Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??

[groggy]

This is the first time I've heard the argument that the Industrial Revolution began 4.5 billion years ago. I didn't think man had been on the planet nearly that long.

Straw man #2.


Realclimate has a good example of how open scientists are compared to how secretive moviefan's heartland arses are.

They are seeking to crowdsource a new way of representing global surface temperatures through the millennia. The problem is in disparate sets of data and timescales. Their solution, ask everyone to try and to do it they've posted all the data publicly.

Moviefan, why don't you show us how smart you think you are and try to make sense of the data:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/can-we-make-better-graphs-of-global-temperature-history/

(hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha)
We all know you're too stupid to do that.
(hahahahahahahahaha)

You're just not smart enough to do that, are you?
And yet you still think you're smarter then all legit scientists.

hahahahahahaha

 

[groggy]

Oh oh.
Looks like another of Moviefans argument is being exposed as false.

The first decade of the 21st century was the world's warmest in 160 years and was marked by a number of extreme climate events, a United Nations agency has found.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/last-decade-warmest-on-record-says-un-report-1.1330948


So much for this 'pause' claim.....

 

[AK-47]

Oh oh.
Looks like another of Moviefans argument is being exposed as false.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/last-decade-warmest-on-record-says-un-report-1.1330948


So much for this 'pause' claim.....

From your link:

The agency was quick to note that while natural climate variability may account for some of the extreme weather, human factors cannot be ignored.

"Many of these events and trends can be exp**********d by the natural variability of the climate system. Rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, however, are also affecting the climate," the report's summary states in part

So in the end they don't really know how much is natural variance, and how much is caused by humans

 

[groggy]

From your link:
So in the end they don't really know how much is natural variance, and how much is caused by humans

From the link:

"The last decade was the warmest, by a significant margin," he said. "If anything we should not talk about the plateau, we should talk about the acceleration."
Natural cycles between atmosphere and oceans make some years cooler than others, but during the past decade there was no major event associated with El Nino, the phenomenon characterized by unusually warm temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean.

Much of the decade was affected by the cooling La Nina, which comes from unusually cool temperatures there, or neutral conditions.

Given those circumstances, World Meteorological Organization secretary general Michel Jarraud said the data doesn't support the notion among some in the scientific community of a slowdown, or lull, in the pace of planetary warming in recent years.

You, sir, are making things up.
Your claim is not supported by the article.
The only talk of a natural variance is the cooling of La Nina, which kept the rate of increase down very slightly.
But as they say, the claim there was a pause is baseless.

 

[AK-47]

From the link:


You, sir, are making things up.
Your claim is not supported by the article.
The only talk of a natural variance is the cooling of La Nina, which kept the rate of increase down very slightly.
But as they say, the claim there was a pause is baseless

I didnt make anything up, dummy, I quoted their exact article. They dont know how much is caused by natural variance, and how much is caused by humans.

I also didnt say anything about any "pause". But I'll address that later when I have more time

 

[groggy]

I didnt make anything up, dummy, I quoted their exact article. They dont know how much is caused by natural variance, and how much is caused by humans.

I also didnt say anything about any "pause". But I'll address that later when I have more time

Speaking of not being to swift, did you notice that the only natural variance they noted was a cooling effect? Kind of exposes your argument as weak to pointless. Natural variance, namely La Nina, kept temperatures down slightly, enough for your heartland friends to cherry pick from 1998, but not enough to stop the decade from following what the IPCC predicted.


And I know this may also strain your abilities, but they also said there was no evidence of a lull or slowdown in the global surface temperature. Now bear in mind that the word 'pause' is a denier term, but that it also means the same as 'lull' or 'slowdown' in this case. I knew it was going to be hard for you to follow such a technical argument, which is why put in bold and slightly bigger font.

You lose twice.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Straw man #2.


Realclimate has a good example of how open scientists are compared to how secretive moviefan's heartland arses are.

They are seeking to crowdsource a new way of representing global surface temperatures through the millennia. The problem is in disparate sets of data and timescales. Their solution, ask everyone to try and to do it they've posted all the data publicly.

Moviefan, why don't you show us how smart you think you are and try to make sense of the data:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/can-we-make-better-graphs-of-global-temperature-history/

(hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha)
We all know you're too stupid to do that.
(hahahahahahahahaha)

You're just not smart enough to do that, are you?
And yet you still think you're smarter then all legit scientists.

hahahahahahaha

You're really losing it. Try some meds.

Oh oh.
Looks like another of Moviefans argument is being exposed as false.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/last-decade-warmest-on-record-says-un-report-1.1330948


So much for this 'pause' claim.....

If the records from 1880 are so great, why did Michael Mann need to use tree ring data for the period before 1961?

By the way, that CBC story is from last July. Since then, the IPCC confirmed in its fifth assessment report that there hasn't been any statistically significant change in the Earth's temperature since 1998.

 

[groggy]

You're really losing it. Try some meds.

If the records from 1880 are so great, why did Michael Mann need to use tree ring data for the period before 1961?

By the way, that CBC story is from last July. Since then, the IPCC confirmed in its fifth assessment report that there hasn't been any statistically significant change in the Earth's temperature since 1998.

Mann confirmed tree ring data with an era with lots of temperature records to confirm its usefulness in times when there aren't a lot of records. You really don't have a clue how science works, do you?

And the cbc is post dated from your 'pause' denier claims. It's information may not have come out in time for the IPCC report, since those are a long, slow and very careful process.

No pause.
That is the word.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Mann confirmed tree ring data with an era with lots of temperature records to confirm its usefulness in times when there aren't a lot of records.

You missed the point. The claims about 160 years ago are based on controversial reconstructions, not confirmed data.

And the cbc is post dated from your 'pause' denier claims. It's information may not have come out in time for the IPCC report, since those are a long, slow and very careful process.

No pause.
That is the word.

You're still wrong -- the period covered in your CBC story only went up to 2010.

The period covered in the IPCC report was more current, and the Met Office has released findings that go beyond the period in the IPCC report -- continuing to show a pause.

Accept the evidence.

 

[groggy]

You missed the point. The claims about 160 years ago are based on controversial reconstructions, not confirmed data.

You're still wrong -- the period covered in your CBC story only went up to 2010.

The period covered in the IPCC report was more current, and the Met Office has released findings that go beyond the period in the IPCC report -- continuing to show a pause.

Accept the evidence.

The evidence states that 2013 was the 4th warmest in record.

Accept the evidence.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Even the Toronto Star acknowledged -- in a story published just last month -- that the "pause" is real:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/02/10/study_explains_global_warming_pause.html

 

[AK-47]

 

[groggy]

Even the Toronto Star acknowledged -- in a story published just last month -- that the "pause" is real:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/02/10/study_explains_global_warming_pause.html

From your story:

He added that there was an indication in the past decade that the heat was trapped deeper in the oceans, so even though the surface has not warmed as much, the deep ocean has continued to warm, said Church.

The planet is still warming, there was a slight dip in the surface temperature increase due to La Nina and extreme weather related trade winds that sunk a bit more energy into the oceans. But there is still the same amount of excess heat entering the global climate. This 'pause' is not a pause at all, even according to your own source.

And to remind you, 2013 was the 4th warmest year on record and according to CBC the last decade was the warmest on record.

You lose again.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/last-decade-confirmed-as-the-w/14913958


And how do you answer to the fact that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record were in the first decade of this century?

 

[AK-47]

Oh oh.
Looks like another of Moviefans argument is being exposed as false.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/last-decade-warmest-on-record-says-un-report-1.1330948


So much for this 'pause' claim.....

From your link:

The World Meteorological Organization

Just curious groggy, do you happen to know how this group, The World Meteorological Organization from your link, collected global temperatures to arrive at this conclusion??

 

[Moviefan-2]

The planet is still warming, there was a slight dip in the surface temperature increase...

A "slight dip"? There has been no statistically significant warming at all for the past 17 years.

As for all these claims about warmest temperatures "on record," I assume you mean since the Medieval Warm Period (Page 202 of Chapter 7 in the IPCC's first assessment report):

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and..._first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml#.UwabpfldWa8

 

[groggy]

From your link:
Just curious groggy, do you happen to know how this group, The World Meteorological Organization from your link, collected global temperatures to arrive at this conclusion??

I should introduce you to the google, its really quite useful.
Here is NOAA's press release from the report:

The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html

Are you going to claim that those 300 scientists representing 48 countries are part your delusional conspiracy?
Its getting bigger by the day.

 

[groggy]

A "slight dip"? There has been no statistically significant warming at all for the past 17 years.

As for all these claims about warmest temperatures "on record," I assume you mean since the Medieval Warm Period (Page 202 of Chapter 7 in the IPCC's first assessment report):

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and..._first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml#.UwabpfldWa8

Wow, the index to the report!
OH MY GOD!
ITS RIGHT THERE IN THE INDEX!


Are you really that stupid?

I'll give you another chance, but please don't embarrass yourself that badly again.
If you do, I'll use even more caps and an even larger font.
Idiot.

And here, I'll show how pathetic your cherry picking data argument is.
1998 was the third hottest year on record (now eclipsed, but you papers are so old they probably don't know).
Every year but one in the decade 2000-2010 was amongst the 10 hottest years on record.
The one year that wasn't?

2008.
That means you are basing your argument on using the third hottest year ever to a decade later to the coolest year in a decade.
That's called cherry picking, picking the only two data points that make your case.
If you pick any other starting, like 2000 as all the legit reports do, your case is exposed as bullshit.

You are pushing cherry picking bullshit.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Wow, the index to the report!
OH MY GOD!
ITS RIGHT THERE IN THE INDEX!

I didn't cite an index to anything. You really are strung out on something, aren't you? :hippie:

 

[AK-47]

I should introduce you to the google, its really quite useful.
Here is NOAA's press release from the report

No need to get snarky, little guy. I just asked you a simple question

Are you going to claim that those 300 scientists representing 48 countries are part your delusional conspiracy?
Its getting bigger by the day

Not necessarily a conspiracy. Many of these scientists rely on government grants, all I'm saying is I have a hard time trusting a lot of these guys since Climategate happened

I didn't cite an index to anything. You really are strung out on something, aren't you? :hippie:

Definite mental issues. Can't discuss anything political without throwing little hissy-fits that 12-year olds do

 

[groggy]

I didn't cite an index to anything. You really are strung out on something, aren't you? :hippie:

Oh, sorry.
I forget that you don't or can't read your own links.
I'll help you out.

Scroll up to post #942 in this thread.
Note that you wrote it.
I know its getting hard already, but try reading the whole post, its only three sentences but you can do it.
And there at bottom, what do you see?
I'll give you a hint, its red.

We call it a link.
If you click on it, it takes you to another place on the internet.
In this case, guess where?

Yes, that right, it goes to part of an IPCC report.
Now, bear with me, I know this is really, really hard for you because real scientists wrote the stuff on that page, but try reading it.
Notice that it lists chapters.
Have you seen something like that before, maybe in a paper thing we call a book?

Yes, that's right, that my dimwitted friend, that is called an index.

Got it?

Idiot.