Global Warming: the Relentless Trend

[Toddsterpatriot]

Michael Mann is a fine upstanding Global Warming supporter. Right?
Doesn't his Nobel Prize bolster the claims that only oil company lackeys disagree with AGW?

You have fun with that distraction. Imagine the laughter of those who get paid to misinform watch volunteers like you carry their water.

Yeah, I understand why you don't want to talk about Michael Mann and his Nobel Prize.

Let me know if you find some of those nasty tobacco/oil scientists who aren't ancient fucking history.

And why would the tobacco guys be "ancient history", Todd-O? Where did they go? Could you solve this mystery for us?

Because your link was about the 1950s and 1960s. DERP!

I understand that, thank you. I asked you why there are not scientists defending big tobacco these days, therefore making it hard to find scientists lying both about tobacco amd about climate change.

Where did they go, Toddster?

Yeah, more proof that Old Rocks was full of shit. Thanks.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You have fun with that distraction. Imagine the laughter of those who get paid to misinform watch volunteers like you carry their water.

Yeah, I understand why you don't want to talk about Michael Mann and his Nobel Prize.

Let me know if you find some of those nasty tobacco/oil scientists who aren't ancient fucking history.

And why would the tobacco guys be "ancient history", Todd-O? Where did they go? Could you solve this mystery for us?

Because your link was about the 1950s and 1960s. DERP!

I understand that, thank you. I asked you why there are not scientists defending big tobacco these days, therefore making it hard to find scientists lying both about tobacco amd about climate change.

Where did they go, Toddster?

Yeah, more proof that Old Rocks was full of shit. Thanks.

I'm very happy for you. However, I still would like your thoughts on a question. Where did all the tobacco liars go?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, I understand why you don't want to talk about Michael Mann and his Nobel Prize.

Let me know if you find some of those nasty tobacco/oil scientists who aren't ancient fucking history.

And why would the tobacco guys be "ancient history", Todd-O? Where did they go? Could you solve this mystery for us?

Because your link was about the 1950s and 1960s. DERP!

I understand that, thank you. I asked you why there are not scientists defending big tobacco these days, therefore making it hard to find scientists lying both about tobacco amd about climate change.

Where did they go, Toddster?

Yeah, more proof that Old Rocks was full of shit. Thanks.

I'm very happy for you. However, I still would like your thoughts on a question. Where did all the tobacco liars go?

Pretty sure the guys from your link are dead.
Of course your link didn't actually name anyone who claimed tobacco was harmless in front of Congress.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The subject was your claim of "consensus".

If 75/77 isn't consensus, I don't know what is.

Sorry Toddster, no idea what you are babbling about.

I'll add that to the already huge list of things you have no idea about.

That's deep, Toddster.

Yes, so was the proof of 97% consensus, using only 77 scientists.

All the Scientific Societies, all the Academies of Science, all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That is a damned powerful scientific consensus. Against that, we have a couple of scientists stating that is not the case. The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless, after the tobacco companies enlarged their bank accounts. Against that consensus of Scientists, we have such vast powerhouses of scientific knowledge as the obese junkie on the AM radio, and a fake British Lord. LOL

Only an idiot would compare cigarettes to climate change that's been happening for 4.5 billion years ...



What the fuck do you think everyone would of done in the 1970s give up on their cars and start riding horses and hunt buffalo ?????

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yeah, I understand why you don't want to talk about Michael Mann and his Nobel Prize.

Let me know if you find some of those nasty tobacco/oil scientists who aren't ancient fucking history.

And why would the tobacco guys be "ancient history", Todd-O? Where did they go? Could you solve this mystery for us?

Because your link was about the 1950s and 1960s. DERP!

I understand that, thank you. I asked you why there are not scientists defending big tobacco these days, therefore making it hard to find scientists lying both about tobacco amd about climate change.

Where did they go, Toddster?

Yeah, more proof that Old Rocks was full of shit. Thanks.

I'm very happy for you. However, I still would like your thoughts on a question. Where did all the tobacco liars go?

2nd hand smoke was a propaganda myth ...


Secondhand Smoke Is Not Nearly As Dangerous As We Thought. Shouldn’t That Matter?



Study Finds No Link Between Secondhand Smoke And Cancer




.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I'll add that to the already huge list of things you have no idea about.

That's deep, Toddster.

Yes, so was the proof of 97% consensus, using only 77 scientists.

All the Scientific Societies, all the Academies of Science, all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That is a damned powerful scientific consensus. Against that, we have a couple of scientists stating that is not the case. The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless, after the tobacco companies enlarged their bank accounts. Against that consensus of Scientists, we have such vast powerhouses of scientific knowledge as the obese junkie on the AM radio, and a fake British Lord. LOL

The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless,

Link?

Here you go, you lazy little shit :

Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public

How the fuck can you sway public ?




The only public you can sway are idiots on the left , no one would of gave up their ICE cars in the 1970s to drive this fool.

 

[Dale Smith]

Climate change...........

 

[SSDD]

You will be long dead for it to be proven either way.

It's already more than proven.

Really? Interesting claim...considering that you can't provide a single piece of observed measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. Exactly how does something become "more than" proven when there is no data that supports it over the null hypothesis?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Climate change...........

View attachment 174967 View attachment 174968 View attachment 174969

It's true, water vapor contrails are thought to moderate climate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And why would the tobacco guys be "ancient history", Todd-O? Where did they go? Could you solve this mystery for us?

Because your link was about the 1950s and 1960s. DERP!

I understand that, thank you. I asked you why there are not scientists defending big tobacco these days, therefore making it hard to find scientists lying both about tobacco amd about climate change.

Where did they go, Toddster?

Yeah, more proof that Old Rocks was full of shit. Thanks.

I'm very happy for you. However, I still would like your thoughts on a question. Where did all the tobacco liars go?

Pretty sure the guys from your link are dead.
Of course your link didn't actually name anyone who claimed tobacco was harmless in front of Congress.

No tobacco liars? Where did they go? And dont say they died. Darwin is dead, and we still have evolutionary biologists.

So toddie....where did they go? France? Mars?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

considering that you can't provide a single piece of observed measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

If course I can....literally mountains of it, all mutually supportive. Any 5 year old with a search engine can find mountains of it. What a freakish claim....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How the fuck can you sway public ?

With education and awareness, dumbass. What a stupid fucking question.

 

[sealybobo]

Global Warming: the Relentless Trend
Posted on January 31, 2018 | 5 Comments

When it comes to global warming, recent years have been so hot that it worries even those who deny the problem exists.

No one more desperately needs global warming to end than those most against doing anything about it. That’s why they cling so tight to the notion of a “pause” in global warming, a “pause” that was never more than a false impression, hoping others would believe the myth that it had all somehow stopped. Its death by thermometer has hit them hard.


Yet they can look forward to new pauses to come. The year 2016 was so hot it shattered the previous record by a country mile, boosted as it was by the temperature spike which always follows a powerful el Niño. That leap upward, the hot flash Earth feels after el Niño strikes, when combined with the steady upward climbing that is global warming, yielded a powerful new peak, a highest high born of the unholy marriage of extreme fluctuation and relentless trend. It may become their new delight, this highest peak, a cherry more ripe and juicy than any before it.

And cherry-pick they will. That’s what happened after the 1998 el Niño. Way back in 2006 Bob Carter announced “There is a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998.” It was bullshit then, it’s bullshit now, but climate deniers have made the most out of what they do best: bullshit. Bob Carter made the most of the biggest confusion about global warming, because most people don’t fully understand what global warming is. It has nothing to do with the perpetual fluctuations.

Global warming is the relentless trend.

The new cherry is so very cherry, a set-up for a whole new “pause” whether it exists or not. Just be sure to start with the big spike near the beginning; when you put such an outburst so early it’s too easy to get, and to give, the wrong idea about the trend. That’s why James Hansen and others have pointed out in a recent report that upcoming temperature data could give just such a false impression.


Therefore, because of the combination of the strong 2016 El Niño and the phase of the solar cycle, it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.

We have been warned.

And it has already begun. The pause is coming! Witness Larry Kummer suggest that a new pause may have started already, a “pause perhaps lasting 10 or 15 years,” complete with funny picture to suggest that the “pause that never was,” was. Contrary to the impression one might get from Kummer’s piece, Hansen et al. didn’t suggest that a “pause” or “hiatus” may be on the way, they say that the impression may be. The distinction is at the very heart of the matter.

Just how likely is it then, that recent hot years can create such a false impression? Let’s suppose — just for the sake of argument, mind you — that global warming didn’t pause and isn’t going to. Rather it has been rising at a steady pace while fluctuating up and down randomly, and will continue to do so. Given that there’s no “pause” past or present, just random fluctuation and relentless trend, what might the future bring, and might it give the “impression of a global warming hiatus”?

It’s easy to simulate what might happen. Start with global temperature data (from NASA), yearly averages since 1970. Estimate the trend mathematically (least squares regression). Extend that trend line into the future, say, until 2050. That’s what the relentless trend will do, just keep on keepin’ on.

The first thing we note is that the trend alone doesn’t surpass the record high of 2016 until the year 2027. If the data from now on follow the same relentless trend with no noise, then from 2016 through 2026 we’ll have 11 years without breaking the 2016 record. How long will it take for climate deniers to declare a “pause”?

But we have no fluctuations to make the simulation realistic. So, use a random number generator to add simulated “noise” to the trend extension. Here’s one (the first one I got):



Could this give the “impression of a global warming hiatus”?

How about the 14-year period from 2016 through 2029?



It hasn’t yet exceeded the 2016 outburst; do you believe, even for a moment, that climate deniers will refrain from shouting “pause” — in spite of the fact that these data are the sum of random noise and that same relentless trend?

If I plot only that time span, even estimate a straight line trend (least squares again), I’d get this:



OMG! A fourteen-year streth with no trend at all! If anything, the globe is cooling!!! That’s what we’ll hear repeated over and over, In spite of the fact that these data are the sum of random noise and that same relentless trend. The impression of a pause is a combination of random chance with the fact that we started off with a big early peak.

Is it really just an impression? Set aside for the moment the fact that these are artificial data made of random fluctuations and relentless trend. Let’s try some valid statistical analysis:



The best-fit unbroken trend change only gives a naive p-value of 0.089, not enough to call statistically significant, and that’s without correcting for the multiple testing problem. But the best-fit broken trend, starting with 2015, gives a naive p-value of 0.011. Significant at almost 99% confidence? No. Multiple testing problem.

Monte Carlo simulations can tell us what the real p-value is for that broken trend, 0.18. Not even close. After all, it really is just random noise plus relentless trend.

Of course one simulation isn’t the whole story. So I ran 10,000 simulations.

Only 3% of them showed a below-zero trend for 14 years or more, so it turns out my first simulation was a bit extreme, but only a bit. Fully 14% shows a below-zero trend for 12 years or more, and 40% show a below-zero trend for 10 years or longer. A whopping 73% had a below-zero trend for 8 years or more; that is more than enough for climate deniers not only to claim “pause,” but to declare “proof” that global warming “stopped in 2016.”

As for long stretches since 2016 without a new record high, that too is surprisingly common given the “head start” of cherry-picking the big outburst. Fully 6% of simulations included a 12-year stretch without breaking the 2016 record, 20% had a 10-year stretch, and 43% of simulations included an 8-year stretch with no record-breaker … long enough for Bob Carter to claim that global warming stopped whether it did or not.

Global warming marches on, but as long as fluctuations happen (and they will happen) there will be plenty of room for climate deniers to say it showed a “pause.” Now that they have a new super-cherry to cherry-pick, they will deny reality no matter what the future brings. They will likely base it on exploiting the fluctuations, in spite of the fact they have nothing to do with man-made climate change. Global warming isn’t the fluctuations.

Global warming is the relentless trend.

Global Warming: the Relentless Trend

Global warming is a fact that you better get use to!

Can we at least clean up the oceans? Start there. Humans are horrible

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And why would the tobacco guys be "ancient history", Todd-O? Where did they go? Could you solve this mystery for us?

Because your link was about the 1950s and 1960s. DERP!

I understand that, thank you. I asked you why there are not scientists defending big tobacco these days, therefore making it hard to find scientists lying both about tobacco amd about climate change.

Where did they go, Toddster?

Yeah, more proof that Old Rocks was full of shit. Thanks.

I'm very happy for you. However, I still would like your thoughts on a question. Where did all the tobacco liars go?

2nd hand smoke was a propaganda myth ...


Secondhand Smoke Is Not Nearly As Dangerous As We Thought. Shouldn’t That Matter?



Study Finds No Link Between Secondhand Smoke And Cancer




.

Haha...leave it to a wingnut goofball to believe a bartender over science. And, as it turns out, cancer is not the only worry of secondhand smoke.

 

[DGS49]

How about this?

Let's say everyone in the U.S. is immediately convinced that GLOBAL WARMING MUST BE STOPPED!

So all SUV'S are parked, everyone's thermostat is adjusted to the most fuel efficient temperature, summer and winter, and on and on.

We do literally EVERYTHING that is possible to reduce our collective carbon footprint.

And every other couNtry in the world commits to FULL COMPLIANCE with the Paris protocols.

THE AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES in year 2100 will be less than one half of one degree Celsius cooler, as compared to doing nothing other than we are doing right now.

So knock yourself out. Your efforts will be rendered totally wasted due to the hundreds of coal - fired power plants that China has in planning and under construction right now around the world.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How about this?

Let's say everyone in the U.S. is immediately convinced that GLOBAL WARMING MUST BE STOPPED!

So all SUV'S are parked, everyone's thermostat is adjusted to the most fuel efficient temperature, summer and winter, and on and on.

We do literally EVERYTHING that is possible to reduce our collective carbon footprint.

And every other couNtry in the world commits to FULL COMPLIANCE with the Paris protocols.

THE AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES in year 2100 will be less than one half of one degree Celsius cooler, as compared to doing nothing other than we are doing right now.

So knock yourself out. Your efforts will be rendered totally wasted due to the hundreds of coal - fired power plants that China has in planning and under construction right now around the world.

As it turns out, the world is not expected to end in the year 2100. As it turns out, a half degree celsius is a big difference. As it turns out, we dont live in a universe where tome stops for shits and giggles, but jnstead we live in a universe where progress keeps happening. Technological advances are made, and energy use and production becomes more efficient. And, as it turns out, doing both in will not just lead to that extra half degree by 2100, but will continue to warm the planet at an accelerated pace.

 

[flacaltenn]

600,000 homes in this nation severely damaged or destroyed in 2017 in just this nation alone by extreme weather events. Of course none of those families care. Such a minor thing, losing one's home.

Yeppers. Every one of those targeted by a REVENGEFUL and PISSED Mother Nature.. It's just her chosen method of "Urban Undoing"...

 

[flacaltenn]

As it turns out, a half degree celsius is a big difference.

Must be a big difference to most living things that survive in world where their ambient temperature during a year changes by at LEAST + and - 40degF... Just feel that 1 degF burn right now..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As it turns out, a half degree celsius is a big difference.

Must be a big difference to most living things that survive in world where their ambient temperature during a year changes by at LEAST + and - 40degF... Just feel that 1 degF burn right now..

And yet scientists (like botanists, oceanologists, etc) can both measure and predict effects of changes in climate on species, and therefore on our ecosystem. They warn of the quick rise in temperature, and discern the difference between short term temperature swings and long term climatic changes. Did they just all forget to take your course at university?

 

[flacaltenn]

As it turns out, a half degree celsius is a big difference.

Must be a big difference to most living things that survive in world where their ambient temperature during a year changes by at LEAST + and - 40degF... Just feel that 1 degF burn right now..

And yet scientists (like botanists, oceanologists, etc) can both measure and predict effects of changes in climate on species, and therefore on our ecosystem. They warn of the quick rise in temperature, and discern the difference between short term temperature swings and long term climatic changes. Did they just all forget to take your course at university?

You think the 1degF rise over 100 years is QUICKER than going from day to night every freaking day?