The new official climate change thread

[Moviefan-2]

Oh, look -- here are the global temperature anomalies calculated by Berkeley Earth:

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Complete_TAVG_summary.txt

For some reason, Berkeley Earth is using annual temperature anomalies, rather than 30-year rolling averages.

I guess someone forgot to tell the big shots at Berkeley Earth that what they're doing is "hilariously, totally wrong." :biggrin-new:

 

[fuji]

All you are doing is proving that you are innumerate.

Temperatures vary wildly year over year. There are two accepted ways to eliminate the variability and assess the long term trend: rolling averages, and regression.

Both ways show a consistent long term warming trend.

I'm losing all respect for you. You are one of those dull people who can't accept a fact when it slaps you in the face. By observing your illogical responses I can see that climate deniers are innumerate and base their beliefs on ideologically driven willful blindness.

If you had any integrity, any reasonableness, you would see that every single thirty year period has been warmer than every previous thirty year period.

Only a fool would deny that is a trend.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Oh, look -- here is the Japan Meteorological Agency's graph that shows global temperatures.

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/an_wld.png

For some reason, the Japan Meteorological Agency is using annual temperature anomalies, rather than 30-year rolling averages.

Someone should point out to the big shots at the Japan Meteorological Agency that they are clearly "dull people" who are "innumerate." :biggrin-new:

 

[Moviefan-2]

You are one of those dull people....

Hmm. Does anyone else recall a previous thread on this topic in the Forum where Fuji complained to the mods that I was throwing around personal insults?

 

[Frankfooter]

Still trying to claim that 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83?

Ridiculous.

Nonsense, never said any such thing and you know it.
No, your prediction, which failed miserably, was that you thought 2015 wouldn't hit 0.83ºC.

We bet that the temperature anomaly would increase in 2015 to 0.83ºC

No mention of 0.89ºC anywhere in there, loser.

 

[fuji]

Oh, look -- here is the Japan Meteorological Agency's graph that shows global temperatures.

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/an_wld.png

For some reason, the Japan Meteorological Agency is using annual temperature anomalies, rather than 30-year rolling averages.

Someone should point out to the big shots at the Japan Meteorological Agency that they are clearly "dull people" who are "innumerate." :biggrin-new:

You have really hit rock bottom. You think because they show you the raw data graphed on an annual basis that the thirty year rolling averages are somehow wrong???????????..

Again, you are just proving to us that you are innumerate.

You continued denials of reality are like a headless chicken strutting around after it's already dead. Bluster won't save you. You were wrong. Terribly wrong. The data is indisputable.

There has been a clear, statistically significant, undeniable warming. You can use rolling averages, you can fit a line to a curve, every method of analysis will show that.

 

[Moviefan-2]

No mention of 0.89ºC anywhere in there, loser.

The quote from me is from the time before NOAA and NASA went all "Enron" on the sea surface temperatures. Post-"Enron," 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.89.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You think because they show you the raw data graphed on an annual basis that the thirty year rolling averages are somehow wrong???????????..

:doh:

That sound Fuji hears above him is the basic point going way over his head.

 

[fuji]

The quote from me is from the time before NOAA and NASA went all "Enron" on the sea surface temperatures. Post-"Enron," 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.89.

Is it fun for you to keep on posting after ignoring indisputable, clear, objective proof that there had been consistent warming since 1975?

 

[fuji]

:doh:

That sound Fuji hears above him is the basic point going way over his head.

You were so fucking ignorant you didn't even know the definition of climate is average temperature over thirty years.

Then you made the stupid claim that there has been no warming which was utterly refuted by the data, which shows that since 1975 every measurement of climate has been warmer than the previous one.

You really are running as hard as you can away from the facts hoping to paper over your disastrous gaffes with bluster.

 

[Frankfooter]

The quote from me is from the time before NOAA and NASA went all "Enron" on the sea surface temperatures. Post-"Enron," 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.89.

