John Coleman debunks Global Warming

[theDoctorisIn]

John Coleman has no scientific background, and has provided no scientific basis for his "debunking".

There's a pretty big difference between spending years studying the atmosphere and reading the weather from a teleprompter.

Predictable liberal response. Not surprised your head is too thick to comprehend this data. What about the 9000 PHD's and scientist's?

What "data"? There's no "data" in your link, just opinions from a weatherman.

What about the exponentially larger number of PhDs and scientists on the other side?

The only scientists who actively support the theory are those who benefit directly in the way of government grants. They have actively corrupted the peer review process to continue their extraordinarily poor scientific practices. One famous case witnessed a paper on polar bear mortality (since comprehensively debunked by polar bear biologists) that received widespread media coverage
being reviewed by the mans wife.

The paper challenging Steigs paper is yet another example of the climatologist corruption of the peer review process where Steig demanded, and was allowed, to be a reviewer of the paper that challenged his. If one wanted to see textbook examples of unethical behavior the science of climatology is replete with them.

Well, no.

All of the climate scientists that I personally know believe in man-made global warming (and there are actually quite a few, I come from a scientist-heavy family with a lot of scientist friends), and none of them have any financial stake in it.

To be honest, I know enough about the subject to know that I have no fucking clue about the subject - and I also don't really care that much about it. I'm not a "save the earth" type.

From where I sit, there's a lot of faulty logic on both sides of this debate.

 

[westwall]

I guess nature doesn't care what John Coleman (Ironic last name) thinks, because global warming is real and, it's like you pooping, it is happening. Sorry. Reality doesn't listen to popular spokesmen, it sneaks up on ya. I have seen the climate change for over thirty years, and, sorry kids, it's real. No more whistling past the graveyard, face up to it.

Yes. It has indeed been happening for 14,000 years. Mans involvement in it what we are talking about, and to date there is no discernible human signal. None.

Global water resources affected by human interventions and climate change

Abstract
Humans directly change the dynamics of the water cycle through dams constructed for water storage, and through water withdrawals for industrial, agricultural, or domestic purposes. Climate change is expected to additionally affect water supply and demand. Here, analyses of climate change and direct human impacts on the terrestrial water cycle are presented and compared using a multimodel approach. Seven global hydrological models have been forced with multiple climate projections, and with and without taking into account impacts of human interventions such as dams and water withdrawals on the hydrological cycle. Model results are analyzed for different levels of global warming, allowing for analyses in line with temperature targets for climate change mitigation. The results indicate that direct human impacts on the water cycle in some regions, e.g., parts of Asia and in the western United States, are of the same order of magnitude, or even exceed impacts to be expected for moderate levels of global warming (+2 K). Despite some spread in model projections, irrigation water consumption is generally projected to increase with higher global mean temperatures. Irrigation water scarcity is particularly large in parts of southern and eastern Asia, and is expected to become even larger in the future.

And this paper says you are full of shit, Walleyes.

As usual you can't seem to comprehend what the papers you cite are actually saying. I'll highlight the relevant section for you so you can understand it better.

Humans alter the water cycle by constructing dams and through water withdrawals. Climate change is expected to additionally affect water supply and demand. Here, model analyses of climate change and direct human impacts on the terrestrial water cycle are presented. The results indicate that the impact of man-made reservoirs and water withdrawals on the long-term global terrestrial water balance is small. However, in some river basins, impacts of human interventions are significant. In parts of Asia and the United States, the effects of human interventions exceed the impacts expected for moderate levels of global warming. This study also identifies areas where irrigation water is currently scarce, and where increases in irrigation water scarcity are projected.


So, to help you understand what is being said here. The modelers (remember asshat, models AREN'T data) expect climate change to affect water supply and created models to support that hypothesis. Further, they link RESERVOIRS (which, you know hold water in one place, while preventing it's travel elsewhere) and other human impacts as "small" globally, but assert that in certain local areas they can have significant effects.

So no, stupid asshat. The paper doesn't say I'm full of shit. It says you are....moron.

 

[westwall]

Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World s Oceans

Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans

1. Tim P. Barnett1,*,
2. David W. Pierce1,
3. Krishna M. AchutaRao2,
4. Peter J. Gleckler2,
5. Benjamin D. Santer2,
6. Jonathan M. Gregory3,
7. Warren M. Washington4

+Author Affiliations

1. ↵* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

1. 
   View larger version:
   • In this page
     
   • In a new window
   • Download PowerPoint Slide for Teaching
   Fig. 1.
   Warming signal strength by ocean and depth. The dots represent the projection of the observed temperature changes onto the model-based pattern of warming. They show substantial basin-to-basin differences in how the oceans have warmed over the past 40 years, although all oceans have experienced net warming over that interval. The horizontal bars represent the ±2SD limits associated with sampling uncertainty.
   
   And hundreds more papers like this in peer reviewed journals.

"model-based pattern of warming"


I don't need to say anything else. Science fiction ain't science, dumbass.

 

[westwall]

John Coleman has no scientific background, and has provided no scientific basis for his "debunking".

There's a pretty big difference between spending years studying the atmosphere and reading the weather from a teleprompter.

Predictable liberal response. Not surprised your head is too thick to comprehend this data. What about the 9000 PHD's and scientist's?

What "data"? There's no "data" in your link, just opinions from a weatherman.

What about the exponentially larger number of PhDs and scientists on the other side?

The only scientists who actively support the theory are those who benefit directly in the way of government grants. They have actively corrupted the peer review process to continue their extraordinarily poor scientific practices. One famous case witnessed a paper on polar bear mortality (since comprehensively debunked by polar bear biologists) that received widespread media coverage
being reviewed by the mans wife.

The paper challenging Steigs paper is yet another example of the climatologist corruption of the peer review process where Steig demanded, and was allowed, to be a reviewer of the paper that challenged his. If one wanted to see textbook examples of unethical behavior the science of climatology is replete with them.

Well, no.

All of the climate scientists that I personally know believe in man-made global warming (and there are actually quite a few, I come from a scientist-heavy family with a lot of scientist friends), and none of them have any financial stake in it.

To be honest, I know enough about the subject to know that I have no fucking clue about the subject - and I also don't really care that much about it. I'm not a "save the earth" type.

From where I sit, there's a lot of faulty logic on both sides of this debate.

If they're climatologists their funding IS dependent on the work they produce. Climatology is almost entirely funded by tax dollars. There are very, very few of them who work for companies that don't get public monies. Further, you do yourself a disservice by pleading ignorance. Anyone of sound mind can become very conversant in the science in a week. It is simply not that rigorous. It is considered a "soft science" as opposed to the hard sciences of physics, chemistry, geology etc.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

John Coleman has no scientific background, and has provided no scientific basis for his "debunking".

There's a pretty big difference between spending years studying the atmosphere and reading the weather from a teleprompter.

Predictable liberal response. Not surprised your head is too thick to comprehend this data. What about the 9000 PHD's and scientist's?

What "data"? There's no "data" in your link, just opinions from a weatherman.

What about the exponentially larger number of PhDs and scientists on the other side?

The only scientists who actively support the theory are those who benefit directly in the way of government grants. They have actively corrupted the peer review process to continue their extraordinarily poor scientific practices. One famous case witnessed a paper on polar bear mortality (since comprehensively debunked by polar bear biologists) that received widespread media coverage
being reviewed by the mans wife.

The paper challenging Steigs paper is yet another example of the climatologist corruption of the peer review process where Steig demanded, and was allowed, to be a reviewer of the paper that challenged his. If one wanted to see textbook examples of unethical behavior the science of climatology is replete with them.

Well, no.

All of the climate scientists that I personally know believe in man-made global warming (and there are actually quite a few, I come from a scientist-heavy family with a lot of scientist friends), and none of them have any financial stake in it.

To be honest, I know enough about the subject to know that I have no fucking clue about the subject - and I also don't really care that much about it. I'm not a "save the earth" type.

From where I sit, there's a lot of faulty logic on both sides of this debate.

If they're climatologists their funding IS dependent on the work they produce. Climatology is almost entirely funded by tax dollars. There are very, very few of them who work for companies that don't get public monies. Further, you do yourself a disservice by pleading ignorance. Anyone of sound mind can become very conversant in the science in a week. It is simply not that rigorous. It is considered a "soft science" as opposed to the hard sciences of physics, chemistry, geology etc.

They're professors at NYU and Harvard - neither of which is "funded by tax dollars".

And both of them have at least one "hard science" PhD.

 

[Rambunctious]

To be honest, I know enough about the subject to know that I have no fucking clue about the subject - and I also don't really care that much about it. I'm not a "save the earth" type.

From where I sit, there's a lot of faulty logic on both sides of this debate.

A crack in the nut.

 

[westwall]

Predictable liberal response. Not surprised your head is too thick to comprehend this data. What about the 9000 PHD's and scientist's?

What "data"? There's no "data" in your link, just opinions from a weatherman.

What about the exponentially larger number of PhDs and scientists on the other side?

The only scientists who actively support the theory are those who benefit directly in the way of government grants. They have actively corrupted the peer review process to continue their extraordinarily poor scientific practices. One famous case witnessed a paper on polar bear mortality (since comprehensively debunked by polar bear biologists) that received widespread media coverage
being reviewed by the mans wife.

The paper challenging Steigs paper is yet another example of the climatologist corruption of the peer review process where Steig demanded, and was allowed, to be a reviewer of the paper that challenged his. If one wanted to see textbook examples of unethical behavior the science of climatology is replete with them.

Well, no.

All of the climate scientists that I personally know believe in man-made global warming (and there are actually quite a few, I come from a scientist-heavy family with a lot of scientist friends), and none of them have any financial stake in it.

To be honest, I know enough about the subject to know that I have no fucking clue about the subject - and I also don't really care that much about it. I'm not a "save the earth" type.

From where I sit, there's a lot of faulty logic on both sides of this debate.

If they're climatologists their funding IS dependent on the work they produce. Climatology is almost entirely funded by tax dollars. There are very, very few of them who work for companies that don't get public monies. Further, you do yourself a disservice by pleading ignorance. Anyone of sound mind can become very conversant in the science in a week. It is simply not that rigorous. It is considered a "soft science" as opposed to the hard sciences of physics, chemistry, geology etc.

They're professors at NYU and Harvard - neither of which is "funded by tax dollars".

And both of them have at least one "hard science" PhD.

That would be incorrect. The vast majority of climate research is funded by the US taxpayer. This is one report of thousands (and I'm not joking about that!) of the grants that are given out to climate researchers. This one is from the EPA but there are a whole host of grants that are let every year by almost every government organization.


"Harvard and MIT researchers received $2.1 million in grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last Thursday to study the effects of climate change on public health and local ecosystems.
The grants—which are part of $17 million awarded to universities nationwide—will fund two projects at Harvard, the first of which will examine when and where pollen allergies are most likely to increase as a result of changing regional climate conditions."


EPA Grants Go to Harvard MIT News The Harvard Crimson

 

[SSDD]

I guess nature doesn't care what John Coleman (Ironic last name) thinks, because global warming is real and, it's like you pooping, it is happening. Sorry. Reality doesn't listen to popular spokesmen, it sneaks up on ya. I have seen the climate change for over thirty years, and, sorry kids, it's real. No more whistling past the graveyard, face up to it.

Yes. It has indeed been happening for 14,000 years. Mans involvement in it what we are talking about, and to date there is no discernible human signal. None.

I guess that will be the final excuse when the AGW crazy train goes over the cliff...that AGW was real but it looked just like natural variability.

 

[SSDD]

Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World s Oceans

Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans

1. Tim P. Barnett1,*,
2. David W. Pierce1,
3. Krishna M. AchutaRao2,
4. Peter J. Gleckler2,
5. Benjamin D. Santer2,
6. Jonathan M. Gregory3,
7. Warren M. Washington4

+Author Affiliations

1. ↵* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

1. 
   View larger version:
   • In this page
     
   • In a new window
   • Download PowerPoint Slide for Teaching
   Fig. 1.
   Warming signal strength by ocean and depth. The dots represent the projection of the observed temperature changes onto the model-based pattern of warming. They show substantial basin-to-basin differences in how the oceans have warmed over the past 40 years, although all oceans have experienced net warming over that interval. The horizontal bars represent the ±2SD limits associated with sampling uncertainty.
   
   And hundreds more papers like this in peer reviewed journals.

More modeling from a group who has proven beyond any doubt that they are the worst modelers ever....model failure on an epic scale and yet you still believe.

 

[Crick]

Why have you never shown us the models that DO fit observations? Wouldn't that be the ones using zero CO2 sensitivity? Those would be the ones that showed all that flat surface warming for the last 18 years. Your experts: your John Coleman, your Bob Tisdale, your Anthony Watts, your Christopher Monckton, your James Taylor... they're the ones who know how the climate REALLY works. Where are their models?

 

[mamooth]

Deniers, you being fundamentally corrupt to your core does not mean anyone else shares your ethical failings.

We get it. You've sold out for a buck your whole life, and you simply can't imagine anyone else not selling out. However, you need to understand that most scientists aren't like you, and won't lie for money. Those men you get so hysterical about are just miles above you in both a moral and an intellectual sense. You're sleazy party hacks, while they're the best and brightest in the world.

 

[Iceweasel]

Deniers, you being fundamentally corrupt to your core does not mean anyone else shares your ethical failings.

We get it. You've sold out for a buck your whole life, and you simply can't imagine anyone else not selling out. However, you need to understand that most scientists aren't like you, and won't lie for money. Those men you get so hysterical about are just miles above you in both a moral and an intellectual sense. You're sleazy party hacks, while they're the best and brightest in the world.

What a drama queen. If it was a fact there would be no controversy.

 

[jc456]

Deniers, you being fundamentally corrupt to your core does not mean anyone else shares your ethical failings.

We get it. You've sold out for a buck your whole life, and you simply can't imagine anyone else not selling out. However, you need to understand that most scientists aren't like you, and won't lie for money. Those men you get so hysterical about are just miles above you in both a moral and an intellectual sense. You're sleazy party hacks, while they're the best and brightest in the world.

L o S i N g

 

[Rambunctious]

Deniers, you being fundamentally corrupt to your core does not mean anyone else shares your ethical failings.

We get it. You've sold out for a buck your whole life, and you simply can't imagine anyone else not selling out. However, you need to understand that most scientists aren't like you, and won't lie for money. Those men you get so hysterical about are just miles above you in both a moral and an intellectual sense. You're sleazy party hacks, while they're the best and brightest in the world.

 

[mamooth]

Hey, you're the kooks screaming that everyone is on the take. Normal people don't think like that. Crooks, however, do assume everyone else is a crook. It's one way that they justify their crook lifestyle, because "everyone does it!".

 

[SSDD]

Hey, you're the kooks screaming that everyone is on the take. Normal people don't think like that. Crooks, however, do assume everyone else is a crook. It's one way that they justify their crook lifestyle, because "everyone does it!".

You and yours are the ones that can't make a scientific case for manmade climate change...can you point out how manmade climate change looks different from natural climate change?....can you point out anything in the climate today that is outside of the boundaries of natural variability?...ie a human fingerprint?

