When you want serious whoppers about climatic changes, go to Michael Mann, who has called for robust debate, then blocks everyone who dares ask a question and/or disagree with them, sues them, refuses to pony up actual raw data and the methods used, and refuses to engage in debate. And, thank goodness, Mann never takes fossil fueled trips and does everything possible to have a negative carbon footprint!*
On track to an ice-free Arctic
…
We are engaged, said Mann, in an “uncontrolled experiment with the one planet that we know that supports lifeâ€.
Given the “incontrovertible measurements of the dramatic and unprecedented rise in greenhouse gas concentrations, we wouldn’t be able to explain it if the earth were not warming up. And it’s warmed up thus far a little less than a degree Celsiusâ€.
Oh, noes, you mean a Holocene warm period would get warm? How horrible!
In fact, said Mann, modelling suggests natural factors would put earth into a cooling trend. (as opposed to actual observations and data)
“It’s only when we add the human effect of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations that we can reproduce the warmth that we’ve seen,†he said.
“Climate change critics seem to come around and concede that, ‘Oh yes, maybe humans have some role.’ Well, no we don’t just have some role. Humans are actually responsible for more than 100 percent of the warming that we’ve seen. What I mean there is that natural factors were actually pushing us in the opposite direction.â€
So natural variation can only occur to contradict warming dogman.
*BTW, this interview with a New Zealand news source occurred in……drum roll…..New Zealand! That’s right, he took a long fossil fueled trip to complain about Mankind causing warming.
… and the ignorant angry little black fella and the kiddieZzzz…
William Teach: So natural variation can only occur to contradict warming dogma
No. It’s just that the evidence indicates that the Earth would be slightly cooling absent human activity.
https://physicsworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/climate1-635×422.jpg
Oh goody. A link to another graph with colored squiggly lines. Some “evidence” in the Zzzz world.
Btw, can the Earth only gain or lose heat radiatively?
That’s what you kiddiez posted yet y’all never provided any “proof” of that either.
I consider mann to be an environmental terrorist, and com man. He probably sees the same snipers Monica’s boyfriends wife saw.
“Dr. Fraudpantsâ€, as Mark Steyn calls him, due to his false claim of being a Nobel Prize winner
Yes, the current period of rapid warming is a result of human actions.
And you have absolutely zero proof. Very scientific.
Hoss: And you have absolutely zero proof. Very scientific.
Actually, there is a lot of evidence, including from physical first principles. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.
So kiddieZ, y’all claimed the Earth could only gain or lose heat radiatively.
Y’all also claimed that was according to basic physics of heat flow.
Could you provide any evidence of your fallacious claim or would y’all like to concede y’all were wrong again?
Hope Hicks: I lied for the President.
tRump: “You’re fired!!”
He never has proof. Nothing new…
But on the other hand, it is to do with Mann’s actions…https://realclimatescience.com/the-100-fraudulent-hockey-stick/
Jl: But on the other hand
Sure, because we all know that “The Deplorable Climate Science Blog” is a more reliable source for scientific understanding than NASA.
In any case, for those interested:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/
So where’s is Mann’s “hockey stick”, kiddieZ?
“Because we’ll know the Depporable Science blog…â€. Feel free to refute the info contained within, some of which are NASA/NOAA and NCAR graphs.
Jl: Feel free to refute the info contained within, some of which are NASA/NOAA and NCAR graphs.
We already did. The website points out that adjustments were made. The answer is, yes there were.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/
The KiddieZ reply:
Because fvck you, that’s why.
On a t-shirt: “Without Science, Donald Trump would be Bald!”
Funny-I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the “adjustments†just happen to cool the past and/or warm the present. https://realclimatescience.com/all-temperature-adjustments-monotonically-increase/
Jl: Funny-I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the “adjustments†just happen to cool the past and/or warm the present.
That doesn’t constitute an argument that the adjustments are in error. However, the fact that multiple independent data-sources from multiple independent researchers have reached much the same conclusion tends to support the warming claim rather than undermine it.
To study the question of biasing in the analysis of the data, Berkeley Earth did an independent statistical analysis of the raw, unadjusted data. They determined a trend of 0.91±0.05 °C over the last half century.
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
No-if you take away the contaminated stations almost half the warming goes away. https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
Jl: No-if you take away the contaminated stations almost half the warming goes away.
Berkeley Earth also studied the question of the urban heat island effect. They determined that the effect on the global temperature anomaly was negligible. See Wickham et al., Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications, Geoinformatics & Geostatistics 2013.
And again, satellite radiometry of the troposphere supports the trend: UAHv5.6 TLT, 1979-present, 0.155°C/decade.
As even the alarmists begrudgingly seem to admit. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/02/alarmists-throw-in-the-towel-on-poor-quality-surface-temperature-data-pitch-for-a-new-global-climate-reference-network/
Scientists always want more, better data.
Menne et al., On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record, Journal of Geophysical Research 2009: “we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.”
And again again, satellite radiometry of the troposphere supports the trend: UAHv5.6 TLT, 1979-present, 0.155°C/decade.
Try to keep up, kiddiez.