Obama’s Alaskan Lies
By Paul Homewood
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/01/whats-really-melting-obamas-alaskan-lies/
Steve Milloy’s take on Obama’s Alaskan trip, which seems to have been a waste of time anyway:
President Obama’s hike up the rapidly melting Exit Glacier today has run into some unfortunate buzzkill: reality.
The hike is supposed to be the high point of this week’s trip to Alaska, undertaken for the purpose of dramatizing global warming. The media pitch is that Exit Glacier has been rapidly retreating for decades because of global warming.
Sadly for the President’s play acting, though, the National Park Service previously reported that Exit Glacier has been exiting since at least the early 1800s — before the Industrial Revolution even got underway.
This isn’t the only intrusion of reality into the President’s staged climate drama.
While the President made big news announcing that he was changing the name of Mt. McKinley to Denali, the irony is that multiple glaciers there are actually expanding, according to the National Park Service, something hard to square with his global warming fantasy.
Also, while the media is busily hyping the storyline that Alaska is both melting and drowning, reality is more of a mixed bag.
First, surface temperature data from the National Climatic Data Center shows that the average temperature in Alaska isn’t much changed over the past 95 years.
Next, while sea level has apparently increased at parts of the Alaskan coastline, at other locations seal level has declined.
While in Alaska, John Kerry likened global warming to World War II. As over the top as that comparison is, Kerry is correct in one respect: climate alarmism has certainly blown science and reality to hell and back.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Seriously? Is there no lower boundary to the veracity of the articles you’re willing to repost?
Check the facts yourself, and tell me which are wrong.
“Is there no lower boundary to the veracity of the articles ”
Not in climate science™.. No.
The barrel has a massive hole in the bottom, and people like you just keep digging further.
Agreed with Paul- Explain to us what you yourself KNOW to be wrong with any or all of the above information. Links please!
More for you to “check” Mr Holub
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/09/obama-alaska-climate-fraud-deepens/
By ironic coincidence, Denali is an anagram of denial!
@David Holub, it’s always good to offload your home, work or relationship worries by posting slightly ridiculous posts on peoples’ blogs. Quite therapeutic I hear.
Or.. put another way I often look at what you repost and I think to myself ‘Not a lot of people know that’ – and they still don’t.
Just follow his link to see where he is coming from.
His job is on the line along with all the pigs at the trough and it is all going pear shaped for them.
A veritable poor mans Les Dawson is our David. Still chuckling.
A true trougher.
Next, while sea level has apparently increased at parts of the Alaskan coastline, at other locations seal level has declined.
Did they go for a swim?
San Andreas fault methinks led to the sea level changes, land movements.
Undoubtedly tectonic. When I visited the northern Miyagi coast after the Honshu earthquake, quays which had been above high tide level were at, or below sea level. I could clearly see the earlier tide level, by eyeball about a metre below the surface. That was the uplift (strain) released by the earthquake. The Pacific rim won’t yield any meaningful global sea level data
It is always worth checking the figures.
The total retreat of 6549 feet is for the period 1815-1999.
The sub-periods are only until 1973. Add the retreat in those periods gives a total of 6548, leaving a total retreat of 1 foot for the period 1973-1999 or less than half an inch (0.012 metres) per annum.
During the late twentieth century warming phase, when Alaskan temperatures rose maybe 2C, the century long glacier retreat slowed to a glacial pace. 🙂
>
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Yet another excellent example of how real world evidence (the science) is turned on its head to promote the activist climate agenda.
President Eisenhower warned America about the likes of Barack Obama in 1960 :
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.”
– President Eisenhower 1960
I recollect an article some years ago explaining why Shishmaref is being eroded.Nothing to do with temperature,but I cant find it. Can someone point us to it.
Christopher Korvin @ 1:21 asked about Shishmaref, Alaska. I posted a link as a ‘reply’ and it seems to have gone to Neverland. So,
This (below) is a link to a Willis Eschenbach post on WUWT, that I think might be the article Christopher is thinking of:
Look its hard to rise to the rigor of research, acuity of thought and logic displayed on Breitbart.com but well here’s something to for you deniers to chew on if you dare.
36 Hockey Sticks (And Counting)
Thanks to commenter Jack Dale at Roy Spencer’s blog, who gave this long and useful list of studies that find a hockey stick from reconstructions of paleoclimate data, compiled by Jim Milks of Seeing the Environmental Forest.
Milks has links to three dozen studies that find a hockey stick, as of 2013. Three dozen. (For links to each specific study, see Milks’ post.)
Crowley 2000: Used both his own and Mann et al. (1999)’s hockey sticks to examine the cause of temperature changes over the past 1,000 years. Found that natural forcings could not explain twentieth century warming without the effect of greenhouse gases.
Huang, et al. 2000: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 616 boreholes from around the globe.
Bertrand et al. 2002: Reconstructed solar output, volcanic activity, land use changes, and greenhouse gas concentrations since AD 1000, then computed the expected temperature changes due to those forcings. Compared the computed temperature changes with two independent temperature reconstructions.
Esper et al. 2002: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000 using tree ring chronologies.
Cronin et al. 2003: Reconstructed temperatures between 200 BC and AD 2000 around Chesapeake Bay, USA, using sediment core records.
Pollack and Smerdon 2004: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 695 boreholes from around the globe.
Esper et al. 2005: Compared and averaged five independent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1000 to AD 2000.
Moberg et al. 2005: Combined tree ring proxies with glacial ice cores, stalagmite, and lake sediment proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000.
Oerlemans 2005: Reconstructed global temperatures from AD 1500 to AD 2000 using 169 glacial ice proxies from around the globe.
Rutherford, et al. 2005: Compared two multi-proxy temperature reconstructions and tested the results of each reconstruction for sensitivity to type of statistics used, proxy characteristics, seasonal variation, and geographic location. Concluded that the reconstructions were robust to various sources of error.
D’Arrigo et al. 2006: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 700 and AD 2000 from multiple tree ring proxies using a new statistical technique called Regional Curve Standardization. Concluded that their new technique was superior to the older technique used by previous reconstructions.
Osborn and Briffa 2006: Used 14 regional temperature reconstructions between AD 800 and AD 2000 to compare spatial extent of changes in Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Found that twentieth century warming was more widespread than any other temperature change of the past 1,200 years.
Hegerl et al. 2007: Combined borehole temperatures and tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1,450 years. Introduced a new calibration technique between proxy temperatures and instrumental temperatures.
Juckes et al. 2007: Combined multiple older reconstructions into a meta-analysis. Also used existing proxies to calculate a new Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction.
Wahl and Ammann 2007: Used the tree ring proxies, glacial proxies, and borehole proxies used by Mann et al. (1998, 1999) to recalculate Northern Hemisphere temperatures since AD 800. Refuted the McIntyre and McKitrick criticisms and showed that those criticisms were based on flawed statistical techniques.
Wilson, et al. 2007: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1750 to AD 2000 using tree ring proxies that did not show a divergence problem after AD 1960.
Mann et al. 2008: Reconstructed global temperatures between AD 200 and AD 2000 using 1,209 independent proxies ranging from tree rings to boreholes to sediment cores to stalagmite cores to Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.
Kaufman, et al. 2009: Used tree rings, lake sediment cores, and glacial ice cores to reconstruct Arctic temperatures between 1 BC and 2000 AD.
von Storch et al. 2009: Tested three different temperature reconstruction techniques to show that the Composite plus Scaling method was better than the other two methods.
Frank et al. 2010: A brief history of proxy temperature reconstructions, as well as analysis of the main questions remaining in temperature reconstructions.
Kellerhals et al. 2010: Used ammonium concentration in a glacial ice core to reconstruct tropical South American temperatures over the past 1,600 years.
Ljungqvist 2010: Reconstructed extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000 using historical records, sediment cores, tree rings, and stalagmites.
Thibodeau et al. 2010: Reconstructed temperatures at the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence since AD 1000 via sediment cores.
Tingley and Huybers 2010a, 2010b: Used a Bayesian approach to reconstruct North American temperatures.
Büntgen et al. 2011: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Central European temperatures between 500 BC and AD 2000.
Kemp et al. 2011: Reconstructed sea levels off North Carolina, USA from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores. They also showed that sea levels changed with global temperature for at least the past millennium.
Kinnard et al. 2011: Used multiple proxies to reconstruct late summer Arctic sea ice between AD 561 and AD 1995, using instrumental data to extend their record to AD 2000.
Martin-Chivelet et al. 2011: Reconstructed temperatures in the Iberian Peninsula from 2000 BC to AD 2000 using stalagmites.
Spielhagen et al. 2011: Reconstructed marine temperatures in the Fram Strait from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores.
Esper et al. 2012: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Scandinavian temperatures 100 BC to AD 2000. May have solved the post-AD 1960 tree ring divergence problem.
Ljungqvist et al. 2012: Used a network of 120 tree ring proxies, ice core proxies, pollen records, sediment cores, and historical documents to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000, with emphasis on proxies recording the Medieval Warm Period.
Melvin et al. 2012: Reanalyzed tree ring data for the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden.
Abram et al. 2013: Reconstructed snow melt records and temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula since AD 1000 using ice core records.
Marcott, et al. 2013: Reconstructed global temperatures over the past 11,000 years using sediment cores. Data ended at AD 1940.
PAGES 2k Consortium 2013: Used multiple proxies (tree rings, sediment cores, ice cores, stalagmites, pollen, etc) to reconstruct regional and global temperatures since AD 1.
Rhodes et al. 2013: Used proxy and instrumental records to reconstruct global temperatures from AD 1753 to AD 2011.
Again, this is hardly surprising. What would be surprising is if any studies found something other than a hockey stick. “The proper response to someone who asserts that the Hockey Stick has been falsified is to ask “Which one?”
“They also showed that sea levels changed with global temperature for at least the past millennium.’
And as sea level rate has not changed by any measureable amount over the past 100 or so years, still around 1-1.5mm per year, this proves that raised CO2 levels have not caused any change in temperature..
Thanks for point to a paper that shows this to be the case.
Do you ever bother to read anything you cut and paste??
Seriously funny !! 🙂
One example from your list. There are others.
Büntgen et al. 2011:
from the abstract:
“….. Such historical data may provide a basis for counteracting the recent political and fiscal reluctance to mitigate projected climate change.”
(not that we’ve got a view on that sort of thing, you understand. We’re scientists.)
NONE of which disproves any of facts related by the Brietbart article.
What does any of this have to do with Alaska?
“Found that natural forcings could not explain twentieth century warming without the effect of greenhouse gases.” Unless it has been demonstrated that we actually know ALL natural forcings and how they work individually and in combination, this claim is specious and vacuous.
Claiming that Ljungqvist found a “hockey stick” is a falsehood. The paper is here:
Click to access cp-8-227-2012.pdf
The pertinent graphs are on p. 232.
I think the confusion is this: Ljungqvist shows a temperature increase over the last century or two. But nobody really disputes that GMST has increased over the past century or two.
The “hockey stick” claim is that temperatures now are higher than any in the past 1,000 years or so. And Ljungqvist shows just the opposite.
You should probably check your sources.
The lack of a hockey stick in the Ljungqvist is despite it using all available proxies, including the notorious Yamal proxy that Steve McIntyre exposed.
Esper is also misrepresented in your list. The paper is here:
Click to access Esper_et_al_Science02.pdf
This is from the p. 2252: “Our analysis also indicates that the MWP in NH extratropics [Northern Hemisphere north of the tropical region] may have begun in the early 900s. The warmest period covers the interval 950–1045, with the peak occurring around 990, a result consistent with another analysis using some of the same tree-ring data. This finding suggests that past comparisons of the MWP with the 20th-century warming back to the year 1000 have not included all of the MWP and, perhaps, not even its warmest interval.”
This paper and Ljungqvist’s are misrepresented in your copy/paste list. I comment on them because they are the only two with which I am already familiar. (I also pointed out the one obvious logical flaw that jumped out at me.) I must surmise that most, if not all, of the other papers are likewise misrepresented.
I’ll say it again: nobody disputes a temperature rise over the past 1 or 2 centuries. The issue is temperature 800-1200 years ago. Mann’s “hockey stick” wiped out the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. Any paper that does not also wipe them out does not have a “hockey stick” and does not support Mann.
Again, you need to check your sources.
If you are going to copy someone else’s dogma whilst going off-topic, could you at least give proper accreditation. The source of the list is David Appell. http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/36-hockey-sticks-and-counting.html
This was covered at Bishop Hill, with Appell filling up the comments.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/8/28/away-with-the-fairies.html
The reason for Andrew Montford saying that Appell is “away with the fairies” is that he regurgitates many arguments whilst totally ignoring the through de-bunking Steve McIntyre has given of many of the papers at Climate Audit through careful statistical analysis, and which Montford thoroughly documents in his very readable “The Hockey Stick Illusion”.
Steve McIntyre looks at a couple of David Appell’s Cherry-picks in the context of a long-awaited 2,000 year reconstruction of the ocean sea surface temperatures/
A possible reason for the long wait might be the shape of the graph. Hundreds of years of cooling followed by an imperceptible uptick.
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/ocean2k_recon.png?w=833&h=272
“, at other locations seal level has declined.”
Oh no , not the baby seals! Won’t somebody think of the children…
(yes I know that it’s a typo)
Oops (38)
Y Zhang et al. 2014: “Millennial minimum temperature variations in the Qilian Mountains, China: evidence from tree rings,” Climate of the Past, 10, 1763–1778, 2014.
Shi et al. 2015: “A multi-proxy reconstruction of spatial and temporal variations in Asian summer temperatures over the last millennium,” Climate Change, August 2015, Volume 131, Issue 4, pp 663-676. [PDF]
Looked at one near the top….
And who it reference.. Mann, Briffa etc etc
GIVE US A BREAK. !!!
These guys are the vanguard of the climate farce. Everybody knows that.
And from one of those papers…..
“The five-hundred-year reconstruction is characterised by a temperature increase of approximately 0.5 K”
Note that they don’t mention the LIA.. it apparently never happened or their proxies were too messy to pick it up. FAILURE again.
As it is obvious that you have just picked up a meaningless list from a rabid alarmist site, without even bothering to look at any of the papers yourself, I would say we can safely ignore anything else you have to offer as just more BS propaganda.
Next time make sure that your cuat and paste list of propaganda pap, that you at least read one or two of them first !!
Ah yes Crowley finds a hockey stick in Mann’s paper. Assuming the result?
“Crowley 2000: Used both his own and Mann et al. (1999)’s hockey sticks to examine the cause of temperature changes over the past 1,000 years. Found that natural forcings could not explain twentieth century warming without the effect of greenhouse gases.”
Team is really concerned about this posting just like the fiddled temps in Paraguay. Mann is a fraud and all the others reconstructed to fit AGW NH agenda
How utterly predictable of a response. Invalid with a wave of a hand. Can I get you some antipsychotics with that ecumenical conspiracy theory you’re peddling?
And you believe in the scientific method, I’m sure.
Paul Homewood
September 2, 2015 5:04 pm
Check the facts yourself, and tell me which are wrong.
Ignoring all your stuff about hockey sticks and rings from trees used in their production I see nothing from you in your, in some cases epic, posts contradicting the data. Do you have anything? I am interested in looking at all the source data.
People like Holub are passed saving and completely anti – science. One wonders why he bothers to post.
It amazes me how many CEO’s and employees of alternate energy companies and companies benefitting from the AGW meme use such kind and considered responses as “Can I get you some antipsychotics with that ecumenical conspiracy theory you’re peddling?”
That is a wonderful business model there. Insult anyone who disagrees and tell them they medication. I know I’d buy from someone who called me psychotic—oh, wait, no, I wouldn’t and don’t.
It just shows the absolute paucity of facts they have to back up their arguments!
David Holub has taken a trip in a time machine and is now stuck permanently in the year 1998 when Manns’ hockey stick emerged like a beautiful chrysalis along with fanciful notions of pine cone data etc. etc. we all know the rest. We must do all within our power to bring him back to 2015, the poor lamb. I’ll contact MIT. Failing that, I’m sure I’ve got Back to the Future in my video collection. Gotta be a clue in there somewhere.
Fear not David, help is on the way.
……….it’s all academic now. Just read that Eggborough coal plant is set to close next March. Goodbye to 2 gig of wonderful coal powered energy.
Not alot Of People Know That appears to have been added to list climate Nazi list and is being ‘dealt with’ accordingly. Its all happened before
“The Nazi regime dealt with opposition through a combination of persuasion and force. Nazi propaganda was so effective at portraying Hitler and the Nazi ideals in a positive light that many German people believed Hitler was a good leader and genuinely supported him. –Others were too intimidated by potential consequences if they spoke against the regime that they did nothing. However, there were some who openly opposed Hitler and had to be dealt with–“
Back on topic….it’s incredible Obama (or more likely his advisors) thought they could get away with an endless list of such dubious but falsifiable Alaskan climate claims. What a state ‘climate science’ is in.
Climate is not the only topic on which the Obama administration played fast and loose with the truth. Other examples abound. Hillary’s emails. IRS Lerner emails. Obamacare consequences. EPA rulemaking. Solyndra. Keystone Pipeline.
Some people believe that geography is important, some should advise the US administration to try a google search of “Alaska’s volcanic peninsula” and learn a little.
Let me paraphrase. Bill Cosby is innocent! They’re all liars and cheats and if you can’t see that you’re an unscientific moron. Because well… if for no other reason, some of the qualudes we’re broken in half. How convincing… for your self congratulating ideologically craven selves. Ok Brietbart fans chew on these.
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/alaska#statement-17118
http://nca2009.globalchange.gov/alaska
Again, perhaps you should just tell any potential customers they are morons and see if that ups your sales. You are very scary for someone in business—rude, condescending, quick temper when you don’t get your way. Why would anyone care about global warming with you as a spokesperson? You are great for the skeptic side though and probably for your competition.
FYI: Many of the commenters on this are very, very familiar with the literature and know scientific methodology. Spittting out the same information all other believers do just annoys people. Kind of like someone walking up to and starting to explain to you how to walk—you know, get your balance, put one foot forward, now the second foot in front of that one. Makes you sound very nasty and not at all like someone anyone should listen to.
“rude, condescending, quick temper when you don’t get your way”
.. and above all, he is monumentally ignorant !!
From your link:
Over the past 60 years, Alaska has warmed more than twice as rapidly as the rest of the United States, with state-wide average annual air temperature increasing by 3°F and average winter temperature by 6°F, with substantial year-to-year and regional variability. Most of the warming occurred around 1976 during a shift in a long-lived climate pattern (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO]) from a cooler pattern to a warmer one.
Woops!!
And the PDO cycle is around 60-65 years..
Switch back is imminent.
BTW – you do realise that they are finding remains of trees, dated back to the Middle Ages, as the glaciers retreat in Alaska.
Still reckon its abnormally warm there?
Paul what was the population of the Earth in the middle ages?
Your question is a deflection. The claims are (1) it’s never been this “hot” before because (2) human activity is emitting CO2 and heating up the globe.
One piece of evidence alleged to support the claims are the recent retreat of glaciers. But the retreat of glaciers reveals here and there the remains of woods carbon-dated back to the Middle Ages, if not longer ago. Since an area cannot be simultaneously wooded and glaciated, there must have been no glaciation at that location in the Middle Ages.
So, recent retreat of the glacier cannot be evidence for man-made global warming. Indeed, it literally uncovers evidence to the contrary.
Funny how tree stumps and artefacts from earlier civilisations are found under retreating glaciers,
A couple of hundred years ago the world went through the COLDEST period of the current Holocene, and these IDIOTS are complaining that it has warmed up a bit.
Their intelligence levels are on par with a amoeba !!
?
Good point , Paul !!!
First let me answer my own question since Paul won’t. In the middle ages the total human population of earth was ~300 million. Today its over 7.3 billion. Over 80% of that population lives near a coastline. Why is this significant? Because ideologues like Paul and others here like to point out that the climate has always change and is in constant change. Fair enough, in fact the climate will keep changing until the sun runs out of fuel swells up and burns the biosphere right off of our little rock. The point is what is the effect of climate change on human civilization going forward? What effects is human civilization having on climate change? To pretend that neither of these things exist or it doesn’t matter is absurd and nihilistic.
On the other hand working on those questions requires peaking around the edges of your ideologic eyewear. Haven’t seen much of that here. Now not that I feel the need to defend myself (because nothing anyone has said here offends me in anyway, rather I’ve simply taken the abuse as an invitation to dish out a bit in return) but as it turns out I work not only on renewable energy projects but also natural gas powered projects. I’m interested in formulating and exercising rational policy, not necessarily all the policy that is typically associated with climate change, but rational policy that makes a difference. Of course that would require having a rational dialog like when someone points out 38 examples of paleoclimate data analysis that all points to the same conclusion (like the 52 or is it 54 woman now that have accused Bill Cosby of rape) a rational person would conclude that perhaps there’s something to that? So fine 20% of those studies have a flaw, some of those woman knowingly took a qualude what about all the rest?
Yawn.
Glaciers have retreated after the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years.
They are finding human artefacts and tree stumps underneath.
Be glad we are warming, NATURALLY, due to the strong solar cycles of the sun over the latter half of last century…..
…..and not freezing back into another LIA or worse.
