Originally posted by fierobear: Amazing how, when you have a cold month, weather isn't climate
No actually, it's not amazing. You're just in denial of the facts.
There hasn't been a below average month for global temperatures since 1985. The cold months you fluff up are regional- it was a cold month is Boston, or a cold month in Canada, even now in your post a cold summer in the US. By definition these are weather reports - short term regionally specific.
And what about the whole Earth? Only 352 consecutive months with above average temperature. Climate trends require long term data.
Yet when 351 consecutive months of globally above average temperatures turned into 352, you deny the climate trend is continuing and brush it off as just weather.
The global warming trend is clearly continuing, that's why your cold weather reports about a small section of the globe areas are meaningless and laughable.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: But supposedly June 2014 - one month - is somehow proof that they are right.
Let's cover this again.
It's not "one month".
Its 352 consecutive months. It's 38 consecutive June's. It's 9 of the top 10 warmest June's occurring since 2000 - including the last 5 years.
This is long term data showing a trend, this is climate.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: They may or may not be liars, but it's beyond a doubt they can't keep to their own rules.
We are keeping to our own rules. 352 times in a row. You simple deny the previous 351 times because it's inconvenient for your political belief system.
And you have the gall to call someone else a liar.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: It's amazing anyone still listens to their crap.
Thankfully less and less people are listening to deniers like you.
The politically obsessed like yourself came into this discussion completely lacking a long term strategy. Most of you were probably unaware you even needed one, like the whole science thing would just blow over after a couple fabricated scandals.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Meanwhile, let's use their standard against them.
Coolest Summer on Record in the US
Now you're just lying and flat out ignoring inconvenient evidence.
Globally the past two months are the hottest ever recorded.
By the way, your horrid misrepresentation of 'the standard' aside, at least we have standards.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 07-27-2014).]
"The frequency of 90 degree days in the US has been plummeting for 80 years, and 2014 has had the lowest frequency of 90 degree days through July 23 on record. The only other year which came close was 1992, and that was due to dust in the atmosphere from Mt Pinatubo."
I just started looking, but I have not found an extended discussion of this "frequency of 90 degree days in the U.S." statistic.
Of course that is a U.S. statistic, not a global statistic.
Any thoughts on how to interpret that in the context of these two most recent reports about June, 2014 from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center webpage?
Originally posted by Doug85GT: You got caught posting about a weather event
After further thought, you're exploiting a misrepresented oversimplification.
It's not taboo to discuss weather. It is taboo to act like a couple days of cold weather in Boston negates decades of global warming.
Therefore we have a logical double standard that's probably really frustrating for you to deal with.
It's perfectly logical to disproportionately discuss weather events that contribute to the overall long term trend. Why? There are a disproportionate number of these reinforcing warming events. This is self evident- on average the Earth is still warming, not cooling.
After further thought, you're exploiting a misrepresented oversimplification.
It's not taboo to discuss weather. It is taboo to act like a couple days of cold weather in Boston negates decades of global warming.
Therefore we have a logical double standard that's probably really frustrating for you to deal with.
It's perfectly logical to disproportionately discuss weather events that contribute to the overall long term trend. Why? There are a disproportionate number of these reinforcing warming events. This is self evident- on average the Earth is still warming, not cooling.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: A triple negative is appropriate
So you’re in denial of more subjects than science. Not surprising.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: considering your silly reply.
More claims without evidence. Also not surprising.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: A red herring is a distraction from the original topic,
Agreed. The original topic, the important topic, was June 2014 being the hottest ever recorded.
You created a sub topic, a red herring, discussing whether or not it’s weather or climate.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: which is your post about a weather event the continuing long term climate trend.
Fixed.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Your mistake is further compounded by your post that makes fun of weather snow events as an argument against decades of Global Warming.
Fixed.
But at least you admit snow events are weather, not climate.
Here’s a scientist to help you understand the difference between weather and climate:
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 07-28-2014).]
Obviously you're obsessed with meaningless arguments. But it doesn't change the facts at all. June 2014 hottest ever recorded. 38 consecutive June's above the global average. 9 of the 10 hottest June's since 2000, including the last 5 years. That's a climate trend, not random weather.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Denial? You mean like this and this.
Yes, you are in complete denial of those facts. There’s no question about it.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: This is written communication. There is a record of your posts in case you forgot.
You should try reading and thinking about my posts. Clearly you’ve done neither.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: At least you came to accept that you posted about a weather event.
It’s climate. The long term trend is continuing.
From your climate link: “Climate is different from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.” Source.
Watch the video:
I'm sure you'll resume your personal attacks against me instead of focusing on the important issue, the evidence.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 07-29-2014).]
Article: Warming Lakes: Barometers of Climate Change? “The number of lakes with both satellite and in situ measurements more than doubled as a result of the workshop,” said Hook. The in-lake measurements support the findings of the remote sensing data: 95% of lakes around the world are warming.
Elon Musk on Colbert: "If we're all in a ship together," Musk said, "and the ship has some holes in it, and we're sort of bailing water out of it, and we have a great design for a bucket, then even if we're bailing out way better than everyone else, we should probably still share the bucket design, because we're all going to sink."
Then you post the following invalidating your previous weather post.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
It’s climate. The long term trend is continuing.
From your climate link: “Climate is different from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.” Source.
yes, you say: 352 months (ie: 29 years), then 38 consecutive June's (ie: 38 years), then you are down to 14 years, and then you are down to 5 years. Sounds like you are trying to exaggerate the data by adjusting the time frame...
For the record (again) the "long term data" since the ice age has been showing an increase in temperature.
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti:
An awful lot of hand waiving for no real points of discussion.
If there's anything "incoherent" its the deniers' theory, which always boils down to this:
Since we are not 100% sure AGW is real, we are 100% sure AGW is false
While simultaneously believing that the world's climate scientists are more corrupt and motivated by money than the world's fossil fuel companies.
Even a third grader could spot the flawed logic of that argument.
...and according to the AGW people, anyone that speaks out against AGW is a fraud, stupid, corrupt and motivated by money.
All the while the IMF released a report telling governments that they need to increase the carbon tax rates. Why?? Where does this money go?? In fact where does all the money go when people buy "carbon credits"?
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 07-31-2014).]
...and according to the AGW people, anyone that speaks out against AGW is a fraud, stupid, corrupt and motivated by money.
Not by itself, it just usually turns out that way, since the science doesn't support deniers' theories.
quote
All the while the IMF released a report telling governments that they need to increase the carbon tax rates. Why?? Where does this money go?? In fact where does all the money go when people buy "carbon credits"?
Right now, at least in Europe, carbon credits are auctioned off - in other words, "free". They don't produce any tax revenue. Increasing the cost of a carbon credit simply gives a bigger benefit to companies that produce less carbon since they can sell their leftover credits to other companies. Sure, it hurts companies that produce a lot of carbon. Unless you were taking about some other form of tax. I don't doubt that Europe has plenty of them.
But you are, AGAIN, confounding politics and policies with the science and data. While I believe strongly that AGW is real, I don't necessarily agree with the world's governments' policies to deal with them. But they two completely separate issues.
That is only introduced, not passed - so where is the money going? Perhaps - this is a stupid idea - it should be applied to research into alternative energies and such - or do you disagree?
Let's have a look at this graph (just 1 of several you can find that show similar data):
To borrow a phrase, "it is obvious to any grade kid" that the graph shows CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, they will also note that the temperature of the planet has also varied a great deal. One thing they may also notice, CO2 levels do NOT seem to have an direct effect on the temperature as shown in the graph (as many people claim).
One may also note that on the far right of the graph it shows the temperature going up. Now one could say that this is normal given the history of the planet and it's temperature swings.
Now of course someone will whip out some graph(s) (when they are done post propaganda posters and cartoons mind you) showing data from the last 30 (or 100 years) that show a definite warming trend and that this all started with the "industrial age" and will say that this is proof that man is the cause. Yet will they provided any supporting data that this has NOT happened before? Not likely since we don't have such detailed records of what the climate weather was on a day to day basis a few thousand years ago. There is NO proof that there was a similar temperature rise before.
If you look at the graph above it shows several sharp climbs in temperature (before man too, imagine that) - can you say 100% for sure that this rise in temperature did NOT happen over a 100 year span?
Now don't get me wrong, man does need to clean up his act, but going around fear mongering people in saying man is to blame for any change in the climate is a bad way of going about doing it. Especially since it is ONLY an assumption. Why can't pro-AGW people figure that part out?
Off to another point. When anti-AGW people speak out against it (especially scientists), they are immediately called stupid, not credible, lairs, etc because they are being paid by the "evil energy companies".
Now I could be wrong, but I have yet to hear about anyone "getting rich" off speaking out against AGW. HOWEVER, on the other hand - lets see; you have Al Gore - went around beaking off about it, makes a movie, creates a company to collect carbon credits (of wish no ONE has answered where this collected money is going to), etc. Since he started all this, his net wealth had grown a fair amount (and good for him). But don't say he is not in it for the money - if he was truly interested in saving the planet it would be non-profit.
Ok, so maybe that is a bad example and Al Gore is NOT a scientist, what about David Suzuki? He earned his Ph.D in zoology (fruit fly genetics to be exact) - not sure how that translates into a "climate expert" though. He has been a long time AGW activist (going back into the 70's). Let's see, he owns a few multimillion dollar homes and gets paid a good chuck of change to speak. Even the people that work at his "Foundation" make a pretty good living (all public record with what the Foundation pulls in every year) - which by the way have made in know not to long ago that they want to distance themselves from Mr. Suzuki due to "extreme views on global warming".
Of course now someone might post that there is nothing wrong with these people making some money and if I expect them to do it for free. No, I expect them to get paid, but when the subject comes up with some anti-AGW Ph.D speaks out right away the retort is that they are getting paid by the "evil energy" people. May be true, but they are not making the fortunes that the above people are (if they are I would like to see this "proof").
Ok, so now we move onto the AGW movement. They convince the government that incandescence bulbs are bad for the environment, yet the replacement, CFLs, are just as bad. Sure they may use less energy (but I thought that was free - you know like they claim about solar cells and wind power ), but they also contain mercury (never mind the ballast is is also contained in each bulb) was had been proven many years ago that it was bad for the environment - yet way is it that gets over looked?
It is also now a study that is suggesting that climate Change Killed off Maya Civilization (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0313_030313_mayadrought.html). Ok so if this was true, by accounts the Maya Civilization ceased to exist at around (AD)900 - now by my math that was about a 1000 years BEFORE the "industrial age". How can this be true when according to some "climate change" is the result of man and the industrial age??
That is way out of line (scientifically), to look backwards hundreds of millions of years to periods of high CO2 levels, and try to make straightforward comparisons to what is going on with the earth's climate, today.
Way too many differences in the factors that determine the earth's climate, from hundreds of millions of years ago, vs today. Radically different configurations of oceans and continents. Different biospheres. Significant differences in the magnitude and duration of volcanic activity. Other differences in the atmosphere between then and now. And if you go that far back in earth's history, astrophysicists have said that solar influx was fractionally smaller. Because the sun was a little cooler, that far back in its history. A small fractional difference, in terms of energy received by earth from sun, but enough to make any straight line comparisons (like that), from hundreds of millions of years ago, vs today, 100 percent misleading.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-01-2014).]
That is way out of line (scientifically), to look backwards hundreds of millions of years to periods of high CO2 levels, and try to make straightforward comparisons to what is going on with the earth's climate, today.
Way too many differences in the factors that determine the earth's climate, from hundreds of millions of years ago, vs today. Radically different configurations of oceans and continents. Different biospheres. Significant differences in the magnitude and duration of volcanic activity. Other differences in the atmosphere between then and now. And if you go that far back in earth's history, astrophysicists have said that solar influx was fractionally smaller. Because the sun was a little cooler, that far back in its history. A small fractional difference, in terms of energy received by earth from sun, but enough to make any straight line comparisons (like that), from hundreds of millions of years ago, vs today, 100 percent misleading.
...as opposed to the "many differences in the factors that determine the earth's climate" of today???
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Let's have a look at this graph (just 1 of several you can find that show similar data):
Where did you find this graph? William Ruddiman is listed as a source yet he endorses the human factor in climate change. One of his books is titled “Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate”
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: To borrow a phrase, "it is obvious to any grade kid" that the graph shows CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, they will also note that the temperature of the planet has also varied a great deal.
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: One thing they may also notice, CO2 levels do NOT seem to have an direct effect on the temperature
“Seem” should have been the word you put in all caps. The greenhouse effect has been settled science for almost 2 centuries. But I guess to some deniers it’s still a myth…
One of the key arguments deniers have used against CO2/temperature is “correlation does not equal causation”. You’re trying to argue there is no correlation at all, something even deniers have come to terms with.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: One may also note that on the far right of the graph it shows the temperature going up. Now one could say that this is normal given the history of the planet and it's temperature swings.
The time scale on this graph is very deceitful.
The last block is only 10 thousand years, but it’s size is the same as others on this graphs that are millions of years, even tens of millions of years. I’m sure this slight of hand is just an error.
Also, “Before Present” typically refers to 1950. This graph is lacking practically all of the recent warming.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Now of course someone will whip out some graph(s) showing data from the last 30 (or 100 years) that show a definite warming trend and that this all started with the "industrial age" and will say that this is proof that man is the cause. Yet will they provided any supporting data that this has NOT happened before? Not likely since we don't have such detailed records of what the climate weather was on a day to day basis a few thousand years ago. There is NO proof that there was a similar temperature rise before.
What?
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: If you look at the graph above it shows several sharp climbs in temperature (before man too, imagine that) - can you say 100% for sure that this rise in temperature did NOT happen over a 100 year span?
Why do you ask for the facts when you know you’ll reject them anyway?
Look into these events. You’ll find it took thousands of years, if not tens of thousands for these temperature changes to happen. The most significant temperature change in the last 65 million years was 6°C over 20,000 years. Source.
We’ve warmed nearly 1°C in 50 years alone. By 2100, we’ll likely be at 3-4°C. For you to pretend this is even close to previous natural rate of warming is laughable.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Now don't get me wrong, man does need to clean up his act,
Lip service.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: but going around fear mongering people in saying man is to blame for any change in the climate is a bad way of going about doing it.
Denying simple science doesn’t help either.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Especially since it is ONLY an assumption.
Yeah right.
No scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.
It’s not an assumption. There’s a mountain of evidence. You simply reject it because it’s inconvenient.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Off to another point.
And a poor one at that. You're pretending two people are responsible for the mountain of scientific evidence that disagrees with you entirely. In your alternate reality, two people have managed to corrupt hundreds of universities, thousands of scientists, and tens of thousands of scientific papers.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: but they also contain mercury (never mind the ballast is is also contained in each bulb) was had been proven many years ago that it was bad for the environment - yet way is it that gets over looked?
It doesn’t get overlooked. The mercury and lead used in some products is contained. It can be recycled and used again.
This is a far cry from coal power plants that spew mercury and sulfur directly into the atmosphere.
Figures a denier would care more about a product you have to smash on the floor and practically snort compared to the coal power plants spewing TONS more mercury, sulfur, and CO2 into directly the atmosphere.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: How can this be true when according to some "climate change" is the result of man and the industrial age??
Post a source that says climate change only happened on Earth after the industrial age.
Gee a chemist for a coal association hating on the IPCC. Say it isn’t so…
There appears to be a dispute over his claimed title of an “expert reviewer for the IPCC” as well. He only signed up for a draft copy. Practically anyone can get one of those.
A COALition with ties to the coal industry. Man that’s good comedy.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: I now return you to your regular programming of arm waving hysteria and political and propaganda posters and cartoons.
For a guy who's demonstratively wrong constantly, you sure do act smug about it.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 08-01-2014).]
Elon Musk on Colbert: "If we're all in a ship together," Musk said, "and the ship has some holes in it, and we're sort of bailing water out of it, and we have a great design for a bucket, then even if we're bailing out way better than everyone else, we should probably still share the bucket design, because we're all going to sink."
The problem isn't the bucket design, it is getting them to use the bucket design or getting them to bail out with the rest in the first place.
Originally posted by avengador1: The problem isn't the bucket design, it is getting them to use the bucket design or getting them to bail out with the rest in the first place.
It's new technology, but it is being adopted.
"Nearly 100,000 electric cars were on the road worldwide in early 2012. A year later the vehicle count came to 200,000, and already reached 405,000 early this year. " Source.
Crystal Cruises - Northwest Passage, from $20,000 to $44,000 "Following in the footsteps of intrepid explorers and rugged expedition vessels, Crystal Serenity becomes the very first luxury ship to ever traverse the Northwest Passage, a mystical Pacific-Atlantic sea route far beyond the Arctic Circle that for centuries captured the imaginations of kings, explorers and adventurers."
Study: A roadmap for repowering California for all purposes with wind, water, and sunlight "This study presents a roadmap for converting California's all-purpose (electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, and industry) energy infrastructure to one derived entirely from wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) generating electricity and electrolytic hydrogen."
Study: ‘Unzipping’ poplars’ biofuel potential The research, which appears in the current issue of Science, focuses on enhancing poplar trees so they can break down more easily, improving their viability as a biofuel. The long-term efforts and teamwork involved to find this solution can be described as a rare, top-down approach to engineering plants for digestibility, said Curtis Wilkerson, Michigan State University plant biologist and the lead author.
), but they also contain mercury (never mind the ballast is is also contained in each bulb) was had been proven many years ago that it was bad for the environment - yet way is it that gets over looked?
