51% of GOP now accept anthropogenic global warming

[mamooth]

So.... you believe they had accurate enough instruments to measure global temperature differences of 1.5 degrees from the 1880s. How does that work?

Basic statistics. The more measurements you take, the less the error.

Seriously, learn the basics.

 

[mamooth]

0.1degC/decade is not even newsworthy is it TinkerBelle? And THAT EXCUSE only exists with FAULTY BOGUS methodology in one study and lack of Satellite evidence and corroboration especially. That's flop sweat -- and data doctoring at it's finest to save face.

Flac, your endless raving about conspiracies is hilarious, in a pathetic way. And it's literally all you have left, your gibbering cult insanity. That would be why the whole world is laughing at your cult now.

 

[flacaltenn]

0.1degC/decade is not even newsworthy is it TinkerBelle? And THAT EXCUSE only exists with FAULTY BOGUS methodology in one study and lack of Satellite evidence and corroboration especially. That's flop sweat -- and data doctoring at it's finest to save face.

Flac, your endless raving about conspiracies is hilarious, in a pathetic way. And it's literally all you have left, your gibbering cult insanity. That would be why the whole world is laughing at your cult now.

Not a conspiracy. I read the study.. They decided to take the basic Global accounting and make the poles MORE accurate by using satellite data to fill in.. A bunch of monkeying with the merger gave them something that is marginally HIGHER than the other land data sets for the 2000 --- 2012 era..

Basic question is --- Why FILL with satellite data when you HAVE the entire GLOBAL record of satellite data and it does not show your cooked conclusion? It's just a trolling excersize to gain 0.05degC.. And not supported by either the sat data or MOST of the other land records. It's a zombie study..

It would only be a conspiracy if that's all you had to say about my last 3 or 4 posts with Princess BigFont..

 

[Crick]

Go pull up a copy of BTK or the NOAA Ocean warming charts (NOT from skepticalscience) and tell me ---- WHEN in those charts the RATE of ocean heat intake changed the MOST??? To within a couple years. And whether you see that rate INCREASING anywhere near the time that the surface temperatures stalled..

2000

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/website-archive/trenberth.papers-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf

See Figure 1. Should look familiar. You've seen it a dozen times before.

 

[skookerasbil]

Still nobody responding to the critical question.........

Show us where the science is mattering in the real world?

 

[skookerasbil]

Now here is a kid who gets it..........






If deniers and skeptics are such a fringe cult in their view on science........how come the AGW "mainstream" consensus people have not been able to make their case to the policy makers ( after 30 years)? Looks to the deniers like the policy makers think that "man made" climate change is responded to by policy makers by throwing these mainstream people a bone via the EPA. Same thing that is happening in Europe. Throw a bone......shut them up......and fire up the fossil fuel machines.


Climate science in 2014 is nothing more than a stoopid internet hobby for the climate obsessed to comiserate.

 

[Iceweasel]

So.... you believe they had accurate enough instruments to measure global temperature differences of 1.5 degrees from the 1880s. How does that work?

Basic statistics. The more measurements you take, the less the error.

Seriously, learn the basics.

LOL. I asked for the basics and all I got was this. Please explain how they accurately measured average global temperature ranges in the 1880s without a time machine.

 

[BobPlumb]

My position on climate change:

Man does have an effect on climate. The question is how much and how significant. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is not pollution. It is plant food. The accumulation of paved asphalt areas may be a bigger factor than CO2 on climate. I do not believe that the change in the climate over the next 100 or so years will cause Armageddon. An increase in the world's average temperature of 1.5 degrees C might even be good for humanity. Historically speaking, humanity has struggled when the world has been cold and thrived when the world has been warm.

I think that climate change needs to be studied for another 20 to 30 years before making any major changes in energy policy. I don't agree with restraining the economy of the US when CO2 will be driven by economies of other nations.

 

[mamooth]

LOL. I asked for the basics and all I got was this.

So you want me to painstakingly type what you could easily find yourself, if you weren't so lazy.

I only give free education to those who have demonstrated a willingness to learn. That's not you. If you want me to spend hours working as your personal tutor in remedial science, you will be required to pay up front. No freeloaders. Paypal will do. If you're interested, inquire about my hourly rates.

 

[flacaltenn]

LOL. I asked for the basics and all I got was this.

So you want me to painstakingly type what you could easily find yourself, if you weren't so lazy.

I only give free education to those who have demonstrated a willingness to learn. That's not you. If you want me to spend hours working as your personal tutor in remedial science, you will be required to pay up front. No freeloaders. Paypal will do. If you're interested, inquire about my hourly rates.

Since 97% of your posts are a complete waste of your time (and everybody elses) why not help the guy out and give him all that ocean surface temperature reading that went on in the 1880 - 1930 timeframe.. And the Deep Africa readings for that matter..

You average a poorly sampled population longer -- You just get a better WRONG answer..
Don't try to bully folks with math....

 

[jc456]

LOL. I asked for the basics and all I got was this.

So you want me to painstakingly type what you could easily find yourself, if you weren't so lazy.

I only give free education to those who have demonstrated a willingness to learn. That's not you. If you want me to spend hours working as your personal tutor in remedial science, you will be required to pay up front. No freeloaders. Paypal will do. If you're interested, inquire about my hourly rates.

So basicall you don't have the basics. Hah..................hah

 

[Asclepias]

My position on climate change:

Man does have an effect on climate. The question is how much and how significant. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is not pollution. It is plant food. The accumulation of paved asphalt areas may be a bigger factor than CO2 on climate. I do not believe that the change in the climate over the next 100 or so years will cause Armageddon. An increase in the world's average temperature of 1.5 degrees C might even be good for humanity. Historically speaking, humanity has struggled when the world has been cold and thrived when the world has been warm.

I think that climate change needs to be studied for another 20 to 30 years before making any major changes in energy policy. I don't agree with restraining the economy of the US when CO2 will be driven by economies of other nations.

I'm not completely sold on the manmade climate change theory but it does make me think about balance. Could we be affecting it enough to throw off the balance and speeding up the natural cycle? If so what is wrong with changing our energy policy to effectively avoid playing with fire? I think this is one instance where the US should be leading from the front regardless of what other countries are doing.

 

[flacaltenn]

My position on climate change:

Man does have an effect on climate. The question is how much and how significant. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is not pollution. It is plant food. The accumulation of paved asphalt areas may be a bigger factor than CO2 on climate. I do not believe that the change in the climate over the next 100 or so years will cause Armageddon. An increase in the world's average temperature of 1.5 degrees C might even be good for humanity. Historically speaking, humanity has struggled when the world has been cold and thrived when the world has been warm.

I think that climate change needs to be studied for another 20 to 30 years before making any major changes in energy policy. I don't agree with restraining the economy of the US when CO2 will be driven by economies of other nations.

I'm not completely sold on the manmade climate change theory but it does make me think about balance. Could we be affecting it enough to throw off the balance and speeding up the natural cycle? If so what is wrong with changing our energy policy to effectively avoid playing with fire? I think this is one instance where the US should be leading from the front regardless of what other countries are doing.

Bush has similar philosophy on foreign policy. It was called pre-emptive war. At the time, we had the capacity to reduce POSSIBLE UNQUANTIFIED future risks by using massive force NOW.. Problem is -- in this case, we wont win an energy policy war.. The obvious way to hedge the CO2 bet is to build out 100 new nuclear plants. 60 to replace the older, more dangerous ones and 40 new ones, so we could tear down some coal plants.

But beyond that -- the eco-nuts pushing this anti-carbon side-show got nothing. Solar and Wind are not alternatives to what we have now. They are just peaker supplements. So massive disruption of our current heavily taxed grid would be chaos and bleed this country of money and jobs.

 

[RollingThunder]

LOL. I asked for the basics and all I got was this.

So you want me to painstakingly type what you could easily find yourself, if you weren't so lazy.

I only give free education to those who have demonstrated a willingness to learn. That's not you. If you want me to spend hours working as your personal tutor in remedial science, you will be required to pay up front. No freeloaders. Paypal will do. If you're interested, inquire about my hourly rates.

Since 97% of your posts are a complete waste of your time (and everybody elses)

Oops, that's your own posts you're talking about, fecalhead, as almost everybody who bothers to read your fallacious drivel would agree.

why not help the guy out and give him all that ocean surface temperature reading that went on in the 1880 - 1930 timeframe..

Century-old ocean data provides further confirmation of global warming
ScienceDaily
May 28, 2013
Source: NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory
A new NASA and university analysis of ocean data collected more than 135 years ago by the crew of the HMS Challenger oceanographic expedition provides further confirmation that human activities have warmed our planet over the past century. Researchers from the University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, Australia; and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., combined the ship's measurements of ocean temperatures with modern observations from the international Argo array of ocean profiling floats. They used both as inputs to state-of-the-art climate models, to get a picture of how the world's oceans have changed since the Challenger's voyage. The Challenger expedition, from 1872 to 1876, was the world's first global scientific survey of life beneath the ocean surface. Along the way, scientists measured ocean temperatures, lowering thermometers hundreds of meters deep on ropes. "The key to this research was to determine the range of uncertainty for the measurements taken by the crew of the Challenger," said Josh Willis, a JPL climate scientist and NASA project scientist for the upcoming U.S./European Jason-3 oceanography satellite, scheduled to launch in 2015. "After we had taken all these uncertainties into account, it became apparent that the rate of warming we saw across the oceans far exceeded the degree of uncertainty around the measurements. So, while the uncertainty was large, the warming signal detected was far greater."

Uncertainties around the Challenger's measurements were caused by the limited areas measured during the voyage; the actual depths the thermometers descended to; and the likely natural variation in temperature that could occur in each region during the voyage. "Our research revealed warming of the planet can be clearly detected since 1873 and that our oceans continue to absorb the great majority of this heat," said researcher and lead author Will Hobbs of the University of Tasmania's Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies and the Australian Research Council's Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science. "Currently, scientists estimate the oceans absorb more than 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases, and we attribute the global warming to anthropogenic (human-produced) causes." The Challenger expedition measurements also revealed that thermal expansion of sea water caused by global warming contributed about 40 percent of the total sea level rise seen in tide gauges from 1873 to 1955. The remaining 60 percent was likely to have come from the melting of ice sheets and glaciers. Prior to this research, climate models offered the only way to estimate the change before the 1950s. Results of the study are published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. For more on the study, visit: Century-old science helps confirm global warming - Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies - University of Tasmania, Australia .

 

[flacaltenn]

How nice Tinkerbelle. A couple ships taking sparse measurements over a couple year period. CERTAINLY, this was controlled for time of day and month and can CERTAINLY be used as FULL GLOBAL survey by those whacked in the head enough... Because the DIFFERENCES to TODAY are in the 0.1degC region!!!!! Enough qualifications to that conclusion that those NOAA guys needed a shower after making those statements.

Where BTW did you respond to my question about the RATES in those Ocean Heat Content studies? Didn't see it Princess..... Did you not understand the question? Can't read a rate off a graph? Don't have a clue unless it's in Size 3 or larger bold colored font? Whatzyourprob?

 

[Iceweasel]

LOL. I asked for the basics and all I got was this.

So you want me to painstakingly type what you could easily find yourself, if you weren't so lazy.

I only give free education to those who have demonstrated a willingness to learn. That's not you. If you want me to spend hours working as your personal tutor in remedial science, you will be required to pay up front. No freeloaders. Paypal will do. If you're interested, inquire about my hourly rates.

So it's easy to find out how in the 1880s they had accurate global temperature measurements but it would take you hours to explain it?

I think you jumped the shark.

 

[Crick]

Is there some reason you can't look that information up? Could it be that you really have no interest in it?

 

[MaxGrit]

My position on climate change:

Man does have an effect on climate. The question is how much and how significant. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is not pollution. It is plant food. The accumulation of paved asphalt areas may be a bigger factor than CO2 on climate. I do not believe that the change in the climate over the next 100 or so years will cause Armageddon. An increase in the world's average temperature of 1.5 degrees C might even be good for humanity. Historically speaking, humanity has struggled when the world has been cold and thrived when the world has been warm.

I think that climate change needs to be studied for another 20 to 30 years before making any major changes in energy policy. I don't agree with restraining the economy of the US when CO2 will be driven by economies of other nations.

I'm not completely sold on the manmade climate change theory but it does make me think about balance. Could we be affecting it enough to throw off the balance and speeding up the natural cycle? If so what is wrong with changing our energy policy to effectively avoid playing with fire? I think this is one instance where the US should be leading from the front regardless of what other countries are doing.

Think of it like this:

You live in a house in an nice neighborhood. You are afraid a would be robber might rob your house casing the nice neighborhood. In order to make the area less attractive to would be robbers, leading from the front, you burn down half your house, hoping your neighbors will too.

 

[Crick]

No one is going to burn down the US economy in order to reduce our carbon emissions. No one is going to shut down coal powered plants till replacement sources are up and running. To think otherwise is to buy into some REALLY stupid, fossil fuel industry propaganda.

 

[Iceweasel]

Is there some reason you can't look that information up? Could it be that you really have no interest in it?

Could it be that you can't answer the question either? How do I "look up" the accuracy of global temperature measurements in the 1880s? How stupid do you think we are?