You obviously haven’t read many of those papers, otherwise you would understand that a lot are either rubbish or don’t say what you think they say.
Try doing some reading and understanding rather than just a cut and paste from a rabid alarmist propaganda monkey.
David Holub,
You have offered probably the least coherent argument I have ever encountered.
What is this Cosby climate effect that you seem to be fixated on?
Please look-up the range, frequency, and speed of past natural climate change events; to that end I strongly suggest you find a copy of “A Chronology of Notable Weather Events” by Douglas V. Hoyt, you may find it instructive. Failing that please read any of HH Lambs fine books or scientific papers.
Good luck and keep learning – remember that like life, nothing in science is settled.
If you look at the site linked to David’s name, you can see that these guys are CON-ARTISTS of the lowest calibre.
They have nothing , and they are nothing… except a SCAM.
No wonder he supports the AGW farce. !!
The human effects are local only.
The main one is UHI which GISS ignores because they would have to adjust current temperatures downwards, which would be against the anti-CO2 agenda.
You do realise that apart from the totally natural 1997-2001 El Nino, there has been ZERO warming in the whole the satellite temperature record, don’t you?
You also realise that there is no acceleration in the very small sea level rise rate of around 1 – 1.5mm/year, don’t you?
There is, in fact NO CO2 SIGNATURE in any un-tampered data set, just natural climate cycles.
It seems that you have been CONNED into believing the anti-CO2 alarmism.
What you should be doing, if you were a rational thinking person, would be pushing for the electricity supply systems to be run on the cheapest, most RELIABLE resources possible, that being coal and gas, with the added benefit of providing extra CO2 for the world’s food supply growth.
You would be very much against inefficient, expensive wind and solar who’s very survival relies heavily on subsidies and mandated feed-in that are soon going to have to be greatly reduced.
That is what a RATIONAL person would be doing.
Time to choose if you are going to be rational or just talk about it.
There is only one person you are fooling otherwise.
Some research for you David..
Open your mind and think for yourself… can you do that ??
http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/subject_m.php (Medieval Warm Period)
http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/subject_r.php (Roman warm period)
http://www.co2science.org/subject/l/subject_l.php (Little Ice Age)
I’ve just realised – Zeddeadbed has changed his name but not, unfortunately, his usual rantings.
ps.. DH…… do you actually have anything “on topic”.
or do you have to wait for someone else to tell you what to say ???
pps.. your conflating Cosby’s rapes with questioning the scam of CO2 hatred…
Really is the absolute most slimy, disgusting, putrid thing..
Is that really the way you think ???????
Get a new mind and leave those boys alone. !!
David Holub,
The accusations leveled against Bill Cosby are likely independent. The Hockey Sticks are not. Many of the critical proxies that underpin the shape of the graph – and the shape is often reliant on a few proxies despite maybe dozens being used – are common to a number of reconstructions. The notorious Yamal proxy was important as most tree-ring proxies showed a decline in temperatures post 1960. Yamal did not, due to a dramatic decline in sample size in the more recent years. See for instance
MBC,
Thanks for a respectful post. It at least touches on my point albeit orthogonally. Which is typical. There’s probably a climate change/AGW denier playbook that includes: obfuscate, knit-pick, fail to revise, confuse climate and weather, refuse to apply the rigor deployed on the supporting science to the un-supporting science etc.. etc.. All this is necessary when as ideologues you can nearly always be wrong but never in doubt.
So, a couple of quick points:
1) There’s been subsequent ‘independent’ work and even if everything about the data referenced is flawed there’s amble other completely independent data that supports the AGW thesis that must be ignored to still come to your conclusion. To say the least, that’s not a very scientific approach, its just not at all ‘Occams Razor ‘ of any of you.
2) I can’t say it better than this, “The issue is the speed of warming/GHG increase, and the global coherence of the warming at the current rates, are not matched (as far as one can tell from proxy data) at any other time in human history, and more to the point, not matched at any time since civilization arose, and we became locked into states, countries and cities with wide-spread, large scale infrastructure required to support heavy population densities. That infrastructure is reliant on a stable climate. The long, slow changes of thousands of years would make for easier adaption than the same change over a few hundred.
The warming from the last glacial maximum to interglacial was about 5000 years, with a global temperature change of ~5C. The seas rose by 130 metres. If we take the low end of climate sensitivty, and predict a 1C change every century from BAU, then we are warming 10 times as fast.
The CO2 rise of previous interglacials has been 100ppm over several thousand years. Humanity has caused the same increase (with the biosphere absorbing half of industrial output) over a mere 250 years. We’ve increased the atmospheric content of CO2 20 times faster than natural processes over human history, and civilization has never been tested by significant changes (currently 40% increase) in atmospheric CO2 levels.
We’re running an experiment from which we cannot escape, and we have no idea of the severity of the outcomes.”
Nonsense!! There is absolutely no evidence at all that recent warming is unprecented. Please study proper science from H Lamb and others, and you might avoid looking like an idiot.
“might avoid looking like an idiot”
He has a LONG, LONG way to go to reverse that obvious fact !
And what a whining cretin….. “oh don’t be rude to me”
What a joke of a person.
Ohh and there’s that little bit about no other coherent thesis or policy solution set being offered.
If anyone is using “obfuscate, knit-pick, fail to revise, confuse climate and weather, refuse to apply the rigor deployed on the supporting science to the un-supporting science etc.” it’s probably from listening to global warming alarmists. People may be trying to communicate in the only language global warming alarmists understand.
About (2): Speaking of experiments from which we cannot escape, throwing the world back to the stone age probably falls in that category, yet you cheerfully quote those who would do just that. There are not alternatives to fossil fuels, except that string motor the Navy has been using for years (I learned about that in an email).
Other policy solutions are being proposed–that we stop relying on the “Precautionary Principle” to tear down all of humanity was one of the first policy solutions offered.
As for the alleged sudden increase in temperature, choosing to blame CO2 so the only solution is to kick everyone back to cooking on dung has not been shown to be a valid conclusion. Yes, the models don’t work if you remove the CO2. The models were developed around the idea that CO2 is guilty. Only a fool would make a model that works without CO2 when they are trying to redistribute income and crush humanity due to evil fossil fuels. I would never say these people are fools–quite the contrary, they are very smart and very good at cons. They know a great a lie when they see one and they know how to exploit that lie for their benefit.
Oops I missed constructing straw man arguments that have nothing to do with actual policy or the science. Like assuming that ‘we’re going to get entirely off of fossil fuel and be cooking on dung’. Grow up.
Who on earth mentioned cow dung?
I did. See my earlier comment.
But I learned all of these techniques from reading alarmist/warmist blogs. Are you saying that only warmists can construct straw man arguments? Seems hypocritical to me. The argument is one that some warmists deny and others embrace. So I suppose it depends on which of the warmists you’re listening to whether it’s a straw man.
I am grown up. Are you?
https://www.scribd.com/book/269498393/Cow-Dung-A-Down-To-Earth-Solution-To-Global-Warming-And-Climate-Change
This was not my idea, but rather that of others.
Someone once said “you cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into”. That pretty much covers my experience here.
Why would anyone believe you arrived at your postition through reason? Your’s is based on faith in authorities and mindless insults. You’re the one saying we need antipsychotics. If that’s how you define reason, then you’re right, no one here is interested in that particular misdefining of reason. If you were really interested in discussion, that could have happened. It was your choice. (Oh, and projection is so unbecoming to scientists. Kind of tells us you’re not really interested in the science.)
“That pretty much covers my experience here.”
Your very first post here was an insult….
So go jump in the lake and stop playing the victim. !!
or even better, go back to junior high and actually learn some science next time, instead of sales con-manship.
And at no stage have you given us any facts contradicting the original post!!
My first post was a slight against reposting an article on Breitbart in a forum that is supposedly interested in the science of climate change. Its like calling Duncan Donuts a nutritious meal.
So, I stand by that and the fact that the article like the denier community in general is all over the map from referring to “global warming fantasy” to claiming that change began prior to the industrial revolution. Yes I question whether its ‘a fantasy’ and I’ve submitted 38 studies to refute that claim. Something nobody here as even scratched the surface of addressing as a total -and growing- scientific body of evidence. Which brings to mind the question for all you denier scientists out there what would it take to convince you that global warming is happening? What would it take for you to accept the AGW thesis? And would you apply the same rigor or standard to anything else? Say to cosmology, high-energy physics, or say the work of Roy Spencer for that matter? See: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/25/one-satellite-data-set-is-underestimating-global-warming When I read these studies it seems to me that there’s a constant state of revision in the actual science of climate change, models keep improving, data fits into error bars etc.. and its impacts become increasingly noticeable but for the deniers there’s nothing that is sufficient to alter their ever shifting modalities of critique that supports a rigid unshakable conclusion. Its a Hoax! Why is that?
In addition, Paul I have made a valid point about this at least 3 times that you or anyone else here EPICALLY FAIL TO ADDRESS – that is – given that the climate has always changed and continues to change in the ways confirmed by multiple INDEPENDENT STUDIES ACROSS MULTIPLE DATA SETS AND MULTIPLE FIELDS OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY and furthermore these studies SUPPORT AN INCREASED RATE OF CHANGE, what is the impact of that rapid change on civilization as we know it today and going forward?
You keep repeating this ridiculous nonsense. If you studied proper climate science from H Lamb and many others you would realise this.
Meanwhile you STILL have not disproved the original post, that Alaskan glaciers began receding, and at a much faster rate, in the 19thC, that temperatures there were higher in the MWP, and that Alaskan temperatures have not increased since the solar induced PDO change in 1976.
In other words, there is no evidence that recent warming is anything but natural.
BTW
Your crappy little Guardian link is typical Guardian misdirection.
It claims that UAH is an outlier, whereas RSS have consistently shown cooling since 1998. It also claims that the tropospheric hotspot is real, and only “denied” by Roy Spencer. Yet the RSS TMT data also shows no warming in the Tropics since the mid 1990’s.
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
You may have noted that the article was written by John Abrahams!! Enough said I think.
Also UAH and RSS trends coincide with USCRN and ClimDiv in the USA
AND ALL OF THEM SHOW A COOLING TREND IN THE USA.
(UAH USA48 actually shows slightly less cooling than USCRN and ClimDiv.
The data extraction procedures in UAH and RSS are VERIFIED by this comparison.
It is GISS and its stablemates that are the unrealistic fabrication.
and only a completely brain-washed, anti-scientific, ignorant moron would not realise this fact
ie someone just like DH .
And just is case DH didn’t already know….. I’m sure he does, which is why he quotes it….
…the Guardian is the total anti-thesis of fact and reality..
It is THE rag for AGW propaganda pap.
David, answer to your last comment:
Yes, David, I would apply the same standards, including NOT VOTING FOR THE TRUTH as the 97% consensus does. Science is not decided by votes
.
There are NO apparent impacts of climate change–none. This blog has shown many examples of the weather and climate in the past were hotter and had more extreme weather. There are fewer hurricanes, shorter heat waves. Fires and floods are affected by political policies and therefore are not proof of unusual climate change, even if there is an increase. Human activities do affect fires and floods, but not via CO2.
However, since you asked:
It would take a data set that is not filled with adjustments and estimates. That’s generally regarded as “making up data”. Yes, everyone does it but that does not make it okay. If we cannot accurately measure temperature over time, there is no way we can predict or even know what changes occur over time with climate.
It would take models that actually predict–not “close”, but predict. Close is not enough to change our lifestyles for. The error bars need to be much narrower. The way it stands now, a psychic could make equally valid predictions.
You cannot possibly KNOW what the future holds. You are making the claim that science can predict the future and it CANNOT. Nothing and no one can.
Trend lines are a statistical construct and often do very poor jobs of predicting. Just because the temperature is rising now does not in any way mean it will keep rising.
I have studied the data and I do not see any remarkable changes in current warming rates. It depends on how one statistically modifies the data to get a trend line. Statistics are notorious for being used to prove whatever one wants, even when the answers are mutually exclusive. The right statistic gives the right answer in climate change, the wrong statistic gives an answer that is not wanted and is discarded. That is the nature of statistics and their use in science (except some parts of physics).
Fewer models and more actually looking at the temperature trends all over the world individually. This homogenization and blending to get an average global temperature really just shows what statistics can do, not what is happening in the real world. Is it getting hotter in many places? Is it getting colder in many places?
An answer to how much heat the ocean took up in the past since the heat is said to be going there at a higher rate than in the past.
Actual current calibration of proxies. If we are going to use proxies, then they must be callibrated against current instrumental records. Right now, proxies are pretty much whatever one wants them to be. They were never meant to function as a thermometer anyway. It’s misuse of the data to use it to calculate global average temperatures. Especially to a tenth of degree. That’s just wrong.
Datasets that remain the same, not adjusted over and over and over, and no discarding of measurement methods when they don’t yield the answers desired. That’s again called fudging the data to get the conclusion you want.
There are more, but that will do for now.