It's the [Climate Polcy] Stupid!

[sunsettommy]

For those of you who do not believe in global warming or are simply sceptic, I encourage you to watch this video on youtube The most terrifying video you'll ever see . If, after watching the video, you still believe we are not responsible for the well-being of not only the humans, but all of the other plants and animals that were thriving before we started destructing their habitat, well that's just sad.

LOLOLOLOL,

I actually exchanged messages with this person.He had SENT me his Video presentation link.I watched it and wondered what kool aid he drinks.

He ended up running away from my serious offer to discuss it in the open.That is because he discovered that I have a forum that would examine it critically.He was scared of what I can do to his presentation.So he ran off on me.

That was over 3 years ago.

I believe that since the 1850's.There has been a slow warming trend.I state this as a skeptic.And most skeptics agree with it.

The problem YOU have,is that you fail to differentiate what skeptic thinks about on the topic "global warming".From the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis.

Skeptics accepts the 150+ year long warming trend.

Skeptics does NOT accept the AGW hypothesis.

That is the difference,so many of you AGW supporters fail to understand.

That is why alarmists/warmists often appear foolish,in attacking skeptics.

I call it ignorance.

Edited June 4, 2011 by sunsettommy

[Michael Hardner]

Skeptics does NOT accept the AGW hypothesis.

Skeptical scientists, on the other hand, do accept it to a degree. And some of them - being scientists and all - change their opinion when the evidence convinces them that their competing theories are wrong.

[sunsettommy]

Maybe but they're happening more frequently and it won't get any better. Because of the global warming, glaciers are melting and are increasing the level of water in seas and rivers. (Don't forget they're the largest reservoirs of freshwater...)

Sigh,

No they are not happening because of "global Warming".It has been a cooling world since last summer.We ARE in a La-Nina phase.That is one of the major factors on why we have increased Tornado outbreaks.Historically large Tornado outbreaks occur during cooling trends.

The sea level rise has been slowing down.It has been slowing down the last few years.

The oceans are in an over all cooling trend.It has been for about 9 years now.

The atmosphere is much cooler than last year.It is continuing to cool down for at least a few more months.

Here is what the NOAA chart say about F3-5 Tornado outbreak trends:

CHART

The next link shows the slowing sea level rise.Based on official satellite data (included in the link):

Christie Adviser Update

Envistat and Jason satellite data are shown in charts in the link.They both report a slowing rate of sea level increase.

It is not hard to see the Media lies and distortions.But that means you have to be skeptical to see it.

[Michael Hardner]

It is not hard to see the Media lies and distortions.But that means you have to be skeptical to see it.

I fully agree. You have to go to the science. They factor in La Nina and other factors.

[sunsettommy]

Deleted

Edited June 4, 2011 by sunsettommy

[sunsettommy]

Skeptical scientists, on the other hand, do accept it to a degree. And some of them - being scientists and all - change their opinion when the evidence convinces them that their competing theories are wrong.

You made a misleading post.

They DO NOT accept it to a "degree".The AGW Hypothesis is demonstrably wrong and has been for a while.They specifically say the hypothesis is wrong.Their predictions and projections have utterly failed.

The Tropical Hotspot.

The rate of projected warming from 1988 - Hansen.From 2000 -The 2001 IPCC report.

The evidence that significant positive feedbacks exist.They exist only in climate models.

I have already given you peer reviewed" link to Dr. Spencer's NEGATIVE feedbacks existence.Based on Satellite data.

What some of the skeptical scientists do agree on.Is the very small rate of warming from increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

The AGW hypothesis goes well beyond that.They state by climate models of course.That POSITIVE feedbacks would cause a run away warming trend.The more CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere.The more positive feedbacks there will be.That of course is WATER VAPOR.

I notice that you have brought up Lindzen several times.Here is a link to the Wall Street Journal.His own article on what he thinks.In it he makes clear,he does not accept the AGW hypothesis:

The Climate Science Isn't Settled

Selected quote:

The defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming.

That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth's atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds. Let's refer to these as major greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called "climate forcing."

There is general agreement on the above findings. At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established.

What he described is NOT the AGW hypothesis.It is a climate forcing sensitivity statement.He describes it by stating "the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming"

Inhibits cooling

He later in the article declares the Positive feedback as being "intuitively implausible".

He also states:

There are quite a few papers in the literature that also point to the absence of positive feedbacks. The implied low sensitivity is entirely compatible with the small warming that has been observed.

You make the common error many people make.

Trying to make it appear that skeptical scientists accept the AGW hypothesis,to at least some degree.They do not.

Have you considered the LOGARITHMIC math on CO2 effect?

CHART

The chart is based on Lindzen,Choi science paper,2009.

Edited June 4, 2011 by sunsettommy

[sunsettommy]

I fully agree. You have to go to the science. They factor in La Nina and other factors.

???

AGW supporters IGNORES the La-Nina factor.So does most of the Media.

That is why they feel free to make wild statements on floods,Tornadoes,Increasing snow packs.Blaming it on.... GLOBAL WARMING.

Notice how they hardly say much about the widespread cold and snows of the last few winters.In North America.But they go wild about a hot month in Moscow last summer.They blather on and on about it.

Do you know that the winter months in America temperature's have been plunging for the last 10 years?

From the NOAA

Do you even notice that it has been cooling for the last year?

[Michael Hardner]

???

AGW supporters IGNORES the La-Nina factor.So does most of the Media.

Why are you talking about 'supporters' ? This should be about the science.

If we're criticizing non-scientists for spouting off, we would be here all day.

Notice how they hardly say much about the widespread cold and snows of the last few winters.In North America.But they go wild about a hot month in Moscow last summer.They blather on and on about it.

Good example of why you shouldn't go to non-experts to talk about climate change.

Do you even notice that it has been cooling for the last year?

One year doesn't really matter. I haven't heard that temperatures have been cooling for 10 years. Last I heard there wasn't 'significant warming', which isn't the same thing. I'll look at the link.

[Michael Hardner]

Can you provide me a link to this Steven Goddard's credentials please ?

[TimG]

One year doesn't really matter. I haven't heard that temperatures have been cooling for 10 years. Last I heard there wasn't 'significant warming', which isn't the same thing. I'll look at the link.

It really depends on the dataset you are looking at. We are in a period of flux where it is possible that AGW predictions will be shown to be false (we are 10 years into 20 year period). At the current time it appears that the models have been over predicting warming but depending on the dataset the actual temperatures are not outside the uncertainty for the models. However, there are other data points which support the notion that models over predict warming such as the OHC which has also failed to keep pace with predictions.

Just this year they have conclusively shown in a lab that cosmic rays can have significant effect on cloud cover which will, of course, invalidate all of the existing model assumptions that the solar cycle is not significant factor. I don't expect that to change the 'catastrophe narrative' because too many people have hung their reputations and careers on it. These people will have to retire before there can be any significant change in the consensus position (this is a problem with all scientific fields).

[Michael Hardner]

Just this year they have conclusively shown in a lab that cosmic rays can have significant effect on cloud cover which will, of course, invalidate all of the existing model assumptions that the solar cycle is not significant factor.

The last I heard of that area of research, skeptic Friis-Christensen (sp?) was acknowledging that the periodicity of the radiation cycles didn't match warming trends.

I don't expect that to change the 'catastrophe narrative' because too many people have hung their reputations and careers on it. These people will have to retire before there can be any significant change in the consensus position (this is a problem with all scientific fields).

'catastrophe narrative' sounds like it's talking about something outside the science. If so, it's a separate discussion, and to my mind more related to how poor our public forum for scientific discussion is.

[TimG]

The last I heard of that area of research, skeptic Friis-Christensen (sp?) was acknowledging that the periodicity of the radiation cycles didn't match warming trends.

Friis-Christensen is old news. The CERN Cloud experiment is moving forward and the results look promising. A new paper:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/10941/2010/acp-10-10941-2010.pdf

More readable analysis here:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/indirect-solar-forcing-of-climate-by-galactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/

'catastrophe narrative' sounds like it's talking about something outside the science. If so, it's a separate discussion, and to my mind more related to how poor our public forum for scientific discussion is.

It is purely political. But many scientists have become political advocates so it is hard to seperate the science from the politics.

In any case, nothing will change the equation that more CO2 == higher temperatures but the question of how much higher the temperatures will go is a matter of serious debate.

Edited June 5, 2011 by TimG

[sunsettommy]

Can you provide me a link to this Steven Goddard's credentials please ?

He is a Geologist

[Michael Hardner]

He is a Geologist

Ok, so not a climate scientist ? If his theories are good, maybe he got a climate scientist skeptic to review them ?

[sunsettommy]

One year doesn't really matter. I haven't heard that temperatures have been cooling for 10 years. Last I heard there wasn't 'significant warming', which isn't the same thing. I'll look at the link.

DR. Roy Spencer states:

Note that the polynomial fits I have applied to the data are only meant to show what happened during this period…I am not suggesting they have any forecast value for the future. I will let others discuss that. Nevertheless, I think the data are useful for getting some idea of what has happened over the last decade in the region where most people live. I think the bottom line from a global warming perspective is that there has been no obvious sign of warming in the last 9 years.

LINK

emphasis mine

There has been a slight cooling the last 10 years.Certainly NO warming going on.

This means the IPCC was very wrong on their 2001 temperature modeling projections for the first decade.

Edited June 9, 2011 by sunsettommy

[Michael Hardner]

There has been a slight cooling the last 10 years.Certainly NO warming going on.

This means the IPCC was very wrong on their 2001 temperature modeling projections for the first decade.

The temperature projections go up and down.

I don't think any credible climate scientist has said there has been cooling. We have had discussions of 'insignificant warming' though. And I admit I'm not up on the latest data.

[sunsettommy]

Ok, so not a climate scientist ? If his theories are good, maybe he got a climate scientist skeptic to review them ?

LOL.

Then you will have to rule out James Hansen.Who was the main driver of the AGW hysteria from the mid 1980's.The man Al Gore and the clueless media loves to follow.

Seriously,are you going to play this "qualifications" game?

The current IPCC chairman has no climatology degree.Neither does Dr. Mann who posted the always unvalidated "Hockey Stick" paper.

LOL

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, he seems credible - but as the comments on that article indicate - it also seems like he's thin-sliced the data. This is about "Recent Cooling of Northern Hemisphere Mid-Latitudes "

[Michael Hardner]

LOL.

Then you will have to rule out James Hansen.Who was the main driver of the AGW hysteria from the mid 1980's.The man Al Gore and the clueless media loves to follow.

Seriously,are you going to play this "qualifications" game?

Seriously, yes. I don't think I've quoted James Hansen or read anything from him that I remember.

The current IPCC chairman has no climatology degree.Neither does Dr. Mann who posted the always unvalidated "Hockey Stick" paper.

I think Michael Mann is a climatologist. I separate the scientific questions from the policy questions. So, Rush Limbaugh is free to comment on his opinion about climate but if he starts publishing his own papers on his website, then I can ask his qualifications.

[sunsettommy]

The temperature projections go up and down.

I don't think any credible climate scientist has said there has been cooling. We have had discussions of 'insignificant warming' though. And I admit I'm not up on the latest data.

No!

The IPCC temperature projections stayed the same in the 2007 report.They are just as wrong.

Here is the link to the temperature chart,as maintained by Dr. Spencer:

UAH Temperature Update for May, 2011: +0.13 deg. C

It is easily cooler NOW than it was in 1998.

Here is the 1990 IPCC prediction:

Comparing IPCC 1990 predictions with 2011 data

They have always been far warmer in their predictions,than what actually transpires.

This is but one of many.That shows the failure of the AGW hypothesis.

Something else is causing the long term warming trend since the 1850's.

[sunsettommy]

Seriously, yes. I don't think I've quoted James Hansen or read anything from him that I remember.

I think Michael Mann is a climatologist. I separate the scientific questions from the policy questions. So, Rush Limbaugh is free to comment on his opinion about climate but if he starts publishing his own papers on his website, then I can ask his qualifications.

He has a PHYSICS degree.Same as James Hansen.

Neither one has the educational background to be considered the best qualified to tell the world about the climate.

No Meteorology degree.No Environmental Sciences degree.No Geology degree.

Meanwhile there are many who are educated in climate science who are being sandbagged.Some have been fired.Some have been given the "peer review" run around.Some are subject to absurd lawsuits.

Dr. Lindzen has recently spilled the beans about his experience.The man YOU think is a qualified climatologist:

Lindzen on getting the “special treatment” for publishing papers

Selected Quote:

[Editor’s note: The following material was supplied to us by Dr. Richard Lindzen as an example of how research that counters climate-change alarm receives special treatment in the scientific publication process as compared with results that reinforce the consensus view. In this case, Lindzen's submission to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences was subjected to unusual procedures and eventually rejected (in a rare move), only to be accepted for publication in the Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.

I, too, have firsthand knowledge about receiving special treatment. Ross McKitrick has documented similar experiences, as have John Christy and David Douglass and Roy Spencer, and I am sure others. The unfortunate side-effect of this differential treatment is that a self-generating consensus slows the forward progress of scientific knowledge—a situation well-described by Thomas Kuhn is his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. –Chip Knappenberger]

It is apparent that you have no idea what is going on.

Edited June 9, 2011 by sunsettommy

[sunsettommy]

Ok, he seems credible - but as the comments on that article indicate - it also seems like he's thin-sliced the data. This is about "Recent Cooling of Northern Hemisphere Mid-Latitudes "

You missed this:

For now, though, I think the tropospheric (AMSU ch. 5) data are pretty clear: there are no signs of warming in the last nine years in those regions where the strongest warming in the last 30 to 40 years has occurred, that is, in the Northern Hemisphere mid- and high-latitudes. And, there might even be signs of recent cooling over the last few years in the mid-latitudes, but whether this will persist is anyone’s guess.

my emphasis

Edited June 9, 2011 by sunsettommy

[Michael Hardner]

No!

The IPCC temperature projections stayed the same in the 2007 report.They are just as wrong.

Here is the link to the temperature chart,as maintained by Dr. Spencer:

UAH Temperature Update for May, 2011: +0.13 deg. C

It is easily cooler NOW than it was in 1998.

Here is the 1990 IPCC prediction:

Comparing IPCC 1990 predictions with 2011 data

They have always been far warmer in their predictions,than what actually transpires.

This is but one of many.That shows the failure of the AGW hypothesis.

Something else is causing the long term warming trend since the 1850's.

I suspect cherry picking, such as you did when you picked 1998. This is to be suspected from advocates (I'll concede that the IPCC chair might go into that category) but not from scientists.

Here's a comment that describes the data:

I think you might be hung up on the fact that Dr. Spencer’s time-series shows little or no warming since the early 2000’s. In fact, all of the global temperature records are in agreement on this issue.

[Michael Hardner]

my emphasis

But why focus on those areas ? It seems odd to do so. What is happening elsewhere?

Also note that "no warming" does not mean cooling.

[Michael Hardner]

He has a PHYSICS degree.Same as James Hansen.

Ok, in that case they're both qualified. Do they publish their material ? Is it peer reviewed ? What does the climate science community think of their theories ?

Neither one has the educational background to be considered the best qualified to tell the world about the climate.

I disagree.

Some have been given the "peer review" run around.

Oh, REALLY ?

Is it a conspiracy ?

Dr. Lindzen has recently spilled the beans about his experience.The man YOU think is a qualified climatologist:

Lindzen on getting the “special treatment” for publishing papers

Wow. That was painful. It's hard to see what Lindzen is complaining about when all 4 reviewers - including the one he requested - determined that the paper wasn't of adequate quality to be published.