Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

DKW made a faulty technical argument. I responded with a technical analysis that explains why it is faulty. It doesn't matter how many such faulty arguments are made. It doesn't make them valid.

You responded with a technical analysis? That made me laugh out loud. All you did was ask a question and make a few statements. If you call that technical analysis it's no wonder you can't support your position conclusively.

[japantiger 4,051]

The part I love about the AGW crowd is that no matter what the actual data says; there's always some un-quantified reason that their models are right and reality is wrong...and they can't be troubled with that...just ignore the man behind the curtain and look at what my model says...

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

The part I love about the AGW crowd is that no matter what the actual data says; there's always some un-quantified reason that their models are right and reality is wrong...and they can't be troubled with that...just ignore the man behind the curtain and look at what my model says...

Good advice. I will try hard to ignore homer (LOL).

[Weegle777 78]

The part I love about the AGW crowd is that no matter what the actual data says; there's always some un-quantified reason that their models are right and reality is wrong...and they can't be troubled with that...just ignore the man behind the curtain and look at what my model says...

Yep. The post about fox news cracked me up. In their tiny little closed minds, if it's on fox, it's automatically false. Laughable.

[DKW 86 7,440]

http://www.drroyspen...temperature.jpg

1) First, provide some attribution for your chart. I am very interested in where this "data" came from (since year "zero" no less!)

Who is Dr Roy Spencer? http://www.drroyspen...mate-confusion/

Warning this is very technical and may make your lil GW-Nazi Head explode. http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.^[1][2] He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.^[1][2]

He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.^[2]

http://en.wikipedia....cer_(scientist) I think even the Flat Earth Society will admit this man is more than educated and qualified to speak about gloabal warming. He is THE HEAD of the satellite team that measures Earth Temps.

2) I am also interested in how the baseline was established.

Knock yourself out challenging a NASA Scientist and PhD in Climatology at UAH, heading one of the foremost Climate Units in the US. Let us know when you get your PhD in Climatology and Head up your own Satellite Team and Lead a World Renowned Climatology Group. Until then i invite YOU to STHU until you actually get a clue about WTH you are talking about. Your arguments completely pale when this guy writes and speaks.

3) You never told me what chart started at 1980.

4) You changed the subject, which was recent data on the size of the Arctic ice shelf proves something. That's OK, but I just wanted to point out you are changing the subject (an oft-used diversionary tactic).

I never said a word about arctic sea ice. I believe you meant japantiger or maybe i was wondering why you chose the odd year of 1980 for Arctic Sea Ice graph.

http://www.drroyspen...sm-for-dummies/

"Isn’t the Melting of Arctic Sea Ice Evidence of Warming?Warming, yes…manmade warming, no. Arctic sea ice naturally melts back every summer, but that meltback was observed to reach a peak in 2007. But we have relatively accurate, satellite-based measurements of Arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice only since 1979. It is entirely possible that late summer Arctic Sea ice cover was just as low in the 1920s or 1930s, a period when Arctic thermometer data suggests it was just as warm. Unfortunately, there is no way to know, because we did not have satellites back then. Interestingly, Antarctic sea ice has been growing nearly as fast as Arctic ice has been melting over the last 30+ years."

I would appreciate a point-by-point (numbered) response. (That's expected when you make a technical argument btw).

The next technical argument you read will be your first.

But take your time, I am going to bed.

[homersapien 11,428]

P.S.: I am not surprised you picked up this little nugget on Fox "news".

I see your graph only went back to 1980. Why?

Oh now i see why...

And it's because....?

Its not the "Because..."

Its the "Why cant we discuss the whole truth?"

There have been periods of even warmer tamps than now that lasted approximately 600 years.

When we deny or hide that reality it makes the whole argument look like BS.

Actually, we were discussing arctic ice. The chart you introduced (which does not explain where the data came from) has nothing to do with the claimed (long term) recovery of arctic ice that is the subject.

You are in effect introducing the old argument of how the earth's temperature has varied naturally in the past, even to the "hot side" which, which you (apparently) think precludes the possibility of AGW.

That's a different question from what I am addressing. But we can go back to it if you want to. Am I making a fair representation of your argument?

[homersapien 11,428]

P.S.: I am not surprised you picked up this little nugget on Fox "news".

I see your graph only went back to 1980. Why?

Oh now i see why...

And it's because....?

Lets just try to tell the whole truth and not scare the bejesus out of everyone to make ourselves wealthy and feel superior to others.

First, I am not trying to "scare" anyone or "make myself wealthy". In fact, any measures to mitigate the effects of AGW will affect me just as much as anyone.

And if simply pointing out to deniers what the actual science says makes me look "superior", that's not my problem. That's certainly not why I am doing it.

[homersapien 11,428]

DKW made a faulty technical argument. I responded with a technical analysis that explains why it is faulty. It doesn't matter how many such faulty arguments are made. It doesn't make them valid.

You responded with a technical analysis? That made me laugh out loud. All you did was ask a question and make a few statements. If you call that technical analysis it's no wonder you can't support your position conclusively.

The article I cited explained why it is statistically (technically) incorrect to cherry-pick a given subset of data to make broad conclusions. This is the second example of such a faulty argument, first with the temperature data and now with the arctic ice data.

But you are correct that the technical analysis (explaining why this was statistically incorrect) was not literally mine. I did not publish the papers cited. What I meant was that I responded with a technical analysis in the form of of those papers I referenced.

Likewise, when I said DKW made a faulty technical argument, I didn't mean he generated the argument personally, I meant he presented a technical argument in the form of papers or charts that supported his point. I understand he is essentially presenting someone else's argument, just as I am presenting someone else's rebuttal of that argument.

Sorry for any confusion. But at least you got a laugh out of it, huh?

I assume you mean by "my position" that AGW is real.

I feel there is enough science behind the thesis to conclude it is real. I am persuaded by the consensus statements of qualified scientists and more importantly, prestigious scientific organizations and societies. While I have not had a career in climate science, I do have enough scientific training and experience to understand the arguments on both sides.

But I have no delusions about proving AGW "conclusively" to those who simply don't want to accept it, especially for political reasons. That won't happen, at least until the effects become too obvious to deny, and even then they will probably deny it.

[homersapien 11,428]

1) First, provide some attribution for your chart. I am very interested in where this "data" came from (since year "zero" no less!)

Who is Dr Roy Spencer? http://www.drroyspen...mate-confusion/

Warning this is very technical and may make your lil GW-Nazi Head explode. http://www.drroyspencer.com/

First, I will point out that this is the first (supposed) attribution to your chart, so thank you. But after a quick look at the site, it looks like I will have to dig into it a little to actually find this chart and explanation.

But that's OK. It this is "very technical" as you say, I will relish the effort. I am as comfortable with technical arguments as B'rer rabbit is with the briar patch.

Likewise, making sophomoric snarky comments such as "may make your lil GW-Nazi Head explode" :-\ is obviously your forte.

I am short on time now, so be patient. It may take a few days.

Meanwhile, knock yourself out with more insults if you feel it makes you look good. It certainly won't bother me.

[AUGradinTX 0]

I can't believe this thread has 21 pages. I can settle this right here. Neither side knows. I think we all know this is the case.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I can't believe this thread has 21 pages. I can settle this right here. Neither side knows. I think we all know this is the case.

Hear hear. To think that claims can be made about global weather patterns after gathering weather data for less than 300 years is supremely arrogant. Science is about the observation of nature. Applied science follows the money.This whole global warming debate is about the money and anyone who denies that isn't being honest,

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

But I have no delusions about proving AGW "conclusively" to those who simply don't want to accept it, especially for political reasons. That won't happen, at least until the effects become too obvious to deny, and even then they will probably deny it.

Few deny there is global warming. There is just disagreement over the cause and solution. So two questions:

1. What do you think are the major reasons/contributors for the current global warming?

2. What do you think can be done to make a major reduction?

[DKW 86 7,440]

P.S.: I am not surprised you picked up this little nugget on Fox "news".

I see your graph only went back to 1980. Why?

Oh now i see why...

And it's because....?

Its not the "Because..."

Its the "Why cant we discuss the whole truth?"

There have been periods of even warmer tamps than now that lasted approximately 600 years.

When we deny or hide that reality it makes the whole argument look like BS.

Actually, we were discussing arctic ice. The chart you introduced (which does not explain where the data came from) has nothing to do with the claimed (long term) recovery of arctic ice that is the subject.

NO. I was talking about Global Warming. The Balance of your post was labeled Continuing Global Warming

You are in effect introducing the old argument of how the earth's temperature has varied naturally in the past, even to the "hot side" which, which you (apparently) think precludes the possibility of AGW.

That's a different question from what I am addressing. But we can go back to it if you want to. Am I making a fair representation of your argument?

No, i am actually introducing new, cutting edge, scientifically sound evidence and opinion showing that Global Warming has two sides to it. Not just the one side some want you to believe.

[DKW 86 7,440]

P.S.: I am not surprised you picked up this little nugget on Fox "news".

I see your graph only went back to 1980. Why?

Oh now i see why...

And it's because....?

Lets just try to tell the whole truth and not scare the bejesus out of everyone to make ourselves wealthy and feel superior to others.

First, I am not trying to "scare" anyone or "make myself wealthy". In fact, any measures to mitigate the effects of AGW will affect me just as much as anyone.

And if simply pointing out to deniers what the actual science says makes me look "superior", that's not my problem. That's certainly not why I am doing it.

P.S.: I am not surprised you picked up this little nugget on Fox "news".

I see your graph only went back to 1980. Why?

Oh now i see why...

And it's because....?

Lets just try to tell the whole truth and not scare the bejesus out of everyone to make ourselves wealthy and feel superior to others.

First, I am not trying to "scare" anyone or "make myself wealthy". In fact, any measures to mitigate the effects of AGW will affect me just as much as anyone.

No one hear ever claimed that YOU wanted to make yourself wealthy. NO ONE! You are just trying to change the subject.

As someone on the forum said: "You changed the subject, which was recent data on the size of the Arctic ice shelf proves something. That's OK, but I just wanted to point out you are changing the subject (an oft-used diversionary tactic)."

And if simply pointing out to deniers what the actual science says makes me look "superior", that's not my problem. That's certainly not why I am doing it.

[DKW 86 7,440]

DKW made a faulty technical argument. I responded with a technical analysis that explains why it is faulty. It doesn't matter how many such faulty arguments are made. It doesn't make them valid.

You responded with a technical analysis? That made me laugh out loud. All you did was ask a question and make a few statements. If you call that technical analysis it's no wonder you can't support your position conclusively.

The article I cited explained why it is statistically (technically) incorrect to cherry-pick a given subset of data to make broad conclusions. This is the second example of such a faulty argument, first with the temperature data and now with the arctic ice data.

You "Cherry Picking" Data is what my whole point is about homer. Selecting certain dates, on showing certain segments of the graphs, etc. The Mann hockey Stick graph is perfect. It is manipulated for data with fudge factors and cherry picked with dates and temperature sources.

[DKW 86 7,440]

I can't believe this thread has 21 pages. I can settle this right here. Neither side knows. I think we all know this is the case.

Hear hear. To think that claims can be made about global weather patterns after gathering weather data for less than 300 years is supremely arrogant. Science is about the observation of nature. Applied science follows the money.This whole global warming debate is about the money and anyone who denies that isn't being honest,

And i hope that this is what most of you see too.

There is just too much squish in the data and too many opinions, AND WAY TOO MUCH GOVT FUNDING INVOLVED.

Throw in Al Gore's $BN bet and we are off to the races for bs.

Once and for all. i really do think there is a problem.

Less carbons is a winner for everyone.

Less pollution is better for everyone.

But to ram, cram, and jam all this down our throats so you can destroy peoples way of life and to enrich yourself and political friends is borderline evil.

[AUloggerhead 2,252]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/?intcmp=latestnews

Computer climate models wildly overestimate warming. What a surprise?

[japantiger 4,051]

http://www.foxnews.c...tcmp=latestnews

Computer climate models wildly overestimate warming. What a surprise?

.

Yep; I just love reading their reaction...even-though they are all wrong; they are right.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

But I have no delusions about proving AGW "conclusively" to those who simply don't want to accept it, especially for political reasons. That won't happen, at least until the effects become too obvious to deny, and even then they will probably deny it.

Few deny there is global warming. There is just disagreement over the cause and solution. So two questions:

1. What do you think are the major reasons/contributors for the current global warming?

2. What do you think can be done to make a major reduction?

Homer....waiting for your response.

[AUDub 11,176]

http://www.foxnews.c...tcmp=latestnews

Computer climate models wildly overestimate warming. What a surprise?

There is a possible explanation within the piece that was sourced in the article:

Another possible driver of the difference between observed and simulated global warming is increasing stratospheric aerosol concentrations. Results from several independent datasets show that stratospheric aerosol abundance has increased since the late 1990s, owing to a series of comparatively small tropical volcanic eruptions8. Although none of the CMIP5 simulations take this into account, two independent sets of model simulations estimate that increasing stratospheric aerosols have had a surface cooling impact of about 0.07 °C per decade since 19988,9. If the CMIP5 models had accounted for increasing stratospheric aerosol, and had responded with the same surface cooling impact, the simulations and observations would be in closer agreement. Other factors that contribute to the discrepancy could include a missing decrease in stratospheric water vapour10

Here's the piece.

[AURaptor 1,126]

In my amateur opinion, more attention to disease control, better hygienic conditions for food production and clean water supplies, as well as controlling the filth that we breathe from fossil fuel use, are problems that should distract us from fretting about baking in Global Warming. From Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's 1891 A Scandal in Bohemia, I quote:

Watson: "This is indeed a mystery," I remarked. "What do you imagine that it means?"

Holmes: I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts...

- James Randi

[AUloggerhead 2,252]

http://www.foxnews.c...tcmp=latestnews

Computer climate models wildly overestimate warming. What a surprise?

There is a possible explanation within the piece that was sourced in the article:

Another possible driver of the difference between observed and simulated global warming is increasing stratospheric aerosol concentrations. Results from several independent datasets show that stratospheric aerosol abundance has increased since the late 1990s, owing to a series of comparatively small tropical volcanic eruptions8. Although none of the CMIP5 simulations take this into account, two independent sets of model simulations estimate that increasing stratospheric aerosols have had a surface cooling impact of about 0.07 °C per decade since 19988,9. If the CMIP5 models had accounted for increasing stratospheric aerosol, and had responded with the same surface cooling impact, the simulations and observations would be in closer agreement. Other factors that contribute to the discrepancy could include a missing decrease in stratospheric water vapour10

Here's the piece.

Operative word, "possible." Implying, "we really don't know for sure but we'll take a stab at it." Educated guess or not, the reason for the climate models being inaccurate is proposed as: "stratospheric aerosol concentrations caused by volcanic eruptions." ... ...

Let me know when the irony sinks in that naturally-occurring geophysical forces affecting the world's climate is the reason for the AGW climate models to be off. I'm out of here.

[AUinWV 0]

I'm into this conversation a bit late, but I've been looking into it for years. The ice caps melt in the summer, grow in the winter. Weve seen more cooling, and less loss in total ice, over the last decade this is almost a laughable comedy. The question of funds comes to mind. Look into what Lord Monckton has said.

If anything, were cooling, and civilizations do better with too much heat. Guess that's global warming/cooling/change too, so we should all pay al gore....

[homersapien 11,428]

I can't believe this thread has 21 pages. I can settle this right here. Neither side knows. I think we all know this is the case.

Hear hear. To think that claims can be made about global weather patterns after gathering weather data for less than 300 years is supremely arrogant. Science is about the observation of nature. Applied science follows the money.This whole global warming debate is about the money and anyone who denies that isn't being honest,

In other words, you think it is a hoax perpetuated by the entire global scientific community, and they are all colluding because of the "money"?

That's simply absurd. Every scientific body of national or international standing agrees with the basic tenets of AGW.

Where is all this money coming from? The environmental community? All the world's governments? If the governments, why are the investing money into it?

The only money that is flowing into this (political) debate is coming from the oil and coal industries funding the "denier" community.

[homersapien 11,428]

Hey Weegs - thanks for jumping in earlier. What we all need to realize is that the weather goes in cycles. We can not sit back and say that manmade CO2 is driving this. There are just too many factors.

Do you really think that the science of global warming has simply overlooked the natural causes of climatic variation?

Is that what you are contending?

As an engineer, you probably never learned much about research and how experiments and the analysis of data are designed to account for all sources of variation. Weegs said this was "your field". Have you ever published a paper on the subject?

Have you? If not maybe you should cool it too after 17 pages where no one has probably changed their mind.

No, as I said earlier, I am not a climatic scientist. But I have published a couple of papers in my field so I know a little about peer review and what it takes to submit a paper to a journal and have it accepted.

It's pretty clear to me there are few, if any, people on this forum who have the slightest idea of how research and publication is done and the significance of it.

I suspect that is exactly why everyone is confused about the quality of various internet sources. The sources I am citing reference back to peer-reviewed research. The denier sites (which look pretty much like the "legitimate" sites) either do not reference peer-reviewed research or they cherry-pick the data to distort the conclusion.