John Coleman debunks Global Warming

[mamooth]

SSDD also pretends that the Greenland Ice sheet, a spot where the MWP was strong, represents the whole world. Deliberate cherrypicks like that are the signature of his style of lying.

We _know_, 100%, that the sun is not responsible. Solar-induced warming would show up as more warming in the summer, more warming in the daytime, and a warmer stratosphere. Instead, we see the precise opposite -- more warming in winter, more warming at night, and a cooler stratosphere, all fingerprints of greenhouse gas induced warming.

That's been pointed out to SSDD before. He always refuses to address it. His habit of denying any the data that contradicts his cult theories is why he's called "denier".

Also, this is SSDD's "source"

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

Here's the journal ...

Journal of Archaeological Science Vol 20 Iss 6 Pgs 595-709 November 1993 ScienceDirect.com

... and there is no "Volume 15, number 40".

What's going on? SSDD just did a cut-and-paste, unattributed, from here, and botched the reference. That's the quality of his work.

CO2 Science

 

[Rambunctious]

We had a 96% chance of rain at my home today and it did not rain at all. If they can't predict what the weather will do tomorrow then how can they tell us what the weather will be in a generation? I'm sorry but anyone that still believes in man made Global warming is either not paying attention or you're earning your income from this stupid damaging hoax. Or you're just a stupid gullible tool.

 

[RollingThunder]

John Coleman is an 80 year old retired TV weatherman. He has no education or training in any aspect of climate science. He received a degree in journalism in 1957 at the University of Illinois after working for three years at the student run campus radio station doing the early evening weather forecast and a local bandstand show called At The Hop. He became a successful TV weather reader, winding up on 'Good Morning America'. He and a Chicago meteorologist persuaded Landmark Communications to start a 24 hour cable weather channel, which debuted in 1983 as The Weather Channel, with Coleman serving as CEO and President during the start-up and first year of operations. He lost millions of dollars and alienated the staff so Landmark fired him in 1984. Coleman went on to a career in weather reading on TV stations until his retirement. He has no particular qualifications whatsoever to pontificate on climate science.

The cult of AGW denial has latched onto the ignorant ravings of this two-bit crank as if he were an expert, citing his 30 year old, 1 year long, failed involvement with the Weather Channel as a supposed 'credential' and proof that he must know what he's talking about. LOL. Some of the denier cult articles being cited even have headlines like "Weather Channel: Efforts To Prove Global Warming Have ‘FAILED’", falsely implying that those bogus claims originated with the Weather Channel.

Here is what the Weather Channel actually says about AGW.

Global Warming: The Weather Channel Position Statement
weather.com
Oct 29th, 2014

The scientific issue of global warming can be broken down into three main questions: Is global warming a reality? Are human activities causing it? What are the prospects for the future?

Warming: Fact or Fiction?

The climate of the earth is indeed warming, with an increase of approximately 1 - 1 1/2 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century, more than half of that occurring since the 1970s. The warming has taken place as averaged globally and annually; significant regional and seasonal variations exist.

Impacts can already be seen, especially in the Arctic, with melting glaciers, thawing permafrost, and rapid retreat and thinning of sea ice, all of which are affecting human populations as well as animals and vegetation. There and elsewhere, rising sea level is increasing coastal vulnerability.

There is evidence in recent years of a direct linkage between the larger-scale warming and shorter-term phenomena such as heat waves and precipitation extremes. The jury is out on exactly what effects global warming is having or will have upon tropical cyclones or tornadoes.

Human Influence

To what extent the current warming is due to human activity is complicated because large and sometimes sudden climate changes have occurred throughout our planet's history -- most of them before humans could possibly have been a factor. Furthermore, the sun/atmosphere/land/ocean "climate system" is extraordinarily complex, and natural variability on time scales from seconds to decades and beyond is always occurring.

However, it is known that burning of fossil fuels injects additional carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This in turn increases the naturally occurring "greenhouse effect," a process in which our atmosphere keeps the earth's surface much warmer than it would otherwise be.

More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists.

Humans are also changing the climate on a more localized level. The replacement of vegetation by buildings and roads is causing temperature increases through what's known as the urban heat island effect. In addition, land use changes are affecting impacts from weather phenomena. For example, urbanization and deforestation can cause an increased tendency for flash floods and mudslides from heavy rain. Deforestation also produces a climate change "feedback" by depleting a source which absorbs carbon dioxide.

The Future

Potential outcomes range from moderate and manageable to extreme and catastrophic, depending on a number of factors including location and type of effect, and amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Not every location and its inhabitants will be affected equally, but the more the planet warms, the fewer "winners" and the more "losers" there will be as a result of the changes in climate. The potential exists for the climate to reach a "tipping point," if it hasn't already done so, beyond which radical and irreversible changes occur.

The bottom line is that with the rate of greenhouse gas emissions increasing, a significant warming trend is expected to also continue. This warming will manifest itself in a variety of ways, and shifts in climate could occur quickly, so while society needs to continue to wrestle with the difficult issues involved with mitigation of the causes of global warming, an increased focus should be placed on resiliency and adaptation to the effects of global warming given the sensitivity of civilizations and ecosystems to rapid climate change.

Copyright: The Weather Channel. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[SSDD]

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.

You mean the adjusted temperature set?...Which one? And by the way, look at the top of the graph....last data year, 2007 and clearly the graph goes out to 2007....see the divergence at the end vs the met office's data? Sorry, I nearly forgot that you can't read a graph...it all must be so confusing to you....good thing all you need is faith.

 

[RollingThunder]

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.

You mean the adjusted temperature set?...Which one? And by the way, look at the top of the graph....last data year, 2007 and clearly the graph goes out to 2007....see the divergence at the end vs the met office's data? Sorry, I nearly forgot that you can't read a graph...it all must be so confusing to you....good thing all you need is faith.

What kind of crackpot drivel are you trying to push now, SSoooDDuuumb?

And BTW, the idiotic OP was just debunked, Coleman is a senile moron, and the Weather Channel says man-made global warming is real and potentially catastrophic.

Here's the actual, most recent climate science reconstructions of Holocene temperature variations. Source

Average global temperature over the last ~2,000 years. Note the massive uptick on the far right side. Courtesy Science/AAAS

Marcott's team used ocean records to reconstruct global climate further back in time than ever before. Courtesy Science/AAAS

 

[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.

You mean the adjusted temperature set?...Which one? And by the way, look at the top of the graph....last data year, 2007 and clearly the graph goes out to 2007....see the divergence at the end vs the met office's data? Sorry, I nearly forgot that you can't read a graph...it all must be so confusing to you....good thing all you need is faith.

Numbskull, put your readers on and have another look. The graph stops at the year 2000. The data stops before that.