Scientists Behaving Badly - More nails for the coffin of man-made global warming

[Old Rocks]

What is the magnitude of the threat?

We do not fully know yet. However, we are seeing major impacts even now, far before we have doubled the CO2. Just look at the price of a jar of peanut butter.

What has happened in the past when the threat was realized?

There were major extinction events.

What is the cause of the threat?

A very rapid increase of GHGs in the atmosphere.

What are the direct cause effect pieces of evidence that connect the supposed cause to the stated threat?

Absorption bands of the GHGs in the IR. Paleo record of extinctions caused by rapid climate change.

What is the proposed solution and where has it worked in the past?

The solotion is to cease putting GHGs in the atmosphere. In the past, the source of the GHGs was natural, and the solution was that a high percentage of the species that existed at the time, 95% in the PT extinction event, just went extinct.
__________________

Obviously, you have nothing.

The warming was more extreme between the years 0 and 1000 than between the years 1000 and 2000.

The CO2 in the atmosphere is higher right now than at any point in the last 10,000 years and yet we are a full degree cooler than we were at the peak of the climate temp during that period.

The temperature rises and falls across periods of decades and the CO2 continuously rises with a pretty consistent rate. There is no causation here. Even the correlation is weak.

You need to prove your case and you have not.

When you prove it, I will believe it.

No, you will not. You will continue to lie for your masters.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Authors:
Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council
Authoring Organizations

Description:
In response to a request from Congress, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years assesses the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for Earth during approximately the last 2,000 years and the implications of these efforts ...
Read More

Real science from the National Academy of Science. Now post something from some organization or person of equal credibility.

 

[Meister]

What is the magnitude of the threat?

We do not fully know yet. However, we are seeing major impacts even now, far before we have doubled the CO2. Just look at the price of a jar of peanut butter.

What has happened in the past when the threat was realized?

There were major extinction events.

What is the cause of the threat?

A very rapid increase of GHGs in the atmosphere.

What are the direct cause effect pieces of evidence that connect the supposed cause to the stated threat?

Absorption bands of the GHGs in the IR. Paleo record of extinctions caused by rapid climate change.

What is the proposed solution and where has it worked in the past?

The solotion is to cease putting GHGs in the atmosphere. In the past, the source of the GHGs was natural, and the solution was that a high percentage of the species that existed at the time, 95% in the PT extinction event, just went extinct.
__________________

Obviously, you have nothing.

The warming was more extreme between the years 0 and 1000 than between the years 1000 and 2000.

The CO2 in the atmosphere is higher right now than at any point in the last 10,000 years and yet we are a full degree cooler than we were at the peak of the climate temp during that period.

The temperature rises and falls across periods of decades and the CO2 continuously rises with a pretty consistent rate. There is no causation here. Even the correlation is weak.

You need to prove your case and you have not.

When you prove it, I will believe it.

No, you will not. You will continue to lie for your masters.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Authors:
Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council
Authoring Organizations

Description:
In response to a request from Congress, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years assesses the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for Earth during approximately the last 2,000 years and the implications of these efforts ...
Read More

Real science from the National Academy of Science. Now post something from some organization or person of equal credibility.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5PA0LEPmP0]bugs bunny cartoon in high diving hare - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

Standard for a knownothing fool.

 

[Meister]

Standard for a knownothing fool.

You wanted equal credibility, you got it, ya dumbfuck.

 

[Old Rocks]

Funny how these 'Conservatives can answer with nothing but cartoons to real science.

By the way, Walleyes, which of the named lectures are you going to present your scientific refutation of global warming? I assume that you are going to present in at the upcoming AGU meeting, correct? But then, by your own statement, you are a Fellow of the Royal Society. May I expect to see it in some of their papers?

A23A

Of course this is just a lecture by one of the world's foremost glacialogists. At the 2009 AGU Conferance. So, are you going to demonstrate where Dr. Alley is not doing real science here?

 

[Old Rocks]

Standard for a knownothing fool.

You wanted equal credibility, you got it, ya dumbfuck.

My, my. I presented a paper from the National Academy of Science. You presented a cartoon. I guess that settles the level of your intellect.

