I think you just qualified as King Hypocrite. You picked 2000 which was an El Nina year. Everything you accuse MF2 of doing you do even worse. It doesn't get more moronic than this folks!
President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
You are really, really stupid.
I mean, really, really fucking stupid.
Let me make it clear to you:
Moviefan bases his argument around using only 1 year, 1998, a super El Nino year, in a technique called 'cherry picking'.
To prove his claim was 'cherry picking' I showed him that his claim only works for that one year, 1998, through examples of very close years which show moviefans claims to be baseless. That is how you show that cherry picking is dishonest, by comparing the one year that backs his claim against the multiple, multiple other years in which his claim looks to be absolutely bullshit.
For you to accuse me of cherry picking, for showing how moviefan's arguments are cherry picking just shows that to be yet another item that goes way over your head.
Really, you are fucking stupid.
Bullshit - cherry picking based on 1998, the last super El Nino year. Lame and old bullshit.
Bullshit - as shown here:
Bullshit - "The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years."
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
Bullshit - they improved their measurements, stop whining.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
Bullshit - Repeated bullshit. Stop relying on old charts and old numbers. NASA's published numbers show 2015 to be the warmest first half a year on record.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
Bullshit - just plain bullshit, unsourced, bullshit.
Bullshit - trying to mix lower troposphere data with surface data? Total bullshit.
In short, your 'proof there is no warming' is just plain bullshit.
Every single 'claim', each one unsourced, each one copied of some lame denier site without full understanding or the decency to confirm those claims.
Only a totally dishonest idiot will look at this chart and claim "there has been no statistically significant warming, with most of the data showing no warming at all."
I apparently stand corrected on HadCRUT4 -- although the HadCRUT4 data has also been adjusted, so who knows?
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
No matter. Let's go through the results again, with HadCRUT4 updated.
- NASA's "adjusted" graph shows the temperature increase from 1998 to 2013 was only 0.02 degrees Celsius. In the case of the inflated increase for 2014, it still only produces an increase of 0.05 degrees Celsius over 2005, which is within the margin of error.
- The HadCRUT4 data of surface temperatures showed the temperature in 2014 was the same as 1998, 2005 and 2010.
- The Berkeley Earth Science data of surface temperatures showed 2014 was not statistically any warmer than 2005 or 2010: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html
- NASA's pre-adjusted surface temperatures showed 2014 was not statistically any warmer than 2005 or 2010.
- NASA's pre-adjusted surface temperatures for 2015 showed the first five months of 2015 were no warmer than the first five months of 2010. Indeed, there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker.
- The RSS satellite data show there hasn't been any warming for more than 18 years.
- The University of Alabama in Huntsville's satellite data show the temperature in 2014 was less than the temperature in 2000.
The findings are irrefutable. All of the graphs confirm the same thing.
The Earth's temperature in the 21st century has been stagnant. In the 21st century, there has been no statistically significant warming.
You posted an article that stated 2014 was the warmest year as evidence, admitted your info was old and then went on with previously debunked bullshit.
Quibbles and outright lies, that's all you have to offer.
Here's the real source.
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record
I went through that list, its all bullshit claims. The most you have to debate is whether or not 2014 was the warmest year ever, as if proving that somehow disproves all of climate change. Its bullshit. It has nothing to do with the debate.
This is the chart of our global temperature. Yet you still try to claim that this isn't a line going up, but its a line that's horizontal. Its idiotic.
You claim that despite 14 of 15 warmest years recorded being since 2000, that somehow this means that climate change has stopped.
That's idiotic.
Really, really idiotic.
Only a totally dishonest idiot will look at this chart and claim "there has been no statistically significant warming, with most of the data showing no warming at all."
How can that be? We have before and after pics of retreating glaciers, ice or snow caps on mountains, and polar ice.
Also, the 21st century is only the last 15 years.
Frankfooter, please tone it down.
The personal attacks take away from your arguments.
However, I don't deny that you are faced with ignorant or utterly biased individuals who equate admission to AGW as acceptance of higher taxes, extreme lifestyle changes and socialism if not communism.
All of those points can be countered with examples that contradict the expectations -- eg., increasing ice in the Antarctic.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9112201/ship-of-fools-2/
And, of course, there were the predictions that went well beyond being spectacularly wrong and veered into the completely preposterous.
Two of my favourites are Dr. David Viner (of the University of East Anglia) predicting in 2000 that children living in the U.K. today "just aren't going to know what snow is" (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html) and the IPCC making international headlines with its prediction that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 (http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/0...ience-panel-apologizes-for-himalay-25267.html) -- a fairy-tale claim that the IPCC spent more than two years defending.
As well, there were the predictions of an ice-free summer in the Arctic by 2013, worsening hurricanes and cyclones, etc. Detailed lists of all of the erroneous predictions can be found online.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/...f-green-scares-that-dont-live-up-to-the-hype/
Personally, I don't bother with this stuff because there's no way to test whether any of it can be scientifically linked to man-made greenhouse gases. Sometimes the guesses are right. Sometimes the guesses are wrong. That's just random guessing.
Predictions of how man-made greenhouse gases will affect the Earth's temperature are more quantifiable and can be more clearly measured. And as I keep saying, the observed data confirm the predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
As for the fact that the "pause" has only existed for somewhere between 15 to 19 years, I don't dispute that. I made my point about the pause to address the erroneous assertion that the warming of the planet has continued.
As I have said many times before, I am less concerned about whether there has been a "pause," a "slowdown," or a minuscule change of 2/100s or 3/100s of a degree Celsius, as Groggy likes to talk about.
To me, the key point is that the predictions of how man-made greenhouse gases would affect the Earth's temperature have been completely wrong. That remains true even if you believe there was a microscopic change of 2/100ths or 3/100ths of a degree for the entire planet over the past nine years.
Since the predictions have been spectacularly wrong, the hypothesis of AGW is in doubt.
Last edited:
Focusing on unrealized predictions may be a red herring when current trends indicate warming just by analyzing the physical data.
I previously posted a link which explains that LAND Antarctic ice has decreased with an increase in sea ice from the fresh water run off which freezes at 0 degrees celsius unlike salt water, but it's the land ice which causes rising sea levels.
You are not getting it Movie Fan.
Also, I thought I posted a link which showed polar Arctic ice has diminished up to 2012 from 1980.
Here's another one which explains the land ice reduction vs. sea ice expansion, all consistent with global warming => http://rockyrexscience.blogspot.ca/2015/02/the-earths-icy-poles-whats-happening.html
How can anyone say there's no change?
This article explains how a satellite is measuring the loss of billions of tonnes of land ice from the Antarctic.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27465050
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27465050
Here what the your posted article said "Antarctica is now losing about 160 billion tonnes of ice a year to the ocean - twice as much as when the continent was last surveyed.
The new assessment comes from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft, which has a radar instrument specifically designed to measure the shape of the ice sheet.
The melt loss from the White Continent is sufficient to push up global sea levels by around 0.43mm per year.
Scientists report the data in the journal Geophysical Research Letters."
That only raised the global sea level to 0.43mm ! You realized what is .43mm thick is less then the thickness of your fingernail or the thickness of your hair or the thickness of a pieces of paper.
0.43mm=0.0169 inches=1/63 " inches
Average daily temperture in Antarctica is -58 degree F
Last winter temp at the South Pole reached -106 degree F
Here some logic ... basic Chemistry logic to explain to you.
To get any ice to melt, would need to raise the average daily temperature from -58 to 32 degree F (melting point of ice), plus another aprox 10 degree F to get any appreciatable melting to occur. YOu have to warm antartica to total warming of +100 degree F to melt the Antarctica ice. You judged for yourself ....And how likely you
think that will happen melting the Antarctica ice cap? It not going to happen!!!
if you are openminded watch this video and look at time stamped at into the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI 32min and.10 sec into the video about the Antarctica.
The other thing about the Antarctica ...The Antarctica have not been disappear in 15 millions years despite the temperature consider much warming then today. They drill Anatartica ice cap to get drill ice core sample showed no gap in the ice. If they were showed gaps in the ice core then it will proof the it melted.
Go to 49.54 minutes into the video it will explain global sea level https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI
Last edited:
You also might want to look up the effects of thermal expansion.
Melting of sea ice is pretty much a zero sum game. The ice displaces around as much volume as it would take up when melted. Land ice is a whole other issue.
As for melting ice, no need to go into the whole idea of local temperatures causing local melt issues because you won't pay attention anyways. I will ask you what happens to the ice cubes in your freezer when you leave them for a while. I know my freezer is stays around -10C but somehow those ice cubes melt.
PornAddict, thank you for pointing about that thickness, which is insignificant, even in terms of GLOBAL seal levels in a year. I suppose what's important is, if warming rises, that figure will increase, and could get relevant.
In any event, the winter temp maximum you note is irrelevant. The average is also irrelevant, unless it is rising. What counts is that in the summer, the temperature obviously rises enough to cause billions of tonnes of LAND ice to melt.
I will look at those video links later. Time to get some shut eye.
There isn't any debate about the fact that the planet has warmed by about one degree Celsius over the past 135 years.
The debate is whether or not man-made greenhouse gases are a significant cause of the warming.
If you're going to use predictions about ice levels, droughts, tornadoes, etc. as the metric for measuring whether or not the hypothesis has any basis in science, then the many wrong predictions aren't a "red herring." If the proponents of AGW can't get their predictions right, there's no reason to believe the hypothesis has any merit.
Getting it right sometimes and wrong other times is evidence of nothing more than the random chance involved in lucky guesses.
That's what this clown is all about. He's tunnel visioned like most left wing kooks and cannot have a simple debate on facts. I wouldn't expect any less of a response from him.
I think though that when this debate is reduced down to left wing vs. right wing, people tend to become less open to considering the merits of opposing views, and become subjective.
Shouldn't the test really be focused on cause and effect? It may be difficult to make predictions but that doesn't rule out AGW. If the predictions are alarmist only, then AGW may not require drastic measures to combat, but that doesn't mean that we can ignore it.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here. If melting sea ice's effect is neutral to ocean levels, then do we need to worry about GW? Or does it mean that it's still a concern because that means that land ice (over Greenland for instance) will also melt, and that does increase ocean levels which matters.
(BTW, is Arctic Ice salty or not? If not, would that effect salinity of oceans and affect currents and climate? Does ocean temperature change from melting sea ice? Does that affect climate too?)
