Global warming scepticism

it's funny how you ignore science, facts and evidence



Global temperature rise

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.(5) Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.(6) Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.(7)


5) - https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

6) - T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.

7) - I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11

 

Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

again, do you have a copy of the empirical evidence? Show us. Where is the experiment that can prove that an increase in CO2 does anything to climate? waiting for almost two years. All of what you posted is mumbo jumbo double spin phooey. Just post up the empirical evidence that seems to flow out of every post of yours, except there never is any evidence just opinion and conjecture. hoosier and I are waiting for the evidence you claim you have. where is it? It isn't in what you've already posted. If it were, you would highlight it. so wash rinse, repeat if you must, but know it isn't evidence of anything. ANYTHING

 

it's evidence that co2 produced by human activity is causing global warming

 

where?

 

what part of global don't you understand

 

what's that got to do with you proving human CO2 vs natural CO2?

 

[video=youtube;00Y9EZDdpUw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Y9EZDdpUw[/video]
dujac:

here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Y9EZDdpUw
link from youtube on gw.

 

dujac:

here some others who agree with me thanks you tube.

[video=youtube;C35pasCr6KI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI[/video]

 

Wow, that is going to be a lot of scientists for dujac to try and tie to the oil industry.

Or will the highly scientific answer be, 'They don't know what they are talking about."

 

why do you continue to use deception and dishonesty? piers forster accepts agw



Climate models don't over-predict warming, study shows


If you listen to climate change skeptics, Earth’s surface hasn’t warmed appreciably in the last 15 years, and any "record" set last year is just the result of the planet doing what the planet naturally does.

It turns out they’re right, but for the wrong reasons, according to a study published online Wednesday in the journal Nature.

There is no inherent bias in climate models that make them over-estimate the effects of human activity, according to the study.

"Cherry picking" the most recent 15-year interval to refute climate change modeling is misleading and obscures the long-term agreement between the models and measurements, according to study co-author Piers Forster, an atmospheric physicist from the University of Leeds, England.

A study that combined 114 possible 15-year trends since 1900 found that there was nothing statistically biased in the ways model-generated data differed from actual measurements of global mean surface temperatures. These short trends cannot predict “chaotic” fluctuations in such factors as ocean currents, according to the study.

A similar analysis of every possible 62-year trend was much better at picking up the effects of human activity on rising global temperatures, the study found.

“What people have done before is cherry picking to try to come up with their preferred explanation for a particular period,” Forster said. “We tried to be more objective than that and look at all the possible begin dates and end dates.”

For instance, if you take 1927 as a beginning, then 110 of 114 simulations turn out to under-estimate the observed temperature trends, the study noted. With 1998 as a beginning date, the models over-estimate the actual change.

Critics of climate science have used the 1998 start date to dismiss the thesis that man-made activity is contributing to rising surface temperatures on Earth’s surface, as a consensus of scientists say.

The researchers chose the 15- and 62-year intervals because they are the durations referenced most often by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which focuses particularly on accelerated warming in the 1950-2012 period.

Forster and Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, looked at how models handled “forcing” of the climate from man-made and other factors, at feedback from such forcing, and random climate variability.

They found that the models are not biased toward overstating the roles of forcing and feedback. Modeling over the shorter intervals, however, tends to be more susceptible to small errors from unpredictable periodic climate variations, they found.

That element of “chaos” most often is introduced by sudden shifts in ocean behavior, the authors suggest.

“The ocean just fluctuates and changes from time to time and that is quite unpredictable, so it can give significant 15-year counter-trends,” Forster said. For that reason, some 15-year intervals can lag behind the measured temperature trends, he said.

The shorter intervals are not adequate at showing the effects of Earth responding to man-made forces, and to some natural ones, such as the after effects of volcanic eruptions, the study found. Longer-period analyses do a better job, the study concluded. But the climate models tend to be accurate and unbiased overall, they concluded.

For every start year after 1915, the modeled 62-year trends show too little warming, the study found. From about 1945 onward, they slightly over-estimate the measured warming, but by a difference that is well within the margin of natural climate variability, the study found.

The study bolsters other recent research that suggests the last 15 years, a so-called warming hiatus, do not mark an end to the acceleration in Earth’s mean surface temperature since mid-20th century.

“The best explanation we offer is these chaotic and random fluctuations within the oceans,” Forster said. “It does seem to be that the Pacific and the Atlantic are drawing heat down from the atmosphere.”

Two separate analyses of global mean surface temperature released Jan. 16 by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration noted that surface temperatures of oceans set an all-time record in 2014.

That ocean trend pushed overall global mean surface temperature to 58.2 degrees Fahrenheit, its highest level since measurement began in 1880, the agencies reported. It’s a tight race, however, with contending years separated by fractions of a degree. Nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2002, according to NOAA. The other was 1998, which ranked fourth, largely due to the effects of the naturally occurring El Niño ocean cycle.

While NASA said its confidence in 2014’s status as the all-time temperature leader was about 38% (NOAA was 10 points higher), that still makes it 1.5-3 times more likely than 2010 to be the record, according to the agency.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-models-predict-warming-20150128-story.html

 

and yet put his name on the video. funny stuff. You still haven't given me any proof of empirical evidence and I expect that you will be an honorable man and either do so or admit you don't have it.

I think those were slam dunks over your warmest agenda. badda-bing.

 

is that supposed to make sense?

it's really not difficult at all, bob carter has taken money from the heartland institute


"Professor Carter has been a speaker at six of Heartland's climate change conferences.

The documents state that Professor Carter will receive $1,667 per month from Heartland in 2012 to work on a project called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-16/readfearn-heartland-institute-and-bob-carter/3834220

 

what is it you don't get? he put his input on a video anti AGW and you claim he is for agw. So why'd he put his name on the video? not sure why you missed that. doesn't surprise me though.

 

Still doesn't negate what he said previously. Nice try but FAIL.

BTW, his paper didn't prove anything and again you take an opinion as fact.

Well, there is one problem with that, the overestimation of 98% of the models of CO2 forcing.

 

Not to you. That is apparent.

Well, if Carter received money, then that taints all scientists, doesn't it? After all, he is a scientists and you believe the science. Now, get to work on all the others.

 

no it doesn't, heartland is a lobbyist group

they pay unethical people to deny global warming

he obviously wasn't the one that put it in the video

it really is amazing how dishonest your tactics are

it show that what he said was taken out of context and doesn't mean that there has been a pause in global warming


Piers Forster

Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said:

‘The fact that global surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 15 years, combined with good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make the high estimates unlikely.’ –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013

Dr Benny Peiser would have us believe climate scientists are seeing the error of their ways and concede AGW isn’t actually CAGW. so what is Piers Forster’s stance on climate change? He certainly does not deny that AGW is happening and is serious but his comments can be interpreted by others for their agenda.

The BBC and the Guardian quote IAGP’s Prinicipal Investigator Piers Forster’s reaction to the leaked IPCC report. In his response to the recent posting by a blogger of the WG1 draft report Piers comments,

“Although this may seem like a ‘leak’, the draft IPCC reports are not kept secret and the review process is open…..I think we as scientists need to explore how we can best match the development of measured critical arguments with those of the Twitter generation.”

On the United Bank For Carbon website dedicated to saving rainforest for which Piers is a trustee, it says

He was one of the principal authors of the 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that was a co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. He is also a lead author for the next IPCC assessment report, due in 2013. He currently leads a large research team, researching various aspects of climate change, principally investigating the multiple causes of climate change and possible climate mitigation strategies.

His research has convinced him that rainforest protection should be the first priority of any successful mitigation strategy. Due to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, rainforests around the world are actually growing more and more vigorously – this increasing growth rate actually removes around a quarter of the CO2 mankind emits every year. Yet we are still deforesting at an alarming rate. Research at Leeds has shown how this deforestation leads to both increased CO2 emissions and widespread climate effects, such as a reduction of rainfall in tropical regions.

Between 1990 and 2005 the world has lost over 10 million hectares of rainforest (an 8% reduction of rainforest area). And this deforestation itself emits more than a billion tonnes of a carbon annually, accounting for around 12% or more of current global carbon dioxide emissions. If we succeeded in stopping all deforestation tomorrow we would instantly cut our global emissions and make sure rainforests can continue protect us from the worst of climate change going into the future.

The statement that: Due to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, rainforests around the world are actually growing more and more vigorously – this increasing growth rate actually removes around a quarter of the CO2 mankind emits every year. will delight deniers who constantly refer to CO2 as plant food.

Other references to Piers Foster such as the link of black carbon to warming are also seized on by deniers. From The Guardian

“There are exciting opportunities to cool climate by cutting soot emissions, but it is not straightforward.

“Reducing emissions from diesel engines and domestic wood and coal fires is a no-brainer, as there are tandem health and climate benefits.

“If we did everything we could to reduce these emissions, we could buy ourselves up to half a degree less warming – or a couple of decades of respite.”

However, curbing the impact of soot may not be a simple process, the researchers pointed out. Typically soot was emitted along with other particles and gases that may actually cool the climate.

Organic matter in the atmosphere produced by open vegetation burning may have an overall cooling effect, for instance. But other reduction targets are likely to have a clear benefit, say the experts.

“One great candidate is soot from diesel engines,” said Forster. “It may also be possible to look at wood and coal burning in some kinds of industry and in small household burners. In these cases, soot makes up a large fraction of their emissions, so removing these sources would likely cool the climate.”

Tackling soot would have an almost immediate effect, because of the short amount of time it stays in the atmosphere.

While the leading greenhouse gas carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for long periods, soot emissions are washed out within a few weeks and then replaced.

“Soot mitigation is an immediate effect but helps for a short time only,” said Forster. “We will always need to mitigate C02 to achieve long-term cooling.”

https://denierlist.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/piers-forster/

 

First the cartoonist, now a biased denierlist blog? Go figure.

BTW: Didn't Forster just blatantly become a denier by admitting there is an hiatus that you so vehemently now deny?

 

of course you can't address the fact that piers forster accepts agw

your dishonest tactics illustrate perfectly what i addressed numerous times

 

right? it's what he missed.

 

he didn't admit there's any hiatus

if you'd read what i posted you would have seen that

 

hahahahaha, still with the peer review that doesn't proof anything. funny stuff. And the video, apples and oranges but hey it again is someone who can't produce empirical evidence of any kind to support your argument. still waiting btw.

hiatus love it, can't quite get passed that one I see.

 

you probably ought to have your eyes checked

this tweet from forster and the article he referenced make it clear

that he knows there has been no hiatus or pause in anthropogenic global warming



No 'slowdown' in global surface temperatures

6/4/2015 - by Roz Pidcock

A new paper published today says the much-discussed "slowdown" in warming at Earth's surface may not exist after all.

The study, published in the journal Science, says it is likely to be largely a figment of the way temperature records have been pieced together over time.

Scientists from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reanalysed temperature records and concluded that surface warming over the past 15 years is higher than reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body set up to assess global warming. Temperatures are rising at least as fast as they were in the second half of the 20th century, say the authors.

Given the interest in the topic, this new finding is likely to generate headlines. But it's probably not the last word on this complex topic, scientists tell Carbon Brief.

To coin a phrase

In its latest report, the IPCC calculated that the rate of warming from 1998-2012 was 0.05C per decade. Accounting for the uncertainty, this is 30-50% slower than the 0.12C per decade rise over the longer period of 1951-2012. The new paper says:

"The apparent slowdown was termed a 'hiatus', and inspired a suite of physical explanations for its cause."

But the authors say that once you account for improvements to the historical temperature record and a couple more years' of temperature data to take us up to 2014, the pace of warming in the first 15 years of the 21st century hasn't slowed after all.

Points of clarity

Before we move on to the hows and whys of the new study, here are some points of clarity.

The so-called "hiatus" has never been about a reduction in the speed of "global" warming. It relates only to the temperature at the Earth's surface. When you look at all the components of the climate system - land and vegetation, ice cover and the ocean - scientists have no doubt that the planet as a whole is warming up.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/06/no-slowdown-in-global-surface-temperatures-after-all/#.VXF7oDWSrDc.twitter

 

and still no empirical evidence. dude, this isn't evidence of anything. You trying to change what was actually captured is truly funny stuff. Can you say desperate?

 

don't you get tired of having your false statements refuted, over and over?


Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

For our next piece of evidence, we must look at the amount of CO2 in the air. We know from bubbles of air trapped in ice cores that before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the air was approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). In June 2013, the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Hawaii announced that, for the first time in thousands of years, the amount of CO2 in the air had gone up to 400ppm. That information gives us the next piece of evidence; CO2 has increased by nearly 43% in the last 150 years.



Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

The Smoking Gun

The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:



Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm