2015 Was Hottest Year in Historical Record <yawn>

The medieval warm period was not local. Both the northern hemisphere GISP2 ice cores and the the southern hemisphere Law Dome Ice core in both show the medieval warm period. Now before you start the usual ignorant warmmonger bull(*)(*)(*)(*) ice cores being local, ice cores represent the entire water cycle form evaporation at the equator to precipitation at the pole so they are not local proxies but hemispheric.

 

You mean like no warming for 18+ years?

 

Yes. It was local. Just ask Richard Alley, the man behind the GISP2 research to begin with. And before you talk about hemispheric temperatures, go back and read in my previous posts where I said "hemispheric."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ

 

When doing a reconstruction if you have only one calibration period at the end of the record where the dependent variable only trends in one direction you will inevitably get a hockey stick. Selection on the dependent variable is fraught with hazards. <Rule 2/3>

 

Yes, I'm familiar with that nonsensical claim. We are seeing the warmest years on record. Anyone who can draw a trend line through the available record can see the rise. It is only through highly selective cherry-picking (the favorite denialist tactic) that you can produce a flat line, and even that produces huge problems, in the form of a series of flat lines that continually escalating.

 

That's exactly what it was saying. If we were able to pinpoint the specific causes and effects of "global warming", not following too far behind would be solutions . Obviously we're unable to do this, but you still insist upon acting which in this case means the carbon taxes.

And the great fear, and high probability is that we can "tackle global warming", and it'll have no effect. Meanwhile if that happens, your excuse will be "If only we did it sooner". Yeah, well I prefer to use logic here: Whether we did it sooner or later, ineffective policies remain ineffective. Time doesn't change results.

 

Here is the problem with Alley. He isn't actually an expert on ice cores. He crunched the data but he isn't the guy who actually came up with the physics.
Willi Dansgaard invented the method for analyzing ice cores. Alley can crunch the numbers using Dansgaard method but he doesn't understand the physics behind it.

Willi Dansgaard, The O18-abundance in fresh water, Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta 6, 1954

What he is referring to in the bold is the water cycle, from evaporation to precipitation. The heavy water is not just participation out a the point that the ice was cored. Its been participating out over the entire water cycle. The final ratio of heavy to light water in the ice core is dependent on the entire temperature gradient over the entire water cycle from equator to latitude its cored. You will find that ice cores cored at the same latitude generally agree with each other.

 

Far from a nonsense claim but what the satellite data shows, again, one of those 'average global temperatures'. If you pick your starting point at the end of the Little Ice Age, it has been warming long before this AGW hysteria.

 

Really



BTW the point of 0 trend is the opposite of cherry picking because you do not determine the date the math does. Its ignorant to claim that the point of 0 trend is cherry picking.

 

That's because denialists have an invisible bullseye when it comes to standards for such a "pinpoint." Of all of the explanations that have been tried, only AGW fits the evidence. And please, stick to the points being argued. If you would prefer to counter imaginary arguments, as you are doing in your last paragraph, then you are arguing against imaginary opponents.

 

Your Y axis isn't labelled. Is it global average temperatures? And yes, picking the latest 15-18 or so years in complete isolation is cherry-picking (go back and read what the quote was in response to). Picking only one location is cherry-picking.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, you can only produce a "hiatus" with cherry-picked data. The warming that is happening now is happening much faster than at other points after the Little Ice Age.

 

You seem not to be aware of the concern among the scientists (climategate) that a pause of 15 years would be a problem and falsify their CO2 theory.

 

It's not an "imaginary argument", it's a rational conclusion. Let's say no one on the right opposed AGW and pursued AGW solutions and it didn't work. It would very logically state 'If only they let us do it sooneeeeeeeer!" And my logical rebuttal is: If it didn't work now, it wouldn't have worked then either.

It's a negative, we'll never know but chances are very good. Like I said: Time doesn't change results.

AGW doesn't fit anything, at its very basic you're like: "Planet's warming, C02 is going up in the air! Humans ish teh cause"-End theory.

