Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

4392 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Nov 2012 at 4:13 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-17 11:59:29 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-18 12:13:54 AM  

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.


LIBERAL LIES! MOAR OIL!
 
2012-11-18 12:38:06 AM  
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.
 
2012-11-18 12:45:16 AM  
I'm sorry, but the graph I have right here from the FundedByExxon Institute that I got from Michelle Malkin's site show that it was chilly in my neighborhood yesterday, therefore all the fat cat climate scientists have to give up their Bentleys and Lambos and parade in front of the Fox News headquarters wearing polar bear outfits and carrying signs admitting it was all a big moneymaking super scam.
 
2012-11-18 12:47:54 AM  
Yes, global warming is real, but when I open my window, it's cold outside.

How about you stop using facts and science to justify things and just use some common sense?
 
2012-11-18 01:02:22 AM  
It's clear that what we need right now is more piracy.
 
2012-11-18 01:34:18 AM  

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.


I'm not a Global warming denier, but I can tell you what they'll focus on, which you accurately included in your post:

unequivocal proof that global temperatures have increased above the 20th century mean.

We've been keeping records for about 120 years, so they'll just dismiss it by speculating that this has happened before but we don't have an accurate record of it, especially since we're looking at 332 months of increased temperature "on record."

At some point, I'm sure, someone will bring up that the world was a lot hotter when the dinosaurs were around.
 
2012-11-18 02:19:59 AM  

Lsherm:

We've been keeping records for about 120 years, so they'll just dismiss it by speculating that this has happened before but we don't have an accurate record of it, especially since we're looking at 332 months of increased temperature "on record."
...


Well, polar ice has been keeping records for a lot longer.

Global temperatures fluctuate. Anthropomorphic influence on the greenhouse effect? You betcha, but not as bad as volcanic influence in the past.

Are we gonna see a future where the temperatures are higher? Yup.

Is there anything we can do about it? Depends what your metrics for "do" and "about it" are.

Are we gonna need a farkload more seawalls in 100 years? Indubitably.

But maybe in 100 years the girlscouts can build a seawall in a weekend.
 
2012-11-18 02:55:26 AM  

Asa Phelps: But maybe in 100 years the girlscouts can build a seawall in a weekend.


Girl Scout Mech builders!
 
2012-11-18 04:18:17 AM  
The future is uncertain and the end is always near.
 
2012-11-18 04:21:13 AM  
Could be worse, we could be going into an ice age.
 
2012-11-18 04:25:11 AM  
Science is a liberal conspiracy.
 
2012-11-18 04:25:53 AM  
Dem libruls is controllin' all de meedya an' spreadin' dar lies ta trick all us common folk dat knows better!! Welp, I's taint fallin' fer it!!
 
2012-11-18 04:26:04 AM  
How much global warming does it take to screw in a incandescent light bulb?

none because they were both made up things XDD
 
2012-11-18 04:27:14 AM  
pay raise... can't get one ..
 
2012-11-18 04:28:42 AM  

Lsherm: We've been keeping records for about 120 years, so they'll just dismiss it by speculating that this has happened before but we don't have an accurate record of it, especially since we're looking at 332 months of increased temperature "on record."
...

Have you ever seen Jesus wearing a warm coat while riding a dinosaur? Case closed. amirite?
 
2012-11-18 04:28:45 AM  

ijit: Dem libruls is controllin' all de meedya an' spreadin' dar lies ta trick all us common folk dat knows better!! Welp, I's taint fallin' fer it!!


We need somebody who can stand up to the experts!
 
2012-11-18 04:30:24 AM  
It should be freezing here in Nevada. It's not.
 
2012-11-18 04:31:04 AM  

GAT_00: It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.


Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The skeptical question is whether we humans had anything to do with the rise in temperatures, or whether it was strictly an act of nature.
 
2012-11-18 04:31:19 AM  
A new tax can fix this!
 
2012-11-18 04:32:47 AM  

MrEricSir: GAT_00: It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.

Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The skeptical question is whether we humans had anything to do with the rise in temperatures, or whether it was strictly an act of nature.


No, you moron, the skeptical position is the one that accepts the damn evidence. The position you are describing is a subset of Deniers.
 
2012-11-18 04:41:05 AM  

MrEricSir: GAT_00: It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.

Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The skeptical question is whether we humans had anything to do with the rise in temperatures, or whether it was strictly an act of nature.


It doesn't matter. Either way, changing our behavior will make it better.

If man-made global warming is a hoax, we clean up the planet.

If man-made global warming is real, we clean up the planet.

We win either way.

Unless you are a friend of Dick Cheney. Then your net worth might drop from 900 million to 887 million. And that would be bad.
 
2012-11-18 04:46:13 AM  
Arguing about global warming/cooling it doesn't change it and humans in general are egotistical to believe we have that much impact on our environment.

We get 1/1,000,000 of the suns energy. Say that fluctuates to a miniscule degree. OMG, GLOBAL WARMING! ITS ALL OUR FAULT!

/i can't wait until this world burns...
 
2012-11-18 04:46:38 AM  

MrEricSir: Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The skeptical question is whether we humans had anything to do with the rise in temperatures, or whether it was strictly an act of nature.


a) The only thing that significantly affects temperature is the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases in particular.

b) Greenhouse gases have been going steadily up since the industrial revolution
 
2012-11-18 04:49:11 AM  
blogs.mbs.edu
 
2012-11-18 04:51:50 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 04:52:51 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com

Study it out, folks, just study it out.
 
2012-11-18 04:53:41 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 04:54:33 AM  
November in Colorado should be balls cold.

Sixties and seventies.
 
2012-11-18 04:55:12 AM  
What I find so very telling is how the language describing those, who question the Global Warming orthodoxy has shifted over the past number of months.

I specifically refer to the way that the phrase "Climate Change Skeptic" has been replaced by "Climate Change Denier", as denier always has the negative cachet associated with "Holocaust Denier".

Of course, there's some real double-down irony in that, seeing has how vaguely-cloaked anti-semitism has once again become extremely chic in intellectual circles, and holocaust denial is once again rearing its head and sniffing around, especially in the "Israeli Apartheid Week" circles.
 
2012-11-18 04:55:34 AM  
Liberals have a hard-on for "climate change" because it gives them an excuse to control the means of production.
 
2012-11-18 04:59:03 AM  

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.


Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.
 
2012-11-18 04:59:18 AM  
It is scientifically verifiable that climate change is actually occurring, and that our actions as a species are influencing it. This article from Science magazine explains it: http://lightning.sbs.ohio-state.edu/geo622/paper_globalwarming_Karl200 4.pdf . The only questions are the exact mechanisms and the extent of the impact.
 
2012-11-18 05:00:43 AM  

viscountalpha: Arguing about global warming/cooling it doesn't change it and humans in general are egotistical to believe we have that much impact on our environment.

We get 1/1,000,000 of the suns energy. Say that fluctuates to a miniscule degree. OMG, GLOBAL WARMING! ITS ALL OUR FAULT!

/i can't wait until this world burns...


You can't do anything without having an effect on your environment... period. I don't care if you're even camping with the utmost care in the world, you'll still impact the environment in some way. Don't be one of those idiots that tries to say that we have no impact on our atmosphere despite there being 7 billion + of us on the planet, each having some impact on our environment (including our atmosphere). We are not the solitary cause, we are contributing to the process in a way that is increasing our global temperature.

And actually, you can wait. Because that isn't likely to happen for a very long time. You won't live long enough to see "the world burn". Your life must be pretty damn miserable if that's how you really feel. I hope it gets better for you. I'm a pretty happy person for the most part, so I tend to want to be a good steward for this planet. I'm not seeing an option for a new home if we fark this one up too bad.
 
2012-11-18 05:02:21 AM  

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.


You... didn't read any of the actual data, did you? I'm assuming this because of all the assumptions you made which aren't even tangentially connected to the data we're looking at. For one thing, the NOAA document the article references has no references of its own more recent than 2008 and no links to data tables for the numbers its cites.

There are a number of discrepancies that climate change alarmists have yet to explain.

For one, the lagging of ocean temperatures behind land temperatures which is suggestive of measurement inaccuracies as opposed to any sort of greenhouse gas effect. For another, the failure to account or in some cases to overcompensate for the unequal distribution of temperature measurement devices around the tropics and equator (due to the substandard living conditions in those areas) before the last 30 years. If you look at climate change on a map over the last 30 years, you will see that most of the rise has been due to the expansion of monitoring worldwide. The averages locally have risen much slower than averages "globally" because the "globe" is expanding.

Of course, the globe has warmed. Somewhat. There is still no evidence that this is anthropogenic, and the CO2 hypothesis is getting weaker all the time. If the world is warming because the atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 200 to 350 ppm, I'll move to Mars and enjoy the warmth there.
 
2012-11-18 05:02:54 AM  

david_gaithersburg: Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.


your graph isn't "scientific research". it's just another doctored graph from a blogger.
 
2012-11-18 05:03:16 AM  
We're already past the point of no return.

All that's left to do now is to sit back and enjoy the only true and lasting legacies the human race will ever provide this planet:

Earth's next great climate shift
Earth's 6th extinction level event.

USA!USA!
err, um... well I suppose we can be more inclusive
... EARTH! EARTH! EARTH! EARTH!
 
2012-11-18 05:04:05 AM  
Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!
 
2012-11-18 05:07:14 AM  
331 months, panic!
 
2012-11-18 05:07:25 AM  

Kriggerel: I specifically refer to the way that the phrase "Climate Change Skeptic" has been replaced by "Climate Change Denier", as denier always has the negative cachet associated with "Holocaust Denier".


Ummm... No. That isn't accurate. Neither is the rest of your attempt at deflection.

The term denier is used because there is ample evidence and when they look at it, they claim it is wrong... not because they have contrary evidence, but because they don't like what the evidence says. A skeptic is someone who has looked at evidence and has valid reasons why they feel the evidence is invalid. Do you have a valid reason to say the evidence that shows that we do have an effect on our atmosphere is wrong?

I doubt you do... if you did, you probably would have mentioned that rather than trying to deflect from the topic.
 
2012-11-18 05:12:09 AM  

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.


Null hypothesis? You're awesome. Do you know how rarely I hear that when reading statistical analysis? !
 
2012-11-18 05:12:29 AM  

NobleHam: For one, the lagging of ocean temperatures behind land temperatures which is suggestive of measurement inaccuracies as opposed to any sort of greenhouse gas effect.


Compared to a land surface subject to the same heating, an ocean surface should

A. have a larger seasonal temperature range
B. have a higher summer temperature
C. have a lower winter temperature
D. have a seasonal temperature cycle lagging behind the land's seasonal temperature cycle

Try your luck :)
 
2012-11-18 05:13:48 AM  

log_jammin: david_gaithersburg: Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.

your graph isn't "scientific research". it's just another doctored graph from a blogger.


Actually, it's not doctored by a blogger, it's the work of a thoroughly discredited aggregation done by someone without much statistical experience.

"Loehle is an ecologist who used just 18 proxy datasets in his reconstruction. The statistical analysis in the study was grossly flawed, the paper was panned, and it failed to pass the peer-review process (ultimately it was published in the social science journal Energy&Environment, where all flawed "skeptical" papers end up)." -some guy

But all hope for understanding is not lost! Good science exists! Here are a bunch of peer-reviewed studies:

Link
 
2012-11-18 05:14:18 AM  

NobleHam: 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.

You... didn't read any of the actual data, did you? I'm assuming this because of all the assumptions you made which aren't even tangentially connected to the data we're looking at. For one thing, the NOAA document the article references has no references of its own more recent than 2008 and no links to data tables for the numbers its cites.

There are a number of discrepancies that climate change alarmists have yet to explain.

For one, the lagging of ...


Holy farking dogshiat, son... just look at how stupid you are!
 
2012-11-18 05:15:49 AM  

log_jammin: david_gaithersburg: Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.

your graph isn't "scientific research". it's just another doctored graph from a blogger.


Your video ignores the predominance of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere and is overly reliant on data based on the cold land of the well-documented Northern Hemisphere without proper adjustment to account for the disparity. The data in the video is also presented somewhat dishonestly, with the video creator criticizing one person for removing the last 10 years from a 2000 year graph, but not pointing out that 10 year+ spikes above current temperatures are visible in the graph he cites. And finally he concludes by saying, "yeah, what's happening now is pretty much like the Medieval Warm Period... but that's not a good thing!
 
2012-11-18 05:16:52 AM  

david_gaithersburg: A new tax can fix this!


Hotter it gets, higher your tax, win-win!
 
2012-11-18 05:17:20 AM  
Citations, citations, and then more citations. Link For the reality deniers.
 
2012-11-18 05:18:51 AM  

MurphyMurphy: We're already past the point of no return.

All that's left to do now is to sit back and enjoy the only true and lasting legacies the human race will ever provide this planet:

Earth's next great climate shift
Earth's 6th extinction level event.

USA!USA!
err, um... well I suppose we can be more inclusive
... EARTH! EARTH! EARTH! EARTH!


Yea, pretty much. But hey don't worry be happy and get to high ground?
 
2012-11-18 05:19:01 AM  

Jesda: Liberals have a hard-on for "climate change" because it gives them an excuse to control the means of production.


And libertarian-bent conservatives still don't understand how to deal with externalities.

Hint: It rhymes with "beg two Haitians."
 
2012-11-18 05:19:23 AM  

david_gaithersburg: Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!


Pecking away at the keyboard in your parents' basement does not constitute debunking in any scientific regard.
 
2012-11-18 05:20:07 AM  

david_gaithersburg: Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!


Climate change scientist billionaires are the 1%.
 
2012-11-18 05:20:57 AM  

Cyclometh: NobleHam: 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.

You... didn't read any of the actual data, did you? I'm assuming this because of all the assumptions you made which aren't even tangentially connected to the data we're looking at. For one thing, the NOAA document the article references has no references of its own more recent than 2008 and no links to data tables for the numbers its cites.

There are a number of discrepancies that climate change alarmists have yet to explain.

For one, the lagging of ...

Holy farking dogshiat, son... just look at how stupid you are!


And this is coming from a notoriously nice Farker. So, you may want to take note NH.
 
2012-11-18 05:21:38 AM  

Bontesla: david_gaithersburg: Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

Pecking away at the keyboard in your parents' basement does not constitute debunking in any scientific regard.


I present facts and citations, all you have is name calling. Got it.
 
2012-11-18 05:22:00 AM  

NobleHam: log_jammin: david_gaithersburg: Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.

your graph isn't "scientific research". it's just another doctored graph from a blogger.

Your video ignores the predominance of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere and is overly reliant on data based on the cold land of the well-documented Northern Hemisphere without proper adjustment to account for the disparity. The data in the video is also presented somewhat dishonestly, with the video creator criticizing one person for removing the last 10 years from a 2000 year graph, but not pointing out that 10 year+ spikes above current temperatures are visible in the graph he cites. And finally he concludes by saying, "yeah, what's happening now is pretty much like the Medieval Warm Period... but that's not a good thing!


Do you honestly think that this claptrap is going to fly? This isn't reddit.
 
2012-11-18 05:22:59 AM  

Cyclometh:

Holy farking dogshiat, son... just look at how stupid you are!


Nice. Feel free to get back to me when you have something.

JohnnyC: NobleHam: For one, the lagging of ocean temperatures behind land temperatures which is suggestive of measurement inaccuracies as opposed to any sort of greenhouse gas effect.

Compared to a land surface subject to the same heating, an ocean surface should

A. have a larger seasonal temperature range
B. have a higher summer temperature
C. have a lower winter temperature
D. have a seasonal temperature cycle lagging behind the land's seasonal temperature cycle

Try your luck :)


You're right. There are just a couple of issues. In a warming global climate the higher summer temperature would outweigh the lower winter temperature. We're not seeing that. We're seeing ocean temperature averages not shifting as much as land temperature averages, and I'm not talking about lagging behind, I'm talking about the yearly and monthly temperatures swinging back to the cooler side of average every so often. We're not looking at a steady but slightly behind warming in oceanic temperatures, we're looking at temperatures which simply contradict the picture presented by land data. 

I think a lot of liberals feel obligated to support climate alarmists because it's been presented as the scientific side, but too many take an unscientific approach to the data. Rather than asking questions and pointing out discrepancies they blindly accept data they don't understand and mock people who understand it better than they do simply because "the consensus" tells them they should.
 
2012-11-18 05:24:40 AM  

Bontesla: And this is coming from a notoriously nice Farker. So, you may want to take note NH


To be fair, being nice has nothing to do with being right, but I appreciate the copliment.:)
 
2012-11-18 05:24:48 AM  

Cyclometh: NobleHam: log_jammin: david_gaithersburg: Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.

your graph isn't "scientific research". it's just another doctored graph from a blogger.

Your video ignores the predominance of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere and is overly reliant on data based on the cold land of the well-documented Northern Hemisphere without proper adjustment to account for the disparity. The data in the video is also presented somewhat dishonestly, with the video creator criticizing one person for removing the last 10 years from a 2000 year graph, but not pointing out that 10 year+ spikes above current temperatures are visible in the graph he cites. And finally he concludes by saying, "yeah, what's happening now is pretty much like the Medieval Warm Period... but that's not a good thing!

Do you honestly think that this claptrap is going to fly? This isn't reddit.


Again, do you have a specific problem with what I said or does it just not jibe with your worldview?
 
2012-11-18 05:24:58 AM  

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.


Below the average 20th century temp. Or, probably, the 1950s+ average temp (when we had satellites for global averaging) would be my guess. As others have pointed out, it's been significantly warmer and colder in the past.

Not that it's not worth some concern, but the "everybody panic" bit is maybe some oversell there.
 
2012-11-18 05:25:02 AM  

NobleHam: Your video ignores the predominance of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere and is overly reliant on data based on the cold land of the well-documented Northern Hemisphere without proper adjustment to account for the disparity.


cool. so where is your data for those areas that show the MWP was in fact global?

NobleHam: The data in the video is also presented somewhat dishonestly, with the video creator criticizing one person for removing the last 10 years from a 2000 year graph, but not pointing out that 10 year+ spikes above current temperatures are visible in the graph he cites.


lie.

NobleHam: And finally he concludes by saying, "yeah, what's happening now is pretty much like the Medieval Warm Period... but that's not a good thing!


no he doesn't. try again.
 
2012-11-18 05:25:51 AM  

david_gaithersburg: Bontesla: david_gaithersburg: Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

Pecking away at the keyboard in your parents' basement does not constitute debunking in any scientific regard.

I present facts and citations, all you have is name calling. Got it.


Lol calling them facts does not actually convince people (other than you) that you're presenting actual facts.

The Fark community has danced with you many times on this particular subject and you just double down in your scientific skepticism. Why would I want to play that number again? This isn't Casablanca.

Finally, suggesting that you're chicken pecking at a keyboard in your parents' basement isn't name calling. If I were to suggest that you were an idiot then I would be name calling.
 
2012-11-18 05:26:31 AM  

Bontesla: david_gaithersburg: Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

Pecking away at the keyboard in your parents' basement does not constitute debunking in any scientific regard.


True that, it's gonna be a shame when we lose the Greenland ice sheets it's gonna be a real tragedy if we lose the Antarctic ice.
 
2012-11-18 05:27:15 AM  

david_gaithersburg: I present facts and citations, all you have is name calling. Got it.


I've got a fact.

The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63°C (58.23°F). This is 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature. The last below-average month was February 1985. The last October with a below-average temperature was 1976.

the citation is the the article at the top of the page. Prove that fact wrong.
 
2012-11-18 05:27:36 AM  

david_gaithersburg: Bontesla: david_gaithersburg: Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

Pecking away at the keyboard in your parents' basement does not constitute debunking in any scientific regard.

I present facts and citations, all you have is name calling. Got it.



Your facts and citations are debunked bullshiat. Your chart is from Craig Loehle's preliminary, unrevised or edited, humiliating, peer-failing paper. He subsequently consulted a statistician and his results are now consistent with the accepted theories. Get it?

PEER REVIEWED & ACCEPTED studies
 
2012-11-18 05:28:07 AM  

NobleHam: Cyclometh: NobleHam: log_jammin: david_gaithersburg: Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.

your graph isn't "scientific research". it's just another doctored graph from a blogger.

Your video ignores the predominance of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere and is overly reliant on data based on the cold land of the well-documented Northern Hemisphere without proper adjustment to account for the disparity. The data in the video is also presented somewhat dishonestly, with the video creator criticizing one person for removing the last 10 years from a 2000 year graph, but not pointing out that 10 year+ spikes above current temperatures are visible in the graph he cites. And finally he concludes by saying, "yeah, what's happening now is pretty much like the Medieval Warm Period... but that's not a good thing!

Do you honestly think that this claptrap is going to fly? This isn't reddit.

Again, do you have a specific problem with what I said or does it just not jibe with your worldview?


Do I look like a teacher, chucklenuts? I'm not here to debate your stupid ass, I am here to mock and deride you for having bad ideas and worse arguments.
 
2012-11-18 05:31:13 AM  

log_jammin: NobleHam: Your video ignores the predominance of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere and is overly reliant on data based on the cold land of the well-documented Northern Hemisphere without proper adjustment to account for the disparity.

cool. so where is your data for those areas that show the MWP was in fact global?

NobleHam: The data in the video is also presented somewhat dishonestly, with the video creator criticizing one person for removing the last 10 years from a 2000 year graph, but not pointing out that 10 year+ spikes above current temperatures are visible in the graph he cites.

lie.

NobleHam: And finally he concludes by saying, "yeah, what's happening now is pretty much like the Medieval Warm Period... but that's not a good thing!

no he doesn't. try again.


Well if you're just going to be dishonest I don't know what the point is, but no it isn't a lie, and yeah he does, re-watch your own video if you doubt me, or hell, look at the actual Ljungqvist or Mann papers. I assume it's probably something you saw a few months ago and don't actually remember, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to try it again.

As for the data on the MWP being global, your man reluctantly presents some himself at the end of the video. The more important thing though is that all of the historical data we have, and I mean not just from Europe but from China and India and every other culture with writing, not to mention archaeological evidence of famines in the 14th and 15th centuries, points to it being an unusually warm period. In trying to adjust for this climate alarmists have sought data from other, undocumented areas, but their methodologies have been flawed as I mentioned above.
 
2012-11-18 05:31:19 AM  

NobleHam: climate alarmists


"We have data that we believe proves rather conclusively that global temperatures are rising."

"Alarmist! Chicken Little! Liberal plot!"

...

wat
 
2012-11-18 05:32:12 AM  

log_jammin: NobleHam: Your video ignores the predominance of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere and is overly reliant on data based on the cold land of the well-documented Northern Hemisphere without proper adjustment to account for the disparity.

cool. so where is your data for those areas that show the MWP was in fact global?

NobleHam: The data in the video is also presented somewhat dishonestly, with the video creator criticizing one person for removing the last 10 years from a 2000 year graph, but not pointing out that 10 year+ spikes above current temperatures are visible in the graph he cites.

lie.

NobleHam: And finally he concludes by saying, "yeah, what's happening now is pretty much like the Medieval Warm Period... but that's not a good thing!

no he doesn't. try again.


You can't reason someone out of a position that they never reasoned themselves into.

That's the problem. It's pretty obvious that NH has researched the subject. But he's researched it to confirm his existing bias and not to discover anything that may disprove his bias.

So, NH creates two standards he'll use to evaluate the evidence. The first standard will be set low and he'll use it to confirm his bias. The second standard will be insulated with a layer of skepticism. Ultimately, there is very little evidence that would ever pass that test.
 
2012-11-18 05:33:08 AM  
In all honesty, weather it's man-made or natural (pun intended obviously), will there be a change in how mankind approaches climate change?

No, there will not be. There are things we could do. Reduce emissions, smarter use of resources/farmland, etc. But no significant changes will be made.

There is great talk of the "fiscal cliff" quickly approaching, but zero serious talk about ensuring that mankind can move forward intelligently.

Then again, what may happen in the future? For one, Yellowstone is sure to go within the next 100 or 1000 or 10000 or so years. That ought to decimate a good majority (myself included if I'm still kicking). And if that doesn't happen, something else will. It's our destiny. More than likely as clean water for drinking and irrigation becomes more scarce over time, large wars will break out which will accomplish the same. Quite frankly, I propose we burn off all of our fossil fuels now rather than later, and let the chips fall where they may. I wish I had an idealistic view on the future of mankind, but all we have done is wage war against each other since the dawn of mankind, and that is not about to change. Add to the mix clean water problems, clean air problems, current wars, industrial production, everyone laughing at smart cars (well deserved but still), where are we headed?

Even in this country, the United States of America, nearly half of the populace voted for Romntard, the anti-thesis of the solution. Recycle all you want, turn off your key at the drive-through, vote for peace rather than war, but the march of mankind will see this through to the end, for better or worse.

Our only hope is to learn how to live in space (the far future), yet we cannot even fund NASA to a tenth of the extent required.

Eventually the sun will swallow our lovely blue planet Earth, and all of our remains will be vaporized in the ensuing fireball.
 
2012-11-18 05:35:18 AM  

NobleHam: Well if you're just going to be dishonest


Oh brother.

you know what Bontesla? You're 100% right. I need to keep reminding myself to not bother with these people.
 
2012-11-18 05:38:07 AM  

NobleHam: look at the actual Ljungqvist or Mann papers


It's been a warmer than average week in Lake Wobegon. Fred Ljungqvist snuck on down to the Sidetrack Tap to sip on a cold one, and contemplate what that might mean.
 
2012-11-18 05:39:53 AM  

Bontesla:
That's the problem. It's pretty obvious that NH has researched the subject. But he's researched it to confirm his existing bias and not to discover anything that may disprove his bias.

So, NH creates two standards he'll use to evaluate the evidence. The first standard will be set low and he'll use it to confirm his bias. The second standard will be insulated with a layer of skepticism. Ultimately, there is very little evidence that would ever pass that test.


Sure, I have some bias. So do those on the other side of the issue, particularly those who have a career which depends on a crisis. Based on my knowledge of greenhouse gases I find it very hard to believe that the increase we have seen in CO2 levels thus far could possibly be responsible for a greater than 1 degree F rise in temperatures. Even including methane doesn't account for the increases which some studies claim we've seen so far. Those studies are flawed as I have mentioned above. If I'm wrong, and if they're right, I still don't believe CO2 is responsible. I think it's more likely that the heat we have produced on Earth through combustion is a more likely source of global warming than any heat trapped by greenhouse gases, the levels of which are still far too low to produce any significant warming, particularly over such a short period of time.

sendtodave: NobleHam: climate alarmists

"We have data that we believe proves rather conclusively that global temperatures are rising."

"Alarmist! Chicken Little! Liberal plot!"


Call me a denier, call me unscientific, call me an idiot or ignorant, and I'm not supposed to have any name for you? I try to be as respectful as possible, but "believers" just seems too religious a term, and most names I could use for those who believe the so-called consensus would only serve to validate their views. So ignore the names I use, if you will, and pay attention to my points.
 
2012-11-18 05:42:18 AM  
How has it been getting warmer for 331 consecutive months, but the warmest October ever was in 2003?
 
2012-11-18 05:43:45 AM  
Oh wait, I answered my own question. It's 331 above-average months, not "consecutively warmer" months. Mah bad.
 
2012-11-18 05:43:47 AM  

sendtodave: Jesda: Liberals have a hard-on for "climate change" because it gives them an excuse to control the means of production.

And libertarian-bent conservatives still don't understand how to deal with externalities.

Hint: It rhymes with "beg two Haitians."


The liberal answer to everything is to tax, regulate, control, and drive human subjects into caves.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2009/10/23/the-superfreakonomics-global-w a rming-fact-quiz/
 
2012-11-18 05:43:57 AM  

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


It didn't say getting warmer, it said that it's been above average for 332 months. If it was cold for 80 years and warm for 20, the last 20 would all be above average even if if year 85 was warmer than year 90.
 
2012-11-18 05:46:27 AM  
Enjoy those droughts, floods, and superstorms, skeptics. deniers. anti-science ignoramuses.
 
2012-11-18 05:48:47 AM  

Bonanza Jellybean: Enjoy those droughts, floods, and superstorms, skeptics. deniers. anti-science ignoramuses.


Unfortunately, we all get to share in those, one way or the other.
 
2012-11-18 05:49:36 AM  
Climatology is a Religion.
 
2012-11-18 05:50:26 AM  

NobleHam: particularly those who have a career which depends on a crisis.


"I know you may have your heart set on climate sciences, son, but always keep in mind that unless you can prove that global temperatures are rising, your doctorate degree will be pretty much useless. Unless you 'cook the books', so to speak, you'll likely end serving Frappiccinos at Starbucks. Might I suggest you pursue geology, instead?"

NobleHam: So ignore the names I use, if you will, and pay attention to my points.


Oh, I am! They make me chuckle.
 
2012-11-18 05:51:55 AM  

Kriggerel: What I find so very telling is how the language describing those, who question the Global Warming orthodoxy has shifted over the past number of months.

I specifically refer to the way that the phrase "Climate Change Skeptic" has been replaced by "Climate Change Denier", as denier always has the negative cachet associated with "Holocaust Denier".

Of course, there's some real double-down irony in that, seeing has how vaguely-cloaked anti-semitism has once again become extremely chic in intellectual circles, and holocaust denial is once again rearing its head and sniffing around, especially in the "Israeli Apartheid Week" circles.


WTF am I reading?

What I find so very telling is that the purple teletubby was gay. I specifically refer to the way that nobody besides Big Bird can see Snuffleupagus. I offer as proof the fact that purple crayons are even more delicious than orange crayons.

That makes as much sense as your ridiculous post.
 
2012-11-18 05:53:07 AM  

Jesda: sendtodave: Jesda: Liberals have a hard-on for "climate change" because it gives them an excuse to control the means of production.

And libertarian-bent conservatives still don't understand how to deal with externalities.

Hint: It rhymes with "beg two Haitians."

The liberal answer to everything is to tax, regulate, control, and drive human subjects into caves.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2009/10/23/the-superfreakonomics-global-w a rming-fact-quiz/


u troll me
 
2012-11-18 05:56:07 AM  

sendtodave: NobleHam: particularly those who have a career which depends on a crisis.

"I know you may have your heart set on climate sciences, son, but always keep in mind that unless you can prove that global temperatures are rising, your doctorate degree will be pretty much useless. Unless you 'cook the books', so to speak, you'll likely end serving Frappiccinos at Starbucks. Might I suggest you pursue geology, instead?"


It's not about use vs. uselessness, it's about relevance vs. irrelevance, and human selfishness and arrogance. Any truly scientific climatologist will admit that they don't have a sufficient sample size to draw conclusions. Of course, I doubt there are any actual climatologists in this thread, just people who like to jump on the "science" bandwagon regardless of their actual foundation in science.
 
2012-11-18 05:57:45 AM  
Does no-one else find it odd that Libertarians and Conservatives are so fond of championing individual agency and blaming all misfortunes on personal choices, yet refuse to believe that our collective choices might have any negative effect on our environment?
 
2012-11-18 06:01:17 AM  

NobleHam: , just people who like to jump on the "science" bandwagon regardless of their actual foundation in science.


the science bandwagon? wow.
 
2012-11-18 06:01:25 AM  

Metalithic: Does no-one else find it odd that Libertarians and Conservatives are so fond of championing individual agency and blaming all misfortunes on personal choices, yet refuse to believe that our collective choices might have any negative effect on our environment?


Nope. Personal responsibility is for other people.
 
2012-11-18 06:02:00 AM  

Metalithic: Does no-one else find it odd that Libertarians and Conservatives are so fond of championing individual agency and blaming all misfortunes on personal choices, yet refuse to believe that our collective choices might have any negative effect on our environment?


For the record, I'm a gay UU liberal. My problem is with the data, not the idea.
 
2012-11-18 06:03:29 AM  
It rained yesterday in farking Laramie Wyoming. On November 17th. In Laramie. Wyoming. That shiat's not normal.
 
2012-11-18 06:03:39 AM  

log_jammin: NobleHam: , just people who like to jump on the "science" bandwagon regardless of their actual foundation in science.

the science bandwagon? wow.


"'Science' bandwagon" not "science bandwagon." My point is their conclusion isn't scientific, they just support it to seem like they're on the rational side because they're told that people who actually ARE scientists all agree on it, even when that's not true.
 
2012-11-18 06:04:08 AM  

Metalithic: Does no-one else find it odd that Libertarians and Conservatives are so fond of championing individual agency and blaming all misfortunes on personal choices, yet refuse to believe that our collective choices might have any negative effect on our environment?


Collective choices?

ts4.mm.bing.net
 
2012-11-18 06:05:29 AM  

NobleHam: log_jammin: NobleHam: , just people who like to jump on the "science" bandwagon regardless of their actual foundation in science.

the science bandwagon? wow.

"'Science' bandwagon" not "science bandwagon." My point is their conclusion isn't scientific, they just support it to seem like they're on the rational side because they're told that people who actually ARE scientists all agree on it, even when that's not true.


You're adorable.
 
2012-11-18 06:06:16 AM  

viscountalpha: Arguing about global warming/cooling it doesn't change it and humans in general are egotistical to believe we have that much impact on our environment.


Please explain the global fluctuation of ozone, in reference to large areas of no ozone in the last 50 years, using natural sources only.
 
2012-11-18 06:06:50 AM  

NobleHam: Sure, I have some bias. So do those on the other side of the issue, particularly those who have a career which depends on a crisis. Based on my knowledge of greenhouse gases I find it very hard to believe that the increase we have seen in CO2 levels thus far could possibly be responsible for a greater than 1 degree F rise in temperatures. Even including methane doesn't account for the increases which some studies claim we've seen so far. Those studies are flawed as I have mentioned above. If I'm wrong, and if they're right, I still don't believe CO2 is responsible. I think it's more likely that the heat we have produced on Earth through combustion is a more likely source of global warming than any heat trapped by greenhouse gases, the levels of which are still far too low to produce any significant warming, particularly over such a short period of time.


It sure is nice to know that you don't think CO2 is responsible. I'm sure you'll provide a detailed explanation of that assertion any minute now.

In the meantime, here is the strength of the forcing from CO2 and other sources:

www.realclimate.org
 
2012-11-18 06:06:52 AM  

NobleHam: even when that's not true.


that isn't a very scientific conclusion.
 
2012-11-18 06:08:06 AM  

zombiejesusnightmare: NobleHam: log_jammin: NobleHam: , just people who like to jump on the "science" bandwagon regardless of their actual foundation in science.

the science bandwagon? wow.

"'Science' bandwagon" not "science bandwagon." My point is their conclusion isn't scientific, they just support it to seem like they're on the rational side because they're told that people who actually ARE scientists all agree on it, even when that's not true.

You're adorable.


Thanks, I've always thought I had some boyish charm.

But if you're not serious, I've always found that when I'm mocked and not challenged it usually means I'm right.
 
2012-11-18 06:11:19 AM  
This is why I say we should terraform mars.
Because its apparently easier to change a planets climate than anyone believes, and it would give us a backup world for when we inevitably screw the earth over.

/The question isn't whether the weather changes, but what is causing it to change and if there is anything we can do about it.
/Politicians wont give up the research money or get rid of their environmentalist cash cow by taking responsibility for the problem.
/I also doubt that scientists will agree on any course of action even if (especially when) a few billion were made available to choose one.
 
2012-11-18 06:12:14 AM  
Dude, why do I need to challenge you? Reality is doing a fine job of it on its own (not to mention loads of others in this thread). I'm just here to poke fun at the morons.
 
2012-11-18 06:12:37 AM  
I've always found that when I'm mocked and not challenged it usually means I'm right.

also not a scientific conclusion.
 
2012-11-18 06:13:30 AM  

Metalithic: Does no-one else find it odd that Libertarians and Conservatives are so fond of championing individual agency and blaming all misfortunes on personal choices, yet refuse to believe that our collective choices might have any negative effect on our environment?


The issue goes beyond physical science and into economics which is why it's so controversial.

It's about who owns and controls the means of production. The popular liberal approach is to use government to control the entire market. The right wing approach is to ignore the consequences. The libertarian approach is to let the courts deal with liabilities for damages rather than using too-often abusive and wasteful bureaucracies and agencies.

On a slightly unrelated note, "Scientism" has become a religion of its own, though it's certainly more favorable than worshipping Xenu. People who don't understand academia, how data are collected, how research is published, and how research grants are earned are inclined to blindly say "THE SCIENTISTS SAID" without understanding statistics, the theories, or how they were analyzed. That's arguably a product of the grade school textbooks we grew up with which often declared "Scientists say," without going into further detail or exploring controversies or differing opinions and conclusions. Textbooks tend to emphasize information retention over knowledge and analysis. But again, this is blind ideological allegiance to "science" is probably preferable to "Jesus says..."
 
2012-11-18 06:14:08 AM  

david_gaithersburg: Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!


Actually it wasn't scientists, but a republican strategist that coined the more warm and fuzzy term "climate change"
Link
 
2012-11-18 06:16:03 AM  

Baryogenesis: NobleHam: Sure, I have some bias. So do those on the other side of the issue, particularly those who have a career which depends on a crisis. Based on my knowledge of greenhouse gases I find it very hard to believe that the increase we have seen in CO2 levels thus far could possibly be responsible for a greater than 1 degree F rise in temperatures. Even including methane doesn't account for the increases which some studies claim we've seen so far. Those studies are flawed as I have mentioned above. If I'm wrong, and if they're right, I still don't believe CO2 is responsible. I think it's more likely that the heat we have produced on Earth through combustion is a more likely source of global warming than any heat trapped by greenhouse gases, the levels of which are still far too low to produce any significant warming, particularly over such a short period of time.

It sure is nice to know that you don't think CO2 is responsible. I'm sure you'll provide a detailed explanation of that assertion any minute now.

In the meantime, here is the strength of the forcing from CO2 and other sources:

[www.realclimate.org image 594x459]


That graph is based on a study of warming over the last 30 years which assumed as a given that CO2 was the primary source of warming and looked only at greenhouse gas increases vs. solar activity. I'm not one of those "deniers" who says that solar activity is the source of warming. I do, however, dispute their findings on the rise in temperature over the last 30 years for reasons I have already explained in this thread. If we are assuming a rise of greater than 1 degree F over the last 30 years, and we are focusing solely on greenhouse gases for an explanation, then their conclusions are sound. They are, however, limited to those conditions, and are contradictory to data we have on the effects of atmospheric CO2 on temperatures on other planets and moons related to corresponding levels of solar energy. Simply put, everywhere we look but here, CO2 is not that powerful of a greenhouse gas. So either there's a flaw in our data everywhere else, or there's a different source of warming here that is only related to CO2 levels by correlation.
 
2012-11-18 06:16:20 AM  

NobleHam: I've always found that when I'm mocked and not challenged it usually means I'm right.


Truthers and Birthers know exactly how you feel.
 
2012-11-18 06:18:46 AM  

NobleHam: I've always found that when I'm mocked and not challenged it usually means I'm right.


If the idlers were still not satisfied, but continued to bait him, they would in the end come to blows. Then only after Ah Q had, to all appearances, been defeated, had his brownish pigtail pulled and his head bumped against the wall four or five times, would the idlers walk away, satisfied at having won. Ah Q would stand there for a second, thinking to himself, "It is as if I were beaten by my son. What is the world coming to nowadays. . . ." Thereupon he too would walk away, satisfied at having won.
 
2012-11-18 06:19:48 AM  

log_jammin: NobleHam: even when that's not true.

that isn't a very scientific conclusion.


Science has its limits. When you can use science to establish truth, please let me know, if you're not too busy picking up your Nobel prize.
 
2012-11-18 06:21:12 AM  
NobleHam: But if you're not serious, I've always found that when I'm mocked and not challenged it usually means I'm right.

Sorry, Mr. Ham. In this case, it means we pity you, perhaps especially if you're just an anti-science troll.

Evolution? Germ theory? Gravity? Big Bang? I know all those doctors and physicists are getting rich on their "theories," but that doesn't make any of them less accepted.

You don't like the fact that you and your forbears farked this planet. I'm sorry for your guilt. Deal with it. If you don't, you'll be treated by your descendents with the same contempt.

Not that it'll do any good, but this is a good place to begin exploring the science.

Otherwise, just let the grown-ups (and the scientists talk). You're embarrassing yourself.
 
2012-11-18 06:24:12 AM  

NobleHam: log_jammin: NobleHam: even when that's not true.

that isn't a very scientific conclusion.

Science has its limits. When you can use science to establish truth, please let me know, if you're not too busy picking up your Nobel prize.


Jump. Notice how you fell back to earth? We know why. Science. Truth. Shut the fark up.
 
2012-11-18 06:27:16 AM  

animal color: NobleHam: But if you're not serious, I've always found that when I'm mocked and not challenged it usually means I'm right.

Sorry, Mr. Ham. In this case, it means we pity you, perhaps especially if you're just an anti-science troll.

Evolution? Germ theory? Gravity? Big Bang? I know all those doctors and physicists are getting rich on their "theories," but that doesn't make any of them less accepted.

You don't like the fact that you and your forbears farked this planet. I'm sorry for your guilt. Deal with it. If you don't, you'll be treated by your descendents with the same contempt.

Not that it'll do any good, but this is a good place to begin exploring the science.

Otherwise, just let the grown-ups (and the scientists talk). You're embarrassing yourself.


I wish I could roll my eyes forcefully enough for you to sense it over the web.

I have a strong foundation in science. I think we have seriously farked over the planet, but I don't think is one of those ways. I am well-versed in both sides of the climate change argument. I have raised a number of points, none have been addressed. This isn't because of derision, it's because of a lack of ability. Perhaps I haven't presented enough data. Fair enough, it's 3 AM and I've been drinking, so I don't feel like writing an academic paper right this moment. Yet frankly, it's a bit more embarrassing that all you have is the old "you're unscientific and I'm not" dribble.
 
2012-11-18 06:27:20 AM  

NobleHam: Science has its limits. When you can use science to establish truth, please let me know, if you're not too busy picking up your Nobel prize.


hilarious! did you get that line from raiders of the lost ark? Should I go to Dr. Tyree's philosophy class right down the hall?
 
2012-11-18 06:29:51 AM  

zombiejesusnightmare: NobleHam: log_jammin: NobleHam: even when that's not true.

that isn't a very scientific conclusion.

Science has its limits. When you can use science to establish truth, please let me know, if you're not too busy picking up your Nobel prize.

Jump. Notice how you fell back to earth? We know why. Science. Truth. Shut the fark up.


Do you? A caveman could have told you you would fall back to Earth if you jumped. Aristotle could have told you why, but he was wrong. Newton got a hell of a lot closer, but he was still wrong. Einstein improved on his theory, but he still wasn't quite "right." Now our best understanding of gravity is a hodgepodge of improvements on Einstein's theories, but all it takes is one more big leap to prove that wrong.

It's easy to say what will happen, but it's a lot harder to say "why," and science wouldn't really be science if one "why" could be claimed as absolute.
 
2012-11-18 06:34:01 AM  

NobleHam: zombiejesusnightmare: NobleHam: log_jammin: NobleHam: even when that's not true.

that isn't a very scientific conclusion.

Science has its limits. When you can use science to establish truth, please let me know, if you're not too busy picking up your Nobel prize.

Jump. Notice how you fell back to earth? We know why. Science. Truth. Shut the fark up.

Do you? A caveman could have told you you would fall back to Earth if you jumped. Aristotle could have told you why, but he was wrong. Newton got a hell of a lot closer, but he was still wrong. Einstein improved on his theory, but he still wasn't quite "right." Now our best understanding of gravity is a hodgepodge of improvements on Einstein's theories, but all it takes is one more big leap to prove that wrong.

It's easy to say what will happen, but it's a lot harder to say "why," and science wouldn't really be science if one "why" could be claimed as absolute.


So because the scientific method has allowed us to get closer and closer to the truth of what is happening in the world around us, it is not to be trusted? Or something? What are you trying to say here?
 
2012-11-18 06:35:33 AM  

log_jammin: I've always found that when I'm mocked and not challenged it usually means I'm right.

also not a scientific conclusion.


It is a sign of mental illness, however.
 
2012-11-18 06:35:49 AM  

david_gaithersburg: A new tax cut can fix this!

 
2012-11-18 06:35:55 AM  

zombiejesusnightmare: NobleHam: zombiejesusnightmare: NobleHam: log_jammin: NobleHam: even when that's not true.

that isn't a very scientific conclusion.

Science has its limits. When you can use science to establish truth, please let me know, if you're not too busy picking up your Nobel prize.

Jump. Notice how you fell back to earth? We know why. Science. Truth. Shut the fark up.

Do you? A caveman could have told you you would fall back to Earth if you jumped. Aristotle could have told you why, but he was wrong. Newton got a hell of a lot closer, but he was still wrong. Einstein improved on his theory, but he still wasn't quite "right." Now our best understanding of gravity is a hodgepodge of improvements on Einstein's theories, but all it takes is one more big leap to prove that wrong.

It's easy to say what will happen, but it's a lot harder to say "why," and science wouldn't really be science if one "why" could be claimed as absolute.

So because the scientific method has allowed us to get closer and closer to the truth of what is happening in the world around us, it is not to be trusted? Or something? What are you trying to say here?


Just a semantics argument, you can calm down with the strawmen. I was just saying that a statement of truth or falsehood is not scientific by nature, in reference to my own claim that something was false.
 
2012-11-18 06:42:08 AM  
I'm going to bed. Good catch tonight. Y'all are seriously idiots, though, so blindly pledging allegiance to the "consensus." You would have loved Copernicus.
 
2012-11-18 06:44:28 AM  

NobleHam: They are, however, limited to those conditions, and are contradictory to data we have on the effects of atmospheric CO2 on temperatures on other planets and moons related to corresponding levels of solar energy. Simply put, everywhere we look but here, CO2 is not that powerful of a greenhouse gas. So either there's a flaw in our data everywhere else, or there's a different source of warming here that is only related to CO2 levels by correlation.


You say a lot, but you don't back anything up with more than your opinion. What data from other planets would that be?
 
2012-11-18 06:45:00 AM  

NobleHam: zombiejesusnightmare: NobleHam: zombiejesusnightmare: NobleHam: log_jammin: NobleHam: even when that's not true.

that isn't a very scientific conclusion.

Science has its limits. When you can use science to establish truth, please let me know, if you're not too busy picking up your Nobel prize.

Jump. Notice how you fell back to earth? We know why. Science. Truth. Shut the fark up.

Do you? A caveman could have told you you would fall back to Earth if you jumped. Aristotle could have told you why, but he was wrong. Newton got a hell of a lot closer, but he was still wrong. Einstein improved on his theory, but he still wasn't quite "right." Now our best understanding of gravity is a hodgepodge of improvements on Einstein's theories, but all it takes is one more big leap to prove that wrong.

It's easy to say what will happen, but it's a lot harder to say "why," and science wouldn't really be science if one "why" could be claimed as absolute.

So because the scientific method has allowed us to get closer and closer to the truth of what is happening in the world around us, it is not to be trusted? Or something? What are you trying to say here?

Just a semantics argument, you can calm down with the strawmen. I was just saying that a statement of truth or falsehood is not scientific by nature, in reference to my own claim that something was false.


Ha ha ok. I see now. In case you forgot the subject we are interested in is anthropogenic climate change. The "truth" of which is well within the realm of science to make clear. Get that philosophy 101 crap outta here.
24.media.tumblr.com
 In other words, shut the fark up when grown folks is talkin!
 
2012-11-18 06:51:44 AM  
Which part of the warming is natural variation and which part is anthropogenic. Why do warmers assume anthropogenic causes when the climate has always changed? Why is this question met with such anger? Why is the science so weak that the proponents have no answer for the following question? How can they not know the proportions of natural and anthropogenic forcings?

Please, some warmer here at fark, cite the facts for me. I've been looking for almost a decade for the info, but seems warmers never demand to know. they simply accept that anthropogenic forcing is causing the climate changes.
 
2012-11-18 06:58:16 AM  

NobleHam: I'm going to bed. Good catch tonight. Y'all are seriously idiots, though, so blindly pledging allegiance to the "consensus." You would have loved Copernicus.


We get it, you finally came
 
2012-11-18 07:05:13 AM  

stirfrybry:
Please, some warmer here at fark, cite the facts for me. I've been looking for almost a decade for the info, but seems warmers never demand to know. they simply accept that anthropogenic forcing is causing the climate changes.


Why does it matter?

If climate change is just some sort of natural occurrence on the planet, society has to adapt. If climate change is cause by humanity, society still has to adapt. What's the major issue here?
 
2012-11-18 07:13:08 AM  

wippit: stirfrybry:
Please, some warmer here at fark, cite the facts for me. I've been looking for almost a decade for the info, but seems warmers never demand to know. they simply accept that anthropogenic forcing is causing the climate changes.

Why does it matter?

If climate change is just some sort of natural occurrence on the planet, society has to adapt. If climate change is cause by humanity, society still has to adapt. What's the major issue here?


This. If the only reason somebody can think of that modern men, who have been to the moon, shouldn't still be making their energy by digging shiat up and burning it, like f**king cavemen - that somebody is beyond the reach of any reasoned argument i could mount.
 
2012-11-18 07:15:39 AM  

Kriggerel: What I find so very telling is how the language describing those, who question the Global Warming orthodoxy has shifted over the past number of months.

I specifically refer to the way that the phrase "Climate Change Skeptic" has been replaced by "Climate Change Denier", as denier always has the negative cachet associated with "Holocaust Denier".


This word "skeptic"...

...doesn't mean "doesn't believe", it means somebody who looks at the evidence. The deniers aren't looking at the evidence, ergo they're not "skeptics".
 
2012-11-18 07:18:22 AM  

wippit:
If climate change is just some sort of natural occurrence on the planet, society has to adapt. If climate change is cause by humanity, society still has to adapt. What's the major issue here?


What if we invested in clean, sustainable energy with a view to the future and it turned out to be nature that was doing it. That would be a real bummer...
 
2012-11-18 07:19:51 AM  

stirfrybry: Which part of the warming is natural variation and which part is anthropogenic


They take turns. Natural global warming increases the temperature by .01 degree, then anthropogenic by .01, then natural, etc. In order to know which is increasing the temperature more, you just have to know if the variation is even or odd. Natural warming is odd, anthropogenic even. Or maybe it's the other way around, I don't remember.
 
2012-11-18 07:21:29 AM  

Joce678:
What if we invested in clean, sustainable energy with a view to the future and it turned out to be nature that was doing it. That would be a real bummer...


Come on now. If you're going to appeal to the lowest common denominator out there, you KNOW you have to use a comic.

planetsave.com
 
2012-11-18 07:24:44 AM  

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

 

www.artlum.com
 
2012-11-18 07:25:51 AM  
I read something once that, the few days after 9/11, when all the airplanes were grounded, it was actually an average of 2 degrees warmer on the planet - no white contrails to reflect sunlight back into space.
 
2012-11-18 07:28:25 AM  

stirfrybry: Why is the science so weak that the proponents have no answer for the following question? How can they not know the proportions of natural and anthropogenic forcings?


If science can't answer it, because the science is so weak, and your position is so strong, then shouldn't you be able to answer the question?
 
2012-11-18 07:30:50 AM  

NobleHam: You're right. There are just a couple of issues.


The correct answer was... D.

That question was a basic GEOG201: Physical Geography question.

NobleHam:
Rather than asking questions and pointing out discrepancies they blindly accept data they don't understand and mock people who understand it better than they do simply because "the consensus" tells them they should.

If you can't answer a simple 201 level question accurately... why do you believe you understand it better than other people? The "consensus" you speak of is a scientific consensus. Meaning the vast majority of scientists who have looked at the data say it means X. This isn't because they want to believe that X is true, but because every time they work out the data, it keeps pointing to X. It is not out of ignorance that people mock those who examine the same evidence and keep ignoring whatever parts conflict with their narrative... it is because they deserve to be mocked for their willful ignorance of what is not only widely available data, but widely examined and verifiable data.

If you have a valid scientific examination that undermines the prevailing theories, present it. I'm sure the world can't wait for you to explain how smokestacks pouring out greenhouse gases at incredible rates have no effect at all on the atmosphere.
 
2012-11-18 07:31:47 AM  
This argument is pointless. Your grandchildren will despise you for arguing to the point of inaction. The vast majority of activities that produce CO2 also produce a miriad of other environmental pollutants. Radioactive particles, toxic chemicals, heavy metals and imbalances of natural chemistry will make our decendants lives a struggle in every aspect. Regardless of whether it is warmer or not, they will curse our stupidity as they wonder what creatures that no longer exist were like, attempt to not die of cancer and other diseases, and have children free of abnormalities. We need to solve these problems regardless of cost, before we are purged from the environment like a virus that destroys it's host before it has somewhere else to go.
 
2012-11-18 07:33:26 AM  
Oh, submitter. You're saying good news as if it's bad news. If more of the ice caps melt, we can all enjoy much more beachfront property!
 
2012-11-18 07:34:37 AM  
So here's the thing. Warmist alarmists would have you believe that while natural fluctuations do occur, they only manifest as while noise, which means an uncorrelated random offset in each time period (ie year, or month for example). From this it is easy to show that average offsets over longer time periods of say ten years will be lower (basically you divide by sqrt(n)). This enables them to state with confidence what the temperature will be in the future, and also to confidently conclude that fluctuations on a decadal scale could not possibly come from noise (the Weeners in the thread does this). Indeed, arguably, the entire "climatology is different from meteorology" argument is based on longer timescales giving higher certainty.

But take a look at the actual graphs. There is a certain familiarity to the kind of curve you see there. It looks like pink noise. Now, pink noise is noide that, unlike white noise, is biassed toward the low frequencies. We say pink noise has equal energy per octave (white noise has equal energy in equal sized frequency ranges). Pink noise therefore does not settle down over longer timescales. A fluctuation on the decade scale is equally likely as one on a years scale or a centuries scale. Pink noise is really common in nature because it is the kind of output you get from coupled chaotic systems.

Remember chaos theory? Suddenly noone wants to talk about it any more. I wonder why. Chaos theory shows how natural systems produce unpredictable behaviour. And the most common scenario in nature is to have multiple chaotic systems each drivin the other's control variable. Such systems have been shown to produce pink noise.

White noise is the only kind of noise with no self-correlation (all samples are independent). But since we know that nature has a memory - i.e. that certain variables take time to change - the white noise assumption is highly dubious. We cannot just assume it.

Basically, since white noise is an unjustified assumption, pink noise looks right from the plots, is common for this sort of natural system, and is actually predicted by chaos theory, I call BS to other commentors' silly attempts at statistical analysis with the white noise assumption sneakily inserted. The noise is pink, pink noise has these broad fluctuations all the time and there is nothing at all odd about being at a local bump on a decadal scale. It has happened before and will happen again.
 
2012-11-18 07:35:09 AM  

wippit: I read something once that, the few days after 9/11, when all the airplanes were grounded, it was actually an average of 2 degrees warmer on the planet - no white contrails to reflect sunlight back into space.


You cannot draw that conclusion from that data.

1) A span of a couple days FAR too short of a time to get any meaningful data, so even if the Earth were 2 degrees warmer (and I have my doubts), you cannot draw any conclusions from that.

2) The area of the Earth covered by contrails is tiny and is not nearly enough to change the albedo of the Earth by any meaningful amount.
 
2012-11-18 07:35:21 AM  
You mean this is a repeat from the past 156,000 months.

/For 13,000 years the climate has been warming.
//How did the Chesapeake Bay form?
///You can't explain that!
 
2012-11-18 07:39:43 AM  

Lsherm: so they'll just dismiss it by speculating that this has happened before but we don't have an accurate record of it,


Yes. It's established science (see also: geology, paleoclimatology, paleontology) that this has happened before.
What?
You say the human organism is altering its environment?
No farkin way!
Hint: Creatures alter their environments, sometimes irreversably. It's how the atmosphere became oxygen rich. 

Adapt or die, idiots.
 
2012-11-18 07:43:17 AM  

jack21221: 2) The area of the Earth covered by contrails is tiny and is not nearly enough to change the albedo of the Earth by any meaningful amount.


Contrails do affect temperature.
 
2012-11-18 07:44:52 AM  

jack21221: wippit: I read something once that, the few days after 9/11, when all the airplanes were grounded, it was actually an average of 2 degrees warmer on the planet - no white contrails to reflect sunlight back into space.

You cannot draw that conclusion from that data.

1) A span of a couple days FAR too short of a time to get any meaningful data, so even if the Earth were 2 degrees warmer (and I have my doubts), you cannot draw any conclusions from that.

2) The area of the Earth covered by contrails is tiny and is not nearly enough to change the albedo of the Earth by any meaningful amount.


Contrail Effect
 
2012-11-18 07:49:41 AM  

wippit: I read something once that, the few days after 9/11, when all the airplanes were grounded, it was actually an average of 2 degrees warmer on the planet - no white contrails to reflect sunlight back into space.


Sort of... Not exactly. There was a 2 degree shift in the diurnal temperature range. Which is the difference between the high and the low:

"We show that there was an anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature range for the period Sept. 11-14, 2001," the researchers reported in today's (Aug. 8) issue of the journal Nature. "Because persisting contrails can reduce the transfer of both incoming solar and outgoing infrared radiation and so reduce the daily temperature range, we attribute at least a portion of this anomaly to the absence of contrails."
(source)

I'd like to see that theory re-tested before I agree with their conclusion. They did note, "we attribute at least a portion of this anomaly to the absence of contrails", but how much, they really couldn't say. We would have to repeat the experiment a whole bunch of times to figure out if the theory is accurate or not. It might not be right at all. The contrails might have had nothing to do with the anomalies in the diurnal temps for those days. I highly doubt that they would stop all air traffic just to let us test that again though... So it's interesting, but not enough data to be conclusive.
 
2012-11-18 07:52:05 AM  

smadge1: Could be worse, we could be going into an ice age.

 
2012-11-18 07:56:08 AM  
I see lots of words about how stupid some people are, but I see absolutely nothing to answer this one question.... who gives a shiat?

If humans as a species cannot handle 1 degree of average temperature change and an ocean that is 1 inch deeper, then it deserves to perish.
 
2012-11-18 08:03:52 AM  

GORDON: If humans as a species cannot handle 1 degree of average temperature change and an ocean that is 1 inch deeper, then it deserves to perish.


Humans can't handle living next to each other in a lot of the world.
 
2012-11-18 08:05:53 AM  

GORDON: I see lots of words about how stupid some people are, but I see absolutely nothing to answer this one question.... who gives a shiat?

If humans as a species cannot handle 1 degree of average temperature change and an ocean that is 1 inch deeper, then it deserves to perish.


you are about as deep as tinfoil ain'tcha....

LOOK EVERYONE:

people wanna be obese at their children and grandchildrens future....they want to drive stupid trucks and have motorized everything because they deserve it after a hard day of making similar useless items with the equally useless people they work with..

let them have it until it's all gone.

then we can giggle a little when their kids get cancer or get run over by a giant hotwheels truck on the news...begging for money...etc etc


choke on it.
 
2012-11-18 08:07:18 AM  

Kriggerel: What I find so very telling is how the language describing those, who question the Global Warming orthodoxy has shifted over the past number of months.

I specifically refer to the way that the phrase "Climate Change Skeptic" has been replaced by "Climate Change Denier", as denier always has the negative cachet associated with "Holocaust Denier".

Of course, there's some real double-down irony in that, seeing has how vaguely-cloaked anti-semitism has once again become extremely chic in intellectual circles, and holocaust denial is once again rearing its head and sniffing around, especially in the "Israeli Apartheid Week" circles.


Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: a man with no brain!
 
2012-11-18 08:08:38 AM  
Does Hollingsworth Hound have a global warming problem? Link
 
2012-11-18 08:08:59 AM  

Jesda:

On a slightly unrelated note, "Scientism" has become a religion of its own, though it's certainly more favorable than worshipping Xenu. People who don't understand academia, how data are collected, how research is published, and how research grants are earned are inclined to blindly say "THE SCIENTISTS SAID" without understanding statistics, the theories, or how they were analyzed. That's arguably a product of the grade school textbooks we grew up with which often declared "Scientists say," without going into further detail or exploring controversies or differing opinions and conclusions. Textbooks tend to emphasize information retention over knowledge and analysis. But again, this is blind ideological allegiance to "science" is probably preferable to "Jesus says..."


I read this and realize that you really must never have listened to your teachers in school. Going by your comments of science being a 'religion of sorts', that is. Do you have any clue how science works and how it's actually the antithesis of religious thought? Unless you can point out where in many of the world religions that they create a hypothesis, actually test it, and either come up with a scientific theory (which is a lot more than the so-called 'guess' that most laymen believe them to be), prove it to be a law, or change your hypothesis (if it's wrong) and test it over again?

Going by the fact that science is self-correcting (when done right, and not being skewed by people who wish to make profit off of the end result), I would rather trust the scientists about changes to the Earth and it's atmosphere than to put 1 drop of belief in what skeptics might have to say.
 
2012-11-18 08:11:18 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 08:21:34 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 08:25:37 AM  

wippit: GORDON: If humans as a species cannot handle 1 degree of average temperature change and an ocean that is 1 inch deeper, then it deserves to perish.

Humans can't handle living next to each other in a lot of the world.


That's because we are God's chosen people and you are not.
 
2012-11-18 08:27:11 AM  

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?
 
2012-11-18 08:29:30 AM  

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.


I'm not fussed about how accurate he is - I just like his trolling methods.
 
2012-11-18 08:32:39 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Lsherm: so they'll just dismiss it by speculating that this has happened before but we don't have an accurate record of it,

Yes. It's established science (see also: geology, paleoclimatology, paleontology) that this has happened before.
What?
You say the human organism is altering its environment?
No farkin way!
Hint: Creatures alter their environments, sometimes irreversably. It's how the atmosphere became oxygen rich. 

Adapt or die, idiots.


Oh, look, a cyanobacteriolomist. Show me what one looks like. Too small to see with teh naked eye? Likely goddamn story.
 
2012-11-18 08:37:25 AM  

born_yesterday: HotIgneous Intruder: Lsherm: so they'll just dismiss it by speculating that this has happened before but we don't have an accurate record of it,

Yes. It's established science (see also: geology, paleoclimatology, paleontology) that this has happened before.
What?
You say the human organism is altering its environment?
No farkin way!
Hint: Creatures alter their environments, sometimes irreversably. It's how the atmosphere became oxygen rich. 

Adapt or die, idiots.

Oh, look, a cyanobacteriolomist. Show me what one looks like. Too small to see with teh naked eye? Likely goddamn story.


Why yes, idiots never rest, do you perhaps not.
 
2012-11-18 08:38:58 AM  

GORDON: I see lots of words about how stupid some people are, but I see absolutely nothing to answer this one question.... who gives a shiat?

If humans as a species cannot handle 1 degree of average temperature change and an ocean that is 1 inch deeper, then it deserves to perish.


That's at the pretty low end of the current estimate, given by libbie libs at the CIA and DoD. 2 degrees and a foot deeper, which isn't much more, would be a very serious matter, no shiat.
 
2012-11-18 08:39:45 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: jack21221: 2) The area of the Earth covered by contrails is tiny and is not nearly enough to change the albedo of the Earth by any meaningful amount.

Contrails do affect temperature.


Wow, you do know that your link says the exact opposite of what you claim it does, right?

Of course, aviation's real impact on climate probably has nothing to do with contrails. In 2005, NASA's James Hansen published a study to that effect. He found that, even if the number of contrails were quintupled, global mean temperature would increase by just 0.03 degrees C (0.05 degrees F.). Aviation emissions, which are rising dramatically, are the true culprit.

Additionally, they're not quite sure whether they raise or lower the temperature. I stand by what I say, the effect from contrails is tiny, and it certainly doesn't correlate to a 2 degree temperature increase as wippit says.
 
2012-11-18 08:44:17 AM  

jack21221:
Additionally, they're not quite sure whether they raise or lower the temperature. I stand by what I say, the effect from contrails is tiny, and it certainly doesn't correlate to a 2 degree temperature increase as wippit says.


From the link I posted:

"from roughly midday September 11 to midday September 14, the days had become warmer and the nights cooler, with the overall range greater by about two degrees Fahrenheit."

The effect got cancelled because the nighttime temp compensated for the daytime temp. But it was still measurable, assuming it wasn't a coincidence. As someone else mentioned, we'd need to have a few more days of no-traffic to test the theory.
 
2012-11-18 08:50:49 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: born_yesterday: HotIgneous Intruder: Lsherm: so they'll just dismiss it by speculating that this has happened before but we don't have an accurate record of it,

Yes. It's established science (see also: geology, paleoclimatology, paleontology) that this has happened before.
What?
You say the human organism is altering its environment?
No farkin way!
Hint: Creatures alter their environments, sometimes irreversably. It's how the atmosphere became oxygen rich. 

Adapt or die, idiots.

Oh, look, a cyanobacteriolomist. Show me what one looks like. Too small to see with teh naked eye? Likely goddamn story.

Why yes, idiots never rest, do you perhaps not.


Hey, if deniers can have a forum to spout their idiocy, we deserve one to. I represent the group "Americans Against Science not Everyone Studies". Our motto is, if we can't understand it, well, something.

You "scientists" have been making some inroads against us on the "climate change" front. We had everyone right where we wanted them, denying that change was even occurring. We had them scoffing at pictures of glacial recession, including ice sheets the size of states breaking off into the ocean. We had them drooling in incomprehension of ocean current data. We put a few Ferrari's in the right scientist's hands, and discredited your whole movement.

Now, you've forced our hand again. Now, people are ignoring their gut instinct, and actually acknowledging the data. So we've got to move on other fronts. We're still pretty strong on evolution, so we just have to hold that flank. So our new advance will be in the field of microbiology. Do you really think we won't be able to turn the tide? "Oh, these invisible bacteria changed the atmosphere of the whole planet." Yeah, you stick that in the pipe of the average moron and see how long the cat stays in the bag.
 
2012-11-18 08:52:23 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 08:54:42 AM  

wippit: "from roughly midday September 11 to midday September 14, the days had become warmer and the nights cooler, with the overall range greater by about two degrees Fahrenheit."


But this isn't what you said originally. You said the global temperature was two degrees warmer. Your link says there was little net effect, and a lack of contrails would likely lead to a net COOLING, not warming. Additionally, this still doesn't address the fact that they only looked at a 3 day span, and any changes could be explained by natural variation in that short time span.
 
2012-11-18 08:54:52 AM  

jack21221: wippit: I read something once that, the few days after 9/11, when all the airplanes were grounded, it was actually an average of 2 degrees warmer on the planet - no white contrails to reflect sunlight back into space.

You cannot draw that conclusion from that data.

1) A span of a couple days FAR too short of a time to get any meaningful data, so even if the Earth were 2 degrees warmer (and I have my doubts), you cannot draw any conclusions from that.

2) The area of the Earth covered by contrails is tiny and is not nearly enough to change the albedo of the Earth by any meaningful amount.


Yes, but the mind control agent they release acts as is a potent greenhouse gas.
 
2012-11-18 09:03:43 AM  

jack21221: wippit: "from roughly midday September 11 to midday September 14, the days had become warmer and the nights cooler, with the overall range greater by about two degrees Fahrenheit."

But this isn't what you said originally. You said the global temperature was two degrees warmer. Your link says there was little net effect, and a lack of contrails would likely lead to a net COOLING, not warming. Additionally, this still doesn't address the fact that they only looked at a 3 day span, and any changes could be explained by natural variation in that short time span.


So, I originally said "Hey I read something" and tried to remember what it was
I found an actual link that explained what it was I actually read
I clarified what I said by stating the daytime and nighttime temps cancelled each other out, but the effect was measurable.
You come down on my because of my original statement, even though I've already said the effect cancelled out because it was colder at night.
 
2012-11-18 09:18:11 AM  
Ric Romero on the scene here...Right-wingers just want to keep living ostentatiously, even if it's right up to the brink of extinction, and are going to plug their ears and go "LA LA LA LA LA LA I can't hear you" so they won't have to change in the presence of stark data.

From killing almost all 50,000,000 American Bison in ten years to sopping up every last drop of fossil fuel from this planet...It's our Gawd-given manifest destiny to live out the writings of Ayn Rand!

To even suggest that we should think about scaling back on our consumption! We are the penultimate life form on this planet, so there is no need to preserve it beyond us! If every tenth person in America isn't driving a GMC Yukon 85 mph down the expressway an hour each way to and from work (where they'll work over 50 hours per week with maybe 2 weeks off each year), then there's something wrong with our economy.

So, fark you, you book-learnin' sciency types! I've got a life based on testosterone to carry forth...
 
2012-11-18 09:22:05 AM  

NobleHam: Of course, the globe has warmed. Somewhat. There is still no evidence that this is anthropogenic, and the CO2 hypothesis is getting weaker all the time. If the world is warming because the atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 200 to 350 ppm, I'll move to Mars and enjoy the warmth there.


oi46.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-18 09:28:29 AM  
According to THEIR OWN MAP, NOAA shows that the Aleutian Islands, the tip of South America, and what looks to be Hawaii all had record coldest temperatures! Looks like global warming is a MYTH after all!

LIEBURALS: 0
GOD-FEARING TEA PARTY PATRIOTS: INFINITY + 1
 
2012-11-18 09:29:50 AM  
Kinda reminds me of when parents refer to their baby's age in terms of an absurd number of months.
 
2012-11-18 09:35:49 AM  

david_gaithersburg: Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked?


This is a blatant, long debunked lie.

The terms "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" have been used in scientific literature since the early '70s. If you have any experience doing searches of scientific papers you can easily look it up. But I'm guessing that, since you're a denier, you've probably never been near a scientific paper ... that's what them evil intellectuals read!!.

Both terms are still in use today.
 
2012-11-18 09:36:30 AM  

wippit: I read something once that, the few days after 9/11, when all the airplanes were grounded, it was actually an average of 2 degrees warmer on the planet - no white contrails to reflect sunlight back into space.


2 degrees warmer over the entire planet because a tiny area of it had no tiny contrails covering it?

Uhuh.
 
2012-11-18 09:38:11 AM  
So what you're saying is that it's time to buy stock in any sunblock lotion company?
 
2012-11-18 09:41:16 AM  

Ow My Balls: From killing almost all 50,000,000 American Bison in ten years to sopping up every last drop of fossil fuel from this planet...It's our Gawd-given manifest destiny to live out the writings of Ayn Rand!


Just sayin.

The wholesale slaughter of bison happened before Ayn Rand, and even before the Republican Party (though the Manifest Destiny arguments of Polk would have made him more of a Republican--though oddly not a Whig).

The rest though, are spot on. Even to the point of fossil fuel consumption skyrocketing shortly after The Fountainhead was published--though that's probably a coincidence.
 
2012-11-18 09:42:14 AM  

david_gaithersburg: Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked?


Huh? The term "global warming" was tossed because G.W.Bush didn't like it. This is well documented

Interesting that Frank Luntz (the guy who lead the committee) has done a U-turn since then and now goes around saying that warming is very real and man-made.
 
2012-11-18 09:44:29 AM  

aevorea: So what you're saying is that it's time to buy stock in any sunblock lotion company?


That would be a good idea if this was an ozone layer problem. But that issue was somewhat addressed years ago when scientists brought it forward.

Since it didn't impact the oil industry there wasn't this "but you can't be 100% sure so we should do nothing" movement. So there were actually some changes made which at a positive impact on the issue.

/it is funny how idiots claim "we are arrogant to think we can affect the environment" when the ozone depletion and the subsequent recovery are clear cases where we already did
 
2012-11-18 09:46:12 AM  

Solid Muldoon: Science is a liberal conspiracy.


That should be a t-shirt or something.
 
2012-11-18 09:47:02 AM  

Farking Canuck:
The terms "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" have been used in scientific literature since the early '70s. If you have any experience doing searches of scientific papers you can easily look it up. But I'm guessing that, since you're a denier, you've probably never been near a scientific paper ... that's what them evil intellectuals read!!.


Sure, but the phrase in general use by the public last decade was "global warming".

It was a deliberate, US Government-led campaign that changed the vernacular to "climate change".
 
2012-11-18 09:47:05 AM  

wippit: I read something once that, the few days after 9/11, when all the airplanes were grounded, it was actually an average of 2 degrees warmer on the planet - no white contrails to reflect sunlight back into space.


2 degrees is a huge change for a global average. It is highly unlikely that the miniscule coverage of contrails could have an measurable impact ... much less a massive one.
 
2012-11-18 09:47:59 AM  

Farking Canuck: aevorea: So what you're saying is that it's time to buy stock in any sunblock lotion company?

That would be a good idea if this was an ozone layer problem. But that issue was somewhat addressed years ago when scientists brought it forward.


Funny how the same scientists who were right about ozone are now wrong about CO2 (apparently...)
 
2012-11-18 09:49:23 AM  

aevorea: So what you're saying is that it's time to buy stock in any sunblock lotion company?


If Emma Watson really is doing a nude scene in her next movie, then stock in any lotion company will be a winner.
 
2012-11-18 09:50:31 AM  

Joce678: It was a deliberate, US Government-led campaign that changed the vernacular to "climate change".


From the Bush Administration, if I recall correctly. They didn't like the word "warming".
 
2012-11-18 09:51:36 AM  

nmemkha: Yes, but the mind control agent they release acts as is a potent greenhouse gas.


Not happy with the current global warming argument and you want to throw chemtrails in to the mix...oh brother.
 
2012-11-18 09:51:44 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Lsherm: so they'll just dismiss it by speculating that this has happened before but we don't have an accurate record of it,

Yes. It's established science (see also: geology, paleoclimatology, paleontology) that this has happened before.
What?
You say the human organism is altering its environment?
No farkin way!
Hint: Creatures alter their environments, sometimes irreversably. It's how the atmosphere became oxygen rich. 

Adapt or die, idiots.


The difficulty is that we have a low tolerance for changes. In that instance - - we are like the fruit flies (and MANY other species ): we're very near our point of intolerance. Our boiling point. This is something that science has also studied. Our sources of food are also near theirs.

The difficulty of relying on adaptation is that the success rate isn't in our favor.

Why not simply agree that CC does exist and that, if we haven't exceeded the tipping point, then we only have a small window in which things could be fixed?
 
2012-11-18 09:52:26 AM  

Joce678:
2 degrees warmer over the entire planet because a tiny area of it had no tiny contrails covering it?

Uhuh.


How do you define "tiny area?"

www.pbs.org
www.pbs.org
 
2012-11-18 09:52:32 AM  

Joce678:
Sure, but the phrase in general use by the public last decade was "global warming".

It was a deliberate, US Government-led campaign that changed the vernacular to "climate change".


Agreed. But I couldn't care less what the public uses.

In science, neither term ever went away ... and it is well documented. And I think that is the better argument to point out how the denier case is built on lies.
 
2012-11-18 09:54:42 AM  

NobleHam: Of course, the globe has warmed. Somewhat. There is still no evidence that this is anthropogenic, and the CO2 hypothesis is getting weaker all the time. If the world is warming because the atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 200 to 350 ppm, I'll move to Mars and enjoy the warmth there.


i249.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-18 09:55:01 AM  
We need to stop focusing on carbon dioxide and focus on the most abundant and most effective greenhouse gas, dihydrogen monoxide.
 
2012-11-18 09:55:50 AM  
moviemusereviews.com
Consider: One, probability is a factor which operates *within* natural forces. Two, probability is *not* operating as a factor. Three, we are now held within un-, sub- or super-natural forces. Discuss.
 
2012-11-18 09:56:43 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Adapt or die, idiots.


We will adapt as best we can. But if we let the warming run out of control the impact will be massive both economically and in the loss of human life and in human suffering.

The best plan is to mitigate as much of the warming as we can while adapting to the changes that do happen and are already happening.
 
2012-11-18 09:57:07 AM  

AurizenDarkstar: Jesda:

On a slightly unrelated note, "Scientism" has become a religion of its own, though it's certainly more favorable than worshipping Xenu. People who don't understand academia, how data are collected, how research is published, and how research grants are earned are inclined to blindly say "THE SCIENTISTS SAID" without understanding statistics, the theories, or how they were analyzed. That's arguably a product of the grade school textbooks we grew up with which often declared "Scientists say," without going into further detail or exploring controversies or differing opinions and conclusions. Textbooks tend to emphasize information retention over knowledge and analysis. But again, this is blind ideological allegiance to "science" is probably preferable to "Jesus says..."

I read this and realize that you really must never have listened to your teachers in school. Going by your comments of science being a 'religion of sorts', that is. Do you have any clue how science works and how it's actually the antithesis of religious thought? Unless you can point out where in many of the world religions that they create a hypothesis, actually test it, and either come up with a scientific theory (which is a lot more than the so-called 'guess' that most laymen believe them to be), prove it to be a law, or change your hypothesis (if it's wrong) and test it over again?

Going by the fact that science is self-correcting (when done right, and not being skewed by people who wish to make profit off of the end result), I would rather trust the scientists about changes to the Earth and it's atmosphere than to put 1 drop of belief in what skeptics might have to say.


I think you're interpretation of his conclusion is wrong. He isn't saying that science is a religion but that people with poor understanding of science can often argue about science the same way religious people argue theological topics.

Jesus says... Scientists say...

I agree with that and see it happening at a university level all of the time. In fact, his comment reminded me of what Thomas Kuhne argued.
 
2012-11-18 09:58:03 AM  
going for a run in shorts later this morning

/twin cities
//anecdotal
///comfy & bothersome
 
2012-11-18 09:59:05 AM  

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


If a carbon dioxide increase affects global temperature with a net positive, then the amount of dihydrogen monoxide evaporated from the oceans would increase as well? Cause and effect? Anyone ever study that?

/legit question, not trying to troll.
 
2012-11-18 09:59:14 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: So here's the thing. Warmist alarmists would have you believe that while natural fluctuations do occur, they only manifest as while noise,


Rubbish.

This "alarmist" believes the complete opposite: There's only one source of heat around here (The Sun) and only changes in atmospheric composition can significantly change the Earths's surface temperature.

ie. Wherever there's a warm or cool period, something is going on in the air.

This is supported by millions of years of atmospheric composition/temperature data trapped in the Antarctic ice and backed up by many other sources (fossilized tree rings, etc.).

It's also provably true that man is changing the atmosphere, that greenhouse gases have been rising since the industrial revolution at the exact same rate as man has been increasing his use of fossil fuels.

The fact that so many people are failing to put 2+2 together just shows how well the USA-driven climate change denial campaigns are working.
 
2012-11-18 10:00:27 AM  
Yes the climate has changed before but

a) not as rapidly, unless a Mega Volcano or Deadly Asteroid was involved

b) not caused by sentient creatures who have the technological ability to slow down or even roll back some of that change

There are many species which can't adapt as rapidly as global warming is occurring. Trees can't pick up their roots and move away from the equator. Slower-reproducing animals have issues too.

If we allow climate change to cause a massive extinction event, it means we're pretty much a bunch of assholes. The sentient version of Mega Volcano or Deadly Asteroid.

This doesn't even include all the reasonable arguments in the realm of enlightened self-interest. Such as, poor people in 3rd world countries don't just lay down and die amidst flooding and famine, they will try to flee in large numbers to countries that are still keeping it together. Also, horrible tropical diseases spreading further out from the equator.
 
2012-11-18 10:02:06 AM  

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


I remember all the way back to when that joke was funny. I was wearing my favorite HyperColor sweater in the theater for the latest Ninja Turtles movie, when my beeper went off so I went outside to use a pay-phone. My friend Dave (we called him D-funky-fresh) told me he read this great joke in Mad Magazine, so I hopped on my 10-speed with the Vanilla Ice stickers all over it and went to his house to drink jolt and play Battletoads.
 
2012-11-18 10:02:16 AM  

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's not at all what happened. Do you want to read that again and try one more time?
 
2012-11-18 10:02:25 AM  

wippit: Joce678:
2 degrees warmer over the entire planet because a tiny area of it had no tiny contrails covering it?

Uhuh.

How do you define "tiny area?"


Um, yeah. I think they only stopped flying in the USA. The rest of the world was business as usual.
 
2012-11-18 10:05:12 AM  

Farking Canuck: Joce678:
Sure, but the phrase in general use by the public last decade was "global warming".

It was a deliberate, US Government-led campaign that changed the vernacular to "climate change".

Agreed. But I couldn't care less what the public uses.


You should, because they're the only ones who can vote for a change of policy.
 
2012-11-18 10:05:55 AM  

Joce678: wippit: Joce678:
2 degrees warmer over the entire planet because a tiny area of it had no tiny contrails covering it?

Uhuh.

How do you define "tiny area?"

Um, yeah. I think they only stopped flying in the USA. The rest of the world was business as usual.


They also stopped flying to the USA. So the entire North Atlantic and North Pacific.
Also, What's the percentage of air traffic driven by North America? I don't think Africa or Australia generates much air traffic
 
2012-11-18 10:07:21 AM  
Birdwatchers who keep detailed records have been noticing that migrating birds -- the ones that show up in spring and leave in fall -- have been arriving earlier since the 1960s. American Robins are showing up in parts of the Arctic where they were never seen before. Those damn robins and their anti-human agenda!
 
2012-11-18 10:12:00 AM  
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.
 
2012-11-18 10:14:27 AM  

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

If a carbon dioxide increase affects global temperature with a net positive, then the amount of dihydrogen monoxide evaporated from the oceans would increase as well? Cause and effect? Anyone ever study that?

/legit question, not trying to troll.


Yes
 
2012-11-18 10:16:13 AM  

wippit:
They also stopped flying to the USA. So the entire North Atlantic and North Pacific.


Yeah, well, those pics are obviously cherry picked from completely cloudless days, cropped and contrast turned to the max to show the contrails. If they were anything like representative there'd never be a blue sky over the USA. Ever.

GIS "USA from space" if you don't believe me. Funny how you don't see a single contrail there...
 
2012-11-18 10:16:48 AM  

Baryogenesis: NobleHam: Sure, I have some bias. So do those on the other side of the issue, particularly those who have a career which depends on a crisis. Based on my knowledge of greenhouse gases I find it very hard to believe that the increase we have seen in CO2 levels thus far could possibly be responsible for a greater than 1 degree F rise in temperatures. Even including methane doesn't account for the increases which some studies claim we've seen so far. Those studies are flawed as I have mentioned above. If I'm wrong, and if they're right, I still don't believe CO2 is responsible. I think it's more likely that the heat we have produced on Earth through combustion is a more likely source of global warming than any heat trapped by greenhouse gases, the levels of which are still far too low to produce any significant warming, particularly over such a short period of time.

It sure is nice to know that you don't think CO2 is responsible. I'm sure you'll provide a detailed explanation of that assertion any minute now.

In the meantime, here is the strength of the forcing from CO2 and other sources:

[www.realclimate.org image 594x459]


You have to explain what that means, though. That's part of the disconnect between people who want to believe & people who don't want to believe.

You can't throw up a chart with a bar, and say, LOOK AT THE BAR!!!! OMG!

1.6 Watts per meter squared... I'm not saying it's inconsequential, but a bar graph doesn't explain anything on its own.
 
2012-11-18 10:17:50 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 10:19:57 AM  

Egalitarian: Birdwatchers who keep detailed records have been noticing that migrating birds -- the ones that show up in spring and leave in fall -- have been arriving earlier since the 1960s. American Robins are showing up in parts of the Arctic where they were never seen before. Those damn robins and their anti-human agenda!


Ask anybody who's done *anything* outdoors or traveled much since the 1960s...
 
2012-11-18 10:23:55 AM  
according to the article the record warmest October was in 2003, almost a decade ago, so things are getting cooler.
 
2012-11-18 10:24:24 AM  

Joce678: wippit:
They also stopped flying to the USA. So the entire North Atlantic and North Pacific.

Yeah, well, those pics are obviously cherry picked from completely cloudless days, cropped and contrast turned to the max to show the contrails. If they were anything like representative there'd never be a blue sky over the USA. Ever.

GIS "USA from space" if you don't believe me. Funny how you don't see a single contrail there...


So your position is that gases in the atmosphere have to be visible to the naked eye without photo contrast manipulation to affect weather?
 
2012-11-18 10:24:34 AM  

wippit: I don't think Africa or Australia generates much air traffic


Are those your two best examples of countries that people think have a lot of air traffic?
 
2012-11-18 10:26:57 AM  

wippit:
So your position is that gases in the atmosphere have to be visible to the naked eye without photo contrast manipulation to affect weather?


To alter The Earth's albedo enough to change world temperature by two degrees in two days?

Yes, that's definitely my position.

Why what's yours...?
 
2012-11-18 10:30:43 AM  

Joce678: Yeah, well, those pics are obviously cherry picked from completely cloudless days, cropped and contrast turned to the max to show the contrails. If they were anything like representative there'd never be a blue sky over the USA. Ever.


This is a joke, right? I mean, this is just you pretending to be stupid as some form of entertainment or something?
 
2012-11-18 10:32:16 AM  

Joce678: wippit: I don't think Africa or Australia generates much air traffic

Are those your two best examples of countries that people think have a lot of air traffic?


Well, first, Africa is a continent, not a country. And I was actually looking for countries that don't have a lot of air traffic. Australian-registered aircraft carried 45,268,487 people between 2007-2011. Compared to the US which carried 707,426,165 people.

Source

It doesn't cover destinations either. How much of that Australian air traffic is destined for the US and couldn't go there during the three days in question?

Also doesn't cover air freight, but I feel safe in assuming the US dominates those numbers as well.
 
2012-11-18 10:34:13 AM  

Joce678: wippit:
So your position is that gases in the atmosphere have to be visible to the naked eye without photo contrast manipulation to affect weather?

To alter The Earth's albedo enough to change world temperature by two degrees in two days?

Yes, that's definitely my position.

Why what's yours...?


That the possibility exists, but further study is required.
 
2012-11-18 10:34:21 AM  

JohnnyC: Do you have a valid reason to say the evidence that shows that we do have an effect on our atmosphere is wrong?


How about the fact that the amount of CO2 we produce has continued to increase while the temperature has basically remained stagnant? And before you quote the article that the OP linked, yes it's getting warmer but at a statistically insignificant rate. That's according to scientists on your side of the argument. It was revealed in the climate-gate emails that those scientists found it embarrassing that they had no answer for why it wasn't getting warmer. Since then a few more "founding fathers" of global warming science have confirmed the same thing.

To sum up -

Is it getting warmer? Yes.

Is it getting significantly warmer? No.

Are we causing it to get warmer than it would naturally? Possibly but it hasn't been proven. The numbers don't add up atm.

Should we improve our effect on the environment? Yes.

Should we improve our effect on the environment without regard to economic impact or other consequences? No.


For the record, I recycle and I walk to get to most places within a mile or two of me.
 
2012-11-18 10:35:47 AM  

NobleHam: For one, the lagging of ocean temperatures behind land temperatures which is suggestive of measurement inaccuracies as opposed to any sort of greenhouse gas effect.


Wait, you don't understand why ocean temperatures lag behind land temperatures? Jesus Christ dude, take a middle school science class. Look up specific heat. That's such a mind blowingly simple concept that it honestly shocks me that you don't know that.

That's a major reason, but not the only reason.
 
2012-11-18 10:38:32 AM  

GAT_00: The last time there was a global month of below average temperatures was February 1985.


So? Has anyone proven that above average temperatures are bad?

What is the optimal temperature for life on this planet?

/what is a global month?
 
2012-11-18 10:38:44 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: NobleHam: For one, the lagging of ocean temperatures behind land temperatures which is suggestive of measurement inaccuracies as opposed to any sort of greenhouse gas effect.

Wait, you don't understand why ocean temperatures lag behind land temperatures? Jesus Christ dude, take a middle school science class. Look up specific heat. That's such a mind blowingly simple concept that it honestly shocks me that you don't know that.


It requires a complete lack of junior-highschool-level sceince literacy and never having come in contact with a body of water. Conclusion: NobleHam comes from Kansas.
 
2012-11-18 10:39:57 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: GAT_00: The last time there was a global month of below average temperatures was February 1985.

So? Has anyone proven that above average temperatures are bad?


I think they're great
But then, I live in Canada.
 
2012-11-18 10:39:59 AM  
Someone better get China on board. Their CO2 emissions growth is out of control. Leaving them out of Kyoto was a big mistake.
 
2012-11-18 10:40:03 AM  

wippit:
Also doesn't cover air freight, but I feel safe in assuming the US dominates those numbers as well.


Nobody's disputing the USA has more flights than anywhere else.

The claim is that stopping flights over the USA for a couple of days changed global temperatures by two degrees.


(...and that Australia/Africa aren't second on the list of countries with flights - what happened to Europe, Russia, Asia, etc?)
 
2012-11-18 10:41:54 AM  

Brubold: JohnnyC: Do you have a valid reason to say the evidence that shows that we do have an effect on our atmosphere is wrong?


How about the fact that the amount of CO2 we produce has continued to increase while the temperature has basically remained stagnant? And before you quote the article that the OP linked, yes it's getting warmer but at a statistically insignificant rate. That's according to scientists on your side of the argument. It was revealed in the climate-gate emails that those scientists found it embarrassing that they had no answer for why it wasn't getting warmer. Since then a few more "founding fathers" of global warming science have confirmed the same thing.

To sum up -

Is it getting warmer? Yes.

Is it getting significantly warmer? No.

Are we causing it to get warmer than it would naturally? Possibly but it hasn't been proven. The numbers don't add up atm.

Should we improve our effect on the environment? Yes.

Should we improve our effect on the environment without regard to economic impact or other consequences? No.


For the record, I recycle and I walk to get to most places within a mile or two of me.


You're behind on your climate-Gate emails.
 
2012-11-18 10:42:33 AM  

wippit:
That the possibility exists, but further study is required.


Huh?

Your "possibility" was tested experimentally in the days after 9/11 and found to be lacking. No further study needed.
 
2012-11-18 10:45:04 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 10:47:51 AM  

Joce678: wippit:
Also doesn't cover air freight, but I feel safe in assuming the US dominates those numbers as well.

Nobody's disputing the USA has more flights than anywhere else.

The claim is that stopping flights over the USA for a couple of days changed global temperatures by two degrees.


There was a measurable effect during that time frame. Proving it was the lack of air travel is not possible because it won't/can't be duplicated. Nor can it be disproved for the same reason. I personaly don't know if it's right or wrong, I'm just reading up on the idea.


(...and that Australia/Africa aren't second on the list of countries with flights - what happened to Europe, Russia, Asia, etc?)

I pulled two names at random that I assumed were low in air travel before going to look up if there were actual statistic somewhere. And I was fixated on the Southern Hemisphere being less-travelled, so there you go.
 
2012-11-18 10:49:15 AM  
I see they 'adjusted' the new data vs historical data correctly again.

/Popcorn thread?
 
2012-11-18 10:50:34 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 10:51:52 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: according to the article the record warmest October was in 2003, almost a decade ago, so things are getting cooler.


I'll admit it, when I pull up to a stoplight or sign, I start screaming uncontrollably that we're about to start driving backwards as well.
 
2012-11-18 10:53:51 AM  
It's still not enough. My beach house gets down to the low 70s in January. We need another 10 degrees. Burn some more gas, dang you!
 
2012-11-18 10:54:04 AM  

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."
 
2012-11-18 10:54:09 AM  

wippit: Joce678: The claim is that stopping flights over the USA for a couple of days changed global temperatures by two degrees.

There was a measurable effect during that time frame.


...mainly over US cities with a lot of air traffic.

Any suggestion that it was two degrees higher over the whole world is laughable and it's OK for you to admit that.
 
2012-11-18 10:54:38 AM  
Why does everyone keep assuming those dramatic shifts in regional temperature from the lack in contrails is global temperature?
 
2012-11-18 10:57:02 AM  

Joce678: wippit: Joce678: The claim is that stopping flights over the USA for a couple of days changed global temperatures by two degrees.

There was a measurable effect during that time frame.

...mainly over US cities with a lot of air traffic.

Any suggestion that it was two degrees higher over the whole world is laughable and it's OK for you to admit that.


And that still doesn't change his point, though. If you think that having contrails over the world every day reducing temperatures regionally won't reduce the global temperature, then I have a bridge to sell you.
 
2012-11-18 10:57:14 AM  

Brubold: "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."


What does that prove, exactly...?
 
2012-11-18 11:00:11 AM  

67 Beetle: Someone better get China on board. Their CO2 emissions growth is out of control. Leaving them out of Kyoto was a big mistake.


Hah! A mistake? China is the world's manufacturing substrate for the foreseeable future. It's part of a plan that is working as intended.
 
2012-11-18 11:02:48 AM  

Shakin_Haitian:
And that still doesn't change his point, though. If you think that having contrails over the world every day reducing temperatures regionally won't reduce the global temperature, then I have a bridge to sell you.


I'd be a fool to say that...the days after 9/11 proved that contrails have a cooling effect.

That wasn't his point though: He was claiming the Earth warmed up by two degrees after 9/11, his evidence was some cherry-picked and 'shopped satellite photographs that he found on the Internet. A quick GIS for "USA from space" will show how unrepresentative they are.
 
2012-11-18 11:04:36 AM  

Joce678: Shakin_Haitian:
And that still doesn't change his point, though. If you think that having contrails over the world every day reducing temperatures regionally won't reduce the global temperature, then I have a bridge to sell you.

I'd be a fool to say that...the days after 9/11 proved that contrails have a cooling effect.

That wasn't his point though: He was claiming the Earth warmed up by two degrees after 9/11, his evidence was some cherry-picked and 'shopped satellite photographs that he found on the Internet. A quick GIS for "USA from space" will show how unrepresentative they are.


Wut?
 
2012-11-18 11:04:59 AM  

Coelacanth: NobleHam: Of course, the globe has warmed. Somewhat. There is still no evidence that this is anthropogenic, and the CO2 hypothesis is getting weaker all the time. If the world is warming because the atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 200 to 350 ppm, I'll move to Mars and enjoy the warmth there.

[i249.photobucket.com image 500x267]


Yes, people who don't share your religious opinion should STFU and just pay the new taxes you demand, obey the new laws you want to create, and generally submit their freedom before you. And if they don't, then they should be hit with a spade!
 
2012-11-18 11:06:12 AM  

Joce678:
That wasn't his point though: He was claiming the Earth warmed up by two degrees after 9/11, his evidence was some cherry-picked and 'shopped satellite photographs that he found on the Internet. A quick GIS for "USA from space" will show how unrepresentative they are.


Uh no. I made no claim whatsoever. I'm not a climatologist.
I said I read about the idea, and posted an article about the subject. Go yell at PBS for posting the article.
 
2012-11-18 11:06:52 AM  

Brubold: JohnnyC: Do you have a valid reason to say the evidence that shows that we do have an effect on our atmosphere is wrong?


How about the fact that the amount of CO2 we produce has continued to increase while the temperature has basically remained stagnant? And before you quote the article that the OP linked, yes it's getting warmer but at a statistically insignificant rate. That's according to scientists on your side of the argument. It was revealed in the climate-gate emails that those scientists found it embarrassing that they had no answer for why it wasn't getting warmer. Since then a few more "founding fathers" of global warming science have confirmed the same thing.

To sum up -

Is it getting warmer? Yes.

Is it getting significantly warmer? No.

Are we causing it to get warmer than it would naturally? Possibly but it hasn't been proven. The numbers don't add up atm.

Should we improve our effect on the environment? Yes.

Should we improve our effect on the environment without regard to economic impact or other consequences? No.


For the record, I recycle and I walk to get to most places within a mile or two of me.


Don't forget, the question no one seems to want to ask: were we the optimal temperature and an increase is bad for life on the planet?
 
2012-11-18 11:08:02 AM  

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
 
2012-11-18 11:08:04 AM  

Shakin_Haitian:
Wut?


Suggestion: Try reading more than one post at a time.

Even better: Just don't bother.
 
2012-11-18 11:08:54 AM  

AurizenDarkstar: Jesda:

On a slightly unrelated note, "Scientism" has become a religion of its own, though it's certainly more favorable than worshipping Xenu. People who don't understand academia, how data are collected, how research is published, and how research grants are earned are inclined to blindly say "THE SCIENTISTS SAID" without understanding statistics, the theories, or how they were analyzed. That's arguably a product of the grade school textbooks we grew up with which often declared "Scientists say," without going into further detail or exploring controversies or differing opinions and conclusions. Textbooks tend to emphasize information retention over knowledge and analysis. But again, this is blind ideological allegiance to "science" is probably preferable to "Jesus says..."

I read this and realize that you really must never have listened to your teachers in school. Going by your comments of science being a 'religion of sorts', that is. Do you have any clue how science works and how it's actually the antithesis of religious thought? Unless you can point out where in many of the world religions that they create a hypothesis, actually test it, and either come up with a scientific theory (which is a lot more than the so-called 'guess' that most laymen believe them to be), prove it to be a law, or change your hypothesis (if it's wrong) and test it over again?

Going by the fact that science is self-correcting (when done right, and not being skewed by people who wish to make profit off of the end result), I would rather trust the scientists about changes to the Earth and it's atmosphere than to put 1 drop of belief in what skeptics might have to say.


The climate change bandwagon now controls hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
 
2012-11-18 11:09:09 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Brubold: JohnnyC: Do you have a valid reason to say the evidence that shows that we do have an effect on our atmosphere is wrong?


How about the fact that the amount of CO2 we produce has continued to increase while the temperature has basically remained stagnant? And before you quote the article that the OP linked, yes it's getting warmer but at a statistically insignificant rate. That's according to scientists on your side of the argument. It was revealed in the climate-gate emails that those scientists found it embarrassing that they had no answer for why it wasn't getting warmer. Since then a few more "founding fathers" of global warming science have confirmed the same thing.

To sum up -

Is it getting warmer? Yes.

Is it getting significantly warmer? No.

Are we causing it to get warmer than it would naturally? Possibly but it hasn't been proven. The numbers don't add up atm.

Should we improve our effect on the environment? Yes.

Should we improve our effect on the environment without regard to economic impact or other consequences? No.


For the record, I recycle and I walk to get to most places within a mile or two of me.

Don't forget, the question no one seems to want to ask: were we the optimal temperature and an increase is bad for life on the planet?


We've built a massive, very expensive infrastructure based on the current average temperature, and humans aren't the only life on this planet...
 
2012-11-18 11:10:51 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: jack21221: 2) The area of the Earth covered by contrails is tiny and is not nearly enough to change the albedo of the Earth by any meaningful amount.

Contrails do affect temperature.


gromit.orf5.com
 
2012-11-18 11:10:53 AM  

Joce678: Shakin_Haitian:
Wut?

Suggestion: Try reading more than one post at a time.

Even better: Just don't bother.


Premise: Absence of contrails reduce temperature by 2 degrees.

You: MASSIVE ASSUMPTIONS GLOBAL TEMPERATURES WHARRGRBL
 
2012-11-18 11:11:21 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: Don't forget, the question no one seems to want to ask: were we the optimal temperature and an increase is bad for life on the planet?

We've built a massive, very expensive infrastructure based on the current average temperature, and humans aren't the only life on this planet...


And quite a bit of it is built in low-lying coastal areas.
 
2012-11-18 11:12:34 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese:
Don't forget, the question no one seems to want to ask: were we the optimal temperature and an increase is bad for life on the planet?


The optimum for the human race at the moment is: "Sea levels below all major population centers".

(Sea levels are related to global temperature...)
 
2012-11-18 11:13:36 AM  

b0rscht: HotIgneous Intruder: jack21221: 2) The area of the Earth covered by contrails is tiny and is not nearly enough to change the albedo of the Earth by any meaningful amount.

Contrails do affect temperature.


Hilarious.
 
2012-11-18 11:14:17 AM  

Joce678: tenpoundsofcheese:
Don't forget, the question no one seems to want to ask: were we the optimal temperature and an increase is bad for life on the planet?

The optimum for the human race at the moment is: "Sea levels below all major population centers".

(Sea levels are related to global temperature...)


Also hilarious
 
2012-11-18 11:14:56 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 11:15:11 AM  
Excuse me, I meant to say increase rather reduce.
 
2012-11-18 11:16:18 AM  
I'm now suddenly wondering if a 50 megaton nuclear explosion would affect climate, but I'm guessing nobody was measuring that when it happened.
 
2012-11-18 11:18:08 AM  

Shakin_Haitian:
We've built a massive, very expensive infrastructure based on the current average temperature, and humans aren't the only life on this planet...


And now we're building a massive, very expensive renewable energy infrastructure that will serve no purpose whatsoever except to use up our money and grind down our economies so when a natural disaster does happen, we can't rebuild afterwards and just revert back to the stone age.
 
2012-11-18 11:18:10 AM  

Shakin_Haitian:
Premise: Absence of contrails reduce temperature by 2 degrees.

You: MASSIVE ASSUMPTIONS GLOBAL TEMPERATURES WHARRGRBL


Wut?

The hard facts about temperature change after 9/11 EXIST (OMG!).

Clue: It wasn't two degrees, it wasn't even close to two degrees.

That's fact, not anybody's personal opinion.
 
2012-11-18 11:20:20 AM  
 
2012-11-18 11:21:24 AM  

Joce678: Shakin_Haitian:
Premise: Absence of contrails reduce temperature by 2 degrees.

You: MASSIVE ASSUMPTIONS GLOBAL TEMPERATURES WHARRGRBL

Wut?

The hard facts about temperature change after 9/11 EXIST (OMG!).

Clue: It wasn't two degrees, it wasn't even close to two degrees.

That's fact, not anybody's personal opinion.


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.
 
2012-11-18 11:22:17 AM  
I got that backwards - hotter in day, colder at night.
 
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.
 
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...
 
2012-11-18 04:45:10 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.


Start here:

Link

Because honestly you sound like you arent in the field of science, and you are just here parroting right wing talking points.

Please read the site for a while, read the comments.

There are many climatologists that post here and they explain things very well.
 
2012-11-18 05:14:11 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Nope. A correlation has to be strong to be convincing.


It is strong, and there usually have to be other theories/possibilities for strong correlations to be discarded.

I'm sure you're about to present all those other possibilities to us...
 
2012-11-18 05:46:35 PM  

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


Based on your graph, it looks like what you're saying is we need more Vikings.
 
2012-11-18 05:57:13 PM  

Joce678: 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?


i30.photobucket.com
What do I win?
 
2012-11-18 06:20:57 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: 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).


First off, be aware that the current warming trend is somewhat beyond what was seen in the MWP:

www.ncdc.noaa.gov
From Mann et al. 2008.

More importantly, be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change is different from simply detecting a change, and goes beyond simple correlation. The one-sentence explanation is that the current warming trend cannot be explained through natural variability since said variability has been accounted for through an understanding of the processes involved in Earth's energy balance. It's more about understanding the processes responsible instead of just correlation of the sum total of their effects. Keep in mind that this talk of correlation is a bit of a side-show to the actual underlying science.


THE GREAT NAME: 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


I'm not sure where the guy you're responding to was going with that, but what may help is the underlying idea is that if we're talking about heat, atmospheric temperature isn't the only measure of it.

On another note, a change in the global average temperature of 1°C doesn't seem all that much unless you realize that the difference between now and the last ice age may have been as little as 2.2K (Schmittner et al. 2011).


THE GREAT NAME: This is all well documented.

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


Since you are unaware of the basics of the attribution of anthropocentric climate change, the most recent IPCC report is a good place to start (link goes to summary of what appears to be a section relevant to your discussion).


THE GREAT NAME: There isnt one paper disputing it, the worlds scientists are on board.

Unfortunately, this is just a bare-faced lie.


I agree with you here.
 
2012-11-18 06:25:05 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: On another note, a change in the global average temperature of 1°C doesn't seem all that much unless you realize that the difference between now and the last ice age may have been as little as 2.2K (Schmittner et al. 2011).


Schmittner et al. find a temperature difference of 3.3 K between now and the Last Glacial Maximum. 2.2 K is their median estimate of climate sensitivity (temperature change for a doubling of CO2).
 
2012-11-18 06:26:15 PM  

brantgoose:
[debunks stupid misleading shiat]


Thank you.

Unless you are a motherfarking climate scientist, or at least someone with a solid scientific education in motherfarking atmospheric physics you dipshiat denialists can take your cribbed-from-the-internet charts, paragraphs, and other bullshiat, and can go suck a huge overflowing bucket of syphilitic goat cocks. I am so, utter, completely sick of know-nothing cockbags throwing around charts who couldn't tell you how a farking cloud is formed.

Hey, Dr. Oncologist! My uncle smoked seven packs of cigarettes a day for ninety five years! Hence, smoking doesn't cause cancer! You are so full of shiat! Here's a chart!

Hey, Dr. Climate scientist with a hundred peer-reviewed publications in premiere journals! It was cold in my back yard yesterday, hence global warming is a pile of shiat! Here's a chart! Go fark yourself!

HURR DURR DUUUUURRRRRRRR.
 
2012-11-18 06:29:26 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: 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.



Unfortunately, the bits in bold are as much a "bare-faced lie" as the one you yourself pointed out. Besides the review that the IPCC presents (and that I pointed you towards before), the discussion is active and ongoing in the scientific literature. I mean, I was just reading this paper on this very topic just this morning. It's one thing to argue the merits of different lines of evidence, but it's something else to deny they even exist in the first place.
 
2012-11-18 06:37:52 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: 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

I'm not sure where the guy you're responding to was going with that, but what may help is the underlying idea is that if we're talking about heat, atmospheric temperature isn't the only measure of it.


That is what I was trying to say...
 
2012-11-18 06:39:51 PM  
More importantly, be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change is different from simply detecting a change, and goes beyond simple correlation.

If someone doesn't understand how greenhouse gases work, and that adding a bazillion metric shiat-tons of said gases to the atmosphere just might Might MIGHT have an effect on the equilibrium temperature of the earth, then there is absolutely no hope for having any kind of meaningful conversation. The onus is upon those who are "skeptical" to posit why adding greenhouse gases would not be a leading cause of observed rising temperatures, all natural variability aside. Ask any denialist and you'll get some bullshiat about mysterious natural cycles that just haven't been discovered yet, or the sun, or mysterious unicorn farts. Right. When the most blatantly obvious reason - backed by as many studies as you can possibly imagine, from the laboratory, to the field, to theory and modeling, is staring you in the face and you deny it out-of-hand, they you are a flaming dipshiat. And you are most definitely not a scientist.

Does this mean we have all the answers? Of course not! There is much still to be learned. But much like Nate Silver's forecast for the election vs. the "gut" feeling of loony conservitards, reality tends to work itself out regardless of your twisted belief system. I'll take rigorous science and all its messiness over too-stupid-to-realize-how-stupid-you-are douchebaggery any day.
 
2012-11-18 06:40:13 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: There isnt one paper disputing it, the worlds scientists are on board.

Unfortunately, this is just a bare-faced lie.

I agree with you here.


Care to show a peer reviewed paper that says otherwise?

And you are saying that the worlds climate scientists arent overwhelmingly agreed upon AGW?
 
2012-11-18 06:43:49 PM  

Ambitwistor: Damnhippyfreak: On another note, a change in the global average temperature of 1°C doesn't seem all that much unless you realize that the difference between now and the last ice age may have been as little as 2.2K (Schmittner et al. 2011).

Schmittner et al. find a temperature difference of 3.3 K between now and the Last Glacial Maximum. 2.2 K is their median estimate of climate sensitivity (temperature change for a doubling of CO2).



I thought exactly this before I posted. I then had to double checked it to believe it:

The best-fitting model (ECS2xC = 2.4 K) reproduces well the reconstructed global mean cooling of 2.2 K (within two significant digits), as well as much of the meridional pattern of the zonally averaged temperature anomalies (correlation coefficient r = 0.8) (Fig. 2).

i50.tinypic.com
Fig. 2, with the black line being the reconstructed temperature.

You're right of course as to the 3.3 K difference from their modelling. I should have specified I was talking about the reconstructed values.
 
2012-11-18 06:45:04 PM  

guyinjeep16: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: There isnt one paper disputing it, the worlds scientists are on board.

Unfortunately, this is just a bare-faced lie.

I agree with you here.

Care to show a peer reviewed paper that says otherwise?

And you are saying that the worlds climate scientists arent overwhelmingly agreed upon AGW?



They are, but that's a far cry from saying "there isnt one paper disputing it". Let's not go to false extremes.
 
2012-11-18 06:45:56 PM  
It all depends on which values you use when you are calculating the "average". If you want to use all the data from 1900, it is a little misleading I think as everyone acknowledges that warming happened for a period of time, but appears to have stopped/slowed in 1998. Now, is this value significantly above average for October data since 1998? I think that is the real question of interest. I'm not movitaved enough to go and look it up, but I am guessing no, it isn't.
 
2012-11-18 06:48:42 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: guyinjeep16: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: There isnt one paper disputing it, the worlds scientists are on board.

Unfortunately, this is just a bare-faced lie.

I agree with you here.

Care to show a peer reviewed paper that says otherwise?

And you are saying that the worlds climate scientists arent overwhelmingly agreed upon AGW?


They are, but that's a far cry from saying "there isnt one paper disputing it". Let's not go to false extremes.


Show me a peer reviewed paper please.
 
2012-11-18 06:54:20 PM  

Joce678: 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.


you realize that you have absolutely no proof to support that statement, don't you?

And people ARE claiming that this is the warmest period ever, do try to pay attention while the adults are conversing.
 
2012-11-18 06:56:50 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.


the debate is not about the idea that the planet is warming, but WHY it is warming. All you have are models that have been hyped up to prove a point that just is not correct.
 
2012-11-18 07:12:43 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: 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.


You don't understand how this game is played.
The AGWers here are IRREFUTABLE.
They're using rhetorical methodologies to create logical arguments.
Unfortunately these logical arguments are not based on bomb-proof scientific evidence.
There is a huge measure of "belief" and buying into the cultural and professional biases of their profession. However, being academics, they are skilled rhetoricians and accustomed to arguing down on brains that are not fully developed in their young, naive students who lack the courage, the rhetorical skills and professional arguing points to challenge them.
They are like the pope: IRREFUTABLE and NEVER WRONG.
They will never admit the weakness of their positions, since their professional livlihoods and political standing within the academic community depend on their defending the party line.
Careers can be destroyed if they step out of line.
 
2012-11-18 07:13:34 PM  

chuckufarlie: the debate is not about the idea that the planet is warming, but WHY it is warming. All you have are models that have been hyped up to prove a point that just is not correct.


Dat.
 
2012-11-18 07:14:39 PM  

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

Based on your graph, it looks like what you're saying is we need more Vikings.


cache.ohinternet.com
 
2012-11-18 07:14:39 PM  
The ocean has literally trapped 121 years' worth of latent heat! Case closed.
 
2012-11-18 07:32:31 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: "The best-fitting model (ECS2xC = 2.4 K) reproduces well the reconstructed global mean cooling of 2.2 K (within two significant digits),"


Actually, that 2.2 K is yet a different number; it's the average of SST over ocean and SAT over land. The global SAT change (according to the median fit model), which is what people usually refer to as the global warming/cooling, is the 3.3 K I mentioned before.
 
2012-11-18 07:34:15 PM  
It's not hard to be above average all the time when the climate "scientists" picked the coolest reference datum of the last 130 years which to compare.

/science...yawn.
 
2012-11-18 07:46:50 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: THE GREAT NAME: 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.

You don't understand how this game is played.
The AGWers here are IRREFUTABLE.
They're using rhetorical methodologies to create logical arguments.
Unfortunately these logical arguments are not based on bomb-proof scientific evidence.
There is a huge measure of "belief" and buying into the cultural and professional biases of their profession. However, being academics, they are skilled rhetoricians and accustomed to arguing down on brains that are not fully developed in their young, naive students who lack the courage, the rhetorical skills and professional arguing points to challenge them.
They are like the pope: IRREFUTABLE and NEVER WRONG.
They will never admit the weakness of their positions, since their professional livlihoods and political standing within the academic community depend on their defending the party line.
Careers can be destroyed if they step out of line.


Know how I know you're not one of them?
 
2012-11-18 08:20:54 PM  
I like how everyone thinks that the ice age just plain up and stopped one year, and then it was just a steady 70 degrees until we started to burn lots of things.
 
2012-11-18 08:23:30 PM  

RehcamretsneF: I like how everyone thinks that the ice age just plain up and stopped one year, and then it was just a steady 70 degrees until we started to burn lots of things.


I like how you think that glacial cycles are somehow relevant to the climate on century timescales.
 
2012-11-18 08:24:11 PM  

Ambitwistor: 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.


And then they waste the money on boondoggles like high speed rail, ethanol, etc. so forth and so on.
 
2012-11-18 08:36:04 PM  

Hunter_Worthington: And then they waste the money on boondoggles like high speed rail, ethanol, etc. so forth and so on.


High speed rail is irrelevant to your point because it's not intended to solve global warming, and ethanol is a Congressional handout to the ag lobby in Red states. The policies that Democrats actually wanted to solve global warming, like taxes or cap-and-trade, have been blocked in Congress.
 
2012-11-18 08:51:24 PM  

MarkEC: 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.


That seems more peripheral than core, to me. At the very least, it needs the qualifier of "human history" rather than "geologic history".

Shakin_Haitian: Does regional mean the same thing as global?


Actually, that's kind of moot. #56.

MarkEC: Europe may have seen the biggest increase, but it was globally felt.


Not everywhere was warmer, as I understand.

www.skepticalscience.com
Figure 1: Reconstructed surface temperature anomaly for Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 A.D.), relative to the 1961- 1990 reference period. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable. - Source



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


Aside from the correspondence to CO2 to the measured shifts, the causal mechanism of CO2's "greenhouse" properties, and the lack of any competing hypothesis with corresponding descriptive ability. "To be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does."

THE GREAT NAME: 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.


That 20 year period may be too short for showing statistically significant trend, and I'm not that up on the particular data. My understanding is that longer trend does show significant warming, over the period we've been keeping records. Jon Snow is more likely to have that at his fingertips, if you're actually curious.

guyinjeep16: There isnt one paper disputing it, the worlds scientists are on board.


Well, circa 95% of the climatologists, anyway. And there probably are a couple papers with quibbles.

Jon Snow might be familiar with those, too.
 
2012-11-18 08:52:30 PM  

That Guy...From That Show!: Joce678: 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?

[i30.photobucket.com image 320x320]
What do I win?


Um, a wooden spoon to stir your bucket of fail with. The Sun is external and the amount of heating it provides depends on atmospheric composition.
 
2012-11-18 08:58:38 PM  

chuckufarlie: Joce678: Yes, but they're not happening at the moment. The only thing that's happening right now is man.

you realize that you have absolutely no proof to support that statement, don't you?


You realize you have absolutely no proof to support that statement, don't you?

chuckufarlie: And people ARE claiming that this is the warmest period ever, do try to pay attention while the adults are conversing.


Not me. The Cambrian period was quite warm. So was the Jurassic.
 
2012-11-18 09:10:25 PM  
Hey, I'm late to the party and I didn't bother reading anything that came before, but were you guys aware that people have differing opinions on global warming/climate change?

Not sure what you were discussing up until now, but I thought you guys would want to know that. Carry on!
 
2012-11-18 09:12:50 PM  

Ambitwistor: Hunter_Worthington: And then they waste the money on boondoggles like high speed rail, ethanol, etc. so forth and so on.

High speed rail is irrelevant to your point because it's not intended to solve global warming, and ethanol is a Congressional handout to the ag lobby in Red states. The policies that Democrats actually wanted to solve global warming, like taxes or cap-and-trade, have been blocked in Congress.


I'll tell you the same thing I tell my AP students when they're horribly wrong: No, but thank you for answering.
 
2012-11-18 09:30:24 PM  

Ambitwistor: Damnhippyfreak: "The best-fitting model (ECS2xC = 2.4 K) reproduces well the reconstructed global mean cooling of 2.2 K (within two significant digits),"

Actually, that 2.2 K is yet a different number; it's the average of SST over ocean and SAT over land. The global SAT change (according to the median fit model), which is what people usually refer to as the global warming/cooling, is the 3.3 K I mentioned before.



Ah, I see where we're differing here. When I think about global temperature, I consider both SAT and SST as HadCRUT (by necessity) and GISTEMP (with their land-ocean temp index) do so as well.

The way I'm reading the paper is that the 2.2 K difference is the one provided by just the reconstructed paleoclimate data (which is, as you stated and unsurprisingly copmprises both SAT and SST), while the 3.3 K number is just SAT from their model. We're both right.

For interest's sake, incorporating both SST and SAT from their model gives a difference of 2.6 K (presumably including the warming from the 120m sea-level lowering that isn't included in the 3.3 K previously mentioned):

Averaging over all grid points in our model leads to a higher global mean temperature (SST over ocean, SAT over land) change (-2.6 K) than using only grid points where paleoclimate data are available (-2.2 K), suggesting that the existing data set is still spatially biased toward low latitudes and/or oceans. Increased spatial coverage of climate reconstructions is therefore necessary to improve ECS2xC estimates.
 
2012-11-18 09:33:16 PM  

abb3w: guyinjeep16: There isnt one paper disputing it, the worlds scientists are on board.

Well, circa 95% of the climatologists, anyway. And there probably are a couple papers with quibbles.

Jon Snow might be familiar with those, too.


I should be more clear.

Show me one paper where it is claimed that human emissions arent a player in temperature increase.
 
2012-11-18 09:44:16 PM  

Joce678: That Guy...From That Show!: Joce678: 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?

[i30.photobucket.com image 320x320]
What do I win?

Um, a wooden spoon to stir your bucket of fail with. The Sun is external and the amount of heating it provides depends on atmospheric composition.


The only fail is your claim that the atmosphere of the earth controls the amount of heating the Sun provides.

I'm not sure what stretch of reasoning that you believe that the atmosphere of the earth can go back in time and change the amount of energy the Sun is generating...but i'm sure there's some science behind your claims right? 

I am serious Joce678, if you have evidence that backs your claim that the atmosphere of the earth controls the heat output of the sun I'd love to hear it.  Global Alarmists do believe this but i've never seen one actually back it up due to the atmosphere not having a time machine to accomplish this.
 
2012-11-18 09:51:23 PM  

guyinjeep16: Damnhippyfreak: guyinjeep16: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: There isnt one paper disputing it, the worlds scientists are on board.

Unfortunately, this is just a bare-faced lie.

I agree with you here.

Care to show a peer reviewed paper that says otherwise?

And you are saying that the worlds climate scientists arent overwhelmingly agreed upon AGW?


They are, but that's a far cry from saying "there isnt one paper disputing it". Let's not go to false extremes.

Show me a peer reviewed paper please.



They're out there. Here's one:

Khilyuk & Chilingar 2006

I think the vast, vast majority of evidence argues against them (when they're not outright flawed, or when "skeptics" overstate or misrepresent what they say), but they do exist. We probably shouldn't pretend that they don't.

/had to go to some places of questionable quality to get that
//need science eye bleach
///the_stupid_it_burns.jpg
 
2012-11-18 09:51:55 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: 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.



This has already been covered a bit in the thread, but here is another summary:

Here, with links to original sources too

1. Humans are emitting lots of CO2, a known greenhouse gas
2. carbon in the atmosphere is identifiable as coming from fossil fuels
3. oxygen levels in the atmosphere are declining, as expected as oxygen combines with carbon when fossil fuels are burned
4. carbon in coral is identifiable as coming from fossil fuels

So here is some evidence - would you care to address it?
 
2012-11-18 09:52:44 PM  
Could be worse. Could be raining.

i.ytimg.com
 
2012-11-18 09:55:21 PM  

That Guy...From That Show!: I am serious Joce678, if you have evidence that backs your claim that the atmosphere of the earth controls the heat output of the sun I'd love to hear it.


Don't be an idiot. He is referring to the fact that the atmosphere affects how much of the sun's energy actually contributes to the planet's energy as opposed to being reflected back out into space.

If that wasn't obvious to you then you need to put down the keyboard and step away while the adults are talking.
 
2012-11-18 09:58:25 PM  

guyinjeep16: abb3w: guyinjeep16: There isnt one paper disputing it, the worlds scientists are on board.

Well, circa 95% of the climatologists, anyway. And there probably are a couple papers with quibbles.

Jon Snow might be familiar with those, too.

I should be more clear.

Show me one paper where it is claimed that human emissions arent a player in temperature increase.


Everyone knows human emissions aren't causing temperature increase. WTF? Cows emit lots more.
 
2012-11-18 10:04:04 PM  

Farking Canuck: That Guy...From That Show!: I am serious Joce678, if you have evidence that backs your claim that the atmosphere of the earth controls the heat output of the sun I'd love to hear it.

Don't be an idiot. He is referring to the fact that the atmosphere affects how much of the sun's energy actually contributes to the planet's energy as opposed to being reflected back out into space.

If that wasn't obvious to you then you need to put down the keyboard and step away while the adults are talking.


He said: Um, a wooden spoon to stir your bucket of fail with. The Sun is external and the amount of heating it provides depends on atmospheric composition.

Which part of that is so understandable to you that you resort to junior high tactics instead of rationally explaining why your views are invalid? \

Really, I'm serious, you know that he's wrong an you're wrong why not just admit it and progress from there instead of childishly attacking those who prove you wrong?
 
2012-11-18 10:22:58 PM  

Joce678: chuckufarlie: Joce678: Yes, but they're not happening at the moment. The only thing that's happening right now is man.

you realize that you have absolutely no proof to support that statement, don't you?

You realize you have absolutely no proof to support that statement, don't you?

chuckufarlie: And people ARE claiming that this is the warmest period ever, do try to pay attention while the adults are conversing.

Not me. The Cambrian period was quite warm. So was the Jurassic.


the only "evidence" is what comes out of a model that is obviously prejudiced so that the system over reacts to an increase in CO2. That is not proof. Models are not proof of anything.
 
2012-11-18 10:24:36 PM  

Ambitwistor: Hunter_Worthington: And then they waste the money on boondoggles like high speed rail, ethanol, etc. so forth and so on.

High speed rail is irrelevant to your point because it's not intended to solve global warming, and ethanol is a Congressional handout to the ag lobby in Red states. The policies that Democrats actually wanted to solve global warming, like taxes or cap-and-trade, have been blocked in Congress.


Taxes never have and never will solve a climate problem. Neither will cap and trade. Those are just ways to redistribute the world's wealth.
 
2012-11-18 11:27:06 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Bontesla: david_gaithersburg: Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

Pecking away at the keyboard in your parents' basement does not constitute debunking in any scientific regard.

True that, it's gonna be a shame when we lose the Greenland ice sheets it's gonna be a real tragedy if we lose the Antarctic ice.



At the rate we are going, the loss of Greenland's ice sheets will happen unless action is taken.

But do bear in mind, the process will take a long time. You will be dead by the time Greenland's ice sheets are completely gone. It will take hundreds of years to take out Antarctica. Of course whoever is living at that time will really despise us for allowing it to happen.
 
2012-11-18 11:55:59 PM  

That Guy...From That Show!: Joce678: 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?
i30.photobucket.com

What do I win?


A plaque that points out what a stupid thing it is to think that scientists don't take the Sun into account.

The output of the Sun is observed and measured. It variability has been taken into account. The Sun can NOT explain the increasing temperatures.

But in the mean time, humans have measurably increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Unless one thinks the laws of physics will be suspended for our benefit, that carbon dioxide will have a greenhouse effect, that will have a warming influence.
 
2012-11-19 01:50:54 AM  

That Guy...From That Show!:
Really, I'm serious, you know that he's wrong an you're wrong why not just admit it and progress from there instead of childishly attacking those who prove you wrong?


I know you're serious that's why I know you're not just an idiot but also an ass.

While a pedantic and moronic interpretation of "amount of heating it provides" could be that he was suggesting that the earth somehow changes the sun's output ... only a child would actually insist that this was what was meant by the statement.

Another interpretation,one which is not wholly moronic, is that the phrase "amount of heating it provides" was referring to how much of the sun's energy made it through the atmosphere to add to the planet's net energy.

Not surprisingly, you choose to rant on and on about how your moronic interpretation must be the one he meant. Let me guess: Are you a denier??

A perfect description of you and your ilk:

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

― Isaac Asimov
 
2012-11-19 03:04:35 AM  
Am I the only one that's bothered by the poor use of "average" in the headline? Not poor so much as wrong. Both the Fark headline and the article's headline. NOAA got it right of course, but they obviously understand math. I'm going to start submitting headlines like, "Last Three Months 50 degrees (hotter or colder) Than Average)". I'm sure I can find some crazy sampling period to make that accurate.
 
2012-11-19 03:35:53 AM  
Folks, please disregard graphs such as this:

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

The alarmist part of the graph (the short spike at the very right) is made up of different data, from different sources as the rest of the graph. All the graph is showing you is the heat island effect as well as cherry-picking by pseudoscientists who have a pro AGW agenda. There was indeed a rise between 1978 and 1998, but it was small, and there was actually a fall before it, and temps have levelled out since.

"Hockey-stick" graphs such as these should not convince anybody.
 
2012-11-19 03:42:36 AM  

HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: 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.


This has already been covered a bit in the thread, but here is another summary:

Here, with links to original sources too

1. Humans are emitting lots of CO2, a known greenhouse gas
2. carbon in the atmosphere is identifiable as coming from fossil fuels
3. oxygen levels in the atmosphere are declining, as expected as oxygen combines with carbon when fossil fuels are burned
4. carbon in coral is identifiable as coming from fossil fuels

So here is some evidence - would you care to address it?


OK, so this was a brave attempt. But 1. is merely stating what we already know, and says nothing about global warming. 2. and 4. are obvious (its no different than saying every time we take a breath were breathing in a molecule Napoleon breathed out). 3. is kind-of irrelevant, and only dropped in there to sound alarmist. CO2 has risen by about 70 parts per MILLION but oxygen is 20% of the atmosphere. So not much to be alarmed about there but nice try.
 
2012-11-19 03:44:32 AM  

abb3w: MarkEC: 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.

That seems more peripheral than core, to me. At the very least, it needs the qualifier of "human history" rather than "geologic history".

Shakin_Haitian: Does regional mean the same thing as global?

Actually, that's kind of moot. #56.

MarkEC: Europe may have seen the biggest increase, but it was globally felt.

Not everywhere was warmer, as I understand.


Ha ha I love this. MWP "doesn't count" because not everywhere was warmer?

Then why did you need to change your silly religion's name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?

Durrrrrr!!!??!??!!!!
 
2012-11-19 05:29:23 AM  
With reference to some areas being cooler during the global medieval warm period, aren`t we told that global warming can make some areas colder due to climate change?

Which way is it? Does it have to be warmer everywhere for global warming or can some areas get cooler?
 
2012-11-19 05:51:18 AM  
The reason most people get their panties in a twist about it being this warm before is because the claim that the current warming is unprecedented and unusual was used as a main point of the `proof` that the current warming is unprecedented and unusual and therefore anthropogenic. If it is unprecedented then lots of species will die and the whole thing is something to panic about.

It is not unprecedented or unusual.

In the last 5000 years (no, not millions) we have had four times (about once every thousand years) where the sea level has risen between 1-4.5 meters in a time frame of about 100-200 years which means MORE and FASTER warming than we are currently undergoing. This is scary because how can you get people to change their behavior if the temperatures and rate of change are well within natural parameters? Also, if it got this warm a few times in recent history that means all the species on the planet are already adapted and there will not be a global ecosystem crash.

So no need to panic

Try disproving anything I say instead of just posting "derp" or insults, it`s the adult way and stops you looking like an idiot.

For those hard of reading I`m talking about the claim that the current warming is unprecedented and unusual, nothing else. It`s a bogus claim. It would be poor logic to claim that it is unusual and unprecedented because it is anthropogenic because the claim made is that it is anthropogenic because it is unusual and unprecedented so that is a circular argument...
 
2012-11-19 07:40:03 AM  

dready zim: For those hard of reading I`m talking about the claim that the current warming is unprecedented and unusual, nothing else. It`s a bogus claim. It would be poor logic to claim that it is unusual and unprecedented because it is anthropogenic because the claim made is that it is anthropogenic because it is unusual and unprecedented so that is a circular argument...


Koch Brothers paying you by check, or thirty pieces of silver?
 
2012-11-19 08:11:27 AM  
www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Lets see here, nope no extreme melting compared to recent melting. Hard to increase sea levels without melting ice.

Oh, and from the NOAA page that came from:

"Note that the melting that has occurred during the 20th Century is greater than almost all periods for ~4000 years. (See dashed line)."

Well, ok, maybe the water came from somewhere else to have a spike in sea levels, one that wasn't sustained:

www.globalwarmingart.com

Citations here. Nope, no world wide spike in sea levels. Some regional shifts but the over all average was for stable sea levels. Then we started increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere:

www.globalwarmingart.com

But hey, you just go ahead and keep telling yourself that you know what's REALLY going on there Dready Zim. It's not like your flat out wrong declarations haven't been shown to be false previously or anything.
 
2012-11-19 11:50:03 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: 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.


This has already been covered a bit in the thread, but here is another summary:

Here, with links to original sources too

1. Humans are emitting lots of CO2, a known greenhouse gas
2. carbon in the atmosphere is identifiable as coming from fossil fuels
3. oxygen levels in the atmosphere are declining, as expected as oxygen combines with carbon when fossil fuels are burned
4. carbon in coral is identifiable as coming from fossil fuels

So here is some evidence - would you care to address it?

OK, so this was a brave attempt. But 1. is merely stating what we already know, and says nothing about global warming. 2. and 4. are obvious (its no different than saying every time we take a breath were breathing in a molecule Napoleon breathed out). 3. is kind-of irrelevant, and only dropped in there to sound alarmist. CO2 has risen by about 70 parts per MILLION but oxygen is 20% of the atmosphere. So not much to be alarmed about there but nice try.


Your response to number one is REASON #1 that you should never be taken seriously here again.
 
2012-11-19 11:51:07 AM  
Wow, has it really been 332 months? Time just flies when your not caring about about things that don't affect you.
 
2012-11-19 11:56:15 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: 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.


This has already been covered a bit in the thread, but here is another summary:

Here, with links to original sources too

1. Humans are emitting lots of CO2, a known greenhouse gas
2. carbon in the atmosphere is identifiable as coming from fossil fuels
3. oxygen levels in the atmosphere are declining, as expected as oxygen combines with carbon when fossil fuels are burned
4. carbon in coral is identifiable as coming from fossil fuels

So here is some evidence - would you care to address it?

OK, so this was a brave attempt. But 1. is merely stating what we already know, and says nothing about global warming. 2. and 4. are obvious (its no different than saying every time we take a breath were breathing in a molecule Napoleon breathed out). 3. is kind-of irrelevant, and only dropped in there to sound alarmist. CO2 has risen by about 70 parts per MILLION but oxygen is 20% of the atmosphere. So not much to be alarmed about there but nice try.


No. This is so painfully ignorant it literally hurts my brain.

When you burn a fossil fuel, the carbon combines with oxygen from the atmosphere (hence a measurable, predictable reduction in atmospheric O2), to produce CO2. That CO2 comes from carbon with specific proportions of different isotopes, which leads to a measurable change in the isotope proportions in the atmosphere (I'm simplifying, and trying to avoid big words).

read more here: Link


Here's how breathing works: Link

Maybe you'll take your head of the sand long enough to try again?
 
2012-11-19 11:57:35 AM  
um, head out of the sand...
 
2012-11-19 12:36:47 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Folks, please disregard graphs such as this:

[www.ncdc.noaa.gov image 680x700]

The alarmist part of the graph (the short spike at the very right) is made up of different data, from different sources as the rest of the graph. All the graph is showing you is the heat island effect as well as cherry-picking by pseudoscientists who have a pro AGW agenda. There was indeed a rise between 1978 and 1998, but it was small, and there was actually a fall before it, and temps have levelled out since.

"Hockey-stick" graphs such as these should not convince anybody.



Contrary to your claim, the source of the data for the "rise between 1978 and 1998" and data subsequent to that point are from the exact same source, and compiled by the same people - and is clearly labelled in the graph itself. As for the heat island effect, it has shown to be negligible, both through corroboration with other data sources such as the satellite record (RSS and UAH here):

tamino.files.wordpress.com
From here. Note the lack of large differences between
different sources of the instrumental record and the satellite record - this would strong argue against the existence of some sort of change in the instrumental data after 1998.

The heat island effect has also been investigated directly:

i49.tinypic.com
From BEST . Note the lack of difference between sites classified as 'urban' vs 'rural'. Again, strong evidence arguing against the existence of an urban heat island effect.

As for temperature leveling out since 1998, in the context of climate, this really isn't true. One needs at least 20-30 years to be able to overcome short-term variability (such as the strong El Nino during 1997-1998). Put graphically so it's easier to grasp intuitively:

www.skepticalscience.com
 
2012-11-19 12:48:46 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: abb3w: MarkEC: 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.

That seems more peripheral than core, to me. At the very least, it needs the qualifier of "human history" rather than "geologic history".

Shakin_Haitian: Does regional mean the same thing as global?

Actually, that's kind of moot. #56.

MarkEC: Europe may have seen the biggest increase, but it was globally felt.

Not everywhere was warmer, as I understand.

Ha ha I love this. MWP "doesn't count" because not everywhere was warmer?

Then why did you need to change your silly religion's name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?

Durrrrrr!!!??!??!!!!



abb3w did not state that the MWP dosen't count, but was instead responding to the bit in bold.

As for differences in nomenclature, keep in mind that different terms can have different meanings, and to make things more complicated, to different groups (such as the scientific literature vs. the popular press). If you're interested, we can explain this graphic out a bit:
img260.imageshack.us

Or if you just need a quick indicator, ask yourself what the two 'C's in the acronym IPCC stand for, then ask yourself when the organization was established.
 
2012-11-19 01:47:51 PM  
God, get over the climate change thing. It doesn't matter if it's real or not, ir if humans are responsible or not.
We're not gonna change our lifestyle either way. We'll just adapt to whatever comes.
Get over it.
 
2012-11-19 03:03:06 PM  

That Guy...From That Show!: Everyone knows human emissions aren't causing temperature increase. WTF? Cows emit lots more.


#129.

THE GREAT NAME: "Hockey-stick" graphs such as these should not convince anybody.


#18.

THE GREAT NAME: MWP "doesn't count" because not everywhere was warmer?


I didn't say it "doesn't count". Rather, I provided two links, which also don't say that, but explain that the warming was not globally uniform, and from identified causes which are not able to explain the current trend.

dready zim: It is not unprecedented or unusual.


#2.
 
2012-11-19 08:39:59 PM  
That game seems pretty fun, abb3w, but I'm not sure there's a win state.
 
2012-11-19 09:22:59 PM  

Ambitwistor: 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").


Nor do they "prove" that it is accelerating.

But if you are happy thrusting your money towards government programs of dubious quality, and effect, continue to do so. Stop asking others to jump off the cliff and swim across the next puddle, because you have bought into the scheme.
 
2012-11-19 10:12:25 PM  

Slam1263: But if you are happy thrusting your money towards government programs of dubious quality, and effect, continue to do so. Stop asking others to jump off the cliff and swim across the next puddle, because you have bought into the scheme.


"Do nothing! Do nothing!!"

You are a good little soldier preaching the mantra of your corporate masters.

You do realize that they have no plans to share their riches with you right??
 
2012-11-19 11:09:03 PM  

cthellis: That game seems pretty fun, abb3w, but I'm not sure there's a win state.


Sure there is.

www.spelabingo.org

 
2012-11-20 10:17:46 PM  

Farking Canuck: Slam1263: But if you are happy thrusting your money towards government programs of dubious quality, and effect, continue to do so. Stop asking others to jump off the cliff and swim across the next puddle, because you have bought into the scheme.

"Do nothing! Do nothing!!"

You are a good little soldier preaching the mantra of your corporate masters.

You do realize that they have no plans to share their riches with you right??


I am one of the "Corporate Masters".

I just don't want to share my hard earned money with Farking Canucks.

But as I said, if you want to toss your own money around, it is your money, toss it around.

There are more pressing needs for mine. Keeping employees employed, rather than giving it to the government is tops on my list right now.
 
2012-11-20 11:52:50 PM  

Slam1263:
I am one of the "Corporate Masters".

I just don't want to share my hard earned money with Farking Canucks.

But as I said, if you want to toss your own money around, it is your money, toss it around.

There are more pressing needs for mine. Keeping employees employed, rather than giving it to the government is tops on my list right now.


LOL ... I guess you're one of the 'job creators' we hear so much about.

Sadly, it is people like you that are ensuring all the jobs created in the green industries are going overseas. Painting everything that could help reduce pollution and dependance on foreign as a "waste of money" when, in fact, it is eventually going to be the future. Sure it takes some investment but anything profitable does.

People like you are just making sure that the future arrives as slow as possible and none of the jobs or profit created will be in North America.

But hey ... big oil wants to wring out all the profit they can from the status quo so make sure everyone drags their feet.

"Do nothing! Do nothing!!" *salute*
 
2012-11-20 11:53:57 PM  
Doh!

That would be "... dependance on foreign oil ..."
 
Displayed 420 of 420 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