Climategate 2.0

[monovillage]

And somehow 111 years of hurricane data shows the non existence of man made global warming? Or global warming itself? Or what? You dont trust other scientific data because it doesnt reinforce your preconceived notions on the issue but you some how connect this scientific data because it DOES?

Have I called you a idiot yet? I say it so much I dont remember.

I don't usually pay that much attention to the personal type insults puked up here at ATP&N, usually it's because you just shot down a point someone was making and they resent it. I made no reference to the refutation of all global warming, just the idiots that made the claim that it was going to cause a huge surge in both the numbers and intensity of hurricanes in the U.S. You should spend some more time at Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. site, he's not a "denier", but he is honest (as least as far as I know).

 

[JSt0rm]

warmer waters in the gulf make hurricanes more intense. I dont remember anyone saying anything about a larger number of hurricanes but its your little world here.

 

[NeoV]

this was brought up in another thread - just because the hurricanes aren't making landfall in the united states, doesn't mean they aren't happening...

In just the last 2 decades - in the 90's there were 5 years with less than 10 named storms - from 2000 to 2010 there was 1 - and that trend continued this year with 20 named storms

Jaskalas - did you miss the part in the warming article about La Nina? I don't give a rat's ass if this year was cooler than last year -they are still 2 of the hottest 10 years on record - what part of that escapes your thoughts? La Nina generallly causes a cooling trend - but 2011 has still been very hot - where am I losing you?

 

[SparkyJJO]

Wow, look how dumb you are.


You would probably pull funding for a project to deflect a asteroid from hitting the planet as well eh?

Our entire history of success has come from the ability to shape our environment and now you mr. dumbfuck hick from ohio thinks we should die off without trying to have a impact on the planet. I know the schools in ohio are bad but jeezus christ.

I thought all you greenie wackos wanted exactly that - don't touch the environment, man only ruins it!

It's gotten to the point that it is funny when you sit there screaming and cussing at your computer monitor

*edit* I thought I'd throw this in:

You guys love finding 2 data points and then arguing your case based on that information.

It doesnt make you look smart. FYI

While amusing, your screaming and cussing everyone out doesn't make you look smart. FYI.

 

[shira]

You would be correct if the lung cancer rates now and then were the same. Very good example for disputing your own claim.

The temp increase of the planet fits in perfectly with the previously 100% natural increases of the past. Your example, which shows an increased lung cancer rate after the addition of man create cancer agents, shows that we would need to see extra heating above and beyond the natural caused heating in order for man to be the cause.

Since we do not see any extra heating above and beyond what the natrual caused heating is causing, we can say mankind is not causing any noticable increase in temps.

Thank you for helping me show you to be wrong.

Proof required. And by "proof" I don't mean you posting a graph and claiming, "See, it looks the same now as it did 30,000 [or whatever] years ago." Proof also does not mean a link to an ACC-denier website where a denier makes the claim "See, it looks the same now as it did 30,000 [or whatever] years ago." Proof means providing a link to a paper in a peer-reviewed climatology journal where the authors analyze historical temperature data and state the same conclusion you've stated here, AND the paper isn't subsequently refuted.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Proof required. And by "proof" I don't mean you posting a graph and claiming, "See, it looks the same now as it did 30,000 [or whatever] years ago." Proof also does not mean a link to an ACC-denier website where a denier makes the claim "See, it looks the same now as it did 30,000 [or whatever] years ago." Proof means providing a link to a paper in a peer-reviewed climatology journal where the authors analyze historical temperature data and state the same conclusion you've stated here, AND the paper isn't subsequently refuted.

So what's the real difference between him looking at a graph of historical temperature data, and a bunch of climatologists looking at the same graph?

If the graph is worth anything it should be pretty clear as it is.

 

[shira]

So what's the real difference between him looking at a graph of historical temperature data, and a bunch of climatologists looking at the same graph?

If the graph is worth anything it should be pretty clear as it is.

Because - first of all - I don't know if a graph linked in an ATPN thread is valid or BS, whereas a graph included in a peer-reviewed paper has a known provenance. Also, climatologists have a knowledge base that goes way beyond that of laymen, and they can put data in the proper context.

Consider a graph of daily temperatures in 2010 and 2011. A layman would look at the plot and conclude that temperatures are decreasing. A climatologist would look at the same plot and understand that 2011 temperatures are being strongly influenced by la Nina, and would conclude in that context that temperatures are strongly increasing in 2011.

I operate under the assumption that professional climatologists are not stupid, and that absolutely nothing related to climate that an idiotic layman posts on ATPN has not already been considered by climatologists.

In other words, cybersage's interpretation of the data in his magical chart is almost certainly BS, since if the interpretation were really as simple as cybersage seems to think, the chart and the anti-ACC conclusion would long ago have made their way into one or more peer-reviewed papers. And climatologists would desperately be trying to shore up their shaky theories. That hasn't happened because the data in cybersage's graph doesn't mean what he says it mean.

