Alicia Newton, an Associate Editor of Nature Geoscience, discovers the truth about CO2Science:
But rather than its promise of "separating reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and global change", on the contrary CO2 Science twists the most recent science, ever so subtly, to suggest that there is no link between carbon dioxide levels and climate change.
I think she is rather understating it. My experience is that the usual twist angle at CO2 Science is 180 degrees.
Coby Beck decides to make lemonade out of Marohasy's lemons:
The first thing we learn is that Marohasy is not an intellectually honest player in the climate change debate. This is clear from the fact that she is intelligent enough to know this is total bunk yet she lends it her reasonably large soapbox. It is not the first crackpottery she has allowed to be trumpeted from her site. ... But I think for me the most damning evidence of all is in the fact that she promotes, and even espouses herself, arguments that she has openly admitted are not sound. I am speaking of the standard talking point that global warming stopped in 1998.
Barry Brook deals with the recycled denialism broadcast by 60 Minutes:
I don't refute this nonsense by constructing a new argument each time which, point-by-point, shows why their claims are not supported by the evidence. This pointless, since the majority of non-greenhouse theorists ('sceptics') blithely ignore any such counterpoints and simply repeat the same arguments elsewhere. Instead I rebutt by hyperlinking to some of the wealth of explanatory material out there on the world wide web.
CO2 science is possible the worst site on the climate topic.
the site is giving a pretty "legitimate" feeling, pretending to be a real source of science.
in the long list of alphabetic subjects, CO2 science is writing their own version, of what papers say. the page does not link to the papers, neither does it quote abstracts.
more often than not, the CO2 science "summary" of the content of a paper is deeply at odds with the real one.
a very dangerous site, imo.
And in the end it still boils down to this:
> Yeah, I'm a bogus denier, so what are you going to do about it, ha? Nyah nyah neener neener!
I think nobody's quite figured out the answer yet...
I was first alerted to the rubbish that is C02 science when they misused one of my papers to support one of their denialist arguments. They had (deliberately?)changed the emphasis of the paper. I thought about complaining but didn't bother in the end. I wish I had now.
My reading of the Jennifer M affair is that she's trying to cover herself after being found out.....she's clearly ignorant of some pretty basic science.
One would think that the fact that our decades old theoretical understanding of greenhouse gases and greenhouse effects has been as well verified by empirical observation as one could have ever hoped for would put these sort of absurd side trips to bed. A long time ago.
I can't say I've yet seen any denialist stuff that was done "ever so subtly".
It really is a remarkable argument when the Climate Faithful can claim that global warming did not stop in 1998.
The other remarkable thing is that models, which encompass the collective knowledge of the supposed scientific field of climate study, have a zero percent prediction rate yet are held up by the Faithful as being seemingly infallible.
History will not treat the Climate Faithful well.
Climate Science thy name is Lysenko.
Hi Jack
Care to provide any evidence for your diatribe? I guess that you aren't a climate scientist. Seems like you are letting your ideological position override your common sense.
> History will not treat the Climate Faithful well.
⪠⪠⪠Oh -- the i--rony -- ⪠⪠âª
It really is a remarkable argument when the Climate Faithful can claim that global warming did not stop in 1998.
Yes, remarkable to the willfully clueless.
To the majority of the population, however, the only remarkable thing is how you torture your thoughts to maintain self-relevance.
Best,
D
Jack@6:
"History will not treat the Climate Faithful well."
Nature trumps historians and the way things are going nature isn't going to treat *anyone* very well.
Regards
Luke
Jack Lacton posts:
Sure. It's called "math." Here's an explanation of why global warming did not stop in 1998, no matter how many climate deniers claim that it did:
Tim Ball's errors
Tilo Reber's errors
What is a "zero percent prediction rate?"
Global climate models correctly predicted the magnitude and duration of the cooling from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. They correctly predicted that the stratosphere would cool as the troposphere warmed, that night temperatures would rise faster than day temperatures, that the global mean temperature increase would be least at the equator and would increase toward the poles, etc., etc., etc. How does that add up to a "zero percent prediction rate?" What are you talking about?
First of all, this post and responses to this post come off as completely arrogant. Calm down and debate the issues.
Secondly, Barton -
Using a simple linear regression, using either sattelite record (UAH or RSS), it has cooled. I'm rather sure that it's the same case with HadCRUT though possibly not with GISS.
You write, "They correctly predicted that the stratosphere would cool as the troposphere warmed, that night temperatures would rise faster than day temperatures, that the global mean temperature increase would be least at the equator and would increase toward the poles, etc., etc., etc. "
The stratosphere cooled as ozone was depleted. It has since stopped cooling. The troposphere, according to sattelite records, warmed only from 1996-2001 (a step change of sorts). The stratosphere cooled while tropospheric temperatures held even from 1979-1995. Stratospheric temperatures stopped cooling as troposperic temperatures jumped round the turn of the century, and neither have risen since then.
The South Pole and the Southern Hemisphere haven't warmed significantly, with some regions actually cooling.
And of course, models have consistently over-estimated observed warming trends. I know you'll disagree, but I had to say it.
Karl writes:
Not statistically significant. Sorry.
Karl,
1) Please show how you managed to calculate a negative cooling trend from whatever dataset you picked. I'm interested to see how you've done so, given that other folks - tamino and BPL, for e.g. - show such analysis (a) indicates slight warming has occurred and more importantly (b) that 10 year trend analysis is statistically insignificant. There's a reason why Climatology 101 defines the minimum time-series analysis period to be ~30 years. :)
2) Yes, you can explain such stratospheric cooling PARTLY to ozone depletion, but that's only limited to the lower stratosphere. The only way to explain cooling from 20-300 km is increased CO2. cf. LaÅ¡toviÄka et al. (Science, 2006)
3) What satellite data are you referring to for your claim for trop temp trends?
4) Yes, we all know that parts of Antarctic are cooling (and it was prognosticated by GCMs), and the heat uptake role of the Southern Ocean in lowering warming rates in SH. That's old news. So why are you ignoring the warming in the NH?
Using a simple linear regression, using either sattelite record (UAH or RSS), it has cooled.
The atmosphere from 4-7 km has cooled on a short-term scale.
Down here on the surface of the earth where people live, it has not cooled.
Now go away, lad, your mommy wants you to clean your room and do your homework.
----------
This has been a public service announcement from the Dano addresses the long-dead arguments everyone else is tired of addressing Broadcasting Service.
Best,
D
I love it when people use something nicely predicted by GCMs as proof that GCMs and every other element of climate science are wrong ...
The global warming absolutists would have us believe the Global warming is proven. What is not widely know is that GISS data is being manipulated and changed on an almost monthly basis to maintain the "illusion" of the warmest temperatures on record in the late 20th century. Withut this data manipulation the Global Climate Models show no effect to the existing levels of CO2 and have no ability to accurately predict future climate. Anyone with some intelligence can find and compare the rapidly changing GISS datasets on the internet themselves. The lack of solar sunspot activity will bring in a period of global cooling that is in no way predicted by the GCM's and will hopefully shake people out of their global warming fervor.
Above: another bunch of disjointed talking points which doesn't seem to have anything to do with the opening post or the discussion.
So, um, if I read that right, changing the values of temperature readings has given models the ability to change the existing levels of CO2. Also, it allowed models to accurately predict future climate change, in spite the fact that they're not really trying to do that.
Fascinating. You win, obviously. Congratulations.
"The global warming absolutists would have us believe the Global warming is proven"
oh that's good to remember. then if i ever hear anybody say that, i will know what a global warming absolutist looks like.
Obviously global warming absolutists use the absolute temperature scale.
Ed at #17:
The global warming absolutists would have us believe the Global warming is proven. What is not widely know is that GISS data is being manipulated and changed on an almost monthly basis to maintain the "illusion" of the warmest temperatures on record in the late 20th century. Withut this data manipulation the Global Climate Models show no effect to the existing levels of CO2 and have no ability to accurately predict future climate.
Ed, you may want to cut-paste your found random denialist drivel into your own language first, then translate it with something other than Google Translator. The way you did it above makes you look like you live in a 12' x 12' shack, wrote your manifesto on the toilet paper, and then went to the local Internet café at 3.00 in the morning to peck out your missive (and afterwards used their sink as a shower). IOW: Commander Coocoo Bananas makes more sense.
Jus' sayin'.
Best,
D
Global warming goes on
23 September 2008
Average global temperatures are now some 0.75 °C warmer than they were 100 years ago. Since the mid-1970s, the increase in temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade. This rate of change is very unusual in the context of past changes and much more rapid than the warming at the end of the last ice age. Sea-surface temperatures have warmed slightly less than the global average whilst temperatures over land have warmed at a faster rate of almost 0.3 °C per decade.
Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming.
Global warming has not stopped
Natural climate variations temporarily enhance or reduce observed warming