“We’re heading into a new [little] ice age!”. This meme is a favourite of the denialosphere, I suppose because it is considered by them to be the ultimate counter to global warming. An inactive sun is fingered as the potential culprit in this alternative-universe prognostication hypothesis. But just how likely is such solar-driven cooling? What if the sun really did shut off its 11-year sunspot cycle for some reason, and move into a new extended (multi-decadal) period of low activity like was observed during the Maunder Minimum – would this be sufficient to offset the warming induced by an increased build-up of long-lived greenhouse gases from recent human industrial output and land use change?
The basic answer (“no, an inactive sun will not cause an ice age“) is actually remarkably easy to demonstrate. Jim Hansen did this recently in his occasional blog. This ‘trip report’ (printable PDF) covers a wide range of topics – why coal is the climate lynchpin, what industrial nations are (not) doing, what palaeoclimate tells us about climate sensitivity, and the prospects for fourth-generation nuclear power – and is worth reading for all of these gems. But given the prevalance with which the ice age meme appears in non-greenhouse theorist Op-Eds these days, I’ll reproduce his section on solar forcing here in full:
—————————
Temperature and Solar Data (extract from Hansen 2008: Trip Report, p11-14)
Figure 4 updates global and low latitude temperature at seasonal resolution. Red rectangles, blue semi-circles and green triangles at the bottom of the plot show the timing of El Ninos, La Ninas and large volcanic eruptions. Oscillation from El Ninos to La Ninas is the main cause of the big fluctuations of low latitude temperature. These fluctuations are also apparent, albeit muted, in the global mean temperature change.
The most recent few seasons (Figure 4) have been cool relative to the previous five years, on average ~0.25°C cooler. If one takes the recent peak (early 2007) and recent low point (early 2008), the change is about -0.5°C. This drop is the source of recent contrarian assertions that all global warming of the past century has been lost and the world is now headed into an ice age. Figure 4 reveals that it is silly to use a peak and valley as an indication of the trend. Peak to valley drops and rises of 0.3-0.5°C in seasonal mean temperature anomalies are common (Figure 4), usually associated with ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) fluctuations.
The recent La Nina was strong, but tropical temperatures in mid-2008 have returned nearly to ENSO neutral conditions and global temperature is heading back to the high level of the past few years. The low temperatures in the first half of 2008 lead us to estimate that the mean 2008 global temperature will be perhaps in the range about 10th to 15th warmest year in our record.
A majority of the critical e-mails asserted emphatically that global temperature change is due mainly to solar changes, not human-made effects. They also state or imply that, because of ongoing solar changes, the Earth is entering a long-term cooling period (following the warming of the past 30 years, which they presume to be due to increases of solar energy). One e-mail virtually shouted: “THE SUN IS GOING OUT!”
Images from SOHO (Figure 5) might be the basis for that conclusion. The sun is inactive at the present, at a minimum of the normal ~11 year solar cycle. The solar cycle has a measureable effect on the amount of solar energy received by Earth (Figure 6). The amplitude of solar cycle variations is about 1 W/m2 at the Earth’s distance from the sun, a bit less than 0.1% of the ~1365 W/m2 of energy passing through an area oriented perpendicular to the Earth-sun direction.
The Earth absorbs ~235 W/m2, of solar energy, averaged over the Earth’s surface. So climate forcing due to change from solar minimum to solar maximum is about ¼ W/m2. If equilibrium climate sensitivity is 3°C for doubled CO2 (¾°C per W/m2), the expected equilibrium response to this solar forcing is ~0.2°C. However, because of the ocean’s thermal inertia less than half of the equilibrium response would be expected for a cyclic forcing with ~11 year period. Thus the expected global-mean transient response to the solar cycle is less than or approximately 0.1°C.
Is there some way that the small variations of energy coming from the sun could be amplified, so that the ‘solar exponents’ are actually correct and the sun is driving our climate changes? There are indirect effects of solar variability, e.g., solar radiation varies most at ultraviolet wavelengths that affect ozone. Indeed, empirical data on ozone change with the solar cycle and climate model studies indicate that induced ozone changes amplify the direct solar forcing (J. Geophys. Res. 102, 6831, 1997; ibid 106, 77193, 2001), but the amplification is by a factor of one-third or less.
Other mechanisms to amplify the solar forcing have been hypothesized, such as induced changes of atmospheric condensation nuclei and thus changes of cloud cover. However, if such mechanisms were effective, then an 11-year signal should appear in temperature observations (Figure 4). In fact a very weak solar signal in global temperature has been found by many investigators, but only of the magnitude (~0.1°C or less) expected due to the direct solar forcing. So the sun is only a minor contributor to the temperature fluctuations in Figure 4.
The possibility remains that the sun could be an important cause of climate change on longer time scales. (The source of nuclear energy at the sun’s core is essentially continuous, in fact increasing at a rate of about 1% in 100 million years, which is a negligible rate of change for our purposes. But the photosphere, the upper layers of the sun, can slightly impede or speed the emission of energy as the strength of magnetic fields fluctuates.) Perhaps the normal solar cycle evidenced in Figure 6 is about to be interrupted. Sunspots seemed to nearly disappear for a long period in the 17th century, which may have contributed (along with volcanic eruptions) to the “little ice age”. And the current solar minimum is already longer than the previous two (Figure 6). Perhaps the e-mailer who shouted “THE SUN IS GOING OUT!” is correct!
Fortunately, we can compare quantitatively the climate forcing due to the sun (if its irradiance does not recover from its present minimum) and the forcing due to human-made greenhouse gases. Solar irradiance seems to be slightly less at its current minimum than in earlier minima (Figure 6), but, at most, the decrease from the mean irradiance of recent decades is ~0.1% yielding a climate forcing of about -0.2 W/m2. The current rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is ~2 ppm/year, yielding an annual increase of climate forcing of about +0.03 W/m2 per year.
Thus if the sun remains “out”, i.e., stuck for a long period in the current solar minimum, it can offset only about 7 years of CO2 increase. The human-made greenhouse gas climate forcing is now relentlessly, monotonically, increasing at a rate that overwhelms variability of natural climate forcings. Unforced variability of global temperature is great, as shown in Figure 4, but the global temperature trend on decadal and longer time scales is now determined by the larger human-made climate forcing. Speculation that we may have entered a solar-driven long-term cooling trend must be dismissed as a pipe-dream.
—————————
Another good read which explains the solar cycle is this news feature from NASA, which shows that there is nothing particularly remarkable about the current solar cycle, and so there is no reasonable expectation that we are heading into a new Maunder Minimum anyway.
Brave New Climate 
239 replies on “What if the sun got stuck?”
Barry Brook Says:
21 September 2008 at 1.37
Slamdunk @97: “Even if it wasn’t Overpeck, it was someone else. If Deming made up the story, he would have been guilty of giving false testimony before Congress.
Also, Overpeck knows that his name has been associated with getting rid of the WMP. All he has to do is deny it. Why hasn’t he? (I Bet Deming has that email tucked away)”
Oh, so suddenly you’re not so sure it was Overpeck. Right, got it. Instead your belief that it must have been Overpeck was based on the fact that he didn’t say anything. Powerful evidence indeed.
SLAM: Why not contact Prof. Deming at
ddeming@ou.edu
or
Overpeck at
jto@u.arizona.edu
I found their emails on the web.
If you contact them, please let me know what you find out. If it wasn’t Overpeck, Climate Audit lied.
If it was Him, what are we to think? Why get rid of the WMP?
LikeLike
I have wondered at the logic of those who readily accept the solar activity hypothesis of recent climate change yet adamantly refuse to accept the results of climate modelling – the former is entirely based on apparent correlation (not that close but with some similarities when eyeball comparisons are made of selected graphs and parts of graphs) with only speculation as to possible causations where the latter is based on real processes, describing as closely as possible those real processes, refined by improving the understanding of those underlying processes and their mathematical descriptions.
It seems to me that the expressions of doubt for the validity of climate modelling come from people who think it’s like what the proponents of solar activity as primary driver of climate change do – take graphs and try and make them fit their pet hypothesis, all about what you see on those graphs and not the underlying processes. They don’t have clear evidence of actual processes and can’t show them to exist. Besides being hypocritical – their pet hypothesis utterly failing to hold up to their claimed high standards for required proof – it reveals that their criticisms of real climate science are based on what they imagine real climate science to be not what real climate actually is and does. The whole conspiracy/delusion meme relies on misrepresenting what what and how climate science gets the conclusions it does. “Proofs” that it’s all wrong are based on those misrepresentations. Of course they aren’t going to accept being corrected by actual climate scientists (immediately interpreted as dismissive and insulting) and definitely aren’t going to make the effort to push past their existing doubt and distrust to actually learn anything from them.
I will continue to take my climate science from the professionals and the organisations that have as their fundamental goal a true scientific understanding of our climate.
LikeLike
Ken @ 102
Well said Ken – I hope others who take the denialist approach to the AGW/CC science and visit this website are as impressed as I am with what you said. Unfortunately I doubt thay will be. Still we have to keep trying.
LikeLike
Oops -that last comment, badly phrased, sounded like I am a sceptic too. Definitely notso :-)
LikeLike
Hello Perps and Ken. Why do you think the MWP was not included in the stick?
LikeLike
[deleted: pointless]
LikeLike
you could do worse than to read http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/ and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/14/01828/236
My personal position is that it was not included because a particular researcher’s method and data resulted in a reconstruction that did not show it. I’d wager yours, SD, is that it was not included as a way to defraud the scientific community as the existence of the MWP would shatter the ground upon which global warming science is based…
LikeLike
MATT said,
My personal position is that it was not included because a particular researcher’s method and data resulted in a reconstruction that did not show it.
SD: Is it known if the researcher (supposedly Overpeck) even had his own method of temp. reconstruction? Assuming he did, he still acknowledged that the MWP existed and had to be gotten rid of.
I’d wager yours, SD, is that it was not included as a way to defraud the scientific community as the existence of the MWP would shatter the ground upon which global warming science is based…
IMO, the intent was not to disclose something that would have given the stick a different meaning and purpose. Obviously, industrial and vehicular CO2 emissions could not have been the driver of MWP temperatures.
If I’m wrong, so be it. Perhaps one day Overpeck will come forth and say why it had to be gotten rid of, assuming he is the one who said it. Climate Audit says it was he.
There is no peer reviewed science that shows the world has been in a gradual warming trend that began a hundred, a thousand, or tens of thousands of years ago.
From 200BC to 600AD there was the Roman warming, the cold Dark Ages between 600 and 900AD, the Medieval warming period from 900 to 1300AD, the Little Ice Age between 1300 to 1850 AD, a warm period from 1850 to 1940, a period of cooling from 1940 to 1975 and warming from 1975 to 1998. Many scientists believe that warming stopped in 1998 and that cooling has begun again. CO2 did not cause all those warming periods.
According to NASA (at the prodding of McIntyre), 1934 and 1921 are now recognized as two of the three hottest years since 1900. 1998 is #2.
LikeLike
Slamdunk.
Still waiting for the evidence supporting your perspective underlying the questions that you asked at #57.
So far you have offered nothing substantive to support your denialist position.
LikeLike
Slamdunk – ad nauseam!
The answers to your questions can be found at this and other reputable climate science sites – see listings at left “Blogroll” and “Climate Resources”. Either you refuse to read in full the information provided, or you are unable to comprehend the answers or you are disingenuous and deliberately mischievious.I strongly suspect the latter. There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see!
LikeLike
Please don’t say my questions have been answered and not provide the specific sites, and where in them, the answers are provided.
LikeLike
Bernard J. Says:
22 September 2008 at 9.12
Slamdunk.
Still waiting for the evidence supporting your perspective underlying the questions that you asked at #57.
So far you have offered nothing substantive to support your denialist position.
SLAM: Twice I prepared a response to your request on all my questions and the site did not post it. Please take one or two points at a time and I will respond.
[Ed: They were probably chewed up in the SPAM filter due to too many embedded links]
LikeLike
Slamdunk doesn’t even understand that North America is not the world, how can we expect him to understand climate science, which is a bit more complex than simple geography?
LikeLike
Worse than that Dhogaza, it refers only to the lower 48 states! It also says there is nothing statistically to distinguish those years or regional warmth, before or after the Y2K data correction.
LikeLike
Sd:
That’s right. All the peer reviewed science shows the world has had a rapid warming trend in climate over the last hundred years.
LikeLike
[…] their effects? It would not outweigh the greenhouse warming. There’s a good article about it here. […]
LikeLike
Slam – why should it be necessary for anyone here to take and present a course on climate science on your behalf? Find the sites yourself if you have a real desire to learn. I’m doubtful you can approach the abundance of information on this issue with anything but doubt, disbelief and an overriding certainty that they must be wrong. This isn’t a problem with the quality of that information even though there is an abundance of sites that will tell you otherwise. Those will not be NCAR, GISS, Hadley, CSIRO, NOAA, NSIDC or even any of the appropriate faculties at any of the worlds top universities – none will be staffed by people who’s life’s work is better scientific understanding of climate. If you think the strength and extent of the MWP is a foundation upon which AGW is built, that sapping it will cause a shaky edifice to collapse then you are wrong – but I don’t think I’ll spend too much effort trying to persuade you. Sounds too much like wasted effort.
LikeLike
Dhogaza says: “Slamdunk doesn’t even understand that North America is not the world, how can we expect him to understand climate science, which is a bit more complex than simple geography?”
Tsk Tsk. I think you’re misrepresenting Slamdunk here, Dhogaza.
The temperature data he’s referring to cover only the contiguous states of the USA (ie excluding Alaska and Hawaii), not the whole of North America which is generally taken to include continental USA, Alaska, Canada, Greenland and the Central America countries including Panama.
I’m sure ol’ Slammie wouldn’t want anyone thinking he’d only been ignoring 95.2% of the world when he’d really been ignoring 98.4% of it. The other sceptics would just laugh and laugh.
LikeLike
Slamdunk.
If you’re being spam-filtered for having too many links, it would be a simple matter to provide your answers one question at a time, from #57. You don’t need me to ‘take’ them and present them to you – you posed them with your own preconceived truths, and it is incumbent upon you to provide the evidence for your contrarian thinking.
And it is the basis for your thinking that I am trying to acertain. If your conflation of mailand US temperature with global temperature is an indication of your more overall quality of evidence and thought, then it is apparent that the substance of your denialism is typically tenuous, flawed, and long discredited.
LikeLike
Yeah, yeah, you and Barry have properly tanned my ass for being loose with my tongue. The change referred to was just the lower 48. So I’m guilty of devaluating the US vs. the world (NH!) even more.
LikeLike
Given what we’ve just been discussing re: Slamdunk’s evidence, this new piece is worth a read:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/09/23/the-patron-saint-of-charlatans/
LikeLike
Loved the Monbiot piece!
Pity he doesn’t know about our own dear Andrew and Jennifer – bet he could do a mean piece on them – and the “Australian”. There you are Slammie – answers provided!
LikeLike
Ken Fabos Says:
23 September 2008 at 9.30
Slam – why should it be necessary for anyone here to take and present a course on climate science on your behalf?
SLAM: Hi Ken. I’m not asking for a course on science. What little global warming there was before 1979 isn’t about science, rather natural cyclical climate change (NCCC). There has never been a man made environmental disaster.
I just want some answers to my questions. The science is already settled – There is no global warming crisis because of man made CO2. How can you believe such a fable? STart reading the works of Spencer,Michaels, Singer, Ball, Christy, Lindzen and the many thousands of PHDs (9,000+) at the Oregon Petition Project that the media is afraid to publish.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Why did Gore exaggerate with his 20′ tidal surge? (Gore is a Gaiaist who thinks his mother (earth) is being harmed)
Why would Overpeck tell Deming they had to get rid of the WMP?
Why did the IPCC overstate the effects of CO2 on climate sensitivity.
(Spencer and Monckton have illustrated this)
Why did the IPCC framers determine the only science they would accept, even before if was formed, was that which supported AGW? (How’s that for open-mindedness?)
Why did Mann, Wahl and Ammann conceal their equations and algorithims?
Why won’t the IPCC release a list of the scientists who believe that there is a climate crisis based on human induced CO2? (I have written them twice).
Why won’t Pachauri respond to those scientists who asked him for “clear and graphic” evidence supporting man made CO2 as the driver of global temperatures?
These six things speak volumes about so-called man made global warming.
Open your eyes to see what’s really going on (although I can’t believe you really don’t know).
Check out the new Enviro-religion
http://green-agenda.com/gaia.html
FRENCH PRESIDENT JACQUES CHIRAC
Kyoto represents “the first component of an authentic global governance.”
MAURICE STRONG
One of the world’s leading environment-alists. Secretary General of both the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and the 1992 Earth Summit and first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Strong has played a critical role is globalizing the environmental movement.
“What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment? Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth? The group’s conclusions is ‘no.’ The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
TIMOTHY WIRTH – U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Issues
“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
There are many of us who know what’s going on behind the green movement and global warming scenery. Open you eyes. Jump the sinking AGW ship and board the NIPCCC (Non Inter Governmental Panel on Cyclical Climate Change)
LikeLike
Bernard J. Says:
23 September 2008 at 13.06
Slamdunk.
it is incumbent upon you to provide the evidence for your contrarian thinking.
SLAM: I disagree. I didn’t ask those questions to be asked why my thinking is contrary. You can see in the post before this that I asked them again. Feel free to comment on any of them, esp. Overpeck and Deming.
LikeLike
Slamdunk.
With respect to your posing of questions at #57 and #123:
Why are you an idiot?
LikeLike
Trouble with the natural climate change hypothesis applied to the last century is that it requires people to dismiss and ignore all that is known about climate science first. The absorption and emission characteristics of CO2 and other GHG’s are not going to diminish or disappear in favour of natural causes that can’t be shown to have the forcing necessary to account for recent climate change. You have revealled where your arguments originate and climate scientist have pretty thoroughly shown Spencer,Michaels, Singer, Ball, Christy and Lindzen’s criticisms to lack real substance. You are welcome to keep on believing them, but the fact that you will accept what they say over what comes from the world’s scientific mainstream…that you can really believe in an underlying motivation to bring about the collapse of civilisation in order to save the planet…
Absolute bottom of the barrel crap, Slam! How dare you smear the lifes work and real concerns of genuine honest people with it. Is there anyone here advocating the collapse of civilisation? No. A quote from someone I absolutely disagree with reveals nothing about my motivations, but I do wonder at yours in quoting it.
Slam, when almost all the experts in a field tell you how it is but you prefer to disbelieve them in favour of pretend science (mixed with smear) that looks a lot like cultish belief.
Slamdunk goodbye.
LikeLike
Ken Fabos Says:
24 September 2008 at 7.01
The absorption and emission characteristics of CO2 and other GHG’s are not going to diminish or disappear in favour of natural causes that can’t be shown to have the forcing necessary to account for recent climate change.
SLAM: Hi Ken. The “recent” climate change is that temps have not risen significanty since 1979 and there has been a sharp drop in them since 2007 as measured by GISS, RSS, UAH and HADCRU. All this in record levels of CO2. Many scientists believe the earth is headed for cooling, which always creates more hardship than warming.
KEN:You have revealled where your arguments originate and climate scientist have pretty thoroughly shown Spencer,Michaels, Singer, Ball, Christy and Lindzen’s criticisms to lack real substance.
SLAM: The only problem these scientists have is they can’t find anyone to debate them.
KEN: You are welcome to keep on believing them, but the fact that you will accept what they say over what comes from the world’s scientific mainstream…
SLAM: Do you know how many IPCC scientists believe that human induced CO2 has created a climate crisis?
KEN: that you can really believe in an underlying motivation to bring about the collapse of civilisation in order to save the planet…
SLAM: Where did I say anything about underlying motives to bring about collapse? I’m only quoting Gore, Strong, Hansen, Chirac, Stewart and others about their views. You can decide for yourself whay you think they are saying.
KEN: Absolute bottom of the barrel crap, Slam! How dare you smear the lifes work and real concerns of genuine honest people with it. Is there anyone here advocating the collapse of civilisation?
SLAM: No. But there are some who believe in the collapse of civilization if human CO2 is not greatly reduced.
KEN: No. A quote from someone I absolutely disagree with reveals nothing about my motivations, but I do wonder at yours in quoting it.
SLAM: I’m only showing you what some people are saying about global warming. You can interpret any way you like. I tend to think they mean what they say. Words are powerful.
KEN: Slam, when almost all the experts in a field tell you how it is but you prefer to disbelieve them in favour of pretend science (mixed with smear) that looks a lot like cultish belief.
SLAM: Let me ask again. How many IPCC scientists do you think believe that the earth is on the verge of environmental disaster unless human induced CO2 is cut way back?
[Ed: I’ll answer that – by far the vast majority of them]
KEN: Slamdunk goodbye.
You mean we’re through? :(
LikeLike
Bernard J. Says:
24 September 2008 at 1.29
Slamdunk.
With respect to your posing of questions at #57 and #123:
Why are you an idiot?
SLAM: Isn’t there something in the rules and regs about this kind of talk?
[Ed: True, there should be no personal insults. But there is also a reg about consistently posting false, misleading or repetitive comments, so I’ve decided to let both go through to the keeper at this stage.]
LikeLike
[Ed: I’ll answer that – by far the vast majority of them]
Could you give me some numbers please.
[Ed: Sure, go look at the IPCC website]
LikeLike
Slamdunk.
With respect to your sensitivity at #128 regarding my question at #125, I was trying to make a point.
You have attempted to ask a set of questions without justification for the content, and claimed that it was not your place to provide such justification. Your questions have been frequently rebutted over the years, and it seems to be with mendacious intent that you pose questions that you must know to be vexacious.
I am simply reflecting the nature of your questioning, and directing a similarly unjustified question at you. Dhogaza makes the same point at #64. I did wonder as I posted if you would understand the intent of such as rhetorical device, and it seems that I was too generous in estimating your capacity for comprehension of such.
If you truly took offence then you have a thin skin (I’ve been called much worse at Marohasy’s cesspit), and a loose grasp of balance in exchange. If you’re just playing games – well, I am still going to hold you to justifying the reason why you have asked questions that have been addresses previously, and also to explain what your take on the substance of the questions is.
You can’t reasonably expect an exchange with other people if you don’t make clear where you are coming from, although I understand that if you were to do so you would probably make your underlying position more insecure that what it already is.
Of course, if you can’t grasp any of this then perhaps you are providing me with the evidence that I would need to justify my question pertaining to your idiocy…
LikeLike
Sd:
You won’t be taken seriously if you rely on a proven liar.
LikeLike
Sd:
Not risen significanty since 1979? You won’t be taken seriouly while you get your facts about global temperature wrong.
LikeLike
Slammie @ 123
So, you finally showed us your conspiracy theory! World Domination by the greenies and lefties – what a laugh! I don’t think there is any point in engaging with you as that mad theory is behind your questions. As to the supporters you mention – Spencer, Michaels, Singer, Ball etc – really -we can’t believe you don’t know their backgrounds and therefore their raison d’etres. Well, unfortunately for you most rational people do- and most rational people don’t believe in your conspiracy theories either. So give up here and return to the denialist blogs you normally inhabit.
LikeLike
Further – for those people reading this blog, who want to check out the credentials of those dissenter scientists mentioned by our friend Slammie, go to http://www.desmogblog.com and click on the Research Database tag to get a list of them and their credentials. All of those mentioned by Slammie appear on the list. For more info on “The Oregon Petition” try http://www.mediamatters.org/items/200602140013 to find out the truth about that scam.
LikeLike
Even more important, there has been a sharp drop in temperature here in Portland, Oregon over the last 12 hours, with no corresponding drop in CO2. I’ll be predicting an Ice Age starting about 3PM …
(surely slamdunk should be mocked, rather than taken seriously?)
LikeLike
Slamdunk Says:
24 September 2008 at 12.12
[Ed: I’ll answer that – by far the vast majority of them]
Could you give me some numbers please.
[Ed: Sure, go look at the IPCC website]
Been there done that. It does not tell how many IPCC scientists who explicitly endorse the statement I posted. I have asked the IPCC how many. No response.
LikeLike
Bernard J. Says:
24 September 2008 at 12.56
Slamdunk.
With respect to your sensitivity at #128 regarding my question at #125, I was trying to make a point.
SLAM: When people resort to name calling it demeans their point of view.
BER: You have attempted to ask a set of questions without justification for the content,
SLAM: Since when is one supposed to justify asking a question. I think you should spend more time framing answers instead of dodging the questions. Is it because you know Mann, Wahl, Ammann, IPCC are not being ethical?
BER: and claimed that it was not your place to provide such justification. Your questions have been frequently rebutted over the years, and it seems to be with mendacious intent that you pose questions that you must know to be vexacious.
SLAM: Cut the rhetoric please and answer the questions.
BER: I am simply reflecting the nature of your questioning, and directing a similarly unjustified question at you. Dhogaza makes the same point at #64. I did wonder as I posted if you would understand the intent of such as rhetorical device, and it seems that I was too generous in estimating your capacity for comprehension of such.
SLAM: If you don’t want to answer the questions I can’t make you. I suspect that you don’t have a problem with the unethical, or at least questionable, behavior of Mann, Wahl, Ammann, IPCC, Gore et al.
BER: If you truly took offence then you have a thin skin (I’ve been called much worse at Marohasy’s cesspit), and a loose grasp of balance in exchange. If you’re just playing games – well, I am still going to hold you to justifying the reason why you have asked questions that have been addresses previously,
SLAM: Fine, if it you wan’t to call people idiots because they don’t perform up to your standards, be my guest. You still demean your position. Name calling is a poor tactic in debating. Where you get the notion that a person has to justify asking questions is off the chart.
BER: You can’t reasonably expect an exchange with other people if you don’t make clear where you are coming from,
SLAM: Answer the questions and we’ll talk more about where I’m coming from.
LikeLike
Chris O’Neill Says:
24 September 2008 at 14.48
Sd:
SLAM: Hi Ken. The “recent” climate change is that temps have not risen significanty since 1979
Not risen significanty since 1979? You won’t be taken seriouly while you get your facts about global temperature wrong.
SLAM: The conventional position is since 1998, but there are some scientists who take it back to 1979. Ok, let’s go with 1998. YOu will at least agree with that and also that there has been a sharp drop since 2007. Yes?
LikeLike
perps Says:
24 September 2008 at 16.43
Slammie @ 123
So, you finally showed us your conspiracy theory! World Domination by the greenies and lefties – what a laugh!
SLAM: Not my theory, friend. Talk to people like Chirac.
PERP: I don’t think there is any point in engaging with you as that mad theory is behind your questions.
SLAM: Is Chirac off his rocker?
How about David Rockefeller. “We are on the verge of a global transform-ation. All we need is the right major crisis…” David is the executive member of the Club of Rome.
How many more statements would you like to see from people who are using AGW for this “global transformation.” UN Secretary Ban Ki-Moon said just two days ago that “global leadership” is necessary to fight the so called GW crisis and financial crisis.
The first president of the United Nations General Assembly, Paul-Henri Spaak, who was also a prime minister of Belgium and one of the early planners of the European Common Market, as well as a secretary-general of NATO, affirmed, “We do not want another committee, we have too many already. What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all the people and to lift us up out of the economic morass into which we are sinking. Send us such a man, and whether he be God or devil, we will receive him.”
Hint: It won’t be God.
PERP: As to the supporters you mention – Spencer, Michaels, Singer, Ball etc – really -we can’t believe you don’t know their backgrounds and therefore their raison d’etres.
SLAM:: These men are as qualified as any scientist with the IPCC. Why shouldn’t their voices be heard? Spencer and NASA scientists are on the cutting edge of exploring the effects of CO2 on climate sensitivity. Their paper will be published in November.
PERPS: Well, unfortunately for you most rational people do- and most rational people don’t believe in your conspiracy theories either. So give up here and return to the denialist blogs you normally inhabit.
SLAM:The real deniers are those who ignore the fact that there has been no warming since 1998, even possibly 1979, and that temperatures have dropped since 2007. Are you a denier of these truths? Do I have to show you where IPCC’s Pachauri and WMO’s Michel Jarraud agree?
LikeLike
dhogaza Says:
24 September 2008 at 20.58
The “recent” climate change is that temps have not risen significanty since 1979 and there has been a sharp drop in them since 2007
Even more important, there has been a sharp drop in temperature here in Portland, Oregon over the last 12 hours, with no corresponding drop in CO2. I’ll be predicting an Ice Age starting about 3PM …
(surely slamdunk should be mocked, rather than taken seriously?)
SLAM: What they will say to that is any cooling periods are mere bumps in the road to the overall trend of globally rising temperatures. They still don’t get it. CO2 lags temperature.
[Ed: Slamdunk, stop posting nonsense, you know this to be utterly refuted. If you continue to consistently engage in the conversations on this site in an intellectually dishonest way, then your comments are not welcome. Last warning].
LikeLike
Well, in spite of the dancing around and sputtering like beer spilled on a hot barbeque plate, <iI don’t need any more evidence.
Just so that there is no doubt about implications though:
Just who, exactly, will ‘it’ be? Surely you don’t mean to imply the devil?
LikeLike
Bernard J. Says:
25 September 2008 at 0.11
Well, in spite of the dancing around and sputtering like beer spilled on a hot barbeque plate, <iI don’t need any more evidence.
Just so that there is no doubt about implications though:
“…Send us such a man, and whether he be God or devil, we will receive him.”
Hint: It won’t be God.
Just who, exactly, will ‘it’ be? Surely you don’t mean to imply the devil?
SLAM: I’m sure Spaak wasn’t thinking it would literally be God or the devil, rather someone who would be OF God or OF the devil. But I think his statement was prophetic. The Bible talks about a man taking over the reigns of global government and he definitely won’t be a man of God. You know who it will be. Movies have been made and books written about him. Here he is:
“One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. 4 Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?”” (Rev. 13:3,4)
LikeLike
Some “scientists”. Who, pray tell, might these “scientists” be? Try not to use proven liars.
On to the next goal post location…
This year has been perhaps 0.2 C cooler than last year. Is there some significance in this variation in the weather?
LikeLike
Slamdunk.
The manner in which you interpret the Bible is very revealing. It puts a lot of your statements into context.
Did you know that the Bible actually predicts global warming? Google “bible predicts global warming” and see…
So it seems that to deny AGW is to deny God’s Word. Or is it that those who attempt to get around God’s Word by reducing the emissions that will lead to the End Times are in league with the devil? Or are they in league with the devil because they are attempting take over the government of the world?
I can see that clarity of thinking is very important when considering climate change…
LikeLike
Oh, and Slamdunk.
As much as I now suspect that you are taking the bases upon which you have posed your questions, at #57 and #123, purely on faith, I am still asking you for the references from which you have arrived at your adopted position.
I know that Graeme Bird would label me as remiss if I did not repeatedly insist on the evidence…
LikeLike
Sorry Slammie @ 142
Must have missed that you are also a religious fanatic but fortunately you have now made that clear. Add it to your conspiracy theory of World Domination and we finally get the full picture. Oh – BTW how come you didn’t make mention of my referencing http://www.desmogblog.com for full details of your supposedly genuinely impartial scientists – and the link to the discredited “Oregon Petition” http://www.mediamatters.org/items/200602140013
I guess you didn’t want to draw attention to them did you. You are a total fraud and have amply demonstated same.
LikeLike
Chris O’Neill Says:
25 September 2008 at 7.07
SLAM: The conventional position is since 1998, but there are some scientists who take it back to 1979.
CHRIS:Some “scientists”. Who, pray tell, might these “scientists” be? Try not to use proven liars.
SLAM: There are several cites addressing “no warming since 1979,” but here’s just one:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
CHRIS: On to the next goal post location…
This year has been perhaps 0.2 C cooler than last year. Is there some significance in this variation in the weather?
SLAM: Perhaps. Many scientists think we’re headed for a global cooling period anywhere from 20 to 50 years. I think the only significance is that it’s natural and cyclical. IF the world goes into another little ice age,the last think people are going to worry about is the slight warming we have experienced over the past 50 or 60 years.
After a cooling, there will be another warming. But there is nothing that proves the temps will be any higher than they have been historically.
LikeLike
Bernard J. Says:
25 September 2008 at 13.33
Slamdunk.
The manner in which you interpret the Bible is very revealing. It puts a lot of your statements into context.
SLAM: How so? What statement have I ever made that reflects my views on so called global warming?
BER: Did you know that the Bible actually predicts global warming? Google “bible predicts global warming” and see…
SLAM: Yes, indeed it does. Where does it say it’s caused by human CO2 emissions? The future holds extreme warming if the Bible is right.
“The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. 9They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.” (REv. 16:8,9)
It’s the sun, not human CO2. This will happen during the seven year period of tribulation the Bible warns about.
BER: So it seems that to deny AGW is to deny God’s Word. Or is it that those who attempt to get around God’s Word by reducing the emissions that will lead to the End Times are in league with the devil? Or are they in league with the devil because they are attempting take over the government of the world?
SLAM: First comes a ten nation (or region) confederacy that forms global government. Out of them comes one who will reign over them (REv. 17:12,13). You ask some interesting questions.
Some time in the latter half of his reign is when the sun will scorch men. This all presumes the Bible is making an accurate prophecy.
LikeLike
perps Says:
25 September 2008 at 17.22
Sorry Slammie @ 142
Must have missed that you are also a religious fanatic but fortunately you have now made that clear. Add it to your conspiracy theory of World Domination and we finally get the full picture.
SLAM: Let me say again, it’s not my theory. First the Bible predicts global government and second, Chirac supports it with his statement. He is in league with many others with the same view. Surely you don’t believe the world is NOT headed for global government. World Court, World Bank, World Trade, World warming, etc.
Oh – BTW how come you didn’t make mention of my referencing http://www.desmogblog.com for full details of your supposedly genuinely impartial scientists – and the link to the discredited “Oregon Petition” http://www.mediamatters.org/items/200602140013
I guess you didn’t want to draw attention to them did you. You are a total fraud and have amply demonstrated same.
IT’s a bunch of baloney. Those two cites are radical left wing deniers. (Isn’t that what you say about my cites:) You can always find someone who says what you want to hear.
LikeLike
Is that it… should we not try to stop the warming, because the warming brings the end of the world and the glory of god closer to fruition?
The great thing about the bible is it can suit whatever scenario the world is in at the present day. folks like me get called alarmist for thinking CO2 is warming the planet, when religion is always trying to tell me that Judgement day itself is about to happen according to some interpretation of some obscure passage of the bible.
LikeLike
I must add, I quite enjoy reading SDs work… not so much the poor science, but the conspiracy theory/religion behind it is something I personally find to be a very valuable part of the debate… in fact it causes the core beliefs of the “deniers”. Similar to the zionist issue of fundamental Christians believing that the state of Israel HAS to exist at judgement day for Christians to gain access to heaven… I know it is all mumbo jumbo conspiracy, or strange interpretation at best, but I just find it very interesting and far more constructive than argy bargy about science detail. THese things go to the core of what makes us humans.
LikeLike
Bernard J. Says:
25 September 2008 at 13.46
Oh, and Slamdunk.
As much as I now suspect that you are taking the bases upon which you have posed your questions, at #57 and #123, purely on faith, I am still asking you for the references from which you have arrived at your adopted position.
I know that Graeme Bird would label me as remiss if I did not repeatedly insist on the evidence…
SLAM: Ok, I’ll start with Overpeck/Deming and the MWP. I think I listed this before.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1131
IPCC Chairman Pachauri fails to respond to scientists asking for evidence that CO2 drives temperature
Click to access Letter_UN_Sec_Gen_Ban_Ki-moon.pdf
IPCC overstates effect CO2 has on climate sensitivity
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=310&Itemid=1
No warming since 1998 according to IPCC and WMO
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/01/pachauri-to-look-into-apparent.html
I’ll do the others later. I don’t think this site will accept alot of websites.
LikeLike
MattB Says:
25 September 2008 at 22.38
Is that it… should we not try to stop the warming,
SLAM: Why not try to stop cooling? That has led to more problems than warming. Can you name one climate disaster due to CO2?
MATT: because the warming brings the end of the world and the glory of god closer to fruition?
SLAM: I don’t know where you get that idea.
MATT: The great thing about the bible is it can suit whatever scenario the world is in at the present day. folks like me get called alarmist for thinking CO2 is warming the planet,
SLAM: You’re a skeptic?
MATT: when religion is always trying to tell me that Judgement day itself is about to happen according to some
interpretation of some obscure passage of the bible.
Did you know the Bible says exactly when judgment will come?
LikeLike
MattB Says:
25 September 2008 at 22.46
I must add, I quite enjoy reading SDs work… not so much the poor science,
SLAM: The latest satellite science shows that what little warming there was has stopped and global temperatures have dropped since 2007. Is that poor science?
Matt: but the conspiracy theory/religion behind it is something I personally find to be a very valuable part of the debate… in fact it causes the core beliefs of the “deniers”.
Slam: Please explain what you mean.
Matt: Similar to the zionist issue of fundamental Christians believing that the state of Israel HAS to exist at judgement day for Christians to gain access to heaven…
Slam: Where do you get that?
Matt: I know it is all mumbo jumbo conspiracy, or strange interpretation at best,
Slam: What’s mumbo jumbo?
LikeLike
Slamdunk.
I simply do not have time at the moment to dissect the plethora of eyebrow-raisers that you present, but this does need a response:
The short answer – yes!
Do you really need it explained to you why this is so?
And frankly, if you do not understand why saying that “global temperatures have dropped since 2007” is poor science, then it is clear why you are not able to properly assess the vast amount of more complex scientific information in the discipline of climate change.
LikeLike
Slam don’t get so coy – I’m on to you! Seriosuly have you never heard the one about fundamentalist christians who believe that their passage to heaven depends on a state of israel existing come judgement day? you surprise me.
It is clear what I mean – it often takes more than an understanding of the scientific debate to understand where different parties approach various issues from.
Lets face it slam – you want it to warm, you want us to burn, as it will fulfill prophecy! It lets you wear sandwichboards in the town centre.
LikeLike
Thanks Slammie @ 147 and 152 for more links to sites of your right wing denialist friends. I checked them all out and as I suspected they were all scientific duds.
Oh – and the Sceptical Science( very good blog explaining to genuine sceptics what the science is really saying) link you posted – well – the opening paragraph was quoting what the sceptics were saying – you obviously neglected to read the rest of the article which explained why they were wrong. At least do your research properly.
LikeLike
Bernard J. Says:
26 September 2008 at 12.43
Slamdunk.
I simply do not have time at the moment to dissect the plethora of eyebrow-raisers that you present, but this does need a response:
The latest satellite science shows that what little warming there was has stopped and global temperatures have dropped since 2007. Is that poor science?
The short answer – yes!
Do you really need it explained to you why this is so?
And frankly, if you do not understand why saying that “global temperatures have dropped since 2007″ is poor science, then it is clear why you are not able to properly assess the vast amount of more complex scientific information in the discipline of climate change.
Hi Bernard. First, NASA, RSS, UAH and HADCRU all show a drop in temperatures since 2007. http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/
Second, even the IPCC and WMO say there has been no warming since 1998.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/01/pachauri-to-look-into-apparent.html
What science do you have that shows differently?
LikeLike
MattB Says:
26 September 2008 at 16.33
Slam don’t get so coy – I’m on to you! Seriosuly have you never heard the one about fundamentalist christians who believe that their passage to heaven depends on a state of israel existing come judgement day? you surprise me.
No, I have never heard the one about Christians thinking that Israel must exist before passage into heaven. What I think you mean is that Israel must exist before Christ returns at which time his millenial reign begins. This is what the Bible says.
It is clear what I mean – it often takes more than an understanding of the scientific debate to understand where different parties approach various issues from.
Lets face it slam – you want it to warm, you want us to burn, as it will fulfill prophecy! It lets you wear sandwichboards in the town centre.
I call this Limb Theology: So far out on a limb you’re about to drop off:) Seriously, There will be no significant warming until that time when the sun “scorches men.” (Rev. 16:8,9). That will happen during the great tribulation period that Jesus spoke of (Matt. 24:21). But before that happens, Christians will have been taken up to heaven and won’t be around for the barbecue. Why not think in terms of escaping it by not being around when it happens? Repent and trust in Christ. You’ll be glad you did:)
LikeLike
perps Says:
26 September 2008 at 19.01
Thanks Slammie @ 147 and 152 for more links to sites of your right wing denialist friends. I checked them all out and as I suspected they were all scientific duds.
Slam: Hey, hold on there Perps! Two of them had nothing to do with science, rather unethical or questionable behavior. All you needed to do was explain why Overpeck wanted the MWP excluded from the hockey stick. If you think there was a scientific reason, then say so. Otherwise, such exclusion can only be seen as an intentional move to misrepresent the record. That is dishonest and only showed what the AGW crowd was up to: Create a scenario ripe for environmental disaster due to human induced CO2. Are you not able to see through their dishonest scheme?
The same with Pachauri’s failure to respond to a legitimate question. This wasn’t about science, but the right thing to do. Clearly, Pachauri did not have the evidence requested so he just ignored the question. Can you not see this?
It was a matter of science that the IPCC and WMO acknowledged no warming since 1998. If you think warming hasn’t stopped then you need to ask them about that.
Perps: Oh – and the Sceptical Science( very good blog explaining to genuine sceptics what the science is really saying) link you posted
Slam: What site are you talking about?
Perps: – well – the opening paragraph was quoting what the sceptics were saying – you obviously neglected to read the rest of the article which explained why they were wrong. At least do your research properly.
Slam: It would be your opinion they were wrong.
LikeLike
You really should read pages before you link to them. It might stop you from looking quite so silly. That web page points out why the “no warming since 1979” argument is garbage. BTW, the “no warming since 1979” argument was made by Bob Carter using the satellite graph of mid-troposphere temperature (average altitude 6,000 m), where it is expected to neither warm nor cool, unlike the surface. Carter is either clueless or dishonest. Next time you want to say “scientists” say something, try to find someone who has a clue and is not a fraud.
LikeLike
Chris O’neill said:
You really should read pages before you link to them. It might stop you from looking quite so silly. That web page points out why the “no warming since 1979″ argument is garbage. BTW, the “no warming since 1979” argument was made by Bob Carter using the satellite graph of mid-troposphere temperature (average altitude 6,000 m), where it is expected to neither warm nor cool, unlike the surface. Carter is either clueless or dishonest. Next time you want to say “scientists” say something, try to find someone who has a clue and is not a fraud.
What follows Carter is a different opinion, not settled science. Your characterization of someone you probably know nothing about as a fraud is a bit unfair, don’t you think? But if I were you, I would put more stock in the IPCC and WMO, both of which acknowledge no warming since 1998.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/01/pachauri-to-look-into-apparent.html
That there is no significant atmospheric global warming since 1979 can be seen in the graph at the end of the article at:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
Spencer works with some NASA researchers and is on the cutting edge of satellite research and climate sensitivity. You may want to read his entire article and see what he says about climate sensitivity. But you will probably consider him a fraud too.
LikeLike
Sd:
No, Carter is not just presenting a different opinion. He is presenting a blatant misrepresentation of the facts of global warming. Global warming is warming of the surface, NOT 6000 m up. Carter is trying to suggest that there is no global warming at the surface where it really matters because there is no global warming 6000 m up. But lack of warming 6000 m up does not mean there is no warming at the surface unlike what Carter is trying to make us think.
I’m not characterizing someone, I’m describing his behaviour. If someone tries to perpetrate a fraud isn’t it fair to call them a fraud?
Spencer has fraudulently picked the same irrelevant graph as Carter. If he tries to perpetrate a fraud shouldn’t he be called a fraud too? Go and read the page you yourself linked to: http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm . Maybe if you understand this, you won’t be credulously taken in by a fraud.
LikeLike
Slamdunk at #158.
A warm year followed by a cooler year is not ‘cooling’ in the AGW context. It is noise. Once again, are you truly so scientifically illiterate that you do not understand this? Using your criterion, global cooling has occurred dozens of times in the last 50 years. Sheesh.
And as to 1998, it was an anomalously hot year, and even AGW proponents do not ascribe all of its record temperature value to AGW. Cherry picking it as a start date to make a claim of cooling is unscientific.
And even if one ignored your selective starting of cooling at 1998 (or 1979), one would need a far greater timescale than a decade to be confident that AGW was not occuring.
If you do not understand the relative impacts of noise on AGW signal, you should get a basic education at the ‘Start here’ option at RealClimate, or read Tamino’s thorough statistical explanations on these subjects.
Faith is not going to cut it in a scientific discussion SD. You need to get yourself an education.
And SD, do you seriously believe that you can employ quotes from the Bible to make scientific points?
LikeLike
SD: I was pretty close you have to admit. I’m personally banking on God giving credit for good behaviour (if it turns out you are right), and trading me a spot some “christian” thought he/she had booked by adopting some pseudo fundamental greed is good christianity. I’ll be thinking of you getting hot though…
LikeLike
MattB Says:
28 September 2008 at 1.17
SD: I was pretty close you have to admit. I’m personally banking on God giving credit for good behaviour (if it turns out you are right), and trading me a spot some “christian” thought he/she had booked by adopting some pseudo fundamental greed is good christianity. I’ll be thinking of you getting hot though…
Won’t happen, Matt. I’ve got fire protection – The blood of Jesus:)
Don’t trust your good works for Paradise. Like everyone, you’re a sinner and need His forgiveness.
LikeLike
NEWS FLASH #1
Recent studies by the Hadley Climate Research Center (UK), the Japan Meteorological Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of East Anglia (UK) and the University of Alabama Huntsville show clearly that the rising trend of global average temperature stopped in 2000-2001.
NEWS FLASH #2
NASA’s JPL says urban island heat the major cause of warming on the west coast. (no doubt other regions of the world)
When you add solar activity, it’s a no brainer that they are the major cause of warming.
LikeLike
#
# Bernard J. Says:
27 September 2008 at 18.12
Slamdunk at #158.
A warm year followed by a cooler year is not ‘cooling’ in the AGW context. It is noise. Once again, are you truly so scientifically illiterate that you do not understand this? Using your criterion, global cooling has occurred dozens of times in the last 50 years. Sheesh.
Slam: Warming and cooling have occurred several times. It’s called natural cyclical climate change. Man made CO2 plays a very small role.
And as to 1998, it was an anomalously hot year, and even AGW proponents do not ascribe all of its record temperature value to AGW. Cherry picking it as a start date to make a claim of cooling is unscientific.
Slam: NASA, UAH, RSS and Hadley only say that temps have dropped since 2007. Will they continue? Many scientists believe so.
And even if one ignored your selective starting of cooling at 1998 (or 1979), one would need a far greater timescale than a decade to be confident that AGW was not occuring.
Slam: No one denies slight and harmless global warming. What caused it is the issue. My money is on the natural – multi-decadal oscillations, solar activity, cloud activity and urban island heat. There are other theories. Least of all is the small contribution of man made CO2 (0.04%)
If you do not understand the relative impacts of noise on AGW signal, you should get a basic education at the ‘Start here’ option at RealClimate, or read Tamino’s thorough statistical explanations on these subjects.
Slam: The only “noise” is what comes out of Gore, Hansen, Schneider, Houghton and all the other economic, social and political reformers.
Faith is not going to cut it in a scientific discussion SD. You need to get yourself an education.
Slam: “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, COLD AND HEAT, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease.” (Gen. 8:22)
YOu can trust the Bible to tell it like it is.
And SD, do you seriously believe that you can employ quotes from the Bible to make scientific points?
LikeLike
Coolers – can you take the Year After 1998 Challenge?
If it’s been cooling since 1998, what’s it been doing since 1999? Do you think you know? Are you sure cooling is really clear and strong? Proven? Since 1998, right? But has it cooled since 1999?!
This shouldn’t be hard, since 1999 was quite hot – sixth hottest on record at the time but it’s down to thirteenth. Sixth in 1999. Thirteenth now. Go figure. It’s still in the top 20 so it’s not a deliberately low bar to get this clear cooling trend in under. Being less well known 1999 should be able to avoid most of the controversy and bickering we get with 1998 and be more able to demonstrate recent trends.
A clear cooling trend doesn’t need, shouldn’t need, a single unusually hot year and controversial yearto prove it’s a trend – a real trend will show itself clearly and reveal the truth about warming without it. So check it out. Let me know how much cooler it’s been since 1999.
Check out 1999, the year coolers don’t want to talk about.
For global temps see this graph at GISS (note that you are automatically counted as conspiracy theory nutter if you say that’s an unreliable source). Email complaints to them at GISS if you truly believe they are wrong and you aren’t worried that they’ll laugh.
Ken Fabos.
LikeLike
i.e. someone who is taken in by a fraudulent misrepresentation of the satellite temperature records.
LikeLike
Ken Fabos Says:
29 September 2008 at 6.37
Check out 1999, the year coolers don’t want to talk about.
For global temps see this graph at GISS (note that you are automatically counted as conspiracy theory nutter if you say that’s an unreliable source). Email complaints to them at GISS if you truly believe they are wrong and you aren’t worried that they’ll laugh.
Hi Ken. You didn’t include the site for the GISS graph. The only one I’m familiar with is found at:
You’ll see that it also includes the other three temperature tracking systems and they all show a significant drop in temps since 2007. How can this be as man made CO2 is at record levels? Also, the IPCC and WMO acknowledge there has been no warming since late 1990s.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/01/pachauri-to-look-into-apparent.html
LikeLike
‘Significant’? Do you mean statistically significant? If so, how did you determine it to be so? If not, then why use the word ‘significant’?
As to the ‘how’, Slamdunk, one thing you and your Denialist friends really need to learn is that climate scientists recognise many factors that contribute to warming and/or cooling of the planet. This is exactly why the much-derided (by Denialists) computer modelling is so complex. Our climate warms and cools according to the relative impacts of these many factors, and yet the underlying warming forcing of CO2 exists, and it will continue to raise the average temperature of the planet over time regardless of short-term superimpositions of other climate-influencing factors.
Are you really so dense that you cannot understand this simple concept?
It’s not rocket science – in fact, it’s very basic science. To prove the point, I took the temperature anomalies for the period 1882-2007 and counted the number of times the planet cooled, stayed the same, or warmed, from one year to the next.
And guess what? The planet cooled 54 times in the 125 years in this period! Surely this is news, and a sure sign that we are headed to that terrible ice-age oft heralded by Denialists?
Well, no…
There were 66 times when the planet warmed, and 6 times where temperature didn’t change. Oopsadaisy – it seems warming is more frequent that cooling. 22% more frequent, in fact.
And the sum of the cumulative coolings vs warmings? 0.77C – fancy that!
It took two minutes with a few equations in Excel to figure this out. I think that you might benefit from some primary school level consideration of this data too, and I would strongly advise that you carefully look at the graph of this dataset.
In particular, consider the relative magnitude of fluctuation of temperature (your so-called ‘cooling’ vs the more common ‘warming’) in the context of the rate of the overall warming trend. The former varies from approximately 0.2C to 0.4C per decade, and the latter trend is 0.06C per decade.
Think carefully on this, and ask yourself how many decades might be required for the signal to rise above the noise. And then ask yourself once more why it is ‘poor science’ to say:
Unfortunately I don’t have the url to hand for the dataset that I used, but it was titled “Global Land+Ocean Surface Temperature Anomaly (C) (Base: 1951-1980)”. I’m sure Google, or a benevolent reader of this thread, can provide the appropriate address (I am not going to do all of your homework for you), and as I said, a couple of minutes playing in Excel will reveal some interesting numbers.
Time for you to stop relying on blind faith placed in others’ Denialist delusions and biases, and learn how to do science.
LikeLike
Try here for the giss graph.
Does anyone really think that you can take a warming trend, add an exceptionally hot year in the middle and it becomes a cooling trend? That is exactly what the “it’s been cooling since 1998” claim is really saying. Hint – hot plus hot equals hotter. Not cooler! On that you can rely 100%. Anyone tells you different you can be sure that they’re wrong and you don’t need a weblink to prove it.
Take out 1998 and there’s a warming trend. Include it and it’s cooling. In case anyone hasn’t noticed, that is completely backwards. Something must be wrong if you can take away an exceptionally hot year and you get clear warming, but add it back in and you get clear cooling. Whilst it might be good for a laugh to create an argument that “proves” that more warming makes cooling, be assured that’s what it is; someone’s idea of a joke, not a sound argument.
So how does including an exceptionally hot year – clear evidence of warming – become the key element to “proof” that it’s getting cooler? I blame it on someone with a low sense of humour.
Without the hottest year on record (if you don’t count 2005) your cooling trend vanishes into the puff of pseudo-logic from which it came. I could explain, but no-one pays attention anyway. I’ll leave it to the reader to figure it out. Meanwhile, if in doubt, repeat after me… hot plus hot equals hotter not cooler.
So ditch 1998. Ditch that little cooling trend from 1998 to 1999. Ditch a year that is clear evidence for warming, not cooling, that no climate change denialist really wants to see in those graphs. Show me the trend from 1999 onwards. I can assure you you will get a better picture of the real trend in our climate than by starting at 1998.
PS I don’t think there are any years this century that can be called cooling. Every one of them is high and shows the world has warmed. And 2007 till now is as much a real trend as the brief cooling one from 1998 to 1999. Didn’t last long did it? And how much cooling since 1999?
LikeLike
Ken Fabos Says:
29 September 2008 at 6.37
‘Significant’? Do you mean statistically significant? If so, how did you determine it to be so? If not, then why use the word ’significant’?
Slam: If the earth only warmed 0.74C over a hundred years, then I guess a 0.65C average drop is significant. But the point is not “significance,” rather temps are going the other way, just what AGWers weren’t expecting, esp. in light of record levels of CO2.
As to the ‘how’, Slamdunk, one thing you and your Denialist friends really need to learn is that climate scientists recognise many factors that contribute to warming and/or cooling of the planet.
Slam: The IPCC Reports have always said they are 90% certain that global warming is man made. They didn’t even accept any science that offered strong evidence for factors other than CO2:
The charter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is
“… to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of RISK OF HUMAN-INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy.”
This is exactly why the much-derided (by Denialists) computer modelling is so complex. Our climate warms and cools according to the relative impacts of these many factors,
Slam: So human-induced CO2 is not the major cause?
and yet the underlying warming forcing of CO2 exists, and it will continue to raise the average temperature of the planet over time regardless of short-term superimpositions of other climate-influencing factors.
Slam: That is pure baloney. No one has ever proven that man made warming will continue to cause an upward trend in temperatures regardless how many cooling periods in between. I hope you don’t think computers have prophetic capability.
Are you really so dense that you cannot understand this simple concept?
It’s not rocket science – in fact, it’s very basic science. To prove the point, I took the temperature anomalies for the period 1882-2007 and counted the number of times the planet cooled, stayed the same, or warmed, from one year to the next.
And guess what? The planet cooled 54 times in the 125 years in this period! Surely this is news, and a sure sign that we are headed to that terrible ice-age oft heralded by Denialists?
Slam: And how much of a role did man made CO2 play in those warming periods? You will just have to live with the fact that temps are headed south. Does that mean an extended period of cooling, or another ice age? I guess we’ll find out. But please don’t say that man made CO2 is the major cause of global warming as his majesty Algore has been saying.
Well, no…
There were 66 times when the planet warmed, and 6 times where temperature didn’t change. Oopsadaisy – it seems warming is more frequent that cooling. 22% more frequent, in fact.
Slam: And of those 66 times, how many were caused by man made CO2? Think, man, think:)
And the sum of the cumulative coolings vs warmings? 0.77C – fancy that!
It took two minutes with a few equations in Excel to figure this out. I think that you might benefit from some primary school level consideration of this data too, and I would strongly advise that you carefully look at the graph of this dataset.
Slam: I commend you for your ingenuity. But all you’ve told me is that there’s more warm periods than cool! What caused the warming? Any info on that? Good job:)
In particular, consider the relative magnitude of fluctuation of temperature (your so-called ‘cooling’ vs the more common ‘warming’) in the context of the rate of the overall warming trend. The former varies from approximately 0.2C to 0.4C per decade, and the latter trend is 0.06C per decade.
Slam: I’ll really be impressed if you can tell me what caused temperatures to rise during those periods of warming.
Think carefully on this, and ask yourself how many decades might be required for the signal to rise above the noise. And then ask yourself once more why it is ‘poor science’ to say:
The latest satellite science shows that what little warming there was has stopped and global temperatures have dropped since 2007.
Slam: You’re trying rationalize yourself into believing something the facts don’t support. Why don’t you contact those tracking systems and tell them they’re wrong?
Unfortunately I don’t have the url to hand for the dataset that I used, but it was titled “Global Land+Ocean Surface Temperature Anomaly (C) (Base: 1951-1980)”. I’m sure Google, or a benevolent reader of this thread, can provide the appropriate address (I am not going to do all of your homework for you), and as I said, a couple of minutes playing in Excel will reveal some interesting numbers.
Time for you to stop relying on blind faith placed in others’ Denialist delusions and biases, and learn how to do science.
Slam: Time for you to tell me what caused those 66 periods to warm. Then show me where it has been proven that man made CO2 was the major cause of 0.74C rise in temp over the past century.
LikeLike
Ken Fabos Says:
29 September 2008 at 18.29
Try here for the giss graph.
Slam: Why not present this on Anthony Watts site and see what happens. His NASA graph is slightly different.
Does anyone really think that you can take a warming trend, add an exceptionally hot year in the middle and it becomes a cooling trend?
Slam: Who said there was a cooling trend. The only “trend” is from 2007 to the present time. Will it continue? I don’t know. Because of no solar wind, many scientists think this portends a cooling trend.
That is exactly what the “it’s been cooling since 1998″ claim is really saying.
Slam: Not exactly. The reports are that the warming stopped since 1998 and that the cooling began in 2007.
Hint – hot plus hot equals hotter. Not cooler!
Slam: I wouldn’t call a 0.74C rise in temperature over a century what you would characterize as things getting hotter. That is well within the range of natural variability.
Take out 1998 and there’s a warming trend. Include it and it’s cooling. In case anyone hasn’t noticed, that is completely backwards. Something must be wrong if you can take away an exceptionally hot year and you get clear warming, but add it back in and you get clear cooling. Whilst it might be good for a laugh to create an argument that “proves” that more warming makes cooling, be assured that’s what it is; someone’s idea of a joke, not a sound argument.
Slam: ????? Just show where it has been proven that man made CO2 is the major cause of global warming that has created a climate crisis and you will have something.
So how does including an exceptionally hot year – clear evidence of warming – become the key element to “proof” that it’s getting cooler?
Slam: You don’t have to believe those reports from UAH, RSS and Hadley. GISS is under the control of Hansen, who thinks skeptical scientists should be jailed. I don’t put anything past him. He also thinks it’s OK to damage property that emits smoke. What a nut case.
I blame it on someone with a low sense of humour. Without the hottest year on record (if you don’t count 2005) your cooling trend vanishes into the puff of pseudo-logic from which it came.
Slam: Your error is thinking I have said there is a cooling trend. Again, the only “trend” is from 2007 to the present as those graphs show.
I could explain, but no-one pays attention anyway. I’ll leave it to the reader to figure it out. Meanwhile, if in doubt, repeat after me… hot plus hot equals hotter not cooler.
Slam: I say, the slight warming (0.74C) stopped in 1998, according to IPCC and WMO, and cooling started in 2007 and is likely to continues.
So ditch 1998. Ditch that little cooling trend from 1998 to 1999. Ditch a year that is clear evidence for warming, not cooling, that no climate change denialist really wants to see in those graphs. Show me the trend from 1999 onwards. I can assure you you will get a better picture of the real trend in our climate than by starting at 1998.
Slam: You should be a prophet:) The ability to conclude an overall warming trend based on short fluctuations of two years is amazing.
PS I don’t think there are any years this century that can be called cooling.
Slam: OK, let’s call 2007-2008 a decrease in warming. Is that better?
Every one of them is high and shows the world has warmed.
Slam: Again, nobody denies the 0.74C warming. Show me proof that man made CO2 did it.
And 2007 till now is as much a real trend as the brief cooling one from 1998 to 1999. Didn’t last long did it? And how much cooling since 1999?
Slam: If you can predict what the next few years will bring, I’m all ears:) All I see right now is at least a half degree drop in temps, man made CO2 is at record levels, oceans are cooling, Arctic ice is increasing over last year’s rate, Antartica ice is increasing, the sun is in dormancy and polar bears are doing just fine.
LikeLike
and the ability to conclude an overall trend based on the fluctuation from one year to the next:
is even more amazing.
BTW, Sd, are you still getting sucked in by fraudulent misrepresentations of the satellite temperature record?
LikeLike
Chris O’Neill Says:
30 September 2008 at 14.04
BTW, Sd, are you still getting sucked in by fraudulent misrepresentations of the satellite temperature record?
Hello Chris. I am sucked in by people like Dr. Roy Spencer with a PHD in meterology and a principle research scientist at the Univ. of Alabama. He was formerly with NASA as senior scientist for climate studies and is currently the U.S. Science team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He is co-developer of the original satellite method for precise monitoring of global temperatures from orbiting satellites. He has authored many weather and climate research articles in science journals and has testified before Congress of global warming.
Who are you sucked in by?
LikeLike
Question for skeptics of skeptics:
How many IPCC scientists agreed with the statement, “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years”.
Answer_______
LikeLike
Slamdunk.
It is apparent to me that you are merely a troll.
No adult who presumes to engage in a discussion of science can think to do so whilst so patently bereft of what is no more than a high school level understanding of signals vs noise in year-to-year data, nor of how small fluctuations in global temperature differ from instantaneous local extremes or even geological extremes. Your persistent incapacity to understand such points smells like troll-poop. Really. Your scientific illiteracy is either extraordinary in its depth, or it is feigned in order to mire constructive discussion.
No-one but a troll would confabulate the many scientifically-determined and acknowledged sources of planetary warming with a new and increasing forcing, even if the isolated magnitude of the new forcing is small in comparison to the other forcings. Well, almost no-one but a troll – it is possible that a very stupid or ignorant person might not understand basic concepts of equilibria and shifts in such due to new factors, whatever the magnitude of such factors…
Only a troll would say:
after having repeated several times that:
and
I wouldn’t presume to flatter you with the assumption that you were exercising irony… Oh, and just for the record, if you were responding to my postings about the 66 ‘warmings’ (not Ken Fabos’), you seem to have missed the fact that I used inverted commas to indicate that these are not in and of themselves warmings in the greater sense, and also the fact that I was specifically making the point that you had attempted to describe a ‘significant’ trend yourself in the context of ‘cooling’ since 2007.
Troll? Or idiot?
No-one but a troll would avoid addressing the many fundamental points made by various posters here, and instead respond with further discredited pseudo-scientific nonsense.
And no-one but a troll, or perhaps a faith-blinded fundamentalist, would even consider using religious mythology as a response to science.
I am calling you out as a troll, and I’ll leave it to others to take up further cudgels against you. Any unbiased third party reading this thread will have made up their minds about you by now; and from here-on, in my opinion, whatever passes for thought in that thing that you might identify as your own mind is of complete irrelevance to the world at large.
Time for you to crawl back under the bridge.
LikeLike
I’m glad you realize that Spencer put up the same fraudulent misrepresentations of the satellite temperature record as Bob Carter, as I pointed out above, and that you have been sucked in by this.
Just tell me the proven fraud that I have been sucked in by as I have pointed out the proven fraud that you have been sucked in by.
LikeLike
Bernard J. Says:
30 September 2008 at 23.41
Slamdunk.
It is apparent to me that you are merely a troll.
That you won’t answer a simple question shows you have no interest in truth. So let me share it with you. Based on comments in the IPCC report, there were only FIVE IPCC scientists who explicity endorsed man made CO2 as the driver of temperatures, not the “thousands” you constantly hear from the drive-by media. Only five scientists swallowed the IPCC/Hansen/Gore propaganda that your CO2 emissions are raising temperatures to the point of climate crisis. FIVE!
http://climaterealist.blogspot.com/2008/09/ipcc-2500-scientists-myth.html
One other thing. I guess you think the IPCC, WMO, NASA, UAH, RSS, Hadley are also trolls since they acknowledge no warming since 1998 and temperature drop since 2007.
I won’t respond to the rest of your remarks other than I never said the earth is in a warming trend since 2007. All I said was that the temperatures have dropped and could be leading towards a cooling trend. Got it? Good:)
LikeLike
Chris O’Neill Says:
1 October 2008 at 6.46
BTW, Sd, are you still getting sucked in by fraudulent misrepresentations of the satellite temperature record?
Hello Chris. I am sucked in by people like Dr. Roy Spencer.
I’m glad you realize that Spencer put up the same fraudulent misrepresentations of the satellite temperature record as Bob Carter, as I pointed out above, and that you have been sucked in by this.
Slam: I’m sure you have proof that the graphs cited are fraudulent. Why not present it instead of just saying so?
Who are you sucked in by?
Just tell me the proven fraud that I have been sucked in by as I have pointed out the proven fraud that you have been sucked in by.
That anyone believes the very small amount of human-induced CO2 is the major cause of what little warming there was over the past century, and that it has created a climate crisis, in my view, has bought into a fraud surpassed only by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
LikeLike
Just to prove a point or several:
I have never said that you said “earth is in a warming trend since 2007”. You are either incapabale of parsing sentences, or you are a troll attempting to construct a strawman.
Or both.
Bullshit. Read your earlier posts. There was no ‘could’ about them. Remember ‘significant’?
Got that? No, I thought not…
OK troll, list those five scientists who “explicity endorsed man made CO2 as the driver of temperatures”. According to you everyone else in the world therefore does NOT explicity endorse the existence of AGW. Oh, and confabulating “the driver of temperatures” with “a driver of temperatures” is mendacious, and didn’t go unnoticed.
This should be interesting, because there are many other petitions, interviews, papers, books, blogs and sundry documentation on the record demonstrating that scientists support the existence of AGW.
There is no doubt that you are simply a troll, and not a very clever one at that.
LikeLike
Don’t you understand what the word “above” means? As in “the same fraudulent misrepresentations of the satellite temperature record as Bob Carter, as I pointed out ABOVE”.
ABOVE was in comments 161 and 163. Obviously you didn’t pay attention the first time.
No wonder you are incapable of following an argument if you exhume this dinosaur troll that died in 1931.
LikeLike
Bernard said,
OK troll, list those five scientists who “explicity endorsed man made CO2 as the driver of temperatures”.
Slam: Since the IPCC doesn’t give out names, you will just have to believe it based on the website I listed. Here it is again:
http://climaterealist.blogspot.com/2008/09/ipcc-2500-scientists-myth.html
Many of the scientists you call deniers served on the IPCC but resigned when they saw how political it was getting and the bad science that was being passed around.
According to you everyone else in the world therefore does NOT explicity endorse the existence of AGW.
Slam: There aren’t many. All I’m trying to get you to see is that there was nowhere near the “thousands” of IPCC scientists who believe man made CO2 is driving temperatures to a climate crisis. That is the typical hype you get from Gore et al. There is no crisis. (Say it with me…”There is no climate crisis…very good:) It’s all scare tactics to get there religion (Gaia/ environmentalism)under the force of law.
This should be interesting, because there are many other petitions, interviews, papers, books, blogs and sundry documentation on the record demonstrating that scientists support the existence of AGW.
Slam: I do too, to an insignificant degree. It just isn’t driving temperatures. The sun, oceanic osscilations, urban island heat, cloud activity, etc. are driving temperatures.
There is no doubt that you are simply a troll, and not a very clever one at that.
Bernard is on a roll,
All who don’t agree are a troll.
Could Bernard be on the federal dole,
trolling for funds to feed his global goal?
LikeLike
Don’t you understand what the word “above” means? As in “the same fraudulent misrepresentations of the satellite temperature record as Bob Carter, as I pointed out ABOVE”.
SLAM: UAH, RSS and Hadley are in basic agreement. NASA is off a little. I can’t help it if skeptical Science doesn’t get it right. I’ll trust the people who work with the satellites and know what they are doing.
Just tell me the proven fraud that I have been sucked in by as I have pointed out the proven fraud that you have been sucked in by.
That anyone believes the very small amount of human-induced CO2 is the major cause of what little warming there was over the past century AND WHICH HAS CAUSED A CLIMATE CRISIS (you left that out).
No wonder you are incapable of following an argument if you exhume this dinosaur troll that died in 1931.
Slam: What in the world are you talking about?
Wow!!!! Look at this! August 2007, a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004-2007 revealed “Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory.”
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-
4BC4-B364B623ADA3
LikeLike
Obviously your attention span is no more than one sentence. If you had paid attention you would have read the following sentence:
and you could have checked comments 161 and 163. Since you have such a short attention span, I’ll repeat those comments here:
#161:
“You really should read pages before you link to them. It might stop you from looking quite so silly. That web page points out why the “no warming since 1979″ argument is garbage. BTW, the “no warming since 1979” argument was made by Bob Carter using the satellite graph of mid-troposphere temperature (average altitude 6,000 m), where it is expected to neither warm nor cool, unlike the surface. Carter is either clueless or dishonest. Next time you want to say “scientists” say something, try to find someone who has a clue and is not a fraud.”
#163:
“No, Carter is not just presenting a different opinion. He is presenting a blatant misrepresentation of the facts of global warming. Global warming is warming of the surface, NOT 6000 m up. Carter is trying to suggest that there is no global warming at the surface where it really matters because there is no global warming 6000 m up. But lack of warming 6000 m up does not mean there is no warming at the surface unlike what Carter is trying to make us think.”
“Spencer has fraudulently picked the same irrelevant graph as Carter. If he tries to perpetrate a fraud shouldn’t he be called a fraud too? Go and read the page you yourself linked to: http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm . Maybe if you understand this, you won’t be credulously taken in by a fraud.”
Now, try very, very hard to have an attention span better than a moron and see if you can understand what I said.
LikeLike
Further to Chris@185 (in response to SD@186), I repeat what I said in post 35#:
A 5 year smooth of the post-1979 temperature data comparison for the 4 measures shows if anything that if there is one anomaly, it UAH. Not GISS as SD@186 claims.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/mean:60/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/mean:60/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/mean:60/plot/uah/mean:60/plot/rss/mean:60
So Roy Spencer’s data is the oddball, not Jim Hansens. The RSS analysis of the satellite data confirm this.
LikeLike
So now Slamdunk is resorting to puerile, non-syntaxed, twisted-vocabulary doggerel. Oh, and to ad hominem imputations that are not even justifiable by being, in the slightest degree, tangentially related to the topic at hand.
Although it’s none of your bloody business, I currently have two jobs on top of postgradute study, and I have had to decline offers for more work. Both positions are ecological, and at the moment neither is academic – but so what if they were? Grants are awarded on merit, and your disparagement of grant applications shows a denigration of a part of the overall scientific process that has benefited you more than you will ever appreciate.
So not only are you a troll, but you seem to be determined to demonstrate (yet again) that you are an ignorant one.
But keep on with your blathering – it’s doing wonders for the credibility (or lack thereof) of Denialism in general.
LikeLike
Chris O’Neill Says:
2 October 2008
Don’t you understand what the word “above” means? As in “the same fraudulent misrepresentations of the satellite temperature record as Bob Carter, as I pointed out ABOVE”.
Slam: I’ll stick with the UAH, GISS, RSS and Hadley charts I posted. I can’t help it if Skeptical Science doesn’t get it right.
Now, try very, very hard to have an attention span better than a moron and see if you can understand what I said.
Slam: There now, don’t you feel a lot better?
In the meantime, more truth serum for deniers:
IPCC bureaucrats pull their own “hockey stick.”
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/wirth.htm
If you want to see what the IPCC is really up to:
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm
Good serum:)
LikeLike
Barry Brook Says:
2 October 2008 at 14.45
Further to Chris@185 (in response to SD@186), I repeat what I said in post 35#:
A 5 year smooth of the post-1979 temperature data comparison for the 4 measures shows if anything that if there is one anomaly, it’s UAH. Not GISS as SD@186 claims.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/mean:60/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/mean:60/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/mean:60/plot/uah/mean:60/plot/rss/mean:60
So Roy Spencer’s data is the oddball, not Jim Hansens. The RSS analysis of the satellite data confirm this.
You can believe your data, I’ll stick with the charts I posted earlier and the views of the many other scientists who agree with them (31,000+). This is why I don’t like to argue science. It always ends up with this site vs. that site. Your scientists are better than mine; mine are better than yours.
This is why I prefer to examine ethics and integrity. If man made global warming is a fact, why has the IPCC behaved so unprofessionally, misrepresented data, refused to repsond to direct questions? Why did Mann not want to release his codes? Why did he omit the MWP? Why didn’t Wahl and Ammann want to release their algorithims? Why did McIntyre have to use the FOIA to get the information the IPCC was hiding? Why does Gore lie so much? Why won’t he debate? Why did IPCC bureaucrats delete damning statements from the final draft of WG 1 chapter 8? The heirarchal GW crowd give reason to at least be suspicious.
Visit this and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm
LikeLike
Bernard J. Says:
2 October 2008 at 22.26
So now Slamdunk is resorting to puerile, non-syntaxed, twisted-vocabulary doggerel. Oh, and to ad hominem imputations that are not even justifiable by being, in the slightest degree, tangentially related to the topic at hand.
Although it’s none of your bloody business, I currently have two jobs on top of postgradute study, and I have had to decline offers for more work. Both positions are ecological, and at the moment neither is academic – but so what if they were? Grants are awarded on merit, and your disparagement of grant applications shows a denigration of a part of the overall scientific process that has benefited you more than you will ever appreciate.
So not only are you a troll, but you seem to be determined to demonstrate (yet again) that you are an ignorant one.
Nite, nite:)
LikeLike
The UAH, GISS, RSS and Hadley charts do not say there has been no warming at the surface since 1979. Can you do better than bring up a strawman? The fraud you fail to realize was perpetrated by Carter as I pointed out in #161 and #163.
LikeLike
To reiterate:
Slamdunk at comment 127:
.
Slamdunk was sucked in by a proven fraud by Bob Carter.
BTW, Sd:
except when, like Carter, someone says there is no warming since 1979. In that case they can defraud as much as they like and Slamdunk’s interest in ethics and integrity vanishes before our eyes.
LikeLike
Chris O’Neill Says:
3 October 2008 at 22.36
The UAH, GISS, RSS and Hadley charts do not say there has been no warming at the surface since 1979. Can you do better than bring up a strawman?
Slam: I never said those charts had anything to do with 1979. I cited them to show the temperature drop since 2007.
The fraud you fail to realize was perpetrated by Carter as I pointed out in #161 and #163.
Slam: The only fraud is what Pachauri, Hansen, Gore and their buddies are seeking to impose on uniformed people. Carter, even if he is a fraud, pales in comparison.
If Americans understood what is going on behind the not-so-hallowed walls of the IPCC, there would be a revolution. Sadly, too many people think they’re getting the truth when Al Gore and the mainstream media speak. If you want to see what the IPCC is all about, visit:
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm
LikeLike
Chris O’Neill Says:
4 October 2008 at 0.22
To reiterate:
Slamdunk at comment 127:
The “recent” climate change is that temps have not risen significanty since 1979
Slamdunk was sucked in by a proven fraud by Bob Carter.
Slam: Add Richard Lindzen
“Satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
and Fred Singer:
“Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979.”
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html
and John Christy and Roy Spencer:
“In 1989, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy developed a global temperature data set from satellite microwave data beginning in 1979, which showed little or no warming above the surface.”
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=415
Would you like some more?
LikeLike
You used them in replying to me and that’s what I was talking about. Your attention span has been caught short again.
So Carter perpetrates a cold-blooded fraud and all you can do is be sucked in by it and be sucked in by the likes of John Mclean. We know all about John Mclean. He’s a careless fraud and a nutcase.
LikeLike
Lindzen (who is not serious when discussing global warming) was not talking about surface temperature. Looks like Slamdunk has been sucked in again.
and Fred Singer:
“Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979.”
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html
For a start, the satellite derivation in 2000 upon which that testimony was based was seriously flawed. Second, as with Lindzen, Singer was not talking about surface temperature. Looks like Slamdunk has been sucked in again.
LikeLike
Slamdunk.
You are nursing a pathological desire for reality to be other than what it is…
You dredged up three sources that claim:
“Satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979”
“Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979”
“In 1989, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy developed a global temperature data set from satellite microwave data beginning in 1979, which showed little or no warming above the surface”
The trouble is:
1) satellite data, especially earlier sets, have been shown to be less reliable than datasets derived from other instrumentation
2) you are referring to the atmospheric temperatures as opposed to the surface temperatures
and
3) AGW models predict surface warming, and atmospheric cooling at higher altitudes. Both of which are demonstrable.
So, not only are you a troll who refers to discredited sources, but you appear ever more determined to demonstrate that you will use complete garbage with which to attempt to make your failed case.
Once more, do some basic high school homework. I’ll even make it easy for you and give you the 1979-2007 land and ocean anomaly values from the dataset I referred to a few days ago.
Please explain to us how these data show ‘no warming since 1979’.
Year Anomaly
1979 0.09
1980 0.18
1981 0.27
1982 0.05
1983 0.26
1984 0.09
1985 0.05
1986 0.13
1987 0.27
1988 0.31
1989 0.19
1990 0.38
1991 0.35
1992 0.12
1993 0.14
1994 0.24
1995 0.38
1996 0.3
1997 0.4
1998 0.57
1999 0.33
2000 0.33
2001 0.48
2002 0.56
2003 0.55
2004 0.49
2005 0.62
2006 0.54
2007 0.57
LikeLike
Lindzen (who is not serious when discussing global warming) was not talking about surface temperature. Looks like Slamdunk has been sucked in again.
and Fred Singer:
“Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979.”
For a start, the satellite derivation in 2000 upon which that testimony was based was seriously flawed. Second, as with Lindzen, Singer was not talking about surface temperature. Looks like Slamdunk has been sucked in again.
LikeLike