Climate Change!

[George the original one]

1. No temperature increase in the last 15-20 years.

Once again, show me how you're reading the chart you linked to. It clearly shows 0.4 degree rise in the past 15 years and I'm just going from local minimum to local minimum. The average line in that chart also shows a rise. PLEASE SHOW ME OTHERWISE!

[steveo73]

You can go ahead and believe this fraudulent behavior if you want too.

So it is a conspiracy? Fraudulent behavior by every climate scientist against this one? Has any credible scientist criticized the revisions of Dr. Spencer's miscalculations?

Definitely. I think that is pretty clear. I tell you something interesting - there aren't too many scientists as credible as Dr Spencer in that field. I don't know where you go from there. If you can't trust him you are basically screwed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPW ... 1#t=29m52s

[steveo73]

1. No temperature increase in the last 15-20 years.

Once again, show me how you're reading the chart you linked to. It clearly shows 0.4 degree rise in the past 15 years and I'm just going from local minimum to local minimum. The average line in that chart also shows a rise. PLEASE SHOW ME OTHERWISE!

That is the best chart to look at. I don't understand how you are reading that chart to come up with your data. 1998 - .45 running average. 2016 .5 running average. Is that your warming ? If so you gotta laugh. That shows how much you want to believe.

That global warming is a real killer. We are all doomed.

[Chad]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skepti ... pencer.htm

[theanimal]

For some reason, I predict a post in the near future about skepticalscience being fraudulent.

This is a solid wall here, folks. 2 mega threads demonstrate the evidence of that. I don't think anybody is going to be knocking it down. But I commend those who are still trying!

[steveo73]

For some reason, I predict a post in the near future about skepticalscience being fraudulent.

Good prediction. Stay away from that site. They have proven themselves to be frauds. There is an old saying screw me once shame on you. Screw me twice shame on me. If anyone is seriously taking that site as being in anyway shape or form credible they need to take to re-think their position.

[steveo73]

For some reason, I predict a post in the near future about skepticalscience being fraudulent.

This is a solid wall here, folks. 2 mega threads demonstrate the evidence of that. I don't think anybody is going to be knocking it down. But I commend those who are still trying!

We now though have some much better facts to deal with:-

1. The warming hasn't occurred.
2. The extreme weather events haven't occurred.
3. There definitely isn't a consensus amongst the scientific community.
4. The AGW hypothesis appears at this point to be fraudulent. We've had big predictions that haven't occurred.
5. Some people are desperate for the AGW hypothesis to be factual despite the proof being against it and their predictions of doom being so dire.

I suppose the warmists now have to pray that warming occurs over the next couple of decades. If not their religion will be done and dusted.

[Gilberto de Piento]

This is a solid wall here, folks. 2 mega threads demonstrate the evidence of that. I don't think anybody is going to be knocking it down. But I commend those who are still trying!

I think everyone knows steveo is not going to change his mind. At best, this is about making sure that others don't believe that there is still a debate about global warming or that there is no global warming. Also as a scientist I'm personally offended at the allegations that climate scientists have created climate change for grant money. There isn't much evidence of scientific fraud of any sort and I can't imagine that all the bad eggs ended up in this one field and created a conspiracy. If they're really in it for the money there are easier ways if someone has no morals.

Part of the problem is that one side (the warmists - ha!) is trying to approach this in a scientific way (uncertainty is ok, expect scientists to disagree about the details) while the other side (steveo - I could say "the deniers" but there is only one, they are becoming a rare breed) wants things to be completely black and white and conclusive. He also will only engage with sources that supports his position (Dr. Judith Curry! Note the appeal to authority - half of this forum probably has a PhD but no one is Dr. so-and-so). It's hard to argue from a scientific position but easy to say all the data are manipulated and the result of fraud. Steveo says a lot of scientific words (hypothesis, hypothesis, hypothesis) to sound like a scientist but refuses to act like one.

[George the original one]

1. No temperature increase in the last 15-20 years.

Once again, show me how you're reading the chart you linked to. It clearly shows 0.4 degree rise in the past 15 years and I'm just going from local minimum to local minimum. The average line in that chart also shows a rise. PLEASE SHOW ME OTHERWISE!

That is the best chart to look at. I don't understand how you are reading that chart to come up with your data. 1998 - .45 running average. 2016 .5 running average. Is that your warming ? If so you gotta laugh. That shows how much you want to believe.

That global warming is a real killer. We are all doomed.

Funny that you couldn't show any cooling and had to pick a peak year as a starting point.

[steveo73]

At best, this is about making sure that others don't believe that there is still a debate about global warming or that there is no global warming.

This is factually incorrect but the details are what matters. The world has been warming for the last 200 years. The hypothesis of AGW though is widely disputed.

