Warmer update thread

Cypress said:
Here’s the problem. Flat earthers never, ever present anything except links to rightwing blogs, or links to rightwing rags – most often, some rightwing british tabloid.
Click to expand...

Not!....Here's the problem....
You've been coned but you're so far in the tank for Dems, libs, and left wing loonies, you can't admit you're wrong on any level....get over it...
:lol:
 
Cypress said:
Here’s the problem. Flat earthers never, ever present anything except links to rightwing blogs, or links to rightwing rags – most often, some rightwing british tabloid.

It’s easy enough, to go to the actual BBC interview, and read what Dr. Jones actually said…..rather than relying on what a message board teabagger, or rely on what the Tabloid “Daily Mail” reports……..and in doing so, it’s easy enough to find out just how duped and misinformed flat earthers are. Case in point:

TINFOIL, College Dropout: You can tell who the people are that don't really understand science by their support of the IPCC and anthropogenic CO2 forcing theory of climate changes. The warming of the last decade was not at an unpredented rate...LOLZ!!!!
Click to expand...




Good Work Einstein! So your contention is that there are three periods within the industrial age that have similar rates of global temperature increase. Uhhh, I think that’s the point, bro', of human-induced climate change: that the industrial period; i.e., the last 150 years, has been associated with extended periods of global temperature increase.

Dr. Phil Jones, PhD: An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Click to expand...


....more teabag buffoonery....

TINFOIL, College Dropout:And, as Phil Jones has come to admit, the MWP may have well been as warm if not warmer! LOLZ!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Wrong again Einstein. A complete teabagging mischaracterization of what was actually said. Dr. Jones say there’s not enough data to assert with confidence with the MWP was warmer that today on a global basis. Dr. Jones notes three temporal periods of relatively rapid increase; although the periodof 1860-1880 is data-limited and quite uncertain in comparison to the other two. So, in effect, the level of statistical confidence is high that 1910-1940, and 1975-1998 have had statistically similar rates of temperature increase….these two periods being in the heart of the industrial revolution of the last century and a half


DR..PHIL JONES, PhD: :There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We CANNOT, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
Click to expand...



For the scientifically literate, Dr. Jones explains the use of the tree ring data.


BBC: You also mentioned "hiding the decline" (in temperatures). Why did you say these things?

DR PHIL JONES, PhD: This remark has nothing to do with any "decline" in observed instrumental temperatures. The remark referred to a well-known observation, in a particular set of tree-ring data, that I had used in a figure to represent large-scale summer temperature changes over the last 600 years.

The phrase 'hide the decline' was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.
This "divergence" is well known in the tree-ring literature and "trick" did not refer to any intention to deceive - but rather "a convenient way of achieving something", in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record.
I was justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time - an issue which was later directly discussed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report.
The misinterpretation of the remark stems from its being quoted out of context. The 1999 WMO report wanted just the three curves, without the split between the proxy part of the reconstruction and the last few years of instrumental data that brought the series up to the end of 1999. Only one of the three curves was based solely on tree-ring data.

The e-mail was sent to a few colleagues pointing out their data was being used in the WMO Annual Statement in 1999. I was pointing out to them how the lines were physically drawn. This e-mail was not written for a general audience. If it had been I would have explained what I had done in much more detail.

My colleague Keith Briffa has responded to suggestions that there is something amiss with the Yamal tree-ring data. Here is his response:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
Click to expand...


For your amusement, I present the final conclusions of an anonymous message board poster, having zero scientific qualifications and who never presents anything other than rightwing blogs and rightwing rag articles…..juxtaposed with the final conclusions a prominent Climate Scientist, who’s been involved in decades of peer-reviewed climate research:


TINFOIL College Dropout:You can tell who the people are that don't really understand science…..LOLZ!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

-How do you come to conclude that global warming of the last century hasn’t been natural?

DR. PHIL JONES, PhD:The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing
Click to expand...




My work here is done. Teabaggers, enjoy your rightwing blogs and rightwing tabloids….ignorance is bliss!





http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Click to expand...

:good4u:
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
And while you're yuking it up, here's another little tidbit for you to deny

http://www.aolnews.com/science/arti...r-hurricanes-study-says/19367080&sms_ss=email
Click to expand...

From your link:

In 2007, the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said it was "more likely than not" that man-made greenhouse gases had already altered storm activity, but the authors of the new paper said more recent evidence muddies the issue.

"The evidence is not strong enough that we could make some kind of statement" along those lines...
Click to expand...
:)
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And while you're yuking it up, here's another little tidbit for you to deny

http://www.aolnews.com/science/artic...0&sms_ss=email
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
From your link:

In 2007, the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said it was "more likely than not" that man-made greenhouse gases had already altered storm activity, but the authors of the new paper said more recent evidence muddies the issue.

"The evidence is not strong enough that we could make some kind of statement" along those lines. It doesn't mean the IPCC report was wrong; it was just based on science done by 2006 and recent research has changed a bit, said Knutson and the other researchers.
Click to expand...

:)
Click to expand...

I completed the paragraph that you excerpted. I don't know if you do these things just to get a response or you're really that bad of a denier propagandist. The reason I posted this article is to show a more balanced conclusion/statements from people respected in the field. Pity you didn't get the point of the article.
 
Last edited:
it's funny that he's posting stuff we used to say. No fucking duh, we can't make definitive assertions about climate. That's been my position all along, you giant dipshit, Taichi, and you too, Crypiss. You two can can go share a bag of dicks
 
tinfoil said:
it's funny that he's posting stuff we used to say. No fucking duh, we can't make definitive assertions about climate. That's been my position all along, you giant dipshit, Taichi, and you too, Crypiss. You two can can go share a bag of dicks
Click to expand...

I keep forgetting you're not too bright and have a tendency to tune out what doesn't fit into your little world view.

To surmise: the article is pointing out that increasing climatic severity due to global warming is a certainty....what is honest is that they are not going to attribute the most recent climatic severities around the world as the official starting gun....just yet.

It's called careful science, you twit. That requires careful reading and discussion...something you seem incapable or unwilling to do...which is not unexpected for a willfully ignorant neocon denier such as yourself.

I already showed how dishonest Southie was in just providing a decent quote...so your similar actions here hold little credibility.
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
That doesn't change this conclusion, which is the opposite of what you claim: "The evidence is not strong enough that we could make some kind of statement"
Click to expand...

Now you're just being stubborn to the point of insipidness....you take something out of context and run with it. Pity for you that I provided the entire paragraph...which gives a more balanced view of the information given...of which I have NO problem with...unlike you. Carry on.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - Warmer update thread
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
I keep forgetting you're not too bright and have a tendency to tune out what doesn't fit into your little world view.

To surmise: the article is pointing out that increasing climatic severity due to global warming is a certainty....what is honest is that they are not going to attribute the most recent climatic severities around the world as the official starting gun....just yet.

It's called careful science, you twit. That requires careful reading and discussion...something you seem incapable or unwilling to do...which is not unexpected for a willfully ignorant neocon denier such as yourself.

I already showed how dishonest Southie was in just providing a decent quote...so your similar actions here hold little credibility.
Click to expand...

it's obvious you don't follow the links I leave here.

Water vapor forcing has been found to be underestimated by about a third. That's fucking huge, dumbass! That forcing was attributed to human caused co2 forcing. That's the joke. Get a clue, idiot
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I keep forgetting you're not too bright and have a tendency to tune out what doesn't fit into your little world view.

To surmise: the article is pointing out that increasing climatic severity due to global warming is a certainty....what is honest is that they are not going to attribute the most recent climatic severities around the world as the official starting gun....just yet.

It's called careful science, you twit. That requires careful reading and discussion...something you seem incapable or unwilling to do...which is not unexpected for a willfully ignorant neocon denier such as yourself.

I already showed how dishonest Southie was in just providing a decent quote...so your similar actions here hold little credibility.
Click to expand...

tinfoil said:
it's obvious you don't follow the links I leave here.

Water vapor forcing has been found to be underestimated by about a third. That's fucking huge, dumbass! That forcing was attributed to human caused co2 forcing. That's the joke. Get a clue, idiot
Click to expand...

:palm: Once again, you display stubborn ignorance......Your cut & paste mentality has been reviewed by myself and others and thoroughly discussed....YOUR problem is that you either ignore ANY information that contradicts your source material and beliefs or you just jump to another aspect of the discussion when you can't adequately defend your position. That's been proven time and again. Case in point, I provide information that gives a more balanced viewpoint on the subject...and YOU just ignore the ENTIRE summation in favor of an out-of-context quote and your immediate effort to divert the discussion....because the article DOES NOT 100% support your beliefs. That's the problem with you deniers....you're just dishonest in a debate on this issue while trying to maintain some nonsensical pious stance.

As always, you live up to your screen name description. Carry on.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Now you're just being stubborn to the point of insipidness....you take something out of context and run with it. Pity for you that I provided the entire paragraph...which gives a more balanced view of the information given...of which I have NO problem with...unlike you. Carry on.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - Warmer update thread
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
Now you want me to provide a balanced view. Why would I do that? You didn't.
Click to expand...

Now you're just acting desperate to avoid discussing the contents of the article in a honest way. Your such an intellectual coward on these boards....all you can do is hurl insults and accusations, and falsely represent information presented, but you don't DARE have a rational, honest discussion that includes the material covered. Carry on.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Now you're just acting desperate to avoid discussing the contents of the article in a honest way. Your such an intellectual coward on these boards....all you can do is hurl insults and accusations, and falsely represent information presented, but you don't DARE have a rational, honest discussion that includes the material covered. Carry on.
Click to expand...
How ironic. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top