Global Warming - 2 German cargo ships pass through 'Arctic Passage'

Sigh.

Look, I don't have unlimited time to reply to each and every single claim that you make. You obviously have tons of time to cut & paste claims from sceptic's websites.

I tried pointing out a few flaws in your logic. Your data sources repeated use data from one localized area and then claim it applies to the globe. But you completely ignored them. You have also failed to recognize that many of your sources contradict your own theories on AGW!

Uh, that is their job. To study the climate and try to figure out what will happen when the climate changes.

Yes, they have. They have repeated used isolated data sets and cherry-picked information to make their arguments. Do the research.

 

A simple reply:

 

You miss the point completely. Of course they are only interested in human-induced causes - I highly doubt we'd be able to control the sun's solar activity - but we can control human caused pollution.

And again - you seem to think that the sun is the only logical explanation for recent temperature rises [1] - but yet, solar activity is at a low [2] (with references for your pleasure!).

You have failed to notice that McIntyre himself does not claim Briffa is cherry-picking[3]. But there are multiple [4,5,6] problems with his analysis.

[1] RealClimate: A warming pause?
[2] RealClimate: The lure of solar forcing
[3] McIntyre’s role in the latest teapot tempest My view on climate change
[4] Yamal Emulation I delayed.oscillator
[5] Yamal Emulation II: Divergence delayed.oscillator
[6] RealClimate: Hey Ya! (mal)

 

I'm afraid it is you who misses the point. I've already explained it.

Just for giggles: It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.
Karl Popper

McIntyre is unfailingly professional and polite, so he does not make the accusations that others make by drawing the obvious implications from his work. He points out serious flaws in the work of Mann, Briffa and the others - flaws that cast serious doubt on their conclusions. Add in the fact that these scientists whose work is called in to question have stonewalled him when he requested data, in the case of Briffa for NINE years, and one begins to question the true nature of 'climate science'. Why should it be different from all other areas of science where the supporting data amd methodologies of theories and hypotheses are available for other scientists to verify or refute?

RealClimate is just a propaganda blog stuck on one point of view and since its founders are the very perpetrators of questionable Hockey Sticks, what do you expect? Gavin Schmidt is shown to be a liar by putting words int McIntyre's mouth he never uttered. Another view:

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/how-to-read-rc/

 

Why did you edit this out? This might be the most honest thing posted in this thread.

Can I add that line to my signature? :madgrin:

 

Tell - you what - it's rather clear that you haven't read any of the links I've posted seriously - and it's rather clear that you have your blinders on (and you're probably thinking the same of me).

I'll make you a deal - let me know when McIntyre gets a peer reviewed paper published disproving AGW and we'll talk some more.

 

I do not know about that, but it might be the only honest thing ufourya has said in the thread. He might as well post, "I understand that 1 + 1 = 2, but I reject it", then claim that 1 + 1 = 3.

 

If it makes you happy, I'll put it back in. It changes nothing to say that I understand the point that drees is is trying (unsuccessfully ) to make, yet reject it. I thought "I'm afraid it is you who misses the point. I've already explained it," would save going over the same ground with the same person who misunderstood it the first time yet again.

I reserve the right to edit anything I say to clarify something I typed a few minutes prior. I am in the habit of trying to correct faulty spelling or syntax as well.

You don't need my permission to add anything you wish to your signature unless there is a copyright attached.

 

Apparently you misunderstand Copyright law as well as the laws of thermodynamics. Copyright is a given - whether stated or not.

(Sorry - you left yourself wide open for that one! And I presume you'll want a reference for that fact as well, eh?)

 

You obviously don't need to publish a peer-reviewed paper to show that someone else's peer-reviewed paper is fundamentally flawed. In addition, if a paper makes it through peer-review with the serious flaws that Mann et al 98 displayed and the questionable data selection Briffa's paper demonstrates (and the use of his data in at least eight subsequent peer-reviewed papers) there is something seriously wrong with a peer review process that does not require a data archive and explanation of methodology that would allow a thorough review from the reviewer rather than a fubber-stamp. This lack of rigorous oversight seems, for some reason, to be endemic in 'climate science'.

Asking McIntyre to publish a paper refuting AGW is ridiculous to the point of silliness. He has already pretty much demolished papers at the basis of the AGWarmers attempt to erase the MWP and the LIA - it will just take some time for the scientific community to admit it.

Even asking him to publish his own paleoclimate reconstruction is a pointless exercise as McIntyre explains:

...The underlying problem with trying to make reconstructions with finite confidence intervals from the present roster of proxies is the inconsistency of the “proxies,†a point noted in McIntyre and McKitrick (PNAS 2009) in connection with Mann et al 2008 (but applies to other studies as well) as follows:
Paleoclimate reconstructions are an application of multivariate calibration, which provides a theoretical basis for confidence interval calculation (e.g., refs. 2 and 3). Inconsistency among proxies sharply inflates confidence intervals (3). Applying the inconsistency test of ref. 3 to Mann et al. A.D. 1000 proxy data shows that finite confidence intervals cannot be defined before ~1800.

Until this problem is resolved, I don’t see what purpose is served by proposing another reconstruction...

As they say - read the whole thing. An article from the New York Times (that noted right wing rag) allows a fairly balanced look at both sides of the recent proxy-based temperature time line.:
Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com

 

Hey, if you want to argue whether an already deleted comment of less than a dozen words falls into the category of copyrighted intellectual property, fair use, or frivolity, find a lawyer. I freely admit I am not now, nor do I wish to be, nor have I ever been a lawyer. The last time I was interested in copyrighting any of my works, the only way to fully protect it was to register it. At the very least, I was advised to place a notice that it was copyrighted on the work. This was in the late 60s.

Please be kind enough to point out where in my comments I display a misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics.

 

This is actually untrue. Even the article says "Russia has long used its northern coast for shipping fuel, supplies and other goods to its remote Arctic settlements..."

Further info can be found here.

 

As usual, the media got this story wrong and presented it as new and disconcerting evidence of global warming. Thanks for the link. Here's another:

The surprising real story about this year’s Northeast passage transit: The media botched it Watts Up With That?

 

You are obviously correct! Peer review - not necessary at all. Everyone who debunks a theory and posts it on the internet is now an expert. Congratulations - you have successfully dis-proven AGW and any possible effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Let's go burn some oil!

 

Don't forget the DEW line cold war radar sites in the Arctic. The radar bases were about 50-100 miles apart, and had on-site anywhere from 200,000-2,000,000 US gallons of DFA (Diesel Fuel Arctic grade) in tank farms

There was a brief 2-3 month window every summer when barges would be used to refuel the bases and load up/drop off heavy equipment (Trucks, graders, loaders, generators, crew modules, new radar systems, etc)

There was also a pipeline that ran from the Alaska port of Haines to Fairbanks, used primarily to supply jet fuel and arctic diesel. The pipeline supplied Fort Greely, Fort Wainwright, and Eielson AFB. It was called the Haines Pipeline

DEC - Contaminated Sites Program - Site Summary - Haines-Fairbanks Pipeline Corridor

On the Hudson Bay side, there was also a Mid Canada Line radar site and regional base called Winisk.

MCL-SCS500

that also depended on barges and vessels to resupply

 

Thank you! But I think your sarcastic praise is as misguided as your AGW zealotry.

What Mr. McIntyre, an EXPERT statistician, has done more than once is demonstrate that so-called experts in 'climate science' have ignored basic tenets of statistics to produce papers, the conclusions of which are debunked (as you so graciously admit) or called into SERIOUS question. McIntyre makes no claim to be an expert in paleoclimatology. However, as I said, he needn't be one to expose obvious statistical errors or question why only proxies that bolster warming and ignore cooling or stasis are utilized. A mere child can see the king is naked.

The fact that these papers pass peer-review simultaneously calls into question a peer review process that misses these errors. I have never suggested that scientific inquiry by-pass peer review or that it is not important. Indeed McItyre has repeatedly called upon scientists and the journals that publish their work to archive data and methodology so that the theories propounded may be properly verified or rejected based on proper examintion. Explain why it should take NINE years to obtain the data 'supporting' Briffa's temperature reconstructions. Go ahead. Show how it benefits the world of science to merely take a scientist at his word.

Yet one more time you have brought no substance into the thread. Sarcasm needs a grain of truth to have potency. Yours is limp. And yet - you have gained a perversely named admirer - a lover of wisdom - good job!.

 

It's quite clear that the only statements you consider are the ones that already agree with you. Funny how that works.

You'll probably dismiss this article, too, without reading them, like you did my last one. Spoiler alert: McIntyre was wrong!

Let the backpedalling begin Deep Climate

BTW, to get this thread back on topic:

Green Car Congress: Despite a Slight Recovery in 2009, Arctic Sea Ice Remains on Downward Trend

 

It's quite clear that the only statements you consider are the ones that already agree with your true believer mindset.

You'll probably dismiss (without reading and/or understanding) this response from McIntyre to the misguided attacks on him. Spoiler alert: McIntyre remains correct in what he addresses while his critics are unable to show him wrong on the matters of statistical error and must reort to falsehood and the invention of straw men.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7328#more-7328

There is no backpeddling.

 

North Platte, NE.


Pine City, MN



Bozeman, MT



Cheyenne, Wy. They also set a new record "low" this morning.

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

The climate will always change with or without human life.

The Debate is OVER.

 

Weather != Climate