Back to accusing NASA and NOAA of fraud, just because they updated their methods as they stated they do on their FAQ and you lost the bet I see. Of course you can't actually find anything wrong with the changes they made, nor with why they made them. Your only complaint is it made you that much more of a loser.
Such a sore loser.

Only weasels try to change bets retroactively.

Sorry loser, you predicted that 2013 wouldn't hit 0.83ºC and you were spectacularly wrong.

 

[JohnLarue]

As long as you continue to support the claims of dead Dr Carter, as you do in the above posts, you are basing your own credibility on Dr Carter's work.

No I am not. i am wondering why you have not addressed his questions

I gave you one incredibly easy claim to check on, that the chart you used to support your argument contained one simple piece of trickery that you fell for and I didn't.

What you call trickery may well be your lack of understanding
You have zero credibility, he has a docorate

You are an easy mark if you fell for dead Dr Carter's swapping of surface temperature with stratospheric temperatures in the same chart.

Which may or may not be true, however it is not relavant to the questions he raise about the time reference

You keep claiming that Carter raised questions, yet the questions raised by Carter's dodgy charts say more about his work and your understanding of the science then anything else.

In your biased, uncomprimising and uneducated mind perhaps, however not in reality

 

[fuji]

Carter insisted that analysis should use 30 year data in the video in post 1. 30 year rolling averages have clearly refuted him. He was wrong. Moreover, his claim that warming was based only on models was made before the definitive study published in Nature that gave us direct, first hand, empirical observation of human caused global warming.

 

[Frankfooter]

No I am not. i am wondering why you have not addressed his questions

His 'question' was based on using trickery, switching out surface temperatures with stratospheric temperatures to draw a chart of his liking. There's no point addressing a question that's based on a false premise.

Your question on the matter has been answered here repeatedly.

Hey man-kind was not around for most of those spikes
What do you make of that ?

The planet has gone through drastic climactic changes in the past, from ice ages to thermal maximums. Right now humanity has been enjoying and thriving in an interglacial period, historically a fairly small and not necessarily very stable version of the planetary climate. As wiki notes:

If the previous period was more typical than the present one, the period of stable climate in which humans flourished—inventing agriculture and thus civilization—may have been possible only because of a highly unusual period of stable temperature.[32]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

We're fucking with that highly unusual stable period and heating the planet up. Hopefully we don't heat it up into a thermal maximum, last one was also a mass extinction, though there has been a study that suggest that we are about 65 years from a mass extinction at present rates.

So yes, the planet's climate isn't really all that stable, which is all the more reason not to fuck with it. At around 1.5ºC its been estimated that it'll start quite a few feedback mechanisms that will drive the planet quite warmer, from releasing sequestered CO2 in permafrost to glaciation melts that will raise our oceans. According to the IPCC we are about 5 years from releasing enough CO2 into the atmosphere to all but guarantee us 1.5ºC warming (which is where have been for the last three months, boosted slightly by an El Nino).

I don't understand why pointing out the earth's climates unstable nature doesn't make you want to be that much more cautious. If ice ages had never happened you would expect that feedback mechanisms would make it hard to achieve, the fact that its happened quite a few times should tell you that it can be made to happen again.

 

[JohnLarue]

His 'question' was based on using trickery, switching out surface temperatures with stratospheric temperatures to draw a chart of his liking. There's no point addressing a question that's based on a false premise.

Your question on the matter has been answered here repeatedly.

No it was not, one of his questions was related the time reference used, which you have not address
You just attack his character and a PowerPoint chart you likely do not understand

The planet has gone through drastic climactic changes in the past, from ice ages to thermal maximums. Right now humanity has been enjoying and thriving in an interglacial period, historically a fairly small and not necessarily very stable version of the planetary climate. As wiki notes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

We're fucking with that highly unusual stable period and heating the planet up. Hopefully we don't heat it up into a thermal maximum, last one was also a mass extinction, though there has been a study that suggest that we are about 65 years from a mass extinction at present rates.

So yes, the planet's climate isn't really all that stable, which is all the more reason not to fuck with it. At around 1.5ºC its been estimated that it'll start quite a few feedback mechanisms that will drive the planet quite warmer, from releasing sequestered CO2 in permafrost to glaciation melts that will raise our oceans. According to the IPCC we are about 5 years from releasing enough CO2 into the atmosphere to all but guarantee us 1.5ºC warming (which is where have been for the last three months, boosted slightly by an El Nino).

The ramblings of a uncompromising fool. Too bad as I suspect there is some interesting stuff there, however your propaganda approach just is not working

I don't understand why pointing out the earth's climates unstable nature doesn't make you want to be that much more cautious. If ice ages had never happened you would expect that feedback mechanisms would make it hard to achieve, the fact that its happened quite a few times should tell you that it can be made to happen again.

There is a difference between being cautious and demanding for the 100% elimination of fossil fuels and without knowing how to replace that energy.
The latter just proves you do not know how to deal with logical problems and instead just shoot propaganda & hope something sticks

 

[Frankfooter]

No it was not, one of his questions was related the time reference used, which you have not address
You just attack his character and a PowerPoint chart you likely do not understand

I didn't attack his character, I showed that he used trickery in the chart you posted. That's just attacking his work.
And while you claim I don't understand it, you are the one who has been totally unable to understand the chart, my point and the problem I identified.
Are you really that unable to go back to the chart and check to see if he switched data sources, and are you really unable to understand what the means and why he would have done it?

Why can't you look at that chart and understand the point?

 

[FAST]

The actual truth is, irrigation/farming, food production is responsible for the the bulk of the green house gas that has the biggest effect on the what ever slight increase in the globes temp.

Contrary to the lies of the climate gate tax leaches, this is continuous, NOT a one off event that they will have the brainwashed believe.

Plus, burning and clear cutting forests is responsible for more CO2 added to the atmosphere, than all forms of transportation of the whole world combined.

But you will never hear these self appointed experts produce a "report" for the public stating these facts, think about it, how the hell could they exist on producing "studies" stating that we have to stop producing food,...ain't gona happen.

If anybody needs to be enlightened on what the major green house gas is,...just ask.

Bear in mind that you will not hear this from the climate gate clubs, because they have no clue how much of the primary green house gas was in the atmosphere longer than 20 years ago, and THAT explains the silence.

FAST

 

[fuji]

There's what FAST says, then there is reality.

While the things you mention are certainly significant, fossil fuels used in industry, energy production, and transportation are the bulk of our emissions.

 

[Frankfooter]

The actual truth is, irrigation/farming, food production is responsible for the the bulk of the green house gas that has the biggest effect on the what ever slight increase in the globes temp.

Contrary to the lies of the climate gate tax leaches, this is continuous, NOT a one off event that they will have the brainwashed believe.

FAST

It is part of the carbon cycle, so essentially its revenue neutral.

Plants take CO2 out of the air, sequester it in their cells, we eat them or burn them or bury them back in the ground, where that CO2 gets put back in the system.
Here's a nice cartoon like picture that might help you understand this basic cycle.
https://eo.ucar.edu/kids/green/images/carboncycle_sm.jpg

The difference in what we are doing now is that we are taking buried dinosaurs, whose CO2 has been sequestered underground millions of years ago as coal, oil and natural gas and burning that which launches that sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere.

Really, try to understand it this time.
Its not that difficult.

 

[JohnLarue]

I didn't attack his character, I showed that he used trickery in the chart you posted. That's just attacking his work.
And while you claim I don't understand it, you are the one who has been totally unable to understand the chart, my point and the problem I identified.
Are you really that unable to go back to the chart and check to see if he switched data sources, and are you really unable to understand what the means and why he would have done it?

Why can't you look at that chart and understand the point?

Because you are a bullshit spewing propaganda machine whos credibility is defined by one word "Groggy"
Why is it you needed to reinvent yourself?
is it because you were proven to be a uncompromising zealot as Groggy, yet you feel your propaganda will sell as Frankenfool?