New records have significance

[ding]

This particular record is not based on satellite imagery. There are temperature data for the poles going back over a century and, of course, ice cores going back hundreds of millenia.

Those ice cores show that for the vast majority of the last half million years the earth was a much colder planet than today. The conditions which led to that climate shift still exist today. You are worrying about the wrong thing.

 

[ding]

The primary cause of the current warming is human GHG emissions. It is not natural, it is synthetic.

Scientists reach opposite conclusions based upon the datasets they use.

 

[Crick]

Scientists reach opposite conclusions based upon the datasets they use.

Which was in response to:

Crick said:
The primary cause of the current warming is human GHG emissions. It is not natural, it is synthetic.


What scientists? I would very much like to see a link.

 

[Dekster]

We are headed to food shortages soon. People getting raped at the pump.
US heading towards total dystopia.

Nobody gives a fuck about the new records. Might as well be posting up threads about the migration habits of North American slugs.

Word. I replaced by original 1982 kitchen faucet with a new one that turns out is "low flow". Taking three times as long to fill up something doesn't save water. If anything it wastes water because I am gonna walk away and come back to it as long as it takes to fill up a jug now. If i don't time it right, it will just overflow.

 

[ding]

Which was in response to:

Crick said:
The primary cause of the current warming is human GHG emissions. It is not natural, it is synthetic.


What scientists? I would very much like to see a link.

I’ve shown you the paper several times.

Excluding urban temperatures and using the high variability solar output datasets scientists reach the conclusion that solar variability is the cause of the recent warming trend.

 

[Crick]

I’ve shown you the paper several times.

Excluding urban temperatures and using the high variability solar output datasets scientists reach the conclusion that solar variability is the cause of the recent warming trend.

You've shown me gobbledygook. Give me one link to a published paper in a refereed journal concluding that human GHG emissions are not causing the currently observed warming. That was your claim.

 

[ReinyDays]

You've shown me gobbledygook. Give me one link to a published paper in a refereed journal concluding that human GHG emissions are not causing the currently observed warming. That was your claim.

Let's see a link to a published paper in a refereed journal concluding that human GHG emissions are the "primary cause" the currently observed warming ... "It is not natural, it is synthetic." ... and that's in the conclusion, not the abstract ...

That was your claim.

 

[ding]

You've shown me gobbledygook. Give me one link to a published paper in a refereed journal concluding that human GHG emissions are not causing the currently observed warming. That was your claim.

What part of I have already done that several times did you not understand?

 

[ReinyDays]

What part of I have already done that several times did you not understand?

All of it? ...

 

[Crick]

Let's see a link to a published paper in a refereed journal concluding that human GHG emissions are the "primary cause" the currently observed warming ... "It is not natural, it is synthetic." ... and that's in the conclusion, not the abstract ...

That was your claim.

Assessment Reports 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and (pre-print) 6 of the IPCC. In particular the reports of Working Group I, "The Physical Science Basis". Do you really need the URL? If so, it is www.ipcc.ch.

 

[ReinyDays]

Assessment Reports 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and (pre-print) 6 of the IPCC. In particular the reports of Working Group I, "The Physical Science Basis". Do you really need the URL? If so, it is www.ipcc.ch.

The IPCC report isn't peer-reviewed by a reputable publishing house ... it's a self-published policy guide for government leaders and policy-makers ...

... published paper in a refereed journal ...

We'll wait ...

 

[skookerasbil]

Assessment Reports 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and (pre-print) 6 of the IPCC. In particular the reports of Working Group I, "The Physical Science Basis". Do you really need the URL? If so, it is www.ipcc.ch.

Who is caring about this stuff besides the AGW OCD's? Show us THAT evidence?
Otherwise, the debate stuff is nothing more than an internet hobby....I mean, c'mon now.

If the AGW "science" fails to transcend beyond its own field and doesn't impact energy policy, it is but a slogan. . I mean...drrrr.

Here the analogy sOn....

Guys love big tits....fact. Now...there is a small contingent of lovers of the little raisin titties. They couldn't be any more obsessed with them...scream of the greatness of little titties. But nobody cares....the big cleavage guys will forever dominate. Indeed...the AGW crowd is the equivalent of the little titty gazer club.

Same with fossil fuels...the world grinds to a complete halt without them...ALL hedge funds collapse without fossil fuels....dOy.

Oz is ghey dude

 

[westwall]

This significance is usually reported as standard deviation in the scientific literature ... the link you give provides absolutely NO error margins ... a scientific impossibility ... [shakes head] ...

Both Lazzara and Meier said what happened in Antarctica is probably just a random weather event and not a sign of climate change.

Next time, try reading the article and not just the damn headlines ... God this makes you look stupid ...

Looking stupid is a Crick specialty.

 

[Crick]

The IPCC report isn't peer-reviewed by a reputable publishing house ... it's a self-published policy guide for government leaders and policy-makers ...

... published paper in a refereed journal ...

We'll wait ...

HAHAHAHAHAAAaaaaaaa. What a fucking marOOOOOoooon.

 

[skookerasbil]

Looking stupid is a Crick specialty.

The guys navigates in Oz

 

[Crick]

You folks ought to go visit ww.ipcc.ch and have a look at what sort of reviews the Assessment Reports go through before they're published. And that would be besides the fact that they are based on peer reviewed data to begin with. Comparing the Assessment Reports with say, something available on Arxiv is like comparing a post grad lecture to the babbling of a two year old. Look at the study Owl posted from Arxiv that supposedly "proved" that global warming wasn't due to human GHG emissions. That was so sourndly refuted by post #78 that I should hope Owl and the authors of that piece of shit should feel more comfortable under a damp rock someplace.

 

[skookerasbil]

You folks ought to go visit ww.ipcc.ch and have a look at what sort of reviews the Assessment Reports go through before they're published. And that would be besides the fact that they are based on peer reviewed data to begin with.

But why? It is the climate crusader crowd that has yet to make its case.....20 years of fAiLuRe.

Going to check that site would be as productive as engaging in a group navel contemplation session.

 

[ReinyDays]

You folks ought to go visit ww.ipcc.ch and have a look at what sort of reviews the Assessment Reports go through before they're published. And that would be besides the fact that they are based on peer reviewed data to begin with. Comparing the Assessment Reports with say, something available on Arxiv is like comparing a post grad lecture to the babbling of a two year old. Look at the study Owl posted from Arxiv that supposedly "proved" that global warming wasn't due to human GHG emissions. That was so sourndly refuted by post #78 that I should hope Owl and the authors of that piece of shit should feel more comfortable under a damp rock someplace.

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...
You're sending us to the IPCC website to show the IPCC report is peer-reviewed? ...
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...
That's too funny, ya loon ... send us to a peer-review site and show where they've reviewed the entire IPCC report ...

From your link:

"Each IPCC report starts with a scoping meeting to develop a draft outline."
They set their agenda ...
"Experts nominated by member governments, Observer Organizations and the Bureau and selected by the relevant Bureau prepare a draft outline of the report for the Panel."
Experts who agree with the agenda are hired ...

One of the world's foremost experts on hurricanes ... Doctor Mark Landsea ... was dismissed off the panel for pointing out we don't have enough scientifically accurate data to make claims about changes in hurricane frequency or intensity ... show me where this was challenged and answered in the IPCC report ... as required by nominative peer-review process ...

Not clear what the Arxiv reference is ... is this a local "paper mill" ... some less-than-reputable scientific journal that just about anyone can get a paper published for a master's or doctor's degree? ... well, check the university the paper's coming from and judge the value on the university's reputation ... is it from MIT or Ichydick Tech? ...

The IPCC report contains scientific information ... but the IPCC report is NOT a scientific publication ... it is political ... and written specifically for elected officials by the United Nations ... yes, the United Nations did publish the report ... themselves ... thus the report is self published ... duh ...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...
You're sending us to the IPCC website to show the IPCC report is peer-reviewed? ...

The IPCC is not peer reviewed. It relies on peer reviewed publications from across the field. The IPCC does not do scientific research.

From your link:

"Each IPCC report starts with a scoping meeting to develop a draft outline."
They set their agenda ...
"Experts nominated by member governments, Observer Organizations and the Bureau and selected by the relevant Bureau prepare a draft outline of the report for the Panel."
Experts who agree with the agenda are hired ...

If you don't like the IPCC you, yourself, are free to comb the field and the peer reviewed journals. Would you understand it? Either way, you are not limited to JUST the IPCC.

One of the world's foremost experts on hurricanes ... Doctor Mark Landsea ...

Mark Landsea or Christopher Landsea? I can't find a "Mark" Landsea that is an expert on hurricanes but I see a LOT from Christopher Landsea.

Landsea apparently told PBS "...we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming. The question is whether we're seeing any real increases in the hurricane activity."

So it seems the issue was whether this warming (real) resulted in increased hurricane activity. Not necessarily the most resounding take-down of AGW.

was dismissed off the panel

No, I believe he stepped down from the panel. There's a difference there.

 

[ding]

One of the world's foremost experts on hurricanes ... Doctor Mark Landsea ... was dismissed off the panel for pointing out we don't have enough scientifically accurate data to make claims about changes in hurricane frequency or intensity ...

Bastards.

I’m on to their game. Apparently they reach consensus by dismissing all claims that don’t agree.

The IPCC just proved that beryllium doesn’t exist by throwing away all the samples of beryllium. Clever bastards.