Man Based Global Warming....

Yes. That's how science works.

 

It doesn't matter how many 'measurements' there are. If they have been Mannssaged into a hockey stick.

According to AGW computer model theory, as CO2 rises, temperature rises. This has not happened in the past and it is not happening now. There are no data to support this view, in fact (for the hundrdth time), ice cores rather convincingly show that Co2 rise LAGS rising temperature. And the steady or falling temperature of the last decade or so disproves the hypothesis.

I know how the big 'A' loves these blog posts:

CO2 ACQUITTAL (Rocket Scientist's Journal)

Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

 

What is your evidence that any of that data from several different teams of authors was "mannssaged"?

 

Although this chart is much shorter than the vatious hockey sticks, it 'sticks' with measured temperatures - specifically from the time that man's increased use of fossil fuels (and the concommitant emission of CO2 began).

This INCLUDES Hadcrut, but ZERO proxies:


Figure 2 plots the composite smooth against the backdrop of the monthly seasonal differences of the four global temperature data sets

Does it appear to you that we are in a temperature crisis brought on by CO2? Uh, not to me.

 

Jeebus! Of course the monthly seasonal difference should be a flat line. Think about it, if the temp in dec 07 is 95, dec 08 100 and dec 09 105 the line would be a straight line at 5. The difference would have to climb exponentially for a difference to show in this plot. If you wanted to hide a yearly difference this is what you would do.

It is not only incorrect but dishonest.

Regardless it is not published in any journal and it should not be used for discussion.

 

Alric - I always love your deference to "peer review". But of course if Climategate has revealed anything, it is that peer review in climate science is utterly broken. Threatening authors, reviewers, and journals that publish "skeptical" positions; having editors removed; threats of refusal to publish in or source any journal that publishes "skeptic" views, etc.

Yes - peer review has been utterly broken by "the hockey team". Them's the facts Alric. Deal with it.

 

I am still waiting for the evidence or at least a citation from the hacked letters that shows peer review was manipulated.

At worst some authors were choosing not to be published in journals with laxing standards and choosing to publish in science and Nature instead.

I note how the scientific argument I did present is not even discussed by the denialists.

 

Earth is 4.5 billion years old. We have 200 years of climate data. This equates to 0.000000044% of the entire population data. Hmmm. I guess if you feel comfortable making conclusions based on this sample size...

If an increase in CO2 causes an increase in mean temperature, then any cooling trend would disprove the hypothesis. We have found the black swan, yet we are continuing to say there are only white ones...

 

There are plenty, but here is just one as documented by Roger Pielke Sr. who notes: "strong arm tactics of the Editor of this report (Tom Karl, Director of the US National Data Climate Center) were used to remove information in the CCSP report which raised questions about the robustness of his (and Jim Hansen’s GISS and Phil Jones’s CRU) surface temperature data."

Pielke ended up resigning rather than succumbing to the politically correct AGW views of Tom Karl. Karl tried to get Pielke to accept a version of the CCSP report that had been ginned up in 3 hours time, rather than use the version Pielke and team had reached near consensus on over the course of months (but which raised questions about the robustness of temperature data).

More here:
E-mail Documentation Of The Successful Attempt By Thomas Karl Director Of the U.S. National Climate Data Center To Suppress Biases and Uncertainties In the Assessment Surface Temperature Trends


I love how you accept everything that is "peer reviewed" even though the peer review process is demonstrably broken.

That, my friend, is religion.

 

I have already disproved AGW to Alric, but he keeps coming back for more.

I asked him several months ago how many years of cooling would be required to falsify AGW. I recall his answer was 40 years, to which I presented the following chart which shows 50 years of cooling (~1930 - ~1980) during a period of rapidly rising CO2.

He still does not have an explanation even though AGW was falsified using his own criteria. Let's face it, to Alric AGW could never really be falsified even when it is falsified. Again, RELIGION for him, not SCIENCE.

 

Well, here are a couple of links. (I redirect through sweet-haven because I can't paste the long links into the priuschat reply box)

'You've Taken the Words Out of My Mouth' - WSJ.com

Pajamas Media Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate

The aggregate of all the Climategate emails, program code and data is telling. To argue that this data is meaningless is absurd.

 

Oh, you want something that has a smoother flatter line and covers only the period since 1980



The quote is from the leaked E-mails - I don't know where that came from.

This was published online. Placing work online has become the new standard for scientific integrity. ANYONE can come along and point out errors. With Michael Mann having his friends and students reviewing his work and calling it peer-reviewed, we were likely to get what we got - perverted science.

 

Here is an E-mail from Jones to Mann:

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <[email protected]>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don't pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf.
The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde
obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see
it.
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil

I took the liberty of highlighting some words which might indicate, to persons who can read and understand their meaning, that something other than honest scientific inquiry is afoot. Asking for anything more in the way of proof is like asking O.J. to tell you where he disposed of the knife.

MM are, of course, McIntyre and McKitridk, whose exposure of blatant error in Mann's work must have stung all the Warmers. Pielke 'loses credibility' because he is communicationg with a scientist who is skeptical - and HE is 'mad'. Why would credible scientists be so secretive with information? After all, the fate of the world hangs in the balance - or might it be the 'the fate of proposals'?

To which 'scientific argument' are you referring?

 

You know, Alric, you really have won my admiration. You are a real trooper. I sense you'll be in here for the long haul defending the indefensible. Without you the crickets would be ever so boring.

Thanks.

 

There is no point engaging you in a debate, you still haven't answered any questions, only put downs about people's education and qualifications as far as I have seen.

You acknowledge that CO2 keeps heat energy on the earth, you have said you understand about the way energy affects various molecules including carbon dioxide, that is CO2 in case you don't know, and you have not denied that CO2 is becoming more prevalent in our atmosphere, nor have you denied that humans are putting additional CO2 into the atmosphere. So what exactly have you based your faith like belief that global warming or climate change is a hoax?

I have another analogy for you.

You are laying in bed and the room is a constant temperature, so the heat energy entering the room including that heat energy from your body is exactly equal to the heat energy leaving the room and this will remain the case all night. You are perfectly comfortable under 2 blankets in your bed, the temperature is perfect, you have never felt more comfortable with the temperature in your life. You then pull an extra blanket over you, would you feel hotter, colder, or no different?

Now lets try to stick to the topic at issue here, and don't be side tracked by anyones level of education or qualification as none of that will increase or decrease the temperature in your bed.

Would you feel hotter or colder?

 

I hope this problem can be solved in the next ten years

 

Richard S. Lindzen: The Climate Science Isn't Settled - WSJ.com

This man's level of education is fairly high. He has been denigrated by the warmist/alarmist community solely because he begs to differ with their pronouncements based on insufficient evidence.

His is the most succinct precis of the entire situation I have read.

I especially like this part:

Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example.

 

To TimBikes: Your question was answered many times over by me and others. You are creating the straw man that the system is linear, that is X amount of CO2 results in a Y amount of temp increase. This is a complex system with many inputs and outputs. It just doesn't work the way you unjustifiably want it to work. Many people pointed this out at you and you ignored the answer over and over demonstrating clearly one of the most common mechanisms of denialism.

To ufourya: Your quoted text just shows how peer review works. These peer reviewers don't like the paper (for reasons they don't discuss) and will review it badly. There were other reviewers and if they liked it they will push otherwise.

Your other graph is just an interpolation of your other inappropriately used graph.

 

Suzy: The problem has been solved. This discussion is between denialists of the published conclusion using wrong arguments and innuendo. The published fact is that anthropogenic climate change is real.

 

This is really just ignorant, Alric. There is no "published fact" that proves AGW. All we have is data that shows the global temperature changes over time. Nothing that proves humans are contributing to it. Do not spread misinformation.