on the climate. Which is greater? the IPCC is NOT charged with finding out. "Climate Change" is *defined* as that from human activity *only*, so of course reasonable people like yourself will be convinced that humans need to de-industrialize in accordance with http://green-agenda.com/
I am trying to make you aware that the IPCC is not about science, but about cover for a pre-defined neo-Marxist policy which doesn't actually care about the science. Your problem is that you are unable to fathom the ways that non-scientists work. The scientists are mostly honest (although if you've done research as I have you'll know that once the fight for funding is on even scientists show self-interest and bias), but the bureaucrats writing the summaries and press-releases most certainly are not !
What data? You've just made the bald statement that "The fact that the RWP exists shows that NATURAL VARIABILITY is greater and faster than what we've seen over the last 200 years." No cites to anything to support that.
Yes I have. You simply dismissed the data I gave. Thus, I will MAKE you look through the links I have already given - to get you out of the bad habit of arguing your position without actually examining the evidence presented. Sorry, but it is for your own damn good. You sound like an intelligent person, but you are having a hard time throwing off the programming you've been subjected to. Unfortunately de-programming you requires some work on your part.
Sure but that doesn't mean that life in its current evolutionary state can easily withstand those conditions. It's probably been 100 million years since CO2 was at 2000 ppm and over 65 million years since it was even above 1000.
Great. But you still need to answer what the 'optimimum' CO2 and mean global temperature should be, right? I mean, surely the IPCC has laid that out exactly for you, right? It has not ! That is my point - they get the world into hysterics (because getting people to react emotionally bypasses their reason) but they never defined what the actual target conditions should be or why. We do get a hint of their true motivation when the leaders of the movement refer to pre-industrial conditions as the reference. Would you like to live in a pre-industrial World? because that is what the eco-loons behind this movement are really aiming for. Have you never thought about that?
Didn't I quantify it somewhat by saying " If you took the temperature change expected over the next 200 years with BAU and spread it out over 2,000 years or more it wouldn't be nearly as big a problem."?
Why wouldn't it be a problem? surely if the CAGW/AGW hypothesis is correct and human emitted CO2 is the biggest driver of the climate then the World is just as cooked in 2000 years as 200? no? the rate of change makes l
I've seen work from Nir Shaviv before. Right now his solar magnetic variability work is just a hypothesis. There is no known causative factor for that to drive climate. Come up with the causation link and you have a theory.
Completely false. I even hinted with the name Svensmark to see how much you knew. A lot less than you think, it appears. There is a known causative factor linking Solar activity to the most powerful 'greenhouse gas' there is. The correlation is well established. But it appears you do not know it. Hence you claim there is no 'causation link' when there is - you just seem unaware of it. So you have a chance to retain some credibility if you can show you understand the mechanism - and you can be as detailed as you like, I actually do have a PhD in Astrophysics - so we can see whether you understand or not.
Maybe I'm dense but you'll have to explain to me why the "SPM is at odds with the bulk of the document". If it's about natural climate forcings they get mentioned in the SPM although not particularly prominently. Section 8.4 of the WG1 report is titled "Natural Radiative Forcing Changes: Solar and Volcanic".
Do you not know that the IPCC's terms of reference is to investigate man-made climate change ONLY. They are not to investigate natural variability - that is out-of-scope although some stuff does slip in. Hence, if the only thing you read are the IPCC's documents the only conclusion you can reach is that all warming is man made. This is by design. Did you not know this? This is why the IPCC does not report on the mountain of data *outside* of human effects.
Furthermore, the claims of 'regional' warming is falsified by the fact that EVERY continent shows warming at the SAME TIME. The IPCC simply don't want to admit this, just as they don't want to admit their computer simulations are diverging more and more rapidly from reality - this is even when them adjusting their predictions downward with every report. Look at the time series of IPCC reports and you can see this - of course, since you only just looked at the latest report and have not looked at them as a time series you cannot see the time derivative of their predictions (which, given sufficient time, would converge on the observational reality that Climate Realists have been talking about). Thank you for at least looking at one of the source documents.
You're going to have to justify that statement scientifically for me to give it any credence. I've never seen any evidence for that.
Have I not already given you the data multiple times. You chose to ignore it by placing it 'out of scope'. I can only lead you to water, I cannot make you think. Look at the data!
What the global mean temperature should be is an irrelevant question. The issue is the rate of temperature change is far faster than natural and human systems can adapt to easily. If you took the temperature change expected over the next 200 years with BAU and spread it out over 2,000 years or more it wouldn't be nearly as big a problem.
It is completely relevant. In the past the global mean terrestrial surface temperature has been as high as 25 C and life THRIVED. Plants thrive when at 2000 ppmV CO2, which was the level when they evolved - and they are dangerously STARVED of CO2 right now. Which is why special structures can make plants grow a lot better by putting the plants under conditions of increased temperature and CO2 (so much that diesel generator exhaust is vented into the structure to increase CO2 levels), these special structures are called 'Greenhouses' - ever heard of them? Higher CO2 is a GOOD THING and is making the World greener (if you examine the satellite data).
