Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I will bet you that based on current science I can predict that the poles will be ice free at some time in the future. What are you willing to bet?

Open Mind
Science, Politics, Life, the Universe, and Everything
Skip to contentHomeClimate Data Links ← Florida Sea LevelTemperature Data Update →Catch 22. No.1.
Posted on May 13, 2015 | 29 Comments
From time to time the boys at WUWT and elsewhere, rather than dole nonsense in bite-size morsels, are so kind as to serve up a compendium, a cornucopia if you will. I know they truly want to persuade people that man-made global warming is no problemo, but I wonder whether they’re quite aware of what they’re doing; this kind of bounty doesn’t do their image much good.

In a recent post, Jean-Pierre Bardinet outlines what he refers to as “22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths,” which he subtitles “Here are 22 good reasons not to believe the statements made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”


Here’s #1:


1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature?


Seriously? Do you have to lead with something so wrong?

For those at home, let me explain what “stable since 1997″ really means. It means that if you look at the trend of global temperature, but you don’t start looking until just the right moment, then it might look like it might be “stable” maybe.

Here are yearly average global temperature anomalies since 1970, all the way up to the latest full calendar year, 2014 (yeah, the hottest year on record):



There certainly is a warming trend there.

Did you pick some moment when things got really hot so you could psych yourself into believing that today’s trend, the real trend, doesn’ start until then? Like maybe, after 1997?



If the warming trend did change at that time, did you compute what it would look like? ‘Cause if we use least squares regression to compute a trend which is allowed to change its warming rate at that very moment, well by golly it looks like this:



Is that what you call “stable since 1997″?

Or do you think the trend didn’t just change at that time, earth’s temperature just suddenly jumped up? (That really doesn’t make sense, but that’s hardly an impediment to nonsense.) If so, did you compute what the trend would look like? ‘Cause it looks like this:

That's crap "science", Ionus, as you would know if you ever read any of the actual research and actual numbers.

Analysis of the changing isotopes of oxygen in the atmosphere show that the change in CO2 is conclusively due to fossilk fuels, and that is 1/3 again as much as CO2 concentration from pre-industrial levels. That's abournd 33$%
not 6%.

4. The 100 year lifetime is not something the IPC came up with on its own. That's the established gfigure, from wel before the IPCC came into existence.

what the hell does CO2 heat is nearly saturated mean? There's no indication of anything like that

Totally bogus the lot of them.
2. is probably right

Parados is competent to continue demolishing them.

16 is egregiously bad too. Greenhouse gases absorb the infrared radiation re-radiated after absorption by the earth. Some is re-emitted toward space. Some is re-radiated back earthward, which warms the troposphere and ultimately the earth and the oceans. No violation of trhe second law of thermodynamics.

God, ionus, I know this is too much toexpect of you, but please stop cutting-and-pasting patent bad science.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 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. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

The air will NOT warm the Earth . GWThuggees are in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics .