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.

(Denver Post)   The first decade of the new millennium showed the most global warming EVAR. Nothing extreme here, move along citizens   (denverpost.com) divider line 352
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

6107 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jul 2013 at 12:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-03 03:17:36 PM

Corvus: Reality: Today, ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is trending at least 100 years ahead of projections compared to IPCC's first three reports.


So, the scientists were wrong then - but all of the sudden, they're right about this same issue now?
I would say they lost all credibility when their numbers were off by 100 years.

/I kid. Sort of.
 
2013-07-03 03:17:57 PM

dripping with sarcasm: The arguement continues, but I like to think what's the case scenario.

Deny Global warming/climate change:
We do nothing and the world ends up like Venus 2.0. Or the best case we do nothing and nothing happens.

Accept that climate change is real:
Worst case scenario is nothing happens, but we clean up the environment, better air, water and land. Best case scenario is we clean up the environment and avoid Venus 2.0.

I don't think there is much of a choice.


I like the part where you skipped over how much it will cost.
 
2013-07-03 03:19:59 PM

DoctorWhat: DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]

Where's that data coming from?  None of the graphs on the NASA page http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/  don't look a damn thing like it.  Actually they look quite a bit like the models you plotted...


a) It's coming from 4 radiosonde data sets and 2 satellite data sets
b) yes they do:

data.giss.nasa.gov
 
2013-07-03 03:20:14 PM

WelldeadLink: [i.imgur.com image 627x474]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/31/friday-funny-the-global-warmin g- escalator-vs-the-rocket/


DERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRP

there I just summed up your graph
 
2013-07-03 03:20:29 PM
Ow! That was my feelings!:

I like the part where you skipped over how much it will cost.

As someone who thinks that the potential economic damage of climate change will far far exceed the economic costs of addressing it, I have to agree.  Pretending there aren't costs isn't good.  It makes you seem like a wide-eyed idealist and not someone with a firm grasp of the issue.
 
2013-07-03 03:21:46 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: I like the part where you skipped over how much it will cost.


The cost of delaying action is about a half a trillion dollars per year according to the IEA.
 
2013-07-03 03:23:43 PM

DesertDemonWY: DoctorWhat: DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]

Where's that data coming from?  None of the graphs on the NASA page http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/  don't look a damn thing like it.  Actually they look quite a bit like the models you plotted...

a) It's coming from 4 radiosonde data sets and 2 satellite data sets
b) yes they do:

[data.giss.nasa.gov image 643x417]


Oh, so he's comparing tropospheric observation with surface predictions.  Look at what those datasets measure, versus what they are being compared to.  One of these things is not like the other one, one of these things is not the same.
 
2013-07-03 03:23:48 PM

Confabulat: netizencain: "most global warming EVAR. "

"But going back to 1880"

The concept of time baffles most people.  Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley.  Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD.  You can't... can you?  Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

We only have reliable data so far in the past you know. No one was manning weather stations in 921 AD.

The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.


My grandfather still remembers when there was a huge pile of ice sitting ontop of his house in Michigan. He was pretty happy after it melted though because then he was on beach front lake property.

I guess, at some point, it was really farking cold... so cold that ice covered a large portion of North America as we know it.

I do believe in global warming, I mean, all that ice is gone now so I assume it melted, right?
 
2013-07-03 03:24:30 PM

SlowSlowMind: genner: Confabulat: Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?
[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]

That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!

The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.

As a scientist and card carrying member of the American Geophysical Union, I'm getting a kick out of your comments.

Do you know how to make your name, in a good way, as a politician? Get elected year after year?  Proudly proclaim a viewpoint that people with votes and/or money (prefe ...


So the scientists that climate change deniers quote are they challenging orthodoxy or are they just in it for the money?
 
2013-07-03 03:25:11 PM
Perusing this thread, I think it's precious that so many Right Wingers are still clinging to this idea that Global Warming isn't real. It's like when my 6-year old nephew tried to make me "Prove the existence of Oxygen". It would be adorable if these weren't grown-ups.
 
2013-07-03 03:25:26 PM

Alunan: Cool story bro:

I made this image several years ago for Fark:

[whowhatwhy.com image 600x800]


Then this showed up 4 months later:

[blogontherun.files.wordpress.com image 607x819]

Then a US Senator printed this and showed it on the Senate floor 2 months ago:

[www.whitehouse.senate.gov image 683x457]

I feel like I should have copyrighted it or something.


that's awesome, but yeah you should at least get a "by line" or publishing credit.
 
