rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 12:44am:

sea levels are rising. the cryosphere is decreasing. 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded. To continually deny this is just silly.

Please see below


Quote:

22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths Here are 22 good reasons not to believe the statements made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guest essay by Jean-Pierre Bardinet. ADVERTISEMENT According to the official statements of the IPCC “Science is clear” and non-believers cannot be trusted. Quick action is needed! For more than 30 years we have been told that we must act quickly and that after the next three or five years it will be too late (or even after the next 500 days according to the French Minister of foreign affairs speaking in 2014) and the Planet will be beyond salvation and become a frying pan -on fire- if we do not drastically reduce our emissions of CO2, at any cost, even at the cost of economic decline, ruin and misery. But anyone with some scientific background who takes pains to study the topics at hand is quickly led to conclude that the arguments of the IPCC are inaccurate, for many reasons of which here is a non-exhaustive list. The 22 Inconvenient Truths 1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature? (discussion: p. 4) 2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature? [Note 1: since 1880 the only one period where Global Mean Temperature and CO2 content of the air increased simultaneously has been 1978-1997. From 1910 to 1940, the Global Mean Temperature increased at about the same rate as over 1978-1997, while CO2 anthropic emissions were almost negligible. Over 1950-1978 while CO2 anthropic emissions increased rapidly the Global Mean Temperature dropped. From Vostok and other ice cores we know that it’s the increase of the temperature that drives the subsequent increase of the CO2 content of the air, thanks to ocean out-gassing, and not the opposite. The same process is still at work nowadays] (discussion: p. 7) 3. The amount of CO2 of the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total CO2 in the air (as shown by the isotopic ratios 13C/12C) instead of the 25% to 30% said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 9) 4. The lifetime of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is about 5 years instead of the 100 years said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 10) 5. The changes of the Mean Global Temperature are more or less sinusoidal with a well defined 60 year period. We are at a maximum of the sinusoid(s) and hence the next years should be cooler as has been observed after 1950. (discussion: p. 12) 6. The absorption of the radiation from the surface by the CO2 of the air is nearly saturated. Measuring with a spectrometer what is left from the radiation of a broadband infrared source (say a black body heated at 1000°C) after crossing the equivalent of some tens or hundreds of meters of the air, shows that the main CO2 bands (4.3 µm and 15 µm) have been replaced by the emission spectrum of the CO2 which is radiated at the temperature of the trace-gas. (discussion: p. 14) 7. In some geological periods the CO2 content of the air has been up to 20 times today’s content, and there has been no runaway temperature increase! Why would our CO2 emissions have a cataclysmic impact? The laws of Nature are the same whatever the place and the time. (discussion: p. 17) 8.The sea level is increasing by about 1.3 mm/year according to the data of the tide-gauges (after correction of the emergence or subsidence of the rock to which the tide gauge is attached, nowadays precisely known thanks to high precision GPS instrumentation); no acceleration has been observed during the last decades; the raw measurements at Brest since 1846 and at Marseille since the 1880s are slightly less than 1.3 mm/year. (discussion: p. 18) 9. The “hot spot” in the inter-tropical high troposphere is, according to all “models” and to the IPCC reports, the indubitable proof of the water vapour feedback amplification of the warming: it has not been observed and does not exist. (discussion: p. 20) 10. The water vapour content of the air has been roughly constant since more than 50 years but the humidity of the upper layers of the troposphere has been decreasing: the IPCC foretold the opposite to assert its “positive water vapour feedback” with increasing CO2. The observed “feedback” is negative. (discussion: p.22) 11. The maximum surface of the Antarctic ice-pack has been increasing every year since we have satellite observations. (discussion: p. 24) 12. The sum of the surfaces of the Arctic and Antarctic icepacks is about constant, their trends are phase-opposite; hence their total albedo is about constant. (discussion: p. 25) 13. The measurements from the 3000 oceanic ARGO buoys since 2003 may suggest a slight decrease of the oceanic heat content between the surface and a depth 700 m with very significant regional differences. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/

CONT'D from above


Quote:

14. The observed outgoing longwave emission (or thermal infrared) of the globe is increasing, contrary to what models say on a would-be “radiative imbalance”; the “blanket” effect of CO2 or CH4 “greenhouse gases” is not seen. (discussion:p. 29) 15. The Stefan Boltzmann formula does not apply to gases, as they are neither black bodies, nor grey bodies: why does the IPCC community use it for gases ? (discussion: p. 30) 16. The trace gases absorb the radiation of the surface and radiate at the temperature of the air which is, at some height, most of the time slightly lower that of the surface. The trace-gases cannot “heat the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body. (discussion: p. 32) 17. The temperatures have always driven the CO2 content of the air, never the reverse. Nowadays the net increment of the CO2 content of the air follows very closely the inter-tropical temperature anomaly. (discussion: p. 33) 18. The CLOUD project at the European Center for Nuclear Research is probing the Svensmark-Shaviv hypothesis on the role of cosmic rays modulated by the solar magnetic field on the low cloud coverage; the first and encouraging results have been published in Nature. (discussion: p. 36) 19. Numerical “Climate models” are not consistent regarding cloud coverage which is the main driver of the surface temperatures. Project Earthshine (Earthshine is the ghostly glow of the dark side of the Moon) has been measuring changes of the terrestrial albedo in relation to cloud coverage data; according to cloud coverage data available since 1983, the albedo of the Earth has decreased from 1984 to 1998, then increased up to 2004 in sync with the Mean Global Temperature. (discussion: p. 37) 20. The forecasts of the “climate models” are diverging more and more from the observations. A model is not a scientific proof of a fact and if proven false by observations (or falsified) it must be discarded, or audited and corrected. We are still waiting for the IPCC models to be discarded or revised; but alas IPCC uses the models financed by the taxpayers both to “prove” attributions to greenhouse gas and to support forecasts of doom. (discussion: p. 40) 21. As said by IPCC in its TAR (2001) “we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Has this state of affairs changed since 2001? Surely not for scientific reasons. (discussion: p. 43) 22. Last but not least the IPCC is neither a scientific organization nor an independent organization: the summary for policy makers, the only part of the report read by international organizations, politicians and media is written under the very close supervision of the representative of the countries and of the non-governmental pressure groups. The governing body of the IPCC is made of a minority of scientists almost all of them promoters of the environmentalist ideology, and a majority of state representatives and of non-governmental green organizations. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/

Good for you, Ajax. You can copy and paste Koch propaganda.

Here's your Brownie button
http://rlv.zcache.com/brownie_button_fridge_magnets-r1efff0adf31741d79f0c0f01877a349f_x7js9_8byvr_512.jpg

Why attack the message when you can just attack the messenger?

Marla wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 2:27pm:

Good for you, Ajax. You can copy and paste Koch propaganda. Here's your Brownie button http://rlv.zcache.com/brownie_button_fridge_magnets-r1efff0adf31741d79f0c0f01877a349f_x7js9_8byvr_512.jpg

Its quite remarkable that in the year 2015 with all we know and with all that we have spent on education that there could possibly be anyone on earth today that considers the above post a logical rebuttal of the opening post.

Its nothing more than the ravings of a lunatic.

Marla wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 2:27pm:

Good for you, Ajax. You can copy and paste Koch propaganda. Here's your Brownie button http://rlv.zcache.com/brownie_button_fridge_magnets-r1efff0adf31741d79f0c0f01877a349f_x7js9_8byvr_512.jpg

You really are a dip stick Miss Muffet, sh!t for brains looks like.

If you cannot refute any of the academia I'm posting then its best to S.T.F.U, otherwise you're starting to sound like death rides a horse, or Cerberus as I call him.

PROVE IT......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Try to compliment somebody and this is how I get treated.

::) ::) dot point 12 is quite interesting!!

Ajax wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 7:24pm:

Marla wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 2:27pm: Good for you, Ajax. You can copy and paste Koch propaganda. Here's your Brownie button http://rlv.zcache.com/brownie_button_fridge_magnets-r1efff0adf31741d79f0c0f01877a349f_x7js9_8byvr_512.jpg You really are a dip stick Miss Muffet, sh!t for brains looks like. If you cannot refute any of the academia I'm posting then its best to S.T.F.U, otherwise you're starting to sound like death rides a horse, or Cerberus as I call him. PROVE IT......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm cerberus whereas dot point 12 is supposedly above mythical because a headkicker said so  ::)

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 5:14pm:

Marla wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 2:27pm: Good for you, Ajax. You can copy and paste Koch propaganda. Here's your Brownie button http://rlv.zcache.com/brownie_button_fridge_magnets-r1efff0adf31741d79f0c0f01877a349f_x7js9_8byvr_512.jpg Its quite remarkable that in the year 2015 with all we know and with all that we have spent on education that there could possibly be anyone on earth today that considers the above post a logical rebuttal of the opening post. Its nothing more than the ravings of a lunatic.

innocent cannot withstand the attack on dot point 12 : it is bunkum but innocent loves sucking bunkum  8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

double plus good wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 5:01pm:

Why attack the message when you can just attack the messenger?

...dot point 12 is the weakest point among a list full of weak points!

