How could you NOT believe in global warming?

[Vaengence]

According to who?

This is an OPED by Ross McKitrick, who was one of the scientists involved in the IPCC reports:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...-reality-test/

Then in 2008 and 2010, a team of hydrologists at the National Technical University of Athens published a pair of studies comparing long-term (100-year) temperature and precipitation trends in a total of 55 locations around the world to model projections. The models performed quite poorly at the annual level, which was not surprising. What was more surprising was that they also did poorly even when averaged up to the 30-year scale, which is typically assumed to be the level they work best at. They also did no better over larger and larger regional scales. The authors concluded that there is no basis for the claim that climate models are well-suited for long-term predictions over large regions.

[Spectral]

Ross McKitrick, who was one of the scientists involved in the IPCC reports

McKitrick is not a scientist. He is, however, a signer of this:

We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

[Aalyy]

This is an OPED by Ross McKitrick, who was one of the scientists involved in the IPCC reports:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...-reality-test/

Wait, I thought you wanted to discuss actual Science not Wikepedia, opinion pieces, and sensational misleading headlines?

[Terridon]

I'm having fun just following this on the sideline ;D

I look forward to see if we get another IDs as a source, or something better

[Vaengence]

K, I'll bite. Assuming you actually are familiar with these concepts yourself and not just spouting off terms to sound intelligent.

By discussing CO2 feedback mechanisms I'm assuming you want to discuss the increase in other greenhouse gasses like methane, CFCs, the NxOes, and the effect that all of these together in increasing concentrations have on phenomena like evaporation and water vapor which then affects cloud height which affects the Earth's albedo, which leads to even increasing temperatures, which interferes with CO2s ability to be dissolved in large water bodies, which inhibits normal removal from the amotsphere and so on and so forth. You are familiar with a Positive Feedback Loop, right?

Which part of that isn't caused and exacerbated by human sourced greenhouse gasses?

Prediction models have, by and large, been extremely accurate in predicting global temperature rises. Do you dispute this?
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhag...is_FIGURES.pdf

The positive feedback loop from CO2 is the entire basis of the CO2 Global Warming idea. It is something that cannot be measured in a lab. Even the basic warming caused by CO2 without feedbacks is not easily measured:

http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co...k-sensitivity/

The CO2 no feedback sensitivity is an idealized concept; we cannot observe it or conduct such an experiment in the atmosphere. Hence, the CO2 no feedback sensitivity can only be calculated using models...

The IPCC TAR adopted the value of 3.7 W/m2 for the direct CO2 forcing, and I could not find an updated value from the AR4. This forcing translates into 1C of surface temperature change. These numbers do not seem to be disputed, even by most skeptics. Well, perhaps they should be disputed.

This is an area that both Skeptics and Global Warmists are in agreement. The base amount of warming for No Feedacks of CO2 is in agreement. This also means that skeptics agree that CO2 causes warming.

However so far models that predict feedbacks in addition to the base warming do so because on their current understanding of variables they were unable to account for all of the warming seen in the last century, thus the idea that there must be an added variable in play causing the warming, and this is where the feedback idea was created in the first place.

The issue here is that the models to date have been found to have errors and lack good understanding of the natural processes and when you start adding in these additions to the models, the warming that "must be accounted for" starts to diminish:

http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/14/an...lbedo-forcing/

The first curious point about the IPCC’s assessment is that the second indirect effect is “not considered as RFs” (radiative forcing). This claim is contradicted by many of the published papers which clearly regard the second indirect effect as a radiative forcing. The combined indirect effects are listed in Table 2.7, but the high-impact figure in the SPM and elsewhere only shows the albedo effect.

And in Summary:

The IPCC chose not to regard the second indirect effect as a forcing, and carried out three distinct fiddles in order to make the headline figure for the cloud albedo effect as small as possible.
1. Use only data from the lower half of Fig 2.14 (explained in SOD, not explained in final report).
2. Combine different values obtained within the study into one (contradicted by caption to Fig 2.14 which states they are independent).
3. Switch from mean values (in SOD) to medians (in final report).
Each of these fiddles reduces the number by about 0.1.

When you add discoveries such as this to also ones such as this:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a...bee2970b-800wi

Something that has been found quite a few times in different data sets recently, or this one (fair warning, Skeptic homeground site here, so please read the data before making judgement)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

One has to start wondering just hoe much warming do we need to add an adjuster for feedbacks for? When we start discovering, with more detailed analyses that the "missing heat" grows less and less, or that the model predictions for future warming are not coming to pass, you have to start questioning how accurate they were to begin with.

---------- Post added 2012-12-12 at 05:00 AM ----------

McKitrick is not a scientist. He is, however, a signer of this:

I beg your pardon? Who is mudslinging now without merit?

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/papers.html

Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles

McKitrick, Ross R., Mark Strazicich and Junsoo Lee (2012) Long-Term Forecasting of Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Reducing uncertainties Using a Per-Capita Approach. accepted.
McKitrick, Ross R. and Lise Tole (2012) Evaluating Explanatory Models of the Spatial Pattern of Surface Climate Trends using Model Selection and Bayesian Averaging Methods. accepted.
Hu, Bin and Ross R. McKitrick (2012) Discount Rate Distortions and the Resource Curse South African Journal of Economics, accepted.
McIntyre, Stephen and Ross McKitrick (2011) Discussion of: A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxis: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable? Annals of Applied Statistics Vol. 5, No. 1, 56-6 DOI: 10.1214/10-AOAS398L.
McKitrick, Ross R., Stephen McIntyre and Chad Herman (2010) Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Sets. Atmospheric Science Letters DOI: 10.1002/asl.290.
McKitrick, Ross R. (2010) Atmospheric Oscillations do not Explain the Temperature-Industrialization Correlation. Statistics, Politics and Policy, Vol 1 No. 1, July 2010.
McKitrick, Ross R. and Nicolas Nierenberg (2010) Socioeconomic Patterns in Climate Data. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 35(3,4) pp. 149-175. DOI 10.3233/JEM-2010-0336.
McKitrick, Ross R. (2010) A Simple State-Contingent Pricing Rule for Complex Intertemporal Externalities. Energy Economics doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2010.06.013
Koop, Gary M., Ross R. McKitrick and Lise A. Tole (2010) Air Pollution, Economic Activity and Respiratory Illness: Evidence from Canadian Cities, 1974-1994 Environmental Modeling and Software , DOI:10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.01.010.
McIntyre, Stephen and Ross R. McKitrick (2009) Proxy Inconsistency and Other Problems in Millennial Paleoclimate Reconstructions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, February 10, 2009, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812509106.
McKitrick, Ross R. and Patrick J. Michaels. (2007) Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded surface climate data. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 112, D24S09, doi:10.1029/2007JD008465.
Essex, Christopher, Andresen, Bjarne and Ross McKitrick. (2007) Does a Global Temperature Exist? Journal of Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics, Vol 32 No. 1
McKitrick, Ross R. (2006) Why Did US Air Pollution Decline After 1970? Empirical Economics , 33(3): 491-513, DOI:10.1007/s00181-006-0111-4.
McKitrick, Ross (2006). The Politics of Pollution: Party Regimes and Air Quality in Canada Canadian Journal of Economics 39(2), May 2006, 604-620.
McKitrick, Ross (2005). Decentralizing a Regulatory Standard Expressed in Ratio or Intensity Form. Energy Journal 26(4) 1-9.
McIntyre, Stephen and Ross McKitrick (2005)Reply to Comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance"Geophysical Research Letters 32(20) L20714 10.1029/2005GL023089 21 October 2005
McIntyre, Stephen and Ross McKitrick (2005)Reply to Comment by Huybers on "Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance" Geophysical Research Letters 32(20) L20714 10.1029/2005GL023586 21 October 2005<
McIntyre, Stephen and Ross McKitrick (2005)The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications Energy and Environment 16(1) pp. 69-100.
McIntyre, Stephen and Ross McKitrick (2005)Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance Geophysical Research LettersVol. 32, No. 3, L03710 10.1029/2004GL021750 12 February 2005.
McKitrick, Ross and Patrick J. Michaels (2004). "Are Temperature Trends Affected by Economic Activity? Reply to Benestad (2004)" Climate Research 27(2) pp. 175-176.
McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick (2004). Materials Complaint Concerning 'Global Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing over the Past Six Centuries' Nature 430 July 1, 2004, p. 105.
McKitrick, Ross and Patrick J. Michaels (2004). A Test of Corrections for Extraneous Signals in Gridded Surface Temperature DataClimate Research 26 pp. 159-173.
McIntyre, Steven and Ross McKitrick, (2003). Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series. Environment and Energy 14(6) pp. 751-771.
McKitrick, Ross R. (2002) Inference About Trends in Temperature Data After Controlling for Serial Correlation and Heteroskedastic Variance. Invited Paper, Proceedings of the Russian Geographical Society 164(3) pp. 16-24. (English version)
McKitrick, Ross and Timothy Shufelt (2002). Environmental Impacts of Enhanced Property Rights. Environment and Energy 13(3) pp. 367-382.
McKitrick, Ross R. and Robert C. Collinge. (2002) The Existence and Uniqueness of Optimal Pollution Policy in the Presence of Victim Defense Measures.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44, pp 106-122
McKitrick, Ross R. (2001)The Design of Regulations Expressed as Ratios or Percentage Quotas. Journal of Regulatory Economics 19(3), pp. 295-305.
Weersink, Alfons, Ross McKitrick and Michael Nailor (2001)The Economics of Voluntary Shared Cost Programs Current Agriculture, Food and Resource Issues 2/2001:23-36.(CAFRI)
McKitrick, Ross R. (2001). Mitigation versus Compensation in Global Warming Policy" Economics Bulletin, Vol 17 no. 2 pp. 1-6.
McKitrick, Ross R. and Robert C. Collinge, (2000) Linear Pigovian Taxes and the Optimal Size of a Polluting Industry Canadian Journal of Economics 33(4) pp. 1106-1119.
McKitrick, Ross R. (1999) A Derivation of the Marginal Abatement Cost Function. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management May 1999, pp. 306-314.
Helliwell, John F. and Ross R. McKitrick, (1999) Comparing Capital Mobility across National and Provincial Borders Canadian Journal of Economics 32(5) pp. 1164-1173. additional results
McKitrick, Ross R. (1999) A Cournot Mechanism for Pollution Control under Asymmetric Information Environmental and Resource Economics October 1999, pp. 353-363.
McKitrick, Ross R. (1998) The Econometric Critique of Applied General Equilibrium Modelling: The Role of Functional Forms. Economic Modelling 15 pp. 543-573.
McKitrick, Ross (1997). Double-Dividend Environmental Taxation and Canadian Carbon Emissions Control Canadian Public Policy December 1997, pp. 417-434.

---------- Post added 2012-12-12 at 05:01 AM ----------

Wait, I thought you wanted to discuss actual Science not Wikepedia, opinion pieces, and sensational misleading headlines?

That was an OPED by a scientist, and one with a long list of credentials in Climate Science. You do exactly the same with your own scientists so lets not start arguing how black the kettles are.

[Spectral]

Ah, I see now why you're sorely disappointed that people don't respond to your oh so carefully researched science - you're not actually linking to scientific journals, but instead linking to blog entries from the likes of Anthony Watts. Curry's a respectable scientist, but blog posts aren't really the equivalent of published work.

Seriously, if you're going to come complete with a haughty attitude, talk a bunch of shit about how serious you are and what religious fervor others are approaching a topic with, you should probably be bringing primary literature to the table.

[Vaengence]

Ah, I see now why you're sorely disappointed that people don't respond to your oh so carefully researched science - you're not actually linking to scientific journals, but instead linking to blog entries from the likes of Anthony Watts. Curry's a respectable scientist, but blog posts aren't really the equivalent of published work.

Seriously, if you're going to come complete with a haughty attitude, talk a bunch of shit about how serious you are and what religious fervor others are approaching a topic with, you should probably be bringing primary literature to the table.

Way to go ignoring the entire content of the post so that you do not actually have to address any of the problems. It is how you and those like you answer these questions - by pretending they do not exist. I would say it was a lovely fantasy world you live in however in your world we are destroying the plant so I find it paradoxical that you would prefer you were right and we did destroy the planet rather than actually looking at whether your ideas were wrong.

[Spectral]

I beg your pardon? Who is mudslinging now without merit?

He's an economist, not a scientist. Did you bother to look at even the titles of those publications? He does econometrics for a living, not science. I have a great love for economists and what they do, but that doesn't make him a scientist. He apparently does collaborate with scientists on data analysis, and that's fine, but he's not a scientist.

Also, as I linked, he's already declared that he believes supernatural powers prevent the Earth from falling out of balance. I'm sure he does perfectly fine economics work, but his take on anything directly pertaining to climate science is going to be highly suspect.

---------- Post added 2012-12-12 at 12:10 AM ----------

Way to go ignoring the entire content of the post so that you do not actually have to address any of the problems. It is how you and those like you answer these questions - by pretending they do not exist.

Well, yes, I'm going to ignore posts from someone that talks a bunch of shit about how they're oh so serious that doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between blog posts and peer-reviewed science.

I would say it was a lovely fantasy world you live in however in your world we are destroying the plant so I find it paradoxical that you would prefer you were right and we did destroy the planet rather than actually looking at whether your ideas were wrong.

This is actually quite telling, I shouldn't have missed it the first time around. You see, I'm not basing my conclusion on what I'd like to believe. I'd much rather believe there's no problem at all. What I find telling is that you immediately jump to the conclusion that if someone thinks something, it's because they desire to believe it. I wonder why?

[Lollis]

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads...ng_chapter.pdf

This is gold.

Ross McKitrick is an Associate Professor in the Economics Department at the University of Guelph, Ontario, and is affiliated with various climate inaction groups. His name also appears frequently as "Ross McKittrick".

McKitrick made a name for himself as a climate change sceptic since he co-authored the book Taken By Storm, which was published in late 2002, although his support for anti-regulation challenges to environmental policies does stretch back some years prior.

His background is as an economist; it shows no apparent expertise in climate science.

Not really related but something I just found amusing:

In November 1999 the Fraser Institute disputed an estimate by the Committee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada that there were 339 endangered species. Instead it preferred its own estimate of 91. In a Canadian Press article on the report a spokesman for the Alberta Wilderness Association, Stephen Legault, described the report as "another effort at fearmongering and misinformation by a right-wing think tank."

In response McKitrick penned a letter to the editor of the Guelph Mercury, an Ontario newspaper, defending the think tank and accusing Legault of being "blinded by ideology." McKitrick claimed the U.S. Endangered Species Act "imposes draconian restrictions on use of private land on which rare species are present. Since these rules destroy property value, landowners across the U.S. now work to make their lands inhospitable to endangered species."

[Vaengence]

He's an economist, not a scientist. Did you bother to look at even the titles of those publications? He does econometrics for a living, not science. I have a great love for economists and what they do, but that doesn't make him a scientist. He apparently does collaborate with scientists on data analysis, and that's fine, but he's not a scientist.

Also, as I linked, he's already declared that he believes supernatural powers prevent the Earth from falling out of balance. I'm sure he does perfectly fine economics work, but his take on anything directly pertaining to climate science is going to be highly suspect.

---------- Post added 2012-12-12 at 12:10 AM ----------



Well, yes, I'm going to ignore posts from someone that talks a bunch of shit about how they're oh so serious that doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between blog posts and peer-reviewed science.



This is actually quite telling, I shouldn't have missed it the first time around. You see, I'm not basing my conclusion on what I'd like to believe. I'd much rather believe there's no problem at all. What I find telling is that you immediately jump to the conclusion that if someone thinks something, it's because they desire to believe it. I wonder why?

You have a very odd definition of the word scientist.

I also linked articles that were the easiest to understand for laymen such as yourself so that you can actually read the issues rather than keep imagining them. You still have not address the issues - you are still pretending they do not exist. In your own words this is "quite telling". It is people like you who will end up actually end up hurting us more than the perceived threat of CO2 warming and will do so the whole time convinced you are doing the right thing.

I gave you a fair bit of science already that explains how AGW works, I gave links to good explanations on the base effect of CO2 warming as well as showing errors in IPCC models, as well as reasons as to why the feedbacks may be overstated and the only thing you are saying in response? "Lol, I don't like your sources, who gives a fuck about data or facts, lets just call you names and ignore them".

Way to go.

---------- Post added 2012-12-12 at 05:26 AM ----------

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads...ng_chapter.pdf

This is gold.

Ross McKitrick is an Associate Professor in the Economics Department at the University of Guelph, Ontario, and is affiliated with various climate inaction groups. His name also appears frequently as "Ross McKittrick".

McKitrick made a name for himself as a climate change sceptic since he co-authored the book Taken By Storm, which was published in late 2002, although his support for anti-regulation challenges to environmental policies does stretch back some years prior.

His background is as an economist; it shows no apparent expertise in climate science.

Not really related but something I just found amusing:

"In November 1999 the Fraser Institute disputed an estimate by the Committee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada that there were 339 endangered species. Instead it preferred its own estimate of 91. In a Canadian Press article on the report a spokesman for the Alberta Wilderness Association, Stephen Legault, described the report as "another effort at fearmongering and misinformation by a right-wing think tank."

In response McKitrick penned a letter to the editor of the Guelph Mercury, an Ontario newspaper, defending the think tank and accusing Legault of being "blinded by ideology." McKitrick claimed the U.S. Endangered Species Act "imposes draconian restrictions on use of private land on which rare species are present. Since these rules destroy property value, landowners across the U.S. now work to make their lands inhospitable to endangered species.""

So you do not like that person. I do not like Michael Mann. I think he has intentionally decieved many people and is an ass to deal with in person. I can link to many articles where it looks like he intentionally did this deception not to mention entire published books - but I am not arguing that your science is faulty because of who your messenger is, I am arguing the science itself, something that you would do well to do.

Neither of you have understood or responded to the issues presented. Neither of you have even acknowledged several of the issues Judith Curry raised. Is the only recourse from both of you just to throw mud at the people? Really?

[Spectral]

You have a very odd definition of the word scientist.

No, I don't. I define "scientist" as being someone who has a background in science and does science for a living. Someone with a background in economics that does econometrics and other statistical analysis for a living isn't a scientist.

I also linked articles that were the easiest to understand for laymen such as yourself

Ah, so you didn't avoid linking primary literature because you're ignorant, you did it because I'm ignorant.

I gave you a fair bit of science already that explains how AGW works, I gave links to good explanations on the base effect of CO2 warming as well as showing errors in IPCC models, as well as reasons as to why the feedbacks may be overstated and the only thing you are saying in response? "Lol, I don't like your sources, who gives a fuck about data or facts, lets just call you names and ignore them".

Delusions of grandeur here. Seriously, you seem to have absolutely no idea why blog posts are not a preferred source of information. Want to be treated seriously? Don't link pop science and then say that it's because you assume that other posters are too ignorant to understand primary literature. Particularly, don't do this after you've ranted about how unserious everyone is, and how they're just basing their ideas on Wikipedia. Blog posts are a lot closer to Wiki than they are to peer-reviewed, published science.

[Vaengence]

No, I don't. I define "scientist" as being someone who has a background in science and does science for a living. Someone with a background in economics that does econometrics and other statistical analysis for a living isn't a scientist.

I am boggled at the irony that you are showing here in managing to shoot yourself in the foot in order to try to justify disregarding the comments.

Ah, so you didn't avoid linking primary literature because you're ignorant, you did it because I'm ignorant.

Yes you are. Glad you agree.

Delusions of grandeur here. Seriously, you seem to have absolutely no idea why blog posts are not a preferred source of information. Want to be treated seriously? Don't link pop science and then say that it's because you assume that other posters are too ignorant to understand primary literature. Particularly, don't do this after you've ranted about how unserious everyone is, and how they're just basing their ideas on Wikipedia. Blog posts are a lot closer to Wiki than they are to peer-reviewed, published science.

So the fact that they are blog posts that include respected and published scientists just doesn't matter no? Don't bother linking me anything from realclimate then because they are a bunch of whackos and contribute nothing to discussion yes?

[semaphore]

I see Vaengence is still going at his "my pseudo-scientific activists and blogs and sites with an agenda > actual scientists and skepticalscience.com, just because".

Funny how he likes to claim that science is on his side, but has to resort to blogs nearly every single time. You'd think if the IPCC conclusions were actually disproven someone would have published about it.

[Spectral]

I am boggled at the irony that you are showing here in managing to shoot yourself in the foot in order to try to justify disregarding the comments.

So, I'm shooting myself in the foot by saying that an economist isn't a scientist. Well, I suppose if you're completely without actual argument, you can always just chortle about how very silly I am.

Yes you are. Glad you agree.

NO YOU! Yeah, that was productive.

So the fact that they are blog posts that include respected and published scientists just doesn't matter no?

While I'd rather personally read blog posts from scientists writing about science than journalists writing about science, blog posts are still not reviewed for content by anyone other than the originator, and very smart people are still pretty frequently wrong. Blog posts can add a lot to discourse, but they're not actually data.

Don't bother linking me anything from realclimate then because they are a bunch of whackos and contribute nothing to discussion yes?

I didn't link you anything from Realclimate. I linked it at someone that didn't understand the very basics, because their explanation of that particular topic was handy. I wouldn't assert that it's sufficient for any real scrutiny, but I'm not the one that barged into the thread telling everyone how very stupid they are. Your insistence on your own seriousness is why the onus is higher on you - want to talk shit about how serious you are, back it up with actual journal articles.

I think I'm done with this pissing contest. I know that you'd be glad to carry on with blowhardy rhetoric all night, but I don't think I have the stomach for it.

[Vaengence]

Ok, seeing as you want to make it all about journal articles and not about discussion:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012EPJP..127...52L

This paper considers approaches to estimating climate sensitivity involving the basic physics of the feedback processes rather than attempting to estimate climate sensitivity from time series of temperature. The latter have to assume a perfect knowledge of all sources of climate variability —something generally absent. The results of a variety of independent approaches all point to relatively low sensitivities.

Or this one:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...GL050226.shtml

Our analysis also leads to a relatively low and tightly-constrained estimate of Transient Climate Response of 1.3–1.8°C, and relatively low projections of 21st-century warming under the Representative Concentration Pathways. Repeating our attribution analysis with a second model (CNRM-CM5) gives consistent results, albeit with somewhat larger uncertainties.

Or this one:

http://multi-science.metapress.com/c...r55204g511291/

The main peculiarity of this prediction is the decreasing of global dT (i.e. global cooling instead of global warming) which started at 2008 and will be continuing during 2011-2030. Estimates of cyclic trends for temperature anomalies of North and South hemispheres separately give periods 69 and 63 years correspondently.

Or this one:

http://multi-science.metapress.com/c...l754144765412/

The role of the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, volcanic and other aerosols, as well as the extraordinary solar activity of the late 20th century are discussed in the context of the warming since the mid-1970s. Much of that warming is found to be due to natural causes.

Or this one:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...GL050506.shtml

Decreasing global cloud heights suggest negative feedback over the last decade

or this one:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...75960112001600

The most recent shifts occurred during 2001–2002 and 2008–2009. The implied radiation imbalance between these dates, in the direction of ocean heat loss, was −0.03±0.06 W/m2, with a possible systematic error of [−0.00,+0.09] W/m2.

Should I just keep linking to papers as you want me to keep doing or discuss the science involved?

---------- Post added 2012-12-12 at 05:45 AM ----------

Semaphore I see a post from you but I still have you on ignore so don't waste your time.

[Spectral]

Should I just keep linking to papers as you want me to keep doing or discuss the science involved?

I honestly don't think you understand how to have a conservation about science. It's not done by rolling through a series of largely unconnected snippets. People generally pick a point to discuss, then attempt to make their case. Really, you've given me the impression of someone that doesn't really know much about how science works, but loves to give the impression that you're quite well versed in it. Asking for primary literature is asking for someone to make a claim and back it with literature, not to spam a half dozen papers on a broad range of phenomena.

I don't know what you'd expect a serious reply to a series of semi-randomly selected papers to look like. I guess I'm pretty well done, this is pointless.

[Deadvolcanoes]

So are you arguing that we can't quantify positive feedback, and therefore we shouldn't worry about our CO2 output? Or are you arguing that positive feedback doesn't exist?

[Aalyy]

The positive feedback loop from CO2 is the entire basis of the CO2 Global Warming idea. It is something that cannot be measured in a lab. Even the basic warming caused by CO2 without feedbacks is not easily measured:

http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co...k-sensitivity/

So you come on here and claim nobody is talking science and blathering on about Wikepeida, I attempt to talk science with you and you return with a blog article by a known shit stirrer within the scientific community then followed by more blogs. Who hasn't, I might add, disputed any of the IPCC findings on anthropogenic global warming but just chooses to play up the importance of uncertainty, play devil's advocate, and take issue with the process. That is when she's not talking out both sides of her mouth about whether or not the earth is actually warming.

Seeing as how you linked a blog post and not peer reviewed science, I see your blog post and raise you: http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/20...eef-curry.html

But I suppose congratulations are in order for you digging up one of the handful, the 3%, of scientists who are skeptical about global warming. I mean, she's a skeptic except when she's not. I suppose you thought you'd wow people and nobody would actually know who Judy Curry is or be familiar with her work. Surprise!!

Since it's now acceptable to post blogs, here are a few by other climate scientists that debunk Ms Curry:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1679
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/...us-blame-game/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/...-inserts-foot/

Now, would you like to post some of her peer reviewed papers and then claim they discredit the scientific consensus that humans activities are causing global warming?

Oh, and you are wrong that CO2 feedback loops are the basis for the anthropogenic global warming and wrong about the models. Your single source, Ms Curry, has been thoroughly debunked. Oh, and your list of "sources" includes McKitrick, a statistician who was busted messing with stats to lie about the IPCC's conclusions. You lose credibility right there. You are cherry picking evidence to support what you want to believe. That's about as unscientific as the blog posts you linked.

Climate modeling will continue to improve as computers do but already they are remarkably accurate. It will also continue to be debated with the scientific community, tweaked, and improved. Don't make the layman's mistake of thinking scientific debate over a matter means they cannot and do not agree on the larger picture.

Here's actual science showing that the models are actually quite accurate in their predicitons. Particularly when it comes to trends...which is what really matters. I posted the first one before but it was ignored. Conveniently.
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhag...is_FIGURES.pdf
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_04/
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter8.pdf
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/960521SM.html

That was an OPED by a scientist, and one with a long list of credentials in Climate Science. You do exactly the same with your own scientists so lets not start arguing how black the kettles are.

Wrong, except for this post which was in response to yours, I post actual science, not blog posts or opinion pieces. I just find it incredible that you come on here feeling so superior about the lack of science being discussed.....and then post blogs. And McKitrick! Should I wait for you to bring up Monkton too? LMAO

[EntertainmentNihilist]

I believe in climate change...but i don't believe humans are the cause...also I feel that the people that are talking about stopping using gasoline pre-maturely are just trying to make themselves feel better by telling themselves that they are saving the planet. That's kinda useless.

[Kivimetsan]

A volcano produces more bad stuff than humans do for a whole year in a matter of days when there's an eruption.. I'd believe it's more nature changing the climate due to volcanic activity. Just watch yellowstone when that has an eruption, then we can talk about climate changes..

Exactly this.
Humans aren't killing the planet, the whole change of climate is natural, it occurs all the time, has for billions of years.
Ever heard of the medieval warm period? They were growing grapes in Scotland ffs.
Earth is constantly changing, we need to accept that and defend against it on an individual and voluntarily level, not through government or NGO bureaucracy.
If you don't want your house flooded by rising seas, build inland or on a freakin hill.

Humans always adapt. Hell this could even be a great thing, maybe it will provide new jobs and technology as humans and private sector attempt to adapt to it.

Lets not tax ourselves to stop it. Doing that is fucking ridiculous, believe me its divided my own country in half. No one wants the carbon trading scheme, it just allows mega rich individuals to profit off society facing huge inflation. It won't stop the warming, just deal with it.