Global Warming progressing far faster than previously thought

Great Debates
321

As for the temperature record for the last two thousand years (or longer), that such a thing is still a controversy shows the political nature of climate science.

Which is why there is progress, no chance of any progress, with the true believer in global warming. Any and all science that they disagree with, in advance, means nothing to them. Hence nothing can change their mind about what they know is true.

So when plenty of evidence and science is presented, it is auto-dismissed, they don’t even need to read it. They “already know” everything, so it doesn’t matter to them.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/medieval-warm-period-found-in-120-proxies-roman-era-similar-to-early-20th-century/

322

Anyone can notice that you ignore that those records are used to validate the satellite data, you are just showing more ignorance, but that is not my problem.

323

I don’t think he realizes what he is saying.

If we have good data for the arctic ocean, then why are there large gaos in the surface station data for the arctic?

Why do they want to use the sat data to fill in the gaps?

It’s all quite funny really.

324

Let me hlep out.

Now GIGO is arguing there is good data for the arctic, that there are actually weather station on the ice, or in the oceans, and we actually have good data.

Priceless.

325

And this clearly shows you did not see the video, the National Academy of science confirmed the conclusions of the work of Mann and the many other reconstructions.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/465135b.html

Just by pointing at your cherry picks that even woodfrothetrees.org advises you not to do the patter anyone can see coming from you is to ignore the conclusions of the science organizations and continue to claim that you are smarter than them. In reality you are only pumping up your ignorance and already ancient points of the deniers.

The evidence shows that you were wrong about not having temperature readings from the arctic, thanks to the end of the cold war we even have better records form that era as the soviets having little direct intelligence of the American tests and capabilities had to do many surveys in the arctic.

And when you resort to a declared denier it is clear that any declaration that you do not follow deniers was wrong indeed. Joan Nenova is doing the old trick of hiding the incline by omitting the last 20 or so years of the instrumental record.

A very old denier trick, and that is why Joanne Nova is one.

http://roymustard.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/conspiracy-theorist-jo-nova-denies-being-conspiracy-theorist/

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/02/global-warming-denial.html

326

It certainly seems like it is. The UN/IPCC report supporters all-out effort to prove that the IPCC reports proposing the evils of man-made CO2 isn’t attracting new converts and lost it’s momentum a while ago. The global temp has plateaued and CO2 levels are supposed to be going up. CO2 levels went up after WWII and the global temp went down for the next 30 years. This, of course, somehow proves that CO2 levels are somehow directly tied to global temps??? Unbelievable.

Maybe the “new and improved” IPCC report, when it’s official and has been properly vetted (even by “skeptical” people), we can all rejoice that there’s no reason for calling everyone ignorant. Or not?

327

It is you who is not using logic, I already know about those gaps, I was replying to your point that there are no records available.

Because they are indeed gaps, but the limited data from the arctic is not useless as shown by the fact that is used to verify the satellite records.

328

The unbelievable thing is that you show all that you are not paying attention, natural variations were expected, and one thing some scientists in the 70’s talked about cooling (the few that were) reported about the aerosols from contamination as part of the reason of the cooling back then.

You are an ignorant as you continue to deny that Skeptic Muller and the Berkeley team already did that, they confirmed virtually all of what the IPCC and many others continue to report.

329

WHAT? You’re admitting that there are “other” factors that contribute to global warming and cooling. Then why is there this big, expensive, and well-funded push to blame man-made CO2?

The IPCC has been forced to make corrections to it’s guesstimations. The IPCC has admitted that they didn’t get it right. Now you’re suggesting that the IPCC didn’t need to make those corrections because they had it right the first time??? Then why did they make corrections if, as you say, it’s been confirmed that virtually all of what the IPCC and many others continue to report was correct? It wasn’t wrong, it just needed to be corrected occasionally???

330

Of course, the problem with you is that you ignore that those factors are already taken into account, denier sources just convince others that scientists are not looking at those factors too; but the point stands, currently humans are driving the current rise in warming observed.

A complete misrepresentation, but also points at what happens with many contrarians, they see something like the aerosol explanation for some of the cooling observed in the 70’s and they pump that up to claim that scientists did not looked at that… when it is from the scientists where the contrarians got that part of the point.

And I already did mention about the march of science, what that IPCC is reporting after corrections are made they report once again an increase on the certainty that humans are responsible for the changes observed recently.

BTW the Berkeley Earth Study was even more certain than the IPCC was in its previous report.

331

Ha ha!! “Plenty of evidence!” From Joanne Nova, the shill for the Australian coal industry who has less climate science training than my Aunt Mabel, who quotes co2science.com and gets paid to write blithering diatribes for the scientific illiterates at Heartland and SPPI. “Plenty of evidence!” You’re too funny! Keep 'em coming! :smiley:

We can be 100% sure that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Perhaps you’ve never heard of JAMSTEC and J-CAD, the International Arctic Buoy Programme, the Polar Ocean Profiling System, the US Army Ice Mass Balance buoys – or outside the Arctic, the Argo network, which covers the oceans of the world with a network of more than 3500 automated weather-observing buoys. The trouble was that the oft-cited HadCRUT4 temperature series didn’t include many of the available Arctic datasets.

No. The lack of Arctic coverage wasn’t in the station data per se, it was lack of coverage in HadCRUT4. And there are many coverage gaps in the satellite series, too. The purpose of the paper was to statistically combine three observational time series with the HadCRUT4 series: NASA GISTEMP, the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis, and finally the UAH satellite data – with all four validated against each other.

332

If a lawyer, specialising in environmental law say “CO2 causes GW” = Good evidennce.
If a biochemist working with a geologist and a meterologist and a marine biologist say “coral reef bleaching is not related to GW” = Bad evidence

333

Hell, a “report” by a nonscientific organization says the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035, that is good enough to put in an IPCC report.

If a an actual glacier expert who actually studies the glaciers says it’s nonsense, that evidence isn’t any good.

You know in your heart it’s true.

334

Not in this case, the Joanne Nova graphs omit the instrumental temperature and she only shows graphs that end before the 90’s. Very dishonest. (and before you come back, the data from the researchers is good, only the cherry pick by Jo Nova that omits the rest are.

335

And we know already that you are leaving a lot of context, the deniers were not the ones that noticed the error, but it was the scientists, that after correcting the error report that:

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2010/01/ipcc_apologises_for_himalayan.html

Of course all that was reported in 2010, and the error acknowledged then.

336

For example, you show them good evidence from peer reviewed science, and they either reject it, or say it means something else, nothing can ever challenge what they already know is true.

Ljungqvist et al 2012

Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012

It won’t matter how much research is done, or how strong the evidence is.

337

Nope, the mistake is to think that scientists will ignore it, they do not, the problem is that it is still not related to the current warming and it does not mean that it will be all happiness when one realizes that the south west and other areas of the USA are headed for mega drought conditions.

The question always has been if it was local or global, the more evidence it comes it is ok to think that it is possible that it was global, but as I pointed earlier is that the warming was not as much as we are seeing now and the mechanisms that are pointed as being present there are not much active in the current warming, we humans are.

As Peter Hadfield reports the fact is that the medieval warm period is still apparent in many reconstructions, but also the instrumental record shows that that the current warming is not like the one seen in the MWP and it is warmer than it. **That is why deniers have to doctor the reconstructions and graphs. **

Well, even if food prices are headed up thanks to the drying conditions and it is likely to get worse at least we have to be happy that Greenland will be lovely.

338

I knew we could depend on you to keep 'em coming! First it was Joanne Supernova, now it’s Ljungqvist. Do you think digging up blogs and really bad papers would help your credibility on this subject if you had any? :stuck_out_tongue:

Let me tell you a little bit about your pal Ljungqvist. In 2012 or thereabouts when this paper was published, Ljungqvist was a kid doing his PhD thesis on the ideology of kingship in the medieval Scandinavian laws, and was employed as a student ombudsman at the Stockholm University Student Union. I’m not joking. He is not a climate scientist by any stretch of the imagination, though he might be a decent enough historian when he grows up, and probably knows a bit more about the subject than Joanne Supernova, who knows nothing at all in her capacity as shill for the coal industry.

But the problem with this kid Ljungqvist is that he’s got it into his head from his studies of medieval kingship that it must have been really hot during the Medieval Warm Period, and science or no science, like some evangelical zealot who sees the face of God everywhere, Ljungqvist finds MWP temperature spikes everywhere he looks. One of his papers that I saw (might have been the one you like so much) based his reconstruction on three (3) proxy records of unknown quality; he says they looked at 6, but pretty much admitted that they cherry-picked the 3 they liked better. (Legitimate scientific reconstructions typically use hundreds of proxies and statistically validate them.)

And where were these three unvalidated proxy records from? Why, from Tornetrask (Sweden), the Polar Urals in north-central Russia, and Renland, on the southeast coast of Greenland. **All three are known to be MWP hot spots. ** This is more like scientific fraud than science, but it’s typical of the kind of crap that denialists like to dredge out. Of course, the assessments of the IPCC with about 900 scientists in each assessment cycle citing thousands of papers must be dismissed as nonsense, because Joanne Supernova and Kid Ljungqvist say something different. You guys offer no end of amusement.

339

Yes. And the fact that the evolution of man is still a controversy shows the political nature of evolutionary science.

Look, this argument is so, so, so, so dumb. If your qualification for “this science is no longer scientific but rather political in nature” is “someone is turning it into a controversy”, then we can discount AGW, Evolution, Plate Tectonics, The Big Bang, Germ Theory, the link between HIV and AIDS, and vaccinations. Pro tip: the people turning it “political” are those denying the scientific evidence available. To be one of them, then turn around and complain about the process being “policitized”… That takes some Chutzpah.

Of course, if you look at why things appear to have slowed down (they haven’t) you’ll see that, among other things, you’ve got a massive warming due to natural fluctuations that turns 1998 into a clear outlier, then a cooling effect due to natural fluctuations, then a continuation of the warming trend. Look, nobody has ever claimed that we would see hotter temperatures year for year, that the warming would be uniform, or that we’d see a perfect 1:1 correlation. Nobody has ever made that claim, save for those who don’t know the first thing about the scientific research being done.

Hmm, it’s almost as though there’s some other factors involved in the environment beyond CO2! Well damn, you got us now! Those climate scientists clearly didn’t think of that!

:rolleyes:

Of course, they did think of that. That’s why models include things like solar irradiance, aerosol pollution, albedo, natural forcings such as the ENSO, volcanoes, et cetera. Nobody has ever claimed a perfect correlation to CO2. However the science establishing CO2 as one of the major controls of climate is absolutely overwhelming, and has existed for half a century.

Christ, no wonder you criticized me telling Magiver to shove off until he learned a thing or two about the science; you also know nothing about the science! Look, do yourself a favor and learn a thing or two about what you’re talking about. You’re making a fool of yourself. The fact is that despite cyclical natural forcings which are known and well-understood, CO2 remains the primary long-term driver of climate next to the Sun, and an increase in CO2 is followed by an increase in temperature. Once you filter out all the crap, the real picture becomes astoundingly clear. I mean, seriously, this is really basic. If you cannot wrap your head around how CO2 interacts with other elements such as ocean currents, the sun, volcanoes, etc., then you have no place in a serious discussion about climate change, because you don’t know what you’re talking about. And I’m not sure anyone here wants to play tutor to you.

340

That was the same mistake Al Gore made, and it’s wrong still. The ice core records show when the oceans warm, the CO2 level in the atmosphere increases. not the other way around.

How can anyone still not know this?

Also, “cyclical natural forcings which are known and well-understood”, you should write a paper then, since you are the only one who knows this.