Statistical analysis rules out natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99 percent certainty

clouds
Cloud in Nepali sky. Credit: Wikipedia

An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth's climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.

The study, published online April 6 in the journal Climate Dynamics, represents a new approach to the question of whether in the industrial era has been caused largely by man-made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Rather than using complex computer models to estimate the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions, Lovejoy examines historical data to assess the competing hypothesis: that warming over the past century is due to natural long-term variations in temperature.

"This study will be a blow to any remaining -change deniers," Lovejoy says. "Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it."

Lovejoy's study applies statistical methodology to determine the probability that global warming since 1880 is due to natural variability. His conclusion: the natural-warming hypothesis may be ruled out "with confidence levels great than 99%, and most likely greater than 99.9%."

To assess the natural variability before much human interference, the new study uses "multi-proxy climate reconstructions" developed by scientists in recent years to estimate historical temperatures, as well as fluctuation-analysis techniques from nonlinear geophysics. The climate reconstructions take into account a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales.

For the industrial era, Lovejoy's analysis uses carbon-dioxide from the burning of as a proxy for all man-made climate influences – a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he says. "This allows the new approach to implicitly include the cooling effects of particulate pollution that are still poorly quantified in computer models," he adds.

While his new study makes no use of the huge computer models commonly used by scientists to estimate the magnitude of future climate change, Lovejoy's findings effectively complement those of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he says. His study predicts, with 95% confidence, that a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause the climate to warm by between 2.5 and 4.2 degrees Celsius. That range is more precise than – but in line with—the IPCC's prediction that temperatures would rise by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius if CO2 concentrations double.

"We've had a fluctuation in average temperature that's just huge since 1880 – on the order of about 0.9 degrees Celsius," Lovejoy says. "This study shows that the odds of that being caused by natural fluctuations are less than one in a hundred and are likely to be less than one in a thousand.

"While the statistical rejection of a hypothesis can't generally be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases – including this one – the rejection of one greatly enhances the credibility of the other."


Explore further

Macroweather is what you expect

More information: "Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming", S. Lovejoy, Climate Change, published online April 6, 2014. link.springer.com/search?query … %2Fs00382-014-2128-2

www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/ep … dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

Journal information: Climate Dynamics

Provided by McGill University
Citation: Statistical analysis rules out natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99 percent certainty (2014, April 11) retrieved 19 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-04-statistical-analysis-natural-warming-hypothesis-percent.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 11, 2014
I was looking for a publication date of 4-1-14, but it is 4-6-14, so my "statistical rejection of a hypothesis" (Shaun Lovejoy's) will have rely on something more substantial, such as ...err...FACTS, something clearly missing from Lovejoy's 'study'. Any science and scientific thought/method/process used to compile the 99.9% result is likely to be found in the 0.01% discrepancy. It is a shame that phys.org publishes such drivil.

Apr 11, 2014
Wow! Sometime ~ 2010 there was enough data that I could do a layman statistical projection of signal-to-noise-ratio from a linear extrapolation of AGW increase and many noise sources so gaussian noise. I landed on that this year's IPCC data release could have 99 % confidence at a likelihood of 50 %.

Seems I won that coin toss, both last year's IPCC and now this is blowing the top of the linear extrapolation, as they should seeing how it is more like an exponential CO2 increase.

So ... on to the consequences.

Apr 11, 2014
The "robustness" of temperature record aside, did it ever occurred to the author that the "denier" camp has capable, well qualified statisticians which will shred his masterpiece to pieces?

http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf
http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf

Apr 11, 2014
@blovel, TegiriNashi: Speaking of "drivil" [sic], your comments are an example. Those who take pain to read it find that you have no evidence [an anonymous graph -really!?], while already Lovejoys' references fills 2 pages and his abstract claims correspondence with IPCC who in turn comprise _all_ of the climate science, now 10's of 1000's of papers.

You can't have more factual support for climate science than that. The one who should be ashamed for mouthing off instead of appreciating science should be you - a waste of space.

Apr 11, 2014
I thought readers would be able to figure out the organization from URL. The graph is from British Antarctic Survey

http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/

...Which members accidentally are publishing a lot of AGW articles popularized by physorg.

Apr 11, 2014
Crimean referendum 2014: 96.77% for Russia, Climate change 2014: 99,9% man made.
The Russians obviously faked it, but at least they tried to give it a little credibility.

Apr 11, 2014
"It was therefore replaced by the [Ammann and Wahl, 2007] update of the original [Mann et al., 1998] reconstruction"

Quelle surprise !
the zombie hockey stick is of course the best tool for this "blow to the deniers".


Apr 11, 2014
Crimean referendum 2014: 96.77% for Russia, Climate change 2014: 99,9% man made.
The Russians obviously faked it, but at least they tried to give it a little credibility.


In both cases, when in doubt, you can check it yourself. You can take Crimea census from 2011 and count language preference. Well, it is not 96%, but I tell you what. That guy, who is sitting on evil oil and gas, promised to raise their social services quite substantially so, perhaps, they have bought it?

In the other case you can look at satellite temperature records, non-urbanized weather station history (conveniently located at a continent which is subject to polar amplification effect), or sea ice cover, and form an informed opinion.

Apr 11, 2014
Your right but I must say that I don't understand it, at least not from this article.
I find a meta study a good idea, but I cannot assess whether this is the case, if the arguments are sane (and data is valid) or not until I read the original publication.
In any case it's not easy to validate this, but I do note that a quote like this "This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers, ..." and this (I could go on) "We've had a fluctuation in average temperature that's just huge since 1880 – on the order of about 0.9 degrees Celsius," doesn't make it appear credible.

Apr 11, 2014
A natural long-term trend is defined by a proxy factor times the time-integral of the difference between each annual average daily sunspot number and the average sunspot number for a long period (1610-1940). The net surface temperature change of all natural ocean cycles oscillates above and below this trend. The combination calculates average global temperature anomalies (AGT) since before 1900 with R^2 > 0.9 (95% correlation) and credible AGT since the depths of the Little Ice Age.

All this is quantified at http://agwunveile...spot.com and sub-links.

Everything else must find room in the unexplained 10%

Apr 11, 2014
@TegiriNenashi,
In the other case you can look at satellite temperature records, non-urbanized weather station history (conveniently located at a continent which is subject to polar amplification effect), or sea ice cover, and form an informed opinion.
Oh, you mean something like this:

http://berkeleyea...findings

The "robustness" of temperature record aside, did it ever occurred to the author that the "denier" camp has capable, well qualified statisticians which will shred his masterpiece to pieces?
Wait, are you insinuating that you're one yourself? LMAO, why then would you present a couple of graphs for a couple of select spots in Antarctica, as your counter-argument to GLOBAL temperature trends? That's statistical "genius", if ever I encountered any...

Apr 12, 2014
From the article:
An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth's climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.


You flaterthers and deniers just don't get how serious this issue is. You and your beer buddies joke about it, slap yourselves on the back and make fun of the nerds, but in 10 years, that is going to be over. You flateathers are going to sweat like hogs when the AGW really kicks in.

Have fun you flat earther and AGW deniers! Have fun.

Apr 12, 2014
What would temperatures be today without AGW? This statistical analysis implies a counterfactual....?

Apr 12, 2014
enviro414 but, WHY didnt he notice
http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
Take a look at the graphs enviro414, NOT quantified, notice they claim 'no CO2 effect' - Eg graph 1 which purports to plot volcanic events, how is this correlated with accepted CO2 data from Eg This link:- http://www.woodfo...o2/every

enviro414 desperately needs an education in Provenance in relation to blogspots which are NOT peer reviewed
All of the chaos, phase change, combinational complexity, turbulence and everything that you did not think of must find room in the unexplained 10%.
What garbage techo bable is this The "unexplained 10%" of WHAT precisely enviro414 ?

Other links posted previously enviro414 are also blogs, NOT peer reviewed.

What makes you think you and your blogspot links have more Science than the vast majority that have university credentials in Physics and have studied Heat Capacity, Statistical Mechanics etc.

Physics Education enviro414 Puh-Lease !

Apr 12, 2014
TegiriNenashi is at it again pretending to be a troll or plain stupid & uneducated in not just Science but basic technical communications
The "robustness" of temperature record aside, did it ever occurred to the author that the "denier" camp has capable, well qualified statisticians which will shred his masterpiece to pieces?
http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf
http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf


TegiriNenashi please NOTICE in relation to YOUR anonymous links:-

- No info re titles - surface of what ?
- No Provenance - what is the data set, how was it compiled ?
- No error bars
- No comparative data set
- No regional references
- No discussion
- No peer reviewers mentioned

This is so FAR away for anything worthy of a those interested in a mature dialectic TegiriNenashi, why so naive, please get an education, if its too late for you to go to University then sign up for Community College & get uneducated bias out your anus!

Apr 12, 2014
Denial is a well-known mechanism for those who can't face or act in face of peril. Well, in the end, they are just as dead...and drag others along too, if they are in positions of authority!

Apr 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 12, 2014
Two apparent problems with the study seem to arise.

1. The start date of 1500. Why not earlier? There are earlier proxies available.

2. The 95% confidence prediction mentioned above doesn't square with actual observation of varying levels of CO2 in IR transparent glass containers (or even pop bottles) in a controlled setting. This can be verified by just about anyone willing to take the time and do the experimentation.

Something seems awry. I suppose a more thorough examination of the data used in the above study is in order.

Apr 12, 2014
Mike - Your lack of science skill makes you gullible to mob-think.

The leaders of this mob have stated that it is a "travesty" that average global temperatures measure 0.3 K lower than they predicted. They don't mention thermalization although that is how IR warms the air. Some of the other mistakes that 'Climate Scientists' have made are described at http://consensusm...pot.com/

APS has begun to question the AGW mantra
http://news.inves...ange.htm

The method used at http://agwunveile...pot.com/ allows prediction of temperatures using data up to any date. The predicted temperature anomaly trend in 2013 calculated using data to 1990 and actual sunspot numbers through 2013 was within 0.012 K of the trend calculated using data through 2013.

I look forward to your comments as the average global temperature trend continues its decline.

Apr 12, 2014
Pejico claimed
Despite the effort of scientists and their massive propaganda, the wisdom of crowds is, the global warming can be still a consequence of the natural effects.
What "Propaganda" ? The Physics of gasses & water is PROVEN, r u NOT educated ?

Pejico
.. because the geothermal global warming hypothesis wasn't even considered, judged the less.
Has been checked, Geothermal is FAR below the burning of ~230,000 Litres of petrol/second adding GHG's & heat !
Pejico
The "scientific" theories based on single paradigm with no discussion only rarely become sucessfull.
If that did NOT include rapid rise of CO2 you 'might' be right, u r NOT.
Pejico
.. Again, no serious discussion exist about it, which just confirms my suspicion, it actually isn't.
Pejico, you don't move in any circles where there is 'serious discussion' YOU are here, this is a Science site, touching only on details of Climate Science sporadically...

Pejico, Please go to the serious site then - asap !

Apr 12, 2014
Global warming has been happening since the end of the last ice age. An acceleration or "snowball effect" is expected. I wonder what coefficient ( if any) was assigned to 900+ atmospheric nuclear weapon test conducted 1945-1980.

Apr 12, 2014
An analysis of reality shows that there is a 99% probability there is a motive behind the AGW hype.

http://phys.org/n...bon.html

Apr 12, 2014
I'll take all your "climate scientists" and raise you ONE, that's right one, Freeman Dyson.

My boffin is smarter than your boffin.

"The polar bears will be fine."

Apr 12, 2014
Mike - Your lack of science skill makes you gullible to mob-think.

The leaders of this mob have stated that it is a "travesty" that average global temperatures measure 0.3 K lower than they predicted. They don't mention thermalization although that is how IR warms the air. Some of the other mistakes that 'Climate Scientists' have made are described at http://consensusm...pot.com/ allows prediction of temperatures using data up to any date. The predicted temperature anomaly trend in 2013 calculated using data to 1990 and actual sunspot numbers through 2013 was within 0.012 K of the trend calculated using data through 2013.

I look forward to your comments as the average global temperature trend continues its decline.


Right that does it.
You're merit no more responses from me my friend.
You are no more than and bloody spamming parrot..
At least a parrot is useful in warning of idiots entering the room.

Apr 12, 2014
Let's say, for argument, that in fact human activity caused global warming. Then let's notice that there has been no global warming for the past 17 years. We would deduce then that whatever the human activity was that caused global warming has ceased. Then let's look for what that human activity might be. It's certainly not CO2 emissions.

Apr 12, 2014
Let's say, for argument, that in fact human activity caused global warming. Then let's notice that there has been no global warming for the past 17 years. We would deduce then that whatever the human activity was that caused global warming has ceased. Then let's look for what that human activity might be. It's certainly not CO2 emissions.


Utterly and spectacularly wrong.
Try checking out sea temperatures.
Then realise that oceans contain greater than 90% of the climate system's stored heat.
Once armed with that information, if you're capable, do trot along and investigate the thermodynamic properties of water vs air. and while you're at it swat up on the basics of the effects that the ENSO cycle has on global temps.

Go away, do that, there's a good denialist, then come back on here - sigh - if you must and talk intelligently.

Apr 12, 2014
Let's say, for argument, that in fact human activity caused global warming. Then let's notice that there has been no global warming for the past 17 years. We would deduce then that whatever the human activity was that caused global warming has ceased. Then let's look for what that human activity might be. It's certainly not CO2 emissions.


Climate Scientists won't see eye-to-eye with you on that account. They now are blaming volcanoes, pacific tradewinds, ocean thermodynamics, the Sun, and several other things for the apparent pause in warming. A couple years ago it was materials errors in ARGO sensors, and a few other items. They still maintain that as soon as the tradewinds change, as soon as volcanoes stop emitting, and as soon as the oceans stop absorbing heat, and so forth, that warming will accelerate as before, if not more quickly. Hide the decline, and if you cannot hide it any longer, blame weather/geological conditions for the alteration of climate.

Apr 12, 2014
The climate of England and Japan are moderated by warm ocean currents.
Warm water then loses heat to the air, but if the air temperatures are dropping whey doesn't that heat hiding in the ocean warm the air?

Apr 12, 2014
PsycheOne offered with massive IGNORANCE
Let's say, for argument, that in fact human activity caused global warming. Then let's notice that there has been no global warming for the past 17 years. We would deduce then that whatever the human activity was that caused global warming has ceased. Then let's look for what that human activity might be. It's certainly not CO2 emissions.
NO.

You are unaware of:- http://en.wikiped...capacity

& http://en.wikiped...echanics

& http://en.wikiped...of_water

When you are educated and able to think PsycheOne, you will notice the Ocean's capacity to absorb heat is enormous, well beyond the atmosphere's capacity to show a temp rise.

You PsycheOne R blissfully ignorant of high school physics shwoing definitively that temperature of glass of ice/water mix does NOT go up until all the ice melts - despite the amount of heat supplied.

Granted it takes effort & intellect to understand.

Apr 12, 2014
The thing about 99% probability, there's always the 1%...

https://www.youtu...AnECkaME

Apr 12, 2014
the global warming can be still a consequence of the natural effects
@Zeph/Pej
sorry, bub. but this is why people make fun of you. YES, the natural effects exacerbate the situation, BUT they are not the underlying CAUSE
geothermal global warming hypothesis wasn't even considered
wrong again, sparky. ask T. Thompson or Runrig.. they are included
no serious discussion exist about it, which just confirms my suspicion...
and here we see total delusion as well as denial. SERIOUS discussion includes FACTS, EMPIRICAL data. NOT guesswork and blanket accusations.
SERIOUS discussion HAPPENS, especially between scientists... what you are calling "no serious discussion" is the fact that a crap load of scientists working on their own with separate experiments are all converging on the simple facts: WARMING. which then gives consensus, NOT BECAUSE there is some process voting on the best looking paper, but because everyone working separately came to the same conclusions!

Apr 12, 2014
What "Propaganda" ? The Physics of gasses & water is PROVEN, r u NOT educated?
@Mike_Massen
pejico is Zephir
science skill makes you gullible to mob-think
@enviro
actually, the science skills make him more worried, as observation as well as empirical data show that warming is a serious problem
and quoting BLOGS is the equivalent of posting links to Pizza Hut ... completely irrelevant
skip the BS and post links to STUDIES/PAPERS
analysis of reality shows
analysis of CD's posts show a complete lack of understanding of physics, reality or the scientific method
Then let's notice that there has been no global warming for the past 17 years
@psycheone
this claim is only valid if you ignore empirical data, therefore it holds all the same authority/validity as saying "unicorn farts cause downdrafts"
see: http://centerforo...warming/

Apr 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 12, 2014
1) Nope, the people hate and censor me, they do not laugh at me.
sorry Zeph, when you make conspiratorial comments like above... they laugh at you... AT you, not with you... AT. ESPECIALLY when there is a preponderance of empirical data against you and your posts
2) Just because I do understand the physics of gases well, I know, that the atmospheric CO2 is http://wattsupwit...warming/ supports this model too.
wrong again: see Tim Thompson and Thermodynamics in the following threads:

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

http://phys.org/n...bal.html

your conjectures are impotent in the face of empirical data. thanks for playing

Apr 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 12, 2014
The article about permafrost just explains, how global warming http://wattsupwit...arming/, thus fooling the physicists, who are believing in green-house gas causality. It's an argument for me, not for you.
@zeph
try reading the comments sparky. that is why I told you to read Tim Thompson and Thermodynamics. the posters. below the article. in the comments.

is that spelled out better? quit being stupid

MAYBE you will learn something... although given your propensity for denial, it is doubtful


Apr 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 12, 2014
The climate of England and Japan are moderated by warm ocean currents.
Warm water then loses heat to the air, but if the air temperatures are dropping whey doesn't that heat hiding in the ocean warm the air?


Aside from the UK/Japan not being the world (most land is isolated from maritime effects).
Err - because it's warmed the water at depth ????
And is 'hidden' from the atmosphere.
The biggest contributor by far to the oscillation of global ave temps by SST's is the ENSO cycle. Which has largely been in a cool phase this last 16 years.
You will have to understand thermodynamics to appreciate that ryggy and I fear you do not.

Apr 12, 2014
The thing about 99% probability, there's always the 1%...


Like I said to some other denier on here Cant.
Get yourself a gun with a 100 bullet magazine and ask someone to take out one a random. Now point the thing at your temple and pull the trigger.

Yes, there's always that one (lack of) bullet isn't there?
You'd take the chance?
Not with my planet you're not.

Apr 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 12, 2014
An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation
500 years is too short interval. Most of climatic cycles known so far are substantially longer. It just means, within timespan 5000 years we can be sure with AGW at 90 percent certainty, within timespan 50.000 years we can be sure with it at 60% certainty only.


Err ... you're arguing that we include in the analysis things that we know aren't occurring now.
Principally orbital dynamics and sun activity.
We don't need that to skew the data.
They have used a period that best fits the available (reliable) data and gives a reasonable time period before industrialisation.

Apr 12, 2014

I am not questioning anything BUT the statistical method used.
The guy selected the period since 1500. How did her determine that choice? If there is one thing that is sure about random functions is that they look very different depending on the time period over which you inspect them. So I think this is no proof at all. This guy is into fractal theory and is seriously into scale invariance theory, which makes him think he can apply his theory on any time scale. It all depends on the validity of his model - who say a 'multifractal' model is the right one for the climate?

Apr 12, 2014
"An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth's climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy."
Well. Yes. That includes the little ice age and excludes the medieval warming. (And I'm 99% certain of that.) Nothing like selecting you input to a statistical analysis.

Apr 12, 2014
I swear if I read the headline 'scientists prove global warming is man made' again I'll be joining the deniers.

yep
Apr 12, 2014
"I wonder what coefficient ( if any) was assigned to 900+ atmospheric nuclear weapon test conducted 1945-1980."
Wow Bob, It seems this point illustrates whether we believe in AGW or not it is undeniable we effect our ecosystems locally and globally.
http://www.ctbto....e12b.pdf


Apr 13, 2014
These comments by the "CO2 just disappears and has no further consequences for no apparent reason" crowd, just add credence to the point that they're views are not based on the scientific method.
Is not the persuasion of a truly open mind evidence?
You don't have to be a statistician to understand this is almost definitive proof. You guys jump on that word "almost", but this is about our impact on the environment, not the short comings of articulate description in the English language.
If your mind is closed against chemistry, geology, mineralogy, climatology, paleontology, radiology, .. ect. What evidence could I possibly provide to change your mind and accept the truth?

Apr 13, 2014
the carbon dioxide levels, thus fooling the physicists
so your "ASSUMPTION" is that physicists are "fooled" by CO2. ok, copy/paste this:

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf" title="http://http://forecast.uchicago.edu/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://forecast.u...ases.pdf

now read
Pay special attention to the last page (figure 4.8) where we see how CO2 absorption depends on relative abundance. This is directly related to the general claim that the relative abundance of CO2 is too low to matter compared to H2O. This figure directly refutes that claim.
Here is the parent page, dedicated to the book "Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast" by David Archer (Prof. of Geosciences, University of Chicago). There are additional links thereon to video lectures & more.

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/

http://geosci.uch...d-archer
IOW - Zeph, you're WRONG YET AGAIN

wanna try for more?

Apr 13, 2014
antonima muttered
I swear if I read the headline 'scientists prove global warming is man made' again I'll be joining the deniers.
Such knee jerk emotional redneck reactions not based on formal education are the problem & you just proved it - complaint without an attempt to get an education to (try) understand.

Humans are emitting greenhouse gasses far faster than natural events & CO2 especially has known thermal properties regarding re-radiation.

"No one in any denier came has ever been able to use their physics to show just why ADDING a green house gas to the atmosphere should NOT increase resistivity in terms of heat flows."

The only response ever on phys.org is "..its too dilute", with no qualification of the term "too", all these need clarification.

Physics shows clearly & evidentiary comparative proportions of CO2 have effects, CO2 is rising, with no blips on the chart re volcano's hence that output low, humans drive CO2:-
http://www.woodfo...o2/every


Apr 13, 2014
about the above link: phys.org doesn't like it
type in from Http until you get to david-archer and it works.

"http://geosci.uch...-archer"

@zeph
linking empirical data is best, and linking to blogs is the equivalent to linking to pizza hut.

however, you KNOW as well as others that Tim Thompson is not only a physicist, but is well versed in climate science. He also commented with PLENTY of empirical data leaving a plethora of links as studies proving his point.
the reason you ignored HIS comments is that it proves you wrong, as well as makes you look like an idiot. Well, that's the breaks, bubba, especially when you have a propensity for being fooled by fringe idiocy like AW/DAW or cold fusion.

I don't mind re-posting his comments again though. I admit I was being lazy (and trying not to cross-post). But I have NO PROBLEM re-posting to prove the point.

anything else?

Apr 13, 2014

Humans are emitting greenhouse gasses far faster than natural events & CO2 especially has known thermal properties regarding re-radiation.



You missed my point, completely. I KNOW that humans cause global warming, or at the very least climate change. I was entertaining the fact that repeating the strongest line of an argument, in this case that humans are wrecking the planet, will not make the argument stronger. In fact it will weaken the argument. These headlines appear every time a doctoral thesis is written on global warming it seems. After reading it for the n th time I'm about ready to stop giving a shit, completely, about climate change.

Apr 13, 2014
GW ended before 2001. http://endofgw.blogspot.com/

AGW does not exist. http://agwunveile...pot.com/

Apr 13, 2014
GW ended before 2001. http://endofgw.blogspot.com/


Wrong errerr - cos I said so errerr
Opinion from whatever source my friend counts for zero.

Apr 13, 2014
Why does enviro414 insist on relying on blogs and make uneducated claims
GW ended before 2001. http://endofgw.blogspot.com/
AGW does not exist.http://agwunveile....com.au/
Why does enviro414 not notice there is no CO2 curve compared on the two sites above, what is the Provenance please ?

What is wrong with you enviro414, paranoid about peer review, have you ever done a "Literature Review" ? The discipline of critiquing a journal, why do you not get physics training and an understanding of how to deal with bias at ANY level ?

enviro414 You claim bias, where - show it !?!

enviro414, many deniers use this site, and as Tim Thompson well pointed out one has to be careful with start & end points - here is a good illustration.
http://www.woodfo....1/trend

How would you enviro414, argue against any sort of warming in the right half of the graph ?

Apr 13, 2014
Apologies antonima
You missed my point, completely. I KNOW that humans cause global warming, or at the very least climate change. I was entertaining the fact that repeating the strongest line of an argument, in this case that humans are wrecking the planet, will not make the argument stronger. In fact it will weaken the argument. These headlines appear every time a doctoral thesis is written on global warming it seems. After reading it for the n th time I'm about ready to stop giving a shit, completely, about climate change.
I didn't see your point in that posting, it came across as satire/sarcasm from a denier.

Perhaps my sarcasm filter is not up with what you wanted to share in that short comment ?


Apr 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 13, 2014
How can you get 99.9% certainty when the early climate records are mostly proxies and the later records have been tampered with or their validity is questionable do to the encroachment of civilization? This paper was written strictly for the consumption by and the indoctrination of the general public.

Papers such as this are a direct indication of how the moral and ethical standards of our society have collapsed.

Apr 13, 2014


Perhaps my sarcasm filter is not up with what you wanted to share in that short comment ?



Granted, it wasn't a very articulate post lol

Apr 13, 2014
An analysis of reality shows that there is a 99% probability there is a motive behind the AGW hype.

http://phys.org/n...bon.html


You are absolutely correct, canty:

[from the article]

An IMF study last year found that energy subsidies around the world amounted to $1.9 trillion—or eight percent of government revenues.


That's in reference to fossil fuels. Why should 8 percent of the world's tax dollars go to the continuing, artificial profitability of Big Carbon(subsidies to the most profitable business EVER, ongoing for years and years and years)? If that money was spent developing and deploying renewables, fossil wouldn't even begin to be able to compete at parity.

Any way you slice it, fossil is more expensive on a per-unit-energy basis and on a cost-to-the-environment basis as well.

Just think of carbon-pricing as a "reverse subsidy".


Apr 13, 2014
How can you get 99.9% certainty when the early climate records are mostly proxies and the later records have been tampered with or their validity is questionable do to the encroachment of civilization? This paper was written strictly for the consumption by and the indoctrination of the general public.

Papers such as this are a direct indication of how the moral and ethical standards of our society have collapsed.


First off - no proxies "have been tampered with" - if you refer to tree rings in Scandinavia, then real data replaced them.
Also the HI effect has been shown to not be a factor in global average temp records as the Koch sponsored BEST study found.

Anything else mythical you'd like to throw in there to justify your denial?

Seen through the prism of your ideology the last sentence makes sense - but the people holding same inhabit the rabbit hole, my friend, and not the real world.
So we need not worry eh?

Apr 13, 2014
runrig – So, you don't believe average global temperature reports from NASA, UAH, HadCRUT, RSS, & GISS. Please advise us of your preferred sources.

Apr 13, 2014
Mike – If you would take the blinders off perhaps you might notice in Table 1 that including the influence of CO2 made no significant increase in R^2.

Blaming CO2 for global warming when it has no significant effect is bias.

Apr 13, 2014
One of the main failings of the paper is its omission of 1000 years of previous multiproxy data. Even inclusion of only 500 years of additional multiproxy data would have been an improvement. I very highly doubt that that was an accidental oversight.

Apr 13, 2014
So the climate change deniers ARE idiots? Darn, and I was .001% sure they may have been slightly correct in some small but insignificant part.

Do you think the deniers really believe themselves or are just motivated by greed? At least if it's greed they aren't stupid, just scum.

Apr 14, 2014
enviro414 still didn't notice
Mike – If you would take the blinders off perhaps you might notice in Table 1 that including the influence of CO2 made no significant increase in R^2.
If you mean either of these non peer-reviewed links:-
http://endofgw.bl....com.au/
http://agwunveile....com.au/

WHERE enviro414, is CO2 data listed ?
WHERE is the provenance of the source data defined ?

Do you imagine you know how a proper scientific paper is written ?
Do you imagine this is a good example making a claim not listing the data/source ?

enviro414 now might understand bias
Blaming CO2 for global warming when it has no significant effect is bias.
enviro414, evidence of bias is a CLAIM on a site that has NO review dialectic and NO data & NO indication of provenance ?

Why do not understand such a simple point ?

If I claim sky is falling but, refuse to show the mass of material arriving at earth then its either delusion or BIAS ?

Been trained to write anything enviro414 ?

Apr 14, 2014
enviro414 seems to be suffering from very selective sight
runrig – So, you don't believe average global temperature reports from NASA, UAH, HadCRUT, RSS, & GISS. Please advise us of your preferred sources.
So enviro414, why do YOU not appreciate this site, which is often presented by several deniers:-
http://www.woodfo....1/trend

Do you not see enviro414 it clearly shows warming ?

Did you no read the notice from the site admins:-
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes]http://www.woodfo...rg/notes[/url]

Did you not see on the notes references to the source data ?

Are you so totally blind enviro414, you cannot see that ?

What enviro414, is wrong with the site:- http://www.woodfo...rg/notes]http://www.woodfo...rg/notes[/url]

Analysis please enviro414, your best most strident intellectual effort please enviro414 ?

Do you understand "Confirmational Bias" enviro414 ?

Did you ever get any basic education in Physics enviro414 ?

Apr 14, 2014
Skepticus_Rex offered this
One of the main failings of the paper is its omission of 1000 years of previous multiproxy data. Even inclusion of only 500 years of additional multiproxy data would have been an improvement. I very highly doubt that that was an accidental oversight.
How do you imagine Skepticus_Rex that any temp data of those periods is reflective of global heat indications at those times ?

During those periods is there ANY evidence of the extremely fast changes in CO2 we are experiencing of the last 100+ years ?

Equilibria is vastly complex, relative warming or cooling in those periods has conjunctive aspects not necessarily reflected in respect of CO2 as NOW.

If we had some indication of fast CHANGE in CO2 of a 100 year SPAN anywhere from 1000 to 500 or so years ago then you 'might' have a case.

Until then Skepticus_Rex, I don't see the correlation & in conjunction with known thermal properties of CO2.

If you can find the data Skepticus_Rex, I will analyse :-)

Apr 14, 2014
runrig – So, you don't believe average global temperature reports from NASA, UAH, HadCRUT, RSS, & GISS. Please advise us of your preferred sources.


ALL of the above, taken in their entirety as they each have valid methodology.

I don't pick or choose the data... unlike some.

Apr 14, 2014
Moebius reflected & triggered a thought re "contrived indignance"
So the climate change deniers ARE idiots? Darn, and I was .001% sure they may have been slightly correct in some small but insignificant part.
The vast majority have not had the opportunity of a university education in respect of physics as core or as elective as part of a science degree. Many sadly also never had a high school education or if they did missed several lectures on "Heat Capacity" & especially "Probability & Statistics", measurements etc

Some smart skeptical people have raised points worthy of analysis but, many cloud those in political propaganda likely because they want to "..keep it simple" - why ?

Can they not handle a little intellectual complexity ?

Moebius
Do you think the deniers really believe themselves or are just motivated by greed? At least if it's greed they aren't stupid, just scum.
Mostly simpletons looking for simple ideas & focus on money others make not process of research.

Apr 14, 2014
How do you imagine Skepticus_Rex that any temp data of those periods is reflective of global heat indications at those times ?


We are talking about multiproxies. The same multiproxies used in the study that is the subject of this article. These are both Northern and Southern Hemisphere multiproxies. If these are not representative of global temps, then what is the use of even the study itself?

They are the same multiproxies that are used by the study, so the data is the same, with the exception of the portions of data going further back than the year 1500 left out by the study. You can get the data from the same sources from which the author of the study obtained them. Ask them for all the raw data.

But, the CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature increases of the period left out of the study. A controlled experiment with varying levels of CO2 will show almost no connection between temps and doubled atmospheric levels of CO2 (as claimed) at even 3000 ppmv. Try it.

Apr 14, 2014
1) Nope, the people hate and censor me, they do not laugh at me. This is a difference.
Sorry Zeph, you have that backwards. Your "theories" are laughable, and yes, you are being laughed at. Not because you are wrong Zephyr, but because you make they same claims over and over even after being shown that your ideas cannot work.
2) Just because I do understand the physics of gases well, I know, that the atmospheric CO2 is http://wattsupwit...warming/ supports this explanation too. You guys have still lotta things to learn.
Yes, I for one do have a lot of things to learn. I can do that because I am not so bound to some idea that I can't or won't try to see beyond it. You cannot make the same claim, which is also a part of why you are not taken seriously.

Apr 14, 2014
Mike – The current source for CO2 amount is the Keeling/ESRL data from Mauna Loa, Hawaii at ftp://aftp.cmdl.n..._mlo.txt . Future estimate is by 2nd order curve fit to the measured data 1980-2012.

It was shown more than 6 years ago at http://www.middle...urn.html that climate is insensitive to CO2 level. This is Reference 6 in the AGWunveiled paper. Graphs and data sources in Ref. 6 cover various time periods and measurement locations.

This and links to all of the data sources are given. But you need to look . . .

If you had looked, you might have noticed that I used the same HadCRUT source data that Woodfortrees used as well as other reliable sources for comparison as explained. I don't know what you had in mind with the two blank links.

You appear to be unaware that your inability to follow the analysis and referring to handbook-level assessment speaks loudly of your lack of science skill.

Apr 14, 2014
Dan, the Engineer who would be a climate specialist!

Dan, you have been posting the same claptrap and cherry-picked denialist propaganda for years now. Yet you remain almost universally ignored, and your book sales flat. One would think that, by now, you would begin the process of finding out why.

I sure hope you have a day job.

What about the oceans Dan?

Apr 14, 2014
@enviro414 "APS has begun to question the AGW mantra"

The APS formally reviews all of its official statements every 5 years as per its bylaws: http://www.aps.or...view.cfm

Apr 14, 2014
How can this be? According to the AGW crowd man is now contributing 3% yearly to the CO2 levels. If you average man's contribution starting at say the 1940s perhaps you get a 1.5-2 % contribution. Thus in in a time span of about 70 years this paper is 99.9% certain that man is the cause of the warming. But wait, it gets better! For the past 17 years or so there has been no warming. Thus there has been a period of 50 years in the past 1000 years where they are 99.9% certain that man's 2% CO2 contribution has caused warming. Lets get real, 50 years is a millisecond in geological time. There is absolutely no way to be 99.9% certain about the cause of weather fluctuations in 50 year period in the earth's history.

Apr 14, 2014
OOOPS change that 1000 years to 500 since the paper starts at 1500

Apr 14, 2014
@enviro414 "APS has begun to question the AGW mantra"

The APS formally reviews all of its official statements every 5 years as per its bylaws: http://www.aps.or...view.cfm

This time with the inputs of Christy, Curry and Lindzen.

Apr 14, 2014
We've had a fluctuation in average temperature that's just huge since 1880 – on the order of about 0.9 degrees Celsius

"Huge" as compared to what? That works out to about 0.67 C per century. From HadCRUT4, the global temperature increase from 1910 to 1945 was 0.5 C or 1.43 C per century and most climate scientists agree that was before humans had much of an impact on warming.

HadCRUT4: http://www.cru.ue...RUT4.png

Huge as compared to the 1.8 C from 1700 to 1738 recorded in the Central England Temperature data set, the oldest instrument temperature record?

CET: http://www.metoff.../hadcet/

Or the 0.95 C from 1816 to 1834? Or the 0.79 C from 1845 to 1872?

Lovejoy perpetuates "Mike's Nature trick" of grafting instrument temperatures onto proxy temperatures to "hide the decline". Multiproxy data showed declining temperatures so they were removed and replaced with instrument temperatures (that went up) instead. Pseudo-science.

Apr 14, 2014
@enviro414 "APS has begun to question the AGW mantra"

The APS formally reviews all of its official statements every 5 years as per its bylaws: http://www.aps.or...view.cfm

This time with the inputs of Christy, Curry and Lindzen.


Rygg2: Are you anticipating what the APS is going to say? Would you be so kind as to fill us in so we don't have to wait for the study?

Please, just give me the main points that you think will change with their review of the statement. Particularly how you think it will change because of the input from Christy, Curry and Lindzen.

Your predictions will be greatly appreciated.

Apr 14, 2014
I suspect APS will drop 'indisputable'.

Apr 14, 2014
As a PhysOrg lurker for quite some time now, I must say it is tiresome reading the back and forth on global warming articles. How do you guys do it? How do you justify arguing with people who clearly have made up their minds a long time ago. No piece of evidence will ever sway them from their positions. Well, I might as well include my input on the topic. I'll explain it like you're my 4 year old nephew.

The process of life (living and dying) has been occurring for millions of years. This process was made possible due to the energy from the sun. These organisms have deposited vast amounts of carbon upon their demise (which is stored solar energy). We are currently using that stored energy at unprecedented rates, which in turn emits waste products (no process is 100% efficient). These waste products contain energy. What happens when you increase the energy in a closed system? The TOTAL thermodynamic energy of the system increases! Voila! We have a rise in temperature. Thank you.

Apr 14, 2014
I know that my above statement isn't 100% accurate because atmospheric carbon content creates a greenhouse effect by trapping heat, which is the main contribution of global warming. Waste heat (or kinetic energy) however, does have an impact. Albeit, it's a few orders of magnitude less than the greenhouse effect.

Apr 14, 2014
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM: It seems that this conversation has been discussed before with Michael Mann and his PROVEN to be fraudulent "Hockey Stick" graph. Now we have a totally biased "scientist", Shaun Lovejoy, using the same thing that the charlatan, Mann, used to construct his graph. "The climate reconstructions take into account a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales."

To show Lovejoy's biased approach to his 'study' I submit this as evidence: "This study will be a blow to any remainingclimate-change deniers," Lovejoy says. This whole article is pure drivel.

Apr 14, 2014
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM: Just what would you expect from an organization whose mandate is this?
1. Scope and Approach of the Assessment 1.1. Mandate of the Assessment
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation.


You will not see this that follows in any IPPC reports:
Late Holocene air temperature variability reconstructed from the sediments of Laguna Escondida, Patagonia, Chile (45°30′S)
The temperature reconstruction from Laguna Escondida shows cold conditions in the 5th century (relative to the 20th century mean), warmer temperatures from AD 600 to AD 1150 and colder temperatures from AD 1200 to AD 1450. From AD 1450 to AD 1700 our reconstruction shows a period with stronger variability and on average higher values than the 20th century mean.

Apr 15, 2014
...You will not see this that follows in any IPPC reports:
Late Holocene air temperature variability reconstructed from the sediments of Laguna Escondida, Patagonia, Chile (45°30′S)
The temperature reconstruction from Laguna Escondida shows cold conditions in the 5th century (relative to the 20th century mean), warmer temperatures from AD 600 to AD 1150 and colder temperatures from AD 1200 to AD 1450. From AD 1450 to AD 1700 our reconstruction shows a period with stronger variability and on average higher values than the 20th century mean.


@jdswallow,

Let's have a citation for the study from which you extracted those findings.


Apr 15, 2014
Caliban: Sorry about that. Here it is: http://www.scienc...12006517

Apr 15, 2014
Caliban: Where do you get your information from that is so false?

"That's in reference to fossil fuels. "Why should 8 percent of the world's tax dollars go to the continuing, artificial profitability of Big Carbon(subsidies to the most profitable business EVER, ongoing for years and years and years)?"

Oil Industry Profit Margin Ranks Fairly Low: There Are Bigger Fish
http://seekingalp...ger-fish

I well imagine that this below is seen as "the answer by you to fossil fuels, but is it?

Science News
... from universities, journals, and other research organizations
Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One
http://www.scienc...2436.htm

It also seems that carbon pricing has failed where ever it has been tried and for a reason.


Apr 15, 2014
For the past 17 years or so there has been no warming
@mr166

http://centerforo...warming/

http://www.livesc...ing.html

http://celebratin...ome.html

http://biology.du...ge3.html

http://news.disco...0711.htm

There is absolutely no way to be 99.9% certain about the cause of weather fluctuations in 50 year period in the earth's history
there is if you understand physics, thermodynamics and the scientific method

Apr 15, 2014
As a PhysOrg lurker for quite some time now, I must say it is tiresome reading the back and forth on global warming articles. How do you guys do it? How do you justify arguing with people who clearly have made up their minds a long time ago
@AeroSR71
I cannot answer for everyone but I am willing to bet it is mostly to keep the facts straight for those who are new.
Some people come here to learn (like myself). if the only comments were the deniers then many would go away thinking conspiratorial thoughts etc and they would end up with tin foil hats waiting for the aliens or NSA to come get them

Apr 15, 2014
Caliban: Here are some more links for you to look into and it would have been good if Shaun Lovejoy would also have done some research before he came out with this "analysis of temperature data"

Solar Cycles causing global warming:
A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice
http://www.nature...1a0.html

Effects of bias in solar radiative transfer codes on global climate model simulations
[…]The impact on model response to doubling of CO2, on the other hand, is quite small and in most cases negligible.
http://www.agu.or...44.shtml

A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
Abstract: "Paleoceanographers report that the climate of the northern North Atlantic has warmed and cooled nine times in the past 12,000 years in step with the waxing and waning of the sun.
http://www.scienc...46/1431b

Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
Abstract: "We conclude that the glacial 1,470-year climate cycles could have been triggered by solar forcing despite the absence of a 1,470-year solar cycle."
http://www.nature...121.html

Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr
http://geology.ge...30/5/455

Influence of Solar Activity on State of Wheat Market in Medieval England
http://xxx.lanl.g...312244v1

"This was the biggest dose of heat we've received from a solar storm since 2005," says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center.  "It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet."
http://science.na...r_saber/]http://science.na...r_saber/[/url]
"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,"
http://science.na...r_saber/]http://science.na...r_saber/[/url]

"The scientists studied ikaite crystals from sediment cores drilled off the coast of Antarctica. The sediment layers were deposited over 2,000 years.
"We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica," Lu says. "More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes."
http://asnews.syr...ate.html

Apr 15, 2014
As a PhysOrg lurker for quite some time now, I must say it is tiresome reading the back and forth on global warming articles. How do you guys do it? How do you justify arguing with people who clearly have made up their minds a long time ago
@AeroSR71
I cannot answer for everyone but I am willing to bet it is mostly to keep the facts straight for those who are new.
Some people come here to learn (like myself). if the only comments were the deniers then many would go away thinking conspiratorial thoughts etc and they would end up with tin foil hats waiting for the aliens or NSA to come get them


I second the comments by CS. I want to make sure that I give a response to claims by those who try to use non-scientific arguments on the issues related to the impact of CO2 on the climate. In that way I can be sure I have done my part to keep science on this web site instead of politics and personal prejudice.

Apr 15, 2014
Captain Stumpy
"For the past 17 years or so there has been no warming"
Captain Stumpy Has all of your scientific training and experience not made you believe that heat rises, that it is extremely difficult to heat water from the surface of what ever it is contained in, be it a bucket or the earth's oceans? The saloons of your youth knew this when they wrapped the beer in a wet gunny sack so that evaporation would cool the contents. All of these facts disappear and are not relevant when you are trying to explain why the earth is not burning up while your evil CO2's levels have increased. How do you explain these known ocean circulations that take up to 1,000 years to be completed and do you not think that these FACTS would have an effect ton the overall temperature of the vast oceans; temperature as well as the other fraud you are trying to perpetuate, acidic oceans?

"The interaction between water temperature and salinity effects density and density determines thermohaline circulation, or the global conveyor belt. The global conveyor belt is a global-scale circulation process that occurs over a century-long time scale. Water sinks in the North Atlantic, traveling south around Africa, rising in the Indian Ocean or further on in the Pacific, then returning toward the Atlantic on the surface only to sink again in the North Atlantic starting the cycle again." (Again, your narrow time span makes your worries groundless if you are looking at 90 years) Also NASA seems here to want to compress this circulation time span into centuries when most believe it is at least a thousand year cycle)
http://science.na...r-cycle/]http://science.na...r-cycle/[/url]
 
"As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit. It represents in a simple way how ocean currents carry warm surface waters from the equator toward the poles and moderate global climate." [The Global Conveyer Belt has suddenly stopped for several speculated reason in the past and caused dramatic and rapid climate changes always to the cold side; therefore, warm is preferable to cold any day]
http://science.na...r-cycle/]http://science.na...r-cycle/[/url]


Apr 15, 2014
Captain Stumpy: Do you still imagine that your warming oceans would lead to what I present below taking place?

Sea ice in the Antarctic continues to set new records, with average extent in August the highest on record at 18.624 million sq km. The previous August high was 18.606 in 2010.
http://nsidc.org/...dex.html
This year has obliterated the record for year over year ice gain, by a factor of two. It is now close to what it was in 2002
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
The Cryosphere Today
Compare Daily Sea Ice
http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2014

Apr 15, 2014
"In the article, NODC scientists concluded that the world ocean had potentially absorbed 20 x 1022 joules, and warmed 0.06 degrees Fahrenheit. (They revised the energy absorption figure downward to 14.5 X 1022 in a 2005 paper entitled "Warming of the World Ocean, 1955-2003," in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.)."
http://celebratin...omparing

Captain Stumpy: Do you think that in light of what follows they maybe should have revised their figures down even more?
April 10 Global Sea Ice Area Third Highest On Record

April 12, 2014
Sea Ice Update April 12 2014 – Global Sea Ice Over 1,158,000 sq km Above Normal! Antarctic Is Demolishing Old Records!
Filed under: Antarctic Sea Ice,Arctic Sea Ice,Global Sea Ice — sunshinehours1 @ 7:03 AM 
Tags: Antarctic Sea Ice, Antarctic Sea Ice Extent, Arctic Sea Ice, Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Global Sea Ice, Global Sea Ice Extent, record levels, sea ice extent

A quick update for sea ice extent:
○ Global Sea Ice Extent is 1,158,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean.
○ Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is 1,574,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean. That is 220,000 sq km above the old record, 6th daily record in a row and 34th daily record for 2014.
○ Arctic Sea Ice Extent is -417,000 sq km below the 1981-2010 mean and within one standard deviation of normal.
http://sunshineho...-normal/

Apr 15, 2014
"Waste heat (or kinetic energy) however, does have an impact."

I am glad to see the overwhelming approval of Aero's post since it highlights the total ignorance and political bias of the AGW crowd.

Fossil energy accounts for about 1/10,000 of the heating of the earth each year yet he uses this as a point to prove AGW. Basically he is using the every little bit counts theory for justification of new regulations.

Apr 15, 2014
I'd like to see where Lovejoy's funding comes from. I bet that information can't be found. All this does is drum up the same pap they've been peddling since the late 80s (when they gave up on the whole global cooling scare). It uses the same Hockey Stick chart that Gore used which has been debunked countless times for editing the information that was used to create it, including fudging the tree ring data, to come up with the outcome they wanted (like their computer models). I notice nowhere in Lovejoy's, or any other government or UN funded scientist's research, is solar variability ever taken into account. Nope, to them the sun, that gigantic nuclear furnace that provides all of the light and heat to our solar system, as it heats up and cools down in it's own climate cycles seems to have no effect on the Earth's climate and temperature averages. Quite odd don't you think. If you look at those charts, they line up perfectly. And remember the polar ice cap was to be gone by 2010 LOL.

Apr 15, 2014

"Huge" as compared to what? That works out to about 0.67 C per century. From HadCRUT4, the global temperature increase from 1910 to 1945 was 0.5 C or 1.43 C per century and most climate scientists agree that was before humans had much of an impact on warming.

HadCRUT4: http://www.cru.ue...RUT4.png

Or the 0.95 C from 1816 to 1834? Or the 0.79 C from 1845 to 1872?

Lovejoy perpetuates "Mike's Nature trick" of grafting instrument temperatures onto proxy temperatures to "hide the decline". Multiproxy data showed declining temperatures so they were removed and replaced with instrument temperatures (that went up) instead. Pseudo-science.


SInce when has the CET record been Global???
Err... have you any idea of how averaging works? and why it smooths extremes?

There was no decline to hide as the instrument record showed.
SO you prefer proxies to real temps then?
When, that is, they show declines and not warming ?

Apr 15, 2014
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM: It seems that this conversation has been discussed before with Michael Mann and his PROVEN to be fraudulent "Hockey Stick" graph.


Oh is it?
I/we await the revelatory proof from you.

BTW: That would be the same "hockey stick" that all researchers have found... and one that the (Denialist paymasters) the Koch's sponsored BEST study also found ??

Myths don't count, sorry.

Apr 15, 2014
Captain Stumpy Has all of your scientific training and experience not made you believe that heat rises
@jdswallow
first thing, I noticed you are a newbie... so I will use small words.
heat does rise, but not when trapped properly (by cold or other methods)... but that is not the point I want to make
you really, REALLY should re-read the above links. articles as well as posts from Runrig, Thermodynamics, Maggnus, Tim Thompson, Mike_Massen, Caliban and those folks. Mr, Thompson and Runrig are in the field, Thermo and Maggnus et al are VERY knowledgeable. Although Thompson is not in this thread, I will provide links to view his comments and links.

click on the following links and read runrig, Thermodynamics and Thompson... you will learn something:

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

http://phys.org/n...bal.html

Apr 15, 2014
Caliban: Where do you get your information from that is so false?

"That's in reference to fossil fuels. "Why should 8 percent of the world's tax dollars go to the continuing, [...].com/article/269679-oil-industry-profit-margin-ranks-fairly-low-there-are-bigger-fish

It also seems that carbon pricing has failed where ever it has been tried and for a reason.


Right.

And so, jdswallow goes from being, possibly, an actual underinformed -but hopefully open-minded- doubter to full-on willfully disunderstanding troll.

I'll not bother to refute any of the pseudoscience you cite, nor any of the under-, de-, or out-of- context quotes or references you offer up as "proof" that AGW is an invalid concept, since that has been done to death by myself and many others in an ongoing effort to educate you moron trolls, including in this very comment thread.

And your use of a financial analyst's investment advice column to refute the profitability of BigCarbon is a sure sign of your trolldom.

Apr 15, 2014
This jdswallow person has the same MO as a certain Nik_From_NYC used to have.
That is spamming with multiple quotes/links.
Also he was the last person the violate the 1000 character limit.

I have reported his 2 posts (prob 3 ) on here and will do again if he proves as persistent as the aforementioned Nik.

You could say I am suspicious.

Apr 15, 2014
"This jdswallow person has the same MO as a certain Nik_From_NYC used to have.
That is spamming with multiple quotes/links."

So let me get this straight, now it is a bad thing to prove your position with references.

So when you say "Show me the data." what you really mean to say is "Only show me the data that I want to see."!

Apr 15, 2014
....it uses the same Hockey Stick chart that Gore used which has been debunked countless times for editing the information that was used to create it, including fudging the tree ring data, .....


Another myth spouter.

Really???
I suggest you ask the Koch brothers why their denialist funded BEST study could not eliminate the "debunked hockey stick" and the former denialist, Richard Muller, who headed it came onboard the 97%'s side.

Err... because it's real my friend sorry.
Just because you don't like it and you take all your science from denialist blogsites, doesn't make it so.

Apr 15, 2014
"This jdswallow person has the same MO as a certain Nik_From_NYC used to have.
That is spamming with multiple quotes/links."

So let me get this straight, now it is a bad thing to prove your position with references.

So when you say "Show me the data." what you really mean to say is "Only show me the data that I want to see."!


I reported the posts for going over 1000 characters my friend. Not for the data they showed.
There you go, defaulting to denialist paranoia.

I have no problem with links to science sites - but NOT Blogs.

The "spamming" is reference to the mid-numbing scope of them - in one post there are 9.

It's counter productive anyway as the eyes glaze over at the sight of the post and I ignore.

In order for me to critique his implied position/argument I'm not going to go through all 9 from one post, My rebuttal would run to many posts (always supposing I stick to the 1000 char limit). Which he/she has not.

Apr 15, 2014
"I reported the posts for going over 1000 characters my friend. Not for the data they showed."

I see! Swallow will get 10 demerits, have to stay after class and will not get a Gold Star this semester.

Apr 15, 2014
"I reported the posts for going over 1000 characters my friend. Not for the data they showed."

I see! Swallow will get 10 demerits, have to stay after class and will not get a Gold Star this semester.


If you say so.

Apr 15, 2014
Who has enough confidence in their knowledge to agree with me that the average global temperature (average of GISS, NOAA, HadCRUT3, UAH & RSS) for 2014 will be lower than 2013 and who has enough confidence in their knowledge to disagree?

Apr 15, 2014
Enviro since we are trending towards a solar minimum I think that it is a good bet that 2014 will be cooler than 2013.

Apr 15, 2014
runrig: It is little wonder that you seem to be so in the dark regarding this subject when you call the links that I presented "Blogs". "I have no problem with links to science sites - but NOT Blogs." It shows just how crippling a closed mind can be when you think that links to Syracuse University, two to NASA Science, two to Nature, one each to Geology Science World, Science, The Worlds Leading Journal of Original Scientific Research, Geophysical Research letters& one to Cornell University are "blogs" and I assume that blogs are fine for you if they follow your distorted line of thinking. I'm afraid you show that your eyes are not just glazed but shut tightly to the truth, if it does not fall into the narrow realm of your preconceived opinion, and that sir is not how science is conducted.

If you can't get this right, then what will you get right?
(695 characters; the count for the character police on this thread, exclusive of this, naturally)

Apr 15, 2014
runrig: Does this sound like unbiased research to you?
"GreenGov™ is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government. The aim is to provide politically-neutral counsel that is broad in scope while rooted in the hard facts of state-of-the-art science and engineering. The key is to make the right patch between the best technologies and the strengths of the government. We know that to be effective the political dimension must be integrated into the technical plan from the start."
http://www.linked...ciates_2

Yes; runrig, or whatever your alias is because you do not have enough confidence in your believes to offer up your real name, this below is a "blog"
"Elizabeth Muller is listed as "Founder and Executive Director" of the Berkeley Earth Team along with her father Richard Muller. But since 2008 it appears she's been earning money as a consultant telling governments how to implement green policies, how to reduce their carbon footprint and how to pick "the right technologies" – presumably meaning the right "Green" technologies.
http://joannenova...ultancy/

Apr 15, 2014
Here is a different look at Muller's believes:
Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller

http://www.youtub...pciw8suk

Apr 15, 2014

Captain Stumpy: Yes, I did learn something but not what you imagine. I learned that if one seeks the truth one can find it. See, if you can, how maybe the permafrost is not disappearing like you would like the uninformed to believe.

Arctic treeline advance not as fast as previously believed
The Arctic Sounder | Mar 18, 2012
http://www.alaska...believed
I know from my experiences in the arctic that it can, on occasion, get very warm but it does not last for long, as the chart below shows.
Past Monthly Weather Data for Kaktovik, AK [Alaska] ("Barter Island (dew)") : JANUARY, 1947 – 2012
http://weather-wa...ary.html

"The National Weather Service, the official weather reporting and recording agency of the federal government reported 100 degrees F (37.8 degrees C) at Fort Yukon. The lowest recorded temperature was minus 80 degrees F (-62.8 degrees C) at Prospect Creek, about 25 miles southeast of Bettles, on January 23, 1971."
http://www.alasko...mate.htm


Apr 16, 2014
So let me get this straight, now it is a bad thing to prove your position with references
@mr166
OR perhaps it is more likely "we've dealt with this troll in the past". Just like the Zephir comments about cold fusion/aw/daw... it gets irritating proving the same comments wrong over and over
whatever your alias is because you do not have enough confidence in your believes to offer up your real name
@jdswallows
OR maybe, like myself, his moniker is used because he has been known by it for longer than his real name? I've been known as (Truck) Captain Stumpy for longer than anything else
Yes, I did learn something but not what you imagine
I imagine nothing. I dont know you, only what you post.

Apr 16, 2014
I learned that if one seeks the truth one can find it. See, if you can, how maybe the permafrost is not disappearing like you would like the uninformed to believe
@jd
I am apathetic to any soliloquy where one conjectures about truth. it is irrelevant. what I care about is empirical data. Just because the natural world is not reacting/acting in a manner that you think it should, does not mean that the data is still not reflecting the fact that the earth is warming. Sometimes the data will seem to reflect something that it does not (See uba's argument about global cooling or the fact that warming stopped). it has not
I know from my experiences in the arctic that it can, on occasion, get very warm
warm is a subjective term when dealing with personal perspectives. Warm in my house is NOT warm in most other peoples.

the point is: we've ruled out the possibility that the warming issue today is natural & you've yet to provide evidence that the excessive warming is natural.

Apr 16, 2014
All of these facts disappear and are not relevant when you are trying to explain why the earth is not burning up while your evil CO2's levels have increased
@jd
read Thermodynamics posts here: http://phys.org/n...bal.html
and Thompsons here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Has all of your scientific training and experience not made you believe that heat rises
ever heard of an inversion layer? also, I am an investigator/Firefighter, not a research scientist like runrig or Thompson
as well as the other fraud you are trying to perpetuate, acidic oceans
links have studies on them showing empirical data. the only thing I am perpetuating is that: EMPIRICAL DATA

so far all I am seeing is you ignoring the empirical data for a perspective that is likely born of conspiratorial or paranoid beliefs. There is plenty of data showing that warming is real and not natural. are you a paid hack or the nick troll ?

Apr 16, 2014
jdswallow said....
runrig: It is little wonder that you seem to be so in the dark regarding this subject when you call the links that I presented "Blogs".

I said....
"I reported the posts for going over 1000 characters my friend. Not for the data they showed.
There you go, defaulting to denialist paranoia.
I have no problem with links to science sites - but NOT Blogs.
The "spamming" is reference to the mid-numbing scope of them - in one post there are 9"
Where pray do I say that YOU are posting Blog links???
Oh, and I am a retired Meteorologist with the UKMO.
So I'm ignorant of the science eh ?
That's about par for denialists who have contempt for people with knowledge of the science that they have decided is wrong, because it does not fit with their ideology.
Like I said, your posts have contravened phys.org's rules ... so kindly keep them to 1000 char - then my eyes may not glaze over and I'll get to work demolishing the myths one by one.
And you professional expertise is?

Apr 16, 2014
jdswallow says ...

Yes; runrig, or whatever your alias is because you do not have enough confidence in your believes to offer up your real name


Excuse me! My name is known to many on here and is present in my profile.
Yours is not.
Hypocrite.

Apr 16, 2014
jdswallow blustered...
It shows just how crippling a closed mind can be when you think that links to Syracuse University, two to NASA Science, two to Nature, one each to Geology Science World, Science, The Worlds Leading Journal of Original Scientific Research, Geophysical Research letters& one to Cornell University are "blogs" and I assume that blogs are fine for you if they follow your distorted line of thinking. I'm afraid you show that your eyes are not just glazed but shut tightly to the truth, if it does not fall into the narrow realm of your preconceived opinion, and that sir is not how science is conducted.


Please learn how to read and more importantly comprehend what I said my friend.
Post a regulation length post - I see you have since - well done.
I was talking to MR166 - and you do not know the history of this particular long-term denier on here - I do have history with him/her.
If I had said that to you then fine. I did not.
I did note all your links were legit.

Apr 16, 2014
jdswallow muttered
I learned that if one seeks the truth one can find it.
This is most ironic from you, your posts do not reflect any base science knowledge of physics.

Surely, you jdswallow, can see that you find the truth but, only if prepared to earn the education many complex truths demand !

jdswallow, do you know the difference between ice area & ice mass ?

Have you ever studied any high school physics & come across the unusual properties of water
and just WHY melting ice is a much more potent heat absorber than ice or water ?

Focus on the core Science please jdswallow, can u do that ?

Then maybe when suitably informed you can answer this simple question - that so for no denialist has ever been able to address:-

"How can adding a green house gas such as CO2 to the atmosphere with demonstrable thermal properties NOT increase heat flow resistivity ?"

The corollary question is, from knowledge of heat/temperature relationship, why this does NOT result in temperature rise ?

Apr 16, 2014
Here is a different look at Muller's believes:
Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller

http://www.youtub...pciw8suk


More selective evidence choosing from the denialist camp.
Err that lecture was made before he made his BEST study.

And then there is this ....

http://www.youtub...uKxXUCPY

Apr 16, 2014
Further to the "Climategate" myth....

Spoiler: Denialists don't watch - not that you would anyway as it's contrary to your belief.
This is for the neutrals on here.

http://www.youtub...VQ2fROOg
http://www.youtub...2prBtVFo

Apr 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 16, 2014
Warm water then loses heat to the air, but if the air temperatures are dropping whey doesn't that heat hiding in the ocean warm the air?

Global ave air temps are not dropping, other than that expected in a complex system due natural cycles, most notably the ENSO.
There are signs that it will, after a prolonged spell of neutral/cool conditions at last go into a warm El Nino later this year, which considering the vast amount of sensible and latent heat that that transports to the atmosphere will inevitably lead to a renewed rise in global ave temps.
Oh, and when the cool La Nina waters are at the surface, consequently, the warmer water sinks at the western end of the circulation. Hence the "warmth" is "hidden" from the atmosphere.


Apr 16, 2014
"Global ave air temps are not dropping, other than that expected in a complex system due natural cycles, most notably the ENSO."

I love the other than expected part of the quote. Please show me a climate model that "expected" this temperature plateau.

Apr 16, 2014
"Global ave air temps are not dropping, other than that expected in a complex system due natural cycles, most notably the ENSO."

I love the other than expected part of the quote. Please show me a climate model that "expected" this temperature plateau.

O ignorant one ...
You are aren't you over the overlying cycles on Climate?
All climate models, model dips/rises away from a mean (is that not obvious?)
However, as you willfully continue to deny - GCM's are an Ensemble product and (surprise, surprise) when you add them then the dips can/do cancel. That is why all GCM's can do is give error bounds. Which the Global ave temp is within.
This is bar the unexpected prolonged cool ENSO cycle.
When the science is such that SST cycles such as ENSO can be predicted to within months from decades out (v v unlikely to say the least) they obviously cannot be explicitly modeled.
FYI: The variation from Cool to Warm ENSO is around 0.3C.
That explain it for you. No - silly question.

Apr 16, 2014
That is why all GCM's can do is give error bounds. Which the Global ave temp is within

Confidence intervals expand as confidence levels approach 1.

Apr 16, 2014
"O ignorant one ...
You are aren't you over the overlying cycles on Climate?"

Oh, you mean silly things like solar cycles?

Apr 16, 2014
You cannot have a valid climate model without including all of the oscillations and feedback loops. For Pete's sake, they do not even know with any degree of certainly if cloud cover is a positive or negative forcing.

Apr 16, 2014
"O ignorant one ...
You are aren't you over the overlying cycles on Climate?"

Oh, you mean silly things like solar cycles?


Oh, well done, that is silly of you.

Gives a variation of around 0.1%. Measured by satellite.
Way off what is required to produce industrial warming.
And it's lasted this long? Amazing.

Apr 16, 2014
You cannot have a valid climate model without including all of the oscillations and feedback loops. For Pete's sake, they do not even know with any degree of certainly if cloud cover is a positive or negative forcing.

Yes you can, because of error bounds.

And forcings will be included.
Clouds are probably a negative forcing overall, but fall well short of a dominant effect either way.

Apr 16, 2014
You cannot set meaningful error bands for cycles and processes that you are unaware of. When a climate model is capable of producing a Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice age in a period of 750 years I might begin to have some faith that we understand most of what is going on.

Apr 16, 2014
What is the mean about which error bars are set?
Any choice of a mean is subjective and biased.

Apr 16, 2014
You cannot set meaningful error bands for cycles and processes that you are unaware of. When a climate model is capable of producing a Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice age in a period of 750 years I might begin to have some faith that we understand most of what is going on.

Of course you can - the cycle is accounted for in magnitude - just not in timing, as GCM's are integrated decades into the future, the cycles play out within the error bounds to leave the overlying AGW signal.
A GCM does not have to simulate the MWP or the LIA as both of those were regional phenomena. We are talking of global ave temps, my friend.
If you dispute the above - then perhaps you could give us the causation - since we know neither orbital parameters nor Solar output did it. What do you think caused them?
Perhaps a sudden disappearance of global clouds for the MWP and an equally sudden growth of them for the LIA. A massive outburst CR's perhaps for the LIA, maybe Dark matter for the MWP?

Apr 16, 2014
What is the mean about which error bars are set?
Any choice of a mean is subjective and biased.


What ??? Are you real ??

Beyond comprehension - and not worth answering.
This a science site and I'll not wasting my time teaching you basic statistics.
Go away and learn.

Apr 16, 2014
Not sure about LIA but the MWP was a global phenomenon. This has be verified by numerous papers in many parts of the world. You know this as well as I do.

Apr 16, 2014
Shame on you! The LIA was in both hemispheres.

Apr 16, 2014
basic statistics.

Again, how is the mean chosen? From 1000 AD to present from 2000 from 3000, from 20,000 years ago ?
Or do you choose the time frame to get the mean you want?

Apr 16, 2014
Predictions vs outcome

http://www.drroys...ans1.png

An astrologer could do better.

Apr 16, 2014
BEST? Last time I checked the data it was 1) preliminary, and 2) goes only to 2010, and not even that entire year, and 3) does not even include the global ocean data as of yet. It is not the smartest thing in the world to base ones entire worldview on preliminary and incomplete data.

Apr 16, 2014
#3
Cache of historical Arctic sea ice maps discovered
Arctic Sea ice data collected by DMI 1893-1961
http://wattsupwit...covered/

"The source report of the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic has been found in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922. […] See the original MWR article below and click the newsprint copy for a complete artic or see the link to the original PDF below:"
http://www.sott.n...gs-Melt-

TEMPERATURES RISING IN
ARCTIC REGION
May 1947
Dr. Hans Ahlman, a noted Swedish geophysicist, claimed that a mysteri- ous warming is manifesting itself in the Arctic and if the major ice cap at Greenland should be reduced, the oceanic surfaces will rise to ''catas- trophic proportions,"
Dr. Ahlman urged the establish- ment of an international agency to study conditions on a global basis. Temperatures had risen 10 degrees since 1900.
http://trove.nla....6276>
964


Apr 17, 2014
#2 Mike: what was the difference between ice area & ice mass in these examples of a changing arctic?

Not only did the Skate surface in virtually ice-free water at the North Pole, but the weather was mild enough that crewmen went out to chip a bit of ice off the sub's hull."
http://www.ihatet...ubmarine

The date was 11 August 1958 and the Skate had just become the first submarine to surface at the North Pole.
http://www.navalh...th-pole/

1969: the SS Manhattan, a reinforced supertanker sent to test the viability of the passage for the transport of oil, made the passage. The route was deemed not to be cost effective.
http://www.fcpnor...xplorers
687
J Doug Swallow

Apr 17, 2014
Mike_Massen needs to answer a few questions for me about his assertions directed at me.

"jdswallow, do you know the difference between ice area & ice mass ?" Yes, I do, and I will try to walk you through some information to help you to maybe better understand that which you, at present, have "0" knowledge of.

Aug. 13, 1905
Amundsen sails from Gjoa Haven. A few days later, Gjøa encounters a whaling ship from San Francisco coming towards it from the west in approximately this location. Amundsen now knows he will complete the Northwest Passage. In his diary, he notes, "The North West Passage was done. My boyhood dream—at that moment it was accomplished. A strange feeling welled up in my throat; I was somewhat over-strained and worn—it was weakness in me—but I felt tears in my eyes. 'Vessel in sight.. Vessel in sight.'
7. August 17, 1905
[…]The Gjøa breaks through the final stretches of the Northwest Passage and reaches Nome on August 30, 1906."
http://www.pbs.or...-nf.html

"1940: Canadian officer Henry Larsen was the second to sail the passage, crossing west to east, from Vancouver to Halifax."
http://www.fcpnor...xplorers
1,000

Apr 17, 2014
basic statistics.

Again, how is the mean chosen? From 1000 AD to present from 2000 from 3000, from 20,000 years ago ?
Or do you choose the time frame to get the mean you want?

ryggy baby .... lesson for the ignorant.

In any set of samples there will be a mean and variance from that mean.
There are, say 100 people attending a concert. Measurements are made of their height.
The numbers are crunched and there pops out of that an ave height (mean) and a variance above and below...
There you go, simples.
Same with GCM ensemble forecasts, each member is run separately and a mean and variance determined for that set.
The less uncertainty in each individual member will result in a narrower variance. It is the variance that encompasses such things as ENSO. The ave slope (upward - warming) is the overlying AGW -because there are no natural cycles beyond 30-60 years.If you think there is then pray tell?
So, no "choosing" - it all drops out naturally.
It must do or why bother?

Apr 17, 2014
Not sure about LIA but the MWP was a global phenomenon. This has be verified by numerous papers in many parts of the world. You know this as well as I do.


I do of course, but it was NOT cold/warm EVERYWHERE on the planet at the same time
That's the bloody point - all evidence suggests it/they were caused by shifts in climatic regimes. with an averaging out of GLOBAL temps - Jet-stream wiggling.
Vis the cold winters experience in parts of the NH when the Polar Stratospheric vortex gets weakened/disrupted some years, due feed-backs and the conjunction of low Solar/E'ly QBO etc.

In other words they were NOT caused by any magical major drop/rise in the suns overall energy output or an equally magical albedo increase on Earth - OTHER than that caused by volcanic aerosols.
http://phys.org/n...age.html
http://phys.org/n...age.html
http://phys.org/n...bal.html

Apr 17, 2014
jdswallow's interpretation of ice area & ice mass proves he has NO science training
Yes, I do, and I will try to walk you through some information to help you to maybe better understand that which you, at present, have "0" knowledge of.
jdswallow typed anecdotes of Amundsen in 1905 as some stupid attempt at proof of his 'knowledge' of the difference of ice area & mass ?

Where is the empirical data re ice area vs ice mass jdswallow ?

Why jdswallow, do you focus on historical qualitative anecdotes ?

You realise jdswallow, you are showing you cant tell difference between area & mass

And

can't tell difference between qualitative & quantitative ?

Education PLEASE jdswallow ?

Apr 17, 2014
Predictions vs outcome

http://www.drroys...ans1.png

An astrologer could do better.


Indeed well said ..
But not for the reason you think.

Err Mr Spencer here has compared mid-tropospheric temps taken either by radiosonde data which was never meant to be used as a detailed analysis tool ( the bloody things are rising through the air and even if perfectly calibrated would never show unanimity at any one pressure level better than 1C !!) AND sat data that is contaminated by the warming aloft of the Strat !!
IN OTHER WORDS it isn't possible to do - yet.

BTW I commented on the thread involved (TonyB)

ALSO:
http://davidappel...ils.html

Seems Mr Spencer's reputation as a climate scientists is deserved.

Anything else you want to know?

Apr 17, 2014
Mike_Massen: One can easily wonder at just what scientific training you have or just how much you are able to draw on common sense logic.

"jdswallow typed anecdotes of Amundsen in 1905 as some stupid attempt at proof of his 'knowledge' of the difference of ice area & mass ?"
"Why jdswallow, do you focus on historical qualitative anecdotes ?"

I see that you do not have the ability to understand that if Amundsen was able to make this trip in 1905 there was far less ice than when the idiots were going to make the same trip 2013
"North West Passage blocked with ice - yachts caught"
"The Northwest Passage after decades of so-called global warming has a dramatic 60% more Arctic ice this year than at the same time last year. The future dreams of dozens of adventurous sailors are now threatened. A scattering of yachts attempting the legendary Passage are caught by the ice, which has now become blocked at both ends and the transit season may be ending early."
http://www.sail-w...t/113788

Even you, Mike, should be able to get the point I am making.
J. Doug Swallow

Apr 17, 2014
MR166 "Not sure about LIA but the MWP was a global phenomenon. This has be verified by numerous papers in many parts of the world. You know this as well as I do."
I know that while the alarmist want to stand by Mann's proven to be flawed Hockey Stick and if they do admit that there was a RWP, MWP, or even a LIA, they think that it serves their purpose to have these events be only regional and the evidence is conclusive that they were globe wide events and that is what I put forth when I was chastised for using too many characters.

What the alarmist know is that the RWP, MWP & LIA all occurred with no anthropogenic influence like they are now wanting to maintain is causing their 'earth with a fever' nonsense that they fret over now.

jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (11)Apr 15, 2014
Caliban: Here are some more links for you to look into and it would have been good if Shaun Lovejoy would also have done some research before he came out with this "analysis of temperature data"
J Doug Swallow

Apr 17, 2014
Even you, Mike, should be able to get the point I am making.
J. Doug Swallow


Finally, in 1905, Roald Amundsen completed the first successful navigation of the Northwest Passage. It took his ship two-and-a-half years to navigate through narrow passages of open water, and his ship spent two cold, dark winters locked in the ice during the feat.
http://www.wunder...ages.asp

"The first crossing was made by Amundsen in 1903-1905. He used a small ship and hugged the coast."
http://en.wikiped..._Passage

http://gizmo.geot...2011.pdf
http://bprc.osu.e...R_10.pdf

IE: he was lucky, bloody persistent and determined.
BTW: there are regional/yearly changes in the Arctic ice you know?
It's called weather on a short time scale, which, err, tends to influence ice formation.

Apr 17, 2014
What the alarmist know is that the RWP, MWP & LIA all occurred with no anthropogenic influence like they are now wanting to maintain is causing their 'earth with a fever' nonsense that they fret over now.

It was NOT cold/warm EVERYWHERE on the planet at the same time
That's the bloody point - all evidence suggests it/they were caused by shifts in climatic regimes. with an averaging out of GLOBAL temps - Jet-stream wiggling.
Vis the cold winters experience in parts of the NH when the Polar Stratospheric vortex gets weakened/disrupted some years, due feed-backs and the conjunction of low Solar/E'ly QBO etc.

In other words they were NOT caused by any magical major drop/rise in the suns overall energy output or an equally magical albedo increase on Earth - OTHER than that caused by volcanic aerosols.
[url]http://phys.org/n...age.html[/url]
[url]http://phys.org/n...age.html[/url]
http://phys.org/n...bal.html

Apr 17, 2014
Remove [url] from below links to work

Apr 17, 2014
OK; Mike_Massen, since you are so astute and so well trained in science and I assume know the difference between what is qualitative & quantitative you will have no problem furnishing me with the 'empirical data re ice area vs ice mass' for the dates that I mentioned in my previous post to you, namely 1905, 1922, 1940, 1947,1958 & 1969. By the way, where is the empirical data for the Shaun Lovejoy piece that all of this discussion is supposed to be derived from?
"His conclusion: the natural-warming hypothesis may be ruled out "with confidence levels great than 99%, and most likely greater than 99.9%." We are to just take his word for that?



Apr 17, 2014
"The Northwest Passage after decades of so-called global warming has a dramatic 60% more Arctic ice this year than at the same time last year. The future dreams of dozens of adventurous sailors are now threatened. A scattering of yachts attempting the legendary Passage are caught by the ice, which has now become blocked at both ends and the transit season may be ending early."
http://www.sail-w...t/113788


http://neven1.typ...a970b-pi
http://www.bitsof...st-6507/
http://en.wikiped...lies.png

Yep, there's surely been a massive recovery there. No question

Apr 17, 2014
Since you do not want to get the proper time line of Amundsen's expedition to the arctic in 1903 to 1906 and will not look it up, I will provide it for you:
1. June 16, 1903
"Roald Amundsen and his crew of six men and six sled dogs sail from Oslo in Gjøa, a 70-foot herring boat. Amundsen sets himself a maximum deadline of five years to chart a Northwest Passage and carry out scientific measurements at the magnetic north pole. (I guess this sounds to you like Roald Amundsen set out with NO plans of producing anything useful from this mission other than to just get from point A to point B. It seems like he had an itinerary and followed it and that is probably more than what was done in 2013 when at least 22 yachts and other vessels were in the Arctic trying do today with modern vessels rather than a 70 foot wooden sailing vessel that did have a 13 horsepower single-screw marine paraffin motor installed on it.)
6. August 13, 1905
Amundsen sails from Gjoa Haven. A few days later, Gjøa encounters a whaling ship from San Francisco coming towards it from the west in approximately this location. Amundsen now knows he will complete the Northwest Passage. In his diary, he notes, "The North West Passage was done. My boyhood dream—at that moment it was accomplished. A strange feeling welled up in my throat; I was somewhat over-strained and worn—it was weakness in me—but I felt tears in my eyes. 'Vessel in sight... Vessel in sight.'
7. August 17, 1905
Continuing to the south of Victoria Island, the Gjøa clears the Arctic Archipelago on this date but has to stop for the winter before going on to Nome on Alaska Territory's Pacific coast. About 500 miles away, Eagle City, Alaska has a telegraph station; Amundsen travels overland there (and back) to wire a success message to Norway on December 5, 1905. The Gjøa breaks through the final stretches of the Northwest Passage and reaches Nome on August 30, 1906."
http://www.pbs.or...-nf.html

Apr 17, 2014
OK; ...............you will have no problem furnishing me with the 'empirical data re ice area vs ice mass' for the dates that I mentioned in my previous post to you, namely 1905, 1922, 1940, 1947,1958 & 1969. By the way, where is the empirical data for the Shaun Lovejoy piece that all of this discussion is supposed to be derived from?
"His conclusion: the natural-warming hypothesis may be ruled out "with confidence levels great than 99%, and most likely greater than 99.9%." We are to just take his word for that?


try looking on here....

http://gizmo.geot...2011.pdf

And there can be no graph of volume for those dates my friend as it was before the satellite era, and ASAIK subs didn't exactly trawl about under the ice and surface occasionally to measure it's thickness, at least not extensively.

Also try looking here and pay for the privelige if you must...
http://link.sprin...4-2128-2

Apr 17, 2014
jdswallow - you're doing it again.
Please refrain...

Your last post had 1947 char including spaces.

Apr 17, 2014
Runrig this is what you call a "Jet Stream Wiggle"?

From Wiki on the LIA:

"There is no consensus regarding the time when the Little Ice Age began,[10][11] although a series of events preceding the known climatic minima has often been referenced. In the thirteenth century, pack ice began advancing southwards in the North Atlantic, as did glaciers in Greenland. Anecdotal evidence suggests expanding glaciers almost worldwide. Based on radiocarbon dating of roughly 150 samples of dead plant material with roots intact, collected from beneath ice caps on Baffin Island and Iceland, Miller et al. (2012)[12] state that cold summers and ice growth began abruptly between AD 1275 and 1300, followed by "a substantial intensification" from 1430 to 1455.[13]

In contrast, a climate reconstruction based on glacial length[14][15] shows no great variation from 1600 to 1850, though it shows strong retreat thereafter."

Apr 17, 2014
Climate tax could be the oldest tax on earth. Just look at history. Governments combined with high holy men, ie today's climate scientists, have joined forces through the millennia to require the masses to offer sacrifice in the hopes of good climate. Yes the tools of delivery have become more sophisticated but the underlying message remains the same.

Apr 17, 2014

Runrig this is what you call a "Jet Stream Wiggle"?

It's what caused the persistent cold over the E US and Canada this winter (cold plunge end of the cycle) and the wet/mild/windy W European winter (warm half of the cycle). Add the two together and you get (essentially) zero temp change.
BTW: You do know that the W US had a warm winter? ... again the two adding to zero things out.
"This jet stream instability brings warm air north as well as cold air south. The patch of unusual cold over the eastern United States was matched by anomalies of mild winter temperatures across Greenland and much of the Arctic north of Canada,[81] and unusually warm conditions in Alaska. A stationary high pressure ridge over the North Pacific Ocean kept California unusually warm and dry for the time of year, worsening ongoing drought conditions there."
From: http://en.wikiped...d_States

Apr 17, 2014
jdswallow = Nik_from_NY

Still playing the denialist game. Still using out of context quote mining, cherry-picked data mining and multiple posts of gish-gallop to obfuscate the evidence and try to overwhelm the opposition.

And still failing miserably. You'll be gone again soon.

Apr 17, 2014
Runrig you must really be getting desperate since you are trying to compare the LIA with one cold winter in the US!

Apr 17, 2014
ROTFLOL!!!! Runrig so what you are trying to say is that the 500 years of LIA was just localized weather but the 70 years of warming was global climate change.

Apr 18, 2014
I will comment on your links but first this information for you to qualify.
'Frightening' projection for Arctic melt
The Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 2015...
By CanWest News Service November 16, 2007
http://www.canada...3683>

Arctic sea ice 'to melt by 2015'
Arctic sea ice could completely melt away by the summer of 2015...
6:30PM GMT 08 Nov 2011
http://www.telegr...html>


Saturday 31 May 1947
"ARCTIC PHENOMENON Warming Of Climate Causes Concern LOS ANGELES. May 30.-The possibility of a prodigious rise in the surface of the ocean with resultant widespread inundation, arising from an Arctic climatic phenomenon….
http://trove.nla....46315572

Really, it appears that proxies are more reliable than what these "scientist" put forth in the here and now.

Apr 18, 2014

"These are close the IPPC AR5 values ΔT anth = 0.85 ± 0.20 K andλ2xCO2=1.5−4.5K (equilibrium) climate…"

Since the IPCC is wrong almost 98% of the time, why would I pay money to see this?

Dr McLean has also noted how the IPCC's draft 1995 Scientific Report … statements that express doubt about man-made effects: "None of the [scientific] studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases". "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic causes". "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced". But in the IPCC's later Summary Report for Policymakers ….. the above three statements had been replaced with this contrary statement: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate". Such a U-turn was not justified by the scientific evidence, yet politicians seemed oblivious to the problem.
http://undeceivin...ipcc.htm
985
J Doug Swallow

Apr 18, 2014
Runrig you must really be getting desperate since you are trying to compare the LIA with one cold winter in the US!


Err no..
merely explaining to the uneducated/stupid how it is that regional cold is balanced by regional warmth and that the LIA as a consequence of the long period of low solar output (0.1% mind ) and it's imbalance of UV output changed the dynamics of the Arctic Polar Stratospheric vortex (in some years -not all) and thus feed-backs developed regionally (eg sea-ice movement).
Add to that the evidence of volcanic activity and aerosols further reduced temps.
I would be pleased to here you causation for the LIA ?
It was?

Apr 18, 2014
jdswallow = Nik_from_NY

Still playing the denialist game. Still using out of context quote mining, cherry-picked data mining and multiple posts of gish-gallop to obfuscate the evidence and try to overwhelm the opposition.

And still failing miserably. You'll be gone again soon.


Maggnus:
I notice he's not refuted your accusation.

Apr 18, 2014
"Maggnus:
I notice he's not refuted your accusation."
runrig: Do you actually believe that I will waste my time to refute this kind of trivial trash that is more the product of, I assume, your kind of juvenile "information" that you must respect. If this is the kind of ad hominem attacks with no link to the article that is in question or even to the comments in general, then I ask you to please leave me out of your loop if this is the stupid game you want to play. You need to be content with counting characters and trying to answer some of the important questions that have been directed at you.


Apr 18, 2014
"I would be pleased to here you causation for the LIA ?
It was?"
It for sure had nothing to do with any anthropogenic produced CO2 that caused the end of the LIA. Any thinking individual would know that it came from a change in the solar cycles that are still in play today.
A data set of worldwide glacier length fluctuations

Abstract. Glacier fluctuations contribute to variations in sea level and historical glacier length fluctuations are natural indicators of past climate change. To study these subjects, long-term information of glacier change is needed. In this paper we present a data set of global long-term glacier length fluctuations.
http://www.the-cr...014.html

Himalayan Glaciers
A State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies,
Glacial Retreat and Climate Change
And we don't forget the Raina report;
http://gbpihed.go...iers.pdf This is a good report on glaciers in the Indian Himalayan Mountains.
 

Apr 18, 2014
Runrig: One thing that needs clarified is this use of the term "denier" or whatever other snide way it is used. What is it supposed to mean? I do not know of anyone that does not believe that the earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age began to moderate or, guess what, it would not have ended had a cosmic event/events not caused it to happen. It sure had no anthropogenic cause for ending, no more than the warmer than present, MWP had any anthropogenic cause for existing world wide for at least 350 years.

"The Norse arrived in Greenland 1,000 years ago and became very well established," says Schweger, describing the Viking farms and settlements that crowded the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland for almost 400 years."
http://www.folio..../03.html
Could the same type of society exist in the same location on Greenland today? No is the answer. I am totally SKEPTICAL that CO2, in its present amount in the atmosphere today, has anything to do with the earth's climate. You cannot supply me with an experiment that shows that it does. Provide with the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing.

Apr 18, 2014
runrig: So sorry about offending the character limits but I was exasperated by your cavalier attitude and NOT knowing history when you made your remarks.

AMUNDSEN EXPEDITION
1. June 16, 1903
Roald Amundsen and his crew of six men and six sled dogs sail from Oslo in Gjøa, a 70-foot herring boat. Amundsen sets himself a maximum deadline of five years to chart a Northwest Passage and carry out scientific measurements at the magnetic north pole.

5. Winter 1903-Summer 1905
On the southeast coast of King William Island, Amundsen finds a protected bay in which to drop his anchor. He names the area Gjoa Haven, and the expedition stays on King William Island until August 1905. During this time, Amundsen learns Arctic survival skills from the Netsilik, a band of Inuit people. He and his men also fulfill the scientific aims of their mission during these two years; they take many geographical measurements and locate the magnetic north pole.
http://www.pbs.or...-nf.html



Apr 18, 2014
runrig: It is not hard to imagine that if Robert Scott had done the same type of study as Amundsen did before before he left for Antarctica his fate would not have been so dire.
"1912 – Reaches South Pole on January 17 with Edward Wilson, Henry Bowers, Lawrence Oates and Edgar Evans and discovers that Amundsen has got there first.
1912 – Makes last entry in his diary on March 29 as, trapped in a blizzard, 11 miles from a supply base, Scott and dies with the remaining men from malnutrition, dehydration and frostbite."
http://www.exeter...ory.html

I well imagine he would have used the proper cloths and also taken dogs and not ponies for his mission.

Apr 18, 2014
Wow, this is a slaughter.

Runrig, Maggnus, and Mike you better up your game, you are getting eaten alive. Its rather amusing actually, you realize you've lost and instead of trying to prove your points, you resort to the typical behavior of children and call your 'opponent' names and try to 'character count' him. Seriously?

Jdswallow, these people are understood to be trolls. They pretty much sock puppet around and try to bot-vote down anyone who disagrees with them.

Apr 18, 2014
"Maggnus:
I notice he's not refuted your accusation."
runrig: Do you actually believe that I will waste my time to refute this kind of trivial trash that is more the product of, I assume, your kind of juvenile "information" that you must respect. If this is the kind of ad hominem attacks with no link to the article that is in question or even to the comments in general, then I ask you to please leave me out of your loop if this is the stupid game you want to play. You need to be content with counting characters and trying to answer some of the important questions that have been directed at you.


No ad hominem about it my friend, I was merely observing the fact that you had not refuted an accusation that you were a previous poster on here who had been banned (2x) for contravening "etiquette".
Simples.

You are free to ask me any questions you like and I mean questions - not quotes, they mean not a jot whoever they come from.
Please do so one at a time.

Apr 18, 2014
Wow, this is a slaughter.

Runrig, Maggnus, and Mike you better up your game, you are getting eaten alive. Its rather amusing actually, you realize you've lost and instead of trying to prove your points, you resort to the typical behavior of children and call your 'opponent' names and try to 'character count' him. Seriously?

Jdswallow, these people are understood to be trolls. They pretty much sock puppet around and try to bot-vote down anyone who disagrees with them.


Ah, tis the Biased Observer again.
Welcome.

As you are naturally "unbiased" then this observation of yours is, of course, correct.

Apr 18, 2014
To Nik the gish-galloping denialist (now jdswallow); I do not have the desire or space to respond to every multiple, over the limit, post. So, as time permits, I will respond the occasional misrepresentation.

...first this information for you to qualify.
'Frightening' projection for Arctic melt
The Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 2015...


This article from 2007 quotes a Canadian researcher, Louis Fortier, discussing the rapid extent of ice melt in the Arctic in that year. He states at least twice that "if the trend continues" the Arctic ice could melt completely in summer as early as 2015, not 2050 as was predicted by the IPCC. He goes on to state that some 4.13 m sq kms was left the year of that interview (2007), which at that time was the largest seasonal melt ever. (compare 2012 when only 3.74 m sq km remained). He then suggests that a "worst case scenario" would see an ice free Arctic "as early as" somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

Apr 18, 2014
So here we have an article quoting {GASP} ONE! researcher suggesting that the predictions of the IPCC may be wrong (they predicted 2050) and it "COULD" become ice free much earlier.

This is a cherry-picked taking point, intended to beg the question. Furthermore, it is a case of intellectual dishonesty; the data was chosen to set up a strawman argument that "they" have been making a prediction that has not come true. "They" in this case, consisting of a single researcher quoted in an article. No paper. No citation or data. Just the opinion of a researcher standing on the middle of an icefield that was at it's lowest extent ever (now the 2nd lowest) worrying about where we are heading.

It is a misrepresentation to suggest this article somehow represents the position of climate scientists - or frankly anyone beyond that single researcher.

It is also the case that he was not even wrong, as 2015 is next year. But that was not even the point.

Apr 18, 2014
The benefits of CO2 in food crops:

http://scienceand..._c02.pdf


Apr 18, 2014
It for sure had nothing to do with any anthropogenic produced CO2 that caused the end of the LIA. Any thinking individual would know that it came from a change in the solar cycles that are still in play today...


Any thinking individual you mean who knows nothing of the science involved. In which case they aren't thinking are they?

"Using a middle-of-the-road model sensitivity of 3°C for doubled CO2, solar forcings of less than 0.5% are too small to account for the cooling of the Little Ice Age. Volcanic forcings, in contrast, give climate responses comparable in amplitude to the changes of the Little Ice Age. A combination of solar and volcanic forcings explains much of the Little Ice Age climate change, but these factors alone cannot explain the warming of the twentieth century."

http://onlinelibr...ed=false

And the Maunder minimum had a 0.1 to 0.2% reduction.

Apr 18, 2014
You are 100% wrong about the suns lack of effect.

http://www.washin...ke-note/

http://calderup.w...ics-101/

Apr 18, 2014
You are 100% wrong about the suns lack of effect.


"Total solar output is now measured to vary (over the last three 11-year sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1% or about 1.3 Watts per square meter (W/m2) peak-to-trough from solar maximum to solar minimum during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The amount of solar radiation received at the outer limits of Earth's atmosphere averages 1366 W/m2.There are no direct measurements of the longer-term variation, and interpretations of proxy measures of variations differ. The intensity of solar radiation reaching Earth has been relatively constant through the last 2000 years, with variations estimated at around 0.1–0.2%.Solar variation, together with volcanic activity are hypothesized to have contributed to climate change, for example during the Maunder Minimum. Changes in solar brightness are too weak to explain recent climate change."
http://en.wikiped...ariation

Life down the rabbit hole sure is different.

Apr 18, 2014
A little more sunspot correlation:

http://agwunveile...pot.com/

Apr 18, 2014
The benefits of CO2 in food crops:

http://scienceand..._c02.pdf


Yes indeed - all fine for crops that have sufficient water,... However a warmer world will mean a more sluggish jet-stream and a consequent reduction of penetration of precipitation into the the continents. All the fertilizer in the world is no good without water, So favoured agricultural regions will be more than offset by drought elsewhere..

Apr 18, 2014
A little more sunspot correlation:

http://agwunveile...pot.com/


Oh yes Mr enviros bollocks.
Well done and 10/10. Now give me the peer reviewed paper, the exact mathematics, data sources and error bars.
Done on the back of a fag (cigarette) packet my friend and totally worthless, other than to be magnet you denialists to stick too.

Apr 18, 2014
The Sun's energy output vs ave global temp.....

http://www.epa.go...arge.jpg

Yes, it's the Sun stupid..
You are indeed.

It's a vast global conspiracy by climate scientists and all you denialists just know, KNOW better.

Only down the rabbit hole, that is - and here is where you should look for the answer my friends..

http://phys.org/n...ive.html

Apr 18, 2014
Runrig to just talk about power output is ludicrous. Ultraviolet levels change quite a bit and the sun's effect on cosmic rays changes quite a bit. It is a known fact that the earth cools during periods of low sunspot activity. Claiming that the sun's power output changes very little is correct but does not prove that other solar changes are not responsible for temperature changes on earth.

Apr 18, 2014
Runrig to just talk about power output is ludicrous. Ultraviolet levels change quite a bit and the sun's effect on cosmic rays changes quite a bit. It is a known fact that the earth cools during periods of low sunspot activity. Claiming that the sun's power output changes very little is correct but does not prove that other solar changes are not responsible for temperature changes on earth.


Mr166: Would you be so kind as to give us the references for the causal relationship between sunspots and cooling of the earth? I know there are some statistical correlations but we all know that correlation does not mean causation. I would like to see the references that show causation.

As an example, we can show causation for the relationship between volcanic activity and cooling of the planet because of the change in albedo. However, I have not seen the proof of causality for sunspots causing cooling. Links would be appreciated.

Apr 18, 2014
Let's put it this way, there is a LOT more correlation between sunspot activity and temperature than there is between CO2 and temperature. As far as posting the links for you it is a waste of time since I am sure you are already aware of the studies but choose to disregard them.

But if you really care, the info is readily searchable.

Apr 18, 2014
Let's put it this way, there is a LOT more correlation between sunspot activity and temperature than there is between CO2 and temperature. As far as posting the links for you it is a waste of time since I am sure you are already aware of the studies but choose to disregard them.

But if you really care, the info is readily searchable.

You are so F'ing pathtic.

Apr 18, 2014
Wow, this is a slaughter.

Runrig, Maggnus, and Mike you better up your game, you are getting eaten alive. Its rather amusing actually, you realize you've lost and instead of trying to prove your points, you resort to the typical behavior of children and call your 'opponent' names and try to 'character count' him. Seriously?

Jdswallow, these people are understood to be trolls. They pretty much sock puppet around and try to bot-vote down anyone who disagrees with them.


Wow, DumbassedObserver, you need to get some new glasses and take a remedial course in Reading Comprehension.

Maybe take it three or four times, so that it really sinks in, andyou are able to distinguish reality from ideologically motivated wishful thinking.

If it so happens that aren't merely another willfully disunderstanding troll, that is...

Oh, who am I kidding?

TROLL!


Apr 18, 2014
TROLL!
Ha Ha ha. Isn't that the unbiased truth! Year after year, I've come to phys.org to read an article and look at a field out side of my line of work. On all works related to AGW (or global warming), it is amazing how many contrarians will post disproven BS and expect everyone to accept it as god's truth.

Deniers = methane inhalers.


Apr 18, 2014
The benefits of CO2 in food crops:

http://scienceand..._c02.pdf


Yes indeed - all fine for crops that have sufficient water,... However a warmer world will mean a
more sluggish jet-stream and a consequent reduction of penetration of precipitation into the the continents. All the fertilizer in the world is no good without water, So favoured agricultural regions will be more than offset by drought elsewhere..


The benefits of CO2 in food crops:
http://scienceand..._c02.pdf

runrig: MR166 has offered up proof for their contention while, as usual, all you have is conjecture and the hope that those of sound mind will believe what you spout.

In June, 1934 the entire country had triple digit heat. We didn't come anywhere close to that this summer.
http://docs.lib.n...0212.pdf
Severe drought in 1934 covered 80% of the country, compared with 25% in 2011

Apr 19, 2014
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9)Apr 16, 2014
"A GCM does not have to simulate the MWP or the LIA as both of those were regional phenomena. We are talking of global ave temps, my friend."

If this above is an example of runrig's knowledge and what they believe, then what will they tell the truth about?

The scientists studied ikaite crystals from sediment cores drilled off the coast of Antarctica. The scientists were particularly interested in crystals found in layers deposited during the "Little Ice Age," approximately 300 to 500 years ago, and during the "Medieval Warm Period," approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago. Both climate events have been documented in Northern Europe, but studies have been inconclusive as to whether the conditions in Northern Europe extended to Antarctica.

"We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica," Lu says. "More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes."
http://asnews.syr...uks.dpuf

Apr 19, 2014
I had presented the Syracuse University study to runrig before but now it appears that they would rather exist in a world of their own making where they have their own 'facts'; therefore, are not bothered by what science has found while they were asleep.
SAO/NASA ADS Physics Abstract Service
Title: An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula

"Our interpretation, based on ikaite isotopes, provides additional qualitative evidence that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were extended to the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic Peninsula."
http://adsabs.har...51A1819L

I will show other places where runrig , in the very remote chance that they have an interest in learning more than how to count characters; but, want to apply some real science to their believes that seem to be very narrowly defined by this obsession with the trace gas, CO2, that they have no experimental proof, what so ever, of its affects on the climate.

Apr 19, 2014
An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula

(Same authors & affiliations)

"This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula."
http://www.scienc...12000659

Apr 19, 2014
runrig: Since you appear to read nothing I submit this to you.

Modeling of severe persistent droughts over eastern China during the last millennium

Abstract. We use proxy data and modeled data from 1000 yr model simulations with a variety of climate forcings to examine the occurrence of severe events of persistent drought over eastern China during the last millennium and to diagnose the mechanisms. Results show that the model was able to simulate many aspects of the low-frequency (periods greater than 10 yr) variations of precipitation over eastern China during the last millennium, including most of the severe persistent droughts such as those in the 1130s, 1200s, 1350s, 1430s, 1480s, and the late 1630s–mid-1640s. These six droughts are identified both in the proxy data and in the modeled data and are consistent with each other in terms of drought intensity, duration, and spatial coverage.
http://www.clim-p...013.html

Apr 19, 2014
Let's put it this way, there is a LOT more correlation between sunspot activity and temperature than there is between CO2 and temperature. As far as posting the links for you it is a waste of time since I am sure you are already aware of the studies but choose to disregard them.

But if you really care, the info is readily searchable.

Exactly it is!

One day my friend, though I do not live in hope, you may be able to distinguish between GLOBAL changes caused by direct consequence of the balance between Solar SW absorbed and IR emitted. AS opposed to changes induced by O3 destruction/formation reactions in the Stratosphere, which reconfigures the wintertime jet-stream in (as it happens because it was the centre of civilisation in those times) western Europe. And yes because there are waves in the jet there ... other waves are formed downstream (simple jet theory). Net result, near zero. AS was the case this last winter in the US.The sun caused that eh?... of course it did.
FFS

Apr 19, 2014
runrig: Since you appear to read nothing I submit this to you.


I read the science my friend ... you know, like that published on here. I don't confirm my bias by searching out the 3% of contrarian scientists such as Spencer ( though I've actually conversed via email with him and posted on his blog) ... waste of time BTW - they're away with the fairies .. like there can be no GHE because it contravenes the 2nd Law of thermodynamics !! - I'll give you the link to that piece of "science" discussion if you like. Just ask. Nor, bar that example and another demonstration of strange people talking with fairies, (oh and amusingly getting one banned on WUWT) Blogs.
Do you see how it works.
No of course not ... you're away with the fairies too.

Apr 19, 2014
Year after year, I've come to phys.org to read an article and look at a field out side of my line of work. On all works related to AGW (or global warming), it is amazing how many contrarians will post disproven BS and expect everyone to accept it as god's truth.


how:
It's a constant isn't it?
Like goldfish in a bowl swimming around and forgetting they were there the last time.
It matters not to them anyway as they only want to infect the gullible public with their view.
Unfortunately the science is involved and in some cases counter intuative (S'ern sea-ice) and simplistic thinking conects with many.
But hey, that is why we have "experts" isn't it, well I always though so anyway.
You know, when I went to school/college/Polytechnic, I rather assumed I was learning stuff from people who knew.
Mmmm it seems not - at least in Geography class and during my in-house Meteorology training.
Seems I was taught bollocks and I should hold my lecturers in contempt.
What a strange world.

Apr 19, 2014
Runrig to just talk about power output is ludicrous. Ultraviolet levels change quite a bit and the sun's effect on cosmic rays changes quite a bit. It is a known fact that the earth cools during periods of low sunspot activity. Claiming that the sun's power output changes very little is correct but does not prove that other solar changes are not responsible for temperature changes on earth.


FFS: The bloody solar output is measured to within fractions of a percent via satellite. And UV is a small part of the spectrum that causes a reaction in the Strat to warm out MS80C (say) up to say MS30C and consequently wave action (Mountain torque event - just ask if you're ignorant) is able to penetrate the weakened Polar Vortex core to disrupt it - just fluid dynamics my friend and NOT involving massive amounts of energy from the Sun. It's just an example of how delicately balanced is the climate system.
Which we are buggering about with via injection of GHG's aka CO2.

Apr 19, 2014
Mr swallow:
runrig: MR166 has offered up proof for their contention while, as usual, all you have is conjecture and the hope that those of sound mind will believe what you spout.


CO2 is undoubtedly plant food - just look at the wavy nature of the Mauna Loa trace.....

http://www.esrl.n.../trends/

When Spring returns to the NH global levels of CO2 drop.
Errr ... did you notice the rising trend level. But of course that's having no effect on the Earth other than feeding plants.

It is basic Meteorology my friend that a warming world will decrease jet-stream strength and allow it to meander and form cut-offs more easily, this causing "stuck" weather - hence more frequent floods/draught.
So, the upshot of your "plant food" is to (apart from warming the world eventually to greatly damaging levels) cause death/disruption via weather events.
FFS:
Still I suppose the vastly increased food supply from a few favoured areas will come in handy to feed those fleeing.

Apr 19, 2014
Further to those not able to understand the causation of a a weaker sun on the Stratosphere and consequently it's causation of redistribution of winds/temperatures at the surface...

http://planeteart...onsent=A
http://www.nature...282.html

http://www.newsci...rop.html

"UV is absorbed in the stratosphere, the upper atmosphere, by ozone. So in the quiet bit of the solar cycle, when there is less UV to absorb, the stratosphere is relatively cooler.

The Hadley Centre model shows that the effects of this percolate down through the atmosphere, changing wind speeds, including the jet stream that circles the globe above Europe, North America and Russia.

The net change is a reduced air flow from west to east, which brings colder air to the UK and northern Europe and re-distributes temperatures across the region."

Apr 19, 2014
during periods of low sunspot activity
&
there is a LOT more correlation between sunspot activity and temperature than there is between CO2 and temperature
@mr166
you are assuming that this is unstudied. climate models already include a great deal of information about your precious solar activity as well as sunspots etc. these studies are widely available, and if you've a problem finding them, then I suggest following Tim Thompson here on Phys.org. - since you are ignoring (or can't understand) runrig's info:

http://adsabs.har...09....7S
http://adsabs.har...70.2031C
http://adsabs.har...67..948H
http://adsabs.har...67..940K

Apr 19, 2014
runrig: It appears that in March, 1958 the level of CO2, by Mauna Loa's measurement, was 315.17 ppm; that level is now up to 397.9.
Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
http://www.esrl.n...aph.html

Please tell me what the CO2 level was in the period for which I give evidence of far a greater draught than what you imagined. It was, by good estimates at 310 ppm

"Over the 11-year span from 1930-1940, a large part of the region saw 15% to 25% less precipitation than normal. This is very significant to see such a large deficit over such a long period of time. This translates to 50 to 60 inches of much needed moisture which never arrived that decade. For an area which only averages less than 20 inches of precipitation a year, deficits like this can make the region resemble a desert. Deficits like this are the equivalent of missing three entire years of expected precipitation in one decade.
http://www.srh.no...es_today

"Severe drought in 1934 covered 80% of the country, compared with 25% in 2011
In June, 1934 the entire country had triple digit heat
http://docs.lib.n...0212.pdf


Apr 19, 2014
I will show other places where runrig , in the very remote chance that they have an interest in learning more than how to count characters;

i didn't have to count actually - it was obvious they were well over 1000 char.