A Science-Based Rebuttal to Global Wa...

A Science-Based Rebuttal to Global Warming Alarmism

There are 18 comments on the NorCalBlogs story from Sep 10, 2013, titled A Science-Based Rebuttal to Global Warming Alarmism. In it, NorCalBlogs reports that:

On September 23, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is scheduled to release the first portion of its Fifth Assessment Report .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NorCalBlogs.

LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#1 Sep 10, 2013
The so called "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" is just a shell created by the Heartland Institute. Itself just a front for fossil fuel denial funded mostly by fossil fuel interests and with a few 'scientists' noted for being eccentrics with an axe to grind in denying the science. Not a credible source of anything but toilet tissue..

Read it if you want, but watch out for brain damaging misstatements and distortions.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#2 Sep 10, 2013
Oh, and there is a 97+% consensus on AGW theory among the WORKING CLIMATE RESEARCHERS. They count. The rest, who may know something about other subjects don't. A scientific authority in ONE area of science is NOT automatically an authority in another. Only those who have EARNED their credibility through research in the specific field with a respectable publication record, have any 'authority' in the science.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#3 Sep 11, 2013
They don't know why the temperature isn't rising like their theory says it should, but 97% are convinced it is man made. Yup, says a lot.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#4 Sep 11, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
They don't know why the temperature isn't rising like their theory says it should, but 97% are convinced it is man made. Yup, says a lot.
But the temperature IS rising. They did an assessment of the GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURE )(aka AGW) and found a steady increase. The only surprise was that most of the heat was going into the deep oceans.

Only anomalous 'AIR' temperatures are being reported and the science says that the air will get more or less of the heat as decadal cycles come and go. NO scientist is surprised or thinks that it is significant.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#5 Sep 11, 2013
All the models predict a rise in air temperature that isn't happening as predicted. Nuff said.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#6 Sep 11, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
All the models predict a rise in air temperature that isn't happening as predicted. Nuff said.
No, not really.

Models predict a "pause" like this about twice a century, but the underlying cause is stochastic, so they don't predict exactly when.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#7 Sep 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not really.
Models predict a "pause" like this about twice a century, but the underlying cause is stochastic, so they don't predict exactly when.
The problem is that air is so small a part of the total thermal mass and we have dynamic processes such as ENSO etc that can randommly drive more or less heat into the air.

While weather stations are convenient and give a LONG term data set, they do confuse the issue (or the trolls deliberately pretend confusion) about what is 'surface temperature'. The surface is NOT the air. It is just a PROXY for the surface since LONG TERM changes will show up as the heat moves around in the land, air and ocean.

The science says that trends of less than about thirty years in air temperature are *not significant* and we should expect 'noise' in the air temperature charts of up to twenty or thirty years.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#8 Sep 11, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that air is so small a part of the total thermal mass and we have dynamic processes such as ENSO etc that can randommly drive more or less heat into the air.
While weather stations are convenient and give a LONG term data set, they do confuse the issue (or the trolls deliberately pretend confusion) about what is 'surface temperature'. The surface is NOT the air. It is just a PROXY for the surface since LONG TERM changes will show up as the heat moves around in the land, air and ocean.
The science says that trends of less than about thirty years in air temperature are *not significant* and we should expect 'noise' in the air temperature charts of up to twenty or thirty years.
When constrained to observations in the tropical east Pacific ocean, models do match observations:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/season...

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#9 Sep 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not really.
Models predict a "pause" like this about twice a century, but the underlying cause is stochastic, so they don't predict exactly when.
None of the results I have seen indicate a pause at all.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#10 Sep 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
When constrained to observations in the tropical east Pacific ocean, models do match observations:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/season...
Definitely something to munch on. It may have signficant implications for long term climate response and improving climate models for forecasting future trends.

I linked to http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/once-i... from there which is also very interesting.

"The best time constants turned out to be 2 years and 26 years. This is in good agreement with the results of GISS climate simulation models, which suggest about a 30-year time scale for the climate system as a whole."

The climate system is, of course, primarily the heat transport in air, so the thirty year 'significance' to trends. They also refine the 'climate sensitivity' to 2.5C which is better than the 3C previously estimated.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#11 Sep 11, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> None of the results I have seen indicate a pause at all.
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/what-w...

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#12 Sep 11, 2013
They look like post-dictions to me; useless in assessing the validity of a model. None of the PREdictions tracked with reality.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#13 Sep 11, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
They look like post-dictions to me; useless in assessing the validity of a model. None of the PREdictions tracked with reality.
See previous post:
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not really.
Models predict a "pause" like this about twice a century, but the underlying cause is ***stochastic***, so they don't predict exactly when.
Mothra

United States

#14 Sep 12, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
The so called "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" is just a shell created by the Heartland Institute. Itself just a front for fossil fuel denial funded mostly by fossil fuel interests and with a few 'scientists' noted for being eccentrics with an axe to grind in denying the science. Not a credible source of anything but toilet tissue..
Read it if you want, but watch out for brain damaging misstatements and distortions.
Again with the funding argument?

Would you please tell us where all the billions of public dollars have been spent on global warming research?

Warmists have a preconceived notion that their "climate scientists" have no financial motives for their research, but no one has ever presented their funding to verify that assumption.

C'mon... put up or shut up.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#15 Sep 12, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Again with the funding argument?
Would you please tell us where all the billions of public dollars have been spent on global warming research?
Warmists have a preconceived notion that their "climate scientists" have no financial motives for their research, but no one has ever presented their funding to verify that assumption.
C'mon... put up or shut up.
Sceptical scientists get funding too.

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/ta... -–-part-i/#more-123
Mothra

United States

#16 Sep 12, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Sceptical scientists get funding too.
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/ta... -–-part-i/#more-123
"...and many of those scientists appear to be funded."

Appear to? So he's... guessing?

Regardless, should we take that one single $437k study and extrapolate it up to billions?

Tell me that isn't how climate scientists do math.

If all the funding was only $1 billion, your one example leaves $999,563,000 to go.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#17 Sep 12, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"...and many of those scientists appear to be funded."
Appear to? So he's... guessing?
Probably too subtle a use of language when addressing a conpiracy nut like you.

ap·pear[uh-peer] Show IPA
verb (used without object)

3.
to be obvious or easily perceived; be clear or made clear by evidence: It appears to me that you are right.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/appear
Mothra

United States

#18 Sep 12, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably too subtle a use of language when addressing a conpiracy nut like you.
ap·pear[uh-peer] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
3.
to be obvious or easily perceived; be clear or made clear by evidence: It appears to me that you are right.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/appear
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

LOL

Run along... you've over $900 million funding to find, just to get to the first $1 billion.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alternative Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Coalition's 'war on solar' has sector cutting b... 7 hr Solarman 1
News Marin Clean Energy to cut electricity rates abo... 7 hr Solarman 1
News The push for solar energy takes flight Sat Solarman 1
News Solar power: Is it right for you? Sat Solarman 1
News High Desert residents struggle with wind turbin... (Mar '10) Sat Solarman 25
News Warner dusts off 55 mph Speed Limit (Jul '08) Sat litesong 60
News Solar company leaves trail of unhappy customers... Sat Dying Smoker 2
More from around the web