Global Warming for Dummies

[GIGObuster]

@Blake

Yes there is: it’s perfectly natural.

And not supported by most of the experts in the field.

@Blake

Once again, an argument form consensus.

I repeat: science isn’t done by consensus. Science doen’t take vote sin the facts.

And it’s interetsing to note how the alarmists have toned don there language. It is now just “the most likely”. Just 5 years ago this issue was settled. It was fact. Even in this thread we have seen repeated claims that it is clear form a single data set and a single melting glacier. Meanwhile once they get a whiff of real challenge, they cautiously start talking of “most likely”.

Sorry, but what they use also is a consensus of evidence.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2737050.html

Some climate deniers have found it impossible to ignore the overwhelming array of evidence that the planet is warming (cognitive bias does have its limits) and moved onto the next stage of denial: “it’s happening but it’s not us”. After all, climate has changed throughout Earth’s history. How can we tell it’s us this time?

The answer, as always, is by surveying the full body of evidence. Warming from our carbon dioxide emissions should yield many tell tale patterns. We don’t need to rely on guess work or theory to tell us humans are causing warming. We can measure it.

If carbon dioxide is causing warming, we should measure less heat escaping to space. Satellites have observed this, with heat being trapped at those very wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorb radiation. If less heat is escaping, we should see more heat returning to the Earth’s surface. This has been measured. Greenhouse warming should cause the lower atmosphere to warm but simultaneously, the upper atmosphere to cool. That’s indeed what we observe is happening.

As far back as the 1800s, scientists predicted greenhouse warming should cause nights to warm faster than days and winters to warm faster than summers. Both predictions have come true. Everything we expect to see from greenhouse warming, we do see.

We have, as science historian Naomi Oreskes aptly puts it, “multiple, independent lines of evidence converging on a single coherent account”. This consensus of evidence is the reason why we have a consensus of scientists with 97 out of 100 climate experts convinced that humans are driving global warming.

[JoelUpchurch]

@GIGObuster

Apparently others do think so in this thread, but they use the evidence in an attempt to discredit what many experts report about those measurements. (It is actually a very basic contradiction from contrarians, but that does not stop them.)

If you read other sources about the PETM, then you will find there is a lot of scientific controversy on this topic. There certainly isn’t enough evidence to conclude that a temperature increase was caused by a C02 increase or how much the C02 increased compared to now.

That is the dabate on policy, I would think on that Romm is indeed weak, but the cites **Michael63129 **used do link to the science.

We aren’t talking about being weak. We are talking about a vicious personal attack on the guy who started they whole AGW discussion back in the eighties. The point is that links to Joe Romm will be ignored by people on both side of the debate.

If you have a point to make, link to the actual papers or at least to Real Climate.

[robinson]

60 years ago, I was told in school that the atmospheric conditions on Venus were due to a runaway greenhouse effect. That got my attention. Since then, we have learned a lot about Venus, chaos theory and atmospheric sciences, but I believe that hypothesis still holds. Whether global warming is due to human activity is beside the point. If we believed we were headed for a global atmospheric tipping point, we would have to take all available measures to avoid it. Or kiss the earth goodbye. Period.

We are probably not faced with that scenario yet. Present atmospheric level of CO2 is about 390ppm, increasing at 2.2 ppm/year. Prior to WWII, the highest estimated peak level in the last 600 million years is 300ppm. Historic atmospheric temperatures appear to correlate with CO2 concentration. Sea surface temperatures correlate with hurricane strength. It is not surprising that non-scientists can see some effects. Recent pictures of Glacier Park show no glaciers. Mountain snow caps are visibly reduced. Small rises in sea level have been measured. We are already well into unknown territory. The present problem is that we do not know at what temperature naturally sequestered CO2 and methane will begin to be released and at what rate. We don’t know how fast Antarctic and Greenland ice will flow to the sea. Is the best strategy to wait until the science is proved to 8 sigma, or get to work? I think a prudent person would turn down the gas.

