Mother Earth: Global Warming Denier

[rugbyguy59]

Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer

Professor Wolfgang Wagner has stepped down as editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. The reason for his resignation was his journal's publishing of the paper On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's radiant energy balance, by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell. Wagner concluded the paper was "fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal".

[gufpott]

Steve - another year drawing to a close and nothing to contradict what you say in your vids.

Congratulations on calling it right. At least so far.

[SteveWrathall]

More and more people are realising that catastrophic GW is not happening, and countries the world over are reneging left right and centre on emissions reductions.

[natereiners]

lol

as you can see... i just edit the data, and now look!! it says global warming doesnt exsist!

look. global warming is happeining. if you look at data that hasn't been edited by this hack, you will see for yourself.

[SteveWrathall]

Please explain which data has been "edited".

Global temperature measurements from the Hadley centre clearly show no warming since 1998.

[natereiners]

I have "manually added" these bars here at the end...

copy, data from one graph, and paste it onto another graph which does not share the same Y-Axis Values!!!!!!!!! you cant just do that!!!!! lol

also. your graph at 1:39 shows significant temperature increases SINCE THE late 1940s.

from the 40s to now, there are 38? (hard to read the bars on youtube) years above the average global temp.

from 1885 to the late 1940s, there were just 8 warm years.

[SteveWrathall]

The bars were of course scaled to the appropriate Y axis.

No one denies that the 20th Century saw a warming, however it was not outside the natural variability either in range or rate. So far the 21st century has seen no warming.

[shadowcnidarian]

The 21st century is 10 freakin years, idiot. That's no way to calibrate the global warming scenario. Also, your cherry picked graphs mean nothing. I could dig up any old, random thing that would make the point that invisible pink unicorns exist. Stick with the relevant data.

[SteveWrathall]

Ok take the last 160 years. The warming (~0.7 deg C) that has accompanied +100 ppm of CO2 is not catastrophic. The extra CO2 that could possibly be emitted with remaining fossil fuel will probably be of the same order.

Catastrophe cancelled.

[shadowcnidarian]

Keyword is "probably" and you are extremely incorrect, and the prediction model is neither as linear as you imply nor are the variables limited to what you seem to consider. I will put assumptions and "probablys" by the wayside and go with empirical evidence and scientific merit.

Now, if you want to believe the science is flawed or that charlatan shills that challenge it have legitimate authority on the subject, so be it. That's all it boils down to.

[SteveWrathall]

If you want to call climate prediction "science" then you have to state a test of falsifiability.

What real-world observation would falsify the theory of catastrophic human-induced climate change.

[durizap]

oh, is that so.....why is that temperature rised up till 1945, then fell untill 1975 (while we had an industry boom, increasing CO2 emmitance.) At 1975 we had a more or less global recession, ie, global industry drop. What happened....temperatures increased.

Don't be so bluntly self-righteous about us humans, to think that WE actually control the weather. Don't believe that changes are man-made. Some may be, but by far most, are totally out of our (humaninty's) influence.

[minilemur]

natereiners - similarly satellite temperature measurements show that there has been little or no significant warming since records began in 1979.

[guffpot]

Sorry if I was "coming on strong" jffryfnt.

We have imperfect measurements which indicate less than 1dC change over the last century.

That's nothing special - temporal or spatial.

If we had been there to collect good reliable measurements, we could have had similar observations over all sorts of regions and time scales.

Thre will be a strong temptation to use a reference which suits a message. Amongst other things, this will tend to imply a norm to the wider public.

[jffryfnt]

Steve, I'm sorry but I must correct you on this: No, a scientific theory, is not 'theoretically' falsifiable. It is TESTABLE. See the difference? IF the scientific hypothesis makes it to the grade of THEORY, that means it has NEVER been proved false. If it is proved false, it never makes it past the hypothesis stage of scientific inquisition. AGW is a theory, indeed, and as of yet, not been prove false..so it stands until another explanation comes about. And I tell you what, this video isn't it!

[SteveWrathall]

The point is that made-made "climate change" is so loosely defined that anything can and is being retrospectively corralled as "proof". Hurricanes, droughts, ice storms, u name it.

Furthermore, the burden of proof is not on skeptics to prove AGW false. It is for AGW believers to show that natural variability is inadequate for explaining observed weather. Otherwise Occams razor deletes their superfluous extra entity of human causation.

[jffryfnt]

To your first paragraph: You rely too much on the media for information. And to your second paragraph: Occams Razor?? Please. Do we need a razor to cut out other ways to logical reasoning? Limiting assumptions?? OBVIOUSLY! But please, if we are to agree on anything, please acknowledge the difference between weather and climate. From there I think reasonable discussion can ensue.

[SteveWrathall]

Why shouldn't I "rely on the media"? It is the media that is manufacturing the catastrophism scenarios and calling for a massive mis-allocation of resources to combat this non-problem.

[jffryfnt]

Do you really need for me to answer that question for you?

[guffpot]

jffryfnt, For interest, I'd like to know what you reckon to be the difference between weather and climate.

Something more than asserting an arbitratry bandwidth for variation.

Or can you show that variability over the millenial time scales is meaningfully lower than variability over decadal time scales?

[jffryfnt]

Climate, as defined, is simply the 30 year average of weather. Note the difference? Or as some like to put it: "Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get." Climate is a meaningful definition because it allows you to analyze trends. Furthermore, local or regional climates can be inferred from the biota, or lack thereof, in a region of interest.

Consequently, climate is much easier to predict than weather. Comparison of different scales is seldom meaningful.

[guffpot]

The 30 year average is broadly what I hear from elesewhere. I don't know about where it is specified as a strict definition.

I suspect it is not strictly defined because it seems to me to be completely arbitrary - but you can correct me on that one.

Your position relies a lot on the assumption of a law of averages (i.e. things will tend to revert to mean over a long enough period of time). I find that pretty unconvincing.

[jffryfnt]

Well it's not completely arbitrary. But defining climate depends in a way in which context you're using it. In a very strict sense, climate is defined as the statistical properties of the atmosphere which includes measures of average conditions and variability. The 30 year average is used to assess how climates change over a scale which is most relevant to society as a whole, or which that has implications on the present, not limited to agriculture, geoengineering, etc.

[guffpot]

jffryfnt

I agree - but your almost admitting that the 30 year average is chosen to suit a particular argument.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising that. It's a very natural to expect people to do so.

It leaves no tangible grounds to refute those who wish to argue there has been no increase in temperature since 1998.

Both are playing the same game.

[jffryfnt]

A 30 year average used to describe climate is useful on a regional basis. But when you're considering the whole Earth, obviously, annual average global temperature is not a 30 year average, but rather an average of near real-time temperature measurements where the instrument record goes back more than 100 years, and proxies obviously extend that much further in the past (hence why we know about cyclical ice ages)...

[guffpot]

A global average temperature could be formed from a reandomly scattered set of measurement points.

If we could turn the clock back, we might have set up a well designed experiment to QA and maintain a set of randomly distributed measuring stations.

That was never done. We have the inconsistent and patchy data that was collected (mainly Europe and America). Nothing in Antarctica until 50 years ago.

Off to a poor start for persuading anybody to make life changing decisions.

[jffryfnt]

I could really care less about convincing you of anything. That's not my aim either. If you want to be equipped with the tools for making a seasoned judgement, I'm just giving it to you from my experience. I have a degree in Earth systems. You have some questions and answering with the best of what I know. But I also trust the scientists who work on the subject as I have worked with them personally. They have a lot of integrity which I wholly respect. Build a foundation before you judge it.

[jffryfnt]

Typically however you'll find temperature records reported as a global temperature anomaly dataset. The anomalies are reported from a point of reference. Essentially the point of reference is something useful to track long-term trends, as long as it's consistent in the dataset. This point of reference is defined as the 1961-1990 climate mean temperature.

[guffpot]

That's fine jffryfnt. My point is that this analysis is pretty well set up to reach the conclusion.

If we (arbitrarily) choose 1961-1990, we can get positive temperature anomalies where some want them to appear.

(ps. Always assuming the temperature data and analysis are fit for purpose - but that's quite a different point.)

[jffryfnt]

It is this point of reference that all global temps measurements are compared to. So obviously we're all looking at the same data set, I presume.

And for what tangible grounds is there for anyone to argue that temps haven't increased since 1998? For anyone who argues that I'd surmise they can't read charts very well, and they don't know what happened in 1998 (which was most likely to be the warmest year in the millenium.) There's still an upward trend since 1999, but has yet to reach 1998 levels

[guffpot]

If the data and analysis is good enough, I'll happily accept that there has been a temperature rise over the last couple of decades.

But there is nothing special about the reference period. If we had the benefit of being able to fix a reference period in the middle of the MWP or peak of the HO, we could have just as easily been talking about temperature decrease.

OK the data does not allow us to do that, but it doesn't change my point. What sort of change is significant?

[jffryfnt]

It doesn't matter what reference period you use. It could be from the first day the Earth is formed. The key is using the same point of reference from which trends can be made. It doesn't matter if you do it from a period when the Earth was a lot hotter, or a lot cooler. If the reference is consistent, trends can be analyzed. What kind of change is significant is only based upon what you value.

[jffryfnt]

'My' position doesn't necessarily rely on a law of averages, but it begs the question: what is defined as normal? Is a 30 year average of weather 'normal'? Climate doesn't define normal but it's useful for tracking trends, hence what we're dealing with now, climate change. Climates are changing, according to this definition, plus there's other evidence: species migrations into areas where they've never been found before, receding glaciers, etc. But many species have nowhere to migrate to.

[guffpot]

On comparison over different time scales, perhaps you can answer this question:

How do we conclude that a specified change in temperature is significant? (By that, I mean statistically significant)

For example, if I give you a 1dC change in temperature, is that significant?

[jffryfnt]

Over very long time scales (millions of years) the Earth's climate is relatively stable meaning conducive to life. A 2 to 5*C change is relatively insignificant on this scale. Mind you, this could take millenia to occur. But on a decadal scale, that degree change is profoundly significant for the primary reason that it is very rapid, much to fast for most species to naturally adapt, where on a longer scale, and a slower change, species can adapt.

[guffpot]

Over very long time scales, the Earth's climate has cycled through a number of glacial/interglacial periods.

Average temperature swings of more than 7 dC could be viewed as "normal" at this time scale.

Same on a daily time scale. Same swings are seen on Earth on an annual time scale.

To repeat my question - when is 1 dC significant?

[jffryfnt]

The glacial/interglacial period spans more than 100,000 years; a very long time scale, and a large range in temperatures.

Of course daily temperatures change dramatically, sometimes as much as 40*C!

But the global average isn't, as the sun is always shining on half of it!

1*C is very significant. Think about it. Most of the Earth's land area is in the tropics. 0.1*C change there is very little, but what accounts for the rest of the change? Mid and polar latitudes. Some areas are 5*C warmer.

[guffpot]

100,000 years is a long time. But the present interglacial started something like 30,000 years ago. Evolution did not all happen in the last 30,000 years.

Life survives overnight temperature swings. It survives seasonal swings. It survived the LIA, MWP, HO and the last glacial.

OK, sometimes its good and sometimes tough. But you cannot use extinction to argue that a temperature norm existed 30 years ago.

[jffryfnt]

Life on Earth is 3.8 billion years old. Evolution began since life began. Life has survived many major extinction events, some of which that nearly eradicated more than 80% of all species. Life evolved on a rotating planet (night and day), changing seasons, interannual variations, decadal, centennial, millennial, etc, a slough of natural variability. But this time we're doing it. We're forcing species to adapt in such a short time frame reminiscent of major extinction events. What do you value?

[guffpot]

OK, so we have come at it from a number of angles.

I have my own academic background and FWIW I'm not asking you to convince me of anything.

You introduce a new point: "now we're doing it".

You have never faced up to the question: when is 1dC significant?

It's fine if you don't want to, or you cannot answer the question. Just be honest with yourself about the basis of your belief. And keep it in mind as you go around trying to persuade or criticise others.

[jffryfnt]

I thought I did answer the question, my bad if it didn't post.

1*C is significant. 1*C increase in global average temperature represents the whole Earth. Most land mass is in the tropics. Most of the 1*C increase in temp is comprised of this area, yet only contributes about 20%of it. It has a very high weighted average. Mid to high latitudes however comprise much less area. Yet, this is where the significant difference is made up in that mere 1*C: 5 to 8*C, 80% of the global temp increase.

[SteveWrathall]

The adaptive forcing from +0.7 deg C over 160 years is a small effect, compared with the other changed wrought over the same time: habitat loss, introduction of exotic predators , food sources,& backgound colours etc.

[guffpot]

Good points Steve, and you just stick to the facts. What is the value of making predictions without going back and asking how well we did?

[SteveWrathall]

The point? That there is always a fresh batch of suckers to believe the new ones.

[guffpot]

Let's not get too cynical Steve.

There will always be a need to look forward and anticipate. But we should be ready to ask ourselves how good we are at it ... measure the quality of past forecasts to see how muh weight we should give to our latest predictions.

That's why your work is good -is says "not very reliable". My objections start when people ask "why waste your time of 20 year old predictions?". Or "We're much better now".

[minilemur]

Excellent discussion of the mismatch between observed temperature trends and the lunatic predictions of the eco-alarmist climate models!

[SteveWrathall]

The utter lack of warming since 1998 has to be the most under-reported story, apart from the population implosion.

[jffryfnt]

El Nino in 1998, remember??

[SteveWrathall]

The El Nino I remember best was that of 1982. It causes droughts in the East of NZ'z North Island, where I lived. The radio station was thrashing "It's raining again" by Supertramp. It got right up my nose.

[magnusea]

To get viewers, give this video as a Youtube response on some videos. For example the vids on this account

youtube(DOT)com/user/wondering­mind42

and to this clip

youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=bDsIFs­pVzfI

(These clips claims that those who are critical to the ...I would say "bias science of IPCC" are fools. (Therefor I'm afraid that the pupils this teacher has can graduate without embracing the bias science...)

[opchidexio]

What is WRONG WITH YOU? DON'T YOU CARE that your appetite for fossil fuels is melting the ice caps? You are murdering the polar bears! No one should be allow to drive an SUV or own a heated pool house except Al Gore! Turn your lights off, mate. Get a bicycle. You will be the DEATH OF PLANET GORE! 5 STARS!

[SteveWrathall]

I actually bike to work each day, have no wish to own a 2nd car, and grow my own vegetables. However I don't believe in forcing my lifestyle choices on others.

[minilemur]

opchidexio - some corrections to your post: the Antarctic icecap is slightly growing. Polar bear numbers are increasing and the actual threat to them is hunting, not climate change. Of course, you may have been sarcastic in which case LOL.

[natereiners]

polar bears live in the arctic, NOT the antarctic.

According to a study done by the USGS in 2006 "The relationship between decreased availability of sea ice and declining population size in western Hudson Bay, which is near the southern extreme of polar bear range, is cause for concern regarding the future status of polar bears in more northern regions such as the SBS."

but if you were being sarcastic, then LOL!!!!

[minilemur]

nateriener - what a bizarre comment. Of course polar bears live in the Antarctic not the Arctic. Who did you think didn't know that?

Of the 14 polar bear populatons in the Arctic 12 are growing or stable. 2 are declining. Clearly nothing to do with global warming., Moreover there is a correlation between those areas of the Arctic that have been cooling and falling polar bear numbers, and those areas that have been warming and rising polar bear numbers. In any case Arctic rise is a regional rise

[natereiners]

... so what you're saying (without citing it), is that... polar bears live in the antarctic, not the arctic. and also live in the arctic?

-if you choose to believe things like this which are false, that's up to you.

I find it funny that you find the truth bizarre.

[minilemur]

no natereiner - I was making fun of you. It was sarcasm.

Polar bears live in the Arctic. There are roughly five times as many polar bears as there were in the 1950s.

Polar bear numbers have declined in 2 Arctic colonies in regions where it has been COOLING, and polar bear numbers have grown or been stable in 12 other areas where temperatures have been stable or warming.

I find it funny that you find the truth alarming.