'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

You have it 97% wrong. 97% of scientist believe it is warming. AGW is another matter altogether.

 

Proof? Because quite frankly I am getting tired of doing all the work in this conversation

Though I note you did not speak of the MEASURED CARBON ISOTOPES - have you got an answer for them too?

 

You provide no link to where you got this information...

But I will provide you a link to much more recent information that goes much more in-depth, if you care to address it...

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010...r-activity-global-temperature-divergence-lie/

We are frequently told that the Sun can’t be responsible for late C20th warming because temperature has increased while solar activity has dropped from it’s peak in the 1950′s.

What a load of rubbish.

Solar cycle amplitudes are only part of the story. The cycles in the late C20th were short, ~10 years, and high compared to the long term average of ~40 SSN. The minima between them were short too. So although they did reduce in absolute amplitude after the ’50s, they made up for it by kicking out more energy more of the time. Last year to get a handle on this, I integrated the total sunspot areas as a running cumulative total departing from the long term average.

The Sea Surface Temperature graph from woodfortrees.org with the trend lines added shows how well the sunspot cumulative total works as a proxy for Ocean Heat Content. The SST data is smoothed over 1/3 of the solar cycle length to bring out the solar effect on SST’s. I further developed this idea in my simple solar-planetary energy model. Looking at the flattening of the rise at cycle 19-20 (1954-1976) and from cycle 22-23 and now the low cycle 24, I would say we are just over the top of the warming curve. The slightly falling OHC data from 2003 onwards measured by ARGO would seem to back this up.

So although we have yet to understand all the mechanisms by which the Sun’s energies get transferred into Earth’s climate system, we can say that the solar data fits the temperature record better than co2 data does, over a longer period too.

(graphs and other links at link provided)

 

Perhaps the same thing that has changed it since the beginning of time... You know, when man wasn't around to be blamed for it.

And what about the recent cooling?

It may be the Sun: a strong anti-correlation between cosmic-ray intensity and radiosonde temperatures over the past 50 years. Source: Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 2007.

THE CHIEF REASON for skepticism at the official position on “global warming” is the overwhelming weight of evidence that the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, prodigiously exaggerates both the supposed causes and the imagined consequences of anthropogenic “global warming”; that too many of the exaggerations can be demonstrated to have been deliberate; and that the IPCC and other official sources have continued to rely even upon those exaggerations that have been definitively demonstrated in the literature to have been deliberate. In short, science is being artfully manipulated to fabricate what are in essence political and not scientific conclusions – a conclusion that is congenial to powerful factions whose ambition is not to identify scientific truth but rather to advance the special vested interests with which they identify themselves.

The imagined causes of manmade “global warming” have been exaggerated
The anthropogenic increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases since the mid-20th century is said to be the principal driver of the “global warming” thought to have been observed over that period. The present analysis will generally overlook all anthropogenic forcings (positive or negative influences on global temperature) other than that from carbon dioxide, since the UN’s climate panel finds the aggregate of all non-CO2 forcings to be slightly net-negative (see Monckton, 2008, in Physics and Society, July, for an evaluation establishing this uncontroversial point).

The official theory may thus be simplified to state that it is the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration that, if unchecked, will raise global mean surface temperatures by up to 6.4 degrees Celsius in the century to 2100. The theory depends upon two questionable assumptions: first, that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration will increase twofold to threefold over the 21st century; secondly, that the effect of carbon dioxide is substantial enough to increase global mean surface temperature on the interval [2, 4.5] °C (central official projection 3.26 °C) for every doubling of the atmospheric concentration. We shall examine these two assumptions seriatim.

Rate of increase in carbon dioxide concentration: Figure 2 shows that, in the eight years since January 2001, global atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased at a near-linear 200 ppmv/century. By 2100, at this rate, CO2 concentration would be ~580 ppmv:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/temperature_and_co2_change_briefing.html

 

CO2 increases well below the projected path. The blue region shows the IPCC’s currently-projected range of increases in CO2 concentration; the blue curve beneath this region is NOAA’s deseasonalized global trend; the cyan line is the least-squares linear regression on that trend, equivalent to ~200 ppmv/century.

Careful examination of Figure 2 shows that the IPCC’s CO2 projections are exponential curves, so that the IPCC imagines the concentration will reach its projected interval [730, 1040] ppmv by 2100, central projection 836 ppmv. However, the observed trend is entirely below the IPCC’s predicted path. Furthermore, the residuals of the NOAA’s CO2-concentration trend are so close to the fit that the trend may itself be near-linear, in which event, even if humankind takes no action at all to curb CO2 emissions, the concentration by 2100 will be little more than 580 ppmv. Note that the IPCC does not even include its estimates of the CO2 concentration by 2100 in its 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
Climate sensitivity: the effect of CO2 on temperature: At its simplest, the IPCC’s guess is that the effect of changes in CO2 concentration on temperature is logarithmic: i.e. a multiple of the natural logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration:
?Ts = c ln(C/C0),

where the bracketed term is the proportionate increase. From the fact that the IPCC’s projected temperature change in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is [2, 4.5] °C, central projection 3.26 °C, we may calculate that the coefficient c in the CO2-change-to-temperature-change equation falls on the interval [2.9, 6.5], central projection 4.7.

If, ad argumentum, the IPCC’s central projection of the influence of CO2 on global temperature were correct, and taking today’s CO2 concentration as 385 ppmv, then at our projected 580 ppmv in 2100, we might instantly derive the corresponding increase in mean global surface temperature compared with today, thus –
?Ts = c ln(C/C0) ˜ 4.7 ln(580/385) ˜ 1.9 °C.

This value is little more than half the 3.6 °C that would result by 2100 if CO2 concentration were to increase at the IPCC’s central rate, giving 836 ppmv rather than 570 ppmv by 2100.

However, there are good grounds to doubt the IPCC’s current estimates of the effect of changes in CO2 concentration on temperature. Remarkably, none of the IPCC’s quinquennial climate assessments gives any account of the theoretical or empirical methods by which the impact of CO2 on temperature has been evaluated. Were laboratory experiments conducted? We are not told. By what method? We are not told.

What steps were taken to replicate the original experiments on which the IPCC’s values are predicated? We are not told. What are the methods by which each of the three key variables whose product is final climate sensitivity are evaluated? We are not told. How did the IPCC evaluate these methods theoretically or validate them empirically? We are not told. Can any of the three key variables – the CO2 forcing, the no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter, and the temperature-feedback multiplier – be directly measured? No.

In short, the chain of theoretical, empirical, and mathematical reasoning without which no scientist would regard the IPCC’s estimates of the effect of CO2 on temperature as having been reliably established in accordance with the long-established principles of the scientific method is largely absent from the official, quinquennial reports of the IPCC.

Neither of the most recent IPCC quinquennial assessments bothers even to devote a complete chapter to what is, after all, the central question in the entire debate – how does one evaluate the magnitude of the imagined effect of changes in CO2 concentration on temperature?

Disjointed and often mutually-contradictory particles of information are scattered about the IPCC’s documents. For instance, the 2001 report says a typical value of the final-climate-sensitivity parameter is ? = 0.5, yet the central estimate of ? implicit in the 2007 report is nearly double this value, and there is no discussion of the discrepancy.

The peer-reviewed literature is full of papers questioning the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 concentration. Schwartz (2007), Wentz et al. (2007); Chylek et al. (2004, 2007); Lindzen (200; Khilyuk & Chilingar (2007); Schwartz (2007); and Monckton (200 all find final climate sensitivity to be <1 °C at CO2 doubling, for different reasons. Indeed, low, harmless, beneficial climate sensitivity is almost becoming a consensus in the scientific literature.

The likelihood of an anthropogenic temperature increase >2 °C by the year 2100 is vanishingly small, since so high an increase would require not only an exponential rate of increase in CO2 concentration very considerably in excess of the recently-linear increase that is observed in the real world, but also an effect of CO2 on temperature for whose overstated magnitude no theoretical demonstration or empirical verification is provided anywhere in the climate assessments of the IPCC.

Global mean surface temperature is not rising as fast as the IPCC has predicted
The maximum rate of global temperature increase – equivalent to ~1.8 °C/century – occurred in the 1920s-30s, when humankind could not have had very much to do with it. Since 1980, when data reliability was enhanced by satellite data series, the rate of increase has been equivalent to ~1.5 °C per century, twice the increase of 0.74 °C/century from 1900-2000.

However, for the past eight full years (see Figure 3), global mean surface temperatures have been falling on a trend equivalent to >1 °C/century.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/temperature_and_co2_change_briefing.html

 

Eight straight years’ global temperature downtrend: The authoritative SPPI composite index of global mean surface temperature anomalies, taking the mean of two surface and two satellite datasets, shows a pronounced downtrend for eight full years. Not one of the climate models relied upon by the IPCC had predicted this downturn. The pink region shows the IPCC’s projected rates of temperature increase: the thick red straight line shows the least-squares linear regression on the composite temperature anomalies.

A few years’ downtrend cannot be naively extrapolated. However, taken with the fact that the 30-year uptrend was at a rate below the uptrend observed in the 1920s and 1930s, the current downtrend notwithstanding the continuing and increase in CO2 concentration indicates a growing likelihood that CO2 cannot be influencing surface temperatures to the extent imagined by the IPCC.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/temperature_and_co2_change_briefing.html

 

Behind the curve: For 29 years, temperatures have not risen as the IPCC had predicted.

The official, global temperature records overstate the true warming rate: McKitrick (2007) has demonstrated that the global-temperature datasets are unduly influenced by the directly-exothermic industrial activities of humankind. He has established a statistically-significant correlation between regional rates of temperature change and regional rates of economic growth. If there were no “urban heat-island” contamination of the global-temperature datasets, there would be no statistically-significant correlation. His startling conclusion is that, at least over land, the temperature datasets show temperatures rising at approximately double the true rate of increase – a 100% exaggeration of the true trend since 1980.

For many years, Meteorologist Anthony Watts has studied the placement of automatic temperature-monitoring stations. He has found that many of the stations are in formerly-rural areas that are now industrialized. Some stations are close to car parks, heating systems, air-conditioning outlets and other locations that cause artificial enhancement of the temperature readings. He has also studied the processing of the data from these stations to establish whether the correct adjustments for urbanization are being made. To ensure compatibility of recent with older data, the previous data should be held at their originally-recorded values, but, at sites that have become urbanized since earlier data were recorded, more recent data should be adjusted downward to compensate for the heat-island effect of surrounding urbanization.

However, in one notoriously-inaccurate dataset administered by a politicized scientist known to have close and long-established financial and political links with Al Gore and John Kerry, the reverse policy is followed. Older data are tampered with to reduce temperatures in the 1930s (which were in reality greater than today’s temperatures), while today’s readings (which ought to have been reduced to compensate for the effects of recent urbanization surrounding the stations) have been increased.

An instance of this tampering is the Santa Rosa station in the US, originally on a deserted beach by a lake, now surrounded by a busy boatyard, and the thermometer is very close to a dark-painted, upturned boat. This change in the local circumstances, however, has not been taken into account in the temperature readings (Figures 6a, 6b) –

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/temperature_and_co2_change_briefing.html

 

The link is embedded in the picture and as soon as you hit quote it comes up. Although I do admit to having, once in my life, forgotten to add a link to a quoted text - only realised after it was too late

Sorry but are you under the impression that the anonymous blogger "Tallbloke" is a scientist who is presenting a valid theory worthy of publication?

let us have a further look at this "theory"

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/my-simple-solar-planetary-energy-model/

A while back I started a thread about "ridiculous pseudoscience" mind if I add this one - I mean we all like to share a laugh

 

You were better off with "Tallbloke"

Just a wee hint to aid in your life long quest for truth

Before you quote from a source do a basic google search to see who is behind it and why

From Wiki

Hmmmm - I smell some political agenda going on here but, and here I will gleefully admit to an AD Hom, the next bit is the most telling

I won't say anything further - I will actually let you, no encourage you, to google "Lord" Monckton" and if you add in the word "fraud" you are in for hours worth of entertaining reading.

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

 

Actually, I believe what you what mean to have said is:

Expert Credibility and the Truth

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/47/E176.full

 

Actually I was thinking more about this lot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

and of this
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

And don't bother trying to put words in my mouth, that has not worked for more years than I can count

 

No one is putting words in your mouth.

Now, what questions were asked to get that consensus? What other polls have been ignored to favor this one? These are questions you should be asking yourself instead of just blindly following the leader.

 

He actually cites multiple peer-reviewed papers, from which he gets the Scientific facts that are cited.

He also explains how each of these peer-reviewed papers refutes your side of this discussion.

Why does it not surprise me that you can't address it and have to do as you always do and attack the source of the information rather than the information provided?

Otherwise known as an Ad Hominem attack, by most intelligent people.

 

Well, at least this time you admit your entire response is an Ad Hominem attack rather than addressing the facts...

I guess that in and of itself is a step in the right direction. Admitting your problem is the first step in recovery.

Now, I will simply hope that some day you might even address the peer-reviewed Science they use to come to their assertions.

But I won't hold my breath.

 

You want to continue to use Ad Hominems against others, but will not address the Political Agenda, which I have pointed out, against those you support. Seems it is ok with you if your side has a Political Agenda, but not ok if those you oppose do...

Can you say Hypocrite?

 

Actually you were old chap and the inconvenient truth about boards like this is that the words do not fade

 

Then I will come back, when and as I have time to do a rebuttal on the scarce fractured pieces of science

But I have called the site bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and that is mostly what is pasted there - you are the one insisting that I trawl through all of that bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to find one or two pieces of science

This takes me time, I research my responses and check my data

And I have had this game played on me before - I spend hours doing all of this only to have the opponent announce "That was not the bit it was this bit" or completely ignore my response or even trawl up another idiot whacked out theory like "Tallbloke" where it is obvious they have not really read the text themselves.

It is the equivalent of your mother looking for a new recipe you might like, buying all the ingredients putting it before you and you dumping it on the floor without tasting it because "I don't like that stuff"

That is why I ask you to check things out for yourself - if after you have you still think this is a valid source we will talk

 

Again, the Science cited in the articles I have posted are in fact peer-reviewed.

And yet again, I am not surprised you can't address them.

Answer one simple question: What do you supposed caused ALL of the previous warming and then cooling periods that have happened since the beginning of time? As any of the graphs will show, they too happened very quickly, in a Geological sense, and yet man was no where to be seen on nearly all of them...

So SUV driving Mom's could not be blamed for them, so what do you suppose caused them?

 

Milankovitch cycles, CO2 feedback and massive amounts of volcano eruptions, ocean currents, uplifting of the Himalayan Plateau, and more. Only CO2 is relevant to the current warming

And, no, most did not happen as quickly as the current warming.

 

What "current" warming? You understand we have actually been in a temperature DECLINE for about 8 years now, right?

So where is all this warming you are so concerned about, and why haven't the models your side swears by been able to explain this cooling period, or the cooling we experienced in the 1970's for that matter?

 

Proof?

You talk about wanting to debate the science - where is your scientific proof there has been no warming for 8 years

Oh! and talking about science - notice you ignored Mannie's talk on Milankovitch cycles etc

Want to debate them?

 

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents...

..."At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."

Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility.

"It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."

Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

 

What does this all mean ? That at the end of the day, all those nice little charts some scientist were paid to make to support an agenda mean very little AND you simply can't lay change in climate at mans feet.

 

from Skepticalscience

 

How realists view global warming.