Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[hog88]

I guess you missed where Australia broke every temperature record in the books last year? And the massive flooding in the UK? Crazy drought in Asia? Heck we're experiencing pretty severe drought here in the western US (predicted by climatoligists 10 years ago, btw). Of course you can't tie any single weather event to global warming.

Cite your claims. The only measurements that have been outside the IPCC's range of projections are sea level rise and arctic ice decline.

If anything the IPCC's predictions have been on the conservative side.



Um, no? I'm not the one espousing (MULTIPLE) conspiracy theories.

:spank:

Wow more of the other peoples charts and graphs.

Maybe if you were capable of an original thought (no geologist I've met have been) you would understand what is going on. Sadly though you drink the AGW cult Kool-aid.

 

[MG1968]

interesting squiggles, Bart

and linking to a thinkprogress article, really?

what you see as calamitous events caused by AGW are actually cyclical patterns in the weather, again, events that the Farmers' Almanac were better at predicting than your precious IPCC

 

[Sandvol]

New paper finds droughts in China were more severe in the past when CO2 was "safe"



A paper published today in Climate of the Past reconstructs climate over the past 306 years in SE China and finds precipitation extremes were much more severe in the past when CO2 was "safe." According to the authors, the longest drought occurred from 1867-1932, the longest wet period occurred from 1934-1957, and the 19th century was the driest century. The authors find, "recent drought in 1993–2008 was still within the frame of natural climate variability based on the 306 yr PDSI reconstruction."

The authors also find precipitation was strongly linked to solar activity and the natural Asian-Pacific Oscillation [APO]. The tree-ring reconstruction also shows another non-hockey-stick with temperatures in the 1940's and 1650's higher than at the end of the record in 2008.



Reconstruction of the Palmer Drought Severity Index [PDSI] shows there is nothing unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented with regard to 20th century drought


Graph of tree ring index shows another non-hockey stick.







Clim. Past, 10, 509-521, 2014
www.clim-past.net/10/509/2014/
doi:10.5194/cp-10-509-2014

 

[BartW]

Whole lot of words to say " I really don't know shizz"!

Wow more of the other peoples charts and graphs.

Maybe if you were capable of an original thought (no geologist I've met have been) you would understand what is going on. Sadly though you drink the AGW cult Kool-aid.

Sick burnz dood. You’re really showing off your intelligence. Maybe you can answer some of my questions that the ‘skeptics’ continue to dodge.

Specifically, how does your conspiracy theory work? Who are the conspirators? What is their goal? How do they intend to achieve it? Where is the money coming from, and where is it going? How? Consider the following when formulating your response:

1. Climate scientists are typically paid 40-80k, with senior researchers breaking six figures. Not a bad salary, but not as much as academics in other physical sciences and not nearly as much as their contemporaries in the private sector. If climate scientists are in it for the money they're doing it wrong.

2. Climate scientists don't *need* global warming. Their salary doesn't depend on the outcome of their research. Projects are funded without knowing the outcome. And if global warming weren't real scientists would simply study something else.

3. If anyone could disprove AGW they would win a Nobel prize.

4. How is it exactly that global warming funnels money to brown people? The carbon tax is a regressive tax, meaning if anything it will be tougher on low income families and developing nations.

5. If it's a left-wing anti-business conspiracy, why do all those businesses and high profile conservative economists and politicians I've listed [Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, Shell, Statoil, Duke Energy, EDF Energy, Kodak, Fedex, Coca-Cola, Nike, L’Oreal, Wal-Mart, Dell, Apple, Microsoft, Google, General Electric, Walt Disney, ConAgra Foods, Wells Fargo, DuPont, Delta, Swiss Re, Munich Re, American Economic Association, World Coal Association, World Bank, IMF, Henry M. Paulson Jr. (a former Treasury secretary in the George W. Bush administration), Arthur B. Laffer (senior economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan), George Schultz (Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State), N Gregory Mankiw (Harvard economist who was economic adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign), Douglas Holtz-Eakin (chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors and economic adviser to John McCain’s campaign), and of course 97%+ of climate scientists and 100% of the world’s national scientific organizations? ] support the carbon tax?

For which of the following common denialist topics do you (all the 'skeptics' in here) reject the scientific consensus?

1. CFCs and ozone depletion
2. SO2 and acid rain
3. Vaccines and autism
4. Smoking and cancer
5. Big Bang
6. Moon Landing
7. Evolution
8. Holocaust
9. HIV-AIDS
10. DDT
11. AGW

What other conspiracies do you believe in?

 

[Sandvol]

How many peer reviewed studies now have obtained results contrary to Hockey Stick? Too numerous to count.

 

[BartW]

interesting squiggles, Bart

and linking to a thinkprogress article, really?

what you see as calamitous events caused by AGW are actually cyclical patterns in the weather, again, events that the Farmers' Almanac were better at predicting than your precious IPCC

LMAO. You're really standing by that astrology BS. Wow.

 

[BartW]

How many peer reviewed studies now have obtained results contrary to Hockey Stick? Too numerous to count.

Name them

 

[govols/cc]

I guess you missed where Australia broke every temperature record in the books last year? And the massive flooding in the UK? Crazy drought in Asia? Heck we're experiencing pretty severe drought here in the western US (predicted by climatoligists 10 years ago, btw). Of course you can't tie any single weather event to global warming.

Cite your claims. The only measurements that have been outside the IPCC's range of projections are sea level rise and arctic ice decline.

If anything the IPCC's predictions have been on the conservative side.



Um, no? I'm not the one espousing (MULTIPLE) conspiracy theories.

:spank:

We'll, in case you didn't know, global warming is a conspiracy theory. 💩🔥

 

[BartW]

New paper finds droughts in China were more severe in the past when CO2 was "safe"



A paper published today in Climate of the Past reconstructs climate over the past 306 years in SE China and finds precipitation extremes were much more severe in the past when CO2 was "safe." According to the authors, the longest drought occurred from 1867-1932, the longest wet period occurred from 1934-1957, and the 19th century was the driest century. The authors find, "recent drought in 1993–2008 was still within the frame of natural climate variability based on the 306 yr PDSI reconstruction."

The authors also find precipitation was strongly linked to solar activity and the natural Asian-Pacific Oscillation [APO]. The tree-ring reconstruction also shows another non-hockey-stick with temperatures in the 1940's and 1650's higher than at the end of the record in 2008.



Reconstruction of the Palmer Drought Severity Index [PDSI] shows there is nothing unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented with regard to 20th century drought


Graph of tree ring index shows another non-hockey stick.







Clim. Past, 10, 509-521, 2014
www.clim-past.net/10/509/2014/
doi:10.5194/cp-10-509-2014

I love how you always copypaste what hockeyschtick claims a paper says. You never read them. You probably never even read the abstracts.

 

[hog88]

Sick burnz dood. You’re really showing off your intelligence. Maybe you can answer some of my questions that the ‘skeptics’ continue to dodge.

You prove my point.

 

[FLVOL69]

$

 

[BartW]

You prove my point.

You prove mine. Y'all keep dodging my questions, and I'm going to keep pointing it out. You can't even come up with a coherent conspiracy theory. Just a bunch of innuendo. How am I supposed to take you seriously?

 

[Orangeslice13]

You prove mine. Y'all keep dodging my questions, and I'm going to keep pointing it out. You can't even come up with a coherent conspiracy theory. Just a bunch of innuendo. How am I supposed to take you seriously?

You should probably just give up and leave.




Go spend more time with your guy/girl Before the world ends and all.....

 

[tumscalcium]

Yippee the tin foil hat club came out to play



If you want me to answer something I’ve skipped point me to it. If you’re just going to repost the same question I’ve already answered multiple times don’t bother, I'll just repost my replies.

This reply would work for you if only you had answered my question. I asked once, you gave no answer, just some graph depicting no answer. I asked for an answer again and you gave no answer. I now ask a third time. I'm not digging it up a third time. Answer my question or just simply say you don't know.

 

[govols/cc]

You prove mine. Y'all keep dodging my questions, and I'm going to keep pointing it out. You can't even come up with a coherent conspiracy theory. Just a bunch of innuendo. How am I supposed to take you seriously?

Most safely assume the earth has undergone many changes in 14 billion years, maybe climate included. I mean some parts of land were once under the sea & vice versa. Do you think we could change that in today's modern era? Doubt it. The major point that makes it all a moot argument is even if a few people actually care the majority of the world don't give a damn. Gas will burn until there is no more. Industries will send plumes of black smoke in the air. Etc etc etc. You're fighting a losing war.

Ps, we can search for alternative fuels for a variety of reasons without all the bureaucracy bs

 

[Danl]

Most safely assume the earth has undergone many changes in 14 billion years, maybe climate included. I mean some parts of land were once under the sea & vice versa. Do you think we could change that in today's modern era? Doubt it. The major point that makes it all a moot argument is even if a few people actually care the majority of the world don't give a damn. Gas will burn until there is no more. Industries will send plumes of black smoke in the air. Etc etc etc. You're fighting a losing war.

14 Billion? Really?

 

[govols/cc]

14 Billion? Really?

My bad I was thinking of universe, 4.5 billion

 

[Orangeslice13]

14 Billion? Really?

Is "a long F/ing time" a more accurate number.

 

[Danl]

My bad I was thinking of universe, 4.5 billion

No problem. Its hard to drag some from 6,000 to 4 Billion. l just don't want to ask any more of them than necessary. LOL

 

[Orangeslice13]

If you don't own a solar powered dog house to heat or cool your pets then you're not serious about climate change.

 

[Sandvol]

What was the temperature in the Savannah area, or as close to the area, on March 3, 719000BC? I'm going to compare it to how tomorrow plays out. If you can grab me the mean global temperature that day it would be great as well. Thanks.


BART!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[BartW]

This reply would work for you if only you had answered my question. I asked once, you gave no answer, just some graph depicting no answer. I asked for an answer again and you gave no answer. I now ask a third time. I'm not digging it up a third time. Answer my question or just simply say you don't know.

What was the temperature in the Savannah area, or as close to the area, on March 3, 719000BC? I'm going to compare it to how tomorrow plays out. If you can grab me the mean global temperature that day it would be great as well. Thanks.


BART!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is my response to your OP.

I can't tell you what it was that day, but I can tell you the mean global temperature for that epoch.

The temperature in Savannah on March 3, 719000BC is unknowable and irrelevant. Why do you keep b!tching about it?

Will you ever answer my questions?

 

[Sandvol]

I love how you always copypaste what hockeyschtick claims a paper says. You never read them. You probably never even read the abstracts.

I love how you always copy paste hockey stick which is known to be falsified data.

 

[BartW]

I love how you always copy paste hockey stick which is known to be falsified data.

Show me the peer-reviewed literature that debunks the hockey stick. Oh wait, that's right, there is none. It's been confimed dozens of times since Mann's original work in 1998.

My posts have content. You do nothing but mindlessly copypaste from the same lame 'skeptic' website.

 

[Sandvol]

Show me the peer-reviewed literature that debunks the hockey stick. Oh wait, that's right, there is none. It's been confimed dozens of times since Mann's original work in 1998.

My posts have content. You do nothing but mindlessly copypaste from the same lame 'skeptic' website.

^^^^^^^^^^