Global Warming Confirmed

[Media_Truth]

These types have the idea in their heads that they can effectively rule as a fascist Oligarchy by means of "National Emergency" declarations... The circularly-defined buzzword 'climate change' would be one such example... Gun grabbing would be another, as guns/crime will be a 'national emergency' to them as well... These Dems don't realize that Trump's emergency declarations have all been constitutional, while theirs would not be... but not like they give a damn about the document, since they desire to effectively replace it with their fascist oligarchical rule...


Yup. AOC thinks that we will all be dead in 12 years if we don't "act now"... She wants to effectively replace air travel with high speed rail. She also wants us to stop eating meat products such as hamburgers, since cows fart too much. She has MUCH to learn about numerous subjects...

Damn Democrats - they're going to take away your guns, your hamburgers, your airplanes, and your wall.:roll:

 

[gfm7175]

Damn Democrats - they're going to take away your guns, your hamburgers, your airplanes, and your wall.:roll:

Not all Democrats want to... Only certain ones, such as AOC...

 

[Media_Truth]

Not all Democrats want to... Only certain ones, such as AOC...

That little girl got you worried?

 

[Into the Night]

Damn Democrats - they're going to take away your guns, your hamburgers, your airplanes, and your wall.:roll:

They would if they could.

 

[Media_Truth]

They would if they could.

Guns - you can have them. I don't like you carrying them in Public. With your political views, you're already in a questionable mental state. Hamburgers - if you all eat a whole lot of them, you'll be kicking off, from heart disease, and then you'll be outnumbered on the vote - eat away. Airplanes - your choice of travel. Now - your wall on the other hand. I hate to see billions of dollars spent on something that isn't going to work.

 

[gfm7175]

Guns - you can have them.

Just certain types though, right? ... It's already been a slippery slope... I'm not going to let you or any Democrat dictate what guns/ammo I can use to defend myself.

I don't like you carrying them in Public.

Okay.

With your political views, you're already in a questionable mental state.

Insult Fallacy.
Bigotry.
Psychoquackery.

Hamburgers - if you all eat a whole lot of them, you'll be kicking off, from heart disease, and then you'll be outnumbered on the vote - eat away.

Eating "lots of" (whatever that means) hamburgers does not cause heart disease. On a semi-related note, some people have auto-immune issues and have found that their bodies can only tolerate various types of meat, so they eat an all-meat diet and they are living fine lives. Jordan Peterson is one such (famous) example. His daughter is another example. AOC is not queen... She doesn't get to dictate what/how people eat.

Personally, I eat virtually no fruit and only a few types of vegetables [corn, lima beans, some broccoli bits that are in the broccoli-au-gratin rice-a-roni I love to eat]. My diet consists mostly of meats [hamburger, ham, pork, steak, bacon, beef jerky, etc...], grains and other high carb foods [cereal, rice, bread, crackers, various forms of potatoes, etc...], and dairy products [ice cream, milk, cheese, etc...]. It's quite a limited diet in terms of food type variation. Throw in some waffles, nuts, and some other snacks and whatever, and that's basically all I eat, whether the AOC types are okay with that or not.

Airplanes - your choice of travel.

Not according to the AOC types, but yes, my choice. AOC does not dictate how I can travel; she is not queen. Personally, I will never fly in an airplane, but other people enjoy it quite a bit, and they ought to be able to if they want to.

Now - your wall on the other hand. I hate to see billions of dollars spent on something that isn't going to work.

Walls work. We still make vast use of them today.

 

[gfm7175]

That little girl got you worried?

I place my trust in God... I am not worried about anything she could do to me on this Earth...

 

[Threegoofs]

I place my trust in God... I am not worried about anything she could do to me on this Earth...

Psychoquackery

 

[Lakryte]

The way climate change denialists respond to threads like this is so predictable.

1. Claim the media is lying and the research does not exist, demanding proof of the study.
2. Once shown the study does in fact exist, ignore the study and claim climate change isn't real anyway.
3. Stick head in the sand.

 

[Jack Hays]

The way climate change denialists respond to threads like this is so predictable.

1. Claim the media is lying and the research does not exist, demanding proof of the study.
2. Once shown the study does in fact exist, ignore the study and claim climate change isn't real anyway.
3. Stick head in the sand.

Or:

4. Post a refutation of the study. That is what happened this time.

[h=2]Critique of the new Santer et al. (2019) paper[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on March 1, 2019 by curryja | 121 comments[/FONT]
by Ross McKitrick
Ben Santer et al. have a new paper out in Nature Climate Change arguing that with 40 years of satellite data available they can detect the anthropogenic influence in the mid-troposphere at a 5-sigma level of confidence. This, they point out, is the “gold standard” of proof in particle physics, even invoking for comparison the Higgs boson discovery in their Supplementary information.
Continue reading →

 

[Media_Truth]

I place my trust in God... I am not worried about anything she could do to me on this Earth...

I place my trust in God too. He gave us all brains so we can rationalize our way through the problems that confront a growing world. He is not going to do it for us. Maybe the little girl, with ancestors from Puerto Rico has more to offer than you care to admit.

 

[Lakryte]

Or:

4. Post a refutation of the study. That is what happened this time.

Santer, the author of the study critiqued on that blog, responded to it if you read the comments:

...This is the only response I will make on Dr. Curry’s website.

1. We routinely consider “ANTHRO only” fingerprints – see, e.g., the discussion on page 7 of the Supplementary Material of the 2018 Santer et al. Science paper. That discussion explains why the “ANTHRO only” and HIST+8.5 fingerprints yield very similar results. In my opinion, it is not unreasonable to expect other scientists to read such background information, particularly since it is cited in the Nature Climate Change paper you are critiquing.

2. You suggest – incorrectly – that we never evaluate the adequacy of model-based estimates of internal variability. We routinely make such evaluations. Examples are given in Fig. S7 of the 2018 Santer et al. Science paper and in Figs. 9 and 10 of the 2011 Santer et al. JGR paper.

3. Readers of your blog post might infer that we are unconcerned with differences between modeled and observed tropospheric warming rates. That is not the case. Many of our publications have attempted to understand the causes of differences between simulated and observed warming rates in the early 21st century. In the 2017 Santer et al. Nature Geoscience paper, we find that a large error in model climate sensitivity – Dr. Christy’s preferred hypothesis for model-versus-data warming rate differences – does not explain the temporal structure of these differences.

4. The pattern comparison statistic we use in our “fingerprint” work is an uncentered spatial covariance. It is not a correlation.

5. Even if one ignores all pattern information and considers global-mean changes alone, the amplitude of observed tropospheric temperature changes remains large relative to model-based estimates of internal variability (see, e.g., Fig. 1E in the 2017 Santer et al. Scientific Reports paper). This holds even for University of Alabama tropospheric temperature data.

6. Whether we do or do not remove residual long-term drift from control run data has minimal impact on our results. We only detrend once (over the final 200 years of each control run). We do not detrend each L-year chunk we are processing when we estimate time-dependent S/N ratios.

7. It is true that “rebound” of tropospheric temperature from the cooling caused by Pinatubo contributes to observed warming over the satellite era. You neglect to mention that our group has studied volcanically induced “rebound” of tropospheric temperature since 2001 (see, e.g., Santer et al. 2001, JGR; Santer et al. 2014, Nature Geoscience). The rebound effect is relatively small over the entire 40-year satellite tropospheric temperature record. Additionally, it is impermissible to focus solely on “rebound” from the eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991, and to ignore the cooling effects of early 21st century volcanic eruptions. The climate effects of post-2000 volcanic forcing have been studied in a number of publications (e.g., Solomon et al., Science, 2011; Ridley et al., GRL, 2014; Santer et al., GRL, 2015). The effect of these post-2000 eruptions is to reduce S/N ratios for analysis periods sampling temperature changes in the early 21st century.

8. In other fingerprint detection work, we have tested not only against model-based estimates of internal variability, but also against “total” natural variability (internally generated plus variability forced by changes in solar irradiance and volcanoes). See, e.g., the 2013 Santer et al. “vertical fingerprint” paper in PNAS. For changes in the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature, we can detect an anthropogenic fingerprint even against this larger “total” natural variability.

9. The control run distributions of noise trends are Gaussian (at least for tropospheric temperature).

Sincerely,

Ben Santer

Your problem is that you find a random wordpress blog article criticizing a single study on climate change, and then ignoring the countless other studies that appear in actually peer-reviewed literature. And the critique you found was riddled with problems, not surprising considering the author is an economist, not a climate scientist. Try again.

 

[Jack Hays]

Santer, the author of the study critiqued on that blog, responded to it if you read the comments:


Your problem is that you find a random wordpress blog article criticizing a single study on climate change, and then ignoring the countless other studies that appear in actually peer-reviewed literature. And the critique you found was riddled with problems, not surprising considering the author is an economist, not a climate scientist. Try again.

Dr. McKitrick answered Santer (see below) and he's more than qualified. It is Santer who is in over his head in the realm of statistics.

Ross McKitrick [FONT=&quot]| March 1, 2019 at 5:33 pm | Reply
Dr. Santer has posted some responses to my essay above, to which I hereby offer some brief replies.
1 & 2:My essay is in response to the new paper and the claims based on the analysis therein. If ANTHRO-only fingerprints would have yielded very similar results, that should have been demonstrated, even with a brief statement and graph in the Supplement. Likewise there is no discussion of the adequacy of the model-based internal variability estimates in the paper. That such a discussion appears in the Supplement to another paper isn’t much help for understanding the issue in the context of this paper.
3. Readers might be concerned about this, but it is not the topic of my post.
4. Noted — nonetheless the point remains that the covariances are not reported.
5. And they are small relative to model-based estimates of warming. This is off topic.
6. Your Supplement says that the noise estimates only rely only on the last 200 years of each control run, which is the detrended portion. If it makes no difference to the results you should have said so. It doesn’t alleviate the problem that there likely should be a warming pattern in the natural-only pattern. Detrending definitely would remove it, though there’s no guarantee such a pattern would have been there by chance in the first place.
7. First sentence: exactly my point. Even if the effect is relatively small, it would produce a “nature-only” pattern similar to the fingerprint, weakening the detection result.
8. Again, what you did in other studies doesn’t change the point of my critique of this study. The model-variability comparator is a critical component of the method and the one used herein looks implausible.
9. What matters is the S/N statistic itself. No specification tests are reported so we have no way of knowing whether the coefficients graphed in Figure 1 are independent and normally distributed.



[/FONT]

 

[Into the Night]

Guns - you can have them.

I do. I have several of them.

I don't like you carrying them in Public.

Too bad. YOU don't get to decide. You are not the king.

With your political views, you're already in a questionable mental state.

YOU don't get to decide anyone's mental state or 'suitability' to participate in society. You are no the king.

Hamburgers - if you all eat a whole lot of them, you'll be kicking off, from heart disease, and then you'll be outnumbered on the vote - eat away.

Hamburgers do not cause heart disease. Eating too much causes problems of this sort.

Airplanes - your choice of travel.

That it is from time to time.

Now - your wall on the other hand.
I hate to see billions of dollars spent on something that isn't going to work.

Off topic comments. Take these comments to the appropriate threads elsewhere. NONE of this post has anything to do with the 'global warming' debate.

 

[Into the Night]

Psychoquackery

Religion isn't psychoquackery. A religion is simply faith in a belief.

 

[Deuce]

They would if they could.

It's adorable you people believe that.

 

[Into the Night]

The way climate change denialists respond to threads like this is so predictable.

1. Claim the media is lying and the research does not exist, demanding proof of the study.
2. Once shown the study does in fact exist, ignore the study and claim climate change isn't real anyway.
3. Stick head in the sand.

Oh, the study exists all right, but science isn't a 'study' or a 'research'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
You want to claim 'climate change' is real? First you must DEFINE it.
You want to claim 'greenhouse gas' is possible? First, you MUST use a model that doesn't conflict with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, as the present model does.

It is YOU that is the denier here. You deny science and mathematics.

 

[Deuce]

Oh, the study exists all right, but science isn't a 'study' or a 'research'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
You want to claim 'climate change' is real? First you must DEFINE it.
You want to claim 'greenhouse gas' is possible? First, you MUST use a model that doesn't conflict with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, as the present model does.

It is YOU that is the denier here. You deny science and mathematics.

No, you are denying science and mathematics. I've proven over and over that thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann are not violated. Your fundamental misunderstanding is that you don't realize warming the atmosphere is the center of this discussion. Heat travels from the sun to the earth to the atmosphere to space. There's no issue.

 

[Terryj]

What I find amazing is that today's AGW's don't bother to look back at the last interglacial warming period, they base all their finds on today's measurements. The last interglacial warming period 122,000 to 116,000 years ago show remarkable resemblance to the current warming period. They have found that once the temps reached 1C in warming it didn't take very long for it to reach 2C, about 200 years. This rise in temps cause ocean levels to rise to about 9 meters. Now granted there were not many humans around at that time to be concerned about this. Then we entered the Last Glacial period starting at 115,000 and lasting until 12,000 years ago whch bring us to the Holocene Warming period. I'm wondering who was that cause of the Eemian Interglacial Warming period.

 

[Deuce]

What I find amazing is that today's AGW's don't bother to look back at the last interglacial warming period, they base all their finds on today's measurements. The last interglacial warming period 122,000 to 116,000 years ago show remarkable resemblance to the current warming period. They have found that once the temps reached 1C in warming it didn't take very long for it to reach 2C, about 200 years. This rise in temps cause ocean levels to rise to about 9 meters. Now granted there were not many humans around at that time to be concerned about this. Then we entered the Last Glacial period starting at 115,000 and lasting until 12,000 years ago whch bring us to the Holocene Warming period. I'm wondering who was that cause of the Eemian Interglacial Warming period.

Um, they do look at that and climate research is the reason you even know about those things to begin with.

You seem under the impression that people are suggesting only humans can ever influence climate. Which is, of course, ridiculous. Nobody has ever said that. So whichever propaganda outlet gave you the impression that was an argument being put forth, I suggest you stop being a consumer of their lies.

 

[Threegoofs]

Religion isn't psychoquackery. A religion is simply faith in a belief.

Psychoquackery

 

[gfm7175]

I place my trust in God too.

Great!

He gave us all brains so we can rationalize our way through the problems that confront a growing world.

Okay.

He is not going to do it for us.

No, but everything is working out according to his ultimate purpose.

Maybe the little girl, with ancestors from Puerto Rico has more to offer than you care to admit.

I don't care where her ancestors are from. And trust me, she's offering up quite a bit... I hope she never shuts up... I hope whatever Dem wins the 2020 primaries adopts her way of thinking... I genuinely do...

She has MUCH to learn about science, religion, mathematics, history, economics, ... ... ...

 

[gfm7175]

Psychoquackery

Polly want a cracker??

 

[Olddemocrat]

Just another propaganda effusion. No new evidence presented.

don't know if you are serious or simply trolling. i understand trolling, the fun of it. i don't understand a rational mind totally discounting climate change and the human component. Do you think that all of the papers submitted by the many, many researchers are the fabric of fiction perpetrated by a world wide cabal of scientists? where is your credible evidence?

 

[Lord of Planar]

don't know if you are serious or simply trolling. i understand trolling, the fun of it. i don't understand a rational mind totally discounting climate change and the human component. Do you think that all of the papers submitted by the many, many researchers are the fabric of fiction perpetrated by a world wide cabal of scientists? where is your credible evidence?

The papers don't claim climate change like the pundits do.

Have you ever read a peer reviewed paper on the topic?