Yet Another Mmgw Thread, Sorry.

[swissy_fit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24173504

Sorry don't know how to post the graph itself but the first graph in the article linked seems so damning of the warmists "CO2 is everything" arguments. What do they think was happening around 1898 and 1915 in that case?

I have no doubt that we should reduce CO2 emissions and general pollution, it makes sense for various other reasons, avoiding wars and security issues being a big one, but surely this graph kills off the climate models that are super-sensitive to CO2 for ever.

Or is the graph a fake?

[fluffy666]

Sorry don't know how to post the graph itself but the first graph in the article linked seems so damning of the warmists "CO2 is everything" arguments. What do they think was happening around 1898 and 1915 in that case?

Feel free to show us exactly where these dreaded 'warmists' are making the 'CO2 is everything' argument.

Or apologize for lying, either is OK.

[Frank Hovis]

That graph:

Ah, fluffy's beaten me to thread.

Funnily enough I would say that graph supports it in some way as we've had a long period without any significant cooling. It's still not enough to justify a taxation policy based upon it.

[swissy_fit]

Are you suggesting that people on the side of MMGW have not been making extremely authoritative projections in the last few years about the immediate future (climate, ice-cover, sea-levels etc) based on the models that that graph trashes so completely?

(I'm assuming you'd have told me if it was fake).

Of course it's true that now the evidence is slapping them in the face that they were talking rubbish, many have recanted and are presenting a slightly more nuanced argument - one I am willing to listen to, I might add.

[Executive Sadman]

Climate science is in its infancy, in a 'flat earth' stage. The idea that tracking ice extent 'all the way back to 1979' I find particularly humorous. In climatic terms anything less than thousands of years of data is pretty much useless. And given they work in tenths or even hundreths of a degree, it has to be of a quality we havent even achieved yet. We still use 'stevenson screens' that are pretty rudimentary and open to abuse to measure temperatures. The input data is of low quality.

In isolation, in laboratory conditions obviously a green house effect can easily be proven. In the real world, thousands of different factors are present, most of them probably originating from outer space, the solar system and beyond. Until we know what they are, and how much their effect is, and to isolate greenhouse gases, its pointless to even speculate to what extent is global warming 'man made'

[swissy_fit]

Climate science is in its infancy, in a 'flat earth' stage. The idea that tracking ice extent 'all the way back to 1979' I find particularly humorous. In climatic terms anything less than thousands of years of data is pretty much useless. And given they work in tenths or even hundreths of a degree, it has to be of a quality we havent even achieved yet. We still use 'stevenson screens' that are pretty rudimentary and open to abuse to measure temperatures. The input data is of low quality.

In isolation, in laboratory conditions obviously a green house effect can easily be proven. In the real world, thousands of different factors are present, most of them probably originating from outer space, the solar system and beyond. Until we know what they are, and how much their effect is, and to isolate greenhouse gases, its pointless to even speculate to what extent is global warming 'man made'

True, ES. My objection has been to the way that arguments (on both sides) have been presented.

[fluffy666]

Are you suggesting that people on the side of MMGW have not been making extremely authoritative projections in the last few years about the immediate future (climate, ice-cover, sea-levels etc) based on the models that that graph trashes so completely?

(I'm assuming you'd have told me if it was fake).

No, I'm saying that your statement: "CO2 is everything", which you attribute to "Warmists" is a lie. Not hard to understand.

For example, does the IPCC fourth assessment report attribute ALL 20th century warming to CO2, or does it give a range of factors with different magnitudes and uncertainties? Easy to google. No need to try and go off on a tangent.

[Guest eight]

Feel free to show us exactly where these dreaded 'warmists' are making the 'CO2 is everything' argument.

Or apologize for lying, either is OK.

[swissy_fit]

No, I'm saying that your statement: "CO2 is everything", which you attribute to "Warmists" is a lie. Not hard to understand.

For example, does the IPCC fourth assessment report attribute ALL 20th century warming to CO2, or does it give a range of factors with different magnitudes and uncertainties? Easy to google. No need to try and go off on a tangent.

Nitpicking at semantic details, you understand my argument perfectly well and are avoiding answering.

I will not do the same - yes my OP is poorly expressed and could have given more credit to some sources on the warmist side who were more rational from the beginning and more humble about what they could project using their models.

Nonetheless the way the media was presenting the arguments about CO2 until very recently was very much as if CO2 was the main factor. Thankfully that appears to be over.

[fluffy666]

Nitpicking at semantic details, you understand my argument perfectly well and are avoiding answering.

So, are you going to avoid making such statements in the future, then? I don't think it was a semantic detail, it was the core of your argument.

Now, since you admit that you are wrong and the scientists have not, in fact, been portraying CO2 as the only influence on climate, let alone on short term variations (i.e. <15 years) .. what point are you making? I do hope you understand that a graph of first derivative takes some interpretation.

I will not do the same - yes my OP is poorly expressed and could have given more credit to some sources on the warmist side who were more rational from the beginning and more humble about what they could project using their models.

Nonetheless the way the media was presenting the arguments about CO2 until very recently was very much as if CO2 was the main factor. Thankfully that appears to be over.

CO2 IS the main factor over the timescale of the graph, it's why it spends the majority of the time above zero. I would like to see some of these 'warmist' media sources as well, this would help to clear up any misunderstandings.

[Guest_FaFa!_*]

Are you suggesting that people on the side of MMGW have not been making extremely authoritative projections in the last few years about the immediate future (climate, ice-cover, sea-levels etc) based on the models that that graph trashes so completely?

(I'm assuming you'd have told me if it was fake).

Of course it's true that now the evidence is slapping them in the face that they were talking rubbish, many have recanted and are presenting a slightly more nuanced argument - one I am willing to listen to, I might add.

Have you read any of the IPCC reports?

[Guest_FaFa!_*]

Climate science is in its infancy, in a 'flat earth' stage. The idea that tracking ice extent 'all the way back to 1979' I find particularly humorous. In climatic terms anything less than thousands of years of data is pretty much useless. And given they work in tenths or even hundreths of a degree, it has to be of a quality we havent even achieved yet. We still use 'stevenson screens' that are pretty rudimentary and open to abuse to measure temperatures. The input data is of low quality.

In isolation, in laboratory conditions obviously a green house effect can easily be proven. In the real world, thousands of different factors are present, most of them probably originating from outer space, the solar system and beyond. Until we know what they are, and how much their effect is, and to isolate greenhouse gases, its pointless to even speculate to what extent is global warming 'man made'

Have you read any IPCC reports? Do you understand the carbon cycle?

[Turned Out Nice Again]

Have you read any of the IPCC reports?

have you read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Wordsworth-Reference/dp/1853263494

[swissy_fit]

CO2 IS the main factor over the timescale of the graph, it's why it spends the majority of the time above zero.

Is it now?

There was I thinking people being sure of their all-encompassing knowledge and understanding of climate science was over.

I would say it's the main known variable, which is not the same thing at all, it makes it a best guess and no more than that.

What were the reasons for the peaks around 1898 and 1915 then?

All those people hot under the collar in WW1? All that "naughty nineties" passion?

[fluffy666]

Is it now?

There was I thinking people being sure of their all-encompassing knowledge and understanding of climate science was over.

I would say it's the main known variable, which is not the same thing at all, it makes it a best guess and no more than that.

On what basis would you say that?

For example, do you have any problem with the natural greenhouse effect keeping us about 30 degrees C warmer than expected?

What were the reasons for the peaks around 1898 and 1915 then?

All those people hot under the collar in WW1? All that "naughty nineties" passion?

You do understand what that graph IS, don't you? Perhaps an explanation in your own words would help.

[fluffy666]

have you read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"

Have you ever thought that it might apply to the global warming skeptics?

[swissy_fit]

Have you ever thought that it might apply to the global warming skeptics?

Or even to both sides?

[Riedquat]

Are some people really trying to claim that the shaded area is at all significant? Doesn't look it to me, considering the noise on those graphs.

[ccc]

Bbc news at 6 just told us that a report out soon is likely to 'confirm' that man is the main cause of global warming.

Strange them going back to warming rather than climate change as has been the standard recently. Maybe the hot summer is a factor.

I think the use of the word 'confirm' is pretty shocking.

[Steppenpig]

Are some people really trying to claim that the shaded area is at all significant? Doesn't look it to me, considering the noise on those graphs.

I agree, but I suppose, if you imagined it without the latest data, then tyring to fit a straight line to it with your trusty ruler and pencil, you'd probably get a nice rising trend from the middle of the century. With the latest data, the general trend looks a lot flatter.

To be clear I know nothing about analysing this sort of data (but i sort of suspect, that most climatologists aren't very good at it either.)

[LiveinHope]

What I want to know is,

Is it a buy or a sell opportunity ?

or a hold, based upon the trend ?

I know that trivialises the thread, but the way the 'first graph' is being read is not worthy of a better reply.

[ccc]

Apparently we will be told that we are responsible for global warming - but at the same time from the same 'experts' be told that they don't really have a clue why it has 'paused' for the last 15 years.

You couldn't make it up. Well actually you could. That sounds like exactly what has happened.

[LiveinHope]

Apparently we will be told that we are responsible for global warming - but at the same time from the same 'experts' be told that they don't really have a clue why it has 'paused' for the last 15 years.

You couldn't make it up. Well actually you could. That sounds like exactly what has happened.

I don't see what is so difficult to understand.

[Guest eight]

Apparently we will be told that we are responsible for global warming - but at the same time from the same 'experts' be told that they don't really have a clue why it has 'paused' for the last 15 years.

You couldn't make it up. Well actually you could. That sounds like exactly what has happened.

Trying to explain a lack of warming in the context of global warming is pure dogmatism I'm afraid.

However I did say I wasn't going to post on global warming threads any more, so pretend I never said that.

[ccc]

I don't see what is so difficult to understand.

I think i understand it pretty well. They make it up as they go along.