Is Gobal Cooling a Continuing Threat?

[Greensub]

Climate Change Skeptic Lord Monckton Gets a Point-by-Point Debunking UPDATED

Climate Change Skeptic Lord Monckton Gets a Point-by-Point Debunking UPDATED

The pattern is clear with Monckton: Each conclusion he draws from the data and made in the presentation is directly contradicted by both the original source material he himself cites and by the source authors when they are asked directly about it.



Kudos to Prof. Abraham for taking the time to do this. It certainly won't put an end to climate skepticism, but hopefully this will be spread far and wide and expose Lord Monckton for the absolute publicity addicted nutter that he is.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/201...te-skeptic-claims-point-by-point-debunked.php

and here's Abraham's point by point debunking (ass whipping) of Monkton...

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

I'm watching it now... (it's about 80 minutes long)

 

[HempKat]

Thanks for that. I have read it all.

Please explain the following quote from the paper:

"We use a climate field reconstruction approach that has been rigorously tested with synthetic "psuedoproxy" networks generated from forced climate model simulations. We interpret the resulting reconstructions in the context in results from climate model simulations forced by estimated past changes in natural (solar and volcanic) radiative forcing."

Isnt this just a fancy way of saying we had to guess most of this stuff and hope for the best? Because thats exactly how the whole paper read to me. It is all guesstimates and gives a 95% uncertainty level...

I wonder how much $ were spent giving us this piece of guesswork.

Please provide the "Materials and Methods" so we can see exactly how they pulled these figures out of the hat?

I require proof not projections based on models based on estimates based on a handfull of proxy data sites.

If it's "guesswork" to say it's true then it's also "guesswork" to say it's false. You're talking about trying to compare to a past that we have no way of measuring accurately, so yes we have to use guesswork with things like tree rings and ice core samples and the like. Guesswork because we have theories about what the rings tell us, or what the gases trapped in ice tells us but we're not absolutely certain our theories are correct. Such is the nature of science. If we learn our theories are incorrect then we adjust and move forward. Until such time as the theories fail us we must move forward as if they're correct.

The problem I have with your position is you've tried to imply that the goal of the AGW agenda is to pass things like "Cap and Trade" which is false. That's not what the people behind AGW want because that's just limiting the use of fossil fuels, not eliminating it. Cap and Trade is really just the government trying to find a way to look like it's addressing the problem without really hurting the businesses that are behind the lobbys that influence government and maybe make some tax revenue on the side. The people behind AGW would much rather we forego the use of fossil fuels altogether in favor of things like solar or nuclear power. If we did that there would be no need for carbon credits or cap and trade.

 

[Greensub]

'Chemical nonsense': Leading scientists refute Lord Monckton's attack on climate science

Nine 'profoundly wrong' claims made by Ukip deputy leader refuted by climate experts in a document filed with US Congress

Here's a 48 page rebuttal of this fool.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...p/21/climate-scientists-respond-lord-monckton

It's a ScribD presentation, go to full screen to read it, it's exhaustive and also contains the full written testimony of (cough cough) "Lord" Monkton.

Lord Christopher Monckton's claims have been shown to be 'profoundly wrong' by leading scientists. Photograph: Murdo Macleod

According to him... we're the "Hitler Youth"

http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/...ckton-hitler-youth-fascist-climate-activists/

 

[HempKat]

I will add he advocates a carbon tax. In his words we need to raise the price of fuels to levels that "really hurt" in order to affect change. I doubt it will really hurt the profits of big oil...

No that won't work as big oil would just add any taxes against them, to the cost of their product and in the end the only one to suffer is the consumer who is already being ass raped left and right by every other greedy corporation beholding to shareholders.

 

[HempKat]

It would definitely hurt big oil... that's why they pour $$$ into denial propaganda... How much $$$ did they just spend in CA fighting CO2 regulation this last election cycle?

Not in the short term, in the short term they would pass the cost on to the consumer. It wouldn't hurt the oil companies until the consumer can't be squeezed for another dime. Now if investors would really start getting behind green energy to make it a viable alternative then things could go differently because consumers would have more options for energy.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

H3ad, you seem to not have an answer for everything, maybe you can not answer a question for me.

Given the general accuracy of your assertions so far, I'm taking that as a compliment meaning I've done a nice job covering all the bases so far.

I noticed that in most graphs that track temperature and CO2 over several million years, the amount of CO2 and temperature rise at the same time. Some experts have theorized that the warming cycles thaw the colder regions of the Earth and this in turn releases more CO2 into the air. Thus, explaining the increase in both at the same time.

Now, millions of years ago, man was not burning much fossil fuel. I don't think he even knew how. So, my question is, how can you distinguish between AGW and natural increases in CO2 due to solar warming activity?

This has been covered already. As has everything else people are pretending I never answered.

Here's a reminder for you:
(underlined portions link to documentation.)

1.Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let's look at more evidence that we're responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.

2.When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006).

3.This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you'd expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide (Manning 2006).

4.Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).


Now... Next time someone asks me a question they think I can't answer, but has already been covered and covered... I'm just gonna LOL... so if you get LOL'd you'll know why.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Not in the short term, in the short term they would pass the cost on to the consumer. It wouldn't hurt the oil companies until the consumer can't be squeezed for another dime. Now if investors would really start getting behind green energy to make it a viable alternative then things could go differently because consumers would have more options for energy.

Passing on costs to consumers pushes consumers to alternatives, which become increasingly viable as petrol prices rise... So though it would not hurt them much on day 1... the damage over time would be huge and would only ever increase.

I think the above process could better take place with education being the impetus for the shift in spending, but with the disinformation campaign the oil companies fund, it's hard to get people on the right page.
I'm not advocating a tax, but to think big oil is not profit scared would be naive imho.
All you have to do is look at the money they pour into denial think tanks and propaganda (which cost they also pass to us).

 

[Greensub]

Have you looked at the evidence mounting that the climate models are still being manipulated and those nice red and orange maps are mis-represented?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/12/tisdale-k-o-es-gisss-latest-warmest-year-nonsense/

From comments on this link...

eadler says:
December 12, 2010 at 7:10 pm
The gist of Tisdales post seems to be that Hansen didn’t mention the remnants of the El Nino warm pool in his analysis. The anomaly map that accompanied Hansen’s article did show that the ocean in that area was abnormally warm, with small portions in the 1 to 2 degree range.
Hansen highlighted the 10C anomaly in the Hudson’s bay area due to the absence of sea ice, and gave a possible explanation of why Europe turned out to be so cold. This was relevant and interesting.
Even with the residual warm pool left over after the El Nino subsided, the La Nina would not be expected to influence the global average temperature as strongly as an El Nino situation, which provides a much larger area of warm water at the surface of the Southern Pacific. So it is perfectly legitimate for Hansen to point out that the El Nino has subsided.
None of this contradicts Hansen’s analysis which indicates that 2010 will be close to a record warm year.

Interesting comments...

I'll see what I can dig up on this.

 

[Greensub]

Bob Tisdale says:
October 11, 2009 at 7:07 am
Joe Romm: You wrote in your update, “Yes, I am aware of the recent upper-ocean heat content data on the web. Please note that plots of very recent, highly variable upper-ocean content heat data down to 700 meters from unpeer-reviewed sources do not trump peer-reviewed analysis of much longer-term data down to 2000 m. Is it too much to ask people to actually read this entire post before posting comments?”
As the author of the OHC post you are referring to, I will respond with, Is it too much to ask people to actually read the title of the post before posting responses to it? Had you read my post (Click On My Name) you would have noted that it is based on updated data from Levitus et al (2009), a paper referenced in your post. In fact, “Levitus et al (2009)” is included in the post title and two other times in the body of the post. As noted in my reply to dhogaza (3) (My reply was posted above on October 11, 2009 at 5:21 am with a number of links.) the updated data is available from the NODC website and the KNMI Climate Explorer. If you have any questions about the drop in the OHC data, I suggest you direct them to Syd Levitus.
Have a nice day.
[JR: None of what you wrote disputes anything I or Skeptical Science have written. The peer-reviewed full OHC data tells us we're still warming. Had you actually read my post or the JGR papers, then you'd know there is high variability in the upper ocean data. Congrats. You confirmed the peer-reviewed literature.
And the fact that you threw the name of peer-reviewed article into your headline doesn't turn your post into a peer-reviewed article. Heck you don't even link to the article, which was "published 11 April 2009" (!!) whereas all the data you list is subsequent to that.
Note that Levitus 2009 clearly shows continued ocean warming. So peddle your deceptive BS elsewhere!]

Interesting read here... (above is from the comments, bob tisdale is the author of that blog you posted)

http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/...ooling-is-still-happening-ocean-heat-content/

 

[HempKat]

nobody claimed the sun was not a factor, the deniers are the only one's quoting proven liars... If you're referencing the "much ado about nothing" 'climategate' thingy... Nobody lied about anything, Nothing was nefarious or deceptive, everyone was repeatedly exonerated by every body that investigated...If you think climategate was about someone lying or covering up fraud, then you do not comprehend what it was really all about. You should chill out quit ranting and raving, and get up to speed on the issue.

He probably just caught the sensationalist headlines when the emails were first leaked and then made the assumption that the emails proved they were thoroughly debunked.

 

[Greensub]

The article in the sciencedaily - nada

Which Science Daily article are you refering to again?

Here' one...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...encedaily+(ScienceDaily:+Latest+Science+News)

Scientific Expertise Lacking Among 'Doubters' of Climate Change, Says New Analysis

 

[HempKat]

You must also refrain from personal attacks that have no connection to the subject. When you attempt to discredit a source of information or an individual partaking in the discussion, it exposes your weak argument and self doubt.

Oh you mean like when you tried to discredit me by suggesting my opinions are the result of psychological barriers others have placed around me that prevent me from seeing the world as it really is?

 

[HempKat]

One can make the same argument about the founder of AGW, Big Al.

The article I posted above involves a scientific research team that is involved with attempting to prove AGW. Their decisive conclusions are at odds with the existing climate models being used to promote AGW.

AGW was going strong when Al Gore was still in college. If you're going to try to discredit something like AGW by criticizing one of it's supporters then you really should first learn what the hell you're talking about.

 

[HempKat]

There is no consensus on AGW. The majority of people with knowledge enough to form an opnion on AGW realize the flaws and absurdity of its' nature.

Everyday, in increasing numbers, the best and the brightest are taking issue with the fanaticism and lack of scientific evidence that comprises the AGW argument. It is more clear now than ever that AGW is simply a house of cards and is quickly collapsing with the Arctic winds blasting through the European and North American continents.

And we're supposed to believe this just because you said so, right? Oh and Ben you may not know this, but every year Artic Winds blast thru Europe and North America, right around this time too. It's called Winter.

 

[Ben Tokin]

Oh you mean like when you tried to discredit me by suggesting my opinions are the result of psychological barriers others have placed around me that prevent me from seeing the world as it really is?

There you go again! Blinded by the light, of God and truth and right, as you wander in the night, without direction. So, you continue to continue, to pretend, that global warming will never end, and pot plants never bend, with the rainfall.

 

[Ben Tokin]

And we're supposed to believe this just because you said so, right? Oh and Ben you may not know this, but every year Artic Winds blast thru Europe and North America, right around this time too. It's called Winter.

Oh, hempy! Winter will begin next week. It's still autumn.

 

[Ben Tokin]

AGW was going strong when Al Gore was still in college. If you're going to try to discredit something like AGW by criticizing one of it's supporters then you really should first learn what the hell you're talking about.

Hempy, you still don't get it?

 

[HempKat]

The AGW argument is failing because the people involved in the information gathering have acknowledged their fraud and those funding it are only in it to swindle the uninformed public.

Graphs used to persuade the public look good, but they are simply statistical manipulation. Using percents of individuals who were prechosen to perpetrate a fraud is not scientific evidence.

Graphs showing temperature changes in tenths of a degree over 150 years, when the change is only within 1/2 of a degree? This is manipulation. If the graph was stated in degrees it would be a line that looks like this:

--------------------------------------------no change over 150 years

Using graphs to perpetrate a fraud is not science, it's deception!

As the article I posted above shows, and it's only one of many, AGW is a hoax perpetrated by a bunch of weasels to bamboozle the uninformed and enrich themselves!

Use absolute facts as I have done and prove me wrong!

Nobody said a poll was scientific evidence. Polls are opinions, that's why they are called opinion polls. A person doesn't have to be right in their opinion to have it. Besides, the poll/chart you're referencing was never presented as scientific evidence. It was posted to refute your unsubstantiated claim that most people don't believe in AGW. Further you mistakenly interpreted the chart and/or failed to read the key for interpreting the chart, otherwise you would see the poll covered the general public, scientists that weren't published scientists that were and a few other catagories of people as well.

I will agree though that in general polls are bullshit. Places that conduct them are businesses and like most businesses they like to give the customer what they want and they do have it down to a science to give the customer the results they want, whatever it is.

 

[HempKat]

What do you think a comment is?

It's when anyone whether they have any knowledge on a subject or not speaks up.

 

[HempKat]

Again, the personal attacks are simply a distraction in an attempt to bandage your wounds.

This, as I've said before, is admission of defeat.

Admit it! Your argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny!

You've lost your moral compass and are resorting to desperation tactics!

Pot, meet Kettle.