Global Warming - Scientific evidence

[Doggy Styles]

some farts and some farts

Now that's what I'd call a REAL greenhouse gas.

[BlasterBates]

Both of your last posts miss the point completely (and probably deliberately -I'm assuming you're trolling because I'm taking the charitable interpretation that you're not stupid ).
And that point is that over the short periods discussed you can't infer anything, either warming or cooling.
That is actually a basic tenet when you study time-series in any statistics course.

...and presumably Professor Easterbrook is a troll as well.

of course..how silly of me.

[shaunbhoy]

And that point is that over the short periods discussed you can't infer anything, either warming or cooling.
That is actually a basic tenet when you study time-series in any statistics course.

So let's recap then. The planet has existed for far in excess of 4.5 Billion years, and you are basing your theory on results captured over how long?

a) 10 years

b) 20 years

c) 30 years

d) 100 years

e) However many years it takes to give us the results we want



Lies, damned lies, statistics, and mutton-headed numbercrunching compliant sycophants!

[BlasterBates]

Lets just recap.

As sasguru says 15 years isn't long enough to draw any conclusions.

So for 15 years 1995-2010 nothing happened, that's what Phil Jones said.

between 1940-1979 we had cooling.

So the evidence for global warming is in a 15 year period...hmmm

[pjclarke]

Don't see why an Oceanographer is better placed to comment on climate change than a glaciologist, it is one of Easterbrook's research areas, and he does have a paper on it from 2005.

Er, no he does not, he has a presentation that he has given to various bodies, not published in a reviewed journal, to my knowledge. Easterbrook predicts global cooling based on the PDO, so an oceanographer is eminently more qualified to comment.

But we will see. He points out the cooling since 1998, and you just need to simply look at the temperature trends from any temperature record.

1998 is a massive cherry-pick. It saw the strongest El Nino of last century, the upwelling of warm water pushed global temps 0.2C above the long term trend line. Move the start date forwards or back a year and the 'cooling' disappears. See also here.

Even Phil Jones admits no warming since 1995.

Of course he doesn't. He was asked if the warming since 1995 [+0.12C/decade] was statistically significant, and the answer is no, it is not significant at the 95% confidence level due to the relatively short period. Only Daily Mail readers believe that is the same thing as 'no warming'.

The CO2 theorists didn't predict a cooling, and it is happening they can't ignore it ... and there is a definite trend of the snow line moving southwards over the last few years. Interesting times.

The IPCC projections are aggregates of several model runs, giving reasonable simulation of weather noise. The overall average was positive, but some runs did indeed project a cooling. See the distribution here.

Regarding snowfall - I do hope you're not relying on Steve Goddard for anything resembling science...

[sasguru]

Don't see why an Oceanographer is better placed to comment on climate change than a glaciologist, it is one of Easterbrook's research areas, and he does have a paper on it from 2005.

Er, no he does not, he has a presentation that he has given to various bodies, not published in a reviewed journal, to my knowledge. Easterbrook predicts global cooling based on the PDO, so an oceanographer is eminently more qualified to comment.

But we will see. He points out the cooling since 1998, and you just need to simply look at the temperature trends from any temperature record.

1998 is a massive cherry-pick. It saw the strongest El Nino of last century, the upwelling of warm water pushed global temps 0.2C above the long term trend line. Move the start date forwards or back a year and the 'cooling' disappears. See also here.

Even Phil Jones admits no warming since 1995.

Of course he doesn't. He was asked if the warming since 1995 [+0.12C/decade] was statistically significant, and the answer is no, it is not significant at the 95% confidence level due to the relatively short period. Only Daily Mail readers believe that is the same thing as 'no warming'.

The CO2 theorists didn't predict a cooling, and it is happening they can't ignore it ... and there is a definite trend of the snow line moving southwards over the last few years. Interesting times.

The IPCC projections are aggregates of several model runs, giving reasonable simulation of weather noise. The overall average was positive, but some runs did indeed project a cooling. See the distribution here.

Regarding snowfall - I do hope you're not relying on Steve Goddard for anything resembling science...

You're new here. You'll find a sense of deja vu that takes you back to being at school as the dim kids in the class try to wrestle with concepts that are clearly beyond them.

[shaunbhoy]

You're new here. You'll find a sense of deja vu that takes you back to being at school as the dim kids in the class try to wrestle with concepts that are clearly beyond them.

Only when YOU post though.

[BlasterBates]

Er, no he does not, he has a presentation that he has given to various bodies, not published in a reviewed journal, to my knowledge. Easterbrook predicts global cooling based on the PDO, so an oceanographer is eminently more qualified to comment.

This was a peer reviewed conference paper.

Research on climate change is drawn from many disciplines. You can also check out Roy Spencer who has a several papers.

The peer reviewed published work on climate change isn't a consensus at all, far from it.

Of course he doesn't. He was asked if the warming since 1995 [+0.12C/decade] was statistically significant, and the answer is no, it is not significant at the 95% confidence level due to the relatively short period. Only Daily Mail readers believe that is the same thing as 'no warming'.

That's fine, then we need to recognise the cooling as well. Easterbrook does in his peer reviewed conference paper.

[sasguru]

The peer reviewed published work on climate change isn't a consensus at all, far from it.

You don't understand peer review.

This should help:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

[sasguru]

This was a peer reviewed conference paper.

.

You mean a conference for geologists whose major source of income is from petroleum exploration?
Funny that

How does one peer review a conference paper anyway? The only way is to get it pre-published in a peer-reviewed journal like Nature, surely?