 

[Jaskalas]

Jaskalas - did you miss the part in the warming article about La Nina? I don't give a rat's ass if this year was cooler than last year -they are still 2 of the hottest 10 years on record - what part of that escapes your thoughts? La Nina generallly causes a cooling trend - but 2011 has still been very hot - where am I losing you?

ALL of MMGW is, what, 0.8C? From 2010 to 2011 we (averaged out) dropped in HALF, but don't worry you're still waving your hands and screaming over it, as if we're supposed to give a !@#$.

2011 has 'still been very hot' in the minds of lunatics.

 

[JSt0rm]

While amusing, your screaming and cussing everyone out doesn't make you look smart. FYI.

I treat people how they deserve to be treated. You say something stupid, I laugh in your face.

I'm glad you backpedaled on your utterly idiotic idea though. Its a start.

 

[Ninjahedge]

How did that civil engineering work out after katrina again?? Whatever man creates, Mother Nature can destroy it if and when she chooses. Only a fool would think man can contain nature which explains alot in this thread.

What does Katrina have to do with this?

If the engineering was done right, they would not have had loose-pack earthen berms to try to stem water flow. They would have had the infrastructure renovated to handle this.

They knew about it for years and did nothing, so before you start using references like this, realize there is a difference between "controlling" and "directing".

I guess Hoover Dam is just a fluke.

 

[Ninjahedge]

BTW the problem here is simple.

Average does not mean much. It gives us a marker. But simply by looking at the receding ice shelves and by hearing about all the trapped CO2 in the permafrost and in other areas, our own little contribution may not be the primary cause of our destruction, but it may definitely be the straw that broke Rosanne Barr's back.

Point being, if we get out of our own little saddle of climatological stability, OTHER factors could kick in to send us quickly on our way to Venus.

 

[cybrsage]

Proof required. And by "proof" I don't mean you posting a graph and claiming, "See, it looks the same now as it did 30,000 [or whatever] years ago." Proof also does not mean a link to an ACC-denier website where a denier makes the claim "See, it looks the same now as it did 30,000 [or whatever] years ago." Proof means providing a link to a paper in a peer-reviewed climatology journal where the authors analyze historical temperature data and state the same conclusion you've stated here, AND the paper isn't subsequently refuted.

Wait...you say that looking at the natural cycle, which has existed FAR longer than man has burned anything other that wood, is not good enough.

Your own logic says that standing outside with water falling on you from the clouds is not enough proof it is raining...

You are a joke.

 

[cybrsage]

OTHER factors could kick in to send us quickly on our way to Venus.

I know you probably were not serious, but just in case, it is impossible for the Earth to experience Thermal Runaway. We simply do not have enough water for it to happen.

 

[cybrsage]

So what's the real difference between him looking at a graph of historical temperature data, and a bunch of climatologists looking at the same graph?

If the graph is worth anything it should be pretty clear as it is.

Exactly. And the graph I use is very well known. It would be like me showing a picture of the Earth from space and him saying "that is not proof there is water and land on the Earth, I want a 50 trillion page study that every human agrees with that says there is both water and land on the Earth. That picture could be a lie!"

 

[Paul98]

So what's the real difference between him looking at a graph of historical temperature data, and a bunch of climatologists looking at the same graph?

If the graph is worth anything it should be pretty clear as it is.

Because looking at a graph means nothing if you don't know how to analyze it. Plus there are many problems in looking at graphs like the one posted when comparing a long term vs short term trend.

 

[Paul98]

ALL of MMGW is, what, 0.8C? From 2010 to 2011 we (averaged out) dropped in HALF, but don't worry you're still waving your hands and screaming over it, as if we're supposed to give a !@#$.

2011 has 'still been very hot' in the minds of lunatics.

Compared to the data we have recently yes it is very hot. What you are doing is flipping a coin once and then trying to derive some trend from it. If you don't see this I am just going to ignore your comments because you have to be trolling, as no one is that stupid.

 

[spacejamz]

What does Katrina have to do with this?

If the engineering was done right, they would not have had loose-pack earthen berms to try to stem water flow. They would have had the infrastructure renovated to handle this.

They knew about it for years and did nothing, so before you start using references like this, realize there is a difference between "controlling" and "directing".

I guess Hoover Dam is just a fluke.

You are totally deluded if you think man will totally control our enironment. Look at at what earth quakes and tornadoes do to our structures that were "properly" engineered. If you need another reminder, please enlighten us as to what happened in Japan earlier this year.

If Mother Nature wanted to take out the Hoover Dam, she could do it in the blink of an eye.

 

[Ninjahedge]

You are totally deluded if you think man will totally control our enironment.

Again control /= influence. You are changing my words AGAIN to suit your argument.

Look at at what earth quakes and tornadoes do to our structures that were "properly" engineered.

And further study has made progress like elastomeric bearings and dampers that prevent damage. Look at Mexico City, where several buildings on these new foundations suffered little, if any, damage.

If you need another reminder, please enlighten us as to what happened in Japan earlier this year.

You are setting yourself up. Look and see how many violations that that plant had. If memory serves me, they were even slated for decommission because of these shortcomings. They had poor management and placed a nuke plant in a zone that had little protection (or insufficient) to prevent what many said was a distinct possibility for years.

If Mother Nature wanted to take out the Hoover Dam, she could do it in the blink of an eye.

No, it couldn't. Why? Because there are overflows, there are factors of safety. The thing that would destroy Hoover Dam would be man and his own negligence.

 

[monovillage]

Wow, you find an increase in CO2 will lead to runaway global warming turning the Earth into Venus possible, if not probable, but think a 9.1 magnitude quake wouldn't destroy a dam?

 

[Ninjahedge]

Who said that?

The hoover dam is in an elevated risk area, but not along a major fault line.

Now you are shifting from ecological and climate data to geotechnical and seismic... not usually in the realm of "mother nature"

You are pulling 9.1 out of your ass on that one.

 

[spacejamz]

Who said that?

The hoover dam is in an elevated risk area, but not along a major fault line.

Now you are shifting from ecological and climate data to geotechnical and seismic... not usually in the realm of "mother nature"

You are pulling 9.1 out of your ass on that one.

This sidebar is about man being able to control/shape his environment, is it not? Do you not consider seismic events as part of the environment now??

The Hoover Dam is built to withstand an earthquake with a magnitude of 8.0, but you heard it heard first folks!!! Ninjahedge GUARANTEES that a 9.1 is NOT possible...Seismologists all over the world are now relieved...

And today, alot Southern Californians disagree with you about man's ability to control his environment since they lost power because of a 'once in decade' wind storm that knocked down their power lines which affected 270K homes and businesses...

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/02/9167013-violent-wind-storm-leaves-path-of-destruction

 

[JSt0rm]

so stupid fuuuuuuu

 

[monovillage]

Who said that?

The hoover dam is in an elevated risk area, but not along a major fault line.

Now you are shifting from ecological and climate data to geotechnical and seismic... not usually in the realm of "mother nature"

You are pulling 9.1 out of your ass on that one.

You were the one that brought up engineering and Hoover Dam. Now you bitch at me because I commented on your ignorance about Hoover Dam? If you're going to bring something into a discussion, you ought to know what you're talking about first. In terms of the seismic engineering of the Hoover Dam built back in the 30's. Let alone what they knew about seismicity and plate tectonics back then, As for a magnitude 9.0 - 9.1 quake didn't we have one in Japan a few months ago?

"ABSTRACT
Large dams, especially concrete dams, have been designed against earthquakes since the
construction of Hoover dam in the 1930s. The design criteria and methods of analysis used in
those times are outdated today and the actual seismic safety of these structures is not known
in view of today’s requirements. Earthquake action was usually taken into account pseudostatically,
through an inertia force characterized by a seismic coefficient. Since 1989 the
ICOLD guidelines consider two levels of seismic loading, namely the operating basis
earthquake (OBE) and the safety evaluation earthquake (SEE). Various methods of dynamic
analysis are now available to predict the dynamic response of dams to strong ground shaking.
Rehabilitation planning and design must take into account these developments, even in
regions of low seismicity and assess whether seismic upgrading of a particular dam is
necessary from a seismic safety point of view."

http://www.poyry.ch/linked/en/aboutus/Current_seismic_safety_requirements_for_large_dams_0408.pdf

 

[SparkyJJO]

I treat people how they deserve to be treated. You say something stupid, I laugh in your face.

I'm glad you backpedaled on your utterly idiotic idea though. Its a start.

Laugh? More like scream obscenities in hateful anger. But go ahead, your monitor isn't anywhere close to anyone's face but your own.

And I didn't backpedal on anything.

 

[Ninjahedge]

This sidebar is about man being able to control/shape his environment, is it not? Do you not consider seismic events as part of the environment now??

Not in the same vein.

But also, plunking a 9.1 in a moderate seismic zone is a bit god-like there bubbie.

The Hoover Dam is built to withstand an earthquake with a magnitude of 8.0, but you heard it heard first folks!!! Ninjahedge GUARANTEES that a 9.1 is NOT possible..Seismologists all over the world are now relieved...

Now you are being a dick.

It all goes on probability, and you are strawmanning as well.

And today, alot Southern Californians disagree with you about man's ability to control his environment since they lost power because of a 'once in decade' wind storm that knocked down their power lines which affected 270K homes and businesses...

No, you are bringing up things that are not associated AND, I might add, indicative of more energy in the weather systems in the states. So a freak windstorm is not a sign of increased atmospheric energy?