Climate change: February was hottest month on record as 'exceptional' Nasa shows

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

http://www.investors.com/politics/e...mist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

 

You shouldn't use Hoosier8 as a source when it comes to climate change. And if models perfectly predicted everything about the real world, then they wouldn't be called models. The only question is whether they are close enough to be useful, and I have provided several links showing that they are.

"The shape of a single-bladed “hockey stick”-like evolution of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the last 600 years is strongly confirmed within the MBH reconstruction framework (general algorithm and proxy data)."

Proof of AGW of course, unless you're going to suggest that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

As I pointed out before, studies like Briffa 1998 and Cook 2004 show that they are reliable up until the last 50 years.

You can click your heals together while you say this three time, it still won't make it true.

The only people who believe that are the people who are trying to discredit the science of climate change, but can't.

I remember when acid rain was the problem and people said eliminating SO2 emissions would ruin our economy and mean the end of air conditioning and refrigeration as we know it. None of which proved true. I have no doubt that we can find ways to reduce our CO2 emissions while growing our GDP at the same time, we just need to get past these silly debates about whether we're causing global warming and do something about it.

 

Thanks again for proving you haven't a clue. Acid rain was not the problem that the alarmists claimed it was and that is simple history. You definitely haven't a clue about computer modeling of the climate which is readily apparent. You probably haven't a clue about things like uncertainty.

 

why do we need to know the world's average temperature? Please, what value is it? models are useless, you know this, you wouldn't have made the claim you just made. So the only value is to give out money to concoct a story to redistribute money. The IPCC head stated it.

 

The quotes were from the IPCC - one from the working group and one from the SPM.

Source - The Hockey Stick Illusion - loc 3478

Mann and the Hockey Team did a great disservice to climate science.

But the reality is that people will choose to adapt to changes in the climate as they always have.

 

Since temperature is just a measure of the amount of energy in a given system, knowing the mean global surface temperature tells us how much energy there is in the atmosphere.

 

but it isn't evenly displaced and the fact that the northern hemisphere is much cooler than the southern hemisphere that mean tells us nothing because we have no idea where the energy actually is. So it's totally useless information.

 

And what do you do if you don't know it? You infill, homogenize, and basically guess what they are. That is what happens with the land/ocean temperature record.

 

While Wahl Ammann 2007 suggested a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction for the first half of the 15th century, it did nothing to dispute the primary conclusion that current warming is unprecedented for the last 600 years. If you want to debate the statistical validity of Mann's temperature reconstruction, you'll have to address Li, Nychka and Ammann (2007) which quantifed "the uncertainty of the reconstructed temperature while taking the errors in instrumental records and proxies into account through a rigorous statistical approach." They also found that current temperatures were "highly likely to be the warmest in the last millennium." Then there is Marcott et al. 2013 which extended the reconstruction back 11,300 years and found the same "hockey stick" shape.

 

Actually it is quite easy to see where that energy is.

What the global mean tells us is whether the system as a whole is gaining or loosing energy, and for the last century it has been gaining a lot of energy because of human activity.

 

Where are the validation statistics ??

Source - A Disgrace to the Profession - loc 2292

 

Gavin Schmidt kind of throws Mann under the bus.



Then, of course, there is this Gavin: “I do try and advocate for a higher level of conversation"

Except when it comes to discussing this with anyone that disagrees with the agenda.

[video=youtube_share;V96k4BO2sBw]http://youtu.be/V96k4BO2sBw[/video]

 

Schmidt is saying that tree ring data is one of many types of data that says the same thing, hence throwing away the tree ring data makes no difference. He was refuting Stossel's flagrantly dishonest strawman that all of global warming data depends on one tree.

Come on, up your game. You could, for example, point out that Schmidt and Mann disagree with Hansen's latest paper on the severity of future warming. But then, that leads to another problem for you. If there's a master global socialist conspiracy going on, then why are scientists disagreeing on some things? Just which global mastermind gives them permission to disagree on certain topics, but not on other topics?

And AFM, McIntyre's Unibomber-type conspiracy nonsense is ignored by everyone outside of the CultofMcIntyre. If you want to chant sacred scripture from the McIntyre Bible, go right ahead, but don't expect anyone to care.

 

As usual, nothing substantial. Just your usual name calling. So, you think Hansen's latest pronouncement based on another model will pan out as well as all the other alarmist predictions?

 

Seriously, it was McIntyre and McKitrick who argued that tree rings were significant enough to dispute MBH98. You just invalidated your own argument.

If it is as accurate as his Scenario B projection from 1988, then it should be pretty good.

http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/10/hansens-1988-predictions-revisited.html

 

You guys realize that all this is moot right?

 

That's ridiculous. M&M showed that MBH98 is bogus due to the short centering PC analysis that MBH made up which mined the data for hockey sticks. Their reconstruction fails by any measure of verification statistical measures.

Actually scenario C agrees the best with the real world.

 

Name calling and personal insults are a sure sign of a weak or (in this case) no argument.

But since you asked here are ~ 120 climate scientists and statisticians (like McIntyre) who agree with M&M Including Gavin Schmidt at # 109. And only vol #1.

 

Cute, someone's little plaything. Temps have followed scenario C that has no CO2 increase after 2000.

 

Since time immemorial, our climate has been and will always be changing. Patrick Moore explains why “climate change,” far from being a recent human-caused disaster, is, for a myriad of complex reasons, a fact of life on Planet Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkd...lbgZB8VvVyOYpJIrx3kzRfNLQWnoeEtCHcvVKtc9QSSdg

 

Yes, but it is not politically expedient to have a well educated populous that understands science, thus all the hysterical alarmism.

 

Yesterday I looked at Yahoo News, and of the first several dozen stories, about 1/4 were some kind of global warming hysteria. When the propaganda has to be that strident, you know what's being pushed is a lie.

 

I see a lot of stories on Isis. Must just be hysteria. Isis probably doesn't even exist. LOL

 

Ironically Obama thinks ISIS is the JV team and climate change is the number one existential threat to humankind. ISIS is killing people whilst global warming is saving lives.

 

And while you won't admit it, he is actually doing something about both.