450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

Originally posted by mc_squared

Unfortunately I think you and I both know there's no convincing these far gone idealogues when they made their bed a long time ago and now refuse to wake up and acknowledge how much the entire frame is built on lies, corrupt science and corporate fraud.

No you are the ideologue who refuses to accept the evidence skeptical of AGW Alarm supported overwhelming and irrefutably in the peer-reviewed literature,

800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

Your desperation is evidence of your fear intellectually honest individuals might actually learn of this truth.

Sherwood B. Idso (66 times):

His credentials are impeccable despite your smears,

Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics Cum Laude, University of Minnesota (1964), M.S. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1966), Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1967), Research Assistant in Physics, University of Minnesota (1962), National Defense Education Act Fellowship (1964-1967), Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974), Editorial Board Member, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1972-1993), Secretary, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1973-1974), Vice-Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1974-1975), Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001), Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1975-1976), Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977), Secretary, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1979-1980), President, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1980-1982), Member, Task Force on "Alternative Crops", Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1983), Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2007), Editorial Board Member, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present), Member, Botanical Society of America, Member, American Geophysical Union, Member, American Society of Agronomy, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)

Richard Lindzen (cited in Poptech's list 23 times):

Dr. Lindzen's credentials are again impeccable,

Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics Magna Cum Laude, Harvard University (1960), S.M. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961), Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964), Research Associate in Meteorology, University of Washington (1964-1965), NATO Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965-1966), Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967), Visiting Lecturer in Meteorology, UCLA (1967), NCAR Outstanding Publication Award (1967), AMS Meisinger Award (1968), Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972), Summer Lecturer, NCAR Colloquium (1968, 1972, 1978), AGU Macelwane Award (1969), Visiting Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Tel Aviv University (1969), Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1970-1976), Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983), Visiting Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1975), Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Hebrew University (1979), Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983), Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamical Meteorology, Harvard University (1982-1983), AMS Charney Award (1985), Vikram Amblal Sarabhai Professor, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India (1985), Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship (1986-1987), Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA (1988-Present), Sackler Visiting Professor, Tel Aviv University (1992), Landsdowne Lecturer, University of Victoria (1993), Bernhard Haurwitz Memorial Lecturer, American Meteorological Society (1997), Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences, Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Fellow, American Geophysical Union, Fellow, American Meteorological Society, Member, Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, Member, National Academy of Sciences, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1983-Present), Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

MIT's inconvenient scientist (The Boston Globe)

ect... You have nothing but smears and lies.

Originally posted by mc_squared

Again does this look like it came from a website full of lies?
Famous Global Warming Skeptic Scientist admits "40 percent" of his funding comes from Big Oil

LMAO, so? So do you accept that if the funding comes from government the science will be in support of more government? You argument is self-defeating,

Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come (PDF) (Joanne Nova, B.S. Microbiology)
Funding Flows for Climate Change Research and Related Activities (PDF) (Jeff Kueter, M.A. Science & Technology Studies)

You frivolously accuse all of mainstream science of being corrupt and lying but then wah wah cry foul when you get a dose of your own medicine.

Lies, you are a dishonest individual who when they cannot make a point attempts to spread falsehoods. Quote me where I stated this lie.

Keep crying about the list as the page hits continue to spiral into the stratosphere.

reply to post by atlasastro

Are we pumping CO2 into the atmosphere? Yes.
Will this effect the climate? Yes.
This is AGW.
Are we observing Global Warming? Yes.

Forgive me for saying this atlasastro but your understanding of the scientific method appears skin-deep to me. Just because there is a correlation between temperature rise and anthropogenic emissions that does not mean anything because it does not contain any information about what is causing what to happen. A correlation is essentially just a coincidence between two sets of numbers and it cannot prove that CO2 causes temperature changes any more than it can prove that temperature changes cause changes to CO2. There could be a third factor, as yet undetermined, which causes changes to both simultaneously (or with an 800-year lag between them). In any case how strong exactly is the correlation between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and temperature oscillations over the last century? Not very strong. The progressively cooler times between 1945-1975 occurred when CO2 emissions were very high and there has not been any statistically significant warming for almost fifteen years.

www.junkscience.com... - HADCRUT. Uses a mix of satellite data and land-based thermometers.
www.junkscience.com... - RSS. Uses only satellite data.

One common claim and argument that Archibald sited is that the Earth has not warmed since 1998. Which in a context is correct, as 1998 was unusually hot and the hottest year to date, but the 30 year trend shows it is warming. So he cherry picks his point to dismiss a long term trend.

According to Professor Jones of CRU and as observed in all the data-sets there has been no significant warming since 1995. What do you consider to be the confounding variables and why was this not predicted by the All Knowing Scientists and their £100,000,000 computer models? At any rate how does the 30 year trend since 1975-1998 compare with the warming trends that occurred between 1906-1945 and 1850-1875? See the graph below. There is no anthropogenic signature in the (compromised) surface-temperature data. According to the CO2 hypothesis, the temperature should have accelerated as our emissions have increased. It has not. I can tell you why to save you the pain of having to think about it: the models are wrong and the hypothesis is false. The graph below, corroborated by the HADCRUT and GISS data shows that we are well-inside, long-term established climate trends. Compare the warming trends with our emissions and putative levels of CO2 in this graph here.


The temperature variations in the graph above looks cyclical to me.

Link: www.fel.duke.edu...
Link: www.climatechange.ca.gov...

reply to post by Poptech


Oh just give it a rest Poptech.

I have dealt with enough of you so-called skeptics to write a thesis on the textbook reactions your camp exhibits every time you're confronted with this "inconvenient truth"

Wow.
Two brief points before I let the big boys continue playing.
1. Correlation does not mean causation.
2. If global warming was leading to sea level rise is that worse than driving the prices of food up, or forcing draconian limitations on human agricultural and economic development?

reply to post by stephinrazin


Well no offense, but you just wrote correlation does not mean causation but then kind of pooped all over your first point with your second.

Because take note that the issue in every one of these warmist versus denier debates focuses on whether or not global warming is even a real problem in the first place - not whether the proposed political solutions against it are legitimate or not.

The conversation never even gets that far - because if it did a lot of these supposed skeptics would actually find many of the believers themselves aren't crazy about what our governments are intent on doing about it.

But of course that doesn't change the fact the problem is real - in fact it makes our personal attention and dedication to this issue that much more urgent!

But again - it never gets that far - because all these skeptics seem to work under this totally one-dimensional naive premise that government legislation against global warming is a scam - therefore global warming itself is a scam. They never bother to consider the possibility that global warming could actually be a very real problem that is simply being exploited by the powers that be.

So it gets stuck in this ridiculously polemic debate that you see before you instead.

Anyway not sure if that's exactly what you were implying with your second point, about it being a waste of effort because it is "correlated" to one on a political level - but in light of traditional skeptic talking points I hope you can see how it sounded that way.

The second question on it's own is certainly a good question (although bear in mind increasing drought and ecological destruction are going to affect rising food prices much more than sea levels), but again this should have no bearing on the first question.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is based on a lot more than just correlation. It is rooted in a fundamental understanding of the physics of the Greenhouse effect, and these physics were used to predict current warming over a hundred years ago.

So correlation today isn't some superficial connection scientists came up with on the fly to give politicians an excuse to tax people. It is actually a well-founded prediction that is coming true before our eyes. In the scientific method this pretty much amounts to BINGO.

But these hardened "skeptics" love to bastardize the scientific method into some screwy version that supports their views, which as this thread attests is based much more on superficial correlations to things like snowfalls than it is on actual science.

Originally posted by mc_squared
Oh just give it a rest Poptech.

I have dealt with enough of you so-called skeptics to write a thesis on the textbook reactions your camp exhibits every time you're confronted with this "inconvenient truth"

reply to post by Poptech


Seeing someone who charges $2500 per day to testify against global warming on behalf of big oil and coal as lacking integrity has nothing to do with emotion, it has everything to do with reality and not being an oblivious sheltered twit.

So like I said - bon voyage! *waves handkerchief* Enjoy the trip into climate denier dementia. Just sit there in your canoe gently rocking back and forth whispering to yourself: "lies. you have failed to demonstrate this. lies. you have failed to demonstrate this." That'll make everything ok again...

reply to post by mc_squared


This is like the richard dawkins way of debating, calling people names and no evidence to back up what you claim. Have you considered working for the police? They are obsessed with no evidence to back up there claims too.

Al gore doesn't even think the sun has an impact on earths climate, lol.

Who is in denial?

lol

Originally posted by mc_squared
Seeing someone who charges $2500 per day to testify against global warming on behalf of big oil and coal as lacking integrity has nothing to do with emotion, it has everything to do with reality and not being an oblivious sheltered twit.

Liar, stop reading smear sites. Being paid to speak at an event is very different from "charging to testify for energy companies". Speakers get paid all the time to speak about topics they are knowledgeable on. The part you are confused about is that these scientists already held the views they were speaking about prior to being paid to speak about them. Maybe you should attack Al Gore for doing the same thing,

Al Gore is criticised for lining his own pockets after £3,300 ($6,757) per-minute green speech (Daily Mail, UK)

But you hate is so complete you reject any pretense of intellectual honesty.

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by mc_squared

 

This is like the richard dawkins way of debating, calling people names and no evidence to back up what you claim.

You're absolutely right andy1033 - it's exactly like that. Global warming is just one of those crazy out there theories that have no actual proof, just like Evolution!

Tell me - have you read this thread at all? Or did you just skim through it and skip ahead to the last responses like most of the ATS peanut gallery does?

Because if you had bothered to actually read through it you might have noticed I already posted tons of proof on these skeptic shills. Stuff like this 1995 expose from Harper's Magazine that pointed out:

Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.

That report comes from a highly distinguished magazine by the way that has been in print for 160 years - i.e. for example before Darwin even published the theory of evolution.

I also posted a 20 year old coal-industry funded propaganda film that you can WATCH FOR YOURSELF featuring these crooks, not to mention another video from CNN where Pat Michaels admits OUT OF HIS OWN MOUTH he is funded by big oil.

And you somehow spin this into "no proof"??

Of course I'm apparently talking to someone who also thinks evolution has no proof either...

So thanks for justifying something else I repeatedly say around here: arguing with climate deniers is exactly like arguing with creationists. Facts and logic and critical thinking and especially PROOF simply don't matter with you people. You only see things how you want to see them and that's that...

I'm sure Poptech has some extra space in his canoe for you, so go ahead and jump right in. Perhaps you two can fashion some fancy pirate hats out of all those fancy peer-reviewed papers he has on board as well.

Originally posted by mc_squared
So thanks for justifying something else I repeatedly say around here: arguing with climate deniers is exactly like arguing with creationists.

Yes, and their techniques are often the same; even down to attacks on science in the classroom.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I always wondered what sort of persons would don a sandwich board with "The End of the World is Nigh" written on it and walk down a busy street.

Now i know

Here's an analogy of how i see it...

First week of the world cup.

Bob says... Brazil are going to win the world cup.

Dave says....Ooh i'm not too sure about that.

Bob says.... I tell ya a Latin American team will win the world cup.

Dave says... I don't know, its not a forgone conclusion to say that.

Bob says....Look here you denier, you scoundrel, you cad, a football team is gonna win the world cup.

Dave says....WTF

reply to post by andy1033


The irony of this post is just amazing. Bad spelling, bad grammar and no science to back up your point.

This is one insane world.

Some heavy research into both sides of this debate.

Fact is those IPCC scientists did lie and so did Al in his movie, or he "misspoke." Either way you look at it there are holes in the AGW argument. People lie to hide something, so what are they hiding?

.7 degree rise is because of us? What about the end of the last ice age, 5 to 10 degree rise in 30yrs. Was that because of our big, unnecessary SUV's? I don't think so.

I may not be up to date on all the science and links from both sides but I do know a con when I see it. If Big Al and his friends accuse you of something then that is exactly what they're guilty of.

Only a thief has to proclaim himself not a thief, and that is done by accusing the other side of being in it for the money! How much does Big Al and his friends stand to make on selling carbon credits and Cap and Trade legislation?

I wonder.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by atlasastro

 

Forgive me for saying this atlasastro but

You are forgiven.

your understanding of the scientific method appears skin-deep to me. Just because there is a correlation between temperature rise and anthropogenic emissions that does not mean anything because it does not contain any information about what is causing what to happen.

That is because you have correlated the value of your subjective understanding of my statement with being significant to the value of my overall knowledge of the scientific method.
Your method for testing my understanding of the scientific method is flawed in such a way that it fails to support your conclusion.

There is a demonstrated causal link between CO2 and temperature.
agwobserver.wordpress.com...
CO2 is not isolated from Temperature. So we are not considering or correlating two isolated statistical observations but the relationship between two variables and then attributing significance between one observation with the other in relation to the cause of just one, BECAUSE we KNOW that ONE of these statistical OBSERVATIONS( CO2 ) directly effects the OTHER (temperature), and that this is a supported by a fundamental law of physics.
This is why it is consider significant as a cause.

Your rational is appalling though, please forgive me.
Using an analogy:
The fact that Doctors show empirically that smoking is linked to the cause of cancer, YOU would argue that the incidence of cancer amongst smokers is merely a correlation between the number of smokers and the number of cancer sufferers amongst smokers.
Smoke it up dude, get the OP, Poptech or Seitz to light you one.

I accept that my statement was a generalization and an oversimplification of the topic.
But even in light of that it seems that you and many other skeptics are incapable of actually showing the link is merely a correlation by showing another valid cause that would render the increase in CO2( a known greenhouse gas that effects temperature) and warming as being a simple co-incidence.
If you want to dismiss the link between CO2 and Temp rises, simply show another cause.
That would be the methodical approach from a scientific point of view.

Also, from a skeptical point of view, are you saying that we should ignore the fact that we are pumping ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere whilst observing temp. rises? As a mere correlation!
Is that in and of itself, methodical.

The fact is though, that scientists nor I, rest on simply correlating the increase in temps with the increase in CO2.

A correlation is essentially just a coincidence between two sets of numbers and it cannot prove that CO2 causes temperature changes any more than it can prove that temperature changes cause changes to CO2.

Then don't use them in your poorly fashioned ad hoc counter arguments.

The progressively cooler times between 1945-1975 occurred when CO2 emissions were very high and there has not been any statistically significant warming for almost fifteen years.

That is why scientists don't simply rest on two sets of numbers.

I don't claim that AGW is simply based on a correlation. The fact that other reasons for causation are investigated as being responsible for the warming then leads scientists to consider wether or not the increase in CO2 and temps are a correlation or significantly linked.

Again, you should be aware of the many other avenues of investigation that have been considered as a cause, like an increase in total solar irradiance(which has actually decreased).
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/98af815a3bcb.gif[/atsimg]
Nice Link.

There could be a third factor, as yet undetermined,

Yes there could be. Could would and should. But at the moment we are observing CO2 as a known element.
I find it absurd that you want to dismiss what is known in favor of unknowns that may or could exist.

which causes changes to both simultaneously (or with an 800-year lag between them).

Pure conjecture is weaker then correlations. You are arguing with your own correlations based on pure conjecture.

In any case how strong exactly is the correlation between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and temperature oscillations over the last century? Not very strong. The progressively cooler times between 1945-1975 occurred when CO2 emissions were very high

Yes, and these have been noted so as to reduce the notion that linking CO2 to recent warming is not merely conjecture based on correlation.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/92ea587b5412.gif[/atsimg]

and there has not been any statistically significant warming for almost fifteen years.

Incorrect.
I guess as far as all those record high temperatures go, statistically speaking they have no significance. Sure!

But any way, you are using correlation to argue against what you claim is not significant. That because you note trends that have been cooler periods when CO2 has increased that this must mean they are significant.

Fail.
But , you are right to question that, so we can look at longer term periods, maybe. That would seem logical. Do they do that?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/92ea587b5412.gif[/atsimg]
cdiac.ornl.gov...
www.esrl.noaa.gov...
data.giss.nasa.gov...

According to Professor Jones of CRU and as observed in all the data-sets there has been no significant warming since 1995. What do you consider to be the confounding variables and why was this not predicted by the All Knowing Scientists and their £100,000,000 computer models?

Anyway, What on earth are you talking about no warming since 1995
1998 was the hottest year on record. Archibald even uses it to plot a cooling trend.
Are you for real!

Even the last ten years contain most of the hottest years on record.
They predicted continued warming as CO2 output continued. That has happened. What a coincidence! What amazing powers of correlation!
www.sciencedaily.com...

June was the fourth consecutive month that was the warmest on record for the combined global land and surface temperatures (March, April, and May were also the warmest). This was the 304th consecutive month with a combined global land and surface temperature above the 20th century average. The last month with below average temperatures was February 1985.
It was the warmest June on record for the land surfaces of the globe. Previous record was set in 2005. The land surface temperature exceeded the previous record by 0.11˚C (0.20˚F). This large difference over land contributed strongly to the overall global land and ocean temperature anomaly.
The worldwide oceans experienced the fourth warmest June on record. Sea surface temperatures across the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean continued to decrease, damping ocean surface temperatures.
According to Beijing Climate Center, Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang, and Jilin experienced their warmest June since records began in 1951. Meanwhile, Guizhou had its coolest June on record.
Spain experienced its coolest June temperature anomaly since 1997, according to Spain's meteorological office.
Year -to-Date January -- June 2010 Global Temperature Anomalies
Highlights:
The year-to-date (January-June) combined global land and ocean temperature was the warmest on record.
The worldwide land surface temperature had its second warmest year-to-date (January-June), behind 2007.
The worldwide ocean temperature was the second warmest year-to-date (January-June), behind 1998.
2010 surpassed 1998 (Feb, Jul, Aug) for the most "warmest months" in any calendar year.

www.sciencedaily.com...

