73 replies to this topic

[Rogerdodger]

the fact that global warming has occurred as determined by the BEST project

Global warning AND cooling have BOTH occurred throughout for millenniums.

I'll say it slower:
No anthropogenic component could be determined by Muller's BEST project.
And errors in his data have been discovered which may alter the "fact".

"The last ten years is an argument about terminology. When you say “global warming” do you mean the increase in temperature, or do you mean CO2′s positive contribution to temperature? When you say “global warming in the last ten years” do you mean the trend in the last ten years’ data, or do you mean the last ten years of the trend in the last forty years’ data? They’re different. As is the question of what it means.

(The 10-year problem was made worse here by an error in one of the papers, in which the trend was calculated but an outlying point in January 2007 pulled the trend artificially high. Because it doesn’t fit the Normal distribution, the trend calculation method used is invalid. Muller had initially thought the data showed no slowdown in the last 10 years even as the skeptics defined it, and said so in his initial interviews, but on seeing the data plotted agreed that it had.)"

Edited by Rogerdodger, 21 April 2012 - 10:30 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

Average temperatures did not rise slowly and smoothly to present levels following the last glacial period. Instead, average temperatures increased fairly rapidly until about 8,000 years ago, at which time they were close to current levels.
But then, warming continued for almost two thousand years, rising to higher levels than we have seen recently.

Around six thousand years ago, average temperatures dropped rapidly; reaching levels lower than today, and stayed lower for a thousand years.

In fact, over the past seven thousand years, there appear to have been six significant cycles of interglacial cooling and warming.

Warm periods have coincided with significant periods of societal change and architectural accomplishment in many parts of the world. The Medieval Warm Period, from about 850 until 1250 AD, was a time of unusually warm climate in Europe. Other warm periods spanned the peak of Egyptian civilization (2600 to 2200 BC), the late Roman Republic and peak of the Roman empire (roughly 100 BC through 200 AD) , and the Twentieth Century.

The Medieval Warm Period was followed by a cooler period which is often referred to as the Little Ice Age. It lasted from about the mid to late 1300s into the late 1800s, almost 500 years. The the bitter cold winters depicted in scenes of the American Revolution, in the 1770s, occurred during this period.

A hundred years ago, following the end of the last prolonged cool period, the Titanic hit an iceberg that was one of many which were released as a then-welcome spell of global warming began to be felt.

The end of the "Little Ice Age" period, in the mid to late 1800s, roughly coincided with the start of a significant rise in industrial activities. Some people claim that industrialization is the cause of the warming trend since then. It may be equally true that the warming trend spawned the vibrant growth of society and industry that began as temperatures began to rise.

It is currently popular to point to the increasing industrialization of the world, coupled with significant human population growth, as primary factors contributing to increases in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, it is very likely that there are multiple interrelated links between the rise in average global temperatures and the rising carbon dioxide content of air over the past hundred years.
LINK

Edited by Rogerdodger, 21 April 2012 - 10:53 PM.

[salsabob]

It's humorous that the title of this thread is "Global Warming er... "Climate Change Skeptics Out of hand, Again" (Sorry about that. I forgot you had to change the name once we hit all of that record cold in the last decade of lower temperatures.)

Anyway, who is out of hand?

Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics' Homes...


Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate change alarmist Steve Zwick calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet another shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist lobby.
Fewer and fewer Americans are convinced by the pseudo-science behind man-made global warming, promulgated as it is by control freaks like Zwick who care more about money and power than they do the environment, AGW adherents are becoming increasingly authoritarian in their pronouncements.

Even as the science itself disproves their theories – Arctic ice is thickening, polar bears and penguins are thriving, Himalayan glaciers are growing – climate change alarmists are only becoming more aggressive in their attacks against anyone who dares question the global warming mantra.

Earlier month we highlighted Professor Kari Norgaard’s call for climate skeptics to be likened to racists and ‘treated’ for having a mental disorder. In a letter to Barack Obama, Norgaard also called on the President to ignore the will of the people and suspend democracy in order to enforce draconian ecological mandates.

No anthropogenic component could be determined by Muller's study.
Who's out of hand?

As to whether the global warming proven in the time frame covered by the BEST study is just a longer natural cycle and not anthropogenic, I am rather agnostic. I'm not sure how anyone rationally could be otherwise at this time given the data. I would likely support skepticism here against the certainty that the warming is not natural and will continue unabated beyond a point of major impacts. However, the certainty that the warming is natural and will eventually cycle is just as silly conjecture.

Also, I have stated that the jury is still out over whether global temperatures have either flatten or in fact declined since the cherry-picked hottest year on record of 1998, 2005 or 2010 depending on record set. What I find puzzling is why anyone would use such a sophomoric trick as obvious as cherry-picking the base year and thereby risk losing any credibility that they might otherwise have - particularly on a board where graphical data analysis is so prevalent, understood and prized - you're not fooling any one.

I also noted on the other thread that Muller has hinted that the data and findings they will be reporting will indicate that any recent cooling is based on the smallest and most uncertain set of monthly data in the entire multi-year data set. He hasn't formally reported that out but he sure is telegraphing that he plans to hit the "decade of cooling" pretty hard - given that he's already made the big splash by confirming the longer-term warming trend, he needs to have another shoe to drop to make a second splash for BEST when it is formally reported. If I were a skeptic, I would be a little circumspect about clinging to the rather silly "decade of cooling."

Why do you need to? There are plenty of issues revolving around the bigger question of whether this is just part of a larger natural cycle - you're insights on solar activity is very good. It doesn't help your case to bring in all the vitriol and moot issues. I realize that maybe Stock can't figure out that the e-mail 'scandal' revolves around the issue of the legitimacy of a data set that is now no longer in question, e-mails or not, but you should know this. Why the continued local weather reporting when even before BEST you know and have stated that they are meaningless?

It's just weird on a board that is not only about expertise in reading actual data and graphs but about the discipline of not allowing extraneous noise interfere with cold hard logic and avoiding what your emotions know as certainty. Its really off-key to what the dominate thought-processes that this forum seems to be about and wants to convey.

[stocks]

Climategate 2.0 leaked emails:

I think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which, for all our sakes, may not be too clever in the long run.
Thorne, UK met office

I criticized the Mann hockey stick; I just refused to give an exclusive interview to Spiegel because I will not cause damage to climate science.
Wanner, NCCR

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions yet sounding like a pro-greenhouse zealot.
Briffa

Getting people we know and trust into the IPCC is vital.
Phil Jones

The important thing is to make sure they are losing the PR battle. That's what the site Realclimate is about.
Michael Mann

It will be very difficult to make the medieval warming period to go away in Greenland.
Pollack

What if climate change appears to be just a natural fluctuation. They would kill us probably.
Wils

I am not convinced that the truth is always worth reaching at the cost damaged personal relationships.
Crowley

I am sure you agree the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published.
Bradley

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff and not letting the science move ahead.
Cook

Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not enough middle and low level clouds.
Phil Jones

I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she thinks she's doing, but it is not helping the cause.
Michael Mann


https://www.youtube....ture=plpp_video

Mainstream media reporters want to see Michael Mann’s climate emails now

17 news organizations, including NPR, WaPo, AP, now have grown a spine and filed an amicus brief (see download below) to OPPOSE in court Michael Mann’s effort to keep his UVa CLIMATEGATE-related e-mails secret.

Mann’s attempt at hiding his emails of work done on public funds and time from public view has backfired, and now is a story that has “legs” in reporter parlance.

Basically what has happened is that journalists are afraid that if Mann wins, it will set a legal precedent that will be used to restrict the ability of the press in future issues where work products and emails discussing research are needed for journalist investigations, but will be made off limits. So, they are going to throw Mann under the bus to keep their FOIA ability intact.


http://wattsupwithth...uva-emails-now/

[salsabob]

Climategate 2.0 leaked emails:

I think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which, for all our sakes, may not be too clever in the long run.
Thorne, UK met office

I criticized the Mann hockey stick; I just refused to give an exclusive interview to Spiegel because I will not cause damage to climate science.
Wanner, NCCR

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions yet sounding like a pro-greenhouse zealot.
Briffa

Getting people we know and trust into the IPCC is vital.
Phil Jones

The important thing is to make sure they are losing the PR battle. That's what the site Realclimate is about.
Michael Mann

It will be very difficult to make the medieval warming period to go away in Greenland.
Pollack

What if climate change appears to be just a natural fluctuation. They would kill us probably.
Wils

I am not convinced that the truth is always worth reaching at the cost damaged personal relationships.
Crowley

I am sure you agree the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published.
Bradley

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff and not letting the science move ahead.
Cook

Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not enough middle and low level clouds.
Phil Jones

I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she thinks she's doing, but it is not helping the cause.
Michael Mann


https://www.youtube....ture=plpp_video

Mainstream media reporters want to see Michael Mann’s climate emails now

17 news organizations, including NPR, WaPo, AP, now have grown a spine and filed an amicus brief (see download below) to OPPOSE in court Michael Mann’s effort to keep his UVa CLIMATEGATE-related e-mails secret.

Mann’s attempt at hiding his emails of work done on public funds and time from public view has backfired, and now is a story that has “legs” in reporter parlance.

Basically what has happened is that journalists are afraid that if Mann wins, it will set a legal precedent that will be used to restrict the ability of the press in future issues where work products and emails discussing research are needed for journalist investigations, but will be made off limits. So, they are going to throw Mann under the bus to keep their FOIA ability intact.


http://wattsupwithth...uva-emails-now/

I repeat -

"It's just weird on a board that is not only about expertise in reading actual data and graphs but about the discipline of not allowing extraneous noise interfere with cold hard logic and avoiding what your emotions know as certainty. Its really off-key to what the dominate thought-processes that this forum seems to be about and wants to convey."

[*JB*]

I repeat -

"It's just weird on a board that is not only about expertise in reading actual data and graphs but about the discipline of not allowing extraneous noise interfere with cold hard logic and avoiding what your emotions know as certainty. Its really off-key to what the dominate thought-processes that this forum seems to be about and wants to convey."

What is weirder is you think you're the one talking sense...with your appeal for sticking to rational thought and facts.

"Actual data" argues that CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming, but the result of warming.

There have been MANY times the CO2 in the atmosphere in the past than now -- including during ice ages.

There is "actual data" that strongly supports the premise that SUN CYCLES and SOLAR ACTIVITY produces warming/cooling....on this planet (and the rest in the solar system that warmed at the same time) -- not .0038ths of the earth's atmosphere (CO2).

Yes we have had warming, coming our of a mini ice age ending about 1870 or so.

The rest here is a discussion of the false religion of AGW and the dishonesty of it's prophets -- plus how badly the models have proven to be.

Edited by *JB*, 18 March 2014 - 10:36 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

Don't be a "Climate FACTS Denier!"

Repeat after me:
The climate has been changing since day one.
The climate has been changing since day one.
The climate has been changing since day one.
Sun cycles correlate to climate patterns.
It has been warming ever since records have been kept because it was much colder when the temperature records began to be kept.
The late 1800's, early 1900's saw some of the coolest temperatures ever recorded and they saw the least solar activity ever recorded.

Thank G0D it began to warm up a bit in the 20th century!
Solar cycles #21, 22 & 23 were the most active on record and Al Gore made a fortune off of it! and blamed human activity,
Just as ancient witch doctors blamed weather calamity on bad human behavior and lack of sacrifice, so did Al and profited nicely from the "sacrifices."
But now the sun may be changing that pattern, AGAIN.
"Long Cold Winter" as SOLAR CYCLE #24 is challenging record books"

Third Straight Year of Record Low Tornado Activity...


It's for "THE GREATER GOOD!"
(NOTE THE HAPPY SUN IN THE SKY)

Edited by Rogerdodger, 19 March 2014 - 03:10 PM.

[salsabob]

I repeat -

"It's just weird on a board that is not only about expertise in reading actual data and graphs but about the discipline of not allowing extraneous noise interfere with cold hard logic and avoiding what your emotions know as certainty. Its really off-key to what the dominate thought-processes that this forum seems to be about and wants to convey."

What is weirder is you think you're the one talking sense...with your appeal for sticking to rational thought and facts.

"Actual data" argues that CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming, but the result of warming.

There have been MANY times the CO2 in the atmosphere in the past than now -- including during ice ages.

There is "actual data" that strongly supports the premise that SUN CYCLES and SOLAR ACTIVITY produces warming/cooling....on this planet (and the rest in the solar system that warmed at the same time) -- not .0038ths of the earth's atmosphere (CO2).

Yes we have had warming, coming our of a mini ice age ending about 1870 or so.

The rest here is a discussion of the false religion of AGW and the dishonesty of it's prophets -- plus how badly the models have proven to be.

The e-mail attack is against Michael Mann, best known for his "hockey stick" which is representative of global warming; some would say unprecedented rapid global warming (an issue put to bed by former skeptic Richard Muller's BEST study - one of those very rare skeptics that actually has a PhD and does research in a field of inquiry relevant to the issue; not some non-credential former TV weatherman).

But that's not what you addressed.

Instead, you retreat to the "it's not CO2." One would think that after being so obviously wrong about the presence of rapid global warming, you all would be a little bit more humble in now making your certain assertions about its cause. That is, however, not so much off key here on this forum - folks irrationally wedded to market positions are pretty much a dime a dozen.

[stocks]

The e-mail attack is against Michael Mann,

Publishing his emails (paid for by the taxpayer and justifying policy) is an email attack.



We'll see if the "climate scientists" are above the FOI law.

[stocks]

The e-mail attack is against Michael Mann,

Publishing his emails (paid for by the taxpayer and justifying policy) is an email attack.



We'll see if the "climate scientists" are above the FOI law.

“Most transparent” White House ever rewrote FOIA to exclude its docs

This gives the White House the ability to delay release of such information until it is politically beneficial for them to do so (or, in reality, not at all):

In one case cited by Cause of Action, the response to a request from a Los Angeles Times reporter to the Department of the Interior for “communications between the White House and high-ranking Interior officials on various politically sensitive topics” was delayed at least two years by the equities review.

And that isn’t the only department in which such delays have become common:

“Cause of Action is still waiting for documents from 16 federal agencies, with the Department of Treasury having the longest pending request of 202 business days.

“The Department of Energy is a close second at 169 business days. The requests to the Department of Defense and Department of Health and Human Services have been pending for 138 business days,” the report said.

This is what political subversion looks like.


http://hotair.com/ar...clude-its-docs/