Sleeping giant' glacier may lift seas two metres: study

[CrusaderFrank]

Perhaps because the Earth is the lab. Why don't you have one single repeatable lab experiment to refute it?

^ Real science experiment replicating condition a nanosecond after the Big Bang

^ Ass hat Clown EnviroMarxists damaging the credibility of MIT with their fake, phony "Science"

Didn't the Democrats kill Science when they refused to build the World's Largest Particle Accelerator.

It's their anti-science attitude. They also killed the manned space program too

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You morons make me laugh. L. Ron Hubbard is more legitimate of a "scientist" than Micheal Mann is.

You're is a primitive religion that has nothing to do with science.

Obviously too is that L. Ron Hubbard ignores the English language.

LOL

Doctoral and postgraduate studies[edit]
Mann then attended Yale University, intending to obtain a PhD in physics, and received both an MS and an MPhil in physics in 1991. His interest was in theoretical condensed matter physics but he found himself being pushed towards detailed semiconductor work. He looked at course options with a wider topic area, and was enthused by PhD adviser Barry Saltzmanabout climate modelling and research. To try this out he spent the summer of 1991 assisting a postdoctoral researcher in simulating the period of peak Cretaceous warmth when carbon dioxide levels were high, but fossils indicated most warming at the poles, with little warming in the tropics. Mann then joined the Yale Department of Geology and Geophysics, obtaining an MPhil in geology and geophysics in 1993. His research focused on natural variability and climate oscillations. He worked with the seismologist Jeffrey Park, and their joint research adapted a statistical method developed for identifying seismological oscillations to find various periodicities in the instrumental temperature record, the longest being about 60 to 80 years. The paper Mann and Park published in December 1994 came to similar conclusions to a study developed in parallel using different methodology and published in January of that year, which found what was later called the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation.[6]

In 1994, Mann participated as a graduate student in the inaugural workshop of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Geophysical Statistics Project aimed at encouraging active collaboration between statisticians, climatologists and atmospheric scientists. Leading statisticians participated, including Grace Wahba and Arthur P. Dempster.[7]

While still finishing his PhD research, Mann met UMass climate science professor Raymond S. Bradley and began research in collaboration with him and Park. Their research used paleoclimate proxy data from Bradley's previous work and methods Mann had developed with Park, to find oscillations in the longer proxy records. "Global Interdecadal and Century-Scale Climate Oscillations During the Past Five Centuries" was published by Nature in November 1995.[8]

Another study by Mann and Park raised a minor technical issue with a climate model about human influence on climate change: this was published in 1996. In the context of controversy over the IPCC Second Assessment Report the paper was praised by those opposed to action on climate change, and the conservative organisation Accuracy in Media claimed that it had not been publicised due to media bias. Mann defended his PhD thesis on A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system in the spring of 1996,[9][10] and was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize for outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences in the following year. He was granted his PhD in geology and geophysics in 1998.[1]

Michael E. Mann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now you two may have a third grade certificate. Between you. Dr. Mann certainly appears to have a rather impressive academic record, one far more impressive than his detractors.

Mann has a resume like Bernie Madoff!

Yeah, Mann's one tree ring is what substitutes for real science in the AGWCult

 

[jc456]

Tell you what, your fuckwad of a religion claims that carbon dioxide angers Gaia and she retaliates by warming the planet.

You're the only person here or anywhere who is babbling about Gaia. This may shock your religious sensibilities, but there is no Gaia. The earth isn't sentient. Contrary to your sacred cult beliefs, Gaia can't save us from warming because there is no Gaia.

And I understand it's like I've just told you there's no Santa Claus, so you'll probably need some time to recover from the shock.

So if true, we can set up a linear regression to show that R level of CO2 tracks to slope Y of warming. I can run a predictive ANOVA to show that at any given level of CO2 we will have a certain temperature within 3 standard deviations

What is R? What is the slope of Y?

It's roughly Final Temp Change = 4.1* ln([CO2]/[CO2_orig]). About 3C for a doubling of CO2.

Understand that's the final change, not the immediate change. It will take over a century for the full effect. That's why the earth has 0.5C more warming already locked in, even if we stopped increasing CO2 now. So it's not a simple linear line. I don't know why you thought "correlation" meant "linear function".

CO2 has risen steadily, temperature has not. There is no correlation at all. Temperature rises show utterly no connection to CO2.

Utterly delusional.

We have temperature increases over the last 400 years, which is fact.

You mean except when the times when temperature was going down, like from 1940 to 1970. Why does your "recovery from the little ice age" take so many pauses?

I thought it was SUV's?

Nice deflection. You're good at 'em. You have to be, since all the science contradicts you.

Again with causation when there isn't even correlation.

You're the one who was using a "correlation equals causation" argument with your "but it's a recovery from the LIA, therefore it has to be a natural cycle!" nonsense. I just showed how the real world debunked your claims. Debunking your C=C claim does not mean I made one.

It's no surprise you fail at logic, as all cultists fail at logic. They wouldn't be cultists if they were rational. It's a standard part of the cult dogma to teach the faithful some buzzwords that they don't understand but can parrot from memory, and to tell them that they're special unique little snowflakes who are the only ones on the planet possessing the wisdom to grasp the RealTruth.

And I understand it's like I've just told you there's no Santa Claus

have there always been cease fires at Christmas time? There's your missing Santa Claus you state doesn't exist. Do poor kids receive meals and gifts at Christmas time? That is what Santa is all about.

Dude/ dudette, I'm sorry your life sucks so much that you don't believe in Santa Claus. Wow.

 

[jc456]

Perhaps because the Earth is the lab. Why don't you have one single repeatable lab experiment to refute it?

and the earth is disproving your hypothesis, so time for a new one.

 

[jc456]

Perhaps because the Earth is the lab. Why don't you have one single repeatable lab experiment to refute it?

It's your stupid theory, douchebag, EnviroMarxist Whackjob

again with the I have no evidence so you prove my opinion wrong theory alive and well still. Frank it is hilarious the lack of evidence they continuously admit to not having. It's amazing.

 

[jc456]

HA HA HA Ha ha... then thank goodness it's as well supported by evidence as it is.

and again, what evidence? you keep making that statement and we still haven't seen it. Just because it is six months later, doesn't mean repeating such nonsense makes it right today. So, feel free as I've always stated to post it up here. You just stated you didn't have any lab findings so how does one in a science field justify a hypothesis? you're the science guy, explain this to the class please.

 

[elektra]

HA HA HA Ha ha... then thank goodness it's as well supported by evidence as it is.

and again, what evidence? you keep making that statement and still haven't seen it. Just because it is six months later, doesn't mean repeating such nonsense makes it right today. So, feel free as I've always stated to post it up here. You just stated you didn't have any lab findings so how does one in a science field justify a hypothesis? you're the science guy, explain this to the class please.

I have the same problem with Crick, wild assertions he can not support. Like a giant cut/paste file he throws around like a winning poker hand?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're the only person here or anywhere who is babbling about Gaia. This may shock your religious sensibilities, but there is no Gaia. The earth isn't sentient. Contrary to your sacred cult beliefs, Gaia can't save us from warming because there is no Gaia.

And I understand it's like I've just told you there's no Santa Claus, so you'll probably need some time to recover from the shock.

Rational people grasp that the planet isn't sentient, but you moron cultists are nowhere near rational.

{'I don't think people have noticed that, but it's got all the sort of terms that religions use. The greens use guilt. You can't win people round by saying they are guilty for putting CO2 in the air'} - James Lovelock AGW master and father of the Gaia component of the AGW cult.

It's roughly Final Temp Change = 4.1* ln([CO2]/[CO2_orig]). About 3C for a doubling of CO2.

Cool.

Hey wait, this doesn't work?

Regression of temperature using your formula should have us at about 85 Fahrenheit, instead we have less than a 2 degree rise over 150 years, where CO2 levels have doubled.

Understand that's the final change, not the immediate change. It will take over a century for the full effect. That's why the earth has 0.5C more warming already locked in, even if we stopped increasing CO2 now. So it's not a simple linear line. I don't know why you thought "correlation" meant "linear function".

Well that's convenient for your cult.

Utterly delusional.

Ohhh look, open and outright fraud, how clever you Scientologists are. Say L. Ron, is the change in CO2 a 2% rise over the last 110 years?

For the above graph to be anything but outright fraud, that is what it would have to be, given that you have temperature and CO2 on the same slope.

Oh I know it's fraud, so do the rest of us.

You cultists are liars and cheats.

You mean except when the times when temperature was going down, like from 1940 to 1970. Why does your "recovery from the little ice age" take so many pauses?

Maybe there was no CO2 from 1940 to 1970? I mean, it's not like there was a world war that spawned more industrial production than any other time in history...

Nice deflection. You're good at 'em. You have to be, since all the science contradicts you.

What would you know of science, L. Ron?

Legitimate science isn't predicated on brazen fraud.

Again with causation when there isn't even correlation.

You're the one who was using a "correlation equals causation" argument with your "but it's a recovery from the LIA, therefore it has to be a natural cycle!" nonsense. I just showed how the real world debunked your claims. Debunking your C=C claim does not mean I made one.

There is no correlation, L. Ron. Rise in CO2 has no effect at all on global mean temperature. Fake graphs don't alter reality.

It's no surprise you fail at logic, as all cultists fail at logic.

Wait a minute cult boi, I'm not on your side.

But you cultists DO fail at logic, mostly it's integrity you fail at.

Cheats and liars, the lot of you.

They wouldn't be cultists if they were rational. It's a standard part of the cult dogma to teach the faithful some buzzwords that they don't understand but can parrot from memory, and to tell them that they're special unique little snowflakes who are the only ones on the planet possessing the wisdom to grasp the RealTruth.

All true, but if you know this, why do you still follow your absurd cult?

Oh, that's right - it's all about money. You follow the cult in hopes of raping the public treasury.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Perhaps because the Earth is the lab. Why don't you have one single repeatable lab experiment to refute it?

Every repeatable lab experiment refutes it, you drooling retard.

{The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.}

Null Hypothesis - The Commonly Accepted Hypothesis

I swear, not a one of you cultists has had so much as a 3rd grade science class...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Didn't the Democrats kill Science when they refused to build the World's Largest Particle Accelerator.

Was that under the worlds largest penis accelerator, Billy Bob Clinton?

 

[mamooth]

Regression of temperature using your formula should have us at about 85 Fahrenheit, instead we have less than a 2 degree rise over 150 years, where CO2 levels have doubled.

No. Not even close. You kind of suck at this.

Well that's convenient for your cult.

You're the only one claiming that there must be a linear relationship between CO2 and temp. Why do you hold such a bizarre belief? Is it something your religion commands of you?

The normal people, they understand that nature doesn't make things simple and linear just because you really wish it was that way.

Ohhh look, open and outright fraud, how clever you Scientologists are. Say L. Ron, is the change in CO2 a 2% rise over the last 110 years?

It's a 40% rise. And the temperature increase is consistent with that. If you didn't fail so hard at math, you could have figured that out.

For the above graph to be anything but outright fraud, that is what it would have to be, given that you have temperature and CO2 on the same slope.

That makes no sense. It's not worth the effort to attempt to figure out the workings of your very peculiar thought processes, so I'll move back to the point you're trying to evade.

You insanely declared there was no correlation. That graph clearly showed the correlation. As CO2 has gone up, temperature has gone up. That's pretty much the definition of "correlation", meaning it was really stupid of you to claim there was no correlation.

Oh I know it's fraud, so do the rest of us.

Yes, you certainly do proudly display the absolute certainty of a cult fanatic. No facts or evidence will be changing your mind, by golly!

You cultists are liars and cheats.

The Jonestown cultists had your same fringe cult attitude towards the outside world. Rather than suffer their fate, I suggest you not keep bitterly clinging to your tiny dying fringe cult. You need to slip off into the jungle before they roll out the koolaid vat.

 

[jc456]

Regression of temperature using your formula should have us at about 85 Fahrenheit, instead we have less than a 2 degree rise over 150 years, where CO2 levels have doubled.

No. Not even close. You kind of suck at this.

Well that's convenient for your cult.

You're the only one claiming that there must be a linear relationship between CO2 and temp. Why do you hold such a bizarre belief? Is it something your religion commands of you?

The normal people, they understand that nature doesn't make things simple and linear just because you really wish it was that way.

Ohhh look, open and outright fraud, how clever you Scientologists are. Say L. Ron, is the change in CO2 a 2% rise over the last 110 years?

It's a 40% rise. And the temperature increase is consistent with that. If you didn't fail so hard at math, you could have figured that out.

For the above graph to be anything but outright fraud, that is what it would have to be, given that you have temperature and CO2 on the same slope.

That makes no sense. It's not worth the effort to attempt to figure out the workings of your very peculiar thought processes, so I'll move back to the point you're trying to evade.

You insanely declared there was no correlation. That graph clearly showed the correlation. As CO2 has gone up, temperature has gone up. That's pretty much the definition of "correlation", meaning it was really stupid of you to claim there was no correlation.

Oh I know it's fraud, so do the rest of us.

Yes, you certainly do proudly display the absolute certainty of a cult fanatic. No facts or evidence will be changing your mind, by golly!

You cultists are liars and cheats.

The Jonestown cultists had your same fringe cult attitude towards the outside world. Rather than suffer their fate, I suggest you not keep bitterly clinging to your tiny dying fringe cult. You need to slip off into the jungle before they roll out the koolaid vat.

You're the only one claiming that there must be a linear relationship between CO2 and temp. Why do you hold such a bizarre belief? Is it something your religion commands of you?

The normal people, they understand that nature doesn't make things simple and linear just because you really wish it was that way.

so you're saying that if CO2 goes up then temp doesn't follow? Damn we agree.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No. Not even close. You kind of suck at this.

Okay then cult boi.

You're the only one claiming that there must be a linear relationship between CO2 and temp. Why do you hold such a bizarre belief? Is it something your religion commands of you?

You moron cultists claim not only correlation, but causation.

I recognize the fact that no such correlation exists. I press you to support your religious contention of correlation simply to expose what frauds you cultists are.

The normal people, they understand that nature doesn't make things simple and linear just because you really wish it was that way.

I'm not dealing with "normal" people, I'm dealing with Jonestown level cultists like you, who are heavy on dogma but have no actual grasp of scientific principal or methodology.[/quote]

It's a 40% rise. And the temperature increase is consistent with that. If you didn't fail so hard at math, you could have figured that out.

40% since when?

Again, the rise in mean temperature has occurred over a 400 year period that began prior to the industrial revolution and increases in carbon dioxide. Your moronic cult may claim that the aggregate rise in line with your scriptures, but it certainly holds ZERO correlation to observed increases of carbon emissions. The hockey stick never happened. Such increase in mean temperature as there has been is mild, inconsistent, and defies the levels of green house gas.

[quoteThat makes no sense. It's not worth the effort to attempt to figure out the workings of your very peculiar thought processes, so I'll move back to the point you're trying to evade.[/quote]

That is because you have no grasp of the actual concepts used in research,. You are a follower of a religion, nothing more.

You insanely declared there was no correlation. That graph clearly showed the correlation. As CO2 has gone up, temperature has gone up. That's pretty much the definition of "correlation", meaning it was really stupid of you to claim there was no correlation.

Stating facts is not "insane" cult boi, even if fact is at odds with the goals of your church.

Temperatures have NOT risen in concert with increases in carbon emissions. During periods of rapid growth in carbon emission we observe little and no increase in temperature. Conversely during periods of stable output we see more significant rise.

If a brain dead cultist like you claims that loud music makes your soup burn, but when you turn the music up, it often does not burn, while turning it down often results in burnt soup. At some point we must recognize that it is the drugs you use, not the the music that correlates. (causation is that you are too high to turn the stove off when the soup is done.)

Yes, you certainly do proudly display the absolute certainty of a cult fanatic. No facts or evidence will be changing your mind, by golly!

If I were a cult fanatic I would join you in worship of your fucked up church.

The Jonestown cultists had your same fringe cult attitude towards the outside world. Rather than suffer their fate, I suggest you not keep bitterly clinging to your tiny dying fringe cult. You need to slip off into the jungle before they roll out the koolaid vat.

Thinking is difficult for you, isn't it cult boi?

I do not follow the AGW cult.

 

[Uncensored2008]

so you're saying that if CO2 goes up then temp doesn't follow? Damn we agree.

Yet that absurd graph the Cult keeps posting shows a direct linear relationship.


Yeah, it's fraud, but it does purport a linear trend.

 

[jc456]

so you're saying that if CO2 goes up then temp doesn't follow? Damn we agree.

Yet that absurd graph the Cult keeps posting shows a direct linear relationship.


Yeah, it's fraud, but it does purport a linear trend.

one that starts with temperature increasing and CO2 following.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The sea wall around one of Donald Trump's golf courses to protect the Golf Course for Trump against AGW Sea Rises is the ONLY FUCKING WALL VON HAIRFUCK IS GONNA Actually BUILD

 

[flacaltenn]

Ohhh look, open and outright fraud, how clever you Scientologists are. Say L. Ron, is the change in CO2 a 2% rise over the last 110 years?

It's a 40% rise. And the temperature increase is consistent with that. If you didn't fail so hard at math, you could have figured that out.

Exactly.. And the BASIC forcing relationship for CO2 is LOGARITHMIC. Which means that you need SUPER - linear accumulations of CO2 to get a LINEAR Temperature response. And when you do --- that a doubling will result in about a 1.1degC rise in temperature WITHOUT all the GW exaggerations and hype.

And -- within reasonable limits -- that's exactly what's been observed. NO accelerations of temperature rise, no runaway effects measured, no panic laden results. Just about 40% of a 1.1degC rise in your lifetime.

So much for the effort to scare us all with "correlations"..

 

[mamooth]

Okay then cult boi.

Screaming how the whole world outside of your cult is the real cult just makes you look even more ridiculous and cultlike. Pretty much by definition, the whole world can't be a cult. Your tiny fringe group, however, does fit the definition of the word.

You moron cultists claim not only correlation, but causation.

Actually, we've _proven_ both correlation and causation. And the causation proof has nothing to do with the correlation. Your cult orders you to deny such facts, being they go against cult dogma, but that's why you're called "deniers".

I recognize the fact that no such correlation exists.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ...

For the past 40 years, CO2 has been steadily increasing, and during the same time frame, temperature has been steadily increasing. That's kind of the definition of correlation. Since you're actually trying to deny something that simple and obvious, you're clearly not rational, which means there's no point in treating you like you were rational. You weren't reasoned into your insanity, so you can't be reasoned out of it.

So what does work with cultists like you? Emotion. That's why we spend time humiliating deniers. If the negative feelings they get from their humiliation start outweighing the warm fuzzies they obtain through their cult association, deniers will begin leaving their cult. Think of it as tough love.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Screaming how the whole world outside of your cult

I'm not sure which of your handlers advised you to try the "nuhn uhn YOOO" idiocy, but it ain't working for you, retard.

You follow a ridiculous religion that is fanatical, You follow a cult, cult boi. Saying that non-believers are in a cult makes no sense, not that I expect one of your limited intellect to grasp this fact.

Tom Cruz screaming "Nuhn Uhn YOU are in a cult" when asked about Scientology just doesn't cut it, shit fer brains.

 

[mamooth]

I'm not sure which of your handlers advised you to try the "nuhn uhn YOOO" idiocy, but it ain't working for you, retard.

It would be the whole planet, which unanimously signed the Paris Accords to limit global warming.

It would also be the science, facts, data and logic all of which flat out contradict your bizarre cult myths.

But hey, maybe you've got it right. You and your tiny handful of fellow bitter whiny fringe political nutjobs are the only people on the planet intelligent enough to understand the RealTruth. Yeah, that's it. No, don't worry, there's nothing cultlike at all about claiming that. You really are the special unique little snowflake that you think you are.