Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[code1211]

Good grief. Rollingthunder posts a blog as science.

S/he doesn't even know what science IS. S/he is just emoting.

Or, in other, more honest words, you can't deal with the actual science that debunks and demolishes your myths.

The fact is that there is less radiation leaving the Earth at the top of the atmosphere as measured by satellites and the loss is in the spectral absorption frequencies of CO2 and methane. There is more measurable infrared energy coming back to Earth, again at frequencies associated with greenhouse gases. There is a clear causal link between human carbon emissions and global warming that is scientifically verified.

Did your little denier cult brain just explode?

And yet GISS, Hadley, RSS, UAH and the NOAA Argo Buoy array all agree that the globe has been cooling 2002.

Do these folks also have "denier cult brains?

"Global Warming" Has Stopped -- Earth Changes -- Sott.net

 

[RollingThunder]

Good grief. Rollingthunder posts a blog as science.

S/he doesn't even know what science IS. S/he is just emoting.

Or, in other, more honest words, you can't deal with the actual science that debunks and demolishes your myths.

The fact is that there is less radiation leaving the Earth at the top of the atmosphere as measured by satellites and the loss is in the spectral absorption frequencies of CO2 and methane. There is more measurable infrared energy coming back to Earth, again at frequencies associated with greenhouse gases. There is a clear causal link between human carbon emissions and global warming that is scientifically verified.

Did your little denier cult brain just explode?

Blogs aren't science.

And, it's amazing that I have to say that.

No little nitwit, "blogs aren't science" because science is science and accurate scientific information can be found in many places on the internet, including blogs. You can also find pseudo-science and lies on blogs. So what? The fact that you asked for the scientific basis for attributing the causation of global warming to mankind's carbon emissions and then when you received that information, with links to peer reviewed papers from science journals, you rejected it out of hand without even trying to deal with the facts or dispute the information provided, just shows that you are another politically motivated and very brainwashed denier cultist who is not interested in the science or the truth.

 

[RollingThunder]

Good grief. Rollingthunder posts a blog as science.

S/he doesn't even know what science IS. S/he is just emoting.

Or, in other, more honest words, you can't deal with the actual science that debunks and demolishes your myths.

The fact is that there is less radiation leaving the Earth at the top of the atmosphere as measured by satellites and the loss is in the spectral absorption frequencies of CO2 and methane. There is more measurable infrared energy coming back to Earth, again at frequencies associated with greenhouse gases. There is a clear causal link between human carbon emissions and global warming that is scientifically verified.

Did your little denier cult brain just explode?

And yet GISS, Hadley, RSS, UAH and the NOAA Argo Buoy array all agree that the globe has been cooling 2002.

No they don't. That's just denier cult lies.

Just as an example, here's what GISS actually says:

NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record
January 12, 2011
(excerpts)

Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie. In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which are statistically tied for third warmest year. The GISS records begin in 1880. The resulting temperature record closely matches others independently produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.

The record temperature in 2010 is particularly noteworthy, because the last half of the year was marked by a transition to strong La Niña conditions, which bring cool sea surface temperatures to the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. "Global temperature is rising as fast in the past decade as in the prior two decades, despite year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Niño-La Niña cycle of tropical ocean temperature," Hansen and colleagues reported in the Dec. 14, 2010, issue of Reviews of Geophysics

In 2010, global temperatures continued to rise. A new analysis from the Goddard Institute
for Space Studies shows that 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, and was
part of the warmest decade on record. (Image credit: NASA/Earth Observatory/Robert Simmon)

Do these folks also have "denier cult brains?

They don't say what you claim they do so their brains are fine. It is you denier cult nitwits who have no brains.

"Global Warming" Has Stopped -- Earth Changes -- Sott.net

LOLOLOLOL....you actually imagine that quoting a known liar and nutcase like Christopher Monckton spewing his usual easily debunked drivel is going to impress anyone who's equipped with more than half a brain? LOLOLOL.....you must be insane....

 

[westwall]

Blogs aren't science.

And, it's amazing that I have to say that.

Sadly, its the norm now Si. These yahoo's read a couple of blogs and suddenly they are the experts. Of course they can't do simple math to back up their contentions (hell Mann, with a PhD, can't do simple math! Demonstrably so!)but they're the experts!

That's exactly why I use the term dilettante so often. At this point, I think even that term is generous.

Yeppers. I've met plenty of dilettantes who were very well versed in their subject. Very well indeed for some of them. I have learned quite a bit from them in point of fact, however, the silly people like blunder and olfraud, are not well versed in science at all. To call them dilettants is an insult to some very dedicated people who may not have the degree but are very competent to argue their point.

No, these people are nothing more than factual posturor's. They bleat a great deal but they have no concept of what they speak.

 

[Old Rocks]

Good grief. Rollingthunder posts a blog as science.

S/he doesn't even know what science IS. S/he is just emoting.

