Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

[futurecurrents]

Quote from stoic:

Let us review: More confirmation that Futuecurrent is really Chicken Little

Thread Started 09-16-13

Quotes from futurecurrents:

cited 8 times "The Weather Channel.....More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase....." and (cited 7 times)"American Meteorological Society..... "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate......"

futurecurrents also posted...2 times "The founder of the Weather Channel is an idiot right wing nut job like you. Not a scientist......." and there's more"......they are only meteorologists, not climatologists .....proves blind adherence to right wing ideology is present in weathermen... little reason to think weathermen would think much differently than the general public......They are not climatologists.... I'm not including the 11% of them who don't know GW is happening..... They are not worth even listening to. But it shows how stupid meteorologists can be........"

Also cited more than once as proponents of AGW by fc "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with ....... American Geophysical Union which states......." as long as the source agrees with Chicken Little, it's deemed as worthy. If the same organization or a member has an opinion that differs, according to fc: "..... propaganda put out by the fossil fuel powers that be..... study of a select group of Canadian petroleum engineers..... prostitute themselves for the fossil fuel industry interests..... can't recognize that it is bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry....... barely worth talking about except as an example of a hack scientist...... exposed his skeptical view of global warming, a geochemist who directs the Center, called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said "reflects the politics of the oil industry....."

fc goes on to state.. "My data is flawed? Well then NOAA's, NASA's and virtually every related science source of the data is flawed because that's the only one's I post. Not stuff from blogs or TV weathermen."

As for the oil industry, fc cited Exxon 10 times and BP 6 times as in agreement with AGW. "Exxon says: "Rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems. Since most of these emissions are energy-related.... all the world's experts in the field, and Exxon and BP and every science org in the world..... Yet again one shows there is dissident fc counters with.... Yes, nutters. Like Exxon....page 160.

Chicken Little accuses the skeptics of refusing to review the evidence for AGW....".....continuing to maintain a lie perpetrated and promoted by the denier industry.... Because you don't have the intellectual rigor or honesty to actually read any further than the out-of context "Hiding the decline" quote, or try to understand why it was actually said......" More quotes from fc on the need to fully review the information:........"I don't care what f#*king journal this was in..... ..It's not a site for the real science...... I don't need to read them....... denialist propaganda machine website brought to you by the fossil fuel interests...... BULLSHIT from a BULLSHIT website...... and to read further is a waste of time..... propaganda website....... Your factoid is as irrelevant as you are.... NASA AGW skeptics... So what? They are partisan and not qualified.........Yeah, blah blah blah.....so what?" fc actually used the .."blah blah...so what?" retort 5 times.

Now fc posted charts a total of 41 times (surprisingly only 6 times for his hockey stick chart with the scary scaling) and I'd have to say that at least "97%" of them, we've all seen far too many times. Should anyone else post a chart..........fc states:"...Chart is wrong... Nice bullshit chart... crap chart not up to date..... Compare that crap chart with this accurate one.... It's an irrelevant chart.... poorly measured past. "

fc also felt he needed to point out that the "deniers" here on ET .... " are not interested in honest debate. Since we're totaling things up, how about some honest debate quotes..... fc used profanity 91 times, (this includes the F word 42 times) and called someone a prick 3 times, a douchebag 7 times, a whore once. fc also felt the need to respond with something about the price of Tea in China, (wtf) and blame the Koch Bros. 12 times.

"Man has increased levels (CO2) by 40%. There is no question about it." The "40%" number is another sign of Chicken Little syndrome. (FYI fc used this at least 18 times in this tread alone) . 40% sounds so much more scary then an increase of 110 ppm. More Chicken Little type quotes from fc".... the earth has not stopped warming at all. In fact if anything it is accelerating... with rapidly rising sea levels and the potential for disasters..... the overall warming of the entire climate system has continued rapidly..... On balance, all the earth's ice is melting...... assume that the 0.5°C per century warming trend discussed will continue into the future..... The current rise is also unprecedented in rate......" a whole half degree C.....mmmmm.....that is scary. (Question: How do you know its 0.5 C, has man had the ability to precisely measure the temps for the whole globe for the last 100 years?? (and don't give that stuff about tree rings... I want something a little more "Scientific"

"....no question about it..... scientific fact .......The science is clear, overwhelming and obvious..... The hockey stick is proven, real and factual...... " Sorry, I didn't count all the "science fact", and "no question about its". But I did note that when it suits him the quote "....... Nothing in science is proven...." popped up.

More miscellaneous ranting from fc:" American Medical Association "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s...." ...the AMA....??? U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases......13 U.S. government departments and agencies........... But our gov is owned by big oil/coal.... You're like some retarded broken record...... do you have a garage ...." last but not least ... "You guys need to be drowned out. Or just plain drowned...." Like a true Conformicrat, any and all skepticism is to be squelched. (1984)(fc stated that ET AGW skeptics should die, commit suicide, or be murdered 9 times.) and we're the ones that are deluded.

Are you trying to make some point? I'm honored you would go through all this trouble to assemble all these demonstrably true statements I have made. Thank you. But frankly, I'm a little worried given your display here of attraction and psychosis. I must warn you, there is a gun in the house that I know how to use.

I would love to see you assemble all the demonstrably wrong bullshit that jem has spewed during his deceivathon. Can't really blame him. He just repeats the bullshit on the TV weatherman's propaganda site. He doesn't even know what he's repeating.

 

[futurecurrents]

More discussion about the paper that has jem so excited.

"The Humlum et al paper is so obviously faulty that in my view it should be withdrawn, not just a comment published, and you might want to suggest that to the editor. It would be interesting how they respond – please publish the response here.
Your simple box model provides one elegant demonstration for why the paper is faulty, but the fact is obvious to anyone with basic science training even without using a model. The paper simply mixes up time scales, and the same mistake has been made in a number of “climate skeptics” papers. The method by design specifically analyses short-term variability, the DIFF12 approach effectively filters out any longer time scale. So of course the result only applies to this short-term variability and cannot tell us anything about the long-term trend. The short-term variability in atmospheric CO2 clearly is partly caused by variability in oceanic CO2 uptake which correlates with sea surface temperature, MY NOTE (and biologic activity)hence their result would not surprise anyone familiar with the carbon cycle. However, their conclusion about the long-term trends is demonstrably false. If – as they surmise – the long-term trend in CO2 was caused by outgassing of CO2 from the ocean due to warming, then the oceanic CO2 content should have gone down as the atmospheric CO2 content has been going up. That is disproven by measurements: CO2 content is increasing both in the atmosphere and in the ocean. And of course we know where the added CO2 is coming from: from fossil CO2 that enters the ocean-atmosphere system as a result of burning fossil fuels. That, by the way, has been proven already in the 1960s by isotope analysis, which demonstrates that the added CO2 has a fossil origin and does not come out of the ocean."


https://troyca.wordpress.com/2012/0...pheric-carbon-dioxide-and-global-temperature/

 

[Wallet]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Yeah OK. There are enough paranoid ignorant deluded righties out there already. We don't need another.

Look out! The UN ! They're right behind you !

Guess what. It's a small world, that all countries share. The time when we could or should act as an island was gone long long ago.

Gee, thought you hadn't heard of Agenda 21?

Paranoid and deluded - Really? Last time I looked Agenda 21 was fact, some 400 pages of good things in store for us... they (UN) are a major player in the AGW debate. Again it ain't about saving the planet but that doesn't fit well in your daily rant.

Keep on shouting it from the rooftops,"the sky is falling !!" But dude there's no one here listening to your crap.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Wallet:

Gee, thought you hadn't heard of Agenda 21?

Paranoid and deluded - Really? Lat time I looked Agenda 21 was fact. And they (UN) are a major player in the AGW debate. Again it ain't about saving the planet but that doesn't fit well in your daily rant.

Keep on shouting it from the rooftops,"the sky is falling !!" But dude there's no one here listening to your crap.

Oh I know it's a fact. But unlike you I am rational and not paranoid about it. You really should stop getting your info from right wing blogs. Also, just get a grip will ya?


I guess the Weather Channel is also shouting "the sky is falling" because this is what they say.......maybe you should talk to them too....


It is known that burning of fossil fuels injects additional carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This in turn increases the naturally occurring "greenhouse effect," a process in which our atmosphere keeps the earth's surface much warmer than it would otherwise be.
More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists.

 

[Wallet]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Oh I know it's a fact. But unlike you I am rational and not paranoid about it. You really should stop getting your info from right wing blogs. Also, just get a grip will ya?

There's no paranoia here, I don't give a flying rat's ass fuck what the UN thinks I should do. The whole Global Warming fiasco is about power and money, not saving the globe.

Grow up.

 

[stoic]

Quote from futurecurrents:
Are you trying to make some point? I'm honored you would go through all this trouble to assemble all these demonstrably true statements I have made. Thank you. But frankly, I'm a little worried given your display here of attraction and psychosis. I must warn you, there is a gun in the house that I know how to use.

I'm not surprised that you missed the point, let me put it into very, very simple terms.

You're a potty mouth hypocrite!

That's about as simple as I can make it,.....I could add more but it would just add to your confusion. Let us close with more examples of the hypocrisy that is fc

"Gun nut righties can't figure this out and it's all about hyperbolic fear and paranoia for them.....flag-wavers on the right who see all these problems through the site of a gun .....self-appointed, self-important, wanna-be-a-cop, gun-nut-righties......should not have a gun....Having a gun and shooting first insures immunity. This is why handguns should be outlawed for civilians.....Fox News is to blame for a self-appointed, hand gun carrying wannabe cop assuming a .......a young thug carrying a gun issue.....What's America coming to when one can't carry a gun and kill innocent people...... it's time to stand up to the gun nuts and demand common sense regulations... I know that's all the gun nuts hear but.... More proof of how crazy the gun nuts are...... the gun worshipers...... They just don't want to give up their toys. Like spoiled little boys........ You are a detestable psychopath and an example of someone who should not have a gun.......... I think there should more gun control....... Banning handguns makes lots of sense............. the person applying for a gun permit is mentally ill ........ regulations are fought tooth and nail by the paranoid gun nut righties..... the hysterical gun nuts....."

 

[jem]

We know the long term... CO2 trails temps by 200 to 900 years in the ice core record.

And now we have multiple sources showing that co2 trails temps in the short term by 9 months to a year.


Read this again --- it could not be more relevant... regardless of what some critic with a blog claims.

this was in a peer reviewed and credible journal...

with professors with real and relevant degrees and credentials.



There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric
CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether
representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower
troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric
CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.
(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears
to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to
3) the lower troposphere.
(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–
12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months
behind changes in global air surface temperature.
(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months
behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial
part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January
1980.
(6) CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently has little influence
on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and
changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human
emissions.
(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic
eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2,
presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects
from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic
debris.
(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably
especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent
a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2. [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[jem]

your blogger brought out a model... a fricken model to say... that their data and a statistical analysis must be wrong.

that is like saying but my model said the bond market had to go down... my brokerage must be wrong my account must still have money in it.

Quote from futurecurrents:

More discussion about the paper that has jem so excited.

"The Humlum et al paper is so obviously faulty that in my view it should be withdrawn, not just a comment published, and you might want to suggest that to the editor. It would be interesting how they respond – please publish the response here.
Your simple box model provides one elegant demonstration for why the paper is faulty, but the fact is obvious to anyone with basic science training even without using a model. The paper simply mixes up time scales, and the same mistake has been made in a number of “climate skeptics” papers. The method by design specifically analyses short-term variability, the DIFF12 approach effectively filters out any longer time scale. So of course the result only applies to this short-term variability and cannot tell us anything about the long-term trend. The short-term variability in atmospheric CO2 clearly is partly caused by variability in oceanic CO2 uptake which correlates with sea surface temperature, MY NOTE (and biologic activity)hence their result would not surprise anyone familiar with the carbon cycle. However, their conclusion about the long-term trends is demonstrably false. If – as they surmise – the long-term trend in CO2 was caused by outgassing of CO2 from the ocean due to warming, then the oceanic CO2 content should have gone down as the atmospheric CO2 content has been going up. That is disproven by measurements: CO2 content is increasing both in the atmosphere and in the ocean. And of course we know where the added CO2 is coming from: from fossil CO2 that enters the ocean-atmosphere system as a result of burning fossil fuels. That, by the way, has been proven already in the 1960s by isotope analysis, which demonstrates that the added CO2 has a fossil origin and does not come out of the ocean."


https://troyca.wordpress.com/2012/0...pheric-carbon-dioxide-and-global-temperature/

 

[jem]

FC you lying drone. The paper was using your Mauna Loa data.

See the green line... it says co2.

Its the delta for each month being compared. Read the science you idiot and stop making shit up. Even the blogger you cited got that part right.

here is the quote from your blogger...


"My bold. Essentially, the method in HSS12 is to compare the “DIFF12” values for each time series – that is, for each month they find the difference between the last 12 months and the 12 preceding months.

In general, they find that the fluctuations in DIFF12 of temperatures lead the fluctuations in DIFF12 of atmospheric CO2, and then conclude:

In general, we find that changes in atmospheric CO2 are lagging behind changes in any of the five different temperature records considered. The typical lag is 9.5-12 months for surface temperatures and about 9 months for lower troposphere temperatures, suggesting a temperature sequence of events from the surface to the lower troposphere.
As cause always must precede effect, this observation demonstrates that modern changes in temperatures are generally not induced by changes in atmospheric CO2. Indeed, the sequence of events is seen to be the opposite: temperature changes are taking place before the corresponding CO2 changes occur."

Quote from jem:

Quote from futurecurrents:

"globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data"


In other words they are measuring the CO2 levels at the surface of the oceans and are measuring, among other things, the biological effect on the CO2 level.

We are not interested in the CO2 levels at the surface of the ocean. We are interested in the CO2 levels measured high in the troposphere like this one below. There is no variation of CO2 levels to even compare to a variation in temps. You are so fucking dumb and gullible to believe the shit you read on these fake climate sites funded by The Heritage Foundation and other similar fossil fuel interests.

So these charts and this paper that you are all excited about does not say anything relevant or usefull. It is obfuscation and disinformation and misrepresentation at it's best. The paper is being offered as something of proof it is not even measuring. Typical denialist misrepresentation crap. And you repeat this shit. Pathetic righty sheep tool that you are.

If you can't win with the facts, baffle them with bullshit. Right jerm?

You are a dealer in lies. Do you work for the Koch bros like Watts?

 

[jem]

As I am reading comments and learning, apparently, Salby found an even tighter relationship with a different derivative of ocean temp change.

Quote from jem:

wow... this paper has very solid graphs and charts...

its seems to have led Salby...

this is pretty amazing.

click here if you want to see excerpts from the paper.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658#f0015


these are the authors.

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

Ole Humluma, b,
Kjell Stordahlc,
Jan-Erik Solheimd
a Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway
b Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), P.O. Box 156, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway
c Telenor Norway, Finance, N-1331 Fornebu, Norway
d Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway



Hey fc you troll... are these guys working for the Koch brothers.