Also as a scientist I'm personally offended at the allegations that climate scientists have created climate change for grant money. There isn't much evidence of scientific fraud of any sort and I can't imagine that all the bad eggs ended up in this one field and created a conspiracy. If they're really in it for the money there are easier ways if someone has no morals.

It has definitely occurred.

Part of the problem is that one side (the warmists - ha!) is trying to approach this in a scientific way (uncertainty is ok, expect scientists to disagree about the details) while the other side (steveo - I could say "the deniers" but there is only one, they are becoming a rare breed) wants things to be completely black and white and conclusive. He also will only engage with sources that supports his position (Dr. Judith Curry! Note the appeal to authority - half of this forum probably has a PhD but no one is Dr. so-and-so). It's hard to argue from a scientific position but easy to say all the data are manipulated and the result of fraud. Steveo says a lot of scientific words (hypothesis, hypothesis, hypothesis) to sound like a scientist but refuses to act like one.

I think the complete opposite is true. That is why I use facts whereas you in this post use an ad-hominen argument.

[steveo73]

Once again, show me how you're reading the chart you linked to. It clearly shows 0.4 degree rise in the past 15 years and I'm just going from local minimum to local minimum. The average line in that chart also shows a rise. PLEASE SHOW ME OTHERWISE!

That is the best chart to look at. I don't understand how you are reading that chart to come up with your data. 1998 - .45 running average. 2016 .5 running average. Is that your warming ? If so you gotta laugh. That shows how much you want to believe.

That global warming is a real killer. We are all doomed.

Funny that you couldn't show any cooling and had to pick a peak year as a starting point.

That is exactly how this whole process works. You still though have some massive problems in your theory. The world hasn't responded as per your predictions.

[Gilberto de Piento]

On 12/28 steveo said:

1. The warming hasn't occurred.

Later on the same day steveo said:

The world has been warming for the last 200 years.

Is the earth warming or not? You can't even agree with yourself.

I feel like I'm having a twitter conversation with Donald Trump.

[steveo73]

On 12/28 steveo said:

1. The warming hasn't occurred.

Later on the same day steveo said:

The world has been warming for the last 200 years.

Is the earth warming or not? You can't even agree with yourself.

I feel like I'm having a twitter conversation with Donald Trump.

The world has been warming for the last 200 odd years. The problem is that AGW has a hypothesis that the earth's warming is because of CO2 that has been released because we use fossil fuels.

I hope that you can understand the difference.

So over the last 15-20 years when we were meant to have all this catastrophic warming but no warming has occurred and probably some cooling.

We don't know if the Earth will continue warming or if it will cool or what will happen.

If you look at the science of AGW the facts are really clear cut.

1. CO2 doesn't directly augment the natural greenhouse effect much at all. This is widely accepted.
2. There are potential feedback mechanisms. This is the area where scientists hypothesize that increased cloud vapour etc may lead to significantly increased warming. This is far from agreed upon.
3. To try and prove AGW various statistical models have been produced.
4. The models haven't been working - i.e. they state we should have had massive warming ala the hockey stick graph but this hasn't occurred.

So the conclusion has to be one of a couple of points:-

1. AGW is a complete and utter fraud.
2. AGW is nothing at all like what the alarmists would have you believe. There is basically nothing to worry about.
3. AGW is something to worry about but the theory needs to be revised because it isn't working at all. The Earth's climate is too complex and we will get false positives etc.

That is about it. There isn't a valid conclusion that conforms to the alarmists beliefs at this point.

You can utilise all your political type arguments but the facts are the facts. AGW needs a lot of work.

Lastly - I hope you viewed that post where I showed the fraud that has occurred. It's pretty interesting. You might be offended but it shouldn't be at me. It should be at your fellow "scientists".

[7Wannabe5]

I think the level of analysis that is being neglected in the above post is the level at which fairly simple statistical analysis can and has been applied to determine whether the observed increase in overall global temperature is due to human or natural mechanisms. It is my understanding, perhaps flawed, that this can and has been done at the level that can be understood by anybody who has a vague recollection of the German baker problem sometimes offered in first year statistics. The German baker problem goes something like:

It is wartime and the regulation is that German bakers must produce 2 lb. loaves of bread. However, ingredients have become expensive, so one baker starts skimping and produces loaves that are averaging 1.8 lbs. with natural variation of .2 lbs. Then he hears that the inspector is coming, so he starts trying to compensate by baking loaves that are averaging 2.2 lbs. with same natural variation of .2 lbs. But, even though his loaves end up weighing an average of 2 lbs. during the inspection, he is still righteously busted for cheating due to the power of math.

So, if you get this problem, then you also get that the only argument possible to deny human causation in global climate change is some vast conspiracy among scientists to present false data.

I am too lazy to study enough to speak to any arguments regarding the modeling/predictions beyond this level. It is just much easier to observe that somebody in my social circle who does claim to understand the modeling/predictions, and does not seem to be an evil conspirator or a dupe of evil conspirators, is choosing to live right across the lake from me.

[Gilberto de Piento]

The world has been warming for the last 200 odd years. The problem is that AGW has a hypothesis that the earth's warming is because of CO2 that has been released because we use fossil fuels.

Twenty years ago when people wanted to argue that we didn't need to worry about global warming they said that it wasn't happening. Now that there's too much evidence for it (the example from earlier in the thread of plant hardiness zones changing is a good one that the average person can see for themselves) so the new argument is that the climate is always been changing and its been warming for 200 years.

What happened 200 years ago? The industrial revolution! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution That's when people started putting carbon into the air that wasn't coming from trees that had previously pulled that same carbon out of the air. http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/. We're coming up on double (400ppm) the average amount of C02 that was in the atmosphere (200ppm or so) for the last 400,000 years as per ice core samples (see the linked chart which for some reason I am not able to embed here).

[jen]

According to this article, the data has literally been faked to conform to the theory and correlate to CO2. Can anyone provide evidence why or why not to believe this person's claim? How can there be objective science when the data itself cannot be agreed upon and can be altered/obscured by the government and related entities, which have compelling interests in the data telling a certain story? How is this any different in principle than the bogus employment and other economic statistics put out?

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/1 ... tampering/

[George the original one]

Jen - the only chart you have to look at in the linked article is: http://realclimatescience.com/wp-conten ... .10-AM.gif

It clearly shows the hockey stick exists whether using "biased" data or "unbiased" data.

[steveo73]

I think the level of analysis that is being neglected in the above post is the level at which fairly simple statistical analysis can and has been applied to determine whether the observed increase in overall global temperature is due to human or natural mechanisms. It is my understanding, perhaps flawed, that this can and has been done at the level that can be understood by anybody who has a vague recollection of the German baker problem sometimes offered in first year statistics.

This is definitely false. No one can state that AGW is occurring via statistical analysis and anyone telling you that they can is either lying or they have absolutely no idea.

The reverse is now true though due to the "pause" over the last 15-20 years.

[steveo73]

The world has been warming for the last 200 odd years. The problem is that AGW has a hypothesis that the earth's warming is because of CO2 that has been released because we use fossil fuels.

Twenty years ago when people wanted to argue that we didn't need to worry about global warming they said that it wasn't happening. Now that there's too much evidence for it (the example from earlier in the thread of plant hardiness zones changing is a good one that the average person can see for themselves) so the new argument is that the climate is always been changing and its been warming for 200 years.

What happened 200 years ago? The industrial revolution! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution That's when people started putting carbon into the air that wasn't coming from trees that had previously pulled that same carbon out of the air. http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/. We're coming up on double (400ppm) the average amount of C02 that was in the atmosphere (200ppm or so) for the last 400,000 years as per ice core samples (see the linked chart which for some reason I am not able to embed here).

Do you realise that the Earth's temperature and CO2 have also been a lot higher and lower in the past ? Are you suggesting that AGW started 200 years ago ?

So your belief must therefore be that AGW is occurring but it has such a minimal impact that it isn't anything at all to worry about ?

[steveo73]

According to this article, the data has literally been faked to conform to the theory and correlate to CO2. Can anyone provide evidence why or why not to believe this person's claim? How can there be objective science when the data itself cannot be agreed upon and can be altered/obscured by the government and related entities, which have compelling interests in the data telling a certain story? How is this any different in principle than the bogus employment and other economic statistics put out?

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/1 ... tampering/

It's not as simple as what you state. Here are some of the issues with the data without the fraudulent behaviour:-

1. We don't have great data going back thousands and even millions of years. This makes it hard to make definitive calls because climate constantly changes but we don't have a perfect backdrop to compare current changes to past changes. We do know the temperature has been hotter and colder than what it is today.
2. The temperature gauges (and there are a lot of different methods for measuring temperature) are still suspect.

What happens is because of point 2 is that the "scientists" manipulate the data to make their point. They have been caught out doing this in really obvious fashions but there are lots of other instances that look dodgy and basically no on believes the information that they produce. The NOAA data is a classic example. The hockey stick data is another example. Temperatures were meant to increase like a hockey stick but they didn't.

The best data is probably the satellite data that I provided however that is still not perfect.

You can though take a step back from this and realise that the facts of AGW at this point are still pretty clear cut. The points that I made above are factual. AGW is definitely not proven and even if it is proven at some point in the future it appears that the impact will be minimal and potentially it may be positive. What we have now from the alarmists is more akin to a religion or a political belief. They can argue as much as they want but they don't have the facts on their side.

I'm surprised that this is even being debated anymore. The alarmists have been proven to be wrong. They created false impressions of the impact of AGW, they created false impressions of the maturity of the science and they have distorted the data.

You'll notice that the alarmists on this thread cannot even rationally debate the points I make. They use political arguments and they don't face the facts.