Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

[ScienceRocks]

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.

wtf? Between 7-15 thousand years ago the earth raise out of the ice age...The HCO from 7-4 thousand years was a good 1-2c warmer then today followed with ups and down throughout the past 3 thousand years. So since then we have been slowly sloping downwards in global temperature. The clear up and down cycles honestly started when we started going downwards around 3.5 thousand years ago...As the HCO mostly had stable warm climate for that 3 thousand years. The little ice age is the LARGEST of the cool periods since the younger dyas. Why did it happen? Lets just say it had a half dozen grand minimums came together to drag the temperature of the earth downwards.

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

of course there was influences on the climate that caused the cycle. That CYCLE IS THE SOLAR CYCLES that become clear after the HCO. IN YET YOU PEOPLE WONDER WHY THE TEMPERATURES HAVEN"T WARMED AS FAST IN THE PAST 5 years? LOL

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.

well, looking at the solar tsi tells me that the sun increased its solar output, which dragged us out of the little ice age, but that reached its peak in 1955. Since then we have been slowly going downwards. I seriously fucking doubt with solar forcing alone that we would be where we're today...In fact we would be about in the 1920s right now.

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.

Solar cycles grand minimums pieced together within the largest solar down turn of the past 9 thousand years, ring any bells?

 

[ScienceRocks]

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?

Figure 1 -Revised estimate of global ocean heat content (10-1500 mtrs deep) for 2005-2010 derived from Argo measurements. The 6-yr trend accounts for 0.55±0.10Wm−2. Error bars and trend uncertainties exclude errors induced by remaining systematic errors in the global observing system. See Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011)

Argo I believe can't really be used before 2003-2004 time span.

 

[Ragnar]

Treacher nails the politics of the debate with the usual LOLs.

Nobel Prize winner seems to think his Nobel Prize counts more than Al Gore’s Nobel Prize | The Daily Caller

Whoa! There’s no need to get snippy there, Mr. Brainybrain. You think you’re so smart, with your protoids and multiwhoozits, but we’re talking about the weather here. You know? Science.

Okay, let’s look at this reasonably and dispassionately:

1. The science is settled, and all the scientists agree about the existence and causes of the problem.
2. “Doctor” Ivar Giaever disagrees.
3. Therefore, Ivar Giaever is not a scientist.

BAM!! And that, my dear teabaggers, is a little something we call logic. You might wanna try it sometime. Thanks for playing.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Treacher nails the politics of the debate with the usual LOLs.

Nobel Prize winner seems to think his Nobel Prize counts more than Al Gore’s Nobel Prize | The Daily Caller

Whoa! There’s no need to get snippy there, Mr. Brainybrain. You think you’re so smart, with your protoids and multiwhoozits, but we’re talking about the weather here. You know? Science.

Okay, let’s look at this reasonably and dispassionately:

1. The science is settled, and all the scientists agree about the existence and causes of the problem.
2. “Doctor” Ivar Giaever disagrees.
3. Therefore, Ivar Giaever is not a scientist.

BAM!! And that, my dear teabaggers, is a little something we call logic. You might wanna try it sometime. Thanks for playing.

My god people---I believe global warming is NOT settled and there is a shit load of debate and research to be had. All this talk of settled IS a disserve to the solid science that has been done within this science. THIS guy has every right to think that there SHOULD BE Debate, but what is HIS THEORY FOR the warming we're observing? Seriously???

Can the theory stand up to his peers? We know for a fact that tsi has been falling for the past 50 years...SO IT IS NOT THE SUN....SO IF NOT THE SUN, WHAT IS IT?

I agree as we can debate the proton. That we SURE AS FUCKING HELL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEBATE GLOBAL WARMING, BUT CAN a scientist with REAL science refute it? That is what is important! Everything else is just cream on top of the cake! This is how science works...

It is insanity to shut anyone out of the process...A theory needs to hold up to the data, but until someone can step forward with a new theory to explain variable z. Z=warming since 1980...It hasn't been disproven...YOU CAN SCREAM AND YELL ALL YOU WISH, but that charges nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

The Hockey Stick is a proven fraud. The National Academy of sciences admitted it is a fraud. Anyone using the Hockey Stick to support AGW is a con artist or an idiot.

