Is global climate policy actually about global income redistribution ?

[fuji]

This chart is based on manipulated data, it simply does not reflect reality. The satellite record is far more trustworthy. It shows no warming this century.

I don't usually entertain kooky bullshit. Calling the temperature data manufactured eliminates you from serious conversation and proves that deniers are mostly raving loons.

But today just for you:

Actually the satellites are less accurate, since they don't actually measure temperature but impute it from upwelling radiation.

But even with your own chosen dataset your guy is just terribly wrong.

Most recent data is the highest on record since the satellites were launched.

Time for you to concede.

 

[Frankfooter]

It's starting to look like someone is eager to see his greatest hits repeated yet again.

Why don't you start with this one.

- May 12, 2016 - He said the warming "slowdown" in the 21st century "fits" the predictions from Michael Mann's hockey stick graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5547096&viewfull=1#post5547096

The one where you claim that there are 'predictions' 'from' a chart of historical temperatures.

 

[Frankfooter]

Actually he's right. Since 2001 we have seen a slight cooling trend according to the satellite record.

Nope.
Wrong again.

 

[**Sophie**]

Actually, models are used for testing drugs.
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/06/12136/computer-model-successfully-predicts-drug-side

Do you have selective reading or do you not bother reading the literature on the links you provide?

"Drugs frequently interact with more than one target, with hundreds of these targets linked to the side effects of clinically used therapeutics. Focusing on 656 drugs that are currently prescribed, with known safety records or side effects, the team was able to predict such undesirable targets — and thus potential side effects —half of the time."

Than after they run the computer model they take that information to lab testing.

Im not even going to bother commenting on the other issues because it's pointless

 

[Frankfooter]

Do you have selective reading or do you not bother reading the literature on the links you provide?

"Drugs frequently interact with more than one target, with hundreds of these targets linked to the side effects of clinically used therapeutics. Focusing on 656 drugs that are currently prescribed, with known safety records or side effects, the team was able to predict such undesirable targets — and thus potential side effects —half of the time."

Than after they run the computer model they take that information to lab testing.

Im not even going to bother commenting on the other issues because it's pointless

You said this:

NO FRANK, medical science test their hypothesis against FACTS, not computer models.

I gave you examples of medical tests using computer models.

 

[**Sophie**]

You said this:


I gave you examples of medical tests using computer models.

But your missing the best part, they only work HALF the time and then they take those results to actual observations in a LAB.

You are telling me they would prescribe a medication based ONLY on their computer models which have a 50/50 success rate? That's laughable and an insult to the medical society

 

[Frankfooter]

But your missing the best part, they only work HALF the time and then they take those results to actual observations in a LAB.

You are telling me they would prescribe a medication based ONLY on their computer models which have a 50/50 success rate? That's laughable and an insult to the medical society

They are used the same way climatologists use computer models. They work and refine them then test the results.

Hey, sounds like there will be more subpoena's on denier groups.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/dem-ag-targets-90-conservative-groups-climate-change-racketeering-suit/

Time to see if they come off as clean as climatologists.

 

[AK-47]

Honest question:

Have any of you guys who posted in this thread spent even one day in Bangkok??

Yes or no??

 

[Moviefan-2]

Actually AGW at this point is observed fact and the predicted level of warming at 0.2 watts per square meter per decade has been experimentally confirmed.

That level of warming you're talking about was solely for CO2. That does nothing to confirm the AGW hypothesis, which you don't understand (as you struggle to try to figure out whether water vapour feedback leads to warming or cooling).

Clicking your heels together three times and repeating the same fairy tale over and over isn't going to make the fairy tale come true.

 

[Moviefan-2]

On the contrary, 2014 set a record that was broken by 2015 and 2016 looks likely to break the 2014 record. The last few years can best be described as hot, hot, hotter, and hottest.

In fact, NASA's data showed 2014 was no warmer than 2005 or 2010 (the differences reported by NASA were significantly less than the margin of error). Temperatures went up in 2015 due to the super El Nino weather phenomenon.

Apart from the super El Nino (and we won't really know where things currently stand until the El Nino and possible La Nina trends have ended), temperatures in the 21st century have been stagnant.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Honest question:

Have any of you guys who posted in this thread spent even one day in Bangkok??

Yes or no??

Not me.

But it's important to note that I'm not opposed to responsible approaches to cleaner air. For example, I think it makes good sense to reduce our use of coal-fired plants and replace them with nuclear power.

The debate about anthropogenic global warming is about the politicized agenda that's being passed off as science. You don't have to believe the nonsense about the world being on the edge of the apocalypse to support a cleaner environment.

 

[Frankfooter]

That level of warming you're talking about was solely for CO2. That does nothing to confirm the AGW hypothesis, .

It confirms the primary driver of AGW, water vapour feedback has been confirmed by other studies.

 

[Frankfooter]

In fact, NASA's data showed 2014 was no warmer than 2005 or 2010 (the differences reported by NASA were significantly less than the margin of error). Temperatures went up in 2015 due to the super El Nino weather phenomenon.

Apart from the super El Nino (and we won't really know where things currently stand until the El Nino and possible La Nina trends have ended), temperatures in the 21st century have been stagnant.

15 of the 16 warmest years on record have occurred this century.
And the odds that happened naturally have been calculated as 0.01%.

April is the 7th month in a row of 'hottest months' on record, which is most likely the first time that's ever happened since the start of the industrial revolution.
Here is a chart of April's monthly temperatures, a chart you argue is a flat line after 2000.

Here are the 15 warmest years according to NOAA.

1 2015 0.90 1.62
2 2014 0.74 1.33
3 2010 0.70 1.26
4 2013 0.66 1.19
5 2005 0.65 1.17
6 (tie) 1998 0.63 1.13
6 (tie) 2009 0.63 1.13
8 2012 0.62 1.12
9 (tie) 2003 0.61 1.10
9 (tie) 2006 0.61 1.10
9 (tie) 2007 0.61 1.10
12 2002 0.60 1.08
13 (tie) 2004 0.57 1.03
13 (tie) 2011 0.57 1.03
15 (tie) 2001 0.54 0.97
15 (tie) 2008 0.54 0.97

All 15 of those warmest years on record have occurred since 1998.

 

[Moviefan-2]

15 of the 16 warmest years on record have occurred this century.

Yes, but the trend line has been horizontal.

With the exception of the 2015 El Nino, those years you cited haven't shown any statistically significant evidence of "warming."

 

[Moviefan-2]

It confirms the primary driver of AGW, water vapour feedback has been confirmed by other studies.

Nice try.

The debate isn't about confirming CO2 as a "driver." Fuji said the stat he cited confirmed the AGW hypothesis (a hypothesis that is mostly based on water vapour feedback). His conclusion is wrong.

Furthermore, the speculation about water vapour feedback has not been "confirmed." Some papers support the idea. Others refute it.

The only thing we know for certain is that -- in the 21st century -- the predictions about how the Earth's temperature would increase have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

April is the 7th month in a row of 'hottest months' on record, which is most likely the first time that's ever happened since the start of the industrial revolution.

Seventh month in a row. Really?

Gee, the super El Nino weather phenomenon (which the former vice-chair of the IPCC has acknowledged has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change) started hitting world temperatures last October. How many months does the period from October 2015 to April 2016 cover?

Why, I believe that would be seven months.

Big whoop.

Prior to NOAA and NASA going all Enron on the sea surface temperatures, NASA's data for the first five months of 2015 showed there wasn't a single month that was a record breaker.

Furthermore, what your graph comparing monthly temperatures fails to show is that the April 2016 anomaly is down 0.18 C from March. All the fear mongering based on El Nino will soon come to an end.

 

[Frankfooter]

Yes, but the trend line has been horizontal.

Another idiotic claim.

Look at this chart and tell me that there is a horizontal flat line that starts at the year 2000.

 

[Frankfooter]

What your graph comparing monthly temperatures fails to show is that the April anomaly is down 0.18 C from March. All the fear mongering based on El Nino will soon come to an end.

I see, now you're going to predict an ice age is coming because, while this April is still the warmest April in human history, its not quite as warm as March.

And here is another version of a chart that you claim has a horizontal flat line starting at the year 2000.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Another idiotic claim.

Look at this chart and tell me that there is a horizontal flat line that starts at the year 2000.

Since you and Fuji insist that we have to stick with the published papers, let's use the peer-reviewed graph that was recently published in Nature that shows annual temperature anomalies.

To answer your question -- yes, the trend line in the 21st century for the observed data is clearly horizontal.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I see, now you're going to predict an ice age is coming because, while this April is still the warmest April in human history, its not quite as warm as March.

"Not quite as warm"?

The month-over-month change is almost 0.2 C -- equivalent to the per-decade increases predicted by the IPCC.