Global Warming Called: Time for Believers to Pay Up!

[fskimospy]

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter09.pdf

I even went to the trouble of using the IPCC's own work for you.

1.) Your link does not contain your quote.

2.) The most similar quote refers to models not representing a reduction in the global warming trend, not a reduction in temperatures.

So not only are you misquoting your source, but you didn't even understand your own misquote.

lol.

 

[Paratus]

1.) Your link does not contain your quote.

2.) The most similar quote refers to models not representing a reduction in the global warming trend, not a reduction in temperatures.

So not only are you misquoting your source, but you didn't even understand your own misquote.

lol.

Beat me to it!

Thanks!

 

[fskimospy]

When did man take control? 1950s. The graph shows warming well before that. Here is the prime example:
Of the last 60 years, when man was in control, it warmed for just 20 years or 1/3rd of that time. Where is the human signal?

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Annual air temperatures global

They are both two parts of a larger warming trend that of course involves other natural forcing factors. Just looking at the warming during two time periods without accounting for the activity of the underlying independent variables that create global surface temperatures is ridiculous.

 

[Paratus]

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter09.pdf



I even went to the trouble of using the IPCC's own work for you.

See above. 😉


Anyway here's an interesting abstract that seems to show hurricane intensity and numbers have increases as the ocean temperatures warm:


http://m.sciencemag.org/content/309/5742/1844.abstract?sid=366261fd-4b55-4778-8239-97126cefb3d6

Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment

Abstract

We examined the number of tropical cyclones and cyclone days as well as tropical cyclone intensity over the past 35 years, in an environment of increasing sea surface temperature. A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5. The largest increase occurred in the North Pacific, Indian, and Southwest Pacific Oceans, and the smallest percentage increase occurred in the North Atlantic Ocean. These increases have taken place while the number of cyclones and cyclone days has decreased in all basins except the North Atlantic during the past decade.

Or were these guys bought out and doing it for the money too?

 

[Aldon]

Look your ignorant. We get it. It's all confusing to you. When you go to college take a thermo class you'll be amazed at what you can learn.

In the meantime. Here's how we know the sun hasn't gotten hotter: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Says the one who believes the Internet has the answer to the million dollar question of what really affects climate change. If you would have went to college, you would have known the difference between ignorance and criticism.

Only you would believe a college course has the answer to your million dollar question.

 

[Jaskalas]

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Annual air temperatures global

They are both two parts of a larger warming trend that of course involves other natural forcing factors.

Yes, they are. And as the IPCC says we are the main cause: since the 1950s.

Yet the two 50 year time periods, each with their own 20 years of warming are indistinguishable from each other. What was natural warming the first time is clearly still natural today.

Just looking at the warming during two time periods without accounting for the activity of the underlying independent variables that create global surface temperatures is ridiculous.

Has anyone addressed why the temperature change is identical in the 30-40s and the 80-90s, why less than half of the past century had any warming at all?

It's not a very impressive signal, being identical to natural warming.

 

[Paul98]

See above. 😉


Anyway here's an interesting abstract that seems to show hurricane intensity and numbers have increases as the ocean temperatures warm:


http://m.sciencemag.org/content/309/5742/1844.abstract?sid=366261fd-4b55-4778-8239-97126cefb3d6


Or were these guys bought out and doing it for the money too?

Of course they were, everyone who supports the global warming hoax is doing it for the money. Evidence doesn't matter, data doesn't matter, I believe what I believe. You can't believe anything that you read, instead you must think outside the box and ignore anything that doesn't support what you already believe.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, they are. And as the IPCC says we are the main cause: since the 1950s.

Yet the two 50 year time periods, each with their own 20 years of warming are indistinguishable from each other. What was natural warming the first time is clearly still natural today.

Has anyone addressed why the temperature change is identical in the 30-40s and the 80-90s, why less than half of the past century had any warming at all?

It's not a very impressive signal, being identical to natural warming.

I'm sorry but this is an illogical argument. You are only looking at the dependent variable without looking at movement in all the independent variables. This is a big science no-no.

Let's use the example of a household budget. Say yesterday you went to work and made $100 and spent $0. Your bank account goes up $100. Today you go to work and make $200 but spend $100 on fixing your car. Your bank account again goes up $100. By your argument the amount of money you were paid both days was the same because your bank account increased by $100 both times. In short, you aren't accounting for spending even though that has a big impact.

One of the biggest drivers of global temperatures is... well duh... the sun. From 1900 to 1960 we experienced a significant increase in solar irradience, and the Earth got warmer. From 1960 onwards it has decreased, yet the Earth continues to get warmer. That implies that some other factor is making up for the decreased solar output.

Still think it's all natural?

 

[Aldon]

Oh yea, skepticalscience.com is theeeee source to go. Next time I want to some reasoning for why same-sex marriage should be banned, I'll go to a Republican.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I'm sorry but this is an illogical argument. You are only looking at the dependent variable without looking at movement in all the independent variables. This is a big science no-no.

Let's use the example of a household budget. Say yesterday you went to work and made $100 and spent $0. Your bank account goes up $100. Today you go to work and make $200 but spend $100 on fixing your car. Your bank account again goes up $100. By your argument the amount of money you were paid both days was the same because your bank account increased by $100 both times. In short, you aren't accounting for spending even though that has a big impact.

One of the biggest drivers of global temperatures is... well duh... the sun. From 1900 to 1960 we experienced a significant increase in solar irradience, and the Earth got warmer. From 1960 onwards it has decreased, yet the Earth continues to get warmer. That implies that some other factor is making up for the decreased solar output.

Still think it's all natural?

Nice "spike" in temperature. You know - the same one that also occurred 1910 - 1940? Damn all those vehicles pumping out CO2 during those industrial times!

 

[fskimospy]

Oh yea, skepticalscience.com is theeeee source to go. Next time I want to some reasoning for why same-sex marriage should be banned, I'll go to a Republican.

To quote you from earlier in this thread:

I don't care what kind of evidence you give me, but I will also not care about what it has to say when the implication is we are "the main cause".

You already said you refuse to accept evidence no matter the source if it tells you something you don't want to believe. You're not open to rational argument.

 

[Aldon]

You already said you refuse to accept evidence no matter the source if it tells you something you don't want to believe. You're not open to rational argument.

Where did I mention I accepted a source? Can you read? Do you know the definition of sarcasm? Don't justify something because it only fits your agenda.

 

[monovillage]

See above. 😉


Anyway here's an interesting abstract that seems to show hurricane intensity and numbers have increases as the ocean temperatures warm:


http://m.sciencemag.org/content/309/5742/1844.abstract?sid=366261fd-4b55-4778-8239-97126cefb3d6




Or were these guys bought out and doing it for the money too?

The link is 8 years old, here's the new numbers.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/11/graphs-of-day-major-us-hurricane.html

The five-year period ending 2013 has seen 2 hurricane landfalls. That is a record low since 1900. Two other five-year periods have seen 3 landfalls (years ending in 1984 and 1994). Prior to 1970 the fewest landfalls over a five-year period was 6. From 1940 to 1957, every 5-year period had more than 10 hurricane landfalls (1904-1920 was almost as active).

 

[fskimospy]

Where did I mention I accepted a source? Can you read? Do you know the definition of sarcasm? Don't justify something because it only fits your agenda.

I'm saying that you complaining about my source is irrelevant because you already said you don't accept any source.

What's funny is that your earlier post already said that you only accept things that fit your agenda, now you're trying to project that onto me.

 

[Aldon]

My points were never about fitting my or someone else's agenda. The implication of all of my arguments were for the sake of criticizing an idea, that is, that climate change is man made. Whether you agreed or not, or to what extent, climate change or global warming is not solely the result of carbon dioxide emissions.

Also, it's very funny how the solar activity dropped all of a sudden when global warming received more attention from the media, that is, during Reagan era / around that time.

We're talking about scientists rigging data, and you come across with your cute internet site, claiming it's proof for something. Come on, you can do better than that.

 

[monovillage]

1.) Your link does not contain your quote.

2.) The most similar quote refers to models not representing a reduction in the global warming trend, not a reduction in temperatures.

So not only are you misquoting your source, but you didn't even understand your own misquote.

lol.

It contains the exact quote I included you lying sack of shit.

 

[fskimospy]

It contains the exact quote I included you lying sack of shit.

Provide the page number then you lying sack of shit.

 

[fskimospy]

My points were never about fitting my or someone else's agenda. The implication of all of my arguments were for the sake of criticizing an idea, that is, that climate change is man made. Whether you agreed or not, or to what extent, climate change or global warming is not solely the result of carbon dioxide emissions.

Also, it's very funny how the solar activity dropped all of a sudden when global warming received more attention from the media, that is, during Reagan era / around that time.

We're talking about scientists rigging data, and you come across with your cute internet site, claiming it's proof for something. Come on, you can do better than that.

You are a really interesting example of complete epistemic closure. I've never seen someone come out quite so clearly and say "I refuse to accept contrary evidence" and then expect people to continue to engage with him.

You're just not capable of talking about this rationally. If you were, you would never have made such a statement.

 

[Paratus]

The link is 8 years old, here's the new numbers.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/11/graphs-of-day-major-us-hurricane.html

The 2005 article looked at 35 years of hurricanes. Yours looked at 5.

So the new one is right and the old one is wrong? Or was the 2005 paper bought and paid for, but the 2013 paper is pure science?

 

[Aldon]

Ehm, maybe you should let your interpretation go elsewhere but not into what I was saying. If you're quoting something, let the author explain what the implications were. Don't interpret it for me, please and thank you.

What I said:

I don't care what kind of evidence you give me[/B], but I will also not care about what it has to say when the implication is we are "the main cause".

We talked about this a few pages ago. Remember Climategate? Yea, this was the exact reason. If there is so much evidence for whatever the scumbag argues in their paper, then why did conspiracy theories arise?

Exactly, because one scientist found it to be a great way to make money.
Exactly, this means that companies pay scientists to make up a children's story.
Exactly, this means that companies that own a fair share of other companies, such as mass media channels, can influence public opinion.
Exactly, this means people like you start to believe in it.
Exactly, this means we're getting into these kind of conversations.
Exactly, this means there are only a few who actually have rationale to think this way.
Exactly, I am the one. Praise me and applaud.

[...] and then expect people to continue to engage with him.

I am simply refuting your cute graphs and data with a few arguments that were made public as well. Besides, you've never commented on Climategate, did you? Did you comment on corporations working in their own interest, paying scientists with a definite conclusion to make up the content for research? Are you saying you believe some internet websites because of their graphs? If global warming is as clear as water to you, are millions of people idiots and you're the smart guy? Did you comment on one of the coldest winters in centuries?

 

[Paratus]

Says the one who believes the Internet has the answer to the million dollar question of what really affects climate change. If you would have went to college, you would have known the difference between ignorance and criticism.

Only you would believe a college course has the answer to your million dollar question.

Internet? Not quite.

What the sun does has a direct impact on my job. And my comment about the college course was to hopefully point out that you have no idea what you are talking about because you lack the eduction.

Although it's looking more and more possible that it's really because you are trolling. :hmm:

 

[Aldon]

Although it's looking more and more possible that it's really because you are trolling.

Inform us about your success and knowledge of the sun. Maybe we can help you formulate your thesis for your million dollar research fund you could possibly get, assuming you're as educated as you claim to be.

 

[Paul98]

Internet? Not quite.

What the sun does has a direct impact on my job. And my comment about the college course was to hopefully point out that you have no idea what you are talking about because you lack the eduction.

Although it's looking more and more possible that it's really because you are trolling. :hmm:

Just put him on your ignore list he isn't smart enough, and has nothing useful to bring.

 

[Aldon]

Just put him on your ignore list he isn't smart enough, and has nothing useful to bring.

That's the best way to defend an opinion. Applause goes to you too, mass-media influenced, eh... individual. If usefulness is defined as being influenced by the media, then you and the other two are definitely the best examples of usefulness to this topic.

 

[monovillage]

The 2005 article looked at 35 years of hurricanes. Yours looked at 5.

So the new one is right and the old one is wrong? Or was the 2005 paper bought and paid for, but the 2013 paper is pure science?

Bullshit, the graph contained over 100 years of hurricane records. For more on the topic.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/11/are-typhoon-disasters-getting-more.html

The reference is to a paper by Elsner et al. (2008) in Nature which shows an increase in the strongest tropical cyclones in some basins over the sub-climate time period of 1981-2005. Unfortunately for Sachs that paper does not show trends significant at the >90% level for the strongest cyclones in the western North Pacific basin (the world's most active and where Haiyan occurred). The lesson here is that if you are going to pick cherries, make sure that the fruit is not a lemon.

and another rebuttal from your original link
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Webster_Science311.pdf

from Dr. Curry no less.