Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60043 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

“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

Titusville, 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

Home, sweet home.

#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

Home, sweet home.

#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

Titusville, 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.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#35032 Apr 9, 2013
What I can't understand with the deniers is a world population that has gone from 200 million in year 1 to over 7 billion now. By 2020 close to 8 billion and almost 80% of the planet's forests gone. All of this is part of the natural cycle according to the deniers and has no impact. The oceans will of course take up the slack to provide the oxygen that missing rain forests can't any more. This is the mythical world they live in all so they can keep driving that big ass truck and no change in lifestyle.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#35033 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.
Oh, no, no, no, LameBrain_G, who gets hoisted by his own petard.

You wrote:
"Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling...."

Whoa, whoa, wait a minute, Brain!

We weren't even talking about taxes. 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...."

What do you mean? Are you saying climate change mitigation is possible?

I want an answer. Because this seems to be a reversal of your long-standing and solidly scientific position.

Answer me, Brian.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#35034 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Do you have any figures for that "most". Give us a percentage.

Oh, and where you get it from, you know, the source.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#35035 Apr 10, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
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!
How many times have you seen Deniers like her, like Brian, like that loon from Canada who used to post here (what was his name?) just grab onto ONE point, ONE issue, ONE slogan and ride it into the ground?

You can tell just from that that they don't do or understand science. Scientists are always interested in more and better facts and information. Deniers want to avoid that at all costs.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#35036 Apr 10, 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?
Do you just cut n' paste directly from the 'WattsUpWithThat' site, are you a contributor there, or what? That seems to be where you get your esoteric talking points involving Marcott and Tamino.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#35037 Apr 10, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you just cut n' paste directly from the 'WattsUpWithThat' site, are you a contributor there, or what? That seems to be where you get your esoteric talking points involving Marcott and Tamino.
You guys are so funny. Do you even see the irony in your post? FairGame copies and pastes Tamino's blog and uses that as his talking point. Then when I have a question about the blog post, I get slammed and you all avoid the question and instead and just smear me and tell me how I'm so anti-science.

Space Blues who gets his panites in a wad when I call him dense said this: This 'new' crssty is as flakey as the past one(s). Despite its claims of "always" blah blah. 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!

FairGame said this: 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? Yada yada. Twisty Kristy.

You said this: You can tell just from that that they don't do or understand science. Scientists are always interested in more and better facts and information. Deniers want to avoid that at all costs.

Such intellectual conversation. You all pat yourselves on the back telling each other how scientific and knowledgeable you are while slamming anyone who has the audacity to question the settled science. And when I post scientists who don't agree with the AGW science, you all slam them too.

So asking a question about Tamino's work is now anti-science and I must take his work at face value. How is that against science? Can someone please tell me his qualifications, his name, does he have any peer-reviewed papers, because I really don't know anything about him.

But seriously, I am asking a question that you all seem to want to avoid, but I'm not asking it to offend anyone. I really want to know if you can find variability in less than 300-year intervals in Marcott's work, as Tamino said, then why did Marcott say you couldn't?

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
News Chicago Reacts to Orlando Shooting 14 min WasteWater 39
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 47 min OzRitz 1,394,923
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Dr Guru 216,655
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr TRD 70,719
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr GEORGIA 8,865
the larry meber political forum (Jun '11) 1 hr A Noted Observer 51
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr CrunchyBacon 102,457
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages