The current decade is the warmest on record

[shira]

Dude, the concept that proxy data show poor correlation where they can be verified but are good where they cannot be verified is asinine. No one, even "EVERYONE who has a decent understanding of climatology" and is writing a textbook, is ever going to convince me otherwise. It isn't a question of "educating myself", it's a fundamental issue of common sense.

Proxy data are always a gamble and an unknown source of error simply because no two sets of data ever track exactly. In this case climatologists are taking proxy data that track well over 110 years and track poorly over 49 years and projecting them back thousands of years, assuming that they are accurate even though we all know that over more than 30% of the verifiable record they do not track temperature. Stop and THINK!

This is the core of my problem with the fledgling science of climatology. Advocates of CAGW make these wild leaps that things that are shown to be inaccurate where they can be checked are accurate where they cannot be checked. Can you show me any other field that behaves in like manner? Then they hide the known inaccuracies by plotting measured temperatures on the same graph as their massaged measured proxy data (because tree rings don't measure temperature, but rather measure growth, some mathematical transformation must always be done) without pointing this out to give the idea that the proxy data correlate well with actual measured data rather than the truth, that they do not track over more than 30% of the range that can be verified. Then they conspire among themselves to ensure that only like-minded "scientists" can review their work - even though the underlying data and equations are not made available, so any peer review is a joke - and to discredit any scientists who disagree with them. And when necessary to preserve the fraud, they destroy the actual gathered data. And you think there is no fraud here?

Man, if you think these people are credible scientists then phrenologists must seem like omniscient gods to you.

First, as I wrote in my last post, multiple proxies are used, and this data from multiple sources reduces uncertainty. When all proxies point to the same temperature profile, that's a strong indication that the profile is valid.

This notion of yours that there's some cabal that excludes criticism and disagreement, and hides data, is just nuts. You've seen an example where a handful of CRU scientists won't give data to Patrick Michaels, and you now make the statement that hiding data is the rule. And because Steven McIntyre is universally panned because his opinions are truly wacko, that means ALL climatologists who disagree are marginalized.

The irony is thick here: You criticize the climatology community for making "wild leaps," when ALL methods and assumptions are clearly stated in peer-reviewed studies, with questionable methods and assumptions rejected. Yet look at yourself: You make the wild leap from isolated examples that data hiding and controlling access to journals is the rule.

Try looking at yourself in the mirror.

 

[gsellis]

Are you not dismissing more experts in the same field? What do Australia's stations have to do with glaciers around the world shrinking?

Researchers have said that reports of the Himilayan glacier changes are not correct.
Killamanjaro is caused by land use issues.

How can you dismiss the man-made component factor with no statistics to back it up?

Yes, you can. You cannot prove a null hypothesis, only show a hypothesis as null. When you have historic CO2 levels follow warming, it shows that CO2 levels only have a link to warming and as a resultant. UHI? Because it does not continue down stream and we don't show the holding of temp in the trophosphere.... And the whole ocean heat sink thing is just a fantasy. Also, the N/S hemisphere blending model shows that CO2 changes in the north are unrelated to temps in the south (Pinatubo aerosols show what the actual global blending sequence is.)

 

[fskimospy]

The problem is that you are dismissing the experts in the field that disagree with your agenda. When this 'science' is using statistics and modelling, and the experts in those fields say you are doing it wrong, you hypothesis fails. Maybe you should read the analysis on the check against the raw data for Australian reporting stations (cooling since 1880) vs the CRU version (warming with a discrete stepwise changes). It is stickied at Anthony Watt's page right now.

Let's summerize - you are stating that the earth is warming solely because of man-released CO2.

We are stating that the earth has been warming from a local minimum. While there might be a man-made component, it cannot be statistically identified or considered significant outside of any natural variance. We also recognize that the MWP did exist and that the temperature then is degrees higher than the current period. We also recognize that the reported ground station temperatures appear to have been adjusted through the improper use of weighting on poor data or incorrectly applying adjustments to good data (failure to recognize UHI and then adjusting CRN 1 and 2 stations as GISS appears to do - or committing academic fraud in station data creation for Asia). We have also seen the code to "hide the decline".

I don't know how you could write a post more wrong.

I am not dismissing experts in the field that disagree with me, I'm saying that the overwhelming evidence in the field is in favor of massive global warming. I can either believe that the hypothesis is true, or that it is false. Currently there is a mountain of evidence for it being true, and considerably less for it being false. As a rational person, I choose to go with the majority of evidence. It has nothing to do with 'ignoring' anyone, it has to do with an objective look at reality.

Secondly, I most certainly am NOT stating that the earth is warming solely due to mankind's release of CO2. Not only have I never said that a single time in all of my time on this board, but I am not aware of a single credible expert that has ever tried to make such a ridiculous assertion, and it is a gross misrepresentation of both my opinion and the opinion of every responsible scientist who accepts global warming. Can you please provide me with the source for such an absurd idea?

Your position is basically one filled with assumptions that you lack the expertise or the understanding to actually make an intelligent decision on. Like I've been saying on here, armchair scientists that are acting like their incredible work on climatology involving blogs and Google should be taken seriously. My answer is: No it shouldn't.

 

[gsellis]

You must want to NOT understand: Tree-ring data has been found to be highly accurate when compared with available temperature measurement from the 1850 to 1960 period. But from 1960 onward, the tree-ring data diverges from temperature data and understates actual, measured temperatures.

The REASONS for this divergence aren't known (but as stated in my previous post, it may well be due to the fact that as the climate change itself is causing the divergence: as temperatures and CO2 levels continues to rise, it may well be that the growth-rate of trees cannot continually rise in lockstep.

This says it all. You are kidding right? This is the classic example of a null. Correlation does NOT mean it actually is significant or related. And then when it does not match the rest of the series, you cannot continue to claim that it is. This is the core of the 'hide the decline'. They could not explain it, so they changed the data to match their expectation.

In fact, tree models show that if anything, the higher CO2 is, the faster trees should grow. A study has now shown that increases in CO2 may be responsible for a 50% increase in the growth rates of aspens.

If this were true, then it is fact that the winning speeds at the Indy 500 are responsible for GNP growth. The fact that they fall off after Tony George started his own series has nothing to do with the divergence at the end.

 

[shira]

This says it all. You are kidding right? This is the classic example of a null. Correlation does NOT mean it actually is significant or related. And then when it does not match the rest of the series, you cannot continue to claim that it is. This is the core of the 'hide the decline'. They could not explain it, so they changed the data to match their expectation.
In fact, tree models show that if anything, the higher CO2 is, the faster trees should grow. A study has now shown that increases in CO2 may be responsible for a 50% increase in the growth rates of aspens.

If this were true, then it is fact that the winning speeds at the Indy 500 are responsible for GNP growth. The fact that they fall off after Tony George started his own series has nothing to do with the divergence at the end.

I give up on you. You simply don't have the mental resources to put two concepts together. Simple ideas are lost in the void that is your brain.

Have a pleasant life in never-never land.

 

[gsellis]

I don't know how you could write a post more wrong.

I am not dismissing experts in the field that disagree with me, I'm saying that the overwhelming evidence in the field is in favor of massive global warming. I can either believe that the hypothesis is true, or that it is false. Currently there is a mountain of evidence for it being true, and considerably less for it being false. As a rational person, I choose to go with the majority of evidence. It has nothing to do with 'ignoring' anyone, it has to do with an objective look at reality.

Secondly, I most certainly am NOT stating that the earth is warming solely due to mankind's release of CO2. Not only have I never said that a single time in all of my time on this board, but I am not aware of a single credible expert that has ever tried to make such a ridiculous assertion, and it is a gross misrepresentation of both my opinion and the opinion of every responsible scientist who accepts global warming. Can you please provide me with the source for such an absurd idea?

Your position is basically one filled with assumptions that you lack the expertise or the understanding to actually make an intelligent decision on. Like I've been saying on here, armchair scientists that are acting like their incredible work on climatology involving blogs and Google should be taken seriously. My answer is: No it shouldn't.

No, you have said that anyone who is not a climatologist cannot disprove their theory. That is incorrect. Einstein stated it most clearly, one fact is all it takes to ruin any theory. And by their bad behavior in all that science puts onto a scientist to proof their theory, they have clearly shown that science is not their motive.

For the record, I started out believing that CO2 was responsible for a large component of warming. But just a shallow scraping turned me into a sceptic. The first start of my disbelief came with Mann's hockey stick and the absolute shins he was pulling in denying validation and verification, the 'hide the MWP' emails, and the resultant smoothed historical record with the scalar bias of the presentation. It started stinking worse than the Endocrine Disrupters research (why that guy never was banned permanantly from research grants is still a mystery - he made up data to prove his 'theory' and got caught).

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

I give up on you. You simply don't have the mental resources to put two concepts together. Simple ideas are lost in the void that is your brain.

Have a pleasant life in never-never land.

Let's see here...

gsellis provides facts and data to back up his stance in the argument, and you provide...personal attacks and insults.

:hmm:...yep, par for the course! Just shout down and insult the opposition. Saul Alinsky tactics at its finest.

So far, gsellis has provided a detailed analysis as to why he believes what he believes, and you had to resort to insults and name-calling out of desperation because you realize you're outmatched.

It's like yllus VS Craig234 all over again... /popcorn

 

[gsellis]

I give up on you. You simply don't have the mental resources to put two concepts together. Simple ideas are lost in the void that is your brain.

Have a pleasant life in never-never land.

edit - nm... I should not seek your level.

 

[gsellis]

Let's see here...

gsellis provides facts and data to back up his stance in the argument, and you provide...personal attacks and insults.

:hmm:...yep, par for the course! Just shout down and insult the opposition. Saul Alinsky tactics at its finest.

Thanks... and then I go and answer in kind... Why I even bother I don't get. You cannot have religious arguments with the zealots.

Thank you for reminding me that getting personal is pointless. Editing ^

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Thanks... and then I go and answer in kind... Why I even bother I don't get. You cannot have religious arguments with the zealots.

Thank you for reminding me that getting personal is pointless. Editing ^

I learned long ago on P&N that facts and data are the kryptonite of those with a...leftward agenda. When they realize they're losing the argument, they bring out the arrogant insults and the condescending name-calling. It is textbook.

/start algore impersonation

"OH, you are one of those AGW DENIERS. OBVIOUSLY, you must be a SIMPLETON, because EVERYONE agrees that THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED."

/end algore impersonation

 

[Robor]

I learned long ago on P&N that facts and data are the kryptonite of those with a...leftward agenda. When they realize they're losing the argument, they bring out the arrogant insults and the condescending name-calling. It is textbook.

/start algore impersonation

"OH, you are one of those AGW DENIERS. OBVIOUSLY, you must be a SIMPLETON, because EVERYONE agrees that THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED."

/end algore impersonation

You are a legend in your own mind.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

You are a legend in your own mind.

See: Exhibit B.

Care to refute anything he said? Or will you just dish out more predictable insults to deflect the issue?

 

[BoberFett]

It all comes from having the temperature gauges set up where they paved paradise and put up a parking lot with a pink hotel, a boutique and a swinging hot spot.

I'd much prefer a hot swinging spot.

Besides, I thought anecdote != evidence? At least that's what the AWG congregation members tell the deniers. So now anecdotes are OK?

 

[bfdd]

gsellis, good posts. I'm amazed that they are even choosing to argue with you on the subject of the tree rings working for when there is no recorded data and not working when there is.

 

[werepossum]

Thanks... and then I go and answer in kind... Why I even bother I don't get. You cannot have religious arguments with the zealots.

Thank you for reminding me that getting personal is pointless. Editing ^

You might at well try convincing a fundamentalist evangelical Christian that Jesus was a miniature three-headed homosexual giraffe as convince a devout CAGW acolyte that anything their priests do or say is less than pristine. Of course, fundies don't insist that we accept the Bible as word-for-word literal truth and then hide it from us. They don't substitute parts of the Farmer's Almanac if the Bible turns out to be wrong on something. And they don't destroy the Bible if someone else gets close enough to actually read it. But then fundamentalist evangelical Christians have ethics and morals to go with their agenda. Ah, if only scientists were as ethical and open-minded.

 

[kalrith]

The myth that the earth's climate is naturally static without human involvement is quite laughable.

This has always been my problem with this whole issue. So what if their is global warming, cooling, or climate change? We can look at history and at least know that there was an ice age, so obviously the earth's climate changed with no human involvement. Even if there is global warming, how does that automatically translate into posing big restrictions on businesses that hold back our economy. I wonder if any study has been done on what the impact to the US GDP there has been from environmental sanctions based solely on "preventing" global waming.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I give up on you. You simply don't have the mental resources to put two concepts together. Simple ideas are lost in the void that is your brain.

Have a pleasant life in never-never land.

I think I hear your Tiger Woods thread calling you.

 

[gsellis]

gsellis, good posts. I'm amazed that they are even choosing to argue with you on the subject of the tree rings working for when there is no recorded data and not working when there is.

Tree rings can provide valuable data. It takes a dendrologist to really take it further (which Briffa and Jones are not if you follow that whole "you are not a ..." line of thinking.) From the basic side, temperature, food, and water are the three things needed for growth. It is said that Brittle-Cone pines are not good temperature proxies (which usually would mean that available water and light/nutrients/CO2/O2 may be more influential on seasonal growth).

Steve McIntyre's bit on Briffa's YAD series kind of got lost in the whole release of the FOIA files out of UEA CRU. The real temps were not in step with the proxy used or other proxies in the area. And then an apparent outlier made the whole set of the proxy appear cherry picked. I don't think YAD was cherry picked, but I think it was kept because it matched CRU expectation. If YAD06 had been left out, the story gets a bit different. And then getting a proxy that is getting up towards the tundra line where the growing season is so short. Not my call to say how valuable that is, but I know I would be embarrassed if it looked like I choose a proxy that appeared to be included only because it matched my hypothesis. I know that was my biggest fear when I was working on modelling in grad school before gun powder was invented. I did not want a F because I missed set of significant variables. I worked to try to prove it wrong (and usually did - Economics is an art form, not science.)

 

[Robor]

See: Exhibit B.

Care to refute anything he said? Or will you just dish out more predictable insults to deflect the issue?

I'm not going to bother with someone who says this...

facts and data are the kryptonite of those with a...leftward agenda​

So no.

 

[fskimospy]

No, you have said that anyone who is not a climatologist cannot disprove their theory. That is incorrect. Einstein stated it most clearly, one fact is all it takes to ruin any theory. And by their bad behavior in all that science puts onto a scientist to proof their theory, they have clearly shown that science is not their motive.

For the record, I started out believing that CO2 was responsible for a large component of warming. But just a shallow scraping turned me into a sceptic. The first start of my disbelief came with Mann's hockey stick and the absolute shins he was pulling in denying validation and verification, the 'hide the MWP' emails, and the resultant smoothed historical record with the scalar bias of the presentation. It started stinking worse than the Endocrine Disrupters research (why that guy never was banned permanantly from research grants is still a mystery - he made up data to prove his 'theory' and got caught).

Also untrue. You are showing a remarkable ability to distort people's words. I said that those without expertise in a field are not going to be able to credibly refute the peer reviewed work of those with the relevant expertise, and this is true. Someone who cannot read isn't going to be able to tell you that you're misinterpreting Shakespere. There are quite a few scientific papers out there that challenge the conclusions of man caused global warming, but people on here use blog posts and similar non-credible sources and expect them to be taken seriously as a refutation to peer reviewed literature. This is an attempt to have all points of view taken as equally valid when anyone can see that they are not. It's a common diversionary tactic. (GW deniers scientific soulmates the creationists frequenly attempt to do exactly this)

As for your saying from Einstein that's true, however your attempt to apply it to this is once again, absurd. If you can provide a fact that shows that either the earth is not getting warmer, or that CO2 does not trap heat, that would blow AGW out of the water tomorrow. And no, the CRU data controversy does nothing of the sort.

I support science before any ideology. Right now the massive, overwhelming majority of evidence is that mankind is contributing to significant warming of the earth. If the science changes on that someday, all the better. I would LOVE to not have a global catastrophe on my hands. I am not so foolish as to presume it will however, and so I will continue to endorse the only reasonable course of action given the evidence.

 

[gsellis]

Also untrue. You are showing a remarkable ability to distort people's words. I said that those without expertise in a field are not going to be able to credibly refute the peer reviewed work of those with the relevant expertise, and this is true. Someone who cannot read isn't going to be able to tell you that you're misinterpreting Shakespere. There are quite a few scientific papers out there that challenge the conclusions of man caused global warming, but people on here use blog posts and similar non-credible sources and expect them to be taken seriously as a refutation to peer reviewed literature. This is an attempt to have all points of view taken as equally valid when anyone can see that they are not. It's a common diversionary tactic. (GW deniers scientific soulmates the creationists frequenly attempt to do exactly this)

As for your saying from Einstein that's true, however your attempt to apply it to this is once again, absurd. If you can provide a fact that shows that either the earth is not getting warmer, or that CO2 does not trap heat, that would blow AGW out of the water tomorrow. And no, the CRU data controversy does nothing of the sort.

I support science before any ideology. Right now the massive, overwhelming majority of evidence is that mankind is contributing to significant warming of the earth. If the science changes on that someday, all the better. I would LOVE to not have a global catastrophe on my hands. I am not so foolish as to presume it will however, and so I will continue to endorse the only reasonable course of action given the evidence.

The earth is getting warmer from the last local minimum. CO2 can, in lab experiments in a closed box system, cause heat retention in an inverse log based on concentration. The burden is on someone else to prove that CO2 released by man is causing significant warming. There is no proof for that. Models are not proof. Models are tools. And the guys making the models have shown signs of bad behavior creating those models. That is why the rest of the peers keep asking for the data and calculations so we can recreate it. Until it is reproducible, it is not science. But also consider that water vapor feedback is not in those models. Those models deny that solar variation is in play. One intriguing supposition is that the lower solar activity reduces the solar magnetic field, which reduces the terrestrial magnetic field, which in turn allows higher levels of cosmic rays to penetrate into the various layers of the atmosphere. That in turn increases albeito because cloud formation is higher. Not modelled either.

 

[fskimospy]

The earth is getting warmer from the last local minimum. CO2 can, in lab experiments in a closed box system, cause heat retention in an inverse log based on concentration. The burden is on someone else to prove that CO2 released by man is causing significant warming. There is no proof for that. Models are not proof. Models are tools. And the guys making the models have shown signs of bad behavior creating those models. That is why the rest of the peers keep asking for the data and calculations so we can recreate it. Until it is reproducible, it is not science. But also consider that water vapor feedback is not in those models. Those models deny that solar variation is in play. One intriguing supposition is that the lower solar activity reduces the solar magnetic field, which reduces the terrestrial magnetic field, which in turn allows higher levels of cosmic rays to penetrate into the various layers of the atmosphere. That in turn increases albeito because cloud formation is higher. Not modelled either.

Actually they are modeled and specific studies have been done on solar variation and cosmic rays, finding that they cannot account for the degree of warming we have seen. In fact this very same discussion has been had on here in previous years. None of this is even remotely new information.

I know that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, you have once again misinterpreted what I wrote. That part of my post was about your Einstein reference about a single fact destroying a theory. Those were examples of such facts that could destroy this theory. (facts that do not exist)

 

[PJABBER]

The earth is getting warmer from the last local minimum. CO2 can, in lab experiments in a closed box system, cause heat retention in an inverse log based on concentration. The burden is on someone else to prove that CO2 released by man is causing significant warming. There is no proof for that. Models are not proof. Models are tools. And the guys making the models have shown signs of bad behavior creating those models. That is why the rest of the peers keep asking for the data and calculations so we can recreate it. Until it is reproducible, it is not science. But also consider that water vapor feedback is not in those models. Those models deny that solar variation is in play. One intriguing supposition is that the lower solar activity reduces the solar magnetic field, which reduces the terrestrial magnetic field, which in turn allows higher levels of cosmic rays to penetrate into the various layers of the atmosphere. That in turn increases albeito because cloud formation is higher. Not modelled either.

You had to throw that in. (Eating another cookie.)

 

[bfdd]

Actually they are modeled and specific studies have been done on solar variation and cosmic rays, finding that they cannot account for the degree of warming we have seen. In fact this very same discussion has been had on here in previous years. None of this is even remotely new information.

I know that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, you have once again misinterpreted what I wrote. That part of my post was about your Einstein reference about a single fact destroying a theory. Those were examples of such facts that could destroy this theory. (facts that do not exist)

And the same models are saying we should be warmer than we are right now. So maybe they were WRONG in the first place.

 

[MrEgo]

I learned long ago on P&N that facts and data are the kryptonite of those with a...leftward agenda. When they realize they're losing the argument, they bring out the arrogant insults and the condescending name-calling. It is textbook.

You must be the coolest kid you know.