The new normal.....rising temperatures

[Oddball]

anomalies!...deniers!...anomalies!...deniers!...anomalies!...deniers!...

RAAAAAK!

 

[edthecynic]

anomalies!...deniers!...anomalies!...deniers!...anomalies!...deniers!...

RAAAAAK!

Brilliant as usual, Dupe.

 

[Bern80]

Again, in typical dishonest CON$ervoFascist fashion, you lie by failing to tell the whole truth. In the WHOLE answer the warming did not meet the significance level because THE PERIOD OF TIME WAS NOT LONG ENOUGH, not that the warming was not enough.

Which means, smart guy, that without statistical signifance the warming observed over said short time could very well be completely meaningless.

But it still doesn't mean there has been NO global warming for the last 15 years as deniers falsely claim.

And should we being taking drastic economic measures that will ultimately lower everyone's standard of living on something that a) MIGHT be happening and b) if is happening may not even be our fault?

 

[edthecynic]

Which means, smart guy, that without statistical signifance the warming observed over said short time could very well be completely meaningless.

But it still doesn't mean there has been NO global warming for the last 15 years as deniers falsely claim.

And should we being taking drastic economic measures that will ultimately lower everyone's standard of living on something that a) MIGHT be happening and b) if is happening may not even be our fault?

Are not you being just as alarmist as the people you condemn for being alarmists?

Developing alternate energy sources, conservation, improving CAFE standards, etc., will hardly harm everyone's standard of living.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe cold fusion will overcome Manmade Global Warming?

 

[Bern80]

Are not you being just as alarmist as the people you condemn for being alarmists?

Choosing to evaluate as oppossed to taking drastic measures over a maybe is hardly alarmist.

Developing alternate energy sources, conservation, improving CAFE standards, etc., will hardly harm everyone's standard of living.

But Cap in trade will. It will make energy cost more for everyone. I don't have a problem with developing alternative energy sources. The simple fact is at this stage they are not practically viable. Unfortunately coal and oil are the substances most easily convertible to usable energy. You simply can not touch with any other unit of alternative energy what natural gas, oil, and coal are capable of producing in energy per unit.

This point about the fact that we already have been developing cleaner energy for some time now is one of the main reasons I think global warming and any contribution man might have to it, is much ado about nothing and goes back to my point about perspective. When man started producing mass energy that was the dirtiest production of it ever was. We have been getting cleaner ever since. All of this in the span of what? Maybe 100 years? In earth history that is an amount of time that is the most statistically insignificant of any data or stat we have discussed so far. It may seem like a big deal to homo sapiens who will never get to an entire climate cycle in their lifetime, to the history of the earth and any future changes to it, what we've done and anything we may do as trivial at best and likely meaningless.

I'm frankly not worried about global warming, man made or otherwise because one of two things are going to happen. 1) As they say necessity is the mother of invention and we will use up all of the fossil fuels before we can do any more damage to the earth or 2) some one will figure out a way to make clean energy marketably viable to the masses. That's the big hurdle right now. It has to hit people in the pocket book if you want to see real change, because the same people that crow about the widening gap between rich and poor and how many more poor there are how need to figure out, it isn't a matter of desire. Most people can't AFFORD to be green.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Again, in typical dishonest CON$ervoFascist fashion, you lie by failing to tell the whole truth. In the WHOLE answer the warming did not meet the significance level because THE PERIOD OF TIME WAS NOT LONG ENOUGH, not that the warming was not enough.

Which means, smart guy, that without statistical signifance the warming observed over said short time could very well be completely meaningless.

But it still doesn't mean there has been NO global warming for the last 15 years as deniers falsely claim.

Statistically, there might not have been!!

Learn to read the things you link to!!

 

[ABikerSailor]

Which means, smart guy, that without statistical signifance the warming observed over said short time could very well be completely meaningless.

But it still doesn't mean there has been NO global warming for the last 15 years as deniers falsely claim.

And should we being taking drastic economic measures that will ultimately lower everyone's standard of living on something that a) MIGHT be happening and b) if is happening may not even be our fault?

Might not be happening and might not be our fault.

What if it is happening and it is our fault?

 

[edthecynic]

Which means, smart guy, that without statistical signifance the warming observed over said short time could very well be completely meaningless.

But it still doesn't mean there has been NO global warming for the last 15 years as deniers falsely claim.

Statistically, there might not have been!!

Learn to read the things you link to!!

Learn what a POSITIVE value means first!!!!

JONES - 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.

 

[Oddball]

Might not be happening and might not be our fault.

What if it is happening and it is our fault?

See: Pascal's Wager.

 

[Samson]

Might not be happening and might not be our fault.

What if it is happening and it is our fault?

See: Pascal's Wager.

Unlike Pascal's Wagger, the linky above is Work Safe.

 

[Bern80]

But it still doesn't mean there has been NO global warming for the last 15 years as deniers falsely claim.

And should we being taking drastic economic measures that will ultimately lower everyone's standard of living on something that a) MIGHT be happening and b) if is happening may not even be our fault?

Might not be happening and might not be our fault.

What if it is happening and it is our fault?

THEN we do something about it. But you don't lower the standard of living of the planet on a 'maybe' or a 'what if'.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ain't maybe or what if for the people that know the most about it. The only consensus among scientists that is stronger is that concerning evolution.

And it may well be too late to "do something about it". If the willfullly ignorant like you were to actually read what the earth scientists, geologists, biologists, and climotologists are actually trying to tell you, you might understand the problem.

Global Warming: Beyond the Tipping Point: Scientific American

The basic proposition behind the science of climate change is so firmly rooted in the laws of physics that no reasonable person can dispute it. All other things being equal, adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere—by, for example, burning millions of tons of oil, coal and natural gas—will make it warm up. That, as the Nobel Prize–winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first explained in 1896, is because CO2 is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun, which heats the planet during the day. But it is relatively opaque to infrared, which the earth tries to reradiate back into space at night. If the planet were a featureless, monochromatic billiard ball without mountains, oceans, vegetation and polar ice caps, a steadily rising concentration of CO2 would mean a steadily warming earth. Period.

But the earth is not a billiard ball. It is an extraordinarily complex, messy geophysical system with dozens of variables, most of which change in response to one another. Oceans absorb vast amounts of heat, slowing the warm-up of the atmosphere, yet they also absorb excess CO2. Vegetation soaks up CO2 as well but eventually re*releases the gas as plants rot or burn—or, in a much longer-term scenario—drift to the bottom of the ocean to form sedimentary rock such as limestone. Warmer temperatures drive more evaporation from the oceans; the water vapor itself is a heat-trapping gas, whereas the clouds it forms block some of the sun’s warming rays. Volcanoes belch CO2, but they also spew particulates that diffuse the sun’s rays. And that’s just a partial list.

Because including all these factors in calculations about the effects of CO2 increase is hugely difficult, it is no surprise that climate scientists are still struggling to understand how it all will likely turn out. It is also no surprise, given his track record as something of a climate change agitator, that James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been circulating a preprint of a journal paper saying that the outcome is likely to turn out worse than most people think. The most recent major report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 projects a temperature rise of three degrees Celsius, plus or minus 1.5 degrees—enough to trigger serious impacts on human life from rising sea level, widespread drought, changes in weather patterns, and the like.

 

[Old Rocks]

Uhhhh I kind of doubt it there old fraud. Climatologists have confirmed one thing....that they can manufacture data like no one else. Climatologists use surface weather stations in preferance to all other sources and the only way you could get the hot temperatures that have been claimed in the NE is by using TWO stations near airports that were the only TWO sources that read the temperatures that were reported to the media.

They regularly "average" temperatures for a 1200 kilometer section of Canada where they have dropped the existing weather stations. The one station they are still using in that area is in a town thus maximising the UHI effect.

So how long have you worked for Evraz? I think you are feeling so guilty that you work in a notoriously polluting field that you feel compelled to absolve your sins against the Earth by following every other enviro religion out there. How sad.

Deniers Spencer and Christy get caught fabricating data and honest scientists get blamed. BRILLIANT.

Real scientists use ANOMALIES so if a station is near a heat source the AVERAGE the anomaly is measured against will be high and the anomaly will be accurate. That is why the ground station data matches the satellite data almost exactly.

Why don't you deniers set up your own ground stations and collect your own data if you really believe the scientific data is so corrupted???? I'll tell you why, you know it is quite accurate and you don't want to confirm it's accuracy!!! It's much easer to attack the data than to collect your own.

Ed,

Before the alarmists got into the act there were 6000 weather stations in use across North America. Since they have come into power, so to speak, they have dropped more than 3,500 of them. The ones they have kept are those that are closest to urban areas. Below is a link to the Surface Stations website. May I suggest you read what they have to say. Confirm or refute what they have to say, and then when you have all of the facts report here what you have found.

Home

And this link is a compilation of 806 weather stations that were dropped in a SINGLE year. Why? The people who dropped them havn't said but the evidence seems to show that they were reading colder than was desired. So rather than have them screw up the "story" they were dropped to make the "story" easier to concoct.

Crooked climatologists drop 806 (cold?) weather stations in a single year | CLIMATEGATE

Been over this before, stupid ass. Ever hear of satellites?

 

[Samson]

****This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list.****

I wonder why......???

Does anyone recall why I put Old Rocks on Ignore?

 

[westwall]

Deniers Spencer and Christy get caught fabricating data and honest scientists get blamed. BRILLIANT.

Real scientists use ANOMALIES so if a station is near a heat source the AVERAGE the anomaly is measured against will be high and the anomaly will be accurate. That is why the ground station data matches the satellite data almost exactly.

Why don't you deniers set up your own ground stations and collect your own data if you really believe the scientific data is so corrupted???? I'll tell you why, you know it is quite accurate and you don't want to confirm it's accuracy!!! It's much easer to attack the data than to collect your own.

Ed,

Before the alarmists got into the act there were 6000 weather stations in use across North America. Since they have come into power, so to speak, they have dropped more than 3,500 of them. The ones they have kept are those that are closest to urban areas. Below is a link to the Surface Stations website. May I suggest you read what they have to say. Confirm or refute what they have to say, and then when you have all of the facts report here what you have found.

Home

And this link is a compilation of 806 weather stations that were dropped in a SINGLE year. Why? The people who dropped them havn't said but the evidence seems to show that they were reading colder than was desired. So rather than have them screw up the "story" they were dropped to make the "story" easier to concoct.

Crooked climatologists drop 806 (cold?) weather stations in a single year | CLIMATEGATE

Again you are showing a complete lack of understanding of how ANOMALIES work. An urban heat island will raise the 30 year average for that individual station that the anomaly is measured against, thus the TREND shown by the anomaly will be accurate no matter how inaccurate the temp reading might be due to a heat source or the inaccuracy of the thermometer itself. That's why anomalies are used and not the thermometer reading directly. Again, the ground based stations match the satellite data almost exactly. These satellites are not vulnerable to urban heat islands.

Now if you deniers really believe that the stations were closed because the readings were colder than desired, then why don't you deniers man those closed stations and show some real proof??? You won't because you know the ground based data is quite accurate and so it is easier to create doubt if you don't collect your own data and thus have to confirm the accuracy of the data currently being used.

Ed,

Once again you ignore the central issue. The alarmists are intentionally dropping stations.
That is not by accident. They are only using those stations that ARE in an urban setting thus generating the heat they desire. The satellites in general DON'T show the same temps which is why NOAA decided to no longer include them in their reports

"Icecap Note: to enable them to make the case the oceans are warming, NOAA chose to remove satellite input into their global ocean estimation and not make any attempt to operationally use Argo data in the process. This resulted in a jump of 0.2C or more and ‘a new ocean warmth record’ in July. ARGO tells us this is another example of NOAA’s inexplicable decision to corrupt data to support political agendas."
ICECAP

 

[westwall]

But it still doesn't mean there has been NO global warming for the last 15 years as deniers falsely claim.

And should we being taking drastic economic measures that will ultimately lower everyone's standard of living on something that a) MIGHT be happening and b) if is happening may not even be our fault?

Might not be happening and might not be our fault.

What if it is happening and it is our fault?

If it is getting warmer that is good. Every piece of historical evidence we have going back over 2000 years says that when it has been warm mankind and the rest of the flora and fauna has prospered. When it has been cold misery and destruction have followed.

I vote for warm.

 

[westwall]

Ain't maybe or what if for the people that know the most about it. The only consensus among scientists that is stronger is that concerning evolution.

And it may well be too late to "do something about it". If the willfullly ignorant like you were to actually read what the earth scientists, geologists, biologists, and climotologists are actually trying to tell you, you might understand the problem.

Global Warming: Beyond the Tipping Point: Scientific American

The basic proposition behind the science of climate change is so firmly rooted in the laws of physics that no reasonable person can dispute it. All other things being equal, adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere—by, for example, burning millions of tons of oil, coal and natural gas—will make it warm up. That, as the Nobel Prize–winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first explained in 1896, is because CO2 is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun, which heats the planet during the day. But it is relatively opaque to infrared, which the earth tries to reradiate back into space at night. If the planet were a featureless, monochromatic billiard ball without mountains, oceans, vegetation and polar ice caps, a steadily rising concentration of CO2 would mean a steadily warming earth. Period.

But the earth is not a billiard ball. It is an extraordinarily complex, messy geophysical system with dozens of variables, most of which change in response to one another. Oceans absorb vast amounts of heat, slowing the warm-up of the atmosphere, yet they also absorb excess CO2. Vegetation soaks up CO2 as well but eventually re*releases the gas as plants rot or burn—or, in a much longer-term scenario—drift to the bottom of the ocean to form sedimentary rock such as limestone. Warmer temperatures drive more evaporation from the oceans; the water vapor itself is a heat-trapping gas, whereas the clouds it forms block some of the sun’s warming rays. Volcanoes belch CO2, but they also spew particulates that diffuse the sun’s rays. And that’s just a partial list.

Because including all these factors in calculations about the effects of CO2 increase is hugely difficult, it is no surprise that climate scientists are still struggling to understand how it all will likely turn out. It is also no surprise, given his track record as something of a climate change agitator, that James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been circulating a preprint of a journal paper saying that the outcome is likely to turn out worse than most people think. The most recent major report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 projects a temperature rise of three degrees Celsius, plus or minus 1.5 degrees—enough to trigger serious impacts on human life from rising sea level, widespread drought, changes in weather patterns, and the like.

None of which explains how you get more energy from something than you put into it. Last time I checked that was impossible.

 

[westwall]

Deniers Spencer and Christy get caught fabricating data and honest scientists get blamed. BRILLIANT.

Real scientists use ANOMALIES so if a station is near a heat source the AVERAGE the anomaly is measured against will be high and the anomaly will be accurate. That is why the ground station data matches the satellite data almost exactly.

Why don't you deniers set up your own ground stations and collect your own data if you really believe the scientific data is so corrupted???? I'll tell you why, you know it is quite accurate and you don't want to confirm it's accuracy!!! It's much easer to attack the data than to collect your own.

Ed,

Before the alarmists got into the act there were 6000 weather stations in use across North America. Since they have come into power, so to speak, they have dropped more than 3,500 of them. The ones they have kept are those that are closest to urban areas. Below is a link to the Surface Stations website. May I suggest you read what they have to say. Confirm or refute what they have to say, and then when you have all of the facts report here what you have found.

Home

And this link is a compilation of 806 weather stations that were dropped in a SINGLE year. Why? The people who dropped them havn't said but the evidence seems to show that they were reading colder than was desired. So rather than have them screw up the "story" they were dropped to make the "story" easier to concoct.

Crooked climatologists drop 806 (cold?) weather stations in a single year | CLIMATEGATE

Been over this before, stupid ass. Ever hear of satellites?

Yes I have silly person. Why did NOAA stop using them?

Icecap Note: to enable them to make the case the oceans are warming, NOAA chose to remove satellite input into their global ocean estimation and not make any attempt to operationally use Argo data in the process. This resulted in a jump of 0.2C or more and ‘a new ocean warmth record’ in July. ARGO tells us this is another example of NOAA’s inexplicable decision to corrupt data to support political agendas.
ICECAP

 

[Ravi]

Interesting. I heard today that Florida is going to start experiencing massive water shortages because of global warming...which will lead to the end of the agricultural industry...which will lead to more hungry people.

Tell me again how warming temperatures are a good thing?