Do global warming "skeptics" honestly see us as a benign species?

[FXMastermind]

Here’s an example of how blind and stupid some of the links appear. In regards to trying to say the models actually did work, you just have to remove all factors that prevented them from working. I am not kidding, you can read it yourself.

Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), for example, statistically removed the effects of El Niño/La Niña cycles, volcanoes, and solar variation, to produce the temperature evolution that WOULD HAVE occurred if these random, natural variations hadn’t happened.

Now this was 2010 they were doing this, but it doesn’t matter. The trend did not change, still slightly down, with an extreme drop for the NH winters. But lets go on.

There is still random variation evident in Fig. 1, so we obviously haven’t removed all the noise, but the trend is much more consistently upward, including during the last decade. The fact is that natural variation can EASILY account for a leveling off of the temperature rise for a decade or so, and what’s more, even though climate models aren’t very good at predicting when these natural variations will occur, they do at least predict that they WILL happen (Santer et al., 2011).

Roy Spencer’s Junk Science

OK that is just so special. Really, it is. I pointed out that the models can’t predict, and they removed what happened, and then claimed they can predict, you just have to remove reality from the data.

Priceless

[FXMastermind]

@tomndebb

Really? “People?”

Appealing to the mass media instead of actual scientists for one’s science is rather shoddy thinking. …

Now don’t be insulting. Let me show you what is missing from the discussion first. Then you can insult me all you like.

[tomndebb]

@watchwolf49

Who are you to spam judge right and wrong?

Who are you to decide what is spam conspiracy?

Who are you to spam at all?

I do not know why you have suddenly developed a fondness for throwing the word “spam” into most of your sentences, but it serves no useful purpose in this discussion and you will stop it.

[ /Moderating ]

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Here’s an example of how blind and stupid some of the links appear. In regards to trying to say the models actually did work, you just have to remove all factors that prevented them from working. I am not kidding, you can read it yourself.

That is called science, on the pseudoscience side guys like Spencer never make corrections.

Newt Gingrich "The Evidence is Sufficient" on Global Warming

But wait–remember how I criticized Spencer for the wild and crazy curve-fitting adventures he chronicled in his book? And how he decided he wasn’t going to respond? Well, the fact is that he’s making the same kinds of errors again, and patting himself on the back for it. Here are several reasons why nobody should take Roy’s pronouncements of victory seriously.

In Spencer’s original model, he could tune the beta and h parameters to get ANY CLIMATE SENSITIVITY HE WANTED, with exactly the same quality of curve fit? That was because manipulating beta and alpha (which determines climate sensitivity) changes the net rate of energy input into the top of the surface layer, while manipulating h changes how fast the ocean heats up in response. In his latest posts, it’s about the same story. He can still manipulate beta and alpha to change the net input into the top of the ocean, but now to change the temperature response, he just has to change the thermal diffusion rate out the bottom! I dinked around with a spreadsheet he provided in one of his posts, and sure enough, I could fit the data just about as well with higher climate sensitivity (within the IPCC range).

That’s a big problem, because Spencer’s entire argument is statistical in nature, but he has made no attempt to find out how sensitive his model fits are to the different parameter values.

I could go on with more nitpicks, but I’m going to stop here, because it should be clear that, once again, Spencer has made a big deal out of something that doesn’t have any evidentiary value. So if, as Spencer claims, “[t]he evidence for anthropogenic global warming being a false alarm does not get much more convincing than this,” then can we please move on? Can Roy PLEASE put his toy model down?

I doubt he will, but maybe he will accept this challenge. Instead of complaining about how biased and awful the peer review system has gotten, he should (at the very least) get a statistician to work with him and do the modeling right, and then submit it for publication in a reputable journal. Personally, I don’t think the work can be saved, even then. However, I think the exercise of working with someone who knows how to properly make statistical inferences would be enlightening for Roy Spencer.

[FXMastermind]

No, science would remove the “natural signals” from the entire length of the temperature anomaly, not just the part they don’t like. So there would be no ups and downs, just a long flat line, until the hockey stick starts, whenever they decide CO2 started causing warming.

That is what would supposedly happen if they r"emoved the effects of El Niño/La Niña cycles, volcanoes, and solar variation, to produce the temperature evolution that WOULD HAVE occurred if these random, natural variations hadn’t happened."

See? That would be science. Not just doing it to a small portion to try and claim warming was still going on. Do the same thing to the entire record, to see if such an “adjustment” makes sense.

And of course, YOU are still avoiding a discussion. Just huge copy and paste, copy and paste, but you avoid actually discussing the issues.

Like what I just said. respond to that, don’t just cut and paste somebody else’s words.

[FXMastermind]

In regard to the dramatic cooling that spawned such fear and loathing in 1970, just looking at the global mean doesn’t really tell the story.

You have to understand where and what happened.

this actually shows some of it quite well.

The “blip” they discussed in the climategate mail shows up in that, In 1944 the anomaly for January in the NH was 1.075

By 1969 the January anomaly was -1.054

You can see during the sixties what happened with the coldest month.

You can see it on the GISS data clearly, and why it was so powerful for the US

The drastic fall from 1958 really makes the point, the anomaly of 0.673 fell to -1.054 in 1969, a drastic drop in the global mean, but really a lot of the NH

Here it is on GISS and the winter trend as well

February tells the story as well

Nobody was saying that a 11 year trend was meaningless. It was seriously getting cold in the winters.

It didn’t let up however, as the GISS data shows.

Now the deniers might try to handwave that away, but it doesn’t change the facts a bit.

[FXMastermind]

Looking at the winter trend, you can also see why Europe, and it’s climate scientists, were not that concerned about the winters. heh

In any case, while it’s complicated as can be, some things the average person can understand.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

No, science would remove the “natural signals” from the entire length of the temperature anomaly, not just the part they don’t like. So there would be no ups and downs, just a long flat line, until the hockey stick starts, whenever they decide CO2 started causing warming.

That is what would supposedly happen if they r"emoved the effects of El Niño/La Niña cycles, volcanoes, and solar variation, to produce the temperature evolution that WOULD HAVE occurred if these random, natural variations hadn’t happened."

See? That would be science.

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

Aside from the fact that solar effects cannot physically explain the recent global warming, as with GCRs, there are several empirical observations which solar warming could not account for. For example, if global warming were due to increased solar output, we would expect to see all layers of the atmosphere warm, and more warming during the day when the surface is bombarded with solar radiation than at night. Instead we observe a cooling of the upper atmosphere and greater warming at night, which are fingerprints of the increased greenhouse effect.

What has global warming done since 1998?

Removing the El Niño signal from the temperature record

The reason that 1998 was such an anomalously warm year was due to a strong El Niño that year. Fawcett and Jones remove the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) signal by calculating a linear regression of global temperatures against the Southern Oscillation Index. A detailed description of the process is found in Fawcett 2007. The result is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 5: Three time series of globally-averaged annual mean temperature anomalies (circles) in degrees Celsius, together with ENSO-adjusted versions (lines), for the period 1910-2007.

All 3 data sets demonstrate that the anomalously hot 1998 was due to the strong El Niño of 1997/98. When ENSO-adjusted, 1998 looks much less remarkable than it does in the original data. In all 3 ENSO-adjusted data-sets, 2006 is the hottest year on record and the trend from 1998 to 2007 is that of warming.

Science it is.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Nobody was saying that a 11 year trend was meaningless. It was seriously getting cold in the winters.

And yet, most researchers concluded warming was coming; now, do you think the popular media that got things wrong should be consulted on this issue?

And why should we not listen to the scientists that got it right and predicted warming when the surface temperature was showing that there was a pause or it was cooling back then?

[FXMastermind]

Fig 5 http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/fawcett_no_enso.gif is not a graph with all the “natural” forcings removed. You are still avoiding discussing. And now you are being dishonest with the data you claim is there.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

And yet, most researchers concluded warming was coming

No, a study claims the majority of papers of the time were about warming. There is zero evidence the majority was reporting global warming.

But that doesn’t matter, in regards to what happened at the time. You are avoiding discussing what actually happened. A copy and paste (for the hundredth time) to a blog isn’t a discussion.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

No, a study claims the majority of papers of the time were about warming. There is zero evidence the majority was reporting global warming.

No source for what you claim.

131047.pdf

The threads came together most famously
in a meeting held in July 1979 in Woods Hole.
There, Jule Charney, one of the pioneers of
climate modeling, brought together a panel of
experts under the U.S. National Research Council
to sort out the state of the science. The Charney
panel’s work has become iconic as a foundation
for the enterprise of climate change study that
followed (Somerville et al. 2007). Such reports are
a traditional approach within in the United States
for eliciting expert views on scientific questions of
political and public policy importance (Weart
2007). In this case, the Charney panel concluded
that the potential damage from greenhouse gases
was real and should not be ignored. The potential
for cooling, the threat of aerosols, or the possibility
of an ice age shows up nowhere in the report.
Warming from doubled CO2 of 1.5 to 4.5ºC was
possible, the panel reported. While there were
huge uncertainties, Verner Suomi, chairman of the
National Research Council’s Climate Research
Board wrote in the report’s foreword that he
believed there was enough evidence to support
action: “A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting
until it is too late” (Charney et al. 1979). Clearly if a
national report in the 1970s advocates urgent
action to address global warming, then the
scientific consensus of the 1970s was not global
cooling.

@FXMastermind

But that doesn’t matter, in regards to what happened at the time. You are avoiding discussing what actually happened. A copy and paste (for the hundredth time) to a blog isn’t a discussion.

No, the fact that you dismiss it with no evidence whatsoever does tell a lot to others that are following this.

[FXMastermind]

By 79 the winters had turned, as is noted in Thin Ice: Unlocking the Secrets of Climate in the World’s Highest Mountains By Mark Bowen, page 133

As I predicted, you don’t discuss, you just copy and paste, from some terrible blogs too.

Note the image used here, still trying to pimp a rise, even for 2005. See that? Using four years to try and “show a trend”, or something.

Four years? Give us a break. Lets look at what really happened.

2001 to now

there is is again, the NH cold season show a cooling

The warm season does not

What kind of forcing would cause the summer to be hotter, but winters get colder?

Hint: It’s not CO2

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

As I predicted, you don’t discuss, you just copy and paste, from some terrible blogs too.

Wrong as usual, that last one was from the American Meteorological Society.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/

As for the rest, you continue with the cherry picks and not a single cite of a researcher from those places you cherry pick that agrees with your tactics.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

you continue with the cherry picks

Now that is funny. I noted that skepticalcrap.com cherry picked really badly

@FXMastermind

Note the image used here, still trying to pimp a rise, even for 2005. See that? Using four years to try and “show a trend”, or something.

I used longer periods to show what actually happened, but to GIGO a long period is cherry picking, but four years is “good science”. It’s why the avoidance of discussing is so deceptive, and silly.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Now that is funny. I noted that skepticalcrap.com cherry picked really badly

I used longer periods to show what actually happened, but to GIGO a long period is cherry picking, but four years is “good science”. It’s why the avoidance of discussing is so deceptive, and silly.

Piffle, like if the context does not show that you posted it to disparage it with the
“2001 to now”

[FXMastermind]

Once again, no discussion at all. This is how to win. By not playing.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Once again, no discussion at all. This is how to win. By not playing.

The discussion is over in this regard, you cherry pick and tell others that the scientists that gather that data you selected should not be consulted because they conclude the opposite of what you claim, because they are “high priests” dedicated to make money out of this.

A conspiracy theory is not a good idea for a discussion. It actually makes the ideas put forward to support that to be suspect in the extreme.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

The discussion is over in this regard,

You’ve never discussed anything I presented. You make blanket statements and avoid the facts.

It’s pretty sad, and a terrible way to debate.

[FXMastermind]

Just remember, not playing the game isn’t the same as winning it.