On the topic of failed predictions: John McLean - 'climate change skeptic': "it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier"
That awkward moment for skeptics when IPCC projections are doing better than they are:
"Not only has the IPCC done remarkably well in projecting future global surface temperature changes thus far, but it has also performed far better than the few climate contrarians who have put their money where their mouth is with their own predictions." Source.
"In recent years, climate scientists have noticed that the jet stream has taken on a more wavy shape instead of the more typical oval around the North Pole, leading to outbreaks of colder weather down in the mid-latitudes and milder temperatures in the Arctic, a so-called “warm Arctic-cold continents” pattern. Whether this is normal randomness or related to the significant climate changes occurring in the Arctic is not entirely clear, especially when considering individual events. But less sea ice and snow cover in the Arctic and relatively warmer Arctic air temperatures at the end of autumn suggest a more wavy jet stream pattern and more variability between the straight and wavy pattern."
Meanwhile, EVERY computer model by your warmist scientists has been WRONG.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
On the topic of failed predictions: John McLean - 'climate change skeptic': "it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier"
Here's a bit of reality from Exxon Mobil: "Effective strategies must include putting policies in place that start the world on a path to reduce emissions while recognizing that addressing GHG emissions is one among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health." Source: Exxon Mobil
"However, we believe a well-designed, revenue-neutral carbon tax mechanism provides a more cost-effective alternative to a cap-and-trade regime for reducing GHG emissions." Source: Exxon Mobil
I posted the NASA generated US Temperature data, and showed clearly that the NASA scientists had fiddled with the historic data, to make a political point.
Seeing as how their hard data is difficult to access in plain form, I decided to transcribe the graphic data using a simple ruler and measure to get the numbers.
Albeit not as accurate as an original data sheet, it is pretty close.
You will recall that NASA was concerned about the 16 year "pause" in Global Warming, and allot of discussion has ensued, however, was it really a pause?
Here are the historical data graphs published by NASA again.
First the original graph from around 1999
Next the more current data produced
Allot was made of the issue of 1934 vs 1998 but that is not the real story.
Upon examining the data in the graphs a completely different scenario presents itself.
From 1889 to 1949 the accumulated averages are changed between the two graphs by only about -.32 degrees
However the 1950 to 1998 data shows accumulated averages are changed less, but upward, +.19.
There is a pattern of Global Cooling from 1880 to 1919 and Global Warming from 1920 to 1959 followed by another Global Cooling from 1960 to 1979.
You then see a significant change between the two sets of data between 1990 and 1998. Significantly increase to reflect Global Warming effect.
This is a far cry from the much vaunted notion that we have Global Warming during the industrial 20th Century and particularly after World War II.
There is nothing in the data to infer influence by CO2, or any other agent,
There is evidence of data tampering but no evidence of catastrophic climate change since the prognosticators started in 1998. Moreover, there is now evidence that we have been in a neutral temperature change for the past 16 years.
The whole Global Warming scam is nothing but political hijinks and corporate scamming
By the way the "wobbly vortex" scenario is very likely a strong factor causing the last ice age. I guess we should be happy with Global Warming.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 01-11-2014).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: By the way the "wobbly vortex" scenario is very likely a strong factor causing the last ice age. I guess we should be happy with Global Warming.
So, you are open to the possibility that there is a causal connection with CO2 as the driver and global warming as the result?
Another question arises: If an imminent ice age has already been shut down because of man made CO2 emissions, what happens if we put even more CO2 into the air? Maybe we are at or near an optimum amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, already.
(?)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-11-2014).]
I don't see any relationship between the posted increase in CO2 and the temperature data at all.
If the climate is a bit warmer though, it beats the heck out of colder IMHO
The real point is that the climate cycles both warmer and cooler in cycles. Over all, in our benefit, the trend since the last ice age is in our favour.
But is there evidence of chronic Global Warming in the 20th and 21st Centuries? Not that the data supports
MMGW theory has a mechanism for a causal effect of elevated levels of CO2 resulting in elevated levels of heat retention by the planet. That would be absorption of IR energy radiated upwards from the surfaces of continents and oceans by the carbon-to-oxygen bonds of a CO2 molecule, which is significantly greater than the IR absorption coefficients of the two major constituents of the lower atmosphere (N2 and O2). Factoring in the predicted residency time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere. It's called "radiative forcing".
Waddy'a got for a pirate? The black cloth used for his eyepatch absorbs more visible light energy than an uncovered eyeball and reradiates it in the IR spectrum?
Easy on that popcorn, dude..
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-11-2014).]
So, you are open to the possibility that there is a causal connection with CO2 as the driver and global warming as the result?
<snip>
The title of this thread is "The evidence against anthropogenic global warming" which means global warming caused by human activity. There is no direct evidence that humans are causing global warming versus natural variations with the earth. There may very well be a causal connection with CO2. This is not the point! Don't you understand? No one has proven the CO2 connection and no one has proven humans are the cause. You are making the same mistake Al Gore made with his graph. Did the temps rise because of rising CO2 levels or did the CO2 rise because the of the rising temps?
Trying to reduce CO2 emissions through taxes is futile and simply makes people poor. China and India are raising coal production to record levels. And remember Germany swearing off nuclear power due to the Fukushima disaster? Well they are now burning near record amounts of brown coal to meet energy demands.
You can argue all you want. I will not agree to raise my taxes because of the IPCC and half-a$$ed predictions.
Originally posted by Hudini: The title of this thread is "The evidence against anthropogenic global warming" which means global warming caused by human activity. There is no direct evidence that humans are causing global warming versus natural variations with the earth. There may very well be a causal connection with CO2. This is not the point! Don't you understand? No one has proven the CO2 connection and no one has proven humans are the cause. You are making the same mistake Al Gore made with his graph. Did the temps rise because of rising CO2 levels or did the CO2 rise because the of the rising temps?
I think it is just about inescapable that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are driving temperatures higher. It is also possible--but more speculative--that there is a positive feedback loop in which rising temperatures weaken the effect of natural carbon reservoirs, which further contributes to elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That would change your "or" to "and".
Trying to reduce CO2 emissions through taxes is futile and simply makes people poor. China and India are raising coal production to record levels. And remember Germany swearing off nuclear power due to the Fukushima disaster? Well they are now burning near record amounts of brown coal to meet energy demands.
You can argue all you want. I will not agree to raise my taxes because of the IPCC and half-a$$ed predictions.
Your grasp of the policy implications, about China, India and Germany, and the prospects for increasing reliance on energy from coal, is more informed than your science.
"In recent years, climate scientists have noticed that the jet stream has taken on a more wavy shape instead of the more typical oval around the North Pole, leading to outbreaks of colder weather down in the mid-latitudes and milder temperatures in the Arctic, a so-called “warm Arctic-cold continents” pattern. Whether this is normal randomness or related to the significant climate changes occurring in the Arctic is not entirely clear, especially when considering individual events. But less sea ice and snow cover in the Arctic and relatively warmer Arctic air temperatures at the end of autumn suggest a more wavy jet stream pattern and more variability between the straight and wavy pattern."
This phenomenon has the net effect of increasing the winter drive in northern hemispheres. Such activity might well have triggered the last ice age, but we were not around to see it. This winter is a nasty one by anyone's measure. And the Antarctic is not losing as much ice in its summer season as before. I frankly don't know what the future holds, but if this trend continues, Houston, we have a problem.
The Evidence Proves Global Warming is a Hoax, But That Doesn't Stop the Left
August 28, 2013
Listen to it Button
Windows Icon Listen to it Button
Windows Icon
Windows Media
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: You know, the global warming crowd is back. What was it, the UN, the IPP, UPP, we PP, whatever the group is. The climate science group says there's 95% certainty now that the undeniable global warming is undeniably caused by human beings. That was last week. It is a hoax. All of it. I don't know how else to say it. All of that is just wrong, and these people know it's wrong.
The factual data contradicts virtually every claim they make -- and yet, I have to tell you: As I mentioned before, I read high-tech blogs and the high-tech bloggers. Some of them think they're scientists, and there's a couple of these blogs, whenever there's global warming news, they report it as though it's gospel. These young kids... Well, "young kids." They're 24 to 30 years old, and they buy into it totally. They totally buy into it! They can't wait to be able to afford a Tesla, an electric car.
They can't wait to have their own windmill in the backyard. They believe that oil and man are causing global warming. They don't even question it, and they're not even aware. Of course, these people think they're some of the smartest people in the world. They're not even aware that the whole thing's been debunked. Real Science, Steven Goddard. "This summer, the US has experienced the fewest number of 100 degree readings in a century. "The five hottest summers (1936, 1934, 1954, 1980 and 1930) all occurred with CO2 below 350 PPM." Four of these summers were before the number one cause of global warming: SUVs and fossil fuel-burning vehicles. Now, Algore made a big deal a couple weeks ago about the fact that CO2 levels have now gone past 400 parts per million this year, indicating that heat waves and carbon dioxide have nothing to do with each other, and I'm telling you that these scientists who claim otherwise are just lying or they are dangerously incompetent.
There is no warming, and there hasn't been for 15 years. They chalk that up to, "Well, there's volcanoes, and other mitigating factors. It's just a temporary interruption." But the only thing that you really need to know is, these people are out warning us of global warming, "It's a very bad thing! I mean, it's grown destroy this! It's gonna forever change the earth. It might swallow up entire coastlines and islands!" It's a very bad thing, to these people. So any news that it isn't happening auditing greeted with happiness, right?
But it isn't.
Any news that global warming isn't happening causes a panic and causes a crisis.
That's because -- I say again as a broken record -- global warming is a political issue. It is as much a political issue to the left as abortion is. It's as big a political issue as health care is. It is nothing more than another spoke in the wheel that advances the Democrat or leftist agenda. It's not science. It has nothing to do with science. It's simply called "science" because science is still an area where most people do not think it's been corrupted.
They do not think it's been politicized, and I'm here to tell you: Virtually every walk of life that the Democrats or the leftists talk about is political and has been corrupted politically and is used to advance the agenda. Seriously. If rising sea levels are going to forever alter or swallow up parts of New York City, wouldn't it be good that that isn't happening? It would. And they're not happy. And you know what else?
They have been suggesting various ways to stop this warming. Why not take credit for it? If it's been 15 years and no warming has taken place, why don't they say it's because of them and their efforts, that they have succeeded in having governments implement all around the world? "It's working, and we just need to do more of this." They don't even do that. All they do is get their backs up and start lying even more. To me, that's the single biggest piece of evidence to refute them that there is.
Some warming would actually be good in some parts of the world. It would actually be helpful to a lot of people, both in comfort and the production of food. "No, it's all bad. It's calamitous, in fact!" So why not be happy? And why not take the credit? Well, the answer is the political agenda depends on people believing they are responsible for it. The political agenda depends on the left being able to convince you that you are causing it, thereby giving them control over your life to supposedly stop this disaster from happening.
Which is all this is about. It is a way to get you to agreeably give your liberty. And that's what's being interrupted. The fact is that they need warming for the rest of their claims to be believed, and when it isn't warming, they've got a problem. That's how they come up with these really outrageous lies. But it is a fascinating thing to me, I must tell you. It's a fascinating thing to me to watch and to read and to see how otherwise intelligent people have just bought this without questioning it.
Hook, line, and sinker. It's a learning exercise for me. It once again reminds me what we are up against, and it's frustrating at the same time. Because if otherwise smart people can be so easily sucked in to believe something like this, what else can they be made to believe? And we already know. "Republicans and conservatives are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes! No question about it. In fact, the Republicans run Congress!
"That alone is justification for ignoring them when it comes to going to war, when it comes to using maybe even a one-day nuclear strike on Syria. Ah, we don't have to go through Congress; the Republicans run it. Everybody hates them! We don't have to pay attention to it. They don't even support us. So why should we go through them?" Meaning: "We're not about opposition. Any opposition to us is illegitimate. We're not gonna even acknowledge opposition." So says the president. So says the Democrat Party.
But ask yourself: We are now August 28th, and this story is absolutely true.
How many overwhelmingly, abnormally hot days have captivated the media this summer in their reporting? I don't remember, frankly, any. I don't remember a couple days in a row of the media talking about unusually warm days here or there, "which means obviously that global warming is happening," because there haven't been any of these outrageously hot, 100-degree-plus days. The evidence keeps mounting that the pro-global warming people are nothing but a bunch of political hacks.
No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now we reveal the official data that's making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well... what do YOU think?
The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.
The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added £100 a year to household energy bills.
global warming graph global warming graph
Steadily climbing orange and red bands on the graph show the computer predictions of world temperatures used by the official United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The estimates – given with 75 per cent and 95 per cent certainty – suggest only a five per cent chance of the real temperature falling outside both bands.
More... Love eating prawns? You'll go right off them after we tell you what THEY are fed on How Prince Charles the Green champion is concreting over the countryside to pay for his lavish lifestyle
But when the latest official global temperature figures from the Met Office are placed over the predictions, they show how wrong the estimates have been, to the point of falling out of the ‘95 per cent’ band completely.
The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions.
The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. The forecasts have also forced jobs abroad as manufacturers relocate to places with no emissions targets.
A version of the graph appears in a leaked draft of the IPCC’s landmark Fifth Assessment Report due out later this year. It comes as leading climate scientists begin to admit that their worst fears about global warming will not be realised.
Academics are revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.
But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower. Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.
The graph confirms there has been no statistically significant increase in the world’s average temperature since January 1997 – as this newspaper first disclosed last year.
At the end of last year the Met Office revised its ten-year forecast predicting a succession of years breaking records for warmth. It now says the pause in warming will last until at least 2017. A glance at the graph will confirm that the world will be cooler than even the coolest scenario predicted.
experts experts
Its source is impeccable. The line showing world temperatures comes from the Met Office ‘HadCRUT4’ database, which contains readings from more than 30,000 measuring posts. This was added to the 75 and 95 per cent certainty bands to produce the graph by a group that amalgamates the work of 20 climate model centres working for the IPCC.
Predictions of global warming, based on scientists’ forecasts of how fast increasing CO2 levels would cause temperatures to rise, directly led to Britain’s Climate Change Act. This commits the UK to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. 1977 - THE YEAR WE WERE TOLD TO FEAR TERROR OF...GLOBAL COOLING In the Seventies, scientists and policymakers were just as concerned about a looming ‘ice age’ as they have been lately about global warming – as the Time magazine cover pictured here illustrates.
Temperatures had been falling since the beginning of the Forties. Professors warned that the trend would continue and food crises were going to get worse because of shorter growing seasons.
Newsweek magazine reported that evidence of cooling was so strong ‘meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it’. But, it lamented, ‘scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections’. It said the planet was already ‘a sixth of the way towards the next ice age’.
While recently every kind of extreme weather event has been blamed on warming, in the Seventies the culprit was cooling. One article predicted ‘the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded’, along with ‘droughts, floods, extended dry spells and long freezes’. . The current Energy Bill is set to increase subsidies for wind turbines to £7.6 billion a year – leading to a combined cost of £110 billion. Motorists will soon see a further 3p per litre rise in the cost of petrol because this now has to contain ‘biofuel’ ethanol.
Many scientists say the pause, and new research into factors such as smoke particles and ocean cycles, has made them rethink what is termed ‘climate sensitivity’ – how much the world will warm for a given level of CO2.
Yesterday Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said: ‘The fact that global surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 15 years, combined with good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make the high estimates unlikely.’
And Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said: ‘The models are running too hot. The flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two.’
Climate scientist Dr James Annan, a prominent ‘warmist’, recently said higher estimates for climate sensitivity now look ‘increasingly untenable’.
Avowed climate sceptics are more unequivocal. Dr David Whitehouse, author of a new report on the pause published on Friday by Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: ‘This changes everything. It means we have much longer to work things out. Global warming should no longer be the main determinant of anyone’s economic or energy policy.’
I said the end wasn't nigh... and it cost me my BBC career says TV's first environmentalist, David Bellamy
Former BBC Botanist David Bellamy said that he was regarded as heretical for not toeing the line on global warming Challenged the orthodoxy: Former BBC Botanist David Bellamy said that he was regarded as heretical for not toeing the line on global warming
This graph shows the end of the world isn’t nigh. But for anyone – like myself – who has been vilified for holding such an unfashionable view, possibly the most important thing about it is its source: the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Since its creation in 1988, the IPCC has been sounding the alarm about man-made global warming. Yet here, in a draft of its latest report, is a diagram overlaying the observed temperature of the earth on its predictions.
The graph shows a world stubbornly refusing to warm. Indeed, it shows the world is soon set to be cooler.
The awkward fact is that the earth has warmed just 0.5 degrees over the past 50 years. And Met Office records show that for the past 16 years temperatures have plateaued and, if anything, are going down.
As the graph shows, the longer this goes on, the more the actual, real-world temperature record will diverge from the IPCC’s doom-laden prediction.
Yet this prediction is used to justify the ugly wind farms spoiling our countryside and billions in unnecessary ‘green’ taxes that make our industry less competitive and add up to £100 a year to household energy bills.
Man-made global warming has become scientific orthodoxy, with no room for dissent. Tragically, the traditional caution of my brethren has gone out of the window along with the concept of sceptical peer reviewing to test new theories.
Opponents of man-made global warming are regarded as dangerous heretics, as I learnt to my cost. Soon after the IPCC was created, I was invited to what is now the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter to hear a presentation on global warming.
As the face of natural history on the BBC and a science academic, they wanted to enrol me in their cause. But when I read the so-called evidence, I realised it was flawed and refused to ‘sign up’.
I rapidly found myself cast out from the BBC and the wider scientific community. When I helped some children campaign against a wind farm as part of a Blue Peter programme, I was publicly vilified. Abusive emails criticised me. I realised my career at the BBC was over.
But scientific theory should be tested. That’s why I question the science which casts carbon as the villain that will bring about the end of the world.
David Bellamy argues that we should be able to test theories about global warming and that the world can live with fluctuations of carbon levels in the air Open discussion: David Bellamy argues that we should be able to test theories about global warming and that the world can live with fluctuations of carbon levels in the air Geology tells us that fossil fuels are predominantly carbon which was part of our atmosphere before being locked away in the earth millions of years ago. At that time, there were more than 4,000 carbon parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere. Over time this has been as low as 270ppm and is now about 385ppm.
It is obvious the world can live with these fluctuations in the level of atmospheric carbon. There is a correlation between temperature and CO2, but some of my colleagues have put the cart before the horse.
The evidence shows CO2 levels follow temperature, not the other way around. Indeed, there may be many factors that determine our climate. Australian scientist David Archibald has shown a remarkable correlation between the sun’s activity and our climate over the past 300 years. Climate scientists insist we must accept the ‘carbon’ orthodoxy or be cast into the wilderness.
But the scientists behind the theory have a vested interest – it’s a great way to justify new taxes, get more money and guarantee themselves more work.
The reality is that man-made global warming is a myth: the global temperature is well within life’s limits and, indeed, the present day is cooler by comparison to much of Earth’s history. Perhaps this will be the moment that this fact becomes the new scientific orthodoxy.
The original graph was produced by Dr Ed Hawkins, a senior research scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science. Discussion of the graph and its meaning can be found on the website Climate Lab Book.
We apologise that this credit was initially missing.
An earlier version of this article said climate scientist James Annan was predicting the true rate of global warming as about half that predicted by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007. In fact the UN’s prediction was a probable warming range of 2°C- 4.5°C if CO2 levels double, with a most likely figure of 3°C. Dr Annan now predicts a range of 2°C- 4°C with 2.5°C most likely. We are happy to set the record straight.
National Academies of Science defines a scientific theory as
“a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”
Dr Richard Feynman, Cornell Physicist in a lecture explained how theorys that failed the test of data or experiment are falsified (“wrong”) and must be discarded.
Global Warming Theory Has Failed
(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated. (4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.
(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.
(6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios
(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.
(8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.
(9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.
(10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10
(11) Alarmists predicted an increase in hurricane frequency and strength globally but the global activity had diminished after 2005 to a 30+ year low. The U.S. has gone seven consecutive years without a landfalling major hurricane, the longest stretch since the 1860s
(12) Alarmists have predicted a significant increase in heat records but despite heat last two summers, the 1930s to 1950s still greatly dominated the heat records. Even in Texas at the center of the 2011 heat wave, the long term (since 1895) trends in both temperature and precipitation are flat. And when stations with over 80 years of temperature data were considered, the number of heat records last July were not extraordinary relative to past hot summers.
(13) Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen
(14) Alarmists indicated winter would become warmer and short. The last 15 years has seen a decline in winter temperatures in all regions. In places winter have been the coldest and longest in decades and even centuries.
(15) Alarmists had indicated snow would become increasingly rare in middle latitudes especially in the big cities where warming would be greatest. All time snow records were set in virtually all the major cities and northern hemisphere snow coverage in winter has increased with 4 of the top 5 years since 2007/08. Also among the east coast high impact snowstorms tracked by NOAA (NESIS), 11 of the 46 have occurred since 2009.
(16) Alarmists had indicated a decline of Antarctic ice due to warming. The upward trends since 1979 continues.
(17) Alarmists had indicated Greenland and arctic ice melt would accelerate. The arctic ice tracks with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the IARC shows the ice cover was similarly reduced in the 1950s when the Atlantic was last in a similar warm mode. In Greenland, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s still dominates the records and longer term temperatures have declined.
(18) Sea level rise was to accelerate upward due to melting ice and warming. Sea levels actually slowed in the late 20th century and have declined or flattened the last few years. Manipulation of data (adjustment for land rises following the last glaciation) has been applied to hide this from the public.
(19) Alarmists claimed that drought western snowpack would diminish and forest fires would increase in summer. Snowpack and water equivalent were at or near record levels in recent winters from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. Glaciers are advancing. Fires have declined.
(20) Alaska was said to be warming with retreating glaciers. But that warming is tied intimately to the PDO and thr North Pacific pattern NP and happens instantly with the flips from cold to warm and warm to cold. Two of the coldest and snowiest winters on records occurred since the PDO/NP flipped cold again (2007/08 and 2011/12). January 2012 was the coldest on record in many towns and cities and snowfall was running 160 inches above normal in parts of the south. Anchorage Alaska set an all time record for seasonal snow in 2011/12. In 2007/08, glaciers all advanced for the first time since the Little Ice Age. In 2011/12, the Bering Sea ice set a new high in the satellite era. Latest ever ice out date records were set in May 2013.
(21) Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier was to disappear due to global warming. Temperatures show no warming in recent decades. The reduction in glacial ice was due to deforestation near the base and the state of the AMO. The glaciers have advanced again in recent years
(22) Polar bears were claimed to be threatened. Polar bear populations instead have increased to record levels and threaten the populace.
(23) Australian drought was forecast to become permanent. Steps to protect against floods were defunded. Major flooding did major damage and rainfall has been abundant in recent years tied to the PDO and La Nina as predicted by honest scientists in Australia. All years with La Nina and cold PDO composited show this rainfall. Drought was associated with El Ninos and warm PDO fro 1977 to 1998
(24) The office of the Inspector General report found that the EPA cut corners and short-circuited the required peer review process for its December 2009 endangerment finding, which is the foundation for EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirmed that EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program-which EPA acknowledges is the “scientific foundation for decisions” – is flawed, echoing previous concerns from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that the agency is basing its decisions on shoddy scientific work.
(25) Of 18,531 citations in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, 5,587 or 30% were non-peer-reviewed material, including activist tracts, press releases, and in one amazing case, “Version One” of a Draft. In important instances, IPCC lead authors chose non-peer-reviewed material, or papers of low credibility, favoring their argument, in the face of prolific peer-reviewed material to the contrary. Instances include alleged climate relevance to malaria, hurricanes, species extinction, and sea levels.
Given the failures of global warming science, just a few mentioned here, the most disreputable alarmists like Oreskes, Cook and Trenberth and the demagogue party have tried to convince the uniformed by using the consensus argument. See the latest failed attempt here. It was also described on Forbes here.
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.” Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology
You guys realize the IPCC was formed in 1987 having ALREADY concluded that climate change was man made?
"17 June 1987 14/20. Global climate change The Governing Council , Aware that national and international studies continue to conclude that a global climate change will result form increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities, "
You guys realize the IPCC was formed in 1987 having ALREADY concluded that climate change was man made?
"17 June 1987 14/20. Global climate change The Governing Council , Aware that national and international studies continue to conclude that a global climate change will result form increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities, "
President Obama is little more than a carnival barker for the elite, who control this country. Take, for example, the elite hoax of global warming designed to tax us even more and reduce our freedoms.
Is it way, way too cold? Global warming is to blame. Too hot? Blame global warming. Not enough rain? Blame global warming? Too much rain? Blame global warming. Your wife doesn’t love you anymore? Blame global warming. The Packers out of the playoffs? It’s definitely the fault of global warming.
But let’s not stop there. Considering that so many stupid, idiotic, gullible Americans will believe anything our carnival barker president says, he’s got a blank check to lie his head off on any issue he chooses.
I mean who’s going to hold him accountable? The mainstream media? Gag me with a spoon. Those folks sold their souls a long time ago.
In February, well have the 50th anniversary of the Beatles coming to America. In the context of this letter, Im reminded of their lyric, “Roll up for the mystery tour.”
Yeah, Obama’s magical mystery tour, where whatever he says goes, and the gullibles march behind him like rats following the Pied Piper.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 01-13-2014).]
Not even Exxon Mobil denies the seriousness of climate change anymore: "There is growing recognition that addressing the risk of climate change will require significant efforts by both the developed and the developing world." Source: Exxon Mobil
Exxon Mobil even supports new taxes to control global warming. Source: Exxon Mobil
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Upon examining the data in the graphs a completely different scenario presents itself.
...a pattern of Global Cooling ... and Global Warming ... another Global Cooling ... reflect Global Warming effect.
The general MO of most he above articles takes one of two avenues. Either: 1. It is that its some giant political conspiracy propagated by the left. This should provide clear evidence that the deniers do so on political grounds and not in the scientific realm. Its denouncing science with political ideology. This is so apparent in the last article how it equates accepting AGW as agreeing to strip us of our liberties. No-one seems to whine about our ban on asbestos or leaded gasoline, but if the government says Co2 emissions can cause AGW, its because they're in it for the control! 2. It cites some scientist who doesn't study in the field, but who somehow is given complete authority, rather than the plethora of other scientists that are actually IN the field. Would you trust a physicist to perform heart surgery? Then why do you trust him on his opinion of climate science and completely disregard the climate scientists?
Rush Limbaugh as your source for MMGW? So Rush tells you AGW is a giant left wing conspiracy for all these people to get rich. . . meanwhile Rush pockets $60million a year for telling you this. . . talk about hypocrite.
Lets not forget that Rush just the other day, got absolutely eviscerated stating that the term "Polar Vortex" was made up by the left leaving Al Roker to throw egg all over Rush's face by showing his textbook from the '60's talking about the term Polar Vortex. Other scientists referenced the term from text books back in the mid 1800's. Rush should stick to feeding the ditto-heads opinions on other political matters; there's simply too many facts he is ignorant about in the scientific arena.
The problem with the deniers is their afraid to battle in the political realm rather than the scientific. So to prevent from even getting to the political battle, they chose to lambaste the science. This is why they constantly label it as some giant government/left wing conspiracy. They can't battle the science, so THEY inject politics in it as if that somehow denigrates the science. The science doesn't care of what you want to be, its just concerned with what is. There is more uncertainty in a plethora of other fields, especially particle physics, but you don't hear the deniers lambasting those scientists. The reason is due to the political ramifications. Accepting MGW means that like it or not, there are consequences to our actions on this planet.
Imagine if the deniers crowd played the same way in another field, say astrophysics. Some astrophysicists found an asteroid, tracked it for a little, and said "There's a 97% chance this thing will hit earth." They do some more studies to determine its size, and figure its not extinction level, but will cause millions if not billions of deaths and tons of economic damage. These scientists propose a method to steer the asteroid away from earth, avoiding the catastrophe.
The deniers: "The science isn't settled! Don't believe me? Here's a guy who has his doctorates in medicine who said its a hoax!" or "Here's a guy from the national we-make-money-if-an-asteroid-hits-us institute and he said its a hoax!" "Its a giant conspiracy for the government and the left to tax us to create this 'avoidance' mechanism!" "Asteroids have hit the earth before, they're natural! We should just let this one hit us!" "Asteroids are GOOD! They get rid of creatures that are unable to adapt like the dinosaurs!"
Another bit of idiocy you'll see in the denier crowd is somehow weather is equal to climate. I don't know how many times I've heard as of late, even on Anthony Watt's website, that the cold is somehow proof that AGW isn't real. Our side is the first to state that weather /= climate but its funny these people only cite articles referencing the cold rather than the extremes in the opposite direction.
Has anyone posted how Australia is going through a massive heat wave right now? Such an intense heat wave, that temps didn't just squeak by previous records, but absolutely obliterated them to the tune of 6*F+ in some areas. Of course the deniers won't show the effects of this extreme weather including the death of hundreds of thousands of bats and extreme drought. What about how Alaska just set record temps last year? Not a peep from the denier crowd. All of the sudden. . ."ITS COLD! MMGW DOESN'T EXIST!" It displays an absolute bias towards their reasoning. When the weather is cold, its proof that AGW doesn't exist. When the weather is hot, suddenly they argue that weather /= climate, which is true but they only apply that to occurrences they deem appropriate.
So from over 2000 papers consisting of over 9000 scientists from last year, only one scientists opposed AGW. But let me guess, all these scientists are in some giant conspiracy.
The lack of any sort of coherent argument from the denier crowd and injection of conspiracy theories completely contradictory of each other show they don't have the science behind them. Its akin to the 9/11 loose change idiots.
Deniers; "A plane didn't hit the pentagon, a missile did! There's no evidence of a plane hitting!" People with logic: "Wait, just a second ago you said it was a cargo plane that hit the pentagon to account for the fact that I395 had a bunch of light poles taken out . . . so which is it, a missile or a cargo plane?"
Same with AGW Deniers: "The science isn't settled, all these scientists are in some giant conspiracy! AGW Isn't real!" People with logic: "If the science isn't settled, how can you definitively state AGW isn't real? Isn't that like saying 'I don't know anything about the field but I'm an expert in it.'?"
Want more proof these people aren't skeptics but rather ardent deniers? Look no further than Anthony Watts. Not only has he been caught numerous times flat out lying, Watts doesn't publish anthing. Watts doesn't do work, he just ridicules others. Its like the co-worker who constantly tells everyone else they suck but hasn't produced a thing at the company. Such a liar Watts is that he said over that in regards to a study being done by fellow skeptic/denier Richard Muller that he was "prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." So Muller did the study and said "I stand corrected, AGW is actually real. . ." You know what Watts does? He lambasted Mullers method even though Muller used the very Method that Watts suggested.
The denier crowd uses the same old tactics over and over again. Lies, referencing unqualified people, conjuring up grand conspiracies, and so forth.
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.”
Not even Exxon Mobil denies the seriousness of climate change anymore: "There is growing recognition that addressing the risk of climate change will require significant efforts by both the developed and the developing world." Source: Exxon Mobil
Exxon Mobil even supports new taxes to control global warming. Source: Exxon Mobil
Nope. Try again.
Hint: There's blue arrows pointing at it.
Didn't you get the memo? The US is all that matters when talking about a Global subject.
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.”
Lets take that entire quote from Crichton;
quote
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
Crichton readily admits there will never be consensus, on anything scientific, but the onus is on the the person to make the new claims to support said claims. I could easily flip your argument right back on you. If AGW was fake, you would never be right because there's no such thing as a consensus that AGW is wrong. So you're attempting to tout something in support of your position which clearly supports neither. This again is the typical defense of the deniers; hide your denial behind a veil of skepticism in an attempt on claiming to be scientific. You're NOT skeptics, you deny MMGW exists. Grow up, put your big boy pants on, and own your position. Your statement is also completely ignorant of how science works. If I hypothesized that the formula for gravitational acceleration was effected by the amount of fruit loops in existence, I have to prove that. I don't get to say "The law of gravity is wrong because I don't consent! Since there is a dissenting position, all those astrophysicists are wrong!" Science builds on itself. There has been absolutely zero other explanations offered by the deniers that has passed any sort of scientific review, that could explain our current observations.
Let's see now. If you like quoting NASA I posted NASA data.
What does NASA data show?
In the USA there is no such thing as global warming.
From 1880 to 1920 it was cooling on average. From 1921 to 1959 it was warming on average. From 1961 to 1979 it was cooling again. Then from 1980 to 1989 it was warming again.
From 1880 to 1949 it was a net loss of -.32. From 1950 to 1998 +.19. I make that out to be, since 1880 a net loss of -.14 overall.
Even if you include a 10% error rate you still get a net loss.
And since 1999 NASA says we have a net 0 gain.
I don't see any Global Warming in North America. I don't see any reliable figures to back up world wide Global Warming claims either.
Like Hudini pointed out
quote
"17 June 1987 14/20. Global climate change The Governing Council , Aware that national and international studies continue to conclude that a global climate change will result form increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities, "
Let's see now. If you like quoting NASA I posted NASA data.
What does NASA data show?
In the USA there is no such thing as global warming.
From 1880 to 1920 it was cooling on average. From 1921 to 1959 it was warming on average. From 1961 to 1979 it was cooling again. Then from 1980 to 1989 it was warming again.
From 1880 to 1949 it was a net loss of -.32. From 1950 to 1998 +.19. I make that out to be, since 1880 a net loss of -.14 overall.
Even if you include a 10% error rate you still get a net loss.
And since 1999 NASA says we have a net 0 gain.
I don't see any Global Warming in North America. I don't see any reliable figures to back up world wide Global Warming claims either.
Like Hudini pointed out
This is a political and social movement, not a scientifically proven fact.
31,874 scientists and doctors, (including 3805 Atmosphere, Earth and Environmental experts) have pointed this out.
Flyinfieros is on the lunatic fringe of the desperate losers. So sad.
Arn
*Sigh* FF has thoroughly explained and debunked your argument in regards to the NASA data. I will give it to you, for what you lack in understanding, you certainly make up in stamina.
Second, that 31,874 scientists OISM petition is such a crap list and has been repeatedly shown to be garbage. Signatories included fictional characters from the TV show MASH and Star Wars. Even Charles Darwin somehow managed to rise from the dead and sign the petition.
And back to the deniers Crichton quote; If science isn't about counting heads, then why do you still attempt to count them? Can you please get your denial arguments congruent with each other?
[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 01-13-2014).]
He hasn't debunked squat. He does disregard any data that disagrees with his delusion
Arn
Hey, Arn. Thanksgiving for holding down the fort. I haven't been using my home computer much since I got my ipad, and the forum keeps crashing both browsers (Safari and Chrome). Posting stuff with quotes and links is really tough on my smartphone. I'll try to get on the desktop more often so FlyinFieros doesn't get away with history propaganda and bullshit so often!
"you deny MMGW exists" I don't deny it exists. I just don't think it is as big or as urgent of a problem as it has been made out to be. There are more important and pressing problems that require our more immediate attention.
"The scientific literature since 1991 contains a mountain of evidence confirming man-made global warming as true and no convincing evidence that it is false.
Global warming denial is a house of cards." Source.
