Global Warming is over.

[rwh11385]

"COOLING"

Um, did you really put up a chart with a r^2 value of 0.04??

[herbivor]

I just got back from Iceland last week to walk amongst the glaciers. I was there before in 2001. I did the same hike there last week as I did in 2001, except I went in early June this time whereas last time I went in late June. I was stunned to see that at the base of one of the glaciers there was a good sized lake that was hardly more than a small pond before in 2001. At the visitor's center to this National Park (Skaftafell if you ever visit), they have pictures of the what the glaciers looked like in the 1920's and what they look like today. The difference is startling. Nearby there is also a tourist attraction called Jokolarson. It is an entire large lake at the end of a large glacier with icebergs in it. It is absolutely beautiful and something that did not exist 60 years ago.

Global Warming is a smack in the face if you are willing to pay attention to nature, so obvious, you would literally have to be blind not to see its effects, and yet somehow people still can't see, which tells me they are literally blind or have not had the opportunity to observe nature. In either case, I feel sorry for them for missing the beauty of it all.

[cale]

nando, this is typical of anyone without facts to back up their argument.

in fact, i'm trying to save my children from the likes of you and your "oh my God, the world is ending, we have to do something, even if i'm wrong" attitude.

your side has had its way politically, aided and furthered by progressive republicans, since teddy roosevelt.

and where are we today?

in such a mess financially that it will take many many years to work our collective way back to financial health. your politics has bankrupted developed economies around the world. there is always a government solution to every perceived problem. lets just pass new laws and that will fix it attitude.

at what point do you actually realize your side has been a major FAIL?

you infer you're concerned with future generations? i call BS. you have no concern whatsoever. you'll spend whatever sum of money it takes to correct a perceived problem that no data, collected from those sympathetic with your side of the argument, supports.

you sir, and your politics, are bankrupting my children

Hmmm, I was not aware that the factuality of a particular science rested upon whether or not you were satisfied with its impact. Here I was thinking it was about whether or not the evidence lined up...

[Farbin Kaiber]

meanwhile, Colorado is having the largest wildfire ever.

Because we have charts going back to the Big Bang and all to quantify saying it's the largest ever, right?

[Fusion]

Most destructive, because it hit Co. Springs. Not the largest.

[gwb72tii]

Um, did you really put up a chart with a r^2 value of 0.04??

you know, this kind of response does not make you look smart and me less so, apparently your life's goal, no matter how many posts you write on whatever subject you choose.

can i do a linear regression analysis right this moment from memory? nope. could i figure it out? sure. am i going to? nope. there are too many eyes from the likes of you on stuff like this to call BS if it's wrong. can you do trig in your head? i used to when i did propulsion engineering. can i do it now? nope.

so, if you have a problem with the IPCC AR5, i suggest you email them and point out the errors. or email the MET and challenge their land/satellite data. or email roy spencer and challenge him on any subject related to global warming (oops i mean climate change, it's so much nicer when you say climate change don't you think? marketing 101) and be prepared to be schooled on AGW from spencer, because he is smarter than you on global warming, or the lack thereof.

[gwb72tii]

meanwhile, Colorado is having the largest wildfire ever.

yes yes yes, and the PNW weather is cooler than norm

neither of which mean anything

[rwh11385]

you know, this kind of response does not make you look smart and me less so, apparently your life's goal, no matter how many posts you write on whatever subject you choose.

can i do a linear regression analysis right this moment from memory? nope. could i figure it out? sure. am i going to? nope. there are too many eyes from the likes of you on stuff like this to call BS if it's wrong. can you do trig in your head? i used to when i did propulsion engineering. can i do it now? nope.

so, if you have a problem with the IPCC AR5, i suggest you email them and point out the errors. or email the MET and challenge their land/satellite data. or email roy spencer and challenge him on any subject related to global warming (oops i mean climate change, it's so much nicer when you say climate change don't you think? marketing 101) and be prepared to be schooled on AGW from spencer, because he is smarter than you on global warming, or the lack thereof.

I think most of us would disagree about that first point. It shows that you are ignorant about the points of the discussion yet feel fine in parroting someone else's points even if you don't understand them. Additionally, it explains why you fall victim to believing a fake scientist in Anthony Watts and really don't have any room to talk about methodologies or data manipulation since you don't have a comprehension about such things. My life's goal is far from concern of some grumpy man who lacks capability to discuss the subjects he interjects his biased opinion into, but it would be great if people who want to talk about such topics to be at least minimally educated about them. It doesn't affect my life that you refuse to be equipped with a proper understanding of statistics or modeling, but it certainly runs this thread into the ground with your insistent comments about things you do not understand. Why is it your general practice to attempt to impose your viewpoints on others instead of arguing based on facts, logic, or with reasoning? Do you think that repeating the same tired and broken excuse for a point will change anything? Do you think it will alter thermodynamic laws? What are you here for besides being a poster boy for confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance?

So you are too afraid to apply yourself to understand regressions right now because your mistakes might be called out, yet feel fine enough talking about how models are wrong or posting someone else's regression as a point? You are anti-intellectual to the point of sadness and somehow it makes sense because putting your work up for criticism is what research is about and the peer-review process. It is also what would have prevented us from believing the bullshit of Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, but that didn't stop the GOP from running with their mistakes as a basis for their budget planning. Proper questioning of science could have also prevented parents from believing vaccines cause autism, or politicians from telling everyone the HPV vaccine causes mental retardation (thanks Michelle Bachman) - mostly because they think abstinence-only education and faith is the only way society should roll and helping to prevent ovarian cancer wouldn't be worth having their teenagers understand what sex is. It is a fundamental flaw in society that people like you are not educated or informed enough about a subject yet aim to not only have a strong opinion but force it upon others. It shows how far we have come down to the least common denominator and towards pathos instead of logos in communicating (like the news) or in debate run by our "leaders" in Congress. No one like you wants to feel like an idiot on a subject, so they find misleading "experts" like Anthony Watts who boil it down simple-like for you and give you the impression that you are informed enough to debate, although for anyone who actually cares to be knowledgeable or understand the tools at hand (regression, scientific laws, etc) you are far, far out of place.

What kind of propulsion engineering did you do exactly? Or "mechanical engineering"? I'm quite curious at what they would trust to someone like you... particularly since you don't seem to remember the first law of thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed yet you seem to believe theories that energy simply disappears from our planet.

Yes, I can do trig in my head, as do my peers. We also understand OLS. And a smaller group of peers have done multiple regression not just basic linear. But that's not half as important as having basic logic to see where a chart is cherry picked (2004 is removed, look at the prior chart). If 2004 was there, there'd be a weak warming trend rather than a very, very, very weak cooling story. But the real point is that looking at 7 years of data, including lower solar activity and la nina's in 08, 11, and 12, ignore that fact that they are some of the hottest on record and does not show that climate change has magically stopped or that global cooling is in effect. Like James Hansen has been quoted by me multiple times in response to your banter about 15 years without warming... when el nino returns in force there should be upward movement again. But none of that is included in your understanding, whether it is to challenging for you to comprehend or you are too lazy yet want to keep 'discussing' a topic regardless. Stepping past the reason why you refuse to be informed enough to participate in an intelligent conversation about a subject, you continue to drag it down with simple-minded re-posting of content you don't know if it is worth a damn. And you might not think it shows, but it does. Every page and every post. Instead of equiping yourself with an understanding or defending your assumptions when questioned, you ignore the them and don't even attempt to defend your ignorance. Yet, why if you are self-acknowledging ignorant do you include yourself in the conversation?

I don't have a problem with the data, I have a problem with very poor analysis that is cherry picking and leads to the manipulation of the ignorant that don't know any better. Science should be discussed with some integrity, not molested into BS for self-gain, whether a blog, a book, or for politics.

If you want to repost information, you should be capable of discussing it or not post it at all. Unless you can get the poster to come defend their work like that one writer did (PopTech). This is a place for us to debate based on data, facts, logic, and reason - not to outsource our thinking to others and simply be an ignorant mouthpiece. Try to think for yourself and base your opinions on what you understand... although that might not get you very far. But it'd be far better than you parroting misleading and manipulation information from your biased sources that you lack the ability to understand they are misleading you.

So, learn a little something about the bullshit you are pushing, or just go back and worry about your mutual funds. Stop filling this thread with ignorance and that stupid flawed argument you repeat every other page without the ability to comprehend the other inputs/factors at hand and refuse to answer what happens to the additional energy absorbed.

[gwb72tii]

rwh unhinged lol

[cale]

Eloquent response, he addresses multiple flaws in the type of thinking you utilize to determine AGW is a fallacious science and you confuse it with frustration and anger. Once again, gwb fails at reading.

[rwh11385]

rwh unhinged lol

Typical George - trying to laugh off fundamental questions of your argument in a weak attempt to ignore them and avoiding answering them. Why would I be mad that you re-affirmed everyone's evaluation that you don't comprehend what you post, are too lazy to try to understand the subject, and too scared of everyone tearing you apart to post at any real depth or answer questions about the basis of your conclusions or stance? This is almost as good as you admitting you were an idiot on the subject and confirms that you have no place in the discussion, let alone the #1 poster in the thread with 370 entries full of logical fallacies. Fallacies such as what cale pointed out above in your appeal to consequences. (Scientists don't just get to ignore diseases because they bring bad news, unless of course it's a Heartland study for Philip Morris where lung cancer doesn't exist and cigarette smoke certainly doesn't cause it.) The bottom line George is it is time (and has been for quite a while) for you to choose to buck up or shut up, to put on your man pants and answer questions aimed at the foundation of your argument or to be quiet, but either way stop assaulting the thread with your ignorance and poor critical thinking skills.

[BraveUlysses]

rwh unhinged lol

why not actually add something of value?

why not actually add something of value?

why not actually add something of value?

why not actually add something of value?

why not actually add something of value?

why not actually add something of value?

why not actually add something of value?

why not actually add something of value?

why not actually add something of value?

why not actually add something of value?

why not actually add something of value?

Hmm.

[Q5Quint]

The problem is that the far right is being allowed to define what it means to be Christian. And that definition is judgmental, bigoted, sheltered, hypocritical, insincere and uncaring. To this we can add anti-science and anti-intellectual.

Yet, in contrast to popular perception, it is precisely because of my faith that I am pro-gay rights, pro-women’s rights, antiracist, anti-imperialist and committed to Jewish-Christian dialogue and reconciliation. That I proclaim Jesus as Lord means that I cannot participate in nationalism and cannot deny civil rights to my LGBTQ siblings or full health-care coverage to women. My faith is the reason I am passionate for freedom of (and from) religion. My faith is the reason I love education and support open and free inquiry. It is because of my faith that I am pro-science and cannot deny the evidence in support of the theory of evolution. I care for the environment because I believe God created the heavens and the earth, and to violate the created order and abuse Creation is to violate the will of God. I hold to these beliefs not in spite of my faith but because of my faith.

I’ve had enough of the far right defining what it means to be a Christian. It is time for progressive Christians to stand up and reclaim the vocabulary of faith. When speaking about social justice, we must use “biblical,” we must speak of God’s will for humanity.

Justin James King is a member of Zion Mennonite Church in Archbold, Ohio.

r^2 value of 0.04??

r^2 value of 0.04??

r^2 value of 0.04??

r^2 value of 0.04??

r^2 value of 0.04??

r^2 value of 0.04??

agelkerke (1991) generalizes the definition of the coefficient of determination:
A generalized coefficient of determination should be consistent with the classical coefficient of determination when both can be computed;
Its value should also be maximised by the maximum likelihood estimation of a model;
It should be, at least asymptotically, independent of the sample size;
Its interpretation should be the proportion of the variation explained by the model;
It should be between 0 and 1, with 0 denoting that model does not explain any variation and 1 denoting that it perfectly explains the observed variation;
It should not have any unit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeffic..._determination

It should be between 0 and 1, with 0 denoting that model does not explain any variation and 1 denoting that it perfectly explains the observed variation;

with 0 denoting that model does not explain any variation

r^2 value of 0.04??

with 0 denoting that model does not explain any variation

gwb72tii, is this your final answer?

[gwb72tii]

you are ignorant you don't understand them. you don't have a comprehension grumpy man who lacks capability to discuss the subjects minimally educated about them refuse to be equipped with a proper understanding things you do not understand. confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance
too afraid anti-intellectual not educated or informed idiot simple-like
challenging for you to comprehend too lazy refuse to be informed simple-minded ignore your ignorance. self-acknowledging ignorant
ignorant
bullshit ignorance stupid .

how to win an argument bobbie style

[gwb72tii]

gwb72tii, is this your final answer?

can you say "gotcha"?

i was hoping you or roberto might bring this up, because you and he like to have it both ways.
an r^2 of 0.04 doesn't mean there is no cooling or the trend is not present, it means it is not statistically significant

as an r^2 of 0.11 means as well in the warming graph.
in fact neither are statistically significant, but you knew that already.

so bob, where is the extra heat hiding?
and just what is it with you regarding people like watts and others regarding their education. you are proof education does not correlate into anything. and the links i've posted are to websites that post articles from others, not from watts etc. you can do better than this can't you?
can't you?
or you and mr Q and nanny equating being skeptical of the likes of jim hansen (you can surely do better than hansen, can't you?) with not caring about the environment. this is a sad, tired old, cheap slur that hides your inability to argue the points raised.