'Skeptical Science' Misrepresents Their Animation “The Escalator”

D Böehm says:
November 26, 2012 at 2:15 pm
renewableguy asserts:
“CO2 has been proven to be the culprit in our warming earth climate.”
However, that is a completely baseless assertion. Nothing of the sort has ever been “proven”.
The global warming trend since the LIA is exactly the same, whether CO2 was 280 ppmv, or 394 ppmv. There is no acceleration of the [completely natural] warming trend. Therefore, CO2 has no measurable effect. None at all.
##########################
Ignoring what the IPCC says on the matter is significant. How are they all wrong? RG
####################
RG says: “You can convince me with overwhelming evidence.”
Absolutely false. I have proven that RG is impervious to logic. That is typical of a religious True Believer. Nothing will convince RG that he worships a false god. Glaciers could once again flow over Chicago a mile thick, and RG would still believe the nonsense that CO2 causes any measurable global warming.
#############################
So what are today’s conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely:
1. These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale – they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age. You have to go back 430,000 years to find an interglacial with similar conditions, and this interglacial lasted about 30,000 years.
2. The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth’s orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise.
RG
#########################################
If RG has any testable, verifiable, empirical evidence showing in a cause and effect manner that a rise in CO2 causes a corresponding rise in temperature, I challenge him to produce it. If there was any such evidence, skeptics would be pounded over the head with it 24/7/365. In fact, there are no testable, verifiable, empirical measurements showing conclusively that X amount of CO2 causes Y rise in global temperature. None — RG’s baseless assertions notwithstanding.
###########################
For now I’ll let you read it. If you want to further discuss this, I’ll do this in a seperate post.
###########################
Next, RG says: “…co2 has been narrowed down by eliminating the other possible causes.”
Complete nonsense. That is nothing but the old Argumentum ad Ignorantium logical fallacy; the argument from ignorance, so beloved of climate alarmists: “Since I can’t think of any other reason, then it must be because of CO2.” Those ignorant alarmists disregard the oceans, the sun, Miklanovitch cycles, albedo, clouds, and many other possible causes, and instead zero in on the one thing that lacks any measurable evidence; CO2. Theirs is religious-based ignorance, and nothing any rational person says will make a dent in RG’s pseudo-scientific True Belief.
############################
RG
co2 has a measured amount of radiative forcing and is at the top of the list of ghg’s that effect our climate. Maybe that’s not good enough for you I suppose. If I’m wrong then so are 98% of the climate scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases
RG
Below are the natural mechanisms for variation of cliamte. The IPCC has ruled out these natural changes as the reasons for our climate change temperature. RG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
There are also natural mechanisms for variation including climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and volcanic activity.
###################################
Finally, RG posted a chart that purports to show that declining cloud cover causes global warming. But look closely at the chart. It shows that ∆clouds are the result of ∆T. Strike three.
#####################
Read my last post
renewableguy says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 26, 2012 at 3:45 pm

renewableguy says: @ur momisugly November 26, 2012 at 12:13 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First have you watched Bob’s videos? He explains ENSO very well so they are well worth watching
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
…There is an inherent level of risk associated with moving forward with enormous amounts of co2 being emitted into the atmosphere….
_________________________________
No there is not. The log curve shows we are at the point of vastly diminishing returns, C3 plants are no longer on the verge of starvation. Heat is uncomfortable but COLDS KILLS! Also based on the past history of earth and the Milankovitch cycles, Solar Insolation is already low enough to trigger glacial onset. For the last 8,000 years, the Earth has been cooling at 0.25°C per thousand years. See In defense of Milankovitch

Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception
Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….

In otherwords CO2 is PREVENTING the onset of the next ice age according to Ruddiman.
Even Joe Romm over at Climate Progress at one time stated:
Absent human emissions, we’d probably be in a slow long-term cooling trend due primarily by changes in the Earth’s orbit — see Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds…
A new paper from Markonis and Koutsoyiannis shows orbital forcings signal in proxy and instrumental records: WUWT discussion
Vostok graph:Temp, CO2, CH4, O18 & solar Insolation (present on left) Note Insolation, the bottom brown curve is headed DOWN.
Insolation past million years (present on right)

Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic
…..Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present… As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean diminished. Late Holocene cooling reached its nadir during the Little Ice Age (about 1250-1850 AD), when sun-blocking volcanic eruptions and perhaps other causes added to the orbital cooling, allowing most Arctic glaciers to reach their maximum Holocene extent…

Woods Hole Observatory: Abrupt Climate Change: Should We Be Worried?
Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth vs climate can shift gears within a decade, establishing new and different patterns that can persist for decades to centuries. In addition, these climate shifts do not necessarily have universal, global effects. They can generate a counterintuitive scenario: Even as the earth as a whole continues to warm gradually, large regions may experience a precipitous and disruptive shift into colder climates.
This new paradigm of abrupt climate change has been well established over the last decade by research of ocean, earth and atmosphere scientists at many institutions worldwide. But the concept remains little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of scientists, economists, policy makers, and world political and business leaders. Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.

Solar activity reaches new high – Dec 2, 2003
…Geophysicists in Finland and Germany have calculated that the Sun is more magnetically active now than it has been for over a 1000 years. Ilya Usoskin and colleagues at the University of Oulu and the Max-Planck Institute for Aeronomy say that their technique – which relies on a radioactive dating technique – is the first direct quantitative reconstruction of solar activity based on physical, rather than statistical, models (I G Usoskin et al. 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 211101)
… the Finnish team was able to extend data on solar activity back to 850 AD. The researchers found that there has been a sharp increase in the number of sunspots since the beginning of the 20th century. They calculated that the average number was about 30 per year between 850 and 1900, and then increased to 60 between 1900 and 1944, and is now at its highest ever value of 76.

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
“This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University’s Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
…
In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of NASA’s ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, he needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989 to 1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM ‘gap.’ Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). This major finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on climate.
NASA’s ACRIMSAT/ACRIM3 experiment began in 2000 and will extend the long-term solar observations into the future for at least a five-year minimum mission. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/solar_trend_change_climate.html

The Role of Solar Activity on Holocene Glacier Length Variability in the swiss Alps Hormes, A., Beer, J. and Schlüchter, C., 2006: A geochronological approach to understanding the role of solar activity on Holocene glacier length variability in the Swiss Alps. Geogr. Ann., 88 A (4): 281–294.

RG says:
“Ignoring what the IPCC says on the matter is significant. How are they all wrong?”
Another assertion, and an appeal to an authority that has been shown to be consistently wrong.
Next, RG says: “The IPCC has ruled …” Enough with the nonsense. The IPCC cannot ‘rule’ on science. They have been shown to be consistently wrong. “ruled”, heh. As if.
The entire CO2=CAGW scare is based on evidence-free assertions. There are no empirical measurements showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. None. The only real world evidence shows exactly the opposite relationship.
As usual, RG cannot produce any testable measurements that support his belief system. If something can’t be measured, it is nothing but a conjecture; a belief-based opinion. An evidence-free assertion. That works fine at pseudo-science blogs like SkS and RealClimate. But it fails at the internet’s “Best Science” site. What RG is peddling here is his belief.
Wake up, RG. The UN/IPCC is running a scam. And credulous believers like you are falling for it. They even admit it:
“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore”
~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC, WG-3

I’m actually curious as to how Bob can provide error bounds when the only data he has to work with has none.
Any answers KR?
DaveE.

renewableguy says:
November 26, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Its such a short time interval, that to say the ocean won’t warm anymore I think is premature…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are several factors that seem to indicate a shift change in the weather patterns. The 15 year halt in SST is just one of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Real Climate brings out a study showing the skin effect of heating on the ocean. There is clear evidence that the skin effect helps to heat the oceans.
That is absolutely hilarious. 400 ppm of a gas vs zillions of gallons of water covering 70% of the earth – it brings to mind Bambi Meets Godzilla
Have you ever bothered to look at the relative energy of the sun’s spectrum vs the earth’s? graph or WHAT wavelengths the majority of the energy radiates? graph
And while you are at it read: THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

Werner Brozek says:
November 26, 2012 at 5:39 pm
renewableguy says:
November 26, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
None of the above. It depends on the data set, but on three data sets below, it is sometime in 1997 that the slope is 0 for all practical purposes. (It is actually very slightly negative so no one can accuse me of stretching the truth.)
1. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
2. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
3. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 10 months (goes to October)
See the graph below to show it all.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997
#################################
15 years is to short a time actually. Notice the high uncertainty. And yet overall the temperature data bases show warming.
all of them are 1997 to 2012
GISS 1997 to 2012
Trend: 0.92 ±1.40 °C/century (2σ)
NOAA
Trend: 0.49 ±1.32 °C/century (2σ)
Hadcrut3
Trend: 0.12 ±1.42 °C/century (2σ)
Hadcrut4
Trend: 0.58 ±1.36 °C/century (2σ)
Best Land only
Trend: 1.82 ±2.43 °C/century (2σ)
NOAA land only
Trend: 1.54 ±2.21 °C/century (2σ)
RSS
Trend: 0.06 ±2.49 °C/century (2σ)
UAH
Trend: 1.06 ±2.52 °C/century (2σ)
Trend: 1.06 ±2.52 °C/century (2σ)
Trend: 1.06 ±2.52 °C/century (2σ)

renewableguy,
Who are you trying to convince with your assertions? The relationship between CO2 and temperature is not what you believe it to be. And the UN/IPCC has been flat wrong.
Really, you are arguing like a Jehovah’s Witness. Scientific observations falsify your beliefs, but you don’t give up, do you? Religious believers are like that. Facts don’t matter; emotion is everything.

renewableguy says:
November 26, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Thank you. So within the error bars, every single one of the data sets could be 0 since 1997. Perhaps the world should wait a few more years before spending a huge amount of money that may not be necessary. Sixteen years of no change is not something that should be ignored, especially since no model predicted it.

Camburn says:
November 26, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Anyone who goes to SS for information is doomed to failure and certainly has no understanding of the dynamics of climate.
They seem to have some company!
See: http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/71-the-courts-hans-jelbring-and-the-kiwis-bring-joy-for-greenhouse-gas-deniers.html
“Weaver, the IPCC’s chief climate modeler, has fallen foul of court rules because he, just like Mann, has been timed out for failing to advance his case since since it was filed in February 2011. This boils down to a bizarre refusal to comply with court rules to show what’s behind his science.”

@ur momisugly renewable guy
In response to my query you wrote,

With the same or less input from the sun, the co2 slows down the infrared escape causing warming at the earth’s surface. RG

Are you saying the sun’s variance causes temp fluctuations?
Further, you write,

Its not clear to me why the speed of light is important in this. The simple answer is the heat goes into the oceans. If we were all land, the earth would heat up quite a bit faster. The oceans are the reason for the lag in response to increased co2. RG

The two statements are interesting. Most warmist literature I’ve read consider the energy from the sun as relatively constant. As to the oceans, once it starts emitting more energy, what causes it to stop and then start absorbing more?
The idea that the earth calls a “time out” and takes a break without an adequate description of the mechanism can be regarded as nothing more than a convenient fiction.
The speed of light is important because …. once the quasi equilibrium was established, the earth’s IR emissions increases. It wouldn’t decrease if the CO2 was sending all that energy back to the earth. It would constantly increase. Think about it for a minute, instead of regurgitating inanities.

One more ” slayer “, Greg House is back again with his no back radiation nonsense. Mods, can we put a stop to these kind of posts from the slayers?
[then who would be next and where do we stop? You are not forced to respond to his or any post and we are tolerant of opinions here . . mod]