Global Warming Hoaxsters Say the Ocean is Sinking
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
Irrelevant charts. Intellectual dishonesty. Lying. It's what jerm does.
Jem. Last thousand years of temps. Let's see what kind of lying you can do with that one.
Jem. Last thousand years of temps. Let's see what kind of lying you can do with that one.
you called me a liar for posting a chart of the geocarb and temperature record.
it turns out it is a good chart...
you lied.
now you lie again.
what about the last 1000 years of temps.
If we don't place the instrument record on the proxies... the proxies show ups charts like these.
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/loehle-vindication/
here is a non tree proxy...
it turns out it is a good chart...
you lied.
now you lie again.
what about the last 1000 years of temps.
If we don't place the instrument record on the proxies... the proxies show ups charts like these.
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/loehle-vindication/
here is a non tree proxy...
Last edited:
That chart is in many forms all over the internet.
So its not a lie for me to post it.
If you have the science to explain why its wrong go ahead and post the link.
If you argument is sound and persuasive I will retract and never post a similar chart again. Unless I find science to confirm it.
so prove the chart is wrong.
however... the chart is starting to look better here.
This chart uses an major increment of 100,000,000 years. This is inappropiate as significant changes have occurred over much shorter periods. The key to this analysis is levels of significance. Although defining levels of significance can be controversal, there are thresholds that should be considered.
For example, where a river now drys up in the summer because the glaciers in nearby mountains are gone is a pretty strong indicator of a significant change. Especially when this river has a long-term history of uninterrupted water flow.
Another example is climate-sensitive trees. These slower growth life forms provide a good indication of overall climate change over a period of time. As these trees slowly migrate north in the northern hemisphere, they are following the temperature they need to grow and reproduce.
Another example is global lightning strikes. Nasa, utilizing global satellites is able to keep real time records of global temperatures by counting the number of strikes that hit the Earth daily. There is a correlation to the number of strikes and temperature.
Based on the above, and the fact one of the major solar cycles is eleven years, a significant and reasonable time frame to chart is eleven years. A change at each eleven year increment could be deemed significant enough to consider taking appropiate action, such as assigning financial liability or requiring behaviour modification of the responsible party(ies).
That chart is again, just more evidence of your intellectual dishonesty/lying.
Yeah, science charts always say things like that chart says at the bottom. Where is that even from? Some guy's blog? Why don't you just draw one.
You aren't this stupid, so you are a liar.
Try again. Last thousand years.
Who the fuck is Craig Loehle?
LOL
Craig Loehle
Credentials
Background
Craig Loehle is the principal scientist with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, which was established in 1943 by the pulp and paper industry to “provide technical assistance for the industry’s goal of lowering the ecological impact of its spent pulping liquors.” [2]
Loehle worked in the Environmental Research Division at Argonne National Laboratory 1991-1998 and was a Research Ecologist at Savannah River Laboratory from 1987-1991
Stance on Climate Change
“I am not a 'denialist' and my recent paper… attributes about 40% of recent warming to human activity – estimating that this equates to a no-feedback atmosphere.
“What I would deny is that tree rings are good thermometers, but this is a scientific view based on my knowledge of trees, not a political view.” [3]
Key Quotes
“The climate change “biodiversity crisis” is like a whack-a-mole game (a carnival game where plastic animals pop out of holes and you try to whack them with a mallet), with an almost-daily claim popping up about this species or that at risk from climate change. Not just polar bears and coral reefs, but even avocados are going to disappear! Whacking each silly claim one by one is an impossible task, and the claims get into public consciousness whereas the refutations do not.” [10]
“I am not part of a conspiracy and am not directed by anyone. I have never received money from fossil fuel interests, as Mann states is true of all sceptics. On the contrary, I work for the US wood products industry (which has no official position on climate change and does not tell me what to say or think). This industry is the largest single renewable fuels user because it uses wood waste to generate steam and power at paper mills. It is also the largest recycler (of paper), plants millions of trees every year, and manages millions of acres of forest land to ensure protection of wildlife. Only a fraction of my work concerns climate change.” [3]
“Within the United States, the claim that bad climate effects can 'already' be detected is a totally subjective and unsupported hypothetical.” [4]
Key Deeds
July 7 - 9, 2014
Craig Loehle was a speaker at the Heartland Institute’s Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC9) in Las Vegas, Nevada. [11]
DeSmogBlog has done in-depth research on the other speakers and sponsors from Heartland's ICCC9, which can be found here.
May, 2012
Craig Loehle was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7).
DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland's ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations.
2011
Co-authored a study (PDF) with fellow climate change skeptic Nicola Scafetta. The study, titled “Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Climatic Data,” contends that “current models underestimate the strength of natural multidecadal cycles in the temperature records, the anthropogenic contribution to climate change since 1850 should be less than half of that previously claimed by the IPCC.” [5]
March 8 - 10, 2009
Loehle was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC2).
His presentation was titled “1,500-Year Climate Cycles, Broken Hockey Sticks, and Ocean Cooling.” [6]
DeSmogBlog researched the funding behind Heartland's Second International Conference on Climate Change, and found that sponsor organizations had received over $47 million in funding from energy companies and right-wing foundations, with 78% of that total coming from the Scaife Family of foundations.
2007
Published a paper in Energy & Environment titled “A 2000 Year Global Temperature Reconstruction based on Non-Treering Proxy Data” (PDF) which set out to refute Michael Mann's “Hockey Stick” data.
The original study, which contained numerous issues, was corrected in a subsequent publication. According to RealClimate, the corrected study still contained inappropriate data selection, or the calibration and validation issues. [7]
Loehle commented on the corrected study at Anthony Watts' blog Watts Up With That (WUWT).
Affiliations
****************************
So you think that NOAA and NASA are wrong but this lumberjack working for the Heartland Spinstitute is right.
Of course you don't. You aren't stupid.
You are just a fucking liar.
Yeah, science charts always say things like that chart says at the bottom. Where is that even from? Some guy's blog? Why don't you just draw one.
You aren't this stupid, so you are a liar.
Try again. Last thousand years.
Who the fuck is Craig Loehle?
LOL
Craig Loehle
Credentials
- Ph.D., Range Management (mathematical ecology), Colorado State University.
- M.S., Forest Management, University of Washington.
- B.S., Forest Science, University of Georgia.
Background
Craig Loehle is the principal scientist with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, which was established in 1943 by the pulp and paper industry to “provide technical assistance for the industry’s goal of lowering the ecological impact of its spent pulping liquors.” [2]
Loehle worked in the Environmental Research Division at Argonne National Laboratory 1991-1998 and was a Research Ecologist at Savannah River Laboratory from 1987-1991
Stance on Climate Change
“I am not a 'denialist' and my recent paper… attributes about 40% of recent warming to human activity – estimating that this equates to a no-feedback atmosphere.
“What I would deny is that tree rings are good thermometers, but this is a scientific view based on my knowledge of trees, not a political view.” [3]
Key Quotes
“The climate change “biodiversity crisis” is like a whack-a-mole game (a carnival game where plastic animals pop out of holes and you try to whack them with a mallet), with an almost-daily claim popping up about this species or that at risk from climate change. Not just polar bears and coral reefs, but even avocados are going to disappear! Whacking each silly claim one by one is an impossible task, and the claims get into public consciousness whereas the refutations do not.” [10]
“I am not part of a conspiracy and am not directed by anyone. I have never received money from fossil fuel interests, as Mann states is true of all sceptics. On the contrary, I work for the US wood products industry (which has no official position on climate change and does not tell me what to say or think). This industry is the largest single renewable fuels user because it uses wood waste to generate steam and power at paper mills. It is also the largest recycler (of paper), plants millions of trees every year, and manages millions of acres of forest land to ensure protection of wildlife. Only a fraction of my work concerns climate change.” [3]
“Within the United States, the claim that bad climate effects can 'already' be detected is a totally subjective and unsupported hypothetical.” [4]
Key Deeds
July 7 - 9, 2014
Craig Loehle was a speaker at the Heartland Institute’s Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC9) in Las Vegas, Nevada. [11]
DeSmogBlog has done in-depth research on the other speakers and sponsors from Heartland's ICCC9, which can be found here.
May, 2012
Craig Loehle was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7).
DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland's ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations.
2011
Co-authored a study (PDF) with fellow climate change skeptic Nicola Scafetta. The study, titled “Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Climatic Data,” contends that “current models underestimate the strength of natural multidecadal cycles in the temperature records, the anthropogenic contribution to climate change since 1850 should be less than half of that previously claimed by the IPCC.” [5]
March 8 - 10, 2009
Loehle was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC2).
His presentation was titled “1,500-Year Climate Cycles, Broken Hockey Sticks, and Ocean Cooling.” [6]
DeSmogBlog researched the funding behind Heartland's Second International Conference on Climate Change, and found that sponsor organizations had received over $47 million in funding from energy companies and right-wing foundations, with 78% of that total coming from the Scaife Family of foundations.
2007
Published a paper in Energy & Environment titled “A 2000 Year Global Temperature Reconstruction based on Non-Treering Proxy Data” (PDF) which set out to refute Michael Mann's “Hockey Stick” data.
The original study, which contained numerous issues, was corrected in a subsequent publication. According to RealClimate, the corrected study still contained inappropriate data selection, or the calibration and validation issues. [7]
Loehle commented on the corrected study at Anthony Watts' blog Watts Up With That (WUWT).
Affiliations
****************************
So you think that NOAA and NASA are wrong but this lumberjack working for the Heartland Spinstitute is right.
Of course you don't. You aren't stupid.
You are just a fucking liar.
was his analysis and chart of the proxy data wrong?
you argue like a leftist. Why not argue about the science and the data.
If you do the research you will see many proxies do not agree with the instrument readings.
its called a divergence problems.
some of the agw nutters argue the proxies stopped working about the time they diverged from the instrument data.
But, would not be reasonable to question whether the "adjustments" the the instrument data are the cause of some of the divergence.
you argue like a leftist. Why not argue about the science and the data.
If you do the research you will see many proxies do not agree with the instrument readings.
its called a divergence problems.
some of the agw nutters argue the proxies stopped working about the time they diverged from the instrument data.
But, would not be reasonable to question whether the "adjustments" the the instrument data are the cause of some of the divergence.
Okay so what peer reviewed science would you like us to consider. I am all for peer reviewed science or even non peer reviewed science if it provides the data and is transparent.
I have linked to multiple peer reviewed studies showing that atmospheric co2 levels trail change in ocean warming and change in temperature.
We have linked to peer reviewed science showing, the sun and the tides and natural "forcing are responsible for some to all of the change in temperature.
So I am not disputing that we have been warming since the last ice age. I do question whether splicing instrument records onto proxies is a proper way to evaluate recent warming. Especially if many tree ring and other proxies do not agree with the instrument records.
What I am stating that we don't know if man is contributing to warming. He may be but we do not have any peer reviewed science stating man made co2 is causing warming (other than failed models.)
I have linked to multiple peer reviewed studies showing that atmospheric co2 levels trail change in ocean warming and change in temperature.
We have linked to peer reviewed science showing, the sun and the tides and natural "forcing are responsible for some to all of the change in temperature.
So I am not disputing that we have been warming since the last ice age. I do question whether splicing instrument records onto proxies is a proper way to evaluate recent warming. Especially if many tree ring and other proxies do not agree with the instrument records.
What I am stating that we don't know if man is contributing to warming. He may be but we do not have any peer reviewed science stating man made co2 is causing warming (other than failed models.)
Last edited:
The information presented is my recollection from prior research. Formal sources of information will require me to do some research to find them, as I don’t maintain a file of sources on issues like these.
Additionally, I know a scientist will probably be willing to research this issue as well. Although he is not a climate scientist, he has a history of being able to sort through all the issues, find the relevant ones, and drawing sound conclusions on an formally researched topic.
Informally, his position is similar to yours on climate change. Will keep you posted as I gather my sources of information and gain input from my highly respected friend.
if you like cycles you should take a look at this paper.
the agw nutters like fraud currents tries to criticize this paper by saying it should have taken out seasonality.
But that is exactly what the Diff 12 does.
you can see change in ocean temps... the blue line leads the change in co2 levels the green line very clearly... because it has about a 90 percent correlation.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
Highlights
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
the agw nutters like fraud currents tries to criticize this paper by saying it should have taken out seasonality.
But that is exactly what the Diff 12 does.
you can see change in ocean temps... the blue line leads the change in co2 levels the green line very clearly... because it has about a 90 percent correlation.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
Highlights
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.