Global Warming is over.

[BraveUlysses]

can't disagree

couldn't be more wrong, but this thread is a good example of all the different ways you can be wrong about everything.

[cale]

so cale, you contest antarctic sea ice extend is not normal? land ice mass has increased?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SeaIce/page4.php

Poles react differently, therefore global warming is a religion.

Argument from ignorance much?

[Thizzelle]

been pretty fucking cold where I'm at, must be global warming

[z31maniac]

been pretty fucking cold where I'm at, must be global warming

Record drought and high temps where I'm at.

Must be global cooling.

[rwh11385]

couldn't be more wrong, but this thread is a good example of all the different ways you can be wrong about everything.

Also proves that a 58 year old is less mature than people half his age.


And he attacks skeptical science's quick summary of anti-denial logic, but is too batshit scared to respond to any actual science? Can he only read Q5's posts when they reference skeptical science?

[Farbin Kaiber]

Record drought and high temps where I'm at.

Must be global cooling.

Come on, don't go trying to confuse the Climate Scientologists, they already had to change the name to Climate Change because of the flaws within the context of trying to rally society against Global Warming.

[Q5Quint]

So this is the difference between 'good' and 'bad' websites: the source.

Where did the information come from? Who's research was it based off of? Is there a link to the peer-reviewed paper? Or is it just a tabloid article with no fact checking, links to sources, opinions and possibly wrong views? Ie 'Faux News'.

Just because the tabloids say that obama is an alien and his starfleet of socialist black jews is about to attack the earth with a rainbow-ray that turns everyone gay does not mean that is real. Just because 'information' is printed on paper or on a website does not mean it is real.

A quick glance at the 'whats up with that' website.... it is painfully obvious that it is a opinion tabloid blog about denying global warming. Perhaps there is actually relevant information but it is hidden behind titles like "Reader poll – should I sue the pants off Greg Laden?" or So far, Al Gore appears to be losing ‘the climate bet’
Posted on January 19, 2013 by Guest Blogger"

Oh! The infamous 'guest blogger'! They are a really good source for information!

If you actually read the article you find that it is by" J. Scott Armstrong (born March 26, 1937) an author, forecasting and marketing expert" It is actually interesting that a market forcasting person bet al gore 10k bucks that the predictions for climate were wrong.... but I can't tell if he was just trying to sell his books or if suddenly the marketing dept at penn state decided it was worth it to start doing climate science?

The 'skeptical science' website posts links to scientific papers on every subject related to global warming.... so even if the site is run by al gore himself in his tidy-whities you must then take your argument to the source: the scientist and the journal that printed the article.

Example: "Global warming is caused by the sun, not co2."

On the skeptical science website they list these papers in the explanation:
(Meehl 2002)
( Wang, Lean, and Sheeley (2005))
(IPCC 2007)
(Meehl 2004).
(Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) )
(, Lean and Rind (2008))
( Shindell et al. (1999))
(Svensmark 1998)
(Lockwood 2001).
(Vieira and Solanki 2010)

Kazil et al. (2006) found:



"the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response...that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover"

Sloan and Wolfendale (2008) found:

"we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11-year cycle changes in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays."

Kristjansson et al. (2008) found:

"no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR"

Calogovic et al. (2010) found:

"no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude."

Kulmala et al. (2010) also found

"galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well."

I find it extremely interesting that after all that, mr J. Scott 'bet all gore 10 grand' Armstrong would still make a post titled: "Spot the Sun’s effect on climate" and then "July: 2012 continues similar to 2011, cooler than 2010" after all the '2012 was the hottest ever' links. (source: http://www.theclimatebet.com/)

If you have a honest opinion, and can explain it with links and research that are not inflammatory or obviously bias (what scientific papers are supposed to be), then your opinion is relevant, not 'right'; we don't know who is 'right' yet and cant for 100 years.

The opinion of a marketing forecaster is very interesting when considering how researchers are forecasting increasing temperatures. However, when I looked into it a little bit:

Green and Armstrong (2007, p.997) also concluded that the thousands of refereed scientific publications that comprise the basis of the IPCC reports and represent the state of scientific knowledge on past, present and future climates "were not the outcome of scientific procedures." Such cavalier statements appear to reflect an overt attempt by the authors of those reports to cast doubt about the reality of human-caused global warming ... [14]

So dude just says that all the references of the IPCC were not scientific, without backing it up, and now everyone hates him.

Climatologist Gavin Schmidt described Armstrong's wager as "essentially a bet on year to year weather noise" rather than on climate change.

gwb72tii and Q5, here lies the real issue no?
you believe wattsupwiththat is a crackpot website
i believe john cook and skepticalscience to be a left wing attack blog
both sides are overtly political in their aims
you have the head of the EPA hiding emails
and science gets corrupted

and i'm a skeptic
LOL

Yes it is a crackpot tabloid website because it uses inflammatory language and references non-scientific opinions and information.

A left-wing attack blog that references scientific articles without inflammatory blog-type opinion posts? I would love to see a 'skeptic' website do the same.

Not sure where you are going with the epa thing, or corrupt science, since you are just saying things now without letting me know the source. Obama's rainbow-gay-ray is about to get you unless you put on your tin-foil hat.

mr.Q, do you really want to support your views with john cook's website? and you accuse me of bias (or stupidity as herbal says)?
this is a website (skepticalscience.com) that:
1. repeats the 97% myth, which is so easily disproven its surprising anyone actually believes it. and further, science has never been about consensus. science is at its core anti-consensus.
2. al gorebasm's movie was judged in UK courts to have 9 major errors (lies) and educators must, if they show the movie to students, explain what the errors are and also explain that the movie is propoganda.
3. since global warming should, according to you, first appear at the poles (which maybe occuring at one and certainly not at the other), extreme weather events should recede, not go up.
etc etc etc
and herbal, you haven't proved anything, you've argued one side of the coin while ignoring the other. and i'm stupid? LOL

The 97% myth? Look at that list of cited scientific papers. Now refute them all. You can't just be against science because people keep proving the same thing~ you are saying gravity isnt real because there is a 97% consensus that we have no idea why it works.

Who cares about al-gore? he is a political celebrity that happens to like the global warming topic. Oh no- the al gores movie was wrong! Captain planet isnt real! You still haven't refuted all those sciency papers with your anti-global-warming papers. [B]al gore makes propeganda films, he is not a climate scientists, so you cant expect 'the truth' from that source like you can from a scientific study~ pick him apart all you want but you have still to pick apart every peer reviewed abstract from 1993-2003.[/B]

A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

"since global warming should, according to you, first appear at the poles (which maybe occuring at one and certainly not at the other), extreme weather events should recede, not go up.
etc etc etc"

What the hell are you talking about? According to me nothing~ I wont say it unless some climatologist says it. I will say that a general rise in temperature will cause climate-change... 'global warming' is the incorrect and out of date term since some places get hotter and some colder and historical precipitation amounts will change etc etc. We even found a paper earlier talking about predicted foliage changes and climate change.

It really amazes me how bad people are at debating things~ the 'mock trial' club in highschool has scarred me forever.

'There is no consensus'
http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...termediate.htm

not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004)

A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes.

They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010)

Technically, ALL scientists should be skeptics, and work to disprove the thesis they are supporting. The data is there and is available for anyone ( mann's hockey stick data) and yet somehow not a single paper using the same data to refute the conclusion exists. Even the aformentiond mr J. Scott 'bet all gore 10 grand' Armstrong is predicting a .5-1 deg C increase in temperature over the next 100 years with his error including forecasting models.

Pick a forecasting model, any model, because you cant refute that it is getting warmer.

[rwh11385]

Great post Q5, too bad he'll probably just ignore it and then repost a failed argument again a week later, from either Heartland, Heartland, Heartland, or an angry former TV weatherman named Anthony Watts.

[cale]

Carried over to keep threads on topic.

your ignorance is staggering, given even the AGW faithful know that the hottest year on record is prior to 1998. lulz
you make my point for me. what a dunce.

but never mind, this is not the AGW thread is it?

So because it peaked in 98' the upwards trend is no longer occurring? You definitely shouldn't be calling anyone ignorant with such a narrow vision of how climate change works. The temperature doesn't need to increase every year like clockwork for the average to be steadily increasing over the decades you scientifically illiterate twat.

Perhaps you should stop trying to twist facts to benefit your stupidity, maybe then you'll be able to comprehend a science which is regularly taught and understood by middle school students.

[gwb72tii]

gee cale, last time i looked, temps have been increasing for north of 10,000 years

eh?

and guess what cheesehead, you have no better understanding than anyone else here, and frankly its lame to use the arguments you use.
you have no response to no warming, and actual statistical cooling, since 1998

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/burt-rutan-this-says-it-all-and-says-it-clear/

but since that doesn't fit in with your prejudices, it doesn't mean anything at all.

and please, try something original in your rebuttal, like actually arguing the data/science

and its obvious you don't read much. i was screwing with you about the warmest year, its was for the USA only, and it was 1934

[cale]

gee cale, last time i looked, temps have been increasing for north of 10,000 years

At the rate they have been for the last 200 years? No, they most certainly have not been. Increases over such a short period of time like we're currently experiencing are what is alarming scientists. Do you contest this, or do you just prefer to willfully ignore it because it conflicts with your ignorance?

and please, try something original in your rebuttal, like actually arguing the data/science

I stand by my "you're a dyslexic ignoramus" argument in that you've had things addressed before, so stop with the no one every responds to me broken record spiel you seem to be stuck on. You get responses and seem to have a hard time addressing the information heavy responses from rwh and q5, so you move on to the next recycled argument.

But here it is, 98' was a peak year and that graph misrepresents the upward trend that is still occurring. It plays on the ignorance of the readers (ie. you) who see temperatures which are not higher than the year before, therefore AGW is bogus? Congrats on time and time again referring to denier hot spots to source your information from whilst we respond to you with links from Nasa and organizations which are at the peak of their study. That should tell you something, that you're a bottom feeder.

and guess what cheesehead, you have no better understanding than anyone else here, and frankly its lame to use the arguments you use.

I'm sorry you're of the belief that we're all as incapable of understanding science presented at a layman's level as you are. It's terrifying that we sent men to the moon nearly half a century ago yet scientific illiteracy as strong as yours is still common-place.

[rwh11385]

and guess what cheesehead, you have no better understanding than anyone else here, and frankly its lame to use the arguments you use.
you have no response to no warming, and actual statistical cooling, since 1998

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/burt-rutan-this-says-it-all-and-says-it-clear/

but since that doesn't fit in with your prejudices, it doesn't mean anything at all.

and please, try something original in your rebuttal, like actually arguing the data/science

and its obvious you don't read much. i was screwing with you about the warmest year, its was for the USA only, and it was 1934

I'm pretty sure almost everyone has a better understanding of science than you George, as has been demonstrated time and again. As has been demonstrated your complete and utter lack of ability to provide sources or facts to back up your ignorant claims [1934 comment].

Since you like people who post about climate change in Forbes, here is a free market think tank about your claim: http://www.cato.org/publications/com...history-barely

data clearly shows 1998 as warmer than 1934.

And frankly it is lame that you still use the "cooling since 1998" argument when it is simple-minded and short-sighted.

If it doesn't fit your assumption, then you ignore it.

And again, irony overload you telling someone to argue the science when all you do is reference a TV WEATHERMAN and attack science. And saying someone doesn't read much while you clearly don't read anything besides Zero Hedge and WATTSUPWITHTHAT. You wouldn't know what an original idea was George, you're told what to think every day and clearly never developed the ability to think for yourself.

[gwb72tii]

rwh you do know the IPCC Chairman, Rajenda Pachauri, is a train engineer, right? The same guy who wrote erotic novels. you can't make this shit up.

so does this look like global warming to you?
or is the data presented in the following chart wrong?


maybe increasing CO2 actually decreases global temps?

[cale]

I keep coming back for those kinds of senseless arguments.

[CorvallisBMW]

You do realize George that your graphic above only comes to the conclusion that there has been cooling in the last 23 years by SELECTIVELY picking 1998 as the year to break up a homogeneous data set in to 2 distinct categories...right? If you applied the same statistical fit model to the entire data set (1983 thru 2012) the global warming would be on the order of >1C, completely nullifying the argument of the idiot who made that graphic.

Splitting the data in to two sets and two trends around the year 1988 was done purely to further the loaded convictions of the person who made it.

Don't believe me? let's try an experiment: I'll pick a totally arbitrary date to split up the data and then I'll look selectively at only the data within that range. Sept '06 through Jan '08. OMG global cooling of over 0.6C! Wow, isn't that amazing! Huge global cooling? All climate scientists are idiots! /sarcasm