that is to say, bumps in the data equal in size to our current bump do not affect the trend, why are you concerned with this one?

whats to say there is not a dip coming up?

how do you explain the temperature bumps that you are concerned over today but not concerned over in the past? what caused them?

what if these were your views 1000 years ago? wouldnt your "bias towards reality" seem silly in hindsight? your bias it towards an agenda that im afraid isnt going to pan out.

your counterpart in the past is a laughingstock now. your weakness is actually never thinking you are wrong (and its heresy to say otherwise).

i find you to be a delusional tool, but maybe my weakness is thats the majority of posters here. i find myself to be the most realistic, however concrete or unreasonable that may be.

[Edited on July 12, 2012 at 12:08 PM. Reason : -]

7/12/2012 12:08:29 PM

Quote :

"your weakness is actually never thinking you are wrong (and its heresy to say otherwise)"

hilarious willy, hilarious

Quote :

"i find myself to be the most realistic"

oh man, this is rich.

jeez, you're the epitome of a hack.

[Edited on July 12, 2012 at 12:22 PM. Reason : ]

7/12/2012 12:20:36 PM

Bullet has taken over Jazon's place for criticizing the most people for no reason.

His posts are at least 90% troll posts and rising. JaZon topped out at a 99% troll post ratio before he finally stopped posting.

7/12/2012 12:24:51 PM

just stop posting genius, your act is old.

and i'm criticizing willy because he's criticizing people. that's a reason, isn't it?

[Edited on July 12, 2012 at 12:27 PM. Reason : ]

7/12/2012 12:26:23 PM

all bullet says is "hack."

not really anything to respond to or get upset over at this point.

7/12/2012 12:29:33 PM

^i don't respond to you because it's quite obvious you're a completely biased hack that is set in your ways and you'll do mental gymnastics to justify your biased views. it's not a lot of fun engaging in debates with people like that.

7/12/2012 12:32:42 PM

Bullet, please post your insight into global warming. Don't quote sources or use other people's ideas. Tell us what you think.

7/12/2012 12:44:49 PM

I tend to trust the vast, vast majority of scientists who say it isoccuring and that it very well may be accelerated by humans. but i wouldn't bet my life on it, and i'm willing to admit that there's a chance that humans have no affect on the climate, but I lean more the other way.

7/12/2012 12:48:45 PM

^^^
1) you said hack again.

2) i agree, you should abstain from any activities containing mental gymnastics; i dont think you are well equipped for the sport.

3) debates arent required to be fun, and to be effective in a debate situation you must learn to deal with all types of people.



you have a certain type, in other words, and anyone youre unable to respond to you simply call a hack. it doesnt have anything to do with my argument style or your intelligence, you just lock up because youre bad at this. im not trying to offend you but it might be worth your time to quit following me from thread to thread.

im not your type, and youve just admitted to being unable to debate me. therefore, i suggest avoiding me.

[Edited on July 12, 2012 at 12:49 PM. Reason : -]

7/12/2012 12:48:46 PM

^haha, the classic arrogant hack response. "you admitted you can't debate me".

nah, you're wrong, you can't engage in a debate with somebody who treats it as an athletic match and you and your "team" has to "win" by any means necessary, even if it means ignoring reality or logic. that's what hacks do, and hacks usually aren't worth dealing with. so yeah, you're right, i shouldn't even pay attention to your biased opinions.

7/12/2012 12:54:40 PM

hack count: 3

i now consider you to be a gimmick, almost a bot.

youre a very confusing and strange person, but i do recommend that you clarify the definition of the word debate before participating in another one.

and for the love of God please dont become a lawyer.

7/12/2012 1:08:50 PM

Quote :

"I tend to trust the vast, vast majority of scientists who say it is occurring and that it very well may be accelerated by humans. but i wouldn't bet my life on it, and i'm willing to admit that there's a chance that humans have no affect on the climate, but I lean more the other way."

Agreed.

However, I would bet my life on it.

I do my own little experiments over time:

I remember when I was a kid that it took a certain amount of time to burn from sun exposure. It used to be 30 minutes to an hour without sunblock. Now I get an unmistakable sunburn on my arm while driving to a store 15 minutes away. I have to consistently move my arm out of the sun because I can feel it burning under the skin, so it's not just the heat that I'm feeling.

I've also been watching the SPF news and the "recommended" minimum needed has increased over time.

What I found agrees with other studies:

Here is a chart for increased me melanoma over time: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/skin/incidence/uk-skin-cancer-incidence-statistics#trends

The rate of skin cancer has risen at an alarming upward trend.

Also:
"Many sunscreens do not block UVA radiation, which does not cause sunburn but can increase the rate of melanoma and photodermatitis, so people using sunscreens may be exposed to high UVA levels without realizing it." (this sentence copied from wiki)

[Edited on July 12, 2012 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2012 1:18:53 PM

thats because sunscreens have become weaker over time as the chemicals in "the good stuff" have been deemed not good for you.

you cant expect the new stuff to protect you to the same degree using carrot extract and salmon scales.

...just like new pesticides cant match DDT.

and typically any SPF beyond 40 is lying; cost benefit drops off sharply after that and might even be a completely ineffective product.

[Edited on July 12, 2012 at 1:28 PM. Reason : -]

7/12/2012 1:28:29 PM

Quote :

"Now I get an unmistakable sunburn on my arm while driving to a store 15 minutes away."

pussy

7/12/2012 1:29:28 PM

It's not about being a pussy or not, it's about what's happening to my arm. o_O It sunburns.

7/12/2012 1:37:36 PM

are you really pale? i'm just wondering why i can drive for longer than 15 minutes with my arm out the window and not get burned

7/12/2012 1:43:46 PM

My left arm is tan, my right arm is pale

7/12/2012 1:53:19 PM

if he has the window rolled up the glass could be magnifying it.

compared to your arm hanging out the window.

or maybe geniusboy is just a pasty bastard.

7/12/2012 2:13:55 PM

He might just drive really slowly. For all we know it might take him an hour to drive 15 minutes.

7/12/2012 2:22:11 PM

Quote :

"I remember when I was a kid that it took a certain amount of time to burn from sun exposure. It used to be 30 minutes to an hour without sunblock. Now I get an unmistakable sunburn on my arm while driving to a store 15 minutes away. I have to consistently move my arm out of the sun because I can feel it burning under the skin, so it's not just the heat that I'm feeling."

So you decide that UV ray exposure (on a planet wide basis) is up because your skin has gotten more sensitive to light as you have gotten older. And despite AGW proponents saying that the sun has little to no effect on the temperature changes experienced on Earth you specifically cite this as a reason you believe in Global Warming, despite that actually being a focal point for some skeptics.

I'm pretty sure neither camp wants you endorsing them

7/12/2012 2:26:41 PM

Quote :

"if he has the window rolled up the glass could be magnifying it. compared to your arm hanging out the window."

Was this sarcastic?

7/12/2012 2:51:22 PM

what the fuck is the matter with you? of course it was!

let me guess, [citation needed] ..?.

7/12/2012 2:55:35 PM

lol

7/12/2012 4:55:26 PM

derp! He sure showed me, what making fun of asking for evidence to support baseless assertions!



[Edited on July 12, 2012 at 8:20 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2012 8:11:45 PM

China produces as much CO2 per person as Europe: report


China's carbon dioxide (CO2) levels soared in 2011, putting its per capita emissions on a par for the first time with those of Europe, while global levels of the greenhouse gas hit another all-time high, a report released Wednesday said.

Last year, China's CO2 emissions rose by 9.0 percent, meaning the country produced the equivalent of 7.2 tonnes of the gas for each resident, according to the report by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the European Commission's Joint Research Centre.

http://news.yahoo.com/china-produces-much-co2-per-person-europe-report-163241274.html

7/18/2012 4:18:59 PM

Quote :

"New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homogenization Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8°C]."

Quote :

"Conclusions 1. Homogenization is necessary to remove errors introduced in climatic time series. 2. Homogenization practices used until today are mainly statistical, not well justified by experiments and are rarely supported by metadata. It can be argued that they often lead to false results: natural features of hydroclimatic time series are regarded errors and are adjusted. 3. While homogenization is expected to increase or decrease the existing multiyear trends in equal proportions, the fact is that in 2/3 of the cases the trends increased after homogenization. 4. The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is smaller than 0.7-0.8°C. 5. A new approach of the homogenization procedure is needed, based on experiments, metadata and better comprehension of the stochastic characteristics of hydroclimatic time series."

Further reinforcement of what some of us already knew.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/17/new-paper-blames-about-half-of-global-warming-on-weather-station-data-homgenization/#more-67591

7/19/2012 11:36:10 AM

You "know" it? That's awfully arrogant. And it's only one paper. I know it reinforces your opinion, but don't forget about the tens of thousands of papers that don't.

7/19/2012 11:38:59 AM

For god sakes people, the CEO of Exxon-Valdez has admitted that man made CO2 emissions are causing global warming. If that's not the all clear for climate science deniers to drop the act, I don't know what is.

7/19/2012 11:45:37 AM

^^the 10s of thousands of papers saying that temperature homogenization doesn't artificially raise recorded temps? Didn't know that many existed...

^Do you really think the big energy companies would say otherwise?

7/19/2012 12:04:04 PM

CEO of exxon valdez huh? lol

7/19/2012 12:06:48 PM

7/19/2012 12:07:07 PM

Typically, one waits for a paper to actually be published, so it can be subject to peer review, before flaunting it. Regardless, rebuttals are already in place:

http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/2012/07/investigation-of-methods-for.html

tldr (It's a long one): Neither the folks at wattsupwiththat or the authors of the paper they're flaunting most recently actually understand how data homogenization works. Also, as usual, the Watt's piece is littered with stuff taken from the slides, not the paper itself (Slides don't get peer reviewed, so you can slip things in there that might otherwise discredit the paper), and is peppered with shit that's just plain factually wrong...as usual for Watts.


[Edited on July 19, 2012 at 2:19 PM. Reason : .]

7/19/2012 2:16:25 PM

peer review, by whom? The climate scientists that want to continue the conspiracy????

7/19/2012 2:19:44 PM

hay guyzzz, that's goin on in here?

7/19/2012 2:23:06 PM

^^^both sides make mistakes and you vilify watts.

very objective there

maybe the author of the paper should have had his act together before going against someone famous for pouncing on this type of thing?

why give someone like watts even the tiniest inkling of ammo?

im no climate change denier, but im typically appalled at some of the doors left open for skeptics. even if it is "just a conference" i dont recall ever being crucified at one for making such a rookie mistake. actually i dont recall being questioned at all because i was under the impression i was supposed to be the foremost expert on my own work.

but i guess geospatial technology and urban analysis isnt the hot button topic that climate change is.

TLDR: i dont understand what the point of posting that link was as it pertains to this thread, but it was a good read anyway.




EDIT: and furthermore, nitpicking watts because he lumped whats in the abstract, the presentation slides, the final paper, whatever, is just weak. its technicality and its people like you just looking for something to jump on watts for. watts is a cunt and his blog is garbage, these things arent secrets. if you wanted to jump on him this is pretty small fries.

your abstract should be perfect, presentation perfect, final paper unassailable. end of fucking story. people like you are the reason folks like this dont proofread nearly as well as they should. they know if they put a toe out of line and get jumped by someone like watts then the internet will rise up and and come to their rescue. "oh thank god for the motherfucking sloppy ass student, he exposed watts for the cunt [we already knew] he was."

oh yeah we needed that! i think i would have preferred a conference entry that just kept watts damn mouth shut in the first place.


[Edited on July 19, 2012 at 3:12 PM. Reason : -]

7/19/2012 2:52:17 PM

Quote :

"Typically, one waits for a paper to actually be published, so it can be subject to peer review, before flaunting it. Regardless, rebuttals are already in place: "

Typically one ALSO waits for an article to be published before allowed a rebuttal to be published. Yet the gatekeepers of the scientific journals don't follow that rule for AGW skeptic articles. Then again, when the gatekeepers won't even allow studies to be published, and demand their own reviewers be the ONLY people allowed to review as a condition of publishing, well, what the hell do you expect? it's a beautiful Catch-22 you've put up: hey, you've gotta be peer reviewed to be published, but in order to be published, you've got to use our reviewers who will always reject your paper for publishing because they disagree with your conclusion.

Quote :

"Neither the folks at wattsupwiththat or the authors of the paper they're flaunting most recently actually understand how data homogenization works"

that's because, nine times out of ten, the fuckers doing the "homogenization" won't release their methods for scrutiny. DOH!

[Edited on July 19, 2012 at 3:15 PM. Reason : ]

7/19/2012 2:59:27 PM

Quote :

"Typically one ALSO waits for an article to be published before allowed a rebuttal to be published."

No they don't, lmao, you have no fucking idea how academia works at all, stop pretending to. There is absolutely zero good reasons to wait until after publish to rebut something, all that means is that something erroneous gets published when it could have been avoided.

Quote :

"and demand their own reviewers be the ONLY people allowed to review as a condition of publishing, well, what the hell do you expect"

Yes, typically when somebody publishes something (A journal, a newspaper, a blog) they like to have control over what substance they pay money to print. Journals are private publications like any other, the reason people submit to them is because they have a good reputation, and they have a good reputation because they're well-edited. Seriously, how far do you think a scientific journal would get if they advertised "We'll publish your paper as long as you can find someone to vouch for you! No standards at all on our side!"

aaronburro, you're free to start your own journal and accept submissions for it and print whatever dumb shlock you think passes for science. It will of course sink to the bottom of the trash heap as each of the cranks you allow into it ruin its reputation.

Quote :

"that's because, nine times out of ten, the fuckers doing the "homogenization" won't release their methods for scrutiny. DOH!"

Yet another scientific term aaronburro is completely unfamiliar with, so he puts it in quotes like somebody just made it up recently. As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about (yet insist on talking about it anyway) so you assume nobody else does either. Homogenization is exactly the technique used to compensate for biases caused by the urban heat island effect, and has been for over 10 years, so I'd think somebody like you would be familiar with it by now.

Oh wait, no, I wouldn't think that, because I know that you actually know very, very little about the science. You simply parrot 15-year old talking points that have been debunked over and over and over again.

Also to be fair: This was not a scientific paper, it was a conference submission which is usually composed of an abstract (less than a page long, reviewed) and a powerpoint presentation (completely unreviewed, and what Watt was referencing mostly).

[Edited on July 23, 2012 at 9:03 AM. Reason : .]

7/23/2012 8:51:31 AM

http://www.weather.com/news/greenland-melts-20120725

Greenland Ice Sheet Suddenly Melts

Quote :

"Nearly all of Greenland's massive ice sheet suddenly started melting a bit this month, a freak event that surprised scientists. Even Greenland's coldest and highest place, Summit station, showed melting. Ice core records show that last happened in 1889 and occurs about once every 150 years. Three satellites show what NASA calls unprecedented melting of the ice sheet that blankets the island, starting on July 8 and lasting four days. Most of the thick ice remains. While some ice usually melts during the summer, what was unusual was that the melting happened in a flash and over a widespread area. "You literally had this wave of warm air wash over the Greenland ice sheet and melt it," NASA ice scientist Tom Wagner said Tuesday. The ice melt area went from 40 percent of the ice sheet to 97 percent in four days, according to NASA. Until now, the most extensive melt seen by satellites in the past three decades was about 55 percent."

So I actually got into an argument with someone saying there was record ice not melting last winter to make the argument that global warming isn't occurring but maybe global cooling is. I just brought this article up to make the point it might be seen as a short term event. I get sick and fed up of people using a short term weather phenomena to say...see? see?

If these massive ice melt event occur more and more frequently over a period of time then you can make your case. Its a complex system... warming one place, cooling elsewhere... but humans do have an impact.... unless you believe God is pulling all the strings and humans have 0% impact whatsoever.