Or, in other, more honest words, you can't deal with the actual science that debunks and demolishes your myths.

The fact is that there is less radiation leaving the Earth at the top of the atmosphere as measured by satellites and the loss is in the spectral absorption frequencies of CO2 and methane. There is more measurable infrared energy coming back to Earth, again at frequencies associated with greenhouse gases. There is a clear causal link between human carbon emissions and global warming that is scientifically verified.

Did your little denier cult brain just explode?

And yet GISS, Hadley, RSS, UAH and the NOAA Argo Buoy array all agree that the globe has been cooling 2002.

Do these folks also have "denier cult brains?

"Global Warming" Has Stopped -- Earth Changes -- Sott.net

LOL. Dumb ass blog.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global temperature change

Global surface temperature has increased ≈0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ≈1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than ≈1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute “dangerous” climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.

 

[Old Rocks]

Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years

The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e) were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.

 

[SAT]

Perhaps the posters should refer to the title of the thread.

Climate skeptics eat crow.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sensitivity of the attribution of near surface temperature warming to the choice of observational dataset

Gareth S. Jones


Peter A. Stott


A number of studies have demonstrated that much of the recent warming in global near surface temperatures can be attributed to increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Whilst this conclusion has been shown to be robust in analyses using a variety of climate models there have not been equivalent studies using different available observational datasets. Here we repeat the analyses as reported previously using an updated observational dataset and other independently processed datasets of near surface temperatures. We conclude that the choice of observational dataset has little impact on the attribution of greenhouse gas warming and other anthropogenic cooling contributions to observed warming on a global scale over the 20th century, however this robust conclusion may not hold for other periods or for smaller sub-regions. Our results show that the dominant contributor to global warming over the last 50 years of the 20th century is that due to greenhouse gases.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global Warming Human Fingerprints | Union of Concerned Scientists

Human Fingerprints
Download: Human Fingerprints (high-res fact sheet | Human Fingerprints (low-res fact sheet)
Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades. Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record.[1,2] The natural patterns of climate have been altered. Like detectives, science sleuths seek the answer to "Whodunnit?" — are humans part of the cause? To answer this question, patterns observed by meteorologists and oceanographers are compared with patterns developed using sophisticated models of Earth's atmosphere and ocean. By matching the observed and modeled patterns, scientists can now positively identify the "human fingerprints" associated with the changes. The fingerprints that humans have left on Earth's climate are turning up in a diverse range of records and can be seen in the ocean, in the atmosphere, and at the surface.

 

[Old Rocks]

Not blogs, but real publications from real scientists. Not pretenders on an internet message board.

 

[Oddball]

Perhaps the posters should refer to the title of the thread.

Climate skeptics eat crow.

Maybe you should read through the thread and see that Murray was debunked as the poser and intellectual fraud that he is, Gomer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Global temperature change

Global surface temperature has increased ≈0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ≈1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than ≈1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute “dangerous” climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.

James Hansen?

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, dumb ass, Dr. James Hansen. The man that is respected around the world as the foremost climatologist in the world.

Education:

B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa
Publications

Go to bibliography
Research Interests:
As a college student in Iowa, I was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth. The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.

I am also interested in the development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans' potential impacts on climate. The scientific excitement in comparing theory with data, and developing some understanding of global changes that are occurring, is what makes all the other stuff worth it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Perhaps the posters should refer to the title of the thread.

Climate skeptics eat crow.

Maybe you should read through the thread and see that Murray was debunked as the poser and intellectual fraud that he is, Gomer.

Dang, Oddie, for once you are correct;

Robert E. Murray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global warmingMurray, an engineer by profession, has been an outspoken critic of the scientific opinion on climate change. In June 2007, he told the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works that "the science of global warming is suspect." He also wrote in a May 2007 MarketWatch editorial: "The actual environmental risk associated with carbon emissions is highly speculative."[11]

In a 2007 speech to the New York Coal Trade Association, he called Al Gore "the shaman of global gloom and doom" and added "he is more dangerous than his global warming."[23]

Murray said during the speech:

"Some wealthy elitists in our country, who cannot tell fact from fiction, can afford an Olympian detachment from the impacts of draconian climate change policy. For them, the jobs and dreams destroyed as a result will be nothing more than statistics and the cares of other people. These consequences are abstractions to them, but they are not to me, as I can name many of the thousands of the American citizens whose lives will be destroyed by these elitists' ill-conceived ‘global goofiness' campaigns."[24]

Murray is a particular opponent of proposed global warming legislation in Congress, saying:

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, dumb ass, Dr. James Hansen. The man that is respected around the world as the foremost climatologist in the world.

Education:

B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa
Publications

Go to bibliography
Research Interests:
As a college student in Iowa, I was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth. The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.

I am also interested in the development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans' potential impacts on climate. The scientific excitement in comparing theory with data, and developing some understanding of global changes that are occurring, is what makes all the other stuff worth it.

