12 month long drop in temps wipe out a century of warming

Commy

RM291946 wrote:

no doll..I'm not the one doing that. I fully acknowledge the cool that is making my hands so cold it's difficult to type.

whenever someone posts an alternative to your theory, backed up by scientific facts, you call it bullshit, not in so few words. seems to me you're the one not open to an alternative.


if your hands are too cold to type in Miami that should at least give you pause.


maybe we're the ones fucking it up? maybe...

Commy

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

*Puts decent lightbulbs back in their sockets; stops going blind*

goddamnit Fins put some shades on.

NoK

RM291946 wrote:

I know what the graph shows. I said Jan2007 started near the top of that peak.

That Nature article is crap. That nature article shows a possibility from a made up scenario. You are relying heavily on something that is not worth the time of day, and you and your fellow alarmist buddy on here are the only 2 who buy into it. Everyone else is showing they don't buy the bullshit.

You have nothing to add to this conversation except accusations now. Go tell any scientist that Nature publishes crap and see the look on their face. Look at the quote below and understand that you have read the article wrong.

Eric J. Steig is the lead author of a paper to be published today in the journal Nature. The team of US scientists base their scientific work on combined data from land stations with satellite readings. "We have at least 25 years of data from satellites, and satellites have the huge advantage that they can see the whole continent. But the [land] stations have the advantage that they go back much further in time. So we combined the two and what we found, in a nutshell, is that there is warming across the whole continent, it's stronger in winter and spring, but it is there in all seasons," said Eric Steig according to the BBC.

NoK

Commy wrote:

RM291946 wrote:

whenever someone posts an alternative to your theory, backed up by scientific facts, you call it bullshit, not in so few words.

..actually she has used so few words hahaha

NoK

For further reports on your dodgy data...

What we've learned in 2008
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0901 ... 8.142.html

Check out number (4)

NoK

2009 Forecast to be One of Warmest Years on Record

As we say goodbye to 2008 and look forward to 2009, we already have received the less-than-satisfying news that researchers think that 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. So, you know, buy more tank tops.

British Reuters (which is just like our Reuters but far more polite) reports that 2009 will most likely be the warmest year since 2005, even though global climate patterns suggest temperatures should be going the other way.

"The average global temperature for 2009 is expected to be more than 0.4 degrees celsius above the long-term average, despite the continued cooling of huge areas of the Pacific Ocean, a phenomenon known as La Nina."

The article doesn’t say exactly how warm researchers expect the earth to be, but let’s see if we can’t figure it out from some quotes in the text, but it looks to be somewhere around 14.4 degrees Celsius, while the long-term average is 14 degrees Celsius. To put that into American numbers (what?), the long-term average is 57.2 degrees Fahrenheit, while 2009’s global temperature will be around 57.92 degrees Fahrenheit.

So, that may not seem like a huge jump, but I’m pretty sure it means we’re heading in the wrong direction.

Flutter Girl

I have posted and re-posted showing how the Nature Article does not show what is currently happening. GCM's do not show that. Pure and simple.

You 2 are just hell-bent on it being our fault, aren't you? Puny little us. Again, explain all the erratic weather that occured before our arrival. All current data shows our weather changes are correlated with sun storms, not GHG's. We pollute. That would not cause warming. Quite the opposite. Pollution like smog blocks out the sun, making it cooler.

Ah how nice it would be if we could predict the weather that far into the future in a time when meteorologists often can't even get right what the weather will be like a week from now.

And #4 doesn't explain how if it is the warmest now than any point in recent history, then how come the vikings could grow grass in Greenland, but it's too icy to do that today? The data doesn't jive with historical facts.

NoK

RM291946 wrote:

I have posted and re-posted showing how the Nature Article does not show what is currently happening. GCM's do not show that. Pure and simple.

Sorry I'm going to have to take the word of the leading scientists in the study, the reviewers of the article and the Journal editors who accepted the article over your word, a person who hasn't even studied the field.

RM291946 wrote:

You 2 are just hell-bent on it being our fault, aren't you? Puny little us. Again, explain all the erratic weather that occured before our arrival. All current data shows our weather changes are correlated with sun storms, not GHG's. We pollute. That would not cause warming. Quite the opposite. Pollution like smog blocks out the sun, making it cooler.

Ah how nice it would be if we could predict the weather that far into the future in a time when meteorologists often can't even get right what the weather will be like a week from now.

And #4 doesn't explain how if it is the warmest now than any point in recent history, then how come the vikings could grow grass in Greenland, but it's too icy to do that today? The data doesn't jive with historical facts.

I am not hell bent on anything. We have both stated several times our willingness to discuss things, yet it is you who continues to label us as some kind of extremists. You refuse to acknowledge that there is a possibility YOU and your sceptic buddies can be wrong.

soulsinging

Both theories are full of crap... what's really happening is what I like to call Global "Fucked Up Ass Weather".

Flutter Girl

I want to point out that of the 7 graphs posted, 2 don't show data for the 30's and 40's so there were no 'curves' to 'even out' on them. The one of those two that needs to be noted is the very first. The data on it still stands.

Of the other 5, 2 have nothing to do with temps, they show rain and hurricane data.

Of the other 3, one has no focus on that period of time, it's purpose is to highlight the temps prior to industrialisation, and specifically during the medieval and little ice age periods, during all of which, modern measuring instruments did not exist, it's measured by historical data and ice core samples.

And the last 2 are actually essentially just one, 2 almost identical graphs..And in both of them the temps measured during the 30's and 40's is not really relevant to what is being highlighted. In fact the new data being brought to light by what is in your article means that with the corrections, the temps actually correlate more precisely with solar activity than previously thought. Thank you for pointing that out

---

Now take a look at #5 on the page you linked to. I now find it extremely difficult to take that page seriously. Politicians are not scientists so who cares what they "admitted."

Near universal consensus is a sham initiated by Gore. Just ask Doctors Iain Murray, Richard Lindzen, Arthur Robinson, Noah Robinson, Willie soon, Marlo Lewis (who identified 50 clear lies in Gore's film), Paul Driessen, Ron Bailey, Aaron Wildavsky, Petr Chylek, William Gray, Joel schwartz, Mike Hulme, R.J.smith, Christopher Horner, Henrik svensmark, Dennis Bray, Robert Giegengack, Bob Carter, William Happer, Michael Gough, Bjorn Lomborg, Owen Mcshane, Max Mayfield, Freeman Dyson(who would also readily tell you what crap GCM's are, actually so would Murray, Lindzen, Lewis, and Horner, for certain, but no doubt, the other's would too..), Lubos Motl, Igor Polyakov, syun-Ichi Akasofu, and 7 of their colleagues from the IARC (who prefer not to be named) Robert Balling, Kerry Emanuel, Richard Anthes, Judith Curry, James Elsner, Greg Holland, Phil Klotzbach, Tom Knutson, Chris Landsea, Peter Webster, Roger Pielke Jr., P.J.Polissar, G.Kaser, Jack Hollander, Martin Hoffert, Peter Doran, Gerd Wendler, Patrick Michaels..

That's 53 out of 80 climate scientists in America...thus far..I intend to contact the other 27 to know where they stand as well. Only one of the 80 actually signed the 'consensus' that was passed around. One.

I also intend to find out exactly how many climate scientists there are in the world. Though I know there are less than 1000.

The 'near universal consensus' boasts 2600 signatures. 60% of them are from folk who are not even scientists. And all but one of the rest belong to scientists who have not studied in the field of climate science, and therefore have no authority on the subject.

Roger Revelle and s.Fred singer must be mentioned as Revelle was Gore's hero who guided him towards the light that is gw. Except he didn't. The opposite in fact. And after Revelle came out and said as much he went from hero to drooling old fool unfit to comment on the issues, despite his having remained active in the feild till his death. And singer needs noting cos he went out there with Revelle, as his colleague (you can find the 1991 article from them in the very first Cosmos journal..).

Documents show, on Gore's orders, his aides and associates slandered singer into oblivion. And much later it was shown that Revelle, had published a paper that concluded there was no evidence that GHG's cause warming.

What did Gore go by?
"A survey of more than 928 [meaning 929 :roll:] scientific papers in respected journals shows 100% agreement."

Actually that represents less than one-tenth of the relevant scientific literature on the topic. Furthermore, the cherry-picked articles are in no way unanimous on the issue at hand.

The relevant scientific literature amounts to over 11,000 articles. Making #5 an out right lie. It only takes one to bring into question the honesty behind the rest.

Oh yea, and Nature magazine began losing credibility with legitimate climate scientists after publishing that the hockey stick model was correct, despite it not having gone up for peer review again before being published. Peer reviews are what kept it from getting published in other journals like Journal of Geophysical Research, and International Journal of Climatology.

Why has it been rejected elsewhere? Cos Mann refused to show all his "research."
After complaints started filing in from other climate scientists due to his erasing the medieval warming period and little ice age from his "data" making his graph look like we previously had a fairly stable climate before the heat hit, the National Academy of sciences launched an investigation. The panel inescapably indicted the Hockey stick, the UN IPCC, and the Mann team itself. The panel specifically accused the IPCC of misrepresentation, and specifically accused the Mann team of downplaying historical uncertainties.

It was after this report was published that Nature published the hockey stick as "accurate" and even headlined the article as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph," An outright lie.

still want to call them respectable?

Flutter Girl

NoK wrote:

I am not hell bent on anything. We have both stated several times our willingness to discuss things, yet it is you who continues to label us as some kind of extremists. You refuse to acknowledge that there is a possibility YOU and your sceptic buddies can be wrong.

I just showed how trustworthy your source was..outright lies, and all..

If the above were true, you would not consistently argue any possibility that we are not to blame. I have readily stated we cause rising in CO2, and pollution. But you repeatedly come to the conclusion that this means we cause hinky weather. We don't. The science is there. The only contribution we make to it is when polluting went unchecked, smog made things cooler. since we cleaned up our act, there wasn't smog to block out the sun. Now we are causing smog again with E85, gone unchecked it will get cooler again. But none of it is significant enough to have caused the drastic changes we have seen, it only contributes on an infantesimal(sp?) level that is not even noticable. A single volcanic erruption makes more of a difference that smog, or the lack thereof.

so no. I am not going to jump on board the man-made global warming wagon, or even the one for the "we might be the cause."

NoK

RM291946 wrote:

I just showed how trustworthy your source was..outright lies, and all..

If the above were true, you would not consistently argue any possibility that we are not to blame. I have readily stated we cause rising in CO2, and pollution. But you repeatedly come to the conclusion that this means we cause hinky weather. We don't. The science is there. The only contribution we make to it is when polluting went unchecked, smog made things cooler. since we cleaned up our act, there wasn't smog to block out the sun. Now we are causing smog again with E85, gone unchecked it will get cooler again. But none of it is significant enough to have caused the drastic changes we have seen, it only contributes on an infantesimal(sp?) level that is not even noticable. A single volcanic erruption makes more of a difference that smog, or the lack thereof.

so no. I am not going to jump on board the man-made global warming wagon, or even the one for the "we might be the cause."

Then there is no discussion to be had and this is useless. I will definitely still call them credible. One wrong graph does not mean they are not credible. This is what science is all about, making hypotheses and attempting to validate them or invalidate them. If you cannot accept there might be another explanation then you do not understand basic science.

Do you actually understand what I am posting? The corrections are for one graph, the sea temperatures. The fact that you tried to explain them for all the rest of the graphs means you have no idea what they really mean hahaha

You keep bringing in Al Gore to invalidate my argument when I could care less what he has to say. So continue if you must. The Nature article I posted at the end is a summary of what happened in year 2008 not all the relevant research by the way. You should look into the references the author made in her report from journals like "Journal of Geophysical Research" but I guess you didn't read the first part to realise that.

This has turned more into an argument than a discussion so it is pointless to continue.

The Juggler

RM291946 wrote:

I want to point out that of the 7 graphs posted, 2 don't show data for the 30's and 40's so there were no 'curves' to 'even out' on them. The one of those two that needs to be noted is the very first. The data on it still stands.

Of the other 5, 2 have nothing to do with temps, they show rain and hurricane data.

Of the other 3, one has no focus on that period of time, it's purpose is to highlight the temps prior to industrialisation, and specifically during the medieval and little ice age periods, during all of which, modern measuring instruments did not exist, it's measured by historical data and ice core samples.

And the last 2 are actually essentially just one, 2 almost identical graphs..And in both of them the temps measured during the 30's and 40's is not really relevant to what is being highlighted. In fact the new data being brought to light by what is in your article means that with the corrections, the temps actually correlate more precisely with solar activity than previously thought. Thank you for pointing that out

---

Now take a look at #5 on the page you linked to. I now find it extremely difficult to take that page seriously. Politicians are not scientists so who cares what they "admitted."

Near universal consensus is a sham initiated by Gore. Just ask Doctors Iain Murray, Richard Lindzen, Arthur Robinson, Noah Robinson, Willie soon, Marlo Lewis (who identified 50 clear lies in Gore's film), Paul Driessen, Ron Bailey, Aaron Wildavsky, Petr Chylek, William Gray, Joel schwartz, Mike Hulme, R.J.smith, Christopher Horner, Henrik svensmark, Dennis Bray, Robert Giegengack, Bob Carter, William Happer, Michael Gough, Bjorn Lomborg, Owen Mcshane, Max Mayfield, Freeman Dyson(who would also readily tell you what crap GCM's are, actually so would Murray, Lindzen, Lewis, and Horner, for certain, but no doubt, the other's would too..), Lubos Motl, Igor Polyakov, syun-Ichi Akasofu, and 7 of their colleagues from the IARC (who prefer not to be named) Robert Balling, Kerry Emanuel, Richard Anthes, Judith Curry, James Elsner, Greg Holland, Phil Klotzbach, Tom Knutson, Chris Landsea, Peter Webster, Roger Pielke Jr., P.J.Polissar, G.Kaser, Jack Hollander, Martin Hoffert, Peter Doran, Gerd Wendler, Patrick Michaels..

That's 53 out of 80 climate scientists in America...thus far..I intend to contact the other 27 to know where they stand as well. Only one of the 80 actually signed the 'consensus' that was passed around. One.

I also intend to find out exactly how many climate scientists there are in the world. Though I know there are less than 1000.

The 'near universal consensus' boasts 2600 signatures. 60% of them are from folk who are not even scientists. And all but one of the rest belong to scientists who have not studied in the field of climate science, and therefore have no authority on the subject.

Roger Revelle and s.Fred singer must be mentioned as Revelle was Gore's hero who guided him towards the light that is gw. Except he didn't. The opposite in fact. And after Revelle came out and said as much he went from hero to drooling old fool unfit to comment on the issues, despite his having remained active in the feild till his death. And singer needs noting cos he went out there with Revelle, as his colleague (you can find the 1991 article from them in the very first Cosmos journal..).

Documents show, on Gore's orders, his aides and associates slandered singer into oblivion. And much later it was shown that Revelle, had published a paper that concluded there was no evidence that GHG's cause warming.

What did Gore go by?
"A survey of more than 928 [meaning 929 :roll:] scientific papers in respected journals shows 100% agreement."

Actually that represents less than one-tenth of the relevant scientific literature on the topic. Furthermore, the cherry-picked articles are in no way unanimous on the issue at hand.

The relevant scientific literature amounts to over 11,000 articles. Making #5 an out right lie. It only takes one to bring into question the honesty behind the rest.

Oh yea, and Nature magazine began losing credibility with legitimate climate scientists after publishing that the hockey stick model was correct, despite it not having gone up for peer review again before being published. Peer reviews are what kept it from getting published in other journals like Journal of Geophysical Research, and International Journal of Climatology.

Why has it been rejected elsewhere? Cos Mann refused to show all his "research."
After complaints started filing in from other climate scientists due to his erasing the medieval warming period and little ice age from his "data" making his graph look like we previously had a fairly stable climate before the heat hit, the National Academy of sciences launched an investigation. The panel inescapably indicted the Hockey stick, the UN IPCC, and the Mann team itself. The panel specifically accused the IPCC of misrepresentation, and specifically accused the Mann team of downplaying historical uncertainties.

It was after this report was published that Nature published the hockey stick as "accurate" and even headlined the article as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph," An outright lie.

still want to call them respectable?

will you marry me? :oops:

OutOfBreath

You can do a lot with presentation graphs and statistics. I should know, I deal with them dailly at my job.

A general comment: I'm not sure how valuable it is to show lines as means instead of trends on several of these figures. I suppose the intention is to highlight the "no change" if one go far enough back. But I will make comment on a couple of these figures:

First of all, a one-month drop doesn't disprove or prove anything. They have occurred before, and they'll occur again. If that line bounces right back up in a month or two, then it is largely insignificant to the larger trend.

Figure 1: Just because we are at a 3000 year average right now, doesnt mean that we "naturally" should be. It says nothing in itself about global warming as a human thing or not. It only shows that it has varied. The whole point and conclusions of the IPCC has been based on trend-data whose underlying numbers vary quite a deal.

Figure 5: Actually indicates that US temperatures aren't as connected to solar activity if you look closer on it. There are several down-spikes in temperatures while the sun goes up, and vice versa. Of course there are some relation between the two, but there's plenty of wriggle-room for additional factors having a noticable and significant impact. Solar activity is an insufficient explanation here. This also goes for figure 3. The spikes in solar activity does not correspond to the spikes in temperature.

Figure 10: The mean line does not give a rightful representation. Given that every dot from the mid90s onwards is OVER the mean line (with 2 on the line, and only 1 any distance under it) a straight line does not give a truthful image. Also, looking at the peaks in the 50s and 60s, they dropped back to mean after that 1 spike year, while now, they are huddling together at consistently higher levels

Making charts is easy, as is skewing them.

Peace
Dan

Flutter Girl

NoK wrote:

RM291946 wrote:

I just showed how trustworthy your source was..outright lies, and all..

If the above were true, you would not consistently argue any possibility that we are not to blame. I have readily stated we cause rising in CO2, and pollution. But you repeatedly come to the conclusion that this means we cause hinky weather. We don't. The science is there. The only contribution we make to it is when polluting went unchecked, smog made things cooler. since we cleaned up our act, there wasn't smog to block out the sun. Now we are causing smog again with E85, gone unchecked it will get cooler again. But none of it is significant enough to have caused the drastic changes we have seen, it only contributes on an infantesimal(sp?) level that is not even noticable. A single volcanic erruption makes more of a difference that smog, or the lack thereof.

so no. I am not going to jump on board the man-made global warming wagon, or even the one for the "we might be the cause."

Then there is no discussion to be had and this is useless. I will definitely still call them credible. One wrong graph does not mean they are not credible. This is what science is all about, making hypotheses and attempting to validate them or invalidate them. If you cannot accept there might be another explanation then you do not understand basic science.

Do you actually understand what I am posting? The corrections are for one graph, the sea temperatures. The fact that you tried to explain them for all the rest of the graphs means you have no idea what they really mean hahaha

You keep bringing in Al Gore to invalidate my argument when I could care less what he has to say. So continue if you must. The Nature article I posted at the end is a summary of what happened in year 2008 not all the relevant research by the way. You should look into the references the author made in her report from journals like "Journal of Geophysical Research" but I guess you didn't read the first part to realise that.

This has turned more into an argument than a discussion so it is pointless to continue.

One wrong graph is easily excusable, by all means. Reading thru the nas report, seeing how wrong the graph is and that the "research" was biased, and how much the nas was angry over the falsified data, then publishing it in your journal without a peer review while falsley claiming the nas found in favour of Mann and supports the data..That is completely inexcusable and shows what kind of journal they are.

I can fully accept there may be another answer. There are any number of potential other causes, but I guarantee you, there is no root cause other than the Earth has been unstable since it started spinning. There are simply too many factors in play here. But humans aren't one of them. It has been studied to death and the overwhelming majority of the data returning says we are not the cause. At which point do you accept the data? When the scientific community is unanimous? You will be waiting for that day eternally. That just doesn't happen in science. You are lucky to get 70% to agree on one theory.

Al Gore is central to the subject. He initiated it and continues to pull the strings behind the curtain.

I ask again, when there are over 11,000 articles, and only 929 agree to an extent, at which point do you accept the data?

Flutter Girl

Dan-
The chart shows a 12 month drop, not just one month..

With figure one, it's not attempting to highlight that we are at an average. It's point was to show the spike during the medieval warming period, and the quick drop during the little ice age..To show that we have not, by any means, had the more "stable" climate that corrupted scientists like Mann are trying to claim we did. Mann and the like are attempting to dupe people into thinking we had a stable climit till humans came along and caused the heat to rise, so they can pin the blame on us.

It also is to show that while we had been warming up since the little ice age (big revelation there :roll:) it is still not as hot as it was in a period prior to industrialisation..In otherwords, if we are causing the warming, what made it hotter than it is today before we industrialised?



With figure 5, you have to bear in mind that there are other causes for temperature changes. Volcanos erupting, position of the earth in regards to the sun (ice reflects more heat, ocean absorbs more..etc, which means it is still being affected by the sun..)..If a comet hits, it has the same cooling effect as an eruption. More rain equals more warmth..etc.

But as you see in fig.3, firstly the drop near the 30's should be disregarded as Nok pointed out about the measuring methods being used during that period..Otherwise, the arctic air temps correlate more with the solar activity, and don't match up with the hydrocarbon use.



And with fig.10, if the 2 are counted as on the line by you, then the other 3 touching it should count as "on" the line as well (talk about skewing). Making for only 6 that are above it, and therefore making it very similar to what is shown for the 50's and 60's, only then, there were a lot more hurricanes in general. With that said, the vast majority hit on, or right near, the average.

I did not alter these charts. They are posted as they were given by the sources. Figures 1, 3, and 5 are from giss, and the last 4 all come from the same source as listed with fig, 7 and 8 (too much to type out again..)

Flutter Girl

The Jeagler wrote:

will you marry me? :oops:

know1

Commy wrote:

yes global climate change is real, humans need to stop fucking up our planet.

Yes - global climate change is real and humans have very little to do with it.

joelrgonzalez

I have found this thread to be very interesting and informative. I looked up some research on my own and found that a lot of what RM291946 has posted is very valid in my personal opinion. I come from a Christian up bringing and vocation and feel that the Church has neglected proper study on this issue. I personally do not believe that global warming is a product of mankind but pollution and the hole in the ozone however is. In the Bible God told made to be stewards of the planet. He didn't say screw it up. I think that what is happening to the climate is just the the way the world is changing naturally. Great job RM291946 on your findings

The Juggler

RM291946 wrote:

The Jeagler wrote:

will you marry me? :oops:

so....yes?