[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

That doesn't answer my first question of what caused the warming and cooling prior to the advent of industrial civilization.

I recommend reading up on it.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

That doesn't answer my first question of what caused the warming and cooling prior to the advent of industrial civilization.

I recommend reading up on it.

I don't have to prove your theory for you.

[Zipperfish]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Some more interesting stuff...


http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/14/new-s ... %20Evening

Why is it interesting?

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

That doesn't answer my first question of what caused the warming and cooling prior to the advent of industrial civilization.

I recommend reading up on it.

I don't have to prove your theory for you.

No, you don't, but since you are apparently ignorant of the basic tenets of climatology, you really aren't in much of a position to argue it either. Obviously solar radiation is a huge factor. But Venus is hotter than Mercury, on average. I wonder why that would be?

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

But Venus is hotter than Mercury, on average. I wonder why that would be?

Because Venus has an atmosphere and Mercury doesn't. Therefore there is no cumulative heating effect on Mercury like there is on Venus.

If it makes you feel any better the earth at night is much warmer than Mercury at night even though Mercury is far closer to the sun.

But you knew all of that and you were just testing me, right?

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

But Venus is hotter than Mercury, on average. I wonder why that would be?

Because Venus has an atmosphere and Mercury doesn't. Therefore there is no cumulative heating effect on Mercury like there is on Venus.

If it makes you feel any better the earth at night is much warmer than Mercury at night even though Mercury is far closer to the sun.

But you knew all of that and you were just testing me, right?

Exactly. So clearly the atmosphere has an effect on temperatures. And it stands to reason that changing the atmosphere--for example increasing the concentration of a gas that absorbs and emits in the infrared spectrum, will also have an effect. That effect is calculable.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Exactly. So clearly the atmosphere has an effect on temperatures. And it stands to reason that changing the atmosphere--for example increasing the concentration of a gas that absorbs and emits in the infrared spectrum, will also have an effect. That effect is calculable.

True.

But that doesn't change the fact that the tree ring growth that is frequently used to cite a temperature record prior to the advent of instrumentation records isn't used to corrorborate the instrumentation records in the period since.

Because raw tree ring growth records indicate cooling from ~1995 to ~2005 which is much the opposite of the adjusted instrumentation records for the same period.

Perhaps the trees aren't aware of the calculations involving CO2?

Also, temperature and climate variations existed long before the advent of civilization so the fact that they are naturally occuring is indisputable.

Now the problem is to determine what amount of climate change is natural and what amount is man made.

To simply claim that 'almost all of it' is man made doesn't even come close to stating this very important piece of information.

See, here's the thing and I'll argue on your side for this one; what if the natural climate trend right now is not just one of cooling, but of considerable cooling?

And what if the relatively stable climate of the past decade or so is only due to man made CO2?

Or, what if the natural trend is cooling and the CO2 is so bad that the AGW alarmists are right and we're cooking anyway?

Wouldn't it be important to your argument to determine exactly what the difference is between natural climate trends and man made climate trends? Hmmm?

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

As long as we're posting charts though, have you seen this one?



Here again is 38 years of empirical data, this time showing a distinct lack of a relationship between the satellite temperature and the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

WUWT: Climate change debate – latest results

Ran the same numbers as this guy. Don't get a graph like that.

Well not exactly like that maybe. I know Doctor Spencer at UAH shows the satellite temps a little different.



Scripps rendition of the CO2 looks pretty much the same as the one above to my untrained eye.



In any case the general shape of temperature in proportion to the carbon dioxide increase appears to tell the same story no matter whose you use.

[N_Fiddledog]

Oh BTW Zip, take another look above at Doctor Roy's satellite temps. It looks like you guys are finally going to get your warmest year in the era of instrument records without manipulating the data. It is the second year of what looks like super el ninos maybe, but whatever. Congrats.

They say this one might break the climate temperature pause for real, but the pause will return if there's any kind of La Nina cooling to follow.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh BTW Zip, take another look above at Doctor Roy's satellite temps. It looks like you guys are finally going to get your warmest year in the era of instrument records without manipulating the data. It is the second year of what looks like super el ninos maybe, but whatever. Congrats.

They say this one might break the climate temperature pause for real, but the pause will return if there's any kind of La Nina cooling to follow.

I visit Dr. Spencer's site quite frequently. Satellite data is actually quite manipulated. It's not like the satellites directly measure temperature. It's quite an involved algorithm.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh BTW Zip, take another look above at Doctor Roy's satellite temps. It looks like you guys are finally going to get your warmest year in the era of instrument records without manipulating the data. It is the second year of what looks like super el ninos maybe, but whatever. Congrats.

They say this one might break the climate temperature pause for real, but the pause will return if there's any kind of La Nina cooling to follow.

I visit Dr. Spencer's site quite frequently. Satellite data is actually quite manipulated. It's not like the satellites directly measure temperature. It's quite an involved algorithm.

Well I hope so. I've given you the link enough.

We've also visited the issue enough we both know UAH can check its measurements against RSS and RSS can check it's satellite measurements against weather balloons for direct measurement of temperature. There's slight variance depending on method, but as long as they're more or less lining up as expected and providing there's no unexpected degradation of orbit in the satellite they're on track.

[BartSimpson]

On topic...

http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress ... nge-plans/

$1:

Congress: Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans

Investigation claims Obama admin retaliated against scientists, politicized DoE

A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, released a wide-ranging report on Tuesday that shows how senior Obama administration officials retaliated against a leading scientist and plotted ways to block a congressional inquiry surrounding key research into the impact of radiation.

A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.

The report also provides evidence that the Obama administration worked to kill legislation in order to ensure that it could receive full funding for its own hotly contested climate change agenda.

The report additionally discovered efforts by the Obama administration to censor the information given to Congress, interfering with the body’s ability to perform critical oversight work.

“Instead of providing the type of scientific information needed by Congress to legislate effectively, senior departmental officials sought to hide information, lobbied against legislation, and retaliated against a scientist for being forthcoming,” Smith said in a statement. “In this staff report based on lengthy record before the committee, much has been revealed about how senior level agency officials under the Obama administration retaliated against a scientist who did not follow the party line.”

“Moving forward, the department needs to overhaul its management practices to ensure that Congress is provided the information it requires to legislate and that federal employees and scientists who provide that information do so without fear of retribution,” Smith said.

The report goes into Congress’ efforts to regulate the Low Dose Radiation Research Program, or LDRRP, which sought to test the impact of radiation on human beings. The program, started in the 1990s, was meant to support research into waste cleanup and the impact of nuclear weapons.

In mid-2014, lawmakers introduced legislation, the Low Dose Radiation Act of 2014, to help regulate the program and minimize harmful side effects.

During an October 2014 briefing with senior DoE staff on the matter, lawmakers heard testimony from Dr. Noelle Metting, the radiation research program’s manager.

Less than a month later, lawmakers discovered that Obama administration officials had “removed Dr. Metting from federal service for allegedly providing too much information in response to questions posed by” Congress during the briefing, the report states.

Congressional investigators later determined that the administration’s “actions to remove Dr. Metting were, in part, retaliation against Dr. Metting because she refused to conform to the predetermined remarks and talking points designed by Management to undermine the advancement of” the 2014 radiation act.

Emails unearthed during the investigation “show a sequence of events leading to a premeditated scheme by senior DoE employees ‘to squash the prospects of Senate support'” for the radiation act, a move that lawmakers claim was meant to help advance President Obama’s own climate change goals.

“The committee has learned that one of DoE’s stated purposes for Dr. Metting’s removal from federal service was her failure to confine the discussion at the briefing to pre-approved talking points,” according to the report. “The committee has also established that DoE management … failed to exercise even a minimal standard of care to avoid chilling other agency scientists as a result of the retaliation against Dr. Metting for her refusal to censor information from Congress.”

The investigation concluded that “DoE placed its own priorities to further the president’s Climate Action Plan before its constitutional obligations to be candid with Congress,” the report states. “The DoE’s actions constitute a reckless and calculated attack on the legislative process itself, which undermines the power of Congress to legislate. The committee further concludes that DoE’s disregard for separation of powers is not limited to a small group of employees, but rather is an institutional problem that must be corrected by overhauling its management practices with respect to its relationship with the Congress.”

These moves by the administration were part of an effort to secure full funding for the president’s climate change agenda, the report claims.

“Instead of working to understand the value of the LDRRP for emergency situations, DoE Management engaged in a campaign to terminate research programs that could divert funds from the president’s Climate Action Plan,” the report states.

Congress is recommending a full overhaul of the DoE’s management structure in order to ensure this type of situation does not occur again.

But, hey, climate change is all about the settled science of the consensus and it's only you bad deniers who are political about it!

[BeaverFever]

If climate change is a vast global conspiracy that will destroy civilization as you righties suggest, can you remind me again why you think these tens of thousands of esteemed scientists and public figures and organizations and universities and businesses all around the world are doing this?

Like what exactly do you think their motive is? If what the righties say is true, when these people destroy civilization they will be destroying their own lives too. Even worse, they have publicly attached their reputations and careers to this supposed conspiracy so would be flushing their livelihoods down the toilet. For what??

We all know what the deniers' motive is: dirty industries who see their profits threatened. Full stop. Almost all of the denial groups and spokespeople have a money trail that leads directly to the big polluters and they've also been caught trying to mask their identities, set up phoney mirror organizations to appear more numerous and diverse than they actually are and hide their political, financial and business affiliations. That's the ACTUAL evidence conspiracy.

[herbie]

97 doctors said my kid had pneumonia. 3 said it was just a cold.
Thank God, I thought I'd have to waste some of my beer money on medicine.

[andyt]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Like what exactly do you think their motive is? If what the righties say is true, when these people destroy civilization they will be destroying their own lives too. Even worse, they have publicly attached their reputations and careers to this supposed conspiracy so would be flushing their livelihoods down the toilet. For what??

Those elite egghead commies hate our society so much, they're willing to ruin everything in order to see it fall. Comments to that effect have been posted on CKA. But to ask for logic from the deplorables is plainly unfair.