Man Based Global Warming....

After a number pf commenters here wheeled out vatious journalistic interpretations of the Kaufman et al paper (each, without bothering to comprehend the articles or realize they concerned the very same paper), I pointed out the very obvious mistakes presented in the articles.

BUT NO! According to the geniuses here it was I who was a moron. Scientists and journalists NEVER make mistakes. Ufourya is a knuckle-dragging right wong wacko, just ignore him.

Wellllll, guess who gets the last laugh?

That 'retired meteorologist' Anthony Watts suggests the University of Colorado read its own press release concerning the Kaufman et al paper and VOILA!, they must adnit it was in error!

... I have often complained about the issues surrounding access to research papers, especially when they are accompanied by a broad press release campaign but there is no access given to the scientific paper itself. One of the worst recent examples of this was the Kaufman et al paper, which in the press release from the University of Colorado, contained a serious error, saying “…the cooling trend reversed in the mid-1990s.” when it should have said “the cooling trend reversed in the 20th century.”. Having no access to the science paper connected to the press release, it led me to write an article refuting the mid 1990’s claim. After many WUWT readers pointed out that the press release might very well be wrong, and at my prodding of the CU press office, the press release error has since been corrected by the University of Colorado, they never caught it themselves.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/...earch-swells-you-can-get-involved/#more-11084


So, Alric et al, I was correct and you guys were wrong. So, keep ignoring me. It will prove to be a whole lot less embarrassing.

P.S. I'm sure the 'journalists' will all publish huge headlines pointing out the misleading nature of this serious error - NOT.

 

I think a cooling trend reversing means it got warmer. :kiss:

 

And the 90s are in the 20th century..so I don't get how this helps your denial.

 

CBC News - Technology & Science - Polar ice sheets melting into sea: study

 

Finally we can close this thread:

Nature 461, 472-475 (24 September 2009)
"Anthropogenic climate change is now beyond dispute"

A safe operating space for humanity : Article : Nature

 

Realclimate is a propaganda site founded with one purpose and staffed by scientists whose science is reguularly debunked and called into question.

The money and organization behind it?
According to Internet Records Found at WHOIS:
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/re…

Domain ID105219760-LROR
Domain Name:REALCLIMATE.ORG
Created On:19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC
Last Updated On:30-Oct-2005 21:10:46 UTC
Expiration Date:19-Nov-2007 16:39:03 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:B133AE74B8066012
Registrant Name:Betsy Ensley
Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services
Registrant Street1:1320 18th St, NW
Registrant Street2:5th Floor
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Washington
Registrant State/ProvinceC
Registrant Postal Code:20036
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.2024636670

Environmental Media Services

 

One paper in Nature and that's an end on it? Why not allow a little time for some people to read and digest? This is how science is supposed to work. A hypothrsis or some hypotheses are put forward and following examinations support or undermine the conclusions drawn.

I don't think anyone seriously denies that man has an effect on his environment. (Even the beaver changes his environment in drastic ways.) The original thread concerns 'global warming' of the anthropogenic type. This would not even be interesting to the general public except for the claims of catastrophe. Now, this article claims to lay out a series of boundaries which may not be crossed without incurring more CATASTROPHE. It will never end until the environmentalists and politicians control every single aspect of the human condition or the adults with common sense regain control.

 

I pointed out SPECIFIC problems with the conclusions of the paper as presented. The logic of the matter escaped you entirely and you argued against the reality of the situation, as religious zealots usually do.

The paper continues to have problems not related to the SPECIFIC problem in the press release. Its conclusions are faulty if not manufactured:

Kaufman's BSi Selection « Climate Audit

Below is a plot comparing sediment BSi (biological silica) to depth (cm) from two of Kaufman's lakes (done by different students). ...
www.climateaudit.org/?p=7063 - Similar

Is Kaufman 'Robust'? « Climate Audit

I noticed almost instantaneously that Kaufman used Yamal and upside-down Tiljander (however mitigating the impact of upside-down Tiljander by truncating it ...
www.climateaudit.org/?p=7054 - Similar

The Kaufman Backstory « Climate Audit

The backstory to the development of the Kaufman et al 2009 reconstruction is pretty interesting. A few years ago (after the MM criticisms of paleoclimate ...
www.climateaudit.org/?p=7027 - Similar

Kaufman's "Classical" Log Regression « Climate Audit

I observed yesterday that I had been unable to replicate the archived version of Kaufman's Hallet Lake series - something that I thought was due to a change ...
www.climateaudit.org/?p=7089 - Similar

Invalid Calibration in Kaufman 2009 « Climate Audit

Nevertheless, there are three problems with the calibration as performed by Kaufman et al.: First, they estimate their calibration equation on a ...
www.climateaudit.org/?p=7005 - Similar

Kaufman's Stick: Iceberg Lake Varves « Climate Audit

In the first post on Kaufman et al, I observed that, like other Team multiproxy studies, its HS-ness is contributed by only a few series. ...
www.climateaudit.org/?p=6981 - Similar

Kaufman and Upside-Down Mann « Climate Audit

Kaufman et al (2009), published at 2 pm today, is a multiproxy study involving the following regular Team authors: Bradley, Briffa (the AR4 millennial ...
www.climateaudit.org/?p=6932 - Similar

Kaufman et al: Obstructed by Thompson and Jacoby « Climate Audit

This comment is minuted in a meeting of PIs leading up to Kaufman et al 2009 - a meeting of no fewer than 28 people (sponsored by the US National Science ...
www.climateaudit.org/?p=7019 - Similar

Index of /data/kaufman

Index of /data/kaufman. [ICO], Name · Last modified · Size · Description. [DIR], Parent Directory, -. [ ], SI.xls, 03-Sep-2009 19:46, 56K. [TXT] ...
www.climateaudit.org/data/kaufman/ - Similar

Overpeck's Enigmatic Tuq(?) « Climate Audit

22 Sep 2009 ... I can't imagine that Kaufman was thrilled to use this thing. ... (Ammann actually got more than Kaufman - I wonder what Kaufman got out of ...
www.climateaudit.org/?p=7100 - Similar

etc., etc,. etc.......

 

The prophet GOREBAMA's TEN COMMANDMENTS

[FONT=times new roman,times]o Thou shalt have but one Mother Earth (Gaia) Goddess before you[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]o Thou shalt not worship false Prophets -- especially sun cycles, ocean cycles, volcanic influences and "Objective Science" in general[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]o Thou shalt never doubt catastrophic depletion of the so-called "Ozone Layer"[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]o Thou shalt not doubt man-made "Greenhouse Gases" as the primary cause of GW[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]o Thou shalt condemn such doubters as "Deniers," "Extremists" and "Criminals Against Humanity"[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]o Thou shalt minimize, ignore and deny any and all environmental good news [/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]o Thou shalt avoid benefit-cost evaluations of AGW solutions and never admit error or falsehood about anything[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]o Thou shalt continue opposing all Nuclear and new Hydro power, despite their non-GW attributes[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]o Thou shalt promote "zero-carbon-footprint" policies of Less Energy at Higher Prices, except for heavily subsidized ethanol[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]o Thou shalt engage forever in "Eeeekology" and "Eeeekonomics" (scare-tactics ecology and economics) and never, ever vote Republican [/FONT]

 

Here's another whois, posted in its boring entireity:

Domain ID105658560-LROR
Domain Name:CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG
Created On:31-Jan-2005 13:07:55 UTC
Last Updated On:18-Jan-2009 10:59:35 UTC
Expiration Date:31-Jan-2011 13:07:55 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Abacus America Inc dba Names4Ever (R14-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:4KUAX
Registrant Name:Stephen McIntyre
Registrant Organization:Climateaudit
Registrant Street1:25 Playter Blvd
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Toronto
Registrant State/Province:Canada
Registrant Postal Code:m4k2w1
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.4164693034
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:[email protected]
Admin ID:ZZ9X5
Admin Name:Stephen McIntyre
Admin Organization:Climateaudit
Admin Street1:25 Playter Blvd
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Toronto
Admin State/Province:Canada
Admin Postal Code:m4k2w1
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.4164693034
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:[email protected]
Tech ID:4KUAX
Tech Name:Stephen McIntyre
Tech Organization:Climateaudit
Tech Street1:25 Playter Blvd
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Toronto
Tech State/Province:Canada
Tech Postal Code:m4k2w1
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.4164693034
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:[email protected]
Name Server:NS1.ITWORKS.COM
Name Server:NS2.ITWORKS.COM

+++
Stephen McIntyre has a wiki:
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre]Stephen McIntyre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
and a sourcewatch:
Steve McIntyre - SourceWatch
(the latter in my opinion doesn't add anything)

But we might infer from the former that the George C. Marshall Institute has been helpful in promoting McIntyre's message. That Institute's wiki, frankly, doesn't read so well:
George C. Marshall Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ufourya posted "the goods" on Environmental Media Service from activistcash.org. Unfortunately that internet service is unaware of the George C. Marshall Institute, so they can't help us to further understand its underlying motivations.

Returning to McIntyre, I strongly support his desire for transparency of source data in science. Seems to me that the GISS data issue was resolved, but I guess he wouldn't agree? Frankly, the GCMI connection has the potential to damage his neutrality.

Aside from that, there are 4 or 5 paleoclimatological studies of 1000-2000 year span based on different data (temperature proxies) than Mann et al. They all show roughly the same thing: the medieval warm period was not warmer than the 20th century (at least outside Europe) and the 20th century was equal to or warmer than any earlier time in the period. McIntyre appears to have no interest in those studies, but if someone here does, let me know.

 

So how many here believe trolls like ufourya are actually paid liars...I mean lobbyists?

 

Does there really need to be a topic on this? We all know the truth.

 

I'd be interested.

Meanwhile:

Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable

CfA Press Release

 

A troll posts solely for the purpose of exciting himself through insulting others and adds nothing of substance to the conversation - sort of like what you do.

The truth diesn't need a lobby as it exposes the real liars who are left with nothing but insults and inanities.

 

An interesting debate:

Economist Debates: Climate change: Guest

 

Thnaks, ufourya for the Soon et al. (CfA) link - I'll be watching for that paper in the Energy and Environment Journal. The most recent few thousands of years are where the temperature proxies work best, and researching this period in detail seems entirely sensible. However there may be limits to what it can reveal about 21st century climates. Atmospheric CO2 levels that will surely occur in this century have not happened in 50 million years (we think).

The Willerslev et al. (fossil DNA) is exactly the sort of research that needs to be done to put bounds on previous climate variability. The Science Daily media summary ends with this:

" That signifies that there was ice there during the Eemian interglacial period 125,000 years ago. It means that although we are now confronted with global warming, the whole ice sheet will probably not melt.
Please note: The scientists do not want to put into question the rise in sea level predicted to occur due to global warming. During the last interglacial period 125.000 years ago, temperatures in Greenland were 5 degrees higher and global sea level was 4-5 meters higher than it is today. However, since the new scientific results show that the ice sheet also covered southern Greenland, the melting of the Greenlandic ice cap can only have caused a sea level rise of about 2 meters. Therefore some of the melting ice contributing to the sea level rise must have come from other sources, for instance the Antarctic. Furthermore, thermal warming of the oceans will cause expansion of the sea water and result in a sea level rise of half a meter, and the melting of small glaciers around the globe will likely result in an additional half meter rise."

Put that together with Pritchard et al.'s new paper in Nature, (media summary excerpt from Eurekalert excerpt):

"The most comprehensive picture of the rapidly thinning glaciers along the coastline of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has been created using satellite lasers. The findings are an important step forward in the quest to make more accurate predictions for future sea level rise.
Reporting this week in the journal Nature researchers from British Antarctic Survey and the University of Bristol describe how analysis of millions of NASA satellite measurements* from both of these vast ice sheets shows that the most profound ice loss is a result of glaciers speeding up where they flow into the sea.
The authors conclude that this 'dynamic thinning' of glaciers now reaches all latitudes in Greenland, has intensified on key Antarctic coastlines, is penetrating far into the ice sheets' interior and is spreading as ice shelves thin by ocean-driven melt. Ice shelf collapse has triggered particularly strong thinning that has endured for decades."

So all this leaves us where? A high probability of some degree of sea level rise, but how much? This appears to be among the most difficult things to predict. A meter would not be a good thing for Bangladesh and several other low-lying (but smaller) populations. Much more than that and the world's seaports are going to need expensive modifications.

I pretty much managed to keep out of this thread for 176 pages, and I sort wish I'd left things that way. But the COP15 is coming up and the whole issue has been very much on my mind. My impression is that no amount of discussions and treaties will slow fossil fuel consumption over the next few decades - it is just to closely wedded with economic expansion. That increase will be muted to the extent that we get our butts moving on non-fossil fuel energy, conservation and carbon sequestration. It would take a lot of butt moving to stay under 450 ppm, which is an important threshhold for some people. But. what happens at 450? Your guess may be as good as mine. If we are profoundly fortunate, it won't be so very bad.

But that seems to be precisely what we are going to find out. I salute Prius drivers and all others who are putting a tiny dent in the CO2 growth rate. It won't be enough, but thanks for your efforts all the same. I salute the researchers who are working dilligently on these complex questions, regardless of their opinions.

Back to renewables and energy efficiency, fossil fuels are not going to get cheaper in the future so whoever innovates the best in these fields is going to get stinking rich regardless of which country they call home.

So, do that you will and think/believe what you will. We are all in this together and the show has already started.

 

Isn't this the problem?:



Says it all : The Island of Doubt

 

Oh, oh.

 

Alric ~ Yes, it is the problem. The federal government has no business subsidising any private enterprise. Interference in free markets creates more problems than it solves.

 

Speaking of tree-ring proxies, please see:

Mann-made Warming Confirmed - Chris Horner - Planet Gore on National Review Online

Please excuse the fact that this succinct article originates at NRO. (I know that will excite passion among some here.) Nevertheless, relevant links are provided.

Note that McIntyre's years-long effort to acquire data from the crafters of hockey sticks is now somewhat fulfilled and the result in this case is remarkably instructive.

Although McIntyre is reserved and polite enough not to come out and say it bluntly (scientific fraud), the evidence demonstrates cherry-picking at such a level that one no longer wonders why the data were so closely gaurded and kept from the public.

Now we get to see how the scientific community and 'science journalists' respond to this shocking expose'.

I won't be holding my breath.