Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

[Conservative]

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming | Fox News

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."

elow is the full text of Dr. Ivar Giaever's full letter of resignation to the APS:

From: Ivar Giaever [ mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Robert H. Austin; 'William Happer'; 'Larry Gould'; 'S. Fred Singer'; Roger Cohen
Subject: I resign from APS

Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973

PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information.

********************************************************************************************************
Ivar Giaever
XXX XXX
XXX
USA
Phone XXX XXX XXX
Fax XXX XXX XXX

 

[skookerasbil]

More Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooops for the k00ks

Shit......it gets better every day. I swear to God.......every day the green k00ks are getting kicked in the balls.

Since Climategate, the escalator has been steadily down..........EPA kicked in the balls........stimulus green company fail kick in the balls..........Gore is now a nobody kick in the balls.........Cap and Trade death kick in the balls............zero climate regulation in two years kick in the balls ( oh....except for light bulbs)........expansion of ice sheets kick in the balls.........hockey stick graph debunk kick in the balls.........Nobel Prize scientists debounks myth of "consenus" kick in the balls........UN admitting going green will cost 71 trillion kick in the balls........John Kerry saying in 2010 that talk of global warming on capitol hill is "radioactive" kick in the balls..........


Oh.........but the deniers are losing!!!!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Believe it or not I agree with this guy...People SHOULD question global warming as that's what we do within science. If you can disprove it, GOOD LUCK, but it has been done with many theories throughout history. The question right now is why it's not warming as fast? Well, I believe Aerosols and a low solar cycle is causing the negative forcing that is slowing any warming...Something that Hansen will agree with...Who's to say that's wrong? If you think it's wrong it must be proven with solid science! Not to do so would be unscientific.

.8c may or may not be a big deal when you consider that in 1680--- we were 1.4c colder then today and human life survived. Humanity has survived through -6c colder then today through 100 thousand years of ice age...Yes, area's where we grow our food and build our homes, and lifes will change, but humanity will live on.

There is NO question that we got a lot to learn...We got to learn a hell of a lot about the negative forcers within the system...That is for damn sure.

 

[ScienceRocks]

More Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooops for the k00ks

Shit......it gets better every day. I swear to God.......every day the green k00ks are getting kicked in the balls.

Since Climategate, the escalator has been steadily down..........EPA kicked in the balls........stimulus green company fail kick in the balls..........Gore is now a nobody kick in the balls.........Cap and Trade death kick in the balls............zero climate regulation in two years kick in the balls ( oh....except for light bulbs)........expansion of ice sheets kick in the balls.........hockey stick graph debunk kick in the balls.........Nobel Prize scientists debounks myth of "consenus" kick in the balls........UN admitting going green will cost 71 trillion kick in the balls........John Kerry saying in 2010 that talk of global warming on capitol hill is "radioactive" kick in the balls..........


Oh.........but the deniers are losing!!!!

I hate the political side of it and don't support any regulations at all, but the ice sheets have trended downwards on the means through the past 5 years. Do you understand what a anomaly is? 2007 was one. The volume is down millions of km^2 since 2007 and you think they're recovering...Man the nuclear bomb, man the fucking bomb!!!

The hockey stick has been supported by over half a dozen papers since 1998. Tree rings, boer holes, ocean sediment. ect. The closes thing your side has is something that was made in the early 1990's that is based off of the northern Hemisphere. Well, I will say that it's possible that a large part of the world was warmer then today within the mid evil at times, but basing something out of a few places that made it possible for wine or farming on earth to go against all these data points may not be the best way to go about it...Wouldn't you agree? Consensus don't mean shit within science; one scientist can kick it straight in its balls either way!

How does Ljungqvist's reconstruction compare to others?

"Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.”

"Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

The green line ended in 1980, which is .4c below today. This takes the decade of the 2000's about .1c to .2c above the midevil.

THIS IS NOT A GODDAMN POLITICAL ISSUE, but one of science!

 

[code1211]

Believe it or not I agree with this guy...People SHOULD question global warming as that's what we do within science. If you can disprove it, GOOD LUCK, but it has been done with many theories throughout history. The question right now is why it's not warming as fast? Well, I believe Aerosols and a low solar cycle is causing the negative forcing that is slowing any warming...Something that Hansen will agree with...Who's to say that's wrong? If you think it's wrong it must be proven with solid science! Not to do so would be unscientific.

.8c may or may not be a big deal when you consider that in 1680--- we were 1.4c colder then today and human life survived. Humanity has survived through -6c colder then today through 100 thousand years of ice age...Yes, area's where we grow our food and build our homes, and lifes will change, but humanity will live on.

There is NO question that we got a lot to learn...We got to learn a hell of a lot about the negative forcers within the system...That is for damn sure.

Due to the abrupt and deep drop of temperaturtes during the Little Ice Age, the rise of temperature during the last 150 or so years is about the same as the rise in temperature over the last 2000 years.

A physicist, I assume, would discount the accuracy of proxy temperature calcualtions and so, I again assume, he would rely on the insturment record only.

The folks who claim to know about this stuff also say that the temperature has a net DROP of about 1 degree over the last 8000 years.

The temperature inside my house varies more during any winter night than the planet has in 2000 years. To me, that sounds like astonishing stability.

 

[code1211]

More Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooops for the k00ks

Shit......it gets better every day. I swear to God.......every day the green k00ks are getting kicked in the balls.

Since Climategate, the escalator has been steadily down..........EPA kicked in the balls........stimulus green company fail kick in the balls..........Gore is now a nobody kick in the balls.........Cap and Trade death kick in the balls............zero climate regulation in two years kick in the balls ( oh....except for light bulbs)........expansion of ice sheets kick in the balls.........hockey stick graph debunk kick in the balls.........Nobel Prize scientists debounks myth of "consenus" kick in the balls........UN admitting going green will cost 71 trillion kick in the balls........John Kerry saying in 2010 that talk of global warming on capitol hill is "radioactive" kick in the balls..........


Oh.........but the deniers are losing!!!!

I hate the political side of it and don't support any regulations at all, but the ice sheets have trended downwards on the means through the past 5 years. Do you understand what a anomaly is? 2007 was one. The volume is down millions of km^2 since 2007 and you think they're recovering...Man the nuclear bomb, man the fucking bomb!!!

The hockey stick has been supported by over half a dozen papers since 1998. Tree rings, boer holes, ocean sediment. ect. The closes thing your side has is something that was made in the early 1990's that is based off of the northern Hemisphere. Well, I will say that it's possible that a large part of the world was warmer then today within the mid evil at times, but basing something out of a few places that made it possible for wine or farming on earth to go against all these data points may not be the best way to go about it...Wouldn't you agree? Consensus don't mean shit within science; one scientist can kick it straight in its balls either way!

How does Ljungqvist's reconstruction compare to others?

"Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.”

"Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

The green line ended in 1980, which is .4c below today. This takes the decade of the 2000's about .1c to .2c above the midevil.

THIS IS NOT A GODDAMN POLITICAL ISSUE, but one of science!

I'm always uncomfortable with using the instrument record in conjunction with the proxy record. The implication is that the instrumentally measured temps of today are no different than the proxy measured temps of the pre-instrument past.

The instrument record is probably more accurate, but the proxy records reveal not just the results but the methodology. Changing the methodology completely will have to change the results entirely also.

To compare apples to apples, current temperatures in this continuum need to be measured using the same methodologies as were used in the past. If the methodology is changed, the ethics of showing the current temperatures measured by instruments on the same chart as the proxies is called into question.

 

[ScienceRocks]

More Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooops for the k00ks

Shit......it gets better every day. I swear to God.......every day the green k00ks are getting kicked in the balls.

Since Climategate, the escalator has been steadily down..........EPA kicked in the balls........stimulus green company fail kick in the balls..........Gore is now a nobody kick in the balls.........Cap and Trade death kick in the balls............zero climate regulation in two years kick in the balls ( oh....except for light bulbs)........expansion of ice sheets kick in the balls.........hockey stick graph debunk kick in the balls.........Nobel Prize scientists debounks myth of "consenus" kick in the balls........UN admitting going green will cost 71 trillion kick in the balls........John Kerry saying in 2010 that talk of global warming on capitol hill is "radioactive" kick in the balls..........


Oh.........but the deniers are losing!!!!

I hate the political side of it and don't support any regulations at all, but the ice sheets have trended downwards on the means through the past 5 years. Do you understand what a anomaly is? 2007 was one. The volume is down millions of km^2 since 2007 and you think they're recovering...Man the nuclear bomb, man the fucking bomb!!!

The hockey stick has been supported by over half a dozen papers since 1998. Tree rings, boer holes, ocean sediment. ect. The closes thing your side has is something that was made in the early 1990's that is based off of the northern Hemisphere. Well, I will say that it's possible that a large part of the world was warmer then today within the mid evil at times, but basing something out of a few places that made it possible for wine or farming on earth to go against all these data points may not be the best way to go about it...Wouldn't you agree? Consensus don't mean shit within science; one scientist can kick it straight in its balls either way!

How does Ljungqvist's reconstruction compare to others?

"Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.”

"Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

The green line ended in 1980, which is .4c below today. This takes the decade of the 2000's about .1c to .2c above the midevil.

THIS IS NOT A GODDAMN POLITICAL ISSUE, but one of science!

I'm always uncomfortable with using the instrument record in conjunction with the proxy record. The implication is that the instrumentally measured temps of today are no different than the proxy measured temps of the pre-instrument past.

The instrument record is probably more accurate, but the proxy records reveal not just the results but the methodology. Changing the methodology completely will have to change the results entirely also.

To compare apples to apples, current temperatures in this continuum need to be measured using the same methodologies as were used in the past. If the methodology is changed, the ethics of showing the current temperatures measured by instruments on the same chart as the proxies is called into question.

I'd love to see the proxies extended to today to compare them outright, but tree rings appear to have a "unnatural" problem, which throws them off. I think we could extend it to today using everything else like boer holes, sediment, ect.

I wish they would do this...

The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes.
The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic.
The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming.
Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm

The thing is every other method doesn't agree with it, so it is something that has changed over the past 50 years,,,Possibly related to warming we're seeing now.

 

[skookerasbil]

More Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooops for the k00ks

Shit......it gets better every day. I swear to God.......every day the green k00ks are getting kicked in the balls.

Since Climategate, the escalator has been steadily down..........EPA kicked in the balls........stimulus green company fail kick in the balls..........Gore is now a nobody kick in the balls.........Cap and Trade death kick in the balls............zero climate regulation in two years kick in the balls ( oh....except for light bulbs)........expansion of ice sheets kick in the balls.........hockey stick graph debunk kick in the balls.........Nobel Prize scientists debounks myth of "consenus" kick in the balls........UN admitting going green will cost 71 trillion kick in the balls........John Kerry saying in 2010 that talk of global warming on capitol hill is "radioactive" kick in the balls..........


Oh.........but the deniers are losing!!!!

I hate the political side of it and don't support any regulations at all, but the ice sheets have trended downwards on the means through the past 5 years. Do you understand what a anomaly is? 2007 was one. The volume is down millions of km^2 since 2007 and you think they're recovering...Man the nuclear bomb, man the fucking bomb!!!

The hockey stick has been supported by over half a dozen papers since 1998. Tree rings, boer holes, ocean sediment. ect. The closes thing your side has is something that was made in the early 1990's that is based off of the northern Hemisphere. Well, I will say that it's possible that a large part of the world was warmer then today within the mid evil at times, but basing something out of a few places that made it possible for wine or farming on earth to go against all these data points may not be the best way to go about it...Wouldn't you agree? Consensus don't mean shit within science; one scientist can kick it straight in its balls either way!

How does Ljungqvist's reconstruction compare to others?

"Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.”

"Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

The green line ended in 1980, which is .4c below today. This takes the decade of the 2000's about .1c to .2c above the midevil.

THIS IS NOT A GODDAMN POLITICAL ISSUE, but one of science!

Thats EXACTLY why I love this forum so much..........the politics is EVERYTHING with all this global warming BS. With the exception of Old Rocks, these other k00ks have no clue. The politics are inextricably tied to the science, like it or not. Up until 2007 or so, they were winning big. Now??????????

Assholes have pushed themselves over the cliff...............

 

[ScienceRocks]

More Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooops for the k00ks

Shit......it gets better every day. I swear to God.......every day the green k00ks are getting kicked in the balls.

Since Climategate, the escalator has been steadily down..........EPA kicked in the balls........stimulus green company fail kick in the balls..........Gore is now a nobody kick in the balls.........Cap and Trade death kick in the balls............zero climate regulation in two years kick in the balls ( oh....except for light bulbs)........expansion of ice sheets kick in the balls.........hockey stick graph debunk kick in the balls.........Nobel Prize scientists debounks myth of "consenus" kick in the balls........UN admitting going green will cost 71 trillion kick in the balls........John Kerry saying in 2010 that talk of global warming on capitol hill is "radioactive" kick in the balls..........


Oh.........but the deniers are losing!!!!

I hate the political side of it and don't support any regulations at all, but the ice sheets have trended downwards on the means through the past 5 years. Do you understand what a anomaly is? 2007 was one. The volume is down millions of km^2 since 2007 and you think they're recovering...Man the nuclear bomb, man the fucking bomb!!!

The hockey stick has been supported by over half a dozen papers since 1998. Tree rings, boer holes, ocean sediment. ect. The closes thing your side has is something that was made in the early 1990's that is based off of the northern Hemisphere. Well, I will say that it's possible that a large part of the world was warmer then today within the mid evil at times, but basing something out of a few places that made it possible for wine or farming on earth to go against all these data points may not be the best way to go about it...Wouldn't you agree? Consensus don't mean shit within science; one scientist can kick it straight in its balls either way!

How does Ljungqvist's reconstruction compare to others?

"Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.”

"Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

The green line ended in 1980, which is .4c below today. This takes the decade of the 2000's about .1c to .2c above the midevil.

THIS IS NOT A GODDAMN POLITICAL ISSUE, but one of science!

Thats EXACTLY why I love this forum so much..........the politics is EVERYTHING with all this global warming BS. With the exception of Old Rocks, these other k00ks have no clue. The politics are inextricably tied to the science, like it or not. Up until 2007 or so, they were winning big. Now??????????

Assholes have pushed themselves over the cliff...............

Not all of us are assholes that went to take your wealth away from you and use the system to inslave humanity under our fist. I'm sure some that believe in global warming sure as hell do...I understand why you're against it, but you can't seriously think that science isn't something that should be looked at with a critical eye at least. I find the science extremely interesting and it's a huge part of humanities knowledge and betterment. For without it we wouldn't have anything besides are fist and maybe a tree to craw up at night.

Not all the data and physical understanding within science is something to look down at. I ask you to learn the basics and learn to think within the science; instead of just straight up downing it. Your smart enough to do it!!! I have faith in you

 

[Old Rocks]

Believe it or not I agree with this guy...People SHOULD question global warming as that's what we do within science. If you can disprove it, GOOD LUCK, but it has been done with many theories throughout history. The question right now is why it's not warming as fast? Well, I believe Aerosols and a low solar cycle is causing the negative forcing that is slowing any warming...Something that Hansen will agree with...Who's to say that's wrong? If you think it's wrong it must be proven with solid science! Not to do so would be unscientific.

.8c may or may not be a big deal when you consider that in 1680--- we were 1.4c colder then today and human life survived. Humanity has survived through -6c colder then today through 100 thousand years of ice age...Yes, area's where we grow our food and build our homes, and lifes will change, but humanity will live on.

There is NO question that we got a lot to learn...We got to learn a hell of a lot about the negative forcers within the system...That is for damn sure.

Due to the abrupt and deep drop of temperaturtes during the Little Ice Age, the rise of temperature during the last 150 or so years is about the same as the rise in temperature over the last 2000 years.

A physicist, I assume, would discount the accuracy of proxy temperature calcualtions and so, I again assume, he would rely on the insturment record only.

The folks who claim to know about this stuff also say that the temperature has a net DROP of about 1 degree over the last 8000 years.

The temperature inside my house varies more during any winter night than the planet has in 2000 years. To me, that sounds like astonishing stability.

Really dumb statements, Code. A physicist would compare the known proxies with an instrumentally measured period, and see if they match. If they do, there is a good chance that the periods when there were no instruments is accurately reflected in the proxies.

What you are trying to do is throw out all the evidence prior to our instrumental records, leaving us with only a few areas covered for more than 200 years. You are doing that because the proxy record says you deniars are full of shit.

 

[IanC]

Matthew- I read SS, do you read Climate Audit?

do you even realize how much of the shape of hockey stick and its derivatives come from a small set of proxies with other proxies just added in to fluff up the numbers? are you unaware of the updates to many of those principal proxy series that go unpublished, unarchived and unused because the new data drastically changes the findings of the older favourites.

I wholeheartedly concur with code when he said you cant append modern temperature data to imprecise proxy data, ESPECIALLY when they used modern temps to infill and smooth the lines

 

[Old Rocks]

Ian, look at your avatar. It is demonstrating a cooling climate, correct?

 

[Oddball]

The wheels are coming off the Goebbels warming express...

 

[IanC]

Ian, look at your avatar. It is demonstrating a cooling climate, correct?

is that what you see?

I see the first section as fairly stable with small variations up and down; than a large, quick upturn in 1998; followed by another decade of fairly stable temps with small variations. the last year or two has been more variable.

how would you describe it?

what I find strange is that many people attribute the large amount of warming that happened in 1998 to all the years that have followed. as if every year starts at the bottom and races up rather than starting at the last years temp and varying from that.

was there an extreme event in 1998? yes, obviously. we should be looking for why that happened rather than just saying 'el nino' and acting like that totally explains it. has it warmed since the 1998 peak? no. has it cooled down to the level it was before 1998? no.

does anyone else besides me think that the 1998 step change is a huge elephant in the livingroom that people just acknowledge is present but dont seem to really care how it got there? many would rather complain about the mouse turds of CO2

 

[skookerasbil]

The wheels are coming off the Goebbels warming express...

There is zero doubt..........and most of the k00ks know it too. Being an environmental nutter these days is akin to being a Chicago Cubs fan......you're losing most every day.

On this forum however, there are some who lurk and possess the political IQ of a handball and cant connect the dots. And is there anything more fun than publically humiliating naive assholes?

 

[California Girl]

The wheels are coming off the Goebbels warming express...

Why do you hate Algore? Do you want him to lose his job? You're mean.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why do you attribute all the information on AGW to Al Gore, CG? Have you failed to research the background information on the subject?

From Fourier in the 1820's to today, there has been a vast amount of research in the study of how GHGs affect the climate. Done by scientists from many nations and political systems. Almost all have come to the conclusion that adding GHGs to the atmosphere is leading to a warming earth, and a changing climate. Politisizing that is not only stupid, it will lead to the people that politisized it being looked on as dangerous to society as the chickens come home to roost.

 

[code1211]

Believe it or not I agree with this guy...People SHOULD question global warming as that's what we do within science. If you can disprove it, GOOD LUCK, but it has been done with many theories throughout history. The question right now is why it's not warming as fast? Well, I believe Aerosols and a low solar cycle is causing the negative forcing that is slowing any warming...Something that Hansen will agree with...Who's to say that's wrong? If you think it's wrong it must be proven with solid science! Not to do so would be unscientific.

.8c may or may not be a big deal when you consider that in 1680--- we were 1.4c colder then today and human life survived. Humanity has survived through -6c colder then today through 100 thousand years of ice age...Yes, area's where we grow our food and build our homes, and lifes will change, but humanity will live on.

There is NO question that we got a lot to learn...We got to learn a hell of a lot about the negative forcers within the system...That is for damn sure.

Due to the abrupt and deep drop of temperaturtes during the Little Ice Age, the rise of temperature during the last 150 or so years is about the same as the rise in temperature over the last 2000 years.

A physicist, I assume, would discount the accuracy of proxy temperature calcualtions and so, I again assume, he would rely on the insturment record only.

The folks who claim to know about this stuff also say that the temperature has a net DROP of about 1 degree over the last 8000 years.

The temperature inside my house varies more during any winter night than the planet has in 2000 years. To me, that sounds like astonishing stability.

Really dumb statements, Code. A physicist would compare the known proxies with an instrumentally measured period, and see if they match. If they do, there is a good chance that the periods when there were no instruments is accurately reflected in the proxies.

What you are trying to do is throw out all the evidence prior to our instrumental records, leaving us with only a few areas covered for more than 200 years. You are doing that because the proxy record says you deniars are full of shit.

The temperature variences I cited are from proxy records. It is the physicist who has completely ignored them. You say that a physicist would compare the two and yet, he does not. Are we missing any points?

The physicist in the OP's post cites only the period covered by the insturment readings. Again, are we missing any points?

The physicist has significant problems with your thesis of AGW. That is the major point of this thread. So, while trying not to put too fine a point on this, are we missing any points?

The proxy record says exactly what I claim it says. It is only by ignoring the proxy record that you can maintain the illusion of your conclusion.

You seem to be saying that the physicist is doing something that is "really dumb" and yet he is a scientist. How can this be?

 

[code1211]

Ian, look at your avatar. It is demonstrating a cooling climate, correct?

is that what you see?

I see the first section as fairly stable with small variations up and down; than a large, quick upturn in 1998; followed by another decade of fairly stable temps with small variations. the last year or two has been more variable.

how would you describe it?

what I find strange is that many people attribute the large amount of warming that happened in 1998 to all the years that have followed. as if every year starts at the bottom and races up rather than starting at the last years temp and varying from that.

was there an extreme event in 1998? yes, obviously. we should be looking for why that happened rather than just saying 'el nino' and acting like that totally explains it. has it warmed since the 1998 peak? no. has it cooled down to the level it was before 1998? no.

does anyone else besides me think that the 1998 step change is a huge elephant in the livingroom that people just acknowledge is present but dont seem to really care how it got there? many would rather complain about the mouse turds of CO2

As a casual, untrained obaserver of this science, I find it interesting that Global Climate has been rising for about 3000 to 5000 with a fairly dramatic plunge in the Little ice Age and frequent pops up and down throughout.

The fairly steady rise before and after the LIA seems to indicate that there was/is an overarching influence that was/is causing warming.

The drop off in the LIA seems to indicate that there was an anomalous cause for the cooling that moderated lately allowing the warming to continue as the climate returned to the point it would have warmed to without the cool off of the LIA.

If the trend of warming had not been interupted by the LIA and had continued unabated throughout, we would be at just about the climate average we currently enjoy.

The question should not be what caused the recent warming, but rather, what interupted the warming of the 5000 years to date during the LIA.

 

[code1211]

Why do you attribute all the information on AGW to Al Gore, CG? Have you failed to research the background information on the subject?

From Fourier in the 1820's to today, there has been a vast amount of research in the study of how GHGs affect the climate. Done by scientists from many nations and political systems. Almost all have come to the conclusion that adding GHGs to the atmosphere is leading to a warming earth, and a changing climate. Politisizing that is not only stupid, it will lead to the people that politisized it being looked on as dangerous to society as the chickens come home to roost.

From a completely apolitical viewpoint, how's that Argo Array thingy working out to support the notion of warming oceans?