SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
Tell me, when do such estimates ever even come close?
UH OH Spaghetti Oh! Hansen says the temps have been flat!
- Thread starter westwall
- Start date
Tell me, when do such estimates ever even come close?
Koios
Recreational Kibitzer
- Nov 12, 2012
- 2,841
- 117
- 48
Never, when the range is a delta of $5 Trillion. LOL!!!
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
Oh walleyedretard, what do you imagine that you're "winning"? A contest to find the biggest retards on the planet? Relax....you already won that one a long time ago.
Meanwhile, you are once again reduced to this kind of null response to the debunking of your favorite myths by an eminent scientist. You poor little bamboozled cretin.
ReallyMeow
Member
- Jan 16, 2013
- 239
- 18
- 16
What you're doing is called cherry picking, you want to look at a little sliver and pretend nothing else exists.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W705cOtOHJ4]The "No Warming in 16 Years" Crock - YouTube[/ame]
- Thread starter
- #185
I suppose someone has to, since you are so very clueless and careless about the meaning of words. And, of course, he's not just "parsing words", he is debunking the retarded drivel you're peddling.
Well, that never happened except in your denier cult fantasy world. The facts on that have been shown to you many times but you idiotically choose to cling to your myths.
But it is not a "fact" at all. It is a moronic denier cult myth, suitable for fertilizing rosebushes.
Global Warming Since 1998
Duke University
by Dr. Bill Chameides - Duke University Professor, Dean of Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment, Member of the National Academy of Sciences, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union .
October 28th, 2008
(excerpts)
You don’t have to search too hard to find a skeptic’s blog proclaiming that global warming “stopped” in 1998. Oh happy day if it were true, but sadly it is not. Why do I say this? I’ve looked at the data. Take a look at the graphic below, which shows the average global temperatures from 1990 to the present. The green diamonds show the 5-year averages for the periods from 1988–1992, 1993–1997, 1998–2002, and 2003–2007. Each successive diamond appears at a higher temperature than the one before. In other words, global temperatures have been increasing over the past 15+ years — global warming has not stopped.
Global temperature trends since 1990. Solid line with small dots indicate the annual averages. The green diamonds indicate the 5-year averages. Data taken from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory: CDIAC Temperature Data Sets
If you look at the temperatures in the graphic year by year, it’s easy to see why someone might think that the warming has stopped. After all, there was a huge temperature maximum in 1998. Since then, only 2005 [and now 2010] had average temperatures equal to or perhaps slightly greater than those in 1998. Eyeballing temperatures from 1998 onward might lead to the inference that temperatures have not increased at all -– that global warming has stopped. But wait. If you do the same eyeballing exercise starting in 1999 or 1996 you would conclude that there has been a rapid increase in temperatures. Moreover, if you were back in 1992 or 1993 and had done the same eyeballing exercise back to 1990, you would have concluded that global warming had stopped; and you would have been wrong. So what’s the problem? It comes from a confusion between inter-annual and short-term temperature changes and the longer-term changes in temperatures that are relevant to the issue of climate change on decadal time scales.
There are any number of factors that cause global temperatures to rise and fall. Solar activity is one –- as the sun goes through its 11-year sunspot cycle, solar radiation goes up and down causing global temperatures to fluctuate up and down. El Nino and La Nina oscillations in the South Pacific Ocean also lead to relatively warm years (El Nino) and cool years (La Nina). The years 1998 and 2005 are interesting to compare. Depending upon the method used to analyze the temperature data, scientists have concluded that either both years tied for the warmest temperatures on record or 2005 was slightly warmer (see here or here). That 1998 was unusually warm is not surprising. It was a year with an unusually strong El Nino and with the sun close to its 11-year maximum. By comparison, the sun in 2005 was near the minimum in its cycle, and the year began with a weak El Nino that dissipated by late spring. A reasonable explanation for 2005 being as warm or warmer than 1998 without the benefit of a solar maximum or strong El Nino includes warming from greenhouse gases. Global warming from greenhouse gases does not occur in a vacuum; it occurs simultaneously with other factors that affect global temperatures like solar variations and El Nino/La Nina oscillations. As I discussed in my previous posts in this series, these other factors can cause short-term ups and downs in global temperatures. But the question for global warming is whether they cause a net temperature change. To determine that, we filter out the short-term fluctuations by using longer term averages (such as the 5-year averages shown in the graphic), and when we do, the upward trend in global temperatures comes through loud and clear –- take a look at the green diamonds.
Funny, that's exactly what everyone who knows anything about AGW/CC keeps telling you, you poor deluded imbecile.
Sure thing tiny dick. Why are we winning then? If you want to see THE definition of deluded just look in the mirror.
In the grown up world, we use a thing called a "dictionary" to look up the definitions of words.
Well, by all means when you do please inform us. Till then you need to sit at the childrens table.
- Thread starter
- #186
What a boob! Try reading the dumbass. Or if you're too lazy to do that (un-surprising given the lameness of your posts) try 1.9 trillion, then when you have found that number you will see it is 1.9 trillion per year for 40 years and that calculates out to.....let me do some figuring........ahhhh! Here is the total...76 TRILLION dollars stooopid.If you're going to try and debate something at least have enough brains to read the damned thing before you make a complete ass of yourself. Sheeesh...some peoples children.
- Thread starter
- #187
You look at that little sliver and think it's somehow meaningful. It's not the planet is 5 billion years old, I understand you may think it's only 6,000 years old because you're a scientific illiterate, but it really isn't. And thus your insistence on looking at the last 30 years is simply stupid.
The world operates on cycles far longer than your miniscule life. You will live your entire life in the time it take the Earth to belch.....once. Take some science classes so you have a clue of what you are speaking.
ReallyMeow
Member
- Jan 16, 2013
- 239
- 18
- 16
Do those cycles explain what we are seeing? No, they're accounted for. Does the fact that carbon dioxide traps heat explain the warming that we have seen? Yes. Also, nu uh, you're stupid.
- Thread starter
- #189
Actually, yes they do. There is NOTHING happening today that hasn't happened in the recent, moderate, and distant past. You anti-science revisionists ignore all that came before and claim that CO2 has some magical ability in defiance of every Law of Physics there is. And what warming praytell? There has neen NONE for 16 years or didn't you get the memo?
You clowns crack me up. You claim to be all about science and then you attempt to stifle every line of scientific enquiry that challenges your paradigm.
Guess what pal, that ain't science. That's a fanatical religion and you've been had....and you're so damned stupid you can't figure it out. What are you going to say in ten years time when no warming occurs and in fact the opposite does? You still going to blame warming for that?
What ignorant dupes you all are.
Last edited:
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
Your hypothesis doesn't really bear out in the big picture rocks which falsifies it quite effectively. Look up falsification, you clearly aren't famiiar with the word. Here is a history of temperature and atmospheric CO2 on earth. As you can see higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations existied with no extinction events...higher concentrations preceeded ice ages.....larger CO2 spikes in CO2 concentrations had happened prior to the Permian / Triassic event without extinction events and higher concentrations would occur after with no extinction events. You claimed Triassic / Jurassic event was in fact, a non event. CO2 was falling during that period and saw a large spike nearing the end of the Jurassic which preceeded some significant cooling.
The fact is rocks, there is no steadily repeating pattern upon which you can make your claim. Other factors are at work and CO2 is not in the drivers seat. It isn't even a backseat driver. CO2 is tied up in the trunk....a slave to the whims of temperature doing whatever it dictates.
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
The fact is that if you look at the long term, you will see that the pattern is exactly the opposite of your claim. Picking one instance in a 400,000 year long history or more importantly a 600 million year history as an example of proof is simply foolish. Obviously some other factor is at work....not CO2 which flucutates at the whim of temperature, not the other way around.
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
I guess he just completely disregarded the Vostok graph which, while being the far more important study, doesn't jibe with his religion. They love to pick those cherries and hold them up as evidence while the vast bulk of evidence around them says that they are dead wrong.
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
Except that CO2 does not trap heat. I believe that you believe it does so tell me, how do you believe CO2 traps heat.
While you are considering your explanation, take a quick look at this graph amd tell me how you think ice ages could have begun with atmospheric CO2 in the thousands of parts per million as opposed to the few hundred parts per million we see today.
Last edited:
Koios
Recreational Kibitzer
- Nov 12, 2012
- 2,841
- 117
- 48
If you're going to try and debate something at least have enough brains to read the damned thing before you make a complete ass of yourself. Sheeesh...some peoples children.
When we have one year in a row where $1.9 Trillion is spent, be real sure to let me know. Then we can start talking about the next 39 years. K?
Koios
Recreational Kibitzer
- Nov 12, 2012
- 2,841
- 117
- 48
If you're going to try and debate something at least have enough brains to read the damned thing before you make a complete ass of yourself. Sheeesh...some peoples children.
And as for stupidy, here's how that works:
1. Climate Scientists note a distrurbing change in climate-affecting gases in the upper atmosphere. So they publish it, and all manner of peer review follows. Concensus builds, and more and more data comes in supporting it. So what's it mean? Create computer models and project out the near term impact. If bad shit is looming, let policy makers know what's going on.
2. Policy makers meet, in Kyoto for example. Fearing costs of the possible crisis, some ideas are floated about how we might mitigate it. Everyone is on board, including Dems and Reps in the US. Fear of great costs for merely repairing shit and not moving economies forward, has a very strong appeal.
3. Then business interests worry they might have to spend money, on something other than making more money. OMG! So a lobbyist with success on other righty causes gathers with many of them, to create a plan: 1. Get any pseudoscientific nonsense to contradict. Even 1 horseshit claim is enough. Bingo; we have debate! Not all scientists agree; yippe for our side!!! 2. Get GOP lemmings formerly worried about MGW to change their tunes and repeat after them: "The issue is too uncertain, since SCIENTISTS ARE DEBATING IT!!! (pure, bullshit, maufactured debate, but no prob. It's all we need politically.)
4. Abject ******* retards on message boards and elsewhere add MGW Myth! to their quiver of group-think causes, which include but are not limited to: God, Guns, Tax=Stealing, etc, etc. MGW is now a Liberal Issue!!! (In the US, but nowhere else on mother earth.)
5. a. Then a really, really retarded ass, drooling, cross-eyed nincumoop says MGWisatas are wanting to spend $76 Trillion!!! to save a few trillion in real estate. Actually not true. That's merely a policy suggestion coming from the UN. Scientist are merely doing their jobs: science, then publishing, for thorough review by peers.
5. b. And to add to the stupidity, it's not just real estsate, it's also larger and more frequent storms. Case in point, New Jersey, etc. No loss of coastline. Just $30 Billion in costs to clean up.
How ******* stupid can you people get. Mygod. Learn what in the **** is really going on.
Last edited:
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
Just more of your ignorant, anti-science, denier cult twaddle, walleyed, you poor deluded retard. Go ahead and cling to your moronic myths about no warming. It would be interesting to hear the rationalizations you'll be spewing in ten years.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,900
- 87,342
- 2,645
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
Repeatedly posting a picture of your father adds nothing to the debate, CrazyFruitcake.
asterism
Congress != Progress
If you're going to try and debate something at least have enough brains to read the damned thing before you make a complete ass of yourself. Sheeesh...some peoples children.
And as for stupidy, here's how that works:
1. Climate Scientists note a distrurbing change in climate-affecting gases in the upper atmosphere. So they publish it, and all manner of peer review follows. Concensus builds, and more and more data comes in supporting it. So what's it mean? Create computer models and project out the near term impact. If bad shit is looming, let policy makers know what's going on.
2. Policy makers meet, in Kyoto for example. Fearing costs of the possible crisis, some ideas are floated about how we might mitigate it. Everyone is on board, including Dems and Reps in the US. Fear of great costs for merely repairing shit and not moving economies forward, has a very strong appeal.
3. Then business interests worry they might have to spend money, on something other than making more money. OMG! So a lobbyist with success on other righty causes gathers with many of them, to create a plan: 1. Get any pseudoscientific nonsense to contradict. Even 1 horseshit claim is enough. Bingo; we have debate! Not all scientists agree; yippe for our side!!! 2. Get GOP lemmings formerly worried about MGW to change their tunes and repeat after them: "The issue is too uncertain, since SCIENTISTS ARE DEBATING IT!!! (pure, bullshit, maufactured debate, but no prob. It's all we need politically.)
4. Abject ******* retards on message boards and elsewhere add MGW Myth! to their quiver of group-think causes, which include but are not limited to: God, Guns, Tax=Stealing, etc, etc. MGW is now a Liberal Issue!!! (In the US, but nowhere else on mother earth.)
5. a. Then a really, really retarded ass, drooling, cross-eyed nincumoop says MGWisatas are wanting to spend $76 Trillion!!! to save a few trillion in real estate. Actually not true. That's merely a policy suggestion coming from the UN. Scientist are merely doing their jobs: science, then publishing, for thorough review by peers.
5. b. And to add to the stupidity, it's not just real estsate, it's also larger and more frequent storms. Case in point, New Jersey, etc. No loss of coastline. Just $30 Billion in costs to clean up.
How ******* stupid can you people get. Mygod. Learn what in the **** is really going on.
What's your role in this? What do you do for a living?
Koios
Recreational Kibitzer
- Nov 12, 2012
- 2,841
- 117
- 48
If you're going to try and debate something at least have enough brains to read the damned thing before you make a complete ass of yourself. Sheeesh...some peoples children.
And as for stupidy, here's how that works:
1. Climate Scientists note a distrurbing change in climate-affecting gases in the upper atmosphere. So they publish it, and all manner of peer review follows. Concensus builds, and more and more data comes in supporting it. So what's it mean? Create computer models and project out the near term impact. If bad shit is looming, let policy makers know what's going on.
2. Policy makers meet, in Kyoto for example. Fearing costs of the possible crisis, some ideas are floated about how we might mitigate it. Everyone is on board, including Dems and Reps in the US. Fear of great costs for merely repairing shit and not moving economies forward, has a very strong appeal.
3. Then business interests worry they might have to spend money, on something other than making more money. OMG! So a lobbyist with success on other righty causes gathers with many of them, to create a plan: 1. Get any pseudoscientific nonsense to contradict. Even 1 horseshit claim is enough. Bingo; we have debate! Not all scientists agree; yippe for our side!!! 2. Get GOP lemmings formerly worried about MGW to change their tunes and repeat after them: "The issue is too uncertain, since SCIENTISTS ARE DEBATING IT!!! (pure, bullshit, maufactured debate, but no prob. It's all we need politically.)
4. Abject ******* retards on message boards and elsewhere add MGW Myth! to their quiver of group-think causes, which include but are not limited to: God, Guns, Tax=Stealing, etc, etc. MGW is now a Liberal Issue!!! (In the US, but nowhere else on mother earth.)
5. a. Then a really, really retarded ass, drooling, cross-eyed nincumoop says MGWisatas are wanting to spend $76 Trillion!!! to save a few trillion in real estate. Actually not true. That's merely a policy suggestion coming from the UN. Scientist are merely doing their jobs: science, then publishing, for thorough review by peers.
5. b. And to add to the stupidity, it's not just real estsate, it's also larger and more frequent storms. Case in point, New Jersey, etc. No loss of coastline. Just $30 Billion in costs to clean up.
How ******* stupid can you people get. Mygod. Learn what in the **** is really going on.
What's your role in this? What do you do for a living?
Killing time (note avie); have a B2B business selling machine control software for a vertical market, which is unique (high margin) allowing me to farm out, profitably, the support aspect. So, pretty much, makes some coin even when I'm ******* off killing time.
That answer your questions?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
US intel holds secret evidence China accessed voter files as Senate weighs election security law...it is redacted but of course it was 2020...- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 0
-
-
Trump ultimatum: Open Hormuz in 48-hours or your powerplants will be destroyed. (Poll)- Started by kyzr
- Replies: 34
-
