Global warming discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
The most regrettable consequence of this hollow debate involving this Abbott person is the reinforcement of this denialist treat that personal stances may influence the scientific bottom line regarding an anthropogenic global warming existing or not, or how fast it is happening.

In a parallel thread with the suggestive title "Just how serious is Global Warming anyway?" that failed premise founds a breeding ground in its by-design disregard of science and glorification of free-speech born personal opinion. That is why that thread is little more than a local register of climate offenders and other nasty folks.

Don't let this thread to become that one.
 
aleCcowaN said:
C'mon, Haig! Can't you answer that?

A little hint: r2 is 0.0057 and the trend line is -0.012°C/century
Click to expand...

What happened, Haig? Cat got your -usually flowery- tongue?

People want to learn and that faked analysis from WattsUpYourButt is screaming for an explanation. Here it is:

2j0c8sx.png


Have you something to comment?
 
aleCcowaN said:
<quote below edited to add text in red>





C'mon, Haig! Can't you answer that?

A little hint: r2 is 0.0057 and the trend line is -0.012°C/century
Click to expand...

aleCcowaN said:
What happened, Haig? Cat got your -usually flowery- tongue?

People want to learn and that faked analysis from WattsUpYourButt is screaming for an explanation. Here it is:

[qimg]http://i65.tinypic.com/2j0c8sx.png[/qimg]

Have you something to comment?
Click to expand...


Gezz aleCcowaN you need to calm down and think about this :)

First to answer your question. The graph I'm looking at has the Earth on "simmer" as I like to call it ... others say it's a Pause or Hiatus , call it what you like :D

Note (my bold) RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset
monckton1.png

The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 9 months since February 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause.
Click to expand...
MORE HERE


That's not the ONLY inconvenient truth to deal with .... there is a lot more ....
Kindly provide non abusive answers to these please ;) ....

Top 6 Climate Change Problems

Things are not as simply as just controlling Co2 !!!!
 
Haig said:
Gezz aleCcowaN you need to calm down and think about this :)

First to answer your question. The graph I'm looking at has the Earth on "simmer" as I like to call it ... others say it's a Pause or Hiatus , call it what you like :D

Note (my bold) RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset
monckton1.png

Click to expand...

What a stupid thing to say, Haig, even if it was more of your Dale Carnegie optimistic selling techniques.

For the rest of mankind who comes to this for the first time: The graphic is born in ignorance of 11th and 12th grade mathematics and statistics and Haig's, of course, unaware of all that. Monthly mean temperature changes -as plotted in that piece of crap Haig swallowed hook, line and sinker- are expected to average near to 0 as global temperatures are rising but it's too early to say they are accelerating -the graphic sorta plots a dirty second derivative-. For instance if the temperature rises odd months 0.2°C and it doesn't rise the even ones, the trend line (the blue line in the graphic) gives exactly the same 0.00 and r2=0.000. The problem is the intercept: in a no warming world, its value has to be zero because as an average rises and drops cancel each other. But clearly the graphic concocted by wattsUpYourButt and parroted here by Haig is showing an intercept above +0.2C, hence, the temperature is rising. It's just the colourful caption "No global warming in 18 years yada, yada" the only element related to "No global warming, yada,yada" (even if lying were a crime, this wouldn't be because it's an induced inference in the mind of the reader). The graphic simply shows temperatures rising. Its blue line shows what its blue text denies.

It also shows the despair of denialists like Watts and Haig. That sort of thing is the only thing they have. Haig has posted it three times in a couple of days and when he is confronted with its brutality he simply posts a singsongy "I'm a winner" and the graphic again with some salad dressing made of equally stupid links.

For those new here I have to say that, regrettably, such manifestations of low human development are common in this forum. If you don't believe me, take a look to the thread titles "Just how serious is global warming anyway?".
 
Haig said:
Gezz aleCcowaN you need to calm down and think about this :)

First to answer your question. The graph I'm looking at has the Earth on "simmer" as I like to call it ... others say it's a Pause or Hiatus , call it what you like :D

Note (my bold) RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset
[qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xAdiohdkcU4/VjpSKNYP9SI/AAAAAAACa8Q/639el4qIzpM/s720-Ic42/monckton1.png[/qimg]
MORE HERE


That's not the ONLY inconvenient truth to deal with .... there is a lot more ....
Kindly provide non abusive answers to these please ;) ....

Top 6 Climate Change Problems

Things are not as simply as just controlling Co2 !!!!
Click to expand...


C'mon, aleCcowaN! Can't you answer that?

Top 6 Climate Change Problems !!!!! :p
 
Haig said:
C'mon, aleCcowaN! Can't you answer that?

Top 6 Climate Change Problems !!!!! :p
Click to expand...

Provide a text version and we deal with it :p.

Quick, bring it to the debate now because I'm joining a group which is going to start commenting and tweetting at Ben D's calling all the lies and crap he tells. A much more interesting endeavour (be glad, you are the person who inspired that). The more you make idiotic fuzz here, the less attention I'll pay to you and the more I'll participate in that group calling Ben D's deceptions (other's who care to join us, drop me a private message).
 
C'mon, aleCcowaN! Can't you answer that?

Top 6 Climate Change Problems !!!!!

Take your own notes !!!!

:D
 
Haig said:
C'mon, aleCcowaN! Can't you answer that?

Top 6 Climate Change Problems !!!!! :p
Click to expand...

Fails the CRAAP test

https://www.gettysburg.edu/library/research/tips/webeval/index.dot
Currency
•When was the information published or last updated?
•Have newer articles been published on your topic?
•Are links or references to other sources up to date?
•Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?

Relevance
•Does the information answer your research question?
•Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
•Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
•Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?

Authority
•What are the author’s credentials?
•Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
•Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
•Do other books or authors cite the author?

Accuracy
•Are there statements you know to be false?
•Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
•Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
•What citations or references support the author’s claims?
•What do other people have to say about the topic?

Purpose
•Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
•Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
•Are alternative points of view presented?
•Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
•Does the author use strong or emotional language?
(...)
Click to expand...
 
Haig said:
C'mon, aleCcowaN! Can't you answer these 6 Climate Change problems?

Top 6 Climate Change Problems !!!!! :p
Click to expand...

But Ben-who-is-not-Haig-who-is-not-Ben keeps deleting the comments and tweets we do about it. Why do I do this here just for your sake if you haven't even bothered in providing a text version?

Haig said:
Debunking, what debunking?

How about you address this ...

Update on El Niño: Gaia disappoints the climate activists
Click to expand...

Provide a three line summary of that including what do you want me to address.
 
Haig: Cites Monckton's lies as parroted by another climate change denying web site

Haig said:
Note (my bold) RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset
Click to expand...
Note your repeating again lies from yet anther climate change denier web site courtesy of the deluded Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Haig.
From Haig's first 15 parroted ignorance and lies from climate change deniers:
11th May 2015 Haig: WUWT blog lies by cherry picking the source and start date about "No global warming for 18 years and 3 months" as easily seen by anyone who looks at the data.
7th August 2015 Haig: WUWT blog lies about "No global warming for 18 years and 7 months"

16 November 2015 Haig: What you quote from the image is Anthony Watts lying by repeating Monckton's cherry picking!
16 November 2015 Haig: What you cite is Anthony Watts lying abut the data that the Heartland Institute may or may not produce at the United Nations’ COP 21 summit in Paris.

23 November 2015 Haig: Cites Monckton's lies again as parroted by another climate change denying web site.

Haig links to one of the many deluded Ben Davidson YouTube videos. Ben Davidson is a crank that Haig is religiously promoting in another thread about Davidson's fantasy of the Sun causing earthquakes debunked many months ago in (4 May 2015 Haig: The scientific evidence is that there is no connection between solar activity and earthquakes.

27 August 2015 Haig: Can you understand that an EU conference speaker (Ben Davidson) is deluded?
EU = Electric Universe which is a cult following and extending the works of Immanuel Velikovsky. The main "prophets" of the cult are David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill of the Thunderbolts web site. They have delusions such as comets are rocks (the measured density of comets is ~0.6 g/cc, rock density ~3 g/cc which Haig knows and denies :eye-poppi!) and that craters and other features were formed by imaginary electrical discharges.

23 November 2015 Haig: The ignorant fantasies of Ben Davidson about climate change are not scientific evidence :eek:!
The lies are based on his ignorance and reliance on other deniers and news reports as shown by his citation list including WUWT, etc.
  1. The climate is changing, unexpectedly.
    Parrots Monckton's lie about a global warming pause (17 years 11 months of no warming).
    Global warming hiatus explained and it's not good news
    How reliable are climate models?
    Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?
  2. It Is Difficult to Trust What You Hear
    Citations of various bits of paranoia.
    The totally ignorant delusion that temperature should not be adjusted for instrumental changes.
    Climategate 1.0 and 2.0 idiocy.
    Lots of ranting in the video!
    Are surface temperature records reliable?
  3. The Future is Uncertain.
    The climate change myth about models not being "right" rears its ugly head.
    Cherry picking a paper by an astronomer about the myth that a new Maunder Minimum would created cooling. More new ice age myths follow.
    The idiocy of a single 1972 news report sound bite brings up the predictions of an ice age climate myth!
    How reliable are climate models?
    Are we heading into a new Ice Age?
    What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
  4. The Entire Solar System is Shifting
    This is the stupidity that Venus, Mars, etc. are the Earth, e.g. with the same climate drivers.
    Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting - "Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming."
  5. The Sun May Dictate Our Future
    Ben Davison's obsession with the Sun that drives him to deny basic facts.
    His citations are a mixture of basic facts (NSAS noting hat the Sun drives climate) and irrelevant science (solar wind and lightning!).
    The basic fact he denies is: Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions
    What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system
    Are we heading into a new Ice Age? delusion from Ben Davidson.
  6. Someone is Screwing With the Weather
    Davidson has the fantasy that weather modification is "vital to understanding the climate". An irrelevant rant about cloud seeding to induce rain, patents for weather modification, a 1960s experiment, "chemtrails", etc.
 
Haig: Cites a political rant by a guest blogger on WUWT

Haig said:
Debunking, what debunking?
Click to expand...
No debunking really needed when you persist in citing people lying to you and us, Haig.

So what are the latest lies from WUWT that you may be parroting? Update on El Niño: Gaia disappoints the climate activists
This is a guest blogger called Larry Kummer with a politics web site! Kummer
  • starts badly with a rant about climate alarmists.
  • goes on to cherry picking blog posts to confirm his "alarmist" bias and complaining about exaggerations.
  • fantasizes that temperature records are uncertain (because of underfunding).
  • El Niño El is not constantly increasing sea surface temperatures. The IRI/CPC ENSO Predictions Plume peaking in December/January/February 2015/2016 and dropping does not mean that it will not rise again.
  • ends with citing the rather deluded Bob Tisdale.
23 November 2015 Haig: Cites a political rant by a guest blogger on WUWT!
 
Last edited:
Canada warming at twice the global rate, scientists tell premiers conference
Canada's first ministers meet with Trudeau ahead of Paris climate change conference
CBC News Posted: Nov 23, 2015 7:38 PM ET Last Updated: Nov 23, 2015 8:14 PM ET

Greg Flato, senior research scientist with Environment Canada, told the premiers the science behind climate change is 'conclusive.' (CBC)

Alain Bourque, the executive director at Ouranos, a consortium on regional climatology and adaptation to climate change, told the first ministers an increase of two degrees in average temperatures globally could mean that Canada would see a change of about three to four degrees.

Bourque said climate change will be felt differently in Canada. Warmer summers could mean more forest fires, like those Western Canada experienced last summer. Parts of Canada could also see more droughts and deadly heat waves, he told the gathering.

The presentation, available on Environment Canada's website, summarizes the key science behind climate change.

"Warming over the 20th century is unequivocal and largely due to human activities, including the burning of fossil fuels," Bourque said.

He told the group the effects of climate change will persist for centuries, because greenhouse gases are long-lived and the oceans are warming.

Greg Flato, a senior research scientist with Environment Canada, wouldn't comment on what policy changes the government should adopt, but he said a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is needed to stabilize temperatures.

"Warming is unequivocal and human influence on the climate system is clear. Impacts of a changing climate are already being felt, and they will increase with further warming," he said. "The science indicates that reducing greenhouse gases are what is needed in order to stabilize temperature at some level, and that the amount of CO2 emissions, there's a cumulative budget that you can emit in order to keep the global temperature below a certain value."

Flato noted how unusual it was for scientists to brief the premiers and prime minister and then hold a press conference.

"It's certainly not like my normal day at work," he said with a laugh. "It was pretty remarkable, and it was a pleasure to be able to do it."
Click to expand...

nice to have our scientists unmuzzled....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/first-ministers-climate-change-scientist-1.3331884

Even if they are the bearers of bad tidings......that said Canada will have some net benefits .....maybe.:rolleyes:
 
No surprise to most of us here but once more we see the so called "pause" never existed.

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep16784

We have shown that there is a wide range of different operationalizations of the “hiatus” in the literature. For none of these operationalizations is the rate of temperature change meaningfully different from the set of rates of equivalent trend lengths over the modern period. That is, the “hiatus”, however defined, is not unusual or unprecedented27. Further, the duration of periods over which trends must be extended to generate significant warming trends has not changed noticeably in the “hiatus” periods relative to the rest of the modern warming period. We conclude that there is no “hiatus”, and neither has the climate system “paused.”

Our conclusion raises at least two questions. First, why has so much research been directed at the “hiatus” when it does not exist? We have addressed the likely reasons for this in detail elsewhere4. The notion of a “pause” or “hiatus” demonstrably originated outside the scientific community3, and it likely found entry into the scientific discourse because of the constant challenge by contrarian voices that are known to affect scientific communication and conduct4,28,29.

The second question pertains to the broader implications of this apparent discord between data and the discussion in the literature. We suggest that discussing climate change using the terms “pause” or “hiatus” creates notable hazards for the scientific community.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom