Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

[realist]

Brian_G wrote:

Our brilliant President and China's leaders have cut out the middle-man. No longer need we worry about greenhouse gases, just outlaw climate change, and we're done.

He truly is a GOD ! With just a law, he can undo Nature. We should all fall down and worship less he outlaw us all.

[Fun Facts]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no current cooling.
There are scientists who think the moon is made out of green cheese and in imminent danger of being eaten by enormous mutant star mice.

The scientists that 'think the moon is made out of green cheese' are probably employed at EAU CRU.

[Fun Facts]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
The effects of the sun are discussed in the scientific literature.
The sites I link to link to the scientific papers from which the conclusions made come from.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/This-just-in-...
Your continued ad-hominem attacks against me just show what sort of a person you are.

This is tired stuff. Yet you keep posting it over and over again. First the graph featured is an eleven year smoothed value of TSI compared to the Michael Mann hockey stick.

If the hockey stick graph were to have shown only the proxy data, then there would be no divergence in the TSI and proxy data. The only way to get the divergence is to substitute actual temperatures to the end of the data set on the hockey graph.

You can create any graph you want if you are willing to manipulate the data.

Further, Usoskin 2005 is frequently cited here. Usoskin 2005 does not evaluate any data after 1975. Even these scientist knew that a comparison of TSI data to the 'constructed' hockey stick would produce only one conclusion. So they just didn't 'go there'. Usoskin 2005 is pulled from a much larger study Usoskin 2003. Well worth the read.

[Bronto At Work]

The truth is there is no hard evidence proving that the earth is in any danger.

What is true is Al Gore is an habitual liar who is not held accountable for his comments. for example just last week he stated that there will be no ice left in the Arctic in 5 years was a lie. Same as someone yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre.

Also the amount of greenhouse gases caused by all the travel to Copenhagen was a disgrace why not hold the meeting via the internet which Gore claimed to invent. There were repots that there werent enough limos in Denmark to keep up with demand. LMAO!!!!

One last tidbit. All this climate stuff is about money plain and simple. The US gives away enough money leave us alone. We the tax payer give enough.

[Fair Game]

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Surprising? No. Reconstructed TSI values also show the sun at it's most active state in the last 50 years of the 20th century.

Not correct. They show the sun at it's most active in the first half of the 20th century.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/This-just-in-...

Fun Facts wrote:

Both Wang and Lean show it to be the most active in the last 400 years, extended by some to the last 1000 years and projected by other solar physicist to the in the top 10% of activity in the holocene.

This explains some of the warming before 1950.

Fun Facts wrote:

If the sun was the most active and the arctic ice melted the 'most' during the time period that the sun was most active then this just could be a naturally occuring event.

But it wasn't. The Arctic melting occurred in the second half of the 20th century when the sun's output was flat.

Fun Facts wrote:

The sun has gone into a much cooler phase. The result is cooler temps in the last decade.

The last decade was the warmer ever in the instrumental record. Therefore your statement is false.

Fun Facts wrote:

Snow in places it hasn't snowed in many years. Colder temps than we have experienced in many years. Why, because solar activity is lower than we have experienced in the recent past.

Lower solar output has put a slight brake on warming, but warming has continued.

Fun Facts wrote:

What I want someone to tell me is, where is it warm? Russia has stated that the temps as presented by CRU are not correct. The Russians state when all the temps are used to create a temperature for Russia, they do not show any warming. The Russians estimate that CRU used only about 25% of the temps values sent to them, and the ones they used showed warming. A full 40% of temperatures values sent to CRU by the Russians, show cooling trends. Of course, CRU will not disclosed just which temp records they used or how they modified them.

You trust an analysis by a Russian state-controlled economic institute, bearing in mind Putin's absolute control over the media and his determination to sell oil and gas?

In fact the Russian analysis confirms 20th century CRU temperatures:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russi...

Fun Facts wrote:

In Austrailia, an independent team collected the temperatures from the same stations that are used by the 'state' agency. The independent team found no evidence of warming in the collected data.
The US and Canada do not show warming. So where is it warming? The sun is less active, the snow is falling, somewhere the 'hot spot' is hiding, does anyone know where?

And they did it in just the way the CRU team *didn't*: by manipulating the data.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willi...

[Fair Game]

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
This is tired stuff.

Absolutely. I'm tired of your errors, misrepresentations and dodgy sources.

Fun Facts wrote:

Yet you keep posting it over and over again.

Looks like I'll have to.

