Originally posted by fierobear: New paper confirms the climate was warmer 1000 years ago . . .
An off-the-cuff reaction from a climate science layman here:
Maybe so, but this doesn't disprove that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the cause of the warming trend that so many are saying is happening now.
And it also doesn't tell us what is going to happen as the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to go up (in ppm), as will happen under any/all scenarios--just a question of the rate and magnitude of how far up (in ppm).
I'm indebted to you, John, for starting this thread, though. Following the discussion on this thread (and the related threads that have come and gone in this forum) has prompted me to read more about this topic. It's more complicated than I realized, going in.
An off-the-cuff reaction from a climate science layman here:
Maybe so, but this doesn't disprove that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the cause of the warming trend that so many are saying is happening now.
True, Rusty. However, many of the warmist scientists make claims that the current temperatures are the "warmest in the last 1000 years", or the "warmest in human history", and so on. What I've posted is to counter those claims. Also, if it has been warmer in the past, and mankind survived, then why should we believe the human race will perish *now*, with slightly warmer temperatures?
True, Rusty. However, many of the warmist scientists make claims that the current temperatures are the "warmest in the last 1000 years", or the "warmest in human history", and so on. What I've posted is to counter those claims. Also, if it has been warmer in the past, and mankind survived, then why should we believe the human race will perish *now*, with slightly warmer temperatures?
And has it been shown, the earth, while warming, is no where near the warmest it has been in the past (on several occasions) and yet those warming cycles where not influenced by man. There have been times where there was no ice present at all - we have survived "year 2000" and the Mayan end of the world, so I a fairly sure will survive this, if not, then maybe the world is a better place without us then, nature always wins.
True, Rusty. However, many of the warmist scientists make claims that the current temperatures are the "warmest in the last 1000 years", or the "warmest in human history", and so on. What I've posted is to counter those claims. Also, if it has been warmer in the past, and mankind survived, then why should we believe the human race will perish *now*, with slightly warmer temperatures?
And has it been shown, the earth, while warming, is no where near the warmest it has been in the past (on several occasions) and yet those warming cycles where not influenced by man. There have been times where there was no ice present at all - we have survived "year 2000" and the Mayan end of the world, so I a fairly sure will survive this.
I can't help it if you two can't read what the Scientists are actually saying nor come up with a consistent argument.
Make sure you let us know now which one you are going with this time.... The Climate is warming or not warming? The Earth Has or has not experienced the same change in the same time frame before? The Data is or is not flawed? It's a get rich scheme by researchers?
Try to keep away from the right wing bloggers for your "news" and "facts" and you might have a more credible argument to make.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-18-2013).]
Try to keep away from the right wing bloggers for your "news" and "facts" and you might have a more credible argument to make.
This proves that you don't actually read what I post. I just posted several published scientific papers that support my point, and then you post the above stupidity.
I can't help it if you two can't read what the Scientists are actually saying nor come up with a consistent argument.
Make sure you let us know now which one you are going with this time.... The Climate is warming or not warming? The Earth Has or has not experienced the same change in the same time frame before? The Data is or is not flawed? It's a get rich scheme by researchers?
Try to keep away from the right wing bloggers for your "news" and "facts" and you might have a more credible argument to make.
I didn't quote the last part because I found that part to be agreeable.
As for your pasted graph it confirms yet again that you don't seem to understand them.
1st cherry picking 2nd what do you mean, clearly shows the earths average temp has gone up and down before (without man).
edit: maybe not getting rich, but they are not exactly just scrapping by (see an earlier post I made by how much money some institutes are requesting, PHD's make a really good wage doing research) - unless you want me to bring up Al Gore and how much his net worth has increased since pushing man made global warming (check it out yourself, it is public record). Even David Suzuki, has some very nice digs in Vancouver (and other places) and he has been pushing this a lot longer than Gore.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-18-2013).]
This proves that you don't actually read what I post. I just posted several published scientific papers that support my point, and then you post the above stupidity.
We can all post data that support our points, that's why it takes an actual EXPERT to use the combined data to make a hypothesis or conclusion.
Again you can listen to the bloggers who often cherry pick and misconstrue the data, or you can listen to the Scientists, the majority of whom are in agreement.
If you are indeed understanding all that you link and believe why not answer Flying Fiero's question about the R squared theory.
We can all post data that support our points, that's why it takes an actual EXPERT to use the combined data to make a hypothesis or conclusion.
Again you can listen to the bloggers who often cherry pick and misconstrue the data, or you can listen to the Scientists, the majority of whom are in agreement.
If you are indeed understanding all that you link and believe why not answer Flying Fiero's question about the R squared theory.
Again, you didn't read: the last few posts he made link to a published paper - ie. peer reviewed and more than likely an EXPERT in the sense that you are calling your "Scientists" one.
Papers are NOT "published" without being peer reviewed. Now if you are talking about a book (or a movie) that is a different case, and how many people jumped on the band wagon after Al Gore's "movie".
Again, you didn't read: the last few posts he made link to a published paper - ie. peer reviewed and more than likely an EXPERT in the sense that you are calling your "Scientists" one.
Papers are NOT "published" without being peer reviewed. Now if you are talking about a book (or a movie) that is a different case, and how many people jumped on the band wagon after Al Gore's "movie".
So it's your contention that the number of peer reviewed published papers and studies (such as the recent BEST) ones are proven false by the ones bear linked?
Also checking the linked paper it shows that it concentrates on the Northern Hemisphere, not the the earth as a whole (Shocker another cherry pick by Watts up with That)).
Please show where the authors or other scientific experts find this study disproves the current consensus of Climate Change. I'll be waiting.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-18-2013).]
It looks like the paper was REJECTED by JGR Atmospheres. If the paper was rejected by this "journal", where would they try to publish it next, in "LOL Cats"?
After almost two years and some false starts, BEST now has one paper that has finally passed peer review. The text below is from the email release sent late Saturday. It was previously submitted to JGR Atmospheres according to their July 8th draft last year, but appears to have been rejected as they now indicate it has been published in Geoinformatics and Geostatistics, a journal I’ve not heard of until now.
(Added note: commenter Michael D. Smith points out is it Volume 1 issue 1, so this appears to be a brand new journal. Also troubling, on their GIGS journal home page , the link to the PDF of their Journal Flier gives only a single page, the cover art. Download Journal Flier. With such a lack of description in the front and center CV, one wonders how good this journal is.)
Also notable, Dr. Judith Curry’s name is not on this paper, though she gets a mention in the acknowledgements (along with Mosher and Zeke). I have not done any detailed analysis yet of this paper, as this is simply an announcement of its existence. – Anthony
Once again, newf is unable or unwilling to actually READ and UNDERSTAND what I've posted, instead focusing too tightly on just one example out of several I've posted.
quote
Originally posted by newf: Also checking the linked paper it shows that it concentrates on the Northern Hemisphere, not the the earth as a whole (Shocker another cherry pick by Watts up with That)).
So, here are several papers on the Medieval Warm Period, with data from different places around the world:
Reference Williams, M.B., Aydin, M., Tatum, C. and Saltzman, E.S. 2007. A 2000 year atmospheric history of methyl chloride from a South Pole ice core: Evidence for climate-controlled variability. Geophysical Research Letters 34: 10.1029/2006GL029142.
Reference Lamb, H., Darbyshire, I. and Verschuren, D. 2003. Vegetation response to rainfall variation and human impact in central Kenya during the past 1100 years. The Holocene 13: 285-292.
Reference Rein B., Luckge, A. and Sirocko, F. 2004. A major Holocene ENSO anomaly during the Medieval period. Geophysical Research Letters 31: 10.1029/2004GL020161.
Reference Webster, J.W., Brook, G.A., Railsback, L.B., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Alexander, C. and Reeder, P.P. 2007. Stalagmite evidence from Belize indicating significant droughts at the time of Preclassic Abandonment, the Maya Hiatus, and the Classic Maya collapse. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 250: 1-17.
Reference Williams, P.W., King, D.N.T., Zhao, J.-X. and Collerson, K.D. 2004. Speleothem master chronologies: combined Holocene 18O and 13C records from the North Island of New Zealand and their palaeoenvironmental interpretation. The Holocene 14: 194-208.
Reference Hall, B.L., Koffman, T. and Denton, G.H. 2010. Reduced ice extent on the western Antarctic Peninsula at 700-970 cal. yr B.P. Geology 38: 635-638.
Reference Wang, L., Rioual, P., Panizzo, V.N., Lu, H., Gu, Z., Chu, G., Yang, D., Han, J., Liu, J. and Mackay, A.W. 2012. A 1000-yr record of environmental change in NE China indicated by diatom assemblages from maar lake Erlongwan. Quaternary Research 78: 24-34.
fierobear, if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion you should be addressing me directly. Passively addressing me only shows your childish nature and lack of knowledge of the topic in general. If you actually understood the studies you copy and paste you would be able to apply your comprehension to the context of the thread. It's really obvious you only understand the title of what you copy and paste into this thread. But we all understand why you limit posting your own thoughts in this thread. You would be completely dismissed as a lune, like Alex Jones lune, if you were honest with us about what you really think.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: flyinfieros keeps insisting that "temperatures are continuing to increase":
Yet NASA seems a bit conflicted on this...
Your "money quote" is laughable. NASA isn't conflicted at all. Your interpretation of NASA's work is conflicted.
This perfectly highlights how Denier's take one sentence completely out of context and use it to spread misinformation.
You read the following: "The 5 year mean… has been flat for a decade."
And conclude the following: "THERE'S BEEN NO GLOBAL WARMING FOR A DECADE!"
The 5 year average over a decade is only TWO data points.
Denier's ignore the fact that the 9 warmest years in the last 132 years have all occurred since 2000 (excluding 1998). Denier's ignore the fact that this decade is warmer than last decade.
Look at the graph from the paper in question Watts conveniently left out of his post: Source.
A decade is very insignificant if you consider the bigger picture that is "global warming."
This post by Watts shows the purpose of his blog. To take something that isn't meaningful at all, present it as meaningful, and use it to spread misinformation. We get that the world hasn't ended yet, but just saying that doesn't debunk any of the science behind the consensus of global warming.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: flyingfieros continues to quote the BEST Study, with the suggestion that it has settled many climate issues. The problem is, there is no sign that the BEST Study has cleared peer review, let alone being published in ANY scientific journal. One portion of the BEST study has been "provisionally accepted".
It is a new journal, however SciTechnol does have a good reputation.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: The BEST Study is for land temperatures only.
And it was the largest land temperature study EVER completed.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: that flyinfieros quotes ad nausem,
You should really see a doctor. Reality shouldn't make you nauseous.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: It does not cover ocean temperatures, although they claim they are working on it.
This sounds like your "The paper isn't peer reviewed or published yet" argument. "When the time comes" - and "the time" WILL come - what will you say?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: The oceans cover 70% of the surface of the Earth, so even if the study is correct on land temperatures, ocean temperatures remain an open issue.
Are you paying attention? There's ZERO QUESTION the oceans are warming. 90% of the warming is occurring in the ocean. Ocean temperatures are not as open as you hope.
It's humous you're now willing say "if the study is correct on land temperatures" considering in your first reply to me, you said the BEST study had been debunked. Cute display of some of that Denier inconstancy.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: The bottom line is that the cost of EVERYTHING would go up if carbon taxes are implemented. That means that our quality of life and our personal budgets would be reduced. Consider that before becoming an advocate of global warming, because the end game of this is the implementation of taxes on carbon dioxide. This will impact YOU directly, in your wallet.
Anyone else notice how arguments about global warming from the Right always end up with them whining about taxes? Here lies the source of their willful ignorance. They don't want it to be true.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: To put it plainly, you are a fool to discredit such a learned gentleman and his associates.
If I'm a "fool" yet capable of distinguishing between opinion and fact, I'd be interested to know what you are.
It doesn't matter how "learned" he is - his OPINION is an OPINION - not a fact. OPINIONS are not evidence. Did you not notice the letter was even posted in the OPINION section?
"The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is a Christian institution in Dallas, Texas that specializes in education, research, and media promotion of creation science and Biblical creationism." Source.
They sound like a very open minded scientific organization.
From their home page: "We believe if the global data set were given equal scrutiny to the US set, global warming would either vanish or be barely detectable."
That's what the BEST study did. The warming didn't vanish or become barely detectable. In fact quiet the opposite, it shows a clear warming trend that AGREES with other studies NASA, NOAA, and HadCRU. Source.
This was written in 2008 and tries to spread misinformation saying the planet is cooling. The author admits he got the graph from college drop out Anthony Watts. While he says the words in the column are his own, it's a safe bet he got most of his argument from the same college drop out. The article shows how Denier's use a short time span in order to spread misinformation and generate headlines.
How did 2010 end up being one of the globally warmest years in recorded history if the planet is cooling? How did 2012 end up being the warmest year on record for the US if the planet is cooling?
Anthony Watts again with his failed prediction of global cooling. This is why he's not qualified, if you ignore the fact he never graduated college, he thinks too short term and too political to be taken seriously as a scientist.
There was a dip in 2008, but global warming is about the long term trend, not a single year: Source.
About the author, Peter Ferrara: "I am Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute"
Heartland reporting that global warming is canceled? Who would have guessed.
quote
Originally posted by avengador1: Cooling? Warming? Who gives a crap?
Anyone paying attention to reality instead of news articles.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: DID I SAY DENY (please show me the post) - I said NOT CONVINCED - I can't read charts and apparently you can't just read.
IF YOU WANT AN ANSWER - little green men from space (prove that they are not - let's see the study and paper)...there, now get over yourself.
I didn't say YOU said you deny the existence. I'm well aware that's a charge I made. However, you DO deny the significance of man's role in our changing climate which is clearly evident in your "little green men" answer.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: As for your BEST data - yes it has been misused as I posted, they had to change the model (that used the data) as it turned out not to be correct - falsified the result. I know, in your world that is ok, since they can't be "100% correct".
You have some logic problems.
A wrong model doesn't falsify the data. The result of the model is completely independent of the result of the data.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Any event, back to the regularly scheduled program...
From my perspective, the program hasn't changed. Denier's still keep'in on.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: What does it matter? All news articles and blogs are all opinion pieces NO matter where they come from. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS BIASED AGAINST CERTAIN SOURCES. You say you have an open mind, then stop dismissing certain articles or person because they have an agenda or come from xxx. No one is forcing James Tayor to work at the Heartland Institute, could it be that he has his own opinion and chooses that side? But there you go again simply saying someone can't think for themselves simply because they are aligned with a certain group.
Sure maybe Heartland has an agenda, but you know what? ALL institutions have an agenda, period. If you want to 'debunk' or dismiss an article, please post info and source from a scientific paper or source (preferably one that is newer than said article as progress is made) . Saying it isn't so does not make it so, OR posting info from another opinion piece also does not prove anything - it is just an argument. Who are you to judge which agenda is good or not - it is for all intents and purposes, it's your opinion. There is that saying about opinions, but I will leave it out.
Not saying your opinion is not welcome, but you have been making arguments and dismissing posts based on your and others opinions and blogs that align with yours, yet continuously demand scientific proof from others - what's wrong with this picture? Granted you have posted some articles, and bravo to that.
You don't understand the difference between fact and opinion.
If I started quoting Al Gore articles as "evidence" Denier's would throw a tantrum, and rightfully so. Therefore you should elevate your argument above obvious political bias.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Again here you are implying I said something - never said that there was no way in hell that physics was not involved - I was simply pointing out that you don't have to be a physicist to make a discovery.
You don't seem to understand that for ANY discovery to take place, PHSICS HAD TO BE UNDERSTOOD.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: In any event, I am not going to argue anymore about this, just going to stick to the topic and post relevant articles...
I'm sure.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: New paper confirms the climate was warmer 1000 years ago
Except that's not one of the findings of the study. That's college drop out Anthony Watt's spreading more misinformation, just like his 2008 "global cooling" media run.
The main finding of the study is that the Medieval Warm Period had an maximum anomaly of .6*C. In the last 50 years we've warmed .9*C. We've already exceeded the MWP at it's peak. If you consider the MWP was a period of 300 years, it took 100-150 years to climb .6*C, a rate that is 3-4.5 times slower than our current warming rate.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: True, Rusty. However, many of the warmist scientists make claims that the current temperatures are the "warmest in the last 1000 years", or the "warmest in human history", and so on. What I've posted is to counter those claims. Also, if it has been warmer in the past, and mankind survived, then why should we believe the human race will perish *now*, with slightly warmer temperatures?
You simply parrot what Watt's said in his blog post concerning this study. Are you both just speaking in generalities or are do you actually have examples of this?
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: And has it been shown, the earth, while warming, is no where near the warmest it has been in the past (on several occasions) and yet those warming cycles where not influenced by man. There have been times where there was no ice present at all - we have survived "year 2000" and the Mayan end of the world, so I a fairly sure will survive this, if not, then maybe the world is a better place without us then, nature always wins.
Wow. There is no hope here.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: LOL - BEST Study
It looks like the paper was REJECTED by JGR Atmospheres. If the paper was rejected by this "journal", where would they try to publish it next, in "LOL Cats"?
You just can't help but show your bias and Denier moving goal post.
If it had been accepted by the journal you STILL would have rejected the study because you have issues with the journal.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-21-2013).]
flyinfieros is a classic example of someone engaging in "psychological projection." He will call others "childish" and complain about insults while he is repeatedly insulting.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: childish nature
Examples from this same post of his:
"You would be completely dismissed as a lune, like Alex Jones lune" Straw man AND ad homenim argument
Repeated use of the word "denier" (nine times in this post)
"You should really see a doctor. Reality shouldn't make you nauseous." Irrelevant, misdirection and possibly missed the point. It isn't me feeling nauseous, it is flyinfieros puking all over this thread.
"You have some logic problems."
"You don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. "
"That's college drop out Anthony Watt's"
"You simply parrot what Watt's said in his blog post"
"You just can't help but show your bias and Denier moving goal post."
...and he wonders why we don't want to converse with him? flyinfieros reminds me a lot of former forum member JazzMan, who had Asperger's Syndrome. The guy was absolutely CLUELESS about social interaction. He simply couldn't understand why his insulting nature left him with few friends and few people who would converse with him.
Speaking of published papers, I wonder what warmists like flyinfieros would say if we offered proof by way of a paper published in a journal where our evidence was the FIRST paper published? You know what the response would be, it would be DISMISSED. Yet the warmists like flyinfieros will accept the publication of the BEST Study with that precise kind of proof and reputation. Now there's a f***ing JOKE.
I guess we'll have to wait not only to see if the ocean data from BEST is published, but if it is published in a journal with any kind of reputation.
quote
This sounds like your "The paper isn't peer reviewed or published yet" argument. "When the time comes" - and "the time" WILL come - what will you say?
Speaking of reputation, flyinfieros claims that...
quote
t is a new journal, however SciTechnol does have a good reputation.
...I trust this means that he has PROOF of its reputation, not just his word or his imagination. I wonder if LOLCATS is accepting climate papers?
I have this interesting fact, though, about this "journal" with the "good reputation". How much of a reputation can a journal gain in less than a year of publication, and with only TWO published papers? LOL, yeah, keep on quoting that BEST study. There might be more about this "journal" to come. But for now...
India-based OMICS Publishing Group has just launched a new brand of scholarly journals called “SciTechnol.” This new OMICS brand lists 53 new journals, though none has any content yet.
We learned of this new launch because the company is currently spamming tens of thousands of academics, hoping to recruit some of them for the new journals’ editorial boards.
The new site, the URL of which is http://scitechnol.com, includes a barely-literate mission statement. In part, it reads,
Based on the scientific necessity and demand, SciTechnol leads international scientific journals. SciTechnol aids the viewers to have access to its journals. SciTechnol provides wide range of online journals containing the latest research from a broad spectrum of subject areas. For further information on SciTechnol online journals, visit SciTechnol Index.
This poorly-written mission statement is an indication of a shabby and unprofessional operation. The editorial board solicitation spam emails are also poorly-written.
OMICS Publishing group has exploited many young researchers by inviting them to submit article manuscripts, leading them through the editing and review process, publishing the article and then invoicing the author.
In most cases, the authors have no idea that an author fee applies until they receive the invoice. We documented this practice in an earlier post. Will OMICS continue this unethical practice with its new brand?
We note that one other open-access publisher is also launching new brands. Perhaps OMICS is copying the strategy of Hindawi, which has recently launched ISRN and Datasets.org.
============================
Here is another misdirection from flyinfieros. Evidently, along with his piss poor arguments, he hasn't even considered what the impact would be if the warmists win, and carbon taxes are put in place. Not only the impact on each of us and our wallets, but on the poor and middle class. But people like flyinfieros can't be bothered to acutally consider the COSENQUENCES of their actions, advocacy or the way they vote. Naw, don't bother a jackass like this with the bigger picture, or unforeseen consequence, they're too busy being caught up in their illusions that they are "saving the planet".
quote
Anyone else notice how arguments about global warming from the Right always end up with them whining about taxes? Here lies the source of their willful ignorance. They don't want it to be true.
Here, flyinfieros thinks he can have it both ways, and we don't notice. First, he tries to criticize me for "cut and paste" and not posting my own thoughts (opinions)...
quote
If you actually understood the studies you copy and paste you would be able to apply your comprehension to the context of the thread. It's really obvious you only understand the title of what you copy and paste into this thread. But we all understand why you limit posting your own thoughts in this thread. You would be completely dismissed as a lune, like Alex Jones lune, if you were honest with us about what you really think.
...then he criticizes others for posting opinions.
quote
It doesn't matter how "learned" he is - his OPINION is an OPINION - not a fact. OPINIONS are not evidence. Did you not notice the letter was even posted in the OPINION section?
So if we post links to papers, we aren't sharing our opinions. If we do post ours or others opinions, we are criticized for posting opinions.
OOOH! flyinfieros thinks he's "got us" on this one! Problem is, I made no other point than James Hansen having to admit that temperatures have been flat for (at least) the last 5 years. Period. Nothing else. Doesn't prevent flyinfieros from stretching the point to one I wasn't making. Chalk up another straw man argument to flyinfieros.
quote
You read the following: "The 5 year mean… has been flat for a decade."
And conclude the following: "THERE'S BEEN NO GLOBAL WARMING FOR A DECADE!"
The 5 year average over a decade is only TWO data points.
Alan Carlin, B.S., PhD , retired senior analyst and manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, former Chairman of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club (recipient of the Chapter’s Weldon Heald award for conservation work), U.S.A.
also says there has been no real increase in Global Temperatures for at least 15 years.
I didn't know the Sierra Club was a right wing think tank
And THIS is the end game of everything we've been discussing...A president who will go around Congress - your elected representatives, whose responsibility it is to vote on your behalf - and simply implement global warming regulations by dictatorial fiat.
Political and business leaders warned of need to ensure sustainable growth
An unprecedented $14trn (£8.8trn) greening of the global economy is the only way to ensure long-term sustainable growth, according to a stark warning delivered to political and business leaders as they descended on the World Economic Forum in Davos yesterday.
Only a sustained and dramatic shift to infrastructure and industrial practices using low-carbon technology can save the world and its economy from devastating global warming, according to a Davos-commissioned alliance led by the former Mexican President, Felipe Calderon, in the most dramatic call so far to fight climate change on business grounds.
This includes everything from power generation, transport, and buildings to industry, forestry, water and agriculture, according to the Green Growth Action Alliance, created at last year's Davos meeting in Mexico.
The extra spending amounts to roughly $700bn a year until 2030 and would provide a much-needed economic stimulus as well as reduce the costs associated with global warming further down the line, said Mr Calderon, who leads the alliance.
It is better to try to pre-empt events like Hurricane Sandy, which cost $50bn, by keeping a lid on global warming, concluded the report, researched by the Accenture consultancy.
Mr Calderon, whose six-year term as Mexican President ended in November, said: "It is clear that we are facing a climate crisis with potentially devastating impacts on the global economy.
"Greening global economic growth is the only way to satisfy the needs of today's population and up to 9 billion people by 2050, driving development and wellbeing while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing natural resource productivity."
He added: "Economic growth and sustainability are inter-dependent, you cannot have one without the other, and greening investment is the pre-requisite to realising both goals".
Mr Calderon is calling on the UK Government and other members of the G20 to unleash a wave of private investment in green infrastructure by giving potential backers of low-carbon projects the confidence and incentives to step up their spending.
The alliance, which includes the World Bank, Deutsche Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, proposes that governments use public money to give guarantees, insurance and incentives to potential low-carbon investors at the same time as phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.
The investment is needed to stimulate spending on everything from low-emission crop practices with reduced chemical and fertiliser use to renewable power generation and energy-efficient buildings and transport.
In addition to the need for an extra $14trn of extra spending, a substantial part of the $5trn-a-year that has been earmarked worldwide for investment in traditional, fossil-fuel heavy infrastructure by 2020 will need to be diverted to greener alternatives "to avoid locking in less-efficient, emissions-intensive technologies for decades to come".
The report acknowledges that an extra $700bn is a lot of extra cash to find each year, but says that the money could be raised with an increase in global public spending of a relatively small $36bn a year, if it was targeted effectively through the right measures to support private investment.
And THIS is the end game of everything we've been discussing...A president who will go around Congress - your elected representatives, whose responsibility it is to vote on your behalf - and simply implement global warming regulations by dictatorial fiat.
Speaking of straw men - I thought this thread was about anthropogenic global warming, not about carbon taxes. Your argument about anthropogenic global warming is not convincing and thus presenting political issues about carbon taxes appears as a scare tactic only. You also failed to address any of FlyinFieros' actual points, such as
R-Squared correlation Ocean warming Long term warming Rate of warming now compared to the MWP
Why do you keep ignoring these? If you are so convinced, surely you have some irrefutable information that shows otherwise?
Let me ask this - any reasonable scientific hypothesis must be able to be disproved. What would it take for you to believe global warming is occurring? What would it take for you to believe your current theory (whatever that may be - giant scientific conspiracy, etc) is false? It appears that no matter the evidence, you dismiss it. I am not convinced ANY amount of evidence would change your mind.
Again with straw men:
quote
fierobear: Davos call for $14trn 'greening' of global economy
Political and business leaders warned of need to ensure sustainable growth
If you are indeed understanding all that you link and believe why not answer Flying Fiero's question about the R squared theory.
First of all, R squared isn't a "theory", it is a mathematical method for comparing two variable such as the rise of CO2 versus temperature. Do they go up at the same time? What percentage of the time do they rise at the same time?
Second, he really isn't asking a question, he is repeating a statement that he doesn't agree with the conclusion that was presented that CO2 and temperature have several disconnects. The fact that he repeats it over and over does not make his position MORE relevant or more correct. Here are the instances I found of him repeating himself:
Originally posted by masospaghetti: Speaking of straw men - I thought this thread was about anthropogenic global warming, not about carbon taxes. Your argument about anthropogenic global warming is not convincing and thus presenting political issues about carbon taxes appears as a scare tactic only. You also failed to address any of FlyinFieros' actual points, such as
This proves that you do not understand the concept of what a "straw man argument" is. Try reading this and getting back to us when you are better informed.
I posted those articles as a separate point to flyinfieros and any other response. The articles weren't part of any response. I had already responded to flyinfieros latest rants. Your point is invalid.
As for the politics, the point is that if science is pushing this theory, you must look at what the ramifications will be when politicians take the conclusions from the scientists and use that to create policies. In this case, carbon taxes and regulations.
quote
Why do you keep ignoring these? If you are so convinced, surely you have some irrefutable information that shows otherwise?
I haven't ignored anything. I've covered all of these, and will cover them AGAIN.
quote
Why do you keep ignoring these? If you are so convinced, surely you have some irrefutable information that shows otherwise?
Let me ask this - any reasonable scientific hypothesis must be able to be disproved. What would it take for you to believe global warming is occurring? What would it take for you to believe your current theory (whatever that may be - giant scientific conspiracy, etc) is false? It appears that no matter the evidence, you dismiss it. I am not convinced ANY amount of evidence would change your mind.
I'd like to see unadjusted temperatures from NASA, Hadley and USHCN. I'd like to see what the missing raw data is from the Hadley center. Those are some examples.
Speaking of falsification, when scientists say or imply that "everything proves global warming", that right there shows you that their theory is not falsifiable. More warming, more cooling, more rain, less rain, etc. I'll get to that later, I have to leave for work.
Originally posted by fierobear: First of all, R squared isn't a "theory", it is a mathematical method for comparing two variable such as the rise of CO2 versus temperature. ... I'd like to see unadjusted temperatures from NASA, Hadley and USHCN. I'd like to see what the missing raw data is from the Hadley center. Those are some examples.
Speaking of falsification, when scientists say or imply that "everything proves global warming", that right there shows you that their theory is not falsifiable.
I'm aware of what R squared is, mathematically. Your correlation between PDO/AMO and global temperatures was called into question and you have not responded to it. Notably, that PDO/AMO have a mean about zero, while global temperatures continue to rise.
When the climate becomes colder and people are still claiming global warming, let me know.
quote
I haven't ignored anything. I've covered all of these, and will cover them AGAIN.
fierobear: ...former forum member JazzMan, who had Asperger's Syndrome. The guy was absolutely CLUELESS about social interaction. He simply couldn't understand why his insulting nature left him with few friends and few people who would converse with him.
And yet, even though people knew he had a condition, they continued to heckle him and prod at him until he went mad and lost it. Jazzman was an excellent contributor to this forum.
And yet, even though people knew he had a condition, they continued to heckle him and prod at him until he went mad and lost it. Jazzman was an excellent contributor to this forum.
I agree he was an excellent contributor in the TECH section, but he mixed it up here in ot plenty. Thing is, if he knows he has a condition, why shouldn't he be less confrontational? It was his *choice*.
Maso, I'm on my smartphone, so I can't do a lot of formatting.
When you say I haven't answered for r squared, what response are you wanting? I posted what someone calculated, and flyinfieros response was that he basically didn't believe what I posted. So what response are you looking for?
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 01-22-2013).]
So the temperature goes both up and down. While you can pedantically argue finer points of logic, the temperature is still doing it's own thing
Notice how it evens out approximately every 4 to 5 years. If you try to form a premise based on 2006 highs you can argue one thing, but if you form your premise based on 2007 you have something entirely different.
When the scientists I have quoted state there is no net gain over 16 years, they know, and we know that the temperature has been fluctuating continually in the intervening years.
If you want to discuss ocean temperatures, there is a good article here
Originally posted by fierobear: shouldn't he be less confrontational? It was his *choice*.
Many would say the same about you.. But we all know what "choice" you made..
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti:
And yet, even though people knew he had a condition, they continued to heckle him and prod at him until he went mad and lost it. Jazzman was an excellent contributor to this forum.
Yes i miss Jazzman, he was a really good guy.. Being an Aspey myself, i don't consider it a "condition".. It's not a health problem, we are just different in the way our brains work things out..
As for Jazz, i dont know what him having Aspergers has to do with anything.. He probably just raged out because he was heckled constantly by, well we all know by whom.. He probably just got tired of it all and flipped out.. Even a person that isnt an Aspey would have done the same..
[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 01-22-2013).]
Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate?
In conclusion, correlations between magnetic variations and climate may be more significant than previously realized. We see that no forcing factor, be it changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or changes in cosmic ray flux modulated by solar activity and geomagnetism, or possibly other factors, can at present be neglected or shown to be the overwhelming single driver of climate change in the past century. Most of the time, the prime, joint forcing factor is in solar variations (at the decadal time scale) or orbital forcing (at the Milankovic scale). The Sun is clearly a significant driver of changes not only in climate but in the overall behavior of the ionosphere and magnetosphere,and external geomagnetic field; this modulates incoming fluxes of cosmic rays which are increasingly recognized as potential drivers of changes in cloud cover and albedo. The work of Le Mouël et al. [29], based on very sensitive yet robust magnetic indices, shows that this situation may have prevailed until the mid-1980s. At longer time scales, we have seen that changes in the internal geomagnetic field itself might somewhat unexpectedly trigger significant climate change: archeomagnetic jerks may be the only evidence that changes in the internal magnetic field itself can at times have a significant influence on climate, possibly through the cosmic-ray/low-cloud connection at times of extremal tilt of the dipole. Although still in need of confirmation, their detection is therefore particularly exciting: Gallet et al. [64] have recently underlined a potential connection between these geomagnetic events and some major societal changes in the Middle East through climatically driven environmental fluctuations (Fig. 5). A correlation at the longer time scales of Milankovic cycles remains very speculative at this time.
The following figures show the global average temperature from 1850 – 2008 (left) [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/], and (right) the total solar magnetic flux (black line bounding grey shading and blue line) along with the annual sunspot number (shaded purple). The solar figure is from M. Lockwood, R. Stamper, and M.N. Wild: “A Doubling of the Sun's Coronal Magnetic Field during the Last 100 Years”, Nature Vol. 399, 3 June 1999 http://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html ) which states: “The magnetic flux in the solar corona has risen by 40% since 1964 and by a factor of 2.3 since 1901.”
The following figure superimposes the global temperature (from above left – changed to red) on the solar flux (from above right).
The following shows the Climatic Research Unit global average temperature anomalies (the IPCC uses data provided by HadCRU – plot from: http://hadobs.metoffice.com...ostics/global/nh+sh/ ). Two cycles have been highlighted in rectangles (not peak-to-peak). The final part of the figure shows the cycle from the second rectangle, changed to red and superimposed on the first cycle (vertically shifted by 0.3 degrees).
As can be seen from the above figures, the two cycles were nearly identical, and yet the IPCC says the models can explain the early 1900s cycle with only natural forcings, but anthropogenic CO2 is needed for the later cycle. There appears to be a serious problem with the models when two identical cycles have two very different causes.
The cycle length is approximately 62 years, with maxima around 1879, 1942 and 2002, and minima around 1910 and 1972.
When the claim is made that the Earth has warmed 0.74 degrees from 1906 – 2005 (IPCC AR4 http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/asse.../syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf ), they are spuriously ignoring the 60-year cycle and arbitrarily choosing a start and end for a linear trend within a non-linear cycle. The red line on the figure below shows the 0.74 degrees per century. The linear warming trend shown when accounting for the cycle is actually about 0.4 degrees per century as shown by the blue line on the figure below.
The IPCC also claims in the same AR4 summary document that “The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.” This is shown by the green line on the figure above. They call this “acceleration” of the warming trend, completely ignoring that a linear trend cannot be calculated arbitrarily in cyclical data.
The IPCC is either stupid, or trying to deceive by obfuscating the statistics (the latter is more likely).
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: As for your BEST data - yes it has been misused as I posted, they had to change the model (that used the data) as it turned out not to be correct - falsified the result. I know, in your world that is ok, since they can't be "100% correct".[QUOTE]
You have some logic problems.
A wrong model doesn't falsify the data. The result of the model is completely independent of the result of the data..
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Again here you are implying I said something - never said that there was no way in hell that physics was not involved - I was simply pointing out that you don't have to be a physicist to make a discovery.[QUOTE]
You don't seem to understand that for ANY discovery to take place, PHSICS HAD TO BE UNDERSTOOD.
Oh you mean like Teflon? Teflon was discovered by mistake - as were several other products. Observation is the key to a discovery, understanding 'why' comes later - you would obviously know this if you understood the term 'experiment'. Scientists try different methods BEFORE finding a solution that works - they then sit down a figure out or try to understand why afterwards.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-22-2013).]
Originally posted by Jonesy: As for Jazz, i dont know what him having Aspergers has to do with anything.. He probably just raged out because he was heckled constantly by, well we all know by whom.. He probably just got tired of it all and flipped out.. Even a person that isnt an Aspey would have done the same..
What Aspergers has to do with it is the apparent difficulty or inability of those who have it to be able to read certain social clues, such as others emotions. If you are either having trouble or are unable to comprehend what others emotions are, then it makes social interaction difficult.
And you don't seem to get or accept that JazzMan was just as provoking as you accuse me of doing. But you seem to be on his side, so your bias seems to be getting in the way. He gave at least as much as he took, and sometimes it was more.
I got to the point that I simply stopped responding to him, but he kept pushing. He didn't know when to stop. I do. When someone gets so unpleasant (like flyinfieros) or trolling (like newf), I just don't bother with all that personal crap any more.
What Aspergers has to do with it is the apparent difficulty or inability of those who have it to be able to read certain social clues, such as others emotions. If you are either having trouble or are unable to comprehend what others emotions are, then it makes social interaction difficult.
And you don't seem to get or accept that JazzMan was just as provoking as you accuse me of doing. But you seem to be on his side, so your bias seems to be getting in the way. He gave at least as much as he took, and sometimes it was more.
I got to the point that I simply stopped responding to him, but he kept pushing. He didn't know when to stop. I do. When someone gets so unpleasant (like flyinfieros) or trolling (like newf), I just don't bother with all that personal crap any more.
Someday please try look at yourself objectively before you accuse others.
Originally posted by newf: Someday please try look at yourself objectively before you accuse others.
When it gets to the point that someone continues to troll or provoke after I have obviously stopped responding to them, then THEY are the troll and/or provocateur. That's what JazzMan did. That is what separates me from him. I know when to let it go. He did not.
One note about r squared correlation - the authors of the now infamous and falsified paper MBH98, on which the "hockey stick" graph is based, used r squared correlation to test their theory about tree rings as a proxy for temperature. They discovered that the fit was very poor. This is at least one example of r squared being used to test a climate paper, and this was done by warmists.
For the first time, a member of the Hockey Team (Ammann and Wahl) has admitted that the verification r2 for the early steps of MBH98 are catastrophic. Results confirm our calculations – as we predicted. They have not explained the justification for issuing a press release that all our claims were "unfounded" and UCAR has not retracted the press release. I’ve left this as a sticky for a little while since it’s rather fun.
Ammann and Wahl is now in press. When I saw him in San Francisco, Ammann was not going to report the verification r2. I urged him to report the verification r2, urging him in as nice a way as possible not to "replicate" Mann to the extent of once again withholding the verification r2 statistic. He didn’t seem so inclined. That’s one of the reasons why I’ve turned the heat up on Ammann (who seems nice enough but who has fallen in with a rough crowd.)
Guess what – buried deep in Ammann and Wahl [2006] are the verification r2 scores for their MBH emulation. Maybe our complaints to UCAR and publicity at the blog made them decide that wisdom was the better part of valor. Aside from risking scientific misconduct. Or maybe the "provisional acceptance" by Climatic Change included the requirement that they disclose these results. Regardless, the results are on the table. (How long did it take?) They completely vindicate our claims in GRL. The verification r2 for the 15th century step reported by A&W is 0.018. Some steps are even worse. Here is their table. I’ll parse through their commentary a little later and post some more news. These are the guys that issued a UCAR press release saying that all our results were "unfounded".
