If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Global warming stopped 16 years ago, so fire up the Corvette and go out and have some fun laughing at the drivers of Smart Cars   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 214
    More: Interesting, Met Office, smart cars, corvettes, global warming, Phil Jones, climate variability, energy minister, temperatures  
•       •       •

5075 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Oct 2012 at 1:21 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-14 10:20:00 AM  
I would never buy a Smart for the gas mileage, which is only a little better than regular-sized competition, but if I had to park in unmarked spaces in the city I would be tempted.
 
2012-10-14 10:42:32 AM  
lulwat?

DRTFA because I'm hoping no one actually said what the headline suggests. Please be trolling. I'm liking humanity today - don't you ruin it.
 
2012-10-14 10:49:58 AM  
It's the Daily Mail.

It's done for journalism what Jerry Sandusky did for college football.
 
2012-10-14 12:46:50 PM  
I'm sorry, it's not "global warming," anymore it's "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change" (TM). Who is to say that the warming cycle wasn't part of the natural way of things and human activity didn't stop it?
 
2012-10-14 01:12:34 PM  
icons.wxug.com

Pay no attention to this year's record-shattering warmth in America, the planet is getting colder.
 
2012-10-14 01:14:42 PM  
whyfiles.org
 
2012-10-14 01:27:44 PM  

GAT_00: [icons.wxug.com image 640x403]

Pay no attention to this year's record-shattering warmth in America, the planet is getting colder.


Silly lib, it's thirty degrees colder now in October than it was in June and July. Therefore global warming is false, Sarah Palin is automatically president, and free oil wells and clean coal deposits for everyone.
 
2012-10-14 01:31:36 PM  
Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication
 
2012-10-14 01:38:15 PM  

Bontesla: lulwat?

DRTFA because I'm hoping no one actually said what the headline suggests. Please be trolling. I'm liking humanity today - don't you ruin it.


It sounds like you WANT global warming?

Must say though that the numbers show rising temperatures did stop 16 years ago. Whether it`s a plateau or whatever reason, the warming has stopped according to the met office. 4 more years and it`s significant according to some.

headline and sub headlines :

"Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the 'pause' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996"
 
2012-10-14 01:39:50 PM  

LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication


Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.
 
2012-10-14 01:42:03 PM  
ZAZ: I would never buy a Smart for the gas mileage, which is only a little better than regular-sized competition, but if I had to park in unmarked spaces in the city I would be tempted.

As a 2 seater subcompact it has worse gas mileage(32 mpg) than many 4 seater compacts, and not that much better than many mid sized and full sized cars, unless you are buying it for parallel parking in a large city its more like the dumb car than the smart car.
 
2012-10-14 01:43:03 PM  

ghare: LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication

Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.


This was a UK publication.
 
2012-10-14 01:45:31 PM  

Bontesla: lulwat?

DRTFA because I'm hoping no one actually said what the headline suggests. Please be trolling. I'm liking humanity today - don't you ruin it.


Nope. We're saying lets fire up the big old van that gets 12mpg and let's go chase smart cars down the highway
 
2012-10-14 01:45:54 PM  
Just think, we might be making the world a better place to live for nothing.

Oh wait.
 
2012-10-14 01:49:11 PM  
Well gee I'm glad we've settled that!
 
2012-10-14 01:49:18 PM  
Even if global warming didn't exist, oil reserves are finite and mostly tied to a part of the world that is plagued with unrest. It is in the nation's interest to pursue alternative fuel and electric vehicles, climate change or none. Since we'll never be able to cover our need for petroleum with domestic sources, I'd go so far as to say that pursuing renewable energy and vehicles to take advantage of them is a matter of national security and should be treated as such from a funding point of view. We don't want another oil crisis crippling our nation like in the 70s.
 
2012-10-14 01:57:22 PM  
Oddly enough, a Smart probably pollutes more than a Corvette.

Has to do with the weighting involved in the emissions testing. Also, Corvettes are absurdly fuel-efficient for what they are.
 
2012-10-14 02:10:59 PM  

Mister Peejay: Oddly enough, a Smart probably pollutes more than a Corvette.

Has to do with the weighting involved in the emissions testing. Also, Corvettes are absurdly fuel-efficient for what they are.


Yup. They deactivate half the cylinders in the engine when they are not needed, like cruising at stead speeds.

/Still would buy a GM, they are less trustworthy than...well almost anyone else
 
2012-10-14 02:12:10 PM  
This is what happens when science gets mixed with politics.

This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2012-10-14 02:13:46 PM  
Well that wasn't a completely useless article, you just have to read it carefully and prise the op-ed components away from the actual reporting. But the first implication ('hey, lookit, global warming stopped... ya think maybe it's over for good???') and the final comments (butthurt about the 'denier' label combined with his own labeling other viewpoints as "catastrophist") kinda ruin any pretense of seeking after truth, here.

We'd be better served if models had been explored with a little more depth. What are their shortcomings? Are they even supposed to accurately predict what's going to happen in a given 16 year period? That last question seems like the obvious one that's raised by the data, I have no idea what the answer is, I'd really like to know, and the article does absolutely nothing about getting to the bottom of it. Mr. David Rose is either a lazy journalist, or a disingenuous one, or maybe a whole lot of both.

And a minor quibble, the caption writer got this really wrong --

i.dailymail.co.uk
"This image shows smoke billowing out of a power station."

No, it doesn't. That's water vapor billowing out of cooling towers.
 
2012-10-14 02:17:43 PM  

GAT_00: [icons.wxug.com image 640x403]

Pay no attention to this year's record-shattering warmth in America, the planet is getting colder.


So now GW is a myth? You guys were telling us that it did exist but was natural. Which is it?

How can you believe things that contradict each other?
 
2012-10-14 02:24:13 PM  
From NOAA site:

The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2012 was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F). This is the fourth warmest July since records began in 1880.

The globally-averaged land surface temperature for July 2012 was the third warmest July on record, at 0.92°C (1.66°F) above average.


Article full of shiat cherry picking. If I can draw a line from any arbitrary points I can make up anything. GW is about a trend not saying every year will always get warmer every time, every where.
 
2012-10-14 02:25:34 PM  

phaseolus: And a minor quibble, the caption writer got this really wrong --


I spit my beer all over my lappy when I saw that. Unfreaking believable.
 
2012-10-14 02:31:23 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Even if global warming didn't exist, oil reserves are finite and mostly tied to a part of the world that is plagued with unrest. It is in the nation's interest to pursue alternative fuel and electric vehicles, climate change or none. Since we'll never be able to cover our need for petroleum with domestic sources, I'd go so far as to say that pursuing renewable energy and vehicles to take advantage of them is a matter of national security and should be treated as such from a funding point of view. We don't want another oil crisis crippling our nation like in the 70s.


the nation was not crippled in the 70s. I should know, I was there.

What do you know about national security?

A battery operated M1 would just not work well on the battlefield. Neither would a battery operated fighter plane work well above the battlefield. Yes, I went to an absurd point but there is no way to build effective fighting vehicles that use renewable energy of any kind.

Oil reserves are finite, we only have a few hundred years left before they dry up.
 
2012-10-14 02:32:36 PM  

OregonVet: phaseolus: And a minor quibble, the caption writer got this really wrong --

I spit my beer all over my lappy when I saw that. Unfreaking believable.


Actually, TFA is technically right. It's a power station, and in the upper-left corner is a stack with smoke coming out. The fact that most of the picture is cooling towers and water vapour is just a coincidence.
 
2012-10-14 02:33:50 PM  

spelletrader: Just think, we might be making the world a better place to live for nothing.

Oh wait.


When you make a comment like that, you are only showing that you have no idea concerning the proposals to fix the "problem". It has nothing to do with cleaner air, cleaner water or cleaner anything. It is not about electric cars or bio-fuels. I would suggest that you read the actual proposals at the IPCC web site.
 
2012-10-14 02:33:54 PM  

Corvus: GAT_00: [icons.wxug.com image 640x403]

Pay no attention to this year's record-shattering warmth in America, the planet is getting colder.

So now GW is a myth? You guys were telling us that it did exist but was natural. Which is it?

How can you believe things that contradict each other?


i575.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-14 02:36:34 PM  

unyon: OregonVet: phaseolus: And a minor quibble, the caption writer got this really wrong --

I spit my beer all over my lappy when I saw that. Unfreaking believable.

Actually, TFA is technically right. It's a power station, and in the upper-left corner is a stack with smoke coming out. The fact that most of the picture is cooling towers and water vapour is just a coincidence.



Hey, look --

www.adrants.com

It's an umbrella!
 
2012-10-14 02:44:34 PM  

Bontesla: lulwat?

DRTFA because I'm hoping no one actually said what the headline suggests. Please be trolling. I'm liking humanity today - don't you ruin it.


"Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it
The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the 'pause' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996."
 
2012-10-14 02:46:49 PM  

ghare: LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication

Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.


Americans are less gullible?
 
2012-10-14 02:48:18 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: ghare: LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication

Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.

This was a UK publication.


Forget it Jake, he's an envirotard.
 
2012-10-14 02:51:34 PM  

phaseolus: unyon: OregonVet: phaseolus: And a minor quibble, the caption writer got this really wrong --

I spit my beer all over my lappy when I saw that. Unfreaking believable.

Actually, TFA is technically right. It's a power station, and in the upper-left corner is a stack with smoke coming out. The fact that most of the picture is cooling towers and water vapour is just a coincidence.


Hey, look --

[www.adrants.com image 500x333]

It's an umbrella!


No. That's 11 umbrellas. The shorts don't count.
 
2012-10-14 02:55:08 PM  
Oil reserves about to dry up in "hundreds of years" is no motivation for people who deny global warming (typically Republicans) to change up the status quo. Their planning isn't for thinking that far in the future. They can barely think a year or two into the future as to what unfunded wars and massive tax reductions primarily favoring the rich will do to the deficit.

Also, whether or not global warming is real, we should be looking for cleaner sustainable energy sources to make sure the environment is not totally trashed for our progeny. China's high level of pollution due to lack of environmental regulation does not make it a wonderland, it makes it a place where there's increased lung diseases and other illnesses related to being exposed to toxic waste. Reduction of pollution internationally will increase quality of life for flora and fauna globally.

Personally, I wonder if melting glaciers would actually eventually yield more arable land, but the issue is that it will take thousands of years for everything to melt anyway, so drought, pestilence in famine probably will be the interim between the two, which is not acceptable. If we're able to do something about it, we should.

Also, as for the water vapor coming from the nuclear plants, water vapor is actually a potent greenhouse gas and is a larger contributor to greenhouse effect than CO2 is. Nuclear power will not work in all places due to it's large water requirements for cooling not to mention the challenge of taking care of spent rods.

There is no truly neutral energy source. All forms of energy require mining at some point for materials and all forms modify the environment somehow. Solar panels take up massive amounts of space, wind power mixes the air and kills birds (though at a lower rate than cats do), hydro-power messes with fish reproduction oil and coal pollute the air and their harvesting can be dangerous.

I'm not saying "give up on electricity," I'm saying there's no perfect solution, the best we can do is to try to limit the impact as much as possible of our energy needs on the planet.

Also, it annoys me when people attribute things like the drought and heatwaves in the south western US and the flooding in Australia recently to global warming when in fact it was La Niña that has this effect on both locales.
 
2012-10-14 02:56:46 PM  
Bontesla:
lulwat?

DRTFA because I'm hoping no one actually said what the headline suggests. Please be trolling. I'm liking humanity today - don't you ruin it.

It sucks when people diss your religion, doesn't it?

Article says EXACTLY that. Proves it, too. More bad news: Soon, we'll start cooling for a couple decades. From the article:


i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-10-14 03:01:55 PM  
ghare:
LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication

Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.

Yeah, go for it -- what's one more lie?

With the exception of the U.S. and G.B., most of the world is highly skeptical of AGW alarmism.

And, the planet is taking a dump on your pet hypothesis as we speak.
 
2012-10-14 03:06:26 PM  
Actually, on further reflection, this is bad news for the deniers. The old cherry-picked graphs showed a small decline over the past decade or so. If the best the Daily Fail can come up with now is no change...

I forecast this thread to heat up.
 
2012-10-14 03:08:22 PM  
Corvus:
So now GW is a myth? You guys were telling us that it did exist but was natural. Which is it?

Need some help? Okay. All true:

1. The planet WAS warming.
2. That warming started BEFORE the industrial revolution, and was natural, almost completely.
3. Human activities almost certainly contributed a TINY bit to the warming.
4. The warming has ended, and the current steady temperature is temporary.
5. The future holds decades of cooling, starting about now.
 
2012-10-14 03:17:02 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
dready zim: Sevenizgud will cream his pants when he sees this thread...

No shiat.

And I see the thread has now gone green (as opposed to having been greenlit).

Meanwhile...

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x341] 

/oblig

Oh, yes, DO tell us how other people think.

Don't cherry-pick the time scale. We are in an ice age, in one of the brief interglacial periods.

And, we're almost done with it, and will be back in a major glaciation soon. Here's what it looks like. Where's your global warming god now?


earthintime.com
 
2012-10-14 03:24:00 PM  

Oldiron_79: As a 2 seater subcompact it has worse gas mileage(32 mpg) than many 4 seater compacts, and not that much better than many mid sized and full sized cars, unless you are buying it for parallel parking in a large city its more like the dumb car than the smart car.


It's made by Daimler, makers of Mercedes Benz. Of course it's going to cost you more than you expected or what they lead folks to believe.
Smart Car=Hungry Mercedes.
/hungry hungry, eat eat.
//especially if you count repairs
 
2012-10-14 03:32:17 PM  

Mister Peejay: Oddly enough, a Smart probably pollutes more than a Corvette.

Has to do with the weighting involved in the emissions testing. Also, Corvettes are absurdly fuel-efficient for what they are.


But until you get to that highway, not so much.
1990 Corvette combined mpg: 18.
2012 Corvette combined mpg: 18.

www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1990_Chevrolet_Corvette.shtml
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/.../2012_Chevrolet_Corvette.shtml
 
2012-10-14 03:36:35 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: dready zim: Sevenizgud will cream his pants when he sees this thread...

No shiat.

And I see the thread has now gone green (as opposed to having been greenlit).

Meanwhile...

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x341] 

/oblig
Oh, yes, DO tell us how other people think.

Don't cherry-pick the time scale. We are in an ice age, in one of the brief interglacial periods.

And, we're almost done with it, and will be back in a major glaciation soon. Here's what it looks like. Where's your global warming god now?

[earthintime.com image 506x286]



Your graph shows a "Holocene high-low difference" in temperature of no more than 1C. You also claim that the anthropogenic effects on climate are trivial.

Unfortunately, this contradicts some of your most cherished supporting links, like these:

Peer-Reviewed literature showing that climate sensitivity is actually MUCH less than the IPCC suggests, 2.0 to 4.5 K, at 66% certainty. Data from OBSERVATIONS show the least sensitivity, "data" from models show the most.

Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations (new window)
Data Source: Observational -- Sensitivity: (1.3 to 1.8 K)

An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity (new window)
Data Source: Observational - Sensitivity: (1.7 to 2.3 K)

Probabilistic estimated of transient climate sensitivity subject to uncertainty in forcing and natural variability (new window)
Data Source: Mostly Observational - Sensitivity: (Most Likely: 1.6 K, Range: 1.3 to 2.6 K, 90% certainty)

The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data (new window)
Data Source: Mostly Observational - Sensitivity: 0.7-2.4 K using best fit, 1.0-3.6 K using worst case

On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity (new window)
Data Source: Analysis of other papers - Sensitivity: Upper limit of 4.5 K, > 95% certainty


So even your own sources, the ones you cite to minimize the effects of CO2, predict an anthropogenic warming effect which is greater than the entire natural Holocene temperature range.

This is one of the reasons why it's so hard to take you seriously. You post self-contradictory claims; then, instead of acknowledging the inconsistency and trying to find better evidence, you get upset and defensive when these contradictions are pointed out. Soon, a new AGW thread appears, and the whole sorry spectacle repeats itself.
 
2012-10-14 03:40:38 PM  

GeneralJim: Bontesla: lulwat?

DRTFA because I'm hoping no one actually said what the headline suggests. Please be trolling. I'm liking humanity today - don't you ruin it.
It sucks when people diss your religion, doesn't it?

Article says EXACTLY that. Proves it, too. More bad news: Soon, we'll start cooling for a couple decades. From the article:

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 644x358]



Cherrypicking two points in a chart with a lot of variability and scatter doesn't "prove" anything. Just like starting in 2000 and ending in mid-2006 didn't "prove" that the earth is heating up 1 degree per year. And that's why nobody suggested that.
 
2012-10-14 03:42:21 PM  
Deniers have sufficiently poisoned the well to the point that we will never do anything meaningful to combat climate change.
 
2012-10-14 03:45:02 PM  
For the record, the temperature increase over the last 100 years or so just happens to be about 1C:

www.giss.nasa.gov

In just the last century, temperatures have increased enough to offset what is supposedly 8000 years of Holocene cooling. Funny how that doesn't show up on GeneralJim's graph.
 
2012-10-14 03:47:10 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: This is one of the reasons why it's so hard to take you seriously.


Why do you take him seriously at all?
 
2012-10-14 03:50:10 PM  
At this point, deniers are just a bunch of willfully ignorant arsewipes. Nothing more.
 
2012-10-14 03:56:51 PM  

ohokyeah: water vapor is actually a potent greenhouse gas and is a larger contributor to greenhouse effect than CO2 is.


How can that be? Arizona is both really dry and really hot. The Sahara Desert is really dry and really hot.
 
2012-10-14 03:57:46 PM  
 
2012-10-14 04:00:49 PM  

GAT_00: common sense is an oxymoron: This is one of the reasons why it's so hard to take you seriously.

Why do you take him seriously at all?



I don't, but some people apparently do, or at least he claims to have convinced people. And while it may be a lost cause...


crab66: Deniers have sufficiently poisoned the well to the point that we will never do anything meaningful to combat climate change.



...I have a hard time letting that kind of shiat go unchallenged, especially when his defense is to call his opponents names, then simply repeat himself EVEN LOUDER.
 
2012-10-14 04:05:37 PM  
Sure it did. Idiots.
 
2012-10-14 04:07:45 PM  

ohokyeah: Also, as for the water vapor coming from the nuclear plants, water vapor is actually a potent greenhouse gas and is a larger contributor to greenhouse effect than CO2 is.


Water vapor IS a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. However, because its atmospheric concentration is highly variable and critically dependent on temperature, it serves more as an amplifier of other warming factors than as a primary cause in itself. Link

And as for the water vapor from nuclear plants, unless it's drawn from fossil-water aquifers, it has no effect on the overall atmospheric water vapor content.
 
2012-10-14 04:13:46 PM  
"This image shows smoke billowing out of a power station."

Why isn't there an image of the author blowing smoke up everyone's ass?
 
2012-10-14 04:20:31 PM  
It's doubtful that global warming, in the long run, has stopped. We're coming out of an ice age.
 
2012-10-14 04:24:32 PM  

GeneralJim: Bontesla: lulwat?

DRTFA because I'm hoping no one actually said what the headline suggests. Please be trolling. I'm liking humanity today - don't you ruin it.
It sucks when people diss your religion, doesn't it?

Article says EXACTLY that. Proves it, too. More bad news: Soon, we'll start cooling for a couple decades. From the article:

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 644x358]



While the article does say that. It far from proves it. Instead of outright debunking this (and then having you most likely ignore it), let's try to foster some critical thinking here and ask how does this data presented prove it?
 
2012-10-14 04:38:59 PM  

HighZoolander: GeneralJim: Article says EXACTLY that. Proves it, too.


Hmm, I wonder what someone else had to say about proof in science...

The only area of science where actual proof of an idea is possible is in math

EVERYTHING in science can be, and SHOULD be, questioned on a regular basis. Only an anti-science moron or a con artist would EVER suggest that anything in science is "settled."

/that about sums it up


Fixed
 
2012-10-14 05:11:37 PM  
this is the second time I went to submit a link and this site said someone else did and their post was rejected, WTF!
 
2012-10-14 05:30:30 PM  

seelorq: Mister Peejay: Oddly enough, a Smart probably pollutes more than a Corvette.

Has to do with the weighting involved in the emissions testing. Also, Corvettes are absurdly fuel-efficient for what they are.

But until you get to that highway, not so much.
1990 Corvette combined mpg: 18.
2012 Corvette combined mpg: 18.

www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1990_Chevrolet_Corvette.shtml
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/.../2012_Chevrolet_Corvette.shtml


1990=245 horsepower
2012=436 horsepower

I like my mpg with power.
 
2012-10-14 05:44:28 PM  

Oldiron_79: ZAZ: I would never buy a Smart for the gas mileage, which is only a little better than regular-sized competition, but if I had to park in unmarked spaces in the city I would be tempted.

As a 2 seater subcompact it has worse gas mileage(32 mpg) than many 4 seater compacts, and not that much better than many mid sized and full sized cars, unless you are buying it for parallel parking in a large city its more like the dumb car than the smart car.


As the owner of a Smart Car, I bought it for more than just good gas mileage and easy parking, although those are two things I love about my car.

I also bought it for the huge amounts of head and leg room (I'm 6'8". I need the interior room that the Smart has.), the fact that I could actually afford it (it was just over 15k walkout price), It never has to be painted, doesn't show scratches, needs the oil changed every 10k miles, has a glass/see through plastic top, leather seats, and a hundred other little things that make it the perfect car for me.

Every time i hear one of you idiots that's never owned one call it something retarded like "the Dumb Car" it pisses me right the fark off.
 
2012-10-14 05:58:23 PM  
I find it odd that a study would come to these conclusions given recent research into natural variabilities effects on the global average temperatures from 1979 onwards, or the research into changes in ocean heating. Only the most basic analysis, without looking outside one simple metric(and oddly choosing an anomalously warm year to begin the second half of analysis), could come to these conclusions. Why didn't the article link to the study? I have been unable to find a report, unless by report they simply mean the most recently released average temperature is the same as it was in 1997.
 
2012-10-14 06:08:12 PM  

leehouse: Why didn't the article link to the study?


Because TFA is a lie:

An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: 'Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it'

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme - you see our response to that one here.

To address some of the points in the article published today:

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.

You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:

Hi David,

Here's a response to your questions. I've kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.

Q.1 "First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997."

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we've stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous - so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.


Q.2 "Second, tell me what this says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century. I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted. But this flat period has now gone on for about the same time as the 1980 - 1996 warming."

The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.

Q.3 "Finally, do these data suggest that factors other than CO2 - such as multi-decadal oceanic cycles - may exert a greater influence on climate than previously realised?"

We have limited observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they may act to slow down or accelerate the observed warming trend. In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by "external forcings", such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade - but this is an area of ongoing research.

----

The below graph which shows years ranked in order of global temperature was not included in the response to Mr Rose, but is useful in this context as it illustrates the point made above that eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade.


metofficenews.files.wordpress.com
Graph showing years ranked in order of global temperature.
 
2012-10-14 06:13:02 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: Article says EXACTLY that. Proves it, too.


Hmm, I wonder what someone else had to say about proof in science...

The only area of science where actual proof of an idea is possible is in math

EVERYTHING in science can be, and SHOULD be, questioned on a regular basis. Only an anti-science moron or a con artist would EVER suggest that anything in science is "settled."

/that about sums it up

Fixed


Sadly, GeneralJim has never admitted to being a con artist - follow the links for the source, if you missed it (unless I am misreading your response).
 
2012-10-14 06:17:12 PM  

Jon Snow: leehouse: Why didn't the article link to the study?

Because TFA is a lie:

An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: 'Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it'

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme - you see our response to that one here.

To address some of the points in the article published today:

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.

You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:

Hi David,

Here's a response to your questions. I've kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.

Q.1 "First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997."

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we've stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer peri ...


It's over. You need to seek grief counselling.


Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of 'natural variability', but he was convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two, the report added.



Professor Judith Curry, chair of School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America's Georgia Tech university, was quoted as saying,
"Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.
"It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance."


That has to hurt you very much. Your bubble of superior knowledge has been horribly deflated, not that I ever believed that you had even average knowledge.
 
2012-10-14 06:23:35 PM  

andersoncouncil42: At this point, deniers are just a bunch of willfully ignorant arsewipes. Nothing more.


really? It seems that the facts are not on your side.
 
2012-10-14 06:26:09 PM  

Jon Snow: leehouse: Why didn't the article link to the study?

Because TFA is a lie:

An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: 'Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it'

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme - you see our response to that one here.

To address some of the points in the article published today:

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.

You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:

Hi David,

Here's a response to your questions. I've kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.

Q.1 "First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997."

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we've stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer peri ...


I give you all a lovely photo of JonSnoJob

texaslynn.files.wordpress.com 
 
2012-10-14 06:29:58 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: And, in fact, good science doesn't have facts. It has hypotheses and theories.


er, wat?

Science absolutely does have facts. The hypotheses and theories are attempts to explain the facts.
 
2012-10-14 06:38:16 PM  

chuckufarlie: Jon Snow: leehouse: Why didn't the article link to the study?

Because TFA is a lie:[reasoned refutation of points made in TFA]

I give you all a lovely photo of JonSnoJob



nicksteel: You have been told a story and you accept it without question. Anything that comes along that contradicts your belief is ignored. THAT is religion. THAT is stupid.
 
2012-10-14 06:57:50 PM  
You know, let's pretend that TFA has some truth in it. It was over the last decade that world governments had been pushing auto manufacturers (which make up a sizeable chunk of greenhouse emissions) to improve fuel efficiency and reduce toxic outputs. So to sum everything up:

Then: Climate change is fake! Governments should stop telling businesses to clean up!
Now: Okay, climate change was real, but it has stopped now. We don't need government regulations on pollution anymore

/wish Rupert Murdoch would prove once and for all that pollution isn't bad and suck off an exhaust pipe to prove his hypothesis
 
2012-10-14 06:59:59 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: [whyfiles.org image 510x515]


The graph makes it look large, but that is in parts per million. Even the very largest change shown is only a tiny fraction of 1%. One of the reasons I am a skeptical of these claims CO2 emissions are causing wide-scale warming is becasuse the actual change in the composition of the atmosphere is so miniscule. That and if you drew a line of best fit through the last 14 years of data it would be flat, despite the fact the world is more industrialized now (and spewing more carbon) than at any other time in history.

Yes, global temperatures rose slightly from 1980 to 1997, but I think there just is not enough information on all varibles involved to say to a certainty what the cause is.
 
2012-10-14 07:00:59 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: Marcus Aurelius: [whyfiles.org image 510x515]

The graph makes it look large, but that is in parts per million. Even the very largest change shown is only a tiny fraction of 1%. One of the reasons I am a skeptical of these claims CO2 emissions are causing wide-scale warming is becasuse the actual change in the composition of the atmosphere is so miniscule. That and if you drew a line of best fit through the last 14 years of data it would be flat, despite the fact the world is more industrialized now (and spewing more carbon) than at any other time in history.

Yes, global temperatures rose slightly from 1980 to 1997, but I think there just is not enough information on all varibles involved to say to a certainty what the cause is.


Where did you get your degree in climatology?
 
2012-10-14 07:06:35 PM  

Electrify: You know, let's pretend that TFA has some truth in it. It was over the last decade that world governments had been pushing auto manufacturers (which make up a sizeable chunk of greenhouse emissions) to improve fuel efficiency and reduce toxic outputs. So to sum everything up:

Then: Climate change is fake! Governments should stop telling businesses to clean up!
Now: Okay, climate change was real, but it has stopped now. We don't need government regulations on pollution anymore

/wish Rupert Murdoch would prove once and for all that pollution isn't bad and suck off an exhaust pipe to prove his hypothesis


Do you really want to tell people that the small amount of change in manufacturing has had such an impact? Do you want to tell people that the changes took place immediately once the regulations were put in place? That is pretty stupid, even for a warmer.
 
2012-10-14 07:08:51 PM  

Nobodyn0se: Pumpernickel bread: Marcus Aurelius: [whyfiles.org image 510x515]

The graph makes it look large, but that is in parts per million. Even the very largest change shown is only a tiny fraction of 1%. One of the reasons I am a skeptical of these claims CO2 emissions are causing wide-scale warming is becasuse the actual change in the composition of the atmosphere is so miniscule. That and if you drew a line of best fit through the last 14 years of data it would be flat, despite the fact the world is more industrialized now (and spewing more carbon) than at any other time in history.

Yes, global temperatures rose slightly from 1980 to 1997, but I think there just is not enough information on all varibles involved to say to a certainty what the cause is.

Where did you get your degree in climatology?


He got his at the same place that you got yours.

that sort of burn could kickstart AGW.
 
2012-10-14 07:11:49 PM  
I love this one:

Professor Judith Curry, chair of School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America's Georgia Tech university, was quoted as saying,
"Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

"It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance."

While JonSnoJob stomps his feet and yells "LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE" real scientists are admitting that they were wrong.
 
2012-10-14 07:13:24 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Meanwhile...

www.skepticalscience.com


Can I play?

i150.photobucket.com 

www.climate-skeptic.com
 
2012-10-14 07:17:42 PM  
Actually, this is OLD news:

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By JONATHAN PETRE
UPDATED: 12:12 EST, 14 February 2010

Link
 
2012-10-14 07:28:28 PM  
If stupidity could be converted into energy, The Daily Fail would allow the UK to become a net exporter of electricity.
 
2012-10-14 07:50:37 PM  

tomWright:
Yup. They deactivate half the cylinders in the engine when they are not needed, like cruising at stead speeds.


That has little to do with it. It's more like, a smaller engine has to work harder and a hard working engine isn't always clean. Meanwhile, a larger engine that loafs all the time can basically run in 99-100% of all normal driving situations without having to go into emissions-creating power enrichment. Plus, since emissions standards are on a grams per mile and not parts per million, larger engines HAVE to run cleaner, to begin with.

Also, I wouldn't doubt if a Corvette presented less frontal area than a Smart. Once you're on the highway, aero is all that matters, especially on flat ground. Then it just boils down to gearing the engine to be in the sweet spot BSFC-wise.

I don't know about the newer models with cylinder deactivation, but the older LT1 and LS1 engined models would easily top 30mpg, even with automatics (which didn't have the 6-speeds' notoriously tall top gear) I'm sure the newer ones could do better.

/meh, my 2.2 VW and my 13B-engined RX-7 both get 23mpg highway
/the RX-7 is probably on the EPA's Ten Most Wanted list, tho
 
2012-10-14 07:50:49 PM  

GAT_00: Pay no attention to this year's record-shattering warmth in America, the planet is getting colder.


Pay no attention to the fact that America now covers the entire surface of the planet. LOL
 
2012-10-14 07:52:29 PM  

Bontesla: DRTFA because I'm hoping no one actually said what the headline suggests.


Don't worrry, nobody said that. It was the data itself that said that. LOL
 
2012-10-14 07:53:39 PM  

phaseolus:
And a minor quibble, the caption writer got this really wrong --

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 317x410]
"This image shows smoke billowing out of a power station."

No, it doesn't. That's water vapor billowing out of cooling towers.


Ah, but water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and nuclear power plants are known to heat up the water on the lakes/rivers they're built on, so....

...the caption is still wrong for dozens of reasons.
 
2012-10-14 07:56:54 PM  

Corvus: Article full of shiat cherry picking. If I can draw a line from any arbitrary points I can make up anything. GW is about a trend not saying every year will always get warmer every time, every where.


Yeah....and trend over 16 straight years? Oh wait!

I love how NOW is somehow an arbitrary point. Like you can choose any now you want. Einstain
 
2012-10-14 08:01:21 PM  

Jon Snow: Because TFA is a lie:


Oh, ok. Then show the same graph, and put the right data on it.
 
2012-10-14 08:07:59 PM  

Jon Snow: derp derp derp


So unbelievably retarded, and it just goes to show that you swallow the whole charade hook line and sinker.

OF COURSE the recent years are always the warmest. How could it be any other way when they inflate the current temperature and then downwardly revise it post-facto every year?

Look at 1998. It started as first report of anomaly of +1 or greater. Then a couple of years later it was .88, then it was .79, then it was .71. Pretty soon, 1998 will be FARKing sub-zero.

These numbers are fudged so bad they should be renamed Vioxx.
 
2012-10-14 08:37:08 PM  

SevenizGud: Corvus: Article full of shiat cherry picking. If I can draw a line from any arbitrary points I can make up anything. GW is about a trend not saying every year will always get warmer every time, every where.

Yeah....and trend over 16 straight years? Oh wait!

I love how NOW is somehow an arbitrary point. Like you can choose any now you want. Einstain



How you appear to be defining 'NOW' is fairly arbitrary. 16 years is cherry-picked in order to take advantage of the unusually strong El Nino starting in 1997. You can't even defend such a choice as being aesthetically pleasing to our base 10 counting system.

Of course, you're more than welcome to present a counterargument - 16 years represents "now" because...
 
2012-10-14 08:38:40 PM  

SevenizGud: Jon Snow: Because TFA is a lie:

Oh, ok. Then show the same graph, and put the right data on it.


The graph is probably OK. TFA is, of course, more than just a graph. It is the inferences made from said data (as well as the cherry-picking done to produce it) is what is dishonest.
 
2012-10-14 08:40:15 PM  

SevenizGud: Oh, ok. Then show the same graph, and put the right data on it.


i.imgur.com 

The slope is positive, lies from TFA not withstanding. However, the interval is insufficiently long over which to assess the climatological significance of the trend. You need 20-30 years or more to make meaningful statements about climatological trends if you're just looking at a plot of global temp anomaly.

This is what the past 30 years looks like:

i.imgur.com 

The trend is positive, statistically significant, and climatologically meaningful.
 
2012-10-14 08:44:37 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: The graph is probably OK


It doesn't match the headline, insofar as it's not a plot of the past 16 years' (192 months) data. See my version above. You have to be even more specific inyour cherry picking than that to really take advantage of the '97-'98 El Niño.
 
2012-10-14 09:05:32 PM  

Jon Snow: Damnhippyfreak: The graph is probably OK

It doesn't match the headline, insofar as it's not a plot of the past 16 years' (192 months) data. See my version above. You have to be even more specific inyour cherry picking than that to really take advantage of the '97-'98 El Niño.



Point taken. On a closer look, the graph isn't of the last 16 years, and not even 15, but a bit less than that. It looks like it wasn't just cherrypicked to take advantage of the El Nino, but to start at a temp anomaly comparable to 0.5°C. It's mislabeled to boot as the time has been shifted as to show a start and end point at the beginning of the year).

Clownshoes.
 
2012-10-14 09:09:30 PM  

HighZoolander: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: And, in fact, good science doesn't have facts. It has hypotheses and theories.

er, wat?

Science absolutely does have facts. The hypotheses and theories are attempts to explain the facts.


Well, yes and no.

We look at things like temperature, inches of snowfall, the length of a bird bill, and things like that and call these "facts" and then create hypotheses to explain them and theories and experiments to test those hypotheses.

But people tend to forget the basic axioms of science, the theories on which all science today (which MAY change tomorrow - see below) is based. Such things as "yes, there is an objective reality which we can measure. That is a theory. It is accepted these days as axiomatic and scientific "fact" because it works, and works apparently every time it is used.

But it is one of several competing theories. Consider the earliest one: Plato's Cave. Those "facts" may not, in fact, be facts; they may merely be approximations of the real thing, which may appear different to different people.

In science, THAT theory and all similar subjectivist theories have been discarded because they don't work. To date. However, some of the latest findings in cosmology and quantum theory are troubling. Consider, for example, the possibility (advanced by real and serious scientists each supposedly smarter than you and I combined) of a "Holographic Universe."

In sort: science deals with hypotheses and theories. When a theory works really really really well, we can use shorthand and call the things that theory explains "facts" because the theory says they are real.

But it is still based on theory.
 
2012-10-14 09:12:43 PM  

ZAZ: I would never buy a Smart for the gas mileage, which is only a little better than regular-sized competition, but if I had to park in unmarked spaces in the city I would be tempted.


I'd avoid the Smart's personally. They are neat cars yes... but having owned a Mk1 Smart (and had friends with much newer ones):

50k miles and it's time for an engine rebuild.
The turbo and manifold are a single unit and it likes to crack with gay abandon resulting in oil everywhere.
The 500cc version is utterly gutless and frankly if left in automatic mode dangerous when trying to pull on to a busy round-about (the clutch goes derp for a good 5 - 10s before any power is sent to the wheels).
Uncomfortable seats.
A bit loud when you consider the engine displacement.
Tiny tiny little fuel tank.
Leave it standing for a week or two and something (usually the alternator) will have seized solid; this is normal.
Worlds worst auto-box, in a 500cc in auto you'll be bouncing between 5th & 6th gear all the damn time on even a small incline when trying to do motoway speeds (i.e. 80mph or so)... and it won't hold the speed either.

Yes sure it kind of goes like a go-kart when you've given it some love and can be a lot of fun but the stock machines... fark that.
 
2012-10-14 09:25:12 PM  

chuckufarlie: Electrify: You know, let's pretend that TFA has some truth in it. It was over the last decade that world governments had been pushing auto manufacturers (which make up a sizeable chunk of greenhouse emissions) to improve fuel efficiency and reduce toxic outputs. So to sum everything up:

Then: Climate change is fake! Governments should stop telling businesses to clean up!
Now: Okay, climate change was real, but it has stopped now. We don't need government regulations on pollution anymore

/wish Rupert Murdoch would prove once and for all that pollution isn't bad and suck off an exhaust pipe to prove his hypothesis

Do you really want to tell people that the small amount of change in manufacturing has had such an impact? Do you want to tell people that the changes took place immediately once the regulations were put in place? That is pretty stupid, even for a warmer.


I was actually referring to the vehicle emissions, not the manufacturing process. I assumed that was pretty obvious, even for a denier.
 
2012-10-14 09:46:24 PM  
Also, there is no such place as Georgia Tech University.
 
2012-10-14 09:47:53 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: HighZoolander: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: And, in fact, good science doesn't have facts. It has hypotheses and theories.

er, wat?

Science absolutely does have facts. The hypotheses and theories are attempts to explain the facts.

Well, yes and no.

We look at things like temperature, inches of snowfall, the length of a bird bill, and things like that and call these "facts" and then create hypotheses to explain them and theories and experiments to test those hypotheses.

But people tend to forget the basic axioms of science, the theories on which all science today (which MAY change tomorrow - see below) is based. Such things as "yes, there is an objective reality which we can measure. That is a theory. It is accepted these days as axiomatic and scientific "fact" because it works, and works apparently every time it is used.

But it is one of several competing theories. Consider the earliest one: Plato's Cave. Those "facts" may not, in fact, be facts; they may merely be approximations of the real thing, which may appear different to different people.

In science, THAT theory and all similar subjectivist theories have been discarded because they don't work. To date. However, some of the latest findings in cosmology and quantum theory are troubling. Consider, for example, the possibility (advanced by real and serious scientists each supposedly smarter than you and I combined) of a "Holographic Universe."

In sort: science deals with hypotheses and theories. When a theory works really really really well, we can use shorthand and call the things that theory explains "facts" because the theory says they are real.

But it is still based on theory.


Where did you learn science? You seem to have these things confused.

A fact is a fact. It doesn't matter whether or not it has been explained by some theory yet. When I make a measurement of something, the result is a fact. If I measure the temperature today with a mercury thermometer, the number I get is a fact. It makes no difference whether we live in a holographic universe or Plato's cave or a non-objective reality or anything else - the number I got is a product of the universe the measurement was made in. Now, the nature of the universe or whatever else theory or hypothesis could of course influence our understanding (theory/hypothesis) of why the number came out the way it did when I measured it, but that doesn't make the result of the measurement any less of a fact.
 
2012-10-14 10:11:09 PM  

Electrify: chuckufarlie: Electrify: You know, let's pretend that TFA has some truth in it. It was over the last decade that world governments had been pushing auto manufacturers (which make up a sizeable chunk of greenhouse emissions) to improve fuel efficiency and reduce toxic outputs. So to sum everything up:

Then: Climate change is fake! Governments should stop telling businesses to clean up!
Now: Okay, climate change was real, but it has stopped now. We don't need government regulations on pollution anymore

/wish Rupert Murdoch would prove once and for all that pollution isn't bad and suck off an exhaust pipe to prove his hypothesis

Do you really want to tell people that the small amount of change in manufacturing has had such an impact? Do you want to tell people that the changes took place immediately once the regulations were put in place? That is pretty stupid, even for a warmer.

I was actually referring to the vehicle emissions, not the manufacturing process. I assumed that was pretty obvious, even for a denier.


I was giving you credit for being smarter than you obviously are. The questions remain the same but the actual impact that the vehicles could have had on the climate is going to be even smaller.

Do you really want to tell people that the small amount of change in vehicle emissions has had such an impact? Do you want to tell people that the changes took place immediately once the regulations were put in place? That is pretty stupid, even for a warmer

No matter what your answers, the fact remains that no amount of reduction in emissions would have caused the changes or lack of changes that have been recorded.

For a warmer, you know nothing. Your position is supposed to be that even if all sources of CO2 were shut off today, it would take a very long time (decades) to see any changes. If you do not even know that, you are nothing more than a trolling moron.
 
2012-10-14 10:13:06 PM  

Jon Snow: SevenizGud: Oh, ok. Then show the same graph, and put the right data on it.

[i.imgur.com image 500x375] 

The slope is positive, lies from TFA not withstanding. However, the interval is insufficiently long over which to assess the climatological significance of the trend. You need 20-30 years or more to make meaningful statements about climatological trends if you're just looking at a plot of global temp anomaly.

This is what the past 30 years looks like:

[i.imgur.com image 500x375] 

The trend is positive, statistically significant, and climatologically meaningful.


Why is it that you refuse to believe what is in the article? You continue to push your agenda even when the facts show that you are wrong. That is hardly intelligent.
 
2012-10-14 10:21:10 PM  

chuckufarlie: Jon Snow: SevenizGud: Oh, ok. Then show the same graph, and put the right data on it.

[i.imgur.com image 500x375] 

The slope is positive, lies from TFA not withstanding. However, the interval is insufficiently long over which to assess the climatological significance of the trend. You need 20-30 years or more to make meaningful statements about climatological trends if you're just looking at a plot of global temp anomaly.

This is what the past 30 years looks like:

[i.imgur.com image 500x375] 

The trend is positive, statistically significant, and climatologically meaningful.

Why is it that you refuse to believe what is in the article? You continue to push your agenda even when the facts show that you are wrong. That is hardly intelligent.



nicksteel: I find it strange that you are willing to blindly follow these people without question. Now THAT is moronic.
 
2012-10-14 10:23:03 PM  
i.dailymail.co.uk

Professor Judith Curry has a stare that could melt glaciers...
 
2012-10-14 10:42:37 PM  

chuckufarlie: Why is it that you refuse to believe what is in the article?


Because I looked at what the primary source cited by the article said (claim in question is bullshiat). Because I downloaded the data myself and performed a standard linear regression with them (the claim in question is bullshiat). Because I am passing familiar with basic information pertaining to the appropriate timescales of forced components of globally averaged temperature relative to natural variability arising from processes like ENSO (the claim in question is bullshiat).

You get the idea.

Gyrony: Professor Judith Curry has a stare that could melt glaciers...


She was a lot happier looking, though a lot less apt to be quoted by the absurd British conservative tabloids, before her "conversion". I hope the profile increase is worth the toll it looks to be taking on her conscience.
 
2012-10-14 10:51:59 PM  

Jon Snow: chuckufarlie: Why is it that you refuse to believe what is in the article?

Because I looked at what the primary source cited by the article said (claim in question is bullshiat). Because I downloaded the data myself and performed a standard linear regression with them (the claim in question is bullshiat). Because I am passing familiar with basic information pertaining to the appropriate timescales of forced components of globally averaged temperature relative to natural variability arising from processes like ENSO (the claim in question is bullshiat).

You get the idea.

Gyrony: Professor Judith Curry has a stare that could melt glaciers...

She was a lot happier looking, though a lot less apt to be quoted by the absurd British conservative tabloids, before her "conversion". I hope the profile increase is worth the toll it looks to be taking on her conscience.


We're both in Atlanta... I hope I never cross that gaze.
 
2012-10-14 10:56:48 PM  

HighZoolander: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: HighZoolander: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: And, in fact, good science doesn't have facts. It has hypotheses and theories.

er, wat?

Science absolutely does have facts. The hypotheses and theories are attempts to explain the facts.

Well, yes and no.

We look at things like temperature, inches of snowfall, the length of a bird bill, and things like that and call these "facts" and then create hypotheses to explain them and theories and experiments to test those hypotheses.

But people tend to forget the basic axioms of science, the theories on which all science today (which MAY change tomorrow - see below) is based. Such things as "yes, there is an objective reality which we can measure. That is a theory. It is accepted these days as axiomatic and scientific "fact" because it works, and works apparently every time it is used.

But it is one of several competing theories. Consider the earliest one: Plato's Cave. Those "facts" may not, in fact, be facts; they may merely be approximations of the real thing, which may appear different to different people.

In science, THAT theory and all similar subjectivist theories have been discarded because they don't work. To date. However, some of the latest findings in cosmology and quantum theory are troubling. Consider, for example, the possibility (advanced by real and serious scientists each supposedly smarter than you and I combined) of a "Holographic Universe."

In sort: science deals with hypotheses and theories. When a theory works really really really well, we can use shorthand and call the things that theory explains "facts" because the theory says they are real.

But it is still based on theory.

Where did you learn science? You seem to have these things confused.

A fact is a fact. It doesn't matter whether or not it has been explained by some theory yet. When I make a measurement of something, the result is a fact. If I measure the temperature today with a mercury thermometer, the number I get is a fact. It makes no difference whether we live in a holographic universe or Plato's cave or a non-objective reality or anything else - the number I got is a product of the universe the measurement was made in. Now, the nature of the universe or whatever else theory or hypothesis could of course influence our understanding (theory/hypothesis) of why the number came out the way it did when I measured it, but that doesn't make the result of the measurement any less of a fact.


>>>When I make a measurement of something, the result is a fact.

Because the original science, courtesy of a guy named Aristotle, has established as a working theory the concept of objective reality. That fact is considered objectively real. AS opposed to, say, a Platonic theory which would assert that that "fact" is fluid, amorphous, changeable. That rock you measure might be 6 inches long. A week later, when the shadows of the "higher" reality shift, it might be 7 inches long.

The ultimate basis of science (going back several thousand years) are two branches of philosophy: epistemology (theory of knowledge - how we know what we know) and metaphysics (theory of reality - the nature of the existing universe). Facts are facts because the underlying philosophical/scientific theory that (1) reality is objective (metaphysics) and (2) that we can accurately measure it (epistemology).
 
2012-10-14 10:58:17 PM  

dj_bigbird: I'm sorry, it's not "global warming," anymore it's "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change" (TM). Who is to say that the warming cycle wasn't part of the natural way of things and human activity didn't stop it?


You know, scientists aren't stupid - but your argument is.

Climate scientists account for background noise like varying levels of solar activity. Just because you don't know anything about scientific analysis doesn't mean those who are qualified don't.
 
2012-10-14 10:59:32 PM  
I know the article is shiat, however it seems as the an aggregate world temperature would be misleading with the massive amount of ice melting in polar regions. Seems as though all that cold water would at least for a time cause other areas to be slightly cooler. Then again, I really have no idea what I'm talking about...just conjecture.
 
2012-10-14 11:28:40 PM  

ghare: LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication

Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.


Believe me we have those types in the UK and Australia as well. They are usually cranky, old men who are very much in the mold of tea party style fanatics in the US.

In Australia there is even a local version of Rush Limbaugh, although he only broadcasts in Sydney. Alan Jones is always harping on about how climate change is a left wing conspiracy. Tragically, my own father is a disciple of Alan Jones. He has become more and more irrational since he started listening to Jones' radio show, and is now convinced that I am a communist. He believes that because I have more faith in the opinion of climate scientists than I do in some loud mouthed, bigoted shock jock.

The bizarre twist with this bigoted authoritarian dolt is that he is gay - none of his bigoted, homophobic audience seems to realize it though. Several years ago he was arrested in a London public toilet for lewd behavior. For some reason the charges were dropped. Perhaps he convinced the police he was only doing research.

chb.live.mediaspanonline.com
 
2012-10-14 11:41:22 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: >>>When I make a measurement of something, the result is a fact.

Because the original science, courtesy of a guy named Aristotle, has established as a working theory the concept of objective reality. That fact is considered objectively real. AS opposed to, say, a Platonic theory which would assert that that "fact" is fluid, amorphous, changeable. That rock you measure might be 6 inches long. A week later, when the shadows of the "higher" reality shift, it might be 7 inches long.

The ultimate basis of science (going back several thousand years) are two branches of philosophy: epistemology (theory of knowledge - how we know what we know) and metaphysics (theory of reality - the nature of the existing universe). Facts are facts because the underlying philosophical/scientific theory that (1) reality is objective (metaphysics) and (2) that we can accurately measure it (epistemology).


Ok, now that I see what you're getting at, you no longer seem confused to me, and it's a good reminder.

/My general response to philosophy though is that I'd rather have a good blaster at my side.
//If I can't measure it at least I can blast it.
 
2012-10-14 11:44:45 PM  

MayoSlather: I know the article is shiat, however it seems as the an aggregate world temperature would be misleading with the massive amount of ice melting in polar regions. Seems as though all that cold water would at least for a time cause other areas to be slightly cooler. Then again, I really have no idea what I'm talking about...just conjecture.


You're actually kind of onto something, in that only a very small portion of the added radiative forcing we've contributed to the planetary energy imbalance through our increases in GHGs has gone into directly warming the surface air temperature. Although the amount going into melting ice isn't large either. Most of the extra energy is being dumped into the global ocean:

i.imgur.com

This is annual OHC (ocean heat content, in 1022 joules) from the upper 700 meters over the last 16 years. Compare to my plots of the surface air temperature above:

i.imgur.com

And the last 30:

i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-15 12:02:12 AM  

Alleyoop: common sense is an oxymoron: Meanwhile...

www.skepticalscience.com

Can I play?

[i150.photobucket.com image 480x295] 

[www.climate-skeptic.com image 500x375]


If you want to play, you can start by explaining what it is you're trying to say by posting those graphs.
 
2012-10-15 12:09:47 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: [whyfiles.org image 510x515]


Your chart would be much scarier if you scaled it by .5 degrees Celsius....cause then the increase of .75 degrees Celsius would totally blast off the top of the chart like a rocket ship.

Of course if you scaled the rise to something noticeable ....for instance it usually takes a change of several degrees Fahrenheit before a person can tell a difference.... so to put that in Celsius language you might need a 5 degree change in cel to be noticeable to the average person. so a .75 degree change on a chart with a 5 degree scale could be called barely detectable.

So temperatures went up slightly for a while and have stabilized. If its something we did bully for us and go bug the Chinese. If its natural then sucks to be you and you need to find a better hobby. Maybe if climatologists stopped wasting internet wattage and AC wattage on hot air all the time we might be able to keep living a comfortable lifestyle a little while longer.
 
2012-10-15 12:11:15 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Alleyoop: common sense is an oxymoron: Meanwhile...

www.skepticalscience.com

Can I play?

[i150.photobucket.com image 480x295] 

[www.climate-skeptic.com image 500x375]

If you want to play, you can start by explaining what it is you're trying to say by posting those graphs.


That a small change in the way data is presented can mean billions of dollars in public money sent to alternative energy companies?
 
2012-10-15 12:13:20 AM  

HighZoolander: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: >>>When I make a measurement of something, the result is a fact.

Because the original science, courtesy of a guy named Aristotle, has established as a working theory the concept of objective reality. That fact is considered objectively real. AS opposed to, say, a Platonic theory which would assert that that "fact" is fluid, amorphous, changeable. That rock you measure might be 6 inches long. A week later, when the shadows of the "higher" reality shift, it might be 7 inches long.

The ultimate basis of science (going back several thousand years) are two branches of philosophy: epistemology (theory of knowledge - how we know what we know) and metaphysics (theory of reality - the nature of the existing universe). Facts are facts because the underlying philosophical/scientific theory that (1) reality is objective (metaphysics) and (2) that we can accurately measure it (epistemology).

Ok, now that I see what you're getting at, you no longer seem confused to me, and it's a good reminder.

/My general response to philosophy though is that I'd rather have a good blaster at my side.
//If I can't measure it at least I can blast it.


LOL! What? No hokey religions and ancient weapons?
 
2012-10-15 12:17:08 AM  

archichris: common sense is an oxymoron: Alleyoop: common sense is an oxymoron: Meanwhile...

www.skepticalscience.com

Can I play?

[i150.photobucket.com image 480x295] 

[www.climate-skeptic.com image 500x375]

If you want to play, you can start by explaining what it is you're trying to say by posting those graphs.

That a small change in the way data is presented can mean billions of dollars in public money sent to alternative energy companies?


Only if billions of dollars in public money is being sent to alternative energy companies based on a 0.2-degree shift in temperature records from Brisbane. Unfortunately for the deniers, it isn't.

BTW, "Climategate" was a nonevent. Link
 
2012-10-15 12:22:41 AM  
I keep on sayin this to Global Warming Apocalyptic Conspiracy theorists: fool me once, shame on you; fool me 34246 times, shame on me.

/Werent we supposed to have 10 more feet of water at NYC by now making it uninhabitable?
 
2012-10-15 12:24:09 AM  

GeneralJim: ghare: LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication

Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.
Yeah, go for it -- what's one more lie?

With the exception of the U.S. and G.B., most of the world is highly skeptical of AGW alarmism.

And, the planet is taking a dump on your pet hypothesis as we speak.


Greetings from Sydney, Australia General Jim. You're full of it.

The only people in Australia who are climate change deniers are ignorant authoritarians. Just like in the US.
 
2012-10-15 12:32:31 AM  

cman: I keep on sayin this to Global Warming Apocalyptic Conspiracy theorists: fool me once, shame on you; fool me 34246 times, shame on me.

/Werent we supposed to have 10 more feet of water at NYC by now making it uninhabitable?


That "prediction" was based on a hypothetical question regarding the effects of DOUBLING atmospheric CO2 from 1988 levels; in other words, a CO2 level of close to 700 ppm as compared to the current 390 ppm or so. Naturally, the deniers got the context of Hansen's comment as wrong as they get the science.

Link
 
2012-10-15 12:40:18 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: cman: I keep on sayin this to Global Warming Apocalyptic Conspiracy theorists: fool me once, shame on you; fool me 34246 times, shame on me.

/Werent we supposed to have 10 more feet of water at NYC by now making it uninhabitable?

That "prediction" was based on a hypothetical question regarding the effects of DOUBLING atmospheric CO2 from 1988 levels; in other words, a CO2 level of close to 700 ppm as compared to the current 390 ppm or so. Naturally, the deniers got the context of Hansen's comment as wrong as they get the science.

Link


I dont dispute that global warming (or climate change) exists, what I do dispute is the psychology of those who push for laws to halt climate change. People are paranoid by nature. It is a survival skill passed on by our ancestors. Along with that, they also passed on to us a concept called abstract thought. People see something that they believe will affect their life they automatically assume the absolute very worse. 40 years now we have been told that IF WE DONT ACT NOW TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING WE WILL DIE.
 
2012-10-15 12:50:19 AM  

kg2095: GeneralJim: ghare: LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication

Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.
Yeah, go for it -- what's one more lie?

With the exception of the U.S. and G.B., most of the world is highly skeptical of AGW alarmism.

And, the planet is taking a dump on your pet hypothesis as we speak.

Greetings from Sydney, Australia General Jim. You're full of it.

The only people in Australia who are climate change deniers are ignorant authoritarians. Just like in the US.


Or else they're rich and don't want to lose their precious money. Like that evil Gina Rinehart.

/I saw her at the Perth Royal Show
//Boy, was she pissed when the judge pinned the blue ribbon on her...
 
2012-10-15 12:55:10 AM  
I came for graphs and charts no one gives a shiat about except for the people posting them and leaving satisfied.
 
2012-10-15 01:18:36 AM  

cman: 40 years now we have been told that IF WE DONT ACT NOW TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING WE WILL DIE.


And I had you listed as one of the reasonable conservatives on Fark...

So much for that :(
 
2012-10-15 01:28:37 AM  

cman: common sense is an oxymoron: cman: I keep on sayin this to Global Warming Apocalyptic Conspiracy theorists: fool me once, shame on you; fool me 34246 times, shame on me.

/Werent we supposed to have 10 more feet of water at NYC by now making it uninhabitable?

That "prediction" was based on a hypothetical question regarding the effects of DOUBLING atmospheric CO2 from 1988 levels; in other words, a CO2 level of close to 700 ppm as compared to the current 390 ppm or so. Naturally, the deniers got the context of Hansen's comment as wrong as they get the science.

Link

I dont dispute that global warming (or climate change) exists, what I do dispute is the psychology of those who push for laws to halt climate change. People are paranoid by nature. It is a survival skill passed on by our ancestors. Along with that, they also passed on to us a concept called abstract thought. People see something that they believe will affect their life they automatically assume the absolute very worse. 40 years now we have been told that IF WE DONT ACT NOW TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING WE WILL DIE.



The media telling us this are the same media that gave us OMG GLOBAL COOLING and KOHOUTEK WILL BE THE COMET OF THE CENTURY. The original sources, however, said things like "in the absence of any other factors beyond those operating in the past, the current interglacial period is likely nearing an end. However..." or "when the comet reaches its maximum predicted brightness, it will be too close to the sun to be visible [unless you're observing from SkyLab]."

As for whether or not we should do anything about climate change, its effects will be the same whether it's the result of human activity or not. We do our best to prepare for predicted storms, tsunamis, and even earthquakes; we pass laws against dumping pollutants into the air and water; so why should we not prepare for and/or attempt to place restrictions on the source of a predicted increase in assorted meteorological/ecological disasters?
 
2012-10-15 01:31:25 AM  

GAT_00: [icons.wxug.com image 640x403]

Pay no attention to this year's record-shattering warmth in America, the planet is getting colder.


I know the answer to this one!! America =/= The World.
 
2012-10-15 01:38:26 AM  

Nobodyn0se: cman: 40 years now we have been told that IF WE DONT ACT NOW TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING WE WILL DIE.

And I had you listed as one of the reasonable conservatives on Fark...

So much for that :(


I was once a truther. I believed that the government was behind the 9/11 attacks. I bought into their paranoid bullshiat. It got so bad that I had a few bouts of mania (and I am not even bipolar.) I am not an expert in climate change, but I have been through the other side of the looking glass and took a good look at how I fell into it. I got a greater understanding of human nature from my reflections.
 
2012-10-15 01:51:15 AM  

styckx: I came for graphs and charts no one gives a shiat about except for the people posting them and leaving satisfied.


2.bp.blogspot.com

/leaving satisfied
 
2012-10-15 02:39:21 AM  

cman: I bought into their paranoid bullshiat.


In that case, I'll give you another chance. But you need to realize, anyone who told you:

cman: 40 years now we have been told that IF WE DONT ACT NOW TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING WE WILL DIE.


is full of paranoid bullshiat. Stop listening to them.
 
2012-10-15 05:04:13 AM  

ghare: LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication

Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.



You answered your own question. Only in America, do bogus theories like man-made global warming or the efficacy/safety of vaccines get any traction from do-gooder Liberals in the first place. Be grateful for the deniers, 'cause otherwise we'd be nothing but a fully hood-winked nation wearing tin-foil hats.
 
2012-10-15 05:59:28 AM  
Was assuming this thread would show up quickly.

Had already posted these on a small friends' forum when the Daily Fail link was mentioned, saying it all sounded very familiar and that I'd place good money on it all being related to what's in those videos.

Sadly no one had enough time to place bets.
 
2012-10-15 07:10:40 AM  

dready zim: Bontesla: lulwat?

DRTFA because I'm hoping no one actually said what the headline suggests. Please be trolling. I'm liking humanity today - don't you ruin it.

It sounds like you WANT global warming?

Must say though that the numbers show rising temperatures did stop 16 years ago. Whether it`s a plateau or whatever reason, the warming has stopped according to the met office. 4 more years and it`s significant according to some.

headline and sub headlines :

"Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the 'pause' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996"


Of course it could mean that global efforts have made an impact so we should continue the efforts of limiting the emissions of greenhouse gasses.
 
2012-10-15 07:14:26 AM  
How much you wanna bet that these same deniers are going to be here next year when the Arctic isn't going to melt as extremely as it did this year, parroting how ACC doesn't exist because of this?
 
2012-10-15 08:15:15 AM  

Jon Snow: MayoSlather: I know the article is shiat, however it seems as the an aggregate world temperature would be misleading with the massive amount of ice melting in polar regions. Seems as though all that cold water would at least for a time cause other areas to be slightly cooler. Then again, I really have no idea what I'm talking about...just conjecture.

You're actually kind of onto something, in that only a very small portion of the added radiative forcing we've contributed to the planetary energy imbalance through our increases in GHGs has gone into directly warming the surface air temperature. Although the amount going into melting ice isn't large either. Most of the extra energy is being dumped into the global ocean:



This is annual OHC (ocean heat content, in 1022 joules) from the upper 700 meters over the last 16 years. Compare to my plots of the surface air temperature above:



And the last 30:


The bottom chart seems to indicate that the oceans went from a net energy consumer to a net energy producer in the late 1980s.

That seems terribly significant yet I've never heard of that before. Am I misreading something?
 
2012-10-15 08:28:35 AM  

ryarger: The bottom chart seems to indicate that the oceans went from a net energy consumer to a net energy producer in the late 1980s.

That seems terribly significant yet I've never heard of that before. Am I misreading something?


Yes. Climatological data is typically expressed as an anomaly, i.e. departure from some averaged reference period, rather than an absolute value. For the OHC data, the reference period is 1957-1990. Negative values reflect less stored energy than for the reference period only, not actual negative values.

This is similar to plots of global temperature data anomalies relative to 1951-1980 or 1901-2000: negative numbers don't actually mean negative temperatures (the Earth didn't freeze), rather they reflect values cooler than the reference period.
 
2012-10-15 10:26:11 AM  

Jon Snow: chuckufarlie: Why is it that you refuse to believe what is in the article?

Because I looked at what the primary source cited by the article said (claim in question is bullshiat). Because I downloaded the data myself and performed a standard linear regression with them (the claim in question is bullshiat). Because I am passing familiar with basic information pertaining to the appropriate timescales of forced components of globally averaged temperature relative to natural variability arising from processes like ENSO (the claim in question is bullshiat).

You get the idea.
.

The idea is that you seem to believe that you know more about this subject than anybody else! You are the ultimate source. You are also full of crap.
 
2012-10-15 10:38:30 AM  

chuckufarlie: The idea is that you seem to believe that you know more about this subject than anybody else! You are the ultimate source.


How did you get:

you seem to believe that you know more about this subject than anybody else! You are the ultimate source

From this:

Jon Snow: Because I looked at what the primary source cited by the article said (claim in question is bullshiat). Because I downloaded the data myself and performed a standard linear regression with them (the claim in question is bullshiat). Because I am passing familiar with basic information pertaining to the appropriate timescales of forced components of globally averaged temperature relative to natural variability arising from processes like ENSO (the claim in question is bullshiat).

You get the idea.


Not being a crazy person myself, perhaps you can understand how I don't follow your train of thought. The actual data do not support the claim in question. The actual source of those data, the source supposedly used by the person making the claim, refutes the claim. 

Can you explain how, in your mind, that gets distorted into it being all about me thinking I personally know more than anyone else?

I just want to see the world through your spittle-flecked, urine-jar glasses, if only for a brief instant.
 
2012-10-15 12:26:17 PM  

Jon Snow: chuckufarlie: The idea is that you seem to believe that you know more about this subject than anybody else! You are the ultimate source.

How did you get:

you seem to believe that you know more about this subject than anybody else! You are the ultimate source

From this:

Jon Snow: Because I looked at what the primary source cited by the article said (claim in question is bullshiat). Because I downloaded the data myself and performed a standard linear regression with them (the claim in question is bullshiat). Because I am passing familiar with basic information pertaining to the appropriate timescales of forced components of globally averaged temperature relative to natural variability arising from processes like ENSO (the claim in question is bullshiat).

You get the idea.

Not being a crazy person myself, perhaps you can understand how I don't follow your train of thought. The actual data do not support the claim in question. The actual source of those data, the source supposedly used by the person making the claim, refutes the claim. 

Can you explain how, in your mind, that gets distorted into it being all about me thinking I personally know more than anyone else?

I just want to see the world through your spittle-flecked, urine-jar glasses, if only for a brief instant.


your interpretation of the data, dumbass, your interpretation. Don't you get it, moron? You look at the data and you seem to think that you know better than anybody. I have always realized that you are not all that intelligent but this is a stretch, even for you. If you were even one fourth as intelligent as you think you are, you would understand what I posted. Sadly, you are completely unaware of your own limitations.
 
2012-10-15 12:51:05 PM  

chuckufarlie: Don't you get it, moron? You look at the data and you seem to think that you know better than anybody


Jon Snow: The actual source of those data, the source supposedly used by the person making the claim, refutes the claim.


chuckufarlie: Sadly, you are completely unaware of your own limitations.

 
2012-10-15 01:03:37 PM  

chuckufarlie: Jon Snow: chuckufarlie: The idea is that you seem to believe that you know more about this subject than anybody else! You are the ultimate source.

How did you get:

you seem to believe that you know more about this subject than anybody else! You are the ultimate source

From this:

Jon Snow: Because I looked at what the primary source cited by the article said (claim in question is bullshiat). Because I downloaded the data myself and performed a standard linear regression with them (the claim in question is bullshiat). Because I am passing familiar with basic information pertaining to the appropriate timescales of forced components of globally averaged temperature relative to natural variability arising from processes like ENSO (the claim in question is bullshiat).

You get the idea.

Not being a crazy person myself, perhaps you can understand how I don't follow your train of thought. The actual data do not support the claim in question. The actual source of those data, the source supposedly used by the person making the claim, refutes the claim. 

Can you explain how, in your mind, that gets distorted into it being all about me thinking I personally know more than anyone else?

I just want to see the world through your spittle-flecked, urine-jar glasses, if only for a brief instant.

your interpretation of the data, dumbass, your interpretation. Don't you get it, moron? You look at the data and you seem to think that you know better than anybody. I have always realized that you are not all that intelligent but this is a stretch, even for you. If you were even one fourth as intelligent as you think you are, you would understand what I posted. Sadly, you are completely unaware of your own limitations.



nicksteel: Those who attack the messenger because the message is uncomfortable are in fact making an understandable, though primitive, response. The mosquito stings so you slap the mosquito, the apple is sour so you fling it into the bushes, someone reeks of body odor while attempting to kiss you and you give them a shove. Push it away, the child's Weeners to something offending, with no further thought about repercussions. Adults, in human society, are supposed to be logical, entertain facts, digest, discuss, and conclude. They most often do none of this, but simply react, as a child, to the offending substance of message, rejecting it. These are not leaders of men, as this type of reaction makes them scarcely suitable for any life but swinging from trees, but as Internet access is granted to anyone, they write email and post their simplistic reactions on message board. "Go away, you're crazy, I don't want to hear it", they cry, and when the shift occurrs will be found huddled in some corner making these demands still.
 
2012-10-15 02:28:43 PM  
Those actually interested in a better level of conversation on the topic might head over to the gorgon's website and read what she and her visitors have to say.

http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/14/pause-discussion-thread/#more-1019 3
 
2012-10-15 03:03:42 PM  

Jon Snow: chuckufarlie: Don't you get it, moron? You look at the data and you seem to think that you know better than anybody

Jon Snow: The actual source of those data, the source supposedly used by the person making the claim, refutes the claim.

chuckufarlie: Sadly, you are completely unaware of your own limitations.


does putting your lies in bold type somehow make them true? You have spent years telling lies on fark. Why would you stop now? You post links that do not address the point you are trying to make. You post links with tons of words and you hope that somebody will find something in all of that crap that might actually address the point.

You really need to go back to the warmer's meetings so they can teach you how this is supposed to be done. Your lies are no longer convincing. At this point, you might as well just fall to the floor, kick your feet and stomp your fists on the ground, screaming BECAUSE I SAID SO!

Even the man in charge of the CRU went on the record stating that the warming stopped at least ten years ago. I suppose that you think that you are smarter than him? You're not.
 
2012-10-15 03:16:05 PM  

chuckufarlie: Jon Snow: chuckufarlie: Don't you get it, moron? You look at the data and you seem to think that you know better than anybody

Jon Snow: The actual source of those data, the source supposedly used by the person making the claim, refutes the claim.

chuckufarlie: Sadly, you are completely unaware of your own limitations.

does putting your lies in bold type somehow make them true? You have spent years telling lies on fark. Why would you stop now? You post links that do not address the point you are trying to make. You post links with tons of words and you hope that somebody will find something in all of that crap that might actually address the point.

You really need to go back to the warmer's meetings so they can teach you how this is supposed to be done. Your lies are no longer convincing. At this point, you might as well just fall to the floor, kick your feet and stomp your fists on the ground, screaming BECAUSE I SAID SO!

Even the man in charge of the CRU went on the record stating that the warming stopped at least ten years ago. I suppose that you think that you are smarter than him? You're not.



nicksteel: once again, you completely ignore what the man said and attack the man. If just once you would have the balls (or is it brains??) to try to discuss something honestly, you might get a bit of credibility. As it stands, you come off looking really weak.
 
2012-10-15 03:29:05 PM  

chuckufarlie: Even the man in charge of the CRU went on the record stating that the warming stopped at least ten years ago. I suppose that you think that you are smarter than him? You're not.


Incorrect.

And already linked. And no doubt has been pointed out to you again and again in other threads.

New shtick, plz.
 
2012-10-15 05:09:32 PM  

cthellis: chuckufarlie: Even the man in charge of the CRU went on the record stating that the warming stopped at least ten years ago. I suppose that you think that you are smarter than him? You're not.

Incorrect.

And already linked. And no doubt has been pointed out to you again and again in other threads.

New shtick, plz.


That video states that the source was the Daily Mail Too bad, the source was not the Daily Mail. It was an interview that Jones gave to the BBC. So now he is recanting what he said to the BBC. Then he can be discounted completely because he is now a proven liar,

Unless you want to attack the BBC.

When the BBC asked:

Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

His reply:
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Link

At least we have firm evidence that the leading scientist heading up this scam is a proven liar. That really does not make your position any better than it was previously.

Every day, more and more of the lies created by the warmers are revealed. And since we know that Jones is a liar, everything he has said about the issue is worthless. Your effort to destroy my argument did not work. You just shined a light on the fact that he lies. I really do not need his statement that it has or has not stopped. Nothing he says matters.

We still have the latest report that states that the warming ended a long time ago. We still have the statements by qualified (non-lying) scientists who tell us the the models are flawed. We have statements that say that the scientists do not fully grasp all of the elements that impact climate.

Funny thing is, I have been saying the same thing here for years and I am not a scientist.

It's over. You may not think that is is over but your opinion does not count. The governments of the world are not going to spend trillions of dollars AND destroy western society based on a flawed model. That is all that I care about. You can go around screaming that this scam is real but who is going to listen to you? Life will go on as before, the western economy will not be destroyed so that some poor fool living in a mud hut can have a better life. I am all for helping that poor fool, but the price that you want is way too high.

The fat lady is singing.
 
2012-10-15 05:47:31 PM  

styckx: I came for graphs and charts no one gives a shiat about except for the people posting them and leaving satisfied.


flowingdata.com
 
2012-10-15 07:51:03 PM  
At it`s core, science makes testable predictions.
 
2012-10-15 09:45:21 PM  
ohokyeah:
Also, as for the water vapor coming from the nuclear plants, water vapor is actually a potent greenhouse gas and is a larger contributor to greenhouse effect than CO2 is. Nuclear power will not work in all places due to it's large water requirements for cooling not to mention the challenge of taking care of spent rods.

Okay... just a couple... First, water vapor in the air is part of a complex system of control -- too much wv, and it rains. GHG levels self-regulate.

You don't need a nuke plant EVERYWHERE. There is a grid. They power it.

The spent rod problem is solved, except for politics: Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.
 
2012-10-15 10:09:12 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
In just the last century, temperatures have increased enough to offset what is supposedly 8000 years of Holocene cooling. Funny how that doesn't show up on GeneralJim's graph.

Oh, one of THESE...

The reason: It didn't happen. We got that much warming in the last century because cheating bastidges have been lowering the older temperatures. Thanks, James Hansen, you twerp.

Also, longer scale temperature graphs do NOT show short-term cycles. Perhaps the science confuses you. Since the little ice age (LIA) ended, we have been warming at about 0.76 K / century. That exceeds the "total variability" of the Holocene period. But THAT type of information is averaged over MORE than several centuries, so a mere 300-year trend is likely to be averaged out.

When you cherry-pick to the last ENSO cycle, it looks worse, of course. Or, to the last 150 years, which is a good bit of the post-LIA warming has taken place. Just in time to have a NEW LIA start up, starting any year now. When averaged in, the LIA, the warm-back, and the new LIA will be averaged into a net close-to-nothing.
 
2012-10-15 10:10:48 PM  
andersoncouncil42:
At this point, deniers are just a bunch of willfully ignorant arsewipes. Nothing more.

Another fine scientific argument -- one of the most logical of the warmers' crap-heap.
 
2012-10-15 10:20:02 PM  
HighZoolander:
GeneralJim: Article says EXACTLY that. Proves it, too.


Hmm, I wonder what someone else had to say about proof in science...

The only area of science where actual proof of an idea is possible is in math

EVERYTHING in science can be, and SHOULD be, questioned on a regular basis. Only an anti-science moron would EVER suggest that anything in science is "settled."


/that about sums it up

Having dealt with you WAY too many times before, I KNOW you actually ARE that ignorant. The quotes above, as brilliant as they are, do NOT apply. This is NOT a statement of cause or projected effect, or an alleged proof of an idea, it is a simple examination of the DATA, which we can do productively, as long as some warmer jackass hasn't changed them to support his falsified hypothesis. Leave it to you to fail to understand this difference.

i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-15 10:23:27 PM  
DrPainMD:
It's doubtful that global warming, in the long run, has stopped. We're coming out of an ice age.

In the "long run," we finished warming from the major glaciation about 8,000 years ago, and are now cooling off into the NEXT major glaciation.
 
2012-10-15 11:20:05 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:
While the article does say that. It far from proves it. Instead of outright debunking this (and then having you most likely ignore it), let's try to foster some critical thinking here and ask how does this data presented prove it?

Hey, it's the guy who nit-picks the opposition, and ignores the outright fraud on "his" side. Data don't PROVE so much as SHOW. Like these:

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-15 11:41:24 PM  
SevenizGud:
OF COURSE the recent years are always the warmest. How could it be any other way when they inflate the current temperature and then downwardly revise it post-facto every year?

Look at 1998. It started as first report of anomaly of +1 or greater. Then a couple of years later it was .88, then it was .79, then it was .71. Pretty soon, 1998 will be FARKing sub-zero.

These numbers are fudged so bad they should be renamed Vioxx.

Yep. People look to NASA GISS for "official" temperature records. But, these records are "adjusted," which since James Hansen has been in charge is shorthand for "falsified to support my activist position on global warming. Here are the NASA GISS data, in two views:

www.powerlineblog.com
First, "adjusted" data as presented by NASA GISS

www.powerlineblog.com
And a simple plot of the raw data, without James Hansen altering it
 
2012-10-15 11:53:04 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: While the article does say that. It far from proves it. Instead of outright debunking this (and then having you most likely ignore it), let's try to foster some critical thinking here and ask how does this data presented prove it?
Hey, it's the guy who nit-picks the opposition, and ignores the outright fraud on "his" side. Data don't PROVE so much as SHOW. Like these:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x481]



No critical thinking in regards to TFA today, huh. Ah well, I'll give you the answer: you would be able to tell (on a superficial level) by actually looking at a linear regression line using that data - something that the graph in TFA does not provide. In addition the graph is misplotted in that it does not actually show "the beginning of 1997 until August 2012". What the data actually looks like, together with a linear trend:

woodfortrees.org


So when you say something like this:

GeneralJim: Article says EXACTLY that [global warming stopped 16 years ago]. Proves it, too.


about an article with a graph that even if it wasn't falsely plotted would not prove what you think it does, one has to wonder how much critical thought you're bringing to your reading.
 
2012-10-15 11:54:38 PM  
Jon Snow:
The slope is positive, lies from TFA not withstanding.

Lies? Check out the NASA GISS lies above. And, here is our ONLY real set of truly global measurements, from the very start of them:

www.woodfortrees.org


Or, are you claiming that the satellites are lying?
 
2012-10-16 12:00:58 AM  
chuckufarlie:
Why is it that you refuse to believe what is in the article? You continue to push your agenda even when the facts show that you are wrong. That is hardly intelligent.

Of all the people I've seen post in climate threads, Snowjob is the single most likely to be a shill.
 
2012-10-16 12:01:49 AM  

GeneralJim: SevenizGud: OF COURSE the recent years are always the warmest. How could it be any other way when they inflate the current temperature and then downwardly revise it post-facto every year?

Look at 1998. It started as first report of anomaly of +1 or greater. Then a couple of years later it was .88, then it was .79, then it was .71. Pretty soon, 1998 will be FARKing sub-zero.

These numbers are fudged so bad they should be renamed Vioxx.
Yep. People look to NASA GISS for "official" temperature records. But, these records are "adjusted," which since James Hansen has been in charge is shorthand for "falsified to support my activist position on global warming. Here are the NASA GISS data, in two views:

[www.powerlineblog.com image 742x539]
First, "adjusted" data as presented by NASA GISS

[www.powerlineblog.com image 680x472]
And a simple plot of the raw data, without James Hansen altering it


Here's what the guy who created the second graph in your post had to say about it (bolded for 'whar statistics, whar?):

"A linear least squares trend line, created using the Excel trend line function (Red trace) shows a small temperature rise of 0.09C per century which is far less than the rise claimed by AGW supporters and clearly of no concern. However, the data shown in figure 5 bears little if any resemblance to a linear function. One can always fit a linear trend line to any data but that does not mean the fitted line has any significance. For example, if instead I fit a second order trend line (a parabolic) the result is extremely different. That suggests a temperature peak around 1950 with an underlying cooling trend since. Which trend line is the more significant one? If there was really a strong underlying linear rise over the time period it should have shown up in the 2nd order trend line as well. This suggests that it is questionable whether any relevant underlying trend can be determined from the data."

post is here

(GeneralJim's source is here, which misses the best text: Link

Yeah, I'm so thoroughly convinced! [/sarcasm]
 
2012-10-16 12:03:47 AM  

GeneralJim: Jon Snow: The slope is positive, lies from TFA not withstanding.
Lies? Check out the NASA GISS lies above. And, here is our ONLY real set of truly global measurements, from the very start of them:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Or, are you claiming that the satellites are lying?



You're of course omitting the rest of the argument:

Jon Snow: However, the interval is insufficiently long over which to assess the climatological significance of the trend. You need 20-30 years or more to make meaningful statements about climatological trends if you're just looking at a plot of global temp anomaly.

This is what the past 30 years looks like:

i.imgur.com 

The trend is positive, statistically significant, and climatologically meaningful.


.
Besides the indefensibly of ignoring argumentation, you're providing a response that would be argued against by the very post you're responding to. In effect, your post is pre-refuted.

Come on now. Take a step back and seriously ask yourself how rational do you think this sort of dishonest argumentation makes you look?
 
2012-10-16 12:15:23 AM  

HighZoolander: GeneralJim: SevenizGud: OF COURSE the recent years are always the warmest. How could it be any other way when they inflate the current temperature and then downwardly revise it post-facto every year?

Look at 1998. It started as first report of anomaly of +1 or greater. Then a couple of years later it was .88, then it was .79, then it was .71. Pretty soon, 1998 will be FARKing sub-zero.

These numbers are fudged so bad they should be renamed Vioxx.
Yep. People look to NASA GISS for "official" temperature records. But, these records are "adjusted," which since James Hansen has been in charge is shorthand for "falsified to support my activist position on global warming. Here are the NASA GISS data, in two views:

[www.powerlineblog.com image 742x539]
First, "adjusted" data as presented by NASA GISS

[www.powerlineblog.com image 680x472]
And a simple plot of the raw data, without James Hansen altering it

Here's what the guy who created the second graph in your post had to say about it (bolded for 'whar statistics, whar?):

"A linear least squares trend line, created using the Excel trend line function (Red trace) shows a small temperature rise of 0.09C per century which is far less than the rise claimed by AGW supporters and clearly of no concern. However, the data shown in figure 5 bears little if any resemblance to a linear function. One can always fit a linear trend line to any data but that does not mean the fitted line has any significance. For example, if instead I fit a second order trend line (a parabolic) the result is extremely different. That suggests a temperature peak around 1950 with an underlying cooling trend since. Which trend line is the more significant one? If there was really a strong underlying linear rise over the time period it should have shown up in the 2nd order trend line as well. This suggests that it is questionable whether any relevant underlying trend can be determined from the data."

post is here

(GeneralJim's source is here ...


Wow. Stats fail there too, besides begging the question.
 
2012-10-16 12:20:15 AM  

GeneralJim: SevenizGud: OF COURSE the recent years are always the warmest. How could it be any other way when they inflate the current temperature and then downwardly revise it post-facto every year?

Look at 1998. It started as first report of anomaly of +1 or greater. Then a couple of years later it was .88, then it was .79, then it was .71. Pretty soon, 1998 will be FARKing sub-zero.

These numbers are fudged so bad they should be renamed Vioxx.
Yep. People look to NASA GISS for "official" temperature records. But, these records are "adjusted," which since James Hansen has been in charge is shorthand for "falsified to support my activist position on global warming. Here are the NASA GISS data, in two views:

[www.powerlineblog.com image 742x539]
First, "adjusted" data as presented by NASA GISS

[www.powerlineblog.com image 680x472]
And a simple plot of the raw data, without James Hansen altering it


By the way, you're also comparing the adjusted GLOBAL data (top graph) against the "raw" data from just the US (bottom graph).

Good jorb!
(even your source appears to recognize this, and only uses the global data to illustrate the 5 year smoothing).
 
2012-10-16 12:21:07 AM  

GeneralJim: Jon Snow: The slope is positive, lies from TFA not withstanding.
Lies? Check out the NASA GISS lies above. And, here is our ONLY real set of truly global measurements, from the very start of them:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Or, are you claiming that the satellites are lying?



Forgot to point out this flat out lie (in bold). From the description of the data set from RSS (about the MSU/AMSU data):

"We do not provide monthly means poleward of 82.5 degrees due to difficulties in merging measurements in these regions, and because these regions are not sampled by all central fields of view."

www.ssmi.com


You can make your point without lying, you know.
 
2012-10-16 12:23:36 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: SevenizGud: OF COURSE the recent years are always the warmest. How could it be any other way when they inflate the current temperature and then downwardly revise it post-facto every year?

Look at 1998. It started as first report of anomaly of +1 or greater. Then a couple of years later it was .88, then it was .79, then it was .71. Pretty soon, 1998 will be FARKing sub-zero.

These numbers are fudged so bad they should be renamed Vioxx.
Yep. People look to NASA GISS for "official" temperature records. But, these records are "adjusted," which since James Hansen has been in charge is shorthand for "falsified to support my activist position on global warming. Here are the NASA GISS data, in two views:

[www.powerlineblog.com image 742x539]
First, "adjusted" data as presented by NASA GISS

[www.powerlineblog.com image 680x472]
And a simple plot of the raw data, without James Hansen altering it

Here's what the guy who created the second graph in your post had to say about it (bolded for 'whar statistics, whar?):

"A linear least squares trend line, created using the Excel trend line function (Red trace) shows a small temperature rise of 0.09C per century which is far less than the rise claimed by AGW supporters and clearly of no concern. However, the data shown in figure 5 bears little if any resemblance to a linear function. One can always fit a linear trend line to any data but that does not mean the fitted line has any significance. For example, if instead I fit a second order trend line (a parabolic) the result is extremely different. That suggests a temperature peak around 1950 with an underlying cooling trend since. Which trend line is the more significant one? If there was really a strong underlying linear rise over the time period it should have shown up in the 2nd order trend line as well. This suggests that it is questionable whether any relevant underlying trend can be determined from the data."

post is here

(GeneralJim's ...

Wow. Stats fail there too, besides begging the question.



The last sentence of the paragraph is also hilarious. "I can add a linear or quadratic trend line with excel, therefore I suspect that no trend line of any sort will fit the data"
 
2012-10-16 12:32:02 AM  

dready zim: At it`s core, science makes testable predictions.


Are You Sure You Need An Apostrophe?
 
2012-10-16 12:37:36 AM  
kg2095:
Climate scientists account for background noise like varying levels of solar activity. Just because you don't know anything about scientific analysis doesn't mean those who are qualified don't.

Funny you should mention that... Since, as we have recently learned, measuring the insolation of the Sun is not counting all of the effects. The magnetic activity of the Sun ALSO warms the Earth, and is therefore an amplifier of insolation. (Bonus points: Why isn't it a feedback?) And, until very recently "those who are qualified" did not know this. Even today, warmer alarmists deny the science involved, because it is one more way in which the AGW hypothesis is falsified.
 
2012-10-16 12:41:43 AM  
MayoSlather:
I know the article is shiat, however it seems as the an aggregate world temperature would be misleading with the massive amount of ice melting in polar regions. Seems as though all that cold water would at least for a time cause other areas to be slightly cooler. Then again, I really have no idea what I'm talking about...just conjecture.

I like your honesty. But, what you are talking about is a situation in which increasing heat in a system is used to change the state of the ice to liquid, rather than using it to warm the temperature. While I am sure SOME of that happens, it is clearly not enough to absorb all of the increased energy, as the planet did warm. Now, of course, it seems likely to be cooling for decades.
 
2012-10-16 12:53:52 AM  
archichris:
Of course if you scaled the rise to something noticeable ....for instance it usually takes a change of several degrees Fahrenheit before a person can tell a difference.... so to put that in Celsius language you might need a 5 degree change in cel to be noticeable to the average person. so a .75 degree change on a chart with a 5 degree scale could be called barely detectable.

Erm, a change of 5 degrees Celsius is 9 degrees Fahrenheit...
 
2012-10-16 12:59:04 AM  

GeneralJim: are you claiming that the satellites are lying?


The claim is that "Global warming stopped 16 years ago".

I downloaded the past 16 years (192 months) of UAH AMSU satellite data, the preferred satellite data of fake "skeptics" everywhere, and plotted it along with a linear regression:

i.imgur.com

Please note, that even though the satellite data likewise confirm that the trend over the past 16 years is one of warming, that it is an insufficiently long time over which to evaluate climatological significance. For that, you want 20-30 years or more. Here are the past 30 years:

i.imgur.com

In terms of NASA data, here are the 16 and 30 year trends, respectively, in green:

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

Also, please note that only a small fraction of our global increase in radiative forcing goes into heating the surface air temperature. Most of it goes into the ocean, as explained above.
 
2012-10-16 01:08:23 AM  
kg2095:
The only people in Australia who are climate change deniers are ignorant authoritarians. Just like in the US.

So, apparently, all pretense to science has left the warmer movement, to be replaced by ad hominem. The death rattle commences.
 
2012-10-16 01:15:46 AM  
T.rex:
ghare: LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication

Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.


You answered your own question. Only in America, do bogus theories like man-made global warming or the efficacy/safety of vaccines get any traction from do-gooder Liberals in the first place. Be grateful for the deniers, 'cause otherwise we'd be nothing but a fully hood-winked nation wearing tin-foil hats.
"Commissioned by the AXA Group, an international insurance firm, agreement on whether climate change has been scientifically proven was the lowest in Japan at 58 percent, followed by Britain at 63 percent and the U.S. at 65 percent." ARTICLE HERE.

Please explain to be about all those fundamentalist Christian Japanese...
 
2012-10-16 01:18:10 AM  

GeneralJim: kg2095: Climate scientists account for background noise like varying levels of solar activity. Just because you don't know anything about scientific analysis doesn't mean those who are qualified don't.

Funny you should mention that... Since, as we have recently learned, measuring the insolation of the Sun is not counting all of the effects. The magnetic activity of the Sun ALSO warms the Earth, and is therefore an amplifier of insolation. (Bonus points: Why isn't it a feedback?) And, until very recently "those who are qualified" did not know this. Even today, warmer alarmists deny the science involved, because it is one more way in which the AGW hypothesis is falsified.



Funny you should mention that, indeed, because you've mentioned the cosmic-ray connection over and over, no matter how many times you've been shown that Svensmark is wrong. Here's why:

Henrik Svensmark has proposed that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) could exert significant influence over global temperatures (Svensmark 1998). The theory goes that the solar magnetic field deflects GCRs, which are capable of seeding cloud formation on Earth. So if the solar magnetic field were to increase, fewer GCRs would reach Earth, seeding fewer low-level clouds, which are strongly reflective. Thus an increased solar magnetic field can indirectly decrease the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), causing the planet to warm. Therefore, in order for this theory to be plausible, all four of the following requirements must be true.

Solar magnetic field must have a long-term positive trend.
Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend.
Cosmic rays must successfully seed low-level clouds.
Low-level cloud cover must have a long-term negative trend.

Fortunately we have empirical observations against which we can test these requirements.


Links to Svensmark's original article and the articles discrediting Svensmark's hypothesis, as well as some graphs that haven't been reposted here yet, are included (so don't blame Skeptical Science for the content; blame Lockwood, Viera and Solanki, Krivova...). And if you disagree with the above summary of Svensmark's hypothesis and its requirements, please explain.
 
2012-10-16 01:19:38 AM  
heavymetal:
Of course it could mean that global efforts have made an impact so we should continue the efforts of limiting the emissions of greenhouse gasses.


www2.ucar.edu
Or not....
 
2012-10-16 01:19:46 AM  

GeneralJim: Yep. People look to NASA GISS for "official" temperature records. But, these records are "adjusted," which since James Hansen has been in charge is shorthand for "falsified to support my activist position on global warming. Here are the NASA GISS data, in two views:

www.powerlineblog.com
First, "adjusted" data as presented by NASA GISS

www.powerlineblog.com
And a simple plot of the raw data, without James Hansen altering it


Also, doesn't look like anyone has pointed out that the second graph, irrespective of the absurd polynomial trendline, is some version of the US-only data, not the global set it's being compared to: http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/06/hammer-graph-5- u s-temps.jpg   

Back in reality, GeneralJim can't even lob accusations of fraud without making himself look like the idiot.

Because back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.
 
2012-10-16 01:36:39 AM  

GeneralJim: People look to NASA GISS for "official" temperature records. But, these records are "adjusted," which since James Hansen has been in charge is shorthand for "falsified to support my activist position on global warming. Here are the NASA GISS data, in two views:


Hilarious.

Here are GISTEMP data in blue, which GeneralJim routinely claims are ZOMGBBQWTFHaxorz to fraudulently show warming, vs. UAH satellite data that GeneralJim routinely cites as being completely a-okay in magenta. They have been plotted using a common baseline and a 12 month average:

i.imgur.com

Back in reality, the GISTEMP data and satellite data show essentially the same thing. They're in even better agreement when the influence of ENSO and volcanism (which affect the surface temps and lower troposphere temps differently) are removed.

Back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.
 
2012-10-16 01:38:07 AM  

chuckufarlie: an awful lot of words in defense of a cherry-picked timeline


Note that some of the questions were from self-described "climate sceptics." The choice of a timeline since 1995 is no accident.

Just ask sevenisgud.
 
2012-10-16 01:42:52 AM  
chuckufarlie:
Even the man in charge of the CRU went on the record stating that the warming stopped at least ten years ago. I suppose that you [Snowjob] think that you are smarter than him? You're not.

You refer to Phil Jones. Also interesting is Phil Jones' claim that every climatologist he knows understands that the medieval warm period was real, and quite possibly warmer than today. Since he worked closely with Michael Mann, he is saying that Mann engaged knowingly in fraud.
 
2012-10-16 02:09:42 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
The trend is positive, statistically significant, and climatologically meaningful.

.
Besides the indefensibly of ignoring argumentation, you're providing a response that would be argued against by the very post you're responding to. In effect, your post is pre-refuted.

So, first off, you show an unlabelled graph, which, when someone with whom you disagree does, is indicative of dishonesty. Just curious: are you dishonest, or is this one of those rules which apply to your opponents and not to you?

Second, we're talking about the last few years, and you throw up a longer term graph. Again, done by someone arguing with you, this is dishonest. Just curious: are you dishonest, or is this one of those rules which apply to your opponents and not to you?

But, allow me to do the same... Here it clearly shows that the temperature trend is downward, without all that single-digit century cherry-picking...


i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-16 02:17:55 AM  
Jon Snow:
Please note, that even though the satellite data likewise confirm that the trend over the past 16 years is one of warming, that it is an insufficiently long time over which to evaluate climatological significance. For that, you want 20-30 years or more.

No, only if you share the blindness to cyclical trends that James Hansen has. The thirty years you are looking at are the upside of the 60-year cycle. Which means, for you impaired types, that we are in for about 30 years of cooling. Note how closely temperatures match the oceanic forcings:

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-16 02:24:20 AM  
Jon Snow:
In terms of NASA data, here are the 16 and 30 year trends, respectively, in green:

So "color-blind" is another way in which you are blind.... at least you're consistent.
 
2012-10-16 02:26:35 AM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
The trend is positive, statistically significant, and climatologically meaningful.

.
Besides the indefensibly of ignoring argumentation, you're providing a response that would be argued against by the very post you're responding to. In effect, your post is pre-refuted.

So, first off, you show an unlabelled graph, which, when someone with whom you disagree does, is indicative of dishonesty. Just curious: are you dishonest, or is this one of those rules which apply to your opponents and not to you?


You wouldn't be able to tell unless you followed the responses back a couple of posts, but the data set was the same as in TFA: HadCRUT4. I have a problem when someone doesn't give any indication whatsoever of where their data is coming from (something you and others sometimes do) - this isn't the case in this instance. Plus, I wouldn't say that when you neglect to do so is dishonest, but sloppy and operationally an argument from authority (since it's difficult to confirm what the data is). I mean, just upthread you attempted to compare a global data set with a US-only one - a blunder on your part you could have easily avoided had you given some indication of where the data came from.


GeneralJim: Second, we're talking about the last few years, and you throw up a longer term graph. Again, done by someone arguing with you, this is dishonest. Just curious: are you dishonest, or is this one of those rules which apply to your opponents and not to you?

But, allow me to do the same... Here it clearly shows that the temperature trend is downward, without all that single-digit century cherry-picking...


Looks like you're trying to change the subject again, instead of responding to the argument presented. However, the response to what you've said here has the same basis as the argument you're ignoring - if you wish to examine a particular phenomenon, you have to look at a time scale over which that phenomenon actually acts. This means you can lose your 'signal' by choosing too small a time frame in which said 'signal' is lost in the noise of short-term variability, but you can equally do so with an overly long time frame. The long time scale you've chose here swamps out any effect from ENSO (something that would be more apparent in the prior 16 year frame).

I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you before. Let's hope it sticks this time.
 
2012-10-16 02:39:33 AM  

GeneralJim: Jon Snow: In terms of NASA data, here are the 16 and 30 year trends, respectively, in green:
So "color-blind" is another way in which you are blind.... at least you're consistent.


So you're ignoring the argument yet again?

Take a step back and think of what this says about you and your ability to argue rationally.
 
2012-10-16 03:01:58 AM  

GeneralJim: Jon Snow: Please note, that even though the satellite data likewise confirm that the trend over the past 16 years is one of warming, that it is an insufficiently long time over which to evaluate climatological significance. For that, you want 20-30 years or more.
No, only if you share the blindness to cyclical trends that James Hansen has. The thirty years you are looking at are the upside of the 60-year cycle. Which means, for you impaired types, that we are in for about 30 years of cooling. Note how closely temperatures match the oceanic forcings:

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]



Swing and a miss, even when trying to change the topic.

What Jon Snow is referring to is a rule of thumb of a length of time needed to detect a climatologically-relevant trend in the face of short-term variability, not the length of time such a frame should be applied. Even in the graph you've presented there appears to be a certain amount of smoothing - something necessitated by the same principle that Jon Snow is talking about.

Take a read of the link he posted since you've really, really missed the point.
 
2012-10-16 04:47:20 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
Funny you should mention that, indeed, because you've mentioned the cosmic-ray connection over and over, no matter how many times you've been shown that Svensmark is wrong.

Well, YOU have been shown, over and over, that the AGW hypothesis has been falsified. How's THAT working for you?

And, it's funny how CERN's CLOUD experiment backed him up on the most controversial of his propositions...
NATURE ARTICLE.

It's also funny how the Director of CERN directed scientists to avoid discussing what the results of the CLOUD experiment might mean.
ARTICLE HERE.
 
2012-10-16 04:49:13 AM  
Jon Snow:
Because back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.

Scientific as always, I see, oh denier of science.
 
2012-10-16 04:51:24 AM  
Jon Snow:
Back in reality, the GISTEMP data and satellite data show essentially the same thing. They're in even better agreement when the influence of ENSO and volcanism (which affect the surface temps and lower troposphere temps differently) are removed.

Back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.

I see... So, are you claiming the satellite data from the 1930s are the same as GISTEMP?
 
2012-10-16 04:53:41 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
Plus, I wouldn't say that when you neglect to do so is dishonest,

You forgot the "any more." You certainly HAVE claimed this. My guess is that you will again.
 
2012-10-16 04:58:14 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
Looks like you're trying to change the subject again, instead of responding to the argument presented. However, the response to what you've said here has the same basis as the argument you're ignoring - if you wish to examine a particular phenomenon, you have to look at a time scale over which that phenomenon actually acts. This means you can lose your 'signal' by choosing too small a time frame in which said 'signal' is lost in the noise of short-term variability, but you can equally do so with an overly long time frame. The long time scale you've chose here swamps out any effect from ENSO (something that would be more apparent in the prior 16 year frame).

I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you before. Let's hope it sticks this time.

Now THIS is dishonest. You are implying, if not outright stating, that this 16 (or 32) year time frame is sufficient to detect a 60-year trend. Are you stupid or are you lying? I can't tell. The whole AGW pants-wetting has occurred during the upwards cycle. This is appropriate... how? And, of course, the whole temperature picture is taken from the end of the little ice age. Naughty, naughty.
 
2012-10-16 05:11:34 AM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Plus, I wouldn't say that when you neglect to do so is dishonest,
You forgot the "any more." You certainly HAVE claimed this. My guess is that you will again.


I don't think so, but you're more than welcome to prove me wrong. Let's say its problematic, as you showed when you (hopefully) mistakenly tried to compare global temperature to just the US.
 
2012-10-16 05:26:29 AM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Looks like you're trying to change the subject again, instead of responding to the argument presented. However, the response to what you've said here has the same basis as the argument you're ignoring - if you wish to examine a particular phenomenon, you have to look at a time scale over which that phenomenon actually acts. This means you can lose your 'signal' by choosing too small a time frame in which said 'signal' is lost in the noise of short-term variability, but you can equally do so with an overly long time frame. The long time scale you've chose here swamps out any effect from ENSO (something that would be more apparent in the prior 16 year frame).

I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you before. Let's hope it sticks this time.
Now THIS is dishonest. You are implying, if not outright stating, that this 16 (or 32) year time frame is sufficient to detect a 60-year trend. Are you stupid or are you lying? I can't tell. The whole AGW pants-wetting has occurred during the upwards cycle. This is appropriate... how? And, of course, the whole temperature picture is taken from the end of the little ice age. Naughty, naughty.



Goodness no. In fact, the bit you're responding to would explicitly argue against your contention in bold. As I said, if you wish to examine a particular phenomenon, you have to look at a time scale over which that phenomenon actually acts. If were were interested in a process that occurs over a 60 year cycle, then it would be misleading to use exclusively a scale of 16 years - again, you would risk lose your 60-year 'signal' in 'noise' from shorter-term variability. However, it would also be misleading to exclusively use an overly long scale, such as as the one you posted that covers 12,000 years - you would lose that 60 year cycle you're interested in 'noise' from longer-term changes.

Do you understand now? The reason why your selecting of very short or very long scales in an attempt to disprove anthropogenic climate change is misleading is the same reason why it would be misleading to try to use a "16 (or 32) year time frame [...] to detect a 60-year trend."
 
2012-10-16 05:33:51 AM  

GeneralJim: Jon Snow: Back in reality, the GISTEMP data and satellite data show essentially the same thing. They're in even better agreement when the influence of ENSO and volcanism (which affect the surface temps and lower troposphere temps differently) are removed.

Back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.
I see... So, are you claiming the satellite data from the 1930s are the same as GISTEMP?



I think you've gotten confused here as there is, of course, no such thing as "satellite data from the 1930s", and GISTEMP covers the 1930s.

The idea that Jon Snow is trying to get across is that there is a great deal of corroboration between the GISTEMP record (which you claim is falsified) and the UAH satellite data which you use yourself (and presumably don't believe is falsified) - thereby undermining the idea that the GISTEMP record is falsified.
 
2012-10-16 05:38:19 AM  

GeneralJim: Jon Snow: Because back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.
Scientific as always, I see, oh denier of science.


Who do you think is more deserving of the mantle 'denier' considering that right here you're denying and ignoring the problem that Jon Snow is pointing out. You can't handle even that in an honest fashion, never mind the science.
 
2012-10-16 08:50:43 AM  

GeneralJim: chuckufarlie: Even the man in charge of the CRU went on the record stating that the warming stopped at least ten years ago. I suppose that you [Snowjob] think that you are smarter than him? You're not.
You refer to Phil Jones. Also interesting is Phil Jones' claim that every climatologist he knows understands that the medieval warm period was real, and quite possibly warmer than today. Since he worked closely with Michael Mann, he is saying that Mann engaged knowingly in fraud.


It is easier to call him a confirmed liar because that is what he is.
 
2012-10-16 08:53:25 AM  

GeneralJim: chuckufarlie: Why is it that you refuse to believe what is in the article? You continue to push your agenda even when the facts show that you are wrong. That is hardly intelligent.
Of all the people I've seen post in climate threads, Snowjob is the single most likely to be a shill.


He is one of three, although I suspect that all three are one person. He has a political agenda to push, but all warmers do. He does a good job of following the orders sent down from the politicos pushing this crap.
 
2012-10-16 09:42:21 AM  

GeneralJim: And, it's funny how CERN's CLOUD experiment backed him up on the most controversial of his propositions...
NATURE ARTICLE.


This is, unsurprisingly, orthogonal to reality, as I've pointed out to GeneralJim many times. What the CLOUD results have found so far say nothing about Svensmark's ludicrous claims, but rather have mostly offered tentative support for the consensus on GCR-CCN interactions. This is something I've pointed out to GeneralJim repeatedly:

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71706779#c71706779

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71729384#c71729384

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71731247#c71731247

Back in reality, the CERN experimental results so far have done nothing to demonstrate that GCRs can actually influence real world cloud formation, or more importantly that such an influence could be climatically significant. All the CERN results have done so far is demonstrate that sulfuric acid aerosol nucleation rates increase in the presence of ammonia and ionization (and orders of magnitude less so for the latter than the former), but that even under controlled conditions neither are capable of actually reproducing observed nucleation rates, and that the effect of increased ionization was negligible in temperature conditions relevant to climatically significant cloud formation (i.e. the boundary layer).

That GCRs can hypothetically influence cloud nucleation is not something denied by the climate science community generally or the IPCC specifically. That there is any evidence either in the paleoclimatic or observational records or in the CERN results that demonstrates a large GCR effect on clouds, let alone global climate, is simply false.

In other words- back in reality, GeneralJim is still wrong about everything.
 
2012-10-16 09:54:10 AM  

Jon Snow: GeneralJim: And, it's funny how CERN's CLOUD experiment backed him up on the most controversial of his propositions...
NATURE ARTICLE.

This is, unsurprisingly, orthogonal to reality, as I've pointed out to GeneralJim many times. What the CLOUD results have found so far say nothing about Svensmark's ludicrous claims, but rather have mostly offered tentative support for the consensus on GCR-CCN interactions. This is something I've pointed out to GeneralJim repeatedly:

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71706779#c71706779

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71729384#c71729384

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71731247#c71731247

Back in reality, the CERN experimental results so far have done nothing to demonstrate that GCRs can actually influence real world cloud formation, or more importantly that such an influence could be climatically significant. All the CERN results have done so far is demonstrate that sulfuric acid aerosol nucleation rates increase in the presence of ammonia and ionization (and orders of magnitude less so for the latter than the former), but that even under controlled conditions neither are capable of actually reproducing observed nucleation rates, and that the effect of increased ionization was negligible in temperature conditions relevant to climatically significant cloud formation (i.e. the boundary layer).

That GCRs can hypothetically influence cloud nucleation is not something denied by the climate science community generally or the IPCC specifically. That there is any evidence either in the paleoclimatic or observational records or in the CERN results that demonstrates a large GCR effect on clouds, let alone global climate, is simply false.

In other words- back in reality, GeneralJim is still wrong about everything.


Considering your record, that would be too much of a coincidence. Although I have to admit that you are probably too stupid to realize that you are consistently wrong.
 
2012-10-16 11:09:50 AM  

chuckufarlie: Jon Snow: GeneralJim: And, it's funny how CERN's CLOUD experiment backed him up on the most controversial of his propositions...
NATURE ARTICLE.

This is, unsurprisingly, orthogonal to reality, as I've pointed out to GeneralJim many times. What the CLOUD results have found so far say nothing about Svensmark's ludicrous claims, but rather have mostly offered tentative support for the consensus on GCR-CCN interactions. This is something I've pointed out to GeneralJim repeatedly:

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71706779#c71706779

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71729384#c71729384

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71731247#c71731247

Back in reality, the CERN experimental results so far have done nothing to demonstrate that GCRs can actually influence real world cloud formation, or more importantly that such an influence could be climatically significant. All the CERN results have done so far is demonstrate that sulfuric acid aerosol nucleation rates increase in the presence of ammonia and ionization (and orders of magnitude less so for the latter than the former), but that even under controlled conditions neither are capable of actually reproducing observed nucleation rates, and that the effect of increased ionization was negligible in temperature conditions relevant to climatically significant cloud formation (i.e. the boundary layer).

That GCRs can hypothetically influence cloud nucleation is not something denied by the climate science community generally or the IPCC specifically. That there is any evidence either in the paleoclimatic or observational records or in the CERN results that demonstrates a large GCR effect on clouds, let alone global climate, is simply false.

In other words- back in reality, GeneralJim is still wrong about everything.

Considering your record, that would be too much of a coincidence. Although I have to admit that you are probably too stupid to realize that you are consistently wrong.



nicksteel: See, all you people do is attack the person. Not one of you has had the intelligence or the ability to take a position against what I posted.
 
2012-10-16 11:22:49 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: chuckufarlie: Jon Snow: GeneralJim: And, it's funny how CERN's CLOUD experiment backed him up on the most controversial of his propositions...
NATURE ARTICLE.

This is, unsurprisingly, orthogonal to reality, as I've pointed out to GeneralJim many times. What the CLOUD results have found so far say nothing about Svensmark's ludicrous claims, but rather have mostly offered tentative support for the consensus on GCR-CCN interactions. This is something I've pointed out to GeneralJim repeatedly:

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71706779#c71706779

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71729384#c71729384

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71731247#c71731247

Back in reality, the CERN experimental results so far have done nothing to demonstrate that GCRs can actually influence real world cloud formation, or more importantly that such an influence could be climatically significant. All the CERN results have done so far is demonstrate that sulfuric acid aerosol nucleation rates increase in the presence of ammonia and ionization (and orders of magnitude less so for the latter than the former), but that even under controlled conditions neither are capable of actually reproducing observed nucleation rates, and that the effect of increased ionization was negligible in temperature conditions relevant to climatically significant cloud formation (i.e. the boundary layer).

That GCRs can hypothetically influence cloud nucleation is not something denied by the climate science community generally or the IPCC specifically. That there is any evidence either in the paleoclimatic or observational records or in the CERN results that demonstrates a large GCR effect on clouds, let alone global climate, is simply false.

In other words- back in reality, GeneralJim is still wrong about everything.

Considering your record, that would be too much of a coincidence. Although I have to admit that you are probably too stupid to realize that you are consistently wrong.


nicksteel: See, all ...


he posted that General Jim is always wrong and I responded to his attack.

It is moronic posts like this that put you on my ignore list. Every one in a while I check in to see if you are still dumb as a rock. You are.
 
2012-10-16 12:11:17 PM  

chuckufarlie: he posted that General Jim is always wrong and I responded to his attack.

It is moronic posts like this that put you on my ignore list. Every one in a while I check in to see if you are still dumb as a rock. You are.



nicksteel: Is the information wrong???? I love the way that you tree huggers attack the source of the data, but not the data itself. It shows a level of intelligence and maturity that is amazing.
 
2012-10-16 12:23:34 PM  

Repo Man: dready zim: At it`s core, science makes testable predictions.

Are You Sure You Need An Apostrophe?


Its the easiest troll...

/Im very sure I didnt
 
2012-10-16 01:29:20 PM  

Jon Snow: Here are GISTEMP data in blue, which GeneralJim routinely claims are ZOMGBBQWTFHaxorz to fraudulently show warming, vs. UAH satellite data that GeneralJim routinely cites as being completely a-okay in magenta. They have been plotted using a common baseline and a 12 month average:



Back in reality, the GISTEMP data and satellite data show essentially the same thing. They're in even better agreement when the influence of ENSO and volcanism (which affect the surface temps and lower troposphere temps differently) are removed.


Either there is a change in slope in the middle of that or there isn't.
If you have a good study that expertly hindcasts that change in slope, I'd be fascinated to read it.
Followup: was that change in slope predicted before it happened by existing GCM? If not, why not?
 
2012-10-16 02:11:19 PM  

SVenus: Jon Snow: Here are GISTEMP data in blue, which GeneralJim routinely claims are ZOMGBBQWTFHaxorz to fraudulently show warming, vs. UAH satellite data that GeneralJim routinely cites as being completely a-okay in magenta. They have been plotted using a common baseline and a 12 month average:



Back in reality, the GISTEMP data and satellite data show essentially the same thing. They're in even better agreement when the influence of ENSO and volcanism (which affect the surface temps and lower troposphere temps differently) are removed.

Either there is a change in slope in the middle of that or there isn't.
If you have a good study that expertly hindcasts that change in slope, I'd be fascinated to read it.
Followup: was that change in slope predicted before it happened by existing GCM? If not, why not?


Broken-stick models aren't necessarily all they're cracked up to be.

/I crack me up...
 
2012-10-16 03:06:58 PM  

SVenus: Either there is a change in slope in the middle of that or there isn't.


There isn't, once you remove variability associated with ENSO, solar, volcanism, etc.[1]:

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

[1] Foster, G., and S. Rahmstorf (2011), Global temperature evolution 1979-2010, Environmental Research Letters, 6(4), 044022, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.
 
2012-10-16 03:52:23 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: Funny you should mention that, indeed, because you've mentioned the cosmic-ray connection over and over, no matter how many times you've been shown that Svensmark is wrong.

Well, YOU have been shown, over and over, that the AGW hypothesis has been falsified. How's THAT working for you?



I have? Really? By you, O mighty savant? That's quite a boast coming from someone who can't even defend one of his primary sources. I'll repeat my challenge to you:

common sense is an oxymoron: Funny you should mention that, indeed, because you've mentioned the cosmic-ray connection over and over, no matter how many times you've been shown that Svensmark is wrong. Here's why:

Henrik Svensmark has proposed that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) could exert significant influence over global temperatures (Svensmark 1998). The theory goes that the solar magnetic field deflects GCRs, which are capable of seeding cloud formation on Earth. So if the solar magnetic field were to increase, fewer GCRs would reach Earth, seeding fewer low-level clouds, which are strongly reflective. Thus an increased solar magnetic field can indirectly decrease the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), causing the planet to warm. Therefore, in order for this theory to be plausible, all four of the following requirements must be true.

Solar magnetic field must have a long-term positive trend.
Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend.
Cosmic rays must successfully seed low-level clouds.
Low-level cloud cover must have a long-term negative trend.

Fortunately we have empirical observations against which we can test these requirements.

Links to Svensmark's original article and the articles discrediting Svensmark's hypothesis, as well as some graphs that haven't been reposted here yet, are included (so don't blame Skeptical Science for the content; blame Lockwood, Viera and Solanki, Krivova...). And if you disagree with the above summary of Svensmark's hypothesis and its requirements, please explain.


Your move.

But wait, there's more.


And, it's funny how CERN's CLOUD experiment backed him up on the most controversial of his propositions...
NATURE ARTICLE.


Reading comprehension FAIL. The correlation between cosmic rays and condensation nuclei remains unproven:

Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate


It's also funny how the Director of CERN directed scientists to avoid discussing what the results of the CLOUD experiment might mean.
ARTICLE HERE.


Given the inconclusive nature of the experiment's results, this seems like a perfectly reasonable request:

"I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them."

Problem?
 
2012-10-16 06:28:02 PM  

Jon Snow: [1] Foster, G., and S. Rahmstorf (2011), Global temperature evolution 1979-2010, Environmental Research Letters, 6(4), 044022, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.


Noted.
So, the "pause" isn't one, it's just the ENSO manipulating the global heat.
I'd be if any scientific model could successfully predict the ENSO some years in the future, that'd really be something.
 
2012-10-16 06:52:23 PM  

SVenus: Jon Snow: [1] Foster, G., and S. Rahmstorf (2011), Global temperature evolution 1979-2010, Environmental Research Letters, 6(4), 044022, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.

Noted.
So, the "pause" isn't one, it's just the ENSO manipulating the global heat.
I'd be if any scientific model could successfully predict the ENSO some years in the future, that'd really be something.


DO NOT FEED THE TROLL, He has no knowledge on this subject. He only repeats what he has been told and he is wrong a lot more often than he gets it right.
 
2012-10-16 07:04:54 PM  

chuckufarlie: SVenus: Jon Snow: [1] Foster, G., and S. Rahmstorf (2011), Global temperature evolution 1979-2010, Environmental Research Letters, 6(4), 044022, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.

Noted.
So, the "pause" isn't one, it's just the ENSO manipulating the global heat.
I'd be if any scientific model could successfully predict the ENSO some years in the future, that'd really be something.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL, He has no knowledge on this subject. He only repeats what he has been told and he is wrong a lot more often than he gets it right.



nicksteel: When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.
 
2012-10-16 07:22:39 PM  

chuckufarlie: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL, He has no knowledge on this subject. He only repeats what he has been told and he is wrong a lot more often than he gets it right.


I read enough to know the talking points. I understand some of the warmist's logic. That given a steady state Earth, carbon dioxide is the main driver, and that ENSO is the main hider of heat. I have a hard time buying any other method for explaining why there's such the "Time Lag" that very few want to talk about with the link between CO2 and earth's temp. Is it ten years, is it 50, or 200? Have the oceans hidden the heat trapped from the carbon dioxide from Napoleon's camp fires and we're just now seeing it? If not, what truly IS the heat cycle of the ocean, if it's truly hiding all that heat in the mddle depths? It probably isn't. But it could be.

I'm not convinced the ENSO is known to the extent, with respect to volumetrics and temperature exchange so as to be predictable.

So, air temps are pretty much useless when discussing the latent heat of the ocean.
But I am interested if someone can predict the future heat flow of the ocean.
Hindcasting it is a great parlour trick. Works 100% of the time.
Predicting future ocean heat... Well, that's the wild card.
 
2012-10-16 08:03:53 PM  

SVenus: So, the "pause" isn't one, it's just the ENSO manipulating the global heat.


I think a more accurate way to frame it is that natural variability without a trend itself can create the illusion of a trend or changes to existing trends if you think going by eye is a sufficient method of analyzing the data.

ENSO certainly plays a role in redistributing heat, but if you look at the OHC data I posted, the actual accumulation isn't terribly disrupted.

SVenus: I'd be if any scientific model could successfully predict the ENSO some years in the future, that'd really be something.


ENSO is not an externally-forced phenomenon (i.e. it's an initial value problem, not a boundary value problem). That's akin to wishing for accurate weather forecasting years into the future- over a relatively short distance out, forecasting skill becomes no better than background climatology. In a sense it's kind of the inverse of climate change, i.e. making accurate projections of the forced component of climate over time, which is a boundary value problem.
 
2012-10-16 08:36:42 PM  

chuckufarlie: GeneralJim: Of all the people I've seen post in climate threads, Snowjob is the single most likely to be a shill.

He is one of three, although I suspect that all three are one person. He has a political agenda to push, but all warmers do. He does a good job of following the orders sent down from the politicos pushing this crap.


More than one person posting accurate information on AGW and exposing the deniers' perversion of science for political gain? Inconceivable!
 
2012-10-16 08:51:22 PM  

SVenus: I read enough to know the talking points.


Apparently not.

SVenus:That given a steady state Earth, carbon dioxide is the main driver, and that ENSO is the main hider of heat. I have a hard time buying any other method for explaining why there's such the "Time Lag" that very few want to talk about with the link between CO2 and earth's temp.

The time lag, as climate science uses the term, has nothing to do with ENSO. It has to do with the thermal capacity of the ocean.

People are talking about ENSO in the context of the surface temperature because the variability of ENSO can obscure the underlying forced trend.

There is a separate issue of why models predict decade-long pauses in warming even in the presence of an unchanging forced trend. This relates to transporting heat from the upper to the deeper ocean.layers. The ocean behavior in the models during such events resembles La Niña somewhat, but it's not an ENSO-driven process per se. 

You appear to be conflating three separate issues.
 
2012-10-16 09:26:03 PM  

SVenus: chuckufarlie: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL, He has no knowledge on this subject. He only repeats what he has been told and he is wrong a lot more often than he gets it right.

I read enough to know the talking points. I understand some of the warmist's logic. That given a steady state Earth, carbon dioxide is the main driver, and that ENSO is the main hider of heat. I have a hard time buying any other method for explaining why there's such the "Time Lag" that very few want to talk about with the link between CO2 and earth's temp. Is it ten years, is it 50, or 200? Have the oceans hidden the heat trapped from the carbon dioxide from Napoleon's camp fires and we're just now seeing it? If not, what truly IS the heat cycle of the ocean, if it's truly hiding all that heat in the mddle depths? It probably isn't. But it could be.

I'm not convinced the ENSO is known to the extent, with respect to volumetrics and temperature exchange so as to be predictable.

So, air temps are pretty much useless when discussing the latent heat of the ocean.
But I am interested if someone can predict the future heat flow of the ocean.
Hindcasting it is a great parlour trick. Works 100% of the time.
Predicting future ocean heat... Well, that's the wild card.


JonSnoJob, in his various forms, can be entertaining in a retarded monkey sort of way. I have yet to figure out where the BS ends and the stupidity takes over. He can be extremely dense at times and he is always less than honest. On one day he will pretend to know nothing of a post and a statement that he made the day before. It is this lack of honesty and integrity that gives him away. If he was really interested in getting the truth out there, he would deal with people in an honest manner. He is not capable of that.

Enjoy the conversation with him but do not get your fingers to close to the cage,
 
2012-10-16 11:46:16 PM  

chuckufarlie: SVenus: chuckufarlie: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL, He has no knowledge on this subject. He only repeats what he has been told and he is wrong a lot more often than he gets it right.

I read enough to know the talking points. I understand some of the warmist's logic. That given a steady state Earth, carbon dioxide is the main driver, and that ENSO is the main hider of heat. I have a hard time buying any other method for explaining why there's such the "Time Lag" that very few want to talk about with the link between CO2 and earth's temp. Is it ten years, is it 50, or 200? Have the oceans hidden the heat trapped from the carbon dioxide from Napoleon's camp fires and we're just now seeing it? If not, what truly IS the heat cycle of the ocean, if it's truly hiding all that heat in the mddle depths? It probably isn't. But it could be.

I'm not convinced the ENSO is known to the extent, with respect to volumetrics and temperature exchange so as to be predictable.

So, air temps are pretty much useless when discussing the latent heat of the ocean.
But I am interested if someone can predict the future heat flow of the ocean.
Hindcasting it is a great parlour trick. Works 100% of the time.
Predicting future ocean heat... Well, that's the wild card.

JonSnoJob, in his various forms, can be entertaining in a retarded monkey sort of way. I have yet to figure out where the BS ends and the stupidity takes over. He can be extremely dense at times and he is always less than honest. On one day he will pretend to know nothing of a post and a statement that he made the day before. It is this lack of honesty and integrity that gives him away. If he was really interested in getting the truth out there, he would deal with people in an honest manner. He is not capable of that.

Enjoy the conversation with him but do not get your fingers to close to the cage,



nicksteel: WOW!! You missed the point completely and turned it into an attack on people who disagree with you. If you would actually think about these posts instead of your knee jerk reactions, you might learn something. Oh hell, who I am kidding.
 
2012-10-17 12:43:14 AM  
Damnhippyfreak

Thanks for bringing back nicksteel vs. nicksteel. It always makes me laugh. Oh, and I like how the self-outed alt still accuses people of posting as several people. Even after the thread where 4 of the people so accused all posted pics of their license plates with the numbers blocked out.
 
2012-10-17 09:57:45 AM  

Jon Snow: You appear to be conflating three separate issues.


I look forward to reading AR5
 
2012-10-17 09:58:21 AM  

Zafler: Damnhippyfreak

Thanks for bringing back nicksteel vs. nicksteel. It always makes me laugh. Oh, and I like how the self-outed alt still accuses people of posting as several people. Even after the thread where 4 of the people so accused all posted pics of their license plates with the numbers blocked out.


I have never been impressed by your intelligence. In fact, I have always believed you to be very stupid. Anybody can post anything about themselves on the web. They can post all sorts of photos of drivers licenses (you can find lots by googling the image) and pass them off as their own. It would take a real idiot to believe anything like that. It would take a much larger idiot to try to convince anybody that it was real.

The fact that you have been told this before and that you still try to convince me tells me that you are incredibly stupid. Possibly stupider than the hippyfreak. That would be amazingly stupid.
 
2012-10-17 10:07:45 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: chuckufarlie: SVenus: chuckufarlie: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL, He has no knowledge on this subject. He only repeats what he has been told and he is wrong a lot more often than he gets it right.

I read enough to know the talking points. I understand some of the warmist's logic. That given a steady state Earth, carbon dioxide is the main driver, and that ENSO is the main hider of heat. I have a hard time buying any other method for explaining why there's such the "Time Lag" that very few want to talk about with the link between CO2 and earth's temp. Is it ten years, is it 50, or 200? Have the oceans hidden the heat trapped from the carbon dioxide from Napoleon's camp fires and we're just now seeing it? If not, what truly IS the heat cycle of the ocean, if it's truly hiding all that heat in the mddle depths? It probably isn't. But it could be.

I'm not convinced the ENSO is known to the extent, with respect to volumetrics and temperature exchange so as to be predictable.

So, air temps are pretty much useless when discussing the latent heat of the ocean.
But I am interested if someone can predict the future heat flow of the ocean.
Hindcasting it is a great parlour trick. Works 100% of the time.
Predicting future ocean heat... Well, that's the wild card.

JonSnoJob, in his various forms, can be entertaining in a retarded monkey sort of way. I have yet to figure out where the BS ends and the stupidity takes over. He can be extremely dense at times and he is always less than honest. On one day he will pretend to know nothing of a post and a statement that he made the day before. It is this lack of honesty and integrity that gives him away. If he was really interested in getting the truth out there, he would deal with people in an honest manner. He is not capable of that.

Enjoy the conversation with him but do not get your fingers to close to the cage,


nicksteel: WOW!! You missed the point completely and turned it into an attack on people who disagree with you ...


once again you have applied a statement that has no bearing on the posts involved. What was the point that I missed completely? This was a post that discussed the intelligence (or lack of it) on one JonSnoJob. My response was to that point. I did not turn it into an attack, it already was one.

Maybe you should find somebody with a bit more intelligence than you (not a difficult task) to help you understand when to use these posts you have saved. They might help you to stop looking like such a moron.
 
2012-10-17 10:12:57 AM  

SVenus: I look forward to reading AR5


Why?

I'm curious as to what benefit you think it will give you that starting with something more fundamental would not. Your problems are almost entirely due to misunderstanding basics rather than questions at the leading edges of the topic.

It's nice to see you engaging more than just posting drive by talking points cribbed straight from denialist blogs and then running away, BTW.

I mean that sincerely- it shows that you're willing to learn instead of just parroting nonsense, which is admirable. I hope you continue to do so.
 
2012-10-17 10:25:27 AM  

Jon Snow: SVenus: I look forward to reading AR5

Why?

I'm curious as to what benefit you think it will give you that starting with something more fundamental would not. Your problems are almost entirely due to misunderstanding basics rather than questions at the leading edges of the topic.

It's nice to see you engaging more than just posting drive by talking points cribbed straight from denialist blogs and then running away, BTW.

I mean that sincerely- it shows that you're willing to learn instead of just parroting nonsense, which is admirable. I hope you continue to do so.


This coming from the one who does nothing but parrot nonsense. Toss up a few more pointless graphs from your warmer websites.

If you know anything at all about science, you would not refer to people disagree with you "deniers". Science is about debate. Science is about challenging opinions. Science would not advance if people just accepted an idea as fact. Science encourages people to challenge the norm. It embraces people who disagree.

Either you are a complete idiot with no understanding of the weakness of your debating points or you are a shill for the people pushing this agenda. Maybe you are a shill and an idiot.
 
2012-10-17 01:41:22 PM  

chuckufarlie: once again you have applied a statement that has no bearing on the posts involved. What was the point that I missed completely? This was a post that discussed the intelligence (or lack of it) on one JonSnoJob. My response was to that point. I did not turn it into an attack, it already was one.

Maybe you should find somebody with a bit more intelligence than you (not a difficult task) to help you understand when to use these posts you have saved. They might help you to stop looking like such a moron.



nicksteel: You made an extremely stupid comment so I responded with a question that was at the same level.
 
2012-10-17 01:43:52 PM  

chuckufarlie: Jon Snow: SVenus: I look forward to reading AR5

Why?

I'm curious as to what benefit you think it will give you that starting with something more fundamental would not. Your problems are almost entirely due to misunderstanding basics rather than questions at the leading edges of the topic.

It's nice to see you engaging more than just posting drive by talking points cribbed straight from denialist blogs and then running away, BTW.

I mean that sincerely- it shows that you're willing to learn instead of just parroting nonsense, which is admirable. I hope you continue to do so.

This coming from the one who does nothing but parrot nonsense. Toss up a few more pointless graphs from your warmer websites.

If you know anything at all about science, you would not refer to people disagree with you "deniers". Science is about debate. Science is about challenging opinions. Science would not advance if people just accepted an idea as fact. Science encourages people to challenge the norm. It embraces people who disagree.

Either you are a complete idiot with no understanding of the weakness of your debating points or you are a shill for the people pushing this agenda. Maybe you are a shill and an idiot.



nicksteel: You and your buddies have never once addressed the actual science of anything that I have posted. All you do is attack the person who made the statement. That tells me a lot about what I have posted, it tells me that it is true and you have no "facts" to dispute it.
 
2012-10-17 02:04:26 PM  

Jon Snow: It's nice to see you engaging more than just posting drive by talking points cribbed straight from denialist blogs and then running away, BTW.

I mean that sincerely-


You know what side I fall on. But my opinion doesn't matter one iota. When I ask you questions, I am sincere. It will never mean I will agree or disagree. I try to keep informed on both sides.

I work in a business where you would think science would hold sway. However, strong opinions often trumps strong science many times over. I draw parallels.

I'm of the opinion that the AR5 will have scaled back "conclusions", and the call will go out to change how this information is presented to governments. But, that's my opinion, based on reading sites that are on both sides of this.

The only really strong opinion I have on the matter, after following the arguments for some years now is that mitigation of CO2 is a joke, if not an outright costly fraud. I don't think there's a computer on Earth that could model how global politics play into the Global Climate Models.
 
2012-10-17 11:50:45 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:
Do you understand now? The reason why your selecting of very short or very long scales in an attempt to disprove anthropogenic climate change is misleading is the same reason why it would be misleading to try to use a "16 (or 32) year time frame [...] to detect a 60-year trend."

The failure to understand is on your side. YOU are the one insisting that the effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide can only be seen if we start looking once they are there. As in having nothing with which to compare. I AM amused, however, that, according to you, the only way to avoid cherry-picking is to use the single time frame in which it looks like carbon dioxide just might be controlling temperature. You might want to look up the definition of "cherry-picking."

So, how effective is looking at about 150 years at detecting 400 or 1600 year temperature cycles? You know, like the warm-up after the little ice age, which appears to be ending now?
 
Displayed 214 of 214 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report