Climategate II: The Sequel

[Malthusian Oligarchs]

well, the fact that we can, you know, check, combined with the fact that we did and ruled it out would tend to point against the sun being responsible. same goes for orbital wobbles and all other non-anthropogenic causes that are associated with other shifts.

If the sun isn't responsible, then what? How do you explain warm trends which date back thousands of years? And I'd like to know which sources of yours ruled out the sun as the primary cause of climate change, because Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, one of the top men in his field, say that the sun is the cause. Dr. Tim Ball, another top guy, says so too.

your chart is cherry-picked and placed at misleading scales and flat out wrong. for one thing, that simply isn't the cru data. and it certainly isn't the entire record of those sources. a better plot looks more like this:



hmm, amazing how that changes the picture, isn't it?

And your chart is cherry picked as well. Lets go back a half billion years then, where you can see there is no correlation between co2 and an increase in temperature.

[Barringtonia]

]
If the sun isn't responsible, then what? How do you explain warm trends which date back thousands of years? And I'd like to know which sources of yours ruled out the sun as the primary cause of climate change, because Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, one of the top men in his field, say that the sun is the cause...

Does he, does he ascribe all warming to the sun alone? I don't think so, he's a noted contrarian and, first, he agrees that the earth is warming and, second, he agrees with nearly everything aside from enough to label him a contrarian. Mostly he disagree with the extent, still this is someone who also says..

Lindzen has been characterized as a contrarian.. ..This characterization has been linked to Lindzen's view that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking. Writing in Newsweek, Fred Guterl stated "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette"[30] – an observation that was later echoed by Robyn Williams.[31]

Simple fact is that the science is in, that people over-exaggerate in an attempt to convince people is also true, that we need sceptics to some extent to ensure validity of evidence is true but deniers are pretty much agreed, across the board, to be wrong.

Lindzen is not a denier of the scientific principles, he simply says the effect is not as great as predicted by some, nor enough to be overly concerned about.

Tim Ball is a geologist.

[Dragontide]

This is from the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and shows a correlation between solar radiation and the earth's temperature. The temperature drops due to volcanoes are caused by sulfuric acid they spew into the upper atmosphere.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/images/science ... -paleo.jpg

now look at the end of your chart. the sun part doesn't do anything in particular, but the surface temp jumps off the chart.

curiouser and curiouser...

And the chart ends in the year 2000. You factor in the previous decade (0.96 (F) above the 20th century mean and the warmest decade in recorded history) and it leaves solar irradiance in the dust.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global

[Avenio]

And your chart is cherry picked as well. Lets go back a half billion years then, where you can see there is no correlation between co2 and an increase in temperature.

[Dragontide]

Lets go back a half billion years then, where you can see there is no correlation between co2 and an increase in temperature.

But a MUCH warmer bedrock back then.

[Free Soviets]

And your chart is cherry picked as well. Lets go back a half billion years then, where you can see there is no correlation between co2 and an increase in temperature.

But that chart doesn't take into account the global crashes in oxygen levels during the Ordovician, Carboniferous and, most famously, at the K/T boundary.

and the changes in continental positioning, core temperature, the various orbital wobbles, solar output, or anything.

climate has many factors. the one that has changed recently is greenhouse gas concentration.

(also, i think the issue is that your spoiler end tag is outside the end quote tag. maybe.)

[Solarva]

Opinion: Hm...I wonder what would happen if temperatures suddenly drops.

[Neu Mitanni]

Opinion: Hm...I wonder what would happen if temperatures suddenly drops.

You mean, like, this current winter?

[Solarva]

Opinion: Hm...I wonder what would happen if temperatures suddenly drops.

You mean, like, this current winter?

I meant extended drops on temperature, like temp lowers for the next 5-10 years.

Plus it's a big IF.

[Capitalistliberals]

Yeah, a few miscalculations for the effects of climate change in one area definitely would make me throw the whole report out and deny climate change.

Sure.

It's far more than mere "miscalculations" at this point. It's fraud perpetrated to advance an agenda. "Global warming" is a big hoax and a smokescreen to disguise a naked power grab over the world's economy. Fortunately, people are beginning to wake up to it.

Alright explain that in a hundred or so years when NYC is underwater...Its called a tape measure and it gives so pretty clear proof that the ocean is rising, a direct result of melting polar icecaps

[Nadkor]

Opinion: Hm...I wonder what would happen if temperatures suddenly drops.

You mean, like, this current winter?

Ah, are you one of those who doesn't know the difference between "weather" and "climate"?

Because that really wouldn't come as a shock to anybody.

[Tunizcha]

The moniker "global warming" is misleading.

Anyways, Kryonea predicted this already.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8468358.stm

*sigh*

You know, I guarantee you that global warming skeptics are going to take this and run with it all over the place. Graaah.

[Automagfreek]

Yeah, a few miscalculations for the effects of climate change in one area definitely would make me throw the whole report out and deny climate change.

Sure.

It's far more than mere "miscalculations" at this point. It's fraud perpetrated to advance an agenda. "Global warming" is a big hoax and a smokescreen to disguise a naked power grab over the world's economy. Fortunately, people are beginning to wake up to it.

Alright explain that in a hundred or so years when NYC is underwater...Its called a tape measure and it gives so pretty clear proof that the ocean is rising, a direct result of melting polar icecaps

The Arctic ice cap seems to be doing pretty well, it has grown since last year and has thickened.

Picture

[Free Soviets]

The Arctic ice cap seems to be doing pretty well, it has grown since last year and has thickened.

Picture

that actually looks the same size to me, though it has thickened up a bit in the actual arctic ocean. but look at the margins, they have shifted. and, of course, last year was already significantly down from when we started measuring, so even if it had increased a bit, it would still be below the pre-anthropogenic climate change baseline.

[Free Soviets]

Opinion: Hm...I wonder what would happen if temperatures suddenly drops.

You mean, like, this current winter?

Ah, are you one of those who doesn't know the difference between "weather" and "climate"?

Because that really wouldn't come as a shock to anybody.

worse, NM seems confused by the existence of seasons

[The Lone Alliance]

This gun' be good.

Popcorn anyone?

Hot Coca since this is about "Warming".

[Straglstrooflsluthel]

What a terrible graph. Not only does it fail to specify what the 'Temperature anormality' is (it can't be over the 1000 year period, because it barely ever gets above 0), but it also doesn't say where the data was taken from. Then, it takes the one piece of data that correlates to Global warming and make it as bold and standout as possible. As you can see from the other lines, it's barely above the anormality. Plus, this bold black line doesn't go back to the Medieval Warm Period so there's no way of comparing this temperature to the temperature in previous warm periods. This is another example of shocking cherry picking.

[Meoton]

So: how many more revelations like this will it take before “global warming” takes its place next to astrology, phrenology, vitalism, phlogiston and other discredited theories?

Well, errors and misprints in reports aside, the fact that the global average temperature has been going up, and that this rise in temperature has been increasing steadily through the last century, I'd say it would take quite a lot more revelations before it is discredited. And not with revelations like this. A flawed report proves only that it was a flawed report. Errors happen, but so far, none have disproved the basic theory or the general facts that support it.
So, keep waiting. I expect you have about the same chance of seeing it discredited as you do of seeing the second coming.

[Straglstrooflsluthel]

Well, errors and misprints in reports aside, the fact that the global average temperature has been going up, and that this rise in temperature has been increasing steadily through the last century, I'd say it would take quite a lot more revelations before it is discredited. And not with revelations like this. A flawed report proves only that it was a flawed report. Errors happen, but so far, none have disproved the basic theory or the general facts that support it.
So, keep waiting. I expect you have about the same chance of seeing it discredited as you do of seeing the second coming.

Technically, scientists are yet to prove it's CO2 behind global warming, as data has shown increases in temperatue this rapid have happened numerous times in the past without human intervention. Plus, there's always the recent drop in temperatures to prove CO2 clearly isn't the only factor.

You have to remember that if Global Warming is disproven, then everyone in the IPCC and the thousands of scientists they employ will lose their jobs. Of course they're not going to come out and say "Oh, it's not our fault, keep your billions of dollars. We don't want it". When scientists have that much pressure to find proof of Global Warming it's a lot easier than if you're unbiased.

[Whole Conviction]

<snip>uote]

(Emphasis added)

So: how many more revelations like this will it take before “global warming” takes its place next to astrology, phrenology, vitalism, phlogiston and other discredited theories?

The 'daily mail' thing is your first warning to take things with a grain of salt. They'll slant things any way they want.

The main point... wow, a climate scientist put in something that wasn't quite proven yet. yes, the entire thing is a fraud. You caught them out. Go you.

Seriously... do you think that ANYONe is capable of that sort of conspiracy? Over 100 years of science progressing step-by-step from 'hey, this is something that might happen one day' to 'yep, it's actually happening' with every conceivable step inbetween (including contradictory data, which was later found to be faulty, and many alternate theories).... yes, it's all bunk. Of course. Despite the fact that 13 years of emails failed to turn up even a single smoking gun.

This is beyond poor.

[Whole Conviction]

Global warming has become like a religion. Even if it's disproved, some people will always believe it.

Sad but true. It was actually warmer in the 1400's.

No it wasn't. You're trusting bogus charts such as the one used in the Great Global Warming Swindle, which was an outright lie. Even the climate skeptics quoted in that 'documentary' complained that their work was being used fraudulently.

The Medieval Warm Period was NOT warmer than the past 50 years.

[Whole Conviction]

So: how many more revelations like this will it take before “global warming” takes its place next to astrology, phrenology, vitalism, phlogiston and other discredited theories?

You don't even have to buy into the political inferno that is what the radicals spout out of their lips to view such a comparison of natural climate fluctuation to discredited pseudosciences and "theories" as utterly imbecilic.

Global warming has been happening probably since the Earth first had climate--it's not even bound just to Earth itself--to compare it to phrenology and astrology, to call it a "theory," as if we don't know it has happened, might be happening, and will continue to happen, or that it exists to begin with, is utterly idiotic, and should be viewed as such no matter where you're sitting around the table.

I agree with Rhodmhire, human caused or not, there is irrevocable evidence for climate change.

This is true. There is SOME controversy in the scientific community (not much, but it bears mention) about anthropogenicclimate change. There really is no serious controversy about whether the earth is warming or not.

[Alsatian Knights]

So: how many more revelations like this will it take before “global warming” takes its place next to astrology, phrenology, vitalism, phlogiston and other discredited theories?

You don't even have to buy into the political inferno that is what the radicals spout out of their lips to view such a comparison of natural climate fluctuation to discredited pseudosciences and "theories" as utterly imbecilic.

Global warming has been happening probably since the Earth first had climate--it's not even bound just to Earth itself--to compare it to phrenology and astrology, to call it a "theory," as if we don't know it has happened, might be happening, and will continue to happen, or that it exists to begin with, is utterly idiotic, and should be viewed as such no matter where you're sitting around the table.

I agree with Rhodmhire, human caused or not, there is irrevocable evidence for climate change.

This is true. There is SOME controversy in the scientific community (not much, but it bears mention) about anthropogenicclimate change. There really is no serious controversy about whether the earth is warming or not.

Yup and if it is a natural cycle then aren't those trying to stop Global Warming the same type of people who are "causing" it to happen?

[Whole Conviction]

well, the fact that we can, you know, check, combined with the fact that we did and ruled it out would tend to point against the sun being responsible. same goes for orbital wobbles and all other non-anthropogenic causes that are associated with other shifts.

If the sun isn't responsible, then what? How do you explain warm trends which date back thousands of years? And I'd like to know which sources of yours ruled out the sun as the primary cause of climate change, because Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, one of the top men in his field, say that the sun is the cause. Dr. Tim Ball, another top guy, says so too.

your chart is cherry-picked and placed at misleading scales and flat out wrong. for one thing, that simply isn't the cru data. and it certainly isn't the entire record of those sources. a better plot looks more like this:



hmm, amazing how that changes the picture, isn't it?

And your chart is cherry picked as well. Lets go back a half billion years then, where you can see there is no correlation between co2 and an increase in temperature.

Of course there's no direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature over that time.

The climate has two main drivers: solar and co2. These will often reinforce each other -- solar increases can lead to co2 being released from ice, which creates an even bigger swing.

No one driver will be responsible for ALL the changes. However, in the warming seen int he past 50 years, temperature has been increasing while solar emissions have been relatively stable outside of their usual cycle. The only remaining factor is CO2. The earth has been warming exactly according to the generally-agreed-upon models.

Btw, watch this and the others in the series. This guy doesn't have a political axe to grind: he's just concerned about the science.

[Meoton]

Well, errors and misprints in reports aside, the fact that the global average temperature has been going up, and that this rise in temperature has been increasing steadily through the last century, I'd say it would take quite a lot more revelations before it is discredited. And not with revelations like this. A flawed report proves only that it was a flawed report. Errors happen, but so far, none have disproved the basic theory or the general facts that support it.
So, keep waiting. I expect you have about the same chance of seeing it discredited as you do of seeing the second coming.

Technically, scientists are yet to prove it's CO2 behind global warming, as data has shown increases in temperatue this rapid have happened numerous times in the past without human intervention. Plus, there's always the recent drop in temperatures to prove CO2 clearly isn't the only factor.

You have to remember that if Global Warming is disproven, then everyone in the IPCC and the thousands of scientists they employ will lose their jobs. Of course they're not going to come out and say "Oh, it's not our fault, keep your billions of dollars. We don't want it". When scientists have that much pressure to find proof of Global Warming it's a lot easier than if you're unbiased.

No, quick changes in temperature were usually temporary and for identifiable reasons.
The current temperature changes graph fairly well to human activities.
The cold winter weather we are currently experience in many places does not disprove the trend of the last 10, 20, 50, 100, or 150 years.
And if the temperature is averaged out over the year and the entire globe, it may not be as much of a cooling as you seem to think.
Simple analogy I tell (not scientific),
You know those polar ice caps that are thinning and breaking up? They just landed on you.
Ice melts, cools air, causes snow elsewhere.