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.

(Slate)   Last month was warmer than average. This is a repeat of the last 331 months   (slate.com) divider line 420
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

4357 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Nov 2012 at 4:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-18 11:24:38 AM

Brubold: Bontesla: Brubold: Joce678: Brubold: It was revealed in the climate-gate emails that ...

You haven't been keeping up with the climate-gate thing, have you?

There's been some follow-ups since the initial, out-of-context Fox news headlines.

This has nothing to do with a headline from anywhere. There was an email quoted from the lead scientist there that said they had no answer for the stagnation in temperature.

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

/sorry, responding via phone

Okay, I read up on the email I quoted. I'd have to see the full context to know which way to go on it but it fits the data at the time which shows that it had stopped warming significantly at that point.

It also doesn't explain away the fact that some of the scientists that have been around since the start of this are now questioning the climate models and are saying the same thing about the lack of significant warming.


We don't see that global warming has stopped. We've seen this pattern before within a trend of global warming.

http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#disagreement

I hope that link works for you. It's a wall of text but you can jump to relevant sections.

/sorry again about the crappy links
 
2012-11-18 11:25:53 AM

wippit:
The actual reported facts are that temps dropped during the day by 2 degrees, but temps were higher by 2 degrees at night. So the actual average temp did not change. Just the extremes for that time period. (Which I've already posted once already).

Still an effect.


Sure, but where was this measured? The original claim was that this was a global effect.

(Am I not typing the word "global" in every post...?)
 
2012-11-18 11:31:21 AM

Joce678:
Sure, but where was this measured? The original claim was that this was a global effect.

(Am I not typing the word "global" in every post...?)


According to the wiki on the subject, the report was only based on readings in the continental US from 4000 different reporting stations. I would think it wouldn't be hard to get the historical readings from some other location for those three days, but I don't see anyone doing it.
 
2012-11-18 11:32:36 AM
www.globalwarming.org 

www.globalwarming.org 

www.globalwarming.org
 
2012-11-18 11:35:20 AM

chuckufarlie: [www.globalwarming.org image 503x318] 

[www.globalwarming.org image 300x204] 

[www.globalwarming.org image 300x174]


You do realize there a whole rest of the planet which may not have the same local trends, but add up in total to a global trend, right?
 
2012-11-18 11:35:22 AM

s2s2s2: Global Highlights
The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2012 tied with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record, at 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F). Records began in 1880.

The globally-averaged land surface temperature for October 2012 was the eighth warmest October on record, at 0.92°C (1.66°F) above average. The globally-averaged ocean surface temperature tied with 2004 as the fourth warmest October on record, at 0.52°C (0.94°F) above average.

The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January-October 2012 was the eighth warmest such period on record, at 0.58°C (1.04°F) above the 20th century average.


These would seem like too much to write off as random noise if you think it is white noise, in other words that the anomaly for each month is completely uncorrelated with any other month.

But, luckily, we are not so stupid as to make that assumption. We know that many if not most climate variables preserve their values over time and only change slowly in response to other variables, invalidating the assumption of no auto-correlation. We know about chaos theory and how it predicts mathematically that complex coupled feedback systems tend to produce so-called pink noise, which is self correlated. And we have looked at actual graphs of past temperatures over time and seen that it looks like pink noise.

So, because we are not stupid, we can easily see that the 1978-1998 rise and the following plateau was nothing out of the ordinary, and does not require an anthropogenic explanation.
 
2012-11-18 11:35:36 AM
found this on another site - it seems appropriateThe green happy clappers do not think 'critically'. This is very like a religion. They take the doctrine eat it up and swallow it all. It makes them feel a little righteous, sanctimonious even, whilst also wicked, guilty and sinful all at the same time (sexual repression I'll bet).

They beg for crushing CO2 taxation and spitefully want it brought about to punish all - make all kneel, pay homage and sacrifice at the alter of St.AlGore.

It is earth worship in the most negative way - they think people are the problem and believe population reduction the solution. It is fundamentalist anti-humanity-ism. It is a death cult.

They are so often the same bunch who once would have said a great big NO to nuclear power but now shrug and say well it is better than 'global warming'. At least Fukushima Daiichi has stuffed the truth of that notion in their face - if they care to pay attention to the under-the-carpet facts.

Yet the money and opportunity is stolen away from the oil-bearing nations. They are ruined instead, by favoured despots or war, precluded from being free to capitalise on their period of wealth; for fear they could become today and tomorrow's masters.

Instead; the opportunity is handed to India and China, amongst others too, to be lifted to economic parity - a parity that includes draining the wealth out of the western nations - us lot. All with help from the sleight of hand of the carbon credits sham.

This is an interesting aspect of 'green happy clapper' syndrome. They feel like they are the modern thinkers and the people who deride their 'pre-packaged hip save-the-world life-style-choice - ready-to-wear on the sleeve - pulp' are just dumb old fashioned stick-in-muds. Antiquated 'flat-earthers'- give me a break!.

But what the 'green happy clappers' do not get is they have been sold one giant pup. They love it so much, it is so much a part of what they are, it is their 'big-eyed life-style brand-of-choice' that they fail to open their minds to the fact that they have been duped. They are the product of mass media indoctrination, subliminal brainwashing, propaganda - call it what you like.

Instead, like the green evangelists they are, they want to convert all, they want to live their life in the green way, they want to make sacrifices. They are lost in a false paradigm and any hint they have been fooled makes them just hunker down deeper into denial.

Why is 'thinking for yourself' antiquated? Because part of the 'ready-made' conclusion they have absorbed is this CO2 idea is fresh, young, feisty, its edgy to be green. Suckers!

By the time people awake, to really see what is happening and why, we risk being too weak and too controlled, by authoritarianism and propaganda, to save our nations and our hides.
 
2012-11-18 11:36:57 AM
If I have a cup and fill it full of water and wait for half an hour then the cup is the fullest it has ever been and has been that full for half an hour. It is not getting fuller though. It would be dishonest of me to try to convince people that the cup is getting fuller if it is just staying full.

Just because the temperature is the highest it has been for nearly a thousand years is not evidence of the temperature continuing to rise. It is proof that the temperature is high. Temperatures have not risen for about 16 years. This is not long enough to deduce a trend from the data.

Just out of interest, what would the date be where the lack of rise would become significant on a global scale as far as climate is concerned so we could say there is not an upward trend? Lets have some date to either say the trend is still going up or has stopped.

How about the amount of time between when the temperature stopped dropping and the first report claiming evidence of global warming? seems fair to me.

Temperatures dropped from 1945-1975 nobody could argue this was not long enough to draw a trend from.

In June 1988, James E. Hansen made one of the first assessments that human-caused warming had already measurably affected global climate.

That looks like 1975 to 1988 to me, 13 years.

Nope, that can`t be right. We are told that there has to be a period of at least 20 years to be able to deduce a trend, that would be 1995, just before the temperature stopped rising. I can see why there was such a rush. Imagine declaring unstoppable rising temperatures just before they stopped rising...

Awkward.
 
2012-11-18 11:39:02 AM

chuckufarlie: found this on another site - it seems appropriate...


I'll give that a 0.

Completely lacking in any kind of subtlety/realism, unlikely to hook a single fish.
 
2012-11-18 11:39:27 AM

Bontesla: Hunter_Worthington: You know, the largest part of the problem with Global warming is that it gets used as an excuse for every failed policy to come out of the Democrat party for the last ~80 years. From industrial policy, to regulation, to what-have-you, Global warming is the excuse that poor economics, the Japanese, Chinese, Germans, and various other bogeymen have failed to provide.

the problem is that, unlike above, there is an actual threat from global warming. Unfortunately, by making a partisan issue out of it, the Democrats just make everyone else dig in their heels. What if, instead of wasting money on high speed rail lines no one is going to ride, or solar panels and wind energy, we simply raised gasoline taxes to internalize the negative externality and spend the money on Federal, State, and Local roads? Or, if we implemented a cap and trade system in addition to higher taxes, we spent the money on flood control projects (like wetlands restoration) or addressing these problems. You could actually address several problems at once, but the Democrats won't do it because it's not "Green" enough -even though it actually helps address several problems at once.

Right. By acknowledging that climate change exists, that humans are contributing, and that we need to develop solutions... We're politicizing the issues. Certainly not the party that insists there's no such thing and that focusing on forms of green energy is a bad business strategy.


cyberbrethren.com

But thanks for playing.
 
2012-11-18 11:45:09 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: THE GREAT NAME: Remember chaos theory? Suddenly noone wants to talk about it any more. I wonder why. Chaos theory shows how natural systems produce unpredictable behaviour.

Perhaps because it's ... unpredictable?


You mean that we could not reliably draw a graph of a simple recursive formula?

We can predict everything if we just have enough processing power. The climate models are proof.
 
2012-11-18 11:50:18 AM

dready zim: It is proof that the temperature is high.


High compared to what?
Any other temperatures measured at any time in history or reflected in the geological record?
It's all relative. We're in an interglacial warming period. It's actually quite cooler than it's been for massive stretches of time in the past.
 
2012-11-18 11:53:57 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: dready zim: It is proof that the temperature is high.

High compared to what?
Any other temperatures measured at any time in history or reflected in the geological record?
It's all relative. We're in an interglacial warming period. It's actually quite cooler than it's been for massive stretches of time in the past.


...and with a single post the thread goes right back down the big snake to square one.
 
2012-11-18 11:55:22 AM
When I hear that scientists are comparing data going back 2000 years I think wow, then I remember that the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old so 2000 years doesnt seem so statisticaly important. But say the worst alarmists are correct, global warming is real, Glacial melting is happening and the oceans are rising. Isnt that a good thing? The east and west coast of all the continents will be flooded creating new beaches and eliminating most of the large and populace areas on all the continents hence also getting rid of most of the largest polluters and creators of green house gases. So its a problem that fixes itself. Right? To me this seems like a story with a happy ending.
 
2012-11-18 11:59:03 AM

litrick35: So its a problem that fixes itself. Right? To me this seems like a story with a happy ending.


Only if you don't have long for this world and don't give a damn about the future.
 
2012-11-18 11:59:53 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: dready zim: It is proof that the temperature is high.

High compared to what?
Any other temperatures measured at any time in history or reflected in the geological record?
It's all relative. We're in an interglacial warming period. It's actually quite cooler than it's been for massive stretches of time in the past.


What is your point?
Does the reason it's warmer matter how it is warmer?
 
2012-11-18 12:02:02 PM
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the revving of my Canyonero as I wait in the drive-thru line at McAnuslips.
 
2012-11-18 12:04:42 PM

THE GREAT NAME: GAT_00: THE GREAT NAME: stuartp9: GAT_00: In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.

First you take on Tatsuma, now you take on all the climate change deniers.. I finally decided to start using the "Favourite" tag.

Actually, GAT_00 assumes monthly temperature anomalies should be independent. Which is obviously wrong.

That was done intentionally to make the math easier and the null hypothesis harder to reject. It wasn't intended to be right. If you'll note, I also ignore all actual temperature data too.

It's not a trivial assumption. It actually makes a big difference. Your results have no bearing at all on nature because in nature the samples are correlated. Whatever the temperature anomaly this month, next month is most likely to be close to that value. Look up pink noise, random walks, chaos theory etc.


The point was that even with the most bullshiat, optimistic Denier math I could make up, I still couldn't hold up the hypothesis that the planet was not warming.
 
2012-11-18 12:05:10 PM
You will have to work real hard to convince me that the loss of the east and west coasts of all the continents is a bad thing. Culturaly speaking the loss of California alone should would be a win.
 
2012-11-18 12:07:28 PM

dennysgod: We need to stop focusing on carbon dioxide and focus on the most abundant and most effective greenhouse gas, dihydrogen monoxide.


.
So called progressives in CA nearly outlawed that dangerous substance, its the most corrosive chemical on the planet, and its leaching into the ground. Protect the children was their rally cry.
 
2012-11-18 12:12:29 PM

doglover:

LIBERAL LIES! MOAR OIL!


LIBRELS LIE AND MY CHEVY DIES, FARTBBONGO IMPEACHMENT 2013
 
2012-11-18 12:12:48 PM

GAT_00: THE GREAT NAME: GAT_00: THE GREAT NAME: stuartp9: GAT_00: In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.

First you take on Tatsuma, now you take on all the climate change deniers.. I finally decided to start using the "Favourite" tag.

Actually, GAT_00 assumes monthly temperature anomalies should be independent. Which is obviously wrong.

That was done intentionally to make the math easier and the null hypothesis harder to reject. It wasn't intended to be right. If you'll note, I also ignore all actual temperature data too.

It's not a trivial assumption. It actually makes a big difference. Your results have no bearing at all on nature because in nature the samples are correlated. Whatever the temperature anomaly this month, next month is most likely to be close to that value. Look up pink noise, random walks, chaos theory etc.

The point was that even with the most bullshiat, optimistic Denier math I could make up, I still couldn't hold up the hypothesis that the planet was not warming.


Your point was so clear that even I understood it in my half-asleep state.
I can't believe he's genuinely confused. Methinks it's a ruse.
 
2012-11-18 12:18:06 PM

GAT_00: The last time there was a global month of below average temperatures was February 1985. Everyone born after that month has never experienced a month of below average global temperatures.

The odds of that happening, no matter how you define it, while assuming that there has been no increase from the 20th century temperature average, are so far beyond possible that absurd doesn't even begin to describe someone claiming it. There is no legitimate evidence that the planet is not warming. 332 months in a row of above average temperatures? It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.


Soooo a fluctuation of being over the average mean temperature over the entire 20th century means we should all start walking and quit using fossil fuels, right?

This isnt a chart showing we were warmer than '85, its a chart showing we may have been warmer than the rest of the century maybe by a single .000001% but it show "OMG WE ARE KILLING OURSELVES, ABANDON ALL HOPE!"

The masses are suckers and have given up common sense to believe the hype.
 
2012-11-18 12:19:23 PM
I see 3 possibilities in what's happening with the climate.

1. The "warmists" are correct and CO2 is really a major driving force. The fact that the temperature hasn't been climbing for the last 16 years indicates that natural forces that are beyond our understanding are equaling out that increase. If it wasn't for all that CO2 we've dumped into the air we would be at the precipice of a new ice age.

2. The "deniers" are correct and CO2 is only a minor player and natural forces are gonna do what they're gonna do regardless of how much CO2 we put in the air.

3. The truth is somewhere in the middle. We will continue improving technology that will allow us to wean ourselves off of fossil over the coming decades, learn more about the climate and how to avoid global climate catastrophes, and life will go on.
 
2012-11-18 12:21:26 PM

steamingpile: Soooo a fluctuation of being over the average mean temperature over the entire 20th century means we should all start walking and quit using fossil fuels, right?


Or, you could start walking to get in shape, and quit using fossil fuels because there'd be less pollution and we're going to run out eventually. I'd love to be on solar and have a windmill in my back yard, especially during power outages in the winter.
 
2012-11-18 12:24:30 PM

MarkEC:
The fact that the temperature hasn't been climbing for the last 16 years indicates


Um... 331 / 12 = 27.58
 
2012-11-18 12:30:04 PM

steamingpile: Soooo a fluctuation of being over the average mean temperature over the entire 20th century means we should all start walking and quit using fossil fuels, right?


Typical denier lie. Nobody is suggesting these extremes.

/if you have to lie to support your position isn't it time to question your position??
 
2012-11-18 12:35:35 PM
tenpoundsofcheese:
Someone better get China on board. Their CO2 emissions growth is out of control. Leaving them out of Kyoto was a big mistake completely intended action of the leftists who hijacked the issue of global warming.

/FTFY
 
2012-11-18 12:38:59 PM

Joce678: MarkEC:
The fact that the temperature hasn't been climbing for the last 16 years indicates

Um... 331 / 12 = 27.58


My average pay in the 20th century was about $2000/month. I haven't seen a month below that average this century. Does that mean my pay has been rising since the beginning of this century?
 
2012-11-18 12:45:56 PM

MarkEC:

My average pay in the 20th century was about $2000/month. I haven't seen a month below that average this century. Does that mean my pay has been rising since the beginning of this century?


But... it is still higher than the average was? And you don't expect it to drop?
 
2012-11-18 12:55:08 PM

MarkEC: I see 3 possibilities in what's happening with the climate.

1. The "warmists" are correct and CO2 is really a major driving force. The fact that the temperature hasn't been climbing for the last 16 years indicates that natural forces that are beyond our understanding are equaling out that increase. If it wasn't for all that CO2 we've dumped into the air we would be at the precipice of a new ice age.

2. The "deniers" are correct and CO2 is only a minor player and natural forces are gonna do what they're gonna do regardless of how much CO2 we put in the air.

3. The truth is somewhere in the middle. We will continue improving technology that will allow us to wean ourselves off of fossil over the coming decades, learn more about the climate and how to avoid global climate catastrophes, and life will go on.


I see three possibilities with respect to slavery.

1. The North was correct and we should have ended slavery.

2. The South was correct and we should have kept slavery.

3. The truth in somewhere in the middle. Wait, no it isn't. This is a stupid argument. Giving equal weight to a ridiculous idea and then splitting the difference with established science is moronic.
 
2012-11-18 12:55:46 PM
in = is
 
2012-11-18 01:01:19 PM

GAT_00: I've figured out how to show just how impossible this is if the planet was not warming, using the most egregious Denier assumptions I can think of. First, let's assume that the temperatures of one month have no connection to the next. That makes probability calculation easy. Second, let's assume that there is a 99% chance of a 0.01 degree increase, 98% of a 0.02, 97% of a 0.03 degree increase and so on, for easy calculation. Third, let's ignore every single month of actual data, and assume that the average global temperature for each month was 0.01 degrees above the 20th century mean. That means the probability of 332 months in a row of temperatures 0.01 degrees above average is simply 0.99 raised to the 332 power. That calculation is something below 0.05, or less than a 5% chance of happening. In other words, it is statistically significant.

Under the most bullshiat, fact ignoring scenario I can think of, the chance of 332 months in a row above normal temperatures is STILL beyond a statistical expectation for the null hypothesis of no temperature change to be true. The actual data would make any statistical result even more unlikely.

In other words, there is not a single scenario possible where the null hypothesis of no temperature increase versus the 20th century is possible to be not rejected. There is absolutely zero chance this is a random event and is in my mind unequivocal proof that global temperatures have increased above the 20th century mean.

In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.


Your null hypothesis has nothing to do with monotonic increase, merely that there was a month in the past 332 that wasn't above average. All of these 332 months of higher than avg. may very well be non-monotonically associated with any posterior probability of some unit (0.1 degree) increase in running global avg temp. But YOU are certainly NOT going to prove it statistically in this forum.
 
2012-11-18 01:04:19 PM

MarkEC:
2. The "deniers" are correct and CO2 is only a minor player and natural forces are gonna do what they're gonna do regardless of how much CO2 we put in the air.


Do you know a way for the Earth to warm up all by itself, or is the heat source external?

What "natural forces" can affect global temperature and don't depend on atmospheric composition?
 
2012-11-18 01:05:33 PM

wippit: MarkEC:

My average pay in the 20th century was about $2000/month. I haven't seen a month below that average this century. Does that mean my pay has been rising since the beginning of this century?

But... it is still higher than the average was? And you don't expect it to drop?


The average we're talking about is the average during the 20th century. It will not change. It is also arbitrary. So, we could have a gradual cooling period over the next 20 years and still not have temperatures below the 20th century average, and by your logic we would still be in a warming trend. 

If we picked the average temperature during the medieval warm period, we would have just had over a century of below average temperatures. Setting an arbitrary average temperature as your zero line for anomalies only shows how it compares to that particular average. What if we look farther back in history and see what the average temperature is for optimal life on Earth and use that? I bet we'd be right about average or maybe even a little lower.
 
2012-11-18 01:05:45 PM
If only there was some journalistic source, trusted by conservatives, that would weigh in as a voice of reason in this controversy...


oi50.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-18 01:16:32 PM

MarkEC:
If we picked the average temperature during the medieval warm period


Fark the "medieval warm period". Fark it with a big rubber dick... along with anybody who ever again brings it up as an argument in a climate debate.

a) It got a special name all it's own because it was an anomaly, not a reference point.

b) It was demonstrably a local phenomenon, not a global one. Globally, the earth was probably cooler than it is now during this "warm period".

Pesky facts here and here and here.
 
2012-11-18 01:18:36 PM

GAT_00: The last time there was a global month of below average temperatures was February 1985. Everyone born after that month has never experienced a month of below average global temperatures.

The odds of that happening, no matter how you define it, while assuming that there has been no increase from the 20th century temperature average, are so far beyond possible that absurd doesn't even begin to describe someone claiming it. There is no legitimate evidence that the planet is not warming. 332 months in a row of above average temperatures? It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.


332 months? That's like, 80% of the earth's existence, right?
 
2012-11-18 01:46:19 PM

Joce678: MarkEC:
If we picked the average temperature during the medieval warm period

Fark the "medieval warm period". Fark it with a big rubber dick... along with anybody who ever again brings it up as an argument in a climate debate.

a) It got a special name all it's own because it was an anomaly, not a reference point.

b) It was demonstrably a local phenomenon, not a global one. Globally, the earth was probably cooler than it is now during this "warm period".

Pesky facts here and here and here.


So papers from years ago, trying to disprove the MWP and LIA were not global, disprove the latest studies from Antarctica using ikaite that show they were both felt in the southern hemisphere. The MWP and LIA were indeed shown to have effects globally whether from the ikaite study, lake sediment studies or cave stalactite studies. What I don't get is, why is it so important to people who push ACC to disprove the WMP and LIA as being global if effect? Is it some unwritten law that we can't have ACC if the MWP and LIA were global? Is it just that you can't claim the Earth is warmer now that it has ever been?
 
2012-11-18 01:55:33 PM

MarkEC: What I don't get is, why is it so important to people who push ACC to disprove the WMP and LIA as being global if effect?


It isn't... except that the feeling isn't reciprocal. So long as the MWP exists in denier's minds they don't feel they have to do anything.

MarkEC: So papers from years ago, trying to disprove the MWP and LIA were not global, disprove the latest studies from Antarctica using ikaite that show they were both felt in the southern hemisphere


No, there appears to have been very low volcanic activity, too, which was felt in other places other from Northern Europe. The main "warm period" appears to be quite local though, there were definitely places that were cooler.

Facts are:
a) It wasn't spontaneous as they seem to be suggesting, it had causes (duh!)
b) Those same causes aren't responsible for the current warming trend. The only smoking gun we have is CO2. From fossil fuels. Burned by Humans.
 
2012-11-18 01:57:28 PM

MarkEC: Joce678: MarkEC:
If we picked the average temperature during the medieval warm period

Fark the "medieval warm period". Fark it with a big rubber dick... along with anybody who ever again brings it up as an argument in a climate debate.

a) It got a special name all it's own because it was an anomaly, not a reference point.

b) It was demonstrably a local phenomenon, not a global one. Globally, the earth was probably cooler than it is now during this "warm period".

Pesky facts here and here and here.

So papers from years ago, trying to disprove the MWP and LIA were not global, disprove the latest studies from Antarctica using ikaite that show they were both felt in the southern hemisphere. The MWP and LIA were indeed shown to have effects globally whether from the ikaite study, lake sediment studies or cave stalactite studies. What I don't get is, why is it so important to people who push ACC to disprove the WMP and LIA as being global if effect? Is it some unwritten law that we can't have ACC if the MWP and LIA were global? Is it just that you can't claim the Earth is warmer now that it has ever been?


More than one place on the globe is still not global. If I recall correctly, these papers suggested that there were some temperature readings in the Antarctic that corresponded with the MWP. This is a far cry from being a global effect.

But in typical denier fashion, you suddenly trust scientists when they put out a paper you like. But, when these same scientists say that the overwhelming evidence supports AGW they are money-grubbing liars who are all part of a global conspiracy.

/farking hypocrites!
 
2012-11-18 02:01:42 PM

GAT_00: THE GREAT NAME: GAT_00: THE GREAT NAME: stuartp9: GAT_00: In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.

First you take on Tatsuma, now you take on all the climate change deniers.. I finally decided to start using the "Favourite" tag.

Actually, GAT_00 assumes monthly temperature anomalies should be independent. Which is obviously wrong.

That was done intentionally to make the math easier and the null hypothesis harder to reject. It wasn't intended to be right. If you'll note, I also ignore all actual temperature data too.

It's not a trivial assumption. It actually makes a big difference. Your results have no bearing at all on nature because in nature the samples are correlated. Whatever the temperature anomaly this month, next month is most likely to be close to that value. Look up pink noise, random walks, chaos theory etc.

The point was that even with the most bullshiat, optimistic Denier math I could make up, I still couldn't hold up the hypothesis that the planet was not warming.


You don't seem to be listening to the point (probably because it questions you faith). Take this graph:
www.globalwarming.org.

The graph is continuously above average from about 1930 to 1945. That's 180 months. It's low from 1965 to 1990, that's 300 months! By your way of working things out, both are inconceivable! You can look at graphs from different sources, ones that measure temperature in diffferent ways, ones that go back much further etc and you'll keep seeing the same thing.

So you have a problem. Even though you think you're using "denier math" (what an unpleasant term) you've got a process in place that thinks inconceivable coincidences keep happening time after time, throughout the historical record. In other words, your stats are broken.

Now google the term "pink noise", "random walk" etc. Or take a look at this: http://havlin.biu.ac.il/PS/kbhrgs317.pdf
 
2012-11-18 02:07:53 PM

Joce678: MarkEC: What I don't get is, why is it so important to people who push ACC to disprove the WMP and LIA as being global if effect?

It isn't... except that the feeling isn't reciprocal. So long as the MWP exists in denier's minds they don't feel they have to do anything.

MarkEC: So papers from years ago, trying to disprove the MWP and LIA were not global, disprove the latest studies from Antarctica using ikaite that show they were both felt in the southern hemisphere

No, there appears to have been very low volcanic activity, too, which was felt in other places other from Northern Europe. The main "warm period" appears to be quite local though, there were definitely places that were cooler.

Facts are:
a) It wasn't spontaneous as they seem to be suggesting, it had causes (duh!)
b) Those same causes aren't responsible for the current warming trend. The only smoking gun we have is CO2. From fossil fuels. Burned by Humans.


From your second link: " It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming)."
And you contradict it with "It was demonstrably a local phenomenon, not a global one."
You need to get with the times. The new line is: "The cause of the MWP is well known and isn't occurring now so it can't explain today's warming, therefore it's CO2"
Every time a new piece of the puzzle is found that goes against the core beliefs of the ACC proponents, they have to fight back against it with just as much gusto as they belittle the other side for doing with evidence that supports ACC. And we wonder why we can't have a reasonable conversation about it.
 
2012-11-18 02:16:00 PM

Farking Canuck: More than one place on the globe is still not global. If I recall correctly, these papers suggested that there were some temperature readings in the Antarctic that corresponded with the MWP. This is a far cry from being a global effect.


The Godfather of AGW, Michael Mann believes the MWP was initiated by increased solar activity and decreased volcanic activity. If that ain't global the nothing is global.

But in typical denier fashion, you suddenly trust scientists when they put out a paper you like. But, when these same scientists say that the overwhelming evidence supports AGW they are money-grubbing liars who are all part of a global conspiracy.

/farking hypocrites!


You just proved the point in my last post. Thank you!
 
2012-11-18 02:19:52 PM

Joce678: b) Those same causes aren't responsible for the current warming trend. The only smoking gun we have is CO2. From fossil fuels. Burned by Humans.


Then it's settled.
Humans must be killed.
All of them.
It's the only way TO SAVE THE WORLD!

It's either kill them or tax them to death.
 
2012-11-18 02:23:46 PM

MarkEC: What I don't get is, why is it so important to people who push ACC to disprove the WMP and LIA as being global if effect?

Joce678: So long as the MWP exists in denier's minds they don't feel they have to do anything.


In slightly more technical terms, the existence of the MWP seems to be used as "attitude bolstering". See (doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5).

MarkEC: The new line is: "The cause of the MWP is well known and isn't occurring now so it can't explain today's warming, therefore it's CO2"


That's not an accurate representation of the expert-level arguments.

MarkEC: Every time a new piece of the puzzle is found that goes against the core beliefs of the ACC proponents, they have to fight back against it with just as much gusto as they belittle the other side for doing with evidence that supports ACC.


What specific "core beliefs" does the existence of the MWP go against? And by what means do you identify them as "core" rather than "peripheral"?
 
2012-11-18 02:23:51 PM

Hunter_Worthington: Unfortunately, by making a partisan issue out of it, the Democrats just make everyone else dig in their heels. What if, instead of wasting money on high speed rail lines no one is going to ride, or solar panels and wind energy, we simply raised gasoline taxes to internalize the negative externality and spend the money on Federal, State, and Local roads? Or, if we implemented a cap and trade system in addition to higher taxes, we spent the money on flood control projects (like wetlands restoration) or addressing these problems.


What are you talking about? Democrats have been trying to internalize the externality with taxes and/or cap-and-trade for over 20 years.
 
2012-11-18 02:25:15 PM

wippit: chuckufarlie: [www.globalwarming.org image 503x318] 

[www.globalwarming.org image 300x204] 

[www.globalwarming.org image 300x174]

You do realize there a whole rest of the planet which may not have the same local trends, but add up in total to a global trend, right?


You miss the point. The stations reflected in the charts are the same ones used by all reporting activities. It is just limited to those who have been reporting data for at least 80 years. Most of the remaining stations went on line in the mid to late 1980s.

Using stations that have been on line from only the 1980s and then saying that last month was the warmest on record is misleading, if not an outright lie. There was a significant warming period in the 1930s, much warmer than the current temperatures have been.

The more you know...
 
2012-11-18 02:26:49 PM

MarkEC: What I don't get is, why is it so important to people who push ACC to disprove the WMP and LIA as being global if effect? Is it some unwritten law that we can't have ACC if the MWP and LIA were global?


I don't really get what all the fuss is about either. The evidence that the recent warming is due to humans has little to do with whatever happened during the MWP/LIA.
 
2012-11-18 02:27:43 PM

Farking Canuck:
But in typical denier fashion, you suddenly trust scientists when they put out a paper you like. But, when these same scientists say that the overwhelming evidence supports AGW they are money-grubbing liars who are all part of a global conspiracy.

/farking hypocrites!


The way I read it, he cited someone you agree with and respect as part of an argument he was making. Nothing wrong with that. Surely you should be more convinced of his point now than you would be if he cited a source you did not respect?

It's behaviour like this from climatology supporters like you (together with repetitive use of the word "denier") that makes me suspect that "socking it to the other guy" is more important than seeking the truth for you lot.
 
Displayed 50 of 420 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report