Last Build Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:22:53 +0000
Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:22:53 +0000Titus, the little ice age ended over a century ago. Temps aren't rising due to coming out of it, because we already came out of it.
Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:13:30 +0000Titus, #1-- I fail to see anything shrill about the opening sentences of this article. They are simple, declarative sentences, and the while the second is perhaps most fairly classed as opinion rather than fact, it seems to me to be a very reasonable inference. Why else would you see schlock like this?
Eisenhower’s insight is evident in the massive hypocrisy with which ambitious politicians and self-interested academics treat research and teaching that doesn’t conform to “official” academic/political global warming orthodoxy. Federal funds for climate research are awarded exclusively to supporters of the premise that man-made climate change is scientific fact. Natural causes are minimized, because only human behavior can be exploited to impose government control.Now, that's a tad closer to my idea of 'shrill.' But I'm afraid I'm guilty of drawing an inference, too, Titus--and that is that you don't like the truth, either. Fair enough. It's not a very palatable one, certainly. But not liking it will not make it go away.
Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:38:13 +0000Titus: "steadily since the last ‘Little Ice Age” Uh, dude, the LIA ended in the mid 1850s. 1)Temperatures didn't really start rising 'til the 1930s. 2)The LIA was not a global phenomenon. 3)Temperatures do not simply rise. They require an energy source to rise. Thank you for being so utterly ridiculous. Voltaire's prayer strikes again.
Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:05:10 +0000@Titus #1: It's the trend, Titus. The trend since 1970 or so is relentlessly upward. But 'skeptics' like yourself always seem to concern themselves with the noise around the trend. Why is that, one wonders?
Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:00:20 +0000Titus writes: "Your opening comments lost my attention and your shrill approach turned me off. No wounder I’m a skeptic, this is just encouragement." The opening comments seem on-point to me, and the post is the opposite of shrill -- it's well reasoned and convincing. But your final sentence is telling. You base your ideas about the validity of scientific arguments on your emotional response to the people making those arguments? If the AGU issued a statement that was harshly critical of flat-earthers, would you suddenly become a plate-tectonics skeptic? If the answer is "no", then take a long hard look in the mirror, because you're not in fact a "skeptic", just another person in the grips of motivated reasoning.
Mon, 16 Jan 2017 12:18:48 +0000Titus, although I know I will not be able to convince you of anything, I will respond to the above quote from you anyway. First, ask yourself why the global temperatures have steadily increased since the "Little Ice Age". Temperatures cannot just magically increase, there must be a physical reason for that. ABC (anything but CO2) is the usual 'answer' from people that Stefan refers to as deniers. Second, that "statistical tie" is solely in the UAH satellite record (with 2016 higher than 1998). It is not a statistical tie in the surface record. Of course, the "statistical tie" is also a red herring. In GISTEMP and HADCRUT, there are extremely few years that are not "statistically tied" (as in p>0.05) with a prior year. And yet, the global temperature has increased by almost 1 degree since 1880. 1 degree is much larger than the statistical uncertainty. The general direction is up, we know why (primarily anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions), but still some people will deny all of that, just because they don't like policy recommendations that politicians propose to curbe those emissions.
Mon, 16 Jan 2017 12:08:03 +0000Titus, if their "shrill approach" turned you off, why are you still posting here? Troll much?
Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:03:24 +0000Dear Dr. Rahmstorf, I certainly agree with everything you write regarding the substance, but since you make a big point about not believing "shrill laypersons", I think is worth pointing out that the graph with the faked adjustments (Fig 1 above) is not originally from WUWT, but from Ole Humlum, who is actually not a layperson, but a geoscientist still active in research - which only makes it so much worse that he puts his name to things like these. Humlum is a well-known Danish/Norwegian contrarian/denier that Rasmus Benestad has treated fairly here on Realclimate before. The original source (in Norwegian) is here: http://www.geoforskning.no/blogg/item/administrativt-menneskeskapt-klimaendring If you check the comments in the above piece where I try to confront him, you can quickly notice that he simply makes up an imaginary 10% uncertainty about CO2 transportation (to make it appear that we don´t really know whether oceans are a source or a sink of CO2!), that he cites obscure popular pieces by Wolfgang Brune (a former DDR/East German scientific advisors he stumbled upon who happens to deny the very existence of the greenhouse effect itself!!) as authoritative sources, and that eventually delves into rubbish about common sense from his humble upbringings rather than adressing the basic scientific points. From my personal exchanges with him, and from seeing him in debates where he consistently does a similar and remarkably poor job against almost any half-decent oppisition, I´d say that it is quite obvious that he does not himself believe his own claims. I have no idea about his motives, but he is not a nutter like Mörner or Monckton, and not an obvious hired gun like Patrick Michaels. I am only mentioning this because there is, unfortunately, a real scientist with some credible expertise behind this particular piece of misinformation, which does make it much harder for people applying your "common-sense quality assurance criteria" to realise that Humlum´s graph is, in fact, consciously manipulated and utterly untrustworthy. I think it would only be fair if Realclimate called Humlum out publicly as "a liar".
Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:49:25 +0000Thank you for this. As a non-scientist who sometimes struggles with conflicting data it is good to see the tricks being exposed. NB The former UK Environment Secretary, Owen Patterson MP, was on 'Any Questions' (Radio 4 political Q&As) on Saturday, asserting that the 'Pause' is still continuing and that increased levels of CO2 had a beneficial effect in greening the planet. This was not fully rebutted.... so it goes on.
Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:31:57 +0000Your article starts with: "The years 2014 and 2015 reached new records in the global temperature, and 2016 has done so again. Some don’t like this because it doesn’t fit their political message" Hmmm. I read both sides of this topic and must say I have not come across any serious argument that supports your initial comment. It's quite understandable that recent years have had record temperatures. They have been rising steadily since the last 'Little Ice Age" and the last year or so there has been an El Nino creating a temperature spike that was statistical the same as 1998. Your opening comments lost my attention and your shrill approach turned me off. No wounder I'm a skeptic, this is just encouragement. Cheers