Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[andypro7]

And who does the reporter list out of the hundreds? sampled - 7 people, 4 of them climate scientists and so probably in that 97%

Wow, you're dumb as a post.

OF COURSE they are in the fake 97%. That's my whole point.

Let me go again slowly, if you still can't understand, find an adult.

Scientists who were LISTED IN COOK ET AL, as believing in CAGW, by Cook, have come out and said that Cook lied about them. He lied about their work, he lied about what they said, he lied about what they believed.

And the reason he lied:
SO HE COULD CREATE THE FAKE 97% that you love so much.

So, who is lying here? Cook, or those scientists?

Please answer the question, no more insane, anti-science rambling

 

[RealityCheck01]

...97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
..
.Craig D. Idso: "An outspoken global warming skeptic ..."
...

What is the endorsement level of that paper: Endorsement Level: 3. Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it.
What does Idso think it is: ". It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."
What he missed out was implicit. The actual paper concludes that 2 of the 7 days of advancing spring could be attributed to non-AGW effects, i.e. implicitly endorses AGW.

Why is Idso not complaining about his other 17 paper in the Consensus Project, andypro7?
Is Idso implicitly stating that the classification is correct 17 out of 18 times ?

 

[andypro7]

12th March 2015 andypro7: Please link to the analysis of the thousands of papers that MWP Project did (that is not an interactive map!).

I already linked to the site that comprised the papers, the authors themselves, and the research institutions that made up this scientific study.

Then you denied the science.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...sniped rant...

Leaving nothing except no answers as usual, andypro7:
15th March 2015 andypro7: Please cite the analysis that shows that the Cook et al. results are wrong.


What s surprise : Six outstanding questions (from 3 March 2015) for and 5 points of ignorance from andypro7

 

[sculleywr]

Fine, as soon as you answer just one simple question, and then we can move on: Who do think is more trustworthy, Cook, or the scientists that say that Cook lied about their position? Simple question.

simple answer:
I don't give a toot about Cook. I care about the long run and the rest of the hundreds of data sources that we have at our disposal. All of which say that if we look at the last 2000 years, there is a major hockey stick in the last two centuries.

 

[RealityCheck01]

12th March 2015 andypro7: Please link to the analysis of the thousands of papers that MWP Project did (that is not an interactive map!).

Then you denied the science.

That is so wrong, andypro7: You have cited no science that shows that the MWP was global and warmer than today thus my question:
12th March 2015 andypro7: Please link to the analysis of the thousands of papers that MWP Project did (that is not an interactive map!).


I know that there are many papers about the MWP.
I know that the MWP Project list many of these papers (maybe all of them). You do not have to endlessly repeat this as if I were too stupid to read about the MWP Project !

Our Medieval Warm Period Project is an ongoing effort to document the magnitude and spatial and temporal distributions of a significant period of warmth that occurred approximately one thousand years ago. Its purpose is to ultimately determine if the Medieval Warm Period (1) was or was not global in extent, (2) was less warm than, equally as warm as, or even warmer than the Current Warm Period, and (3) was longer or shorter than the Current Warm Period has been to date.

Unfortunately the authors seem to be want to just keep on adding to the list if without ever anything else with what they have.

I have seen somewhere where they do a very simple and wrong analysis - I wonder if you can find it and see where they go wrong (hints: global + science gets better at doing what it does ), andypro7.

 

[andypro7]

Leaving nothing except no answers as usual, andypro7:
15th March 2015 andypro7: Please cite the analysis that shows that the Cook et al. results are wrong.

You already know of the multiple lies that Cook told. I've left you to make the analysis. Please do, and stop avoiding the question:


So, who is lying here? Cook, or those scientists?

You tell me. YOU keep saying that there is this 97% consensus, and I see that we've now caught Cook in SEVERAL LIES about the scientists involved.

If you want to keep using your lying, fraudulent, fake, hockey-sticked consensus, we have to know who is telling the truth. So....


So, who is lying here? Cook, or those scientists?

Or is it that you just don't care if these people lie, as long as they lie the way you want them to?

 

[sculleywr]

You already know of the multiple lies that Cook told. I've left you to make the analysis. Please do, and stop avoiding the question: So, who is lying here? Cook, or those scientists? You tell me. YOU keep saying that there is this 97% consensus, and I see that we've now caught Cook in SEVERAL LIES about the scientists involved. If you want to keep using your lying, fraudulent, fake, hockey-sticked consensus, we have to know who is telling the truth. So.... So, who is lying here? Cook, or those scientists? Or is it that you just don't care if these people lie, as long as they lie the way you want them to?

Andy, how about neither? Neither statement matters. Agreement and consensus are only formalities when the data shows that the earth is warming in the last two centuries faster than in the last two millennia.

Ice cores, tree rings, and written records are in consensus, and geological and historical records agree that the climate was cooler in the medieval times than today. The existence of animals like the Pika in tiny environment islands, in places that they could never have existed if there were a warming period, is evidence against it. So is the report that Greece maintained a thriving grape harvest, despite the fact that it is getting harder to grow grapes now than ever before. In fact, there is very little historical agreement with the existence of said warming period, and if it were going according to the natural record, the medieval times should have been around the cooler times in our history.

And before you say there wasn't a lot of historical record, note that the Eastern Roman Empire did not experience a dark ages.

 

[andypro7]

Andy, how about neither? Neither statement matters. Agreement and consensus are only formalities when the data shows that the earth is warming in the last two centuries faster than in the last two millennia.

Ice cores, tree rings, and written records are in consensus, and geological and historical records agree that the climate was cooler in the medieval times than today. The existence of animals like the Pika in tiny environment islands, in places that they could never have existed if there were a warming period, is evidence against it. So is the report that Greece maintained a thriving grape harvest, despite the fact that it is getting harder to grow grapes now than ever before. In fact, there is very little historical agreement with the existence of said warming period, and if it were going according to the natural record, the medieval times should have been around the cooler times in our history.

And before you say there wasn't a lot of historical record, note that the Eastern Roman Empire did not experience a dark ages.

All true.

Except for the collected peer reviewed work of over 1000 scientists and over 600 research institutions that prove that the MWP was warmer than today and was global.

Written records are pretty much in agreement that it was pretty darn warm. Tree rings have been proven 'unreliable' by Michael Mann who refused to use them because the were unreliable and replaced them with a hockey stick.

As for ice cores (it should be noted that Greenland ice cores pretty much march in lockstep with global temps over the last century, which is why they are pretty decent proxies)

All means nothing to you, I'm sure. But me, I like science.

 

[[serious]]

All true.

Except for the collected peer reviewed work of over 1000 scientists and over 600 research institutions that prove that the MWP was warmer than today and was global.

Written records are pretty much in agreement that it was pretty darn warm. Tree rings have been proven 'unreliable' by Michael Mann who refused to use them because the were unreliable and replaced them with a hockey stick.

As for ice cores (it should be noted that Greenland ice cores pretty much march in lockstep with global temps over the last century, which is why they are pretty decent proxies)

All means nothing to you, I'm sure. But me, I like science.

I notice that your graph stops at about 100 years ago. Let's see if we can't find one that includes the last hundred years...

Well, one way to get rid of the hockey stick is to just stop when the hockey stick starts...

 

[stevevw]

I dont know about all the statistical data debate to show whether global warming or climate change is really happening or not. I just look at what is actually happening with the whether. We got hit here in Australia with several big storms in the last few weeks. A massive cat 5 cyclone hit the coast in North Qld about 4 weeks ago. At the same time another hit the Northern territory and the WA coast. One just hit Vanuatu an island near Australia which is said to be the biggest in their history and another is heading for NZ. At the same time we have another cyclone forming up the north coast of Qld again. We have been getting more and more massive cyclones in the last few years. Some look as big as small countries and I wouldn't be surprised if they keep getting bigger and more severe. This is the reality of climate change and its having an effect on people and their lives destroying their homes and towns.
Cyclone Pam hits Vanuatu and New Zealand is next
Tropical Cyclone Marcia: Storm due to hit Queensland as category five system - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[andypro7]

This is the reality of climate change and its having an effect on people and their lives destroying their homes and towns.
Cyclone Pam hits Vanuatu and New Zealand is next
Tropical Cyclone Marcia: Storm due to hit Queensland as category five system - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Yea, the REALITY is that in fact, extreme weather events have gone down in recent years, despite what the warmists would have you believe. When every hurricane, tornado, and warm spring day is trumpeted in the media and blamed on global warming, you start to think that it's actually happening.

Did you know that we haven't had a cat 3 hurricane make landfall in the United States since 2005? That's the longest stretch since the mid 1800s. THAT is reality. And worldwide, extreme weather events have come in lower than average over the last decade.

In order to prove that extreme weather events are due to global warming, you'd have to show that they are increasing and WAY above normal. There is not data that shows that, as a matter of fact, it's just the opposite.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You already know of the multiple lies that Cook told.

I only know about the possible lies about the Cook et al paper you are spreading, andypro7. Which is why I want the truth:
15th March 2015 andypro7: Please cite the analysis that shows that the Cook et al. results are wrong.

Six outstanding questions (from 3 March 2015) for and 5 points of ignorance from andypro7

 

[RealityCheck01]

But me, I like science.

Then why are you spreading a lie about science with that image, andypro7?
The GISS data cannot be used to compare the current globale temperatures to the MWP because it stops in 1855 and is local. The image even has the start date as 95 years in the past from the paleoclimate 'present' which is by convention 1950. !

Six outstanding questions (from 3 March 2015) for and 5 points of ignorance from andypro7 includes
9th March 2015 andypro7: The GISP2 ice core was drilled in 1993, is local and starts in 1855 (top of the ice core)!

And why are you lying about the MWP Project with "Except for the collected peer reviewed work of over 1000 scientists and over 600 research institutions that prove that the MWP was warmer than today and was global." because you cannot answer:
12th March 2015 andypro7: Please link to the analysis of the thousands of papers that MWP Project did (that is not an interactive map!).


And then there is:

I have seen somewhere where they do a very simple and wrong analysis - I wonder if you can find it and see where they go wrong (hints: global + science gets better at doing what it does ), andypro7.

An inability to answer this would suggest that all you know about the MWP Project is the interesting and irrelevant map of local MWP temperatures from many papers.

15th March 2015 andypro7: Do you know that the MWP Project has one (and only one so far) simple and wrong quantitative analysis of the MWP papers?

 

[RealityCheck01]

I notice that your graph stops at about 100 years ago.

It is worse than that, serious - the paleoclimate 'present' is by convention 1950 so that 95 is actually 1855!
Heartland’s Big Book Of Lies About Climate Change cuts no ice, thanks to Don Easterbrook Gareth Renowden Nov 04

...
I first encountered that graph in an article of Easterbrook’s — Magnitude and rate of climate changes — posted at µWatts in January 2011. As I pointed out at the time, there are numerous errors in Easterbrook’s analysis of the GISP2 data — and one of them is made explicit in this two and half year old chart. If you want the full details, refer to my older post and its antecedents, but Easterbrook’s legend for the time series refers to “years before present (2000 AD)”. Unfortunately, the “present” in the time series he’s using is defined by long standing convention as 1950. This was pointed out to him at the time, both by me and in the comments under his article at µWatts. He can have no excuse, other than shoddy scholarship, for simply reusing the graph without correcting the error.

I suspect that this is may to do with C14 dating and the advent of nuclear testing.

ETA: And even worse: andypro7 cannot grasp the simple fact that Greenland is not the entire world! Those are not global temperatures - they are the temperatures of a big island covered in ice with its own local climate affected by many factors.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yea, the REALITY is that in fact, extreme weather events have gone down in recent years, ...

No, andypro7, the REALITY is that this is an unsupported assertion from you !

16th March 2015 andypro7: Please cite the scientific literature showing that extreme weather events have gone down in "recent" years (that would be over the last 30 years for climate trends).

One way to track droughts in the western USA is to count the number of wildfires and see what happens with time. See The Age of Western Wildfires (2012 blog) and note the increase in wildfires

Compared to the average year in the 1970’s, in the past decade there were:
* 7 times more fires greater than 10,000 acres each year
* Nearly 5 times more fires larger than 25,000 acres each year
* Twice as many fires over 1,000 acres each year, with an average of more than 100 per year from 2002 through 2011, compared with less than 50 during the 1970’s.

What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?

It is unclear whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency but there is increasing evidence that warming increases hurricane intensity.

 

[Loudmouth]

As far as what the consensus is, I prefer this paper:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

"Results are presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was unique in its size, broadness and level of detail. Consistent with other research, we found that, as the level of expertise in climate science grew, so too did the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming. "

They were explicitly asked if anthropogenic greenhouse gases were the dominant driver, and 90% of scientists with 10 or more publications said yes, it is the dominant driver.

 

[andypro7]

As far as what the consensus is, I prefer this paper:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

"Results are presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was unique in its size, broadness and level of detail. Consistent with other research, we found that, as the level of expertise in climate science grew, so too did the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming. "

They were explicitly asked if anthropogenic greenhouse gases were the dominant driver, and 90% of scientists with 10 or more publications said yes, it is the dominant driver.

Who cares?

I've already shown that Cook LIED about SEVERAL scientists in order to get his fake 97% number.

You guys don't care if someone on your side lies and presents it as science, and then you yourselves, even though you know it's a lie, keep spreading it.

There's no use trying to talk science with people who believe that way.

 

[Loudmouth]

Who cares?

You care, obviously. You are trying to run away from the fact that there is a consensus among published climatologists that there is warming, and that humans are the major driver of that warming.

You guys don't care if someone on your side lies and presents it as science, and then you yourselves, even though you know it's a lie, keep spreading it.

A blog post focusing on a handful of scientists out of thousands is hardly support for calling something a lie.

 

[andypro7]

You care, obviously. You are trying to run away from the fact that there is a consensus among published climatologists that there is warming, and that humans are the major driver of that warming.



A blog post focusing on a handful of scientists out of thousands is hardly support for calling something a lie.

Well someone is lying. Either Cook is lying when he counts them as part of the 97%, or they are lying.

You tell me which one is lying.