NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries

[FuzzyBee]

Science.

Well, then, it should be easy for you do show proof here, right?

Wait - you *can't*.

 

[Modelworks]

The problem with the climate change theories

which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record

Our record is good for what percentage of the earths history ?
I agree according to the data they have it is getting warmer, making the leap from that to it is our fault is like me assuming you ate a whole box of cereal for breakfast and since I have been observing you for this 1 day I can conclude that before you came along there was always plenty of cereal .

 

[sandorski]

Well, then, it should be easy for you do show proof here, right?

Wait - you *can't*.

oy vey. Have you read the science? I suspect you have as this issue has been discussed to death. If you reject it, fine, but just know that makes you a Denier. Sorry, I'm not going to Google links and post the for the billionth time.

 

[NoWhereM]

All I know is I hope it keeps getting warmer as the cultists predict.

http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

Earth's climate system is complex and poorly understood. But we do know that throughout human history, warmer temperatures have been associated with more stable climates and increased human health and prosperity. Colder temperatures have been correlated with climatic instability, famine, and increased human mortality.

Real science, it's a good thing.

 

[dainthomas]

All I know is I hope it keeps getting warmer as the cultists predict.

http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543



Real science, it's a good thing.

But think of the cute fuzzy polar bears!

 

[FuzzyBee]

oy vey. Have you read the science? I suspect you have as this issue has been discussed to death. If you reject it, fine, but just know that makes you a Denier. Sorry, I'm not going to Google links and post the for the billionth time.

In other words, you can't.

By the way, what was it again that caused the Earth to thaw out?

 

[NoWhereM]

But think of the cute fuzzy polar bears!

I really don't like to think about polar bears anymore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxis7Y1ikIQ

 

[shira]

The problem with the climate change theories


Our record is good for what percentage of the earths history ?
I agree according to the data they have it is getting warmer, making the leap from that to it is our fault is like me assuming you ate a whole box of cereal for breakfast and since I have been observing you for this 1 day I can conclude that before you came along there was always plenty of cereal .

And of course - being into denial - you jump to the conclusion - based on exactly zero information - that scientists' determination that human activity is responsible for much of the observed temperature increase is based solely on the "correlation = causation" fallacy.

It's so simple - isn't it - to dismiss science when all you need to do is put your own vapid words into the mouths of scientists?

 

[shira]

proof? it was an off the top of my head example, not PROOF of what's happening. but go ahead attack me over it when you knew that's all it was, make yourself look more like a tool.

In other words, your idea of a rational discussion is for one side to present peer-reviewed studies and data and the other side to cast baseless assertions.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And of course - being into denial - you jump to the conclusion - based on exactly zero information - that scientists' determination that human activity is responsible for much of the observed temperature increase is based solely on the "correlation = causation" fallacy.

It's so simple - isn't it - to dismiss science when all you need to do is put your own vapid words into the mouths of scientists?

Using proxys to 'reconstruct' historic global temperature data is, to say the least, not optimal. Surely you know this. I'm thinking that you read more into Modelworks post than he actually said.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

In other words, your idea of a rational discussion is for one side to present peer-reviewed studies and data and the other side to cast baseless assertions.

There are numerous peer-reviewed studies that cast doubt on many aspects of current climate change theory. Surely you know this.

 

[NoWhereM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UKI3lKts9Q

Real science, it's a good thing.

 

[Poptech]

In other words, your idea of a rational discussion is for one side to present peer-reviewed studies and data and the other side to cast baseless assertions.

Peer-reviewed studies were presented,

800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

 

[shira]

What do you think about our planet recently being a big chunk of ice? Do you think it's been warming up since then?

How many times do I have to answer the same question?

Climate changes as a consequence of both natural effects and human behavior. Arguing that warming occurs naturally is irrelevant to the issue of warming cause by humans.

Consider the analogy of human mortality. Many billions of humans have died over the course of human history and pre-history. Most have died of "natural" causes. Today, we know that human behavior (lifestyle choices, for example) contributes to human mortality.

According to your argument, the fact that MOST human mortality is "natural" means that it's absurd to "waste" significant resources to reduce the contribution of human behavior to human mortality (and reduced longevity).

Similarly, the scientific consensus tells us that human behavior is affecting climate OVER AND ABOVE whatever the natural climate "drivers" are doing. It's the differential warming caused by mankind's behavior that is predicted to cause catastrophic effects over the next hundred years, not natural variations.

 

[FuzzyBee]

How many times do I have to answer the same question?

How about just once that makes sense?

Climate changes as a consequence of both natural effects and human behavior. Arguing that warming occurs naturally is irrelevant to the issue of warming cause by humans.

Consider the analogy of human mortality. Many billions of humans have died over the course of human history and pre-history. Most have died of "natural" causes. Today, we know that human behavior (lifestyle choices, for example) contributes to human mortality.

According to your argument, the fact that MOST human mortality is "natural" means that it's absurd to "waste" significant resources to reduce the contribution of human behavior to human mortality (and reduced longevity).

Similarly, the scientific consensus tells us that human behavior is affecting climate OVER AND ABOVE whatever the natural climate "drivers" are doing. It's the differential warming caused by mankind's behavior that is predicted to cause catastrophic effects over the next hundred years, not natural variations.

Here is the problem with your statement: How do we know what the differential warming is? We don't have an identical Earth that didn't have "mankind's behavior" on it, do we? Any good scientific test uses a control case, which we don't have - by your own admission, the earth's climate is changing on it's own. Do we know how much? Absolutely not, no matter how much hand-waving freakoutery you display.

 

[shira]

There are numerous peer-reviewed studies that cast doubt on many aspects of current climate change theory. Surely you know this.

I take issue with your use of "cast doubt."

Contrary evidence "casts doubt" only if the weight of that evidence is significant. In climatology, studies supporting the consensus greatly outnumber those contrary to the consensus. I don't know the specific number of papers pro and con, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that the fraction of climatologists that support the consensus is roughly the same as the fraction of published papers that support the consensus (since it's these same climatologists that publish the papers). And the latest figure I read was that 95%+ of actively-publishing climatologists believe that MMCC is true.

So, I conclude that "pro" studies outnumber "anti" studies by a factor of approximately 19 to 1.

So, sure, there are plenty of "anti" peer-reviewed studies out there. But there are many, many more "pro" peer-reviewed studies. And if that's the case, why do you find the minority position so compelling?

 

[monovillage]

Here's a couple of pertinent articles. The first is a paper by Dr. McKitrick which is a critical review of the GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) which (contrary to the EPA's claims) is used by NOAA, GISS and CRU. The link to the entire preview paper (PDF) is there.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/...rick-on-ghcn-and-the-quality-of-climate-data/


This other article is a layman's guide to the greenhouse effect. There's also a more detailed math and physics article available for download.

"Note that these papers only consider whether increasing CO2 will change climate. No assertions about current or future temperatures are made. No assertions about the possible effects of climate change are made. No assertions about other gases impacting climate are made.

What these papers describe is the engineering method of determining radiant heat absorption by CO2 in an atmosphere (that is, the greenhouse effect). They show that this effect is practically at a maximum at around 200 ppm CO2."

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010...mans-guide-to-the-greenhouse-effect/#more-723

 

[shira]

How about just once that makes sense?



Here is the problem with your statement: How do we know what the differential warming is? We don't have an identical Earth that didn't have "mankind's behavior" on it, do we? Any good scientific test uses a control case, which we don't have - by your own admission, the earth's climate is changing on it's own. Do we know how much? Absolutely not, no matter how much hand-waving freakoutery you display.

How do we know? Why, that's why scientific studies are for. SCIENCE provides the models, data, and studies that come up with the estimates.

But of course, you reject science, so how could you possibly understand?

