Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[RealityCheck01]

Where in your postgraduate work did they tell you to source people who are know liars who attack hard-working scientists?

Nowhere. I learned to cite the scientific literature. I leaned to read the scientific literature (you may want to do that sometime, andypro7 ). I learned to evaluate the scientific literature. I learned how to recognize a good review of the scientific literature.

Where in your learning about mathematics did you learn that insulting people as liars is a substitute for learning about what they actually say about science, andypro7?

P.S.
Just because people are hard working does not meant that they are right!
Just because people are climate or other scientists does not meant that they are right!
What makes the work of a scientist correct starts with them publishing their science in a peer reviewed journal.

 

[andypro7]

The Idso family business has turned into a climate change denial paper mill.

It's that type of statement that let's me know there's no chance at having a rational discussion. You see, when you call the other side that disagrees with you 'climate change deniers', you've set up a system whereby if you happen to be wrong about the issue, you'll never be able to find out, since anyone who has information that can help you see the truth is marginalized by you as being a 'denier'. You can do what you want, but that's no way to learn.

I'm arguing that humans, as a species, need to develop methods to eventually wean ourselves off these things and develop alternatives. And, we need to do it quickly.

Why, exactly? Especially why 'quickly'?

The US, as the world's major industrial power, SHOULD be leading these efforts. Its energy companies SHOULD be seeing business opportunities in renewable energy markets and new technologies. They SHOULD be afraid of the long-term outcomes of climate change on their businesses.

Again, why exactly? Cause you say so?

That's why its independent scientists and government organisations that are leading on this. Because they have the necessary perspective, not in quarters, or years, but decades or longer.

Unless of course they're wrong about global warming. But, as I mentioned at the top, you've set up a scenario where there is no way you could ever know that. So, in that way, I understand your concern. And yes, government organizations is almost always the best way to go...said no one ever.

What humans are doing to our climate is going now is going to affect human civilisation for CENTURIES to come. We've sailed past 400 million ppm CO2 concentration and its increasing at a rate of 2 million ppm.

NOW I see why you are so concerned. Since, as I've already shown you've made it impossible to learn, you heard somewhere that it's 400 MILLION ppm. Uh, no, the 'denier' number is 400 ppm, not 400 MILLION ppm. To put that in perspective, in 1985 the atm. concentration was .00035, now it's .00040. RUN FOR THE HILLS!

Stop sticking your head in the fast-warming sand and shouting 'lalalalala, I can't hear you" and get on the team that's bloody well trying to do something positive.

How do you define 'fast-warming'? If there has been no statistical global warming since 1996, how fast is that exactly? I mean scientifically. CO2 has increased roughly 10% since then, but temps have remained flat. Sticking YOU head in the non-warming sand won't change those facts

 

[andypro7]

The question about the MWP that is still outstanding was: was it global?

That's what the MWP project is all about.

See, here's how it worked.

Let's say in 1994, some guy used xxx temp reconstruction method and found that it was way warmer during the MWP than now in Greenland. He presents his data, gets it peer reviewed and published.

Then, someone says, "Hey, look, the MWP was real". And then the global warming zombies say "Sure, in Greenland, but not everywhere - no MWP"

So, then in 1997, a bunch of other guys use xxx temp reconstruction method and found that it was way warmer in the MWP in New Zealand. He presents his data, and it gets peer reviewed and published.

Then of course, the global warming believers say, "Sure, it was warmer in New Zealand, but not everywhere - no MWP".

And then, in 1998, in China.....hopefully you can see where this is going.

For years after the hockey stick fraud, those who perpetrated it had to DENY the MWP, and there excuse was always, "Sure, HERE it was warmer, but it wasn't global"

Enter the MWP Project. They compiled all the peer reviewed papers that had been published and started making a map of all the studies, literature, etc etc that showed the MWP was warmer in certain parts of the globe.

Eventually, when they had compiled enough info that said it was warmer during the MWP in North America, and South America, and Asia, and Australia, and everywhere else in between, they came to the conclusion that the MWP was much warmer than today, and it was much warmer just about everywhere. (which incidentally was the OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS of science up until the hockey stick fraud).

Not only that, but we have writings dating back to that time, and the vast majority of those at-the-time-current writings suggest a world a lot warmer than today.

Now a serious question, since you specifically asked if it was global:
If you really wanted an honest answer to that question, wouldn't the way the MWP Project did it be EXACTLY how you would want it done? Taking work from hundreds of non-coordinating sources and non-agendas sources that had already passed peer review?

And did you ever ask yourself this: Why isn't there a website that has hundreds of peer reviewed papers covering areas from all over the world that show that it was cooler during the MWP? You don't have to ask yourself, I'll tell you: because they don't exist.

Look, you can see it on this thread. The general response to the findings of the MWP is NOT, "hey, here's the peer reviewed science that disagrees", but rather, "Boo! Funded by Exxon" "Boo, crazy deniers".

That in itself is pretty telling. I mean, IF you want to know the truth.

 

[andypro7]

Where in your learning about mathematics did you learn that insulting people as liars is a substitute for learning about what they actually say about science, andypro7?

Actually, I learned it from you. You specifically said that you weren't going to look at the CO2 Science, and immediately went to a website to grab a quote to insult them and call them liars.

P.S.
Just because people are hard working does not meant that they are right!
Just because people are climate or other scientists does not meant that they are right!

Does that apply to Michael Mann, etc? Because I've never heard a global warmer say that. But I'm glad you said it. That was the whole purpose of this.

What makes the work of a scientist correct starts with them publishing their science in a peer reviewed journal

Nope, what makes the work of a scientist correct starts with them being right. Period.

We already know from the climategate emails that Mann, Jones, etc set about to change the peer review process so that they wouldn't let dissenting opinions in.

But, have it your way. I'll stand by the entirety of the peer-reviewed work in the MWP project, and in response, you'll post a snippet from a blog that's been know to attack climate scientists.

And then somehow you'll delude yourself into thinking that you're the one being scientific.

 

[Tom Harris]

I suggest that the attacks above, especially those against me and our work, violate your Christian Forums rules (which I just read as I just joined).

To refresh peoples memories, here is the overall vision for the site-wide rules for Christian Forums?

Vision

Members of Christian Forums are considerate, motivated by love and not hate, and they respect one another. Because our members are considerate, loving, and respectful, they do not make overly provocative posts, posts which seek to annoy or cause disruption, or posts which personally attack other members out of anger and frustration. Our members desire to contribute in a positive and loving manner so that Christian Forums will display the gracious love of God. Our rules were established for the benefit of both our membership and CF as a whole.

If my attackers follow this vision, then I will answer their charges. If not, and the forum moderator does not enforce the rules, I will not bother.

 

[andypro7]

I suggest that the attacks above, especially those against me and our work, violate your Christian Forums rules (which I just read as I just joined).

To refresh peoples memories, here is the overall vision for the site-wide rules for Christian Forums?

Vision

Members of Christian Forums are considerate, motivated by love and not hate, and they respect one another. Because our members are considerate, loving, and respectful, they do not make overly provocative posts, posts which seek to annoy or cause disruption, or posts which personally attack other members out of anger and frustration. Our members desire to contribute in a positive and loving manner so that Christian Forums will display the gracious love of God. Our rules were established for the benefit of both our membership and CF as a whole.

If my attackers follow this vision, then I will answer their charges. If not, and the forum moderator does not enforce the rules, I will not bother.

There has been a lot said on this thread, and maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure what your work is or who it is you're accusing of attacking it. Please clarify.

 

[RealityCheck01]

[You specifically said that you weren't going to look at the CO2 Science, and immediately went to a website to grab a quote to insult them and call them liars.

Wrong, andypro7: What I specifically said was that I would not bother going through all of the citations in an image from CO2 Science that you linked to.

Instead I went to a credible blog (Skeptical Science) that backs up what is written up with citations the current climate science:
8th March 2015 andypro7: How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

I then found two blogs exampling the CO2 Science web site and finding it lacking credibility:

1. Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui
2. A blog from Nature Climate Change: Climate Feedback: More for the annals of climate misinformation (2008)

Your response was
* totally ignore the science (even on CO2 Science!)
* go on about the number of citations on CO2 Science.
* and call Skeptical Science "known liars".

 

[RealityCheck01]

I suggest that the attacks above, especially those against me and our work....

Perhaps a citation to you and your works is needed, Tom Harris?

ETA: I have found a Tom Harris with connections to climate but this is the first time I have seen the name in this thread:

Tom Harris is the Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), a group of climate change skeptics that has received funding from the Heartland Institute. Before starting work with ICSC, Harris was the Executive Director of the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).

Prior to working with the NRSP, Harris was a Director of Operations of the Ottawa office of a Canadian PR and lobbying firm called the High Park Group (HPG). Harris has also worked with APCO worldwide, a group known for creating The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) which worked to advance tobacco industry interests.
Stance on Climate Change
Tom Harris's International Climate Science Coalition asserts that “global warming has generally been highly beneficial,” and that “Global climate is always changing in accordance with natural causes and recent changes are not unusual.” [2]

This Tom Harris (who may not be you) is ignoring the science that AGW is going on as agreed to by 97% of climate scientists based on the evidence. The current effects of global warming have not been "highly beneficial".

 

[Heissonear]

Oh dear, andypro7, the "old climate denialist denial trick" of denying basic English and climate science!
Here is CO2 Science stating that "...there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2.". This is a denial of the climate science that shows there are compelling reasons to believe that CO2 is causing the current global warming.

They are real whack jobs if they as you assert think that the MWP means that CO2 is not driving current global warming.
This is based on "the peer reviewed work of over 1000 scientists, from over 600 different scientific institutions over the course of decades."



Wrong andypro7: CO2 is very bad as far as temperatures are concerned .
The only place that CO2 could be good is as plant food and that is mixed:
CO2 is plant food

.


Why is your tactic to bold letter who you debate with. A form of personal attack?

.

 

[Heissonear]

Wrong, andypro7: What I specifically said was that I would not bother going through all of the citations in an image from CO2 Science that you linked to.

Instead I went to a credible blog (Skeptical Science) that backs up what is written up with citations the current climate science:
8th March 2015 andypro7: How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

I then found two blogs exampling the CO2 Science web site and finding it lacking credibility:

1. Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui
2. A blog from Nature Climate Change: Climate Feedback: More for the annals of climate misinformation (2008)

Your response was
* totally ignore the science (even on CO2 Science!)
* go on about the number of citations on CO2 Science.
* and call Skeptical Science "known liars".

.


Why is your tactic to bold letter who you debate with. A form of personal attack?

.

 

[andypro7]

Wrong, andypro7: What I specifically said was that I would not bother going through all of the citations in an image from CO2 Science that you linked to.

In other words:

Where in your learning about mathematics did you learn that insulting people as liars is a substitute for learning about what they actually say about science, RealityCheck01?


No reason for us to go on. You've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will continually try to hold me to a standard that you yourself steadfastly refuse to adhere to.

 

[RealityCheck01]

.


Why is your tactic to bold letter who you debate with. A form of personal attack?

.

.
.
.
Highlighting a users name is a common forum courtesy, Heissonear.
.
As is not padding your posts with dots .
.
.

 

[RealityCheck01]

.


Why is your tactic to bold letter who you debate with. A form of personal attack?

.

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=67145811

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON






MOD HAT OFF

 

[Heissonear]

That's what the MWP project is all about.

See, here's how it worked.

Let's say in 1994, some guy used xxx temp reconstruction method and found that it was way warmer during the MWP than now in Greenland. He presents his data, gets it peer reviewed and published.

Then, someone says, "Hey, look, the MWP was real". And then the global warming zombies say "Sure, in Greenland, but not everywhere - no MWP"

So, then in 1997, a bunch of other guys use xxx temp reconstruction method and found that it was way warmer in the MWP in New Zealand. He presents his data, and it gets peer reviewed and published.

Then of course, the global warming believers say, "Sure, it was warmer in New Zealand, but not everywhere - no MWP".

And then, in 1998, in China.....hopefully you can see where this is going.

For years after the hockey stick fraud, those who perpetrated it had to DENY the MWP, and there excuse was always, "Sure, HERE it was warmer, but it wasn't global"

Enter the MWP Project. They compiled all the peer reviewed papers that had been published and started making a map of all the studies, literature, etc etc that showed the MWP was warmer in certain parts of the globe.

Eventually, when they had compiled enough info that said it was warmer during the MWP in North America, and South America, and Asia, and Australia, and everywhere else in between, they came to the conclusion that the MWP was much warmer than today, and it was much warmer just about everywhere. (which incidentally was the OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS of science up until the hockey stick fraud).

Not only that, but we have writings dating back to that time, and the vast majority of those at-the-time-current writings suggest a world a lot warmer than today.

Now a serious question, since you specifically asked if it was global:
If you really wanted an honest answer to that question, wouldn't the way the MWP Project did it be EXACTLY how you would want it done? Taking work from hundreds of non-coordinating sources and non-agendas sources that had already passed peer review?

And did you ever ask yourself this: Why isn't there a website that has hundreds of peer reviewed papers covering areas from all over the world that show that it was cooler during the MWP? You don't have to ask yourself, I'll tell you: because they don't exist.

Look, you can see it on this thread. The general response to the findings of the MWP is NOT, "hey, here's the peer reviewed science that disagrees", but rather, "Boo! Funded by Exxon" "Boo, crazy deniers".

That in itself is pretty telling. I mean, IF you want to know the truth.

.

Thorough reply to the posed question!

Some are trying to erase the evidence of the MWP to try and show the present warming period of earth as usual rather than natural.

For some what does not fit the CAGW theory is rejected.


.

 

[andypro7]

.

Thorough reply to the posed question!

Some are trying to erase the evidence of the MWP to try and show the present warming period of earth as usual rather than natural.

For some what does not fit the CAGW theory is rejected.


.

Thank you.

You know, they could have gotten away with this:

"The MWP was warmer than today, however, we still see the CO2 crisis as being very damaging...blah, blah, blah"

But they couldn't do that because they had to save Mikey Mann and his thoroughly discredited hockey stick fraud, so they had to erase the MWP like Mann did.

Now they look stupid trying to deny the MWP that virtually everyone agrees happened, and which by the way was likely itself dwarfed by the Roman Warming Period. Here's more proof:

 

[sculleywr]

To be honest, this entire thread is a denial of the basics of science:

1. Form a question: in this case, is the global temperature rising?
2. Form a hypothesis. Do you accept it or no?
3. Gather data by experiment and/or observation. In this case, there are hundreds of thermometers placed on computers worldwide. These can gather temperatures accurate down to the thousandth decimal place. So the existence of decimal places as a point of contention in this anti-science argument is ridiculous.
4. Organize and display this data in a format understandable by humans.
5. Find other sources that confirm your observations or that correct or debunk your findings.
6. Organize information into a project report, detailing the methodology, data, and all pertinent information in a journal article.
7. Submit the report as a journal article for peer reviews.

And the evidence has been beyond confirmed. It is so certain that only a person who either hates science or is too dumb to understand the basics of science could reject it.

If you don't accept it, then it is painfully obvious that you don't understand it. The science involved is science you learn in 6th grade.

 

[sculleywr]

Thank you. You know, they could have gotten away with this: "The MWP was warmer than today, however, we still see the CO2 crisis as being very damaging...blah, blah, blah" But they couldn't do that because they had to save Mikey Mann and his thoroughly discredited hockey stick fraud, so they had to erase the MWP like Mann did. Now they look stupid trying to deny the MWP that virtually everyone agrees happened, and which by the way was likely itself dwarfed by the Roman Warming Period. Here's more proof:

Except we should be in the middle of a cooling period at the coolest time in the cooling period. The climate should be colder than it used to be but it is measurably warmer.

 

[andypro7]

Except we should be in the middle of a cooling period at the coolest time in the cooling period. The climate should be colder than it used to be but it is measurably warmer.

Except that it is not measurably warmer. It was warmer several times in the recent past. As a matter of fact, it you use decent ice core proxies, 2014 comes in at about the 9100th warmest year in the last 11000 years.

The Medieval Warming Period Project shows all this, they used this method:

1. Form a question: in this case, is the global temperature rising?
2. Form a hypothesis. Do you accept it or no?
3. Gather data by experiment and/or observation. In this case, there are hundreds of thermometers placed on computers worldwide. These can gather temperatures accurate down to the thousandth decimal place. So the existence of decimal places as a point of contention in this anti-science argument is ridiculous.
4. Organize and display this data in a format understandable by humans.
5. Find other sources that confirm your observations or that correct or debunk your findings.
6. Organize information into a project report, detailing the methodology, data, and all pertinent information in a journal article.
7. Submit the report as a journal article for peer reviews.

 

[sculleywr]

Except that it is not measurably warmer. It was warmer several times in the recent past. As a matter of fact, it you use decent ice core proxies, 2014 comes in at about the 9100th warmest year in the last 11000 years. The Medieval Warming Period Project shows all this, they used this method: 1. Form a question: in this case, is the global temperature rising? 2. Form a hypothesis. Do you accept it or no? 3. Gather data by experiment and/or observation. In this case, there are hundreds of thermometers placed on computers worldwide. These can gather temperatures accurate down to the thousandth decimal place. So the existence of decimal places as a point of contention in this anti-science argument is ridiculous. 4. Organize and display this data in a format understandable by humans. 5. Find other sources that confirm your observations or that correct or debunk your findings. 6. Organize information into a project report, detailing the methodology, data, and all pertinent information in a journal article. 7. Submit the report as a journal article for peer reviews.

The ice cores don't read that way. In fact, of all the warming periods we have seen, we are on the sharpest incline of temperature. We are also at the highest carbon content ever recorded, which has always been followed by a rise in temperature. We have already guaranteed that even if we brought carbon output to pre-industrial levels, another half degree of temperature rise is on the way (chapter 8 of Conservation Biology for All, by Sodhi and Ehrlick) before temperatures stabilize, according to the trends shown in those ice cores.