Two climate myths

potholer54 looks at two myths uncritically embraced by climate change deniers. First is the claim that the earth is now cooling. Second is the claim that the entire solar system is warming due to solar forcing.
Included is a brief tutorial on the importance of checking sources.
As earnest seekers of truth, climate change deniers the world over will now take this to heart, and stop parroting unsubstantiated rumours. Or maybe not!

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• climategate
• climate
• change
• global
• warming
• mars
• solar
• cooling
• fraud

[tboneal83]

i believe in climate change, but, i don't believe in global warming. i believe it's a scam that gets billions of dollars out of people each year. i do believe the earth may be getting warmer but i believe the earth is constantly changing and green house gases from the human race are not the main reason for this.

[cristop5]

@tboneal83 "i don't believe in global warming" "i do believe the earth may be getting warmer"

It is definitely warming, did you watch the above video? If you have MS Excel why not see for yourself using these videos as a guide:

1. CRU database watch?v=OS44qirIOcU

2. NASA database watch?v=8Q97zVngPGU

3. UAH satellite data watch?v=I3q3zs0EVDU

If you want to know why 98% of climatologists believe in AGW: /watch?v=5Pjbykd2ywU

/user/potholer54#p/u/35/52KLGq­DSAjo

/user/potholer54#p/u/33/PoSVox­wYrKI

[MrJacktemplar]

IT'S A CARBON TAX SCAM..WE'VE HAD CLIMATE CHANGE FOR 5 BILLION YEARS......WAKE UP PEOPLE

[cristop5]

@Sigifrith

1. The "hide the decline" line did not refer to hiding declining temperatures. /watch?v=rqQ8vvSwGH0

2. "divergence" If your talking about a lack of recent warming, I've addressed this already.

3. Modeling is about finding the configuration of variables that best explains the temperature record. The explanatory power of models can be tested and judged against that record.

In my 2nd comment here I gave a link to an article discussing one such model. Why not read it?

[Sigifrith]

Of course, rather than rise to that perhaps impossible challenge it appears to me that those who have been making those predictions, chose rather to conspire to "hide the decline."

When it really comes down to it, the climate models are essential a giant hypothesis, or an amalgamation of hypotheses. When reality diverges so dramaitcally from their models, it shows that at least some hypothesis of theirs is incorrect.

[Sigifrith]

"I have yet to hear a denier say WHAT they think has caused the LONG TERM warming trend to just 'stop'."

Ah, the "denier" slur. The funny thing is, I don't deny that we have seen long term warming over the past 150 years or so. I just don't buy the asseretion that it is unusual, anthropogenic, and cause for alarm.

Frankly, it is not for me to explain why it stopped, but rather the alarmists to explain why reality suddenly diverged from their dire predictions.

[cristop5]

Sigifrith Read: /w ww.metoffice.g ov.u k/corporate/pressoffice/2009/g­lobal_temperatures_09.pdf (remove spaces)

"Near-zero & even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations.."

BUT "..simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.."

I have yet to hear a denier say WHAT they think has caused the LONG TERM warming trend to just 'stop'. If (unlike 77-85 & 87-96) the temp falls I'll rethink. But I see no reason why it should.

[Sigifrith]

@cristop5 But claiming that this decade or the last were the warmest of the modern period is meaningless if the begining of the modern period was in the depths of the little ice age.

Your vid title and where you stopped the Inhoff clip iimplies you are claiming that it is warming now, when it's not. At least not right now.

[cristop5]

@dnjaamin That's a lot of questions in one.

1. I think a low carbon economy doesn't have to be a disaster. There are many ways to reduce emmissions, and a carbon tax in lieu of some other taxes could encourage these.

e.g. have a look at this:

/watch?v=pSdnycHfLnQ

2. Poorly sited weather stations actually show a COOLING bias!

Ref:

ww w1.ncdc.n oaa.g ov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/m­enne-etal2010.pdf (remove spaces from link)

[cristop5]

@Sigifrith , You can pick out little bits of the larger trend and make up a story. e.g. Warming also 'stopped' between 1977-85, and again between 1987-96. (But each of these pauses was followed by a steep rise).

If you look at the NASA data as opposed to the CRU data, the rise from 1995-09 was highly significant (p<0.01). Even using the CRU data, 1995-09 was a significant rise at the p=0.1 level. That means that the probability that the rise from 95-09 was due to random fluctuations is <10%.