Physicist Offers $10,000 to Anyone Who Can Disprove Global Warming

And the same science shows that we haven't even exceeded what is reasonable to expect from NATURAL temperature changes.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL049444/abstract

Amazing how science hasn't quite figured it out for itself yet, don't you think?

So now that we have disproven the "science is settled" part, did you notice in the only part available to read, they mention that there is still that OTHER 25% warmer thingie, where apparently the planet all by itself has managed to do even more warming with the likes of you and me requiring coal fired power plants?

I don't suppose you have a full text version and can show where they considered this possibility,do you?

I have addressed this previously. Go read that so I don't have to copy and paste it because you didn't pay attention the last time.

Temperature trends are temperature trends, and without knowing the first order principles behind them (i.e. why those temperature models haven't worked out so well) you can no more claim to understand an upcoming inflection (or not) in the data better than anyone else.

Really? Without even knowing it? Faith is a great thing to have, but it doesn't tend to matter much in science, as opposed to evidence. And for that, I recommend using your eyes. You HAVE done these kinds of data fits before, haven't you?

Never in my life have I published a graph without annotating it, properly. To do so would invite derision from scientists, or even those who do technical writing for a living…even THEY know better. For reasons JC and I have already demonstrated.

 

Where do you get that a paper discussing local variability in Greenland applies to global mean surface temperature? Over the course of a day, the temperature at any location can vary by up to 20°C, but if you averaged temperature around the globe you find very little change over that same day, because while half of the world is heating during the day, the other half is cooling at night.

You still don't get it, do you? It's not the absolute temperature that is the problem, but rather the rate of change. While NATURAL temperature changes caused Earth to cool about 1°C over 5,000 years, global warming has erased 75% of that cooling in just one century.

It's not really that hard to use Google.

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics 7004/Marcott_Global Temperature Reconstructed.pdf

Yeah, if I missed it the first time, I'm going to search 626 posts looking for it. If you don't want to copy and paste, you could at least link to it.

The problem with your argument is that scientists do know what the first order principles behind climate are, and as accurate as climate models are, they would be far worse if they didn't account for increasing CO2.

And yet you feel qualified to question their graph by "just eyeballing it"? Did you even try graphing the data presented yourself to check? Again, their methodology is posted on their site. Let me know when you find a problem with it.

If Wood for Trees were an actual scientific organization, and not just a "self-funded personal project by Paul Clark, a British software developer and practically-oriented environmentalist and conservationist", then I could see your point. Maybe you should create your own web site for graphing climate data that properly annotates everything.

 

You are correct. It isn't. And one should be familiar with both sides of the story, before providing only one. As though Mann's temperature references inside the article provided itself isn't a clue. As I said, the science isn't settled.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/04/07/warmest-temperatures-4000-years-not-so-fast

Where do you believe that THINKING about a reference starts? You provided a graph that the science organization I worked for would never have allowed out the door, I mean really, not labeling axis? I am certainly qualified to NOTICE, and I asked the appropriate question about an R squared value for just that reason. I considered, for just a second, key punching all the data in and doing it myself but then decided I simply don't have enough skin in the game, and when quality problems are so "in your face" in terms of the apparent quality, I just couldn't justify the time.

Knowing this just came from some blogger explains perfectly why the graph wouldn't pass a single glance by the editors inside an actual science organization. If I want to publish, I do, and it certainly has never been, and will never be, on a blog.

 

I do consider both sides, but is this case one side is sorely lacking, and it isn't the one you think. Marcott et al (2013) has been cited by nine other papers since being published a year ago, and none of them dispute its findings. The Heartland article is supposedly based on two papers published by Don Easterbrook documenting flaws in Marcott, but Don hasn't published anything since 2010, except a couple of articles on WUWT. Easterbrook not only makes the same mistake you do, conflating local temperature for global proxies, he misrepresents the "present" in GISP2 ice core temperature data by 100 years. Science is not just about knowing both sides of the story, but giving them the weight they deserve.

And you need to give up the "Mann's temperature reconstruction is flawed" meme as the data and its findings have been repeatedly vindicated.

If your only argument against the graph I posted is that it wasn't properly labeled, then I take it you don't dispute that global temperature has increased over the last 17 years and 10 months.

And yet the only source you can produce to refute Marcott et al (2013) was published on a blog.

 

Did you read the paper? Are you familiar with what a "proxy" is? And who's proxies were being used? And how grafting the temperature record onto these proxies can, and is, REALLY bad news? And happens, coincidentally, to create the kind of profile mentioned in the paper you referenced?

It is not necessary to dispute a paper, itself based on previously disputed or worse...discredited ideas and authors.

Just because I am a fan of the SCIENCE data (versus the proxy data) does not mean that the Greenland profile hasn't been seen elsewhere. Quite a bit of that work was done during the work that was busy discrediting Mann.

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

I have no skin in this game until the fundamental variability issues are worked out, and the reference you have provided certainly hasn't satisfied that criteria yet.

You are aware of the error that grafting the temperature record onto the proxies creates, aren't you? Be it for Easterbrook, or Mann? Or your reference?

No, they haven't. His data errors alone, making known temperature fluctuations go bye-bye, are sufficient to discredit at the VERY least, the range of uncertainty in his methods. You recall me mentioning natural variability right? Well, variability exists even down within the data, and apparently Michael hasn't even been able to get this right. And the consequences of all of this? I have news, it isn't about vindicating him at this point.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/20...tcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse/

 

Oh look you learned how to play with woodfortrees.org.

Of course the issue would be why would you use a surface station reconstruction for anything post 1979 aka the satelite era. That is like having your doctor diagnose an ACL injury with an x-ray instead of an MRI. Its the 21st century man. Get with the damn times and use a temperature record that comes from the most advanced technology we have instead of an ad hoc network of thermometers inside of a wooden box read by hand. Stevenson screens were invented in the 19th century for christs sake!

The technology behind the surface record you posted


The technology behind the satellite record.


Which one do you think is better?

 

Ice cores are not local. Oxygen isotope rations are representative of the entire water cycle from the equator to the latitude they are cored. Ice cores are categorized not by the location that they are cored at but the latitude they are cored at for that very reason, and ice cores are consistent across their cored latitudes regardless of longitude because water vapor is well mixed. An ice core cored in Greenland is representative of almost the entire northern hemisphere.

I know you don’t understand this and probably never will.

According to the most accurate temperature proxy we have the GISP2 ice core. The drop from the Holocene Optimum to the Akkadian Cooling of almost 2C occurred in a little less than a century. And there is nothing specular about the rate of the present rise ore the present absolute temperature. Its actually cooler than most of the Holocene.

Marcott et. al. Is an example of lying by context. Marcott is a lower resolution reconstruction. You cant make a comparison based on the data used in Marcott because Marcott cannot show you what is happening on the scale of a century. This was intentional and when pressed Marcott had to admit that while his press release made some wild claims his reconstruction didn't have the resolution to make any claims about the present changes verses the past. This is what is being called science by press release where the press releases pushes the envelope far beyond what the study shows. That is called lying by exaggeration.

As is frequently the case warmmongers and warmmonger scientivists will try and drown out good scientifically proven proxies like ice cores with (*)(*)(*)(*) proxies like tree rings and upside down lake sediments. This is called lying through equivocation.

 

Are you aware that all temperature measurements are in fact proxies, since we have no way of directly measuring the temperature of an object. Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't be so foolish to say that scientists don't have ways of reconciling different methods of measuring temperature.

Coincidence? Or do temperature reconstructions create the hockey stick profile because that is what actually occurred? How can you be so sure that Mann's and Marcott's temperature reconstructions are wrong if you can't produce a better one? And a reconstruction of Greenland temperatures is not a proxy for global mean surface temperatures.

Damn, just lost another irony meter. Weren't you the one that was just dismissing blogs as sources for scientific data?

 

Neither are Briffa tree rings.

 

Well, my first thought is that if you're interested in the temperature at the surface, that's probably the best place to put your instruments. Second, how do you think they calibrate temperature measurements from satellites in the first place?

 

Maybe you should tell that to the climate scientists studying paleoclimatology because they don't seem to understand it either.

Besides, if each ice core was representative of global climate, shouldn't they all show the same temperature changes?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140330151320.htm

 

They wouldn't. For instance, both the northern and southern hemispheres react differently at different times. There is more sea ice now because Antarctica has produced more than the Arctic has lost.

 

Actually per AGW theory it doesn't matter if your instruments are in the mid troposphere or on the surface. Actually mid troposphere is better for detecting AGW.

Are you now denying AGW theory?

Satellites measure tropospheric radiance and convert that to temperature using a brightness temperature formula. They are in no way calibrated with the surface temperature record. Who ever told you that was wrong.

Why would they even be calibrated with the surface record? Like you said they aren't measuring the surface temperature.

 

Yes as I said ice cores are only consistent up to the latitude they are cored. So we core at different latitudes.

You need to study what oxygen isotope ratios are before reading a press release written by a non-scientist.

Holli Riebeek - TECH WRITER/EDITOR
http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/climate/index.cfm?fuseAction=people.jumpBio&&iPhonebookId=2986

 

Regardless of how they react, if they don't produce the same temperature reconstruction, then they are not global proxies, are they?

That is simply not true.

 

Please explain this brightness temperature formula and how it was derived without comparing measured brightness to measured temperatures.

I didn't say satellites are not measuring the surface temperature, just that they're measuring it from the other side of the atmosphere. If you wanted to know the temperature outside, would a thermometer placed outside not be better than trying to measure it with a heat camera through the window?

 

Simply not true only because you don't want to believe it.

Global Sea Ice Anomaly.



http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

 

There is no connection between ice core temperature data and the latitude it comes from.

Can't dispute the message so you're attacking the messenger again.

 

Crap!! I thought it had all melted?

 

I believe what the science says. Try reading instead of posting pictures which you don't understand.

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/1289/2014/tc-8-1289-2014.html

 

1/3rd as large of a rate for a much larger area is still more ice then the Arctic is losing. Simple math and the reason the global ice amount is greater than the average.

 

So do I. And the science doesn't know yet. So how can you?

 

With a seasonal max around 20 million square kilometers, the Antarctic isn't that much larger than the Arctic, with a seasonal max around 15 million square kilometers.

When the Antarctic is gaining about 16,500 square kilometers a year while the Arctic is loosing 48,000 square kilometers, it doesn't matter what math you use.

 

Guess that is why global sea ice rose above the average then eh?

BTW: Right now the Arctic sea ice is 5.464 million square km and the Antarctic is 15.15 million square km or nearly 4 times the size.

 

Here's another question for you to ponder, if satellites are so much better for measuring mean global surface temperature, then why are the two major satellite data records, UAH and RSS, diverging from each other?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07...n-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/