Climate Change: You can deny, but you can't hide.

More relevantly, higher temperature accelerates the hydrological cycle, producing more precipitation, not less. In general, warmer global climate will be wetter global climate, which is why previous warm periods were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically incorrect.

Nothing we do will stop climate from changing; and even if CO2 did significantly warm the earth, we cannot predict where more rain will fall and where less will fall as a result of changes in the earth's temperature.

 

You mean the period when the earth's temperature has been recovering from the coldest 600y in the last 10,000y?

Certainly: it portrays a return to more normal Holocene-level temperatures as solar activity rebounded to the highest sustained level in several thousand years following the Little Ice Age.

No it doesn't. You appear not to know any math at all.

What an eloquent confession of intellectual slavishness.

You don't know any math. I do.

 

No, they do not, and you will not be posting any evidence that they do.

 

No, I'm pointing out problems with climate science. With links that you claim to have read and found wanting. As if what you think, without providing sources to back it up, counts for anything. But top marks for bluster.

And you picked ONE source to criticize, and you've gotten it so wrong that everybody knows you have a clown's knowledge of AGW science!

That Hide the Decline link dealt directly and correctly with the controversy, but you don't know enough about the science to understand what issue is about. Have the grace to be embarrassed.

Hide the decline resulted when Phil Jones, head of CRU, sent an incriminating email:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.​

Here's what he did: He put together long-term temperature records using "proxies" that, in theory, can be used to determine how temperatures have changed over long periods of time. The only problem was: the proxies showed temperatures DECLINING as they approached the current century.

And we can't have that! So Jones trimmed off that part and stapled on what was claimed to be the "real numbers". Only in climate "science" can you delete data that doesn't support your theories and expect people to treat you seriously as a scientist.

The wagons were circled after the controversy became widespread, but the excuses were laughable: the proxies were dying out because of too much warming, so it was appropriate to trim off the inconvenient last section and put in data from elsewhere.

If the data was unreliable when it could the tested, why would anybody believe it was valid over the long periods where it couldn't be tested? But cover was provided and Jones got off, but the first erosion in public trust of AGW scientists had begun.

Nope, I said they're not pure and reliable:

First-Ever Audit Of Global Temps Finds Freezing Tropical Islands, Boiling Towns, Boats On Land

• For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890) had an average monthly temperature of 81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C respectively.
• The monthly mean temperature in September 1953 at Paltinis, Romania is reported as -46.4 °C (in other years the September average was about 11.5°C).

• At Golden Rock Airport, on the island of St Kitts in the Caribbean, mean monthly temperatures for December in 1981 and 1984 are reported as 0.0°C. But from 1971 to 1990 the average in all the other years was 26.0°C.
• Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean.
• Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships.

​

Huh. And yet:

Radiosonde data shows no warming: NOAA’s own radiosonde network shows no warming. All other data — including proxy data, such as tree rings, ice cores, ocean and lake sediments — show no warming between 1977 and 1997. NOAA does analyze the atmospheric temperature data as obtained by NASA satellites, but has taken no action to explain the deficiencies of the surface record.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-...t-data-but-its-climate-record-really-is-quite

CRN data shows no warming: Official readings show no warming in US over last 15+ yrs.
Since a new, more accurate temperature gauging system was set up in the United States in 2005, official readings show that since then, absolutely no warming has occurred throughout the nation.
https://onenewsnow.com/science-tech...gs-show-no-warming-in-us-over-last-15plus-yrs
​

The data seems to agree with the lower temperatures from UAH satellites.

I don't doubt that you're honestly ignorant about AGW. And you're not willing to put in the skull sweat to learn about it--it's contemptible ignorance, but very common amongst alarmists.

Again with the character assassination? Such a pathetic thing to resort to ad hominem attacks. It's like you've never heard of logical fallacies. You know she said it because it's just too weird not to be a real quote, and nobody would have lied about D'Arrigo, she was a relative nobody.

Anyway: McIntyre has audited AGW data, and, guess what, found problems with it. GISS this time!:

In 2007, McIntyre started auditing the various corrections made to temperature records, in particular those relating to the urban heat island effect. He discovered a discontinuity in some U.S. records in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) dataset starting in January 2000. He emailed GISS advising them of the problem and within a couple of days GISS issued a new, corrected set of data and thanked McIntyre for "bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000".[27] The adjustment reduced the average temperatures for the continental United States by about 0.15 °C during the years 2000-2006. Changes in other portions of the record did not exceed 0.03 °C; it made no discernible difference to the global mean anomalies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre
​

Yes indeedy! Climate datasets are squeaky clean. We don't need skeptics auditing the books!!

That would be a no. NOAA radiosonde data shows no warming and the CRN shows no warming as I mentioned above.

<<snipped pointless and repetitious content>>

You didn't follow the links, did you? Are you new at this? It's one thing for you to be so argumentative in lieu of knowing the facts, but to fail at it so spectacularly is quite wonderful. Thanks for being so entertaining. Oh, and here are more quotes about Trump and America leading the world in reducing CO2 emissions:

U.S. leads all countries in reduction of CO2 emissions since leaving Paris climate accord
February 13, 2020
Despite shrieks of terror from the left about how President Donald Trump’s presidency threatens the existence of Earth and thus mankind, the fact is that under his leadership, America continues to lead the world in total emissions decline.
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/0...ons-since-leaving-paris-climate-accord-886749​

Americans’ CO2 Emissions Hit A 67-Year Low Under Trump
The Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) latest energy report shows U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are the lowest they’ve been since 1992, and that per-capita emissions are the lowest since 1950.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/07/06/americans-co2-emissions-record-low/

Global CO2 emissions in 2019
The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt. US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period. A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019. Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result, gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37%. Overall electricity demand declined because demand for air-conditioning and heating was lower as a result of milder summer and winter weather.
https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019​

 

Garbage.

I didn't fit a curve, as you would know if you knew any science. I drew your attention to an observed phenomenon, which definitely IS science.

Where did I fit a curve? All I did was note the observed phenomenon, which is clear in the data.

It is self-evident -- and confirmed by mathematical analysis -- that the ~60y cycle is far too strong to be just a random artifact.

Wrong. We don't understand the cycle well enough to know why it is more apparent in a certain time frame than another. It might be a cycle that only shows up under conditions of rebound from a low in solar activity like the LIA, or it might be overshadowed by other factors under different conditions. What's really not science is pretending you know there can't be a 60y cycle in the post-LIA data because it isn't as obvious in some other period.

The long-term data for the Holocene is dominated by the ~1000y cycle. Oh, no wait a minute, that's right: climate "scientists" got rid of the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Age cooling, the Minoan Warm Period, etc., etc.

Nope. Arctic sea ice bottomed in 2012 and has now returned to near the multi-decade average.

You have to. Otherwise, you have no case.

It's not a strawman. It's the gravamen of anti-fossil-fuel hysteria.

Garbage. You can't even identify them.

That is nothing but unsupported supposition on your part.

Oh, really? Identify them.

Now that is a strawman.

Strawman.

You made it up.

You made that up, too.

I continue to be proved right by actual physical events, like the dramatic increase in arctic sea ice.

 

If you want to argue about the science, then quit acting like "consensus" means anything.

Have you followed this topic from the beginning? Can I assume you know that UAH satellites have found the warming trend to be .13 degrees C per decade, or 1.3 degrees C in a century? And that NOAA radiosonde and CRN data show virtually no warming?

Do you know that when CO2 doubles its concentration in the atmosphere over what it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the most it can raise temps (just the CO2 by itself) is 1 degree C. That all the alarm comes from imagining what the feedbacks will be from a 1 degree C increase that takes place over 300 years?

So yeah, let's talk AGW science.

 

First, it’s not about the climate changing, it’s about accelerating that change which all measures have shown happening since the industrial revolution started. Secondly, we don’t have to guess about the effects. They are happening now, faster then would have happened otherwise. Our own military has acknowledged it has a significant impact on their mission. It’s not something we have to guess about.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...n-critical-bases-face-climate-change-threats/

 

Well, I read a lot of snide remarks in the face of obvious evidence. All ligit climate charts show the same thing. The rate of change in the last 150 years is greater then ever before during man’s existence here in earth. Repeatedly saying the same redundant irrelevant things about that time before, means nothing.

I’d be glad to teach you the relationship between slope and rates of change if needed.

 

I’d be glad to give you a reference lesson concerning what is commonly referred to as the industrial revolution.
You seem to struggle with the difference between absolute values in temperatures and rates of change in their values over time. Their effects on adaptability is significant. I suggest you read up on evolution ( specifically mammalian ) in general and the effects of environment influences on it.

 

Well, I’m no expert but I remember my high school math. Understanding the math in AGW is just in the order of differential calculous....pretty much HS stuff. Would you like to tell me what you don’t know ?

 

Somebody hit your graph with something heavy, maybe a hockey stick. This is what it should look like:


Moberg et al [2005], published in Nature

 

As it doesn't exist for more than three "cycles", and only very, very roughly at that So, it looks very much like a random artifact.

Like I said, pretty much all noisy data has some type of faux-cycles in it over a short term. The smart people don't embarrass themselves by curve fitting and then declaring that correlation means causation.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to name the mechanism behind your magic 60 year cycles, and then provide evidence for it. That is, make predictions based on your theory, and see those predictions come true.

Scafetta tried that. In 2010, when he presented this theory, he predicted climate would stabilize or cool until 2030. Instead, climate kept warming, which would seem to disprove his climastrology ("Jupiter/Saturn three-synodic cycle") theory. Do you have a better theory?

 

Nice article. Thanks.

But Americans would never go for a 45% tax. We like our big houses, cars, vacations, etc. We like to spend our money on our families, not a vague concept like “general welfare”.

 

Hmmm. Bogus. Did you actually read your reference ?
It’s only the northern hemisphere from tree ring growths. Highly unrelated as a comparison to actual world temperatures. Must have been an effort though. It’s also missing the last half of the industrial revolution. the scale is different and it’s 15 years old. Keep trying though

 

No duh! Didn't you get the hockey stick reference? Mann's stick was a northern hemisphere reconstruction but its shape was a whole lot different. Takes the wind out of your sails doesn't it?

But nice try.

 

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

It’s not even relevant. You need a geography lesson. .

 

Chortle. You were actually talking about science, so I thought I'd give you another chance. Then you folded up again like a wet cardboard skyscraper. Thud!

EDIT: I just realized that you thought your graphic represented GLOBAL temperatures! WRONG-O. It's a northern hemisphere reconstruction, which is why I mentioned Moberg and Mann's hockey stick. Gracious me! And there you were poking fun at Conservatives while everybody was laughing at the egg on your chin!

 

Well, no. But neither is Denmark alone as a reference a reasonable comparison.
Do you know how much state and local property tax, sales tax and college tuition, retirement and worst of all, end of life care costs ? I get that most people in Texas and my state, would rather buy f150s every five years, but Danes seem to be more “conservative.”
Yes, imo, ...they live more conservatively.

 

Sorry, it’s just not crude enough to get a laugh over. I come from an environment where “ mother” was just half a word “harass” was two.

 

Hey this works, a second chance to tweak your science knowledge. You missed this edit:

EDIT: I just realized that you thought your graphic represented GLOBAL temperatures! WRONG-O. It's a northern hemisphere reconstruction, which is why I mentioned Moberg and Mann's hockey stick. Gracious me! And there you were poking fun at Conservatives while everybody was laughing at the egg on your chin!

 

If you think about it, a trained expert is more likely to be right than you or me or a education board member, and the consensus opinion of all the trained experts is more likely to be right than a single one. So the consensus scientific opinion is the most likely group of individuals to be right and to make good decisions about what is solid science or not. Now, the consensus does get things wrong from time to time, but in most cases they are right. When you disagree with a trained expert about his profession, its more likely that you are wrong than the expert is wrong.

Now I'm not asking that you blindly have faith in everything the consensus of experts says, but you should really try to understand what they are arguing before you disagree. Because if you or I took on a real-life climate research position, we would be fired on day one, while those experts we like to scoff at would have a field day laughing at our incompetence with their colleagues.

We all on this forum suffer from the Dunning Kruger Effect. By having a layman understanding, we think we really understand things very well, and can make judgments about what society will do. We might even claim that the experts are obviously wrong because of some fact that we found on the internet. But the reality is that climate science is very complex and it takes years of education and experience to really understand the field. That is why we should respect the view of experts when formulating our opinions.

 

You do like to make S.h.i,t up.. got another story you can repeat to gullible ?
I just realized you had to edit to cover your a,s,s.

 

If the climate "scientists" did their work properly, there'd be no loss of public confidence and second guessing. They've created the mess resulting in their loss of credibility. And their resorting to calling skeptics "deniers" and keeping them off the public airwaves just shows that they can't win when AGW is debated.

Guess we're not going to discuss AGW science now, are we?

 

Oh man, you're dancing around spouting nonsense just like I expected. And it's glorious!
Dance!