Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

More Buffoonery!

Bill Nye the ‘Idiot Guy’ Hits MSNBC to Blame Storm and Everything Else on Climate Change.

"The most laughable part of this pseudo-science babble is Nye’s claim that “the strong winds we had in California” are a result of climate change. For those unfamiliar with the region, they are called Santa Ana Winds and they have been a fact of life here for thousands of years."

Fire, the price we pay - Los Angeles Times

Bill Nye the ?Idiot Guy? Hits MSNBC to Blame Storm and Everything Else on Climate Change | PJ Tatler

You really can't make this shit up...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

You really can't make this shit up...

Originally Posted by Neo

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

You really can't make this shit up...

Ya because California isnt in the middle of one of its driest periods ever and is facing the most severe water shortage ever. Its all made up.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Neo

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

You really can't make this shit up...

Ya because California isnt in the middle of one of its driest periods ever and is facing the most severe water shortage ever. Its all made up.

I might suggest that a principle reason for California's water shortage derives from their unmitigated and blind waste of water...

Can we please have a colorful graph to explain this aspect of global warming?
Thanks in advance.... Oh you haven't put any of this data into your computer models.....well OK then.

^ Who ever said that it would stop snowing? Who ever said this? Why do you right wing nitwits keep posting things like this thinking somehow that it debunks climate change? Those snows in the NE right now are a direct result of it.

Its caused by the polar vortex. But I am sure you will keep taking the words of economists over scientists.

The stupidity is mind numbing.

An intense blizzard, appropriately named Hercules, is about to blanket the Northeast. Antarctic ice locked in a Russian ship containing a team of scientists—en route, no less, to do climate research. Record low temperatures have been seen in parts of the US, and in Winnipeg, temperatures on December 31 were as cold as temperatures on...Mars.

So as is their seasonal wont, here come the climate skeptics. Exhibit A:

This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 2, 2014
And Trump isn't the only one. A similar reaction came from Congressman John Fleming, a Louisiana Republican:

"Global warming" isn't so warm these days. U.S. ushers in 2014 with record-low temps, snow - CBS News

— John Fleming (@RepFleming) January 2, 2014
And RedState.com's Erick Erickson also piled on, blending global warming dismissal with religion:

The difference between people who believe in the 2nd coming of Jesus and those who believe in global warming is that Jesus will return.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) January 2, 2014
Meanwhile, the front page of the Drudge Report listed a variety of cold weather news items under the heading, "Global Warming Intensifies..."



Rush Limbaugh also weighed in, noting that the Green Bay Packers may face San Francisco in subzero temperatures at home this weekend:

LIMBAUGH: I would love to see Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Hillary sitting outside on the 50 yard line of Green Bay the whole game, and then afterwards do a presentation for us all on global warming. Sit there the whole game outside.

And last but not least, Fox Business's Stuart Varney used the Antarctic ice story to claim that "we're looking at global cooling, forget this global warming."

youtube.com/watch?v=bEsGu85ATgs

All of this is all wrong in ways that have all been explained before. So just a few brief observations:

1. Statements about climate trends must be based on, er, trends. Not individual events or occurrences. Weather is not climate, and anecdotes are not statistics.

2. Global warming is actually expected to increase "heavy precipitation in winter storms," and for the northern hemisphere, there is evidence that these storms are already more frequent and intense, according to the draft US National Climate Assessment.

3. Antarctica is a very cold place. But global warming is affecting it as predicted: Antarctica is losing ice overall, according to the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, sea ice is a different matter than land-based or glacial ice. Antarctic sea ice is increasing, and moreover, the reason for this may be climate change! (For more, read here.)

Finally, just one last thing. When it's winter on Earth, it's also summer on Earth...somewhere else. Thus, allow us to counter anecdotal evidence about cold weather with more anecdotal evidence: It's blazing hot in Australia, with temperatures, in some regions, set to possibly soar above 120 degrees Fahrenheit in the coming days.

Dear Donald Trump: Winter Does Not Disprove Global Warming | Mother Jones

The final nail in the deniers coffin from the Met Office

26 January 2015 - Provisional full-year global mean temperature figures show 2014 was one of the warmest years in a record dating back to 1850.

The HadCRUT4 dataset (compiled by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit) shows last year was 0.56C (±0.1C*) above the long-term (1961-1990) average.

Nominally this ranks 2014 as the joint warmest year in the record, tied with 2010, but the uncertainty ranges mean it's not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest.

Colin Morice, a climate monitoring scientist at the Met Office, said: "Uncertainties in the estimates of global temperature are larger than the differences between the warmest years. This limits what we can say about rankings of individual years.

"We can say with confidence that 2014 is one of ten warmest years in the series and that it adds to the set of near-record temperatures we have seen over the last two decades."

Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia, said: "2014 was an exceptionally warm year which saw warm tropical pacific temperatures, despite not being officially regarded as an El Niño."

Updates to the HadCRUT4 dataset are compiled using temperature measurements from around 1,600 observation sites over land and from ships and buoys at sea. Uncertainties arise from incomplete global coverage, particularly a lack of observations from the Polar Regions and limitations of the measurements used to produce the data sets.

Several global datasets in broad agreement

Global mean temperature datasets run independently by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA, whose data sets run from 1880, have announced similar findings for 2014. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) will issue a statement about 2014 later this week which combines output from NASA, NOAA and HadCRUT4.

Datasets compiled by the Japan Meteorological Organization (JMA) and Berkeley Earth both found 2014 to be nominally the warmest in their respective records, with Berkeley Earth concluding that - once data uncertainties are considered - the year was tied with 2010 and 2005.

A global climate reanalysis by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) found that 2014 was within the top 10% of the warmest years over the reanalysis period (since 1979).

Human influence a factor

Recent research from the Met Office, announced in December, concluded that the global average temperatures seen in recent years would be highly unlikely in a world without human influence on the climate.

This is based on an attribution study, where scientists use climate models and observations to see how likely an event would be in the real world and in a world without human greenhouse gas emissions - enabling assessment of how human influence has altered the chances of an event.

Peter Stott said: "It's important to look over long timescales to see how human influence has affected global climate. Looking at three decades or more, we can observe a clear warming trend which is reflected in the near-record temperatures we have seen in recent years."

Originally Posted by Umbuku

For those with difficulties understanding how global temperature is measured.

Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon Brief

From Umbuku's link,.........

2014 global temperature reports

1) JMA – Hottest
2) NASA – Hottest
3) NOAA – Hottest
4) Met Office – Ties with hottest

Originally Posted by bsnub

Finally, just one last thing. When it's winter on Earth, it's also summer on Earth...somewhere else.

Strange we don’t get snow pictures from Australia.

Check out this clarification offered by environmental reporter/stenographer Seth Borenstein of the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a story Jan. 16, The Associated Press reported that the odds that nine of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 2000 are about 650 million to one. These calculations, as the story noted, treated as equal the possibility of any given year in the records being one of the hottest. The story should have included the fact that substantial warming in the years just prior to this century could make it more likely that the years since were warmer, because high temperatures tend to persist.

The story also reported that 2014 was the hottest year on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA, but did not include the caveat that other recent years had average temperatures that were almost as high — and they all fall within a margin of error that lessens the certainty that any one of the years was the hottest.

An earlier version of the story quoted Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis as noting that the margin of error makes it uncertain whether 2014 was warmest, or the second, third or sixth warmest year. She said that regardless, the trend shows a “clear, consistent and incontrovertible” warming of Earth. That reference to the margin of error was dropped in later versions.

This pretty much a complete rout for the talking point. The climatistas are clearly having a bad week."

Hottest Year Claim Becomes Hot Potato | Power Line

Clarification: Hottest Year story

Having a bad week indeed!

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The Associated Press reported that the odds that nine of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 2000 are about 650 million to one.

Caught in a lie. The numbers here are the odds of it happening randomly. The odds change completely when you factor in the man made changes to the climate. Very Very wicked deception being put on by that right wing blog you posted. Out rite spin and lies in fact.

"But record and near record heat keep happening. Climate scientists say it's not random but from heat-trapping gas spewed by the burning of coal, oil and gas. You know, global warming. And one of their many pieces of evidence is how statistically unlikely it is for the world to have warmed so much."

Originally Posted by S Landreth

We can say with confidence that 2014 is one of ten warmest years in the series and that it adds to the set of near-record temperatures we have seen over the last two decades."

Just read over this piece of waffling a few times.....

We're now amending the "warmest" to "one of the warmest"..... and "record temperatures" are now "near record" Then it's over the last couple of decades when they are talking about "since the mid 19th century" in other statements......

In other words they just don't know, but the position has to be defended at all costs in an attempt to maintain some degree of credibility. The vague nature of these statements leaves endless wiggle room and shows just how un-exacting this science really is.

Here we have statements about temperatures going back to 1850.....when they are talking about measurements that involve tiny fractions of one degree. How can they even tell with anything like that degree of accuracy what the temperatures were in the 1850is or 60ies or even in first half of the 20th century. They did not have accurate enough measurements or reliable enough data back then to provide such comparisons FFS....so it's all conjecture and in a way, it's just making up evidence for the defence.

The climate industry (and that's what it is now) just cherry picks data to input into their computer models. By careful selection of the start and cut-off dates and things like that, they can produce results that support their argument.....or to put it another way; by omitting the right data they can obtain the results they need, to prop up the theories and keep the funding in place.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Colin Morice, a climate monitoring scientist at the Met Office, said: "Uncertainties in the estimates of global temperature are larger than the differences between the warmest years. This limits what we can say about rankings of individual years.

.....this is referring to current data.....and then they blithely launch into statements about comparisons with temperature over a century ago.....


The bottom line folks is that this is all theory. It's not that different to the stuff cosmologists publish about the universe and its origins. It's all very interesting to those who wish to theorise, just for the sake of theory....and of course it provides decent employment for folks who like kicking ideas around, but in the end it doesn't matter, because in due course the theories are replaced by new theories and everybody just moves along with the next generation of theorists and model builders.

No wonder there are skeptics out there. After all, as recently as the 1970ies we were warned about the earth cooling....there was even mention of a new ice age looming in some quarters. ....but the model changed and quickly turned into a heatwave. Acid rain was another pending disaster but we fixed that one up and the funding was cut off pretty quickly.

I wonder what the next scientific crisis will be after all this nonsense has been finally put to rest?....I vote for the threat of robots taking over the world....

Originally Posted by bsnub

Who ever said that it would stop snowing? Who ever said this? Why do you right wing nitwits keep posting things like this thinking somehow that it debunks climate change? Those snows in the NE right now are a direct result of it.

They did indeed project that it would likely stop snowing but that was a while back and considering that you haven't reached puberty yet, you would naturally have missed it.

I could waste an hour or so providing links to these momentous statements, but what's the point? You just call everything outside your limited grasp "stupid" or make some reference to Fox news.....

Virtually all the computer projections have been wrong over the years. These models everybody keeps harping on about have never been validated. They were, and still are "projections" that are shown to be incorrect time and time again.

They absolutely deny the levelling off in the warming trend that began some 18 years ago despite the abundance of data to substantiate it. The climate-fanatics continue to rely on computer models full of fudged and manipulated data to support their case and keep the drum pounding....while at the same time ignoring actual data that would change their projected results.

They have gone so far with this thing, and staked so much on it, that they don't know how to back down. Careers are on the line, funding is on the line. A whole political/quasi-religion is in danger of disempowerment. That is why the releases of "information" are becoming more and more shrill. Ram it down their throats boys, but keep it vague and leave lots of caveats and boltholes.


This in time may well turn out to be the biggest scientific fraud in history.


This fellow says it rather well I think:

Dr David Whitehouse declared “talk of a record is scientifically and statistically meaningless.’ “The addition of 2014 global temperature data confirms that the post-1997 standstill seen in global annual average surface temperature has continued,”

Whitehouse wrote on January 16.
“According to the Nasa global temperature database 2014 was technically a record ‘beating’ 2010 by the small margin of 0.02 deg C. The NASA press release is highly misleading saying that 2014 is a record without giving the actual 2014 figure, or any other year, or its associated error.”
“In reality of course it is no record at all as the error of the measurements is about +/- 0.1 deg C showing NasaGiss’ statement to go against the normal treatment of observational data and its errors. Talk of a record is therefore scientifically and statistically meaningless,” Whitehouse added.
“It is clear beyond doubt by now that there is a growing discrepancy between computer climate projections and real-world data that questions their ability to produce meaningful projections about future climatic conditions,” Whitehouse concluded

He also said this:
Stance on Climate Change

“Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what, or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by koman

I could waste an hour or so providing links to these momentous statements, but what's the point? You just call everything outside your limited grasp "stupid" or make some reference to Fox news.....

So rather than provide links to support your statements because you are afraid they will not stand up to scrutiny you are just going to make airy pronouncements and hope that they are taken on faith alone?

There's already a creationist infesting this section with that sort of drivel, he doesn't need any help from you.

That's right keep right on mocking and ridiculing the posters instead of dealing with the subject matter. I don't care if people are creationists or if they believe in Santa Claus. You can be civil and show a bit of respect for others however much you may disagree with them on such things......although that's not the liberal way is it? If you're not spouting left-wing bullshit then you are not worthy of common courtesy.

The "snow" comment was directed at Snub in response to a question.
Snub, without fail gives the same response to any "links" other than far left blog sites...so what's the point? The question was about climate models predicting a drastic reduction or even elimination of snowfall. Such predictions were made by UK based climate "scientists some years ago. I really don't care if you believe that or not, but I'm not wasting time trying to find links to prove it. It was all over the press at the time and I remember there was a lengthy piece in the NYT and other US media sources on it as well...quoting all kinds of scientific hacks.


In any case it's a minor point and of no great significance in the general scheme of things except that's it's one small example of the numerous predictions that have turned out to be totally inaccurate and there is no shortage of "links" to that information for anyone who really cares one way or the other and wants to invest the time and energy. In the end it proves nothing one way or the other anyway.

Instead of just trading "links" and copy-n-paste bullshit, it would be nice if a few posters could actually present their own reasoned arguments without having to constantly provide sources (on either side) that are just dismissed by the other because of who pays the author. The whole exercise is quite pointless and a total waste of time. It's like trying to have a discussion with a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses...except for the fact that they are usually polite.


In the meantime, here's a bit more on global warming and the predicted drastic reduction in snowfall, although it could be just another lie by some right wing denier outfit.....:

A massive, wind-whipped blizzard slammed into the US Northeast on Monday, creating havoc for more than 60 million people and forcing New York City to shut down on a scale not seen since Superstorm Sandy devastated the region in 2012.

The potentially historic storm which could affect 20 percent of the U.S. population, caused several states up and down the East Coast to declare emergencies, forced the cancellation of thousands of flights, closed major mass transit hubs and schools.
As much as 24 inches (60 cm) of snow from the “crippling and potentially historic blizzard” was expected to blanket many areas along the East Coast, the weather service said. High winds raised the potential for power outages caused by tree limbs falling on overhead utility lines.

The biggest snowfall on record in New York City came during the storm of Feb. 11-12, 2006, dropping 26.9 inches (68 cm), according to the city’s Office of Emergency Management.

(REUTERS)

Originally Posted by koman

Snub, without fail gives the same response to any "links" other than far left blog sites

NOAA and NASA are far left blog sites? The link I posted with regards to the desmog blog contained real information about the man you quoted being a shill for Exxon mobile. You have proven in countless posts that you are a blind supporter of big business and corporations. Anything that stands in their way of making a profit will be vociferously combated by you so it is no surprise that you are a science denier.

Originally Posted by koman

Instead of just trading "links" and copy-n-paste bullshit, it would be nice if a few posters could actually present their own reasoned arguments without having to constantly provide sources

None of us here are scientists. To understand this issue links, evidence and data are needed. Of course you do not want any of that because it is not in your favor.

Originally Posted by koman

In the meantime, here's a bit more on global warming and the predicted drastic reduction in snowfall, although it could be just another lie by some right wing denier outfit.....:

A massive, wind-whipped blizzard slammed into the US Northeast on Monday, creating havoc for more than 60 million people and forcing New York City to shut down on a scale not seen since Superstorm Sandy devastated the region in 2012.

With regards to the storm reread my posts above. Polar vortex.

^
Like his nemesis, Don Quxiote, bsnub flails away at what he doesn't know or understand...

Originally Posted by bsnub

With regards to the storm reread my posts above. Polar vortex.

Yes most weather events can be attributed to something. Are Polar Vortexes part of global warming too? .....of course they must be...everything else is....

The question posed by this tread was: Any doubts about climate change. The simple answer without links, bullshit (left or right) is YES...there is a great deal of doubt about it; or at least to the extent that humans have caused it. All the blog swapping, graphs and fudged reporting by the large group of people who have a very compelling reason to keep up the alarmist projections is not going to erase the doubts.

They have been wrong far too many times, overstated the threats too many times and they are becoming more and more hysterical as others outside the club challenge their data and projections.

Oh, and your assertion that I blindly support "big business" is absurd. I don't blindly support anything, but if and when I do support something it's because I believe it to be the right thing to do, and I am usually able to explain why I support it. I don't follow things because the blogosphere, political parties or any other kind of hack tells me to. Some of us do have minds of our own and are not necessarily compelled to follow the herd. I'm not a science "denier" I come from a family that produced two very respectable scientists. What I do deny is junk science posing as the real thing, and driven by political movements.

I've been following this climate thing for decades, and the other scientific bunk that was popular before that.....there was a time when I actually believed they were onto something, but that feeling faded over time as the predictions failed and the new predictions became less and less believable.

Here's another random list of people who are "deniers" that have questioned the data and spoken out against the whole cultist nature of the movement. Somehow I don't think they are all shills for Exxon:

Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.

I'm retiring from this thread now.....carry on fretting about those 0.01 degree surges
and pretending that it's warming even when it's not. A good computer model can always give you what you want if you leave out the right data, or input the selective data you need to produce the result you want....

^
Heh..double heh

^ Is that all you have got? You have been clowned on this thread time and again. Keep posting you just look more and more like a buffoon.

Originally Posted by koman

Here's another random list of people who are "deniers" that have questioned the data and spoken out against the whole cultist nature of the movement. Somehow I don't think they are all shills for Exxon:

Where is the link to the site that you are posting this nonsense from?

Originally Posted by koman

Freeman Dyson

A 91 year old geriatric.

Originally Posted by koman

Steven E. Koonin

Another buffoon.

The Wall Street Journal and Steve Koonin: The new face of climate change inaction.

Originally Posted by koman

Richard Lindzen

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ske...rd_Lindzen.htm

Craig Loehle | DeSmogBlog

Originally Posted by koman

Nils-Axel Mörner

Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise

Not one of these idiots are climate scientists. Most are on the take of big oil. No surprise since you slurp that big member with no apology.

Originally Posted by koman

I'm retiring from this thread now.

Of course you will. You have been utterly trounced and humiliated.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by koman

Here's another random list of people who are "deniers" that have questioned the data and spoken out against the whole cultist nature of the movement. Somehow I don't think they are all shills for Exxon:

Where is the link to the site that you are posting this nonsense from?

I think there’s a list at Wikipedia: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title of his list:

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.


And he forgot to post the first person on the list


David Bellamy, botanist