The harder the Alarmists try ...

[Sunny and Warm]

Here is the Skeptical Science article on the criticism of the Oreskes paper, the source of my 97% consensus claim. As you'll see if you read the article, Benny Peiser, who claimed to have rebutted the paper, later retracted his claim. You claim it's bunk - come forward with evidence of your claim.

As for your second sentence - do you not understand the math behind a running average? The chart I posted was clearly labeled as showing 11-year averages. so the most recent point on the graph would be 2006, the mid-point of the 11 year period 2001 - 2011. This is not college math, this is grade school arithmetic. Here is a plot with the same 11-year averages and the annual data, too,but don't have kittens becuase it only goes through 2010 (I'm not about to waste more time creating a fresh one you'll just deny):

Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Solanki. TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD.

If you're representative of today's youth, they'll have to start printing instructions on toilet paper. Sheesh!

Rather than insult, please read more. I am questioning using TSI as the end all, be all of solar proxy, not the use of a graph with running means. I am likely older than you, so you can stop the soon to be use of "your mothers basement". Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean we should be personally vilified in every post. You're not winning the argument that way here or in the world at large using said technique.

[PhillipS]

You asked for papers that show correlation between temps and CO2 regarding oceans. I gave you some examples, and even a paper from Columbia University showing the most of the CO2 produced annually comes from Earth, and not humans. Are you saying you have nothing in return? Are you further saying that we know everything that we need to know about ocean ridge venting? Try to open your mind a little rather than be a follower.

The paper you linked to doesn't remotely support your assertion. that outgassing is the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2.

As I pointed out in another response, any assertion that the CO2 rise is due to volcanos, ocean ridges, ocean outgassing, pipe-smoking Leprechauns, or whatever has to account for the gigatons of CO2 we know for a fact that humans are emitting through burning fossil fuels. The fact that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is only about half of our emissions means that the natural carbon cycle is still a carbon sink. If you don't account for the anthropogenic emissions then you are wasting everyone's time with your posts.

[valkhorn]

boy oh boy, doesn't any alarmist have reading skills. I'm talking about temp vs CO2 causality. NOT that the ocean is or is not a carbon sink. Read people.

1. CO2 causes a net warming effect ceterus parabus. This is pretty much established science, and has been for over 100 years. It's basic physics.
2. The Earth is getting warmer. This is also undisputed among climate scientists.
3. CO2 is increasing. This will cause a net warming effect ceterus parabus.
4. Ergo, for the Earth to be cooling (which it is not) then something has to outweigh the increase in CO2.
5. But, the Earth is not cooling, so IN ADDITION to CO2 causing a net warming effect, something else either has to cause additional warming or cooling
6. Regardless, it would be independent of CO2 acting as a net warming effect

The argument is pretty simple.

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

I have been sitting back and just reading....but I have to say that this is a good debate and I am enjoying the heck out of waiting to see who wins this one. Here is my 2 cents worth........ The oceans do serve as carbon sinks and they do "out gas" when conditions are right on a micro-scale. As much as it pains me, I have to agree with Skier on this one but that's not to say that there is no truth to the oceans giving up CO2. The oceans ability to hold CO2 has to be directly proportional to the amount of atmospheric concentration. So, in therory, as the atmosphere CO2 builds so will the amount that the oceans can hold.....Correct me if I am wrong.

[valkhorn]

The paper you linked to doesn't remotely support your assertion. that outgassing is the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2.

As I pointed out in another response, any assertion that the CO2 rise is due to volcanos, ocean ridges, ocean outgassing, pipe-smoking Leprechauns, or whatever has to account for the gigatons of CO2 we know for a fact that humans are emitting through burning fossil fuels. The fact that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is only about half of our emissions means that the natural carbon cycle is still a carbon sink. If you don't account for the anthropogenic emissions then you are wasting everyone's time with your posts.

http://www.skeptical...uman-caused.htm

(Look at the papers and data cited if you don't agree with the initial source)

It's pretty hard to argue against Carbon isotope levels.

Interestingly enough, even WUWT has posted something saying the CO2 increase is man-made:

http://wattsupwithth...an-made-part-1/

I wonder what you'll make of that.

EDIT: This is for sunny and warm, but I quoted your post. Bah. Sunday's aren't my days for critical posting.

EDIT2: I don't side with WUWT usually, but I thought I'd throw it back at S&W just to see what happens.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I have been sitting back and just reading....but I have to say that this is a good debate and I am enjoying the heck out of waiting to see who wins this one. Here is my 2 cents worth........ The oceans do serve as carbon sinks and they do "out gas" when conditions are right on a micro-scale. As much as it pains me, I have to agree with Skier on this one but that's not to say that there is no truth to the oceans giving up CO2. The oceans ability to hold CO2 has to be directly proportional to the amount of atmospheric concentration. So, in therory, as the atmosphere CO2 builds so will the amount that the oceans can hold.....Correct me if I am wrong.

Why does reality pain you?

[PhillipS]

concensus is a useless term unless correct. Many examples in history of a lone wolf theory being right and the "concensus" attacking it. Time to drop the word consensus. It really has no use at this point, and is detrimental to your cause. When I see "concensus" I see "funding tool to receive most of the grant money".

Ah, the 'Lone Wolf Myth", aka the 'Galileo Approach'. This is a favorite of denialists because they get to pretend that they're geniuses battling the entrenched establishment.

Okay, Lone Wolf, enlighten us. Give us, say, ten supported examples of Lone Wolf theories that ended up being correct. And please don't waste our time with examples like Continental Drift, or the Germ Theory of Infection, or ulcers being caused by H. Pylori. None of those are examples of lone wolves. All of those theories were accepted as soon as sufficient research was done to support them. That's how science is supposed to work.

[valkhorn]

Why does reality pain you?

It's human nature.

It's very difficult for most people to admit they are wrong about something.

This is why science is very humbling, because you often have to change your mind and admit you were wrong.

As for me, I try every day to learn something new, and quite often I find I was wrong about something.

[PhillipS]

boy oh boy, doesn't any alarmist have reading skills. I'm talking about temp vs CO2 causality. NOT that the ocean is or is not a carbon sink. Read people.

Okay, I'll play along - if rising temperatures are causing rising CO2, where do you claim that the CO2 is coming from?

If you can't name a source or sources, and given the measured rise in CO2 it's got to be a BIG source, then you're just hand-waving. Correlation doesn't imply causation. (Hmmm, I think I heard that somewhere.)

[skierinvermont]

boy oh boy, doesn't any alarmist have reading skills. I'm talking about temp vs CO2 causality. NOT that the ocean is or is not a carbon sink. Read people.

Don't you have any basic logic skills?

The oceans are ABSORBING CO2.. then obviously temperatures are not responsible for the rise in CO2 via outgassing.

If temperatures caused the rise in CO2 via outgassing, the oceans would be releasing CO2 and they are not.

[PhillipS]

1. CO2 causes a net warming effect ceterus parabus. This is pretty much established science, and has been for over 100 years. It's basic physics.
2. The Earth is getting warmer. This is also undisputed among climate scientists.
3. CO2 is increasing. This will cause a net warming effect ceterus parabus.
4. Ergo, for the Earth to be cooling (which it is not) then something has to outweigh the increase in CO2.
5. But, the Earth is not cooling, so IN ADDITION to CO2 causing a net warming effect, something else either has to cause additional warming or cooling
6. Regardless, it would be independent of CO2 acting as a net warming effect

The argument is pretty simple.

That is a good, concise summation.

[skierinvermont]

I have been sitting back and just reading....but I have to say that this is a good debate and I am enjoying the heck out of waiting to see who wins this one. Here is my 2 cents worth........ The oceans do serve as carbon sinks and they do "out gas" when conditions are right on a micro-scale. As much as it pains me, I have to agree with Skier on this one but that's not to say that there is no truth to the oceans giving up CO2. The oceans ability to hold CO2 has to be directly proportional to the amount of atmospheric concentration. So, in therory, as the atmosphere CO2 builds so will the amount that the oceans can hold.....Correct me if I am wrong.

Yes that is exactly correct. Glad to see you trying to keep an open mind. Take all of the CO2 humans have emitted since 1800.. the amount the oceans gained is equal to about half of that. The amount the atmosphere has gained is about equal to the other half. As the oceans warm, their ability to absorb the CO2 we emit declines.

It's all pretty basic chemistry really according to the laws of solubility. Even people who self identify as 'skeptics' as this forum like Will, taco etc. even Bethesda, acknowledge humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 from 280 to 400ppm. The sun might have caused 5-10ppm of that. Even if you assumed (falsely) the sun had caused 100% of the warming, and that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, you'd still find that the warming caused by the sun would only cause ~10ppm of CO2 rise.

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

Why does reality pain you?

Because I don't get caught up in the hype of all this AGW talk. That;s why....... Oh, don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading a good science-fiction novel as much as anyone, but I have the mental wherewithal to know the difference. There has been too many in-accuracies in data presentation over the last several years to form a valid conclusion. You have to agree with that. Therefore, I will stay a skeptic of AGW until such time comes when the politicians keep their agendas out of the science and the findings can be validated.

[Strongbad]

I don't understand why this debate matters. The AGW side has lost the public's confidence. They have been reduced to this: debating on an internet forum, while their Environmentalist policies are being killed or stopped by various governments worldwide. I am happy they have found the safety of Internet forums, where they can continue agreeing with each other, and posting to their hearts' content.

[skierinvermont]

I don't understand why this debate matters. The AGW side has lost the public's confidence. They have been reduced to this: debating on an internet forum, while their Environmentalist policies are being killed or stopped by various governments worldwide. I am happy they have found the safety of Internet forums, where they can continue agreeing with each other, and posting to their hearts' content.

The actual scientists don't debate on internet forums.. they are responsible for 10s of 1000s of peer-reviewed papers published in the last 10 years. Among scientists the understanding and agreement on the basic facts of AGW is unanimous. It's only among politicians and the moronic public that any doubt remains. People like me post on internet forums because we're masochistic.

[salbers]

Joining the masochism, I think the debate is somewhat muddied in that there isn't a really good goal post that I can cite. I also like to remind people that the CO2 emissions stay in the atmosphere/ocean system for a long time, so the burden of proof should be more on those who think there isn't a significant GHG effect.

For example, if aerosols and oceanic lags are helping to temporarily suppress the warming, it should still concern those who are interested in not having humans be the cause of environmental instability.

[valkhorn]

I don't understand why this debate matters. The AGW side has lost the public's confidence. They have been reduced to this: debating on an internet forum, while their Environmentalist policies are being killed or stopped by various governments worldwide. I am happy they have found the safety of Internet forums, where they can continue agreeing with each other, and posting to their hearts' content.

Why did I think of this with that post:

[The_Global_Warmer]

I post on here because I have no one in real life to talk to about this stuff and because the ice completely crapped on itself this summer and was can't miss entertainment. I think I derive some twisted satisfaction watching people have there ideology, doctrine, and self worth on the line with there beliefs here. And since AGW is real and the ice is going to melt out. It's like watching the train wrecks of all trains wrecks in real time. And best of all the show is on for years and no commercial breaks. Having the same people lash out at me as if I am going into the arctic with a machine blowing hot air on the ice melting it out. It's priceless, and since I can not change the inevitable, it i easy to be detached and open minded. I think the best part is when people call me bias or my ideas crap and bias and a warminista or alarmist, even though we are nearly with Standard Deviation of an ice free summer just 3-4 years after the recovery was well on it's way. The same people well wishing this would all dissapear while humans dump more and more GHGs yearly into the atmosphere. Sometimes you catch yourself wondering if/when folks will ever wake up. As if in 30 years when Co2 is at 450-475PPM the Earth will be cooling, glaciers will be growing and the arctic sea ice will be at 1970s levels. The sun has been at amazing lows now for years. it takes light 8 mins to get here. Don't tell me the lag is still happening. Climates have already begun to change everywhere. It's a shame. The ice is almost gone. How sad. Those poor folks put there neck out there in hopes of helping mankind getting the word out and they have been destroyed by it. But here we sit with 4000km3 of ice left. I gotta be honest I am pretty shocked myslef at how fast this has happened. But I was also fed some misinformation and told on this forum about the arctic when I got here. And if they were not lies they were old outfdated philosphies on the arctic that applied to a different age with a different system. Now I just hope when bleep hits the fan my family and fellow man can find there way out with minimum damage and loss of human life, all life that is.

but don't worry next summer I will graciously let everyone who has to leave the sea ice thread for a few weeks or permanently because there predictions with there condescending demeanor backfires in there face again.

As if this isn't really happening. those SST charts don't really exist. the are liberal propaganda. Modis uses CGI. It was from a bill that Al Gore passed in the 90s to fund the great Arctic Sea Ice scam. the images are doctored in Photoshop. The people who go to the arctic are holograms or paid mercenaries for Gore. Europe and other agencies who report or do work on or in the arctic are not real, its a liberal rouse and Bremen is just in a basement in some Hollywood studio. Cryosat2 is real and the image was accidentally leaked, it seeped through the cracks. Pips tried to show us the truth and Gore shut them down too.

the worst part is. That kind of satire is close to being a reality in a cyber space blog near you.

[BeastFromTheEast]

I post on here because I have no one in real life to talk to about this stuff and because the ice completely crapped on itself this summer and was can't miss entertainment. I think I derive some twisted satisfaction watching people have there ideology, doctrine, and self worth on the line with there beliefs here. And since AGW is real and the ice is going to melt out. It's like watching the train wrecks of all trains wrecks in real time. And best of all the show is on for years and no commercial breaks. Having the same people lash out at me as if I am going into the arctic with a machine blowing hot air on the ice melting it out. It's priceless, and since I can not change the inevitable, it i easy to be detached and open minded. I think the best part is when people call me bias or my ideas crap and bias and a warminista or alarmist, even though we are nearly with Standard Deviation of an ice free summer just 3-4 years after the recovery was well on it's way. The same people well wishing this would all dissapear while humans dump more and more GHGs yearly into the atmosphere. Sometimes you catch yourself wondering if/when folks will ever wake up. As if in 30 years when Co2 is at 450-475PPM the Earth will be cooling, glaciers will be growing and the arctic sea ice will be at 1970s levels. The sun has been at amazing lows now for years. it takes light 8 mins to get here. Don't tell me the lag is still happening. Climates have already begun to change everywhere. It's a shame. The ice is almost gone. How sad. Those poor folks put there neck out there in hopes of helping mankind getting the word out and they have been destroyed by it. But here we sit with 4000km3 of ice left. I gotta be honest I am pretty shocked myslef at how fast this has happened. But I was also fed some misinformation and told on this forum about the arctic when I got here. And if they were not lies they were old outfdated philosphies on the arctic that applied to a different age with a different system. Now I just hope when bleep hits the fan my family and fellow man can find there way out with minimum damage and loss of human life, all life that is.

but don't worry next summer I will graciously let everyone who has to leave the sea ice thread for a few weeks or permanently because there predictions with there condescending demeanor backfires in there face again.

As if this isn't really happening. those SST charts don't really exist. the are liberal propaganda. Modis uses CGI. It was from a bill that Al Gore passed in the 90s to fund the great Arctic Sea Ice scam. the images are doctored in Photoshop. The people who go to the arctic are holograms or paid mercenaries for Gore. Europe and other agencies who report or do work on or in the arctic are not real, its a liberal rouse and Bremen is just in a basement in some Hollywood studio. Cryosat2 is real and the image was accidentally leaked, it seeped through the cracks. Pips tried to show us the truth and Gore shut them down too.

the worst part is. That kind of satire is close to being a reality in a cyber space blog near you.

Tell me, what's gonna happen?

Should I build an ark?

[valkhorn]

Tell me, what's gonna happen?

Should I build an ark?

No, no one that I know of who accepts AGW thinks we'll all need an ark. There isn't enough water on the planet to flood it completely. But, if sea levels rise 25 ft (and it's entirely our fault) then it will displace hundreds of millions of people. That will be a pain in the butt to have to deal with. That could really mess up the economy on a global scale, too. Think of how far inland the water went with Katrina, and that was 20-30ft. The water wasn't really moving that fast and most of the damage was caused by rising water. The bridges didn't get shifted off of their pylons by currents alone, air trapped in the girders caused enough force for them to break their moorings. Water is very powerful.

Even if it takes 50 years for the sea levels to rise, it would still be overwhelming because a lot of the infrastructure below 25 ft. in elevation can't simply be moved elsewhere. It would have to be rebuilt.

Sea levels will rise and fall on their own over the course of thousands of years, but if we're accelerating it and causing the seas to rise quicker, then we may have difficulty adapting in time to save billions or trillions of dollars in damage.

[skierinvermont]

No, no one that I know of who accepts AGW thinks we'll all need an ark. There isn't enough water on the planet to flood it completely. But, if sea levels rise 25 ft (and it's entirely our fault) then it will displace hundreds of millions of people. That will be a pain in the butt to have to deal with. That could really mess up the economy on a global scale, too. Think of how far inland the water went with Katrina, and that was 20-30ft. The water wasn't really moving that fast and most of the damage was caused by rising water. The bridges didn't get shifted off of their pylons by currents alone, air trapped in the girders caused enough force for them to break their moorings. Water is very powerful.

Even if it takes 50 years for the sea levels to rise, it would still be overwhelming because a lot of the infrastructure below 25 ft. in elevation can't simply be moved elsewhere. It would have to be rebuilt.

Sea levels will rise and fall on their own over the course of thousands of years, but if we're accelerating it and causing the seas to rise quicker, then we may have difficulty adapting in time to save billions or trillions of dollars in damage.

It will take a lot longer than 50 years for 25' of sea level rise to occur.. probably around 150-250 years but that's just a best guess. Most of the rise would be in the last 50-100 years of that period.

[Sunny and Warm]

Sea levels will rise and fall on their own over the course of thousands of years, but if we're accelerating it and causing the seas to rise quicker, then we may have difficulty adapting in time to save billions or trillions of dollars in damage.

... and yet sea levels are NOT rising quicker. Just the opposite in fact. Care to revise your comments in light of the facts??

[Sunny and Warm]

maybe this will assist a few alarmists.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8355&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+%28ClimateRealists+News+Blog%29

let me guess, it's from a rag. get over yourselves.

[PhillipS]

... and yet sea levels are NOT rising quicker. Just the opposite in fact. Care to revise your comments in light of the facts??

The long term trend in sea levels is rising. Here is the current TOPEX plot:

And in the accompanying posting:

While the rise of the global ocean has been remarkably steady for most of this time, every once in a while, sea level rise hits a speed bump. This past year, it's been more like a pothole: between last summer and this one, global sea level actually fell by about a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter.

So what's up with the down seas, and what does it mean? Climate scientist Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., says you can blame it on the cycle of El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific.

So it appears that the recent dip was caused by natural variability. You can see similar periods back in the mid-1990s. No more earthshaking than the steep rise in 1997. As with any climate metric, the long-term trends are much more significant than the short-term trends. Is that so difficult to understand? The reality is that sea levels are rising. Why do you deny reality?

[PhillipS]

maybe this will assist a few alarmists.

http://climaterealis...ts+News+Blog%29

let me guess, it's from a rag. get over yourselves.

You're reduced to using John O'Sullivan as your climate expert? Seriously? He is one of the hacks behind the thoroughly debunked Skydragons nonsense. Plus he has consistently lied about his credentials. The man has no credibility at all. Not even in the skeptic community.

Dr Judith Curry has devoted several posts to debunking O'Sullivan's work.

If that's the best you can do, that's pathetic.

[valkhorn]

maybe this will assist a few alarmists.

http://climaterealis...ts+News+Blog%29

let me guess, it's from a rag. get over yourselves.

A few mistakes with that:

1. The red line was added by the site apparently
2. The point where it starts going down is a completely arbitrary point
3. One could just as easily but the middle vertical bold line anywhere and get a cooling then warming trend, warming then cooling trend, etc.
4. Statistics doesn't work that way. You have to take long term averages - which would not be a straight line but would be a curve.
5. The bold curvy line in the middle of the set is the average of the two, but is still not the statistical average you'd want
6. To get a real accurate trend line with the above data, you'd need to build a trend line out of the data from about 5 years after the start to 5 years before, take in an average both horizontally and vertically, and then plot it. (Or something similar)
7. Just eyeballing the graph I can pretty much tell that there is a steady curve upwards from the data - and part of my job as a software developer is analyzing data from just looking through it

The mistakes with your post are glaringly obvious. Do you just blindly post something if it agrees with you? Do you not even bother to examine it carefully if it happens to tell you what you want to hear?

By the way, I posted something from WUWT that agreed that man was the reason for the increased CO2, yet you ignored that. Isn't that a source you supposedly trust?

[gracetoyou]

This back & forth nonsense is nauseating to the reader & makes everyone look like a bunch of little kids trying to prove they're right when no one on either side can do so. Both sides have some truths that need to be heard; however, the objective reader can't help but notice the exaggeration going on with the AGW crowd. It happens on the natural variation side also by some but I've found that there are actually more open minded folks on the natural variation side while on the AGW side it's "This is it!! Book closed!! No other studies or hypothesis allowed!!" That's what irks me with the AGW side. Anyone that is not on board is considered a non-intellectual retard.

[skierinvermont]

This back & forth nonsense is nauseating to the reader & makes everyone look like a bunch of little kids trying to prove they're right when no one on either side can do so. Both sides have some truths that need to be heard; however, the objective reader can't help but notice the exaggeration going on with the AGW crowd. It happens on the natural variation side also by some but I've found that there are actually more open minded folks on the natural variation side while on the AGW side it's "This is it!! Book closed!! No other studies or hypothesis allowed!!" That's what irks me with the AGW side. Anyone that is not on board is considered a non-intellectual retard.

throw your hands up in the air! there is no such thing as objectivity! it's impossible to know anything!

The fact is, we do know a great deal, and when people come in here and post garbage it will be refuted with objective data and analysis. If you are too lazy to read it (which is understandable given the great complexity), don't comment.

[skierinvermont]

A few mistakes with that:

1. The red line was added by the site apparently
2. The point where it starts going down is a completely arbitrary point
3. One could just as easily but the middle vertical bold line anywhere and get a cooling then warming trend, warming then cooling trend, etc.
4. Statistics doesn't work that way. You have to take long term averages - which would not be a straight line but would be a curve.
5. The bold curvy line in the middle of the set is the average of the two, but is still not the statistical average you'd want
6. To get a real accurate trend line with the above data, you'd need to build a trend line out of the data from about 5 years after the start to 5 years before, take in an average both horizontally and vertically, and then plot it. (Or something similar)
7. Just eyeballing the graph I can pretty much tell that there is a steady curve upwards from the data - and part of my job as a software developer is analyzing data from just looking through it

The mistakes with your post are glaringly obvious. Do you just blindly post something if it agrees with you? Do you not even bother to examine it carefully if it happens to tell you what you want to hear?

By the way, I posted something from WUWT that agreed that man was the reason for the increased CO2, yet you ignored that. Isn't that a source you supposedly trust?

Summary: trend lines are calculated not drawn.

people that don't understand this should refrain from posting until they do.

[Strongbad]

throw your hands up in the air! there is no such thing as objectivity! it's impossible to know anything!

The fact is, we do know a great deal, and when people come in here and post garbage it will be refuted with objective data and analysis. If you are too lazy to read it (which is understandable given the great complexity), don't comment.

Thank goodness we have kind and helpful people like you protecting us from the meanie deniers...

The truth though is that the title of this thread is perhaps too provocative. Seems that there is too much back and forth.