As he says in that blog (which I linked you to),
As I noted, he thinks the Pacific cooling is the cause of the pause, and considers the trade wind increase and the reduction in stratospheric water vapor to be the most likely suspects. Certainly both of these unexpected events are not understood, and were not predicted, by theory or any models.
None of this counters any of my points made above.
Note that the link I created is to the entire period of the RSS data. The opposite of cherry picking. If yoor only counter is that it is too short a period, then you have said nothing about it at all.
1979-present is the entire RSSMSU record. And it agrees closely with all the other data analysis, except GISS, which always shows more warming than any other analysis.
The ones cited here do not support what FX claims, the issue is the anomalies that FX is ignoring from RSS the subject was the anomalies not a line about “that would be expected”.
Because the earth is warming indeed.
As the fellows at the Polar science center FX cited do report:
Everyone can check that I do point at the complete instrumental record, so yes, as Wood for the trees report it is indeed a tool that needs to be used carefully and to not ignore the overall record.
Again, that is possible only by continuing to ignore the already posted RSS anomalies records.
I think it needs to be added that the idea that it’s falsifiable by measuring the earth’s mean temperature comes with the huge assumption that the earth’s mean temperature is meaningful in that simplistic way.
I remember a while ago reading an article about a scientist who studies chaotic systems saying that the whole focus on mean temperatures is meaningless for a chaotic system such as the weather. The mean may FOLLOW the broad trends, but in the short term it’s a terrible predictor of anything.
Not to mention that a measley 100 years of highly inconsistent data (that is, the measuring instruments don’t have the same levels of precision, and they proliferated slowly throughout the world) that has never been adjusted for the effect of growing cities is hardly a meaningful data set at all. In any other science you’d be laughed at for using such data. But that’s a separate point
The data for global historical CO2 concentrations comes from ice cores, and the measurement technology is not at all suspect. It’s pretty undeniable that the rate of change in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last hundred years or so is far, far greater then most of the rest of Earth’s history.
Yes, and the situation for the most important areas, the polar regions, is vastly worse than the civilized regions. It’s such a different topic we could debate for years about the measurement problems. The north polar region had one single weather station in 1928. The south pole had none at all.
Not by most rational people. What is in dispute is the amount of CO2 out-gassing from warming oceans, and of course the missing carbon sink (or sinks), nobody is quite sure where all the carbon is going, or if it will change. That’s a huge unknown, because if the sink stops absorbing, CO2 levels could start rising faster.
None of this is actually involved in the theory, but certainly views about these matters can harm your career. Hell, just look at the grief and accusations of trolling that any rational skepticism is greeted with by people who are 100% sure they are right, and everybody who questions them is up to no good.
This is actually more involved than presumed, Ice cores and other paleo records are used as one of the pieces of evidence for the big puzzle.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11574.html
The unfounded accusations in that post by FX are ignored.
Yeah, back when they weren’t measuring CO2. Got it.
And just trust us when we say we know exactly how CO2 gets trapped in ice and there’s no way there might be other things going on that might change the way that deposition happends.
Yup, there was no one around then, and no scientific instruments, let alone science, but trust us 10000% when we say we know these things for a fact, and give us a trillion dollars and impoverish the country like we tell you to.
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/paleoclimate/
The job here is to falsify that, but that is not what contrarians are making their efforts.
The thing is that a lot of work has been done to check for the issues you are worrying about.
So, you’re asserting that ice cores aren’t reliable because the laws of physics might have been different awhiles back?
Do you deny evolution because no one was taking records when the dinosaurs were around?
Do you deny astronomy, because for all we know, the Sun used to be God’s campfire?
Actually while I’m at it, who gets that trillion dollars you’re talking about? Do you think scientists somehow get it? Who pays it? What’s the line-item on the invoice?
Why do you think they’re trying to cheat you? Can you explain what is the chain of logic on this?
Strawman. Nobody ever said that.
Figures. Didn’t think I could get a real debate with a global warming evangelist.
Here’s a crazy thought, maybe science doesn’t understand everything about nature, and “understandings” about something might later turn out to be false.
Qualitatively completely different. We can see from the fossils that there were different animals. Animals we don’t see now, that if they were around we DEFINITELY would (T-rex, etc)
What I’m saying is that the AGW people are claiming that they know for a fact that the ice cores are a perfect, uninterrupted measure of CO2 throughout all time, and I’m saying there could be physical processes at work that could adjust how the deposited trapped air behaves.
I mean “well, snow piles up some air gets trapped, and so we can measure the CO2 in the air from back then” sounds overly simplistic and easy.
I mean, hell, just 65 million years ago, wasn’t there not even an Antarctica? At the very least, whatever this weather record is, it’s at least very stunted compared to the life of the planet. But again, if you want me to spend a trillion dollars and be forced to take up only “green” power which would at the very least massively impoverish my country (actually, using only green power wouldn’t even be possible, the system would collapse before it was even finished being implemented), you better make a better case about those ice cores.
That’s the investment liberals want us to make in green power. I’ve seen it cited numerous times. They literally want us to not expand nuclear, which would actually solve the whole problem, but instead try to get all our power from wind, solar, and solar thermal, which is IMPOSSIBLE.
Just listening to the recommendations, they’re selectively picking their science and proposing stupid solutions, to the problem which they are far from proving exists.
No one says that.
Ok, sure. What are those processes?
So…you don’t grok the science so it must be wrong? Seriously?
There was an Antarctica 65m years ago, yes.
You admit that you don’t know a thing about the research, but you want people to “make a better case?” Not sure I follow.
To be very pedantic, what is now Antarctica was part of Gondwana 65M years ago and wasn’t its own continent until around 25-35M years ago.
Much of the rock that makes up Antarctica is, of course, much older, dating back to Pangaea and beyond.
ETA: the first Antarctic ice wouldn’t have formed until about the time Antarctica was isolated around 25-35M years ago. There are ~50M year old fossils showing the continent was at least subtropical before that. It didn’t drift sufficiently south until rather recently (geologically speaking).
Yeah, I’m not sure about that part either. Ice/rock core sampling is pretty well established at this point.
That said, there is some uncertainty as to the precise age of ice cores, but the error bars aren’t that big. The oldest Antarctic samples should give us data back 0.5 - 1.5M years.
And there’s samples from across the continent, not just at one location. Also, we have other measures from multiple sites across Greenland and various mountains and glaciers. Multiplicity of data across the continent and across the world furthers reduces error bars on such data.
I guess you can say the laws of physics might have changed in the intervening years, but the multiplicity of data across the world makes this less likely.
There is some variability in how much CO2 gets trapped, but again, the error bars aren’t so big as to invalidate the data.
The implication that any sort of uncertainty invalidates the data is ludicrous. I know the driving distance from my house to work is roughly 10 miles plus or minus a mile depending on the route I take. The existence of uncertainty in the exact route taken doesn’t invalidate the overall estimate of 10 miles at all.
I’m not an evangelist in that I don’t blindly believe. I accept the opinion of experts. And experts accept ice cores are reliable. You’re the one asserting that they’re not, in some way.
Using that logic nothing would ever get done. Scientists and experts in the field have confidence in their technology, the fact that you assert that maybe their confidence is misplaced is hardly persuasive.
And ice cores are like fossils in that they are records of what has come before. But again, ice cores aren’t the real issue, they’re part of a larger picture that persuades almost all of the world’s experts. Why do you assume they’re wrong for unknown reasons? Do you ignore your doctor’s advice because, maybe, just maybe transfats are the key to immortality?
All I know, is that the experts in the field feel confident in them. I assume such confidence comes from ice cores matching up with other information we have. If you think they’re not reliable, it’s up to you to show why the vast, vast majority of working experts are wrong.
Digging up stones that look like bones sounds simplistic too.
I’m not a scientist. That’s why I’m not so arrogant as to assume that the vast majority of them are unanimously wrong about long tested and accepted procedures.
That isn’t crazy: that’s definitional of science.
Thing is, you’ve got to bring some evidence forward to support any new understanding.
Einstein and Heisenberg came to us with actual evidence, and that’s what caused us to throw out pretty much everything we knew before.
Show us where science is making an error, today, and you can rest assured, science and scientists will take it seriously. But without evidence, you’re just engaged in ideology.
Climatologists have the evidence. What have you got?
Problems with ice core data, and assumptions based on it, are numerous
And how do climate scientists profit from this? Do you think they’re looking to destroy the world economy, for what again? Do you think that climate scientists get a cut from solar cell manufacturers?
If you think money is behind this, why do you ignore that the very few scientists who decry global warming disproportionately work for carbon producing energy companies? Doesn’t that strike you as a more plausible conspiracy, than climate scientists somehow getting rich off of money spent on solar cells and wind farms?
People aren’t realistically looking for all power to be from sustainable sources. Just much of it. And I’m pro nuclear, although, I’d want it to be in places that are geologically stable as possible.
97% of the world’s experts agree it’s happening. They are from different agencies, countries, political affiliations, and religions. You are asserting a conspiracy that is asinine.
Here’s a more likely conspiracy for you: People who pump carbon into the air to make their money are lying to people like you, so that they can keep making as much money as they can.
Which of those two, makes more sense to you?