This is odd. Presumably an Ice Age also wouldn't happen overnight so you must be alluding to the mass migrations which would take place during the process of entering an Ice Age. Why no worries of mass migration due to warming?

Don't quit your day job.
Your powers of deduction and induction...suck.
Since your premise is garbage the question is moot and can't be answered.

I posted MULTIPLE links out together by different authors.
If your game plan is by discrediting one author is discredits all the authors I cited then you are being disingenuous.
Discrediting one link only....discredits ONE link.
But let's see if you can discredit even one link....
Other than atmospheric CO2.
I don't understand....
Is not your position that CO2 is the villian in AGW?
If so why provide a quote that supports a sceptic position?
I look forward to hearing your explanation...

That you quoted a sceptical paper?
Yes it does change things a lot.
Can we now welcome you into the sceptic camp?
Let me be the first to say, "Welcome!".
We are glad you finally saw the light.
Welcome to the land of reason and logic.

The irony of your words are so yummy.
Thank you for an entertaining post.

Here is another Zeebe quote from the abstract of that paper.
So they are trying to explain a 5-9 degree Celsius temp increase but CO2 models can only explain 1-3.5 degree Celsius temp increase.
The bottom line is 1.5-8 degree temp increase is a complete mystery to the paper authors.
So if climatologists can't explain up to an 8 degree Celsius temp increase, then perhaps the science is not settled...
Does not sound like much of a consensus...does it?

Thanks for making my point.
Feel free to help the the sceptic side in the future.

If you seriously expect me to fisk 800 papers on this forum, then you are delusional. That is another tactic of creationists: just keep throwing up links to lists and books and then sitting back with folded arms. I mean, I actually read the paper in question and provided a response while all you did was copy and paste some link from a skeptic site. But you win because your link goes up to 11.


Bold is accurate. No one has ever argued that other things do not affect the climate.

It it is not a skeptical paper. It references the consensus value for CO2's effect and uses it in the analysis.


No, there is no consensus on what caused the extra warming in the PETM. That does not imply, as you think it must, that there is no consensus on the effect of CO2. The paper cites the consensus CO2 value and does not question it or imply that the results of the study call this number into question. Yet, somehow it is a skeptical paper in your mind.

The fact that you think you are winning this argument when you don't even know what is going on is telling.

By the way, Felix's last post is exactly like a creationist argument. Creationists argue that since we can't find the missing link, evolution is disproved. Felix argues that since we are unsure of a source for warming in the PETM, then AGW is disproved. There is always uncertainty in science, but you can't use uncertainty to claim that a theory is disproved. In this case, uncertainty actually adds to the potential bad effects of AGW because there could be some as yet undiscovered positive feedback (such as methane clathrates) that will amplify CO2 warming.

Since I'm a stone-cold atheist, I do find your choice of analogies to be amusing and ironic.
BTW, do you have a belief in god? Since I'm being compared to creationists I would like to know if you are a theist.

I do?
Is that what I'm arguing? That is news to me. I'm so lucky to have 13ball make my own arguments for me.
I have an idea...
How about letting me make my own arguments and you can make your own arguments. OK?

That paper shows that climatologists have elelphant size holes in their knowledge with regard to understanding temps.
The vast majority of warming that occurred during that period can NOT be explained by CO2.
So claims that the science is settled and there is a consensus are just false.
The level of uncertainty in climate science is vast and the people claiming that they have all the answers are disingenuous... Alarmists have overplayed their scientific hand and sceptics have properly called them out for their false claims. I could list the various "peer reviewed" IPCC AGW scandals where they were caught making knowingly false claims but does that type of evidence really matter to you?

It is not a theory. It is a hypothesis.
Do you not understand the difference?
Or...was that just an unfortunate use of words on your part?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...

Anyway, a negative can not be disproved. And I would not even try to disprove a negative.
Why you keep continue strawmanning me makes me wonder why you must rely on such schemes to gain an edge in this debate.
I think the proper scientific language for a failed hypothesis is to say something like, "The empirical evidence does not support the hypothesis".

The authors of the paper said those forces are currently unknown.
But lucky for us you know more than the author of the paper and speculate an "undiscovered" positive feedback.
You should write a paper on this rather than speculate.
Who knows....you could be the next Dr Mann.

Exactly like creationists: No missing link, no consensus. What you miss is that the CO2 can account for some of the warming.

The consensus position incorporates uncertainties. No one is claiming that every last question is settled.
The empirical evidence is that massive amounts of CO2 were injected into the atmosphere and the planet warmed. This is consistent with the consensus position that CO2 causes warming. The fact that other things might also have contributed to the warming does not mean CO2 will not cause warming.

Our timing on this is amazing...

Man made global warming could be staving off next regularly scheduled ice age.

http://science.nasa.gov/earth-scienc...m-variability/

Thank God for Global Warming!

I don't expect this.
You made a post trying to discredit EVERY link I provided by making a comment on ONE link.
Specifically, the one link citing the 800 sceptic papers.
Then you claim you have smoking gun on one of the papers. Instead this smoking gun validates the sceptics claim that alarmists just don't have the knowledge to make the claims they are making.
And for that I thank you...

I copied and pasted from the authors abstract...
I guess quoting the author of the paper was a bad thing to do.
Sorry...

We live in a world with many shades of grey.
Patrick Michaels is considered a climate sceptic but he DOES believe that mankind affects the climate. We sceptics have a very big tent.

The paper nicely points out an elephant size hole in the knowledge of climatologists to predict temps.
This means the science is NOT settled...the AGW debate still rages.
Got it?
I don't think I can express myself in simpler terms.

Ah...the money quote.
Thank you for conceding this point.
Since as much as 88% ((9-1)/9))of this warming can't be explained, then perhaps the science is not settled. Yes?

The paper shows that CO2 accounts for as little as 12% (1/8) of the temp increase in that period and as much as 70% (3.5/5). That is a helluva a range in estimating CO2's influence.

If we choose the 12% number for CO2's influence then the paper strongly supports the sceptic position that alarmists are over estimating CO2's influence on the climate.

If we split the difference and go with 41% ((70-12)/2 +12), then that leaves 59% unexplained.
This is significant. And before we start signing draconian Kyoto type treaties, we should understand the science of climate a lot better.

If you ever come over to the sceptic side, you will be a winner too.
We don't discriminate on the sceptic side.

Again this winter, all-time low temp records for the date are being set around the world already at a rate never seen before in the history of of record keeping. My location had a new record yesterday with the old record being almost a century ago.

I hear two different lines of reasoning on this by the AGW supporters. One is that it would be even colder if not for GW. That's pretty laughable but is put forth by real scientists. The other is that both colder winters and hotter summers, i.e. more variance, is a result of AGW. We know that the mean worldwide temperature hasn't risen now in at least 12 years. Nobody disputes that. So with that being the case, can someone explain to me how these worldwide record low temperatures are the result of AGW? I note that we don't have corresponding high temp records being broken in the summers.

Incidentally, I think it's funny and ironic that after the record winter weather in Copenhagen at COP15, they moved COP16 to balmy Cancun, and the same thing happened there. It looks pretty ridiculous.

I know, "weather is not climate" yeah yeah. Save that one. Patterns of weather certainly are.

Think about what happens to lower areas when ice caps melt.

Think what happens when they don't and trillions of taxpayer $ are flushed down the sewer and govt has increased their power substantially.

Citation needed.



The first statement is true in general. Whoever is telling you the second is wrong. AGW is more apparent in winter temperatures and nighttime temperatures.

Yes, if you cherry pick the largest El Nino in history, then the satellite data sets show a small cooling since 1998. The land/ocean data sets show warming even from this cherrypicked date.

What worldwide record lows? For individuals days? That happens every year.

You note incorrectly.

Not at the rate of the last 2 years. More record cold days are happening per year than any year in decades.

You keep repeating the same mantras.
If only 12% of the warming can be explained by CO2, that is kind of a big deal.
(9 degrees Celsius -1 degree Celsius (CO2))/(9 degrees Celsius) = 88%
And since alarmists are asking us to change our entire lives be signing Kyoto and Copenhagen Treaties, 12% isn't going to cut it.
Got it?

And are you sure you want to call sceptics "creationists"?
Lets look at the 2010 Gallup poll numbers.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Am...inue-Drop.aspx
And what do some Greenpeace advocates say?
Perhaps calling half the people of the USA "creationists is not the best way to win them over. Yes?
But feel free to call us "creationists". I find the name to be amusing.
BTW you never answered my question on whether you were a theist.
I mean if you are going to call an atheist like myself a "creationist", I think I'm entitled to know whether you possess a belief in god.

And up to an 88% uncertainty on the study you highlighted.
That is what I like to call...a significant uncertainty.
It upholds what we sceptics have always said, the empirical evidence does NOT support the AGW hypothesis...
So either alarmists need to get back in the field and collect more data or they need to abandon their hypothesis.
Either course of action is OK with me, just don't feed us the bull that the science is settled and we need to outlaw the automobile...

And I can cite an example where massive amounts of CO2 were injected in the atmosphere and the planet cooled.
Here enjoy...
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/...s/image002.gif
So taking your logic, I've just discredited the AGW hypothesis. Yes?

According the NASA's James Hansen 2010 was the hottest year ever.
Now for us Americans and Europeans who have been freezing out butts off, this might seem to be a strange claim. Lets look at the NASA temp map here:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...bricated-data/

The Red areas are the unusually hot areas.
Notice that most of the hot areas are near the North Pole and the South Pole.
The problem with this data is: they are showing temp readings accuracte to 1/100 of a degree where there are NO Temp stations.

So how can they make these claims?
They do so by estimating these temps...
Money Quotes about NASA's Claims that 2010 was the hottest year:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...bricated-data/
So the fact that 75% of the red temp anomalies have been estimated is a bit of a red flag.
And that 67% of the dark brown areas have estimated temps is a red flag as well.

Then pay attention to the 2010 temp Anomaly Graph that shows GISS (NASA) showing higher temps than RSS, HadCRUT, and UAH.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...bricated-data/

You got to concede that you AGW alarmists make it easy for us sceptics to question the "homogenized" data.
GISS temp data is significantly higher than what other climate organizations show.
So either the GISS data is good and the data for RSS, HadCrut, and UAH are crap.
Or the GISS data is crap.
I personally believe in choice #3 where the raw data for all four of these organizations is tainted to the point where the data is unusable but that will lead to another another AGW topic and I would prefer to stay focus on NASA's homogenized temp manipulation...

Homogenized Data:
There is a lot of playing around with the raw data.
Once the raw data has been processed it is called "homogenized" data.

Raw data has been "homogenized" by as much as 9 degrees Celsius.
Let me repeat. Raw data has been altered by as much as 9 degrees Celsius.
http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/14/u...9%c2%b0c-nasa/

Now artificially altering raw temp data by 9 degrees Celsius is a bit suspicious to me.
I think sceptics are being perfectly reasonable in asking NASA to disclose their complete methodology how they decide which raw data to alter and which not to.
But I'm sure they will refuse....again so FOIA requests will need to be presented.
Then NASA will deny the FOIA request and then the sceptics will need to decide whether they want to spend the cash to go to court.
So much for transparency in AGW science...

But we sceptics need not be paranoid.
All these studies were "peer reviewed". It is just that alarmists don't like 3rd parties auditing their data and methodologies...
As for the scientific method which requires COMPLETE transparancy...that only applies to other scientific disciplines and not climatology...especially if the climatologists financed their studies with tax payer money... After all it is completely unreasonable for tax payers to ask for full disclosure for studies that they paid for... Yes?

I suppose the same thing will happen to those "lower areas" that what happen during the Roman Warming Period (RWP) and the Medieval Warming period (MWP).
And the temps for the RWP and MWP exceeded today's temp increases in the 20th and 21st centuries.

The shame is there were no automobiles and cement factories back then to blame for causing these hot temps on.
I guess we have to give mother nature the credit rather than mankind.
Too bad.

But props to you for giving us a nice scary story to ponder.
Perhaps you haven't gotten the memo but these scare stories haven't been that effective in persuading the public.
Don't believe me, look at the polls and the dead climate treaties (Kyoto and Copenhagen).

Cite?

Here are some 2009 US temp numbers.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/1...usa-this-week/

Record Events for Sun Dec 6, 2009 through Sat Dec 12, 2009
Total Records: 2601
Rainfall: 992
Snowfall: 815
High Temperatures: 36
Low Temperatures: 304
Lowest Max Temperatures: 403
Highest Min Temperatures: 51

That's one week. Find the same info for the other 51 and we can talk.

Same data for this week:

Record Events for Wed Dec 8, 2010 through Tue Dec 14, 2010
Total Records: 3082
Rainfall: 554
Snowfall: 560
High Temperatures: 274
Low Temperatures: 505
Lowest Max Temperatures: 922
Highest Min Temperatures: 267

http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/reco...x,highmin,snow

Went back a month from today, from the same site:

Record Events for Mon Nov 15, 2010
Total Records: 117
Rainfall: 40
Snowfall: 9
High Temperatures: 19
Low Temperatures: 2
Lowest Max Temperatures: 1
Highest Min Temperatures: 46

Over 95%!!!! of the temperature records were for high temperatures. Do you accept this as proof of anything? If not, why not?

Dwetzel-

That's an embarrassing (for you) rebuttal to a point that's not particularly strong to begin with.

Spacebidder and Felix-

There are plenty of ways to look at temperature on a global scale. Looking for highs and lows in one specific region is not a great piece of evidence for the point you're looking to make. While I sympathize with the idea that weather is not climate only when it's cold, you're coming up well short of a solid criticism.

Guilty of possibly poorly crafted logical instruction. Don't worry, I don't believe for one minute that either of them proves anything.

I was waiting for the "of course not, one teensy bit of data doesn't prove anything by itself", after which the response was going to be "Obviously, so why are you bothering to even post data from one week on less than 2% of the Earth's surface as evidence of anything?"

(Very little irritates me more than the "it snowed like threeve inches today!!1!!!!!1, so global warming can't exist" morons.)

In my case that was just an example of a trend, not a stand-alone point or an attempt to prove anything. In the past couple of years the new low temp records across the world have greatly exceeded the number of high temp records, AND the rate of new records for low temps is very high in the past two years. Someone else has compiled those trends already, using data such as the examples shown, and I've seen it before. I'll have to locate a compiliation, but there have been many news stories published about this.

My question was, to please explain the claim that AGW causes an abnormal amount of low temp records to be occurring. That claim has become part of the AGW platform in light of the recent trends (even they acknowledge the unusual amount of low temp records).

The snowfall records are seeing a similar increase too, with longstanding records suddenly being broken all over the world. That one is a bit more easily explained as part of a warming trend, but the low temp records should be troubling.