Climate Alarmists Own Words Debunk Their Science

[gwb-trading]

Quote from sle:

Funny. So I clicked on the first paper in "featured" section that caught my eye, simply because they use PCA which I happen to use too as an analysis tool. The paper actually thoroughly presents the data and the improved methodology, as a good science paper should. However, their conclusions are consistent with prior data (as in "it is getting warmer around here") a;beit with different localisations and means. Did they think nobody is actually going to read the papers they are reviewing?

PS. If I just wanted a list of papers on climate change, there is a good review in Nature Geophysics from last year

Can I ask what paper you clicked on? I have looked for a "Featured" section. I only find a "Highlights" section.

The first paper is:
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v10/n1/p69-82/
Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth's near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration could raise the planet's mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air's CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. Consequently, I am skeptical of the predictions of significant CO2-induced global warming that are being made by state-of-the-art climate models and believe that much more work on a wide variety of research fronts will be required to properly resolve the issue.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Once again you simply wrong and deluded. The vast majority of climate scientists in the seventies predicted global warming.

Only in your revisionist history. I was in school in the 70s and this simply is not true.

We were regularly bombarded in the media with stories about global cooling. Universities all over the country were creating teams and getting funding to investigate the global cooling crisis.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

I can agree with your statement above.

I will note that the warming and cooling of the earth goes in naturally cycles - just as it has for thousands of years before man even showed up on the earth.

The current trend is warming - but the trend is slight - under a degree over a large number of decades which is well within the standard deviation of normal temperature change. However the trend is about to reverse - 40 years from now everyone will be wondering why all these people were making a ruckus over global warming.

From a human perspective, we should focus on scientific efforts on how to adapt to natural changes in the climate. The reality is that global cooling is much more a threat than global warming to mankind. Some of the most productive periods of human existence have been warmer centuries.

Oh yeah, slight trend up. Totally natural. Gimme a break.

 

[sle]

Quote from gwb-trading:
Can I ask what paper you clicked on? I have looked for a "Featured" section. I only find a "Highlights" section.

I did mean "Highlights". The paper is:
Improved methods for PCA-based reconstructions: case study using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic temperature reconstruction (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 24, Issue 8, pp. 2099-2115, April 2011)
- Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre, Jeff Condon

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

Only in your revisionist history. I was in school in the 70s and this simply is not true.

We were regularly bombarded in the media with stories about global cooling. Universities all over the country were creating teams and getting funding to investigate the global cooling crisis.

Well I would show proof that your wrong but because you are delusional and think it's all a conspiracy you won't believe it. What you were taught in HS is irrelevant. What the media said is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the vast majority of climate scientists predicted global warming. They were right.

Want me to show the proof? Would it matter?

 

[pspr]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Oh yeah, slight trend up. Totally natural. Gimme a break.

YOU CANNOT REFUTE THIS DATA!!!!!

There has NOT been any warming for 17 years. Get a clue. Why do you continue to be so stupid?

Game Over! NO WARMING FOR 17 YEARS!!!!

Following my statement at the Doha climate conference last December that there had been no global warming for 16 years, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who for some reason chairs the IPCC’s climate “science” panel, has been compelled to admit there has been no global warming for 17 years.

The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4), and the RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values).

<img src=http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/rose-_16yrs_hardcrut4.jpg?w=906&h=498>

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/...achauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/

 

[LEAPup]

I'd like to have Al Gore sitting here in front of me in North FL. I'd punch him square in his communist mouth! The only thing warming here is my lunch in the microwave.

 

[pspr]

Quote from LEAPup:

I'd like to have Al Gore sitting here in front of me in North FL. I'd punch him square in his communist mouth! The only thing warming here is my lunch in the microwave.

Just fix Al up on a date with Jodi Arias.

 

[Poptech]

Quote from sle:

I did mean "Highlights". The paper is:
Improved methods for PCA-based reconstructions: case study using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic temperature reconstruction (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 24, Issue 8, pp. 2099-2115, April 2011)
- Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre, Jeff Condon

So you are claiming the paper that refutes the alarmist claims of Antartica rapidly warming which made the cover of Nature does not support skeptic arguments?

Skeptic paper on Antarctica accepted – rebuts Steig et al (WUWT)

Do you even know who Steve McIntyre is?

Please, if you are unaware of these high profile debates maybe you should not comment on any of the papers. That is rather embarrassing.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Well I would show proof that your wrong but because you are delusional and think it's all a conspiracy you won't believe it. What you were taught in HS is irrelevant. What the media said is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the vast majority of climate scientists predicted global warming. They were right.

Want me to show the proof? Would it matter?

The 'proof' that you post about climate science in the 1970s is a complete joke. It is merely a chart that shows that 68 'climate scientists' wrote papers claiming the world was warming - while ignoring the thousands of scientitic papers written in the 1970s (as cited in the CIA report) that the world was cooling.

Unlike you... I was alive and in school in the 1970s and know the truth about what scientists were asserting, what was in the media, and that 'global cooling' was being taught in schools as an 'accepted scientific fact'.