Ice, again

[SSDD]

SSDD is always right. The world has not been warming the last two decades. No credible science exists that says the Earth is warming. Endless supply of BS.

Even the IPCC acknowledges that the warming has stopped...only the true zealots are still claiming that temps have been rising. Interesting that when confronted with evidence of data tampering, you still can't believe that you have been duped. Is that because you "believe" that you are right? Is belief enough for you?

 

[Abraham3]

So, you think GISS decided to change the temperatures just to enhance the appearance of global warming and had no worry that the thousands of scientists who use their data would notice or care.

I guess that makes sense.



NOT.

Use your brain for just one moment...the vast majority of temperature adjustments to the period prior to 1960 have been down and the vast majority of adjustments after 1959 have been upward.....don't you think that temps after 1959 should be adjusted downward if they are to be adjusted at all due to the increased urban heat island effect due to spreading urban areas?

And the fact that thousands are using it doesn't make it right, or good science. Can you say error cascade?

You didn't address the thousands of climate scientists who use that data day in and day out who have had no complaint with the explanation that GISS and other temperature data sources have provided for the various adjustments they have made.

Why not? Are we back to "They're all crooks"? Try using your brain for just one moment.

 

[gnarlylove]

SSDD is always right. The world has not been warming the last two decades. No credible science exists that says the Earth is warming. Endless supply of BS.

Even the IPCC acknowledges that the warming has stopped...only the true zealots are still claiming that temps have been rising.

Why? Because 2012 didn't warm up? You act like climate change just stopped completely and the IPCC is agreeing climate change is no more. You are pulling my leg aren't you? Using the IPCC to discredit climate change is like using Origin of Species to discredit Darwin. Sure, it noted a brief (or even longer lasting trend) of little to no warming but the report also acknowledges that basically man is responsible. I guess that's the part you refuse to accept huh? How convenient.

The [IPCC] reports have documented a steadily increasing certainty among climate scientists that global warming is a human-made problem. Yet some public scepticism has persisted, especially in the United States."

Although climate models have been predicting increasing average global temperatures over the next century or so, the past decade has not shown as much warming as most scientists had expected. The year 2012 was no warmer than 2002. The IPCC draft report acknowledges a "global warming hiatus," according to media reports.

Global warming skeptics have seized on the news of a potential pause. The skeptical blog Jammie Wearing Fools wrote, "Fifteen years, no warming, yet we've endured nonstop hysteria in that time, with skeptics derisively called deniers, among other pejoratives. We'll be waiting even longer for the apologies."

He's certainly right about the last point. Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told National Geographic that focus on a global warming pause over the past 15 years is a "misplaced" distraction that misses the big picture. He said, "The IPCC and the issue of climate change is not about the weather next year or the next five years; it's about the long-term climate change that we are engendering."

Schmidt, who has not directly contributed to the IPCC report, added, "We know we're changing the climate. We're very confident in that, and not just temperature, but also pressure, rainfall, ice changes, shrinking of glaciers, and many other factors.

Part of the big picture is this is still happening as its "cooled":

The Columbia Glacier in Alaska, seen in 2006 (top) and 2012 (bottom).

 

[IanC]

You didn't address the thousands of climate scientists who use that data day in and day out who have had no complaint with the explanation that GISS and other temperature data sources have provided for the various adjustments they have made.

Why not? Are we back to "They're all crooks"? Try using your brain for just one moment.

who says they have no complaint? how many have you talked to? does it make sense to you that the numbers keep changing? often several times per year?


personally, I dont really care about what methodology they use if only it was stable from year-to-year. or even updated every five years or so with a full description and explanation of the proposed changes and a side-by-side publication of old and new datasets for comparison.

what pisses me off is that every time you look back the numbers have changed, often dramatically, and with no obvious reason. why is the value for 1990 global temp different in 1999, 2000, 2001...2011, 2013, 2014? why is the GISS graph of annual temperatures for Orlando different in 1999, 2000, 2001...2011, 2013, 2014? surely we knew how to read a thermometer in 2008, so why does the actual reading from an actual temperature station get changed at the whim of a new computer program?

 

[SSDD]

So, you think GISS decided to change the temperatures just to enhance the appearance of global warming and had no worry that the thousands of scientists who use their data would notice or care.

I guess that makes sense.



NOT.

Use your brain for just one moment...the vast majority of temperature adjustments to the period prior to 1960 have been down and the vast majority of adjustments after 1959 have been upward.....don't you think that temps after 1959 should be adjusted downward if they are to be adjusted at all due to the increased urban heat island effect due to spreading urban areas?

And the fact that thousands are using it doesn't make it right, or good science. Can you say error cascade?

You didn't address the thousands of climate scientists who use that data day in and day out who have had no complaint with the explanation that GISS and other temperature data sources have provided for the various adjustments they have made.

Why not? Are we back to "They're all crooks"? Try using your brain for just one moment.

The ones whose funding depends upon continued crisis? Are those the ones you are talking about?

 

[SSDD]

=

Why? Because 2012 didn't warm up? You act like climate change just stopped completely and the IPCC is agreeing climate change is no more. You are pulling my leg aren't you? Using the IPCC to discredit climate change is like using Origin of Species to discredit Darwin. Sure, it noted a brief (or even longer lasting trend) of little to no warming but the report also acknowledges that basically man is responsible. I guess that's the part you refuse to accept huh? How convenient.

No, not because 2012 didn't warm up....because it hasn't warmed up since 1997. And "or even longer lasting trend"? Are you kidding? The warming stopped...the CO2 has continued to rise. The hypothesis has failed.

And try using your brain for just a minute....the models have deviated even further from observation....no tropospheric hot spot has developed as the hypothesis says it must...global sea ice is at record levels....no hurricaines....fewer wildfires...fewer tornadoes....fewer floods...and on and on in the face of IPCC predictions and yet, they claim to be even more confident that the hypothesis is right? Do you ever think at all?

 

[Abraham3]

Direct satellite observations indicate that the Earth is still accumulating energy and the rate at which it is doing so is increasing. In light of that fact, explain how you're able to conclude AGW stopped or was never taking place.

 

[SSDD]

Direct satellite observations indicate that the Earth is still accumulating energy and the rate at which it is doing so is increasing. In light of that fact, explain how you're able to conclude AGW stopped or was never taking place.

Satellites say that the OLR is increasing at the ToA. The fact is abraham that the hypothesis claims that CO2 somehow traps heat and causes warming....clearly, it isn't happening and hasn't happened for a long time....are you now claiming that CO2 is directly warming the deep oceans bypassing the atmosphere altogether?

 

[gnarlylove]

No, not because 2012 didn't warm up....because it hasn't warmed up since 1997.

You act like since 1998 was such a record year (at the time) that it hasn't gotten hotter than that before. Your data is saying directly the opposite of what I've been reading (I don't read blogs, I only read peer reviewed articles, interviews and professional lectures). This isn't a matter of Your sources Versus Mine. It's that you pick and choose what's acceptable and try to cast doubt on the science by the idea of federal funding. This is simply mental ******* DEMONSTRATES THE POINT YOU HAVE NO INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY because you accept TONS of BULL SHIT from conservative policy institutes/skeptical science propaganda literally, blogs (paid and unpaid), and conservatively funded studies that attempt to cast doubt and are the only kind in their field because they aren't reviewed by the same peers science considers peers!

Your joke about sea ice is dumb as hell. It's middle of winter in the relevant areas that tend to freeze. What do you know? When summer roles around there will be equal melt like in 2012. I just showed a picture that you apparently do not accept as a real photo. You can't take one winter out and say "this is the shit! See I'm right!" The trend is obvious and you are so deception with language its ruins any commonality. No wonder you are such a dick. You're beliefs are complete lies rolled up in a few specious truths.

And try using your brain for just a minute....the models have deviated even further from observation....no tropospheric hot spot has developed as the hypothesis says it must...global sea ice is at record levels....no hurricaines....fewer wildfires...fewer tornadoes....fewer floods...and on and on in the face of IPCC predictions and yet, they claim to be even more confident that the hypothesis is right? Do you ever think at all?

You always make these remarks like you are a genius and I'm an idiot. Lay off your infallible hypothesis. You are very fallible. There are plenty of valid explanations for why Tornadoes in AMERICA are at their lowest. You simply lie flat out about floods, hurricanes and wildfires. Show me some data first of all about floods.

Secondly, I argued this with westwall and found his claim was almost viable (he only claimed there had been fewer tornadoes and probably fewer hurricanes). He was simply lying about the hurricanes. and I live in an area that gets flooded, you have to be joking or completely dishonest. I vote the latter and its because you are isolating your data to this month or the last 4 months and comparing it to the most flooded month in recent times. And like we haven't heard wildfires regularly each summer. You are just dying to be right about everything so you strap in as tight as you can and aim verbal shots at anyone. these shots don't need to be true or valid, they just need to sharply contradict the other side. YOU lack honesty and any intellectual integrity.

 

[SwimExpert]

This is simply mental ******* DEMONSTRATES THE POINT YOU HAVE NO INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY because you accept TONS of BULL SHIT from conservative policy institutes/skeptical science propaganda literally, blogs (paid and unpaid), and conservatively funded studies that attempt to cast doubt and are the only kind in their field because they aren't reviewed by the same peers science considers peers!

Hey, I think I found your twitter account.

 

[SSDD]

You act like since 1998 was such a record year (at the time) that it hasn't gotten hotter than that before.

Who spent a couple of days pointing out to you that it has certainly been warmer before? Answer: Skeptics. It is the warmist wackos who claim that the temperatures at the end of the 20th century were unprecedented. I know full well that it has been warmer and that CO2 didn't cause it to be warmer then any more than it caused it to be warmer at the end of the 20th century. Decide what you are arguing.

data is saying directly the opposite of what I've been reading (I don't read blogs, I only read peer reviewed articles, interviews and professional lectures).

I don't guess you noticed that almost all the material I post is peer reviewed, published in respectable journals.

This isn't a matter of Your sources Versus Mine. It's that you pick and choose what's acceptable and try to cast doubt on the science by the idea of federal funding.

And oddly enough, you remain unaware of the incredibly large body of peer reviewed data that finds that the IPCC is dead wrong at every turn. So who is cherrypicking?

This is simply mental ******* DEMONSTRATES THE POINT YOU HAVE NO INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY because you accept TONS of BULL SHIT from conservative policy institutes/skeptical science propaganda literally, blogs (paid and unpaid), and conservatively funded studies that attempt to cast doubt and are the only kind in their field because they aren't reviewed by the same peers science considers peers!

Again, review the materials I have posted....damned near all of it is peer reviewed and published in respectable journals. You, on the other hand have presented damned near zero credible evidence from anywhere to support your position. I am afraid it is you who lacks intellectual integrity. You as much as admit the fact by claiming that the materials I have posted are from biased sources....take a look at the titles of the journals which I have brought material from.

joke about sea ice is dumb as hell. It's middle of winter in the relevant areas that tend to freeze.

Talk about dumb...it is the middle of the summer down in the Antarctic which is responsible for the record sea ice levels. You really don't have any sort of science background do you? Were you even aware that when it is winter up here in the northern hemisphere it is sumer down in the southern hemisphere.

You always make these remarks like you are a genius and I'm an idiot. Lay off your infallible hypothesis. You are very fallible. There are plenty of valid explanations for why Tornadoes in AMERICA are at their lowest. You simply lie flat out about floods, hurricanes and wildfires. Show me some data first of all about floods.

I make those remarks because, unlike you, I actually have read the literature....where you simply claim to have read it but clearly don't know jack. Here, peer reviewed literature published in respectable journals regarding flooding. My bet is that even when confronted with valid data proving that floods are not getting worse, you will disregard the data and hold to your belief like a true zealot.

Warm summers coincide with less frequent flooding -- ScienceDaily

A 450 year record of spring-summer flood layers in annually laminated sediments from Lake Ammersee (southern Germany) - Czymzik - 2010 - Water Resources Research - Wiley Online Library

Paleofloods of the Mediterranean French Alps

Holocene Floods of China's Jinghe River

CP - Abstract - Orbital changes, variation in solar activity and increased anthropogenic activities: controls on the Holocene flood frequency in the Lake Ledro area, Northern Italy

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Sedimentary records of extraordinary floods at the ending of the mid-Holocene climatic optimum along the Upper Weihe River, China

Feel free to apologize for your mischaracterization of me and the materials I post any time.

 

[Abraham3]

And oddly enough, you remain unaware of the incredibly large body of peer reviewed data that finds that the IPCC is dead wrong at every turn. So who is cherrypicking?

I can show you multiple reviews of the literature that show the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed climate papers supports the IPCC position.

How about you show us ONE review of the literature that shows anything different? Let's see some actual numbers as to how well your "incredibly large body of peer reviewed data" stacks up with the papers that FULLY support the IPCC.

 

[SSDD]

And oddly enough, you remain unaware of the incredibly large body of peer reviewed data that finds that the IPCC is dead wrong at every turn. So who is cherrypicking?

I can show you multiple reviews of the literature that show the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed climate papers supports the IPCC position.

How about you show us ONE review of the literature that shows anything different? Let's see some actual numbers as to how well your "incredibly large body of peer reviewed data" stacks up with the papers that FULLY support the IPCC.

All you need do is review the materials I have been posting since I got here. You are blind to anything that doesn't mesh with your faith. I suppose you will rationalize the tampering with the TSI record I posted this morning as well.

The wheels are falling off your crazytrain. I look forward to the day that the evidence of fraud becomes so overwhelming that the charlatans must finally admit their crime...perhaps that will bring you around and maybe, just maybe you will then be to embarassed over your failure to detect the hoax to show your idiot face around here anymore.

 

[IanC]

Once CO2 has absorbed some IR photons, what happens next? There seems to be a belief around these parts (, Ian,) that the only way the CO2 can get rid of that photon is by a conductive heat transfer. Would anyone care to try to explain why CO2 can't simply radiate it away? To a CO2 molecule, what's the difference?

I had a long comment that got lost due to shabby wireless service. this will be short.

the initial creation of the CO2 reactive photon from the surface lowers the energy present and transfers momentum. sequential swaps of the photon between CO2 molecules have no lasting energy exchange until the photon escapes (energy lost, momentum roughly equal) or the photon returns to the surface (energy equal, roughly two units of momentum used).

if the excited CO2 molecule has a collision with another molecule that photon of energy may be used up in creating a photon(s) of blackbody radiation of various wavelengths that may or may not react with CO2 but has certainly transformed the kinetic energy(vibration mode) into radiation energy. the original photon has become thermalized and is now part of the general temperature conditions.


you may say I am splitting hairs but one interaction is governed by the identity of the substance, and the other is governed by the temperature.

 

[SwimExpert]

And oddly enough, you remain unaware of the incredibly large body of peer reviewed data that finds that the IPCC is dead wrong at every turn. So who is cherrypicking?

I can show you multiple reviews of the literature that show the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed climate papers supports the IPCC position.

For God's sake, this is ridiculous. The fact of the matter here is that there are different people coming to different results and conclusions. You have to admit that much, at the very least.

So when you choose to give credence only to those results and conclusions that support your own position, you are in fact cherry picking.

 

[SSDD]

the initial creation of the CO2 reactive photon from the surface lowers the energy present and transfers momentum. sequential swaps of the photon between CO2 molecules have no lasting energy exchange until the photon escapes (energy lost, momentum roughly equal) or the photon returns to the surface (energy equal, roughly two units of momentum used).

I have to disagree with you there. There aren't any sequential swaps of the photon between CO2 molecules. The photon is emitted from the first CO2 molecule at a slightly lower wavelength than at which the energy was absorbed. Some energy is lost in heating the molecule and exciting it to a higher valence level, therefore the photon emitted is at a lower wavelength and therefore not absorbed by other CO2 molecules due to their narrow absorption bands.

 

[gnarlylove]

SSDD like I said this isn't about your sources versus mine. You are ignoring the overwhelming majority of scientists for a narrow margin of heavily funded politically backed "science." Swim says we need to admit there's disagreement otherwise the 97% are cherry picking. I'm willing to admit there isn't complete certitude on the science but a solid majority agree in man-made warming.

You're recourse is to continue ignoring this body of data in favor of your "small and increasing" body of data. Yet half your sources get its funding from political institutes. Their agenda is clear: distort and confuse so we can sway public opinion to resist climate legislation. "Once the public is on your side, no amount of science can convince them otherwise!" This is the one thing we can be sure of.

When you said I think I'm 100% right all the time what that really was was a projection of you. You are always right and you'd never apologize for ignoring large sections of scientific literature. You consider yourself a crusader for truth and are eager to accept data that supports your claims (whether made up like R Trotten or from legit sources) and we know what crusades can do. Anyone who thinks they have it 100% right are usually the ones who are asserting themselves strongly to cover up gafts in their logic and understanding. But I do want to apologize for whatever it was though you think needs apologizing. Clearly we couldn't move forward if I didn't say I'm sorry so I'm sorry, SSDD.

I've rarely engaged on any other level than scientific citations and rational discourse. You just ignore those posts in favor of conveniently saying "HA! I've got you! Now apologize when you're ready!"

That isn't science. You are on a clear mission and it involves being right over having credibility. I'm not saying you have no credibility, only that you cite less credible sources or mere abstracts without the full paper more often than not. I've checked.

Look at your first link! It says flooding in the SUMMER. LAST TIME I CHECKED THE SUMMER WAS NOT THE ONLY TIME OF YEAR IT CAN FLOOD!

You are selective in your data set so it construes the facts to fit your desires and motives. The only way you can maintain those beliefs is by ignoring pretty much anything said by climate science in favor of your "small and increasing" sample size of "real science." You have a clear agenda and its evinced in each post. BTW I was talking about Northern H. and Alaskan glaciers, which are at the peak about now. My picture was of the Columbia Glacier.

My agenda is motivated through respect of Earth as our sole provider. I think the Earth is something we must protect in order to continue having life-abundant like we do. I welcome the idea that the Earth is more resilient than anything man can throw at it but lamentably this is only a half-truth. Many are convinced we cannot change our ways so that means ignoring climate change. They only use the politically funded science since 2008 as "supporting" this profit motive.

The evidence is clear we will increasingly struggle as climate change sweeps across the globe and it's linked to our activity. "95% probability" says AR5. I know you don't accept it but for some reason you accept the parts that appear to support your side when in reality they are only casting light on the fact there remains confusion in the science but the conclusions are itself quite clear "95% certainty." That is awfully high given thousands of scientists across the globe say "Yep." They have been funded internationally, not by American institutes and policy think tanks!

Who makes sense to believe? SSDD always makes sense.

 

[mamooth]

Satellites say that the OLR is increasing at the ToA.

Nah. Satellites show an OLR decrease. Try looking at actual papers instead of a blog. Susskind et all, 2012, "Interannual Variability of OLR as Observed by AIRS and CERES".

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120012822_2012011737.pdf

Yes, it will depend who you trust. There's the peer-reviewed science from the best of the best, vs. a blogger somewhere. Dang, that's a tough one.

Oh, OLR trends are also highly affected by the start and end points. OLR is up during El Nino, down during La Nina. So if you cherrypick the end to be an El Nino year, you can create an upward trend.

 

[Old Rocks]

Warm summers coincide with less frequent flooding -- ScienceDaily

Date:
September 26, 2013
Source:
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Foerderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung
Summary:
Over the past 2,500 years, flooding in the Alps has been less frequent during warm summers than during cool summers. This research suggests that the frequency of flooding can be expected to wane in the central Alps.

So, you conflate a general prediction for the Alps into a worldwide prediciton?

 

[Abraham3]

The results