7/30/2012 11:44:52 PM

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120730094153.htm

SEE, GLOBAL COOLING. GLOBAL COOLING STAN.

Quote :

"In the years after Columbus' voyage, burning of New World forests and fields diminished significantly -- a phenomenon some have attributed to decimation of native populations by European diseases. But a new University of Utah-led study suggests global cooling resulted in fewer fires because both preceded Columbus in many regions worldwide."

Also, humans have no impact on climate change. Only God and your savior, Jesus Christ, do.

< / sarcasm >

7/31/2012 9:13:47 AM

^^sorry, can someone explain what "temp anomalies" are?
to me, that chart doesn't seem to show much at all. the average temp of dec-jan-feb has gone down ever so slightly in 15 years (but the '98 and and '07 anonmalies are only .05 degrees different)?

7/31/2012 9:35:48 AM

The ones that start in 1998 are the cutest.

7/31/2012 10:01:47 AM

pretty colors.

7/31/2012 10:33:53 AM

I don't even understand what's going on in this thread anymore

7/31/2012 11:04:22 AM

^ This thread is about the real dangers of global cooling that the liberal left are ignoring.

7/31/2012 11:51:26 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/former-climate-change-skeptic-now-says-global-warming-134617449.html

7/31/2012 4:08:17 PM

As I understand it, a temperature anomaly is a departure from some reference point. For example, the difference between observed temp and long-term mean.

kdogg's chart doesn't say what the reference point is for his graph (which is important). But, regardless, the anomaly it reports is greater than zero from 1998 to 2012. That means winter was warmer than "average" EVERY YEAR for the past 15 years. Hooray for global cooling!!!

I think kdogg wants to say the average anomaly might be falling back toward the unstated reference point, but then again it might not be. Oddly enough, the graph doesn't report any measures of statistical significance. So in the end, it tells us nothing except we've been having abnormally warm winters. Not exactly the message kdogg wanted to get across.

Is it me, or does someone HAVE to post these kinds of USELESS graphs on every single page of this thread????

[Edited on August 1, 2012 at 1:00 PM. Reason : ``]

8/1/2012 12:48:13 PM

^^Muller never was a skeptic, and that news is 3-5 months old. In fact I'm pretty sure we covered it earlier in this thread.

^I think what he was trying to convey is that despite CO2 levels reaching new heights (in the modern era) global temperature increase in the last few years has slowed down, stopped and/or changed directions. Obviously the starting date, 1998, was a particularly hot year but I think with the point trying to be made it's not an issue.

8/2/2012 8:27:47 AM

^ If the point of the graph is ONLY about the link between CO2 and temp, then I am not sure why they chose the title "Modern Global Cooling". It especially odd since (as the figure shows) all 15 winters were warmer than long-run average (or whatever the reference point is).

But, if the main point of the figure is to show no relationship between CO2 and temp, then it doesn't show that either. NO ONE ever made the claim that temps must rise linearly with CO2 levels. There are multiple factors that influence winter temperatures any given year. So no one should be surprised that even though CO2 levels have risen every year, we still see some winters that a cooler than others.

No matter how you slice it, this chart is at best uninformative and at worst down-right contradicting itself.

[Edited on August 2, 2012 at 1:51 PM. Reason : ``]

8/2/2012 1:45:20 PM

kdogg(c), do you care to share your purpose for posting that graph and what you think it shows?

8/2/2012 2:13:01 PM

Wow that graph is a textbook example of how to lie with statistics. The correlation for the data points used is weak and visually obviously so. The time frame used represents only a small portion of the available data (even if one only accepts data collected using relatively accurate and modern methods - which date back to the 1960s.) If combined with the data for even a decade further back, the correlation for and magnitude of the trend-line dwarf those generated with the selectively truncated data.

When you leave out available data because it does not fit with your desired narrative, you are not a scientist but a fraud. This is independent independent of how right you think you are in your belief in your position or whether your position is even ultimately correct.

Note I'm referring to the slime who created that graph not to people fooled by it.

[Edited on August 2, 2012 at 8:41 PM. Reason : run on sentences]

8/2/2012 8:41:04 PM

LMAO, it is only looking at Dec-Feb and it uses very short term data. Very misleading.

8/2/2012 8:54:38 PM

Quote :

"NO ONE ever made the claim that temps must rise linearly with CO2 levels."

Quite true, but then again historically temperature rise has always preceded a rise in CO2 concentration. And nobody seems to care too much about that inconvenient tidbit

8/3/2012 3:37:32 PM

Who's ignoring this point? It doesn't mean that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. Just that it wasn't the initial cause of the temperature rise historically but says nothing about the most recent temperature rise since the usual suspect (the sun's output, or increased eccentricity relative to the sun) hasn't had significant increase in the last 40 years.

[Edited on August 6, 2012 at 10:13 AM. Reason : .]

8/6/2012 10:01:29 AM

I don't know about you guys... but what are some way to get CO2 out of the air?


Shouldn't we be planting more trees?

8/6/2012 12:14:33 PM

^ Right, plant a fast-growing tree then cut it down and put it in a landfill.

8/6/2012 1:12:52 PM

^^vegetation across the planet is already increasing, due to the CO2 rich (comparatively) environment. All without the help of man..imagine that.

8/6/2012 1:18:45 PM

Climate Change is here and it's worse than we thought:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-change-is-here--and-worse-than-we-thought/2012/08/03/6ae604c2-dd90-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html

James E. Hansen directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

When I testified before the Senate in the hot summer of 1988 , I warned of the kind of future that climate change would bring to us and our planet. I painted a grim picture of the consequences of steadily increasing temperatures, driven by mankind’s use of fossil fuels.

But I have a confession to make: I was too optimistic...

8/6/2012 3:52:46 PM

Planting trees doesn't help curb global warming (at least outside tropical regions)
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/5-green-myths5.htm

8/6/2012 7:19:12 PM

Quote :

"When you leave out available data because it does not fit with your desired narrative, you are not a scientist but a fraud."

You mean like Michael Mann and his buddies, the biggest players in the "science" behind AGW routinely do and have been shown to have done?

8/6/2012 7:51:57 PM

There are no numbers of players "behind" the science. Science doesn't work that way. In before you complain about smoothing and models not being exposed or some other horseshit.

The sun has not had any abnormal spikes in output in 40 years and our eccentricity isn't due to increase for several tens of thousands of years. What in the fuck is causing the warming? Or do you believe that there is no warming? And around and around we go.

8/7/2012 12:06:00 AM

God pooted.

[Edited on August 7, 2012 at 12:41 AM. Reason : solar output is actually declining]

8/7/2012 12:39:27 AM

Quote :

"You mean like Michael Mann and his buddies, the biggest players in the "science" behind AGW routinely do and have been shown to have done?<!--"

I would include a scientist manipulating data to support certain conclusions as being unacceptable; that's why I phrased it as I did.

The specific incident you mention though was not what it seems you may have made it out to be though. That had more to do with failing to clarify where proxy temperature measures ended and modern direct temperature measurements began. The only thing routine about the whole issue was the practice and practical need of combining multiple sources of temperature measurement data.

Since proving other scientists wrong is where a scientist makes a name for themselves, the idea that one could meaningfully misrepresent the bulk (and public) data without being eviscerated by an ambitious post-doc is a bit unrealistic.

[Edited on August 7, 2012 at 1:31 AM. Reason : sd]

8/7/2012 1:27:31 AM

Quote :

"Climate Change is here and it's worse than we thought: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-change-is-here--and-worse-than-we-thought/2012/08/03/6ae604c2-dd90-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html James E. Hansen directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. When I testified before the Senate in the hot summer of 1988 , I warned of the kind of future that climate change would bring to us and our planet. I painted a grim picture of the consequences of steadily increasing temperatures, driven by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. But I have a confession to make: I was too optimistic..."

The level of cherry picking done here by Hansen is so excessive he should be out in the fields showing the migrant workers how it's done...

