Scientists increasingly moving to global cooling consensus

FredHayek wrote: The Earth heats and cools for a lot of different reasons wheras most of the evidence for higher temps comes from the carbon hater crowd.
If the Earth and Sol are going through a dustier part of the universe, the amount of sunlight that reaches us will be diminished. Or if the sun isn't burning as strong for one reason or another, the Earth is likely to cool too.
So the climate change people are being ignorant to think everything will remain constant except for CO2 levels.

Typical distortion. No where have those who actually study the evidence claim that everything stays constant except for CO2 levels. Many things are factors in climate changing. But to claim that the earth is cooling is pure BS. To claim that the dramatic increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has no cause in global warming has no support in credible science.

FredHayek wrote: Al Gore used a hockey stick, or should I say hokey stick, so if you were willing to accept his numbers that proved to be false, why can't we craft our data too?
Or Dog, are you going to maintain that Al Gore's model is accurate and temperature rises are still moving just as fast as he predicted?
It is like crying wolf, he presented a catastrophic model that proved false and now you expect us to beleive it this time.

The statistical graph created by Mann, Bradley and Hughes that has been termed the "hockey stick" graph has been found to be credible and accurate in study after study.
Smith et al. 2006 "Reconstructing hemispheric-scale climates from multiple stalagmite records".
Juckes et al. 2007 "Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation".
Lee, Zwiers & Tsao 2008 "Evaluation of proxy-based millennial reconstruction methods".
Huang, Pollack & Shen 2008 "A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record"
Mann et al. 2008 "Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia"
Kaufman et al. 2009 "Recent warming reverses long-term arctic cooling".
Tingley & Huybers 2010a "A Bayesian Algorithm for Reconstructing Climate Anomalies in Space and Time".
Ljungqvist 2010 "A New Reconstruction of Temperature Variability in the Extra-Tropical Northern Hemisphere During the Last Two Millennia".
Christiansen & Ljungqvist 2011 "Reconstruction of the Extratropical NH Mean Temperature over the Last Millennium with a Method that Preserves Low-Frequency Variability".
Ljungqvist et al. 2012 "Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries".
Christiansen & Ljungqvist 2012 "The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: Reconstructions of low-frequency variability".
Marcott et al. 2013 "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years"
Ahmed et al. 2013 (PAGES 2k Consortium) "Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia"



I have never watched the Al Gore movie, and as with most politicians, believe that he went over the top with his predictions.

However, the credible scientific evidence does show that global warming is occurring even faster than predicted in the IPCC report.

Does it really matter, I mean really.

If it is happening, how are we going to reduce use by 99.999999% plus of the stuff that is causing it, wont happen, not enough guns.

If it is not happening, then there is nothing to do right.

If there may be a problem we don't have the resources to solve and there fruitless attempts at solving it will cause us to limit our fun activities, isn't it our job to enjoy the fun activities to their fullest as opposed to doing token things towards the possible solution as if they were offerings to some kind of global temperature god.

There is no need to determine this answer or to spend any time on high horses on this issue, it only matters to those that can benefit or be damaged by regulations, these are only people not the environment in general.

The haters are the ones on either side that are going to pretend this is an issue.

This comes from someone who has lived off grid their entire adult life, it's a personal choice, not one you need to make for everyone. I do make offerings to the god I noted, they are just my offerings, not yours.

You wine for solutions and we get things like a nationwide building energy code that does not restrict energy use, it reserves it for the wealthy and then everyone pats themselves on the back. You need to look past the names of issues and the bills that are meant to solve them. Sometimes you will see that the proposed action would not influence the outcome of the issue no matter who is right. You cannot beat an elephant to death with a blade of grass and trying does not make you a better person.

So Dog, if one accepts the warming, which I actually think is happening, can you quote something that shows the effects of the proposed solutions factoring in the various jurisdictions. Is there something that says that what you want to do will solve it in proportion to the decrease in our ease of life, even out of proportion? (rather than just being a drop in the bucket) Also if say we make some restrictive measure, what is going to be done to make sure that the activity does not happen elsewhere as can been seen in the destruction of world forests from Canada to Indonesia because we heavily restrict our cutting or the mfg jobs that moved oversees because we restricted wages and costs to employ or the dismantling of large ocean vessels in India under extreme working conditions because it is too expensive here? All these activities continue and often in a worse way with a greater human impact, but not in our back yard. If you cannot show the solution will work, I don't think people should be mandated into trying it, you may be forcing them to do some greater harm to themselves or all of us.

Something the Dog Said wrote: False statement. Global temps have not been mostly flat for the last 17 years.

Yes, they have. The increases were minimal and nowhere close to what the IPCC models predicted. The IPCC climate models were wrong. Again. With the continued increase in CO2 from China and the EU, we have not seen the projected increases in temperature.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... peratures/

Our atmosphere and the system of heating and cooling on our planet are not fully understood. There are a plethora of dynamic variables which impacts our planet that is not understood, and the relationship between these variables is not understood. This is why there is so much uncertainty with climate models, and why scientist are struggling to explain why we have not seen the warming that climate models have predicted for the past 10 to 15 years.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/ ... AJ20130416 )

Head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that 'the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2mirWvt00

Something the Dog Said wrote:
But instead we get this nonsense about "global cooling" of which there is no credible scientific evidence.

So, were the scientist wrong back in 1975 when the “New Ice Age” was all the rage?
And before I hear the old “it was just a Newsweek article” excuse again, we need to revisit just how prevalent the idea was.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/g ... mpilation/

Something the Dog Said wrote: We also get the intellectual dishonesty of those spouting this nonsense and using opeds by fossil fuel lobbyists as their "scientific evidence".

As opposed to the “scientific evidence” from those who are given billions by the carbon trading industry to research CO2?
We still do not understand how the PDO, or sun spots, or solar flares or other variables influences the climate. And they clearly do, because the relationship between global mean temperatures and CO2 emissions are not consistent with the IPCC predictions.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warm ... cillation/


Its too bad that we spend so many billions of dollars and countless hours on the global warming hysteria, when real, measureable, environmental issues could be addressed AND solved.
Follow the money.....

OmniScience wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: False statement. Global temps have not been mostly flat for the last 17 years.

Yes, they have. The increases were minimal and nowhere close to what the IPCC models predicted. The IPCC climate models were wrong. Again. With the continued increase in CO2 from China and the EU, we have not seen the projected increases in temperature.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... peratures/

You are citing an opinion article by an architecture professor as your conclusive proof that global warming is flatlining. Right. Particularly when that architecture professor provides no data or evidence that global warming is flat lining, just his conclusion. Even though that architecture professor has constantly been debunked and has never published in a peer reviewed journal.

The credible scientific evidence is that global SURFACE temperatures are still increasing albeit at a lower rate compared to that one extremely high temperature year of 17 years ago, overall global warming has continued to increase at a high rate as evidenced by the increase in deep ocean temperatures.
You can look at the actual data rather than the conclusions of an architecture professor at NOAA ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomal ... 00mean.dat

You will note that 16 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last 17 years, that time period that you claim there has been no increase in global warming.
If you still believe your favorite architecture professor, here is a comment by noted physicist Robert Brecha, of the University of Dayton: "There is increasing evidence in the peer-reviewed literature that over the past decade or so more thermal energy is going into the deep ocean, rather than into the atmosphere. This is almost certainly just a temporary, cyclical process.

"The key point is that additional greenhouse gases trap heat in the earth system, keeping that energy from flowing back out to space," Brecha said. "So if the atmosphere doesn't receive that heat [thereby increasing its temperature] that trapped energy is nevertheless building up."
http://www.udayton.edu/directory/artssc ... ha_bob.php

Our atmosphere and the system of heating and cooling on our planet are not fully understood. There are a plethora of dynamic variables which impacts our planet that is not understood, and the relationship between these variables is not understood. This is why there is so much uncertainty with climate models, and why scientist are struggling to explain why we have not seen the warming that climate models have predicted for the past 10 to 15 years.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/ ... AJ20130416 )

Head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that 'the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2mirWvt00

Something the Dog Said wrote:
But instead we get this nonsense about "global cooling" of which there is no credible scientific evidence.

So, were the scientist wrong back in 1975 when the “New Ice Age” was all the rage?
And before I hear the old “it was just a Newsweek article” excuse again, we need to revisit just how prevalent the idea was.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/g ... mpilation/

Something the Dog Said wrote: We also get the intellectual dishonesty of those spouting this nonsense and using opeds by fossil fuel lobbyists as their "scientific evidence".

As opposed to the “scientific evidence” from those who are given billions by the carbon trading industry to research CO2?
We still do not understand how the PDO, or sun spots, or solar flares or other variables influences the climate. And they clearly do, because the relationship between global mean temperatures and CO2 emissions are not consistent with the IPCC predictions.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warm ... cillation/


Its too bad that we spend so many billions of dollars and countless hours on the global warming hysteria, when real, measureable, environmental issues could be addressed AND solved.
Follow the money.....

Nothing like cutting and pasting quotes out of context to create a falsehood. Perhaps you care to back up your total falsehood about those scientists receiving billions from carbon trading companies? Thought not.

Nothing like cutting and pasting quotes out of context to create a falsehood

Nothing like ignoring 80% of what I said.

I’ll boil it down and make it as simple as possible for you. The contention by the IPCC and others who support AGW is that there is a direct correlation between an increase in man made CO2 emissions and surface temperatures. During the last 10-15 years man made CO2 emissions have increased, (in spite of carbon trading schemes), but temperatures have not not increased accordingly. Why? Simple question. Explain that if you can without theory or conjecture.

If you want to ignore the fact that carbon trading is a dismal failure that accomplished nothing more than massive profits and fraud that’s fine.
If you want to ignore the scientific fact that mean surface temperatures are not increasing as predicted with increased emissions that is your prerogative.
If you want to dismiss the evidence that early 1900’s temperature increases, followed by cooling into the 70’s, followed by another warming trend, all coincide with the phase shifts of the PDO that’s up to you.
If you choose to discount the increasing number of scientists including MIT professors and climate scientists who are questioning the relationship to CO2 emissions and global warming go ahead.

If we don't fully understand variables such as the PDO, sun spots, and solar flairs and how they influence this planet, we cannot be sure of a direct correlation between CO2 and temperatures. This is evident by the fact that almost all of the climate models have been completely wrong. We live in a highly complex system with influences and variables which we do not fully understand. In the 70's it was another Ice Age on the way, today the fear du jour is global warming.

If you open your mind and follow the facts like I do you will learn some amazing things. I found this earlier this year during some unrelated research. You want science, here you go.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658


(By the way, nice try at attempting to make Larry Bell sound like someone who designs libraries)

OmniScience wrote:

Nothing like cutting and pasting quotes out of context to create a falsehood

Nothing like ignoring 80% of what I said.

I’ll boil it down and make it as simple as possible for you. The contention by the IPCC and others who support AGW is that there is a direct correlation between an increase in man made CO2 emissions and surface temperatures. During the last 10-15 years man made CO2 emissions have increased, (in spite of carbon trading schemes), but temperatures have not not increased accordingly. Why? Simple question. Explain that if you can without theory or conjecture.

If you want to ignore the fact that carbon trading is a dismal failure that accomplished nothing more than massive profits and fraud that’s fine.
If you want to ignore the scientific fact that mean surface temperatures are not increasing as predicted with increased emissions that is your prerogative.
If you want to dismiss the evidence that early 1900’s temperature increases, followed by cooling into the 70’s, followed by another warming trend, all coincide with the phase shifts of the PDO that’s up to you.
If you choose to discount the increasing number of scientists including MIT professors and climate scientists who are questioning the relationship to CO2 emissions and global warming go ahead.

If we don't fully understand variables such as the PDO, sun spots, and solar flairs and how they influence this planet, we cannot be sure of a direct correlation between CO2 and temperatures. This is evident by the fact that almost all of the climate models have been completely wrong. We live in a highly complex system with influences and variables which we do not fully understand. In the 70's it was another Ice Age on the way, today the fear du jour is global warming.

If you open your mind and follow the facts like I do you will learn some amazing things. I found this earlier this year during some unrelated research. You want science, here you go.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658


(By the way, nice try at attempting to make Larry Bell sound like someone who designs libraries)

I nominate this as post of the week!

OmniScience wrote:

Nothing like cutting and pasting quotes out of context to create a falsehood

Nothing like ignoring 80% of what I said.

I’ll boil it down and make it as simple as possible for you. The contention by the IPCC and others who support AGW is that there is a direct correlation between an increase in man made CO2 emissions and surface temperatures. During the last 10-15 years man made CO2 emissions have increased, (in spite of carbon trading schemes), but temperatures have not not increased accordingly. Why? Simple question. Explain that if you can without theory or conjecture.

If you want to ignore the fact that carbon trading is a dismal failure that accomplished nothing more than massive profits and fraud that’s fine.
If you want to ignore the scientific fact that mean surface temperatures are not increasing as predicted with increased emissions that is your prerogative.
If you want to dismiss the evidence that early 1900’s temperature increases, followed by cooling into the 70’s, followed by another warming trend, all coincide with the phase shifts of the PDO that’s up to you.
If you choose to discount the increasing number of scientists including MIT professors and climate scientists who are questioning the relationship to CO2 emissions and global warming go ahead.

If we don't fully understand variables such as the PDO, sun spots, and solar flairs and how they influence this planet, we cannot be sure of a direct correlation between CO2 and temperatures. This is evident by the fact that almost all of the climate models have been completely wrong. We live in a highly complex system with influences and variables which we do not fully understand. In the 70's it was another Ice Age on the way, today the fear du jour is global warming.

If you open your mind and follow the facts like I do you will learn some amazing things. I found this earlier this year during some unrelated research. You want science, here you go.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658


(By the way, nice try at attempting to make Larry Bell sound like someone who designs libraries)

I have repeatedly explained to you that global warming has increased significiantly over the past two decades, and provided you with data that showed this increase. You keep ignoring the scientific fact that the deep ocean water has increased significantly which acts as a heat sink to keep the surface temperature from rising as dramatically as it had in the past. You keep selecting an odd periodic interval to justify your claims when the actual evidence shows otherwise. Why have you selected 17 years? Because 1998 was an unusually hot year so it distorts the sample. If you chose 20 years or 10 years as the sample interval you would get a significantly different result. Why do simply claim that SURFACE temperatures have not increased over the odd time interval, when the facts show that not only have SURFACE temperatures increased but that the overall temperature of the globe including deep ocean water has increased significantly?

And yes Larry Bell is an architecture professor, not a climatologist or even a scientist. I do not know if he designs libraries or not, but I do know that he does not any academic background in climatology, or even a paper published in a peer reviewed journal. I get that you prefer to get your "scientific" evidence from fossil fuel lobbyists and architecture professors, but I prefer to rely upon those who actually have credentials in hard science involving the climate.

I am still waiting for your link to the "billions of dollars given to scientists by the carbon trading companies". Or are you willing to acknowlege that "fact" was false as well.

I do have an open mind, and a background in science/engineering and a willingness to actual review not only credible research but those who are doing the research, something that I suggest would be helpful rather than relying upon right wing blogs. I also note that the abstract to which you provided a link acknowledges that the increase in modern temperatures is due to the increase in CO2.

FYI, 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is the significant factor in global warming, despite your obvious lie otherwise.

You have yet to respond to the FACTS that surface temperatures are rising, that substantial warming is occurring in the deep oceans.

Now establish that the deep sea temperature change is the result of CO2 and not increased geothermal activity eminating from the core of the planet Dog. Can you do that? Can you exclude that from the list of causes? Do you know for a fact that it is CO2 or is it simply a belief that those who worship at the alter of anthropogenic climate change hold?

You're not going to convince printsmith. For this type of individual this is a religion based on the belief that nothing should be allowed which contravenes my ability to do what every I want. Only the psuedoscience which supports that mantra is allowable. I applaud the willingness to step up, refute that psuedoscience and defend science and logic. It is abundantly clear that climate change is here. Anyone who is the least bit aware of their surroundings here in the mountains see the evidence of that change. When 97% of scientists and all reputable scientific organizations point to the evidence that man is contributing to that change, it is abundantly clear that we need to find ways to mitigate our impact.