|
|||||
|
|
|
|         
|
|
|||||
Fake news in meme form.
1) The temperture flatlined.
2) ...after peaking in 1998.
3) it's cooling, not warming.
(The Nordic tree ring data will be explained at the end of this post)
1) - http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2241/ February 23, 2015 - "The past year was the warmest year on record, though their analysis has 2014 in a virtual tie with 2005 and 2010. "
When several years all tie for the warmest year it means temperature isn't increasing.
How does the alarmist media handle this mathematical inconvenience? By professing complete and utter ignorance to this whole math thing.
"Hottest Year Ever
Wednesday, 11 February 2015 10:52
By Bruce Melton, Truthout | News Analysis
"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."
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29014-hottest-year-ever
I can draw this graph with a fucking crayon: 18 years with the same data point on the Y axis as time progresses on X. This is grade 3 math in Canada.
You see warming there? I do not. I see what we call in the math biz a "flatline". A constant and unchanging slope of zero. These shouldn't be too hard to visualize.
--------------------------------------------- wow it's hot----------------------<
Ok, call it hot if you want (looks outside, mm, not in decades, sorry) but you can't call it hotter unless you're using a deference definition of "tie" than NASA uses.
There are some who say warming stopped in 98. Like the worlds foremost mathematician who founded the field of climate science (and "got out when money corrupted it") and the "Gaia Theory" guy who first called the alarm about this. NOAA has a page on "the hiatus" and you saw NASA's numbers above.
and"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"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,"
"'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.Lovelock -- who has previously worked with NASA and discovered the presence of harmful chemicals (CFCs) in the atmosphere but not their effect on the ozone layer -- stressed that humanity should still “do our best to cut back on fossil fuel burning” and try to adapt to the coming changes.
Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the U.K.’s respected Met Office Hadley Centre, agreed Lovelock had been too alarmist with claims about people having to live in the Arctic by 2100.
And he also agreed with Lovelock that the rate of warming in recent years had been less than expected by the climate models." - Source: MSNBC
So, let's say theoretically you examine evidence and ignore labels, then does that explain the math you don't understand when you posted this?
2) You know that "10 hottest years" quote? The one Obama said about 3 or 4 times at one point in history? Here it is in FULL.
So, now the alarmists have a problem. 2016 was an El Nino year and is going to be warm. Whether the increased ice mass (http://climate-math.science/.images/sea-ice-trend.png - source: USSIDC) tempers this a bit is an open question.
So, 2016 will be one of three things:
Uh, excuse me? So what? Compare it to the 21st century average? or the 18th or... once you past the idea of a local maxima you can look at all the centuries. In this regard, the 20th century wasn't anomalous going back as far as 8100 centuries. It might look scary when examines microscopically like this but remember this is a 4.5 billion year dataset. You can't look at a billionth of it and say it's abnormal.
Like a bad Usenet quote there's some context missing here. While each century did the same thing, overall it got colder in at least one dataset that I can think of off the top of my head: the Nordic tree ring data that was dug up when that prick Hansen wouldn't releases the Irish tree ring data that showed cooling which forced "somebody" to leak documents for which there were no legal repercussions, that's true, but, see, academic fraud isn't a criminal offense, he was still found guilty of it.
So. Shoe me warming on a dataset, preferably all of them. Show me where you can demonstrate a human signature in the thermal record. You do understand this has never been done, right?
8100 centuries:
An Estimate of The Centennial Variability of Global Temperatures
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417
Nordic tree ring data:
If you want to understand where current temperature fit into the big scheme of things examine this:
Here's a better one:
Pleading ignorance doesn't work. Here's the EPA losing funding when they tried that:
Remember the Erin Brockovich movie? The one about Chrome- or Hexavalent Chromium? This is what the EPA is supposed to do - be concerned with lethal, disfiguring, carcinogenic, mutachewinc chemicals from industry. Not the weather.
Trump may bring this guy into cabinet and if people say the P word - Pollution that fewer and fewer people talk about then the EPA MIGHT keep its funding or maybe get cost increases. But I'm telling you right now if somebody walks in and says "Warming" or "climate" they've already practiced on lesser men, this could be the end of the EPA. Labels do' matter here, evidence does and look how much she had.
And go on, in 35 years we had one temperature record in 98 that was hundredths over and a new word to our vocabulary: "polar vortex". Okay two words, but the point is we weren't' warned that polar vortexes would be a part of our future we in Canada were promised no snow no ice and there's more of both consistently.
Arctic sea ice gains can be seen on new government map of Canada
More sea ice represented on 2014 map due to 30-year median analysis
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/arctic-sea-ice-gains-can-be-seen-on-new-government-map-of-canada-1.3036224
You can offer up all the opinions you want for free in Mother Jones - oh wait about that:
"I hope you're sitting down: Journalism doesn't exist anymore. It hasn't for at least ten years now. The closest thing we have to journalism now is agenda-driven propaganda dressed up as "objective, hard-hitting news." Yes, this includes your favorite muckraking work over at Mother Jones or whatever. Journalism died a pretty sad death, and yeah, we're all kind of bummed about it." - Nicholas PellA phenomenon also observed by Adam Curtis:
Anyway, you can buy all sorts of airtime for propaganda and that's one thing, but when it comes to real world actual life-critical information like marine navigation maps and farms you have to be accurate. Can you show me where "more ice" was the prediction? All I can find is "the ice will be gone". If you believe that, look what happens:
Churchville, VA—The naive advice of ardent activists can kill.
Last spring, Paul Beckwith of Sierra Club Canada predicted that the Arctic seas would be ice-free ice this summer. This exciting adventure opportunity attracted a variety of yachts, sailboats, rowboats, and kayaks owners to try sailing the fabled Northwest Passage.
The Arctic sea ice suddenly expanded 60% this fall, after the coldest summer in the modern Alaska temperature record. The passage is now impassable. More than a dozen of the boats are trapped, apparently even including a group of tiny American jet-ski “personal watercraft” that were attempting to cross from the east coast of Russia to the North Atlantic. Arctic observers are now warning that even Canadian icebreakers might not be able to rescue them.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a10_1380065451#1b5MjykYA0hVG6jl.99
Are there some global warming bills we forgot to pay? If we fix that can we get it turned on again please? Note how many years go by between saying the northwest passage will be open and how many years until it's open for more than a 12 hours every few years. Still waiting for that arctic death spiral 35 years (and counting) later.
So, I don't see how making jokes are how badly we understand a) math and b) current events in climate helps anyone except polluters who fund this shit. A lot of them went through the Clinton foundation and once we get over the 2016 budgeting of next years funded journalism I'd say the forecast is for less climate and more pollution.
You know, like the real world? Pollution kills millions a year and in all of history "global warming" has killed exactly zero people.
"Air pollution linked to seven million deaths globally
By Helen Briggs BBC News 25 March 2014"
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-26730178University of Birmingham professor of environmental and respiratory medicine Jon Ayres said the review needed to be taken seriously.
"The estimates for the impact of outdoor air pollution are robust and as accurate as can be developed at the moment," he said.
The WHO estimates were based on:
satellite data
ground-level monitoring
modelling how pollution drifts in the air
pollution-emissions data
Follow the money. It did not come from a multitude of sources.
By some remarkable coincidence concern about climate and ozone, nonexistent in the age of boycotts against polluting companies, sprang into life which more than decimated the public concerns about pollution. Ask yourself when the last time an American president said the word pollution - in the past year President Obama has appeared on television inspecting a farmers field and water catchment ruined by a busted oil pipe - oil everywhere and said how bad this is for the climate. That oil on the ground isn't oil Mr. President, that's pollution.
Gosh it's almost like these synthetic crises were made up just at a time when the poeple were actually beginning to take pollution seriously. As soon as that happened, corporate response from Pollution Inc was a PR campaign.
books.google.com/ngrams/graph climate crisis, warming crisis, ozone crisis
2002 was the year "global warming crisis" overtook the "ozone layer crisis".
By 2004 more people believed the End of the world Mayan 2012 prophesy than the ozone problem. Which makes sense.
"Measurements by Lovelock in the 1970s established the ubiquity of CFCs in the atmosphere. This pioneering work prompted Rowland and Molina to suggest that, because of their inertness, CFCs could transport chlorine to the stratosphere and promote ozone depletion. "
This is the James "Gaia Theory" Lovelock that recanted as an alarmist when it stopped warming, mentioned above. (J. CHEM. SOC. FARADAY TRANS., 1994, 90(15), 2159-2169
Atmospheric Lifetime, Its Application and Its Determination : CFC-substitutes as a Case Study)
"This relationship suggests that smaller ozone hole areas in recent cold years 2008 and 2011 are responding to decreased chlorine loading. Using ozone hole areas from 1979 to 2013, the projected EESC decline, and the inferred interannual Cly variability, we expect ozone hole areas greater than 20 million km2 will occur during very cold years until 2040.
Cold years?
"The expected annual Cly change due to the Montreal Protocol is −20 ppt/yr, but the MLS-inferred Cly varies year-to-year from −200 to +150 ppt. Because of this large variability, attributing Antarctic ozone recovery to a statistically significant chlorine trend requires 10 years of chlorine decline."
We won't know until years if banning CFCs did any good. Some years it's way up some years it s way down. It did not agree with the models. The models, not nature, were wrong.
"We examine the relationship between equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine (EESC) and ozone hole area. Temperature variations driven by dynamics are a primary contributor to area variability, but we find a clear linear relationship between EESC and area during years when Antarctic collar temperatures are 1σ or more below the mean. This relationship suggests that smaller ozone hole areas in recent cold years 2008 and 2011 are responding to decreased chlorine loading. Using ozone hole areas from 1979 to 2013, the projected EESC decline, and the inferred interannual Cly variability, we expect ozone hole areas greater than 20 million km2 will occur during very cold years until 2040. After that time, all ozone hole areas are likely to be below that size due to reduced EESC levels."
It closes up in cold years. There are enough cold years it'll be closed soon.
Ref: Inorganic chlorine variability in the Antarctic vortex and implications for ozone recovery
Authors; Strahan et. al. 2014 DOI: 10.1002/2014JD022295
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JD022295/abstract
bpooks.google.com/ngrams Angels,Ozone layer, Global warming
More people wrote about angles than both put together. Belief in something is not proof of it!.
As years went on and pollution got worse, less and less was written about it.
Does this graph support the idea concern about climate attenuates attention to pollution. The Gulf oil spill and Fukushima to not help the idea "global warming is the worst problem facing mankind" one bit.
Tell me again this is a rational society basing science upon the evidence. As long as there is no 13th floor in hotels, Astrology is in every newspaper and people still play lotteries then I assert they do not understand mathematics or science.
