Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

One can accept all three of your 'game enders' (with the caveat noted below) and still disagree that catastrophic or significant global warming will result. So what ends the game now?

#2. should read "Some of" the increase..etc.
"The" increase implies that ALL of the CO2 comes from man - an obvious falsity.

I repeat yet again, there is NOTHING in the scientific literature that empirically demonstrates rising man-caused CO2 levels will reslut in catastrophe - ZERO.

Am I prepared to accept this as a possibiity? Yes. Until now, this has not been shown and it is a travesty that so-called scientists and their AGW adherents insist that it is.

 

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

From the respected Pielke Sr.. who is beginning a series of climate questions and answers:

"Is The Human Addition Of Carbon Dioxide The Primary Human Climate Forcing?
This is the focus of the Copenhagen meeting. The clear answer, based on a wide range of peer-reviewed papers is NO."

...
Thus, while I agree that the human addition of CO2 is a first order climate forcing, the claims that it is the primary human climate forcing is not supported by the science. This means that attempts to “control” the climate system, and to prevent a “dangerous intervention” into the climate system by humans that focuses just on CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases will necessarily be significantly incomplete, unless all of the other first order climate forcings are considered.

Moreover, as I have written on extensively, climate change is much more than global warming and cooling (e.g. see and see). Human caused climate change can occur even in the absence of global warming (such as from land use change). This makes attempts to mitigate climate change a much more daunting problem than assuming that all we need to do is control the human emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion into the atmosphere.

 

Russian newspaper reports that CRU probably misused climate data collected from that country.

What the Russian papers say | Top Russian news and analysis online | 'RIA Novosti' newswire

(scroll down)

...The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

 

Err..I think Pielke is actually arguing for even more regulation, not less. He is not on your side. That aerosols also are an important forcing only adds to the problem, doesn't diminish it.

His argument is also a bit of a red herring. Regulation centers on emissions, not just CO2. CO2 happens to be easily measurable as one of the greenhouse gases.

 

Underuse of Russain met data is an interesting possibility, especially because high-latitude sites have (or should have? or might have?) ahd a larger change in recent decades.

Insofar as Russia is not inclined to lead the way on greenhouse gas emissions, it would be very sensible for them to analyze and publish their own met data and not wait for Hadley to do it.

There is a new paper on the urban heat effect - found that sometimes it's a large effect, sometimes small, and sometimes negative. Depends on what climate or vegetation zone got urbanized. Good reading for those interested in the the true meaning of temperature trends.

 

Just an FYI. Parameters that may affect temp are taken into account during data correction. It can also be shown that data was uniformly corrected:

 

I think Pielke IS on my side. My side is the unvarnished truth. That is what I want to know about everything - the TRUTH. I believe he has more of a handle on that scientific truth than do you.

My immediate concern is that politicians, scam artists, lobbyists, and governments seeking wealth and power aren't discussing aerosols or anyting other than man-produced CO2 in Copenhagen. Oh, they'll talk about deforestation and the like, but the CO2 scam is in the forefront. It affords them the best opportunity to control and re-distribute wealth.

They are attempting to base decisions and fashion global economic policies based on completely unproven (and daily becoming more obviously fraudulent) science.

For some reason this doesn't concern some of you. I'm at a loss to explain it in terms acceptable to our moderator, so I'll leave it at that.

 

FYI, showing that data are umiformly corrected would include disclosing the raw data and the methodology utilized to 'correct'.

That the CRU and other organizations have refused FOI requests, deleted raw data after their 'corrections' and colluded to supress divergent views should alert the alert that something is amiss.

The so-called 'Climategate' scandal has yet to fully unfold.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to deceive. Walter Scott

 

You mean the data available here?

Index of /pub/data/ghcn/v2

As used by this guy?

gg Lots of smoke, hardly any gun. Do climatologists falsify data?

 

Ufourya,


Once again, like your friend RadioPrius, you reveal the origin of your bias.

"It affords them the best opportunity to control and re-distribute wealth.

 

No, I mean the data that were driving Harry crazy at CRU

Programmer Ian “Harry†Harris, in the Harry_Read_Me.txt file, commented about:

[The] hopeless state of their (CRU) data base. … No uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found. … I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case?Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. …
This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!
I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can’t get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the updateprog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections – to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations?
​

And the problems of homogenizing data discussed at some length here the 'Statistician to the Stars'

Be sure to see: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V

 

Thank you. My 'bias' is toward the truth.

Have you read the treaty under discussion at Copenhagen?

Christopher Monckton has:

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word "government" actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.

The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, "climate debt" because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. We've been screwing up the climate and they haven't.

And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

 

Yep, but it doesn't stop the clueless denialists from making false claims about it all the while thinking they are geniuses. When folks repeat that sort of tripe, stuff that they could have looked up before making the claim, I'm reminded of the following maxim:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

 

The problem is these folks repeat this swill over and over again, and soon enough, not only do they believe it, they have others believing it. I can't remember who said it, or who said it best, either Orwell or Huxley, but "if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true" Come to think of it maybe it was Stalin. Or maybe Goebells. What do I know, I'm just a high school graduate!

What do I know, I'm just an alarmist!

 

Icarus, you have a fixed false belief! You believe that the "denialists" here keep repeating "swill" and misinformation. The truth, however, is the contrary!

As we can all see starting with this post, it is *you* that spreads misinformation.

It is 100% plain as day. It is not arguable. You can not deny it. You 100% were spreading misinformation about AGW. Please point out one post of mine where I am spreading information which is 100% verifiable as untrue.

 

Apparently not too much. This is ultimately by your own admission. You made a massive claim about AGW and yet you can not back it up. I believe you admitted that you did not know what you were talking about, did you not?

 

That is a very interesting link. Thank you for posting that.

Did you see the latest postings over at WUWT?

Russian IEA claims CRU tampered with climate data – cherrypicked warmest stations Watts Up With That?
NASA says AIRS satellite data shows positive water vapor feedback Watts Up With That?
Gore gets bitten again by another factual blunder Watts Up With That?
Copenhagen highlights the latest evidence of global torture Watts Up With That?

 

Nothing but ad hom nonsense. No facts, no substance - just unfounded attack on an imagined enemy.

I'm afraid no amount of truth and factual presentation will sway these ... ( I am not allowed to use the title of Eric Hoffer's book to characterize the AGWers - I'm told I use it with obvious 'venom'. Which is a little like legislating 'hate crimes', where the authorities read the mind of a criminal and increase the punishment.)

I will say these appear to be classic cases of Projection - attributing one's own unacknowledged feelings to others. Some here believe because THEY repeat something, however untrue, again and again, that must be what you are doing as well.

 

Yes, I already posted a link to the original source in post #523

EDIT - Post 523 for the first of your links, that is. And yes to the others as well. I visit WUWT on an almost daily basis. It is, afer all, the best science blog on the web - says so right there.

 

I stand by everything I said in that post. (I won't bother reposting it here to save the bandwidth) The gist for those that haven't read it, is that I posit that global warming is not something that you believe in, like Santa Claus/The Tooth Fairy or even God. I argued that global warming conclusions are drawn from the vast majority of peer reviewed, scientific studies. If memory serves, RP at the time ranted to me that there was no controlled studies at all, only conclusions and projections. He admitted that he hadn't actually read what it is that I said.

So I ask again, what is it about the said post that lead you to conclude that I "spread misinformation"

But what do I know, I just an alarmist!