Is Global War...er, Climate Change, still a thing?

[Yonivore]

I don't see it mentioned on the front page here so, I'll start it up.

Great Lakes ice cover developing; Earliest in over 40 years (http://www.mlive.com/weather/index.ssf/2014/11/great_lakes_ice_cover_developi.html)


Ice is already starting to develop on Michigan's Great Lakes. This is the earliest ice on some of the Great Lakes in at least 40 years.
Hmmmm...

So, in the 70's, it was Global Cooling -- we would be frozen by the turn of the century.

Then, when it started warming, it was Global Warming -- we would all drown or dehydrate by 2020.

Now that it has stopped warming and, in fact, may be cooling again, it's Global Climate Change.

Someone remind me ...

What does that mean?

What is the ideal climate for Earth?

Is it better for our climate to be warmer or cooler?

[SnakeBoy]

Sucks that it is shaping up to be another cold winter and MannyIsGod isn't around to get mad about it.

[Wild Cobra]

I think Manny got tired of losing debates with me.

[ElNono]

hate winter

[Wild Cobra]

hate winter
So to I. We need lots of snow in the mountains to keep our freshwater flowing, I just hope it stays there this year.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol it got cold this weeks but we'll just ignore the other 51 weeks and it froze on the great lakes but we won't consider the other 190 million square miles.

ffs, doing the same thing over and over again like you guys do every winter is not insanity like Einstein said. It's OCD and stupid.

[Yonivore]

:lol it got cold this weeks but we'll just ignore the other 51 weeks and it froze on the great lakes but we won't consider the other 190 million square miles.

ffs, doing the same thing over and over again like you guys do every winter is not insanity like Einstein said. It's OCD and stupid.
In case you've not heard, actual observations have not agreed with the Global War...er Climate Change alarmists.

[DarrinS]

Hot -- climate change
Cold -- climate change
Wet -- climate change
Dry -- climate change
Increasing sea ice -- climate change
Decreasing sea ice -- climate change
More hurricanes -- climate change
Fewer hurricanes-- climate change
No change in global temps in 20 years -- climate change

So, no matter what weather, average temperature, or climate does, it's climate change

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In case you've not heard, actual observations have not agreed with the Global War...er Climate Change alarmists.

Please present something that is not from one of your GWPC blogs to prove that then.

[Yonivore]

Please present something that is not from one of your GWPC blogs to prove that then.
You pick one - every set of data confirms the IPCC climate models have failed to predict temperature, spectacularly.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You pick one - every set of data confirms the IPCC climate models have failed to predict temperature, spectacularly.

Something like that should be easy to demonstrate. It's your assertion prove it.

[Yonivore]

Something like that should be easy to demonstrate. It's your assertion prove it.
You're not worth the effort, Fuzzy. I post proof, you claim the source isn't credible. The problem with that is, the sources you would deem credible either don't report on this or just plain lie about it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're not worth the effort, Fuzzy. I post proof, you claim the source isn't credible. The problem with that is, the sources you would deem credible either don't report on this or just plain lie about it.

:lol so you couldn't find anything not from a Koch or similarly funded organization.

You posted a source saying the great lakes are freezing. I didn't say that wasn't credible.

And the sources I cite on climate change are from the peer review process and always have been. If you want to believe that the temperature record won't reflect data from this then :lol

[baseline bum]

Yes

http://www.glacierhikers.com/images/glaciers/Grinnell_1938_2006.jpg

[Yonivore]

:lol so you couldn't find anything not from a Koch or similarly funded organization.
Would you accept something from a Koch or similarly funded organization?


You posted a source saying the great lakes are freezing. I didn't say that wasn't credible.
Good for you, the first step in solving any problem is admitting there is one.


And the sources I cite on climate change are from the peer review process and always have been. If you want to believe that the temperature record won't reflect data from this then :lol
So, there's a pee-reviewed paper that shows the IPCC climate models are proving out?

[Spurminator]

I thought we were at least ten years beyond the point where anyone could say, "It's cold, so much for Global Warming" and feel like a real smarty...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Would you accept something from a Koch or similarly funded organization?


Good for you, the first step in solving any problem is admitting there is one.


So, there's a pee-reviewed paper that shows the IPCC climate models are proving out?

I never said that it wasn't cold now. Your problem is you still haven't addressed the nature of how climate data is accumulated and analyzed. I'll give you a hint: individual data points are noise.

I don't think you understand the notion of potential error in modeling and I know for a fact that Manny has gone over this with you before. You still have yet to link anything at all proving your assertions that all models have been refuted empirically.

I don't accept testimony from shills that is not peer reviewed. The fossil fuel industry does have some peer reviewed journals. I would accept those.

[Yonivore]

Yes

http://www.glacierhikers.com/images/glaciers/Grinnell_1938_2006.jpg
Pictures don't like but, people do use picture to lie...

DECEPTIONS OF THE CLIMATISTAS (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/deceptions-of-the-climatistas.php)

I know this isn't Grinnell Glacier but, since you didn't post the peer-reviewed paper in which this retreating glacier is discussed, I can't draw any conclusions on whether or not the photos are telling the whole story. Does "GlacierHikers.com" have the paper posted along with those photographs?

[Yonivore]

I thought we were at least ten years beyond the point where anyone could say, "It's cold, so much for Global Warming" and feel like a real smarty...
So, what is the danger with today's climate, Spurminator? When it was Global Warming, we were all going to drown or cook or both. Now that the models and predictions are being proven wrong, what does this pivot to Global Climate Change portend? Do tell.

[baseline bum]

Pictures don't like but, people do use picture to lie...

DECEPTIONS OF THE CLIMATISTAS (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/deceptions-of-the-climatistas.php)

I know this isn't Grinnell Glacier but, since you didn't post the peer-reviewed paper in which this retreating glacier is discussed, I can't draw any conclusions on whether or not the photos are telling the whole story. Does "GlacierHikers.com" have the paper posted along with those photographs?

Where is the lie?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pictures don't like but, people do use picture to lie...

DECEPTIONS OF THE CLIMATISTAS (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/deceptions-of-the-climatistas.php)

I know this isn't Grinnell Glacier but, since you didn't post the peer-reviewed paper in which this retreating glacier is discussed, I can't draw any conclusions on whether or not the photos are telling the whole story. Does "GlacierHikers.com" have the paper posted along with those photographs?

http://scholar.google.com/

You know it's not the glacier he was talking about but fuck it . . . :lol

[Yonivore]

Where is the lie?
Can you read?

There were two principal deceptions.

1) Climate alarmists did not show a photo taken in 1951 that showed most of the melting took place before Global Warming supposedly began.

2) Climate alarmists failed to tell you that the photos depicted a small portion of a glacier that had been steadily receding for over 200 years.

[Yonivore]

http://scholar.google.com/

You know it's not the glacier he was talking about but fuck it . . . :lol
Yeah, I know -- it's like playing whack-a-mole with he global climate alarmists. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar explanation for the Grinnell Glacier as well. Polar bears going extinct - debunked. Polar caps melting - debunked. Perhaps someone will get around to debunking this one as well. But, truly, it's all getting pretty tiresome, don't you think. I mean, it appears Manny's even given up in here.

[baseline bum]

Can you read?

There were two principal deceptions.

1) Climate alarmists did not show a photo taken in 1951 that showed most of the melting took place before Global Warming supposedly began.

2) Climate alarmists failed to tell you that the photos depicted a small portion of a glacier that had been steadily receding for over 200 years.

Um, that's the whole fucking glacier in my pic son.

[xeromass]

I'm living at the foothold of Alps, we're at the end of November and there hasn't been a second of temps below freezing. Last year has been similar. Cold week in mid-December, rest above or around freezing. And shitty case of sleet that knocked out electricity to third of a country. So there you go, mr. Mistaking-Weather-for-Climate.

[DarrinS]

I'm living at the foothold of Alps, we're at the end of November and there hasn't been a second of temps below freezing. Last year has been similar. Cold week in mid-December, rest above or around freezing. And shitty case of sleet that knocked out electricity to third of a country. So there you go, mr. Mistaking-Weather-for-Climate.

Didn't you just do the same thing? :lmao

[Yonivore]

Small glacier.

So, do you have any photos taken between 1938 and 1981?

Do you have a map like this one to show the extend of the Grinnell Glacier over the past, say, 200 years?

http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/05/Glacier-Map-copy.jpg?zoom=2&resize=418%2C453

[xeromass]

Didn't you just do the same thing? :lmao

Take your irony detector for check-up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Didn't you just do the same thing? :lmao

He is pointing out the absurdity of the approach and how it works both ways. He qualified it as invalid so no he didn't do the same thing.

This should not be hard.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, I know -- it's like playing whack-a-mole with he global climate alarmists. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar explanation for the Grinnell Glacier as well. Polar bears going extinct - debunked. Polar caps melting - debunked. Perhaps someone will get around to debunking this one as well. But, truly, it's all getting pretty tiresome, don't you think. I mean, it appears Manny's even given up in here.

What do straw man mean?

You spout GWPC rhetoric really well though.

Manny got tired of going over the same shit over and over again. Similar to how I talked about how I knew he had discussed expected error and modeling with you in the past. You are willfully ignorant and will ignore what you don't want to hear.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pictures don't like but, people do use picture to lie...

DECEPTIONS OF THE CLIMATISTAS (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/deceptions-of-the-climatistas.php)

I know this isn't Grinnell Glacier but, since you didn't post the peer-reviewed paper in which this retreating glacier is discussed, I can't draw any conclusions on whether or not the photos are telling the whole story. Does "GlacierHikers.com" have the paper posted along with those photographs?

And ffs that is a bunch of lawyers writing that shit in your link.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/about-us

[Yonivore]

And ffs that is a bunch of lawyers writing that shit in your link.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/about-us
So, why did the 1951 image get omitted? Where is your image of Grinnell between 1938 and 1981?

And, the map of the recession of the Glacier Bay glaciers over the past 200 years? Lawyers make that up?

[ChumpDumper]

First freeze of the fall = Republican global warming thread

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, why did the 1951 image get omitted? Where is your image of Grinnell between 1938 and 1981?

And, the map of the recession of the Glacier Bay glaciers over the past 200 years? Lawyers make that up?

Because the NYT article they are bitching about was not about that glacier specifically. They are bitching about the picture that was used.

It's very similar to bitching about an ad hominem and then ignoring the rest of what someone says.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/science/the-melting-isnt-glacial.html

That is the article in question from the NYT.

[Yonivore]

First freeze of the fall = Republican global warming thread
Actually the first freeze was a couple of weeks ago and I'm not a Republican.

I just noticed there wasn't a AGW thread on the front page, as used to be usual.

[Yonivore]

Because the NYT article they are bitching about was not about that glacier specifically. They are bitching about the picture that was used.

It's very similar to bitching about an ad hominem and then ignoring the rest of what someone says.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/science/the-melting-isnt-glacial.html

That is the article in question from the NYT.
Not bitching, just demonstrating the article was misleading.

[Th'Pusher]

Actually the first freeze was a couple of weeks ago and I'm not a Republican.

I just noticed there wasn't a AGW thread on the front page, as used to be usual.
Things change in 2 years. Why did you disappear for 2 years when Obama was reelected? Were you that emotionally effected because your guy lost an election?

[DarrinS]

First freeze of the fall = Republican global warming thread


MSM does the same thing in the summer.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/08/18/july-climate-report/14230129/

[ChumpDumper]

Actually the first freeze was a couple of weeks ago and I'm not a Republican.

I just noticed there wasn't a AGW thread on the front page, as used to be usual.When was the last time you voted for a Democratic nominee for president?

[ChumpDumper]

MSM does the same thing in the summer.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/08/18/july-climate-report/14230129/Yes, the media reports when a month was the fourth hottest in the recorded history of the planet Earth.

What is your problem with that, Darrin?

Tell everyone why the fourth hottest month in recorded history is in no way noteworthy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not bitching, just demonstrating the article was misleading.

You are another that doesn't get what mutually exclusive means much less how to prove it. BTW that means your statement does not disprove mine even if true.

They don't even discuss the article; they are talking about the picture.

[Wild Cobra]

Pictures don't like but, people do use picture to lie...

DECEPTIONS OF THE CLIMATISTAS (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/deceptions-of-the-climatistas.php)

I know this isn't Grinnell Glacier but, since you didn't post the peer-reviewed paper in which this retreating glacier is discussed, I can't draw any conclusions on whether or not the photos are telling the whole story. Does "GlacierHikers.com" have the paper posted along with those photographs?
Yep.

Th alarmist community is a chronic offender of unethical deceptions, and we those of us who see it and are skeptical are called the deniers...

Well, how should anyone with half a brain trust those who deceive?

[Yonivore]

When was the last time you voted for a Democratic nominee for president?
I don't think I've ever voted Democrat. I usually vote Libertarian, unless there's a chance it'll spoil a race and result in a Democrat getting elected.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol Yoni, you got WC and Darrin at least!

[Wild Cobra]

Where is the lie?

Every time it is used on conjunction with saying mankind is responsible.

Baseline Bum is another useful idiot for the alarmists for posting it.

[Yonivore]

Yes, the media reports when a month was the fourth hottest in the recorded history of the planet Earth.
So, tell me -- how long is "recorded history" and have the methods for measuring changed any in that time? Also, did the other three occur after man started warming the planet?

Oh, and a few other questions that never get answered...

1) What is the optimal temperature for the planet?

2) Has it ever been significantly warmer and significantly colder than it is right now?

3) Is there an IPCC model on temperature with which actual observation agrees?

Thought of one more...

4) Are we causing the corollary global climate change on Mars or could there be some other common determinant of climate that affects both planets?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't think I've ever voted Democrat. I usually vote Libertarian, unless there's a chance it'll spoil a race and result in a Democrat getting elected.Your posting here has depended directly on the fortunes of the national Republican Party.

[ChumpDumper]

So, tell me -- how long is "recorded history" and have the methods for measuring changed any in that time? Also, did the other three occur after man started warming the planet?

Oh, and a few other questions that never get answered...

1) What is the optimal temperature for the planet?

2) Has it ever been significantly warmer and significantly colder than it is right now?

3) Is there an IPCC model on temperature with which actual observation agrees?

Thought of one more...

4) Are we causing the corollary global climate change on Mars or could there be some other common determinant of climate that affects both planets?You didn't answer my single question.

Give it a shot there.

Tell everyone why the fourth hottest month in recorded history is in no way noteworthy.

[DarrinS]

Yes, the media reports when a month was the fourth hottest in the recorded history of the planet Earth.

What is your problem with that, Darrin?

Tell everyone why the fourth hottest month in recorded history is in no way noteworthy.


4th hottest? Since humans have been recording it (a VERY short period of time, btw). Yes, that's remarkable.

[ChumpDumper]

4th hottest? Since humans have been recording it (a VERY short period of time, btw). Yes, that's remarkable.It's not?

Why is it not worthy of any mention at all?

Please explain.

[DarrinS]

Hottest March on record!!!

for portions of Oklahoma and Arkansas

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tsa/?n=climo_2012march_warmest


:lol

[DarrinS]

It's not?

Why is it not worthy of any mention at all?

Please explain.


It's as much worthy of mention as the 4th coldest month, I suppose.

[ChumpDumper]

It's as much worthy of mention as the 4th coldest month, I suppose.So you admit it is worthy of mention in the media.

OK. I'm glad you made that clear.

Thanks.

[ChumpDumper]

Hottest March on record!!!

for portions of Oklahoma and Arkansas

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tsa/?n=climo_2012march_warmest


:lolYou might want to read that whole article.

Also, what is your specific problem with the Tulsa office of NOAA reporting about the weather in the Tulsa area?

Please explain.

[DarrinS]

So you admit it is worthy of mention in the media.

OK. I'm glad you made that clear.

Thanks.


Good. Then we both agree there's nothing wrong with "Great Lakes ice cover developing; Earliest in over 40 years" as a newsworthy item.

[ChumpDumper]

Good. Then we both agree there's nothing wrong with "Great Lakes ice cover developing; Earliest in over 40 years" as a newsworthy item.I never said it wasn't. Wouldn't even try. That would be stupid.

Why did you try to claim the other wasn't newsworthy?

[DarrinS]

I never said it wasn't. Wouldn't even try. That would be stupid.

Why did you try to claim the other wasn't newsworthy?


I didn't say it wasn't newsworthy. I said it was unremarkable.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't say it wasn't newsworthy. I said it was unremarkable.Well, how many months total have been recorded?

More than 1000?

[DarrinS]

Well, how many months total have been recorded?

More than 1000?


And all during an interglacial, thankfully.

[ChumpDumper]

And all during an interglacial, thankfully.
So its the fourth highest out of over 1000?

Am I getting this right?

[DarrinS]

So its the fourth highest out of over 1000?

Am I getting this right?

Damn. This is important to you. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Damn. This is important to you. :lolI just want to be sure I'm being accurate.

[SnakeBoy]

It's as much worthy of mention as the 4th coldest month, I suppose.

Good catch. I started to respond to Chump about global warming before I realized what he was doing.


Well pardon the interruption, carry on debating the weather folks. I only enjoyed doing it when I knew a Manny meltdown was just around the corner.

[unleashbaynes]

"winter still happens, global warming must be a lie"
-retards

[Wild Cobra]

Damn. This is important to you. :lol
Too bad the past records have been altered.

I'm sorry, not altered... Corrected!

[angrydude]

"winter still happens, global warming must be a lie"
-retards

People have been playing the "it's only this winter" card for the past decade

[Yonivore]

"winter still happens, global warming must be a lie"
-retards
Not really what is being said but, if that's the limit of your intellect, so be it.

How 'bout answering this one...

Observed temperatures do not agree with IPCC models that said it would be getting warmer by now.

[Yonivore]

It's like there's a cycle or something...

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's like there's a cycle or something...

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

It's like you think they do not consider natural variation. This is stupid shit we went over years ago and I know has been explained to you. You have any new material or just going to live in 2005?

[Wild Cobra]

It's like you think they do not consider natural variation. This is stupid shit we went over years ago and I know has been explained to you. You have any new material or just going to live in 2005?
Well, it's obvious to me they downplay natural variations so they can suggest higher man made variations.

[Yonivore]

It's like you think they do not consider natural variation. This is stupid shit we went over years ago and I know has been explained to you. You have any new material or just going to live in 2005?
We don't need new material, you still haven't explained why the IPCC's settled science was so wrong.

We were told it was going to get hotter -- they were wrong. They failed to predict the "hiatus" in heating -- while the fucking "hiatus" in heating was occurring. Why should we buy anything they, or any other climate alarmist, has said about climate when nothing they've predicted has happened? Polar bears are growing in population -- not dying off on small ice floes. There's more polar ice than ever before -- when we were told the North Pole would be melted by about this time.

We don't need new material, you need to explain why you're wrong and why anyone should trust anything you or the IPCC says about climate.

[Yonivore]

Well, it's obvious to me they downplay natural variations so they can suggest higher man made variations.

What's obvious to me is they've seized on a mechanism by which it was thought the American people could be bamboozled out of vast amounts of wealth to be redistributed through the United Nations. Now that they've been busted in lie after lie, they're floundering around looking for some way to hold on to their drea..er scheme.

I think the religion of Global Climate Change is just about out of steam...I hope.

[Wild Cobra]

I think the religion of Global Climate Change is just about out of steam...I hope.

It should be almost over.

Past temperature records can only be edited corrected so many times before people will notice. The sun has quieted this last solar cycle, and is predicted to quiet more.

The remainder of this decade will like be the death of climate alarmism dogma.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We don't need new material, you still haven't explained why the IPCC's settled science was so wrong.

We were told it was going to get hotter -- they were wrong. They failed to predict the "hiatus" in heating -- while the fucking "hiatus" in heating was occurring. Why should we buy anything they, or any other climate alarmist, has said about climate when nothing they've predicted has happened? Polar bears are growing in population -- not dying off on small ice floes. There's more polar ice than ever before -- when we were told the North Pole would be melted by about this time.

We don't need new material, you need to explain why you're wrong and why anyone should trust anything you or the IPCC says about climate.

:lol short term trends in climate analysis. There is a reason when they give their projections they say 50 years down the line even if you are ignorant of the import of that.

This is literally the same shit Manny told you before.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It should be almost over.

Past temperature records can only be edited corrected so many times before people will notice. The sun has quieted this last solar cycle, and is predicted to quiet more.

The remainder of this decade will like be the death of climate alarmism dogma.

And dipshit doesn't know what normalization is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, it's obvious to me they downplay natural variations so they can suggest higher man made variations.

Nice dissemble. OF course the oil lobby would never try to deceive us like the cigarette or lead industries did.

[Wild Cobra]

And dipshit doesn't know what normalization is.

Is that what you call, it when NOAA records for a city are 2 degrees Fahrenheit less than the recorded record of that city?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is that what you call, it when NOAA records for a city are 2 degrees Fahrenheit less than the recorded record of that city?

Because of normalization. You don't understand it and I know it's been explained to you before. Your dumb and didn't get it then so it's litte surprise you still are oblivious.

[Wild Cobra]

Because of normalization. You don't understand it and I know it's been explained to you before. Your dumb and didn't get it then so it's litte surprise you still are oblivious.
No, you never explained that one that I recall.

How can an actual record be normalized two degrees less, years later, to become part of the official record?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, you never explained that one that I recall.

How can an actual record be normalized two degrees less, years later, to become part of the official record?

When you are getting data from thousands and thousands of sources they have to be adjusted so that they have say the same thing. There are all manner of influences on a temperature reading for example if you move a thermometer farther and closer to a heat source what happens to the reading on the thermometer and what happens to the temperature of the heat source? Types of thermometer and all manner of things impact.

Stupid just discounts the whole thing out of hand. You simply do not understand the process.

[Yonivore]

:lol short term trends in climate analysis. There is a reason when they give their projections they say 50 years down the line even if you are ignorant of the import of that.

This is literally the same shit Manny told you before.
There was never a mention of any short term trend that would result in a 20 year pause in warming. We were promised a steady march to a hot Earth with no polar ice caps, no polar bears, no glaciers, and flooded cities. Many of them said this would happen by the middle of this decade.

"Short term trends," and other excuses only became necessary when the settled science was exposed to not be so settled, after all.

Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416)


(Reuters) - Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Yeah, I'm sure they have an excellent "sciency" explanation that is settled and beyond criticism, by now. But, watching the AGW crowd constantly have to explain why they've been wrong or have their deceptions exposed kind of puts a dent in their credibility.

Oh, and the reason they make their predictions so far into the future is because they don't want to be around to be held accountable for being wrong. The mistake they made in the last part of last century is that they became impatient to redistribute the wealth and so, started Henny-Pennying the climate and trying to make people believe the polar bears and polar ice would be gone by 2015-2020 and the Empire State Building or Miami would join Atlantis at the bottom of the ocean.

[Wild Cobra]

When you are getting data from thousands and thousands of sources they have to be adjusted so that they have say the same thing. There are all manner of influences on a temperature reading for example if you move a thermometer farther and closer to a heat source what happens to the reading on the thermometer and what happens to the temperature of the heat source? Types of thermometer and all manner of things impact.

Stupid just discounts the whole thing out of hand. You simply do not understand the process.
I see.

Are they assuming that this happened and you know by how much it was affected?

What about an area where the land use hasn't changed in over 30 years?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There was never a mention of any short term trend that would result in a 20 year pause in warming. We were promised a steady march to a hot Earth with no polar ice caps, no polar bears, no glaciers, and flooded cities. Many of them said this would happen by the middle of this decade.

"Short term trends," and other excuses only became necessary when the settled science was exposed to not be so settled, after all.

Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416)



Yeah, I'm sure they have an excellent "sciency" explanation that is settled and beyond criticism, by now. But, watching the AGW crowd constantly have to explain why they've been wrong or have their deceptions exposed kind of puts a dent in their credibility.

:lol they

I have rising sea levels and increased storm claims from the insurance industry. I don't gaf about polar bears and again you are bitching because they don't see short term trends.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/faq-8-1-figure-1-l.png

Errata FAQ 8.1, Figure 1. Global mean near-surface temperatures over the 20th century from observations (black) and as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 different climate models driven by both natural and human-caused factors that influence climate (yellow). The mean of all these runs is also shown (thick red line). Temperature anomalies are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950 mean. Vertical grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic eruptions. (Figure adapted from Chapter 9, Figure 9.5. Refer to corresponding caption for further details.)

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-8-1-figure-1.html

[Wild Cobra]

That said, I agree much of the warming is Mann made.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I see.

Are they assuming that this happened and you know by how much it was affected?

What about an area where the land use hasn't changed in over 30 years?

Go ask them yourself. I know that it has been done and peer reviewed including by scientists paid for by Exxon amongst others. If the science was actually bad then Koch, Exxon, et al would be all over it with actual studies. They have their own journals. They paid for BEST which is where many of the normalization factors came from.

Your ignorance is galling but not as galling as your ignorance of your ignorance.

[Wild Cobra]

Go ask them yourself. I know that it has been done and peer reviewed including by scientists paid for by Exxon amongst others. If the science was actually bad then Koch, Exxon, et al would be all over it with actual studies. They have their own journals. They paid for BEST which is where many of the normalization factors came from.

Your ignorance is galling but not as galling as your ignorance of your ignorance.
I discovered this first hand when looking at local records, and comparing to NOAA. The records highs in the 70's were lowered by as much as 2.3 F compared to the official Portland records. No changes large enough to warrant that large of a correction. Land use remained effectively the same.

If this is indicative of all the NOAA records, then it is flat out wrong.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I discovered this first hand when looking at local records, and comparing to NOAA. The records highs in the 70's were lowered by as much as 2.3 F compared to the official Portland records. No changes large enough to warrant that large of a correction. Land use remained effectively the same.

If this is indicative of all the NOAA records, then it is flat out wrong.

It's like trying to discuss algebra with a special ed kid. You are too dumb to understand so you just go back to your original position.

[Yonivore]

It's like trying to discuss algebra with a special ed kid. You are too dumb to understand so you just go back to your original position.

In think what you fail to acknowledge is that there are a growing number of really smart scientists that are questioning the validity of this whole "settled" science of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change because they've actually looked at the data or witnessed the lies or uncovered the deceptions. It's not just us low-class, backwater, hicks in this forum, Fuzzy. I've always found it amazing that posters, such as yourself, attack other posters as if their opinion or positions stood in a vaccuum.

We can't all be Manny and actually delude ourselves into believing we are an expert on something -- that if we truly were -- would probably preclude us from participating in a forum such as this.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In think what you fail to acknowledge is that there are a growing number of really smart scientists that are questioning the validity of this whole "settled" science of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change because they've actually looked at the data or witnessed the lies or uncovered the deceptions. It's not just us low-class, backwater, hicks in this forum, Fuzzy. I've always found it amazing that posters, such as yourself, attack other posters as if their opinion or positions stood in a vaccuum.

We can't all be Manny and actually delude ourselves into believing we are an expert on something -- that if we truly were -- would probably preclude us from participating in a forum such as this.

:lol and you don't cite these smart scientist at all at any point. If you are going to appeal to authoirty you are going to have to do better than innuendo.

I love how you ignore the AR4 model vs observation graph I just posted. Manny has at least one degree in climate studies.

[Yonivore]

:lol and you don't cite these smart scientist at all at any point. If you are going to appeal to authoirty you are going to have to do better than innuendo.

I love how you ignore the AR4 model vs observation graph I just posted. Manny has at least one degree in climate studies.
You say all of that as if it meant something.

I ignored the University of East Anglia and that jackass Jim "Hockey Stick" Hansen after they were caught fudging the science too.

EDITORIAL: Exit Jim Hansen (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/4/exit-jim-hansen/)

And, over the years, I've posted dozens of articles citing dozens of scientists that disagree with your alarmism. You just don't pay attention. Instead, you keep hammering out the same old tired rhetoric.

"...ignore the AR4 model vs observation graph..." Fucking hilarious. You know, Fuzzy, when your team spends as much time "normalizing" numbers so it'll fit their models and assumptions, as they do actually trying to understand the science of climate, you should be ignored. Everything you post is suspect when your team is caught cheating.

[Yonivore]

Here's a growing list of scientists skeptical of, or down-right disagree with, the alarmists claims on global climate change...

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_questi oning_the_accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections)

There are 12 listed with links to, and footnotes describing, their work.

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguin g_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natur al_processes)

There are 29 listed with links to, and footnotes describing, their work.

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguin g_that_the_cause_of_global_warming_is_unknown)

There are 10 listed with links to, and footnotes describing, their work.

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguin g_that_global_warming_will_have_few_negative_conse quences)

There are 3 listed with links to, and footnotes describing, their work.

Have at it. There's a lot to read and debunk, Fuzzy. You know, it appears many of the linked papers are of the "peer-reviewed" kind. That's one of your criteria for credibility, right?

And, I'm betting more than a few of them have at least Manny's level of education on the climate. Just a hunch, you understand.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's a growing list of scientists skeptical of, or down-right disagree with, the alarmists claims on global climate change...

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_questi oning_the_accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections)

There are 12 listed with links to, and footnotes describing, their work.

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguin g_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natur al_processes)

There are 29 listed with links to, and footnotes describing, their work.

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguin g_that_the_cause_of_global_warming_is_unknown)

There are 10 listed with links to, and footnotes describing, their work.

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguin g_that_global_warming_will_have_few_negative_conse quences)

There are 3 listed with links to, and footnotes describing, their work.

Have at it. There's a lot to read and debunk, Fuzzy.

And, I'm betting more than a few of them have at least Manny's level of education on the climate. Just a hunch, you understand.

But Fuzzy will still claim its all mann made...

[Yonivore]

But Fuzzy will still claim its all mann made...

It is. It's Michael Mann made. And, I want to apologize to that dickhead Jim Hansen for confusing his nonsense with Mann's in an earlier post.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Here's a growing list of scientists skeptical of, or down-right disagree with, the alarmists claims on global climate change...

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_questi oning_the_accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections)

There are 12 listed with links to, and footnotes describing, their work.

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguin g_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natur al_processes)

There are 29 listed with links to, and footnotes describing, their work.

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguin g_that_the_cause_of_global_warming_is_unknown)

There are 10 listed with links to, and footnotes describing, their work.

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguin g_that_global_warming_will_have_few_negative_conse quences)

There are 3 listed with links to, and footnotes describing, their work.

Have at it. There's a lot to read and debunk, Fuzzy. You know, it appears many of the linked papers are of the "peer-reviewed" kind. That's one of your criteria for credibility, right?

And, I'm betting more than a few of them have at least Manny's level of education on the climate. Just a hunch, you understand.

Are you aware of how many scientists there are working on the current iteration of IPCC and the disposition of the National Academy of Science and the Royal Society of Great Britain?

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

:lol better get reading

And you cannot even articulate their arguments. When I talk about normalization I discuss the process and basis. You guys just ignore that but instead name drop from a wiki page and masturbate. Nice

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You say all of that as if it meant something.

I ignored the University of East Anglia and that jackass Jim "Hockey Stick" Hansen after they were caught fudging the science too.

EDITORIAL: Exit Jim Hansen (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/4/exit-jim-hansen/)

And, over the years, I've posted dozens of articles citing dozens of scientists that disagree with your alarmism. You just don't pay attention. Instead, you keep hammering out the same old tired rhetoric.

"...ignore the AR4 model vs observation graph..." Fucking hilarious. You know, Fuzzy, when your team spends as much time "normalizing" numbers so it'll fit their models and assumptions, as they do actually trying to understand the science of climate, you should be ignored. Everything you post is suspect when your team is caught cheating.

:lol Washington Times Editorial from a year and a half ago

Can you dispute the normalization process in an intelligent manner or are you just going for the general whine?

A mercury thermometer on the wall in 1954 British Columbia is different than digital iteration on a pole in 2004 phoenix. You have to account for that so when you say 'temperature' it means the same thing.

And again if what you claim were true there are plenty of corps and think tanks capable of doing it intelligently even if you nitwits are not capable. Keep googling.

[Yonivore]

Are you aware of how many scientists there are working on the current iteration of IPCC and the disposition of the National Academy of Science and the Royal Society of Great Britain?
It's not a contest of numbers, it's a debate over science.


https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

:lol better get reading
I'm not the one who suggested the other had not provided peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting their position. That was you. I've supplied a few so, read up and tell me where they're wrong.


And you cannot even articulate their arguments. When I talk about normalization I discuss the process and basis. You guys just ignore that but instead name drop from a wiki page and masturbate. Nice
I was being snarky about normalization but, in truth, the AGW crowd has had to come up with all sorts of convoluted explanations for why the fucking planet won't cooperate with their models.

Actually, the Wiki page was just a nice aggregate of OTHER sources and links that aren't Wiki but, instead, the work of those listed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's not a contest of numbers, it's a debate over science.


I'm not the one who suggested the other had not provided peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting their position. That was you. I've supplied a few so, read up and tell me where they're wrong.


I was being snarky about normalization but, in truth, the AGW crowd has had to come up with all sorts of convoluted explanations for why the fucking planet won't cooperate with their models.

Actually, the Wiki page was just a nice aggregate of OTHER sources and links that aren't Wiki but, instead, the work of those listed.

It's the difference between 100 and 10,000. :lol debate

Many of those you cited had no specialization in climate or climate related sciences.

[Yonivore]

It's the difference between 100 and 10,000. :lol debate
It's a repeat of the Catholic Church against Galileo. Y'all will apologize in a few hundred years as well. And, no, the religious analogy isn't accidental...your arguments for AGW have become articles of faith that cannot withstand any scrutiny so, you demonize and try to silence those that dare to point out the flaws.


Many of those you cited had no specialization in climate or climate related sciences.
Not that it's important but, many of them do have a specialization in climate -- more so than you or Manny, I suspect.

[baseline bum]

:cry Yonivore the martyr. We'll put his statue right below Bush's likeness on Mt Rushmore. :cry

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's a repeat of the Catholic Church against Galileo. Y'all will apologize in a few hundred years as well. And, no, the religious analogy isn't accidental...your arguments for AGW have become articles of faith that cannot withstand any scrutiny so, you demonize and try to silence those that dare to point out the flaws.


Not that it's important but, many of them do have a specialization in climate -- more so than you or Manny, I suspect.

:lol so 10's of thousands of peer reviewed scientists are all wrong but the oil lobby and their 1% of scientists all with obvious financial motives akin to the theological motives of the church are wrong. Your analogy is apt but reversed.

You gave about 50 actual climate scientists and that is being generous with some and you cannot even articulate their arguments.

I posted the Academy publication for a reason as it is the best description of what the scientific community feels. It even considers the counter arguments. You clearly do not want to talk on that level but accuse others of fanaticism and faith above reason and logic.

It's horseshit. You are about as monolithic politically as one can be. Mindlessly so.

[Yonivore]

:lol so 10's of thousands of peer reviewed scientists are all wrong but the oil lobby and their 1% of scientists all with obvious financial motives akin to the theological motives of the church are wrong. Your analogy is apt but reversed.

You gave about 50 actual climate scientists and that is being generous with some and you cannot even articulate their arguments.

I posted the Academy publication for a reason as it is the best description of what the scientific community feels. It even considers the counter arguments. You clearly do not want to talk on that level but accuse others of fanaticism and faith above reason and logic.

It's horseshit. You are about as monolithic politically as one can be. Mindlessly so.
So, why aren't the dire predictions coming true? Why didn't they foresee this "natural variability" (as you called it) when they were preaching doom and gloom 15-20 years ago?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, why aren't the dire predictions coming true? Why didn't they foresee this "natural variability" (as you called it) when they were preaching doom and gloom 15-20 years ago?

ARe the oceans warming? Is the sea level rising? Are the frequency and intensity of storms increasing?

Yes and yes and yes.

It is obvious that you are fixating on what Hansen claimed and acting like that is the consensus. Read the NAS article I posted and quit fixate on your spoonfed ideology from your blogs and the like.

[Yonivore]

ARe the oceans warming?
No.

NASA: Earth’s deep oceans are not getting warmer (http://www.geek.com/science/nasa-earths-deep-oceans-are-not-getting-warmer-1606209/)


Is the sea level rising?
No.

Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html)


Are the frequency and intensity of storms increasing?
And, no.

Are Weather Extremes Getting Worse? Roger Pielke, Jr. Shares the Data with Senate Panel (http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/07/26/are-weather-extremes-getting-worse-roger-pielke-jr-shares-the-data-with-senate-panel/)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No.

NASA: Earth’s deep oceans are not getting warmer (http://www.geek.com/science/nasa-earths-deep-oceans-are-not-getting-warmer-1606209/)


No.

Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html)


And, no.

Are Weather Extremes Getting Worse? Roger Pielke, Jr. Shares the Data with Senate Panel (http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/07/26/are-weather-extremes-getting-worse-roger-pielke-jr-shares-the-data-with-senate-panel/)

blog, blog, blog.

what do confirmation bias mean?

First one says deep ocean. I said ocean. try again.

Second one is a blog that cites ONE scientist all by his self. This is typical nonsense from the denier community. Compare and contrast with the multitude of insurance and scientific experts that disagree. I guess flood insurance is impossible to come by because it's fun!

The last one seems to not understand how actuaries work and handwaves at Al Gore again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A new study by Munich Re shows that North America has been most affected by weather-related extreme events in recent decades. The publication “Severe Weather in North America” analyzes all kinds of weather perils and their trends. It reports and shows that the continent has experienced the largest increases in weather-related loss events.

For the period concerned – 1980 to 2011 – the overall loss burden from weather catastrophes was $1,060 billion (in 2011 values). The insured losses amounted to $510 billion, and some 30,000 people lost their lives due to weather catastrophes in North America during this time frame. With $62.2 billion insured losses and overall losses of $125 billion (in original values) Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was the costliest event ever recorded in the US. Katrina was also the deadliest single storm event, claiming 1,322 lives.

http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2012/10/17/215578.htm

Last guy does a nice job of cherrypicking data. The above is the insures industries aggregate.

[Yonivore]

blog, blog, blog.
Of course, none of the "peer-reviewed papers," you claim support your position on AGW, are ever discussed in blogs.


what do confirmation bias mean?
Exactly what you're doing.


First one says deep ocean. I said ocean. try again.
The article actually supported much of what you believe but, the opening paragraph exemplifies the kind of "unsettled" science you and your ilk refuse to believe exists.


New research from NASA and several civilian research partners has produced findings that will no doubt intensify the controversy over global climate change — though the researchers themselves are quick to point out that in their view, the findings do not call climate change into question. The team has found that, contrary to what many climate scientists had predicted, the world’s deep oceans have not gotten significantly warmer since 2005. That’s of particular interest because for several years the rate of increase in global surface temperature has been falling off — Earth is still getting hotter, but not as quickly as expected. Now, NASA has reopened the mystery of the missing heat, by showing that the deep oceans are not soaking up this heat; it must be going somewhere else. But where?
So, Fuzzy, did or did not "many climate scientists" predict the world's deep oceans would be significantly warmer than they were in 2005? It's a legitimate question. And, if they did and the oceans have not, in fact, gotten warmer, why not? Were the "climate scientists'" predictions wrong? Why? Inquiring minds want to know...we don't want to be told to just shut up and go with the dogma that man-made climate change is real and it's a threat to all mankind.

That's really at the center of this debate -- your side of the argument wants to silence ALL dissent and vilifies anyone who dares to propose an alternate point of view. Hell, some places are trying to criminalize dissent on the climate debate.

All I'm saying is, the science isn't settled and you should be open to reasonable debate. But, you're not.


Second one is a blog that cites ONE scientist all by his self. This is typical nonsense from the denier community. Compare and contrast with the multitude of insurance and scientific experts that disagree. I guess flood insurance is impossible to come by because it's fun!
Well, that ONE scientist happens to be one, Dr. Axel Mörner who, over the past 35 years has probably studied global sea level changes more than anyone in your distinguished list of climate scientists, as chair of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. I don't know if that's significant but, hey, it's got international in the title, just like the IPCC!

Again, his credentials aren't the most important part of the article...


One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
Is this true? Are the other assertions made by Dr. Mörner true? Are they even worthy of debate? Seems to me these are the types of assertions that would at least lead a faithful follower of the AGW religion, such as yourself, to want to counter and not just yell them down. What are the flaws in his findings?


The last one seems to not understand how actuaries work and handwaves at Al Gore again.
Well, to be fair, your crowd lauded Al Gore as a savior and climate visionary before he was shown by our side to be a baffoon who scare-mongered his way into millions in speaking fees and carbon credits.

And the charts Professor Pielke used to demonstrate extreme climate events are neither more severe nor frequent, are from sources where you can study and refute the internals, if you want to discredit them. Be advised, the first two charts, claiming weather-related losses (as a percentage of GDP) haven't risen since 1990 and catastrophic losses (as a percentage of GDP) haven't risen since 1960, are from companies chocked full of actuaries who probably do understand how actuaries work.

Also, I note how those who point to Katrina as proof of the severity of storms since Global Climate Change became "a thing" always -- ALWAYS -- fail to note that Katrina was a category 3 storm when it made landfall near New Orleans and that the vast majority of damage was not due to the storm's direct affects but due to the failure of an aging levee system that (because of good 'ol Democrat corruption) hadn't been maintained for DECADES, even though the powers that be had been warned it would fail if a major hurricane struck the New Orleans area.

Unlike the predictions of your climate scientists, those people knew what they were talking about.

[Yonivore]

Say, Fuzzy, here's a peer-reviewed article by several climate scientists who claim there is compelling evidence to show your climate scientists are wrong about something I seem to recall Manny dropping in this forum every chance he got; it also speaks to the first link in my last post about deep oceans not getting warmer...

Uncertainty in the magnitude of aerosol-cloud radiative forcing over recent decades (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062029/abstract#%2EVHp_yruleuQ%2Elinkedin)

Here's the blog from where I found the peer-reviewed paper.

The Tempering Effect of the Oceans on Global Warming (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/30/the-tempering-effect-of-the-oceans-on-global-warming/)

For us simpletons, I understand this paper is explaining that the oceans' absorb the vast majority of the heat generated by global climate change but, unlike what you claim, due to the seemingly limitless capacity of the oceans to store such heat, there has been a negligible affect on the temperature of said oceans at depth. So, like the first article of my other post said, the oceans aren't getting warmer. From what I gather, it's kind of like claiming your core temperature of 98.6 degrees changes simply because your skin feels warm from the sun.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Say, Fuzzy, here's a peer-reviewed article by several climate scientists who claim there is compelling evidence to show your climate scientists are wrong about something I seem to recall Manny dropping in this forum every chance he got; it also speaks to the first link in my last post about deep oceans not getting warmer...

Uncertainty in the magnitude of aerosol-cloud radiative forcing over recent decades (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062029/abstract#%2EVHp_yruleuQ%2Elinkedin)

Here's the blog from where I found the peer-reviewed paper.

The Tempering Effect of the Oceans on Global Warming (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/30/the-tempering-effect-of-the-oceans-on-global-warming/)

For is simpletons, I understand this paper is explaining that the oceans' absorb the vast majority of the heat generated by global climate change but, unlike what you claim, due to the seemingly limitless capacity of the oceans to store such heat, there has been a negligible affect on the temperature of said oceans at depth. So, like the first article of my other post said, the oceans aren't getting warmer. From what I gather, it's kind of like claiming your core temperature of 98.6 degrees changes simply because your skin feels warm from the sun.

That in uncertainty of one forcing which happens to not be CO2 forcing. Then your blog dickhead makes a whole bunch of assumptions about the more beneficial for his conclusion range being true and draws conclusions based off of this.

Remember how I talked about handwaving at one particular thing and aggrandizing it? You are doing it again. The WUWT blog is not peer reviewed and all that shit about the oceans applying to the rest is his assertion.

It's obvious that you are not going to believe in sea level rise despite reports out of the east and west coasts. You are willfully ignorant.

[Yonivore]

That in uncertainty of one forcing which happens to not be CO2 forcing. Then your blog dickhead makes a whole bunch of assumptions about the more beneficial for his conclusion range being true and draws conclusions based off of this.

Remember how I talked about handwaving at one particular thing and aggrandizing it? You are doing it again. The WUWT blog is not peer reviewed and all that shit about the oceans applying to the rest is his assertion.

It's obvious that you are not going to believe in sea level rise despite reports out of the east and west coasts. You are willfully ignorant.
Way to keep the tone civil, Fuzzy.

So, you're saying his assessment of the peer-reviewed paper he cited is flawed?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Way to keep the tone civil, Fuzzy.

So, you're saying his assessment of the peer-reviewed paper he cited is flawed?

I am saying that it is not peer reviewed and from an obvious sophist source. The paper in question is only one forcing and then he then tries to combine that with another peer reviewed paper regarding thermal layer energy transfer.

I do not disagree that there is uncertainty regarding aerosol forcing and energy transfer between thermal layers in the ocean. Those are what the papers in question state and nothing more.

[rogues]

:lol Yoni opening big black Jason Collins a new asshole

[Yonivore]

I am saying that it is not peer reviewed...
From the link to the paper:


This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1002/2014GL062029
So, they're lying?


I do not disagree that there is uncertainty regarding aerosol forcing and energy transfer between thermal layers in the ocean. Those are what the papers in question state and nothing more.
And that has zero affect on the IPCC's settled science on anthropogenic global climate change?

[Yonivore]

The paper in question is only one forcing and then he then tries to combine that with another peer reviewed paper regarding thermal layer energy transfer.

I do not disagree that there is uncertainty regarding aerosol forcing and energy transfer between thermal layers in the ocean. Those are what the papers in question state and nothing more.

The Abstract from the paper seems to disagree with you over the significance of this type forcing...


Aerosols and their effect on the radiative properties of clouds are one of the largest sources of uncertainty in calculations of the Earth's energy budget. Here the sensitivity of aerosol cloud-albedo effect forcing to 31 aerosol parameters is quantified. Sensitivities are compared over three periods; 1850-2008, 1978-2008 and 1998-2008. Despite declining global anthropogenic SO2 emissions during 1978-2008, a cancellation of regional positive and negative forcings leads to a near-zero global mean cloud-albedo effect forcing. In contrast to existing negative estimates, our results suggest that the aerosol cloud-albedo effect was likely positive (0.006 to 0.028 Wm-2) in the recent decade, making it harder to explain the temperature hiatus as a forced response. Proportional contributions to forcing variance from aerosol processes and natural and anthropogenic emissions are found to be period dependent. To better constrain forcing estimates, the processes that dominate uncertainty on the timescale of interest must be better understood.

[Wild Cobra]

Yoni...

I don't know why you think you can convert someone from their religious beliefs.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Abstract from the paper seems to disagree with you over the significance of this type forcing...

The hiatus not being a forced response is not saying what you think it does. They are not excluding a cyclical issue ie the earth's wobble or el nino effect. I will once again refer to the BEST analysis that attributes it to a cyclical issue ie ENSO and other cycles as opposed to specific forcings.

Once more it says nothing of CO2 forcing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From the link to the paper:


So, they're lying?


And that has zero affect on the IPCC's settled science on anthropogenic global climate change?

The University of Leeds paper is valid. What you are you citing is the link between that and the paper on the ocean which is all WUWT. And what makes you think that they do not consider aerosol forcing data? You just don't really understand what it is saying.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol you have the mouthbreathers terrence and WC backing you at least.

[Yonivore]

The hiatus not being a forced response is not saying what you think it does. They are not excluding a cyclical issue ie the earth's wobble or el nino effect. I will once again refer to the BEST analysis that attributes it to a cyclical issue ie ENSO and other cycles as opposed to specific forcings.

Once more it says nothing of CO2 forcing.
No, but what it explicitly says in its abstract is, "...making it harder to explain the temperature hiatus as a forced response." They don't differentiate between any types of forcing other than to say their findings on the "aerosol cloud abledo effect"..."made it harder [for climate scientists claiming so] to explain the temperature hiatus as a forced response." I'm guessing they wouldn't have made that a fundamental part of the abstract if climate scientists weren't claiming the temperature hiatus was a response to some forcing issue -- of some kind -- which they assert their finding now makes more problematic.

[Yonivore]

The University of Leeds paper is valid. What you are you citing is the link between that and the paper on the ocean which is all WUWT. And what makes you think that they do not consider aerosol forcing data? You just don't really understand what it is saying.
Actually, I relying completely on the abstract which seems to say it is difficult for climate scientists to claim any type of forcing can explain the temperature hiatus.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, but what it explicitly says in its abstract is, "...making it harder to explain the temperature hiatus as a forced response." They don't differentiate between any types of forcing other than to say their findings on the "aerosol cloud abledo effect"..."made it harder [for climate scientists claiming so] to explain the temperature hiatus as a forced response." I'm guessing they wouldn't have made that a fundamental part of the abstract if climate scientists weren't claiming the temperature hiatus was a response to some forcing issue -- of some kind -- which they assert their finding now makes more problematic.

And again, the BEST report subsumes all of that because they attribute it to the ENSO and two other CYCLES which are not FORCINGS.

You completely miss the point. Pointing out that aerosols contribute to global warming and do not counteract it like once believed does not posit what you want it to.

[Yonivore]

:lol you have the mouthbreathers terrence and WC backing you at least.
Actually, they're not backing me; I'm merely posting what you asked for; peer-reviewed papers by climate scientists that suggest, perhaps, the science on anthropogenic global climate change isn't settled after all.

[Yonivore]

And again, the BEST report subsumes all of that because they attribute it to the ENSO and two other CYCLES which are not FORCINGS.

You completely miss the point. Pointing out that aerosols contribute to global warming and do not counteract it like once believed does not posit what you want it to.
No, no, I get it. Now that forcing is out, the AGCC crowd has moved the goal post to the "ENSO and two CYCLES which are not FORCINGS." When last I exchanged posts with Manny, it was all about the "forcing." Now that science has made that problematic, it's all about something else.

I get it.

Fact remains, the IPCC models are not in agreement with reality.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually, they're not backing me; I'm merely posting what you asked for; peer-reviewed papers by climate scientists that suggest, perhaps, the science on anthropogenic global climate change isn't settled after all.

You have found an article that said that aerosols were a positive forcing and could not be used to describe the hiatus. I point you to the BEST:

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/examining-the-pause.pdf

That is a very good paper discussing the different ideas for the hiatus. Aerosols are only one of the discussed. What you will note is that 'man made carbon emissions are irrelevant' is not within the scientific literature despite your handwaving and wishful thinking in that direction.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, no, I get it. Now that forcing is out, the AGCC crowd has moved the goal post to the "ENSO and two CYCLES which are not FORCINGS." When last I exchanged posts with Manny, it was all about the "forcing." Now that science has made that problematic, it's all about something else.

I get it.

Fact remains, the IPCC models are not in agreement with reality.

Fact, remains that you blanket dismissal is bullshit.

There are several models used and some are more accurate than others. You are handwaving at the high end outputs and trying to paint the whole as that. Read the BEST article and the NAS article I linked and quit getting your science from shills posing as blogs. At least you stopped linking GWPC garbage.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually, they're not backing me; I'm merely posting what you asked for; peer-reviewed papers by climate scientists that suggest, perhaps, the science on anthropogenic global climate change isn't settled after all.

No you posted WUWT conclusions from those papers. You can try and sever the blog from what you are saying but the papers do not come to the same conclusion that you and WUWT no matter how much you bleat.

[Yonivore]

You have found an article that said that aerosols were a positive forcing and could not be used to describe the hiatus.
Hate to beat a dead horse but, that's not how I read the Abstract:


"...our results suggest that the aerosol cloud-albedo effect was likely positive (0.006 to 0.028 Wm-2) in the recent decade, making it harder to explain the temperature hiatus as a forced response. Proportional contributions to forcing variance from aerosol processes and natural and anthropogenic emissions are found to be period dependent. To better constrain forcing estimates, the processes that dominate uncertainty on the timescale of interest must be better understood.
They're not JUST talking about forcing brought about by aerosols but, how their findings on aerosol forcing brings the whole body of work on forcing into question.

That's how I read that.


I point you to the BEST:

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/examining-the-pause.pdf

That is a very good paper discussing the different ideas for the hiatus. Aerosols are only one of the discussed. What you will note is that 'man made carbon emissions are irrelevant' is not within the scientific literature despite your handwaving and wishful thinking in that direction.
Great, so you concede there are different ideas on what caused the hiatus...you just refuse to allow that it could be due to the fact the IPCC is wrong about anthropogenic global climate change.

[Yonivore]

Fact, remains that you blanket dismissal is bullshit.

There are several models used and some are more accurate than others. You are handwaving at the high end outputs and trying to paint the whole as that. Read the BEST article and the NAS article I linked and quit getting your science from shills posing as blogs. At least you stopped linking GWPC garbage.
Why is it bullshit? The IPCC models don't, in fact, agree with observation. That some come closer than others is true but, still the variance does not straddle the observation (as would a margin of error) but, in all cases, the model overestimates the amount of negative climate change (which, in itself is a question worth exploring -- why is a warmer planet such a bad thing?).

[Yonivore]

No you posted WUWT conclusions from those papers. You can try and sever the blog from what you are saying but the papers do not come to the same conclusion that you and WUWT no matter how much you bleat.
I'm not separating the two (it is, after all, where I found the paper) but, I have since chosen to concentrate on what the paper itself is claiming. Since you seem to have a blind bias against that blog, I've chosen not to pursue its claims but those in the paper itself.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol they

I have rising sea levels and increased storm claims from the insurance industry. I don't gaf about polar bears and again you are bitching because they don't see short term trends.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/faq-8-1-figure-1-l.png

Errata FAQ 8.1, Figure 1. Global mean near-surface temperatures over the 20th century from observations (black) and as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 different climate models driven by both natural and human-caused factors that influence climate (yellow). The mean of all these runs is also shown (thick red line). Temperature anomalies are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950 mean. Vertical grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic eruptions. (Figure adapted from Chapter 9, Figure 9.5. Refer to corresponding caption for further details.)

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-8-1-figure-1.html


Why is it bullshit? The IPCC models don't, in fact, agree with observation. That some come closer than others is true but, still the variance does not straddle the observation (as would a margin of error) but, in all cases, the model overestimates the amount of negative climate change (which, in itself is a question worth exploring -- why is a warmer planet such a bad thing?).

Same reason I said days ago. Hand wave at the highends all you like but it is obvious that they fall on the high and low end and have a degree of expected error particularly in the short term.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not separating the two (it is, after all, where I found the paper) but, I have since chosen to concentrate on what the paper itself is claiming. Since you seem to have a blind bias against that blog, I've chosen not to pursue its claims but those in the paper itself.

Again I am not denying that aerosols may be a positive forcing. Multidecadal cycles and a whole slew of other causes are presented and laid out in the BEST work.

You want me to read your shit but you apparently have no interest in what in what BEST or the National Academy of Science and the Royal Academy of Science.

What do confirmation bias mean?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hate to beat a dead horse but, that's not how I read the Abstract:


They're not JUST talking about forcing brought about by aerosols but, how their findings on aerosol forcing brings the whole body of work on forcing into question.

That's how I read that.


Great, so you concede there are different ideas on what caused the hiatus...you just refuse to allow that it could be due to the fact the IPCC is wrong about anthropogenic global climate change.

They made one declaration. That was regarding aerosol forcing. They plead ignorance regarding the short term and thus uncertainty. They are talking about multidecadal variation like I said. It gets tiring dealing with a willfully ignorant neophyte that insists on a conclusion that is not made.

[Yonivore]

Same reason I said days ago. Hand wave at the highends all you like but it is obvious that they fall on the high and low end and have a degree of expected error particularly in the short term.
Being able to fine tune 14 different climate models to track historical records isn't the same as modeling future climate behavior.

Models are "tunable" which helps to ensure they adequately model known history. That doesn't mean they will adequately forecast the future. I don't believe your climate scientists adequately understand the complexities of our climate well enough to model it. If they did the IPCC wouldn't need to use an ensemble of many models to try to forecast future warming -- they could just use the one that did it right.

I think it's very illuminating that you chose to use a graph the IPCC used to answer a question in an FAQ document but, wasn't actually a part of any IPCC report. It would be in their interest to come up with a pretty impressive example, wouldn't it?

Why don't you show me a model for surface temperatures produced in 1970, predicting surface temperatures over the next 40 years and then, lay actual observations over the top of it. That'd be more convincing than showing me a graph where the IPCC was able to tune their models to kind of, sort of, agree with observation.

If 90% of the doctors I consulted recommended that I undergo $500,000 worth of treatment in order to potentially prevent some disease that a computer model predicted I may get in 30 years I'd probably pass on their recommendation even though they have a consensus.

[Yonivore]

They made one declaration. That was regarding aerosol forcing. They plead ignorance regarding the short term and thus uncertainty. They are talking about multidecadal variation like I said. It gets tiring dealing with a willfully ignorant neophyte that insists on a conclusion that is not made.
No one is forcing you to engage me on this topic, Fuzzy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Being able to fine tune 14 different climate models to track historical records isn't the same as modeling future climate behavior.

Models are "tunable" which helps to ensure they adequately model known history. That doesn't mean they will adequately forecast the future. I don't believe your climate scientists adequately understand the complexities of our climate well enough to model it. If they did the IPCC wouldn't need to use an ensemble of many models to try to forecast future warming -- they could just use the one that did it right.

I think it's very illuminating that you chose to use a graph the IPCC used to answer a question in an FAQ document but, wasn't actually a part of any IPCC report. It would be in their interest to come up with a pretty impressive example, wouldn't it?

Why don't you show me a model for surface temperatures produced in 1970, predicting surface temperatures over the next 40 years and then, lay actual observations over the top of it. That'd be more convincing than showing me a graph where the IPCC was able to tune their models to kind of, sort of, agree with observation.

If 90% of the doctors I consulted recommended that I undergo $500,000 worth of treatment in order to potentially prevent some disease that a computer model predicted I may get in 30 years I'd probably pass on their recommendation even though they have a consensus.

You are accusing me of cherry picking when I post IPCC's answer to your accusation. You don't even argue what it says. Of course the variables chosen in a model are adjustable. These are the adjustments they used to model the climate. You are making the case that models are completely inaccurate as a blanket statement. That clearly is not the case. If you are going to complain because they choose the most accurate models to present then you are missing the entire point.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy, I read it differently too.

Making a "cloud albedo effect" more positive means more reflectivity, and less solar warming the surface. This could actually explain the hiatus, but I don't think it is the cause. I think that climatologists have the H2O feedback effect backwards. Sure, the extra water vapor holds more heat in, of which happens, but also increases the earths albedo with increased cloud cover. I think three factors contribute to the hiatus.

1) solar decreases
2) more cloud cover
3) more reflective aerosols

Now I'm open to other ideas, but the explain them rather than just linking scripture please.

Now here is a graph that suits what I think is happening:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/SORCEwith30equalization_zpsfafa1579.png

I made it using exponential charge and discharge to the heat system of the oceans based on solar TSI changes. The data I used is from SORCE and the reconstruction data at the site.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt

http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_tsi_reconstruction.jpg

[Yonivore]

You are accusing me of cherry picking when I post IPCC's answer to your accusation. You don't even argue what it says. Of course the variables chosen in a model are adjustable. These are the adjustments they used to model the climate. You are making the case that models are completely inaccurate as a blanket statement. That clearly is not the case. If you are going to complain because they choose the most accurate models to present then you are missing the entire point.
What you fail to grasp is your sources have engaged in various deceptions, over the years, that have pretty much destroyed their credibility.

The planet isn't experiencing any catastrophic global climate change due to man's activities and the general public is, thank God, finally realizing they've been flim-flammed by the IPCC and your consensus of climate scientists.

[Yonivore]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MCKD3lSJpWg/U5WbErWWtoI/AAAAAAAAUOo/SAh4_RsQmow/s1600/HistoryOfSettledScience-big-600x407.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What you fail to grasp is your sources have engaged in various deceptions, over the years, that have pretty much destroyed their credibility.

The planet isn't experiencing any catastrophic global climate change due to man's activities and the general public is, thank God, finally realizing they've been flim-flammed by the IPCC and your consensus of climate scientists.

:lol

Let me guess emails, Hansen, and Al Gore is a hypocrite so all climate science but the stuff I want to be true is false! We should discount IPCC, the National Academy, the Royal Society and BEST but go with your Exxon and Koch funded endeavors!

I have a better timeline of history. I am talking about the history of corporate propaganda. Perhaps you have heard of the tobacco lobby or the mining lobby. Tobacco and lead are safe! Acid rain is a lie! harmless too!

And it doesn't need to be armageddon for it to be wise to limit emissions. again the insurance industry has been doing a much better job in quantifying costs. It's been fun watching coastal states turn on the GOP over the issue.

[Yonivore]

:lol

Let me guess emails, Hansen, and Al Gore is a hypocrite...
It's a good start but, there's also the misrepresentation of the consensus, lying about the the polar ice caps melting, continuing the ruse that the Earth was warming after it was known it stopped in the last century, falsely connecting the frequency and severity of weather with the AGCC agenda, falsely linking AGCC to an increased incidence of asthma, the "Hockey Stick" graph (on which much of the current hysteria was based), and the persistent ruse that CO2 (a chemical necessary for life) is somehow fucking up the planet.


...so all climate science but the stuff I want to be true is false! We should discount IPCC, the National Academy, the Royal Society and BEST but go with your Exxon and Koch funded endeavors!
Actually, I don't look at the associations as much as the claims they make. You, on the other hand, discount information based simply on your prejudices against the messengers. You act as though the Consensus has no financial interest in continuing the ruse.


I have a better timeline of history. I am talking about the history of corporate propaganda. Perhaps you have heard of the tobacco lobby or the mining lobby. Tobacco and lead are safe! Acid rain is a lie! harmless too!
And, you can add Climate Alarmists to your list. They continue to conflate the effects of pollution with their Global Climate Change message - latest example:

Optimism Faces Grave Realities at Climate Talks (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/world/climate-talks.html?_r=0)


And it doesn't need to be armageddon for it to be wise to limit emissions.
And, yet, the alarmist crowd continues to become more strident in their warnings of Armageddon. Just read the article.


again the insurance industry has been doing a much better job in quantifying costs. It's been fun watching coastal states turn on the GOP over the issue.
I'm glad the destruction of our economy over something that's, at best an exaggeration, and at worst, a blatant attempt to force the redistribution of wealth, is fun for you.

[boutons_deux]

"destruction of our economy"

BigCarboon shill pussy eater spreading FUD

renewable energy now employs MORE people in Canada than tar sands fiasco

renewable energy now employs MORE people in USA than BigCoal


destruction of our economy :lol You assume people here are as fucking stupid, uninformed and ignorant as the Repug base.

[boutons_deux]

VRWC attacks!

Conservative lobby group Alec plans anti-environmental onslaught

The corporate lobbying network American Legislative Exchange Council, commonly known as Alec, is planning a new onslaught on a number of environmental protections next year when Republicans (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/republicans) take control of Congress and a number of state legislatures.

The battle lines of Alec’s newest attack on environmental and climate measures will be formally unveiled on Wednesday, when the group begins three days of meetings in Washington DC.

Alec, described by its opponents as a corporate bill mill, has suffered an exodus of tech companies from its ranks recently because of its extreme positions – especially its promotion of climate denial.

Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo and Yelp have all left Alec. Google flatly accused Alec of lying about climate change (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/google-to-cut-ties-with-rightwing-lobby-group-over-climate-change-lies), when it severed its connections with the group last September.

Despite the setbacks, Alec remains focused on pushing back government regulation and blocking efforts to fight climate change in 2015, according to documents posted on its website (http://www.alec.org/wp-content/uploads/EEA_2014_SNPS_35_Day.pdf) in preparation for Wednesday’s gathering.

On the agenda for its environment and energy task force are draft model bills that will seek to disband the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), expand offshore oil drilling, and weaken environmental protections for smog and other air pollutants, as well as roll back protections for endangered species.

The top priority appears to be rolling back the main pillar of Obama’s climate action plan: new rules to limit carbon pollution from power plants now being rolled out by the EPA.

Under the most extreme proposal, Alec would urge Congress to gut the EPA entirely, cutting its environmental protection budget by 75%, and delegating its powers to 300 state agency employees.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/02/alec-environmental-protection-agency-climate-change

There is no conspiracy on the AGW scientific side, but there is an OBVIOUS UNDENIABLE AGW-denying conspiracy on the corporate/BigCarbon side, eg, ALEC, stink tanks, etc.

Profits trump ALL human and environmental health.

[boutons_deux]

2014 Headed Toward Hottest Year On Record (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/03/3598698/2014-hottest-year-on-record/)


http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/globe_annual_ranked-2-638x503.jpg

“The provisional information for 2014 means that fourteen of the fifteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “There is no standstill in global warming.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/03/3598698/2014-hottest-year-on-record/

[boutons_deux]

A Huge Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Three Times Faster Than Previously Thought (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/03/3598719/amundsen-sea-ice-melt/)

A West Antarctic ice sheet that is roughly the size of Texas is losing the amount of ice equivalent to Mount Everest every two years, representing a melt rate that has tripled over the last decade, according to new research (http://news.agu.org/press-release/west-antarctic-melt-rate-has-tripled/) to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters on Friday.

To get their results, scientists from the University of California-Irvine and NASA analyzed more than 20 years worth of data representing what’s called the “mass balance” of glaciers in the Amundsen Sea Embayment, an ice sheet that flows into the Amundsen sea. The “mass balance” measurement takes into account the fact that glaciers gain and lose ice over time, and measures the average.

What they found was staggering: The glaciers in the Amundsen Sea Embayment are averaging a loss of 83 gigatons, or 91.5 billion U.S. tons, of ice per year — a rate that has accelerated by an average of 6.7 billion tons every year since 1992.
http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/NASA-300x259.jpg
Antarctica contains two ice sheets: the East and West Antarctic Ice Sheets. The study released this week concerns the glaciers that flow into the Amundsen Sea, an embayment below the Antarctic Peninsula in West Antarctica.

CREDIT: NASA.GOV
“The mass loss of these glaciers is increasing at an amazing rate,” said Isabella Velicogna, a co-author of a published paper explaining the findings, in a statement (http://news.uci.edu/press-releases/west-antarctic-melt-rate-has-tripled-uc-irvine-nasa/), noting uncertainty as to how the melt would eventually affect sea level rise.

Glaciers generally represent a type of land ice, meaning they impact sea level rise when they melt. But they also tend to gain back ice during the colder season, meaning it’s unclear how quickly the ice loss will be morph into sea level rise. If all the glaciers along West Antarctica’s Amundsen Sea melted, would raise sea levels (http://www.nature.com/news/crucial-west-antarctic-glaciers-are-retreating-unstoppably-1.15202) by approximately four feet.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/03/3598719/amundsen-sea-ice-melt/

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Think Progress...

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

OK, who cares if a very large ice river is flowing faster than normal. Maybe it had more precipitation than normal in past years, and gravity is why glaciers flow, especially one that exits into the ring of fire!

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL061940/abstract?campaign=%20wlytk-41855.5282060185

[Jacob1983]

So the world is going to end because of data from only a 150 year span? What about the temps and precipitation during the 1700s and earlier? What was the weather like during the crusades? Or how about during the age of the Mayans and Aztecs? Or how Romans and Greeks? Isn't it more scientific and accurate to give a prediction on the future if you include a longer time span than 150 years?

[Yonivore]

So the world is going to end because of data from only a 150 year span? What about the temps and precipitation during the 1700s and earlier? What was the weather like during the crusades? Or how about during the age of the Mayans and Aztecs? Or how Romans and Greeks? Isn't it more scientific and accurate to give a prediction on the future if you include a longer time span than 150 years?
Not necessarily but, you don't add a step or two to the scientific method just to produce the results you want to support your conclusion...

Scientific Method:

Step 1: Ask a Question
Step 2: Do Background Research
Step 3: Construct a Hypothesis
Step 4: Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Step 5: Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Step 6: Communicate Your Results

The Scientific Method for Global Coo..., Global Warm..., Global Climate Change (Who can keep up? I'll be interested to see what it's called next)

Step 1: Ask a Question.
Step 2: Do Background Research.
Step 3: Construct a Hypothesis.
Step 4: Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment.
Step 5: Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Step 6: Manipulate, Excise, Alter, and Lie About Your Data Until Your Able to Draw the Conclusion You Want.
Step 7: Communicate Your Results.
Step 8: Stifle All Criticism and Dissent by Vilifying those Who Disagree.
Step 9: Declare the Science Settled.

[Yonivore]

...

[boutons_deux]

So the world is going to end because of data from only a 150 year span? What about the temps and precipitation during the 1700s and earlier? What was the weather like during the crusades? Or how about during the age of the Mayans and Aztecs? Or how Romans and Greeks? Isn't it more scientific and accurate to give a prediction on the future if you include a longer time span than 150 years?

"world is going to end" ... shows how serious you right-wing assholes are.

due to planetary wobbling, the earth should be cooling, not dramatically warming.

150+ years just happens to be the era of the Industrial Revolution (coal burning) and enormous population growth (wood burning)

glacier, tree ring data answer the rest of your questions, not that actual DATA, rather than BigCarbon propaganda and LIES, would make any diff to your ideological AGW-denial.

[Yonivore]

"world is going to end" ... shows how serious you right-wing assholes are.
AGCC opponents just take their cues from AGCC Alarmists...


Even with a deal to stop the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists warn, the world will become increasingly unpleasant. Without a deal, they say, the world could eventually become uninhabitable for humans.
Sounds to me like they're still preaching existential doom and gloom.


due to planetary wobbling, the earth should be cooling, not dramatically warming.
So, according to the models, when is it going to start warming again?


150+ years just happens to be the era of the Industrial Revolution (coal burning) and enormous population growth (wood burning)
I agree, the time period isn't as important as the data. So, how many times during the past 150 years has the Earth's climate not cooperated with AGCC models? I mean, we're currently in a heating hiatus the AGCC crowd didn't anticipate. And, when is it going to start warming up again, boutons?


glacier, tree ring data answer the rest of your questions, not that actual DATA, rather than BigCarbon propaganda and LIES, would make any diff to your ideological AGW-denial.
Glaciers have been receding for a lot longer than 150 years and tree ring data points to periods, before the industrial age, where greenhouse gases were more abundant and temperatures were cooler. Why is is only man made CO2 that seems to matter? Are the fundamental chemicals, produced by man, somehow different than the same fundamental chemicals produced by, say, Mount Pinatubo?