Ice Core Data

Clearly NASA has no problems with Spencer or Christys objectivity even if you do.

Just like the lack of one showing empirical evidence for human culpability for AGW you mean ?

Feel free to provide 73 alternate models that do show correlation with current observations then ?

What all 73 of them

Oh the irony !

Please show evidence of how either Christy or Spencer have been paid to corrupt thier work to suit corporate financial interests ? This is just smearing

Thats odd how you were earlier prepared to dismiss the paleoclimatic records at the poles when they didnt fit your worldview isnt it ? I'll let others draw thier own conclusions

Uh huh . And what about the other 73 that disagree ? Even that graph shows the warming stopping despite accelerating CO 2 emissions

 

Unfortunately, the Cult of Warm doesn’t accept that there is a debate. As far as they are concerned, the debate never happened because it never needed to happen because they were always right. They can’t intelligently address dissent, because their science is not based on discovering the evidence needed to lead to a consensus, but on insisting that there is a consensus and that accordingly there is no need to debate the evidence.

Scientific debates have often had big stakes for human philosophy, but Global Warming is one of the few whose real world implications are as big as its philosophical consequences. At stake is nothing less than the question of whether the human presence on earth is a blight or a blessing, and whether every person must be tightly regulated by a global governance mechanism for the sake of saving the planet.

The Warmists have pushed their agenda through with alarmist claims and hysteria. They have flown jets around the world to argue that everyone must be taxed for their carbon footprint. They have smeared and intimidated anyone who stood up to them. That is not the behavior of people arguing over numbers. It’s a battle of much larger ideas. If you believe that freedom is at the core of what it means to be human, then the Warmists and what they stand for are instinctively repulsive to you. On the other hand, if you believe that human society must be organized into a moral collective for the betterment of all, then the Warmist idea provides a wake up call compelling us to form into ranks and goose step in recycled rubber boots into the green future

Like Wall Street, Global Warming has gotten too big to fail. Too many prominent names have committed to it. Too many serious people have nodded their heads and accepted it as an obvious truth, who would be unacceptably embarrassed if it were proven that the whole thing was nothing more than a giant prank. Too many business leaders and governments have invested serious money into it to just shake it off. And much of American and European policy-making is now routed through Global Warming.

No matter what research emerges, the edifice of the lie cannot be allowed to come down. It might be reshaped a little, chiseled on the side, painted over in places, but it can never be toppled, because too much else would come down with it. Global Warming has become the Berlin Wall not only of the left, but of the entire establishment.

The way the system actually works is that experts tell leaders what to think, the leaders tell the lobbyists what to think, the lobbyists tell the advisers, who tell the politicians, and then the politicians get up on stage, beam their brightest smile, and tell us what to think. Compared to the absurdity of this pipeline foisting a disastrous philosophy on the world in the name of saving the planet from humanity, discovering that all the banks were playing with imaginary money is positively benign.

Global Warming is not just a failure of a sizable chunk of the scientific establishment to put theory before ideology, it represents a failure of the entire process by which the West has been governed for a frightening number of years. It is a demonstration of how a handful of people in prominent positions can push through otherwise unacceptable measures by manufacturing a crisis and pipelining it through business and government. It’s a hack of our entire system of government in fact

Phew ! i'm glad I got that out of my system .... rant over !

 

No, I don't, and even more to the point, when was there ever any scientific debate? I can see where the general public is not very qualified to participate in this debate -- hell, even most physical scientists are not intellectually prepared to debate the results of research about complex, chaotic, uncontrollable systems with more than a handful of independent variables -- but come on, where is the input from statisticians, from economists (benighted though their discipline is), from geophysicists, etc. who have a handle on some of the relevant conceptual and mathematical tools? Most of what I see about AGW in the peer-reviewed climate journals makes me want to puke. It's like the atrocious, unscientific garbage sponsored by drug companies that clutters the medical journals: lots of data, math, and graphs, but with precious little evidence of objectivity or integrity.

Yes, their invariable in-group defensiveness is a big, fat clue: why are they so afraid to just let the research proceed, let the scientific method do its job, and follow where it leads? Why the constant shrieking for Action Right Now? We've seen this sort of thing before (at least, those of us old enough to remember it have) from the Club of Rome, Paul Ehrlich, etc.

The ironic thing is, while cap-and-trade has always been a scam designed to take money from consumers and give it to big, dirty fossil fuel users, a carbon tax makes a lot of economic sense for other reasons: it is mostly shifted back onto the owners of fossil fuel resources (the factor in fixed supply), allowing energy importing countries in effect to tax the oil sheiks. Here in BC we actually have a carbon tax in place, and while I don't agree with all the details of its implementation, it has turned out to be a surprisingly popular tax (as taxes go).

 

A thread is not a tightrope!

 

I've known all that all along. The clue is in the Warmalarmie liars' "Born to Rule" attitude. Where do they get that?

Nature is a pretty sight only to those sitting pretty. To real Americans, it is merely raw material for high wages and low-priced products.

These clues lead to this explanation for the Greenhead phenomenon. Anyone born with a silver spoon in his mouth will always speak with a forked tongue.

 

Galileo would have been a "denier." Though the authoritarian cliques don't have the luxury anymore of using torture or burning at the stake to get independent minds to decant, they have develped more sophisticated methods of inquisition: shunning, shaming, and ex-communication from sheltered academentia. It's a cold world out there if you don't agree to be a Warmie.

 

These people represent the greatest threat to the continued welfare of humanity we have faced since the Cold War PB. They insidiously play on Western guilt indoctrinated for many decades by the likes of Paul Ehrlich and his ilk in order to impose thier warped worldview of how things ought to be. Not for them personally you understand but for the rest of us they allow to exist in the fantasy rural idyll they have mapped out for us. Try telling some poor African village they cant have electrification because the power lines will interfere with the breeding habitat of some slug or insect and they obviously cant afford the renewable alternatives. Sorry guys but you are condemned to live far shorter lives in wretched poverty but hey, you can be proud you are saving the planet right ? You can just guess thier response to this cant you ?

 

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

But Wolfgang Wagner of Vienna University of Technology sure had a problem with one of Spencer's papers.

Plenty of evidence to attribute climate change to humans. Google scholar is your friend; try using it.

I just showed you the 73 models agree with hadcrut4. Reading comprehension problems again?

Never claimed Spencer was being paid. Reading comprehension problems again?

You mean I dismissed paleoclimatic records with this quote from me: "IT is well known that Greenland temperatures changes are larger than the global changes. " Reading comprehension problems again?

Nope, warming did not stop. It was just displaced.

 

And that has what to do with these graphs exactly ?

Assertion is not evidence. Try to remember that

If I do they certainly dont match your lack of optical acuity

So why try to smear him as just another corporate shill. Thats the obvious inference you were trying to make

So what happens to Greenland is only significant when you say it is ? I'll try and remember that

Yes .... probably by cooling. The old Nelsonian phrase 'I see no ships' seems quite apt here !

 

No you didn't. You just showed that you aren't very good at analysis. If you use HADCRUV4 you would have to normalize the graphs around 1979 as Spencer did with his graph.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06...-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

Do you ever get tired of this?

 

That's why I chose HADCRUT4. Look at my graph again and tell me where the trend line crosses the x-axis?

 

You dont know what normalization is do you? You have to normalize UAH, the models and HADCRU to 1979.

When we normalize CRU and UAH there is absolutly difference.



Or if you insist we can offset and still get the same result.



The slight difference isn't even close to account for the model divergence.

Go eat some crow.

 

To the underlining issue of cherry picking.

First, it is hypocritical for any warmmonger to accuse anyone else of cherry picking. The entire field is based on cherry picking. It wasn't a skeptic who said before congress that 'you have to pick cherries to make cherry pie.'

That being said. Spencer's analysis isn't cherry picking. Comparing the models hot spot, which is the fingerprint of AGW, to the actual data. You can complain about the arctics all you want but falsus in uno falsus in omnibus and without the mid upper troposphere conforming to the models the entire AGW theory is sunk.

As to why else we would look there and not the arctic the answer is simple. It is where we have the best data. We don't have good arctic data. Much like the Zimmerman prosecution warmmongers try to sell lack of evidence as evidence.

 

Why in the world would you ever use a linear regression on non linear data?

 

Question for ya: Do you get a trend and then normalize the data?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/h.../normalise/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/normalise

or do you normalize the data and then get a trend:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/h...lise/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/normalise/trend

Considering WfT UAH doesn't look anything like Spencers UAH + RSS , (WfT ends .44 and Spencer ends at .2) what I'd like to know what Spencer did to make it look different. And before start ridiculing me about attacking Spencer, I'm not. One of the red flags for me was that Spencer threw a graph out into the blogosphere with no explanation of how the data was processed. If you're so well informed, explain the processing steps to me. Or point me to a source where they're explained.

 

It doesn't look the same because you didn't read Spencer's paper. Spencer's graph is of the mid troposphere not lower troposphere.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't look the same because you didn't read Spencer's paper. Spencer's graph is of the mid troposphere not lower troposphere.

 

I missed that. Thank you!

