• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Happy Jack

Latest punch to the gut of Global Warming

376 posts in this topic

There seems to be some trouble with Dr. Hansen, and his famous Hockey stick...Despite the fact Hanse was vindicated no less than 4 times by attacks from the whacko-wing nutters... So, let's check with another scientist...for a another look...at original data, un-massaged by Nanna or the Wing Nut Blogosphere. For those interested in verifying sources, right click on a figure, and then see if it come from a nut-job blog site, or a credibly reviewed Journal. In this case, we'll cite original research, as it appeared, peer reviewed, from one of the most rigourous journals in Science. in Nature Geophysics. in 2012

 

 

Try this on...

 

ngeo1327-f1.jpg

 

A funny thing happened on the right hand side of that bottom graph? You know what the evil cadre of conspiratorial scientists in Switzerland at the ETH-IACETH concluded about the data?

"Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90–116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (−10 to 13%) due to natural forcing…. The combination of those results with attribution studies based on optimal fingerprinting, with independent constraints on the magnitude of climate feedbacks, with process understanding, as well as palaeoclimate evidence
leads to an even higher confidence about human influence dominating the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times
."

 

The Legion-of-Those-Who-Cannot-Hear-Anything will come back with;

1) some marked up version of a data from a wing-nut crank blog site, ( which usually features some other bat-shit crazy perspectives. They are amusing...Go look. They all copy and paste each other. Like a herd of lemmings falling off a cliff.)

2) A digression about something unrelated

3) A new thread topic on the same damn tired, ridiculous baseless arguments

4) Some data cherry picked and out of context.

5) Some petty knock on a trivial aspect of the model

 

To the last point, its legitimate to criticize models, in order to make them better, or test them. Sailors start races with a strategy on the course, that generally changes modestly as the race unfolds. Similarly in complex models, no scientist would reckon absolute predictive ability from a model as complex as a planet. Such are the complex responsibilities of experts who try to figure this shit out, not the Nannas or Saorsa Sludge-Libertarian Parrots to define and mock model those who toil to arrive at some ideas to explain what is observed. It took the scientific community nearly thirty years to reconcile Einstein's theory of time-space. During that time, Einstein was ridiculed, his marriage failed, he was 'disproven' and mocked and attacked, but ultimately vindicated. Are the Climate Change models absolutely correct? Probably not. In Einstein's case, as in this one, water can be expected to find its own level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you telling me that you look at that chart and don't see a correlation between the advancement in highly accurate temperature sensors and the perceived rise in temperature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I did some arm-chair Warrior Division investigation of Nanna's sources:

 

Real-Climate.com, Nanna's go to source for scientific data, is a blog site run by an anonymous pseudonym "Steven Goddard" a climate denialist crank. Try to find out who this guy is, and you hit a wall.

 

So, there's Nanna's source.

 

 

As for the infamous NASA letter, apparantly, the denialists are being directed by Harrison Schmittt , a real former astronaut and Senator, who walked on the moon, to troll NASA retirees for their opinions...(none of signatories BTW, are climate experts who have published anything), and...for the kicker...

 

 

Harrison Schmitt is a Member of the Board of Directors of....

 

 

The ultra Right Wiing Heritage Foundation...

 

 

What does Harrison Schmitt think about Environmental stewardship? We'll let the following stories do the talking.

 

 

or this one maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I did some arm-chair Warrior Division investigation of Nanna's sources:

 

Real-Climate.com, Nanna's go to source for scientific data, is a blog site run by an anonymous pseudonym "Steven Goddard" a climate denialist crank. Try to find out who this guy is, and you hit a wall.

 

So, there's Nanna's source.

 

 

As for the infamous NASA letter, apparantly, the denialists are being directed by Harrison Schmittt , a real former astronaut and Senator, who walked on the moon, to troll NASA retirees for their opinions...(none of signatories BTW, are climate experts who have published anything), and...for the kicker...

 

 

Harrison Schmitt is a Member of the Board of Directors of....

 

 

The ultra Right Wiing Heritage Foundation...

 

 

What does Harrison Schmitt think about Environmental stewardship? We'll let the following stories do the talking.

 

 

or this one maybe?

 

What you really did was to launch yet another ad hominem attack (I'm so surprised!) this time on know-nothing rocket scientists and former astronauts at NASA.

 

Liberals do this when they have no facts and no data and no argument. Why do I have to keep pointing this out?

 

Meanwhile,

 

GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I did some arm-chair Warrior Division investigation of Nanna's sources:

 

Real-Climate.com, Nanna's go to source for scientific data, is a blog site run by an anonymous pseudonym "Steven Goddard" a climate denialist crank. Try to find out who this guy is, and you hit a wall.

 

So, there's Nanna's source.

 

 

As for the infamous NASA letter, apparantly, the denialists are being directed by Harrison Schmittt , a real former astronaut and Senator, who walked on the moon, to troll NASA retirees for their opinions...(none of signatories BTW, are climate experts who have published anything), and...for the kicker...

 

 

Harrison Schmitt is a Member of the Board of Directors of....

 

 

The ultra Right Wiing Heritage Foundation...

 

 

What does Harrison Schmitt think about Environmental stewardship? We'll let the following stories do the talking.

 

 

or this one maybe?

 

What you really did was to launch yet another ad hominem attack (I'm so surprised!) this time on know-nothing rocket scientists and former astronauts at NASA.

 

Liberals do this when they have no facts and no data and no argument. Why do I have to keep pointing this out?

 

Meanwhile,

 

GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

You seem to have some trouble with Dr. Hansen, (vindicated no less than 4 times by attacks from the whacko-wing nutters...) Therefore, let's check with another scientist...for a another look...at original data, un-massaged by Nanna or the Wing Nut Blogosphere. For those interested in verifying sources, right click on a figure, and then see if it come from a nut-job blog site, or a credibly reviewed Journal. In this case, I'll cite original research, as it appeared, peer reviewed, from one of the most rigourous journals in Science. in Nature Geophysics. in 2012

 

 

Try this on...

 

ngeo1327-f1.jpg

 

Notice anything odd about the right hand side of that bottom graph? You know what this group of scientists in Switzerland at the ETH-IACETH concluded about the data?

"Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90–116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (−10 to 13%) due to natural forcing…. The combination of those results with attribution studies based on optimal fingerprinting, with independent constraints on the magnitude of climate feedbacks, with process understanding, as well as palaeoclimate evidence leads to an even higher confidence about human influence dominating the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times."

 

 

The Legion-of-Those-Who-Cannot-Hear-Anything-Other-Than-Their-Own-Addled-Thoughtswill come back with;

1) some marked up version of a data from a wing-nut crank blog site, ( which usually features some other bat-shit crazy perspectives. They are amusing...Go look. They all copy and paste each other. Like a herd of lemmings falling off a cliff.)

2) A digression about something unrelated

3) A new thread topic on the same damn tired, ridiculous baseless arguments

4) Some data cherry picked and out of context.

5) Some petty knock on a trivial aspect of the model

 

To the last point, its legitimate to criticize models, in order to make them better, or test them. Sailors start races with a strategy on the course, that generally changes modestly as the race unfolds. Similarly in complex models, no scientist would reckon absolute predictive ability from a model as complex as a planet. Such are the complex responsibilities of experts who try to figure this shit out, not the Nannas or Saorsa Sludge-Libertarian Parrots to define and mock model those who toil to arrive at some ideas to explain what is observed. It took the scientific community nearly thirty years to reconcile Einstein's theory of time-space. During that time, Einstein was ridiculed, his marriage failed, he was 'disproven' and mocked and attacked, but ultimately vindicated. Are the Climate Change models absolutely correct? Probably not. In Einstein's case, as in this one, water can be expected to find its own level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The fact that something appears in a peer-reviewed journal is by no means evidence of its validity from a scientific standpoint, no matter what the area of study. Since many studies / papers often contradict or refute one another (even in the same journal issue), this point should be self-evident. I too publish an occasional paper, in medicine, so don't pretend to be all authoritative with me. You ought to know this stuff.

 

True, peer review simply means that a few people very knowledgable in a particular subject have scrutinized a piece of work. Its 'validity' will be tested over time as the scientific community further looks into whatever results are presented. OK, so where have the models been validated, in any sense? They are you only "evidence", and they are obviously completely wrong lacking in even the ability to model past climate, much less forecast the future.

