The Hockey Stick Graph Reality

Nope! You don't! That article doesn't say anything like that at all. That fraudulent claim of yours that the sun "could account for a good deal of the warming" IS NOT SUPPORTED by anything in that article.

With the usual denier cult deceitfulness, you left out of your quotes the parts of that article that debunk your bogus spin. And then there is the hypocrisy of touting this bit of science after years of fraudulently claiming that "models are useless crap".

Some relevant excerpts from your article:

"For the first time, model calculations show a plausible way that fluctuations in solar activity could have a tangible impact on the climate.

There is human-induced climate change, and there are natural climate fluctuations. One of the key questions facing climate researchers is whether these fluctuations have any effect at all on the Earth's climate. IPCC reports assume that recent solar activity is insignificant for climate change, and that the same will apply to activity in the near future.

Researchers...elaborate model calculations...expect the Earth's temperature to fall by half a degree when solar activity reaches its next minimum.

According to project head Werner Schmutz, who is also Director of PMOD, this reduction in temperature is significant, even though it will do little to compensate for human-induced climate change. "We could win valuable time if solar activity declines and slows the pace of global warming a little. That might help us to deal with the consequences of climate change." But this will be no more than borrowed time, warns Schmutz, since the next minimum will inevitably be followed by a maximum.

Exactly how the sun will behave over the next few years remains a matter of speculation, however, since appropriate data series have only been available for a few decades and they reveal no evidence of fluctuations during this time.

"To that extent, our latest results are still a hypothesis," says Schmutz, "and it remains difficult for solar physicists to predict the next cycle.""

 

I was not raised on a dairy farm but have driven at times past the dairy farms. The smell is awful.

I do not like posters whose aims are not science, but taunting. Hurling invectives is their game.

Can they try to ridicule posters?

They try.

But that image in the mirror is themselves.

Now, I supplied the article plus the link. If you think I was subjective, I have no problem with that. As I was not the author, check with the author and fight them.

I notice you do not nitpick the IPCC panel report.

But I have. I too noticed the very flimsy wording in their reports. Loaded with perhaps, might have, etc, it made me cringe to think I must change my life over maybes.

Nobody is stopping you from worshiping at the alter of the cult of warmers. I don't mind what you do. But your hostile nature gives me the idea you want to run my life for me. Nope, sorry ... I ran my life for almost all of it. I don't intend to put you in charge of my life.

 

Why do you feel the need to be so nasty?

'model calculations'....'could have'....that's speculation.

What!!?? This makes no sense..."natural climate fluctuations. One of the key questions facing climate researchers is whether these fluctuations have any effect at all on the Earth's climate."

Well if they are 'natural climate fluctuations" wouldn't those fluctuations affect climate?

Well....OK...so?

Translation....We don't know....

 

You have answered you own question - when one does not know but has only a blind fanatical belief one has to start throwing his feces like a monkey at anybody who touches his sacred fanatical beliefs. The less knowledge, the more feces is thrown.

 

It is hilarious (and very ridiculous) that you think that it is "nasty" to point out the intentional deceit and fraudulence of Robert's citing and selectively quoting an article and claiming it supports his crackpot anti-science denial of reality, which it definitely doesn't, and then leaving out of his quote the parts of the article that destroy his claims.

What is wrong with you?[/QUOTE]

 

AGW is NOT science it is more like a religion that requires blind belief as I have already pointed out and is really pretty clear when AGW believers call skeptics 'deniers', 'crackpots', 'deceitful'...etc. I also noted that you did not address most of my post where I pointed out the veil-thin speculations of AGW. Most of AGW is based on pure speculation and cooked data poured into faulty computer models designed to be biased toward AGW. It always amazes me that some educated folks fall for such a ruse but then, most are liberals and liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

# 4,188 nasty and disgusting throw of feces at anybody who disagrees or questions. This time it is RPA.

 

IMO...crackpot conspiracy theory ideation (like yours) about virtually all of the scientists in the world is a mental disease.

But your unfounded conspiracy theories are the only way you anti-science AGW reality deniers can dismiss and disregard the overwhelming scientific consensus affirming human caused global warming/climate change, and all of the mountains of scientific evidence that consensus is based on.

 

I never mentioned a conspiracy...YOU did... Then you asserted that 'virtually all of the scientists' agree with you. That means there is NOT a scientific consensus. In fact, AGW is an unproven scientific hypothesis yet people like you say there is. Don't you have any basic understanding of scientific method?

 

Nope! That's a baldfaced lie!

You very clearly are asserting that there is a worldwide conspiracy that would have to include pretty much all of the climate scientists and many other scientists in related fields, who are supposedly betraying science by doing what you claim to be true: "Most of AGW is based on pure speculation and cooked data poured into faulty computer models designed to be biased toward AGW"......a particularly crackpot denier cult myth and article of cultic faith.

You are sooooooo confused. A 'scientific consensus' MEANS that "virtually all of the scientists agree".....as they do on the issue of human caused global warming.

Wrong again! And, BTW, you have made it it very clear that you lack ANY understanding of the scientific method, beyond being able to repeat the words.

In the real world, far from Denierstan, AGW is a well established established scientific fact that is affirmed by almost the entire world scientific community without any dissension from any scientific professional society in any field...

And the scientific consensus on human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes is very real and very significant....and very easy to confirm from a lot of sources. Here's one....

But the scientific consensus on human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes is very real and very significant....and very easy to confirm from a lot of sources. Here's one....

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming
NASA


Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2


American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3


American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4


American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5


American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6


American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

(continued)

 

(continued from previous post)


American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8


The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES

International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10


U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES


U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

OTHER RESOURCES

List of worldwide scientific organizations

The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
List of Organizations

U.S. agencies

The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/federal-agencies-adaptation.pdf

References

1.) J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

2.) Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)

3.) AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change (2006)

4.) ACS Public Policy Statement: Climate Change (2010-2013)

5.) Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action (2013)

6.) Global Climate Change and Human Health (2013)

7.) Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (2012)

8.) APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007)

9.) GSA Position Statement on Climate Change (2010)

10.) Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change (2005)

11.) Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (2005)

12.) Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)

13.) IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2014)

14.) IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2014)

 

are there any rules against relentless spammers? I mean one can skip a troll, but spamming a topic with pages after pages after pages looks to me more disruptive than trolling...

 

Yeah, that's right, little denier....try to surpress the scientific evidence that makes your denial of reality look like the deluded insanity that it is.

Too bad there are no rules against relentless bullcrap and braindead denial of reality.

 

Factual content-free.

Factual content-free.

Factual content-free.

Factual content-free.

 

That's just indisputably false. The scientific evidence for the existence of the global Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, which Mann's hockey stick graph deleted from the temperature record, is incontrovertible.

Factual content-free.

 

Yup! That pretty much describes all of your clueless bullcrap posts, all right.

 

You mean like this from one of your links?

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists"

Yeah the ones that get $$$$ from spreading the AGW lie.

 

Here is the formula (expressed using calculus) for the heating. It does not need humans to warm the planet.

Matches perfectly with NOAA and NASA and IPCC.

REPEAT Does not need man.

 

Yes but, so-called faux climate science does need humans to perpetrate the fraudulent money scheme.

 

Frankly, and they even brag about it, billions are and will be made due to the fraud. The payers will be whom suffer.

imagine opening a husk of corn. Rotten to the core. So you pick one more. More rotten. This is the bunk they are selling.

 

Denying the well established reality of the scientific consensus on human caused global warming/climate changes by citing your cult's really crackpot conspiracy theory about virtually all of the world's climate scientists, is one of the highly delusional and very demented dogmas of your little astroturfed cult of reality-challenged dupes of the fossil fuel industry. It is as fraudulent and insane as the rest of the anti-science propaganda you've all been gullible and ignorant enough to swallow.

I just conclusively demonstrated the scientific consensus on human caused global warming in posts #160 & 161 for anybody with more than half a brain.....there's lots more too...

In the real world....

Consensus Affirmed: Virtually All Climate Scientists Agree Warming Is Manmade

 

Consensus is not proof. Claiming mankind can control the climate has to be proven and, so far, we cannot even effectively control the local weather much less world climate.

 

If you can't control a forest fire it is a good idea not to start one. And if a fire is already started don't give it more fuel.

 

The fire alarm was triggered by burglars, fight them out of the house.

 

No one ever said that the existing scientific "consensus" on the reality of human caused global warming/climate changes was "proof" of the climate scientists' conclusions (and BTW, there are no "proofs" in science...the overwhelming scientific evidence is what supports the scientists' conclusions)......but the reality of the situation is that there does indeed exist a very high level of general agreement in the conclusions of pretty near all of the world's scientists who study all of the various aspects of the Earth's climate systemsatmospheric physics, and energy balances. These conclusions are the basis for the IPCC reports.

Nor has anyone ever claimed that "mankind can control the climate" in the half-assed way you are trying to imply. Mankind has no real "control" over the climate as such....but human activities are definitely strongly influencing the climate without any intention to do so. Thinking that this unintended influence has anything whatsoever to do with" controlling the local weather" just further demonstrates how utterly clueless and misinformed about this matter you really are.