There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[bigfish]

But McIntyre and McKitrick are obsessive, compromised, unqualified, and behave like loonies....

Name calling doesn't count as science. It's not unreasonable to bear in mind that the work of both camps may contain errors; the point of peer review is to root them out in order to arrive at a more accurate description of natural phenomena.

 

[free spirit]

ok, but before this thread moves onto a different arguement, can you give your thoughts on my posts above Bigfish - as the thread starter do you agree the articles bollocks?

 

[Genghis Cohen]

Name calling doesn't count as science. It's not unreasonable to bear in mind that the work of both camps may contain errors; the point of peer review is to root them out in order to arrive at a more accurate description of natural phenomena.

It just doesnt seem to matter what evidence is unearthed or how many climate related disasters there are, we could all be living in northampton on sea and this lot would still be going; "global warming, load of old twat."

 

[bluestreak]

Predominantly the same things that have caused it sporadically since long before the Industrial Age.

which are?

By spreading capitalism and liberal democracy, and promoting education and honesty, fair-dealing and good government, thereby utilizing our consequent wealth and technological prowess. You know, the "American Way".

which will decrease temperature how? because none of those things seem to be much in evidence in the world at the moment.


actually, you know what. don't answer. i can't be bothered. you don't believe in global warming, and you don't believe that capitalism could possibly be anything other than 100% beneficient. it's not possible to have a reasoned debate with someone with no critical analysis skills.

 

[rogue yam]

actually, you know what. don't answer. i can't be bothered. you don't believe in global warming, and you don't believe that capitalism could possibly be anything other than 100% beneficient. it's not possible to have a reasoned debate with someone with no critical analysis skills.

Capitalism does not need to be 100% beneficient in order to be the best possible system. Or at least that is the way it appears to those of us who have no critical analysis skills.

 

[rogue yam]

(Global warming is caused by) predominantly the same things that have caused it sporadically since long before the Industrial Age.

which are?

Dude! You tell me. I'm the one with no critical analysis skills, remember?

Seriously. The climate has been getting alternately warmer and cooler for eons. Any model that purports to predict anthropogenic climate forcing must also accurately incorporate all of the non-human drivers. The people to explain what these are and to estimate their respective magnitudes are the ones who claim that their models "prove" that human activities are having a significant effect.

 

[laptop]

Any model that purports to predict anthropogenic climate forcing must also accurately incorporate all of the non-human drivers. The people to explain what these are and to estimate their respective magnitudes are the ones who claim that their models "prove" that human activities are having a significant effect.

And you have applied your analytical skills to the modellers' handling of the entire gamut of climate forcing exactly how?

 

[Azrael23]

Rogue Spam eh?

You really need to see past the whole capitalism thing, its a system designed by the elite to rob the people, much like communism and socialism. I like to call them all "fancy feudalism".

The "American Way" you cretin, is not to get involved in imperialism, to have trade barriers, not to have debt based money creation and not to have a corporate (privately) owned system of power.

You wouldn`t know the "American Way" if it slapped you in the face. If you were so bothered about patriotism how can you support a president who has struggled so feverishly to destroy the constitution and bill of rights. Its idiots like you who are the reason the US has been hijacked in the first place.

Don`t preach to me about democracy you hack, what about the republic?!

 

[rogue yam]

And you have applied your analytical skills to the modellers' handling of the entire gamut of climate forcing exactly how?

Respond logically to what I wrote or else fuck off.

 

[rogue yam]

Rogue Spam eh?

You really need to see past the whole capitalism thing, its a system designed by the elite to rob the people, much like communism and socialism. I like to call them all "fancy feudalism".

The "American Way" you cretin, is not to get involved in imperialism, to have trade barriers, not to have debt based money creation and not to have a corporate (privately) owned system of power.

You wouldn`t know the "American Way" if it slapped you in the face. If you were so bothered about patriotism how can you support a president who has struggled so feverishly to destroy the constitution and bill of rights. Its idiots like you who are the reason the US has been hijacked in the first place.

Don`t preach to me about democracy you hack, what about the republic?!

OK, so you don't like capitalism, communism, socialism, free trade, private banks, private property, and George Bush. What do you like, and what does it have to do with global warming?

 

[laptop]

Respond logically to what I wrote.

But I did.

Tell us, wise one, what you know of modelling. Of your conversations with modellers. Of your understanding of the phrase "gamut of climate forcing".

 

[rogue yam]

Tell us, wise one, what you know of modelling. Of your conversations with modellers. Of your understanding of the phrase "gamut of climate forcing".

Why?

 

[laptop]

Why?

Because you were shooting your mouth off about climate models.

So we need to know what you know about them and how they work.

Your refusal to answer indicates that the answer is "nothing" and you are merely regurgitating something that the Marshall Institute fed to Fux News.

 

[rogue yam]

Your refusal to answer indicates...

My refusal to answer you means your question is not interesting enough to me to be worth my time in answering it. My time belongs to me, buttwipe, not you.

"One fool can ask more questions than a thousand wise men can answer."

 

[laptop]

So you confess your bletherings about climate models were content-free.

Troll.

 

[rogue yam]

So you confess your bletherings about climate models were content-free.

Grow up.

 

[rogue yam]

Those interested in the climate change debate might appreciate this article, which addresses some of the ways in which global warming alarmists seek to silence scientists who are skeptical of the alarmists' claims. The author is a professor of atmospheric science at M.I.T.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Dude! You tell me. I'm the one with no critical analysis skills, remember?

Seriously. The climate has been getting alternately warmer and cooler for eons. Any model that purports to predict anthropogenic climate forcing must also accurately incorporate all of the non-human drivers. The people to explain what these are and to estimate their respective magnitudes are the ones who claim that their models "prove" that human activities are having a significant effect.

can you disprove that there is no anthropogenic climate forcing?

 

[nino_savatte]

My refusal to answer you means your question is not interesting enough to me to be worth my time in answering it. My time belongs to me, buttwipe, not you.

"One fool can ask more questions than a thousand wise men can answer."

I see you've added a new insult to your repertoire.

Well done.

 

[rogue yam]

can you disprove that there is no anthropogenic climate forcing?

This is the stupidest post thus far on this thread. First of all, you meant "prove there is no" (or "disprove there is any"). In fact, I never said there was no anthropogenic climate forcing. It is impossible to prove a negative, anyway. And the number zero can never be measured (scientists are limited to "non-detected" at some level of precision). Stick to getting drunk and fighting you stupid mug. This whole ideas thing is completely out of reach for you. Retard!

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Ah! Some 'content'!

Those interested in the climate change debate might appreciate this article, which addresses some of the ways in which global warming alarmists seek to silence scientists who are skeptical of the alarmists' claims. The author is a professor of atmospheric science at M.I.T.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen? Meh.

Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.

http://dieoff.org/page82.htm - http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1:17788710/

Dr Annan first challenged Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is dubious about the extent of human activity influencing the climate. Professor Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years.

No bet was agreed on that; Dr Annan said Prof Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures, so would win $10,000 if the Earth cooled but pay out only £200 if it warmed. Seven other prominent climate change sceptics also failed to agree betting terms.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1552092,00.html

Shame yer boy doesn't want to put his (dutty) money where his mouth is, eh?

Are you waving or drowning?

-

Thanks Bigfish & Laptop.

I've read a couple of articles by Ross McKitrick before.

As pointed out in Laptop's c+p, McKitrick is an economist. He thinks in economic terms.

He says things like 'the scale of policy intervention required to stabilize carbon concentrations would have far worse effects on human welfare than any known impact of climate change' - which to my mind renders his opinion instantly dismissable.

So that's it, then?

Reality looks like this:

Arse.

 

[rogue yam]

Arse.

To really get the benefit of the article you have to, you know, read it.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

To really get the benefit of the article you have to, you know, read it.

Well, I can save everyone else the bother.

The closest he comes to saying anything that isn't just pitiful whinging (if what Ross Gelbspan says is 'libelous' someone should sue him - They haven't because it's true) is this:

..the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

That's it. The rest is pish.

Nowhere does he make any suggestion that the data portayed in this graph is inaccurate:

But, hey. Feel free to point out if I've missed something.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

There is a very useful overview of climate change, representing mainstream scientific opinion from Lord May, President of the Royal Society available just here

Not surprisingly, there exists a climate change "denial lobby", funded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars by sectors of the hydrocarbon industry, and highly influential in some countries. This lobby has understandable similarities, in attitudes and tactics, to the tobacco lobby that continues to deny smoking causes lung cancer, or the curious lobby denying that HIV causes AIDS. Earlier, when some aspects of the science were less well understood, they denied the existence of evidence that human inputs of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were causing global warming. More recently, there is acknowledgement of anthropogenic climate change, albeit expressed evasively, but accompanied by arguments that the effects are relatively insignificant, and/or that we should wait and see, and/or that technology will fix it anyway.

I should like to thank bigfish for bringing Lord May's address to my attention

 

[free spirit]

Originally Posted by Lindzen
..the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.


That's it. The rest is pish.

um no that's pish too mate... if tropical storms / hurricanes needed dry air to form they'd not be forming over fucking massive areas of warm water, they'd be forming over fucking deserts and they ain't.

stupidest fucking statement I've ever heard a professor of atmospheric science make

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

um no that's pish too mate...

I stand corrected.

It's all pish.

 

[bigfish]

... what he neglects to mention in his article is that 1998 is the hottest year on record, so while all the years since then are in the 10 hottest years on record, they have just not managed to actually eclipse the hottest year yet.

So how do you explain that, when CO2 emission increases are supposed to be rapidly forcing global temperatures up, according the global warming hypothesis?

Had he taken his dataset as starting in 1997 his conclusion would have been totally different as 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 are all hotter.

It's plain that the author is drawing a comparison between pre and post 1998 global average temperatures - i.e. between

1. the MBH1998 data set as adopted by the IPCC and

2. the official temperature records from 1998 to 2005 compiled by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.

It seems to be an exercise in obfuscation to me to suggest that his conclusion would have been totally different had he started from 1997 and not from 1998. If he been silly enough to follow your advice, then he would have committed the cardinal sin of contaminating his post 98 temperature data set with material imported from the sample he was comparing, and a false and meaningless comparison would have been the inevitable result. Fortunately, the author has extensive experience in the field of paleoclimatic research and obviously knows better.

According to the IPCC MBH98 data, the world has experienced a rapid rise in global temperatures over approximately the last 100 years (up to 1998). However, the global temperature data, compiled by the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, does not identify any upward trend over the sampled time frame 1998 to 2005, only a slight downward movement. Given that the upward trend in the IPCC MBH98 data is so pronounced (hence the so called hockey stick), one is obliged to wonder why such a marked trend is not reflected in the later UEA Climate Research Unit data?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

However, the global temperature data, compiled by the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, does not identify any upward trend over the sampled time frame 1998 to 2005, only a slight downward movement.

Global temperature data, compiled by the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

 

[free spirit]

Bigfish<<<<

The Point>>>>>>>

just look at the graph above and tell me whether or not the trend in average global temperatures looks like it's rising or falling. Please note that the trend is represented on the graph by the line not the individual blocks, and is found by averaging out the temperatures of each year with those of the years around it in order to smooth out anomolies like 1998 and give a truer picture of what's happening.

1998 is the hottest year on record & was significantly hotter than any of the 4 years immediately around it. No honest climate scientist would take the hottest year on record as a starting point and go 'oh look the next 6 years are colder than the hottest year on record which must mean that global warming theory is wrong...' there's an agenda there IMO.

 

[laptop]

No honest climate scientist would take the hottest year on record as a starting point and go 'oh look the next 6 years are colder than the hottest year on record which must mean that global warming theory is wrong...'

Precisely.

From that bottom graph, what yer man says is equivalent to taking 2000 as your baseline and saying "oh fuck, 0.2C in two years, that's 10C in a century!"

Which is wrong, but precisely as wrong, for the same reason.

The scary thing is that politicians are predisposed to accept any argument for doing nothing and aren't known for their numeracy. They're lawyers by inclination if not by training, and their brains are so filled with donors' and contacts' names and biogs there can be little room for anything else.