Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity: Geophys. Res. Lett. (2011), Abstract: Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Nino Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.
So which timeline are we starting with because if we use your logic we could say "Since 2009 there has been an increase in Hurricane activity.
Seriously though the forty year span shows a slight decrease in All Hurricanes while and slight increase in Major ones.
Remember however what was said in 2007 and what they have said this time.
quote
In the 2007 report, the IPCC said that it was more likely than not — a greater than 50% certainty in the panel’s terminology — that human activity was contributing to an observed intensification of hurricane activity in some parts of the world. Now the IPCC — or at least the draft — says it has “low confidence” of that relationship, which means it believes that there is only a 2-out-of-10 chance of being correct. The estimated probability that the 21st century will see more intense hurricane activity has fallen as well.
Originally posted by newf: So let me get this straight because this particular hurricane season has been less active in intensity so far that disproves the science of Climate Change? It's almost as short sighted as the Arctic ice "recovery"of 2013. One year does not a trend make.
Correct - but the same holds true when there is a severe storm and all the AGW fanatics come out of the closet blaming it all on AGW - one storm does not prove it either.
quote
Originally posted by newf:
Great point. However that's what the science is proving that this is an unprecedented change brought on by the influence of man it's not a natural variance.
The scientists and experts have answered basically all of these arguments with data. Are they still learning some things sure but I still trust them over the internet know-it-alls and desperate deniers.
Except that there is NO detailed temperature data beyond 150 years ago, they have no way to say one way or the other that any temperature rise is normal or not. In fact the IPCC report only focuses on the last 30 years - why is that?
We are talking about a climate system that has been around for billions of years, yet there all this hoopla over a very small fraction of that time period (30 years according to the IPCC), granted that is really all they have to work with...
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 10-02-2013).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Correct - but the same holds true when there is a severe storm and all the AGW fanatics come out of the closet blaming it all on AGW - one storm does not prove it either.
I agree that is completely wrong when media or wanna be celebrities do such things. You rarely if ever hear a Scientist or actual expert claim such things.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Except that there is NO detailed temperature data beyond 150 years ago, they have no way to say one way or the other that any temperature rise is normal or not. In fact the IPCC report only focuses on the last 30 years - why is that?
We are talking about a climate system that has been around for billions of years, yet there all this hoopla over a very small fraction of that time period (30 years according to the IPCC), granted that is really all they have to work with...
He's right Newf. The temperature readings from prior centuries are iffy and mostly derived from tree ring and ice layer research.
There is no smoking gun on it, and a deduction does not equal a fact. However, it is better than a guess.
We do know, however that there were viable farms in Greenland in areas which cannot grow crops today.
We also know that the British North America Trading Company factors in the 1800's reported the Northwest Passage as being open, which lead directly to the deaths of the men in the Franklin expedition, due to their ships being caught and crushed in the ice.
Just caught part of a program on Sandy. Since I didn't get the whole thing I can't cite it as proof of anything. The thing that I learned though was that the gulf stream was about 5 degrees warmer than normal and that was one of the contributing factors. It allowed Sandy to keep on growing instead of the usual dissipation of force that occurs as a storm moves up the east coast.
This video report summarizes what we are talking about. About 9 minutes in you get the fact that the earth has been warming at 0.05 degrees C per year for the past decade. In other words, we have no significant global warming.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: In other words, we have no significant global warming.
You've been corrected many times but you insist on repeating this nonsense. Quit lying to people.
In terms of change in energy content, atmospheric/surface temperatures are practically negligible compared to the oceans. Source.
Claiming there's a pause in 'global warming' is flat out inaccurate because you're ignoring most of the globe. There's a pause in the surface temperature record which is less than 10% of the record. Oceans cover the majority of the planet and there has been zero pause in warming. Warming down to 2000 meters is actually accelerating. The oceans are absorbing EXTRA heat at the rate of 2 Hiroshima bombs per second. Source.
Ocean warming is the elephant in the room. You can't ignore the mountain of data that disagrees with you simply because it's inconvenient.
But feel free to rattle on about polar bears, inundated islands, hurricanes and tell me we're 'back at square one' despite your anti-Al Gore talking points being unsubstantiated or disproven already...
It turns out climate change policy is made harder by people looking for a free ride: "As a group, members would be better off if they collectively invested enough to reach that $165 target — otherwise they wouldn’t get the payout — but individually, members could benefit by keeping their money to themselves while hoping the rest of the group would pay enough to reach the target."
I can't think of anything more ironic: climate 'skeptics' opposing climate action because they want a free ride.
It's not the elephant in the room. It's the latest "Oh look over there!" ploy to take away attention from the alarmist predictions of the recent past. So before you try to change the subject of the thread realize that we are talking about green house gases causing extreme overheating leading to death and destruction (or NOT).
"Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius. "
While flyinfieros prattles on about nonexistent warming, this is how much money is being WASTED on fighting the non-existent problem of global warming, and they say we should be spending three times as much...
WORLD IS SPENDING $1 BILLION PER DAY TO TACKLE GLOBAL WARMING
The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m. Consistent with the Third Assessment Report (TAR), global ocean heat content (0–3,000 m) has increased during the same period, equivalent to absorbing energy at a rate of 0.21 ± 0.04 W m–2 globally averaged over the Earth’s surface. Two-thirds of this energy is absorbed between the surface and a depth of 700 m. Global ocean heat content observations show considerable interannual and inter-decadal variability superimposed on the longer-term trend. Relative to 1961 to 2003, the period 1993 to 2003 has high rates of warming but since 2003 there has been some cooling.
Flying Fieros said, "But feel free to rattle on about polar bears, inundated islands, hurricanes and tell me we're 'back at square one' despite your anti-Al Gore talking points being unsubstantiated or disproven already..."
All those issues were entered into the climate change discussion by those that are proponents of AGW. Now that they have been debunked the AGW proponents have turned to ocean warming to try to prove their position. What will it be 10 years from now when "ocean warming" is debunked?.......Tsumanis?
I can see it now......Carbon emissions are up, Tsumanis are up.......only a fool would deny that carbon emissions cause tsumanis!
It turns out climate change policy is made harder by people looking for a free ride: "As a group, members would be better off if they collectively invested enough to reach that $165 target — otherwise they wouldn’t get the payout — but individually, members could benefit by keeping their money to themselves while hoping the rest of the group would pay enough to reach the target."
I can't think of anything more ironic: climate 'skeptics' opposing climate action because they want a free ride.
Yup, it seems the only thing that will make the "skeptics" see that Climate Change is actually happening is an immediate crisis, without one they continue to ignore the overwhelming data and science from the experts.
Their cyclical argument remains,..... there is no warming....oh wait there is warming but it's normal changes or it's the sun or it's has nothing to do with man...oh no wait this year didn't warm so yeah what I said first .... see I told ya.
Continuing to misrepresent and ignore good science just as they did with the tobacco industry, their game plan is predictable at least.
But hey when you're a sheep to "the only honest news around" that's what you get.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-23-2013).]
...but did you also not jump on the band wagon when the media was reporting that last year was among the top 10 warmest? Isn't this the same thing?
But let me ask you this, hasn't the earth been warming since the last ice age?
I don't know if I did, I probably cited those articles that said it was among the 10 warmest in response to there's no warming or it's cooling claims. I think that the science has shown a trend over a significant period of time to show the warming, I've seen nothing to disprove that on here. I'm sure I have been guilty as anyone else at looking at a short period of weather and assuming it's the indication of something bigger, I have tried to curb that notion more the more I learn, again I'd rather trust the experts and science than local weather reports etc.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: But let me ask you this, hasn't the earth been warming since the last ice age?
It's been answered so many times, you can read this if you like I think it's a pretty good summary.
quote
Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to such forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out past temperature changes, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. Looking at many different periods and timescales including many thousands of years ago we've learned that when the Earth gains heat, glaciers and sea ice melt resulting in a positive feedbacks that amplify the warming. There are other positive feedbacks as well and this is why the planet has experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past.
In summary the past reveals our climate is highly sensitive to small changes in heat.
What does that mean for today? Over the past 150 years greenhouse gas levels have increased 40 percent mainly from burning of fossil fuels. This additional "forcing" is warming the planet more than it has in thousands of years. From Earth's history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify this additional warming.
The Earth's climate has changed in the past and ice cores and other measures tell us why. Based on this knowledge, and other types of evidence we know the human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the climate.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-23-2013).]
Originally posted by Hudini: It's the latest "Oh look over there!" ploy to take away attention from the alarmist predictions of the recent past.
Like what?
quote
Originally posted by Hudini: So before you try to change the subject of the thread realize that we are talking about green house gases causing extreme overheating leading to death and destruction (or NOT).
You fail to understand the severity in the rate of change because your human perception of time in relation to the Earth is skewed.
"The planet is undergoing one of the largest changes in climate since the dinosaurs went extinct. But what might be even more troubling for humans, plants and animals is the speed of the change. Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change over the next century will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years. Without intervention, this extreme pace could lead to a 5- to 6-degree Celsius spike in annual temperatures by the end of the century." Source.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: While flyinfieros prattles on about nonexistent warming
You have yet to produce anything that supports your position and stands up to a tiny bit of scrutiny. You have little room to talk about "nonexistent."
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: this is how much money is being WASTED
I post an article discussing a peer reviewed study from Nature that states free loaders are standing the way of climate change action because they're selfish. You follow up with a post about money. Nice.
The cost to fight climate change is completely irrelevant to this thread.
What's being discussed is whether or not climate change is happening due to human activities. Choosing to disagree with the mountain of clear evidence that states humans are responsible because you don't want to pay for it only shows your true colors.
Did you just find something you could blow out of proportion just to make a post to contradict me? Had you researched the context of what you quoted you probably wouldn't have posted.
The cooling you're boasting about is in the graph I quoted here.
See the slight leveling off for only a couple of years around 2003? Yeah, that's your 'cooling.' It's a tiny fraction of the overall extra heat absorbed by the oceans. There's still a clear and obvious long term warming trend.
To quote NASA (dated 2006): "The average temperature of the water near the top of the Earth's oceans has significantly cooled since 2003. New research suggests global warming trends are not always steady in their effects on ocean temperatures.
Although the average temperature of the upper oceans has significantly cooled since 2003, the decline is a fraction of the total ocean warming over the previous 48 years.
Lyman said the recent cooling is not unprecedented. "While global ocean temperatures have generally increased over the past 50 years, there have also been substantial decadal decreases," he said. "Other studies have shown that a similar rapid cooling took place from 1980 to 1983. But overall, the long-term trend is warming."" Source.
Your behavior here is habitual among so called 'skeptics.' Scientists show clear evidence of a long term warming trend and the 'skeptical' response is to show every low point in the warming trend while ignoring the overall warming.
quote
Originally posted by Terrible Tom: All those issues were entered into the climate change discussion by those that are proponents of AGW. Now that they have been debunked the AGW proponents have turned to ocean warming to try to prove their position. What will it be 10 years from now when "ocean warming" is debunked?.......Tsumanis?
See the slight leveling off for only a couple of years around 2003? Yeah, that's your 'cooling.' It's a tiny fraction of the overall extra heat absorbed by the oceans. There's still a clear and obvious long term warming trend.
Wow, someone has their panties in a knot. Ok, so you say slight decrease in warming, but is the whole point of this thread due to CO2? CO2 output has not decreased (as you have pointed out many times), yet ocean warming has slowed since 2003. So the question begs, where is this heat going? You said that is was into the oceans in reply to another post.
In summary: CO2 inceasing at a (more or less) steady rate, air temp increase not proportional to to the ocean being the heat sink, IPCC indicated that the ocean also not warming at this (CO2) rate. Does this not indicated that the temperature is not directly tied to the CO2 levels.
As for your other comment: I thought we were suppose to refrain from posting political blogs, or unless of course this doesn't apply when it is not in your favor?
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 10-23-2013).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Wow, someone has their panties in a knot.
They're still cuter than yours.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Ok, so you say slight decrease in warming, but is the whole point of this thread due to CO2? CO2 output has not decreased (as you have pointed out many times), yet ocean warming has slowed since 2003.
The effect of CO2 isn't immediate, it can take decades, and natural variation plays a role. Nature doesn't work in straight lines, that would make this debate easy.
CO2 is squirrelly. CO2 is basically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by absorbing into the oceans and biological uptake like plants. CO2 dissolving into the ocean is making the oceans acidic and is threatening life there. The ocean doesn't absorb it all and even emits CO2 back into the atmosphere. The surface waters of the ocean eventually can't absorb CO2 as quickly. CO2 must be transferred to deeper water. This is regulated by ocean circulation and turn over, thermohaline circulation. It's generally accepted that a start to finish run of the thermohaline cycle takes about 1500 years.
We can measure the warming from CO2 in the atmo specifically because CO2 leaves its fingerprint in the spectrum. CO2 is radiating more energy than any other trace greenhouse gas emitted by humans: Source.
Meanwhile, CO2 is in the atmosphere absorbing energy from the sun and radiating it away very slowly warming the atmosphere. Various methods of natural uptake make it hard to pin down the exact lifetime of a CO2 molecule. The longer it remains in the atmosphere the more warming potential it has. The effects of CO2 are here to stay for awhile: "A recent study by Caldeira and Damon Matthews of Concordia University in Montreal found that regardless of how much fossil fuel we burn, once we stop, within a few decades the planet will settle at a new, higher temperature5. As Caldeira explains, "It just increases for a few decades and then stays there" for at least 500 years — the length of time they ran their model. "That was not at all the result I was expecting," he says." Source. <~ very good btw
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: So the question begs, where is this heat going? You said that is was into the oceans in reply to another post.
Read the graph I've posted twice on this page already. The 0-2000m heat content is growing.
Here's another study that concluded the same, look at 700-2000m these past 20 years: Source.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: As for your other comment: I thought we were suppose to refrain from posting political blogs, or unless of course this doesn't apply when it is not in your favor?
The problem with blogs I've criticized as being political and not scientific is those blogs are generally lying. Several times have I actually read studies cited by members here who claimed the study supported their position but only cited the blog. When I actually read the study I found out the blog they were quoting completely ripped the author's work out of context for political purposes and flat out lied. Sometimes it's not even authentic scientific work taken out of context. Sometimes its just total hogwash that's completely unsupported by any evidence but it's peddled on their blog as fact.
For example, check out this post from fierobear that shows a graph depicting the sunspot length cycle is responsible for the temperature anomaly, much more than CO2: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...057033-50.html#p1963
Yet there's zero scientific backing for that. The sunspot cycle goes from high to low. There's no possible way the graph makes any sense except that it "looks the same."
I have criticized this website for being politically biased and erroneous several times. The graph posted by fierobear is depicted as fact on their website despite ZERO scientific backing. Their political bias also shows with a link to extreme and sexually graphic photos of "Mohammed portraits" on the FRONT PAGE of their website. Yeah that's a real quality source there.
I stand by the source I quoted. The content heavily based on peer reviewed and published studies and the author accurately represented the views of the studies. I make a honest attempt to quote sources who don't necessarily have to remain neutral but remain open minded. There's a major difference between the two. Hopefully you'll be able to make that distinction in the future on your own. Or at least be able to provide examples as to why I shouldn't use a source instead of arguing semantics.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 10-23-2013).]
Flyinfieros obviously has more time on his hands than common sense.
The earth's temperature is not the land temperature in isolation, and it is not increasing at near the levels predicted.
If you watch the video I posted you will see Al Gore saying that he anticipated the polar ice cap being gone entirely in the summer and guess what? It didn't disappear and is growing.
Flyinfieros posts the garbage science produced by the GW extremists and the facts show they are false.
The polar ice is doing fine, the polar bears are doing fine, there is a record low occurence of hurricanes and tornados this year, and the islands have increased their land size. They have not disappeared under the waves as the extremists predicted.
That's because he isn't a scientist, and doesn't submit reports that are subjected to scientific analysis and peer review.
As far as the condition of the Arctic ice cap, there is concern that the volume of the sea ice is rapidly diminishing, even as we "speak". This is not apparent from photographic data, which can only reveal the surface area of the polar ice. The Cryosat-2 satellite, launched in 2010, uses radar to estimate the thickness of the ice, beneath the surface layer.
This media report (below) makes reference to the ice volume of 30 years ago. I don't understand how they can make that comparison, since this Cryosat-2 radar data only started coming in 2010. So I don't know what to make of that statement. But just looking at the data on surface area, without considering the thickness, is clearly not convincing to these ESA scientists that the Arctic ice cap is recovering in any significant way from 2007 and 2011. The areas covered by ice at its annual miminal (end of summer) condition in 2007 and 2011 were the two lowest data points for this metric in the complete satellite record, which started about 1980.
Arctic sea ice continues to thin, ESA scientsts say
CBS News September 11, 2013
Scientists at the European Space Agency Wednesday presented evidence that levels of arctic sea ice reached an all-time low this spring, according to data collected by the ESA's Cryosat satellite.
The measurements are on trend with what Cryosat has observed throughout the first three years of its mission. Launched in 2010, the satellite uses radar to measure the difference between the top height of the ice and the top height of water in cracks between the ice sheets. Scientists use this radar data to calculate the thickness and volume of the ice.
"Cryosat continues to provide clear evidence of diminishing Arctic sea ice," Professor Andrew Shephard said in an address at the Living Planet Symposium in Edinburgh, Scotland.
"From the satellite's measurement we can see that some parts of the ice pack have thinned more rapidly than others, but there has been a decrease in the volume of winter and summer ice over the past three years."
At the end of last winter, there was less than 15,000 cubic kilometers of sea ice, he explained. That measurement is lower than ever previously measured, and less than half of the volume of thirty years ago. It indicates that ice is not expanding during the winter months.
"Now that we have three years of data, we can see that some parts of the ice pack have thinned more rapidly than others. At the end of winter, the ice was thinner than usual. Although this summer's extent will not get near its all-time satellite-era minimum set last year, the very thin winter floes going into the melt season could mean that the summer volume still gets very close to its record low," Shepard told the BBC.
The researchers will have to wait until October, when the ice starts to refreeze, to determine if the ice reached a new low this summer.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Flyinfieros obviously has more time on his hands
Time is required when you're not a one trick pony like yourself. I have a strong moral obligation to seek the truth which you seemingly lack completely.
It amazes me you still depend on trying to associate climate science with Al Gore.
What would it look like if I depended on unqualified and unrelated people to support my position like you constantly do? Lets explore.
Rep Joe Barton of Texas claimed that attempting to harness wind energy creates global warming. He said "Wind is a finite resource and harnessing it would slow the winds down which would cause the temperature to go up." Riiight, so it's not greenhouse gases, it's sailboats and kites.
Bryan Fischer says we're being ungrateful for the abundant and inexpensive fossil fuel reserves that God put in the ground because he 'loves to see us find them' “And you think, that’s kind of how we’re treating God when he’s given us these gifts of abundant and inexpensive and effective fuel sources… You know, God has buried those treasures there because he loves to see us find them.”
Or what about Senator James Inhofe who said "I thought it must be true until I found out what it costs" - I don't think he meant to be that honest.
Or Rick Santorum who said God created us above the Earth, but we were suppose to 'use it wisely' and 'steward it wisely' - except when it benefits the Earth more than us. "We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth's benefit." Still scratching my head on that one.
We can't forget ol' Rush Limbaugh! Who claims global warming was invented because people got used to air conditioning: "I have a theory about global warming and why people think it’s real. Go back 30, 40 years when there was much less air conditioning in the country. When you didn’t have air conditioning and you left the house, it may in fact have gotten a little cooler out there, because sometimes houses become hot boxes. Especially if you’re on the second or third floor of a house in the summer time and all you’ve got is open windows and maybe a window fan. Or you have some servant standing there fanning you with a piece of paper. When you walked outside, no big deal, it’s still hot as hell. Now, 30, 40 years later, all this air conditioning, and it’s a huge difference when you go outside. When you go outside now, ‘My golly, is it hot. Oh, global warming.’ It’s all about the baseline you’re using for comparison." I've never seen a dataset based off how hot or cold people THINK it is outside. But what kind of nonsense do you expect from a pill popping drug addict like Limbaugh?
There's plenty of unqualified individuals on both sides saying dumb things. Depending on them is illogical because none of them matter. You however have made these unqualified individuals the heart of your argument while I've stuck to legitimate sources of scientific information.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: than common sense.
You have no room to talk about common sense.
You once claimed that CO2 is created by plant growth - and was NOT the cause of plant growth. Your post.
You once claimed a 22 year sun spot cycle affected temperatures for only 10 years because the shape of the graph "looked the same." Your post.
Good ol' Bob "Please buy my books!" Tisdale with his signature smoke and mirrors posting habits.
Are oceans warming globally? Yes, he even admits this. What's the point of this entire post? To exaggerate misleading information. Seriously, if you read it and take it all into account, are oceans still warming globally? Yes.
earthling12 says: July 2, 2011 at 4:30 am Bob, maybe I misworded my post, so let me put it another way. Are you qualified in any fields of science related to climatology, e.g., Earth sciences, geoscience, climate modeling, forecasting, atmospheric physics, glaciology, paleo-climatology, oceanography or other?
Regards
quote
Bob Tisdale: I am a blogger. My background is irrelevant…
LOL! Tisdale has a climate blog, guests posts on WUWT, writes and sells books on climate science, and asks for donations to continue his "research" but his background is IRRELEVANT?! Hah.
Despite his secrecy, I was able to locate Bob Tisdale's qualifications:
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 10-24-2013).]
FlyinFieros repeats his flawed argument... LOL! Tisdale has a climate blog, guests posts on WUWT, writes and sells books on climate science, and asks for donations to continue his "research" but his background is IRRELEVANT?! Hah.
Despite his secrecy, I was able to locate Bob Tisdale's qualifications:
He frequently quotes and links to the deceptively named "skeptical science" BLOG site which has NO climate scientists. His argument is INVALID.
Futhermore, the article I presented has references to papers and real data.
Originally posted by fierobear: FlyinFieros repeats his flawed argument... He frequently quotes and links to the deceptively named "skeptical science" BLOG site which has NO climate scientists. His argument is INVALID.
Hardly invalid. The Skeptical Science team is full of people with advanced science degrees and education, like a PhD. Some of them have multiple degrees, like dana1981.
The Skeptical Science team has even published not just one, but two peer reviewed studies.
Skeptical Science certainly doesn't brush off questions about their qualifications as "irrelevant" like your source Bob Tisdale did. Skeptical Science posts bios of their team and their qualifications under the About section. Bob Tisdale has nothing to lose by spreading misinformation and having zero scientific integrity in his writing. In fact, Bob has everything to gain. Bob Tisdale is unemployed and looking to make a quick buck in prolonging the problem. He's written 3 books on climate science yet wont tell anyone his qualifications AKA has no qualifications.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Futhermore, the article I presented has references to papers and real data.
Yet the blog post doesn't accurately represent the overall picture at all. The purpose of the blog was to spread misinformation and exaggerate uncertainties.
So called "skeptics" have gotten really good at manipulating authentic data to spread misinformation. Anthony Watts is always a good example of malicious intent, let's use him. Anthony Watts did some 'research' on surface temperature stations using actual USHCN data. Watts concluded that poor siting doubled the warming in the USA, meaning half the warming in the USHCN record didn't exist. The BEST study came along and agreed to independently analyze the data. Watts gave input on the method used, gave the method praise and even agreed to accept the results - even if it proved his premise wrong.
Anthony wrote a check with his mouth that his butt couldn't cash! The BEST results totally disproved his entire premise. Poor siting made very little difference. Watts of course backpedaled because he'd have to get a real day job.
BEST wasn't the only study to conclude this. Thankfully, NOAA did their own study and concluded the same as the BEST study. Poor siting vs Good siting makes relatively zero difference in the overall record. Poor siting even causes a COOLING bias! The complete opposite of Watt's erroneous conclusions. Have a look: Source.
BUT WAIT THERES MORE. Watts actually published his study! The Watts study was published by a classy POLITICAL lobbyist organization that's paid to deny global warming, the Heartland Institute.
There's a good story on how someone politically biased can use authentic data but through malicious intent they can spread a very misleading message. This is why it's important to stick to trustworthy and qualified sources. Anthony Watts is a college drop out by the way.
They aren't highschool teachers, politicians, or bureaucrats claiming to represent the scientific community. They are mostly, with a couple of exceptions, PHD scientists. You can get the actual science from the horse's mouth right here
August 30, 2013: "Science in the Public Square: Global Climate Alarmism and Historical Precedents", by Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D., professor of atmospheric sciences, emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons of The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Tucson, AZ, U.S.A. "Although there are many reasons why some scientists might want to bring their field into the public square, the cases described here appear, instead, to be cases in which those with political agendas found it useful to employ science. This immediately involves a distortion of science at a very basic level: namely, science becomes a source of authority rather than a mode of inquiry. The real utility of science stems from the latter; the political utility stems from the former."
They aren't highschool teachers, politicians, or bureaucrats claiming to represent the scientific community. They are mostly, with a couple of exceptions, PHD scientists. You can get the actual science from the horse's mouth right here
Arn
quote
Tom Harris is a Canadian mechanical engineer, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), former executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and a global warming skeptic. From May to September 2006, he was Ottawa operations director of the High Park Group, a public relations and lobbying firm active in the debate over global warming, whose clients include the Canadian Electricity Association, the Canadian Gas Association as well as those focused on the promotion of alternative energy. The Natural Resources Stewardship Project has been accused [by whom?] of being an astroturfing organization set up by High Park Group to promote the interests of its clients.
August 30, 2013: "Science in the Public Square: Global Climate Alarmism and Historical Precedents", by Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D., professor of atmospheric sciences, emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons of The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Tucson, AZ, U.S.A. "Although there are many reasons why some scientists might want to bring their field into the public square, the cases described here appear, instead, to be cases in which those with political agendas found it useful to employ science. This immediately involves a distortion of science at a very basic level: namely, science becomes a source of authority rather than a mode of inquiry. The real utility of science stems from the latter; the political utility stems from the former."
Hmmmm look into him, he's a well known denier and contrarian. though I will admit he's supposedly a very intelligent man.
Here's what a couple of his colleagues have said about him and his stance.
quote
Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science. I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all." Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem.’ It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization."
Originally posted by Arns85GT: more information on the junk science from Tom Harris
Thanks for the heads up that the junk science would actually be coming FROM Tom Harris and his organization.
Another irrelevant post about Al Gore. Keep it up and I'll have to update my data on Al Gore mentions. You may actually catch fierobear since you're the only one who keeps beating the dead Al Gore horse.
The entire clip Harris and the interviewer talk about Al Gore. They never reference a single scientist. Never reference a single scientific study. They talk about a former politician the entire time. Why? Well because this is politics at work, not science. It's no surprise that Harris comes from a political background not a scientific one. This reflects upon the purpose of his organization poorly in terms of scientific integrity.
Harris gloriously contradicts himself. After claiming there's no such thing as global warming and therefore nothing to worry about Harris makes an interesting comparison. Harris says imagine being out on the ocean and you see a hurricane coming. Harris compares switching to alternative energy to hopping into the life boats during the hurricane. The hurricane is a metaphor for global warming. He says we need strong and dependable fuels to be 'ready' for what nature brings our way. Well which is it Tom? Why are you afraid of hopping into a life boat if there's no hurricane coming? How can he claim there's no global warming coming but we need to burn more coal to be ready for global warming?
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: We are talking about politically and financially driven junk science promoted by unscrupulous people who want to line their pockets from the gullible
Arn, you're standing in front of a mirror.
How about you address all the various problems with your posts instead of ignoring them? You'd think someone in their 60's would be a little more mature than that.
The actual scientists keep lining up to say that CO2 does not create climate change or global warming.
Those scientists are all qualified in the disciplines required, not unrelated fields
They include
Dr. Tim Ball, a climatology professor Dr. Madhav Khandekar, an Environment Research Scientist Dr. Tad Murty, a Senior Research Scientist with Fisheries and Oceans Canada Dr. Tim Patterson, a paleoclimatology professor Dr. L. Graham Smith, a geography professor
and
Tom Harris, M.Eng who has taught Climate Science at Carleton University
So obviously non of these guys are as well quaified to talk about Climate as the anonymous Flyinfieros. Go fig
if you look at today's Arctic Ice data, you will see the ice field has now exceeded the median borders ice data
Despite claims of polar bear imminent extinction their numbers have increased by up to 5700 in the past 12 years polarbearscience
Despite claims of increased Hurricane activity there have only been 13 tropical storms including hurricanes in 2013 florida hurricane center
In other words, all the distortions, junk science, fatuous arguements and extremist rhetoric do not change the facts.
The claimed outcomes of CO2 emissions just have not happened.
On top of it all, the earth's temperature average is not significantly increased in the past 15 years.
In short, lies, distortions, and outright frauds are being promoted and defended by people like Flyinfieros.
Of course after having their slack jawed theories steamrolled with reality the phony skeptics move on to avoid addressing the glaring inaccuracies and misleading posts of their past.
Let's revisit their recent past...
fierobear has no comment for Tisdale's total lack of qualifications but he has no problem citing him as evidence. He has no comment on the lack of scientific integrity at the WUWT blog he cites constantly. He has no comment on the fact the politically biased WUWT blog is financially tied to a radical lobbyist organization that's paid to deny global warming, Heartland Institute. He has no comment on the fact Anthony Watts who runs the WUWT blog published his debunked study at the Heartland Institute because it couldn't get published in ANY peer reviewed journal. But he's pretty sure all this is a fraud despite absolutely zero 'evidence against anthropogenic global warming' in 74 pages.
Broken record Arn keeps repeating meaningless talking points that have been completely discredited and disproven many times. Arn has no comment on his claim that CO2 is not the cause of plant growth. He has no comment on how 22 years of a sun spot cycle affected 11 years of temperature data. He has no comment on his claim that "for every glacier shrinking there hundreds expanding" despite 90% of glaciers worldwide in retreat. But Arn is pretty sure this is all a fraud because of Al Gore. Still trying to figure out how Al Gore matters. Wait, no I'm not. Al Gore doesn't matter. Arn needs someone easy to hate because he has no real point to make. Which is clearly evident in the outright senseless things he's said and never even attempted to clarify.
Originally posted by fierobear: This is how out of touch, or simply dishonest the liberals are. While this year has one of the lowest incidences of extreme weather... Obama orders government to prepare for impact of global warming
This is how out of touch or simply dishonest you are.
Weather is not climate. One year of data is meaningless. The US is only like 2% of the globe. Obama has nothing to do with 'evidence against anthropogenic global warming' and is nothing but a straw man argument. Again you bring politics to a scientific fight. I'm so surprised...
Originally posted by fierobear: Peer reviewed and published study...
Global warming 'pause' may last for 20 more years
First, according to the author: "While the results of this study appear to have implications regarding the hiatus in warming, the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming. The stadium wave hypothesis seeks to explain the natural multi-decadal component of climate variability." Source.
Second, the paper states the recent pause in surface warming is probably due to short term natural variability. Something I have been saying for awhile now.
Third, the pause is in surface temperatures which account for less than 10% of the entire record. There has been zero pause in the other 90%- the oceans.
Fourth, a 'hiatus' certainly doesn't mean an end or that it never existed. In fact the complete opposite. It indicates the authors believe the warming is in fact real and will resume.
Finally a peer reviewed paper that isn't horribly taken out of context from fierobear! Sadly the paper doesn't support his position at all. But what do you expect when he gets his scientific information from a news source with a focus on offering the latest scoop on Miley Cyrus and Kim Kardashian.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover
Wrong.
One year of data is meaningless. Advocating recovery after the worst year on record with only one year of data is brainless!
Surface area is not volume. The Arctic has a long ways to go before recovery.
