so, who worries about the farce manmade goober warning? haha

[Canton Dawg]

Throwing around data that you can't even source, basing a question on it, then claiming victory because it wasn't answered is pretty ridiculous. Source your data, or it is pointless in this debate.

Based on the title, that data is only looking at US temp. Which, hint hint, is a very small portion of the entire world.

Another classic on this board:

1) One place does not equal the whole planet

2) Multiple freaking variables

Source?

[MLD Woody]

You want a source that the US doesn't equate to the whole world ? What?

 

 

I think you're getting a little out of your league here Canton

[Clevfan4life]

You want a source that the US doesn't equate to the whole world ? What?

 

 

I think you're getting a little out of your league here Canton

Next time canton posts the sky is blue, ask for a source with a skeptical emoji

[calfoxwc]

2) Multiple freaking variables

************************************

Source?

 

"Virtually all scientists..."

 

Source?

***********************

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/30/what-consensus-the-97-consensus-is-now-43-less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-un-ipcc-95-certainty/

 

AND FINALLY...HAHAHA....

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#4814cdb94c7c

 

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

ADVERTISING

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. "In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

Recommended by Forbes

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

[calfoxwc]

virtually all baloney

****************************

http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/

 

My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies

I receive many e-mails, and a recurring complaint is that many of my posts are too technical to understand. This morning’s installment arrived with the subject line, “Please Talk to Us”, and suggested I provide short, concise, easily understood summaries and explanations “for dummies”.

So, here’s a list of basic climate change questions, and brief answers based upon what I know today. I might update them as I receive suggestions and comments. I will also be adding links to other sources, and some visual aids, as appropriate.

Deja vu tells me I might have done this once before, but I’m too lazy to go back and see. So, I’ll start over from scratch. (Insert smiley)

It is important to understand at the outset that those of us who are skeptical of mankind’s influence on climate have a wide variety of views on the subject, and we can’t all be right. In fact, in this business, it is really easy to be wrong. It seems like everyone has a theory of what causes climate change. But it only takes one of us to be right for the IPCC’s anthropogenic global warming (AGW) house of cards to collapse.

As I like to say, taking measurements of the climate system is much easier than figuring out what those measurements mean in terms of cause and effect. Generally speaking, it’s not the warming that is in dispute…it’s the cause of the warming.

If you disagree with my views on something, please don’t flame me. Chances are, I’ve already heard your point of view; very seldom am I provided with new evidence I haven’t already taken into account.

1) Are Global Temperatures Rising Now? There is no way to know, because natural year-to-year variability in global temperature is so large, with warming and cooling occurring all the time. What we can say is that surface and lower atmospheric temperature have risen in the last 30 to 50 years, with most of that warming in the Northern Hemisphere. Also, the magnitude of recent warming is somewhat uncertain, due to problems in making long-term temperature measurements with thermometers without those measurements being corrupted by a variety of non-climate effects. But there is no way to know if temperatures are continuing to rise now…we only see warming (or cooling) in the rearview mirror, when we look back in time.

2) Why Do Some Scientists Say It’s Cooling, while Others Say the Warming is Even Accelerating? Since there is so much year-to-year (and even decade-to-decade) variability in global average temperatures, whether it has warmed or cooled depends upon how far back you look in time. For instance, over the last 100 years, there was an overall warming which was stronger toward the end of the 20th Century. This is why some say “warming is accelerating”. But if we look at a shorter, more recent period of time, say since the record warm year of 1998, one could say that it has cooled in the last 10-12 years. But, as I mentioned above, neither of these can tell us anything about whether warming is happening “now”, or will happen in the future.

3) Haven’t Global Temperatures Risen Before? Yes. In the longer term, say hundreds to thousands of years, there is considerable indirect, proxy evidence (not from thermometers) of both warming and cooling. Since humankind can’t be responsible for these early events is evidence that nature can cause warming and cooling. If that is the case, it then opens up the possibility that some (or most) of the warming in the last 50 years has been natural, too. While many geologists like to point to much larger temperature changes are believed to have occurred over millions of years, I am unconvinced that this tells us anything of use for understanding how humans might influence climate on time scales of 10 to 100 years.

4) But Didn’t the “Hockey Stick” Show Recent Warming to be Unprecedented? The “hockey Stick” reconstructions of temperature variations over the last 1 to 2 thousand years have been a huge source of controversy. The hockey stick was previously used by the IPCC as a veritable poster child for anthropogenic warming, since it seemed to indicate there have been no substantial temperature changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years until humans got involved in the 20th Century. The various versions of the hockey stick were based upon limited amounts of temperature proxy evidence — primarily tree rings — and involved questionable statistical methods. In contrast, I think the bulk of the proxy evidence supports the view that it was at least as warm during the Medieval Warm Period, around 1000 AD. The very fact that recent tree ring data erroneously suggests cooling in the last 50 years, when in fact there has been warming, should be a warning flag about using tree ring data for figuring out how warm it was 1,000 years ago. But without actual thermometer data, we will never know for sure.

5) Isn’t the Melting of Arctic Sea Ice Evidence of Warming? Warming, yes…manmade warming, no. Arctic sea ice naturally melts back every summer, but that meltback was observed to reach a peak in 2007. But we have relatively accurate, satellite-based measurements of Arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice only since 1979. It is entirely possible that late summer Arctic Sea ice cover was just as low in the 1920s or 1930s, a period when Arctic thermometer data suggests it was just as warm. Unfortunately, there is no way to know, because we did not have satellites back then. Interestingly, Antarctic sea ice has been growing nearly as fast as Arctic ice has been melting over the last 30+ years.

6) What about rising sea levels? I must confess, I don’t pay much attention to the sea level issue. I will say that, to the extent that warming occurs, sea levels can be expected to also rise to some extent. The rise is partly due to thermal expansion of the water, and partly due to melting or shedding of land-locked ice (the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and glaciers). But this says nothing about whether or not humans are the cause of that warming. Since there is evidence that glacier retreat and sea level rise started well before humans can be blamed, causation is — once again — a major source of uncertainty.

7) Is Increasing CO2 Even Capable of Causing Warming? There are some very intelligent people out there who claim that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can’t cause warming anyway. They claim things like, “the atmospheric CO2 absorption bands are already saturated”, or something else very technical. [And for those more technically-minded persons, yes, I agree that the effective radiating temperature of the Earth in the infrared is determined by how much sunlight is absorbed by the Earth. But that doesn’t mean the lower atmosphere cannot warm from adding more greenhouse gases, because at the same time they also cool the upper atmosphere]. While it is true that most of the CO2-caused warming in the atmosphere was there before humans ever started burning coal and driving SUVs, this is all taken into account by computerized climate models that predict global warming. Adding more “should” cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question. But I’m still open to the possibility that a major error has been made on this fundamental point. Stranger things have happened in science before.

8 ) Is Atmospheric CO2 Increasing? Yes, and most strongly in the last 50 years…which is why “most” climate researchers think the CO2 rise is the cause of the warming. Our site measurements of CO2 increase from around the world are possibly the most accurate long-term, climate-related, measurements in existence.

9) Are Humans Responsible for the CO2 Rise? While there are short-term (year-to-year) fluctuations in the atmospheric CO2 concentration due to natural causes, especially El Nino and La Nina, I currently believe that most of the long-term increase is probably due to our use of fossil fuels. But from what I can tell, the supposed “proof” of humans being the source of increasing CO2 — a change in the atmospheric concentration of the carbon isotope C13 — would also be consistent with a natural, biological source. The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 390 parts per million by volume, up from a pre-industrial level estimated to be around 270 ppm…maybe less. CO2 levels can be much higher in cities, and in buildings with people in them.

10) But Aren’t Natural CO2 Emissions About 20 Times the Human Emissions? Yes, but nature is believed to absorb CO2 at about the same rate it is produced. You can think of the reservoir of atmospheric CO2 as being like a giant container of water, with nature pumping in a steady stream into the bottom of the container (atmosphere) in some places, sucking out about the same amount in other places, and then humans causing a steady drip-drip-drip into the container. Significantly, about 50% of what we produce is sucked out of the atmosphere by nature, mostly through photosynthesis. Nature loves the stuff. CO2 is the elixir of life on Earth. Imagine the howls of protest there would be if we were destroying atmospheric CO2, rather than creating more of it.

11) Is Rising CO2 the Cause of Recent Warming? While this is theoretically possible, I think it is more likely that the warming is mostly natural. At the very least, we have no way of determining what proportion is natural versus human-caused.

12) Why Do Most Scientists Believe CO2 is Responsible for the Warming? Because (as they have told me) they can’t think of anything else that might have caused it. Significantly, it’s not that there is evidence nature can’t be the cause, but a lack of sufficiently accurate measurements to determine if nature is the cause. This is a hugely important distinction, and one the public and policymakers have been misled on by the IPCC.

13) If Not Humans, What could Have Caused Recent Warming? This is one of my areas of research. I believe that natural changes in the amount of sunlight being absorbed by the Earth — due to natural changes in cloud cover — are responsible for most of the warming. Whether that is the specific mechanism or not, I advance the minority view that the climate system can change all by itself. Climate change does not require an “external” source of forcing, such as a change in the sun.

14) So, What Could Cause Natural Cloud Changes? I think small, long-term changes in atmospheric and oceanic flow patterns can cause ~1% changes in how much sunlight is let in by clouds to warm the Earth. This is all that is required to cause global warming or cooling. Unfortunately, we do not have sufficiently accurate cloud measurements to determine whether this is the primary cause of warming in the last 30 to 50 years.

15) How Significant is the Climategate Release of E-Mails? While Climategate does not, by itself, invalidate the IPCC’s case that global warming has happened, or that humans are the primary cause of that warming, it DOES illustrate something I emphasized in my first book, “Climate Confusion”: climate researchers are human, and prone to bias.

16) Why Would Bias in Climate Research be Important? I thought Scientists Just Follow the Data Where It Leads Them When researchers approach a problem, their pre-conceived notions often guide them. It’s not that the IPCC’s claim that humans cause global warming is somehow untenable or impossible, it’s that political and financial pressures have resulted in the IPCC almost totally ignoring alternative explanations for that warming.

17) How Important Is “Scientific Consensus” in Climate Research? In the case of global warming, it is nearly worthless. The climate system is so complex that the vast majority of climate scientists — usually experts in variety of specialized fields — assume there are more knowledgeable scientists, and they are just supporting the opinions of their colleagues. And among that small group of most knowledgeable experts, there is a considerable element of groupthink, herd mentality, peer pressure, political pressure, support of certain energy policies, and desire to Save the Earth — whether it needs to be saved or not.

18) How Important are Computerized Climate Models? I consider climate models as being our best way of exploring cause and effect in the climate system. It is really easy to be wrong in this business, and unless you can demonstrate causation with numbers in equations, you are stuck with scientists trying to persuade one another by waving their hands. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that climate models will ever produce a useful prediction of the future. Nevertheless, we must use them, and we learn a lot from them. My biggest concern is that models have been used almost exclusively for supporting the claim that humans cause global warming, rather than for exploring alternative hypotheses — e.g. natural climate variations — as possible causes of that warming.

19) What Do I Predict for Global Temperature Changes in the Future? I tend to shy away from long-term predictions, because there are still so many uncertainties. When pressed, though, I tend to say that I think cooling in our future is just as real a possibility as warming. Of course, a third possibility is relatively steady temperatures, without significant long-term warming or cooling. Keep in mind that, while you will find out tomorrow whether your favorite weather forecaster is right or wrong, no one will remember 50 years from now a scientist today wrongly predicting we will all die from heat stroke by 2060.

Concluding Remarks

Climate researchers do not know nearly as much about the causes of climate change as they profess. We have a pretty good understanding of how the climate system works on average…but the reasons for small, long-term changes in climate system are still extremely uncertain.

The total amount of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere in the last 100 years has upset the radiative energy budget of the Earth by only 1%. How the climate system responds to that small “poke” is very uncertain. The IPCC says there will be strong warming, with cloud changes making the warming worse. I claim there will be weak warming, with cloud changes acting to reduce the influence of that 1% change. The difference between these two outcomes is whether cloud feedbacks are positive (the IPCC view), or negative (the view I and a minority of others have).

So far, neither side has been able to prove their case. That uncertainty even exists on this core issue is not appreciated by many scientists!

Again I will emphasize, some very smart people who consider themselves skeptics will disagree with some of my views stated above, particularly when it involves explanations for what has caused warming, and what has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase.

Unlike the global marching army of climate researchers the IPCC has enlisted, we do not walk in lockstep. We are willing to admit, “we don’t really know”, rather than mislead people with phrases like, “the warming we see is consistent with an increase in CO2”, and then have the public think that means, “we have determined, through our extensive research into all the possibilities, that the warming cannot be due to anything but CO2”.

Skeptics advancing alternative explanations (hypotheses) for climate variability represent the way the researcher community used to operate, before politics, policy outcomes, and billions of dollars got involved.

[calfoxwc]

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/

 

New Study: Majority of Climate Scientists Don’t Agree with ‘Consensus

 

Nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change, a new study by the Dutch government has found. The results contradict the oft-cited claim that there is a 97 percent consensus amongst climate scientists that humans are responsible for global warming.

[Clevfan4life]

Nasa

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[calfoxwc]

from my one post above:

 

that says "former NASA scientist"

[Clevfan4life]

Heres a link how anti mmgw people manipulate the words of some of these scientific organizations to make it seem like they are skeptics

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/03/24/96-of-american-meteorological-society-members-think-climate-change-is-happening-says-new-report/amp/

[MLD Woody]

I'm not going to un hide Cal's post. Let's just deal with Canton first

[Canton Dawg]

I'm not going to un hide Cal's post. Let's just deal with Canton first

Link?

[MLD Woody]

I accept your surrender Canton.

 

Unfortunately for you, we've been hearing, and debunking, climate change denier claims for years on here. What you're bringing to the table has been dealt with multiple times. You can keep trying if you want, but by just posting things like "link" and "source" as a response you're admitting defeat.

[Canton Dawg]

I accept your surrender Canton.

 

Unfortunately for you, we've been hearing, and debunking, climate change denier claims for years on here. What you're bringing to the table has been dealt with multiple times. You can keep trying if you want, but by just posting things like "link" and "source" as a response you're admitting defeat.

 

All I'm reading is blah,blah, blah.

 

The same nonsense from a different poster on a different board.

 

[calfoxwc]

[calfoxwc]

maybe this will reach them on their own level

 

https://youtu.be/nq4Bc2WCsdE

[calfoxwc]

yep.

 

Dr. Spencer tells the truth.

 

https://youtu.be/kotqWXZkZS0

[calfoxwc]

North Pole Record Summer Cold...

Harsh winter took heavy toll on wildlife across western USA...

[calfoxwc]

LOL.

 

Hawking says Trump will make the earth be 250 degrees ... all liberals had better travel to the highest mountains

and practice jumping. LOL

 

I can't wait til we have commercial space travel and they can leave the planet and live on mars... or somewhere else

a lot farther...

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/824088/Stephen-Hawking-Donald-Trump-climate-change-venus

[Canton Dawg]

[Canton Dawg]

Woody should like this chart, it has the source on the lower right. . .

 

[MLD Woody]

IMG_0144.JPG

We've done this one about a dozen times

[MLD Woody]

Woody should like this chart, it has the source on the lower right. . .

 

IMG_0145.JPG

Yes, a source is a great start. If you want to debate a scientific issue, providing sources is kind of a big deal.

 

I understand you don't get that, because this is just a political issue you fall lockstep into. But maybe we can get the "source" thing down soon.

 

I'll have to follow this link and see more. I imagine you're just posting images of charts you found after googling "man made global warming fake", and don't actually know what any are really saying. Hopefully the link in the bottom can provide some information.

 

 

 

Just try to avoid the classic denier play of throwing all the shit at the wall and hoping something sticks.

[calfoxwc]

all wet in egypt, still, you are.

 

all the links to the contrary don't matter to libs. they love

their talking points:

 

"all scientists agree with mmgw"

 

no, they don't

 

"CO2" is a poison, causing global warming"

 

no, not happening.

 

"Trump is going to make the earth 250 degrees:

 

LOL, LOL. LOL.

 

"The earth has a fever, and it's going to flood all land on earth by 1977"

 

LOL.

[calfoxwc]

HERE:

 

proof that we are correct, mmgw is a groupthink crock of bs.

 

from a climate scientist:

 

https://youtu.be/GujLcfdovE8

[calfoxwc]

Prof Curry resigned from the university. Woody, you pro-mmgw people

are wrong. The "mm" part of "mmgw" is not proven - it's groupthink activist false narrative.

 

I've been arguing this for years, and others have, too.

 

She is an expert, Woody. Listen up.

 

https://youtu.be/qUVAwp1x1hw

[calfoxwc]

Take it from a Nobel Laureate.

Note - Mr. Giaevers resigned in 2011.

Real Science matters.

 

We are not wrong, Woody. Claiming we are is also a crock.

 

https://youtu.be/TCy_UOjEir0

[MLD Woody]

FYI Canton, I followed the link at the bottom of the chart you posted. Here are some points they make:

 

• Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.18 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.32 degrees F per decade).
• Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
• The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.

 

 

Followed up with a statement that there appears to be some error in some climate models

 

• The troposphere has not warmed quite as fast as most climate models predict. Note that this problem has been reduced by the large 2015-2106 El Nino Event, and the updated version of the RSS tropospheric datasets.

 

When discussing the sources of error, they link to this article on Skeptical Science, a site providing evidence for man made climate change that also takes down denier claims.

 

 

 

So the chart that you found after a quick google, the chart you really didn't have any information on, is from an article that is saying man is affecting the climate and that links a prominent climate change site as a source when discussing sources of error.

 

 

 

This is why I ask for sources, because one of two things always happens. 1) We find out the source is complete BS or 2) We find it was something taken out of context from a legitimate source, and being a legitimate scientific source, they understand man is affecting the climate.

[calfoxwc]

"splish, splash, I was takin a bath,

swimmin in the water of de Nile.

rub-a-dub, canoein in a tub,

paddlln with a straw all the while..."

 

Bobby Darin Lyrics

Play "Splish Splash"

on Amazon Music

"Splish Splash"

Splish splash, I was taking a bath
Long about a Saturday night, yeah
A rub dub, just relaxing in the tub
Thinking everything was alright

Well, I stepped out the tub, put my feet on the floor
I wrapped the towel around me
And I opened the door, and then a
Splish, splash, I jumped back in the bath
Well, how was I to know there was a party going on?

They was a-splishing and a-splashing
Reeling with the feeling
Moving and a-grooving
Rocking and a-rolling, yeah

Bing bang, I saw the whole gang
Dancing on my living room rug, yeah
Flip flop, they was doing the bop
All the teens had the dancing bug

[Clevfan4life]

Woody, good analysis. I looked at it to briefly last night with blurry drinking goggles and thought this still shows warming justt less accelerated. Couldnt figure out why someone would post a source confirming warming when the claim was cooling. Then a beer or two later i had no more thoughts on the issue

[Clevfan4life]

Oh, and.......Inb4 woodys a stupid poopy pants.....