One more time -- Global Warming

[Mace]

All I know is that Idaho was once buried under a mile-thick ice sheet about 10,000 years ago and will most-likely meet the same fate again.

Well, at least no one would ever have to see that ugly blue football field again. Rack that.

[Felix]

Then again, I implore you to read this article, which... again... WAS WRITTEN BY THE GUY WHOSE DISCOVERIES AND RESEARCH THE Desciples of the Goracle HAVE BASED THEIR DISPROVEN THEORIES ON.


There's enough citations to fill a freaking library.

Dins, no offense but that is pretty much of an op-ed piece

here's a guy that breaks down Lindzen's arguments
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54# ... oSVoxwYrKI

search scientific journals with terms such as "global warming" vs. "no evidence for global warming" and see what you get......

[Goober McTuber]

Dins, no offense but that is pretty much of an op-ed piece

That would be typical of Dinsdale's "facts".

[Dinsdale]

Dins, no offense but that is pretty much of an op-ed piece.

Read the whole thing.

While it starts out as an op-ed lamentation of how things went wrong, the latter part is chock-full of all sorts of science, with detailed citations.

[mvscal]

Another day, another global warming lie bites the dust...

EurekAlert withdraws climate change paper

A study warning that the planet would warm by 2.4C by 2020, creating deadly consequences for the global food supply, is being debunked as false and impossible.

The study came from a little-known, non-profit group based in Argentina, called the Universal Ecological Fund. An embargoed copy of the study appeared on Eurekalert!, a news service operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that's followed by many journalists.

The study was picked up by a number of international news organizations Tuesday. But it appears the study's claims were erroneous.

The AAAS says that after receiving complaints that the study's conclusions were impossible, it has removed all references to the study from its website.

"EurekAlert! deeply regrets the accidental posting of an erroneous news release on 18 January 2011," the news service wrote in a notice to journalists who subscribe to the service.

Of course being caught in an outright lie only reinforces belief in the faithful. It is useful to make note of the mindset in operation here and the shameless and utter lack of credibility on the part of these charlatans.

{The study's lead author, Lilliana} Hisas said she stands by her report's findings, which have been endorsed by Nobel Prize-winning Argentine climate scientist, Osvaldo Canziani.*

She said the UEF did not intend to withdraw the report.

"We are just going to go ahead with it. I don't have a choice now," she told The Guardian.

"The scientist I have been working with checked everything and according to him it's not wrong."

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20 ... dy-110119/

* Former co-chair of working group II of the IPCC

[Felix]

Another day, another global warming lie bites the dust...

EurekAlert withdraws climate change paper

of course, a simple "endorsement" doesn't substitute for peer review, which obviously this "pronouncement" wasn't subjected to

* Former co-chair of working group II of the IPCC

so you seem to imply that people that are skeptics of human caused global warming (e.g. Lindzen) have nothing to gain from promoting their skepticism....of course, you know the sword swings both ways......skeptics would be welcomed with open arms by oil companies....so don't even try to imply there isn't the potential for scientific "skeptics" to cash in.....

they can stand over there with the "cigarettes aren't bad for you" scientists

[Felix]

'Nother slant to mvscal's story.

the story should have never been published, especially given that a number of climate scientists had pointed out the errors prior to it being published....that's why peer review is so critical in scientific research....

Canziani's spokesman said Tuesday he was ill and was unavailable for interviews.

yeah, I'll bet he was.....shooting one's credibility in the face would tend to make anyone sick

[mvscal]

so you seem to imply that people that are skeptics of human caused global warming (e.g. Lindzen) have nothing to gain from promoting their skepticism....of course, you know the sword swings both ways......skeptics would be welcomed with open arms by oil companies....so don't even try to imply there isn't the potential for scientific "skeptics" to cash in.....

The difference being that the skeptics entire livelihood is not predicated on pimping hysterical claims of doom and disaster.

[Truman]

...If L-Tard and Feeldix rooled the World (might wanna chuck some [g] tags up in this bitch)...

[Felix]

Can you refute the points he raises? Particularly that the AGW cabal has so far failed to prove the first fundamental requirement of their scientific theory, namely that the mean global temperature increase observed between 1975 and 1998 (remember, there has been no appreciable increase in global mean temperatures for the last 13 years) is historically anomalous or unusual. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/13/c ... rmalities/

there are lots of potential reasons why the temperature of the earth hasn't shown an appreciable increase over the last ten years...but that doesn't negate the fact that the earths temperature has been increasing when you look at it from a larger perspective



there are so many contributing factors that could potentially affect the earths temperature, but there aren't many scientists that don't agree that the earth is warming.....differences of opinion is in what is driving it.....

The difference being that the skeptics entire livelihood is not predicated on pimping hysterical claims of doom and disaster.

what credible scientists are screaming doom and gloom.....the hyperbole you refer to is unually instigated by well intentioned, but alarmingly misinformed non-scintific types....certainly there are a group of scientists that benefit from that kind of "gloom and doom prophesizing", but most don't...I'm certainly not....but I tend to think in the long term (you know, like what kind of a place are we going to leave our kids grandchildren) rather than the short term (lets use up every resource on the planet and leave the problems that will arise from it to later generations)

...If L-Tard and Feeldix rooled the World

so rather than offering anything of substance disputing anthropomorphic climate change, you choose to attack the messenger...go figure

[indyfrisco]

to think our influence is that great or necessarily a bad thing, gives man too much credit,.

Like the man said...

[Dinsdale]

(assuming the data is accurate).

Those People don't allow that.

Over the last decade or so... you know, the period where they claim the 10 warmest years ever occurred -- they eliminated 90% of the once-large number of reporting stations in canada (they had ~460), and replaced them with ones in major urban areas in temperate zones -- places where we do know something for fact -- that due to the heat retention of all the concrete, overnight temps stay much warmer than anywhere else -- Urban Heat Islands.

Their other cute little trick is hoping that no one notices that if Australia has a cooler-than-average summer -- they omit the data.


Yet with all the cutsie little tricks to make the graph go up, it's still going down. So what do they do? They "adjust" the observed data. For the life of me, I don't understand how this even remotely resembles "science." Here I was thinking that in "science," you propose a theory, and collect all the data you can to either support or disprove it. Here, a "goal," has been substituted for a "theory," and if the data doesn't support it -- they change it.

Despite all the manipulation, the temperature seems to be dropping at pretty decent clip -- you'd think the psuedoscientists would want to use this as a study tool to further the knowledge of how this shit really works -- instead, they just stick to the AGW's version of "Allah Akbar" -- "HIDE THE DECLINE!"

If there's no decline, why would they need to "HIDE THE DECLINE!"?

[Felix]

Here is the biggest reason I am skeptical of the hypothesis that CO2 emissions from man are driving climate change. The Earth has experienced three relatively recent ice ages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsinan_glaciation I say relatively recent, because 100,000 years is a blink of an eye in relation to the Earth's age (100,000 years is about about 0.002% of the Earth's existence, assuming the Earth is 5 billion years old). Ice covered most of North America and was at least 100 feet thick where I am clacking out this post just 10,000 years ago. The Earth's climate warmed sufficiently to melt all of that ice. It did that without any help from man pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. If all of that ice could melt naturally due to warming and without CO2 as the primary driver, why should anyone believe that accumulations of CO2 in the atmosphere today are driving any sort of climate change? How can we discern natural temperature variation, such as was necessary to melt continent sized ice sheets thousands of feet thick, from the +/- 0.4°C temperature variation shown in your graph?

Scientific minds want to know.

the earths climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time....most scientists believe the thawing of ice ages was brought about by a change in the rotational axis of the earth which started thawing the ice which in turn built up CO2, more CO2 means less of the suns reflected radiation escaping from the atmosphere....when the infrared radiation hits the atmospheric molecules, it causes them to vibrate which in turn creates heat (this is a simplified explanation of the Greenhouse effect)....more heat, more ice melting and more CO2 and so on......it's a natural process that's occured countless times on this planet.....the monkey wrench in the works is the increased output of greenhouse gasses by humans, which is melting more ice and creating more CO2 which again, traps infrared radiation, hence the temperature increases

Those People don't allow that.

fuck dins, you sound like a fucking conspiracy nutjob

[Goober McTuber]

I don’t have a firm opinion on global warming, but I definitely think we’re seeing climate changes. So I have a few questions for the deniers.

What do you say to the argument that glaciers around the world are shrinking, and the amount of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has decreased since the 1970s?

As temperatures rise, some migratory birds are spending the winter an average of 35 miles further north than they did 40 years ago. What’s up with that?

Average sea level worldwide is projected to rise up to two feet by the end of this century. This rise would eliminate approximately 10,000 square miles of land in the United States. What say you?

[LTS TRN 2]

so you seem to imply that people that are skeptics of human caused global warming (e.g. Lindzen) have nothing to gain from promoting their skepticism....of course, you know the sword swings both ways......skeptics would be welcomed with open arms by oil companies....so don't even try to imply there isn't the potential for scientific "skeptics" to cash in.....

The difference being that the skeptics entire livelihood is not predicated on pimping hysterical claims of doom and disaster.

This is classic Limpdickian inversion. You're stating the exact opposite of the actual situation and just screaming some hysterical denial mixed with personal smears.

In fact the denialists are being paid DIRECTLY by the oil companies. The so-called expert "skeptic" studies are funded by the oil companies. The entire strategy of false equivocation--i.e., "some folks say this, and some folks say that..so it's a stalemate...let's process some oil shale!"--is utterly shameless and vile.

The weather systems of our planet are in the early stages of disarray brought on by our short sighted and toxic approach to energy production. And the statistics across the board support this basic fact.

The idea that we as a species are unable to affect the planet's ecosystems is so pathetic that it doesn't warrant a response.

In fact you guys are so tediously stupid, boring, and inane that you're not worth a response.

[Goober McTuber]

In fact you guys are so tediously stupid, boring, and inane that you're not worth a response.

I wish you truly believed that sentiment, and were willing to back it up.

[Felix]

Al Gore is now pretty much considered a billionaire. In 2000, his net worth was $800,000.

That's really all that needs to be said.

what has that got to do with the science of climate change....look, if people are stupid enough to give him money, that's their problem....but I can assure you that whether Al Gore is a gazillionaire, or dead fucking broke doesn't change the facts one iota

[Dinsdale]

the earths climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time....most scientists believe the thawing of ice ages was brought about by a change in the rotational axis of the earth

Yet that same belief has nothing to do with the continued changes in the present day.

Just a little red flag?

fuck dins, you sound like a fucking conspiracy nutjob

Uhm... let's see -- altering observed data because it didn't match what models predicted... maniputalting data and excluding parts of the data input to make the models look more accurate... illegally destroying evidence that shows an agenda other than accuracy... multi-billion dollar interests facing collapse if the public gets wind of unadjusted data...


yup, sounds like the textbook definition of a "conspiracy" to me -- in fact, the whole "conspiracy" angle has been proven (sup East Anglians, and the IPCC).

I'd say "nutjob" applies to anyone who doesn't see the conspiracy.


Want the "movement" to have credibility -- stop lying -- it's that simple.

[Dinsdale]

What do you say to the argument that glaciers around the world are shrinking, and the amount of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has decreased since the 1970s?

Milankovitch cycles.

By "1970's," you mean 1979, which is when they tuned up satellite technology to measure total sea ice volume -- and since 1979, Antarctic and total global sea ice is at an "all-time" (since accurate measure, ~32 years) high...

Be hard to blame that on anything but Milankovitch cycles. And as mentioned earlier -- it ain't exactly new science -- the ground work was laid 400 freaking years ago.

[Dinsdale]

Why is it that other planets in the Solar System are experiencing similar warming and cooling trends as are being observed on Earth?

Oh no you di-uhnt!

Don't bring reallyreallyreally basic shit, and easily the most simple, logical answer into this.


You asked a lot of questions there, 88. The one you omitted, is the one none of the Cultists can ever answer...

What's the ideal temperature range for life on Earth.


If we're capable of having this huge æfect as claimed, shouldn't we be able to engineer it to fit our liking? I mean, since man's activities have such a direct æfect on observable climate, shouldn't they be able to come up with an "ideal" range, then dial it in?

[Felix]

If we're capable of having this huge æfect as claimed, shouldn't we be able to engineer it to fit our liking? I mean, since man's activities have such a direct æfect on observable climate, shouldn't they be able to come up with an "ideal" range, then dial it in?

as a species, we're clever, but we're not that clever....but any kind of effort would necessitate that every other country be on board with it, and somehow, I don't see anybody slowing India or China's growth over some greenhouse gasses

lets say, just for the sake of argument, that those falling on the proponent side of anthropomorphic climate change are right.....in a couple of hundred years, our great great great great great grandchildren will ask, why didn't they do anything about it when they had the chance.....hypothetically speaking, what would your answer be?

[Felix]

Abandoning the scientific debate, I see.

not at all....but look, here's one of the more comprehensive write-ups of what climate scientists know in a form that is easily understanable

http://royalsociety.org/Royal-Society-l ... nge-guide/
download and read the PDF

Isn't your question the same as one often used to justify a belief in the existence of God?

hardly, the build up of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is measurable and the results of more longwave radiation being trapped and heating the molecules of the atmosphere to create heat is simple physics

So anthropomorphic climate change is on par with religion. No proof needed.

stop it

Personally, I would answer the question this way. We had to make a decision based on the best information available.

the best information available is that the earth is heating up....now what the causes of that might be are what is being debated....almost every climate scientist alive acknowledges that the earth is heating, even those that are skeptics of whether man contributes significantly to that warming.....

that caused the impoverishment of billions and the needless deaths of millions when there was no compelling scientific reason to implement the radical policy changes you implemented.....hypothetically speaking, what would your answer be?

talk about fucking hyperbole.....seriously, the impoverishment of billions and the death of millions?

look, maybe the best way to address your points is for you to peruse the most common arguments brought up by skeptics, and what we know from science

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

look, other than a simple reference addressing mvscal's assertion that climate scientists are simply in it for the money, I don't typically question the motivations of scientists that fall on the other side.....but when discussions about climate change arise, they inevitably regress into ad hominem attacks on the messenger(s)

really, I have no dog in this fight because I'll be long gone by the time any of this might adversely affect the climate of the earth....I just believe in being a good steward and leaving a place in as good or better condition then how you found it....

[mvscal]

What do you say to the argument that glaciers around the world are shrinking,

Glaciers have been shrinking for the last 10,000 years, idiot. Of course the climate is changing. It is always changing. There never has and never will be any such thing as a stable climate.

Got it?

[mvscal]

hardly, the build up of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is measurable and the results of more longwave radiation being trapped and heating the molecules of the atmosphere to create heat is simple physics

So where is all this alleged heat? It isn't in the oceans.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=88520025

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/t ... cean-heat/

[smackaholic]

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

You can just hear the dissapointment in this fukkers words. He really, really WANTS to believe in GW uhhhh mean CC, but, unlike some of his colleages he has a shred of integrity and has to pass on the bad news.

Cooling is "very slight" and not anything significant.

Actually, a better way of putting it, according to this shmuck is "less rapid warming"

I'm no climatologist, but, last I checked cooling is not less rapid warming. It is cooling.

[Goober McTuber]

What do you say to the argument that glaciers around the world are shrinking,

Glaciers have been shrinking for the last 10,000 years

Really? Where is all that water going?

[Wolfman]

It was neat, but I kept bumping into these strange folks coming over from Siberia.

[Felix]

So where is all this alleged heat? It isn't in the oceans.

sure it is, but weatherman Anthony at whattsup simply chooses to ignore the facts

ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/w ... heat08.pdf

actual science....

let the ad hominem attacks on the scientists fly

[Goober McTuber]

Into the ocean. You're probably not old enough to remember the Bering land bridge.

So why are the glaciers melting? Warmer temperatures?

[Wolfman]

Glaciers once covered a large portion of the planet and they melted away without any human assistance. I'm thinking it has something to do with the sun. Could also have something to do with our solar system's movement through the galaxy.

[mvscal]

actual science....

Measurements from 3,000 temperature buoys is actual science, dumbfuck. Tweaking that data to fit your preconveived hypothesis is NOT science. It is fraud.

[Dinsdale]

ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/w ... heat08.pdf

actual science....

Seriously?

The NOAA?

Jane Lubchenco?

The laughingstock of the Oregon "scientific" community?


So, Obama promoted her to head of the NOAA, where her first tasks included reading statements about the Gulf Spill, that BP essentially prepared for her to read publicly.

You should really take at better look at the people you're citing.

There isn't a bigget toer-of-the-"party"-line than Lubchenco -- she got caught in outright lies about AGW and its æffects on marine ecosystems... just made shit up because she spent a ridiculous amount of grant money and came up with nothing... so she made it up, and got caught doing it.

[Dinsdale]

And you can bet your colon that these dicknosed fags are tweaking their results to keep the steady flow of money in their pockets, too.

Huh? What are you talking about?

Sin,

[Dinsdale]

HA! I TROLLED YOU!

When a graph goes into a nosedive, but you predicted the opposite, inverting a graph that's in a nosedive can be described as "smoothing."

Just ask Felix.

"Smoothing" that budget request right the fuck out. "Smoothing" Maurice Strong, George Soros, Goldman-Sachs, et als' cash flow right the fuck out.

[Dinsdale]

Okay - I'm going to slap a lawsuit on somebody. Don't know exactly who yet

Just have KCScott make something up for you... better listen to him, Spray, he's pre-med.

I feel like I've been treated unfairley (sic on purpose, get it? ).

I feel like you're an assface.

[Felix]

Measurements from 3,000 temperature buoys is actual science, dumbfuck. Tweaking that data to fit your preconveived hypothesis is NOT science. It is fraud.

you didn't read the scientific report I provided did you...

if you had, you'd have known that findings of this report were complied from three independent studies conducted by three independent research teams over a prolonged period of study and developed using more data than 3,000 temperature buoys......I'm pretty convinced that your so ignorant of the whole argument, you'd be stupid enough to say that because it's cold outside, that proves global warming doesn't exist.....

but don't let facts stand in the way of your continued idiocy

HA! I TROLLED YOU!

When a graph goes into a nosedive, but you predicted the opposite, inverting a graph that's in a nosedive can be described as "smoothing."

of course, you have no idea what your talking about either..your criticizing a graph that you don't even understand because you saw it on some climate change skeptics site and thought, ah, proof that climate scientists are tweaking data to fit their needs....

seriously, read the fucking science of it and get back to me

oh and maybe you could give me an explanation and provide with some scientific proof of your incredulous claims that the other planets in the solar system are warming....

[Dinsdale]

oh and maybe you could give me an explanation and provide with some scientific proof of your incredulous claims that the other planets in the solar system are warming....

Wow, you really are a good little foot soldier.

I'll give you a link:


www.yahoo.com


Jeebuz, dude, what rock have you been hiding under?

Don't take any of my or anyone else's sources -- look at the freaking pictures of the receding "icecaps" on Mars.

But like Earth's, they're growing back, too.


And as far as "not understanding a graph" -- uhm, I understand just fine -- THEY ALTERED OBSERVED DATA. I'm not sure what part of that you're failing to grasp -- although the "smoothing" bit was pretty funny.

[smackaholic]

oh and maybe you could give me an explanation and provide with some scientific proof of your incredulous claims that the other planets in the solar system are warming....

Wow, you really are a good little foot soldier.

I'll give you a link:


http://www.yahoo.com


Jeebuz, dude, what rock have you been hiding under?

Don't take any of my or anyone else's sources -- look at the freaking pictures of the receding "icecaps" on Mars.

But like Earth's, they're growing back, too.


And as far as "not understanding a graph" -- uhm, I understand just fine -- THEY ALTERED OBSERVED DATA. I'm not sure what part of that you're failing to grasp -- although the "smoothing" bit was pretty funny.

I like the smoothing bit. Shoulda used it at UConn. "Uhhh, yeah, professor, could I smooth my answers on yesterday's chem test, por favor? It appears some of my data was erroneous. Might have took another semester or two to get to double secret probation.

[Felix]

Wow, you really are a good little foot soldier.

Like I said, I'm not a climate scientist, I don't make my living from climate change, I've got no dog in this fight....my conclusions are based on the scientific data, while yours are apparently gathered from reading sites like whattsup

I'll give you a link:


http://www.yahoo.com

Jeebuz, dude, what rock have you been hiding under?

Don't take any of my or anyone else's sources -- look at the freaking pictures of the receding "icecaps" on Mars.

But like Earth's, they're growing back, too.


And as far as "not understanding a graph" -- uhm, I understand just fine -- THEY ALTERED OBSERVED DATA. I'm not sure what part of that you're failing to grasp -- although the "smoothing" bit was pretty funny.

if "the other planets in the solar system are warming" clearly it must be the sun causing the rise in temperatures – including here on Earth. of course, we have very sparse information about the atmospheric compositions of the other planets, but if indeed "the other planets in our solar system are in fact warming, then given what we know about the other planets, the only thing we could attribute it to would be solar forcing (or an increased energy output from the sun).....


but, over the last fifty years, the sun’s output has decreased slightly: it is radiating less heat.....it's pretty easy to measure the activity of the sun pretty accurately from here on Earth and from the orbiting satellites above it, so it is hard to ignore the discrepancy between the facts and the argument that the sun is causing the rise in temperatures, which to the best of our knowledge, is the only thing that could drive significant planetary wide temperature increases on other planets...

as far as this graph you've presented, I'll ask you for the second time to provide where it comes from and to explain how the "OBSERVED DATA HAS BEEN ALTERED"....

[Dinsdale]

So according to your graph, the solar irradiance started to decline... at about (the oceans and atmospere act as a buffer, there's a slight lag, and they kinda have the solar cycles somewhat figured out) the same time the earth's temp started to drop, which is oddly enough when Mars' southern cap started growing again?

Well, color me SHOCKED.

but, over the last fifty years, the sun’s output has decreased slightly: it is radiating less heat.....it's pretty easy to measure the activity of the sun pretty accurately from here on Earth and from the orbiting satellites above it, so it is hard to ignore the discrepancy between the facts and the argument that the sun is causing the rise in temperatures, which to the best of our knowledge, is the only thing that could drive significant planetary wide temperature increases on other planets...

as far as this graph you've presented, I'll ask you for the second time to provide where it comes from and to explain how the "OBSERVED DATA HAS BEEN ALTERED"....

Straight from NASA. Except people had copies of the pre-2007 graph that they published, and the one I posted is merely the two completely different set of data they published for the same time period... which in I'm sure what was just a remarkable coincedence, was just about the time James Hansen came under the gun in both the public and DC's eyes, and then remarkably discovered the "huge flaw" that required inverting the observed data.