Our Oceans are Under Attack

Although we've discussed this particular topic a number of times before, it seems that junk interpreters of otherwise good science are always ready to throw dust in our eyes.

From Yobarnacle's link this is what the scientists apparently said:



But this is how what the scientists said got twisted to support the agenda of the AGW-deniers.

Note that the scientists said that the particular location they studied showed that it was warmer during a number of previous time periods than it is now, but they did not say that the whole world was warmer back then, than it is now. That particular interpretation was supplied by the deniers who put together the web site.

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

 

You are using "data" promulgated by MANN?
The most discredited, fraudulent, hoax fabricating "climate scientist" of them all?
NOBODY trusts or respects ANYTHING he says.
You're incredibly naïve!

 

Mann is author of more than 160 peer-reviewed and edited publications, and has published two books: Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming in 2008, in 2013 the European Geosciences Union described his publication record as "outstanding for a scientist of his relatively young age". Mann's dissertation was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize in 1997 as an "outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences" at Yale University

 

Yeah? PEER reviewed by his cronies but the data hidden, manipulated, adjusted and NOT available to anybody Mann doesn't trust. He claimed before a Congress investigation committee, investigating Michael Mann, that the data and methodology used to produce MBH98 was his private property and no-one (including Congress) had any right to see it.
No one has a RIGHT to see the global temperatures over last 1400 years? Even when Mann is accused of manipulating the data, resulting in billions of dollars in costs to the worlds governments and citizens?
It's pretty obvious only ONE reason exists for withholding such information. It incriminates Michael Mann in the crime of FRAUD!

I'm posting the infamous "Mann Hocky Stick" temperature chart (blue line), that erased the previously accepted MWP data (red line), and the IPCC published Mann's Hocky Stick in their IPCC report, to their chagrin.
Years subsequent to the scandal, the IPCC reverted to previous data that INCLUDES the Medieval Warm Period.
Some in the IPCC called for barring Mann (and other climate gate miscreants) from participating in IPCC reports!
They were THAT embarrassed by him.
It's important to remember the IPCC is NOT a scientific organization, but a POLITICAL body, a part of the UN.
The IPCC has ONE avowed mission.
To gain UN control over the world's energy production, via the scheme of Anthropogenic Global Warming created by man produced CO2.
They are NOT interested in discovering IF man produced CO2 is harming the climate.
THAT, stated in IPCC documents, is their foregone conclusion and axiom and ALL the climate models are DESIGNED to further that particular agenda.
The agenda of gaining UN control! Of ALL world energy production.
Mann embarrassed the IPCC by causing a setback in their carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign!
IPCC was unhappy it had to go into damage control mode.

Mann was implicated by emails colluding with data tampering in the Climate Gate scandal.
Later, Mann was criticized and censured for improper temperature data gathering, namely he installed thermometers in PARKING LOTS, to get "average" temperatures from American cities.
He was accused of pasteurizing (adding heat) to artic temperatures by averaging the data from stations already far separated as to equal ONE station for each area equivalent in size to the USA!

CREDIBLE?
Michael Mann SHOULD be serving a life sentence for perpetrating and colluding to perpetrate, GRAND THEFT FRAUD on the WORLD!

And NOW Imaginary Number wants to resurrect this proven to be FRAUDULENT data from a discredited FRAUDULENT Crimatologist, as PROOF the MWP didn't exist?
That was what Mann was trying to do, that got him into trouble, and subpoenaed before a congressional investigation committee.
Unfortunately they couldn't get enough evidence to indict him. Science establishment closed ranks, and some records destroyed.

But I'd be very careful WHO you choose to quote or cite for YOUR arguments, if YOU want to remain the least bit credible!

And you didn't try to refute the solar radiance matches earth temperature chart.
Instead, tried to discredit the blog site , that they exaggerated the scientists claim.
If "exaggerating" a claim in an internet blog, offends you as unethical,what do you feel about climatologists manipulating "scientific" data, to defraud the entire world, and with results, has already cost billions, and likely trillions more before it finally runs it's course?

In MY post, I toned down the PROOF of MWP to "show evidence of MWP".
MWP is already accepted occurred in northern hemisphere in Europe, Greenland, North America, and NOW in China too!
That's evidence it certainly might be world wide.
Conclusive evidence? Depends on how much evidence you demand for global MWP, and how much can you reasonably expect to be gathered, 800 to 1000 years after the fact. All witnesses have died, I suspect.
A number of scientific theories are considered/honored as almost FACT status, with far more tenuous, and less supportive evidence.

Prudence SHOULD suggest, faith in Michael Mann would be misplaced. You ARE responsible for what you CHOOSE to believe. Faith directs our footsteps.

 

Mann has not been discredited, but in fact has been vindicated. The chart you posted --

-- seems quite similar to the one I posted.



They both show Mann's "hockey stick", with current temperatures exceeding those of the MWP (Medieval Warming Period, around 1000AD). The main difference is that on my chart all the temperature series are labeled, and there is a link to where I got my information, while for your chart none of the temperature series are labeled, and there is no link to where you got your information. Typical ploy for an AGW-denier.

A few years ago Richard Muller, a reputable AGW-denier, was raising a big stink about how bad the NOAA,NASA,HADLEY (the three main global temperature research centers) historic temperature series were. He put together a hand-picked team of analysts to re-analyze all the historic temperature data, and got funding from both the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Charles G. Koch Foundation, as well as others.

His group was called Berkeley Earth, and his new temperature series became known as BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature). It was Muller's intention to show, once and for all, how biased all those main-stream climate scientists were. Other prominent skeptics, such as Anthony Watts, rallied to the promise of soon being vindicated. Watts said:

"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."​

Guess what. After all of Muller's analysis he got essentially the same results as the NOAA et al series. This graph is from the Berkeley Earth website:



However, unlike Anthony Watts, and unlike Yobarnacle, Muller was man enough to admit he was wrong and that NOAA/NASA/Hadley were correct after all.

"When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that."​

Of course, the whiners still keep whining even when they had promised to abide by Muller's results:

When the initial results were released, and found to support the existing consensus, the study was widely decried. Watts spoke to the New York Times, which wrote: "Mr. Watts ... contended that the study's methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year-one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies. He also noted that the report had not yet been peer-reviewed and cited spelling errors as proof of sloppiness."[20] Steven Mosher, a co-author of a book critical of climate scientists, also disapproved saying that the study still lacked transparency. He said: "I'm not happy until the code is released and released in a language that people can use freely."[20] (The code and dataset are available from the Berkeley Earth Dataset web page.) Stephen McIntyre, editor of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data, said that "the team deserves credit for going back to the primary data and doing the work" and even though he had not had an opportunity to read the papers in detail, he questioned the analyses of urban heating and weather station quality.​

It is interesting that Yobarnacle referenced one variant of Muller's temperature series in this graph.

I note first that the temperature graph is not for the whole earth, but just for the US. Second, the temperature graph does not use an average of day and night temperatures, but just maximum day-time temperatures. If instead of this temperature graph you instead look at Muller's graph of average temperatures for the whole globe (presented above), the possible correlation between solar irradiance and earth temperatures seems much less obvious.

Furthermore, if you look specifically at solar irradiance and global temperatures for the last three decades you can see that presently there is an inverse correlation -- that is, solar irradiance is decreasing, but global temperatures are increasing!


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 Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates).

from Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

 

solar and wind power increasing

Sun and Wind Alter Global Landscape, Leaving Utilities Behind | NEW YORK TIMES

 

Simple fact. All the climate scientists admit it and puzzled by it.
No warming for 16 years or tad more.
Co2 hasn't slowed, do you INSIST CO2 drives warming?

The majority of Americans aren't fooled by this dog and poney show.

Do you think the planet is DOOMED because USA, CHINA, INDIA ignore your warnings?

 

It is written over 1900 years ago that the planet is doomed. There will be global warming when fire and brimstone rain down. Perhaps that will be sent in the form of a supervolcano. Maybe even Yellowstone itself will be the instrument.

 

I enjoyed this signature seen on another forum:

"Don't believe everything you think!"

 

Also seen, though paraphrased: Never pass up an opportunity to avoid making yourself look foolish.

 

So many obvious foolish falsehoods in this thread. Or naivety.
Noeyedeer thinks carbon taxes will reduce OTHER taxes. Really? Australian government must be fiscally conservative.
Our current overly centralized power grabbing federal administration has already spent MORE than all previous administrations combined.
I have an old fashioned notion that what I labor for should be mine, taking it from me by coercion is theft. Spending MY money, gotten by theft, on programs diminishing my freedoms is tyranny.
Nope! I want to REDUCE centralized power, not feed it or encourage it.
The United Nations was never intended to be world government. There ARE those who want and plan on world government.
Bad idea.
The IPCC is ONE stratagem to accumulate power in a global central government.
Bad, BAD idea.
Michael Mann's Hocky Stick was deliberately faked to HIDE the MWP. Nothing vindicates that.
Because the MWP is good reason not to worry over a couple degrees of extra warmth in the future.
MWP was historical GOOD times climate wise.
There has been no additional warming since about 1997.
No contrived chart will credibly show CO2 driving temperature.
Co2 has continually increased,while temperature is plateaued.
Don't need a chart to see an obvious disparity in those.

As to being man enough to admit I'm wrong, I do and HAVE admitted when I'm wrong, and in this forum. Recently even.

Your problem with ME IrrationalNumber, isn't because I'm manly, but because I'm a THINKING man.
And nobodies fool!

 

Did you get that idea from "They hate us because of our freedom." ?

 

We intend to give you not just an insight of the Maritime Industry but also help you learn and grow as an individual.

We provide you an exciting platform to pen down your thoughts.

We are an e-magazine making people realize the importance of our oceans

our magazine link

http://issuu.com/imuv.laola/docs/laola_xvii_isuue

our magazine

 

Yobarnacle, see this link

http://www.technologyreview.com/new...-energy&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20140915

 

Foolish Sierra Club but not surprised, because while the environment was the reason for starting the green movement, it isn't the true aim of the current green movement today..
Its been captured. http://www.socialismtoday.org/136/green.html