Quote :

"So now, tell me, where are all the cities creating all this heat in the Arctic circle, Greenland, Siberia, Alaska, Central Africa, The Sahara Desert, the Gobi Desert?"

The irony here being that in at least one major temperature data set, the entirety of the land above the article circle in canada is represented by one weather station. one that happens to be on the coast, IIRC, near a warm ocean current.

Quote :

"So why did a "researcher" so intent on using "raw data" throw out literally 99.9% of the data points? "

probably because it's the only raw data he could get access to. even then, looking at those points given so far, you don't see anything fishy? even if he did cherry pick them, isn't a little odd just how much of a divergence there is? of course not...

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 11:08 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2012 11:06:24 PM

Quote :

"The irony here being that in at least one major temperature data set, the entirety of the land above the article circle in canada is represented by one weather station. one that happens to be on the coast, IIRC, near a warm ocean current."

Which major temperature data set? For a second you were learning to at least cite where you get these hogwash email-forwarded rumors, keep it up.

Quote :

"probably because it's the only raw data he could get access to."

Yes, those deceptive scientists, when asked for data, provide only those 96 data points, to cover their tracks. Little did they know those 96 data points would happen to be the 0.01% of the entire data set that made their hoax obvious!

Quote :

" even then, looking at those points given so far, you don't see anything fishy? even if he did cherry pick them, isn't a little odd just how much of a divergence there is? of course not..."

No, it's not. That's the point of cherrypicking, you dumbass, to show trends that don't exist unless you cherrypick, otherwise, you wouldn't have to cherrypick!

[Edited on March 23, 2012 at 12:11 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2012 12:08:38 PM

i blame white people for this issue.

3/23/2012 2:00:06 PM

^that's the African approach. None of these developing 3rd world countries see global warming as a threat. However they see it as a way to get a handout from developed nations.

3/23/2012 2:44:26 PM

Addendum: i also blame asian, hispanic, and now developing arabic nations for this problem

african americans and specific african groups that african americans want to protect get a pass though since they didn't cause this issue.

3/23/2012 2:52:17 PM

Quote :

"^that's the African approach. None of these developing 3rd world countries see global warming as a threat. However they see it as a way to get a handout from developed nations."

Actually many 3rd world countries are already being damaged, as their already-precarious food sources are threatened by desertification, their fishing being disrupted by ocean acidity and heat circulation affecting fish populations and migrations, and deglaciation depleting water supplies. That's not even counting natural disasters that may or may not occur with greater frequency due to the changing climate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/science/earth/01climate.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/8931664/Climate-change-Third-World-reaps-a-bitter-harvest.html

http://www.news.wisc.edu/11878


Also, pack_bryan, is there ANY thread you wont take as an opportunity to trash non-white people? I'm amazed at how you can turn absolutely any topic into a white-victimization sobfest.

[Edited on March 23, 2012 at 3:42 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2012 3:39:21 PM

wait....


hahahahhahahaa

you're fucking stupid

3/24/2012 9:26:52 PM

medieval warm period

3/26/2012 9:46:17 PM

My favorite global warming was the one the wooly mammoths caused. Fucking wooly mammoths

We had a nice ice age going and you fucked it up

3/27/2012 12:16:54 AM

Wait a minute.

Am I seriously posting in a 62 page thread debating global warming on a primarily college educated message board?

lol.

3/27/2012 12:25:40 AM

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/the-little-ice-age-explained/

3/27/2012 12:45:57 AM

^^no youre just posting on a college messageboard that thought it had chased you off but sadly youve returned.

we are just waiting for you to plagiarize or stalk somebody again so we can apply the boot more harshly.

in the meantime you are ridiculed or ignored as expected.

3/27/2012 6:02:27 AM

^well said. it's unfortunate he returned

Quote :

"Actually many 3rd world countries are already being damaged, as their already-precarious food sources are threatened by desertification, their fishing being disrupted by ocean acidity and heat circulation affecting fish populations and migrations, and deglaciation depleting water supplies. That's not even counting natural disasters that may or may not occur with greater frequency due to the changing climate."

Ah yes. I suppose the Sahara desert shrinking is also being caused by humans as well. Ocean acidity is fine btw, and even if it was changing in an alarming manner overfishing is a much greater threat. But arguing about any of this is meaningless because none of it can be linked to CO2, manmade or otherwise.

[Edited on March 27, 2012 at 3:07 PM. Reason : d]

3/27/2012 3:06:15 PM

The earth also moves in an unchanging perfect circular orbit around a star that maintains a constant temperature that has not changed for millennia.

3/27/2012 3:26:21 PM

Quote :

"No, it's not. That's the point of cherrypicking, you dumbass, to show trends that don't exist unless you cherrypick, otherwise, you wouldn't have to cherrypick!"

so, you're telling me they've got 48 datapoints where they massively adjusted the temperatures up, and that doesn't bother you? not one bit?

Quote :

"Yes, those deceptive scientists, when asked for data, provide only those 96 data points,"

no, they actually don't provide any of it. I think this data probably came from the climategate emails, which is the ONLY way people have been able to get ANY raw data from the temperature data sets. but, that's just good science, right? hiding data?

3/27/2012 8:18:29 PM

moreover, it would be incredibly simple to prove just how badly cherry-picked that data was. The people in charge of the data can simply run the averages by year and post the full set. but they don't. Doesn't mean that the other guys didn't cherry pick, but I'd say it says a lot either way

3/27/2012 8:55:16 PM

^^which data set are you talking about specifically? Both of the NOAA data sets graphed on the last page (global and US historical) are free to download off the NOAA website.

3/28/2012 6:29:25 AM

Quote :

"so, you're telling me they've got 48 datapoints where they massively adjusted the temperatures up, and that doesn't bother you? not one bit?"

You have no idea what the adjustments entail or are based on, you simply have a conspiracy theory so ANY adjustment is, in your mind, part of that conspiracy. Maybe you could try actually reading a paper that isn't written by an Exxon subsidiary, but I doubt you'd understand a single fucking word of it if it was actually scientific.

And no, I'm not bothered one bit because these guys discredited themselves the instant they chose a method for paring down the data (one per State) that can't accomplish anything except create the appearance of low or no warming. There is no logical reason to choose stations based on states, and there's no logical reason to think only those data points would be available.

You obviously don't understand science or peer review, but here's how it works: When you obviously cherry pick your data in the first paragraph of your paper, everybody stops reading there. It doesn't matter what "trend" they found afterwards. If the trend's real, they should be able to find it with the whole fucking data set, right? So why didn't they? Why eliminate 99.9% of the data points?

Quote :

"no, they actually don't provide any of it. I think this data probably came from the climategate emails, which is the ONLY way people have been able to get ANY raw data from the temperature data sets. but, that's just good science, right? hiding data?"

Lmao you are so fucking clueless. The CRU dataset is completely distinct from the NOAA, and the NOAA is (as pointed out above) available online for free in its entirity: http://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/

You can find more datasets and comparison tools here: http://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/all-datasets/filter

Yet again, for the 500th time in this thread, taking 10 seconds to google "NOAA data set" would have saved you the trouble of yet again revealing how little you know about this shit and how much of your posting on the subject is seat-of-your-pants bullshitting.

I mean really, so the CRU guys STOLE the data from NOAA, not copied, that way they could hide it, but accidentally let leak out the 46 data points that, taken out of context and ignoring the other tens of thousand data points, totally puts their hoax out in the open. Seriously, what the fuck are you smoking?

Quote :

"moreover, it would be incredibly simple to prove just how badly cherry-picked that data was. The people in charge of the data can simply run the averages by year and post the full set. but they don't. Doesn't mean that the other guys didn't cherry pick, but I'd say it says a lot either way"

They do, you dipshit. They do it all the time, they post the entire data set, run the averages, and there's warming, plenty of it. They don't have to do it every single time some Exxon minion comes out with a new powerpoint presentation, there's already tons of studies done already, but you dispute every single one of them because any "adjustment" that doesn't conclude "no warming" is part of the hoax to you. Somehow, however, cutting out 99.9% of data points is not an "adjustment" in your mind.


just going to quote this again to hit home just how clueless you are

Quote :

"no, they actually don't provide any of it. I think this data probably came from the climategate emails, which is the ONLY way people have been able to get ANY raw data from the temperature data sets. but, that's just good science, right? hiding data?"

Seriously, either you are deliberately spreading misinformation or are the most gullible, ignorant person on the planet.


[Edited on March 28, 2012 at 9:55 AM. Reason : .]

3/28/2012 9:30:57 AM

Quote :

"Ah yes. I suppose the Sahara desert shrinking is also being caused by humans as well."

Nope that's been going on for a long, long time, but it's accelerated significantly since the Industrial Revolution.

Quote :

" Ocean acidity is fine btw, and even if it was changing in an alarming manner overfishing is a much greater threat."

Ocean acidity has increased 28% since pre-industrial times. It's not 'fine' as it threatens the lowest level of the ocean food chain, upon which the larger fish that we eat depend on.

Quote :

" But arguing about any of this is meaningless because none of it can be linked to CO2, manmade or otherwise."

Oh right, there's no link at all, except through extremely fucking basic chemistry.

Quote :

"The earth also moves in an unchanging perfect circular orbit"

Earth's orbit has not changed meaningfully since it was formed, except for a few asteroid collisions and some gravitational damping (insignificant). If it did, that would violate Newton's laws of motion. The fact that it's elliptical (like all stable orbits, by definition) has no bearing whatsoever on climate, not sure why you'd mention that.

Quote :

" around a star that maintains a constant temperature that has not changed for millennia."

The Sun's been cooling for over 35 years. Stop trying to blame it for the warming, the only reason you do so is because you know nothing about its state except "It changes sometimes so it's probably getting warmer because that would support my conclusion!"


[Edited on March 28, 2012 at 9:55 AM. Reason : .]

3/28/2012 9:48:00 AM

Quote :

" WASHINGTON (AP) — It's been so warm in the United States this year, especially in March, that national records weren't just broken, they were deep-fried. Temperatures in the lower 48 states were 8.6 degrees above normal for March and 6 degrees higher than average for the first three months of the year, according to calculations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That far exceeds the old records. The magnitude of how unusual the year has been in the U.S. has alarmed some meteorologists who have warned about global warming. One climate scientist said it's the weather equivalent of a baseball player on steroids, with old records obliterated. . . . In March, at least 7,775 weather stations across the nation broke daily high temperature records and another 7,517 broke records for night-time heat. Combined, that's more high temperature records broken in one month than ever before, Crouch said. "

http://news.yahoo.com/already-very-record-breaking-hot-070315035.html

[Edited on April 10, 2012 at 12:51 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2012 12:49:46 AM

Probably caused by ultraviolet radiation...

4/10/2012 10:04:29 AM

Obviously this is explained by increased solar activity.

Just go back to listening to Rush Limbaugh and forget you ever read this.

4/10/2012 10:55:18 AM

wow, that many weather stations across the globe nation

Quote :

"It's important to note that this unusual winter heat is mostly a North America phenomenon. Much of the rest of the Northern Hemisphere has been cold, said NOAA meteorologist Martin Hoerling."

global warming or north american warming? maybe i misread the thread title

4/10/2012 1:25:46 PM

Now pay attention to the questions:


I want to know "what evidence would have to occur in order to convince YOU*, personally, that global warming is real?" What would have to happen in order for you to finally say "Yes, global warming is real and it's man made"?

*"YOU" implies you reading this.


[Edited on April 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2012 3:17:50 PM

To answer your question as you wrote it? Nothing. Not a damn thing because your question is bogus. Now if you framed it correctly to state "What evidence would compel YOU* to admit that global climate change/destabilization is real and that humans are having an imbalancing, negative effect?", then it would carry viability.

4/10/2012 3:43:03 PM

for fucks sake. this isn't a trick question.

4/10/2012 4:34:34 PM

Shouldn't this be changed to Perpetual Global Climate Change Thread?

4/11/2012 12:34:35 AM

^7 you know we've already covered in depth the cause for a mild winter in the US in this thread. And notice I said US, as the rest of the world had a colder than usual winter.

4/11/2012 8:19:35 AM

Quote :

"^7 you know we've already covered in depth the cause for a mild winter in the US in this thread."

Yup, an arctic oscillation that is literally the strongest in 100 years. Nothing strange or anomalous about that

Quote :

" And notice I said US, as the rest of the world had a colder than usual winter."

Aaand gonna have to ask for a source on that one. And define "usual" first. That is, is the "usual" defined as the average over the past 10 years, the past 50, past 100, or what?

Quote :

"To answer your question as you wrote it? Nothing. Not a damn thing because your question is bogus. Now if you framed it correctly to state "What evidence would compel YOU* to admit that global climate change/destabilization is real and that humans are having an imbalancing, negative effect?", then it would carry viability."

Fine, pretend that's the question and answer it. You could have done that in your post but it's really obvious you just made this pedantic whine to avoid answering the question.

Quote :

"global warming or north american warming? maybe i misread the thread title"

Fun fact: 2011 was the 9th warmest year globally on record, and of the warmer ones 7 out of 8 were in the past 10 years.

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


[Edited on April 13, 2012 at 3:39 PM. Reason : .]

4/13/2012 3:32:30 PM

March 2012:



This year's winter:

4/13/2012 3:41:00 PM

It appears that's relative to the global annual temperature, not temperatures for those months only.

It also only compares to 1981-2010 temperatures, why do you suppose not the whole 20th century?


And please, TEK, I'm curious about you too. What would evidence would compel you to believe AGW was a serious problem?

[Edited on April 13, 2012 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .]

4/13/2012 3:52:24 PM

78 degrees outside.

Yep, icecaps are melting.

4/13/2012 4:43:30 PM

Not sure where you are, but officially the highest temperature that it's been in Raleigh today was 69 at 2:54PM. It's currently 66.

4/13/2012 4:48:34 PM

Sun is shining on my thermometer.

4/13/2012 4:53:08 PM

Short-wave radiation is not your thermometer's friend. My aunt used to try and convince us that it was 114° on her back deck. Too bad I was all of 8 at the time and hadn't learned much about weather yet.

4/13/2012 5:05:42 PM

^lol. Yeah...but its still fun to take pics of your car's temp readout after it's been sitting in a parking lot all day on a hot summer's day

Quote :

"It also only compares to 1981-2010 temperatures, why do you suppose not the whole 20th century? "

Probably because it's using satellite data...

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 10:52 AM. Reason : k]

4/16/2012 10:51:43 AM

Quote :

"Both of the NOAA data sets graphed on the last page (global and US historical) are free to download off the NOAA website."

yes. both adjusted data sets. it's like you don't know what that word means.

Quote :

"You have no idea what the adjustments entail or are based on"

Actually, I do. And I can understand the need for adjustments. But when we have abominations like Darwin Zero lurking in the data sets, where there's a stair-step adjustment of almost 3C in 50 years, it kind of seems like we ought to see the raw data for everything. You know, kind of like people have been asking, only to be stonewalled by gov't organizations that are BOUND BY LAW to release that data. But, that's obviously the hallmark of good science.

Quote :

"The CRU dataset is completely distinct from the NOAA, and the NOAA is (as pointed out above) available online for free in its entirity"

Really? I can get the raw data, pre-adjustment? I'd like to see that...

Quote :

"Fun fact: 2011 was the 9th warmest year globally on record, and of the warmer ones 7 out of 8 were in the past 10 years."

Sure. after massaging the fuck out of the numbers, and adjusting previous years down. like we know occurred. and how did they do that? Oh, right, got rid of legitimate adjustments for UHI. fuck

[Edited on April 18, 2012 at 10:33 PM. Reason : ]

4/18/2012 10:27:46 PM

come back when you have a degree in something relevant to the discussion

4/18/2012 10:30:02 PM

hey solar idiots

4/18/2012 11:22:50 PM

That's like the 500th time that chart or some chart like it has been posted in this thread. Evidence doesn't matter to conspiracy theorists.

4/19/2012 9:55:37 AM

still loving this global warming

4/19/2012 10:00:56 AM

^^^that chart is so far off...it's almost funny.

4/19/2012 1:10:36 PM

^ Do you have brain damage or something that prevents you from communicating in any way other than simple refutation?

I would like to think that posters on TSB would fit some general definition of "educated" but sometimes I wonder.

4/19/2012 1:22:17 PM

How did they track solar activity in the 1880s?

Quote :

"Solar activity refers to any natural phenomena occurring on or in the Sun, such as: Sunspots and the Solar cycle Solar flares Solar wind Coronal mass ejection Solar variation, the sum of all the periodic and aperiodic solar fluctuations; what is typically referred to when the term "solar activity" is used unqualified Space weather, the collective effect of all of the above on animate and inanimate objects in orbit and on the earth "

I call bullshit on that graph because it doesn't say what kind of solar activity nor do I believe that people in the 1800s collected this information. If they did collect information, they certainly didn't catch the amount of activity that we can catch with modern technology.

[Edited on April 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

4/19/2012 1:44:43 PM

"Total Solar Irradiance W/m²"

It fucking says it right there. Jesus.

4/19/2012 2:04:45 PM

Maybe now GeniuSxBoY can dazzle us with his keen insight on how UV rays heat the earth.

4/19/2012 2:41:18 PM

Quote :

"Maybe now GeniuSxBoY can dazzle us with his keen insight on how UV rays heat the earth."

How does pavement get hot in the summer?

4/19/2012 2:51:44 PM

Is that a joke? Do you really not understand the difference between infrared and ultraviolet?

4/19/2012 3:03:37 PM

Please, tell me the difference.

4/19/2012 3:17:18 PM

4/19/2012 3:21:53 PM