Not just temperture

[Oddball]

What case? That I am a scientist and have worked in it for over 20 years, of which over ten years are doing basic research in science?

Or my case that the state of the science does not support any definitive claim about the significance and magnitude of anthropogenic CO2 on climate change?

You are out of your league.

Really?

I can claim to be Napoleon on the net.

If you are a scientist, then present good scientific evidence that the significance and magnitude of the CO2 does not represent a threat.

...

As a scientist (or even anyone with an ounce of ability to apply critical thought), I know that I cannot prove a negative. I would wonder why you would ask, but as I've already stated, you are out of your league.

I keep saying that even the most rudimentary logic escapes him, then he turns around and proves it yet again!

 

[Charles Stucker]

I can claim to be Napoleon on the net.

You have claimed to know more science than I, but when challenged to back that claim called the challenge a 'red herring'

 

[Screaming Eagle]

First they stop calling it global warming after the globe stopped warming and started to cool, now they are trying to get away from temperature altogether! How desperate! Really clutching at straws now!

 

[ABikerSailor]

The stupidest thing I've seen this week was FAUX Noise telling everyone (as well as some GOP assholes that I've seen interviews for), that global warming couldn't be happening because there was snow in DC and therefore, evidence that global warming doesn't exist.

I wonder...........did they bother to notice that where the Winter Olympics are happening (Vancouver Canada), they are having to truck in snow by dump truck and helo?

Now, if you don't notice something off kilter here, you may wish to look again. Snow in places where it's not supposed to be and NO SNOW where it's supposed to be!

Either way you look at it, global Climate Change is happening.

 

[Oddball]

Everything is the result of gullible warming!

A complete list of things caused by global warming

 

[driveby]

The stupidest thing I've seen this week was FAUX Noise telling everyone (as well as some GOP assholes that I've seen interviews for), that global warming couldn't be happening because there was snow in DC and therefore, evidence that global warming doesn't exist.

I wonder...........did they bother to notice that where the Winter Olympics are happening (Vancouver Canada), they are having to truck in snow by dump truck and helo?

Now, if you don't notice something off kilter here, you may wish to look again. Snow in places where it's not supposed to be and NO SNOW where it's supposed to be!

Either way you look at it, global Climate Change is happening.

Ok, but Mother Nature > Man Made.....

 

[skookerasbil]

Ocean acidification

Ocean acidification
Scientists are becoming increasingly worried about ocean acidification, a direct result of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. On 30 June 2005, the Royal Society of London published a Report on why this is important:

carbon dioxide from the atmosphere dissolves in the ocean, and makes it acid.
This is inevitable with high carbon dioxide, no fancy models are involved.
The oceans are already 30% more acid that before fossil fuel burning started
Acidification will kill corals, and probably make many other species (like squid) extinct
The overall effects are unknown - there has been no period like this in the last 2 Million years
The UK Royal Society has commented that �the effects of ocean acidifcation have potentially catastrophic consequences for marine life� .

There is an equilibrium between atmospheric CO2 and the CO2 dissolved in seawater: as atmospheric levels increase, so do the levels of CO2 dissolved in the ocean waters, especially in the surface waters where most ocean life flourishes. The dissolved CO2 reacts with the seawater to form carbonic acid (H2CO3), increasing the water acidify (i.e. reducing pH). The exact results of this are unknown, but are potentially disasterous as common marine organisms, such as the fishes we use as food, may be unable to survive.


It is important to note that the issue of seawater acidification is not related to global warming - there is no dispute about the reality of ocean acidification, only about the consequences.



Researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory published a paper in the science journal Nature, suggesting that continued increases in atmospheric CO2 could alter ocean pH values - an effect greater than any experienced in the past 300 million years (Caldeira, K. & Wickett, M.E., 2003, Nature, v. 425. p. 365).

s0n...........hate to break it to ya but, in terms of CO2 levels and all this other bogus science.....................



nobody cares anymore s0n!!!!!!!!




America now views this for what its always been..............a government power grab for the purpose of redistributing wealth!!!!!!


Thats ALWYAS what this has been about.............it has NOTHING to do with science you fcukking dummy!!!!

 

[ABikerSailor]

Ocean acidification

Ocean acidification
Scientists are becoming increasingly worried about ocean acidification, a direct result of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. On 30 June 2005, the Royal Society of London published a Report on why this is important:

carbon dioxide from the atmosphere dissolves in the ocean, and makes it acid.
This is inevitable with high carbon dioxide, no fancy models are involved.
The oceans are already 30% more acid that before fossil fuel burning started
Acidification will kill corals, and probably make many other species (like squid) extinct
The overall effects are unknown - there has been no period like this in the last 2 Million years
The UK Royal Society has commented that �the effects of ocean acidifcation have potentially catastrophic consequences for marine life� .