Marla wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 1:18am:

Try to compliment somebody and this is how I get treated.

Sounds like crocodile tears to me.

You have a strange way of writing a compliment.

Hey Marla if it truly was I'm sorry, if you're foxing then come on down...... :)

I haven't forgotten the denialist brigade. I'll be back after New Horizons passes Pluto next week.

It always amuses me to think how people with no obvious knowledge of science can be so dogmatic about something that is best treated scientifically. Denialism is for the truly faithful.

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 2:22pm:

It always amuses me to think how people with no obvious knowledge of science can be so dogmatic about something that is best treated scientifically.

So true John. Ignore the methodology and just look at the conclusions a la Karl et al; and declare them valid.

Such Science.

lee wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 3:20pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 2:22pm: It always amuses me to think how people with no obvious knowledge of science can be so dogmatic about something that is best treated scientifically. So true John. Ignore the methodology and just look at the conclusions a la Karl et al; and declare them valid. Such Science.

Was that the paper you didn't actually read, but read about it on DunnoWattsupme? Correct me if I'm wrong. 

It's the one you said you read; except for the supplement for which I supplied a link.

The one you said the critics obviously hadn't read, because it didn't say anything about statistical significance.

Do you remember now? You said you had read it.

It's the one you wanted to debate me on its merits, but hadn't even read their methodology, only the nicely printed conclusions.

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 2:22pm:

I haven't forgotten the denialist brigade. I'll be back after New Horizons passes Pluto next week. It always amuses me to think how people with no obvious knowledge of science can be so dogmatic about something that is best treated scientifically. Denialism is for the truly faithful.

You are a sheep, you think that if enough people tell you something is real then it is real, that is religion not science, science requires proof, "because I said so" does not qualify as scientific proof no matter what the credentials of the scientist that says it are, it may be enough to convince you but please don't get confused and try and pass that off as science. 


If you want to convince me of man made global warming using the scientific method please present me with the relevant peer reviewed paper that PROVES man made global warming, shouldn't be hard to find as the scientists that proved global warming would be the most famous scientists in history, nobel prize winners in fact so where are they?, I await your return  :)

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 8^th, 2015 at 11:32am:

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 2:22pm: I haven't forgotten the denialist brigade. I'll be back after New Horizons passes Pluto next week. It always amuses me to think how people with no obvious knowledge of science can be so dogmatic about something that is best treated scientifically. Denialism is for the truly faithful. You are a sheep, you think that if enough people tell you something is real then it is real, that is religion not science, science requires proof, "because I said so" does not qualify as scientific proof no matter what the credentials of the scientist that says it are, it may be enough to convince you but please don't get confused and try and pass that off as science.  If you want to convince me of man made global warming using the scientific method please present me with the relevant peer reviewed paper that PROVES man made global warming, shouldn't be hard to find as the scientists that proved global warming would be the most famous scientists in history, nobel prize winners in fact so where are they?, I await your return  :)

You are the sheep. I understand the science from first principles. You cower and hide when anybody asks anything remotely technical. You know perfectly well that your knowledge of the basics is much less than that of a high school student, but ramble on on the basis that you think it's a political fight. (it isn't - and don't ever slur me with left wing labels.)

It just goes to prove that sometimes BS can prevail for some, especially if well-reasoned argument makes the brain hurt too much. Have another beer.

So no SCIENTIFIC PROOF I see, as real science demands ... just blind faith, you should join the church of scientology with that sort of mindset  ;D 

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 6:21am:

It just goes to prove that sometimes BS can prevail for some, especially if well-reasoned argument makes the brain hurt too much.

So what well reasoned argument was there for the Karl et al paper, when you hadn't read the methodology?

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 8:15am:

So no SCIENTIFIC PROOF I see, as real science demands ... just blind faith, you should join the church of scientology with that sort of mindset  ;D

Listen, numbnuts, since when was there such a thing as Scientific Proof?  Did you just invent it as a convenient strawman or is it your recycled version?

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 8^th, 2015 at 11:32am:

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 2:22pm: I haven't forgotten the denialist brigade. I'll be back after New Horizons passes Pluto next week. It always amuses me to think how people with no obvious knowledge of science can be so dogmatic about something that is best treated scientifically. Denialism is for the truly faithful. You are a sheep, you think that if enough people tell you something is real then it is real, that is religion not science, science requires proof, "because I said so" does not qualify as scientific proof no matter what the credentials of the scientist that says it are, it may be enough to convince you but please don't get confused and try and pass that off as science.  If you want to convince me of man made global warming using the scientific method please present me with the relevant peer reviewed paper that PROVES man made global warming, shouldn't be hard to find as the scientists that proved global warming would be the most famous scientists in history, nobel prize winners in fact so where are they?, I await your return  :)

Science doesn't prove anything:[size=10] it disproves![/size

** Are we learning yet or still smoking crack in a batman suit?

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 8^th, 2015 at 11:32am:

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 2:22pm: I haven't forgotten the denialist brigade. I'll be back after New Horizons passes Pluto next week. It always amuses me to think how people with no obvious knowledge of science can be so dogmatic about something that is best treated scientifically. Denialism is for the truly faithful. You are a sheep, you think that if enough people tell you something is real then it is real, that is religion not science, science requires proof, "because I said so" does not qualify as scientific proof no matter what the credentials of the scientist that says it are, it may be enough to convince you but please don't get confused and try and pass that off as science.  If you want to convince me of man made global warming using the scientific method please present me with the relevant peer reviewed paper that PROVES man made global warming, shouldn't be hard to find as the scientists that proved global warming would be the most famous scientists in history, nobel prize winners in fact so where are they?, I await your return  :)

Science doesn't prove anything: it disproves!

** Are we learning yet or still smoking crack in a batman suit?

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 8:15am:

So no SCIENTIFIC PROOF I see, as real science demands ... just blind faith, you should join the church of scientology with that sort of mindset  ;D

Really?!?!

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.”  Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.…

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes.  Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists.  Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 5:47pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 8:15am: So no SCIENTIFIC PROOF I see, as real science demands ... just blind faith, you should join the church of scientology with that sort of mindset  ;D  Really?!?! One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.”  Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.… The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes.  Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists.  Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Maybe innocent is smoking crack in a batman suit: go easy or he may bite, as opposed to bark  :o :o :o

So you can't prove there is man made global warming ... thank you at least for proving my point though 8-)

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 6:53pm:

So you can't prove there is man made global warming ... thank you at least for proving my point though 8-)

Science can't prove anything!

;)

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 11:53am:

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 8:15am: So no SCIENTIFIC PROOF I see, as real science demands ... just blind faith, you should join the church of scientology with that sort of mindset  ;D  Listen, numbnuts, since when was there such a thing as Scientific Proof?  Did you just invent it as a convenient strawman or is it your recycled version?

Hey Johno

You claim to be some sort of climate scientist can you refute any of the 22 on the list in the OP or do you just blindly accept what the computer climate models are telling their users and in turn the followers AGW religion.

You say you're a smart man yet you put your faith in computer models that have been proven wrong in their predictions.

That's stupid in my books.....sorry mate ... but its the truth..... ;D :D 8-)

Of course he accepts them. They show what he feels is true. AKA Confirmation Bias.

I accept that climate change is happening. I don't use the term "believe in climate change" because that implies that their is some uncertainty about the issue.

Thank you for posting the link to this essay, it was a pretty interesting read. I did note that all the points were refuted by people with more credibility and lucidity than me in the comments section of the article, and that it should not be confused with a peer reviewed article due to its broad scope and limited depth.

My only contribution would be to note that both of the authors of the essay François-Marie Bréon(who is erroneously listed as director for research CNRS) and Jean Poitou published this out of IPSL lab in france. Sounds really smart heh? bbuuuttt, IPSL doesnt have a physical lab in France. They list two contact addresses at prestigious french universities, but the neither university had heard of them when I emailed them. Bon!
Also, if you go through the IPSL site they don't actually do anything. They don't have any published papers or research. Compare their site to CNRS and see what I mean.
Also, if you try to phone them there is no answer.

I wouldn't claim that IPSL was a vehicle designed to lend credibility to an otherwise unremarkable essay.
I just know what else it could be for.

Also, I couldn't find an original untranslated version of the essay. Both of the co-authors are French, and it written in France. Usually scientific papers are written in your native tongue, and then translated.
Just my 2C :D      

Pho Huc wrote on Jul 15^th, 2015 at 3:33pm:

1-untrue, the mean air temp has been rising over the past 20 years.

According to which data set? What are the error bars?

Sorry, i reedited my post :-[, really dont want to get bogged down in highly technical point by point battle when i can kick the whole enchilada

We accept climate change is happening too. We don't see evidence of the CO2 hypothesis.  CO2 will have an effect according to the physics; whether it is measurable has not been shown. Water vapour has a greater control of the atmosphere than CO2.

Pho Huc wrote on Jul 15^th, 2015 at 7:36pm:

Sorry, i reedited my post :-[, really dont want to get bogged down in highly technical point by point battle when i can kick the whole enchilada

They only thing your going to kick is your own agates.

Of course the Earth is warming and of course there is climate change as it has always been and will always be until the Earth is no more.

What I'm disputing is the myth that is Anthropogenic Global Warming AGW.

We have seen by observations that the predictions of the IPCC computer climate models are way out.

So far out its time to throw the baby and its water out on AGW.

Now which points have been refuted and by who......??????

I didn't personally refute any of the articles points.
If you forced me to pick one point to counter argue it would be the claim(point 2) that 57% of carbon emissions have occurred in the last 18 years.

This is patently false. based on available openly searchable data this figure should be around 40%.

If the essay had focused on one of its 22 points, and then actually proved it I would have found it more educational than the shotgun approach.

I agree that the IPCC climate models are out. what do your models show?

lee wrote on Jul 15^th, 2015 at 7:40pm:

We accept climate change is happening too. We don't see evidence of the CO2 hypothesis.  CO2 will have an effect according to the physics; whether it is measurable has not been shown. Water vapour has a greater control of the atmosphere than CO2.

Water vapour is directly related to CO2 which means CO2 directly controls the temperature of the earth!

We aren't drilling for water vapour and injecting that into the atmosphere  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Ajax wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:28am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 30th, 2015 at 12:44am: sea levels are rising. the cryosphere is decreasing. 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded. To continually deny this is just silly. The 22 Inconvenient Truths 1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997

No - it hasn't.  Stop talking nonsense.

Global Land-Ocean Surface Temperatures, rolling 12 month average
Jan-1997,33.25
Feb-1997,32.42
Mar-1997,34.17
Apr-1997,34.25
May-1997,35
Jun-1997,37.25
Jul-1997,37.17
Aug-1997,36.42
Sep-1997,38.75
Oct-1997,42.25
Nov-1997,44.17
Dec-1997,45.75
Jan-1998,48.17
Feb-1998,52.42
Mar-1998,53.25
Apr-1998,55.58
May-1998,58.25
Jun-1998,60.17
Jul-1998,62.92
Aug-1998,65.25
Sep-1998,64.58
Oct-1998,63.08
Nov-1998,61.83
Dec-1998,61.58
Jan-1999,60.58
Feb-1999,58.92
Mar-1999,56.42
Apr-1999,53.92
May-1999,50.83
Jun-1999,47.75
Jul-1999,45.58
Aug-1999,43
Sep-1999,42.75
Oct-1999,42.58
Nov-1999,41.83
Dec-1999,41.08
Jan-2000,39.08
Feb-2000,38.25
Mar-2000,40.25
Apr-2000,42.33
May-2000,43.08
Jun-2000,43.5
Jul-2000,43.5
Aug-2000,44.08
Sep-2000,44.17
Oct-2000,43
Nov-2000,42.33
Dec-2000,40.83
Jan-2001,42.33
Feb-2001,41.5
Mar-2001,41.67
Apr-2001,41.08
May-2001,42.5
Jun-2001,43.42
Jul-2001,44.92
Aug-2001,45.42
Sep-2001,46.33
Oct-2001,48.08
Nov-2001,51.17
Dec-2001,53.25
Jan-2002,55.83
Feb-2002,58.08
Mar-2002,60.67
Apr-2002,61.08
May-2002,61.58
Jun-2002,61.67
Jul-2002,61.67
Aug-2002,62.08
Sep-2002,62.83
Oct-2002,63.42
Nov-2002,62.67
Dec-2002,61.83
Jan-2003,61.75
Feb-2003,60.08
Mar-2003,57.25
Apr-2003,56.92
May-2003,56.75
Jun-2003,56.08
Jul-2003,55.67
Aug-2003,56.58
Sep-2003,56.67
Oct-2003,58.17
Nov-2003,57.67
Dec-2003,60.17
Jan-2004,58.83
Feb-2004,59.92
Mar-2004,60.58
Apr-2004,61.25
May-2004,59.5
Jun-2004,58.92
Jul-2004,56.33
Aug-2004,54.33
Sep-2004,53.25
Oct-2004,52.42
Nov-2004,53.83
Dec-2004,51.92
Jan-2005,53
Feb-2005,52.08
Mar-2005,52.42
Apr-2005,53
May-2005,54.75
Jun-2005,56.83
Jul-2005,60.17
Aug-2005,61.75
Sep-2005,63.75
Oct-2005,64.92
Nov-2005,65.08
Dec-2005,66.33
Jan-2006,65
Feb-2006,65.83
Mar-2006,65.25
Apr-2006,63.42
May-2006,62
Jun-2006,61.67
Jul-2006,60.67
Aug-2006,61.25
Sep-2006,60
Oct-2006,59.08
Nov-2006,58.92
Dec-2006,59.75
Jan-2007,63.08
Feb-2007,63.08
Mar-2007,63.75
Apr-2007,65.92
May-2007,67.58
Jun-2007,67.17
Jul-2007,67.67
Aug-2007,66.83
Sep-2007,67.08
Oct-2007,66.33
Nov-2007,65.08
Dec-2007,62.67
Jan-2008,56.92
Feb-2008,54.08
Mar-2008,54.25
Apr-2008,52.5
May-2008,51.08
Jun-2008,50.08
Jul-2008,49.92
Aug-2008,48.42
Sep-2008,48.17
Oct-2008,48.58
Nov-2008,49.25
Dec-2008,49.67
Jan-2009,52.42
Feb-2009,53.83
Mar-2009,52.08
Apr-2009,52.67
May-2009,53.67
Jun-2009,55.17
Jul-2009,56.08
Aug-2009,58
Sep-2009,58.42
Oct-2009,58.17
Nov-2009,58.92
Dec-2009,59.58
Jan-2010,60.33
Feb-2010,62.5
Mar-2010,65.67
Apr-2010,67.75
May-2010,68.67
Jun-2010,68.5
Jul-2010,67.75
Aug-2010,67.58
Sep-2010,66.92
Oct-2010,67.5
Nov-2010,67.75
Dec-2010,66.58
Jan-2011,64.92
Feb-2011,62.42
Mar-2011,60
Apr-2011,58.17
May-2011,56.33
Jun-2011,55.83
Jul-2011,56.92
Aug-2011,57.67
Sep-2011,57.33
Oct-2011,56.92
Nov-2011,55
Dec-2011,55.33
Jan-2012,54.83
Feb-2012,54.67
Mar-2012,54.17
Apr-2012,54.33
May-2012,56.25
Jun-2012,56.67
Jul-2012,55
Aug-2012,54
Sep-2012,55.33
Oct-2012,56.25
Nov-2012,57.67
Dec-2012,57.5
Jan-2013,59.33
Feb-2013,60.08
Mar-2013,60.75
Apr-2013,59.58
May-2013,58.33
Jun-2013,58.42
Jul-2013,58.67
Aug-2013,59
Sep-2013,59.33
Oct-2013,58.42
Nov-2013,58.92
Dec-2013,60.08
Jan-2014,60.67
Feb-2014,60
Mar-2014,60.92
Apr-2014,62.92
May-2014,64.83
Jun-2014,64.92
Jul-2014,64.67
Aug-2014,65.75
Sep-2014,66.58
Oct-2014,68
Nov-2014,67
Dec-2014,68
Jan-2015,68.5
Feb-2015,71.67
Mar-2015,72.75
Apr-2015,72.67
May-2015,72
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt


sea levels are rising.
the cryosphere is decreasing.
Surface temperatures are increasing
2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

To continually deny this is just silly.

Ajax wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:28am:

The 22 Inconvenient Truths 2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?

The temperature has NOT been stable (see above) it is increasing

sea levels are rising.
the cryosphere is decreasing.
Surface temperatures are increasing
2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

To continually deny this is just silly.

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 12:40pm:

sea levels are rising. the cryosphere is decreasing. Surface temperatures are increasing 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded. To continually deny this is just silly.

To claim natural variation is actually a man made catastrophe is even sillier  ;D

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 12:40pm: sea levels are rising. the cryosphere is decreasing. Surface temperatures are increasing 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded. To continually deny this is just silly. To claim natural variation is actually a man made catastrophe is even sillier  ;D

What is driving this "natural variation"?

Can you tell us?

Or are you just some ignorant hippy that will claim "it's natural" when confronted with things you don't understand?

We have a very robust theory based on the very well understood physical characteristic of greenhouse gasses that they absorb and re-emit energy of certain wavelengths, that is supported by decades of empirical evidence.  Further supported by atmospheric modelling that shows that natural drivers alone can not explain the observed global warming without including the impact of increasing anthropogenic GHGs.

What exactly IS this "natural" driver you are alluding to that has somehow escaped the notice of the world's scientific community?  You should tell us - there would be a Nobel Prize in it for you.

Giss "Data"? Oh, the inhumanity.

Edit: I see GISS is now using the new, improved ERSST v4 ocean temperature data set, brought to you by Karl et al. The one with the 10% significance factor, backed by noisy +/-1.7C ships' data.

A picture paints a thousand words

http://i62.tinypic.com/2crm2jb.gif http://i62.tinypic.com/29c5mhg.gif
http://i60.tinypic.com/210hwrn.png

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 11:33am:

lee wrote on Jul 15th, 2015 at 7:40pm: We accept climate change is happening too. We don't see evidence of the CO2 hypothesis.  CO2 will have an effect according to the physics; whether it is measurable has not been shown. Water vapour has a greater control of the atmosphere than CO2. Water vapour is directly related to CO2 which means CO2 directly controls the temperature of the earth! We aren't drilling for water vapour and injecting that into the atmosphere  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

:o :o lee doesn't like this comment!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 1:10pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 11:33am: lee wrote on Jul 15th, 2015 at 7:40pm: We accept climate change is happening too. We don't see evidence of the CO2 hypothesis.  CO2 will have an effect according to the physics; whether it is measurable has not been shown. Water vapour has a greater control of the atmosphere than CO2. Water vapour is directly related to CO2 which means CO2 directly controls the temperature of the earth! We aren't drilling for water vapour and injecting that into the atmosphere  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :o :o lee doesn't like this comment!

Huh??? How much crack have you smoked today buddy???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 1:15pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 1:10pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 11:33am: lee wrote on Jul 15th, 2015 at 7:40pm: We accept climate change is happening too. We don't see evidence of the CO2 hypothesis.  CO2 will have an effect according to the physics; whether it is measurable has not been shown. Water vapour has a greater control of the atmosphere than CO2. Water vapour is directly related to CO2 which means CO2 directly controls the temperature of the earth! We aren't drilling for water vapour and injecting that into the atmosphere  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :o :o lee doesn't like this comment! Huh??? How much crack have you smoked today buddy???

CO2 traps the heat: therefore CO2 is directly related to water vapour!

'Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.'

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

lee wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 1:04pm:

'Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.' http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

Why did you forget this bit?

Why did you forget the effect of water vapour on warming?  The .04% controls the rest?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 1:12pm:

lee wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 1:04pm: 'Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.' http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. Why did you forget this bit?

Dude if you want some brain cells email me i'll see what I can do.

What about the saturation level of CO2, it looks like its already been reached, so from here on in no matter how much CO2 goes into the atmosphere it will not have much to do with warming the planet.

And that is exactly what we have been observing.

http://i58.tinypic.com/24d1wnk.png

lee wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 2:02pm:

Why did you forget the effect of water vapour on warming?  The .04% controls the rest?

You forgot the word 'feedback' didn't you buddy  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Ajax wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 6:39pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 1:12pm: lee wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 1:04pm: 'Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.' http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. Why did you forget this bit? Dude if you want some brain cells email me i'll see what I can do. What about the saturation level of CO2, it looks like its already been reached, so from here on in no matter how much CO2 goes into the atmosphere it will not have much to do with warming the planet. And that is exactly what we have been observing. http://i58.tinypic.com/24d1wnk.png

source, thanx!

Stop water vapour now; it causes global warming. ;)

SOURCE THANK YOU VERY MUCH

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 12:19am:

SOURCE THANK YOU VERY MUCH

Here ya go  :D ...



http://nevertoosweetforme.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/tomato-sauce.png

Quote:

Atmospheric physicist Dr. Murry Salby: Man-made CO2 could only cause warming of ‘a few tenths of a degree, if at all’ Read the Full Article Salby: 'Because of the saturation effect in the energy absorption of CO2 molecules with increasing concentration and short residence time, the further increase in temperature could be therefore only at most a few tenths of a degree, if at all. However, the known fossil reserves would be exhausted by then.' By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotMarch 24, 2015 1:34 PM Atmospheric physicist Dr. Murry Salby: Man-made CO2 could only cause warming of ‘a few tenths of a degree, if at all’ http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-recent-seminar-presentation-by.html A recent seminar presentation by atmospheric physicist & professor Murry Salby in Germany strikes another huge blow to climate alarm, demonstrating: The man-made share of CO2 in the atmosphere is only a maximum of 30% (0-30%). The remainder is related to temperature changes, natural outgassing from the oceans, and to soil moisture. The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4-7 years, not hundreds of years as falsely claimed by the IPCC Bern model. Man-made CO2 emissions increased a whopping 350% faster since 2002, yet the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere remained steady at ~2.1 ppm/yr, a “strong indication that anthropogenic emissions can not have a significant or even dominant share.” His conclusion: “Because of the saturation effect in the energy absorption of CO2 molecules with increasing concentration and short residence time, the further increase in temperature could be therefore only at most a few tenths of a degree, if at all. However, the known fossil reserves would be exhausted by then.” Google translation from German + light editing: New study on CO2 concentration: Anthropogenic share somewhere between 0 and a maximum of 30% Seminar presentation by Professor Murry Salby on 13.3.15 in Essen By Michael Limburg, EIKE Professor Murry Salby, author of two textbooks on physics of the atmosphere, is one of the most renowned atmospheric physicists in the world. His research work began many years ago at the University of Colorado, then Macquarie University in Sydney brought him much scientific and public recognition- up until he made the mistake of publicly calling the climate doctrine into question. From then on he was bullied by many agencies, with baseless accusations marring the funding of his research and was finally “forced to retire” after 56 years of his academic career. Professor Murry Salby on 13.3.15 in Essen Fig. 1: History of change of the total global CO2 concentration per year (green) and only on the surface properties (temperature + humidity dominant parts) induced change in CO2 concentration (blue). Correlation coefficient of 0.93. In contrast to the natural CO2 emissions depend on the “surface properties”, do not have the anthropogenic emissions. Graphic M.Salby What was the crime of Murry Salby? Well, Salby had methodically by strict and well supported theoretically by such observations and therefore very well argued that almost 80% of the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are driven by temperature (outgassing) [1]. Not vice versa. The remaining 20% are driven in the main by the moisture.

continued below.

Quote:

They both work together on the biosphere and the other sources and sinks of the CO2 cycle. Another important aspect of these results is that the residence additionally injected CO2 is about 4-7 years. Although the IPCC expects some 100 or more years, motivated by, because of the long-term effects, including the call for an immediate stop of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but the calculations of Salby (and other such as Humlum et al) agree and not the assertion of the IPCC (Fig 2) That the Global Carbon Budget Project comes to completely different results, shows that the research also on this important aspect to the driver of temperature is far from “settled”. Fig. 2: the IPCC for the carbon cycle in Gt C / year. Substituting the values ​​specified correctly correlated results in a residence time of 4.1 years, not hundreds of years. (Fig. 3) Figure V IPCC report Fig. 3: the IPCC Berne model with residence times of hundreds of years (red) vs. Observations (green) and math. Function of the gradient. (Blue). Graphic Salby After these still very new and important results, Salby turned to in his presentation on how high because of anthropogenically induced share of CO2 is the atmosphere and how it could be determined if necessary. This part of the presentation was very extensive and very theoretical, but always starting from the actual observations. The first of these relates to the fact that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions increased by a whopping 350% faster since 2002 than in previous years. Scoffers would say that this is probably an unintended side effect of the Kyoto Protocol, and a bad omen for the upcoming climate conference in Paris. Yes, and that is the point, the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration was total over the same period, constant at the previous rate of 2.1 ppm / year. To Salby this is a strong indication that anthropogenic emissions can not have a significant or even dominant share. Fig. 4: Comparison rise in fossil CO2 emissions generated (above) with the total concentration of CO2 below. Now these two developments he investigated using the known isotopic mixing ratios, and other parameters, and came to the determination that one can only determine the basis of the available data and methods, which currently could be due to the total concentration of the upper limit of CO2 produced by humans. And this limit it to certain complex calculations on the basis by which he led the audience but step by step, with maximum 30%. His conclusion: Because of the saturation effect in the energy absorption of CO2 molecules with increasing concentration and short residence time, the further increase in temperature could be therefore only at most a few tenths of a degree, if at all. However, the known fossil reserves would be exhausted by then. Remains to complete and this was his final note that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions almost 1: (Fig. 5) 1 correlate with the development of the world’s population. Fig. 5:. Development of the world’s population and CO2 emissions from fossil fuels graphics Salby Unspoken the consequence that no general availability of cheap alternatives to fossil fuels, as you currently may only be provided by nuclear energy, which demanded, reduction of fossil CO2 emissions must lead to a drastic reduction in living standards. And this would have led especially in the poorer countries to a massive increase in the death rate. One or the other listeners felt it perhaps the words of the very famous conservationist and diver Jacques Yves Cousteau recalls, in 1991, was allowed to issue an official UN Brochure . We must “In order to stabilize the planet eliminate 350,000 people per day It’s terrible that to say, but just terrible not to say it, ” Jacques Cousteau, the UNESCO Courier, November 1991st [1] For the purists among our readers: Salby determines the correlation coefficient = the net emissions increase of CO2 concentration for the temperature, with almost 0.8 and together with the moisture to 0.93. Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/03/24/atmospheric-physicist-dr-murry-salby-man-made-co2-could-only-cause-warming-of-a-few-tenths-of-a-degree-if-at-all/#ixzz3gbbW8kSh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9Ihttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0

lee wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 8:15pm:

Stop water vapour now; it causes global warming. ;)

No carbon dioxide... no water vapour  :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 7:28pm:

lee wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 8:15pm: Stop water vapour now; it causes global warming. ;) No carbon dioxide... no water vapour  :D :D

lee forgot to read the words "feed-back mechanism"  :) :) :) :) :)