Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[DC]

No wonder the other graph looked like it was missing some legend material!

Good eye!

yeah deniers like to link to images instead of links to the databrowser.

because they know the source they use does not support their crackpottery at all.

 

[uke2se]

Your references are weak and show no understanding of the process, much like yourself.

The polar vortex is intrinsically linked to the AO/NAO and the jet stream. The jet stream bends around low and high pressure systems, these pressure systems are what make up the vortex and AO/NAO.

His references are from actual scientists, while yours are from a creationist. Who's are the weakest? I think we both know the answer.

 

[Laidbackracer]

What is your explanation for the fact that more than 95% of climate scientists agree on the facts that the Earth is heating up and that human activity is primarily responsible? How do you explain that the few dissenters are invariably cranks, have financial ties with heavy industry and/or have a history of science denial (smoking causing cancer)?

If this is the strength of your argument I can see we we are in a bad place.

Ask yourself why the models are wrong, ask yourself why the planet hasn't warmed for 17 years.

The answers to those questions over ride any other generic statements.

 

[Trakar]

right clicking will reveal these links

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

If you deny the UAH or the RSS record I think we are on shakey ground. Even using the adjusted (manipulated) GISS and HADCRUT land based records we still see no warming for 17 years. Who is the real denier?

You are the only one (right now) who seems to be misrepresenting real science and utilizing information you do not really understand from shady sources to support your assertions. It is pretty clear who is denying the science and who is explaining the science.

 

[uke2se]

If this is the strength of your argument I can we we are in a bad place.

No answer then. Must have been a strong argument.

Ask yourself why the models are wrong, ask yourself why the planet hasn't warmed for 17 years.

Why should I ask myself that? The models have proven to be quite robust, and there's been continued warming for well over a century. Why lie like this?

 

[DC]

If this is the strength of your argument I can we we are in a bad place.

Ask yourself why the models are wrong, ask yourself why the planet hasn't warmed for 17 years.

The answers to those questions over ride any other generic statements.

the models are not wrong at all. what the heck are you talking about?

aah right yeah creatard Roy has some graphs.... graphs he damn well knows are extremely dishonest.....

here is some real science comparing model projections to observations

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

conclusion,

the rise in CO2 concentration and global temperature has continued to closely match the projections over the past five years, while sea level continues to rise faster than anticipated. The latter suggests that the 21st Century sea-level projections of the last two IPCC reports may be systematically biased low. Further support for this concern is provided by the fact that the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are increasingly losing mass (Rignot et al 2011, Van den Broeke et al 2011), while those IPCC projections assumed that Antarctica will gain enough mass in future to largely compensate mass losses from Greenland (see figure 10.33 in Meehl et al (2007)). For this reason, an additional contribution (‘scaled-up ice sheet discharge’) was suggested in the IPCC fourth assessment. Our results highlight the need to thoroughly validate models with data of past climate changes before applying them to projections.

 

[uke2se]

Wasn't Spencer the denier who said the reason for his denial was that God would never allow AGW to happen?

 

[Trakar]

If this is the strength of your argument I can we we are in a bad place.

Ask yourself why the models are wrong, ask yourself why the planet hasn't warmed for 17 years.

The answers to those questions over ride any other generic statements.

These questions assume situations that do not accurately reflect reality, why would you expect to get correct answers to such incorrectly formatted questions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

He was making fun of deniers. Real skeptics understand that long time periods are required to establish trends. Deniers don't.

Yup. And I used to be a skeptic, I was not a denier. What is the difference?

I kept looking at the information. I kept comparing the debating methods. I came to a realization that proves I was a skeptic. I was wrong.

That is something a denier will never admit.

 

[DC]

the question why the planet hasn't warmed is a typical denier question and has nothing to do with reality. the planet has warmed we know that from the OHC alone. afterall, 90% of the AGW excess heat is going into the oceans.

what really is a intersting question is why exactly is the SAT (Surface air temperature) not rising so fast anymore. and also here its very interesting to look at the OHC expecially the 0-2000m one. wich may be the answer to that question.

 

[Yerushalmi]

Here we go, an irrefutable graph of 13 years of recovery over the last 31 years. Checkmate warmers

[qimg]http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ArcticEscalatorv2.gif[/qimg]

Yes! This was the graph I saw.

 

[Laidbackracer]

Roy Spencer isn't UAH or RSS.



I don't. I asked you to provide links to where you got the data, which you claim is taken directly from UAH and RSS. As you have nicely shown, it isn't. It's lifted from Roy Spencer, crank and creationist. It's probable that he got it from UAH and RSS, but that's beside the point.

The point is, provide citations when asked.



Adjusted data isn't nefarious. It's necessary to adjust data. This is something else denialists don't understand. For them, adjusted data means faked data, because that's what they are used to.



We see constant warming for well over a century, with no recent drop. 8 or so of the latest 10 years have been the warmest on record.

So, clearly, you are the denier.

Dr. Roy Spencer is the keeper of the UAH record. If you wish to deny this data because he is a christian good for you. Hardly scientific though.

