World on course for hottest year since 1880

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   


Starting with January, every month of the year 2010 has broken global heat records. So high where the summer temperatures in the southern hemisphere that the harsh winter storms in Europe and North America could not moderate the average temperature rise, see Earthweek. The most recent edition of Time Magazine filed the following report: “The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirmed what many might have suspected from their own recent experiences: this past June was the warmest on record. The combined global land and ocean temperature was 1.22 degrees Fahrenheit (0.68 Celsius) above the 20th-century average. According to NOAA’s National Climate Data Center, 2010 is well on its way to becoming the warmest year worldwide since 1880. The earliest date for which global data is available.”


www.earthweek.com...




posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


WOW.

Baseless accusations huh?

You know, I'm not going to waste much more energy - because I think you are clearly in severe severe denial and only hearing what you want to hear, so really - what's the point?

But let's just do a recap of what's gone down in this conversation so far and how many times you've been wrong - i.e. how many times you've been the one "tricked by the spin". I'm not going to re-link any of this stuff because it's all there in the original posts and I'm sick of doing your homework for you when you obviously have no interest in the cold hard facts anyways.

Go back and read each post - virtually every point you've tried to make has been PROVEN, not "spun", to be a well-known myth or distortion of the truth. I left you detailed links all over the place explaining this. And it wasn't all just through skeptical science either. There were numerous links directly to papers, reports, data sets (from the source, not via some denier blog like you linked), news articles, sourcewatch info, legal documents, etc. You've basically rebutted each of these revelations with nothing but offhanded dismissal and unfounded conjecture - so please, cry me a river about how much I'm the one who's apparently being brainwashed...


But yeah, to recap:

- You tried to claim the CRU destroyed all their raw data. I showed you this was completely untrue, just a false news report propagated by right-wing media. I also explained to you the detailed, in-context truth behind the whole "hide the decline" controversy, something of which you were apparently unaware since you thought it was pretty "self-explanatory".

- You tried to claim UAH and RSS data shows a downward trend over the last ten years. I showed you how frivolous and completely wrong this assertion is simply by linking to the actual data. So then you tried to backpedal out of this rather embarassing corner by claiming it's true if you look from 2001-2009 - which is still not even the case, but regardless - this practice is called cherry picking, aka SPIN.

- You then brought up the well-publicized apparent issues with surface temperature stations, propagated by Anthony Watts and his surfacestations.org cult. Myself and nataylor both showed you how although his accusations might appear legit on a qualitative level, a simple quantitave analysis has proven there is no distinct corruption in the data. Furthermore a recent detailed study has in fact now revealed that if anything, there is a slight cooling bias. Even further furthermore - mbkennel was also kind enough to leave you a link showing how much surface records completely correlate with your beloved UAH and RSS data anyway. But despite all these fatal blows to his theory, Anthony Watts is still touring around the world pushing his defunct propaganda on people who don't know any better. I also gave you an explicit direct link between Watts and the Heartland Institute - an organization well-known for its notorious history of trying to downplay the health hazards of smoking, not to mention denying AGW.

- But then you really out-did yourself when you posted links to junkscience.com. This goes way beyond some weak "attack the character" excuse. Because the fact that you are going to a place like that to gather any information on environmental issues speaks VOLUMES about how much you are the one being manipulated. And baseless accusations my ### - I already showed you direct links on how the whole "junk science" movement is connected to lying, manipulative corporate agendas and public spin.

And by direct I mean direct: court-ordered disclosure documents outlining these connections and their motives. I also linked you to a report that detailed extensively all the dirty relationships between ExxonMobil, The American Petroleum Institute, various front organizations and virtually every one of your skeptical global warming scientists: Lindzen, Spencer, Soon, Pat Michaels - they're all in there. I gave you these links, which provide not only direct evidence through official documents, but also source links to HUNDREDS of external documents as well. So how can you seriously sit there with a straight face and tell me I have no actual evidence??? Just because you decided to stick your head in the dirt and ignore all this crucial information doesn't mean it's not there.

- So let's see, what else: then you also keep trying to pass off distrorted conjecture as important facts. For example the whole "solar activity was only reduced 4% so it's irrelevant" thing. Instead of just automatically swallowing this nonsense like you apparently did - I went and used my own brain to do the math myself. And presto - it turned out the numbers completely agree and are in fact completely relevant.

So how do you want to play that one off as me just being "tricked by the spin"?



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Anyway I would love to see you go back and actually refute any of the above posts with proper information instead of just worthless counter-accusations and repeated attempts to quickly change the subject to the next climate myth you have lined up.

But no - you just keep resorting to poorly interpreted, made up assertions like this:


If the Milankovitch cycle was weak the temperature wouldn't plummet and rise by 7 degrees every time the phenomenon occurs.


For the sake of all that is good and holy I'm going to try to explain this to you one last time. Please just read carefully instead of trying to fix everything into this totally incorrect understanding you have of how paleoclimatic processes work.

I already showed you - we KNOW how much M-Cycles contribute to solar forcing. This is because we know how much insolation changes as a result of them. The data is right here under orbital variations. Thus whether you happen to like it or not: we know M-Cycles are not strong enough to explain this 7 degree rise and plummet. Not even close. This is the very problem that lead to the discovery of the enhanced greenhouse effect for cryin out loud! On top of that, the role of GHG feedback cycles and the prediction of the subsequent lag is what later helped solidify the theory overall.


So you are making a crucial mental mistake by simply reading a graph from left to right and then repeating this claim over and over:


Given the fact that CO2 lags temperature by 800 years it cannot conceivably be a causative.


Yes it can. Because it doesn't have to pull temperature from the front - it can in fact push it from behind. You probably think that notion is completely ludicrous right? Well: do you know what a feedback even is? Look it up.


Feedback describes the situation when output from (or information about the result of) an event or phenomenon in the past will influence an occurrence or occurrences of the same (i.e. same defined) event / phenomenon (or the continuation / development of the original phenomenon) in the present or future.


Now that's not entirely what's happening here, but hopefully it's enough to get the point across. Yes temperature change comes first, and yes it initially drives CO2 by releasing it from the ocean - but once that process initiates - it starts a feedback cycle where CO2 now also pushes temperature.

You just don't see it explicitly in a graph like that because temperature already had an 800 year head start. So it maintains the illusion of being "ahead", and to someone who doesn't know any better - it maintains the illusion of pulling CO2 with it from behind.

But we know this is isn't what's actually happening because again - we know there's no forcing that can account for the rising temperature other than the rising CO2/CH4 itself. So this feedback process is in fact what's consequently driving temperature until it reaches a new energy balance and/or another solar forcing comes along that's just strong enough to tip the scale and start a negative cycle. This way you don't need strong Milankovitch Cycles to completely explain ice ages, all you need is for them to be strong enough to initiate the feedback processes that ultimately do explain them.

Thus this elegant explanation solves both the weak orbital forcing problem we encounter within the historical record AND simultaneously verifies the potential strength of an enhanced greenhouse effect.

So do you see how absurd it is that you're using this graph to prove CO2 doesn't drive temperature, while also making the claim that there's no proof of feedback cycles? That graph is in fact proof of both of these things.


And I'm sorry - but if you honestly still can't see this then there's no point in going on because...well...you must be THIS tall to get on the scientific debate ride.

Because the fact is this process is well understood and well established in climate science. The only people actually causing a stink over the 800 year lag either don't understand the science or - as I've been trying to show you throughout this entire thread - ARE DELIBERATELY LYING TO YOU.

It's just like the 4% thing - they know full well this stuff is complicated, so they purposely use oversimplified distortions of the truth to try and get people on their side. People's brains prefer to take the path of least resistance, so they'll naturally gravitate towards the simplest "solution". This is once again why only ~50% of the general public believes global warming is happening while 97% of the people who understand the science at this point KNOW it is happening.

And chances are the other 3% are in the business of corporate funded denial.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   

You tried to claim the CRU destroyed all their raw data. I showed you this was completely untrue

Never made such a statement. I said that the CRU "conveniently lost" their data.


not via some denier blog like you linked

This so-called "denier" blog links you directly to the sources, like the CCSP, NIPCC, and IPCC, from which the graphs I presented originate from. I can't link the graphs from the papers themselves - it won't allow it.


You tried to claim UAH and RSS data shows a downward trend over the last ten years. I showed you how frivolous and completely wrong this assertion is simply by linking to the actual data. So then you tried to backpedal out of this rather embarassing corner by claiming it's true if you look from 2001-2009 - which is still not even the case, but regardless - this practice is called cherry picking, aka SPIN.

I was wrong to say a decade, I should have said 'almost a decade'. Technicalities, eh? I showed you graphs, and yes, they do originate from Junk Science, but Junk Science provides sources to the raw data. And I don't think you're really in a position to be accusing me of cheery-picking, I mean, I presented you with a graph spanning 600 million years showing that CO2 levels have been nearly 20 times higher and the Earth has dropped into ice ages. Still, if you want to believe I'm a disingenuous cherry-picker, that's cool.


Furthermore a recent detailed study has in fact now revealed that if anything, there is a slight cooling bias.

And I provided evidence contradicting that. I showed you graphs from the RSS, UAH and HadCRUT3 data (all of which use satellite data) and I showed you how Hansen's GISS is comparatively warmer than them all. They're all there for everyone to ogle at.


For example the whole "solar activity was only reduced 4% so it's irrelevant" thing. Instead of just automatically swallowing this nonsense like you apparently did.

It is irrelevant. Didn't you see the graph I posted showing no correlation with CO2 and temperature going back half a billion years? None, zilch, nada! The temperature swings up and down regardless of the levels of CO2. It sounds like you're saying that the higher levels of CO2 in Earth's history was compensated by the 4% weaker Sun, thus not allowing runaway to take place, but the Earth dropped into ice ages despite CO2 levels being 6000ppm. How did that happen? And I can assure you, I don't just 'automatically sallow' nonsense. I'm just not convinced that CO2 is something we should be fretting over, and especially not basing economical policies on the predictions of computer models. I respect if you think differently. That's cool. I guess we can just agree to disagree.


every one of your global warming scientists Lindzen, Spencer, Soon, Pat Michaels - they're all in there. I gave you these links which provide not only direct evidence through official documents.

Have you noticed that when someone tries to question and denounce AGW (the same thing happens with 9/11) people attack their characters, throw calumniations at them, call them deniers, conspiracy theorists and generally act very unpleasant and unscientifically? James Hansen has even called for people who question AGW to be thrown in jail. I can't believe something when it's being forced down my throat. It's bullying, and the reason they do it, I believe, is to stifle dissent. The term denier has no place in a scientific discussion. The smug conceit of the word implies that the answer is so obvious it's not worth discussion and it's a form of intimidation. Did you see how unetiquettely the scientists in the leaked CRU emails behaved? They talked about punching other scientists in the face, among other crude things.

As for your other post, it's all wrong, but never mind. I wish you luck in fighting the evil CO2-bogeyman and warding off this fast-approaching ecological catastrophe.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Well no wonder! Now they have found this!

NOAA, Reported temps may be 10-15 degrees too high

OOOOOOPPPS


www.iceagenow.com...



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
i haven''t read all the posts so i apologize if i missed something here.

in light of this supposedly being the hottest year in a long standing, we are experiencing a very cool summer in livermore where i work.
usually this time of year its VERY hot and this entire summer its been moderate and even cool at times. NOT at all what its usually like in livermore.

livermore is also the place where Sandia and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory reside. not that that has anything to do with it. but its been a strange summer to say the least.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   
This proves that the world will end for the second time in 130 years





new topics




 
12
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join