Koch-Funded study finds Humans & Volcanos, not Sun, responsible for global warming

[scott]

http://www.scitechnol.com/GIGS/GIGS-1-101.pdf


solar forcing does not appear to contribute to the observed global warming of the past 250 years; the entire change can be modeled by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic [human-made] proxy.

[boutons_deux]

I already posted this in a never-ending AGW pissing match between the faith-based AGW deniers and The Scientific-Fact-based Intelligent Ones.

[Galileo]

WTF. The Koch brothers are liars, I would believe anything they say. This is hilarious, the liberals now quote the Koch brothers as gospel truth. OMG.

[boutons_deux]

WTF. The Koch brothers are liars, I would believe anything they say. This is hilarious, the liberals now quote the Koch brothers as gospel truth. OMG.

Spoken like True Paul Believer.

The Kock-Bros didn't write the report, the scientists did. The report is credible, agreed with because it's more support to the overwhelming evidence for AGW.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes.

Does not appear to... can be modeled...

That is dsome real definitive language!

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

WTF. The Koch brothers are liars, I would believe anything they say. This is hilarious, the liberals now quote the Koch brothers as gospel truth. OMG.
:lol the Koch Brothers fund the Tea Party groups you're probably a member of, Rolf

[mouse]

Lets see a volcano spews heat

heat can cause ice to melt

this isn't MIT material folks.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes.

Does not appear to... can be modeled...

That is dome real definitive language!

YOur hack job's workshop was two years ago. BEST's analysis came from 2012 ie the most recent data. Nevermind that your shit was intentionally misleading but BEST is drawing these conclusions from the best data we have available.

BEST does not speak in absolutes but simply gives the most accurate presentation that they can. You and your sources could learn from that.

[Wild Cobra]

YOur hack job's workshop was two years ago. BEST's analysis came from 2012 ie the most recent data. Nevermind that your shit was intentionally misleading but BEST is drawing these conclusions from the best data we have available.

BEST does not speak in absolutes but simply gives the most accurate presentation that they can. You and your sources could learn from that.
What conclusion?

"appears to"

"can be"

Really now, what did they conclude?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What conclusion?

"appears to"

"can be"

Really now, what did they conclude?

Solar forcing does not fit the model whereas the entire change can be modeled by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic [human-made] proxy.

This is not difficult to discern. Your hope that the sun can account for the warming does not fit with a scientific model however AGW and volcanism does.

Science 1
WC -1

You lose a point for being intentionally obtuse. Of course macro models are not going to be 100% perfect. By nature they are having to make approximations because you cannot account for every atom on Earth. That's why they have % error on thier works to describe how precise it is.

We have discussed how they model things at length. There is your version of coke cans and visions of windmills and then there is scientists versions of phenomenons represented as formulas and then set in motion using differentiation. When they permute in all of those formulas and alter the solar input it does not measure to the observed warming. They also have deducted the notion that it is natural climate variability. Its called deductive reasoning to isolate cause. Your ideal has been deducted.

We both know you are never going to come up with a compelling model that is going to counter their work so you can always hope.

[Wild Cobra]

You don't get it Fuzzy. I do understand the argument. I am simply pointing out that "appears to" and "can be" does not make objective science.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You don't get it Fuzzy. I do understand the argument. I am simply pointing out that "appears to" and "can be" does not make objective science.

What part of percent error was difficult to understand. They do correlation analysis and come up with precise probabilities. That is objective science.


The annual and decadal land surface temperature from the BerkeleyEarth average, compared to a linear combination of volcanic sulfate emissions and the natural logarithm of CO2. It is observed that the large negative excursions in the early temperature records are likely to be explained by exceptional volcanic activity at this time. Similarly, the upward trend is likely to be an indication of anthropogenic changes. The grey area is the 95% confidence interval.

Click here to see the historic temperature record with named volcanos.

After accounting for volcanic and human effects, the residual variability in land-surface temperature is observed to closely mirror (and for slower changes slightly lead) variations in the Gulf Stream.

http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

They are 95% certain it is true for the majority of the analysis. Is it 100% certain? Nope. Is it objective? Yup.

They don't do EZ-bake science and wishful thinking. Now if you understood this as you claim then why the obtuseness?

[Wild Cobra]

Percentage error...

They acknowledge possible error.

The assessment is not necessarily factual, and that is between the recorded data and the model.

Will that same model properly predict the next 30 years with the came confidence level...

You need to learn more about climate modeling I think.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They aren't making predictions. You need to learn more about reading I think. They are talking about what has come before.

We know that you are going to wishful think that the 5% comes true and not only that but the 5% is what you want it to be.

So anyway, you never did comment on the new engineers blowing you off and how that makes you feel. I bet you get that a lot. I know I would ignore you.

[Wild Cobra]

They aren't making predictions. You need to learn more about reading I think. They are talking about what has come before.

We know that you are going to wishful think that the 5% comes true and not only that but the 5% is what you want it to be.

So anyway, you never did comment on the new engineers blowing you off and how that makes you feel. I bet you get that a lot. I know I would ignore you.
What I wish and what I believe are two different things normally, and I do keep them in perspective.

Can you deny there is a world wide agenda to make CO2 as the bad guy?

Can you deny that climate science is not agenda driven?

You can come up with a model that fits the past and claim any level of certainty you want. The test is if it predicts the future, and to date, no past limate model has with anything close to such certainty.

Why would you expect this one to be any better than the past models?

Can you say A-G-E-N-D-A?

Besides.

I seriously doubt it includes the new realization and quantification of what the increased UV band changes do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The agenda is empirical science. They don't just "come up with a model." It's no surprise that you would think that because that is how you do things ie "it includes the new realization and quantification of what the increased UV band changes do" and other such wishful thinking.

[Wild Cobra]

The agenda is empirical science. They don't just "come up with a model." It's no surprise that you would think that because that is how you do things ie "it includes the new realization and quantification of what the increased UV band changes do" and other such wishful thinking.
Believe as you wish.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you are saying that BEST does their work because of an agenda and not because of legitimate empirical science and you tell me believe what I want to believe. Well if you believe that then you can believe it but that just points to both bias, wishful thinking and stupidity.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy...

The problem with your Bayesian probability, is it has not yet worked for climate sciences. A famous person once said:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

These models you have faith in continually get proven wrong. Any sharp person with a supercomputer can make a model that simulates the past. All it takes is that one future even to prove it wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

So you are saying that BEST does their work because of an agenda and not because of legitimate empirical science and you tell me believe what I want to believe. Well if you believe that then you can believe it but that just points to both bias, wishful thinking and stupidity.
I did not say that.

I am saying that most climate research is agenda driven.

To my knowledge, BEST is taking information from other researchers. They still are not privy to all the source data and rely on the interpretations of those who do have agendas.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy...

Did you even read the link?

Something to consider:


Specifically,
a linear combination including solar produces a land surface climate
sensitivity to the IPCC solar forcing function of 0.03 ± 0.49°C/(W/
m2), which is consistent with zero but also subject to large uncertainty.
(Note that for this function the W/m2 represent the variations
assumed by the IPCC radiative forcing model, not actual measured
W/m2.) We also attempted a fit where all parameters were decadally
averaged to smooth over the large swings associated with the solar
cycle in the IPCC forcing model. This also produced an insignificant
result of 0.6 ± 1.7°C/(W/m2) for solar forcing while CO2 and volcanic
changes remained highly significant. Based on these observations, we
conclude that either solar forcing has not been a major component
of the changes in the land-surface temperature record or that the
assumed history for solar forcing is too inaccurate in shape to make a
simple linear fit possible.\

When we included solar forcing we
found that the solar variability record assumed by the IPCC did not
contribute significantly to the fit of historic temperature.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol Bayesian

Thanks Dr Goolge EZ Bake.


This knowledge is expressed through prior distributions that are noncommittal on the climate change question. Evidence for detection and attribution is assessed probabilistically using clearly defined criteria. Detection requires that there is high likelihood that a given climate-model-simulated response to historical changes in greenhouse gas concentration and sulphate aerosol loading has been identified in observations. Attribution entails a more complex process that involves both the elimination of other plausible explanations of change and an assessment of the likelihood that the climate-model-simulated response to historical forcing changes is correct. The Bayesian formalism used in this study deals with this latter aspect of attribution in a more satisfactory way than the standard attribution consistency test. Very strong evidence is found to support the detection of an anthropogenic influence on the climate of the twentieth century.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3402.1

Not yet huh? That was from the first thing I pulled off a google scholar search. There is similar stuff from PSU, the British Royal Society, etc.

Of course your dumb ass would think that they wouldn't use probability analysis on their models. You are one idiot. There are thousands of geniuses working on the problem.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

You have to search the internet to understand my words?

You are dumber than I thought, and still get it wrong!

I like the way that your link is a fancy way or saying correlation equals causation!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Now we getting the IPCC tin hat bullshit? It's like you see IPCC and start looking for a leg to hump. I have better things to do than let you hump mine.

[Wild Cobra]

Now we getting the IPCC tin hat bullshit? It's like you see IPCC and start looking for a leg to hump. I have better things to do than let you hump mine.
LOL...

The IPCC is an international political body. Did you not know that?

BEST is quoting IPCC stuff.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wow...

You have to search the internet to understand my words?

You are dumber than I thought, and still get it wrong!

I like the way that your link is a fancy way or saying correlation equals causation!

WTF are you talking about? I went to google scholar to find the probability analysis that you said didn't exist.


The problem with your Bayesian probability, is it has not yet worked for climate sciences.

Your last line just goes to show you have no clue what you are talking about. Seriously just stop.

[Wild Cobra]

Are you saying Climate scientists don't use probability? if not, what are you saying? Why are you supporting papers that use such low "confidence levels?" Shouldn't scientific confidence bet at least 99.9% confident if you are going to claim it as being correct?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I just showed you papers where they did and now you say that I say they don't?

:lol


Shouldn't scientific confidence bet at least 99.9% confident if you are going to claim it as being correct?

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

:lol



:rofl:
Don't you consider BEST to be reporting "hearsay" when they are simply compiling other studies?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Don't you consider BEST to be reporting "hearsay" when they are simply compiling other studies?

They took a parameter not a compilation. Try again.

[Wild Cobra]

They took a parameter not a compilation. Try again.
Their temperature studies are a compilation, of which cannot accurately remove heat island effects. Their solar assessments are all parroting IPCC political-speak.

How can you take any of it serious?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So are you trying to say that the solar output range observed by IPCC is incorrect? Is that what your wishful thinking is hoping for, monkey?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Google not finding anything for you yet?

[Wild Cobra]

So are you trying to say that the solar output range observed by IPCC is incorrect? Is that what your wishful thinking is hoping for, monkey?
No, I'm saying the IPCC assessment of solar forcing is incorrect.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh do tell how you come to that conclusion. I just love laughing at you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pretty please go with the temperature lags solar waxing please. Pretty please.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh do tell how you come to that conclusion. I just love laughing at you.
Pull up some previous posts on the topic. I'm in no mood to repeat myself. However, I will add this. Since NASA started using TIM, they have accurate measurements of the UV spectrum that they didn't have before. They discovered that this spectruym changes more dramatically than the rest.

Now get this.

O2 and O3 reacts to UV like CO2 reacts to IR! It does interesting things to the NOx components as well.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pull up some previous posts on the topic. I'm in no mood to repeat myself. However, I will add this. Since NASA started using TIM, they have accurate measurements of the UV spectrum that they didn't have before. They discovered that this spectruym changes more dramatically than the rest.

Now get this.

O2 and O3 reacts to UV like CO2 reacts to IR! It does interesting things to the NOx components as well.

I was asking for a legitimate scientific source not your ignorance. For future reference, when I ask for proof of some scientific assertion on your part, your word is not good enough, Dr. EZ bake.

And lets just get this out there. You going to claim that this new IPCC report does not consider what you are claiming?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

FFS, 2003 is calling and wants their shitty denier argument back.

[scott]

Yes.

Does not appear to... can be modeled...

That is dsome real definitive language!

Too stupid; didn't read.

[boutons_deux]

A Smut Above: Unhealthy Soot in the Air Could Also Promote Global Warming


Black carbon, commonly described as soot, may play a larger role in global warming (http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=global-warming-and-climate-change)than previously estimated, according to a new study.

Every year in the Northern Hemisphere about 7.5 million metric tons of black carbon, the equivalent of more than 100 times Earth’s total biomass, enters the air from internal combustion engines, forest fires and other sources. The fine material absorbs sunlight almost as well as carbon dioxide—a well-known greenhouse gas—and may contribute to accelerated snowmelts and increased global temperatures.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=unhealthy-soot-could-promote-global-warming&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_HLTH_20130122

[Borat Sagyidev]

Wild Cobra thinks science is about democracy. Not even in Star Trek.


http://attrition.org/security/rebuttal/moron1.gif

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Soot was number 3 but with recent increases especially in China it has moved up to #2.

[Wild Cobra]

I was asking for a legitimate scientific source not your ignorance. For future reference, when I ask for proof of some scientific assertion on your part, your word is not good enough, Dr. EZ bake.

And lets just get this out there. You going to claim that this new IPCC report does not consider what you are claiming?
Are you claiming NASA to be wrong?

[Wild Cobra]

Too stupid; didn't read.
I read it. The thing is, there is nothing firm about solar forcing except to repeat the IPCC.

[Wild Cobra]

A Smut Above: Unhealthy Soot in the Air Could Also Promote Global Warming


Black carbon, commonly described as soot, may play a larger role in global warming (http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=global-warming-and-climate-change)than previously estimated, according to a new study.

Every year in the Northern Hemisphere about 7.5 million metric tons of black carbon, the equivalent of more than 100 times Earth’s total biomass, enters the air from internal combustion engines, forest fires and other sources. The fine material absorbs sunlight almost as well as carbon dioxide—a well-known greenhouse gas—and may contribute to accelerated snowmelts and increased global temperatures.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=unhealthy-soot-could-promote-global-warming&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_HLTH_20130122
Also:

According to the study, black carbon compounds have the potential to decrease the world's average temperature by 0.5 degree Celsius or warm it by 1.08 degrees C, depending on how it was produced. Previous studies lacked the observational data included in Doherty’s analysis, making earlier estimates much less accurate. Thus, policymakers have to consider the source of black carbon when drafting mitigation ordinances, Doherty says.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you claiming NASA to be wrong?

The change in solar measurement was back in 2003. AR4 was in 2007. This is not hard to figure out. i recall a friend who worked for a GOP senator showing me that back then. It was compelling until it was quantified to not account for the increase in world temperature. The sun is now waning anyway. Between the two your claim is just plain wrong.

Wishful thinking + stupidity = WC.

[Wild Cobra]

The change in solar measurement was back in 2003. AR4 was in 2007. This is not hard to figure out. i recall a friend who worked for a GOP senator showing me that back then. It was compelling until it was quantified to not account for the increase in world temperature. The sun is now waning anyway. Between the two your claim is just plain wrong.

Wishful thinking + stupidity = WC.
You are distorting what I said. I didn't claim anything other than implying full solar measurements are meaningless until after TIM was in service. All previous satellite measurement errors and drift are greater than the small solar changes. I think only one prior satellite looked at solar UV measurements, and TIM is the first satellite instrument with any worth while accuracy.

you continue to make unwarranted negative and incorrect claims about me. You are so stupid in that regard, you never even see it.

[Wild Cobra]

-dp-

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, I'm saying the IPCC assessment of solar forcing is incorrect.

Followed by


Pull up some previous posts on the topic. I'm in no mood to repeat myself. However, I will add this. Since NASA started using TIM, they have accurate measurements of the UV spectrum that they didn't have before. They discovered that this spectruym changes more dramatically than the rest.

Now get this.

O2 and O3 reacts to UV like CO2 reacts to IR! It does interesting things to the NOx components as well.

You said that IPCC assessment was incorrect because of a change in 2003. The last IPCC report was 2007 and the next one is due t come out soon.

Now you are saying that measurements previous to 2003 are irrelevant and that is all that matters. YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Its clear you were referring to IPCC.

[Wild Cobra]

My God you are stupid.

In past psts, I said the IPCC assessment was incorrect, and even misleading.

They stated "direct solar forcing" and never included "indirect solar forcing." I agree with the assessment for direct forcing. They conveniently leave out any mention of indirect forcing cased by solar changes.

I have made that claim several time.

As for this discussion, you are mixing what is said and twisting it.

[Wild Cobra]

Now you are saying that measurements previous to 2003 are irrelevant and that is all that matters.

Not entirely. The short relative changes are relevant. It's just instrument drift exceeds the desired data, so it's impossible to make proper conclusions of trends.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My God you are stupid.

In past psts, I said the IPCC assessment was incorrect, and even misleading.

They stated "direct solar forcing" and never included "indirect solar forcing." I agree with the assessment for direct forcing. They conveniently leave out any mention of indirect forcing cased by solar changes.

I have made that claim several time.

As for this discussion, you are mixing what is said and twisting it.

Lol so now the UV spectrum is an indirect property of solar radiation. pole rack yourself.

[Wild Cobra]

Lol so now the UV spectrum is an indirect property of solar radiation. pole rack yourself.
I didn't say that either dipshit.

My God... You are so fucking stupid.