Ok look you can stop pulling at straws, its obvious you are just trying to shape the narrative.... they are non-scientists? You are going to have to back that one up or shut up.... Without facts? Again, back that one up.... Common sense... of course if you call everyone else crazy, common sense must be on your side.
What you dont like saying is, scientists who are skeptics when they speak up about the absurdities presented in climate science, loose their funding, get fired, get bullied, have their papers rejected for no other reason than to silence the opposition. This has been happening for over 30 years.
For the 18 years, look no further than Ben Santer. (is that good enough for you?)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”
Everything in climate science is about averaging. The Global mean temps are averaged. And most scientists would tell you that using averages is totaly retarded in the temperature context, but global warming scientists have redefined science and averages is what we use. So now, you are going to tell me, that we use average temperatures for global mean, but WAIT, we shouldnt use averaged climate models to compare them to? Do you take people for complete tools or did you just not completely re-read your rebuttal before posting it?
Want to know why we dont like averages? Because the global mean surface air temperature has risen about 0.6 or 0.7C during the 20th century. But this rise is a result, in the most part, from the daily minimum temperature increasing at a faster rate or decreasing at a slower rate than the daily maximum as the daily maximum has basically not really changed over the same period.
About your point on models, so you are telling me when they take observed data, input it into the model, then VOILA they can make it work. Hindsight is so much fun isnt it? So will they be doing this every 20 years?
If your model cannot predict the future, because its a chaotic system and there are factors that can completely wipe out your predictions (like ENSO and others) than your model is completely useless for determining policy. The models do not track with the observed data. Plain and simple.
The warming of the oceans does not explain the complete lack of warming of the atmosphere over that period. Did all of a sudden the oceans decided to absorb more heat than normal just to spite climate scientists? The factors affecting global warming have just decided to change for the last 20 years?
Studies show that the deep oceans are cooling (3600m or more) http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... Also ARGO (floats) and CERES (satellites) data disagree on the amount of energy being accumulated between 2000M and the surface by a WIDE margin. Something to keep in mind, they error bars (which they dont present for this data) would completely wipe out the observations. Also, even if you go by argo data, the increase amounts to 0.02C per decade observed since they started using ARGO.
Lastly about ocean heat. AGW scientists claim they can measure the monthly average temperature of 0.65 BILLION cubic kilometres of ocean water to a precision of one hundredth of a degree Celsius which seems very doubtful to me.
I mean flatline or almost, less than 0.05 rise. And to meat the above criteria, I can only go back 18 years and 4 months. More than that, and I start going above slightly, however ever so slightly.
Climate change comes from politics and always has. The IPCC was formed by politicians with one goal, prove a ready made theory, that humans, by way of CO2 are changing climate. But you dont have to agree with me. Read the governing work and role of the IPCC.
"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
You have not been looking hard enough if you havent found skeptics elsewhere than in the US.
If you think the scientific debate on global warming has ended in countries like the UK, Australia, Canada, all European countries and elsewhere, you are actively trying to silence the debate.
Else why have scientists been looking for 50+ different reasons for why the last 18 years have no followed the models?
There are other factors at play, and I know they study them, but they still havent been able to put the finger on which ones are actually contributing to the fact that models have not tracked with observed temperatures.
Considering that CO2 increase has been constant, but temperatures have not significantly risen in the last 18 years.
And you think Cook is unbiased? Science Denying site?? They deny the propaganda, that is not the same and you know it.
If you don't like his claims, look at peer reviewed rebuttals to ALL the 97% consensus claims. www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html
I really have had enough with seemingly intelligent people apologizing and defending the indefensible. It boggles the mind how people will twist themselves crooked to find excuses to support clearly flawed claims just to support their confirmation bias.
You know thats not what I meant. I was refuting the fact that one has to be a Dr. in Climataulogy to have a say. People have this belief that climate scientists must be climate scientists and geologists, engineers and others know nothing.
Your right, not everyone in those fields have studied climate enough to know what they are talking about. But I bet any good statistician can look at a paper heavy with stats and come to conclusions, on wether it holds water or not.
I know a mathematician can read a climate paper written by a mathematician read the formulas and understand whats its all about and also make up his mind on wether it makes any sense or is just garbage. ====================
I admit, I let myself get dragged into the appeal to authority debate however. And though you might be a smart fellow, I think you just havent put time into this subject, thus have no idea what you are talking about.
Science organisations can say whatever the f*ck they want. Without making a survey of their own members it means f*ck all. As long as researche grants are manage by a minority who force climate science on others, we will keep having scientists too scared to voice their concerns.
And do the researche, there are LOTS of peer reviewed papers that do not share the alarmist view. Also, many of the papers who supposedly do, do not either. Fraudsters like Cook et al. lump in papers into their category without even properly reading them. The authors have often came out and said their views have been misrepresented.
Lastly, keep using your bullshit name calling of deniers. Fucking not aggreeing with the science does not make someone a denier. The denier is YOU. Head burried in the sand, using talking points, not actually listening to what those dissenters are presenting and making up your own mind. Follow the AGW blogs, who are all stakeholders in this bullshit propaganda machine, much more so than the skeptics blogs.
Oh boy. Refering to a Cook paper is a shure fire way to show you only believe the faith and havent really looked too deeply in the reliability of that paper.
1. I never declared the entire warming of the last 50 years invalid, please point to where I said that; 2. Nice talking point about the cherry picking of the hottest year. I started at 1996, not 1998. It is very well known, even by the ipcc that this is the point from where the hiatus, slowdown, pause is plotted from. But if you want to go back to your blogs for confirmation, they will only use the 1998 talking point. Hiatus 3. Again, using blogosphere or media talking points, showing 2014 as the hottest year on record. Please point to me where on this graph 2014 is hotter than 1998 or 2010? ÀHottest year 4. The observations, so far from studies on the electron have yielded positive results. When comparing models to observations, they are no where near. In any field of science those models would have been thrown out and redone from scratch or would have not been used as the main factor in determining policy.
Nice talking point. Bringing it back to 4th grade science. When you know very well that it is nothing of the sort.
They do include allot of different forcings. Though they overestimate many of them and still do not completely understand all of them, which is why models have been extremely poor a predicting anything at all. Just look at the last 25 years.
And in the last 5 years, the 50 different reasons for the warming hiatus, slowdown, pause, however you want to call it since 1996.
You would like to make it sound like everything is certain, when it is not. And since their models have not been able to track with actual measurements and they do NOT know why, why would we still rely on them?
I say, lets keep observing, and refining the research, but stop with the alarmism, as nothing, to date, has presented a valid case for it.
The Earth also radiates heat out into space, and loses atmospheric gases due to thermal dissipation.
There is allot more heat retained at the equator than at the poles. And luckily, ocean currents and other systems bring heat towards the poles, where it can then be lost to space more easily.
Its more complicated than this, but not enough research is being done on this very subject because its inconvenient to the AGW theory though most of the systems in place that allow for this are very well known.
The earth is not a closed system like in a lab and you know that.
There are other options.
- Climate sensitivity to CO2 is lesser than modeled - Other climate events affect overall global temperatures - There are other negative and positive forcings at work
You are so blind to the black and white picture you do not see the grey in the middle.
Doesnt bother us in the least, as looking at the history of the ozone layer over the last 25 years, its quite clear that the variation is natural and cyclical.
Also, if you dont already know, the ozone layer is fine for most of the year, until you reach the end of August and September, thats when there is an actual hole, because before that, there is NO HOLE.
Also, if you look at data over the years, 2002 had almost no hole and then boom 2003 a big hole. THERE IS NO WAY, that such an observation is possible if the problem as CFCs and not natural variation.
You see, this is exactly why there are skeptics, because some people just plainly gobble up, everything they are told, without researching it. And our happy in their ignorance.
You turn stupid and destroy whatever argument you were trying to make (see, 2 can play that game) when you bring the whole climate science is settled argument down to the "basic highschool level science". This just shows how "Bill Nye" the science guy you are. CO2 and the greenhouse gas effect are known parts of the science, that is accepted by skeptics. The guy you are replying too, didint even refute that, you just put those words in his mouth like a good little alarmist you are, all the while playing the "reasonable" card.
Forcing from CO2, an approcimation of 1.2C per doubling. if I'm not mistaken (or close to it), is accepted. We have pretty much observed so much, if not less. That number does not take into account negative forcings or positive ones though.
The CAGW crowd of disfunctional scientists, are trying to make us believe that there are no negative forcings and only positive ones and that they will cause runaway global warming until the planet will melt (yes, exageration on my part).
1.2C per doubling, is nothing all that worrisome. But models arent based on that, they are based on water vapour being increase in a runway manner by increased CO2. Thats where at all falls appart.
Not to mention that ALL the models are WAY above actual observations for the last 24 years. That there has been no statisticaly relevant warming for 18 years, thus no one can attribute MORE of anything now, compared to the 1990's (as in droughts, tornadoes, extreme weather, etc...) Which also have been fairly well tracked and have shown no increase either, if you look at the actual data, not what some idiots say in the media or some blog.
BTW, quoting Arrhenius doesnt make you look smart, it makes you look like an idiot when you think that ALL of climate science can be reduced to only his formulas.
You put words in the mouth of the person you replied to, and then ripped him a new one for it. I think you know that doesnt fly.
Al Gore is the talking piece of the political agenda driven AGW scare. People listen to him. Maybe not scientists, but for fucks sake, dont come saying they dont listen to him, they FUCKING GAVE HIM A NOBEL PRIZE. You can say (please pretend he doesnt exist) all you want, but he does..
But lets forget clown 1 and move on to clown 2 and 3. You want scientists that are also chicken little alarmists, Mann and Hansen.
You are the denier my friend. You deny that hundreds of billions have been spent over the last 30 years on climate science to come to the same conclusions they where "looking" to find in the late 80's. Current climate science is research looking to prove that men need to be controlled and money given to a new world governement to control us. This is not conspiracy theory, its right there in the fucking documents at every climate summit. Its what they failed to sign in Copenhagen. No need for a tin foil hat when its written down in black on white paper.
The scary science HAS been proven wrong. There is nothing left of climate science that can claim for a certainty that the slight warming over the past 100 year is worrisome at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok look you can stop pulling at straws, its obvious you are just trying to shape the narrative. ... they are non-scientists? You are going to have to back that one up or shut up. ... Without facts? Again, back that one up. ... Common sense... of course if you call everyone else crazy, common sense must be on your side.
What you dont like saying is, scientists who are skeptics when they speak up about the absurdities presented in climate science, loose their funding, get fired, get bullied, have their papers rejected for no other reason than to silence the opposition. This has been happening for over 30 years.
For the 18 years, look no further than Ben Santer. (is that good enough for you?)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”
Everything in climate science is about averaging. The Global mean temps are averaged. And most scientists would tell you that using averages is totaly retarded in the temperature context, but global warming scientists have redefined science and averages is what we use.
So now, you are going to tell me, that we use average temperatures for global mean, but WAIT, we shouldnt use averaged climate models to compare them to? Do you take people for complete tools or did you just not completely re-read your rebuttal before posting it?
Want to know why we dont like averages? Because the global mean surface air temperature has risen about 0.6 or 0.7C during the 20th century. But this rise is a result, in the most part, from the daily minimum temperature increasing at a faster rate or decreasing at a slower rate than the daily maximum as the daily maximum has basically not really changed over the same period.
About your point on models, so you are telling me when they take observed data, input it into the model, then VOILA they can make it work. Hindsight is so much fun isnt it? So will they be doing this every 20 years?
If your model cannot predict the future, because its a chaotic system and there are factors that can completely wipe out your predictions (like ENSO and others) than your model is completely useless for determining policy. The models do not track with the observed data. Plain and simple.
The warming of the oceans does not explain the complete lack of warming of the atmosphere over that period.
Did all of a sudden the oceans decided to absorb more heat than normal just to spite climate scientists? The factors affecting global warming have just decided to change for the last 20 years?
Studies show that the deep oceans are cooling (3600m or more) http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
Also ARGO (floats) and CERES (satellites) data disagree on the amount of energy being accumulated between 2000M and the surface by a WIDE margin.
Something to keep in mind, they error bars (which they dont present for this data) would completely wipe out the observations.
Also, even if you go by argo data, the increase amounts to 0.02C per decade observed since they started using ARGO.
Lastly about ocean heat. AGW scientists claim they can measure the monthly average temperature of 0.65 BILLION cubic kilometres of ocean water to a precision of one hundredth of a degree Celsius which seems very doubtful to me.
I mean flatline or almost, less than 0.05 rise.
And to meat the above criteria, I can only go back 18 years and 4 months. More than that, and I start going above slightly, however ever so slightly.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/r...
Yes.
http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/
But the IPCC is a political organisation not a scientific organisation.
Climate change does not come from scientists.
Climate change comes from politics and always has. The IPCC was formed by politicians with one goal, prove a ready made theory, that humans, by way of CO2 are changing climate. But you dont have to agree with me. Read the governing work and role of the IPCC.
"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
They dont produce models, because models cannot produce results in such a chaotic system.
Also, there is nothing wrong with pointing out flaws or where the models have failed.
BTW, models typicaly can't reproduct 21st century as they where made to predict the future and most models come from the end of the 20th century.
You have not been looking hard enough if you havent found skeptics elsewhere than in the US.
If you think the scientific debate on global warming has ended in countries like the UK, Australia, Canada, all European countries and elsewhere, you are actively trying to silence the debate.
But what you are stating is false.
The models are not confirmed by the data.
Else why have scientists been looking for 50+ different reasons for why the last 18 years have no followed the models?
There are other factors at play, and I know they study them, but they still havent been able to put the finger on which ones are actually contributing to the fact that models have not tracked with observed temperatures.
Considering that CO2 increase has been constant, but temperatures have not significantly risen in the last 18 years.
Your above assertion ignores all other factors.
I'm not saying climate scientists do ignore them, however some do.
But your statement, is completely meaningless because it does not account for any other factors than CO2.
Head in sand.
I got it.
Have a good day sir.
WTF.
And you think Cook is unbiased? Science Denying site?? They deny the propaganda, that is not the same and you know it.
If you don't like his claims, look at peer reviewed rebuttals to ALL the 97% consensus claims. www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html
I really have had enough with seemingly intelligent people apologizing and defending the indefensible.
It boggles the mind how people will twist themselves crooked to find excuses to support clearly flawed claims just to support their confirmation bias.
You know thats not what I meant. I was refuting the fact that one has to be a Dr. in Climataulogy to have a say. People have this belief that climate scientists must be climate scientists and geologists, engineers and others know nothing.
Your right, not everyone in those fields have studied climate enough to know what they are talking about. But I bet any good statistician can look at a paper heavy with stats and come to conclusions, on wether it holds water or not.
I know a mathematician can read a climate paper written by a mathematician read the formulas and understand whats its all about and also make up his mind on wether it makes any sense or is just garbage.
====================
I admit, I let myself get dragged into the appeal to authority debate however. And though you might be a smart fellow, I think you just havent put time into this subject, thus have no idea what you are talking about.
Science organisations can say whatever the f*ck they want. Without making a survey of their own members it means f*ck all. As long as researche grants are manage by a minority who force climate science on others, we will keep having scientists too scared to voice their concerns.
And do the researche, there are LOTS of peer reviewed papers that do not share the alarmist view. Also, many of the papers who supposedly do, do not either.
Fraudsters like Cook et al. lump in papers into their category without even properly reading them. The authors have often came out and said their views have been misrepresented.
Lastly, keep using your bullshit name calling of deniers. Fucking not aggreeing with the science does not make someone a denier. The denier is YOU. Head burried in the sand, using talking points, not actually listening to what those dissenters are presenting and making up your own mind. Follow the AGW blogs, who are all stakeholders in this bullshit propaganda machine, much more so than the skeptics blogs.
Oh boy. Refering to a Cook paper is a shure fire way to show you only believe the faith and havent really looked too deeply in the reliability of that paper.
http://www.populartechnology.n...
Every single one of the papers that pretend to demonstrate a "concensus" on settled science of climate change has been shown to be fraudulent.
1. I never declared the entire warming of the last 50 years invalid, please point to where I said that;
2. Nice talking point about the cherry picking of the hottest year. I started at 1996, not 1998. It is very well known, even by the ipcc that this is the point from where the hiatus, slowdown, pause is plotted from. But if you want to go back to your blogs for confirmation, they will only use the 1998 talking point.
Hiatus
3. Again, using blogosphere or media talking points, showing 2014 as the hottest year on record. Please point to me where on this graph 2014 is hotter than 1998 or 2010? ÀHottest year
4. The observations, so far from studies on the electron have yielded positive results. When comparing models to observations, they are no where near. In any field of science those models would have been thrown out and redone from scratch or would have not been used as the main factor in determining policy.
Nice talking point. Bringing it back to 4th grade science.
When you know very well that it is nothing of the sort.
They do include allot of different forcings. Though they overestimate many of them and still do not completely understand all of them, which is why models have been extremely poor a predicting anything at all. Just look at the last 25 years.
And in the last 5 years, the 50 different reasons for the warming hiatus, slowdown, pause, however you want to call it since 1996.
You would like to make it sound like everything is certain, when it is not. And since their models have not been able to track with actual measurements and they do NOT know why, why would we still rely on them?
I say, lets keep observing, and refining the research, but stop with the alarmism, as nothing, to date, has presented a valid case for it.
The Earth also radiates heat out into space, and loses atmospheric gases due to thermal dissipation.
There is allot more heat retained at the equator than at the poles. And luckily, ocean currents and other systems bring heat towards the poles, where it can then be lost to space more easily.
Its more complicated than this, but not enough research is being done on this very subject because its inconvenient to the AGW theory though most of the systems in place that allow for this are very well known.
I believe you have bought into the MMGW or CAGW talking points to uphold the faith.
ALL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS are scientists of different fields.
Your ignorance of that fact just shows how little you know about the field, or how hard you work at making the debate one sided.
Climate scientists are made up of:
- Physicists
- Astrophysicists
- Meteorologists
- Geologists
- Geophysicists
- Hydrologists (engineering)
- Environmental sciences
- Mathematicians
- Statisticians
- Economists
- Atmospheric scientists
You will find plenty in each of those fields who have written papers on each side of the debate.
The earth is not a closed system like in a lab and you know that.
There are other options.
- Climate sensitivity to CO2 is lesser than modeled
- Other climate events affect overall global temperatures
- There are other negative and positive forcings at work
You are so blind to the black and white picture you do not see the grey in the middle.
Part of the problem is unions.
The other part, is bad management.
The last, in my opinion, is holywood style accounting.
Runaway warming going to happen? Scientifically relevant source?
Doesnt bother us in the least, as looking at the history of the ozone layer over the last 25 years, its quite clear that the variation is natural and cyclical.
Also, if you dont already know, the ozone layer is fine for most of the year, until you reach the end of August and September, thats when there is an actual hole, because before that, there is NO HOLE.
Also, if you look at data over the years, 2002 had almost no hole and then boom 2003 a big hole. THERE IS NO WAY, that such an observation is possible if the problem as CFCs and not natural variation.
You see, this is exactly why there are skeptics, because some people just plainly gobble up, everything they are told, without researching it. And our happy in their ignorance.
@Xyrus
You are being an disingenious bastard.
You turn stupid and destroy whatever argument you were trying to make (see, 2 can play that game) when you bring the whole climate science is settled argument down to the "basic highschool level science". This just shows how "Bill Nye" the science guy you are. CO2 and the greenhouse gas effect are known parts of the science, that is accepted by skeptics. The guy you are replying too, didint even refute that, you just put those words in his mouth like a good little alarmist you are, all the while playing the "reasonable" card.
Forcing from CO2, an approcimation of 1.2C per doubling. if I'm not mistaken (or close to it), is accepted. We have pretty much observed so much, if not less.
That number does not take into account negative forcings or positive ones though.
The CAGW crowd of disfunctional scientists, are trying to make us believe that there are no negative forcings and only positive ones and that they will cause runaway global warming until the planet will melt (yes, exageration on my part).
1.2C per doubling, is nothing all that worrisome. But models arent based on that, they are based on water vapour being increase in a runway manner by increased CO2. Thats where at all falls appart.
Not to mention that ALL the models are WAY above actual observations for the last 24 years. That there has been no statisticaly relevant warming for 18 years, thus no one can attribute MORE of anything now, compared to the 1990's (as in droughts, tornadoes, extreme weather, etc...) Which also have been fairly well tracked and have shown no increase either, if you look at the actual data, not what some idiots say in the media or some blog.
BTW, quoting Arrhenius doesnt make you look smart, it makes you look like an idiot when you think that ALL of climate science can be reduced to only his formulas.
You put words in the mouth of the person you replied to, and then ripped him a new one for it. I think you know that doesnt fly.
Al Gore is the talking piece of the political agenda driven AGW scare. People listen to him. Maybe not scientists, but for fucks sake, dont come saying they dont listen to him, they FUCKING GAVE HIM A NOBEL PRIZE. You can say (please pretend he doesnt exist) all you want, but he does..
But lets forget clown 1 and move on to clown 2 and 3. You want scientists that are also chicken little alarmists, Mann and Hansen.
You are the denier my friend. You deny that hundreds of billions have been spent over the last 30 years on climate science to come to the same conclusions they where "looking" to find in the late 80's. Current climate science is research looking to prove that men need to be controlled and money given to a new world governement to control us. This is not conspiracy theory, its right there in the fucking documents at every climate summit. Its what they failed to sign in Copenhagen. No need for a tin foil hat when its written down in black on white paper.
The scary science HAS been proven wrong. There is nothing left of climate science that can claim for a certainty that the slight warming over the past 100 year is worrisome at all.
Michael Mann
http://m.livescience.com/41331...
Read, don't read, I don't care.
http://m.livescience.com/41331...
Michael Mann