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

[westwall]

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?

LOLOLOL.....they are called 'headlines', moron. All of the newspapers and magazines use them. Do you fantasize that all of the reporters and editors are compensating for tiny dicks? I personally use various forms of emphasis, like 'bold', large fonts and color, to try to get some accurate information through the thick skulls of tiny-brained retards like yourself. That's hard to do when cretins like you are masturbating and fantasizing about the penis size of other debaters.

So, Walleyed, do you use off topic diversions like this one as a substitute for actually acknowledging that your BS just got debunked? Or are you in denial about that too? LOLOLOL.

No, you bold and enlarge...so you clearly are compensating for a tiny appendage.

 

[westwall]

Also Fig 1 in the PDF should be very telling of the trend, showing a rapid warming of the planet, in a remarkable and unique upward trajectory.

Remarkable and unique upward trajectory? Are you kidding? You believe that in all of earth's history, the present period is unique with regard to climate. Here is a 400,000 photo courtesy of the vostok ice cores. There are multiple periods in just that short bit of geological time that make the present warming (15 years ago anyway) look like the merest blip on the radar.

Is that Fig 1 from the pdf?

No, that's the complete graph of the Vostock ice core.

 

[westwall]

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.

Ever consider fully reading the conversation, Walleyes? So here it is;

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 question concerned a rise in GHGs prior to warming. I gave some known examples. Two of them happened to be major extinction events, also.

Yeah, I read real well and I find it amusing that you folks believe that warmth caused the actual extinction events when the most likely cause is cold...and has allways been. Heat has only been promulgated as a possible cause in the last 15 years as the actual temps flattened out they needed to come up with some new "story".

Funny how whenever there's a volcanic eruption the result is an instantaneous drop in global temperature, but you guys claim the exact opposite occured way back when. Denial of uniformitarianism is the same as denying science in general. Thanks for being so obvious.

 

[RollingThunder]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes....

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

The whole quote:

BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

LOLOLOLOLOL......still trying to beat a dead horse, eh Screwball?

Like the true retard that you are, you are oblivious to the debunking of your myths.

I already went through this particular bit of denier cult insanity and debunked it in post #14 of this same thread. Remember...."Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones"

Neither Dr. Jones nor Dr. Hansen think that warming has stopped. Denier cultists always try to twist and misinterpret what the scientists are saying.

'No statistically significant global warming since 1995' admits Professor Phil Jones - YouTube

LOLOLOL......

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, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. 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.

 

[ReallyMeow]

this thread needs some greenman3610

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag]8a. Climate Change - Phil Jones and the 'no warming for 15 years' - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Koios]

Remarkable and unique upward trajectory? Are you kidding? You believe that in all of earth's history, the present period is unique with regard to climate. Here is a 400,000 photo courtesy of the vostok ice cores. There are multiple periods in just that short bit of geological time that make the present warming (15 years ago anyway) look like the merest blip on the radar.

Is that Fig 1 from the pdf?

No, that's the complete graph of the Vostock ice core.

Gotcha. Question my characterization of a graph that I clearly referenced, by finding some other graph.

That tactic work well for you often?

 

[westwall]

this thread needs some greenman3610

8a. Climate Change - Phil Jones and the 'no warming for 15 years' - YouTube

Oh goody an alarmist parsing words and their meaning. Now that the Met Office has CONFIRMED there has been no warming you can go apologise some more. The fact remains, THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING FOR 16 YEARS.

No matter how much bullcrap you try and cover it up with, you were, and ARE, WRONG.

 

[westwall]

Is that Fig 1 from the pdf?

No, that's the complete graph of the Vostock ice core.

Gotcha. Question my characterization of a graph that I clearly referenced, by finding some other graph.

That tactic work well for you often?

First off I didn't post the graph so I will accept your Apology for being a smart ass, and secondly I believe he was showing the definitive correlation that CO2 increases FOLLOW warming, by centuries, which places a rather significant nail in the coffin of AGW "theory".

 

[Koios]

No, that's the complete graph of the Vostock ice core.

Gotcha. Question my characterization of a graph that I clearly referenced, by finding some other graph.

That tactic work well for you often?

First off I didn't post the graph so I will accept your Apology for being a smart ass, and secondly I believe he was showing the definitive correlation that CO2 increases FOLLOW warming, by centuries, which places a rather significant nail in the coffin of AGW "theory".

Hardly. Note the change following the Industrial Revolution. Now greenhouse gases are tracking closely to temperature rises, despite cooling effects of polution, which reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the earth's surface, in combination with greatly reduced solar radiation activity and the HUGE cooling affect of Mt. Pinatubo errupting. So rather than the smooth warming and cooling cycles that have been the hallmark of the last 5000 years, we're erratic as all get out -- and fluxuations are occuring above the mean, for the most part, or only dipping ever so slightly below the mean, when in fact, substantial cooling as was seen following the Medieval Warming (mini Ice Age) is to be expected given the date-range and other factors. Remember when not so many decades ago, an ice age was predicted? Not any more. That tell ya anything?

And it's these erratic changes, and not steady warming, that most climatologists agree are worsening storm activity. Just look at the shit we've seen in the last 10 years. 100 year storms, 1000 year storms ... record this, record that.

So with some increased solar activity, the end of the prolonged and cooler than normal El Nino in the Pacific, and no Pinatubos saving our butts (only polution, ironically, helping out), things could go north faster even that current predicitons that suggest by 2030 we could be above the very warm period in 1100 BC, which many believe lead to the Jewish Exodus from Egypt.

And what's the economic impact? Who knows. But the little breeze that came across the New Jersey shore a short while ago was what? $30 Billion? How many of those are needed before our costs of dealing with the problem that the political right has managed to create a bullshit debate about in the US, exclusively, BUT EVERY OTHER FUCKING NATION ON THE PLANET KNOWS WE'RE AT SIGNIFICANT RISK OF, exceeds the cost of mitigating greenhouse gases?

 

[Koios]

No, that's the complete graph of the Vostock ice core.

Gotcha. Question my characterization of a graph that I clearly referenced, by finding some other graph.

That tactic work well for you often?

First off I didn't post the graph so I will accept your Apology for being a smart ass, and secondly I believe he was showing the definitive correlation that CO2 increases FOLLOW warming, by centuries, which places a rather significant nail in the coffin of AGW "theory".

And as an aside: If you wanna jump into the fight, quit whining about getting your nose bloodied.

 

[westwall]

Gotcha. Question my characterization of a graph that I clearly referenced, by finding some other graph.

That tactic work well for you often?

First off I didn't post the graph so I will accept your Apology for being a smart ass, and secondly I believe he was showing the definitive correlation that CO2 increases FOLLOW warming, by centuries, which places a rather significant nail in the coffin of AGW "theory".

Hardly. Note the change following the Industrial Revolution. Now greenhouse gases are tracking closely to temperature rises, despite cooling effects of polution, which reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the earth's surface, in combination with greatly reduced solar radiation activity and the HUGE cooling affect of Mt. Pinatubo errupting. So rather than the smooth warming and cooling cycles that have been the hallmark of the last 5000 years, we're erratic as all get out -- and fluxuations are occuring above the mean, for the most part, or only dipping ever so slightly below the mean, when in fact, substantial cooling as was seen following the Medieval Warming (mini Ice Age) is to be expected given the date-range and other factors. Remember when not so many decades ago, an ice age was predicted? Not any more. That tell ya anything?

And it's these erratic changes, and not steady warming, that most climatologists agree are worsening storm activity. Just look at the shit we've seen in the last 10 years. 100 year storms, 1000 year storms ... record this, record that.

So with some increased solar activity, the end of the prolonged and cooler than normal El Nino in the Pacific, and no Pinatubos saving our butts (only polution, ironically, helping out), things could go north faster even that current predicitons that suggest by 2030 we could be above the very warm period in 1100 BC, which many believe lead to the Jewish Exodus from Egypt.

And what's the economic impact? Who knows. But the little breeze that came across the New Jersey shore a short while ago was what? $30 Billion? How many of those are needed before our costs of dealing with the problem that the political right has managed to create a bullshit debate about in the US, exclusively, BUT EVERY OTHER FUCKING NATION ON THE PLANET KNOWS WE'RE AT SIGNIFICANT RISK OF, exceeds the cost of mitigating greenhouse gases?

What erratic changes? Take a look through history pal, not one thing happening now is any different from what has happened before. And no they are not. If you havn't been keeping up (not surprising) the temps have flatlined for the last 16 years in defiance of the ever increasing rise of CO2. Tracking? Hardly. You would have to be a true imbecile to think that.

As far as economic impact lets take a look at that shall we? Assuming the worst possible case from your high priests, the water would inundate around 2 trillion dollars worth of real estate.

That's a lot.

However, the AGW cultists want to spend 76 TRILLION dollars to combat that.

Do you see the problem there?

Nope, I didn't think you would.....

 

[westwall]

Gotcha. Question my characterization of a graph that I clearly referenced, by finding some other graph.

That tactic work well for you often?

First off I didn't post the graph so I will accept your Apology for being a smart ass, and secondly I believe he was showing the definitive correlation that CO2 increases FOLLOW warming, by centuries, which places a rather significant nail in the coffin of AGW "theory".

And as an aside: If you wanna jump into the fight, quit whining about getting your nose bloodied.

Oh, I wasn't whining, I was merely pointing out that you are a mindless smacktard who doesn't pay attention to who he is addressing and blissfully insults people without cause...a typical ignoramous in other words.

 

[Koios]

First off I didn't post the graph so I will accept your Apology for being a smart ass, and secondly I believe he was showing the definitive correlation that CO2 increases FOLLOW warming, by centuries, which places a rather significant nail in the coffin of AGW "theory".

Hardly. Note the change following the Industrial Revolution. Now greenhouse gases are tracking closely to temperature rises, despite cooling effects of polution, which reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the earth's surface, in combination with greatly reduced solar radiation activity and the HUGE cooling affect of Mt. Pinatubo errupting. So rather than the smooth warming and cooling cycles that have been the hallmark of the last 5000 years, we're erratic as all get out -- and fluxuations are occuring above the mean, for the most part, or only dipping ever so slightly below the mean, when in fact, substantial cooling as was seen following the Medieval Warming (mini Ice Age) is to be expected given the date-range and other factors. Remember when not so many decades ago, an ice age was predicted? Not any more. That tell ya anything?

And it's these erratic changes, and not steady warming, that most climatologists agree are worsening storm activity. Just look at the shit we've seen in the last 10 years. 100 year storms, 1000 year storms ... record this, record that.

So with some increased solar activity, the end of the prolonged and cooler than normal El Nino in the Pacific, and no Pinatubos saving our butts (only polution, ironically, helping out), things could go north faster even that current predicitons that suggest by 2030 we could be above the very warm period in 1100 BC, which many believe lead to the Jewish Exodus from Egypt.

And what's the economic impact? Who knows. But the little breeze that came across the New Jersey shore a short while ago was what? $30 Billion? How many of those are needed before our costs of dealing with the problem that the political right has managed to create a bullshit debate about in the US, exclusively, BUT EVERY OTHER FUCKING NATION ON THE PLANET KNOWS WE'RE AT SIGNIFICANT RISK OF, exceeds the cost of mitigating greenhouse gases?

What erratic changes? Take a look through history pal, not one thing happening now is any different from what has happened before. And no they are not. If you havn't been keeping up (not surprising) the temps have flatlined for the last 16 years in defiance of the ever increasing rise of CO2. Tracking? Hardly. You would have to be a true imbecile to think that.

As far as economic impact lets take a look at that shall we? Assuming the worst possible case from your high priests, the water would inundate around 2 trillion dollars worth of real estate.

That's a lot.

However, the AGW cultists want to spend 76 TRILLION dollars to combat that.

Do you see the problem there?

Nope, I didn't think you would.....

The much higher frequency of sharp ups and downs following the so called "Little Ice Age" (1350 - 1850), and beginning, as it happens, not long after the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Note that changes that occured previously over many centuries (~500 years) are now happening within a single century, or less. That's the very fucking epitome of eratic.

 

[Koios]

First off I didn't post the graph so I will accept your Apology for being a smart ass, and secondly I believe he was showing the definitive correlation that CO2 increases FOLLOW warming, by centuries, which places a rather significant nail in the coffin of AGW "theory".

Hardly. Note the change following the Industrial Revolution. Now greenhouse gases are tracking closely to temperature rises, despite cooling effects of polution, which reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the earth's surface, in combination with greatly reduced solar radiation activity and the HUGE cooling affect of Mt. Pinatubo errupting. So rather than the smooth warming and cooling cycles that have been the hallmark of the last 5000 years, we're erratic as all get out -- and fluxuations are occuring above the mean, for the most part, or only dipping ever so slightly below the mean, when in fact, substantial cooling as was seen following the Medieval Warming (mini Ice Age) is to be expected given the date-range and other factors. Remember when not so many decades ago, an ice age was predicted? Not any more. That tell ya anything?

And it's these erratic changes, and not steady warming, that most climatologists agree are worsening storm activity. Just look at the shit we've seen in the last 10 years. 100 year storms, 1000 year storms ... record this, record that.

So with some increased solar activity, the end of the prolonged and cooler than normal El Nino in the Pacific, and no Pinatubos saving our butts (only polution, ironically, helping out), things could go north faster even that current predicitons that suggest by 2030 we could be above the very warm period in 1100 BC, which many believe lead to the Jewish Exodus from Egypt.

And what's the economic impact? Who knows. But the little breeze that came across the New Jersey shore a short while ago was what? $30 Billion? How many of those are needed before our costs of dealing with the problem that the political right has managed to create a bullshit debate about in the US, exclusively, BUT EVERY OTHER FUCKING NATION ON THE PLANET KNOWS WE'RE AT SIGNIFICANT RISK OF, exceeds the cost of mitigating greenhouse gases?

What erratic changes? Take a look through history pal, not one thing happening now is any different from what has happened before. And no they are not. If you havn't been keeping up (not surprising) the temps have flatlined for the last 16 years in defiance of the ever increasing rise of CO2. Tracking? Hardly. You would have to be a true imbecile to think that.

As far as economic impact lets take a look at that shall we? Assuming the worst possible case from your high priests, the water would inundate around 2 trillion dollars worth of real estate.

That's a lot.

However, the AGW cultists want to spend 76 TRILLION dollars to combat that.

Do you see the problem there?

Nope, I didn't think you would.....

Yes; a big fucking glaring one. Unsubstantiated claim by you.

 

[RollingThunder]

this thread needs some greenman3610

8a. Climate Change - Phil Jones and the 'no warming for 15 years' - YouTube

Oh goody an alarmist parsing words and their meaning.

I suppose someone has to, since you are so very clueless and careless about the meaning of words. And, of course, he's not just "parsing words", he is debunking the retarded drivel you're peddling.

Now that the Met Office has CONFIRMED there has been no warming....

Well, that never happened except in your denier cult fantasy world. The facts on that have been shown to you many times but you idiotically choose to cling to your myths.

The fact remains, THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING FOR 16 YEARS.

But it is not a "fact" at all. It is a moronic denier cult myth, suitable for fertilizing rosebushes.

Global Warming Since 1998
Duke University
by Dr. Bill Chameides - Duke University Professor, Dean of Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment, Member of the National Academy of Sciences, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union .
October 28th, 2008
(excerpts)
You don’t have to search too hard to find a skeptic’s blog proclaiming that global warming “stopped” in 1998. Oh happy day if it were true, but sadly it is not. Why do I say this? I’ve looked at the data. Take a look at the graphic below, which shows the average global temperatures from 1990 to the present. The green diamonds show the 5-year averages for the periods from 1988–1992, 1993–1997, 1998–2002, and 2003–2007. Each successive diamond appears at a higher temperature than the one before. In other words, global temperatures have been increasing over the past 15+ years — global warming has not stopped.

Global temperature trends since 1990. Solid line with small dots indicate the annual averages. The green diamonds indicate the 5-year averages. Data taken from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory: CDIAC Temperature Data Sets

If you look at the temperatures in the graphic year by year, it’s easy to see why someone might think that the warming has stopped. After all, there was a huge temperature maximum in 1998. Since then, only 2005 [and now 2010] had average temperatures equal to or perhaps slightly greater than those in 1998. Eyeballing temperatures from 1998 onward might lead to the inference that temperatures have not increased at all -– that global warming has stopped. But wait. If you do the same eyeballing exercise starting in 1999 or 1996 you would conclude that there has been a rapid increase in temperatures. Moreover, if you were back in 1992 or 1993 and had done the same eyeballing exercise back to 1990, you would have concluded that global warming had stopped; and you would have been wrong. So what’s the problem? It comes from a confusion between inter-annual and short-term temperature changes and the longer-term changes in temperatures that are relevant to the issue of climate change on decadal time scales.

There are any number of factors that cause global temperatures to rise and fall. Solar activity is one –- as the sun goes through its 11-year sunspot cycle, solar radiation goes up and down causing global temperatures to fluctuate up and down. El Nino and La Nina oscillations in the South Pacific Ocean also lead to relatively warm years (El Nino) and cool years (La Nina). The years 1998 and 2005 are interesting to compare. Depending upon the method used to analyze the temperature data, scientists have concluded that either both years tied for the warmest temperatures on record or 2005 was slightly warmer (see here or here). That 1998 was unusually warm is not surprising. It was a year with an unusually strong El Nino and with the sun close to its 11-year maximum. By comparison, the sun in 2005 was near the minimum in its cycle, and the year began with a weak El Nino that dissipated by late spring. A reasonable explanation for 2005 being as warm or warmer than 1998 without the benefit of a solar maximum or strong El Nino includes warming from greenhouse gases. Global warming from greenhouse gases does not occur in a vacuum; it occurs simultaneously with other factors that affect global temperatures like solar variations and El Nino/La Nina oscillations. As I discussed in my previous posts in this series, these other factors can cause short-term ups and downs in global temperatures. But the question for global warming is whether they cause a net temperature change. To determine that, we filter out the short-term fluctuations by using longer term averages (such as the 5-year averages shown in the graphic), and when we do, the upward trend in global temperatures comes through loud and clear –- take a look at the green diamonds.

No matter how much bullcrap you try and cover it up with, you were, and ARE, WRONG.

Funny, that's exactly what everyone who knows anything about AGW/CC keeps telling you, you poor deluded imbecile.

 

[westwall]

Hardly. Note the change following the Industrial Revolution. Now greenhouse gases are tracking closely to temperature rises, despite cooling effects of polution, which reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the earth's surface, in combination with greatly reduced solar radiation activity and the HUGE cooling affect of Mt. Pinatubo errupting. So rather than the smooth warming and cooling cycles that have been the hallmark of the last 5000 years, we're erratic as all get out -- and fluxuations are occuring above the mean, for the most part, or only dipping ever so slightly below the mean, when in fact, substantial cooling as was seen following the Medieval Warming (mini Ice Age) is to be expected given the date-range and other factors. Remember when not so many decades ago, an ice age was predicted? Not any more. That tell ya anything?

And it's these erratic changes, and not steady warming, that most climatologists agree are worsening storm activity. Just look at the shit we've seen in the last 10 years. 100 year storms, 1000 year storms ... record this, record that.

So with some increased solar activity, the end of the prolonged and cooler than normal El Nino in the Pacific, and no Pinatubos saving our butts (only polution, ironically, helping out), things could go north faster even that current predicitons that suggest by 2030 we could be above the very warm period in 1100 BC, which many believe lead to the Jewish Exodus from Egypt.

And what's the economic impact? Who knows. But the little breeze that came across the New Jersey shore a short while ago was what? $30 Billion? How many of those are needed before our costs of dealing with the problem that the political right has managed to create a bullshit debate about in the US, exclusively, BUT EVERY OTHER FUCKING NATION ON THE PLANET KNOWS WE'RE AT SIGNIFICANT RISK OF, exceeds the cost of mitigating greenhouse gases?

What erratic changes? Take a look through history pal, not one thing happening now is any different from what has happened before. And no they are not. If you havn't been keeping up (not surprising) the temps have flatlined for the last 16 years in defiance of the ever increasing rise of CO2. Tracking? Hardly. You would have to be a true imbecile to think that.

As far as economic impact lets take a look at that shall we? Assuming the worst possible case from your high priests, the water would inundate around 2 trillion dollars worth of real estate.

That's a lot.

However, the AGW cultists want to spend 76 TRILLION dollars to combat that.

Do you see the problem there?

Nope, I didn't think you would.....

The much higher frequency of sharp ups and downs following the so called "Little Ice Age" (1350 - 1850), and beginning, as it happens, not long after the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Note that changes that occured previously over many centuries (~500 years) are now happening within a single century, or less. That's the very fucking epitome of eratic.

What higher frequency changes? There is no evidence that it is any different than what happened prior to the LIA. In fact, when one goes far enough back in time this time is actually THE most stable that has ever been recorded.

 

[westwall]

Hardly. Note the change following the Industrial Revolution. Now greenhouse gases are tracking closely to temperature rises, despite cooling effects of polution, which reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the earth's surface, in combination with greatly reduced solar radiation activity and the HUGE cooling affect of Mt. Pinatubo errupting. So rather than the smooth warming and cooling cycles that have been the hallmark of the last 5000 years, we're erratic as all get out -- and fluxuations are occuring above the mean, for the most part, or only dipping ever so slightly below the mean, when in fact, substantial cooling as was seen following the Medieval Warming (mini Ice Age) is to be expected given the date-range and other factors. Remember when not so many decades ago, an ice age was predicted? Not any more. That tell ya anything?

And it's these erratic changes, and not steady warming, that most climatologists agree are worsening storm activity. Just look at the shit we've seen in the last 10 years. 100 year storms, 1000 year storms ... record this, record that.

So with some increased solar activity, the end of the prolonged and cooler than normal El Nino in the Pacific, and no Pinatubos saving our butts (only polution, ironically, helping out), things could go north faster even that current predicitons that suggest by 2030 we could be above the very warm period in 1100 BC, which many believe lead to the Jewish Exodus from Egypt.

And what's the economic impact? Who knows. But the little breeze that came across the New Jersey shore a short while ago was what? $30 Billion? How many of those are needed before our costs of dealing with the problem that the political right has managed to create a bullshit debate about in the US, exclusively, BUT EVERY OTHER FUCKING NATION ON THE PLANET KNOWS WE'RE AT SIGNIFICANT RISK OF, exceeds the cost of mitigating greenhouse gases?

What erratic changes? Take a look through history pal, not one thing happening now is any different from what has happened before. And no they are not. If you havn't been keeping up (not surprising) the temps have flatlined for the last 16 years in defiance of the ever increasing rise of CO2. Tracking? Hardly. You would have to be a true imbecile to think that.

As far as economic impact lets take a look at that shall we? Assuming the worst possible case from your high priests, the water would inundate around 2 trillion dollars worth of real estate.

That's a lot.

However, the AGW cultists want to spend 76 TRILLION dollars to combat that.

Do you see the problem there?

Nope, I didn't think you would.....

Yes; a big fucking glaring one. Unsubstantiated claim by you.

Read it for yourself tiny dick.


http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

 

[westwall]

this thread needs some greenman3610

8a. Climate Change - Phil Jones and the 'no warming for 15 years' - YouTube

Oh goody an alarmist parsing words and their meaning.

I suppose someone has to, since you are so very clueless and careless about the meaning of words. And, of course, he's not just "parsing words", he is debunking the retarded drivel you're peddling.





Well, that never happened except in your denier cult fantasy world. The facts on that have been shown to you many times but you idiotically choose to cling to your myths.

The fact remains, THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING FOR 16 YEARS.

But it is not a "fact" at all. It is a moronic denier cult myth, suitable for fertilizing rosebushes.

Global Warming Since 1998
Duke University
by Dr. Bill Chameides - Duke University Professor, Dean of Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment, Member of the National Academy of Sciences, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union .
October 28th, 2008
(excerpts)
You don’t have to search too hard to find a skeptic’s blog proclaiming that global warming “stopped” in 1998. Oh happy day if it were true, but sadly it is not. Why do I say this? I’ve looked at the data. Take a look at the graphic below, which shows the average global temperatures from 1990 to the present. The green diamonds show the 5-year averages for the periods from 1988–1992, 1993–1997, 1998–2002, and 2003–2007. Each successive diamond appears at a higher temperature than the one before. In other words, global temperatures have been increasing over the past 15+ years — global warming has not stopped.

Global temperature trends since 1990. Solid line with small dots indicate the annual averages. The green diamonds indicate the 5-year averages. Data taken from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory: CDIAC Temperature Data Sets

If you look at the temperatures in the graphic year by year, it’s easy to see why someone might think that the warming has stopped. After all, there was a huge temperature maximum in 1998. Since then, only 2005 [and now 2010] had average temperatures equal to or perhaps slightly greater than those in 1998. Eyeballing temperatures from 1998 onward might lead to the inference that temperatures have not increased at all -– that global warming has stopped. But wait. If you do the same eyeballing exercise starting in 1999 or 1996 you would conclude that there has been a rapid increase in temperatures. Moreover, if you were back in 1992 or 1993 and had done the same eyeballing exercise back to 1990, you would have concluded that global warming had stopped; and you would have been wrong. So what’s the problem? It comes from a confusion between inter-annual and short-term temperature changes and the longer-term changes in temperatures that are relevant to the issue of climate change on decadal time scales.

There are any number of factors that cause global temperatures to rise and fall. Solar activity is one –- as the sun goes through its 11-year sunspot cycle, solar radiation goes up and down causing global temperatures to fluctuate up and down. El Nino and La Nina oscillations in the South Pacific Ocean also lead to relatively warm years (El Nino) and cool years (La Nina). The years 1998 and 2005 are interesting to compare. Depending upon the method used to analyze the temperature data, scientists have concluded that either both years tied for the warmest temperatures on record or 2005 was slightly warmer (see here or here). That 1998 was unusually warm is not surprising. It was a year with an unusually strong El Nino and with the sun close to its 11-year maximum. By comparison, the sun in 2005 was near the minimum in its cycle, and the year began with a weak El Nino that dissipated by late spring. A reasonable explanation for 2005 being as warm or warmer than 1998 without the benefit of a solar maximum or strong El Nino includes warming from greenhouse gases. Global warming from greenhouse gases does not occur in a vacuum; it occurs simultaneously with other factors that affect global temperatures like solar variations and El Nino/La Nina oscillations. As I discussed in my previous posts in this series, these other factors can cause short-term ups and downs in global temperatures. But the question for global warming is whether they cause a net temperature change. To determine that, we filter out the short-term fluctuations by using longer term averages (such as the 5-year averages shown in the graphic), and when we do, the upward trend in global temperatures comes through loud and clear –- take a look at the green diamonds.

No matter how much bullcrap you try and cover it up with, you were, and ARE, WRONG.

Funny, that's exactly what everyone who knows anything about AGW/CC keeps telling you, you poor deluded imbecile.

Sure thing tiny dick. Why are we winning then? If you want to see THE definition of deluded just look in the mirror.

 

[Koios]

What erratic changes? Take a look through history pal, not one thing happening now is any different from what has happened before. And no they are not. If you havn't been keeping up (not surprising) the temps have flatlined for the last 16 years in defiance of the ever increasing rise of CO2. Tracking? Hardly. You would have to be a true imbecile to think that.

As far as economic impact lets take a look at that shall we? Assuming the worst possible case from your high priests, the water would inundate around 2 trillion dollars worth of real estate.

That's a lot.

However, the AGW cultists want to spend 76 TRILLION dollars to combat that.

Do you see the problem there?

Nope, I didn't think you would.....

Yes; a big fucking glaring one. Unsubstantiated claim by you.

Read it for yourself tiny dick.


http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

Searched "76 Trillion"; no luck

Searched "$76 Trillion"; no luck

Searched "$76"; no luck

Searched "Trillion"; BINGO! $15 - $20 Trillion, worldwide to covert everything from fosil fuels, which of course is silly since we never will.

 

[Koios]

Oh goody an alarmist parsing words and their meaning.

I suppose someone has to, since you are so very clueless and careless about the meaning of words. And, of course, he's not just "parsing words", he is debunking the retarded drivel you're peddling.





Well, that never happened except in your denier cult fantasy world. The facts on that have been shown to you many times but you idiotically choose to cling to your myths.





But it is not a "fact" at all. It is a moronic denier cult myth, suitable for fertilizing rosebushes.

Global Warming Since 1998
Duke University
by Dr. Bill Chameides - Duke University Professor, Dean of Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment, Member of the National Academy of Sciences, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union .
October 28th, 2008
(excerpts)
You don’t have to search too hard to find a skeptic’s blog proclaiming that global warming “stopped” in 1998. Oh happy day if it were true, but sadly it is not. Why do I say this? I’ve looked at the data. Take a look at the graphic below, which shows the average global temperatures from 1990 to the present. The green diamonds show the 5-year averages for the periods from 1988–1992, 1993–1997, 1998–2002, and 2003–2007. Each successive diamond appears at a higher temperature than the one before. In other words, global temperatures have been increasing over the past 15+ years — global warming has not stopped.

Global temperature trends since 1990. Solid line with small dots indicate the annual averages. The green diamonds indicate the 5-year averages. Data taken from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory: CDIAC Temperature Data Sets

If you look at the temperatures in the graphic year by year, it’s easy to see why someone might think that the warming has stopped. After all, there was a huge temperature maximum in 1998. Since then, only 2005 [and now 2010] had average temperatures equal to or perhaps slightly greater than those in 1998. Eyeballing temperatures from 1998 onward might lead to the inference that temperatures have not increased at all -– that global warming has stopped. But wait. If you do the same eyeballing exercise starting in 1999 or 1996 you would conclude that there has been a rapid increase in temperatures. Moreover, if you were back in 1992 or 1993 and had done the same eyeballing exercise back to 1990, you would have concluded that global warming had stopped; and you would have been wrong. So what’s the problem? It comes from a confusion between inter-annual and short-term temperature changes and the longer-term changes in temperatures that are relevant to the issue of climate change on decadal time scales.

There are any number of factors that cause global temperatures to rise and fall. Solar activity is one –- as the sun goes through its 11-year sunspot cycle, solar radiation goes up and down causing global temperatures to fluctuate up and down. El Nino and La Nina oscillations in the South Pacific Ocean also lead to relatively warm years (El Nino) and cool years (La Nina). The years 1998 and 2005 are interesting to compare. Depending upon the method used to analyze the temperature data, scientists have concluded that either both years tied for the warmest temperatures on record or 2005 was slightly warmer (see here or here). That 1998 was unusually warm is not surprising. It was a year with an unusually strong El Nino and with the sun close to its 11-year maximum. By comparison, the sun in 2005 was near the minimum in its cycle, and the year began with a weak El Nino that dissipated by late spring. A reasonable explanation for 2005 being as warm or warmer than 1998 without the benefit of a solar maximum or strong El Nino includes warming from greenhouse gases. Global warming from greenhouse gases does not occur in a vacuum; it occurs simultaneously with other factors that affect global temperatures like solar variations and El Nino/La Nina oscillations. As I discussed in my previous posts in this series, these other factors can cause short-term ups and downs in global temperatures. But the question for global warming is whether they cause a net temperature change. To determine that, we filter out the short-term fluctuations by using longer term averages (such as the 5-year averages shown in the graphic), and when we do, the upward trend in global temperatures comes through loud and clear –- take a look at the green diamonds.

No matter how much bullcrap you try and cover it up with, you were, and ARE, WRONG.

Funny, that's exactly what everyone who knows anything about AGW/CC keeps telling you, you poor deluded imbecile.

Sure thing tiny dick. Why are we winning then? If you want to see THE definition of deluded just look in the mirror.

In the grown up world, we use a thing called a "dictionary" to look up the definitions of words.