 

[Meister]

Standard for a knownothing fool.

You wanted equal credibility, you got it, ya dumbfuck.

My, my. I presented a paper from the National Academy of Science. You presented a cartoon. I guess that settles the level of your intellect.

You wanted equal credibility and you got it rockhead.
Your upset that people are moving on from your little communist pet project. Too bad so sad.

 

[Si modo]

You wanted equal credibility, you got it, ya dumbfuck.

My, my. I presented a paper from the National Academy of Science. You presented a cartoon. I guess that settles the level of your intellect.

You wanted equal credibility and you got it rockhead.
Your upset that people are moving on from your little communist pet project. Too bad so sad.

It wasn't even a paper he presented. It was a compilation of methods used to demonstrate increased temperatures in a book.

Ummmm, OK. Temperatures have increased over certain periods of time.

Whatever that proves, other than increased temperatures over certain periods of time, is a mystery.

 

[westwall]

What is the magnitude of the threat?

We do not fully know yet. However, we are seeing major impacts even now, far before we have doubled the CO2. Just look at the price of a jar of peanut butter.

What has happened in the past when the threat was realized?

There were major extinction events.

What is the cause of the threat?

A very rapid increase of GHGs in the atmosphere.

What are the direct cause effect pieces of evidence that connect the supposed cause to the stated threat?

Absorption bands of the GHGs in the IR. Paleo record of extinctions caused by rapid climate change.

What is the proposed solution and where has it worked in the past?

The solotion is to cease putting GHGs in the atmosphere. In the past, the source of the GHGs was natural, and the solution was that a high percentage of the species that existed at the time, 95% in the PT extinction event, just went extinct.
__________________

Obviously, you have nothing.

The warming was more extreme between the years 0 and 1000 than between the years 1000 and 2000.

The CO2 in the atmosphere is higher right now than at any point in the last 10,000 years and yet we are a full degree cooler than we were at the peak of the climate temp during that period.

The temperature rises and falls across periods of decades and the CO2 continuously rises with a pretty consistent rate. There is no causation here. Even the correlation is weak.

You need to prove your case and you have not.

When you prove it, I will believe it.

No, you will not. You will continue to lie for your masters.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Authors:
Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council
Authoring Organizations

Description:
In response to a request from Congress, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years assesses the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for Earth during approximately the last 2,000 years and the implications of these efforts ...
Read More

Real science from the National Academy of Science. Now post something from some organization or person of equal credibility.

I've only done a cursory review of the books contents but it is so far interesting and I don't see any wildly out of line statements. In fact I found this paragraph that is actually fairly reasonable and accurate from what I have been able to confirm from other sources. I'm not sure how they have managed to ignore the Little Ice Age but they at least include the MWP which Mann and Co. tried to disappear.

"To prevent the risk that a single tree ring chronology could reflect the influence of localized nonclimatic influences (Fritts 1976, Trotter et al. 2002), dendroclimatic reconstructions often rely on networks of site chronologies. Regional tree ring networks typically have strong intersite correlations (e.g., Hughes et al. 1984, Figure 2), and continental-to-hemispheric-scale networks are able to reproduce synoptic-scale climatological patterns (Fritts 1991, Briffa et al. 2002). When based on a number of sites in the Northern Hemisphere, dendroclimatic reconstructions of surface temperatures show that the 20th century warming was unusual since at least 1500 (D’Arrigo et al. 2006; Figures 4-1 and 4-2), in agreement with independent reconstructions derived from written documents (Xoplaki et al. 2005), borehole temperatures (Pollack and Smerdon 2004), and glacier lengths (Oerlemans 2005a). When records are sought for the last two millennia, the number of available tree ring chronologies declines markedly (Hughes 2002), so confidence in reconstructed patterns is reduced."

 

[westwall]

Funny how these 'Conservatives can answer with nothing but cartoons to real science.

By the way, Walleyes, which of the named lectures are you going to present your scientific refutation of global warming? I assume that you are going to present in at the upcoming AGU meeting, correct? But then, by your own statement, you are a Fellow of the Royal Society. May I expect to see it in some of their papers?

A23A

Of course this is just a lecture by one of the world's foremost glacialogists. At the 2009 AGU Conferance. So, are you going to demonstrate where Dr. Alley is not doing real science here?

Why no, I havn't been invited to present. I will certainly be in attendence however and will be asking some hard questions I assure you. Alas, since they have gone political bat shit crazy, if you're not in the club, they don't allow you to present.

This will be changing soon (my estimate is within the next 4 years), but as in all things, change for the better takes time. They've been corrupted for quite awhile and it takes years to get rid of the chaff.

 

[code1211]

What is the magnitude of the threat?

We do not fully know yet. However, we are seeing major impacts even now, far before we have doubled the CO2. Just look at the price of a jar of peanut butter.

What has happened in the past when the threat was realized?

There were major extinction events.

What is the cause of the threat?

A very rapid increase of GHGs in the atmosphere.

What are the direct cause effect pieces of evidence that connect the supposed cause to the stated threat?

Absorption bands of the GHGs in the IR. Paleo record of extinctions caused by rapid climate change.

What is the proposed solution and where has it worked in the past?

The solotion is to cease putting GHGs in the atmosphere. In the past, the source of the GHGs was natural, and the solution was that a high percentage of the species that existed at the time, 95% in the PT extinction event, just went extinct.
__________________

Obviously, you have nothing.

The warming was more extreme between the years 0 and 1000 than between the years 1000 and 2000.

The CO2 in the atmosphere is higher right now than at any point in the last 10,000 years and yet we are a full degree cooler than we were at the peak of the climate temp during that period.

The temperature rises and falls across periods of decades and the CO2 continuously rises with a pretty consistent rate. There is no causation here. Even the correlation is weak.

You need to prove your case and you have not.

When you prove it, I will believe it.

No, you will not. You will continue to lie for your masters.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Authors:
Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council
Authoring Organizations

Description:
In response to a request from Congress, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years assesses the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for Earth during approximately the last 2,000 years and the implications of these efforts ...
Read More

Real science from the National Academy of Science. Now post something from some organization or person of equal credibility.

The graphic representation of what you have just cited with a brief description with the scientific organizations and/or people that did the research listed below the link.

The proxy records are followed a brief installment of the instrument record. This is obviously like comparing apples to oranges and there is no place for it. The proxies are the proxies and the interments are the instruments. Presenting the two on the same graph is useless.

File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

Description



Expansion of the last 1000 years


Temperature variations during the preceding 12000 years.
This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 2000 years. More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer colors. An instrumental history of temperature is also shown in black. The medieval warm period and little ice age are labeled at roughly the times when they are historically believed to occur, though it is still disputed whether these were truly global or only regional events. The single, unsmoothed annual value for 2004 is also shown for comparison. (Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png shows how 2004 relates to other recent years).
It is unknown which, if any, of these reconstructions is an accurate representation of climate history; however, these curves are a fair representation of the range of results appearing in the published scientific literature. Hence, it is likely that such reconstructions, accurate or not, will play a significant role in the ongoing discussions of global climate change and global warming.
For each reconstruction, the raw data has been decadally smoothed with a σ = 5 yr Gaussian weighted moving average. Also, each reconstruction was adjusted so that its mean matched the mean of the instrumental record during the period of overlap. The variance (i.e. the scale of fluctuations) was not adjusted (except in one case noted below).
Except as noted below, all original data for this comparison comes from [1] and links therein. It should also be noted that many reconstructions of past climate report substantial error bars, which are not represented on this figure.



The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:
(dark blue 1000-1991):
[abstract] [DOI] Jones, P.D., K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471.
(blue 1000-1980):
[abstract] [full text] Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762.
(light blue 1000-1965):
[abstract] Crowley, Thomas J. and Thomas S. Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. ; Modified as published in [abstract] [DOI] Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277.
(lightest blue 1402-1960):
[abstract] [DOI] Briffa, K.R., T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941.
(light green 831-1992):
[abstract] [DOI] Esper, J., E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253.
(yellow 200-1980):
[abstract] [full text] [DOI] Mann, M.E. and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820.
(orange 200-1995):
[abstract] [full text] [DOI] Jones, P.D. and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002.
(red-orange 1500-1980):
[abstract] [DOI] Huang, S. (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205.
(red 1-1979):
[abstract] [full text] [DOI] Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617.
(dark red 1600-1990):
[abstract] [DOI] Oerlemans, J.H. (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677.

(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v was used. Documentation for the most recent update of the CRU/Hadley instrumental data set appears in:
[abstract] Jones, P.D. and A. Moberg (2003). "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001". Journal of Climate 16: 206-223.

 

[code1211]

Funny how these 'Conservatives can answer with nothing but cartoons to real science.

By the way, Walleyes, which of the named lectures are you going to present your scientific refutation of global warming? I assume that you are going to present in at the upcoming AGU meeting, correct? But then, by your own statement, you are a Fellow of the Royal Society. May I expect to see it in some of their papers?

A23A

Of course this is just a lecture by one of the world's foremost glacialogists. At the 2009 AGU Conferance. So, are you going to demonstrate where Dr. Alley is not doing real science here?

Please review the graph in this link. It is the graph of temperatures over the last 542 or so million years on Earth. In all of that time, there have been two periods when it has been as cold as it is right now. One is now, and the other is is 450 million years ago. The natural state of planet Earth is to be warmer than it is right now.

Only a blind ideologue would dispute this.

This should be right up your old alley as it is based on geological research

Filehanerozoic Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

 

[Si modo]

Funny how these 'Conservatives can answer with nothing but cartoons to real science.

By the way, Walleyes, which of the named lectures are you going to present your scientific refutation of global warming? I assume that you are going to present in at the upcoming AGU meeting, correct? But then, by your own statement, you are a Fellow of the Royal Society. May I expect to see it in some of their papers?

A23A

Of course this is just a lecture by one of the world's foremost glacialogists. At the 2009 AGU Conferance. So, are you going to demonstrate where Dr. Alley is not doing real science here?

And, Alley's 2009 'work' still isn't published after peer-review?

 

[wirebender]

Follow the money!!! Who's getting more, academic scientists funded by grants or skeptics/deniers bankrolled by energy companies?

You are kidding, right? The amount of money coming from those evil energy companies in the past couple of decades can be counted in the tens of millions while the amount of money funding AGW alarmism can be counted in billions each and every year. Follow the money indeed.

 

[code1211]

Follow the money!!! Who's getting more, academic scientists funded by grants or skeptics/deniers bankrolled by energy companies?

You are kidding, right? The amount of money coming from those evil energy companies in the past couple of decades can be counted in the tens of millions while the amount of money funding AGW alarmism can be counted in billions each and every year. Follow the money indeed.

NASA has really only one mission since they have stopped exploring space and that seems to be to prove that Global Warming is caused by Mankind.

Their budget in 2011 was about 20 billion in constant 2007 dollars.

Strangely, in constant 2007 dollars, their budget in 1969, the year that man first stepped on the Moon, their budget was about 21 billion.

I strive to not cuss on this board, but seriously, WTF?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Annual_budget.2C_1958-2011

 

[newpolitics]

Follow the money!!! Who's getting more, academic scientists funded by grants or skeptics/deniers bankrolled by energy companies?

How about all of the oil companies who profit from the current energy infrastructure. Did you forget about them? Oh, and the entire car industry system and their entire supply chain? How about the US military with their use of tanks, jets,etc...

ARe you serious to think that the current speculation on a possible new industry even compares to the profits on the current industry, which is still booming? Were you within earshot of a TV during the recent uproar over the amount of profit oil companies are getting?

 

[Si modo]

Follow the money!!! Who's getting more, academic scientists funded by grants or skeptics/deniers bankrolled by energy companies?

How about all of the oil companies who profit from the current energy infrastructure. Did you forget about them? Oh, and the entire car industry system and their entire supply chain? How about the US military with their use of tanks, jets,etc...

ARe you serious to think that the current speculation on a possible new industry even compares to the profits on the current industry, which is still booming? Were you within earshot of a TV during the recent uproar over the amount of profit oil companies are getting?

Yeah! Argue with the guy who is an AGW cult member!




Regardless, these AGW scientists haven't been practicing scientific integrity for some time.