8/9/2012 10:08:59 AM

General statement with no quantitative demonstration.

8/9/2012 10:24:25 AM

Further proof that global cooling is occurring! THE LIBERALS AND SCI-FIB-TISTS ARE FILLING YOUR HEAD WITH LIES!

Quote :

"June was characterized by below-normal temperatures, with statewide average temperature ranked as the 29th coolest June since 1895"

/ SARCASM

July 2012 was the warmest ever recorded in the US. I noticed how people were saying on an article how cool NC was in June and that this discredits global climate change in terms of an overall warming trend. People love using short term, isolated weather phenomenon, eh? Even to use July as your sole basis for climate change is flawed. Dur de durpity DUUUUUUR!

8/9/2012 11:33:54 AM

weather vs climate

8/9/2012 1:01:44 PM

Quote :

"General statement with no quantitative demonstration."

If you put any weight behind a single word uttered by Hansen there's no helping you.

^^NOAA's own USCRN (United States Climate Reference Network) state of the art surface temperature recording system begs to differ. July averages:

NOAA old system: 77.6°F

NOAA new system: 75.5°F

8/9/2012 2:10:31 PM

Quote :

"If you put any weight behind a single word uttered by Hansen there's no helping you."

Ad hominem. Should anyone be convinced if I just say "If you put any weight behind a single word uttered by TKE-Teg there's no helping you?"

How about explaining how something was cherry-picked in the article you were responding to or why we shouldn't trust his assessment?

8/9/2012 2:30:42 PM

Dramatic Arctic Ice Melt Blows Away Previous Record

This summer's unprecedented melt for the icy white cap over Arctic waters appears to have come to a stop on Sunday, Sept. 16, setting a new record low for Arctic sea-ice extent that far surpasses the previous low set in 2007.

This summer, melt pushed the sea ice back to 1.32 million square miles (3.41 million square kilometers), according to the U.S. National Snow & Ice Data Center, which tracks sea ice using satellite data.

"It definitely is a further indication that Arctic sea ice has become a lot more vulnerable and is in long-term decline," said Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist who studies climate at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.

By comparison, on Sept. 18, 2007, Arctic sea-ice extent — the area of ocean with at least 15 percent ice cover — reached 1.61 square miles (4.17 square kilometers), NSIDC said. [8 Ways Global Warming Is Already Changing the World]

Arctic sea ice grows and shrinks in an annual cycle that follows the seasons. Summer melt comes to an end in September, when the ice reaches its annual low extent. Then colder temperatures cause the ice to reform through the winter.


http://news.yahoo.com/dramatic-arctic-ice-melt-blows-away-previous-record-173224385.html

9/19/2012 5:00:08 PM

Quote :

"The specific incident you mention though was not what it seems you may have made it out to be though. That had more to do with failing to clarify where proxy temperature measures ended and modern direct temperature measurements began."

How the fuck do you figure that's not the same as what I said? Mann chopped off his model's results precisely where it could start to be verified with modern observational data, and it just so happened that he did so when his model started going haywire. Then, he poorly stated what he did, giving readers the false impression that the displayed data was the actual results from his model. What do you call that? Nevermind that he also stated that his models had high degrees of statistical significance, which they do not, and he also claimed that his models weren't too reliant on then-known horrible proxy datasets, which they were.

Quote :

"The ones that start in 1998 are the cutest."

I know right? it is pretty dishonest, just like making claims about "arctic sea-ice extents being at the lowest point ever in the records," when the "records" are satellite measurements that started at a known maximum of said extents, despite the fact that we have PICTURES of a submarine surfacing at the ice-free North Pole in the 1950s.

Quote :

"kdogg's chart doesn't say what the reference point is for his graph (which is important). But, regardless, the anomaly it reports is greater than zero from 1998 to 2012. That means winter was warmer than "average" EVERY YEAR for the past 15 years. Hooray for global cooling!!! "

You really noobed all over yourself on that one, Socks. The anomaly is stated from a given reference point, but you are incorrectly assuming that the reference point is an average temperature. Saying that the winter was "warmer than average every year" is entirely false. it's warmer than the reference point. Move the reference point up 30degrees, and now, according to your logic, it's been "cooler than average every year" and we must be heading to a new ice age.


^ oh look, somebody else is posting about the OMG ICE MELT IN THE ARCTIC!!! and simultaneously ignoring the record levels of ice in the Antarctic. I guess global warming only happens in one hemisphere at a time :-/


also, here's an interesting look at raw temperatures versus "corrected" temperatures. notice anything interesting? That's right, the "corrected temperatures" show a massive trend while the raw show barely anything. I wonder how much cherry picking went into the data used, as it's from 181 worldwide stations, but still...

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9966



also of interest...
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06/is-the-united-states-actually-getting-warmer.php
this is the adjusted data


this is the raw data


and this is the difference between raw and adjusted


And then we're lying about past temperatures as they were reported. Check this out

Quote :

"Here is a typical example of what Ken uncovered. Below is a copy of the national weather data summary for February 1934. If we look at, say Arizona, for the month we see that the state average temperature for that month was 52.0F. [Ed.: This is the paper version that was published at the time.] However, if we look at the current NCDC temperature analysis (which runs from 1895-present) we see that for Arizona in February 1934 they have a state average of 48.9F, not the 52.0F that was originally published."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06/is-the-united-states-actually-getting-warmer.php



or, how about this where the high temperatures are being manipulated, too
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/unprecedented-climate-cheating-going-on-at-noaa-in-2012/

I see a hockey stick, but it's not what Al Gore says it is



if the evidence is so damned convincing, why do "scientists" have to lie about so much of it?

[Edited on September 29, 2012 at 11:19 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2012 10:55:47 PM

All scientists and engineers are liars. They should be executed for their methods and rely on Jesus and God instead.

9/30/2012 12:30:22 AM

Let me get this straight, burro, you're still, after all these years, in the "There is no warming" sect? You haven't evolved like a Pokemon to "It's the sun" yet?

10/1/2012 12:03:06 PM

wait, so is the arctic not actually melting?

please teach me, burro.

10/1/2012 1:42:35 PM

once burro starts arguing a point, it's over. no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary, there is NO WAY he will admit that he may have been wrong. he'll just continue arguing for the sake of arguing.

10/1/2012 1:54:32 PM

Not only that, he's still arguing against reports that were published over a decade ago.

...



Reality, liberal bias, etc......

[Edited on October 1, 2012 at 2:29 PM. Reason : :]

10/1/2012 2:00:27 PM

he's also citing blogs and excel charts... but that's really the least of his concerns.

10/1/2012 5:04:44 PM

I see your ad hominem attacks fail to address any points raised...

10/1/2012 6:29:28 PM

fine, you fucking dunce.

you're just grabbing these blog posts and saying "look! they're changing the data to make it cooler. this is clearly bullshit."

i don't care to go through every stupid link you've posted, but the one about changing historical data in arizona is just a poor summary of some of the things said in this post
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=75
which was written by an actual meteorologist. here's what he has to say about the blog that you reference:

Quote :

"Here is my response to the 'Watts Up With that post' that you refer to: Mr. Watts, Christopher C. Burt here, author of the Weather Underground blog you have quoted herein. First, just for the record, I would like to correct your assumption that my blog was written by Dr. Jeff Masters. Solely myself wrote the blog with no input from others in the Weather Underground organization. Second, you have quoted only the first half of my blog on the subject of the NCDC changes so far as evaluating the changes in long-term means (LTM%u2019s) of temperature averages in the contiguous U.S. (CONUS). This gives a false impression that I disagree with the new methodology the NCDC is now using. That is not the case, as would be obvious if the 2nd half of my blog had been published in your piece today (June 6) titled %u201CNOAA%u2019s National Data Center caught cooling the past-modern records don%u2019t match paper records%u201D. There are very good reasons for %u2018massaging%u2019 the areal temperature (and precipitation) data for the use in ascertaining trends in climate change. For instance in the example I used of Arizona in 1934: the USWB (U.S. Weather Bureau, Dept. of Agriculture) based their 52.0? state average on data from 78 sites that reported from around the state that particular month of February 1934. Of these 78 sites 3 were in the city of Phoenix (Airport, USWB site, and Indian School), 3 were in Yuma (Citrus Station, USWB, and Valley site), and 2 were in Tucson (Airport and Univ. of Arizona campus). So 8 (more than 10%) of the 78 sites for the entire state were located in three of the warmest cities in the state. Furthermore, 27 of the 78 sites were in Maricopa and Yuma counties, the two warmest counties in the state that comprise 12.6% of the state's landmass yet account for 34.6% of the observation sites. It does not take a genius to see this leads to a problem when trying to ascertain a %u2018state average%u2019 temperature. You might argue, well why not just stick to these same sites that reported in 1934 and compare to what they now observe in 2012? That is not possible because many of the sites that reported in 1934 have long since stopped supplying data, so it is therefore impossible to keep that timeline continuous. Plus, even the city or town sites that STILL report data now have (since 1934) relocated within their municipalities and/or effected changes in instrumentation. This is why, for the sake of determining long-term trends, it is not possible to simply use the same raw data from 1934 as in, say, 2012. The NCDC has thus necessarily come up with a better way of trying to address these issues. So long as they apply the same parameters to the new GrDD (grid system) for ALL the sections for the whole POR (period of record 1895-present) then the actual raw data for trend purposes is irrelevant. And, in fact, the original raw data from all the INDIVIDUAL sites used HAS NOT been changed, it is only the way their record has been interpreted that has (for the above reasons I outlined) been changed. Yours, Christopher C. Burt Weather Historian Weather Underground"

that's enough right? i don't have to keep going?

10/1/2012 7:26:39 PM

10/1/2012 7:39:16 PM

The average american cares less about this than ever, so unfortunately for you warmists that means the politicians will do less for you as well.

10/1/2012 10:12:47 PM

that's what inept politicians will do for you i suppose.

it's not like i have anything to gain by the world getting warmer. i'm not rooting for it, i'm just able to distinguish between what i want to happen and what is really happening.

how long do you think you'll be able to stay in denial?

10/1/2012 10:55:58 PM

Seriously burro, let's pin this down once and for all. Your position is that the warming is a hoax, right? Or do you go further, and claim the Earth's actually cooling?

It's not enough to simply copy and paste every blog post that you think rebuts the imaginary liberals in your head. You need to actually have a position of your own aside from "the liberal is always wrong."

10/2/2012 3:05:28 PM

Quote :

"warmists"

lol. "You snobby fucks that believe in reality."

10/3/2012 8:46:06 AM

Here is a great post on the Arctic/Antarctica sea ice extents:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/poles-apart/#more-5650

The trend in Artic sea ice is so much more pronounced and impressive, i think thats why Antarctica was left out of the conversation:

10/3/2012 9:26:11 AM

Well maybe Antarctica's ice will keep growing and reach the North pole.

10/3/2012 12:06:34 PM

A conservative's mind at work

[Edited on October 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM. Reason : ]

10/3/2012 12:45:53 PM

Quote :

"The average american cares less about this than ever, so unfortunately for you warmists that means the politicians will do less for you as well."

http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/15/more-say-there-is-solid-evidence-of-global-warming/

Quote :

"The percentage of Americans saying there is solid evidence of global warming has steadily increased over the past few years. Currently, 67% say there is solid evidence that the earth’s average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades, up four points since last year and 10 points since 2009. Similarly, an increasing proportion say that the rise in the earth’s temperature has mostly been caused by human activity. Currently, 42% say the warming is mostly caused by human activity, such as burning fossil fuels, while 19% say it is mostly caused by natural patterns in the earth’s environment. Last year, 38% mostly attributed global warming to human activity and in 2010 34% did so."

10/15/2012 12:41:22 PM