Climate Change - Is the Tide Turning?

smithy said:
<snip>Here's a chart from the Met Office showing the flat rate of change in the 00s compared to the 90s<snip>.

data-graphic.GIF
Click to expand...

That is a very interesting graph. It clearly shows that comparing year to year or even over a number of years is basically useless. You can only compare over a long period of time and get anything even close to a sensible result.

e.g. There's a big spike in 1998, the hottest year on that graph. If you take there as a starting point and work forwards it looks like the world is cooling, taking 1997 OTOH gives you rapid heating. I thought the sceptics might of had a point in there somewhere, but clearly obvious this is deliberate manipulation of the data.

BTW the 1998 spike was caused by El Nino, that heats the world, the relatively depressed figures for the remaining years are caused by a long La Nina cooling event.
The prediction for 2010 is to beat 1998.
 
@Minator,
Thanks for the link. I think it did a good job covering the major points in the debate.

Thanks for the graph. Climatologists have scientifically demonstrated reasons of why they use 10 year and 30 year average. The cyclic nature of the sun is amongst these. 1998 is used by Denialists for not scientifically proven reasons but instead to create a strawman. So yes you are correct Cherry Picking is at work.
 
[youtube:1nvm47cp]7nnVQ2fROOg[/youtube:1nvm47cp]


[youtube:1nvm47cp]uXesBhYwdRo[/youtube:1nvm47cp]
 
@cecilia:

Just watched that first video. Really nice summary.
 
metalman said:
Another domino falls in Climategate:
On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data. IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations. The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

The IEA claims the full set of Russian data does NOT support global warming.
Click to expand...
And it turns out that it was a right-wing disinformation stance rather then a truism. LINK Is anyone surprised?

Whom are you going to believe?
The CRU whose emails depict many years of collusion and who hide their data or the IEA who claim the CRU has skewed their data?
Click to expand...
CRU a science based Climate analysis or IEA a libertarian think tank. The choice here is clearly CRU.
 
faethor said:
metalman said:
Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.
Click to expand...
Thank you I do stand corrected. I had grabbed the % composition expelled from lungs from my brain instead. Bad me I should double check my facts and reindex the pointers in my brain.

Now your proof that all CO2 is at ground level please. You do realize there's science analyzing the CO2 in the upper atmosphere and CO2 cloud formations in the mesosphere?

It's okay to fail and learn. You can see I accepted mine. Can you?
Click to expand...

FAIL!

I guess your still trying to consult with the Gaia priests to out how a trace amount (parts per million) of the much heavier CO2 gets into the upper atmosphere, while 93% of all CO2 is dissolved in the ocean? (That would be "below sea level")

ROFL
 
faethor said:
metalman said:
Another domino falls in Climategate:
On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data. IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations. The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

The IEA claims the full set of Russian data does NOT support global warming.
Click to expand...
And it turns out that it was a right-wing disinformation stance rather then a truism. LINK Is anyone surprised?
Click to expand...

"Appeal to authority" fallacy
The IEA is not a "High priest of the Gaia"

"Guilt By Association" fallacy
They drive a car and used Exxon gas!!

"Circumstantial Ad Hominem" fallacy
The IEA used statistic analysis on "Temperature data" they are only qualified to do statistic analysis on "economic data"

:roflmao: source: "Mother Jones" :roflmao:
Try an actual argument of the issues next time

The IEA argument is that the CRU cherry picked their data set. The CRU ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives. The CRU ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data over rural, preferred data from stations that had relocated.
 
metalman said:
The IEA argument is that the CRU cherry picked their data set. The CRU ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives. The CRU ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data over rural, preferred data from stations that had relocated.
Click to expand...
The IEA claim, not arguement. If it were an arguement they'd have produced evidence of it happening along with the evidence that it had an impact. None of which has been produced. Guess it's not just the GW science that hides data. Oh, and they'd publish in a scientific journal instead of the right-wing blogosphere.
 
metalman said:
FAIL!

I guess your still trying to consult with the Gaia priests to out how a trace amount (parts per million) of the much heavier CO2 gets into the upper atmosphere, while 93% of all CO2 is dissolved in the ocean? (That would be "below sea level")
Click to expand...
Adding ad hominems to a unsupported claim is a yawn. Where's the yawn smily?

If it is CO2 that causes global warming, I would expect that North America would be the region of the world in which the warming is MORE severely felt.
Click to expand...
How about some evidence?

Your concept as you stated was CO2 is heavier. Here's something you may want to read SO2 from China SO2 is more than twice the atomic weight then CO2. Yet it makes it across the Pacific.
 
Robert said:
Funny, but then everything you post is tongue in cheek these days, eh?
Click to expand...

Everything? Naah. I use over the top titles and sometimes spice up the language a little, but so do you guys.
 
redrumloa said:
Robert said:
Funny, but then everything you post is tongue in cheek these days, eh?
Click to expand...

Everything? Naah. I use over the top titles and sometimes spice up the language a little, but so do you guys.
Click to expand...

So, do you actually believe that video or not? It's getting difficult to tell when you're kidding these days as you often appear outraged at trivia and credulous of sensationalist nonsense.
 
Robert said:
So, do you actually believe that video or not? It's getting difficult to tell when you're kidding these days as you often appear outraged at trivia and credulous of sensationalist nonsense.
Click to expand...


Errr, it is satire. It is made by "Minnesotans For Global Warming", what do you think? Do I think Global warming is a hoax, yes but that is besides the point. Satire is satire.
 
redrumloa said:
Do I think Global warming is a hoax, yes.
Click to expand...

A hoax? Yes, of course it is..... a hoax.... obviously.... a hoax.... what else could possibly explain all that data..... it's clearly a hoax.....

.... hahahahahahahaha

:banana: :roflmao: :banana:

There are none so blind, etc....

:banana: :roflmao: :banana:

.... hahahahahahahahaha ..... and breathe....

Satire, indeed.
 
Robert said:
A hoax? Yes, of course it is..... a hoax.... obviously.... a hoax.... what else could possibly explain all that data..... it's clearly a hoax.....
Click to expand...

What data? The data that was refused despite FOI requests or the data that was destoyed? If you are talking about the so called value added data, that has been discredited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top