Antarctica Hits Record High

flogger · Mar 4, 2017

Buzz said:
Maybe because it is a record. And a significant one at that.

Given the undoubtedly limited duration of such readings at this uninhabited point why do you think that ?

Oh... I see. Now your just going to pretend that both of your links were just examples of how cherry picking works. If this is the case then why did you defend the first one? Looks to me like your pulling a typical Lord of Denial trick where he puts out BS as if it is true and then when it gets called out as BS he makes up some lame excuse why it was a legitimate argument or changes the argument after the fact.

If you don't understand what I was trying to illustrate for you theres not much more I can add

Did you miss the arrow on the far right side of the graph showing where the global temps were in 2004? It is higher than the mean of all the proxy temps have been for the entire 12,000 years. And the planet has warmed since 2004.

Get back to me when you understand how these proxies are actually arrived at

This is just wrong! Mann's 1998 study used more than just a half dozen tree ring proxies:

So why are tree rings taken from trees on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia more important than tree rings elsewhere ?

Lord of Planar · Mar 4, 2017

Buzz said:
Did you miss the arrow on the far right side of the graph showing where the global temps were in 2004? It is higher than the mean of all the proxy temps have been for the entire 12,000 years. And the planet has warmed since 2004.

Why cant you guys comprehend a very simple scientific fact?

Those older proxies are several hundred years apart. Some around a thousand or so. It would be meaningful if they had maybe 10 year resolutions, but they are generally 600 yer or longer resolutions. Because of this, they are not evidence that the earth was warmer. If you had a 600 year proxy sample with a 200 year period of -2 degrees then a 200 year spike with a +4 degree average and back to another 200 year -2 degree average, the proxy would show approximately no variation. It would show the average zero.

Why can't you guys understand such simple facts?

You are using spec-spoec-spec-speculation to say it was never warmer.

Threegoofs · Mar 4, 2017

Lord of Planar said:
Why cant you guys comprehend a very simple scientific fact?

Those older proxies are several hundred years apart. Some around a thousand or so. It would be meaningful if they had maybe 10 year resolutions, but they are generally 600 yer or longer resolutions. Because of this, they are not evidence that the earth was warmer. If you had a 600 year proxy sample with a 200 year period of -2 degrees then a 200 year spike with a +4 degree average and back to another 200 year -2 degree average, the proxy would show approximately no variation. It would show the average zero.

Why can't you guys understand such simple facts?

You are using spec-spoec-spec-speculation to say it was never warmer.

So how can these studies state that the last few decades are likely the warmest in 2000+ years?

Because the people who actually DO the science understand it less than you, a random DP denier??

Media_Truth · Mar 5, 2017

Lord of Planar said:
Why cant you guys comprehend a very simple scientific fact?

Those older proxies are several hundred years apart. Some around a thousand or so. It would be meaningful if they had maybe 10 year resolutions, but they are generally 600 yer or longer resolutions. Because of this, they are not evidence that the earth was warmer. If you had a 600 year proxy sample with a 200 year period of -2 degrees then a 200 year spike with a +4 degree average and back to another 200 year -2 degree average, the proxy would show approximately no variation. It would show the average zero.

Why can't you guys understand such simple facts?

You are using spec-spoec-spec-speculation to say it was never warmer.

Do you see Doctors when you're seriously ill or severely injured? If so, you are showing confidence in science. 97% of climate scientists agree the earth has warmed over the last century. Here's a link:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Don't let politics cloud your scientific judgement - you don't with your doctor.

Lord of Planar · Mar 5, 2017

Media_Truth said:
Do you see Doctors when you're seriously ill or severely injured? If so, you are showing confidence in science. 97% of climate scientists agree the earth has warmed over the last century. Here's a link:

My God man.

I've been studying this for several years, and I get sick and tired of someone coming in and acting as if I don't know the facts.

Yes, I would be part of that 97% if asked if the earth was warming. However, the Wikipedia entry is invalid. None of the studies say what wiki does. None of the studies ties both 97% and "most of the warming" together.

The pundits lie, lie, lie.

Read the papers and see for yourself. Stop listening to the pundits.

How about linking a paper that explicitly says 97% of the scientists say humans are causing most of the warming.

Please find such a paper.

Hint...

It doesn't exist!

Media_Truth · Mar 5, 2017

Lord of Planar said:
How about linking a paper that explicitly says 97% of the scientists say humans are causing most of the warming.

I just posted such a paper. Here it is again...

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."

I think climatologists would agree with you. Agreement of warming in near unanimous. Agreement about the human contribution is where the disagreements lie. This paper suggests that most scientists agree that human activities are the primary driver. But I would agree with you, that climatologists disagree on the extent. A close friend of mine works at the Climate Science Institute in Boulder, CO., and he says that climate science is so complex, that everything is a theory. And yet, he agrees with this NASA study.

Scientifically, we often grab hold of empirical data, and call it fact, based on predictability models, etc. The electron has never been proven, and yet we can measure current, voltage, and power, and come to certain conclusions. Throughout history, the model of the electron has changed, as new discoveries were made. And yet, every day, we all put faith in that scientific model, even though it has been revamped over and over.

Lord of Planar · Mar 5, 2017

Media_Truth said:
I just posted such a paper. Here it is again...

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

That is not a paper, but a blog authorized by NASA. They types of agenda driven amateurs are a good reason why president Trump should cut off AGW funding to NASA.

They lie about what the cited papers say. I challenge you to find and read the papers cited.

Look at the three site personals credentials.

Media Truth...

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

More like Media Lies.

longview · Mar 5, 2017

Media_Truth said:
I just posted such a paper. Here it is again...

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."

I think climatologists would agree with you. Agreement of warming in near unanimous. Agreement about the human contribution is where the disagreements lie. This paper suggests that most scientists agree that human activities are the primary driver. But I would agree with you, that climatologists disagree on the extent. A close friend of mine works at the Climate Science Institute in Boulder, CO., and he says that climate science is so complex, that everything is a theory. And yet, he agrees with this NASA study.

Scientifically, we often grab hold of empirical data, and call it fact, based on predictability models, etc. The electron has never been proven, and yet we can measure current, voltage, and power, and come to certain conclusions. Throughout history, the model of the electron has changed, as new discoveries were made. And yet, every day, we all put faith in that scientific model, even though it has been revamped over and over.

There is a fundamental problem with what people think is implied with NASA's statement.
The concept known as AGW, is actually two very different ideas, and the difference is important.
The IPCC has a document from AR3, called "key concepts in climate science" it is still cited in the AR5 report.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf

If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words,
the radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2
concentration would be 4 Wm−2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the
overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase
to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises
from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation

Most Scientist agree that doubling the CO2 level would cause some warming, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this is the first part of the concept of AGW.
That alone would cover NASA's statement,

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."

The second part of the concept known as AGW, is that they believe the warming from the extra CO2 would be amplified somewhere between a little and a lot, (.3 to 3.3 C).
IFthe amplified warming is at the mid to high end, they think bad things will happen.
Keep in mind that no one has actually identified much of this supposed amplified feedback warming, but there does appear to be minor
unaccounted warming in the climate system. The unaccounted warming, make the future ECS look to be around 2 C, at the low end of the range.

Media_Truth · Mar 5, 2017

longview said:
There is a fundamental problem with what people think is implied with NASA's statement.
The concept known as AGW, is actually two very different ideas, and the difference is important.
The IPCC has a document from AR3, called "key concepts in climate science" it is still cited in the AR5 report.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf

Most Scientist agree that doubling the CO2 level would cause some warming, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this is the first part of the concept of AGW.
That alone would cover NASA's statement,

The second part of the concept known as AGW, is that they believe the warming from the extra CO2 would be amplified somewhere between a little and a lot, (.3 to 3.3 C).
IFthe amplified warming is at the mid to high end, they think bad things will happen.
Keep in mind that no one has actually identified much of this supposed amplified feedback warming, but there does appear to be minor
unaccounted warming in the climate system. The unaccounted warming, make the future ECS look to be around 2 C, at the low end of the range.

Looks like an interesting study. I'll take a look at it, when I get some time. Thanks for sharing.

Media_Truth · Mar 5, 2017

Lord of Planar said:
They types of agenda driven amateurs are a good reason why president Trump should cut off AGW funding to NASA.

Oh yeah, Trump. You're talking about that scientific expert who follows the other 3%. :lamo

Threegoofs · Mar 5, 2017

Media_Truth said:
Looks like an interesting study. I'll take a look at it, when I get some time. Thanks for sharing.

Don't hurry. He posts it weekly. My guess it's about the only article he's read on the issue.

It's also not a study, it's a high level review of mechanisms and sort of an orientation to the WG1 section of the IPCC.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lord of Planar · Mar 5, 2017

Media_Truth said:
Oh yeah, Trump. You're talking about that scientific expert who follows the other 3%. :lamo

Please stop wasting my time by repeating the lies of the pundits. Read the actual papers. See what the scientists actually say.

Media_Truth · Mar 5, 2017

Lord of Planar said:
Please stop wasting my time by repeating the lies of the pundits. Read the actual papers. See what the scientists actually say.

I posted papers and others have posted papers. These are the real studies that 97% of scientists agree upon. You want us to read the 3% study, to see what the "scientists actually say"???

Lord of Planar · Mar 5, 2017

Media_Truth said:
I posted papers and others have posted papers. These are the real studies that 97% of scientists agree upon. You want us to read the 3% study, to see what the "scientists actually say"???

You didn't post the quotes from the links to the papers. You posted pundit links to see their spin.

Lord of Planar · Mar 5, 2017

Find one of the 97% studies you can read the whole paper on and link it. I will show you the truth in it.

Threegoofs · Mar 5, 2017

Lord of Planar said:
Find one of the 97% studies you can read the whole paper on and link it. I will show you the truth in it.

Of course, when you read or listen to interviews with the scientists who actually did the papers, you'll see that our resident armchair scientist disagrees with them, too.

Buzz · Mar 6, 2017

Lord of Planar said:
Find one of the 97% studies you can read the whole paper on and link it. I will show you the truth in it.

Damn Lord.... why do you keep making statements of what you think are facts and then expect everyone else to do your homework for you?

That NASA page has links to the 2 studies quoted in the references at the bottom of the page.

Lord of Planar · Mar 6, 2017

Buzz said:
Damn Lord.... why do you keep making statements of what you think are facts and then expect everyone else to do your homework for you?

That NASA page has links to the 2 studies quoted in the references at the bottom of the page.

Yes, and in the past, I have addressed every one of them.

If I pick one, I get accused of cherry picking.

So...

I want you to pick the cherry, and I will squash it.

Buzz · Mar 6, 2017

Lord of Planar said:
Yes, and in the past, I have addressed every one of them.

If I pick one, I get accused of cherry picking.

So...

I want you to pick the cherry, and I will squash it.

Oh come on....

There are only two links to studies that are both by the same lead author. Quit being lazy and debunk both of them and nobody will be able to accuse you of cherry picking. And if you think you have debunked them in the past then all you have to do is link to the threads in which you did so.

Oh... and try not to cite any of the numerous denialist blog posts that attempted to debunk these peer reviewed and published studies.

Lord of Planar · Mar 6, 2017

Buzz said:
Oh come on....

There are only two links to studies that are both by the same lead author. Quit being lazy and debunk both of them and nobody will be able to accuse you of cherry picking. And if you think you have debunked them in the past then all you have to do is link to the threads in which you did so.

Oh... and try not to cite any of the numerous denialist blog posts that attempted to debunk these peer reviewed and published studies.

Read them first.

Or...

Are you going to continue to let someone else tell you what to believe?

And hint... I do not read blogs. I can think for myself.

Buzz · Mar 6, 2017

Lord of Planar said:
Read them first.

Or...

Are you going to continue to let someone else tell you what to believe?

And hint... I do not read blogs. I can think for myself.

I read them a long time ago.

Quit stalling and debunk them... or shut the **** up!!

Lord of Planar · Mar 6, 2017

Buzz said:
I read them a long time ago.

Quit stalling and debunk them... or shut the **** up!!

Sorry, I don't believe you. Look at my past posts on the issue in other threads. If you read them, and don't see the facts, then you are lost.

Buzz · Mar 6, 2017

Lord of Planar said:
Sorry, I don't believe you. Look at my past posts on the issue in other threads. If you read them, and don't see the facts, then you are lost.

:lol:

I knew you wouldn't even attempt to debunk them. You are so full of it Lord.

I think I have you figured out Lord.... you are way to lazy to actually debate the facts on any klind of regular basis so you just say what ever you want and demand that everyone else prove you wrong. And then if no one can or wants to do the necessary research to prove you wrong you declare it a victory and decide in your denialist mind that you must be right. And if someone goes through the process of actually proving you wrong you either use some lame tactic like changing the subject, using some other logical fallacy, or you run away and act as though the debate never happened.

And unlike you I am perfectly willing to prove it. Just say so and I will provide examples of you doing this.

Lord of Planar · Mar 7, 2017

Buzz said:
:lol:

I knew you wouldn't even attempt to debunk them. You are so full of it Lord.

I think I have you figured out Lord.... you are way to lazy to actually debate the facts on any klind of regular basis so you just say what ever you want and demand that everyone else prove you wrong. And then if no one can or wants to do the necessary research to prove you wrong you declare it a victory and decide in your denialist mind that you must be right. And if someone goes through the process of actually proving you wrong you either use some lame tactic like changing the subject, using some other logical fallacy, or you run away and act as though the debate never happened.

And unlike you I am perfectly willing to prove it. Just say so and I will provide examples of you doing this.

No, I just don't like researching the same material year after year when newcomers arrive. I have already debunked these studies several time, and I get tired of repeating the work.

Threegoofs · Mar 7, 2017

Lord of Planar said:
No, I just don't like researching the same material year after year when newcomers arrive. I have already debunked these studies several time, and I get tired of repeating the work.

Yet the scientists continue to produce articles confirming this, year after year.

Guess the scientists aren't taking armchair pundits on DP seriously, for some reason.

Antarctica Hits Record High

flogger

Lord of Planar

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

Media_Truth

Lord of Planar

Media_Truth

Lord of Planar

longview

Media_Truth

Media_Truth

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

Lord of Planar

Media_Truth

Lord of Planar

Lord of Planar

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

Buzz

Irritant

Lord of Planar

Buzz

Irritant

Lord of Planar

Buzz

Irritant

Lord of Planar

Buzz

Irritant

Lord of Planar

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town