Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, March 06, 2019

Confidence that human activities are raising the heat at the Earth's surface has reached a "five-sigma" level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming. Such a "gold standard" was applied in 2012, for instance, to confirm the discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building block of the universe.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Next time a conservative claims "the earth is warming, the question is whether it is human caused," remember that there is only a 1 in 1,000,000 chance they are right, and that their argument would be as statistically valid as saying the Higgs-Boson doesn't exist.

#1 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-05 12:41 PM | Reply

But it snowed today so it's obviously hokum.

#2 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-03-05 02:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

remember that there is only a 1 in 1,000,000 chance they are right,

So what your saying is that there is still no consensus.

#3 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-03-05 02:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 11 | Newsworthy 1

#3 FF.

#4 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-05 02:45 PM | Reply

"The gold standard has no proof any climate change is man caused."

From the summary of the article (right at the top of this page):

Confidence that human activities are raising the heat at the Earth's surface has reached a "five-sigma" level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.
Proving once again that sniper is incapable of understanding even the most basic ideas, much less refute them.

#6 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-06 11:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

- a 1 in 1,000,000 chance

Oddly enough, those are the same odds that Donald Trump isn't a crook.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-06 01:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

remember that there is only a 1 in 1,000,000 chance they are right,
So what your saying is that there is still no consensus.

#3 | POSTED BY NIXON AT 2019-03-05 02:35 PM | FLAG: | FUNNY: 4

I remember is 1989 when "scientists" told us we only had 10 years left to live because of climate change.

#8 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-03-06 01:30 PM | Reply

The gold standard has no proof any climate change is man caused.

#5 | POSTED BY SNIPER

That is literally what the gold standard is...

What you just wrote translates literally to: "Proof is not Proof."

Please, don't post anymore.

#9 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-03-06 01:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Why can't i see post #5? And why was the headline changed to something unintelligible?

#10 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-06 01:40 PM | Reply

I remember is 1989 when "scientists" told us we only had 10 years left to live because of climate change.

#8 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

That never happened.

There wasn't even a scientific consensus back then about how bad the situation was. Now there is.

Are you too stupid to understand the difference between a scientist saying something and the scientific community reaching a consensus on something?

You are proof they don't teach you everything you need to know in Kindergarten.

#11 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-03-06 01:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

Why can't i see post #5?
#10 | POSTED BY JOE

It appears to have been deleted. I can't see it either.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-06 01:42 PM | Reply

Rcade zaps posts that make ridiculous denier claims.
I don't know if that was the case with 5. It could have been edited for being abusive.

#13 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2019-03-06 01:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I remember is 1989 when "scientists" told [me] we only had 10 years left to live because of climate change.

#8 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

It is well established that you're a bonafide schizophrenic.

#14 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-03-06 01:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANNJune 29, 1989

www.apnews.com

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

#15 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-06 01:47 PM | Reply

#15 See #11, moron.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-06 01:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#15 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-06 01:47 PM

Clearly does not refute the ridiculous claim:

"I remember is 1989 when "scientists" told us we only had 10 years left to live because of climate change." - #8 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-03-06 01:30 PM
Oops.

#17 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-06 01:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

RE: #15 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-03-06 01:47 PM

Are you supporting your claim on the expertise of Dr. Noel Brown?

Seriously???

www.pace.edu

#18 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-03-06 02:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--Are you supporting your claim on the expertise of Dr. Noel Brown?

I'm not claiming anything, just reporting what a UN expert said. I thought you guys believed the claims of UN experts.

#19 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-06 02:20 PM | Reply

"I remember is 1989 when "scientists" told us we only had 10 years left to live because of climate change.
#8 | POSTED BY FISHPAW"

Too bad you don't remember graduating high school. Because that obviously never happened either.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-06 02:23 PM | Reply

I'm not claiming anything

Yep, just posting links, no endorsement of their contents, just postin some links.

#21 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-06 02:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yep, he's just trollin', trollin' trollin'
Keep those posts a' rollin', Nullhide!

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-06 02:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

I thought you guys believed the claims of UN experts.

#19 | Posted by nullifidian

Pretty sloppy attempt at supporting a Lie.

You are slipping Comrade.

You have done better.

#23 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-03-06 03:21 PM | Reply

#19 | Posted by nullifidian

The way I took it was that was supposed to be proof scientists were telling us in 1989 that we only had 10 years to live in defense of Fishy's claim. And that's not what the article even says at all.

#24 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-03-06 03:53 PM | Reply

"I'm not claiming anything
#19 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN"

That's because you're a moral and intellectual coward, Nullifidian.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-06 03:56 PM | Reply

--only had 10 years to live in defense of Fishy's claim

You're correct. My post was only supporting the claim that we had 10 years to reverse global warming, not his exaggeration. That's clear from the link and my excerpt.

#26 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-06 04:07 PM | Reply

Proving once again that sniper ...
#6 | Posted by Hans

Please ignore it. If snippy isn't a bot it's a St. Petersburg troll.

"If your neighbor is irate that you let your dog run loose in his yard, you can pacify him. If he's irate that you are reading his thoughts through his tinfoil hat, there's nothing you can do except disengage."

Jonathan Chait

#27 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2019-03-06 04:39 PM | Reply

The is less than a 1 in 1,000,000 chance that the earth will end in 12 years due to climate change as AOC has stated.

I don't think there is any doubt that CO2 raises temperatures, that is just science. However, the debate is about how much it will raise them over 100 years as we don't yet understand the entire feedbacks occurring. If Global Warming scientists could produce a model with any predictive value to the observed temperature and stop adjusting past temperatures to overstate the warming since 1900, they could probably convince people to act.

#28 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-06 07:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I don't think there is any doubt that CO2 raises temperatures"

Then explain why that fact alone is insufficient for action.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-06 07:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Then explain why that fact alone is insufficient for action.
#29 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Because if the result is 1-2 degrees only under a worst case scenario, which appears to be the case with all models vastly overstating the observed warming, the cost of eliminating CO2 far outweighs the benefits. Again, if the models were valid, we would be in a different place now. But, the models have all be wrong and global warming researchers don't understand why.

Second, because the US contribution to CO2 today is like 16% and falling. So, even if we completely disrupted our economy to eliminate 100% of CO2 emissions today, it would have no effect on climate with the rate of growth in CO2 from China and India.

#30 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-06 08:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The is less than a 1 in 1,000,000 chance that the earth will end in 12 years due to climate change as AOC has stated.

#28 | Posted by nobiasposter101

The 12 years figure is a scientific estimate of the point at which it will be too late to prevent catastrophic climate change, not the date the world is going to die.

Either you're too dumb to know that, or you're pretending to be. Just like you pretend to be several other posters.

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-06 08:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I remember is 1989 when "scientists" told us we only had 10 years left to live because of climate change.

#8 | Posted by fishpaw

I remember 1989 as being when repubs denied climate change even existed. Before they changed to admitting it existed but denying it was man made. Before they admitted it was man made but denied we could fix it. Before admitting we could fix it but it would cost too money. Before they started trying to act like maybe climate change is good.

#32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-06 08:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The 12 years figure is a scientific estimate of the point at which it will be too late to prevent catastrophic climate change, not the date the world is going to die.
#31 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I find if funny you use the term 'scientific estimate' when it is no such thing. There is not science behind this estimate or even the term 'catastrophic climate change'. You just throw out random words and claim it is science. No, it is political and we all know it. Which, again, is why climate change ranks way down in what people care about. If you want to change that, get a valid model first.

#33 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-06 08:16 PM | Reply

_-The 12 years figure is a scientific estimate of the point at which it will be too late to prevent catastrophic climate change, not the date the world is going to die.

That is true. AOC clearly misspoke:

""Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' " she said.

www.usatoday.com

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she meant 12 years to prevent a future catastrophe.

#34 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-06 08:20 PM | Reply

"Because if the result is 1-2 degrees ... the cost of eliminating CO2 far outweighs the benefits."

I'm gonna need to see your math on that one.

What's the cost for the harm of 1-2 degrees of warming, and what's the cost of preventing it?

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-06 08:25 PM | Reply

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she meant 12 years to prevent a future catastrophe.
#34 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

You can give her the benefit of the doubt, but she hits the 'five-sigma' level for being stupid yet utterly self-assured. This is the result of participation trophies.

#36 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-06 08:27 PM | Reply

"No, it is political and we all know it. "

The why are birds, flora, and fauna migrating northward? Just a political stunt?

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-03-06 08:29 PM | Reply

What's the cost for the harm of 1-2 degrees of warming, and what's the cost of preventing it?
#35 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

The harm? Basically nothing. We had a recorded temperature anomaly of nearly 1.5 degrees C in the 1930's. Total (as of January), it was like .71C. And therein lies the problem with global warming models. If the 1930's were much hotter than today but had much lower CO2 levels (and temperature then dropped from 1940-1975ish in the face of rapidly increasing CO2), how can you claim what % man is responsible for? Again, get a model that works and then we can talk about science. Until then, it is guessing and the global warming crowd has a horrible track record for guessing.

#38 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-06 08:32 PM | Reply

"Before they started trying to act like maybe climate change is good."

Next up: It's far too late to do anything about it, so we might as well just burn this mofo to the ground and go out with a bang!

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-06 08:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"The harm? Basically nothing.
We had a recorded temperature anomaly of nearly 1.5 degrees C in the 1930's"

An anomaly means the temp dropped back down.

We're talking about a new normal, not an anomaly

You don't know the cost of that.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-06 08:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

'how can you claim what % man is responsible for?"

By counting how much CO2 is of anthropogenic origin.

Turns out we know how much oil and coal we burn, and conctete we pour.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-06 08:37 PM | Reply

I find if funny you use the term 'scientific estimate' when it is no such thing. There is not science behind this estimate or even the term 'catastrophic climate change'. You just throw out random words and claim it is science. No, it is political and we all know it. Which, again, is why climate change ranks way down in what people care about. If you want to change that, get a valid model first.

#33 | Posted by nobiasposter101

YOur cult leader shows that people care about what you tell them to care about. America's morons weren't scared of mexican desert rapists til trump told them to be. They didn't need to see obama's birth certificate til trump told them he couldnt be legitimate. They weren't worried about the iran nuke treaty til trump told them it was a bad deal, even though the military says it was working.

#42 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-06 08:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You can give her the benefit of the doubt, but she hits the 'five-sigma' level for being stupid yet utterly self-assured. This is the result of participation trophies.

#36 | Posted by nobiasposter101

How sad for your party that a "stupid" person is trying to address a real crisis while your super smart russian party is trying to build a pointless wall in the desert.

#43 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-06 08:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I find if funny you use the term 'scientific estimate' when it is no such thing. There is not science behind this estimate or even the term 'catastrophic climate change'. You just throw out random words and claim it is science

#33 | Posted by nobiasposter101

Look how desperately you want to argue sematics and vocabulary instead of policy. Because your cult has no policy on the most critical issue we face.

#44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-06 08:45 PM | Reply

An anomaly means the temp dropped back down.
We're talking about a new normal, not an anomaly
#40 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You might want to have RCADE delete that post for your because it clearly demonstrates "uniformed but self-assured" on your part. In teaching you how to fish, all I will say is research what anomaly means in terms of how temperature is recorded.

#45 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-06 08:47 PM | Reply

Look how desperately you want to argue sematics and vocabulary
#44 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Yes, being factually and semantically correct pales in comparison to being morally correct....thanks for that AOC.

#46 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-06 09:07 PM | Reply

Yes, being factually and semantically correct pales in comparison to being morally correct....thanks for that AOC.

#46 | Posted by nobiasposter101 a

You have no correct facts so you follow the pollution playbook of arguing over the definition of words like "pollution" instead of offering a plan on how to stop it.

Just another delay tactic after 40 years of other delay tactics.

Dont worry, in 12 years, you'll be able to say "IT's too late! No point in quitting fossil fuels now! YOU ALL waited too long!"

#47 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-06 09:15 PM | Reply

#47 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

We can make a little wager. I will bet you that in 12 years, the observed temperature anomaly will be below the 95% confidence interval as shown in the AR4/5 assessment best case scenario model ensemble. Further, I will project that despite temperature not increasing as projected, CO2 levels will be at, or higher, than those assumed with the models ensemble. Normally, scientists would conclude that this invalidates their model - but not climate scientists. Which is why we get the rolling dates for 'last action to stop it' nonsense.

What would you like to wager?

#48 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-06 09:32 PM | Reply

We can make a little wager. I will bet you that in 12 years, the observed temperature anomaly will be below the 95% confidence interval as shown in the AR4/5 assessment best case scenario model ensemble. Further, I will project that despite temperature not increasing as projected, CO2 levels will be at, or higher, than those assumed with the models ensemble. Normally, scientists would conclude that this invalidates their model - but not climate scientists. Which is why we get the rolling dates for 'last action to stop it' nonsense.

What would you like to wager?

#48 | Posted by nobiasposter101

However much you can convert to rubles without getting in trouble.

There's no way you'll be here in 12 years. You can't even go 2 months without having to start a new username.

#49 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-06 09:37 PM | Reply

"You might want to have RCADE delete that post for you"

Thanks for your concern trolling along with your climate trolling.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-06 09:39 PM | Reply

#50 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Did you look up anomaly yet?

#51 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-06 09:41 PM | Reply

"I will bet you that in 12 years, the observed temperature anomaly will be below the 95% confidence interval as shown in the AR4/5 assessment best case scenario model ensemble."

What's the baseline from which the anomaly is calculated?
You know, the "temperature the earth is supposed to be?"

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-06 09:41 PM | Reply

Also, are we betting on the observed temperature, or the observed temperature anomaly?
It's not really an anomaly if the temperature keeps feting warmer, like it's done most every year this millennium.
The anomaly would be... not getting warmer.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-06 09:45 PM | Reply

What's the baseline from which the anomaly is calculated?
You know, the "temperature the earth is supposed to be?"
#52 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Again, you are demonstrating uniformed but utterly self-assured behavior. You are making statements and taking positions on an issue where you don't have the slightest clue how the data is gathered, presented, or compared. Don't you think you should educate yourself before taking a position on this?

If you really want me to tell you the answers to your questions because you do want to understand it, I will take the time to do so. Your second question actually forms the basis for all non-catastrophic warming arguments.

#54 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-06 09:47 PM | Reply

The anomaly would be... not getting warmer.
#53 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Again, that is not what anomaly means in this context. Please look at your temperature data is reported if you want an actual discussion.

#55 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-06 09:48 PM | Reply

Until then, it is guessing and the global warming crowd has a horrible track record for guessing.

#38 | Posted by nobiasposter101

Not as horrible as the climate denier crowd, who has to change their argument every few years.

"Its not happening!" -> "Maybe its happening but its not manmade!" ->"maybe it's manmade but we can't fix it!" -> "maybe we can fix it but it's too expensive" -> "Maybe we don't NEED to fix it!"

#56 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-06 10:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Your second question actually forms the basis for all non-catastrophic warming arguments."

Are those the arguments you're making?

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-06 10:06 PM | Reply

In 1900 the temp was 0 degrees
For each decade, the temp went up 10 degrees.
1910 10 degrees 1950 50 degrees, 1990 90 degrees.

In 100 years, the average temperature was 50 degrees.

This is the average temperature gauge in my neck of the woods.

What is the average is a joke. What is tge all time high and low is a joke.

The problem with temperature is in the example above. The 'average' really is a stupid measure when the flux spans a 40-50 degree swing.

The temp was 25 degrees, the avg is 52, but every year, on this date the temp was either +/- 10-15 degrees of 52 for the past 100 years

#58 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-03-06 10:07 PM | Reply

Are those the arguments you're making?
#57 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Once you understand what the terms mean and how the data is collected and reported, we can move on to the arguments. You are still in the crawling stage so no need to discuss the arguments yet.

#59 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-06 10:26 PM | Reply

"You are still in the crawling stage..." - #59 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-06 10:26 PM

"RC Collins is an Dunning-Kruger example." - #98 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-04 01:33 AM
"I chose that name because it is a perfect example of how the Democrats now act. A clueless bunch of fools that now think war is cool simply because Trump want to end it." - #102 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-04 01:38 AM

You chose that name for yourself because you believe you're a clueless fool?

"RC Collins is an obnoxious Gothic 16 year old junior who attends Chatsworth High. His English syntax would indicate that he has missed many English classes for doctor appointments."

Explains a lot.... - #88 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-04 12:55 AM

Speaks volumes.

#60 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-06 10:30 PM | Reply

#60 | POSTED BY HANS

? And?

#61 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-06 10:33 PM | Reply

"? And?" - #61 | Posted by self-proclaimed idiot at 2019-03-06 10:33 PM

You're welcome.

#62 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-06 10:36 PM | Reply

You're welcome.
#62 | POSTED BY HANS

Thank you for your thoughtful contribution to the discussion. I know forming thoughts is difficult for you so congrats on the game effort.

#63 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-06 10:45 PM | Reply

I'm waiting for Andy the Mattress to tell us how Nixon (not you, the other one) took the US off the gold standard....

#64 | Posted by SunTzuMeow at 2019-03-06 11:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I'm waiting for Andy the Mattress to tell
#64 | POSTED BY SUNTZUMEOW

I think you forgot to switch accounts.

#65 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-06 11:07 PM | Reply

Why are people engaging deniers? This is the real world. If deniers want to argue climate change let them do it among themselves on their own contrived forums. Its time for the reality based to ignore them.

#66 | Posted by prius04 at 2019-03-06 11:56 PM | Reply

Why are people engaging deniers? This is the real world. If deniers want to argue climate change let them do it among themselves on their own contrived forums. Its time for the reality based to ignore them.
#66 | POSTED BY PRIUS04

Given such a strong position, surely you have thoroughly researched the topic. Maybe you can explain temperature anomaly to Snoofy.

#67 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 12:08 AM | Reply

Or maybe Nob could explain why birds and vegetation are migrating northward.

So far, he thinks it's just a political statement.

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-03-07 12:16 AM | Reply

Or maybe Nob could explain why birds and vegetation are migrating northward.
So far, he thinks it's just a political statement.
#68 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Maybe because we have been on a warming trend since the end of the last ice age. Maybe because of the solar cycle which has led to warming in all of the other planets in our solar system. Maybe because of some contribution by human. We don't know what is the % that can be attributed to each and any statement that we do is religious dogma and not science.

That said, we can quantify the cost of bringing the US to net-zero CO2 emissions. What we don't have is any real study of the costs of inaction based on models with predictions that aligns with actual temperature observations. Show me a model that is valid, then we can discuss costs/benefits.

#69 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 12:22 AM | Reply

"Maybe because we have been on a warming trend since the end of the last ice age. Maybe because of the solar cycle which has led to warming in all of the other planets in our solar system. Maybe because of some contribution by human. We don't know what is the % that can be attributed to each and any statement that we do is religious dogma and not science.
That said, we can quantify the cost of bringing the US to net-zero CO2 emissions. What we don't have is any real study of the costs of inaction based on models with predictions that aligns with actual temperature observations. Show me a model that is valid, then we can discuss costs/benefits.
#69 | POSTED BY NOBIASPOSTER101 AT 2019-03-07 12:22 AM"

One may always say "maybe". As always, opinions do not dictate reality.

Claiming we are in a warming period after the last Ice Age is essentially tautological. If anything, according to analysis of glaciation cycles. we should be heading into a cooling period. However, the opposite is happening:

skepticalscience.com

As for the 'warming of all the other planets': NOT happening. One would only have to examine the temperatures of Mercury and Venus. Since they are the closest to the Sun, one would reasonably conclude they would show the greatest (if not at least a similar) change. They don't. There are other explanations for the temperatures of SOME planets rising.

skepticalscience.com

"That said...":
Ah, the old "given this, then that must be true". So far, it's NOT a given. It's actually more GIGO!

While it's prudent to not confuse reality with models, that does not mean models are useless. Nor does it justify ignoring the results of models simply because they are not "perfect". One should be aware of a model's purpose, assumptions, and limitations.

#70 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-03-07 05:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

One may always say "maybe". As always, opinions do not dictate reality.

- Maybe is the correct terminology when we are not certain - and no - we don't reach certainty by having a consensus. We have have certainty when we have supporting models via the scientific method and even then - it is accepted but not in a religious way.

Claiming we are in a warming period after the last Ice Age is essentially tautological.

Tautological is the best description for Global Warming - which is now why it is climate change. Too cold? Climate Change! Too dry? Climate Change! Too wet? Climate Change!

The way the dogmatic believers have set up the system, there is no possible outcome which disproves global warming - which is why they simply brush off of 'seek to hide' inconvenient things like the medieval warming period or the high temperature throughout the 30's and subsequent cooling through to the mid 70's.

"If anything, according to analysis of glaciation cycles. we should be heading into a cooling period."

- With the sun going into a solar minimum, I would suspect we will have cooling and return to a +/- 0.5 degree anomaly within the next 2-3 years. With the current anomaly at +0.71, this is a moderate decline but make the decade warming trend at only about .1 degree with a slight cooling trend.

However, the opposite is happening:
skepticalscience.com

- Actually, this is not correct - which is not surprising as you are getting your data from a proven dishonest site like skepticalscience. We have already entered a cooling phase. If we get the same drop from 2017-2018 in 2018 to 2019 (which seems likely at this point), the temperature anomaly will be in the +0.5 range already.

As for the 'warming of all the other planets': NOT happening. One would only have to examine the temperatures of Mercury and Venus.

- Again, skepticalscience is junk science. They make mistakes in solar irradiance because they are not measuring all bands. It is why they show output decreasing during solar storms - which is just factually wrong.

While it's prudent to not confuse reality with models, that does not mean models are useless.

- Models are great - when their projections match the observed reality. We don't have that yet for climate models. Of course, you would not know that if you are foolish enough to trust skepticalscience. They routinely take graphs from the IPCC - but then change the labels, etc to hide the fact that the models were completely wrong.

Look - I am willing to accept that the earth is warming. Personally, I think a lot of this has to due with albedo due to clean air regulations (which we all agree are a good thing). A return to heavy smog, although bad for our health, would absolutely lead to decrease rate in warming. Maybe that is the least costly approach. But, until we have reliable models, you are just pissing in the wind because not cost/benefit calculation can be performed.

#71 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 08:31 AM | Reply

"Maybe because we have been on a warming trend since the end of the last ice age."

At this accelerating rate? GTFOOH.

"What we don't have is any real study of the costs of inaction"

So you can tap-dance on the costs estimates, and shift the discussion

"Show me a model that is valid"

What a transparent dodge, when it's obvious no model will pass your bar.

#72 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-03-07 09:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

At this accelerating rate? GTFOOH.

- Serious questions: have you actually looked at the data from US government sources? I find that hard to believe or you would see much higher rates of growth during the 1930's (1934 is the highest, un-adjusted year on record by far) not to mention during the MEWP, or even the rate of increase from 1975-1985. In fact, from roughly 1998-2015 - THERE WAS NO WARMING. This was referred to as "The Pause", which countless AGW papers tried to explain. As far as moving from 2017 to today, we see much lower temps already with the diminishing effect of the El Nino. Again, I can only assume your are either stupid or didn't look at the data prior to making your statement. As such

Uniformed but utter self-assured - DNC 2020!

"What we don't have is any real study of the costs of inaction"
So you can tap-dance on the costs estimates, and shift the discussion

- How can one even tap dance where we have a big void where data is supposed to be?

"Show me a model that is valid"
What a transparent dodge, when it's obvious no model will pass your bar.
#72 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

- How about one that is within the 95% confidence interval 10 years post publication. I think that is the minimum requirement to be defined as statistically valid.

#73 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 10:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

What a transparent dodge, when it's obvious no model will pass your bar.
#72 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Do they pass yours? Why?

#74 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-03-07 10:57 AM | Reply

from roughly 1998-2015 - THERE WAS NO WARMING

You're a liar.

www.climate.gov

#75 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-07 10:57 AM | Reply

Danforth presents the ultimate dodge ...

Because if there was a model that was even remotely close or accurate 5yrs 10yrs out, the GW crowd would be announcing it from the hilltops, and quite frankly I might believe them.

Much like I believe gravity exists and we can affect it, because we have a fairly accurate way to describe it, a working model. Sure it doesn't always match measured, but its pretty darn close 100% of the time.

#76 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-03-07 11:01 AM | Reply

#75 | POSTED BY JOE

Slow Joe, you are out of your league here. Just sit quietly in the corner. Temp anomaly in 1998 =.7, temp anomaly in 2012 = .7. You can change facts to fit your religion. The IPCC even dedicated a whole section to the pause. Try to keep up.

#77 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 11:16 AM | Reply

and quite frankly I might believe them.

- You and me both. But they can't provide that. Maybe they have a workable model but it lacks the shock and awe value. But as of now, their models are not statistically valid.

#78 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 11:18 AM | Reply

#77 Doesn't change the fact that there was warming from 1998-2015.

You said "there was no warming."

There was warming.

You are a liar.

#79 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-07 11:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Yeah, this is a tough choice of who to buh-lieve, the Lawrence Livermore Nat Lab or NoBrainsPoster and mAndy Mattress.

Decisions, decisions.

#80 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-07 11:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Yeah, this is a tough choice of who to buh-lieve,

- how about the one that has no financial incentive to shade their conclusion. How about the one that never manipulated the historic record because it didn't show the trend they wanted. How about the one that does not hold up statistically invalid models as the truth.

#81 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 11:32 AM | Reply

"Slow Joe, you are out of your league here. Just sit quietly in the corner." - #77 | Posted by self-proclaimed idiot at 2019-03-07 11:16 AM

#82 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-07 11:33 AM | Reply

It's not that important, but it seems there was an unexplained slowdown in warming, if not a halt.

Global warming ‘hiatus' debate flares up again

Researchers now argue that slowdown in warming was real.
www.nature.com

#83 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-07 11:38 AM | Reply

Re:#71 NOBIASPOSTER

I'm unable to devote sufficient time at the moment to reply to your comments in the detail they deserve, but two pertinent points can't wait:

1. It seems you to not fully understand the word tautology. It refers to something which is needlessly defined or iterated.In this example, it is needless to say we are in a warming period after the last ice age, since if we weren't in a warming period, we would still be IN the last ice age. Therefore, it is inherently true but useless claim which neither proves nor disproves your assertions.

2. It's acceptable to question one's sources. However, it is not acceptable to A) ignore the issue it raises and B) expect that one's opinion about the validity of a source will be sufficient to disparage the source. In that spirit, the link below will support the validity of using SkS (Skeptical Science) for information about this topic. BTW, SkS is not beholding to any group for financing or promoting of a political agenda. The author (James Cook) has received quite a few accolades and confirmation for his work on this subject.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

#84 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-03-07 11:38 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#81

How about the ones who has no clue what they are talking about... you know, the ones I named.

But hey, conspiracy theorists abound among the naive. Just ax' Mattress about Crisis Actors... or others about how Rogers handles climate change deniers.

Have fun with that.

#85 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-07 11:40 AM | Reply

who have

#86 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-07 11:40 AM | Reply

--handles climate change deniers.

I'm quite sure your definition of "denier" is far broader than those who totally deny MMGW, but includes anyone who doesn't sign off on the most extreme predictions and doesn't think the current state of the science justifies an insanely expensive and coercive government program to deal with it.

#87 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-07 11:57 AM | Reply

#87

And just what is your expertise as to the "current state of the science"? Are you something more than a layman on the subject?

#88 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-03-07 12:09 PM | Reply

1. It seems you to not fully understand the word tautology.

- I am going with this definition because it is most relevant to the debate at hand:
- In logic, a tautology is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation

However, it is not acceptable to A) ignore the issue it raises and

- There are not issues without their outright lies and mislabeling of the IPCC data.

In that spirit, the link below will support the validity of using SkS (Skeptical Science) for information about this topic.

- In case you missed it, your mediabias site IS BIASED. No different that Snopes or 'fact checking' by WaPO.

BTW, SkS is not beholding to any group for financing or promoting of a political agenda.

- You are joking, right? You cannot possibly believe this.

#89 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 12:21 PM | Reply

- I'm quite sure your definition

Strawman Factory at full production speed.... assigning ectreme positions to me while you then provide one of your own... funny stuff.

- an insanely expensive and coercive government program

Obviously your definition as you state it is among, "the most extreme predictions" among you and your rwing friends at Fox News.

#90 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-07 12:30 PM | Reply

That said, we can quantify the cost of bringing the US to net-zero CO2 emissions. What we don't have is any real study of the costs of inaction based on models with predictions that aligns with actual temperature observations. Show me a model that is valid, then we can discuss costs/benefits.

#69 | Posted by nobiasposter101

You can't even guestimate the cost of moving all the coastal cities inland and relocating the farms to canada and dealing with tropical diseases and insect plagues?

It's a hell of a lot more than the cost of burning less carbon.

#91 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-07 02:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Because if there was a model that was even remotely close or accurate 5yrs 10yrs out, the GW crowd would be announcing it from the hilltops, and quite frankly I might believe them.

People should understand that these models are explanatory and not predictive. People should also understand that disregarding accepted science because an explanatory model does not accurately extrapolate ahead 5 or 10 years is just silly.

#92 | Posted by horstngraben at 2019-03-07 03:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"But, until we have reliable models, you are just pissing in the wind because not cost/benefit calculation can be performed."

Then you must have been lying when you said "Because if the result is 1-2 degrees ... the cost of eliminating CO2 far outweighs the benefits."

Glad we cleared that up. Again.

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-07 03:44 PM | Reply

Carbon sequestration currently costs around $120 - $140 per ton if anybody cares about the numbers.

#94 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-03-07 04:51 PM | Reply

How much does not sequestering a ton of carbon cost in terms of climate impact? :)

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-07 04:55 PM | Reply

--Carbon sequestration currently costs around $120 - $140 per ton if anybody cares about the numbers.

Yeah but carbon sequestration is not sexy and cool like electric cars that you can virtue signal with by driving around town with an "I'm Saving the Planet" bumpersticker. Not as cool as bragging you have solar panels on your roof either.

#96 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-07 05:03 PM | Reply

"Yeah but carbon sequestration is not sexy and cool like electric cars"

Electic cars largely obviate the need for carbon sequestration in the first place...

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-07 05:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Yeah but carbon sequestration is not sexy and cool like electric cars that you can virtue signal with by driving around town with an "I'm Saving the Planet" bumpersticker. Not as cool as bragging you have solar panels on your roof either.

#96 | Posted by nullifidian

Virtue signaling would be wearing a shirt that says "I drive an electric car."

Actually buying one isn't virtue SIGNALING, it's virtue HAVING.

Those people spend more on their cars so that YOUR planet survives. And instead of thanking them you whine about them.

Really you just hate it when people make you look selfish by being a better person than you.

#98 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-07 05:56 PM | Reply

#96 |

His brown kid cages are strictly coal-powered.

#99 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-07 06:32 PM | Reply

Electic cars largely obviate the need for carbon sequestration in the first place...
#97 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

All transportation is about 28% of total CO2 (including planes, ships, etc). We could go 100% electric cars in the US and the result of global CO2 would be a reduction of 4%. So, within 1 year, that entire effect would be wiped out by an increase in global emissions from China and India.

Again, educate yourself before making such stupid statements in the future. How can you know so little about this topic and yet feel so confident in your knowledge?

#100 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 07:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

All transportation is about 28% of total CO2 (including planes, ships, etc). We could go 100% electric cars in the US and the result of global CO2 would be a reduction of 4%. So, within 1 year, that entire effect would be wiped out by an increase in global emissions from China and India.

Again, educate yourself before making such stupid statements in the future. How can you know so little about this topic and yet feel so confident in your knowledge?

#100 | Posted by nobiasposter101

Say that to a mirror comrade sheeple:

www.reuters.com

"China, the world's biggest energy consumer, cut its 2005 carbon intensity level, or the amount of climate-warming carbon dioxide it produces per unit of economic growth, by 46 percent in 2017, Xie told a forum in Shanghai on Tuesday.

Carbon intensity fell 5.1 percent in 2017 compared to the previous year, Xinhua said, suggesting that China's war on pollution also helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

Amazing what you can do without republicans to stand in the way.

#101 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-07 07:22 PM | Reply

"China, the world's biggest energy consumer, cut its 2005 carbon intensity level, or the amount of climate-warming carbon dioxide it produces per unit of economic growth, by 46 percent in 2017
#101 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

CARBON INTENSITY, not CO2 produced. Their carbon footprint continues to expand and is more than the US and EU combined. The only thing holding that back at the moment is the fact that they are experiencing an economic collapse.

#102 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 07:30 PM | Reply

#102 | Posted by nobiasposter101

Semantics. The US is will always be a bigger problem than china because we have republicans who fight to INCREASE our carbon use while china is cutting theirs.

www.theguardian.com

"China aims to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions through trading scheme

Heavily polluting power plants across China will now have to choose between paying for their emissions or cleaning up their act

China has already set out a target of ensuring its still-growing emissions peak by 2030, a target experts say should be met. Which means the highest point will have been reached and emissions will begin to fall. However Keohane said the new emissions trading system could allow that peaking – essential if the world is to remain within the goals of the Paris agreement, to hold temperature rises to no more than 2 degrees C – to take place years earlier."

#103 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-07 07:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#103 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Chinese propaganda.

#104 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-07 07:42 PM | Reply

China has already set out a target of ensuring its still-growing emissions peak by 2030
#103 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

LOL, haven't you heard - the world ends in 12 years! The growth in China's emissions between 2019 and 2030 will be more than the entire output of the US currently. The only thing holding that back is a total Chinese economic collapse and frankly, a total Chinese economic collapse would be far worse for the world than their carbon footprint continuing to expand.

#105 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 07:47 PM | Reply

"Again, educate yourself before making such stupid statements in the future." - #100 | Posted by self-proclaimed idiot at 2019-03-07 07:06 PM

#106 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-07 07:49 PM | Reply

#106 | POSTED BY HANS

That was not funny or intelligent the first 5 times you posted it, why did you think that would change with its 6th airing?

#107 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 07:51 PM | Reply

"That was not funny or intelligent the first 5 times you posted it..." - #107 | Posted by self-proclaimed idiot at 2019-03-07 07:51 PM

And, yet, it was enough to get you to reply.

Thanks!

#108 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-07 07:52 PM | Reply

Chinese propaganda.

#104 | Posted by nullifidian

Only russian propaganda is allowed around here!

#109 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-07 07:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

a total Chinese economic collapse would be far worse for the world than their carbon footprint continuing to expand.

#105 | Posted by nobiasposter101

Said like someone who still hasn't bothered to look into the economic effects of climate change.

#110 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-07 07:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Said like someone who still hasn't bothered to look into the economic effects of climate change.
#110 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Chinese economic collapse is likely to result in a world war as they invade their neighbors to distract their unemployed and desperate population. They have 21M excess males vs. females of military age that will never be married, have a family, and now have very poor economic prospects. That is way worse than anything climate related. There likely will be war that turns nuclear.

#111 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 08:03 PM | Reply

Only russian propaganda is allowed around here!
#109 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Speaking of Russians, can you explain to me again why Chelsea Manning is a hero to the left when she gave US government secrets to Wikileaks - which all Dems now conclude is a Russian Intelligence front?

Was Obama colluding with the Russians when he commuted her sentence? Surely, he knew Wikileaks was Russian at the time because he authorized the entire 2016 campaign investigations and FISA warrants based on that. Why wasn't Manning executed for giving our secrets to Russia? She does the left still cheer her to this day? Is Wikileaks only Russian Intelligence when the give details on the Dems?

#112 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 08:09 PM | Reply

"China aims to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions through trading scheme

103 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-03-07 07:39 PM | REPLY

Last time they did a trading scheme, very clever Chinese industrialists figured out how to monetize the production of toxic refridgerant chemicals and dump them into the atmosphere.

#113 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-03-07 08:11 PM | Reply

Wowser... so, the Lawrence Livermore Lab is conspiring against the climate along
with the Chinese who are the REAL reason not to worry about mmcc because Chinese nukes!

We seem to be getting a lot of Alex Jones' audience around here these days.

#114 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-07 08:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Chinese economic collapse is likely to result in a world war as they invade their neighbors to distract their unemployed and desperate population. They have 21M excess males vs. females of military age that will never be married, have a family, and now have very poor economic prospects. That is way worse than anything climate related. There likely will be war that turns nuclear.

#111 | Posted by nobiasposter101

So you're just now trying to PROVE that you haven't looked into the economic threats of climate change?

All of those same threats, plus more.

#115 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-07 08:33 PM | Reply

Speaking of Russians, can you explain to me again why Chelsea Manning is a hero to the left when she gave US government secrets to Wikileaks - which all Dems now conclude is a Russian Intelligence front?

Was Obama colluding with the Russians when he commuted her sentence? Surely, he knew Wikileaks was Russian at the time because he authorized the entire 2016 campaign investigations and FISA warrants based on that. Why wasn't Manning executed for giving our secrets to Russia? She does the left still cheer her to this day? Is Wikileaks only Russian Intelligence when the give details on the Dems?

#112 | Posted by nobiasposter101

Speaking of russians, let's derail the thread so a russian can play the whataboutobama game!

#116 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-07 08:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Weather is manipulated and outright controlled by technologies we are unable to quantify. NOAH is three systems combined - all spouting the same data that has been confined to meteorological data and not the chemistry causing it. Imo.

#117 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-03-07 08:44 PM | Reply

"Last time they did a trading scheme, very clever Chinese industrialists figured out how to monetize the production of toxic refridgerant chemicals and dump them into the atmosphere."

Thanks, Capitalism!

#118 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-07 09:10 PM | Reply

"Electic cars largely obviate the need for carbon sequestration in the first place...
#97 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

All transportation is about 28% of total CO2 (including planes, ships, etc). We could go 100% electric cars in the US and the result of global CO2 would be a reduction of 4%"

Context.
Nullifidian was talking about cars.
I was also talking about cars.
In the context of cars, if we humans go all electric, it largely obviates the need to sequester any carbon emissions associated with cars.

#119 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-07 09:16 PM | Reply

So, you liberals that are using your computer right now are using electricity. Is this power from Wind, solar, coal, natural gas or Nuclear?

if you own a car, whether battery or gas you are still burning fossil fuels. it takes electricity to charge those batteries.

so shut off your computers, turn off your lights, shut off your furnace or shut up

#120 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-03-07 09:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Is this power from Wind, solar, coal, natural gas or Nuclear?"

Yes.

#121 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-07 09:25 PM | Reply

"if you own a car, whether battery or gas you are still burning fossil fuels. it takes electricity to charge those batteries."

Yes but it results in about one-third the CO2 of burning gasoline.

Internal combustion engines power cars not because they're thermodynamically efficient, but because they're remarkably reliable.

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-07 09:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

but the footprint of producing lithium, lead or any other kind of batteries is enormous

I work in the battery industry, you should see the big ass equipment in the mines that produce the raw materials for these batteries. And, it's growing because of the need for batteries

Lithium Batteries are dangerous, certain sizes are not allowed to be in a commercial plane. they can explode

#123 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-03-07 09:37 PM | Reply

Internal combustion engines power cars not because they're thermodynamically efficient, but because they're remarkably reliable.
#122 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

No - that are shockingly unreliable compared to electric. What they do have is:

1.) Range
2.) Fast fueling
3.) Cheap to produce and run

Even if oil runs out, you could use coal gas or wood gas to power them.

#124 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 09:41 PM | Reply

"that are shockingly unreliable compared to electric"

Maybe they were a century ago.
Anyone can make a reliable car nowadays.
I'm drawing a blank to think of the last time a car I owned had engine problems.

Ah yes now I remember it was the Ford Granada with the straigh six. Car would be about as old as me if it were still alive.

#125 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-07 09:45 PM | Reply

"Lithium Batteries are dangerous, certain sizes are not allowed to be in a commercial plane. they can explode"

That's why I always bring Jerry cans of gasoline on the airplane. So much safer!

#126 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-07 09:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

So, you liberals that are using your computer right now are using electricity. Is this power from Wind, solar, coal, natural gas or Nuclear?

if you own a car, whether battery or gas you are still burning fossil fuels. it takes electricity to charge those batteries.

so shut off your computers, turn off your lights, shut off your furnace or shut up

#120 | Posted by Maverick

The old "if you use fossil fuels you cant oppose reducing them" argument is the dumbest one in the game. Goatman used to pull that crap.

I could just as easily argue that you can't be pro life unless you'd throw yourself in front of a car to save a squirrel.

#127 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-07 09:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Even if oil runs out, you could use coal gas or wood gas to power them.

#124 | Posted by nobiasposter101

Russian cars run on wood?

#128 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-07 09:48 PM | Reply

They sure don't run on ethanol, that's exclusively for Russians themselves to run on.

#129 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-07 09:50 PM | Reply

Hey Maverick,

If you ever had unprotected sex but didn't do it to cause a pregnancy, does that mean you have to be pro abortion?

I suppose, since I'm talking to the DR Right, should clarify: sex with a female old enough to breed, which I think is like nine these days.

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-07 09:54 PM | Reply

Anyone can make a reliable car nowadays.

- Thanks Capitalism!

I'm drawing a blank to think of the last time a car I owned had engine problems.

- Probably because you never owned a car and will likely never scrape together enough money to buy one in the future. This is all just theoretical for you. So, you might have your mom load you up in the minivan for your weekly LARPing session in the park, but you will never own a car yourself. If you did own a car, you would know that electric motors are way more reliable that combustion engines and require way less maintenance to keep them running smoothly.

#131 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 10:09 PM | Reply

If you ever had unprotected sex but didn't do it to cause a pregnancy
#130 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You are talking purely theoretical again Snoofy. No female lady would ever get within 10 feet you and I am pretty sure the court orders keep your away from the school children. It really does not matter how good you are at LARPing, that is not a turn on for female ladies.

#132 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 10:12 PM | Reply

So, you liberals that are using your computer right now are using electricity. Is this power from Wind, solar, coal, natural gas or Nuclear?
if you own a car, whether battery or gas you are still burning fossil fuels. it takes electricity to charge those batteries.
so shut off your computers, turn off your lights, shut off your furnace or shut up
#120 | POSTED BY MAVERICK AT 2019-03-07 09:25 PM

What is wrong with geothermal?! It's plentiful, safest of all and 100% sustainable. Everything else is designed as a profiteering scheme.

I cannot forgive removing Carters solar panels just to spite that technology diverting money away from Big Oil.

#133 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-03-07 10:25 PM | Reply

"No female lady would ever get within 10 feet you"

Noone's ever mistaken your mom for a lady.

#134 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-07 10:40 PM | Reply

Noone's ever mistaken your mom for a lady.
#134 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

My mom's been dead for 40 years. I guess that explains the shovel you were carrying the other day.

#135 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 11:07 PM | Reply

What is wrong with geothermal?! It's plentiful, safest of all and 100% sustainable.
#133 | POSTED BY REDLIGHTROBOT

I think we can all agree on geothermal - the problem is that it is geographically limited where you can get the 180C+ temps needed at reasonable depths. If we were like Iceland - different story. As it stands, there should be huge geothermal plants sprouting up in Nevada and Socal. The issue with the geographic locations of the hot spots is that you will lose a ton with transmission. In that regard, mini-natural gas power plants located closer to customers would also have huge gains in efficiency at relatively low costs.

#136 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 11:13 PM | Reply

"The issue with the geographic locations of the hot spots is that you will lose a ton with transmission."

Provided a ton means six percent, okay.

#137 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-07 11:16 PM | Reply

Provided a ton means six percent, okay.
#137 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

That is on local distribution -------. You know, the kind where you transmit power for a couple of miles from the local plant to your house. And the number is 8-15%. Now, factor in transmitting the power from SoCal to Upstate New York as our geothermal accessible locations are all on the opposite side of the country.

Again, how can you be so self-assured yet so ignorant at the same time?

#138 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-07 11:24 PM | Reply

You remind me of a less informed Goatman.

#139 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-08 12:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Now, factor in transmitting the power from SoCal to Upstate New York"

I'm imagining 2-4%.

Considering the main parts of a typical Transmission & Distribution network, here are the average values of power losses at the different steps*:
1-2% – Step-up transformer from generator to Transmission line
2-4% – Transmission line
1-2% – Step-down transformer from Transmission line to Distribution network
4-6% – Distribution network transformers and cables
The overall losses between the power plant and consumers is then in the range between 8 and 15%.
blog.schneider-electric.com

#140 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-08 12:14 AM | Reply

I'm imagining 2-4%.

- you are imaging wrong (seems to be a theme for you) and I will explain below.

The overall losses between the power plant and consumers is then in the range between 8 and 15%.
blog.schneider-electric.com
#140 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

- Yes, like I told you above already where your number was 6%. However, I am proud that you at least put in a minimal amount of effort this time before throwing out a number. But again, this is for local transmission - not long distance.

For that, we have a loss of 0.5% - 1.0% per 100 miles of transmission line. From NY to NV, we are looking at ~2,300 miles. So, we add another 11.5% - 23% loss on the long distance transmission part.

So, we are now at 8% + 11.5% = 19.5% on the low end and 15% + 23% = 38% on the high end. When we can compare that back to your initial statement of 6%, we see you are off by a factor of over 300% on the low end and 650% on the high end.

So, I ask you again - how can you be so consistently wrong and yet so self-assured?

#141 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 01:52 AM | Reply

#120 | Posted by Maverick

It's likely half the alt-right posters here power their XP computers with twin rats named Meth and Phetimine on a generator wheel, fed meth laced dog food.

#142 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-03-08 03:34 AM | Reply

The problem is, the rats don't get all of the meth ... thus the nonsense the energy mavericks spew.

#143 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-03-08 03:35 AM | Reply

" 'If anything, according to analysis of glaciation cycles. we should be heading into a cooling period.'

- With the sun going into a solar minimum, I would suspect we will have cooling and return to a +/- 0.5 degree anomaly within the next 2-3 years. With the current anomaly at +0.71, this is a moderate decline but make the decade warming trend at only about .1 degree with a slight cooling trend.
#71 | POSTED BY NOBIASPOSTER101 AT 2019-03-07 08:31 AM"

Actually, I was referring to the Milankovitch cycles (www.indiana.edu) indicating that the Earth seems to have already reached peak temperature since the latest glaciation epoch.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

However, if you intended to focus more on the immediate/shot-term effects attributed to the solar irradiance (aka "sunspot cycle"), then there's another problem:
If anything, the irradiance data is showing a decrease during a time when the global average temperature is still increasing.

spaceweatherarchive.com

climate.nasa.gov

#144 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-03-08 05:13 AM | Reply

" '1. It seems you to not fully understand the word tautology.'

- I am going with this definition because it is most relevant to the debate at hand:
- In logic, a tautology is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation"
#89 | POSTED BY NOBIASPOSTER101 AT 2019-03-07 12:21 PM"

There's a reason why a "formula or assertion is true in every possible interpretation". It's because it is saying the same thing in a redundant/repetitive manner. Therefore, it is not adding to and/or supporting a claim with new evidence! That is NOT the same as saying a term can be applied equally to mean different things.

TAUTOLOGY:

noun
the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession ).
synonyms: repetition, repetitiveness, repetitiousness, reiteration, redundancy, superfluity, periphrasis, iteration, duplication; More
a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words.
plural noun: tautologies
LOGIC
a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.

#145 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-03-08 05:25 AM | Reply

If anything, the irradiance data is showing a decrease during a time when the global average temperature is still increasing.
spaceweatherarchive.com
climate.nasa.gov
#144 | POSTED BY TRUEBLUE

That is not actually true. From 2000 - 2015ish, we have no increase in temperature. That was 'The Pause'. After that, we had a large El Nino effect with peak temperature hitting in 2017. 2018 was significantly cooler and 2019 will be significantly than 2018. As I said, I would suspect we will have falling temperatures as we just reached the solar minium. As for the Milankovitch cycles, that may well drive a coming ice age - but as far as I understand it, it is still only a theory that Milankovitch cycles cause ice ages. I am more focused on near term issues and the sun is the biggest driver.

#146 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 05:28 AM | Reply

" 'However, it is not acceptable to A) ignore the issue it raises and ...'

- There are not issues without their outright lies and mislabeling of the IPCC data.
In that spirit, the link below will support the validity of using SkS (Skeptical Science) for information about this topic.
- In case you missed it, your mediabias site IS BIASED. No different that Snopes or 'fact checking' by WaPO.
BTW, SkS is not beholding to any group for financing or promoting of a political agenda.
- You are joking, right? You cannot possibly believe this.
#89 | POSTED BY NOBIASPOSTER101 AT 2019-03-07 12:21 PM"

Again, you'll have to provide more than 'your opinion' if you are to be taken seriously.
Simply saying 'is biased' (the equivalent claim of "fake news") is not going to sufficient.

#147 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-03-08 05:30 AM | Reply

RE: #146 | POSTED BY NOBIASPOSTER101 AT 2019-03-08 05:28 AM

Your observation/concern has been acknowledged and addressed in the links provided above. You read them, right?

How about providing a link with supports your claim that "From 2000 - 2015ish, we have no increase in temperature."?

I'm not questioning it, but suspect references to that event have either been addressed at the time or subsequently.

So, how about it?

Your claim; your proof.

#148 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-03-08 05:35 AM | Reply

Again, you'll have to provide more than 'your opinion' if you are to be taken seriously.
Simply saying 'is biased' (the equivalent claim of "fake news") is not going to sufficient.
#147 | POSTED BY TRUEBLUE

If you don't think SKS is biased, I really don't know what to tell you. You can go back and compare the graphs (including labels) published by the IPCC and compare those to ones used on their site. They routinely mislabel as the IPCC has been an utter failure in projecting temperature anomalies. If you are honest in talking about the subject and did anything beyond a cursory investigation into climate change, you know this already.

#149 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 05:43 AM | Reply

"If you don't think SKS is biased, I really don't know what to tell you. You can go back and compare the graphs (including labels) published by the IPCC and compare those to ones used on their site. They routinely mislabel as the IPCC has been an utter failure in projecting temperature anomalies. If you are honest in talking about the subject and did anything beyond a cursory investigation into climate change, you know this already.
POSTED BY NOBIASPOSTER101 AT 2019-03-08 05:43 AM

My opinion of SkS is irrelevant.
I already acknowledged your concern and subsequently provided supporting info from the NDCC and NASA. Their info backs up what SkS published.

Similarly, your opinion (especially without any supporting information) of SkS is irrelevant.
It's ironic that you question my honesty in this discussion, given that I've addressed your concerns and what I've provided.

Your turn. Let's see what you've got.

#150 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-03-08 06:11 AM | Reply

BiasedPoster is following his MO - make wild claims with no supporting authority, gets called on it and just calls other people stupid. I applaud anyone willing to hand his ass to him, but you're wasting your time.

#151 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-08 06:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here is my source on cooling due to sun cycle.

www.livescience.com

As for SKS being garbage, they routinely mislabel and change IPCC graphs without telling their readers the graph presented is not as included in the IPCC.

#152 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 07:48 AM | Reply

From 2000 - 2015ish, we have no increase in temperature.

This was disproven all the way back in post #75, liar.

#153 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-08 07:58 AM | Reply

This was disproven all the way back in post #75, liar.
#153 | POSTED BY JOE

Please provide the link which can explain away how the anomaly was the same at the beginning and end of the period with with no statistically valid growth trend over the course of that period. And no, debunking is not claiming there was warming in the deep ocean that mysteriously bypassed the Argo floats in what I would term the "David Blaine" effect.

#154 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 08:53 AM | Reply

But it snowed today so it's obviously hokum.
#2 | POSTED BY NIXON

What's distressing is that these "Deniers" you are making fun of have more scientific credibility than the scientists who create these reports.

#155 | Posted by JordyPete at 2019-03-08 08:54 AM | Reply

What's distressing is that these "Deniers" you are making fun of have more scientific credibility than the scientists who create these reports.
#155 | POSTED BY JORDYPETE

They call people deniers like they are uneducated rubes. I guess a guy like Richard Lindzen has no credibility to them despite his PhD from Harvard, teach career spanning Harvard, UCLA, U of Chicago, and MIT mean nothing. He even was an author for one of the IPCC reports. I think he has 200+ paper and books to his name. He achieved award after award...until, he said climate change was bunk.

#156 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 09:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What's distressing is that these "Deniers" you are making fun of have more scientific credibility than the scientists who create these reports.
#155 | Posted by JordyPete at 2019-03-0

What's distressing, JODY, is what a godamned liar you are.

#157 | Posted by Zed at 2019-03-08 09:20 AM | Reply

climate change was bunk.

#156 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 09:07 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The climate is changing in Texas.

#158 | Posted by Zed at 2019-03-08 09:27 AM | Reply

... He achieved award after award...until, he said climate change was bunk.
#156 | POSTED BY NOBIASPOSTER101

Agreed. What makes this idiocy jump in scale is when AOC let the cat out of the bag with the "Green New Deal". It's surreal to watch these morons actually expect that we should still believe them after they reveal their motive for lying to us about Climate Change in plain and certain terms.

Personally, I believe (mostly because there is no scientific proof) that man has caused some systems in the environment to change. The problem that scientists have, and I give them every benefit of the doubt, is that the proof they finally arrive at using the scientific method vanishes when a peer attempts to replicate. There are far too many variables.

The real problem that we have is convincing other countries to stop this outrageous rise in pollution. It's alarming. We, the US, are taking care of ours and if carbon emissions are the indicator, then we have scientific proof of that.

#159 | Posted by JordyPete at 2019-03-08 09:29 AM | Reply

What's distressing, JODY, is what a godamned liar you are.
#157 | POSTED BY ZED

Where have I lied? LOL! Just because you disagree doesn't make me a liar. The idiocy of this is that you Lefties actually believe that mankind knows everything about the planet. Our knowledge of just this planet is less than 1%. Our knowledge of the Universe is infinitely less.

#160 | Posted by JordyPete at 2019-03-08 09:34 AM | Reply

"Lefties actually believe that mankind knows everything about the planet."
Strawman. thanks for playing.

#161 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 09:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

these "Deniers" you are making fun of have more scientific credibility than the scientists who create these reports.
#155 | Posted by JordyPete at 2019-03-08 08:54 AM | Reply

Is a lie.

#162 | Posted by Zed at 2019-03-08 09:39 AM | Reply

The climate is changing in Texas. I've been here long enough to see it. If it keeps changing this way, the western part of the state will de-populate.

#163 | Posted by Zed at 2019-03-08 09:42 AM | Reply

"Lefties actually believe that mankind knows everything about the planet."
Strawman. thanks for playing.
#161 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

Yes, Alexandrite, I believe this is an unfair characterization of you. I think you fully realize that you are a clueless ----.

As for Slo' Joe, I think he should start each reply with:

"Hello! I am Slo' Joe. I am completely uniformed about the topic being discussed and I am far too stupid and lazy to do even cursory research on the topic at hand but I STRONGLY belive X, Y, Z!"

#164 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 09:42 AM | Reply

The climate is changing in Texas. I've been here long enough to see it. If it keeps changing this way, the western part of the state will de-populate.
#163 | POSTED BY ZED

From what year until what year are you using as your frame of reference?

#165 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 09:43 AM | Reply

ad hominem.

You're not changing anyone's mind using facts, you're just being a little ------- to your intellectual superiors(which is everyone btw)

#166 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 09:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I am completely uniformed about the topic"

People were talking about this at least by 1965. More than enough time for research.

Russia will starve before we do.

#167 | Posted by Zed at 2019-03-08 09:45 AM | Reply

From what year until what year are you using as your frame of reference?

#165 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 201

Jesus.

1952 until present.

Frame of reference is the freaking environment.

#168 | Posted by Zed at 2019-03-08 09:45 AM | Reply

--The climate is changing in Texas. I've been here long enough to see it.

I've been in California for 60 years. Haven't seen any change at all. Ergo my useless personal anecdote neutralizes your useless personal anecdote.

#169 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-08 09:50 AM | Reply

"They routinely mislabel as the IPCC has been an utter failure in projecting temperature anomalies."

Their goal isn't to predict anomalies.

The earth getting warmer isn't an anomaly.

#170 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-08 09:53 AM | Reply

#169 | Posted by nullifidian at

The change hits first in places with continental type climates, large interior landmasses.

That's a lot of Texas.

California has this nice ocean.

#171 | Posted by Zed at 2019-03-08 09:53 AM | Reply

If you want to see dramatic, in your face signs of climate change then look at Alaska. What's happening to the trees?

#172 | Posted by Zed at 2019-03-08 09:57 AM | Reply

In Texas we have these charming relict forests at the top of some mountains. There's actually a score square miles that has been compared to Canada, which I've seen and I compare to Oregon.

You might get to see it. All bets are off in 100 years.

#173 | Posted by Zed at 2019-03-08 09:59 AM | Reply

Please provide the link

The link is in post #75, which disproves your lie that "there was no warming" from 2000-2015.

There was warming. Therefore, your claim is a lie.

#174 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-08 10:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Their goal isn't to predict anomalies.
The earth getting warmer isn't an anomaly.
#170 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

For the love of god - I have told you 4 times already THAT IS NOT WHAT TEMPERATURE ANOMALY MEANS WHEN THE IPCC GRAPHS GLOBAL TEMPERATURE.

You are making your side look dumber than usual. Just stop. Spend a few minutes and actually look what the IPCC is reporting and why they report it that way. My lord you are dumb.

After that, you can go back and ask RCADE to delete your history where you remove any doubt that you are clueless about electrical transmission.

I thought Slo' Joe was dumb...he is world smarter than you.

#175 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 10:02 AM | Reply

The link is in post #75, which disproves your lie that "there was no warming" from 2000-2015.
There was warming. Therefore, your claim is a lie.
#174 | POSTED BY JOE

www.google.com

Spend 2 seconds and google before posting next time. Tell me how your eyes are lying to you now.

#176 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 10:05 AM | Reply

THAT IS NOT WHAT TEMPERATURE ANOMALY MEANS WHEN THE IPCC GRAPHS GLOBAL TEMPERATURE.

Could you speak up, I can't hear you.

Instead of saying what things don't mean, say what they mean.

#177 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-08 10:05 AM | Reply

1952 until present.
Frame of reference is the freaking environment.
168 | POSTED BY ZED

From 1952 to present day, the US has experienced 0.1 degree C of warming each decade. You must be really sensitive to temperature if you can detect that. If you live in a city, the UHI effect will dwarf this change. I would probably suspect the area around you has developed significantly - maybe not - but probably.

#178 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 10:07 AM | Reply

1952 until present.
Frame of reference is the freaking environment.
168 | POSTED BY ZED

From 1952 to present day, the US has experienced 0.1 degree C of warming each decade. You must be really sensitive to temperature if you can detect that. If you live in a city, the UHI effect will dwarf this change. I would probably suspect the area around you has developed significantly - maybe not - but probably.

#179 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 10:07 AM | Reply

Instead of saying what things don't mean, say what they mean.
#177 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I would - but I would deprive you of a teaching moment. Probably a 10 second google search including terms like temperature anomaly reporting NOAA would help to alleviate some of your ignorance.

I have already gave you all the data on electrical transmission - you going to say thank you for that?

#180 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 10:09 AM | Reply

Spend 2 seconds and google before posting next time.

Literally nothing in your link says what you claim it says. Read #75. Tell me what you dispute in that link, and why.

#181 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-08 10:16 AM | Reply

Literally nothing in your link says what you claim it says. Read #75. Tell me what you dispute in that link, and why.
#181 | POSTED BY JOE

I just sent you a link - #176. You have reading comprehension issues so the link is only a graph. Now, I don't expect you to understand how to read a graph - but you can focus in on the area between 2000 and 2015 and clearly see the flat trend line - which is supported by the starting and ending anomaly being the same. Slo' Joe - I know you can do it if you try really hard.

#182 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 10:25 AM | Reply

"Lefties actually believe that mankind knows everything about the planet."
Strawman. thanks for playing.
#161 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

Nope. Not a strawman. And denying that my point is valid makes you a denier. It's a fact that mankind doesn't know everything about the planet, that's why "scientists" making the assumptions that man's activities are causing the climate to change are always proven wrong in a very short time. This is why you are losing the argument. You are not looking at the issue rationally and attacking the person and disregarding facts because it doesn't fit your narrative.

#183 | Posted by JordyPete at 2019-03-08 10:27 AM | Reply

ad hominem.
You're not changing anyone's mind using facts, you're just being a little ------- to your intellectual superiors(which is everyone btw)
#166 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

Leftists minds will not be changed until the motive for lying about Climate Change goes away. The motive is to control. The motive is greed. The motive is to take from those who are productive. This is an old idea. The motive is the same, the method just keeps changing. That's why AOC is so dangerous to the Leftists. She naively applies the method to the motive and puts it right out there for all to see.

#184 | Posted by JordyPete at 2019-03-08 10:32 AM | Reply

the motive is having a nice place to live, and not dying.

That's it.

#185 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 10:33 AM | Reply

"It's a fact that mankind doesn't know everything about the planet"

correct. however ""Lefties actually believe that mankind knows everything about the planet." IS a strawman because literally no leftist says that.

learn what words mean, please. try the dictionary.

#186 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 10:35 AM | Reply

Whatever. It's too late to stop global warming. We should focus on adaptation, like moving people out of high-risk areas subject to rising sea levels.

'We have only four years left to act on climate change - America has to lead'
Jim Hansen is the 'grandfather of climate change' and one of the world's leading climatologists. In this rare interview in New York, he explains why President Obama's administration is the last chance to avoid flooded cities, species extinction and climate catastrophe

Robin McKie, science editor

Sat 17 Jan 2009 19.01 EST
First published on Sat 17 Jan 2009

#187 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-08 10:36 AM | Reply

"temperature anomaly "

it's not an anomaly. you're lying again.

we keep breaking temp records every year. Look up the word "anomaly" and find a better one.

#188 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 10:38 AM | Reply

"Whatever. It's too late to stop global warming. We should focus on adaptation, like moving people out of high-risk areas subject to rising sea levels."

Agreed.

#189 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 10:38 AM | Reply

we keep breaking temp records every year. Look up the word "anomaly" and find a better one.
#188 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

Tell that to NOAA, not me. It is their method for collecting the data, not mine. As to records, 2018 was a large decrease and 2019 will be the same. I think Feb'19 anomaly is down to 0.47C, which is down .4C from Feb 2016, or in other words, global warming has been cut in half in the last 2 years. At 0.47C, we are at like .1C/decade. I expect 2019 to continue with this trend and 2020 basically taking us back to baseline.

By 2022, you -------- will be screaming about the coming ice age and try to pass taxes on food production to ward off global starvation.

#190 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 10:55 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

have you noticed your posts are extraordinarily long and misleading? you're just shotgunning poop at the wall to see what sticks.

go gaslight someone else.

#191 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 10:59 AM | Reply

the link is only a graph

No it isn't.

#192 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-08 11:02 AM | Reply

Do you ever say anything that is true?

#193 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-08 11:02 AM | Reply

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or "hiatus" in the rate of global warming in recent years.

You are a liar, no bias. Good day.

#194 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 11:02 AM | Reply

"or in other words, global warming has been cut in half in the last 2 years."

This is just shameless trumpian lying.

#195 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 11:04 AM | Reply

Researchers now argue that slowdown in warming was real.
www.nature.com

#196 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-08 11:28 AM | Reply

the NOAA nobias keeps citing is so the exact opposite of what he's posting, nulli.

If you want to find another link, it's irrelevant to the point that he is twisting NOAA data to come to the opposite conclusion they have.

thanks for trying, though. you're cute.

#197 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 11:30 AM | Reply

#194 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

From your link:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, released in stages between September 2013 and November 2014, concluded that the upward global surface temperature trend from 1998­­ to 2012 was markedly lower than the trend from 1951 to 2012."

This part is true. It looked at the data that was collected and I have linked to repeatedly in this thread. The trend line is essentially flat. After this point, they moved the goalposts so data collected from 2013 until today IS NOT DONE IN THE SAME MANNER AS pre-2013. So, we have 2 different data sets. This fixed this problem in 2014/2015 as this gave them the upward bias they wanted - bear in mind these reports were not forward looking - they simply added in additional data that they had for 2014/2015 and weightings to give them an upward trend.

Unfortunately for them, this is now coming back to bite them with the giant fall off in 2018 and 2019 - when they predicted huge upswings in temperature. Instead - as I posted above - the Feb 2019 anomaly is now 0.47C, less than half of the warming predicted just 5 years ago.

#198 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 11:31 AM | Reply

i hope rcade just bans your lying arse.

#199 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 11:39 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

BTW, here is the link to the current global surface air temperature anomaly as of Feb 2019, which equals 0.47C (a 0.4C drop from 2018)

climate.copernicus.eu

Here is a link to the IPCC model for what was expected in 2019 = ~.9C based on RCP8.5
c3headlines.typepad.com

So, we are at 50% of the project warming based on models compiled as recently as 2006ish (per NOAA).

Again, they can cite the David Blaine effect to say we have warming that was not captured in their prior models - but the numbers are the numbers. No more moving the goalposts. Their stated warming is off by 50%.

#200 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 11:39 AM | Reply

i hope rcade just bans your lying arse.
#199 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

I provided the links for you. Let's use data rather than emotions for this discussion. If you have a better data set than NOAA, please post it.

#201 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 11:41 AM | Reply

--i hope rcade just bans your lying arse.

Another fake "liberal" that wants to suppress contrary opinions.

#202 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-08 11:45 AM | Reply

Another fake "liberal" that wants to suppress contrary opinions.

#202 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-03-08 11:45 AM | REPLY |

he's not debating, he's just lying.

on purpose.

it's not a "contrary opinion".

#203 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 11:49 AM | Reply

"If you have a better data set than NOAA, please post it."

i did post from NOAAs website.

It says the exact opposite if what you say it does.

#204 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 11:50 AM | Reply

Another fake "liberal" that wants to suppress contrary opinions.
#202 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Notice not a single one can post any actual data. They just appeal to authority without even trying to understand the material. It is truly sad how anti-intellectual they have become.

#205 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 11:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"They just appeal to authority..."

I bet they are reaching out to another "authority" right this minute in an effort to silence you.

#206 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-08 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

slowdown in warming was real.

A "slowdown in warming" is not the same thing as "no warming." Did you finish 3rd grade?

#207 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-08 11:51 AM | Reply

Notice not a single one can post any actual data

I posted data in #75 that proves you to be a liar. You have yet to refute it.

#208 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-08 11:52 AM | Reply

#204 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

1.) Per NOAA - what is the global temperature anomaly as of Feb 2019?

2.) Per the IPCC in 2006 model RCP8.5, what was the projected temperature anomaly for 2019?

Once you answer those 2 questions, please explain how my statement that the Feb 2018 anomaly is 50% lower than the projected anomaly is incorrect.

#209 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 11:53 AM | Reply

"Notice not a single one can post any actual data."

I linked to data, i just didn't copy paste it.

YOU are a liar.

I'm done.

#210 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 11:54 AM | Reply

I bet they are reaching out to another "authority" right this minute in an effort to silence you.

#206 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2019-03-08 11:51 AM | FLAG:

Ah, "moderate" eberly comes to a lying conservatives aid. what a shock.

#211 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 11:56 AM | Reply

-A "slowdown in warming" is not the same thing as "no warming."

congrats on figuring that out.

Did anyone claim a slowdown IS the same things as no warming?

#212 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-08 11:56 AM | Reply

211

How am I coming to his aid? I'm just pointing out he drives folks nuts and there is an effort being made to ban him. You said it yourself.

#213 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-08 11:57 AM | Reply

I posted data in #75 that proves you to be a liar. You have yet to refute it.
#208 | POSTED BY JOE

Slo' Joe, I have explained many times already and linked to the actual data so you can see it with your own 2 eyes. It was so obvious that even the IPCC admitted there was a pause and needed to adjust their data collection and weighting methodology to bring back warming in 2014/2015.

#214 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 11:59 AM | Reply

i was joking.

no one is making an effort to ban him. go back to blowing jeff, you look like a fool here defending this propagandist.

#215 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 11:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I linked to data, i just didn't copy paste it. YOU are a liar. ..." - #210 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 11:54 AM

That definitely describes the self-proclaimed idiot.

#216 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-08 12:00 PM | Reply

--A "slowdown in warming" is not the same thing as "no warming." Did you finish 3rd grade?

Hey dummy, that was a response to the slowdown denialists.

#217 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-08 12:00 PM | Reply

he drives folks nuts and there is an effort being made to ban him. You said it yourself.
#213 | POSTED BY EBERLY

If you want to make a conservative angry, tell them a lie. If you want to make a liberal angry, tell them the truth.

Perfect example on display here.

#218 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 12:01 PM | Reply

You must be really sensitive to temperature if you can detect that.

#179 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 10:07 AM | Reply

In Austin, banana trees started bearing crops for the first time ever some twenty or so years ago.

You're being stupid. People are watching the freaking environment, not deciding about whether they feel personally hotter or cooler.

#219 | Posted by Zed at 2019-03-08 12:02 PM | Reply

"no one is making an effort to ban him"

FF

#220 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-08 12:03 PM | Reply

prove they are eberly.

#221 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 12:04 PM | Reply

In my part of Texas, ticks and other pests aren't necessarily dying in the winter time. The winters are freaking MILDER than they used to be.

#222 | Posted by Zed at 2019-03-08 12:04 PM | Reply

"If you want to make a conservative angry, tell them a lie. If you want to make a liberal angry, tell them the truth." - #218 | Posted by self-proclaimed idiot at 2019-03-08 12:01 PM

Typical conservative: Post something supposedly attributed to Teddy Roosevelt (but unattributed, of course), which Teddy Roosevelt never said.

Perfect example on display here.

#223 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-08 12:05 PM | Reply

Leftists minds will not be changed until the motive for lying about Climate Change goes away. The motive is to control. The motive is greed. The motive is to take from those who are productive.

#184 | Posted by JordyPete at 2019

This is pure Rush Limbaugh, JORDY. Acknowledge your master.

#224 | Posted by Zed at 2019-03-08 12:06 PM | Reply

Did anyone claim a slowdown IS the same things as no warming?

Yes, Mr Late to the Thread.

#225 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-08 12:07 PM | Reply

if you listen hard you can hear the crickets in eberlys moderate head.

#226 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 12:09 PM | Reply

In Austin, banana trees started bearing crops for the first time ever some twenty or so years ago.
#219 | POSTED BY ZED

Well I guess bearing crops depends on 0.3C as that was the temperature anomaly 20 years ago per NOAA.

Also, maybe they have super banana trees now because the temp anonaly was actually much higher through the 1930's and even into the mid-1950's.

Again, here is the graph of the data.

ossfoundation.us

#227 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 12:10 PM | Reply

I'm done.

#210 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

FF

#228 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-08 12:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

225

well, I'm going with "no" until you establish otherwise.

#229 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-08 12:12 PM | Reply

maybe they have super banana trees now

#227 | Posted by nobiasposter101

You have to be -------- me.

#230 | Posted by Zed at 2019-03-08 12:12 PM | Reply

-In Austin, banana trees started bearing crops for the first time ever some twenty or so years ago.

are they any good?

#231 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-08 12:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You have to be -------- me.
#230 | POSTED BY ZED

Well, temperatures were higher in the 1930's into the mid 1950's. So, they didn't start to blossom based on a change in temperature. Maybe all the liberal BS acts as fertilizer.

#232 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 12:15 PM | Reply

I'm done.

#210 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

FF

#228 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2019-03-08 12:11 PM | REPLY | FLAG

I am done. with no bias, i stopped addressing him.

you're a flagging ------, like nulli.

#233 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-03-08 12:15 PM | Reply

no one is making an effort to ban him. go back to blowing jeff, you look like a fool here defending this propagandist.

#215 | Posted by Alexandrit

Meltdown in aisle 3.

#234 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-08 12:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

well, I'm going with "no" until you establish otherwise.

You wander into a thread you clearly haven't read (can't really blame you there) and it's on me to prove something happened? Sorry buddy. Try reading, i'm not your secretary.

#235 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-08 12:19 PM | Reply

#232 | Posted by nobiasposter101

I understand your position. Tropical fruits where no tropical fruit was before is no evidence. I assume a crop of pineapples wouldn't move the needle for you either.

#236 | Posted by Zed at 2019-03-08 12:20 PM | Reply

-it's on me to prove something happened?

yes, it is. That's how it works, liljoe.

#237 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-08 12:21 PM | Reply

are they any good?

#231 | Posted by eberly at

The bananas? They have a peel.

#238 | Posted by Zed at 2019-03-08 12:23 PM | Reply

No it isn't. Got a question? The answer's upthread. Go find it! Shoo!

#239 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-08 12:24 PM | Reply

I understand your position. Tropical fruits where no tropical fruit was before is no evidence. I assume a crop of pineapples wouldn't move the needle for you either.
#236 | POSTED BY ZED

You can pull the weather data right from NOAA for the Austin area weather stations and compare over the years - it is free.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

After you do that you will see it is essentially unchanged over the last 20 years. Most of the highest temperatures recorded go back to 1954 - and that is even ignoring the UHI effect.

#240 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-03-08 12:28 PM | Reply

-I assume a crop of pineapples wouldn't move the needle for you either.

You mean assertion of a crop of pineapples, just like the banana assertion.

I've googled this banana crop in Austin you've mentioned.....didn't find a whole lot but there are articles on it.

#241 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-08 12:38 PM | Reply

"From 1952 to present day, the US has experienced 0.1 degree C of warming each decade. You must be really sensitive to temperature if you can detect that."

The said West Texas, not the entire USA.

And he doesn't have to be any more sensitive than you, who must have sensed 0.1 degree C of warming each decade to make your statement in the first place.

You're doing a great job of addressing everything but the topic.

#242 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-08 03:55 PM | Reply

"1.) Per NOAA - what is the global temperature anomaly as of Feb 2019?"

The latest data is for January 2019.
Third warmest January since 1880.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov

#243 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-08 04:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Here is my source on cooling due to sun cycle.
www.livescience.com
As for SKS being garbage, they routinely mislabel and change IPCC graphs without telling their readers the graph presented is not as included in the IPCC.
#152 | POSTED BY NOBIASPOSTER101 AT 2019-03-08 07:48 AM"

This link simply hypothesizes that IF an extended period of low Sun activity occurs (e.g., similar to the Maunder Minimum), then it's possible (likely?) there'll be a cooling effect on the Earth's global average temperature beginning in MAYBE two years. They go on to suggest there MIGHT be some indication that sunspot numbers in recent cycles is trending lower, which is similar to that which preceded the Maunder Minimum. The article makes no claim as to whether this effect (if it even happens) will significantly alter the warming trend which is being observed.

Bottom line: The article provides no data, no analysis, not even a single graph, and (most importantly) no conclusion. While I don't necessarily disagree with what is contained in this article, that is mostly because there is so little "there" there! This article is a typical "fluff piece" along the lines of what might find in a coffee table book. If this is what you're basing your claims upon, I'd suggest something a bit "meatier".

BTW, there's nothing in this article regarding your continued assertions about SkS and the IPCC graphs.
Still waiting on that.

#244 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-03-09 04:40 AM | Reply

"They call people deniers like they are uneducated rubes. I guess a guy like Richard Lindzen has no credibility to them despite his PhD from Harvard, teach career spanning Harvard, UCLA, U of Chicago, and MIT mean nothing. He even was an author for one of the IPCC reports. I think he has 200+ paper and books to his name. He achieved award after award...until, he said climate change was bunk.
#156 | POSTED BY NOBIASPOSTER101 AT 2019-03-08 09:07 AM"

Not all "Deniers" are uneducated rubes.
Neither are all "Non-Deniers" only 'in it for the money'.
So what?

BTW, Dr. Lindzen's Iris Hypothesis, while has some sound basis, has taken a bit of a beating as more data is gathered.
I'm presuming you're aware of Dr. Lindzen's work, since you mentioned him.

Please show where Dr. Lindzen says "climate change was bunk". You're not doing yourself any favors by making hyperbolic claims that can not be supported!

All this just means the scientific method is continuing to work properly as data is gathered, analyzed, hypotheses formed and tested.

BTW, still waiting on YOUR supporting information.

#245 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-03-09 05:00 AM | Reply

"Tell that to NOAA, not me. It is their method for collecting the data, not mine. As to records, 2018 was a large decrease and 2019 will be the same. I think Feb'19 anomaly is down to 0.47C, which is down .4C from Feb 2016, or in other words, global warming has been cut in half in the last 2 years. At 0.47C, we are at like .1C/decade. I expect 2019 to continue with this trend and 2020 basically taking us back to baseline.
By 2022, you -------- will be screaming about the coming ice age and try to pass taxes on food production to ward off global starvation.
#190 | POSTED BY NOBIASPOSTER101 AT 2019-03-08 10:55 AM"

Why stop there?

Maybe you should take it up with the folks who make the satellites that provide the data!!!

LOL

#246 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-03-09 05:16 AM | Reply

"Unfortunately for them, this is now coming back to bite them with the giant fall off in 2018 and 2019 - when they predicted huge upswings in temperature. Instead - as I posted above - the Feb 2019 anomaly is now 0.47C, less than half of the warming predicted just 5 years ago.
#198 | POSTED BY NOBIASPOSTER101 AT 2019-03-08 11:31 AM"

Before we go any further, it's probably pertinent to point out that on a Kelvin scale, their prediction is actually quite good.
Although a "Celsius degree" is the same size as a "Kelvin degree", the 'zero' on the Celsius scale is an arbitrarily selected point but the 'zero' on the Kelvin scale is not an arbitrarily selected point.

#247 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-03-09 05:28 AM | Reply

the motive is having a nice place to live, and not dying.
That's it.
#185 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

You are a fool! LOL. When are you going to wake up and see that the Leftists have been exposed as frauds? They are about greed and nothing else. If they weren't then everything they are telling you would be self-evident and they would not have to lie about it!

#248 | Posted by JordyPete at 2019-03-09 10:19 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort