Climate Change Deniers are Almost Extinct

[flacaltenn]

The planet doesn't need saving. It's doing just fine. It is behaving exactly like a healthy planet should behave. If we did not have cyclical weather patterns. No jet stream. No periodic warming or cooling. This would be a dead planet.

The idea of saving the planet by recycling water bottles or shutting the lights off isn't funny, it's hilarious

Even more hilarious is the mixed messages from the Earth Warriors. You're shutting off your lights and turning down the thermostat so that your neighbor can install a 220V 40A service to charge his EV.. Or how the dams that were built with the urging of the ECO-FRAUDS now need to come down. Or how building nuclear power plants is a much larger threat to the world than Global Warming. Or how by mandating MTBE and oxygenates in gasoline to clean the air -- the ECO-NAUTS ended up destroying clean water supplies. Or how Biomass conversion now includes garbage incinerators and burning trees. Or how CO2 in your lungs is a pollutant..

That list of backfires and giggles is extremely long. They really won't be happy until your local beavers are handed the deed to your property..

 

[RollingThunder]

The planet doesn't need saving. It's doing just fine. It is behaving exactly like a healthy planet should behave. If we did not have cyclical weather patterns. No jet stream. No periodic warming or cooling. This would be a dead planet.

The idea of saving the planet by recycling water bottles or shutting the lights off isn't funny, it's hilarious

You poor brain damaged reality-denying fool. You have no idea what is going on.

 

[Katzndogz]

Of course I do, you think what you like, run along and save the planet.

 

[flacaltenn]

Of course I do, you think what you like, run along and save the planet.

Quickly PLEASE --- for the children.. Oh and a good place to start is to reduce your Font Footprint...

 

[skookerasbil]

this thread is ghey

 

[mamooth]

Now that the accelerating temps have seemed to flatten out,

13 years of mostly La Nina and a deep solar minimum, and temps still rose.

and we are looking at a 200 year low in Solar activity that LAST TIME brought a 1.5degC COOLING to the planet.

Nobody outside of the gibbering loons at WUWT believes something that stupid. They started raving 3 years ago that temperatures would crash ... and temps kept rising. But, like the true believers they are, they have faith that temps will start falling RealSoonNow!

Care to make a very large cash bet on 2013 global average temps? Since you're so confidently predicting this temperature crash, you'd take the "2011 will be warmer" side. Myself, I consider it to be on the "taking candy from a baby" level to predict that 2013 will be warmer than 2011, given the El Nino forming now and the upcoming solar max. (The only caveat is that a massive Pinatubo-level volcanic eruption cancels the best).

I imagine SOMEBODY is gonna get foreclosed on..

The Global Peace and Serenity resulting from that will be worth living for..

After you get proven totally wrong, what's your excuse going to be? You might want to start working on it now.

 

[RollingThunder]

The denier cult retards' ship is sinking fast as the reality of the global climate changes becomes more and more obvious to everyone with more than half a brain. As the evidence supporting AGW/CC mounts along with the temperatures , the insanity of their desperate excuses and pseudo-scientific rationalizations just gets more apparent. Their long running propaganda meme that claims that "temperatures will be dropping soon because this is all natural cycles" has run head on into the reality of unmistakably rising temperature trends and new record hot temperatures all around the world. Next year will almost certainly set a new record for high global average temperatures. What will the poor denier cult retards do? Well, obviously, they will find some new, even crazier, way to deny the facts. It will be interesting and probably very amusing to watch their intellectual contortions in their continuing and entirely futile attempts to deny the obvious.

If 2013 breaks heat record, how will deniers respond?
With an El Niño on the way, 2013 could be the warmest year on record. But the climate-denial machine will keep on churning
New Scientist
by Stefan Rahmstorf
03 September 2012
(excerpts)

IT HAS been another "normal" global-warming summer in the northern hemisphere. The US sweltered in the hottest July on record, following the hottest spring on record. More than 60 per cent of the contiguous US is suffering from drought, as are parts of eastern Europe and India. In the Arctic, sea ice cover is at a record low and the Greenland ice sheet shows what the US National Snow and Ice Data Center calls "extraordinary high melting". Global land temperatures for May and June were the hottest since records began in the 19th century. Meanwhile, El Niño conditions are forecast to develop in the tropical Pacific Ocean, warming up ocean surface temperatures. Some observers have predicted that this will lead to record-breaking global temperatures next year. If El Niño does arrive and temperature records are broken, there will inevitably be much discussion of the causes of the warming. So now is a good time to sort signal from noise in the global temperature records.

For the past 30 years, global temperature has shown a linear warming trend of 0.16 °C per decade (Environmental Research Letters, vol 6, p 044022). When looking for the cause of this warming, a physicist will look for the heat source. One possibility is that the oceans are releasing heat. But measurements show the opposite: the oceans are soaking up heat. The other possibility is that the heat is coming from above, and indeed it is: more radiation is entering the top of the atmosphere than leaving it. This is because increasing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere hamper the loss of heat into space. Superimposed on this global-warming signal is short-term natural variability, which makes some years hotter and some colder. Some, notably 2005 and 2010, stick out above the trend line, whereas others, like 2008 and 2011, stay below it. But overall, temperatures are creeping upwards within a corridor of plus or minus 0.2 °C around the trend line. Climate deniers use this variability to claim there is a slowdown in global warming, by cherry-picking time intervals that happen to start in the upper part of the corridor and end in the lower. They mix up signal and noise. Three known factors explain much of the natural variation. The first is volcanic eruptions - the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 was followed by three cold years, for example. Then there is the sun's variability, mostly in the form of the 11-year sunspot cycle. Finally, there is the irregular oscillation between warm El Niño and cold La Niña conditions in the Pacific.

We have independent measurements describing all three that we can easily correlate to global temperature changes. This shows, for example, that during a solar maximum the globe is about 0.1 °C warmer than during a solar minimum, but also that solar activity has contributed nothing to the warming trend of the past 30 years. In fact, it has acted to reduce it, but the effect is so small that the hottest year on record, 2010, was near the end of the deepest solar minimum since satellite measurements began in the 1970s. The analysis further shows that global temperature typically reaches a maximum about four months after El Niño conditions peak, and is correspondingly colder after La Niña. La Niña episodes in 2008 and 2011 have cooled the past few years, masking the warming trend. But while 2011 was cool in the context of the previous 10 years, it was the hottest La Niña year on record. It is straightforward to remove the effects of the solar and El Niño cycles from the data, just as unemployment figures routinely have seasonal effects removed. Once this is done, and regardless of the global temperature dataset used, the result is always a steady warming trend that has been no slower in the past decade than it was in the previous two - and which, incidentally, agrees with what is predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The signal of global warming caused by humans is very clear, despite attempts by certain parties to drown it out with a lot of noise.

(Stefan Rahmstorf heads the Earth System Analysis department at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. He is coauthor of The Climate Crisis (Cambridge University Press, 2009))

© Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey Mamooth:

What is the general trend for surface temps over the past 8 years or so? Are they anywhere CLOSE to the acceleration and slope of the 90s? Why don't you give me the rate and acceleration for say 2000 to 2011....

If you don't recognize that my statement was COMPLETELY CORRECT --- you don't get to call me names.. In fact -- you don't get much cred at all...

I lifted this from a local Warmer Church site so I wouldn't have to listen to spoiled whining..

Look familiar? Mann says that rate is "not statistically significant".. Anyone with any knowledge of the topic would have to agree.. Would you say the RATE is about 0.04DegC per DECADE???? How about the acceleration? Wanna give me a number for that? Let's see -- at that rate it would be 0.4degC warmer at the start of the next Century wouldn't it? Satellites say it's less for the past decade..

Did I say ESSENTIALLY FLAT??? Wanna give your list of excuses again???

I'm wasting too much time with idiots and bullies.. I'll wait for some smarter, more capable warmers.. They will ALL be smarter in about one more decade..

I don't do climate year to year --- YOU shouldn't either.. Makes you look denser than you are...

Have you even LOOKED at the work being done on the Solar side of the issue? Betcha haven't.. When was the Dalton Minimum? How much do think it accounted for in cooling?

All these questions --- so LITTLE chance of an intelligient response...

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey TinkerBelle::

You link job above says the 30 yr rate is 0.16degC.. Not anymore it aint'...

It also lies when it says the solar cycle over 30 years contributes nothing.. BY DEFINITION --- even sun spot cycles contribute to temp modulation. And they don't want you to see the TSI measurements which ARE NOT the same as "sun activity cycles".

Over 1.2W/m2 HIGHER than 200 year ago.. And no feedbacks in the GCModels attributed to that warming.. Why do you think that is?

 

[daveman]

Now you're just blabbering incomprehensibly.

How do you propose to debate about how it can be saved sans the presupposition that can be?

After that, who gets to decide what "saved" even means?

I think the planet will be saved when we have world socialism and Al Gore has another beach house or three.

 

[Saigon]

The planet doesn't need saving. It's doing just fine. It is behaving exactly like a healthy planet should behave. If we did not have cyclical weather patterns. No jet stream. No periodic warming or cooling. This would be a dead planet.

The idea of saving the planet by recycling water bottles or shutting the lights off isn't funny, it's hilarious

You have to laugh, don't you?

 

[Saigon]

There's little more ridiculous than the absurd claim that the planet can be "saved".

I didn't say it could be saved.

I said the debate on how it could be saved will continue, as the debate on whether or not human acitivity plays a part in climate change seems to be coming to a close.

The very statement that the debate will continue, pre-supposes a goal. Or don't you undserstand English?

I do understand English, and I understand that your statement is nonsense.

What is the goal of the debate on abortion?

Debate on the possibly solutions to climate change could well continue for another 20 years without ever reaching any kind of agreement or consensus.

 

[Saigon]

And we're descended back to the usual brain-dead spamming....

It's kinda funny - we have a poster complaining that climate sceptics are being ridiculed, but then the only things climate scpetics seem to post are ridiculous.

I really don't ever see you engaging in debate on the more meaningful parts of this topic. Would be nice if ONCE there was actual engagement. All I get back is juvenile attempts to impeach my science cred or lectures on how I should be going extinct soon..

Actually, I'm not sure I've ever seen you on these threads before.

I totally agree about more real engagement, but I often feel there is no real possibility for debate here, given the lack of fundamental information, integrity and intelligence present.

I have no interest in your scientific credentials, so I look forward to discussing the real issues with you.

To begin - how do you explain the fact that no major scientific bodies have stated that human beings do not play a role in climate change?

 

[RollingThunder]

What is the general trend for surface temps over the past 8 years or so?

Calculating trends over such a short time period is pointless due to the 'noise' of the natural variations, as you would know if you actually knew anything about science and weren't just another clueless dupe parroting denier cult propaganda.

Are they anywhere CLOSE to the acceleration and slope of the 90s?

Due to natural factors that affect the climate (that have been discussed many times here but that you still manage to ignore) like the extended low solar minimum and the multiple La Nina years, this last decade or so has seen a slight slowdown in the rising surface temperature trend. So what? That kind of decadal variation is exactly what the climate models have predicted and observations have confirmed. The last decade was still the warmest decade in the entire instrumental record going back to 1860. Almost all of the top ten warmest years on record occurred in the last decade. Even more important, scientists have found that as the Earth continues to retain more of the radiative heat energy it receives from the sun than it is able to radiate back into space, a good deal of that heat energy has been going into the oceans. Here is the real temperature trend line for both the land surface and the oceans.

Why don't you give me the rate and acceleration for say 2000 to 2011....

Why don't we look at it in the larger context that actually conveys the definite upward direction of the long term trend and demonstrates that the decade to decade variability due to natural factors doesn't affect the long term underlying trend.

If you don't recognize that my statement was COMPLETELY CORRECT

It is only in your deluded little fantasy world that your retarded drivel ("statements") is ever "COMPLETELY CORRECT", you flaming moron.

I lifted this from a local Warmer Church site so I wouldn't have to listen to spoiled whining..

Look familiar?

Yeah, retard, it shows the rising temperature trend from 2000 to 2011 and also demonstrates the year to year ups and downs induced by the play of natural variability. The anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing is overwhelming all of the up and down natural variations and pushing the longer term temperature trend steadily upwards. Temperatures were rising even though there was a very deep and extended solar minimum over most of the decade. The previous solar cycle peaked around the beginning of the decade and then went into a decline and extended minimum that lasted until 2011. As solar cycle 24 heads for its maximum next year, we will almost certainly see new record high temperatures as natural variability adds to the rising temperature trend rather than diminishing it.

Mann says that rate is "not statistically significant"..

Dr. Mann never said any such thing, you lying POS. You don't even understand what 'statistically significant' means, retard, or just how it differs from simply 'significant'.

You may be dredging up some old distorted memory of one of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda memes from 2010 when a reporter asked Prof. Phil Jones of the CRU if the warming trend from 1995 to then was "statistically significant". Prof. Jones explained to him that such small time periods weren't very useful for gauging long term trends. He said that the trend was very close to statistical significance, maybe 90%, but that it didn't quite achieve the arbitrary 95% confidence level that defines 'statistical significance' - yet. Of course his words were seized on and distorted by the fossil fuel industry propagandists and their easily confused denier cult dupes. But guess what, fecalbrain???

Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
BBC News
By Richard Black - Environment correspondent
10 June 2011
(excerpts)

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones...Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not [statistically] significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.

By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News. "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

 

[RollingThunder]

A little something offered in as a sort of tribute to ol' fecalhead and the rest of the denier cult retard crew. I hope you foam at the mouth upon reading this.


"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data
Forbes
2/05/2012

 

[daveman]

How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data

I see you finally got around to reading the Climategate emails.

 

[flacaltenn]

You just did EXACTLY what I said the Warmers do -- they IGNORE the Solar TSI increases and throw up charts of Sunspot Activity. Do you understand the diff?

We'll discuss the actual significance of your chart for Ocean vs Land warming when I don't have clients screaming at me..

You're the one that's over your head and duped. YEs it was Jones not Mann. I screwed up..

However, the argument about statistical significance does not change the fact that the RATE has slowed from about 0.16degC/decade to what you see in the graph which is more like 0.04degC/decade. THAT'S THE FACT.. Regardless of the nutty claim of statistical significance from 12,000 surface sensors averaged over the total of the earth's surface detecting just 0.04degC rise.

Speaking of FOOLING PEOPLE with statistics. You need to check the date for the Jones claim that 2011 pushed the measly feeble warming trend "into significance"... It was JUNE 2011.. By the end of that year -- with a very cold winter -- that claim could no longer be made. If you HAD a brain and any scientific chops -- you could see that from the decadal temp chart yourself. Talk about cherry-picking data.

It's not "fooling people" to take a 10 year at temps. It's what has actually happened. It should be INTERPRETATED realistically however. It does not mean that Global Warming has stopped or reversed. I'm not making that claim. It DOES however bring realism to the discussion and REDUCE THE HYSTERIA to show that the climate is NOT gonna skyrocket off into instant oblivion of the planet. And that the models have limitations in terms of predicting or validating WEATHER events that YOU and your fellow alarmists are pissing your pants about...

More when I have time..

 

[Old Rocks]

Not talking about oblivion. More strawmen from a idiot. We are already seeing the shape of the damage. Increases in food prices, inconveniant for the industrial nations, a death sentence for many in the third world. Very expensive damage both to private and governmental infrastructure, worldwide. All of that represents money out of our pockets, and things that would have otherwise been done, left undone because of the spending on repairing damage from a changing climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

TSI in 2010, 2011, down slightly. And still had years that ranked in the top ten.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no doubt that no one could tell those aztecs that sacrificing virgins wouldn't have an effect on the rainfall. To them it was simple science.