IPCC political propaganda report released

Seems WtD is dancing a jig after the release of the media portion of the IPCC report–you know, the part that tows the line with the need for massive government intervention in everyone’s life, that we’re all going to die if we do nothing, etc.

Funny, no mention of 17 years of flat temperatures and a complete failure on the part of modeling Arctic ice, no increase in tornadoes, no increase in floods, “extreme weather” failing to arrive, sea level rising by cm, not meters.  No mention of the scrambling to cover their behinds when they could not explain the flattened temperatures.  Perhaps most important, no explanation of how they can be 95% certain humans are causing the non-existent warming when their models are so far out of bounds.  I know–show of hands.  They voted and decided 95% sounded good.  Actually, I think they should have gone with 97%, their favorite number.

Don’t get lulled into thinking this is anything more than politics.   This is nothing but repeating of already failed predictions.   The continual threat that at some date when all of these people are dead, bad things will happen.  If you say it long enough, they will believe?  That’s what politicians do.  Repeat failed predictions and try to instill fear.  Scientists go back to the lab and rework the theory.

Note:  While WtD seems convinced models are reality.  Unless your life consists of zeros and ones with no corporeal existence, models are not reality.  Reality says the upward trend is no longer upward.   All the models in the world won’t change that.  The models have proven to be wrong.

Scientific Badger

Scientific Badger

Advertisements

27 comments on “IPCC political propaganda report released

  1. Running away to circumstances hundreds of millions of years ago, which are just huge guestimates, when you cannot accept what actual instrumental measurements are telling you today is just proof that you cannot accept reality. Hundreds of millions of years ago the whole atmospheric composition was different, the continents and therefore the ocean currents that create our weather was different, the sun was weaker (therefore needing more ghg for same temperature), the moon was closer and the spin of the earth was faster, not to mention what the possible orbital alignment the planet was. All completely relevant but all mostly unknown. Why don’t you stick to what we do know?

    Yes balance in the sense that everything is always trying to move towards balance but mostly never gets there. Basic physics, if one area is hotter than another then the system moves towards equilibrium by cooling down the warmer area and heating up the colder one. Add heat and it moves towards a new equilibrium where the whole system is warmer. If the energy source is constant but the system is losing energy through other systems then it is constantly moving. This is where we are. The earth has actually been much hotter for most of its existence than now, has been subjected to numerous mass extinction events and has gone from a ball of fire to a ball of ice. So very sensitive to any number of forcings above it, but it is not alive, it will use physics to just move towards equilibrium states as circumstances change. Whether that is good or bad for us is irrelevant.

    Look down here for the graph titled ‘general link between CO2 and temperature’ and when what the status of the sun was likely to be is taken into account the CO2 and temps come back into line.
    http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2009/110115royer/ndx_royer.pdf
    Original paper here
    http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2%28GCA%29.pdf

    I am not saying it is correct, the data we have is highly error prone, but it does outline that there are other factors that need to be taken into account, which are ignored when all your decisions are taken on graphs alone without considering the wider science and all the variables.

    You do realise that you never answered my main question above, except with vague ‘anything but CO2’ responses or conspiracy based tampering.

    ### Actual effects occurring consistent with the theory
    * Stratosphere cooling while troposphere warming, so warming from below
    * Ocean ph is falling (in a warming world without CO2 emissions ph should actually be rising since the oceans are warming and would let go of CO2)
    * Less energy leaving the planet as arriving with the fall in the same energy bands as absorbed by CO2
    * More energy being received at the surface in the same energy bands as would be reflected back down by CO2
    * Sea levels are rising
    * Arctic Ice is falling
    * Ocean warming has continued through to now
    * Temps have risen 0.6 deg c

    Over the last 60 years the following has occurred:
    * Enso has been flat overall (except the cherry picked year of 1998 was influenced by the strongest el nino and the last 3 years have been influenced by back to back la ninas)
    * Solar has been flat for 50 years and then falling (smallest cycle in 100 years)
    * Huge volcano in early 90′s with huge cooling influence

    All consistent and well explained by AGW. Please explain what has caused the 0.6 deg c of warming in the last 60 years if not AGW.

    To ignore the above and not consider AGW is NOT SCIENTIFIC. The theory has been roughly proven and alternatives have been looked for and examined and none found. In normal practice the scientific method has been followed and the theory is accepted as explaining reality unless it can be proven incorrect by alternative theories or data.

    • Millions of years ago is not unscientific–at least not according to paleontologists. I don’t stick to “what we know” because the length of available instrumental data is too short to be of value in predicting trends. 100 years of data is not nearly enough to show a correlation between anything and temperature is valid. We just cannot know what the uptick in temperatures, followed by a leveling off, really means until we have much, much more data.

      I agree with your second paragraph. The planet does what the planet does. What is confusing me is that you fully acknowledge that continental location, the sun, the moon, earth rotation, and so forth all contribute. Where we disagree is with the idea that CO2 is the primary driver of warming. I do not deny that it has some effect, as does the afore mentioned items, wind currents, ocean currents, albedo, etc, etc. My position is that the recent leveling of temperatures indicate that natural forces overcome CO2 and take control of the temperature increases. If models cannot incorporate these factors accurately, then the models are not useful. If nature can overcome CO2, then the temperature increase cannot be accurately predicted until nature is factored in and the overcoming intervals accurately predicted.

      Okay, again: (I allowed the conspiracy comment to stand, just as an example of how a “scientist” responds to questioning. I do not believe in conspiracies, so obviously your statement is false.)

      1. See: http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/18/stratospheric-cooling/
      (Yes, warming from below.)
      2. Yes, ocean Ph is falling. Without using paleo data, I cannot supply any explanation of why I do not find that alarming.
      3. Yes, less energy leaving planet than coming in the same energy bands as CO2
      4. Sea levels are rising–very, very slowly
      5. Arctic ice levels are lower than in the past, though they do seem to be rebounding at the moment
      6. Unknown–we have insufficient data to know for certain the ocean is warming. The data set is far to small to apply to the vast oceans. The tiny dataset we have shows some warming.
      7. The statistic that is the anomaly from the “global average temperature” rose .6 C. (We don’t actually talk about temperatures–it’s the anomaly from the 1500 or so temperatures we gather around the globe. There used to be more points gathered–around 6000. Whether or not these are a representative sample is important and why we dropped over 3000 of the measurements. This is not nitpicking–statistics DEMANDS that you have representative sample to be able to extrapolate on a global scale.)

      I cannot explain the .6 degree C increase in the temperature. Presently, there is insufficient understanding of the climate and the forcings and players involved. To say “I don’t know–I lack sufficient data” is completely scientific. It acknowledges the reality of how complex and difficult the climate system is to quantify.

      I have considered AGW–and it fails. I realize you just cannot fathom why I think this. There is probably no way to get you understand, though I am willing to continue to try if you really want to know. The theory has not even been “roughly” proven at this point–it fails to predict, it fails to take into account natural climate factors, etc. How can I accept at theory that cannot predict–when that was the major thrust of why we should worry. The theory PREDICTS disaster. But the theory cannot predict.

      While you dismiss the failure of theory to accurately predict Arctic ice loss, the failure of the hotspot in the troposphere to appear, and the failure of the theory to predict the plateau in temperatures, these failings have meaning to me. They indicate a serious problem with the theory and the need to return to the lab and find out what went wrong. Do we need a new theory? At this point, I would say yes. Maybe there are ways of dealing with the failures, but I really don’t see how. Until the failings are dealt with, I must reject the theory.

  2. How is using the 400,000 Hiroshima bombs intending to consider whether or not the science is sound? I was NOT saying the sun is the main factor–reread my response and take off the “this is what skeptics say” glasses this time. I was pointing out that the analogy was majorly flawed. This has NOTHING to do with what effect the sun has on the planet. Again, I said the analogy was flawed.

    I need some reference links for the CO2 absorption. There were times historically that the ppm of CO2 many times what it is now, and the planet was not a fireball:

    During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
    The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today.
    (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/A6c.html)

    The straight physics of absorption would seem to say there should have been massive heat that eventually caused “runaway greenhouse effects” and we would not be having this discussion. I’m not being sarcastic–I really do not see how if 7000ppm of CO2 corresponds to the Cambrian Period, where what National Geographic describes as the biggest explosion of life through evolution began, how 400 ppm is having a huge, terrifying effect on the planet now. It just not make any sense. Which means that the CO2 connection may be accurate, but the “blocks” and other factors are far more important than CO2.

    How do you know the earth is “moving toward a balance”? Evidence, please. Unless you mean that things constantly change and move toward a balance, overshoot, and move back, overshoot and move back, on and on. If the earth was never in total balance, why should we think that balance is the desired state? WE desire it, not nature. Nature is always changing and evolving.
    Scare tactics are the most glaring evidence of the lack of science in this–you can’t convince me, so you damn me to hell on earth for not believing. Very, very scientific.

    You are free to leave at any time. My guess is you came here to try and convince me you’re right, and upon failing, left. It is interesting that advocates appear to be more interested in “winning” than in discussing and justifying the science. It’s also interesting that they don’t become questioners in spite of the very real and valid arguments of the questioners. Closed-minded, I would say, by their own definition. It’s been fun.

    (I posted my answers and the comment in case any scientifically minded people read this and would like to know my answers.)

  3. I was very disappointed in your response. You are not even trying to be skeptical or consider the science, observations and data. When comparing the sun to the forcing of GHG the question becomes on how it has changed. Off course the sun is the main source of energy, but it is measurable and fairly constant, and measurements have shown that it has been flat to falling for the last 60 years. So massive fail on that response and a pretty weak excuse.

    Yes, you are right, more energy coming out than going in does not prove AGW but by using the scientific method we can do the due diligence required to examine all the data and observations that point to AGW and try and rule out alternatives. I have done that several times above, but you ignore their significance. For instance, by satelites they have measured the wavelengths of energy leaving the Earth and have found that the drop in energy comes from the same wavelengths as that affected by CO2. So yes CO2 stopping energy from leaving the planet, and by the laws of conservation that means energy within planet increasing. They have also measured energy coming down on the surface and found increases in wavelength associated with CO2, also consistent with AGW. The blocks are not hidden, that was just an analogy used by the author when teaching (did you not read the whole article?). We can measure where most of it is going, and that is in the oceans, melting ARctic and glaciers etc. Is their an alternative source? Well they have checked that to and ENSO 60 years is flat, solar flat and falling and large cooling volcanos. So the science, the data and the observations all point to AGW for the source of the 0.6 deg c warming in 60 years, consistent with the theory, with matching consequences. Their is no other alternative that fits the data and observations and the science.

    Yes, the planet is never in total balance, I have also said that above several times. But it is always moving towards a balance, as everything in physics does. The question then remains about what are the sources for the imbalance and which way is it going, also all explained above. It is sad that you keep making such transparently weak excuses repetitively, even though they have been answered and ignore the facts, due to your confirmation bias. I think we are done here, your mind is closed and you are ignoring the consequences already occurring all around us that your fellow deniers are contributing to causing. I fear one day you will wake up and look at the world and then see horrifyingly the consequences of your actions.

  4. How many Hiroshima bombs per day does the sun drops on us now? What percentage increase is the 400,000 Hiroshima bombs? A quick calculation would seems to indicate the sun is actually the problem here—way more energy than CO2 can add. Something like 7 billion Hiroshima bombs over 42 days. Sounds terrifying if you state it that way. I even found an example of turning on CFL’s equating to the energy of one pound of TNT. It’s clever what comparisons one can come up with when they try.

    Again, more energy coming in that going out does not prove manmade global warming. More energy stayed that left when we transitioned from snowball earth. Humans obviously were not the cause then.

    I have no idea why you keep saying “cherry picking” starting in the higher year. I’m usually the one going back as far as records go to find a trend. I find the 30 year number way too low–we need a century and even then it may not be enough.

    “The ‘blocks’ are being hidden elsewhere, for now.” Again, this sounds very much like the psychic that predicts a beautiful wedding for her client. The wedding fizzles and the woman comes back sobbing. The psychic reassuringly tells her “He wasn’t the one. The right will come and then you’ll have your wedding”. It’s always going to happen and if not now then later. Sadly, this does work for psychics and apparently climate science. If you can’t explain all of the blocks and the timelines, etc, you’re just playing psychic.

    You have not yet explained when the earth had a true energy balance–i.e. no climate changes what -soever wince everything was in balance. “Out of balance” seems to be the normal–world gets hotter, world gets colder. When, exactly, did that balance exist? When was everything level and unchanging. Wait–you said :
    But energy changes forms, and sloshes back and forth between sub-systems. Ice will continue to melt and sea level will continue to rise as the water warms. A slowdown in one rate is compensated by a speedup in another until the cycle of natural variability reverses.
    So there never was a “balance”? Things always changed and always will. That is what you do not seem to see. There never was, nor will there ever be, a time when the statistical constuct called “average global temperature” does not fluctuate, sometimes very broadly. Unless you remove enough stations and data, then you can flatten the data. But without cheating, there is not such thing as an average global temperature that does not fluctuate.

  5. A very good explanation of the conservation of energy law of physics and how it applies to AGW. Starting your cherry picking on the highest elnino affected year in 60 years and then ignore all the other science and evidence to delay action is having consequences you should be ashamed of. Look around Australia and it is only October, as ENSO conditions switch to neutral (not even an el nino yet).

    Understanding this might help you to understand why your rejection of the science because some projections are higher or lower than expected is both unreasonable and unrealistic and that things like sea levels and arctic melting being more than expected are cause for greater alarm, not less. It means that the climate is more sensitive to small changes in temps than first thought.

    “Human-caused global warming is the inevitable consequence of this law of physics, because greenhouse gas pollution is causing more energy to come in than go out.

    If the average surface temperature – which is only one way to measure global warming – doesn’t go up every year, it’s because the “blocks” are being hidden somewhere else, for now.

    But energy changes forms, and sloshes back and forth between sub-systems. Ice will continue to melt and sea level will continue to rise as the water warms. A slowdown in one rate is compensated by a speedup in another until the cycle of natural variability reverses.

    Scientists know that more energy is coming in than going out. We can measure it and there is no dispute.

    Because of carbon pollution, the Earth is gaining energy at the rate of 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day of every year. And that rate is going up.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-boslough/global-warming-is-as-unde_b_4097174.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

  6. mrfabsblog says:

    Again, you said…
    “Nature caused the .6 degree of warming, or statistical manipulation, or random chance. AGW does not explain this. The original estimate was much, much higher and was revised down. Again, the theory was off by a huge margin–theory is broken.”

    I cannot read that in any other way than that you completely reject AGW as a cause for the warming, preferring random chance or a conspiracy theory to what the actual data and science says. Not an ad hom attack at all, that is what you are saying.I also do not accept every part of the theory, I accept what the science and data is telling me. I wish it was different, I am so active in trying to understand and promote the science because of my fears for my children and grandchildren, but I cannot ignore the facts.

    The basic facts as I see them…
    1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas with its properties confirmed by experiment, measurements in the atmosphere and satelites.
    2. It has increased and is increasing due to human emissions, as measured by several places around the globe in agreement and matches known human emissions as is easily calculable by known emissions of cars, cement manufacture and power stations among others.
    3. Other fingerprints have been measured such as the reduction of loss of ir in the bands matching those absorbed by CO2 and the measurements of increasing ir at the surface due to more CO2 emitting ir down.
    4. Especially in the last 60 years actual measurements show that natural factors roughly combine to make a net cooling while the atmosphere has warmed by 0.6 deg c. Their is also evidence of energy increasing in other components of the global system, such as melting of the Arctic and glaciers and ocean warming.
    5. The oceans ph falling is also a very strong reason to reduce emissions. So you can see that about the only conclusion from the basic science and data that can logically and reasonably be made is that AGW is occurring and is responsible for most of the warming of at least the last 60 years. This is how science works, the theory is put forward and fits observations, no competing theory or observation contradicts the basic facts above. So to say that IT CANNOT BE AGW, well…

    As to some of your other points.
    2. We do not ‘PRODUCE’ extra water vapor. The CO2 is extra in the respect that it is CO2 from sequestered fossilised CO2 that has not been part of the carbon cycle for millions of years. Did you read the info on the carbon cycle I linked to above? CO2 is a non condensing greenhouse gas that will continue forcing the climate for hundreds of years. It has been added to a carbon cycle that keeps the levels up as it moves into and out of the short carbon cycle. The part of the cycle that permanently sequesters the carbon is exceedingly slow. Water vapor in contrast reacts almost immediately to changes in temperature and has a total effect on the order of a couple of weeks. As to your claim of what you have read, may I ask where?
    The 2 to 4.5 range of climate sensitivity comes from many different corroborating sources.
    http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

    3. Ozone is an order of magnitude smaller trace gas than CO2 around .00006% but protects us from harmfull UV (or do you disagree with this). Therefore a trace gas can and does have a huge effect, it is not scientific to come out and imply that a small amount cannot have a huge effect because it is small, much in nature would disagree with you. In regards to CO2, I have shown above that it has already had a significant effect.

    4. Complexity does not translate to unknowable. We know and can measure much. The models are not intended to be perfect predictors as explained previously. They will improve as our computers and data and knowledge improve. But what they don’t include and their uncertainties was never a secret.

    5. Yes, the changes that are occurring in mere decades are very different to what we know about the Dryas over thousands of years. For instance we have very accurate measuring instruments now.

    6. Please provide proof that 3 inches cannot be a huge problem? Again it is not scientific to say that because it is in your mind a small amount, that it cannot have big effects. As explained previously small changes globally can have huge regional effects. Low lying islands and low coastal communities and storm surges are some. Also do not forget that there is only about 6 deg c difference between now and the last ice age globally. Effect not amount is what science tries to consider in looking at geological changes. It is simplistic to think they have not taken into account cycles and changes in human habitation, they have. Actual trends in hot day records broken over cold days and increases in extreme precipitation events are not due to where humans have moved. Also many of the record setting drought and flood events have happened in areas prone and well recorded for these kinds of events. Attribution studies have shown that they have increased outside natural variability.

    7. You minimise human knowledge and scientific accomplishments. We already know a lot, some areas are still a work in progress and others cannot really be predicted but the niminal range of possible changes and their effect are known.

    8. You misunderstand the energy balance argument, it is more a case that the planet is always moving TOWARDS balance as every natural energy event does. Put a warmer object next to a colder object and heat will transfer from the wamer to the colder one until they are in balance, this I think is the first law of thermodynamics. Energy can never be lost, it is transferred. So energy comes into the system as radiation from the sun, once inside the system it moves thoughout, some being reflected straight back out from clouds, ice or aerosols, some warming up particles in the atmosphere itsef, some warming up the planets surface or warming our considerable oceans (70% of the surface). Some of the energy in the oceans is pulled into the deeper oceans, the land warmed up gives of IR that is then absorbed by CO2 and the reemitted in all directions, slowing down its loss to space. Eventually energy leaves the planet in the form of radiation at the top of the atmosphere. An imbalance from energy coming in to energy coming out means that their is a buildup of energy in the system, hence total energy increases as it attempts to move to an equilibrium state where energy coming in matches energy going out. This is what a greenhouse does (but with a different mechanism) as it slows the loss of heat so the greenhouse warms to an equilibrium state. As it gets warmer the energy loss increases until it matches energy coming in and then equilibrium is attained and the temp stabilises. This does not mean exact continuous equilibrium is ever reached but that it is always moving towards it. You need to think through my arguments more fully than trying to attack me on semantics. So far from only considering CO2, climate scientists take all of this into account.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-2-4.html

    It is skeptics that ignore natural variations, ignore other containers of energy, ignore the total energy system in favor of focussing on CO2 and temperature of a cherry picked period alone to dismiss AGW.

    I chose the 30 year trend as this is what is generally considered climate from the climatic community. If you read some of the climate links I sent you, you would see that the fifure is pretty common. Longer periods still give an upward trend.

    So not a belief but an acceptance of the science and the data and observations, rather than finding ways to dismiss them. Please present your actual science and actual data that does not point in the same direction.

  7. Okay, here we go:
    1. Your refusal to see the flaws in the theory or to minimize them can be equally construed as confirmation bias. It doesn’t just work one way. It’s equally possible you want it to be true–and disregard all evidence to the contrary. However, I have not accused you of confirmation bias because that’s not something one can do without full knowledge of a person’s education, political ideology, etc. Used the way you are using it, it’s basically an ad hominem attack. Please back off unless you have far more evidence that I am guilty of this, or I will have to edit your comments. Attack my science, but not me.

    2. Agreeing CO2 causes warming does not mean one endorses the AGW model. I also agree that water vapor raises temperatures but would not want us to cut our production of water vapor. Many other gases cause warming–yet the only one that has significant effect is CO2? If not, then what percentage of warming is it responsible for? I have read 50%, meaning .3 degrees, right?

    3. I do not dismiss all AGW. I fully admit humans have an effect on the planet. As do all creatures on the planet. When we build cities, we change weather patterns. When lightening starts forest fires, that changes the weather patterns with burning down the trees. The same thing happens when we cut forests. Obviously, humans have an effect. What I do not accept is the idea that a trace gas, even with feedbacks, can have the huge effect climate change science claims.

    4. You are absolutely correct on the complexity of the system and the lack of modeling accuracy.

    5. Yes! You did catch my invalid argument! You are right that nature causing something does not mean man cannot. However, the claim is the changes are out of line with past changes. I find the Dryas periods fascinating. I didn’t mean it as an explanation. I meant it as an example of what nature can do. It may or may not be relevant. However, I don’t think we can ignore it. (As for the proxy question, it’s different when looking at 1,300 +-70 years and using a global average temperature anomaly of a tenth of a degree. It’s a matter of precision.)

    5. Sea levels are rising less than 3 inches. How does 3 inches cause massive problems? Crops have always been damaged by heat and floods. I have not found evidence these are increasing. Yes, I do look for that information–not all that make this claim can back it up. What I do see is people living in affected areas. Consider the Serengeti. I have read and watched documentaries on the flood/drought cycles. Now imagine if we planted a town the size of London in the middle of the Serengeti. Ignoring the obvious possibilities of changes in wind and so forth affecting climate, suddenly those cycles would no longer be a fascinating documentary, but rather threats to the humans. I really think that many places have/had those cycles, but putting people in immediately shifts the focus to the humans and away from the cycles.

    6. I’m all for modifying the theory of climate change so it more nearly fits the evidence and can possibly predict future climate, though that last one is questionable. You assume I don’t think we should study climate–I have state no such thing. I am all for studying climate. As you noted, it’s complex and difficult. Whether or not we can ever actually understand it remains to be seen.

    7. Your statements on what it would take to “break” the theory are all valid. I am curious why there has to be an energy balance. As far as I have learned, there never was a balance. Ice ages ended because the balance skewed to the warming side. Warm periods ended when the balance skewed to the other side. When was there an energy balance on earth (I consider that a really serious misnomer).

    8. While I disagree, I thank you for clarify your position on what falsifies the theory. One is left to wonder if the theory could not adequately predict nature overcoming CO2, what actually value does it have? If nature can overcome CO2, and the models missed it, then what else did the models miss? It’s important that we understand these things and the models, if we insist on using them to predict, do not miss prolonged periods of flattened temperatures.

    9. Did you read the article on trend lines in time series? Even if all the data sets show warming and the statistical trend line is valid, the only thing that tells us is it’s getting warmer much of the time–as measured by anamolies from a global mean temperature. That is all the data says.
    (Side note: Wood for Trees allows you to change the start time for the graphs. Play with it and see if you change the start dates, you change the trend line.)

    I realize you sincerely belief in AGW. I stated when we started this that I may not come to agree with you. While you think I am not understanding the theory, my disagreement does not mean I don’t understand. The theory is not self-evident. Someone early on asked for a reference or a link and I found that around 75% of the links and data I have are pro-climate change. I have studied the theory. I do welcome discussion because it sometimes gives me new insights and forces me to study things in detail. It’s not about “winning” the argument. It’s about thinking and learning.

  8. I am familiar with most of what you typed here. I check “theresilientearth” often. I have also read the IPCC statement.

    Fast changes have occurred in the past–the older and younger Dryas, for example. Climate change advocates tend to dismiss these, but if climate could change in a couple of decades with no human intervention, then we cannot assume that humans are the cause now.

    If you read what I wrote as saying climate was stabile, I did not mean that. As for glacial periods, this is one example:
    http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/cryosphere/4a.html
    The graph shows approximately the same amount of warming as cooling as the article says the increased CO2 prevented a return to the ice age, which would be a good thing. I don’t necessarily subscribe to that theory, but I have read it elsewhere, too.

    I don’t have the time right now to post the other graphs. I will try to do so later.

    • “Nature caused the .6 degree of warming, or statistical manipulation, or random chance. AGW does not explain this. The original estimate was much, much higher and was revised down. Again, the theory was off by a huge margin–theory is broken.”

      How can you totally dismiss AGW? Does this not demonstrate a closed viewpoint? You prefer to accept random chance or statistical manipulation to actual science that completely matches data and observations? You do realise that most data sets, including Spencers satelite have approximately the same 30+ year trend.
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1980/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1980/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1980/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/trend

      You seem very intelligent but to totally dismiss a theory because they did not get everything totally correct in a model projection does show confirmation bias. You are looking for ways to dismiss the theory. It is a planet, the models are based on very powerful computers that are trying to do very complicated things and still cannot cope with all the variable, still can only copy with so many vertical and horizontal levels and with grid sizes way to large where a lot needs to be averaged. Even then some of these model runs take months and up to a year to run. They were never supposed to be precisely predictive but to give an idea of direction, a way of performing laboratory experiments on a planet that cannot have laboratory experiments on it. It is just so unrealistic the expectations and the requirements put on them by people not wanting to accept the science. Not a single person has been able to answer my question with any scientifically logical response. Not a single person can just look at the data and apply logic and reason to the data. Not a single person has come up with a natural variation that explains it. But here you say that “AGW DOES NOT EXPLAIN THIS”, even though you agree that CO2 causes warming, that we have increased the CO2 and we have warmed despite net cooling natural effects, and warmed by a lot in a short time frame in geologic terms.

      The younger Dryas occurred around 12,000 years ago but you, that constantly questions any data and especially proxy data, now use it as proof of a short period by nature. Well 2 thoughts come to mind, firstly nature causing something does not negate man causing something, the 2 have both happened and are continuously happening simultaneously, other wise we could not start fires since they have occurred naturally for over 4 billion years. Secondly the younger dryas occurred over 1,300 YEARS +-70 years!!!! Yes short on geologic time scales but nothing compared to current time scales. It also has numerous theories including the collapse of the North American ICE SHEETS!!!! Not quite an explanation for the current changes.

      CO2 preventing the next ice age is a good thing, and I do not disagree that could be a consequence, but heat is as damaging as cold, the damage to the oceans and fish would decimate a large part of our food supply, crops are also being regularly damaged in heat waves and droughts, rising sea levels are damaging to coastal regions where a large part of the world lives and already threatening many low lying islands, whose residents will need resettling. The changes in extreme weather etc etc.

      Just go back to the development of the theory of the solar system and gravity, firstly they thought everything revolved around us, but there were problems, so then they adjusted things so that most things went around us but not everything, then they decided that we were not central but just one body but was perfect circles but still things did not fit perfectly with observations, then they started turning the orbits into elipses, then they found that we were only one solar system of many and then the milky way was only one galaxy of many, the orbits still had problems especially Mercury, which was not fixed until Einsteins theories came along etc etc. Science of the natural world is not an all or nothing proposition, you theorise, you test, you adjust, you improve, you build on previous science etc etc and over time a picture emerges and strengthens. But even now nobody has seem or measured a gravity wave (not as far as I am aware). Did we give up in the 1500′s because one thing didn’t work?

      As far as AGW is concerned most of the data and observations fit. For it to break would require several things such as stratosphere warming while the troposphere cools, for the energy imbalance by satelites of radiation in to radiation out measured to stabilise even though CO2 is still increasing. For us to measure radiation leaving the atmosphere to increase in the bands affected by CO2. You see those things would be the opposite of what we would expect in a world warming by CO2, CO2 whose properties CAN and HAVE been measured in laboratories, have been measured on the surface as increasing downward IR, measured by satelites as not escaping as quickly to space. What does not break it is unpredictable natural effects interacting with the anthropogenic ones to make a wavy line when the models average that out to a fairly streamlined one.

  9. Above you made some comments about the planet being self correcting and that a little warming would be better than cooling and that the majority of time the planet has been cooler. None of this is correct. There is no normal when it comes to the planet.

    The planet started as a molten swirling ball of cosmic dust, at some stage early in its form it was hit by a meteor that knocked it of its axis and spewed dust into space that became the moon. I don’t think there were many humans around then (and you would have been burnt to a crisp). The atmosphere has changed drastically since then, from at some times not even having one, to one without oxygen and a lot of CO2. It was fiery, frequent big geological upheavals, there was one great big super continent etc etc.

    Initially the sun was not as bright as today, being a main sequence star it grows with time, and will eventually engulf us (but don’t worry that is billions of years away). The moon was much closer (greater gravity effects and upheavals), and is drifting away from us over time, and may eventually just fly off. At one time there is evidence it even went into a snowball stage, it has had an exciting time from a flaming ball to a ball of ice

    Eventually the climate started changing, the continents seperated, oxygen started being produced and CO2 started being sequestered through natural biological long term processes. Millions of years went by to eventually give us the atmosphere, climate and continental arrangement that 7 billion people developed in and we now enjoy. The planet has had many extinction events that have decimated the species on the planet and it will react to forcings to move to a new equilibrium irregardless to the consequences for humans.

    Now over a mere couple of hundred years we have emitted enough CO2 to take our planet back to where it was at least a million years ago and likely more. It was not as friendly for humans then.
    Science is fascinating, eye opening and mind broadening. Did you know that we are 99% space? nothing is really solid. Or that a billion neutrinos from the sun go right through every square cm of us every second? Real physics is mostly unintuitive to somebody not trained in science.

    “Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.”
    http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/

    “The warming during the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 55 million years ago, see Fig. 5.13), which also had a major impact on life on Earth, is better documented. During this event which lasted less than 170 000 years, the global temperature increased by more than 5 C in less than 10 000 years.“
    http://www.astr.ucl.ac.be/textbook/chapter5_node10.xml

    The resilient Earth Chapter 4
    (This is really good and written by a skeptic so I disagree with his conclusions, which are basically the planet survived all the past upheavels so why worry. I worry because I am not worried about the planet, I am worried about my children and my grandchildren and understanding the past can easily show us how fragile the planetary balance is.)
    http://theresilientearth.com/files/pdfs/the_resilient_earth-chapter_4.pdf

    The Milankovitch Cycles
    http://www.sciencecourseware.org/eec/GlobalWarming/Tutorials/Milankovitch/

    Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to Earlier Changes in Earth’s History?
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-2.html

  10. Michael:
    You may continue to post questions and I will try and answer. In going through your questions and ideas, you have made me realize that perhaps I need to do a several part posting on exactly why I disagree with or find not compelling the theory of AGW. So I will work on a step-by-step explanation. It will take a while, but perhaps in the long run it will help clarify my position. My hope is it doesn’t turn into book, which seems to happen when one starts trying to compile theories of AGW.

    Also, if you are interested in why the statistics of AGW are a problem, check out http://wmbriggs.com/blog/
    and for someone who did write a book after researching AGW:
    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com

    On the Briggs website, you will need to search for climate change articles–This is a good one to start with:
    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5107

    Also, on my blog: https://watchingthewatchersofdeniers.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/fun-with-graphs/ It discusses the lack of value in trend lines and how the use of small portions of data or extremely large sections of data can easily produce whatever result you desire.

    In between your class studies and people face time, of course.

  11. Michael:
    Okay-new try at answers. There is no way I can possibly imagine, picture or anything else how climate science works without models. All of the projections are based on computer modeling–even the IPCC says that. You are the first person to say the models are not important. Perhaps I can find a way to understand it later on or you can find a way to explain.

    “Greenhouse gases” is technically a misnomer–there is no “greenhouse”. It’s just gases in the atmosphere. Is the 30 degrees warming based on a mathematical calculation or on modeling?

    You are using the word “theory”–what exactly is the theory and where did we get it? My understanding is the theory was first put forth by Carl Sagan then usurped by James Hansen. He used his MODELS for Venus to formulate it, which is probably why we all think it’s based on a model. Hansen is considered the “father of the theory” so I went with the idea that models were essential to the theory.

    There are thousands of effects occurring that are “in agreement with” the theory–and that is the major flaw of the theory. It became very problematic when warming caused cooling. Warming caused droughts and floods. Actually, somewhere along the line, the “theory” lost its ability to be falsified. If a theory can not be falsified, it is not science. (Just in case you do theoretical physics, yes, this probably applies to the Heisenberg Principle in physics, too.)

    Circular repeat: Not being able to explain something any other way, or refusing to accept any other explanation, does not make a theory correct. One of the differences in climate science done by those believing in the AGW theory and those who do not, is that those who do not make few if any claims that they have sufficient knowledge of the climate to make predictions.

    How would you falsify the theory? The temperatures leveled off far below predictions, the Arctic melt is faster than predicted and the predicted “hotspot” cannot be found. What would it take, short of glaciation, to disprove the theory–because there has to be such criteria. Originally, some scientists said 15 years of flattened temperatures. When that happened, they then said “Wait, the heat went into the deep ocean”–they nullified their own criteria. So what is your falsification criteria?

    Needless to say, I don’t see a “perfect fit” with AGW–I see virtually no evidence that convincing links man to the problem. (I missed your note on websites–sorry. As noted, it was late. I’ll avoid answering late at night so I don’t overlook data.)

    I have read the AIP site extensively and am not in agreement with much of the site. The first cohesive theory of AGW was from Hansen and it was based on models of Venus (though I am sure he did modify the parameters–AGW came from the theory that Venus had a runaway greenhouse event, possibly Mars, too and thus, Earth, having been postulated to be the only remaining of the three once virtually identical, lush green planets, could have the same thing happen here. I can find no evidence that this was not the origin and I have research this extensively. I can find those who disagree, but they cannot make a case for their disagreement. At best, they can find a theory here and there that pointed to fossil fuels, but no preponderance of evidence in said direction. A few random theories do not count in the history of science–they are more like random chance until someone comes up with a full-blown theory, as did Hansen. Otherwise, it’s just a case of matching, in hindsight, ideas that later did find more evidence but may have been severely lacking it at the time and were little more than guesses.)

    • I am disappointed that you seem to be so enclosed in opinion blog science that you cannot break out of that thinking to consider the actual data and even reject a comprehensive history of the science from the American Institute of Physics. Where did you get your history from to make that judgement? That just blows me away, I am fully exasperated. I can’t really break through that barrier if your mind is so closed.

      You reject actual data to stick to your argument that model projections are not 100% correct so that the science is wrong. Just to give you a small reality check that might make you stop and rethink your assumptions here is an actual article written in 1956 by Gilbert Plass titled ‘The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change’
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract

      -edited–Accusations of political motivation and psychoanalysis of the speaker are not relevant to the science and tend to be inflammatory in nature–

      The theory can be falsified, it just hasn’t been and nobody has been able to for over 100 years. The hotspot is a opinion blog beat up, it has been measured but is a minor issue anyway and can apply to any warming. All of the data is consistent with the theory as outlined above. I am not sure how far back you dismiss the science. Can I ask what you do or do not agree with.

      * Does burning fossil fuels increase the level of atmospheric CO2?
      * DO you agree that we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%
      * Do you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming?
      * Did you read the science I presented on the greenhouse effect?
      * Did you check the animation on the greenhouse gas spectrum?

      How well do you understand physics?
      * Did you know that everything absorbs and gives of radiation at different spectra? that is in effect how we see colour and light.
      * Did you know that no real science on the natural world deals in absolutes? All of particle and quantum physics revolves around probabilities.

      and I will ask you to reconsider the evidence and the data below that is consistent with AGW, that clearly can explain all observations and the data. To ignore an actual working successful theory that can explain all the data and prefer an unknown source is not logical or scientific.

      ### Actual effects occurring consistent with the theory
      * Stratosphere cooling while troposphere warming, so warming from below
      * Ocean ph is falling (in a warming world without CO2 emissions ph should actually be rising since the oceans are warming and would let go of CO2)
      * Less energy leaving the planet as arriving with the fall in the same energy bands as absorbed by CO2
      * More energy being received at the surface in the same energy bands as would be reflected back down by CO2
      * Sea levels are rising
      * Arctic Ice is falling
      * Ocean warming has continued through to now
      * Temps have risen 0.6 deg c

      Over the last 60 years the following has occurred:
      * Enso has been flat overall (except the cherry picked year of 1998 was influenced by the strongest el nino and the last 3 years have been influenced by back to back la ninas)
      * Solar has been flat for 50 years and then falling (smallest cycle in 100 years)
      * Huge volcano in early 90′s with huge cooling influence

      All consistent and well explained by AGW. Please explain what has caused the 0.6 deg c of warming in the last 60 years if not AGW.

      • Your last question: There is currently NO theory that explains this, including AGW.

      • I am not enclosed in opinion blog science. I have told you I read the research papers, not the blogs alone. Yes, the blogs and news articles may be my starting point, but my ending point is the research itself. Your statement is simply not true. I may end up agreeing with the blog, but that does not indicate that the blog was the source of my information.

        I stated there were random papers before Hansen. The one you linked to is a paper exploring the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and possible human contributions. Most of the paper deals with natural fluctuations and goes into the current uncertainty in considerable detail. Also, like many such papers, they compare the CO2 theory to other single source theories like the sun and volcanoes. Not all scientists believe there is a single driving force. Rather the theory involves a complex interaction of sources. Some sources are dominate at certain time, others dominant later on.

        Answers:
        1. Yes
        2. Yes–with the qualification that I am not certain our measurements are accurate per se. do we know CO2 levels are equal planet-wide? If not, what area of the planet did we get the 40% from?
        3. Sort of–as noted, greenhouse is a bad description. I agree CO2, along with many other factors, can warm the atmosphere.
        4. I read some of it. I don’t speed read science and I have read some of it in the past.
        5. No–I did not check the animation, nor will I . Animation is not science except when you’re in grade school. (You may or may not agree, but I do not watch YouTube nor animations for my science education.)

        Physics:
        1. Yes
        2. Yes

        Actual effects:
        1. I’m still researching that stratosphere/troposphere claim. To date, I have not been convinced by much of the research.
        2. The ocean Ph is falling, though I don’t know how extensive the phenomena is nor if there are natural causes. I only started researching this. I do thank you for not using the term “acidification”.
        3. and 4. Will return to this later.
        5. Sea levels are rising less than 3 inches a decade
        6. Arctic ice melts, reforms (with it did with a vengeance this fall, trapping people who were convinced the Arctic would soon be open water). There may be less “old ice” but I ascribe no significance to it at this point.
        7. The statistic labelled “global mean temperature” has shown a positive anomaly of .6 degrees in some studies. The statistic and it’s associated anomaly I consider highly sensitive to the data set, any revisions or adjustments to the set, to the trend line drawn and many other factors. For now, it’s number.

        Over the last 60 years:
        ENSO–I have no answer to this right now.
        Solar–I don’t’ have an answer to this right now.
        Huge volcano (Pinatubo?)–yes

        Nature caused the .6 degree of warming, or statistical manipulation, or random chance. AGW does not explain this. The original estimate was much, much higher and was revised down. Again, the theory was off by a huge margin–theory is broken.

  12. Yes, to some degree we are going in circles. You’re the first person to claim the science and models are not the same thing and I am not wrapping my head around it. It’s late, so I’ll return tomorrow.

    Speaking of circles, I cannot respond to any NASA references. Please try to avoid using them or realize it could be a very long time before I can answer. Anything that is not government funded I will read through—-
    Note: I note you did say these sites might be down. It is frustrating that you use them when they cannot be accessed, but as long as you know I can’t get to them, okay. Also, I am familiar with much of this data. I just can’t open the site to see what particular post you are referring to.

  13. Just to quickly address several of your other points.

    I am happy to accept skeptical science, but like you I try to read critically and follow up to the actual peer reveiwed science they often refer to. In regards to hurricanes their is actual science showing an increase in intensity (but not number) and hurricane Sandy was the largest hurricane to have formed in the Atlantic Basin, also at that time of year they normally went out to sea and the storm surge in New York was worse due to rises in sea level. So not inconsequential as far as unusual factors are concerned.

    Making sea levels seem inconsequential is also not scientific, small changes globally have huge changes regionally and are not uniform. Look at temps for instance. Far from a rise by a degree just making things a bit more comfortable, it has destabilised the Arctic jetstream causing much more extreme weather in NH, this has been examined by some peer reveiwed science of which Judith Curry was an author. Also changes in heat records broken over cold records are up 3 to 1 during the day and 5 to 1 at night, extreme precipitation events are up 7% and much more. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/17/1114910109.abstract

    Also the difference between an ice age (with montreal under a couple of km of ice) and an interglacial like now is only about 6 to 8 deg globally. So trying to minimise the changes occurring in that way is incorrect, the effects of those small changes can be huge. I am not saying that I agree with the term catastrophic, that is a term overused by commentors on Jos blog, I have never used it, but that the effects of our geo engineering experiment is unknown and potentially will make life very uncomfortable for future generations to deal with. I do not want to be the cause for leaving a worse world for my kids than the one I enjoy.

    Al Gore’s book may well be quite accurate (I have not read it), but I try to focus on the science and not personalities.

    The Arctic melting is consistent with the theory, the Arctic atmospheric temps are rising twice as fast as the rest of the world. I do not have a problem with looking for other answers but I have a problem with ignoring the obvious one.

    I am sticking to 60 years at the moment so as to focus on our most accurate data, I am happy to accept proxy data as science often has to fill in the blanks in patchy information, in fact the whole model of particle physics has taken a long time to prove (the last piece being the higgs bosun recently and even then nothing can be seen or measured directly it is only through the tracks that are left in particle accelorators), but the model has successfully powered our electronic revolution for 70+ years. But the uncertainties need to be taken into account and accepted that the further back you go the more inaccurate it is likely to be. This goes for most skeptic arguments as well that will point to data from millions of years ago as proof regularly but dispute data we can actually measure now or have deduced from less accurate actual measurements of the recent past.

    Thanks for your cordial discussion, I am spending more time answering you than I am allowed to because I think you are more open than most 🙂

    • Unusual factors are just that–unusual. If you remove the context of climate change, the storm had no significance–or to put it perhaps more succintly, if the same storm occurred in 1890, it would have just been a big storm. One unusual event does not make a pattern or a trend or anything else. As noted before, Hurricane Sandy was more political than anything–we in the US love to make everything on the planet political, it seems. I cannot answer further because I can’t access websites–though I do know that most say hurricane activity is an unknown or “may” increase, which has no real scientific meaning. I’ll try to respond further later.

      I would need evidence that “small changes globally have huge changes regionally”. I don’t know that a degree rise in temperature “destabilized” the Arctic jet stream. I will read through the Judith Curry paper, but the abstract does not seem to indicate that we caused the change–she seems to be describing natural forces. (I know abstracts and papers are often very different in content so I try to find the paper and check all aspects. That takes some time. I want to be thorough.) All of these “connections” between temperature and weather events seem tenuous to me–climate is very, very complex.

      I am still trying to grasp the whole concept of a “global mean temperature” and why changes are considered significant. I agree that we have and effect on the planet–everything does. And I agree that we should not trash the planet just because we can. Right now, I don’t see enough evidence that CO2 increases are causing climate change. The temperatures may be going up some, they may level off, nature may completely erase the effects of CO2 we put in the atmosphere. Before we give up fossil fuels and other CO2 producing things that have increased life spans and given people a high quality of life, I think we need to sure. Unlike the IPCC, I don’t find it 95% probable that we have that kind of influence.

      Agreed on Gore (and Monckton).

      No, the Arctic is not melting consistent with the theory. It’s melting faster. You have stated this elsewhere. This is the only link I have at the moment–it’s not scholarly, but it is the same thing reported throughout the media: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/arctic-ice.htm This indicates the models were not accurate, which draws into question the theory itself.

      While I can stick to the 60 years because it’s instrumental and more accurate, we have to deal with the question of how we know the temperature increase is so much more than in the past–which is where the proxies come in. And where the accuracy decreases and it’s not possible to measure changes in temperature down to the 1 degree or .1 degree level. I fully agree this applies to skeptic arguments as well. We really don’t know what the temperatures were in the past with that much accuracy, now do we know what the CO2 concentrations with extreme accuracy. It’s part of the problem with all of this–scientists splicing together data that really doesn’t splice. It’s one of my pet peeves with the science.

      Actually, I enjoy discussing the science and what it does and does not do. As I have noted on other blogs, people who believe in climate change and are wiling to take the time to explain and work through the points make me think. I may not end up agreeing with you, nor you with me. However, if we just name-call, no one learns anything new or different. I appreciate when people make me think, even if it’s not comfortable sometimes.

      • Ok, we are going around in circles and you seem to be unable to let go of your models excuse. I will come back later when I have some specific science from my course to make you consider, but in the meantime keep thinking about the following ignoring the model PROJECTIONS, but data alone. You have been successfully convinced by climate misrepresenting websites that the models are the science and need to break out of that thinking. Out of a 10 week course the models are only a part of one week and are only there to guide us on what may occur under certain scenarios, they are not expected to be definitive.

        * CO2 is a greenhouse gas
        * Greenhouse gases cause warming, 30 deg c + more than they would have been

        ### Actual effects occurring consistent with the theory
        * Stratosphere cooling while troposphere warming, so warming from below
        * Ocean ph is falling (in a warming world without CO2 emissions ph should actually be rising since the oceans are warming and would let go of CO2)
        * Less energy leaving the planet as arriving with the fall in the same energy bands as absorbed by CO2
        * More energy being received at the surface in the same energy bands as would be reflected back down by CO2
        * Sea levels are rising
        * Arctic Ice is falling
        * Ocean warming has continued through to now
        * Temps have risen 0.6 deg c

        Over the last 60 years the following has occurred:
        * Enso has been flat overall (except the cherry picked year of 1998 was influenced by the strongest el nino and the last 3 years have been influenced by back to back la ninas)
        * Solar has been flat for 50 years and then falling (smallest cycle in 100 years)
        * Huge volcano in early 90′s with huge cooling influence

        Again, the climate is not magic, things happen for a reason, they have pretty good ideas of what makes what happen, and they cannot explain the changes of the last 60 years without AGW. With AGW it all fits perfectly. Not perfectly with model projections, it is a planet and not every variable can is known beforehand (solar and ENSO and CO2 emissions and aerosols and volcanos…) but it fits perfectly with what we would expect in a world warming by AGW. Some links below depending on how keen you are at learning, some might not work until the US reopens for business.

        Greenhouse Gas Spectrum animation
        http://www.chem.arizona.edu/chemt/C21/sim/gh/

        Papers on changes in OLR due to GHG’s
        http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/

        MY NASA DATA Live Access Server –
        http://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/las/getUI.do?dsid=air_quality&varid=carbon_dioxide_in_free_troposphere&auto=true

        Carbon Cycle
        http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

        The Greenhouse Effect Explanation
        http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html

        The Global Climate 2001-2010: a decade of climate extremes – Summary Report
        http://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=15110

        Key Indicators
        http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

        “Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.”
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html

        The discovery of global warming
        http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

        Explore the difference between weather and climate, some really good info here (part of week two readings on the course I am doing)
        http://www.rmets.org/weather-and-climate

        Will get back to you when I learn some more of the science, neck deep in it at the moment.

  14. I stand by my first statement. It’s not a superfluous comment used by people who question climate science. Until the 15 (or 17) year slowdown/hiatus in atmospheric warming, all warming was attributed to humans. I may not have been clear–this does not mean natural factors were not included. It means they were denied to have caused the warming. It is very clear that the IPCC and others believe humans are the driving force of climate. If we are not, then there has to be much more inclusion of natural causes and the admission that nature most certainly can overcome human contributions. This has to be part of the models. As far as I can find, it was not. I did not say that CO2 does not cause warming–I said we cannot prove anthropomorphic warming is going to be catastrophic. Nature can “correct” for the human added part or we’d still be getting warmer.

    From SkepticalScience:

    “Hurricanes aren’t linked to global warming”
    There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.

    “Al Gore got it wrong”
    Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.

    You are saying Skeptical Science is reporting factually incorrect information, right? You agree with the questioners who say this? I don’t know your position on things like this, so I am asking for clarification. If you question the information on that website, I will avoid using references to it in my responses to you.

    Hurricane Sandy was a Cat 2 hurricane. It happened to hit an area with a lot of people, mostly because of the large diameter of the storm. Had it hit islands in the Atlantic and not New York, it’s unlikely anyone would have noticed it much. It was used as a PR and political tool.

    “Rising faster” means the slope of the trend goes up–the question is by how much? Twice 2 cm per decade is 4 cm per decade. Throw in a geometric rise, and maybe some preparation would be necessary. But you have to justify the use of the geometric rise. I have not seem any data that does that. I realize the IPCC says it’s faster than their predictions (again, meaning the model is Wrong) but this is not proof of anything other than problematic modeling in climate change. Trend lines are not reality. It could go down just as easily as up.

    Current melting in the Arctic being faster does not prove humans had anything to do with it. The only possible argument for this would be the exclusionary principle–we can’t find anything else. This is a very tenuous argument for AGW and certainly not worthy of the massive lifestyle changes advocated by the IPCC and others. The statement that things were changing faster than they were prepared for again shows how poorly the modeling reflects reality.

    The data is consistent with multiple theories. There may be no known factors that account for the increase, but the lack of knowledge does not mean the human factor is the right answer. Again, the world has warmed before. One of the misconceptions in climate science is the idea that we can use tree rings and other proxies to calculate the “global temperature” for many years, accurate to 1/10 of a degree. Yet there are virtually no studies comparing proxies to instrumental records. It’s an assumption. The only reason we blame people is it’s politically expedient and it makes people masters of the planet. Nothing in climate science says it HAS to be humans, except the models and the IPCC. You are assuming we have sufficient information to model an incredibly complex system. What evidence do you have to back that up? Certainly not the IPCC–they have admitted they did not anticipate the flattening of the temperatures. If there are studies that stated that temperatures could flatten for over 15 years in the late 1990’s to 2000’s, I would love to read them.

    As noted above, Al Gore is championed by SkepticalScience and many others. No, it was not like you throwing in Monckton’s Hilter comments–I made no such inflammatory remark with Al Gore. I referenced only his comments on science. Had you questioned Monckton’s science, that would have been acceptable. I often call Monckton the “Al Gore of Skeptics”. I evaluate what he says very carefully, just as I do with Gore.

    Thank you for your last comment. I will try to remain civil also. I realize the topic is emotional and tempers flair. However, I also believe that people deserve answers as to why questioners (skeptics) believe as they do. I find that people labelled “trolls” often make me think and research, which is always a good thing. Whether or not I come to change my thinking depends on the strength of the evidence.

    • Firstly natural factors are taken into account in the models and in many other ways in the science. Obviously though this is a planetary system there are many factors not predictable, such as ENSO (but over time it evens out), solar (lowest cycle in 100 years currently in progress) and volcanos (Mt Pinatubo was huge and had a big cooling effect correctly predicted by the modesl). So over time as is evident in the temp data there are ups and down and pauses but with an underlying strong upward trend that evens out over enough time. The reason that the science said that the warming was almost entirely due to humans was the fact that they have data on most natural factors and their net effect is cooling.

      But before we go into the models you need to stick to the actual data. If models is your only issue then we do not have an issue, they are not the science.
      The data over the last 60 years shows as evidenced above:
      * Sea levels are rising, and faster than predicted
      * Arctic Ice is falling, and faster than predicted
      * Ocean warming has continued through to now
      * Ocean ph is falling through to now
      * Temps have risen 0.6 deg c

      Over the last 60 years the following has occurred:
      * Enso has been flat overall (except the cherry picked year of 1998 was influenced by the strongest el nino and the last 3 years have been influenced by back to back la ninas)
      * Solar has been flat for 50 years and then falling (smallest cycle in 100 years)
      * Huge volcano in early 90’s with huge cooling influence

      So please explain WHY WE HAVE THE CONSEQUENCES ABOVE WITH MOST MAJOR NATURAL INFLUENCES BEING FLAT OR COOLING. Feel free to give your ‘multiple theories’ with science and data.

      Your comment “There may be no known factors that account for the increase, but the lack of knowledge does not mean the human factor is the right answer.” is unacceptable. We have a firm theory of over 100 years duration. It says that greenhouse gases keeps our planet 30+ deg warmer than they would be without them. It tells us that increasing these gases will cause warming. We have increased one of the main ones by 40%. Warming has occurred. It also tells us of other effects likely to occur, Arctic warming faster than anywhere else, sea level rising, ocean warming, ocean ph falling etc. It also tells us measurements we could make to confirm that includes less energy leaving the planet than arriving. This has been measured in a falling of energy leaving in the IR bands affected by CO2, also by surface measurements of an increase in ir in the bands affected by CO2. It also tells us that the stratosphere would cool while the tropospere warms if it is greenhouse gas warmed, this has also been measured. There are many more fingerprints if you would like more. So to ignore a firm theory with a response of ‘anything but the theory that explains all observations, even something unknown’ is not accepting science.

      The flattening of temps are easily explained and have been, natural fluctuations due mainly to ocean cycles and solar, and are regular in the record. What is significant is that we have not cooled, which clearly shows that AGW is overwhelming natural factors and when the natural factors switch to warming, another burst (as seen before) will occur taking us into uncharted territory (we already are). The ocean cycles are cyclic, which means that they will even out over time and their support is temporary, nevertheless they also provide problems for the ocean health in regards to the warming and the falling ph.

      I am glad you are open to be convinced and I will try to keep up, but I have promised my partner I would greatly reduce my blog commenting especially since I have taken on an online course on climate literacy at the University of British Columbia. I am up to week 2 and it is quite heavy in the science, going into energy basic, systems dynamics, the climate system and the ice age cycles. I want to be as knowledgable as possible and speak from the science.

      The other points I will seperate into another post rather than clutter this crusial point I am trying to make.

      • Natural factors are “taken into account” but may only be with fudge factors or a static model. This generally does not adequately address the complex system of climate. I will find some links for this and post them later on in the comments section.
        (I cannot comment on your Nasa link until my juvenile government puts the websites up. I could put in my saved graphs, but I can’t link, so I’ll come back to this whenever the websites reopen.)

        The data has no meaning unless you introduce trend lines (statistical analysis) or modeling. You cannot have sea levels rising “faster than predicted” unless you have a prediction. Where did the prediction come from? The trend line? Also, taken alone, the data has no meaning. Sea levels rise and sea levels fall.
        Same question on the Arctic–where did the prediction come from? (The model says it’s faster than expected, which means the model fails.)
        The ocean is warming–yes, As a stand-alone fact, again, no meaning.
        Ocean Ph falling–okay, why? CO2 going into it? Has this happened before? When and what caused it if we know.
        Temps have risen–they do that, and they also fall.
        Even put all together, all this says is the climate changes.

        If the climate was cooling, then should we have not put the CO2 in the atmosphere and just continued with the Little Ice Age? Cooling periods are always more brutal than warm, though the history of the planet seems to be predominantly glacial. Do we really want a cooler planet, assuming we have any choice whatsoever in it?

        Yes, we have increased CO2 by 40%. It is now .0400% of the atmospheric gases (hopefully my math is correct). To ascertain whether that is significant or not, you have to use a model. Or that is the way the climate science community has explained it. If they used something else, please explain it for me. Right now, as far as I know, all of climate science predictions are based on models.

        You have given me some points to research further–especially as far as the natural cycles. I have not seen anything from the climate change advocates that said natural could overcome human until now. I will look into this in more depth. You state you are getting to the ice age cycles–sounds quite interesting. Comment whenever you have time and I’ll try and respond.

  15. Reality

    #The 2001 to 2010 decade is the hottest on the instrumental record globally, over ocean, land and on every continent.
    #2011 and 2012 are the hottest la nina affected years on record
    #The long term trend in warming is unaffected by short term noise


    #1998 was affected by one of the strongest el ninos in 60 years
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

    Natural factors in this hottest decade were so influenced by cooling that it led a paper by Mclean, Freitas and Carter to conclude that 2011 would be as cold as 1956…

    “COOL YEAR PREDICTED

    It is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956, or even earlier, says the lead author of a peer-reviewed paper published in 2009:

    Our ENSO – temperature paper of 2009 and the aftermath by John McLean

    “The paper, by John McLean, Professor Chris de Freitas and Professor Bob Carter, showed that the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), a measure of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions, is a very good indicator of average global atmospheric temperatures approximately seven months ahead, except when volcanic eruptions cause short-term cooling.”
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349

    They were out by 0.5 degrees c, not even close. It has not cooled despite natural factors due to AGW holding temps up.

    The oceans are still warming.
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    Sea levels are still rising
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

    The Arctic is still melting

    and much more…

    All of the above is ACTUAL DATA, NO MODELS, the science is not models they are merely projections of certain scenarios. The actual evidence is overwhelming and clear.

    I could also present much solid science to show rising heat record trends, risis in extreme precipitation events (floods, drounght, hail, snow) and rising droughts. Read IPCC AR4 synthesis report, they never predicted a change in tornados or an increase in hurricanes. Basically all the actual evidence confirms and supports AGW and the science of the greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle.

    Someone once said (cannot remember who) that science is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship and evidence is the dictator. The evidence is what I have posted above. Lets see if you have the courage to post this.

    • Welcome to my blog.

      WARNING: Political comment: I can’t look up most of your references because our wonderful, caring government punitively closed access to websites in retaliation for not getting their way.

      I will wing it for now: Up until the temperatures leveled off, there was absolute insistence that CO2 was THE climate driver and that natural factors could not overcome the CO2. Now, suddenly, nature can. Which means CO2 is not THE factor, it’s one of many and we have no idea how important it is since climate change scientists had assumed and insisted it was THE factor.

      I don’t dispute that the oceans are warming in some places. We have buoys that have measured this for all of 21 years or so. Kind of a short data set, but for now, they are increasing in temperature.

      Sea levels are rising by cm. I would hardly call that a crisis.

      The Arctic melts and freezes over and over and over. It’s natural. It is completely expected–and throughout that last 2 centuries there have been repeated panicking episodes about the Arctic Melting. We do know it has been ice free in the past. (Actually, the problem that proved the models wrong was the Arctic was melting faster than the models said.)

      The evidence you present is indeed evidence of some warming both of the atmosphere and the oceans, the Arctic is in a melting phase like it has been repeatedly in the past and the ocean is rising by less than 2 inches.

      Now, the models. Or perhaps a trend line–all of these things are dependent on information put in, choosing the correct model or statistical methodology. If you make a mistake in the choice, the model or trend line is useless. You can present all the evidence of rises in precipitation, etc, but the only question that is important is: Are the statistical trend lines and models accurate? Without that answer, you present only data. There is no theory in any of the data itself, only in the interpretation. Which is comprised of models and statistics.

      Note: I have never said the IPCC predicted increases in tornadoes or hurricanes, which you would know if you read my writings. I praised the head of the IPCC for jumping in and asking people not to use tornadoes, especially individual ones, as proof of climate change. Al Gore said Cat 6 was being added to the hurricane scale–Mr. hero for the climate change crowd. Please check my writings before making comments.

      Your last statement is quite juvenile–if I don’t post this, no one knows. You are apparently trying to intimidate me into posting. I will note that I will post any rebuttals to my articles, but I will not post intimidating or name-calling ones. Please leave out the last part unless you clearly label it as an attempt to intimidate the blog owner and not address the science.

      • ** “Up until the temperatures leveled off, there was absolute insistence that CO2 was THE climate driver and that natural factors could not overcome the CO2.”
        # This has never been said by the science. It is one of those comments used by misrepresenters as an impossible requirement that can never be met. Of course there are many variables that can influence the climate, both natural and anthropogenic and on short and long time scales. The science accepts this and it is not in dispute, it tries to evaluate and measure those factors to determine their strength, whether they cool or warm and over what time periods. Your statement is scientifically deceptive, inaccurate and does not change the science of the greenhouse effect, that CO2 causes warming and that the warming can and does produce consequences.

        ** “Sea levels are rising by cm. I would hardly call that a crisis. ”
        # Glad to see that you accept that the oceans have warmed, although minimise the available information. Over time measurements get more and more accurate, that does not mean we have no information on temps prior to our most accurate measurements. Science often deals with information from a variety of different sources and accuracies and we have credible data that goes back further. As to sea levels, you omit that the rate is increasing, twice as fast now as the previous hundred years, and likely to continue to get faster, especially if a large Antarctic ice shelf goes or Greenland. Also in global scales small effects can mean massive changes regionally and under certain circumstances. You need only look at the storm surge in Hurricane Sandy last year. Also you mentioned earlier that it is cm and not metres now. Well the IPCC always had cm and it is rising faster than their predictions.

        **”The Arctic melts and freezes over and over and over. It’s natural. It is completely expected–and throughout that last 2 centuries there have been repeated panicking episodes about the Arctic Melting.”
        # Recent science has put the melting as faster and further than in over 1400 years. Sure melting is natural, but what is important is why it is melting, how fast it is melting and what are the likely consequences. So the current melting is faster than predicted and not expected.

        “We are now in uncharted territory,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze. “While we’ve long known that as the planet warms up, changes would be seen first and be most pronounced in the Arctic, few of us were prepared for how rapidly the changes would actually occur.” ”
        http://nsidc.org/news/press/2012_seaiceminimum.html

        ** “Now, the models. Or perhaps a trend line–all of these things are dependent on information put in, choosing the correct model or statistical methodology. ”
        # Why the models? I used actual data, the models are merely projections of certain scenarios and are not the basis for the science. The trends are clear in temperature, Arctic and glacier melting as well as ice volume, falling ocean ph, which is likely to have dire long term consequences on ocean health, rising sea levels, ocean warming and much more. All accepted by you, most faster than expected but unscientifically minimised. The old big or small numbers argument rather than the effect these changes have. The data speaks for itself, is consistent with the theory, and most importantly, there are NO OTHER FACTORS that can explain the warming, especially the 0.6 deg c of the last 60 years when virtually all natural factors have been flat or cooling. The climate is not magic, it reacts to forcings, if most natural forcings are cooling then you need to accept the theory that predicted this would happen, the theory based in solid measurable physics of the greenhouse effect and the radiative properties of CO2, the theory based on the science of the carbon cycle, which we have seriously thrown out of balance by increasing CO2 by 40%. There are no valid, scientifically accepted arguments against AGW and its effect on the warming, ocean, arctic and weather of the last 60 years.

        ** “Al Gore said Cat 6 was being added to the hurricane scale–Mr. hero for the climate change crowd”
        # This is juvenile, he is not a scientist and I have focussed on the science and the data. That would be similar to me throwing in Monckton, and his over the top hitler comments and misrepresentation of the data and science.

        ** “Your last statement is quite juvenile–if I don’t post this, no one knows.”
        # I accept that, I have been used to people ignoring me when I become to inconvenient. I should have given you the benefit of doubt rather than try to shame you into accepting my post. I do not name call as a general rule (unless severely provoked, as you would see over at Jos how often I am called names or my name twisted and subjected to insults and abuse). I see that as lessening my argument if I degenerate into their kind of behaviour. I let the science and the data speak for itself.

  16. Skeptikal says:

    In the world of science, observations trump theory every time.

    It doesn’t matter what the IPCC says now, people can see that the observations don’t match the theory. Global warming just doesn’t work without the warming.

    It’s kinda scarey to think that, even though the planet hasn’t warmed in well over a decade, some people’s faith can blind them so badly that they willingly choose to ignore reality.

Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s