|
|||||
|
|
|
|         
|
|
|||||
|
3) You Can't tie for highest temp ever for 16 years and call it warming. Pick one.
However the data from NASA/NOAA shows warming occurred 1978-1998. If you have data that shows it's warmed after 1998 this would be a good time to present it. Those graphs Brent found above are notorious; they're Hansen's and his work isn't credible. Look at the very bottom one - the one that shows no warming overall. That one's right. The rest are cherry picked nonsense NASA doesn't use any more.
4) Hansen made a career out of misinterpreting the NASA data and I suspect that's why he's not there any more. Look at this "spin":
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html
Here's the actual datum from the article: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."
But it went through Hansen's spin department and picked up a headline of "unprecedented" warming.
It's a cyclical 150 year event, right on time, yet somehow this is "unprecedented"? No, no it's not, this is Hansen lying to keep his grant stream going. That ran out 2 years ago and he um, retired to spend more time with his family. As they say.
Not a credible scientist. Know who is? Freeman Dyson.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/climatologists_are_no_einstein.html
"Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO-2 into the atmosphere during that decade."
He's not getting climate grants, he can say that.
Look who else said it, the "Gaia theory" alarmist that predicted the world would be a flaming ball by now. Now he says he was wrong because the temperature has flatlined.
"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,"
He also said:
"'I made a mistake' As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding."
From Slashdot:
"Nearly every scientist that I know (IAAS) has a project on the side either studying the climate or cancer (preferably child cancer); this is what they must do in order to support their main research, since it probably has no funding.
"Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade? Friday, November 8, 2013
"The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth's surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Nińa events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon."
Got that? "It hasn't warmed and maybe it'll be found in the deep ocean and we expect it'll start waring again soon." It hasn't.
A hypothesis that the heat was sequestered in the ocean abyss was proven incorrect by NASA in October of 2014 - "the cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005", according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have stopped in 1998. It started in 1978. But there really has been no warming this century. http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-study-finds-earth-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/
"Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center"
"Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero."
Got that? No warming this century. That's the government website with NASA data the NOAA massaged. No warming. Trump that data. Hint: you can't.
All the data is here and you can play with it ans change the axes and cherry pick your hearts delight. What you'll see is there was warming cycle that went from 1978 to 1998 but the temperature flatlined after that. This is not a difficult mathematical concept but some pretend it is:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29014-hottest-year-ever
"The last time we had this discussion was 2013, remember? Before that it was 2010. Before that it was 2005, and everything started with the Super El Nino in 1998. Statistically, saying that 2014 was the hottest year ever is a very valid thing, and if you understand statistics, I am envious of you."
Hunh hunh math r hard. Magnets... how do they work? Fuck off.
As a liberal that makes me puke, but as a mathematician with expertise in the use of language in reasoning, I know that when you tie for hottest year ever for sixteen years it's flatlined.
Here's the 1978-1998 and 1998 - now graphic from the NOAA
There's been no warming this century.
More so, if you look at the Danish tree ring data, the planet is cooling, not warming:
The Danes had to do this because this is the data Mann and Hansen suppressed that causes the Climategate I leak. We're up to climategate III here when they were caught using data from a part of the arctic ice mass that we know melts every year to hide the fact arctic sea ice is up because it's been growing for three years.
NASA told the IPCC their model was full of shit - in exactly the way Dyson mentioned, in 2010:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
Then their model diverged from nature by 75% and the newspapers all picked up on it. Actually not, the fucking Daily Mail reported it accurately, the New York Times on down all lied about it.
Thing is you can't hide a growing arctic ice sheet:
It increased by half. What happwnd dto "ice free arctic by 2010" which was what was predicted. By the IPCC who *have never made one prediction that came true*
Meanwhile, this guy in 2008 using a theory CERN validated predict the awful winters of 2013 and 2014. The IPCC "discredited" him. That's right, the guys that faield to predict anything ever said the guy that got it right was insane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vAwVNd3dTE
There's no other way to put this, the IPCC are full of shit and they are the deniers.
It really doesn't matter how many opinions on blogs think it's warming, CERN and NASA say otherwise and have an alternative hypothesis to the horribly flawed CO2 model, which with 75% error over 35 years of refinement is a smoldering pile of bovine fecal matter.
If you want to see what climate scientists who don't advertise their theory 12X a day have to say, watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d56GOgmjWOI (60 mins)
(Also, If you want to see the best mathematical deconstruction of the incorrect IPCC math, see Bert Rutan's video)
It'll take you an hour but then you'll understand why it's cold now and why it's not going to be any warmer next year - remember this fact this time next year - you'll still see a dozen articles a day about "global warming" or "climate change".
For nearly two decades the IPCC has been saying "it'll be warmer NEXT YEAR" and it just keeps not happening, just like real scientists have said it wouldn't. We're 2 years into a 30 year cycle (as of 2015) and a lot of "scientists" are going to look pretty foolish after a while so it's only a matter of what point on the curve you recognize the facts of the matter and stop believing opinions on blogs. Might as well do it now at the peak it looks dodgy if you do it half way down
The antarctic sea ice has always grown. The arctic sea ice that melted recently grew in the 1950s and 1960s. It also melted in the 1930s. The bleaching of coral was not acidification or temperature, coral has genes to protect against both it turns out and has in fact existed when CO2 was 7000 ppm and it was 20 degrees warmer. Coral is actually growing making new islands in the open ocean but all coral near man is dying. Fucking all of it. The entire gulf. All of Hawaii. Sea level rise is
<Adam Curtis' voice> It was the perfect storm of Al Gore wanting carbon tax credits because being a billionaire wasn't enough, the nuclear industry, competing with coal for two power plants a week to China using climate to sell overpriced unsafe reactors whose own designer says should not be put into use, sold through bribery and corruption for billions; broke scientists decimated after the 2008 banking disaster and a generation of liberals disenfranchised by constant war, nuke spills, oil spills, they wanted so hard to do something good so figured they'd tax plant food - it' s been shown Co2 raises plant grown tremendously, and that increased plant grown now grows more quickly and never mind that man's Co2 contribution is about 0.05% all that carbon gong into the atmosphere has always done that.
If warming was real you'd know off the top of your head how much warmer it is and what percent of CO2 is man made that's fucking this all up - but you don't. Facts are omitted by modern media and you get opinions instead, from people that know absolutely nothing about the subject they're telling you about. Instead, they read corporate PR pieces. For commercial gain all around and all that suffers is the truth.<voice>
I hope that guy never gets to hear Dyson’s most heretical assertion: Atmospheric CO-2 may actually be improving the environment.
"It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation," Dyson said. "About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO-2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil."
In fact, there’s more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO2 than the negative effects, he said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? Because the media do an awful job of reporting it.
"They’re absolutely lousy," he said of American journalists. "That’s true also in Europe. I don't know why they've been brainwashed."
I know why: They're lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about "consensus" among climate scientists."
Adam Curtis explain how this happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9FaIyc4vpU - (5 mins)
If you think it's still warming you have to convince NASA they're wrong. If you think this warming that isn't happening is caused by CO2 you have to convince CERN they're wrong. Good luck with that.
Worse, food requirements are not linear. If you have one person to feed who requires an amount of food A, then two people have a requirement of 2A. So you'd think with the population now, of X, doubling in some time period t0, would require twice as much food. Dead wrong. What you're failing to consider here is the rate of change. It's only 2X for 7 seconds, then it's 2X + N0, a few seconds later it's 2X+N1 for t1, t1, etc. OS it's not a linear function if you integrate that it's got a positive first order derivative and given our inefficiencies its safer to presume food requirement is a quadratic function, not a linear one. All food must be grown and at that point guess what the rate limiting factor is? Hint: not sunlight. It's carbon. This guy did the math in more detail and showed unless we increase carbon we won't be able to feed a future population:
http://www.liebertpub.com/MContent/Files/Kleinman_ch19_p379-398.pdf
Then you have the additional complication that the earths poles are reversing and this is what causes glaciation. There's no great consensus on this, be the most reliable figure is a thousand year cycle which were 200 years into (this is why the magnetic bearings on airport runways are changed every 2 years, soon it'll be necessary to change it every year) which means in 2000 years we'll be halfway through it. That's an issue.
Anyone who thinks the climate is simple or still warming hasn't looked at this in any detail and is simply parroting the byline from the media - who have no clue what they're talking about and merely read corporate PR releases. It pains me as a liberal to say this but it has been shown it was Gore's subsidiary company that funded all the (now shown to be false) data that started the entire global warming manufactured crisis. The GOP are insane, not stupid and they got that part right I'm afraid.
