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

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
33,041 - 33,060 of 45,861 Comments Last updated 46 min ago

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35007
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Who has said warming is a fraud?
You.
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What did I lie about? Marcott produced a hockey stick graph, sent out a press release and then retracted the hockey stick without any fanfare. That was at the least deceptive.
What do you call a person who states that I lie about science and the actions of scientists, but has no problem with a scientist such as Michael Mann lying about the actions of fellow scientists? A hypocrite.
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you call a scientist who blatantly puts out a press release stating proof of increased warming over the past 100 years that is unprecedented and shows a huge hockey stick graph to "prove" it and then with no fanfare backtracks and states that his paper shows that "the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust and cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes."
Maybe con artist?
And don't come over all innocent and claim "at the least deceptive" and "con artist" are not implying fraud.

I guess people in denial like you will always look for some excuse to deny the evidence, usually involving accusing those responsible for producing the evidence of fraud.

People like you in denial are self deceptive and try to deceive others. Rational people do best by ignoring you, not engaging in some sort of phoney polite debate that you always demand.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35009
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
They are just lab experiments, you said. There's no proof that CO2 causes warming, you said.
No experimental test of man made CO2 on climate, I wrote.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
So why are you talking about sensitivity now? Are you confused? What do you think is causing the warming, Brain-dead?
Did you look at the CO2 sensitivity in the two expeirments? At the most, 4° C from doubling CO2 content more than 11 times, less than 0.4° C per doubling per doubling CO2.

CO2 is almost insignificant.

It isn't climate but it's the best test I've seen yet. Thanks again, for posting the link.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35010
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

tha Professor wrote:
No, fool, it was THIS statement of yours I was referring to: "On August 6th, 1945, a nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima Japan." Nothing to do with arguments about current global warming.
The bomb was experimentally tested before it was used, you can't cite an experimental test of man made global warming, see the difference?

.
tha Professor wrote:
Man IS affecting climate, and the causal relationship between greenhouse gases and atmospheric warming has long been established.
Not quantitatively measured or experimentally tested. It might be insignificant or even beneficial.

There's no experimental data, no way to know.

.
tha Professor wrote:
Your next move would seem to be yet another attempt to confuse mitigation with causation. Proceed.:)
Climate change mitigation causes my opposition to man made catastrophic global warming alarmism. Don't be fooled by flashy headlines, look at the literature. Zero tests, not one experiment for climate change mitigation. That's not a good indicator of for a 'proven' science.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35011
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
The bomb was experimentally tested before it was used, you can't cite an experimental test of man made global warming, see the difference?

>>I "see" you dragging in an irrelevancy to support your irrelevant, off-topic claims.

<quoted text>Not quantitatively measured or experimentally tested. It might be insignificant or even beneficial.
There's no experimental data, no way to know.

>>No one to care whether you approve or not, either. Curious, that!

<quoted text>Climate change mitigation causes my opposition to man made catastrophic global warming alarmism. Don't be fooled by flashy headlines, look at the literature. Zero tests, not one experiment for climate change mitigation. That's not a good indicator of for a 'proven' science.

>>"Climate change mitigation" is your troll-phrase used to evade real debate over AGW. It's Denierism, whether you want to admit it or not. I've looked at the literature, you haven't...other than to find some way of evading real debate or discussion of the subject, of course.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35014
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35015
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35016
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35017
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35018
Apr 9, 2013
 
KurzweilAI.net/Breakthrough in hydrogen fuel production could 'revolutionize alternative energy market'

Trillion-dollar hydrogen economy in U.S.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35020
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35023
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35024
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35025
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35026
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35027
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

104 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Scat Man 3 min Coonskin 1
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min John Galt 1,082,903
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 18 min Terry rigsby 48,979
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 43 min wojar 175,037
last post wins! (Apr '13) 1 hr boundary painter 300
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr boundary painter 4,564
Word (Dec '08) 1 hr boundary painter 4,588
Abby 7-29 1 hr j_m_w 16
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr Sublime1 97,573
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••