2015 sets new record for warming

[SkyDekker 1,128]

normiss

Tin foil has proven to prevent facts from entering into the conversation.
Facts and data have no place in some people's understanding of science.
What's up with that?

Amazing how people who don't know what or who a scientist is keep trying to convince other people with "science".

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

***Tin foil has proven to prevent facts from entering into the conversation.
Facts and data have no place in some people's understanding of science.
What's up with that?

Amazing how people who don't know what or who a scientist is keep trying to convince other people with "science".



Irony score un-chartable

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

normiss

Tin foil has proven to prevent facts from entering into the conversation.
Facts and data have no place in some people's understanding of science.
What's up with that?

You have no idea what the word facts even means anymore!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,128]

Quote

Irony score uncharitable

Fact!

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

Quote

Irony score un-chartable

Fact!

Yes, it is.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,402]

Some good news:

===============
How reality silenced the climate change deniers
Ryan Cooper
The Week
January 28, 2016

The data came in last week, and as had been expected, 2015 was measured as the hottest year ever recorded — whether you ask NASA, NOAA, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, the UK's Hadley Centre, or Berkeley Earth — beating the previous record set only last year. A few days later, a gigantic blizzard smashed the eastern seaboard from New York to D.C., setting multiple snowfall and flooding records.

. . .

One traditional part of this routine was missing, however: the usual chorus of climate deniers and trolls nitpicking the data and/or loudly accusing the entirety of the scientific establishment of fraud. Some were still there, but they were notably quiet, particularly compared to previous denier frenzies like the "Climategate" mess. It demonstrates that climate denial really can be subdued — but not through argument, through demonstration and sheer social trench warfare.

But first, how can one tell whether denial is really fading? It's hard to know for sure, but the circumstantial case is fairly strong. Google Trends shows a marked decline in searches for "global warming hoax," (in blue below) somewhat but only partially offset by a slight rise in "climate change hoax" (in red). Though there was a huge spike during Climategate in late 2009, both measurements combined are far below where they were before that incident. . .

Anecdotally, I notice substantially fewer denier trolls attacking me online than a couple years ago, and the denier blogs seem rather halfhearted and dispirited of late. The Republican Party is still committed to doing nothing about climate change, but has mostly retreated to weird evasive slogans like "I'm not a scientist" rather than full-throated denial.

Such a development rather goes against what was becoming the conventional wisdom in communications research. Several papers over the last couple years, particularly one by Brendan Nyhan in 2014, have found that it's basically impossible to talk somebody out of believing conspiracy theories. Argue against vaccine deniers on the scientific merits, talk about the risks of disease, or even present scary pictures of kids sick with rubella or mumps, and people are unmoved — or even double down on their beliefs.

But reasoned argument, citation of authority, or sheer fright aren't the only ways you might try to convince a vaccine denier. You could, to pick an extreme example, infect them and their entire family with a vaccine-preventable illness. That would be immoral to do on purpose, but it actually happened accidentally to one woman and every one of her seven children, who all got whooping cough. Result: They got their shots.

Something similar has been happening with climate change, I suspect. For years and years now deniers like George Will have been cherry-picking the year 1998 (an unusually hot year due to a powerful El Niño) as evidence that there had been no warming since then. For the statistically literate, this was obvious garbage, but now it's irredeemable trash even on its own terms, with 2015 not only breaking the previous record (which was 2014, by the way) but setting the new record by the widest margin on record. Denial needs these sorts of faux-intellectual toeholds, and is palpably harmed when they are blown to smithereens.

. . .

All this doesn't mean that denial couldn't crop back up later, of course. Likely somebody will start whining about "no warming since 2015" inside of a year or two. But this shows that denial is not irreversible once it gains momentum. Reasoned argument doesn't generally move people's beliefs. But social pressure — some combination of argument, ridicule, and counter-mobilization, buttressed by undeniable empirical reality — just might.
==========

[StreetScooby 5]

Came across a good article about how raw temperature data is processed. It's a bit long, but covers a lot of ground. It's not as straight forward as one might think:
Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,402]

From Phys.org:

===============
Long-term global warming not driven naturally
February 1, 2016

By examining how Earth cools itself back down after a period of natural warming, a study by scientists at Duke University and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory confirms that global temperature does not rise or fall chaotically in the long run. Unless pushed by outside forces, temperature should remain stable.

The new evidence may finally help put the chill on skeptics' belief that long-term global warming occurs in an unpredictable manner, independently of external drivers such as human impacts.

"This underscores that large, sustained changes in global temperature like those observed over the last century require drivers such as increased greenhouse gas concentrations," said lead author Patrick Brown, a PhD student at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment. Natural climate cycles alone are insufficient to explain such changes, he said. . . .

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-02-long-term-global-driven-naturally.html
================

[Stumpy 256]

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[rushmc 18]

Ya
that is getting laughed at all over the place



Including here

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

by Dr. Tim Ball

Recent discussion about record weather events, such as the warmest year on record, is a totally misleading and scientifically useless exercise. This is especially true when restricted to the instrumental record that covers about 25% of the globe for at most 120 years. The age of the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years, so the sample size is 0.000002643172%. Discussing the significance of anything in a 120-year record plays directly into the hands of those trying to say that the last 120-years climate is abnormal and all due to human activity. It is done purely for political propaganda, to narrow people’s attention and to generate fear.

The misdirection is based on the false assumption that only a few variables and mechanisms are important in climate change, and they remain constant over the 4.54 billion years. It began with the assumption of the solar constant from the Sun that astronomers define as a medium-sized variable star. The AGW proponents successfully got the world focused on CO2, which is just 0.04% of the total atmospheric gases and varies considerably spatially and temporally. I used to argue that it is like determining the character, structure, and behavior of a human by measuring one wart on the left arm. In fact, they are only looking at one cell of that wart for their determination.

Hard to argue with these facts.....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/07/long-term-climate-change-what-is-a-reasonable-sample-size/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

The best comment from the link

Quote

It is the misuse of science to create the deception that is the AGW claim that makes distraction, exaggeration and selective truths necessary. However, as Aldous Huxley said, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

Hard to argue with these facts.....

There are precious few facts there to argue with, at least in the portion you quoted. For instance, he says, "The misdirection is based on the false assumption that only a few variables and mechanisms are important in climate change, and they remain constant over the 4.54 billion years." No scientist is actually claiming that. He's setting up a simple strawman. I suspect he knows it, but I also suspect his audience doesn't, so he figures he'll get away with it. Looks like it is working, at least with you.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

DanG

Quote

Hard to argue with these facts.....

There are precious few facts there to argue with, at least in the portion you quoted. For instance, he says, "The misdirection is based on the false assumption that only a few variables and mechanisms are important in climate change, and they remain constant over the 4.54 billion years." No scientist is actually claiming that. He's setting up a simple strawman. I suspect he knows it, but I also suspect his audience doesn't, so he figures he'll get away with it. Looks like it is working, at least with you.

No, he is not.
He claims that alarmists are ignoring that data
Big difference

I have mentioned before that the alarmists are using only a life time of data. When looked at as the author does here it is clear that the short time period is not nearly enough. An actuary that would try and do something like that would get fired from his job if he tried.

Your argument is the straw man as you wish to ignore data that is contrary to what has become a religion (you only need faith to believe AGW because facts are scarce at best)

Oh
And I wish you would give up on your mind reading attempts ( "I suspect he knows it,")

You thinking you know what others think (in reality) is not even funny any more. It is ridicules .......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 622]

[rushmc 18]

normiss

Ah yes
from the great debater



One would think even you could come up with something new

But then, you are in the bottom two I would suspect.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

No, he is not.
He claims that alarmists are ignoring that data
Big difference

Yes, he is. "Alarmists" are not ignoring the data. "Deniers" are ignoring the data. There is more data on the climate than the last 120 years. There is a wealth of data from sources other than man made temperature records. Has the planet been hotter in the past? Of course. Does that mean that man cxan't be making the planet hotter now? Of course not. There are many drivers that can affect the climate. Your central "belief" is that man can't be one of them. You are wrong.

Quote

Oh
And I wish you would give up on your mind reading attempts ( "I suspect he knows it,")

I'll write whatever I want, thank you.

Quote

You thinking you know what others think (in reality) is not even funny any more. It is ridicules .......

Yes, it does riducule. It ridicules people like you who think it is okay for you to say what "alarmists" are thinking, but not okay when people like me say what "deniers" are thinking.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

I said they are ignoring data
The climate and its associated data is much older than 120 years. THAT was the point being made
One you gloss over
That is what they are doing
Therefore
You are the one in error
And you just cant accept that fact

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

They are not ignoring data. They are just smart enough to recognize that the climate has many drivers. Man is one of them, but not the only one. The fact that is was warmer or hotter hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago doesn't mean that we can't change the climate today.

Here's a simple analogy (that you'll ignore, but whatever). A man walks into the hospital bleeding profusely. The ER doc says, "You've been shot!" The man replied, "No doc, I've bled profusely in the past after being stabbed, hit by a brick, and fallen off a ladder, but I've never been shot before. My current bleeding couldn't possibly be because I've been shot. Don't be an alarmist."

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 212]

DanG

They are not ignoring data. They are just smart enough to recognize that the climate has many drivers. Man is one of them, but not the only one. The fact that is was warmer or hotter hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago doesn't mean that we can't change the climate today.

Here's a simple analogy (that you'll ignore, but whatever). A man walks into the hospital bleeding profusely. The ER doc says, "You've been shot!" The man replied, "No doc, I've bled profusely in the past after being stabbed, hit by a brick, and fallen off a ladder, but I've never been shot before. My current bleeding couldn't possibly be because I've been shot. Don't be an alarmist."

Best - Negative Ghost Rider.
More like :
Doc: Ooh it looks like you have a fever!
P: I'm not sure.

Doc: It appears you do, we can't prove it really, you may have something different than normal, but I know what I think will make me more money if I can get enough people to believe it.
P:I don't feel bad, doc.

Doc: Impossible, you cannot feel better - obviously you are sick and we must treat you, we MUST.
P: I don't know doc, I don't feel bad at all.

Doc: What do you know - just to be safe we will perform exploratory surgery and justify my claim, here's a bill for 100K -

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

[billvon 2,402]

>Doc: Ooh it looks like you have a fever!
>P: I'm not sure.

Doc: You have emphysema. You really should quit smoking.
Patient: Emphysema and smoking are not related. There's no proof. And even if there is I might get emphysema anyway. And even if I do, emphysema might not be all that bad. Besides, my neighbor smoked three packs a day and lived to 120.
Doc: OK forget emphysema. You are also at very high risk for lung cancer - and that is fatal more than half the time.
Patient: Alarmist! What, I am going to DIE just because I smoke? Listen, genius, there's already smoke in the air. What are you going to do - stop breathing? Are you seriously telling me I will feel better if I stop breathing? Because I don't. And let me guess - you're going to charge me $100K for this advice.
Doc: No, the charge is the same whether or not you listen to me. But treating lung cancer could cost you hundreds of thousands.
Patient: Now you are just trying to scare me, like you try to scare all the other sheep. Are my cigarettes going to jump out of my pocket and kill me?
Doc: No, it's the damage they do to your . . .
Patient: Besides which, in the 1960's I saw commercials by DOCTORS that said that smoking relaxes you and makes you live longer! What about that? See - there's NO CONSENSUS!

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>Doc: Ooh it looks like you have a fever!
>P: I'm not sure.

Doc: You have emphysema. You really should quit smoking.
Patient: Emphysema and smoking are not related. There's no proof. And even if there is I might get emphysema anyway. And even if I do, emphysema might not be all that bad. Besides, my neighbor smoked three packs a day and lived to 120.
Doc: OK forget emphysema. You are also at very high risk for lung cancer - and that is fatal more than half the time.
Patient: Alarmist! What, I am going to DIE just because I smoke? Listen, genius, there's already smoke in the air. What are you going to do - stop breathing? Are you seriously telling me I will feel better if I stop breathing? Because I don't. And let me guess - you're going to charge me $100K for this advice.
Doc: No, the charge is the same whether or not you listen to me. But treating lung cancer could cost you hundreds of thousands.
Patient: Now you are just trying to scare me, like you try to scare all the other sheep. Are my cigarettes going to jump out of my pocket and kill me?
Doc: No, it's the damage they do to your . . .
Patient: Besides which, in the 1960's I saw commercials by DOCTORS that said that smoking relaxes you and makes you live longer! What about that? See - there's NO CONSENSUS!

So you are equating global warming to impending death.

Gotcha.

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

[normiss 622]

You created the game he just handed your ass to you in.
I would have expected a more sporting retort.

[turtlespeed 212]

normiss

You created the game he just handed your ass to you in.
I would have expected a more sporting retort.

Holy over exaggeration Batman.

It was his own ass he handled.

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

[gowlerk 1,915]

turtlespeed

***You created the game he just handed your ass to you in.
I would have expected a more sporting retort.

Holy over exaggeration Batman.

It was his own ass he handled.


Are you kidding? Billvon 1 Turtlespeed 0 on that one. Maybe we need a poll. (Although your "Gotcha" was a nice try.)

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.