Both of you knock it off.
You have made your claims. Repeating charges of falsehood against each other is simply a way to dance around the rule against accusations of lying in Great Debates.
If you want to challenge each others’ points, then quote the exact error and quote the exact correction. No more personal shots.
[ /Moderating ]
Mmm. This is being fair to a level that is unfair. 
But there is a request to point at the errors that are not acknowledged, that is fair. Very recently FX did call Gavin Schmidt a nobody, and since the ones contributing to RealClimate are nobodies it follows that Raymond T. Pierrehumbert is one too.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17166687&postcount=562
From the RSS database the curators and experts there pointed at this post that pointed out what the Vice President at RSS said:
As I said, what I’m saying is supported by the very experts he is ignoring.
To that we only got accusations that I was bullshitting from the part of FX, I do not think that is ok from his part, nor that he is showing a good faith effort.
I’m no longer reading the nonsense that FX posts whereby he and he alone has apparently figured out that AGW isn’t a valid theory. He just posts the same utter bullshit over and over again as has been explained many times by myself and by others – I would particularly cite my posts here and here and here and here and here. I think it’s also worth pointing out that this isn’t the first time FX has seen fit to challenge the entire climate science community – he’s had several other theories about why AGW is bogus, and seems perennially and hopelessly confused about many other basics of climate science, as I noted here and here, so the current batch of unscientific driveling nonsense is just the latest installment.
Back here in the real world, it’s worth noting that the IPCC recently released its Synthesis Report summarizing the three major reports of the AR5 working groups previously released – for a brief skim, the highlights can be found here. The Pentagon also recently released a report on the strategic impacts of climate change on national security.
It’s encouraging that China for the first time has agreed to address carbon emissions. The US committed to cut its carbon emissions between 26-28% – from levels established in 2005 – by 2025. China would peak its carbon emissions no later than 2030 and would also increase the use of non-fossil fuels to 20% by 2030. While not nearly adequate, this is a major step forward because the two countries together produce about 45% of the world’s CO2 emissions, and it’s a major step toward a meaningful international agreement at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change COP21 conference in Paris at the end of next year.
Jesus. After all the hyperbole in the media about this ‘ground breaking’ deal, someone needs to point out that the U.S. just got played by China. Again. Think about what this deal requires: The U.S. has made a hard commitment to reduce CO2 effective immediately, with reductions increasing until CO2 emissions are 26-28% lower from 2005 levels by 2025. In return, China has promised to… keep increasing CO2 levels as much as they want until 2030 - five years after the U.S. commitment is already over. And then in 2030, they’ll begin to talk about ways to reduce CO2.
China plays the long game. They know that long before 2030 this ‘treaty’ will be dead - either superceded by other treaties if global warming gets worse, or rendered irrelevant by technology or other changes. We’ve been down this path with the idiotic Kyoto treaty already. A lot of countries committed to targets that they immediately violated when the bills came due. That’s why no treaty of this sort is worth the paper it’s written on unless it’s concrete, enforceable, and imposes the same time frames on both parties.
The cynic in me says that Obama was willing to sign onto this terrible plan because the ultimate goal wasn’t actually to get Chinese compliance, but to find political cover for what he’s been doing through executive action anyway.
As I told you before, you need to be careful on the spin your sources make, you get an incomplete picture.
Is the glass half empty or half full? The agreement with China is terribly weak – as I said, even the US commitment is not nearly adequate – but it’s good to see some movement. As I’ve long said, acknowledgement of the problem is the first step in a long journey. This certainly bodes better for the upcoming UNFCCC COP21 in terms of getting India on board than if it hadn’t happened, and perhaps committing China to more.
Even the symbolic value is significant – as a Canadian you might have noticed headlines like this: U.S.-China climate deal poses special challenge for G20-bound PM – headlines we wouldn’t be seeing, and pressure Harper wouldn’t be feeling, if the deal had not happened. There’s been a lot of chatter recently about how this puts Canada – with a somewhat disproportionate incidence of climate denialism especially in the west, because of the oil industry – in a “difficult” position – a “difficulty” that I must say is well deserved. Harper’s track record on climate and the environment is reprehensible.
ETA: Also, what Gigo posted above.
Looking at reality, there is a serious problem with the theory, especially with CO2 levels rising higher than they have been in millions of years.
The Feb trend shows it best, but the entire NH cold season shows the same trend.
NH cold season warming trend
Feb warming trend compared to Feb cooling trend
Looking at the longer period trend, 1979-2014 is very interesting.
Looking at the even longer trend is also good.
But fuck all that, the October data is up, so we can now see that global warming has resumed again. While the GISS 2002-2013 global trend showed slight cooling, using 2014 data we can see the planet is once again getting warmer.
Good news everybody, we are all going to fry.
And I suggest you do the same. I could just as easily spin the tale in the other direction - the U.S. reductions that happened in the recent past were not a reflection of the new status quo, but in fact were the result of a very weak economy, high oil prices, and an increased contribution from natural gas due to fracking. Extrapolating this reduction into the future requires that all those trends continue - and they’re not going to. The economy is slowly improving, oil prices are falling, and the rate of adoption of natural gas will slow down as the low-hanging fruit is picked.
On the other side, China committing to 20% non-fossil fuel energy by 2030 is really no commitment at all - there are already 21 new nuclear reactors under construction in China, along with 9 large hydro power projects already under construction and nine more hydro plants in the planning stage. Combined, those new power sources should get China to their committed target by 2030 without any other changes - and they were already planning to do it. They gave up nothing.
China wasn’t doing this for global warming. It was doing it because it needs a whole lot more energy and these are the most cost-effective ways to do it. Smog is also a concern, but ultimately in China these choices are driven by cost and availability of resources, not long-term concern about the planet.
So the other way to look at it is that China has signed a deal that enables them to maintain the status quo and grow their energy supply by as much as their economy demands, and in return the U.S. has promised to continue CO2 reductions that were due to one-time factors, through rapid cuts in fossil fuel power without a good energy source available to replace those decommissioned plants. This is all very much to China’s benefit for reasons that have nothing to do with global warming. Which is why they agreed to it.
China and coal use
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999
And that was not the point. You were wrong about China not doing anything.
I see that FX is still cherry picking. As GISS reported in their site (whose data is being abused) last September was the warmest month recorded and as they point out concentrating on just one month is not good enough. One has to look at more months and the overall thrend.
GIGO, you made a false claim, when you claimed the RSS measured the upper atmosphere, and involved balloons.
You also claimed using the entire RSS/MSU data is “cherry picking”, which is horseshit. And you should know better by now.
This is the sort of pseudo-meta debate that I have just declared off limits to you two. Point to the specific claim that he has made regarding the science that is actually wrong.
Similarly:
This sort of nonsense in which most of the links provided support the notion that global warming is occurring, followed by a sarcastic claim that does not actually represent anyone’s opinion, is hardly an act of good faith debating.
Well, thing is the specific claim is precisely the one you pointed out (that has been virtually repeated by FX about 4 or 5 times so far) where he continues to abuse the data that GISS is reporting. FX continues to ignore that NASA/GISS and many other sources he uses are telling all that their conclusions are the opposite of what FX is claiming.
The whole post of his is precisely the specific claim that he has made, and it is precisely what I refer when me and many others report about his cherry picks.
But then of course the request here is that I point at where this item comes from:
It comes from NASA/GISS here:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201410_gistemp/
And once again what I report is supported, the cherry picks from FX (That are mostly done by looking almost only at the February months) are continuously obtained from sources that in reality are telling FX that he is constantly getting it wrong.
And FX needs to link to what he claims then, in reality on other posts I clarified:
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
Here it is very important to notice that FX avoided reporting on the record of the anomalies, so besides not the complete record as it is understood by climate scientists the record FX used was incomplete by not looking at the anomalies ones at RSS.
Indeed, even from the start I qualified what I understood. When I refer to the complete record I refer to the more direct and longer instrumental record, FX say so that I made a false claim needs to be taken back.
I have to apologize, since somehow I did not see that post before I responded, and I am sorry.
And again, I apologize, as I let my cynical sarcasm overcome logic and fact based science. There is no evidence that we will fry, much less all of us.
(“good news everyone” is from Futurama, FYI, it usually means the news isn’t actually going to be good at all)
The debate is over two things, the first being “Is global warming falsifiable?”, and the second being, if it’s not, shouldn’t it be ignored, as some sort of religious belief system?
I would love it if instead of vague commentary, the exact point could be refuted, with a source and everything.
For example, GISS takes the few polar stations and assumes the entire region north from them is as warm as the station readings. It’s a major reason why it shows much more warming than any other analysis. GISS uses no satellite or balloon data for it’s temperature data analysis, but they do use satellite data of night brightness to try and adjust for UHI effects)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
The GISS global mean also shows the same thing the RSSMSU data shows, which is how winter cooling is happening, for the boreal winter. Here is every February, both GISS (red) and RSS (blue), clearly showing the same thing. including how GISS shows some warming, while the sat data does not.
RSS 1981.08 0.202
RSS 2014.08 0.161
You will be told that can be dismissed as cherry picking, because 35 years isn’t long enough to say anything about a global temperature data set, or that the satellites are no good, or you can’t actually compare then to now.
Even so, using GISS allows us to ask, quite rightly, why after 35 years of global warming, Feb 1981 shows 0.37 above the mean, while Feb 2014 shows 0.43
source: Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)
That is .05 degrees C warming for the global Feb readings. 35 years of greenhouse warming. Of course that is blatant cherry picking, comparing the actual data from 1981 to 2014, and noting there has been no warming of the globe, for February
The land only readings show the problem better, since the oceans and land temperatures are not behaving like the theory predicted. (land should be warming more than oceans)
Warming until 1998, then cooling (CRU red, RSS blue) Note the two analysis match closely. This is also confirmed by the NCDC data, which is impossible to simply link to)
So lets use GISS anyhow, and simply destroy some of the ignorance and bad science being put forth, by those now attempting to tell you global warming is now causing colder winters, which is 100% against the global warming theory. (in essence, if the “new theory” is correct, then the old theory was wrong)
The latest opinion from the media
Is that actual consensus science? Who knows. It will be easy later to simply claim “the media” made up all that, if winters once again trend warmer. In essence, there is no way to falsify any of it. The obvious problem is obvious. If warming is causing the extreme winters, why didn’t we see this when the planet was warming up? Why haven’t all the winters been extreme, especially during the really warm years in the last two decades? And why is this being put forth after the fact? If it had been predicted, that is one thing. But to change directions, after something happens, and then claim it’s theory, that is woo woo science.
And it’s worth looking at the TIME op ed again
Last Januaries media opinion
That is wrong, and you can actually see this for yourself.
First, and most important, let’s debunk the biggest myth there. “Winters in the U.S. have been warming steadily over the past century, **and even faster in recent decades”. Here comes GISS to rescue us from ignorance and media lies. Or in this case, TIME, which didn’t bother to fact check the climatecentral “study”, which they use as a source.
Here’s the recent decades, which they claim are “warming even faster”.
2005-2014 winter trend
1995-2014 winter trend
Now let’s detroy the other big lie (or rather ignorance, I don’t think the author actually knows)
“Now this is where I would usually point to the fact that the occasional cold snap—even one as extreme as much of the U.S. is experiencing now—doesn’t change the overall trajectory of a warming planet.”
Looking at the last few decades, you know, the ones he claims are getting warmer in winter, you can clearly see the problem.
1995-2014 Feb trend
Here’s the simple facts. February is the only month that shows a negative trend since the pause.
That’s right. Even GISS shows it clearly. That one month, which is trending much colder, actually brings the annual global mean down so much, it appears flat. (the pause)
Which is why I say there is no pause, all the other months show warming. But just the extreme cold for NH winters, is so extreme, so much colder, it actually makes it seem like there is no warming.
And that, no doubt about it, is 100% against the global warming theory.
If you have a scientific source that counters that, that shows February is not trending colder for the last two decades, we would all like to see it.
Here is the global data for February, since 1998, which matches the NCDC and GISS data
I can see many other personal snipes at me in the previous posts from FX, I will ignore them.
The point stands, the experts at REMSS are not amused at what is being done with their database too.
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
Ignoring the anomalies records from RSS does also lead to misunderstandings.
http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp_anomalies/
False, and spreads ignorance. The long term average is a period of time the analysis uses to compute an average. It does not predict anything, much less say anything like it “is one that would be expected”. The average has no predictive value, and with short period data, it may even change as another year is added to the data.
(this is often done with the ice mass model, PIOMAS, they will add the last year to the mean, which changes it’s value)
For example, the GISS analysis uses 1951-1980 as the period to compute an average. Nobody expects any current year to be anywhere close to those values.
