Biggest science scandal: Official temperature records were systematically adjusted by climate scientists

arcticA new article written by Christopher Booker titled ‘The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever’ published in The Telegraph claims that official temperature records were systematically adjusted to show that the earth has warmed much more than the actual data justified.

The article’s theme is that scientists manipulated the data on purpose to exaggerate global warming.

In the article, Booker claims that readings from thermometers in Paraguay were adjusted by climate scientists to make them look like the temperature is increasing, when the measurements off the detectors actually show the opposite.

Paul Homewood, anti-climate change activist stated that changes were made in published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay.

Homewood checked other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the suspicious “adjustments”.

First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC).

These institutes use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Homewood added that world relies on these records for its understanding of global warming.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada and the heart of Siberia.

He again found the same one-way adjustments made by scientists to show warming up to 1 degree C or higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded.

Traust Jonsson, who formerly ran Iceland’s climate research, was shocked to see how the new version records completely ‘disappears’ Iceland’s ‘sea ice years’ around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (75)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Fudging climate data I’m shocked . What’s next….the Arctic isn’t ice free ?
    Climate gate gave a good insight into how small , insular and defensive a group can be when people start questioning their “science” .

    Who has been running the Global Historic Climate Network and who made one -way adjustments to temperature records ?

    How long has this been going on ?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Drewski

      |

      “Fudging climate data I’m shocked .”

      What is truly shocking is that you would believe Booker’s “claim”.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        Skeptic’s don’t “believe” anyone without validation.

        Maybe you could humor us and prove to us why Booker should not be “believed”.

        And while your at it please show us where and why Paul Homewood came to the “wrong” conclusions.

        Or why Traust Jonsson only “imagined it was cooler in the 70’s. 😀

        “Traust Johnson, who formerly ran Iceland’s climate research, was shocked to see how the new version records completely ‘disappears’ Iceland’s ‘sea ice years’ around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.”

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Day

          |

          Skeptics? Okay. So, to be clear, you all agreed with my clear explanation of the greenhouse effect, right? You’re all fine with that? You all accept that there’s a very clear and understood reason that greenhouse gases are called such, as they trap heat more efficiently than the gases that make up most of the atmosphere? We’ve moved past this now, and you’re all on board with that?

          I just want to be clear. Since you seem to have a very strong opinion of what the word skeptic means, I figure you agree with drewski and myself about how the greenhouse effect is real since that has a valid mathematical and chemical basis.

          Oh, and that we’re the reason there’s so many more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, of course. That’s also pretty clear, so I’d think that as a skeptic you’d accept that, since it’s not really so much a theory as a very obvious fact.

          Glad to know you accept those ideas, amirlach. I was worried, since everyone ignored my greenhouse effect explanation. But I’m happy to see you accept it, since you accept things that can be clearly validated. It’s honestly nice to hear that.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Skeptics? Okay. So, to be clear, you all agreed with my clear explanation of the greenhouse effect, right? You’re all fine with that? You all accept that there’s a very clear and understood reason that greenhouse gases are called such, as they trap heat more efficiently than the gases that make up most of the atmosphere? We’ve moved past this now, and you’re all on board with that?[/quote] Nope! your forgetting Water Vapor. The IPCC calls it the “Most Important” greenhouse gas.

            As for validation, have you found a single Co2 based model that has made any skillful predictions?

            And are you still lying about those failed models I showed you? Claiming they are from the “70’s”?

            It’s time for you to put some actual numbers to your Co2 claims. So how much warming should occur from man’s mere 3.5% of global warming emissions?

            Please provide something “validated” buy “unadjusted” observation. No models refuted by observation please!

            [quote]CO2 only represents 10% of greenhouse-gas temperatures, at most; and these in turn only account for FIVE PERCENT of global temperatures, or 15 degrees Kelvin over an average global temperature of 287K, with the remaining 95% of global temperatures created by sunlight, geothermal heat, and other sources like cosmic rays etc– all of which fluctuate wildly.
            Meanwhile, humans only produce 3.5% of global C02, while Tyson himself states that humans have only increased our output by 40%; so this means that humans are responsible for a maximum of 40% of 3.5% of 1.5 degrees of global temperatures– which is 0.02C i.e….. NOTHING. [/quote]

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            So, to be clear Day, you agree with my clear explanation of how you lied about those “modern” models that failed, right? You’re all fine with that? You accept that there’s a very clear and understood reason that according to the Scientific Method, ” If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”

            We’ve moved past this now, and you’re all on board with that?

            If not try reading this. [quote] Under modern interpretations, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[/quote]

            Every Single IPCC Model has failed this test and has been refuted, right Day? Your on board with this?

            Glad to know you accept those ideas, Dayski. I was worried, since you ignored my IPCC model failure explanation. But I’m happy to see you accept it, since you accept things that can be clearly invalidated. It’s honestly nice to hear that. 😀

        • Avatar

          Drewski

          |

          Why of course, One Trick. Why shouldn’t we believe Booker?

          Perhaps it is because he has built an entire article around the word of a blogger who cherry picked his own data when there was a wealth of real scientists he could have talked to. Perhaps it is because Booker doesn’t believe in evolution and thinks that medical issues around asbestos and second smoke are all just “made up”.

          I am not surprised that sCeptics ‘believe” anything especially if is not validated.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            I notice you have yet to refute Homewoods findings? Only make an ad mom against Booker.

            What about this guy? You forgot to make a Straw Man to knock down.

            [quote]Or why Traust Jonsson only “imagined it was cooler in the 70’s. 😀

            “Traust Johnson, who formerly ran Iceland’s climate research, was shocked to see how the new version records completely ‘disappears’ Iceland’s ‘sea ice years’ around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.”
            [/quote]

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Oh! And I see by my email notification, your offensive and insulting post must have been deleted. Glad to see Day is starting to report you to the Admin too now apparatchik-ski. 😀

          • Avatar

            Day

            |

            I thought his post was rather strongly worded. More importantly, however, your response to it was, in my opinion, much more strongly worded, so I thought I’d see how fast your administrator would jump on an opportunity to remove one of drew’s posts (apparently, it is very quickly, since I just decided to test it out. It just takes seemingly forever for one of your side’s posts, so I thought I’d check to see if there was a difference, which there is). I find it interesting that you received an email notification about it, seeing as when one of Gator’s posts was removed (and therefore my response to it) I received no such notification.

            The moral here is be civil. This goes somewhat for drew, I guess, but he’s just responding in kind to the terrible way you all conduct your discussions. To be clear, I am referring to, for example, when someone (I’m not saying me) explains how the greenhouse effect works in a conversation where it is very relevant, they are ignored or insulted and called a liar. That’s not how any conversation should go, much less one where someone (again, not saying it was me) explains something that is literally backed by math, and then someone from your side decides to go after them anyway. It’s just wrong, and I wish that wasn’t the way the community here responded to perceived threats.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You are the party ignoring the logarithmic relationship of CO2 and warming. Have you even glanced at the charts I have provided?

            [img]http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png?w=720[/img]

            Additional CO2 will have virtually no effect. What part of this is so very hard for you to understand?

          • Avatar

            Day

            |

            The generally accepted amount of change is one degree Celsius of direct change for every doubling of carbon dioxide levels, and around three times that via positive feedback loops. So yes, it is logarithmic, but you consistently act as though you are under the impression that scientists believe it is linear. I know that isn’t true, and I’m sure you know that. So please, stop. They’re well aware. Remember, one degree Celsius is a change of what, ~0.3% of the absolute temperature of the Earth? That’s not a ton, is it? Celsius is a scale that is relative to life (as it is based on water), Kelvin is the scale that this sort of thing works on. You all like to act like the changes in the atmosphere are so tiny, but you never mention how the absolute temperature change is also very tiny.

            That is what I am referring to when I say your side is inconsistent and ignores what it doesn’t feel like looking at. The “warmists” are well aware of how carbon dioxide’s increased levels logarithmically induce warming, and you choose to not even acknowledge that.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]The generally accepted amount of change is one degree Celsius of direct change for every doubling of carbon dioxide levels, and around three times that via positive feedback loops. [/quote]

            [i]What[/i] feedback loops? Are you referring to the feedback loops only found in models? The same models that have failed 100% of the time?

            Generally accepted by whom? Catholics? Or the same scammers who cannot build a predictive model?

            Gee, I just cannot figure out [i]what[/i] is wrong with the models! 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]The generally accepted amount of change is one degree Celsius of direct change for every doubling of carbon dioxide levels, and around three times that via positive feedback loops.[/quote]

            This “positive feedback” was “predicted” by all of the warmist models.
            [img]http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Hot-spot-vs-observations-650.jpg[/img]

            Trouble is the models were invalidated by empirical observations. (The graphs Day keeps trying to wave away and which he refuses to look at.)

            Tell us Day, why do you “believe” in this positive feedback loop after it was completely refuted by observations?
            [quote]That is what I am referring to when I say your side is inconsistent and ignores what it doesn’t feel like looking at. The “warmists” are well aware of how carbon dioxide’s increased levels logarithmically induce warming, and you choose to not even acknowledge that.[/quote] Your projecting again. Your still claiming there’s a “positive feedback” when it has been refuted by observations.

            These are not just a few observations. During the time period there were over 35 Million Radiosonode flights carrying instrements that read temperature to a tenth of a degree. Not a single one detected the Co2/Water Vapor positive feedback loop(NOT ONE!), which according to “models” should have made a “Hot Spot” in the mid troposphere 2-3 degrees warmer.

            Instead a slightly cooler spot was detected. Every single warmist model has failed.

            Just as you have failed to retract your false claim regarding the complete failure of the IPCC’s Gold Standard of “Modern Models”.
            [quote]
            his beautiful graph was posted at Roy Spencer’s and WattsUp, and no skeptic should miss it. I’m not sure if everyone appreciates just how piquant, complete and utter the failure is here. There are no excuses left. This is as good as it gets for climate modeler’s in 2013.

            John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.
            [/quote]

            “If it disagrees with experiment. it’s WRONG! In that simple statement is the key to science.”-Richard Feynman

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]I find it interesting that you received an email notification about it, seeing as when one of Gator’s posts was removed (and therefore my response to it) I received no such notification.[/quote] There’s the little check box that sends you a notification when one of your posts is replied to Day.
            [quote] More importantly, however, your response to it was, in my opinion, much more strongly worded, so I thought I’d see how fast your administrator would jump on an opportunity to remove one of drew’s posts (apparently, it is very quickly, since I just decided to test it out. [/quote] So you did actually report one of drewski’s posts? Or by “testing” did you make the offensive post using drewski’s login?

            And for the record, drewski has always been the first one to throw out insults.

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            Geez,
            And ANOTHER LIE lie fro One Trick!!!
            “And for the record, drewski has always been the first one to throw out insults.”

            Actually I was quite reasonable when I originally came on to this (ahmmm) website. You could almost say I was “Day-esque” in tone and style. It wasn’t long, however, that I was subjected to insults for merely pointing out that sCeptic arguments lacked any supporting citations other than from ideological blog sites that also had no supporting evidence.

            It was then I understood that i was dealing with a sub-intelligent species and I have had fun with these poor critters ever since.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Another accusation from our tame serial liar?
            [quote]subjected to insults for merely pointing out that sCeptic arguments lacked any supporting citations other than from ideological blog sites that also had no supporting evidence.[/quote] Right! No supporting evidence? Like faked data and invalidated Models your vaunted Branch Carbonians call “science”? 😀

            How many lies do you need to tell drewski? How many offensive posts do you have to make before your finally sent the way of Harry Hammer the insane spammer?

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            I tell no lies, One Trick. I merely point out all of yours (i.e no carcinogenic chemicals in that frakking soup).

            BTW, did you hear the one about the intelligent sCeptic?

            Neither have I.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            As pointed out in “Frack Nation”, even broccoli can cause cancer, given the right dosage.

            [quote]”If people say fracking is causing cancer, they don’t know what they’re talking about,” University of California at Berkeley scientist Bruce Ames replies, noting that cabbage and broccoli also contain minute portions of chemicals that could technically be called carcinogens.[/quote]

            Another “fake” expert? Nope!

            [i]Ames was born and raised in New York City. He is a graduate of the Bronx High School of Science. His undergraduate studies were at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, and his graduate studies were completed at the California Institute of Technology.

            Ames was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1970.

            He is a recipient of the Bolton S. Corson Medal in 1980, Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement in 1985, the Japan Prize in 1997, the National Medal of Science in 1998 and the Thomas Hunt Morgan Medal in 2004, among many others.

            [b]His research focuses on cancer and aging and he has authored over 500 scientific publications. [u]He is among the few hundred most-cited scientists in all fields[/u][/b].[/i]

            Clearly Drewski Pinocchio does not know what he is talking about, once again.

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            Broccoli is not a class 1 carcinogen but toluene and benzene are (plus scores more with unpronounceable names).

            And I see you are still going on about those dozen+ papers I gave you. Don’t you remember, those studies that the world’s peak science bodies accept as evidence but you say don’t exist?

            Dementia is a terrible thing. But I told you that simple physical activities like dousing can help. Why don’t you give Morner a call — he is an expert you know. And I know he needs a friend (his old organization has turned their back on him poor fellow).

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Gee, Pinocchio has the temerity to lie again about papers that do not exist, [u][i]again!
            [/i][/u]
            😀
            We know he is lying because he has had many opportunities to prove he is not a liar and yet has not once done so.

            Try again [i]liar[/i]?

            Now the liar wants us to believe [i]another lie[/i], this time about fracking.

            [quote]”If people say fracking is causing cancer, they don’t know what they’re talking about,” University of California at Berkeley scientist Bruce Ames [/quote]

            [quote]Ames was born and raised in New York City. He is a graduate of the Bronx High School of Science. His undergraduate studies were at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, and his graduate studies were completed at the California Institute of Technology.

            Ames was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1970.

            He is a recipient of the Bolton S. Corson Medal in 1980, Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement in 1985, the Japan Prize in 1997, the National Medal of Science in 1998 and the Thomas Hunt Morgan Medal in 2004, among many others.

            [u][i][b]His research focuses on cancer and aging and he has authored over 500 scientific publications. He is among the few hundred most-cited scientists in all fields[/b][/i][/u].[/quote]

            But the [b][u]liar[/u][/b] who has never been an expert on anything wants us to beleive [i]him[/i].

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            Once again green teeth, you got it wrong. I was merely pointing out that One Trick was lying when he said that frakking chemicals did not contain scores of chemicals (last count 600 have been discovered and many are classified class 1 carcinogens).

            Either lying or he doesn’t even know what happens in his own industry (hard to decide which is worse).

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Either lying or he doesn’t even know what happens in his own industry (hard to decide which is worse).[/quote]
            [img]https://thedrummondreport.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/home-img3.jpg[/img]
            Or… The most likely third option. Your both lying and don’t know what goes on in “my own industry”.

            (The Praxair tanks hold Nitrogen liquids. And open top tanks are not allowed to hold any chemicals harm full to wildlife. Especially hydrocarbons like benzene and toluene.)
            I see the trucks hauling water everyday. Most of it is pumped out of lakes and streams. Sometimes, if they are close they just set the pumps up and run hoses directly into the large “C” Ring tanks. It is then pumped into a series of tanks and manifolds and into the blenders, frack pumps and then down the well bore.

            No where in that chain is a plant that make “hundreds” of unpronounceable cancer causing chemicals. Why bother?

            Those are expensive to produce, and being a market based industry, they are trying to make a profit while they keep poor and elderly folks from freezing in the dark.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Once again green teeth, you got it wrong. I was merely pointing out that One Trick was lying when he said that frakking chemicals did not contain scores of chemicals (last count 600 have been discovered and many are classified class 1 carcinogens).[/quote] 😀

            Pinocchio is reduced to lies and insults, or what alarmists call [u]’settled science'[/u]!

            Pinocchio still cannot produce the papers he continues to crow about.

            Lie some more, and [i]then[/i] maybe we will believe you! 😀 😀 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Benzine? Used to make ethylbenzene, or gasoline?
            [quote]Benzene is a natural constituent of crude oil, and is one of the most elementary petrochemicals. Benzene is an aromatic hydrocarbon and the second [n]-annulene ([6]-annulene), a cyclic hydrocarbon with a continuous pi bond. It is sometimes abbreviated Ph–H. Benzene is a colorless and highly flammable liquid with a sweet smell. It is mainly used as a precursor to heavy chemicals, such as ethylbenzene and cumene, which are produced on a billion kilogram scale. Because it has a high octane number, it is an important component of gasoline, comprising a few percent of its mass. Most non-industrial applications have been limited by benzene’s carcinogenicity.[/quote] Where do you think it comes from idiotski? If some were to be injected into a crude oil bearing zone, oh well. It’s the same place as it originated from. The stuff in the well has all of those same chemicals your falsely claiming are being injected.

            We drill wells to find the stuff, injecting fuel oil is also a viable way to frack, even propane has been used with some success.

            We drill for all that nasty stuff because it is use full and has value.

            No one drills for the distilled pixie farts that powers your imaginary, utopian green energy.

          • Avatar

            prestigio

            |

            you lie
            are a proven liar
            umpteen times previous

            it’s history it matters
            regardless of
            your ignorance

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            SKOS,
            If liars reading lying articles by unqualified liars (sCeptics reading CCD) calls another a proven liar (Drewski) does the that make the accused truthful?

            Geez, that is a tough one, but one thing is for sure, it sure is getting hot (and we haven’t even had our El Nino yet!).

            I wonder what lies will be said in the lying articles read by the sub-intelligent liars when that happens?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Found even one alarmist model that has been validated yet?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Found even one peer reviewed paper refuting natural variability as the cause of recent or any global climate changes?

            Go ahead! Lie [i]again[/i] Pinocchio! 😀 😀 😀

            Day must be so very impressed with your insults and lies. But what do you expect from a person who lauds failure and deceit? 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Trying to say this paper said the exact opposite of what it did, by quoting from a fake paper is a lie Comrade.

            http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/14/millar-et-al-the-sierra-nevada-mwp/

            And that “fracking soup” as you call it is Water, gelling agent and sand. The company I work for deals with it every day. Your simply repeating leftist talking points.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]I am referring to, for example, when someone (I’m not saying me) explains how the greenhouse effect works in a conversation where it is very relevant, they are ignored or insulted and called a liar. [/quote] Backed by Math?

            [quote]The generally accepted amount of change is one degree Celsius of direct change for every doubling of carbon dioxide levels, and around three times that via positive feedback loops.[/quote]

            The first part is perhaps likely, but only if supported by empirical observations. This remains to be seen. It is also disputed by some of the IPCC’s own who say it’s a half a degree.
            [quote]Climate sensitivity is generally given as how much temperature rise would result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels. Using IPCC figures for radiative forcing, a doubling of CO2 would lead to a temperature rise of about half a degree (see “Another Look at Climate Sensitivity”).[/quote] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/16/another-look-at-climate-sensitivity/

            The second part regarding “positive feedbacks” has been refuted long ago.
            [quote]The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s.[/quote] http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        I “believe” that NOAA has fudged the climate data. They say so them selves!

        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/01/has-noaa-once-again-tried-to-adjust-data-to-match-climate-models/

        And what about ol Hansen? The granddaddy of serial data “adjusters”.

        “The next graph shows the 1920-1999 changes which Hansen made to the US temperature record since 1999 – in GISS version 3.”
        [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/screenhunter_137-jul-31-06-25.jpg[/img]

        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Actually Drewski I don’t think you want to get into false claims .
    I would agree that further work is needed and I am surprised that at this point claims like this would come to light .
    I would expect allegations to be fully vetted .
    Gross exaggeration to promote greater public reaction is an acknowledged tool of some scary global warming promoters and it has undermined a civil discussion .

    You could argue that the above article is the other side of the same coin and until proven you’d be right .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Drewski

      |

      “Booker asserted that the “wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record,” which these federal scientific agencies have “never plausibly explained,” appears to be “one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time”:

      And the source “evidence” for this amazing assertion? A blogger named Paul Homewood. And the peer-reviewed study that Paul Homewood cites? Well, there isn’t one.

      I think in the whole history of mankind, there haven’t been people more stupid than sCeptics.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        For someone who is so in love with peer reviewed papers, isn’t it odd you cannot find even one that refutes natural variability. But yet you will lie and say you can.

        Prove it.

        According to you, there are papers out there that disprove natural variability, papers not based upon models.

        You have the chance to prove you are not the liar we all know you are. I know how much you dislike me, so prove that I am lying about your claim.

        Do it, or accept that you are a liar.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Drewski

          |

          Natural variability exists — every knows that and always has. Everyone also knows (anyone with a brain that is) that our climate is warming beyond what is natural. 350 months where each and every month is warmer than the 20th century average is clearly UNnatural, losing 75% of arctic mass in 35 years is clearly UNnatural and changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere and oceans while simultaneously destroying vast swathes of carbon sinks is also UNnatural.

          Just as taking the word of unqualified people with fake studies, fake degrees, fake titles and fake names over experts in their respective fields is clearly (well, you know).

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            So you are a liar! Glad you have accepted your place in life.

            [quote]350 months where each and every month is warmer than the 20th century average is clearly UNnatural[/quote]

            What makes the 20th century ‘natural’? How do current temperatures compare to the RWP or the MWP? Cherry pick centuries much? 😀

            Would any of those 350 months be measured with fudged data? And don’t worry, the atmosphere is fine Chicken Little. Why you keep listening to that little boy crying wolf, I will never understand.

            [quote]Just as taking the word of unqualified people with fake studies, fake degrees, fake titles and fake names over experts in their respective fields is clearly (well, you know).[/quote]

            No no no! Let’s take all those failed models and fake temperatures and believe in them instead. 😀

            Actually Drewski. I take the IPCC at their word when they say that additional CO2 is meaningless where temperatures are concerned, and take them at their word that natural variability has never been disproven. I get that answer straight from your priests.

            So you have finally admitted that the ‘fake’ papers you claimed do not exist and that you will lie to try and win arguments. Good for you!

            Liars of a feather!

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]350 months where each and every month is warmer than the 20th century average [/quote] As claimed by NOAA?
            [quote]On Monday, we learned from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that last September was the hottest of them all, out of 135 Septembers going back to 1880. The same was true for August 2014. And June 2014. And May 2014.[/quote]

            Not after you remove the “adjustments” they made to the data to try showing a correlation with rising Co2.
            [quote]Up until now the adjustments have made no sense, because they didn’t appear to correlate to anything in the real world. But now we can see that they correlate almost perfectly with the amount of CO2 in atmosphere. Red below is CO2 and blue is the USHCN adjustments.[/quote]

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/just-how-bad-is-the-ushcn-data-tampering/

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/03/proof-that-us-warming-is-mann-made-part-2/#more-114124

            And what about the MWP? Which was at least 2-3 degrees warmer than today?

            Ahh those pesky Vikings growing grain in Greenland when you self loathing, lying leftists claim it was colder than today?

            Or those forests that were somehow growing under the massive glaciers that only receded because we dirty humans began to burn fossil fuels?

            Another lie you told Comrade Apparatchik-ski! Taking a quote from a FAKE paper and trying to claim it was from a real one you didn’t like. Tsk, Tsk…

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            Gator,
            Are you saying that I never accepted that the sun, volcanoes, or a change in the earth’s tilt (i.e. “natural” phenomenon) have an effect on the climate?

            Wow! You will make up anything to try and recover from your increasingly desperate logical fallacy.

            And, unbelievably, you actually believe the word of fakes who have never written a scientific study in their lives over highly experienced researchers representing most countries in the world and more than 2 dozen scientific fields and who also discuss their finding in an open forum.

            I am curious, when you recently did your time in lock up, did you get fed some bad drugs?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Noticed you STILL have not disproven you were lying about those Papers you never seem able to produce! drewLIEski! 😀

            Just another pathetic appeal to authority and more projection.
            [quote]Wow! You will make up anything to try and recover from your increasingly desperate logical fallacy. [/quote] Still no paper I see! 😥

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]And, unbelievably, you actually believe the word of fakes who have never written a scientific study in their lives over highly experienced researchers representing most countries in the world and more than 2 dozen scientific fields and who also discuss their finding in an open forum.[/quote] Open Forum? More like an echo chamber. That’s priceless! After they subverted the Peer Review process? And conspired to delete emails and with hold data that did not support the claims they were making?

            [quote]We have arrived at this point in history along the following path:

            (1) Steve wanted to replicate MBH98 and asked for data. Mann initially complied, but then began to obstruct.

            (2) Steve successfully obtained the needed data and demonstrated serious flaws in Mann’s approach.

            (3) Mann defended his work by saying that other Hockey Stick reconstructions validated his method and his conclusions.

            (4) Attention turned to replicating the other reconstructions. By now, the Team had become extremely defensive and a sort of bunker mentality took over. Years of obstruction followed.

            (5) Those seeking the data and methods used in the HS reconstructions became more and more aggressive, eventually turning to FOIA as a tool to pry loose the information.

            (6) Then “a miracle happened’. A file containing materials and emails requested under FOIA turned up on the internet. Most everyone would agree that the contents of the emails warranted an investigation. The only investigation that specifically looked into Mann’s conduct was undertaken by Penn State. Penn State cleared Mann noting that Mann stated:
            (a) he had never falsified any data, nor had he had ever manipulated data to serve a given predetermined outcome;
            (b) he never used inappropriate influence in reviewing papers by other scientists who disagreed with the conclusions of his science;
            (c) he never deleted emails at the behest of any other scientist, specifically including Dr. Phil Jones, and that he never withheld data with the intention of obstructing science; and
            (d) he never engaged in activities or behaviors that were inconsistent with accepted academic practices.

            (7) Critics have charged that the Penn State investigation was inadequate. Michael Mann has subsequently stated that he did, in fact, participate in an orchestrated effort to delete emails covered under FOIA, raising questions about the veracity of statements he made to the Penn State investigators. Penn State seems untroubled by this.
            [/quote]
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/02/manns-hockey-stick-climategate-and-foi-in-a-nutshell/

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Yep! That about sums it all up there for the gate keepers! 😆

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            Even you, One Trick, could participate on an IPCC forum. the Unlord has. And, of course, you rely on WUWT to be your validation. (I wonder what ever happened to that 2nd study of his — 3 years later and STILL not out of peer-review)

            I am curious, why don’t you just cite the backs of cereal boxes — they have about as much scientific validity as Goddard and Watts?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]I am curious, why don’t you just cite the backs of cereal boxes — they have about as much scientific validity as Goddard and Watts?[/quote]

            Why doesn’t Pinocchio produce the papers he claims to have?

            Because he is a liar, and on top of that this little liar has the audacity to smear those far better than he could ever hope to be.

            Cool Whip the Lying Cowboy rides his well stroked fallacies again! 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]I am curious, why don’t you just cite the backs of cereal boxes — they have about as much scientific validity as Goddard and Watts?[/quote] Yes they do. They can produce Papers that support their claims. You can’t.

            And your cLIEmate UNscientists only have fiddled data and models that failed the scientific method. Not one has made a skillful prediction! 😥

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Are you saying that I never accepted that the sun, volcanoes, or a change in the earth’s tilt (i.e. “natural” phenomenon) have an effect on the climate?[/quote]

            Oh look! Pinocchio is building another strawman. Watch Pinocchio knock him down!

            Go Pinocchio go! 😀

            Tune in tomorrow to see how Pinocchio obfuscates the facts again, and be amazed at how he runs away from his bogus claims over and over.

            Liars are just liars, and that’s all.

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Well why lower yourself to debate (argue & insult) us then ?
    There are plenty of scary global warming sites full of highly intelligent people and you could make better use of your time .
    I personally think it is so kind of you to share your point of view .

    ] us )

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    Cooking the books doesn’t hide the proof.

    CO2 (at any level that ever existed) has no significant effect on average global temperature. It is trivially easy, based only on existing CO2 and average global temperature measurement data-sets to prove it.

    Temperature responds gradually to a forcing. If CO2 is a forcing, a scale factor times average CO2 level times the duration divided by the effective thermal capacitance (consistent units) equals the temperature change of the duration. During previous glaciations and interglacials (as so dramatically displayed in An Inconvenient Truth) CO2 and temperature went up and down nearly together. This is impossible if CO2 is a significant forcing so this actually proves CO2 CHANGE DOES NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE.

    Application of this analysis methodology to CO2 levels for the entire Phanerozoic (Berner, 2001) proves that CO2 levels up to at least 6 times the present will have no significant effect on average global temperature.

    See more on this and discover the two factors that do cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900) at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com . The two factors which explain the last 300+ years of climate change are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Day

      |

      You would agree, of course, that greenhouse gases do indeed trap infrared radiation more efficiently than the oxygen and nitrogen that make up the majority of the atmosphere? And that humans are the cause of a large chunk of those, right? Seeing as those are both backed by math, I would think so.

      To be clear, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were almost definitely the reason that young Earth wasn’t frozen all the time. And they’re the reason Venus is incredibly warm, while Mercury, although closer to the Sun, is not. To say that greenhouse gases have no effect on the temperature of a planet is simply incorrect, as it can be observed on other planets as having a very significant effect.

      Also, I’m not really sure where your link is getting its information from. It seems to think there’d be a temperature increase from just sunspots? Sunspots are decreasing from a maximum they hit in the 1950s. The integral of sunspots (I’m assuming this isn’t some sort of made up thing) would decrease in its rate if there were fewer sunspots, but your link’s graph shows it accelerating. I don’t really think that makes a lot of mathematical sense, do you?

      The link you gave has 18 citations. Of those:

      8 are blogs, so… I mean, they’re blogs. That’s not really science now, is it?
      1 is basically a blog, but I feel like it’s different enough to not quiiiite label it as one. It’s just a biased article, pretty much.
      1 is a really old sheet with sunspot relationships with other planets that isn’t referenced anywhere, so it’s hardly a citation. That one confused me.
      1 is a paper (sort of?) by a guy named Barrett, which apparently a ton of other scientists called out because if his claims were true then Venus shouldn’t be as warm as it is.
      The remainder are data sets where the writer seems to have pulled his own conclusions from, as well as one that actually uses the hockey sticks’ data (since there are like twenty studies backing Mann now) in its first graph, only to alter the temperatures of the past few hundred years and make the hockey stick appear insignificant.

      The important thing to realize is that sunspot activity has been decreasing while your source has the integral of it increasing. So that should be a tip off that they’re doing something funny (to be clear, when I say “funny”, I mean wrong) with their integral. The strange thing to me is that you’re totally willing to cite that, which is essentially backed by one actual scientist (I think Barrett’s a scientist), while ignoring the fact that even he has been called out on those claims as they don’t actually match what we can observe in the solar system. Plus there’s a ton of data in those citations that actually backs AGW. That blog is a writer taking real climate data and skewing it to make it look how he wants.

      Also, your rationale is essentially “they were correlated, which means there CANNOT BE CAUSATION.” Excuse my use of caps, I was trying to imitate your comment. That doesn’t really make sense though, does it? They ran together for hundreds of thousands of years because of the positive and negative feedbacks on the Earth that were initiated by the Milankovitch cycles. When the temperature began to rise because of the Milankovitch cycles the carbon dioxide levels began to rise after a time lag, which then furthered the warming. This is fairly well documented.

      In essence, I’ve seen you cite that a couple times, and I just wanted to actually take a look at it. Since it’s always best to check sources, I did so, and honestly I wasn’t surprised to see how little science there was backing that. So basically, the greenhouse effect is real, it’s measurable, and it is far greater than what Barrett claims it to be. We are also the reason there are a lot more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I’ll let you draw your own conclusion from that, but I should think it would be pretty clear what that conclusion would be.

      Here is a good example of scientists explaining the greenhouse effect and solar cycles. Notice how the solar output, no matter what impression you may be under, varies by less than a tenth of a percent:

      http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/effect-of-sun-on-climate-faq.html#.VN1Ecmt5mK1

      Reply

      • Avatar

        prestigio

        |

        paragraph 2
        reveals your iq

        Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        Humans are only about 3.5% of Co2 emissions. Which might cause 0.02 C of warming.
        [quote]The public has been led to believe that increased carbon dioxide from human activities is causing a greenhouse effect that is heating the planet. But carbon dioxide comprises only 0.035% of our atmosphere and is a very weak greenhouse gas. Although it is widely blamed for greenhouse warming, it is not the only greenhouse gas, or even the most important. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas and accounts for at least 95% of any greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide accounts for only about 3%, with the remainder due to methane and several other gases.[/quote]

        “Manmade emissions of carbon dioxide were not significant before worldwide industrialization began in the 1940s. They have increased steadily since. Over 80% of the 20th century’s carbon dioxide increase occurred after 1940 — but most of the century’s temperature increase occurred before 1940! From 1940 until the mid-1970s, the climate also failed to behave according to the greenhouse hypothesis, as carbon dioxide was strongly increasing while global temperatures cooled. This cooling led to countless scare stories in the media about a new ice age commencing.”

        Day shuns these figures, but simply cites temperature-data— thereby committing the fallacy of attributing correlation to simple causation.

        Still waiting for him to produce a “modern” model that makes any skillful predictions. Of for him to quantify how much warming is due to man’s paltry 40% of 3.5% of 1.5 degrees of global temperatures– which is 0.02C

        Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        [quote]The remainder are data sets where the writer seems to have pulled his own conclusions from, as well as one that actually uses the hockey sticks’ data (since there are like twenty studies backing Mann now) in its first graph, only to alter the temperatures of the past few hundred years and make the hockey stick appear insignificant.[/quote] Actual historical and archeological artifacts refute Mann and the like twenty studies your claiming back Mann.
        http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland
        http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

        Then there’s the fact that most of those “studies” backing Mann used the same 12 trees and one outlier as Mann’s refuted graph.
        [quote]Half the Hockey Stick graphs depend on bristlecone pine temperature proxies, whose worthlessness has already been exposed. They were kept because the other HS graphs, which depend on Briffa’s Yamal larch treering series, could not be disproved. We now find that Briffa calibrated centuries of temperature records on the strength of 12 trees and one rogue outlier in particular. Such a small sample is scandalous; the non-release of this information for 9 years is scandalous; the use of this undisclosed data as crucial evidence for several more official HS graphs is scandalous. And not properly comparing tree ring evidence with local thermometers is the mother of all scandals[/quote]
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/

        Day! you also failed to answer my question regarding Muller’s evisceration of Mann here. What parts of the Scientific Method did Mann ignore?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Day

          |

          Let me be very clear. When I placed the reference to the hockey stick graph there, I was testing an idea I had. See, in my experience with this site, the users and staff tend to toss out things they don’t like. Maybe the evidence for it is overwhelming (that humans are the reason for carbon dioxide rising from 280 ppm to 400 ppm, for example, an idea you don’t seem to share even if it’s one of the most obvious things in this entire discussion), maybe the evidence is meh, maybe it’s backed by math (greenhouse gases absorbing infrared and inducing the greenhouse effect, which is, again, something many of you choose to ignore). Doesn’t really matter what it is, but it seems like you all try to just pick the things you like and ignore what you don’t want to hear. So I mentioned the hockey stick graph to sort of see what would happen.

          The hockey stick graph(s) were a portion of the temperature chart that was stitched together by the citation on that blog Dan has been mentioning. What that writer did was he took the graph and he squished the part between 10,000 and 2,000 years ago, slightly less squished the part between 2,000 and 150 years ago, and then reaaaaaally stretched out the part between 150 years ago and now. The result was even the hockey stick appearing to indicate a cyclical nature for the temperature, which we all agree is not at all how the graph actually appears.

          My point is this. “Skeptics” will do whatever they can to make whatever data set they can appear completely different than how they actually appear. Honestly, you’re defending the hockey stick when you try and defend Dan’s statement, seeing as it was used to make the conclusions in Dan’s blog post. You would say that scientists do the same thing, right? That they are the ones who skew data? Which is really offensive in itself, since it’s calling them all liars and claiming there’s some sort of mass conspiracy going on, but that’s besides the point. Why, then, do you have the skeptic community actually using the graphs they have vehemently thrown out? All he did was tweak the domain a bit (actually a lot) and he managed to make the hockey stick appear cyclical. Dan’s blog then noticed and claimed that exact thing, which Dan is now endorsing, and you are defending Dan.

          This is what I observe. I see you and Gator and Dan, and everyone else here using things like that to convey your points, even if you’re hardly paying attention to what you’re citing. This is what is frustrating. This is why you have people like drew and I, trying to explain to you what it is you are doing. Which is using rhetoric to attempt and discredit an entire scientific field, of course.

          See, you’re going to respond to this with something about models, or this or that, and you’re going to ask how that is rhetoric, and you’ll probably fit in some snide remarks about my intelligence. Who knows? The thing you have to realize is that when the scientific community says something, and the skeptic community throws back a hundred different things that overlap and contradict each other (temperature is a 120 year cycle, wait, it’s a 65 year cycle; “the hockey stick is wrong in every way, let’s alter it and make it look totally different even though it’s secretly the same data”) it undermines your point. I don’t think you notice this. I really don’t understand why. I’ve tried to make it clear, I explained how the greenhouse effect works (ignored except for being called a liar), I pointed out inconsistencies in your argument (which is getting attention, but it’s pretty much you all insulting my “iq” or calling me a liar), it just doesn’t seem to matter. Heck, I even said that Venus was much warmer than Mercury because its atmosphere is made up of almost entirely greenhouse gases and you guys are jumping all over me for it. It just doesn’t make sense to me how you can act like that.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            You resurrect the hockey stick claim regardless of validity ? You have no credibility.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Regarding the inner planets : you’re claiming cause and effect without proof.

          • Avatar

            Day

            |

            Actually, if you look really close JayPee (or just read past the first two sentences before posting a response), you’ll notice that it was the skeptic site that Dan was citing that was using the hockey stick you so despise. But like I said, you all seem to ignore the contradictions in your multifaceted and often unique arguments. I mean, I would think that you’d want to say that the skeptic is the one with no credibility, seeing as he was the one using it. But the way he did it, it sort of appeared to back up your beliefs, so I guess that made it alright (this is sarcasm).

            Still waiting on you to admit that the greenhouse effect is real because of the way greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, by the way. I didn’t appreciate you calling me a liar about something that’s literally backed by math.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Many times previous I’ve said there is no ghe. Comprendez-vous Anglaise ?

          • Avatar

            Day

            |

            If I may ask, what is your hypothesis for why Venus is much warmer than Mercury? Since you don’t think it’s greenhouse gases, is there something else making Venus warmer? I don’t think you have an actual alternative. I think you’re just, as I stated above, spouting rhetoric.

            Let me remind you, Mercury lacks an atmosphere because it’s so close to the Sun. Venus doesn’t have that problem. On the contrary, its atmosphere is incredibly dense (with a surface pressure of 9.2 MPa) and made almost exclusively of carbon dioxide (96.5%). These are observations backed by physics and the fact that we have actually sent some probes there. It’s not made up. You continuously treat it as though it is.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            The pressure has nothing to do with it?
            [quote]So, in spite of the surface temperature of Venus being on the order of 864 degrees Fahrenheit, and the Venusian surface pressure being on the order of 90 earth atmospheres, there is a region in the Venusian atmosphere which approximates that of earth at sea level with respect to temperature and pressure.[/quote] “These first two graphs (before my additions and extensions), were originally published by J.M. Jenkins, P. G. Steffes, D.P. Hinson, J.D. Twicken, and G.L. Tyler in their article, Radio Occultation Studies of the Venus Atmosphere with the Magellan Spacecraft, Icarus, Vol. 110, 79-94, 1994.”
            http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            All that verbal effluence and your still not answering my questions!

            Do I care that some guy named Dan used a squashed version of a completely refuted Graph? Did you forget to watch this and answer the question posed to you Day? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

            A graph refuted by empirical observations and archeological records your “choosing” to ignore?
            [quote] Actual historical and archeological artifacts refute Mann and the like twenty studies your claiming back Mann.
            http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland
            http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html [/quote]

            How does a 1000 year old FOREST grow under what is today a glacier if it was not warmer during that period?

            Here we see you projecting Day! [quote] Which is using rhetoric to attempt and discredit an entire scientific field, of course.[/quote]
            All you do is use rhetoric. Still waiting for you to admit you simply made up the claim those failed models were from the 70’s.

            Still waiting for you to produce a single “modern” model that has made a even a single correct prediction… Not that a single correct prediction would validate a model. For a model to be validated it would have to not have made a single prediction that was incorrect.

            Still waiting for you to quantify man’s meager contribution to Co2 levels.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]The thing you have to realize is that when the scientific community says something, and the skeptic community throws back a hundred different things that overlap and contradict each other (temperature is a 120 year cycle, wait, it’s a 65 year cycle…[/quote] You think there is only one temperature cycle at work?

            Paper based upon empirical observations, sediment cores and many other published papers. Show there are many different “temperature cycles” on a global scale in play.

            http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes_and_Fish_Productivity.pdf

            There are cycles within cycles, so whatever.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Oh! and Day! there are a ton of graphs in that paper. See if you can find any that resemble a “hockey stick”.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Amirlach, for them there is only one cycle, the [i]spin[/i] cycle. 😀

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    Day –
    1. If you understood calculus you would know that the time integral of a positive function can only increase.
    2. If you understood thermodynamics you would know how pressure and temperature change together with altitude change in a planet atmosphere.
    3. If you had any science skill you might be able to understand the simple proof in my Feb 12 post that CO2 CHANGE DOES NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE.
    4. If you had bothered to check the references in the agwunveiled paper, you would have discovered that they all ultimately trace back to accepted data published by NOAA, UAH, NASA, GISS, Hadley Centre, RSS. I used ALL available credible data.
    5. I did NOT use Mann’s assessment in any way, shape or form.
    6. The only ghg that has a significant effect on average global temperature is water vapor.
    7. Water vapor has about 60,000 absorption ‘opportunities’ for each one from added CO2. (See why in ‘agwunveiled’).
    8. If you had any knowledge in climate science you would know that O2 and N2 don’t absorb IR at all.
    9. If you understood the rudiments of quantum mechanics and molecular kinetics you might be aware that ghg do not ‘trap’ IR but they absorb it, sometimes emit it and sometimes transfer the energy to the rest of the atmosphere by thermalization. The energy in O2 and N2 molecules must be reverse-thermalized back to ghg to be radiated from the planet.
    10. You make the same mistake as most others have made in only looking at the peaks of the solar cycles. The duration of a cycle is just as important as the magnitude and the time-integral takes both into account. The time-integral also results from application of the first law of thermodynamics which produced the equation which has 95% correlation with measurements since before 1900.

    11. I did not use TSI at all. Any influence from TSI must find room in the unexplained 9.5% along with everything else not specifically considered.

    I could go on.

    You have been deceived by people who’s paychecks depend on keeping the politicians deceived so the grants continue and by others whose motivation is to spread the wealth around.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Day

      |

      Sigh…

      1) When a function is decreasing, its integral’s rate of increase also decreases. That’s what an integral is. I’m well aware of how calculus works, don’t try to act like that graph made sense. The number of sunspots has been decreasing, so therefore the integral of them would be increasing at a slower rate. This should have been very clear to anyone who understands Calc.

      2) I don’t see how this is relevant, but alright. I don’t really appreciate the shots fired at my thermo knowledge, but that’s cool, whatever.

      3) So you don’t think that a 40+% increase in carbon dioxide, which stays in the atmosphere for about 5,000 times as long as water vapor (100 years versus about a week), can have anything to do with the amount of radiation that’s captured by the atmosphere? Scientists are only talking about a 1% increase in the Earth’s temperature, don’t you think that increasing the gas that’s responsible for Venus’ temperatures by over 50% (which we’ll go way past in the coming years) might impact temperatures by a single percent?

      4) Blogs are not credible sources of information. The sources which should have been credible were irrelevant or mutilated the data.

      5) Your blog cited it. So, I mean, yeah you did. Go to your blog (again, it’s a blog. A blog.) and check reference 15. It’s literally right there on page 2, all scrunched up and contorted. It’s funny, a page or two later that reference starts complaining about the hockey stick, even though it used it right before. It doesn’t appear obvious, but that’s what it is.

      6) Venus would beg to differ. That’s a pretty clear example of a different greenhouse gas heating a planet to the point where lead melts on its surface. It’s no different from Earth, except our levels happen to be lower.

      7) See number 3. The carbon dioxide’s there for a lot longer. Besides, it isn’t what absorbs more, it’s what knocks the Earth out of balance. You all like to point out how humans emit a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide emitted each year. This is true, but the carbon emitted by humans is unnatural, and the natural cycles don’t account for it, which is why we see the massive increase in carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuels.

      8) I said that. A few times. That’s literally the point I’ve been trying to make. How on Earth are you using that as a bad thing to list against me? 0_o

      9) It’s like you guys ignore me completely. I just don’t get it. I have been trying to make this point for days, and now you all of a sudden act like you knew all along, and I’m the one ignoring the facts. Why do you guys do this?

      10) Please, please, see number 1. If the cycle is decreasing, its integral’s rate of increase is decreasing. And honestly, that integral did actually show a decrease until 1700 and again between 1800 and 1830. You’re telling me I don’t know how integral’s work while demonstrating that you don’t know yourself. Look, I don’t know where you’re coming up with these retorts, but I don’t think it’s a great source.

      11) If the argument that it’s entirely the Sun causing the change in temperatures is to be considered valid, then then Sun’s output would have had to have showed significant changes that correlate to the observed warming. Which isn’t the case. So you’re ignoring the basis of one of your arguments, essentially.

      Look, I have no idea why you and everyone else here thinks everybody else has been deceived. Your arguments are so contradictory that I find it hard to believe you can all follow them. Each of you seems to have your own version of why nearly the entire scientific community is more corrupt that the oil industry or congress. The most confusing one for me is when you all swap between the “it’s not warming because the scientists lied about the data” and “the recent warming is explainable by natural variations.” That alone should indicate something somewhere is screwed up, but the arguments persist, while science buries them more all the time.

      In particular though, I really don’t appreciate all your implications of me not understanding the physics or chemistry of the climate. I’m not going to cite credentials, since I don’t have any way to prove them, but I can tell you that I’m well versed in the topic you’ve claimed I apparently know nothing about. Seriously, the calculus accusation just confuses me. It’s not even advanced calculus. It’s an integral.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        After Dan’s thrashing of Day, this seems appropriate, reconfirmation that skeptics are more knowledgeable on climate.

        [i]Are global warming skeptics simply ignorant about climate science?

        Not so, says a forthcoming paper in the journal [b]Advances in Political Psychology by Yale Professor Dan Kahan[/b]. He finds that skeptics score about the same (in fact slightly better) on climate science questions.

        The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.

        On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.

        One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would “increase the risk of skin cancer.” Skeptics were more likely than believers to know that is false.

        Skeptics were also more likely to correctly say that if the North Pole icecap melted, global sea levels would not rise. One can test this with a glass of water and an ice cube – the water level will not change after the ice melts. Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land. [/i]

        Even with misleading questions, the skeptics outscore the sheep, every time.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        I was going to let Dan point this out, but since he did not consider it worthy of discussion, I will illuminate yet another IPCC fallacy.

        [quote]The carbon dioxide’s there for a lot longer[/quote]

        No it isn’t. When I was a climatology student, everyone agreed that CO2 residency was only 5-7 years, then along came the scammers.

        [img]https://mail.aol.com/webmail/getPart?uid=31268760&partId=2.2&saveAs=co2_residence_times.png[/img]

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          Clearly the IPCC is not even trying to be honest in their assessments.

          Fake feedback loops.

          Fake data.

          Fake residency times.

          Fake doomsday predictions.

          Failed models 100% of the time.

          Day, do you know what the IPCC charter is? Hint: It is not about seeking truth.

          Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        [quote]) It’s like you guys ignore me completely. I just don’t get it. I have been trying to make this point for days, and now you all of a sudden act like you knew all along, and I’m the one ignoring the facts. Why do you guys do this?[/quote]

        Why do you keep trying to point out completely irrelevant things while ignoring all of the questions posed to you Day?

        Most of us agree there will be some warming from increased Co2, where we disagree with you warmists is in regards to your catastrophic projections. Which are based upon false assumptions programed into those invalidated Models you keep IGNORING!

        So get busy and answer those questions you keep dodging!

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    1) The integral is shown in Figure 2 of the agwunveiled paper. It’s the area under the solar cycle ‘curve’. The solar cycle peaks declined but the area under the curve began increasing more rapidly in about 1941. Download the sunspot numbers and do the integration yourself. You can get annual numerical data 1700-2009 at http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/GISS/spots.txt
    2) That is for people who don’t understand that the surface temperature on Venus has to be high because the pressure is high. As altitude goes down pressure goes up and temperature goes up because of isentropic compression.
    3) CO2 has no significant effect on average global temperature (AGT). If you could follow my Feb post (or the somewhat more extensive description in agwunveiled) you should be able to see why. Since 2001 the CO2 level has increased by 31.8 % of the increase from 1800-2001 while the AGT trend (average of the five reporting agencies) has been flat.
    4) The data was used as reported. The several sources were averaged to avoid bias.
    5) I have no idea what you are ranting about. The agwunveiled paper doesn’t even have page numbers. Ref. 15 is to the CLOUD experiment.
    6) On earth, the CO2 is a trace gas in mostly non terrestrial radiation absorbing atmosphere.
    7) It doesn’t matter how long it stays in the atmosphere because it has no effect on AGT. Added CO2 does improve plant growth.

    “massive increase in carbon dioxide levels” The CO2 level has increased from about 3 parts in 10,000 to 4 parts in 10,000. You call that “massive”?
    8) You chose the words “more efficiently”. Apparently you are correcting that to “while N2 and O2 don’t absorb terrestrial radiation at all”.
    9) Are you aware that the time-integral of a forcing is an energy change?

    Are you aware that energy change times a scale factor gives a temperature change?

    Is it clear that if the forcing and temperature go up and down nearly together that the temperature can not be a scale factor times the time integral of the forcing?

    If your answer to any of these is no, your science skill sucks. If you answered yes to all of them you have just proven that CO2 has no significant effect on climate
    10) See comment at 1).
    11) Read agwunveiled, all of it, including the references and sub references. It is not “entirely the sun”. In fact (this appears very difficult for warmers to grasp) it is not change in the suns radiation at all. The correlation is with the sunspot number anomaly time-integral. When combined with an approximation of ocean cycles, the correlation is 95%. A likely explanation of why this works is in agwunveiled with more at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com

    I missed the word ‘rate’ in your earlier post or I would have answered differently. I apologize for that but the response in this post holds.

    I only speak for myself and my analysis is correct. All methods and data sources are provided so you can check anything and everything.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    prestigio

    |

    this is about the
    5th time that

    on-gee-ess-kee
    is not only denounced
    but proven
    a liar

    how many more times
    must this happen

    before he realizes
    he’s a jerk

    or

    we realize
    he’s a jerk

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Great summary Dan !
    Of the points outlined which do you think the scientific community agree on without reservation and which ones are the most in dispute ?
    It seems in most major disputes it usually comes down to very few things creating the divide.
    I may be completely misunderstanding the situation but it seems at the end of the day it really is far less about science and more about an attempt to change human behaviour for political or personal gain .
    Climate model programmers have had others hold them out as having the scientific proof that scary global warming is something we should all be frightened of .When in fact the climate modellers are well aware there are far to many natural and human caused variables to consider
    before they could make any credible declarations .
    That is why the models have been proven to be highly inaccurate to the point being useless at predicting changes in temperature .

    The all too frequent reference to “the scientists tell me ” is pure and simple cover for people who have their own agenda as is becoming increasingly apparent .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    Amber – Thanks for the compliment.
    IMO about the only thing that all should agree on is that CO2 is a trace gas in earth’s atmosphere.

    The most in dispute is whether CO2 increase has significant effect on climate or weather.

    I have not found where anyone else noticed the ‘time-integral’ proof that CO2 does not effect average global temperature (AGT). Because it does not drive AGT, it does not drive temperature anywhere. If CO2 doesn’t drive temperature, it has no effect on weather.

    I describe some of the issues with the climate models at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com
    A lot of paychecks depend on not noticing why the uncertainty in the output of these programs increases with iterations and becomes useless within a few days.

    Humanity has wasted over a trillion dollars in failed attempts using super computers to demonstrate that added atmospheric CO2 is a primary cause of global warming and in misguided activities to try to do something about it. The AGW mistake won’t go down easy, but it will go down.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.