Our Warming World

By Sheril Kirshenbaum | February 24, 2010 11:03 am

A new website by NASA features videos, images, and articles about climate change. A Warming World has been designed to help all of us understand what warming means and how it impacts our world. Here’s a sample:

Each year, scientists at NASA’S Goddard Institute for Space Studies analyze global temperature data. The past year, 2009, tied as the second warmest year since global instrumental temperature records began 130 years ago. Worldwide, the mean temperature was 0.57°C (1.03°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period. And January 2000 to December 2009 came out as the warmest decade on record.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Global Warming

Comments (203)

  1. Philip Jr.

    That’s a damn good website. I’ll be directing folks to that from now on. It highlights the misconceptions and false statements we see here a lot and does away with them while providing BOTH the evidence for climate change and current uncertainties. Thanks, Chris!

  2. inde
  3. Philip Jr.

    Bah!!! Yes I did. Sorry, Sheril!! And thanks for catching that, inde.

  4. Cool website. Hope it does more than magnify the beliefs of opposing camps.

  5. @3 Philip Jr.
    No worries. And it is a great site!

  6. Busiturtle

    If only it was warmer where I live. In a typical year my kids would be starting baseball practice next week. Not this year. Too much snow. And contrary to what Algore claims about global warming causing snow the temperature where I live has been below normal for 28 consecutive days. It is these below normal temperatures that explain not only the higher incidence of snow but also why it is not melting as quickly as usual.

    Oh well, if NASA says it is warmer we should believe them rather than what we see out of our window.

    Lastly, if the earth is as hot as NASA claims why are the seas not rising? Why are there less hurricanes? Why are there less typhoons? Where is all the calamity that threatens our survival because of AGW?

    Could it be that the notion of a global temperature is a meaningless metric?

  7. Harman Smith

    Busiturtle, did it occur to you that you might not be the first person to lately ponder such questions? Can you imagine that people have already asked such skeptical questions and received an answer? It is a bit… inefficient when people ask questions that have been answered many times before. In fact, many times before on this very blog (and sister blogs, including BA and the Loom).

    I could very well address your queries here and now, but what stops me in my tracks is the prospect of having to do so again and again, as indeed has happened before. So I hope that, as a turtle, you are hopefully not TOO busy to at least search previous Intersection blog posts with the ‘Global Warming’ tag and sift through the comments.

  8. gillt

    It’s true, Busiturtle has shut his brain down to conserve body heat.

    We’ll await the spring thaw to see if his condition improves.

  9. Philip Jr.

    …and it suddenly becomes apparent that Busiturtle hasn’t even visited the NASA site, which addresses his many questions in well-balanced, intricate detail. Oh well. I guess simply posing the questions is enough in Skeptic Land. When you’ve reached a position that is unshakable by the best of evidence, you don’t really care about the answers, anyway.

  10. SomeGuyCalledMark

    @Busiturtle

    “Oh well, if NASA says it is warmer we should believe them rather than what we see out of our window.”

    Yes, we should.

    Imagine we were talking about the economy. NASA is saying “we think the economy is bad because unemployment rates are rising.” You’re one person saying, “I just got a new job, so the economy is great! Anyone who says unemployment rates are rising is a liar!”

    To use your own logic against you, we’ve had a warm winter where I live, so obviously global warming is real!

  11. antigore

    How cold does it have to get before you knuckleheads admit you’ve been scammed by NASA and the CRU? Is it going to take mass migrations towards the equator?

  12. Mac

    Busiturtle, I share your sense of skepticism. The “climate change” issue is quite complex and full of obvious conflicts of interest and contradictions. There’s much to be skeptical about, especially since increased CO2 is generally good for plant and human life and only composes a fraction of the atmosphere. I also question the notion of our emergence from the Little Ice Age and how the temperatures of the Medieval Period were known to be as warm or warmer than today’s climate. For instance, Greenland was habitable during the Medieval Period, while it remains covered by glaciers today, but the IPCC claims they can’t make that deduction due to lack of data in the Southern Hemisphere. Then there’s the fact warming has not been statistically significant in 15 years, along with earlier claims, such as 2005 was the warmest year on record. Significant or not, logic must then conclude that the global temperature has only been cooling since 2005, yet they continue to claim it is warming because they argue short term vs. long term trends. Even if CO2 were to be causing warming, humans have historically thrived during warmer climates, so I don’t see the sense for alarm.
    Meteorologists have a hard enough time predicting the weather beyond a 72 hour window (and often get it wrong), yet we’re supposed to believe that Climatologists can predict the entire Earth’s weather patterns/climate for the next 50+ years, along with calling CO2 a pollutant. Should we all stop exhaling? Are we polluting our own homes by breathing in an enclosed area? It’s nothing like second hand smoke, but I digress.

  13. Mac

    Also, the record snowfall and cold temperature trends we’re now experiencing can be attributed to El Nino, not necessarily “climate change”.

  14. Busiturtle

    I have visited climate.nasa.gov/warmingworld/ and it only affirms what I said. The metric of a global average temperature is meaningless as a climate indicator since regional climate patterns overwhelm global trends. That said, I did appreciate the page on Climate Day and the photo suggesting that holding hands will ease my global warming angst, or lack thereof.

    The information on global warming effects strikes me as plagiarism of The Farmers Almanac. But who doesn’t like making vague prediction about future weather? It is a great business to be in because somewhere in the world there is always going to be abnormal weather, or at least weather that can be claimed to be outside the norm.

    But I was most intrigued by the charts of rising sea levels. They sure look ominous until one considers how small a unit of measurement a millimeter is. Fact is that once again local weather patterns have a far greater impact on observed sea-levels than the accrual of many years of natural increases. This wiki page does a pretty good job of explaining the many factors governing sea levels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level

    Sea-level trends are also important because they are the best evidence yet that man’s role in climate change is greatly exaggerated. According to the consensus record sea levels were much lower 20 thousand years ago. They rose at a very rapid rate for the next 12,000 years. For the past 8000 years they have continued to rise, only at a much lower rate.

    So if current sea level increases are due to global warming would not past sea level increases be also due to global warming? And would it not be logical to say that global warming is an omnipresent phenomenon, at least for the past 20,000 years?

    Put another way, could not any generation of scientists since the arrival of man have made the claim of global warming and blamed man for it?

  15. bob

    Do people still not understand that weather is not climate?

    Where I live, this winter has been extremely mild. Much less snow than usual, and much higher temperatures. So, if I were you guys, I would thus be convinced that global warming is real! Who’s the knucklehead now, “antigore”?

  16. Thomas H.

    We’ve also just had a protracted warm snap in my part of the world, following an equally protracted cold snap. The “it’s cold, so climate change can’t be happening!” and the “it’s warm, so climate change is happening!” canards are just that – canards.

    I’m a skeptic, but unlike many of the others here, I think that the scientific foundation of AGW is strong. Very strong, in fact. My skepticism has its root in the policy applications of that science. Even in the face of the science, I’m a bit wary of jumping to extreme policy measures like geoengineering and broad-scale cap-and-trade. So, if this even makes sense, I’m not a skeptic in a scientific sense but I diverge from the “movement” portions of the climate change accepting community. I don’t feel like I need to discredit the science using untrue assertions to get my point across.

    I’ll get flamed by my fellow skeptics for saying this, but here goes: guys, you need to get better arguments. “It’s snowing outside my house” makes you look like an idiot. Sorry for the harsh language, but it just does. There’s no other word for it. Similarly, claiming that “temperatures are not a reliable metric” for determining whether or not global temperatures are changing is downright buffoonish, as well. If you’ve got a solid argument as a skeptic, shouldn’t you be able to get it across using solid scientific foundations and NOT using falsehoods like “the world is cooling,” “glaciers aren’t melting,” and “sea levels aren’t rising?” I mean, come on – the evidence is slapping you across the ignorant face on those points to prove you wrong, and you’re being completely oblivious about it.

    I know that probably makes me sound less like a skeptic to some (or most) of you, but I’m simply sick and tired of watching uninformed political megaphones launch a spin, lies, and propaganda campaign against their election opponents while we could be having a very productive policy discussion instead. And, unfortunately, literally every single one of the skeptics I read commenting on the threads here are doing just that: they’re simply gobbling up whatever their favorite radio host/blogger/political figure says about climate change, accepting it as true, and coming to reguritate it here with the intelligence and maturity level of a six-year-old. The fun-and-games may be fun to play, my fellow skeptics, but the public is quickly going to learn that the majority of us are just spouting nonsense. It’s already happening as we’ve been watching the predictions you’ve been decrying for years as false come true. It’s high time we started having a more well-informed skepticism instead of this nonsense.

    *end rant*

  17. Sorbet

    -How cold does it have to get before you knuckleheads admit you’ve been scammed by NASA and the CRU

    I will not yet again reiterate that weather is not climate. I will not yet again reiterate that weather is not climate.

  18. bilbo

    I love how the most parsimonious explanation for the data that NASA presents on their website to slaughter skeptic claims in the street for the denialists here is that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is involved in a massive worldwide conspiracy that started in the late 1800s when we started recording temperature data….before NASA even existed.

    Nice one, guys. Keep that mess up and watch how long the public the plays along.

  19. Mac

    If you think about it, we could experience x years of global cooling and scientists can continue to say it’s just a trend in the short term, until the climate begins to warm again after x years, and they can then say “see, told you so”…it’s a cycle that can go on for infinity. They can’t set a definitive time line to define such terms, even if they could, we simply won’t know until x years is over if they were correct or not. However, they continue to claim we need to act now or else. They can make infinite claims under such circumstances and it’s impossible to tell what will happen until it happens, for example the unpredicted statistically insignificant figures over the last 15 years. They’re excuse for it is that it’s a short term trend, not indicative of the larger scope….

    If anyone knows how to prove the distance between consecutive numbers, it’s not a whole value, but infinity. Same principle here, the cycle can go on forever. For example, the distance between .1 and .3, it’s not .2 because decimal places between those values extends to infinity. I should say it’s .2, that’s the obvious and rational answer, anyone would agree, but it’s just as easy to argue against it. It’s a logical paradox, unless you first define the set in which you are defining the term (reals, rationals, irrationals, etc.). Scientists simply don’t define those terms, because they can’t, it’s all speculation.

  20. FUAG

    Sorbet, does climate not affect weather? Reiterating “weather is not climate” is a nice way to dismiss a claim. However, I’m sure in the last ice age the weather was cold, obviously climate and weather do go together. Most of us know that if it’s cold in my back yard it is not a sign of the next ice age. Those that state otherwise sound as silly as someone saying that weather is not affected by climate.

  21. Yes Sorbet, we all know by now weather isn’t climate, but when a person starts to look at longer, colder trends this is climate! The weather this year is not abnormal, it is predictable, Meteorologist Joe Bastardi forcasted this winter perfectly “Well, first of all, let’s take a look at what happened this winter, because there are a lot of people trying to now say that all the cold and the snow that we had was because of global warming. This was our forecast issued in July, and then I reissued it again in October. Notice the cold and snow in the mid-Atlantic states, snow down here in Texas, warm and dry up here, wet in California. Now, how did I come up with that? Was it global warming? No. We have an El Nino and a state of the ocean in the Pacific similar to the ’60s and ’70s when Bill O’Reilly was growing up and there was all that snow. The solar cycles are doing something that is reminiscent to colder times.” I agree the past 30 years the earth has warmed but is it natural or caused by humans? The 100 trillion dollar question! Some scientists says it is, some say it isn’t. I personally believe now no scientist knows for sure, but I lean toward scientists do not have a clue!

  22. Philip Jr.

    If anyone knows how to prove the distance between consecutive numbers, it’s not a whole value, but infinity. Same principle here, the cycle can go on forever. For example, the distance between .1 and .3, it’s not .2 because decimal places between those values extends to infinity. I should say it’s .2, that’s the obvious and rational answer, anyone would agree, but it’s just as easy to argue against it. It’s a logical paradox, unless you first define the set in which you are defining the term (reals, rationals, irrationals, etc.). Scientists simply don’t define those terms, because they can’t, it’s all speculation.

    It sounds like you’re not familiar with the concept of statistical significance. I suggest you learn it.

    Or, reading some actual journal articles could do. You’re spouting things about scientists that scientists don’t do.

  23. Brian Too

    The Vancouver Olympic Games are being conducted under trying conditions for a Winter Olympic Games. It’s the warmest winter in decades with temperatures averaging 10-15 degrees C above normal.

    By the denialists usual logic, this is proof positive that Climate Change is real, and it’s being broadcast to hundreds of millions of people worldwide! Except, of course, that the denialists are curiously silent on the matter of countervailing evidence.

    And except the even bigger matter that Weather Climate.

  24. bilbo

    Denialism is built off of remaining silent about countervailing evidence, Brian. If you’re a denialist, you talk about about how cool weather disproves climate change and then stay silent when it’s hot. You talk about things scientists don’t do and then ignore it when someone shows you evidence that they actually do. You claim that glaciers aren’t melting when high-elevation villages are having to move to find new water sources. You say the sea level is stable when people in Florida are having their aquifers encroached on by saltwater. You claim that cherry-pciking isn’t cirrect but then try to use 7 years of data to plerad your case. You say that scientists are corrupt because they get government funding but just can’t understand why people call you a hypocrite because you trust oil company-funded denialists at the same time.

    Come to think of it, denialism and hypocrisy are the exact same thing.

  25. Mac

    The “climate change” supporters over the years used the claim that hotter temperatures, along with the lack of snow during winter, indicates warming. If they were using the same logic as today, they would say warmer temperatures and less snow don’t equate to warming, but simply a warming trend. If that were the case, the current cooling since 2005 would be called global cooling, not a cooling trend, but the claim continues to be that it’s still warming. By that logic, we could go through infinite cycles of warming and cooling without a definitive end. How can cooling only be a trend, while warming remains indefinite? By that logic, I would question that as CO2 increases, how can temperatures decrease when the warming is argued to be indefinite. It’s all relative to the single notion that warming is assumed to be indefinite, which defies the fact and history that climate changes are cyclic. That is hypocrisy.

  26. moptop

    and it suddenly becomes apparent that Busiturtle hasn’t even visited the NASA site, which addresses his many questions in well-balanced, intricate detail. -PJ

    That is what PJ brings to this blog, his complete faith that the answers are there, expressed over and over again with the constant assurances, based on his authority as a blog commenter, that any and all questions are answered.

    Just don’t ask him specifically how they are answered, because, well, I really don’t know why. Some people think it is because he can’t be bothered to answer obviously stupid questions, others think he uses this formula over and over again because he sure has a lot of opinions, but very little knowledge to back them up. I leave it to the reader to decide which view is correct.

    call you a hypocrite because you trust oil company-funded denialists at the same time.
    Come to think of it, denialism and hypocrisy are the exact same thing. -bilbo

    It ain’t working bilbo. This stuff only works with your steadily shrinking choir. Oh wait, you can deny that your choir is shrinking, but that would make you a “denialist.”

  27. Busiturtle

    Bilbo & others,

    When you label skeptics as “denialists” what is it that you assume they are denying?

  28. bilbo

    Oh we’ve been over this one a million times before, turtle. You’re slow, though, so I’ll go over it again.

    Skeptic: someone who doesn’t accept the science of climate change and can argue it with evidence and can (and does) display a knowledge of the scientific method and how climate science is performed. Sorbet is a fine example.

    Denialist: Someone who doesn’t accept the science of climate change but can’t (and won’t) display a base knowledge of science/the field and argues by squatting over a thread, inhaling, and forcing out a colon-load of talking point diarrhea. Then they leave.
    You are a fine example.

    File that one away for the nest time your short-term memory fails you…or for the next time you’ve run out of anything else to say. Either way, it’ll work.

  29. Philip Jr.

    Wow. That was a personal attack out of nowhere, moptop. Either you’re freakin’ out, desperate, or just pissy tonight. Chill, my friend. Why so passionate to defend Busiturtle’s admitted ignorance?

  30. Mac

    “It sounds like you’re not familiar with the concept of statistical significance. I suggest you learn it. Or, reading some actual journal articles could do. You’re spouting things about scientists that scientists don’t do.”

    Stats are all relative. If the scope of the climate data went back 10,000, 50,000, 100,000 years, the significance of our current trends would be different, possibly even statistically insignificant.

  31. bilbo

    Stats are all relative

    More data is always better, my dear denialist. Which is why scientists look at the long-term trends – not whichever interval doesn’t show warming, as your kind does.

    ….and, I’m interested: how do you know that, if we had more data, there would be no significant trend? Have you clued into the magic ability of prediction without evidence that all denialists seem to have?

  32. Mac

    Turtle, you can’t win that debate. They will run circles around anything a skeptic says and when they have no answer to a legit criticism, they’ll say something like “you should read studies or learn statistics because scientists don’t do that”. They’ll then resort to name calling and condescending rhetoric until you submit to their elitist opinion of “settled science”.

  33. Philip Jr.

    They’ll then resort to name calling and condescending rhetoric until you submit to their elitist opinion of “settled science”.

    I certainly don’t want to get Busiturtle to “submit to settled science.” I’d just like to have a conversation with him that isn’t rife with incorrect statements about how science works, political rants, and/or lies about a particular study.

    Getting to that point would require Busiturtle to first read some actual science, though. And seeing as how he’s told us he’s not going to and will instead make uninformed opinions, I’m not going to hold my breath.

  34. bilbo

    they’ll say something like “you should read studies or learn statistics because scientists don’t do that”.

    Because reading studies or learning statistics is SUCH a no-no….

    *faceeverything*

  35. Mac

    “Because reading studies or learning statistics is SUCH a no-no….
    *faceeverything*”

    See what I mean Turtle?

  36. bilbo

    …and the point went miles over Mac the Dull’s head.

  37. Mac

    Confirmed yet again.

  38. Milton C.

    “Arguments about someone’s tone are arguments made out of desperation.”

    One of my favorite all-time quotes. Mac should consider it.

  39. bilbo

    “Arguments about someone’s tone are arguments made out of desperation.”

    One of my favorite all-time quotes. Mac should consider it.

    I love it when all the criticism someone can muster of me is that I’m a bit snippy, Milton.

    Desperation is a sad thing to watch.

  40. bilbo

    How dare we ask you to read the literature to get on a level playing field as us, Mac? What gall we have! We’re so demeaning, asking for a bit of self-education!

  41. Mac

    I never said anything about denying reading the studies, you just made that assumption. I made a statement that ruffled your feathers and you’ve only confirmed it multiple times.

  42. Seminatrix

    I find it quite amusing that the same Mac who spent several earlier posts demeaning climate change “believers” is decrying those who demean others.

    Pot, I would like you to meet my friend. His name is kettle.

  43. Mac

    yet again, I refuse to stoop to this level. Enjoy your debate about name calling.

  44. Seminatrix

    Elevate thyself above the name-calling you yourself started, Mac!

  45. Mac

    For the record, I also never demeaned any climate change believers, that was your interpretation of my statement, nor did I start any name calling. This is exactly what I meant by running circles around.

  46. Mac

    I made a general statement on the behavior I witness in these blogs on a regular basis and you’ve since confirmed it on multiple occasions.

  47. bilbo

    For the record, I also never demeaned any climate change believers, that was your interpretation of my statement, nor did I start any name calling.

    “…and you will attempt to shove your elitist opinions down our throats.”

    “…you elitists….”

    “Is that all the boneheaded logic you can muster, alarmist?”

    “Continue your circular logic, and I will laugh in your ignorant face.”

    Forum archives are a biotch, Mac the Hypocritical Liar. (Oh, and before you get angry about me calling you those names, you (i) chastised us for calling us names while you wee calling us names, and (ii) said you never called anyone names, when you clearly did. That makes you, by the words’ very definition, both a hypocrite and a liar.)

    I will now go snicker myself to sleep…

  48. V.O.R.

    “There’s much to be skeptical about, especially since increased CO2 is generally good for plant and human life and only composes a fraction of the atmosphere.”

    That is such a good point and I can’t understand why it isn’t mentioned more often.

    Water, for example, is also generally good for plant and human life and only composes a fraction (though a large one) of the planet’s surface. And yet Warmists get off giving all these dire predictions about rising sea levels!

    Carbon, as an element, fits all the criteria above, and Warmists want to sequester it!

    And then check out the hypocrisy here: Oil, an environmental bete noire if there ever was one, is something Warmists often want us to conserve. Rather that just get rid of the “filthy” stuff by burning it up – actually doing something useful with it – they want to keep it around where it can kill penguins or something.

    I don’t think they’ve thought any of this stuff through to a *logical* conclusion.

  49. bilbo

    Water, for example, is also generally good for plant and human life and only composes a fraction (though a large one) of the planet’s surface. And yet Warmists get off giving all these dire predictions about rising sea levels!

    Ask the people of New Orleans how awesome water is for human civilization. (Not in the context of climate change, just in the context of your ridiculously moronic point.)

    increased CO2 is generally good for plant and human life

    CO2 is a poisonous waste to humans. Basic biology, VOR. I mean, this is grade-school stuff. (Also, some plants actually exhibit decreased productivity under increased atmospheric CO2.)

    Water…only composes a fraction of the planet’s surface

    Yep, only a fraction. Just a measley three quarters.

    Oil, an environmental bete noire if there ever was one, is something Warmists often want us to conserve. Rather that just get rid of the “filthy” stuff by burning it up – actually doing something useful with it – they want to keep it around where it can kill penguins or something.

    Are you a fifteen-year-old, VOR? Where is oil found before we dig it up? And where do penguins live? Answer those questions, and you’ll understand why I’m about to call you an idiot. Idiot.

    Oh, and as an added stupid bonus, you mocked calling oil filthy but then admitted it kills wildlife. Ah, irony.

    I don’t think they’ve thought any of this stuff through to a *logical* conclusion.

    The differences is that we think it through using more than just our brain stem.

  50. Philip Jr.

    Is VOR’s latest post jockeying for some “most oblivious and ignorant post” award, or something? I mean, I would laugh if I didn’t think he was actually being serious.

  51. Mac

    Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere leads to flourishing plant photosynthesis, which are good for both humans and animals. Even at the claimed high concentrations today, it still composes a fraction, less than 0.04%, of Earth’s atmosphere….maybe you should read some studies.

  52. Mac

    Even if the Earth ever got as warm as the Medieval Period, when Greenland wasn’t covered in ice, it would only be good for humans. Winter and cold period, like the Little Ice Age, have proven some of the most difficult and lethal for human life. If we should be worried about anything it’s global cooling.

  53. Mac

    Does this mean when the Earth begins to cool we’re going to ditch all the green technology for those filthy internal combustion engines?

  54. Mac

    Environmentalists argue animal extinction, but isn’t it Darwin was championed survival of the fittest? The strongest species will adapt and migrate, while others will succumb to natural selection.

  55. bilbo

    Environmentalists argue animal extinction, but isn’t it Darwin was championed survival of the fittest? The strongest species will adapt and migrate, while others will succumb to natural selection.

    I am continually amazed at the denialists who make the claim that the Earth is not warming, then make predictions about the future based on the assumption that it is. I’m also amazed at the amount of denialists who can predict random evolutionary processes. It’s astounding.

    And now for a little bit of realism. Scientists have already observed a hnadful of species go extinct due to the rate of recent warming (antrhopogenic or not). Climate change is one of the main known historical drivers of extinction.

    Once again, evidence slaughters your purile attempt at a prediction to debunk climate change in the street, Mac. Read a book or something. Please.

  56. Milton C.

    Rising sea levels will “only benefit” humans?

    I suppose that’s why we live on land, why The Netherlands is having to spend billions to make new levee systems to hold back the sea, and why scores of humans died in New Orleans when Katrina’s storm surge hit.

    That wasn’t just boneheaded, VOR. That was outright stupid.

  57. DancingBear

    Troll. Who reads blog comments anymore, anyway? The likes of you have obliterated any interest or use in doing so, and that’s probably for the better.

  58. V.O.R.

    “I mean, I would laugh if I didn’t think he was actually being serious.”

    It’s scary, isn’t it? It’s that Poe’s Law thingy.

    The giveaway is that I used a French phrase. Crazy Americans only use English or, like VDH, Latin.

    But what about post #51? Doubling down on the joke, calling the bluff, or some other poker-related unclear metaphor entirely…. ???

  59. ChrisD

    @Mac:

    I’ll add emphasis to the key word for you:

    Environmentalists argue animal extinction, but isn’t it Darwin was championed survival of the fittest? The strongest species will adapt and migrate, while others will succumb to natural selection.

  60. moptop

    I certainly don’t want to get Busiturtle to “submit to settled science.” I’d just like to have a conversation with him that isn’t rife with incorrect statements about how science works, political rants, and/or lies about a particular study.
    Getting to that point would require Busiturtle to first read some actual science, though. And seeing as how he’s told us he’s not going to and will instead make uninformed opinions, I’m not going to hold my breath. -PJ

    Conversation? This implies two way discussion. A good place to start usually is to point out where the other side is wrong, and then explain why he is wrong and how one’s own interpretation is the correct one. If you are trying to evangelize your belief in AGW and enlist allies in the political fight that you deem necessary, this might be an effective approach. If you goal is to feel superior by insulting anybody with a question, creating a smaller and more pure community, that like Noah, will somehow survive the coming apocalypse, through demonstration of complete faith and devotion to the cause, well then, carry on.

  61. ChrisD

    @Mac:

    Even if the Earth ever got as warm as the Medieval Period, when Greenland wasn’t covered in ice

    No. You’re implying that Greenland was ice-free, or largely so, during the MWP, and that is not the case at all. Most of Greenland’s ice is many thousands of years old. You’ve heard about the ice cores that show a hundred thousand years and more of climate history?

    The fact is, Greenland was covered with ice during the MWP. There was a brief period when it was possible to grow some European crops near the shore, but that’s about the most you can say.

    And when you say that warming would “only be good for humans”, you are completely ignoring everything except temperature. That’s a ludicrously narrow outlook; the warming itself isn’t even the real problem. There’s a whole lot more to it than that. Have a look at the wikipedia entry:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

    Yes, yes, it’s wikipedia, but it’s even half right you’re looking at way more being able to go to the beach a few days earlier in the spring.

  62. moptop

    I meant to point out that the other arrow in PJ’s limited quiver is to accuse the other side of refusing to read any evidence that refutes them. This is how it goes:

    Skeptic: How do they actually validate the models?
    PJ: It’s in the studies, read them.
    Skeptic: Well, as near as I can figure, all they can do is look at what is, and according to their assumptions, compare it to what “might have been”, which is unknowable.
    PJ: It’s all explained in the literature.
    Skeptic: Where exactly? How do they know? Could you at least explain your understanding?
    PJ: I don’t know why I should continue this conversation since you have already said that you refuse to read the literature.

    It is almost as if he works off of a flow chart. Of course that would imply self awareness.

    Mac,
    They, like all true believers, feel like their morality is absolute. I know it is absurd, but that is what they think.

    Chris,
    I see that “Unscientific America” got a mention in Dr Judith Curry’s open letter “On the Credibility of Climate Science”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/24/on-the-credibility-of-climate-research-part-ii-towards-rebuilding-trust/

  63. So after the short-lived experiment in civility it’s back to “denialists” and claiming skeptics lack intelligence and are hypocritical.

  64. Mac

    “Until recently commercial vegetable production would have been almost impossible in this land of ice and rock – but global warming is greening Greenland.”

