/

Revised satellite data show no pause in global warming

AP

Doubters of climate change may have lost one of their key talking points: a set of satellite temperature data that had seemed to show no warming for the past 18 years.

The Remote Sensing System temperature data, promoted by many who reject mainstream climate science and most recently by Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, now show a slight warming since 1998. Ground temperature measurements, which many scientists call more accurate, all show warming in the past 18 years.

“There are people that like to claim there was no warming; they really can’t claim that anymore,” said Carl Mears, the scientist who runs the Remote Sensing System.

The change resulted from an adjustment Mears made to the fix a nagging discrepancy in the data from 15 satellites.

The satellites are in polar orbits, so they are supposed to go over the same place at about the same time as they circle from north to south. Some of them drift a bit, which changes their afternoon and evening measurements slightly. Some satellites had drift that made temperatures warmer, others cooler. Three satellites had thrusters and stayed in the proper orbit, so they provided guidance for adjustments.

Mears said he was “motivated by fixing these differences between the satellites. If the differences hadn’t been there, I wouldn’t have done the upgrade.”

NASA chief climate scientist Gavin Schmidt and Texas A&M climate scientist Andrew Dessler said experts and studies had shown these problems that Mears adjusted. Both said the adjustments are well supported in a study in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate.

The study refutes the idea of a pause in global warming, “but frankly common sense and looking at how Earth was responding over the past 18 years kind of makes this finding a ‘duh’ moment,” wrote University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall Shepherd.

The other major satellite temperature data set, run by University of Alabama Hunstville professor John Christy, shows slight warming after 1998. But if 1998 is included in the data, it sees no warming. But that should change with a warm 2016, Christy said.

  • odin2

    If you torture the data enough you can get the results you want. There is no scientific study or studies with empirical evidence showing that human activities (mostly CO2 emissions) have ever been the primary cause of global warming. RSS, UAH v6 and the balloon data were remarkably consistent. The RSS data has been “revised” to eliminate that pesky 18 year and 8 month pause. RSS is now an outlier.

    • Sam Gilman

      That’s not true, though, is it?

      CO2 is a greenhouse gas responsible for around 20% of the greenhouse effect that keeps the planet around 32-33 degrees warmer than it otherwise would be.

      CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing measurably.

      This increase is traceable to us not only because it is in proportion to the amount of CO2 emissions estimates, but the changing isotope ratios of atmospheric carbon reflect fossil fuel origins.

      The increase in energy radiated down to earth, and the decrease in energy radiating out into space has been measured and reflects the wavelengths at which increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb and re-radiate that energy.

      Which of these results do you have counter evidence for?

      When the person running RSS has been saying for years that global warming is happening and that his own series doesn’t contradict the wealth of evidence that it is happening, what’s the rational conclusion?

      • odin2

        I posted: “If you torture the data enough you can get the results you want. There is no scientific study or studies with empirical evidence showing that human activities (mostly CO2 emissions) have ever been the primary cause of global warming. RSS, UAH v6 and the balloon data were remarkably consistent. The RSS data has been “revised” to eliminate that pesky 18 year and 8 month pause. RSS is now an outlier.”

        The only thing that I posted that is an opinion is “The RSS data has been “revised” to eliminate that pesky 18 year and 8 month pause.” Everything else in my post is factual. We will have to await the congressional investigation of the RSS revisions to find out more about why they were made. It appears though that it is obvious that Believers were desperate to make the pause go away (think Karl et all, that even Michael Mann has thrown under the bus).

        What you recite is basically the unproven AGW hypothesis. A hypothesis is not empirical evidence , no matter how elegant it is. You provide no empirical evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.

        There is no empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that humans (mostly CO2 emissions) have ever been the cause of global warming.

        Provide the scientific paper or papers that provide the empirical evidence and prove me wrong. BTW, 90-95% of the GHE is caused by water vapor and clouds. This may come as a surprise to you, but water vapor is the most prevalent GHG.

      • Sam Gilman

        Yes, I’m fully aware that water vapour is the most prevalent greenhouse gas. But it isn’t an initial cause of warming. It’s a feedback. You probably know this already but are choosing not to tell people.

        The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined by temperature. If you just pump water vapour into the sky it will fall back down as something scientists like to call rain. On the other hand, if you pump CO2 in the atmosphere, it stays there for a long time. It warms the atmosphere, which then increases the water vapour content, which warms it a little bit more, which increases the water vapour and so on until there is a new equilibrium.

        I invited you to challenge any one of the points of scientific knowledge I highlighted. You didn’t, though, did you?

      • odin2

        You have no empirical evidence that CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming.

        You: ” I invited you to challenge any one of the points of scientific knowledge I highlighted. You didn’t, though, did you?”

        What you assert is the unproven hypothesis, which us not empirical evidence.

        I asked you to provide a paper or papers with scientific studies showing that human activities (mostly CO2 emissions) have ever been the primary cause of global warming. You didn’t though, did you?

        “Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.”

        ……

        “Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters which could skew the results.”

        “The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific methods, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science.”

        Today many studies and papers are published on line with their data and code so that anyone with the scientific expertise can critique and replicate the study or paper. This helps avoid “pal’ review by a close knit group of scientists and makes it more difficult for scientists who have a political agenda to keep scientists with a different viewpoint from publishing.

        Note the the data and methodology have to be made public so that disinterested scientists can replicate the experiment or observation to eliminate the possibility of bias, human error or outright fraud.

        The following are not empirical evidence :

        1. Appeals to authority;

        2. Appeals to consensus;

        3. Theories (no matter how elegant);

        4. Computer climate models;

        5. Evidence of CO2 and temperatures rising at the same time (correlation is not proof of causation and besides studies show that temperatures increase before CO2 increases- which suggests that the AGW hypothesis of CO2 emissions causing global warming is backwards);

        6. Evidence of what happens when temperatures increase or decrease (this may or may not be evidence of the effects of changes in temperatures, but it is not evidence of what caused the change in temperatures);

        7. Predictions of dire consequences of global warming like increased frequency, duration or strength of climate phenomena (these are based on CCM projections and the assumption that there is global warming as projected by the climate models- no global warming and the dire consequences will never happen

        Thomas H. Huxley stated, “Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact,” and “The deepest sin of the human mind is to believe things without evidence.”

      • Sam Gilman

        Notice how you refuse to look at any of the specific points I raised which are taken as common knowledge. You’re not prepared to say where the world’s scientific community has got it wrong.

        Instead, you launch a meandering attack on scientific processes in general. Hmm. Why would you need to do that if you’re so confident that there is no empirical evidence?

        Anyway, let’s look at some research:

        Feldman, D. R., Collins, W. D., Gero, P. J., Torn, M. S., Mlawer, E. J., & Shippert, T. R. (2015). Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature, 519(7543), 339-343.

        The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quan- tified in terms of radiative forcing1, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present- day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual- mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 6 0.19 W m22 (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmo- spheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m22 per decade (with respective uncertainties of 60.06 W m22 per decade and 60.07 W m22 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m22. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5–7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respira- tion, are affecting the surface energy balance.

        So when you said there was no empirical evidence, was this because you didn’t know or because you wanted to conceal it from people?

      • odin2

        I asked for a study that CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming not a study like Feldman that shows that if CO2 has any effect at all, it is insignificant and easily overridden by water vapor, clouds, solar and ocean cycles and other factors affecting climate.

