I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[Redskins3D]

I have to say, I missed it too. Now I think I'll pat myself on the back for saying essentially the same thing as the author. LOL

 

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/grafik/presse/News/AerosolForcing-Statement-BjornStevens.pdf

 

 

I'm shocked... SHOCKED I tell you, that the denial-sphere has not reported the authors clarification.

what in his statement changed the findings of his study?

[Mad Mike]

what in his statement changed the findings of his study?

 

Nothing. What his statement does is shoot down the bull **** interpretation of the study coming from climate change deniers.

 

 

 

In the long run I certainly hope that my findings will help constrain the climate's sensitivity to CO2 but they do not, on their own, relieve society of the threat of dangerous warming arising from anthropogenic emissions of CO2.

 

 

 

 

So contrary to some reports that have appeared in the media, anthropogenic climate change is not called into question by my study.

[twa]

Warmest year on record? 

 

well maybe if ya ignore nasa satellite data   or it could have been 2004 or .....

 

 

 

 

we are all gonna die

[Jumbo]

 

 

 

 

we are all gonna die

 

 

some, not soon enough

 

 

[Mad Mike]

BTW... A little off topic... Well a lot actually but still related....

 

Several years ago when Bush was still Prez and the lunatic left was claiming that the CIA trained and armed bin Laden. I found the email address of the journalist/author people quoted when making the claim and asked him directly about it. He confirmed my understanding that the CIA never had contact with him and were in fact working with actual Afghanis. He expressed to me much the same frustration with the distorted representation of his research as the author above.

 

It's amazing how responsive people can be if you respectfully ask the right questions. (and of course are lucky enough to find a valid email address )

Edited April 7, 2015 by Mad Mike

[Mad Mike]

 

 

some, not soon enough

 

 

 

I saw a great Q&A with Quentin Tarantino. He said he wished he could have worked with Lee Van Cleef and called him one of the great bad ***** of all time.  I have to agree.

[Mad Mike]

Warmest year on record? 

 

well maybe if ya ignore nasa satellite data   or it could have been 2004 or .....

 

So you are saying that NASA is ignoring it's own data? That's your claim? LOL!

NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record | NASA

 

And here's the real kicker... NASA even provides source code and documentation for their calculations. Transparency FTW.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Sources

[techboy]

any response to Max Planck's research?

 

Yeah, while I think his role in the birth of quantum theory was important, I still maintain his most important contribution to physics was his encouragement of the acceptance of Einstein's special theory of relativity.

Edited April 7, 2015 by techboy

[PeterMP]

what in his statement changed the findings of his study?

 

Nothing, but just because many of the models are wrong doesn't mean that climate change isn't an issue that we shouldn't do something about.

 

If the ETC is 2 degress C (which is what he generally seems to believe is a reasonable lower limit):

1  Many of the models are wrong.

 

2.  The IPCC is still "right" (an ETC of 2 degrees C is still well with in the range of what the IPCC is and has been predicting).

 

3.  There are going to still be serious consequences.

 

**EDIT**

 

Just as an example:

 

Here's work by somebody that puts climate sensitivity as 1.1

 

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

 

So that's even lower, and he's to the point that he's saying that essentially all of the models are wrong and is at the bottom of what the IPCC is predicting now (and lower than what they were predicting).

 

That's lower than the author of the Max Planck work is saying.

 

He thinks CO2 has less of an effect than most climate scientists, but he also says:

 

"I'm very concerned about the world my grandchildren will live in," said Mr. Schwartz, who is currently studying climate change. "There could be an increase of four to eight degrees in the next century, and that's huge. The last time there was a five-degree Celsius decrease was the last ice age. An increase of eight degrees Fahrenheit would bring change unprecedented in the last half-million years."

 

If his estimate is correct, "it means that the climate is less sensitive to [carbon dioxide] than currently thought, which gives some breathing room," said Mr. Schwartz, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry and has been at the Brookhaven Lab for about three decades. "But a lower sensitivity does not solve the long-term problem that would result from continued buildup of [carbon dioxide]."

 

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NorthShoreSun.html

 

There are a good number of climate scientists that think the number is going to be lower than suggested by most climate models, but they still think we should be doing something.

Edited April 8, 2015 by PeterMP

[btfoom]

Just another paper showing that the 'models' are wrong:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3052926/Our-climate-models-WRONG-Global-warming-slowed-recent-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html

 

 

Global warming hasn't happened as fast as expected, according to a new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records.

 

The research claims that natural variability in surface temperatures over the course of a decade can account for increases and dips in warming rates.

 

But it adds that these so-called 'climate wiggles' could also, in the future, cause our planet to warm up much faster than anticipated.

The study compared its results to the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

 

'Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,' said Patrick Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University. 'But this could change.'

 

The Duke-led study says that variability is caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3052926/Our-climate-models-WRONG-Global-warming-slowed-recent-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html#ixzz3YGeMlHb0 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3052926/Our-climate-models-WRONG-Global-warming-slowed-recent-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html#ixzz3YGe9MLnX 

Edited April 24, 2015 by btfoom

[Mad Mike]

Duke Researcher Denounces Rush Limbaugh's "Ridiculous" Distortion Of His Global Warming Study | Blog | Media Matters for America

 

 

The idea that there 'isn't any warming' is ridiculous. Over the past century there are countless datasets indicating warming (weather stations, sea level, ice mass, ocean temperatures, etc.).

[...]

Our study shows that we are probably not on the worst-case IPCC scenario but that we may be on an IPCC middle-of-the road scenario. The IPCC does not make predictions they make hypothetical projections. So this result does not contradict the IPCC conclusions at all.

[No Excuses]

Duke Researcher Denounces Rush Limbaugh's "Ridiculous" Distortion Of His Global Warming Study | Blog | Media Matters for America

Btfoom has a history of hit and run posts of distorted crap. Nothing new from him

[twa]

not on the worst 

 

may be on the middle

 

which of course leaves maybe on the low

 

 

science, gotta love it....we are coming out of a ice age, of course we are warming (till we ain't)

[Mad Mike]

not on the worst 

 

may be on the middle

 

which of course leaves maybe on the low

 

 

science, gotta love it....we are coming out of a ice age, of course we are warming (till we ain't)

 

 

Edited April 24, 2015 by Mad Mike

[twa]

[btfoom]

Btfoom has a history of hit and run posts of distorted crap. Nothing new from him

I have this thing, called a job, that means I can't spend every minute posting to this site.

 

There are NO global warming models that show the reality of the climate to date, period.

 

I work at NASA (the MODS can collaborate if anyone really cares) and I talk to climate scientists every day.  There are some who are really behind AGW and there are some who are completely against AGW.  What I can tell you is that almost EVERY one of them agree that there isn't enough evidence on either side to make a great judgement.  The data over the last hundred years (and if some older data is included, maybe 3-4 hundred years) isn't nearly enough to make forecasts into the next hundreds or thousands of years.

 

I do have to laugh when the only rebuttal to my observations is that I don't post here as often as some folks here feel is an appropriate figure. The facts I show still stand, even if I don't post here for another week or so.

Edited April 26, 2015 by btfoom

[No Excuses]

I have this thing, called a job, that means I can't spend every minute posting to this site.

 

There are NO global warming models that show the reality of the climate to date, period.

 

I work at NASA (the MODS can collaborate if anyone really cares) and I talk to climate scientists every day.  There are some who are really behind AGW and there are some who are completely against AGW.  What I can tell you is that almost EVERY one of them agree that there isn't enough evidence on either side to make a great judgement.  The data over the last hundred years (and if some older data is included, maybe 3-4 hundred years) isn't nearly enough to make forecasts into the next hundreds or thousands of years.

 

I do have to laugh when the only rebuttal to my observations is that I don't post here as often as some folks here feel is an appropriate figure. The facts I show still stand, even if I don't post here for another week or so.

 

You have never cited anything remotely credible. And when people who understand this topic better than you chime in, you continue to make the same baseless claims. The author of the study you cited this time once again said that his work is misrepresented. But nah, you know best.

[PeterMP]

I have this thing, called a job, that means I can't spend every minute posting to this site.

 

There are NO global warming models that show the reality of the climate to date, period.

 

This simply isn't true.

 

I've already posted images of real temperature vs. models in this thread for you before because you made the same claim.

 

http://es.redskins.com/topic/380491-i-want-to-sue-the-republican-party-for-willful-denial-of-scientific-evidence-about-climate-change/?p=10160221

 

Most models are running higher than the actual temperature, but there are models out there that are actually running UNDER current temperature.

 

Since you seemed to have not internalized it before:

 

I'll post it for you again.

 

 

 

See the gray line at the bottom (CIMP5 min-max), that's the warming predicted by the model predicting the least warming.

 

There are models out there that are significantly over predicting temperature, but there are models that are significant predictors of temperature.

Edited April 26, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

so the low trend model is a clear outlier., notice the divergence that is different from the scare stories?

 

The projection is biased for a rise despite uncertainty widening to encompass the outlier low model.

 

actual temperature is not even actual, but rather best guess.

[Larry]

so the low trend model is a clear outlier., notice the divergence that is different from the scare stories?

 

The projection is biased for a rise despite uncertainty widening to encompass the outlier low model.

 

actual temperature is not even actual, but rather best guess.

Do you actually think you just said something?

[btfoom]

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry

 

Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).

But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”

Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.

[Larry]

Why am I willing to bet that this is a stunning revelation of information that's already been known, (and that there are legitimate reasons, which are already publicly known), (in fact, that said reasons have probably already been given, in this thread), wrapped in lots of conspiracy-sounding, unsupported, claims?

Edited April 26, 2015 by Larry

[twa]

Do you actually think you just said something?

 

Do you? 

 

Not up to your standards???  

[PeterMP]

The satellites aren't measuring surface temperatures.

 

They measure troposphere temperatures.

 

El Nino's affect tropospheric temperatures more than they do surface temperatures.

 

The warmest years based on the satellites are still (strong) El Nino years.

 

This year is at best a weak El Nino year and last year didn't even have that.

 

And it isn't like the UAH is that far off.

 

The UAH has last year as the 3rd warmest year on record behind 2 strong El Nino years (1998 and 2010).

 

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/december2014/dec2014GTR.pdf

 

Given the known effect on El Nino's on the troposphere this isn't surprising.

 

The RSS is diverging more than the UAH for reasons that aren't clear, but even there last year was 6th (where 3 of the years a head of it were strong El Nino years).

 

Last year wasn't an exception in terms of the divergence between the USH and RSS.

 

This is something people have been commenting on for several years:

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/

Edited April 26, 2015 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

so the low trend model is a clear outlier., notice the divergence that is different from the scare stories?

 

The projection is biased for a rise despite uncertainty widening to encompass the outlier low model.

 

actual temperature is not even actual, but rather best guess.

 

1.  I don't know why you'd say it was a clear outlier based on what I posted.  I don't know where the next coolest model is in the data to start talking about it being an outlier. Do you?

 

 

2.  As I've already addressed several times in this thread, there are plenty of people that are concerned about the future if things continue as is that readily reject the upper ends of the models.

 

2.  Would you rather I discuss something that we can measure in a more exact manner, like sea level changes where the models are generally under estimating the effects (e.g. sea levels have generally risen faster than the models say they should indicating that the models actually under estimate the potential consequences of climate change)?

Edited April 26, 2015 by PeterMP