Global Warming is over.

[rwh11385]

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.

Have you ever thought deep enough about the charts to consider the fact that global temperature isn't determined simply by the passing of our calendar years? Perhaps it has a bit to do with solar activity and el nino / la nina, which have been mentioned multiple times. I'm not sure there are any modeling that ignore all inputs besides what year it is... but somehow you found it worthwhile to post charts that did just that... maybe it is because you have no understanding of what you are attempting to discuss?

As mentioned on multiple occasions in the thread, there was a significant discovery deep in the oceans of heat that was not accounted for. But that still means the greenhouse effect is having the planet absorb more heat than it expels.

Really? Is this a repeat of your weak argument that Bill Gates didn't graduate from college so education is worthless? Can you be any more anti-intellectual? Why not ask the opinion about climate change from the homeless guy downtown?? He at least isn't on Heartland's bankroll!

how to win an argument bobbie style

Amazing how you still are too chicken to answer any of the questions about the foundation of your position. If you don't want to participate in a meaningful way, why are you posting in this thread?

[nando]

I think George just looked up the meaning of R^2. probably yesterday at 2:30pm. Oh but you were just seeing if we were paying attention, right?

I'd like to point out that .11 is almost 3x larger than .04. I think he forgot to look up the meaning of division and multiplication, and rounding to significant digits.

Also, it's curious how the longer time period you look at, the stronger the warming trend is (and the larger R^2 becomes - the "cooling" trend completely disappears). We could mention how when you pick a dataset that matches what you want to see, you can make the chart look like anything but it's not like we've said that before..

[BraveUlysses]

Amazing how you still are too chicken to answer any of the questions about the foundation of your position. If you don't want to participate in a meaningful way, why are you posting in this thread?

Because you keep responding to his trolling.

[Q5Quint]

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.

So your argument is that because the 'cooling trend' you cherry picked from 2006-2013 is r- .04 aka 3x less statistically significant than the 'warming trend' from the same website charts that is from 1997-2013... r-.11 that you conclude there is no warming. This seems like a illogical conclusion.

Not sure where the 'gotcha' comes from. Your data says it barely cooled from 06-13, but if you look at 97-13 it is def warming.

Now to tear apart your source once again.



The 'http://lordmoncktonfoundation.com/' watermark gives it away.

Christopher Monckton is a non-scientist AGW denier, who has had articles published in The Guardian and in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter[1] of the American Physical Society (whose Council subsequently disagreed with Monckton's conclusions)[1] claiming that global warming is neither man-made nor likely to be catastrophic. Monckton has made various false claims in the past such as that he is a member of the British House of Lords.[2], a Nobel Prize winner, inventor of a cure for HIV, winner of a defamation case against George Monbiot and writer of a peer-reviewed article.

And it gets better:

The "Monckton Manoeuvre"

Journalist Peter Hadfield coined the term "Monckton Manoeuvre" (alternate: Monckton Maneuver) to describe Monckton's tactic of changing his position when shown to be wrong and pretending that his position hasn't changed.[16]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/11/1173691/climate-denier-lord-moncktons-ipcc-appointment-that-wasnt/?mobile=nc

House Of Lords membership claim
Despite the passing of the 1999 House Of Lords Act (which stripped hereditary peers of instant admission to the House Of Lords) Christopher Monckton has claimed that he is "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature"[17]. More recently he has claimed that he is a member "without the right to sit or vote"[18]. The House Of Lords themselves state that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."[19] When Monckton persisted with the lie, the House of Lords took the unprecedented step of publishing an open letter to him, demanding that he cease and desist.[2]

He has an excellent rap sheet. Are you sure you want to listen to his opinions? I would assume a grad student working on a thesis would have less of a bias than a bat-shit crazy non-lordship liar about a nobel peace prize climate denier....but I am sure you will have a comeback to that.

2011: Swastikas for those who accept climate science
At the right wing American Freedom Alliance conference "Big Footprint: Is Green the New Tyranny" in Los Angeles in June 2011, as a grand finale, Monckton displayed on the giant conference screen a large Nazi swastika next to a quote from Adolf Hitler. A few seconds later came another quote, next to another large swastika, from Australia's climate change advisor Professor Ross Garnaut, which suggested that "on a balance of probabilities, the mainstream science is right" on human-caused climate change.
Professor Garnaut's opinion was, according to the presiding hereditary peer, a "fascist point of view".[25]
Monckton later described himself as "catastrophically stupid" for having made the comparison.[26] Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard described Monckton's actions and remarks as "very offensive and grossly unacceptable".

Nice- comparing climate agw believers to literally hitler.

You sure showed us!

Although you just showed two graphs that prove the world is warming, and some bad articles from bias sources that cite no sources.

Is this how you convince people your opinion is correct? :loco:

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.

It seems that you are the one with the inability to argue, as you must result to personal insult, outright lies, crazy lords-that-are-not-lords, cherry picking.... etc.... to even attempt to validate your point.

I am also a skeptic, hence why I check the sources and actually try and read some of the articles I post. If you keep posting things that prove the world is warming it really confuses me as to what your opinion actually is.

I think we should all help you find legitimate sources that 'prove' non-agw or agw influence % in global warming (because it is warming naturally anyway, you cant deny that).

Lets post some peer reviewed journal articles of real research that delve into this issue.

[Q5Quint]

Detection of human influence on twentieth-century precipitation trends

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7152/full/nature06025.html

A half-century of changes in China's lakes: Global warming or human influence?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...nticated=false

Will environmental changes reinforce the impact of global warming on the prairie–forest border of central North America?
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/080191

The Role of Human Activity in the Recent Warming of Extremely Warm Daytime Temperatures

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4150.1

Modeled Impact of Anthropogenic Warming on the Frequency of Intense Atlantic Hurricanes
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5964/454.short

Several recent models suggest that the frequency of Atlantic tropical cyclones could decrease as the climate warms. However, these models are unable to reproduce storms of category 3 or higher intensity. We explored the influence of future global warming on Atlantic hurricanes with a downscaling strategy by using an operational hurricane-prediction model that produces a realistic distribution of intense hurricane activity for present-day conditions. The model projects nearly a doubling of the frequency of category 4 and 5 storms by the end of the 21st century, despite a decrease in the overall frequency of tropical cyclones, when the downscaling is based on the ensemble mean of 18 global climate-change projections. The largest increase is projected to occur in the Western Atlantic, north of 20°N.

I dont think some people understand how serious this is. Doubling of category 4 and 5 hurricanes? Stop posting blogs and start posting papers. I am putting together some resources for 'smart people' / nerds to think about.

Even if human-caused warming isnt real- and the earth warms anyway- we have some shit to take care of. The 'denier' lifestyle needs to turn back into a paranoid survivalist. Go buy some beachfront property if you really don't believe the science. I dare you.

[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 ago.

I just watched an excellent documentary called "Chasing Ice". Check it out. It shows amazing time lapse photography of the retreat of the glaciers, including the one I viewed when I was in Iceland. Dramatic Visual evidence of Global Warming. It doesn't get any more obvious than this.

[rwh11385]

Audi opened their e-gas plant today: http://www.automotiveworld.com/news-...-gas-facility/

Like their technical partner's plant in the US (although a bit different in processes and outputs), Audi uses CO2 as feedstock to produce automotive fuel. I mentioned Joule Unlimited before, and could poise to be a major disruptor... in a good way (unless you're big oil maybe and on the discovery side not processing side).

[herbivor]

It'll be the chemists that save the planet.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130626143110.htm

Cliff notes: MIT invents Cheaper CO2 scrubbers that are 90% efficient.

[BraveUlysses]

For our resident retard troll

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/hockey-stick-graph-climate-researchers-defamation-suit-to-go-forward/

A year ago, Penn State was reeling in the wake of revelations that its athletic program had covered up serial abuse by one of its football coaches. A blogger at the pro-free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute used that situation as an opportunity to suggest that the university was covering up malfeasance by one of its faculty members, climate scientist Michael Mann. The accusations of research fraud were then reiterated by a blogger at the conservative publication National Review. After a bit of back-and-forth between Mann and the two organizations, Mann filed a defamation suit.

Both National Review and the CEI attempted to have the case thrown out. They argued that it met the SLAPP definition of an attempt to silence critics and that Mann's case fell far short of the standards of defamation of a public figure. Now, a judge has denied both of these attempts, allowing the defamation trial to move forward.
Fighting with hockey sticks

Mann first attracted the ire of those who question the scientific community's conclusions about climate change due to his publication of what's become known as the hockey stick graph. The graph showed that temperatures have swung up dramatically over the last century after centuries of relative stability. That graph is nearly 20 years old now and has been superseded by further studies (some done by Mann himself), all of which have produced substantially similar results. But many of the people who doubt the conclusions of climate scientists remain fixated on Mann's graph as well as Mann himself. Opponents regularly accuse him of scientific misconduct.

Because of the attention focused on the hockey stick—and because some of Mann's e-mail exchanges with fellow scientists were taken during a hack of the servers at the University of East Anglia—his work and conduct have been the subject of numerous inquiries. These have been performed by organizations including US and UK government agencies, a number of universities, and the National Academies of Science. All of these have concluded that Mann's work and conduct have been solid, and that fact may play a key role in this case.

One of these inquiries, by Penn State (where Mann is currently faculty), sparked the columns at issue. If Penn State failed to make a sufficient inquiry into its football program, a writer at the CEI reasoned that it's likely the institution is incapable of investigating its scientists carefully. That argument was couched with phrases that indicated Mann was clearly guilty of scientific fraud and comparisons between the scientist and a convicted child molester (two of these sentences have since been edited out). Similar accusations were echoed by the National Review.

Mann's suit isn't based on the analogy with child molestation; instead, it goes after the accusations of fraud. These include phrases such as "data manipulation," "scientific misconduct," and "intellectually bogus." Mann was called "the man behind the fraudulent climate-change 'hockey-stick' graph" and a "poster boy of the corrupt and disgraced climate science echo chamber."
The suit lives

After attempts to get the articles pulled and an apology issued, Mann sued for defamation. The parties involved tried to have the suit thrown out on two grounds. One is the District of Columbia's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, which seeks to block harassing lawsuits meant to silence critics. The second is that Mann is now a public figure, and the suit doesn't meet the high standards that public figures have for establishing defamation. The former issue was handled by a look at the history of the legislation, which indicated that the anti-SLAPP legislation was not intended to apply to cases like this one.

The second is more complex and perhaps more interesting. The court did find that Mann is now a public figure, which makes sense. He's been involved in other lawsuits and targeted by multiple inquiries. Mann even wrote a book (The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars) about the whole experience. He makes regular speaking appearances at universities and in support of his book.

Given that he's a public figure, a defamation suit requires that the defendants have made their statement with "actual malice," which is defined as acting either "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." This is meant to protect vigorous arguments, including those made in public using flamboyant or exaggerated language. The defendants at National Review and CEI argued that they were simply using exaggerated language and that there's no way to establish a reckless disregard for the truth. (In fact, the National Review suggested that "issues of science are opinion because 'scientific truth is elusive.'") Thus, they argued that Mann's suit is baseless.

The court did not agree, concluding that "the evidence before the Court, at this stage, demonstrates something more and different than honest or even brutally honest commentary." Elsewhere, it noted that, as phrased, the columns' argument "questions facts—it does not simply invite the reader to ask questions." All told, the columns "are not pure opinion but statements based on provably false facts" (a footnote notes that "the court does not view this as a very close case").

In general, the decision suggests that there is a reasonable chance that Mann can show the "Defendants disregarded the falsity of their statements and did so with reckless disregard." The ruling notes that the organizations have called for Mann's investigation multiple times; "if anyone should have been aware of the accuracy (or findings that the work of Plaintiff is sound), it would be the [National Review] Defendants." Thus, continued attacks on Mann may be construed as a reckless disregard for the truth.

This finding does not mean that the Court concluded there was actual malice. Instead, it views that as a job for the discovery process, in which each side can request relevant documents. The court is simply concluding that there are grounds for a defamation suit, so the case can go forward.

The discovery process in this suit, should it eventually proceed to that point, could be interesting. It's not clear what records, if any, individuals in these organizations kept regarding their climate advocacy. And the National Review has threatened to go after Mann's e-mail and turn this into a repeat of the experience that made him a target of multiple inquiries in the first place. For his part, Mann seems indifferent to this threat. He told Ars, "I'm pleased that the judge threw out National Review and CEI's motion to dismiss the case." (None of the other parties have yet to respond to our request for comments.)

In any case, it will take a while to resolve. The next hearing isn't scheduled until September, and there will undoubtedly be further legal wrangling before anything gets decided.

[MAXELHOFF]

Pnas Yes PNAS. If we can't trust our PNAS what can we trust?

Does anyone have a subscription of "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America"? To view the study entitled- "Rapid accumulation of committed sea-level rise from global warming". If so, what's the scoop?http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/07/26/1312464110 Sited in this blurb. http://www.theguardian.com/environme...iami-sea-level

[herbivor]

Does anyone have a subscription of "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America"? To view the study entitled- "Rapid accumulation of committed sea-level rise from global warming". If so, what's the scoop?http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/07/26/1312464110 Sited in this blurb. http://www.theguardian.com/environme...iami-sea-level

No, but you can pay the $10 to read it. It doesn't sound like anything new though that wasn't already predicted by modeling. So far the older models used to predict sea level rise (that are considered by many to be far less precise then current models), have been exact in their prediction of the amount of sea level rise we have been experiencing so far.

[gwb72tii]

maybe we need to start a new thread under GLOBAL COOLING

and no, these records are not/were not predicted with current/past mathematical climate computer models (which cannot predict much of anything)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/30/july-ends-on-a-frigid-note-as-record-cold-outpaces-warmth-nearly-10-to-1/

[BraveUlysses]

reductio ad absurdum

[gwb72tii]

reductio ad absurdum

i found this and it reminds me of you mr brave, among others

“Calvin: The more you know, the harder it is to take decisive action.
Once you are informed, you start seeing complexities and shades of gray.
You realize nothing is as clear as it first appears. Ultimately, knowledge is paralyzing.
Being a man of action, I cannot afford to take that risk.

Hobbes: You're ignorant, but at least you act on it.”
― Bill Watterson, The Authoritative Calvin And Hobbes

[BraveUlysses]

George, you're on my ignore list. I don't even read your posts anymore.

After you inevitably make another stupid post about global warming, I like to play a game where I pick a logical fallacy that you're likely abusing, post it after your terrible post, and then come back later to see how right I was and how much it rustles your jimmies.

Mission accomplished.