Ice Core Data

Ridicule, conspiracy theories, strawman arguments and Lies is all "skeptics" have left because reality is getting harder and harder to deny.

1)If not CO2, what is the cause of the current temperature rise?
2)Temperature reversal must have a mechanism. To use one of my favorite quotes from Bowerbird: "Climate, like underwear, doesn't change itself" Change in ocean currents, change in solar output, massive volcanic eruptions, planetary impact, change in albedo, release of methane, etc.are all possible causes of past temperature reversals. There is no evidence that any of these factors are a significant factor in today's warming.

And the recent past is all that matters because the conditions and influences on climate where different in the distant past.

Rebounding temperatures need a mechanism. You have none.

And all have mechanisms associated with them. Only mechanism which works in current warming is increasing CO2

Of course it's causal; it's always had an effect. Laws of physics show us the relationship.

No one is expecting the same climate of the past. What we are expecting is a limit on how much CO2 is allowed into the atmosphere and upsetting the natural variation of our climate.

Our understanding of climate is sufficient to predict that excessive CO2 will upset our climate. No amount of agenda driven pseudoscience will change that fact.

 

Ridicule, conspiracy theories, strawman arguments and Lies is all "skeptics" have left because reality is getting harder and harder to deny.

No those of us who are concerned about climate change use what's happening in Greenland, the Arctic, American southwest, Europe, India China, Russia , Australia, the Pacific Islands and numerous other evidence; not just what's happening on Greenland'

Incorrect. All you have is pseudoscience to back your claims. I have science to back mine.

Total atmospheric volume is irrelevant as 99% of the atmosphere has no effect on warming.
Yes the fingerprint has been discerned against natural variation, Read up on the carbon cycle.
Another "because I can't find it, it's not there' argument. Maybe you should have tried harder:
Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C

"They" do. I'll let you research this one yourself

True, but irrelevant to today's concerns

Laws of physics trapping the energy is not in doubt; only where that energy is going is still being debated.

And the cause is ????

When I need to get warm, I'll put on a blanket or coat. What mechanism is mother Earth using to get warm?

No past warming spikes have had their causes; they were not part of some "natural variations". Past warmings were under different conditions.We only need to be concerned with current conditions.
If I go to the doctor today for a fever of 38C, he will diagnose and treat the current fever. He will not base his treatment on the 39C fever I had a year ago.

 

No all that skeptics require is proof of your hypothesis. Remember skeptics have none to defend

No thats not the way it works in science. The onus is on you to prove it is CO 2. I could hypothesise little green men live on Pluto and because you are unable to prove me wrong doesnt mean there are. Do you see how that works ?

We do not begin to fully understand the factors that do change it all we know is it has done so many times without CO2 playing any significant part in it

Theres no evidence that a tiny increase in a benign beneficial naturally occurring trace gas is responsible either. Its pure speculation

And I dont need one either. All I need is evidence that such changes have indeed occurred in the recent past. Please illuminate us on how you have discovered which mechanisms governed previous post glacial warming phases. I'm sure the paleoclimatic community will be astonished by this new knowlege

Nonsense. Please provide the Peer review study empirically linking (important words) human emissions with the current warming

And how is 0.012% extra (by total volume) of a beneficial trace gas capable of doing that praytell ?

No our understanding is nowhere near 'sufficient' .Your entire hypothesis is agenda driven pseudoscience without a shred of empirical data to support it. Take away the shonky models and there is no 'crisis'. All thats left is what used to be termed as a natural 'Climate Optimum'

 

It has warmed over the last two centuries big deal ! Its your job to prove it is unnatural not mine to prove the opposite. I'm not the one claiming that the sky is falling after all and you have been shown the many natural precedents for this phase already

Prove it ?

Yes another paywalled article based on models. Observations of late have made a complete mockery of its projections because this was not supposed to happen was it ?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ha.../uah/from:2004.75/plot/uah/from:2004.75/trend

Absolute nonsense. We have little real idea of the causes for previous warming spikes You just want to dismiss the historical precedents because they make a mockery of the hypothesis blaming humans

I have a better analogy. Modern environmentalists are like a man in a crowded blacked out room trying to swat a fly (that might not even be there) with a sledgehammer . A lot of innocent people are going to get hurt that way

 

We all know that ruling classes go decadent. Why can't the same thing happen to those who rule the scientific community?

 

Then the warming is not 'global.'

 

Theres a self loathing thing going on here borne of decades of indoctrinated green guilt from our media. Panic sells after all. I also believe that some have a Freudian need to fear something. This has become much more apparent post Cold War (when we really DID have something to fear). Western middle class existence is now just too cossetted and safe for some and AGW is the latest boogyman they require to fill thier increasingly vacuous existences I suppose. As you can see by many posts on this topic they will covet that fear against all comers however clearly you outline the irrationality of it for them

 

I knew with a little encouragement you could do it!

I'll have to see evidence of that before I accept your claim

Entering an "OPTIMUM" at a high rate of change is not beneficial to us nor to the environment

No, that is based on the Laws of Physics.

No, obviously true.

Glad we agree
No, obviously true.

No, it is scientifically accurate

 

Why the varying starting dates on your WfT graph?

 

I'd imagine as new technologies /new satellites/ improved methodologies come online at different times thier start dates will vary. It doesnt matter a whole lot as they are all saying the same thing. Its shows that the models and therefore the projections and scenarios based on them are a crock given the real world has already stopped playing ball with ALL of them

For the third time .....

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

 

Look at any scientifically credible graph of CO2 and temperature for the last 100My or more.

We are not entering the optimum at a particularly high rate of change (climate change has often been more sudden in the past), and it is meaningless to talk about something being beneficial to "the environment" or not. The environment is not a discrete entity that can be benefitted or harmed.

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.

Bald claims with no factual or logical support can be dismissed as quickly and frivolously as they were made.

 

So you didn't create the graph?

Because you rely so heavily on that graph, can you tell me if the models include Arctic warming?

 

Did I claim I had ?

No. Is there some reason you believe that would bolster your position ?

What about the Antarctic ?

 

You imply that there are NON credible graphs of CO2 available. Can you reference one? I assume that the tree ring stuff doesn't go back 100MY, so are we talking about someone jimmying the ice core data, or some other proxy?

 

Don't get so defensive. It wasn't an accusation; just a question

No.I was trying to gauge how much you actually understand and how much you accept on faith. It seems, like Peak and his faith in Easterbrook, you'll believe, without any critical thinking, anything that's written on a pseudo scientific blog. I think that graph, like Easterbrook's comparison of Grrenland and global warming, is like comparing apples and oranges. But without further information, I'll keep the details of my speculation on Christy's comparisons to myself.

 

I guess for this discussion to advance, you'll have to show why my claims are bad and non-factual and/or illogical.

 

You've been given the comparisons three times now. Is that really all you've got ? If those plots are wrong or have been misinterpreted dont let me stop you pointing our thier errors. Here is the qualifications of the guy who compiled those graphs

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

Hardly your average blogger then !

 

I have: you've made claims without credible empirical evidence, merely assuming the conclusion as the starting point of your "reasoning" process.

 

Thats always been the big problem I've had with this issue from the get go Roy. The debate was declared over right at the beginning . Debate ? What debate ? Do you remember any kind of public debate happening here ?. On the contrary the small high profile cabale of scientists who have pegged thier career on promoting this run for the hills at the first whiff of any cross examination of thier position by thier more skeptical peers !

We have been presented with a fait accompli and must ask no questions ! Here in the UK our politicians are just loving that as they lighten our wallets year on year using this BS as a justification for it

 

Ridicule, conspiracy theories, strawman arguments and Lies is all "skeptics" have left because reality is getting harder and harder to deny.

While appeal to authority is justified when the authority has extensive knowledge on the subject, I still question the authority when see red flags in their arguments.
Red flag #1 ) no peer review
Red flag #2) no mention of why certain models were chosen.
Red flag #3) history of cherry-picking by the "skeptics"
Red flag #4) Spencer is on the nine-member board of the antiregulation, Scaife- and Bradley-funded Marshall Institute, though he appears not to disclose this affiliation on his website[SUP][4][/SUP]. - source

The biggest problem I have with Spencer (and Christy's) claim of the "models are wrong" is that, as far as I know, the models include the warming over the poles; UAH does not.
As you can see here:

if Hadcrut4 data set (which includes the polar regions) is used, current global warming is actually larger than forecast. So the claim "the models have it wrong" by the skeptics is more agenda driven misinformation.

 

How can you swallow what the media feed you when it contradicts what you know about the Greenies? Those bossy know-it-all snobs don't feel guilty; their screeching is just to make you feel guilty. It gives them a sense of power to force you to confess your sins. Like Stalin, they need that. Also like Stalin, they fear nothing but need to make you fear everything: every hot day, every hurricane, every natural change.

 

The Greenies' Daddies support their unproductive lifestyle. Nature is a pretty sight only to those sitting pretty.

 

Try to focus -->Topic: Ice Core Data stay on it!

 

Interesting that the blue data (Hadcrut4?) also shows that warming appears to have leveled off same as the green data. Interesting, and someone correct me if I'm wrong but the two trends look similar in slope, including the lack of change since turn of the century. But I don't see any warming larger in one way or another, if you put a linear regression through the green data it doesn't look like it would indicate anything any different. Is there any reason a 2nd order polynomial fit reflecting the stabilized temperature at the tail isn't used?