IAN CHUBB: For example you don’t get the Arctic ice melt just by natural events. You can’t reproduce it through modelling if you just factor in natural events but if you factor in human activity then you get what’s happening and you get the reduction.
So how did this happen?
“Examination of several proxy records (e.g., sediment cores) of sea ice indicate ice-free or near ice-free summer conditions for at least some time during the period of 15,000 to 5,000 years ago”
Walt Meier – NSIDC
It must have been human caused back then.
Maybe it was humans that caused the region to be habitable for alligators in the past also!
The nice thing about models is that you decide what creates the results you want to show. A minor change in the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) causes major changes in polar ice conditions and the THC is controlled by natural long term ocean atmosphere weather patterns. Just natural fluctuation in wind patterns account for the majority of the changes in ice conditions in the Arctic region. Actually changes in wind patterns can account for the majority of changes in ice and snow conditions on the entire globe.
None of this should come as a surprise.
Perfesser Porky Pig is a political hack with form going back a number of years.
He has been appointed by our barefaced liar of a prime minister, who corrupts and taints every institution she has the misfortune to lay her grubby hands on in her desperate bid to cling to power. In spite of his earlier protestations to the contrary, Perfesser Porky Pig is simply doing the squalid, mud-slinging job he was brought on board to do on behalf of this shameless gaggle of misfits.
Chubb should stick to neuroscience. He clearly knows squat about climate.
That explains a lot! He is a member of another wannabe scientific camp that is infested by charlatans.
He needs more Beef, feed him
Excellent! This should go viral.
15.000 to 5.000 years ago (Holocene Climatic Optimum) those ice-free or near ice-free summer conditions were caused by a natural event: axial tilt.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
AHHAHAHAHHAHA the axis doesn’t tilt anymore, it’s static!
That’s why they build the pyramids then it was 9 degrees warmer, to try to cool the earth to save polar bears
Clueless moron.
I think I see his problem: he’s using the wrong pronoun.
Factoring in natural events only works if you now about the natural events. When you do not understand weather you will never understand climate!
No, he is the one who can’t reproduce it by only factoring in natural events. It’s odd that he claims it’s you, though.
I understand what you are saying! I have had this discussion with climate modelers in the past when they claim current conditions can not be modeled using natural parameters.
He is repeating the party line as shown at SS web site but spouted before at all the Chicken Little hen houses on the web.
HE can not reproduce anything because HE does not understand WTF HE is talking about. HE is just like Nurse and a whole bunch of others with Cranialanalinsertitis!
They go to a proctologist to get their eye exams!
Chubb also said “the last decade has been the warmest decade that we have ever had on this planet.”
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/deplorable-state-climate-debate
How can anybody in a position such as he is in make such a stupid statement?
The guy has been getting his answers from the SS website and it is easy to make such statements if you think everyone else that matters is dumber than you are!
According the latest news from the LSM and the Alamist Cult, time began in 1979. So Chubb may be correct with respect to their revised calander.
That is true unless you are talking about historic droughts because “Accurate” record keeping started 12 years ago. That means there were no droughts before1998. ( I will be generous and give them an extra year)
He looks like a character right from Animal Farm.
And here I have been trying to be semi PC most of the day!
“Professor” Chubb has a Masters in Science, a DPhil from the University of Oxford and is an “honorary” doctor of science from Flinders University.
A virtual DR to promote a Virtual science!
I am worried about the Chief Scientist’s level of knowledge. He also claimed that “The argument at the moment is that there will be, for example, much more intense cyclones and whatever they are called in the Northern Hemisphere, and more intense rain and flooding.” Most high school geography students could tell him that they are called hurricanes or typhoons.
If the low-life ad-hominem attacks on Professor Chubb are typical of the level of debate and evidence based science on this site then I can see why it attracts such disparaging commentary within the Science community. Where, pray-tell, is the objectivity of any moderation to address this?
But then reviewing the quality and tenor of the self-indulgent posts makes it clear this is a clustering point for wilful denialists – not an open forum to actually debate the science.
But then, as Popper said “No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.”
Science is decided by the weight of the evidence, not cherry picked points and spurious conclusions unable to find a voice in the peer reviewed literature.
Opinion doesn’t counter fact – not does unfounded assertion establish truth.
The truth and facts are these
1) The “Greenhouse effect” is a real physical phenomenon well established
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has been on the increase
3) isotopic and other evidence shows that man put it there (in excess of the natural re-cycling ability)
4) Increased greenhouse gases increase the warming of the planet and decrease Ocean pH
5) Such impacts would be expected to increase average temperature (observed), lead to more warmer nights (observed) more days with average temperatures and average highs well in excess of records (observed) increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather (observed) increasing ocean ph levels (observed) retreating global glacier mass (observed) and retreating arctic ice mass (observed) as well as increasing sea levels (observed)
All these observations should properly be assessed over decades rather than individual years and the trend is inexorably showing that AGW is real and a problem.
Science is in the business of generating reliable, evidence-based explanations that model reality as accurately as humanly possible, as judged by our ability to predict and explain things. Because it is only by seeing things as they are do our actions provide benefits to all.
The climate science of AGW fits this bill well, despite the attempts of deniers and bloggers to cherry pick irrelevancies and distortions to fit their irrational world view.
Only blind ignorant foolishness on the part of those who seek to deny these facts is getting in the way of considered action to address these problems.
Of course the fact that every single national science body of credibility accepts the reality of AGW and it being a problem means nothing on sites like this since it would appear there is sufficient ego on behalf of the bloggers to believe that somehow they know the science better.
Sad really.
Ah. So the last decade was the hottest ever on earth. Thanks for clearing that up.
WOW!
It would be like telling a child that Santa and the tooth fairy do not exist to try to explain the problems with that line of thinking.
Real science is in the business of trying to explain natural phenomena such as weather. Pathological Science is trying to create evidence to support suppositions and assumptions that can not be tested as valid. Climate “Science” has not testable hypothesis and no real world evidence that the globe is experiencing any other than normal natural weather variations. But researchers found a way to generate research funding for otherwise unemployable people that probably would not have achieved a degree without contributing to the fairy tale of AGW!
“otherwise unemployable people”
Now, that is a true fact!
Self-evident really, when you consider that “Climate Science” is actually “Government Science”.
This is probably a stupid question, but is there any actual evidence that you could point us to that substantiates the claims made in your points #3, #4, #5? I am particularly interested in anything that you could contribute in support of your point #5, to remove that untidy little qualifier that you use (i.e. “would be expected to“).
Also can you please clear up the apparent discrepancy between your point #4 (“decrease Ocean pH”) and point #5 (“increasing ocean ph levels”) – or are both considered to be “proof of Global Warming”?
Obviously a typo in my point 5 for which I apologise. Ocean PH levels are decreasing as is easily verified. (really, a cheap shot and not a worthy argument)
Perhaps the best paper establishing most of points 1-5 is here Rosenzweig et al (2008). “Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change”
Nature 453, 353-357.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Rosenzweig_etal_1.pdf
There is a simple link that explains my 5 points here http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm
supported by papers such as this one here for example which establishes the isotopic evidence factor
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/256/5053/74.abstract
In fact there are MANY such papers if only people would look with an open mind
And of course there is the fact that every single national science body of credibility supports my 5 points but a[pparently you all know better? Evidence?
But of course, on a site like this I should remember another Popper quote ” True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.”
The ignorance, both scientific and personal, on this site is profound indeed
From the first paper you cited…
“We developed a database of observed changes in natural systems from peerreviewed papers, demonstrating a statistically significant trend in change in either direction related to temperature and containing data for at least 20 years between 1970 and 2004. Observations in the studies were characterized as a ‘change consistent with warming’ or a ‘change not consistent with warming’. The databases of the observed significant changes in the natural systems were overlaid with two gridded observed temperature data sets and the spatial patterns of the observed system changes were compared with the observed temperature trends using two different pattern-comparison measures.”
So in other words, they skimmed warmist papers for validation of a two decade trend. Wow, I’m underimpressed.
Skeptical Science is not worth discussing and Murry Salby’s Peer reviewed paper says increasing CO2 is not man made.
So we are back to square one, disproving natural variability.
Well – given that this is a site that ignores the peer reviewed science and evidence for ill-informed ignorant comments on the blogoshphere that it thinks is science I’m hardly surprised at the inability to impress you.
Dullards are like that
Gator:
As a person should be, knowing long term weather patterns of 60 years will display 30 year trends both directions, 1000 year weather patterns will display 500 year trends both directions and 100,000 years weather patterns will display many trends both directions as is shown in regions such as the Vostok ice cores or those from Greenland.
Just this Q&A from GISS should provide reasonable doubt in the validity of surface temperature records.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
The “Observed” increases are the result of better observation methods rather than actual increases in the phenomena and that has been pointed out by many.
Actually some of the Observed increases are not actual increases but adjustments to the measurements. They adjusted the past down and the present up.
All five of your FACTS are assumptions and opinions rather than observable “Facts”!
Your evidence for this is where exactly? The observed increases in most of the parameters I specified are available here
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
Are you seriously arguing that the greenhouse effect is not real and NASA is completely wrong? What a joke.
I note by the way that you have not the decency or the courage to address the personal ad hominem attacks on prof Chubb
When Prof. Chubb took on the role of Chief Scientist, he represented himself as a “cleanskin” – the honest broker, only interested in furthering the debate:
“I think the role of the scientific community is to provide all of the evidence that is available, arguing that there is climate change and there is human intervention, and something needs to be done about it.”
The “interview” he gave in Climate Spectator clearly demonstrates that he has now relinquished that position, and has decided to cross the line into advocacy and mix it up in the cesspit.
One has to resist the urge to gag when you read his comments such as:
“There are people being attacked for having a view. There are people being attacked for saying something that some people do not want to hear. There are people walking around saying that they should be put in jail.” I mean – exactly who is he talking about here?
And for him to accuse others of deplorable behaviour – well how about this one:
“When I look at the rainfall distribution within Australia on the Bureau of Meteorology website, I see a change pattern over 50 years.”