Regardless of what we choose, I believe we will see continuing environmental changes and will be faced with a host of political decisions. Do we want to offer asylum to drowned out Pacific Islanders (some of them are US citizens)? Are we prepared to lose our wheat farms to Canada? To see endemic drought in the southeast? To see Asia to Europe shipping bypass the US via the arctic? Do we want an oil port on Prudhoe Bay? Shall we sell Glacier park? Large scale changes will provide business opportunities for some (air conditioner and real estate sales in the north), and refugee status for others. Its going to be interesting. More interesting if we do too little.

[GIGObuster]

@JoelUpchurch

If you read other sources about the PETM, then you will find there is a lot of scientific controversy on this topic. There certainly isn’t enough evidence to conclude that a temperature increase was caused by a C02 increase or how much the C02 increased compared to now.

And once again, I would think you will find that it is the contrarians who would scream louder at that.

@JoelUpchurch

We aren’t talking about being weak. We are talking about a vicious personal attack on the guy who started they whole AGW discussion back in the eighties. The point is that links to Joe Romm will be ignored by people on both side of the debate.

Nope.

@JoelUpchurch

If you have a point to make, link to the actual papers or at least to Real Climate.

The point of the tread is about how the press is doing with the evidence and to keep information at simple levels for the OP, I have made already plenty of cites on what to do and what are the places to check for better information than what the Daily [del]Fail[/del] Mail can provide, can you comment on those?

[Blake]

@GIGObuster

And that only works by ignoring what the experts on the matter say

No. It only works if people look at the actual data rather than relying on the interpretation of “authorities”.

Once again, we get told that by the Alarmists something is utterly clear from a single data set and a single melting glacier. And when we look at the data set it rather obviously shows an exponential curve for the past 400 years, with the past 50 years sitting perfectly on that curve. So then we get told that we just have to listen to the experts, and ignore what we can actually see,

So it actually isn’t clear at all. It’s actually hideously complicated and and relies upon numerous data sets and proxies and diverse statistical methods utilized. And any of those proxies and data sets and statistical methods can be and has been called into question. Moreover the choice of proxie itself can be and has been called into question.
For example, consider the claim that

all [data] indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years.

Well, no.

Each of the data sets used by those authors show that. But those data sets are known to be unreliable,

“…past (temperature) variations may have been at least a factor of 2 larger than indicated by empirical reconstructions.”
von Storch et al. 2004 “Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data“ Science 306

‘‘The majority of the stomatal frequency-based estimates of CO 2 for the Holocene do not support the widely accepted concept of comparably stable CO2 concentrations throughout the past 11,500 years.”
Wagner et al 2009 “Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO2 records based on stomatal frequency” Quaternary Science Reviews 23
“Data from ice cores suggest that Late-glacial and early Holocene atmospheric CO2 variations were rather conservative, the most important change being a gradual Younger Dryas increase. By contrast, palaeo-CO2 records based on the inverse relationship between CO2 partial pressure and stomatal frequency of terrestrial plant leaves reflect a more dynamic CO2 evolution”

Rundgren et al 2003 “Late-glacial and early Holocene variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration indicated by high-resolution stomatal index data” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 213

“presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale.”
Rosanne D’Arrigo 2006 “On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming” JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111

That is what the actual experts are saying in the peer reviewed science of the past decade. The temperature record isn’t perfectly stable with an unprecedented upswing in the past 100 years. The reality is that the temperature record is very noisy, with temperature upswings equivalent to the current one occurring multiple times.

Now of course people are free to choose whatever expert they want to listen to. But that’s the point.

This subject isn’t settled, as we have been told numerous times in this thread.
The evidence isn’t simple, as we have been told numerous times in this thread.

The fact is that the experts don’t all agree. You can find experts in peer reviewed journals who disagree with any contention at all. The agruments for believing any given conclusion are long and complicated and dependent ultimately upon the statistical methods used.
Your argument that the conclusions are inescapable from the basic examination of a single data set are simply not true.

BTW you should take back your accusations that I rely just on alarmist cites.

Maybe you should quote where I ever said any such thing, or apologise for the accusation. :rolleyes:

[GIGObuster]

@Blake

No. It only works if people look at the actual data rather than relying on the interpretation of “authorities”.

