Global Temperatures Skyrocketing (Again)

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You say that the MWP was regional not global but I believe that there are many scientists who would disagree with that assessment here is one study link.springer.com... Now I don't pretend to understand completely but.... Little Ice Age recorded in summer temperature reconstruction from vared sediments of Donard Lake, Baffin Island, Canada

I didn't say the LIA was only the North Atlantic but that the MWP was.

LIA was not global either but much of the Northern Hemisphere.

originally posted by: 727Sky
realclimatescience.com...

Some interesting points made in the linked article about the fudged numbers.. Must be an Exon sponsored sight ...?
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com...

Yep don't say it but he has to get his money from Exon or the coal industry and all those whistle blowers are just made up lies

Now please tell me how the NOAA and NASA method of data collecting is more scientifically sound than what has been considered real science since Copernicus; also who is accepting things because some official says something fudged data to further just another trumped up government program.
This graph shows that almost all the NOAA stated warming we have seen is actually from NOAA adjustments
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...
Darn Exon must be at it again or Soros and some nefarious evil program.

Most people who have been following both sides of this argument have read from more than one source of how NOAA and even NASA have supposedly been caught adjusting numbers or whole computer programs to arrive at a predetermined outcome. True or false it does not matter for many would not believe either side regardless of who said what.

A site like this talks about satellites because it relies on ignorance of how they operate.

Please see this post (link option) for some information on their limitations, back on page 6 of this thread.

Satellite data is as fudged or more so than any terrestrial data.

I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding 'whistleblowers' - NOAA research is available to the public. People can replicate it to their hearts' content. Instead, they want internal communications for some reason - a witch hunt and nothing more.

If you want to read about NOAA adjustments, take a look.

a reply to: Greven

Greven

Let us be clear here. We are talking about global warming and what should be done about it on a global scale! It will cost billions if not trillions to implement all the plans to prevent further warming. Everyone will feel the pain.

If you are going to put your hand in my pocket, then I have every right to know how you arrived at your conclusions.

For the last 10 years, we have been told that warming is "paused" because the ocean ate the heat. All of a sudden NOAA comes out with some adjustments and claims to have found the warming, it wasn't lost at all.

If you are going to do an about face like that, it is reasonable to allow me to examine the records of discussions and to understand fully how you arrived at the conclusions that "adjustments" were needed.

Faith only carries you so far. Right now the credibility of science itself is at stake. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Kali74

Exactly! you said the MWP was regional because it was confined to essentially the Atlantic Ocean and surrounding land masses.

In fact, the question of whether not MWP was a global or regional event is highly questionable.

I am presenting you with evidence from scientific sources using scientific methods of enquiry that, in fact, MWP was a global event and in fact, may have had temperatures higher than we are experiencing today.

www.sciencemag.org...

Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

Editor's Summary

Global warming is popularly viewed only as an atmospheric process, when, as shown by marine temperature records covering the last several decades, most heat uptake occurs in the ocean. How did subsurface ocean temperatures vary during past warm and cold intervals? Rosenthal et al. (p. 617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.

Now this actually goes to the core of the global warming issue. If the MWP occurred due to natural sources (ocean circulation) and was a global event, then that puts the current theory that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are the ONLY forcing that could have caused rising global temperatures.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
No one is claiming that AGW is the only cause, however it currently appears to be a major contributor to climate forcing to date.

The extraordinary claim that AGW is junk science requires extraordinary proof. You have yet to provide any evidence that disputes AGW theory. Despite your claim of the contrary it is you that is running on faith in this discussion.

a reply to: jrod

No the extraordinary claim that AGW is junk science does not, in fact, require extraordinary evidence. You are asking me to prove that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are NOT the major driver of current global temperatures. That is a negative. No one can prove a negative. It is incongruent with any kind of logical thinking.

It is the proponents of the global warming theory that must prove the positive - that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are the major forcing of current global temperatures. It is the proponents of AGW that want to re-shape society into something it currently is not. At a significant cost, I might add.

I am merely pointing out that if MWP was, in fact, a global event, with evidence provided by the ocean, then it would appear that the current warming trend is, in fact, nothing more than a natural cycle.

Now that does not preclude that anthropogenic sources of CO2 may have some effect but as you pointed out, the magnitude of the effect is unknown.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: jrod

JROD

YOU asked repeatedly for scientific evidence. I have given it to you. You still do nothing but rant. I am having a very pleasant exchange with Kali74. It is unlikely that either of us will resolve anything but it is interesting none the less.