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!

 

[Ragnar]

Treacher nails the politics of the debate with the usual LOLs.

Nobel Prize winner seems to think his Nobel Prize counts more than Al Gore’s Nobel Prize | The Daily Caller

Whoa! There’s no need to get snippy there, Mr. Brainybrain. You think you’re so smart, with your protoids and multiwhoozits, but we’re talking about the weather here. You know? Science.

Okay, let’s look at this reasonably and dispassionately:

1. The science is settled, and all the scientists agree about the existence and causes of the problem.
2. “Doctor” Ivar Giaever disagrees.
3. Therefore, Ivar Giaever is not a scientist.

BAM!! And that, my dear teabaggers, is a little something we call logic. You might wanna try it sometime. Thanks for playing.

My god people---I believe global warming is NOT settled and there is a shit load of debate and research to be had. All this talk of settled IS a disserve to the solid science that has been done within this science. THIS guy has every right to think that there SHOULD BE Debate, but what is HIS THEORY FOR the warming we're observing? Seriously???

Can the theory stand up to his peers? We know for a fact that tsi has been falling for the past 50 years...SO IT IS NOT THE SUN....SO IF NOT THE SUN, WHAT IS IT?

I agree as we can debate the proton. That we SURE AS FUCKING HELL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEBATE GLOBAL WARMING, BUT CAN a scientist with REAL science refute it? That is what is important! Everything else is just cream on top of the cake! This is how science works...

It is insanity to shut anyone out of the process...A theory needs to hold up to the data, but until someone can step forward with a new theory to explain variable z. Z=warming since 1980...It hasn't been disproven...YOU CAN SCREAM AND YELL ALL YOU WISH, but that charges nothing.

That was just a parody of the politics behind the scientific debate. Specifically the politics behind the eco-chondriacs and the warm mongers. (yeah the other side plays the same game)

As for myself, I don't deny climate warming or the possibility that the actions of mankind could conceivably contribute to it. In short I'm not a "climate change denier". I am however a denier of man made catastrophic global warming theory.

My understanding of the specific issue at hand is that Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned over the politics of the issue, not the science and I applaud him for taking a principled and unpopular stand.

 

[Trajan]

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

I guess hes not part of that 98% that believe in GW

 

[Old Rocks]

It is so strange that so many are instantly offended when it is pointed out that the vast majority of scientists accept AGW as the reason for the melting of the worlds ice, yet when we question the logic of just one scientist that shares their point of view, they are instantly up in arms.

Simple truth, over a term of a decade or two, there are just two important factors in whether the earth warms or cools. One is the sun. It determines how much heat that we get. The other is the GHGs in the atmosphere, that determines how much heat we retain.

If the sun has a declining TSI over a period of more than 50 years, but the earth is warming, then the atmosphere is retaining more heat. As Fourier pointed out in the 1820s, without something in the atmosphere retaining heat, the oceans would be frozen almost to the equator. Since we have put in about 40% more CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 150 years, it stands to reason that the effect we are seeing is from that addition to the atmosphere.

From the P-T extinction to the Ordivician glaciation, we see in geological history what a rapid increase or decrease in GHGs can mean in terms of global temperatures.

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

 

[Trajan]

It is so strange that so many are instantly offended when it is pointed out that the vast majority of scientists accept AGW as the reason for the melting of the worlds ice, yet when we question the logic of just one scientist that shares their point of view, they are instantly up in arms.

Simple truth, over a term of a decade or two, there are just two important factors in whether the earth warms or cools. One is the sun. It determines how much heat that we get. The other is the GHGs in the atmosphere, that determines how much heat we retain.

If the sun has a declining TSI over a period of more than 50 years, but the earth is warming, then the atmosphere is retaining more heat. As Fourier pointed out in the 1820s, without something in the atmosphere retaining heat, the oceans would be frozen almost to the equator. Since we have put in about 40% more CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 150 years, it stands to reason that the effect we are seeing is from that addition to the atmosphere.

From the P-T extinction to the Ordivician glaciation, we see in geological history what a rapid increase or decrease in GHGs can mean in terms of global temperatures.

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

so its not 98%?

 

[Old Rocks]

The Hockey Stick is a proven fraud. The National Academy of sciences admitted it is a fraud. Anyone using the Hockey Stick to support AGW is a con artist or an idiot.

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!

Hey Pattycake, you are a damned liar. The PNAS report supported Mann's diagram. What they said was they disagreed with the type of statistical analysis he used. However, using their own, they came up with the same numbers. In more than a dozen studies since then, Mann's Hockey stick has been vindicated repeatedly.

Is the hockey stick broken?

Hockey stick is broken
"In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the hockey stick and debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from 'collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects', substantially affecting the temperature index." (John McLaughlin)

What the science says...
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is so strange that so many are instantly offended when it is pointed out that the vast majority of scientists accept AGW as the reason for the melting of the worlds ice, yet when we question the logic of just one scientist that shares their point of view, they are instantly up in arms.

Simple truth, over a term of a decade or two, there are just two important factors in whether the earth warms or cools. One is the sun. It determines how much heat that we get. The other is the GHGs in the atmosphere, that determines how much heat we retain.

If the sun has a declining TSI over a period of more than 50 years, but the earth is warming, then the atmosphere is retaining more heat. As Fourier pointed out in the 1820s, without something in the atmosphere retaining heat, the oceans would be frozen almost to the equator. Since we have put in about 40% more CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 150 years, it stands to reason that the effect we are seeing is from that addition to the atmosphere.

From the P-T extinction to the Ordivician glaciation, we see in geological history what a rapid increase or decrease in GHGs can mean in terms of global temperatures.

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

so its not 98%?

Damn, you got me on that, Trajan. It is only 97% of climatologists.

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN

The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role

 

[ScienceRocks]

The Hockey Stick is a proven fraud. The National Academy of sciences admitted it is a fraud. Anyone using the Hockey Stick to support AGW is a con artist or an idiot.

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!

Well, that chart did have half a dozen of the studies of the past decade backing it...So if you're going to say that the proxies are trash...Then what is your method of knowing the climate of the overall earth of the past 10,000 years or even 500 years? Sure, you can point out wine tax list throughout europe and show that there was farms in greenland throughout the midevil....You can even show us paintings of ice on rivers that never froze over today and historic written record throughout europe, but THAT IS NOT THE WORLD. It would be like saying that a dozen winters that were -AO induced within the Briton brought a decade of record cold weather and some how saying that was the norm for the WHOLE WORLD.

So you can't point out historical record or paintings to tell the global scale...Temperature measuring devises weren't even developed intill the 17th-18th century.

If you have a study that uses proxies that you can get behind then PLEASE post it, but remember it must be peer reviewed as these blogs screw with the data.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, that chart did have half a dozen of the studies of the past decade backing it...So if you're going to say that the proxies are trash...Then what is your method of knowing the climate of the overall earth of the past 10,000 years or even 500 years? Sure, you can point out wine tax list throughout europe and show that there was farms in greenland throughout the midevil....You can even show us paintings of ice on rivers that never froze over today and historic written record throughout europe, but THAT IS NOT THE WORLD. It would be like saying that a dozen winters that were -AO induced within the Briton brought a decade of record cold weather and some how saying that was the norm for the WHOLE WORLD.

So you can't point out historical record or paintings to tell the global scale...Temperature measuring devises weren't even developed intill the 17th-18th century.

If you have a study that uses proxies that you can get behind then PLEASE post it, but remember it must be peer reviewed as these blogs screw with the data.

It really doesn't matter whether I can produce any evidence that contradicts the Hockey Stick or not. the indisputable fact is that the Hockey Stick is a fraud. It's not a reflection of reality. the statistical methods used to produce it would result in a Hockey Stick no matter what data was fed into them.

You don't get to claim your bogus graph is valid because I don't have a better one.

However, there is plenty of evidence that the global climate was warmer during the Medieval period.

 

[bripat9643]

Hey Pattycake, you are a damned liar. The PNAS report supported Mann's diagram. What they said was they disagreed with the type of statistical analysis he used.

that's like saying that the FBI disagree with John Dillinger's preferred method of making a withdrawal from a bank. they said his method was bogus. End of Story.

However, using their own, they came up with the same numbers. In more than a dozen studies since then, Mann's Hockey stick has been vindicated repeatedly.

Horseshit. They did no such thing.

Is the hockey stick broken?

Hockey stick is broken
"In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the hockey stick and debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from 'collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects', substantially affecting the temperature index." (John McLaughlin)

What the science says...
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

Wrong. The fact that a dozen other con artists used the same bogus methods as Mann and came up with the same bogus result proves nothing. McIntyre has done an excruciating analysis on all climate studies producing a hockey stick and published his results on his website.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How do you know McIntyre is right? Seriously!

 

[wirebender]

The hockey stick has been supported by over half a dozen papers since 1998.

Half a dozen? Wow. Here is a recently published study that looks at 60 published studies since 1998 covering points around the globe that don't agree with it and comes to the conclusion that both the Roman and Medieval warming periods were both global, and considerably warmer than the present.

http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Lunqvistgeografie.pdf

Face it Matthew, it's a hoax. CAGW has always been a politically motivated hoax and it will always be a politically motivated hoax.

 

[code1211]

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.

wtf? Between 7-15 thousand years ago the earth raise out of the ice age...The HCO from 7-4 thousand years was a good 1-2c warmer then today followed with ups and down throughout the past 3 thousand years. So since then we have been slowly sloping downwards in global temperature. The clear up and down cycles honestly started when we started going downwards around 3.5 thousand years ago...As the HCO mostly had stable warm climate for that 3 thousand years. The little ice age is the LARGEST of the cool periods since the younger dyas. Why did it happen? Lets just say it had a half dozen grand minimums came together to drag the temperature of the earth downwards. of course there was influences on the climate that caused the cycle. That CYCLE IS THE SOLAR CYCLES that become clear after the HCO. IN YET YOU PEOPLE WONDER WHY THE TEMPERATURES HAVEN"T WARMED AS FAST IN THE PAST 5 years? LOL

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.

well, looking at the solar tsi tells me that the sun increased its solar output, which dragged us out of the little ice age, but that reached its peak in 1955. Since then we have been slowly going downwards. I seriously fucking doubt with solar forcing alone that we would be where we're today...In fact we would be about in the 1920s right now.

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.

Solar cycles grand minimums pieced together within the largest solar down turn of the past 9 thousand years, ring any bells?

Sorting through the profanity makes understanding your rant a tad more difficult, but I stuck with it. Do you ever wonder if a young child might wander into this site and learn a new word?

It seems that you're citing the TSI as the main reason we emerged from the LIA. Is that true? I happen to agree with you if that is true.

If so, that seems to undermine the belief about the AGW. Is that true? Again, since the beginning of the warming pre-dates the Industrial Revolution and the CO2 emission from increased coal burning that accompanied it, I agree with that, too.

As an aside, the TSI has risen precipitously since the LIA and has recently declined ever so slightly. We are riding a plateau of TSI to which it rose across the last 300 plus years.

Once the burner is turned up, whether it's increased again or not, it will continue to give off heat.

Regarding temperature variations within the Halocene, The proxy record seems to reflect what we both said. Please check the link below. It's obvious that the climate of today is not as hot as the climate during this interglacial at its max without the influences of Man.

I mis-stated what I have read in that I stated that we've been warming for 3 to 5 thousand years and what I meant was that we have warmed to the point that we were at 3 to 5 thousand years ago. The warming trend that we currently enjoy is only about 2000 years old.

You seem to be in general agreement with me on the facts, but are in passionate disagreement with me on some other plain.

Is it your general belief that the climate responds to natural influences and changes within a range dictated by those influences or that Mankind is driving the change of climate and needs to change his behaviors and that will control nature?

I'm not picking up your general direction.



File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art

 

[skookerasbil]

The hockey stick has been supported by over half a dozen papers since 1998.

Half a dozen? Wow. Here is a recently published study that looks at 60 published studies since 1998 covering points around the globe that don't agree with it and comes to the conclusion that both the Roman and Medieval warming periods were both global, and considerably warmer than the present.

http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Lunqvistgeografie.pdf

Face it Matthew, it's a hoax. CAGW has always been a politically motivated hoax and it will always be a politically motivated hoax.

wire.......dont worry about Matthew. He's getting there. Slowly, he's going to be completely converted to the dark side once he's connected a few more dots. This green energy/stimulus scam stuff might just do the trick too. Its becomming clear to many that the oil bigs are not the only people doing the big time profiteering when it comes to energy. Some shrewd people saw this opportunity about 2 decades ago and are now sitting pretty at the expense of the hoplessly duped who see a green economy as more than the utter fantasy it is. Those opportunists are laughing their balls off about now!!!

 

[code1211]

Treacher nails the politics of the debate with the usual LOLs.

Nobel Prize winner seems to think his Nobel Prize counts more than Al Gore’s Nobel Prize | The Daily Caller

Whoa! There’s no need to get snippy there, Mr. Brainybrain. You think you’re so smart, with your protoids and multiwhoozits, but we’re talking about the weather here. You know? Science.

Okay, let’s look at this reasonably and dispassionately:

1. The science is settled, and all the scientists agree about the existence and causes of the problem.
2. “Doctor” Ivar Giaever disagrees.
3. Therefore, Ivar Giaever is not a scientist.

BAM!! And that, my dear teabaggers, is a little something we call logic. You might wanna try it sometime. Thanks for playing.

My god people---I believe global warming is NOT settled and there is a shit load of debate and research to be had. All this talk of settled IS a disserve to the solid science that has been done within this science. THIS guy has every right to think that there SHOULD BE Debate, but what is HIS THEORY FOR the warming we're observing? Seriously???

Can the theory stand up to his peers? We know for a fact that tsi has been falling for the past 50 years...SO IT IS NOT THE SUN....SO IF NOT THE SUN, WHAT IS IT?

I agree as we can debate the proton. That we SURE AS FUCKING HELL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEBATE GLOBAL WARMING, BUT CAN a scientist with REAL science refute it? That is what is important! Everything else is just cream on top of the cake! This is how science works...

It is insanity to shut anyone out of the process...A theory needs to hold up to the data, but until someone can step forward with a new theory to explain variable z. Z=warming since 1980...It hasn't been disproven...YOU CAN SCREAM AND YELL ALL YOU WISH, but that charges nothing.

Is the warming since 1980 separate and different from the warming since 0?

Why is it incumbant on those who dissent to prove that something that has not been proven is not proven?

 

[Trajan]

It is so strange that so many are instantly offended when it is pointed out that the vast majority of scientists accept AGW as the reason for the melting of the worlds ice, yet when we question the logic of just one scientist that shares their point of view, they are instantly up in arms.

Simple truth, over a term of a decade or two, there are just two important factors in whether the earth warms or cools. One is the sun. It determines how much heat that we get. The other is the GHGs in the atmosphere, that determines how much heat we retain.

If the sun has a declining TSI over a period of more than 50 years, but the earth is warming, then the atmosphere is retaining more heat. As Fourier pointed out in the 1820s, without something in the atmosphere retaining heat, the oceans would be frozen almost to the equator. Since we have put in about 40% more CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 150 years, it stands to reason that the effect we are seeing is from that addition to the atmosphere.

From the P-T extinction to the Ordivician glaciation, we see in geological history what a rapid increase or decrease in GHGs can mean in terms of global temperatures.

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

so its not 98%?

Damn, you got me on that, Trajan. It is only 97% of climatologists.

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN

The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role

do I really need to point out the obvious?

climatologists who are active in climate research

of those who chose to participate in the survey....right?