 

Well bang goes the hypothesis linking CO2 rise with declining ice levels......again



http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/13/new-light-on-svalbard/

 

False. GISP2 time resolution over the 3500 years covered in the graph averages 10 years. But you're only wrong by a factor of 12, so that's par for the course.

 

Short geologically, but not in human terms. It took 12,000 years.

Depends on how you look at it. The global temperature rise that ended the last glacial period was between 3° and 4° C over 12,000 years, about .03° per century. The current warming is about 0.8° C over the last century. So the anthropogenic warming rate is about 27 times faster than the natural warming that ended the ice age.

That's not an argument, it's a conspiracy theory. Global temperature records start in the 19th century because that's when the records start. Do you think those 19th century scientists knew they were in a cool period, so they decided to start keeping records just then, so that WUWT bloggers 150 years later could spin their wild and wooly nonsense into fool's gold?

CO2 isn't the only thing that causes temperatures to change. It's just the thing that's causing them to change now.

Look at this graph and tell me again that there's no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

 

We know climate change occurs. I believe we should be promoting the general welfare by advancing our knowledge of structures, such that we can inhabit any place on Earth, regardless of climate change.

 

You bump into 4C in the downward direction from the Holocene if you go back to a glacial. You don't bump into 4C in the upward direction from the Holocene unless you go back millions of years, to a time when CO2 was -- well, about as high as it is today. Which means that's about what's already in the pipeline. And that also means we're already looking at a multi-meter sea level rise, also in the pipeline.

Please cite your source for failed models in the past, or retract your claim.

Please cite a peer-reviewed source for lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 in the past. Or retract your claim. (If you're right, this should take you 60 seconds.)

It makes sense to anyone who understands basic physics. It only doesn't make sense to people who don't know what conservation of energy is, or those who think it's just peachy-keen to ignore the most fundamental laws of science if it gets in the way of their political agenda.

Utter nonsense. One side has physics. The other side has hand-waving. One side explains everything, including the stuff you falsely claim hasn't been explained. It's there, but you haven't read it because they don't report it on climate denial blogs. Next time, read the science first and skip the blogs.

Fine, let's look at the distant past. And when we do, science wins. See: Royer et. al. 2007; Came et. al. 2007; and Breeker et. al. 2011 for starters. And I can give you a dozen more, and then another dozen and I can keep giving them to you until you finally understand that data from the deep past is fully supportive of AGW. Just let me know when you've had enough to make "adequate proof".

When CO2 goes up, global temperature goes up on a centennial (or greater) timescale. That's not a 1 in 1000 chance, it's a certainty. Did CO2 stop obeying quantum mechanics when you were reading those blogs?

Well, if you don't have any actual evidence on your side, why not try name-calling? I hear that's very persuasive.

 

Absolute nonsense as the recorded data from both poles clearly shows

http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

Try this one then

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

See any pattern here ?

So why do you do it then ?

So stop hand waving get better informed and do some actual reading then. The solution to your ignorance lies in your own hands as you have just freely admitted.

Yes lets just do that and voila ! The facts win

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

So why arent todays temperatures by far the highest we have seen over the last 12,000 years then ? Not only arent they the highest they arent even close !

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

That laughable given what you want to believe is 'evidence' frankly

 

The term you are looking for is "spurious relationship".

A is related to B. B is related to C. Therefore C must have caused A.

A) CO2 in the atmosphere increased progressively with the progress of the Industrial Revolution.
B) The Industrial Revolution began at the most recent climate minimum, at the end of the LIA
C) Temperature began increasing coming out of the most recent climate minimum, the LIA.

Then some jackass wedded to only instrument data comes along and proclaims EUREKA! CO2 IS CORRELATED WITH TEMPERATURE LOOK AT MY COOL GRAPH!

While it seems to me that people are releasing naturally sequestered carbon faster than nature does, and that the relation to CO2 in the atmosphere to the Industrial Revolution is a reasonable one, those who can't predict temperature using the CO2 increase are failing for just this reason above. CO2 is an artifact of human progress, and certainly might be doing something, climate wise, but nothing outside of the normal band of natural variability at this point in time. Kobashi, 2011.

And yes, there have been 4C swings before, Kobashi has them right there in his paleoclimate work, and since the last ice age no less.

 

I recommend Spencer's website. He's got this number of them all wildly going upward and then observations.

Sure, CO2 is a lagging indicator, as best the paleoclimatologists can tell anyway. Within the resolution of their methods anyway.

You want certainty, go to church. We are trying to discuss the science here, not the religious beliefs of those who can't quantify natural variability and when someone else does, will undoubtedly try as hard as possible to discount it. Same thing they did when Mann's work hit the press, BOOM, throw out that nasty paleoclimate work, man we can REALLY scare people with this one!