"global warming petition project" peer reviewed and everything???

[UncleBuck]

I've cited many reputable sources with quotes by scientists

you have not done a single thing of the sort. every single one of your sources is either biased or extremely biased, and not a single one gave an actual quote from a scientist.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/australian-pachauri-global-warming.html

The IPCC communications office tells Skeptical Science that The Australian has not provided a transcript or audio file of the interview for verification, but it does not accurately represent Pachauri's thoughts on the subject - namely that as discussed in this post, global surface temperatures have plateaued (though over the past decade, not 17 years), and that this in no way disproves global warming.

This is not the first time Lloyd has been caught misrepresenting climate science in The Australian - in January of this 2013 he wrongly claimed that a study had found no link between global warming and sea level rise. Oceanographer John Church, who was co-author on the misrepresented research in question and also Nuccitelli et al. (2012) from which Figure 1 above originated, set the record straight, and The Australian was forced to retract the article.






WOOOOOOOOOPS.

 

[jahbrudda]

Until you can tell me what it would take to convince you, you have no business arguing anything further. It's an admission of defeat on your part.

Obviously you don't understand science, otherwise you could cite the data supporting your argument.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Obviously you don't understand science, otherwise you could cite the data supporting your argument.

 

[UncleBuck]

Obviously you don't understand science, otherwise you could cite the data supporting your argument.

that's been done many times over, and unlike you, our sources did not include the following:

*rush limbaugh proteges
*groups paid by exxonmobil to deny anthropogenic global warming
*deceptive conspiracy websites with a history of having to retract articles because they were blatant misrepresentations of what was actually said



keep going though, you are bringing me much entertainment.

 

[Padawanbater2]

The Pad guy is plainly arrested, development wise. And Boring, and more boring.....Tag out. At 'em!

Don't step up if you can't back it up

 

[Padawanbater2]

Pada, how about looking at it from a slightly different angle.
Why has the warming trend relatively paused (vs predictions)?
It's not because we are pumping LESS GHGs into the atmosphere (they continue to rise, last I checked), so why is this happening?

I'm not convinced it has. Every model I've looked at says the climate continues to rise

 

[heckler73]

I'm not convinced it has. Every model I've looked at says the climate continues to rise

I am not talking about models. I am referring to empirical data in comparison to those models.
That has shown the trend has paused.
So, to reiterate, considering the trend has paused with GHGs continuing to accumulate, what is the cause?

 

[Padawanbater2]

I am not talking about models. I am referring to empirical data in comparison to those models.
That has shown the trend has paused.
So, to reiterate, considering the trend has paused with GHGs continuing to accumulate, what is the cause?

Do you have a source?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Did the bogots find a gloryhole to attend?

 

[UncleBuck]

So, to reiterate, considering the trend has paused with GHGs continuing to accumulate, what is the cause?

forest fires.

according to our esteemed opposition, forest fires cause global cooling.

 

[heckler73]

Do you have a source?

I'm sorry, but do you need me to show you how to read the GISS LOTI or HADCRUT graphs?

Just look at the "anomalies" for the past 17 years. They have not exactly shifted up on average relative to alarmist predictions.

In fact, here's a graph I whipped-up in IGOR from the HADCRUT4 data-set (I tried using the LOTI first, but it is in a shitty format which would require I spend much time for a meager project).



That is a simple linear regression on the 2001-2014 annual avgs. Now if I toss in the anomalies from 1997-2000, it has the most tiny upward slope (note the scale on the left), so for the purpose of this demonstration, I figured the 'flat line' would be more poignant.
I could do a monthly run on data, but again, I suspect there may be an issue with me importing the data efficiently.

So, WHY is that happening despite the dire model predictions and GHGs NOT decreasing?
Can you describe any such mechanism based on your scientific research that explains this gross anomaly?

 

[heckler73]

forest fires.

according to our esteemed opposition, forest fires cause global cooling.

I thought that was funny, too, when he said that.
I understand what he meant (particulate matter blocking radiation) but it is not what he thinks. For one, uh, the fire kind of heats the air a shitload, to which it dissipates in the atmosphere over a short time; however, the "ash" isn't exactly countering that effect.
It's the volcanoes that have the real particulate effect (case in point, Pinatubo). However, they are not the cause of the pause, either.

 

[Padawanbater2]

??

 

[UncleBuck]

View attachment 3010549

So, WHY is that happening despite the dire model predictions and GHGs NOT decreasing?
Can you describe any such mechanism based on your scientific research that explains this gross anomaly?

i wouldn't call that a gross anomaly at all, it is still well within the ranges of models from decades ago and even more recent ones.

and there are many mechanisms that more than explain it. surface air temps haven't gone up much (they have still gone up), but ocean temps have. a stronger la nina pattern explains some of it too. the oceans are still rising, the ice caps are still retreating, greenland is still melting, 2012 was still one of the warmest la nina years on recod.

none of us are qualified to speak on the issue. all we can really do is listen to those who are qualified, and they are pretty much all in consensus. anyone who states otherwise is a fucking idiot.

for example: https://www.rollitup.org/politics/579313-obama-91-4-win.html

the same idiots who scoff at the overwhelming consensus with respect to anthropogenic global warming will also scoff when experts put the likelihood of other events at 90% or more if they disagree with the conclusion. it is simple partisan hackery.

the science is settled. human activities are causing the earth to warm at a higher rate than we would otherwise see, and 90-95% or more of those qualified to speak about it agree.

 

[UncleBuck]

I thought that was funny, too, when he said that.
I understand what he meant (particulate matter blocking radiation) but it is not what he thinks. For one, uh, the fire kind of heats the air a shitload, to which it dissipates in the atmosphere over a short time; however, the "ash" isn't exactly countering that effect.
It's the volcanoes that have the real particulate effect (case in point, Pinatubo). However, they are not the cause of the pause, either.

it was a clear display of the type of straw grabbing that the AGW deniers cling to like guns and religion and antipathy towards those who are different.

yes, a forest fire can throw particulate matter into the air or atmosphere (as stated above, i am not a scientist). but to think that a forest fire, however long it may last, could cause cooling on a GLOBAL scale is as queer as landlocked iran or domestic albertan oil (for us, not you).

i have no dog in this fight. if the scientists come out tomorrow and say they were wrong, i'll stand by them. but if the right wing politicos come out tomorrow and accept what science tells us is clearly true, the righties will change their tune and stand by them.

this is not the only issue where righties listen to politicos over scientists.

 

[heckler73]

i wouldn't call that a gross anomaly at all, it is still well within the ranges of models from decades ago and even more recent ones.

Mmmm... but those "ranges" are getting stretched into the lower 3-sigma deviation.
That's not promising for the models.

and there are many mechanisms that more than explain it. surface air temps haven't gone up much (they have still gone up), but ocean temps have. a stronger la nina pattern explains some of it too. the oceans are still rising, the ice caps are still retreating, greenland is still melting, 2012 was still one of the warmest la nina years on recod.

The oceans are a critical part in this equation, I suspect. The levels have gone up, at least according to satellite data which correlates damn near perfectly with the old tidal gauges. This does increase the heat capacity (ergo, dissipation) of the oceans. Also, the LOTI and HADCRUT4 data-sets incorporate ocean temps in their averages, so they are not ignored in that IGOR graph I posted. However, you do give me an idea for further investigation since they have those data-sets available in disaggregated form.

But again, if GHGs are the "prime driver" (and according to IPCC the OVERWHELMING driver by orders of magnitude), then why has it paused for so long?

I just stumbled on this website which has a good collection of critiques, although the bias is obvious in the commentary. However, there is more than enough (neutral) evidence to demonstrate various failings of the modelers, and thereby those who base policy on their work.

Take Hansen's 3 scenarios, for example:


[HR][/HR]NASA's James Hansen declared that if the world did not change its way, and kept emitting CO2 in the 'business-as-usual' (BAU) manner, global warming would skyrocket, threatening all of civilization. This is the 'Scenario A' plot on the chart.


Well.....not only has the world matched the 'BAU' growth of the 15 years prior to the 1988 testimony, we have increased the CO2 emission tonnes growth from 1.8% per year to 2.2% (the 15 years prior to 2013). To put those numbers into context, from 1972 through 1987, humans emitted 302 billion tonnes of CO2; in contrast, from 1998 through 2012 humans produced 461 billion tonnes.

[HR][/HR]
Now this shows us either CO2 (and the other GHGs) are not anywhere near as powerful at forcing as we thought, or there are other avenues of climate moderation we have no practical concept of. This chart is not unique, BTW, just in case you're concerned about any cherry-picks, etc.

As for the ice caps, that is not exactly accurate. As I believe I noted earlier in the thread, the actual volume of arctic ice is increasing (while antarctic area is increasing). Greenland? Yeah, I've flown over it enough times in the past 25+ years to have seen its decay in that period. All that freshwater must be disturbing the Atlantic somewhat. But the way it supposedly slows the Atlantic flow, it should increase surface warming (along with the air), not abate it.
So there's another puzzle.

It may be possible that all those inputs you mention have a synergistic effect, but if that's the case, we'd better get around to understanding WHY instead of plodding along with funky policy based on erroneous prediction.

none of us are qualified to speak on the issue. all we can really do is listen to those who are qualified, and they are pretty much all in consensus. anyone who states otherwise is a fucking idiot.

Hmm...I suspect if you hung around more scientists, you'd probably change your opinion. They may be damn intelligent, but perfect they are not.
For example, a physicist will enthusiastically tell you all these crazy things about how a star goes through its "burning" stages of Hydrogen, Helium and Silicon, based on their "model" of gravity-fed nuclear reactions, but when you ask them, "why is the Sun's corona orders of magnitude hotter than the surface" or "why is the sun so round", they'll be stymied. And that creates some serious problems as far as orthodoxy is concerned (at least at the cosmological level).

With that in mind, it is important that all who care take time to learn at least a fraction of the science and start asking questions of the authorities.
The truth can always be questioned.
Hell, you demonstrate that ability on a regular basis as far as regular politics is concerned. It is equally important to do the same with science, even if it appears overwhelming in complexity.

One doesn't need to know how to solve a Laplacian Heat Equation to read a thermometer.
Now, making one from scratch...?

 

[Doer]

it was a clear display of the type of straw grabbing that the AGW deniers cling to like guns and religion and antipathy towards those who are different.

yes, a forest fire can throw particulate matter into the air or atmosphere (as stated above, i am not a scientist). but to think that a forest fire, however long it may last, could cause cooling on a GLOBAL scale is as queer as landlocked iran or domestic albertan oil (for us, not you).

i have no dog in this fight. if the scientists come out tomorrow and say they were wrong, i'll stand by them. but if the right wing politicos come out tomorrow and accept what science tells us is clearly true, the righties will change their tune and stand by them.

this is not the only issue where righties listen to politicos over scientists.

You want this to be a Right Left issue when it is the oldest scam in the world.

Take advantage of people's emotions for Profit $$$$$$.

That you continue the political stupidity with the old boring, "clinging" retard, shows me you well understand this is only a Political issue.

It is a hairbrained, tactic to get people to reject the oil economy. "To Use less Energy." It is to make this World, energy poor, mentally. And that could last 1000 years regardless of the fact that energy could become quite cheap, very soon.

But, all that can be diverted for enormous luxury for a few, like it is now. When energy is almost free how can you have a Climate Change Power Luxury. Luxury is the only pay off in this world as you well know. In the future only the Saganists will use any of the excess energy. The rest will be mentally stunted into LACK, just like they are now,.

Have ya seen Al Gore's homes?

It is the perpetuation of the Luxury Lie Flame. The acid bath of youth. And you feel in. I climbed out.

And Heck, these worm-brains don't know a Sigma from a Sigmund. We are wasting our photons to go there.

 

[Doer]

Here is a Carbon scam, I just found out about. I voted against the High Speed Rail projected. I knew it would go to Feinstien and Co, most likely, and I knew the cost would be much more than they said.

Now Gov Brown thinks he can get a Federal subsidy as a Giant carbon credit, by again, predicting the ridership. I remember when they predicted ridership for BART, year after year....for 30 years they were so WRONG. By the time they get this boodoggle built, it will be with the funny math of carbon offsets.

So, big polluters in the State can buy carbon credits and that's the money, Brown wants to use, but guess what? The,y of course, are mot counting the carbon it takes to produce all that electricity, for trains that will run 1/4 full for years, but get full carbon credit for all the car of FULL ridership.

Carbon Rip-off by the Left.

 

[beans davis]

@Doer you are right... it's a scam from day 1.But you will never convince these mindless idiots.

All this global warming climate change is total bull shit! They just want to tax you to breath and scam money w these green orgs. Nothing that hasn't been done before...........

If you visit Ireland, you will see cottages with tiny windows and very small doors. People who don't know any better say, "Oh, how cute! How charming!" without knowing the reason. When the British Empire finally conquered the Irish, who had been free for thousands of years, they taxed & plundered the Irish every way they could. They even taxed the AIR. You want to breathe outside your house? Good pay me!You can pay by the square foot or inch...Now the same globalist tools of the British Empire and Rothschild banksters want to tax us for the air we breathe and the CO2 we exhale. Not just their territorial subjects, but every human on the planet. We have finally come full circle.

 

[Doer]

I am not trying to convince. I am not stooping to debate with these morons.

I fight the Saganist and have for years. It only takes truth to explain the scam. I leave the breadcrumbs of self thinking, if I can. That is all.