"An intimate knowledge of how academia and the peer review system operates. You just do not find too many honest people getting jobs with the mafia."
Baseless claim, hinting at a vast conspiracy of science and the scientific process. Was 9/11 an inside job too, and maybe scientist are lying about evolution as well. Goddidit! Or gumitdidit!
So many conspiracy theorist in the denier camp, shocking.
What does climate denial mean? Are people denying the climate changes? No I have never heard that, I think the term is flawed to start with. I think what bothers some is the lack of anything scary in climate change, it does and always will change, its just not that scary. As soon as anyone can show warming of the planet that is abnormal in its rate, I will start to worry, until then it seems to be getting a bit old with all the doomsday scenarios. Just saying :)
How in the world did I miss seeing this video for two months? Damn it.
Great video, as usual. Muller claimed he was surprised by the BEST conclusion, even though all of the world's experts already knew what the conclusion would be.
I guess what we can learn from this is that funding from the Koch brothers has not pervertesd the science like funding from governments and green groups has. I look forward to such objective anlaysis into the lack of causation between c02 and temperature.
@Dodger481 how have governments or green groups "perverted" science? Muller's work confirms what government-funded scientists, like NASA, have been saying for decades. It was the Koch brothers who were funding a damaging and misleading denial campaign based on lies and half-truths and cherry-picked data. This time they were unfortunate enough to believe in their own lies so much that they mistakenly funded some real science, expecting it to back up their unfounded claims.
The fact that industry supported research comes out objectively is in stark contrast to all the junk science that comes on the backs of the taxpayer. It makes sense though as if you entire salary is dependant on pumping global warming you will cook up research to support said conclusion.
@Dodger481 Junk science? The overwhelming majority of scientific research is payed for by the tax payer - and it's in these realms you get projects like the LHC @ CERN - hardly "junk" science. And no, governments have not perverted the science, as there are safeguards such as peer review in place to stop that kind of thing happening.
Muller's work shows exactly how uncorrupted science is. If your hypothesis was correct, Muller would have found different results. But he didn't.
@Dodger481 by the way, your notion of cooking up research makes zero sense whatsoever. Scientists work not to support a conclusion, but to find answers and explanations. The money in science, which isn't much, and the fame and kudos, come from research that breaks previously held notions, theories and ideas. Supporting a conclusion does not get you the good grants and the good projects, nor reputation. All of the incentives in science are the exact opposite of what you're proposing.
@Dodger481 So I'm guessing you must be in the libertarian end of the political spectrum. You shouldn't confuse your understandable distrust of government with things our tax money funds. Politicians have been shown to be corruptible time and time again, whereas instances of this in the realms of science are scant and caught quickly thanks to peer review. Just because the funding comes from governments, it does not in any way mean the govts have a say in the results.
@Dodger481 by the way, I'm wondering where you got the impression that anyone's salary would depend on perpetuating global warming? I suppose this is a huge difference between the public and private sectors - private sectors are goal orientated, you're given a task and your salary depends on a positive outcome. Scientific research does not work like this - a climatologist's salary doesn't depend on proving anything, just getting as close to the truth as possible, as rigorously as possible.
Without belief in the global warming scam you do not get papers written, you do not get tenior and you simply do not get the job. Without global warming there would be no cliamte science. It simply is a self perpetuating scam that has been exagerated for far too long.
@sugarcanegray Hardly, we pump more and more co2 into the amtmostphere with no effect on the temperature. over a decade now with no warming. Clearly the effect is very small and indistinguishable from other more dominant factors in the climate. The issue of causation and the quantum is still up in the air. (Literally)
@Dodger481 The C02 causation is well understood. The rise in CO2 around the planet correlates with the increase in temperature. This is highlighted best in the sharp increase in temperature seen between the 50s and the 90s. This "greenhouse" effect isn't really under question anymore because it's so well understood.
@Dodger481 well this is the thing - the rising Earth temperature correlates perfectly with our use of fossil fuels - starting in the industrial revolution right up until the late nineties. The leveling out we see of the temperatures over the past decade does not refute this, as there are other factors. We have 150 years of correlation vs 10 of non. It's not a game-changer.
Fair comment, however whatever temperature increase we see from the first point of measurement is not dramatic. It is right inline with other time period changes such as the MWP and the little ice age. The small amount of warming we have seen since the first recorded period is nominal and points to taking no action at all. The fact that climate warming has stopped in the last 10-15 years of massive c02 output points to the fact that c02 contribution is a nominal factor at best.
@Dodger481 The problem with saying that warming has stopped in the last 10 years is you are cherry picking. If you pick any year before 1998 it shows a clear warming trend. If you pick after 1998 you get a clear warming trend. But if you start with 1998 you get no warming, why? Because of the largest spike in temp because of the biggest el nino in 100 years.
You are not being scientific or even logical. You are cherry picking the data and that is also called being dishonest.
Not within the cliamte system as a whole. No one has any idea as to the strength of c02 in realtion to the other thousands of variables within the cliamte system. Nor do we understand what additional feedbacks occur due to increased c02. What the temperature data suggests is that c02 is a very weak forcing agent or it is counteracted by massive negative feedbacks. Ie more clouds, less sunlight.
@Dodger481 You better inform the climate scientists then, I'm sure their gonna want to hear from you. Hey, you don't happen to be one of those basement Climatologists??;)
@Dodger481 but the strong correlation between risin C02 levels and the rise in temperature is solid evidence, along with how much is understood about C02 itself and it's place in the atmosphere. I've never heard of a climate scientist, or any other scientist, refuting C02's position as a greenhouse gas, nor the concept of greenhouse gasses themselves. If you have any peer-reviewed work on your position, can you post a link for me? Thanks.
The global warming denial folks have much in common with the creationists. No amount of facts and common sense observations can chage thier minds. How sad they they are so easily led to misguided opinions by the cottage industry of global warming denial astroturf organizations funded by Exxon etc.
Then again, if I were to doubt everything experts say - and had to demonstrate it myself before accepting it - I would have to renounce EVERYTHING modern life has to offer, from computer, medicine to engineered products.
at least some of the denialists are taking the scientific process seriously. it's fine to disagree with a scientific concept as long as you are willing to test it and accept the results.
Well, depressing is kinda a strong word, but it's disappointing to see so much disinformation get millions of views and well researched scientific videos like yours and potholer54's so few.
@greenman3610 : Hmm ... I'm not so sure Glen Beck would give you a fair go somehow...
(Going on what I've heard and read, never seen Beck's show.) I agree you need more publicity - can't recommend these clips highly enough - and think everyone needs to see 'em although I think you're doing pretty well too.
So a study funded by climate change skeptics concluded that the temperature recordings used by climate scientists are correct and the global temperature has risen over the last 100 years? Can anyone tell me if I have interpreted correctly?