Fun Facts wrote:

First the graph featured is an eleven year smoothed value of TSI compared to the Michael Mann hockey stick.

False. Compared to the instrumental temperature record.

Basic factual error.

Fun Facts wrote:

If the hockey stick graph were to have shown only the proxy data, then there would be no divergence in the TSI and proxy data. The only way to get the divergence is to substitute actual temperatures to the end of the data set on the hockey graph.

As in the previous post, you introduce a factual error and base your subsequent arguments on that error. I think that's called "argument from fallacy". I'd just call it an attempt at deception.

Fun Facts wrote:

You can create any graph you want if you are willing to manipulate the data.

A smear attempt: all you have left really.

Fun Facts wrote:

Further, Usoskin 2005 is frequently cited here. Usoskin 2005 does not evaluate any data after 1975. Even these scientist knew that a comparison of TSI data to the 'constructed' hockey stick would produce only one conclusion. So they just didn't 'go there'. Usoskin 2005 is pulled from a much larger study Usoskin 2003. Well worth the read.

After 1975 it's the instrumental data, not the hockey stick.

What does Usoskin say?

"The last 30 years are not considered, however. In this time the solar and climate data diverge strongly from each other."

No shit.

Your own source doesn't even support your case, idiot.

[Fair Game]

Pachelbel wrote:

<quoted text>
Only if you consider the rising portion of a longer cycle a trend. I could just as easily say that I want to only look at the hours from 6pm to midnight and say there is an obvious darkening trend. "IF" (the magic AGW word) the trend continues it will get so dark no light will penetrate it. Absurd, yes. So is looking at 30 years out of a 60-70 year cycle (which you also ignorantly deny). The false DW mantra has lost its magic. And your defenses are pathetically monotonous.

By coincidence, Open Mind has an analysis of the "60-70 year cycle" claim.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/cyclic...

Not surprisingly, it was published by Energy and Environment.

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/08/bottom-of-...

[Pachelbel]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
The trend lines are Monckton's as I suggested.
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2007/ip...
There are no cycles evident, by the very definition of a cycle.

I didn't talk about trend lines.

I described the cycles evident in the graph. If you can't "see" it, you are blinded mentally, ie you "will not" see it as in, "There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see".

[Pachelbel]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>

The peaks and troughs in the graph are not cycles- by definition cycles must be regular and repeat.

I could just as ARBITRARILY declare that "by definition a "trend must be continuous and uninterrupted". Of course that would be just as incorrect as your overly narrow definition.

[Pachelbel]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
What 60-70 year cycle?

The one evident in the data. Clear cycles which you refuse to see, ie denying fact.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>You have no evidence for this.
CO2 was expected to cause warming.

I presented the IPCC 2007 graph as evidence. While the trend is overstated the cycle remains clearly discernible.

Fair Game wrote:

The expected warming happened.

Happened? Perhaps. THAT is precisely what has never been adequately debated, and you still have not proven "cause and effect". Ice core evidence strongly indicates warming precedes co2 rise.

Fair Game wrote:

Deniers can not propose a sensible mechanism to explain the modern warming- only a mysterious "natural cycle".

You are also blind to work correlating temperature rises to PDO, and solar activity far more strongly than to co2. Total solar influence IS well discussed even in non climate literature. Are you blind to that also.

Fair Game wrote:

Deniers can not explain why, if another factor caused the warming, CO2 did not cause the warming it was expected to cause due to its well-understood physical properties of absorbing infra-red radiation.

Try that last sentence again. It is gibberish as written.

[Pachelbel]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
The scientific evidence that there is no cycle at play in Arctic warming- only a recent and unprecedented warming correlating with modern human industrial activity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/823...
<quoted text>
The ad-hominem attacks and lies are a diversion from the fact that it's you who has no evidence, and relies on the writing of a non-scientist.

Not rely on. Consider it in context with everything else from BOTH sides of the argument.

If you consider my reference to you as a non-scientist ad hominem, then please respond with your credentials. This has been asked by many. We don't need proof, just a simple statement of your experience, specialty, and highest degree achieved. Until then we have NOTHING to suggest you actually are any more scientifically qualified than the average poster here. If you can refute the allegation that you are not a scientist, do so.

[Fun Facts]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
Not correct. They show the sun at it's most active in the first half of the 20th century.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/This-just-in-...
<quoted text>
This explains some of the warming before 1950.
<quoted text>
But it wasn't. The Arctic melting occurred in the second half of the 20th century when the sun's output was flat.
<quoted text>
The last decade was the warmer ever in the instrumental record. Therefore your statement is false.
<quoted text>
Lower solar output has put a slight brake on warming, but warming has continued.
<quoted text>
You trust an analysis by a Russian state-controlled economic institute, bearing in mind Putin's absolute control over the media and his determination to sell oil and gas?
In fact the Russian analysis confirms 20th century CRU temperatures:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russi...
<quoted text>
And they did it in just the way the CRU team *didn't*: by manipulating the data.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willi...

You must expand your study to more than Skepitical Science. The graph is what I described it to be. And the TSI reconstructions show exactly what I said they show. You will need to provide a scientific study to support your premise. What is your premise by the way? Or are you just a denier of natural influences on climate?

[Pachelbel]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
The effects of the sun are discussed in the scientific literature.

Yes, but you seem to be aware of only a fraction of it. I have previously referenced sources consider other work on solar influences which you either don't acknowledge or dismiss without any comment, as if you never even read them.

[Pachelbel]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>

* Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)

Our planet is suffering an denialist warmist (DW) propaganda imbalance. Nothing more.

[Pachelbel]

Update: Who is Climategate’s Deep Throat?

By Mark S. Zablocki, Homeland Securiy Newswire

Climategate Outside hacker, internal mole or whistle-blower ?

New information reveals that the now-famous break-in of the computers at the University of East Anglia - which revealed that in a few instances leading climatologists seemingly massaged data to show more global warming and discussed excluding contradictory research - in fact, may not have been the act of an intruder. A detailed analysis of the East Anglia’s files by Canadian network engineer discloses that the emails and documents were likely leaked by an internal source, spotlighting a perennial but often neglected threat - old-fashioned espionage or whistle-blowing.

[Pachelbel]

Here's the Homeland Security Newswire link:

http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/climatega...

[Lynn]

Pachelbel...Here is the entire email thread where Kevin Trenberth stated we can't account for the lack of warming.

http://junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/1255523796.t...

In this thread, Tom Wigley wrote:

"At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.

Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.

These sums complement Kevin's energy work.

Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not agree with this."

Tom says in the first sentence that he has notes regarding the lack of current warming. So obviously these scientists do agree there is a lack of warming. But here is what I get out of these emails..they are trying to manipulate the data to agree with their agenda. He talks about about removing ENSO, volcanoes, and TSI variations from the observed data. Isn't this like removing the MWP to get the hockey stick? MANN-MADE GW?

[Fair Game]

Pachelbel wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't talk about trend lines.
I described the cycles evident in the graph. If you can't "see" it, you are blinded mentally, ie you "will not" see it as in, "There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see".

There are no cycles evident in the graph. You are making a basic mistake of trying to make the data fit a simple mathematical expression.

There are three problems:

1) the data don't fit very well.
2) the model has no predictive power.
3) we know that temperatures over the last 150 years have been influenced by a number of factors- solar output, CO2, pollution, volcanic activity- so trying to view changes as a simple cycle is naive.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/cyclic...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Tempe...

[Fair Game]

Pachelbel wrote:

<quoted text>
I could just as ARBITRARILY declare that "by definition a "trend must be continuous and uninterrupted". Of course that would be just as incorrect as your overly narrow definition.

Argue with the dictionary: "a periodically repeated phenomenon."

[Fair Game]

Pachelbel wrote:

<quoted text>
The one evident in the data. Clear cycles which you refuse to see, ie denying fact.

There is no cycle evident in the data.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/cyclic...

Pachelbel wrote:

<quoted text>
I presented the IPCC 2007 graph as evidence. While the trend is overstated the cycle remains clearly discernible.

There is no discernible cycle.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/cyclic...

Pachelbel wrote:

<quoted text>
Happened? Perhaps. THAT is precisely what has never been adequately debated, and you still have not proven "cause and effect". Ice core evidence strongly indicates warming precedes co2 rise.

The expected warming was not predicted from the geological record, but from the basic physics of IR absorption.(The geological record also shows CO2 as an important feedback factor in past climate change- not a trigger.)

Pachelbel wrote:

<quoted text>
You are also blind to work correlating temperature rises to PDO,

Discredited work.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

Pachelbel wrote:

...and solar activity far more strongly than to co2. Total solar influence IS well discussed even in non climate literature. Are you blind to that also.

"earth warming, sun cooling".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/This-just-in-...

(Check the links to scientific papers.)

Pachelbel wrote:

<quoted text>
Try that last sentence again. It is gibberish as written.

No it's not. Not my problem if a complex sentence is beyond you. Basic science seems to be.