PDA

View Full Version : "Human activities are changing Earth's climate"


Rohirrim
08-05-2013, 09:09 PM
The statement was released Monday by the American Geophysical Union, a more than 62,000-member-strong organization of Earth and space scientists who come from 144 countries. The non-profit traditionally renews its position statements every four years.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/scientists-declare-human-activities-are-changing-earths-climate-6C10853219

bowtown
08-06-2013, 04:58 AM
http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/23225000/ngbbs4e585e74c929e.jpg

TonyR
08-06-2013, 06:35 AM
In before one of the deniers mentions Al Gore...

Requiem
08-06-2013, 09:46 AM
IB4 Al Gore.

W*GS
08-06-2013, 09:58 AM
All 62,000 are part of the left-wing plot to take away 'Merkan freedoms, dontcha know.

Rohirrim
08-10-2013, 01:22 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fKiuNEoQZno/UNoEEt1KPmI/AAAAAAAAMGA/73okCnOUVeM/s640/244381_422734111122717_1186761778_o.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-15-2013, 10:05 AM
http://www.bartcop.com/gw-utah.jpg

Bronco Yoda
08-15-2013, 12:09 PM
http://www.southernfriedscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/TeaParty.jpg

Rigs11
08-20-2013, 12:37 PM
U.N. panel says it's more certain that humans drive global warming

Scientists are increasingly convinced that human activity is behind the increase in global temperatures since the 1950s, which has boosted sea levels and the odds of extreme storms, according to a leaked draft of an upcoming U.N. report.

"It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010," according to a summary of the draft obtained by CNN. "There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century."

That conclusion comes from the upcoming report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the fifth in a series of multiyear reports seen as a benchmark on the subject. The panel's last report, in 2007, concluded that it was 90% certain that rising temperatures were due to human activity; the new draft raises that figure to 95%.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/20/world/un-climate/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Eldorado
08-20-2013, 12:43 PM
So, we're done right? We can stop arguing about this?

Rohirrim
08-20-2013, 02:56 PM
So, we're done right? We can stop arguing about this?

Sure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/mike-huckabee-climate-change_n_3782300.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

El Minion
08-20-2013, 05:18 PM
Still the best argument the deniers can't deny

Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scien tific_papers.html)

By Phil Plait
Posted Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012, at 8:00 AM ET

I was thinking of writing a lengthy post about climate change denial being completely unscientific nonsense, but then geochemist and National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell wrote a post that is basically a slam-dunk of debunking (http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart). His premise was simple: If global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.

He looked up how many peer-reviewed scientific papers were published in professional journals about global warming, and compared the ones supporting the idea that we’re heating up compared to those that don’t. What did he find? This:

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/10/climatedenierspapers.jpg/_jcr_content/renditions/original (http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart)
The thin red wedge.
Image credit: James Lawrence Powell




Oh my. Powell looked at 13,950 articles. Out of all those reams of scientific results, how many disputed the reality of climate change?

Twenty-four. Yup. Two dozen. Out of nearly 14,000.

Now I know some people will just say that this is due to mainstream scientists suppressing controversy and all that, but let me be succinct: That’s bull. Science thrives on dissenting ideas, it grows and learns from them. If there is actual evidence to support an idea, it gets published. I can point out copious examples in my own field of astronomy where papers get published about all manners of against-the-mainstream thinking, some of which come to conclusions that, in my opinion, are clearly wrong.

So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/25/five-shots-againt-global-warming-denialism), when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/03/climate_change_deniers_write_another_fact_free_op_ ed.html), when they have to manipulate the data to support their point (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=55208), then what they’re doing isn’t science.

It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2013, 07:03 AM
Still the best argument the deniers can't deny

You are aware that the climate changes with or without us. "Proving climate change" is like proving the sky is blue.

W*GS
08-21-2013, 08:03 AM
You are aware that the climate changes with or without us. "Proving climate change" is like proving the sky is blue.

You are aware that people die with or without murder.

Therefore, it's not a problem if someone is killed by someone else.

Right?

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2013, 08:08 AM
You are aware that people die with or without murder.

Therefore, it's not a problem if someone is killed by someone else.

Right?

This is more like seeing people die every day and assuming all of them were murdered (while cashing in on grant money to say so) LOL

Bacchus
08-21-2013, 08:43 AM
http://us2.veselba.kafence.com/pix/tabeli/climate_change_is_a_hoax.jpg

http://flyinureye.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/climate-change-hoax.jpg

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/k/4/3/climate-hoax.jpg

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/OnlyObvious/ClimateChangeData/EPA_ClimateChange2012_TempsWorld_zpsb6aa548b.jpg

W*GS
08-21-2013, 08:52 AM
This is more like seeing people die every day and assuming all of them were murdered (while cashing in on grant money to say so)

Please find the nonanthropogenic causes for all the changes in the climate system we're observing.

Rohirrim
08-21-2013, 08:53 AM
You are aware that the climate changes with or without us. "Proving climate change" is like proving the sky is blue.

Here's a new word for you to go look up: Anthropogenic. I'm assuming you know what a dictionary is.

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2013, 09:01 AM
Please find the nonanthropogenic causes for all the changes in the climate system we're observing.

Please. Even the hide-the-decliners can't do that. LOL

houghtam
08-21-2013, 09:03 AM
Please. Even the hide-the-decliners can't do that. LOL

Hey guys, at least this is a better response than:

"ARRRRRGH CHARTS AND GRAPHS ARE DUMB"

LOL

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2013, 09:09 AM
Hey guys, at least this is a better response than:

"ARRRRRGH CHARTS AND GRAPHS ARE DUMB"

LOL

Not sure which is worse. That or "Ooooh, Grant Money Funded Charts! We must Obey!" :)

houghtam
08-21-2013, 09:23 AM
Not sure which is worse. That or "Ooooh, Grant Money Funded Charts! We must Obey!" :)

Yep, just like how all those liberal-funded polls were supposed to be wrong about the election.

Man, math is hard, and science is dumb.

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2013, 09:28 AM
Yep, just like how all those liberal-funded polls were supposed to be wrong about the election.

Man, math is hard, and science is dumb.

Yes, it's only the taint of oil money that influences. I forget. Blessed government money is anti-corruption fortified. :)

W*GS
08-21-2013, 10:00 AM
Please. Even the hide-the-decliners can't do that. LOL

So, the science is wrong, but you don't have evidence for your opinion, and won't bother to learn.

STFU then.

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2013, 10:09 AM
So, the science is wrong, but you don't have evidence for your opinion, and won't bother to learn.

STFU then.

That's cute, but another one of your tired logical fallacies.

It's not only like the weather. It is the weather.

"Science" (as you like to monolith it) can't predict Denver, Colorado's temperature two weeks from now. Too many variables. Not even counting the global ones.

Now that doesn't mean someone can't try to make that prediction. And technically, an honest effort at that prediction would still be "science" But in all likelihood that "science" will be wrong.

And any meteorologist worth a damn would tell you not to make plans against his 10-day forecast. Because it's an educated guess. (Like climate models)

Anyway, anyone who conflates "science" with "certainty" has zero clue what they're talking about.

Eldorado
08-21-2013, 10:28 AM
That's cute, but another one of your tired logical fallacies.

It's not only like the weather. It is the weather.

"Science" (as you like to monolith it) can't predict Denver, Colorado's temperature two weeks from now. Too many variables. Not even counting the global ones.

Now that doesn't mean someone can't try to make that prediction. And technically, an honest effort at that prediction would still be "science" But in all likelihood that "science" will be wrong.

And any meteorologist worth a damn would tell you not to make plans against his 10-day forecast. Because it's an educated guess. (Like climate models)

Anyway, anyone who conflates "science" with "certainty" has zero clue what they're talking about.

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

W*GS
08-21-2013, 10:33 AM
That's cute, but another one of your tired logical fallacies.

It's not only like the weather. It is the weather.

"Science" (as you like to monolith it) can't predict Denver, Colorado's temperature two weeks from now. Too many variables. Not even counting the global ones.

Now that doesn't mean someone can't try to make that prediction. And technically, an honest effort at that prediction would still be "science" But in all likelihood that "science" will be wrong.

I'll bet that 100 years from now, on 1 July 2113, it will be colder at the South Pole than it will be in Denver.

Now you know the difference between weather and climate.

That you stumbled over something so trivial and basic tells me my "STFU" was correct.

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2013, 10:47 AM
I'll bet that 100 years from now, on 1 July 2113, it will be colder at the South Pole than it will be in Denver.

Now you know the difference between weather and climate.

The main difference is a 'scientist' knows he'll soon be held to account for the predictions he makes about next Friday. So he's motivated to be a little more honest about his level of certainty :)

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2013, 10:50 AM
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Herp. Derp.

houghtam
08-21-2013, 10:57 AM
The main difference is a 'scientist' knows he'll soon be held to account for the predictions he makes about next Friday. So he's motivated to be a little more honest about his level of certainty :)

Wait, what? That's the main difference between weather and climate? God, I hope you're joking.

Just to be sure, lets ask outright...do you know the difference?

Eldorado
08-21-2013, 10:57 AM
The main difference is a 'scientist' knows he'll soon be held to account for the predictions he makes about next Friday. So he's motivated to be a little more honest about his level of certainty :)

Your attacks on peer reviewed scientific literature are incredibly obtuse and lacking in any substance whatsoever.

houghtam
08-21-2013, 11:15 AM
I hope Beavis never has to help his kids with their 5th grade science homework.

"Dad, what's the difference between weather and climate?"

"Well son, it all goes back to the scientists..."

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2013, 11:32 AM
I hope Beavis never has to help his kids with their 5th grade science homework.

"Dad, what's the difference between weather and climate?"

"Well son, it all goes back to the scientists..."

I think what I was highlighting was the difference between real science and politics hiding under a thin sciency veneer.

W*GS
08-21-2013, 12:21 PM
The main difference is a 'scientist' knows he'll soon be held to account for the predictions he makes about next Friday. So he's motivated to be a little more honest about his level of certainty :)

I'm very certain than on 1 July 2113, it will be colder at the South Pole than in Denver.

I'm willing to reconsider my extremely high certainty if you have evidence that could lead to Denver being colder than the South Pole on that date.

W*GS
08-21-2013, 12:30 PM
I think what I was highlighting was the difference between real science and politics hiding under a thin sciency veneer.

So, all of climate science is really politics?

What about Fourier? Tyndall? Arrhenius? Callendar? All of them are frauds?

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2013, 12:40 PM
So, all of climate science is really politics?

What about Fourier? Tyndall? Arrhenius? Callendar? All of them are frauds?

The study is science (or can be). The constant idol worship of "Consensus" is not. Name any other scientific pursuit in history where the lash of "Consensus" has been so fervently whipped.

It's science's equivalent of "You're With us or You're against us." And it serves no purpose other than promoting group think, and protecting turf.

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2013, 12:42 PM
I'm very certain than on 1 July 2113, it will be colder at the South Pole than in Denver.

I'm willing to reconsider my extremely high certainty if you have evidence that could lead to Denver being colder than the South Pole on that date.

Tell me what the temperature will be for the Ravens opener in a couple weeks. Then I'll be impressed.

If you say it'll be crappy, I'll just go ahead and sell my tickets and stay home. Because Science. LOL

houghtam
08-21-2013, 01:00 PM
Still completely clueless, I see.

There's a reason for consensus...the data pretty much speaks for itself. "Consensus" is the result of the research.

In other words, the scientific community doesn't come up with a result, then try to justify it. I can understand that you, in your desperate search for scandal after scandal, would think that it's common practice to come up with the answer to a question before doing the research to confirm it, but that's just not how the scientific community operates.

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2013, 01:09 PM
Still completely clueless, I see.

There's a reason for consensus...the data pretty much speaks for itself. "Consensus" is the result of the research.

In other words, the scientific community doesn't come up with a result, then try to justify it. I can understand that you, in your desperate search for scandal after scandal, would think that it's common practice to come up with the answer to a question before doing the research to confirm it, but that's just not how the scientific community operates.

Hate to break this to team Naive, but a guy who's entire livelihood rests on studying the 'threat' posed by AGW is going to start off with a preconception that there's a valid reason for the time and energy spent. "Nothing to see here" doesn't pay the bills.

Put another way, if you believe oil-funded research is automatically suspect because of motive, by definition, you have to assume the same of AGW-advocacy funded research.

houghtam
08-21-2013, 01:24 PM
Hate to break this to team Naive, but a guy who's entire livelihood rests on studying the 'threat' posed by AGW is going to start off with a preconception that there's a valid reason for the time and energy spent. "Nothing to see here" doesn't pay the bills.

Put another way, if you believe oil-funded research is automatically suspect because of motive, by definition, you have to assume the same of AGW-advocacy funded research.

Please just stop.

Yes, let's just eliminate all scientific research, because the money always has to come from somewhere, and so therefore it's always going to be suspect.

Let's add the War on Science to the list of reasons why conservatives are in the process of fading into obscurity.

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2013, 02:21 PM
Please just stop.

Yes, let's just eliminate all scientific research, because the money always has to come from somewhere, and so therefore it's always going to be suspect.

Let's add the War on Science to the list of reasons why conservatives are in the process of fading into obscurity.

Nobody said stop research. The key is to let a hypothesis percolate for a reasonable amount of time. Measure projection against actual result. That takes time. And thus far, the longer the evaluation goes, the more questionable the alarmist projections have become. In a normal (non-advocacy) atmosphere, that sends scientists back to the drawing board. In this pseudoscientific public debate though, it just causes the faithful to become more shrill, even as temperatures flatten.

That's not the environment for effective dosomethingism. At least not if you want to credibly slap the name "science" on it.

Rigs11
08-21-2013, 02:29 PM
Nobody said stop research. The key is to let a hypothesis percolate for a reasonable amount of time. Measure projection against actual result. That takes time. And thus far, the longer the evaluation goes, the more questionable the alarmist projections have become. In a normal (non-advocacy) atmosphere, that sends scientists back to the drawing board. In this pseudoscientific public debate though, it just causes the faithful to become more shrill, even as temperatures flatten.

That's not the environment for effective dosomethingism. At least not if you want to credibly slap the name "science" on it.

So, do nothing at all until you have a completley concrete answer? Ha!Gotta love this coming from a rightie. Did you support the iraq war by any chance?

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2013, 02:48 PM
So, do nothing at all until you have a completley concrete answer? Ha!Gotta love this coming from a rightie. Did you support the iraq war by any chance?

Of course I did at first. At least until I found out that the "Consensus" that led us down that path was all effed up.

Funny you didn't see the irony in that before you posted it.

houghtam
08-21-2013, 04:05 PM
Nobody said stop research. The key is to let a hypothesis percolate for a reasonable amount of time. Measure projection against actual result. That takes time. And thus far, the longer the evaluation goes, the more questionable the alarmist projections have become. In a normal (non-advocacy) atmosphere, that sends scientists back to the drawing board. In this pseudoscientific public debate though, it just causes the faithful to become more shrill, even as temperatures flatten.

That's not the environment for effective dosomethingism. At least not if you want to credibly slap the name "science" on it.

That is simply and absolutely not true. In fact, the longer scholarship works on this problem, the more they are confirming this. That is why you are seeing such staggering numbers in the science community coming out saying these things. That is the reason for the consensus, not your feeble attempt at discrediting people who know more than you. "Pseudoscience" is a word that should not be in the vocabulary of someone who doesn't know something as simple as the difference between climate and weather.

In addition, lets just throw some **** at the wall and pretend humans aren't a major contributing cause of global warming. Doesn't change the fact that climate change is happening, and it doesn't change the fact that we are going to need to do something to adapt. Do you see any conservative plan for addressing this? Of course not, because it would mean more of their precious tax dollars being spent. Hell, we have stuff like our tens of thousands of bridges that are collapsing, things that are happening right now that you can go physically see.

No, they poo poo the studies and say things like "it's not so bad", just like you've been doing about the oil spills, despite evidence to the contrary.

If it costs money, unless it means they get to kill some brown people, conservatives just can't bring themselves to understand or support even the simplest of scientific issues. This goes from evolution to climate change, and from public polling to healthcare.

"Math is hard and science is dumb" is the credo of conservatives most everywhere nowadays.

W*GS
08-22-2013, 08:18 AM
The study is science (or can be). The constant idol worship of "Consensus" is not. Name any other scientific pursuit in history where the lash of "Consensus" has been so fervently whipped.

It's science's equivalent of "You're With us or You're against us." And it serves no purpose other than promoting group think, and protecting turf.

The reason we know AGW is happening and it's because of us isn't because there's a consensus.

That's a strawman.

The consensus has arisen because the observations verify the theory.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 08:35 AM
The reason we know AGW is happening and it's because of us isn't because there's a consensus.

That's a strawman.

The consensus has arisen because the observations verify the theory.

If consensus had grown so organically, there'd be no need for the politicos to brow beat with it so often. Logically, it looks more like a symptom of a bigger problem.

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

All the signs of Type 3 are there:

Type III: Pressures toward uniformity
Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty"
Mind guards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 09:01 AM
"Math is hard and science is dumb" is the credo of conservatives most everywhere nowadays.

Hey, at least I'm not the one who thinks mankind is "the" cause of global warming. BTW, the Woolly Mammoth would like a word with you. :)

houghtam
08-22-2013, 09:04 AM
Hey, at least I'm not the one who thinks mankind is "the" cause of global warming. BTW, the Woolly Mammoth would like a word with you. :)

Uhh

Here, let me change it.

I had to let it percolate a little bit before I could alter it.

What a rube.

houghtam
08-22-2013, 09:09 AM
How's the climate outside in your neck of the woods today, Beavis?

Hilarious!

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 09:10 AM
Uhh

Here, let me change it.

I had to let it percolate a little bit before I could alter it.

What a rube.

Hey, you live around the Great Lakes. Do you know when many scientists (the normal non-celebrity seeking kind) think those formed?

Rohirrim
08-22-2013, 09:13 AM
We also have a "groupthink" about gravity. :spit:

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 09:22 AM
We also have a "groupthink" about gravity. :spit:

Really? Show me the Intergovernmental Panel "consensus" paper on what causes it. :)

houghtam
08-22-2013, 09:22 AM
Hey, you live around the Great Lakes. Do you know when many scientists (the normal non-celebrity seeking kind) think those formed?

Depends on how you define "scientists".

I'm sure the ones you listen to would say about 6,000 years ago.

houghtam
08-22-2013, 09:27 AM
Stop trying to change the subject, Beavis.

You are going to sit here and listen to all the hilarious things we have to say about you and your idiotic stances until we say you can leave.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 09:34 AM
Depends on how you define "scientists".

I'm sure the ones you listen to would say about 6,000 years ago.

Close, but thanks for underscoring my point. Drastic, Drastic global climate changes. Christ was born 2,000 years ago. The first known organized civilizations maybe only 8.000 years before that.

At the same time, glaciers were retreating from vast swaths of North America. Before which those huge bodies of water (the Great Lakes) didn't even exist.

Would you see the return of that cataclysmic 'natural' condition as logically preferable to a degree or two of manmade warming?

W*GS
08-22-2013, 09:47 AM
If consensus had grown so organically, there'd be no need for the politicos to brow beat with it so often.

You're blaming the science community for the politicos' actions?

Do you whack M.D.'s for having a consensus regarding cigarettes and cancer every time a politician wants taxes on tobacco raised?

houghtam
08-22-2013, 09:50 AM
You're blaming the science community for the politicos' actions?

Do you whack M.D.'s for having a consensus regarding cigarettes and cancer every time a politician wants taxes on tobacco raised?

That was all a hoax too. They didn't let the data percolate long enough.

W*GS
08-22-2013, 09:52 AM
Hey, at least I'm not the one who thinks mankind is "the" cause of global warming.

We are the dominant cause of the changes in the climate system which we have observed.

Doesn't mean we're "the" cause - which isn't what the science says anyway.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 10:00 AM
You're blaming the science community for the politicos' actions?

Do you whack M.D.'s for having a consensus regarding cigarettes and cancer every time a politician wants taxes on tobacco raised?

I blame scientists when they spill over into activism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/science/james-e-hansen-retiring-from-nasa-to-fight-global-warming.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Which is the rule of thumb within the Big-AGW industry. :)

W*GS
08-22-2013, 10:24 AM
I blame scientists when they spill over into activism.

So, your beef is with Hansen.

Should scientists talk about anything other than their science, and keep their comments strictly technical and related only to their science?

Since when does being a scientist preclude being a citizen too?

Sounds to me like you think climate scientists should just shut up.

They do that, and AGW goes away, eh?

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 10:50 AM
http://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

Yet this "Grandfather of Climate Science" hack somehow maintained a job 'studying' global climate for the 35 years since. LOL

W*GS
08-22-2013, 10:56 AM
Yet this "Grandfather of Climate Science" hack somehow maintained a job 'studying' global climate for the 35 years since. LOL

Yeah, yeah. Hansen is no "hack".

You just want scientists to STFU. You're wrong. As usual.

Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-West-Side-Highway.htm)

James Hansen made his statement in response to a question by Bob Reiss, a journalist and author, in 1988. He did not predict that the West Side Highway would be underwater in 20 years.

Bob Reiss reports the conversation as follows:

"When I interviewe­­d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptio­­n in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm."
James Hansen reports the conversation as follows:

"Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount."
The book The Coming Storm and the salon.com article are different. In The Coming Storm the question includes the conditions of doubled CO2 and 40 years, while the salon.com article which is quoted by skeptics does not mention doubled CO2, and involves only 20 years.

To understand the discrepancy between these two published accounts, it helps to look at the timeline of events. The original conversation was in 1988. Ten years later, referring to his notes, Bob Reiss recounted the conversation in his book The Coming Storm. James Hansen confirmed the conversation and said he would not change a thing he said. After the book was published, Bob Reiss was talking to a journalist at salon.com about it. As he puts it,

"although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years.”

We can check back in 2028, the 40 year mark, and also when and if we reach 560 ppm CO2 (a doubling from pre-industrial levels). In the meantime, we can stop using this conversation from 1988 as a reason to be skeptical about the human origins of global warming.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 11:03 AM
Yeah, yeah. Hansen is no "hack".

You just want scientists to STFU. You're wrong. As usual.

Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-West-Side-Highway.htm)

So your argument is that his cataclysmic ocean rise is still coming over the next 15 years, with pretty much zero indication at this point that that's even a reasonable possibility.

Anyway, I'm glad you'll still defend Hansen in the face of this ridiculousness. It fully establishes that this is Dogma. Not science.

Rohirrim
08-22-2013, 11:04 AM
100 years from now, Phoenix will be a ghost town.

W*GS
08-22-2013, 11:08 AM
So your argument is that his cataclysmic ocean rise is still coming over the next 15 years, with pretty much zero indication at this point that that's even a reasonable possibility.

When CO2 has reached 560 ppm (double the pre-industrial 280 ppm, assuming we do nothing to mitigate it's rise), Hansen's prediction may well come true. Don't fall for the skeptic BS that if his timing is wrong, he's just plain wrong.

We're at 400ppm now - which hasn't occurred in at least 800,000 years. That's before our existence as a species.

Anyway, I'm glad you'll still defend Hansen in the face of this ridiculousness. It fully establishes that this is Dogma. Not science.

You don't know enough of the science to make any claim regarding it.

W*GS
08-22-2013, 11:11 AM
Here's the West Side highway during Sandy:

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/_8yrL7i05e7creU51FIAUQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTQyMTtweG9mZj01MDtweW 9mZj0wO3E9ODU7dz03NDk-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/971fbb4694896b1e1f0f6a706700c4c7.jpg
This photo provided by Dylan Patrick shows flooding along the Westside Highway near the USS Intrepid as Sandy moves through the area Monday, Oct. 29, 2012 in New York. Much of New York was plunged into darkness Monday by a superstorm that overflowed the city's historic waterfront, flooded the financial district and subway tunnels and cut power to nearly a million people. (AP Photo/Dylan Patrick) MANDATORY CREDIT: DYLAN PATRICK

El Minion
08-22-2013, 11:45 AM
Yeah, yeah. Hansen is no "hack".

You just want scientists to STFU. You're wrong. As usual.

Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-West-Side-Highway.htm)

This is the problem with arguing with the irrational and conspiracy "theorists", the experts have to be right 100% of the time, but any single error results in nullifying the entire body of work and to their scientific discredit. While the irrational and conspiracy "theorists" can wrong 99.99% of the time because that one time, by chance, they are correct it justifies their belief system. E.g. it is snowing somewhere during the summer, hence no global warming. Or all the thousands of scientists dependent on government funding for studying the earth sciences are in a scientific conspiracy to continue the lie to keep their jobs. Somehow this would also include foreign scientist as well :kiddingme. By this logic there is no cancer and all those cancer researchers are just in it for the government funding.

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs46/i/2009/191/d/3/The_Stupid__It_Burns_by_Plognark.png

houghtam
08-22-2013, 11:52 AM
This is the problem with arguing with the irrational and conspiracy "theorists", the experts have to be right 100% of the time, but any single error results in nullifying the entire body of work and to their scientific discredit. While the irrational and conspiracy "theorists" can wrong 99.99% of the time because that one time, by chance, they are correct it justifies their belief system. E.g. it is snowing somewhere during the summer, hence no global warming. Or all the thousands of scientists dependent on government funding for studying the earth sciences are in a scientific conspiracy to continue the lie to keep their jobs. Somehow this would also include foreign scientist as well :kiddingme. By this logic there is no cancer and all those cancer researchers are just in it for the government funding.

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs46/i/2009/191/d/3/The_Stupid__It_Burns_by_Plognark.png

Where's the Like button?

Rohirrim
08-22-2013, 11:53 AM
If you own property in the SW, sell it. Now.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 12:14 PM
Wow. A single weather event can fulfill long term climate predictions. Water wuz High in a Hurricane! Global Warmins! Global Warmins!

In that case...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/27/new-york-gets-record-amount-of-snow_n_814869.html

NY Gets Record Amount Of Snow In January

Global Warmins Cancelled I guess. Wagsy's the dean of the Burgundy-Fantana Academy of Science. LOL

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSO5GyGq_GpN0IIrBgr763HbF32omJUQ WPgFFfwnhFlIXvWL_8z

houghtam
08-22-2013, 12:23 PM
Wow. A single weather event can fulfill long term climate predictions. Water wuz High in a Hurricane! Global Warmins! Global Warmins!

In that case...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/27/new-york-gets-record-amount-of-snow_n_814869.html

NY Gets Record Amount Of Snow In January

Global Warmins Cancelled I guess. Wagsy's the dean of the Burgundy-Fantana Academy of Science. LOL

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSO5GyGq_GpN0IIrBgr763HbF32omJUQ WPgFFfwnhFlIXvWL_8z

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3899065&postcount=67

Which are you, irrational or a conspiracy theorist?

Personally I think the board has let the data percolate enough, and we've come to the consensus that you're a dumbass.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 12:34 PM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3899065&postcount=67

Which are you, irrational or a conspiracy theorist?

Personally I think the board has let the data percolate enough, and we've come to the consensus that you're a dumbass.

Hey, can anyone show me the decade long flat spot in old Hockey Stick Hansen's model prediction? I tried to find it, but it's hard to see. LOL

http://www.dailytech.com/Warming+Evangelist+Hansen+Retires+Researchers+Advi se+Panic+Despite+Flat+Temps/article30322.htm

A good read on the state of the whole debate. But it's probably pointless. Hard to debate the Church, after all.

W*GS
08-22-2013, 01:27 PM
Wow. A single weather event can fulfill long term climate predictions. Water wuz High in a Hurricane! Global Warmins! Global Warmins!

Nope. But without the 1 foot rise in sea level that's already taken place because of AGW, Sandy's impacts may have been considerably less.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 01:59 PM
Nope. But without the 1 foot rise in sea level that's already taken place because of AGW, Sandy's impacts may have been considerably less.

Really? A foot in rise since 1988?

Assume 2mm a year, which is close to the IPCC's number, I think. Doesn't get you anywhere near a foot.

W*GS
08-22-2013, 01:59 PM
Hey, can anyone show me the decade long flat spot in old Hockey Stick Hansen's model prediction?

Hansen didn't work on the "hockey stick". That was Michael Mann.

http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif
The data (green) are the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomaly datasets from January 1970 through November 2012, with linear trends for the short time periods Jan 1970 to Oct 1977, Apr 1977 to Dec 1986, Sep 1987 to Nov 1996, Jun 1997 to Dec 2002, and Nov 2002 to Nov 2012 (blue), and also showing the far more reliable linear trend for the full time period (red).

and speaking of hockey sticks...

http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/bau_future_warming_med.jpg
This graph shows that even at the lowest range of climate sensitivity, future global warming will take us well beyond any temperature experienced during civilised human history. The blue line represents reconstructed temperature (Marcott et al. 2013). The red line represents measured and projected global surface temperature (Meinshausen et al. 2011). The red dots show the projected warming in the year 2100 for three different climate sensitivities (high sensitivity 4.5°C, most likely sensitivity 3°C, low sensitivity 1.5°C). H/T to Joe Romm and Michael Tobis whose work inspired this graph.

W*GS
08-22-2013, 02:04 PM
Really? A foot in rise since 1988?

No. 1 foot since ~1850.

houghtam
08-22-2013, 02:06 PM
Hansen didn't work on the "hockey stick". That was Michael Mann.

http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif
The data (green) are the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomaly datasets from January 1970 through November 2012, with linear trends for the short time periods Jan 1970 to Oct 1977, Apr 1977 to Dec 1986, Sep 1987 to Nov 1996, Jun 1997 to Dec 2002, and Nov 2002 to Nov 2012 (blue), and also showing the far more reliable linear trend for the full time period (red).

and speaking of hockey sticks...

http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/bau_future_warming_med.jpg
This graph shows that even at the lowest range of climate sensitivity, future global warming will take us well beyond any temperature experienced during civilised human history. The blue line represents reconstructed temperature (Marcott et al. 2013). The red line represents measured and projected global surface temperature (Meinshausen et al. 2011). The red dots show the projected warming in the year 2100 for three different climate sensitivities (high sensitivity 4.5°C, most likely sensitivity 3°C, low sensitivity 1.5°C). H/T to Joe Romm and Michael Tobis whose work inspired this graph.

And with every one of those spikes, one can hear the conservatives making the case against global warming just as El Minion stated. "See? it's (insert hot or cold)! NO GLOBAL WARMING!", while simultaneously showing the world (and the board) their lack of basic understanding of statistics, sampling, deviation and of course, math and science.

Your first mistake, W*GS, was using graphs. Beavis doesn't like those. Of course, he doesn't like (or understand) science, either...so you're kinda screwed either way.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 02:12 PM
Hansen didn't work on the "hockey stick". That was Michael Mann.

http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif
The data (green) are the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomaly datasets from January 1970 through November 2012, with linear trends for the short time periods Jan 1970 to Oct 1977, Apr 1977 to Dec 1986, Sep 1987 to Nov 1996, Jun 1997 to Dec 2002, and Nov 2002 to Nov 2012 (blue), and also showing the far more reliable linear trend for the full time period (red).

and speaking of hockey sticks...

http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/bau_future_warming_med.jpg
This graph shows that even at the lowest range of climate sensitivity, future global warming will take us well beyond any temperature experienced during civilised human history. The blue line represents reconstructed temperature (Marcott et al. 2013). The red line represents measured and projected global surface temperature (Meinshausen et al. 2011). The red dots show the projected warming in the year 2100 for three different climate sensitivities (high sensitivity 4.5°C, most likely sensitivity 3°C, low sensitivity 1.5°C). H/T to Joe Romm and Michael Tobis whose work inspired this graph.

I think Mann worked off some of Hansen's 'corrected' data if I'm not mistaken. Which was part of the problem.

And what kind of graph doesn't separate measured from projected? You only do that if you're hiding something (or "sampling" things out of existence)

Anyway, "Consensus" is that the warming inexplicably slowed around 15 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=1&

Show me where that was predicted in Hansen's model.

W*GS
08-22-2013, 02:38 PM
I think Mann worked off some of Hansen's 'corrected' data if I'm not mistaken. Which was part of the problem.

Yes, you're mistaken.

Mann and Hansen haven't been professionally affiliated much, if at all.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 03:37 PM
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383

These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-nasa-documents-related-global-warming-controversy/

Hansen, clearly frustrated by the attention paid to the NASA error, labeled McIntyre a “pest” and suggests those who disagree with his global warming theories “should be ready to crawl under a rock by now.” Hansen also suggests that those calling attention to the climate data error did not have a “light on upstairs.”

Guy gets proven to have fundamentally effed up Nasa's temperature data and then goes on the personal offensive. I'm sure Wagsy will tell us about how this makes Hacksen eligible for entry in the Eternal Pantheon of Anthropogenic Global Warming Salvation. LOL

W*GS
08-23-2013, 08:13 AM
Guy gets proven to have fundamentally effed up Nasa's temperature data and then goes on the personal offensive. I'm sure Wagsy will tell us about how this makes Hacksen eligible for entry in the Eternal Pantheon of Anthropogenic Global Warming Salvation. LOL

"Fundamentally"? No.

1934 and all that (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/)

Another week, another ado over nothing.

Last Saturday, Steve McIntyre wrote an email to NASA GISS pointing out that for some North American stations in the GISTEMP analysis, there was an odd jump in going from 1999 to 2000. On Monday, the people who work on the temperature analysis (not me), looked into it and found that this coincided with the switch between two sources of US temperature data. There had been a faulty assumption that these two sources matched, but that turned out not to be the case. There were in fact a number of small offsets (of both sign) between the same stations in the two different data sets. The obvious fix was to make an adjustment based on a period of overlap so that these offsets disappear.

This was duly done by Tuesday, an email thanking McIntyre was sent and the data analysis (which had been due in any case for the processing of the July numbers) was updated accordingly along with an acknowledgment to McIntyre and update of the methodology.

The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708_correction.gif

There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data [As it existed in Sep 2007]). Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC. None of these differences are statistically significant. Indeed in the 2001 paper describing the GISTEMP methodology (which was prior to this particularly error being introduced), it says:

The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6). This contrasts with the USHCN data, which has 1998 as the warmest year in the century. In both cases the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree. The main reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis is its larger adjustment for urban warming. In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.

More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC – the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ºC). (The previous version – up to 2005 – can be seen here).

In the global mean, 2005 remains the warmest (as in the NCDC analysis). CRU has 1998 as the warmest year but there are differences in methodology, particularly concerning the Arctic (extrapolated in GISTEMP, not included in CRU) which is a big part of recent global warmth. No recent IPCC statements or conclusions are affected in the slightest.

Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings and no change in anything that could be considered climatically important (specifically long term trends).

However, there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to a statistical quirk or a mistake. This led to some truly death-defying leaping to conclusions when this issue hit the blogosphere. One of the worst examples (but there are others) was the ‘Opinionator’ at the New York Times (oh dear). He managed to confuse the global means with the continental US numbers, he made up a story about McIntyre having ‘always puzzled about some gaps’ (what?) , declared the the error had ‘played havoc’ with the numbers, and quoted another blogger saying that the ‘astounding’ numbers had been ‘silently released’. None of these statements are true. Among other incorrect stories going around are that the mistake was due to a Y2K bug or that this had something to do with photographing weather stations. Again, simply false.

But hey, maybe the Arctic will get the memo.

baja
08-23-2013, 08:21 AM
Biggest tax hoax in the history of the world - look at which politicians are pushing this. That is all you need to know.

W*GS
08-23-2013, 08:30 AM
Biggest tax hoax in the history of the world - look at which politicians are pushing this. That is all you need to know.

Yeah, yeah.

Do you deride the M.D.s who discovered the links between smoking and cancer as frauds and being part of a giant hoax because cigarette taxes have been increased over the last few decades?

STFU.

BroncoBeavis
08-23-2013, 09:09 AM
"Fundamentally"? No.

1934 and all that (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/)



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708_correction.gif

Hey Wagsy, what happened to this graph? And why does it look so different from the US Temperature graph you posted above?

http://paos.colorado.edu/~fasullo/1060/gifs/1998.fig3x.GIF

Oh, and show me in Hansen's 1988 model where he predicted a 15-year flat spot. (It's fun turning your Gaff tactic back around on you :))

W*GS
08-23-2013, 09:48 AM
Hey Wagsy, what happened to this graph? And why does it look so different from the US Temperature graph you posted above?

Why don't you write the provider and ask him?

If you believe that there has been, and is continuing to be, a conspiracy to manipulate data to create a fake narrative regarding AGW, well, you're past gaffe and his 9/11 troofer stuff. Very far past.

Oh, and show me in Hansen's 1988 model where he predicted a 15-year flat spot. (It's fun turning your Gaff tactic back around on you :))

What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction? (http://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm)

Although Hansen's projected global temperature increase has been higher than the actual global warming, this is because his climate model used a high climate sensitivity parameter. Had he used the currently accepted value of approximately 3°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, Hansen would have correctly projected the ensuing global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Hansen88Temps.jpg
Projected global surface air temperature changes in Scenarios A, B, and C (Hansen 1988)

BroncoBeavis
08-23-2013, 10:23 AM
Why don't you write the provider and ask him?

The provider was Hansen (and his colleagues):
http://paos.colorado.edu/~fasullo/1060/papers/giss.warming.html

Long ago, in the 90's, before 1934 retroactively cooled itself. LOL

So I'll reiterate. Why does 1934 look so much cooler in his 'adjusted' data than it did prior to 2000?


Although Hansen's projected global temperature increase has been higher than the actual global warming, this is because his climate model used a high climate sensitivity parameter. Had he used the currently accepted value of approximately 3°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, Hansen would have correctly projected the ensuing global warming.

So essentially what you're saying is that if Brother Hansen's model had only known what was going to happen and used those numbers, it would've been able to predict what actually happened. LOL

W*GS
08-23-2013, 10:40 AM
The provider was Hansen (and his colleagues):
http://paos.colorado.edu/~fasullo/1060/papers/giss.warming.html

Long ago, in the 90's, before 1934 retroactively cooled itself.

Read over Hansen's 2001 paper and tell us the manipulation.

A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf)

So essentially what you're saying is that if Brother Hansen's model had only known what was going to happen and used those numbers, it would've been able to predict what actually happened. LOL

Uhhh, no.

Imagine if James Hansen had never existed. What do you think would be different?

BroncoBeavis
08-23-2013, 10:52 AM
Read over Hansen's 2001 paper and tell us the manipulation.

Lolz. That's your debate. "Read this paper" Might as well say "Well if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you" LOL

Anyway, how come that annual mean anomaly peak in the early 1930's was cut roughly in half by Hansen's later "adjustments" yet you stand here telling us they weren't significant adjustments.

Anyway, any answer yet? Where's the 15-year flat spot in James "Cooling the past, Warming the Future" Hansen's expert model?

W*GS
08-23-2013, 10:57 AM
Hey Wagsy, what happened to this graph? And why does it look so different from the US Temperature graph you posted above?

It's not. Note the y-axis labels.

W*GS
08-23-2013, 10:58 AM
Lolz. That's your debate. "Read this paper" Might as well say "Well if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you"

I know reading is difficult for you.

Anyway, how come that annual mean anomaly peak in the early 1930's was cut roughly in half by Hansen's later "adjustments" yet you stand here telling us they weren't significant adjustments.

What's the ratio of one degree Fahrenheit to one degree Celsius?

Anyway, any answer yet? Where's the 15-year flat spot in James "Cooling the past, Warming the Future" Hansen's expert model?

Obviously you didn't read the reference I provided.

I can lead you to science, but I can't make you think (or read, even). That's not my problem.

houghtam
08-23-2013, 10:59 AM
Lolz. That's your debate. "Read this paper" Might as well say "Well if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you" LOL

Anyway, how come that annual mean anomaly peak in the early 1930's was cut roughly in half by Hansen's later "adjustments" yet you stand here telling us they weren't significant adjustments.

Anyway, any answer yet? Where's the 15-year flat spot in James "Cooling the past, Warming the Future" Hansen's expert model?

Maybe the reason that was his response is because he's tired of arguing with people who clearly haven't done the reading and research and yet think their opinion is somehow just as valid or moreso than people who have.

Kind of like when we got into the argument over the authenticity standards of the bible where you claimed it was being held to a higher standard than actual historical documents in archeological and anthropological context. It was clear to me then that you never had done the academic research necessary to hold the discussion short of what you could find on google, so it was pointless talkin to you about it. He's probably hit the same wall.

It shouldn't be surprising that someone who comes from the party that repeatedly tries to delegitimatize higher education doesn't give way to people who have so obviously done more work on the subject than they have.

BroncoBeavis
08-23-2013, 11:03 AM
Imagine if James Hansen had never existed. What do you think would be different?

Maybe there'd be more guys like this:

Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another. If I'm driving my car and find myself speeding toward an obstacle, I can't simple yank the wheel to the side without first checking to see if I'll instead be driving straight into a crowd of people. Climate researchers cannot and should not take this process of weighing different factors out of the hands of politics and society.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

Another interesting part:

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

Hey, there's still a 2% chance some of your blessed models are somewhat accurate, Wagsy. All hope for federal control of the energy economy is not yet lost.

BroncoBeavis
08-23-2013, 11:06 AM
Maybe the reason that was his response is because he's tired of arguing with people who clearly haven't done the reading and research and yet think their opinion is somehow just as valid or moreso than people who have.

Kind of like when we got into the argument over the authenticity standards of the bible where you claimed it was being held to a higher standard than actual historical documents in archeological and anthropological context. It was clear to me then that you never had done the academic research necessary to hold the discussion short of what you could find on google, so it was pointless talkin to you about it. He's probably hit the same wall.

It shouldn't be surprising that someone who comes from the party that repeatedly tries to delegitimatize higher education doesn't give way to people who have so obviously done more work on the subject than they have.

Translation: More "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you." Not sure what the point of any debate is if the sum total of a response to a direct question is a link and "here, read this." LOL

I could go there. But it would be pointless. Wags would never read anything not anointed by the Holy Church. :)

houghtam
08-23-2013, 11:12 AM
Translation: More "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you." Not sure what the point of any debate is if the sum total of a response to a direct question is a link and "here, read this." LOL

I could go there. But it would be pointless. Wags would never read anything not anointed by the Holy Church. :)

Translation: More "I don't know, but I think I do."

Not sure what the point of any debate is if the sum total of a response is someone using their inferior knowledge to impress their opinion on someone with far superior knowledge of the subject.

Fortunately though, we can't go there short of taking a brick to the head and losing all of the information we've learned over the years.

You, on the other hand, have a ways to go in many areas. Google is your friend, but you shouldn't let it take the place of a ****ing education.

houghtam
08-23-2013, 11:40 AM
Let's see if we can put this into words Beavis can wrap his little mind around.

- Tebow sucks.

- No he doesn't.

- His mechanics are awful, he isn't smart, and he couldn't even put up decent stats when the Broncos adopted his offense from his Florida days.

- Wait, what? The Broncos never adopted that offense.

- Yeah they did, they had the option offense, did you not watch the Broncos that season or what?

- But it wasn't the same offense, it was a dumbed down version and they didn't use the spread nearly as much in Denver as he did at Florida.

- Look at this one play. 4 WR, shotgun, option to the RB. Spread option!

- That's one play. You should look at more...the vast majority of the plays for Denver weren't like that. That offense didn't even resemble the Florida offense.

- But look at this other one play. 3 WR, 1 TE in the slot, shotgun, option to the RB. Spread option!

- Look, you're just going to have to go back and watch some more tape of UF's offense, because you clearly never saw Tebow play in college. Here's a link.

- Translation: Translation: More "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you." Not sure what the point of any debate is if the sum total of a response to a direct question is a link and "here, read this."

I could go there. But it would be pointless. He would never read anything not anointed by the Holy Church of Tebonners.

baja
08-23-2013, 11:55 AM
Yeah, yeah.

Do you deride the M.D.s who discovered the links between smoking and cancer as frauds and being part of a giant hoax because cigarette taxes have been increased over the last few decades?

STFU.

nice comparison

That's like saying your ass is as nice to look at as Jennifer Lopez's because they both have a hole in them.

W*GS
08-23-2013, 11:58 AM
Maybe there'd be more guys like this:

If you think Von Storch is a denier like you are, well, you're back in gaffe-land.

Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming (http://skepticalscience.com/clarifying-continuation-global-warming.html)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Nuccitelli_OHC_Data.jpg
Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter OHC increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). From Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

and

http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/WhereGWisgoing1.gif
A visual depiction of how much global warming heat is going into the various components of the climate system for the period 1993 to 2003, calculated from IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3. Note that focusing on surface air temperatures misses more than 90% of the overall warming of the planet.

For how much longer do you think you can be a mole, Beavis?

W*GS
08-23-2013, 11:59 AM
nice comparison

That's like saying your ass is as nice to look at as Jennifer Lopez's because they both have a hole in them.

Well?

Some of the same "skeptics" who denied the link between smoking and cancers are still around, denying the link between our burning of fossil fuels and our changing climate.

Why are you siding with corrupt scumbags, baja?

baja
08-23-2013, 12:08 PM
Well?

Some of the same "skeptics" who denied the link between smoking and cancers are still around, denying the link between our burning of fossil fuels and our changing climate.

Why are you siding with corrupt scumbags, baja?

You don't think you actually made some kind of a case here do you?

baja
08-23-2013, 12:09 PM
Maybe if you had some bigger pictures Wags???

BroncoBeavis
08-23-2013, 12:22 PM
I wouldn't classify myself as a denier at all. The theory itself makes some sense. Only the significance is uncertain. But that's a huge, and important uncertainty.

I've seen that every time you get into one of these debates you throw around labels like "Denier" to anyone and everyone who says anything resembling "We're not sure yet if the sky is falling or not"

It's a heretical/orthodoxy test. And one based on a need to shout down all opposing ideas. Anathema to Science. And exactly what Von Storch is talking about when he talks about "preachers"

If he keeps his eyes open, as Von Storch does, a scientist's perception can change based on observation. Data over the last 15 years has seriously called into question large assumptions made beforehand. It's not unreasonable to proceed with caution on world-bending regulation in the face of such uncertainty.

Stating that obviousness doesn't make one a "Denier." It's just as likely that they're being realists, and you're in your own denial state.

BroncoBeavis
08-23-2013, 12:27 PM
http://www.science20.com/science_20/james_hansens_deficit_thinking-114100

Back to Hansen and his last five years; he's right, the science has become stronger since the 1990s and even beyond.(4) The problem is that the science was so settled in 2001 that anyone who disagreed was thrown off the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The few people in the whole field of climate science who disagreed were bogged down in nuisance Freedom of Information Act requests and hate mail campaigns and blocked from larger journals. If they ever took any expense money from a fossil fuel company to be on a panel about the environment they were a 'shill'.

'Follow the money' arguments are mostly bogus - and people recognize it, unless they are about the political opposition. So if a climate researcher at MIT got $5,000 from an oil company in the early 1990s and disagrees on feedbacks, follow the money, he is a shill. But if James Hansen got paid $1.2 million to fly around and talk about global warming, above and beyond his government salary over those 5 years he is now complaining about, well, those were prizes for telling the truth.

ClimateGate, the release of East Anglia emails showing a conspiracy to prevent any opposing studies from making their way into peer-reviewed studies and how to 'hide the decline', has a nefarious source also: "Who knows how the East Anglia email fiasco came about?" Hansen hints conspiratorially.

What is missing from his concern? That the emails were proof of exactly what people worried about. The scientists didn't make up any data, they weren't engaged in fraud, they didn't need to be, the evidence was there - but they were out to insure nothing a secret clique did not approve of made its way into publication. Hansen never mentioned how their behavior was 'not an accident', he defended their actions.

A good read. And further evidence that you don't have to be a "Denier" to recognize a corrupt process.

W*GS
08-23-2013, 12:30 PM
You don't think you actually made some kind of a case here do you?

Coming from someone who thinks 3% of us are reptilians, your credibility is zero.

houghtam
08-23-2013, 12:32 PM
http://www.science20.com/science_20/james_hansens_deficit_thinking-114100



A good read. And further evidence that you don't have to be a "Denier" to recognize a corrupt process.

The climategate myth again, I see.

BroncoBeavis
08-23-2013, 12:34 PM
Translation: More "I don't know, but I think I do."

Not sure what the point of any debate is if the sum total of a response is someone using their inferior knowledge to impress their opinion on someone with far superior knowledge of the subject.

Fortunately though, we can't go there short of taking a brick to the head and losing all of the information we've learned over the years.

You, on the other hand, have a ways to go in many areas. Google is your friend, but you shouldn't let it take the place of a ****ing education.

Is it okay if I read your "inferior knowledge" line in a John Travolta/Saturday Night Fever voice? That's kinda how it comes out to me for some reason.

I'm sorry to say, but if you've ever banked yourself as having won an argument based on your "superior knowledge" I'm think Objectivity itself would have to hold you mistaken. LOL

baja
08-23-2013, 12:35 PM
Coming from someone who thinks 3% of us are reptilians, your credibility is zero.

I do that for you and a few others. Most of the good posters get that and laugh at you behind your back via rep and PM's.

BroncoBeavis
08-23-2013, 12:38 PM
The climategate myth again, I see.

Von Storch wrote about that too...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704238104574601443947078538.html


Good Science, Bad Politics
'Climategate' reveals a concerted effort to emphasize scientific results useful to a political agenda.

By HANS VON STORCH

Oh Noes! Wagsy's gonna kick him outta the club! LOL

houghtam
08-23-2013, 12:43 PM
Von Storch wrote about that too...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704238104574601443947078538.html




Oh Noes! Wagsy's gonna kick him outta the club! LOL

And then it was debunked. Several times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/12/climategate-debunking-get_n_642980.html

BroncoBeavis
08-23-2013, 12:46 PM
And then it was debunked. Several times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/12/climategate-debunking-get_n_642980.html

"Climategate -- a mini media tempest that briefly provided climate change deniers with what they believed to be grist for their favorite mill: that climate change is some sort of worldwide conspiratorial scam.

There's that purity test "Denier" word again. And nobody said it was a conspiracy. Groupthink rarely is.

So your article debunked a scarecrow. Good work.

W*GS
08-23-2013, 12:53 PM
A good read. And further evidence that you don't have to be a "Denier" to recognize a corrupt process.

An op-ed piece by a guy who's primary claim to fame is a book about the "anti-science left", and you're sold?

Campbell relies a little too much on attacking Hansen - even when he admits that the science is solid and correct.

I don't think you read what you reference.

W*GS
08-23-2013, 12:54 PM
I do that for you and a few others. Most of the good posters get that and laugh at you behind your back via rep and PM's.

Oooh - do you say beatchy-things in the girls' bathroom about other girls while sneaking smokes, too?

Fedaykin
08-23-2013, 12:54 PM
There's that purity test "Denier" word again. And nobody said it was a conspiracy. Groupthink rarely is.

So your article debunked a scarecrow. Good work.


LMAO

Beavis: Look, climategate!!
Houghtam: Actually, that's been completely debunked...
Beavis: BUT, BUT, THEY USE A WORD I DON'T LIKE!!!! *waaaaaaa*

houghtam
08-23-2013, 01:01 PM
Face it, Beavis. Much like Donny, you are out of your element.

Again.

W*GS
08-23-2013, 01:05 PM
I wouldn't classify myself as a denier at all. The theory itself makes some sense. Only the significance is uncertain. But that's a huge, and important uncertainty.

There's very little science to support the idea that increasing radiatively-important gases in the atmosphere by ~40% over the last ~150 years will not appreciably alter the energy balance of the climate system.

That's what you're claiming.

Data over the last 15 years has seriously called into question large assumptions made beforehand.

Not really. 15 years is too short to assess a trend with certainty.

It's not unreasonable to proceed with caution on world-bending regulation in the face of such uncertainty.

Who says we have to choose "world-bending regulation"? I don't.

Why do you assume uncertainty only goes one way?

BroncoBeavis
08-23-2013, 01:49 PM
There's very little science to support the idea that increasing radiatively-important gases in the atmosphere by ~40% over the last ~150 years will not appreciably alter the energy balance of the climate system.

That's what you're claiming.

CO2 could never increase total Greenhouse gases by 40%, because it only comprises about 25% of greenhouse gases.

I know you'll argue that they'll contribute to a possible feedback loop with water vapor, but that relies on CO2 warming in line with models which currently appear unrealistic. Essentially you're saying "if my prediction is right, we'll see this much extra water vapor." But that argument already relies on that prediction being right. Which would make it a circular argument. And one that would bring in numerous other factors and barely understood variables as well.



Not really. 15 years is too short to assess a trend with certainty.

You simply can't make the argument that a period is "too short" to be significant when that period comprises at least half or more of the models' lifespans. And we've only had satellite measurements for 45 years. Are you seriously saying that a third of that data can't be definitively considered significant?

Simply put, a theory that really started gaining traction less than 30 years ago can't pooh-pooh 15 years of subsequent data. If mankind had 150 years of reliable global temperature data, 15 years would be significant. But we don't have 150 years of that data. Not even close. The range from about 1970 to the late 90's is what got people all fired up about where we were headed. There's no way to argue that we should heed that, but then ignore 1998-2013.


Who says we have to choose "world-bending regulation"? I don't.

Carbon tax? It's obvious you haven't fully thought through what a reasonable enforcement of that would entail. But that's another argument for another day.

baja
08-23-2013, 01:53 PM
Oooh - do you say beatchy-things in the girls' bathroom about other girls while sneaking smokes, too?

ha ha I would never even think of that.

BroncoBeavis
08-23-2013, 01:53 PM
LMAO

Beavis: Look, climategate!!
Houghtam: Actually, that's been completely debunked...
Beavis: BUT, BUT, THEY USE A WORD I DON'T LIKE!!!! *waaaaaaa*

Oh, and there's that part about how it debunked a "conspiracy theory" that nobody ever brought up. What point exactly did Huffpo "debunk?"

W*GS
08-23-2013, 02:10 PM
CO2 could never increase total Greenhouse gases by 40%, because it only comprises about 25% of greenhouse gases.

Pre-industrial CO2: ~280 ppm
Current CO2: ~400 ppm
% change = (400-280)/280 = ~43%.

What are your numbers?

I know you'll argue that they'll contribute to a possible feedback loop with water vapor, but that relies on CO2 warming in line with models which currently appear unrealistic.

Define "unrealistic".

Specific humidity trend:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/humid1.jpg

Essentially you're saying "if my prediction is right, we'll see this much extra water vapor." But that argument already relies on that prediction being right. Which would make it a circular argument. And one that would bring in numerous other factors and barely understood variables as well.

You're trying to overturn decades of understanding of the climate system, and not providing any theory that better explains the observations. Einstein didn't just state that Newton was wrong, and leave it at that. Of course, the deniers have lots of ideas - many of which contradict each other - but they have yet to come up with a better theory. Until that day arrives, we stick with what we have that works best.

Care to proffer a better theory?

You simply can't make the argument that a period is "too short" to be significant when that period comprises at least half or more of the models' lifespans. And we've only had satellite measurements for 45 years. Are you seriously saying that a third of that data can't be definitively considered significant?

No. A period of less than 30 years is insufficient to detect a significant trend. That doesn't mean the data is insignificant. Please learn the terminology so you don't make such silly mistakes.

Simply put, a theory that really started gaining traction less than 30 years ago can't pooh-pooh 15 years of subsequent data.

Uh, lots more than "less than 30 years ago":

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf), Philosophical Magazine 1896(41): 237-76.

and

Bell Telephone Science Hour, 1958:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/m-AXBbuDxRY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If mankind had 150 years of reliable global temperature data, 15 years would be significant. But we don't have 150 years of that data. Not even close. The range from about 1970 to the late 90's is what got people all fired up about where we were headed.

Not at all. Why do you suppose Keating started taking CO2 measurements in the late 1950s?

There's no way to argue that we should heed that, but then ignore 1998-2013.

You ignore ~400,000 B.C.E. to 1998, and claim the last 15 years is all that matters. Try again.

Carbon tax? It's obvious you haven't fully thought through what a reasonable enforcement of that would entail. But that's another argument for another day.

What's your preferred policy?

houghtam
08-23-2013, 02:30 PM
Please learn the terminology so you don't make such silly mistakes.

Weather/Climate

/end thread

BroncoBeavis
08-23-2013, 02:51 PM
I understand the theory. Increased heat from CO2 will lead to more H2O in the atmosphere as well. Models calling for significant heat increase will assume significant water vapor increase, which will further increase heat and water vapor and on and on.

Unfortunately, this does nothing to address a scenario where the models had exaggerated vapor-inducing heat in the first place. Recent temperature data seems to indicate that is happening.

And none of this is an adequate argument against any particular theory. The earth is not a laboratory. Many theories, even outside of this debate, could be completely sound science and yet utterly unprovable or even irrelevant when plugged into a global climate.

BroncoBeavis
08-23-2013, 03:15 PM
Pre-industrial CO2: ~280 ppm
Current CO2: ~400 ppm
% change = (400-280)/280 = ~43%.

What are your numbers?

Pre-Industrial CO2 + H2O: ~400,280 ppm
Current CO2 + H2O: ~400,400 ppm
% change = (400,400-400,280)/400,280 = ~00.03% :)

And yes, I realize that the greenhouse capacity of CO2 and H2O are different. But as I've said earlier. CO2 isn't the major driver of the greenhouse effect. Water is. And you can't pretend like CO2 in the atmosphere lives by itself as some sort of global thermostat.

W*GS
08-23-2013, 04:06 PM
And yes, I realize that the greenhouse capacity of CO2 and H2O are different. But as I've said earlier. CO2 isn't the major driver of the greenhouse effect. Water is. And you can't pretend like CO2 in the atmosphere lives by itself as some sort of global thermostat.

H2O as vapor isn't a forcing, it's a feedback. It condenses out too easily and is present almost entirely in the lower atmosphere and isn't well-mixed.

CO2 doesn't condense out, has a lifetime of decades to centuries, and is well-mixed throughout the column.

Are you familiar with Richard Alley's 2009 AGU Bjerknes lecture, "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/RffPSrRpq_g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What makes your claim more credible than his science?

W*GS
08-23-2013, 04:08 PM
I understand the theory. Increased heat from CO2 will lead to more H2O in the atmosphere as well.

CO2 doesn't create heat - its radiative properties lessen the amount of outgoing IR from the surface that can be emitted to space. Surface temperatures then increase until the energy balance is attained. Since warmer air can hold more water vapor, as the atmosphere warms, more H2O is evaporated and thus increases.

These two facts were known long before climate models existed.

BroncoBeavis
08-23-2013, 04:42 PM
H2O as vapor isn't a forcing, it's a feedback. It condenses out too easily and is present almost entirely in the lower atmosphere and isn't well-mixed.

CO2 doesn't condense out, has a lifetime of decades to centuries, and is well-mixed throughout the column.

Are you familiar with Richard Alley's 2009 AGU Bjerknes lecture, "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/RffPSrRpq_g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What makes your claim more credible than his science?

The stability of the vapor makes zero difference. Only it's average contribution to the makeup of the atmosphere. If I could invent a machine that sequestered atmospheric CO2 but then spit an equal amount of CO2 out the other side, you'd say this did nothing to prevent greenhouse warming. Water vapor becoming water and then vapor again is essentially the same thing.

W*GS
08-23-2013, 04:49 PM
The stability of the vapor makes zero difference. Only it's average contribution to the makeup of the atmosphere. If I could invent a machine that sequestered atmospheric CO2 but then spit an equal amount of CO2 out the other side, you'd say this did nothing to prevent greenhouse warming. Water vapor becoming water and then vapor again is essentially the same thing.

Remove all the H2O from the atmosphere, and the CO2 is still there and keeping temperatures above the freezing point of H2O. Well above.

Remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere, and the temperature will drop until the H2O condenses out and eventually freezes, becoming completely unimportant to the radiative balance of the climate system. Eventually every lake, sea, and ocean is frozen all the way to the bottom.

CO2 is by far the more important forcing in the climate system. H2O is just along for the ride.

BroncoBeavis
08-23-2013, 04:49 PM
CO2 doesn't create heat - its radiative properties lessen the amount of outgoing IR from the surface that can be emitted to space. Surface temperatures then increase until the energy balance is attained. Since warmer air can hold more water vapor, as the atmosphere warms, more H2O is evaporated and thus increases.

These two facts were known long before climate models existed.

Yes, I was aware that as a greenhouse gas, CO2 warmed via the greenhouse effect. And that it didn't spontaneously create chemical heat literally out of thin air. :)

Anyway, most models attempt to account for the water vapor feedback loop based on different understandings of it. It becomes difficult, as reality fails to meet prediction, whether the fundamental mistake is in overestimating CO2 warming, or overestimating the feedback loop. It could be one, the other, or more likely both.

But in any case, they're failing pretty badly at being predictive. And should not be relied upon for any kind of economic planning until reality falls in line (or their models can be adjusted, and proven to work)

W*GS
08-23-2013, 04:54 PM
Anyway, most models attempt to account for the water vapor feedback loop based on different understandings of it. It becomes difficult, as reality fails to meet prediction, whether the fundamental mistake is in overestimating CO2 warming, or overestimating the feedback loop. It could be one, the other, or more likely both.

You're using the wrong measure to estimate GHG warming if you rely only on surface temperature.

But in any case, they're failing pretty badly at being predictive.

By what measure? Please don't give us Spencer's mid-troposphere tropical temperatures spaghetti plot. It's bull****. I haven't seen any reference as what exactly his analysis was so it can be replicated. If you have his precise analysis, please provide it here.

And should not be relied upon for any kind of economic planning until reality falls in line (or their models can be adjusted, and proven to work)

I'd rather rely on climate models for economic planning that economic models for climate planning. Economics isn't even a science. It's about 90% rationalist ad hoc mumbo-jumbo divorced from reality.

mhgaffney
08-23-2013, 04:58 PM
There you have it folks.

climate models in W*gs universe means one thing: a carbon tax.

And that translates to BIG money to be made.

It also means control by the banksters -- they will end up controlling it.

It also means a Nazi-style police state -- or as PCR would say -- a stasi police state -- six of one half a dozen of another -

W*gs is a carpet Capitalist -- by which I mean he would sweep everybody -- all of us -- under the bus -- while making off on a magic carpet of cash.

MHG

W*GS
08-23-2013, 05:01 PM
There you have it folks.

climate models in W*gs universe means one thing: a carbon tax.

And that translates to BIG money to be made.

W*gs is a carpet Capitalist -- by which I mean he would sweep everybody (except himself) under the bus -- while making off with the cash.

Figures. Expecting a 9/11 troofer not to deny AGW is expecting far too much.

You're just a plain lunatic.

Who does video calls while he's pinching loaves.

baja
08-23-2013, 05:05 PM
http://wpmedia.business.financialpost.com/2013/05/0506gore.jpg?w=620

baja
08-23-2013, 05:06 PM
http://images.politico.com/global/2013/06/11/130611_al_gore_3_mahaskey_605.jpg

baja
08-23-2013, 05:06 PM
http://uppitywoman08.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/759-al-gore-fire.jpg?w=400&h=296

baja
08-23-2013, 05:07 PM
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdcrRRYUUar99myVEyJZ4aVKcK1jtTe xZ1llEL8jQCnPtBvZUX-g

baja
08-23-2013, 05:08 PM
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ2eKqppFo4Udq7Xg8HgntLL-k1N7NAViYBPC6aayk0rAP8F7_Z

W*GS
08-23-2013, 05:11 PM
No Al Gore, no global warming.

Yeah, right.

I hear he's kinda chubby, too.

baja
08-23-2013, 05:13 PM
Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- A $30,000 Utility Bill
Feb. 26, 2007
By JAKE TAPPER
Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the Oscar awarded to "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary he inspired and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy.

Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

baja
08-23-2013, 05:14 PM
No Al Gore, no global warming.

Yeah, right.

I hear he's kinda chubby, too.



Global Warming = Big Business, Really really big business.

W*GS
08-23-2013, 05:20 PM
Go ahead, knock Gore all you want.

Doesn't change a thing about the science.

Pretty lame on your part, actually.

baja
08-23-2013, 05:30 PM
Go ahead, knock Gore all you want.

Doesn't change a thing about the science.

Pretty lame on your part, actually.


Science is manipulated to fit the political agenda. There are too many variables to make these predictions.

When in doubt follow the money and look at the players.

W*GS
08-23-2013, 05:33 PM
Science is manipulated to fit the political agenda. There are too many variables to make these predictions.

Who's manipulating the science, and how can they get away with it?

baja
08-23-2013, 05:38 PM
Who's manipulating the science, and how can they get away with it?


The One world order control freaks that need a common global threat (boggy man) to achieve their dream of One World Government - Global Warming is the perfect "enemy" to accomplish this and the cash cow part is a bonus.

W*GS
08-23-2013, 05:40 PM
The One world order control freaks that need a common global threat (boggy man) to achieve their dream of One World Government - Global Warming is the perfect "enemy" to accomplish this and the cash cow part is a bonus.

OK, how do they manage to manipulate all those data stretching back over a century?

Is every climate and other scientist who accepts AGW corrupt?

Your belief system is completely unbelievable.

houghtam
08-23-2013, 05:44 PM
Man, at least Beavis made an attempt to look like he knew what he was talking about, feeble though it may have been.

baja
08-23-2013, 05:49 PM
Man, at least Beavis made an attempt to look like he knew what he was talking about, feeble though it may have been.

You won't have to worry about these things the Lizard people are going to pay you a visit. They have your IP address. First you will notice the little things like feeling glad when you see a bug in your soup.

houghtam
08-23-2013, 05:51 PM
You won't have to worry about these things the Lizard people are going to pay you a visit. They have your IP address. First you will notice the little things like feeling glad when you see a bug in your soup.

I can always use a little extra protein.

I just don't like to get mine from PCR.

Missouribronc
08-23-2013, 10:36 PM
OK, how do they manage to manipulate all those data stretching back over a century?

Is every climate and other scientist who accepts AGW corrupt?

Your belief system is completely unbelievable.

A WHOLE century?

Damn, that's a LONG time...

Lol

W*GS
08-24-2013, 07:22 AM
A WHOLE century?

Damn, that's a LONG time...

Lol

More than a century - in some places, much more - over just about the entire globe and consisting of observations of air, land, and sea.

baja simply doesn't have a clue. He's being very right-wing regarding AGW.

baja
08-24-2013, 07:57 AM
Follow the money.

W*GS
08-24-2013, 08:11 AM
Follow the money.

To where?

Just how were the data manipulated? Explain.

baja
08-24-2013, 08:16 AM
My guess is partly to you.

baja
08-24-2013, 08:18 AM
Hey Wags what time is the game tonight, oh that's right you hate all things Bronco yet here you are, care to explain?

W*GS
08-24-2013, 08:23 AM
I just did an image search for 'baja', and got this:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/kids/water/story3/nrcs3.jpg

You're as bad as any of the right-wing morons here, baja. Push comes to shove, and you start spewing bull**** just to save your sorry gringo ass.

baja
08-24-2013, 08:28 AM
Why are you here you hate the Broncos, only reason I can come up with is you are a NWO paid disinformation shill.

baja
08-24-2013, 08:30 AM
When your supervisor gets around to reading this you will be reassigned I suspect.

Maybe with a reduction in pay because you got caught.

W*GS
08-24-2013, 08:38 AM
You're funny when you catch yourself in the corner of your own making, baja.

I apologize for putting up your self-portrait (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3900127&postcount=152) without asking first.

baja
08-24-2013, 09:23 AM
Your science on this is like a flea proclaiming to all the other fleas, " Fellow fleas through my studies I have determined where our dog is going and not only that but I have figured out a way to control where the dog goes but it will cost every swing dick of a flea a new tax to me to implement what I have found out and if you don't I'm here to tell ya this dog is dead".

W*GS
08-24-2013, 09:55 AM
Your science on this is like a flea proclaiming to all the other fleas, " Fellow fleas through my studies I have determined where our dog is going and not only that but I have figured out a way to control where the dog goes but it will cost every swing dick of a flea a new tax to me to implement what I have found out and if you don't I'm here to tell ya this dog is dead".

Now you're just babbling, incoherently.

Rohirrim
08-24-2013, 10:01 AM
Your science on this is like a flea proclaiming to all the other fleas, " Fellow fleas through my studies I have determined where our dog is going and not only that but I have figured out a way to control where the dog goes but it will cost every swing dick of a flea a new tax to me to implement what I have found out and if you don't I'm here to tell ya this dog is dead".

Let's put this to bed, shall we?

Scientists are more certain than they have ever been that humans are causing climate change and believe that sea levels could rise by up to 2ft 8in by the end of the century.

These are among the key findings likely to be published next month in the most authoritative and comprehensive report ever conducted into climate science - the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment, known as AR5.

According to a draft of the report, the certainty that humans are the main cause of climate change has risen to 95 per cent, from 90 per cent in the previous - fourth - assessment six years ago. This, in turn, was a significant increase on the 66 per cent certainty reached in 2001’s third assessment and just over 50 per cent in 1995.

With every IPCC report there is a key phrase that encapsulates the latest consensus on climate change, which scientists wrangle over for months.

According to a leaked copy of the draft, the key phrase in the forthcoming report will say: “It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”

“There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes,” adds the draft, which could be changed before the final version is published in Stockholm in September.

The draft projects that seas will rise by between 29cm and 82cm (11.4 to 32.3 inches) by the end of the century, while greenhouse gas emissions continue to soar.

The latest in a series that began in 1990 and last reported in 2007, AR5 has 840 main authors recruited from 38 of the IPCC’s 195 member countries, with British and American scientists making the biggest contribution.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/scientists-95-per-cent-certain-that-climate-change-is-manmade-8778806.html

Rohirrim
08-24-2013, 10:06 AM
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

W*GS
08-24-2013, 10:08 AM
Let's put this to bed, shall we?

The deniers will never accept reality because their psychological problems, often compounded with certain ideological beliefs, prevent their minds from doing so.

baja
08-24-2013, 10:26 AM
Let's put this to bed, shall we?

Scientists are more certain than they have ever been that humans are causing climate change and believe that sea levels could rise by up to 2ft 8in by the end of the century.

These are among the key findings likely to be published next month in the most authoritative and comprehensive report ever conducted into climate science - the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment, known as AR5.

According to a draft of the report, the certainty that humans are the main cause of climate change has risen to 95 per cent, from 90 per cent in the previous - fourth - assessment six years ago. This, in turn, was a significant increase on the 66 per cent certainty reached in 2001’s third assessment and just over 50 per cent in 1995.

With every IPCC report there is a key phrase that encapsulates the latest consensus on climate change, which scientists wrangle over for months.

According to a leaked copy of the draft, the key phrase in the forthcoming report will say: “It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”

“There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes,” adds the draft, which could be changed before the final version is published in Stockholm in September.

The draft projects that seas will rise by between 29cm and 82cm (11.4 to 32.3 inches) by the end of the century, while greenhouse gas emissions continue to soar.

The latest in a series that began in 1990 and last reported in 2007, AR5 has 840 main authors recruited from 38 of the IPCC’s 195 member countries, with British and American scientists making the biggest contribution.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/scientists-95-per-cent-certain-that-climate-change-is-manmade-8778806.html

OK for the sake of argument lets assume you are correct with this post. Here is the more immediate problem.

The control driven globalists will not rest until they control the world with a one world government. This climate issue (valid or not ) is a perfect vehicle for them to achieve through fear this OWG. This is a case of solving one problem before the other problem is tackled. If not we will trade 100% of the freedom we enjoy today for a physically livable planet tomorrow. We must defeat the globalest agenda before we can expect to have a real solution for the climate issue. You should know their solution to global warming is population reduction, 80% reduction. Does that work for you?

W*GS
08-24-2013, 10:43 AM
OK for the sake of argument lets assume you are correct with this post. Here is the more immediate problem.

The control driven globalists will not rest until they control the world with a one world government. This climate issue (valid or not ) is a perfect vehicle for them to achieve through fear this OWG. This is a case of solving one problem before the other problem is tackled. If not we will trade 100% of the freedom we enjoy today for a physically livable planet tomorrow. We must defeat the globalest agenda before we can expect to have a real solution for the climate issue. You should know their solution to global warming is population reduction, 80% reduction. Does that work for you?

Thanks for proving me right, baja:
The deniers will never accept reality because their psychological problems, often compounded with certain ideological beliefs, prevent their minds from doing so.

Rohirrim
08-24-2013, 10:44 AM
OK for the sake of argument lets assume you are correct with this post. Here is the more immediate problem.

The control driven globalists will not rest until they control the world with a one world government. This climate issue (valid or not ) is a perfect vehicle for them to achieve through fear this OWG. This is a case of solving one problem before the other problem is tackled. If not we will trade 100% of the freedom we enjoy today for a physically livable planet tomorrow. We must defeat the globalest agenda before we can expect to have a real solution for the climate issue. You should know their solution to global warming is population reduction, 80% reduction. Does that work for you?

That's just paranoia. If there is one formula history has proven, the bigger your empire, the less you control. The concept of giant empires is coming to an end.

baja
08-24-2013, 11:16 AM
That's just paranoia. If there is one formula history has proven, the bigger your empire, the less you control. The concept of giant empires is coming to an end.

History did not have todays technology.

History shows pre 1900 zero people were killed in auto accidents therefore cars never cause deaths according to your logic.

Rohirrim
08-24-2013, 12:06 PM
History did not have todays technology.

History shows pre 1900 zero people were killed in auto accidents therefore cars never cause deaths according to your logic.

That's a good point. Of course, technology requires a power source and a grid to extend its reach and also, people voluntarily use the devices used to track them. ;D

Then again, technology is not the end-all-and-be-all that's it's portrayed to be. A great example of that is the downfall of the derivatives market. Even with technology, giants like Citigroup were too unwieldy to manage. And as far as that goes, the amount of data technology can collect cannot be managed by humans. The CIA/NSA can collect trillions of bytes of data, but who is going to analyze it?

baja
08-24-2013, 12:25 PM
That's a good point. Of course, technology requires a power source and a grid to extend its reach and also, people voluntarily use the devices used to track them. ;D

Then again, technology is not the end-all-and-be-all that's it's portrayed to be. A great example of that is the downfall of the derivatives market. Even with technology, giants like Citigroup were too unwieldy to manage. And as far as that goes, the amount of data technology can collect cannot be managed by humans. The CIA/NSA can collect trillions of bytes of data, but who is going to analyze it?

That is not the fault of technology. It was a flawed algorithm and run away greed.


BTW Can not your take on technology also be applied to the science data of Global warming?

W*GS
08-24-2013, 12:28 PM
BTW Can not your take on technology also be applied to the science data of Global warming?

Nope.

baja
08-24-2013, 12:31 PM
That's a good point. Of course, technology requires a power source and a grid to extend its reach and also, people voluntarily use the devices used to track them. ;D

Again you assume technology remains stagnet

Then again, technology is not the end-all-and-be-all that's it's portrayed to be. A great example of that is the downfall of the derivatives market. Even with technology, giants like Citigroup were too unwieldy to manage. And as far as that goes, the amount of data technology can collect cannot be managed by humans. The CIA/NSA can collect trillions of bytes of data, but who is going to analyze it?

You really think they can't program a search engine to creat a profile on anyone or anything within seconds?

red