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for both April and for the period from January-April, according to NOAA. Additionally, last month's average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for any April, and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record.

www.sciencedaily.com...

ScienceDaily (Oct. 18, 2009) — The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the second warmest September on record, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Based on records going back to 1880, the monthly National Climatic Data Center analysis is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides.

www.sciencedaily.com...

ScienceDaily (Apr. 20, 2009) — The combined global land and ocean surface average temperature for March 2009 was the 10th warmest since records began in 1880, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

www.sciencedaily.com...

ScienceDaily (Apr. 21, 2010) — The world's combined global land and ocean surface temperature made last month the warmest March on record, according to NOAA. Taken separately, average ocean temperatures were the warmest for any March and the global land surface was the fourth warmest for any March on record. Additionally, the planet has seen the fourth warmest January -- March period on record.

www.sciencedaily.com...

ScienceDaily (June 17, 2010) — The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for May, March-May (Northern Hemisphere spring-Southern Hemisphere autumn), and the period January-May according to NOAA. Worldwide average land surface temperature for May and March-May was the warmest on record while the global ocean surface temperatures for both May and March-May were second warmest on record, behind 1998.

ScienceDaily (July 27, 2009) — The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for June, breaking the previous high mark set in 2005, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Additionally, the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for June was second-warmest on record. The global records began in 1880.

www.sciencedaily.com...

At any rate how does the 30 year trend since 1975-1998

That is actually just 23 years.

compare with the warming trends that occurred between 1906-1945

that is a 39 year trend and the next one is 25.

and 1850-1875? See the graph below.

I guess math is not your strong suit.
Firstly, can you point out where I make a short term trend significant so as to dismiss a long term trend in the same manner like Archibald did!
Please be honest and discuss the matter in context. I was question why Archibald would dismiss the 30 year trend in warming. Can you answer that please, considering his claim was that we are seeing cooling. Which he got wrong. again.

But, you are right, you raise a great question. Do you think people discussing these trends have not considered what you mention. They have.
That is where the whole Hockey stick mass debate came from did it not?

There is no anthropogenic signature in the (compromised) surface-temperature data. According to the CO2 hypothesis, the temperature should have accelerated as our emissions have increased.

It has.

It has not.

Actually, it has.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fa3d5a7870cc.jpg[/atsimg]

You even provide a graph that points to anthropogenic signature. You just don't realize it.

I can tell you why to save you the pain of having to think about it: the models are wrong and the hypothesis is false.

No doubt the models are not exact. In one instance, they failed to consider the ability for carbon and heat sinks to absorb our output, but that is rapidly ending as the sinks(ocean being a big one, seem to have reached a limit somewhat, according to the experts). I can site many examples of errors in models because you cannot account for the all variables, especially the gaps in knowledge.
I don't deny that. You should accept these flaws as being equally applicable to your own arguments and the resources you use.
Remember my previous sentence, because it is interesting that you mention models.

The graph below, corroborated by the HADCRUT and GISS data shows that we are well-inside, long-term established climate trends. Compare the warming trends with our emissions and putative levels of CO2 in this graph

Yes, lets do that, it sounds logical.
here.
Here it is.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7d29e84c9bd5.gif[/atsimg]
Remember when you said this.

There is no anthropogenic signature in the (compromised) surface-temperature data.

You are trying to dismiss that signature as this now.

The temperature variations in the graph above looks cyclical to me.

Really.

Conversely, adding a trend to the cycle and plotting it against actual temperature history also (and logically) yields the same very beautiful correlation

WTF!

www.warmdebate.com...
The graph above is derived from Nicola Scafetta' "Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations
and its implications".

Firstly, what I find funny about the fact that you use the above, is that you have blatantly questioned data earlier in your post as this:

There is no anthropogenic signature in the (compromised) surface-temperature data.

but seem to ignore what Scafetta does to his data in order to get a trend for his oscillations.

Fig 10 A and 10 B
Glob. Temp. minus its quadratic fit curve
Rescaled 60 year modulation of SCMSS index (+5 year shift-lag)
Detr. global temp. (8 year moving average)
Detr. global temp. (+61.5 year lag-shift).

www.fel.duke.edu...
Page 11.
Do you even know how many adjustments that is? Who cares about compromised data hey!
Not to mention Scafetta correlates data.
I'll say that again, just in case you missed it.
Scafetta correlates data.
He is correlating a trend in celestial oscillation with historical temps.
I know how you feel about correlations.

your understanding of the scientific method appears skin-deep to me. Just because there is a correlation between

celestial oscillation and a rise in temperature that does not mean anything because it does not contain any information about what is causing what to happen.
I'll have to take your word for it.

It was written in 2009 and predicted we should see cooling or a stable climate until 2030-2040.
2010 looks to be on track for cooling? NOT. But we will see.
Thats the good thing about this work, it makes predictions that will be tested by reality.

Further more, Scafetta claims that the oscillations only account for 60% of the warming observed since 1970.

It is found that at least 60% of the global warming observed since 1970 has been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate
oscillations. The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030–2040.

The trends plotted do not account for any of the increased trends we observe in Anthropogenic CO2 output as a mechanism that could and will continue to drive trends in warming outside of and possibly above these oscillations, if they are indeed significant.
This is exactly what our CO2 output did in relation to solar irradiance as a factor in warming trends since the 70's.

If this is just cyclical as you claim:

The temperature variations in the graph above looks cyclical to me.

Just one question:
Where does the level of anthropogenic CO2 input appear as being cyclical so as to dismiss it as insignificant to the warming trends? After all, this is exactly what the debate is over. How can you consider an increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 that matches the output of anthropogenic emissions as being typical of warming trends that you try to correlate as being cyclical by using oscillations that only account for a possible 60%.
Please tell me?

In any case, the suggested model is just a simple mathematical
prototype that suggests how the climate may synchronize with
weak astronomical periodic forcings by just adjusting, through
synchronization, the frequency modes of its own numerous
internal subsystems in such a way to let them mirror the
oscillations of the input forcing.

Read Scafetta's conclusion carefully.
Scafetta synchronizes by ADJUSTING the forcings of periodic oscillations to mirror or synchronize with climate.
Why does he need to adjust his cause to mirror the climate when he is stating that the fact that they mirror one another makes them significant in relation to warming?

Can you answer that please?

This synchronization mechanism
acts in addition and together with other more direct mechanisms
such as irradiance forcing and cloud modulation via cosmic ray
flux (Kirkby, 2007; Svensmark et al., 2009), and contributes to
magnifying the climatic effect of a weak astronomical periodic
forcing.

www.fel.duke.edu...
So now he needs to add other factors into the forcing effects of the oscillations that he claims result in 60% of observed heating.
Did you see that in any of the graphs?
Irradiance Forcing, Cloud Modulation via cosmic ray flux?
Because I didn't.

In any case, the suggested model is just a simple mathematical
prototype

www.fel.duke.edu...
OMG!
I know how you feel about Models.

All Knowing Scientists and their £100,000,000 computer models?

I concede that my understanding may be Skin deep.
But it seems deeper than yours.

Thank you for the reply.
Take care.

reply to post by atlasastro

There is a demonstrated causal link between CO2 and temperature. CO2 is not isolated from Temperature. So we are not considering or correlating two isolated statistical observations but the relationship between two variables and then attributing significance between one observation with the other in relation to the cause of just one, because we know that one of these statistical observations (CO2) directly effects the other (temperature), and that this is a supported by a fundamental law of physics. This is why it is consider significant as a cause.

Agreed. The CO2 in the atmosphere will be having an effect. But how much warming is caused by MMGW due to CO2? No-one has offered any empirical evidence that it is more than insignificant, or that what has happened to the temperature is not merely mother Earth rolling on with natural temperature cycles has she has done for millennia. It still has not been established by empirical science that CO2 is having a significant effect on global temperatures, much less that whatever miniscule effect it might be having would be deleterious and all future predictions of a CO2 engendered catastrophe are based on computer models which remains merely imaginative speculation.

Also, from a skeptical point of view, are you saying that we should ignore the fact that we are pumping ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere whilst observing temp. rises? As a mere correlation!

Oh atlasastro, you haven't been doing your homework, have you? All glaciological proxies, without exception, show that temperature controls CO2. There is a lag lasting, on average, 800 years between changes in temperature and corresponding changes in CO2. This is because the oceans are so vast and deep they literally take hundreds of years longer than the continents to react to temperature changes - especially at the very bottom of the oceans where the deepest ocean currents take the longest to circulate. And as everyone knows, as the oceans warm they release more CO2 and as they cool they suck more CO2 out of the atmosphere - thus the "cause and effect" link is most likely the other way around. Instead of CO2 controlling temperature, it is more likely that temperature actually controls CO2, thus explaining the correlation.

The fact that Doctors show empirically that smoking is linked to the cause of cancer, you would argue that the incidence of cancer amongst smokers is merely a correlation between the number of smokers and the number of cancer sufferers amongst smokers.

Right. But we already know that CO2 follows temperature, right?

Again, you should be aware of the many other avenues of investigation that have been considered as a cause, like an increase in total solar irradiance (which has actually decreased).

The graph you cited, I'm assuming is from Lockwood and Frohlich. The counterargument to Lockwood's and Frohlich's methodology can be found here: icecap.us... You should note that other scientists like Willie Soon and Douglas Hoyt have come to different conclusions so this is by no means a settled subject. Even if the correlation between solar activity and temperature had broken down from 1970 onwards, that doesn't prove anything because the alternative possible drivers of observed global temperature changes are innumerable and climate scientists have hardly begun to explore the tip of this vast iceberg as yet. What about PDO, AMO, and GCRs? All possible alternatives. If we are doing proper science we must endeavour to exhaust all of the possibilities - thoroughly.

Pure conjecture is weaker then correlations. You are arguing with your own correlations based on pure conjecture.

The average 800-year time-lag between temperature-changes and corresponding CO2-changes is certainly not conjecture. See here: www.palisad.com... These detailed graphics from analysis of Dome and Vostok ice core data mathematically show that CO2 follows temperatures.

Yes, and these have been noted so as to reduce the notion that linking CO2 to recent warming is not merely conjecture based on correlation.

Again, we already know that temperature controls CO2 levels, so why should we be surprised to see a correlation?

Incorrect. I guess as far as all those record high temperatures go, statistically speaking they have no significance.

NASA's GISS data is compromised because the surface temperature readings from thermometers are conveniently sited next to the air-conditioning vents of large buildings. NASA's temperature data is in pretty bad shape. Please see here: wattsupwiththat.com... Quote from the article:

NASA's disgrace was affirmed in March 2010 when they finally conceded that their data was in worse shape than the much-maligned Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the UK's University of East Anglia. (Dr Anderson) advises it is fair to assume that NOAA were using this temperature anomaly to favourably hype a doom saying agenda of ever-increasing temperatures that served the misinformation process of government propaganda.

Here is a more revealing graph of the surface temperature readings from the GISS data. See any significant warming since 1995? See here: www.junkscience.com...

Anyway, What on earth are you talking about no warming since 1995. 1998 was the hottest year on record.

I didn't say no warming. I said no statistically significant warming.

You even provide a graph that points to anthropogenic signature. You just don't realize it.

Firstly, that graph concerns only one country, not the globe, and secondly, I am talking about the rate of warming, not absolute temperatures. Earth has been warming for 250-300 years since we came out of the Little Ice Age. See the rate of warming below. The trends are more or less the same.

I don't deny that. You should accept these flaws as being equally applicable to your own arguments and the resources you use. Remember my previous sentence, because it is interesting that you mention models.

In the case of the IPCC's climate models vital observational reality-checking does not appear to have been done. Indeed it is questionable as to whether that is even possible.

You are trying to dismiss that signature as this now.

Oh, atlasastro. The rate of warming between around 1975-2000 in the graph I presented in my initial post (and above) is exactly the same as the rate of warming that occurred between around 1910-1945 and both occurred during significantly different periods of anthropogenic emissions.

Where does the level of anthropogenic CO2 input appear as being cyclical so as to dismiss it as insignificant to the warming trends?

Excuse me?

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Agreed. The CO2 in the atmosphere will be having an effect. But how much warming is caused by MMGW due to CO2? No-one has offered any empirical evidence that it is more than insignificant, or that what has happened to the temperature is not merely mother Earth rolling on with natural temperature cycles has she has done for millennia. It still has not been established by empirical science that CO2 is having a significant effect on global temperatures, much less that whatever miniscule effect it might be having would be deleterious and all future predictions of a CO2 engendered catastrophe are based on computer models which remains merely imaginative speculation.

Nathan, your complete lack of shame at being shown to be both ignorant and a liar in posts earlier suggests that no matter how many times I (or others) show you to be talking tripe, your lack of conscience and intellectual honesty will ensure it was a wasted effort. So this is purely for anyone who might think it worth engaging with your BS.

You know you are talking tripe here. There is a tonne of research showing climate sensitivity is of the order of 3'C, and it has shown that even as far back as the Charney sensitivity of 1979.

A single doubling is probably certain at this point in time. A second is possible. Indeed, some groups are talking about aiming for 650ppm rather than the 450ppm that was proposed as the best we could achieve. Thus we are talking of a best of over 3'C, with an upper potential of 6'C.

That is significant. Indeed, we will be in a situation not seen for a very long time. The estimates of climate sensitivity are based on observational data and modelling. Again, you are just a dishonest ideologue.

Oh atlasastro, you haven't been doing your homework, have you? All glaciological proxies, without exception, show that temperature controls CO2. There is a lag lasting, on average, 800 years between changes in temperature and corresponding changes in CO2. This is because the oceans are so vast and deep they literally take hundreds of years longer than the continents to react to temperature changes - especially at the very bottom of the oceans where the deepest ocean currents take the longest to circulate. And as everyone knows, as the oceans warm they release more CO2 and as they cool they suck more CO2 out of the atmosphere - thus the "cause and effect" link is most likely the other way around. Instead of CO2 controlling temperature, it is more likely that temperature actually controls CO2, thus explaining the correlation.

The fact that you are still pushing the lag fallacy shows your mendacious nature.

I'll explain this for other people, as I know you would be more worried about defending your ego than accepting you are spouting disinformation:

Much like water vapour (which some may know deniers will constantly remind people is an important greenhouse gas and therefore causes warming), CO2 is affected by temperature. Thus, when temperature rises, the atmosphere can hold more water vapour (which is sourced from oceans). This increase in water vapour causes warming. So in this case water vapour is a feedback.

For CO2, when ice-age terminations are triggered by orbital variations, the initial warming results in release of CO2 from oceans, this CO2 causes warming. In this situation, CO2 is a feedback.

Currently, CO2 is not a feedback. The increases in atmospheric concentration are sourced from human activity. Therefore it is a forcing.

Nathan is that irrational, he is unable to even see the contradictions within his own posts. Thus in attempting to make a logical argument (lol): he says

thus the "cause and effect" link is most likely the other way around. Instead of CO2 controlling temperature, it is more likely that temperature actually controls CO2

So the idea he is proposing here is that because temperature causes CO2 increases during ice-age terminations (well-accepted and even predicted), CO2 cannot 'control' temperature. Yet earlier in his post he says:

Agreed. The CO2 in the atmosphere will be having an effect. But how much warming is caused by MMGW due to CO2?

So now it will be having an effect on temperature.

Duh! Six impossible things before breakfast. CO2 is a feedback during ice-age terminations, much like water vapour is right now. Nathan has had this explained many times, but the same old BS is constantly regurgitated.

If anyone wants to clearly see Nathan's intellectual dishonesty and ignorance in glorious technicolour, try following for a couple of pages what happened after his post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You might note that after making a total hash of trying to look like he knew what he was talking about and blatantly lying about what his said posts to save face, he disappeared for a few days to resurface spouting the same old BS.

Cheers.

reply to post by melatonin


You have basically posted unsubstantiated hype from the warmist bible and have not backed it up with one single reference and in addition have accused a member of being a liar.

If you are going to attack a member in such a fashion at least please have the decency to back up what you choose to spout with references, proper peer reviewed references.

May I remind you that failure to provide references to back up what you say when you are 'quoting' science is also mendacious so you could equally be accused of such.

You may not assume people know to what you refer and if this was a scientific paper it would not pass a peer review, of which you people are so fond, for the complete lack of any reference material whatsoever.

reply to post by PuterMan

gotta agree with Puterman
the head of the IPC has admitted that there has been no global warming in many years.

Dr. Jone is staring to come clean. He has said some surprising things in a recent interview with the BBC. Jones discusses many interesting things but there are some surprises coming from him. He admits that the Medieval Warm Period (the hot period around the year 1000, a time when England made wine and Greenland was green in the south) was a global warm period, that the warming trends such as 1860-1880 and 1910-1940 were similar to the recent warming period, and that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995"

www.geographictravels.com...

The link lists enough of the proven global warming scandals to leave little doubt as to its actual credibility.