But let us ignore the fact that you are the ultimate of conservatives who wants to keep conditions exactly as they were in 1970. And let us also ignore you (nor any other alarmist) can answer what the optimal terrestrial
Oh... your feelings are hurt being called a climate science denier.
Where did I mention my "feelings"? Where? However, as a maladjusted misanthrope you clearly would like this to have been the case. That's what you trolls live on. It's not like you could win the debate on the evidence - since you deny the reality of the evidence that counters your "faith".
All you're trying to do is co-opt the word denier so it only applies to Holocaust deniers. Actually in the long run I think climate science deniers may be found more wanting morally than Holocaust deniers because they're actively trying to thwart taking action against anthropogenic global warming rather than simply denying a historic fact.
Here we go. You make a disgusting use of the word "denier" and then you double-down on your nonsense. Truly pathetic.
The latest IPCC report gives an ECS range of 1.5 to 4 K. Lewis and Curry give a range of 1.04 to 4.05 K. Looks pretty similar to me. I've never seen anything from the IPCC that said 4 K is extremely likely. Perhaps you could cite the section of the report that says that.
Perhaps you could learn some statistics and look at the respective probability distributions and look at the expectation values. If you can. 'Cause at the moment you statement shows a clear ignorance of the significant difference. Furthermore, you don't seem to be aware of the evolution of the IPCC's position from insane back somewhat to observational reality as shown by Lewis and Curry.
As far as ice goes, Arctic sea ice minimum extent was the 4th lowest after 2012, 2007 and 2011. The 9 lowest years of Arctic sea ice extent minimums have all been since 2007. Link. [nsidc.org] Greenland continues to lose ice by all measurements including the GRACE satellites which measure changes in gravity. Antarctic sea ice did not set a new record this year although it was still higher than before the recent spate of record high years. The GRACE satellites continue to show net loss of ice from the Antarctic ice sheet although a recent paper shows gains in some areas.
Actually, there was FAR less ice 70 years ago. But you don't know anything about the newspaper reports of the time. This is at the same time that the US experienced its 'dustbowl' conditions that were far hotter and more extreme than temperatures today (based on the real data before NASA and NOAA cooled the past to produce 'Mike's Nature Trick').
To say that total ice cover is at record levels is absurd.
Nonsense. I've already provided a link to the Danish measurements which show the cover is at record levels. Your whole position is based on media propaganda and NOT on looking at the actual data. Which is why you are crap at science.
Maybe you can say there's a correlation between solar magnetic variability and climate (I have my doubts) but now you need to come up with the method of causation before you can really call it a theory.
I have already talked about this. See the work of astrophysicist Nir Shaviv.
That makes all the scientists who worked on the IPCC WG1 report deniers too. I'm in good company:)
Too bad the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers is at odds with the science in the bulk of the document. Did you not notice this? You are still a "denier" by the criteria that the warmistas use.
My confusion about your mention of the RWP was that you mentioned it in the context of the hockey stick graph when the start of the HSG is 1000 years after the RMP.
The fact that the RWP exists shows that NATURAL VARIABILITY is greater and faster than what we've seen over the last 200 years. The Hockey Stick is hokum.
So now you're claiming the record from one ice core in Greenland is a suitable analog for the whole planet? Cherry picking at its finest.
This is what Richard Feyman had to say, "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.". You don't get to dismiss realty. You MUST explain the Greenland ice core record. You must explain the Antarctic ice core records. You must explain the stalactite growth measurements ALL OVER THE WORLD. They are all consistent, and they all show that the Hockey Stick is WRONG (nb: Michael Mann's Hockey Stick is the ULTIMATE in 'cherry picking').
Furthermore, like all extremists you simply ignore questions and data that destroy your faith. You have not answered what you think the global mean temperature should be, and what the CO2 temperature should be, and why you think this.
Slashdot Mirror
Great. You pay all the taxes you want. But you are WRONG to use the coercive power of the STATE (implicit threat of violence) to FORCE other citizens to FUND ***YOUR*** sanctimony. I didn't call for 0% tax - although clearly your only argument requires you to parse my statement that way - I said that 23% is the optimum tax rate that balances tax take verses long-term growth. But you don't address that, because you cannot, so instead you bring out a straw man. It is you that is silly.
If high tax is so grand, then why can the State not persuade citizens to pay more to fund illegal wars, gunrunning, corruption, cronyism, boondoggles, and propaganda against its own citizens?
Why don't you VOLUNTARILY pay more tax to show us how 'superior' you are. But hey, chances are you are one of the 47% that has no skin in the game and is looking for more handouts.
"Rolling Stone" ? you mean the Far Left rag that lionized the Tsarnaev's? *that* is your argument for wanting Big Government, financial bankruptcy and subsequent social collapse? all so you can avoid the economic FACT that decreasing taxes to around 23% produces a higher long-term tax take? wow, just wow.
Ah, this is another fallacy you might like to think about: "You'd think so, but check the US deficit and national debt during Republican vs Democratic terms". Does the party of the President matter when the Power of the Purse is assigned to the Congress? how about you check national debt as a function of the party dominating the Congress :)
If a Democrat President is in power with a Republican-dominated Congress then spending will be resisted. If a Republican President is in power with a Democrat-dominated Congress then spending will be unopposed and debt will mount quickly. However, we could probably agree that in terms of spending habits today's 'Establishment' Republicans and Democrats are both Big State parties who want to tax more and more money and power from the citizens (the Government has no money nor power except that which it takes from individual citizens who are powerless to resist it).
This is why the USA stands on the brink of financial collapse (perhaps Cloward-Piven in action?). The only difference between two parties is one is taking you to bankruptcy quickly, and the other is also taking you to bankruptcy but just a little more slowly. Either way, the result will be the same - and if you care about the poor (as I do) then you understand that a financial collapse of the USA is bad for everyone except ISIS and the Extreme Left, especially the poor (not only in America, but for workers around the globe).
To me, the fundamental problem is not even the politicians and their parties, nor self-serving corporations (although both of those have their part), but the majority of irresponsible citizenry who will not elect anyone who doesn't give them vote bribes (using the citizens own money, as well as unethical promises that their children and grandchildren will pay off debt for which these children and grand children will receive no benefit from, nor could they vote to approve or disapprove of this great robbery).
The only people in the USA who are preaching financial discipline seem to me (as an outsider) as the citizen-initiated 'Tea Party' - they are the only ones trying to turn the bus around from its current trajectory over the financial cliff which would be disastrous to everyone (except ISIS and the Extreme Left). But unfortunately most citizens seem neither to understand how bad the situation in the US is (and it's not actually due to wars, but due to massive unfunded liabilities from 'entitlement' vote-bribes and the cost of Big Government pensions etc), nor how you got to this position.
But humans being humans most cannot think strategically, and will try and enjoy the party as long as you can until the economic collapse - all the while demonizing those who are trying to talk financial sense. Unfortunately, too many Slashdotters also fall into this trap of wanting more handouts and Bigger Government while demonizing those who are saying "Do you think that's really a good idea?". We can only lead horses to water, but we cannot make them think.
Peace - and when the collapse happens, please don't come to my country and bring your insanity (we nearly made the same mistake as Greece and Europe and the USA - but rejected that madness with great pain the 1980 and 90's and have done pretty well economically and socially ever since).
Ad hominem much? how about you check the actual facts, amigo. Ya know, do a little research on the topic.
Wow. You don't understand economics at all, do you?
Where do taxes come from? the Real Economy (outside the Government).
Every dollar taken out of the productive Real Economy and put into unproductive and wasteful Government Economy means there is less dollar for investment and growing the economy. Which means, in the long term, less economic growth and a lower tax haul.
Now , it is obvious that if you lower taxes too much you get less Government Revenue (as if this was a bad thing - when the State steals money from the industrious and innovative). Also, if you raise taxes too much it also strangles the economy too, resulting in lower economic growth which means lower tax take in the long term.
So this is a 'Goldilocks Problem' where you want some tax but not too much. It turns out that optimal tax rate to maximize Government tax income while simultaneously maximizing economic growth (which helps citizens, as well as increasing future tax take) is around 23%. Most Governments are filled with economic illiterates that are strangling their economies (when they aren't simultaneously debasing their currency through inflationary printing).
It turns out that Republicans understand this, but you apparently do not. Disclaimer: I'm not a Republican, nor an American - but I LISTEN to what the Republican and Democrat arguments are (unfiltered) from the source. The Scientific Method requires this of me.
Unfortunately too many people do not LISTEN to the other side's arguments and reasoning. They listen to the propaganda one side makes against the other, and they form very strong opinions based on their ignorance. We all need to get out of this bad habit. From what I can see, Democrats mean well but never check whether their policies actually produce more harm than good, thus they cannot understand the Republicans who also mean well but have to temper idealism with practicality. Thus, Republicans cannot understand the ignorance of Democrats (like the silly, economically-ignorant argument made by the parent), and likewise the Democrats consider the Republicans "meanies" because they don't understand the Republican arguments at all.
How about we all learn to LISTEN with OPEN MINDS to the arguments made by people we disagree with. This is not only required by the Scientific Method, but is the true root to wisdom. Diversity of Opinion is the only diversity that actually matters - so let us embrace it.
It has already been 18 years according to the satellite. How many more people and birds are you prepared to kill with your alarmist scam? your windmills murder endangered birds by the tens of thousands, and your push toward energy poverty is already killing the poor and elderly in Britain and Europe (who freeze to death as they cannot afford the tripling of heating energy costs that comes through your 'green' energy projects). So how many more people and animals are you prepared to kill with this CAGW nonsense before you finally admit that the satellites are correct and CAGW is falsified ?
In the case of ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood, their ideology is laid out precisely (Koran and hadith and life of the barbaric Mohammed, which they are emulating exactly), yet the US Government's principle action is to prohibit any association of Islamic "jihad" with "Islam". Obama refuses to utter the words - which is strange since he's not an authority on Islam, only Allah and Mohammed are (and they agree with ISIS on what it is).
My point is - no matter how good the US could have gotten with remote viewing, they still will not act on it - just as they have not acted decisively on the information gained in the Holy Land Foundation trial which laid out exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood and Organization of Islamic Cooperation were up to - and as a result we have the 'leadership' of the West aiding the agenda of these groups against the citizens of the World. We live in a time of mass insanity.
I believe in Free Speech. I believe you should always have you say, no matter whether I agree with it or not. The more Climate Cult nonsense you post just gives me more opportunity to highlight and debunk the anti-scientific rejection of the Scientific Method that you've been displaying. The observational data falsifies the AGW hypothesis. This is why at least half of the World's scientists reject AGW as either a valid hypothesis or significant, and that number is increasing every day as more and more and more people stop taking the Climate Cult press announcements on faith and start looking at all the OBSERVATIONAL DATA for themselves - and once they do that (especially looking at the satellite data) then they ALWAYS conclude that AGW is falsified. This is why you will not talk about the mass of observational data, except for the one adjusted set cherrypicked to promote the Climate Cult narrative. Fare well - hopefully one day you might learn the Scientific Method and apply it to what you think you know - but I see that as unlikely in your particular case.
Nope. I'm looking at ALL the data. You are looking at one suspect data set and a bunch of models. I am following the Scientific Method. You are not. But no matter how much data you are given you CHOOSE not to understand what it is saying - because you are a zealot in the Cult of Climate science. Only the observational data matters, and it falsifies the AGW hypothesis.
Then there is nothing magical about 1979. Because of AGW we will never see a year like 1979 in the lifetime of anyone alive today and probably for many thousands of years.
Based on what? The GISS data I've already shown you again and again shows your statement is nonsense and has no basis in observed data. Furthermore, you have NEVER explained why the weather needs to be returned to the conditions of 1979. Never. As the ultimate Reactionary you hate the thought of the climate changing from that data - but based on irrationality, refusing to acknowledge the massive benefits increased CO2 and modest temperature rises bring, as Burt Rutan and Freeman Dyson and Nobel Laureate in Physics Ivar Giaever have all examined and explained.
For the most part it's bullshit.
Because it confronts your climate religion? be specific. Explain why, and you can use all the physics you like. What was wrong with Salby's correlation analysis? (could you even follow the argument, probably not).
Turns out they were doing a good job.
Notice I always specify "well-sited" stations. Thanks to Watts we know about 80% of stations are ok, and these also show no net warming. The other 20% are affected by UHI and other effects and these do show the apparent warming. In addition, Goddard/Heller showed that the amount of estimate data is large and increasing - and removal of estimate data also removes any warming trend. This is the REALITY that you want to deny.
OBSERVATIONAL DATA shows that the Earth continues to warm, ice continues to melt, sea level continues to rise and the oceans continue to acidify, all things predicted by current climate theory and the rise of carbon in the carbon cycle. We could quibble about numbers but all of those things continue to happen and I expect they will for the foreseeable future.
Warming is not evidence of AGW. You don't seem to grok that at all. It is only evidence of AGW if ALL OTHER CAUSES OF WARMING HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED. This is the burden of proof required by the Scientific Method. Do you not understand this?
BTW no one has been able to find any causal link between magnetism and climate. About 41,000 years ago during the Laschamp Event [wikipedia.org] there was a reversal of the Earth's magnetic for about 440 years. There are no climate effects found in the paleoclimate record for this time. The Earth's magnetic field (at Earth's orbit) is over 100 times stronger than the Sun's magnetic field.
WOW! you don't understand the solar magnetic effect and the resulting climate mechanism researched by Svensmark, AT ALL. The fact you wrote this paragraphs which is UTTERLY IGNORANT of the mechanism I have explained to you again and again is a complete EPIC FAIL on your part. You clearly understand nothing of the physics, no matter how many times you've been led to understand of the most likely candidate to explain observed climate warming and cooling. A complete fail on your part.
I would guess your political leanings are toward the Libertarian side preferring minimal government regulation of business. But I could be wrong. Based on the time of your replies and other statements by you I think you must be in Australia or New Zealand (or somewhere near there).
No matter what part of the World I live in, the FACT is your ad hominem about my following the Scientific Method instead of your irrational Climate Cultism being politically motivated is FALSE. However, you are not self-aware enough to look at yourself in the mirror - where your own political leanings lead you to reject objectivity and ignore observational data (that is, reality) you don't like. Hence you have extremely strong views about things you actually know very little about. Your paragraph about Earth's magnetism shows you know nothing about the actual physical processed being discussed. I'm embarrassed for you.
I'm interested in the difference between the adjustments in 2001 and 2016 and the reasons those changes were made.
Was the organization so massively incompetent in 2001 that such radical adjustments were required? if so, then surely the quality of their work is in question? why is there no explanation for the changes? why are the adjustments not normally distributed but systematic in nature, which produces the claimed trend? does the data look like the satellite and weather balloon data sets if the adjustment is not made? Did you not think to ask these, because these are critical to your claim of AGW ?
What's "magical" about 1979 is that's the year the satellite that allowed us to continuously monitor and get detailed records of sea ice were launched. Here's a report [typepad.com] on a study of Arctic sea ice extents back to 1935 using at least in part ships logs. As one of the authors of the report says it's not the last word on the subject but it does advance the science.
No. You don't get it (again). What is "magical" about 1979 that requires the Earth to be return to the *same exact conditions* as in that year? because that is the basis for the warmista argument.
As for the rest of it I've been holding back but I have to say that most of the cites you make (WUWT, Steven Goddard, Murry Salby, etc) have no credibility with me.
More anti-scientific garbage from you. I have NEVER appealed to their authority, only to their data. And you REFUSE to look at the data - which makes you anti-scientific. Another fail on your part.
You might as well resign yourself to continued frustration because unless your side can put together a coherent narrative and make climate models that explain the current situation better than existing models you will continue to be ignored by most scientists.
False. We don't have to do anything. You don't understand the Scientific Method at all, do you? it is YOU who has to prove your case, and if you cannot prove your case using OBSERVATIONAL DATA then the Null Hypothesis MUST be accepted. We are simply showing data that falsifies your hypothesis, and since YOU are unable to explain this data using your hypothesis it means your hypothesis is falsified and the Null Hypothesis MUST be accepted over CAGW/AGW instead. The burden of proof falls on YOU, and you are unable to prove anything. Furthermore, you also don't seem to understand that climate models mean NOTHING, they are hypothesis and not OBSERVATIONAL DATA. You fail to grok this - because you don't understand the Scientific Method at all.
Your "wiping the floor" comment made me laugh out loud. What I see in you is someone whose political leanings color your understanding of climate science.
Nice ad hominem. But what are my political leanings, riverat1? I'm not a US citizen so your pathetic ad hominem is not only false, it is idiotic - and shows how you must argue about everything except the observational data that falsifies the claims of CAGW/AGW warmistas. FAIL.
You don't like the obvious solutions so you seek out evidence that is counter to the mainstream, ignoring the stuff that doesn't fit your view.
This is not only false, and not only stupid, but is completely anti-thetical to the Scientific Method where it is REQUIRED to try find data that falsifies your hypothesis. To avoid contrary data is anti-scientific - which is exactly what you are. Again, you don't understand the Scientific Method at all.
But physics doesn't care. It is what it is. As the future unfolds we'll see who is right but I'm pretty confident that the scientists in the mainstream are honestly reporting what they find.
The physics is clear - CAGW is not happening, because the models (hypothesis) are completely wrong. The physics shows that the observational ECS and TCS are incompatible with CAGW - hence CAGW is falsified and the Null Hypothesis MUST be accepted instead.
As the future unfolds we'll see who is right but I'm pretty confident that the scientists in the mainstream are honestly reporting what they find.
Your confidence is irrelevant. Consensus is irrelevant. The only thing that matters in the Scientific Method are OBSERVATIONAL DATA. And the Observational Data from RSS and UAH and tens of thousands of weather balloons and the well-sited surface stations all show REALITY does not match the CAGW hypothesis - hence the hypothesis is falsified.
You don't understand the Scientific Method at all !
You don't understand that graph at all. Try again, because at the moment it is clear you have ZERO clue as to what that graph is showing.
It's true that water vapor is the greenhouse gas that causes the most greenhouse effect but it's also true that water is present in all three phases of normal matter on the Earth and it easily transforms from one to the other. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly limited by temperature and to some extent by the availability of water to evaporate. If there's too much it precipitates out. And while there's a relationship between water vapor and clouds they are two quite different things when it comes to the greenhouse effect. Again the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly limited by temperature. If we could magically reduce CO2 in the atmosphere to 200 ppm the cooling would cause the level of water vapor to also drop and pretty quickly we would be starting a new glacial period. Water vapor by itself can not drive climate change but is strictly a feedback of other things that do drive climate.
Nearly, but not quite. However, you do have an inkling of the idea - that temperature drives water vapor and that has a large effect on the climate. Now we have already established that the effect of CO2 on water vapor is negligible, with the low *OBSERVED* ECS and TCS.
We've already covered the effect of solar magnetic activity on cloud formation (and thus, climate) through the work of Dr Nir Shaviv and Professor Svensmark. Now you can learn more from the man who literally wrote the (post-graduate) textbook on atmospheric physics (although you probably cannot follow the math):
"Climate Scientist Murry Salby Demolishes the Global Warming Alarm"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Climate Scientist Murry Salby Returns! - Presents NEW SCIENCE"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Ok, the optimum CO2 level from my point of view would be somewhere between 300 and 350 ppm, enough to conteract the slow cooling trend from changes in Milankovitch Cycles but not so much that it causes major warming. But it's still an irrelevant question.
Ah, here we have the reactionary wanting to head back to pre-industrial levels. Do you not understand that dropping the CO2 to this level will cut crop yields massively, and thus starve BILLIONS? as a zealot you don't care, right? the only thing that matters is your sanctimony and feeling of self-worth for propagating the warmunist groupthiink.
After the sea ice low minimum in 2012 (which was more than 2 standard deviations below the trend line) Arctic sea ice rebounded to slightly above the trend line in 2013. In science this is commonly called regression to the mean. 2014 ASI minimum was lower than 2013 and in 2015 it was the 4th lowest on record. None of the ASI minimums after 2006 are greater than the lowest records before 2006 (back to 1979 when the satellite measurements started).
And? What is magical about the cold year 1979? why is it superior to 2006? you don't know ! because there is no reason - apart from the fact you warmunists are the ultimate in conservative reactionaries. What matters is that the derivative of ice change is basically zero, with natural variability on top (dominated by wind effects, as it tuns out). You have no reason to worry about this - since the polar bears are increasing in number - but you are simply afraid of any change at all. It is irrational.
Baffin Island is really close to Greenland so it doesn't surprise me it shows similar trends. How about some records from Siberia, China, Chile or New Zealand?
Here is New Zealand - looks exactly the same as the USA
https://stevengoddard.wordpres...
And local bodies concur
WRONG! You cannot even interpret a simple graph. This is the adjustment that NASA have made to their OWN data between 2001 and 2016. They have altered the SAME data set to increase the warming - but cooling the past and warming the present. This is FRAUD. But you don't even know how to read information shown on the graph so you support the FRAUD in your ignorance. Please stop talking and LISTEN and LOOK to what people are trying to show you, to cure you of your dreadful ignorance. Sheesh.
True, but utterly irrelevant. Both sets of satellites (UAH and RSS) do not show it is the 'hottest year evah!" and ground records show that it has been hotter in the USA and many other countries in the past.
NASA and NOAA have been putting in unexplained adjustments into their data, by cooling the past and warming the present:
https://i1.wp.com/realclimates...
This is the greatest (anti-)scientific fraud in history. And you are defending the fraudsters.
Don't believe NASA scientists would like to keep funding going? Richard Feynman disagrees with you (1986-06-11):
https://i1.wp.com/realclimates...
Percentage of USHCN Stations to reach 35 C
https://i2.wp.com/realclimates...
Average Percentage of Days over 35 C for All USHCN Stations
https://i2.wp.com/realclimates...
https://stevengoddard.wordpres...
The 1930s and 1940s were much hotter. This data is NOT in dispute.
The Pricipia Scientific article was interesting in that it shows a correlation between insolation and cloud cover when looked at hemispherically. It does not however show anything about a long term trend in insolation that could account for rising temperatures. Particularly since the trend in insolation is slightly downward since the 1950s.
You seemed to have missed the point entirely (again). Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas - vastly more so than CO2. That is what makes determining the ECS and TCS so important. The computer simulations to determine the ECS and TCS have failed utterly to predict what is observed - and the most-likely values of the observed ECS and TCS are entirely due to CO2 (which is small, and diminishing, at the current CO2 concentration) because the effect on water vapor is neutral or even slightly negative. This is another observation that falsifies the CAGW/AGW hypothesis (in addition to the failure of the tropical lower troposphere to warm before the surface which also falsifies CAGW/CAGW).
Don't try to tell me what I think. I've never said anything like that ever. What I think is industry needs to work toward sustainability.
Ah, playing the victim by deliberately mis-reading what I wrote. I said the aim of the people pushing this scam is to convince you of the need to de-industralize, and they are halfway there. What exactly does "sustainability" mean? it means a roll-back of the industrialization of the World.
Ah, it appears to me that your objection to the current consensus on climate science is more rooted in your politics than science and you're desperately seeking anything you can throw at it. The IPCC's Working Group I report is entirely written by credentialed scientists even though you may not consider them to be scientists.
Here you go, Appeal to Authority. I don't give a flying fsck who said what - all I care about is the Scientific Method - and the OBSERVATIONAL DATA shows that CAGW/AGW is falsified and the Null Hypothesis MUST be accepted instead at this time. Because you don't actually have the data you have to appeal to authority. It is YOU who is failing to do science because of your political position. Of course I will use all the data there is - that IS the POINT of the Scientific Method. You anti-scientific warmistas always throw away data you don't like, and then accuse others of 'cherry picking' - but it is the anomalies that MUST be explained in order to do actual science.
The first thing you need to know about that graph is that it ends 95 years before the present and by convention in those types of graphs 1950 is considered the present. So the graph ends in 1855. I wonder what it would look like if you could add 1856 to 2015 to it?
Nice talking points you have there. Again you demonstrate an utter inability to do objective analysis. The point of that graph was not to do with data after 1950 - but to demonstrate NATURAL VARIABILITY in the paleo record that is vastly greater and faster than what we see today - and appears correlated with solar magnetic activity (and thus, water vapor concentration, which is the dominant greenhouse gas that is NOT modeled accurately by the IPCC). But you need to deliberately ignore this point so you can continue with your anti-scientific CAGW/AGW hypothesis lest it be falsified by you actually folllowing the Scientific Method.
The other thing is I want to corroborating evidence from geographically dispersed sites before I consider it anything but indicative of the GISP2 site itself.
It's out there in total abundance - go and look yourself you lazy sod ! I'm not your servant. And looking yourself will turn over a wealth of GLOBAL evidence.
Again the optimum CO2 and mean global temperature are irrelevant questions. The question is how fast can they change so that we c
What was the old saying, "In order for Microsoft to win, the customer must lose"? Microsoft had been much better of late, particularly with regard to developer engagement - but now they do this - and ruin all the excellent work of people like Scott Hanselman.
Ah, but when you agree with the Borg you must not clap as that is 'triggering' The Borg are sensitive to clapping. You must use 'jazz hands':
http://www.breitbart.com/londo...
And when a SJW tells you that disagreeing with them is rape, but you are a racist if you oppose traditional Muslim gang rape (Taharrush gamea) of 'infidel' girls, then you must also use jazz hands to show you are one with the SJW Borg Collective:
http://www.breitbart.com/londo...
#GamerGate invictus ! down with all Orwellian Thought Police SJWs !
I know of Henrik Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis. There may be some relationship between cosmic rays and clouds but it's far from clear how much of an influence GCRs are. There are plenty of cloud condensation nuclei in the atmosphere even without the influence of GCRs.
Perhaps you might like to look at this, then: http://principia-scientific.or...
t's impossible to understand anthropogenic climate change without also understanding natural variability and the scientists who put together the IPCC WG1 reports are well aware of this.
Of course it is impossible, that is the point!
This analysis makes it clear that the Franework Convention defines 'climate change' as that change which is due to human activity" http://www.mclean.ch/climate/d...
Of course humans have an effect on the climate. Of course nature has an effect on the climate. Which is greater? the IPCC is NOT charged with finding out. "Climate Change" is *defined* as that from human activity *only*, so of course reasonable people like yourself will be convinced that humans need to de-industrialize in accordance with http://green-agenda.com/
I am trying to make you aware that the IPCC is not about science, but about cover for a pre-defined neo-Marxist policy which doesn't actually care about the science. Your problem is that you are unable to fathom the ways that non-scientists work. The scientists are mostly honest (although if you've done research as I have you'll know that once the fight for funding is on even scientists show self-interest and bias), but the bureaucrats writing the summaries and press-releases most certainly are not !
What data? You've just made the bald statement that "The fact that the RWP exists shows that NATURAL VARIABILITY is greater and faster than what we've seen over the last 200 years." No cites to anything to support that.
Yes I have. You simply dismissed the data I gave. Thus, I will MAKE you look through the links I have already given - to get you out of the bad habit of arguing your position without actually examining the evidence presented. Sorry, but it is for your own damn good. You sound like an intelligent person, but you are having a hard time throwing off the programming you've been subjected to. Unfortunately de-programming you requires some work on your part.
Sure but that doesn't mean that life in its current evolutionary state can easily withstand those conditions. It's probably been 100 million years since CO2 was at 2000 ppm and over 65 million years since it was even above 1000.
Great. But you still need to answer what the 'optimimum' CO2 and mean global temperature should be, right? I mean, surely the IPCC has laid that out exactly for you, right? It has not ! That is my point - they get the world into hysterics (because getting people to react emotionally bypasses their reason) but they never defined what the actual target conditions should be or why. We do get a hint of their true motivation when the leaders of the movement refer to pre-industrial conditions as the reference. Would you like to live in a pre-industrial World? because that is what the eco-loons behind this movement are really aiming for. Have you never thought about that?
Didn't I quantify it somewhat by saying " If you took the temperature change expected over the next 200 years with BAU and spread it out over 2,000 years or more it wouldn't be nearly as big a problem."?
Why wouldn't it be a problem? surely if the CAGW/AGW hypothesis is correct and human emitted CO2 is the biggest driver of the climate then the World is just as cooked in 2000 years as 200? no? the rate of change makes l
I've seen work from Nir Shaviv before. Right now his solar magnetic variability work is just a hypothesis. There is no known causative factor for that to drive climate. Come up with the causation link and you have a theory.
Completely false. I even hinted with the name Svensmark to see how much you knew. A lot less than you think, it appears. There is a known causative factor linking Solar activity to the most powerful 'greenhouse gas' there is. The correlation is well established. But it appears you do not know it. Hence you claim there is no 'causation link' when there is - you just seem unaware of it. So you have a chance to retain some credibility if you can show you understand the mechanism - and you can be as detailed as you like, I actually do have a PhD in Astrophysics - so we can see whether you understand or not.
Maybe I'm dense but you'll have to explain to me why the "SPM is at odds with the bulk of the document". If it's about natural climate forcings they get mentioned in the SPM although not particularly prominently. Section 8.4 of the WG1 report is titled "Natural Radiative Forcing Changes: Solar and Volcanic".
Do you not know that the IPCC's terms of reference is to investigate man-made climate change ONLY. They are not to investigate natural variability - that is out-of-scope although some stuff does slip in. Hence, if the only thing you read are the IPCC's documents the only conclusion you can reach is that all warming is man made. This is by design. Did you not know this? This is why the IPCC does not report on the mountain of data *outside* of human effects.
Furthermore, the claims of 'regional' warming is falsified by the fact that EVERY continent shows warming at the SAME TIME. The IPCC simply don't want to admit this, just as they don't want to admit their computer simulations are diverging more and more rapidly from reality - this is even when them adjusting their predictions downward with every report. Look at the time series of IPCC reports and you can see this - of course, since you only just looked at the latest report and have not looked at them as a time series you cannot see the time derivative of their predictions (which, given sufficient time, would converge on the observational reality that Climate Realists have been talking about). Thank you for at least looking at one of the source documents.
You're going to have to justify that statement scientifically for me to give it any credence. I've never seen any evidence for that.
Have I not already given you the data multiple times. You chose to ignore it by placing it 'out of scope'. I can only lead you to water, I cannot make you think. Look at the data!
What the global mean temperature should be is an irrelevant question. The issue is the rate of temperature change is far faster than natural and human systems can adapt to easily. If you took the temperature change expected over the next 200 years with BAU and spread it out over 2,000 years or more it wouldn't be nearly as big a problem.
It is completely relevant. In the past the global mean terrestrial surface temperature has been as high as 25 C and life THRIVED. Plants thrive when at 2000 ppmV CO2, which was the level when they evolved - and they are dangerously STARVED of CO2 right now. Which is why special structures can make plants grow a lot better by putting the plants under conditions of increased temperature and CO2 (so much that diesel generator exhaust is vented into the structure to increase CO2 levels), these special structures are called 'Greenhouses' - ever heard of them? Higher CO2 is a GOOD THING and is making the World greener (if you examine the satellite data).
But let us ignore the fact that you are the ultimate of conservatives who wants to keep conditions exactly as they were in 1970. And let us also ignore you (nor any other alarmist) can answer what the optimal terrestrial
Nah man. This is a second account since my first one was targetted by the SJW trolls I talked about. I speak in truth !
Oh... your feelings are hurt being called a climate science denier.
Where did I mention my "feelings"? Where? However, as a maladjusted misanthrope you clearly would like this to have been the case. That's what you trolls live on. It's not like you could win the debate on the evidence - since you deny the reality of the evidence that counters your "faith".
All you're trying to do is co-opt the word denier so it only applies to Holocaust deniers. Actually in the long run I think climate science deniers may be found more wanting morally than Holocaust deniers because they're actively trying to thwart taking action against anthropogenic global warming rather than simply denying a historic fact.
Here we go. You make a disgusting use of the word "denier" and then you double-down on your nonsense. Truly pathetic.
The latest IPCC report gives an ECS range of 1.5 to 4 K. Lewis and Curry give a range of 1.04 to 4.05 K. Looks pretty similar to me. I've never seen anything from the IPCC that said 4 K is extremely likely. Perhaps you could cite the section of the report that says that.
Perhaps you could learn some statistics and look at the respective probability distributions and look at the expectation values. If you can. 'Cause at the moment you statement shows a clear ignorance of the significant difference. Furthermore, you don't seem to be aware of the evolution of the IPCC's position from insane back somewhat to observational reality as shown by Lewis and Curry.
As far as ice goes, Arctic sea ice minimum extent was the 4th lowest after 2012, 2007 and 2011. The 9 lowest years of Arctic sea ice extent minimums have all been since 2007. Link. [nsidc.org] Greenland continues to lose ice by all measurements including the GRACE satellites which measure changes in gravity. Antarctic sea ice did not set a new record this year although it was still higher than before the recent spate of record high years. The GRACE satellites continue to show net loss of ice from the Antarctic ice sheet although a recent paper shows gains in some areas.
Actually, there was FAR less ice 70 years ago. But you don't know anything about the newspaper reports of the time. This is at the same time that the US experienced its 'dustbowl' conditions that were far hotter and more extreme than temperatures today (based on the real data before NASA and NOAA cooled the past to produce 'Mike's Nature Trick').
To say that total ice cover is at record levels is absurd.
Nonsense. I've already provided a link to the Danish measurements which show the cover is at record levels. Your whole position is based on media propaganda and NOT on looking at the actual data. Which is why you are crap at science.
Maybe you can say there's a correlation between solar magnetic variability and climate (I have my doubts) but now you need to come up with the method of causation before you can really call it a theory.
I have already talked about this. See the work of astrophysicist Nir Shaviv.
That makes all the scientists who worked on the IPCC WG1 report deniers too. I'm in good company :)
Too bad the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers is at odds with the science in the bulk of the document. Did you not notice this? You are still a "denier" by the criteria that the warmistas use.
My confusion about your mention of the RWP was that you mentioned it in the context of the hockey stick graph when the start of the HSG is 1000 years after the RMP.
The fact that the RWP exists shows that NATURAL VARIABILITY is greater and faster than what we've seen over the last 200 years. The Hockey Stick is hokum.
So now you're claiming the record from one ice core in Greenland is a suitable analog for the whole planet? Cherry picking at its finest.
This is what Richard Feyman had to say, "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.". You don't get to dismiss realty. You MUST explain the Greenland ice core record. You must explain the Antarctic ice core records. You must explain the stalactite growth measurements ALL OVER THE WORLD. They are all consistent, and they all show that the Hockey Stick is WRONG (nb: Michael Mann's Hockey Stick is the ULTIMATE in 'cherry picking').
Furthermore, like all extremists you simply ignore questions and data that destroy your faith. You have not answered what you think the global mean temperature should be, and what the CO2 temperature should be, and why you think this.