Still wasting your time I see. They are true believers. Like conspiracy theorists, no matter what evidence we show them, they will believe only in AGW.
Sure, but the current warming isn't "unprecedented".
Still wasting your time I see. They are true believers. Like conspiracy theorists, no matter what evidence we show them, they will believe only in AGW.
More befuddled global-warming, scare-mongering conspiracy fantasies:
Arctic waters are warmest in 2,000 years
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...years/1?csp=34
Global warming meltdown in the UK
Are there “two sets of books” for UK meteorologists?
Because forecasts of a colder winter didn’t go very well with the government global warming story line, they were suppressed. Instead, the UK published information to the public which indicated there would be a warmer winter. When the actual weather was colder (December turned out to be the coldest in more than a century and the second coldest in 350 years), it caused untold problems because people and facilities, like Heathrow Airport, were unprepared. Not amused, those affected are taking action. For example, Luftansa and Virgin Atlantic are pressing Heathrow to compensate airlines hit by the chaos at the airport the week before Christmas.
A blog by one UK meteorologist, Paul Hudson, reveals that there may have been two sets of forecast maps – one available to internal meteorologists-showing a cold winter, and another made available to the public-showing a warm winter.
Roger Harrabin, of Canada Free Press, has written that the Met Office (UK’s National Weather Service) press office told him they’d given information to the UK government’s Cabinet Office that there would be an early cold winter. The BBC now has an Freedom of Information request to the Cabinet Office requesting verbatim info from the Met Office.
John O’Sullivan, also of Canada Free Press, provided more information on the meltdown:
“Last week the weather service caused a sensation by making the startling claim that it was gagged by government ministers from issuing a cold winter forecast. Instead, a milder than average prediction was made that has been resoundingly ridiculed in one of the worst winters in a century. In an almighty battle to salvage credibility, three British government ins utions are embroiled in a new global warming scandal with the BBC mounting a legal challenge to force ministers to admit the truth. Sceptics ask: Is the UK government’s climate propaganda machine finally falling apart?
With the BBC appearing to take the side of the Met Office by seeking to force the government to give honest answers, untold harm will likely befall Prime Minister Cameron’s global warming policies on energy, taxation and the environment.”
dip s. Al Gore and it was predicted and
the rest of you idiots on Mother Earth is
warming.
This old man will tell you something you don't
want to hear. Things are they were when I was
young.
Weather, call it what you may, climate or weather,
to us who live it, it is the same.
We had an ice age, it warmed and the ice age
ended. We had a so called little ice age, it
warmed and it ended. Thank God it did.
Now in my lifetime, I have seen snow storms,
tornadoes, hurricanes, ice storms, cold weather
and hot as summers. Water shortages,
floods and what ever else you want to name.
And guess what. There wasn't a damn thing
any idiot government policy could change. Now
you want to argue stats. I will argue weather
in my lifetime. You don't want to. Then let's
build some more damn power plants using fuel
that is cheap and do away with BS. Okay!
More BS propaganda with incomplete and probably inaccurate data.
The data points are too far away to be meaningful. There clould be higher temperatures in the past that were missed.
Now what if one or more missing data point managed to meet es extrapolated:
It should not be dismissed that there was a general AW temperature increase from 400 to 1600 before the temperatures are shown to increase. Proxy data is only as accurate as what we can account for. That 1600 timeframe was when we had the "little ice age." Considering that the proxy data is taken from planktic foraminifers in a sediment core means that too many factors could have changed the characteristics that the data is derived from. The ice age would have killed life on a widespread basis. As the rivers flowed to where the plankton lived and died, their nutrients would have been dramatically altered. More from just temperatures.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-02-2011 at 07:48 PM.
So it is propaganda because there *might* be missing data?More BS propaganda with incomplete and probably inaccurate data.
The data points are too far away to be meaningful. There clould be higher temperatures in the past that were missed.
Now what if one or more missing data point managed to meet es extrapolated:
It should not be dismissed that there was a general AW temperature increase from 400 to 1600 before the temperatures are shown to increase. Proxy data is only as accurate as what we can account for. That 1600 timeframe was when we had the "little ice age." Considering that the proxy data is taken from planktic foraminifers in a sediment core means that too many factors could have changed the characteristics that the data is derived from. The ice age would have killed life on a widespread basis. As the rivers flowed to where the plankton lived and died, their nutrients would have been dramatically altered. More from just temperatures.
Is it possible to draw reasonable conclusions from incomplete data?
Data from a number pattern:
1, 3, 5, 7... 455, 457, 459, 461... 993, 995, 997, 999
Sure the fifth number in the sequence might be 300, but would it all that unreasonable to make a good-faith effort to determine the governing rule based on the data you do have?
And if the arctic waters remain warm for the next 20 years, creating obvious sustained es in the data?
Do you have some scientific basis to think there is missing data?
Wow...
I know you aren't that ignorant. Think about this again. Look at the AW temperature data points. They are about 100 years apart. A lot can happen in 20 years when it comes to climate. We normally have odd patterns of 20-30 years.
Do I have some basis...
yes. Two serious points.
The first is that the data is too far apart.
The second is that this proxy data is based on plankton, which is a far more complex organism that using isotopes. The fact that this large fluctuation occurs after the maunder minima tells me that the massive death on earth washed away into the streams and affected the growth of plankton. Then there is the slow overall rise before this period that tells me that time likely disrupts the data differently than anticipated.
We simply do not have the level of scientific understanding to stand on such a study, as fact.
Why do your arguments start to invariably take on similar character to those of creationists who are "skeptical" of evolution?While your observation may be logical (lack of fossilization tendencies for plains' people - where unicorns also frolicked). The fact that we've yet to find conclusive linkages to a common primate ancestor, after hundreds of years of searching for said link, after multiple fraudulent attempts to claim as much, one would begin to think that the people in your camp are hinging on blind faith.
Those links haven't been found. Their genomes haven't been mapped. Hence there is no proof said linkage[s] exist.
"We just don't have enough data to state anything for a fact".
This is called "moving the goalposts", by the way.
Feel free to get out there and give us some better data. Until then, we will have to rely on the data we do have.
I get the feeling that no matter how granular the data points, you would make similar arguments, so I am not all too inclined to give your criticism all that much weight.
Tell me, what interval of data would you think would be sufficient to support the claim?
Why believe such BS articles.
Bad data = bad results. Just that simple. The article should be viewed as highly skeptical by anyone with a scientific mind.
That is a non-answer.Tell me, what interval of data would you think would be sufficient to support the claim?
Your skepticism is based on the belief that the intervals were too large, yet you fail to tell us what interval you would accept.
This is the kind of criticism constantly evidenced by 9-11 truthers, who simply find fault with any actual science done to test their theories, but never do any themselves.
I will ask again, what kind of interval would you find acceptable?
So the study has 150 years of direct data and 2,000 years of indirect data.Since continuous data for the Fram Strait cover only the past 150 years, the researchers drilled ocean sediment cores dating back 2,000 years and analyzed their chemical composition to determine past water temperatures.
By studying the tiny-s ed organisms called foraminifera, which grow best under specific conditions, they could chart temperatures going back 2,000 years.
http://www.noagendashownotes.com/noa...n_2__years.htmTheir sampling site was 1,500 metres below the water surface and under the path of Atlantic water flowing to the Arctic Ocean.
They report the water has warmed about 2C since the late 1800s. The top few centimetres of sediment, representing the past 10 to 20 years, corresponds with a summer temperature of 6C, which matches what is seen in the northbound current.
The scientists say the data indicates the modern warming is not just the latest natural variation. The modern warming is “unequalled” by anything in the past 2,000 years, including the warm period seen in Roman and medieval times that affected climate in northern Europe and North America.
What sort of tests would you think would be sufficient to allow us to draw reasonable conclusions about the temperature of water entering the arctic?
Do tell.
No, that is one of two reasons. I clearly explained that the water chemistry would have changed after the maunder Minima, which would affect the aquatic life.
Bull . I constantly bring sound reasoning to the table that nobody can dismiss. I can explain my reasons. The AGW crowd cannot explain their resons other than some peer reviewed paper said so.
One that is at least as short as these periods that people claim to be significant, like 1980 to today. To see such small windows like 20-30 years, we need at least three data points within to be adequate. So I say 10 year intervals and I'll start listening, as ling as they are average result. Average would be expected of a sedimentary sample. These is still the unknown biological changes that the plankton go through with the changing and unknown water chemistry.
Simply put, too many unknowns to be a valid paper to consider.
Since you didn't understand my point all along, your above words are gibberish. Too bad you don't start to comprehend your ignorance on the topic.
What sort of tests would you think would be sufficient to allow us to draw reasonable conclusions about the temperature of water entering the arctic?
Do tell.
what (hwut, hwät, wut, wät)
pronoun
1.the nature, class, name, purpose, etc. of a thing
sort (sôrt)
noun
2.quality or type; nature:
of (uv)
g.from the whole, or total number, cons uting
test (test)
noun
2.an examination, experiment, or trial, as to prove the value or ascertain the nature of something
would (wo̵od)
auxiliary verb
2.used to express a supposition or condition:
you (yo̵̅o̅)
pronoun pl. you
1.the person to whom one is speaking or writing
think (t̸hiŋk)
transitive verb
4.to determine, resolve, work out, etc. by reasoning
suf·fi·cient (-ənt)
adjective
1.as much as is needed; equal to what is specified or required; enough
to (to̵̅o̅)
b.in the direction of and reaching
al·low (ə lo̵u′)
transitive verb
4.to admit (a claim or the like); acknowledge as true or valid
us (ŭs)
pron. The objective form of we.
You can look up the rest of the words yourself at:
http://www.yourdictionary.com
The question remains then.
If you can't answer this question, just admit it. You admonish me for my ignorance, when I readily profess not being an expert.What sort of tests would you think would be sufficient to allow us to draw reasonable conclusions about the temperature of water entering the arctic in the past?
Do tell.
Enlighten me as to what tests you would perform.
You have come up with some very specific theses concerning various forcing levels and so forth.
You ask me to "take your word for it, because I am very knowledgeable".
Real scientists perform tests on their hypothesis. If you have a hypothesis, but it cannot be falsified, you cannot lay claim to that hypothesis being scientific.
Your evasive answers simply reinforce my main premise.
"How can I do what the best scientists cannot", indeed.
Interesting. How can AGW theory be falsified? IMO, it would be some statistically significant period of time, where CO2 continued to increase, while temperatures remained steady or fell. What time period would be enough? We're currently working on year 13.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ForaminiferaThe second is that this proxy data is based on plankton, which is a far more complex organism that using isotopes. The fact that this large fluctuation occurs after the maunder minima tells me that the massive death on earth washed away into the streams and affected the growth of plankton. Then there is the slow overall rise before this period that tells me that time likely disrupts the data differently than anticipated.
The specific micro-organism is widely studied as requiring very specific conditions to form, from what I read.
Seems as if you are claiming a great deal of expertise in these microorganisms to be able to call "bull " on this particular study.Calcareous fossil foraminifera are formed from elements found in the ancient seas they lived in. Thus they are very useful in paleoclimatology and paleoceanography. They can be used to reconstruct past climate by examining the stable isotope ratios of oxygen, and the history of the carbon cycle and oceanic productivity by examining the stable isotope ratios of carbon;[20] see δ18O and δ13C. Geographic patterns seen in the fossil records of planktonic forams are also used to reconstruct ancient ocean currents. Because certain types of foraminifera are found only in certain environments, they can be used to figure out the kind of environment under which ancient marine sediments were deposited.
Maybe you would favor us with the specific isotope ratios that you think are mistaken?
Strawman nicely defeated. Congratulations.
13 years of steady or falling temperatures? Link? Data?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
In 2010, global temperatures continued to rise. A new analysis from the Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies shows that 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, and was part of the warmest decade on record.
The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie. In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which are statistically tied for third warmest year. The GISS records begin in 1880.
The analysis found 2010 approximately 1.34°F warmer than the average global surface temperature from 1951 to 1980. To measure climate change, scientists look at long-term trends. The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36°F per decade since the late 1970s.
It's weird how you guys always prefer James Hanson's GISS data set to the Hadley centers HadCRUT dataset.
Don't you get it?
We have no such test that is reliable.
Like I said. You are too stupid to realize how ignorant you are on this topic.
You just don't get it. Without knowing all variables outside the one we wish to understand from a proxy, the intended unknown cannot be properly determined. Other conditions were unknown for these proxy's in the past. they are far more complex that using deuterium, 14C, etc. as a proxy as multiple factors change how they develope. They are just complex enough that without knowing all other factors, they are absolutely unreliable as a proxy. You completely fail to comprehend the change in living conditions they would have gone through during and after the maunder minima.
I won't pretend to be smart enough to claim the results. Those who do are simply pulling the wool over you sheeple's eyes.
It's weird how you guys always show rather short tailed graphs when it comes to proving your point.It's weird how you guys always prefer James Hanson's GISS data set to the Hadley centers HadCRUT dataset.
1) If your point is that the last 13 years is "flat or cooler" than what came before it, and you don't show what did come before it, then how can I independently verify your claim?
2) That is the "temperature" anomoly" graph, not the raw temperature graphs.
3) I used the first data that I came across. Feel free to post a moving average of temepratures for the last 70 years or so, up to 2009 or 2010. Despite what you might think, I'm not married to a particular dataset.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