    I didn’t say anything about being “largely” free of ice, that was implied by yourself. However, I did say plant life flourished during that warming period, which was good for humans and that trend continues today.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4791047.ece

    and you should read the definition of natural selection:

    “Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

  65. Bustiturle

    bilbo@28: “Denialist: Someone who doesn’t accept the science of climate change”

    This definition is incomplete so let me correct it for you.

    Denialist: Someone who does not accept the AGW explanation for climate change.

    Those advocating AGW have advanced a theory on which many alarming predictions have based. Now we are seeing these forecasts fail. There has not been increased coastal flooding. There have not been increased hurricane and cyclone activity. There have not been island nations submerged in rising seas. Weather is just as unpredictable and volatile as it has ever been. In the wake of this failure we are seeing peer reviewed science suggesting that AGW effects are not as severe as once forecast, that it very well could be that there is no climate tipping point. I believe this is a step in the right direction.

    What I expect to see is further acknowledgment that while industrial activity is a forcing agent it is a weak one compared to Mother Nature. This understanding is already consensus. It just is not expressed this way. But every time an expert explains why regional weather observations are not climate he or she is expressing this view. Weather is the local and temporal expression of climate trends. If weather was not consistent with the climate subscribed for that area one would have to change that area’s climate definition. In simpler terms, if snow becomes a regular occurrence in Miami one would have to say that Miami’s climate has changed.

    Terms such as global warming and global climate change are scientifically meaningless. The use of these terms is convenient for propaganda but they have no practical value. Changing industrial policy is not going to tame the massive forces that produce the climate experienced in each region of the world. The earth has been naturally deicing, albeit at a glacial pace, for 200 centuries what makes our current situation abnormal? Could it be that because now that we have greater instrumentation and computers and global communication networks the ability to cry “the sky is falling” has gone from a local phenomenon to a global one?

  66. Mac

    *I probably should have said Greenland was less covered in ice, I can see where you may misinterpret that as such.

  67. Junior

    Well said moptop.

  68. Philip jr.

    Conversation? This implies two way discussion. A good place to start usually is to point out where the other side is wrong, and then explain why he is wrong and how one’s own interpretation is the correct one. If you are trying to evangelize your belief in AGW and enlist allies in the political fight that you deem necessary, this might be an effective approach. If you goal is to feel superior by insulting anybody with a question, creating a smaller and more pure community, that like Noah, will somehow survive the coming apocalypse, through demonstration of complete faith and devotion to the cause, well then, carry on.

    Wow. Another angry post filled chock full of ad hominems….all to defend Busiturtle’s honor. If I knew better, moptop, I’d think you and the turtle were one and the same person, seeing as how every time I respond to him you feel a need to come and try to slander me. Your blood pressure must be through the roof!

    I’ve made it pretty clear that I’m more than willing to engage in some two-way discussion when you guys are ready to make your arguments with something besides just “I said so.” Until then, you’ll be getting ignored. There’s so sense talking with a rambling fool who just wants to get a fistfight started.

  69. Philip jr.

    So, Busiturtle (post #67), you argue that global climate change is a scientifically meaningless term, but then you base your argument against the science in the preceding paragraph on claiming that not enough global climate change has happened to satisfy you.

    Your circular logic and selfcontradictions precede you, my friend.

  70. matt

    looks like skeptics own this thread…applause…

  71. gillt

    There was nothing to misinterpret Mac. You lied.

    “For instance, Greenland was habitable during the Medieval Period, while it remains covered by glaciers today”

    The sentence can only be interpreted one way: uninhabitable = covered in glaciers, habitable means =/= glacier-free.

    That’s called lying by implication.

    It’s also dishonest to imply that Greenland was anything close to a lush environment 1000 years ago. If you were paying attention in grade-school history, you’d know that Eric the Red called it Greenland because he was trying to sell the place, not because it was ever verdant.

  72. bilbo

    Wow, moptop’s sudden smear campaign to assassinate Philip’s character is quite impressive! What happened, moptop? get tired of Philip calmly and thoroughly slaughtering every half-witted denilaist talking point you can dredge up? I’ve noticed when denialists get caught on the logic rope-a-dope they begin to act like a cornered mutt – just like you’re doing all of a sudden.

    Just one suggestion, though: if you’re going to use ad hominems to argue, claiming that someone is wrong simply because they tell you your point is proven wrong in the actual paper you’re trying to argue about is probably not the best recourse. I’d stick to the “believer” mantra. It at least makes partial sense.

  73. Philip Jr.

    Don’t waste your breath on Mac, gillt. He tried to argue me last night by claiming that climate has no effect on the evolution of the world’s biota (um, Pleistocene, anyone?)

    It was then that I realized that 9th grade biology was probably the extent of this guy’s education, and arguing points that he’s never been educated on is just going to be wasting my time.

  74. Philip Jr.

    What I expect to see is further acknowledgment that while industrial activity is a forcing agent…

    No one in the scientific community claims that “industrial activity” itself is a forcing agent, turtle. No one. You’re trying to argue from politics again, thus showing your true colors.

  75. Sorbet

    Mac has a stellar plan in mind. Once the world warms up Greenland would be one of the few habitable places on the planet. Then we can all migrate there and kick back to enjoy the natural beauty.

  76. bilbo

    So after the short-lived experiment in civility it’s back to “denialists” and claiming skeptics lack intelligence and are hypocritical.

    I’ve made my personal distinction between denialists and skeptics clear, Bradley. If someone doesn’t want me to call them a denialist, they can simply not engage in the foolishness I outlined to describe it. There are posters here whom I disagree with strongly but that can argue with substance and not rhetoric, and I gladly call them skeptics.

    Lastly, calling someone a hypocrite when they talk about how incorrect it is to do something – but then turn around and do it themselves in the next post – is hardly something reprehensible. That’s the very definition of hypocrisy, after all, my friend.

  77. There’s so sense talking with a rambling fool who just wants to get a fistfight started.

    From the same person who decries “ad hominems”

    Medice, cura te ipsum.

  78. Mac

    @moptop, 64, I’ve noticed that pattern as well, reads like a book.

  79. Philip jr.

    The strongest species will adapt and migrate, while others will succumb to natural selection.

    Natural selection acts on individuals and populations, Mac. You’ve got your fundamentals completely off the rails here. I’m sure moptop will chastise me again for stressing the need for oneself to be well-read in the literature before they form opinions on climate change (the horror!!!!!), but I suggest you go read Camille Parmesan’s work on climate change and evolution. You’ll like it: no wild predictions, no computer models – just real-world observed data taking your argument apart, piece by piece.

  80. bilbo,
    Regarding hypocrisy, see my last post. Philip jr. accused moptop of ad hominems, citing a passage that didn’t contain any, and in the same post called moptop a “rambling fool.”

    As for myself, I think probably something like what Pieke, Sr. says is the truth — that there are human-caused warming effects, but not mostly from CO2, and not necessarily global. The melting of the Himalayan glaciers, which a recent study from Lawrence Berkeley found to be 90 percent from aerosols, and 30 percent from black carbon, is an example. If there is any effect from CO2, it’s marginal. So I don’t see why CO2 should be invoked as the culprit for Himalayan glacial melting.

  81. Philip jr.

    Do think that was an unfair characterization, Bradley? If so, I’d like to hear why. moptop has no interest discussing anything with people like myself. He just wants to have a drunken barfight.

  82. Bustiturle

    Philip Jr. @ 70

    Please explain your understanding of the term “global climate change”. Are you making a comprehensive claim of the dynamics of earth’s ecology or are you thinking of a more narrow definition focused on man-made causes?

    If “global climate change” is accelerating would one expect local climates to demonstrate more climate volatility or less? Statistical theory says it would be more. Real world observations suggest otherwise (ie has the North American growing season changed in the past 300 years? Is winter substantially longer or shorter? We do have journals and logs to verify this, do we not?)

    If you have the time please articulate how one can scientifically verify and measure the individual forces contributing to “global climate change”. What experiment do you suggest be used to demonstrate this understanding?

  83. Milton C.

    Oh cripes. It’s Amateur Hour again.

    Mac, moptop, busiturtle, et al.:

    There’s this marvelous tool called “google scholar” that only links you to published academic studies. So, when you have an “aha!” moment about, I don’t know, say, climate change and evolution, you can go search those words and read alllllllllllllllll about what the scientific community already knows.

    Then, when you come here to talk about it, you won’t make fools of yourselves by claiming science doesn’t know stuff that it already does.

    (I know, I know, moptop: only ingorant fools educate themselves by reading science. I know….)

  84. moptop

    “Wow. Another angry post[from moptop] filled chock full of ad hominems” -PJ

    Show me one. I have read that an ad hominem involves attacking your opponent rather than an argument. I don’t believe that I have done that anywhere in this thread. Can you show me where I have? Where, BTW, is the anger? I enjoy these little back and forth’s. Honestly. I still hold out some vain hope that you will reveal some tiny bit of actual understanding of the subject.

    My guess will be that PJ says “Read your own posts and see for yourself”, except I just took that away from him, so he will say something equally contentless. Or…. this could be the time that he reveals some shred of intellect. (Note to PJ, that is not saying you are without intellect, I just averred that you haven’t shown it up to now, in other words, it is a criticism of your argument, not of your person.)

  85. Philip Jr.

    Please explain your understanding of the term “global climate change”. Are you making a comprehensive claim of the dynamics of earth’s ecology or are you thinking of a more narrow definition focused on man-made causes?

    First off, there are a couple of misconceptions in your question. Climate change is not just an “ecological” phenomenon – it has ecological impacts but it is almost exclusively held in the physical science realm. ‘My’ definition is the same one used by the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, EPA, etc. etc. etc.: global climate is always (and has always been) in a state of flux and is driven by a multitude of forcings and feedbacks, some of which are influenced by anthropogenic activities.

    If “global climate change” is accelerating would one expect local climates to demonstrate more climate volatility or less? Statistical theory says it would be more.

    Incorrect. A handful of crazy alarmists without an understanding of scientific basis for climate change make those claims, not “statistical theory.” It’s well known in the scientific community (again, the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, EPA, etc. all acknowledge this) that feedback loops exist which both serve to dampen and highten impacts of climate change. These vary region to region and across a temporal scale, and so by no means is local climate expected to “increase in volatility.” It may in some regions while not doing so in others. Feedback loops are one of the reasons why “climate change” does not mean “it’s just getting hotter or colder.” Both skeptics and alarmists get that assumption horrifically wrong.

    Real world observations suggest otherwise (ie has the North American growing season changed in the past 300 years? Is winter substantially longer or shorter? We do have journals and logs to verify this, do we not?)

    In fact, plant phenology (the “growing season”) has been shown to be changing worldwide at an incredibly rapid pace using observed data (I suggest you read Camille Parmesan’s work, as I just told Mac, for a scientific understanding of this). Because phenology varies from species to species (this is basic evolution), their changes are not a one size fits all characterization. I won’t expect you to grasp this until you read the literature, so go dig up Camille’s work (or the many others that explain this).

    If you have the time please articulate how one can scientifically verify and measure the individual forces contributing to “global climate change”. What experiment do you suggest be used to demonstrate this understanding?

    There’s another misconception in your question. There is no single experiment that “demonstrates” global climate change. If we had a Biazarro Earth or something, perhaps we could. Instead, scientists use a multitude of techniques and approaches to examine the different forcings of climate change. I’ll get another inexplicable wrist-slap from moptop, but go read an IPCC technical summary or, better yet, check out the website from NASA that this entire post is about. They outline the different forcings of the climate system and what data and methods scientists use to study them. They even readily admit what we still do not know enough about….something, I’ll add, that you frequently claim scientists do not do.

  86. ChrisD

    @Bradley J. Fikes:

    From the same person who decries “ad hominems”

    I don’t think you understand ad hominem. It doesn’t mean “any personal criticism”; saying “Joe is a lying fool” is not ad hominem. I can heap all the personal abuse I want on Joe and it will never be ad hom; it becomes ad hom if and only if I use personal attacks on Joe as a substitute for a real argument on something that is not Joe-related. It has to respond to Joe’s argument by attacking Joe personally, without in any way addressing the actual argument.

    “There’s so sense talking with a rambling fool who just wants to get a fistfight started” is categorically not ad hominem. It is simply a statement of opinion.

    You are not alone. ad hominem may be the second-most abused term on the Internets (#1 being the use of “troll” as a synomym for “anyone who disagrees with me”).

    See http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

  87. moptop

    “I know, I know, moptop: only ingorant fools educate themselves by reading science. I know….)”

    I would like to see the link where I said that. That makes you commenter three or four who put words into my mouth that I would never say. Is your argument really that weak?

    I just want to know a particular study and a particular point that you believe refutes my point of view about the circularity of the arguments that are based on models. I have read a ton of them, produced by you guys, and not one of them appears to me to answer my question, maybe you could go back over the previous threads, identify a study, and tell me where I went wrong? After all, I assume you wouldn’t be commenting here without some understanding of the subject at hand about which you seem to have such strong opinions.

    How about this? You name the study. I will read it or the abstract, and answer it. If you don’t agree, you can tell me where I am wrong and why? We could be talking about science on a science blog.

  88. Milton C.

    moptop,

    When you actually criticize someone because they direct you to the scientific literature, then that’s exactly what you’re implying.

    As for the models, I believe it was Philip who addressed you to the IPCCs “an explanation of model validation and calibration” document when you were spouting some rather untrue assertions about how models were used a while back. Your only response was anger that he “relied on the literature.” You evaded any further discussion quite vehemently.

    See the problem here, buddy?

  89. bilbo

    It has to respond to Joe’s argument by attacking Joe personally, without in any way addressing the actual argument

    For a fine example, see moptop responding to a discussion about climate models with Philip by simply writing a few inflammatory paragraphs about Philip’s character, and then declaring himself the winner of the debate based on those paragraphs alone.

  90. Mac

    “For the record, I also never demeaned any climate change believers, that was your interpretation of my statement, nor did I start any name calling.
    “…and you will attempt to shove your elitist opinions down our throats.”
    “…you elitists….”
    “Is that all the boneheaded logic you can muster, alarmist?”
    “Continue your circular logic, and I will laugh in your ignorant face.”

    Forum archives are a biotch, Mac the Hypocritical Liar. (Oh, and before you get angry about me calling you those names, you (i) chastised us for calling us names while you wee calling us names, and (ii) said you never called anyone names, when you clearly did. That makes you, by the words’ very definition, both a hypocrite and a liar.)
    I will now go snicker myself to sleep…”

    bilbo isn’t one to speak on personal attacks that don’t address the argument. To reiterate: that was your interpretation of my statement. I never said any of those phrases and used the term elitist, to describe the behavior I witness here, if you were to read anything in context. Criticizing one personally is not the same as criticizing one’s behavior.

  91. bilbo

    “You name the study. I will read it or the abstract, and answer it. If you don’t agree, you can tell me where I am wrong and why?”

    You really tihnk you’re going to understand the basis of climate model by reading the abstract alone? Perhaps you’re oblivious to the whole point here, moptop…

  92. bilbo

    Pointing out the obvious statements that refute your flase claim about not engaging in name-calling aren’t an ad hominem either, Mac. Try again.

  93. Mac

    You continue to confirm my points in 32, it’s the gift that keeps on giving.

  94. Philip Jr.

    To be so persistent about lecturing us all for not making calm, rationed arguments, Mac, I see you have yet to respond to the very calm, rationed arguments several of us made in your direction earlier in the thread.

    Perhaps a willingness to live up to your own standard would garner some reciprocation from us?

  95. Bustiturle

    Philip Jr.

    I appreciate your response. Thank you.

    It is my impression that much of the hostility that concerning climate science is a result of obfuscation, engaged in by both sides of the policy debate. And it is the question of policy that creates the agitation since otherwise the issue would gain as much attention as research into the mating habits of fruit flies.

    As I mentioned in an earlier post, the NASA website is one example of this obfuscation where claims of attribution and implications of cause and effect are made absent any proof. There is also the error of omission wherein readers are not informed of uncertainty and evidence contrary to the conventional theory is not disclosed.

    There is no problem in highlighting environmental concerns. It is a problem to claim with an air of authority that one can fix the problem with an untried, unproven, controversial remedy.

  96. Mac

    “Don’t waste your breath on Mac, gillt. He tried to argue me last night by claiming that climate has no effect on the evolution of the world’s biota (um, Pleistocene, anyone?)

    It was then that I realized that 9th grade biology was probably the extent of this guy’s education, and arguing points that he’s never been educated on is just going to be wasting my time.”

    You are just as guilty Philip, don’t try to pass it off otherwise.

  97. Philip Jr.

    As I mentioned in an earlier post, the NASA website is one example of this obfuscation where claims of attribution and implications of cause and effect are made absent any proof. There is also the error of omission wherein readers are not informed of uncertainty and evidence contrary to the conventional theory is not disclosed.

    Did we read the same website? I saw NASA cite individual papers backing up many of their points, and there’s a rather detailed and comprehensive assessment of uncertainties in the science (it even has its own page!)

  98. busiturtle,

    Then, how do you propose we address your “environmental concerns” in the policy arena? Nearly everything humans have done – from Europeans assaulting the native peoples of America to flying to the moon – was “untried, unproven, controversial” UNTIL humans tried it, proved it, and did it.

    Here’s where those of us who do climate science and policy for a living have a real problem with your approach and attitude – actual, on the ground observational data over the last 50 years tell us that 1) global average temperatures are rising (the 2000′s were the hottests avergae decade ever measured by humans); 2) sea level is rising; 3) oceans are becoming more acidic (which threatens all sorts of ecosystems, and commercial activities like fisheries) – and yet those who do not agree with these scientific observations and the conclusions that scientists draw from that data want us policy types to DO NOTHING until you have 100% proof. 100% proof based in recorded observations ONLY occurs afte rthe fact – sometimes decades, centuries or millenia after the fact. By the time we have that evidence, it may be too late for humans to do anything. Policy makers can’t wait to do that – it would be like failing to buy fire insurance while living next to a blast furnace because you already have a garden hose.

    Think I’m being alarmist? Then why, in 2007, did the Defense Department characterize Global Warming“a serious threat to America’s National security?” When even the U.S. military starts to plan for the impacts of this “change” (which I have consistantly called the Climate Crisis), I think you need to really sit back and ask yourself if all this bluff and bluster is worth it.

  99. Tony

    Even Phil Jones admitted that there has been no statistically significant global warming during the last 15 years.

    Before AGW can be considered scientific it’s proponents have to answer one simple question – how can it be falsified – because so far everything seems to confirm AGW to them – first they predicted that in a few years snow will be extremely rare, now they claim the excessive snow is actually a proof of AGW.

    So if AGW is not just a statement of faith answer this simple question “What sort of climate pattern will falsify AGW hypothesis (say at 95% confidence)?”

  100. marbee

    Global Warming: The greatest debacle of the modern era!

  101. ChrisD

    @marbee

    Global Warming: The greatest debacle of the modern era!

    A thorough, detailed, & convincing argument. Thank you.

  102. What will done with the TRILLIONS of dollars to stop global warming/and any of the proposed changes? It doesn’t really matter the climate of the earth has been changing ever since it coalesced. If we stopped emitting anything that would affect the global environment how long would it take to go back to normal what ever that may be?

  103. ChrisD

    @Bustiturle

    As I mentioned in an earlier post, the NASA website is one example of this obfuscation where claims of attribution and implications of cause and effect are made absent any proof.

    Isn’t what you are saying here, in essence, that every web page (or, as in this case, every video) that discusses any aspect of climate change must include “proof” of AGW or be charged with obfuscation?

    That strikes me as neither reasonable nor practical.

  104. first they predicted that in a few years snow will be extremely rare

    That’s the second time in two days I’ve seen that allegation. It must be running through the denialist sphere right now.

    So how about a citation? Show us evidence that climatologists have been predicting that snow will be an extremely rare event in a few years.

  105. The life-span of any conspiracy-based theory can be defined as a time function of when the number (n) of active participants required to sustain and participate in the conspiracy approaches the total human population. Now that denialists must invoke all of NASA as part of it (and all their international counterparts) we approach “Apollo Moon Hoax Unity.”

  106. What will done with the TRILLIONS of dollars to stop global warming/and any of the proposed changes?

    There’s another popular meme. Just because you capitalize the word TRILLIONS doesn’t mean that anyone has proposed spending that much on climate initiatives.

  107. If we stopped emitting anything that would affect the global environment how long would it take to go back to normal what ever that may be?

    Prof. David Archer of U. Chicago discusses it here, with lots of links and refs:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/

  108. Katharine

    “Even Phil Jones admitted that there has been no statistically significant global warming during the last 15 years.”

    I debunked this on a previous thread.

    Your statistics-fu is poor.

  109. matt

    The difference between “global warming” and the moon landing is that the moon landing wasn’t at the center of heavy political conflicts of interest. People aren’t buying it anymore. If the evidence piling up against it wasn’t so strong, it wouldn’t be so controversial. Not only has it not warmed “significantly” in 15 years, but there’s been cooling since 2005 based on the admissions of scientists that 2005 was the hottest year on record. It won’t be long before this junk science is exposed.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-37215-Manassas-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m2d25-George-Mason-study-shows-drastic-drop-in-global-warming-fears

  110. matt

    So, it’s been cooling since 2005, but all this snow is indicative of warming…right…not El Nino at all…”warming” now supersedes natural weather phenomena.

  111. Philip Jr.

    Actually, Matt, the recent snow in North America is due to a combination of El Nino and a negative Arctic Oscillation, which are two previous global-scale processes found long ago to be influenced by climate change. (Climate influences weather patterns, especially broad-scale oscillations, while some variability in weather will always exist.)

    It’s confusing, I know. The real world is like that. The recent snow isn’t solely due to AGW, nor is it solely decoupled from it.

  112. So, it’s been cooling since 2005, but all this snow is indicative of warming…right…not El Nino at all…”warming” now supersedes natural weather phenomena.

    Matt – you don’t seem to understand the concept of trend. It is not necessary to have every year be warmer than all others preceding it to produce a profound, statistically significant warming trend over a period X, which for climate requires at least 20 years of data, the longer the better to increase the signal to noise ratio. Multi-decadal trend analyses are constructed by calculating the temp. anomaly for each year. This is done by comparing the avg. temp for any year in the time series to the average temp. for the entire period. If the avg. temp. for any year is above the average for the entire time series it is called a positive anomaly. If it is lower it is a negative anomaly. A positive linear trend in temp. during the series will show a preponderance of years with positive anomalies in the latter years, with the size of the anomaly increasing, which is what the Earth temp. record shows since instrumental records began in the 1800s. In this sense it doesn’t matter if 2005 was slightly warmer than 2009: they both have very strong positive anomalies compared to the 1880-2009 average. The NASA data clearly shows this.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/2009-temperatures-by-jim-hansen/

  113. Not only has it not warmed “significantly” in 15 years, but there’s been cooling since 2005 based on the admissions of scientists that 2005 was the hottest year on record. It won’t be long before this junk science is exposed.

    This is wrong at a number of levels. As discussed above, you need at least 15 years of temp. data to discern, through probability tests, any statistically significant trend in temp. data. This is solely because there is a high amount of noise (weather) in annual climate data and only after collecting 15 or more years of data does the trend signal come clear through the inter-annual noise. Once you look at the time series for 1880 to present or even 1960 or 1970-present, the trend is statistically significant and positive (ie. shows warming). See:

    ttp://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/#more-2124

    The fact that you cannot, by probability tests, claim a statistically significant increase in temp. in the last 15 years is simply an artifact of the noise to signal ratio inherent in annual temp. readings. 2005 was the hottest year on record. 2000-2009 was the hottest decade on record. These facts do not change. What Phil Jones was saying is just a mundane fact. By accepted standards of analysis, 15 years is not long enough to tease out a climate trend with 95 percent confidence. Nobody has ever claimed this, which is why the entire instrumental record is used as a baseline. What was not reported was that if you extend the time series from 1995 back to 1990 or 1985 0r 1980, the trend is obvious, is positive and is statistically significant. And the farther back you go in the instrumental record (to its beginning, in approx. 1880) the more obvious the trend is.

    The only “junk science” you reference is basic, undergraduate principles of linear regression and probability testing.

  114. Philip Jr.

    Do think that was an unfair characterization, Bradley? If so, I’d like to hear why. moptop has no interest discussing anything with people like myself. He just wants to have a drunken barfight.

    I think it was unfair because what you cited from moptop didn’t contain any ad hominem attacks. He was criticizing your style of argument as counterproductive, not you personally. Here it is again:

    Conversation? This implies two way discussion. A good place to start usually is to point out where the other side is wrong, and then explain why he is wrong and how one’s own interpretation is the correct one. If you are trying to evangelize your belief in AGW and enlist allies in the political fight that you deem necessary, this might be an effective approach. If you goal is to feel superior by insulting anybody with a question, creating a smaller and more pure community, that like Noah, will somehow survive the coming apocalypse, through demonstration of complete faith and devotion to the cause, well then, carry on.

    I think this is constructive advice we should all follow, no matter what our views on AGW. Some restraint might also make an impression on the lurkers, who see angry disputes and leave disgusted with all sides. There are a lot more of them than there are active posters, so we should always keep the lurkers in mind.

  115. Philip Jr.

    Bradley (and “lurkers”), my characterization of moptop comes from a long track record of multiple comment threads. I make a point and back it up with evidence, moptop calls me a liar. I ask moptop to support a point with the literature, he acts as if reading the literature denotes weakness. I point out a self-contradiction, moptop unleashes a hatespew of politically-motivated ad hominems (and yes, ad hominems in the true sense).

    moptop is known on this blog for doing this to virtually any and every poster who doesn’t support his opinion. Most of the time, he really does act like a drunk looking for a fight. When he’s ready to show some reciprocation on the substantiation and civility front, I’ll change my opinion of him.

  116. bilbo

    moptop is just as uncivil as I am based on his history of posting here, Bradley, and I’m a major D-Bag. That should say a lot.

  117. Philip jr.
    Nothing wrong with calling out moptop for bad acting; but in this one instance I honestly didn’t see anything that provocative. And with that I’ll quit the subject.

    bilbo,
    At least you’re not taking yourself too seriously.

  118. Busiturtle

    (1) If AGW is the primary forcing of climate change today what was the primary forcing in past centuries? We do know the earth has been deicing ever since the glacial period. What caused the glaciers in the first place? What caused them to melt? Why is it assumed that powerful natural climate forces of the past are absent today? Why is it considered abnormal for the earth to be warming when it has apparently been doing so for the past 20,000 years?

    (2) How is the metric of a global mean temperature relevant to any discussion of climate change? The climate in the Caribbean is very distinct from the climate in Montana. The temperate extremes are very different. To average temperature readings from such disparate and uncommon regions of the world is to make a mockery of statistics. Just as it is meaningless to talk about the average size of all mammals it is meaningless to talk about the average temperature of the world.

    (3) Climate change is not global and millions of people can attest to this. Why do I say this? Because the climate where I live is the same as it was when my ancestors lived here 300 years ago. The climate has not changed! Now you might say the climate has changed somewhere else in the world. Perhaps it is. But the observation of climate change in one region of the world does not make it a global phenomenon.

    (4) There is a fascinating phenomenon that climate reports are increasingly at odds with each other. For example we all have heard that January was the 4th warmest on record. All, that is, except the Department of Energy which reports: “Colder-than-normal U.S. temperatures in January, particularly in the Southeast, drove up the use of electric power and natural gas…”

    February’s report will be even more fascinating since the eastern US has experienced a long and severe cold spell. Will the satellite records confirm this? What if they do not? Which record do we trust? The one that is observed or the one from the computer?

    Now you might say it can be both globally hot and regionally cold but then I would say you are only agreeing with my assertion that global averages obfuscate the real story. Thomas Friedman call it “global weirding.” Why don’t we just back away from the bad math and bad science and keep weather reports and their averages grouped by geographically similar regions? Yes, I know the adage that if it bleeds it leads but there is also the adage that says you should keep your head even when all others are losing theirs.

  119. ThomasL

    I think the problem with the whole discussion trend in here is rather simple. We all know that “local weather is not climate”, but it also rather apparent that “weather over time” is climate – where one become the other is rather blurry (perhaps someone can clarify what time frame should be viewed as minimal, though that seems to be a point of great contention as well…). I think everyone agrees an event on its own doesn’t say much of anything. However, for over at least the past decade we, the public, have had every variance in local weather thrown out as a “proof” of AGW (but I guess we shouldn’t really call it that anymore, “Climate Change” seems to have replaced the “W”, so maybe it should be called AGCC…).

    The whole increased hurricane thing I thought had already been dismissed as not statistically meaningful, but everyone keeps tossing it in here (there is actually quite a large natural variance). At any rate, if we are going to agree that local, short term weather variance is generally a given and within expectations with or without AGCC, both sides need to agree to stop using such as a proof of anything, or even as an indication of something. Everything I have read indicates such is the actual state of such “events” -> by themselves they are meaningless.

  120. ThomasL

    Just because this does relate to what many of us “skeptics” have been trying to point out, and a perfect example of why releasing data for verification is so important for the proper advancement of science. There were apparently serious errors in the grid error calculations in CRUTEM3. For those interested in the issue and the math: http://www.jgc.org/blog/2010/02/something-odd-in-crutem3-station-errors.html.

    And just a warning to the “all the science sucks” group, “The outcome is likely to be a small reduction in the error bars surrounding the temperature trend. The trend itself should stay the same, but the uncertainty about the trend will be slightly less.”, and CRU is apparently reworking the and correcting the cell data : http://www.jgc.org/blog/2010/02/station-errors-in-crutem3-and-hadcrut3.html.

    I think this shows us all a couple things, however. The first is releasing the data is imperative for reproducibility, for without the possibility to try and reproduce results errors will never be found. Second, when data is released there are actually those out “in the world” who will take the time to verify – and errors are and will be found (and not always by PhD’d journal writers…). Third, the errors may not make the science weaker, but rather may, as in this case, lower the error bars.

    Just part of why all the attacks on “skeptics” I find to be rather anti-science. Good science is hammered away at, and the solid work stands such tests. The best way (and really the only way) for science to ever gain any level of wide acceptance is through the process of withstanding serious attempts to challenge results, not the uncritical acceptance of what has been published.

  121. Moptop

    Wow. That was a personal attack out of nowhere, moptop. Either you’re freakin’ out, desperate, or just pissy tonight. Chill, my friend. Why so passionate to defend Busiturtle’s admitted ignorance? -PJ

    How was it a personal attack? Did I accuse you of being in the pay of some political group or other without evidence? Did I call you a name? I am trying to understand this concept of “ad hominem” that you cite, because, by my reading of the term, your interpretation is, well, if not novel, then a bit off the reservation in the formal sense. Why not give me a single post, either on this thread or in the archives were I attacked you personally, and not your arguments?

    I did personally attack bilbo once, but apologized immediately after, and later, bilbo admitted that he often was deliberately a troll, as he has in this thread, so I don’t think he took it personally.

    “see moptop responding to a discussion about climate models with Philip by simply writing a few inflammatory paragraphs about Philip’s character, and then declaring himself the winner of the debate based on those paragraphs alone. – bilbo”

    Where did I declare myself the winner? I am just curious.

    moptop is just as uncivil as I am based on his history of posting here -bilbo

    Really?

    Why am I spending so much time on this? Because PJ and bilbo use the same method of argument here as they do when they defend their view of AGW and attack skeptic arguments. They assert some “truth”, then adamantly refuse to back up with even one piece of supporting evidence. They have said a lot of things about me here, but does anyone notice that there are no quotes to back them up, or even links to the searchable archives here? Not one in this thread. I don’t recall any anywhere else either.

    Basically, they rely on declarations of faith in their arguments. If you don’t think like they do, than either you haven’t read, or don’t understand, the literature. Again and again they accuse others of refusing to read the literature when those people simply want to draw them out on a discussion of the topic, on a *science* blog.

    If you want to see an example of effective “counter skeptic” argumentation, look at Katherine’s posts on statistical significance. At least we are discussing science on a science blog and misconceptions are getting cleared up in that case.

  122. Tony

    >>first they predicted that in a few years snow will be extremely rare

    >That’s the second time in two days I’ve seen that allegation. It must be running through the denialist sphere right now.
    >So how about a citation? Show us evidence that climatologists have been predicting that snow will be an extremely rare event in a few years.

    Prediction from year 2000:

    “According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

    “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

  123. Tony

    >>“Even Phil Jones admitted that there has been no statistically significant global warming during the last 15 years.”

    >I debunked this on a previous thread.
    >Your statistics-fu is poor.

    Oh, so you debunked Phil Jones, congratulations, I am eagerly awaiting your publication, you should also replace him as the head of East Anglia Climate research unit.

  124. Tony

    So it looks like no one is able to specify what conditions will falsify anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. If there is no snow it’s due to AGW, if there is excessive snow it’s due to AGW, if it’s getting warmer it’s AGW, if it’s getting colder it’s lull in AGW. It looks like AGW proponents see everything as a confirmation of AGW but unfortunately that makes it completely unscientific, falsification is the single most important property that differentiates honest scientific propositions from religious dogma.

  125. ChrisD

    @Thomas

    We all know that “local weather is not climate”

    No, it’s apparent that there are a lot of people who don’t know this, including some very loud ones (Sen. Inhofe, George Will, and Hannity/Beck/Limbaugh spring to mind). And there are plenty of comments right here about how snowy it was here or there this winter.

    where one become the other is rather blurry (perhaps someone can clarify what time frame should be viewed as minimal, though that seems to be a point of great contention as well…)

    Certainly not one season, or part of one season, and especially not when that is regional or local. “It’s been cold this week in Lake Wobegon” doesn’t qualify as climate–yet that’s exactly what we’ve seen this winter, repeatedly.

    However, for over at least the past decade we, the public, have had every variance in local weather thrown out as a “proof” of AGW

    Not by scientists. I’ve never heard a scientist say, “This storm was caused by global warming” or “This storm is proof of global warming,” ever. The most they’ll ever say is that global warming will tend to increase frequency/severity/duration/etc. Always generalities, not specifics.

    (but I guess we shouldn’t really call it that anymore, “Climate Change” seems to have replaced the “W”, so maybe it should be called AGCC…)

    It was Republican pollster/consultant Frank Luntz, not us alarmists, who is the primary reason why you hear “climate change” as much as you do. He penned a report, distributed to Republican bigwigs in Congress and the White House, in which he specifically said to use “climate change” rather than “global warming” because the latter is scary but the former “sounds like moving from Pittsburgh to Ft. Lauderdale.” Lexis/Nexis searches have confirmed a radical change in Republican speech patterns after that report was released (and that includes Bush). Subsequently it came into more general use. But I get a little tired of the allegation that the alarmists/Democrats/Al Goracle/global conspiracy (take your pick) was behind this change, since that is demonstrably false.

    (Now, having said that, it’s worth noting that “climate change” is a far more descriptive term than “global warming”. The warming is the least of the problem.)

    The whole increased hurricane thing I thought had already been dismissed as not statistically meaningful, but everyone keeps tossing it in here….

    Intensity, not frequency. The effects of warming on hurricanes has been the subject of heated debate within the scientific community for decades. But there’s a growing consensus that it will have a significant effect on hurricane intensity. A just-released study concludes that it’s likely (which means >66% probability) that AGW will have a significant impact on storm intensity. The authors include Chris Landsea, who was one of the leading poo-pooers of the idea that AGW would have much effect on hurricanes (and who withdrew from IPCC 4 because it had become “politicized”). See his wikipedia page, which is now out of date, and then this:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/02/new_hurricanes_study_unites_fo.html

    They agree, by the way, with your comment about the large natural variation in hurricane activity, and find that current trends don’t fall outside that range in a significant way.

    This, to me, is a perfect example of the “hammering away” at good science that you mention in your subsequent post. They conclude that IPCC was wrong in 2007 to point to the uptick in hurricane activity as the likely result of AGW. This is the sort of self-correction that occurs every day in science–but that the skeptics claim doesn’t happen in climate science. It does.

  126. Disappointed

    To all those here who are saying that “15 years is not statistically significant to invalidate warming”, I have a very simple, sincere question; HOW many years WOULD be statistically significant then? What if the AGW proponents are still saying the same thing after 25 years? 30 years? When exactly do we stop taking them seriously? Or never?

  127. Philip Jr.

    To all those here who are saying that “15 years is not statistically significant to invalidate warming”, I have a very simple, sincere question; HOW many years WOULD be statistically significant then?

    Disappointed,

    You don’t seem seem to be grasping the concept of statistical significance. It’s not a count, such as “after X years of cooling, the world is not warming.” It’s an output of a statistical analysis that can be run over ANY number of years – it’s the trend in the data, not a count of which year has been cooler/warmer than the preceding ones.

    The reason people advocate against making claims about trends over 15 years of data is because of a basic statistical principle that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change: analyses run with small amounts of data aren’t very powerful. In other words, their results don’t accurately reflect reality as well as those using long-term datasets. The signal gets lost in the noise, which can swamp the test. This isn’t some controversial thing dreamed up by climate scientists; it’s a basic principle of mathematics which virtually every scientific field works off of. People who want to eyeball a graph of 10 to 15 years of temperatures and make claims about “statistical significance” clearly have no idea what they’re talking about or how science even works.

    Pick up a stats. book or check out a reputable stats. page online and read up. I’m serious. It’ll help you grasp this more. (And I know, moptop, reading up and educating yourself is such a copout, blah blah blah)

  128. Seminatrix

    Basically, they rely on declarations of faith in their arguments. If you don’t think like they do, than either you haven’t read, or don’t understand, the literature. Again and again they accuse others of refusing to read the literature when those people simply want to draw them out on a discussion of the topic, on a *science* blog.

    moptop, I don’t have any personal beef with you, but that statement above is simply ridiculous. If you “just want to have a discussion” on a topic, or however you put it, then that takes two, well-informed participants in that discussion. So, if you make a point and Philip says that it’s incorrect from what the literature says, than that’s a very valid point. A real discussion would then see you go check that point and provide a counter to it – not yell at Philip for pointing out a hole in your argument.

    I think this is what Philip means when he says you’re just looking for a drunken barfight. You’re talking like you want this mature, two-way discussion, but then when it starts we all find that you expect your opponent to be well-informed yet you see no problem with you yourself remaining ignorant of the subject and just throwing out hypothetical questions that wither make no sense or have already been addressed 15 years ago by scientists. If you genuinely want a good discussion to come out of anything here, go self-educate a bit and come back.

    (I’ve also noticed several others have pointed this out and it has never sunk it, but whatever – I’ll do it, too. When someone asks you to check the literature because your point is either wholly inaccurate and/or incorrect and/or something scientists already know (and that you’re claiming they don’t), that’s not a cop-out or a sign of weakness. It’s a sign that you’re the one in the discussion who is on totally uneven footing. It’s a sign of weakness on your argument’s part.)

  129. Philip Jr.

    You’re close to how I view it, Seminatrix. Here’s how I see it in my own words:

    If someone wants to have an honest discussion with me about science, then I expect them to have done their homework. In other words, if we’re going to have a discussion about the nuances of how the science of climate change is performed, then I expect both of us to be at least somewhat familiar with the literature on that very topic. Instead, moptop tries to argue that the finer points of the science are wrong, but then will readily admit to not ever having actually seen any of the actual science himself to know for sure. That’s very much not an “honest discussion on a topic.” It’s a circus performance disguised as a discussion. Having a discussion takes some effort and self-education before it can happen, and I haven’t seen any evidence of that coming from moptop. He expects to play the role of the questioner, yet never have to answer any questions himself. That’s simply not a discussion. At least not a real one.

    I won’t claim that the statistical techniques of materials engineering are wrong without at least reading up on what techniques they use. That sounds ridicuous, but that’s what moptop is doing with climate change. And that simply won’t cut it in a discussion.

  130. However, for over at least the past decade we, the public, have had every variance in local weather thrown out as a “proof” of AGW

    Okay, we just had a week of every Republican in the country plus hours of FOX news coverage claiming that snow in Washington D.C. had proved global warming was a fraud. Likewise all the links to the skeptic favorite wattsupwiththat site. Likewise George Will’s bimonthly screed (in which it’s always been cooling since 1998). And Mac’s ridiculous comment about how the globe has been cooling since 2005.

    On the other side, who has claimed that any variance in local weather proved global warming? Certainly not in the scientific community, who repeat constantly that no single event is proof of a long term change in climate. Here was RealClimate, for example, weeks after Hurricane Katrina:

    Due to this semi-random nature of weather, it is wrong to blame any one event such as Katrina specifically on global warming – and of course it is just as indefensible to blame Katrina on a long-term natural cycle in the climate.

    And Chris Mooney cautioned likewise during the event. So your argument is projection. You’re accusing the climate community of doing what denialists specialize in.

  131. bilbo

    If someone wants to have an honest discussion with me about science, then I expect them to have done their homework.

    HA! Good luck getting a denialist to do that! I’ve even provided handy-dandy links to journal articles that prove a point wrong to people like moptop , and they respond like a New Atheist would if you gave them a copy of Charles Stanley.

    Getting a groupthinking ideologue to self-educate on a topic they already think it baloney is like getting an elephant do to a triple axle.

  132. Prediction from year 2000:

    “According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

    How did I know that I’d see a link to the same Independent article that every other skeptic links to? Your first comment is not a quote. “Within a few years” are the words of the journalist, not the scientist.

    And in any case, scientific predictions are made in scientific forums, not in partial quotes to British newspapers. Point me to any published article, or an abstract from a professional meeting, or even the IPCC report, where scientists have predicted that snow will become an extremely rare event within a few years.

  133. Oh, so you debunked Phil Jones, congratulations

    No, she debunked the misreading of Phil Jones comment. Phil Jones was asked if there had been warming since 1995. He replied that there had been warming (0.12 C / decade) but that because of the noise, the warming could not be proven within the 95% confidence interval (which is the standard of measurement) over such a short period of time.

    Which leads us to ThomasL’s comment:

    for over at least the past decade we, the public, have had every variance in local weather thrown out as a “proof” of AGW.

    Phil Jones could have honestly stated that the trend had been positive for since 1995 and he could have said that the trend was statistically identical to the trend over the last 30 years. But he didn’t, because he’s a scientist and he takes his work seriously.

  134. Does the NASA AGW site have a search feature? I can’t find one.

  135. ChrisD

    No, she debunked the misreading of Phil Jones comment. Phil Jones was asked if there had been warming since 1995. He replied that there had been warming (0.12 C / decade) but that because of the noise, the warming could not be proven within the 95% confidence interval (which is the standard of measurement) over such a short period of time.

    Which, of course, then gets translated to English as “Phil Jones admits that there has been no global warming since 1995″ or (my personal favorite) “Phil Jones Admits Global Warming Is a Fraud.”

    And then they’re shocked–shocked–that they’re not taken seriously.

  136. Philip Jr.

    Dang it. You get the point.

  137. ThomasL

    Jinchi,

    There was a thread a few days past where exactly such comments were made – by both sides, to the point where it was laid out in great detail why such claims are easy to fall into and should be avoided. I am not disputing you in depth over this – as I am always told, read the literature (especially those lovely ones released by our favorite U.N. body). If the scientists have such an issue with this, why haven’t they corrected it? Perhaps because they didn’t really want too? Especially when the short term weather was “cooperating”?

    You can either be a stickler for the science or you can allow yourself to fall into activism. Pick one.

    I notice everyone focused on the first post, and the second post, the one actually dealing with science, has been ignored… Guess I shouldn’t find that surprising in here anymore.

  138. ChrisD

    @ThomasL:

    I notice everyone focused on the first post, and the second post, the one actually dealing with science, has been ignored… Guess I shouldn’t find that surprising in here anymore.

    I suspect that this is because no one really disagreed with what you said. I didn’t, anyway.

  139. ChrisD

    @Philip Jr.:

    Dang it. You get the point.

    A “Preview” button sure would be nice, wouldn’t it?

  140. Philip Jr.

    I am not disputing you in depth over this – as I am always told, read the literature (especially those lovely ones released by our favorite U.N. body).

    I actually would rather many of you read the actual papers the IPCC uses to write its reports, Thomas, not just the IPCC reports themselves. I don’t know where you guys get them (probably denialist blogs), but many of the talking points you guys dredge up to the point of irrelevancy about models and predictions are outright refuted in those publications. Take some time to read them before you say they’re wrong. That’s denialism problem #1, in my opinion.

  141. If the scientists have such an issue with this, why haven’t they corrected it? Perhaps because they didn’t really want too? Especially when the short term weather was “cooperating”?

    But they have, repeatedly. I already pointed out that RealClimate was pointing out within weeks of the Hurricane Katrina that it did not “prove” global warming. Chris Mooney was also pretty direct in saying the same thing at the time. They weren’t quiet while the weather was “cooperating” and skeptics have happily taken advantage of the different standard that’s being followed. Thus they argue that “Phil Jones admits there’s been no global warming in 15 years” despite the fact that he’s done no such thing and follow up with “its been cooling since 2005 despite the fact that the evidence for that is far below the noise level.

    You can either be a stickler for the science or you can allow yourself to fall into activism. Pick one.

    I’m arguing science. If you’ve got evidence that scientists have been falsely proclaiming “proof” of global warming based isolated weather events why don’t you present it to us.

  142. ChrisD

    @ Jinchi:

    I’m arguing science. If you’ve got evidence that scientists have been falsely proclaiming “proof” of global warming based isolated weather events why don’t you present it to us.

    Well, there was the Russian scientist Aleksey Kokorin, who said that AGW was directly responsible for the thunderstorm that took down the Air France jet last June:

    http://bit.ly/9TMZ0
    http://bit.ly/cNItE9

    Oh, wait, I forgot. He didn’t actually say that.

    Here’s what he actually said: “A consequence of global warming is that the frequency and severity of such events [severe weather conditions] is higher. Unfortunately, the risk for airplanes, especially in tropical areas above water, will be higher. ….”

    In other words, AGW may increase the frequency and intensity of storms, which would make flying more dangerous in some regions.

    Obviously, the real meaning of this is, “Global warming crashed an Airbus.”

    [For the record, I directly confirmed with Kokorin via email that he was not blaming the specific thunderstorm on global warming: http://bit.ly/akY0nA

  143. Philip Jr.

    A perfect example of out-of-context spin games, ChrisD

  144. Busiturtle

    Is there a standard for determining whether climate has changed? How about we send a team of interns out about the world and they can map out where climate has and has not changed. When we see that climate has not changed everywhere in the world can we then agree that “global climate change” is a marketing slogan and not a scientific fact?

  145. Philip Jr.

    You’re a little behind the times, Busiturtle. Actually, about 2 decades behind. Climate has changed virtually everywhere on the planet in the last century or so, but the rate and nature of change has differed wildly. That’s a fundamental understanding, even among the most ardent “alarmists.” It doesn’t disprove anything in the theory; rather, it is (and has always been) an integral part of it.

    Again, read the literature rather than blindly adopting talking points and you’ll know such things. You’ll be better informed, and you’ll find that scientists agree with you on some things that you tihnk they have no clue about. You seem to be getting your information on what climate change means from some very poor and shallow sources. My blind guess is that they’re blogs/politically motivated.

  146. Seminatrix

    You’re a little behind the times, Busiturtle. Actually, about 2 decades behind. Climate has changed virtually everywhere on the planet in the last century or so, but the rate and nature of change has differed wildly. That’s a fundamental understanding, even among the most ardent “alarmists.” It doesn’t disprove anything in the theory; rather, it is (and has always been) an integral part of it.

    Again, read the literature rather than blindly adopting talking points and you’ll know such things. You’ll be better informed, and you’ll find that scientists agree with you on some things that you tihnk they have no clue about. You seem to be getting your information on what climate change means from some very poor and shallow sources. My blind guess is that they’re blogs/politically motivated.

    Well said, sir. Very well said.

  147. Busiturtle

    148 & 149 who claim: “Climate has changed virtually everywhere on the planet in the last century or so”

    That is quite the claim. Too bad it is a lie.

    Here is a link to a very descriptive summary of the climate of New York State: http://nysc.eas.cornell.edu/climate_of_ny.html

    Please document every element of this description that is different today than it was 200 years ago. I’m very interested to see what standard of revision you apply.

    Why is it so hard to admit that Valley Forge was cold and snowy in the winter of 1777-78 just as it is cold and snowy in winter at Valley Forge today? Why is it so hard to admit that Philadelphia was just as hot and muggy during the writing of the Constitution in the summer of 1787 as it now?

    Oh, by the way the historical weather records for Philadelphia are quite interesting. Apparently the record high was set in 1918 and the greatest snowfall occurred this winter. Yeah, I know, that’s just weather. Or is it climate change? Seems there is no objective standard by which to judge these thing which is so very convenient for you.

  148. Busiturtle

    Game, set match

    Unless Philip Jr. you want to change your story and claim that all this climate change you see has occurred in the past 20 years, because for the first 100 of the past 120 years there was no “global warming” and there was no global climate change.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html?pagewanted=1

    WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 (1989) After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

    While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.

    The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.

  149. Philip Jr.

    Seriously, Busiturtle? A study from 1989 that studied temperatures/rainfall over the continental U.S. alone debunks global patterns in climate change? Really?

    Perhaps in your attempt to bait me you missed the part entirely where I sidestepped your bait to present the facts. Or, more likely, you snipped the part of my quote away that mattered, in true science-denial fashion.

    Here’s what you quoted me as saying: “Climate has changed virtually everywhere on the planet in the last century or so”

    And here’s what I actually said, in entirety, with the parts that both nullify your agrument and that were conveniently trimmed away by you in bold: ” Climate has changed virtually everywhere on the planet in the last century or so, but the rate and nature of change has differed wildly.

    In other words, global climate trends have showed change while noise at the regional level (like the continental U.S.) show much variability. Some places, like the Arctic, are well above the curve while others, like the U.S., are below it. This is fundamental climate science stuff, Busiturtle. I’m surprised you don’t know it.

    But I’m not surprised that you had to stoop to dishonest arguing (e.g., trimming a large part of my quote away to distort my statement) to try and score some points. That’s become standard fare from you here. You’ll have to try harder, my friend. Much harder.

    And, as an aside, if you’ve got such a good case, why, exactly, do you need to use dishonest tacitcs to get it across? Something to think about.

  150. bilbo

    Wow, Busiturtle. It soudns like you really nailed Philip Jr. here. Oh, wait…

    What you claimed Philip said: “Climate has changed virtually everywhere on the planet in the last century or so”

    What Philip really said: “Climate has changed virtually everywhere on the planet in the last century or so, but the rate and nature of change has differed wildly.”

    Nevermind. Philip totally accounted for your argument before you made it, and you chose to lie about his statement to make yours. Why, oh why, should you need to misquote and lie to get such a strong argument across, Busiturtle, if your argument is so solid?

  151. bilbo

    Philip beat me to it. Haha!

  152. Seminatrix

    That’s a pretty blatant selective quote, Busiturtle. Pretty fifth-rate stuff.

    Of course, you knew that, because when you rea dwhat Philip said in context it dismantles the argument you’re making before he even made it. Pathetic.

  153. Milton C.

    …comes in to check the thread. It looks like Busiturtle finally pinned Philip. Oh, wait. Busiturtle hacked up Philip’s quote to twist his original statement. It turns out Philip accounted for the turtle’s point before it was even an issue. Business as usual, I see…*yawn*

  154. Sao Paul

    If I said: “I love to eat pork, but I don’t feed it to my children.”

    Busiturtle would quote: “I love to eat…children.”

  155. Sao Paul

    Why, oh why, should you need to misquote and lie to get such a strong argument across, Busiturtle, if your argument is so solid?

    Excellent question. And I’ll add that almost every denialist argument hinges upon such buffoonery. The proof is in the pudding.

  156. Thomas H.

    Let’s make a mental note of what just happened here. Busiturtle just used one of the worst selective, out-of-context quotations I’ve seen in a while in an attempt to make an argument that was actually completely demolished by the original quote he bastardized. I don’t mean that Philip just addressed Busiturtle’s eventual point; he destroyed it with actual, real science. Let’s make a mental note of this – not just for the dishonesty but for the outright desperation. And let’s also make note of this for Busiturtle’s future credibility, because he just committed blog-reputation suicide.

    Thanks for putting yet another foolish blemish on the skepticism that gets represented here, Busiturtle. Keep on destroying what little credibility we have. It pains me to do this, but the point, game, set, match, and whole shebang here go to Philip, not you. All you offered was some incredibly weak bunk. Keep your quotes in context and stop looking so hopelessly foolish.

  157. Philip Jr.

    I wouldn’t paint it as that serious, Thomas, but it was a pretty blatant distortion of my point. For the record (this is for you, moptop), this is precisely what I meant earlier by skeptics not coming to the party to have an honest discussion but to use whatever dishonest tactics are needed to get a predetermined talking point across. This kind of foolishness will need to stop before we can reach the level of “honest discussion” about questions that you and friends so often claim to want.

    And it’s not us “alarmists” that need to elevate our game. Get your house in order first.

  158. bilbo

    I wouldn’t paint it as that serious, Thomas, but it was a pretty blatant distortion of my point.

    I don’t know, Philip, it was a pretty lame move, even for the Turtle. I don’t mind, though. Keep it up, Busiturtle – it’s only slashing apart your credibility, after all.

  159. Busiturtle

    So the fundamental basis for AGW is that the climate is changing everywhere except where it isn’t.

    And you guys claim the mantle of scientific reason.

    Unbelievable.

    I thought you might respond with data showing that the United States has actually experienced climate change. But then you can’t. The science does not prove it. Which means there is no global climate change.

  160. Philip Jr.

    Actually, Busiturtle, it seems that 5 others besides me got the point very well, and you’re the only one who continues to distort. If you’d really like to learn something, the NASA website Sheril originally linked to explains your mental hangup pretty well, too, but I won’t hold my breath that you’ll go read up and personally make the effort to understand your fundamental misconception.

    Stick to obfuscating. It appears to be your sole strong point.

  161. bilbo

    Stick to obfuscating. It appears to be your sole strong point

    His most recent and pathetic attempt at obfuscation aside, I’m beginning to wonder if Busiturtle really just can’t get the difference between signal and noise in statistical data and the role of sampling effort. I mean, it’s a fundamental concept in all of science, not just climate change, and here he is arguing blue-faced that it’s all a lie.

    Look at it this way, turtle: if someone claims that people in Mississippi are getting fatter, you can’t choose one town out of the whole state with abnormally thin people and claim that the reverse is true. Scatter is present in any natural dataset, and that’s why we look at trends across the scope of the study system. I mean, this is REALLLLLLLLLLY elementary stuff. And it’s used all over the place, not just in climate change, not just in science.

  162. Milton C.

    The hobbit is correct, Busiturtle. If I took your cue (cherry-picked a region of the world to look at), the Arctic is well ahead of the trends over your same period (look at NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, etc. datasets). Data points will be above and below the mean in any dataset you collect in the real world, from sociology to engineering to medical science to climate change. That’s why one of the first things you learn in elementary statistics is the importance of sample size and the need for trends analysis in large datasets, not selected subsets that fit your side.

    I’m sorry, but when you look at things in the correct statistical sense, your arguments just don’t hold up. Try arguing about the role of humans in the warming we’ve already got, like the rest of the skeptic community. They moved past the “the climate isn’t even changing!!!!” foolishness a decade ago, because even they got basic statistics. It’s time you should, too.

  163. Sao Paul

    So the fundamental basis for AGW is that the climate is changing everywhere except where it isn’t.

    No, the fundamental basis is that the climate is changing, based on real, observed data that doesn’t come from predictive models.

    Argue it with pathetic distortions and faulty reasoning, Busiturtle, the data are there, slapping you across the face. What’s ‘unbelievable’ is your desperation to deny the reality of this (excluding a role of humans, even!), whether it’s through simple stubbornness or gross mental defect.

  164. bilbo

    Let’s not forget this additional evidence, too.

    Let’s head off your upcoming deflection attempt at the pass, busiturtle. We’re not even talking about a role of humans in climate change – you’re arguing that none of this is happening no matter what. You’re also talking about long-term trends, not stuff sicne 1998. All of these data absolutely destroy what you’re saying, slaughtering you in the street and highlighting the fact that you live in a false dream-world.

    Milton is right – you’re 10 years behind the skeptic curve. These data were enough to even make most of them get past the “the world hasn’t warmed!” lie.

  165. Busiturtle

    One man’s cherry picking is another man’s Himalayan glacier.

  166. Busiturtle

    Sao Paul @ 167: Prove there is climate change in the United States.

    If it cannot be demonstrated then explain why global warming is not as global as the name suggests.

    The best Dr. Hansen could do was to suggest it might be a statistical anomaly, or other factors might provide counter-effects.

    Seems to me there are a lot more counter-effects than AGW theorists want to admit.

  167. Sao Paul

    Sao Paul @ 167: Prove there is climate change in the United States.

    If it cannot be demonstrated then explain why global warming is not as global as the name suggests.

    Apparently you’ve missed the 12 or so posts that demonstrate why what you’re saying is so foolish and incorrect.

    Your desperation remains.

  168. bilbo

    And it appears you really cannot talk reason into someone with the intellectual ability of a concrete picnic table.

    Again, ‘turtle. This is basic statistics here, not fancy scientific “tricks.”

  169. bilbo

    Prove there is climate change in the United States.

    OK. From our own government scientific authorities:

    “Climate-related changes are already observed in the United States and its coastal waters. These include increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows.”

    Oh my GOD!!!!!!!! But climate change isn’t happening equally across even our continent!!! (“These impacts are different from region to region”)

    If rhe climate isn’t changing at the same rate even across one continent, how can it be changing across the whole globe???!!! Climate change isn’t even happening!!!!

    *sigh AND snicker*

  170. Sao Paul

    But we all know we can’t trust what trained scientists and their comprehensive, independent, and agreeing datasets say, bilbo! They’re part of the conspiracy!!!!!!

    ….plus, Busiturtle just knows more about the workings of the climate system than they do. He doesn’t need to read journal articles, y’know, so only a genius could get away with that.

  171. Philip Jr.

    Somehow, bilbo, I don’t think facts and data are going to convince Busiturtle of much. He’s got his mind made up, and you can’t change the opinion of an ideologue.

  172. Katharine

    Philip Jr., indeed, I suspect Busiturtle, from the responses to his misquoting and his egregious lack of acknowledgment of this issue, is one of those people who goes ‘LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU’!

  173. Katharine

    If everyone knew something about basic statistics, I suspect this debate would have been over a long time ago.

  174. Busiturtle

    bilbo @ 172

    Is that list based on real measurements independently observed and verified over multiple years or is it a page from the script of Al Gore’s movie? You see what we have here is not science but anecdotes. Generalities of climate aberrations are meaningless. Scientific reasoning rests on the proof of causality. Claiming that industrialization makes weird things happen with the weather is a thesis not even worthy of a fifth grader.

    The value of the US climate record is its integrity. Meteorologic and geographic data and myriads of books and journals provide a great understanding of what climate was like in past centuries. We have the ability to compare trends from past centuries to trends in this century and what do we find? Not much evidence of global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it.

    So what does this observation mean? Why does the United States not demonstrate the “hockey stick” of accelerated global temperatures that appear in the global data? How is it that the country that produces the most greenhouse gas has such normal climate trends?

    These observations do not disprove AGW but they challenge its thesis. If AGW is a powerful climate forcing than its impact should be global, but it is not. Rather we are told to pay attention to ice cores and tree rings in far off remote places and not pay attention to the fact that every spring when the Yankees and Red Sox throw out their first pitch the weather is the same as it ever was.

  175. bilbo

    Is that list based on real measurements independently observed and verified over multiple years or is it a page from the script of Al Gore’s movie?

    Why actually, it’s based on real measurements independently observed and verified over multiple years, Busiturtle. It appears you didn’t actually read any of the evidence but simply gave it a cursory glance and brsuhed it aside, like any good denialist would. Denialists are petrified of evidence, because they already know it reveals things that are not convenient for them.

    You see what we have here is not science but anecdotes.

    No, what we have here are published and verified scientific studies. You truly are in desperation mode. This just keeps getting better and better! My earlier snicker just elevated to a chuckle.

    We have the ability to compare trends from past centuries to trends in this century and what do we find? Not much evidence of global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it.

    Ah, but if only saying it made it so! Perhaps you failed – again – to read any of the evidence provided by several of us, which highlight trends (even across the continental U.S.) that prove your rather dimwitted assumption a complete lie…and a rather bold, stupid one at that, seeing as how it is so easily and incredibly debunked.

    So what does this observation mean?

    Nothing – because, as we’ve all pointed out, it’s not true based on observed data. You’re trying incredibly hard to make things true just by saying them, although I will give you props to continuing your line of ‘thought’ in spite of what are now two lies that we all debunked here before you even uttered them. That takes gonads, my friend!

    How is it that the country that produces the most greenhouse gas has such normal climate trends?

    Should it even take a response to highlight how stupid of a statement that is? (sorry for calling you stupid, but I mean, come on – really?) I suppose the U.S. either lives in an airtight, enclosed bubble or prevailing winds and the jet stream don’t exist.

    Wow. I mean, WOW. The ignorance is both hilarious and scary!!!

    If AGW is a powerful climate forcing than its impact should be global, but it is not.

    …and Busiturtle highlights AGAIN his ignorance of the concept of a feedback or the structure of our upper atmosphere. no wonder everything he says is wrong – he doesn’t know any of the basics to begin with!

    Rather we are told to pay attention to ice cores and tree rings in far off remote places and not pay attention to the fact that every spring when the Yankees and Red Sox throw out their first pitch the weather is the same as it ever was.

    Xenophobia and one of the most common denialist misconceptions of them all (and a bit of hypocrisy: earlier we have to rely on long-term data but now just a couple of years of MLB games is enough!) rolled into once sentence of denialist buffoonery! There should be an award for this….

    I mean, this post is one for the books…

  176. Milton C.

    First of all, I shouldn’t have to mention this even, but the first few paragraphs of your response are full of some outright lies, Busiturtle: (i) we have no evidence of climate change, (ii) we have data that go back ‘centuries’ in the U.S. that we don’t have in the rest of the world, and (iii) scientific data show no trends in climate.

    I really don’t see how you can make any of those statements in the face of the actual, real evidence many of us have shown you over the past 50 or so posts. I mean, this is real-world observation from multiple independent sources that you’re not only ignoring – you’re outright contradicting! On what grounds? None! The evidence isn’t just slapping you around anymore, it has you knocked to the ground, is sitting on your chest, and is punching your teeth out. This is almost getting embarrassing to watch. It’s even more embarrassing seeing as how you seem tot hink that whever someone pumps emissions into the air, they just sit over a country or region and don’t move (“How is it that the country that produces the most greenhouse gas has such normal climate trends?”). Pardon my langauge for a moment, but that’s just frickin stupid. Based on that and several statements, I’m beginning to wonder if you just can’t think clearly when you’re angry or if you’re really a high-school kid or something.

    As a brief aside, most of the wonderful data “from the U.S.” that you were claiming we have that other regions of the world do not comes, in fact, from the very tree rings and ice cores you were dismissing later in your post. This is just one of several contradictory and incredibly oblivious statements that you made. That post is one for the ages – an example of an uninformed fool at its best….and I say that with all the sincerity I can muster.

  177. Philip Jr.

    So, based on your last post, Busiturtle, all of these data collected and analyzed by national and multinational scientific entities, stemming from independent datasets, is wrong. Dead wrong. In fact, the complete opposite is true? Alright – here’s your chance: show me the evidence that clearly shows why. You’ve told us, now show us. Dazzle me.

    (Also, (i) the data that you talking about that allows us “a great understanding of what climate was like in past centuries” in our part of the world comes from tree rings and ice cores…which you later tried to dismiss as flawed (read: you have no clue what you’re talking about), and (ii) atmospheric emissions don’t just sit over the spot where they’re emitted from (”How is it that the country that produces the most greenhouse gas has such normal climate trends?”). They actually get circulated many times around the globe by these things called the jet stream and prevailing winds. You know – the things that help shape our climate. Well, actually, you don’t seem to know. You seem utterly and hopelessly clueless.)

  178. Seminatrix

    Busiturtle in #177 = EPIC FAIL

    Everything you said in that post is completely and utterly proven wrong by the evidence we have posted prior to it, thus proving that you didn’t look at any of it. What we have here is a denialist in panic, “deny everything” mode. If you say it, it might come true! Wish, Busiturtle, wish!

  179. Sao Paul

    Everything you said in that post is completely and utterly proven wrong by the evidence we have posted prior to it

    He’s not exaggerating. Literally everything you said in that post is total bunk. That claim about no climate trends? The data proves you wrong? That long-term dataset in the U.S. you were touting? Built from the same tree rings you said were useless. The claim about our own emissions sitting over our country? We actually get most of our emissions from Asia via the jet stream. The claim about the U.S. having some magically in-depth climate dataset? Other countries are miles ahead of us. Your assertion that AGW is a “climate forcing?” That doesn’t even make grammatical sense. You claim that the “weather” never changes at the Sox/Yankees game? trust me, I’ve been to many of them. The weather’s never the same. Your assertion that climate data is “anecdotal?” Dead wrong.

    Want me to keep going?

  180. Moptop

    “So, if you make a point and Philip says that it’s incorrect from what the literature says, than that’s a very valid point. A real discussion would then see you go check that point and provide a counter to it – not yell at Philip for pointing out a hole in your argument.

    Let’s go back to my original point. I said that the models use a circular form of argument. That they first run without anthropogenic forcings, and then with them, and the difference is attributed to AGW.

    I provided evidence of it with a link to the AR4. Here is some more, from the AR4

    Fitting the regression model requires an estimate of the covariance matrix C (i.e., the internal variability), which is usually obtained from unforced variation simulated by AOGCMs (e.g., from long control simulations) because the instrumental record is too short to provide a reliable estimate and may be affected by external forcing. Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models may not simulate natural internal climate variability accurately, particularly at small spatial scales, and thus a residual consistency test (Allen and Tett, 1999) is typically used to assess the model-simulated variability at the scales that are retained in the analysis. To avoid bias (Hegerl et al., 1996, 1997), uncertainty in the estimate of the vector of scaling factors a is usually assessed with a second, statistically independent estimate of the covariance matrix C which is ordinarily obtained from an additional, independent sample of simulated unforced variation.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9.html

    So the run the “forced” model against the “unforced” model and this provides them with some kind of confidence in their predictions?

    He is how one scientist and NASA’s GISS put it in his comment on the AR4:

    Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted. – Dr. Andrew A. Lacis

    http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7798293?n=17

    The IPCC’s response was that the report was a summary of peer reviewed science. Later events have shown that Dr Lacis’s criticism was dead on, including the parts about the report being written as if it were a press release from activist organizations, which later turned out to be true to a large extent. (If you want to see the links, go ahead and call BS)

    Lot’s of things that have been peer reviewed have turned out to be incorrect. You guys don’t seem to believe this.

  181. Thomas H.

    There’s an old saying, Busiturtle: know when to hold ‘em, and know when to fold ‘em. It’s time to fold ‘em, friend. You’ve been absolutely demolished here, and you’re just embarrassing yourself even more. It was painful for me to read that last post of yours. Really, it was physically painful, because it made no logical or even basic sense.

    Pull up the stakes and change the topic, or something. At least live to argue another day, and don’t do yourself in for good. It’s time to cut your losses.

  182. Philip Jr.

    The IPCC’s response was that the report was a summary of peer reviewed science. Later events have shown that Dr Lacis’s criticism was dead on, including the parts about the report being written as if it were a press release from activist organizations, which later turned out to be true to a large extent. (If you want to see the links, go ahead and call BS)

    Actually, that’s not a true statement at all. The IPCC summaries are actually a summary of peer-reviewed science. They’re a long-form version of the review articles you see in many scientific journals on different topics.

    And like these review articles, the IPCC summary is not “a press release from activist organizations.” The proof of this is in the writing of the technical summaries themselves. On topics like “are humans contributing to global climate change?” and “what mitigation measures will be necessary to remedy the effects of climate change?”, the IPCC actually exhibits a fair amount of uncertainty in their conclusions. You would likely miss this if you were just glazing over the report to pick out statements you didn’t like. In fact, the IPCC admits that they are at least 20% uncertain that humans are contributing to climate change in the first place. That’s not an “activist statement.” That’s a measured, scientific response.

    What you linked to, moptop, are the once-confidential reviewer comments on an earlier draft of the IPCC abstract, not the final draft released to the public. This is how that dreadful peer-review process works, my friend; established experts in the field have an opportunity to review scientific articles and documents, examine their strengths and flaws, and utlimately request substantial changes that make the document stronger and more reality-based. That’s exactly what your linked document was doing, reigning in the IPCC authors to make them better reflect the scientific reality of the topic at hand. It’s no secret this happens, at least not to scientists.

    So, what you linked to doesn’t make the IPCC summaries weaker. It actually shows their strengths – that they were peer-reviewed and reigned in to better reflect scientific reality using the tried-and-true process of science. In fact, if climate scientists are all supposed to be in this conspiracy to foster an “alarmist” stance on science (as you claim), why, exactly, do we see those very scientists going against your “conspiracy” and asking that language be toned down and changed?

    You just debunked your own thesis without even realizing it. Kudos. At least you have probably learned something about how the scientific process works.

    Class is dismissed.

  183. Thomas H.

    moptop,

    What you’re linking to are the comments from peer-reviewers on the first draft of an IPCC report. They aren’t evidence of a conspiracy, they’re evidence to disprove your idea of a conspiracy. The reviewers are saying the equivalent of “hey guys, you’re overreaching. Tone it down and stick to the facts.” Which the IPCC did in their final draft after they revised per reviewer comments. This is science in action, buddy.

    Your ‘gotcha’ moment is actually a major backfire on you because you don’t even realize what your document is.

  184. bilbo

    The reviewers are saying the equivalent of “hey guys, you’re overreaching. Tone it down and stick to the facts.” Which the IPCC did in their final draft after they revised per reviewer comments. This is science in action, buddy.

    Ditto. Welcome to the peer-review process, moptop. I think you said it was total crap yesterday. Glad to see you change your mind so soon!

    *aside* You do know that, by linking to criticial comments on a draft summary from climate scientists, you just destroyed your idea of climate science being a big conspiracy where no one can criticize theory, right? Probably not. Well, you just did.

    Congratulations, moptop, for debunking your own conspiracy theory!! *applause*

    You guys just keep getting more oblivious.

  185. Foggg

    You have to love the wingnuts who in one breath shout “no statistical warming for 15 years”, and in the next sentence “the last 6 years of cooling!”. Given it’s mathematically impossible, given the same measurement uncertainty, to have a statistically insignificant trend over 15 yrs that can be seen in the final 6, they really demonstrate their math ignorance and the ease they canbe led by the nose by the spin machine.

    Then we have the “CO2 is good for plants!” in their ordinary enviroments stupidity.
    Mooney has attracted the creme de la creme.

  186. ChrisD

    @Foggg

    You have to love the wingnuts who in one breath shout “no statistical warming for 15 years”, and in the next sentence “the last 6 years of cooling!”.

    Probably the same guys who say that abundant evidence of long-term melting ice all over Earth is meaningless. yet a few orbital photographs of some short-term loss of ice in one small region of Mars prove conclusively that “Mars is warming, no SUVs there!!!!!!” (I hope I added enough exclamation points, not sure what the standard is).

  187. Philip Jr.

    You forgot a reference to Al Gore to compliment your exclamation points, Chris. Such statements must always be concluded by tying them to political opponents. That’s the primary rule.

  188. Tony

    >>Prediction from year 2000:
    “According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
    >How did I know that I’d see a link to the same Independent article that every other skeptic links to? Your first comment is not a quote. “Within a few years” are the words of the journalist, not the scientist.

    Oh, so you are saying the journalist made it all up and lied about it? Right.

    >>Oh, so you debunked Phil Jones, congratulations

    >No, she debunked the misreading of Phil Jones comment.

    What misreading? Phil Jones said there was no statistically significant warming during the last 15 years, you even confirm it in your own post:

    >Phil Jones was asked if there had been warming since 1995. He replied that there had been warming (0.12 C / decade) but that because of the noise, the warming could not be proven within the 95% confidence interval (which is the standard of measurement) over such a short period of time.

    You do realize this is exactly what is meant by saying that there was no statistically significant warming during the last 15 years? I hope so.

    And it’s certainly not because the period is so short, previous 15 years did experience statistically significant warming, the reason is simple – the warming almost completely died down, despite more CO2 in the atmosphere then ever.

    Besides you still failed to answer my main question – what climate conditions will falsify global warming hypothesis? If it’s a scientific then surely it has to be falsifiable then what will falsify it?

  189. Moptop

    “You just debunked your own thesis without even realizing it. Kudos. At least you have probably learned something about how the scientific process works. -PJ”

    So that is your response? And you continue to maintain that peer-reviewed science are gospel texts not subject to criticism? Oh yeah, and the ever precious “let that be a lesson to you” at the end. I love that one. Well, let

    s talk about some of you guys points…

    I will take this one as representative:

    The reviewers are saying the equivalent of “hey guys, you’re overreaching. Tone it down and stick to the facts.” Which the IPCC did in their final draft after they revised per reviewer comments. This is science in action, buddy.

    Your ‘gotcha’ moment is actually a major backfire on you because you don’t even realize what your document is.

    First off, the comment was *rejected*, so saying that it was incorporated into the final report is good for a laugh at you guys’ expense, thanks. I am betting you buy the next round of laughter too, so here goes.

    From the “stolen” comment:

    The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics.

    From the news recently:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.

    The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based their “research” on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning. This weekend WWF said it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.

    Or, how about this one?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece

    n its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

    However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

    The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

    Guess what the kicker is… the geography student is a self proclaimed *climate activist*.

    The rejected comment is looking pretty good in retrospect, isn’t it?

  190. Philip Jr.

    So that is your response?

    Why yes, actually, because it’s true.

    And you continue to maintain that peer-reviewed science are gospel texts not subject to criticism?

    Nope. In fact, if you read my post again, you’ll find that I said that peer-reviewed science is always subject to criticism. That’s kind of the definition of “peer-review,” moptop. Criticism is one of science’s strengths. But, thanks for attempting to put words in my mouth again. your fifth-rate tactics and misrepresentations only serve to accentuate the impotentce of your arguments. Keep that up, would you?

    First off, the comment was *rejected*, so saying that it was incorporated into the final report is good for a laugh at you guys’ expense, thanks.

    Look at that – more lies, lies, and damn lies from a desperate denialist. It looks like we need to continue our lesson on how peer-review works. The “rejected” label accompanying that comment actually refers to the reviewer’s recommendation of what to do with the abstract (“rejected” means that the authors had to scrap the draft and start over, incorporating the reviewer’s comments). It doesn’t mean that the authors rejected the reviewer’s suggestions, as you claim; you can’t do that in peer-review, anyway. the reviewers have the last word – not the author.

    Yours is a common misunderstanding of someone with no clue about how the process works. But I get a feeling you intentionally misrepresented it, seeing as how almost all of your arguments hinge upon a misrepresentation or a misquote. Again, your distortions and lies precede your arguments. Every time. And every time, they destroy them.

    Class is dismissed – again.

  191. bilbo

    First off, the comment was *rejected*, so saying that it was incorporated into the final report is good for a laugh at you guys’ expense, thanks

    Hey bonehead, that’s not what the “rejected” means in your link. The “rejected” doesn’t mean that the authors of the draft decided not to incorporate the reviewer’s comments. “Rejected” is the reviewer’s recommendation of what to do with the abstract – in other words, he reccommended that the authors scrap it and start over.

    An author never has the final word in peer-review. That always goes to the reviewer. And once again, you are exposed as basing your argument on a lie.

    That’s becoming typical of you, denialist.

  192. bilbo

    What Philip said. Damn you, Philip! Stop beating me!

  193. Busiturtle

    NOAA (1989) says there is no global warming, the computer models are wrong.

    NASA (1997) says there is no global warming, the computer models are wrong.

    It is 2010 and the computer models are still wrong. Makes one wonder who the deniers are.

    http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

    Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward.

    Virtually all scientists will agree that a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere should have some effect on the temperature of the Earth. But it is much less certain how or if we will recognize the effects of this increase. There are several reasons:

    * First, the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth’s natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent.

    * Second, there is a much more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, namely water vapor. Water vapor over the Earth is extremely variable, both in space and in time.

    * Third, the ways in which clouds and water vapor feed back and ultimately influence the temperature of the Earth are, at best, poorly understood.

    * Fourth, while the whole Earth is indeed in a state that scientists describe as “radiative equilibrium,” where the incoming sunlight equals the outgoing infrared radiation to provide a roughly constant overall temperature, the surface is far from this radiative balance condition. Evaporation and convection processes in the atmosphere transport heat from the surface to the upper troposphere, where it can be much more efficiently radiated into space since it is above most of the greenhouse-trapping water vapor. So in short, it is this convective overturning of the atmosphere – poorly represented in computer models of global warming – that primarily determines the temperature distribution of the surface and upper troposphere, not radiation balance.

  194. Philip Jr.

    There are about 5 to 6 different lies and mis-statements in your last post, Busiturtle, but by this point, you’re past talking to…and this post is just a restatement of your last ones. I’ll refer readers to your last several posts and our subsequent responses as a reference to the validity of your overall points.

  195. Busiturtle

    Philip Jr.

    If you have disagreements take them up with NASA and the NOAA. They are the ones who recognize that: the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth’s natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent.

  196. Moptop

    PJ,
    I knew that you and bilbo would be good for a laugh, and you came through.

  197. J: “Within a few years” are the words of the journalist, not the scientist.
    T: Oh, so you are saying the journalist made it all up and lied about it? Right.

    I’m saying that the scientist didn’t say it. Otherwise it would be in quotations.

    So again, show us where climate scientists ever predicted that snow would be extremely rare within a few years. It’s certainly never been the consensus view. It’s not published in the scientific literature and it’s not in the IPCC report.

    T:And it’s certainly not because the period is so short, previous 15 years did experience statistically significant warming, the reason is simple – the warming almost completely died down, despite more CO2 in the atmosphere then ever.

    You keep revealing a complete lack of understanding of statistics. The evidence is that there has been warming over the past 15 years. This is valid well above the 66% level defined by the standard deviation of the noise. It doesn’t quite reach the 95% confidence level. That’s what Jones said. Your interpretation doesn’t even rise to the 10% significance level.

    Specify what conditions will falsify anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

    How do you falsify AGW?

    1.) You need to learn basic math. You’ll need it, because it will take a lot of work.

    2.) Prove that CO2 isn’t really a greenhouse gas. (This is going to be tough. It’s backed up by some pretty solid data).

    3.) Barring that, prove that mankind isn’t really releasing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. (Again, there’s some pretty solid data lined up against you).

    4.) Barring (2) or (3), prove that natural forces pull CO2 from the atmosphere faster than we’re putting it in. (So far, all the evidence is that the natural feedbacks actually make the problem worse).

    Okay, those are pretty high goals for your first foray into climate science. If you simply want to know whether the warming “almost completely died down” since 1995, you’re going to have to wait at least another 10 years. (Those will have to be significantly cooler than the last 10, though, because right now we’re on track for significant warming.)

  198. Icarus

    Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward.

    Not so. Using 22-year trends to smooth out most of the variability from the solar cycle we see consistent global warming, regardless of whether we use the most recent 22 years or the first 22 years available from this particular satellite record or anything in between:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from/to/plot/rss/from:1988/to:2010/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2009/trend/plot/rss/from:1986/to:2008/trend/plot/rss/from:1985/to:2007/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2006/trend/plot/rss/from:1983/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:1982/to:2004/trend/plot/rss/from:1981/to:2003/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2001/trend

    The warming trend is around 0.18C per decade, just as the climate scientists have been saying for many years.

  199. I think I’ll prepare for both possibilities!

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

About Sheril Kirshenbaum

Sheril Kirshenbaum is a research scientist with the Webber Energy Group at the University of Texas at Austin's Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy where she works on projects to enhance public understanding of energy issues as they relate to food, oceans, and culture. She is involved in conservation initiatives across levels of government, working to improve communication between scientists, policymakers, and the public. Sheril is the author of The Science of Kissing, which explores one of humanity's fondest pastimes. She also co-authored Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future with Chris Mooney, chosen by Library Journal as one of the Best Sci-Tech Books of 2009 and named by President Obama's science advisor John Holdren as his top recommended read. Sheril contributes to popular publications including Newsweek, The Washington Post, Discover Magazine, and The Nation, frequently covering topics that bridge science and society from climate change to genetically modified foods. Her writing is featured in the anthology The Best American Science Writing 2010. In 2006 Sheril served as a legislative Knauss science fellow on Capitol Hill with Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) where she was involved in energy, climate, and ocean policy. She also has experience working on pop radio and her work has been published in Science, Fisheries Bulletin, Oecologia, and Issues in Science and Technology. In 2007, she helped to found Science Debate; an initiative encouraging candidates to debate science research and innovation issues on the campaign trail. Previously, Sheril was a research associate at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment and has served as a Fellow with the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation at the American Museum of Natural History and as a Howard Hughes Research Fellow. She has contributed reports to The Nature Conservancy and provided assistance on international protected area projects. Sheril serves as a science advisor to NPR's Science Friday and its nonprofit partner, Science Friday Initiative. She also serves on the program committee for the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). She speaks regularly around the country to audiences at universities, federal agencies, and museums and has been a guest on such programs as The Today Show and The Daily Rundown on MSNBC. Sheril is a graduate of Tufts University and holds two masters of science degrees in marine biology and marine policy from the University of Maine. She co-hosts The Intersection on Discover blogs with Chris Mooney and has contributed to DeSmogBlog, Talking Science, Wired Science and Seed. She was born in Suffern, New York and is also a musician. Sheril lives in Austin, Texas with her husband David Lowry. Interested in booking Sheril Kirshenbaum to speak at your next event? Contact Hachette Speakers Bureau 866.376.6591 info@hachettespeakersbureau.com For more information, visit her website or email Sheril at srkirshenbaum@yahoo.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »