And they call me a denier

[Abraham3]

It's minus 40 C right now. In my world.

Keep telling me it's warming. Rock it by me baby and tell me why I should fucking care.

As of 1900, Sunday evening, the coldest place in the lower 48 is NW North Dakota, NE Montana and they're about -15F. Are you talking air temperature or wind chill?

The world is getting warmer. That doesn't mean winter will go away or that it won't occasionally get very cold. The current temperature increase has only been 1.4F over the last century and a half. Hardly enough to cancel your Arctic air mass.

You should fucking care because increasing temperatures are going to fuck up the world. Your children and their children will suffer real and significant consequences from it. Water supplies will run dry. Coastal regions will suffer flooding and increased storm surge damage. More and more species will die off from habitat changes, changes in prey and predator patterns, migrations and the like. You should care because that's what good people do.

 

[Kosh]

It is the trend over decades that matters when it comes to global climate.

There is where I have a problem.

I see trends as being pretty insignificant when I can look back and see how easily trends can be disrupted. For example, increasing the particulates in the atmosphere, like we were in the early part of the 20th century, causes a significant increase in the reflective index of the atmosphere, and raises a legitimate issue of a cooling trend. By the time we understood this, and the government started to make up rules to fix it, industry was already moving toward other means of production that caused less particulate pollution. The trend was reversed.

Same thing with AGW, by the time we realized just how bad the problem might be if we completely ignored it we were already using different fuels that significantly reduced the output of greenhouse gasses. The interesting part of that switch is that, despite the fact that the US is the only country that didn't implement any of the recommended changes that came out of Kyoto we actually succeeded in reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses by more than enough to be in compliance with the treaty if we had ratified it.

Then you come along, insist that the world is going to end, and demand we stop doing something that is working, and switch over to other technology that is actually worse.

This is why I argue with you, you ignore science, and insist that your interpretation is the only one that counts. The debate has just begun, and will continue for centuries.

Even in the relatively new climate sciences the ONLY accurate readings (according to those studying this) are in the past 30 years. And thus debunks any long term trend in the AGW religion.

 

[Abraham3]

Show us a reputable source that makes such a contention.

You folks are truly clutching at straws.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is the trend over decades that matters when it comes to global climate.

There is where I have a problem.

I see trends as being pretty insignificant when I can look back and see how easily trends can be disrupted. For example, increasing the particulates in the atmosphere, like we were in the early part of the 20th century, causes a significant increase in the reflective index of the atmosphere, and raises a legitimate issue of a cooling trend. By the time we understood this, and the government started to make up rules to fix it, industry was already moving toward other means of production that caused less particulate pollution. The trend was reversed.

Same thing with AGW, by the time we realized just how bad the problem might be if we completely ignored it we were already using different fuels that significantly reduced the output of greenhouse gasses. The interesting part of that switch is that, despite the fact that the US is the only country that didn't implement any of the recommended changes that came out of Kyoto we actually succeeded in reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses by more than enough to be in compliance with the treaty if we had ratified it.

Then you come along, insist that the world is going to end, and demand we stop doing something that is working, and switch over to other technology that is actually worse.

This is why I argue with you, you ignore science, and insist that your interpretation is the only one that counts. The debate has just begun, and will continue for centuries.

Even in the relatively new climate sciences the ONLY accurate readings (according to those studying this) are in the past 30 years. And thus debunks any long term trend in the AGW religion.

Thanks for making it clear that most people are idiots.

 

[Kosh]

Show us a reputable source that makes such a contention.

You folks are truly clutching at straws.

Creditable? Wow! Now the climate scientists are no longer creditable to the AGW church members.

 

[RollingThunder]

It's minus 40 C right now. In my world.

Wow, it's really amazing that it could get that cold in your rectum, where we all have to assume you have your head lodged.

Keep telling me it's warming.

OK. Here ya go, tinybrain.

2013 is going to be the 7th warmest year on record globally.

The continent of Australia is currently experiencing its hottest year on record and for the 15th consecutive month (since August 2012), Australia has experienced above-average temperatures.

2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental USA and it surpassed the previous record set in 1998 by a full degree F., and average temperatures in 2012 were above the 20th century average by more than 3 degrees Fahrenheit.

2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record globally.

The oceans are warming at unprecedented rates.

The Arctic is warming at an incredible rate, more than twice as fast as the rest of the world, and the ice cap in 2012 diminished to its lowest extent and volume in many thousands of years, possibly as much as 120,000 years.

Greenland soared to its hottest temperature on record this summer.

Japan recorded its hottest summer ever recorded, while China had its warmest August on record.

Rock it by me baby and tell me why I should fucking care.

Nobody really expects utter retards like you to care much about anything, so you get a pass on this one, tinybrain. The intelligent and sane people of the world care quite a lot, but, again, this obviously excludes you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In contrast, sea ice extent in Antarctica remained unusually high.

Arctic sea ice continued to expand during November, gaining 2.24 million square kilometers (865,000 million square miles) of ice since the beginning of the month. Sea ice extent for November averaged 10.24 million square kilometers (3.95 million square miles). This is 750,000 square kilometers (290,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent and is the 6th lowest November extent in the 35-year satellite data record. As was the case for October 2013, sea ice extent for November 2013 remained within two standard deviations of the long-term 1981 to 2010 average.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

 

[Abraham3]

Show us a reputable source that makes such a contention.

You folks are truly clutching at straws.

Creditable? Wow! Now the climate scientists are no longer creditable to the AGW church members.

I think you meant to use the word "credible". And I have no doubts about the mainsteam views of climate scientists. What I am doubting is the contention that the temperature of record of the last 30 years is all that is sufficiently accurate to be trusted and that the last 30 years record does not support AGW. It is of THAT which I was asking support.

 

[IanC]

A temperature spike like that we have experiance since 1850 would show up loud and clear. In everything from seabottom sediments to glacial ice.

hahaha. sure, like the proxy records that had to be amputated from the record in Mann98. or dont you remember 'hide the decline'?

I hope you don't disappoint me, but please tell us what YOU believe "hide the decline" meant.

hide the decline refers to the anti-scientific act of truncating the proxy record at 1960 in Mann98,99 so that it would not be obvious that the proxy record had wildly diverged. 'Mike's Nature trick' refers to removing embarrassing data by replacing it with modern high resolution instrumental data.

two screen captures from Muller's video that talks about the blatant dishonesty of Mann's papers.

Professor Jonathon Jones:

“People have asked why mainstream scientists are keeping silent on these issues. As a scientist who has largely kept silent, at least in public, I have more sympathy for silence than most people here. It’s not for the obvious reason, that speaking out leads to immediate attacks, not just from Gavin and friends, but also from some of the more excitable commentators here. Far more importantly most scientists are reluctant to speak out on topics which are not their field. We tend to trust our colleagues, perhaps unreasonably so, and are also well aware that most scientific questions are considerably more complex than outsiders think, and that it is entirely possible that we have missed some subtle but critical point.

However, “hide the decline” is an entirely different matter. This is not a complicated technical matter on which reasonable people can disagree: it is a straightforward and blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science.

The significance of the divergence problem is immediately obvious, and seeking to hide it is quite simply wrong. The recent public statements by supposed leaders of UK science, declaring that hiding the decline is standard scientific practice are on a par with declarations that black is white and up is down. I don’t know who they think they are speaking for, but they certainly aren’t speaking for me.

interestingly enough, Briffa had already truncated the beginning of his proxy series. and of course there is the Briffa Bodge as well. science is not supposed to be done by cutting out the evidence you like and hiding the evidence that you dont.

 

[IanC]

A temperature spike like that we have experiance since 1850 would show up loud and clear. In everything from seabottom sediments to glacial ice.

You're really not getting much from your Geology classes are you?

What is the time resolution of proxies studies going back more than a couple hundred years?

Here... Let Marcott, the author of recent "global proxy study" help you out here...

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.

So any warmer claiming they know ANYTHING about MAGNITUDES or RATES that are comparable to the Common Era warming ---- they're just peeing down their own leg..

Marcott only put out his disclaimer of 'not robust' because of heavy criticism coming from the blogosphere. it was easier to retract his claims rather than defend them and besides, the press releases had already gone out and the paper would be famous in the public eye as a new and improved hockeystick. rebuttals and even retractions of papers arent 'newsworthy' and the public doesnt hear about it.


as far as unprecidented rate of warming in the modern era....in a past thread I showed an analysis of the Vostock (?) ice core that checked all of the 1C temp spikes in our temp range. there were dozens, many with greater than 1C rises, some that lasted longer than 100 years. none of them led to a 'tipping point'. our recent spike actually looked like it could have been the calculated average rather than just another data point. got that? there is nothing special about our temps other than the obcession about CO2 by the doomsayers.

 

[IanC]

 

[BDBoop]

It's minus 40 C right now. In my world.

Wow, it's really amazing that it could get that cold in your rectum, where we all have to assume you have your head lodged.

Keep telling me it's warming.

OK. Here ya go, tinybrain.

2013 is going to be the 7th warmest year on record globally.

The continent of Australia is currently experiencing its hottest year on record and for the 15th consecutive month (since August 2012), Australia has experienced above-average temperatures.

2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental USA and it surpassed the previous record set in 1998 by a full degree F., and average temperatures in 2012 were above the 20th century average by more than 3 degrees Fahrenheit.

2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record globally.

The oceans are warming at unprecedented rates.

The Arctic is warming at an incredible rate, more than twice as fast as the rest of the world, and the ice cap in 2012 diminished to its lowest extent and volume in many thousands of years, possibly as much as 120,000 years.

Greenland soared to its hottest temperature on record this summer.

Japan recorded its hottest summer ever recorded, while China had its warmest August on record.

Rock it by me baby and tell me why I should fucking care.

Nobody really expects utter retards like you to care much about anything, so you get a pass on this one, tinybrain. The intelligent and sane people of the world care quite a lot, but, again, this obviously excludes you.

Will be waiting for documented refuting.

 

[Abraham3]

Keep in mind, Ian, that to make these invisible in Shakun and Marcott's data, it'd also have to come back down to where it had been, in the period blocked by their coarse resolution.

 

[IanC]

Keep in mind, Ian, that to make these invisible in Shakun and Marcott's data, it'd also have to come back down to where it had been, in the period blocked by their coarse resolution.

are you referencing Marcott or Shakun? my graph is only using Vostok, cutoff is 1C below present temp.

what is your understanding of 'hide the decline', and 'Mike's Nature trick'?

 

[flacaltenn]

A temperature spike like that we have experiance since 1850 would show up loud and clear. In everything from seabottom sediments to glacial ice.

You're really not getting much from your Geology classes are you?

What is the time resolution of proxies studies going back more than a couple hundred years?

Here... Let Marcott, the author of recent "global proxy study" help you out here...

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.

So any warmer claiming they know ANYTHING about MAGNITUDES or RATES that are comparable to the Common Era warming ---- they're just peeing down their own leg..

Marcott only put out his disclaimer of 'not robust' because of heavy criticism coming from the blogosphere. it was easier to retract his claims rather than defend them and besides, the press releases had already gone out and the paper would be famous in the public eye as a new and improved hockeystick. rebuttals and even retractions of papers arent 'newsworthy' and the public doesnt hear about it.


as far as unprecidented rate of warming in the modern era....in a past thread I showed an analysis of the Vostock (?) ice core that checked all of the 1C temp spikes in our temp range. there were dozens, many with greater than 1C rises, some that lasted longer than 100 years. none of them led to a 'tipping point'. our recent spike actually looked like it could have been the calculated average rather than just another data point. got that? there is nothing special about our temps other than the obcession about CO2 by the doomsayers.

Agreed about Marcott's "honesty".. Don't remember that Vostok type of graph before..
I'm not doubting that our CEra warming is not unique, but I'm doubting that the true RATES of those graphs are accurate. They may paint a picture of relative rates, but maybe not absolute values of either rates or magnitudes..

What is your knowledge of the claimed time resolution on ancient ice cores? I remember all kinds of "alignments" and "corrections" leading to some general statement about 25 -- 50 year at THOSE time scales..

But ice is a very non-linear proxy.. And if temperatures DID spike that high, the melt rates would be severe in those layers --- wouldn't they? How do you control for stuff like that and claim a 25 -- 50 year time resolution over milleniums??

 

[skookerasbil]

Yes, you are a denier. This weather report is completely irrelevant.

but only to the fringe AGW nutters.



The masses think its pretty damn relevant.........and that's the only thing that matters s0n!!!








yuk.......yuk........

 

[RollingThunder]

It's minus 40 C right now. In my world.

Wow, it's really amazing that it could get that cold in your rectum, where we all have to assume you have your head lodged.

Keep telling me it's warming.

OK. Here ya go, tinybrain.

2013 is going to be the 7th warmest year on record globally.

The continent of Australia is currently experiencing its hottest year on record and for the 15th consecutive month (since August 2012), Australia has experienced above-average temperatures.

2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental USA and it surpassed the previous record set in 1998 by a full degree F., and average temperatures in 2012 were above the 20th century average by more than 3 degrees Fahrenheit.

2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record globally.

The oceans are warming at unprecedented rates.

The Arctic is warming at an incredible rate, more than twice as fast as the rest of the world, and the ice cap in 2012 diminished to its lowest extent and volume in many thousands of years, possibly as much as 120,000 years.

Greenland soared to its hottest temperature on record this summer.

Japan recorded its hottest summer ever recorded, while China had its warmest August on record.

Rock it by me baby and tell me why I should fucking care.

Nobody really expects utter retards like you to care much about anything, so you get a pass on this one, tinybrain. The intelligent and sane people of the world care quite a lot, but, again, this obviously excludes you.

Will be waiting for documented refuting.

I will be waiting for you to jerk your head out of your ass and return to the real world, tinybrain. I'm not going to hold my breath though (like you must be doing). You may well be far too brainwashed and retarded to ever wake up to reality.

All of those signs of a warming planet that I listed are on record and can be found very easily with a quick google search. Try and refute them if you imagine they are wrong.

Your knee-jerk cultic rejection of reality is another sign of how insane and bewildered you are, tinybrain.

Repeating it once again, just because you're so stupid, the winter weather in your back yard does not equal global climate.

 

[Abraham3]

Keep in mind, Ian, that to make these invisible in Shakun and Marcott's data, it'd also have to come back down to where it had been, in the period blocked by their coarse resolution.

are you referencing Marcott or Shakun? my graph is only using Vostok, cutoff is 1C below present temp.

what is your understanding of 'hide the decline', and 'Mike's Nature trick'?

As you know, both Marcott and Shakun have been lead authors on studies using a wide variety of proxies to determine best estimates of temperatures during the Holocene since the last glaciation. Denialists have accused both of putting out data that had so little temporal resolution that a "warming spell" such as we're experiencing at present could have happened and not show in their record.

You know this as well as I. It's why you put up the Vostok acceleration data. I just want to know what you think you've accomplished by doing so.

 

[IanC]

You're really not getting much from your Geology classes are you?

What is the time resolution of proxies studies going back more than a couple hundred years?

Here... Let Marcott, the author of recent "global proxy study" help you out here...



So any warmer claiming they know ANYTHING about MAGNITUDES or RATES that are comparable to the Common Era warming ---- they're just peeing down their own leg..

Marcott only put out his disclaimer of 'not robust' because of heavy criticism coming from the blogosphere. it was easier to retract his claims rather than defend them and besides, the press releases had already gone out and the paper would be famous in the public eye as a new and improved hockeystick. rebuttals and even retractions of papers arent 'newsworthy' and the public doesnt hear about it.


as far as unprecidented rate of warming in the modern era....in a past thread I showed an analysis of the Vostock (?) ice core that checked all of the 1C temp spikes in our temp range. there were dozens, many with greater than 1C rises, some that lasted longer than 100 years. none of them led to a 'tipping point'. our recent spike actually looked like it could have been the calculated average rather than just another data point. got that? there is nothing special about our temps other than the obcession about CO2 by the doomsayers.

Agreed about Marcott's "honesty".. Don't remember that Vostok type of graph before..
I'm not doubting that our CEra warming is not unique, but I'm doubting that the true RATES of those graphs are accurate. They may paint a picture of relative rates, but maybe not absolute values of either rates or magnitudes..

What is your knowledge of the claimed time resolution on ancient ice cores? I remember all kinds of "alignments" and "corrections" leading to some general statement about 25 -- 50 year at THOSE time scales..

But ice is a very non-linear proxy.. And if temperatures DID spike that high, the melt rates would be severe in those layers --- wouldn't they? How do you control for stuff like that and claim a 25 -- 50 year time resolution over milleniums??

Antarctica ice cores dont have as much of a problem with melt rates as other locations. while I am sure that there could be a problem with the yearly striations, ice cores are likely to be the best long term proxy that we have. antarctic ice is not melting now, the comparisons are between very cold and even more cold. I have a healthy dose of suspicion for all proxy results but if we have to use a proxy this is one of the more robust ones. it shows results that put our recent warming in a very average position.

 

[IanC]

Keep in mind, Ian, that to make these invisible in Shakun and Marcott's data, it'd also have to come back down to where it had been, in the period blocked by their coarse resolution.

are you referencing Marcott or Shakun? my graph is only using Vostok, cutoff is 1C below present temp.

what is your understanding of 'hide the decline', and 'Mike's Nature trick'?

As you know, both Marcott and Shakun have been lead authors on studies using a wide variety of proxies to determine best estimates of temperatures during the Holocene since the last glaciation. Denialists have accused both of putting out data that had so little temporal resolution that a "warming spell" such as we're experiencing at present could have happened and not show in their record.

You know this as well as I. It's why you put up the Vostok acceleration data. I just want to know what you think you've accomplished by doing so.

perhaps I was not clear enough. I wanted to know if you were talking about Marcott2013 or Shakun2012. both of which I have started threads about. Marcott is a new PhD whose thesis was the basis for Marcott2013 which was turned into a hockeystick with the help of Shakun. Shakun2012 was a feeble attempt to show how CO2 was a major component of the swing from ice age to interglacial. which one were you refering to? they both have SIs with their proxy names and data.

and I will ask you again about 'hide the decline'. what is your understanding of the term, and do you defend it? what is your understanding of 'Mike's Nature trick', and do you defend it?