 

[Crick]

You and yours are the ones that can't make a scientific case for manmade climate change...can you point out how manmade climate change looks different from natural climate change?....can you point out anything in the climate today that is outside of the boundaries of natural variability?...ie a human fingerprint?

Find us a spot in the last 65 million years in which CO2 rose at the rate we've been driving it upwards for the last 150 years.

Find us a spot in the last 65 million years in which temperatures have risen as precipitously as they have in the last 150 years.

Find us a natural cause for the observed warming. And don't give us this shite about rebounding from a glaciation. The climate is not a rubber balll.

 

[SSDD]

You and yours are the ones that can't make a scientific case for manmade climate change...can you point out how manmade climate change looks different from natural climate change?....can you point out anything in the climate today that is outside of the boundaries of natural variability?...ie a human fingerprint?

Find us a spot in the last 65 million years in which CO2 rose at the rate we've been driving it upwards for the last 150 years.

Again, you are assuming that CO2 causes warming....Again, the present ice age began with CO2 at over 1000ppm...how might an ice age have began with CO2 levels that high if it has the warming properties you ascribe to it?

Find us a spot in the last 65 million years in which temperatures have risen as precipitously as they have in the last 150 years.

The Importance of Long-Term Temperature and CO2 Data
Journal of Archaeological Science Volume 15, Number 40: 3 October 2012

Figure 1. The past 5,000 years of the GISP2 temperature history of the Greenland Ice Sheet, adapted from Drake (2012), who denoted the general locations of the Late Bronze Age (LBA), the Roman Warm Period (RWP) and the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in their original work.

I don't see any appreciable difference between the rate of temperature increase for the present warm period and any of the previous warm periods of the past 5000 years.

Here are a few more....again, no appreciable difference between the present warming and past warming....I do note that the warming of the early 20th century when CO2 levels were supposedly safe outstrip warming of the latter 20th century and the warming occurred quite rapidly coming out of the LIA

Same thing here for central Asia

So again, what is happening in the climate today that is outside of the boundaries of natural variability....

Find us a natural cause for the observed warming. And don't give us this shite about rebounding from a glaciation. The climate is not a rubber balll.

Perhaps that giant flaming nuclear furnace in the sky....the same thing that caused the previous warming periods which look very like the present warming except larger.

 

[Crick]

Estimated Global Annual Temperature Anomalies for the past
[ Back to top ]
Tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments, and other clues can be used as indices of temperature, and with tremendous effort and skill, can be used to estimate local temperature -- and with multiple points measured, global temperature. Scientific techniques used in these estimates continue to improve, but are already quite good. In this section, we look at estimates from multiple sources, including Briffa, Esper, Crowley and Lowery, Jones, Mann (1999), and three estimating procedures used by Jones and Mann (2004). Anomalies reported here are the smoothed series data.

In the graph below, the "Medieval Warm Period" (around 800-1300 AD) and the Little Ice Age which followed are discernable only with imagination, for they were European phenomena. As NOAA notes, "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century."

Jones and Mann (2004) conclude "Our assessment affirms the conclusion that late 20th century warmth is unprecedented at hemispheric and, likely, global scales... Comparison of empirical evidence with proxy-based reconstructions demonstrates that natural factors appear to explain relatively well the major surface temperature changes of the past millennium through the 19th century (including hemispheric means and some spatial patterns). Only anthropogenic forcing of climate, however, can explain the recent anomalous warming in the late 20th century."

:Sources: GHCN 1880-11/2008 meteorological stations, using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment. Downloaded from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt. Non-instrumental records retrieved from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jones2004/jones2004.h tml and ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_auth or/jones2004/jonesmannrogfig5.txt.

 

[Crick]

The sort of lies you get from WUWT:

Note the red text on the right side that reads "1850-2007". Now note where the graphed data actually stops. 1985? 1990? The temperature increase from 1990 to present day is in excess of 0.3C. If that had been plotted here, it would show current temperatures above the maximized temperature this set shows for the MWP.