Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[MannyIsGod]

I don't need to quantify it. It's real. I am only pointing out a factual situation.

Are you suggesting it's not real if I don't assign a real number to it?

Your type of logic might work on others in a debate, but not me. We know certain effects are real, and I have a problem with those crying wolf without explain all possibilities to people. Science is suppose to be skeptical first. You don't cry wolf unless you actually see it.

:lmao

[boutons_deux]

As Farms Bite the Dust, "Megadrought" May Be the New Normal in the Southwest

In a dirt parking lot near Many Farms, Arizona, a Navajo farmer sold me a mutton burrito. He hasn't used his tractor in two years, he told me, and is cooking instead of farming because "there isn't any water." He pointed east at the Chuska mountain range, which straddles the New Mexico border. In a normal year, water coming off the mountains reaches his fields, he said.

But this might be the new normal for the American Southwest, writes William deBuys in his new book, A Great Aridness. It was published late last year, months after one of the Southwest's driest summers in recorded history, during which fires of unprecedented size scorched hundreds of thousands of acres of forest. This summer is worse than last; forest fires have already broken last year's records. The rains haven't come, and temperature records are falling like leaves from a dried-up tree. Springs, wells and irrigation ditches are bone dry. Farms are withering. We've all heard the gloomy scenarios of global warming: extreme weather, drought, famine, breakdown of society, destruction of civilization.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/156100

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The sun has increased in intensity. Enough to cause more than half the increased heat covered by the IPCC AR4 between the covered time frame of 1750 to 2004, without the water feedback effect.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lockwood2007_Recent_oppositely_directed_trends.pdf

You again are wrong.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think that it should be noted that that study comes from the Royal Society which is the British version of our National Academy of Sciences.

This was the institution founded in the 17th century by Robert Hooke, the father of cellular theory, and presided over by the likes of Isaac Newton.

Then you have WildLearningdisability.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lockwood2007_Recent_oppositely_directed_trends.pdf

You again are wrong.
LOL, you're joking right. Did you even read and understand it?

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao
Yes, I know. I say quantifying it doesn't matter. My reason is the guy in the video says he believes it wouldn't happen if it wasn't for global warming, as if that is the only cause. All I have to do is show there is another cause to show he is at least partially wrong.

I guess things are funny that you don't understand. You should ask for someone to elaborate on what they mean, instead of laughing like an ignorant fool.

[MannyIsGod]

You're right. I could ask you to elaborate then laugh at you even more when you come up with ridiculous explanations but the truth is that if I just sit here and laugh at you you will provide more laughs as well.

You are endless laughs, WC. Endless.

[Wild Cobra]

You're right. I could ask you to elaborate then laugh at you even more when you come up with ridiculous explanations but the truth is that if I just sit here and laugh at you you will provide more laughs as well.

You are endless laughs, WC. Endless.
You just don't get it, do you?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL, you're joking right. Did you even read and understand it?


There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.


The sun has increased in intensity. Enough to cause more than half the increased heat covered by the IPCC AR4 between the covered time frame of 1750 to 2004, without the water feedback effect.

What do opposite direction mean?

But please by all means explain how the solar activity decreasing according to the study jives with your stupidity. I could use a laugh.

[Agloco]

Yes, I know. I say quantifying it doesn't matter. My reason is the guy in the video says he believes it wouldn't happen if it wasn't for global warming, as if that is the only cause. All I have to do is show there is another cause to show he is at least partially wrong.

I guess things are funny that you don't understand. You should ask for someone to elaborate on what they mean, instead of laughing like an ignorant fool.

You'll continue to suffer his laughter until you run some numbers tbh.

[MannyIsGod]

What do opposite direction mean?

But please by all means explain how the solar activity decreasing according to the study jives with your stupidity. I could use a laugh.

Cue the heat is stored in the oceans line from him with little to no understanding of basic thermodynamics and why that isn't the case.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Cue the heat is stored in the oceans line from him with little to no understanding of basic thermodynamics and why that isn't the case.

I am going to go with the "you just do not understand" line.

[Wild Cobra]

What do opposite direction mean?

But please by all means explain how the solar activity decreasing according to the study jives with your stupidity. I could use a laugh.

You keep bringing up stuff that is meaningless to what I say. That has no bearing on the trend from 1750 to 2004. What little is speaks of past time frames, it supports what I say.

Why are you always so far off target?

[Wild Cobra]

zzzzzzzzzzt... zzzzzzzzt... zzzzt...
I don't know why you participate in these AGW threads. It appears you don't know enough on the topic to debate it. You're just a peanut gallery glob fly at this point.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao @ you telling anyone else they don't know enough. Yeah, I'm sure Agloco has a really hard time picking up on the basic thermodynamics you can't understand.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao @ you telling anyone else they don't know enough. Yeah, I'm sure Agloco has a really hard time picking up on the basic thermodynamics you can't understand.
Thermodynamics isn't the issue. You have never explained why you think I don't understand it beyond something like you cannot create energy.

No Shit Sherlock.

What the fuck do you think I don't understand, because I do. You are really stupid to say I don't understand something when it is your misinterpretation of what I say, or your refusal to get clarification.

As for me implying Algoco doesn't understand AGW, it's because he drops an insult every now and then without ever participating in the debate, hence the peanut gallery glob fly.

[MannyIsGod]

Thermodynamics isn't the issue. You have never explained why you think I don't understand it beyond something like you cannot create energy.

No Shit Sherlock.

What the fuck do you think I don't understand, because I do. You are really stupid to say I don't understand something when it is your misinterpretation of what I say, or your refusal to get clarification.

:lmao

Funny how no one understands shit but you, huh? Sure, Thermodynamics tells us nothing about where the heating is coming from. Nope, nothing.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

Funny how no one understands shit but you, huh? Sure, Thermodynamics tells us nothing about where the heating is coming from. Nope, nothing.
Specify where you think I'm wrong, or drop it shithead.

[MannyIsGod]

Or what?

[MannyIsGod]

TBH, would be much easier to say where you're not wrong than specify where you're wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Manny, you are a loser. Too chickenshit to say, because you fear I will once again prove you wrong.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

This coming from a guy who can't even read dates on a chart. Yeah, I'm soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo scared of YOU proving me wrong. :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

I notice you keep throwing spitballs hoping one will stick. Where's the proof I don't understand thermodynamics?

[Wild Cobra]

And for the record, the data I used from Lean et. al. is just the data from 1750 to 2004. If I went as far back as 1610, which I do have data for, it is larger than the 0.18% increase I use.

[MannyIsGod]

I notice you keep throwing spitballs hoping one will stick. Where's the proof I don't understand thermodynamics?

Um, your posts in this thread? :lol Ocean lag.

[Wild Cobra]

Um, your posts in this thread? :lol Ocean lag.
I see...

A stored change in energy levels, released at a later time, isn't lag?

What planet did you say you were from?

[MannyIsGod]

Drrrr, the data that I use from 1750 shows an estimate right in line with the IPCC chart, Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Durrrr, when I use data from further back it then goes above the chart figures, durrrrrr. WHY IS THE CHART FROM 1750 TO PRESENT NOT ACCOUNTING FOR A RAISE FROM 1610 DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. I know thermodynamics ocean lag DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRR you just don't understand!!!!

[MannyIsGod]

I see...

A stored release at a later time isn't lag?

What planet did you say you were from?

Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr oceans warming the planet but it doesn't matter that they are getting warmer too because I understand thermoduuurrrrrrrrnamics very well but you just don't understand durrrrrrrrrrrrrr ocean lag!

[Wild Cobra]

Drrrr, the data that I use from 1750 shows an estimate right in line with the IPCC chart, Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Durrrr, when I use data from further back it then goes above the chart figures, durrrrrr. WHY IS THE CHART FROM 1750 TO PRESENT NOT ACCOUNTING FOR A RAISE FROM 1610 DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. I know thermodynamics ocean lag DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRR you just don't understand!!!!

[MannyIsGod]

Cue the heat is stored in the oceans line from him with little to no understanding of basic thermodynamics and why that isn't the case.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You keep bringing up stuff that is meaningless to what I say. That has no bearing on the trend from 1750 to 2004. What little is speaks of past time frames, it supports what I say.

Why are you always so far off target?

Yeah the trends of solar activity being the opposite of what you claim is meaningless to what you say when you say:


The sun has increased in intensity. Enough to cause more than half the increased heat covered by the IPCC AR4 between the covered time frame of 1750 to 2004, without the water feedback effect.

This is the same shit as you saying to look at average ocean temperature at made up year x and made up year y rather than looking at how the flux actually changes every year as the seasons change and them looking at it by every year.

You look at the solar activity from 1750 which who the hell knows how accurate that is and the activity from 2004 and try and make claims of what should happen over that entire time period and then claim that solar activity over a recent well observed 20 period is irrelevant.

Its not irrelevant. Instead you are too simpleminded to understand how to model something as to understand how the phenomenon occurs through time.

Whats contemptible about you is you just try and bluster through despite you full well knowing that you have a learning disability with the exact same tired cliches.

On a final note, here is the Royal Society's direct refutation of what you are claiming:


There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

[Wild Cobra]

My God Fuzzy. You really are a fool. The discussion at hand has not been about modern climate change. I specifically have been saying from 1750 to 2004.

Why can't you gracefully say you were wrong?

Don't you get it?

I am not disagreeing with what that study says. I am laughing at your total stupidity to suggest it invalidates what I have been saying.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

YOU

ARE

DUMB.

Dumbass: Solar activity from 1750 accounts for the warming.
Royal society: No matter how you look at the solar variability it does not account for the recent warming.
Dumbass: DERP DERP DERP. You don't understand. I'm right! You're wrong. DEEEEERRRRRRPPPPP!!!!!!!

[Wild Cobra]

YOU

ARE

DUMB.

Dumbass: Solar activity from 1750 accounts for the warming.
Royal society: No matter how you look at the solar variability it does not account for the recent warming.
Dumbass: DERP DERP DERP. You don't understand. I'm right! You're wrong. DEEEEERRRRRRPPPPP!!!!!!!
You stupid idiot. I have not been speaking of recent warming with the 1750 to 2004 range.

Is that recent to you? Note that they are talking about the last few decades.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You stupid idiot. I have not been speaking of recent warming with the 1750 to 2004 range.

Is that recent to you? Note that they are talking about the last few decades.


However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change.

What part of 'not relevant' do you not understand?

And lol at your 1750 bullshit. It's hilarious watching MiG make a mockery of you about it and yet you continuing to use the same shit.

YOU

ARE

A MORON.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

You are calling me a moron, and not paying attention to their timeframes...



However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change.

[Wild Cobra]

What does this mean to you?

These studies have detected a solar contribution to global temperature rise in the first half of the twentieth century: a contribution that implies some form of amplification of the solar radiative forcing variation
All studies on solar variations show an increase in the average solar intensity from about 1900 to 1950.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What does this mean to you?

All studies on solar variations show an increase in the average solar intensity from about 1900 to 1950.

That they note the point that you are trying to make and reject it using spectral analysis and consideration of the most extreme possible effects of all possible amplifications. Complex ideas limited to even to a single logical extension elude you.

YOU

ARE

A MORON.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

You are calling me a moron, and not paying attention to their timeframes...

Is this a debate about modern climate change or not, dolt? If its not relevant then you bringing it up is meaningless in the context of this discussion. That's the point and an 8 year old can understand it.

YOU
ARE
A MORON

[MannyIsGod]

How dumb can you be, WC? If the trend lines have been going in opposite directions for the past 3 decades then how are you going to argue that the IPCC is not giving it the proper weighting in ANY time frame?

That is the point.

[Wild Cobra]

I can't believe you guys are so stupid, and even more so for calling me stupid. The facts are what they are. Solar energy has had two significant increases during the timeframe covered by the IPCC. One from about 1700 to 1800, and the other from about 1900 to 1950.

Since when does the last 3 decades indicate a pattern for time before or after that measured timeframe?

How can anyone say with any integrity, that solar changes don't matter. You are implying that since they say the last three decades of very minor solar changes have no bearing on the last three decades of temperature, that neither does the larger changes of the past. Any idea how flat out stupid that is?

If course a nearly flat solar variable isn't going to have an effect on temperature. That's a given. How can you guys argue such a stupid point? I'm not arguing against that study at all. It has no bearing on my claims.

It's amazing that you two, as smart as you think you are, cannot address what I am saying. You continually act as if I am saying something else. Now maybe those less knowledgeable of these sciences think you are scoring, but you two are miserably failing.

[MannyIsGod]

Except no one is saying that solar changes don't matter. YOUR argument was that the IPCC doesn't correctly quantify the temp change from solar which has been demonstrated to be incorrect. You want to say that solar means more than it does because you don't want to acknowledge that the heating is driven mostly by CO2. You refuse to accept the knowledge that has been explained to you.

I've addressed everything you've ever brought up - no matter how stupid it has been. The fact that I won't do it endlessly and instead chose to mock your idiocy doesn't change that.

Solar isn't driving the heating. Its CO2 and the numbers back that up.

[Wild Cobra]

Except no one is saying that solar changes don't matter. YOUR argument was that the IPCC doesn't correctly quantify the temp change from solar which has been demonstrated to be incorrect. You want to say that solar means more than it does because you don't want to acknowledge that the heating is driven mostly by CO2. You refuse to accept the knowledge that has been explained to you.

I've addressed everything you've ever brought up - no matter how stupid it has been. The fact that I won't do it endlessly and instead chose to mock your idiocy doesn't change that.

Solar isn't driving the heating. Its CO2 and the numbers back that up.

Bullshit.

You two have not demonstrated I was wrong. I have repeatedly shown your arguments wrong.

There is a only about a 40 year period from when the solar activity started to increase again, to 1750. You can take away part of the increase from what page 190 says, but only part. There is still a time lag to see the full effect on climate as well.

Like it or not, the sun has a larger effect than what you are willing to acknowledge.

I most certainly hope you don't believe if the sun suddenly stopped outputting energy, that the earth wouldn't cool.

[MannyIsGod]

God you're an idiot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

God you're an idiot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Dumbass: Solar activity from 1750 accounts for the warming.
Royal society: No matter how you look at the solar variability it does not account for the recent warming.
Dumbass: DERP DERP DERP. You don't understand. I'm right! You're wrong. DEEEEERRRRRRPPPPP!!!!!!!

[Wild Cobra]

Laurel and Hardy...

You two cannot change the facts no matter how much you twist words.

The people here who have enough scientific intelligence to follow our discussion see that I'm consistent, quoted accepted data, and you two are throwing what ever shit you think may stick, and using material that doesn't apply.

Therefore, I rest my case. You two can continue your comedy act all you want.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Laurel and Hardy...

You two cannot change the facts no matter how much you twist words.

The people here who have enough scientific intelligence to follow our discussion see that I'm consistent, and you two are throwing what ever shit you think may stick.

Therefore, I rest my case. You two can continue your comedy act all you want.

Umm, I'm a graduate engineering student. MiG is studying climate science in his own right. Agloco is a nuclear scientist. RG is a risk analyst. We all constantly try to point out how inept you are.

What are you? A service technician that changes parts based off a troubleshooting checklist who also does not understand the makeup of the parts you change such as capacitors.

You posture but when the British Royal Society does a study to specifically invalidate the argument that solar variability of the past few centuries and even beyond does not explain the warming of the past few decades I am going to go with them over the partschanger.

You cannot even keep units straight to look at very simple energy systems.

[Wild Cobra]

Umm, I'm a graduate engineering student. MiG is studying climate science in his own right. Agloco is a nuclear scientist. RG is a risk analyst. We all constantly try to point out how inept you are.

What are you? A service technician that changes parts based off a troubleshooting checklist who also does not understand the makeup of the parts you change such as capacitors.

You posture but when the British Royal Society does a study to specifically invalidate the argument that solar variability of the past few centuries and even beyond does not explain the warming of the past few decades I am going to go with them over the partschanger.

You cannot even keep units straight to look at very simple energy systems.
Are you saying you are smarter because you are more educated?

That only makes you a college educated idiot! Intelligence, education, and wisdom are different things. One does not make another true.

Keep your comedy act up. It is getting funny seeing you put your misconceptions on the line.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you saying you are smarter because you are more educated?

That only makes you a college educated idiot! Intelligence, education, and wisdom are different things. One does not make another true.

Keep your comedy act up. It is getting funny seeing you put your misconceptions on the line.

I can look at the studies concerning climate science modeling, spectral analysis of the periodic systems involved and the like and understand what they are doing. We both comment on them but only one of us has the expertise to understand what is going on.

You blathered about that study from the 50s for years and how they kept temperature constant in regards to solubility. I took one look at it, saw the partial derivatives and instantly knew the error. You did not understand how the mathematical operation worked.

You gave credence to the notion that there was combustion in the upper atmosphere for 40 days to explain the biblical flood.

You thought that capacitors were limited to small capacitance because you do not know basic fundamental properties of the damn things and you work with them every day.

You give credence to the notion that the warming has been hidden in the deep ocean and the ocean is just like a big soda fizzing itself out.

You think soot explains all of the polar ice melt.

I am not the one that tries to figure out where women I barely know live and think its a good idea to tell them about it.

I am not the one that claims that most black people are lowlife degenerates and that you would not trust a black surgeon.

I am not the one that thinks eugenics projects that tie reproductive rights and government services are a good idea.

It goes on and on. You can sit there and make these general claims about how I am stupid and unwise but I am not the one that makes those claims. OTOH you demonstrate your stupidity on a daily basis. You are the one that demonstrates that you are about as wise as your average klan member.

So keep on talking in general terms and I will keep pointing to the specific stupid shit that you do.

[MannyIsGod]

Laurel and Hardy...

You two cannot change the facts no matter how much you twist words.

The people here who have enough scientific intelligence to follow our discussion see that I'm consistent, quoted accepted data, and you two are throwing what ever shit you think may stick, and using material that doesn't apply.

Therefore, I rest my case. You two can continue your comedy act all you want.

LOL yeah - you've got all the support from the educated sector for the readers here.

:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

We stand unimpressed by "textbooks", "peer review journals" and so-called "facts". There are no facts, just dissenting opinion. We are infinitely small compared to nature and can't grasp anything as certain as a fact.


LOL

http://denialdepot.blogspot.co.uk/

[boutons_deux]

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ENSO-chart.gif

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/05/511372/noaa-chances-increase-for-el-nino-may-be-good-for-us-in-short-term-but-would-lead-to-rapid-warming/

[Jacob1983]

What about the global temperatures for the 1500s, 1600s, and 1700s?

[Wild Cobra]

I can look at the studies concerning climate science modeling, spectral analysis of the periodic systems involved and the like and understand what they are doing. We both comment on them but only one of us has the expertise to understand what is going on.

You blathered about that study from the 50s for years and how they kept temperature constant in regards to solubility. I took one look at it, saw the partial derivatives and instantly knew the error. You did not understand how the mathematical operation worked.

You gave credence to the notion that there was combustion in the upper atmosphere for 40 days to explain the biblical flood.

You thought that capacitors were limited to small capacitance because you do not know basic fundamental properties of the damn things and you work with them every day.

You give credence to the notion that the warming has been hidden in the deep ocean and the ocean is just like a big soda fizzing itself out.

You think soot explains all of the polar ice melt.

I am not the one that tries to figure out where women I barely know live and think its a good idea to tell them about it.

I am not the one that claims that most black people are lowlife degenerates and that you would not trust a black surgeon.

I am not the one that thinks eugenics projects that tie reproductive rights and government services are a good idea.

It goes on and on. You can sit there and make these general claims about how I am stupid and unwise but I am not the one that makes those claims. OTOH you demonstrate your stupidity on a daily basis. You are the one that demonstrates that you are about as wise as your average klan member.

So keep on talking in general terms and I will keep pointing to the specific stupid shit that you do.
You sure make a lot of stupid and wrong assumptions thinking you know where I get my information from. You make a lot of incorrect recalls of my word and intent.

Again, you just prove yourself the jester of this forum.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL yeah - you've got all the support from the educated sector for the readers here.

:lmao
About as much as you do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You sure make a lot of stupid and wrong assumptions thinking you know where I get my information from. You make a lot of incorrect recalls of my word and intent.

Again, you just prove yourself the jester of this forum.

Another substanceless blanket dismissal. I di n't really care wehre you go tthe information from. The only thing in that would matter is from 'rocketscientist' and that was the study. Most of your ideas you pull out of your ass.

that does not mitigate the logical findings in any of this and needless to say I do know where I get my reports from Royal Academy, National Science Academy, MIT, Stanford, Washington, UCLA IPCC, Cambridge etc

It's sad that half of these studies are having to do the scientific legwork to disprove all of the assumptions and supposes that those like yourself spout out.

Even when disproved for at least yourselves you just repeat your self. We have been doing this for years and my contempt is well developed.

[Wild Cobra]

Yet you still cannot show me to be wrong. Why do you keep trying with information that doesn't apply? Are you so stupid, that you don't realize how stupid your attempts are?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yet you still cannot show me to be wrong. Why do you keep trying with information that doesn't apply? Are you so stupid, that you don't realize how stupid your attempts are?

I know that I am not going to be able to. I just know that when RG, AG, MiG et al and come in here they are making fun of your positions on science. And speak along the same lines as I do if not as derisive.

Sure Darrin will come in and try to attack my character but really those guys and everyone else are my audience. You are literally too simpleminded to understand these complex idea from systems to any math above arithmetic.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

2012 is USA's warmest year on record, so far

The nation's unusual warmth keeps on rolling: Through April, the USA is experiencing its warmest year on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced on Tuesday, with a national average temperature of 45 degrees.

This is 5 degrees above the long-term average.

So far this year, more than 15,000 record high temperatures have been set across the nation, compared with about 1,100 record lows, reports Weather Channel meteorologist Guy Walton.

The first four months of 2012 were drier than average for the United States as a whole, with some regional variability, NOAA reported. The eastern third of the nation has been drier than average, with Maryland and Delaware both having their driest year on record, to date.

April itself was the third-warmest on record in the USA, with only April 2006 and April 1981 warmer than this April.

U.S. weather records go back to 1895.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2012/05/climate-weather-warmest-year-on-record-/1

Its soot heat islands and the deep ocean. Obviously.

[Wild Cobra]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2012/05/climate-weather-warmest-year-on-record-/1

Its soot heat islands and the deep ocean. Obviously.
So?

Are any of us skeptics here denying that global warming is real?

Still, I'll bet these temperature stations reading these all time highs are in urban areas. Areas that keep increasing energy, increasing construction, and decreasing natural landscape.

[MannyIsGod]

So?

Are any of us skeptics here denying that global warming is real?

Still, I'll bet these temperature stations reading these all time highs are in urban areas. Areas that keep increasing energy, increasing construction, and decreasing natural landscape.

I think I saw a study that said all the temperature stations experiencing record heat were covered in soot and next to deep ocean pipes that piped up old solar heat and sprayed it all around.

True story.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/daily/maxt/2012/07/07?sts[]=US#records_look_up

Man, look at some of those metropolises! Urban Heat Island rules all!!!

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/daily/maxt/2012/07/07?sts[]=US#records_look_up

Man, look at some of those metropolises! Urban Heat Island rules all!!!
Yes, I zoomed in on a few rural areas. Looked like there may have been quite a bit of natural landscape removed. There was a baseball field and a huge parking lot by one. I wonder when it was built?

[DarrinS]

When it's hot, weather = climate and CO2 is to blame.

When it's cold, weather != climate and natural factors are involved.

Lol.

[DarrinS]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/daily/maxt/2012/07/07?sts[]=US#records_look_up

Man, look at some of those metropolises! Urban Heat Island rules all!!!


Fun page to play around with.

Your link:

U.S. Daily Highest Max Temperature Records set on July 7, 2012
Out of a possible 5,646 records: 292 (Broken) + 102 (Tied) = 394 Total
394 / 5,646 = 7%


For shits and grins, I just changed the year to 1930.

U.S. Daily Highest Max Temperature Records set on July 7, 1930
Out of a possible 927 records: 127 (Broken) + 52 (Tied) = 179 Total
179 / 927 = 19%


LoL


1936

U.S. Daily Highest Max Temperature Records set on July 7, 1936
Out of a possible 1,452 records: 356 (Broken) + 42 (Tied) = 398 Total
398 / 1452 = 27%

[DarrinS]

.

[MannyIsGod]

So you mean more records were broken where were fewer recorded years? Holy shit, you might be on to something big here Darrin.

[MannyIsGod]

2012

Out of a possible 5,646 records

1930

Out of a possible 927 records

I'm sure the spatial resolution is exactly the same. Darrin is a master at analysis!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So?

Are any of us skeptics here denying that global warming is real?

Still, I'll bet these temperature stations reading these all time highs are in urban areas. Areas that keep increasing energy, increasing construction, and decreasing natural landscape.

Umm aspie and Darrin have been saying temperature hasn't increased in 15 years. Other's too but it's been a staple from those two.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/1/ytd

Most extreme Jan-June period in recorded US history. 1930 and 36 don't even come close. 1934 was high, but one look at the trend line shows how the 2000s different from the 1930s.

[MannyIsGod]

Masters has some incredible numbers on his blog regarding of how statistically anomalous this is.


U.S. heat over the past 13 months: a one in 1.6 million event
Each of the 13 months from June 2011 through June 2012 ranked among the warmest third of their historical distribution for the first time in the 1895 - present record. According to NCDC, the odds of this occurring randomly during any particular month are 1 in 1,594,323. Thus, we should only see one more 13-month period so warm between now and 124,652 AD--assuming the climate is staying the same as it did during the past 118 years. These are ridiculously long odds, and it is highly unlikely that the extremity of the heat during the past 13 months could have occurred without a warming climate. Some critics have claimed that recent record warm temperatures measured in the U.S. are due to poor siting of a number of measurement stations. Even if true (and the best science we have says that these stations were actually reporting temperatures that were too cool), there is no way that measurement errors can account for the huge margin by which U.S. temperature records have been crushed during the past 12-month and 6-month periods.

:lol

Yeah, its not warming. Temps have flat lined!

:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Urban heat islands!

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/2/ytd

The 1930s featured some of the highest levels of record cold. On the other hand, record cold temps are now rare.

Why?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/1/ytd

Most extreme Jan-June period in recorded US history. 1930 and 36 don't even come close. 1934 was high, but one look at the trend line shows how the 2000s different from the 1930s.

Then of course there is what happens when you superimpose the ENSO and other cycles like BEST did. He makes claims about natural cycles and strawmen regarding them but acts coy about the spectral analysis that has been done.

[MannyIsGod]

3 sigma? No big deal! 1930!

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/6/supplemental

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so?

Are any of us skeptics here denying that global warming is real?

Still, i'll bet these temperature stations reading these all time highs are in urban areas. Areas that keep increasing energy, increasing construction, and decreasing natural landscape.


when it's hot, weather = climate and co2 is to blame.

When it's cold, weather != climate and natural factors are involved.

Lol.


fun page to play around with.

Your link:

U.s. Daily highest max temperature records set on july 7, 2012
out of a possible 5,646 records: 292 (broken) + 102 (tied) = 394 total
394 / 5,646 = 7%


for shits and grins, i just changed the year to 1930.

U.s. Daily highest max temperature records set on july 7, 1930
out of a possible 927 records: 127 (broken) + 52 (tied) = 179 total
179 / 927 = 19%


lol


1936

u.s. Daily highest max temperature records set on july 7, 1936
out of a possible 1,452 records: 356 (broken) + 42 (tied) = 398 total
398 / 1452 = 27%

deeerppppppp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MannyIsGod]

Then of course there is what happens when you superimpose the ENSO and other cycles like BEST did. He makes claims about natural cycles and strawmen regarding them but acts coy about the spectral analysis that has been done.

Oh I'm just waiting for El Nino to take hold later this year. If we get anything about a weak one we're going to really see some heat build in. I think Darrin is just trolling. But its fun to just point out how stupid and shallow the arguments are.

The more extreme weather keeps getting the more no one is going to buy into the bullshit the deniers spew.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/us/2012/jun/warmest_12months.png

Where are the 1930s?

[DarrinS]

Be afraid. Be very very afraid.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/09_geo_tree_ring_northern_europe_climate1.jpg

http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/15491.php

[DarrinS]

Uh oh, cartoonist blogger says anomalous years in USA shouldn't be used to infer anything about global climate trends.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

You managed to cherry pick from a post on cherry picking!!!!!!!

Holy shit!!

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

[MannyIsGod]

Be afraid. Be very very afraid.


http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/15491.php

:lol error bars. Oh wait, there are none. :lol Summer. :lol Time scale. :lol Darrin. :lol trend line ending before data. :lol liar

Pretty funny how hard you try to bury your head. Remain ignorant, Darrin. Its fun watching you flat out intentionally lie.

[MannyIsGod]

What does figure four say about European summer temps? http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/10-ans-dextremes-climatiques.pdf

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think that Darrin understand what they are trying to say when they say:


In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form. For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.

“This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant,” says Esper, “however, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia.”

If there is a cooling trend and then all of a sudden there is a spike in the opposite direction what should that tell you? I think this may be another case of him not even reading something before he posts it.

I really hope that Darrin is trolling because otherwise he is really really scummy.

[DarrinS]

:lol error bars. Oh wait, there are none. :lol Summer. :lol Time scale. :lol Darrin. :lol trend line ending before data. :lol liar

Pretty funny how hard you try to bury your head. Remain ignorant, Darrin. Its fun watching you flat out intentionally lie.

Pretty funny how you, of all people, know about North Atlantic Oscillation, but you aren't talking about it.

[MannyIsGod]

You think the NAO is driving the extremes we're seeing? wtf?!?!??!

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

[DarrinS]

I don't think that Darrin understand what they are trying to say when they say:



If there is a cooling trend and then all of a sudden there is a spike in the opposite direction what should that tell you? I think this may be another case of him not even reading something before he posts it.

I really hope that Darrin is trolling because otherwise he is really really scummy.

I actually respect what Manny has to say. You are just a gnat.

[DarrinS]

You think the NAO is driving the extremes we're seeing? wtf?!?!??!

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Not so much driving, as keeping it around.

[MannyIsGod]

You really want to talk about the NAO? I've brought it up before because studies have recently shown that the loss of sea ice can have huge effects on it. In other words, the NAO - just like every other aspect of the climate system - is going to respond to the increase in energy due to anthropogenic climate change.

The NAO is NOT a driver of climatic trends and anyone who tries to make any such assertion is a god damn fool.

[DarrinS]

I appreciate the extra long lol's tho.

[MannyIsGod]

I try.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL seriously. Link me to the place where you got the idea the NAO is a factor in the recent extreme weather. This shit I gotta see.

[MannyIsGod]

Just to clarify, I mean recent as in this summer. The NAO can have large affects on winter weather but as I pointed out the NAO is itself feeling the effects of climate change reducing sea ice.

[DarrinS]

LOL seriously. Link me to the place where you got the idea the NAO is a factor in the recent extreme weather. This shit I gotta see.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/07/03/us-heat-wave-2012-hot-weather_n_1646462.html

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I actually respect what Manny has to say. You are just a gnat.

Oh well. You can characterize me however you like. I have no respect for you whatsoever so derision because I annoy you coming from someone such as yourself is meaningless.

OTOH, just like you claimed that graph earlier this year was from BEST when it really came from a denial website you leave out the context of the quote from above when you posted that graph.

I call you deceptive because i can point to things such as the above. When I call you a sophist i again can point to things like the above because you take anything that you think might support your case and present it without thought. the appearance is much more important to you than the reality.

You can call me an insect but at the same time it is demonstrable that you are deceptive as is your sophistry. I will leave to others to decide which is more compelling.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm going to cut you some slack then, because that article is incredibly poorly written. The NAO does not pull weather patterns across the nation at all. Systems move across the country because of the circulation pattern of the atmosphere (Basically the three celled model).


The heat burning up the country right now is due in part to a persistent high pressure system, also called a heat ridge or dome, which parked itself over the mountain west, and has now shifted east into the Midwest and Southeast. The system is unfortunately stuck in place, Weber said, because of a slowdown of the North Atlantic Oscillation, a climate pattern that pulls weather patterns eastward across the country.

This "blocking" of the Atlantic has caused the jet stream, which normally ferries air from west to east across the United States, to buckle and trap heat in the Midwest and Southeast, Weber told OurAmazingPlanet.

High and dry

That's not unusual in the summer, said National Weather Service meteorologist Greg Carbin. But this pattern of hot air does cover a broader area than usual, and the total amount of hot air is greater, stretching higher up in the atmosphere than normal, he said.

The situation we're seeing right now a pretty standard summertime pattern where you get the subtropical high stretching out to the west. The main differnece is that there is more energy in the system.

Where the article gets confused, is in associating the NAO block in winter (the NAO phase in winter can either make a warmer situation or allow some seriously cold air to spill south) with the current warmth.

That article is really atrociously written but I really don't see how anyone without a decent understanding of the NAO and sub tropical high would actually know that.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/teledoc/nao_tmap.gif

This map shows the level of corrolation between temps and the NAO condition. In July, most of the country shows no coloration with the exception of the NW. I wasn't aware of that corolation in the NW (and now I'm kinda curious as to why thats the case). However, you can see that in the winter its a huge player in the temperatures we experience.

[MannyIsGod]

From that article...

Unfortunately, the heat doesn't look likely to dissipate soon, with the National Weather Service expecting warmer-than-usual temperatures to continue for the remainder of the summer across much of the country. The southwest and Rocky Mountains could be in for a reprieve soon, however, thanks to the beginning of the North American typhoon, which is predicted to start bringing moisture and cooler temperatures into the area later this week, Weber said.

:lmao @ North American Typhoon!!!!!

The NA Monsoon is actually in pretty good swing right now. We got a good deal of rain over the past week here in NM and temps have been fairly low each day after hitting the century mark a bit in late June. Thats standard for this part of the country at this time of the year, though.

[DarrinS]

I'll wait and see where 2012 ends up as a data point. May merely be another blip on the radar. Just seems like AGW alarmists are orgasmic over local weather events. Just Google "this is what global warming looks like" to see what i mean.

[DarrinS]

Oh well. You can characterize me however you like. I have no respect for you whatsoever so derision because I annoy you coming from someone such as yourself is meaningless.

OTOH, just like you claimed that graph earlier this year was from BEST when it really came from a denial website you leave out the context of the quote from above when you posted that graph.

I call you deceptive because i can point to things such as the above. When I call you a sophist i again can point to things like the above because you take anything that you think might support your case and present it without thought. the appearance is much more important to you than the reality.

You can call me an insect but at the same time it is demonstrable that you are deceptive as is your sophistry. I will leave to others to decide which is more compelling.

Shouldn't you be busy writing a strongly-worded email to the "authorities" about Poptech that no one will read?

[MannyIsGod]

2012 is not in a good position to surpass 2010 as surface temp but the chances of setting a new sea ice extent low re good, sea ice volume will almost certainly hit a new low, the extreme index is at an all time high (although this could change) and we have a developing El Nino.

I made a post about a year ago talking about how I was coming to believe that the effects of global warming were actually starting to show up in extreme weather. Considering the recent papers that have been published regarding that, I believe there is convincing evidence for that point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Shouldn't you be busy writing a strongly-worded email to the "authorities" about Poptech that no one will read?

Who said they were authorities? I know at least some of them were read.

I just figured those he slanders should know the context of his mental illness. It's not like I lied about or misrepresented what he said.

It's cute that you go cavalier for him though.

What i want to know is why you do not bother to read what you post on here. Or is it that you do read them but just do not care about the context of the article you pull stuff from?

[Jacob1983]

So the last 12 months have been the warmest on record? We are talking about recorded temperatures only. Interesting how that data can be manipulated to spread panic and gloom and doom to people.

What were the temps like in the 1700s, 1600s, and 1500s? I want one of these global warming panic mode gloom and doom to fork out some legitimate non-biased data and evidence on that shit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So the last 12 months have been the warmest on record? We are talking about recorded temperatures only. Interesting how that data can be manipulated to spread panic and gloom and doom to people.

What were the temps like in the 1700s, 1600s, and 1500s? I want one of these global warming panic mode gloom and doom to fork out some legitimate non-biased data and evidence on that shit.

So you don't know and then assume what you want it to be.

It's so damn hard in today's day and age the answer to your question. . I put in " temperature 1700s" and came up with this
http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2002/06/patterns.html

Damn that was hard.

[Jacob1983]

I want exact temperatures or at least temperatures that have an interval of 95 percent accuracy from 200 A.D.


I want them now.


But seriously, I just laugh at this shit. Read these panic gloom and doom stories carefully. When these day after tomorrow scientists and meteorologists say that so and so year was the warmest ever on record, you have to read it carefully. That statement is based on recorded temperatures. It does not taken into account the temperatures that were not recorded. When a day after tomorrow scientist tells me that 2012 was warmer than 1000 AD or whatever fuckin year they use, I will always be skeptical.


And again, if global warming or climate change is a huge life and death situation type of problem then why aren't people doing anything to fight it? People just seem to bitch about it and gloom and doom over it. The day after tomorrow types just want to blame humanity for this shit without ever really giving any solutions to the gloom and doom problem.


And why is a person the shit turd of the world if they think global warming or climate change is just a natural occurence? What if it's natural and just happens in cycles during periods of time?

[MannyIsGod]

Not a shit turd of a world just an ignorant fool. Plenty of those around.

[Jacob1983]

I'm an ignorant fool because I don't believe NYC is going to be under water in 60 years because a scientist had a hypothesis about it?

I just laugh at people that would basically bet their lives on the absolute validity of scientific theories. Didn't scientists use to tell us that the Earth was going to be destroyed by the hole in the ozone layer? Didn't scientists tell us that we were headed for another ice age back in the 1970s? Didn't scientists and American society back in the 1950s tell us that we would have flying cars by the year 2000?

How did those predictions(guesses) work out?

Climate change/global warming is just like abortion. They are used to distract people away from the bigger problems like the economy. People bitch about climate change and abortion yet they offer no solutions, answers, or compromises on how to deal with them.

[MannyIsGod]

You're an ignorant fool because there are no credible scientists saying NY is going to be underwater in 60 years. Considering that by 2100 scientific consensus argues for 1 meter of sea level rise you're pretty damn off base.

You're an ignorant fool because you're ignorant of what the science actually says.

So yeah, keep talking out of your ass and proving how well informed you are and how you're not an ignorant fool. Please, continue.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol @ flying cars. WTF?

:lol @ destroyed by the ozone hole.

:lol @ ice age.

This is great. You're definitely not an ignorant fool. Not at all. You're VERY well informed.

[Wild Cobra]

Urban heat islands!
Well, are you going to say that these heat islands were as many and large in the 30's as they are in modern day?

[Jacob1983]

Arrogant know it all day after tomorrow bandwagon science fan, what are the winning numbers for the Texas Lottery for tomorrow night? I could really use the money. I figure you could hook me up with that information since you know everything about science.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'll let 255 scientists from the NAS, the pinnacle of US science say it:


We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial— scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.

But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

http://www.pacinst.org/climate/climate_statement.pdf

Your argument is so ignorant.

[Jacob1983]

If global warming/climate change is destroying Earth, stop bitching about it and do something. Put up or shut up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If global warming/climate change is destroying Earth, stop bitching about it and do something. Put up or shut up.

:lol

It's been entertaining watching you dissemble to this point. I really like how you accused people of 'worshiping science' and comparing climate change to abortion.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao
I'm curious Manny. These laughing fits you keep having. Is it lack of meds, or abuse of meds?

[Jacob1983]

I stand by what I said. If you're going to bitch about global warming and blame humankind for it then put up or shut up. Either step up and do something productive to fight global warming or slow it down or honestly just shut your mouth. I'm not going to do anything because I don't care to be honest. If Water World or The Day After Tomorrow happens, I will probably be dead so I won't worry myself over something that is out of my control.

Bitching about global warming is on the same level as bitching about abortion and homosexuals.

[Yonivore]

Well? Funny how we were talking about orbital physics the last time around...

Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html) – and world has been cooling for 2,000 years.

Here’s the article from Nature Climate Change (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html), which says that variations in the Earth’s orbit have 4 times more impact on climate than anthropogenic warming.

[MannyIsGod]

Addressed in another thread. Theres some great information in that paper but the assertion that you can do a linear extrapolation of global insolation change from one dataset is at a high latitude is fudementaly incorrect. The data in the paper and the data from previous studies do not support that claim.

[Jacob1983]

Global warming gloom and doom fanatic cheerleaders, please give me the winning lottery numbers for this week's drawing. I need the money.

Back to the hipster trend that is global warming, would any of you bet your life on the theory that global warming is only caused by evil humans and has nothing to do with a natural cycle/process of how the Earth works? Are you that confident?

[MannyIsGod]

I suspect that the authors included that conclusion simply to drum up interest for their paper. You say something like that, and people like Yonivore and Darrin pretty much eat it up. Yonivore has no scientific expertise and I'm quite certain cannot tell me much about anything in the technical paper yet posts it claiming it as correct. If the authors indeed wanted to stir it up a bit, they've succeed and their paper will get more exposure because of it.

On the other hand, if they had merely pointed out their data was regional in nature and not hashed out by any of the other proxy datasets used for paleoclimate reconstruction, would Yonivore have cared? Absolutely not.

In the coming year when responses are published in this journal and in others, will Yonivore post them? :lol Yeah, I'm not going to hold my breath.

It is always great to see conformation bias at work. It is a good paper though. I hope their methodology can be expanded upon to produce better proxy datasets in the future.

[Yonivore]

I suspect that the authors included that conclusion simply to drum up interest for their paper. You say something like that, and people like Yonivore and Darrin pretty much eat it up. Yonivore has no scientific expertise and I'm quite certain cannot tell me much about anything in the technical paper yet posts it claiming it as correct. If the authors indeed wanted to stir it up a bit, they've succeed and their paper will get more exposure because of it.
Because scientists on the proponent side of the argument have never sensationalized or fudged the data to drum up interest and agree with a narrative. [/sarcasm]


On the other hand, if they had merely pointed out their data was regional in nature and not hashed out by any of the other proxy datasets used for paleoclimate reconstruction, would Yonivore have cared? Absolutely not.
You forget, Yonivore wasn't painstakingly poring over the millions of papers by the thousands of scientists (I think I read that here) looking for this; it made news.


In the coming year when responses are published in this journal and in others, will Yonivore post them? :lol Yeah, I'm not going to hold my breath.
I'm sure when that happens, you'll post it. What would be the need?


It is always great to see conformation bias at work. It is a good paper though. I hope their methodology can be expanded upon to produce better proxy datasets in the future.
I'm sure they're crushed by your review.

Confirmation bias, indeed. If it doesn't agree with your narrative, it's wrong.

[MannyIsGod]

Because scientists on the proponent side of the argument have never sensationalized or fudged the data to drum up interest and agree with a narrative. [/sarcasm]


I don't even know what "side" these guys are on, but ok?



You forget, Yonivore wasn't painstakingly poring over the millions of papers by the thousands of scientists (I think I read that here) looking for this; it made news.

LOL I'm pretty sure no one is doing that. It made the news and you jumped right on it. Lots of papers make the news. If you had seen one that said something that you didn't agree with, you wouldn't have posted it. Don't even try to say otherwise.



I'm sure when that happens, you'll post it. What would be the need?


I'm sure they're crushed by your review.

Confirmation bias, indeed. If it doesn't agree with your narrative, it's wrong.

I said it was a good paper. I don't particularly understand many of the specifics of the dendrochronology aspects but some people whom I know that do were pretty excited about it.

I doubt they give two shits bout MY review, but there will be responses (the scientists who will write them have already posted their thoughts online - as well as others) and they will likely pay attention to them. Thats how the peer review system works.

[Capt Bringdown]

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/lk071212dAPR-500.jpg

I saw my baby one morning, and she was walking on down the street

[Yonivore]

LOL I'm pretty sure no one is doing that. It made the news and you jumped right on it. Lots of papers make the news. If you had seen one that said something that you didn't agree with, you wouldn't have posted it. Don't even try to say otherwise.
That's simply not true.

I've never read pro-anthropogenic global warming news article that actually linked to the scientific paper from which the sensational conclusions were drawn.

They simply quote "studies" or "scientists." The papers don't actually make the news, what the media wants the papers to say is all that makes the news.


I said it was a good paper. I don't particularly understand many of the specifics of the dendrochronology aspects but some people whom I know that do were pretty excited about it.

I doubt they give two shits bout MY review, but there will be responses (the scientists who will write them have already posted their thoughts online - as well as others) and they will likely pay attention to them. Thats how the peer review system works.
But, yet, you've already declared them wrong. Perhaps you should wait for the professionals to write their responses and get them peer-reviewed.

And, more important than the "regional" aspects of the paper, isn't the suggestion the amount of forcing caused by variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun aren't being given the prominence they deserve in the models, pretty significant?

Seems to me to be the big deal here.

[MannyIsGod]

That's simply not true.

I've never read pro-anthropogenic global warming news article that actually linked to the scientific paper from which the sensational conclusions were drawn.

They simply quote "studies" or "scientists." The papers don't actually make the news, what the media wants the papers to say is all that makes the news.


Thats laughable. That idea that peer reviewed science is somehow hidden is flat out laughable.




But, yet, you've already declared them wrong. Perhaps you should wait for the professionals to write their responses and get them peer-reviewed.

And, more important than the "regional" aspects of the paper, isn't the suggestion the amount of forcing caused by variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun aren't being given the prominence they deserve in the models, pretty significant?

Seems to me to be the big deal here.

Well, I am one of the professionals. I've read the initial responses. The actual papers will be the same ideas.

Actually, the paper pretty much states that anthropogenic forcing is the strongest forcing even if it overstates the previous solar changes. Apparently you didn't understand the paper you were linked to. Maybe you should leave it to the professionals?

[MannyIsGod]

Its really not that hard to understand. The amount of forcing change they are looking at is on the millennial time scale while the anthropogenic forcing they compare it to is over 250 years. Simple math takes 6 w/m^2 over 2000 years and shrinks it to .75 W/M^2 over the same 250 years for the 1.6 w/m^2 from anthropogenic factors. You read "hotter in the past" and extrapolated it to mean that the authors said it was hotter now because of natural forcings.

Comformation bias at its best.

[MannyIsGod]

At least you're not alone in the error, Yoni. All of your best buds are too.


Surprise: Fox News Fails Paleoclimatology
BLOG ››› 3 HOURS AND 49 MINUTES AGO ››› JOCELYN FONG


24

Demonstrating how easy it is for reckless media outlets to foster confusion about climate change, Fox News again misrepresented a scientific paper last night, claiming it provides "more evidence for global cooling." Over the past several years, Fox has repeatedly pushed the claim that "the Earth is actually cooling."

From last night's edition of Special Report:



Here's what Special Report anchor Bret Baier neglected to mention:

The study, published Sunday in Nature Climate Change, wasn't about "global" anything. It estimated temperatures going back 2,000 years by analyzing the density of tree rings taken only from northern Finland and Sweden. Moreover, the record they produced only reflects temperatures between June and August. This is important because, as the paper states, the impact of orbital forcing, a key driver of temperature, "varies considerably over time, space and with season." For instance, the influence should "diminish towards lower Northern Hemisphere latitudes" and show "substantial weakening ... towards the tropics," the authors wrote. According to scientists at RealClimate.org, "long-term cooling trends" are not seen in tropical records. The paper also noted that "Twentieth-century Scandinavian warming is relatively small compared with most other Northern Hemisphere high-latitude regions," further underscoring that records for this region do not establish global trends. One of the scientists involved in the study told HuffPo blogger Bob Ward: "Our paper is for northern Scandinavian summer temperatures so extrapolating to large scale annual temperatures is not really correct."
The "cooling trend" Fox reported does not reflect what is happening now, but what took place prior to the industrial age. The study found "a long-term cooling trend" in northern Scandinavian summer temperatures "of -0.31 °C per 1,000years (±0.03 °C) over the 138BC-AD1900 period." Scientists estimate historic temperatures from tree rings (and other "proxies") because humans didn't start directly measuring temperature until the mid-1800s. Since then, our thermometers, averaged globally, have shown substantial warming, particularly in the past few decades. The paper does not call this recent warming into question but rather tries to paint a picture of what happened before it. Cooling over this region and timescale is "theoretically expected," said RealClimate, though the magnitude of the change in the latest study is greater than previous estimates.
Prior to Fox News' report, the right-wing website Newsbusters published a post on the study and asked if "America's global warming-obsessed media will pay any attention to this new information." Newsbusters laughably declared that the study "thoroughly debunks global warming."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07/12/surprise-fox-news-fails-paleoclimatology/187086

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bob-ward/the-worlds-most-visited-n_b_1667338.html

SMH

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There are no papers about ocean acidification, animal adaptation, sea levels, ecosystems, agriculture, weather patterns or anything else about negative out comes dues to climate change. The weather itself the last 5+ years has just been wonderful don't worry about it. Manny. Everything is peachy It hasn't warmed in 15 years just ask Darrin except when hes not saying that at that particular time.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Study Shows Two-Thirds of Americans Want the Government to Act on Climate Change, and More

http://truth-out.org/news/item/10317-on-the-news-with-thom-hartmann-study-shows-two-thirds-of-americans-want-the-government-to-act-on-climate-change-and-more

of course, what Human-Americans want is trumped by what Corporate-American carbon extractors want.

[DarrinS]

Study Shows Two-Thirds of Americans Want the Government to Act on Climate Change, and More

http://truth-out.org/news/item/10317-on-the-news-with-thom-hartmann-study-shows-two-thirds-of-americans-want-the-government-to-act-on-climate-change-and-more

of course, what Human-Americans want is trumped by what Corporate-American carbon extractors want.

That website is a leftist shitrag.

[mavs>spurs]

Rh4g_17MHug

[Jacob1983]

Why does global warming/climate change have to be 100 percent caused by evil man? Why is it stupid for a person to think that just maybe it's a natural cycle and man's fault is very low on the matter?

Is the gloom and doom just so going green and global warming day after tomorrow hippies can make money off of the fad?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why does global warming/climate change have to be 100 percent caused by evil man? Why is it stupid for a person to think that just maybe it's a natural cycle and man's fault is very low on the matter?

Is the gloom and doom just so going green and global warming day after tomorrow hippies can make money off of the fad?

It's called quantification and scientists do it. You can tell how much radiation various molecules in the atmosphere absorb and how much they emit. You can quantify how much fossil fuel is consumed, how much is emitted by volcanic/oceanic/etc activity, etc.

That is what scientists are doing: figuring out the variables and quantifying them. It has nothing to do with hippies and everything to do with the greatest scientific minds of this country.

[Jacob1983]

Again, why can't it just be more of a natural process/cycle rather than because humans are driving cars and have factories and nuclear power plants running?
Why do the hippies want the gloom and doom outlook? Wouldn't people want it to be a natural cycle or process rather than because humans drive cars and do other shit?

I think it's natural and I'm not a scientist and I'm not going to look at any links or suggestions anyone suggests or recommends. If you look at the history of the Earth, the Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling, that is enough evidence for me to think that it's probably just natural and humans have probably made an impact but not a catastrophic or planet ending impact on climate change. Thank you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again, why can't it just be more of a natural process/cycle rather than because humans are driving cars and have factories and nuclear power plants running?
Why do the hippies want the gloom and doom outlook? Wouldn't people want it to be a natural cycle or process rather than because humans drive cars and do other shit?

I think it's natural and I'm not a scientist and I'm not going to look at any links or suggestions anyone suggests or recommends. If you look at the history of the Earth, the Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling, that is enough evidence for me to think that it's probably just natural and humans have probably made an impact but not a catastrophic or planet ending impact on climate change. Thank you.

You act like they do not consider the natural cycles. They do.

It's quite obviously that you are the type that wills what they want to believe rather than following empirical evidence. As such it's pointless to try and convince you.

[Wild Cobra]

Study Shows Two-Thirds of Americans Want the Government to Act on Climate Change, and More

http://truth-out.org/news/item/10317-on-the-news-with-thom-hartmann-study-shows-two-thirds-of-americans-want-the-government-to-act-on-climate-change-and-more

of course, what Human-Americans want is trumped by what Corporate-American carbon extractors want.
LOL...

Thom Hartmann...

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

he doesn't know what the word credibility means...

LOL...

LOL...

Notice the study isn't linked...

[Yonivore]

Wouldn't people want it to be a natural cycle or process rather than because humans drive cars and do other shit?
You can't tax nature and send its money to the UN.


I think it's natural and I'm not a scientist and I'm not going to look at any links or suggestions anyone suggests or recommends. If you look at the history of the Earth, the Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling, that is enough evidence for me to think that it's probably just natural and humans have probably made an impact but not a catastrophic or planet ending impact on climate change. Thank you.
Egads! Common sense.

[Jacob1983]

And why do the so-called tolerant open minded liberals who preach equality 24/7 label people that think global warming is just a natural process idiots? The bigotry is ridiculous. I demand an apology now.

[boutons_deux]

" I demand an apology now."

You and Gecko will be waiting a long time. As Dan's article pointed out, demanding and not receiving an apology is a sign of weakness, wimp.

Global warming can be, has been, a natural process.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

With the hilariously ST AGW denier "Most Used Climate Myths": thermometer :lol

[SnakeBoy]

Again, why can't it just be more of a natural process/cycle rather than because humans are driving cars and have factories and nuclear power plants running?
Why do the hippies want the gloom and doom outlook? Wouldn't people want it to be a natural cycle or process rather than because humans drive cars and do other shit?

I think it's natural and I'm not a scientist and I'm not going to look at any links or suggestions anyone suggests or recommends. If you look at the history of the Earth, the Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling, that is enough evidence for me to think that it's probably just natural and humans have probably made an impact but not a catastrophic or planet ending impact on climate change. Thank you.

The reality of the science is that it isn't going to be catastrophic or planet ending. I have no doubt we are increasing co2 levels and that has some impact on the climate but I part ways with the global warming zealots who blame every storm on global warming and use doomsday scare tactics to promote a political agenda.

[Wild Cobra]

The reality of the science is that it isn't going to be catastrophic or planet ending. I have no doubt we are increasing co2 levels and that has some impact on the climate but I part ways with the global warming zealots who blame every storm on global warming and use doomsday scare tactics to promote a political agenda.
Absolutely. These people are dangerous.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The reality of the science is that it isn't going to be catastrophic or planet ending. I have no doubt we are increasing co2 levels and that has some impact on the climate but I part ways with the global warming zealots who blame every storm on global warming and use doomsday scare tactics to promote a political agenda.

So how do you explain the National Academy of Sciences position? Or the 255 members that independently affirmed their position? How do you explain the hundreds of unvisersity meteorological programs that hold the same position?

How do you discount the obvious economic interests of Exxon and other oil interests or the think tanks they use as fronts? How do you explain their funding campaigns based on confirmation bias?

It's interesting that all of the people with concerns about our fossil fuel consumption point to scientists while those such as yourself point to strawmen such as Al Gore?

It's interesting that those such as yourself use the same brain to accuse others of political interest and ignore the obvious economic interests of those you support.

[MannyIsGod]

The problem is when you start using words like catastrophic or planet ending. No major scientific organization holds views that human life is in danger on this planet due to climate change so to say shit like "planet ending" is a pure strawman most of the time. Furthermore, using words like catastrophic interchangeably with "planet ending" is a false equivocation. There are many catastrophic results that will occur from even mild climate change that don't mean the planet has to end.

[Jacob1983]

I laugh at the global warming loyalists that bitch about it evil man when some dumbass starts a fire on the West Coast. How can shit like that be blamed on humans driving fucking cars? The blame should be on the dumbass that either intentionally or unintentionally started the fire.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I laugh at the global warming loyalists that bitch about it evil man when some dumbass starts a fire on the West Coast. How can shit like that be blamed on humans driving fucking cars? The blame should be on the dumbass that either intentionally or unintentionally started the fire.

You still haven't talked about the scientists. How about you regale us again about Al Gore.

This is not an issue of faith.

[Yonivore]

The problem is when you start using words like catastrophic or planet ending. No major scientific organization holds views that human life is in danger on this planet due to climate change so to say shit like "planet ending" is a pure strawman most of the time. Furthermore, using words like catastrophic interchangeably with "planet ending" is a false equivocation. There are many catastrophic results that will occur from even mild climate change that don't mean the planet has to end.
Maybe not but, I've once again, come across a good example of the type of commentary I read that leads me to believe the AGCC crowd is, at the very least, trying to bias the coverage and cause the media to exaggerate the effects of AGCC or global warming in general.

DEFINITELY NOT A GREEN WEENIE (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/definitely-not-a-green-weenie.php)


I’ve drawn attention several times here to the fine science and policy blog (http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/) of Roger Pielke Jr at the University of Colorado, but I’ve been remiss in bringing to the attention of Power Line readers an equally worthy blog of another environmental writer who departs frequently and pointedly from the party line: journalist Keith Kloor, whose Collide-A-Scape blog (http://www.collide-a-scape.com/) is definitely worth bookmarking and following on a regular basis. (You can and should also follow Keith on Twitter @keithkloor). Keith is a long-time environmental journalist who was an editor for several years at Audubon magazine, and has published in Science, Smithsonian, and elsewhere (http://www.collide-a-scape.com/my-articles/). Nowadays he freelances from New York and teaches journalism at NYU.

Keith is neither a climate skeptic nor the complete critic of environmentalism that I am, but like Andy Revkin at the New York Times he shoots straight on the issues, frequently calls out environmentalists for their distortions, hypocrisies, and short-sightedness, and whacks the media for sensationalism. I think it is possible that Keith is the originator of the wonderfully useful phrase “climate porn” to describe the overhyping of climate scares by the climateers and their sycophants in the media. Wish I had thought of that! As he says at the end of this post (http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2012/06/22/the-lessons-and-echoes-of-silent-spring/) about the dubious legacy of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (50 years old now), “The world’s complex environmental issues demand open minds, fresh perspectives, and less growling.” Needless to say, Keith often provokes less than friendly responses from the environmentally correct.

His latest post (http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2012/07/19/about-that-new-energy-revolution/) a couple days ago gets the energy story of the moment just right, namely, that we are in the early innings of a renaissance of hydrocarbon energy (oil, gas, coal) that is going to run over environmentalists like a (diesel-powered) freight train. And via Twitter today he brings to our attention a tart commentary (http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/07/twenty-times-more-likely-not-the-science/) of the state climatologist of Texas, debunking the distorted claim promoted by a NOAA press release that last summer’s heat wave in Texas was made twenty times worse by greenhouse gases, which naturally the media dutifully reported. And people wonder if our government science agencies are politicized?
I commend Kloor's latest post and the Texas State Climatologist's "tart commentary" for your reading.

It's the type of commentary that strikes me as a reasonable example of just how the media is trying to drive the climate debate in the direction of alarmism and it doesn't do your side of the argument any favors and certainly makes it harder for you to make any progress in here.

[Yonivore]

:::bump:::

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No one gives a shit about your big bad media nonsense except the AM radio douchebags that you get it from. If you want to bring up science rather than your bullshit then I imagine you will get a better response.

[Yonivore]

No one gives a shit about your big bad media nonsense except the AM radio douchebags that you get it from. If you want to bring up science rather than your bullshit then I imagine you will get a better response.
The professionals mentioned and referenced in the post...none of whom, that I'm aware, have anything to do with AM radio.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s is a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He also has appointments as a Research Fellow, Risk Frontiers, Macquarie University; Visiting Senior Fellow, Mackinder Programme, London School of Economics; and Senior Visiting Fellow at the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes of Arizona State University. And, he's also a Senior Fellow of The Breakthrough Institute, a progressive think tank.

Keith Kloor is a freelance journalist who has been published in a range of publications from Science to Smithsonian. Since 2004, he's been an adjunct professor of journalism at NYU. From 2000-2008, he was the editor at Audubon Magazine and from 2008-2009, he was a Fellow at the University of Colorado's Center for Environmental Journalism in Boulder.

John W. Nielsen-Gammon, Ph.D., is a regents professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University and serves as the Texas State Climatologist. He holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He joined the faculty at Texas A&M University in 1991 and was appointed Texas State Climatologist by then-Governor George W. Bush in 2000. He has served as acting executive associate dean for the College of Geosciences, chair of the American Meteorological Society Board on Higher Education and president of the International Commission for Dynamical Meteorology. He is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

My whole post was about science and the politics of science so, don't argue with me, argue the points raised by these three more-than-qualified experts.

Cheers!

[Wild Cobra]

Yoni...

Why do you bother?

Do you really think you will shake the faith of the religious zealots when it comes to their dogma?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's the type of commentary that strikes me as a reasonable example of just how the media is trying to drive the climate debate in the direction of alarmism and it doesn't do your side of the argument any favors and certainly makes it harder for you to make any progress in here.

[Yonivore]

Yoni...

Why do you bother?

Do you really think you will shake the faith of the religious zealots when it comes to their dogma?
It passes the time.

[Wild Cobra]

It passes the time.
Trtue.

It is funny to see them claim victory over my posts when I talk about something longtime, and they show a seasonal study. Of take the maunder Minima to today, and then claim it wrong because the IPCC period starts 50 years after the end of the minima, yet fail to acknowledge there was still substantial solar change starting in 1750.

Then the laughable ones...

When it's colder... AGW climate change...

When it's hotter... AGW climate change...

When it's wetter... AGW climate change...

When it's drier... AGW climate change...

No matter what happens, the cause is AGW climate change. It is so laughable...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We laugh at you because it was not a study of a particular season but rather how to analyze something as it occurs over a season. It's a nuance that you are too stupid to grasp.

It's like understanding the things that happen to an engine during one cycle and then claiming that you are not going to undersand what happens over 100 cycles.

In short it's because you are simpleminded and unable to understand complex ideas.

[DarrinS]

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-217


Satellites see Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Melt


In the same press release...




"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," said Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."




Unprecedented, but cyclical and expected. Hmmm.

[MannyIsGod]

When have the Satellites seen melt like this before?

[MannyIsGod]

First sentence:

PASADENA, Calif. - For several days this month, Greenland's surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations.

:lmao What a hard fucking concept for Darrin.

[DarrinS]

When have the Satellites seen melt like this before?

It was never hot before satellites.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't know what type of engineer you are supposed to be but you fail to understand rotational motion or any type of periodic system.

Tghere is no questioning that there are cycles. However for example if you have a cycle that reaches a maxima at a particular time but at that maxima the top of the wheel lets say reaches higher than it has ever before what does that tell you?

Does it tell you that its always going to be high at that point or that this cycle is atypical and at least something is amiss?

No wonder you had to learn code.

[MannyIsGod]

Strawman. The article doesn't say that. Pretty sure it points out thatmelt has occured before. Like I said, this is obviously a hard concept for you to understand.

NASA releases statement saying Greenland melt has occurred before. Darrin pouts and stamps his feet because his command of the English language is poor.

[MannyIsGod]

Also, I'm reading the blog of the Texas State Climatologist that Yonivore linked. I like it so far. He seems to complain - rightfully so - a lot about the way the media does a piss poor job of reporting on climate science. Its a lot of the same type of things I complained about in the Rolling Stone article. The irony of course is that he disagrees with a lot of the bullshit Yonivore has posted on here but it should be no surprise that Yonivore doesn't red what he recommends and selectively chooses what to believe from any given expert.

I'm considering applying to A&M so its always good to read the thinking of some of the professors at places I'm considering.

[DarrinS]

Strawman. The article doesn't say that. Pretty sure it points out thatmelt has occured before. Like I said, this is obviously a hard concept for you to understand.

NASA releases statement saying Greenland melt has occurred before. Darrin pouts and stamps his feet because his command of the English language is poor.


Lol @ pouting and stamping my feet. You and fuzztard are the angry ones.

[DarrinS]

I'm considering applying to A&M ...


Yikes. Get ready for all the "howdy" bullshit.

[MannyIsGod]

I can't speak for Fuzzy, but when you, Yoni and WC post I tend to get happy because entertainment is sure to ensue. See the last few posts.

As for A&M, I've been to midnight yell and I've seen it all before. Been to games (best college football game I went to was a OU A&M game circa 2000) and I've even been to the damn Chicken All I'm concerned about their excellent atmospheric sciences dept.

[jack sommerset]

I can't speak for Fuzzy, but when you, Yoni and WC post I tend to get happy because entertainment is sure to ensue. See the last few posts.

As for A&M, I've been to midnight yell and I've seen it all before. Been to games (best college football game I went to was a OU A&M game circa 2000) and I've even been to the damn Chicken All I'm concerned about their excellent atmospheric sciences dept.

Land of Bush and the core. You will fit in. lol. Also that's where the first freebird burrito opened up. God bless

[MannyIsGod]

I had my first FB burrito there long before they were anywhere else. They're OK. As long as I'm around smart scientists I'll be happy. I just want to learn . I don't need to go marching around in a uniform or hang out with those that do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lol @ pouting and stamping my feet. You and fuzztard are the angry ones.

I wouldn't say angry. WC is entertaining in the same way as watching Jerry Lewis or Supersuckers is funny. I find your manner to be much more sinister. Sure there is anger but it's more contempt than anything.

That is not hyperbole. You are deceitful and evasive. Like I said, I do not know what kind of engineer you are supposed to be but all engineers study periodic systems and either you are being willfully ignorant, are just terrible what you do, or you are just lying.

Pointing to a maxima and trying to paint a record extreme as inconsequential because it happened at the highest point in the cycle is the height of deceit if you are in fact trained in periodic systems.

What happens to the top of wavelengths if you increase the DC input? Because the maximum happens at the peak of the wave does that mean that the DC input never happened?

What happens if torque is applied to the fulcrum of a pendulum? Does the greatest height occurring at the points of rest on each end of the arc mean that the torque never happened?

What happens if the amount of energy trapped in the atmosphere increases? Does the highest temperature happening at the times of greatest exposure to radiation mean that the greenhouse effect is not happening.

That is the simplistic version.

In the DC example, you can evaluate the signal as a whole and when its at intermediate points between the min/max you can compare expected versus observed and determine if there is a value that is raising the baseline of the whole.

That's what BEST did. They did a very thorough spectral analysis to correlate the various cycles to observed phenomenon and then compared baselines for the various cycles. They were diligent in pointing out which correlated better but the conclusion for all of the was the same.

You say you appreciate BEST but you are full of shit because you make arguments such as the min/max bullshit. I expect that from WC because he is quite obviously MR but you?

[DarrinS]

Wow, that was a lot of unnecessary typing Fuzzy. All you have to do is watch Greenland for the next several years. Just read the expert's quote again.

[Agloco]

I can't speak for Fuzzy, but when you, Yoni and WC post I tend to get happy because entertainment is sure to ensue.

This thread still brings a smile to my face. This might be RGs masterpiece thread. I'll need to buy him a beer next time I slide down to South Texas.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wow, that was a lot of unnecessary typing Fuzzy. All you have to do is watch Greenland for the next several years. Just read the expert's quote again.

I'm really not talking to you or at least not you specifically. I know you are not going to be convinced and that even if you were that you would rather lie than admit to it.

I am trying to put it in terms that people can understand. Thats why I brought up very simple systems.

The quote you cited is a scientist trying to maintain objectivity. As MiG pointed out there was a whole lot else you left out in your cherry picking.

[Wild Cobra]

When have the Satellites seen melt like this before?
LOL...

Always finding an angle...

There are other ways of seeing these cycles, and you know it.

[boutons_deux]

Bombshell: Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution

http://berkeleyearth.org/images/decadal-land-surface-average-temperature-berkeley-earth.jpg

“The decadal land-surface average temperature using a 10-year moving average of surface temperatures over land. Anomalies are relative to the Jan 1950 – December 1979 mean. The grey band indicates 95% statistical and spatial uncertainty interval.” A Koch-funded reanalysis of 1.6 billion temperature reports finds that “essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

Muller has been a skeptic of climate science, and the single biggest funder of this study is the “Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000).” The Kochs are the leading funder of climate disinformation in the world!

It gets better:

Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.

In short, a Koch-funded study has found that the IPCC “consensus” underestimated both the rate of surface warming and how much could be attributed to human emissions!

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/

[Wild Cobra]

So you going to take back your slander about only publishing what you call lies?

[Yonivore]

When have the Satellites seen melt like this before?
Well, had they been there in 1889, they would have seen a melt like this. I'm not sure why the method of observing an event makes the event, itself, any more or less extraordinary.

[Yonivore]

I'll let you noodle this out, Manny.

The first of the two commentaries linked below seems to be saying is that a recent convert from skepticism (who wasn't really ever a true skeptic) pre-published a paper on temperatures (financed by the evil Koch Brothers, no less) that supports the IPCC's paper that has been beaten up so much and that it is because of his independent findings that he has moved from skeptic to AGCC proponent.

MULLING OVER MULLER (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/mulling-over-muller.php)

The second, from the same website, seems to direct us to a second website that blows Muller out of the water -- using his own methods.

BREAKING: FROM BEST TO WORST IN LESS THAN A DAY (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/breaking-from-best-to-worst-in-less-than-a-day.php)

I have no comment as this obviously isn't my area of expertise but, it sure seems the AGCC crowd crapped in their Post Toasties on this one.

[MannyIsGod]

I haven't seen the information Watts put out but right off the bat I am less likely to trust Watts over what BEST did. I don't have time to read it this weekend but I'll comment on it after I read it early this week.

[Yonivore]

I haven't seen the information Watts put out but right off the bat I am less likely to trust Watts over what BEST did. I don't have time to read it this weekend but I'll comment on it after I read it early this week.
Cool.

[Yonivore]

But here, this seems to be the crux of Watt's take down of Muller and the IPCC and, apparently, the NOAA...

Global Warming? Yeah, right (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100173174/global-warming-yeah-right/)


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2012/07/Wattspic2.png


Have a look at this chart. It tells you pretty much all you need to know about the much-anticipated scoop by Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That?

What it means, in a nutshell, is that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – the US government body in charge of America's temperature record, has systematically exaggerated the extent of late 20th century global warming. In fact, it has doubled it.

[Yonivore]

There's more...

Comments On The Game Changer New Paper “An Area And Distance Weighted Analysis Of The Impacts Of Station Exposure On The U.S. Historical Climatology Network Temperatures And Temperature Trends” By Watts Et Al 2012 (http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/comments-on-the-game-changer-new-paper-an-area-and-distance-weighted-analysis-of-the-impacts-of-station-exposure-on-the-u-s-historical-climatology-network-temperatures-and-temperature-trends-by-w/)


Anthony has led what is a critically important assessment of the issue of station quality. Indeed, this type of analysis should have been performed by Tom Karl and Tom Peterson at NCDC, Jim Hansen at GISS and Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia (and Richard Muller). However, they apparently liked their answers and did not want to test the robustness of their findings.

In direct contradiction to Richard Muller’s BEST study, the new Watts et al 2012 paper has very effectively shown that a substantive warm bias exists even in the mean temperature trends. This type of bias certainly exists throughout the Global Historical Climate Network, as well as what Anthony has documented for the US Historical Climate Reference Network.

[xrayzebra]

You know what I find exceedingly strange. All these man made
increases in temp can be solved very simply: Raise taxes on the
rich nations.

Of course, there ain't no rich nations anymore. So just raise it on
the Americans, no one likes them anyhow.

I sure am glad I wont be around to smell all the horse manure like they
had to in the 1800's and early 1900's. And all that methane.

You suckers are arguing a mute point anyhow. You note all these
"experts" always put the date that we burn long after we are all dead
and gone.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You know what I find exceedingly strange. All these man made
increases in temp can be solved very simply: Raise taxes on the
rich nations.

Of course, there ain't no rich nations anymore. So just raise it on
the Americans, no one likes them anyhow.

I sure am glad I wont be around to smell all the horse manure like they
had to in the 1800's and early 1900's. And all that methane.

You suckers are arguing a mute point anyhow. You note all these
"experts" always put the date that we burn long after we are all dead
and gone.

WTH are you talking about.

WOOHOO let's just make up shit!!! WOOHOO!!!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

qO9IPoAdct8

[xrayzebra]

WTH are you talking about.

WOOHOO let's just make up shit!!! WOOHOO!!!


Ah, Fuzzy, I have confused you haven't I. Not hard to do. (confuse you)
Now go play with your Lumpkins.

[DarrinS]

I haven't seen the information Watts put out but right off the bat I am less likely to trust Watts over what BEST did. I don't have time to read it this weekend but I'll comment on it after I read it early this week.

Interesting admission

[Yonivore]

Interesting admission
I think they call it "confirmation bias" in here.

Thanks for bumping the thread. I await Manny's findings.

[Wild Cobra]

Manny...

Car to tell us how mach a 0.1% increase in TSI will increase greenhouise gas radiative forcing?

Long-Term Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Variability Trends: 1984-2004 (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20040139609)


NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance_prt.htm)

[Poptech]

Muller was never a skeptic,

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html

"I was never a skeptic" - Richard Muller, 2011

"If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants." - Richard Muller, 2008

"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." - Richard Muller, 2008

"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller, 2003

[MannyIsGod]

Interesting admission


I think they call it "confirmation bias" in here.

Thanks for bumping the thread. I await Manny's findings.

Its definitely a bias but not a conformation bias. First, I'm not dismissing what he's put forth (just now about to read it). If he has good points, then there's no reason not to take it seriously.

That being said, Watts does not have an excellent track record regarding his publications and his research. THAT is why I'm hesitant to to take his work at face value (although, to be fair - NO science should be taken at face value and all should be scrutinized no matter the study author).

I also don't like what he did here. He released the information likely simply because the BEST publications are now coming out of the peer review process. This is an incomplete paper that has not been vetted by fellow scientists and yet it will get a fair amount of press. This is the exact type of media sensationalism I deplore when it comes to scientific issues.

Anyway, I'm reading it now.

[DarrinS]

I also don't like what he did here. He released the information likely simply because the BEST publications are now coming out of the peer review process. This is an incomplete paper that has not been vetted by fellow scientists and yet it will get a fair amount of press. This is the exact type of media sensationalism I deplore when it comes to scientific issues.


:lmao

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/#more-68286




This pre-publication draft paper, titled An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, is co-authored by Anthony Watts of California, Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville, is to be submitted for publication.

The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project in a June 2011 interview with Scientific American’s Michael Lemonick in “Science Talk”, said:



I know that is prior to acceptance, but in the tradition that I grew up in (under Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez) we always widely distributed “preprints” of papers prior to their publication or even submission. That guaranteed a much wider peer review than we obtained from mere referees.

[MannyIsGod]

I dare you to go back and find a place where I advocated BEST doing it as well. In fact, you should be laughing at Watts since I'm 99% sure he was upset when they released their papers early and said as much and now he's doing the same.

Laugh away.

[MannyIsGod]

Yup


Mr. Watts, a former television meteorologist, contended that the study’s methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year-one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies. He also noted that the report had not yet been peer-reviewed and cited spelling errors as proof of sloppiness.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/climate-study-does-not-placate-skeptics/?ref=earth

I guess whats good for the goose and all that but its still a poor practice. Also very ironic considering there are quite a few grammar mistakes in this draft. I guess he really was just trying to emulate Mueller.

[MannyIsGod]

So, here's what I got from it. The paper I read didn't have any of the figures which really sucks since thats where you get a good deal of the data but I don't think it matters too much to what I'm going to say. Now, I'm not a statistician by any stretch of the imagination and much of what is in that paper yells out for just that but anyway.

-Watts doesn't dispute its warming but he disputes that the US has warmed about half of what NOAA claims it has. This study doesn't attempt to say the earth is not warming or disprove AGW but it has issues with with the way temperature is gathered here in the United States.

-Watts claims his method proves that the placement of surface stations is having a large and noticeableeffect on the temperature record here in the United States because his statistical sampling methods show that it is. The main problem is that every other major look at these stations has said the opposite. BEST said that. A study Watts himself was involved with within the past 2 years also came to that conclusion. This has been a focus of his for some time now.

-Watts points to flaws in the statistical methods used by NOAA but he doesn't expand on it at all. He pulls a quote from a recent study which basically points out the data processing methods used by NOAA are not perfect. Well, duh? But he goes no further in proving or stating how or why his method is better than the ones currently in use. This is the big problem with the paper, IMO. If you're going to say that the conclusion that everyone has come to before you is wrong, then you definitely need to logically lay out the argument as to WHY that is the case and I believe the paper fails miserably in this dept. Simply pointing to a quote from a previous paper and saying "they aren't perfect so this method is better" is not going to cut it at all.

I don't know enough about the methods being used here and their flaws in order to say why NOAA has a better method than Watts or why Watts has a better method than NOAA so I have to defer to what has been discussed within the literature. My analysis of the paper is extremely superficial and I may be missing something, but I don't think Watts makes a case for choosing his method over the previous methods other than it comes to the conclusion that he has been seeking since starting surfacestations.org.

If anyone has any professional commentary on the paper I would be interested in reading it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ah, Fuzzy, I have confused you haven't I. Not hard to do. (confuse you)
Now go play with your Lumpkins.

:lol Uh-huh I'm just so confused.

Climate scientists only want to tax 'rich countries.' There are no more 'rich countries. I sure am glad I wont be around to smell all the horse manure like they had to in the 1800's and early 1900's. And all that methane.


Evolutionists narrowmindedly and dogmatically accept evolution without questioning it. Atheists want to crucify Christians and burn them in their homes. Everyone knows scientists use complex terminology to make it harder for christians to refute them.

It's the same stupid 'logic' you see from christian literalists. I was just considering the source.

Shall we look at per capita income per nation? How about GDP?

You're right there is no difference between the US and Haiti. There is no difference between China and North Korea. There is no difference between Germany and Greece. There is no difference between South Africa and Swaziland.

Of and you are right a carbon tax is going to send us right back to horse drawn carriages.

Making shit up is fun!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's nice to see apsie and Darrin are back to the there is no warming argument.

[DarrinS]

It's nice to see apsie and Darrin are back to the there is no warming argument.

You're an idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

So Manny once again, avoids a post of mine that shows AGW isn't as strong as claimed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're an idiot.

And you cannot articulate an argument to save your life.

Most of the time you copy and paste things that have titles that sound like the argument you want to make.

It's like this most recent line of thought. What happened to you having respect for BEST? Now I see you pimping this guy and pointing out how he has been critical of BEST's methods and attention to detail. Which is it?

This type of thing why I call you a sophist.

*Note: this is how you make an argument*

When we were talking about the BEST study you made lip service to respecting their work. It's pretty obvious that with this recent line of argument that you were disingenuous.

I can only guess at what your motives were but I am rather confident guessing that it was to give yourself some credence as an objective skeptic. This confidence is consistent with your deception as to the source of your graph which again you claimed was from BEST early this year.

What is clear is that you will make any argument or cite anything that you think makes the argument that climate change is either nonexistent or insignificant. That is the embodiment of sophistry.

[Wild Cobra]

He's right Fuzzy. You are a top rate idiot. Just because you have Masters Degrees in Bullshit and Articulation, doesn't mean you still aren't an idiot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure thing, capacitor. Empiricism versus posturing.

[boutons_deux]

Here's how AGW denial works, exemplified by corps paying academics to be prostitutes.

Is the Natural Gas Industry Buying Academics

Last week the University of Texas provost announced [1] he would reexamine a report by a UT professor that said fracking was safe for groundwater after the revelation that the professor pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Texas natural gas developer. It's the latest fusillade in the ongoing battle [2] over the basic facts of fracking in America.

Texans aren't the only ones having their fracking conversations shaped by industry-funded research. Ohioans got their first taste [3] last week of the latest public-relations campaign by the energy policy wing of the US Chamber of Commerce. It's called "Shale Works for US," and it aims to spend millions on advertising and public events to sell Ohioans on the idea that fracking is a surefire way to yank the state out of recession.

The campaign is loaded with rosy employment statistics [4], which can be traced to an April report [5] authored by professors at three major Ohio universities and funded by, you guessed it, the natural gas industry. The report paints a bright future for fracking in Ohio as a job creator.

One coauthor of the study, Robert Chase, is prominent enough within the state's natural gas universe that his case was recently taken up [6] by the Ohio Ethics Commission, whose chairman called Chase [7] "more than a passing participant in the operations of the Ohio oil and gas industry" and questioned his potential conflicts of interest. As landowners in natural-gas-rich states like Texas and Ohio struggle to decipher conflicting reports about the safety of fracking, Chase is a piece in what environmental and academic watchdogs call a growing puzzle of industry-funded fracking research with poor disclosure and dubious objectivity.

"It's hard to find someone who's truly independent and doesn't have at least one iron in the fire," said Ohio oil and gas lease attorney Mark F. Okey. "It's a good ol' boys network and they like to take care of their own."

http://www.motherjones.com/print/187171

[Wild Cobra]

Oh frack.

Will you please keep that topic in the proper thread.

[boutons_deux]

Oh frack.

Will you please keep that topic in the proper thread.

fracking supporters are paid to lie just like AGW deniers are paid by the corporations to lie.

[Wild Cobra]

fracking supporters are paid to lie just like AGW deniers are paid by the corporations to lie.
There are no deniers here. Not that I've seen.

[DarrinS]

fracking supporters are paid to lie just like AGW deniers are paid by the corporations to lie.

Muller's solution to global warming?

Clean fracking. :lol

-vCo31vxYFE

[MannyIsGod]

So Manny once again, avoids a post of mine that shows AGW isn't as strong as claimed.

I ignored your post because I don't have much time to read things over the net few days other than when I'm on the train. If you think a NASA study that you misinterpret is somehow shattering AGW, GOOD FOR YOU!

[Wild Cobra]

I ignored your post because I don't have much time to read things over the net few days other than when I'm on the train. If you think a NASA study that you misinterpret is somehow shattering AGW, GOOD FOR YOU!
What do you think I misinterpreted?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol at WC acting like he has any independent credibility.

He does not know the properties of the parts he changes and we are supposed to guess what he misinterpreted?

WC you are even worse than Darrin at articulating an argument. Posturing that you made a point when you cannot even articulate what it is is not compelling to anyone.

[Jacob1983]

People just want to bitch and bitch about putting the blame and cause of global warming on humans yet those same people offer no solutions or answers to stopping/slowing down/reducing climate change. You can't explain that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

People just want to bitch and bitch about putting the blame and cause of global warming on humans yet those same people offer no solutions or answers to stopping/slowing down/reducing climate change. You can't explain that.

Yeah obviously there have been no proposals to curb emissions or deforestation.

In Kyoto and Copenhagen they just talked about hentai.

[Jacob1983]

Again, why do the so-called champions of fighting climate change just bitch and moan about evil humanity's role in it when they should be offering up solutions and feedback on how to counter the horrible phenomenon that is killing polar bears because evil humans use air planes? I have no respect for those types of people.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah obviously there have been no proposals to curb emissions or deforestation.

In Kyoto and Copenhagen they just talked about hentai.

I guess they put the O2 sensors in cars for fun, as are the forest preserves, generator standards, subsidation of solar and wind power, EU and US foreign aid to Brazil to curb burning the Amazon, carbon taxes/credits, et al are all for promoting terrorism.

Lists like THESE (http://globalwarming-facts.info/50-tips.html) do not exist.

Are you trolling or something?

[Jacob1983]

What if I just don't care enough to fight the evil humans and evil human made climate change?

[MannyIsGod]

It appears Watt's paper is starting to be critiqued across the internet. So far, the criticisms are pretty much exactly what I said: How did you do this and why is it better? It appears from the paper that he's simply using raw data which is incorrect. We've talked about why the data is processed in order to remove homogeneities (basically this means differences in how the data was gathered IE equipment time of observation) and he's just ignoring the decades of peer reviewed science and statistics that state you have to do this.

Pretty poor effort, IMO. Honestly, he likely released it in this manner because there is no way it goes through a peer review process and survives in its current incarnation.

Watts has apparently come to the conclusion that the only way to make surface station quality come into play is to ignore all the data processes that have been in use for a long time now.

[DarrinS]

It appears Watt's paper is starting to be critiqued across the internet. So far, the criticisms are pretty much exactly what I said: How did you do this and why is it better? It appears from the paper that he's simply using raw data which is incorrect. We've talked about why the data is processed in order to remove homogeneities (basically this means differences in how the data was gathered IE equipment time of observation) and he's just ignoring the decades of peer reviewed science and statistics that state you have to do this.

Pretty poor effort, IMO. Honestly, he likely released it in this manner because there is no way it goes through a peer review process and survives in its current incarnation.

Watts has apparently come to the conclusion that the only way to make surface station quality come into play is to ignore all the data processes that have been in use for a long time now.

Valid criticism. There are similarly valid reasons why Muller's work is held up in peer review.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll ask again...

I ignored your post because I don't have much time to read things over the net few days other than when I'm on the train. If you think a NASA study that you misinterpret is somehow shattering AGW, GOOD FOR YOU!
What do you think I misinterpreted?

[Wild Cobra]

Manny....

What do you think I misunderstood.

Put up or retract your insinuation asshole.

Maybe the truth is that you know this is another piece that shows AGW cannot possible be as strong as your dogma dictates.

[Yonivore]

Hey, Manny! Please tell me you heard about this story.


http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m84ze2fTgd1ql6jblo1_500.jpg (http://think-progress.tumblr.com/post/28562214038/wow-its-so-hot-in-oklahoma-that-the-streetlights)
CLICK ON IMAGE TO GO TO THINKPROGRESS.COM'S STORY


WOW. It’s so hot in Oklahoma that the streetlights are melting.

Today could be the hottest day in Oklahoma City history, 114 degrees.

Meanwhile, a senator from Oklahoma, James Inhofe (R), is a major climate denier.

Photo from KFOR-TV

[DarrinS]

Good one, Yoni.

[Wild Cobra]

Hey, Manny! Please tell me you heard about this story.

I'm surprised that Fuzzy or Boutons wasn't all over that story before you found it.

[MannyIsGod]

I had heard of the heat but I had not heard of anything melting. I leave the measuring of air temp by what melts to idiots like WC. :lol

[Yonivore]

I had heard of the heat but I had not heard of anything melting. I leave the measuring of air temp by what melts to idiots like WC. :lol
But, that must have been some global warming they had there in Oklahoma eh, Manny?

[MannyIsGod]

No. I've never made any such argument. Perhaps AGW made the heat wave, worse, however.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As far as I know I have never been to thinkprogress. I certainly have never linked any article by them. When it comes to the climate 'debate' I invariably refer to scientific papers, journals and reports.

My conclusions are based on empirical observations and not by partisan nonsense and absolutely not from bipolar sites such as that one.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No. I've never made any such argument. Perhaps AGW made the heat wave, worse, however.

You could try to explain to them what 'additive' means. Might be easier than explaining to them how feedbacks work.

[Wild Cobra]

I had heard of the heat but I had not heard of anything melting. I leave the measuring of air temp by what melts to idiots like WC. :lol
Interesting that you call me an idiot, but you your are incompetent to elaborate on what you say I am assuming.

Admit it. You know you were talking out your ass.

[Wild Cobra]

Manny....

Where are you...


I had heard of the heat but I had not heard of anything melting. I leave the measuring of air temp by what melts to idiots like WC. :lol
Interesting that you call me an idiot, but you your are incompetent to elaborate on what you say I am assuming.

Admit it. You know you were talking out your ass.

I'll ask again...

I ignored your post because I don't have much time to read things over the net few days other than when I'm on the train. If you think a NASA study that you misinterpret is somehow shattering AGW, GOOD FOR YOU!
What do you think I misinterpreted?

[Wild Cobra]

It's an old article, but relevant.

Brightening Sun is Warming Earth (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html), first three paragraphs:

There is a better explanation for global warming than air pollution, two Harvard researchers say: the Sun is increasing in brightness and radiance.

"Changes in the Sun can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming," claims Sallie Baliunas, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA).

"We're not saying that variations in solar activity account for all of the global rise in temperature that we are experiencing," cautions her CfA colleague, astrophysicist Willie Soon. "But we believe these variations are the major driving force. Heat-trapping gases emitted by smokestacks and vehicles -- the so-called greenhouse effect -- appear to be secondary."

[MannyIsGod]

A brightening sun would explain the earth warming. Too bad its not brightening. Try again.

[Wild Cobra]

A brightening sun would explain the earth warming. Too bad its not brightening. Try again.
If you say so. I guess you will continue to ignore the truth and stick to your indoctrinated dogma.

[Wild Cobra]

A brightening sun would explain the earth warming. Too bad its not brightening. Try again.
Did you even read these links, or are you incapable of understanding them?

Long-Term Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Variability Trends: 1984-2004 (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20040139609)

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance_prt.htm)

[MannyIsGod]

I'm telling you the sun is not brightening. There's a reason you're bringing up papers nearly a decade old.

[Jacob1983]

No one gives a shit about global warming or climate change. If anyone did give a shit, someone would be doing something about it. It's a distraction type of issue just like abortion and homos are. They are used as distractions to deflect attention away from the more serious issues.

[RandomGuy]

The values range from -0.4 to 0.6 and you think the proper way to compile a graph with those values is to set the range from -5 to 5?

But when they make the range from -0.5 to 0.7 that is misleading?

I mean setting the range only fractionally larger than the range of data is misleading but making it 10 times bigger is not?

I guess whatever confirms your bias.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

So that is intentionally misleading?

I missed that one before. Nice catch.

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone see this yet:

link: To the Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/)

[MannyIsGod]

LOL. I literally LOLed when he got to the PDO and AMO. There's a reason their called oscillations and not cycles and yet he still calls them cycles. I found his explanation of how they work to be quite entertaining. Thanks for the link.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL. I literally LOLed when he got to the PDO and AMO. There's a reason their called oscillations and not cycles and yet he still calls them cycles. I found his explanation of how they work to be quite entertaining. Thanks for the link.
Great.

I think you need a good laugh.

[boutons_deux]

Is Global Warming Cooler than Expected?


http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/is-global-warming-cooler-than-expected_3.jpg


"Until we actually understand why the global temperature rise has paused over the last decade – and we don't yet – it's still guesswork what the implications are for climate sensitivity and hence the future projections.

If the pause is a "correction" to a naturally-boosted rise over previous decades, then the climate's sensitivity to carbon emissions may indeed be lower than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's central estimate, suggesting that future rises will be towards the lower end of the range, he added.

But if the pause is a temporary natural offset to the man-made rise, then this offset would disappear at some stage and put the globe back on the central estimate track, he said. "I don't see how we can say which it is until we understand the reason for it."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-global-warming-cooler-than-expected&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20130529

[boutons_deux]

As Glaciers Melt, Alpine Mountains Lose Their Glue, Threatening Swiss Village
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/05/30/world/swiss/swiss-articleLarge.jpg

With global warming, the glaciers are melting. Once stretching to the edge of town, they now end high in the mountains. Moreover, their greenish glacial water is forming lakes. In summer, when the melting accelerates, floodwaters threaten the area. But the avalanche witnessed by Mr. Bomio shows that the shrinking of the glaciers removes a kind of buttress supporting parts of the mountains, menacing the region with rock slides.

Grindelwald stands as a stark example of what is happening these days to Switzerland’s glaciers, and there are more than a hundred, large and small. As the Lower Grindelwald Glacier shrank, its ice no longer buttressed the east wall of the Eiger, a 13,025-foot mountain that is part of the ring south of Grindelwald. Moreover, the warming reduces the effect of permafrost that once acted as a sort of glue binding together the mass of the mountains. On that day in 2006, a chunk of the Eiger amounting to about 900,000 cubic yards fell from the east face, causing the cloud of rock dust that startled Mr. Bomio and his friends.

Over the past century or so, glaciers like those around Grindelwald have receded by about 650 feet, said Hans-Rudolf Keusen, a geologist whose company, Geotest, helped design the overflow tunnel. “Since 1980 it has been very rapid,” Mr. Keusen said. “In the last 30 years the average temperature in the Alps has risen by one and a half degrees.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/world/europe/in-swiss-alps-glacial-melting-unglues-mountains.html?from=homepage

cooling? really? Tell that to the people in the Andes whose only source of water is disappearing glaciers.

[RandomGuy]

I'm telling you the sun is not brightening. There's a reason you're bringing up papers nearly a decade old.

Pretty much.

That is one thing that is simple enough for even a lay person like me to grasp.

The Sun is not getting brighter. :D

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I do have to say that after reading through a lot of this stuff again, Skull-1 and poptart are kindred spirit. Same behavior.

[boutons_deux]

Study Ties Epic California Drought, ‘Frigid East’ To Manmade Climate Change


Natural variability alone cannot explain the extreme weather pattern that has driven both the record-setting California drought and the cooler weather seen in the Midwest and East this winter, a major new study finds.


We’ve reported before that climate scientists had predicted a decade ago that warming-driven Arctic ice loss would lead to worsening drought in California. In particular, they predicted it would lead to a “blocking pattern” that would shift the jet stream (and the rain it could bring) away from the state — in this case a “Ridiculously Resilient Ridge” of high pressure.


A new study in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d) takes the warming link to the California drought to the next level of understanding. It concludes, “there is a traceable anthropogenic warming footprint in the enormous intensity of the anomalous ridge during winter 2013-14, the associated drought and its intensity.”


The NASA-funded study is behind a pay wall, but the brief news release, offers a simple explanation of what is going on. The research provides “evidence connecting the amplified wind patterns, consisting of a strong high pressure in the West and a deep low pressure in the East [labeled a 'dipole'], to global warming.” Researchers have “uncovered evidence that can trace the amplification of the dipole to human influences.”

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Dipole.jpg


… it is important to note that the dipole is projected to intensify, which means more extreme future droughts for California. Historical data show that the dipole has been intensifying since the late 1970s. The intensified dipole can be accurately simulated using a new global climate model, which also simulates the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Simulations with only natural variability show a weakening dipole, which is opposite to what is currently being observed. Moreover, the occurrence of the dipole one year before an El Nino/La Nina event is becoming more common, which can only be reproduced in model simulations when greenhouse gases are introduced into the system

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/15/3426810/california-drought-climate-change/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/12/us-climatechange-antarctica-idUSKBN0DS1IH20140512

[MannyIsGod]

The study referenced in the boutons post above is one of the best examples of showing the anthropogenic effect on atmospheric patterns and how it exacerbates certain aspects of them. They showed the effect AGW has had and how it contributed to the severity of the drought extremely well, IMO. Too bad the article felt the need to butcher the graph and put a pin where it makes no sense.

[boutons_deux]

NASA West Antarctic Ice Sheet Findings: Glacier Loss Appears Unstoppable
It’s a key piece of the climate change puzzle. For years, researchers have been eyeing the stability of the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet (http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/news/antarctic-ice-sheet-20140512/#.U3EUevldXa8) as global temperatures rise. Melting of the ice sheet could have dire consequences for sea level rise.

http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/600px-antarctica_svg-opt-580x580.jpg


A key concern for years has been the possible collapse of western Antarctica’s glaciers, leading to a drastic acceleration in sea-level rise worldwide. Such a catastrophic glacial retreat would dump millions of tons of ice into the sea over a relatively short span of time. And while it’s true that ice calves off of the Western Antarctic ice sheet every summer, the annual overall rate is increasing.

The study is backed up by satellite, airborne and ground observations looking at thickness of ice layers over decades.

http://www.universetoday.com/111827/nasa-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-findings-glacier-loss-appears-unstoppable/#ixzz31anNJdEI

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The study referenced in the boutons post above is one of the best examples of showing the anthropogenic effect on atmospheric patterns and how it exacerbates certain aspects of them. They showed the effect AGW has had and how it contributed to the severity of the drought extremely well, IMO. Too bad the article felt the need to butcher the graph and put a pin where it makes no sense.

thinkprogress took valid information and turned into nonsense? say it ain't so.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

in before WC handwaves about soot.