 

[shira]

Here's a couple of pertinent articles. The first is a paper by Dr. McKitrick which is a critical review of the GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) which (contrary to the EPA's claims) is used by NOAA, GISS and CRU. The link to the entire preview paper (PDF) is there.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/...rick-on-ghcn-and-the-quality-of-climate-data/


This other article is a layman's guide to the greenhouse effect. There's also a more detailed math and physics article available for download.

"Note that these papers only consider whether increasing CO2 will change climate. No assertions about current or future temperatures are made. No assertions about the possible effects of climate change are made. No assertions about other gases impacting climate are made.

What these papers describe is the engineering method of determining radiant heat absorption by CO2 in an atmosphere (that is, the greenhouse effect). They show that this effect is practically at a maximum at around 200 ppm CO2."

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010...mans-guide-to-the-greenhouse-effect/#more-723

It would more accurate to write, "They CLAIM, and you choose to believe . . . "

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It would more accurate to write, "They CLAIM, and you choose to believe . . . "

Interestingly, you choose to casually dismiss this paper as 'heresy' as well as anything else that even remotely challenges what you choose to believe on this subject. Apparently "rational discussion" is not your strong suit...nor is it your motive for posting I would dare say.

 

[Delita]

Shira and kylebisme respond in such a similar fashion.

 

[FuzzyBee]

How do we know? Why, that's why scientific studies are for. SCIENCE provides the models, data, and studies that come up with the estimates.

But of course, you reject science, so how could you possibly understand?

Since I don't follow lockstep with your way of thinking, I "reject science"? You really are a buffoon. Please stop littering this forum with your verbal diarrhea.

 

[WHAMPOM]

All I know is I hope it keeps getting warmer as the cultists predict.

http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543



Real science, it's a good thing.

A good thing? Ya mean like that "warm" spell back in Africa that almost wiped out our human ancestors? Or the midieval warming that decimated the South-West Indians?

 

[sandorski]

In other words, you can't.

By the way, what was it again that caused the Earth to thaw out?

It warmed up.

Oh I can, but I won't.

 

[Poptech]

Contrary evidence "casts doubt" only if the weight of that evidence is significant. In climatology, studies supporting the consensus greatly outnumber those contrary to the consensus. I don't know the specific number of papers pro and con, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that the fraction of climatologists that support the consensus is roughly the same as the fraction of published papers that support the consensus (since it's these same climatologists that publish the papers). And the latest figure I read was that 95%+ of actively-publishing climatologists believe that MMCC is true.

So, I conclude that "pro" studies outnumber "anti" studies by a factor of approximately 19 to 1.

This is based on a bogus study,

PNAS reviewers and author's William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider are apparently Google Scholar illiterate since searching for just the word "climate" with an author's name will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, papers simply in PDF format but were never published, duplicate listings, citations and all sorts of other erroneous results. There is no "peer-reviewed journal only" search option in Google Scholar. Not to mention using those search techniques will get results from authors with the same name but who are completely different people. For instance even when using the author's name in quotes or advanced search operators such as "author:", Google Scholar will still show results from authors with only the same last name. Thus authors with common names will get inflated results. Take for instance using author "Phil Jones" (the infamous former CRU director of climategate fame) with the search word "climate", you get almost 5000 results! They only checked the top 4 papers for their "citation analysis" not for the total amount of results using the search word "climate" for all 1372 authors. Thus none of their numbers were verified.

Not to mention, why were they searching for climate patents? Their "results" were obtained by searching Google Scholar using the search terms: "author:fi-lastname climate". By default Google Scholar is set to search both "articles and patents" yet no mention of searching only for articles is in the paper. So why were they searching for climate patents and how is a patent that contains the search word "climate" a relevant "climate publication"?

Even better they cherry picked away skeptics "we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher". So if a scientist published only 19 or less papers on climate he is not considered an "expert". They did this intentionally as they noted "researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group." Volume of publications does not indicate scientific truth. It cannot be ignored that skeptics extensively publish peer-reviewed papers so they have to use this propaganda to subjectively define "experts".

Conclusion: the study is worthless due to Google Scholar illiteracy and Cherry Picking.

Google Scholar at the Academy (National Post, Canada)