Global warming discussion III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trakar said:
Please explain in common terms what the headers in your graph reading "model value MINUS data value" means and how this relates to refuting that 2014 is the warmest year since 1880 by a significant margin.
Click to expand...



This should help you understand Trakar ...

Satellites Confirm: CO2 Growth Does Not Regulate Global Warming
The answers: Nope; Nope; Nope; Nope; and Nope...and the questions: "Does CO2 regulate global temperatures?"; "Does CO2 perform as global warming control knob?"; "Does CO2 act like the world's thermostat?"; "Does CO2 cause rapid and dangerous global warming?"; and, "Does CO2 produce accelerating global temps?" - the recent satellite empirical evidence provides the answers, much to the chagrin of the climate-doomsday cult proponents.....
Click to expand...
 
I don't feel like going through thousands of pages, so I'll ask....


Has anyone come up with a good reason why the atmosphere wouldn't be subject to human activity? Why is it the only environment supposedly immune from negative human interaction?
 
NoahFence said:
I don't feel like going through thousands of pages, so I'll ask....


Has anyone come up with a good reason why the atmosphere wouldn't be subject to human activity? Why is it the only environment supposedly immune from negative human interaction?
Click to expand...

The bible says god would never destroy the environment again and that the rainbow is proof of that.

But you wanted a good reason, so no. There isn't one.
 
ehcks said:
That is, again, not a temperature graph. That is a temperature anomaly graph. That is a graph of the difference in temperature between that year and some chosen number. In this case, the average temperature between 1880 and 2014. The red line is 2014. As you can see, 2014 is above nearly all of the graph, meaning 2014 is exceptionally warm.

However, there is something wrong with the graph. I can't find another temperature anomaly graph that puts 1910 so high.
Click to expand...

exceptionally warm you say ! :cool:

Don't you know our variable star is at the start of a Grand Solar Minimum ?

IPCC Climate Research: Modern Global Cooling Accelerates To Its Fastest Pace In Last 30 Years - 'Unequivocal'
An analysis of IPCC's gold-standard HadCRUT surface temperature dataset not only confirms that global warming is AWOL but is morphing towards a dangerous global cooling trend - the climate research empirical evidence is unequivocal.....over the last decade the current global cooling trend accelerated to its largest 10-year rate during the modern era
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
You do realize that the reviewing process precedes publication, yes? :cool:
Click to expand...
When a paper has been published everybody can review it. That's the most intensive part of the whole process.

For instance, https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/the-designers-of-our-climate/

'The fundamental figure is the figure to the right, which illustrates how the feedback factor, or closed-loop gain, would influence climate sensitivity. Now, as is clear from the figure, the maximum value for the closed-loop gain – or feedback factor
latex.php
– allowed by process engineers designing electronic circuits intended not to oscillate under any operating conditions, is 0.1. Therefore, since no process engineer would possibly design our climate to have a feedback factor greater than this, feedbacks have to be small, and the equilibrium climate sensitivity has to be about 1K per doubling of CO2.'
Click to expand...

It's common for idiots like Monckton to hear about something like this maximum value closed-loop gain in electronic circuits as being valid for any process since he has no grasp of the subject. So ignorant is he (of pretty much everything but things people said in dead languages long ago, something easily learnt by rote and thus a suitable subject for study by a high-functioning inbreed) that he has no concept of how little he knows.

At this point the whole thing falls apart, of course.

From the comments there we have dana1981

'I rather doubt even the deniers will make much noise about this paper because it’s just so dumb. I did a quick dumpster dive over to WUWT for the first time in months – no mention of the paper. It was published in some Chinese journal, in its first edition since “entering a new era”, that era apparently being one in which they publish junk science.'
Click to expand...
Most deniers may avoid this rubbish but there are always outliers, as evidenced right here.
 
Haig said:
IPCC Climate Research: Modern Global Cooling Accelerates To Its Fastest Pace In Last 30 Years - 'Unequivocal'
Click to expand...

How I love Google. You got that from C3Headlines, an obvioous crank site.

The actual IPCC has said literally the opposite of that.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_LONGERREPORT_Corr2.pdf
SPM 1.1 Observed changes in the climate system
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are
unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of
snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen. {1.1}
Click to expand...

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade
since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years in the
Northern Hemisphere, where such assessment is possible (medium confidence).
Click to expand...
Bolding added.

Extra ETA: It took me five minutes to find this. Total. Five minutes to load Google, find what source you used, then find what was actually said by the IPCC. I almost beat the timer before the forum adds a "Last edited by" tag to put in the second quote which clearly states the literal exact opposite of what you said they said. For one, I love the internet. For two, you have to be intentionally wrong here. You're not even trying to look up anything but whatever already agrees with you.
 
Last edited:
ehcks said:
How I love Google. You got that from C3Headlines, an obvioous crank site.

The actual IPCC has said literally the opposite of that.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_LONGERREPORT_Corr2.pdf

Bolding added.
Click to expand...


You think NASA a crank site too ? :p

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate
Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed.
Click to expand...
 
Haig wants us to believe he is just being sceptical and then reveals his favoured sources. Lord Monckton and Marc Morano. :D
 
greybeard said:
Haig wants us to believe he is just being sceptical and then reveals his favoured sources. Lord Monckton and Marc Morano. :D
Click to expand...


I like NASA too :D

Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.
Click to expand...
 
Haig said:
exceptionally warm you say ! :cool:

Don't you know our variable star is at the start of a Grand Solar Minimum ?

IPCC Climate Research: Modern Global Cooling Accelerates To Its Fastest Pace In Last 30 Years - 'Unequivocal'
Click to expand...
2014 was the warmest year on record so yes, exceptional. The "Grand Solar Minimum" hasn't stopped that, which rather puts it in its place.

I'm intrigued, though : what do you imagine something we're at the start of has to do with the current situation?

And this "dangerous cooling" is alarmism of the wildest type, you should pay no attention. Global Cooling is a hoax perpetrated by coal-merchants and Papists, everybody knows that :rolleyes:.
 
ehcks said:
For one, I love the internet.
Click to expand...
How did we live before it? Well, we thought it was living and we called it living ...

For two, you have to be intentionally wrong here. You're not even trying to look up anything but whatever already agrees with you.
Click to expand...
I think it's unwitting, not intentional. Not wishing to be unkind here, but Haig is the epitome of the useful idiot. He looks no further than his trusted authorities because they've told him what's out there that matters, and the rest is lies.

Notice the way that Haig repeats stuff from his authorities which is actually unimportant. Haig assigns it importance because it's been presented to him as if it is. Such as the disproportionate increase in UV with sunspot number; of course most UV is absorbed in the stratosphere and is a tiny percentage of solar input anyway. We know that, Haig doesn't, and it doesn't occur to him to look it up. His authorities wouldn't have raised the matter if it wasn't significant, would they?

Of course they would, and did, and will again, but that's how you talk to useful idiots. It's how I do, anyway, and I find it works well enough.
 
CapelDodger said:
When a paper has been published everybody can review it. That's the most intensive part of the whole process.

For instance, https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/the-designers-of-our-climate/



It's common for idiots like Monckton to hear about something like this maximum value closed-loop gain in electronic circuits as being valid for any process since he has no grasp of the subject. So ignorant is he (of pretty much everything but things people said in dead languages long ago, something easily learnt by rote and thus a suitable subject for study by a high-functioning inbreed) that he has no concept of how little he knows.

At this point the whole thing falls apart, of course.

From the comments there we have dana1981


Most deniers may avoid this rubbish but there are always outliers, as evidenced right here.
Click to expand...

Awesome! it appears that this is an easily spotted flaw being noted among those who can actually read and comprehend some of the horrid mish-mash that has been tossed (note the continuing salad references ;) ) to dress this paper up as actual science,...I wonder if the Chinese journal reviewers were native English speakers?

(I almost feel proud of myself now for noticing the same thing, what's the name of this wordpress blog? I may have to give it a book mark so I can see what other tidbits it offers! - ah there it is in the link "And then there's Physics" sounds familiar, I bet it used to be one of the ones on the Science Blog roll.)
 
NoahFence said:
Has anyone come up with a good reason why the atmosphere wouldn't be subject to human activity? Why is it the only environment supposedly immune from negative human interaction?
Click to expand...
Coming up with a good reason when the atmosphere has already been changed is quite a challenge, but some people love those. You have to come up with other reasons why it's changed, or reasons why it hasn't changed at all, which is mostly what we see. None of them are any good either.
 
NoahFence said:
I don't feel like going through thousands of pages, so I'll ask....


Has anyone come up with a good reason why the atmosphere wouldn't be subject to human activity? Why is it the only environment supposedly immune from negative human interaction?
Click to expand...

Because that would imply culpability and the need to create policies to eliminate and ameliorate such influences,...of course, if you say it like that it is unlikely to result in you achieving your goal of continuing the current status quo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom