The ethical question no climate denier will answer

if I felt we were debating with someone who could understand 5th grade science I would raise the bar...other than Roy L there is no one...

 

The sad thing is that you think spectrometry and analysis of a coupled chaotic system is faith grade science.

Here is a hint anyone who tells you that this is simple faith grade science is lying to you.

 

Ridicule, conspiracy theories, strawman arguments and Lies is all you have left because reality is getting harder and harder to deny.

OK I gotta ask: which paper are you referencing. I don't want to duplicate it when I link to the others.

Then what is keeping earth's temperature at 15C?

'billion" should not be there.

 

Even a 5th grader has more sense than to double down on the same policies that have been failing for the last 20 years to solve a problem which only exists in models that have never came close to an accurate prediction

 

Who is KB and what did he admit? Quote and source, please.

- - - Updated - - -

No you're not. But YOU made a claim of 16 years, not me. I simply responded to what YOU wrote. So if YOU are wrong in your claim, even because you quoted an incorrect source, it's still YOUR error.

 

Boy, have you been misinformed. But then you're a denier, so I repeat myself.

GISS has better global coverage than any other global temperature dataset. Better than HADCRUT. Better than NCDC. Better than HAD. Better than UAH. I chose GISS because it's the most complete. That is, my procedure was the exact opposite of cherry picking.

That's almost entirely because of the poor Arctic coverage in HADCRU compared to GISS. In other words, GISS is more complete.

Wrong again.

Wrong again. Jackdog made no reference to any specific set of numbers when he made his claim.

 

Extrapolation isn't coverage!!! CRU has far better station coverage than the GISS. Which is why the IPCC uses the CRU dataset. What the GISS does is extrapolate its sparse coverage over a much larger area than CRU and NCDC. While your sycophants at SKS will tell you that this is yields better results any fool can see that extrapolating data to places where you have none is bull(*)(*)(*)(*)! Its this extrapolation that causes the GISS to get arctic temperatures that are physically impossible in the summer.

Again you are ignorant and are confusing extrapolation with actual data.

I dont believe you.

Since day 1 back in October the 16 year issue has been CRU's data set.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/15/a-16-year-pause-in-global-warming

The data set is implied and should be known by anyone involved in the conversation. Once again you claim ignorance.

 

The claim that CO2 lag is dispositive of anything exists only inside the addled and illogical brains of climate deniers, who apparently believe that because chickens cause eggs, therefore eggs cannot cause chickens.

ARGO data shows significant warming: measured.

Satellite and balloon data shows tropospheric hotspot: measured.

CO2 sensitivity over the past half billion years: 2.8°C per CO2 doubling, right in line with IPCC projections. Royer et. al. 2007.

So by your own source, global heat content is rising, and rapidly, at 0.6 W/m². More recently, from Balmaseda et. al. (graph above), OHC has been rising nearly three times that fast, at 1.6 W/m² since 2000. So here's your next little math problem, Windy. (God, asking a denier to do math is like ... well, nevermind.) If the current increase of 1.6 W/m² continues for a century, how much will the top 2000 meters of ocean have warmed in 100 years? (Hint: the heat capacity of water is 4.1855 J/gK.)

Answer: 2.5°C. And that's assuming that the rate of warming doesn't continue to accelerate as it has been, and as we have every expectation of seeing.

 

Sure it is, if there is a solid scientific basis for the extrapolation, as there is in this case. Just because you don't like the science for political reasons, that in no way implies that the science is wrong.

No it doesn't. GISS covers 100% of the globe, HADCRU coverage varies from 18% to 87%, depending on the year.

The IPCC uses HADCRU because the IPCC prefers international efforts, like HADCRU, over national efforts, like GISS or NCDC.

That would only be true if there were no relationship between temperatures at one place to temperatures in another nearby place. Since that proposition is obviously untrue, you complaint is just as obviously invalid. But please keep on throwing around dirty words, because that makes your whole argument sound so much more educated.

Physically impossible? That's a hot one.

Oddly enough, you're just as wrong whether you choose to believe it or not. Your state of belief has no effect on how wrong you are.

It was not implied in the slightest. Go back and look at jackdog's post, you will see no such implication: it was a blanket statement.

 

Except for the last 15 years or so anyway. According to the data not "adjusted" in some official peer reviewed adjustment of some sort or another, right?

 

Maybe this is what god wants. Maybe this is how we evolve to the next step. Maybe this evolution will help us reach a higher plane of existence. So stop fight clinic change and embrace it. Welcome it. It's god doing.

 

Extrapolation is now science?? LOL...

Good gravy you people are amazing - please, a courtesy flush would be in order

 

This falls into the whole convenient consensus. The GISS' extrapolation of temperature is fringe. CRU doesn't believe it us accurate, neither does the NCDC, UAH or RSS.

It is by definition a minority opinion against the consensus. Yet you don't care suddenly you conveniently go with the fringe theory because it suits your argument and ignore the consensus. Proving once again that your constant appeal consensus argument is self serving bull(*)(*)(*)(*). If you are going to argue consensus you can't jump in and out of the consensus when it suits your needs. That just proves that your argument is meaningless and nothing but self serving.

 

The source is KB.

If you had actually read the climategate e-mails and were familiar with the "scientific papers' as you claim, then you would certainly know who KB is and what he admitted.

You've just exposed yourself as being a bit less than honest, to put it nicely. And earned your moniker at the same time.

Congratulations.

 

SM has a good article dissecting KB's latest paper on his blog at the moment. Tea leaf reading makes more sense

 

"At what point did it become ethically acceptable to perform an irreversible experiment on the only atmosphere we've got?"

Taxcutter says:
When nobody bothered to come up with a credible downside.
When all Warmers could think of is more taxation and regulation on the US.

 

not irreversible, cut man made emissions to zero and in 150 years it will make about 3/10th of a degree difference. Now isn't that worth wrecking the worlds GDP for Not to mention all the people you would kill. I am sure the elitist politicians and their millionaire buddies would make sure they were not the ones freezing.
That's assuming the models are correct, so far the warming has been flat unlike this chart



http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/wigleyfig3.jpg

 

The divergence between the GISS and the other records as well as the extrapolation producing impossible temperatures in the arctic are evidence that it is wrong.

Look up what station coverage means and get back to me. I'm not going to call you a liar as you always do to me. You are just ignorant if you think that extrapolation and station coverage are the same.

The IPCC uses CRU becasue it is the "gold standard" of the surface records. Even the GISS admits that CRU is better.
http://www.pjmedia.com/files/2010/03/GISS-says-CRU-Better0001.pdf

Well there you go. Your whole argument goes down in flames. Even the GISS admits that their dataset is inferior. Maybe you need to go track down Dana Nuccitelli and kick him in the nuts for misleading you about the realative quality of the GISS dataset.

I'll keep throwing around dirty words. Its my posting style. So I dont give a damn what you think. As for the temperature relationship. The question that has been asked and answered by most of the data sets save for the fringe GISS is extrapolation accurate enough to give temperatures within tenths of a degree. The answer has been a resounding no.

Its very simple. Physics hold the temperature of the high arctic at just above 32 degrees. It cant get any warmer than that because the ice is in a state change. When the GISS reports high arctic temperatures of 36 degrees the IPCC is reporting impossible temperatures.

You are an idealists. You should research just how untrustworthy idealists are.

I posted an origional arctical that started this issue in October. CRU has always been the subject as it is the "Gold Standard" the GISS isn't even in the discussion as even the GISS recognizes that their dataset is inferior to CRU.

 

Actually, he was quoting the IPCC head.

Fine. 1998. You have 15 annual data points in the GISS record (which overstates recent temperatures) from 1998 up to the most recent one, 2012. Calculate the same regression slope for those 15 data points, then for the 15 starting in 1984 and ending in 1998, and notice how different things suddenly look.

I dare you.

The point is, despite continued near-exponential increase in atmospheric CO2, there has been no significant atmospheric warming since the peak reached more than a decade ago. GISS overstates temperatures since then to show a few slightly warmer years, but in fact 1998 was the peak.

I don't know about where you are, but here it is damn cold for the first day of summer, and last year it was cool all through July, too.

No, what the actual data show is that the water DID warm in the first two minutes, but HASN'T warmed in more than 10 minutes. Like the earth in the 90s, and since 1998. The heating element has clearly been turned off. CO2 hasn't. Therefore, CO2 isn't the heating element.

The fact is, the global temperature record for the last 150 years is explained almost entirely by the sum of two natural cycles: the ~1400-year solar activity cycle that produced the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age (I've already given you a link to a paper showing solar activity over the last 150 years has been at a sustained high level not seen in more than 2000 years, and here's another showing late-20th C solar activity at a peak not seen in 9000 years: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf), and the ~60-year oceanic circulation cycle that made 1911-1940 and 1969-1998 periods of rapid warming, and the intervening 1940-1969 period one of slight cooling.

 

Quick question, now that this has been answered over and over again by warmers, fence sitters and realists, can we now all admit it is a really, REALLY stupid question in the first place?

 

Of course. And dishonest.

 

When we lit our first fire.

 

<crickets>

Clear?

You'll also notice that solar activity during the previous two cycles was robust, following the full curve of increase and decline. But the last one was quite broken, with significant failures to reach the highs of the previous two.

It's the sun, stupid.

 

I find that deniers dodge that question by claiming there is no problem that results from the irreversible experiment, or by claiming gradually reducing emissions will bring civilization back to the stone age, or something similar.

 

hey th3e climate models aren't working, quick find some heat that no one else can to explain it and post it on skeptical nonsense for the shills