7/25/2012 11:08:05 PM

so in 1889 and every 150 years before that it was man made global warming yes?

7/25/2012 11:24:19 PM

I wouldn't trust records kept in 1889.


What existed in 1889?

Arizona didn't even exist in 1889.
Joshua Pusey invents the matchbook.
Sir James Dewar and Sir Frederick Abel co-invent Cordite - a type of smokeless gunpowder.
Auto Fishing Devise G. Cook May 30, 1899
Baby Buggy W. H. Richardson June 18, 1889
Curtain Rod S.R. Scratton Nov. 30 1889

Bicycle Frame L.R. Johnson Oct. 10 1889

Folding Bed L.C. Bailey July 18 1889
Folding Chair Brody & Surgwar June 11 1889
Golf Tee T. Grant Dec. 12 1889
Insect-Destroyer Gun A. C. Richard Feb. 28 1889
Lawn Mower L.A. Burr May 19 1889

Hell...The paper clip was invented in 1899

7/26/2012 12:29:49 AM

You wouldn't trust records kept in 1889? But thats part of the 150 years of data "on record" that all our future predictions are based off of!

7/26/2012 12:54:12 AM

I'm not sure what to make of your comment, treetwister.



[Edited on July 26, 2012 at 3:12 AM. Reason : .]

7/26/2012 3:11:05 AM

insect destroyer gun?

7/26/2012 8:49:29 AM

What I have learned on this page is that Genius Boy apparently does not have AC in his car and must rely on having the window down. This in turn has resulted in more sunburn on his arm which proves global warming exists.

7/26/2012 9:04:17 AM

Quote :

"What I have learned on this page is that Genius Boy apparently does not have AC in his car and must rely on having the window down. This in turn has resulted in more sunburn on his arm which proves global warming exists."

Is this really what you learned: That you can't get a sunburn if you have cool air blowing on your skin? If so, you just made yourself look really dumb.

7/26/2012 1:30:13 PM

I'm not sure what kind of credibility Bill McKibben has, but this column is alarming!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719



[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM. Reason : ]

7/27/2012 4:14:40 PM

Quote :

"Is this really what you learned: That you can't get a sunburn if you have cool air blowing on your skin? If so, you just made yourself look really dumb."

Glass blocks some (but not all of) the UV spectrum. No AC = window down = wider range UV rays reaching your skin.


[Edited on July 30, 2012 at 11:32 AM. Reason : .]

7/30/2012 11:31:34 AM

^You claim that glass blocks some UV rays.

Can you please provide a percentage of UV rays that it blocks?

7/30/2012 1:25:01 PM

Depends who you ask, but pretty much all sources I found with a cursory googling agreed windows reduce the risk of sunburn (short-term) but not the long-term risks like skin cancer, basically by blocking small wavelength UV but not the large.

http://www.smartskincare.com/skinprotection/uv-indoors.html

Quote :

" In the majority of modern cars, the windshield is built of laminated glass that blocks all of UVB and the vast majority of UVA. However, the side and rear windows are usually made from non-laminated glass and let much of UVA through. Clear non-laminated car windows allow up to 60-70% of UVA to penetrate. Tinting reduces UVA penetration to about 15-30%, a much better but still significant level. "

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/604882.html

Quote :

"Most glass used for windows blocks UVB but not UVA. This means that although glass might reduce the risk of sunburn, it does not prevent long term damage from UVA. So, if you are driving long distances or sitting in your conservatory every day for long periods of time, you need to make sure you are using sun protection on sunny days."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet#Natural_sources_and_filters_of_UV

Quote :

"Ordinary glass is partially transparent to UVA but is opaque to shorter wavelengths, whereas silica or quartz glass, depending on quality, can be transparent even to vacuum UV wavelengths. Ordinary window glass passes about 90% of the light above 350 nm, but blocks over 90% of the light below 300 nm"

[Edited on July 30, 2012 at 2:06 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2012 2:03:06 PM

7/30/2012 11:37:50 PM