I75at7AM
Champion Author
Dayton
Posts:66,529
Points:2,433,445
Joined:Feb 2006
|
Message Posted: May 22, 2013 4:25:40 PM
Johnnyg, long before the SemiSteve thread you just mentioned was this one:Topic: Overpopulation is killing us. What to do?
|
HotRod10
Champion Author
Wyoming
Posts:2,275
Points:40,450
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: May 22, 2013 3:59:16 PM
I didn't take long for the cries blaming the Oklahoma tornadoes on global warming to start. In fact, it was predicted yesterday in a story reminding us of the increase in deadly tornadoes in 1974 caused by global cooling.
|
johnnyg1200
Champion Author
St. Louis
Posts:4,162
Points:644,895
Joined:May 2011
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 12:21:24 PM
Actually Steve has already started a thread with that idea.
The Last Thing The World Needs Is More People
|
SE3.5
Champion Author
Indianapolis
Posts:17,017
Points:3,165,515
Joined:May 2004
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 12:18:28 PM
“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.”
–-Professor Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970
|
teacher_tim
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:15,731
Points:744,585
Joined:May 2004
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 11:55:30 AM
there are many who advocate doing just that, fluffydog. Of course, they never volunteer to start with themselves...
|
FluffyDogAttack
Champion Author
Riverside
Posts:1,082
Points:96,795
Joined:Oct 2012
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 11:37:30 AM
Ok fine. I'll play along. It's all "man-made". So whatcha gonna do now? Rid the planet of humans? Good luck!
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,032
Points:2,358,870
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 11:27:51 AM
Also, please note that the survey was over the years 1996-2003, so it's definitely living in the past. The dates were clearly selected to eliminate the current movement against AGW from consideration, just the way that AGW was justified by eliminating climate data that didn't support the predetermined conclusion of AGW supporters.
|
Panama19
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:25,308
Points:2,543,310
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 11:19:52 AM
Shockjock1961, of the 124,464 papers, only 4,000 (32.09%) took a position on man-caused global warming.
Of the 32.09% original papers 97.1% placed man as a major or minor cause.
97.1% of 32.09% = 31.19% of the papers placing man as a major or minor cause of climate change.
That makes 68.8% that did NOT find that man has a hand in climate change.
And of those that do, one can examine the stated motive in this article:
"Several studies have shown that people who are aware of scientific consensus on human-caused global warming are more likely to support government action to curb greenhouse gas emissions"
So, may we not assume that it is this political goal of supporting government controls over private industry is driving the minority of "scientists" that are pushing the AGW agenda?
That is the impression one gets from the hacked emails of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit as well.
This appears to be an attempt to sway the minds of the uninformed, impressionable voter rather than to advance science or scientific knowledge on the subject.
[Edited by: Panama19 at 5/17/2013 11:26:09 AM EST]
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,118
Points:2,185,160
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 10:10:38 AM
Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,032
Points:2,358,870
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 1:57:15 PM
I haven't heard from SemiSteve since I posted this link to a lecture by Michael Crichton on how aliens cause global warming.
|
wbacon
Champion Author
Philadelphia
Posts:13,415
Points:2,983,260
Joined:Jun 2004
|
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 1:20:22 PM
what happened to semisteve?
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,032
Points:2,358,870
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 15, 2013 10:36:19 AM
Yes, best of everything, ministorage. I'll miss your excellent research and hard facts, but I recognize that they take a lot of time to find and post. I sympathize with this, having cut back on the time I take on these posts myself.
|
jayrad1957
Champion Author
Los Angeles
Posts:19,651
Points:1,597,490
Joined:Nov 2008
|
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 3:10:00 PM
mini, good luck!
|
Panama19
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:25,308
Points:2,543,310
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 11:44:34 AM
ministorage, "My last post will be after this one. It will be on topic"
This place will be the poorer for your absence. Thank you for sharing your considerable scholarship with us - I have learned a great deal from your posts and links.
Hope to see you back as soon as possible.
Godspeed, my friend and mentor.
[Edited by: Panama19 at 5/14/2013 11:47:21 AM EST]
|
FluffyDogAttack
Champion Author
Riverside
Posts:1,082
Points:96,795
Joined:Oct 2012
|
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 11:39:11 AM
All the best to you, MiniStorage, as you embark on your new adventure. I've really enjoyed reading your posts here.
Have a great life! Cheers!
|
Zimcity
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:65,399
Points:3,692,535
Joined:Aug 2001
|
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 11:33:17 AM
"The scary thing is that I read people didn't have insurance for ice damage."
Yeah, I imagine BIG insurance would not consider ice intrusion to be the same as flooding, even though it kind of is.
Godspeed, ministorage.
|
flyboyUT
Champion Author
Utah
Posts:22,848
Points:1,011,635
Joined:Aug 2008
|
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 10:34:32 AM
Sorry to hear you wont be posting for a while Mini - come back ASAP.
Johnny you need to live right on the place where Minnesota, North Dakota and Canada meet. Every once in a while a winter storm rolls in from the NW with a 'wall' similar to what your saying. In front of it is clear warmer weather. Behind it is subzero snow and high winds. Bleech
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 10:24:03 AM
Yeah fly, sort of slow, but watching the Mille Lacs video, that slow pace is deceiving--it was pounding against the townhouses in a matter of minutes. (The Manitoba link said the 12 homes in Manitoba were demolished in 10 minutes from the same type of phenomenon.)
Johnny, I've never seen a wall of fog on the ocean preceding an oncoming storm. Back in the 90s, I watched every tornado VHS VCR I could find. I fantasized chasing storms and shooting them; never did go on one of those adventures.
I agree Fluffydog, this universe is amazing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OT: Speaking of adventures, I'm going on one which is going to take 105% of my time, so my time here is over for the foreseeable future after my next post. I will miss you guys. I may still post gas prices by phone, but may even stop that if it gets me off my track. I have made some friends here, whom I appreciate very much--and may try to check in from time to time, but my days as a regular are over for now.
I appreciate so much those of you who are interested in truth. The past 5 years has been quite disillusioning for me. My paradigm shift continues, and at this age, I can choose to either change with it, or to stop growing.
My last post will be after this one. It will be on topic.
|
FluffyDogAttack
Champion Author
Riverside
Posts:1,082
Points:96,795
Joined:Oct 2012
|
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 2:10:49 AM
I love all the strange & wonderful tales about weather.
Some, like myself, hear these tales and are in awe with the wonders of the Universe.
Others are filled with fear & apprehension, and in their egocentric, self-absorbed hubris, they figure it must be caused by man & only man can undo it.
And then after hearing that, I'm filled with wonder yet again that such a creature thinks he's so important, even after witnessing the power of the Universe.
Ahhh....the wonders of the Universe.
|
johnnyg1200
Champion Author
St. Louis
Posts:4,162
Points:644,895
Joined:May 2011
|
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 12:29:51 AM
As long as we are talking about weird weather.
I got stuck at Ft. Story V.A. for a few years. Now remember I’m from St. Louis M.O. This is about as far from the ocean as you can get. One day I was working on the tarmac and I happened to look out at the sea. What I saw was a wall coming in off the ocean. I had never seen a fog bank “roll” in like that before. I thought it was cool until I realized there was one hell of a storm about 5 min behind the fog. I got soaked like a drown rat as I ran for the barn.
I still think it was cool to see.
|
flyboyUT
Champion Author
Utah
Posts:22,848
Points:1,011,635
Joined:Aug 2008
|
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 7:30:49 PM
Mini - it does tend to give one a sense of just how powerless they are. It just comes grinding in at a fairly slow pace - depends on the wind pushing the ice on the lake and the size of the lake. Its unstoppable unless one prepares large dunes beforehand. The dunes have to be pretty high and wide - that ice has a incredible amount of force.
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 6:36:56 PM
I would like to have witnessed that personally--but not a house in the way of the oncoming ice bulldozer, however. The scary thing is that I read people didn't have insurance for ice damage.
|
flyboyUT
Champion Author
Utah
Posts:22,848
Points:1,011,635
Joined:Aug 2008
|
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 6:23:27 PM
Mini it also happened at Mille Lacs in the early 60's. I was driving up there in my 57 Chev and watched the ice close the road as it came moving in off the lake. Lucky for me I had already driven past the point it closed the road so the only time lost was watching it do that. It really is fairly common on large lakes up there. Not this late in May but ice piling up on shore is not unusual.
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 5:02:49 PM
"Not really anything to do with Global warming or cooling though, more just a near record late season ice out on Mille Lacs and some really strong winds over the weekend."
I agree with the winds; the reason for last weekend's phenomenon was the same for 600 miles north of Mille Lacs--a strong Arctic wind and locked-in Jet Stream. I keep on the pulse of climate phenomena around the globe, and considering early ice outs were made such a big deal of last year--as being indicative of global warming--it was certainly a curiosity worth sharing.
But the late date is because of an unusually cold year (and the globe actually has been cooling down). We need only look to the global record to show us which direction temperatures have been headed--the record shows us the earth is a boiling 4/10 of a degree C warmer than before WWII (and we can see the trend for the past decade). A curiosity for this year is there's been no strong La Nina to blame--but a very quiet Sun.
"It's pretty routine to see large piles of ice this time of year along the shoreline of the big lake.-"
I understand piles of ice are routine, but haven't heard of this before--the ice moving onto houses and plowing through the living room (or bulldozing houses like in Manitoba). A Minnesota friend remembered a similar occurrence back in the 70s off Lake Superior--with ice crossing over the highway.
Thanks for commenting.
[Edited by: ministorage at 5/13/2013 5:07:06 PM EST]
|
Zimcity
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:65,399
Points:3,692,535
Joined:Aug 2001
|
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 4:17:23 PM
"The day before Mother's Day, May 11, 2013 -- Mille Lacs Lake, MN.
Video 1 (as it occurred)
In seven minutes, ice heaves from lake ice still around on the day before Mother's Day, advanced onto shore, pushed up rocks, pushed onto the yards, ripped up bushes, carried yard tables, chairs, gas grills, pushed them against the houses, mangled downspouts and busted down doors and windows and entered at one townhome."
Yeah, that was a pretty cool video that I pulled up on my phone yesterday and we all gathered around to look at it (aside from the f-bomb the lady threw in there).
Not really anything to do with Global warming or cooling though, more just a near record late season ice out on Mille Lacs and some really strong winds over the weekend. It's pretty routine to see large piles of ice this time of year along the shoreline of the big lake.-
FWIW, Mille Lacs had a record early ice out just last year and the median ice out is April, 25.
Median ice out date: April 25
Earliest ice out date: 3/26/2012
Latest ice out date: 5/15/1950
Period of record: 1950 to 2012
[Edited by: Zimcity at 5/13/2013 4:18:42 PM EST]
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 10:11:37 AM
Two Review Papers Conclude — It is the SUN! Not CO2.
"...the impact of the Sun was fully 279 times greater than that of the air’s CO2 concentration, noting that “the flat evolution of CO2 during the first 19 centuries yields almost vanishing correlation coefficients with the temperature reconstructions.”
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 9:26:52 AM
"So WHY are we trying to stop global warming, again?"
Because ice and cold is better. Minnesota lake live cam...
And to kill off crops, of course.
[Edited by: ministorage at 5/13/2013 9:28:34 AM EST]
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,032
Points:2,358,870
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 9:22:13 AM
Yes, the warmer it gets, the better off humans are. So WHY are we trying to stop global warming, again?
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 9:15:20 AM
WES, I suppose next you'll be telling us that carbon dioxide from the Industrial/Modern Age didn't cause the frightening modern warm period of the last 100 years ;-)
[Edited by: ministorage at 5/13/2013 9:23:55 AM EST]
|
WES03
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:4,843
Points:1,265,370
Joined:Feb 2009
|
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 8:56:15 AM
10,000 years ago, ice covered the northern half of what is now the US and all of Canada. Global warming caused the glaciers to retreat. The Great Lakes and tens of thousands of other lakes were formed, sea levels rose 400 feet creating the Outer Banks, the Chesapeake Bay and on and on. With so much more water on the planet, evaporation increased rainfall. Warmer weather enabled humans to populate and flourish on the continent.
This is the big picture.
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 8:41:13 AM
In ten minutes time, a massive wall of ice rises out of lake and destroys a dozen homes as residents watch helplessly from the shore
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 8:26:39 AM
Another (not a video, just the story), this one in Manitoba: Wall of ice destroys Manitoba homes, cottages.
Area officials told CBC News the wind pushed built-up ice off Dauphin Lake on Friday evening and caused it to pile up in the community, located on the lake's southern shore.
The piles of ice, which were more than nine metres tall in some cases, destroyed at least six homes and cottages, according to the Rural Municipality of Ochre River.
Another 14 homes suffered extensive damage, with some structures knocked off their foundations.Watts said there are several cabins that were completely flattened by the wall of ice that came at them.
"The ice is over top of them, they've been crushed, there's nothing left," he said.
"There are other cabins that have been knocked right off their footings," he continued. "There's ice right over top of some of the cabins, coming over the roof on the other side."
According to Environment Canada winds were registered at about 80 km/h in the area Friday night.
No insurance coverage for ice damage
Dennis Stykalo, who's cottage is full of ice after Friday night's wind storm, told CBC News his insurance does not cover damage done by ice.
He said he's devastated after the event — he can't even get inside to recover his valuables.
"You know you've got cement, concrete blocks, and steel and the ice goes through it like its just a toothpick," said Stykalo. "It just shows the power. There is nothing you can do, you just get out of the way and just watch."
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 8:17:03 AM
Ooops. Let's see if this one works.
|
Pard
Champion Author
Detroit
Posts:85,782
Points:3,130,085
Joined:Aug 2004
|
Message Posted: May 12, 2013 4:28:08 PM
Mini, your video 1 link isn't working.
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 12, 2013 2:48:15 PM
Ice fishing the day before Mother's Day. Still waiting for Spring in Minnesota
Mille Lacs Live Web Cam
[Edited by: ministorage at 5/12/2013 2:52:24 PM EST]
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 12, 2013 2:41:17 PM
The day before Mother's Day, May 11, 2013 -- Mille Lacs Lake, MN.
Video 1 (as it occurred)
In seven minutes, ice heaves from lake ice still around on the day before Mother's Day, advanced onto shore, pushed up rocks, pushed onto the yards, ripped up bushes, carried yard tables, chairs, gas grills, pushed them against the houses, mangled downspouts and busted down doors and windows and entered at one townhome.
aftermath
[Edited by: ministorage at 5/12/2013 2:48:35 PM EST]
|
flyboyUT
Champion Author
Utah
Posts:22,848
Points:1,011,635
Joined:Aug 2008
|
Message Posted: May 11, 2013 5:35:34 PM
Good on ya Tacobelle......
[Edited by: flyboyUT at 5/11/2013 5:36:45 PM EST]
|
Panama19
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:25,308
Points:2,543,310
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: May 11, 2013 4:01:21 PM
mexicomaria, love it!
|
mexicomaria
Champion Author
Minnesota
Posts:24,113
Points:1,355,410
Joined:May 2007
|
Message Posted: May 11, 2013 3:57:58 PM
'Bout says it all.
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2013 5:02:12 PM
NickHammer: "I selected those dates to prove a point (well, actually 2 points, since in this case mini claimed to have "posted every timeline possible", which he obviously didn't).
Gee, you got me. I have recently posted links of global temperature graphs to HadCrut climate data for 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 34 years, as well as 100, 130, 160, 2000, 4300, 11,500 years--even tree-ring proxy data laid on top of Greenland Ice Core data. If you let your imagination really run wild, you might find some misleading cherry-picking going on in all of those graphs, also. ;)
Nickhammer: "Did you post the one that begins in 1998.1?
I have posted graphs that began from 1998 many times. On a prior occasion when you attacked my credibility, you accused me of cherry picking when I posted a graph starting from 1998 (and that was before the UN IPCC acknowledged earlier this year there's been no statistical warming for about 17 years).
NickHammer: "That one [1998.1] shows a slight upward trend."
Actually, that only shows you grasping at straws. It shows a flat trend. A couple hundredths of one degree over a 15 year period does not a "slight warming trend" make. That bluff is pathetic.
NickHammer: "How about 1999?"
Who cares, except for you? The IPCC, the Met Office and AGW scientists around the globe have now admitted and agreed with climate realists there's been no warming since 1998. But, IF we were to go by your rules, that we should not consider El Ninos--since you read Phil Jones trying to assure his junior colleague that all was well with the theory (from an email that I provided, and am well aware of what Jones said, how he said it, what he meant, and what he has communicated in the past)--then we should not be considering 1999 either... because of course, 1999 was the year of the La Nina temperature crash after the El Nino! (Let's at least stay consistent with the illogic!)
But I'm not playing by your silly rules, Nick, so you can start your graphs from whatever time reference you want.
The reality is, I graphed the VERY time period being referenced by IPCC officials and others now--who agree with me that the warming has stopped (for at least 15 years). It's the same reference period from which AGW scientists are now admitting no warming has occurred, so if I'm being misleading, so are they. So, if you want to accuse me of being misleading, because I began a temperature graph in 1997, right before an El Nino (which shows no warming trend) then there is a line out the door and down the street to the UN IPCC and back--of folks on both sides of the climate aisle ready to receive your picayune ruler-slap.
Back to your El Nino gotcha that backfired (which, I repeat, HELPS the arguments *for* man-made global warming skepticism) -- AGW scientists were all too happy to use the El Nino when they thought the warming would continue. After a decade of dropping temps that splashed egg on their faces, they started right back up again as they pumped the 2010 El Nino like it was the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The scaremongering went full-tilt insanity. It was man-made! They had been vindicated (but only temporarily). Then the global temperature crashed in the second half of 2010, and the silence was deafening. To use the El Nino phenomenon as part of the temperature record when pushing the man-made warming message--but to deny it when it is inconvenient--is intellectually dishonest.
I'm pointing the finger at those who chose to paint a lie when the climate data don't back up their lie. So, you can point the finger at me if you want, but you're ignoring a lot of facts when you do so in your latest efforts to try and kill the messenger.
But, this isn't about me. It's about the truth. I am only concerned about whether there's been statistically significant warming as predicted by AGW scientists, IF there is trapped heat in the troposphere as was predicted. And if not, why, and how have the predictions gone so wrong? If there has been deception, where, why, and how--what is climate science doing mucking with temperatures, what's happening to the scientific method, and why?
NickHammer: "I looked through EVERY post in this thread."
(And not so you can learn about the climate.) You've made clear your intentions for being here. Getting to the bottom of what's happening in our climate is not one of them. Attacking the messengers is. You're clearly an ardent AGW believer, and you have no problem calling people who have actually worked very hard to understand this stuff, "climate change deniers."
Instead of coming over here like an attack dog and accusing me of misleading others, if you'd like to present scientific arguments (better yet, some actual proof) that there is a measurable change in global temperatures that is inexplicable to explain by natural cycles, or that shows CO2 from human emissions is causing it--especially if you can show some evidence that there is a man-made greenhouse effect trapping extra heat that can no longer escape into space as it has always in the past--you'll have my full attention. I am quite sure contributing scientists to the UN IPCC would be grateful if you could, also. I even think there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you if you could do that.
Otherwise, it looks like what you're doing is just being another noisemaker trying to stir up trouble and bury the facts. I'll keep posting them. (And I don't give a rip if you have a problem for the times I begin any graphs--that problem is yours and yours alone.)
[Edited by: ministorage at 5/7/2013 5:14:15 PM EST]
|
FluffyDogAttack
Champion Author
Riverside
Posts:1,082
Points:96,795
Joined:Oct 2012
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2013 3:06:39 PM
I'm gonna break from the crowd here a little bit.
I'm happy to give the Global Warming Followers their much needed evidence. If they believe "insults = proof" that they're theory is correct, then come on over my way. I've got plenty of insults percolating and ready for deployment.
Oh and guess what? The Earth will still be here and still be teeming with life long after all humans AND their insults cease to exist.
Save the Earth? We can't even save ourselves. Pathetic.
|
Bell30012
Champion Author
Atlanta
Posts:3,927
Points:616,745
Joined:Aug 2004
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2013 3:01:12 PM
You know it gets harder to sell the Global Warming Fairy Tale when it snows in May.
|
airfresh
Champion Author
Massachusetts
Posts:15,212
Points:826,095
Joined:Aug 2007
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2013 1:55:42 PM
I gotta give Nick credit. He may be beating a dead horse... uh... unicorn... but I give him credit.
|
HotRod10
Champion Author
Wyoming
Posts:2,275
Points:40,450
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2013 1:37:03 PM
"...I selected those dates to prove a point (well, actually 2 points, since in this case mini claimed to have "posted every timeline possible", which he obviously didn't)."
So mini was supposed to post links to all 159 possible trendlines from that one graph in order to meet with your approval of his research? Otherwise you just ignore everything? That's a handy excuse to not look at the evidence. If you care to contribute to the debate, maybe you should try finding some EVIDENCE so support your position; unless your position is that those of us opposed to implementing draconian regulations to attempt to control global warming are wrong because we weren't "nice" enough to SemiSteve. That adds zero to the debate.
|
NickHammer
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:16,183
Points:2,580,960
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2013 1:16:17 PM
>>Who's cherry-picking the data now?<<
Not me. I selected those dates to prove a point (well, actually 2 points, since in this case mini claimed to have "posted every timeline possible", which he obviously didn't).
>>Starting 2000.3 it's flat, 2001 it's trending down, 2002 thru 2005 starting points it's trending down steeper. If you start in 2006 the trend is up again, down again if you start in 2009. So the 17,16,14, and 6 year trends are up, and the 15,13,12,11,10,9,8,7, and 5 year trends are down. What does it mean? Only that a linear trendline is a very fickle indicator.<<
And that's my point (BTW, slight correction on your dates - the 5-year is also up; everything from 2005.8 through 2008.0 is up). You (the general "you", not you specifically) can't just pick a year and claim a cooling trend when the dates just before or after show just the opposite. To do so is just plain dishonest, as is misrepresenting the content of the e-mails in an attempt to fool your followers.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,032
Points:2,358,870
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2013 9:47:40 AM
ldheinz - "The facts are in the history of this topic, if you'll just scroll down. And, this time, don't delete all of the facts and just leave the comments."
NickHammer - "I did - I looked through EVERY post in this thread. I saw no "insults" from AGW supporters, despite your claim."
So I talk about the facts of AGW, and you only care about insults. Obviously, you're not here to debate AGW, you're here to whine about insults, and you're the one doing most of it.
NickHammer - "And the name-calling begins... Thanks for backing up MY claims, ldheinz. "
And AGAIN with the creative editing, designed to give a false impression. Let's see what REALLY happened:
NickHammer - "You can always tell when climate change deniers are attempting to mislead others - they will use 1998 as their starting point"
ldheinz - "You can always tell when climate chicken littles are attempting to mislead others - they will use 1970 as their starting point."
So when I play back your own words against you that means that *I* am insulting, but you're not? Clearly, YOU are the one who started that exchange, and I was simply responding in kind. Obviously, it's YOU who are backing up MY claims.
NickHammer - "Really? Did you post the one that begins in 1998.1? That one shows a slight upward trend. How about 1999? Even a bigger upward trend. "
In case you hadn't noticed, the weather gets warmer and colder. If you cherry pick individual years the results are meaningless. When talking about the climate you need to look at trends over decades, if not centuries, to determine anything meaningful. This is why the very concept of AGW is ludicrous. It's WAY too soon to determine ANYTHING.
How about commenting on my link to historical Co2 levels that shows that the Earth is currently Co2 impoverished? Oh, that's right, you're too busy insulting people while complaining about being insulted to worry about the FACTS...
|
HotRod10
Champion Author
Wyoming
Posts:2,275
Points:40,450
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2013 6:35:53 PM
"Really? Did you post the one that begins in 1998.1? That one shows a slight upward trend. How about 1999? Even a bigger upward trend."
Who's cherry-picking the data now? Starting 2000.3 it's flat, 2001 it's trending down, 2002 thru 2005 starting points it's trending down steeper. If you start in 2006 the trend is up again, down again if you start in 2009. So the 17,16,14, and 6 year trends are up, and the 15,13,12,11,10,9,8,7, and 5 year trends are down. What does it mean? Only that a linear trendline is a very fickle indicator. Welcome to life, where statistics can be used to support any number of points of view, and that's just from one source. There are dozens of data sources, and all show something a little different.
A couple of things are for sure; we haven't seen the "hockey-stick" exponential temperature rise predicted, and trying to stop global warming is one of three things:
1)not possible
2)50 times more expensive than adapting to it
3)a bad idea because, if successful, will only make us freeze that much faster.
[Edited by: HotRod10 at 5/6/2013 6:38:20 PM EST]
|
NickHammer
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:16,183
Points:2,580,960
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2013 3:25:58 PM
>>I have posted every timeline possible, so that shoots down your slander that I'm trying to mislead.<<
Really? Did you post the one that begins in 1998.1? That one shows a slight upward trend. How about 1999? Even a bigger upward trend. Please, point me to where you posted those timelines.
>>10 "MORE" years. Jones moved the goal post--after he had already said 15 years is what is significant, and the part of that email you think indicts me, actually indicts Jones--he moved the goal post from earlier discussions of concern over the lack of warming.<<
"10 more years" is what Lockwood wrote - not Jones - and it's "10 more years...from NOW (emphasis mine)", with "now" being 9/5/2009. Also, Jones specifically wrote that the 15 years begins in "2004/5 and not 1998", which "was warm due to the El Nino". He didn't move any "goal post" - you simply misrepresented what he wrote in his e-mail by precluding that statement.
>> I am GLAD you brought up the El Nino of 1998, because for YEARS AGW propagandists used El Nino years to mislead the public--as proof of man-made global warming.<<
And yet you think it's perfectly OK to do the exact thing you decry when others do it in order to "prove" global cooling. That's my point - you claim others are doing it and they're dishonest for doing it, then you go ahead and do the same thing.
>>And Starting from 1997.5 gives us 16 years, and shows the entire El Nino--before it began.<<
In fact, the WoodForTrees graph currently only goes to 2012.9, so that's 15.4 years. Again, you can claim "15 years of global cooling", but when 13, 14, and 16 years show an upward trend, then that statement rings hollow. Also, as my previous link showed, the El Niño event began in 1997, specifically "the spring months of 1997", as shown here and here and here and here, so that claim is not correct, either.
[Edited by: NickHammer at 5/6/2013 3:27:45 PM EST]
|
HotRod10
Champion Author
Wyoming
Posts:2,275
Points:40,450
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2013 2:49:13 PM
"But I do see the insults almost non-stop from the deniers"
I looked at your list of supposed "insults", and other than the mini's post of April 19, which did seem a tad condescending, I didn't see any personal insults against Steve. There was some incredulity about some of the illogical arguments he's made, but for the most part everyone has gone out of their way to give Steve the benefit of the doubt that he is smarter than his posts would indicate. He did finally admit that he's not a scientist, so maybe we'll cut him some slack in the future, since he doesn't understand what he's advocating.
[Edited by: HotRod10 at 5/6/2013 2:51:50 PM EST]
|
NickHammer
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:16,183
Points:2,580,960
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2013 2:09:53 PM
>>The facts are in the history of this topic, if you'll just scroll down. And, this time, don't delete all of the facts and just leave the comments.<<
I did - I looked through EVERY post in this thread. I saw no "insults" from AGW supporters, despite your claim.
>>Are you a migrant farm worker? Because you sure are good at cherry picking. You've been very careful to eliminate lots and lots of links to hard facts, and then you have the audacity to speciously complain about them not being there?<<
>>You can always tell when climate chicken littles are attempting to mislead others...<<
And the name-calling begins... Thanks for backing up MY claims, ldheinz. So, again, where are all the "insults" from the AGW supporters? And as I said, I don't need to or have the time to look through all of the links. When I see attempts to mislead, I am confident enough that that's the goal of that poster, without having to check through every single one of his posts.
|