        Here is a very thorough critique of the Feldman study. Scroll down to the very end. Note that when Dr. Feldman was given the opportunity to respond to the critique he ran away.

        https://okulaer.wordpress.com/

        Dr. Feldman: “Kristian’s blog [the critique] is very detailed and he has thought about these issues for a while. That being said, our study was focused on the effect from CO2 alone [WHICH IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE STUDY BECAUSE YOU CANNOT ISOLATE ONE VARIABLE AND ASSUME ALL OTHER VARIABLES REMAIN CONSTANT- THE CLIMATE IS A NON-LINEAR CHAOTIC SYSTEM] which we found pushes the system towards a warmer state, by radiative forcing, and that blog post appears to conflate what we found with a large number of other effects. It is important to note that while there are certainly other feedbacks in the climate system, the forcing from CO2 is largely independent and separable from these. The feedbacks on CO2 forcing tend to enhance the effect of rising CO2, as cited in the paper, so I think Kristian has a sign issue there. [The comments are mine].

        It would take a significant amount of time to formulate a detailed response to every claim made in the post (which unfortunately I don’t have time for), but suffice it to say, there are numerous issues there.”

        As stated in the critique of the Feldman paper::

        “The world is not a simple, linear place. It is a complex and highly interconnected place. Focusing solely on radiative heat transfers within the Earth system and then try to draw conclusions about what overall (net) effects these will have on temps is quite simply proof you’ve lost your touch with reality.”

        It is also interesting to note that the Feldman paper did not distinguish or discuss a very similar study (the Gero study) over a 14 year period published in 2011 that had very different results:

        “A trend analysis was applied to a 14-yr time series of downwelling spectral infrared radiance observations from the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) located at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM) site in the U.S. Southern Great Plains. The highly accurate calibration of the AERI instrument, performed every 10 min, ensures that any statistically significant trend in the observed data over this time can be attributed to changes in the atmospheric properties and composition, and not to changes in the sensitivity or responsivity of the instrument. The measured infrared spectra, numbering more than 800 000, were classified as clear-sky, thin cloud, and thick cloud scenes using a neural network method. The AERI data record demonstrates that the DOWNWELLING INFRARED RADIANCE IS DECREASING OVER this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site.”

        Note, that the Gero study was conducted under clear-sky, thin cloud, and thick cloud screens and not just clear-sky like the Feldman study.

        See: Gero, P. Jonathan, David D. Turner, 2011: Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains. J. Climate, 24, 4831–4843.

        Again, all that the Feldman paper shows ( assuming causation can be proved and if the study can be replicated in other locations and under conditions other than all sky conditions), is that CO2 radiative forcing is not substantial and is easily overshadowed by natural forcers like water vapor.

        On a humorous note, Roger Tallbroke noted that the temperature at one of the study sites (Alaska ) fell about 4 degrees C from 2000-2011 (the period of the study was 2000-10). Does CO2 cause cooling?

        https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/new-result-shows-co2-has-almost-no-effect-on-temperature/

        Not even close and definitely no cigar.

      • Ali_Bertarian

        “Does CO2 cause cooling?”

        Yes, it can:

        “How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse
        effect in Antarctica” —
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full;jsessionid=8B53B69468E9BA7E377E02B616DCCACC.f02t04?wol1URL=/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full&identityKey=95791b0f-70b5-4c67-aa4f-f00bbb441848

      • odin2

        Good point.

      • CB

        “Good point.”

        lol!

        It’s a good point that in one tiny spot on Earth CO₂ cools the planet?

        What about on the rest of the Earth, Odin?

        What is the effect of CO₂ on planetary temperature there?

        “Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂)… certain effects seem likely: On average, Earth will become warmer.”

        (NASA, “Climate change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Causes”)

      • Sparafucile

        For every plant that CO2 enables to grow, the atmosphere cools.

      • CB

        “For every plant that CO2 enables to grow, the atmosphere cools.”

        …and why would you think that?

        If plants are taking CO₂ out of the air faster than we are emitting it, why does atmospheric CO₂ continue to rise?

        “Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO2 Level Passes 400 ppm. Greenhouse gas highest since the Pliocene, when sea levels were higher and the Earth was warmer.”

        (National Geographic, Robert Kunzig, “Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO2 Level Passes 400 ppm”, May 12, 2013)

      • Sparafucile

        I’m not going to undertake a discussion on science with a stoopid little troll who doesn’t understand the first thing about it.

        When you replace that polysci degree with one in one of the physical sciences, come back for a conversations. Until then, you should just close it, propagandist.

      • CB

        “I’m not going to undertake a discussion on science”

        lol! No… no, you never do.

        “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

        (NASA, “Climate change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus”)

      • Sparafucile

        eh, troll?

      • CB

        The Japan Times has enabled petty censors to make Swiss cheese out of this thread because of their Disqus settings. Any liar with a few shell accounts can make a post disappear by false-flagging it.

        They need to fix that, or they will be aiding and abetting the least ethical actors with the most money to spare.

        Propaganda does not work without censorship.

        “ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.”

        (Union of Concerned Scientists, “ExxonMobil Report: Smoke Mirrors & Hot Air (2007)”, February 2007)

      • CB

        “I am not clicking on a link to an unknown internet address”

        lol! It’s Disqus, clown.

        You know, that thing you’re using to spread misinformation?

        “The new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998.”

        (Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz, “Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment”)

      • Christian Abel

        CO2 is good for nature.

      • CB

        “For every plant that CO2 enables to grow, the atmosphere cools.”

        …and why would you think that?

        If plants are taking CO₂ out of the air faster than we are emitting it, why does atmospheric CO₂ continue to rise?

        “Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO2 Level Passes 400 ppm. Greenhouse gas highest since the Pliocene, when sea levels were higher and the Earth was warmer.”

        (National Geographic, Robert Kunzig, “Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO2 Level Passes 400 ppm”, May 12, 2013)

      • Sam Gilman

        I see you are following a standard science denial tactic of making multiple replies to one comment in order to muddy the discussion. It’s a cheap tactic. Don’t do it.

        You have in your various replies contradicted yourself, as science denialists tend to do, and as I pointed out in my first post. You have no need for consistency, because you’re not trying to describe an alternative at all.

        For people unfamiliar with global warming science, this particular discussion about the size of the roles of CO2 and water vapour in the greenhouse effect in general, and in human-caused global warming in particular. Mainstream science says that water vapour is about three times more important in terms of what the temperature is, but that because the volume of water vapour itself is determined by temperature, it’s changes in CO2 which drive changes in temperature, and water vapour that amplifies these changes.

        So to Odin’s gish gallop:

        – You claim that water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2. This is actually true! Well done. Although by volume CO2 is a more powerful greenhouse gas, there’s just loads of water vapour in the atmosphere.

        – You claim that warming hasn’t been happening.

        – You then claim that water vapour has actually an overall negative feedback.

        – To back up this claim, you approvingly cite a study (Garfinkel et al) that suggests water vapour actually has a positive feedback but less than the initial impact of CO2, and which says that warming has been happening (you said it hasn’t) because of CO2 increases (which you deny).

        – You then claim, against this study, that the role of CO2 is drowned out by the water vapour.

        – And ultimately, you’re trying to set up the discussion so that there can be no possible acceptable evidence that human-caused global warming exists because hell, life is just so complicated.

        I see you’re citing blog posts by your fellow climate science denialists. as if they were formally published “critiques” at me. All that tells me is that there’s more than one of you. Alas, I knew that already. I love this idea you’re putting forward that science is broken, but blogging by climate science denialists with connections to fossil fuel-funded think tanks absolutely isn’t.

      • odin2

        I told you to troll somewhere else. Your post is Gish Gallop.

        There is no empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that humans (mostly through CO2 emissions) have ever been the primary cause of global warming.

        Provide the scientific paper or papers that provide the empirical evidence and prove me wrong. If you don’t have the empirical evidence- get lost.

      • CB

        “There is no empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that humans (mostly through CO2 emissions) have ever been the primary cause of global warming.”

        Uh huh, and if CO₂ isn’t the primary driver of the Earth’s temperature, what is?

        Point to a single moment in Earth’s history when your alleged driver caused polar ice sheets to form with CO₂ as high as we’ve pushed it.

        If there were some stronger driver of CO₂, this should be happening all the time, right?

        …so why doesn’t it?

        “The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.”

        (NASA Global Climate Change, “Vital Signs of the Planet: Land Ice”)

      • Sparafucile

        “if CO₂ isn’t the primary driver of the Earth’s temperature, what is?”

        The sun is, stupid little girl.

        Got another smugly-presented inquiry, with an answer you think you know, but rather are similarly spectacularly wrong?

      • Sam Gilman

        I gave you a paper. Your response was a cut and paste from a denialist blog. Man Utd fan in “Liverpool are s@@t” shock opinion.

        I also pointed out how the paper you yourself cited contradicted you and states that recent increases in CO2 cause warming.

        So, how do we know that these recent increases are due to human activity? Here’s another paper, showing how the changing ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere reflects the scale of the anthropogenic origin of new CO2. In other words, the increase is down to us.

        Ghosh, P., & Brand, W. A. (2003). Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research. International Journal of Mass Spectrometry, 228(1), 1-33

        Stable isotope ratios of the life science elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen vary slightly, but significantly in major compartments of the earth. Owing mainly to antropogenic activities including land use change and fossil fuel burning, the 13C/12C ratio of CO in the atmosphere has changed over the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand (from about 0.0111073 to 0.0110906).

        By the way, I notice you’ve already started asking me to shut up and go away. That was quick.

      • Sparafucile

        Either you don’t know how to offer a relevant citation, you don’t understand the inquiry, or you are spamming the thread as Gish Gallop technique because you cannot or will not directly address the substance of the other poster’s comment.

      • Sam Gilman

        Could you explain what is wrong with the paper I cited?

        I look forward to your critique.

      • Sparafucile

        Already did, idiot.

        “Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry” has no bearing on empirical measurement of the summation of positive and negative feedbacks connecting CO2 to global climate warming.

      • Sam Gilman

        I didn’t say it did. It has to do with where the extra CO2 is coming from. Your fellow science denialist already cited a paper that accepted that extra CO2 is causing warming.

        Do keep up.

      • Sparafucile

        Except that isn’t at-all related to the statement to which you were responding. Either you’re deflecting, like any religionist Gish Galloper, or you don’t understand one whit of the science behind climate. Which is it?

      • Sam Gilman

        You need to read the whole conversation. Good luck.

      • odin2

        Probably the later. I think that he might be referring to the Feldman study which has lots of problems but if taken at face value only showed that CO2’s impact on climate is very insubstantial and easily overridden by water vapor, clouds and other natural forcers. But, everyone knew that anyway.

      • odin2

        I am asking for empirical evidence of Causation, not correlation with no evidence of causation.

        Everyone knows that there is a greenhouse effect and that a doubling of CO2 MIGHT lead to 1-1.2 degrees C increase in global temperatures, but the net feedbacks are negative so Climate sensitivity is likely to be somewhere between zero and 1 degree C. Also, everyone also knows that atmospheric levels of CO2 are increasing. None of that is evidence of causation, especially when you consider the fact studies show that temperatures increase as much as 800 years BEFORE CO2 increases. The effect cannot come before the cause.

        The AGW hypothesis is that human activities (mostly CO2 emissions) are the PRIMRY cause of global warming. Not an insignificant factor, but the PRIMARY cause.

        Either provide the empirical evidence or earn you trolling fees elsewhere.

      • Sam Gilman

        Brilliant. I didn’t give you a correlation. I gave you evidence to support a pre-stated causal hypothesis in the form of confirmation of a prediction. This is how science is done: prediction and then confirmation or disconfirmation. Thus for positive theories there is accumulated evidence, not “proof”.

        Your response is to cite a correlation with no causal explanation at all and that has no logical bearing. You’ve done the equivalent of a lawyer’s defence of saying “my client could not have killed this man with a gun because last year someone killed someone with an axe”.

      • odin2

        You copied and pasted language from a study (presumably from the abstract) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. There was no empirical evidence of causation of global warming and no discussion of causation. Some of the CO2 emissions generated each year stay in the atmosphere for a residence period of 4-7 years. NBD

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-recent-seminar-presentation-by.html

        BTW, you obviously made this up (as well as the other malarky you have been bloviating):

        ” pre-stated causal hypothesis”

        That is not empirical evidence sof global warming either. LOL

        Peddle you BS elsewhere. Good night.

      • Sam Gilman

        You cite a blog that dismisses climate so need because “it’s all a bit complex”

        Yet when I cite papers that, taken together, form the mass of evidence for human-caused global warming, you dismiss them because they’re separate papers treating different aspects of this complex process.

        You don’t really do consistency, do you?

      • odin2

        It is time for you to return the computer to your mother and go to bed. Good night.

      • Sparafucile

        “I gave you evidence to support a pre-stated causal hypothesis in the form of confirmation of a prediction”

        But according to you — those “predictions” MUST include a baseline that precedes the time threshold of the supposedly-predictive model.

        That doesn’t yield a “confirmation”. It yields a faulty analysis.

      • Sam Gilman

        Sparafucile is here trying to disrupt conversations by commenting not on my post but on a completely different post I wrote, to which he has already written a reply.

        He also has a habit of stalking me on other discussions unrelated to global warming and trying to introduce the topic there.

      • Sparafucile

        Ad hominem fallacies are really all you’ve got.

      • Sam Gilman

        No, I’ve cited several well-received scientific papers. People can see that.

        You’ve cited a graph in a blogpost, and been abusive to people. People can see that too.

        Do you think this is a private conversation?

      • Sparafucile

        Your previous post relied solely on your offering of an ad hominem fallacu, in the place or cogent argument. Now, you just deny and deflect, as you usually do.

      • Sam Gilman

        No, it didn’t. You asserted I nothing but ad hominem attacks. I pointed out that I have referenced the peer reviewed literature (and also the expert review of the literature in the IPCC reports), while you haven’t, and that you have been using derogatory language throughout, and not just to me. “Idiot”, “Stupid troll girl” and so on.

        This is important to point out because the article we’re commenting on is about how people like you from the climate science denialist movement have lost a prop for your propaganda-style arguments.

        I don’t know why you are unable to stop insulting people. Attacking someone for their gender isn’t going to win you any friends.

      • Sparafucile

        Now your just retreating to your base, as an unabashed yet desperate liar.

      • Sam Gilman

        I’m afraid this post doesn’t even make sense. “Retreating to your base”?

      • Sparafucile

        That because you’re an idiot. How do you function?

      • Sparafucile

        That because you’re an idiot. How do you function?

      • Sam Gilman

        In discussions like these, by being polite and citing the peer reviewed literature.

      • Sparafucile

        That’s it, rube, leave any actual thinking at the door…

      • Sam Gilman

        You seem to have mistaken the comments page of a Japan Times article for a scientifically oversighted journal.

        What you need to do is explain with convincing references how the expert reviews of the scientific literature are wrong. I have on this page explained one of the lines of evidence and invited denialists such as yourself to say which parts of this line you dispute. I have provided references when asked for each of these parts when asked.

        Perhaps you need reminding the peak science institutions of every industrialised country in the world have stated their public confidence in the findings of mainstream climate science. You have something of an uphill challenge if you want to overturn that.

        You need to explain the mechanism by which they’ve all got it so wrong and all at the same time.

      • Sparafucile

        More gish gallop from you.

        Now you’re back onto that “associations” canard.

        I described a standard for you to evaluate or comment. You’ve assiduously avoided doing so. That seems to be because your case is so pathetically weak.

      • Sam Gilman

        No, you jumped into a conversation with someone else on a different issue basically to abuse me.

        I don’t understand the “associations” canard, unless you mean you think it’s invalid to refer to expert review projects such as the IPCC and the support it gets from the international scientific community.

      • Sam Gilman

        No, it didn’t. You asserted I nothing but ad hominem attacks. I pointed out that I have referenced the peer reviewed literature (and also the expert review of the literature in the IPCC reports), while you haven’t, and that you have been using derogatory language throughout, and not just to me. “Idiot”, “Stupid troll girl” and so on.

        This is important to point out because the article we’re commenting on is about how people like you from the climate science denialist movement have lost a prop for your propaganda-style arguments.

        I don’t know why you are unable to stop insulting people. Attacking someone for their gender isn’t going to win you any friends.

      • Sparafucile

        Your previous post relied solely on your offering of an ad hominem fallacu, in the place or cogent argument. Now, you just deny and deflect, as you usually do.

      • odin2

        You have no empirical evidence that CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming.

        You: ” I invited you to challenge any one of the points of scientific knowledge I highlighted. You didn’t, though, did you?”

        What you assert is the unproven hypothesis, which us not empirical evidence.

        I asked you to provide a paper or papers with scientific studies showing that human activities (mostly CO2 emissions) have ever been the primary cause of global warming. You didn’t though, did you?

        “Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.”

        ……

        “Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters which could skew the results.”

        “The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific methods, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science.”

        Today many studies and papers are published on line with their data and code so that anyone with the scientific expertise can critique and replicate the study or paper. This helps avoid “pal’ review by a close knit group of scientists and makes it more difficult for scientists who have a political agenda to keep scientists with a different viewpoint from publishing.

        Note the the data and methodology have to be made public so that disinterested scientists can replicate the experiment or observation to eliminate the possibility of bias, human error or outright fraud.

        The following are not empirical evidence :

        1. Appeals to authority;

        2. Appeals to consensus;

        3. Theories (no matter how elegant);

        4. Computer climate models;

        5. Evidence of CO2 and temperatures rising at the same time (correlation is not proof of causation and besides studies show that temperatures increase before CO2 increases- which suggests that the AGW hypothesis of CO2 emissions causing global warming is backwards);

        6. Evidence of what happens when temperatures increase or decrease (this may or may not be evidence of the effects of changes in temperatures, but it is not evidence of what caused the change in temperatures);

        7. Predictions of dire consequences of global warming like increased frequency, duration or strength of climate phenomena (these are based on CCM projections and the assumption that there is global warming as projected by the climate models- no global warming and the dire consequences will never happen

        Thomas H. Huxley stated, “Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact,” and “The deepest sin of the human mind is to believe things without evidence.”

      • odin2

        BTW, water vapor has a negative feedback effect instead of a positive feedback effect assumed by the iPCC:

        http://junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/Earth-s_Climate_Engine.pdf

        C. I. Garfinkel, D. W. Waugh, L. D. Oman, L. Wang, M. M. Hurwitz. Temperature trends in the tropical upper troposphere and lower stratosphere: Connections with sea surface temperatures and implications for water vapor and ozone. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2013; 118 (17): 9658 DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50772

        http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=3659

      • Sam Gilman

        You are trying the typical denialist tactic of multiple responses to comments to muddy the discussion.

        I have give one single reply here.

      • odin2

        I am not clicking on a link to an unknown address provided by any Believer You have been dismissed.

        If you don’t have any scientific paper or papers that provide the empirical evidence that human activities (primarily by CO2 emissions) are the primary cause of global warming at any time- get lost.

      • CB

        “I am not clicking on a link to an unknown internet address”

        lol! It’s Disqus, clown.

        You know, that thing you’re using to spread misinformation?

        “The new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998.”

        (Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz, “Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment”)

      • Sam Gilman

        The link is to my comment on the Disqus comment system for this page. You’re logged into Disqus right now. That’s how you comment here.

        But all of that you knew. Well done for trying to get other people to believe it is otherwise.

      • odin2

        You have been dismissed.

      • Sam Gilman

        Gosh. Have I?

        Is this meant to be some kind of Jedi mind trick? I don’t think it’s working.

      • Mobius Loop

        Lame.

        You have been weighed and measured and found wanting!

      • odin2

        By you? ROFLOL

      • Mobius Loop

        No, I’ve just watched in admiration as Sam Gilman demolished your argument and reduced your posts to squeaks of outrage.

      • odin2

        Sam Gilman? ROFLOL The AGW pseudoscience/ Lysenko science is amusing, but it is not science because there is no empirical evidence substantiating it. When you believe a hypothesis that is not supported by empirical evidence, it is not science. It is a cult or religion.

        Thomas H. Huxley stated, “Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact,” and “The deepest sin of the human mind is to believe things without evidence.”

        Go play outside.

      • Mobius Loop

        ROFLOL away…. he handed you your backside on a plate.

      • odin2

        You and Sam Gilman are only two members of the Church of Scientology “pal” reviewing each others work. You two are the junior varsity version of the Believer scientists “pal” reviewing their peer reviewed papers for publication. I consider your scorn and attempts at insults badges of honor.

        Are you and Sam members of a Skeptical Science eco-strike squad or something similar? Who else is in your club?

        From Popular Technology:

        “In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums “hacked” and the contents posted online. In these it was revealed that Skeptical Science members are organizing themselves into eco-strike squads to “drown out” those who do not accept their alarmist positions,

        ‘I posted over at Politico just recently. Hey, we can tag team it a bit if you like, use time zone differences.’ – Glenn Tamblyn [Skeptical Science], February 10, 2011

        ‘I think this is a highly effective method of dealing with various blogs and online articles where these discussions pop up. Flag them, discuss them and then send in the troops to hammer down what are usually just a couple of very vocal people. It seems like lots of us are doing similar work, cruising comments sections online looking for disinformation to crush. I spend hours every day doing exactly this. If we can coordinate better and grow the “team of crushers” then we could address all the anti-science much more effectively.’ – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

        ‘Rob, Your post is music to my ears. I’ve been advocating the need to create a ‘crusher crew’ for quite some time. I was not however able to get much traction on it with fellow environmental activists here in South Carolina or nationally. Like you, I spend (much to my wife’s chagrin) many hours each day posting comments on articles. One of haunts was the USA Today website […] The bottom line, would you be willing to patrol articles posted on the USA Today website?’ – John Hartz [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

        This started a new forum discussion entitled, “Crusher Crew”.

        ‘Badgersouth [John Hartz] and I were just discussing the potential of setting up a coordinated ‘Crusher Crew’ where we could pull our collective time and knowledge together in order to pounce on overly vocal deniers on various comments sections of blogs and news articles.’ – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

        ‘May I suggest first on our list as being the *#1 Science Blog* “Watts up with that”? They get a few people come there to engage from time to time but rarely a coordinated effort.’ – Robert Way [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

        ‘I think it might be better to start out with smaller fish. Build a community and a team. Find some methods and strategies that work. Then start moving up the denier food chain with our targets set on WUWT. I could see this expanding into a broad team of 100 or more people (outside the scope of this SkS forum of course). […] We just need to raise our collective voices to drown them out. I would venture to guess that most people here know of 4 or 5 regulars on comments sections that would be interested in coordinating their efforts. I know probably 10 or 20 people who would like to help with this.’ – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

        This eco-strike squad was highly endorsed by John Cook, [The founder of Skeptical Science who has a fondness for German SS uniforms].

        ‘The Rapid Response Network would be a good way to coordinate this kind of activity, identifying new articles, logging responses, supporting each other. Can i suggest if a group engage in this, that they use the RRN as beta testers to he’ll me develop and refine the system?’ – John Cook [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011″

      • jmac

        That was beautiful. Thanks to Sam for taking the time to do that.

      • Mobius Loop

        Lame.

        You have been weighed and measured and found wanting!

      • jmac

        That was beautiful. Thanks to you for taking the time to do that.

      • Mobius Loop

        Good clear summary of a complex issue.

      • Mobius Loop

        Good clear summary of a complex issue.

      • Sparafucile

        You have NO DATA to demonstrate your moronic assertion about a “20%” contribution from CO2. Most studies conclude that CO2 is, rather, less than a 1% factor. Your entire CAGW premise is reliant on the presumed existence of positive feedback effects that can take a small perturbation, caused by an increase in CO2 concentrations, and amplify it.

        Sadly for you and your agenda, empirical data has exposed the lack of scientific rigor that has gone into drawing such premature and uninformed “conclusions”.

        But, by all means, I invite you to offer another of your moronic responses, which take the form of a combination of a personal attack on my character and a refusal to directly address any of the actual substance of this comment…

      • Sam Gilman

        Do you have any of this empirical evidence for us? Or links to some of your “studies”?

        I look forward to you supplying them.

      • Sparafucile

        You are capable of finding them yourself, but you refuse to challenge your religion, so you won’t. But I’ll ask you this:
        1) What is the relative tropospheric percentage of the atmosphere that’s water vapor?
        2) What is the relative tropospheric percentage of the atmosphere that’s CO2?
        3) What is the relative forcing of each water vapor and CO2, regarding heat (IR) re-emission?
        4) Given those three numbers, how do you arrive at “20%”?

      • Sam Gilman

        Let me refer you to this paper:

        Schmidt, G. A., Ruedy, R. A., Miller, R. L., & Lacis, A. A. (2010). Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 115(D20).

        The relative contributions of atmospheric long‐wave absorbers to the present‐day global greenhouse effect are among the most misquoted statistics in public discussions of climate change. Much of the interest in these values is however due to an implicit assumption that these contributions are directly relevant for the question of climate sensitivity. Motivated by the need for a clear reference for this issue, we review the existing literature and use the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE radiation module to provide an overview of the role of each absorber at the present‐day and under doubled CO2. With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by clouds (∼25%)
        and then CO2 with ∼20%. All other absorbers play only minor roles. In a doubled CO2 scenario, this allocation is essentially unchanged, even though the magnitude of the total greenhouse effect is significantly larger than the initial radiative forcing, underscoring the importance of feedbacks from water vapor and clouds to climate sensitivity.

        Cheers.

      • Sparafucile

        No.

        Answer the direct questions with direct answers, Gish Galloper.

      • Sam Gilman

        You asked me how I arrive at 20%. And I showed you the answer. It’s a widely cited result from the peer-reviewed literature.

        As for your simple equation: gosh. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all it took was simple equations like that to assess the impact of an increase in CO2 on global temperatures. The funny thing is, I’ve got your fellow denialist here Odin2 telling me just how complex everything is and so we can’t know anything.

        The truth of course lies in the middle. As the article by Gavin Schmidt and others states,

        It is in part due to these nonlinearities combined with associated feedbacks that the attribution calculations are not directly useful for determining climate sensitivity. For instance, one cannot simply take the attribution to CO2 of the total greenhouse effect (20% of 33°C) and project that onto a 2 × CO2 scenario. That would exaggerate the no-feedback impact of the extra CO2 while ignoring the role of feedbacks that might change the water vapor and clouds.

        By the way, answering your question isn’t a gish gallop. A Gish gallop is where you raise lots of spurious points, they’re rebutted, but the rebuttals, being based in science, take time and care, and while someone deals with the spurious points you’ve made, you ignore the rebuttals and go on to make more spurious points. Just thought you should know.

      • Sparafucile

        Your answer is that it’s calculated based on speculated conditions — that what Schmidt’s paper does. Did you even bother to read it? It has no data, experiment, or control of experiment whatsoever.

        I gave you the opportunity to offer something better than speculation + calculation. Clearly, this is something you cannot do.

      • Sam Gilman

        You wanted to derive the contribution of CO2 from a really highly simplistic physics model of the atmosphere.

        So in reply, I provided you with a paper by NASA scientists from a highly regarded journal detailing what rather more sophisticated physics-based climate models show.

        Your complaint is now that these are physics-based models.

        As for wanting a control – yes, that’s right Sparafucile, climate science can’t say anything unless there is a real replica planet Earth where we haven’t been increasing the CO2 content through burning fossil fuels. /sarcasm

      • Sparafucile

        Again, I never wrote, nor “wanted” to do any such thing, liar.

      • Sam Gilman

        This was only 21 hours ago. Your post is here.

      • Sparafucile

        And all you show, with that link, is your poor reading comprehension. And your lack of self awareness.

      • Sam Gilman

        You are welcome to explain how your post does not posit a very basic physics model of the greenhouse effect.

      • Sparafucile

        You made the assertion — it’s up to you to back it up. Thus far, you refuse to support the only excuse for the assertion you’ve given — a model built on speculation and calculation.

        I asked you a question. It’s high time you offered a direct, not deflecting, answer.

      • Sam Gilman

        “you made up the assertion”

        So you think I personally made up global warming? What planet are you on? You and your fellow denialist asked me where I got things from – your direct question – and I provided references in the form of peer reviewed literature. Do you think I own a time machine and went back and wrote other people’s papers for them?

      • Sparafucile

        Try again, lying deflector.

      • Sam Gilman

        Is this the point in these conversations I’ve had with you before where I ask you to point out where I’ve lied and you get increasingly agitated?

      • Sam Gilman

        “you made up the assertion”

        So you think I personally made up global warming? What planet are you on? You and your fellow denialist asked me where I got things from – your direct question – and I provided references in the form of peer reviewed literature. Do you think I own a time machine and went back and wrote other people’s papers for them?

      • Sam Gilman

        “you made up the assertion”

        So you think I personally made up global warming? What planet are you on? You and your fellow denialist asked me where I got things from – your direct question – and I provided references in the form of peer reviewed literature. Do you think I own a time machine and went back and wrote other people’s papers for them?

      • Sam Gilman

        You wanted to derive the contribution of CO2 from a really highly simplistic physics model of the atmosphere.

        So in reply, I provided you with a paper by NASA scientists from a highly regarded journal detailing what rather more sophisticated physics-based climate models show.

        Your complaint is now that these are physics-based models.

        As for wanting a control – yes, that’s right Sparafucile, climate science can’t say anything unless there is a real replica planet Earth where we haven’t been increasing the CO2 content through burning fossil fuels. /sarcasm

      • Sam Gilman

        Let me refer you to this paper:

        Schmidt, G. A., Ruedy, R. A., Miller, R. L., & Lacis, A. A. (2010). Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 115(D20).

        The relative contributions of atmospheric long‐wave absorbers to the present‐day global greenhouse effect are among the most misquoted statistics in public discussions of climate change. Much of the interest in these values is however due to an implicit assumption that these contributions are directly relevant for the question of climate sensitivity. Motivated by the need for a clear reference for this issue, we review the existing literature and use the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE radiation module to provide an overview of the role of each absorber at the present‐day and under doubled CO2. With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by clouds (∼25%)
        and then CO2 with ∼20%. All other absorbers play only minor roles. In a doubled CO2 scenario, this allocation is essentially unchanged, even though the magnitude of the total greenhouse effect is significantly larger than the initial radiative forcing, underscoring the importance of feedbacks from water vapor and clouds to climate sensitivity.

        Cheers.

      • Sparafucile

        Oh, also, I don’t need any “empirical evidence” to point out that you have NO DATA to support your insane assertion.

      • Sam Gilman

        I have the IPCC reports.

        Your turn.

      • Sparafucile

        Cite away. Chapter and verse. I guarantee that you can point to no study with empirical data that concludes what you claim.

        I don’t have to prove it doesn’t exit — that’s your burden, rube.

      • Sparafucile

        Cite away. Chapter and verse. I guarantee that you can point to no study with empirical data that concludes what you claim.

        I don’t have to prove it doesn’t exit — that’s your burden, rube.

    • cunudiun

      The Feb 2016 record-shattering RSS anomaly eliminated the “pause” before the data were revised. Do the math. There is not a single month in 1996, 1997, 1998 or any other time that can be cherry-picked that produces a negative or zero trend in the OLD RSS data starting then through Feb 2016.

      • odin2

        Because of the recent El Nino, it appears that the 18 year and 8 month pause has ended (as predicted by almost everyone- see WUWT). The pause in global warming for this period still exists however, except to the extent that Believers can erase history by tampering with the data.

      • cunudiun

        Bullsh!t. Monckton specifically defined his “pause” as the farthest back in time you could go in the RSS dataset and find a month which produced a zero trend up to the present. If this is not the definition, what does RSS revising their data have to do with ending the pause, as your accusations imply?

      • odin2

        Mockton predicted that the El Nino would probably end the pause. He did not say that it would disappear as if it had never existed. Only Believers can make data disappear. You are a troll. Earn your trolling fees elsewhere. Get lost.

      • cunudiun

        Mockton (sic – very good!) tried to score some points by showing he was astute enough to see the end was coming and his con game was about to be exposed. That doesn’t make it any less of a con game.

      • odin2

        You were dismissed. Get lost.

        But thanks for pointing out my typo.

      • cunudiun

        You’re not making a very strong argument.

      • cunudiun

        odin2: “The RSS data has been ‘revised’ to eliminate that pesky 18 year and 8 month pause. RSS is now an outlier.”

        Why was the pause of “18 year and 8 month” duration? On what basis was that determined?

      • cunudiun

        odin2: “The RSS data has been ‘revised’ to eliminate that pesky 18 year and 8 month pause. RSS is now an outlier.”

        RSS used to be the only dataset showing an 18 year 8 month pause. Now it is more in line with other global temperature datasets. What is your definition of “outlier”?

      • cunudiun

        Sounds like the new strategy is to cherry-pick both ends of the pause, the finish date (to exclude an el Nino) as well as the start (to include an el Nino), to prove it is real.

      • odin2

        You are a troll. Get lost.

      • cunudiun

        Incisive repartee at it’s finest. I can see how you completely obliterated my point that it sounds like the new strategy is to cherry-pick both ends of the pause, the finish date (to exclude an el Nino) as well as the start (to include one), to prove it is real.

      • odin2

        Get lost. You are trying to rewrite the past data history. I don’t have time to deal with your foolishness.

      • cunudiun

        Except that you haven’t shown anything foolish about it.

      • odin2

        You post nothing but foolish propaganda. Now, get lost.

      • cunudiun

        Don’t think I will.

      • cunudiun

        Tell me how all your glorious past history has ever produced a pause without starting with the great el Nino of 1998? But now you want to exclude Feb 2016 because … el Nino. Please explain.

      • https://disqus.com/by/gary_slabaugh Mensch59

        Still engaging with (fill in the blank) who conflate climate science with religious belief?! Why?

        How are you doing?

      • cunudiun

        (a) God knows.

        (b) Good, you?

      • cunudiun

        Alternative answer to question (a): I like to watch their heads explode.

      • Mobius Loop

        Its irrelevant whether the pause exists or not.

        There are two precedents of earlier pauses within the C20th but the overall trend was to warming.

      • odin2

        So what is the causation of the pauses when CO2 emissions were increasing during these pauses?
        Correlation is not proof of causation and with these pauses you don’t even have correlation.

        Where is the empirical evidence showing the human activities (mostly CO2 emissions) are the PRIMARY CAUSE of global warming at any time?

        Go troll somewhere else.

      • Mobius Loop

        Pause cause? The PDO has been put forward as one plausible explanation.

        On CO2, I refer you back to Sam Gilman’s exemplary demolition of your nonsense.

    • cunudiun

      The Feb 2016 record-shattering RSS anomaly eliminated the “pause” before the data were revised. Do the math. There is not a single month in 1996, 1997, 1998 or any other time that can be cherry-picked that produces a negative or zero trend in the OLD RSS data starting then through Feb 2016.

  • Sam Gilman

    If only this would actually change the minds of climate change denialists. But it won’t. Because they’re denialists. They don’t do evidence in the way that people normally do.

    Science denialism is a form of conspiracy theory thinking.
    1. It has a goal – a claim – around which everything else revolves.
    2. That claim is not a positive one (X happened), but a negative one (The official story X isn’t true)
    3. The goal is political: the aim is not to be right (that the CTist/ denialist is right is a logical premise: see 1.) but to persuade other people that the CTist is right and that the “official” story is wrong.
    4. The purpose therefore is to focus on any bit of “evidence” that disrupts the “official” story, regardless either of what the overall evidence suggests, and regardless of whether the various pieces of “evidence” brought up by the CT-er are valid or consistent with each other.

    So the science denialist, like other conspiracy theorists, does not need to provide a coherent account that explains all the data. They just ignore all the data that fits the “official” story.

    You see this in 9/11 trutherism where inconsistent news reports on the day are mined for evidence that the while things was a government set up (instead of the obvious point that when terrorists take down two huge skyscrapers and attack the pentagon simultaneously, news reporters in the middle of all this are caught up in the inevitable fog).

    And you see it in climate change denialism. Against this satellite data there has been a huge wealth of evidence that global warming had not stopped. The warming the in the oceans, rapid warming at the Arctic, measurements of net energy flows on the surface and at the atmosphere, and basic radiative physics.

    I’ve engaged with them myself. I try to get them to talk about the greenhouse effect. I do this because it’s really old science (essentially 19C) that some of them may have done in high school way before global warming became such a big issue. I try to get them to see that of course we would get global warming if we increase atmospheric CO2 at the rate we are – and we are definitely increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And that they need to explain why this wouldn’t happen now.

    The result is usually that they either run away or become insulting. Or they claim amazing superiority in science knowledge and what they say is just so.

    Enter the conspiracy. Why, then, one asks, do all the world’s major science institutions publicly state their belief in global warming? Surely they know science best of all. Ah, well, then it’s Al Gore in his evil private jet lair/government money/the Illuminati…

    • CB

      “If only this would actually change the minds of climate change denialists. But it won’t. Because they’re denialists. They don’t do evidence in the way that people normally do.”

      I think you’re absolutely correct and your analysis of Climate Denialism is spot-on.

      I would add 2 things:

      1. The mental illness of Climate Denialism is a self-destructive mental illness. They actually wish for death on some level, not merely for themselves but for the entire planet.

      2. Some Climate Deniers are actually paid propagandists in addition to being mentally ill. Odin falls into this category.

      “Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation—a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.”

      (Union of Concerned Scientists, “The Climate Deception Dossiers (2015)”)

      • Sparafucile

        Ah, now the stupid troll girl is offering an Activist Group as a source.

        Just as she cannot tell science from propaganda, she cannot tell scientists from propagandists.

        Here’s a hint, stupid little girl: UCS is an Activist Group, not a scientific body.

      • CB

        “girl is offering an Activist Group as a source.”

        lol!

        I’m terribly sorry!

        Why don’t you provide a superior source, if you don’t like the one I’ve given you?

        “2015 was the warmest year since modern record-keeping began in 1880, according to a new analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

        (NASA, Jan. 20, 2016, “NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures in 2015″)

      • Sparafucile

        A “superior source” to the “Union of Concerned Scientists”?

        Well, we could start with the local sixth-grade science fair, and work upward from there. They’re ALL superior scientific sources compared to the Activist Group UCS.

        Are you really SO STUPID as to not know what UCS is?

        Lemme guess — you think the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is Democratic, run by the People, and is organized as a Republic — because that’s how its named.

      • CB

        “A “superior source” to the “Union of Concerned Scientists”?”

        Yes… a superior source to the Union of Concerned Scientists… or any of the other references I’ve pointed you to.

        Provide one, please.

        “2015 Unambiguously the Hottest Year on Record… 2015 set the record with 99.996% confidence.”

        (Berkeley Earth Press Release, 2016-01, “2015 Unambiguously the Hottest Year on Record”)

      • Sparafucile

        Wow — you found a source that’s almost as non-credible as UCS. Congratulations.

      • CB

        “you found a source that’s almost as non-credible as UCS.”

        lol!

        …so provide your own, please.

        “The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature in 2015… is… likely to become the warmest record for the 125-year period since 1891.”

        (Japan Meteorological Agency, “Global Average Surface Temperature Anomalies”)

      • Sparafucile

        I notice you’re scurrying off to quote a publication on an entirely different subtopic, troll girl.

      • CB

        “I notice you’re scurrying off to quote a publication on an entirely different subtopic”

        LOL!

        Someone is certainly scurrying!

        If you don’t like the sources I’ve given you, please provide your own…

        Why haven’t you done that, Sparafucile?

        “2015 was the warmest year in a record dating back to 1850″

        (UK Met Office, “2015: The Warmest Year on Record, Say Scientists”, 20 January 2016)

      • Sparafucile

        How pathetic you are, troll.

      • CB

        “How pathetic you are, troll.”

        I suspect that statement was directed at one of the 2 people in this conversation, Sparafucile.

        Who is the pathetic troll you are talking about?

        “the rate of global warming has continued, and there has been no slow down.”

        (NASA, “Earth Matters: Parsing the Details of the New Warming “Hiatus” Study”, June 5th, 2015 by Adam Voiland)

      • CB

        “How pathetic you are, troll.”

        I suspect that statement was directed at one of the 2 people in this conversation, Sparafucile.

        Who is the pathetic troll you are talking about?

        “the rate of global warming has continued, and there has been no slow down.”

        (NASA, “Earth Matters: Parsing the Details of the New Warming “Hiatus” Study”, June 5th, 2015 by Adam Voiland)

      • Sam Gilman

        “Stupid girl troll”

        Do you have a problem with women doing science, Sparafucile?

      • Sparafucile

        Have a problem getting your quotations right, rube?

        And she doesn’t do science — she does propaganda (wit trite little bits of scientific nonsense and irrelevancies), while demonstrating a hilarious degree on scientific ignorance (and I mean about basic physics, too).

      • CB

        “next she’ll start reciting the “97%” consensus” gibberish, blithely disregarding how solidly it’s been debunked.”

        lol! No, please! Debunk away!

        If emitting infrared radiation is the only way the Earth has of cooling down, how could a gas which absorbs this radiation not warm the planet?

        “Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation”

        (NASA, Misson: Science, “The Earth’s Radiation Budget”)

      • Sparafucile

        No need to debunk further. It’s been done by over 100 sources. Even somebody as addled as you should be able to find a few.

      • Sparafucile

        Have a problem getting your quotations right, rube?

        And she doesn’t do science — she does propaganda (wit trite little bits of scientific nonsense and irrelevancies), while demonstrating a hilarious degree on scientific ignorance (and I mean about basic physics, too).

      • CB

        “Do you have a problem with women doing science, Sparafucile?”

        lol!

        Sparafucile has quite a number of problems…

        “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

        (NASA, “Climate change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus”)

      • CB

        Sorry for the repeat. We have an outbreak of censorship going on here!

        Propaganda doesn’t work without it…

        “Do you have a problem with women doing science, Sparafucile?”

        lol!

        Sparafucile has quite a number of problems…

        “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

        (NASA, “Climate change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus”)

    • Sparafucile

      Data denialism is this:

      Don’t like how empirical measurements falsify your closely-held beliefs? Just choose a) or b).

      a) deny the data exists, and rely on calculations & models instead
      b) manipulate or hide the data until it is fit to your agenda’s requirements

      • Sam Gilman

        Could you provide the data you think people are denying or hiding? I’ve asked you this on many threads on many sites, and you never provide it.

        Instead you just get insulting, go on and on about Gavin Schmidt, the head of the NASA Goddard Institute, and then flounce. Pretty much every single time. Would you like me to link these discussions?

      • Sparafucile

        No, you’ve never asked, liar.

        NOAA can provide it. Or you can see a summary, in comparison to published models here: http colon //www dot drroyspencer dot com/wp…

        And in case you didn’t notice, you’re the only one who brought up propagandist Schmidt here…

      • CB

        “NOAA can provide it.”

        NOAA can!

        Why are you having difficulty accessing their findings?

        “2015 is Earth’s warmest year by widest margin on record”

        (NOAA, “Global Summary Information – December 2015″)

      • Sparafucile

        That’s not data, stupid little girl. The question was about data, which doesn’t come with headlines or conclusions.

      • Sam Gilman

        Your link doesn’t work. Would you like to have another go?

      • CB

        LOL! He copied the ellipsis!

        Awesome…

        “100% opacity of the atmosphere to IR in the CO₂ absorption bands — even IF it existed — would not prevent a lower atmospheric warming tendency (and upper atmospheric cooling tendency) in response to further increases in CO₂. This is why the surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead…the atmosphere is so strongly radiatively insulated against loss of IR to space that the temperatures climb until radiative energy balance is achieved. Models have quite adequately explained the temperature profile on Venus with the known atmospheric composition, just as they explain the temperature profile here on Earth.”

        (Dr. Roy Spencer, “American Thinker Publishes a Stinker”, April 24th, 2014)

      • Sparafucile

        Stoopid little girl: Disqus adds the ellipsis, not me.

      • CB

        “Disqus adds the ellipsis, not me.”

        ROTFL!

        You bear no responsibility for the garbage you copy and paste… I know I know… It’s tough being you, isn’t it?

        “The global average surface temperature in 2015 is likely to be the warmest on record and to reach the symbolic and significant milestone of 1° Celsius above the pre-industrial era.”

        (World Meteorological Organization, “WMO: 2015 likely to be Warmest on Record, 2011-2015 Warmest Five Year Period”)

      • Sparafucile

        So does your propagandist’s platform generate a random and irrelevant citation for every stupid posting you make?

        You really look like an imbecile.

      • Sparafucile

        So does your propagandist’s platform generate a random and irrelevant citation for every stupid posting you make?

        You really look like an imbecile.

      • CB

        “Disqus adds the ellipsis, not me.”

        ROTFL!

        You bear no responsibility for the garbage you copy and paste… I know I know… It’s tough being you, isn’t it?

        “The global average surface temperature in 2015 is likely to be the warmest on record and to reach the symbolic and significant milestone of 1° Celsius above the pre-industrial era.”

        (World Meteorological Organization, “WMO: 2015 likely to be Warmest on Record, 2011-2015 Warmest Five Year Period”)

      • zloppolz

        “adding more CO2 still causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere (and cooling in the upper atmosphere).” Dr. Roy Spencer

        Near the surface, radiation from the surface, will be absorbed at a lower height. This will lower the, near surface, turbulence loop, causing how much increase in warming?

        Higher up, what happens. What CO2 height dominates radiation to space? If the height is increased, then what? (some parts the lapse is negative, other parts, it is positive)

      • CB

        Propaganda does not work without censorship.

        “If only this would actually change the minds of climate change denialists. But it won’t. Because they’re denialists. They don’t do evidence in the way that people normally do.”

        I think you’re absolutely correct and your analysis of Climate Denialism is spot-on.

        I would add 2 things:

        1. The mental illness of Climate Denialism is a self-destructive mental illness. They actually wish for death on some level, not merely for themselves but for the entire planet.

        2. Some Climate Deniers are actually paid propagandists in addition to being mentally ill. Odin falls into this category.

        “Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation—a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.”

        (Union of Concerned Scientists, “The Climate Deception Dossiers (2015)”)

      • Sparafucile

        http colon //www dotdrroyspencer dot com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

      • Sam Gilman

        Oh, the statistical torture of Spencer’s running means graph!

        For everyone else, this is what Roy Spencer’s graph does, and it’s a great example of the kind of deceit that Sparafucile’s idols get up to. (Notice it’s in a blog, not a peer-reviewed journal. So clearly Sparafucile thinks Spencer is really up there with the Pope). Normally, when we measure changes in temperature, it’s measured in temperature anomalies with a long base average – typically thirty years. Obviously, you’d want a longer base rathe than a shorter base.

        Well, it’s obvious to everyone except Roy Spencer. He takes a five year base. Now, why would he do that? Well, the clue is in which base he chooses. He chooses as his effective base a period of time when his own temperature series is off whack on the high side.

        He then plots the anomalies of his own temperature series against how it was when it was clearly for a very short time (this is why we don’t use short bases) on the high side. Surprise, surprise, his series doesn’t show a very big positive anomaly trend. He sticks it on a graph of temperature anomaly models and says “look at the difference!!!! Everyone else is wrong!!!”

      • Sparafucile

        When you use a 30-year base, you see the trend from the 80s reflected in your current presentation. While that may not be a problem, it is in this case, because ALL those models have been postulated AFTER the start of the baseline you insist upon using, rendering any analysis that uses such a-priori data invalid.

        Of course, since you don’t understand how science is conducted, you don’t understand this fundamental problem.

      • Sam Gilman

        No, the issue is that it’s an unrepresentative baseline because it’s so short and clearly been cherry picked.

        You’re relying on Roy Spencer’s blog. How reliable is Roy Spencer? Well, a few years ago, a paper of his was so bad, the editor resigned once he realised what he had let through. He has history.

        http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/07/bad-week-for-roy-wrong-way-spencer/

      • Sparafucile

        Back to your ad hominem fallacies, eh?

        And you utterly failed to defend your insistence on a baseline that extends before the predictive modeled .

      • Sam Gilman

        Your argument appears to be based on me not defending your personal confusion against you. That doesn’t make much sense. The thing is, if using a thirty year base was so wrong, why would Spencer use it all the time except for this one graph? Because he does: he uses 1981-2010 for reporting usually.

        So is Roy Spencer an idiot in your eyes?

        Anyway, you’ve got your fallacy wrong. If I said “Roy Spencer is voting for Trump, so his science is unreliable”, that would be an ad hominem fallacy. On the other hand, evidence that he has done poor work in climate science is fair to bring up if you use his blog as an authoritative source is valid. It’s not an ad hominem fallacy.

      • Sparafucile

        Because, dummy, as has been explained twice to you thus far, one does not evaluate the predictive accuracy of models by using ANY data that predates their release.

        I’m not surprised that you’re too daft to get this core principle, but I am puzzled about how obstinate you are in preserving and defending your rank ignorance.

      • Sam Gilman

        The graph isn’t meant to predict the baseline. That would be silly.

        For others, here is a more detailed explanation of the basic trick Roy Spencer is pulling. It’s a blog, but when one is asked to rebut blog entries…

        http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html

      • Sparafucile

        Boy are you dumb. That’s not what I wrote at all. And I see you close with more ad homina fallacy.

      • Sam Gilman

        Criticising someone’s methods is not an ad hominem attack. And you appear to have confused baseline and anomaly.

      • Sparafucile

        You lack of self awareness is remarkable.

      • CB

        Methinks Sparafucile might be a bit heavy-handed with the false-flagging button.

        Propaganda does not work without censorship.

        “Disqus adds the ellipsis, not me.”

        ROTFL!

        You bear no responsibility for the garbage you copy and paste… I know I know… It’s tough being you, isn’t it?

        “The global average surface temperature in 2015 is likely to be the warmest on record and to reach the symbolic and significant milestone of 1° Celsius above the pre-industrial era.”

        (World Meteorological Organization, “WMO: 2015 likely to be Warmest on Record, 2011-2015 Warmest Five Year Period”)

      • Sparafucile

        http colon //www dotdrroyspencer dot com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

  • CB

    Propaganda does not work without censorship.

    “you found a source that’s almost as non-credible as UCS.”

    lol!

    …so provide your own, please.

    “The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature in 2015… is… likely to become the warmest record for the 125-year period since 1891.”

    (Japan Meteorological Agency, “Global Average Surface Temperature Anomalies”)

  • CB

    “How pathetic you are, troll.”

    I suspect that statement was directed at one of the 2 people in this conversation, Sparafucile.

    Who is the pathetic troll you are talking about?

    “the rate of global warming has continued, and there has been no slow down.”

    (NASA, “Earth Matters: Parsing the Details of the New Warming “Hiatus” Study”, June 5th, 2015 by Adam Voiland)