Global Warming ConsensusLooking More ...

Global Warming ConsensusLooking More Like A Myth

There are 51 comments on the Lucianne.com story from Feb 16, 2013, titled Global Warming ConsensusLooking More Like A Myth. In it, Lucianne.com reports that:

Environment: The global warming alarmists repeat the line endlessly. They claim that there is a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Lucianne.com.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#22 Feb 19, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the paper about the greenland temps. Graphs on page 3
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Kobas...
Yep, predictions are for cooler and we are seeing it. The force to cause the cooling is the sun. Very low activity is predicted for this cycle 24 and the next two solar cycles. With cycle 25 being the coolest and 26 warming from there. We can see this cycle is very much like the predictions.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...
In fact, the more you look at Kobashi et al's raw data, the more worrying it appears. There's no doubt about a remarkable "hockey stick" rise in recent temps. They are shooting up. Time will tell if this a persistent, statistically significant rise, but so far it's remarkable.

All this despite very low solar activity. This will turn around later this century, after all. CO2 will be very high then if we don't take major action now.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#23 Feb 19, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and? What the conclusion says is that temps in greenland are not higher than natural variability and that current temps are not as high as historical temps.
Another study that supports the fact that we are in a cooling phase since the thermal max.
The statement about computer models is an add on. The data is what is important. The data says what it says.
My statement on the underground volcanos was to suggest what could have created that past variability.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#24 Feb 20, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
"...predictions are for cooler and we are seeing it..."
Wow. Pretty cavalier on your part. Actually, what they're saying is that Greenland is as warm now as it was during the Holocene maximum (or at least what it was 4 Kya).
.
No, it doesn't say that. Doesn't even come close to saying that. Here's the graphs from the study. Look at the current temps on the graphs as compared to the past 4000 years.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/20...

The above graphs are found on page 3 of the paper.

The last 15 years of temps are indicated on the graphs, they are lower than many points in the last 4000 years.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#25 Feb 20, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact, the more you look at Kobashi et al's raw data, the more worrying it appears. There's no doubt about a remarkable "hockey stick" rise in recent temps. They are shooting up. Time will tell if this a persistent, statistically significant rise, but so far it's remarkable.
All this despite very low solar activity. This will turn around later this century, after all. CO2 will be very high then if we don't take major action now.
You can see rapid climate change throughout the entire 4000 years of the graph. Recent change is not unlike any of the past changes.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/20...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#26 Feb 20, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't say that. Doesn't even come close to saying that. Here's the graphs from the study. Look at the current temps on the graphs as compared to the past 4000 years.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/20...
The above graphs are found on page 3 of the paper.
The last 15 years of temps are indicated on the graphs, they are lower than many points in the last 4000 years.
What are you talking about? 2010 was much warmer. The other graphs stop in 2000. What's more, after a slow decline for at least a millenium, temps are now SHOOTING up. It's a classic hockey stick.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#27 Feb 20, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about? 2010 was much warmer. The other graphs stop in 2000. What's more, after a slow decline for at least a millenium, temps are now SHOOTING up. It's a classic hockey stick.
2010 by itself was warmer than the average of the last 170 years. The average of temps for the recent increase is not warmer than the early 20th century warmth. Not warmer than the last 1000 years and not warmer than the last 4000 years.

2010 is not different from 1792 which was a very warm year in the LIA yet you don't see it in this proxy study. Proxy studies such as the one presented work on averages. The high point you see between 1000 and 1200 CE represents the average of temps, it doesn't negate the fact that some years were warmer than the average or that some were cooler. In fact to be an average means that some were warmer and some were cooler.

Over 4000 years the average of our current temps does not equal the high points in the graph which are also averages of each particular time period.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#28 Feb 20, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
2010 by itself was warmer than the average of the last 170 years. The average of temps for the recent increase is not warmer than the early 20th century warmth. Not warmer than the last 1000 years and not warmer than the last 4000 years.
2010 is not different from 1792 which was a very warm year in the LIA yet you don't see it in this proxy study. Proxy studies such as the one presented work on averages. The high point you see between 1000 and 1200 CE represents the average of temps, it doesn't negate the fact that some years were warmer than the average or that some were cooler. In fact to be an average means that some were warmer and some were cooler.
Over 4000 years the average of our current temps does not equal the high points in the graph which are also averages of each particular time period.
Actually, it appears that 2010 was warmer than any year during the past 4000 years. You can't say "average" without more information because you don't know the denominator.

In any case, the overall shape of the curve was showing slowly declining temps. Many of us believe that by Milankovitch cycles alone, the LIA "should" have continued, & we "should" be slowly drifting down into another ice age (or "glaciation" to be more precise).

Instead, temps are rapidly rising, & from a low baseline (the LIA), we are now warmer than even the thermal max. Again, very, very worrisome, & not reassurring at all.

Sorry - you can't believe anything from Watts anyway. Why do you bother? Any unbiased observe knows immediately it's cr*p.
SpaceBlues

Tomball, TX

#29 Feb 20, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
2010 by itself was warmer than the average of the last 170 years. The average of temps for the recent increase is not warmer than the early 20th century warmth. Not warmer than the last 1000 years and not warmer than the last 4000 years.
2010 is not different from 1792 which was a very warm year in the LIA yet you don't see it in this proxy study. Proxy studies such as the one presented work on averages. The high point you see between 1000 and 1200 CE represents the average of temps, it doesn't negate the fact that some years were warmer than the average or that some were cooler. In fact to be an average means that some were warmer and some were cooler.
Over 4000 years the average of our current temps does not equal the high points in the graph which are also averages of each particular time period.
There you are whining again.

It's the HOCKEY STICK, man.

The HOCKEY STICK rise, remember it.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#30 Feb 20, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and? What the conclusion says is that temps in greenland are not higher than natural variability and that current temps are not as high as historical temps.
Another study that supports the fact that we are in a cooling phase since the thermal max.
The statement about computer models is an add on. The data is what is important. The data says what it says.
Gee, and WHY does that rule only apply to Greenland?
What about the Arctic for example.

In science you have to have an explanation that fits ALL the observed data points -- else it's cherrypicking (ideology) not science.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#31 Feb 21, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it appears that 2010 was warmer than any year during the past 4000 years. You can't say "average" without more information because you don't know the denominator.
In any case, the overall shape of the curve was showing slowly declining temps. Many of us believe that by Milankovitch cycles alone, the LIA "should" have continued, & we "should" be slowly drifting down into another ice age (or "glaciation" to be more precise).
Instead, temps are rapidly rising, & from a low baseline (the LIA), we are now warmer than even the thermal max. Again, very, very worrisome, & not reassurring at all.
Sorry - you can't believe anything from Watts anyway. Why do you bother? Any unbiased observe knows immediately it's cr*p.
I didn't get the graph from Watts, I picked it up on google graphs and it is the graph shown in the paper I referenced. Didn't read the Watts commentary, the paper, only 6 pages long was easy enough to read. The graphs I posted are on page 3 of the paper.

Here's another graph of the eemian. Also picked up from google graphs, don't know who it is that published. What it shows is how temperatures go up and down regardless of the trend. This is an overlay of greenland data and EPICA from antarctica. I agree we are at the end of the interglacial. That could mean another 1000 years before the summer sun does not melt the winter ice at 65*N, but the end is here.

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/...

No the graph does not show that 2010 was warmer than any other year. It doesn't show that because every data point illustrated has data points greater and lesser than the average of temps at any given time. It's not called averaging, it's called smoothing, but the result is pretty much the same. It's generally the mean temperature, the line is usually selecting data points that represent the mean for a specified time interval.

Read one of the ice core studies. You will find scatter graphs of the raw data that show points all over the scale, both in temps and CO2 values.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#32 Feb 21, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, and WHY does that rule only apply to Greenland?
What about the Arctic for example.
In science you have to have an explanation that fits ALL the observed data points -- else it's cherrypicking (ideology) not science.
Didn't understand your question. "WHY does that rule only apply to Greenland?" What rule?

Arctic ice core data is from greenland because it can't be collected from the arctic sea ice.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#33 Feb 21, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't get the graph from Watts, I picked it up on google graphs and it is the graph shown in the paper I referenced. Didn't read the Watts commentary, the paper, only 6 pages long was easy enough to read. The graphs I posted are on page 3 of the paper.
Here's another graph of the eemian. Also picked up from google graphs, don't know who it is that published. What it shows is how temperatures go up and down regardless of the trend. This is an overlay of greenland data and EPICA from antarctica. I agree we are at the end of the interglacial. That could mean another 1000 years before the summer sun does not melt the winter ice at 65*N, but the end is here.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/...
No the graph does not show that 2010 was warmer than any other year. It doesn't show that because every data point illustrated has data points greater and lesser than the average of temps at any given time. It's not called averaging, it's called smoothing, but the result is pretty much the same. It's generally the mean temperature, the line is usually selecting data points that represent the mean for a specified time interval.
Read one of the ice core studies. You will find scatter graphs of the raw data that show points all over the scale, both in temps and CO2 values.
Where are the entire papers? You've only linked graphs (in your recent posts), this one from theinconvenientskeptic. Don't you see how that looks? You only link information that has already been "filtered" thru denier sites. It immediately reduces your credibility. Please, link the full studies directly.

Of course there's a lot of "noise" in the signals, but that doesn't mean there isn't a VERY strong correlation between CO2 & temps. The other interesting thing on this graph is that Greenland temps appear to follow changes in insolation after a few hundred years, but Antarctic temps don't appear to change till a couple of thousand years later.
SpaceBlues

Tomball, TX

#34 Feb 21, 2013
Scroll down to find it:

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/chapters-8-...

but no text!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#35 Feb 21, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Scroll down to find it:
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/chapters-8-...
but no text!
Very interesting graphs, however. Note that the vast majority, evidently intended to show wide variation & past responses to changes in insolation, simply omit recent temps. They include snide, misleading captions. They criticize Al Gore's (movie) graph for not using recent ice cores.

Well, DUH!! It takes several decades for the snow to be compacted enough so that it's impermeable ice. Gore used recent MEASURED temps, which we know are more reliable than proxies.

When they do include recent measured temps, PRESTO! There's the hockey stick.

This is why we distrust Fun Facts' science links. When the science is filtered thru denier sites, they distort it. We need the original scientific papers.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#36 Feb 21, 2013
Besides, if the MWP was warmer than today, the Arctic Ocean icepack would have melted, the Northwest Passage would have opened & the Vikings would have made it to China, LOL.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#37 Feb 22, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are the entire papers? You've only linked graphs (in your recent posts), this one from theinconvenientskeptic. Don't you see how that looks? You only link information that has already been "filtered" thru denier sites. It immediately reduces your credibility. Please, link the full studies directly.
Of course there's a lot of "noise" in the signals, but that doesn't mean there isn't a VERY strong correlation between CO2 & temps. The other interesting thing on this graph is that Greenland temps appear to follow changes in insolation after a few hundred years, but Antarctic temps don't appear to change till a couple of thousand years later.
The graphs come from the google compliation of graphs. I have found very few will read a scientific paper, even a six page one. So I post graphs from the studies in hopes that they will at least look at the graphs. Google provides graphs that I can't move from the original paper to a post.

http://www.google.com/search...

I posted the reference in post #18,

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Kobas...

Actually antarctic temps lead the arctic temps. Take a look at the third graph. It is an overlay of antarctic and greenland data.

http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

Dating in a proxy study is always difficult and is a bit of 'art' mixed in with the science. You can see dating differences in all the antarctic ice core data sets.

There is a significant correlation between temperatures and CO2 in the ice core data. In 700,000 years of data temps go up and CO2 follows.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#38 Feb 22, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Besides, if the MWP was warmer than today, the Arctic Ocean icepack would have melted, the Northwest Passage would have opened & the Vikings would have made it to China, LOL.
Where do you think they got the idea of a Northwest Passage.

From 1817 The royal Society of London, If you don't like this site, google has over 2 million references to this statement.

http://books.google.com/books...

Of course that's not the MWP but it does indicate that the ice has melted before.

Here's something from NOAA, 1922. Scroll down to changing arctic.

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-0...
SpaceBlues

United States

#39 Feb 22, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
The graphs come from the google compliation of graphs. I have found very few will read a scientific paper, even a six page one. So I post graphs from the studies in hopes that they will at least look at the graphs. Google provides graphs that I can't move from the original paper to a post.
http://www.google.com/search...
I posted the reference in post #18,
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Kobas...
Actually antarctic temps lead the arctic temps. Take a look at the third graph. It is an overlay of antarctic and greenland data.
http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm
Dating in a proxy study is always difficult and is a bit of 'art' mixed in with the science. You can see dating differences in all the antarctic ice core data sets.
There is a significant correlation between temperatures and CO2 in the ice core data. In 700,000 years of data temps go up and CO2 follows.
LIAR.

You are no scientist to be taken seriously. Your pretense is sick.

You have been exposed as fossil fuel shill. Shame on you for your role in misinforming the world.

Our future is melting before our very eyes.

Fiddling With The Data While The World Burns:

There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.

When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they donít publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what theyíre doing isnít science. Itís nonsense. And worse, itís dangerous nonsense. Because theyíre fiddling with the data while the world burns.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#40 Feb 22, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you think they got the idea of a Northwest Passage.
From 1817 The royal Society of London, If you don't like this site, google has over 2 million references to this statement.
http://books.google.com/books...
Of course that's not the MWP but it does indicate that the ice has melted before.
Here's something from NOAA, 1922. Scroll down to changing arctic.
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-0...
Goodness, you call that "the ice melted"?? Wow.

Sure, there are always variations, but in a few years, the entire Arctic Ocean will be ice-free in September (peak melt). That really is new for the Holocene. No doubt it melted during the Eemian, when it was warmer than today, but not since.

https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepingui...
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#41 Feb 23, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Goodness, you call that "the ice melted"?? Wow.
Sure, there are always variations, but in a few years, the entire Arctic Ocean will be ice-free in September (peak melt). That really is new for the Holocene. No doubt it melted during the Eemian, when it was warmer than today, but not since.
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepingui...
There's the experiment. Will the arctic ice be gone in a few years or not.

If the temperature charts we have from greenland are an illustration of past temperature variations then it's going to have to get all the way to eemian temps before the ice is gone, if it didn't melt during the past warmer temps of the holocene the data indicates.

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.

Environment Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News EPA chief to skip Republican gala after ethics ... 1 hr One Womyn Riot 3
News Youngsters worried about Trump and environment Apr 23 Elvira52 1
News Scott Pruitt came to Earth Day Texas, and the w... Apr 22 George Shawnessey 3
News Pass the ACHE Act and stop destroying Appalachia (Oct '14) Apr 18 Keokee 3
News A Non-Regulatory Approach To Environmental Prot... Apr 18 The Buddy System 1
News Report: Carlsbad saw 94 days with elevated smoga Apr 13 You know 5
News Sanders talks coal, health care at Welch town hall Apr 12 Middle Class Amer... 4
More from around the web