It will be colder today in Texas than at the North Pole which will be above freezing

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
So I assume you agree that your earlier suggestion that 2016 being cooler overall than 1998 would be indicative of anything was a basic stats error, right?
Except that these "stats errors" have been stacking up for quite some time...assuming of course that the satellite data can be trusted.

Also, I have no idea why you are referring to the imaginary pause in quotes. Can you explain this?
Doesn't matter. Please answer the question...why are the lower limits of the consensus ECS estimates being lowered?
 

NaughtyGeek

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,065
0
71
Vostok_Petit_data.svg


Yup, climate change is man made and we're all going to die.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Fine with me as I can afford it, your Democratic voting inner city residents might find it a bit financially challenging. However I realize you don't really give a shit about them apart from being a lever to increase taxes that you don't want to pay yourself (*cough* collective action problem*). You should put away some of that carbon tax money for swimming lessons though.

Don't be silly, it's easy to structure taxes so they don't disproportionately affect the poor. I'm perfectly comfortable paying increased taxes for this, but as I would say that I drive my car about 40-50 miles in a given month, my carbon contributions from transportation are already quite low.

As for swimming lessons, no need! America won't let anything happen to a city whose MSA accounts for about 10% of the entire nations GDP. I mean did you forget where all the money and the power is? On the coasts, dummy.

You'll pay some for your shitty decisions now or you'll pay more later. Your choice!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Except that these "stats errors" have been stacking up for quite some time...assuming of course that the satellite data can be trusted.

This is a nonsensical statement.

Doesn't matter. Please answer the question...why are the lower limits of the consensus ECS estimates being lowered?

It most certainly does matter. Can you explain yourself? The rest of your question is a red herring anyways, so it's basically irrelevant. I'm more interested in your attempt to pull another one of those "who, me?" moments.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
Honestly, the best course of action at this point is to find some high ground or build an ark...

The population and land loss from the melting of ice will drastically revert the climate change we have begun. Won't be all that long until it gets back to normal from that point.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Yes, it is. Thank you for recognizing it as such.

Don't divert...answer the fucking question.

I'm sorry Doc, but it's entirely irrelevant to the point you tried to bring up. Changing lower estimates on climate sensitivity is an entirely different issue than the imaginary pause. (note the lack of scare quotes)

Anyway, for the third time, why did you put it in quotes? To be clear I already know why, I just want to see you admit to doing the same chickenshit 'who, me?' thing as you always do, especially when it comes to discussions on climate change.

We know you're a denier, so just embrace it. Don't try to have it both ways.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Don't be silly, it's easy to structure taxes so they don't disproportionately affect the poor. I'm perfectly comfortable paying increased taxes for this, but as I would say that I drive my car about 40-50 miles in a given month, my carbon contributions from transportation are already quite low.

As for swimming lessons, no need! America won't let anything happen to a city whose MSA accounts for about 10% of the entire nations GDP. I mean did you forget where all the money and the power is? On the coasts, dummy.

You'll pay some for your shitty decisions now or you'll pay more later. Your choice!

Yeah, like shitty decisions to treat some carbon emissions as more equal than others. But I guess it's OK if you're creating carbon to run a mostly empty route just so you only have to wait 12 minutes for a bus rather than 30. We'll just have some citizen in another state pay for it since if they drive a car they deserve what's coming to them.

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/08/14/jarrett-walker-empty-buses-serve-a-purpose/
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Yeah, like shitty decisions to treat some carbon emissions as more equal than others. But I guess it's OK if you're creating carbon to run a mostly empty route just so you only have to wait 12 minutes for a bus rather than 30. We'll just have some citizen in another state pay for it since if they drive a car they deserve what's coming to them.

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/08/14/jarrett-walker-empty-buses-serve-a-purpose/

Are you just putting out random stream of consciousness rants about transit systems or something? I couldn't care less about whatever bus route you're mad about.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I'm sorry Doc, but it's entirely irrelevant to the point you tried to bring up. Changing lower estimates on climate sensitivity is an entirely different issue than the imaginary pause. (note the lack of scare quotes)

Anyway, for the third time, why did you put it in quotes? To be clear I already know why, I just want to see you admit to doing the same chickenshit 'who, me?' thing as you always do, especially when it comes to discussions on climate change.

