• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2016 likely to be the warmest year ever recorded.

bubbabgone said:
If they're not IN then they're OUT.
If a serial killer admits to his crimes to a friend, you don't have to know the victims' names.
psst ... You lost this one long ago.
Click to expand...

But....you have no clue if they are actually included.

Because you don't know the studies.

Because you don't know what you're talking about.
 
Quaestio said:
Yes. They were. But you are welcome to tell us the titles and authors of the 2 papers YOU believe they were referring to. You haven't done so.
Click to expand...

bubbabgone said:
You just found a link that mentioned 2 papers in a similar circumstance and you seized on it.
Click to expand...
No. I showed the 2 papers referred to in the emails WERE discussed in the IPCC AR4 report.

bubbabgone said:
Okay ... this has been kinda like watching Meryl Streep talk like everyone must think like she does because, after all, all the people she hangs around with do.
Watching alarmists are a lot like that.
Very isolated in their world and that makes them very easy to predict.
Anyway, I let this go on too long ...
https://climateaudit.org/2009/12/21/climategatekeeping-siberia/

But ... I'll say this much for you ... the snark was there but you didn't resort to the STFUs and other similar stuff tossed around a lot here. The other new guy is doing that. Stay as sweet as you are.
Click to expand...

So what were the titles and authors of the 2 papers that you claim were mentioned in the specific emails you quote mined?

You still haven't answered that simple question.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, before industrialization, CO2 changes lags behind temperature changes. This is primarily due to the change in sea surface temperature, and it controls the partial pressure equilibrium between the ocean and the atmosphere. A general equalization lag for this is something like 800 to 1300 years estimated.
Click to expand...
You need to actually READ Caillion et al 2003, not mindlessly repeat myths you read on WUWT or some other junkscience conspiracy blog.
 
Quaestio said:
No. I showed the 2 papers referred to in the emails WERE discussed in the IPCC AR4 report.



So what were the titles and authors of the 2 papers that you claim were mentioned in the specific emails you quote mined?

You still haven't answered that simple question.
Click to expand...

Let me step you through this one final time and if you still don't get it, then you don't want to.
Phil Jones wrote to Mike Mann that he was going to keep out 2 papers that they were discussing. I quoted what he wrote.
Jones didn't include the names.
Over time there has been speculation about which ones they were. I gave you (or maybe someone else - you alarmist guys tend to take mimic each other's personality) the benefit of the speculation by mentioning one paper the author believes was one of them.
I also mentioned a whole bunch of papers that were skeptics to some or great degree to suggest that any of them might have also been kept out.

Now, keep in mind, I'm not the least bit surprised given that, at its inception the IPCC's marching orders were to assume human caused climate change was actual.
So asking them to be all sciency and everything by choosing papers that disagreed with what they were told to prove is asking a lot.

Anyway ... there it is.
If you still don't get it then you're likely a climatroll, and that would be sad.
 
bubbabgone said:
Let me step you through this one final time and if you still don't get it, then you don't want to.
Phil Jones wrote to Mike Mann that he was going to keep out 2 papers that they were discussing. I quoted what he wrote.
Jones didn't include the names.
Over time there has been speculation about which ones they were. I gave you (or maybe someone else - you alarmist guys tend to take mimic each other's personality) the benefit of the speculation by mentioning one paper the author believes was one of them.
I also mentioned a whole bunch of papers that were skeptics to some or great degree to suggest that any of them might have also been kept out.

Now, keep in mind, I'm not the least bit surprised given that, at its inception the IPCC's marching orders were to assume human caused climate change was actual.
So asking them to be all sciency and everything by choosing papers that disagreed with what they were told to prove is asking a lot.

Anyway ... there it is.
If you still don't get it then you're likely a climatroll, and that would be sad.
Click to expand...

So you don't know.

You could have admitted that in the first place.

But instead you called up some bull**** list of papers and tried to get someone else to do your work for you.

Classic.
 
Threegoofs said:
Its a classic Gish Gallop.
Click to expand...
No, the bibliographic resource has nothing to do with your creationist association smear.

Threegoofs said:
Give a giant list of stuff for someone to go through, and then when you find out that the link is nothing like what it purports to be (I think this list was destroyed a while ago here)
Click to expand...
Incorrect, this has never happened.
 
bubbabgone said:
Let me step you through this one final time and if you still don't get it, then you don't want to.
Phil Jones wrote to Mike Mann that he was going to keep out 2 papers that they were discussing. I quoted what he wrote.
Jones didn't include the names.
Over time there has been speculation about which ones they were. I gave you (or maybe someone else - you alarmist guys tend to take mimic each other's personality) the benefit of the speculation by mentioning one paper the author believes was one of them.
I also mentioned a whole bunch of papers that were skeptics to some or great degree to suggest that any of them might have also been kept out.

Now, keep in mind, I'm not the least bit surprised given that, at its inception the IPCC's marching orders were to assume human caused climate change was actual.
So asking them to be all sciency and everything by choosing papers that disagreed with what they were told to prove is asking a lot.

Anyway ... there it is.
If you still don't get it then you're likely a climatroll, and that would be sad.
Click to expand...

I get it. I really do. You get excited by the hysterical claims you read on conspiracy blogs. The boring facts just kill your buzz so you don't want to accept the facts. You don't want to spend time outside the exciting little bubble of conspiracy blogs by doing fact-checking yourself - too much hard work, too boring, a buzz-kill. You need to keep this exciting buzz alive so you try to change the topic of every thread you post in, to your same little collection of favorite hysterical conspiracy claims over and over again.

The topic of this thread is: "2016 likely to be the warmest year ever recorded", not "Bubba's favorite copy and pasted conspiracy claims rehashed for the gazillionth time"
 
Last edited:
Poptech said:
No, the bibliographic resource has nothing to do with your creationist association smear.


Incorrect, this has never happened.
Click to expand...


The topic of this thread is: "2016 likely to be the warmest year ever recorded", not "Attack of the PopTart!
 
Quaestio said:
I get it. I really do. You get excited by the hysterical claims you read on conspiracy blogs. The boring facts just kill your buzz so you don't want to accept the facts. You don't want to spend time outside the exciting little bubble of conspiracy blogs by doing fact-checking yourself - too much hard work, too boring, a buzz-kill. You need to keep this exciting buzz alive so you try to change the topic of every thread you post in, to your same little collection of favorite hysterical conspiracy claims over and over again.

The topic of this thread is: "2016 likely to be the warmest year ever recorded", not "Bubba's favorite copy and pasted conspiracy claims rehashed for the gazillionth time"
Click to expand...


oooooh ... is that what's bugging you?
You think calling attention to the corruption of the IPCC is a diversion from a thread topic that attempts to confirm the IPCC position.
I don't, and if you thought it was then you shouldn't have tried to mount a multi-comment attempt to defend them.
Defending the IPCC corruption of science is always a non-starter, and eventual complaints about adherence to a thread topic suggest now you know that too.
 
bubbabgone said:
oooooh ... is that what's bugging you?
You think calling attention to the corruption of the IPCC is a diversion from a thread topic that attempts to confirm the IPCC position.
I don't, and if you thought it was then you shouldn't have tried to mount a multi-comment attempt to defend them.
Defending the IPCC corruption of science is always a non-starter, and eventual complaints about adherence to a thread topic suggest now you know that too.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who complains that two papers were left out of the IPCC but has no clue which papers they were or if they were any good.
 
bubbabgone said:
oooooh ... is that what's bugging you?
You think calling attention to the corruption of the IPCC is a diversion from a thread topic that attempts to confirm the IPCC position.
I don't, and if you thought it was then you shouldn't have tried to mount a multi-comment attempt to defend them.
Defending the IPCC corruption of science is always a non-starter, and eventual complaints about adherence to a thread topic suggest now you know that too.
Click to expand...

You just keep proving you're addicted to your conspiracy buzz and have lost all grip on reality.
 
Threegoofs said:
These posts are getting quite common, because global temps continue to rise.

This data is not official- the 2016 final data is scheduled to be released on Jan 18, two days before the next Denier-in-Chief is inaugurated.

2016 expected to be hottest year on earth

https://critical-angle.net/2016/12/20/temperature-anomalies-2016-and-2017/

f499e57747ff2c9475a31cb1d52fec4c.jpg


Looks like the projection is that even with ENSO tapering off, 2017 will continue to be quite warm- although I'd guess the deniers in one year will be resurrecting their 'it's a pause!' posts and 'the earth is entering a cooling phase/cosmic rays/blargharglebargle!'

803a51f88938cd8047d84557cbe4851b.png
Click to expand...

We can use more heat in the North ! :lol:
 
Threegoofs said:
Says the guy who complains that two papers were left out of the IPCC but has no clue which papers they were or if they were any good.
Click to expand...
Probably sits around reading mouldy yellowed stacks of old copies of the National Enquirer as well.
 
I have no doubt by GISS's methodology and with the contribution of 4 to 5 El Nino months,
that 2016 will be the warmest year within GISS's record!
The question is, is that of any significance in regards to AGW?
Since it will take an additional year or two to average out the effects of the El Nino, there is no real way of
know how much of the observed warming was natural El Nino, vs AGW.
 
longview said:
I have no doubt by GISS's methodology and with the contribution of 4 to 5 El Nino months,
that 2016 will be the warmest year within GISS's record!
The question is, is that of any significance in regards to AGW?
Since it will take an additional year or two to average out the effects of the El Nino, there is no real way of
know how much of the observed warming was natural El Nino, vs AGW.
Click to expand...

Maybe if we just looked at El Nino years it would give us a trend?

Screen_Shot_2017_01_18_at_10.49.43_AM.png


Oh, no! You dont agree already - because the data doesn't fit your preconceived ideas!
 
Threegoofs said:
Maybe if we just looked at El Nino years it would give us a trend?

Oh, no! You dont agree already - because the data doesn't fit your preconceived ideas!
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can show how long it takes to average out an El Nino Spike.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
It sure looks like it takes a mean of between 40 and 48 months to not see the spike.
This means, whatever 2016 is, we will not know if it is significant until about 20 months from now.
 
Queerstio said:
The topic of this thread is: "2016 likely to be the warmest year ever recorded", not "Attack of the PopTech!
Click to expand...
Queerstio, I was not responding to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom