UH OH Spaghetti Oh! Hansen says the temps have been flat!

[Soggy in NOLA]

Wait, what? The left has been perpetuating a lie?

 

[depotoo]

Wait, what? The left has been perpetuating a lie?

it's amazing the lies that can be perpetuated when big money profit is involved.

 

[asterism]

No, that's just your total ignorance of science talking. And your stupidity.

"The process is not instantaneous."






LOL. You don't know any history, let alone any climate science, you retarded denier cult troll.

So it appears you don't know of any time in history where massive rises in CO2 predated massive rises in temperature by hundreds of years either.

Ok.

Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Triassic-Jurassic Extinction event. Permian-Triassic Extinction event.

Methane catastrophe

A good source, but it doesn't answer the question regarding the delayed causal relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. Specifically, it doesn't show where this has happened before. It shows that a massive release in Methane caused these warming periods.

Where does it show CO2 caused the warming with a delay of hundreds of years?

 

[RollingThunder]

Wait, what? The left has been perpetuating a lie?

it's amazing the lies that can be perpetuated when big money profit is involved.

"Big money profit" - you mean like the hundreds of billions a year that all of the various fossil fuel industry players take in for drilling, mining, refining, transporting, and selling coal, oil products and natural gas? You mean the lies told by the propaganda machine funded by the fossil fuel industry and parroted everywhere by duped and bamboozled denier cult nitwits? Those lies are indeed "amazing" in their stupidity and anti-science bias.

 

[RollingThunder]

So it appears you don't know of any time in history where massive rises in CO2 predated massive rises in temperature by hundreds of years either.

Ok.

Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Triassic-Jurassic Extinction event. Permian-Triassic Extinction event.

Methane catastrophe

A good source, but it doesn't answer the question regarding the delayed causal relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. Specifically, it doesn't show where this has happened before. It shows that a massive release in Methane caused these warming periods.

Where does it show CO2 caused the warming with a delay of hundreds of years?

The better question, Ass-ter, is why would you imagine that surface temperatures should instantly respond to increased CO2 levels?

Go ahead, try to answer that one. Seriously, I dare you.

The real answer, of course, is that you are completely ignorant about physics and you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Old Rocks]

So it appears you don't know of any time in history where massive rises in CO2 predated massive rises in temperature by hundreds of years either.

Ok.

Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Triassic-Jurassic Extinction event. Permian-Triassic Extinction event.

Methane catastrophe

A good source, but it doesn't answer the question regarding the delayed causal relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. Specifically, it doesn't show where this has happened before. It shows that a massive release in Methane caused these warming periods.

Where does it show CO2 caused the warming with a delay of hundreds of years?

What you are addressing is the Milankovic Cycles.

Global Warming Natural Cycle ? OSS Foundation

These cycles increase and decrease the amount of solar forcing imposed within our climate system and that actually causes the temperature to rise and fall with calculable regularity. The more time the earth or land mass spends closer to the sun (at perihelion), the more energy it receives thus warming. The more time it spends farther form the sun (at aphelion) the less energy it receives and the earth cools.
The 'eccentricity' cycle period is around 100,000 years. This causes the orbit of the earth to elongate or become more elliptical. Imagine that the more elliptic it becomes, the less time during the year it spends near the sun. So the planet receives less solar energy and cools a bit.
The 'obliquity' cycle tilts the earth every 41,000 years and that causes the land mass of the norther hemisphere to face more towards the sun or less towards the sun.
The 'precession' cycle occurs about every 26,000 years and influences the wobble of the polar axis. This also influences earths climate by causing winters and summers to be warmer or colder depending on the amount of land surface being more or less exposed to the sun.

These are three main influences considered in the Milankovitch theory that regulate the general amount of energy received in our earth climate system. As we warm and cool, more or less of our natural greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere, or stored in the oceans, ice and earth.

 

[asterism]

Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Triassic-Jurassic Extinction event. Permian-Triassic Extinction event.

Methane catastrophe

A good source, but it doesn't answer the question regarding the delayed causal relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. Specifically, it doesn't show where this has happened before. It shows that a massive release in Methane caused these warming periods.

Where does it show CO2 caused the warming with a delay of hundreds of years?

The better question, Ass-ter, is why would you imagine that surface temperatures should instantly respond to increased CO2 levels?

Go ahead, try to answer that one. Seriously, I dare you.

The real answer, of course, is that you are completely ignorant about physics and you have no idea what you're talking about.

There really is no need to be rude. I never suggested that the surface temperatures should instantly respond to increased CO2 levels. That is the implication made by the many reports and graphs that I've seen over the years that purport to prove the direct correlation between CO2 and global surface temperatures. The notion that there is centuries long lag is new to me so I asked about it.

It appears you cannot find any data to prove your claim so it appears that you are lashing out. Perhaps you might consider that the answer to ignorance is information, not being childish and snippy.

So educate me. Give me your description of the physics involved with rising CO2 levels and how it can take hundreds of years for that rise to affect temperatures on a global scale.

 

[asterism]

Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Triassic-Jurassic Extinction event. Permian-Triassic Extinction event.

Methane catastrophe

A good source, but it doesn't answer the question regarding the delayed causal relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. Specifically, it doesn't show where this has happened before. It shows that a massive release in Methane caused these warming periods.

Where does it show CO2 caused the warming with a delay of hundreds of years?

What you are addressing is the Milankovic Cycles.

Global Warming Natural Cycle ? OSS Foundation

These cycles increase and decrease the amount of solar forcing imposed within our climate system and that actually causes the temperature to rise and fall with calculable regularity. The more time the earth or land mass spends closer to the sun (at perihelion), the more energy it receives thus warming. The more time it spends farther form the sun (at aphelion) the less energy it receives and the earth cools.
The 'eccentricity' cycle period is around 100,000 years. This causes the orbit of the earth to elongate or become more elliptical. Imagine that the more elliptic it becomes, the less time during the year it spends near the sun. So the planet receives less solar energy and cools a bit.
The 'obliquity' cycle tilts the earth every 41,000 years and that causes the land mass of the norther hemisphere to face more towards the sun or less towards the sun.
The 'precession' cycle occurs about every 26,000 years and influences the wobble of the polar axis. This also influences earths climate by causing winters and summers to be warmer or colder depending on the amount of land surface being more or less exposed to the sun.

These are three main influences considered in the Milankovitch theory that regulate the general amount of energy received in our earth climate system. As we warm and cool, more or less of our natural greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere, or stored in the oceans, ice and earth.

Thank you, that makes sense.

 

[mamooth]

Nobody knows. That's the point.

We do know. That's the point. You being unable to understand doesn't mean anyone else shares your problem.

You waving your hands around and screaming "natural causes!" (which you can't identify) just makes you look crazy. It doesn't invalidate the science and data, any more than a faith healer screaming "God cured him!" would invalidate medical science.

And correlation does NOT EQUAL CAUSATION for the umpteenth time you twit, never has, never will

Then your side should probably stop using it as the basis of their arguments. After all, you don't see the AGW side using it.

 

[mamooth]

if you look at the factors incorporated in the climate models the only solar influence included is TSI, the average solar output over all wavelengths. and it only accounts for a few percent of the total at most. there are many ways that the Sun can influence the climate, both known and unknown, but that is not the area where we are searching.

Invoking of the mysterious "unknown" that you have no evidence for, but are sure has to be there. Pseudoscience.

the correlation between solar activity and climate seems quite strong over the last thousand(s) of years. if you write a computer program that basically ignores the various types of solar influence then all of the correlation that actually belongs to solar factors then gets incorrectly attributed to the factors in the program which leads to incorrect attribution and an inflated certainty.

Conspiracy theory misrepresentation of climate science. As was all the rest of the post, as was that previous thread that said the all the scientists across the world were deliberately fudging all the data.

Tell us, did you go to the AGW sites and research the issue of data stations? No? Why not? It's all there, if you have an open mind.

Hey, if you don't want your conspiracy punctured, I can see why you'd stay away. Actually learning the math and statistics is hard. It's much easier to proclaim that all the scientists are lying, and that a morally upright person like yourself is a hero for revealing the real truth.

 

[westwall]

No, that's just your total ignorance of science talking. And your stupidity.

"The process is not instantaneous."






LOL. You don't know any history, let alone any climate science, you retarded denier cult troll.

So it appears you don't know of any time in history where massive rises in CO2 predated massive rises in temperature by hundreds of years either.

Ok.

Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Triassic-Jurassic Extinction event. Permian-Triassic Extinction event.

Methane catastrophe

The PETM was an "extinction event" for a very few benthic forams. The cause of their death is most likely anoxia (not that facts will ever disturb you) and the rest of the biosphere bloomed. Mammals that exist today evolved during the PETM and dispersed throughout the planet. If that's your idea of a "extinction event" let's have another.

 

[westwall]

Nobody knows. That's the point.

We do know. That's the point. You being unable to understand doesn't mean anyone else shares your problem.

You waving your hands around and screaming "natural causes!" (which you can't identify) just makes you look crazy. It doesn't invalidate the science and data, any more than a faith healer screaming "God cured him!" would invalidate medical science.

And correlation does NOT EQUAL CAUSATION for the umpteenth time you twit, never has, never will

Then your side should probably stop using it as the basis of their arguments. After all, you don't see the AGW side using it.

We do? So who received their PhD for figuring that one out. Provide a link and a full CV.

 

[RollingThunder]

A good source, but it doesn't answer the question regarding the delayed causal relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. Specifically, it doesn't show where this has happened before. It shows that a massive release in Methane caused these warming periods.

Where does it show CO2 caused the warming with a delay of hundreds of years?

The better question, Ass-ter, is why would you imagine that surface temperatures should instantly respond to increased CO2 levels?

Go ahead, try to answer that one. Seriously, I dare you.

The real answer, of course, is that you are completely ignorant about physics and you have no idea what you're talking about.

There really is no need to be rude. I never suggested that the surface temperatures should instantly respond to increased CO2 levels. That is the implication made by the many reports and graphs that I've seen over the years that purport to prove the direct correlation between CO2 and global surface temperatures. The notion that there is centuries long lag is new to me so I asked about it.

It appears you cannot find any data to prove your claim so it appears that you are lashing out. Perhaps you might consider that the answer to ignorance is information, not being childish and snippy.

So educate me. Give me your description of the physics involved with rising CO2 levels and how it can take hundreds of years for that rise to affect temperatures on a global scale.

You're distorting what I said. I never said that it takes hundreds of years for rising CO2 levels to affect global temperatures. Rising CO2 levels are obviously already affecting temperatures. Our debate stemmed from the article I posted regarding a study of conditions on Earth 15 million years ago when CO2 levels were last sustained for centuries at a level as high as they are right now and when the temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees hotter and the sea levels 75 to 125 feet higher than at present. You questioned why current temperatures aren't already 5 to 10 degrees hotter and I told you that it takes some time for the rise in CO2 to bring the temperatures up to an equilibrium with the forcing caused by the extra CO2. You express disbelief but the only grounds for your disbelief is your apparent ignorance of both basic physics and the time lags inherent in changing large natural systems. Mankind has raised CO2 levels far faster than natural processes usually can manage to do and we're still raising them at a high rate of increase. Greenhouse gases like CO2 cause more heat energy to be retained in the atmosphere and on the surface and that heat builds up to the point where it reaches a new equilibrium and the amount of heat energy hitting the Earth balances with the amount of heat energy being radiated away into space, with the Earth's 'thermostat' having been reset in the process to a new higher average temperature. This process takes some time during which average temperatures keep rising.

In short, a rise in CO2 causes an almost immediate slow rise in temperatures but it takes a while for the heat to build up to the new equilibrium of the radiation balance of the atmosphere.

 

[RollingThunder]

Nobody knows. That's the point.

We do know. That's the point. You being unable to understand doesn't mean anyone else shares your problem.

You waving your hands around and screaming "natural causes!" (which you can't identify) just makes you look crazy. It doesn't invalidate the science and data, any more than a faith healer screaming "God cured him!" would invalidate medical science.

And correlation does NOT EQUAL CAUSATION for the umpteenth time you twit, never has, never will

Then your side should probably stop using it as the basis of their arguments. After all, you don't see the AGW side using it.

We do? So who received their PhD for figuring that one out. Provide a link and a full CV.

The poor ol' walleyedretard, like many of the denier cult nutjobs, is obsessed with the phrase "correlation does not equal causation" without understanding the meaning or realizing that a necessary word has been left out of that quote. The actual phrase used in science is "correlation does not necessarily equal causation". There are actually many examples of things that not only correlate strongly but also have a causal relationship. Correlation between two things does not in any way imply that a causal relationship is impossible or even improbable. Climate scientists do not, of course, think that correlation proves causation but they are aware that some of the factors in the Earth's climate systems that are strongly correlated with other factors are, in fact, being caused by those other factors. Causation is determined by analyzing everything involved and not just by looking at correlations but the correlations often give a hint as to possible causal factors.

Correlation does not imply causation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. [1][2] Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.

Use of correlation as scientific evidence

Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] – they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is a logical fallacy – it is not a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[17]

In conclusion, correlation is an extremely valuable type of scientific evidence in medicine. But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causational relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation can be used as powerful evidence for a cause and effect relationship between a treatment and benefit, or a risk factor and a disease.

 

[IanC]

if you look at the factors incorporated in the climate models the only solar influence included is TSI, the average solar output over all wavelengths. and it only accounts for a few percent of the total at most. there are many ways that the Sun can influence the climate, both known and unknown, but that is not the area where we are searching.

Invoking of the mysterious "unknown" that you have no evidence for, but are sure has to be there. Pseudoscience.

the correlation between solar activity and climate seems quite strong over the last thousand(s) of years. if you write a computer program that basically ignores the various types of solar influence then all of the correlation that actually belongs to solar factors then gets incorrectly attributed to the factors in the program which leads to incorrect attribution and an inflated certainty.

Conspiracy theory misrepresentation of climate science. As was all the rest of the post, as was that previous thread that said the all the scientists across the world were deliberately fudging all the data.

Tell us, did you go to the AGW sites and research the issue of data stations? No? Why not? It's all there, if you have an open mind.

Hey, if you don't want your conspiracy punctured, I can see why you'd stay away. Actually learning the math and statistics is hard. It's much easier to proclaim that all the scientists are lying, and that a morally upright person like yourself is a hero for revealing the real truth.

pseudoscience?

the AGW crowd says that we should flip the null hypothesis on its head and declare that CO2 is the control knob for the climate because they cannot find any better reason for warming in the last 50 years but I am pseudoscientific for not believing that the same natural causes that changed the climate in the last hundred, thousand, million or billion years has stopped functioning at the very moment that we started burning fossil fuels in earnest? that seems like too incredible of a coincidence to believe without extraordinary evidence to back it up, and so far the evidence is much, much weaker than very strong conclusions that we are being asked to accept either on faith or via the precautionary principle.

as far as going to sources for data and methodology, I am pretty sure I have read a lot more updates, and downloaded a lot more data than you have. like you said, it is a lot of work. and getting harder. GISS managed to block its past data histories via the wayback machine in the last year, and the single station graphs are no longer available (not even for the one or two day expiry).

I dont usually accuse climate scientists of lying, although some of them certainly do when they are backed into an inconvenient corner, I believe they simply distort the data and exaggerate their conclusions. temperature records are a great example. the major temperature collectors and collators like GISS and HadCRU spend a lot of time and trouble working on new methodologies for selecting and adjusting data series to put together for such products as global, NH, SH, and tropical temps but spend little time on actually cleaning up the mistakes in the records. I have put numerous examples on this message board so I wont belabour the point but I do find it disingenuous that they love to make adjustments (that always seem to increase temps and trends) but seldom correct their mistakes unless bad publicity forces them to.

 

[RollingThunder]

if you look at the factors incorporated in the climate models the only solar influence included is TSI, the average solar output over all wavelengths. and it only accounts for a few percent of the total at most. there are many ways that the Sun can influence the climate, both known and unknown, but that is not the area where we are searching.

Invoking of the mysterious "unknown" that you have no evidence for, but are sure has to be there. Pseudoscience.

the correlation between solar activity and climate seems quite strong over the last thousand(s) of years. if you write a computer program that basically ignores the various types of solar influence then all of the correlation that actually belongs to solar factors then gets incorrectly attributed to the factors in the program which leads to incorrect attribution and an inflated certainty.

Conspiracy theory misrepresentation of climate science. As was all the rest of the post, as was that previous thread that said the all the scientists across the world were deliberately fudging all the data.

Tell us, did you go to the AGW sites and research the issue of data stations? No? Why not? It's all there, if you have an open mind.

Hey, if you don't want your conspiracy punctured, I can see why you'd stay away. Actually learning the math and statistics is hard. It's much easier to proclaim that all the scientists are lying, and that a morally upright person like yourself is a hero for revealing the real truth.

pseudoscience?

Yup. Pseudoscience plus ignorant opinion, denier cult myths and some pure BS. That describes the entire rest of your idiotic post here that I could see no reason to repeat.

 

[IanC]

Invoking of the mysterious "unknown" that you have no evidence for, but are sure has to be there. Pseudoscience.



Conspiracy theory misrepresentation of climate science. As was all the rest of the post, as was that previous thread that said the all the scientists across the world were deliberately fudging all the data.

Tell us, did you go to the AGW sites and research the issue of data stations? No? Why not? It's all there, if you have an open mind.

Hey, if you don't want your conspiracy punctured, I can see why you'd stay away. Actually learning the math and statistics is hard. It's much easier to proclaim that all the scientists are lying, and that a morally upright person like yourself is a hero for revealing the real truth.

pseudoscience?

Yup. Pseudoscience plus ignorant opinion, denier cult myths and some pure BS. That describes the entire rest of your idiotic post here that I could see no reason to repeat.

hahahaha. are you related to unkotare? your debating style is exactly the same. you just trot out your favourite insults and ignore everything else.

 

[westwall]

We do know. That's the point. You being unable to understand doesn't mean anyone else shares your problem.

You waving your hands around and screaming "natural causes!" (which you can't identify) just makes you look crazy. It doesn't invalidate the science and data, any more than a faith healer screaming "God cured him!" would invalidate medical science.



Then your side should probably stop using it as the basis of their arguments. After all, you don't see the AGW side using it.

We do? So who received their PhD for figuring that one out. Provide a link and a full CV.

The poor ol' walleyedretard, like many of the denier cult nutjobs, is obsessed with the phrase "correlation does not equal causation" without understanding the meaning or realizing that a necessary word has been left out of that quote. The actual phrase used in science is "correlation does not necessarily equal causation". There are actually many examples of things that not only correlate strongly but also have a causal relationship. Correlation between two things does not in any way imply that a causal relationship is impossible or even improbable. Climate scientists do not, of course, think that correlation proves causation but they are aware that some of the factors in the Earth's climate systems that are strongly correlated with other factors are, in fact, being caused by those other factors. Causation is determined by analyzing everything involved and not just by looking at correlations but the correlations often give a hint as to possible causal factors.

Correlation does not imply causation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. [1][2] Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.

Use of correlation as scientific evidence

Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] – they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is a logical fallacy – it is not a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[17]

In conclusion, correlation is an extremely valuable type of scientific evidence in medicine. But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causational relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation can be used as powerful evidence for a cause and effect relationship between a treatment and benefit, or a risk factor and a disease.

So, do you use huge fonts as a substitute for your peanut sized mbwebwe?

 

[westwall]

Invoking of the mysterious "unknown" that you have no evidence for, but are sure has to be there. Pseudoscience.



Conspiracy theory misrepresentation of climate science. As was all the rest of the post, as was that previous thread that said the all the scientists across the world were deliberately fudging all the data.

Tell us, did you go to the AGW sites and research the issue of data stations? No? Why not? It's all there, if you have an open mind.

Hey, if you don't want your conspiracy punctured, I can see why you'd stay away. Actually learning the math and statistics is hard. It's much easier to proclaim that all the scientists are lying, and that a morally upright person like yourself is a hero for revealing the real truth.

pseudoscience?

Yup. Pseudoscience plus ignorant opinion, denier cult myths and some pure BS. That describes the entire rest of your idiotic post here that I could see no reason to repeat.

I hate to tell you but it's you guys who can't produce a single MEASURABLE laboratory experiment that supports your "theory".

It is you who make claims that AGW will cause snow to both disappear and become more widespread.

It is your side that claims drought will increase AND decrease.

It is your side that claims BOTH sides of every issue. That makes it un-testable which is the VERY DEFINITION OF PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

Nice try but boy oh boy do you fail.

 

[westwall]

pseudoscience?

Yup. Pseudoscience plus ignorant opinion, denier cult myths and some pure BS. That describes the entire rest of your idiotic post here that I could see no reason to repeat.

hahahaha. are you related to unkotare? your debating style is exactly the same. you just trot out your favourite insults and ignore everything else.

Yeah, that's blunders way. That and his use of large fonts to make up for his incredibly small penis size.