One more time -- Global Warming

[smackaholic]

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"....

there is something a little fishy about this graph. actually, it is the same thing that bothers me about long range data which AGW folks like to point at frequently to support their claims.

notice how the data in this graph over the last 60 or 70 years follows a very steady cyclical pattern with just one abberation where one of the high cycles kind of sputtered out.

notice how prior to that, there were still cycles, but, they were all over the place.

why is that?

maybe the sun had a bad drinking problem up until about 70 years ago.

or maybe, just maybe, measuring devices and measuring techniques have improved a smidge. just a hunch.

same thing goes with the ozone hole. when did the ozone chicken littles start crying about the hole? they started crying about the time we aquired the capability to observe this change. i suspect, actually, i'm fairly damn certain that hole is also a function of, get this now, the activity of the fukking thing that causes it!!!!!

[Felix]

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?[/quote]

the earths temperature started to drop? Hey, wait I thought you said it had stabilized over the last ten years? But, I'm sure you have some scientific data to back up your assertion that the earths temperature has "started to drop"....and not with the "the earths temperature hasn't increased in the last ten years" horseshit....the last decade has been the hottest on record.....and if you need scientific data to back that up, I'll be happy to provide you with it....

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...

sooooo, in other words, you don't understand that graph nor what corrections NASA made to it or why those corrections were made do you? maybe you should try and find out before you start going off about conspiracies perpetuated by NASA

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.

wow, this sounds pretty ominous......so let me get this straight....if a flaw is found in a scientific study, you simply assume that it's a huge conspiracy.....again, you don't understand how science works do you?

there is something a little fishy about this graph. actually, it is the same thing that bothers me about long range data which AGW folks like to point at frequently to support their claims.

Then it should be pretty easy for to dig up something that contradicts these findings.....

I'll be standing by

[mvscal]

wow, this sounds pretty ominous......so let me get this straight....if a flaw is found in a scientific study, you simply assume that it's a huge conspiracy.....again, you don't understand how science works do you?

It is a safe assumption given that they have already been caught fraudulantly manipulating data to fit their conclusions in the past.

These people are a complete joke. They get a set of data that doesn't agree with the expected outcome and then, with a little tweak here and little adjustment there, all of sudden..."Eureka!!! This is precisely what we expected to see!!"

You've got to be a pretty dim bulb to fall for that line of bullshit over and over again.

[Dinsdale]

I'm sure you have some scientific data to back up your assertion that the earths temperature has "started to drop"

How about we just look at "Mike's Nature Trick" (because solid science involves trickery)...


"HIDE THE DECLINE!"

Why would anyone want to hide something that doesn't exist?

And that's your people.

the last decade has been the hottest on record.....and if you need scientific data to back that up, I'll be happy to provide you with it....

Isn't falsified information what got us into this mess in the first place?

Who you going to cite here?

NASA -- caught lying.

IPCC -- caught lying.

EAU -- BWA!

NOAA -- caught lying.

again, you don't understand how science works do you?

Says the guy who thinks part of "science" involves altering observed data?

[Bucmonkey]

[smackaholic]

there is something a little fishy about this graph. actually, it is the same thing that bothers me about long range data which AGW folks like to point at frequently to support their claims.

Then it should be pretty easy for to dig up something that contradicts these findings.....

I'll be standing by

no, it's not.

maybe you are missing my point which is that data gathered more than 70 years or so ago just might not have the degree of precision it is credited with. the graph posted here which is all over the fukking place prior to about the 40s is all over the place compared to the very repetitive and predictable cycles shown later.

maybe they just hadn't invented data smoothing yet back in the day?

[Dr_Phibes]

Smoothing data to examine long term trends is perfectly normal behavior. Everybody does it in all disciplines, it's invaluable

[Felix]

How about we just look at "Mike's Nature Trick" (because solid science involves trickery)...


"HIDE THE DECLINE!"

so, you havent read the study, and don't understand why corrections have been made to data....it should be easy to find scientific proof of this "altered data" shouldn't it...seriously, if it's as big a conspiracy as you imply, then certainly there's been some scientists that have evaluated NASA's numbers and have found the numbers you say have been altered....it's just not quite as easy as you seem to think, given that such reports are constantly evaluated by knowledgeable scientists...the conspiracy would have to be pretty deep to clam all those skeptics up, so it should be easy to find.....and something more substanative than "whattsup" please.....

Why would anyone want to hide something that doesn't exist?

And that's your people.

why are you saying "my people"? once again, I've got no dog in this fight....climate change won't affect me nor you one fucking iota....

Isn't falsified information what got us into this mess in the first place?

then provide your proof...not your speculation, not stories written by weathermen that wouldn't know climate change if it came up and kicked them in the nuts....real scientific documentation...provide it, let me read it, let me see if it's been peer reviewed by qualifed scientists, then we can chat....

Who you going to cite here?

NASA -- caught lying.

proof?

IPCC -- caught lying.

proof?

NOAA -- caught lying.

proof? and remember, if this conspiracy is as wide spread as you say, then there is obviously a weath of scientific articles which will expose this vast conspiracy, because as you know, there are lots of skeptics so it should be easy to find....

Says the guy who thinks part of "science" involves altering observed data?

proof?

look fucknuts, you can keep screaming conspiracy til your blue in the face but until you can produce credible scientific documentation of all this, you're just pissing in the wind....

no, it's not.

maybe you are missing my point which is that data gathered more than 70 years or so ago just might not have the degree of precision it is credited with. the graph posted here which is all over the fukking place prior to about the 40s is all over the place compared to the very repetitive and predictable cycles shown later.

maybe they just hadn't invented data smoothing yet back in the day?

so, the data they gathered from the 1850's about ground temperatures of the earth is okey, but data about solar activity "just may not be that accurate"....fuck dude, you can't have it both ways....

[poptart]

You've got to be a pretty dim bulb to fall for that line of bullshit
over and over again.

[smackaholic]

no, it's not.

maybe you are missing my point which is that data gathered more than 70 years or so ago just might not have the degree of precision it is credited with. the graph posted here which is all over the fukking place prior to about the 40s is all over the place compared to the very repetitive and predictable cycles shown later.

maybe they just hadn't invented data smoothing yet back in the day?

so, the data they gathered from the 1850's about ground temperatures of the earth is okey, but data about solar activity "just may not be that accurate"....fuck dude, you can't have it both ways....

What are you babbling about ground temps in 1850 for ? All I said was this graph looked kind of odd in that the last 70 years or so the cycles were very repetitive but before that, there was still the 11 year cycle but the yearly data was all over the map. From this I gathered that maybe, just maybe they hadn't figured out the science of climate measurement yet during this period. If that is the case, showing models that suggest a few tenths of a degree of warming need to be questioned if they quite honesty don't really know what the fukking temp was back then with that degree of accuracy.

Of course we do have some reliable historical data showing REAL fukking climate change such as established farming communities in greenland 700 years ago and a fairly decent stretch in the early 1800 when it got really, really fukking cold during the winter. Not talking a few tenths of a degree. Talking about rivers being froze fukking solid and used to transport wagons across in places where the same rivers never freeze over now.

Is any of this sinking in yet? We have recorded historical info of substantial changes in temp measured in tens of degrees and now we have weenies screaming the sky is falling because their models show we have had a shift of a few tenths of a degree over the last century even though early measurements in these models might not have the degree of precision they give them.

[Felix]

we have weenies screaming the sky is falling because their models show we have had a shift of a few tenths of a degree over the last century even though early measurements in these models might not have the degree of precision they give them.

first, you need to calm down...let me assure you once again, I'm not "screaming the sky is falling" insofar as anthropomorphic climate change is concerned....why you and your ilk always seem to resort to this sort of mischaracterization is beyond me....

secondly, it's been significantly more than a "shift of a few tenths of a degree" over the last century, and it's only going to continue....

[smackaholic]

according to that graph, even the smooved up version, it has been about a .5 C change in the last 130 years.

that's what we call tenths in these parts.

how much of a swing would we need to see to get frozen over rivers in tennessee or to make greenland actually green?

i use the tennessee river reference because while i lived in nashville, i remember reading somewhere that the original settlers, well, evil white settlers anyhoo, of the area crossed a frozen over cumberland river with their oxen drawn wagons. today, you don't get enough ice there on small ponds to safely support a person, not even a TiVO sized one. this happened sometime in the early 1800 which was the height of the little ice age.

i suppose some dweeb will come back with how the colder climate caused a warm greenland due to more vigorous ocean currents, but, sorry, i ain't buying it.

[Felix]

according to that graph, even the smooved up version, it has been about a .5 C change in the last 130 years.
that's what we call tenths in these parts.

okay....

how much of a swing would we need to see to get frozen over rivers in tennessee or to make greenland actually green?

i use the tennessee river reference because while i lived in nashville, i remember reading somewhere that the original settlers, well, evil white settlers anyhoo, of the area crossed a frozen over cumberland river with their oxen drawn wagons. today, you don't get enough ice there on small ponds to safely support a person, not even a TiVO sized one. this happened sometime in the early 1800 which was the height of the little ice age.

well, apparently not much if the tennessee river previously used to freeze over to the point where people could drive wagons over it, but no longer can....if you're making an argument that the earth isn't warming, then using this as an example, you're pretty much kicking your own ass....and there was a "little ice age" in the 1800's? I've never heard of this, so maybe you could provide something that explains this "little ice age"

i suppose some dweeb will come back with how the colder climate caused a warm greenland due to more vigorous ocean currents, but, sorry, i ain't buying it.

I've posted this video before, but I'll post it again...it's a pretty simplified examination of climate change

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54# ... 2KLGqDSAjo

Here's the second part "the objections"

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54# ... oSVoxwYrKI

[smackaholic]

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

my point is that we've had some pretty remarkable swings in temps over the last millenium and we didn't start throwing appreciable amounts of carbon into the air until the last 100 or so years.

this would kind of imply that we are kind of just along for the ride, climatologically speaking.

[smackaholic]

one more thing.

when this AGW dealio gets kicked into gear, fully, will i not have to go shovel 2+ feet of snow off the top of my RV like I been doing for the last hour?

I sure hope so.

[Dinsdale]

Hey, remember that time the Warmists "smoothed" or found a "fatal flaw" that made them "adjust" the data in a way that went away from their preconcieved models?

I don't.

[smackaholic]

Me neither, dims.

In my case, it was prolly years of listening to limbaugh that has erased it from my memory banks. You've already said you don't listen to him, so I'm gonna go ahead and blame it on too much refer.

[mvscal]

secondly, it's been significantly more than a "shift of a few tenths of a degree" over the last century, and it's only going to continue....

Except for the meddlesome fact that it isn't continuing.

[Felix]

Hey, remember that time the Warmists "smoothed" or found a "fatal flaw" that made them "adjust" the data in a way that went away from their preconcieved models?

I don't.

again, you demonstrate that you don't understand the mistakes made in the first graph and the corrections made and shown in the second graph....this is the type of thing I'd expect from a conspiracy theorist (ya know, like 9/11 truthers and the sort).....even in the face of the most compelling scientific evidence, they cling to whatever belief they've formulated based on nothing more than the ramblings of uniformed mooks.....

congrats dins....

secondly, it's been significantly more than a "shift of a few tenths of a degree" over the last century, and it's only going to continue....

Except for the meddlesome fact that it isn't continuing.

but it is....and if you want the scientific data from numerous independant resources, I'd be happy to provide it to you....jeebus dude, even the vast majority of anthopomorphic climate change skeptics admit the earth is warming...they just don't agree on humans being a significant contributory factor to this warming trend......

"it seems that your going to ignore this problem until it comes up and bites you in the ass"

[War Wagon]

I think we can all agree that Feelsdix could bore a glacier into melting.

[Felix]

I think we can all agree that Feelsdix could bore a glacier into melting.

yeah, that thinking stuff is hard......back on autopilot weebs

[Moving Sale]

You deniers crack me up.

Oil sucks and so does your feigned outrage at the people who want to shit can it.

"Eat your Broccoli"
"Why"
"Because purple veggies are good for you"
"It's green"
"STFU and eat it."

[Bizzarofelice]

global warming doesn't exist because political operatives I like sez it don't exist.