President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist

[Moviefan-2]

Later on there was discussion over whether the bet was on NOAA or NASA numbers, which I can't be bother to find for you.

Not quite. What actually happened was that I caught you trying to rewrite the bet to include the NOAA numbers -- the same stunt you tried to pull the other day.

As for HadCRUT, that data was part of the evidence to confirm that the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong. The discussion had nothing to do with the bet.

The graph and the IPCC's own AR5 report both confirm the observed temperatures are nowhere near what the IPCC predicted. Indeed, the Earth's temperature in the 21st century has been stable, contrary to what the IPCC predicted.

 

[IM469]

Indeed, the Earth's temperature in the 21st century has been stable, contrary to what the IPCC predicted.

Not according to the map producers at National Geographic : http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...tic-sea-ice-revealed-by-national-geo-map.html

They predict the rate of ice shrinkage due to warming weather will completely melt the artic ice cap by the end of the century. They produced the following gif to illustrate the change:

 

[Frankfooter]

The graph and the IPCC's own AR5 report both confirm the observed temperatures are nowhere near what the IPCC predicted. Indeed, the Earth's temperature in the 21st century has been stable, contrary to what the IPCC predicted.

You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it true.
In fact, its a fucking lie.

You know that the present temperatures are breaking all previous records, that 2015 will be yet another record breaking temperature. You even know you are losing the bet about temperatures, yet you keep on lying.

Just stop lying.

Climate scientists say 2015 on track to be warmest year on record
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says first half of year was warmest ever and Earth experienced hottest June

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ay-2015-on-track-to-be-warmest-year-on-record

2015 on course to be Earth's hottest year ever after record-breaking June temperatures

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...ecordbreaking-june-temperatures-10402280.html

2015 Still On Pace as Hottest Year On Record

http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/earth-warmest-january-may-2015

 

[Moviefan-2]

You know that the present temperatures are breaking all previous records....

Really?

Prior to the NOAA cooking the books for the sea surface temperatures, NASA's records showed there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker.

http://www.reportingclimatescience....nasa-may-2015-ties-as-second-warmest-may.html

Even with the cooked books, the so-called "warming" reported in the thermometer readings for the 21st century has been minuscule. And the more dependable satellite data don't show any warming.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Climate researcher Judith Curry has a great blog on the Mark Steyn book about AGW huckster Michael Mann:

http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/13/mark-steyns-new-book-on-michael-mann/

As I mentioned the other day, it reaffirms what we learned in the Climategate emails -- that even Mann's closest buddies and allies think there are huge problems with the hockey stick graph. Some think it is an outright crock.

And those are just the opinions of Mann's friends. Among the broader climate research community, it gets much worse.

 

[Mable]

Good Gawd, don't you know, the science is SETTLED, there is NO global warming due to AGW activity.

 

[GPIDEAL]

No doubt, Mann is a total ass clown. But the real issue is bigger than Mann.

The IPCC used Mann's junk research as the basis for its preposterous claim that the warming in the latter part of the 20th century was unprecedented.

Here is a comparison of what the IPCC's chart looked like in its first report in 1990, pre-Mann, and how the chart was radically changed based on Mann's nonsense. Please note that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, even though it was hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution.

"There was a perceived need to 'prove' that the global average temperature is higher than at any other time ... It became more important than scientific integrity."

- Dr. Petr Chylek, PhD

http://www.steynstore.com/product133.html

Wait a second. The 1990 Chart can only project to 2000. The 2001 Hockey Stick Chart, OTOH, is based on actual data. Where's the bullshit?

Secondly, obviously the Medieval Period had some other reason to cause it's warming, whereas man-made CO2 emissions can be the cause for the current period. Unless they can isolate the Medieval Cause and show evidence of same in current times, man-made emissions can still be a cause.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The 2001 Hockey Stick Chart, OTOH, is based on actual data. Where's the bullshit?

Check out the Judith Curry post. You can read all about it:

http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/13/mark-steyns-new-book-on-michael-mann/

 

[Moviefan-2]

Secondly, obviously the Medieval Period had some other reason to cause it's warming, whereas man-made CO2 emissions can be the cause for the current period. Unless they can isolate the Medieval Cause and show evidence of same in current times, man-made emissions can still be a cause.

Here's what leading AGW researcher Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia, told the BBC in 2010:

"Of course, if the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

The AGW hypothesis is based on the idea that current warming is unprecedented. If it's not unprecedented, there is no reason to believe it is anthropogenic.

And there is no credible reason to think it is unprecedented. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests it isn't unprecedented.

 

[basketcase]

...

"Of course, if the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented."....

The fact that you think this is proof of something shows simply how limited and desperate your claims to science are.

Fact is that climate change in itself is not a major issue. Ecosystems adapt over time (and so does society). The 'unprecedented' is the RATE of climate change. Rapid change means that ecosystems do not have time to adapt and fails (and the same for society).


Then again there have been more rapid changes such as the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. I guess that since it's not that bad, we don't have anything to worry about.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The 'unprecedented' is the RATE of climate change.

According to Phil Jones and the IPCC (and Groggy), what is unprecedented in the time that man has been on the planet is the temperature level. Here's the full paragraph from Jones' interview:

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

----

"There was a perceived need to 'prove' that the global average temperature is higher than at any other time ... It became more important than scientific integrity." - Dr. Petr Chylek, PhD

http://www.steynstore.com/product133.html

Don't take my word for it. You can read the Climategate emails for yourself and see how the higher temperatures during the MWP were a serious problem for champions of "the cause." Of course, if you're going to insist that Jones, Mann, etc. don't know what they're talking about, I won't be the one to argue with you.

The reality is this: If the Medieval Warm Period was global, neither the current temperature levels nor the rate of warming would be considered unprecedented.

(By the way, the relatively flat temperatures in the 21st century wouldn't meet a snail's definition of "rapid." )

 

[basketcase]

According to Phil Jones and the IPCC (and Groggy), what is unprecedented in the time that man has been on the planet is the temperature level, along with the rate that they claim the planet is warming.....

Sounds like you're as full of shit on that claim as groggy. I doubt you can find a single scientist in the field saying that global temperature in the past 100+ thousand years has never been higher.

The rate of change is the issue. Ecosystems need time to evolve (though based on the tone of your arguments you probably disagree with that "theory" too).

 

[K Douglas]

Sounds like you're as full of shit on that claim as groggy. I doubt you can find a single scientist in the field saying that global temperature in the past 100+ thousand years has never been higher.

The rate of change is the issue. Ecosystems need time to evolve (though based on the tone of your arguments you probably disagree with that "theory" too).

Are you kidding? Tons of scientists say the temperature in the MWP was warmer than now - Roy Spencer & John Christy @ Univ of Alabama-Huntsville, Dr Tim Ball, Dr Don Easterbrook, Dr Robert Carter, Dr Klaus Eckert Puls, Dr Fred Singer, Dr William Gray, Dr Tim Patterson, Dr Judith Curry, Dr Richard Lindzen being some of the more prominent names. For crying out loud the chart in the original IPCC report in 1990 showed it being warmer.

Mann's hockey stick is a total fraud.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I doubt you can find a single scientist in the field saying that global temperature in the past 100+ thousand years has never been higher.

Fair enough. I'll amend my comment to the time since civilized man has been on the planet.

The point still remains: What Jones was saying in the BBC interview was "unprecedented" was the actual temperature level. Though I don't disagree that the AGW crowd also claims the rate of warming is unprecedented.

Both claims are completely baseless and not supported by evidence.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Here's what leading AGW researcher Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia, told the BBC in 2010:

"Of course, if the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

The AGW hypothesis is based on the idea that current warming is unprecedented. If it's not unprecedented, there is no reason to believe it is anthropogenic.

And there is no credible reason to think it is unprecedented. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests it isn't unprecedented.

Not just "unprecedented" but from industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels in every aspect of life.

We didn't have mechanized industry during the medieval period.

Are they able to pinpoint the cause of warming in the MP?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Are they able to pinpoint the cause of warming in the MP?

Beats me. I'm more familiar with the dubious efforts to try to eliminate the MWP as a global phenomenon.

 

[FAST]

Here's a hint for those of you are incredibly stupid (and for FAST, another hint is that this applies to you):
Deforestation is almost entirely an anthropogenic forcing.
Its not a natural factor.

Until you understand incredibly basic things like that you are doomed to repeat really, really fucking stupid statements over and over again.
You really have no clue how stupid you are, do you?

Looks like you have graduated from LITTLE BOY,...to LYING LITTLE BOY,...well done.

I have NOT stated that deforestation was either an anthropogenic forcing or a natural factor,...that's just more of your usual running away to hide in your mommies closet.

I simply stated for the 3rd time,...which you continually run from,... that your two bull shit sites, IPCC and Bloomberg make the exact opposite claims on what the effect deforestation has on the claimed global warming.
Your bull shit site, Bloomberg states its has NO effect, and actually has a cooling effect on the earths temp,...while your other bull shit site, IPCC claims that it has the opposite effect on the claimed global warming.

You have created quite a reputation here for running away on other subjects,....run LITTLE BOY,...just keep on running,...but your reputation precedes you,...so you can't run away from that.

FAST

 

[PornAddict]

You don't disprove thousands of scientists research and the supporting data with a lame analogy.
Nor can you explain a rise of temperature of approx 1ºC as 'noise' or errors.

That article is total nonsense.

http://www.passionforliberty.com/2013/08/19/climategate-coverup

Conclusion

The infamous hockey stick graph is still used today in an attempt to force draconian regulations on the entire world. The graph is the product of fault data and a brutally manipulative model.

The scientists involved knew the science was junk and covered it up. Those scientists undertook a systematic and coordinated campaign to prevent their data and model methodologies from being made known. This campaign extended to physically deleting emails in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. This was completely unethical and also illegal. It was done purely in the furtherance of their fraud.

But worst of all, these global warming advocates assaulted the core principals of the scientific method by attacking the peer-review process itself. By pressuring journals and editors to publish papers supporting the ’cause’ while blocking publication of ‘dissenting’ papers, proper scientific debate, the means by which we arrive at the truth, was quashed.

 

[PornAddict]

Nope, you are full of shit.

You'll have to go back and look at one of your favourite graphs, the well known and fully confirmed, 'hockey stick' graph.

The changes we are experiencing due to anthropogenic climate change are unprecedented in modern history.

Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred ...because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.
Eduardo Zorita, Senior Scientist at Germany's Institute for Coastal Research

 

[basketcase]

Are you kidding? Tons of scientists say the temperature in the MWP was warmer than now ...

Try reading my post.