The ethical question no climate denier will answer

The one fact that is constant, the climate will change.

 

Works for me. When you shut up, I win.

 

My favorite for the why the PETM ended. Humanity has got NOTHING when it comes to climate change compared to this little baby!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event

 

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

You don't need weather reports from millions of years ago to understand the climate of millions years ago.
And while we can learn about climate of the past, here's some facts for you on which AGW is based.:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
CO2 has increased 40% in 150 years.
The amount of energy added to the environment since 1961 is the equivalent of 2 billion Hiroshima bombs exploding per second each second since 1961
For 400,000 years, the environment has adapted to 185ppm to 300ppm. Atmospheric CO2 content is now 400ppm and rising.


Ask an engineer how stable a system that is 30% beyond its maximum limits can be.

 

Or the Messinian salinity crisis, where over and over the Mediterranean was cut off from the Atlantic and dried up. GLobal sea levels rose almost 10 meters, climate drastically changed because of the large amount of salt locked away, and in what is now the Mediterranean, a basin with temperatures over 70f higher then current temperatures was the norm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinity_crisis

Most people have absolutely no idea how stable our climate has been over the last 10-15,000 years.

 

Wrong. Use as much energy as you want. Just make sure it doesn't come from fossil fuels. There are a dozen alternatives, pick one. Or pick all of them. Just don't pick fossil.

Wrong again, since I didn't propose carbon trading. You just made that up off the top of your head.

Wrong a third time. Why is it that climate deniers prefer fiction to fact? I suspect it's because intellectual lightweights find it easier to argue against positions their opponents don't actually hold, than to actually deal with the positions they do.

 

Thanks for the link. I had never read Lucia's Blackboard before. Anyone that calls Tisdale's arguments "repetitive (and loony)" is definitely worth a read.

 

A 3° change in 800,000 years we can live with. Right now we're heading toward a change that large within a century or so.

 

Yeah, you're definitely going to need your mathematical chops to play in her yard (don't know R? Fuggedaboudit!) but the advantage is, the discussion is about 3 levels higher than you find here, and the WUWT trolls are chased away pretty easily.

 

I guess you mean a 3 degree temperature drop since we have not warmed in 16 or 17 years now

but it seems you know less about science than you do about debating . Educate yourself on interstadial events and Heinrich events

 

if you don't like Judith Curry's site you wont like Lucia's

here what she says on Richards Tol's paoper where he rips your beloved 97% paper by Cook et al http://rankexploits.com/musings/201...mment-on-skscook-survey-paper/#comment-114659

oh and Lucia's math is not for the spoon fed crowd, she 's about ten times smarter than anyone who has ever came to these forums

oh and she guest posts on Watts site on occasion http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/24/a-new-view-on-giss-data-per-lucia/

 

Utterly false. Please provide a peer-reviewed reference to support your absurd claim.

 

you have the burden of proof, If my claim is absurd then prove it

 

Watts got this data from Skeptical Nonscience... so for you alarmists, it's your own data.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/...r-a-decline-now-includes-at-least-april-data/

For this analysis, data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been significant warming according to their criteria. The numbers below start from January of the year indicated. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the magnitude of the second number is larger than the first number so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out. (To the best of my knowledge, SkS uses the same criteria that Phil Jones uses to determine significance.)

The situation with GISS, which used to have no statistically significant warming for 17 years, has now been changed with new data. GISS now has over 18 years of no statistically significant warming. As a result, we can now say the following: On six different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 18 and 23 years.

The details are below and are based on the SkS site:

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.123 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.142 +/- 0.166 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.092 +/- 0.112 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.108 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For GISS: 0.103 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For NOAA the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For NOAA: 0.085 +/- 0.104 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

 

Well this engineer says you first have to establish that the variable is even a limiting factor. Then you have to show that thw system was at its maximum limit when the rise started.

 

Why do you need a peer reviewed paper? You can go to woodfortrees.org and run the numbers yourself.

 

CO2 has been established as a limiting factor.
from historic measurements, 300ppm was the maximum limit for 400,000 years. 400ppm, the current value, is about 30% over the established maximum.

 

How so?

The earths present nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere has existed for aproximattly 2 billion years in that time CO2 has been in the range of 1000s ppm. Much like your claim of the present warming being so many Hiroshima bombs which ignores just how small this is compared to the total energy content in the atmosphere your claims ignore proportion and are pure hyperbole.

 

On the contrary, you're the one who made the absurd claim, it's up to you to prove it. While you're doing so -- or rather, while you run and hide from doing so like a naughty boy who's been caught -- you can ponder the following facts:

1. Regression slope for GISS, last 16 years (1996-2012): +.074° per decade, POSITIVE.
2. Regression slope for GISS, last 17 years (1995-2012): +.106° per decade, POSITIVE.
3. Regression slope for UAH, last 16 years (1996-2012): +.119° per decade, POSITIVE.
4. Regression slope for UAH, last 17 years (1995-2012): +.121° per decade, POSITIVE.
5. Regression slope for HADCRUT4, last 16 years (1996-2012): +.092° per decade, POSITIVE.
6. Regression slope for HADCRUT4, last 17 years (1995-2012): +.096° per decade, POSITIVE.
7. Regression slope for NCDC, last 16 years (1996-2012): +.085° per decade, POSITIVE.
8. Regression slope for NCDC, last 17 years (1995-2012): +.090° per decade, POSITIVE.
9. OHC slope for last 13 years: +1.19 W/m², POSITIVE.

 

Go ahead and do that, and tell me what you come up with.

 

my bad , I should have said "no statistically significant warming" . In another post I remember you said you like Lucia's Blackboard. Apologies for the size of the graph
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/estimating-the-underlying-trend-in-recent-warming/



I was thinking of Dr Pauchurri of the IPCC

Paywalled link
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...n-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

 

Right. So then from GISS data, the probability of "no warming" over the past 16 years is 9%, while the probability of "warming" is 91%. Only a denier could twist that into becoming "no warming".

It's also true that the warming trend over the past 16 years is not significantly different from the warming trend over the 16 years before that. In other words, over the last 32 years, no statistically significant change in trend between the first half and the last half of that span.

 

probability of warming , LOL . Well I guess the head of the IPCC is now a denier.

So far I have shown that the past 20 years of the green politics have had no effects at all on CO2 emissions, unless you want to count inflicting pain and suffering on people by lowering their standard of living. It has raised fuel costs to the point that people have froze to death because they cannot afford to heat their houses. I have also proved that if we lowered CO2 emissions to zero that it would have no effect, yet you are still beating the drum. I have provided links ad charts and newspaper articles on all of these points.

So I have to ask, whats in this for you green agenda people, money, power or do you just dislike the western way of life? I don't mean this as a insult or a rant but curious as to why anyone is still on this failed bandwagon completely baffles me

Oh and I have proof to all those bookmarked so I could repost the links and charts in less than 5 minutes so don't waste either of our time playing the " post a peer reviewed paper "distraction

 

If the warming is, in fact, statisically insignificant, how is that extrapolated into us all bursting into flames??

Thankfully, more people are beginning to see thru the fraud.

 

I headed out of the gate when William Connolley tried to wipe the MWP off Wiki, climategate locked the gate shut and looking back on all the failed doom and gloom predictions destroyed the key to the gate lock