I can see there will be no point discussing anything further with you. You can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink.

 

[uke2se]

Dr. Roy Spencer is the keeper of the UAH record. If you wish to deny this data because he is a christian good for you. Hardly scientific though.

Like I said, I'm not the one denying stuff here. That's all you. Do you think the word "adjusted" means something nefarious? I mean, from your arguments it's pretty clear that you do, but I'd like to hear you say it.

Also, I'm not having a go at Spencer because he's a Christian, but because he's a creationist; a noticeably anti-scientific position. It's clear that he takes the same approach to climate change, especially with his "evangelical declaration" that basically says God wouldn't allow AGW, so that's why he denies it.

I can see there will be no point discussing anything further with you. You can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink.

Don't let the door hit you etc.

 

[macdoc]

I kept looking at the information. I kept comparing the debating methods. I came to a realization that proves I was a skeptic. I was wrong.

hmmph second one in a couple of hours. ...makes my day...er night..or perhaps morning.....what the heck IS 3.30 am anyways.

 

[Yerushalmi]

A minimal amount of logic, yet alone 30 minutes of searching through any legitimate climate science resource would provide you with enough information to realize that Goddard's considerations were without relevance or merit. Claiming that you do not have the time to "do all that reading, and thinking and stuff," is not a valid excuse for not understanding at least the generalities about something before you declare it a "valid" position.

First of all, please stop with the gratuitous insults. I said I don't have time to research it myself and thought that by coming here somebody would be able to give me a quick and immediate answer. Instead I find myself having to defend my right to even ask the question!

Once again, what leads you to believe that Goddard's presented contradiction, is a valid point?

As a general rule in life, you don't tend to see the same result from equal and opposite causes. That sort of thing is the exception rather than the norm, so if somebody makes that claim I want to see the evidence that they know what they're talking about. That's all.

I don't understand why everyone here is being so hostile to my asking for an explanation. Maybe you're so used to people coming in here and refusing to hear what you're saying, refusing to accept the facts as they're presented, that you assumed that would be the case with me. But other than your statement earlier that Time is not a reliable scientific source (which I explicitly pointed out would be an acceptable response before you even said it!), not a single person here has even bothered trying to answer the question! Instead they all attack Goddard.

The National Academies of Science have a lot of good information

Videos-for the simplified overviews (science isn't static, some understandings have been refined since some of these videos were produced)

I will look into this one tonight when I'm putting the kids to bed.

There is an "Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change" Webinar on Friday the 10th

I'm afraid that falls out in the middle of Shabbat for me, so I won't have internet access.

Much more, if you are interested I'd be happy to put up a more extensive link to resources, but they aren't going to do you much good if you aren't willing to take the time and commit the effort to learn the science of the mechanisms at work.

I'm quite annoyed that you keep repeating this. I read a 19-page executive summary on the subject just yesterday and posted the questions and comments that arose. You are being hurtful for no reason.

Secondarily, we do enjoy helping others who have legitimate questions to find the resources they need to answer their questions. Unfortunately, there is a steady flow of pseudoscience cranks, political wankers, conspiracy theorists and trolls on steroids constantly disrupting such discussions with their agenda (plural of agendum).

Then I will thank you to stop confusing the former with the latter. I came here with legitimate questions, got some legitimate answers, but then one question happens to have arrived at me fourth-hand from Goddard and suddenly the entire environment in the thread turns hostile.

 

[uke2se]

hmmph second one in a couple of hours. ...makes my day...er night..or perhaps morning.....what the heck IS 3.30 am anyways.

It's nice to see, but I fear it's quite unusual. The deniers we have here appear to be the proselytizing kind, which is normally a sign of not thinking for themselves, but rather acting as missionaries for their gurus.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Where did the "no warming for 17 years" meme come from? I know of the obvious 1998 cherry picking, and the apparent concession by that IPCC guy, but where is the data? All I've read and seen shows that the majority of the hottest years have been in the last decade or so?

 

[Laidbackracer]

Yep...the models are doing real well.

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Temperature-Chart-RSS-UAH.png

Breach of rule 5 removed. Do not hotlink images from other sites without permission.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/16/...are-robust-because-they-can-predict-the-past/

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Laidbackracer View Post
Dr. Roy Spencer is the keeper of the UAH record. If you wish to deny this data because he is a christian good for you. Hardly scientific though.

it simply calls into question his judgement....and there is also a difference when he's a IDer as he is flat out refuting evidence...a trait repeated in his climate view.

I hear your fav Lord Monckton is snuggling up with the anti-evolutionists down under. A fit pairing.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...-anti-islam-anti-abortion-creationist-pastor/

 

[uke2se]

Where did the "no warming for 17 years" meme come from? I know of the obvious 1998 cherry picking, and the apparent concession by that IPCC guy, but where is the data? All I've read and seen shows that the majority of the hottest years have been in the last decade or so?

Good question. I haven't heard that particular meme before either, and as it's laughably trivial to disprove, I can only assume it comes from the echo chamber.