tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post2951103316990421892..comments2024-03-29T03:18:25.501-04:00Comments on the daily howler: IMITATIONS OF LIFE: The Power Rules!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-17862325521316318732013-03-10T04:10:54.191-04:002013-03-10T04:10:54.191-04:00Just in case someone reads Dave's bullshit and...Just in case someone reads Dave's bullshit and thinks there's anything to it: That an increase in CO2 leads to higher global temps than would otherwise be the case isn't remotely controversial/questionable. In order for Gore to be wrong about this, "...a century of basic physics and chemistry studying the radiative properties of greenhouse gases would have to be proven wrong." http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm<br /><br />And Dave's other bullshit about global temps has been debunked repeatedly: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrongMike L.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-33637387942418728272013-03-09T00:47:54.064-05:002013-03-09T00:47:54.064-05:00"I know of no proof that a 1.4 degree tempera..."I know of no proof that a 1.4 degree temperature rise would be cataclysmic."<br /><br />And what you don't know would fill volumes such as:<br /><br />". . . we have actual evidence that an even larger rise in temperture didn't cause any cataclysm."<br /><br />Just utterly astounding in its willfull ignorance.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-55031324988240958672013-03-09T00:45:54.752-05:002013-03-09T00:45:54.752-05:00"I know of no proof that a 1.4 degree tempera..."I know of no proof that a 1.4 degree temperature rise would be cataclysmic."<br /><br />And what you don't know would fill volumes such as:<br /><br />". . . we have actual evidence that an even larger rise in temperture didn't cause any cataclysm."<br /><br />Just utterly astounding in its willfull ignorance.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-44369020673550771332013-03-08T18:59:18.359-05:002013-03-08T18:59:18.359-05:00AnonymousMarch 8, 2013 at 5:38 PM -- I know of no ...AnonymousMarch 8, 2013 at 5:38 PM -- I know of no proof that a 1.4 degree temperature rise would be cataclysmic. On the contrary, we have actual evidence that an even larger rise in temperture didn't cause any cataclysm. Since 1800 the earth experienced a 2 degree rise, and the earth is doing fine. David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-3427045139840874332013-03-08T17:38:11.432-05:002013-03-08T17:38:11.432-05:00Uh, David? Taking your calculations at face value ...Uh, David? Taking your calculations at face value solely for the sake of discussion, even a 1.4 degree rise would indeed be cataclysmic.<br /><br />Please know what you are talking about. Instead of 10 seconds worth of googling, spend about the next six months studying at least some of the voluminous evidence, and even then, you'll barely be scratching the surface. But at least you'll be somewhat better educated.<br /><br />As Pope said about "a little learning . . ."<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-20653956073900152492013-03-08T17:32:25.725-05:002013-03-08T17:32:25.725-05:00I think in that satellite chart a linear trend lin...I think in that satellite chart a linear trend line leaving out 1998, but fitted to 1999 - 2013 would be nearly horizontal.<br /><br />Or, consider the amount of warming over the entire period that satellites temperatures have been availalble. The change from 1979 to 2013 was .46 degrees. If you extrapolate that rate of growth, over the course of a century, temperature would rise by 1.4 degrees. This is not a cataclysmic rate. Temperature rose by 2 degress since 1800, and we've had no bad consequence. On the contrary, food supplies are vaster than ever. <br /><br />BTW one reason we have more food than ever is that all other things being equal, more CO2 in the air is good for plants.<br /><br />AnonymousMarch 8, 2013 at 3:28 PM -- feel free to ignore me. But, are you going to ignore the warmists who acknowledge that global warming slowed down or stopped and are seeking explanations? E.g., the UK Met Office, their official weather bureau, has been on the GW bandwagon, yet they now acknowledge that <br /><br /><br />Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it.<br /><br />The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.<br /><br />This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996<br /><br />Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2MzS52Z9E <br />Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on FacebookDavid in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-27920728260658504392013-03-08T15:28:54.714-05:002013-03-08T15:28:54.714-05:00David, please stop. You are making an utter fool o...David, please stop. You are making an utter fool of yourself.<br /><br />Even if you want to cherry-pick 1998, which you admit was an anomaly, and focus only on air temperatures, both the calendar years 2005 and 2010 were even warmer, and 2007 tied 1998. So even your over-simplistic analysis is WRONG.<br /><br />Secondly, that's not the way to measure global warming, any more than saying it was 110 degrees in Kansas City in July and 13 degrees in January is evidence of rapid global cooling.<br /><br />Instead, look at the trend lines over long periods of time that take into account not just air temperatures, but ocean, land and ice as well. In other words, the entire globe.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-716276373752573672013-03-08T15:21:06.135-05:002013-03-08T15:21:06.135-05:00I have, with my own eyes, seen the dirty-toilet-bo...I have, with my own eyes, seen the dirty-toilet-bowl drinking troll have his "1998" argument refuted dozens of times, here, and on other sites under other names, in one case by an actual climate scientist, but he keeps making it anyway. He does not care about the science, does not care about the facts, he just wants to get his troll on. There is no point in responding to him, because he does not acknowledge that he's wrong, doesn't even care. Just ignore him. No matter how desperately provocative he behaves, ignore him, the way you would a village idiot who picks his nose and masturbates in public. Nothing you do will change his behavior, and since there are no internet jails, just accept that he's an unlovely part of the landscape and IGNORE HIM. tilhttp://til.tknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-31029586291007550672013-03-08T14:44:12.952-05:002013-03-08T14:44:12.952-05:00AnonymousMarch 8, 2013 at 1:53 PM -- A recent peer...AnonymousMarch 8, 2013 at 1:53 PM -- A recent peer-reviewed paper by a warmist doesn't give up on the anthropogenic GW theory, but it does acknowledge that the temperature leveled out after 1998:<br /><br /><i>The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations </i><br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission-that-global-surface-temperatures-did-not-rise-dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/<br /><br />David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-15307904178476842042013-03-08T13:53:17.278-05:002013-03-08T13:53:17.278-05:00Oh my word, David! You really do have no idea that...Oh my word, David! You really do have no idea that those charts say exactly the opposite of what you think they say.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-9258510815227535262013-03-08T13:21:23.094-05:002013-03-08T13:21:23.094-05:00AnonymousMarch 8, 2013 at 12:26 PM
Thanks for bri...AnonymousMarch 8, 2013 at 12:26 PM<br /><br />Thanks for bringing up the bizarre resignation of Dr. Wagner as editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing. As he said, there was nothing wrong with the review process for the Spencer and Braswell paper. Furthermore, there's been no suggestion that the journal should withdraw the paper. So what did Dr. Wagner do wrong?<br /><br />The statement says his sin was to accept a paer which "essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents." This is preposterous. There's no requirement that published papers repeat the arguments of those who disagree. Nor do papers supporting Catastrophic Anthropogenic GW necessarily repeat the arguments of those who disagree.<br /><br />IMHO what happened was that the Spencer and Braswell paper brought forth information that tended to cast doubt on the warmist's models, and the warmists had enough (academic) poloitical power to force Dr. Wagner to resign.<br /><br />This is a way that the in-crowd prevents fully open debate on GW.<br /><br />Regarding the two charts: Yes, 1998 was an anomoly. But, if you look at the 13 month rolling average on the satellite chart, you can see that it's not particularly growing from 1999 forward. And, the current figure of .18 isn't particularly high.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-26525393181596272462013-03-08T13:03:02.787-05:002013-03-08T13:03:02.787-05:00Does David really think those two charts show a tr...Does David really think those two charts show a trend of global cooling since 1998? Can anybody be that willfully ignorant?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-64255961463994252112013-03-08T12:40:09.034-05:002013-03-08T12:40:09.034-05:00I won't call you names like so many other comm...I won't call you names like so many other commenters, but a look at the chart at the site you suggest shows that (1) the temperature in 1998 was a one-time anamoly based on El Nino, and (2) before 1998 the temperature was mostly below average, while after 1998 it was mostly above average. In other words, it looks to me like there has been warming even after 1998.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-4883504114350071592013-03-08T12:26:08.970-05:002013-03-08T12:26:08.970-05:00Dear One-Trick Pony troll:
"The editor-in-ch...Dear One-Trick Pony troll:<br /><br />"The editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner, later resigned over publication of Spencer and Braswell (2011),[20] stating, "From a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. [...] the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view ...but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. {Sounds like DinC] This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal." Wagner added he, "would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper's conclusions in public statements."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-46848826118807450352013-03-08T11:50:44.037-05:002013-03-08T11:50:44.037-05:00Relentlessly, Gore’s information about climate cha...<i>Relentlessly, Gore’s information about climate change has turned out to be right, dating all the way back to his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance. </i><br /><br />Not so. Gore said that rises in CO2 would cause the earth to warm. However, since 1998, atmospheric CO2 continued to rise, but the planet's temperature essentially leveled out. (It's slightly up on some measurement bases and slightly down on others.)<br /><br />You can see this for yourself at<br /><br />http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Feb_2013_v5.5.png<br /><br />and at<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Enso-global-temp-anomalies.png<br />David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-47858772226183160602013-03-08T11:35:28.012-05:002013-03-08T11:35:28.012-05:00"Have you seen the nightly clowning on the On..."Have you seen the nightly clowning on the One True Liberal Channel?" <br /><br />No. Since the media used to routinely answer many of the questions posed in this post and no longer does, time is better spent seeking those answers rather than viewing corporate propaganda.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-64270926823203113802013-03-08T10:56:28.615-05:002013-03-08T10:56:28.615-05:00Lets see.
Atmospheric carbon can be measured, and...Lets see.<br /><br />Atmospheric carbon can be measured, and is above 350PPM.<br /><br />Scientists all over the world arrive at the same findings.<br /><br />The Earth is measurably warmer.<br /><br />Measurability, universal agreement on outcomes, accurate predictions.<br /><br />I believe we call that science.gravymeisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16075831177588700301noreply@blogger.com