Extinction Rebellion versus brexit

[Doha]

That notorious back tracker (as Paul reckons) Al Gore is in the news today.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-report-timing-release-al-gore-says-trump-administration-seeks-to-bury-climate-report-2018-11-23/

 

Oh dear.

 

Let's get this straight. Paul is discounting the evidence of thousands of peer reviewed studies and papers from qualified and ethical researchers and experts and his evidence to the contrary is a youtube video. A youtube video that, if you read the video description written by the uploader by the way, quotes the Professor as saying "Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." Richard Muller, MIT Technology Review, Dec 17, 2003

 

 

As for RailwayRowdy. In case that wasn't a joke which I don't think it was because you keep liking all of Paul's posts, for Christ's sake google Thermohaline convection disruption. An average rise of 2 degrees above 1990 levels will kill coral reefs worldwide and trigger the unrecoverable inevitable extinction of at least 25% of worldwide animal species. Your post was incredibly stupid but I will refrain from calling you personally stupid, it would be unfair as you're obviously grossly misinformed. Paul however should know better.

[Doha]

The sea levels are not rising

 

Wrong.

 

https://unfccc.int/news/global-sea-level-rise-is-accelerating-study

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093

 

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2961

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17145

 

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.html

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/01/29/1222469111.short

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054011/meta

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelerating/index.html

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/17/sea-level-rise-impact-us-coastal-homes-study-climate-change

 

 

 

the artic ice may be melting in some places but in others ice mass is being formed

 

What you are trying to insinuate is wrong. It's a net loss.

 

 

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2749/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise/

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2171563-alarm-as-ice-loss-from-antarctica-triples-in-the-past-five-years/

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

 

https://slate.com/technology/2015/11/antarctic-ice-still-losing-mass.html

 

 

 

there are more polar bears than ever apparently etc etc.

 

Equivocation. Numbers are up in one measured population dataset group (just one, of many) because of modern constraints on hunting alongside social development of the Inuit, and historically ignorant and scientifically misinformed estimates. Net numbers are down and will continue to go down.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11656-climate-myths-polar-bear-numbers-are-increasing/

 

https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/Polar_Bear_%20Status_Assessment.pdf

 

https://www.sej.org/publications/alaska-and-hawaii/magic-number-a-sketchy-fact-about-polar-bears-keeps-goingand-going-an

 

https://polarbearsinternational.org/research/research-qa/are-polar-bear-populations-increasing-in-fact-booming/

 

https://arcticwwf.org/newsroom/stories/polar-bears-and-the-numbers-game/

 

 

I stand more scientifically informed than most people because of the occupation that chose me so am able to look at the data/information and make a more informed decision.

 

Just embarrassing.

[philpvfc]

If Trumo came out and admitted their is global climate change caused by pollution then Paul will believe it is happening eventually. Until that happens he will continue to bury his head in the sand and blindly support everything Trump says who we all know to be the most honest of individuals.

[Paul6754]

That notorious back tracker (as Paul reckons) Al Gore is in the news today.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-report-timing-release-al-gore-says-trump-administration-seeks-to-bury-climate-report-2018-11-23/

 

Doha, That's what I'd expect Al Gore to say, he has backtracked to some extent on his stance on Global Warming as much of the data has been shown to have been manipulated.

 

Oh dear.

 

Let's get this straight. Paul is discounting the evidence of thousands of peer reviewed studies and papers from qualified and ethical researchers and experts and his evidence to the contrary is a youtube video.

 

Let's get this straighter, you're discounting the evidence from thousands of peer reviewed papers from equally eminent scientists that debunks this theory of man made CO2 global warming and many Scientists/layman would say these skeptics have not manipulated data in any way. I posted Youtube videos because the data is reviewed and presented in a clear manner by eminent Climate Scientists in a way that is more easier and quicker to understandable by everyone. A picture paints a thousand words.

 

The video that shows the "Hockey Stick Graph", how it was presented by the UEA group and how it should have been if the data hadn't been manipulated, it should have showed a cooling not a warming. I hope you are aware that these people initially refused to provide the raw data that this graph was generated from and have started to file law suits instead of entering into dabate, something virtually unheard of in scientific circles.

 

A youtube video that, if you read the video description written by the uploader by the way, quotes the Professor as saying "Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." Richard Muller, MIT Technology Review, Dec 17, 2003

 

Doha, please let me know the video in question but I did deliberately choose one video which the presenter does believe in Climate Change but there is a big difference believing in climate change and predicting absolute glloom and doom in a relatively short time.

 

 

As for RailwayRowdy. In case that wasn't a joke which I don't think it was because you keep liking all of Paul's posts, for Christ's sake google Thermohaline convection disruption. An average rise of 2 degrees above 1990 levels will kill coral reefs worldwide and trigger the unrecoverable inevitable extinction of at least 25% of worldwide animal species. Your post was incredibly stupid but I will refrain from calling you personally stupid, it would be unfair as you're obviously grossly misinformed. Paul however should know better.

 

And there is contrasting evidence that the coral reefs in certain areas of the world are blooming cause it is the increased levels of CO2 dissolved in the sea that form the basis of the coral. Same for shell fish as the CO2 forms the basis of their shells.

 

Doha, You get my stance and suspect that of RR wrong as I am a Global Warming skeptic as are an increasing numkber os Climate Scientists.

 

For heaven sake, the activists first starting to call the phenomena Global warming, then dialed it back to Climate Change, now they talking about extreme weather events. this should tell you something. There's always been extreme weather events it's just a matter if your prepared to accept this simple statemet.

 

I will address your posts below when I get back.

[Paul6754]

Wrong.

 

https://unfccc.int/news/global-sea-level-rise-is-accelerating-study

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093

 

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2961

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17145

 

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.html

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/01/29/1222469111.short

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054011/meta

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelerating/index.html

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/17/sea-level-rise-impact-us-coastal-homes-study-climate-change

 

What you are trying to insinuate is wrong. It's a net loss.

 

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2749/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise/

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2171563-alarm-as-ice-loss-from-antarctica-triples-in-the-past-five-years/

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

 

https://slate.com/technology/2015/11/antarctic-ice-still-losing-mass.html

 

 

Equivocation. Numbers are up in one measured population dataset group (just one, of many) because of modern constraints on hunting alongside social development of the Inuit, and historically ignorant and scientifically misinformed estimates. Net numbers are down and will continue to go down.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11656-climate-myths-polar-bear-numbers-are-increasing/

 

https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/Polar_Bear_%20Status_Assessment.pdf

 

https://www.sej.org/publications/alaska-and-hawaii/magic-number-a-sketchy-fact-about-polar-bears-keeps-goingand-going-an

 

https://polarbearsinternational.org/research/research-qa/are-polar-bear-populations-increasing-in-fact-booming/

 

https://arcticwwf.org/newsroom/stories/polar-bears-and-the-numbers-game/

 

Doha, you've done as every pro-Climate Change person ever does and that is pick out the data that suits their point of view or your agenda, there is just as much data that says the total opposite. Just a few comments Greenland makes up only a proportion of the Earth's ice fields so as I've said before, the ice sheets may melt in one area but ice is being formed in others, there is a place called Antartica you know. Please explain what "Melt day anomaly means"

 

Are you aware that there have been calls for the dismissal of some scientists in the NASA Earth Science Department for fabricating climate data and calls for NOAA to be shut down.

 

Just embarrassing.

So what's embarrassing, me saying after 35 odd years as a Scientist I'm more informed that most people or that the occupation chose me.

 

I'll tell you what is embarrassing, a person who argues and is sarcastic in the course of a discussion but is only interested in one side of the equation. And something even more embarrassing is a so called University Professor stating there is a 100% correlation between between atmospheric CO2 levels and mean temperature and to say it's fact not opinion is just beyond the pail given that any interested layman can see there is no such correlation.

 

There is no valid correlation whatsoever between increasing carbon dioxide level and temperature increase

 

Factually incorrect. The geological data shows a 100% correlation over a geological time scale of hundreds of millions of years between atmospheric CO2 levels and mean temperature. And the reason is also obvious, CO2 re-relflects infra red back to the surface of the earth.

 

Increased levels of atmospheric CO2 = increased average temperature is fact not opinion.

 

Doha, Toyah, Please explain to me how CO2, a small molecular weight, tri-atomic gas, present in minute quantities in the earth's atmosphere can be responsible for causing such potentially catastrophic changes to the earth's weather particularly when man is responsible for only a very small fraction of CO2 in the air from burning fossil fuels.

 

Also, water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and is responsible for 36-72% of the greenhouse gas effect compared to CO2 which is responsible for only 9-26% hence man made CO2 is responsible for ca 3-9% of it.

 

Until you can answer the above question than there is no where to go in this discussion and please no reflecting of electromagnetic radiation down or out as water vapor does it even better than CO2.

[Paul6754]

If Trumo came out and admitted their is global climate change caused by pollution then Paul will believe it is happening eventually. Until that happens he will continue to bury his head in the sand and blindly support everything Trump says who we all know to be the most honest of individuals.

 

Phil, the only person with his head in the sand is your good self. I don't blindly support anything, isn't that fact patently obvious to you? laughable.

[Valiant62]

[Paul6754]

 

I guess this is how the far left pushes an agenda, by mod rule. If these types of people get their way we will all be living in poverty and squalor.

 

A short simple easy listening video that anyone can understand. Yes it's a Youtube video but based around the views of a Professor of Physics from Princeton Univ. It pushes back on every point the pro-Climate Change posters on this thread have made but also puts this topic in some perspective.

 

[Valiant62]

At this stagge I’m more interested in those that are persuaded it’s real, man made and very serious. They seem to keep goinng down a cul de sac of engaging with climate denial rather than answer what to do about it. Maybe there’s climate apathy, maybe that’s more dangerous than climate breakdown denial.

[For Us All]

I guess this is how the far left pushes an agenda, by mod rule. If these types of people get their way we will all be living in poverty and squalor.

 

A short simple easy listening video that anyone can understand. Yes it's a Youtube video but based around the views of a Professor of Physics from Princeton Univ. It pushes back on every point the pro-Climate Change posters on this thread have made but also puts this topic in some perspective.

 

 

It seems Macron has suddenly become interested in ecology and look what's happened in France this weekend?

Is this down to all the Lefties?

[Doha]

 

Let's get this straighter, you're discounting the evidence from thousands of peer reviewed papers from equally eminent scientists that debunks this theory of man made CO2 global warming and many Scientists/layman would say these skeptics have not manipulated data in any way. I posted Youtube videos because the data is reviewed and presented in a clear manner by eminent Climate Scientists in a way that is more easier and quicker to understandable by everyone. A picture paints a thousand words.

 

Let's see them then. Cited studies in well known, reputable journals like Nature. No youtube videos or crackpot conspiracy theorist websites. I want to see heavily cited peer reviewed studies of substance, with provenance to the same standard as the links I posted. So far you have failed to post any such thing.

 

 

 

The video that shows the "Hockey Stick Graph", how it was presented by the UEA group and how it should have been if the data hadn't been manipulated, it should have showed a cooling not a warming. I hope you are aware that these people initially refused to provide the raw data that this graph was generated from and have started to file law suits instead of entering into dabate, something virtually unheard of in scientific circles.

 

 

You are trying to insinuate malpractice and an intent to deceive by repeatedly using the term 'manipulated.'

 

I'm sorry Paul but you are wrong. Take a step back from what you've previously read and go into these sourced, reputable articles with a neutral point of view.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7589897/Hockey-stick-graph-was-exaggerated.html

 

Criticising statistical analysis methods is a perfectly valid criticism and is one I totally agree on. Critical analysis and criticism at peer review is how science moves on and improves. We've already discussed in this thread how techniques and analysis change and improve for the better year on year, being able to go back to previous data and admit "We were wrong, we know better now" is a crucial part of the scientific method. Trying to insinuate doctored results and unethical dishonesty is arguing in extremely bad faith.

 

 

 

Doha, please let me know the video in question but I did deliberately choose one video which the presenter does believe in Climate Change but there is a big difference believing in climate change and predicting absolute glloom and doom in a relatively short time.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuqjX4UeBYs

 

 

 

And there is contrasting evidence that the coral reefs in certain areas of the world are blooming cause it is the increased levels of CO2 dissolved in the sea that form the basis of the coral. Same for shell fish as the CO2 forms the basis of their shells.

 

You're going to have to provide reputable sources because this is completely contrary to anything I've ever seen and read before. The only thing I could that comes anywhere remotely near to your side of the argument is this study

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mec.13021

 

which doesn't even agree. It is regarding one particular species of coral with particular genes being forced to biologically adapt to the new CO2 and heat stressor in their ecosystem, not blooming.

 

 

 

Doha, You get my stance and suspect that of RR wrong as I am a Global Warming skeptic as are an increasing numkber os Climate Scientists.

 

For heaven sake, the activists first starting to call the phenomena Global warming, then dialed it back to Climate Change, now they talking about extreme weather events. this should tell you something. There's always been extreme weather events it's just a matter if your prepared to accept this simple statemet.

 

Of course they are linked you ******* numbskull. How does someone of such apparent scientific prestige not understand positive and negative feedback effect loops!?

 

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/science-behind-climate-change/feedbacks

 

 

Rise in temperatures = enormous disruption to existing processes like theromhaline convection/Hadley cells/polar highs/El Nino/La Nina = delicate systems knocked out of equilibrium = amplification of some effects and the retardation of others = colder winters/hotter summers/more extreme weather events.

 

The severity and frequency of extreme weather events has unquestionably grown exponentially in recent decades, a period of time which is a fleck of sand compared to the tens of thousands of years between glacial cycles. This is anthropogenic influence, not glaciation periods. Anyone who looks at this data and cannot admit the trends needs psychiatric intervention.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180321130859.htm

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extreme-weather-will-occur-more-frequently-worldwide/

 

https://www.edf.org/climate/climate-change-and-extreme-weather

 

I don't, by the way, appreciate your use of the word 'activists'. I will address this fully in my next post but you are so, so desperate to politicise this and attempt to construe it as radical activists/daft hippies versus the rest of the world. False and embarrassing on your behalf. Your own fcûking US government has just released a report contributed to by 13 federal agencies and over 300 federal accredited experts acknowledging the desperate situation. Are they all radical activists, these government workers? Of course the giant orange möron has tried and failed to bury it. Much like all the people in Paradise, CA who are about to be buried after the extreme forest fires. Or is it Pleasure? That dementia-addled imminently under indictment cretin and I forget.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-report-says-climate-change-will-wallop-u-s-economy-n939521

 

https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-admits-trump-climate-policies-will-cost-americans-500-billion-a-year-fa82c1557333/

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-23/climate-may-force-millions-to-move-and-u-s-isn-t-ready-report?srnd=politics-vp

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/24/climate-change-report-trump-administration-democrats-reaction

 

 

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-climate-worsening-disasters.html

 

 

Read it. Every chapter and appendix figure. If you have a problem with a statement or a graph then click through to the cited source and assess for criticism and then and only then after completing a proper scientific review attack it. You claim to be a neutral and believer in science only, off you go then. This volume of work couldn't be any heavily reliably sourced if they tried.

 

https://science2017.globalchange.gov

[Valiant62]

It seems to me much more plausible to think there shadowy figures controlling things to get us to comsume more and make them richer than to comsume less and have demonstrations about fuel prices.

[Paul6754]

Let's see them then. Cited studies in well known, reputable journals like Nature. No youtube videos or crackpot conspiracy theorist websites. I want to see heavily cited peer reviewed studies of substance, with provenance to the same standard as the links I posted. So far you have failed to post any such thing.

 

Doha, I'm sorry to say this but you are again showing your utter naivety.

 

It doesn't matter what the reputation of a journal is, information/theories can be published based on data that has been manipulated/fabricated in any journal. Sometimes published data can be incorrect because it has innocently measured incorrectly and thankfully this is usually the case and the scientists realize it or is pointed out and subsequently a correction is published. If you suspect wrong doing, the only way to be sure of the truth is to request the raw data and analyse it yourself.

 

One indisputable example of manipulating data led to the so called "Hockey Stick Graph" which led to/confirmed the idea of global warming swallowed by many people. I have previously posted a video taken of a lecture at a prestigious conference given by a reputable scientist from an Ivy League University showing and describing how the data was manipulated, what the un-manipulated data should have shown and the altered conclusion which was a cooling not a massive warming.

 

I find your dismissal of video to be ludicrous, those I've posted contain the opinions of outstanding scientists based at prestigious Universities with outstanding reputations in science. Video is fast becoming the media for learning for many prestigious Universities.

 

You are trying to insinuate malpractice and an intent to deceive by repeatedly using the term 'manipulated.'

 

I'm not insinuating malpractice but saying there has been malpractice in this field and so have many other people, it's indisputable. Unfortunately some of the manipulated data has led to conclusions that have been bought by non-scientists and politicians and the whole topic of Global Warming has snow balled into what it is now.

 

I'm sorry Paul but you are wrong. Take a step back from what you've previously read and go into these sourced, reputable articles with a neutral point of view.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7589897/Hockey-stick-graph-was-exaggerated.html

 

I would be happy to change my mind if good quality evidence that the earth is dramatically warming existed and an explanation forthcoming . As things currently stand it's aspects of the sun, the wind and cosmic rays which have been shown to correlate with climate change.

 

It is not just from what I've read that makes me question the man made CO2/Global Warming theory but as a result of my own knowledge of the structure, reaction and interaction of molecules gained over more years than I care to remember. I see you or Toyah have't answered my question.

 

Criticising statistical analysis methods is a perfectly valid criticism and is one I totally agree on. Critical analysis and criticism at peer review is how science moves on and improves. We've already discussed in this thread how techniques and analysis change and improve for the better year on year, being able to go back to previous data and admit "We were wrong, we know better now" is a crucial part of the scientific method. Trying to insinuate doctored results and unethical dishonesty is arguing in extremely bad faith.

 

I know from first hand experience how easy and tempting it is to manipulate data to prove or further a hypothesis, in many cases the outliers/data points that don't fit on the graph tell or reveal more about what's going on than those that do. I can't emphasize what bad practice this is in science or any walk of life and sadly there is no question it has happened far to often in this field.

 

 

You're going to have to provide reputable sources because this is completely contrary to anything I've ever seen and read before.

 

Doha, I've already provided evidence and also my own reasoning why man made CO2 isn't responsible for Global Warming but you choose to ignore it for different reasons.

 

The only thing I could that comes anywhere remotely near to your side of the argument is this study.

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mec.13021

 

which doesn't even agree. It is regarding one particular species of coral with particular genes being forced to biologically adapt to the new CO2 and heat stressor in their ecosystem, not blooming.

 

But this is probably one species of coral in one location of the world, please come back with information for over 50% of the species of coral from many different parts of the world.

 

Of course they are linked you ******* numbskull. How does someone of such apparent scientific prestige not understand positive and negative feedback effect loops!?

 

Just pack that sort of stuff in, it's pathetic.

 

On the contrary I've posted the whole eco-climate is in a massive equilibrium, the sea, the wind, the atmosphere, the clouds out to the cosmic rays and eventually the sun, this is why a tiny molecule present (CO2) present in tiny amounts and not even being the most potent gas in the atmosphere can not possibly be responsible for any dramatic, global increase in temperature. There is absolutely no evidence for it.

 

First of all there was global warming predicting massive rises in sea levels etc etc and it didn't happen, then it was dialled back to climate change but it was pointed out there has aleways been climate change, now the new buzz words are "Extreme Weather Events" I wonder wht's next. There is no link between predicting gloom and doom in a few years with gradual, natural climate warming and cooling.

 

I won't bother to read the rest cause I've addressed it above.

[Doha]

One indisputable example of manipulating data led to the so called "Hockey Stick Graph" which led to/confirmed the idea of global warming swallowed by many people. I have previously posted a video taken of a lecture at a prestigious conference given by a reputable scientist from an Ivy League University showing and describing how the data was manipulated, what the un-manipulated data should have shown and the altered conclusion which was a cooling not a massive warming.

.

 

If you were capable of reading you would see this was addressed in my previous post and is false.

 

I will post again, for your convenience.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/

 

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can – and has – been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

 

Here is more recent correspondence from your precious Yale professor who realised he was talking b0ll0cks and now admits Anthropogenic climate change is real!

 

 

 

On July 28, 2012, he stated, "[G]lobal warming [is] real .... Humans are almost entirely the cause."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

 

 

 

There is little point continuing this. No matter how excellent, varied, independent and reliable the provenance of the source, you attempt to sweep it all away as unreliable for reasons I have now twice debunked. Quite literally thousands of examples of independent research papers and they're all apparently bent. Cognitive dissonance nonsense.

Reality does not concur with your mental illness and thus it's all lies.

I give it 5 years before you realise how wrong you are.

As for your repeated asinine co2 question. Have a google of radiation forcing and linear molecule energy absorption levels. Toyah will assist, molecular energy levels, the Boltzmann constant and the permanent dipole moment of molecules like C02 and hydrocarbons is his bread and butter. Fortunately for us, N and O, 90% of the atmosphere, don't absorb any of the IR photons bounced off the surface, they get scattered into space. Unfortunately for us, linear C02 does. Surface IR flux is about 390w/m2. Only about 240w/m2 radiates out, the rest is absorbed in the troposphere.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

No doubt these Phds are data manipulating liars on the bent payroll as well though.

[Doha]

MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth.

 

 

This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth’s surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this conclusion is the evidence from so-called “Detection and Attribution Studies”. Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and industrial aerosol increases).

 

MYTH #1: The "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues (Mann et al, 1998;1999).

 

This is patently false. Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context (see Figures 1 and 2 in “Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and The So-Called ‘Hockey Stick'”).

 

Some proxy-based reconstructions suggest greater variability than others. This greater variability may be attributable to different emphases in seasonal and spatial emphasis (see Jones and Mann, 2004; Rutherford et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004). However, even for those reconstructions which suggest a colder “Little Ice Age” and greater variability in general in past centuries, such as that of Esper et al (2002), late 20th century hemispheric warmth is still found to be anomalous in the context of the reconstruction (see Cook et al, 2004).

 

MYTH #2: Regional proxy evidence of warm or anomalous (wet or dry) conditions in past centuries contradicts the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric mean warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context.

 

Such claims reflect a lack of awareness of the distinction between regional and large-scale climate change. Similar such claims were recently made in two articles by astronomer Willie Soon and co-authors (Soon and Baliunas, 2003; Soon et al, 2003). These claims were subsequently rebutted by a group of more than a dozen leading climate scientists in an article in the journal “Eos” of the American Geophysical Union (Mann et al, ‘Eos‘, 2003). The rebuttal raised, among other points, the following two key points:

(1) In drawing conclusions regarding past regional temperature changes from proxy records, it is essential to assess proxy data for actual sensitivity to past temperature variability. In some cases (Soon and Baliunas, 2003, Soon et al, 2003) a global ‘warm anomaly’ has been defined for any period during which various regions appear to indicate climate anomalies that can be classified as being either ‘warm’, ‘wet’, or ‘dry’ relative to ’20th century’ conditions. Such a criterion could be used to define any period of climate as ‘warm’ or ‘cold’, and thus cannot meaningfully characterize past large-scale surface temperature changes.

 

(2) It is essential to distinguish (e.g. by compositing or otherwise assimilating different proxy information in a consistent manner—e.g., Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1998, 1999; Briffa et al., 2001) between regional temperature changes and changes in global or hemispheric mean temperature. Specific periods of cold and warmth differ from region to region over the globe (see Jones and Mann, 2004), as changes in atmospheric circulation over time exhibit a wave-like character, ensuring that certain regions tend to warm (due, for example, to a southerly flow in the Northern Hemisphere winter mid-latitudes) when other regions cool (due to the corresponding northerly flow that must occur elsewhere). Truly representative estimates of global or hemispheric average temperature must therefore average temperature changes over a sufficiently large number of distinct regions to average out such offsetting regional changes. The specification of a warm period, therefore requires that warm anomalies in different regions should be truly synchronous and not merely required to occur within a very broad interval in time, such as AD 800-1300 (as in Soon et al, 2003; Soon and Baliunas, 2003).

 

MYTH #3: The "Hockey Stick" studies claim that the 20th century on the whole is the warmest period of the past 1000 years.

 

This is a mis-characterization of the actual scientific conclusions. Numerous studies suggest that hemispheric mean warmth for the late 20th century (that is, the past few decades) appears to exceed the warmth of any comparable length period over the past thousand years or longer, taking into account the uncertainties in the estimates (see Figure 1 in “Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and The So-Called ‘Hockey Stick'”). On the other hand, in the context of the long-term reconstructions, the early 20th century appears to have been a relatively cold period while the mid 20th century was comparable in warmth, by most estimates, to peak Medieval warmth (i.e., the so-called “Medieval Warm Period”). It is not the average 20th century warmth, but the magnitude of warming during the 20th century, and the level of warmth observed during the past few decades, which appear to be anomalous in a long-term context. Studies such as those of Soon and associates (Soon and Baliunas, 2003; Soon et al, 2003) that consider only ‘20th century’ conditions, or interpret past temperature changes using evidence incapable of resolving trends in recent decades , cannot meaningfully address the question of whether late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term and large-scale context.