Once again, we get told that by the Alarmists something is utterly clear from a single data set and a single melting glacier. And when we look at the data set it rather obviously shows an exponential curve for the past 400 years, with the past 50 years sitting perfectly on that curve. So then we get told that we just have to listen to the experts, and ignore what we can actually see,

So it actually isn’t clear at all. It’s actually hideously complicated and and relies upon numerous data sets and proxies and diverse statistical methods utilized. And any of those proxies and data sets and statistical methods can be and has been called into question. Moreover the choice of proxie itself can be and has been called into question.
For example, consider the claim that

Well, no.

Each of the data sets used by those authors show that. But those data sets are known to be unreliable,

“…past (temperature) variations may have been at least a factor of 2 larger than indicated by empirical reconstructions.”
von Storch et al. 2004 “Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data“ Science 306

‘‘The majority of the stomatal frequency-based estimates of CO 2 for the Holocene do not support the widely accepted concept of comparably stable CO2 concentrations throughout the past 11,500 years.”
Wagner et al 2009 “Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO2 records based on stomatal frequency” Quaternary Science Reviews 23
“Data from ice cores suggest that Late-glacial and early Holocene atmospheric CO2 variations were rather conservative, the most important change being a gradual Younger Dryas increase. By contrast, palaeo-CO2 records based on the inverse relationship between CO2 partial pressure and stomatal frequency of terrestrial plant leaves reflect a more dynamic CO2 evolution”

Rundgren et al 2003 “Late-glacial and early Holocene variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration indicated by high-resolution stomatal index data” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 213

“presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale.”
Rosanne D’Arrigo 2006 “On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming” JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111

That is what the actual experts are saying in the peer reviewed science of the past decade. The temperature record isn’t perfectly stable with an unprecedented upswing in the past 100 years. The reality is that the temperature record is very noisy, with temperature upswings equivalent to the current one occurring multiple times.

Now of course people are free to choose whatever expert they want to listen to. But that’s the point.

This subject isn’t settled, as we have been told numerous times in this thread.
The evidence isn’t simple, as we have been told numerous times in this thread.

The fact is that the experts don’t all agree. You can find experts in peer reviewed journals who disagree with any contention at all. The agruments for believing any given conclusion are long and complicated and dependent ultimately upon the statistical methods used.
Your argument that the conclusions are inescapable from the basic examination of a single data set are simply not true.

Sounds like Lord Moncton.

One example from your post will suffice:

“presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale.”
Rosanne D’Arrigo 2006 “On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming” JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111

He is specifically dissing the medieval warm period, just about the main point made by Mann and others.

@Blake

Maybe you should quote where I ever said any such thing, or apologise for the accusation. :rolleyes:

“And you are quoting form Alarmist websites.” Sure you did, and just a few posts before. Post #68 to be precise.

[Blake]

@GIGObuster

And not supported by most of the experts in the field.

Oh well, so long as a scientific hypothesis isn’t supported by most of the experts, that justifies your claim that it doesn’t exist at all.

Is anybody fom the peanut gallery reading this? Gigobuster claimed outright that there was no alternative hypothesis at all to explain the facts. When I present one, his only retort is that most experts dont; agree with it.

This sort of ignorant, psuedo-scientific rhetoric is unfortunately typical of alarmists. They make bold absolutist claims, and as soon as they are shown to be worng, they try to weasel away. Rather than simply admitting that he was completely worng when he claimed that no such hypothesis existed, he simply says that it’s not the consensus view. No apology for misleading his readers. No admission that he misread them. Simply a weasel slide sideways.

I am actually glad that he did this so openly here. It points out why it is so hard to argue with Alarmists. The real scientists are cautious and uncertain, and the alarmists boldly declaim in absolutes, and they are given a free pass when they are shown to be either ignorant that alternatives exist or dishonest when they said they did not exist.

Bravo sir, bravo.

Sorry, but what they use also is a consensus of evidence.

Which is very different to what you do, which is to take votes on the facts, and everything that "most of the experts in the field’ don’t support you claim does not exist at all.

You declared that no alternative hypothesis existed, when presented with one you simply dismissed it because most of the experts in the field don’t; agree with it and carried on as though it doesn’t exist at all.

