Oh yes, just realized that a few min ago and returned to delete my statement lol at Fox news...yeah maybe

11/7/2013 1:18:54 PM

^^ why the fuck would you think the great lakes are below sea level? Which way did you think Niagara falls was flowing? that was a bit daft, brah.


anyway, I expect we'll be hearing more about how this storm is all due to Global Warming Climate Change(tm) and how we can expect more, even though it's been one of the quietest years on record on the Atlantic...

11/8/2013 10:36:04 PM

So just refresh us here. Do you just not believe that climate change is occurring, the global aggregate temperature is increasing, if and what anthropogenic contributions exist, do you simply enjoy playing resident contrarian?

11/9/2013 6:23:39 PM

http://www.indyweek.com/triangulator/archives/2013/11/15/nc-museum-of-natural-sciences-director-puts-kibosh-on-documentary-about-sea-level-rise

11/15/2013 11:48:29 AM

Quote :

"Shored Up, a film by director Ben Kalina, explores issues regarding coastal communities, specifically the New Jersey shore and the Outer Banks of North Carolina, in light of super storms and rising seas."

LMAO

11/15/2013 1:23:11 PM

So how many millions can I count on this killing off?

11/15/2013 1:48:27 PM

Probably less than the lives that could be saved if we weren't neglecting the poor in 3rd world countries to concentrate on AGW instead.

11/15/2013 3:28:16 PM

nvm.

[Edited on November 17, 2013 at 10:42 AM. Reason : Link won't work through iPad ]

11/17/2013 10:41:09 AM

Just stirring the pot a bit...

11/18/2013 9:49:10 PM

dick! even you know AGW had 0 to do with Haiyan, lol. :

11/19/2013 4:00:23 PM

OMG COLD

OMG TORNADOES

OMG FOG

11/19/2013 4:33:25 PM

http://www.space.com/23934-weak-solar-cycle-space-weather.html

so could this explain the halt in warming over the past decade? (I'll defer my opinion to people with more climatology experience... HockeyRoman??)

12/21/2013 1:46:10 AM

I'll try not to get too far into the weeds, but I have not seen compelling evidence that warming has halted over the last decade. Are we talking globally or locally? Either way, you are correct that the sun is a significant, if not the most significant, influence on global temperature. It is imprudent to boil down surface temperatures to merely an If A, then B causal relationship. I'm sure that you are aware of the milankovitch cycles and the effects of sun spot activity.

12/21/2013 9:54:09 AM

oh yeah... i've done quite a bit of studying about them from my geology grad school days

and...

Quote :

"12/21/2013 1:46:10 AM"

I'll let you make your own assumptions about my state of being when I posted that

[Edited on December 21, 2013 at 12:10 PM. Reason : ]

12/21/2013 12:08:57 PM

Haha. That's fair. I am a bit surprised that no one has brought up the story concerning the reddit moderator of the science forum putting a "ban" on climate change deniers. What puzzles me is why Republicans initiated the "market-based solution" of a cap and trade system only to turn around and decry it once they were in the minority.

12/21/2013 12:31:40 PM

It's 59 degrees in NYC!!!!!!

12/21/2013 1:43:10 PM

NEW YORK CITY!?!?

12/21/2013 5:30:18 PM

12/31/2013 10:40:01 PM

Uh, that's not irony

1/1/2014 10:48:03 AM

I'm curious to know what a "global warming scientist" is.

1/1/2014 11:17:38 AM

Quote :

"Uh, that's not irony"

of course it is... it gives the definition of irony clearly in the image. disco_stu would agree.

[Edited on January 1, 2014 at 12:25 PM. Reason : s]

1/1/2014 12:24:50 PM

Definition of Irony:

-Evolution Scientists Travel To The Jungle to Study Gorillas and Get Mauled to Death.
-Space Scientists Travel to Space to Study Space and Suffocate to Death in Space.

[Edited on January 2, 2014 at 11:19 AM. Reason : ]

1/2/2014 11:18:47 AM

the "Global Warming Scientists" probably had rain on their wedding days

1/2/2014 11:20:16 AM

you see... instead of melting because of global warming like the ship went to study, the ice froze (which is opposite) and trapped the ship. hence irony.

Irony:

Quote :

""incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs""

[Edited on January 2, 2014 at 12:00 PM. Reason : ]

1/2/2014 11:56:12 AM

Like the Grizzly Man getting ripped apart by a bear?

or missionaries being eaten by the tribe they're trying to save?

1/2/2014 12:02:29 PM

I, for one, can not wait for the myriad of posts, articles on right-wing sites, and (hopefully) commentary from Rush et al. citing this one, single storm event as proof that climate change/global warming is absolutely not occurring...You know, because they were all about allowing record-breaking storms to be submitted as evidence that any sort of warming may actually be happening.

1/2/2014 9:25:11 PM

i was always taught that citing single events as evidence for/against global warming was irresponsible. but it has become trendy for people to cite things like "superstorm sandy" as PROOF that global warming is here and is real. I find those arguments to be counterproductive.

1/2/2014 10:02:25 PM

I enjoy making snarky comments from time to time every time I post on TWW, but professionally, I am simply in favor of acquiring any and all salient data. Once the facts are presented (in whichever direction), it's up to folks to draw their own conclusions. Poking fun of conservatives, especially on social and environmental issues, is merely a guilty pleasure of mine.

1/2/2014 10:13:59 PM

^lol

^^agreed

^^^hah, when I saw this thread had some recent activity that's what I thought I would see when I came in here

1/3/2014 8:29:17 AM

Quote :

"I, for one, can not wait for the myriad of posts, articles on right-wing sites, and (hopefully) commentary from Rush et al. citing this one, single storm event as proof that climate change/global warming is absolutely not occurring...You know, because they were all about allowing record-breaking storms to be submitted as evidence that any sort of warming may actually be happening."

I guess you don't remember the deluge of articles last year talking about the "new record low levels of sea ice extent!!!!!!!!!!!" that were due to a freak storm pushing the ice apart in the arctic, when a couple days later the sea ice extent was back to well within normal. But we won't talk about that, right? When it supports the narrative, we're fine with yellow journalism, though, right?

1/3/2014 9:59:36 PM

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/421519/chatbot-wears-down-proponents-of-anti-science-nonsense/

We need this on TWW

1/3/2014 10:02:56 PM

I like the phrases "record low" and record high" because it means that there is still a wealth of data to collect!

That said, I am unfamiliar with that particular story. I am, however, amused by conservative journalists bloggers discovering the phrase "polar vortex".

1/3/2014 10:08:39 PM

^^^ care to cite that, chief?

1/3/2014 10:18:25 PM

I remember it pretty well. it's probably even mentioned in this thread. It was in September of 2012, IIRC. Either way, the whole thing was caused by a freak storm that pushed all the ice apart, and not even a week later, ice levels had returned to statistically insignificant differences from before. hell, even NASA admits that it was a storm that caused it, but guess how the media blew it up? OMFG!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so yeah, by "last year" I meant "sept 2012". damn, I'm getting old, years are starting to run together

1/3/2014 10:28:59 PM

that's funny, because I don't remember the media hyping anything of the sort

I'd love to see some documentation of all of the overhyping

1/3/2014 10:35:56 PM

speaking of "hey, the science is so settled we have to fake it..."

Changed 1900s temperatures to make AGW go back into the 1800s. Nice


Models versus actual (albeit fudged) numbers:


Fuck it, let's make Reykjavik look colder in the 1940s! Before and after blink comparator. That's some good science!


Fuck it, let's do the same to Texas!
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/noaa-messing-with-texas/



Iowa, too!
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/noaa-hiding-the-decline-in-iowa-temperatures/



Tropics, too?


Shit, Southern Hemisphere land...
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/giss-has-increased-the-1880-1996-southern-hemisphere-temperature-trend-by-52-since-1997/



NASA, folks...

Red is old, blue is new.
Another version of the same


Northern Hemisphere, too.



Hmmm....



Hell, the EU is in on it too, lol
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/not-to-be-outdone-by-nasa-in-the-data-tampering-department/



Notice a trend? That's right, they keep pushing the temperatures up!



But hey, that's all just good science, right?

1/3/2014 11:08:28 PM

so you're just gonna ignore my question and post a bunch of charts from a dudes (who after a quick google search has about zero credibility) blog on wordpress?

fantastic.

[Edited on January 3, 2014 at 11:33 PM. Reason : THE NUMBERS, MAN. ]

1/3/2014 11:32:49 PM

Ha

Ha this the only chart with any meaning that was posted :


And I doubt it's credibility because burro posted it, in the middle of a bunch of crap.

1/3/2014 11:42:16 PM

Hell, this one was just too good to pass up...
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/2013-one-of-the-ten-coldest-years-in-us-history-with-the-largest-drop-in-temperature/

1/3/2014 11:45:50 PM

^^^ So, you have nothing to say about all of the gerry-rigged temperature numbers NASA and HCN have? Typical, attack the source, not the actual message.

As for "your question" the link is actually posted in this thread. I told you, september, 2012. That should be enough to help you with google. or, if you just refuse to remember the hullabaloo over it, then you're just selectively forgetting it at this point.

1/3/2014 11:47:12 PM

There's plenty of reasons to correct for temperature calibrations. Just because reality happens to show warming doesn't show conspiracy.

You'd have to show that the calibrations were in err. That's how science works.

1/3/2014 11:50:23 PM

Quote :

"Typical, attack the source, not the actual message."

deflect much?

[Edited on January 3, 2014 at 11:57 PM. Reason : and lol at your "selective memory" attempt. you're flailing, dude. ]

1/3/2014 11:55:44 PM

really? They do THAT MUCH to change it, and you response is "hey, corrections need to be made." nevermind that the corrections account for most of the claimed warming. corrections need to be made... to already supposedly corrected data. And those corrections form a blatantly upwards trend, every time. Stop and think about that.


^ yes, yes you do. and?

1/3/2014 11:58:43 PM

Lol think about why fixing data reflects reality? I'm not sure you re thinking about it.

And I distinctly remember discussing this issue. Not all readings are adjusted up, some are adjusted down. It's quite a trick for some readings to increase, some to decrease, across different studies, but still show similar results.

1/4/2014 12:27:22 AM

"fixing data reflects reality." Think about that for a second. You are begging the question by assuming what reality is and that the adjustments reflect that. The point of the data is to say what that reality is. I would argue that the perception of reality of being negatively affected by the adjustments, allowing for more and more alarmist claims without any substance to them. When 50% of the trend is due to "corrections", that borders on the incredulous. When every single correction adds to the trend, that borders on fraud.

When 50% of a supposed trend is introduced by the adjustments, you don't see a problem with that? That doesn't bother you? Moreover, what are the justifications for those changes? We've seen stair-step adjustments in the past with no supporting evidence to justify them, but you see no problem with that?


But you're right, not all readings are adjusted up. Only most recent ones are. The older ones are almost universally adjusted down, often in conflict with contemporary climate observations. But that's OK with you, cause, hey, you have to fix the data that you use to ascertain reality in order to match reality.

1/4/2014 12:33:59 AM

Ohh I see where your error in thinking is. They aren't just arbitrarily adjusting readings, you realize this?

The readings would be changed due to problems in where or how they were gathered, or because of failures in equipment. They don't just pick some to increase because they feel they should be warmer.

And you missed the broader point. When you have thousands of individual samples, it's not mathematically trivial to adjust them to fit an outcome (not impossible, but if this were being done, it would be extremely obvious-- and would have to be described in the papers this data comes from). And significantly more difficult to make the same changes in numerous unrelated studies to fit the same outcome.

Combine this with the fact that the methodologies are all public info, and your hypothesis that the data is just fake is pretty much impossible. It's hilarious this is lost on your crazy internet crackpot sources.

1/4/2014 1:06:12 AM

Now, you may (and likely will) cry that I am "attacking the source" here, but I looked around the links you provided. Would you mind explaining to everyone who this guy is and what his scientific credentials are other than some dude with a blog and a transparent agenda?

1/4/2014 10:03:07 AM

^ Do you have any disagreement with the data he posted? He posted the 1997 numbers (from NASA's website) and the 2013 numbers (from NASA's website). Did he analyze it incorrectly? Does X-Y now require a PhD in astrophysics in order for you to consider it? What weapon do you use to kill the messenger?

^^ I don't think you see the error in your reasoning! You said "when they adjust the errors in the data, we shouldn't be shocked when it matches reality." The inherent problem in that statement is that the final data is what we are using to declare what reality is! You're looking at this as if we are driving a car over a measured mile (measured by another instrument) and then calibrating the car's odometer accordingly. Instead, what has happened is we have driven the car and then declared that distance to be a mile! I PERFECTLY understand the need to make corrections in data when you can see, for instance, that equipment was changed; that is perfectly logical. But you say I miss the broader point that it's hard to mess with thousands of samples, while ignoring the plain truth evident in the aggregate adjustments: pre-1970s, all numbers have been consistently adjusted down, and post 1970s all numbers have been consistently adjusted up. That can't happen by accident. You take the adjusted numbers as reported from one year, and you compare the adjusted numbers as reported 15 years later, note the difference, and you can see how the adjustments were changed. The entire premise of Global Warming rests on the notion that the warming post 1970s is anomalous, yet every time new numbers are released, we see that the people releasing the numbers keep retroactively increasing the post-1970s reported temperatures!

How the hell do you look at this:

and see, plain as day, a .3C/century linear trend in the rate of temperature adjustments for the entire Southern Hemisphere's land (not temperature increase, mind you, increase in adjustment) and not see something wrong with that? That means they took the numbers in 1900 and subtracted .2C from them while adding .1C to the temperatures in 1990, right? Do you not see how subtracting from the temperatures in the beginning and adding to the temperatures at the end might lead to the perception of a warming trend? .3C per century linear increase in adjustments. And this is just the Southern Hemisphere. Similar analyses show the same thing happening for the Northern Hemisphere, and consistently at different points throughout it. You know what the claimed warming is for that time period? .8C! Close to 40% of the claimed warming is due to the adjustments made from 1997 to 2013! We're talking corrections to corrections. What good is saying "This is the hottest year on record!" when you've subtracted a a fifth of a degree from all the previous temperatures?

1/4/2014 12:34:51 PM

Quote :

"Instead, what has happened is we have driven the car and then declared that distance to be a mile! "

No, there is no proof of this. It woulda be extremely obvious if this is what all scientists everywhere were doing.

Quote :

"pre-1970s, all numbers have been consistently adjusted down, and post 1970s all numbers have been consistently adjusted up. "

This is factually inaccurate statement, causing you to believe wrong things. It would probably depend whAt study you're looking at, but there was a famous incident that I'm sure is in this thread, where NASA was accused of manipulating data, and some skeptics looked at the adjustments nasa made and came away convinced. Some stations were adjusted up, some done, some removed, etc.

It would not be possible for scientists across the globe, across time, across institutions to make the adjustments you're alleging and for it to go unreported. The peer review model alone makes this difficult, let alone the nature of humans being unable to keep secrets.

1/4/2014 3:54:58 PM

when do we get to see the story about the record ice levels from september 2012?

1/4/2014 3:59:12 PM