2014 hottest year on record

azure said:
You need to learn to read in context, and also to read graphs that display on more than one scale.

First off, the request was for a graph that shows CO2 increase followed by rising temperatures. That graph does show that, period. It shows CO2 levels rising from 1880 through the present with steady to slowly rising temperatures, followed by an uptick in CO2 starting around 1960 and an uptick in temps starting in the mid '70s.

But second, nowhere did I claim that this is enough to show the CO2 increases cause temps to rise. I was only responding to VC's request. You're correct that correlation does not imply causation. That increases in GHGs are capable of causing global temperature increases is settled science: the radiative forcing due to CO2, in particular, is well known and quantified and not in dispute by anyone except people who are ignorant of the basic physics. Whether THIS particular warming trend is due to CO2 increase is another question, but the science points strongly to the answer being yes. Can we be 100% certain of that? Of course not. If you want 100% certainty then stick to pure logic and mathematics, you won't find it in science.
Click to expand...

You will also see a very steady rise in temperatures (proxy record) for about the past 300 years, without any increase in CO2, marking the end of the Little Ice Age. So a continued rise with the modern thermometer record is no surprise. Sooner or later you will have to admit there is no correlation. We still haven't reached the temperatures prior to the Little Ice Age. You only have one increase in temperature , 1975-1998 , to demonstrate correlation, and that doesn't hack it. The past 17 years is just a lull, and then temps will rise with a vengeance I suppose.
 
Last edited:
vintage cessna said:
No. But so what? I said scientists will change their mind based on data.
Click to expand...

As we thought. So you don't actually have any real knowledge on how the academic and research systems work. Yet you persist in your broad and unfounded statements based on second hand rumor and innuendo.
 
write-stuff said:
As we thought. So you don't actually have any real knowledge on how the academic and research systems work. Yet you persist in your broad and unfounded statements based on second hand rumor and innuendo.
Click to expand...

I know how it has worked in the climate science field, and that is not based on rumor, but facts. I hope it is not the same in other disciplines.
 
Gotta love how wrong all that "settled" science was.
 
azure said:
I've attached a graph from my notes from an astronomy course I taught at my former institution. It's from an astronomy textbook published around 2012 (Schneider and Arny, Pathways to Astronomy, 3rd ed.). I don't have a copy of the book here to look up the exact reference from which the image was taken, unfortunately. But since just about anything else I could point to you would say does not "count as evidence", it's the best I could do.

attachment.php
Click to expand...

In that graph, aren't temps declining from the 1930s to the 1960s while CO2 is going up?
 
vintage cessna said:
You will also see a very steady rise in temperatures (proxy record) for about the past 300 years, without any increase in CO2, marking the end of the Little Ice Age. So a continued rise with the modern thermometer record is no surprise. Sooner or later you will have to admit there is no correlation.
Click to expand...
Some reconstructions using proxies do show a steady rise since about 1700, mostly those that only consider northern hemisphere temperatures. Studies that include both hemispheres generally don't - in fact, it's not clear that either the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age were global phenomena. Some reconstructions that use proxy data gathered from over the entire planet show only minor changes in global average temperatures over the last ~2000 years until the 20th century. There is a nice comparison of proxy-based reconstructions here.
We still haven't reached the temperatures prior to the Little Ice Age.
Click to expand...
Not true. See the reconstructions linked above. We are well above the MWP maximum now according to *any* that you want to choose.

In short, the only unambiguous global-scale warming trend in the last >1000 years is the one that really took off in the 20th century. You can choose to believe that it had nothing to do with CO2, but considering that the forcing due to CO2 is known and the measured warming trend is on the same order of magnitude as the expected temperature response over a wide range of possible climate sensitivities, I think it's *extremely* unlikely that CO2 is not at least a significant contributor to that warming.
 
write-stuff said:
More evidence that you don't have even a basic clue about which you speak. It's a recurring theme.
Click to expand...

Nice ad hominem, but not much else. But that seems to be a recurring them with you.

Please point me to some examples of new species we've seen evolve in the past century since you seem to think a long time isn't required.
 
azure said:
Some reconstructions using proxies do show a steady rise since about 1700, mostly those that only consider northern hemisphere temperatures. Studies that include both hemispheres generally don't - in fact, it's not clear that either the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age were global phenomena. Some reconstructions that use proxy data gathered from over the entire planet show only minor changes in global average temperatures over the last ~2000 years until the 20th century. There is a nice comparison of proxy-based reconstructions here.

Not true. See the reconstructions linked above. We are well above the MWP maximum now according to *any* that you want to choose.

In short, the only unambiguous global-scale warming trend in the last >1000 years is the one that really took off in the 20th century. You can choose to believe that it had nothing to do with CO2, but considering that the forcing due to CO2 is known and the measured warming trend is on the same order of magnitude as the expected temperature response over a wide range of possible climate sensitivities, I think it's *extremely* unlikely that CO2 is not at least a significant contributor to that warming.
Click to expand...

These guy maintain it was warmer in the MWP based on ocean reconstructions.

Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.
Click to expand...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Interview video here.
 
It's hard to take the mmgw whores seriously when none of their "crises" were even partly right.
 
LDJones said:
Nice ad hominem, but not much else. But that seems to be a recurring them with you.

Please point me to some examples of new species we've seen evolve in the past century since you seem to think a long time isn't required.
Click to expand...

A long time isn't required. Scientists can observe evolutionary processes over a single experiment. With that being said, this might be an example of what you're asking.
 
This is the first winter that we have seen humming birds stay here all winter ,, there was one still feeding on our feeder this morning.
 
asechrest said:
A long time isn't required. Scientists can observe evolutionary processes over a single experiment. With that being said, this might be an example of what you're asking.
Click to expand...

Well, that example is borderline adaptation rather than evolution. That's a long ways from the toad becoming a bird. But now if we saw budding wings....
 
LDJones said:
Well, that example is borderline adaptation rather than evolution. That's a long ways from the toad becoming a bird. But now if we saw budding wings....
Click to expand...

And what mechanism produces adaptations?
 
azure said:
Some reconstructions using proxies do show a steady rise since about 1700, mostly those that only consider northern hemisphere temperatures. Studies that include both hemispheres generally don't - in fact, it's not clear that either the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age were global phenomena. Some reconstructions that use proxy data gathered from over the entire planet show only minor changes in global average temperatures over the last ~2000 years until the 20th century. There is a nice comparison of proxy-based reconstructions here.

Not true. See the reconstructions linked above. We are well above the MWP maximum now according to *any* that you want to choose.

In short, the only unambiguous global-scale warming trend in the last >1000 years is the one that really took off in the 20th century. You can choose to believe that it had nothing to do with CO2, but considering that the forcing due to CO2 is known and the measured warming trend is on the same order of magnitude as the expected temperature response over a wide range of possible climate sensitivities, I think it's *extremely* unlikely that CO2 is not at least a significant contributor to that warming.
Click to expand...

You are just repeating the lame excuse that was given by the climate scientists to explain the disappearance of the Medivel Warm Period. Of course, the explanation was not given until they were caught red handed. The MWP is well documented to have been global. Your entire post is the standard misinformation. You claim things are known , but are in fact not. Just keep repeating it's all "settled" and "consensus". That is how propoganda works.
 
LDJones said:
Microevolution? Is there much debate about that? :dunno:

So if I can house train my dog, he should be capable of becoming a PhD?
Click to expand...

Natural selection, a mechanism of evolution, at least as far as I've read.
 
asechrest said:
Natural selection, a mechanism of evolution, at least as far as I've read.
Click to expand...

Again, I think that's more of the adaptation aspect, as opposed to something capable of creating something completely new and different. So it's really not an evolutionary power.
 
LDJones said:
Again, I think that's more of the adaptation aspect, as opposed to something capable of creating something completely new and different. So it's really not an evolutionary power.
Click to expand...

Can you define your terms? Maybe I've lost track of the conversation, but you're using the terms adaptation and evolution as if the former isn't a component of the latter. Or are you saying you believe in the adaptation component of evolution but not the speciation component?
 
azure said:
I've attached a graph from my notes from an astronomy course I taught at my former institution. It's from an astronomy textbook published around 2012 (Schneider and Arny, Pathways to Astronomy, 3rd ed.). I don't have a copy of the book here to look up the exact reference from which the image was taken, unfortunately. But since just about anything else I could point to you would say does not "count as evidence", it's the best I could do.

attachment.php
Click to expand...

What happened to the 1930's , that the record indicated were warmer than the 1990's ? Oh yeah I forgot, adjusted downwards. Probably because there was more of an urban heat island effect then.

Of course the temps weren't adjusted lower just to fit the theory though.
 
Last edited:
LDJones said:
These guy maintain it was warmer in the MWP based on ocean reconstructions.


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Interview video here.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that paper has been discussed widely already. It is hard to know what to make of it since so many factors can affect ocean temperatures. In particular, despite their careful choice of location for the study, the area does have a local ocean "climate" that is affected strongly by ENSO, as Michael Mann wrote in a pretty thoughtful critique of the methodology and reasoning in Huffington Post about a year ago. So maybe, maybe not. As I said, it's "not clear" whether it was a global phenomenon or not. It might have been. If you look at the Mann reconstruction (light green in the graph I posted), there is a weak maximum during the MWP, it's just not clear whether it is significantly above the noise.

Strange though that Watts would seize on this paper to support his extreme denialist arguments, since one of their conclusions is that the recent rise in ocean temperatures is faster than at any time during the last 10,000 years.
 
vintage cessna said:
You are just repeating the lame excuse that was given by the climate scientists to explain the disappearance of the Medivel Warm Period. Of course, the explanation was not given until they were caught red handed. The MWP is well documented to have been global. Your entire post is the standard misinformation. You claim things are known , but are in fact not. Just keep repeating it's all "settled" and "consensus". That is how propoganda works.
Click to expand...
What's lame is calling the results of peer-reviewed research fraudulent when it hasn't been demonstrated to have been. The MWP "well documented to have been global"? This is false, look at the reconstructions in the graph that I posted. It is anything but clear. The LIA signal is much stronger in all of the reconstructions that show it, but again, most if not all of the reconstructions that do show it rely on NH data only.

I haven't said that anything is really *known* that isn't both demonstrated observationally and well understood in terms of basic physics. The greenhouse effect is one of those things, so are the physical properties of CO2 that the calculations of its direct forcing are based on. You can't make those facts go away by insisting they're not facts, and dredging up crackpot papers and saying that the climate scientists were "caught red handed" when they weren't won't prove they're not facts.
 
Last edited:
Great discussion back and forth. If it wasn't something the Government thought they could turn into a cash cow we wouldn't even be hearing about it.
 
LDJones said:
Nice ad hominem, but not much else. But that seems to be a recurring them with you.

Please point me to some examples of new species we've seen evolve in the past century since you seem to think a long time isn't required.
Click to expand...

By stating that you argue in a subject that you apparently know little to nothing about is NOT an ad hominem. If I had said you were fat or ugly, or a lousy pilot, that would have been an ad hominem.

Ok, on to your lack of knowledge about evolution. There have been countless laboratory experiments where evolutionary changes have been witnessed in short periods of time. All you have to do is read. This stuff is out there.

As I've said before, new species don't spontaneously appear. There is a gradual differentiation as offshoots from a species diverge. No one wakes up one morning and there is a new species of quadruped that has suddenly popped into existence.

Look, I'm sorry, but a statement like you just made is so outlandishly ignorant. It really does demonstrate how little you know about biology. You may be a great lawyer, I don't know. But you ain't no scientist and really should shy away from debates on these subjects.
 
azure said:
Yeah, that paper has been discussed widely already. It is hard to know what to make of it since so many factors can affect ocean temperatures. In particular, despite their careful choice of location for the study, the area does have a local ocean "climate" that is affected strongly by ENSO, as Michael Mann wrote in a pretty thoughtful critique of the methodology and reasoning in Huffington Post about a year ago. So maybe, maybe not. As I said, it's "not clear" whether it was a global phenomenon or not. It might have been. If you look at the Mann reconstruction (light green in the graph I posted), there is a weak maximum during the MWP, it's just not clear whether it is significantly above the noise.

Strange though that Watts would seize on this paper to support his extreme denialist arguments, since one of their conclusions is that the recent rise in ocean temperatures is faster than at any time during the last 10,000 years.
Click to expand...

You are citing Michael Mann now. You really have no clue, do you. Don't look too close at what happened, it will shatter your ivory tower.
 
dtuuri said:
I once figured it would take a G-V pilot over 100 years to make a cloud of CO2 that weighed the same as just one typical cumulus cloud. I used around 500 hours per year flight time (I think). Can't remember the weight of a "standard cloud" of water vapor. :dunno: Has anybody else figured it out too?

dtuuri
Click to expand...
Ok, I got tired of waiting for an egghead to figure this out and did it again myself. I came up with more than 400 years of corporate flying in a G-V to have the same environmental impact as one single cumulus cloud! Not relying on science here, intuition is my bag, to conclude mankind isn't able to significantly affect climate change.

Refs: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/earth-sciences/how-much-does-a-cloud-weigh-t13435.html

https://www.conklindd.com/CDALibrary/CO2Calc.aspx

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
Gary F said:
Will somebody refute any of the points in the video?
Click to expand...

Well, calling the li'l snowgirl chick an "ignorant slut" was definitely uncalled for. There's absolutely no credible evidence that snowgirl chick is a slut.

Other than that, I think the li'l teddy bear-looking dude was spot on.

Rich
 
EppyGA said:
Great discussion back and forth. If it wasn't something the Government thought they could turn into a cash cow we wouldn't even be hearing about it.
Click to expand...

How does the government turn it into a cash cow? Government is a conduit for money, not a terminus.
 
Henning said:
How does the government turn it into a cash cow? Government is a conduit for money, not a terminus.
Click to expand...

Government is a parasite. It's useful if it is controlled by the host, the voters, but if the voters aren't on the ball, government grows and begins devouring the host, like most parasites, government has to be controlled.
 
vintage cessna said:
You are citing Michael Mann now. You really have no clue, do you. Don't look too close at what happened, it will shatter your ivory tower.
Click to expand...
How many independent investigations does it take to clear someone accused on the basis of emails purloined from a private server and taken drastically out of context? Apparently, once someone is tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion, no amount of facts can overturn the verdict and it doesn't matter that a long list of independent investigations cleared all of the scientists involved in that exchange of any unethical scientific conduct. In particular, Mann was thoroughly investigated by Penn State -- by at least two separate boards, which were made up of people in fields completely unrelated to climate science.
 
azure said:
[snip] Apparently, once someone is tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion, no amount of facts can overturn the verdict and it doesn't matter that a long list of independent investigations cleared all of the scientists involved in that exchange of any unethical scientific conduct. [snip]
Click to expand...

And that seems to be the case in all fields of endeavor any more. Police, citizen, movie star, television start, athlete, politician, etc., etc.

Somehow, retractions are buried and further investigations are never as newsworthy as the original bit.

Sorry, this is off topic, but your comment captured it so well.

John
 
azure said:
How many independent investigations does it take to clear someone accused on the basis of emails purloined from a private server and taken drastically out of context? Apparently, once someone is tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion, no amount of facts can overturn the verdict and it doesn't matter that a long list of independent investigations cleared all of the scientists involved in that exchange of any unethical scientific conduct. In particular, Mann was thoroughly investigated by Penn State -- by at least two separate boards, which were made up of people in fields completely unrelated to climate science.
Click to expand...

Penn State...:rolleyes::rolleyes2:...

Isn't that the fine , outstanding institution of higher learning who swept under the rug the obvious fact of the head couch molesting kids over decades.......

Ya think they are incapable of fudging an " independent investigation".

Geez.... Wanna buy a bridge too..:dunno:....:rolleyes:
 
azure said:
How many independent investigations does it take to clear someone accused on the basis of emails purloined from a private server and taken drastically out of context? Apparently, once someone is tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion, no amount of facts can overturn the verdict and it doesn't matter that a long list of independent investigations cleared all of the scientists involved in that exchange of any unethical scientific conduct. In particular, Mann was thoroughly investigated by Penn State -- by at least two separate boards, which were made up of people in fields completely unrelated to climate science.
Click to expand...

Well, the pleadings in his current lawsuit against Mark Steyn seems to be adding nicely to his lore as a lying, over-embellishing cheat.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top