When I look at the rainfall distribution over 100 years, I see very little change at all:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/trendmaps.cgi?map=rain&area=aus&season=0112&period=1910
Very deplorable of the Professor to use his position to engage in selective cherry picking to support the policies of the government that pays his salary, I would have thought.
So, please – spare us the sanctimonious outrage in defence of the good professor.
Perhaps he was talking about those climate scientists who received death threats – but perhaps that little fact has escaped you – much like most of the other facts that are relevant really.
Also, my point, which is not sanctimonious outrage, is that many of the attacks on this post are insulting and personal, not based on the evidence at all. Apparently you have trouble seeing that.
Finally – if you are unable to see a trend in that time series data you must be blind. But of course, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Thanks for clearing that up. For a moment, I thought he was talking about the people who were making statements like this:
“At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?”
“Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?”
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Execute-Skeptics-Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers–Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now
As far as evidence is concerned – I’m all for it. I’m still waiting for the evidence that I asked for to substantiate the assertions you made in Point#5 of your earlier post.
Go to the Nasa key indicators link I provided
that’s a good start.
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
Or you might actually – shock horror, do a bit of basic research yourself??
I have seen the NASA Key indicators page before. Help me out here – what is it that you imagine that this collection of factoids actually proves?
Can I take it as read that there will be no further sanctimonious outrage about death threats?
Sigh – I fail to see what your link has to do with anything that prof Chubb said. Nor is it relevance to the evidence. If you can’t understand what the Nasa key indicators site is telling you then you are incapable of drawing any sort of rational conlusion based on evidence.
I note also you have not addressed a single point of the data or references I have provided which doesn’t say much about your ability to argue from evidence.
As for sanctimony – perhaps you need to look that up. I make no show of righteousness or piety – I merely point out that the debate should be based on evidence, not irrelevant furphies or personal attacks on prof Chubb.
But hey, if you believe you know more than every single national science body of credibility and can so easily dismiss data like the nasa site then there is really no point in discussing with you since you are immune to rational debate.
“I make no show of righteousness”
Other than the entire last pargraph, that is.
“I note also you have not addressed a single point of the data or references I have provided which doesn’t say much about your ability to argue from evidence.”
You seem confused. You have provided no evidence to argue about. You have only provided a link to a collection of factoids. The factoids don’t reveal any of the underlying raw data, cannot be independently analysed or verified, and in and of themselves, therefore prove nothing.
In fact, if I were to look through these factoids, I’d probably draw the following conclusions:
- global surface temperatures rose approx. 0.4 deg in the 30 yrs 1910-1940
- global surface temperatures fell approx. 0.1 deg in the next 10 yrs, and remained stable for the following 30 years
- global surface temperatures rose approx 0.35 deg in the 30 years to the present day
- global surface temperatures appear to currently stable and (extrapolating on the previous cycles) will presumably remain stable for the next 30 years
- the CO2 Concentration graph (incomplete though it is) attempts to show that the growth in CO2 concentration since (at least) 1950 has been linear.
From this we would logically deduce that:
- the world has been continuously warming at a modest rate (approx 0.8 deg) since approx. 1850, on roughly 30 year “steps”.
- this warming is completely unrelated to the increase in CO2 concentration, as demonstrated by the drop/stasis from the period 1940-late 1970s.
You seem to be of the opinion that these factoids lend themselves to another interpretation?
You clearly cannot read the graphs – the temperature anomaly rose from around zero to 0.6 degrees C between the late 70′s and now (1972 =0, 2010 +0.63). Are you blind?
As for the rest of your comments – well, you can go out and measure them with a thermometer if you want. me – I will take the data from NASA as valid.
As I have said – if you can’t join the dots yourself I can’t help you.
But on what credible basis do you, without any apparent expertise, look at the data and draw the conclusion there is no problem when every single national science body of credibility HAS looked at the data and come to the conclusion that AGW is real and a problem?
Maybe you can look them up and learn?
For example a recent report from the Australian Academy of Science, The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers. This report was thoroughly reviewed by an independent Oversight Committee, comprised of a number of Fellows of the Academy and a well-known climate change sceptic.
They all approved the whole report, including its key conclusions:
• “Global average temperature has increased over the last 100 years.”
• “Human activities are increasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.”
• “It is very likely that most of the recent global warming is due to this increase in greenhouse gases.”
• “It is very likely there will be significant warming through the 21st century and beyond.”
• “Climate change will have significant impacts on our society and environment, both directly and by altering the impacts of other stresses.”
Then there is the Royal Society
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
“There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial.”
Here is the Royal Society of Chemistry’s website regarding climate change:
http://www.rsc.org/Chemsoc/ImportanceOfChemicalSciences/ClimateChange.asp
“The major cause of global warming is the combustion of fossil fuels and subsequent emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases…Reductions in man made greenhouse gas emissions are imperative to halt the rise in global temperatures and the negative impact this will have on our climate.”
And here is the US National Academy of Science’s report America’s Climate Choices 2011:
“Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems. Emissions continue to increase, which will result in further change and greater risks. In the judgment of this report’s authoring committee, the environmental, economic, and humanitarian risks posed by climate change indicate a pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare for adapting to its impacts.
“http://www.agu.org/outreach/science policy/positions/climate change2008.shtml
And the National Academies of Sciences (USA) had an extensive discussion on the topic recently and said this:
“There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However, there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.” Additionally: “It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.”
I leave it to objective readers of this blog to draw their own conclusions as to who might be right.
The palm fossils in Greenland prove that it used to be colder there.
evidence? Cherry picked irrelevance?
“You clearly cannot read the graphs – the temperature anomaly rose from around zero to 0.6 degrees C between the late 70′s and now (1972 =0, 2010 +0.63). Are you blind?
Firrstly, thank you for the personal ad-hominem attack, that you seem to feel the need to include in most of your posts.
Secondly, in answer to your question: No, not so blind as to see what your are tring to do. The 1972 =0 is the 5-year mean, while the 2010 = +0.63 is the annual mean. Why would you do that, I wonder? If you have to mix them, why not use the 2008 = 0+44? This wouldn’t be cherry-picking, would it? Surely not, since you abuse others for this.
Thirdly, go back and check the 5-year mean data points that I used in my original post, and I think you will find that my analysis is correct.
And finally – so what? Whay do you imagine that any of this actually proves – other than the fact that the world has warmed by approximately 0.8 deg in 150 years, which we all knew anyway.
Ivan, with due respect, that is not correct. The 1972 figure I quoted is the actual data (the fact that it corresponds to the 5 year mean is an artefact)
The data is below
1970 0.03
1971 -0.10
1972 0.00
1973 0.14
1974 -0.08
1975 -0.05
1976 -0.16
1977 0.12
1978 0.01
1979 0.08
1980 0.19
1981 0.26
1982 0.04
1983 0.25
1984 0.09
1985 0.04
1986 0.12
1987 0.27
1988 0.31
1989 0.19
1990 0.36
1991 0.35
1992 0.13
1993 0.13
1994 0.23
1995 0.37
1996 0.29
1997 0.39
1998 0.56
1999 0.32
2000 0.33
2001 0.47
2002 0.56
2003 0.55
2004 0.48
2005 0.63
2006 0.55
2007 0.58
2008 0.44
2009 0.58
2010 0.63
It appears indeed that you are incapable of actually reading the data on the graphs.
But if you wish to compare moving averages (which is far enough but you didn’t say you in your post) then since 1970 the increase is 0.56 degrees
It is you who are cherry picking.
The point, which you seem to blithely ignore, is that the warming that has occurred in the last several decades has been due to increased CO2 levels which is what the Nasa site shows.
I note that you have also completely failed to address the other points in my post
“The point, which you seem to blithely ignore, is that the warming that has occurred in the last several decades has been due to increased CO2 levels…”
And you have evidence of this? I assume this to be the case, since you state it so confidently. Can you share this evidence with the rest of us?
Ivan:
I has been discovered that the warming that has been experienced since the thirties is human caused. It is caused by improper records keeping and the NOAA has been called on the carpet for it. You may as well throw away the surface temperature records you are using because they are FUBAR according to the GAO! We might know the temperature record to within 5C which would mean there has been no statistically significant climate change averaged over the last 150 years.
I wonder how Mark explains that the temperatures today are the same as they were in the thirties all over the globe and there were periods in the not so distant past when ice was melting faster than it is today?
Mark has no proof the temperatures have risen since the thirties so exploring any changes since the seventies is futile!
@ Ivan – I already have – look it up. It is also exactly the conlusion all the worlds science bodies have come to – how do you know better.
@ Mike “You have discovered” – laughable. When you get it published in a credible journal or can point to same I’ll be delighted to pay attention to you. In the meantime you continue your habit of baseless assertions based on zero credentials, no evidence and no credibility
Here you go Mark:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=bb6f9c3f-802a-23ad-432c-dc7700b3bf61
Right, let’s have a look at your “evidence”, as presented:
1) “It is very likely that most of the recent global warming is due to this increase in greenhouse gases.” [Assertion, not fact.]
2) “There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity” [Assertion, not fact]
3) “The major cause of global warming is the combustion of fossil fuels and subsequent emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases” [Assertion, not fact]
4) “It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.” [Assertion, not fact].
You are a charlatan. Your case is built on a house of cards – mere baseless assertions, without a shred of factual evidence to back them up. When you have something that can pass for factual evidence, then by all means bring it to the table. In the meantime, please quit wasting everyone’s time with bullshit like this.
Mark:
BFD! I missed the “T” in the word IT!
You are correct that was laughable!
Mike – I was not referring to your missing I – you really don’t get it do you. I was referring to the fact that you claim to have discovered something – equally laughable.
By the way your link doesn’t work. So I’m not sure what you are trying to show
But if your are referring to the recent ludicrous statement by Senator Inhofe questioning the EPA this has been shown to be an outrageous misrepresentation and waste of public money
http://www.ericpooley.com/2011/09/29/how-inhofe-turns-balloon-animals-into-news/
Ivan:
There is evidence that most of the observed warming has been caused by either equipment placement issues, land use and land change in the area, land improper adjustments. Leaving very little temperature change to be atributed to CO2 increases. Just the siting issues can account for more warming thn has happened and it is even possible that we are experiencing relatively the same weather conditions as were experienced in the 1880s. The changes in the types of equipment used also accounts for more than the temperature measured, as does the location moves and industrialization / technology advances in construction processes near the measuring devices. Changes in agriculture practices account for a great deal of measured changes. And we are not even considering the globe was experiencing a period of colder than average temperatures, that even got a name LIA, up to about 1750 or as late as 1850. Most of the land glaciers started retreating about 1850, returning to the positions they were before the onset of the LIA about 1250.
There is real evidence the earth warmed from the temperatures experienced during the LIA, as evidenced by ice loss. There is no real evidence, some manufactured, that the warming trend actually continued. There is plenty of evidence that weather patterns vary causing changes in regional weather that is experienced. Those patterns have been found to be in the neighborhood of 60 years on average, some longer, some shorter.
Professor Chubb is not qualified in the field of Climatology to make any claims about what is being called climate. Even you are talking about weather, as climate is the study of “Long Term WEATHER”.
There is no global temperature. There is no global precipitation. there is no global wind speed.
I showed this before. The max temperature recorded on the globe was 136F. The min temperature recorded on the globe was -129F. That leaves the mean global temperature for the last hundred years 7F.
The highest annual global precipitation was 523.6 IN, averaged over 26 years for that location.
The lowest annual average precipitation was .03 IN, averaged over 59 years.
The mean averaged global rainfall would be 261IN.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalextremes.html
It is NCDC processed information and most probably not independently verified. NCDC is biased because they must justify their existence, like any other government agency whose work is also being done by others.
Even if you look at the extremes by country, you will see that climate is the study of extremes and there is no meaningful average, because that would destroy all valuable information about the “Climate”.
If your precious professor does not want to be called an Idiot, He should not make Idiotic claims that can be easily falsified.
CO2 is a natural process and humans at most contribute less than 6% to the global cycle annually. According to the quantities, measured at inappropriate sites, the globe was approaching CO2 starvation concentrations and more CO2 was needed to promote vegetation growth, both on land and in the oceans.
According to historical records from fossils ocean life does better with higher concentrations of CO2 than are available today, and a lower PH is overall better than a higher PH!
A lot of the previous was addressing MARK, but I was adding to what Ivan said. An attempt to complement rather than contradict Ivan’s comments!
Mark, You are making yourself look like a fool with no evaluation skills!
So much for trying to keep my answers short, sweet and to the point!
The only fools here are those who assert “there is evidence” when they offer no support for such a statement.
All of your comments are simply unsubstantiated claims. They have also been refuted so many times in the credible science literature it’s not funny.
I notice you don’t seem to reference a single credible paper nor do you appear to have published any credible science.
Nor do you have any credible explanation why you are right and the world’s science bodies are so wrong. Credible? I think not.
As for evaluation skills – well, I’ll back the world’s science bodies who evaluate and conduct their science through the discipline of peer review and proper evidence based feedback and confirmation of results and not this ridiculous little corner of the blogosphere.
I spent 37 years telling scientists and engineers where they were wrong before I retired. I might know a bit about evaluation skills and trouble shooting.
Every thing I said is from research of historic conditions around the globe and is in way to many reports to list. Most is based on over 40 years of observation and reading about history, biology, geology, and weather / climate.
None of what I wrote has been falsified by those that want to claim some magical Gas is doing something that has not been observed.
Pathological science better describes the actions of the climatological field as most of their research can not be independently verified or is based on unvalidated models that do not even agree with one another.
If they have 22 model outputs that are wrong averaging the results may seem to be generally consistent with history but they are still wrong. It only takes one model that can be verified as Right.
Peer review really does not mean shit when it comes to claiming a paper is good or not as many peer reviewed papers have been later proven to be garbage and most of the papers used for the IPCC reports fall into the category. More fabricated fantasy than reality.
The worlds scientific bodies were created to promote the need for scientific research and not to validate the quality of the research. As a matter of fact they do a piss poor job of validating research as proven by many research fiascoes in the past that were promoted by some of the leading scientific bodies of the time.
Claims without substantiation or references do not comprise a credible argument.
How laughable – the vast majority of the world’s scientists are wrong and you are right? Overweaning arrogance not to mention blind stupidity.
You also dismiss peer review with a wave of your hand and offer no substance or evidence for your claims as to how it is so flawed.
What’s next – conspiracy theories?
Also laughable statements like “magical gas” don’t really amount to anything substantive. But if you do not understand the basic physics of how greenhouse gases contribue to warming perhaps you would care to offer an explanation for why the surface temperature of the earth is not -18 degrees C (roughly what it would be without this effect) or why the surface tempertaure of Venus (an extreme example of the greenhouse effect) can melt lead?
All one needs to know about (un)skepticalscience…
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html
Apart from the fact that they won a prestigious science prize in Australia and the site you reference and this one have nothing to bolster their credibility – zero – zip.
“Mark Harrigan says:
September 30, 2011 at 8:12 am
Apart from the fact that they won a prestigious science prize in Australia and the site you reference and this one have nothing to bolster their credibility – zero – zip.”
I repeat, nuh-uh is not an argument. Try again.
“Apart from the fact that they won a prestigious science prize in Australia…”
HAHAHAHAHAHA. ROTFLMAO.
John Cook is employed by the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute and one of the major sponsors of the Eureka Prize is the University of Queensland and 2 of the prize’s judging panel also happen to be from the University of Queensland.
Give me a fkn break!!
Ivan, Marks idea of peer review is more like pal review.
“The only fools here are those who assert “there is evidence” when they offer no support for such a statement.”
100% agree. That’s exactly what myself and several others on this thread have been pointing out to you over the last several days.
“I notice you don’t seem to reference a single credible paper nor do you appear to have published any credible science.”
You are delusional. It is not up to the climate realists to prove a case. That onus is on the AGW alarmists. That’s the way the scientific method (and the law) works. It is incumbent on the prosecution to present and prove the case.
“Nor do you have any credible explanation why you are right and the world’s science bodies are so wrong. Credible? I think not.”
See above. That is not my job. My job is only to point out the gaping holes in your line of argument – such as it is.
“I’ll back the world’s science bodies who evaluate and conduct their science through the discipline of peer review and proper evidence.”
LOL – you’re welcome to live your delusions – don’t let me stand in the way of that. I understand that some people have a deep-seated quasi-religious need to embrace these apocalyptic delusions. That’s not to say that I fully understand this irrational behaviour, but if they ever find any evidence, please be sure to come back and share it with us.
Ivan:
My job skills did not require tact even though some would have preferred I had some. You did a much better job while was typing my reply!
Thanks – although I feel that this whole discussion is beginning to resemble a hunting trip with Ray Charles.
Indeed – you are both blind
But let an objective reader decide for themselves eh?
I offer facts, with links to papers and credible bodies of science as well as coherent arguments based on fundamental physics.
You offer refutation without substantiation, obfuscation, personal attack and avoiding the arguments.
QED
Such as? I hate to burst your tiny little bubble of self esteem, but the aptly named SS.com is a propaganda site, so that link is out. Have you linked to anything else of note?
As far as “coherent arguments” go, the best you’ve managed here is to use the laughably poor construction “personal ad hominem attacks”. Perhaps you should find a language you’re actually capable of speaking and constructing sentences in.
If you think you have even made an argument let alone pointed holes in mine you are delusional.
As for quasi-religious – well, I have offered evidence for what I have said. You have not successfully refuted one iota of it. Nor have you defeated the basic physics. I can see the posters on here have no scientific understanding whatsoever. “Unreal Science” would be a better blog title.
Oh good, someone intelligent at last. What does the phrase “you don’t get the Arctic ice melt just by natural events” mean?
Sorry – is that bombast meant to pass for rational debate and argument?
By the way – the site http://www.skepticalscience.com/ which you so blithely dismiss as propaganda (without any evidence to support such a claim) has won a eureka prize in Science from the Australia Museum. What recognition has this site attained pray tell?
I invite objective readers to go the site and compare the cicil and evidence based high standard of discussion and debate on that site with the peurile infantile ill informed denial available here.
I note you seem incapable of dealing with the numerous other credible links to papers and science bodies I have provided and have provided no credible references or evidence of your own.
Just denialist obfuscation and unsubstantiated refutation.
@ Mark: “I invite objective readers to go the site and compare the cicil and evidence based high standard of discussion and debate on that site”
You mean the same way they treated Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.?:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/a-modest-proposal-to-skeptical-science/
@ Mark (continued from above):
Or how about the way Skeptical Science re-wrote history:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/20/cooking-the-books.html
High standards indeed.
Like I said – objective readers can form their own views based on what the actual site says - not on some cherry picked links to other denialists sites that comment on them.
But perhaps YOU ought to read the debate/discussion with Dr Pielke??
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sks-and-pielke-sr-agree-on-the-important-issues.html
For which the summary reads as follows
“Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has responded to our last set of questions and answers, and we would like to thank him for a civil discourse to this point. To sum up the discussion, there are some points on which we agree, others on which we did not find agreement, and a few others which require further clarification. (Dr. Pielke’s final summary is here). In this post, we will summarize the agreements in the text below, based on our understanding of Dr. Pielke’s comments. Readers are invited to read Dr. Pielke’s comments to verify that we are accurately representing them in this summary.”
I would contend that is ample evidence of a civil discourse – but I leave the final judgement on that to others and to compare what they see with the standard here and draw their own conclusions.
Our resident comedian for the day!
I am not promoting anything other than already known natural variations in weather and showing there is reasonable doubt about all the bull you are claiming, as you have provided no “Evidence” and you are not attempting to engage in a reasonable debate.
The SS web site was set up just to promote pathological science as was RC before it.
The folks at RC admit that they do not understand weather but claim to be able to model something they do not comprehend.
They admit they can not model variations in clouds because they do not understand the dynamics of clouds yet think they are doing something useful! GIGO, is what they are proving. The IPCC and Al Gore received political recognition for promoting a political agenda.
The IPCC is a political body set up to find evidence to support the AGW supposition even if it meant fabricating results, like they did for the Piltdown man, falsifying data in stem cell research, Cloning fraud in South Korea, Beringer’s fraudulent fossils, The Cardiff Giant, The Sokal hoax, The spaghetti tree, The Upas tree, The secret of immortality.
Those were found here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html
In a few years I expect your pet opinion will be joining them and the many peer reviewed research papers that support AGW will displace that list as the greatest scientific frauds in the history of science.
All of the scientific bodies that came out supporting the supposition of AGW have discredited all their members as a few physicists have already pointed out in their letters of resignation from their societies.
One hundred years ago Plate Tectonics could not exist according to the leading scientific bodies
Evidence for your outrageous claims Mike??
Your link to the new scientist article is commendable but establishes nothing except that science on occassion is subject to error and fraud – what a surprise – so is every human endeavour.
All the examples you cite were isolated incidents not examples of the entire scientific community going off on the wrong track for decades – which is what would have to be the case for your unfounded (and i note still unsubstantiated) contention that it is all just “natural” variability. But gee – obviously you know much more than all the world’s scientists combined.
The key here is to ask whether or not it is credible that the vast majority of climate scientists and science bodies are wrong. Of course it is possible but to make that case you need to cite evidence and get it published in the peer reviewed literature AND have it survive the process of validation and verfication.
Something I note you have not managed to establish?
But I’ll take your bet and see you back here in a few years time. If I am wrong I will unreservedly retract and apologise (actually it’d be a pleasure). Will you if you are wrong??
@ Mark: “If the low-life ad-hominem attacks on Professor Chubb are typical of the level of debate and evidence based science on this site …”
If you are so concerned about ad-hominem attacks, then why do you keep using the term denialist? I find the term both digusting and juvenile.
“I would contend that is ample evidence of a civil discourse”
You can contend that if you wish. The striking through his comments is not very civil in my mind.
@LLAP – my comments about Ad-hominem refer to the fact that professor Chubbwas called a “Porky Pig” amd other similar perjoratives that have nothing to do with the debate.
Such a comment would have been immediately excised on skeptical Science 9again objective readers can check this by reviewing various posts there).
As for the term denialist – well, that is because you are denying the science and not a true skeptic (I note I have been called the resident comic amongst other things)
Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should, and do, always challenge themselves to improve their understanding.
This is what the process of peer review provides.
Denialism unfortunately is rife and this site appears to be prime purveyor of this practice. All the posts posts consistently deny and refuting any evidence for AGW and seem to accept absolutely nothing that doesn’t fit with the denialist world view.
But of course denialists don’t use evidence except in a highly cherry picked emotive way – looking for what they are predisposed to see and ignoring or denying anything that doesn’t fit with their world view.
They attempt to go under the guise of skepticism but rather than dispassionately look at the evidence – accepting what is established and perhaps remaining to be convinced on other points (a true skeptic approach) they vigorously criticise any evidence that supports what they deny and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes what they want to deny.
Mark:
Why do you continue to make false claims about what peer review is. Peer review is not about validating claims made by researchers that submit papers and has nothing to do with the quality of the science!
@ Mike.
The difference between the peer review process (which you seem not at all to understand and for which you have offered no evidence to support your claims as to its inadequacies) and rhetoric (which is what you indulge in) is vast
It is not simply about having qualified peers review papers submitted to catch obvious errors for correction (though that is important). It is about the entire edifice of review, criticism, rebuttal and substantiation based on multiple intersubjective evidence
But it is not my job to educate you.
Read this and learn more about the differences
http://theconversation.edu.au/whos-your-expert-the-difference-between-peer-review-and-rhetoric-1550
@ Mark: “As for the term denialist – well, that is because you are denying the science and not a true skeptic”
I’m denying the science? Not a true skeptic? Do you know just how arrogant and contemptuous you are? I used to believe in AGW when all I did was read text books and material in the MSM. Once I truly investigated the topic, I found the case for catastrophic AGW to be unconvincing. The very fact that I changed my mind show that I am open minded. All you have shown since you showed up here is complete and utter contempt for those you converse with. To call me a denier without even knowing who I am and where I come from is the height of arrogance … which is what I have seen over and over from people who are pro-AGW. How sad.
Mark:
Your reply about peer review shows you do not know WTF you are talking about. My position comes from discussing peer review with peer reviewers
@ Mike – really – which Peer Reviewers exactly? Where have the results of this discussion been published. What substantiation do you have for your comments? Or is it all in your mind?
Quoting Mike…
“Well – given that this is a site that ignores the peer reviewed science and evidence for ill-informed ignorant comments on the blogoshphere that it thinks is science I’m hardly surprised at the inability to impress you.”
Mike, I have hundreds of peer reviewed papers on file that I reference daily. You are a moron.
Actually Gator – I don’t agree that Mike is a Moron. I hardly know him. Although I do agree hos posts have lacked any credibility or substance
Nor do I think it is a good demonstration of reasonable argument to call anyone a moron no matter how much you may disagree with them.
Again a sad illustration of the level of personal attacks that are a poor substitute for evidence based rational argument on this site.
But, if you think Mike IS a moron, that is your right to say so
My apolgies to Mike.
I guess you prefer dullard… “Dullards are like that”.
Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent or any global climate changes. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate or how we got here.
Now, I have about four hours of yardwork to get to, I’ll check on your progress later.
here is one that is part of the science http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
and here (already posted but I understand you must be OH far too busy to actually read)http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Rosenzweig_etal_1.pdf
But I’ll save you the trouble – here is the abstract
Significant changes in physical and biological systems are occurring on all continents and in most oceans, with a
concentration of available data in Europe and North America. Most of these changes are in the direction expected with
warming temperature. Here we show that these changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of
observed temperature increases, and that these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural
climate variations alone . Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth
Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is
very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, and furthermore that it is
likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except
Antarctica, we conclude that anthropogenic climate change is having a significant impact on physical and biological systems
globally and in some continents.
But perhaps they are all part of the conspiracy??
By the way – I’m curious – what do you think happens to the CO2 we emit? Don’t you understand the greenhouse effect?
That the climate is warming is irrefutable. The overwhelming conclusion of peer reviewed evidence is that our CO2 emissions are the culprit. BUT if you have a credible peer reviewed paper that established it is some other mechanism the world would be pleased to know about it.
And a moron
Wow Stephen – I am overwhelmed by the standard of your debate. No doubt anyone else perusing this thread would be too
Gator:
Which Mike are you quoting?
Mark made that comment and many similar to that
My last reply to you was:
“Gator:
As a person should be, knowing long term weather patterns of 60 years will display 30 year trends both directions, 1000 year weather patterns will display 500 year trends both directions and 100,000 years weather patterns will display many trends both directions as is shown in regions such as the Vostok ice cores or those from Greenland.
Just this Q&A from GISS should provide reasonable doubt in the validity of surface temperature records.”
However just prior to that Mark did make the comment you attributed to Mike.
I am aware of all that you have contributed to this site in the way of peer reviewed research papers.
Maybe I should go back to GG / Grumpy Grampy! 8)
Hey Grumpy Mike! I was working BC earlier (Before Coffee) and simply got my Mikes and Marks confused. I had wondered what became of my friend GG.
I’m very busy today preparing the ranch for guests. I have family flying in from Florida for an extended visit so cannot spend much time here now. Good to ‘see’ you again.
Mark:
I read the “Discussion” between Pielke and SS web site while it was going on. I am not interested in how SS views the “Discussion” after the fact as they have a habit of distorting what actually happened like any propaganda site would. If I wanted their view I could find it at Realclimate, Openmind or many other Chicken Little Hen Houses on the web as they all push the same fairy tales.
Ah yes, it is normal for deniers to refuse to look at any evidence that might contradict their already made up mind/world view.
Again – objective readers of this blog (if there are any) I believe are capable of looking at the actual data and drawing their own conclusions.
That’s what those who have an open mind and an evidence based approach do
Mark:
There is no such real world evidence! It is as simple as that!
It is normal activity for the members of the Chicken Little Brigade to run around claiming the sky is falling in a state of panic when the sky is always falling due to natural processes.
Mike – yet again I should remind you that unfounded assertion does not constitute a rational argument or provide an evidentiary basis for anything.
If you actually believe there is no real world evidence (such as is available from NASA or NOAO sites) then you must rationally also assert that those bodies are either completely deluded or part of some huge conspiracy (along with the IPCC of course!).
How credible is that?
NASA and NOAA both provide claims as to the problems with the data they provide and I linked those for you to see.
How real is extrapolated data used as input for a computer model whose results are used as the global temperature.
How real are recorded temperatures at a site that can vary from an identical site one mile away by up to 10F due to site issues.
Which site is correct when there is a decrepitude. Neither can be used as evidence of anything regarding a change of less than half a degree.
Lets get the chain of reporting temperatures out of the way here. NOAA /NCDC collects and correlates all the temperatures from around the globe in its GHCN. All other research organizations use the surface land temperature from NCDC but do their own adjustments / corrections. There are many questionable sources of ocean temperature data that is called sea surfcae temperature when it is obviously not if the measure it from the engine intake meters under water and in turbulence created by the boat that is taking the measurements.
If the temperature data is unreliable there is nothing further and the AGW supposition is falsified as it is based on junk science.
There is no global temperature!
There is no global climate!
What the researchers are calling climate is weather because climate by definition is the study of long term weather patterns and the WMO restricted its time period to less than known natural weather cycles
Mark:
Lets try to keep it simple!
How do you know AGW is real? You have not yet provided any real world evidence of your claim. As I have said any warming that may have been experienced during the last 50 years can easily be attributed to other causes.
I provided evidence that all the worlds scientific bodies can be fooled into believing something that is not based on actual scientific evidence. I also showed that the so called scientific bodies are bodies politic that promote the need for scientific research rather than verify the quality of the research that has been done. Peer Review has nothing to do with the validity of any claims as they should be allowing radical ideas to be debated rather than act as gate keepers to restrict alternate ideas from entering the discussion, like they are doing in many fields and not just climate.
I have provided ample evidence and links to places like NASA etc. You can also find the data at NOAO and numerous other places IF you but had the open mindedness to look.
Of course I understand that you regard those sites as unreliable – even though you have established zero credible basis for such a view – just unfounded assertions.
I have provided clear statements of the basic physics, but here is yet another link for those that are willing to look from the American Institute of Physics http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
You on the other hand have merely provided bluster and assertion. If you call what you have posted evidence then no wonder you are so deluded.
Again – disinterested readers of the blog can review your evidence free and link light posts and compare with mine and draw their own conclusions.
By the way I notice you have not had the courage to take my bet?
Mark:
I gave you links to NOAA and NASA GISS that shows how reliable their results are. Not at all!
As far as taking your so called bet. I do not need to as most likely in thirty years the temperatures will be much lower than they are today due to the shift in the major weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere that started about five to ten years ago. There is one left to go into the negative phase and people will be wishing for global warming.
Gator has provided many links to research that supports my claims as have many other that comment on this web site.
It is funny you should use the AIP site because the AIP is losing members that received Nobel prizes in physics because the AIP released what they consider a false claim.
AIP is a political body set up to promote scientific research and not to validate those claims!
Just because I do not link to fairy tale sites, as you do, does not mean my supposition is invalid
Your links, such as they were, established no such thing. But hey – I look forward to you publishing the evidence that brings the credibility of NASA and NOAO down (boy you really are a classic conspiracy theorist aren’t you?).
Of course it is easy for you to assert my links are to “fairy tale” sites – I guess that’s an appellation NASA and similar bodies don’t normally get except from deluded denialists who can’t establish a shred of evidence to support their claims and won’t even examine anything contrary to the established views
NOR have the courage to actually stand by their convictions and take a simple bet (which I only put forward because YOU were the one who asserted without any substantiation about what would be happening years from now).
But I guess you don’t really believe in what you say eh?
Your statement about AIP being a political body is laughable – again an assertion without a shred of evidence. It’s true they lost an 80 year old member who was a solid state physicist who has been a known climate contrarian for decades – even though he actually isn’t qualified in the subject.
But that’s okay – they still have another 125,000 plus members plus a governance board of some 47 people (all of whom are apparently wrong according to you).
But since you want to play that game I’ll see you your Nobel laureate and raise you 27 more.
First there was a letter last year “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science” published in the journal Science.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full
It’s written by 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Laureates. I recommend reading the entire letter but here is an excerpt:
“There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet…
… The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:
The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.
The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more. ”
Then there is The Stockholm Memorandum http://globalsymposium2011.org/ in May of this year which included 17 Noble Laureates which says (in part)
We are the first generation facing the evidence of global change. It therefore falls upon us to change our relationship with the planet, in order to tip the scales towards a sustainable world for future generations.
The participant list is available here http://globalsymposium2011.org/participants and includes V. Ramanathan (http://globalsymposium2011.org/key-people/professor-v-ramanathan) a leading expert on climate
So they are all wrong and you and this pathetic evidence free web site (not subject to any peer review process) is right??
Really?? Seriously??
You’re a long winded nutcase.
Sorry Stephen – was that meant to be an argument?
Speaking of unreliable, the IPCC’s Table 2.11 (2007) reveals, by the IPCC’s own admission, it has ‘low’ or ‘very low’ understanding of 80 percent of all factors impacting climate.
Would you allow a surgeon with low to very low understanding of 80% of human anatomy to operate on you? I guess Mark would.
Oh, and then there is this…
“In a 2008 document, the WWF said its panel of 130 “leading climate scientists” were “mostly, but not exclusively, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” These particular scientists, therefore, are more than merely sympathetic to the WWF’s point-of-view. They have a formalized relationship with that organization. They were wooed, they were won over, and then they stepped inside the WWF tent.
What does this mean for the celebrated 2007 IPCC report – the one that secured the IPCC its Nobel Peace Prize? Let me give you a quick snapshot:
It means that nearly two-thirds of the 2007 Climate Bible’s chapters – 28 out of 44 (which works out to 64%) – have at least one individual on their roster who is affiliated with the WWF.
It means that WWF-affiliated scientists helped write every last chapter in Working Group 2 – all 20 of them.
It means that 15 chapters in the 2007 Climate Bible were led by WWF-affiliated scientists – their coordinating lead authors are members of the WWF’s panel. In three cases, chapters were led by two WWF-affiliated coordinating lead authors. In one instance eight personnel in a single chapter have WWF links. In another there are six.
It means, ladies and gentlemen, that the IPCC has been infiltrated. It has been wholly and entirely compromised.”
Let’s see – that’s a rumour based on a falsehood followed by a series of non-sequitur assertions. My – Oh! I am undone!
Of course! How could I be so blind. it really IS a conspiracy by all those hundreds of climate scientists associated with the IPCC and nobel laureates who have been brain washed by those wicked WWF people.
Thank you for illuminating me! No doubt it’s all part of an illuminatus plot in cahoots with the Elders of Zion too.
Laughable idiocy. But, as I have been advised many times, it’s impossible to have a rational discussion with a conspiracy theorist since any evidnece offered is simply swept up in the notion of consipiracy. rotflmho
Mark, you idiot, it isn’t a conspiracy, it just a bunch of like-minded ideologues blathering their mindless Malthusian misanthropist totalitarian advocacy in one publication.
That explains why Mark’s, (rotflmho) right on the floor licking manns hind orifice. That explains allot.
Lets try this:
Theoretically CO2 can cause additional warming! That is debatable as there is evidence both for and against. If CO2 does cause warming the next step is, HOW Much warming? There is no real world evidence that CO2 has caused any warming yet and no real world evidence that it will in the future!
The so called “Science” can not even agree on how much warming to expect for any amount of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Major fail for the “science”!
That minor fact falsifies the entire assumption of AGW, the science is settled and the entire reason for the IPCC to exist!
There is both theory and established scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming. That’s been established since Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896. Only ignorant fools debate that. Why not actually look at the AIP link I provided? An open minded skeptic would do that – a denialist would ignore it and post another furphy a few minutes later – but whoops – that’s what you did isn’t it??
There is abundant evidence that it has already caused warming to which I have pointed.
It is true that we are uncertain about how far/how fast but even within the 95% uncertainty limites there is considerable cause for concern.
I refer you again to the statements of the Royal Society “There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial.”
On what basis AT ALL do you claim to know better??
Mark:
Actually in a lab it has been shown that CO2 can restrict the flow of energy as can other so called Greenhouse Gasses. But there is no evidence they cause warming as natural negative feed backs come in to play.
You have NOT provided any real world evidence that any warming that might have been experienced was caused by an increase in CO2 concentrations. I have shown that the problems with measurements puts in doubt that warming has actually happened in the last 130 years. There was warming reported from about 1980 to about 2000 and that can be accounted for by natural variations and sloppy record keeping.
The Royal Society is repeating the party line that is bringing all the so called scientific bodies into disrepute and will lead to the dismantling of science as it has come to be.
Just natural variations in long term weather patterns account for more variation than we have experienced since 1950 as that is what the Royal Society implies referring to the last half century, that may have experienced less than a half degree of warming.However the known errors in the procedures are in the neighborhood of 5C which rules that claim to be statistically significant because the results can not be less that the greatest possible error. Garbage In Garbage Out!
Where is your evidence? Again.
I have read the AIP statement and the one from the Royal Society along with all the other fairy tales that were produced by the so called leading scientific bodies. Unlike you I have been studying weather and climate for over forty years!
Great – if you been studying it for so long no doubt you can point me to the myriad peer reviewed publications to your name that establishes both your arguments and your credentials
(By the way – since you make such a claim where did you study (institution), with whom and what are your qualifications?)
Mark:
As an analyst and trouble shooter in the business world I did not need to publish, I only needed to find and correct problems.
Academics need to publish because they are not qualified to work in the real world. My work product resulted in my advancements and increased my pay grade. It also allowed many academics to complete their research and publish their work in peer reviewed journals. Along with aiding those whose job was to protect and serve, those whose job was to save lives, and those whose job was to train the future generations in many fields.
What are your credentials?
I note you have not answered any of my questions in relation to institution or credentials.
I have a Hons degree and a PhD in physics from the University of Melbourne.
Mind you – I have not made any claim that needs to be substantiated by credentials. You, on the other hand have made many and apparently have no credentials which you are willing to offer
John Christy is one of my favorite people and a great researcher. He gave testimony to congress this past March that illustrates many of the issues we are seeing in Political Science or as some call it ‘Climate Science’.
“The term “consensus science” will often be appealed to in arguments about
climate change. This is a form of “argument from authority.” Consensus, however, is a
political notion, not a scientific notion. As I testified to the Inter-Academy Council last
June, the IPCC and other similar Assessments do not represent for me a consensus of
much more than the consensus of those who already agree with a particular consensus. The content of these reports is actually under the control of a relatively small number of individuals – I often refer to them as the “climate establishment” – who through the years, in my opinion, came to act as gatekeepers of scientific opinion and information, rather than brokers. The voices of those of us who object to various statements and emphases in these assessments are by-in-large dismissed rather than acknowledged.”
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Energy/030811/Christy.pdf
Quoting Mark…
“Let’s see – that’s a rumour based on a falsehood followed by a series of non-sequitur assertions. My – Oh! I am undone.”
Nuh-uh is not an argument. Please show where these facts are falsified. I have checked the table in AR4 and this is indeed what it says.
Childish.
Mike / Gator,
You are wasting your time pursuing this discussion with somone who fundamentally does not grasp the concept of “evidence”.
I used to have a small sign above my desk that said:
“Never argue with morons. They wear you down, then beat you with experience.”
This is what you’re trying to argue against:
Mark Harrigan at 00:10 AM on 15 September, 2011
Great site – thanks for publicising here.
Another wonderful link that I think says it all in one page can be found here
NASA key climate indicators
I certainly find it useful
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=999
Pardon me while I reach for my bucket!
Clearly he is a serial moron.
Check out this blog, starting at: 13 Jul 2010 6:46:11pm (careful – it is nauseating):
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/36528.html
About the time Mark was trolling at ABC I was discussing the science behind weather at:
http://climaterealists.com/forum/
I see he has not changed his story line since then. I will admit to reading his rant on the ABC site! It was a reply to him that lead me back to CR!
I was going to insert “The way we were” But it is ecohypocrite BS singing it%%%%%%
Ivan:
When I worked part of my job was arguing with lunatics and I do this to keep my mind active and entertained.
However I am not up to visiting any more Hen Houses such as those someone like Mark would normally hang out at!
PS:
Have I managed to refrain from suggesting he get a Cranialanalectomy yet?
I also promote his posting comments because he is sticking both feet firmly in his mouth!
“part of my job was arguing with lunatics”
There’s just too many of them at the moment. We have an entire federal government and an entire national broadcaster for which being a lunatic is the minimum entry criteria.
Same in this country and has been for many years.
Some major corporations also require a level of lunacy for advancement. Sane people need not apply!
Hmm – interesting standard of debate on here.
Mike wont stick by his guns despite the fact he made confident predictions about the future – when challenged on a bet about it (not even dollars involved).
He claims to have studied the problem for years but can’t say where and believes he has no need to publish his “science” as academics are all fools and he knows better.
There’s no “conspiracy” but all those nobel laureates and climate scientists have been “duped” by the WWF and can’t see the real truth on climate??
Apparently all those who work in government and corporations are insane as well??
Ivan calls people a moron but offers no credible science based evidence.
Links to proper papers are ignored, a prize winning web site on the topic is denigrated but this one which has no credibility is trumped up.
Personal insults to Prof Chubb are posted but comments which show several links to credible science bodies and statements from more than 27 nobel prize winners arguing for considered action with regards to AGW are “awaiting moderation” days later.
“Real Science”?? – this site has no idea what that means apparently
I stand by my views – and still issue the challenge. 5 years from now if AGW proves to be wrong (which I agree is possible though I and the majority of scientists contend is highly unlikely) – which would of course be GOOD news – I will publicly apologise for my views on this site and any other you care to nominate.
If AGW proves to be correct who here has the courage of their views to publicly apologise for being so wrong and abusive to boot??
Mark,
You are quite the spamster. No one doubts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is a matter of degree. You have the binary mind of a two year old.
Mark, after over 30 years of nothing happening, we can say CAGW is a farcical concept. As far as apologies for being wrong as well as abusive, we’re still waiting for the apologies.
As to your arguments, they are strawman arguments. That may be why you’ve received the responses you did.
But, here are the facts towards this post. Chubbs said, “For example you don’t get the Arctic ice melt just by natural events. …” , then he blathered some barely intelligible nonsense about models.
But, we see that natural events have, indeed, caused Arctic ice melt. Apparently Chubbs has either lost his mind, or his political advocacy has clouded his ability for rational thinking. But, either way it goes, Chubbs is clearly wrong in this instance, and clearly out of his depth. I’m sorry if that hurts your feelings.
If you’ve something to add to the discussion or if you can point to where this is an inaccurate description of what was stated, I’ll read what you have to say with great interest! But, if you only have more diversionary blatherings……well, you’ll continue to get the responses you’ve already got.
“Real Science”?? – this site has no idea what that means apparently.
No one is holding a gun to your head. It may have escaped your attention that no-one is interested in your incoherent and sanctimonious method of “argument”, and not surprisingly you get the same response here that you got over on the ABC Drum site. You appear to be much more comfortable in engaging in mutual ass-licking over on SS.com – so why waste your time mixing it up with the bullies over here when, as your rightly observe, your are not going to swing them around to your way of thinking with the abusive and argumentative style you adopt.
Ivan:
Here I thought Mark was practicing before auditioning to replace Don Rickles and seeing how we reacted to his version of comedy!
You really though he was being serious?
I was just trying to be the straight man for his routine as I believe in helping entertainers looking for work!
@Suyt – thanks – a number of points
1) It takes far more than a few mindless insults to “hurt my feelings”. When someone calls someone else a moron as part of a debate it says more about them than it does about the target of the abuse. It was Samuel Johnson who said “Language is the dress of thought” – clearly by the language used by many on this site the thought is poorly clothed indeed.
2) My original post focused on the fact that rather than offer evidence as to why Prof Chubb might be wrong the posts were simply a stream of personal abuse.
3) None of what I have offered is at all a strawman. If you think nothing has happened in the last 30 years then perhaps you might care to explain why the world’s climate scientists, science bodies and a whole cluster of nobel laureates think differently. I do not think the suggestion that somehow they are all deluded is credible. It certainly hasn’t been substantiated anywhere here
4) You might also care to google reports from some of the world’s largest insurers who are taking the matter very seriously indeed – because it is a commercial imperative for them
Lastly – to address the Arctic ice data. How do you explain that there have been 3 record lows in 2002, 2007 and 2011?
That there is a natural cycle in arctic sea ice is not in dispute. But there is ample evidence that the current situation is far more than that. That is what Prof Chubb was referring to.
You can see the recent data here
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101004_Figure3.png
These two references show the recent rapid decline
https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/2728/1/tellus_omj.pdf
http://helios.hampshire.edu/~srNS/Svalbard/Overpeck_Arctic%20Environmental%20Changes%20of%20the%20Last%20Four%20Centuries.pdf
These two references show that the current decline is well outside any recent cycle.
So far, on this site, I’ve yet to a single evidence based refutation of links I have provided. I would suggest it is those who use terms of abuse and personal attacks who have been “blathering” which clearly shows the standard of civil rational debate of which they are capable. Which is to say – “none”.
Sea level has fallen 10mm in the last two years. Must be due to record ice melt.
Not sure what the relevance of that comment might be. First of all any good scientist knows that sea ice melts make no difference to sea levels.
Secondly if you bothered to research the literature you would discover that the explanation for this slight fall is due to the enormous amounts of rain that have fallen on the land (remember all that flooding in Pakistan, here and the US to name but a few?) in the last two years as explained here
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262
But of course I wouldn’t expect this site to present any actual science, just unsubstantiated claims
P.S. Oh yes, the actual fall is 6mm – more misrepresentation Steven??
You talk and talk and talk and never seem to actually use your brain.
Was that meant to be an intelligent rational evidence based rebuttal? Because it looked like a level of comment equivalent to “liar-liar pants on fire”. You actually made me laugh
You aren’t very bright and you talk endlessly.
10mm decline in sea level
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_EN_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png
Really? The above comment shows you have no idea what you are talking about. (and yet you accuse Prof Chubb of ignorance.
Amazing
You linked to a graph on AVISO – a site that provides Archiving, Validation and Interpretation of Satellite Oceanographic data .and then cherry picked some data points from a graph since 2004 the highest recent data point to the lowest
Here’s a better link to the entire data set
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/ne ws/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/
Look at the graph. It shows a rise of 600mm since 1993 (just what the NASA graph shows), or roughly 3.2 mm a year
Then read the commentary which includes
“Although the global trend indicates a rise in the mean level of the oceans, there are marked regional differences that vary between -10 and 10 mm/year.”
In other words you are conflating variations in the data with an actual significant movement.
The actual deviation is 6mm below the trend line on the graph YOU linked to.
Apparently you have no understanding of basic measurement science, statistics and variability.
I will refrain from making spurious or asinine comments about your intelligence as these are not relevant to any debate
Sorry – didn’t post that link properly
corrected here
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/
Steven, you need to rename the title of this post. Top Australian Scientist And His Hind Licking Side Kick Mark Harrigan Explains That They Have Absolutely No Idea What They’re Talking About.
Hey look – the IPCC models GOT IT WRONG on sea ice!
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JC007110.shtml
You guys have been right all along! But wait – oops they UNDERESTIMATE the actual loss
“IPCC climate models underestimate the decrease of the Arctic sea ice extent. The recent Arctic sea ice decline is also characterized by a rapid thinning and by an increase of sea ice kinematics (velocities and deformation rates), with both processes being coupled through positive feedbacks. In this study we show that IPCC climate models underestimate the observed thinning trend by a factor of almost 4 on average and fail to capture the associated accelerated motion”
Oh yes, that’s right – it’s just “NATURAL” isn’t it. NOT
Sturmbannführer Cook here, over at SS.com.
Here’s how we handle recalcitrants on a prestigious award-winning site:
Only blind ignorant foolishness on the part of those who seek to deny these facts is getting in the way of considered action to address these problems.
Of course the fact that every single national science body of credibility accepts the reality of AGW and it being a problem means nothing on sites like this since it would appear there is sufficient ego on behalf of the bloggers to believe that somehow they know the science better.
Please keep to the topic. This thread is not about ad-hominem attacks, nor is it about wild and fanciful misrepresentations of facts.
but a[pparently you all know better?No ad-hominem attacks pls.
Dullards are like thatNo ad-hominem attacks pls.
Sounds like Mark is from OZ too, just like the porkey one as you mentioned earlier here Ivan. The Animal Farm theme here is uncanny isn’t it?
If you can’t understand what the Nasa key indicators site is telling you then you are incapable of drawing any sort of rational conlusion based on evidence.No ad-hominem attacks pls.
Yeah, hypocrites are like that aren’t they. We know this from Pope Al Da Turd.
Ivan re your comments on ad-hominem, it was you who said ” Perfesser Porky Pig is a political hack with form going back a number of years.
He has been appointed by our barefaced liar of a prime minister, who corrupts and taints every institution she has the misfortune to lay her grubby hands on in her desperate bid to cling to power. In spite of his earlier protestations to the contrary, Perfesser Porky Pig is simply doing the squalid, mud-slinging job he was brought on board to do on behalf of this shameless gaggle of misfits.
and “Never argue with morons” and ” Clearly he is a serial moron.” and ” Sturmbannführer Cook here, over at SS.com.” (Godwin’s law applied I see).
So I hardly think you are in a position to lecture me.
Perhaps you need to review the definition of Ad Hominem =”an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic of the person supporting it”
However I do accept that my use of the word Dullard was inappropriate -and I apologise and withdraw it. I should not have descended to the level of personal abuse and attacks which you and others on this site seem so ready to embrace.
The rest of your allegations of ad-hominem on my part clearly show you do not understand the meaning of the word
Truth is not an ad-hominem attack and he just used a bit of colorful descriptive phases in his comment.
It is the SS.com web site you are so proud of referring to.
Here is the SKS web site:
http://www.sks-rifles.com/
Ridiculous and irrelevant.
Ivan uses personal insults in place of argument freely and without retraction. It is there in black and white for all to see.
Then he accuses me of using ad hominem.
Your description of it as coloutful language exposes a clear double standard.
Clearly you have no understanding of ad-hominem.
If you think name calling is truth then that says a lot about you and your capability to indulge in mature and serious debate. If your link to the sks rifle site is a veiled threat then that really exposes your values – quite frankly no reputable web site would allow such a post.
The fact that you resort to it exposes the paucity of your argument
When are you going to offer any resemblance of Mature and Honest debate?
We have all been waiting since you showed up on this site!
When you spout off like Chicken Little you get the respect a Chicken Little deserves! NONE!
Mike you offer insults, threats, no credible substantiation of your assertions and call those who disagree with you insane.
You claim to have studied the subject yet apparently have no credentials. You make predictions about the future but when challenged won’t stand by them.
This is in black and while on this thread
I accept that you disagree with me but for you to imply somehow that any approach of yours is mature and honest is laughable in the extreme – quite plainly you are not worth engaging with.
I still bet you that in 5 years time you will be shown wrong and I will be proven right and I stand by my commitment to unreservedly retract and apologise if I am wrong.
I note you do not even have the courage of your convictions to do likewise
“I still bet you that in 5 years time you will be shown wrong and I will be proven right.”
So – you admit that the science is, indeed, not settled? You acknowledge that the AGW industry still needs another 5+ years to cobble together something that stands up to scrutiny?
“I still bet you that in 5 years time you will be shown wrong and I will be proven right.”
…and of course your would also have to accept that the perfesser is being disingenuous in his claims in his “interview” and is just being a paid hack for the liars in Canberra?
Ivan – you really do like to clutch at straws don’t you.
I never said the science is settled – no science ever is (witness the recent question over FTL neutrinos which, though unlikely to pan out, may upset a core tenet of Special relativity).
I accept the science position as stated by all the science bodies – that the planet is warming, that we are the most likely cause (generally accepted to be 95%+ probability), that no one has as yet established a creible alternative mechanism to the burning of fossil fuels as the culprit and that it is highly likely to be a significant problem although there are some uncertainties about how far/how fast it will happen. I’ve said that a number of times
That is a position that agrees with most published science on the matter and indeed major re-insurance companies (who actually have to make major financial decision on that basis).
Quite clearly you, and most others here, disagree. Fair enough. But why then do you need to offer only personal insult to people like Prof Chubb rather than evidence based argument based on real science that you can reference? Are your arguments really that weak?
In any event I offered my bet solely in response to Mike’s claim about what would happen in the future ” In a few years I expect your pet opinion will be joining them and the many peer reviewed research papers that support AGW will displace that list as the greatest scientific frauds in the history of science.”
But apparently he is unwilling to stand by that assertion
No – what you said was (and I quote):
“The point, which you seem to blithely ignore, is that the warming that has occurred in the last several decades has been due to increased CO2 levels which is what the Nasa site shows.”
No equivocation – no qualification. “Has been due to.” Remember that?
Now, when pushed, you trot out the weasel words: “that we are the most likely cause.”
Well, which is it? If the former, then where is your evidence? If the latter, then why should anyone take any action based on a set of religious beliefs?
Maybe the argument could be progressed if you grew a backbone and took one or other your two stated positions.
Fine Ivan – if you want to take issue with my first statement “has been shown” and my second “most likely (meaning 95% likely) then you can hide behind that difference of an implied 5%. You appear willing to bet the futre on that. I stand by my statement to call you on that bet and see you here in 5 years time.
I note you don’t resile from your personal insults and offer no evidence to refute my position either way.
“I note you don’t resile from your personal insults.”
No I don’t – and why should I? As I initially suspected, you are nothing but a troll and a grubby little turd. Your sole purpose on this site is to shit-stir and intimidate. Piss off back to SS.com, where I’m sure you’ll feel more at home with other liars and frauds of your ilk.
Ah – another insult and foul languaged reply that reflects the quality of the intelligence of your rebuttal. Shame that this is the best you can do.
I’d call you an idiot and a troll too – but that would be pointless and an unwarranted insult to trolls of low intelligence. Better luck next time
Mark:
Only a fool would want to bet on the weather and less what we experience in our life times is weather. We do not live long enough to experience climate. We can observe past climate conditions and guess at future climate conditions.
I do not recall making any threats towards you yet! What did I miss?
My credentials are in systems analysis and trouble shooting as that is what I did for a living. Because weather patterns had a lot to do with possible future trouble conditions I needed to learn about weather patterns to try to predict future manpower needs and justify manpower used. That meant I had to learn statistics also. Of course that included how to misuse statistics. the phrase there are lies, damn lies and statistics is true.
I had to know how things were supposed to work to know if trouble existed. I needed to know the acceptable margin of error that was built in to systems because the errors are viewed as trouble by the end user but are part of the system design, Nothing is perfect!
Personally I think you should show your concern for the environment by unplugging from the power grid, giving away all your possessions and living off the land in a sustainable manner without the use of anything that was produced using modern technology. Be at one with nature just as our ancestors were. If I remember correctly there is a place near Ayers Rock in your Northern Territory were you should be able to experience nature in all its glory for about five years. Come back then and tell us about the weather.
Sigh,
Weather is NOT climate
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Climate_vs_Weather
Only hot weather is climate. Like Texas in July, or Moscow last July.
Mark:
Weather is not climate because climate is the STUDY of weather.
That means that climate can not be weather!
Biology is the study of the biosphere it is not the biosphere. Biology can not be what it studies and neither can climate.
Climate can not change because climate is the study of variable weather patterns.
@Mark…. in response to your response to me. A number of things…….
1) While this motley crew is a bit coarse, you may wish to reconsider how you relate to it. As I stated, you’ll get the response relative to the level of your offerings.
2) The evidence of why Chubb was wrong was included in the original post by Steve. Chubb’s statement was in direct conflict of current scientific knowledge. It isn’t interpretive. We’ve had less ice than today. And it occurred without human interference, in other words, it occurred “just by natural events.”
While I can appreciate your skepticism of science, I would invite you to investigate the sediment cores Dr. Meier was referring to.
3) All of what you’ve had to offer are indeed, strawman arguments. What this post is about, is Chubbs denial of current scientific knowledge obtained through data and observation. I would encourage you to scroll up and read Steve’s offering again.
If you want to discuss something tangential to this issue, perhaps you can explore the ironies in this and my prior statement in #2.
Obviously, you weren’t content in just one use of an argument fallacy, you then fall back on the reliable ‘appeal to authority’. You somehow seem to think appeal changes the meaning of the words Chubbs used. I am curious though, what is it that you say they say has happened? While when I stated, “nothing has happened” could be used in the general context of climate change, I was more specifically referring to all of the fears expressed by our diminishing ice cap. The poley bears are thriving. (We haven’t found anymore floaters) The death spiral isn’t occurring. The albedo appears to have been entirely overstated. (Note the lack of warming in the last decade in spite of the decrease in total ice extent.) There just haven’t been any negative effects we were all so concerned with when discussing the decrease in the polar cap. So, again, tell me specifically what all of these nobel laureates and climate scientists say has happened.
4) Insurance companies taking advantage of the alarmism to bilk customers? Say it ain’t so!!!
And lastly, your statement, “Lastly – to address the Arctic ice data. How do you explain that there have been 3 record lows in 2002, 2007 and 2011?” is entirely disingenuous. You can only claim 2011 was a record low if you believe only one source over the several others. But you knew that. And you wonder why people use abusive language here? I’m pretty certain if you stay with the facts, quit using fallacious argument tactics and stay reasonable with your selection of information you’d receive a lot less wise cracks and more consideration for your comments.
James
James – I notice you are not above personal insults yourself as you called prof Chubb a “clueless moron” Given the state of most posts on here to somehow suggest that any wisecracks on my part are somehow responsible for the responses is absurd.
Your point about the “motley crew being a bit coarse” is an apologist response for people who just use insult rather than rational argument. It is not my approach that is at issue – it is their puerile insulting language instead of rational argument.
Your point about the Arctic Ice data is just plain wrong. As indeed is all of this thread
The rest of your post is frankly not worth responding to in light of the above.
You folks can continue to play amongst yourselves – level unwarranted insults and threats against those who disagree – make claims you can’t substantiate and posture all you like but it doesn’t change the science and the climate doesn’t care what you think or say on this ludicrous blogosphere site that could not be more aptly misnamed.
Real delusion and ill informed fantasy would be more appropriate.
I’ve achieved here what I set out to do
“I’ve achieved here what I set out to do”
As do most grubby trolls.
Having spent the evening proving / disproving absolutely nothing – it is now bedtime in Oz!
Now see, you just did it again. I told you the responses to you is relative to what you offer. No one has threatened anyone here. ——- dumbass.
Hmm.. decended into personal abuse again I see. Well, that’s the best any of you can come up with here as substitute for mature debate.
A link to a web site posted by Mike in reply to me advertising sks assult rifles by MIke is there in black white. It was a veiled hreat which h has not denied.
Back at you mr lowiq posterior with the same appellation
My goodness, yes, you believe he intends to hunt you down and attack you with a SKS.
Mark, people that have a hard time discerning reality need guidance. Being the nice guy that I am, I’ll volunteer to be your reality interpreter here. I’ll let you know when you’ve been threatened. So far, you haven’t been.
Paranoid and delusional.
It was a veiled threat – albeit poorly conceived and without substance. Still a poor indicator of his mentality.
Paranoid (maybe) and delusional (certainly) is a better epithet for a large number of you on this site.
It really is funny (although pathetic too)
Paranoid, delusional and full of yourself.
Mark, we typically leave the threats to life, body, and freedom to the alarmists. As all have been well documented.
It is interesting that the entire contention of this thread can be shown to be false.
It relates to the following quote from Dr Meier shown on WUWT
” First, we know the Arctic can potentially lose all its sea ice during summer because it has done so in the past. Examination of several proxy records (e.g., sediment cores) of sea ice indicate ice-free or near ice-free summer conditions for at least some time during the period of 15,000 to 5,000 years ago (Polyak et al., 2010) when Arctic temperatures were not much warmer than today.”
I note with interest that the quote here was selective and that there was no link on WUWT to the Polyak paper. Curious omission given that virtually every other reference IS linked.
So what does the Polyak paper actually say?
http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf
“Arctic sea ice extent and volume are declining rapidly. Several studies project that the Arctic Ocean may become seasonally ice free by the year 2040 or even earlier. Putting this into perspective requires information on the history of Arctic sea ice conditions through the geologic past. This information can be provided by proxy records from the Arctic Ocean floor and from the surrounding coasts. Although existing records are far from complete, they indicate that sea ice became a feature of the Arctic by 47Ma ,following a pronounced decline in atmospheric pCO2 after the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Optimum, and consistently covered at least part of the Arctic Ocean for no less than the last13–14 million years. Ice was apparently most wide- spread during the last 2–3 million years, in accordance with Earth’s overall cooler climate. Nevertheless, episodes of considerably reduced sea ice or even seasonally ice-free conditions occurred during warmer periods linked to orbital variations. The last low-ice event related to orbital forcing (high insolation) was in the early Holocene, after which the northern high latitudes cooled overall, with some super imposed shorter- term(multi-decadal to millennial-scale) and lower-magnitude variability. The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities
In other words the very paper on which this thread purports to rely supports Prof Chubbs contention. The last time there was any significant loss of sea-ice was due to orbital forcing (the effect on climate of slow changes in the tilt of the Earth’s axis and shape of the orbit). It is well established that is NOT the current cause and as the paper says – it ISNT Natural.
This entire thread is undone and proven wrong.
QED
The SS.com village just called. They want their idiot back.
With begging pardons to Apocalypse Now, I love the smell of burning Chicken in the morning to go with my coffee!
Good Morning Ivan! I see you have been enjoying yourself!
As any intelligent or objective reader could show – your two comments are neither relevant, an answer nor a refutation.
You have been proven wrong. Deal with it
lmao!!! Way to pick what you wanted to read from the study.
From the summary of Polyak……. “Ice was probably less prevalent during Quaternary interglacials and major interstadials, and the Arctic Ocean may even have been seasonally ice-free during some of these times.”
But Chubb said, “For example you don’t get the Arctic ice melt just by natural events.”
So, either Chubb is incorrect and there is a possibility of ice melt by natural events, or, he’s positing some supra-natural event occurred in the distant past. Here is your QED.
BTW, from the paper again, ……..“However, the controls on these ice reductions were clearly more complex than orbital variations alone.” We can deduce that the authors were saying orbital variations and tilts don’t account for the loss by itself.
Mark, it is clear Chubbs is incorrect. It is also clear you’ll go through great lengths and contortions to try and show Chubbs didn’t say what he said and that the science doesn’t say what it says.
So, if it was your intent to show how disingenuous alarmists can be and what lengths they’ll go through to try to rationalize what was stated, then, yes, you’ve accomplished what you’ve set out to do.
For the record, I never said I was above name calling. Typically, though there are different thresholds, I’ll give as good as I get. And, again, the responses from me will be in relation to the comments. I don’t apologize for anyone here, it isn’t for me to do, and if it were, I wouldn’t, still.
You’ve talked yourself into a circle of fail. Let’s say Chubbs was referencing the rate of ice-loss as opposed to the loss itself. Tell me, what rate of loss have we seen since 2007? And then tell me the if the rate has increased or decreased prior to 2007 vs after 2007. Either way you look at it, Chubbs was incorrect. It is interesting, too, that you, even after having your fallacious arguments pointed out to you, you continue to employ them. And, you never directly answer the questions posed to you.
Mark, stick around, you may learn something.
James
Which part of
“The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities” from the abstract of the paper on which this entire post is based (falsely as it happens) are you having touble understanding?
lol, so you chose to ignore my last paragraph? What is the rate of ice loss from 2007 to the present?
Most rational people would say there has been none. And then you’re going to say this has been unmatched?
Irrelevant – as the paper makes clear it’s do do with the last 3 decades.
Go back to grade school.
F-
The rate of ice loss isn’t relevant to the rate of ice loss? Sorry, I forgot alarmists give up their ability for rationale and logic and how to apply the information to more current events. I suppose you’d be one of those insisting the world is still getting hotter in spite of a general decrease in the temps, too.
Sorry, I don’t constrain myself to some arbitrary context of time. It is correct to say, “the ice was melting.” It is also correct to say “the arctic has melted in the past”. It is incorrect to say the more recent measurements of the ice is unparallelled, in either extent or rate of melt.
Mark, you can’t use 2011 total extent,(as you did earlier) and then say the rate of loss pertinent to 2011 isn’t relevant. More fallacious argument tactics.
More reality discernment for Mark………..
Mark, scientists are humans, too. They are given to certain emotive responses just like the rest of us. So, it stands to reason that they can and do engage in political advocacy. For people of simpler understanding, it can be confusing when scientists make statements. Sometimes, they make scientific statements at other times they’ll make statements of political advocacy. Clearly, in this case, Dr. Chubbs is making a political advocacy statement and not one based on any science.
Mark, quit assuming things and just ask me for clarifications. I’m happy to help.
@Mark: “If the low-life ad-hominem attacks on Professor Chubb …”
Would you have preferred if Ivan had called him a “person of size”? Is this really all about the “Porky Pig” comment? I can’t believe this is still going on.
Sigh,
I’ll try one more time to penetrate the intellectual density on this site. It’s really very simple, and I’ll try an explain it VERY SLOWLY so you can all follow it.
1) Prof Chubb said (in reference to the current state of Artic ice melt) “For example you don’t get the Arctic ice melt just by natural events”
2) This thread stated prof Chubb was wrong based on a comment by Dr Meier, which you can see above, taken from WUWT, which directly references this paper http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf as its key supporting argument
3) The essential conclusion of this paper quoted directly from the abstract says “This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities
4) This statement directly CONFIRMS and agrees with what Professor Chubb was saying
THEREFORE the contention of this thread is wrong.
The personal insults directed at Prof Chubb are, of course, irrelevant to any aspect of the debate (no matter what form such insults take) – BUT they do show the peurile and shabby nature of the personalities that offer them and their inability to actually engage in any real debate or anything remotely resembling “REAL SCIENCE”
What a buffoon you are. Explain to us what caused the ice-free Arctic 5,000 years ago. Hummers?
Read the paper – orbital forcing (you know – tilt of the axis of the earth etc) – and, to be picky, it was Early Holocene which is about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. Which the paper makes clear ISNT happening now.
You blokes clearly have trouble reading. The final part of the abstract says in completely unambigiuous terms
.The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities
In other words “you don’t get the Arctic ice melt by natural events” – don’t you understand he was taking about what is happening “now” – meaning over the last few decades?
My goodness you are all being obtuse
lol, yeh, because applying past ice melt to what is happening today would be wrong! Just like the paper….. well ok, so the paper compared ice loss then to ice loss today, but that doesn’t apply when using the information from the paper to apply to comments made today, because its comparing the past to today is different than comparing today to the past……. got it …….
But, ignoring your circular logic, apply the rapidly warming statement to this……. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
Only the mind of a total true believer could you characterize the recent ice as due to a rapidly warming world.
typo—–”recent ice loss due……”
What a load of crap. You will believe any WAG without question which supports your religion.
Mark:
This may bring more cognitive dissonance than you already experience but orbital forcing did not stop and is still affecting the weather patterns. The last few decades are only a portion of a weather pattern than brought cooling until the late 70s and is again giving us cooler temperatures for the last few years. You are just to narrow minded to see reality / Big Picture shit!
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif
The Porky Pig comment was the second one on this thread. As far as I can tell, you jumped in before the Meier comment was referenced. That is why I asked the above question … purely out of curiosity.
I am a little surprised that this pissing contest is still going on. I got out of it early when I realized that nothing good would come of it and nothing would be resolved. It isn’t worth the bad blood it creates … it doesn’t move anything forward.
The Walt Meier comment is referenced directly underneath the quote from Chubb.
Noted.
This is about the stupidest argument I’ve ever seen…..
If we were at the bottom of this graph, the same bedwetters would be hysterical, but for a completely opposite reason…………………
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif
The ice is doing exactly what it is supposed to do….melt, get out of the way, and let the heat escape into space
Some one spliced the last part of the graph to make it appear as if something was happening. Look at the red line. They were supposed to crop the last few years depending on the smoothing algorithm. to extend t they need to use padding that distorts the message they are giving and makes the entire graph worthless. Just like Brother Al’s magic graph and the Infamous Hockey Stick.
Te resolution of the data from even one hundred years ago precludes using a fine resolution smoothing such as the one needed to display recent changes in CO2 concentrations that are probably faulty any way!
Mike, what stands out in the last part of the graph…..
is not, why is it warm,,,it’s the complete opposite
Why didn’t it get as warm as it did every other time?
We’re right in there on the time line, only without the peak…..
I understand about what you were showing but their CO2 line is way off base.
I prefer this one because it does not show the CO2 spike but it suffers from the same problem to an extent.
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/temperature-and-co2-concentration-in-the-atmosphere-over-the-past-400-000-years
Or this one
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part1_PreHistoricalRecord_files/image026.jpg
Without the CO2