global warming still owns.

10/15/2012 1:06:26 PM

Quote :

"Seriously burro, let's pin this down once and for all. Your position is that the warming is a hoax, right? Or do you go further, and claim the Earth's actually cooling? It's not enough to simply copy and paste every blog post that you think rebuts the imaginary liberals in your head. You need to actually have a position of your own aside from "the liberal is always wrong.""

Seriously man, simple question you don't have to do any research for. Just tell me where you stand

[ ] The Earth is cooling

[ ] The Earth is staying the same temperature

[ ] The Earth is warming, it's not man-made

[ ] The Earth is warming, it is man-made

You can only select one. Not because of some silly liberal rule I'm making up, but because literally it's impossible to believe two of these at once and remain logically consistent. So which one is it?

[Edited on October 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

10/16/2012 10:43:56 AM

Hey Shrike, notice how I said "care". Regardless of what they think, they still don't care.

Quote :

"Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it -The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures -This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996"

Never thought I'd have the MET on my side.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

10/16/2012 10:54:15 AM

Weird how that article didn't mention the 30 year pause mid-century.



It's almost as though the climate moves in cycles, even when an long-term warming is occurring?

TKE, has it occurred to you that maybe this "pause" in global warming would, under normal conditions, be a cooling rather than a neutral period?

10/16/2012 11:05:39 AM

Lol, nevermind, that Daily Mail article was "pre-bunked" before it was even published.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html

Highlights: The data cited by the Daily Mail focuses on surface air temperature, which accounts for 2.3% of all warming.



A subset of that little brown section is what the Daily Mail wrote about. The MET did not publish any such report, simply some data, which was seized upon by long-time denier David Rose, who spun by leaving out some rather important facts (Like the fact that the data was only surface air temperatures).


[Edited on October 16, 2012 at 11:16 AM. Reason : .]

10/16/2012 11:11:00 AM

They fall for it every time...

10/16/2012 1:26:31 PM

HadCrut data the Daily mail posted:


HadCrut data going way back (i think it actually goes further back than this even):


possible places where you could claim warming has halted:


[Edited on October 16, 2012 at 1:59 PM. Reason : image.derp]

10/16/2012 1:59:04 PM

Haha nice

10/16/2012 2:10:41 PM

Quote :

"TKE, has it occurred to you that maybe this "pause" in global warming would, under normal conditions, be a cooling rather than a neutral period?"

It's quite possible. It's also quite possible that it would be this way regardless of human impact. It's also quite possible that the pause was caused by humans via another avenue of change.

Another study showing that this isn't unprecedented warming:

Quote :

"The researchers conclude: “The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) in the second half of the 10th century, equaling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions.”"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/#more-72515

10/17/2012 1:06:58 PM

geez, man. what's your personal vendetta against GW? is it because you hate al gore?

10/17/2012 1:09:40 PM

The presence or lack thereof of human influence on global warming influences policy, most notably energy policy.

That's my guess at least.

10/17/2012 1:10:59 PM

perhaps later this week we can get a better response from a "professional" but here is my best guess for ^^^ that study

Take a look at the study's proxy locations (bottom figure):



Not all of the locations but quite a few are located in the North Atlantic and lower latitude of the pacific. (The study says some of the locations were eliminated because they didn't meet certain criteria and I'm not sure if that's reflected in the above figure or not, probably would have to read the paper to find out)

my understanding is that the MWP was characterized by a pumped up gulf stream (for various reasons) which made the N. Atlantic, greenland, and parts of Europe warmer than the reference period:




but see how cold the rest of the world was during that period? In contrast this is what modern day warming looks like:



Similiar warming in the N. Atlantic, but much warmer throughout the rest of the world.




[Edited on October 17, 2012 at 2:26 PM. Reason : combat grammar nazis]

10/17/2012 2:25:05 PM

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

Quote :

"The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. What is more, and as can be seen in Figure 4, globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today."

10/19/2012 10:44:55 AM

TKE, how many wattsupwiththat blog posts do we have to point out the deception or utter idiocy of before you stop citing it?

Seriously, God damn. I'm starting to understand why the peer-review process is so alien to you guys, you literally have no concept at all of credibility and what constitutes it. We point out to you over and over again how these articles you find are invariably based on tricks or deception, and you just keep posting and posting and posting and never seem to think once that maybe, just maybe, these guys have to lie so much because their position is simply wrong.

Please, never ever post again unless what you're posting doesn't appear in this list: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php and if it does, point out what's wrong with the entry in the list corresponding to it. You're just rehashing shit that's been debunked years if not decades ago.

[Edited on October 19, 2012 at 10:48 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2012 10:46:29 AM

Tonight's Frontline episode:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

10/23/2012 10:49:49 PM

^^CONSENSUS IS AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY FALLACY!!!! WHAT DO "SCIENTISTS" KNOW ANYWAY?

10/24/2012 12:58:32 PM

Interesting article forwarded to me by my company's CEO

http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/10/levis-climate-change-strategy/

Levi’s Quietly Announces Climate Change Strategy

Quote :

"Why then, if not for publicity, would an iconic American denim company even bother to publish a climate change strategy? As Chip points out in his opening message, LS&CO. faces “significant business risks, ranging from disruptions to our operations, to the availability of water, and to potential impacts to cotton supply, our core raw material.” This sounds very little like leftist hippie hyper-alarmism and more like an even-tempered, inward-facing business decision aimed at protecting the long-term interests of the company. But wait; isn’t sound corporate management generally aligned with conservative values? Ironically, the country has become so intensely blinded by political ideals that many have not recognized that the business community–which drives more than a few of the big-ticket items central to the November elections (jobs, economic prosperity, etc.)–has already moved on to the solutions piece of the climate change puzzle, while more than a third of the country continues to denounce climate science altogether. "

TL;DR Levis is committed to environmentally sustainable business practices, but not because its a marketing tool.

10/24/2012 1:50:17 PM

The globe is cooling, just admit it you liberals!

10/24/2012 6:27:58 PM

Quote :

"Seriously man, simple question you don't have to do any research for. Just tell me where you stand [ ] The Earth is cooling [ ] The Earth is staying the same temperature [ ] The Earth is warming, it's not man-made [ ] The Earth is warming, it is man-made You can only select one."

This is what we call a "false dilemma", though it is between more than just two choices. Good work on the logical fallacy.

Quote :

"that's enough right? i don't have to keep going?"

Actually, yes. You've now admitted that they are changing the temperature record. And, it just so happens, that the way they changed it makes things look even worse. Convenient, don't you think?

Quote :

""

really? You just posted another Michael Mann Fraudulent graph where they chop off the model right where we can VERIFY its results and splice on the doctored measured temperature records. It's like you don't understand what scientific fraud is

10/24/2012 11:02:22 PM

Quote :

"This is what we call a "false dilemma", though it is between more than just two choices."

There are a finite number of scenarios possible. The temperature is going up, going down, or staying the same. Human influence, no human influence.

If it's a giant hoax like you seem to think it is, then the earth isn't really warming. Select option 2. If you don't know, you could have also said "I/We don't know." instead of dodging the question and being a snarky shitbag explaining fallacies like we're third-graders.

10/25/2012 2:57:41 AM

Quote :

"This is what we call a "false dilemma", though it is between more than just two choices. Good work on the logical fallacy."

Actually it's not. It covers literally all possible positions because it's composed of mutually exclusive options that are also exhaustive.

Let's make it even simpler:


[ ] Earth is warming

[ ] Earth is cooling

[ ] Earth temp. staying the same

What is it, burro? If not one of these, what other options are there? Seriously, these graphs only have two axes, so there's no secret third dimension the temperature can go into over time.

[Edited on October 25, 2012 at 9:29 AM. Reason : .]

10/25/2012 9:25:54 AM

Quote :

"You've now admitted that they are changing the temperature record. And, it just so happens, that the way they changed it makes things look even worse. Convenient, don't you think?"

do you not read anything? blindly using temperature measurements from decades ago and concluding that the climate is actually doing just great and all of our carbon emissions are trivial is much more "convenient" than conducting meaningful reanalysis.

10/25/2012 11:55:25 AM

Quote :

"really? You just posted another Michael Mann Fraudulent graph where they chop off the model right where we can VERIFY its results and splice on the doctored measured temperature records. "

Dude, the part of the model that's chopped off is the record. That is, actually recorded temperatures. Everything before that point is estimated by proxy. Nothing before the the red line is actually recorded, it's all inferred. Is there anything clunking around inside your thick skull aside from catchphrases sans context like "Hide the decline!" and the word "Trick" ? I've already explained this to you three or four times elsewhere in this thread, but you must have brain damage or something because you keep coming back with it over and over and over again.

Mann used tree ring records to infer past temperatures for a pretty broad swathe of time both before and after the instrument temperature record began in the late 19th century. Mann's tree ring data matched the record for most until about 1961 onward, the tree rings showed a decline, not because there was actually a decline, but because the fucking instruments on the ground, air, and sea all showed the opposite of a decline. In other words, tree rings stop being useful once you get within 40 years or so of the present, because the processes that take place in those rings that make it possible to discern temperature take longer than 40 years to finalize.

It's like laying down asphalt, it takes a somewhat long period of time before it "settles" and becomes useful to drive on, and so is slightly higher/thicker until then. If you were to study all of the roads in the country to see how thick they were, you'd be similarly fooled if you tried to check asphalt that was only a half-hour old. Would you write down that roads are a few centimeters thicker than usual in the specific county you were in? No, you'd toss out the fucking data because it's patently obvious that the height was a result of it having not settled yet, and every other road in the surrounding area is thinner. This is exactly what Mann did with tree-ring data that was newer than 40 years, and that's exactly why you look like such an uninformed moron when you call him a fraud years after your talking point has been debunked.

For your conspiracy theory to correct, that there is actually a decline and Mann's data is the silver bullet to AGW, every single measurement instrument except tree ring data would have to be fundamentally flawed and incorrect. Including thermometers. Not only would all these instruments have to be wrong, they'd have to be wrong in the exact same way so they'd show the same pattern. It's exactly because ALL the other instruments DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED the tree ring data after 1961 that it was discarded. In other words, they failed to verify tree ring data past 1961.


Do you even know how many times Mann's graphs have been replicated and confirmed by others, completely unconnected groups using completely different instrument data? No, of course not, because Mann is literally the only name you know regarding climate science. Do you know that land stations, satellites measurements, and water bouy systems all show precisely the same pattern? Don't you find it at all odd that arctic sea ice extent is the lowest in the entire record, is that scientific fraud too?

Do you understand that the conspiracy you're proposing would require the quiet complicity of, literally, tens if not hundreds of thousands of technicians, students, and scientists in a vast multitude of fields, from dozens of countries?

Quote :

"It's like you don't understand what scientific fraud is"

Actually it's more like you don't understand anything regarding this subject, something you've demonstrated over and over and over again. All you know is that the liberals have got to be wrong, because they're always wrong, so you'll trust any wingnut psycho on the right who tells you they are, even after we point out over and over again how they're deceiving you.

Now answer my question

[ ] Warmer
[ ] Cooler
[ ] Same


[Edited on October 25, 2012 at 12:28 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2012 11:59:13 AM

in honor of the recent debates here is a portion of the VP debate from way back in 1988:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVZo5m5uSug&feature=player_embedded


times change . . . . . . . . I guess

10/26/2012 11:04:09 AM

11/8/2012 8:02:20 AM

Quote :

"Dude, the part of the model that's chopped off is the record."

Do you understand the difference between the recorded record and the model? Do you understand why chopping off the model where it can be verified is a bad thing? Stop and think about that for a second... You are saying "hey, trust us, the model works. it doesn't work up here, where we can actually verify it, but trust us, it works back here, where we can't verify it." Think about that...

Quote :

"Would you write down that roads are a few centimeters thicker than usual in the specific county you were in? No, you'd toss out the fucking data because it's patently obvious that the height was a result of it having not settled yet, and every other road in the surrounding area is thinner."

No, I would try to find a better proxy that could be verified along the full length of the direct recorded record. There is a reason Mann chose tree rings and bristlecones: they give a false warming signal in times of higher CO2, because both increased CO2 and increased temperature yield similar effects on tree rings. And this fact was known before Mann's study, and the IPCC even specifically requested that studies do their best to avoid them. Mann's hockey-stick generator, however, mined specifically for them.

Quote :

"For your conspiracy theory to correct, that there is actually a decline and Mann's data is the silver bullet to AGW, every single measurement instrument except tree ring data would have to be fundamentally flawed and incorrect."

Strawman. And not even a good one.

Quote :

"It's exactly because ALL the other instruments DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED the tree ring data after 1961 that it was discarded."

Actually, no. it's because his model was deeply flawed that he tried to hide the blatant evidence that it was flawed.

Quote :

"Do you even know how many times Mann's graphs have been replicated and confirmed by others, completely unconnected groups using completely different instrument data?"

And now I KNOW you know literally nothing about science. I've got a simple equation for you:


Right answer + wrong method = BAD SCIENCE.

There's a reason that your high school science teachers made you redo the experiment when you did it wrong, even if you came out with the right answer after your analysis.

Quote :

"Do you know that land stations, satellites measurements, and water bouy systems all show precisely the same pattern?"

Really? We've had all of these for thousands of years? Damn, I did not know that.

Quote :

"Now answer my question [ ] Warmer [ ] Cooler [ ] Same"

Keep posing the SAME false dilemma. I'll keep pointing out the logical fallacy.

11/8/2012 10:21:57 PM

Quote :

"And now I KNOW you know literally nothing about science. I've got a simple equation for you: Right answer + wrong method = BAD SCIENCE."

Well, I'm convinced. Nearly every climatologist in the world has the wrong methodology but aaronburro has the correct one.

11/9/2012 7:39:47 AM

Lfmao I can't even take you seriously anymore man

Warmer/Cooler/Same <- False Dilemma

Seriously dude you are the dumbest person in this thread, hands down, even TKE-TEG is able to realize when he's been proven wrong and stop. You've been harping the "Hide the decline" crap for over a year now, and still can't seem to understand why it's crap.

In either event, it's obvious you disagree that the world's getting warmer. So which is it, cooler or staying the same?


[Edited on November 9, 2012 at 9:13 AM. Reason : .]

11/9/2012 9:05:50 AM

Lots of scientist starting to revise their projections to more and more warming over the next century.

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/11/forecast-hotter-climate-models-likely-right


as the science develops, the conservative models of yester-year are starting to look more and more optimistic, so that sucks.

11/9/2012 10:39:51 AM

^Stop drinking the koolaid. Obviously all those scientists are part of huge, international plot orchestrated behind the scenes by some kind of Lex Luthor like super villain for the purpose of....pushing us toward renewable energy sources? I dunno, burro help me out here, I'm stuck

11/10/2012 12:26:15 AM

Hey! a non pay-walled paper:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

Its a pretty short read comparing the 4th IPCC to current trends ( up to 2011)

Model projections for temperature are pretty similar to actual measurements

Figure 1. Observed annual global temperature, unadjusted (pink) and adjusted for short-term variations due to solar variability, volcanoes and ENSO (red) as in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). 12-months running averages are shown as well as linear trend lines, and compared to the scenarios of the IPCC (blue range and lines from the third assessment, green from the fourth assessment report). Projections are aligned in the graph so that they start (in 1990 and 2000, respectively) on the linear trend line of the (adjusted) observational data.


Sea Level projections from the IPCC are proving to be conservative

Figure 2. Sea level measured by satellite altimeter (red with linear trend line; AVISO data from (Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales) and reconstructed from tide gauges (orange, monthly data from Church and White (2011)). Tide gauge data were aligned to give the same mean during 1993–2010 as the altimeter data. The scenarios of the IPCC are again shown in blue (third assessment) and green (fourth assessment); the former have been published starting in the year 1990 and the latter from 2000.


It will be interesting to see if these trends continue. Again, the IPCC models proving to be pretty conservative in their predictions.

[Edited on November 29, 2012 at 6:00 PM. Reason : moar graph explanators]

11/29/2012 5:58:45 PM

So about that vast global conspiracy to perpetuate the myth of global warming....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

Quote :

"Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned. The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives."

Oh right, it's actually the other side doing that.

2/14/2013 5:38:53 PM

as opposed to the billions spent every year trying to prove "man made climate change"?

2/18/2013 2:42:08 PM

I konow, it's a shame we use money for stupid things like scientific research. Science is stupid.

2/18/2013 2:57:39 PM

We've moved on from proving it. Now we're researching how bad it will be, what it's impacts will be, how to mitigate it, and how to adapt to it when it isn't mitigated.

[Edited on February 18, 2013 at 2:58 PM. Reason : ]

2/18/2013 2:57:52 PM

It's certainly more expensive to produce good, quality science with cutting edge tools . . . .


than it is to run a blog, file endless FOIA requests, and launch denialist smokescreens at every opportunity

2/18/2013 4:45:19 PM

haha. "moved on from proving it." cause they can't. lol

2/24/2013 12:26:07 AM

Can't prove what, aaronburro? We still don't know where your skepticism actually lies aside from "the opposite of whatever a liberal is saying at a given moment."

2/25/2013 11:40:26 AM

as usual, he's just trolling for attention

2/25/2013 12:21:30 PM

welp.

3/8/2013 1:05:48 PM

people who don't "believe" in this are almost as naive as the people who don't "believe" in evolution.

3/8/2013 1:16:48 PM

here we go:

New study reconstructs temperatures back 11,000+ years

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract



It agrees pretty well with Mann's old hockey stick. They also found that Temps were about as hot as they are today for about 20% of the 11,000 period, but it really puts the RATE of warming in perspective, what we are seeing is unprecedented since pretty much the advent of agriculture.

3/8/2013 1:28:08 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/world/world-climate-change/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

3/8/2013 2:33:21 PM

It all depends on perspective really. Also I don't believe this study has been peer reviewed yet, could be wrong though.

3/8/2013 3:48:48 PM

Especially if your perspective is naive. Central Greenland temperatures do not represent global mean. We are well aware that some places not only aren't warming, but are even cooling due to changes caused by global warming. Thus the name climate change.

3/8/2013 3:57:24 PM

Also GISP 2 data ends in 1855, so I'm not sure what they are representing when they say "You are Here"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337

Also, I think the study I linked to has been peer reviewed


also, LoneSnark miss interpreted the exact same ice core data in this thread here:
http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=549171&page=57

its in his link about 13 posts down



[Edited on March 8, 2013 at 4:43 PM. Reason : edit]

3/8/2013 4:31:12 PM

Quote :

"It all depends on perspective really."

Indeed. If your perspective doesn't include the last 160 years, there's practically no warming at all!

3/11/2013 9:18:34 AM

And scope, it's still averaging 68 degrees in my house with no warming trends.

3/11/2013 10:55:45 AM

And clearly nobody seems to mind that most of Marcott's sources are all marine based.

3/13/2013 11:54:33 AM

It's really this simple: I, not being a climatologist, am forced to a degree to defer to experts. I can choose the vast majority of the world's climatologists, or I can buy into the conspiracy theory that they're all lying for some nefarious but unstated purpose. I'm not saying I trust their opinion implicitly and without reservation, I'm just saying there's a credibility gap that just cannot be ignored.

3/13/2013 12:56:25 PM