The new official climate change thread

[Frankfooter]

Because you are a bullshit spewing propaganda machine whos credibility is defined by one word "Groggy"
Why is it you needed to reinvent yourself?
is it because you were proven to be a uncompromising zealot as Groggy, yet you feel your propaganda will sell as Frankenfool?

That's a lot of bile you're generating there, larue.
And its all just to avoid the fact that you are totally unable to understand basic points on the issue.
I'm just asking you simple, high school level questions about the chart you supplied:

a) Did Dr Carter switch between surface temperatures to stratospheric temperatures on the same chart?
b) were surface temperatures available for the period he used stratospheric temperatures?
c) would using stratospheric temperatures during the warmest period of surface temperatures in human history change his chart?
d) could he make the same claims if he stuck to using surface temperatures only?

Now, since you've accused me of using 'bullshit propaganda', like NASA and the IPCC, you open yourself to be judged on the same lines.
You supplied the link to this chart, and as far as I can tell its the only source you've provided to back up any of your claims.

So go ahead and answer those basic questions and tell us why Dr Carter's chart is legit and NASA is 'bullshit propaganda'.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Sorry loser, you predicted that 2013 wouldn't hit 0.83ºC and you were spectacularly wrong.

That was the pre-"Enron" number. No matter how many times you try to use it, no one believes you when you insist that 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Then you made the stupid claim that there has been no warming which was utterly refuted by the data, which shows that since 1975 every measurement of climate has been warmer than the previous one.

"Every measurement of climate"??? :doh:

The predictions that were made were predictions about the Earth's global average temperature, as measured by annual temperature anomalies.

For example, here is the IPCC's prediction from 2007, where it explicitly states the prediction is about "global average temperature": https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

I can keep going but you have already seen the fact that the metric is global average temperature confirmed by the IPCC, the Met Office, NASA, NOAA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and Berkeley Earth. The University of Alabama in Huntsville and others would also confirm it.

That is the internationally recognized standard: annual average temperature anomalies. That is the metric.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/image_asset_11015.jpg

You don't get to make up your own metric just because you don't like the results. "Annual" means one year, not 30 years.

In the 21st century, temperatures were stagnant prior to the El Nino and the predictions remain spectacularly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

That was the pre-"Enron" number. No matter how many times you try to use it, no one believes you when you insist that 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83.

a) I never used those numbers, let alone 'insisted' on them.
b) Nobody believes that NASA and NOAA committed 'Enron style' fraud.
c) you lost the bet and failed in your prediction with or without those perfectly normal changes at NOAA.

You bet that 2015 wouldn't hit 0.83ºC, and troll that you are instead of admitting you lost you decided to accuse NOAA and NASA of fraud.
Typical denier troll....

 

[Moviefan-2]

a) I never used those numbers, let alone 'insisted' on them.
b) Nobody believes that NASA and NOAA committed 'Enron style' fraud.
c) you lost the bet and failed in your prediction with or without those perfectly normal changes at NOAA.

You bet that 2015 wouldn't hit 0.83ºC, and troll that you are instead of admitting you lost you decided to accuse NOAA and NASA of fraud.
Typical denier troll....

I've addressed your fairy-tale claims a million times. The "0.83" number was pre-"Enron," and you know it. 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.89.

That was the third bet I won, Groggy. I'm still batting 1.000.

 

[Frankfooter]

In the 21st century, temperatures were stagnant prior to the El Nino and the predictions remain spectacularly wrong.

Here are the record warm years as reported by NOAA:

1 2015 0.90 1.62
2 2014 0.74 1.33
3 2010 0.70 1.26
4 2013 0.66 1.19
5 2005 0.65 1.17
6 (tie) 1998 0.63 1.13
6 (tie) 2009 0.63 1.13
8 2012 0.62 1.12
9 (tie) 2003 0.61 1.10
9 (tie) 2006 0.61 1.10
9 (tie) 2007 0.61 1.10
12 2002 0.60 1.08
13 (tie) 2004 0.57 1.03
13 (tie) 2011 0.57 1.03
15 (tie) 2001 0.54 0.97
15 (tie) 2008 0.54 0.97

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

Note that the only year before 2001 on that list was super El Nino 1998.
Note that 2013 and 2014 (both non El Nino years) are at the top of that list.

Note that you are so spectacularly wrong in this claim that you should never make it again.
Note that you are instead a troll who continues to lie repeatedly, about temperatures, about bets, about statements made here and elsewhere.

 

[Frankfooter]

I've addressed your fairy-tale claims a million times. The "0.83" number was pre-"Enron," and you know it. 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.89.

That was the third bet I won, Groggy. I'm still batting 1.000.

Hey loser, this was the only number we ever agreed on, the number you based your prediction on:

We bet that the temperature anomaly would increase in 2015 to 0.83ºC

The only fairy tale here is your fairy tale of fraud committed by NASA and NOAA and your subsequent fairy tale math.
There was no 'fraud' and NOAA and NASA did nothing more then they note that they do in their FAQ.

You predicted 2015 wouldn't hit 0.83ºC.
You are batting .000

 

[Moviefan-2]

Hey loser, this was the only number we ever agreed on, the number you based your prediction on:


The only fairy tale here is your fairy tale of fraud committed by NASA and NOAA and your subsequent fairy tale math.
There was no 'fraud' and NOAA and NASA did nothing more then they note that they do in their FAQ.

You predicted 2015 wouldn't hit 0.83ºC.
You are batting .000

Everyone except you knows that 0.74 + 0.15 doesn't equal 0.83.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Here are the record warm years as reported by NOAA.

Here are the temperature anomalies -- including NOAA's -- on the graph that appeared in Nature.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/image_asset_11015.jpg

Note that the temperatures in the 21st century were stagnant and nowhere near where the IPCC predicted they would be (the Met Office predictions were even worse).

The predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.

 

[JohnLarue]

That's a lot of bile you're generating there, larue.

All quite deserved there Groggy/ Frankenfool

And its all just to avoid the fact that you are totally unable to understand basic points on the issue.
I'm just asking you simple, high school level questions about the chart you supplied:

And where was it that you studied atmospheric chemistry and permitted you to attempt to discredit a man with a doctorate ?

a) Did Dr Carter switch between surface temperatures to stratospheric temperatures on the same chart?
b) were surface temperatures available for the period he used stratospheric temperatures?
c) would using stratospheric temperatures during the warmest period of surface temperatures in human history change his chart?
d) could he make the same claims if he stuck to using surface temperatures only?

Irrelvant as he raised questions about the time refernces used to predict Global warming

Now, since you've accused me of using 'bullshit propaganda', like NASA and the IPCC, you open yourself to be judged on the same lines.
You supplied the link to this chart, and as far as I can tell its the only source you've provided to back up any of your claims.

#1 I did not supply the link to the chart. Why do you constantly just make shit up?
#2 You are a bullshit propaganda spewer by nature, just as you were as Groggy when it came taxing the rich or when your anti-sematic views on Israel are displayed

you do not get it
Your totally uncompromising positions on numerous issues makes you untrustworthy and a bullshit propaganda spreader

So go ahead and answer those basic questions and tell us why Dr Carter's chart is legit and NASA is 'bullshit propaganda'.

I have never said one or the other is legit or bullshit
I did indicate Dr. Carter raise questions which need to answered in order to make a sound judgement.
Your shameful response - Discredit those who disagree with you, which makes you a spewer of bullshit propaganda

 

[Frankfooter]

Everyone except you knows that 0.74 + 0.15 doesn't equal 0.83.

I totally agree, those numbers don't add up.
Good thing they weren't part of the bet.
Those are just part of your fairy tale charges of fraud on NASA and NOAA.

We bet that the temperature anomaly would increase in 2015 to 0.83ºC

You are batting .000

 

[Frankfooter]

#1 I did not supply the link to the chart. Why do you constantly just make shit up?

Speaking of making shit up.

As Dr. Carter pointed out your time reference is too short

Does this chart shows a flat, horizontal line for a much longer time period 400,000 years?
No
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Hey man-kind was not around for most of those spikes
What do you make of that ?

Now, will you apologize for accusing me of making shit up and for being a 'bullshit propaganda spewer'?
Do you have any honour or are you just another troll?

 

[Frankfooter]

Here are the temperature anomalies -- including NOAA's -- on the graph that appeared in Nature.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/image_asset_11015.jpg

I know you love to quote that study, which also stated that they confirmed that AGW is real and its effects are upon us.
Its also just one study and in response to another study which found there was no slowdown at all.

Really, its just troll tactics.
Because as long as you are backing the findings of this study you are also backing what one of the lead authors of the study says about its results:

“So we have every reason to believe that the warming of the planet and the detrimental impacts of that warming will continue unabated if we do not dramatically reduce our emissions,” Mann said.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warming-slow-down-in-the-2000s-or-not/

Though I am glad to hear that you are now supporting Michael Mann, author of the hockey stick chart, and his work enough to quote it here as support for your positions. That's a start.

Tamino has a really smart discussion of the Fyfe paper and the faults with its premise, that of using 'broken' trend lines.
Here's a chart showing how Fyfe looked at the data vs non-broken trend lines.
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/figure01.jpeg?w=1000&h=998

And again, Tamino shows that Fyfe's paper itself relies on cherry picking, and here shows trend lines for 2001-2014 vs 2000-2015.
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/fig3.jpeg?w=1000&h=664

In short, Fyfe's paper is interesting, but its findings aren't as solid as moviefan would like. Not that it will stop him from quoting it.
But it does show how weak his argument is getting. Now he's given up on claiming that there is no warming, now he's just claiming that the warming is continuing but its a little bit slower over his cherry picked years.

Moving goal posts, eh?

Here's the full Tamino article, its very good if your'e interehttps://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/05/21/record-global-warming-or-warming-slowdown/sted.

 

[eznutz]

Cern CLOUD experiment discovers the AGW crowd have assumed too much...
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/clouds_and_climate_in_the_preindustrial_age-173726

Aerosol particles generated by human activity counteract the warming of the earth's atmosphere by greenhouse gases. However, this effect might be smaller than first thought, as many particles were already generated from tree emissions in pre-industrial times. This was the finding of a simulation carried out as part of the international CLOUD experiment, in which researchers from the Goethe University played a major role. The results are published in the form of three papers in the renowned journals "Science" and "Nature".

"These results are the most important so far by the CLOUD experiment at CERN", said CLOUD spokesperson Jasper Kirkby, Honorary Professor at the Goethe University. "When the nucleation and growth of pure biogenic aerosol particles is included in climate models, it should sharpen our understanding of the impact of human activities on clouds and climate."

Professor Joachim Curtius from the Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences at the Goethe University added: "We believe that the newly discovered process will mean that we will have to reassess cloud formation in earlier times, as there must have been more particles present than we had previously assumed. There would therefore be less of a difference between the situation then and now than previously thought."

The CLOUD experiments show that these extremely low-volatility organic compounds are very efficient at forming new particles. This process occurs under atmospheric conditions, even in the absence of sulphuric acid. It had been assumed that sulphuric acid was virtually always involved in particle formation in the atmosphere. The main source of sulphuric acid in the atmosphere is sulphur dioxide, which is generated by the burning of fossil fuels.

Furthermore, the researchers discovered that ions from cosmic rays strongly enhance the production rate of the organic particles - by a factor of 10-100 compared to particle formation without ions, provided the concentrations of the particle-forming gases are low. "Furthermore, our studies show that these low-volatility organic substances also dominate particle growth in unpolluted environments across the entire size range from clusters of just a few molecules all the way up to sizes of 50-100 nm, where the particles are large enough to be able to seed cloud droplets", explained Joachim Curtius. The growth rates accelerate as the particles increase in size, because more and more oxidation products, also those of higher volatility, are able to condense on the expanding particles. This process is described in quantitative terms with a condensation model for the various organic substances.

Why is this knowledge important for our understanding of the climate? This may well be a very important mechanism, because it is so efficient in terms of the formation of organic particles under natural conditions. As soon as the particles have formed, they grow through the condensation of other similar oxygenated organic compounds. The rapid growth of the newly-formed particles means that they lose a smaller percentage through collisions with pre-existing large particles. As a result more particles grow to sizes that have the potential to seed clouds and influence the climate.

 

[fuji]

"Every measurement of climate"??? :doh:

The predictions that were made were predictions about the Earth's global average temperature, as measured by annual temperature anomalies.

Climate = average of 30 years annual temperature. The annual anomaly is an input data point. Everybody knows that the WEATHER is affected by things like El Nino's which is why climate is an average over time.

The earth's average temperature has shown consistent and undeniably warming. The thirty years ending April 2016 was warmer on average than the thirty years ending April 2015. Every thirty year interval has been warmer than the preceding thirty year interval since the interval ending 1975.

The reason to use thirty years is first that's the actual definition of climate, and second it's long enough to average across multiple El Nino's and other short term effects so that you can make accurate statements about the long term trend.

I can show the long term trend by fitting a line or a curve to the temperature as well, it will also show statistically significant warming since the 1970s. Since you are innumerate I can do that for you, it's called regression and it's a relatively easy thing to do. Shall I post that next?

You simply lose this point. The climate is warming.

 

[eznutz]

Climate accord 'irrelevant,' and CO2 cuts could impoverish the world
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/04/clim...uts-could-impoverish-the-world-scientist.html

In order to decarbonize the power sector within the next 40 years, the world would have to invest at least $9 trillion — and an additional $6.4 trillion to make other industries more environmentally friendly.

Those vast sums are why M.J. Kelly, a University of Cambridge engineering professor, recently wrote that the push to restrict carbon "is set to fail comprehensively in meeting its avowed target, and a new debate is needed." For that reason, Kelly is skeptical that initiatives like the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris will achieve its lofty goals.

In peer-reviewed research, Kelly argued carbon dioxide should be considered the byproduct of the "immense benefits" of a technologically advanced society. Cutting carbon, he added, could result in a dramatic reduction in the world's quality of life that would usher in mass starvation, poverty and civil strife. Massive decarbonization is "only possible if we wish to see large parts of the population die from starvation, destitution or violence in the absence of enough low-carbon energy to sustain society."

Kelly's findings give added ammunition to a camp of scientific skeptics who contend CO2 has a beneficial impact on the environment. Last November, Indur Goklany, a U.S. Department of the Interior official and a former delegate to the IPCC, said policymakers need to reassess their aversion to carbon dioxide, which he said is a major factor in plant fertilization and boosting crop yields, among other benefits.

High levels of CO2 concentration have actually helped improve biosphere productivity by 14 percent over the last three decades, Goklany's research found.

 

[fuji]

Kelly is arguing that it would be too expensive to cut greenhouse gases, but he has only calculated one side of the balance sheet. He's calculated what it will cost to cut emissions and said it will be too expensive. Maybe.

But what's on the other side of the balance sheet? Is it more or less expensive than cutting emissions?

If we don't cut, there will be warming significantly more than the two degrees already baked into the cake. The cuts were meant to limit the rise to two, so it will be more than two.

What's the cost of that? Several major world cities will have to relocated, agriculture will undergo a massive restructuring, with big changes in where the fertile areas are, and what types of crops to grow, and more.

It's a reasonable conversation to have: is it better to avoid the outcome? Or plan for the outcome? Both are costly.

Science can tell us what's likely to happen if we do different things.

At some level this debate is like a debtor, sinking under his increasingly expensive payments, protesting that he can't reign in his credit card spending because it would impact his lifestyle.

Well, yeah. It will. But if you don't, the impact may be larger.

But sure it's plausible to say, hey, we aren't going to stop this thing, so let's brace for impact and start preparing for the effects of the warming we have caused.

 

[fuji]

Here's another thought:

There are big stakes at this table. Maybe everyone should register whether they believe warming will happen out not in a public register.

Then in fifty years if climate change happens, the assets of the deniers will be liquidated pay for the damages, as their actions prevented us from avoiding the outcome.

Alternately, if it doesn't happen then those who said it would should have their assets liquidated to pay everyone back for the unnecessary costs were incurred trying to avoid it.

I'm imagining this on a large scale. The entire oil industry would be liquidated and investors left penniless in the event that we suffer an extreme warming.

The idea here is to internalize the risks. Right now you have people saying it won't happen mostly because if they armor it will, it'll prevent them making a buck. If their future wealth were hanging in the balance they would look at it more objectively.

 

[JohnLarue]

Speaking of making shit up.

Oh Boy are you ever stunned
That is not Dr Carters chart

That is a completely different study by a different scientist, showing a very long term look at temperature & CO2 levels
It shows there have been multiple warming & cooling cycles , however the frequency is closer to 400,000 years. Again much longer than you were referring to

Check the link , no mention of Dr Carter as its author
Was that the chart you have been attacking?
or do you just naturally attack anything that does agree with you

Now, will you apologize for accusing me of making shit up and for being a 'bullshit propaganda spewer'?

Absoluty not, you keep accusing me of posting Dr Carters Charts and supporting his view and you did not even know who wrote what
I was wonder what you were going about?????
As per usual it is your lack of understanding which proves to be the culprit

Do you have any honour or are you just another troll?

Do you have a clue?

 

[fuji]

Dr. Carter was proved wrong when he predicted cooling buy instead we got warming. He also claimed the evidence for global warming was only computer models but now we have actually got direct empirical proof.