Climate Change Challenge

[IanC]

Let's see a ******* number. How much change has been made to total global warming?

PS, I wouldn't trust Bob Tisdale to know his own name.

These are the changes since 2008. What do you consider significant? A tenth of a degree centigrade? 10% of the trend? How much of a change in the shape of the temperature record is significant in your opinion?

We keep showing you the changes (all makine the warming worse) and you keep saying it doesn't matter. Why doesn't it matter?

Chart also shows no "Warming" since 1995

It kinda bugs me that so many warmers claim cherrypicking for the length of the Pause. The only date is the present. Then it is the length of time before then until there is a warming trend. But if you tell a lie often enough some people will believe it.

 

[IanC]

There are charts all over internet.

since 95............no change on this plot.
View attachment 57935



about 0.5DEG C change on this one over ~200 years? what is normal "weather" flucuations?
View attachment 57936


Finnally: The water temp is not correlating? it is going down? huh?
View attachment 57937

I bet if you check the GISS temp chart for that station it will be different. No doubt homogenized to stations hundreds of kms away.

The Southern Ocean chart is made up from real data, but it is sparse. The warmers claim it is cooler because of fresh water runoff from Antarctica. There always seems to be convenient ecuses to ignore inconvenient data.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's odd that they make no prediction except to credit the top story on the Weather Channel to AGW.

Will it be: warmer or cooler, dryer or wetter. And they answer, Yes! Of Course! DENIER!!!

 

[Crick]

It's odd that they make no prediction except to credit the top story on the Weather Channel to AGW.

Y'know Frank, it wouldn't be a good thing for anyone to say "THIS weather was caused by global warming". But what is the relationship between global warming and weather? The world is getting warmer. What does that mean? It means that the average day will be warmer. It means that as time goes by, new record highs will be set for every day of the year. It means that the likelihood of exceptionally warm weather is increasing. So, I won't say this warm Christmas in the US NE is a direct result of the greenhouse effect acting on increased CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere from human sources. I will say that we should be less and less surprised by such weather trends since, as CO2 levels continue to rise, the ODDS of such weather occurring go up and up and up.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's odd that they make no prediction except to credit the top story on the Weather Channel to AGW.

Y'know Frank, it wouldn't be a good thing for anyone to say "THIS weather was caused by global warming". But what is the relationship between global warming and weather? The world is getting warmer. What does that mean? It means that the average day will be warmer. It means that as time goes by, new record highs will be set for every day of the year. It means that the likelihood of exceptionally warm weather is increasing. So, I won't say this warm Christmas in the US NE is a direct result of the greenhouse effect acting on increased CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere from human sources. I will say that we should be less and less surprised by such weather trends since, as CO2 levels continue to rise, the ODDS of such weather occurring go up and up and up.

"The world is getting warmer" is a Fact not in evidence. We are in a 2 decade pause which obliterates your stupid theory. Additionally, NASA just admitted that burning fossil fuels lowers temperatures.

Yes, yes you meant Global cooling all along.

 

[Crick]

I suggest you read A misinterpreted claim about a NASA press release, CO2, solar flares, and the thermosphere is making the rounds before you stick your foot even further down your own throat.

And, there was no pause.

Didn't you wonder how we kept setting record hot years, year and year after year, if there was no warming going on?

 

[mamooth]

We keep showing you the changes (all makine the warming worse) and you keep saying it doesn't matter

Don't projecting your own dishonest tactics on to the ethical people.

You braznely cherrypick, only showing the land adjustments. The total adjustments, which include the oceans, go the other way. They cause the warming to look _smaller_. The fundamental denier conspiracy theory is big a steaming pile.

Why doesn't it matter?

You tell us. We use _all_ the changes, as we believe all the corrections that make the output more accurate are good. It's that consistency thing which we do. You, however, think that the ocean adjustments are a great thing, which the land adjstments are a crime. Why your wild double standard?

In any case, the world's scientists know very well that all deniers are lying about this. Hence, the would now ignore deniers. Since screaming your bogus conspiracy theory louder and more often hasn't changed that, you might want to try a new tactic.

 

[mamooth]

What's the point of that image, Frank, other than to highlight how denier liars faked one of the covers? Are you trying to highlight your own chronic dishonesty?

(The "How to Survive the coming ice age" cover is the fake one.)

Yes, yes you meant Global cooling all along.

 

[jc456]

Are any of the Members of the AGWCult willing to go on record affirming that the climate of the North East USA is now permanently altered and we can expect snow free, balmy 50F plus winters from now on?

Boston is supposed o get two inches of snow today, looks like snow free failed again.

BTW, New Mexico got 11 inches today, their entire years worth in one day. Good thing warming is here.

 

[jc456]

Who says that the weather in one place is going to be permanent? Nobody.

so is it global warming or local warming? Please provide additional information on what you mean.

 

[jc456]

What's the point of that image, Frank, other than to highlight how denier liars faked one of the covers? Are you trying to highlight your own chronic dishonesty?

(The "How to Survive the coming ice age" cover is the fake one.)

Yes, yes you meant Global cooling all along.

sure it is, and yet it exists.

 

[jc456]

What supposition, Billy Boy, do you believe IS supported by the empirical evidence of a 1C temperature rise and all of its accompanying events (melting ice, altered weather patterns) and a simultaneous precipitous rise in CO2 from fossil fuel combustion? A plague of ducks?

where is ice melting? every April in the Northeast?

BTW, if it is every April, how is that unusual?

 

[Crick]

You brought up April in the northeast. I don't have the faintest **** of an idea what you're blathering about there. Ice is melting in the Arctic and on almost every one of the world's glaciers.

So JC, you're easily as smart of Billy Boy, what supposition do you believe is supported by the empirical evidence out there?

 

[IanC]

We keep showing you the changes (all makine the warming worse) and you keep saying it doesn't matter

Don't projecting your own dishonest tactics on to the ethical people.

You braznely cherrypick, only showing the land adjustments. The total adjustments, which include the oceans, go the other way. They cause the warming to look _smaller_. The fundamental denier conspiracy theory is big a steaming pile.

Why doesn't it matter?

You tell us. We use _all_ the changes, as we believe all the corrections that make the output more accurate are good. It's that consistency thing which we do. You, however, think that the ocean adjustments are a great thing, which the land adjstments are a crime. Why your wild double standard?

In any case, the world's scientists know very well that all deniers are lying about this. Hence, the would now ignore deniers. Since screaming your bogus conspiracy theory louder and more often hasn't changed that, you might want to try a new tactic.

If we look at Karl2015, will we find lower past ocean temps and higher recent ones? How about the global temps (combined ocean and land)?

You don't seem to like specific comparisons. These large downward ocean adjustments, when ere they put in place? Since then what has happened? State YOUR version of events.

 

[Crick]

Karl et al explains his adjustments.

 

[mamooth]

If we look at Karl2015, will we find lower past ocean temps and higher recent ones? How about the global temps (combined ocean and land)?

Your conspiracy theory predates Karl2015 by many years, which clearly shows you're tossing out Karl2015 as a red herring. Hence, there's no point in talking about it.

You don't seem to like specific comparisons. These large downward ocean adjustments, when ere they put in place?

Explain to everyone why that matters. That is, specifically explain your conspiracy theory. Best that I can guess, your conspiracy works like this:

The old good-aligned scientists impartially put in the ocean adjustments that make the warming look smaller.

Then, UN infiltrators brainwashed nearly every scientist on the planet.

The now-evil scientists now said "Oh noes! We should never have made the warming look smaller! We must fix that! But how can we do so without giving away our love of evil?"

After stroking their evil goatees for a while, they said "Removing those ocean adjustments is out of the question, even though it would by far be the easiest and most effective strategy. Instead, we'll add some tiny adjustments to the land temps that don't even come close to compensating for the ocean adjustments."

And then they all laughed their evil laughs, MWAHAHAHAHAH, and raised their glasses to make a toast, "TO EVIL!". <clink>

Good luck with that.

Since then what has happened? State YOUR version of events.

My version of events is that scientists impartially use all the data that results in more accurate results. Imagine that. Not a bit of conspiracy nonsense required, and it agrees with all the evidence.

 

[IanC]

Karl et al explains his adjustments.

Yes he does. We can accept those explanations at face value, or question them as many have, including climate scientists.

But that is not the point here. Mamooth says the ocean adjustments make the temps and trends lower. I say the large ocean adjustment shown in V Venoma's graph has been in place for quite a while. And subsequent adjustments have typically shown the usual cooling of the past and warming of the near present.

HADCru may have bucked the tide a few years ago with one of their new versions but I don't remember distinctly. I think it changed the shape rather than the overall numbers.

 

[IanC]

If we look at Karl2015, will we find lower past ocean temps and higher recent ones? How about the global temps (combined ocean and land)?

Your conspiracy theory predates Karl2015 by many years, which clearly shows you're tossing out Karl2015 as a red herring. Hence, there's no point in talking about it.

You don't seem to like specific comparisons. These large downward ocean adjustments, when ere they put in place?

Explain to everyone why that matters. That is, specifically explain your conspiracy theory. Best that I can guess, your conspiracy works like this:

The old good-aligned scientists impartially put in the ocean adjustments that make the warming look smaller.

Then, UN infiltrators brainwashed nearly every scientist on the planet.

The now-evil scientists now said "Oh noes! We should never have made the warming look smaller! We must fix that! But how can we do so without giving away our love of evil?"

After stroking their evil goatees for a while, they said "Removing those ocean adjustments is out of the question, even though it would by far be the easiest and most effective strategy. Instead, we'll add some tiny adjustments to the land temps that don't even come close to compensating for the ocean adjustments."

And then they all laughed their evil laughs, MWAHAHAHAHAH, and raised their glasses to make a toast, "TO EVIL!". <clink>

Good luck with that.

Since then what has happened? State YOUR version of events.

My version of events is that scientists impartially use all the data that results in more accurate results. Imagine that. Not a bit of conspiracy nonsense required, and it agrees with all the evidence.

I see. As usual you decline to discuss the situation.

Karl2015 is not a red herring. It is the latest attempt to give plausible deniability to the Pause.

 

[Old Rocks]

My goodness, snow at the end of December, who ever heard of such a thing!

 

[jc456]

You brought up April in the northeast. I don't have the faintest **** of an idea what you're blathering about there. Ice is melting in the Arctic and on almost every one of the world's glaciers.

So JC, you're easily as smart of Billy Boy, what supposition do you believe is supported by the empirical evidence out there?

I did, for you see that is spring and when snow and ice in the northeast has always melted for the most part, there have been years it took until May, but in general April.

As for the Arctic, where is ice melting that hasn't melted before? And glaciers have been melting since before Jesus. So you posted ice melts and I'm asking you where and you can't show it. You can put in print the Arctic, but you can't show it with statistics. But why let facts get in your way eh?