Via Skeptical Science, Peter Sinclair’s video on the evidence for man-made global warming.
Where was that paper published? What peer review did it go through? It only comes up as a direct PDF in Google Scholar, and a link to it on climaterealists.
JB – i don’t know whether it’s been peed on, but i would say it’s open slather since the IPCC use’s gray lit
chiffer, R.A., and Rossow, W.B., 1985: ISCCP
(International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project)
Global Radiance Data Set
A New Resource for Climate Research. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 66, 1498-1505.
Trenberth, K., J.T. Fasullo and J. Kiehl. 2009:
Earth’s Global Energy Budget. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90, 311-324, doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1
When a post reporting on a paper presents quotes from Trenberth and Jones in apparent support of its argument – when it’s clear from context that neither quote does – you expect the conclusions to be (most likely) dodgy.
> The 0.5°C sensitivity is in very close agreement with all of the other papers based on empirical data rather than virtual computer models.
When a website quotes an easily-checked fallacious assumption to support its conclusion, it generally means the conclusion itself is not supported by the evidence. In this case it is well known that multiple lines of evidence **based on empirical data** lead to estimates of climate sensitivity of about 3 degrees C.
When the website continues on with false claims such as:
> Gavin makes this proclamation on the basis of computer modeling of the climate 3 million years ago, which **given the unproven assumption that CO2 controls all** [my emphasis],…
…you give up reading because the writer is lying to you and hoping you and hoping you don’t know any better. It’s doubly egregious when the website links to [an article](http://www.physorg.com/news192300789.html) about the matter that directly disproves the (bolded) central claim:
> The reason for the underestimation, they say, may be due to **long-term changes in ice sheets and vegetation** that are not well represented in today’s global climate models.
Apparently the climate scientists don’t assume that “CO2 controls all”. (And this has implications for the “lack of correlation with CO2″ that the website claims disproves climate sensitivity calculations – ironically not understanding that the article they linked to helps to explain that other factors have a significant influence, thereby undercutting their argument.)
> JB – i don’t know whether it’s been peed on, but i would say it’s open slather since the IPCC use’s gray lit wille nilly
So firstly you misrepresent the IPCC’s policy on gray literature, which anyone can check for themselves, and from there you apparently argue that ALL gray literature is robust because the IPCC has a process for assessing and validating gray literature? That’s also fallacious.
I haven’t had a chance to look at the paper itself, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it used Spencer’s favourite trick of looking *only at short term response* in order to calculate something he calls “sensitivity”, thereby fooling people who don’t understand that the definition of sensitivity most commonly referred to (especially by the IPCC) **includes the long term response**.
The paper appears to have been presented [here](http://ams.confex.com/ams/29Hurricanes/techprogram/paper_168567.htm).
Given that it references “the UN” and “environmentalist alarmist groups” in its abstract, and draws conclusions (overall climate sensitivity is only about 0.5C) that are strongly rebutted by multiple lines of evidence, one suspects it is the usual pseudo-science seeking a pre-determined result…
1702 sunspot; “JB – i don’t know whether it’s been peed on, but i would say it’s open slather since the IPCC use’s gray lit wille nilly”
It wouldn’t be the first time a paper by Gray was rejected, though. There’s a difference between grey lit after review (which is pointed out as being grey lit), and a paper rejected by peer review or the journal.
try this one slothy,
‘We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zero-feedback fluxes thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric GCMs [global climate models] forced by the observed SST are less than the zero-feedback fluxes consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The observational analysis implies that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.”
> try this one slothy,
Strange how you feel the childish need to rudely distort my name (and that of others).
And then you reference Lindzen and Choi? Their 2009 effort was widely criticised – we shall see what pre- and post-publication peer review have to say about this 2010 update. But once again they would need a strong case for their claim that total feedback is negative in order to overturn much **non-model** evidence that climate sensitivity is about 3 degrees C.
slothy, said – ‘Strange how you feel the childish need to rudely distort my name (and that of others).’
toughen up buttercup ! your starting to sound like sooky john
[This comment](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Working-out-climate-sensitivity-from-satellite-measurements.html#14803) may be relevant to Lindzen & Choi’s latest effort – but peer review will be far more useful.
a repost for JB
Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, working papers, student theses, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called “grey literature.”
We’ve been told this report is the gold standard. We’ve been told it’s 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have not come within a mile of a scientific journal. http://www.tinyurl.com.au/5mv
and a huge trail of these http://www.tinyurl.com.au/5mw http://www.tinyurl.com.au/5mx
admit it, the evidence is not empirical
> toughen up buttercup ! your starting to sound like sooky john
What makes you think I need to “toughen up”? I wasn’t complaining; I was commenting because I think it makes you look like a petulant child, but if that’s the stance you’re aiming for, more power to you.
> a repost for JB
Just can’t resist [orbiting](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2434614) that [goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2434909), can you?
Admit it, you wouldn’t know empirical evidence if it dropped on your head.
empirical evidence for slothy
What’s your point?
@ 1713 Bernard J.
Looking at the graph he posted, he must have finally accepted that daily global sea ice area is on a downward trend.
@ 1710 sunspot
“We’ve been told it’s 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have not come within a mile of a scientific journal.”
Awww bless you, you little chucky egg. IPCC self-cites were thrown into the non-reviewed (wrong) and those self-cites account for about 50% of the Citizen Audit unreviewed category. What a bunch of idiots. And while books may not be peer-reviewed papers per se, the original peer-reviewed paper the book chapter is a reprint of is. What a bunch of dummies.
I rather think that sunspot has eyeballed the graph, not noticed the trend and been told that that’s all there is to know about sea ice as an indicator of the bigger picture.
In other words, as gullible as any Monckton fanboy.
whats your point ? said burny. As you can see, http://www.tinyurl.com.au/98a
the global sea ice is exactly on the line representing the 1979-2008 average. So over the last ten years, the loss has been … somewhere around zero. How about that, and with SH winter just around the corner it might just be a bumper crop.
Gaz @1717, evidently some people still can’t get their heads round 3-dimensional space.
sunblot @1716 – good, very good. Now, I know this will hurt, but try to imagine that the planet and its attendant processes operate in more than 2 dimensions…
Maybe this will help illustrate the difference between area and volume. I’m not counting on it sinking in with some individuals, but one can live in hope…
Not only a bonehead, but a [goldfish troll](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2402282) swimming [around](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2460130) and [around](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2476112) the [goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2324604).
(There are probably more. And that last link is to sunspot posting a comment about **ice mass**, so it’s hard for sunspot to argue lack of awareness of the difference between area and mass or volume.)
It’s like they think some people are dumb enough to be fooled the eighth or ninth time they post the same bogus argument.
>It’s like they think some people are dumb enough to be fooled the eighth or ninth time they post the same bogus argument.
Fool me eighth, [shame on you!](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A&feature=related)
Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008
‘The blink map above shows the change in ice thickness from May 27, 2008 to May 27, 2010. As you can see, there has been a large increase in the area of ice more than two metres thick – yes, nearly as thick as the warmers skulls in this thread,turquoise, green, yellow and red. Much of the thin (blue and purple) ice has been replaced by thicker ice. In 2008, less than half of the ice (47%) was greater than two metres thick. Now, more than 75% of the ice is greater than two metres thick. In 2008, 18% of the ice was more than three metres thick. This year that number has increased to 28%. There has been nearly across the board ice thickening since ‘2008.http://www.tinyurl.com.au/9cv
Allegations about global warming processes in the Antarctic have nothing to do with real facts, a Russian polar explorer has said.
“They are of opportunistic and time-serving character, and have nothing to do with the real weather and climate on the southern continent,” Head of Russia’s 54th Antarctic expedition Viktor Venderovich told Itar-Tass.
“The past summer on the south pole was cold and windy, and ice floes in the offshore water failed to melt over the entire season.
“The atmospheric air temperature near the Vostok station deep on the continent reached the customary minus 70 degrees Centigrade in the summer, and near the Novolazarevskaya station it never exceeded minus 6-8 degrees,” he said after staying at the Novolazarevskaya station for a year.
The previous winter in the Antarctic, he said, “was remarkable for its unusual severity, with blizzards and snowstorms.”
The average air temperature was 0.5 degrees lower than usual, and there were too much snow, he said, adding that a “slight warming was registered only on the Antarctic peninsula, while the rest of the continent has not been affected by the global warning and is not going to be.”
> The blink map above shows the change in ice thickness from May 27, 2008 to May 27, 2010.
You do realise that Goddard and Watts are touting those graphs which (they indicate) show **forecasts** produced by **a model**?
So, since you clearly accept the use of models, how about this one that incorporates near real-time measurements from IceSat, showing plots over [a more appropriate climate-timescale](http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php) than two years. (Oh, wait, you’ve [orbited that particular goldfish bowl in record time already](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2553363).)
Once you’ve digested that we can move on to GCMs…
Lotharsson’s already wiped your arse for you, but just in case the message isn’t sinking in, perhaps you might consider giving a detailed explanation as to why the Polar Science Centre [shows a distinct dowmward trend](http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png) in Arctic ice volume, where you seem to be attempting to claim that such is not the case.
I am sure that you will not be able to put together a clear and well-argued case.
Now I’m off to look at the latest tragic offering from that crazy former Third World economic ‘advisor’…
Volume from one day with Steven [the fool](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/james_m_taylor_hides_the_decli.php#comment-2536901) Goddard, or volume over 30 years with the [Polar Ice Centre](< http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php>).
no burny, he wasn’t wiping my bum you dill, he was checking my temperature
[Empirical evidence](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjaVp6AS5XU) for scorchmark.
hmmm… more empirical doubts.
‘NASA has been slapped with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit alleging that the agency has tried to cover up mistakes in data that have been widely used to support claims of global warming.
In an 18-page complaint filed this morning in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Competitive Enterprise Institute says that, in 2007 and 2008, it submitted, but not yet received adequate responses to, FOIA requests seeking NASA documents and information related to changes made to NASA’s temperature data in response to que….’
why didn’t any of you respond about the bumper crop of ice emerging in the antarctic ? it is the LARGEST mass of ice in the world and is virtually unaffected by GW, if at all ! could it be that el nino doesn’t go there, like it does in the arctic ? umm…what about enso ? i wonder what that is ?
ps slothy leave my bottom alone !
Are you referring to sea ice or glacial ice in Antarctica?
The Antarctic Peninsula has been [steadily deglaciating](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml) in the recent past, though east Antarctic ice mass appears to be steady. The rate of ice loss appears to be [accelerating](http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo694.html).
Sea ice extent around Antarctica has been steadily growing since satellite records began in 1979, [in spite of the warming Southern Ocean](http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf). The trend is gradual and could hardly be called a ‘bumper crop’.
What exactly did you want us to comment about Viktor Venderovich’s observations? He is welcome to his opinion and if he has anything worthwhile publishing in the scientific literature, please link us to it. Otherwise he reminds me a little of Captain Col commenting in one of The Drum’s pieces saying that sea level wasn’t rising because the beach near his house looks the same as it ever did.
> more empirical doubts.
I don’t see any.
I see a lawsuit that seems likely to turn out to be yet another “scandal” PR-manufacturing attempt. It’s especially strange, given the allegation in the press release is that there may be something wrong with the NASA data – and yet the GISS data and code is freely published for all and sundry to investigate.
What do you reckon the chances are that once again the press release does not accurately describe the underlying documents (whether lawsuit or journal papers) – but the denialists will eagerly lap it up and cross their fingers and their toes that *this time* the promised demolition of AGW science will **not** cruelly fade away before their eyes just like it has all the other times? You’d think they’d wise up after being cheated time and time again…
And how do you reckon the complainants will explain that all the other temperature records – including “skeptic” Spencer’s – show basically the same warming? What, NASA forced them **all** to join the big conspiracy? Yeah, right – pull the other one!
> it is the LARGEST mass of ice in the world and is virtually unaffected by GW, if at all !
And IIRC the GCMs – you know, the ones you implied were useful by approvingly linking to Goddard’s post about an ice model – predict something much like what we’re seeing.
Never mind that increasing ice in the Antarctic doesn’t change the thermometer readings, even if you cross your heart and hope like hell that it does.
[More](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Accelerating-ice-loss-from-Antarctica-and-Greenland.html) empirical evidence for scorchmark.
loomy, don’t believe anything on that trashy site,
oh…um… this too
tiz actually hard to get good info on Antarctica, skeleton in the closet so to speak
scorchmark cannot distinguish between fluctuating seasonal sea ice area and grounded antarctic ice mass. [The stupid, it burns!](http://www.plognark.com/?q=node/1129)
> oh…um… this too
Wow, you’ve got to be quite desperate to post a link to a story about the Himalayan glaciers and the 2035 mistake as if it proves there’s something badly wrong with the climate science.
CANADA ???????? Was the recent temperature spike hotter than in past ? PROBABLY NOT !!
Read on about the mangled temperature data.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/9v6 http://www.tinyurl.com.au/9v7 http://www.tinyurl.com.au/9v9
‘A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fails to stand up to scrutiny.’
‘He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined policy preference.”’
‘Graham replied that he now doesn’t think pricing carbon is that important. “The science about global warming has changed,” he noted, offhandedly. “I think they’ve oversold this stuff, quite frankly. I think they’ve been alarmist and the science is in question,” Graham told reporters. “The whole movement has taken a giant step backward.” ‘
> …conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics…
Really? You think that should not be met with raised eyebrows, if not gales of laughter?
I guess if you can’t get a scientist to form a robust *scientific* critique you might be desperate or stupid enough to pretend that economists (check out [the Tim Curtin thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s.php) for ample evidence) and lawyers ([like cohenite perhaps?](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2577993) – and various other cohenite contributions to that thread) will be able to do so instead.
ermmm….. slothy, you missed 1736, if ya wannabee an internet shinny arse vigilante warmer bogger blogger do it properly please !
> …you missed 1736, if ya wannabee an internet shinny arse vigilante warmer bogger blogger do it properly please !
No, I **ignored** it as it was (a) rampant speculation with little in the way of support for its hypothesis, and (b) just like a whole bunch of other well-debunked posts about “the nefarious scientists cleverly biased the temperature readings”, and (c) over-provisioned with capital letters, question marks and exclamation points – which is almost always a huge giveaway that the comment is bullshit.
Oh, and (d) I thought it was fairly clear it didn’t actually help the argument you were trying to support by referencing it.
And at the time I had better things to do than type “once more around the goldfish bowl” once more. And I figured that in general, anyone who’s read any significant portion of this thread already knows you almost invariably post rubbish – and after a while you start recycling it.
So consider “once more around the goldfish bowl” as my default response to everything you post on this thread in future, unless notified otherwise
Touchy bunch in here.
Empirical Evidence for Global Warming:
SOLAR VARIABILITY: climatic change resulting from changes in the amount of solar energy reaching the upper atmosphere.
Two thousand Years Of Global Temperatures: http://www.tinyurl.com.au/bh1
Five Million Years Of Climate Change:
and some weather (or climate?) for the warmers: http://www.tinyurl.com.au/bh5
Can any alarmist here present exactly one piece of evidence for man caused warming ?
Give it your best shot. The big one. That one big piece of evidence that will convince the skeptics. I mean, it’s not just blind faith is it ?
You might also give a page reference to the latest IPCC report where EVIDENCE that MAN is causing global warming is given.
>*Can any alarmist [sic] here present exactly one piece of evidence for man caused warming?*
Start with [the beginning](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/) Mr Burns, seems the proper place for you.
Oh, the ignorance, it’s so huge it hurts!
Why the inane insistence on one single piece of evidence when there are thousands?
Well there’s this. “this” being the relevant section of the IPCC summary report written for policy makers and interested non-scientists.
Then there’s this from Working Group 1 which goes into the physical science basis in more detail.
Call me suspicious, but when I read the clunky “man [sic] caused” warming with fluid English colloquialisms following, I suspect a sock puppet attempting to disguise his linguistic mannerisms again.
The academic affectation rings a bell too, as does the overall cluelessness of the subject matter.
Perhaps I am just suspicious…
> I suspect a sock puppet attempting to disguise his linguistic mannerisms again.
I suspect a different sock puppet to the other thread – “blind faith” is Brent’s schtick, although touchingly he can’t see that his own position is profoundly reliant on blind faith.
What a damn waste of time this is. Can’t we all just enjoy life while we have it? Iran gets the bomb in a couple of years and then it’s lights out. 2 degrees, 4 degrees, 50cm, 1m, doesn’t matter. Oh, the priceless look on the warmists’ faces when they hear the blast and realise they were combating the wrong threat.
Wha?!? I know that, besides global warming, the US has a whole ton of other problems it really should be addressing real soon now. But none of them are as important as Iran because they don’t involve blowing up stuff, no?
Small minds can only handle one concern at a time, frank. Point out two at once and they freak out and then simply ignore one and hope for the best.
Can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, as they say in the US…
Oh Juggernaut. Don’t be such an alarmist.
Iran gets the bomb in a couple of years
Just like Iraq did.
So, everything hinges on whether Iran gets the bomb? That’s nothing. Let’s worry about climate change after we’ve cured cancer. And AIDS. And stopped the spread of every other infectious disease. And prevented every earthquake, tornado, hurricane, and so on, from killing anybody or causing any damage to property anywhere. Let’s wait until there are absolutely no wars going on anywhere. Let’s wait until crime has been reduced to nothing. Until everybody on Earth has a job they love and enough food to never be hungry again. Let’s do nothing about climate change until every other bad thing that can happen is under control. Let’s wait until the Pirates and the Royals meet in the World Series. Sounds like a plan!
> Iran gets the bomb in a couple of years and then it’s lights out
Someone set us up the bomb?
Make your time!
Of course, if you keep your head up your arse, you’ll suffocate and won’t be burned to a crisp in the nuclear firestorm.
Feel free to beat the rush.
“tinyurl” links broken; these work:
Current ye@r *
Leave this field empty
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.
Let’s skip straight to January.