Has it ever concurred to the scientific community that there may be natural elements at play, creating more C02? Perhaps a element not yet discovered.
Since the world's climate has changed dramatically over the course of years and centuries.

The idea that you understand enough of the climate, to specifically blame human activity for the planet's activity(and even more so, the crazy conclusion that you could do anything about it) is lulz worthy. As a Naturalist, I believe in Nature's supreme power. We men can do naught but admire Mother Nature.

 

Okay, any scientist that disagrees with you must just not understand that data, even people for whom this is a specialty.

 

So you are a 'denier' now if you believe that back when the dinosaurs lived, that things were much warmer on the planet?

This is baseless bunk. No facts that I can see, other than the amount of money dedicated to starting a new carbon tax is truly obscene. The more money they get, seemingly the higher warming trends the studies show. Global temperatures fluctuate based off of solar activity. End of story. There are NO credible studies that show anything else.

 

If you are done with those windmills, let's see what else we have

Ah, I see you had one windmill left.

. . . yes, it has, which is why they came up with experiments to rule that out. CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels has a different isotope of carbon. Yes, through emissions and the destruction of carbon sinks, we are indeed responsible for the current rise in CO2.

Perhaps a element not yet discovered.
[quote[Since the world's climate has changed dramatically over the course of years and centuries.

The idea that you understand enough of the climate, to specifically blame human activity for the planet's activity(and even more so, the crazy conclusion that you could do anything about it) is lulz worthy.[/quote]The logic is pretty simple. The greenhouse effect is a thing which exists. We have recently contributed significantly to its causes . . . and, therefore, likely contributed to its effects.

You have a very odd definition of naturalism. And, quite frankly, it borders on the superstitious to say that natures is powerful, therefore man can't be responsible.

- - - Updated - - -

Global temperatures have risen even as solar activity has dimmed in recent times.

 

Yes, I am familiar with that myth.

 

I did not make a claim that they were the same

You continue to avoid answering the question

 

The logic is pretty simple. The greenhouse effect is a thing which exists. We have recently contributed significantly to its causes . . . and, therefore, likely contributed to its effects.

You have a very odd definition of naturalism. And, quite frankly, it borders on the superstitious to say that natures is powerful, therefore man can't be responsible.

- - - Updated - - -


Global temperatures have risen even as solar activity has dimmed in recent times.[/QUOTE]

A flower grows, and then it dies in a cycle. The same is true for the planet, the same is true for everything else. Life is organic and it controls its own existence. All you can do is look at it. At best, we have water saved in a pot and we can water it. But the flower gets as much(if not more nutrients) from developing outside.

Again, its pure egotism to think we're the cause for some malefic effect and even more egotism to think that we can fix it.

 

When the guy crunching the numbers says something the disagrees with the guy who invented the the theory I fall on the side of the guy who invented the theory.

Dansgaard was quite clear that the isotope ratio was dependent on "the average cooling of the vapor during the circulation of the water in nature". Willi Dansgaard 1954

 

Uh myths are things that didn't happen.

"Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model&#8217;s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.&#8221;

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

"&#8216;Bottom line: the &#8216;no upward trend&#8217; has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried." ~ Phil Jones 2009&#65279;

 

Fail at reading graphs, math, and english.

The graph is the RSS record from 1997.1 says so right in the key. Since its the RSS the Y scale is obviously temperature anomaly since the RSS is a graph of temperature anomaly vs. time.

As for cherry picking, cherry picking is intentionally picking a point that supports your case. A 0 trend is determined by the math. Since I have no control over where the 0 trend occurs it cannot be called cherry picking.

 

Do you have a quote from Alley disagreeing with this, or a line of reasoning connecting this quote to what we are discussing?

 

Again, the "hiatus" can only be produced by cherry-picking years in complete isolation. It's a complete farce.

 

Yeah you summed up the proof very well.....here I will post the proof you posted again for those who missed it. Here it is: