Resisting Climate Hysteria

[OzWaveGuy]

I left one thing off the list: Delusional Assertions

 

[spooly74]

.
It is sobering but what also concerns me is how many, many people won't actually view the figures or if they do, find a way to deny the implications or even the possibility we are facing a serious problem.

Reference?

I was really taken by how temperatures have increased over the last 120 years

Less than 1 degree globally
Hardly new info?

 

[prawn_86]

Coldest start to summer in NSW for 50 years. Personally (not having lived in NSW all my life) i can't EVER remember a day in December with a max temp of 19 degrees.

Perhaps we're over the warmin and global cooling has already started...

 

[Logique]

Yes amazing weather for a NSW December. Two jumpers today. Plenty of rain too. I know we're starting to cover old ground in this long thread, but if anyone felt inclined to read it again, something in the piece for both warmists and sceptics:

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ge/story-e6frfku0-1226076791684#ixzz1feAZ8WT5
June 2011
"EARTH may be heading for a "Little Ice Age", according to scientists at two leading US research institutions.
Researchers from the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory were considering today whether a decline in solar activity could lead to a period similar to the Maunder Minimum in the 17th century, when there were virtually no sunspots for 70 years.
During this period, known as the Little Ice Age, temperatures dropped and up to 28cm of ice formed in Europe.....Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ge/story-e6frfku0-1226076791684#ixzz1feAZ8WT5

Take that Europe, economic tumult and 28cm of ice!

 

[basilio]

Yes amazing weather for a NSW December. Two jumpers today. Plenty of rain too. I know we're starting to cover old ground in this long thread, but if anyone felt inclined to read it again, something in the piece for both warmists and sceptics:

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ge/story-e6frfku0-1226076791684#ixzz1feAZ8WT5
June 2011
"EARTH may be heading for a "Little Ice Age", according to scientists at two leading US research institutions.
Researchers from the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory were considering today whether a decline in solar activity could lead to a period similar to the Maunder Minimum in the 17th century, when there were virtually no sunspots for 70 years.
During this period, known as the Little Ice Age, temperatures dropped and up to 28cm of ice formed in Europe.....Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ge/story-e6frfku0-1226076791684#ixzz1feAZ8WT5

Take that Europe, economic tumult and 28cm of ice!

Well Logique it's probably worth recognising the whole quote even for such a short story.

Dr Frank Hill, of the NSO's Solar Synoptic Network in Sunspot, New Mexico, said, "The fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation".

However, Joanna Haigh, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, said that global warming could reverse a cooling effect.

"Even if the predictions are correct, the effect of global warming will outstrip the Sun's ability to cool even in the coldest scenario, and, in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary," she said. "When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."

For anyone who would like to examine what Joanna Haigh is saying check out the presentation by Ian Dunlop

http://wwz.unibas.ch/fileadmin/wwz/redaktion/umwelt/Lehre/EWI/External_1.pdf

You can find the context of his talk at the following link

http://www.energybulletin.net/stori...e-it-climate-change-seen-depletion-scientists

 

[basilio]

And now for something completely different.... (but perhaps not)

Is it possible for an industry that is producing a legal but dangerous product to disregard its own research, fake its own science and come up with a relentless, creative advertising campaign to ensure it's financial survival ?

This of course is the tobacco industry. Have a look at the types of advertising that was used to gloss over any health concerns and keep smoking at the centre of culture.

You can even see the special pseudo science claims made on behalf of cigarettes as well as the extensive health benefits as noted by the medical profession.

And remember that the industry was well aware of smokings effects from the early 50's.

http://lne.stanford.edu/tobacco/index.html

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

And now for something completely different.... (but perhaps not)

Is it possible for an industry that is producing a legal but dangerous product to disregard its own research, fake its own science and come up with a relentless, creative advertising campaign to ensure it's financial survival ?

This of course is the tobacco industry. Have a look at the types of advertising that was used to gloss over any health concerns and keep smoking at the centre of culture.

You can even see the special pseudo science claims made on behalf of cigarettes as well as the extensive health benefits as noted by the medical profession.

And remember that the industry was well aware of smokings effects from the early 50's.

http://lne.stanford.edu/tobacco/index.html

But bas, the Global Warming Industry is just as perverse as the Smoking Lobby.

The same advertising, the same shambolic studies, the same supposed health benefits, and the same John Wayne aka Al Gore advertisements as the Tobacco Industry.

gg

 

[basilio]

But bas, the Global Warming Industry is just as perverse as the Smoking Lobby.

The same advertising, the same shambolic studies, the same supposed health benefits, and the same John Wayne aka Al Gore advertisements as the Tobacco Industry.

gg

Total, complete and utter BS GG.

 

[basilio]

A simple sample of the lies the industry fed the public. Can anyone recognise the same language as used by GW deniers ? It's because the same sociopaths are running the current campaign.

 

[spooly74]

But bas, the Global Warming Industry is just as perverse as the Smoking Lobby.

The same advertising, the same shambolic studies, the same supposed health benefits, and the same John Wayne aka Al Gore advertisements as the Tobacco Industry.

gg

You reminded me of these little snippets, gg.

 

[wayneL]

Total, complete and utter BS GG.

That's a compelling logical argument you have there basilio </sarc>. Having had the elephant in the room pointed out to you, you jump up and down and stamp your feet.

You appear to have been hoist by your own petard.

 

[wayneL]

Interesting article re sea level here.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/editorial/op-ed/sea-scandal-730

The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment claimed that “there is strong evidence” of sea level rising over the last few decades. It goes as far as to claim: “Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data... This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3mm yr–1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century.”

Almost every word of this is untrue. Satellite altimetry is a wonderful and vital new technique that offers the reconstruction of sea level changes all over the ocean surface. But it has been hijacked and distorted by the IPCC for political ends.

In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: “We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.”

This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate.

 

[Logique]

Ancient trees tell different climate story - Professor Liu Yu has studied untouched forests dating thousands of years along the remote Tibetan Plateau for clues to past and current weather - South China Morning Post, 6 Dec 2011 - http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCM...04310VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=china&s=news

"Q: So what causes climate change?
Professor Liu Yu:
We believe that the sun and atmospheric circulations play a vital, if not decisive, role in this. The millennial cycle of solar activity determines the long-term trends of temperature variations. Almost all sunspot minimums [periods of sometimes several decades when sunspots become rare] correspond with low-temperature intervals. Meanwhile, atmospheric circulations affect temperature changes from decade to decade. To quote Professor Zhu Kezhen, the father of climate change studies in China: "The big changes in the earth's climate have been controlled by solar radiation, but the small changes by atmospheric circulation."

Q: Can tree-ring records tell us anything about the future?
Professor Liu Yu:
Our results show that the temperature continued to increase until 2006, and will now decrease until about 2068. After 2068, the temperature will increase again until 2088."

 

[OzWaveGuy]

And now for something completely different.... (but perhaps not)
..........
You can even see the special pseudo science claims made on behalf of cigarettes as well as the extensive health benefits as noted by the medical profession.

I know someone's smoking something. Let me ask Basilio, a very simple question (and to the other faithful to the hysterical cause), Is the Mann Hockey stick fact or fiction?

Surely you don't doubt it since it's built on robust "science" and not pseudo science, right? Everyone for the AGW cause is using it today to prove their point as clear evidence of man's 3% CO2 emissions driving aggressive temperature trends not seen in thousands of years, aren't they? Even our very own Dept of Climate Change, right? And of course Al Gore is still using it in every presentation he gives to this very day to win the hearts and minds of anyone who doubts AGW is real and a clear and present danger, right? It's the smoking gun, it's undeniable, it can't be ignored, it's the observed evidence, right?

When was your last point pontificating the robustness of this AGW marvel as clear evidence versus posting the delusional rubbish we're seeing from you and knobby? Surely this smoking gun, this undeniable evidence is your core foundation to all your AGW arguments and beliefs which must as solid as stone, right?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[basilio]

Good to see us getting back to some science analysis of global warming.

I'm not quite sure why Ozzie wants to try and say the Mann hockey stick is a a fraud. After all it has been a measure of the sharp increase in current global temperatures as compared to all recent historical records (say the last few thousand years).

The BEST team which reported back a few months ago and remeasured and re calibrated all global waring temperatures came to the same conclusion - the earth is warming very rapidly.

You can see the graphs and discussion at the following url
http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-best-kind-of-skepticism.html

On a longer time scale, say 2000 years, check out the following analysis which also identifies the sharp increases in recent temperatures compared to anything that has previously happened. In particular this compares the question of how the medieval warming period compares to the current situation.

We can already see a notable difference between modern warming and the MWP: modern temperatures are hotter. The warmest single year in the northern hemisphere is 2005, with temperature anomaly (relative to the 1961-1990 reference period) 0.90 deg.C, while the warmest single year in the Moberg reconstruction is 1105, at temperature anomaly 0.37 deg.C. So the warmest modern year is 0.53 deg.C hotter than the warmest medieval year, according to Moberg.

The eye suggests another possible difference: modern warming is steeper than medieval warming. The “modern global warming era” covers about the last 30 years. How does the modern warming rate compare to what was observed in medieval times?

I computed the rate of warming for every possible time span, from each year to 30 years later, in the Moberg reconstruction. The fastest warming occured from 867 to 897, at a rate of 0.0183 deg.C/yr. I also computed the rate for every similar-length time span in the thermometer record; the fastest warming is from 1976 to 2006 (which is the most recent, by the way, since 2007 isn’t over yet) at a rate of 0.0300 deg.C/yr. That’s quite a lot bigger than 0.0183; in fact it’s 64% bigger.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080220174450/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/not-alike/

 

[spooly74]

The BEST team which reported back a few months ago and remeasured and re calibrated all global waring temperatures came to the same conclusion - the earth is warming very rapidly.

You can see the graphs and discussion at the following url
http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-best-kind-of-skepticism.html

BEST Data "Quality"

Of the 39028 sites listed in the data.txt file, arbitrarily counting only sites with 60 months of data or more, 34 had temperature blips of greater
than +/- 50 degrees C, 215 greater than +/- 40 C, 592 greater than +/- 30 C, and 1404 greater than +/- 20 C. That is quite a large number of faulty temperature records, considering that this kind of error is something that is so easy to check for. A couple hours work is all it took to find these numbers.
In the engineering world, this kind of error is not acceptable. It is an indication of poor quality control. Statistical algorithms were run on the data without subsequent checks on the results. Coding errors obviously existed that would have been caught with just a cursory examination of a few site temperature plots. That the BEST team felt the quality of their work, though preliminary, was adequate for public display is disconcerting.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Good to see us getting back to some science analysis of global warming.

I'm not quite sure why Ozzie wants to try and say the Mann hockey stick is a a fraud. After all it has been a measure of the sharp increase in current global temperatures as compared to all recent historical records (say the last few thousand years).

Let's get back to the specific questions at hand. Basilio is implying the Mann Hockey stick is fact (even though Basilio you don't actually say it, please correct me if I'm wrong).

So in your non-biased approach to establish the facts you looked at both sides of the science and determined that the Hockey Stick is fact and the medieval warming period didn't exist after all, even though hundreds of papers have established the Medieval warming. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[basilio]

Ozzie the paper I quoted showed the temperature ranges during the Medieval Warm period and the current times.The current climate is significantly warmer and on all indications will continue to heat up.

Manns hockey stick analysis has been verified many times. Global temperatures have spiked remarkably in the past 30 years.

Trying to find "evidence" that the world has not warmed by around .8C in the last 50 years is grasping at delusional straws.

 

[spooly74]

Manns hockey stick analysis has been verified many times.

References?

Here is a link that points to it being, well, a sloppy pile of ****e http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/

Trying to find "evidence" that the world has not warmed by around .8C in the last 50 years is grasping at delusional straws.

Change 50 to 100 and your strawman statement still holds.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Basilio is hanging on, at least I'm not on the ignore list anymore.....

Basilio is tacitly admitting agreement to the Hockey Stick fraud - as even the IPCC decided the MWP had to go.....to create "unprecedented" temperatures.

This posted over a year ago on ASF from those truthful scientists, well perhaps in AR1 and AR2, but it seems the graph wasn't scary enough for Al Gore.

Briffa was also caught out using a small subset of tree ring data that supported a hockey stick in 2009, rather than use all the data which of course showed no hockey stick at all.



It's all pure science isn't it basilio? Everyone else just needs more practice at lapping it up. Now if we could only find a way to get questioning people to lap to the 3% of man's CO2 driving that hockey stick as easily as you do then this pseudo science would become science, right?