BOOM! I gave you evidence that your positions are counter-factual, such as the Canadian Geographic article that polar bear numbers are indeed up, and that the surface temperature data is being fiddled as stated by Iceland's chief meteorologist, and that the climate sensitivity keeps getting adjusted down and still claimed as a far too high value (which means, CAGW is falsified).
What you are experiencing is called "cognitive dissonance". You know the statements I make are true, but they conflict with your indoctrination, so you reject reality and instead decide to continue with your programmed responses. You claim others are "crazy" yet it is you who is unable to accept facts due to your programming. That makes you the irrational one who is acting "crazy".
The Scientific Method requires me to examine your arguments and evidence. You will notice I did, that I read through the sources you gave. What you didn't understand was how the sources were dissembling, but when their data was interpreted properly they support the climate realists position, and require that the Null Hypothesis be selected over the alarmist's empirically falsified CAGW. You are on the wrong side of history.
For the natural trend to end, as you should well know if you have the degrees that you claim to have, all that is required for natural warming to end is for the sum of natural forces to be reduced to zero or less. The oceans continue to act as heat sinks, but I hope you realize that the oceans are finite as is their capacity to absorb heat, and cosmic ray interactions not only have no measurable effect on the climate, if they did, they would likely be cooling it. [skepticalscience.com].
The 'sum of natural forces' could indeed cancel, but they are not likely to cancel perfectly for 65 years, are they? especially when we can directly observe solar magnetic variability. this argument is nonsense and defies even basic common sense (as it turns out in the eco activist community, common sense is not so common). For example, since 2002 fossil fuel use has increased by a factor of 3 while the annual increase of CO2 remains at the same factor of 1 from the two preceding decades - you would know this basic fact if you had bothered to watch the video on atmospheric physics I supplied https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
But as a fanatic you don't want to learn the physics, you want to cling to your sacred eco religion in defiance of the science.
Of course the oceans have a finite heat capacity, and that is HUGE compared to the atmosphere. If you are suggesting the oceans have saturated their heat capacity then you are completely wrong. Furthermore, you don't seem to understand even the basics of the argument, is that the atmosphere and ocean exchange heat in very complex ways and with complex time lags depending on ocean currents. They are not particularly well understood and certainly not included in the woeful GCM of today. What is known is that solar heating can be stored in the ocean for CENTURIES before being released to the atmosphere.
No, that's the blog of an actual practising climate scientist, and he links to his data sources while explaining pretty precisely why everything you've written about the balloon data is pants-on-fire wrong.
But a blog is not 'peer-revied' is it? and your whole argument is not about atmosphere physics, it is about being 'peer reviewed'. You don't even know about the Climategate revelations where the peer-review process was subverted to exclude scientifically accurate papers that disagreed with Michael Mann's Hockey Stick model (observationally debunked which is why the IPCC finally dropped it).
Contrary to your claims, the models are reasonably accurate [skepticalscience.com]. I am following the scientific method, you have just failed to provide any data that actually contradicts any of the theories that you claim are false. Every argument you have provided has already been examined and debunked hundreds, if not thousands of times already.
The models are hideously inaccurate ! from the ensemble of nearly 100 models only one comes anywhere near the observations (and not particularly close), and this was only possible by adjusting the fit parameters after the fact. In technical terms, the models demonstrate 'no skill' in prediction. They cannot forecast and only fit when done as a hindcast. The most important thing is that the ensemble of models predicted everything, from the mild, slow warming we have observed, to catastrophe - but there was no way to distinguish ahead-of-time which modeled reality. Again, this proves the models have 'no skill' in prediction. When your 'model' set of possible outcomes includes all eventualities but it cannot distinguish which is the most likely then it shows that a) your models are worthless as forecasts, and certainly not worth spending Trillions of dollars on and murdering billions of brown people for, and b) you don't actually understand the underlying processes enough to make decent predictions (this is a nice way of saying, "The hypothesis and the cl
The natural warming trend didn't "magically stop", it stopped because the natural factors driving the warming trend ended, but you are free to ignore inconvenient truths like the fact that the sun has had a small cooling trend over the last 35 years [skepticalscience.com].
ALL the factors stopped simultaneously? wow ! and the massive heatsink of the ocean stopped exchanging energy with the atmosphere? and the cosmic ray interaction that affects water vapor greatly also stopped all variability ? All on the same day in 1950? you folks should listen to yourselves sometimes.
[wordpress.com].
ROFL ! That must be the 'peer reviewed' source you are talking about, right?
The main problem here is that the specific predictions of AGW have not been proven accurate by observed reality. There are some people claiming that if you cherry-pick the data, squint and tilt your head then the data doesn't look as good. But they are going to great lengths to create data that doesn't match the predictions. In the particular case you cite, they use one particular measurement, use an old, outdated copy of the data, ignore the inherent problems in the measurement, splicing, and orbital decay adjustments due to indirect nature of the measurements, and then cherry-pick a time segment for minimal warming. Just to get one piece of data that doesn't look like it matches the predictions, but it's all deliberate framing to cover up the underlying truth.
You don't understand the Scientific Method at all, do you? a single counter-observation is enough to invalidate any theory. Einstein and Feynmann have famous quotes on this. But wait, the psychologist John Cook and his 'skeptical science' (which is all-too credulous of eco-lunacy) outranks Einstein and Feynmann in understand the Scientific Method, right?
What scaremongering? All I've done is correct your many factual errors.
Ok, now you are out and out lying. Of course you know the scaremongering used by the alarmists to extort Trillions of dollars from poor citizens to give to rich citizens in green boondoggles. The scaremongering which is increasing energy poverty and will condemn Billions in the Third World to poverty and even death (since you aim to make energy more expensive based on your anti-scientific Cult of Global Warming). You think you are the good guy of the story, but you are the villain who clings to failed predictions and twists and turns with your cherry picking because you cannot explain why the World does not warm at the rate your failed computer simulations predicted. But you will refuse to follow the Scientific Method and acknowledge the fundamental flaws in the feedback calculations that are the crux of CAGW theory. You are one of the inquisitors condemning Gallileo for pointing out the observations don't match your eco-religious viewpoint - and you think shouting louder will make your failed predictions come true. This is anti-scientific and fanatical on your part.
When I supply you with quotes of UN people saying they are only using Global Warming as a cover for their Collectivist political ambitions you simply dismiss the evidence you don't like. That makes you fanatical because you will not objectively examine any counter-evidence to your current ideological position.
And yet, I'm the one presenting you with articles backed by peer-reviewed science.
Like the Wordpress article ? Could you show me where in the Scientific Method 'peer review' is required ? it isn't. But you are so bad at science you don't know this. The ONLY thing that determines reality in the Scientific Method are the observations - and the observations show that the predictions of the IPCC (which they continually revise down since they systematically get it wrong) are on the very fringe of their uncertainly distribution. That is, observed reality has somewhere near a 5% chance of occurring
Thank you very much for your comment, and for the link to the interesting read - I had not seen that and they make very good points. I write less so for the person I'm debating, since usually they are too convinced of their assumed moral superiority to be persuaded, but to put facts and ideas out for others to read. Cheers:)
1) Take one dataset, such as the RSS 6 data used to generate this http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...
2) Remove El Nino (since they are not man-made, unless somehow you think they are ?)
3) Plot against the IPCC prediction curve using their most-likely TCS.
4) What is the statistical significance of the observed value versus the ensemble of IPCC predictions ?
5) Repeat for UAH
6) Repeat for the weather ballon data
7) Repeat for well-sited surface stations, after removing those contaminated by UHI and all the estimate data (which is nearly 50% these days), then correct for the lapse rate (since we're talking about the LTT).
In all cases the IPCC models overestimate the warming because they don't model the complexities of water vapor correctly and water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas - and the principal determinant of the TCS. Hence, the alarmists predict way to much warming, at too great a rate. CAGW, which is the position of the IPCC (and yourself), is falsified.
You are aware that AGW/CAGW is not really about CO2, right? it is about **water vapor** - but 'clouds' don't sound scary enough for the taxpayer shakedown the unelected anti-democratic United Nations control freaks have planned.
Nope, he's a nut job. He was a nut job when he was over reacting to global warming and how he's a nut job who denies global warming. In any case, if you read the interview, he seems to think climate change is irrelevant because we will all be enslaved by intelligent robots before the end of the century... Which is clearly a prediction based on well researched science, right?
Like all those who believe in Statist Collectivism he is divorced from reality. I mean, Leftists believe that despite the hundreds of millions of their own citizens slaughtered in peacetime by Soviet Socialism, National Socialism, Maoist Socialism, North Korean Socialism, North Vietnamese Socialism, Ba'athist Socialism, Angolan Socialism, Ethiopian Socialism, Hungarian Socialism, East German Socialism, Indonesian Socialism, Czech Socialism, Venezuelan Socialism that somehow the solution is more Statist Collectivism and active oppression of those seeking Individual Liberty (which require Limited Government and Private Property). So yeah, he is a nutjob just like all Leftists/Statist Collectivists.
Actually, what they have done is publish an interview with James Lovelock. It might be difficult for you to understand this, but interviewing someone is not an implicit endorsement of everything they say.
Actually, it is, unless they state that they disagree. The editors choose what material to publish, and the art of modern propaganda is not what is in the content of any particular article, but in the selection of what articles to publish, and what to HIDE. But you don't understand this - hence you likely think the media are 'objective' and 'unbiased' and are practicing 'journalism'. LOL. Borg Drones are so naive.
it also appears that the number of science denying climate change deniers
Wow! that's dumb. How many people "deny climate change" ? no one denies the climate changes. What is debated is the proportion of man-made change (from our piddling 5% contribution to the CO2 budget) to the natural change (which started over 150 years ago at the end of the Little Ice Age and did not magically stop in 1950 as the alarmists claim).
That statement is humorously true, because the majority of scientists are definitely not alarmed about natural climate change. However, it's also misleading because the current change in the climate is actually about 100% anthropogenic over the last 60 years [skepticalscience.com], if you look closely at the contributor graph on that page, you should notice that the natural factors are actually net-negative and the warming trend has nothing to do with the end of the Little Ice Age [skepticalscience.com].
Quoting skeptical science's ignorant opinion is not how the Scientific Method is done. The IPCC made specific predictions that the Lower Tropical Troposphere would show a specific warming pattern if AGW was the correct hypothesis. The RSS and UAH satellites, backed up by thousands of balloons, have not observed this signature. So we have hypothesis, prediction, observation, and the observation does NOT match the prediction. Furthermore the specific nature of the the AGW models predict a TCS whose most probable value is greater than 3 (after revision downward from failure after failure of earlier predictions). The observed value is currently between 1 and 2 and looks like will converge lower than that. In short, the specific predictions of AGW have been falsified by observed reality. Who cares what the psychologists are skepticalscience have to say, what matters is that the AGW predictions do not match REALITY. Hence the skeptics were right and the Scientific Method requires the old false hypothesis be discarded and a new hypothesis generated. But what is clear at the moment is that the scaremongering of the old hypothesis is unfounded. All you eco loons continuing to cling to it are being anti-scientific. You made your predictions and you FAILED. Now you twist and turn because you don't care about science, you care about preserving the (falsified) dogmas of your self-flagellating cult of 'green environmentalism'. Only the 'mental' part of your cult is relevant.
So, would you believe James Lovelock, the inventor of the Gaia Hypothesis and one of the earliest and loudest proponents of AGW ? He now says,
Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.” But isn’t that exactly what he did last time we met? “I know,” he grins teasingly. “But I’ve grown up a bit since then.”
Lovelock now believes that “CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact,” he goes on breezily, “I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”
Furthermore, even the Far Left Pravda-clone of The Guardian is trying to salvage some credibility now after promoting the false alarmism for so long: https://www.theguardian.com/en...
I cannot get a more Left-leaning source than this, and even they have finally realized that the climate is VASTLY more complex than a simple response to CO2 (let alone anthropogenic CO2). The number of you science denying alarmists is slowly decreasing, but you will cling to your cult of anthropogenic climate sin as long as you can. The majority of other scientists are no longer alarmed by the mostly-natural temperature increases since the end of the Little Ice Age.
I'm trying to save you from deep and total future embarrassment. Now the interesting thing is that you accepted the facts I presented earlier. It was only later when I presented the "why" of why the United Nations bureaucrats are pushing the falsified CAGW Hypothesis that you struggled. Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert, and trained hypnotist) calls this "cognitive dissonance", you understand the facts but cannot reconcile them with the indoctrination you've received your whole life. You cannot yet step outside the Matrix and see the memes that are used to control you. Hopefully one day you will. Not everyone who claims to be doing good and working in your interest is actually working in your interest - and the bigger a collective group is, the less they care about your individual wants, needs and desires. Just saying. Peace, and Liberty !
So, would you believe James Lovelock, the inventor of the Gaia Hypothesis and one of the earliest and loudest proponents of AGW who now says,
Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.” But isn’t that exactly what he did last time we met? “I know,” he grins teasingly. “But I’ve grown up a bit since then.”
Lovelock now believes that “CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact,” he goes on breezily, “I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”
Furthermore, even the Far Left Pravda-clone of The Guardian is trying to salvage some credibility now after promoting the false alarmism for so long: https://www.theguardian.com/en...
I cannot get a more Left-leaning source than this, and even they have finally realized that the climate is VASTLY more complex than a simple response to CO2 (let alone anthropogenic CO2). The number of you science denying alarmists is slowly decreasing, but you will cling to your cult of anthropogenic climate sin as long as you can. The majority of other scientists are no longer alarmed by the mostly-natural temperature increases since the end of the Little Ice Age.
I'm trying to save you from deep and total future embarrassment, since you're a such slow learner - and you think you know the Scientific Method better than a Nobel Prize winning physicist. Such arrogance !
So, would you believe James Lovelock, the inventor of the Gaia Hypothesis and one of the earliest and loudest proponents of AGW who now says,
Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.” But isn’t that exactly what he did last time we met? “I know,” he grins teasingly. “But I’ve grown up a bit since then.”
Lovelock now believes that “CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact,” he goes on breezily, “I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”
? Furthermore, even the Far Left Pravda-clone of The Guardian is trying to salvage some credibility now after promoting the false alarmism for so long: https://www.theguardian.com/en...
I cannot get a more Left-leaning source than this, and even they have finally realized that the climate is VASTLY more complex than a simple response to CO2 (let alone anthropogenic CO2). The number of you science denying alarmists is slowly decreasing, but you will cling to your cult of anthropogenic climate sin as long as you can. The majority of other scientists are no longer alarmed by the mostly-natural temperature increases since the end of the Little Ice Age.
I have no hypothesis. I am advocating the Null Hypothesis, you numpty. Geeze - you don't know anything about the Scientific Method,m do you? and again you appeal to consensus with your "thousands pf existing studies". You don't seem to understand that only one study is required to falsify a hypothesis. Go and look at the future predictions of warming by the IPCC, such as the 1990 report, for which we now have observation data - their projections are WRONG because their hypothesis is invalid. Go and look at the IPCC's estimations of the TCS. Even though they keep revising it down with each report it is still too high by a factor of two and quite likely three. You know what I'm talking about, right? Oh, that's right, you have no idea what the IPCC's actual predictions were and how observed reality shows those predictions are false. Your argument is the ANTI-SCIENTIFIC position about 'consensus' and not the Scientific Method where predictions from a hypothesis are tested against reality - and in the case of the CAGW Hypothesis the observations from satellites, weather balloons and well-sited ground stations (not subject to UHI) all show the hypothesis is FALSE and the Null Hypothesis must be accepted until a new hypothesis is proposed. THAT is the only scientific conclusion that an objective person can make.
But it is hard to know whether you cling to a falsified hypothesis because you wish to deny reality, or whether you are simply ignorant of the Scientific Method so don't know CAGW was falsified by the data. Which one is it ?
Second, many of the things you have written are pants-on-fire false, and now when presented with direct evidence that contradicts your statements, you chose to ignore the evidence, and double down on your fact-free views. So, if you don't want you ignorance pointed out in public, don't put it on display.
You have provided no evidence, You have only asserted your own opinion, that of a fanatical eco-loon. It is I who provided the archeological treatise - but you are so fanatical that deny it. You will cling to ANYTHING just so you can deny the satellite observations that show the IPPC's computer simulations are WRONG - even though they adjust the effect downward with every revision (not that someone with a goldfish-memory like you has noticed their sleight-of-hand that they don't bring to your attention).
How come you know so little about glaciers? the greatest rate of glacier loss at most sites around the World was in the late 19th century. Go and look at the photographs some time instead of repeating the hysterical propaganda of eco-loons with their anti-scientific agenda.
You still have not explained how the viking graves in Greenland are now under permafrost when it must have been warmer there in the past. Instead of accepting that the narrative of CAGW has been falsified by paleoarcheology and satellite observations (which show the warming rates predicted by the CAGW hypothesis is falsified with observational data) you cling to the failed computer models - and you are so scientifically illiterate that you don't understand that computer models are 'hypothesis' and not 'empirical data'. The real empirical data shows the computer simulations are WRONG - because the modellers don't understand Bode's model of feedbacks (as well as some other fundamental flaws).
Frankly, I wonder how you think you are applying the scientific method here.
Now perhaps I'm being too harsh on you. Perhaps you intend to not be a fanatical eco-loon. In that case, you MUST use the Scientific Method and seek and understand all the evidence and arguments that climate realists put out (and I've given you some videos to start with). You must hear their arguments from their own mouths and not the disinformation and distortions put out by the anti-scientific eco-loons.
The fanatics are not the climate realists, but the climate alarmists who cling to CAGW which was plausible in the 1990s but is falsified by the observed rate of mostly (but not entirely) ***NATURAL*** warming shown in satellite observations today. If you want to understand the intend of the fanatical collectivists who are trying to use concern about the environment as a way to gain money from and control over the global then you should read their words from their own mouths: http://green-agenda.com/
It is coming. Yes, it is coming. Ask the Venezuelans and North Koreans and Russians and East Germans and Chinese and Hungarians and Angolans and Cuban proletariat just how great it is going to be.
That's not how it works. What you need to do is provide better data that negates the stalactite record around the globe that match the Greenland record. The computer models predicted heating in the lower tropical troposphere. This has NOT been observed and the 'predictions' you claim match the observations are always hindcasts and the forecasts are never right.
Because you have the memory of a goldfish you have not noticed that every successive IPCC report has to downgrade their estimate of the TCS and ECS. Do you know what the TCS is ? if we eliminate natural warming such as El Nino effects do you know what the TCS is then?
The greatest aviation (and aviation-space hybrid) engineer on the planet is Burt Rutan, and he applied engineering analysis and points out how the data shows your position is plain WRONG: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Here is Professor Murray Salby who literally wrote the (graduate) textbook on Atmospheric Physics who also proves your position is WRONG: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Salby has given several lectures, I've chosen the one with the least math so that you might have a chance of following the very basics of the subject.
Michael Mann, James Hansen and Gavin Schmitt are all WRONG - and they refuse to use the Scientific Method and accept their hypothesis has been falsified.
So, I have a PhD in Physics, and have supplied video lectures by a NOBEL PRIZE WINNER IN PHYSICS as well as graduate-level atmospheric physics textbook writers and you want to regurgitate the empirically debunked nonsense by eco-loons like *****psychologist***** John Cook ?
What is your qualification in Physics ? with your arrogance you must be able to trump a Nobel Prize, right?
You are being fed disinformation. I and simply telling you the truth about the rich globalists (who promote fear of various climate catastrophes so they can siphon taxpayer money from the poor) and their political allies are lying to you - and many scientists go along because they get $29 BILLION in funding to go along with this scam.
Stop being a douche and an ignoramus who demonstrates the Dunning-Kruger Effect perfectly..
That's not how it works. What you need to do is provide better data that negates the stalactite record around the globe that match the Greenland record. The computer models predicted heating in the lower tropical troposphere. This has NOT been observed and the 'predictions' you claim match the observations are always hindcasts and the forecasts are never right.
Because you have the memory of a goldfish you have not noticed that every successive IPCC report has to downgrade their estimate of the TCS and ECS. Do you know what the TCS is ? if we eliminate natural warming such as El Nino effects do you know what the TCS is then?
The greatest aviation (and aviation-space hybrid) engineer on the planet is Burt Rutan, and he applied engineering analysis and points out how the data shows your position is plain WRONG: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Here is Professor Murray Salby who literally wrote the (graduate) textbook on Atmospheric Physics who also proves your position is WRONG: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Salby has given several lectures, I've chosen the one with the least math so that you might have a chance of following the very basics of the subject.
Michael Mann, James Hansen and Gavin Schmitt are all WRONG - and they refuse to use the Scientific Method and accept their hypothesis has been falsified.
Comrade, your mind and ideas are property of the State. Your concept of individual ownership of ideas is Thought Crime and stealing from the Collective. Hasn't the State seen fit to provide you with just enough food so you don't suffer from the scourge of obesity, and give you 'free' education of what the State thinks you should know. and 'free' medical care so you can continue to produce for the Collective ? what are you complaining about then? the companies are evil and competition is a racist codeword that results exploitation of you - isn't it much better that you have your 'freedom' in working directly for the State ?
We can laugh at this, but there is a growing section of society that thinks like this, and believes in the fusion of these big tech companies and the State. Once upon a time we recognized this as Fascism. Now the control of the economy by the State is called 'Progressiveness', and these companies are working on AI not to promote Free Speech and diversity of opinion, but to crush them.
Oh and before I forget. Even old archeology was aware that Greenland had been much warmer in the past, all due to NATURAL climate variation http://archive.archaeology.org...
Perhaps instead of insulting people based on what little you know you could instead learn and apply the Scientific Method to your reasoning, and look at ALL the evidence of paleoclimate changes. Remember ANY evidence against a theory is sufficient to falsify it - but it depends on whether you care about doing science using the Scientific Method, or want to deny the observational evidence and cling to an anti-scientific cult of climate catastrophe.
Thank you. Another piece of evidence that correlates with Greenland changes are stalactite formation rates in places as far away as Oman and New Zealand. And another juicy bit of science to emerge is that the computer simulations are founded on a misunderstanding of Bode's law for feedbacks. Ooops. No wonder they overestimate the effect of water vapor (the dominant 'greenhouse gas') so badly. Although there are still much more observational evidence for and against.
But even with only the Greenland data, I'd still take that any day over Michael Mann's single bristlecone pine as the basis for paleoclimate reconstruction !
Greenland was much warmer in the past than it is today. I am only telling you the truth about the archeology. http://archive.archaeology.org...
In addition to reading this I suggest you look up the rate of stalactite formation in sites as far away as Oman and New Zealand. The 'Greenland only' talking point you have doesn't match the observed evidence.
Have you never considered that perhaps you don't have all the data? have you ever considered that the people you disagree with are simply using the Scientific Method better than you are, and looking at a much wider range of observational evidence? have you ever considered that the computer simulations of predicted change may not match reality? that perhaps the climate 'scientists' did not understand Bode's feedback model at all? (the last one is a test of how well you understand the physics, and whether you understand the fundamental errors in the computer simulations or not - perhaps something for you to research, yes?).
Greenland was warmer in the past and got a lot colder. Perhaps instead of insulting what you presume about my knowledge you could spent milliseconds Googling the history of the land. For example, the following proves my case, Greenland was much warmer in the past than it is today, read this http://archive.archaeology.org...
Why do you feel the need to insult a stranger when they are telling you the truth? would you rather cling to the lies that the powers-that-be feed you? use the Scientific Method, please.
I love XKCD, but surprisingly Randal got it rather wrong when he did the comic - in the sense that the XKCD graph is based on old and debunked views that have been replaced by better data. For the actual data in a format similar to XKCD please see: https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
For those that want to 'shoot the messenger', why don't you like the modern observational data that replaces the old and incorrect meme ? some folks are just so conservative they love eco 'doom n gloom' and don't want to accept better research that shows today's conditions are not exceptional compared to even the geologically recent past. We are still unable to farm in Greenland as the Vikings did (it is so much colder today than then that the graves of the Viking farmers there are now under 'permafrost' - because it was warm enough 1000 years ago that Greenland was green and fertile and not white like today).
So the Classic Liberal Right wants to stop children getting pornography and you have a problem with that ? We do know that the Far Left does want to sexualize children early, and you agree with this? in fact the Left is sexualizing children in schools with very shocking messages at very young aqes (as it promotes an4l sex to eight year olds etc - I know because my sibling's children have been taught all this)
Meanwhile, the Left is pushing for actual censorship of Free Speech - like Obama working here to give Russia, Iran, China and the 57 member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) which votes as a bloc in the UN General Assembly control over all our Free Speech. Hillary Clinton's backing of the anti-Free Speech criminalization of anything that defies Sharia speech codes in the evil UN HRC 16/18 is an example of this.
You are on the wrong side of history, and on the side of the totalitarians and islamists. History will not judge you kindly. You think you are working against 'Right totalitarianism' but you are utterly blind to the fact that totalitarianism requires Collectivism and that comes from the Left and their Islamist allies. Smarten up, please.
Could you please point me to the legislation that the Classic Liberals of the political Right got passed to abrogate the First Amendment to the US Constitution? You see, the Classic Liberals (which the Collectivist Left call "Conservatives") actually believe in Free Speech no matter what the theocrats say.
In contrast, the Modern Liberals of the political Right only claim to believe in Free Speech when they want to speak. They believe in censorship, 'hate speech', trigger warnings, safe spaces, use of violence against Classic Liberals, SJWs screaming down anyone they don't like, burying truth in false narrative 'higher truths' (which sane people recognize as untruths designed to propel the Left into the one thing they actually believe in - POWER).
Of course the Collectivists don't want you to know this - because they want POWER. So they'll use every deception to keep you from seeing the truth - that everything the Left claims to care about (truth, women, gay rights, etc) are all tactical positions that they happily abandon if another position (advancing the Muslim Brotherhood's interests and cohorts) if it means they will get what they truly desire above all else - POWER (for the Leftist elites, not for you lumpenproletariat, of course).
Think about it, if we exclude the theocratic collectivist totalitarianism of Islam and its body count of 270 million over 14 centuries (ever since invented by Caliph Abd al Malik - the Mohammed fiction is a myth that doesn't match the archeology as modern scholars now know) then the mass murders of the 20th Century all have one thing in common. Are you intelligent enough to spot the source of misery and mass murder if I give you the names of the ideologies that perpetrated this madness and is tearing the Free World and families apart today? Here are the names: National Socialism, Soviet Socialism, Maoist Socialism, North Korean Socialism, North Vietnamese Socialism, Ba'athist Socialism, East German Socialism, Khmer Rouge Socialism, Angolan Socialism, Ethiopian Socialism, Venezuelan Socialism, Hungarian Socialism, French Revolutionary Socialism, South American 'Bolivarian' Socialism, etc etc etc.
Did you see what these evil systems had in common? oh, they will promise you anything in the World ('Free' healthcare, 'Free' education, 'Free' housing, 'Free' food) and all you have to do is surrender all your Freedom and all your Wealth to the elites of the Collectivist Left. But it ALWAYS ends the same way, the only difference between countries is how long it takes for the Collectivist elites to destroy the Individualists who resist the tyranny of the Collective.
Unfortunately so many Slashdotters do not understand this - because they have never heard the truth. Some Slashdotters resist the truth and consider the truth-tellers to be their mortal enemies. But we are not your enemies, we are trying to free you from the mind-forged manacles that the Collectivists are trying to enslave us all with - as their media bombards us daily with articles chosen to present the Collectivist perspective on any story..
There is no utopia. There is no substitute for Liberty. Collectivism kills - and it kills a lot.
ps. look at Sweden, the parasitic Left has sucked the life out of the country and crushed any dissent against Collectivist policies. Look at the disaster it is today, where Swedish women cannot go out at night, and yet the Left refuses to give up its insane and dangerous policies which are destroying the country. This is the future of all Westerners if you don't stop listening to the globalists and Collectivists of the Left who are not competent to run your life for you. Only the Individualism of Classic Liberalism (the political Right in the US sense) can stop this madness and let you live your life how you want to based on the primacy of the Individual over the Collective (controlled by the self-selecting sociopathic 'elites').
This is a Ponzi scheme. But choice is good, so you have your electric tincan and I'll stick to a vehicle powered by sunlight concentrated into high-density liquid form.
Slashdot Mirror
BOOM! I gave you evidence that your positions are counter-factual, such as the Canadian Geographic article that polar bear numbers are indeed up, and that the surface temperature data is being fiddled as stated by Iceland's chief meteorologist, and that the climate sensitivity keeps getting adjusted down and still claimed as a far too high value (which means, CAGW is falsified).
What you are experiencing is called "cognitive dissonance". You know the statements I make are true, but they conflict with your indoctrination, so you reject reality and instead decide to continue with your programmed responses. You claim others are "crazy" yet it is you who is unable to accept facts due to your programming. That makes you the irrational one who is acting "crazy".
The Scientific Method requires me to examine your arguments and evidence. You will notice I did, that I read through the sources you gave. What you didn't understand was how the sources were dissembling, but when their data was interpreted properly they support the climate realists position, and require that the Null Hypothesis be selected over the alarmist's empirically falsified CAGW. You are on the wrong side of history.
The 'sum of natural forces' could indeed cancel, but they are not likely to cancel perfectly for 65 years, are they? especially when we can directly observe solar magnetic variability. this argument is nonsense and defies even basic common sense (as it turns out in the eco activist community, common sense is not so common). For example, since 2002 fossil fuel use has increased by a factor of 3 while the annual increase of CO2 remains at the same factor of 1 from the two preceding decades - you would know this basic fact if you had bothered to watch the video on atmospheric physics I supplied
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
But as a fanatic you don't want to learn the physics, you want to cling to your sacred eco religion in defiance of the science.
Of course the oceans have a finite heat capacity, and that is HUGE compared to the atmosphere. If you are suggesting the oceans have saturated their heat capacity then you are completely wrong. Furthermore, you don't seem to understand even the basics of the argument, is that the atmosphere and ocean exchange heat in very complex ways and with complex time lags depending on ocean currents. They are not particularly well understood and certainly not included in the woeful GCM of today. What is known is that solar heating can be stored in the ocean for CENTURIES before being released to the atmosphere.
No, that's the blog of an actual practising climate scientist, and he links to his data sources while explaining pretty precisely why everything you've written about the balloon data is pants-on-fire wrong.
But a blog is not 'peer-revied' is it? and your whole argument is not about atmosphere physics, it is about being 'peer reviewed'. You don't even know about the Climategate revelations where the peer-review process was subverted to exclude scientifically accurate papers that disagreed with Michael Mann's Hockey Stick model (observationally debunked which is why the IPCC finally dropped it).
Contrary to your claims, the models are reasonably accurate [skepticalscience.com]. I am following the scientific method, you have just failed to provide any data that actually contradicts any of the theories that you claim are false. Every argument you have provided has already been examined and debunked hundreds, if not thousands of times already.
The models are hideously inaccurate ! from the ensemble of nearly 100 models only one comes anywhere near the observations (and not particularly close), and this was only possible by adjusting the fit parameters after the fact. In technical terms, the models demonstrate 'no skill' in prediction. They cannot forecast and only fit when done as a hindcast. The most important thing is that the ensemble of models predicted everything, from the mild, slow warming we have observed, to catastrophe - but there was no way to distinguish ahead-of-time which modeled reality. Again, this proves the models have 'no skill' in prediction. When your 'model' set of possible outcomes includes all eventualities but it cannot distinguish which is the most likely then it shows that a) your models are worthless as forecasts, and certainly not worth spending Trillions of dollars on and murdering billions of brown people for, and b) you don't actually understand the underlying processes enough to make decent predictions (this is a nice way of saying, "The hypothesis and the cl
The natural warming trend didn't "magically stop", it stopped because the natural factors driving the warming trend ended, but you are free to ignore inconvenient truths like the fact that the sun has had a small cooling trend over the last 35 years [skepticalscience.com].
ALL the factors stopped simultaneously? wow ! and the massive heatsink of the ocean stopped exchanging energy with the atmosphere? and the cosmic ray interaction that affects water vapor greatly also stopped all variability ? All on the same day in 1950? you folks should listen to yourselves sometimes.
[wordpress.com].
ROFL ! That must be the 'peer reviewed' source you are talking about, right?
The main problem here is that the specific predictions of AGW have not been proven accurate by observed reality. There are some people claiming that if you cherry-pick the data, squint and tilt your head then the data doesn't look as good. But they are going to great lengths to create data that doesn't match the predictions. In the particular case you cite, they use one particular measurement, use an old, outdated copy of the data, ignore the inherent problems in the measurement, splicing, and orbital decay adjustments due to indirect nature of the measurements, and then cherry-pick a time segment for minimal warming. Just to get one piece of data that doesn't look like it matches the predictions, but it's all deliberate framing to cover up the underlying truth.
You don't understand the Scientific Method at all, do you? a single counter-observation is enough to invalidate any theory. Einstein and Feynmann have famous quotes on this. But wait, the psychologist John Cook and his 'skeptical science' (which is all-too credulous of eco-lunacy) outranks Einstein and Feynmann in understand the Scientific Method, right?
What scaremongering? All I've done is correct your many factual errors.
Ok, now you are out and out lying. Of course you know the scaremongering used by the alarmists to extort Trillions of dollars from poor citizens to give to rich citizens in green boondoggles. The scaremongering which is increasing energy poverty and will condemn Billions in the Third World to poverty and even death (since you aim to make energy more expensive based on your anti-scientific Cult of Global Warming). You think you are the good guy of the story, but you are the villain who clings to failed predictions and twists and turns with your cherry picking because you cannot explain why the World does not warm at the rate your failed computer simulations predicted. But you will refuse to follow the Scientific Method and acknowledge the fundamental flaws in the feedback calculations that are the crux of CAGW theory. You are one of the inquisitors condemning Gallileo for pointing out the observations don't match your eco-religious viewpoint - and you think shouting louder will make your failed predictions come true. This is anti-scientific and fanatical on your part.
When I supply you with quotes of UN people saying they are only using Global Warming as a cover for their Collectivist political ambitions you simply dismiss the evidence you don't like. That makes you fanatical because you will not objectively examine any counter-evidence to your current ideological position.
And yet, I'm the one presenting you with articles backed by peer-reviewed science.
Like the Wordpress article ? Could you show me where in the Scientific Method 'peer review' is required ? it isn't. But you are so bad at science you don't know this. The ONLY thing that determines reality in the Scientific Method are the observations - and the observations show that the predictions of the IPCC (which they continually revise down since they systematically get it wrong) are on the very fringe of their uncertainly distribution. That is, observed reality has somewhere near a 5% chance of occurring
Thank you very much for your comment, and for the link to the interesting read - I had not seen that and they make very good points. I write less so for the person I'm debating, since usually they are too convinced of their assumed moral superiority to be persuaded, but to put facts and ideas out for others to read. Cheers :)
1) Take one dataset, such as the RSS 6 data used to generate this
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...
2) Remove El Nino (since they are not man-made, unless somehow you think they are ?)
3) Plot against the IPCC prediction curve using their most-likely TCS.
4) What is the statistical significance of the observed value versus the ensemble of IPCC predictions ?
5) Repeat for UAH
6) Repeat for the weather ballon data
7) Repeat for well-sited surface stations, after removing those contaminated by UHI and all the estimate data (which is nearly 50% these days), then correct for the lapse rate (since we're talking about the LTT).
In all cases the IPCC models overestimate the warming because they don't model the complexities of water vapor correctly and water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas - and the principal determinant of the TCS. Hence, the alarmists predict way to much warming, at too great a rate. CAGW, which is the position of the IPCC (and yourself), is falsified.
You are aware that AGW/CAGW is not really about CO2, right? it is about **water vapor** - but 'clouds' don't sound scary enough for the taxpayer shakedown the unelected anti-democratic United Nations control freaks have planned.
Nope, he's a nut job. He was a nut job when he was over reacting to global warming and how he's a nut job who denies global warming. In any case, if you read the interview, he seems to think climate change is irrelevant because we will all be enslaved by intelligent robots before the end of the century... Which is clearly a prediction based on well researched science, right?
Like all those who believe in Statist Collectivism he is divorced from reality. I mean, Leftists believe that despite the hundreds of millions of their own citizens slaughtered in peacetime by Soviet Socialism, National Socialism, Maoist Socialism, North Korean Socialism, North Vietnamese Socialism, Ba'athist Socialism, Angolan Socialism, Ethiopian Socialism, Hungarian Socialism, East German Socialism, Indonesian Socialism, Czech Socialism, Venezuelan Socialism that somehow the solution is more Statist Collectivism and active oppression of those seeking Individual Liberty (which require Limited Government and Private Property). So yeah, he is a nutjob just like all Leftists/Statist Collectivists.
Actually, what they have done is publish an interview with James Lovelock. It might be difficult for you to understand this, but interviewing someone is not an implicit endorsement of everything they say.
Actually, it is, unless they state that they disagree. The editors choose what material to publish, and the art of modern propaganda is not what is in the content of any particular article, but in the selection of what articles to publish, and what to HIDE. But you don't understand this - hence you likely think the media are 'objective' and 'unbiased' and are practicing 'journalism'. LOL. Borg Drones are so naive.
it also appears that the number of science denying climate change deniers
Wow! that's dumb. How many people "deny climate change" ? no one denies the climate changes. What is debated is the proportion of man-made change (from our piddling 5% contribution to the CO2 budget) to the natural change (which started over 150 years ago at the end of the Little Ice Age and did not magically stop in 1950 as the alarmists claim).
That statement is humorously true, because the majority of scientists are definitely not alarmed about natural climate change. However, it's also misleading because the current change in the climate is actually about 100% anthropogenic over the last 60 years [skepticalscience.com], if you look closely at the contributor graph on that page, you should notice that the natural factors are actually net-negative and the warming trend has nothing to do with the end of the Little Ice Age [skepticalscience.com].
Quoting skeptical science's ignorant opinion is not how the Scientific Method is done. The IPCC made specific predictions that the Lower Tropical Troposphere would show a specific warming pattern if AGW was the correct hypothesis. The RSS and UAH satellites, backed up by thousands of balloons, have not observed this signature. So we have hypothesis, prediction, observation, and the observation does NOT match the prediction. Furthermore the specific nature of the the AGW models predict a TCS whose most probable value is greater than 3 (after revision downward from failure after failure of earlier predictions). The observed value is currently between 1 and 2 and looks like will converge lower than that. In short, the specific predictions of AGW have been falsified by observed reality. Who cares what the psychologists are skepticalscience have to say, what matters is that the AGW predictions do not match REALITY. Hence the skeptics were right and the Scientific Method requires the old false hypothesis be discarded and a new hypothesis generated. But what is clear at the moment is that the scaremongering of the old hypothesis is unfounded. All you eco loons continuing to cling to it are being anti-scientific. You made your predictions and you FAILED. Now you twist and turn because you don't care about science, you care about preserving the (falsified) dogmas of your self-flagellating cult of 'green environmentalism'. Only the 'mental' part of your cult is relevant.
So, would you believe James Lovelock, the inventor of the Gaia Hypothesis and one of the earliest and loudest proponents of AGW ? He now says,
Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.” But isn’t that exactly what he did last time we met? “I know,” he grins teasingly. “But I’ve grown up a bit since then.”
Lovelock now believes that “CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact,” he goes on breezily, “I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”
Furthermore, even the Far Left Pravda-clone of The Guardian is trying to salvage some credibility now after promoting the false alarmism for so long:
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
I cannot get a more Left-leaning source than this, and even they have finally realized that the climate is VASTLY more complex than a simple response to CO2 (let alone anthropogenic CO2). The number of you science denying alarmists is slowly decreasing, but you will cling to your cult of anthropogenic climate sin as long as you can. The majority of other scientists are no longer alarmed by the mostly-natural temperature increases since the end of the Little Ice Age.
I'm trying to save you from deep and total future embarrassment. Now the interesting thing is that you accepted the facts I presented earlier. It was only later when I presented the "why" of why the United Nations bureaucrats are pushing the falsified CAGW Hypothesis that you struggled. Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert, and trained hypnotist) calls this "cognitive dissonance", you understand the facts but cannot reconcile them with the indoctrination you've received your whole life. You cannot yet step outside the Matrix and see the memes that are used to control you. Hopefully one day you will. Not everyone who claims to be doing good and working in your interest is actually working in your interest - and the bigger a collective group is, the less they care about your individual wants, needs and desires. Just saying. Peace, and Liberty !
So, would you believe James Lovelock, the inventor of the Gaia Hypothesis and one of the earliest and loudest proponents of AGW who now says,
Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.” But isn’t that exactly what he did last time we met? “I know,” he grins teasingly. “But I’ve grown up a bit since then.”
Lovelock now believes that “CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact,” he goes on breezily, “I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”
Furthermore, even the Far Left Pravda-clone of The Guardian is trying to salvage some credibility now after promoting the false alarmism for so long:
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
I cannot get a more Left-leaning source than this, and even they have finally realized that the climate is VASTLY more complex than a simple response to CO2 (let alone anthropogenic CO2). The number of you science denying alarmists is slowly decreasing, but you will cling to your cult of anthropogenic climate sin as long as you can. The majority of other scientists are no longer alarmed by the mostly-natural temperature increases since the end of the Little Ice Age.
I'm trying to save you from deep and total future embarrassment, since you're a such slow learner - and you think you know the Scientific Method better than a Nobel Prize winning physicist. Such arrogance !
So, would you believe James Lovelock, the inventor of the Gaia Hypothesis and one of the earliest and loudest proponents of AGW who now says,
Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.” But isn’t that exactly what he did last time we met? “I know,” he grins teasingly. “But I’ve grown up a bit since then.”
Lovelock now believes that “CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact,” he goes on breezily, “I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”
? Furthermore, even the Far Left Pravda-clone of The Guardian is trying to salvage some credibility now after promoting the false alarmism for so long:
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
I cannot get a more Left-leaning source than this, and even they have finally realized that the climate is VASTLY more complex than a simple response to CO2 (let alone anthropogenic CO2). The number of you science denying alarmists is slowly decreasing, but you will cling to your cult of anthropogenic climate sin as long as you can. The majority of other scientists are no longer alarmed by the mostly-natural temperature increases since the end of the Little Ice Age.
I have no hypothesis. I am advocating the Null Hypothesis, you numpty. Geeze - you don't know anything about the Scientific Method,m do you? and again you appeal to consensus with your "thousands pf existing studies". You don't seem to understand that only one study is required to falsify a hypothesis. Go and look at the future predictions of warming by the IPCC, such as the 1990 report, for which we now have observation data - their projections are WRONG because their hypothesis is invalid. Go and look at the IPCC's estimations of the TCS. Even though they keep revising it down with each report it is still too high by a factor of two and quite likely three. You know what I'm talking about, right? Oh, that's right, you have no idea what the IPCC's actual predictions were and how observed reality shows those predictions are false. Your argument is the ANTI-SCIENTIFIC position about 'consensus' and not the Scientific Method where predictions from a hypothesis are tested against reality - and in the case of the CAGW Hypothesis the observations from satellites, weather balloons and well-sited ground stations (not subject to UHI) all show the hypothesis is FALSE and the Null Hypothesis must be accepted until a new hypothesis is proposed. THAT is the only scientific conclusion that an objective person can make.
But it is hard to know whether you cling to a falsified hypothesis because you wish to deny reality, or whether you are simply ignorant of the Scientific Method so don't know CAGW was falsified by the data. Which one is it ?
Second, many of the things you have written are pants-on-fire false, and now when presented with direct evidence that contradicts your statements, you chose to ignore the evidence, and double down on your fact-free views. So, if you don't want you ignorance pointed out in public, don't put it on display.
You have provided no evidence, You have only asserted your own opinion, that of a fanatical eco-loon. It is I who provided the archeological treatise - but you are so fanatical that deny it. You will cling to ANYTHING just so you can deny the satellite observations that show the IPPC's computer simulations are WRONG - even though they adjust the effect downward with every revision (not that someone with a goldfish-memory like you has noticed their sleight-of-hand that they don't bring to your attention).
How come you know so little about glaciers? the greatest rate of glacier loss at most sites around the World was in the late 19th century. Go and look at the photographs some time instead of repeating the hysterical propaganda of eco-loons with their anti-scientific agenda.
You still have not explained how the viking graves in Greenland are now under permafrost when it must have been warmer there in the past. Instead of accepting that the narrative of CAGW has been falsified by paleoarcheology and satellite observations (which show the warming rates predicted by the CAGW hypothesis is falsified with observational data) you cling to the failed computer models - and you are so scientifically illiterate that you don't understand that computer models are 'hypothesis' and not 'empirical data'. The real empirical data shows the computer simulations are WRONG - because the modellers don't understand Bode's model of feedbacks (as well as some other fundamental flaws).
Frankly, I wonder how you think you are applying the scientific method here.
I have a PhD in Physics. What do you have? you can wonder all you want, but these guys with a NOBEL PRIZE in Physics, the world's greatest aviation engineer, and a physicist who literally wrote the (graduate) textbook on atmospheric physics all think you are very, very WRONG:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Now perhaps I'm being too harsh on you. Perhaps you intend to not be a fanatical eco-loon. In that case, you MUST use the Scientific Method and seek and understand all the evidence and arguments that climate realists put out (and I've given you some videos to start with). You must hear their arguments from their own mouths and not the disinformation and distortions put out by the anti-scientific eco-loons.
The fanatics are not the climate realists, but the climate alarmists who cling to CAGW which was plausible in the 1990s but is falsified by the observed rate of mostly (but not entirely) ***NATURAL*** warming shown in satellite observations today. If you want to understand the intend of the fanatical collectivists who are trying to use concern about the environment as a way to gain money from and control over the global then you should read their words from their own mouths:
http://green-agenda.com/
It is coming. Yes, it is coming. Ask the Venezuelans and North Koreans and Russians and East Germans and Chinese and Hungarians and Angolans and Cuban proletariat just how great it is going to be.
That's not how it works. What you need to do is provide better data that negates the stalactite record around the globe that match the Greenland record. The computer models predicted heating in the lower tropical troposphere. This has NOT been observed and the 'predictions' you claim match the observations are always hindcasts and the forecasts are never right.
Because you have the memory of a goldfish you have not noticed that every successive IPCC report has to downgrade their estimate of the TCS and ECS. Do you know what the TCS is ? if we eliminate natural warming such as El Nino effects do you know what the TCS is then?
This guy has a Nobel Prize in Physics and thinks you are an anti-scientific muppet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The great Freeman Dyson also thinks you are hysterically anti-scientific:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The greatest aviation (and aviation-space hybrid) engineer on the planet is Burt Rutan, and he applied engineering analysis and points out how the data shows your position is plain WRONG:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Here is Professor Murray Salby who literally wrote the (graduate) textbook on Atmospheric Physics who also proves your position is WRONG:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Salby has given several lectures, I've chosen the one with the least math so that you might have a chance of following the very basics of the subject.
Michael Mann, James Hansen and Gavin Schmitt are all WRONG - and they refuse to use the Scientific Method and accept their hypothesis has been falsified.
So, I have a PhD in Physics, and have supplied video lectures by a NOBEL PRIZE WINNER IN PHYSICS as well as graduate-level atmospheric physics textbook writers and you want to regurgitate the empirically debunked nonsense by eco-loons like *****psychologist***** John Cook ?
What is your qualification in Physics ? with your arrogance you must be able to trump a Nobel Prize, right?
You are being fed disinformation. I and simply telling you the truth about the rich globalists (who promote fear of various climate catastrophes so they can siphon taxpayer money from the poor) and their political allies are lying to you - and many scientists go along because they get $29 BILLION in funding to go along with this scam.
Stop being a douche and an ignoramus who demonstrates the Dunning-Kruger Effect perfectly..
That's not how it works. What you need to do is provide better data that negates the stalactite record around the globe that match the Greenland record. The computer models predicted heating in the lower tropical troposphere. This has NOT been observed and the 'predictions' you claim match the observations are always hindcasts and the forecasts are never right.
Because you have the memory of a goldfish you have not noticed that every successive IPCC report has to downgrade their estimate of the TCS and ECS. Do you know what the TCS is ? if we eliminate natural warming such as El Nino effects do you know what the TCS is then?
This guy has a Nobel Prize in Physics and thinks you are an anti-scientific muppet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The great Freeman Dyson also thinks you are hysterically anti-scientific:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The greatest aviation (and aviation-space hybrid) engineer on the planet is Burt Rutan, and he applied engineering analysis and points out how the data shows your position is plain WRONG:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Here is Professor Murray Salby who literally wrote the (graduate) textbook on Atmospheric Physics who also proves your position is WRONG:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Salby has given several lectures, I've chosen the one with the least math so that you might have a chance of following the very basics of the subject.
Michael Mann, James Hansen and Gavin Schmitt are all WRONG - and they refuse to use the Scientific Method and accept their hypothesis has been falsified.
Comrade, your mind and ideas are property of the State. Your concept of individual ownership of ideas is Thought Crime and stealing from the Collective. Hasn't the State seen fit to provide you with just enough food so you don't suffer from the scourge of obesity, and give you 'free' education of what the State thinks you should know. and 'free' medical care so you can continue to produce for the Collective ? what are you complaining about then? the companies are evil and competition is a racist codeword that results exploitation of you - isn't it much better that you have your 'freedom' in working directly for the State ?
We can laugh at this, but there is a growing section of society that thinks like this, and believes in the fusion of these big tech companies and the State. Once upon a time we recognized this as Fascism. Now the control of the economy by the State is called 'Progressiveness', and these companies are working on AI not to promote Free Speech and diversity of opinion, but to crush them.
Oh and before I forget. Even old archeology was aware that Greenland had been much warmer in the past, all due to NATURAL climate variation
http://archive.archaeology.org...
Perhaps instead of insulting people based on what little you know you could instead learn and apply the Scientific Method to your reasoning, and look at ALL the evidence of paleoclimate changes. Remember ANY evidence against a theory is sufficient to falsify it - but it depends on whether you care about doing science using the Scientific Method, or want to deny the observational evidence and cling to an anti-scientific cult of climate catastrophe.
What about the stalactite data from places like Oman and New Zealand that are correlated with the Greenland data ? you are aware of these, yes ?
Thank you. Another piece of evidence that correlates with Greenland changes are stalactite formation rates in places as far away as Oman and New Zealand. And another juicy bit of science to emerge is that the computer simulations are founded on a misunderstanding of Bode's law for feedbacks. Ooops. No wonder they overestimate the effect of water vapor (the dominant 'greenhouse gas') so badly. Although there are still much more observational evidence for and against.
But even with only the Greenland data, I'd still take that any day over Michael Mann's single bristlecone pine as the basis for paleoclimate reconstruction !
Greenland was much warmer in the past than it is today. I am only telling you the truth about the archeology.
http://archive.archaeology.org...
In addition to reading this I suggest you look up the rate of stalactite formation in sites as far away as Oman and New Zealand. The 'Greenland only' talking point you have doesn't match the observed evidence.
Have you never considered that perhaps you don't have all the data? have you ever considered that the people you disagree with are simply using the Scientific Method better than you are, and looking at a much wider range of observational evidence? have you ever considered that the computer simulations of predicted change may not match reality? that perhaps the climate 'scientists' did not understand Bode's feedback model at all? (the last one is a test of how well you understand the physics, and whether you understand the fundamental errors in the computer simulations or not - perhaps something for you to research, yes?).
Greenland was warmer in the past and got a lot colder. Perhaps instead of insulting what you presume about my knowledge you could spent milliseconds Googling the history of the land. For example, the following proves my case, Greenland was much warmer in the past than it is today, read this
http://archive.archaeology.org...
Why do you feel the need to insult a stranger when they are telling you the truth? would you rather cling to the lies that the powers-that-be feed you? use the Scientific Method, please.
I love XKCD, but surprisingly Randal got it rather wrong when he did the comic - in the sense that the XKCD graph is based on old and debunked views that have been replaced by better data. For the actual data in a format similar to XKCD please see:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
For those that want to 'shoot the messenger', why don't you like the modern observational data that replaces the old and incorrect meme ? some folks are just so conservative they love eco 'doom n gloom' and don't want to accept better research that shows today's conditions are not exceptional compared to even the geologically recent past. We are still unable to farm in Greenland as the Vikings did (it is so much colder today than then that the graves of the Viking farmers there are now under 'permafrost' - because it was warm enough 1000 years ago that Greenland was green and fertile and not white like today).
So the Classic Liberal Right wants to stop children getting pornography and you have a problem with that ? We do know that the Far Left does want to sexualize children early, and you agree with this? in fact the Left is sexualizing children in schools with very shocking messages at very young aqes (as it promotes an4l sex to eight year olds etc - I know because my sibling's children have been taught all this)
Meanwhile, the Left is pushing for actual censorship of Free Speech - like Obama working here to give Russia, Iran, China and the 57 member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) which votes as a bloc in the UN General Assembly control over all our Free Speech. Hillary Clinton's backing of the anti-Free Speech criminalization of anything that defies Sharia speech codes in the evil UN HRC 16/18 is an example of this.
You are on the wrong side of history, and on the side of the totalitarians and islamists. History will not judge you kindly. You think you are working against 'Right totalitarianism' but you are utterly blind to the fact that totalitarianism requires Collectivism and that comes from the Left and their Islamist allies. Smarten up, please.
Oops, bad typo => s/the Modern Liberals of the political Right /the Modern Liberals of the political Left/
Could you please point me to the legislation that the Classic Liberals of the political Right got passed to abrogate the First Amendment to the US Constitution? You see, the Classic Liberals (which the Collectivist Left call "Conservatives") actually believe in Free Speech no matter what the theocrats say.
In contrast, the Modern Liberals of the political Right only claim to believe in Free Speech when they want to speak. They believe in censorship, 'hate speech', trigger warnings, safe spaces, use of violence against Classic Liberals, SJWs screaming down anyone they don't like, burying truth in false narrative 'higher truths' (which sane people recognize as untruths designed to propel the Left into the one thing they actually believe in - POWER).
Of course the Collectivists don't want you to know this - because they want POWER. So they'll use every deception to keep you from seeing the truth - that everything the Left claims to care about (truth, women, gay rights, etc) are all tactical positions that they happily abandon if another position (advancing the Muslim Brotherhood's interests and cohorts) if it means they will get what they truly desire above all else - POWER (for the Leftist elites, not for you lumpenproletariat, of course).
Think about it, if we exclude the theocratic collectivist totalitarianism of Islam and its body count of 270 million over 14 centuries (ever since invented by Caliph Abd al Malik - the Mohammed fiction is a myth that doesn't match the archeology as modern scholars now know) then the mass murders of the 20th Century all have one thing in common. Are you intelligent enough to spot the source of misery and mass murder if I give you the names of the ideologies that perpetrated this madness and is tearing the Free World and families apart today? Here are the names: National Socialism, Soviet Socialism, Maoist Socialism, North Korean Socialism, North Vietnamese Socialism, Ba'athist Socialism, East German Socialism, Khmer Rouge Socialism, Angolan Socialism, Ethiopian Socialism, Venezuelan Socialism, Hungarian Socialism, French Revolutionary Socialism, South American 'Bolivarian' Socialism, etc etc etc.
Did you see what these evil systems had in common? oh, they will promise you anything in the World ('Free' healthcare, 'Free' education, 'Free' housing, 'Free' food) and all you have to do is surrender all your Freedom and all your Wealth to the elites of the Collectivist Left. But it ALWAYS ends the same way, the only difference between countries is how long it takes for the Collectivist elites to destroy the Individualists who resist the tyranny of the Collective.
Unfortunately so many Slashdotters do not understand this - because they have never heard the truth. Some Slashdotters resist the truth and consider the truth-tellers to be their mortal enemies. But we are not your enemies, we are trying to free you from the mind-forged manacles that the Collectivists are trying to enslave us all with - as their media bombards us daily with articles chosen to present the Collectivist perspective on any story..
There is no utopia. There is no substitute for Liberty. Collectivism kills - and it kills a lot.
ps. look at Sweden, the parasitic Left has sucked the life out of the country and crushed any dissent against Collectivist policies. Look at the disaster it is today, where Swedish women cannot go out at night, and yet the Left refuses to give up its insane and dangerous policies which are destroying the country. This is the future of all Westerners if you don't stop listening to the globalists and Collectivists of the Left who are not competent to run your life for you. Only the Individualism of Classic Liberalism (the political Right in the US sense) can stop this madness and let you live your life how you want to based on the primacy of the Individual over the Collective (controlled by the self-selecting sociopathic 'elites').
This is a Ponzi scheme. But choice is good, so you have your electric tincan and I'll stick to a vehicle powered by sunlight concentrated into high-density liquid form.