2013-07-03 03:25:42 PM

Confabulat: I swear, global warming deniers think the universe is run by magic or something.


You are correct, infidel.
 
2013-07-03 03:26:55 PM
Why can't we just try hard to clean up the planet, create less pollutants and heck, maybe as a side affect the planet is a better place to live on?
 
2013-07-03 03:27:30 PM

teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: boarch: You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.

I complained about the heat, you told me to move out of the desert. I showed you that "desert" has nothing to do with "heat", and you think your point still stands? WOW...

[i.chzbgr.com image 499x374]

It's almost like you probably KNEW that he meant you're an idiot to live in what is commonly known as the hottest region of our nation (colloquially referred to as "the desert") and continue to biatch about the heat but just felt like being a dick about it.


/I lol'd.
//Love huskies.
//expecting comments about how it's a malamute
 
2013-07-03 03:28:03 PM
Yeah yeah yeah .. bla bla bla
 
2013-07-03 03:28:16 PM

teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: boarch: You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.

I complained about the heat, you told me to move out of the desert. I showed you that "desert" has nothing to do with "heat", and you think your point still stands? WOW...

[i.chzbgr.com image 499x374]

It's almost like you probably KNEW that he meant you're an idiot to live in what is commonly known as the hottest region of our nation (colloquially referred to as "the desert") and continue to biatch about the heat but just felt like being a dick about it.


Really? Semantics? I mentioned that I MOVED OUT of the "hottest region of our nation (colloquially referred to as "the desert")", just in time for the place that I moved to to start getting hotter. Saying that a desert isn't always hot isn't semantics, it's your ignorance being exposed, and I'm really sorry I hurt your feelings. I hope that you're not gonna take your ball and go home now.
 
2013-07-03 03:28:29 PM

litespeed74: Why can't we just try hard to clean up the planet, create less pollutants and heck, maybe as a side affect the planet is a better place to live on?


Because that will make a handful of people who produce pollutants slightly LESS rich, and Ayn Rand would say to fark the Kardashev Scale.
 
2013-07-03 03:28:42 PM

Alunan: Cool story bro:

I made this image several years ago for Fark:

[whowhatwhy.com image 600x800]


Then this showed up 4 months later:

[blogontherun.files.wordpress.com image 607x819]

Then a US Senator printed this and showed it on the Senate floor 2 months ago:

[www.whitehouse.senate.gov image 683x457]

I feel like I should have copyrighted it or something.


That is a cool story. Awesome.
 
2013-07-03 03:29:54 PM

litespeed74: Why can't we just try hard to clean up the planet, create less pollutants and heck, maybe as a side affect the planet is a better place to live on?


I think that's actually a false image.  Most pollution that makes it into the atmosphere(not counting methane and CO2, which are pretty harmless other than global warming), doesn't come from centralized energy production.  We have really good catalytic converters.  Going all-nuclear for power generation wouldn't cut US smog much at all(thanks to the clean air act, they are actually pretty low already).
 
2013-07-03 03:33:59 PM
2010 was 3 years ago.  Why are we talking about it now?

The data supporting the slowdown in global warming has been recorded since then, thus the whole "notion among some in the scientific community of a slowdown, or lull".

I love that the article pretends entirely that years 2011 & 2012 didn't happen.  Wake the fark up you alarmist pieces of shiat.
 
2013-07-03 03:35:40 PM
Lies. All lies. Oh, and CO2 is a cooling gas, not a greenhouse gas. NASA has proven it.
 
2013-07-03 03:36:51 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: fappomatic: Confabulat: netizencain: "most global warming EVAR. "

"But going back to 1880"

The concept of time baffles most people.  Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley.  Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD.  You can't... can you?  Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

We only have reliable data so far in the past you know. No one was manning weather stations in 921 AD.

The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

What do I think will happen? Trees will use the CO2 to produce more oxygen and grow. When trees get bigger, they create more shade, which is a good thing. And we'll all be more alert because there's more oxygen. Thus proving global warming is a farce.

Cool! Can we please see your research and calculations? Because then we can all stop worrying about it. But I am definitely happy that you thought of this, because I'm sure no other climate scientists have ever even considered it.



That was a little too easy.

In reality, my stepfather is a retired chemist who spent his entire career with DOE working to improve cleanliness and efficiency of coal gasification. His conclusion? It cannot be completely effective, nor without risk. I'll ask his permission to post the notes from one of his global warming lectures. It is...enlightening.
 
2013-07-03 03:38:16 PM

wolfpaq777: 2010 was 3 years ago.  Why are we talking about it now?

The data supporting the slowdown in global warming has been recorded since then, thus the whole "notion among some in the scientific community of a slowdown, or lull".

I love that the article pretends entirely that years 2011 & 2012 didn't happen.  Wake the fark up you alarmist pieces of shiat.


Oh, so only being a degree higher than the average of the 90s totally invalidates global warming, since it's cooler than 2010.  Your scientific genius has been demonstrated again, person who probably went to the same college as me but didn't seem to learn anything.
 
2013-07-03 03:39:27 PM

DesertDemonWY: DoctorWhat: DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]

Where's that data coming from?  None of the graphs on the NASA page http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/  don't look a damn thing like it.  Actually they look quite a bit like the models you plotted...

a) It's coming from 4 radiosonde data sets and 2 satellite data sets
b) yes they do:

[data.giss.nasa.gov image 643x417]


It's not the data, It's the crappy model that Watts uses that makes your plots a joke.
 
2013-07-03 03:40:01 PM

ikanreed: Oh, so he's comparing tropospheric observation with surface predictions.


No, Spencer is comparing tropospheric observations with tropospheric predictions.  In a narrow latitude band in the tropics, where the models are known differ from observations more strongly than elsewhere in the world; it is unknown whether this is a problem with the models, the data, or both.  The radiosondes in particular are suspected to have strong systematic biases, but there's evidence that surface temperature in the models is also biased.  (This doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong, actually; it could be due to the fact that they're not initialized with ocean heat observations; that's a separate issue under debate.)  Note that Spencer averaged together a bunch of observational data sets whose trends differ greatly, masking the observational uncertainty; the competing RSS data set has a 3x larger trend than his own UAH data set.  Furthermore, the UAH "tropospheric" measurements are biased low, because they actually include part of the stratosphere, which is cooling (and is predicted to cool by models).
 
2013-07-03 03:42:05 PM

Mikey1969: teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: boarch: You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.
Really? Semantics? I mentioned that I MOVED OUT of the "hottest region of our nation (colloquially referred to as "the desert")", just in time for the place that I moved to to start getting hotter. Saying that a desert isn't always hot isn't semantics, it's your ignorance being exposed, and I'm really sorry I hurt your feelings. I hope that you're not gonna take your ball and go home now.


THE SALT LAKE CITY DESERT

It still gets hot in Utah darling.  If you are so sensitive to the heat baby, perhaps you should MOVE SOMEWHERE THAT IS A DIFFERENT CLIMATE.
 
2013-07-03 03:42:26 PM

wolfpaq777: I love that the article pretends entirely that years 2011 & 2012 didn't happen.


2011 and 2012 are pretty much statistically irrelevant if you're talking about whether there has been a "lull" since 1998.  In fact, the entire period 1998-2013 is only barely statistically relevant to trend detection and attribution.
 
2013-07-03 03:43:03 PM

DesertDemonWY: Corvus: DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]

Here is a third example showing you wrong:

Projection: In 1995, IPCC projected "little change in the extent of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets... over the next 50-100 years." In 2007 IPCC embraced a drastic revision: "New data... show[s] that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003."
 Reality: Today, ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is trending at least 100 years ahead of projections compared to IPCC's first three reports.

The only thing you have proved is you know how to copy pasta

The models have been and are now wrong, and getting worse

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 500x376]


Yes I gave you the answers you asked me for. You asked for citations, I gave them to you and now you say you don't care because they showed you wrong. Now are you going to answer my questions or continue to run from then?
 
2013-07-03 03:43:26 PM

Mikey1969: Because Antarctica is a dry polar region with about five percent humidity, no liquid lakes or rivers, it is the driest continent on earth.


It is the driest continent, but it does have a few rivers and lakes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Antarctica

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lakes_of_Antarctica

The longest river is about 32km long, and flows away from the ocean.  Apropos of nothing, 11 people have been born on Antarctica.
 
2013-07-03 03:43:39 PM

ikanreed: Realist29: I learned something new today. Science is based on consensus. Who knew?

Oblivious consructedd viewpoints are the only one which count...amirite?  Bad Science bad! (whips maltese with a fethered whip)
 
2013-07-03 03:43:50 PM

Oakenshield: [i.imgur.com image 850x572]


This is why Fark needs a "Stupid" button.
 
2013-07-03 03:43:53 PM

Realist29: Global Warming isn't a hard pill to swallow - its the way you turds sell it.


The problem is the cold, hard, money sucking center.
So hard to cover up. Nuttin' but chit will stick to it.

And, they picked the wrong whipping boy, CO2 is just so weak.
 
2013-07-03 03:44:07 PM

Ambitwistor: ikanreed: Oh, so he's comparing tropospheric observation with surface predictions.

No, Spencer is comparing tropospheric observations with tropospheric predictions.  In a narrow latitude band in the tropics, where the models are known differ from observations more strongly than elsewhere in the world; it is unknown whether this is a problem with the models, the data, or both.  The radiosondes in particular are suspected to have strong systematic biases, but there's evidence that surface temperature in the models is also biased.  (This doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong, actually; it could be due to the fact that they're not initialized with ocean heat observations; that's a separate issue under debate.)  Note that Spencer averaged together a bunch of observational data sets whose trends differ greatly, masking the observational uncertainty; the competing RSS data set has a 3x larger trend than his own UAH data set.  Furthermore, the UAH "tropospheric" measurements are biased low, because they actually include part of the stratosphere, which is cooling (and is predicted to cool by models).


I concede my ignorance.  Regardless there's a ton of cherrypicking going on.  There's a ton of observational data available, and intentionally limiting your comparison to a subset is always going to reflect a bias.  Still, focusing on the upper atmosphere when the biggest changes are going on with surface and ocean temperatures is deceptive as hell.
 
2013-07-03 03:44:36 PM
Meh, still don't care if there is Global Warming or not.  I don't understand why people get so worked up about it.  ZOMG HOTTEST DECADE EVER and nothing bad happened.  So, again, Meh.
 
2013-07-03 03:44:41 PM

Alunan: Then a US Senator printed this and showed it on the Senate floor 2 months ago:


That last incarnation starts with "Which is more likely?" then shows only one scenario.
 
2013-07-03 03:45:27 PM

DesertDemonWY: The only thing you have proved is you know how to copy pasta


I gave your 4 specific examples showing the IPCC predictions where more conservative then actually occurred (I have many many more) and your response is "Well I am just going to ignore that because I don't want to believe it".
 
2013-07-03 03:46:08 PM

snocone: Realist29: Global Warming isn't a hard pill to swallow - its the way you turds sell it.

The problem is the cold, hard, money sucking center.
So hard to cover up. Nuttin' but chit will stick to it.

And, they picked the wrong whipping boy, CO2 is just so weak.


What is this I don't even
 
2013-07-03 03:46:57 PM
"rainy weather, stormy weather. Ain't we got fun. I'm really soaked, the grass is muddy.  People do slide."

jst3p: If all of the really bad stuff won't happen till I am dead, why should I care now?

/sarcasm


If people would just be honest and admit that the Save The Earth schtick is baloney, and instead call it "Save Our Asses".  We'd probably all be in agreement.

After all, barring this ball of rock being destroyed by something that doesn't even hit before everyone on it dies right before impact due to sudden death via drastic atmospheric changes.  It'll still be around with some form of life on it long after one last person says "watch this" and the human race keels over and becomes one with nature again.
 
2013-07-03 03:46:58 PM

fappomatic: What do I think will happen? Trees will use the CO2 to produce more oxygen and grow. When trees get bigger, they create more shade, which is a good thing. And we'll all be more alert because there's more oxygen. Thus proving global warming is a farce.


Or at least there might be more alertness in these discussions.
 
2013-07-03 03:47:42 PM

Mathematics of Wonton Burrito Meals: Meh, still don't care if there is Global Warming or not.  I don't understand why people get so worked up about it.  ZOMG HOTTEST DECADE EVER and nothing bad happened.  So, again, Meh.


The problem is as temperatures keep rapidly changing it will hurt things like drought, water levels, more dramatic weather events and food productions. So directly temperature increase might not effect you much but indirectly it will affect you a lot.
 
2013-07-03 03:47:49 PM

jst3p: If all of the really bad stuff won't happen till I am dead, why should I care now?

/sarcasm


I honestly didn't know an old post was still in that box.  Oh well, a rainy mangled song for you
 
2013-07-03 03:52:24 PM

HaywoodJablonski: I'm cool with that. We could lose 80% of the population and not miss a beat. Also our natural resources will last 5 times as long


Just make sure you include the richest 2% who did all the pillaging and polluting of the planet for their own gain in that 80%.
 
2013-07-03 03:52:37 PM

ikanreed: I concede my ignorance.  Regardless there's a ton of cherrypicking going on.  There's a ton of observational data available, and intentionally limiting your comparison to a subset is always going to reflect a bias.  Still, focusing on the upper atmosphere when the biggest changes are going on with surface and ocean temperatures is deceptive as hell.


If there's one thing that's certain, it's that Roy Spencer has a history of quick and shoddy analysis.
 
2013-07-03 03:54:59 PM

Corvus: DesertDemonWY: The only thing you have proved is you know how to copy pasta

I gave your 4 specific examples showing the IPCC predictions where more conservative then actually occurred (I have many many more) and your response is "Well I am just going to ignore that because I don't want to believe it".


The guy is an outright liar and a bad person.  I'm not convinced he's a paid shill, but he's definitely intellectually dishonest.  Say one thing, ignore the fact that it's wrong.
 
2013-07-03 03:55:27 PM
Who are you going to trust the skeptics or the people who did this to Rex

www.walkingwithdinosaurs.com
 
2013-07-03 03:55:53 PM

DesertDemonWY: Corvus: DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]

Here is a third example showing you wrong:

Projection: In 1995, IPCC projected "little change in the extent of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets... over the next 50-100 years." In 2007 IPCC embraced a drastic revision: "New data... show[s] that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003."
 Reality: Today, ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is trending at least 100 years ahead of projections compared to IPCC's first three reports.

The only thing you have proved is you know how to copy pasta

The models have been and are now wrong, and getting worse

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 500x376]


I like how on your chart "actual" is below all the actual temperature ranges.

That an interesting averaging one that is below the data.

So why are you afraid to answer my questions? I answered yours

Here is once again on temperature:

Projection: The IPCC 2007 assessment projected a worst-case temperature rise of 4.3° to 11.5° Fahrenheit, with a high probability of 7.2°F.

Reality: We are currently on track for a rise of between 6.3° and 13.3°F, with a high probability of an increase of 9.4°F by 2100, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Other modelers are getting similar results, including a study published earlier this month by the Global Carbon Project consortium confirming the likelihood of a 9ºF rise.


The 2007 report UNDERESTIMATE the rise of temperature.

You new chart doesn't even match up with your old chart!!!

Your "actual" line goes BELOW the actual readings.
 
2013-07-03 03:58:10 PM

Corvus: Now, ice cores show that it's entirely likely that this is the worst warming in history (well, I guess the heavy volcanic period of proto-Earth might have been more significant), so I think he's wrong, but he doesn't have to be lying to say what he said. I don't like how people ascribe motives to comments when they are not there, when he says something about denying man-made global warming, yell away, but don't fight about what you think he meant when what he said is right in front of you, that's just silly.

It's not just about the temperature but it's that this is the fastest rate of change. Normal temperature fluctuations like this that occurred naturally in the past happened over hundreds of years, not decades. That's a very big difference to ecosystems and it also is a big hint that this is man's involvement.


Actually, we do have an example of a sudden dump of  a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, which warmed the planet a big, which caused the sea floors and tundra to release all of their stored methane, which warmed the planet a LOT.  It's called the Eocene Extinction Event, and I guess since it has happened once before, the right wing is OK with it happening again.
 
2013-07-03 03:58:18 PM

ikanreed: I concede my ignorance.  Regardless there's a ton of cherrypicking going on.  There's a ton of observational data available, and intentionally limiting your comparison to a subset is always going to reflect a bias.  Still, focusing on the upper atmosphere when the biggest changes are going on with surface and ocean temperatures is deceptive as hell.


I see you're unfamiliar with Roy Spencer and his previous "accomplishments".  Over the last decade or so, he has repeatedly modified his views and how he derives them in order to continue to claim that Anthropogenic Climate Change is fake.

He's also a Creationist. He's had to resort to "publishing" in non-peer review places, because he couldn't pass peer review. One of his papers that squeaked by peer review was in a geophysical journal, and was so bad that the editor in chief resigned over it.

His credentials on the subject are real, anything from his website is highly suspect, and generally able to be dismissed out of hand.
 
2013-07-03 04:00:25 PM
live-the-solution.com
 
2013-07-03 04:01:22 PM
DId I ever mention how wide my stance is? not serious
 
Displayed 50 of 352 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report