How Global Warming Really Works

[Wrong Element]

This shows an even smaller span of years. It doesn't say what was used to determine the zero line, so that is a bit suspicious. However, every single data point on the graph is above zero.

I've mentioned before that this guy has a bad habit of posting a zillion graphs so people will see them and go, "Well shit, he's got graphs! I guess this proves what he's been trying to tell us all along must be so!" But if you actually pay attention, they invariably show that the world has been, what do you know, getting warmer these last few decades.

 

[bill-pix-trade]

http://cdn.all-that-is-interesting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/carbon-emissions-by-country.jpg

 

[trysail]

I've mentioned before that this guy has a bad habit of posting a zillion graphs so people will see them and go, "Well shit, he's got graphs! I guess this proves what he's been trying to tell us all along must be so!" But if you actually pay attention, they invariably show that the world has been, what do you know, getting warmer these last few decades.

LOL.


...and 0.6°C (which probably isn't accurate) over the last 160 years is somehow DANGEROUS even if we haven't got the foggiest idea in hell of the "why" of it.


That's a perfectly good reason to panic and do all sorts of stupid things.


Why is it that people don't argue about E=mc² or F=ma?



​

 

[phrodeau]

LOL.


...and 0.6°C (which probably isn't accurate) over the last 160 years is somehow DANGEROUS even if we haven't got the foggiest idea in hell of the "why" of it.


That's a perfectly good reason to panic and do all sorts of stupid things.


Why is it that people don't argue about E=mc² or F=ma?



​

Your own graphs demonstrate clearly what a difference 0.6 degrees makes.

Most people don't argue about climate change. It's only a few loudmouth crackpots.

 

[trysail]

Climate Scientist: We can't find any solid evidence of CAGW.


Government man: Well, if that's the case, there's not much sense in spending so much on climate research. Oh— and by the way— you're fired.



​

climatology
climatescience
catastrophic

 

[trysail]

From the recent APS [American Physics Society] climate seminar transcript:

DR COLLINS: “I do not have an opinion. We thought while we were writing this report that it was aerosols. And there were a number of — people became very alarmed. There were four meetings that went into this report, four face-to-face meetings. As of the second, we were having these frantic meetings between people like myself on radiative forcing and the later chapters that were looking at these projections saying oh, my God. The models are running hot. Why are they running hot? By “running hot,” I mean running hot for 2011, 2012 as we were writing the report.”

DR COLLINS: “Now, I am hedging a bet because, to be honest with you, if the hiatus is still going on as of the sixth IPCC report, that report is going to have a large burden on its shoulders walking in the door, because recent literature has shown that the chances of having a hiatus of 20 years are vanishingly small.”

15 years? 20 years?

None of this was predicted, this is not an issue of communication. Climate Science has been caught with its pants down. And every comment and claim is retrospective. If you want scientists like myself to believe in these models you have to produce clear, testable predictions over, say, a 10 or 20 year period. Clearly defined, clearly written down. Not armwaving double speak like from the Met Office.

The first problem in all that is actually defining something you actually could predict and test, I suspect.

Otherwise you should take the recent advice of Richard Lindzen to the UK parliamentary committee – the best thing to do is…to do nothing and wait for 50 years.
​

-"Thinking Scientist"
http://blogs.plos.org/models/pause-for-thought/#comment-79409



​

 

[phrodeau]

Haven't found a way to defend your graphs yet?

 

[trysail]

Is there anybody up in New England who believes that this February's temperatures were "near average?"

​

http://talkingabouttheweather.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/screen-shot-2014-03-18-at-1-24-26-pm.png


​

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate
S. Fred Singer
March 27, 2014

The just-published NIPCC reports may lead to a paradigm shift about what or who causes current climate changes. All the evidence suggests that Nature rules the climate – not Man.

Watch for it: We may be on the threshold of a tipping point in climate history. No, I’m not talking about a tipping point in the sense that the Earth will be covered with ice or become hellishly hot. I’m talking about a tipping point in our views of what controls the climate -- whether it’s mainly humans or whether it’s mainly natural. It makes an enormous difference in climate policy: Do we try to mitigate, at huge cost, or do we merely adapt to natural changes -- as our ancestors did for many millennia?

Such tipping points occur quite frequently in science. I have personally witnessed two paradigm shifts where world scientific opinion changed rapidly -- almost overnight. One was in Cosmology, where the “Steady State” theory of the Universe was replaced by the “Big Bang.” This shift was confirmed by the discovery of the “microwave background radiation,” which has already garnered Nobel prizes, and will likely get more.

The other major shift occurred in Continental Drift. After being denounced by the Science Establishment, the hypothesis of Alfred Wegener, initially based on approximate relations between South America and Africa, was dramatically confirmed by the discovery of “sea-floor spreading.”

These shifts were possible because there were no commercial or financial interests -- and they did not involve the public and politicians. But climate is a different animal: The financial stakes are huge -- in the trillions of dollars, and affect energy policy, and indeed the economic wellbeing of every inhabitant of the developed and developing world. For example, the conversion into ethanol fuel of a substantial portion of the US corn crop raised the price of tortillas in Mexico and caused food riots.

...

But now, for the first time, we have NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) as a counter to the IPCC, as an independent voice, a second opinion, if you will -- something that was advocated by the IAC (InterAcademy Council on Science). We now have a credible number of studies, which the IPCC chose to ignore in reaching their conclusion about anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The NIPCC reports were also published in September 2013 (Physical Science), and in March and April of 2014 (Biological Impacts and Societal Impacts).

The NIPCC, in particular its Summary for Policy-Makers (SPM) of Vol 1, looks critically at the evidence that the IPCC uses to back up their claim of AGW. NIPCC notes that the evidence keeps changing over time. The first IPCC report (1990) used an improbable statistical method to suggest that the warming of the early part of the 20th century was due to human-produced GH gases; no one believes this anymore.

The second assessment report of 1996, which led to the infamous 1997 Kyoto Protocol, manufactured the so-called “HotSpot,” a region of increased warming trend, with a maximum in the equatorial troposphere. That evidence has also disappeared: a detailed analysis (published in Nature 1996) showed that the hHotspot doesn’t even exist. In addition, the assumption that it constitutes a “fingerprint” for AGW is in error.

As a result of these two failed attempts to establish some kind of evidence for AGW, the third IPCC report (2001) latched on to the so-called “Hockeystick” graph, which claimed that only the 20th century showed unusual warming during the past 1000 years. However, further scrutiny demonstrated that the Hockeystick was also manufactured -- based on faulty data, erroneous statistical methods, and an inappropriate calibration method. Even purely random data fed into the algorithm would always produce a hockeystick.

In its most recent AR5 of 2013, the IPCC has dropped all previous pieces of evidence and instead concentrates on trying to prove that the reported surface warming between 1978 and 2000 agrees with a warming predicted by climate models. This so-called proof turns out to be a weak reed indeed. The reported warming applies only to surface (land-based) weather stations and is not seen in any other data set; the weather satellite data that measure atmospheric temperature show no significant trend -- neither do proxy data (from analysis of tree rings, ocean/lake sediments, stalagmites, etc)

It can therefore be argued that there has been no appreciable human-caused warming in the 20th century at all -- and that the warming effects of rising GH-gas content of the atmosphere have been quite insignificant. See also
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/ipcc_s_bogus_evidence_for_global_warming.html

http://americanthinker.com/assets/3...03/the_coming_paradigm_shift_on_climate_.html

Global Warming was, is and will remain Political Science [Fiction].

 

[dan_c00000]

He must be one of the two. Normally, guys like him are paid hacks by big polluters.

10,883 out of 10,885 scientific articles agree: Global warming is happening, and humans are to blame

Virtually all of the scientific papers published in 2013 accept climate change [UPDATED]
Lindsay Abrams

As geochemist James Lawrence Powell continues to prove, the only people still debating whether or not climate change is “real,” and caused by human activity, are the ones who aren’t doing the actual research. In an update to his ongoing project of reviewing the literature on global warming, Powell went through every scientific study published in a peer-review journal during the calendar year 2013, finding 10,885 in total (more on his methodology here). Of those, a mere two rejected anthropogenic global warming. The consensus, as he defines it, looks like this:



Powell even had to expand that itty bitty slice of the consensus pie five times for us to make it out – the actual doubt about climate change within the scientific community is even tinier.

Adding this new data to his previous findings, Powell estimates that the going rate for climate denial in scientific research is about 1 in 1,000. The outliers, he adds, “have had no discernible influence on science.” From this, he comes up with a theory of his own:


Very few of the most vocal global warming deniers, those who write op-eds and blogs and testify to congressional committees, have ever written a peer-reviewed article in which they say explicitly that anthropogenic global warming is false. Why? Because then they would have to provide the evidence and, evidently, they don’t have it.

What can we conclude?

1. There a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming and no convincing evidence against it.

2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.

These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations.


UPDATE 3/26/2014 9:27 PM: The headline of this post has been corrected to reflect the correct number of articles referenced by Dr. Powell’s research. Powell also clarifies that many of those studies were authored by multiple scientists, so the complete number is actually higher. The headlines has been updated to reflect this as well.

On his methodology, Powell notes, he only verified that two out of the 10,885 articles he found concluded that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is wrong: “It is a safe assumption that virtually all the other 10883 do not reject–that is, they accept–AGW but I can’t say for sure that each one of them does.”

http://www.jamespowell.org/files/2013piechartbyred2.png

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

B-b-b-b-b-but, consensus among scientists doesn't mean anything!

They're all funded by the Liberal *spit* Gubbermint and have to tell us what they want us to hear!

*nodnod*

 

[RobDownSouth]

The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate
S. Fred Singer
March 27, 2014



http://americanthinker.com/assets/3...03/the_coming_paradigm_shift_on_climate_.html

Global Warming was, is and will remain Political Science [Fiction].

Dream on, Chief.

 

[Adre]

Singer also denies the dangers of second hand smoke if I recall. Believe whatever shit you want I guess.

 

[phrodeau]

Is there anybody up in New England who believes that this February's temperatures were "near average?"

​

http://talkingabouttheweather.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/screen-shot-2014-03-18-at-1-24-26-pm.png


​

Sure, lots of them do. You should know that.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Much like the idea that Obama could be president and Obamacare could be a success.

Guess what Gramps, he is, and it is despite your daily whines to the contrary.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Much like the idea that Obama could be president and Obamacare could be a success.

Millions more Muricans have access to health insurance now, a fact you seem unable to admit. Simper fi!

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

To paraphrase, people still get some traction from saying "the sky is falling!"

lol..

 

[StrangeLife]

He must be one of the two. Normally, guys like him are paid hacks by big polluters.

10,883 out of 10,885 scientific articles agree: Global warming is happening, and humans are to blame

Kinda like "Eat shit! 100 billion flies can't be wrong!" eh?

Why do you assume that scientific credence is decided as a democratic vote? If they had to slug it out in hand-to-hand combat true - the side with the most scientists would surely win. But that's not really how it works. Having one man with the right idea is way superior to 10,000 men who are going with the flow and regurgitating the popular mantra of the day...


http://s18.postimg.org/q28pawc9l/2013piechartbyred2.png

 

[dan_c00000]

Kinda like "Eat shit! 100 billion flies can't be wrong!" eh?

Why do you assume that scientific credence is decided as a democratic vote? If they had to slug it out in hand-to-hand combat true - the side with the most scientists would surely win. But that's not really how it works. Having one man with the right idea is way superior to 10,000 men who are going with the flow and regurgitating the popular mantra of the day...

That was just one year, 2013. If you'd like to look at all the other years you'll see that most real scientists (the ones not paid by Koch industries) all agree.

Unfortunately, you have no actual scientific credentials so in light of that fact

http://skreened.com/render-product/v/s/c/vscwewaalcozqmyqkofm/no-you-re-wrong-tee-t-shirt.anvil-unisex-value-fitted-tee.white.w760h760.jpg

 

[StrangeLife]

http://rlv.zcache.com/ghandi_sometimes_one_man_can_make_a_difference_tshirt-r6b988bd7d8c04a45a9ec06a4a00a5157_804gs_512.jpg

 

[dan_c00000]

http://rlv.zcache.com/ghandi_sometimes_one_man_can_make_a_difference_tshirt-r6b988bd7d8c04a45a9ec06a4a00a5157_804gs_512.jpg

Unfortunately, you're now making a moral argument against imperialism. This is a good example of right wing bullshit. If the facts aren't in your favor make them up; if what you've made up is complete nonsense change the argument.

Better known as a

http://cdn.techinasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/red-herring.jpg

Or in internet terms you can understand

http://images.cafepress.com/image/52917518_400x400.jpg

 

[trysail]

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052702303725404579460973643962840.html




Climate Forecast: Muting the Alarm

Even while it exaggerates the amount of warming, the IPCC is becoming more cautious about its effects.


By Matt Ridley
March 27, 2014

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will shortly publish the second part of its latest report, on the likely impact of climate change. Government representatives are meeting with scientists in Japan to sex up—sorry, rewrite—a summary of the scientists' accounts of storms, droughts and diseases to come. But the actual report, known as AR5-WGII, is less frightening than its predecessor seven years ago.

The 2007 report was riddled with errors about Himalayan glaciers, the Amazon rain forest, African agriculture, water shortages and other matters, all of which erred in the direction of alarm. This led to a critical appraisal of the report-writing process from a council of national science academies, some of whose recommendations were simply ignored.

Others, however, hit home. According to leaks, this time the full report is much more cautious and vague about worsening cyclones, changes in rainfall, climate-change refugees, and the overall cost of global warming.

It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century. This is vastly less than the much heralded prediction of Lord Stern, who said climate change would cost 5%-20% of world GDP in his influential 2006 report for the British government...

...Almost every global environmental scare of the past half century proved exaggerated including the population “bomb,” pesticides, acid rain, the ozone hole, falling sperm counts, genetically engineered crops and killer bees. In every case, institutional scientists gained a lot of funding from the scare and then quietly converged on the view that the problem was much more moderate than the extreme voices had argued. Global warming is no different.

Indeed, so many environmental scares have gone the way of the dodo, and yet here we are again, watching some people freak out about another one, and with wholesale planetary warming not cooperating as predicted, they are starting to see climate bogey-men in every weather event. It seems the fear of weather from the dark ages has returned to the mindset of some irrational thinkers...



more...

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052702303725404579460973643962840.html

 

[StrangeLife]

Unfortunately, you're now making a moral argument against imperialism. This is a good example of right wing bullshit. If the facts aren't in your favor make them up; if what you've made up is complete nonsense change the argument.

Better known as a

http://cdn.techinasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/red-herring.jpg

Or in internet terms you can understand

http://images.cafepress.com/image/52917518_400x400.jpg

And you're making an ad hominem argument against me, which tells me that you find my position too challenging to refute. Fully understandable - you are up against reason and common sense after all.

Hope you enjoyed the taste of the Kool-Aid...


http://nicholsoncartoons.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2009-04-25-save-the-world-global-warming-600.jpg

 

[phrodeau]

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052702303725404579460973643962840.html




Climate Forecast: Muting the Alarm

Even while it exaggerates the amount of warming, the IPCC is becoming more cautious about its effects.


By Matt Ridley
March 27, 2014

That settles it. You finally acknowledge climate change.