Some disturbing news: The DOE has estimated that 2010 CO2 emissions grew globally by 564 million tons or 6%. This is the biggest annual increase on record.
The song is by Ugly Ducking off the 2007 album Meatshake called Dumb it Down. Their website is uglyduckling.us Support independent hip hop. Speak the truth. Fight big oil come to DC Sunday to block the Keystone XL.
Great work yet again brother. The debate has been over for a few years now, and yet people still tend to argue what they "heard" and not what they have seen. Hundreds of surveys show that newscorp viewers are consistently the most misinformed people in the world and are so manipulated they think it's everyone else fault or that it's all a conspiracy to manipulate them. Getmoneyout"dot"com and you will start to see the world change for the better. Occupy Everything!!
Mew, I get the feeling you're being paid to do this. For a person who seems to know quite a bit about this you just seem to have too much of an ideological basis for your arguments. That is, that you want AGW to be wrong. Hey, I want it to be wrong as well. That would be nice. But even if a person doesnt know much about this, you have to admit it just makes sense. You mess with a closed system like this, there will be consequences. Its just a basic law of nature.
@troglodyte2084 I don't think Mew is paid to comment here. He (or she) is like almost everyone on the climate issue. They're collecting information trying to find out what's going on. Sometimes that comes by way of arguing points. When we argue we learn and adjust our position based on what additional information we collect. There are a lot of websites out there spreading bad information so it's hard to know what is correct and what is not.
@MewCat100 You can think of thermal inertia this way. They are a buffer. They slow the process either way. With a warming planet the surface temp will warm slower. On a cooling planet the surface will cool more slowly.
@robhoneycutt Not sure how "they" came out of that. Thermal inertia is an "it." (Long day.) Thermal inertia is a buffer. It slows the process either way. As one of the papers below was stating, without oceanic thermal inertia the planet would heat and cool rapidly with changes in solar output.
@MewCat100 Also, one small note. The IPCC does not do models. The IPCC only reports on the existing published literature, which includes research that uses models.
@MewCat100 1) You need to go look at the IPCC AR4 data a little more carefully. The estimations made there only account for thermal expansion of the ocean.
@MewCat100 2) "Size does not equal intensity..." But size and intensity is a measure of the relative energy contained within storms. There are new standards that are currently being introduced to compensate for the inadequate methods we currently use to measure intensity. Storms are currently only measured by they peak wind strength during a 12 hour period. There is a new system called Accumulated Cyclonic Energy (ACE) where the purpose is to measure the actual energy in a storm.
@MewCat100 "Explain how size is a measure of the relative energy contained within a storm."
If you have a category 3 storm that is 100 miles in diameter it contains much less accumulated energy than a storm that is a category 2 that is 300 miles in diameter.
@MewCat100 3) Look up anything you like on current species extinction rates. It's generally accepted that we are currently witnessing a mass extinction event.
@robhoneycutt You aren't following what I am saying. Mass extinction DUE to global warming. Sure, we can kill off lots of species, but which are dying due to global warming exclusively?
@robhoneycutt Ocean acidification is not a current analysis of extinction. You are once again talking future prediction and that is not what I had been discussing. I asked for evidence, given the recent AGW of 0.8C of extinction that resulted from the 0.8C rise. Further, acidification and warming are not one in the same thing. You are talking CO2 effects on acidity, not temperature effects on acidity. Finally, you are undermining your own argument.
@robhoneycutt They are not the same argument sir. I am asking if global warming is causing mass extinction, not if CO2 concentration change is causing mass extinction. They are not one in the same.
@MewCat100 The point is they have the same source, atmospheric CO2. Thus they are the same problem. Both adversely affect species habitat and survival rates. Ocean acidification is often referred to as "the other CO2 problem."
@MewCat100 Look, if you can't be bothered to do a little research into climate chance and species impacts I don't want to sit here and try to teach you. Just go out and read a few research papers.
@robhoneycutt Look, if you can't be bothered to back up your claims, maybe it is you that needs to read a few research papers. It's not my fault that warming is not currently causing any extinctions or that your thermal inertia concept holds little to no water.
@MewCat100 Quite literally, scientists are very concerned that we are on the precipice of a collapse of the ocean food chain. That would have a devastating impact on our ability to feed the expected 10 billion people on this planet come mid century.
@MewCat100 Let me ask you a question. What evidence would you need for you to accept that the earth is getting warmer and is in large part due to human activity?
CONT...despite the fact that the temperatures were warmer than current and the Arctic was ice-free for at least part of the late summer. All told, it seems that climate change is no where near what was predicted and if we have experienced half the temperature rise that is to be expected with a doubling of CO2 in the last 50 years, it seems unlikely that the consequences of the other 0.8C will be any more severe.
@MewCat100 "if we have experienced half the temperature rise that is to be expected with a doubling of CO2 in the last 50 years, it seems unlikely that the consequences of the other 0.8C will be any more severe."
That, I would suggest, is a lot of very baseless wishful thinking.
@robhoneycutt How is it baseless? Please demonstrate. The accepted science is 1.2C ( I gave you 1.6C just to be generous) for every doubling of CO2. We have experienced nothing of magnitude for the current 0.8C, so why would we expect the next 0.8C to be of major consequence?
...and there are a dozen or so other studies that comprise the IPCC estimate of 1.5-4.5C with a central estimate of 3C. They state that according to these studies climate sensitivity is "unlikely" below 1.5C but sensitivity above 4.5C can not be ruled out.
@robhoneycutt Central estimate of 3C, but a scientifically supported estimated of 1.2C. The other estimates are based on speculative models that are not fully supported by science given that the science of positive feedback mechanisms is currently very poorly understood.
@robhoneycutt Sure, they all have some support, but the 1.2C is well-supported, the others are not. The effects of positive feedback are not well-understood, making models that incorporate them speculative at best. Until such effects are better understood, those models cannot be considered reliable.
@541iceman So we are 40% (our about half) way above pre-industrial CO2 and we see half of the temperature rise we would expect. What doesn't make sense about that?
@MewCat100 90% of warming goes into the world's oceans. That's where the thermal inertia is. There are quite a lot of papers out there on this subject as well.
@robhoneycutt Sure. So how do you explain past trends where there is no evidence what so ever of thermal inertia effects as you suggest. As CO2 continued to climb in periods past, the temperatures began to fall. This suggests that thermal inertia is negligible.
@MewCat100 And what makes you think there is not evidence of thermal inertia in the past? Can you give me an example of where there are periods of the global temperature falling while CO2 was rising?
@robhoneycutt Well, I could use your line of "You just need to read the papers. There are a bunch of them." However, that is what we call ignorant, so let me provide some times.
@MewCat100 Do you realize the Vostok record is usually presented with "present" on the left side of the chart? Temp leads CO2 in the ice core record. Temp falls then CO2 falls. Temp rises and then CO2 rises.
@MewCat100 Look, the thermal inertia stuff is really basic science. Here, you can read Roland A. Madden and V. Ramanathan 1980, Detecting Climate Change due to Increasing Carbon Dioxide.
@robhoneycutt I gave you 5 dates, all you need to do is read a graph of temp and CO2 versus time.You will see the CO2 is increasing over periods during which temperature is falling.
@MewCat100 Regarding each of your 5 dates I only find one that applies and only on a short time scale and to a very small degree. You're talking something so small that likely there is another factor at play where there is an outgassing of CO2 in conjunction with a different cooling force. But look at the larger picture. CO2 does not rise where temps fall.
@robhoneycutt Your own graph proves you wrong. The dates were approximations and just a little looking will show you that even after temp begins to fall, CO2 rises for a bit, then begins to fall. The whole point, which you still miss is that there is no evidence in the graphs of this thermal inertia you talk about.
@MewCat100 Dude, thermal inertia is not going to show up on a chart that has that course of data. Thermal inertial on those time scales is on the order of decades, not millennia.
You have absolutely failed to show anywhere where the temp is falling while CO2 is rising. Zip. I have shown you where you are wrong.
@robhoneycutt Explain how thermal inertia would account for temperature rise in the future. Thermal inertia is nothing more than a resistance to change. It is not a magnifier of change. The temperature would not continue to rise if the rate of heat added to the environment leveled off. The temperature would level off as well.
@MewCat100 You're correct, it is not an amplifier. It merely means there is accumulated heat energy in the overall climate system that is not yet being expressed in terms of surface warming. It is a delay response.
Actually, surface temperatures would continue to climb until the climate reached it's equilibrium temperature.
@robhoneycutt D'oh! "There is accumulated heat energy in the overall climate system that is not yet being expressed in terms of surface warming." So are you saying that CO2 is warming the oceans more than it is warming the atmosphere? Why would surface temperature continue to climb to equilibrium is reached? Can you explain that some more.
@MewCat100 I feel like I'm teaching high school physics here. The energy required to heat water is much greater than the energy required to heat air. That means as the planet warms, since more of the earth's surface is water, more energy is going into warming the ocean. The ocean also circulates meaning that the overturning current both pulls down heat and then releases it again (ENSO, AMO, PDO). This is what creates a great deal of the internal variability of the climate system.
@robhoneycutt Right, but the equilibrium between atmosphere and ocean is there. It isn't like the ocean is storing heat that will later be used to increase the temp of the atmosphere ABOVE what it is when heat ceases to enter both ocean and atmosphere. The only thing the "inertia" does is resist a change in direction. Inertia means the object in question maintains its state. It does not mean that it accelerates. Your ideas are quite wrong.
@MewCat100 No, the equilibrium is not there instantly. Yes, it is exact that the ocean is storing energy that later comes back into the atmosphere. Go read the fricking paper! This is an extremely basic and well understood aspect of climate that is accepted on all sides of the debate!
@MewCat100 Wigley 2005: "Even if atmospheric composition were fixed today, global-mean temperature and sea level rise would continue due to oceanic thermal inertia." and "Oceanic thermal inertia causes climate change to lag behind any changes in external forcing and causes the response to be damped relative to the asymptotic equilibrium response."
@MewCat100 Schneider 1981: "Preliminary studies suggest that the thermal inertia of the upper layers of the oceans, combined with vertical mixing of deeper oceanic waters, could delay the response of the globally averaged surface."
@MewCat100 Foukal 2004: " the Sun's luminosity, despite its vigorous convection, is probably the enormous thermal inertia of atmospheric ... Without this inertia, the large irradiance fluctuations caused by spots and faculae would ... accepted that the long-term irradiance variations used in climate models in ..."
@MewCat100 B Muller 2002: "For the next decades, we are locked-in to an unavoidable rise in global mean temperature by virtue of our past emissions, due to factors such as the large thermal inertia of the earth's oceans."
@robhoneycutt Are you saying that IPCC models do not account for thermal inertia? I agree that the atmosphere would warm more if the oceans were not present. It is not the case, however, that the oceans will continue to warm the atmosphere when there is not long any forcing. They will, however, slow a cooling process if one occurs. The oceans don't add their own heat, they only resist changes in heat.
@MewCat100 Butler 1994: "...between the two lower curves, (ii) that the temperature peaks rather later than the sunspot cycle length (inverted), possibly due to the thermal inertia of the Atlantic Ocean,"
@MewCat100 Sorry, not an easy email day. Given that we are only 40% above pre-industrial CO2, why do you use the observed T rise (0.8 C) plus a bit (0.4 C) as the equilibrium value for sensitivity to *doubling* ? Why we have is about +1.4 C for the 40% increase, which puts us in the IPCC range for doubling.
BEST confirms that the globe has warmed approximately 0.8C in the last 50 years, a rate far slower than what was originally predicted by the IPCC. There is good consensus that the amount of warming from a doubling of carbon dioxide is about 1.2C, which means we have seen half the warming we can anticipate from doubling CO2. This has all occurred without any major changes in global weather patterns. Further, it seems that during the MWP, warming was faster than now, with no major catastrophes...
@MewCat100 "There is good consensus that the amount of warming from a doubling of carbon dioxide is about 1.2C"
Wrong. Central estimates of sensitivity to 2XCO2 is about 3C based on a wide variety of methods of estimating climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity lower than 1.5C is considered "unlikely."
How strange isnt it that FoxNews was interrested in this up untill recently, when suddenly it has fallen completely off the radar? Doesn't the Foxfreaks ponder what happened to this study? Where it went and why nobody is talking about it anymore? Are they actually dumb enough to believe that it just all of a sudden disappeared? Simply went poof not to be seen or heard of again? I guess the simple answer is, yes, indeed - they are that stupid.
WoW just WoW guess we'll do what futurama suggested now, every once in a while drop a gigantic ice cube in the north atlantic and thus solves the global warming issue once and for all, ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Don't you guys have something better to do like rage about how BARIK OBAMIH IS A SEKRIT MOOSLIM or something? Give up, it's far too elaborate to be trolling so you're just fucking retarded.
The data used in this video confirms that there has been no warming or cooling in the past 13 years. You might have a hard time seeing it, but it is there. One of the 4 authors named on the BEST project has already distanced herself from Muller.
@MrCoffeeFiend The upshot is, you can't make the determination that there has been no warming because temps are well within the statistically significant trend of 0.29C/decade shown in both the GISS and BEST data.
Well looking at a data set, we must make sure that what we are looking at is really a growing trend, not just part of a larger repeating pattern. For example a sinus function with noise on it can look as a growing trend if we just look at data from -10 degrees to +10 degrees. On the other hand if we look at 0deg to 3600deg it is obviously a periodic function with noise on it. Right?
@judomagyar We could use this for scale: The difference in global temperature of 8C (the range for glacial-interglacial cycles) means ice is about a mile thick at New York City. We are likely committed to about a 2C increase over that 8C. If we keep going business-as-usual we could be 6C over. That is a completely ice free planet. A planet with extensive equatorial desertification. A planet that will support a fraction the number of people it currently does. Does that scale work for you?
@robhoneycutt What makes you think the planet will "support a fraction the number of people it currently does?"
After all, nothing grows on the vast tracts of land that are covered in ice and permafrost currently. Maybe we could, in fact, support more people if the globe was warmer. Past warm periods were the most prosperous for life while cold periods have nearly killed it off on several occasions.
@robhoneycutt The understanding of glacial/interglacial cycle physics seems to have more to do with insolation as a result of orbital inclination, orbital eccentricity, and changes in the output of energy from the sun. This changes the solar energy reaching earth, more so at northern/southern latitudes than at the equator. The effect is more pronounced in the north, which is furthest from the sun in the summer months.
@robhoneycutt As it turns out, summer months are more important than winter because it is rate of ice melting that is important and not so much accumulation. Ice that does not fully melt in summer is added to in winter and over centuries, this leads to glacier formation. Now, when these cycles reverse, the summers warm, more ice melts than accumulates in winter and glaciers retreat. The temperature changes you are seeing are more a result of presence/absence of ice than anything else over time.
@robhoneycutt There is no evidence that CO2 levels played a role in ending ice age glaciation whereas there is a great deal of evidence that insolation is a key factor. In essence, your temperature changes are independent of CO2 levels (by and large) and thus are not accurate methods of predicting future climate change as a result of human CO2 contribution.
@MrCoffeeFiend Read Tamino on this (tinyurl com/3qlstkw). It turns out that the two points at the end of the plot that cause the "zero trend", including the really low (negative) point in 2010, have almost no data in them. If you remove them, trend goes up to +0.14 +/- 0.11 C per decade. Tamino describes the errors in detail. Bottom line: there's no statistical basis to say that "warming has stopped".
This has been flagged as spam show
"An intimate knowledge of how academia and the peer review system operates. You just do not find too many honest people getting jobs with the mafia."
Baseless claim, hinting at a vast conspiracy of science and the scientific process. Was 9/11 an inside job too, and maybe scientist are lying about evolution as well. Goddidit! Or gumitdidit!
So many conspiracy theorist in the denier camp, shocking.
thesparitan 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I want this video on my OT Club unit.
nickolascook718 1 month ago
What does climate denial mean? Are people denying the climate changes? No I have never heard that, I think the term is flawed to start with. I think what bothers some is the lack of anything scary in climate change, it does and always will change, its just not that scary. As soon as anyone can show warming of the planet that is abnormal in its rate, I will start to worry, until then it seems to be getting a bit old with all the doomsday scenarios. Just saying :)
greensense99 2 months ago 2
How in the world did I miss seeing this video for two months? Damn it.
Great video, as usual. Muller claimed he was surprised by the BEST conclusion, even though all of the world's experts already knew what the conclusion would be.
Desertphile 2 months ago
Your video is a favorite on Doha
rahamdavenp1230g 2 months ago
@rahamdavenp1230g
what's doha?
greenman3610 2 months ago
I guess what we can learn from this is that funding from the Koch brothers has not pervertesd the science like funding from governments and green groups has. I look forward to such objective anlaysis into the lack of causation between c02 and temperature.
Dodger481 2 months ago
@Dodger481 how have governments or green groups "perverted" science? Muller's work confirms what government-funded scientists, like NASA, have been saying for decades. It was the Koch brothers who were funding a damaging and misleading denial campaign based on lies and half-truths and cherry-picked data. This time they were unfortunate enough to believe in their own lies so much that they mistakenly funded some real science, expecting it to back up their unfounded claims.
sugarcanegray 2 months ago
@sugarcanegray
The fact that industry supported research comes out objectively is in stark contrast to all the junk science that comes on the backs of the taxpayer. It makes sense though as if you entire salary is dependant on pumping global warming you will cook up research to support said conclusion.
Dodger481 2 months ago
@Dodger481 Junk science? The overwhelming majority of scientific research is payed for by the tax payer - and it's in these realms you get projects like the LHC @ CERN - hardly "junk" science. And no, governments have not perverted the science, as there are safeguards such as peer review in place to stop that kind of thing happening.
Muller's work shows exactly how uncorrupted science is. If your hypothesis was correct, Muller would have found different results. But he didn't.
sugarcanegray 2 months ago
@Dodger481 by the way, your notion of cooking up research makes zero sense whatsoever. Scientists work not to support a conclusion, but to find answers and explanations. The money in science, which isn't much, and the fame and kudos, come from research that breaks previously held notions, theories and ideas. Supporting a conclusion does not get you the good grants and the good projects, nor reputation. All of the incentives in science are the exact opposite of what you're proposing.
sugarcanegray 2 months ago
@Dodger481 So I'm guessing you must be in the libertarian end of the political spectrum. You shouldn't confuse your understandable distrust of government with things our tax money funds. Politicians have been shown to be corruptible time and time again, whereas instances of this in the realms of science are scant and caught quickly thanks to peer review. Just because the funding comes from governments, it does not in any way mean the govts have a say in the results.
sugarcanegray 2 months ago
@Dodger481 by the way, I'm wondering where you got the impression that anyone's salary would depend on perpetuating global warming? I suppose this is a huge difference between the public and private sectors - private sectors are goal orientated, you're given a task and your salary depends on a positive outcome. Scientific research does not work like this - a climatologist's salary doesn't depend on proving anything, just getting as close to the truth as possible, as rigorously as possible.
sugarcanegray 2 months ago
@sugarcanegray
Without belief in the global warming scam you do not get papers written, you do not get tenior and you simply do not get the job. Without global warming there would be no cliamte science. It simply is a self perpetuating scam that has been exagerated for far too long.
Dodger481 2 months ago
@Dodger481
and you base this claim on what evidence?
greenman3610 2 months ago
@greenman3610
An intimate knowledge of how academia and the peer review system operates. You just do not find too many honest people getting jobs with the mafia.
Dodger481 2 months ago
@Dodger481 and as for causation, Muller mentions is so briefly in the video because its a well established and understood principle.
sugarcanegray 2 months ago
@sugarcanegray Hardly, we pump more and more co2 into the amtmostphere with no effect on the temperature. over a decade now with no warming. Clearly the effect is very small and indistinguishable from other more dominant factors in the climate. The issue of causation and the quantum is still up in the air. (Literally)
Dodger481 2 months ago
@Dodger481 The C02 causation is well understood. The rise in CO2 around the planet correlates with the increase in temperature. This is highlighted best in the sharp increase in temperature seen between the 50s and the 90s. This "greenhouse" effect isn't really under question anymore because it's so well understood.
sugarcanegray 2 months ago
@Dodger481 well this is the thing - the rising Earth temperature correlates perfectly with our use of fossil fuels - starting in the industrial revolution right up until the late nineties. The leveling out we see of the temperatures over the past decade does not refute this, as there are other factors. We have 150 years of correlation vs 10 of non. It's not a game-changer.
sugarcanegray 2 months ago
@sugarcanegray
Fair comment, however whatever temperature increase we see from the first point of measurement is not dramatic. It is right inline with other time period changes such as the MWP and the little ice age. The small amount of warming we have seen since the first recorded period is nominal and points to taking no action at all. The fact that climate warming has stopped in the last 10-15 years of massive c02 output points to the fact that c02 contribution is a nominal factor at best.
