Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why Global Warming Isn't Consistant
#21
G,

Which one or ones was that? Here's the list of "kickees":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peo...lic_Church
Reply
#22
Galileo?
[Image: 760.png]
Reply
#23
No, they severely harassed poor Gallileo, but, he wasn't excommunicated. The Catholic Church in that era was way too involved in secular stuff and as with everyone let power become a steroid for tyranny with them for sure, but, they are often thought to have been worse than reality indicates.

However, the point you wanted to make is still valid. It was an anti intellectual exercise as this stuff today appears to be.

Reply
#24
Regarding the OP - Frank Lansner has written a rather extensive response here:

The real temperature trend given by Foster and Rahmstorf.



I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#25
Correcting for all sorts of phenomenon seems to be a full time job. But not for the warmists.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#26
Yeah, that's part of the problem, jt.

But also, as I've mentioned, estimating the amount of each possible effect and then stating that the only possible cause of the remaining warming must be atmospheric CO2, and then mostly anthropogenic CO2 at that, doesn't seem like a methodology that would be embraced by anyone other than those caught up in the Warmist's belief system. Especially when they are saying "we must act now!"

I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#27
(12-09-2011, 11:27 AM)John L Wrote: The title of "Open Mind" says it all when he starts talking about 'fake skeptics'.

I'm sure JW and Tommy will want to address your 'open mind' here Buzz. I've been gone for a couple of days and have to catch up with things.

It is another failed attempt to bolster something "denialists" are not disputing.Since even this misleading research still fails to support the AGW hypothesis.It is going to make no difference.

S3

There is no question that it has been warming since the 1850's.And from 1979.But it is almost entirely confined to the Northern Hemisphere.This is what Tamio and other warmist idiots avoids discussing.It is VERY inconvenient!

It is telling that Tamio is heavily censoring inconvenient comments.They are deleted.This has been a long time behavior at his blog.Mostly sycophantic replies.This is being pointed out at WUWT blog entry of Frank Lansner's reply to Grant Foster.

Meanwhile Frank Lansner make a credible if flawed reply to Grant Foster.The comments exposing the weaknesses in Franks paper are being posted at WUWT.They are also pointing out omissions in Grant Fosters paper.The ones that Buzz would not know is missing.

Since it is obvious that the AGW hypothesis is dead.I have no reason to waste time with clueless morons who keeps up their strawman claims.

The real climate trend is getting ignored by almost everyone.Who are so obsessed with a 30 year trend.That they fail to notice the world has been COOLING for about 4,000 years now.The last 1,000 years is the coldest of the present Holocene.

We are in Climate Autumn,on the way to the next Glacial period.The warming trend we have been enjoying for the last 300 years has just about run its course.It will soon go into a new several centuries cooling trend.

That is because it is the general length of the last few warm periods.They last around 400 years or so

This why I will be starting a new Climate Change and Cycles forum next year.It will focus on the Dominant climate force.

The Milankovitch Cycle is the dominant cycle that underlies the climatic epochs.The one that even the renown CO2 molecule bows down to.

The day of reckoning for the warmists is upon them.With their hypothesis dead for several years now.All they have left is dishonest and misleading claims.
Reply
#28
I totally agree Tommy. We are slowly, through fits and jerks, headed to the cliff into the next long term Milankovitch Cycle.

I just go one further, that's all. All those sudden drops in the Vostok data are almost certainly the result of Impactors. And even volcanism is most likely due to ripples in the earth's crust, due to Impactors. That last one that just barely missed us last month is only one in a never ending pack of objects that keep making their way into the inner system.

Bang!, one will hit us and the shock wave will radiate around the globe hitting the other side of the globe at the same time, causing any fault lines to rupture. This also throws up mega tons of debris into the atmosphere and suddenly the planet is in a downward spiral.

Fortunately we are getting out into space and will be able to keep these dangerous critters away, and possibly eliminate them, short some kook using one for a terrorist act. That is going to be a real problem in the future, and will determine how space industries are set up.

Sorry to ramble about this, but I think about the subject all the time. If I was a SiFi writer I would have a neat little future history all set out. S1
Reply
#29
(12-16-2011, 02:59 AM)Buzz Wrote: Jt... go look up ad hominem then look for them yourself. And if your still not able to identify them then I will make you look stupid and point them out to you.

You should ask Stefan Rahmstorf about that:

Der Spiegel Slams IPCC Lead Author Rahmstorf: “Scandal Surrounds German Government Climate Advisor”

SELECTED EXCERPT:

To make a long story short, journalist Irene Meichsner wrote a critical report about the IPCC, which appeared in the Frankfurter Rundschau daily, to which Rahmstorf reacted quite nastily. He asserted at his blog that the journalist had been dishonest, sloppy, had never read the IPCC report, and that she even lifted text from another source (Richard North and Jonathan Leake). For a journalist, such accusations are of course career threatening and thus deadly serious.

Meichsner didn’t stand for it, took the case to court, and won.


S13



Reply
#30
Here is Bob Tisdale's response:

Tisdale takes on Tamino’s Foster & Rahmstorf 2011

EXCERPT:

OVERVIEW

This post examines a curious aspect of the multiple linear regression analysis performed by Foster and Rahmstorf in their 2011 paper “Global Temperature Evolution 1979–2010”. I find it very odd that a factor upon which the paper appears to rest was not presented in detail in it. Please understand right from the start, for this portion of the post, I am not implying that there is something wrong with this specific aspect of the paper; but I’m also not agreeing with it. I’m presenting it for discussion.

The second part of this post is a discussion of one of the exogenous factors that Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) has attempted to remove. The problem: it is not an exogenous factor. And there is a third discussion about a dataset that’s present in the spreadsheet provided by the lead author Grant Foster (aka Tamino) but, curiously, not mentioned in the paper.

LINK

================================================================================================================
Tamio being the chicken shit he is.He avoids visiting Watts Up With That? Where he could be defending his paper.

Tisdale's report appears to quite good.

S13
Reply
#31
Here is an update from Bob Tisdale.He has made an admission that his post that I posted back on January 2:

Tisdale takes on Tamino’s Foster & Rahmstorf 2011

Had errors he made in it.Thus his new post has appeared at WUWT.

He has made a new post to concentrate on the one big error of Tamio and Rahmstorf published science paper.It destroys the paper that Tamio and Rahmstorf has made.That continues the same errors of many previous papers.

We can thank the warmist scientists for their continual same error they keep making.It destroys their attempt to find that AGW signal in the ENSO data.It is now conclusive that CO2 is not causing the warming at all.

It is worth reading entirely.If you took the time to read and consider what he is showing.You will see it is the periodic EL-NINO events that is the cause of the warming.

There is ZERO AGW signal in the ENSO data!

Tisdale on Foster and Rahmstorf – take 2

SELECTED EXCERPT:

IS THERE A LINEAR “GLOBAL WARMING SIGNAL”?

Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) assumed that the global warming signal is linear and that it is caused by anthropogenic factors, but those assumptions are not supported by the satellite-era Sea Surface Temperature record as shown above. The El Niño events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 are shown to be the cause of the rise in sea surface temperatures since November 1981, not anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

CLOSING COMMENTS

This post illustrated and discussed the error in the assumption that regression analysis can be used to remove the impacts of ENSO on Global Surface Temperature. ENSO is a process that is not fully represented by ENSO Indices. In other words, the ENSO indices only represent a small portion of the impacts of ENSO on Global Surface Temperatures. Attempting to use an ENSO index as Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) have done is like trying to provide the play-by-play for a baseball game solely from an overhead view of home plate.

The assumption made by Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) that a linear trend provides an approximate “global warming” signal was shown to be wrong using Sea Surface Temperature data. When broken down into two logical subsets of the East Pacific and the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific Oceans, satellite-era Sea Surface Temperature data shows no evidence of an anthropogenic global warming signal. It only shows upward shifts associated with strong ENSO events.

================================================================================================================
The warming bursts is happening in one year steps and then little trend in between.

LINK TO CHART

Will you finally concede BUZZ?
Reply
#32
SST -

As I said above:
Quote:...estimating the amount of each possible effect and then stating that the only possible cause of the remaining warming must be atmospheric CO2, and then mostly anthropogenic CO2 at that, doesn't seem like a methodology that would be embraced by anyone other than those caught up in the Warmist's belief system. Especially when they are saying "we must act now!"


Also, and even worse, the F&R paper estimates the effects of only some of the possible causes of either cooling or warming in the climate and then, after removing those estimates, declare that the remaining signal must be showing the warming caused by anthropogenic CO2.

Buzz proclaims a level of intelligence that should be able to grasp the absurdity of F&R's assertion. Instead, he proclaims it as "convincing scientific evidence."

Perhaps it is thus: convincing evidence that CAGW is based on flawed science.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#33
A point Bob makes here.Is a similar point I have been posting for some time now.I now post this [Image: Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg] as a standard reply to any warmist.Who still has delusional beliefs in the opposite.

The chart is based on the data set favored by the corrupt IPCC.And Dr. Jones temperature ranges as seen in the sidebar on the right side of the chart.All from the AGW side.You warmists can not deny this.

S13

It is Dr. Jones himself who admits that nothing is unusual going on.Not a single decent reply has been made against it.Here is what HE SAYS:

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

EXCERPT:

Quote:A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Go read his answer in the link.

Bob point is that if CO2 was a true driver of temperature.It should be obvious in the recent years.But it is instead almost the same warming rate of previous short warming rates.

No apparent AGW signature at all.

Quote:Bob Tisdale says:
January 15, 2012 at 4:59 am

Exp says: “If you put enough extra energy into a system to heat up the whole by an average of around 1C…”

That’s as far as anyone needs to read your comment, Exp, but I did read the rest. Your initial phrase is an assumption on your part, and this post illustrated how big of an assumption it is. There is no evidence the additional increase in anthropogenic forcings from 1982 to present had any impact on sea surface temperatures. There is no evidence whatsoever.

Are you aware the trend of the forcings during the late warming period (1975-2000) is at least three times greater than the trend during the early warming period of the 20th century (1917-1944)? Are you aware that there is no difference in the rates at which global surface temperatures warmed during the early and late warming periods, using the IPCC’s dataset of choice, HadCRUT3? If anthropogenic forcings are what drives global surface temperatures, why are the observed rates of warming the same, when there’s been a three-fold increase in the rate at which they’re forced? The hypothesis you’re convinced of has tremendous holes in it, Exp.

LINK
Reply
#34
I am by no means an expert on AGW, but let me see if I understand the OP.

Global warming isn't progressing at the speed of CO2 and other greenhouse gas production says it should. So we somehow cut out certain natural phenomena from the equation to prove that the Man-made greenhouse gases are still having a warming effect that is significantly counteracted or masked by natural phenomena. So...

Doesn't this just beg the question if naturally occurring factors can neutralize the warming effects of man-made gases, who cares about man-made gases?

Help me understand?
"And down through the centuries the robes have never failed to keep the public at a respectful distance, inspire a decent awe for the professions, and impart an air of solemnity and mystery that has been as good as money in the bank. The four faculties of theology, philosophy, medicine, and law have been the perennial seedbeds, not only of professional wisdom, but of the quackery and venality so generously exposed to public view by Plato, Rabelais, Molière, Swift, Gibbon, A. E. Housman, H. L. Mencken, and others. What took place in the Greco-Roman as in the Christian world was that fatal shift from leadership to management that marks the decline and fall of civilizations." - taken from a speech by Hugh Nibley
Reply
#35
(01-17-2012, 01:19 PM)TheMan Wrote: I am by no means an expert on AGW, but let me see if I understand the OP.

Global warming isn't progressing at the speed of CO2 and other greenhouse gas production says it should. So we somehow cut out certain natural phenomena from the equation to prove that the Man-made greenhouse gases are still having a warming effect that is significantly counteracted or masked by natural phenomena. So...

Doesn't this just beg the question if naturally occurring factors can neutralize the warming effects of man-made gases, who cares about man-made gases?

Help me understand?

There is a very small CO2 warming effect.It is based on the logarithmic curve on increasing level of atmospheric CO2.

Here is a the LINK to the Logarithmic curve chart.

But it quickly decreases.It is now adding so little to the warming.At the 390 ppm level.To be considered important.Most of the warming power was in the first 20 ppm.

The AGW conjecture states that it is the POSITIVE feedback of water Vapor.That will cause a large warming trend.Maybe even catastrophic increase in warming.

Unfortunately for them.It does not exist and will not exist.Because there is no evidence of any significant positive feedback occurring.It has not happened in the last 500 + million years either.

The modern warming we are now enjoying.Is just another cyclic warm period we have.A natural warming.That is not unusual or accelerating upward.

Here is a LINK to the chart showing the periodic warming and cooling periods in the present interglacial.

Reply
#36
Bob Tisdale at his best here.He exposes the massive error that Tamio (Grant Foster) made.They all failed to see it at the blog Tamio runs.

Part 2 of Tamino Once Again Misleads His Disciples

LINK

I notice that Buzz is real quiet these days.

S13
Reply
#37
(12-09-2011, 01:09 AM)Buzz Wrote: Finally... a study that helps explain why the warming of the planet has not been as steady and consistent as the increase in CO2...

Quote:Many different factors affect Global temperature. Fake “skeptics” like to claim that mainstream climate scientists ignore everything but greenhouse gases like CO2, when in fact it’s mainstream climate scientists who identified those other influences. Natural factors cause temperature fluctuations which make the man-made global warming signal less clear, fluctuations which are often exploited by fake skeptics to suggest that global warming has paused, or slowed down, or isn’t happening at all. A new paper by Foster & Rahmstorf accounts for some of those other factors, and by removing their influence from the temperature record makes the progress of global warming much more clear.

And that global warming without much of the natural influences looks like this:

[Image: figure08.jpg?w=500&h=499]

Read about this study here:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/t...ng-signal/

I can't wait to see how you denialists spin this one.

Meanwhile when will you acknowledge that there is no longer a warming trend in this century?

[Image: trend]

LINK

This is the data sets the IPCC favors in their reports and there it clearly shows that the warming trend has vanished the last 14 years.

Admit it Buzz,it is NOT warming right now and has not since 2001 when the cooling trend began.
Reply
#38
[Image: Climatard.jpg]
Reply
#39
OMG!

I've actually met more than one Climatard.

Although, that word somewhat isn't politically correct since it may be offensive to some.

Maybe "Climaturd" would be less offensive?

Dunno.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#40
The problem with descending to the level of mockery and name calling, is it makes it impossible to tell who is the fucktard, and who is the idiot arguing with one.
Beach
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Disaster Addiction And Global Warming John L 71 8,025 Yesterday, 08:34 PM
Last Post: John L
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...PT. 2 John L 520 147,841 08-15-2019, 05:26 PM
Last Post: WmLambert
  Positive News about Global Warming. John L 78 28,772 05-17-2015, 09:55 AM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait... Lisa 1,668 673,325 08-23-2014, 06:13 PM
Last Post: John L
  Global Warming Nazis John L 134 52,900 07-01-2014, 04:12 PM
Last Post: Paul In Sweden
  Science Fraud And Con Men: Diederik Stapel and Global Warming John L 0 1,621 04-30-2013, 08:58 PM
Last Post: John L
  Global Warming Debate, Split From ANWR Drilling Thread Matrix 113 47,912 12-28-2012, 10:53 AM
Last Post: sunsettommy
  Death By Global Warming John L 12 8,993 01-06-2012, 06:11 PM
Last Post: jt
  global warming to cause an extraterrestial attack mv 10 6,190 08-20-2011, 03:06 PM
Last Post: John L
  Catholic church warns of global warming quadrat 9 6,015 05-22-2011, 02:23 PM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)