 

In the short term, yes, there may be contradictions and controversies in the literature as multiple hypotheses exist to explain certain data. Eventually as more data are collected only one hypothesis will remain, i.e. will not be falsified. I am not pretending to be authoritative, but I do know what I'm about. Please tell us what you are about, because it sure isn't science, not in the sense that most of us understand.

 

In climate science, there is another problem: What constitutes peer review is pure politics. Scientists who attempt to publish results of studies which disagree with the CAGW catechism will find their papers rejected out of hand and journal editors who allow them to be published are fired. The peer review process has been so corrupted and discredited that it has lost virtually all meaning, and has caused more than one physicist or geologist to resign from their respective professional organizations in disgust. It is a shame too, for no doubt there are many good and honest scientists working in the climate field who do not deserve to have their reputations sullied by their politically-motived and patently dishonest colleagues. Perhaps you are one of the honest ones. I don't know, but your ad hominem towards Richard Lindzen of MIT and silly references to tobacco, CFCs and mining companies makes me suspect.

 

The idea that peer review in climate science is politics is, in my experience, simply a lie. It is an attempt by the anti-global warming cabal to discredit scientific results that they are unable to discredit based on any hard evidence. There are very few peer reviewed publications that demonstrate e.g that CO2 and temperature are not closely tied together in the geologic record. Why? Because the data don't support such a result. Thus, to discredit this well supported hypothesis, the anti folks have to claim that the whole peer review process is a sham. It is really a matter of who do you trust. You, for reasons you have yet to state, trust unsubstantiated blogs and patently false information put out by conservative think tanks. Both often supported by oil company dollars.

 

Ah yes. The oil companies. I should have known. What a fucking tool.

 

As for attacking Lindzen, I have a great deal of respect for his meteorological work, published in peer reviewed journals. But while he understands the meteorology, he knows next to nothing about climate. I have seen him present a figure from a now 30 year old publication that shows Holocene temperature estimates as if it were the state of modern thinking. He either deliberately ignored or is ignorant of (not sure which is worse) hundreds of more recent scientific articles that have advanced our thinking on Holocene climate variability by leaps and bounds. And that is only one example. He is, in my view, dishonest.

 

Figures.

 

The 'silly' reference to prior science vs industry battles is perfectly justified. The parallels between these prior battle and AGW ar remarkable. By ignoring them, you are simply ensuring that we repeat them.

And don't pretend that there isn't a major problem in climate science and with the IPCC, a political organization if there ever was one. From Mann's hockey stick "We've go to get rid of the MWP", to Climate Gate, to Gavin Schmidt's manipulation of the temperature record, to the blacklisting of skeptics, "hide the decline", refusals to archive or share data, to fraudulent memos (Fake gate) and the ongoing denial of FOI requests (multiple authors), it just goes on and on an on. It should make any legitimate scientist who cares about integrity sick.

 

You're now taking quotes out of context and I suspect you know it.

 

Out of context? Testimony of Dr. David Demming http://epw.senate.go...s.cfm?id=266543

"Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and distinguished guests, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am a geologist and geophysicist. I have a bachelor's degree in geology from Indiana University, and a Ph.D in geophysics from the University of Utah. My field of specialization in geophysics is temperature and heat flow. In recent years, I have turned my studies to the history and philosophy of science. In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

 

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages.

 

The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."

 

In 1769, Joseph Priestley warned that scientists overly attached to a favorite hypothesis would not hesitate to "warp the whole course of nature." In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the "hockey stick," because of the shape of the temperature graph.

 

Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.

 

There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed on this and other environmental issues.

 

Earth's climate system is complex and poorly understood. But we do know that throughout human history, warmer temperatures have been associated with more stable climates and increased human health and prosperity. Colder temperatures have been correlated with climatic instability, famine, and increased human mortality.

 

The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.

 

 

Again, all this has been addressed, particularly in Realclimate. I know Gavin and he's one of the most forthright and honest people you could ever come across. Mike Mann made some real mistakes in not being open about his methodologies when first challenged by M&M (and Gavin was one of the first to say so). But the 'hockey stick' has been shown to be a valid assessment of temperature change by many subsequent peer reviewed articles.

 

RealClimate? Really? The blog funded by Soros that prevents any and all dissent from being expressed? Really?

As for your trust in Gavin Schmidt, apparently a lot of his former colleagues at NASA have a different view:

 

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

 

Dear Charlie,

 

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

 

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA's history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

 

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA's advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA's current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

 

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

 

Thank you for considering this request.

 

Sincerely,

 

(Attached signatures)"

 

The hockey stick is valid? There was no MWP? Are you insane? ***** Do you not know that even the IPCC has rejected this fakery from its publications?

 

If you have some disagreement with the data or facts I have presented, then make your case and support it with fact. Discuss the evidence. But don't hide behind ad hominem, the "peer review" canard or arguments to authority or consensus. I'm not interested.

 

You have not presented any evidence.

 

That would be up to those who want to advance this theory. Extraordinary measures require extraordinary proof.

 

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." -- Richard Feynman

 

 

I think Feynman just rolled over.

 

Let me do one more thing here. Let's ignore all the recent warming and all the T estimates of the past 2000 years. We'll put that aside as being too politically charged. Let's just go back to the Paleocene-Eocene. Nature did a global warming experiment for us 55 million years ago. There was an enormous release of CO2 into the atmosphere, probably due to catastrophic release of methane (which rapidly oxidized to CO2) to the atmosphere. And what happened? The earth warmed. A lot. Best estimates are about 5C for mean global T. So now we're repeating the experiment and you seem to expect a different result. Why?

 

To the extent there is any correlation between the two, it is clear from multiple studies and a basic understanding of the chemistry of dissolved gases and temperature, that CO2 follows warming. Your understanding of geologic history is just as flawed as your trust in the bozos who fake data, memos, and hide results. During the Miocene the climate was 10 degrees warmer while Co2 concentrations were less than today. During the Pleistocene, CO2 increased but was accompanied by global cooling. During the Cretaceous and Jurassic geologic periods, CO2 was 5 times greater than current levels and the planet did not reach your fabled tipping point. Ponder the chart below. Where is the relationship over geologic time between CO2 and temperature? Except for outgassing (explained below) during interglacials, it is non-existent, even in the last 1,000 years. More importantly, if CO2 is forcing the planet past a tipping point, why has this never happened before when temperatures were much, much higher? Hmmmm? The truth is that our planet's climate, like most physical systems is remarkably stable from a thermodynamic standpoint, dominated not by positive feedbacks, but by negative ones.

 

global_temp_CO2_geologic_timeline.jpg

As to the relationship between CO2 and temperature for the last 1,000 years? Non-existent. ScreenHunter_22-Mar.-24-17.47.jpg

CO2 neither leads nor lags temperatures on timescales of 1,000 years. In fact, it shows absolutely no relationship whatsoever. It Temperatures are from the 1990 IPCC report, and CO2 is from Law Dome ice cores + recent Mauna Loa data.

 

Vostok ice core records showed clearly that when correlated over certain periods of rapid warming, the CO2 concentration was the consequence of warming, not the other way around. Maybe chemistry is taught differently to climate scientists, but when I was a student we learned about Henry's Law: " At constant temperature, the amount of gas dissolved in a liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid." Perhaps you have forgotten this? Henry's law is temperature dependent. As temperature increases, as the oceans do during every interglacial (surprise!), the system seeks equilibrium as CO2 and other gasses are elaborated, like a Coke that explodes in your car on a hot day. It's called outgassing -- kind of like what happens when you talk about this stuff.

 

Imagine that people noticed that every time you walked into a room there was a bad smell? In your mind, would the bad smell the cause of you walking into the room, or the other way around. Every sane person would realize that your presence was the cause of the smell. But not in the bizzaro world of climate science. No, the smell comes first.

 

I have said it before and will say it again. I can think of no aspect of the CAGW hypothesis (it's not even theory at this point) which has not been falsified. If you have something like data or evidence which supports or proves the idea, then share it. Leave the ad hominems, leave the arguments to consensus, the analogies to tobacco companies, and mining and arguments based on consensus or authority at home. I have NO INTEREST. Put up or shut up and go away.

 

 

Update:

 

****

Hockey Stick Studies

MM Published Articles

McIntyre and McKitrick, Energy & Environment, 2003 MM03 SI

McIntyre and McKitrick, GRL 2005a SI

McIntyre and McKitrick, E&E 2005b SI

McIntyre and McKitrick 2005c, Reply to Von Storch and Zorita

McIntyre and McKitrick 2005d, Reply to Huybers, GRL

 

Presentations

McIntyre, S., 2004, Verification of multi-proxy paleoclimatic studies: a case study, AGU Fall Meeting 2004, San Francisco CA, PP53A-1380.

McKitrick, R. 2005, What is the Hockey Stick Debate About? '

McIntyre, S. 2005a. More on Hockey Sticks: the Case of Jones et al [1998], U.S. Climate Change Workshop, Arlington Virginia., Nov 14, 2005 url

McIntyre, S. 2005b. Some Methodological Issues in Multiproxy Reconstructions, AGU Fall Meeting 2005, San Francisco CA, PP51G-06. url

McIntyre and McKitrick, Presentation to National Academy of Sciences Panel, March 2006 Detailed PDF PPT

McIntyre and McKitrick, Supplementary Presentations to National Academy of Sciences Panel, April 2006 First Second

McIntyre, Presentation to House Energy and Commerce Committee, July 19, 2006 Video July 27, 2006 Video

McIntyre, Presentation to Royal Institute of Technology KTH International Climate Seminar, Stockholm, Sweden, Sept 11, 2006.

McIntyre, S. 2006. Presentation to Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute (KNMI), Sept. 14, 2006.

McIntyre, S. 2006. The Impact of National Research Council (NRC) Recommendations on Climate Reconstructions. AGU Fall Meeting 2006, San Francisco CA, U11B-05 url

McIntyre, S. and P. Holzmann, 2007. Mt Almagre and the "Divergence Problem". AGU Fall Meeting 2007, San Francisco CA PP51C-0665 url

Pielke, R. Jr and S. McIntyre, 2007. Changes in Spatial Distribution of North Atlantic Tropical Cyclones, AGU Fall Meeting 2007, San Francisco CA. NG31A-07 url

McIntyre, S. 2008a. Climate reconstructions of the past millennium : statistical considerations. Georgia Tech EAS Seminar, Feb 8, 2008. url

McIntyre, S. 2008b. How do we "know" that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium?. Ohio State University Seminar, mAy 16, 2008. high-res

low-res

 

Unpublished Submissions:

McIntyre and McKitrick, 2004a, Nature Submission, posted on the Internet here

McIntyre and McKitrick, 2004b, Revised Nature Submission, posted on the Internet

McIntyre and McKitrick, 2004c, Revised Nature Submission, posted on the Internet

McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005e, Reply to Ritson, posted on the Internet

McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005f, Reply to Wahl and Ammann, posted on the Internet

 

Op Eds:

McIntyre, National Post, Feb 2005, Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence

McIntyre, Feb 2005 Bring the Proxies Up to Date

McIntyre, National Post June 2005, Re-visiting the Stick

McIntyre, National Post, June 2006, Response to NAS Panel

McIntyre, National Post, August 2006, Wegman Report

McIntyre, Prometheus, November 2005 Does the Hockey Stick Matter? also McKitrick and Vranes

McIntyre, National Post, August 2006, Wegman Report

 

Panel Reports

Barton Committee Letters to MBH Mann reply Bradley Reply Hughes Reply NAS: Cicerone Letter

National Academy of Sciences Panel on Surface Temperature Reconstructions, 2006 Report Press Conference Webcast

Wegman Report, July 2006

North Testimony to House Energy and Commerce Committee, July 19, 2006

Transcripts July 19 and 26, 2006

McIntyre Testimony to House Energy and Commerce Committee, July 27, 2006

Wegman Testimonty, July 19, 2006

Wegman Reply to Stupak

 

MBH and Other Commentary

MBH98; Corrigendum Nature version SI Original SI

MBH98 Code Snippets multiproxy.f Notes on Code Snippets here

MBH99

Zorita et al. 2003

Mann, Bradley Hughes, 2003 Response to MM03

Mann, Bradley and Hughes, 2004, submisison to Nature, posted on the Internet circa July 2004

Von Storch et al., Science 2004

McIntyre and McKitrick, GRL 2005a

McIntyre and McKitrick, E&E 2005b

Zorita and von Storch 2005 Mem Ital Astr Soc

Von Storch and Zorita, 2005, Comment on MM05

Huybers, 2005, Comment on McIntyre and McKitrick

Bürger and Cubasch, GRL, 2005

Bürger et al, Tellus 2006

McIntyre and McKitrick, NAS Panel Presentation

Wahl, Ritson and Ammann, 2006, Comment on Von Storch et al [2004], Science 2006

Von Storch et al, 2006. Reply to Wahl, Ritson and Ammann

Bürger et al, 2006b. Submission to Climates of the Past and Discussion. (rejected).

 

Other Multiproxy PDFs

Jones et al 1998

Crowley and Lowery [2000]

Esper et al [2002]

Mann and Jones 2003

Jones and Mann 2004

Moberg et al 2005

D'Arrigo et al, 2006

Osborn and Briffa, 2006. Science.

Hegerl et al, 2006a. Nature.

Hegerl et al 2006b. Journal of Climate, accepted.

 

Correspondence

Crowley here

Mann 2003 leading up to MM03 here

Mann 2003 post-MM03 Start

Nature 2003-2004 Start Reviews

Ammann Review correspondence and review letter 2005

 

 

 

 

*****Medieval Warm Period.

 

 

 

 

Globe%204650x2847%20mit%20Graphen%20und%20Linien%20JPEG.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I have said it before and will say it again. I can think of no aspect of the CAGW hypothesis (it's not even theory at this point) which has not been falsified. If you have something like data or evidence which supports or proves the idea, then share it. Leave the ad hominems, leave the arguments to consensus, the analogies to tobacco companies, and mining and arguments based on consensus or authority at home. I have NO INTEREST. Put up or shut up and go away.

 

 

Update:

 

****

Hockey Stick Studies

MM Published Articles

McIntyre and McKitrick, Energy & Environment, 2003 MM03 SI

McIntyre and McKitrick, GRL 2005a SI

McIntyre and McKitrick, E&E 2005b SI

McIntyre and McKitrick 2005c, Reply to Von Storch and Zorita

McIntyre and McKitrick 2005d, Reply to Huybers, GRL

 

Presentations

McIntyre, S., 2004, Verification of multi-proxy paleoclimatic studies: a case study, AGU Fall Meeting 2004, San Francisco CA, PP53A-1380.

McKitrick, R. 2005, What is the Hockey Stick Debate About? '

McIntyre, S. 2005a. More on Hockey Sticks: the Case of Jones et al [1998], U.S. Climate Change Workshop, Arlington Virginia., Nov 14, 2005 url

McIntyre, S. 2005b. Some Methodological Issues in Multiproxy Reconstructions, AGU Fall Meeting 2005, San Francisco CA, PP51G-06. url

McIntyre and McKitrick, Presentation to National Academy of Sciences Panel, March 2006 Detailed PDF PPT

McIntyre and McKitrick, Supplementary Presentations to National Academy of Sciences Panel, April 2006 First Second

McIntyre, Presentation to House Energy and Commerce Committee, July 19, 2006 Video July 27, 2006 Video

McIntyre, Presentation to Royal Institute of Technology KTH International Climate Seminar, Stockholm, Sweden, Sept 11, 2006.

McIntyre, S. 2006. Presentation to Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute (KNMI), Sept. 14, 2006.

McIntyre, S. 2006. The Impact of National Research Council (NRC) Recommendations on Climate Reconstructions. AGU Fall Meeting 2006, San Francisco CA, U11B-05 url

McIntyre, S. and P. Holzmann, 2007. Mt Almagre and the "Divergence Problem". AGU Fall Meeting 2007, San Francisco CA PP51C-0665 url

Pielke, R. Jr and S. McIntyre, 2007. Changes in Spatial Distribution of North Atlantic Tropical Cyclones, AGU Fall Meeting 2007, San Francisco CA. NG31A-07 url

McIntyre, S. 2008a. Climate reconstructions of the past millennium : statistical considerations. Georgia Tech EAS Seminar, Feb 8, 2008. url

McIntyre, S. 2008b. How do we "know" that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium?. Ohio State University Seminar, mAy 16, 2008. high-res

low-res

 

Unpublished Submissions:

McIntyre and McKitrick, 2004a, Nature Submission, posted on the Internet here

McIntyre and McKitrick, 2004b, Revised Nature Submission, posted on the Internet

McIntyre and McKitrick, 2004c, Revised Nature Submission, posted on the Internet

McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005e, Reply to Ritson, posted on the Internet

McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005f, Reply to Wahl and Ammann, posted on the Internet

 

Op Eds:

McIntyre, National Post, Feb 2005, Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence

McIntyre, Feb 2005 Bring the Proxies Up to Date

McIntyre, National Post June 2005, Re-visiting the Stick

McIntyre, National Post, June 2006, Response to NAS Panel

McIntyre, National Post, August 2006, Wegman Report

McIntyre, Prometheus, November 2005 Does the Hockey Stick Matter? also McKitrick and Vranes

McIntyre, National Post, August 2006, Wegman Report

 

Panel Reports

Barton Committee Letters to MBH Mann reply Bradley Reply Hughes Reply NAS: Cicerone Letter

National Academy of Sciences Panel on Surface Temperature Reconstructions, 2006 Report Press Conference Webcast

Wegman Report, July 2006

North Testimony to House Energy and Commerce Committee, July 19, 2006

Transcripts July 19 and 26, 2006

McIntyre Testimony to House Energy and Commerce Committee, July 27, 2006

Wegman Testimonty, July 19, 2006

Wegman Reply to Stupak

 

MBH and Other Commentary

MBH98; Corrigendum Nature version SI Original SI

MBH98 Code Snippets multiproxy.f Notes on Code Snippets here

MBH99

Zorita et al. 2003

Mann, Bradley Hughes, 2003 Response to MM03

Mann, Bradley and Hughes, 2004, submisison to Nature, posted on the Internet circa July 2004

Von Storch et al., Science 2004

McIntyre and McKitrick, GRL 2005a

McIntyre and McKitrick, E&E 2005b

Zorita and von Storch 2005 Mem Ital Astr Soc

Von Storch and Zorita, 2005, Comment on MM05

Huybers, 2005, Comment on McIntyre and McKitrick

Bürger and Cubasch, GRL, 2005

Bürger et al, Tellus 2006

McIntyre and McKitrick, NAS Panel Presentation

Wahl, Ritson and Ammann, 2006, Comment on Von Storch et al [2004], Science 2006

Von Storch et al, 2006. Reply to Wahl, Ritson and Ammann

Bürger et al, 2006b. Submission to Climates of the Past and Discussion. (rejected).

 

Other Multiproxy PDFs

Jones et al 1998

Crowley and Lowery [2000]

Esper et al [2002]

Mann and Jones 2003

Jones and Mann 2004

Moberg et al 2005

D'Arrigo et al, 2006

Osborn and Briffa, 2006. Science.

Hegerl et al, 2006a. Nature.

Hegerl et al 2006b. Journal of Climate, accepted.

 

Correspondence

Crowley here

Mann 2003 leading up to MM03 here

Mann 2003 post-MM03 Start

Nature 2003-2004 Start Reviews

Ammann Review correspondence and review letter 2005

 

 

*****Medieval Warm Period.

 

 

 

Congrats. In all of that, three peer reviewed publications, from a Mathmatics and Mining guy, and his free market think tank partner! Good to see that you included his rejected Nature manuscripts

 

It's nice that you cite some of Mann's Publications, too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I did some arm-chair Warrior Division investigation of Nanna's sources:

 

Real-Climate.com, Nanna's go to source for scientific data, is a blog site run by an anonymous pseudonym "Steven Goddard" a climate denialist crank. Try to find out who this guy is, and you hit a wall.

 

So, there's Nanna's source.

 

 

As for the infamous NASA letter, apparantly, the denialists are being directed by Harrison Schmittt , a real former astronaut and Senator, who walked on the moon, to troll NASA retirees for their opinions...(none of signatories BTW, are climate experts who have published anything), and...for the kicker...

 

 

Harrison Schmitt is a Member of the Board of Directors of....

 

 

The ultra Right Wiing Heritage Foundation...

 

 

What does Harrison Schmitt think about Environmental stewardship? We'll let the following stories do the talking.

 

 

or this one maybe?

 

What you really did was to launch yet another ad hominem attack You brought up the letter signed by some retired NASA scientists and Astronauts (Argument from Authority which you rail about over and over again) and then complain that it is ad hominem when it is pointed out that these people have no expertise in the field. Sorry, that is not ad hominem, that is pointing out relevant facts. Just because they are facts you don't like, doesn't mean it is incorrect to point them out. Just because they have expertise in one science, doesn't mean they have the requisite knowledge of another...Kind of like a Medical doctor showing his ignorance on scientific method (OK that last bit might have been ad hominem)this time on know-nothing rocket scientists and former astronauts at NASA.

 

Liberals do this when they have no facts and no data and no argument. Why do I have to keep pointing this out?

 

Meanwhile,

 

GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg

 

Meanwhile,

decadal-land-surface-average-temperature-berkeley-earth.jpg

And as usual from me, original research done by the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature lab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I did some arm-chair Warrior Division investigation of Nanna's sources:

 

Real-Climate.com, Nanna's go to source for scientific data, is a blog site run by an anonymous pseudonym "Steven Goddard" a climate denialist crank. Try to find out who this guy is, and you hit a wall.

 

So, there's Nanna's source.

 

 

As for the infamous NASA letter, apparantly, the denialists are being directed by Harrison Schmittt , a real former astronaut and Senator, who walked on the moon, to troll NASA retirees for their opinions...(none of signatories BTW, are climate experts who have published anything), and...for the kicker...

 

 

Harrison Schmitt is a Member of the Board of Directors of....

 

 

The ultra Right Wiing Heritage Foundation...

 

 

What does Harrison Schmitt think about Environmental stewardship? We'll let the following stories do the talking.

 

 

or this one maybe?

 

What you really did was to launch yet another ad hominem attack You brought up the letter signed by some retired NASA scientists and Astronauts (Argument from Authority which you rail about over and over again) and then complain that it is ad hominem when it is pointed out that these people have no expertise in the field. Sorry, that is not ad hominem, that is pointing out relevant facts. Just because they are facts you don't like, doesn't mean it is incorrect to point them out. Just because they have expertise in one science, doesn't mean they have the requisite knowledge of another...Kind of like a Medical doctor showing his ignorance on scientific method (OK that last bit might have been ad hominem)this time on know-nothing rocket scientists and former astronauts at NASA.

 

Liberals do this when they have no facts and no data and no argument. Why do I have to keep pointing this out?

 

Meanwhile,

 

GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg

 

Meanwhile,

 

And as usual from me, original research done by the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature lab

 

Good. Here's the BEST data plotted for the last 10 years:

 

1500539555.jpg

 

 

And from NOAA's National Climactic Data Center (NCDC) North America over the last decade via http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/05/ncdc-data-shows-that-the-contiguous-usa-has-not-warmed-in-the-past-decade-..." which shows that the contiguous use has not warmed in the past decade. This data is from USHCN2, from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)..... The output graphs and trend numbers are from NCDC's publicly available "Climate At A Glance" database interface, and these can be fully replicated by anyone easily simply by going here and choosing "regions":http://www.ncdc.noaa.../cag3/cag3.html" And as I have shown to you on more than one occasion, the satellite data agree.

 

ncdc_usa_allregions_annual_2001-2011.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right Clicky on the above, and selecting 'properties': Watts up with the objectivity of that website?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right Clicky on the above, and selecting 'properties': Watts up with the objectivity of that website?

 

You can duplicate any of the above charts at the NOAA NCDC website I referenced above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right Clicky on the above, and selecting 'properties': Watts up with the objectivity of that website?

 

You can duplicate any of the above charts at the NOAA NCDC website I referenced above.

then why don't you post them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I did some arm-chair Warrior Division investigation of Nanna's sources:

 

Real-Climate.com, Nanna's go to source for scientific data, is a blog site run by an anonymous pseudonym "Steven Goddard" a climate denialist crank. Try to find out who this guy is, and you hit a wall.

 

So, there's Nanna's source.

 

 

As for the infamous NASA letter, apparantly, the denialists are being directed by Harrison Schmittt , a real former astronaut and Senator, who walked on the moon, to troll NASA retirees for their opinions...(none of signatories BTW, are climate experts who have published anything), and...for the kicker...

 

 

Harrison Schmitt is a Member of the Board of Directors of....

 

 

The ultra Right Wiing Heritage Foundation...

 

 

What does Harrison Schmitt think about Environmental stewardship? We'll let the following stories do the talking.

 

 

or this one maybe?

 

What you really did was to launch yet another ad hominem attack You brought up the letter signed by some retired NASA scientists and Astronauts (Argument from Authority which you rail about over and over again) and then complain that it is ad hominem when it is pointed out that these people have no expertise in the field. Sorry, that is not ad hominem, that is pointing out relevant facts. Just because they are facts you don't like, doesn't mean it is incorrect to point them out. Just because they have expertise in one science, doesn't mean they have the requisite knowledge of another...Kind of like a Medical doctor showing his ignorance on scientific method (OK that last bit might have been ad hominem)this time on know-nothing rocket scientists and former astronauts at NASA.

 

Liberals do this when they have no facts and no data and no argument. Why do I have to keep pointing this out?

 

Meanwhile,

 

GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg

 

Meanwhile,

 

And as usual from me, original research done by the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature lab

 

Good. Here's the BEST data plotted for the last 10 years:

 

1500539555.jpg

 

 

Only 10 years?! Cherry pick much? That graph doesn't seem to convey the information that 9 of those 10 years are the hottest on record. Funny that the graph you show is not from the BEST site. Oh Yeah, real scientists would not cherry pick 10 years of data to convey a partial picture that agrees with their ideology. That is why you have to go to a blog site to find the graph of cherry picked data. Perfect example of why your evidence cannot be trusted.

 

Here is another graph from the BEST site in the form it was prented in (not cherry picked)

land-surface-average-temperature-berkeley-earth.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I did some arm-chair Warrior Division investigation of Nanna's sources:

 

Real-Climate.com, Nanna's go to source for scientific data, is a blog site run by an anonymous pseudonym "Steven Goddard" a climate denialist crank. Try to find out who this guy is, and you hit a wall.

 

So, there's Nanna's source.

 

 

As for the infamous NASA letter, apparantly, the denialists are being directed by Harrison Schmittt , a real former astronaut and Senator, who walked on the moon, to troll NASA retirees for their opinions...(none of signatories BTW, are climate experts who have published anything), and...for the kicker...

 

 

Harrison Schmitt is a Member of the Board of Directors of....

 

 

The ultra Right Wiing Heritage Foundation...

 

 

What does Harrison Schmitt think about Environmental stewardship? We'll let the following stories do the talking.

 

 

or this one maybe?

 

What you really did was to launch yet another ad hominem attack You brought up the letter signed by some retired NASA scientists and Astronauts (Argument from Authority which you rail about over and over again) and then complain that it is ad hominem when it is pointed out that these people have no expertise in the field. Sorry, that is not ad hominem, that is pointing out relevant facts. Just because they are facts you don't like, doesn't mean it is incorrect to point them out. Just because they have expertise in one science, doesn't mean they have the requisite knowledge of another...Kind of like a Medical doctor showing his ignorance on scientific method (OK that last bit might have been ad hominem)this time on know-nothing rocket scientists and former astronauts at NASA.

 

Liberals do this when they have no facts and no data and no argument. Why do I have to keep pointing this out?

 

Meanwhile,

 

GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg

 

Meanwhile,

 

And as usual from me, original research done by the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature lab

 

Good. Here's the BEST data plotted for the last 10 years:

 

1500539555.jpg

 

 

Only 10 years?! Cherry pick much? That graph doesn't seem to convey the information that 9 of those 10 years are the hottest on record. Funny that the graph you show is not from the BEST site. Oh Yeah, real scientists would not cherry pick 10 years of data to convey a partial picture that agrees with their ideology. That is why you have to go to a blog site to find the graph of cherry picked data. Perfect example of why your evidence cannot be trusted.

 

Here is another graph from the BEST site in the form it was prented in (not cherry picked)

land-surface-average-temperature-berkeley-earth.jpg

 

gisp2-ice-core-temperatures-500x375.jpg

 

 

Cherry pick much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I did some arm-chair Warrior Division investigation of Nanna's sources:

 

Real-Climate.com, Nanna's go to source for scientific data, is a blog site run by an anonymous pseudonym "Steven Goddard" a climate denialist crank. Try to find out who this guy is, and you hit a wall.

 

So, there's Nanna's source.

 

 

As for the infamous NASA letter, apparantly, the denialists are being directed by Harrison Schmittt , a real former astronaut and Senator, who walked on the moon, to troll NASA retirees for their opinions...(none of signatories BTW, are climate experts who have published anything), and...for the kicker...

 

 

Harrison Schmitt is a Member of the Board of Directors of....

 

 

The ultra Right Wiing Heritage Foundation...

 

 

What does Harrison Schmitt think about Environmental stewardship? We'll let the following stories do the talking.

 

 

or this one maybe?

 

What you really did was to launch yet another ad hominem attack You brought up the letter signed by some retired NASA scientists and Astronauts (Argument from Authority which you rail about over and over again) and then complain that it is ad hominem when it is pointed out that these people have no expertise in the field. Sorry, that is not ad hominem, that is pointing out relevant facts. Just because they are facts you don't like, doesn't mean it is incorrect to point them out. Just because they have expertise in one science, doesn't mean they have the requisite knowledge of another...Kind of like a Medical doctor showing his ignorance on scientific method (OK that last bit might have been ad hominem)this time on know-nothing rocket scientists and former astronauts at NASA.

 

Liberals do this when they have no facts and no data and no argument. Why do I have to keep pointing this out?

 

Meanwhile,

 

GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg

 

Meanwhile,

 

And as usual from me, original research done by the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature lab

 

Good. Here's the BEST data plotted for the last 10 years:

 

1500539555.jpg

 

 

Only 10 years?! Cherry pick much? That graph doesn't seem to convey the information that 9 of those 10 years are the hottest on record. Funny that the graph you show is not from the BEST site. Oh Yeah, real scientists would not cherry pick 10 years of data to convey a partial picture that agrees with their ideology. That is why you have to go to a blog site to find the graph of cherry picked data. Perfect example of why your evidence cannot be trusted.

 

Here is another graph from the BEST site in the form it was prented in (not cherry picked)

land-surface-average-temperature-berkeley-earth.jpg

 

gisp2-ice-core-temperatures-500x375.jpg

 

 

Cherry pick much?

An argument without a point!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It snowed on the Tigers game yesterday. Must be "global warming" - err, I meant "climate change,."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It snowed on the Tigers game yesterday. Must be "global warming" - err, I meant "climate change,."

the streak lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been in a warming trend since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and the like had nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been in a warming trend since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and the like had nothing to do with it.

 

It is not the last 10,000 years that are of interest, really only the last 200 and particularly the last 60. The stuff before that was pretty static.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the latest issue of Sea Technology Magazine:

 

Arctic Sea Ice Remains Below Average, Except in Bering Sea

In January, Arctic sea ice extent averaged 13.73 million square kilometers, the fourth lowest January average in the satellite data record from 1979 to 2012 and 1.1 million square kilometers below the 1979 to 2000 average, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported in February.

 

The below-average ice extent applied to the Arctic’s Atlantic side, particularly in the Barents Sea. In contrast, the ice extent on the other side of the Arctic, in the Bering Sea, was much larger than the average, amounting to the second-highest level for January in the data record. The increase in ice made for troublesome conditions for fishermen and a late-season resupply mission to Nome, Alaska, which was iced in by a storm in November, preventing its last barge of the season from delivering fuel. The Russian fuel tanker Renda, with the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Healy, completed delivery in January.

 

The high ice extent on the Bering Sea side compensated somewhat for the low ice extent on the Atlantic side, but the overall Arctic ice extent remained well below average. Arctic ice expanded 765,000 square kilometers in January, 545,000 square kilometers less than the month’s average from 1979 to 2000.

 

The Arctic sea ice January growth rate was the slowest on record. Ice growth started strong in early January, then slowed mid-month and kept slowing throughout the month. NSIDC said the slow growth rate was probably due to winds from the south and west compressing ice in the Barents Sea and above-average temperatures and winds in the Sea of Okhotsk.

 

The linear rate of decline per decade for Arctic ice extent in January over the satellite record was 3.2 percent, NSIDC said. For more information visit nsidc.org.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster, NASA Finds

The oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean’s floating ice cap, making Arctic sea ice more vulnerable to further decline in the summer, according to a NASA study published in Journal of Climate in February.

 

The study examines how multiyear ice (ice that has made it through at least two summers) has diminished with each passing winter over the past three decades. Multiyear ice extent is diminishing at a rate of –15.1 percent per decade, and multiyear ice area, which disregards areas of open water among ice floes and focuses exclusively on the regions of the Arctic Ocean that are completely covered by multiyear ice, is shrinking even faster than multiyear ice extent, by –17.2 percent per decade. The study used a 32-year time series of multiyear ice from passive microwave data from NASA’s Nimbus-7 satellite and the Meteorological Satellite Program, taken during the winter months from 1978 to 2011.

 

“It would take a persistent cold spell for most multiyear sea ice and other ice types to grow thick enough in the winter to survive the summer melt season and reverse the trend,” Joey Comiso, study author and senior scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, said.

 

Multiyear sea ice hit its record minimum extent in the winter of 2008, when it was reduced to about 55 percent of its average extent since satellite measurements of the ice cap began in the late 1970s. Multiyear sea ice then recovered slightly in the three following years, ultimately reaching an extent 34 percent larger than in 2008, but it dipped again in winter of 2012, to its second lowest extent ever.

 

Comiso also detected a periodic nine-year cycle where sea ice extent would grow for a few years, then shrink until the cycle restarted. This cycle is reminiscent of the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave, which has been related to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation pattern. If this cycle were confirmed, it might explain the slight sea ice cover recovery in the three years after the 2008 historical minimum. For more information visit www.nasa.gov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you really did was to launch yet another ad hominem attack (I'm so surprised!) this time on know-nothing rocket scientists and former astronauts at NASA.

 

Liberals do this when they have no facts and no data and no argument. Why do I have to keep pointing this out?

 

Your presentation needs a bit of work. I think it's the timing. If you offered some direction to your readers (in italics), I think it would come off better. Something like this:

 

 

What you really did was to launch yet another ad hominem attack (I'm so surprised!) this time on know-nothing rocket scientists and former astronauts at NASA.

 

(Get up, go take a shit, forget you read the passage above, come back, and continue below). Unless you've read Ben Wynn's sig line, in which case you should stop now.

 

Liberals do this when they have no facts and no data and no argument. Why do I have to keep pointing this out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been in a warming trend since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and the like had nothing to do with it.

 

It is not the last 10,000 years that are of interest, really only the last 200 and particularly the last 60. The stuff before that was pretty static.

 

The last 200 years. Interesting how CO2 is causing both changes in temperature AND solar activity, isn't it?

 

SunspontCyclesTempTrackLeightonSteward.gif

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been in a warming trend since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and the like had nothing to do with it.

 

It is not the last 10,000 years that are of interest, really only the last 200 and particularly the last 60. The stuff before that was pretty static.

 

The last 200 years. Interesting how CO2 is causing both changes in temperature AND solar activity, isn't it?

 

SunspontCyclesTempTrackLeightonSteward.gif

 

 

 

If you had any knowlege of the physics involved, you would know that correlation is not causation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SunspontCyclesTempTrackLeightonSteward.gif

And we get another pretty graph from plantsneedco2.org headed by a nice enough sounding guy who has done some good things and is retired from.............. drum roll................ the energy sector.

 

let the good times roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been in a warming trend since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and the like had nothing to do with it.

 

It is not the last 10,000 years that are of interest, really only the last 200 and particularly the last 60. The stuff before that was pretty static.

 

The last 200 years. Interesting how CO2 is causing both changes in temperature AND solar activity, isn't it?

 

SunspontCyclesTempTrackLeightonSteward.gif

 

I question the source of your data, as the "About Us" link for the website provides a bio of aone H. Leighton Steward. Now, this may sound like an ad hominem (which I know you hate), but hang with me here, because it gets good...

 

Apparently, Mr. Steward has given advice on wetlands that "has been accepted by the EPA", and also "has received numerous environmental awards, including the regional EPA Administrator's Award for environmental excellence."

 

The EPA likes him? He must be a fucking lib. You gonna beleive some lib endorsed by the EPA? Fuck that.

 

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been in a warming trend since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and the like had nothing to do with it.

 

It is not the last 10,000 years that are of interest, really only the last 200 and particularly the last 60. The stuff before that was pretty static.

 

Why is the geologic / climate history of the planet not of interest in research regarding the climate of the planet? Can we not learn something about the Earth's climate today by studying the climate of the past? I think we can. Secondly, what is is about the last 200 years "and particularly the last 60" that makes it interesting? Please be specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been in a warming trend since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and the like had nothing to do with it.

 

It is not the last 10,000 years that are of interest, really only the last 200 and particularly the last 60. The stuff before that was pretty static.

 

The last 200 years. Interesting how CO2 is causing both changes in temperature AND solar activity, isn't it?

 

SunspontCyclesTempTrackLeightonSteward.gif

 

If you had any knowlege of the physics involved, you would know that correlation is not causation.

That is certainly true. One would think however, that the element that provided the 99% of energy input would be of some slight interest and be considered a factor as least as much as an element that is.000000038% of the atmosphere.

 

In fact, if one must insist on normalizing data, the best approach would be to normalize the input energy and look at variations of the historical record beyond that in terms retention of heat. Concentrating only on the efficiency of the insulation is a very one sided view and forces decisions always to the pathological worst cast state.

 

Most of the graphic presentations of climate change normalize temperature anomalies to the average of 1950-1970 period. If you look at the long term trend, you derive a continuous trend line which is upward. Those plots along the trend though flattening the 50-70 period because a decision to average those years as the base force the anomalies plot lower over that period.

 

The sudden rise isn't due to an increase in the anomaly, it's simply reversion to the mean. What would the anomaly line look like if you averaged the entire series?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been in a warming trend since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and the like had nothing to do with it.

 

It is not the last 10,000 years that are of interest, really only the last 200 and particularly the last 60. The stuff before that was pretty static.

 

The last 200 years. Interesting how CO2 is causing both changes in temperature AND solar activity, isn't it?

 

SunspontCyclesTempTrackLeightonSteward.gif

 

 

 

If you had any knowlege of the physics involved, you would know that correlation is not causation.

 

Unfortunately for you, I do. And while correlation is not causation, it is at least a prerequisite thereof:

 

 

 

4055639552_403174c9c3_z.jpg?zz=1

 

 

 

QED tongue.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then where are the points of hysteresis that cause energy transfer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been in a warming trend since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and the like had nothing to do with it.

 

It is not the last 10,000 years that are of interest, really only the last 200 and particularly the last 60. The stuff before that was pretty static.

 

Why is the geologic / climate history of the planet not of interest in research regarding the climate of the planet? Can we not learn something about the Earth's climate today by studying the climate of the past? I think we can. Secondly, what is is about the last 200 years "and particularly the last 60" that makes it interesting? Please be specific.

 

First derivatives, old boy. The undprecidented rate of change without a geologic event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been in a warming trend since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and the like had nothing to do with it.

 

It is not the last 10,000 years that are of interest, really only the last 200 and particularly the last 60. The stuff before that was pretty static.

 

Why is the geologic / climate history of the planet not of interest in research regarding the climate of the planet? Can we not learn something about the Earth's climate today by studying the climate of the past? I think we can. Secondly, what is is about the last 200 years "and particularly the last 60" that makes it interesting? Please be specific.

 

First derivatives, old boy. The undprecidented rate of change without a geologic event.

 

First, you didn't answer my questions. Please answer them.

 

 

Secondly, please support (with comparative geologic evidence) this notion of an "unprecedented rate of change without a geologic event".

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been in a warming trend since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and the like had nothing to do with it.

 

It is not the last 10,000 years that are of interest, really only the last 200 and particularly the last 60. The stuff before that was pretty static.

 

Why is the geologic / climate history of the planet not of interest in research regarding the climate of the planet? Can we not learn something about the Earth's climate today by studying the climate of the past? I think we can. Secondly, what is is about the last 200 years "and particularly the last 60" that makes it interesting? Please be specific.

 

First derivatives, old boy. The undprecidented rate of change without a geologic event.

Do we need a geologic event? What about insolation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been in a warming trend since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and the like had nothing to do with it.

 

It is not the last 10,000 years that are of interest, really only the last 200 and particularly the last 60. The stuff before that was pretty static.

 

Why is the geologic / climate history of the planet not of interest in research regarding the climate of the planet? Can we not learn something about the Earth's climate today by studying the climate of the past? I think we can. Secondly, what is is about the last 200 years "and particularly the last 60" that makes it interesting? Please be specific.

 

First derivatives, old boy. The undprecidented rate of change without a geologic event.

Do we need a geologic event? What about insolation?

We are talking sunspot stuff here, which is mainly an electromagnetic event. Transference of energy is again on the first derivative. E=d(PhiB)/dt. If you are talking about increased insolation, and they say sunspots here, yes, there is a correlation. You do get increased insolation with increased sunspots at times. Sun based storms cause a distortion of the earth's magnetic field. This usually leads to weather events such as lightning. Temperature increases/decreases would be a function of insolation change. There has been some on a cycle, definetly, but not enough to make up for the pure energy required to melt ice caps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been in a warming trend since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and the like had nothing to do with it.

 

It is not the last 10,000 years that are of interest, really only the last 200 and particularly the last 60. The stuff before that was pretty static.

 

Why is the geologic / climate history of the planet not of interest in research regarding the climate of the planet? Can we not learn something about the Earth's climate today by studying the climate of the past? I think we can. Secondly, what is is about the last 200 years "and particularly the last 60" that makes it interesting? Please be specific.

 

First derivatives, old boy. The undprecidented rate of change without a geologic event.

 

First, you didn't answer my questions. Please answer them.

 

 

Secondly, please support (with comparative geologic evidence) this notion of an "unprecedented rate of change without a geologic event".

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

You don't even read my sources because of arrogance and you ask for "proof"? Your light dims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not the last 10,000 years that are of interest, really only the last 200 and particularly the last 60. The stuff before that was pretty static.

 

Why is the geologic / climate history of the planet not of interest in research regarding the climate of the planet? Can we not learn something about the Earth's climate today by studying the climate of the past? I think we can. Secondly, what is is about the last 200 years "and particularly the last 60" that makes it interesting? Please be specific.

 

First derivatives, old boy. The undprecidented rate of change without a geologic event.

 

First, you didn't answer my questions. Please answer them.

 

 

Secondly, please support (with comparative geologic evidence) this notion of an "unprecedented rate of change without a geologic event".

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

You don't even read my sources because of arrogance and you ask for "proof"? Your light dims.

 

I'd be happy to look at your sources, but you haven't provided any. So, again, what evidence can you provide to support your statement about an unprecedented "rate of change without a geologic event".

 

While you are at it, what is the slope and first derivative of the following function?

 

Sine%20wave.png

 

Then, think about why I might be asking you to answer this question also. Let's see if you can figure that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the fifth time..."Keeping Our Cool" by Andrew Weaver. Does a great job of explanation. I guess that is why they gave him his Nobel Prize.

 

Sine%20wave.png

 

What's your sine?

Or your Fourier Transform?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the fifth time..."Keeping Our Cool" by Andrew Weaver. Does a great job of explanation. I guess that is why they gave him his Nobel Prize.

 

 

You are suggesting I read some book instead of supporting your statement with data? Sorry, that dog don't hunt.

 

But here my book selection for you: http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/051788433X (for obvious reasons) tongue.gif

 

Have a nice day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the fifth time..."Keeping Our Cool" by Andrew Weaver. Does a great job of explanation. I guess that is why they gave him his Nobel Prize.

 

Sine%20wave.png

 

What's your sine?

Or your Fourier Transform?

Those are sooooo 20th century. We need to move on to Fivier transforms. We should do the same with fourcasts too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sine%20wave.png

 

What's your sine?

 

What's your cosine?

Hey, I'm of age and have enough income that I don't need a cosiner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sine%20wave.png

 

What's your sine?

 

What's your cosine?

Hey, I'm of age and have enough income that I don't need a cosiner.

guessing you don't need a sillyscope either then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sine%20wave.png

 

What's your sine?

 

What's your cosine?

Hey, I'm of age and have enough income that I don't need a cosiner.

guessing you don't need a sillyscope either then.

Nor a Halberg-Rassey or books of the month from the science book club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been in a warming trend since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and the like had nothing to do with it.

 

It is not the last 10,000 years that are of interest, really only the last 200 and particularly the last 60. The stuff before that was pretty static.

 

The last 200 years. Interesting how CO2 is causing both changes in temperature AND solar activity, isn't it?

 

SunspontCyclesTempTrackLeightonSteward.gif

 

 

 

If you had any knowlege of the physics involved, you would know that correlation is not causation.

 

Unfortunately for you, I do. And while correlation is not causation, it is at least a prerequisite thereof:

 

 

 

4055639552_403174c9c3_z.jpg?zz=1

 

 

 

QED tongue.gif

 

Hey, question about that sunspot data? It's interesting, do you know the source for it? I don't see the vertical scale for the sunspots other than some unspecified variation from the mean. Is that variation the total area of sunspots? Measured average radiance? What are the units?

 

Temperature seems reasonable, there are known calibration standards across centuries, but what are the calibration standards for measuring solar activity?

 

Watts per square meter would obviously be the SI unit of irradiance, what variation is the top one? And for the bottom, what is the sample interval?

 

I spent a fair bit of time on the roof of a research building basing in the Alabama sun measuring radiance, I'm curious as to what this is showing and how someone could get apparently contiguous data through centuries. It's hard enough with temperature. Is the temperature an average for one spot, an observatory perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey, question about that sunspot data? It's interesting, do you know the source for it? I don't see the vertical scale for the sunspots other than some unspecified variation from the mean. Is that variation the total area of sunspots? Measured average radiance? What are the units?

 

Temperature seems reasonable, there are known calibration standards across centuries, but what are the calibration standards for measuring solar activity?

 

Watts per square meter would obviously be the SI unit of irradiance, what variation is the top one? And for the bottom, what is the sample interval?

 

I spent a fair bit of time on the roof of a research building basing in the Alabama sun measuring radiance, I'm curious as to what this is showing and how someone could get apparently contiguous data through centuries. It's hard enough with temperature. Is the temperature an average for one spot, an observatory perhaps?

 

Don't hold your breath. With the objectivity of Nanna's 'source data' debunked, he's re-posting images from an anonymous archive, seemingly to cover a folly of fake info.

 

The problem is 'Not verifiable is still not verifiable'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent a fair bit of time on the roof of a research building basing in the Alabama sun measuring radiance, I'm curious as to what this is showing and how someone could get apparently contiguous data through centuries. It's hard enough with temperature. Is the temperature an average for one spot, an observatory perhaps?

What bandwidths were you measuring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent a fair bit of time on the roof of a research building basing in the Alabama sun measuring radiance, I'm curious as to what this is showing and how someone could get apparently contiguous data through centuries. It's hard enough with temperature. Is the temperature an average for one spot, an observatory perhaps?

What bandwidths were you measuring?

 

Just solar irradiance, visible, infrared, a bit of UV ... the total Watts per area, I had no need to isolate any particular frequency because it was all meaningful in a thermodynamic sense.

 

Why?

 

Do you know anything about these solar activity charts that are posted here? If they're based on genuine, accurate data then I'm impressed, because getting that kind of resolution of solar output over that many decades would be tough.

 

I'm not a global warming guy, pro or con, but I want to know about these charts. My internal bullshit detector went off on five alarms when I saw these things. If this data is in fact real and reputable, I want a copy, I could do some analysis with it in my own area. As far as I knew, solar variation on Earth wasn't that pronounced, the panorama is highly absorbed in the atmosphere, with just a tiny gap in the visible spectrum at the surface. I think that if the irradiance were measured at the surface they wouldn't see this kind of variation, but I could be wrong, I just want a reference for that data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey, question about that sunspot data? It's interesting, do you know the source for it? I don't see the vertical scale for the sunspots other than some unspecified variation from the mean. Is that variation the total area of sunspots? Measured average radiance? What are the units?

 

Temperature seems reasonable, there are known calibration standards across centuries, but what are the calibration standards for measuring solar activity?

 

Watts per square meter would obviously be the SI unit of irradiance, what variation is the top one? And for the bottom, what is the sample interval?

 

I spent a fair bit of time on the roof of a research building basing in the Alabama sun measuring radiance, I'm curious as to what this is showing and how someone could get apparently contiguous data through centuries. It's hard enough with temperature. Is the temperature an average for one spot, an observatory perhaps?

 

Don't hold your breath. With the objectivity of Nanna's 'source data' debunked, he's re-posting images from an anonymous archive, seemingly to cover a folly of fake info.

 

The problem is 'Not verifiable is still not verifiable'.

 

I don't care about objectivity of the source. If that irradiance data is peer-reviewed it's useful, I just never knew such a thing existed. And I looked over the years too, I had to do a workaround using pan evaporation data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a global warming guy, pro or con,

 

If you're not a true believer you're a skeptic...welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey, question about that sunspot data? It's interesting, do you know the source for it? I don't see the vertical scale for the sunspots other than some unspecified variation from the mean. Is that variation the total area of sunspots? Measured average radiance? What are the units?

 

Temperature seems reasonable, there are known calibration standards across centuries, but what are the calibration standards for measuring solar activity?

 

Watts per square meter would obviously be the SI unit of irradiance, what variation is the top one? And for the bottom, what is the sample interval?

 

I spent a fair bit of time on the roof of a research building basing in the Alabama sun measuring radiance, I'm curious as to what this is showing and how someone could get apparently contiguous data through centuries. It's hard enough with temperature. Is the temperature an average for one spot, an observatory perhaps?

 

Don't hold your breath. With the objectivity of Nanna's 'source data' debunked, he's re-posting images from an anonymous archive, seemingly to cover a folly of fake info.

 

The problem is 'Not verifiable is still not verifiable'.

 

I don't care about objectivity of the source. If that irradiance data is peer-reviewed it's useful, I just never knew such a thing existed. And I looked over the years too, I had to do a workaround using pan evaporation data.

Knowing NGS, you can bet good money on the fact that the graph as presented, has never been anywhere near a peer reviewed journal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a global warming guy, pro or con,

 

If you're not a true believer you're a skeptic...welcome.

 

The day the consensus was spawned and honest debate died ...

 

Read it and weep

 

stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF.../WSJ_June12.pdf

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=%E2%80%9Cdisturbing%20corruption%20of%20the%20peer-review%20process&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fstephenschneider.stanford.edu%2FPublications%2FPDF_Papers%2FWSJ_June12.pdf&ei=KRGLT5nDFsXw0gHDlrHZCQ&usg=AFQjCNGYzmS-7Uano1w6wPXVQSG5d1iNtg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a global warming guy, pro or con,

 

If you're not a true believer you're a skeptic...welcome.

 

If I don't necessarily believe that professional wrestling is anything more than entertainment, that doesn't necessarily make me a follower of wrestling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a global warming guy, pro or con,

 

If you're not a true believer you're a skeptic...welcome.

 

If I don't necessarily believe that professional wrestling is anything more than entertainment, that doesn't necessarily make me a follower of wrestling.

But, does it make you a stalker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a global warming guy, pro or con,

 

If you're not a true believer you're a skeptic...welcome.

 

If I don't necessarily believe that professional wrestling is anything more than entertainment, that doesn't necessarily make me a follower of wrestling.

But, does it make you a stalker?

My girlfriend thinks I'm a stalker. Well, she's not actually my girlfriend, yet....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a global warming guy, pro or con,

 

If you're not a true believer you're a skeptic...welcome.

 

If I don't necessarily believe that professional wrestling is anything more than entertainment, that doesn't necessarily make me a follower of wrestling.

But, does it make you a stalker?

My girlfriend thinks I'm a stalker. Well, she's not actually my girlfriend, yet....

You bastard!!!! She's going to be MY girlfriend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I reasonably assume then that this 100 year old irradiance data can not be accounted?

 

Shame, it could have been useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I reasonably assume then that this 100 year old irradiance data can not be accounted?

 

Shame, it could have been useful.

How long do we have data for? Here are a couple of studies from UMass and Colorado that go back to about 1610.

 

http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html

 

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/lean1995.pdf

 

Those are good, but they're a melange extrapolated fro weather data and luminance data.

 

There were Seebeck and current photocell measuring devices back from 100 years ago, I suspect some of that data is from there. I didn't know about one of those sources you linked, I'll look at it, might be good, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I reasonably assume then that this 100 year old irradiance data can not be accounted?

 

Shame, it could have been useful.

How long do we have data for? Here are a couple of studies from UMass and Colorado that go back to about 1610.

 

http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html

 

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/lean1995.pdf

 

Those are good, but they're a melange extrapolated fro weather data and luminance data.

 

There were Seebeck and current photocell measuring devices back from 100 years ago, I suspect some of that data is from there. I didn't know about one of those sources you linked, I'll look at it, might be good, thanks.

 

Hey, it's the same level of accuracy and precision that seems to work for the warmistas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, it's the same level of accuracy and precision that seems to work for the warmistas.

 

I'm not up on that, I use it for ocean saline gradients and thermoclines. Too complicated to use data of varying sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, it's the same level of accuracy and precision that seems to work for the warmistas.

 

I'm not up on that, I use it for ocean saline gradients and thermoclines. Too complicated to use data of varying sources.

Not if you are Michael E. Mann. You just need to 'normalize' things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, does it make you a stalker?

 

My girlfriend thinks I'm a stalker. Well, she's not actually my girlfriend, yet....

 

You bastard!!!! She's going to be MY girlfriend.

 

 

not too good at this stalking thing, are we gentleman?

that she, is a he

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, does it make you a stalker?

 

My girlfriend thinks I'm a stalker. Well, she's not actually my girlfriend, yet....

 

You bastard!!!! She's going to be MY girlfriend.

 

 

not too good at this stalking thing, are we gentleman?

that she, is a he

Lola? Thanks for the "heads up".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, does it make you a stalker?

 

My girlfriend thinks I'm a stalker. Well, she's not actually my girlfriend, yet....

 

You bastard!!!! She's going to be MY girlfriend.

 

 

not too good at this stalking thing, are we gentleman?

that she, is a he

Sorry, didn't realize it was your 'girl'friend we were stalking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Punch for the Dance

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

 

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

 

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

 

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

There is more if anyone cares....... click on the thingy at the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Punch for the Dance

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

 

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

 

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

 

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

There is more if anyone cares....... click on the thingy at the top.

It wont change any minds unfortunately. The climate deniers are in it because of ideological reasons. Scientific evidence does not sway them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I would point out that I posted the same article the Lizard did three hours before in a thread that was appropriate, few noticed.

 

Obviously Gators have much better bait. This forum is nothing if not predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I would point out that I posted the same article the Lizard did three hours before in a thread that was appropriate, few noticed.

 

Obviously Gators have much better bait. This forum is nothing if not predictable.

 

 

You shouldn't make us all laugh so hard at your being less "popular" than gaytee, laughter increases anthropomorphic CO2 levels over those emitted by ordinary surfing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I would point out that I posted the same article the Lizard did three hours before in a thread that was appropriate, few noticed.

 

Obviously Gators have much better bait. This forum is nothing if not predictable.

 

 

Sorry I didn't notice. Great minds think alike. We really schooled them this time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I would point out that I posted the same article the Lizard did three hours before in a thread that was appropriate, few noticed.

 

Obviously Gators have much better bait. This forum is nothing if not predictable.

 

 

You shouldn't make us all laugh so hard at your being less "popular" than gaytee, laughter increases anthropomorphic CO2 levels over those emitted by ordinary surfing.

uh, BG gets you hook line and sinker with every cast. Of course you missed the point I was making, not surprising at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

uh, BG gets you hook line and sinker with every cast. Of course you missed the point I was making, not surprising at all.

You should check the number of times you claim people miss your point and consider that, just perhaps, you might not be making them very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

uh, BG gets you hook line and sinker with every cast. Of course you missed the point I was making, not surprising at all.

You should check the number of times you claim people miss your point and consider that, just perhaps, you might not be making them very well.

Coming from you? Uh, thanks for the advice and I know you mean well but I will pass.

 

The point here btw was posters flock to BG not for the content but because he is BG. I mean, it's kinda funny that you didn't even get that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites