Fox Newspeak: Those Who Accept Science Deemed "Climate Deniers"
Steve Doocy promoted National Review Editor Rich Lowry's attempts to paint "advocates of limits on carbon emissions" as "deniers." Doocy proclaimed that based on our carbon emissions "you would think it would be 900 degrees right now on planet Earth, but instead over the past 15 years or so, we have been flat temperature-wise":
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04...emed-cl/193500
amazing!
and Fox's bubba/tea bagger/gun fellatin base sucks it down as sacred truth
That's about half of what the scientists say the earth has increased in temperature. Now I won't claim it to this extent, but if -0.4C was at 1750, and +0.4C was at 2004, then that accounts for all the global warming.Recent evidence based on variability of sunspots and faculae (bright spots) shows that the output varied by ± 0.2% over centuries (Lean, Beer, and Bradley, 1995), and that this variability is correlated with changes in global mean temperature of Earth's surface of ± 0.4°C. (Figure 5.14).
You have a talent for dumbing things down. You're a natural.
What do correlate mean?
So you don't really have a way to test your hypothesis?
I did not see any method outlined in this response.
I didn't ask you to prove anything. I asked you to take the next step in scientific inquiry and design a test for your hypothesis.
You complain much about people not doing proper science, so I would just like to know what you consider proper sicence to be.
I will ask again, just to make sure that you understand what I am asking.
Please design a test for this hypothesis. Flesh it out.
Unfortunately for you, the data in your graph cannot support that statement, due to the way it was compiled.
Can you tell me why that is? I.e. do you understand why your statement is in error?
For a refresher, or, if anyone else would care to point out why that statement cannot be supported by the graph presented:
Ok. We have been down this particular "What if" road before. It is one of your least convincing arguments. Test and confirm it, and then we can move beyond.
..or better yet, make a testable prediction.
Interesting statement.
Can you give me the satellite data from 1751, so I can compare that to current satellite data?
I would like to be ableto verify your claim.
The timing and magnitude of this increase would be fairly important, to your "solar increase" theory.
(edit)
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimber...dleyCentre.pdfComparison of measurements from different satellite observing systems shows that the present day value of total solar irradiance is only known to approximately 0.15% (~2 W m-2).
What bothers me about your statement, is that your stated increase is exactly what solar scientists say is the current margin of error for the solar irradiance measurement.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-08-2013 at 12:30 PM.
The actual scientists do consider these things. They just arrive at different values than WC does.
You were the one that said 'alarmists' didn't consider these things. You were the one that brought it up. Those were your words. The lesson that should be taken is you shouldn't say ignorant . You can try your normal tactic of leaving the topic for at least two weeks and try sneak in the same take later. Didn't work with ocean as soda pop or deep ocean currents just like it hasn't worked for this stupidity. Ignoring me didn't work. You know better than to try and argue on merit. The solution is to stop.
So you agree that,
1) there are cases where 'climate alarmists' consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI?
2) there are cases where 'climate alarmist 'in their models consider more than direct solar forcing mechanisms and consider surface flux?
3) there are cases where 'alarmists' consider these issues and don't claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect?
...because they are in on the conspiracy.
Speaking o' which, I never did get my question as to the order of magnitude of people "in on it".
Big claim, big burden of proof. The Climate Gate stuff doesn't quite mean what you would like it to, so you will need to get some hard evidence of this vast conspiracy.
How many people are in on this conspiracy of yours? 10? 100? 100,000? Give us some hint as to the order of magnitude.
I guess we can attempt to figure out how many people it would take for the conspiracy by ourselves, if Wild Cobra wants to pull the standard conspiracy theorist schtick of not trying to flesh out his own theory.
Still trying to equate skeptics with twoofers, ey?
Today, on dumbass astroturfing spambot website, "realitydrop.org":
Under "Spread Truth"
Denier Delingpole Wishes For ‘Climate Nuremberg’, Says ‘Hanging Is Far Too Good’ For Climate Scientists!
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...sts/?mobile=nc
that people think he was serious
Under "Destroy Denial"
Doomsday global warming forecasts have been dead wrong
http://www.cdapress.com/columns/clif...6c7b774b2.html
Wow random, I get up and see six consecutive posts.
In #130, you ask more than I am willing to attempt, and is probably past my ability with the resources at hand. I will remind you that much of what I base my contentions on are the fact that the alarmist community makes points that are absolutely wrong. There is no way that their past claims can hold up to any scientific scrutiny, when the past decade since the AR4 has shown so many changes in understanding.
Wow... In post 133, that file still downloading as I type. Either real large, or that end is slow. I will guess the value they state is min to max average of the 11 year cycle. I am speaking of the long term changes.
As for the 0.15 bothering you. I too the average of many papers that claim the change is 0.12 to 0.18%. Now the more recent works seem to think the long term is closer to 0.24%. Probably because of the increased work in attempting to understand the <200 nm UV range. This article claiming 0.15% was unknown to me. Past assessments were closer to just under 0.1% if I recall correctly.
Yes, that is what the summary says. I will read this in more detail later.
Ooops... skipped a few again, at least looking at the post numbers I realized it.
My error in #131? Not a large enough sample of the past. Also, there is probably more error in conversion of proxies to what they indicate, above the errors I complain about already. Thing is, we have little else to know the past's temperature and environment with accuracy. Now I will contend that the last 11,000 years is more acceptable to the scientific community because of all the other things we can confirm variations have occurred with, like tree rings. Here is the data from NASA/GISS graphed for the more recent years of that:
Now you can see that the temperatures over the years fluctuate to large degrees, naturally. This is just the period of time as we came out of the ice age. It is the same data used for the earlier graph. Note that the data points for CO2 are far between. If I recall, they average more than 260 years apart.
#132. Interesting that you demand the "Test and confirm" approach. Have the alarmists done that? No. All they have done is make wild predictions that they keep backtracking from. I have not yet had to back down from any arguments I made against the AR4 contentions.
#134, Notice in your response to Fuzzy, that he is asking about "alarmists." I do not consider all climate scientists alarmists. There are many good ones out there. Science is suppose to be skeptical by nature, and when you have scientists claiming doom and gloom, then ten years later we see that many of their predictions are already wrong, are they to be trusted?
#135... Please notice I specified the types of peer review and I already responded to the why. A review process where the names of those reviewing the material allows for the dismissal of proper research and the acceptance of poor research, without accountability, allows agenda driven material. I want accountability, especially because of what the alarmists are asking for to mitigate CO2.
I had to spend less time than your posts deserve. I'm in a time crunch right now.
Consider the claims made in the AR4, and how their stated values have to be in error. they are in error the same direction I claimed they were wrong years ago. I can't wait to see the AR5. I did find and downloaded an advanced copy of AR5 WG1, but haven't gone through it much yet. Besides, it may change, especially with more recent controversies about it, and it's premature leak.
What a dissembling turd.
Acting like your views are congruent with the overwhelming consensus or that said consensus doesn't meet your 'alarmist' standard is fun I guess.
Funny how I was only able to find one on the list for the AR5.
Climate change skeptics seize on reports showing temperatures leveling
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2Q4La9hrv
Climate change skeptics are doing a bit of gloating following a series of mainstream media reports that acknowledge what those skeptics have long held -- the earth is not warming, at least not in the last 10 years.
"The idea that CO2 is the tail that wags the dog is no longer scientifically tenable," said Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com, a website devoted to countering the prevailing acceptance of man-made global warming.
In recent weeks, Der Spiegel, the Telegraph and the Economist have reported the unexpected stabilizing of global surface temperatures. Even former NASA scientist and outspoken climate change activist James Hansen has acknowledged the 10-year lull.
Morano said: "In the peer-reviewed literature we're finding hundreds of factors influence global temperature, everything from ocean cycles to the tilt of the earth's axis to water vapor, methane, cloud feedback, volcanic dust, all of these factors are coming together. They're now realizing it wasn't the simple story we've been told of your SUV is creating a dangerously warm planet."
Many climate scientists and environmentalists agree with Morano's description of climate complexity, but reject his denials of global warming as a problem.
"This is a highly complex calculation to make in the first place. The short period of time, only 10 years in which the increasing temperature has leveled, really doesn't tell us very much other than the fact that temperatures may still be rising but just not as fast as they were before," said Elgie Holstein, the senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund and a former assistant secretary at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"What's compelling about the climate science," Holstein said, "is that we have literally thousands of the world's leading scientists around the country pretty much saying the same thing about where we're headed, and it's not reassuring."
But the surface temperature stabilization suggests that computer models which predict harsh consequences of global warming may need reassessing.
As The Economist put it on March 30, "It may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy."
Indeed, no one disputes that levels of carbon dioxide are increasing globally, but CO2's impact has not been as great as many scientists had predicted.
"In the peer-reviewed literature, they've tried to explain away this lull," said Morano. "In the proceedings of the National Academy of Science a year or two ago they had a study blaming Chinese coal use for the lack of global warming. So, in an ironic twist, global warming proponents are now claiming that that coal use is saving us from dangerous global warming."
Holstein believes the temperature lull is not entirely unexpected or unpredicted.
"We're within ranges of these climate models that are saying we're still on track to some pretty troublesome impacts if we don't do something about it," he said.
A Gallup survey conducted March 7-10 found 58 percent of Americans say they worry a great deal or fair amount about global warming.
That was up from 51 percent in 2011 -- but still below the 62-72 percent levels seen between 1999 and 2001.
Trying?
No.
Succeeding, because the similarities are rather striking, and more solid than you would care to admit to, yes.
Unfortunately for you, did not ask whether you had the resources to attempt a test, or to perform the test at all.
What I asked was for you to demonstrate enough knowledge of the subject to be able to show us how such a theory might be tested.
You have failed to demonstrate such knowledge, so I can only infer that:
1) you cannot or
2) will not, or
3) you lack the reading ability to comprehend the request.
Leaving us with an untested theory of unknown validity. Not making a strong case so far.
Evidence of recent causal decoupling between solar radiation and global temperature5. Conclusions
We have shown that there is an evident causal decoupling between total solar irradiance and global temperature in recent periods. Our work permits us to fix the 1960s as the time of the loss of importance of solar influence on temperature. At the same time greenhouse gases total radiative forcing has shown a strong Granger causal link with temperature since the 1940s up to the present day.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/article
Care to comment on that study?
It seems to directly contradict your theory.
Further:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...10GL045777/pdf
So.... solar input has become decoupled from temperature globally. What one would expect in warming scenarios driven by things other than the sun.[1] The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m−2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests. This value is significantly lower than the canonical value of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W m−2 established in the 1990s
and
Recent examinations of data show that solar output is a bit lower than we thought it was.
1360/1365= .9963..... 1-.9963= .37%
Seems to directly contradict your theory WC.
This is the kind of thing I find when I look into pseudo-scientific bull claims. I take a claim at face value, then look at science done on the topic.
In this case the first two papers I found pretty much seem to directly contradict the claim. Leading me to conclude it is not supported by available evidence, just like claims of "molten steel" and "nano-thermite".
No, you have no success there. Skepticism is not denying, which is what the twoofers are doing. Skepticism is proper science.
If I were to look up and find all the peer reviewed papers that lead me to that conclusion, quote the relevant passages with what I see in them, would that be enough for you?
Skimmed over it quickly, it appears they didn't consider the lag time of the solar/ocean coupling, or the increase then decrease of aerosol pollutions we were expelling in the 20th century.
Such a conclusion is wishful thinking when it's as incomplete as it is.
Huh? The amount of measured solar energy the earth receives are simply changed. The baseline is changed. It doesn't change how they base solar, CO2, or other changes from if the value is 1365, or 1360. This is part of the better accuracy of TIM. In fact, I have read material where now the energy budget calculations have less error with this new assessment.
Sorry, but I see no conflict in what the second paper says, and the first is missing critical components in their calculations.
needs more study!
Northern hemisphere summers warmest in 600 years
Harvard University researchers analysing evidence from Arctic tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments and thermometer records said recent warm temperature extremes in high northern la udes "are unprecedented in the past 600 years" both for magnitude and frequency.
"The summers of 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2011 were warmer than those of all prior years back to 1400," they reported.
"The summer of 2010 was the warmest in the previous 600 years in western Russia and probably the warmest in western Greenland and the Canadian Arctic as well," they said."
These and other recent extremes greatly exceed those expected from a stationary climate."
http://phys.org/news/2013-04-norther...est-years.html
Yes, it's nice to see the media finally acknowledging proper since, instead of the alarmist views only.
I say it was all wishful thinking. Papers by scientists on the radiative forcing of CO2 in our mixed atmosphere even include it as being a coolant rather than a heating gas, at least at the percentages seen. No one knows for certain.
Yes, it's been >50 years since the last increase in average solar activity... The ocean stores changes in solar energy quickly, but release those same increases or decreases over decades. Maybe the significant release of stored energy is complete and in balance again.
LOL... The experts are finally figuring this out?
LOL Denial... They just had to go there, as if they are absolutely correct, and anyone that disagrees is in denial... They have the audacity to claim warming is a problem... What if it isn't?
This is true, but like I said before, I will let history judge me. By that, I mean when my words today, are history, as read in the future. So far, I'm batting 1000.
They were all pretty much taught by the same text book type material. Most scientists also once thought the world was flat, because that is what they were taught.
They are finally figuring out their models are flawed... How many years have I been saying this?
Again, some scientists claim that increasing CO2 at their low levels of concentration, act as a coolant rather than warming gas.
No Sherlock. Something else I have been saying for years.
LOL...
Maybe some of the aerosols are cooling the atmosphere, but the profound effect that soot has on the arctic ice cap cannot be dismissed.
I disagree. If the alarmist climate scientists would take their blinders off while working, they would see things differently. After all, true skeptical climate scientists have been saying otherwise.
They say, as they are crossing their fingers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
