billvon 2,406
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
And there's a reason a larger number of people have been openly mocking alarmists. Because you provide an example of a coastline where sand is depleted and erplenished when we are discussing a place where it doesn't get replenished, is only depleted and will continue to be depleted until another glaciation set up moraines to form a new archipelago.
And then you say "it's getting worse." How? Because it is now hitting critical mass?
Earlier you made the comment that you can prove global warming simply because people get surprised now that winter is cold. I'd expect this comment from Joe Romm or Dana Nutticelli (people who are well compensated for putting out that kind of stuff) but not from you. The logic is, of course, that we used to have cold winters until anthropogenic global warming made the winters warm - right up until global warming made the winters cold again.
Bill - you're statement either means global warming ended (let's pick 2010 as a good date) or that data is meaningless because global warming is happening regardless of what observations show.
That's the sort of flippant comment that pisses people off.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
And then you say "it's getting worse." How? Because it is now hitting critical mass?
Earlier you made the comment that you can prove global warming simply because people get surprised now that winter is cold. I'd expect this comment from Joe Romm or Dana Nutticelli (people who are well compensated for putting out that kind of stuff) but not from you. The logic is, of course, that we used to have cold winters until anthropogenic global warming made the winters warm - right up until global warming made the winters cold again.
Bill - you're statement either means global warming ended (let's pick 2010 as a good date) or that data is meaningless because global warming is happening regardless of what observations show.
That's the sort of flippant comment that pisses people off.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
brenthutch 384
brenthutchWhen comparing the IPCC's 90 models to observed temperatures (either HadCRUT4 or UAH) 87 out of 90 models over estimated warming.
Some may say that a 96.67% failure-to-predict rate is less than robust.
Inconvenient Truth?
billvon 2,406
>Earlier you made the comment that you can prove global warming simply because
>people get surprised now that winter is cold.
?? Not at all. That's just an amusing anecdote. It has very little to do with the mountain of evidence supporting 1) that we are increasing CO2 concentrations, that 2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and 3) the planet has been warming since 1850.
>That's the sort of flippant comment that pisses people off.
Yes. Annoying someone on the Internet is just like losing your home. Excellent analogy. Try it in Barrow; see how well it plays.
>people get surprised now that winter is cold.
?? Not at all. That's just an amusing anecdote. It has very little to do with the mountain of evidence supporting 1) that we are increasing CO2 concentrations, that 2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and 3) the planet has been warming since 1850.
>That's the sort of flippant comment that pisses people off.
Yes. Annoying someone on the Internet is just like losing your home. Excellent analogy. Try it in Barrow; see how well it plays.
kallend 1,635
brenthutchWhen comparing the IPCC's 90 models to observed temperatures (either HadCRUT4 or UAH) 87 out of 90 models over estimated warming.
Some may say that a 96.67% failure-to-predict rate is less than robust.
You still fail to provide a link to your claim. So far it's just ipse dixit.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
brenthutch 384
If I were to back up my claim, would you concede that I'm right and you and your fellow climate crusaders are wrong?
davjohns 1
My best friend just wrote me an email from home (Birmingham, Alabama). He is stuck at work. His wife, ex-wife, kids, everyone...stuck at work. Cars abandoned on the freeways. Hotels stuffed with stranded travelers.
Snow and ice like they have never seen before.
Weatherman predicted a light dusting that would quickly melt.
They blame global warming. 
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
DanG 1
kallend 1,635
davjohnsMy best friend just wrote me an email from home (Birmingham, Alabama). He is stuck at work. His wife, ex-wife, kids, everyone...stuck at work. Cars abandoned on the freeways. Hotels stuffed with stranded travelers.
Snow and ice like they have never seen before.
Weatherman predicted a light dusting that would quickly melt.
They blame global warming.
"They", like brenthutch, then demonstrate a toddler level understanding of time and space as applied to climate.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 18
kallend***From the link you and kallend have so far ignored
Quote. Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard..
For good reason. "Goddard" is an electrical engineer, not a scientist (let alone a climate scientist). He is a well recognized charlatan who has not managed to get any of his denier garbage published in a peer reviewed journal.
And Steven Goddard isn't even his real name.
So only climate scientists can examine data to determine if trends are correctly analized.
Ok
Good
Now I have even more reason to ignore you
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 1,635
rushmc******From the link you and kallend have so far ignored
Quote. Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard..
For good reason. "Goddard" is an electrical engineer, not a scientist (let alone a climate scientist). He is a well recognized charlatan who has not managed to get any of his denier garbage published in a peer reviewed journal.
And Steven Goddard isn't even his real name.
So only climate scientists can examine data to determine if trends are correctly analized.
Ok
Good
Now I have even more reason to ignore you
I do have a PhD in science.
Are you a scientist of any sort?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 18
kallend*********From the link you and kallend have so far ignored
Quote. Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard..
For good reason. "Goddard" is an electrical engineer, not a scientist (let alone a climate scientist). He is a well recognized charlatan who has not managed to get any of his denier garbage published in a peer reviewed journal.
And Steven Goddard isn't even his real name.
So only climate scientists can examine data to determine if trends are correctly analized.
Ok
Good
Now I have even more reason to ignore you
I do have a PhD in science.
Are you a scientist of any sort?
Nope
but you claim that only a climate scientist can look at and evalutate temp data
So it does not much matter what you have been trained in
That is, if we follow your lead
But then, you usually have two paths
one you follow
and one you want everyone else to follow
Sorry
I am not a follower
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 1,635
rushmc************From the link you and kallend have so far ignored
Quote. Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard..
For good reason. "Goddard" is an electrical engineer, not a scientist (let alone a climate scientist). He is a well recognized charlatan who has not managed to get any of his denier garbage published in a peer reviewed journal.
And Steven Goddard isn't even his real name.
So only climate scientists can examine data to determine if trends are correctly analized.
Ok
Good
Now I have even more reason to ignore you
I do have a PhD in science.
Are you a scientist of any sort?
Nope
but you claim that only a climate scientist can look at and evalutate temp data
Another untruth from you.
I didn't claim any such thing.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
turtlespeed 212
kallend***My best friend just wrote me an email from home (Birmingham, Alabama). He is stuck at work. His wife, ex-wife, kids, everyone...stuck at work. Cars abandoned on the freeways. Hotels stuffed with stranded travelers.
Snow and ice like they have never seen before.
Weatherman predicted a light dusting that would quickly melt.
They blame global warming.
"They", like brenthutch, then demonstrate a toddler level understanding of time and space as applied to climate.
I wonder what percentage of your posts here are actually without insult.
I am confident that the % is well above absolutely everyone else on this website.
Classy.
Childish.
Immature.
. . . and as mentioned, worthy of an ignore button.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
All of that is sad, because you seem to have an intelligence. Too bad you squander so much of it at a fourth grade name calling level.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
brenthutch 384
kallend*********From the link you and kallend have so far ignored
Quote. Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard..
For good reason. "Goddard" is an electrical engineer, not a scientist (let alone a climate scientist). He is a well recognized charlatan who has not managed to get any of his denier garbage published in a peer reviewed journal.
And Steven Goddard isn't even his real name.
So only climate scientists can examine data to determine if trends are correctly analized.
Ok
Good
Now I have even more reason to ignore you
I do have a PhD in science.
Are you a scientist of any sort?
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time"
brenthutch 384
kallend*********From the link you and kallend have so far ignored
Quote. Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard..
For good reason. "Goddard" is an electrical engineer, not a scientist (let alone a climate scientist). He is a well recognized charlatan who has not managed to get any of his denier garbage published in a peer reviewed journal.
And Steven Goddard isn't even his real name.
So only climate scientists can examine data to determine if trends are correctly analized.
Ok
Good
Now I have even more reason to ignore you
I do have a PhD in science.
Are you a scientist of any sort?
Argumentum ab auctoritate.
kallend 1,635
brenthutch
Argumentum ab auctoritate.
Most certainly does not mean that all opinions are equally valid.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
brenthutch 384
The "real" climate scientist at the IPCC said:
"There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases."
In reality, HadCRUT4 observations are currently transiting the 95% certainty threshold of the IPCC's multi-model mean.
From NOAA (more "real" climate scientists): In 2013, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average temperature of 52.4°F was 0.3°F above the 20th century average, and tied with 1980 as the 37th warmest year in the 119-year period of record. The 2013 annual temperature marked the coolest year for the nation since 2009.
Just what will it take for you to admit the IPCC got it wrong. (Not a rhetorical statement, I really want to know)
"There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases."
In reality, HadCRUT4 observations are currently transiting the 95% certainty threshold of the IPCC's multi-model mean.
From NOAA (more "real" climate scientists): In 2013, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average temperature of 52.4°F was 0.3°F above the 20th century average, and tied with 1980 as the 37th warmest year in the 119-year period of record. The 2013 annual temperature marked the coolest year for the nation since 2009.
Just what will it take for you to admit the IPCC got it wrong. (Not a rhetorical statement, I really want to know)
kallend 1,635
brenthutchThe "real" climate scientist at the IPCC said:
"There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases."
In reality, HadCRUT4 observations are currently transiting the 95% certainty threshold of the IPCC's multi-model mean.
From NOAA (more "real" climate scientists): In 2013, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average temperature of 52.4°F was 0.3°F above the 20th century average, and tied with 1980 as the 37th warmest year in the 119-year period of record. The 2013 annual temperature marked the coolest year for the nation since 2009.
Just what will it take for you to admit the IPCC got it wrong. (Not a rhetorical statement, I really want to know)
What is wrong is your understanding of the statements.
You interpret noise in a signal as part of the signal. It isn't.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 2,406
>The 2013 annual temperature marked the coolest year for the nation since 2009.
How you know the deniers are losing their battle:
"This is the coldest year in FOUR WHOLE YEARS!"
O the horror.
How you know the deniers are losing their battle:
"This is the coldest year in FOUR WHOLE YEARS!"
O the horror.
========
worse: adj. Comparative of bad, ill.
. . .
2. More severe or unfavorable.
========
For example, let's say you lived near the ocean. The shore eroded sometimes, got larger sometimes. Then the Army Corps of Engineers dug a new inlet just down the beach from you. Currents changed. You could watch the sand being swept down the beach from the new currents. From that point on, you lost 40 feet of beach a year until, 10 years later, your house was condemned. You might say "the erosion got worse once they dug the inlet."
And if someone from the Army Corps of Engineers came by to mock you, tell you "oh, did your sand get sandier and erosion get erosionier in your imagination, poor little guy?" I suspect you would be more likely to take them to court than to shuffle your feet and say "gee, you're right, I'm an idiot."
Which, I think, is why anger is building against many deniers. These are people who are sitting back in their homes, reaping the benefits of all those CO2 emissions, telling people in Alaska that they are crazy. People who have lived there for generations are being told "it's all your imagination. Now shut the hell up and listen to me; I know what's really happening to your town. You are clearly deluded."
They will take that as well as you would.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites