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  
•       •       •

4358 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 02:30:20 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.


What do you mean, "beyond our understanding"? There are known mechanisms of natural variability that can do that; you even see them at work in climate models. Unfortunately, our observation systems aren't good enough to confirm which, if any, may be acting. Maybe "beyond our ability to identify through measurements" would be more accurate.

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.

That has nothing to do with the earlier statements. The first two sentences could be true, and this one false. In fact, it probably is false; the jury's still out, but most of the recent papers on this topic are leaning toward the next ice age not being due for tens of thousands of years.
 
2012-11-18 02:30:44 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming- stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart -prove-it.html

Hmm, from the same group that espouses AGW.

Exxon must have bought them off. That's why they released it in August, and no one paid attention to it until now.

But I must be a "denier", because I don't like to pay even more in taxes for something that has neither been proven, or disproven.
 
2012-11-18 02:30:53 PM
omg how stupid are people?


OH YEAH... they take thermometer readings over asphalt beside the air-con down in a maze of buildings filled with tens of thousands of SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND WATT heaters rolling slowly around and think it has something to do with the rest of the world getting warmer.

A one hundred horsepower car, when producing that 100 horsepower is producing seventy five thousand watts of work and is dissipating at least ten times that into the air.

The heater coil in your house, which if run continuously will raise the temp to over one hundred degrees even in winter, is probably only in the range of five to seven thousand watts output.
 
2012-11-18 02:32:26 PM

Ambitwistor: 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.


The point is, according to subby and GAT_00's statistical take on things, MWP consists of 4800 months of warm weather. According to them, the probability of that happening is about the 14th power of the probability of the recent warming. In other words inconceivably less likely than an event that is already inconceivably unlikely.
 
2012-11-18 02:35:32 PM

Ambitwistor: 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.


That MWP happened tells us that that the temerpature can rise for a number of years without the need to attribute a human cause. The headline of this story implies something surprising about the last 27 years, but the record, including MWP tells us it is not, and that the assumption is flawed.
 
2012-11-18 02:40:45 PM

prjindigo: omg how stupid are people?


OH YEAH... they take thermometer readings over asphalt beside the air-con down in a maze of buildings filled with tens of thousands of SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND WATT heaters rolling slowly around and think it has something to do with the rest of the world getting warmer.

A one hundred horsepower car, when producing that 100 horsepower is producing seventy five thousand watts of work and is dissipating at least ten times that into the air.

The heater coil in your house, which if run continuously will raise the temp to over one hundred degrees even in winter, is probably only in the range of five to seven thousand watts output.


it is actually worse than that. There has been information released lately that shows that many of the stations set up in areas with little development nearby has since been encroached upon by the very scenario your suggest. This means that stations that were reporting temperatures at one level are now reporting higher temperatures because they are now surrounded by developments.
 
2012-11-18 02:42:37 PM

MarkEC: 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.


And here is the evidence that you do not understand how science works.

Some points:
- Michael Mann can believe what he wants. He may or may not be correct. His opinion is not evidence.
- If you and Michael are correct then it may have well been global. There is not enough evidence to say at this point.
- Even if it was global, the evidence shows that it is a completely different mechanism to today's warming (and therefore not relevant)
- Again hypocrisy reigns supreme - normally Michael Mann is the crazed leader of the global conspiracy to destroy economies* but, because he said something you like this time, you will happily quote him as a reliable source. Is he only reliable when he says things you like???

* Someone please explain to me why anyone wants to "destroy the economy". I hear this over and over but I never hear why. I know why big oil wants to delay any action that reduces their profits but I cannot see a motive for the evil 'greenies' alleged desire to destroy the economy.
 
2012-11-18 02:44:18 PM

Ambitwistor: 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.


well, first the evidence that the recent warming is due to humans is that all that conclusive - at least to many noted scientists.

Second, those earlier periods were warmer than the current records. Those periods were pre-industrial. Those periods show that any statement that we are experiencing the warmest period ever is just wrong. It also shows that there are things that influence large changes that are not man made.
 
2012-11-18 02:45:52 PM

THE GREAT NAME: That MWP happened tells us that that the temerpature can rise for a number of years without the need to attribute a human cause.


This is an obvious statement. There are hundreds of driving forces that can raise temperature beyond the current temperature.

The evidence says that the driving force for the current warming is anthropogenic. Argue the evidence instead of giving irrelevant history lessons.
 
2012-11-18 02:46:33 PM

Slam1263: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming - stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart -prove-it.html

Hmm, from the same group that espouses AGW.


I hate to break it to you, but despite the Daily Fail's sensationalistic reporting, their conclusions are neither new (the previous version of the HadCRUT data set showed the same thing), nor correct (recent global temperatures do not prove that AGW has "stopped").
 
2012-11-18 02:47:27 PM

log_jammin: MrEricSir: The skeptical question

there is no "skeptical question". the skeptic comes to a conclusion based on the evidence. and there is no evidence that concludes GW is strictly an act of nature.


There's no hard evidence either way. To come to the conclusion that humans are involved in the process you need a lot more than a $5 thermometer and a piece of paper, i.e. it's not something you can prove to yourself in your backyard.
 
2012-11-18 02:58:33 PM

MrEricSir: To come to the conclusion that humans are involved in the process you need a lot more than a $5 thermometer and a piece of paper, i.e. it's not something you can prove to yourself in your backyard.


And you think that the millions (billions?) of $$$ that have gone into gathering evidence about the global climate have been spent on $5 thermometer experiments performed in people's back-yards?
 
2012-11-18 03:01:16 PM

abb3w: 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"?


The "core belief" that we are warmer now than at any point in history. To some people that is an absolute that if proven wrong will shake the foundations of ACC. I personally don't think it does, other than to show that a slightly warmer climate is not the boogy man that some think it is.
 
2012-11-18 03:06:32 PM

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: That MWP happened tells us that that the temerpature can rise for a number of years without the need to attribute a human cause.

This is an obvious statement. There are hundreds of driving forces that can raise temperature beyond the current temperature.

The evidence says that the driving force for the current warming is anthropogenic. Argue the evidence instead of giving irrelevant history lessons.


There is absolutely no evidence for that. Some models and a lot of bluster, that's all. Which is why of course climatists keep falling back to alarmist rubbish like the headline - they've got nothing else. I expect you will rant and get insulting now.
 
2012-11-18 03:08:16 PM

MarkEC: abb3w: 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"?

The "core belief" that we are warmer now than at any point in history. To some people that is an absolute that if proven wrong will shake the foundations of ACC. I personally don't think it does, other than to show that a slightly warmer climate is not the boogy man that some think it is.


Does regional mean the same thing as global?
 
2012-11-18 03:13:09 PM

Shakin_Haitian: MarkEC: abb3w: 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"?

The "core belief" that we are warmer now than at any point in history. To some people that is an absolute that if proven wrong will shake the foundations of ACC. I personally don't think it does, other than to show that a slightly warmer climate is not the boogy man that some think it is.

Does regional mean the same thing as global?


Is a few decades of warmth surprising when it happens globally, but run-of-the mill when it happens over only half the earth?
 
2012-11-18 03:16:50 PM

Shakin_Haitian: MarkEC: abb3w: 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"?

The "core belief" that we are warmer now than at any point in history. To some people that is an absolute that if proven wrong will shake the foundations of ACC. I personally don't think it does, other than to show that a slightly warmer climate is not the boogy man that some think it is.

Does regional mean the same thing as global?


No , and saying that the MWP was only regional when it was connected to increased solar activity and decreased volcanic activity is a bit disingenuous. Europe may have seen the biggest increase, but it was globally felt.
 
2012-11-18 03:24:38 PM

MarkEC: Shakin_Haitian: MarkEC: abb3w: 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"?

The "core belief" that we are warmer now than at any point in history. To some people that is an absolute that if proven wrong will shake the foundations of ACC. I personally don't think it does, other than to show that a slightly warmer climate is not the boogy man that some think it is.

Does regional mean the same thing as global?

No , and saying that the MWP was only regional when it was connected to increased solar activity and decreased volcanic activity is a bit disingenuous. Europe may have seen the biggest increase, but it was globally felt.


This has nothing to do with AGW.

It raised then because of REASONS. Its rising now, because of OTHER reasons.
 
2012-11-18 03:40:07 PM

guyinjeep16: MarkEC: Shakin_Haitian: MarkEC: abb3w: 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"?

The "core belief" that we are warmer now than at any point in history. To some people that is an absolute that if proven wrong will shake the foundations of ACC. I personally don't think it does, other than to show that a slightly warmer climate is not the boogy man that some think it is.

Does regional mean the same thing as global?

No , and saying that the MWP was only regional when it was connected to increased solar activity and decreased volcanic activity is a bit disingenuous. Europe may have seen the biggest increase, but it was globally felt.

This has nothing to do with AGW.

It raised then because of REASONS. Its rising now, because of OTHER reasons.


You have no evidence showing that the current rise is anthropogenic. The only thing you lot have ever been able to do is raise alarm about the small 1978-1998 rise.

MWP is REALLY important because it shows that far bigger and longer fluctuations happen all the time, invalidating the argument made by subby and GAT_00 that there is something to be alarmed about.
 
2012-11-18 03:42:16 PM

MOHWowbagger: How has it been getting warmer for 331 consecutive months, but the warmest October ever was in 2003?


It has been warmer than average for 332 consecutive months. That does not mean that each month has been warmer than the preceding month or that each October has been warmer than the preceding October, for example.

A base line has been drawn using the average of the data for the 20th century. Each of the last 332 months has been higher than that base line. There is a running baseline that is updated every 15 years using 30 years of data. This baseline has been rising, so it takes even bigger temperature increases to keep above it.

The records for each warmest month are all over the century. Some are still in the early 20th century, but not very many. But even the coldest months we have experienced in the last 28 years are above the base line. The records for coldest months tend to be before 1950 and more certainly before 1985.

When denialists say that temperatures have stopped rising, what they mean is that they are not higher than the records set in 1998 or 2005. This is bullshiat. There is no reason to cherry-pick a record and measure everything against that. Even though many years are lower than the record (that is to say, ALL YEARS ARE LOWER THAN THE RECORD HIGH) it doesn't mean the world is cooling more than temporarily. And it doesn't mean shiat. Because records are pretty random. Baselines are created because they are less random.

It's pretty nearly impossible to be less random than a denialist, though. They'll use any shiat they can grab as a rhetorical weapon rather than a tool of understanding. Like monkeys, they fling their own poo.

I wonder how they always manage to produce graphs that show the spike of temperatures at the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century to be lower than some poiint of time in the last few decades, centuries or millenia when none of the graphs from the best models or data sets show this?

Could it be ... lying with graphs?

In any case, cherry pick the start or end year of your graph, and you can "prove" absolutely anything you want, just pick your conclusion and select the numbers that support it! Bullshiat, bullshiat, bullshiat.

This is one reason why graphs should be left to experts and not propagandists. I remember Al Franken catching Rush Limbaugh and Co. selecting data points outside of the Reagan administration to "prove" their economic bumfodder. That is to say, they based claims on the effects of certain policies based on data from years before or after those policies were in effect and thus capable of doing something, albeit not what the ideologues wanted to prove.
 
2012-11-18 03:42:42 PM

Farking Canuck: MrEricSir: To come to the conclusion that humans are involved in the process you need a lot more than a $5 thermometer and a piece of paper, i.e. it's not something you can prove to yourself in your backyard.

And you think that the millions (billions?) of $$$ that have gone into gathering evidence about the global climate have been spent on $5 thermometer experiments performed in people's back-yards?


Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all.
 
2012-11-18 03:47:01 PM

MrEricSir: Farking Canuck: MrEricSir: To come to the conclusion that humans are involved in the process you need a lot more than a $5 thermometer and a piece of paper, i.e. it's not something you can prove to yourself in your backyard.

And you think that the millions (billions?) of $$$ that have gone into gathering evidence about the global climate have been spent on $5 thermometer experiments performed in people's back-yards?

Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all.


Well thanks for clearing that up.
 
2012-11-18 03:47:44 PM

brantgoose:
I wonder how they always manage to produce graphs that show the spike of temperatures at the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century to be lower than some poiint of time in the last few decades, centuries or millenia when none of the graphs from the best models or data sets show this?


For a definition of "best" chosen by you?
 
2012-11-18 03:48:15 PM

THE GREAT NAME: You have no evidence showing that the current rise is anthropogenic.


Wow, this is completely and utterly false. I can only assume that you're either completely uninformed on the subject or abjectly lying about it. Which one?I
 
2012-11-18 03:50:41 PM

THE GREAT NAME: 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 image 300x174].

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


Oh my bad, you're a Denier. I shouldn't have treated you with respect.
 
2012-11-18 03:52:19 PM

log_jammin: david_gaithersburg: [blogs.mbs.edu image 648x346]

Link

my guess is you won't watch the whole thing. and if you do watch it all, you'll just dismiss it.


Thanks for the link. Great video.
 
2012-11-18 03:52:33 PM

THE GREAT NAME: You have no evidence showing that the current rise is anthropogenic.


Just because you keep saying this it does not make it true.

The evidence clearly shows the mechanism between CO2 levels and trapped heat (the greenhouse effect). The evidence clearly shows the rise in CO2 levels since man's industrialization. The correlations between the two are clear ... both during the warming at the end of ice ages and now. The difference being that the source of the current high levels is man.

Additionally, the other sources (that you keep raising) have been demonstrated not to be significant drivers.

You can keep making the completely unsupported statement that there is no evidence ... the the piles of evidence disagree with you.
 
2012-11-18 04:00:44 PM

HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: You have no evidence showing that the current rise is anthropogenic.

Wow, this is completely and utterly false. I can only assume that you're either completely uninformed on the subject or abjectly lying about it. Which one?I


I'll say it again. There is evidence that temps rose a little between 1978 and 1998, but there IS NOT any evidence for this being due to human activity. If I am wrong, cite some.
 
2012-11-18 04:04:34 PM

GAT_00: THE GREAT NAME: 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 image 300x174].

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

Oh my bad, you're a Denier. I shouldn't have treated you with ...


So you admit your statistical trick was pure rubbish. Now you're on the defensive, trying to act confident in order to keep your fellow climate alarmism believers on-side.
 
2012-11-18 04:09:50 PM

chuckufarlie: Those periods were pre-industrial. Those periods show that any statement that we are experiencing the warmest period ever is just wrong.


Um, nobody's claiming that. Try to get that important point through your thick skull.

chuckufarlie: It also shows that there are things that influence large changes that are not man made.


Yes, but they're not happening at the moment. The only thing that's happening right now is man.
 
2012-11-18 04:10:02 PM

david_gaithersburg: [blogs.mbs.edu image 648x346]


Speaking of Bullshiat, here's a graph now!


blogs.mbs.edu

Two questions ought to be foremost in your minds. One, what does that blue line represent? Two, what does that red line represent?

The lines, unusually, are clearly labelled. One comes from the Hadley series of instrumental data (years 1850-2007) (one of three major data sets) as adjusted by the University of Anglia people at CRU who were the focus of a manufactured scandal when their emails were hacked and published by denialists. The other line is a tree-ring data series from 2007.

Are these the best data? Are they the right data? Are they accurately represented by the graph or has the scale been manipulated?

The Economist published a list (really three lists) of the hottest years on record. According to the Hadley and CRU list, 2007 was the 9th warmest year on record. According to the other two lists, it was 7th or 3rd.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/12/climate_change

This tells us that the Hadley and CRU scientists are the most "optimistic" of the three in that they considered 2007 cooler than the other two data sets as 9 is to 7 is to 3.

The thing that troubles me most about this graph (apart from it showing that the Middle Warm Period was warmer even than today, something which none of the climate scientists claim, although it is the fall-back position of denialists when they are forced to admit that the warming data is real and essentially correct, is that this graph is based on one scientists analysis of tree rings.

ARE THOSE THE SAME TREE-RING DATA FROM SCANDINAVIA THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS ARE WRONG AND OUT OF WHACK WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD'S DATA for some reason, probably local?

Could be.

In any case, tree ring data is but one series of data and the most controversial and weakest data at that, since it is the hardest to get right and to interpret correctly. The growth rates of trees vary greatly from place to place, a fact of which Creationists are inordinately fond when criticizing tree-ring dating. Tree rings have to be used carefully or they will reflect not global climate, but local growth conditions and climate.

In the case of the data that the CRU was trying to "hide", the data was known to be wrong, based on a feeble number of tree rings in one place, and "hiding the decline" was just slang for replacing bad data with more accurate data. This "trick" was not a fraud or deceit, like so much of the misinformation you get from denialists, but a "scientific trick", which is to say, something that replaces faulty data with better data. And upon the propagation of misinterpretation and minsunderstanding words, aka semantics, doth much denialism lie. And lies.

I suspect that the main thing wrong with this graph is not cherry-picking the end date (although I am always suspicious of any graph where the sting is in the tail--the bit of the graph that is too crunched up and curtailed to show anything meaningful, such as that upward tick when denialists draw it).

The main thing wrong this this graph is that it doesn't jib very well with the best practices of objective and honest science because it cherry picks data sets to play off against each other.

Every climate scientist uses very much the same graph, but they don't necessarily use the same graphic arts to tell the story, nor do they use the same data set to draw the red and blue lines (or whatever).

I think I can safely ignore graphs coming from denialists because they are all using trickery (of the wrong sort) disguised as neat trickery of the right sort, namely showing the truth rather than the truthiness.

No climate scientist qualified in the field that I know of thinks the Medieval Warm Period was anything but a regional blip that is considerably less hot than today's global warming spike. There graphs tend to show that. Graphs by loons, propagandists, true believers, conspiracy theorists and non-scientists (such as economists--everybody knows that economics is not a science, even Dilbert) tend to show, well, other theories, hypotheses and wishes.
 
2012-11-18 04:11:13 PM

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: You have no evidence showing that the current rise is anthropogenic.

Just because you keep saying this it does not make it true.

The evidence clearly shows the mechanism between CO2 levels and trapped heat (the greenhouse effect). The evidence clearly shows the rise in CO2 levels since man's industrialization. The correlations between the two are clear ... both during the warming at the end of ice ages and now. The difference being that the source of the current high levels is man.


You are saying there is a correlation but that is not evidence. You could try to prove that the correlation is difficult to explain without a causal link. But you'll have a hard time because the amount of data that is actually pertinent to that is tiny, and far too low ever to be significant.
 
2012-11-18 04:12:03 PM

THE GREAT NAME: MWP is REALLY important because it shows that far bigger and longer fluctuations happen all the time, invalidating the argument made by subby and GAT_00 that there is something to be alarmed about.


They always happen for a reason. The current reason is man.
 
2012-11-18 04:13:26 PM

THE GREAT NAME: guyinjeep16: MarkEC: Shakin_Haitian: MarkEC: abb3w: 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"?

The "core belief" that we are warmer now than at any point in history. To some people that is an absolute that if proven wrong will shake the foundations of ACC. I personally don't think it does, other than to show that a slightly warmer climate is not the boogy man that some think it is.

Does regional mean the same thing as global?

No , and saying that the MWP was only regional when it was connected to increased solar activity and decreased volcanic activity is a bit disingenuous. Europe may have seen the biggest increase, but it was globally felt.

This has nothing to do with AGW.

It raised then because of REASONS. Its rising now, because of OTHER reasons.

You have no evidence showing that the current rise is anthropogenic. The only thing you lot have ever been able to do is raise alarm about the small 1978-1998 rise.

MWP is REALLY important because it shows that far bigger and longer fluctuations happen all the time, invalidating the argument made by subby and GAT_00 that there is something to be alarmed about.


"All" the time? Do elaborate please.

And this talk about the increase of around 1C or so isnt half of the problem. Its the energy the oceans are trapping that is the big issue.

This is all well documented.

There isnt one paper disputing it, the worlds scientists are on board.

What else will it take for you?
 
2012-11-18 04:15:17 PM

brantgoose: david_gaithersburg: [blogs.mbs.edu image 648x346]

Speaking of Bullshiat, here's a graph now!


[blogs.mbs.edu image 648x346]

Two questions ought to be foremost in your minds. One, what does that blue line represent? Two, what does that red line represent?

The lines, unusually, are clearly labelled. One comes from the Hadley series of instrumental data (years 1850-2007) (one of three major data sets) as adjusted by the University of Anglia people at CRU who were the focus of a manufactured scandal when their emails were hacked and published by denialists.


By "manufactured", are you implying that those emails were not real? I would say if the emails are real then the scandal is real, not manufactured.

OTOH the term "denialst" is manufactured, in order to liken people who don't share your opinion to fascists.
 
2012-11-18 04:17:16 PM

Joce678: THE GREAT NAME: MWP is REALLY important because it shows that far bigger and longer fluctuations happen all the time, invalidating the argument made by subby and GAT_00 that there is something to be alarmed about.

They always happen for a reason. The current reason is man.


You're just asserting that. You have no evidence.
 
2012-11-18 04:17:29 PM

THE GREAT NAME: There is absolutely no evidence for that. Some models and a lot of bluster, that's all. Which is why of course climatists keep falling back to alarmist rubbish like the headline - they've got nothing else. I expect you will rant and get insulting now.


Absolute bollocks. The evidence is undeniable except by complete idiots like you.

"Since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, human activities have contributed substantially to climate change by adding CO2 and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere."

From: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html
 
2012-11-18 04:18:15 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: You have no evidence showing that the current rise is anthropogenic.

Just because you keep saying this it does not make it true.

The evidence clearly shows the mechanism between CO2 levels and trapped heat (the greenhouse effect). The evidence clearly shows the rise in CO2 levels since man's industrialization. The correlations between the two are clear ... both during the warming at the end of ice ages and now. The difference being that the source of the current high levels is man.

You are saying there is a correlation but that is not evidence. You could try to prove that the correlation is difficult to explain without a causal link. But you'll have a hard time because the amount of data that is actually pertinent to that is tiny, and far too low ever to be significant.


A correlation is a piece of evidence, and its not the only evidence a long shot.
 
2012-11-18 04:21:08 PM

THE GREAT NAME: You're just asserting that. You have no evidence.


Moron.
 
2012-11-18 04:24:14 PM

guyinjeep16: THE GREAT NAME:
MWP is REALLY important because it shows that far bigger and longer fluctuations happen all the time, invalidating the argument made by subby and GAT_00 that there is something to be alarmed about.

"All" the time? Do elaborate please.


I mean in any recent graph (excepting the debunked hockey-stick graph) you can clearly see multiple warm periods and cool periods on multiple scales ranging from months to centuries. You can see many precedents for the 1978-1998 rise. So for that rise to require an anthropogenic explanation, evidence would be needed, because "coincidence value" alone is not compelling (contrary to subby's implication n the headline).

And this talk about the increase of around 1C or so isnt half of the problem. Its the energy the oceans are trapping that is the big issue.

Evidence please

This is all well documented.

No it is not. Cite a document that tells me where the evidence is.

There isnt one paper disputing it, the worlds scientists are on board.

Unfortunately, this is just a bare-faced lie.

What else will it take for you?

Dunno, try telling throwing some more lies at me. Maybe one of them will "stick", so to speak.
 
2012-11-18 04:26:43 PM

Farking Canuck: Well thanks for clearing that up.


Next time try without the leading questions. I find it's never worth responding to those.
 
2012-11-18 04:28:19 PM

Joce678: THE GREAT NAME: There is absolutely no evidence for that. Some models and a lot of bluster, that's all. Which is why of course climatists keep falling back to alarmist rubbish like the headline - they've got nothing else. I expect you will rant and get insulting now.

Absolute bollocks. The evidence is undeniable except by complete idiots like you.

"Since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, human activities have contributed substantially to climate change by adding CO2 and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere."

From: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html


That's a conclusion, not evidence. Climatology is all about conclusions. But when you look for the evidence, you do not find it. Yes the temperature rose a little bit late last century. But that was not, as is suggested, remotely unusual. There is NO evidence that "human activities have contributed substantially to climate change", only the endless clamour of morons concluding it for the wrong reasons. EPA? the reason would be that it's budget has at least doubled due to political interest in AGW. Of course they will drink the cool aid. They will be all too happy to conclude whatever they need to to stay on the bandwagon. But you will not find a shred of evidence in their publications, because it does not exist.
 
2012-11-18 04:32:08 PM

guyinjeep16: THE GREAT NAME: Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: You have no evidence showing that the current rise is anthropogenic.

Just because you keep saying this it does not make it true.

The evidence clearly shows the mechanism between CO2 levels and trapped heat (the greenhouse effect). The evidence clearly shows the rise in CO2 levels since man's industrialization. The correlations between the two are clear ... both during the warming at the end of ice ages and now. The difference being that the source of the current high levels is man.

You are saying there is a correlation but that is not evidence. You could try to prove that the correlation is difficult to explain without a causal link. But you'll have a hard time because the amount of data that is actually pertinent to that is tiny, and far too low ever to be significant.

A correlation is a piece of evidence, and its not the only evidence a long shot.


Nope. A correlation has to be strong to be convincing. Since man has been producing CO2, we have seen drops, rises and flat periods. Long term trends (such as the exit from the little ice age) are still being followed. There will be occasional, brief periods of alignment between two uncorrelated signals. You need to do better. Since we can't create more data for correlation except by waiting you will need to produce real, physical evidence. And you can't.
 
2012-11-18 04:33:49 PM
Wow people on here who worship the climate religion get pissed when I tell them what they already know - that they don't have the evidence to justify their faith. So, no different to any other kind of religion then.
 
2012-11-18 04:36:03 PM

david_gaithersburg: A new tax can fix this!


Yes, yes it could. Don't you think that is the whole point of the corporate funders of denialism?

They're afraid of a new tax. Even a good one!

A good tax, defined by Adam Smith is one which is transparent. It should be clear who is paying, when they have to pay, what they have to pay, where they have to pay, and that there is no cure or favour in the levying of the tax. Regardless of what you think of the purpose for which the money is raised, or how well it is spent, a fair and honest tax must meet those four criteria: who, what, when, where. Why and how are questions which Smith did not address in defining a good tax. That is because why is a political question, not economics. And how is, so to speak, a microeconomics quesiton, while Smith was thinking in macroeconomic terms while writing The Wealth of Nations during the 1770s and 1780s (it went through five editions because he was always working on it, like he was always working on his treatsy on morality, the context in which Smith, almost alone of the great economists, places his economic and political thinking.)

The tax in question has already been designed and proposed, and if Our Masters were not dyed in the wool anti-tax fanatics, and if the electorate were not trained to have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "tax", we would have debated the varous merits of such plans about twenty to forty years ago and would have the taxes in place which we need to steer people away from carbon emissions and towards better ways of getting fuel and using it, such as conservation, frugality, new technology, alternative energy, clean fuels, sequestration, and so forth.

The thing about a good tax is that it isn't partial. It isn't partial to one solution of a problem, it will happily pay for anything. It isn't partial to one set of people (billionaires or the poor), it will happily oppress all equally, or steer all in the right direction (away from the taxed good or service to every other good and service).

Taxes have proven a great way to stop youth from smoking. They can't afford to smoke with the kind of taxes Governments put on tobacco (and alcohol, and a lot of other things).

They would be the best possible way to avoid carbon emissions. Even the economists who are paid to fight carbon emissions taxes and other solutions to the environmental problems which we face, and the externalities which push the cost from the people who profit to the people who have no stake in the evil or goods in question, such as producers, consumers or non-consumers of coal, this is true.

Economists agree: a good tax is the best way to change people's behaviour because it gives the people you are trying to steer the maximum of freedom to find their own solutions. They can, for example, choose to pay the taxe or try to avoid it. People who are rich and not seriously inconvenienced by higher prices might choose to pay, howsoever reluctantly, because the goods and services are still worth their while. The tax would not dampen their demand for champagne, cigars, loose women, and $5 million cars.

This is why sumptuary taxes have never worked all that well: they just make luxuries more attractive to the very rich, while depriving the not-so-rich of them. If a car routinely cost $1 million, only the rich would drive and the upper-middle classes would take a taxi or walk or bicycle. They prove that every day as it is. Not all green virtue is about the kind of green that people claim they love. Some of it is to save money, the folding kind of green.

A carbon tax should, in addition to being designed as a good tax, a fair tax, an easy to pay and forget tax, actually reduce carbon consumption by shifting both rich and poor to conservation and alternatives.

If it fails to do that, it is not a good tax.

But all evidence suggests that increasing the price of a good or service will reduce its consumption in normal and healthy circumstances (smuggling and black-markets aside).

A carbon tax should be imposed like any tax, but instead of putting it on top of everything, we can replace some other taxes with carbon taxes. That is to say, the Government can choose to make carbon taxes neutral in terms of revenue and in terms of effect on various consumers.

You can, for example, replace excise taxes on imported wine with carbon taxes that reflect the amount of carbon used to ship wine. A bottle from California might be relatively cheaper or more expensive than a bottle from France, but thems the breaks. I suspect that it would still be true that California wines would be cheaper in the West and French wines cheaper on the Atlantic seaboard because it costs more to ship by land than by sea.

The big target for carbon taxes is not the consumer. It is the sales tax. There are sales taxes on a lot of things which most of us would sooner were not taxed. But a carbon tax would change a lot of costs relative to other costs. Meat might be more expensive, seeing as it is one of the biggest contributors to carbon emissions, but other things might be cheaper. Books, for example. Education. Insurance. Who knows until somebody does the math?

Carbon taxes would hit, not consumption of goods, but production of carbon. The carbon tax on marijuana would probably be a lot less than the carbon tax on beefsteak. There would be less tax on a potato than a potato chip.

Yes, taxes are a great invention. As a liberal I love them because they are fair and pay for great things. As a conservative I love them because they are fair and wipe out bad things. As a libertarian I love them because they give the choices to individuals rather than to dirigiste bureaucrats.

Remember, there is a great thing about taxes: if you don't agree with their intent to reduce your alcohol consumption, for example, you can always pay them.

Death and taxes. They are always options, even if we tend to prefer them to be last-ditch options.

And the greatness of taxes is that they can actually be life-affirming and productive. Without them, most of us would have no schooling, no roads, no hospitals, no libraries, no airports. Sure, the very rich would have those things. The very rich will always have anything they want, even whores, cocaine and the right to shoot people on a whim.
 
2012-11-18 04:39:53 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Wow people on here who worship the climate religion get pissed when I tell them what they already know - that they don't have the evidence to justify their faith. So, no different to any other kind of religion then.


Nope. We get pissed when people have their heads so far up their own assholes they can't even see the evidence when it's presented it to them.
 
2012-11-18 04:40:26 PM

brantgoose: david_gaithersburg: A new tax can fix this!

Yes, yes it could. Don't you think that is the whole point of the corporate funders of denialism?


Fails in the first sentence. Greedy corporations including big oil, are all riding the green bandwagon now because
(1) Its absolutely covered in government subsidies and
(2) They are best placed to exploit the opportunities

Climatism is the most ugly example of corrupt corporatism anywhere outside of China. There is no interest whatsoever in "denialism" as you rather unpleasantly put it. Didn't bother reading the rest of your rather long comment, because you don't really know what your talking about.
 
2012-11-18 04:41:17 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Wow people on here who worship the climate religion get pissed when I tell them what they already know - that they don't have the evidence to justify their faith. So, no different to any other kind of religion then.


I can link to to papers and sites all day long.

the only thing you are saying here is

"No it isnt".
 
2012-11-18 04:42:14 PM

Joce678: THE GREAT NAME: Wow people on here who worship the climate religion get pissed when I tell them what they already know - that they don't have the evidence to justify their faith. So, no different to any other kind of religion then.

Nope. We get pissed when people have their heads so far up their own assholes they can't even see the evidence when it's presented it to them.


You have not presented evidence for anything except perhaps that my comment you quoted was absolutely bang on the money.
 
2012-11-18 04:45:05 PM

THE GREAT NAME: You have not presented evidence for anything except perhaps that my comment you quoted was absolutely bang on the money.


Oh yes we have...
 
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