Are We Doomed To Arctic Winters In America?

So the Lord of I Ain't Got No Evidence complains that the IPCC doesn't have evidence? What a hoot. If you had actually read the IPCC report -- if you had actually read any real science during the last 20 years -- there is a teen-tiny chance that you might understand just how hypocritical that remark sounds.

 

If you read all the science, not just the government sponsored report writers write, you would have a better grasp of what is going on.

 

And it has kept warming the earth. You might have noticed that somehow, we have not dropped back to 19th century temperature levels. Something is keeping temps up there, and it's not magic.

The hiatus is not statistically significant.

107 out of 109 climate model runs in CMIP5 RCP4.5 show 17 year periods in the 21st century with trends equal to or less than the current 17 year trend as measured by NASA. So climate models are doing just fine.

 

“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.” ~ Klaus-Eckert Puls

 

I never imagined I might say this, Windy, but I totally agree with that statement.

I think you mean sensitivity, not forcing. Forcing can be determined in the lab, but determination of sensitivity is a lot more complex, because of those positive feedbacks. The water vapor feedback alone is huge, and drives sensitivity up to around 2 degrees, just from that.

It's not the temperature rise per se that's the problem, it's the speed of the temperature rise. The fastest natural rise in global temperature that we know of is when we have come out of glaciations in the Pleistocene, which raised global temperatures by about 3.5 degrees in the space of about 2,000 years. We are currently raising global temperatures about ten times faster than that. When climate changes that fast, many species will not be able to adapt and evolve fast enough. Which means that we are looking at the strong possibility of ecosystem collapse and mass extinctions, not to mention global famine.

Hungry people do desperate things, Windy, and if the whole world is hungry, civilization may not survive. Worry about the next ice age when it's due, in another 10,000 years. Worry about the speed of climate change today.

 

You mean like the Climategate emails where they claimed if the pause lasted 15 years, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built.

When you have a science that is so muddy that you can change in the middle of the stream then you don't have good science.

 

And since temperatures have actually kept rising during the last 15 years instead of remaining flat, that possibility didn't pan out, did it?

 

You have never read the science. You know how we know? Because all you ever fricking do is link paper citation with no quotes or explanation. It's obvious to anyone that you are full of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and never (*)(*)(*)(*)ing read the papers you link.

You think people can't see your bull(*)(*)(*)(*)?

 

Sticking your head in the sand does you no good, it just messes up your hair. You seem to be just about the only one, except for the CAGW blogs, that don't understand.

 

And can we see your Dickey Fuller test showing that a linear correlative model is the correct model to use in this case. See there is your problem I'm too smart to fall for your bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Long tended series almost always correlate well linearly because of their trends. That is little evidence actual correlation. I just got done on a project dealing with wind power in a control area. If the contractors had just done a linear correlation without first doing a Dickey Fuller test the determine which model to use we would have sued them.

 

They haven't. And saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. A key component of any debating, poor or otherwise, is a requirement to LEARN. They teach that down at the high school debating team level. But when you have scientists that aren't even willing to submit to outside experts to review the way they smash data together to achieve a manufactured result, I suppose asking for the same kind of quality control as other scientists subject themselves to is just too much to ask.

 

Well well. Look who crawled out from under his rock: it's Mr. Peak ("I refuse to answer even the simplest questions") Prophet. Welcome back.

Another key requirement is to have evidence to support your position. Because when you make untrue statements without evidence, you're going to get called out on them.



So tell me, Peak, did you LEARN anything from this graph? Or are we going to have to send you back to school?

Scientists do that all the time. It's called peer-review.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting on your answers to the following questions, which you have been ducking on another thread. I post them here in the hopes that you'll get scared and run away again.

1. If more CO2 does cause warming, then should there be a correlation between global temperature and CO2 levels?
Simple question. Yes or no?

2.

Why?
Are you waving your magic wand and suspending Conservation of Energy?
Or might there actually be a physical cause for that?

 

Ahem

 

So, you're too lazy to read the papers I cite. Fine with me. But that's not my fault.

 

It's not my job to read a bunch of citations. You make the citation the onus is on you to explain how they support your cases.

I see basic debate procedure is beyond your understanding as well as the papers you cite.

 

Ahem yourself.

 

I have all five of the assessment reports readily available on my computer, and I have read all of the Technical Summaries, and much of the rest of the material. I'll bet you haven't.

I'm sorry you don't understand explanations given.

I'm sorry that you only believe alarmist blogs.

I'm sorry that you take the word of a political organization over science that isn't paid and printed with agenda.

Maybe if you took the time to understand the basics of the sciences used by climatology, you would stop critisizing that which you don't understand.

 

Yes, saying there are unknown variables is speculation. However, to assume there are variables we haven't seen is also speculation.

Science starts with understanding that we don't know all the facts, and we strive to.

There are two known variables that we know we don't know the quantities of, hence hindcasting to say it matches other material is flat out deceptive.

 

Yup. You're even too smart to notice that the trend line there isn't linear, it's logarithmic.

It's easy to correct for autocorrelation, and it has been done many, many times. And CO2 is not only still correlated with temperature, even after correcting for autocorrelation, but CO2 actually Granger-causes temperature, too. See my previous citations to Hoosier on this very topic. Of course, since they are citations, that means you won't read them.

 

I don't know why you keep ignoring what everyone else understands about the hiatus. Witting ignorance?

 

Or at least quote a paragrah or two from it.

I find it unethical when someone links large material and fail to explain where their answer is within it.

 

That's a bet you would lose.

I'm even sorrier that you haven't actually given any explanations whatsoever. Nor any evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

So you won't read science either? Why am I not surprised?

 

That is a pretty funny graph. 0.007 degrees. Pretty much masked by any uncertainties and statistically indistinguishable from zero. Even if you believe in what you posted, that would be 4 hundredths of a degree in 100 years which would mean we would hit that arbitrary 2 degree limit in 5,000 years.

 

Even your fellow skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer can see that RSS has an unexplained cooling bias. Which of the following trends do you think is the outlier?

 

That's 0.03 i.e. 0.

Another lie in your part.