Dodger481 2 months ago
@Dodger481 oh from what planet are you? on this planet the warming did not stop.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dodger481 oh from what planet are you? on this planet the warming did not stop.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dodger481 The problem with saying that warming has stopped in the last 10 years is you are cherry picking. If you pick any year before 1998 it shows a clear warming trend. If you pick after 1998 you get a clear warming trend. But if you start with 1998 you get no warming, why? Because of the largest spike in temp because of the biggest el nino in 100 years.
You are not being scientific or even logical. You are cherry picking the data and that is also called being dishonest.
thesparitan 1 week ago
@sugarcanegray
Not within the cliamte system as a whole. No one has any idea as to the strength of c02 in realtion to the other thousands of variables within the cliamte system. Nor do we understand what additional feedbacks occur due to increased c02. What the temperature data suggests is that c02 is a very weak forcing agent or it is counteracted by massive negative feedbacks. Ie more clouds, less sunlight.
Dodger481 2 months ago
@Dodger481 You better inform the climate scientists then, I'm sure their gonna want to hear from you. Hey, you don't happen to be one of those basement Climatologists??;)
alienofwar 2 months ago
@Dodger481 but the strong correlation between risin C02 levels and the rise in temperature is solid evidence, along with how much is understood about C02 itself and it's place in the atmosphere. I've never heard of a climate scientist, or any other scientist, refuting C02's position as a greenhouse gas, nor the concept of greenhouse gasses themselves. If you have any peer-reviewed work on your position, can you post a link for me? Thanks.
sugarcanegray 2 months ago
Dr Muller loves his crow. Num num num, yummy crow.
mattschnetter 2 months ago
The global warming denial folks have much in common with the creationists. No amount of facts and common sense observations can chage thier minds. How sad they they are so easily led to misguided opinions by the cottage industry of global warming denial astroturf organizations funded by Exxon etc.
psocidlover 3 months ago
Then again, if I were to doubt everything experts say - and had to demonstrate it myself before accepting it - I would have to renounce EVERYTHING modern life has to offer, from computer, medicine to engineered products.
nigelelsass 3 months ago
Holy crap. Skullduggary? Haven't heard that word in a while. XD
gleehmee 3 months ago
This is an excellent video. Thanks for doing it.
friedie1jeff 3 months ago
at least some of the denialists are taking the scientific process seriously. it's fine to disagree with a scientific concept as long as you are willing to test it and accept the results.
EverydayPlacebo 4 months ago
It's so depressing that nobody - in relative terms that is - is watching your excellent videos. You need way more publicity.
1SapereAude1 4 months ago
@1SapereAude1
Well, that made my day, Mr Sunshine.
If it's any consolation, a lot of people that count watch these videos - but yeah,
could use some publicity. If only I could get on the Glenn Beck show.
greenman3610 4 months ago
@greenman3610
Well, depressing is kinda a strong word, but it's disappointing to see so much disinformation get millions of views and well researched scientific videos like yours and potholer54's so few.
1SapereAude1 4 months ago
@1SapereAude1
need a hot chick talking head.
auditions are now open.
greenman3610 4 months ago
@greenman3610
Actually not a bad idea. You should find some hot global warming activist/environmentalist chick on youtube and collaborate with her ;)
1SapereAude1 4 months ago
@1SapereAude1 congratulation peter, now that will be very scientific. Following the lead of FOX NEWS?
judomagyar 3 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@judomagyar
made you look
greenman3610 3 months ago
@greenman3610 : Hmm ... I'm not so sure Glen Beck would give you a fair go somehow...
(Going on what I've heard and read, never seen Beck's show.) I agree you need more publicity - can't recommend these clips highly enough - and think everyone needs to see 'em although I think you're doing pretty well too.
Astrostevo 3 months ago in playlist Climate Denial Crock of the Week
So a study funded by climate change skeptics concluded that the temperature recordings used by climate scientists are correct and the global temperature has risen over the last 100 years? Can anyone tell me if I have interpreted correctly?
Jacckkkkkkk 4 months ago 2
@Jacckkkkkkk
right.
the evidence is what it is.
greenman3610 4 months ago
@greenman3610 Cheers.
Jacckkkkkkk 4 months ago
@judomagyar Is there some place in the IPCC reports that says we won't have winter anymore?
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
Some disturbing news: The DOE has estimated that 2010 CO2 emissions grew globally by 564 million tons or 6%. This is the biggest annual increase on record.
quidproquo2004 4 months ago
The song is by Ugly Ducking off the 2007 album Meatshake called Dumb it Down. Their website is uglyduckling.us Support independent hip hop. Speak the truth. Fight big oil come to DC Sunday to block the Keystone XL.
dotherustle 4 months ago 2
By the way, most of the people you have shown on FOX & especially with Beck have stock in Goldline. Good times.
Amatsuhira 4 months ago
Great work yet again brother. The debate has been over for a few years now, and yet people still tend to argue what they "heard" and not what they have seen. Hundreds of surveys show that newscorp viewers are consistently the most misinformed people in the world and are so manipulated they think it's everyone else fault or that it's all a conspiracy to manipulate them. Getmoneyout"dot"com and you will start to see the world change for the better. Occupy Everything!!
Amatsuhira 4 months ago 2
Mew, I get the feeling you're being paid to do this. For a person who seems to know quite a bit about this you just seem to have too much of an ideological basis for your arguments. That is, that you want AGW to be wrong. Hey, I want it to be wrong as well. That would be nice. But even if a person doesnt know much about this, you have to admit it just makes sense. You mess with a closed system like this, there will be consequences. Its just a basic law of nature.
troglodyte2084 4 months ago 2
@troglodyte2084 I don't think Mew is paid to comment here. He (or she) is like almost everyone on the climate issue. They're collecting information trying to find out what's going on. Sometimes that comes by way of arguing points. When we argue we learn and adjust our position based on what additional information we collect. There are a lot of websites out there spreading bad information so it's hard to know what is correct and what is not.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 You can think of thermal inertia this way. They are a buffer. They slow the process either way. With a warming planet the surface temp will warm slower. On a cooling planet the surface will cool more slowly.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt Not sure how "they" came out of that. Thermal inertia is an "it." (Long day.) Thermal inertia is a buffer. It slows the process either way. As one of the papers below was stating, without oceanic thermal inertia the planet would heat and cool rapidly with changes in solar output.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Also, one small note. The IPCC does not do models. The IPCC only reports on the existing published literature, which includes research that uses models.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Yes, IPCC numbers account for thermal inertia but climate sensitivity are equilibrium figures.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
Additionally, many predictions by climate experts are not accurate:
1. Sea level is rising...but at an ever DECREASING rate.
2. Tropical storm intensity and severity have DECREASED.
3. There have been no mass extinction event, kill-offs, or other biological disasters.
4. Malaria has become LESS widespread, not more.
5. Many mathematicians suggest that warming beyond 2.3C is extremely unlikely
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 1) Nope. In fact, sea level is increasing at an exponential rate.
2) Nope. The size of storms is increasing but that information is currently not captured well using standard methods for tracking storm intensity.
3) Wrong again. We are currently experiencing large amounts of species loss.
4) Will have to look this one up.
5) Many? "Mathematicians?" Who?
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt Funny, the data do not support anything you have just said.
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Try me dude. I'm very well versed on this topic.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt
1. Rate of sea level rise according to the IPCC: "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected"
2. Size does not equal intensity. Try again.
3. So you witnessed a mass extinction that has resulted from global warming?
4. Good, look it up. And try, if you can, not to cherry pick.
5. Why not look that up as well. It is called probability theory and when applied to global warming, says there is a low chance of temp rise over 2.3C
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 1) You need to go look at the IPCC AR4 data a little more carefully. The estimations made there only account for thermal expansion of the ocean.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt I'm not talking estimates for the future, I'm talking current data.
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 On sea level rise I would suggest reading a paper by Church and White 2006, A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt But your messiah, the IPCC says their is no significant acceleration. Why do you trust them on some things and not on others?
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 2) "Size does not equal intensity..." But size and intensity is a measure of the relative energy contained within storms. There are new standards that are currently being introduced to compensate for the inadequate methods we currently use to measure intensity. Storms are currently only measured by they peak wind strength during a 12 hour period. There is a new system called Accumulated Cyclonic Energy (ACE) where the purpose is to measure the actual energy in a storm.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt Explain how size is a measure of the relative energy contained within a storm.
MewCat100 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MewCat100 "Explain how size is a measure of the relative energy contained within a storm."
If you have a category 3 storm that is 100 miles in diameter it contains much less accumulated energy than a storm that is a category 2 that is 300 miles in diameter.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 3) Look up anything you like on current species extinction rates. It's generally accepted that we are currently witnessing a mass extinction event.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt You aren't following what I am saying. Mass extinction DUE to global warming. Sure, we can kill off lots of species, but which are dying due to global warming exclusively?
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Read any papers on ocean acidification and species extinction.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt Ocean acidification is not a current analysis of extinction. You are once again talking future prediction and that is not what I had been discussing. I asked for evidence, given the recent AGW of 0.8C of extinction that resulted from the 0.8C rise. Further, acidification and warming are not one in the same thing. You are talking CO2 effects on acidity, not temperature effects on acidity. Finally, you are undermining your own argument.
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Not at all. They are the same argument because they are both a function of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt They are not the same argument sir. I am asking if global warming is causing mass extinction, not if CO2 concentration change is causing mass extinction. They are not one in the same.
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 CO2, being the primary driver of current warming, makes it the same.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt So your claim is the CO2 is killing animals, but not the warming it causes?
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 No. My claim is that we are significantly altering the climate and the pH of the oceans.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt Hahaha. My point exactly. I didn't ask you about the pH I asked you about the warming. Two separate issues. Here are the possibilities:
1. Warming good/Acid bad
2. Warming good/Acid good
3. Warming bad/Acid good
4. Warming bad/Acid bad
Where is evidence that warming causes extinction?
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 The point is they have the same source, atmospheric CO2. Thus they are the same problem. Both adversely affect species habitat and survival rates. Ocean acidification is often referred to as "the other CO2 problem."
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt How does warming adversely affect species habitat and survival rates?
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Look, if you can't be bothered to do a little research into climate chance and species impacts I don't want to sit here and try to teach you. Just go out and read a few research papers.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt Look, if you can't be bothered to back up your claims, maybe it is you that needs to read a few research papers. It's not my fault that warming is not currently causing any extinctions or that your thermal inertia concept holds little to no water.
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Quite literally, scientists are very concerned that we are on the precipice of a collapse of the ocean food chain. That would have a devastating impact on our ability to feed the expected 10 billion people on this planet come mid century.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Let me ask you a question. What evidence would you need for you to accept that the earth is getting warmer and is in large part due to human activity?
thesparitan 3 months ago
CONT...despite the fact that the temperatures were warmer than current and the Arctic was ice-free for at least part of the late summer. All told, it seems that climate change is no where near what was predicted and if we have experienced half the temperature rise that is to be expected with a doubling of CO2 in the last 50 years, it seems unlikely that the consequences of the other 0.8C will be any more severe.
MewCat100 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MewCat100 ".despite the fact that the temperatures were warmer than current and the Arctic was ice-free for at least part of the late summer. "
Wrong again. Current estimations suggest that the last time the Arctic had ice free summers was a million years ago and possibly 15 million years ago.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 "if we have experienced half the temperature rise that is to be expected with a doubling of CO2 in the last 50 years, it seems unlikely that the consequences of the other 0.8C will be any more severe."
That, I would suggest, is a lot of very baseless wishful thinking.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt How is it baseless? Please demonstrate. The accepted science is 1.2C ( I gave you 1.6C just to be generous) for every doubling of CO2. We have experienced nothing of magnitude for the current 0.8C, so why would we expect the next 0.8C to be of major consequence?
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Rahmstorf 2008 says 2.6C-4.1C
Zeebe 2009 states 1C-3C
Wigley 2005 states 1.5C-4.5C
Forster 2006 states 2.3 +/- 1.4K
Gregory 2002 states 2.1C
Annan and Hargreaves 2009 conclude 3C
Knutti and Hegerl 2008 state 2-4.5C
...and there are a dozen or so other studies that comprise the IPCC estimate of 1.5-4.5C with a central estimate of 3C. They state that according to these studies climate sensitivity is "unlikely" below 1.5C but sensitivity above 4.5C can not be ruled out.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt Central estimate of 3C, but a scientifically supported estimated of 1.2C. The other estimates are based on speculative models that are not fully supported by science given that the science of positive feedback mechanisms is currently very poorly understood.
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 "Central estimate of 3C, but a scientifically supported estimated of 1.2C. "
ALL the estimates are scientifically supported. You just need to read the papers. There are a bunch of them.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt Sure, they all have some support, but the 1.2C is well-supported, the others are not. The effects of positive feedback are not well-understood, making models that incorporate them speculative at best. Until such effects are better understood, those models cannot be considered reliable.
MewCat100 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MewCat100 "1.2C is well-supported, the others are not. " That is just not the case and you have no basis to make such a false statement.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 1.2 C per doubling. But we are only 40% above pre-industrial CO2. Why should we expect to see the effect of full doubling already?
541iceman 4 months ago
@541iceman So we are 40% (our about half) way above pre-industrial CO2 and we see half of the temperature rise we would expect. What doesn't make sense about that?
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 You make no accounting for thermal inertia. If we stopped adding CO2 today we would continue to see about another 0.6C in surface warming.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt Thermal inertia??? What are you attributing the thermal inertia to? CO2? The thermal inertia of the atmosphere appears to be quite low.
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 90% of warming goes into the world's oceans. That's where the thermal inertia is. There are quite a lot of papers out there on this subject as well.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt Sure. So how do you explain past trends where there is no evidence what so ever of thermal inertia effects as you suggest. As CO2 continued to climb in periods past, the temperatures began to fall. This suggests that thermal inertia is negligible.
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 And what makes you think there is not evidence of thermal inertia in the past? Can you give me an example of where there are periods of the global temperature falling while CO2 was rising?
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt Well, I could use your line of "You just need to read the papers. There are a bunch of them." However, that is what we call ignorant, so let me provide some times.
1. About 125,000 years ago
2. 200,000 years ago
3. 225,000 years ago
4. 240,000 years ago
5. 275,000 years ago
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Do you realize the Vostok record is usually presented with "present" on the left side of the chart? Temp leads CO2 in the ice core record. Temp falls then CO2 falls. Temp rises and then CO2 rises.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt And yet, there is temperature falling while CO2 increases.
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Further, there is no temperature plateau, which one would expect with your thermal inertia claim. Seems it is not true.
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Look, the thermal inertia stuff is really basic science. Here, you can read Roland A. Madden and V. Ramanathan 1980, Detecting Climate Change due to Increasing Carbon Dioxide.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 You've not shown anywhere that temp is falling while CO2 increases. Just a moment and I'll provide a chart.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt I gave you 5 dates, all you need to do is read a graph of temp and CO2 versus time.You will see the CO2 is increasing over periods during which temperature is falling.
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Regarding each of your 5 dates I only find one that applies and only on a short time scale and to a very small degree. You're talking something so small that likely there is another factor at play where there is an outgassing of CO2 in conjunction with a different cooling force. But look at the larger picture. CO2 does not rise where temps fall.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt Your own graph proves you wrong. The dates were approximations and just a little looking will show you that even after temp begins to fall, CO2 rises for a bit, then begins to fall. The whole point, which you still miss is that there is no evidence in the graphs of this thermal inertia you talk about.
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Dude, thermal inertia is not going to show up on a chart that has that course of data. Thermal inertial on those time scales is on the order of decades, not millennia.
You have absolutely failed to show anywhere where the temp is falling while CO2 is rising. Zip. I have shown you where you are wrong.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Here is a graphic: tiny cc/ho9k5
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 This CO2 following the temp is a result of ocean outgassing and acts to amplify orbitally forcing warming.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 As I look through the Vostok record at each of the points you list I do NOT see CO2 rising while temperature is falling.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt Perhaps you should get some glasses then.
MewCat100 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt Explain how thermal inertia would account for temperature rise in the future. Thermal inertia is nothing more than a resistance to change. It is not a magnifier of change. The temperature would not continue to rise if the rate of heat added to the environment leveled off. The temperature would level off as well.
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 You're correct, it is not an amplifier. It merely means there is accumulated heat energy in the overall climate system that is not yet being expressed in terms of surface warming. It is a delay response.
Actually, surface temperatures would continue to climb until the climate reached it's equilibrium temperature.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt D'oh! "There is accumulated heat energy in the overall climate system that is not yet being expressed in terms of surface warming." So are you saying that CO2 is warming the oceans more than it is warming the atmosphere? Why would surface temperature continue to climb to equilibrium is reached? Can you explain that some more.
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 I feel like I'm teaching high school physics here. The energy required to heat water is much greater than the energy required to heat air. That means as the planet warms, since more of the earth's surface is water, more energy is going into warming the ocean. The ocean also circulates meaning that the overturning current both pulls down heat and then releases it again (ENSO, AMO, PDO). This is what creates a great deal of the internal variability of the climate system.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt Right, but the equilibrium between atmosphere and ocean is there. It isn't like the ocean is storing heat that will later be used to increase the temp of the atmosphere ABOVE what it is when heat ceases to enter both ocean and atmosphere. The only thing the "inertia" does is resist a change in direction. Inertia means the object in question maintains its state. It does not mean that it accelerates. Your ideas are quite wrong.
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 No, the equilibrium is not there instantly. Yes, it is exact that the ocean is storing energy that later comes back into the atmosphere. Go read the fricking paper! This is an extremely basic and well understood aspect of climate that is accepted on all sides of the debate!
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Just go to google scholar and search the words "climate thermal inertia." This is basic physics.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 "Your ideas are quite wrong."
FYI... These are not MY ideas. These are basic principles of physics that you can find throughout the published literature on climate change.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Wigley 2005: "Even if atmospheric composition were fixed today, global-mean temperature and sea level rise would continue due to oceanic thermal inertia." and "Oceanic thermal inertia causes climate change to lag behind any changes in external forcing and causes the response to be damped relative to the asymptotic equilibrium response."
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Schneider 1981: "Preliminary studies suggest that the thermal inertia of the upper layers of the oceans, combined with vertical mixing of deeper oceanic waters, could delay the response of the globally averaged surface."
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Sveringhaus 1998: "After an abrupt climate warming, transient temperature gradi- ents
lasting several hundred years should arise in the upper part of the firn owing to
the thermal inertia of the underlying firn and ice."
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Foukal 2004: " the Sun's luminosity, despite its vigorous convection, is probably the enormous thermal inertia of atmospheric ... Without this inertia, the large irradiance fluctuations caused by spots and faculae would ... accepted that the long-term irradiance variations used in climate models in ..."
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 I could literally post more than 1000 such references for you.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 B Muller 2002: "For the next decades, we are locked-in to an unavoidable rise in global mean temperature by virtue of our past emissions, due to factors such as the large thermal inertia of the earth's oceans."
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 "These long quasi-periods are probably determined by the atmo- spheric response to
the large thermal inertia of the ocean (Moene, 1986)."
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt Are you saying that IPCC models do not account for thermal inertia? I agree that the atmosphere would warm more if the oceans were not present. It is not the case, however, that the oceans will continue to warm the atmosphere when there is not long any forcing. They will, however, slow a cooling process if one occurs. The oceans don't add their own heat, they only resist changes in heat.
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Butler 1994: "...between the two lower curves, (ii) that the temperature peaks rather later than the sunspot cycle length (inverted), possibly due to the thermal inertia of the Atlantic Ocean,"
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Really, you should read the Madden 1980 paper.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 Sorry, not an easy email day. Given that we are only 40% above pre-industrial CO2, why do you use the observed T rise (0.8 C) plus a bit (0.4 C) as the equilibrium value for sensitivity to *doubling* ? Why we have is about +1.4 C for the 40% increase, which puts us in the IPCC range for doubling.
541iceman 4 months ago
@541iceman Your writing is a bit hasty. I cannot make sense of what you are saying.
MewCat100 4 months ago
BEST confirms that the globe has warmed approximately 0.8C in the last 50 years, a rate far slower than what was originally predicted by the IPCC. There is good consensus that the amount of warming from a doubling of carbon dioxide is about 1.2C, which means we have seen half the warming we can anticipate from doubling CO2. This has all occurred without any major changes in global weather patterns. Further, it seems that during the MWP, warming was faster than now, with no major catastrophes...
MewCat100 4 months ago
@MewCat100 "a rate far slower than what was originally predicted by the IPCC. "
Wrong. In fact, current warming is well in accordance with past IPCC projections.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 "There is good consensus that the amount of warming from a doubling of carbon dioxide is about 1.2C"
Wrong. Central estimates of sensitivity to 2XCO2 is about 3C based on a wide variety of methods of estimating climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity lower than 1.5C is considered "unlikely."
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MewCat100 "Further, it seems that during the MWP, warming was faster than now, with no major catastrophes..."
Wrong again. In fact, the warming we are currently experiencing is happening faster than anytime other than the PETM.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt What time frame are you using to determine the slope of your graph? 5 years, 50 years, 500 years, 5000 years?
MewCat100 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MewCat100 "What time frame are you using to determine the slope of your graph? 5 years, 50 years, 500 years, 5000 years?"
Not clear which post you're responding to here.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
*** glacial-interglacial ***
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@judomagyar to start with you can look at the Vostok ice core data for the 8C between gal axial-interglacials.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
The "Dumb it down" song is by Ugly duckling
BenQueensland 4 months ago
How strange isnt it that FoxNews was interrested in this up untill recently, when suddenly it has fallen completely off the radar? Doesn't the Foxfreaks ponder what happened to this study? Where it went and why nobody is talking about it anymore? Are they actually dumb enough to believe that it just all of a sudden disappeared? Simply went poof not to be seen or heard of again? I guess the simple answer is, yes, indeed - they are that stupid.
jaxeedcom 4 months ago
WoW just WoW guess we'll do what futurama suggested now, every once in a while drop a gigantic ice cube in the north atlantic and thus solves the global warming issue once and for all, ONCE AND FOR ALL.
the1tigglet 4 months ago
Who knew? Oh yeah, everybody except this fucking guy!!
andotech 4 months ago
Don't you guys have something better to do like rage about how BARIK OBAMIH IS A SEKRIT MOOSLIM or something? Give up, it's far too elaborate to be trolling so you're just fucking retarded.
WhatYouLikeSucks 4 months ago
The data used in this video confirms that there has been no warming or cooling in the past 13 years. You might have a hard time seeing it, but it is there. One of the 4 authors named on the BEST project has already distanced herself from Muller.
MrCoffeeFiend 4 months ago
@MrCoffeeFiend
right. she signed as author of the papers, now claims she didn't know what was in them.
goes right to my point that muller has been fraternizing with the fruitcake fringe.
greenman3610 4 months ago 8
@MrCoffeeFiend You might go back and read Curry's blog again. They've kissed and made up and she says Muller is right.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@MrCoffeeFiend The upshot is, you can't make the determination that there has been no warming because temps are well within the statistically significant trend of 0.29C/decade shown in both the GISS and BEST data.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt Just a reminder, without hAVING THE RIGHT SCALE THE 0.29c/DECADE IS TOTALLY MEANINGLESS
judomagyar 4 months ago
@judomagyar Can you try to explain better what you are trying to say? What scale?
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt
scale?
Well looking at a data set, we must make sure that what we are looking at is really a growing trend, not just part of a larger repeating pattern. For example a sinus function with noise on it can look as a growing trend if we just look at data from -10 degrees to +10 degrees. On the other hand if we look at 0deg to 3600deg it is obviously a periodic function with noise on it. Right?
judomagyar 4 months ago
@judomagyar We could use this for scale: The difference in global temperature of 8C (the range for glacial-interglacial cycles) means ice is about a mile thick at New York City. We are likely committed to about a 2C increase over that 8C. If we keep going business-as-usual we could be 6C over. That is a completely ice free planet. A planet with extensive equatorial desertification. A planet that will support a fraction the number of people it currently does. Does that scale work for you?
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt What makes you think the planet will "support a fraction the number of people it currently does?"
After all, nothing grows on the vast tracts of land that are covered in ice and permafrost currently. Maybe we could, in fact, support more people if the globe was warmer. Past warm periods were the most prosperous for life while cold periods have nearly killed it off on several occasions.
L571J 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt The understanding of glacial/interglacial cycle physics seems to have more to do with insolation as a result of orbital inclination, orbital eccentricity, and changes in the output of energy from the sun. This changes the solar energy reaching earth, more so at northern/southern latitudes than at the equator. The effect is more pronounced in the north, which is furthest from the sun in the summer months.
L571J 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt As it turns out, summer months are more important than winter because it is rate of ice melting that is important and not so much accumulation. Ice that does not fully melt in summer is added to in winter and over centuries, this leads to glacier formation. Now, when these cycles reverse, the summers warm, more ice melts than accumulates in winter and glaciers retreat. The temperature changes you are seeing are more a result of presence/absence of ice than anything else over time.
L571J 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt There is no evidence that CO2 levels played a role in ending ice age glaciation whereas there is a great deal of evidence that insolation is a key factor. In essence, your temperature changes are independent of CO2 levels (by and large) and thus are not accurate methods of predicting future climate change as a result of human CO2 contribution.
L571J 4 months ago
@robhoneycutt
2C, 8C, 6C, where do you get these values?
They look like PFA numbers to me.
judomagyar 4 months ago
@judomagyar I've had a sinus infection but never a sinus function.
541iceman 4 months ago
@541iceman . Latin, and non English speaking part of the world: sinus English usage converted the Latin word sinus to sine.
You know aluminium/aluminum, Ovidius/Ovid, Ptolemaeos/Ptolemy, etc...
Understand?
judomagyar 4 months ago
Comment removed
jimbills 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrCoffeeFiend Read Tamino on this (tinyurl com/3qlstkw). It turns out that the two points at the end of the plot that cause the "zero trend", including the really low (negative) point in 2010, have almost no data in them. If you remove them, trend goes up to +0.14 +/- 0.11 C per decade. Tamino describes the errors in detail. Bottom line: there's no statistical basis to say that "warming has stopped".
541iceman 4 months ago
Debunking AND Ugly Duckling, outstanding!
mattschnetter 4 months ago