Global Temperatures Skyrocketing (Again)

a reply to: machineintelligence

I don't think you get what I am saying.

Your link to natural disasters were not due to sea level rise.


You may be able to loosely equate hurricanes to that however those floods were attributed to storms, but trying throw in tsunamis is being disingenuous.


The river floods were due to rain not ocean rise.


Talk about AGW and ocean rise is a gradual thing it doesn't happen overnight killing millions to where it self corrects the climate polluters.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Oh I had no idea, the problem is self-correcting once 70% of the population has died off? That's a relief!

Anyway I'm just trying to do what ATS recommends which is deny ignorance. It seems that idea has reached a boiling point around here lately and it’s about time imo. Too many threads are instantly hijacked by the sort of childish, belligerent ignorance your post demonstrated above. I'm doing my best to cut it off at the pass.

My issue on ATS isn’t even so much climate change itself as it is the mounds of corporate anti-science propaganda that has brainwashed people on this subject to actually fight against their own freedoms. Wanna prove me wrong – then go ahead and address the physics, which no “skeptic” seems ever able or willing to do. Till then you're just proving my point really.

originally posted by: TerminalVelocity
a reply to: mc_squared

"Skyrocketing" ???

Wow, sensationalize much?

Get back with me when it's more like like whole digits or more. Then I'll agree with the use of that word.

Until then: it's nothing more than screaming how the sky is falling.

Um, you do realize that it was actual scientists observing real climate/weather/temperature data? The earth really is getting warmer or at least this was the hottest year ever recorded. That's not chicken little, that's actual concern. It should be concerning to you. It's actually getting hot enough where I live for me to consider relocating due to the excessive heat. That's real life, my friend. Reality.

a reply to: InnerPeace2012

Global Warming, is a game changer if the trend continues at this rate!

well if you believe that and can back it up then you need to read this "

There have been many claims of observational evidence for global-warming alarmism. I have argued that all such claims rely on invalid statistical analyses. Some people, though, have asserted that the analyses are valid. Those people assert, in particular, that they can determine, via statistical analysis, whether global temperatures are increasing more that would be reasonably expected by random natural variation. Those people do not present any counter to my argument, but they make their assertions anyway.

In response to that, I am sponsoring a contest: the prize is $100 000. In essence, the prize will be awarded to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.

wattsupwiththat.com... best of luck mate

A prize of $100 000 (one hundred thousand U.S. dollars) will be awarded to the first person, or group of people, who correctly identifies at least 900 series: i.e. which series were generated by a trendless process and which were generated by a trending process.

You have until 30 November 2016 or until someone wins the contest. Each entry costs $10; this is being done to inhibit non-serious entries.
Good luck!

originally posted by: amazing
That's real life, my friend. Reality.

You now, I am starting to really think that some people don't actually come out to feel the sunlight this days, probably cool air-conditioning everywhere they set foot on all the time. Loosing touch of reality one might argue...

I am close to the equator and believe me, it is too hot out here. The humidity here is very unpleasant..

www.timeanddate.com...

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Sure, mate please read this thread and see how the permafrost is also melting at an alarming rate..

please read the link in the OP

Depends if you wanna, see that data for what it is or stick with the "politics" of it. I prefer hard scientific data. like this:

Here

a reply to: the2ofusr1


I don't see any evidence that Keenan would be able to pay. He's a blogger, for crying out loud.
He also does not seem to understand how science works. He has it backwards.

a reply to: Phage

I didn't know being a blogger disqualifies you from other things ...who would have thunk ..

a reply to: the2ofusr1

The premise of his contest has nothing to do with science. He has published a thousand datasets of 135 data points each.

The series were generated via trendless statistical models fit for global temperatures.

So, he takes data, and works out a model to fit the data. That is backwards.

Some series then had a trend added to them. Each individual trend averaged 1°C/century—which is greater than the trend claimed for global temperatures. Some trends were positive; others were negative.

He made stuff up. And that's his gimmick. He is asking someone to specify which of the datasets contain the made up data. It is all made up data.

He thinks that if no one can tell the difference, it means that AGW is nonsense. He has it backwards because he, like all AGW deniers, claims that the climate models are made to fit the data. Which is false.

The facts are that the models used by climatologists are models of physics. They are not made up statistical models. They do not have arbitrary temperature trends build into them. The fact is that the real world data supports the data produced by those models.

a reply to: Phage

I though it was common practice to infill data by scientist especially climate scientist . am I wrong ?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I though it was common practice to infill data by scientist especially climate scientist . am I wrong ?

I cannot answer without you being more specific about what you mean.
What do you mean "infill data?"
Why do you say "especially" climate scientists?

originally posted by: amazing
Um, you do realize that it was actual scientists observing real climate/weather/temperature data? The earth really is getting warmer or at least this was the hottest year ever recorded. That's not chicken little, that's actual concern. It should be concerning to you. It's actually getting hot enough where I live for me to consider relocating due to the excessive heat. That's real life, my friend. Reality.

We're at a point where this really isn't hyperbole. I posted this on another thread about Syria - if you think we have a refugee problem now and a bunch of angry extremists who want to destroy Western civilization, imagine what that will look like when their homeland is literally inhospitable because of industrial-induced warming:

Because of humanity’s contribution to climate change, the authors wrote, some population centers in the Middle East “are likely to experience temperature levels that are intolerable to humans.”

Deadly Heat Is Forecast in Persian Gulf by 2100

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: the2ofusr1
Why do you say "especially" climate scientists?

Just a guess, but I'd say because he reads wattsupwiththat.

a reply to: Phage

I recently read this piece ..

Guest essay by Mike Jonas

In this article, I take a look inside the workings of the climate computer models (“the models”), and explain how they are structured and how useful they are for prediction of future climate.

This article follows on from a previous article (here) which looked at the models from the outside. This article takes a look at their internal workings.

The Models’ Method

The models divide up the atmosphere and/or oceans and/or land surface into cells in a three-dimensional grid and assign initial conditions. They then calculate how each cell influences all its neighbours over a very short time. This process is then repeated a very large number of times so that the model then predicts the state of the planet over future decades. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) describes it here. The WMO (World Meteorological Organization) describes it here.

clip_image002
[Enlarge]

Seriously powerful computers are needed, because even on a relatively coarse grid, the number of calculations required to predict just a few years ahead is mind-bogglingly massive.

Internal and External

At first glance, the way the models work may appear to have everything covered, after all, every single relevant part of the planet is (or can be) covered by a model for all of the required period. But there are three major things that cannot be covered by the internal workings of the model:

wattsupwiththat.com... It seems that they dont have enough real coverage in the real world and so they duplicate some of the data to cover the places they dont have coverage .

a reply to: mc_squared

Not just WUWT which happens to be the largest site dealing with climate but I also read ATS . :>)

Yes, Australia has had a Hotter October this year....What a surprise, we are in the Effect of a El Nino....its what happens.
We have a drought every 7-10 years....like clock work, ever since white fella landed here (and obviously before).

Funny how Australia is in above "Average" mode but Argentina and Chile are below Average, and we are both in Spring .......its called El Nino.

When there are cool years, the averages lowers, when the temp returns to warm, it is above the "Average", even if its close to "normal".

Also funny, when there is a cold winter it just "Temperature anomaly", but when it is warm it is "Climate Change and Global Warming".

Where I live we have had a "Normal Warm" October, same as I remember as a kid...unlike recent colder Octobers.

But this year, we had the coldest July for years.....

www.abc.net.au...

Of course the Religion of the Warmists says.....its just the Temperature...not climate.



Just a note in addition, I researched the Temperatures used for these "Warm" maps......
In my region, the oldest temps are from 1977.......
So any pre 1977, dont count............Interesting.

One wonders how recent the satellite readings are? Probably only 20 or so years??

Enough to only make a recent trend....not a Long term Historical determination.
Not to mention how the temps are taken today in difference to 30+ years ago, and how they are "Adjusted"...for whatever reason.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: mc_squared

Not just WUWT which happens to be the largest site dealing with climate but I also read ATS . :>)

Well, I guess you need to expand your reading to include some hard data from various field experts to the likes of Professor Peter Wadhams, to understand that they all tend to agree, with other field experts that there is an increasing trend of global temperatures, that's got very little to do with simulated computer models, but actual field data collected and analyzed for over 20 years..

It is most likely that you haven't made an effort to read and understood information shared in the links provided which directly correlates to increasing the Global temperatures..

Oh well

a reply to: the2ofusr1

He won't pay, because like any smart troll he will cite a correlative fallacy that 'disproves' any valid claim someone makes.

The Huffington Post had a good article that in my somewhat educated opinion, debunks everything wattsupwithat.com stands for:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

language warning:

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I went digging through the ATS search engine, because I still recall my first exchange with you, here

This was years ago, but you invited me then and there to read ^that particular link on WUWT. As you can see from my response, I noticed right away your link was in fact lying to you by rearranging the nature of the term "augment".

They used semantics to completely misrepresent that study. This is something WUWT does on a daily basis. I didn't cherry-pick that example - you picked it out for me. Just as Phage is showing you now how your link once again is being 100% dishonest.

Again, this is par for the course for WUWT - it is a complete trash website funded by the Heartland Institute. It is ground zero for the sort of delusional ignorance and dishonesty that defines a stereotypical climate "denier".

I'm glad that you also read ATS, but if you choose to just conveniently ignore all the information posted here by many members repeatedly showing you how WUWT is manufactured propaganda lying to you, what's the point?

a reply to: mc_squared

Anthropomorphic global warming theory centers around the idea that there are too many humans and we are collectively guilty of bringing down the biosphere. That is why most humans that have been exposed to this debate for a while can get kind of sensitive to this line of discussion. The fact that humans are using the situation to increase central planning and secure globalist control of institutions involved in this effort is telling of the sort of influence merchants are involved.