Would you miind contributing in a positive and pleasant manner


Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Addressing the science is how a scientific discussion works, character attacks and your rant against Soros does not change the science. Not sure where to begin with Hansen though....

@727Sky,

Any science you want to add to the discussion? Now you are trying tell the board the experts must have the numbers wrong.....


Also the articles you provide do not actually address the science, and no.I will.not trust a republican lawmaker from Texas opinion on the subject. More of the same BS rhetoric aimed at casting doubt on climate science without actually discussing the science.[

To write that the warming we have observed is because of instrument adjustments is a straight up lie. But go ahead and create your own version of the truth....

Okay, you can rant as long as you want about the post not being about the 'science.' The fact is that the poster asked for the information, and I provided the information showing how it contributes to the climate change debate.

Are you trying to deny that prominent figures in the climate change debate have blatantly manipulated their data and models to misinform the public? The fact that only arstechnica and national geographic even remotely called out Hansen for this is very telling of the competence (or 'coordinated effort') of the news organizations which most folks are getting their climate information from wouldn't you agree?

Even if you are a die-hard believer wither way it is good to always look at the character of the funding sources and those who claim to be engaging in science. It is very clear what direction you lean, and how hard, so I would suggest you visit climateaudit.org or here GIT Professor. Take a look at the writers then take a look at the writing.

-FBB

PS
If you want to talk about the science maybe you can offer a better explanation to the board of how increasing surface temperatures don't just result in the atmosphere expanding into the vacuum of space against the force of gravity?


//edit
FYI Judith Curry : She is Chair of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, was a member of NASA's Climate Research Committee for three years and NOAA's Climate Working Group.
//edit

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE???

Burning fossil fuels released CO2, we have burned so.much that now we are seeing a sharp increase if CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. CO2 causes radiative forcing, which essentially traps heat in the atmosphere. This is the basis for AGW theory.

Despite your claims YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS AGW!

AND this.
notrickszone.com...

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Are you trying to deny that prominent figures in the climate change debate have blatantly manipulated their data and models to misinform the public?

This is a lie.

The fact that only arstechnica and national geographic even remotely called out Hansen for this is very telling of the competence (or 'coordinated effort') of the news organizations which most folks are getting their climate information from wouldn't you agree?

This arstechnica?

Are you sure you read the article and not some other site that claimed Arstechnica called Hansen out?

a reply to: Kali74

You obviously did not read the article . . .

arstechnica.com...

In an interview on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS, Hansen could have corrected Zakaria when he said, “You say that there will be a 10-feet rise in 50 years.” But instead, Hansen responded, “Not only would it be 10 feet, but it would imply that in the next decades after that it would be even more.”

Later, Hansen said, “So if we allow the temperature to go two degrees higher, we're guaranteeing that that sea level rise will occur; we just aren't sure how fast it will occur. And what our study shows, it's a lot faster than the glaciologists had imagined.”

This study may explore a rapid sea level rise scenario, but it doesn’t show it.

His GISS manipulations were found in the model's source code you can review the GISS report itself to verify that.

Hansen purposefully misrepresented his study and the media ran with it.

That is a fact.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

The rest of the entire article is calling out the misrepresenting of Hansen's conclusion about 10ft. Yes he made a mistake at the beginning of his interview but he states later in the interview that this will be because of reaching the 2C mark. The 2C mark is expected at the end of the century if we don't significantly cut CO2 emissions.

I don't see this article as having called out Hansen in the least bit.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

The rest of the entire article is calling out the misrepresenting of Hansen's conclusion about 10ft. Yes he made a mistake at the beginning of his interview but he states later in the interview that this will be because of reaching the 2C mark. The 2C mark is expected at the end of the century if we don't significantly cut CO2 emissions.

I don't see this article as having called out Hansen in the least bit.

No, his entire approach towards the rate of melting is counter to the actual observed data. My thread Media Lies; NASA's James Hansen Fear Mongering and Sea Level Rise further explains the additional critiques you seem to have glossed over.

Given that temperatures are increasing much more rapidly today than they did during that interglacial, the researchers explore the climate impacts of some rapid sea level rise scenarios of their choosing. These scenarios are predicated on glacial melt rates accelerating over time—one in which the melt rate doubles every five years, one every 10 years, and one every 20 years. Each scenario stops at 5 meters of sea level rise. A 5-year doubling time reaches 5 meters around the year 2060, while a 20-year doubling time hits 5 meters around 2160.

For reference, the researchers note that satellite measurements of Greenland’s melt rate from 2003 to 2013 would imply a 10-year doubling time, but acknowledge that “this high rate may not continue.” It very well may not; that’s a very short time period to extrapolate from, and 2012 was an anomalously big melt year.

His entire basis is upon a 5 year doubling, which he arbitrarily inserted into the model as the actual scenario, when the actual observed rate is closer to 10 years and based on an anomalous year in the data.

By all means continue simply calling it all lies, or whatever it is you do. The fact is that it is not based on actual data, but rather imaginary scenarios.

-FBB

//edit

The article is not about the media misrepresenting his data, it is about Hansen misrepresenting his "data" in a leaked press release and then reinforcing the misguided belief that his "results" were based on the actual observed data. To claim that his statements are scientifically sound is tantamount to denying the scientific method.

a reply to: jrod


I was confused about your response mentioning a R-Texan. You seem to have been confused as to the GISS data manipulation I was referring to. The GISS data was a result of a y2k bug being found in NASA models and forced him to release the previously confidential source code of his modelling program. I was not referring to the current issues that are in the public light, I was linking you to a report from the 2006 era of James Hansen climate research.

The intern sited came forward years ago and is not associated with the current 'investigation.

Hope that clears up the confusion for you.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
No confusion on my part. Cute how you guys like to dwell on one man's bad prediction while ignoring a plethora of data that tells us AGW is real and observable phenomenon.

Lamar Smith is on a witch hunt for climate scientists, this is alarming because we have a Congressman who is chair of the Science, Space, and Technology committee who blindly dismisses things like the IPCC report without even reading it.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

The article is not about the media misrepresenting his data, it is about Hansen misrepresenting his "data" in a leaked press release and then reinforcing the misguided belief that his "results" were based on the actual observed data. To claim that his statements are scientifically sound is tantamount to denying the scientific method.

That's not what I'm seeing. My understanding of what he's saying is that his 5 years then 10 then 20 doubling is based on the melt rate of the ice shelves during the previous interglacial.

a reply to: jrod

I have provided evidence that the Medieval Warming Period was a global event. It was identified in the Pacific as well as the Atlantic Ocean. Temperatures rose during the Medieval Warming Period that is even higher than today. There was not a SUV anywhere in the world during the MWP. And yet the globe warmed anyway.

This is proof that what is happening today happened before the industrial age and had nothing to do with atmospheric CO2.

But since you hysterically dismiss any information presented to you, including information regarding the incongruent behavior of the PTB as well as any wrongdoing on the part of your heros, any deviation from scientific methodology etc....I will leave you to your hysterics.

I am done with this thread.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

The article is not about the media misrepresenting his data, it is about Hansen misrepresenting his "data" in a leaked press release and then reinforcing the misguided belief that his "results" were based on the actual observed data. To claim that his statements are scientifically sound is tantamount to denying the scientific method.

That's not what I'm seeing. My understanding of what he's saying is that his 5 years then 10 then 20 doubling is based on the melt rate of the ice shelves during the previous interglacial.

The melt rate is based off of the data from 2003-2013 . . . . it is stated very clearly in the article.

These scenarios are predicated on glacial melt rates accelerating over time—one in which the melt rate doubles every five years, one every 10 years, and one every 20 years. Each scenario stops at 5 meters of sea level rise. A 5-year doubling time reaches 5 meters around the year 2060, while a 20-year doubling time hits 5 meters around 2160.

For reference, the researchers note that satellite measurements of Greenland’s melt rate from 2003 to 2013 would imply a 10-year doubling time

Not based on historical glacial melt data, but rather based on the current melt rate increasing. I will repeat it for you, it is NOT based on historical data.

His exploratory scenario then tries to extrapolate what will happen if that rate of melting doubles in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years. Further the researchers also include novel forcing effects which are not yet supported by the larger scientific body researching the matter.

He then goes on television and openly, without a doubt, supports the 5 year doubling as what will happen.

HIS CLAIMS ARE NOT BASED ON THE OBSERVED DATA, AKA SCIENTIFIC METHOD . . . .

-FBB

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
No confusion on my part. Cute how you guys like to dwell on one man's bad prediction while ignoring a plethora of data that tells us AGW is real and observable phenomenon.

Lamar Smith is on a witch hunt for climate scientists, this is alarming because we have a Congressman who is chair of the Science, Space, and Technology committee who blindly dismisses things like the IPCC report without even reading it.

Nothing I linked you to has to do with Lamar Smith, like I tried to explain earlier. I was making a point that a scientist funded by Soros has repeatedly engaged in subversive behaviour to misrepresent their findings.

Are you merely trying to deflect that as a minor issue that does not affect your AGW belief system?

-FBB