The ethical question no climate denier will answer

Insolation plus negative feedback, obviously. The water vapor-cloud feedback is the obvious candidate for the upper limit on temperature, the lower limit is less clear, but could simply be the upper albedo limit set by the proportion of the earth's surface that is deep water, and thus essentially black.

 

Nope. There has been no statistically significant change in the rate of surface temperature rise over the past 15 years, compared with the previous 15 years.

 

Find me a quote that shows even a single statement in that morass is true. You can't.

No it's not. It's just a different way of averaging. And that's perfectly legitimate.

Not in the slightest. Compare the gridded HADCRUT to the gridded GISS in areas where they both have coverage and you'll find that they're virtually identical. Only a climate denier would claim that it's more reliable to use less coverage.

 

Right. No source, no quote, no link. Just another piece of crap from the evidenceless denial machine.

 

As previously stated, GISS and HADCRUT are virtually identical in areas where their coverage overlaps. What impossible temperatures in the arctic are you referring to? Source for you crap, please. Or admit that it is crap.

Look up where I said it was, please, and get back to me. Oh, wait, I didn't. Even though you just said I did. I guess someone's been ... what's that word when you say something that's not true?

And yet if you actually read what's written, you will find no such statement. Yet another case of fake evidence from the denier camp.

Considering that temperatures at most places are only recorded to integral degrees, that's just another misconception in the denier brain of yours.

The water can't, but the air can. Yet another denier argument goes down in flames.

And I started this thread in May, and didn't say a darn thing about your article. I simply responded to a blanket statement by jackdog, that was blanket wrong. As he himself admitted in his very next post.

 

When you quote someone without quotes and without citation, you own it.

Having lost the first round, the deniers move the goalposts. Typical. But I accept your challenge: using 15-year dateranges instead of jackdog's 16-year dateranges, the 15 years 1998-2012 have a regression slope of .0063 ±.00998 (95% CI). The previous 15 years, 1983-1997, have a regression slope of .0160, which is within the 95% CI. Therefore, no statistically significant change in rate, even using your cherry-picked date ranges.

If only the atmosphere were more than, say 3% of global warming. Sadly for deniers, it's not. 93% of global heat content is in the ocean, which shows a strongly significant increase in the 21st century.

1998 wasn't the peak in GISS. And it wasn't the peak in HADCRUT4. And it wasn't the peak in NCDC. And it wasn't the peak in BEST. So who's overstating anything?

Wow. I think that totally disproves the quantum mechanics behind CO2 emission of infrared. You should write that up and submit it to a journal.

What the actual data show is that the water warms when you add heat. And guess what? The oceans have been warming during the past 10 years, as we have added heat, via additional greenhouse effect. Imagine that. Please explain the data in the following graph, without resorting to violating conservation of energy. Where did all that heat come from?

Isn't it amazing how climate deniers invoke natural variability to "explain" global warming, and then proceed to ignore natural variability whenever it suits them? Look at this graph, and then tell me that CO2 has no effect on climate.

Solar activity peaked in 1957-58, and has been declining since then, as global temps and OHC have gone up. If you're relying on the Sun, you're violating conservation of energy. Try again.

Oddly enough, no 1400-year cycle is visible in Holocene temps:



And oddly enough, now that we're allegedly in the downward half of the alleged 60-year cycle, temps are still going up. And OHC is still going up. And oddly enough, no such 60-year cycle is visible at all in OHC data.

Deniers strike out again.

 

Burning wood returns to the air the same carbon the tree capured from the air: net zero carbon.

 

Burning oil returns to the air the carbon captured in the ground. "Zero" carbon. It is like they say. "Burn a tree, save the world."

Lefters! Math! Ugh!!!

 

"Climate deniers"

Lol. Yes, I deny the existence of a climate. Get Obama with it. Throw out all sense and give in to the leftism.

By the way, we lowered emissions more without Kyoto before Obama then those countries that signed Kyoto. And they wasted hundreds of billions. How many hundreds of billions does Obama need to save the world this time? Any cost benefit analysis or is that to much to ask?

 

Of (*)(*)(*)(*) off with our source bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You have time and time again called people liars yet your frequently fail to post sources your own (*)(*)(*)(*). Often times in the same post. You are a hypocrite of the highest order.

As to your point. Yes in the places where they are not extrapolating the results are close as in those places they use the same methodology.. I don't see how that enforces the accuracy of the extrapolation. Which even the GISS admits isn't intended to be accurate.

Going to eat crow? Oh hell no you are going to try and double speak your way out of it like you always do.

Oh wow you are making a claim but you don't even provide a quote the expound upon so we readers can see what exactly you mean. Readers are expected to take your word for it. Please look back to my response to your demanding a source. As I said you are a hypocrite and will contradict yourself within the same post. Glass houses PD.

Most weather stations measure to the nearest tenth. And global temperatures are reported not to the 10th of a degree but to 100th of a degree. Got any other (*)(*)(*)(*) you want to make up and not source? Hypocrite much?

Nope.

You can go for the center for ocean and ice here and go all the way back to 1958.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

You will never find a high arctic temperature of 36 degrees. Got any other (*)(*)(*)(*) you want to make up?

He should have been more specific granted. But you are not ignorant on the matter so you know what the implied subject is. To try and change the subject because he wasn't specific enough is dishonest.

 

Only a denier would think that
air --> air
is the same as
ground --> air

Righties! Logic! Ugh!

 

Maybe you got some of them tree ring crap make believe stuff in there? If ice core data showing the world slowly cooling is good enough for the IPCC, good enough for me! Once I was worried about warming...then I learned from the ice cores. Now I'm concerned! As though modern modelers not knowing how to predict temperatures is bad enough, now we have historical precedent for why we might all freeze to death!

 

And most coal is nothing but compressed plant matter, such as trees.

Therefore we are burning trees, is not that net zero carbon as well?

 

Burning fossil fuels returns the same carbon that the organic matter captured from the air: net zero carbon.

Jesus you really don't understand anything related to the geologic time scale perspective, do you?

 

Tree trapped carbon is different then carbon trapped in oil? lol...how so lefty? So, if we burn down the rainforest, and all that trapped carbon goes into the air, no net gain right? Air carbon to air carbon huh? hahaha.

Lefter! I was being sarcastic and you didnt get it. Logic will always escape you my friend. Tattoo that avatar on your forehead and call it a day.

I do not deny a climate exists. You are an "end of the worlder".

- - - Updated - - -

So if we burn down all the trees we wont have any more carbon huh?

Forget it guys. This is where your tax money goes to ^^^

These peoples crusades. Did you hear the Democratic Congressman worried that we were sending too much weight to Guam and it may sink? This is the level of understanding we are dealing with. No point reasoning with them, it is all emotion based thinking.

 

considering that if mankind ceased to exist today and if the climate models were right it would take 150 years before the temp lowered .5 degrees I don't even see why people want to discuss lowering Co2 output by 10 or 20 percent. Oh never mind this isn't about environment it is to make politicians and their buddies richer and the poor people poorer. It is sad that people want people to suffer and die over their petty political BS, but that is the progressive liberal mind for you. Never will understand the envieronazis and their hate filled minds

source for zero carbon output

 

LOL! I didn't lose anything -- other than the time and effort spent trying to get an honest response from warmists.

IOW, statistically no increase.

Ooops, wait a minute, Sherlock. That wasn't my challenge. I said to compare the 1998-2012 slope to the 1984-1998 slope. So you are cherry picking. Let's find out why, shall we? Hmmm, let's see...:

ROTFL!! So by cherry picking a final year BEFORE the peak temperature year of 1998, you have managed to get the slope just inside the 95% confidence limit! Even for an artificially depleted data set of annual averages! This is just soooooo typical of warmist dishonesty and phony "science" by statistical manipulation. Priceless.

ROTFL!! You accuse ME of cherry picking?!?? See my challenge in post #319, and then look in a mirror: your face should be showing a lot of global warming right about now.

ROTFLMAO!!!

In any case, your use of a confidence interval for ANNUAL AVERAGE temperature data merely shows the depths of dishonesty you are willing to plumb: those annual averages are themselves the results of thousands or millions of data points, so the confidence can be increased to almost any desired level by just going back to the actual data. If 15 annual averages aren't enough (it would obviously be a vanishingly small sample, if that's all the data there were), then go to the 180 monthly averages, or to the daily averages. Presto! The confidence interval magically becomes far too narrow to accommodate the 1984-1998 slope.

You are destroyed.

Because the 60-year ocean circulation cycle turned to its negative air temperature phase in 1998, duh. It's always been obvious that the 60-year cycle was net neutral, so the end of atmospheric heating naturally implies stronger ocean heating. This will likely continue for another 15 years or so until the cycle starts heating the atmosphere again, as I predicted a decade ago.

GISS, HADCRUT4, NCDC and BEST, obviously.

Imagine that the sun warms the oceans, and has been at a sustained high in activity for most of the last 150 years, especially the last half of the 20th C.

Imagine that.

The sun, of course. I have already pointed you to papers showing it has been exceptionally active during recent decades, especially during the previous two very robust sunspot cycles.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm asking you not to ignore it.

Who has claimed CO2 has no effect on climate? It obviously does. Just a rather minor one compared to the sun.

But the sun has still spent almost all the time since 1958 at historically high levels of activity, as proved in the papers I already pointed you to, but you ignored.

ROTFL!! Now that is UTTER UNSCIENTIFIC GARBAGE. Variations in solar activity and associated albedo effects have nothing whatsoever to do with conservation of energy. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nil. Nada.

Source? I don't know of any credible global temperature reconstruction that shows such an absurd jump in the last 100 years, or so little variation in the previous 10,000 -- other than dishonest and invalid "hockey stick" reconstructions that combine incompatible data sets, of course.

But are flat compared to CO2.

<sigh> Maybe because the cycle shows an inverse relation between oceanic heating and atmospheric heating, and the atmosphere's heat content is so much smaller it can't be seen in the OHC data. Duh.

<yawn> I predicted 10 years ago that global temperatures would go sideways until the late 2020s, while CO2 continued to climb more or less exponentially. Every AGWarmist shrieked that temperatures would track CO2. I have been proved right so far, and they have been proved hilariously wrong. Any bets on the next 15 years?

 

What do you suggest we do,move somewhere else ? There are 7 Billion of us on Earth today and thats going to have an unavoidable impact whatever way you slice it. Are you a subscriber to the anti human green eugenics option as a solution because you consider Earth too 'precious' and 'fragile' for humanity to continue to be allowed to prosper on it with any quality of life ? Are we in fact a plague on the planet ?

 

As Jack has pointed out, those who complain the loudest have no answer as to HOW to stop the warming they have declared is human in nature and catastrophic, even if they kill off all the humans stop all economic activity. They wave the catastrophic hysteria flag and then leave off any viable solution short of some of the scenarios Jack has already filled in. Kill everyone, kill a modern lifestyle and economy, starve or freeze or overheat people until there are only a few left, using solar panels on the roof of their mud huts, living in harmony with the world, call it sort of a Amish-nirvana, without anyone left alive that this gang doesn't like. As much as they try and hide it, at its core it is very anti-human agenda. They can't ever admit it of course, but by tying CO2 emissions with all the bad things they can dream up to scare people, they can never escape it. CO2 emissions are bad. Humans emit CO2 day and night and can never stop. A+B=C humans must stop emitting CO2. You try not breathing, see how long you last. They won't ever admit it, but there it is. Of course, they don't really believe that THEY are the ones it will effect, this scheme is designed more to get rid of everyone they don't like, all of "them". Define them any way you'd like, immigrants, the non blonde haired blue eyed, some other religion, each will have his/her own preference on who they would like to share the planet with. Certainly it isn't any of us who can see what they are up to, we can't have people actually thinking for themselves in their Amish-Nirvana now can we? Oh no...just nod furiously at what you are told by the scientist types...and then do as you are told little prole.

 

I agree. Modern environmentalism lost the plot decades ago now with the demonization of a benign beneficial and naturally occurring gas we exhale !. I found these comments sobering to say the least and theres more than a grain of truth in there too. I fear the threat of this new unchecked faith far more than anying the Earth might have in store for us over the coming decades as these environmental Luddites will be the death of us all

&#8221;Environmentalism is an anti-human, anti-science-and-technology religion which has gripped the world. It worships a nebulous undefined indefinable entity called The Environment which has some of the characteristics of the Christian Heaven, is an ideal place, existing somewhere on the earth, but without humans. It is a jealous God, demanding ever increasing sacrifices to satisfy its demands.&#8221;

The essential dogma of Environmentalism is the belief that humans are destroying the earth, or, as they prefer it, the planet.. Evolution is invariably harmful, and is exclusively conducted by humans. It must be prevented at whatever cost.

&#8221;The environment&#8221; is envisaged as one or more &#8221;ecosystems&#8221;, patterned on the Garden of Eden, unchanging, static, &#8221;balanced&#8221; associations of organisms which are &#8221;fragile&#8221;, and &#8221;threatened&#8221; by evolution, which is wielded exclusively by humans, whose every activity &#8221;damages&#8221; this idyllic paradise. Evolution has to be stopped, or even reversed.

The necessary and universal mechanism of evolution, the extinction of organisms which can no longer survive, to be replaced by the newcomers, is seen as evil. &#8221;Endangered species&#8221; have to be preserved at all costs, and the newly evolving ones exterminated as pests.

Sustainability is the reverse of evolution. It is a bedfellow with conservatism and conservation. People dislike change, so we must stop it.

Humans, like other creatures, survive by modifying the world in our favour. There is therefore something to be said for maintainability, such as measures to keep fish stocks at a reasonable level, or to preserve the fertility of soil, but retainability, keeping things the same for its own sake, is futile. Evolution happens whatever you try to do to stop it. Sustainable development is an oxymoron, a contradiction.

The Precautionary Principle does the reverse. The greatest precautions and the greatest costs are to be taken when the risk is small or even zero. All risks are exaggerated and the highest cost and greatest inconvenience are always chosen.

Developments in technology are always harmful and dangerous, and must be prevented. This applies particularly to Genetic Modification and Nuclear Power..

Instead of choosing the cheapest alternative of an action, environmentalists insist on the most expensive, because the Environment requires it. This may take the form of protracted legal cost for permission, or the use of unnecessarily expensive technology.

Thus vehicles must burn biofuels which raise the price of food and increase poverty. An extreme example is the use of hydrogen in vehicles. This is expensive, inconvenient and dangerous, so we must do it.

Reverse economics is now being applied internationally. The disasters caused by environmentalism such as the high cost of energy and food, are being tackled by the least effective method, the printing of money. This is the policy which led to the downfall of the German Weimar Republic, and is the cause of the current disaster in Zimbabwe.

The advertising industry has softened up the public to accept the most outrageous swindles by endless repetition, the use of phony logic and the endorsement by celebrities. Science is in decline and is being taken over by the pseudoscience of the environment. It has thus become possible to put over on the public the most outrageous spin ever. They have selected, distorted and fabricated scientific results to justify the environmentalist creed with huge success. Everything can be &#8221;linked&#8221; with disaster whatever the probability.

They get repeated free advertising in nearly all media and &#8221;debate&#8221; no longer exists. Every event is referred to environmentalist priests for comment. Other comments are not welcome. .

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2008/0...ti-technology/

 

Link doesn't work

 

Did you bother reading it ? Do you have any opinion on it ? Agree ... disagree ? .... what ?

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2008/...d-anti-human-anti-scientific-anti-technology/

 

I'm tired of addressing strawman arguments. And that is exactly what your article is: one huge strawman. If you'd actually like to discuss and address what "environmentalists" actually believe, I'm game. But then you'd have to actually read what "environmentalists" write instead of reading what the right wing bloggers say they believe.

 

What flogger put up struck me as more philosophical, rather than something strawmanish. So you have no philosophical thoughts on the implications of what an environmental belief system is trying to achieve? Certainly even I have already answered that question, there is an anti-human bias in those who want to punish people for the very process they need to stay alive.

 

and that's why it's a waste of time to discuss the "environmentalists". Are there some people who "want to punish people for the very process they need to stay alive."? Yes, I'm sure there are some nutjobs who have this attitude. But to label any with this way of thinking as "environmentalists" is just plain ignorant of what environmentalism is. I consider myself an environmentalist (someone that is concerned with maintaining a healthy, comfortable place to live). I realize that humans have an effect on their environment. I accept, for example, no matter how we get our energy, there will be some damage to the environment. What I do not accept is that we have no responsibility for the damage. "Cheap energy" is expensive if we choose to ignore the damage.
I fail to see how keeping the environment healthy punishes "people for the very process they need to stay alive.". Just the opposite; a healthy environment keeps people alive. An out of balance environment makes people sick.
Flogger suggests, by posting his article, that we should let evolution run its course. But he and the author don't seem to understand that our survival is dependent on a healthy environment and failure of just one crucial link (bees, phytoplankton) can spell disaster. Would you or flogger just have let the wolves become extinct? Or do you understand the role the wolves play in keeping the deer and moose in check?