Newsglobalwarmistswiggleawayplease

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:07 PM

Would the anthropogenic Global Warmists please wiggle off, stage left?...

Global warming hasn't happened as fast as expected, according to a new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records. The research claims that natural variability in surface temperatures over the course of a decade can account for increases and dips in warming rates.

But it adds that these so-called 'climate wiggles' could also, in the future, cause our planet to warm up much faster than anticipated.

The study compared its results to the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

'Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,' said Patrick Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University. 'But this could change.'

The Duke-led study says that variability is caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors. They claim these 'wiggles' can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade, and exaggerate or offset the effects of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.

If not properly explained and accounted for, they may skew the reliability of climate models and lead to over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3052926/Our-climate-models-WRONG-Global-warming-slowed-recent-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html

64 replies, 5121 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 64 replies Author Time Post
Reply Would the anthropogenic Global Warmists please wiggle off, stage left?... (Original post)
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 OP
MercATC Apr 2015 #1
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #4
BuzzClik Apr 2015 #15
MercATC Apr 2015 #29
BuzzClik Apr 2015 #10
JosephNobles Apr 2015 #13
MercATC Apr 2015 #31
Currentsitguy Apr 2015 #19
MercATC Apr 2015 #32
Currentsitguy Apr 2015 #44
MercATC Apr 2015 #53
kc_tim Apr 2015 #22
MercATC Apr 2015 #34
kc_tim Apr 2015 #36
MercATC Apr 2015 #37
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #23
MercATC Apr 2015 #35
nolidad Apr 2015 #40
MercATC Apr 2015 #52
OneLoudVoice Apr 2015 #57
liberalguy Apr 2015 #2
JosephNobles Apr 2015 #5
Jack Burton Apr 2015 #6
JosephNobles Apr 2015 #11
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #7
Jack Burton Apr 2015 #3
BuzzClik Apr 2015 #8
Jack Burton Apr 2015 #17
BuzzClik Apr 2015 #18
Muzzlehatch Apr 2015 #43
JosephNobles Apr 2015 #9
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #12
JosephNobles Apr 2015 #14
JoePolitics Apr 2015 #24
BuzzClik Apr 2015 #16
Always Right Apr 2015 #20
NoGods4Me Apr 2015 #26
Always Right Apr 2015 #46
OneLoudVoice Apr 2015 #58
Always Right Apr 2015 #59
OneLoudVoice Apr 2015 #62
Always Right Apr 2015 #61
OneLoudVoice Apr 2015 #63
Always Right Apr 2015 #64
EGTrise Apr 2015 #21
Always Right Apr 2015 #25
NoGods4Me Apr 2015 #27
Always Right Apr 2015 #39
John Q Citizen Apr 2015 #30
Always Right Apr 2015 #38
stygmata Apr 2015 #28
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #33
Muzzlehatch Apr 2015 #41
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #42
Muzzlehatch Apr 2015 #45
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #47
Muzzlehatch Apr 2015 #48
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #49
Muzzlehatch Apr 2015 #50
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #51
Muzzlehatch Apr 2015 #54
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #55
meanitt Apr 2015 #56
EGTrise Apr 2015 #60

Response to Gamle-ged (Original post)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:19 PM

1. Question: Aside from it being an "issue"...

...why is this a source of disagreement between the two camps?

We DO have an effect on our climate. That's irrefutable. The question is how much of an effect we have.

Personally, I believe the effect is minimal. However, I also believe that it's in our best interest to continue to develop and implement renewable energy sources.

Why does that not make sense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercATC (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:26 PM

4. I'd largely agree, but it seems that the meme of "Evil Mankind" has driven the eco- extremists...

... clean over the edge and they've all but demanded we return to subsistence living as a palliative to "correct our errors"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:34 PM

15. We need to leave the Al Gore Era of global warming behind.

Gore brought some aspects of the science (sometimes presented poorly, sometimes misrepresented) into the public perception. Regardless of Gore's ability/inability to get it right, we have a problem that requires serious consideration.

Keep in mind, that those eco-extremists who view mankind as evil are motivated almost entirely by fear of the unknown and use science as a blunt instrument only when the science supports their fears (which is seldom).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 02:34 PM

29. The extremists do that.

Most people who consider themselves "ecologically conscious" just want reasonable questions asked:

"You're hydraulically fracking 200 feet from my house and I use well water. What are you pumping into the ground to do whatevet it is you do?"..."We never had ground tremors like this before fracking. Why do we have them now?"..."I understand that your processes are proprietary, but you should at least have to tell the EPA what you're pumping into the ground".

There are definitely hyped-up extremists, but that's what most people are concerned about.

And I think those are reasonable questions to ask.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercATC (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:30 PM

10. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercATC (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:33 PM

13. We're going to get to the vast majority of issues we agree on soon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JosephNobles (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 02:43 PM

31. Probably not soon.

...but eventually

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercATC (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:46 PM

19. I also think our effect is minimal

I don't however think that is an excuse to shit where you sleep. In other words, there is no excuse to be wantonly filthy and inefficient. That being said, we are not on the edge of impending doom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 02:47 PM

32. I think China is the best current example of that.

Virtually no environmental restrictions and they have communities that get shut down periodically due to health concerns from smog and farming communities that are collapsing into sinkholes due to unregulated mining.

Every tree isn't a special snowflake, but there's a happy medium in there somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercATC (Reply #32)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 05:55 PM

44. Exactly

I grew up in Pittsburgh and am old enough to remember the street lights being on at noon due to pollution from the mills. I have no desire to return to those days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #44)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 07:16 PM

53. I'm in Cleveland.

We have a river that caught fire...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercATC (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:54 PM

22. That makes perfect sense

The problem is the political tactics that are being used. In today's world, if you don't share the exact same opinions of the alarmists, you are an unintelligent science denier. If you don't support same sex marriage, you hate homosexuals. If you don't support high taxes, you are a racist.

It's no longer about discussing the merits of your opinion with others, it's all about forcing the acceptance of your opinions onto others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kc_tim (Reply #22)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 02:51 PM

34. I think that's the potential value of DI.

If we choose, we can talk. We're not restricted by ideology.

We have the option to disagree on and discuss ISSUES and not partisanship if we choose.

...which is where I think progress begins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercATC (Reply #34)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 03:28 PM

36. And your actions here are a good example of that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kc_tim (Reply #36)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 03:59 PM

37. I can be as snarky as the next guy...but I try.

I just like the idea of an obscure place where people of all beliefs can get together and talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercATC (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:55 PM

23. There's a bit of a meeting of viewpoints, here! But somebody will hate that, they hates it...

... like pizen...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #23)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 02:54 PM

35. Who cares if somebody gets pissed off?

It should be obvious that I'm not here to impress anybody

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercATC (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 04:36 PM

40. You make perfect sense!!!

When they can get the costs of the hardware for renewables- it will be a big boom and help offset fepletion of fossil fuels.

Tried to get my house solarized- cost of the plan and time of return on investment made it unfeasible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #40)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 07:15 PM

52. That's still the situation in many cases.

...but that will probably change.

My point is that it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Wind, hydro and solar work in some areas of the country, but not in others. That doesn't mean that we can't use them where they're sensible and still use fossil fuels as we need to.

Both are important now. I believe that decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels over time will be beneficial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercATC (Reply #52)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:29 AM

57. Is it really the situation, or is that difference artificial

I think there's an argument to be made that we are paying a lot more for out fossil fuels than the actual sticker price.

We dont pay at the pump for the troops sitting in the middle east, the kids who end up with asthema, etc.

If we put an equivalent amount of government and private resources into subsidizing solar panels and windmills, I suspect the cost equations for renewable vs fossil energy would change a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Original post)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:24 PM

2. My wife believes that holding a lighter to our drapes will result in an immediate house fire.

 

Last edited Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:56 PM - Edit history (1)

I believe that given the fire resistant nature of the walls surrounding the window, it'll take some time for the flames to actually burn down the house, thus there's no rush for me to extinguish the lighter.

And besides, there's no proof that the drapery fire I'm starting is the cause of the smoke filling the house. It might be something else, like a lightning bug or something.

She's such an alarmist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:26 PM

5. Excellent example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JosephNobles (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:28 PM

6. You're joking right?

But it is an excellent example of incoherency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:32 PM

11. It's easily understood by people

who can let themselves understand it. People committed to not understanding it... well, that's like letting OJ try on the glove.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JosephNobles (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:29 PM

7. An excellent example of something, yes indeedy. ..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Original post)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:25 PM

3. That doesn't matter.

In the minds of the left the Global Optimum Temperature and Climate occurred during the 3 Days of Peace & Music at Woodstock in 1969. Any deviation from that 'normal' is a existential crisis. Of course the solution is a massive federal government to redistribute wealth to make things right again.

Fortunately for all of us, the 1960s hippie retreads will be shuffling off this mortal coil in due time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Original post)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:29 PM

8. middle-of-the-road warming scenario:



I think I'll wiggle to the middle of the road.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BuzzClik (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:36 PM

17. Your chart data is lying

It shows no change in observed temperatures for 18 years. I've been told in this forum that so called pause in global warming is a lie. That dramatic and dangerous increases in temperature have continued unabated. Please stop presenting denialist data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:42 PM

18. See those blue dots above the blue line after 2000?

Those are the warmest temperatures on record.

Notice how the blue line reflects the pause? What happens next?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 05:17 PM

43. The warming trend for the past 18 years is 0.86C per century

Plot the last 18 yearly average anomalies from here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The trend is +0.86 hundredths per year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Original post)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:30 PM

9. "hasn't happened as fast as expected..."

in the most extreme scenarios...

Trouble is, the middle of the road scenarios are plenty bad all on their own.

Another hyped article by AGW deniers that doesn't say what they think.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JosephNobles (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:32 PM

12. I guess George Soros won't be donating to Duke University any time soon...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:34 PM

14. You do not understand the study you've posted about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JosephNobles (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 02:01 PM

24. Fairly common with the flat earth folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:35 PM

16. They don't need his money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Original post)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:48 PM

20. Using some pretty basic math and rudimentary science engineers figured this out long ago.

 

Basically the amount of energy it takes to change the oceans temperature .0001 degrees Celsius is the same amount on energy it takes to change the atmospheric temperature 1 degree Celsius. The earths atmospheric temperature has been at the mercy of the ocean at all times in its history. If anybody is interested I will go dig out the calculations. We cannot control it whatsoever. But I have fun watching so many people with little knowledge past "I want my free stuff" feel comfortable throwing their uneducated opinion into the mix.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Always Right (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 02:28 PM

26. Ocean temperatures have been heating up

 

due to CO2. I'm not sure what it is you think you're trying to say here.

Compare these two charts

?w=849&h=570








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoGods4Me (Reply #26)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 06:01 PM

46. Wow, isn't that past boiling? How do we come back from that?

 

Joules are a measure of energy professor, so thanks for proving my point. Unbeknownst to you of course, your graph shows that the ocean is in a cycle where it can move 1 kilogram for a distance of one meter for some extra nanoseconds. Wait, you got tricked by the phrase "Heat Content" didn't you? That sure was mean of them to do to you! Hopefully at this point you know that graph has nothing to do with temperature, but also understand how quickly they can manipulate you and everyone else? No, don't do that, you are not dumb! Don't be so hard on yourself man! Most people who talk about it are just a clueless. But they are smart enough not to act otherwise. The number of you out there dwarf the tiny few of us that are in the know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Always Right (Reply #46)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:45 AM

58. Being Always Right means you are pretty much always wrong.

Time to go back to science class. I dont even have to go to college science classes.

When we did a high school freshman science experiment, with styrofoam cups, measuring what sort of insulation setup would keep ice coldest longest, we had to calculate the energy entering the system.. in joules. See, in science we actually often use energy levels to measure heat, seeing as heat is a form of energy. Kinetic energy even, just like your 1 kg moving a meter, as it is vibration of atoms. But being all sciency, Im sure you were aware of that right? 4.184 joules of heat energy (one calorie) will raise the temperature of 1 g of water from 0C to 1C.

The graph shows nothing of a "cycle". Thats an inventive addition from your own brain, bearing no connection to any data shown.

All in all.. what I am saying is that your "science" would show up as empty blather to anyone who paid attention in their basic science courses. Unless they were poorly homeschooled, I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #58)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 05:00 AM

59. That is great professor, because that means the ocean will just hold all the energy

 

indefinitely. Since the top 3 feet of the ocean contain more energy that the entire atmosphere we can rest knowing the ocean will just keep absorbing all the energy we need it to for eternity without even flinching a little. So why the hysteria then? If it never cycles out then what do we care?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Always Right (Reply #59)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 05:16 PM

62. Again, going back to basic science

this time to biology... a small temperature change has large effects on biology. Different plants, algae, and fishes grow in different temperatures. different temperatures hold different oxygen levels. Different temperatures even effect gender assignment in many critters.

Theres no cycle here. You again are throwing that word in with absolutely no justification or connection to data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #58)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 12:10 PM

61. In the interest of not keeping the idiots here uninformed I thought it best to not let my sarcasm

 

stand since it is beyond the sad highschool education being provided these days. This is engineering stuff anyways. You don't realize that entire graph was created to illustrate a cycle taking place because that cycle is exactly what we are supposed to be afraid of. Without a cycle there would never be a decrease in entropy until the oh so terrifying maximum entropy was reached and then we all need to fear an oh so scary return to spontaneous equilibrium that would follow (Yes you don't think those words specifically but the thoughts they are implanting translate to them).

The problem though is the ocean is not a closed system so there is not just heat transferred across the boundaries. As an open system the ocean has other parts of the equation being transferred in and out that affect it so we cannot point strictly to the application of heat as the sole source of an increase in entropy. Even if 100% of the world concurred that it was there are far too many factors involved to know it with any kind if certainty.

But all of this is really more of me making fun of the stupid people here that obviously don't know any better either way. There is obviously much much more involved. But if the tiny sliver of info I shared is too much for them to comprehend or divest then why would I consider wasting time explaining it all in depth? It would takes years anyway. I really appreciate you actually stepping up and adding information, you only erred in assuming your own layman's definition of cycle. It is all bullshit even to start since the numbers are measured at a maximum depth that is arbitrarily shallow. Hell this is all theorized anyway and totally dependent on a made up "just has to be there" heat sink of "indeterminate" depth that is far below anything ever measured anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Always Right (Reply #61)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 05:38 PM

63. There is one idiot here

Trying to make himself sound a lot smarter than his words would bear out. And this will be my last post to him in this thread, because he is clearly not willing to stop trying to decieve, and I have made my point well enough I dont expect to need to reiterate it.

Your assertions bear no relation to reality. they are, frankly, gibberish intended to mislead.

The graph has nothing to do with a cycle. You again throw that word in there, to try and slip in the idea that everything that happens is normal, nothing to worry about. its just a cycle. a bicycle chain goes in a cycle. But if you add an extra link and try to pedal, you will have issues, even though it is a cycle. Same if you gum up the chain. Cycle does not mean normal, and has no relevance to the issues at hand.

As for spontaneous equilibrium.. again words meaning little, intended to deceive. The fact is that there is more energy entering the system and being trapped within it than previously. And it is fact that there is more energy being trapped within specific parts of the system, which is probably more relevant. If you raise the temperature in your home by one degree, its not a big deal, and probably not noticeable. If you apply the same amount of energy to a 1/4 inch space behind your couch because that's where the vent is, you can start a fire. Same is true with biology. Sunlight is minimally dangerous to ants, until some fool comes along with a magnifying glass to concentrate it.

So.. bring on your next meaningless "i know more than you idiots" post which has no actual bearing on reality, but has lots of buzzwords to try and make you look smart. I will almost certainly read it and laugh, yet again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #63)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 10:28 PM

64. Well that is odd, mighty odd indeed

 

I was under the impression that the graph was displaying a sequence of processes that involved the transfer of heat and work in and out of the ocean system while having varied pressure, temperature, and other state variables, which will eventually return the ocean to its initial state. With this the upper ocean acts as a heat engine and is transferring heat that is not converted into work to a cold sink. Do you think anybody possibly invented something that describes something that obscure? Ha ha, see what you can come up with and let all of us know professor.

The use of your common definition of the word cycle had nothing to do with the first post and even though it is indeed one of the countless cycles the ocean experiences, I should not have used a common word that would confuse a highschool understanding of what was happening. Cycles can last in theory a million years of course, but the initial post was only to laugh at posting such an arbitrary unit of measurement and see if he knew what it meant. Of course there would not be answer so yes I was mentally jerking off. When you oddly seized on that inconsequential word I decided to have some fun in the second post and be specifically obtuse and laugh at you. To keep you from having an aneurism, the cycle I described above is actually a generic definition of the cycle taking place because it would help you locate it much easier. You get 10 DI points if you can figure out the specific cycle though. If not thanks for being a great external source of work for my nonspontaneous cycle of fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Original post)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 01:48 PM

21. Did you even bother reading the article?

Or did you just copy the excerpts from whichever Denial Cultist site you saw it on?

Under the IPCC's middle-of-the-road scenario, there was a 70 per cent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and 2050, Brown said.

'That matches up well with what we're seeing.'


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 02:06 PM

25. With the hundreds of "consenting" opinions on this it is funny we can always find every single

 

opinion one could ever imagine. There are probably some that said the same except using 12 years, 25 years,100 years, on and on. All we have to do is search for the 1 in 7 billion people in the world who has the exact same crackpot idea as we do and presto, instant verification and sourcing. I can make up any silly idea out of thin air right now and I can find a hundred others out there who said the same stupid shit before and will readily back me up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Always Right (Reply #25)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 02:29 PM

27. Drivel

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoGods4Me (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 04:35 PM

39. Read my new theory below and prove it wrong then?

 

I bet you are already questioning yourself wondering if everything you have ever known is wrong. You'll be peddling my ramblings within a month as fact. People will think you are smart then and that's what it really is all about isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Always Right (Reply #25)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 02:40 PM

30. Drivel

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John Q Citizen (Reply #30)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 04:00 PM

38. Let's try one then buddy, put your money where your mouth is.

 

The warming is being caused solely by radiation photons shooting into our atmosphere from outer space. The earth has a protection partially in place that can automatically bounce some of those photons back to space. When they are bounced back towards space, the photons are changed in such a way so that they they can be seen and interacted with by pollutants in the air even though they were invisible when coming in. Those pollutants grab those evil photons and shoot them in all directions instead of letting them away back into the safety of space. The war has been going on forever and more pollutants are constantly deployed and help repel this attack. The photons bounce around the sky trying to get away and in doing so make temperature reading devices output a higher number.

How many idiots do you suppose I could get to agree with that silly shit? I bet I could even get some of you believing it. It sounds like I am some sort of genius with all that shit right? Or are you one of them uneducated climate deniers I have been hearing about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Original post)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 02:30 PM

28. (hide the decline)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Original post)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 02:47 PM

33. The belief of the anthropogenic cause as THE major cause of temperature variations is strong...

.. STRONG in the inner sanctum of the temple of the Global Warmists...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Original post)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 05:05 PM

41. Duke Researcher Denounces Rush Limbaugh's "Ridiculous" Distortion Of His Global Warming Study

On the April 22 edition of his show, Limbaugh touted the Duke University study as "bad news for the climate change crowd" and claimed the Duke researchers are part of a "consensus" of people who think "there isn't any warming going on." He went on to assert that the study, which examines temperature records over the past 1,000 years, shows that "there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that long-term warming over the next 100 years is going to be anything even noticeable, abnormal."

But the study itself said nothing of the sort. Rather, the study stated that, out of the range of warming projections outlined by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), temperature records suggest that at present time the "middle-of-the-road warming scenario" is more likely than the most severe warming projections. One of the study's authors, Duke doctoral candidate Patrick Brown, confirmed as much in an email to Media Matters, and called Limbaugh's assertion "ridiculous":

The idea that there 'isn't any warming' is ridiculous. Over the past century there are countless datasets indicating warming (weather stations, sea level, ice mass, ocean temperatures, etc.).

...

Our study shows that we are probably not on the worst-case IPCC scenario but that we may be on an IPCC middle-of-the road scenario. The IPCC does not make predictions they make hypothetical projections. So this result does not contradict the IPCC conclusions at all.
The study also stated that natural variability "can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade," and cited this as a reason not to be over-reliant on "short-term temperature trends."
...
Laden concluded that the study's findings do not provide a "change in how we think about global warming," but rather a "refinement." But he warned that the results are likely to be "abused by denialists" and are being misrepresented, "willfully or through misunderstanding, by climate science contrarians." Limbaugh is a case in point in this regard.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/24/duke-researcher-denounces-rush-limbaughs-ridicu/203410
Here's Duke's press release:

Global Warming More Moderate Than Worst-Case Models

A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,” said Patrick T. Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment. “But this could change.”

The Duke-led study shows that natural variability in surface temperatures -- caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors -- can account for observed changes in the recent rates of warming from decade to decade.
...
“By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the ‘big picture’ right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,” Brown said. “Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.”

https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #41)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 05:15 PM

42. Yes indeed, Rush went too far away from the study and indulged in absolutes...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #42)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 05:57 PM

45. "Would the anthropogenic Global Warmists please wiggle off, stage left?..." is just as bad

Since the report says the IPCC middle-of-the-road warming prediction looks accurate. The one bit of the OP you wrote yourself was steaming bullshit.

Yeah, that's right, I said you're as bad as Limbaugh. Jury me if you want. I am saying you are on a par with a con-man who leads his listeners into rank stupidity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #45)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 06:02 PM

47. For posterity's sake, I'll "archive" this comment from you to me...

"Yeah, that's right, I said you're as bad as Limbaugh. Jury me if you want. I am saying you are on a par with a con-man who leads his listeners into rank stupidity."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #47)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 06:22 PM

48. Archive it? I might make it my signature, for a bit

Along with "The belief of the anthropogenic cause as THE major cause of temperature variations is strong... STRONG in the inner sanctum of the temple of the Global Warmists..." - with a link to the paper under discussion, which says that major causes of temperature variation are anthropogenic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #48)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 06:33 PM

49. Again, from the piece I was quoting from, without Rush ' s input:

Statistically, it's pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections,' Brown said.

'Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario.'

Under the IPCC's middle-of-the-road scenario, there was a 70 per cent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and 2050, Brown said.

'That matches up well with what we're seeing.'

There's no guarantee, however, that this rate of warming will remain steady in coming years, Li stressed.

'Our analysis clearly shows that we shouldn't expect the observed rates of warming to be constant. They can and do change.'

- - - - - -

The author surely seems to be greatly toning down the anthropogenic element, not eliminating it but being far more cautious than the Algore acolytes...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #49)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 06:54 PM

50. He's not 'toning down' anything, especially not 'greatly'

He's saying a middling IPCC projection is compatible with what has happened so far - including the occasional 11 year hiatus. That projection is based on a major anthropogenic external forcing.

Your title implies anyone who thinks there is anthropogenic warming should shut up. The paper thinks there is anthropogenic warming, and the author's rebuke of the Big Fat Idiot Limbaugh reiterates that.

The 11-year negative trend in observations from 2002–2013 would need to extend until 2015 before it would be considered outside the 5th percentile of trends associated with the RCP 6.0 forced signal, indicating that it would be premature to conclude that the forced signal is increasing at a slower rate than the RCP 6.0 forced signal (Fig. 2d).

http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150421/srep09957/full/srep09957.html

And guess what happened with the 2002-2014 trend? Oh, it was positive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #50)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 06:58 PM

51. As contrasted with the years-old Global Warming hysteria, he offers a nice bit of moderation...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #51)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 08:14 PM

54. Those telling people who correctly attribute warming to humans to wiggle off are hysterical

not the people who follow the science and agree with the authors of the paper, and the IPCC, that the warming trend is anthropogenic

The only part of the OP that you wrote was hysterical bullshit. And not in the least moderate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #54)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 08:58 PM

55. Ehh.. you're wrong. Deal with it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Original post)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 12:42 AM

56. The only wiggling

 

I can see is from the extremists who claim that somehow, millions of tons of pollution pumped into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution has had no negative effects on anything, and has actually disappeared into never-never land.

Not to mention the 40+ years of hard science and the agreement of virtually all of the world's scientists. No, the extremists claim it's just an excuse for liberals to take away their "freedoms".

The wiggling extremists would rather agree with the opinion of a verbal terrorist on a right wing radio show who "has a friend who said...." instead of logic and common sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meanitt (Reply #56)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 07:41 AM

60. Well, the other fun thing is watching them totally misinterpret scientific studies like this one.

Studies that clearly validate not only the fact of warming, but also the validity of the projections.

Then the game becomes whether they are really that dim or are they just putting us on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Newsglobalwarmistswiggleawayplease