Global Temperatures Skyrocketing (Again)

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The MWP didn't effect the entire Northern Hemisphere, just the North Atlantic so parts of Europe, Greenland and parts the US and Canada. What caused the MWP was not an increase in global temperatures (it did affect weather patterns beyond the warm region), we know that because using the same kinds of methods to determine that there was a MWP show us that temperatures across the globe were not warmer.

What we are experiencing right now is not regional, it's global. Overall temperatures across the entire planet are warmer. There's no disparity, the same thing is not happening today.

a reply to: 727Sky
I never said everone who disagreess with AGW is funded by Exxon. That is you putting words in my mouth, in my opinion.

However I did show the sources you provided(that cast doubt on AGW) do indeed receive funding from Exxon, that is an odd coincidence don't you think?

You cling to false predictions only to claim that those false predictions are wrong. You cling to the 'hockey stick' argument which has been dismissed as a junk science argument, you cling to the coming ice age predictions that was hyped by the media but only supported by a handful of scientists as some sort of 'proof' that the climate scientists got it wrong and internet bloggers and free-market think tanks(I.e. Heartland Institute) who receive money from big oil is on to something and the rest of the scientific community missed something.

Unlike most, I have also argued on the other side of the fence, so to claim I am stuck in my belief system is a naive thing for you to write.

I can be persuaded by good science and real world data. I will not be persuaded by the typical rhetoric that infests the anti-AGW crowd. I continually challenged you guys to bring good science to the discussion and I continually get political rhetoric, pseudo-science arguments, and suggestions that AGW is a religion.

This is extremely frustrating, and that frustration no doubt is present when I post in these threads.

So once again, I challenge the AGW naysayers to bring some good science and real world data to this discussion.

a reply to: Kali74

We don't know what caused MWP?

How far above the highest MWP estimate are we now?

What proportion of the current temperature increase is ascribed to anthropogenic sources?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Why must you ask difficult to impossible questions, while ignoring the obvious?

The obvious being as a result of the industrial age humanity became addicted to burning fossil fuels which release sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere. So much has been released that we are observing a sharp increase of atmospheric CO2 levels. It has been proven that CO2 causes radiative forcing, which causes heat to be 'trapped' in the atmosphere. This is why pretty much all scientists around the world agree with the AGW theory. We also have observations that support the AGW theory.

I do not think I can explain the basis of AGW any simpler. And to date, I have yet to see any tangible evidence that contradicts the AGW theory.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

We don't know what caused MWP?

Not concretely. Most likely a change in ocean circulation.

How far above the highest MWP estimate are we now?

About .3C higher than MWP: MWP .6 Current: .9

What proportion of the current temperature increase is ascribed to anthropogenic sources?

I don't know that/if anyone has declared a percentage. That is a far cry from not knowing anything. We know a lot. We know that all known forcings, except one, do not explain the very obvious departure from natural variability of the climate. The clear departure means that a forcing has strengthened, none have except one. One forcing very satisfactorily fits causing a rise in global temperatures. Greenhouse gases. Which greenhouse gas significantly increased? Carbon Dioxide. Why did CO2 increase? Combustion of carbon rich fossil fuels.

I'm done jumping through hoops. You know what your talking points are, present your side of the argument, don't make me do it by answering your endless questions.

Earth's temp has gone up and down for millions of years, stop with the delusional the sky is falling fear mongering. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: Kali74

I guess the biggest question I have relates to cause and effect. Logically it is clear that Cause must follow Effect. But the situation we seem to have here is that if carbon dioxide is the cause of the tempurature increase, why are they rising together?

Historically, carbon dioxide increases and temperature increases have followed one another by 100s if not thousands of years. The industrial age is 100 maybe 200 years if you count the use of pure coal to heat victorian homes. It just seem reasonable for the effect to rise in lock step with the cause.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Generally they are pretty lockstep. The rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 levels since the industrial age is faster and higher than any other warming period in the past 400K years.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Kali74

I guess the biggest question I have relates to cause and effect. Logically it is clear that Cause must follow Effect. But the situation we seem to have here is that if carbon dioxide is the cause of the tempurature increase, why are they rising together?

Historically, carbon dioxide increases and temperature increases have followed one another by 100s if not thousands of years. The industrial age is 100 maybe 200 years if you count the use of pure coal to heat victorian homes. It just seem reasonable for the effect to rise in lock step with the cause.

Tired of Control Freaks

I hope you have plenty of free time to review statistical analysis in multiple dimensions.

What I have read on the matter from your basic 'information' sources think that 2D linearization is the same thing as 3D + linearization. So you might also want to go look at the calculus for solving by terms, that is representing one function f(x,y) in terms of x(t) and y(t) so that f(x,y) becomes f(t).

So from this they factor in deforestation, the increased rate of C02 production (along with many other chemical reactions), and a few other variables to show that the 'driving' mechanism is much stronger and so the temperature will increase more quickly.

Further there is converting heat and polarized light from the sun.

Basically there are a lot of moving parts.

-FBB

a reply to: Kali74

kali74

Respectfully - throwany statistical charts you want at me. I am talking logic here. Its very simple and you don't need a computer to understand.

First there is cause - then there is effect! It comes in that order.

And further, and people do not give enough consideration to this.....We just don't know what it is we don't know.

The earth has exhibited a quick changes of climate in the past. The MWP is one example. The little Ice Age is another.

You say that the MWP was regional not global but I believe that there are many scientists who would disagree with that assessment

here is one study

link.springer.com...

Now I don't pretend to understand completely but....

Little Ice Age recorded in summer temperature reconstruction from vared sediments of Donard Lake, Baffin Island, Canada

The most prominent feature of the record is a period of elevated summer temperatures from 1200-1375 AD, followed by cooler conditions from 1375-1820 AD, coincident with the Little Ice Age.

We are only 0.3 degrees hotter than the MWP but we are like 600 hundred years further into the interglacial age as well.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

there are more such studies for Northern Russia and the artic that indicate that the MWP was far broader than you have stated.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Its always fun to try to dissect the science and understand it as thoroughly as possible. I have gotten lost in various subjects of interest many many times and had a ball but at the end of the day, common sense and logic must rule.

I have said many times that I am sceptical of the predicted effects of the theory of global warming. I have stated over and over again that the PTB are talking the talk but they are not walking the walk.

www.theguardian.com...

The United States and China have unveiled a secretly negotiated deal to reduce their greenhouse gas output, with China agreeing to cap emissions for the first time and the US committing to deep reductions by 2025.

The pledges in an agreement struck between President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jingping, provide an important boost to international efforts to reach a global deal on reducing emissions beyond 2020 at a United Nations meeting in Paris next year.

China, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, has agreed to cap its output by 2030 or earlier if possible. Previously China had only ever pledged to reduce the rapid rate of growth in its emissions. Now it has also promised to increase its use of energy from zero-emission sources to 20% by 2030.

The United States has pledged to cut its emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025.

The European Union has already endorsed a binding 40% greenhouse gas emissions reduction target by 2030.

Why would the PTB make a deal requiring that the United States, Europe (and I presume Canada) must make binding cuts to carbon emissions while allowing China to increase its emissions for another 16 years?????? Obviously that will make it impossible for the Western World to compete with China and considering that China is the biggest emitter....well lets just say, I see a problem here!

This isn't making any sense and when things don't make sense, its usually because someone has an agenda other than the one that is being openly discussed.

Tired of control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: jrod

why is not ok for Dr. Lindzen's work to be funded by ExxonMobile but its ok for Jim Hansens work to be funded by Soros?

Because Soros is elderly (he won't live to see the major problems) and doesn't have a business interest which is intrinsically related to the mechanism of global warming.

And what is wrong with Soros? Everybody seems to slag on him and I've never once seen a concrete, factual, reason why. As far as I can tell, his "crime" was that he was a wealthy man who was against GWB in 2004 (like 47% of voters) instead of in 2006 when everybody slagged on Bush.

Next, he calls out the BS in the traditional orthodox efficient markets theory and dereglatory ideology---and he should know, as that's how he makes his money. And that happens to be against the interests of the banking class.

He understands nonlinear dynamics very well at an intuitive level.

Note, it is only Exxon (and other Texas-based) petroleum companies which are actively in the denialist/obfuscatory camp. All other majors as far as I know accept science, e.g. Shell (Netherlands), BP (UK/US), Chevron (Calif).

Note the geography---it is from political attitudes and not science.

originally posted by: Greven
Do you know what that forecast was?

CO2: we would have at least ~354 CO2 ppm by 2000, but possibly as much as ~440 CO2 ppm.
RESULT: We hit 368 CO2 ppm in 1999, so it was within the forecast range nearer the low estimate.

The result was low mostly because of the collapse of the USSR, and in 1965 they probably over-estimated the future industrial capacity and growth rate of the USSR and Communist world.

a reply to: mbkennel

Ol' Geroge funds Hansen who is a researcher who has on multiple occasions been found to manipulate his own models erroneously to reach conclusions he would prefer.

//edit

George Soros and company have been convicted in multiple countries of financial fraud . . . helping to crash currencies and the such.

//edit

en.wikipedia.org...

He is chairman of Soros Fund Management. He is known as "The Man Who Broke the Bank of England" because of his short sale of US$10 billion worth of pounds, making him a profit of $1 billion during the 1992 Black Wednesday UK currency crisis.[7][8][9] Soros is one of the 30 richest people in the world.[10]
. . .

Insider trading conviction

. . .

In 1989 the Commission des Opérations de Bourse (COB—the French stock exchange regulatory authority) conducted an investigation of whether Soros's transaction in Société Générale should be considered insider trading. Soros had received no information from the Société Générale and had no insider knowledge of the business, but he did possess knowledge that a group of investors was planning a takeover attempt. The COB concluded that the statutes, regulations, and case law relating to insider trading did not clearly establish that a crime had occurred and that no charges should be brought against Soros.[56]

Several years later, a Paris-based prosecutor reopened the case against Soros and two other French businessmen, disregarding the COB's findings. This resulted in Soros's 2005 conviction for insider trading by the Court of Appeals (he was the only one of the three to receive a conviction). The French Supreme Court confirmed the conviction on June 14, 2006, but reduced the penalty to €940,000.[57]

Punitive damages were not sought because of the delay in bringing the case to trial. Soros denied any wrongdoing, saying news of the takeover was public knowledge[58] and it was documented that his intent to acquire shares of the company predated his own awareness of the takeover.[57]

His insider-trading conviction was upheld by the highest court in France on June 14, 2006.[57] In December 2006 he appealed to the European Court of Human Rights on various grounds including that the 14-year delay in bringing the case to trial precluded a fair hearing.[59] On the basis of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, stating that no person may be punished for an act that was not a criminal offense at the time that it was committed, the court agreed to hear the appeal.[60] In October 2011 the court rejected his appeal in a 4–3 decision, saying that Soros had been aware of the risk of breaking insider trading laws.[61]

Further the poor man grew up in Nazi-land where the people who took him in told him in told him to pretend to not be jewish. Then they went around seizing the property of the jewish folks. In fairly recent interviews he claims to have no remorse over the actions he participated in.

If you want to know why people do not trust this man or his organizations there are plenty of additional resources which you can find.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
Ad hominem.....

I don't care if what you wrote is true, what does it have to do with climate science?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
Ad hominem.....

I don't care if what you wrote is true, what does it have to do with climate science?

Well, mbkennel asked why people rag on the guy . . .

And what is wrong with Soros? Everybody seems to slag on him and I've never once seen a concrete, factual, reason why. As far as I can tell, his "crime" was that he was a wealthy man who was against GWB in 2004 (like 47% of voters) instead of in 2006 when everybody slagged on Bush.

I was simply providing the information they asked for. If you want to verify such you can look to their post which is a few above my response.

//edit
Also, I don't see how this is an ad hominem in any way. I showed this individual has a history of disregard for the well being of others. If you want evidence concerning Hansen's disingenuous modelling techniques and disinformation I will provide that here.

No, scientists aren’t predicting 10ft higher sea level by 2050

Update: NASA, James Hansen, and the Politicization of Science

After the the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make public the method he uses to generate "official" temperature records from the actual readings. That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines of source code, containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to individual sites, tossing out many readings entirely, and raising (or lowering) the actual values for others, sometimes by several degrees. Many areas with weak or no rising temperature trends are therefore given, after adjustment, a much sharper trend. A full audit of the Hansen code is currently underway, but it seems clear that Hansen has more explaining to do. George Deutsch, the NASA intern who resigned over the censorship fallout, said he was initially warned about Hansen when starting the job, "People said ... you gotta watch that guy. He is a loose cannon; he is kind of crazy. He is difficult to work with; he is an alarmist; he exaggerates.'"

//edit

-FBB

realclimatescience.com...

This kind of mind-blowing malfeasance would get them fired and probably escorted out of the building by security at many engineering companies.

Satellites cover almost the entire planet several times a day, and they showed that October had only the 25th highest monthly anomaly, and that the first ten months of 1998 all had a higher anomaly than October 2015.

By tampering with the station baseline, they created the large anomalies. Then they double down their fraud by smearing their bogus anomalies across 1200 km of missing data. This is needed to create their required fraudulent record temperature claims ahead of Paris.

Some interesting points made in the linked article about the fudged numbers.. Must be an Exon sponsored sight ...?
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com...

House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) opened another front in his war with federal climate researchers on Wednesday, saying a groundbreaking global warming study was “rushed to publication” over the objections of numerous scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Yep don't say it but he has to get his money from Exon or the coal industry and all those whistle blowers are just made up lies

there are only temperature stations covering about 40% of the global land mass since the end of the cold war when the defunct USSR abandoned some 10000 stations. NASA and NOAA use this same station data. Also note that this only represents 12% on the total Earth surface. So they extrapolate 12% of the Earth’s surface temps to cover the remaining 88%. AND fudge the numbers before doing that. Meanwhile the satellite record captures the entire surface and shows no such warming.

Now please tell me how the NOAA and NASA method of data collecting is more scientifically sound than what has been considered real science since Copernicus; also who is accepting things because some official says something fudged data to further just another trumped up government program.
This graph shows that almost all the NOAA stated warming we have seen is actually from NOAA adjustments
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...
Darn Exon must be at it again or Soros and some nefarious evil program.

Most people who have been following both sides of this argument have read from more than one source of how NOAA and even NASA have supposedly been caught adjusting numbers or whole computer programs to arrive at a predetermined outcome. True or false it does not matter for many would not believe either side regardless of who said what.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Addressing the science is how a scientific discussion works, character attacks and your rant against Soros does not change the science. Not sure where to begin with Hansen though....

@727Sky,

Any science you want to add to the discussion? Now you are trying tell the board the experts must have the numbers wrong.....


Also the articles you provide do not actually address the science, and no.I will.not trust a republican lawmaker from Texas opinion on the subject. More of the same BS rhetoric aimed at casting doubt on climate science without actually discussing the science.[

To write that the warming we have observed is because of instrument adjustments is a straight up lie. But go ahead and create your own version of the truth....

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

here is another prime example of the PTB talking the talk but not walking the walk...

ca.news.yahoo.com...

"Narendra Modi said he wanted an agreement in Paris and that India shared without ambiguity the 2 degree goal" the French source said.
The aim of limiting average global warming to 2 degrees above pre-industrial times was agreed in 2010 in Mexico.
It was reaffirmed at meeting of G20 leaders in mid-November but only after tough discussions as France and other European countries lobbied for its insertion in the final G20 statement.

So the Prime Minister of India really really agrees with limiting average global warming to 2 degrees above pre-industrial times.

www.bloomberg.com...

The upshot is that the U.S. is dropping coal plants at an unprecedented rate, but still nowhere near as quickly as India is adding them. By the end of this year, some 7.5 percent of the U.S. coal fleet will have disappeared, casualties of low natural gas prices, old age, and new regulations. That's a lot. But by 2020, India may have built about 2.5 times as much capacity as the U.S. is about to lose.

India also wants its share of the 100 billion per year from developed countries to undeveloped countries starting in 2020 that is proposed at COP21.

So I guess we actually get to pay for those new coal fired generating plants.

Where is the logic here?
Tired of Control Freaks