We know you're a denier, so just embrace it. Don't try to have it both ways.
Let's try something really novel here...you answer the question and I'll show you how it's relevant to my point.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Let's try something really novel here...you answer the question and I'll show you how it's relevant to my point.

I already did, which was to point out that it's irrelevant.

So now that we cleared that up feel free to answer away!

By the way, this is all massively off of the original point, which was the likely convenient acceptance of El Nino by the denier community, something that you don't seem to dispute. I fully expect you to start doing this at some point in 2016, in fact.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I already did, which was to point out that it's irrelevant.

So now that we cleared that up feel free to answer away!

By the way, this is all massively off of the original point, which was the likely convenient acceptance of El Nino by the denier community, something that you don't seem to dispute. I fully expect you to start doing this at some point in 2016, in fact.
Wow...you are quite the master of diversion aren't you? It's actually quite pathetic if you don't mind my saying.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
From a quick search I guess a good answer is from December 8th senate testimony on why the ECS is being lowered.

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/pub...922F1D45D18C75.dr.-judith-curry-testimony.pdf

Now the most straightforward answer, which science has basically always proven to not be comprised of, would be that emissions and global warming was correlative to a greater degree than we thought and we are now lowering the ECS due to the fact that we overestimated whatever causal relationship our emissions have on the climate.

How low will they go, and at what point does one set their hair on fire? That is the real question.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Wow...you are quite the master of diversion aren't you? It's actually quite pathetic if you don't mind my saying.

It's "settled science" and he's above answering questions about data quality and such. His kind have gone way past that stuff into "who are we going to take money from and who will we give it to" fantasizing. This is just their vehicle to obtain that goal, if it weren't climate change it would be something else.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Wow...you are quite the master of diversion aren't you? It's actually quite pathetic if you don't mind my saying.

So to be clear, you're complaining about me being the 'master of diversion' because I'm unwilling to discuss your diversion from my indictment of your attempt to use a single year as indicative of a trend.

That is frankly hilarious.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
You clearly don't understand the data if you think it hinges on '98.
It's sad when Paratus is the only one making relevant arguments.

Oh I understand it just fine, I just don't cherry pick datasets.

You've been told about the dangers of cherry picking data before, by Paratus no less if I'm not mistaken. I sincerely do not understand why you continue to do it if not to avoid uncomfortable thoughts.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
So to be clear, you're complaining about me being the 'master of diversion' because I'm unwilling to discuss your diversion from my indictment of your attempt to use a single year as indicative of a trend.

That is frankly hilarious.
I never attempted to use a single year as indicative of a trend or lack thereof...that's all you.

Anyone know the superlative for pathetic?
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
"Who, me?" lol.
I asked you a question that you never answered...surprise! Anything you imagined that I implied by asking that question is just that...your imagination. Maybe you're imagination is right, maybe not...however, in this case, it's definitely not based in reality. Why don't you just answer my questions and keep your preconceptions of what I may be implying out of this? Just a thought.

And for those following along, I believe that 'most pathetic' is the actual superlative form.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
I asked you a question that you never answered...surprise!

I answered it literally in my next post. The answer was "nothing." You didn't read something before commenting... surprise!

Anything you imagined that I implied by asking that question is just that...your imagination. Maybe you're imagination is right, maybe not...however, in this case, it's definitely not based in reality. Why don't you just answer my questions and keep your preconceptions of what I may be implying out of this? Just a thought.

And for those following along, I believe that 'most pathetic' is the actual superlative form.

Thank you for so clearly and concisely describing your 'who, me?' shtick.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,699
1,448
126
Perhaps you think you know all you need to know about a simple thing like the global climate but not everyone believes the same way. Some of us require a lot more information before we decide to dismantle Western industrial civilization in order to maybe, possibly, postponing 1 degree of warming before the year 2100.

"Western industrial civilization" is hardly more than 250 years old.

We don't want to "dismantle" it. We'd prefer to transform it.

Even if "western industrial civilization" survives or "weathers" climate effects of burning fossil fuel, a major component of fossil fuel is going to run out, and there are enough serious scientists whose estimates predict the shortages to occur in mere decades, or before advent of the next century.

I stumbled across the prediction for next week's storm in a thread linked in the Daily Kos newsletter. I always attempt to cross-verify stories I hear from either side of the political spectrum, and I was curious enough to run a web-search. Somehow, it didn't turn up anything immediately, but now the OP offers me something to confirm the Kos article.

Somebody here, or possibly somebody in my local conservative propaganda rag of "liberal media" in a letter to the editor, argued that he'll accept climate change as a reality when the UK has become a desert, without fog or rain. In other words, wait until the damage is done to confirm the science.

Desert? No desert there. Only flooding in Scotland never seen before.

This is like Bush expounding his "free market principles" to disparage regulation. He had said that action taken against monopolies or concentrated industries could only be justified after people get hurt.

Meanwhile the massive plume of methane leaking out of Porter Ranch continues, and it is going to take many months before it can be stopped.

I can't change any of this; I have to drive an automobile here and there to go about my modest life. So I'm laughing hysterically. "Y'all just a bunch of brainless one-celled animals pursuing your daily objectives and incapable of collective action. Just another failed blip in the rise and fall of one species or another."

AN APPENDED AFTERTHOUGHT: Bart couches a thought in language that I see all the time: "Not everyone believes the same way . . . "

I see that all the skeptics with their "beliefs" are seldom knowledgeable in climatology, meteorology, oceanography, photo-chemistry, physics or much anything else related. And if you look at human understanding, there is a spectrum that ranges from "knowing" in the scientific or factual sense, logically deducing using the same tools, "suspecting" because you see phenomena and you suspect a causative basis, and "believing" as you pursue your religion. Of course, your run-of-the-mill catechism includes a question about "Why are we here?" with the answer "to know, love, and serve God." But that isn't "knowing" in the realm of scientific inquiry.
 
Last edited:
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I answered it literally in my next post. The answer was "nothing." You didn't read something before commenting... surprise!
You never answered my question. You initially avoided answering the question on the basis that you thought it was irrelevant. I was waiting for your answer to show you how it was relevant...but I'm sure you sensed where I was going so an immediate divert was in order. So slippery! You then went on to make the erroneous assumption that I was attempting to use a single year as indicative of a trend. I don't plan to dwell on this but you really should take a hard look as to how you came to such a wrong conclusion. You sir are quite the dancer! But we all already knew this from past dealings.

I'll ask you once again as I'm trying to make a relevant point (that you apparently can't visualize) and I need your cooperation to do so: "Why are the lower limits of the consensus ECS estimates being lowered?"
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
You never answered my question. You initially avoided answering the question on the basis that you thought it was irrelevant. I was waiting for your answer to show you how it was relevant...but I'm sure you sensed where I was going so an immediate divert was in order. So slippery!

It's definitely irrelevant as the 'pause' never existed to begin with. Changes in IPCC estimates aren't related to nonexistent things. Interestingly enough, the 'decrease' in AR5 is actually a return to the same range estimated in AR1, AR2, and AR3. It's pretty.. uhmm... novel for you to describe the IPCC increasing it from 1.5C to 2C and then returning it to 1.5C in the way you have. ;)

Also, I think it merits repeating how funny I find it that you're complaining about me diverting away from something because I wouldn't entertain your attempt to divert away from being called out for saying something stupid.

You then went on to make the erroneous assumption that I was attempting to use a single year as indicative of a trend. I don't plan to dwell on this but you really should take a hard look as to how you came to such a wrong conclusion. You sir are quite the dancer! But we all knew that from past dealings.

Again with the 'who, me?', huh. Haha.

You know exactly what you're doing when you try to pull shit like that. Seriously, just stop and discuss things like an adult in the future.

I'll ask you once again as I'm trying to make a relevant point (that you apparently can't visualize) and I need your cooperation to do so: "Why are the lower limits of the consensus ECS estimates being lowered?"

Of course you don't need my cooperation to do so. If you have a relevant point then make it.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Nothing bring out Derp Savage Fan like the liberal bias of math, science, temperatures, and facts... WFT is this guy on? Heavily invested in coal, gas, and flat earth...