It's a shame such a smart guy has to lie, isn't it?

 

[Si modo]

Global temperature change

Global surface temperature has increased ≈0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ≈1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than ≈1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute “dangerous” climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.

Yet, there is no significance and magnitude of man-made CO2 on warming reported.

Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years

The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e) were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.

Yet, there is no significance and magnitude of man-made CO2 on warming reported.

Sensitivity of the attribution of near surface temperature warming to the choice of observational dataset

Gareth S. Jones


Peter A. Stott


A number of studies have demonstrated that much of the recent warming in global near surface temperatures can be attributed to increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Whilst this conclusion has been shown to be robust in analyses using a variety of climate models there have not been equivalent studies using different available observational datasets. Here we repeat the analyses as reported previously using an updated observational dataset and other independently processed datasets of near surface temperatures. We conclude that the choice of observational dataset has little impact on the attribution of greenhouse gas warming and other anthropogenic cooling contributions to observed warming on a global scale over the 20th century, however this robust conclusion may not hold for other periods or for smaller sub-regions. Our results show that the dominant contributor to global warming over the last 50 years of the 20th century is that due to greenhouse gases.

Blog. Garbage.

Global Warming Human Fingerprints | Union of Concerned Scientists

Human Fingerprints
Download: Human Fingerprints (high-res fact sheet | Human Fingerprints (low-res fact sheet)
Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades. Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record.[1,2] The natural patterns of climate have been altered. Like detectives, science sleuths seek the answer to "Whodunnit?" — are humans part of the cause? To answer this question, patterns observed by meteorologists and oceanographers are compared with patterns developed using sophisticated models of Earth's atmosphere and ocean. By matching the observed and modeled patterns, scientists can now positively identify the "human fingerprints" associated with the changes. The fingerprints that humans have left on Earth's climate are turning up in a diverse range of records and can be seen in the ocean, in the atmosphere, and at the surface.

Yet, there is no significance and magnitude of man-made CO2 on warming reported.

 

[edthecynic]

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming. They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.

Good grief. Rollingthunder posts a blog as science.

S/he doesn't even know what science IS. S/he is just emoting.

Or, in other, more honest words, you can't deal with the actual science that debunks and demolishes your myths.

The fact is that there is less radiation leaving the Earth at the top of the atmosphere as measured by satellites and the loss is in the spectral absorption frequencies of CO2 and methane. There is more measurable infrared energy coming back to Earth, again at frequencies associated with greenhouse gases. There is a clear causal link between human carbon emissions and global warming that is scientifically verified.

Did your little denier cult brain just explode?

And yet GISS, Hadley, RSS, UAH and the NOAA Argo Buoy array all agree that the globe has been cooling 2002.

Do these folks also have "denier cult brains?

"Global Warming" Has Stopped -- Earth Changes -- Sott.net

Gee, at the beginning of this thread, deniers were denying that they deny the Earth is warming. code and westie both posted a thanks to si's post, but now code posts a denial of global warming and westie posts a thanks.
Flip-flop much?

 

[Si modo]

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming. They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.

Or, in other, more honest words, you can't deal with the actual science that debunks and demolishes your myths.

The fact is that there is less radiation leaving the Earth at the top of the atmosphere as measured by satellites and the loss is in the spectral absorption frequencies of CO2 and methane. There is more measurable infrared energy coming back to Earth, again at frequencies associated with greenhouse gases. There is a clear causal link between human carbon emissions and global warming that is scientifically verified.

Did your little denier cult brain just explode?

And yet GISS, Hadley, RSS, UAH and the NOAA Argo Buoy array all agree that the globe has been cooling 2002.

Do these folks also have "denier cult brains?

"Global Warming" Has Stopped -- Earth Changes -- Sott.net

Gee, at the beginning of this thread, deniers were denying that they deny the Earth is warming. code and westie both posted a thanks to si's post, but now code posts a denial of global warming and westie posts a thanks.
Flip-flop much?

Oh, he is a scientist?

Read what I said, Ed. "Scientific skeptics". You bolded it so you should be able to see it.

 

[westwall]

Global Warming Human Fingerprints | Union of Concerned Scientists

Human Fingerprints
Download: Human Fingerprints (high-res fact sheet | Human Fingerprints (low-res fact sheet)
Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades. Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record.[1,2] The natural patterns of climate have been altered. Like detectives, science sleuths seek the answer to "Whodunnit?" — are humans part of the cause? To answer this question, patterns observed by meteorologists and oceanographers are compared with patterns developed using sophisticated models of Earth's atmosphere and ocean. By matching the observed and modeled patterns, scientists can now positively identify the "human fingerprints" associated with the changes. The fingerprints that humans have left on Earth's climate are turning up in a diverse range of records and can be seen in the ocean, in the atmosphere, and at the surface.

When they lead off with a statement like this...

"Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades."

Which is provably false...then it follows the rest is worthless propaganda.