That isn’t science. It isn’t even intellectually dishonest.

It is unfortunately standard Alarmist boilerplate. Don’t discuss the actual science, it’s inconvenient. Dismiss it and discredit it instead.

[GIGObuster]

@Blake

Oh well, so long as a scientific hypothesis isn’t supported by most of the experts, that justifies your claim that it doesn’t exist at all.

Is anybody fom the peanut gallery reading this? Gigobuster claimed outright that there was no alternative hypothesis at all to explain the facts. When I present one, his only retort is that most experts dont; agree with it.

Not good for the peanut gallery if you misrepresent what I say, the theory has a lot of different lines of evidence, dumping on one item (with very little evidence or support) does not mean that you have an all encompassing alternative that would explain all the items.

The alternate theory needs to fit and explain all this:

10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

1. Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let’s look at more evidence that we’re responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.

2 When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006).
This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you’d expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide (Manning 2006).

3 Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).

4 So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What’s the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

5 If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth’s surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.” (Evans 2006).

6 If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).

And the rest.

[Blake]

@GIGObuster

Sounds like Lord Moncton.

Yes, quoting from numeorus peer reviewed journals that seriously challenge the assertions you made is just like Lord Monkton. I’m sure he would be pleased that you admit that fact.

Similarly, you sound like Al Gore: Dismiss, misrepresent and and ignore the science and rely upon Alarmist propaganda instead.

One example from your post will suffice:

No, it won;t. The body of evidence calls your assertions into question. It isn’t sufficient to cherry pick one.

He is specifically dissing the medieval warm period, just about the main point made by Mann and others.

And? Once again you are trying to sidestep the issue and introduce red herrings because your position is being trounced by journal references.

The references say that the temperature hasn’t been stable for the past 2, 000 years with an unprecedented recent upswing. Why subquote a section about the MWP and not address the actual issue?

Care to adsress the actual issue: that your claim that temperature has been stable for the past 2, 000 years with an unprecedented recent upswing is has been seriously questioned by the experts in the premier journals in the field?
I’m guessing not.

“And you are quoting form Alarmist websites.” Sure you did, and just a few posts before. Post #68 to be precise.

You are quoting from alarmist websites.

But I still await evidence for your claim that I said that you rely *just *on alarmist cites.

Or alternatively, you can apologise for your claim that I rely just on Denier cites. Since you slung the accusation or relying on Denier websites first, if you’re reading that to mean that I just rely on Denier websites you need to retract first and admit you started the mudslinging.

Which is it to be. You called on me to retract, now we’ll see that you are capable of doing so. Either show where I said you just rely on Alarmist websites, or apologise for claiming that I just rely on Denier websites.

But this is going well for me. Now that you have been forced not to spam Alarmist websites, you are being exposed for blatant dishonest tactics and ignorance of the facts.

Basically, you are being thrashed because you can’t spam, which is what we know happens from past performance.

[GIGObuster]

@Blake

Yes, quoting from numeorus peer reviewed journals that seriously challenge the assertions you made is just like Lord Monkton. I’m sure he would be pleased that you admit that fact.

Not with the implied followup, Monckton does and then he misrepresents what they say.

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/02/18/potholer-on-monckton-bunkum/

@Blake

No, it won;t. The body of evidence calls your assertions into question. It isn’t sufficient to cherry pick one.

And so the gish Galop was averted, bulls eye!

@Blake

And? Once again you are trying to sidestep the issue and introduce red herrings because your position is being trounced by journal references.

The references say that the temperature hasn’t been stable for the past 2, 000 years with an unprecedented recent upswing. Why subquote a section about the MWP and not address the actual issue?

Care to adsress the actual issue: that your claim that temperature has been stable for the past 2, 000 years with an unprecedented recent upswing is has been seriously questioned by the experts in the premier journals in the field?

It clearly contradicts the claim that the MWP was global in scope, just like Mann and others reported.

The claim BTW was based on the scale, at higher resolutions I would not had said that, but overall that was what it shows at the glance that you demanded others to do.

@Blake

But I still await evidence for your claim that I said that you rely *just *on alarmist cites.

Or alternatively, you can apologise for your claim that I rely just on Denier cites. Since you slung the accusation or relying on Denier websites first, if you’re reading that to mean that I just rely on Denier websites you need to retract first and admit you started the mudslinging.

Which is it to be. You called on me to retract, now we’ll see that you are capable of doing so. Either show where I said you just rely on Alarmist websites, or apologise for claiming that I just rely on Denier websites.

But this is going well for me. Now that you have been forced not to spam Alarmist websites, you are being exposed for blatant dishonest tactics and ignorance of the facts.

Basically, you are being thrashed because you can’t spam, which is what we know happens from past performance.

Meh, if you really think that you would have oodles of support on this, I already **know **most do not see me like that.

Even the press see my sources as not being alarmist so you need to get more than just your unfounded say so’s to even see a resemblance of a proper reply on what you are posting here.

[Blake]

@GIGObuster

Not good for the peanut gallery if you misrepresent what I say..

I am not misreprenting it. To quote you, you said

@GIGObuster

…unless CO2 and other human made gases are not included there is no good explanation for the current increase in warming.

That isn’t misrepresenting you. It is quoting you in your entirety. You said that there is no alternative explanation to the current warming aside from greenhouse gas emissions.

I then responded:

@Blake

Yes there is: it’s perfectly natural.

And your response was a simple no-sequitur:

@GIGObuster

And not supported by most of the experts in the fie

So once again, no misrepresentation. Simple quotes.

Is anybody from the peanut gallery reading this? Gigobuster claimed outright that there was no alternative hypothesis at all to explain the facts. When I present one, his only retort is that most experts don’t agree with it.

This sort of ignorant, psuedo-scientific rhetoric is unfortunately typical of alarmists. They make bold absolutist claims, and as soon as they are shown to be worng, they try to weasel away. Rather than simply admitting that he was completely worng when he claimed that no such hypothesis existed, he simply says that it’s not the consensus view. No apology for misleading his readers. No admission that he misread them. Simply a weasel slide sideways.

I am actually glad that he did this so openly here. It points out why it is so hard to argue with Alarmists. The real scientists are cautious and uncertain, and the alarmists boldly declaim in absolutes, and they are given a free pass when they are shown to be either ignorant that alternatives exist or dishonest when they said they did not exist.

Bravo sir, bravo.

…the theory has a lot of different lines of evidence, dumping on one item (with very little evidence or support) does not mean that you have an all encompassing alternative that would explain all the items.

Yes, it does.

The alternate theory needs to fit and explain all this:

This is just more Alarmist website spamming, so I will reply in turn.

It’s CO2, Because We Can’t Think of Anything Else it Could Be | Climate Skeptic

Researchers are trying to understand how much of the melting is due to the extreme natural variability in the northern polar climate system and how much is due to global warming caused by humans. The Arctic Oscillation climate pattern, which plays a big part in the weather patterns in the northern hemisphere, has been in "positive" mode in recent decades bringing higher temperatures to the Arctic.

Dr Igor Polyakov, an oceanographer from the International Arctic Research Centre in Fairbanks, Alaska, explained that natural variability as well as global warming is crucial to understanding the ice melt. "A combination of these two forces led to what we observe now and we should not ignore either forces" he said.

The consensus among scientists is that while the natural variability in the Arctic is an important contributor to climate change there, the climate models cannot explain the rapid loss of sea ice without including "human-induced" global warming. This means human activity such as burning fossil fuels and land clearing which are releasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"There have been numerous models run that have looked at that and basically they can’t reproduce the ice loss we’ve had with natural variability," said Dr Perovich. "You have to add a carbon dioxide warming component to it."

In other words, any warming scientists can’t explain is chalked up to, without proof mind you, CO2. Why? Well, perhaps because it is CO2 that gets the funding, so CO2 it is. To show you how dangerous this assumption is, I note that this study apparently did not consider the effect of man-made soot from inefficient coal and oil combustion (e.g. from China). Soot lands on the ice, lowers its albedo, and causes it to melt a lot faster. Several recent studies have hypothesized that this alternate anthropogenic effect (with a very different solution set from Co2 abatement) may explain much of recent Arctic ice loss.

Here is a big fat clue for climate scientists: It is not part of the scientific method to confidently ascribe your pet theory (and source of funding) to every phenomenon you cannot explain. Or, maybe climate scientists are on to something. Why does gravity seem to work instantaneously at long distances? Co2! What causes cancer cells to turn on and grow out of control? CO2! Hey, its easy. All of our scientific dilemmas are instantly solved.

[GIGObuster]

@Blake

I am not misreprenting it. To quote you, you said

That isn’t misrepresenting you. It is quoting you in your entirety. You said that there is no alternative explanation to the current warming aside from greenhouse gas emissions.

I then responded:

And your response was a simple no-sequitur:

So once again, no misrepresentation. Simple quotes.

And? The point was clarified, that you are insisting on playing semantics is not a very pretty sight, what I clarified is that that you have to be specific how nature does things that matches an increase in phenomena that was predicted and observed from a rise of human made CO2. Like for example why are temperatures at night increasing faster than at daytime.

@Blake

It’s CO2, Because We Can’t Think of Anything Else it Could Be | Climate Skeptic

Uh hu, and as pointed before there is physical and instrumental evidence already that CO2 is responsible for the items mentioned, and needless to say, no published scientific papers to support what the mechanical and aerospace engineer says here.

[Blake]

@GIGObuster

Not with the implied followup, Monckton does and then he misrepresents what they say.

He doesn’t. though AL Gore certainly does.

And so the gish Galop was averted, bulls eye!

Yet I doubt that anyone can help but notice: you haven’t actually addressed the evidence from the peer reviewed journals.

It clearly contradicts the claim that the MWP was global in scope, just like Mann and others reported.

And? Once again you are trying to sidestep the issue and introduce red herrings because your position is being trounced by journal references.

The references say that the temperature hasn’t been stable for the past 2, 000 years with an unprecedented recent upswing. Why subquote a section about the MWP and not address the actual issue?

Care to address the actual issue: that your claim that temperature has been stable for the past 2, 000 years with an unprecedented recent upswing is has been seriously questioned by the experts in the premier journals in the field?

It’s rather obvious at this stage that you can not. I will cease badgering you on the topic and leave it to the peanut gallery to decide why you have chosen to do so.

The claim BTW was based on the scale, at higher resolutions I would not had said that, but overall that was what it shows at the glance that you demanded others to do.

And? Once again you are trying to sidestep the issue and introduce red herrings because your position is being trounced by journal references.

The references say that the temperature hasn’t been stable for the past 2, 000 years with an unprecedented recent upswing. Why subquote a section about the MWP and not address the actual issue?

Care to address the actual issue: that your claim that temperature has been stable for the past 2, 000 years with an unprecedented recent upswing is has been seriously questioned by the experts in the premier journals in the field?

It’s rather obvious at this stage that you can not. I will cease badgering you on the topic and leave it to the peanut gallery to decide why you have chosen to do so.

Meh, if you really think that you would have oodles of support on this…

I have no idea what this even means. It obviously means that you can’t actually quote where I said the things that you claim I said, since I have now asked three times and received no response.

Once again, I can safely leave it to the peanut gallery to make up their own minds about the honesty of your debate style.

Even the press see my sources as not being alarmist..

Cite.

… so you need to get more than just your unfounded say so’s to even see a resemblance of a proper reply on what you are posting here.

Whereas your claim that my references are alarmist is oh-so-well documented.
Now, are you going to address the actual issues I’ve raised? For example, your claim that the temperature has been stable for the past 2, 000 years with an unprecedented recent upswing, and the contradiction of that in the recent peer reviewed literature?

Or how about your claim that “unless CO2 and other human made gases are not included there is no good explanation for the current increase in warming.”, a claim that you later said was justified because only some experts believe the alternative explanations.

I notice that you have retreated to once again spamming Alarmist websites, as usual because you lack the ability to respond in your own words. If that is all that you are capable of, i think I can leave it their. It’s quite clear that you have no actual ability to debate me on this topic. If you can’t find a website with a direct quote that addresses the evidence, you are at unable to even form a coherent reply. It’s exactly the same posting style as Chen101 uses in his scientific racism screeds. It’s not informative, it; snot interetsing it’s just me producing an argument and you posting “Yeah well, what about www.NonSequiturReply.com”.

Yawn.

[GIGObuster]

@Blake

He doesn’t. though AL Gore certainly does.

[Qi’s Alarm bell]

[Stephen Fry]
Uuuh, now we see how off base you really are on this.
[/SF]

Science writer Peter Hadfield videos on Lord Monckton are recommended for the OP as it does show that dishonesty really is coming from him. [del]Hard[/del] Easy to picture why the Republican party invited him several times to testify in the USA congress in behalf of misguided information.

As many of the points Monckton makes were seen in this thread it is important to check why items like the CO2 correlation misrepresentation come from.

potholer54

potholer54

potholer54

“It is a favorite tactic of anyone who wants to undermine science to compile a list of quotes usually from scientists and usually taken out of context with no links.”

Sounds familiar:

potholer54

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Blake

I am not misreprenting it. To quote you, you said

That isn’t misrepresenting you. It is quoting you in your entirety. You said that there is no alternative explanation to the current warming aside from greenhouse gas emissions.

I then responded:

And your response was a simple no-sequitur:

So once again, no misrepresentation. Simple quotes.

Is anybody from the peanut gallery reading this? Gigobuster claimed outright that there was no alternative hypothesis at all to explain the facts. When I present one, his only retort is that most experts don’t agree with it.

This sort of ignorant, psuedo-scientific rhetoric is unfortunately typical of alarmists. They make bold absolutist claims, and as soon as they are shown to be worng, they try to weasel away. Rather than simply admitting that he was completely worng when he claimed that no such hypothesis existed, he simply says that it’s not the consensus view. No apology for misleading his readers. No admission that he misread them. Simply a weasel slide sideways.

I am actually glad that he did this so openly here. It points out why it is so hard to argue with Alarmists. The real scientists are cautious and uncertain, and the alarmists boldly declaim in absolutes, and they are given a free pass when they are shown to be either ignorant that alternatives exist or dishonest when they said they did not exist.

Bravo sir, bravo.

Yes, it does.

This is just more Alarmist website spamming, so I will reply in turn.

It’s CO2, Because We Can’t Think of Anything Else it Could Be | Climate Skeptic

Peanut gallery here. Always quote him fully and demand more than links.
I might come into the thread later.
BTW, I’d love to be able to sound like Lord Monkton all pompous and dismissive of fools.
If you ever come to Lima, Peru I’ll buy you a beer or, even better, Pisco sour.

[GIGObuster]

@Blake

Cite.

Already done with the Guardian reviewing Peter Hadfield (PotHoler54) And guess who did investigate Lord Monckton on the posted videos?

Everyone should check for themselves that this is clear evidence of a huge confirmation bias going on here. Defending Monckton is really appalling.

[Blake]

@GIGObuster

And? The point was clarified

No it wasn’t. At no stage did you retract your claim that “unless CO2 and other human made gases are not included there is no good explanation for the current increase in warming.” Worse yet, when I challenged you on it, you claimed that I misrepresented you, and that you never made any such claim.

It’s impossible to have an honest debate when I demolish the whole point of your chain of argument, and you refuse to even acknowledge that and call me dishonest for even pointing that out.

But while I have your full attention on the subject, are you now admitting that natural processes are a good explanation for the current increase in warming?

Because once you’ve admitted that you were wrong to claim otherwise, the debate is effectively over.

.. that you are insisting on playing semantics is not a very pretty sight..

This is semantics? Pointing out that your argument, which hinges on an assumption that “unless CO2 and other human made gases are not included there is no good explanation for the current increase in warming”, is based upon a provably untrue basis, a basis that you admit is untrue. This is semantics.

Interesting definition of semantics you have their,. I demolish the primary basis of your argument, and you call it semantics.

Because, let’s face it, once you concede openly that there are other good explanations for the current increase in warming that don’t need to invoke CO2 and other human made gases. this debate is over.

that statement is the foundation of your entire argument. Hardly semantics to try to get you to actually admit this fact, rather than weaseling away from it, is it?

… what I clarified is that that you have to be specific how nature does things that matches an increase in phenomena that was predicted and observed from a rise of human made CO2. Like for example why are temperatures at night increasing faster than at daytime.

No, you don’t. If the evidence for AGW falls short, then it doesn’t matter how good its explanatory power is, it still falls short. The fact that the null hypothesis doesn’t produce better results doesn’t make it sufficient.

Before germs were discovered, people has already rejected the idea that diseases were caused by bad air or that putrefaction of food was an intrinsic process. They didn’t need to explain what did cause disease or putrefaction or predict the precise circumstances under which those things did occur before they were allowed to reject the bad air theory.

In exactly the same way, if their is insufficient evidence to support AGW, it isn’t necessary from someone to spend equivalent funds to explain every observation to the same degree before we reject the theory. The theory stands or falls on its own merits, not on the merits of the competitors.

Simple question Gigobuster: suppose we experience global cooling for the next 100 years despite increase in fossil fuel consumption. Do you agree that would falsify AGW as a hypothesis? What if, after all that time, we still can’t explain “why are temperatures at night increasing faster than at daytime”? Do you think that we would still have to accept AGW, because the alternatives explanations can’t explain that observation?

The fact is that there are lots of things that AGW can;t explain either, like why we just had 10+ years of temperature decline. That alone doesn’t falsify AGW either, it simply highlights that any single theory doesn’t need to explain every obervation to be preferred over any other.

Uh hu, and as pointed before there is physical and instrumental evidence already that CO2 is responsible for the items mentioned, and needless to say, no published scientific papers to support what the mechanical and aerospace engineer says here.

No, there is some evidence that can be interpreted in that manner if you wish. That is all. And there is other evidence that those measurements don’t allow such a conclusion at all. Once more, it’s all down to the arguments and inferences, not the data.

[GIGObuster]

@Aji_de_Gallina

Peanut gallery here. Always quote him fully and demand more than links.
I might come into the thread later.
BTW, I’d love to be able to sound like Lord Monkton all pompous and dismissive of fools.
If you ever come to Lima, Peru I’ll buy you a beer or, even better, Pisco sour.

Oh boy, you should had check the evidence shown by Peter Hadfield first before going out on the peanut vine limb, check them and if you still can say that with a straight face…

I do not think the peanut gallery is what you think it is.

[Blake]

@GIGObuster

Already done with the Guardian reviewing Peter Hadfield (PotHoler54) And guess who did investigate Lord Monckton on the posted videos?

Everyone should check for themselves that this is clear evidence of a huge confirmation bias going on here. Defending Monckton is really appalling.

Yet again, more non-sequiturs. You don’t actually provide the reference I asked for in any way at all.

And you still haven’t attempted to address the actual science:

For example, your claim that the temperature has been stable for the past 2, 000 years with an unprecedented recent upswing, and the contradiction of that in the recent peer reviewed literature?

Or how about your claim that “unless CO2 and other human made gases are not included there is no good explanation for the current increase in warming.”, a claim that you later said was justified because only some experts believe the alternative explanations.

I notice that you have retreated to once again spamming Alarmist websites, as usual because you lack the ability to respond in your own words. If that is all that you are capable of, i think I can leave it their. It’s quite clear that you have no actual ability to debate me on this topic. If you can’t find a website with a direct quote that addresses the evidence, you are at unable to even form a coherent reply. It’s exactly the same posting style as Chen101 uses in his scientific racism screeds. It’s not informative, it; snot interetsing it’s just me producing an argument and you posting “Yeah well, what about www.NonSequiturReply.com”.

[DrDeth]

@Blake

Is anybody fom the peanut gallery reading this?

Gigobuster claimed outright that there was no alternative hypothesis at all to explain the facts. When I present one, his only retort is that most experts dont; agree with it.

Sorry, but what they use also is a consensus of evidence.

Which is very different to what you do, which is to take votes on the facts, and everything that "most of the experts in the field’ don’t support you claim does not exist at all..
[/QUOTE]

Salted in the shell here!

Yes, and I think Cecil said something along the lines of 'we don’t vote on the facts".