There is an equilibrium between atmospheric CO2 and the CO2 dissolved in seawater: as atmospheric levels increase, so do the levels of CO2 dissolved in the ocean waters, especially in the surface waters where most ocean life flourishes. The dissolved CO2 reacts with the seawater to form carbonic acid (H2CO3), increasing the water acidify (i.e. reducing pH). The exact results of this are unknown, but are potentially disasterous as common marine organisms, such as the fishes we use as food, may be unable to survive.


It is important to note that the issue of seawater acidification is not related to global warming - there is no dispute about the reality of ocean acidification, only about the consequences.



Researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory published a paper in the science journal Nature, suggesting that continued increases in atmospheric CO2 could alter ocean pH values - an effect greater than any experienced in the past 300 million years (Caldeira, K. & Wickett, M.E., 2003, Nature, v. 425. p. 365).

s0n...........hate to break it to ya but, in terms of CO2 levels and all this other bogus science.....................



nobody cares anymore s0n!!!!!!!!




America now views this for what its always been..............a government power grab for the purpose of redistributing wealth!!!!!!


Thats ALWYAS what this has been about.............it has NOTHING to do with science you fcukking dummy!!!!

Hey........Sloppy the Ass Gerbil..........nothing to do with science?

NASA, NWS, and a few others would beg to differ with you, and these people have actual degrees, of which I doubt you do.

The only ones that are saying that climate change isn't happening are the ones who pay off the government to pass laws, so that they can turn more profit.

In other words, greedy fuckers.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dumb. The volume of the ice has declined in 2007, 2008, and 2009. It will decline further in 2010. Care to predict the opposite?

2009 had more ice than 2008 and the only way you, or the warmers can make it look like less it to compare the ice in 2009 to 2006 or earlier.

The ice in 2008 and 2009 was more spread out than the ice in 2007, but there was less volume.


http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0707-arctic.html

Even in years when the overall extent of sea ice remains stable or grows slightly, the thickness and volume of the ice cover is continuing to decline, making the ice more vulnerable to continued shrinkage," said Ron Kwok, the senior research scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion laboratory who led the study, which is published today in Geophysical Research-Oceans.

Here's some news - take a full ice cube tray out of the freezer, let it warm to room temperature, put the tray back in, wait one minute and look at the tray. What do you know - there is less ice than before you took the tray from the freezer in the first place. By your logic that would be proof the freezer is no longer working. A scientist would dismiss your claim.

Your "falsification" is an unworkable criteria - ten years of more ice and spend heavily the whole time before the theory has been proven. That's a recipe for handing the keys to the con artists. No thanks. Finish the falsification test first, then, after the ten years YOU specified, push for economic sanctions.

No need to worry, sheeple like yourself wil be lead by the nose, and your willful ignorance, and, more than likely, nothing will be done for 20 or 30 years.

 

[Old Rocks]

The stupidest thing I've seen this week was FAUX Noise telling everyone (as well as some GOP assholes that I've seen interviews for), that global warming couldn't be happening because there was snow in DC and therefore, evidence that global warming doesn't exist.

I wonder...........did they bother to notice that where the Winter Olympics are happening (Vancouver Canada), they are having to truck in snow by dump truck and helo?

Now, if you don't notice something off kilter here, you may wish to look again. Snow in places where it's not supposed to be and NO SNOW where it's supposed to be!

Either way you look at it, global Climate Change is happening.

Ok, but Mother Nature > Man Made.....

Your proof of which is? Were are discussing a subject that much has been written about by real scientists. Perhaps you would care to point out the ratio of articles in real science journals, those that state AGW is false compared to those that state AGW is real.

 

[del]

Dumb. The volume of the ice has declined in 2007, 2008, and 2009. It will decline further in 2010. Care to predict the opposite?

2009 had more ice than 2008 and the only way you, or the warmers can make it look like less it to compare the ice in 2009 to 2006 or earlier.

The ice in 2008 and 2009 was more spread out than the ice in 2007, but there was less volume.


http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0707-arctic.html

Even in years when the overall extent of sea ice remains stable or grows slightly, the thickness and volume of the ice cover is continuing to decline, making the ice more vulnerable to continued shrinkage," said Ron Kwok, the senior research scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion laboratory who led the study, which is published today in Geophysical Research-Oceans.

Here's some news - take a full ice cube tray out of the freezer, let it warm to room temperature, put the tray back in, wait one minute and look at the tray. What do you know - there is less ice than before you took the tray from the freezer in the first place. By your logic that would be proof the freezer is no longer working. A scientist would dismiss your claim.

Your "falsification" is an unworkable criteria - ten years of more ice and spend heavily the whole time before the theory has been proven. That's a recipe for handing the keys to the con artists. No thanks. Finish the falsification test first, then, after the ten years YOU specified, push for economic sanctions.

No need to worry, sheeple like yourself wil be lead by the nose, and your willful ignorance, and, more than likely, nothing will be done for 20 or 30 years.

did you really say sheeple?

are you going to start droning on about thermite and wtc7 now?

jeebus.

 

[Old Rocks]

Not hardly. Steel does not have to be heated even to red hot before losing a significant amount of it's strength. Given the structural damage, the fact that the towers stood as long as they did was a credit to the design.

As for my use of the term, it is apt for those that dismiss scientific consensus on the ongoing warming.

 

[skookerasbil]

so let me get this straight....................

in 2005, the k00ks were screaming from the mountaintops about the lack of snow being a direct symptom of global warming...................


now, in 2010, mega-snowstorms are a direct symptom of global warming!!!!



Can you see now why most of America now views these k00ks as hysterical assholes, whose life is hell bent on embracing ANYTHING hysterical!!!!


As Ive said, and if you look closely at the posts of the k00ks, you will see an undertone of anti-capitalist sentiment. Make no mistake...........all of these global warming hysterics have one thing in common: they are fcukking miserable and the common theme is an obsession with redistribution of wealth. THAT is what this global warming hoax has been about for the past 12 or 13 years.

Toto has finally finished pulling the curtain back on these phonies................

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Stuperbil, all the scientific societies, all the national academies of science, and all the major universities are 'kooks' according to you.

Perhaps you have a problem with projection?

 

[skookerasbil]

Well, Stuperbil, all the scientific societies, all the national academies of science, and all the major universities are 'kooks' according to you.

Perhaps you have a problem with projection?

the operative fAiL term in your post is "all" s0n!!!!!!


and now everybody knows that its not about "science" at all............just other special interest groups that figured about about 20 years ago that they could take a highly unpredictable dynamic like climate and make it "predictable" by cherry picking temperature readings!!!!


not so many sheep anymore s0n!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

here's a good read on the global warming "fudge factor".......................

Lies, Damned Lies, and Embarrassed Global-Warming Liberals - Scragged

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well, Stuperbil, all the scientific societies, all the national academies of science, and all the major universities are 'kooks' according to you.

Perhaps you have a problem with projection?

the operative fAiL term in your post is "all" s0n!!!!!!


and now everybody knows that its not about "science" at all............just other special interest groups that figured about about 20 years ago that they could take a highly unpredictable dynamic like climate and make it "predictable" by cherry picking temperature readings!!!!


not so many sheep anymore s0n!!!!!

Hey.....Scooter the Ass Gerbil, not science?

WTF? What about NASA, TWS, as well as the scientists? Only dumb fuckers such as yourself state that there is no such thing.

By the way, still waiting for your reasoning as to why Vancouver is having it's WARMEST WINTER IN YEARS!

Know why that Georgian luge rider died? The track was too fast because of the ice melting, which caused him to lose control and slam into a metal pole.

He died on impact, but then again, going from 90 to nothing in less than a second is kinda hard on the body.

You know..........pull your furry little butt outta peoples asses once in a while......oxygen is designed to help you think clearly, and obviously, you ain't.

 

[Annie]

The stupidest thing I've seen this week was FAUX Noise telling everyone (as well as some GOP assholes that I've seen interviews for), that global warming couldn't be happening because there was snow in DC and therefore, evidence that global warming doesn't exist.

I wonder...........did they bother to notice that where the Winter Olympics are happening (Vancouver Canada), they are having to truck in snow by dump truck and helo?

Now, if you don't notice something off kilter here, you may wish to look again. Snow in places where it's not supposed to be and NO SNOW where it's supposed to be!

Either way you look at it, global Climate Change is happening.

Ok, but Mother Nature > Man Made.....

Your proof of which is? Were are discussing a subject that much has been written about by real scientists. Perhaps you would care to point out the ratio of articles in real science journals, those that state AGW is false compared to those that state AGW is real.

Real scientists? Like Phil Jones? Here's part, (all can be found at BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones ) of what he said in rather candid interview:

Pajamas Media Climategate: What Did Phil Jones Actually Admit? Was He Correct?

Climategate: What Did Phil Jones Actually Admit? Was He Correct?
D'Aleo takes a look at Jones' shockingly candid answers to the embattled scientist's interview with the BBC yesterday.


February 14, 2010 - by Joseph D'Aleo

Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the center of the row over hacked emails. The BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones yesterday, including several gathered from climate sceptics.

Here are some of the questions. Some of Phil’s replies were surprisingly candid. I will look at and comment on six of the 23 questions.

Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Phil Jones admitted the warming trends in the cyclical climate change we have seen since 1860 have been similar in magnitude. He provided these values for those periods:

Period Length Trend Significance

1860-1880 21 years 0.163 Yes

1910-1940 31 years 0.150 Yes

1975-1998 24 years 0.166 Yes

Jones left out 1880 to 1910, and 1940 to 1976, which both had negative decadal trends...

There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. … Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today … then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.

The Idsos at CO2 Science have done a very thorough job documenting, using the peer review literature, the existence of a global MWP. They have found data published by 804 individual scientists from 476 separate research institutions in 43 different countries supporting the global Medieval Warm Period.

Where do you draw the line on the handling of data? What is at odds with acceptable scientific practice? Do you accept that you crossed the line?

No answer. Matter for the independent review.

Anthony Watts, E.M. Smith, and I have shown in “Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception” that the surface temperature records leave a lot to be desired. Claims about global monthly and annual rankings, and that the last decade was the warmest ever, can be dismissed as folly.

Joseph D’Aleo is Executive Director of ICECAP, a former professor of meteorology and climatology, the First Director of Meteorology at the Weather Channel, and a fellow of the American Meteorology Society.

 

[Annie]

and just a bit more analysis:

Power Line - It's Not Apostasy

IT'S NOT APOSTASY
Share Post PrintFebruary 14, 2010 Posted by John at 12:32 PM
But it's easy to understand why many have gotten excited about the interview that global warming high priest Phil Jones gave to the BBC. Jones was the director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, whose emails, leaked by a whistle-blower, sparked a major scientific scandal. In some respects, Jones seemed candid in the BBC interview, if not remorseful. For example, he agreed that currently, the climate is not warming:

Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Further, he acknowledged that, far from being unprecedented, the rate of warming in the modern era is nearly identical to prior warming periods. In other words, goodbye, hockey stick:

...

Those are indeed welcome admissions; the last concession is completely at odds with the UN's 2007 IPCC report. In other instances, however, Jones continued to manifest the errors in logic that typify climate alarmists. Thus, he was asked about the Medieval Warm Period:

...

Understand what Jones is saying here: Where we have records--Europe, North America, and parts of Asia--they show that the Medieval Warm Period existed and was, in fact, warmer than current conditions. In the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere, however, "There are very few palaeoclimatic records." That's true. Why? Because the Southern Hemisphere and the tropical regions are mostly water. The Earth's land mass is concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere. Currently we can track ocean temperatures, but for obvious reasons there is no way to reconstruct marine temperatures from 1,000 years ago. Jones concludes that we can't "make the assumption" that global temperatures were equally as elevated in the areas for which we have no records. A more honest assessment would be that we may never know for sure, but all indications are that the MWP was indeed warmer than our current climate.

Of course, Jones and his fellow alarmists do indeed "make assumptions" every time they produce a chart that purports to show what global temperatures were 1,000 years ago. In those charts, they consistently rely on computer models to minimize the MWP in a manner that contradicts what we know about actual land temperatures at the time.

Jones also was unpersuasive when he tried to defend his own email comments about using "tricks" to "hide the decline" in current temperatures:

...

So Jones admits that he and other climate alarmists have used tree ring data where they were helpful to the global warming theory and discarded them where they were not. Never answered is the obvious question: if tree ring data are unreliable after the mid-20th Century, why were they reliable before then? Nor does Jones address the second criticism of tree ring data, which was discussed in the leaked East Anglia emails: the authors of the principal tree ring studies apparently cherry-picked the trees that gave them the rings they were looking for, while ignoring larger numbers of trees that did not.

When the interviewer gets to the ultimate question, the hollowness of the anthropogenic global warming theory stands exposed:

If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing - see my answer to your question D.​

This was question D and Jones's answer:

Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.​

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.​

In fact, solar activity has not been "about flat" over the period in question, rather it was at a higher level early in the warming period and more recently has been declining as manifested by an unusual scarcity of sunspots. Jones attributes little impact to the variations in solar output because he discounts the current theory, now being hotly debated, that cosmic rays associated with greater solar activity magnify the effect of increased solar energy by affecting cloud cover and by increasing water vapor in the atmosphere. This theory may ultimately be proved or disproved, but it is a fact, not easily dismissed by the alarmists, that for the time period or which we have records there is a close correlation between sunspot activity (a good proxy for variations in solar intensity) and temperatures on earth.

In any event, it is simply not scientific to assume that if two other factors--solar intensity and volcanoes--do not fully explain changes in temperatures, then whatever remains must be due to anthropogenic global warming. The Earth's climate system is complex and not well understood. There is no scientific basis for assuming that AGW accounts for "everything else."