Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 51,371
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#35012 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Using fossil fuel helps free ancient carbon back into the atmosphere where it can do some good. Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling; the well known ice age climate scenario.
We've always adapted to climate change. Don't panic.
Whoa, whoa, wait a minute, Brain!

I thought you said climate change mitigation was a hoax. In fact, you've said it a thousand times.

So what is this? "Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling...."

With that logic, and a few of your own words, we say, "Removing carbon dioxide from the air helps mitigate climate change against global warming."

Care to dispute that?
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#35013 Apr 9, 2013
Spectacular & brilliant renunciation of kristy:

kristy wrote:
I asked you this yesterday, but I will ask again:
But here's my question about that. The graph is paleo-reconstruction up until about 100 years ago. Marcott's smoothing shows no variability in 300 year time periods. So how can you compare a temperature record that shows yearly variability for 100 years to a proxy that shows no variability in 300 year time periods and then say that the paper shows without doubt that this is the fastest rise in temperature? The only way to compare is if you finish the graph with paleo-reconstruction.
Of course if you're a climate denier you have to believe that rapid rises in temperature like the past few decades have occurred before but just weren't picked up in Marcott's proxy record.
//////////
Fair Game wrote:

Well, why not apply a scientific test to see if they had, would they be picked up by the proxy record.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smeari ...

The answer? Yes, they would.

Another denier excuse fails to convince.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#35014 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No experimental test of man made CO2 on climate, I wrote.
.
<quoted text>
It isn't climate but it's the best test I've seen yet. Thanks again, for posting the link.
What is the difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2?

Haven't you stated that we are releasing the Earth's stored CO2? Is that manufacturing or freeing?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35015 Apr 9, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course if you're a climate denier you have to believe that rapid rises in temperature like the past few decades have occurred before but just weren't picked up in Marcott's proxy record.
Well, why not apply a scientific test to see if they had, would they be picked up by the proxy record.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smeari...
The answer? Yes, they would.
Another denier excuse fails to convince.
Well so good to see that you use Tamino as your source. I guess no more complaining about Watts since Tamino is a raging liberal. I saw his diatribe on his home page on how much he hates republicans and blames them for kids not getting their school lunches one day.

Anyway, Tamino needs to send his paper to a journal since he has it all figured out. But since he didn't, he has to go through peer review on the web. I guess he didn't like some of the peer review on his spikes and deleted comments from his site by someone who was actually trying to have a scientific discussion. But you know that goes against the settled science. Can't let anyone question your methods.

Here is what is being questioned about Tamino's spikes:

Tamino claims he has added 3 spikes to the Marcott et al proxy data and the Marcott et al process detects them. This, he then proposes, is proof that there are no 20th century spikes in the Holocene. This claim appears to run counter to a prediction I made recently in a WUWT post; that as you increase the proxy resolution you are more likely to find spikes. Having had my reply disappeared at Tamino’s site, I thought readers at WUWT might be interested. I don’t believe Tamino’s conclusion follows from his results. Rather, I believe he has demonstrated the truth of my original prediction. What needs to be understood is that adding a spike to the proxy data is not the same as adding a spike to the proxies. This is where people get confused.

Read more:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/07/marcott...


kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35016 Apr 9, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Global warming Deniers. I've seen it on these boards and other boards as well. Don't pretend it doesn't happen.
Glad to hear you accept that warming is taking place, at least!:)
I have always known the globe is warming. This is nothing new.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35017 Apr 9, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Rational people do best by ignoring you, not engaging in some sort of phoney polite debate that you always demand.
Does that make you not rational?

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#35018 Apr 9, 2013
KurzweilAI.net/Breakthrough in hydrogen fuel production could 'revolutionize alternative energy market'

Trillion-dollar hydrogen economy in U.S.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#35019 Apr 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have always known the globe is warming. This is nothing new.
Well, good for you.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35020 Apr 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well so good to see that you use Tamino as your source. I guess no more complaining about Watts since Tamino is a raging liberal. I saw his diatribe on his home page on how much he hates republicans and blames them for kids not getting their school lunches one day.
Anyway, Tamino needs to send his paper to a journal since he has it all figured out. But since he didn't, he has to go through peer review on the web. I guess he didn't like some of the peer review on his spikes and deleted comments from his site by someone who was actually trying to have a scientific discussion. But you know that goes against the settled science. Can't let anyone question your methods.
Here is what is being questioned about Tamino's spikes:
Tamino claims he has added 3 spikes to the Marcott et al proxy data and the Marcott et al process detects them. This, he then proposes, is proof that there are no 20th century spikes in the Holocene. This claim appears to run counter to a prediction I made recently in a WUWT post; that as you increase the proxy resolution you are more likely to find spikes. Having had my reply disappeared at Tamino’s site, I thought readers at WUWT might be interested. I don’t believe Tamino’s conclusion follows from his results. Rather, I believe he has demonstrated the truth of my original prediction. What needs to be understood is that adding a spike to the proxy data is not the same as adding a spike to the proxies. This is where people get confused.
Read more:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/07/marcott...
Interesting and revealing that your first point of comparison between Tamino and Watts is that Tamino is a Liberal and Watts is not.

Minw would have been that Tamino is a professional statistician and published scientist, and Watts is a retired weatherman.

Of course the hearth of the issue is that the truth of AGW would mean you would have to give up your political beliefs, and you have chosen to stick to your political beliefs.

As I said before, people in denial like you will find excuses to dismiss the evidence.

First in disgusting accusations of fraud.

Then in fanciful notions that similar period of warming have happened in the past but were just missed by the proxies- which are entirely unsupported by any evidence.

I pity you.

It's going to get harder and harder to find excuses to ignore evidence like this.

You're going to have to stoop to even more despicable attempts at character assassination, and you're going to have to come up with ever more fanciful and self deceptive excuses to dismiss evidence that will tax even your own credibility.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35021 Apr 9, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting and revealing that your first point of comparison between Tamino and Watts is that Tamino is a Liberal and Watts is not.
Minw would have been that Tamino is a professional statistician and published scientist, and Watts is a retired weatherman.
Of course the hearth of the issue is that the truth of AGW would mean you would have to give up your political beliefs, and you have chosen to stick to your political beliefs.
As I said before, people in denial like you will find excuses to dismiss the evidence.
First in disgusting accusations of fraud.
Then in fanciful notions that similar period of warming have happened in the past but were just missed by the proxies- which are entirely unsupported by any evidence.
I pity you.
It's going to get harder and harder to find excuses to ignore evidence like this.
You're going to have to stoop to even more despicable attempts at character assassination, and you're going to have to come up with ever more fanciful and self deceptive excuses to dismiss evidence that will tax even your own credibility.
Seriously, I have a question about Tamino's work. So he is showing that a 0.9 degree C temperature spike would have showed up. It looks to me like he used a 200-year interval. Is that right? Is he saying Marcott was wrong about this statement?

“We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer.”
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35022 Apr 9, 2013
litesong wrote:
Spectacular & brilliant renunciation of kristy:
kristy wrote:
I asked you this yesterday, but I will ask again:
But here's my question about that. The graph is paleo-reconstruction up until about 100 years ago. Marcott's smoothing shows no variability in 300 year time periods. So how can you compare a temperature record that shows yearly variability for 100 years to a proxy that shows no variability in 300 year time periods and then say that the paper shows without doubt that this is the fastest rise in temperature? The only way to compare is if you finish the graph with paleo-reconstruction.
Of course if you're a climate denier you have to believe that rapid rises in temperature like the past few decades have occurred before but just weren't picked up in Marcott's proxy record.
//////////
Fair Game wrote:
Well, why not apply a scientific test to see if they had, would they be picked up by the proxy record.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smeari ...
The answer? Yes, they would.
Another denier excuse fails to convince.
This 'new' crssty is as flakey as the past one(s).

Despite its claims of "always" blah blah.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#35023 Apr 9, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
What is the difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2? Haven't you stated that we are releasing the Earth's stored CO2? Is that manufacturing or freeing?
Most of the air's CO2 is natural. We are part of nature, the carbon balance. We are the tipping point, life's brief flame between birth and death.

We are free carbon.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#35024 Apr 9, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Whoa, whoa, wait a minute, Brain!
I thought you said climate change mitigation was a hoax. In fact, you've said it a thousand times. So what is this? "Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling...." With that logic, and a few of your own words, we say, "Removing carbon dioxide from the air helps mitigate climate change against global warming." Care to dispute that?
If you want to remove carbon dioxide from the air, go for it. I'm not stopping you.

Just don't raise taxes on energy and fuel, then we've got no dispute.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35025 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If you want to remove carbon dioxide from the air, go for it. I'm not stopping you.
Just don't raise taxes on energy and fuel, then we've got no dispute.
But you posted: "Our Earth constantly settles as carbon and oxygen float up out of denser elements into the air."
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35026 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We are free carbon.
BS.

More BS from you: "Our Earth constantly settles as carbon and oxygen float up out of denser elements into the air."

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35027 Apr 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously, I have a question about Tamino's work. So he is showing that a 0.9 degree C temperature spike would have showed up. It looks to me like he used a 200-year interval. Is that right? Is he saying Marcott was wrong about this statement?
“We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer.”
The excuses shift every time.

First it was all a fraud.

Then you thought the smoothing removed evidence of past warming:
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
But here's my question about that. The graph is paleo-reconstruction up until about 100 years ago. Marcott's smoothing shows no variability in 300 year time periods. So how can you compare a temperature record that shows yearly variability for 100 years to a proxy that shows no variability in 300 year time periods and then say that the paper shows without doubt that this is the fastest rise in temperature? The only way to compare is if you finish the graph with paleo-reconstruction.
When you were shown that the smoothing wouldn't remove similar spikes, you shifted to sating that the proxies wouldn't record such spikes.

As I said before, you are in denial. Evidence is met by excuses; when one excuse is shown to be lam, you simply pick another one.

Believe temperature spikes happened before and the proxies missed them if you like: the absence of evidence for fairies doesn't mean fairies don't exist.

But your belief goes against physical reality: temperatures have spiked in the last 100 years, but they are not going to go down again in the same sort of period- not for centuries or millennia, not as long as CO2 levels remain this high and rising.

There is no physical mechanism know to science that could explain a temperature spike like this that would disappear as quickly as it appeared.

You not only believe in a phenomenon for which there is no evidence, you believe in a phenomenon which defies physics.

Believing in fairies would be more rational.

But anything is better than having to question your ideology, isn't it?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35028 Apr 9, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The excuses shift every time.
First it was all a fraud.
Then you thought the smoothing removed evidence of past warming:
<quoted text>
When you were shown that the smoothing wouldn't remove similar spikes, you shifted to sating that the proxies wouldn't record such spikes.
As I said before, you are in denial. Evidence is met by excuses; when one excuse is shown to be lam, you simply pick another one.
Believe temperature spikes happened before and the proxies missed them if you like: the absence of evidence for fairies doesn't mean fairies don't exist.
But your belief goes against physical reality: temperatures have spiked in the last 100 years, but they are not going to go down again in the same sort of period- not for centuries or millennia, not as long as CO2 levels remain this high and rising.
There is no physical mechanism know to science that could explain a temperature spike like this that would disappear as quickly as it appeared.
You not only believe in a phenomenon for which there is no evidence, you believe in a phenomenon which defies physics.
Believing in fairies would be more rational.
But anything is better than having to question your ideology, isn't it?
I have made no excuses and nothing has shifted. I said that the press release of Marcott's paper said that there has been no increase in temperature like that in the 20th century. But when Marcott released his FAQ, he then admitted this:

The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record.

I then asked how can you compare paleotemperatures that show no variability in 300-year time periods to that of data that shows yearly variability? I stated that to get a true comparison you had to do the work with all the same type of information. You can't compare low resolution proxies to high resolution.

So then I read your link and I had a question about Tamino's work. If a 0.9 degree spike shows up, then does Tamino's work make Marcott's statement wrong about variability in 300-year time periods? If so, how come Marcott didn't use Tamino's method?

SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35029 Apr 9, 2013
Wow. Like I said, the new crssty is flakey.

Without science, it looks at words. No one can take it out of its stuckiness. So hilarious to observe!

I just love it!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35030 Apr 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have made no excuses and nothing has shifted. I said that the press release of Marcott's paper said that there has been no increase in temperature like that in the 20th century. But when Marcott released his FAQ, he then admitted this:
The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record.
I then asked how can you compare paleotemperatures that show no variability in 300-year time periods to that of data that shows yearly variability? I stated that to get a true comparison you had to do the work with all the same type of information. You can't compare low resolution proxies to high resolution.
So then I read your link and I had a question about Tamino's work. If a 0.9 degree spike shows up, then does Tamino's work make Marcott's statement wrong about variability in 300-year time periods? If so, how come Marcott didn't use Tamino's method?
Yada yada.

Twisty Kristy.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#35031 Apr 9, 2013
[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"]Most of the air's CO2 is natural[/QUOTE]

Yes, the natural level of CO2 that flora & fauna have adjusted to, during previous many millenia, is a level of 280ppm.
But most of the excess CO2 above the pre-industrial level is emitted by man-made smokestacks, engines & tailpipes.

"lyin' brian" is the worst of liars, a liar of shift & change, saying short phrases & sentences which seem reasonable, but to the case in point, do not apply or not correct.

Even to the point of 'lyin' brian', it will NOT be the case in 100+ years, at man unkind's present or greater rate of emissions.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min shinningelectr0n 1,189,625
last post wins! (Apr '13) 5 min boundary painter 503
A Small History Lesson. 5 min Al S explained 5
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 19 min Go Blue Forever 99,158
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 19 min boundary painter 1,364
Dear Abby 2-26-15 31 min boundary painter 7
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 56 min Brian_G 51,327
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr Bieber 184,794
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:00AM
6 Best Options to Replace T-Rich This Offseason
Bleacher Report 7:18 AM
Best Options to Replace Briggs This Offseason
Bleacher Report 8:12 AM
Buzz: Colts Eyeing Trades for Veteran WRs Including Marshall
Bleacher Report 1:14 PM
Could Bears Ever Get Fair Trade Value for Forte?
Bleacher Report 1:40 PM
Wayne Undergoes Surgery on Triceps