How the GW myth is perpetuated

[Tonington]

So, fun fact for the day.

The globe includes the oceans, in fact most of the globe (~71%) is ocean. Since water has such a high heat capacity, and there is so much thermal inertia, the ocean warms more slowly. So most places on land will probably warm faster than the global average, due to the weight the ocean exerts on that average.

 

[captain morgan]

The AGW crowd eats this stuff up.
Tom Nelson: Settled science: Can everyplace really be warming much faster than everyplace else?

The CRU must be awfully busy these days.

 

[Tonington]

 

[captain morgan]

There is one positive thing about the Gore and Suzuki idolaters is that they do have some funny cartoons.

Too bad they don't apply that time objectively analyzing the issue, they'd quickly realize that AGW is a sci-fi fantasy and nothing more.

 

[Tonington]

Hahahah...

I actually commented on why there are so many places that outpace the global average, you commented that CRU must be busy, and then you lament that folks like me don't spend more time objectively analyzing the issue?

The fantasy is that science can't answer these retarded questions that deniers think are so witty.

 

[captain morgan]

Go back and read the link... It had nothing to do with "outpacing"... But then again, this wouldn't be the first time the eco-fringe relied on, shall we say, a very generous capacity to subjectively interpret.

 

[Tonington]

The products out there which compute an average temperature change for the globe do not factor in anything except the change in temperature, as well as the homogenization of data reporting to remove inconsistencies, and the removal of urban heat bias.

So when the North pole warms faster than the planet, there is a reason. The main reason for this case is the poleward transport of heat.

If you add up all the areas warming faster, the areas warming slower, and the neutral areas, you will get the global average...this should not be a difficult concept, even for the mathematically handicapped like you and Walt.

The analysis of temperature does not factor in poleward transport of heat, it does not factor in the specific heat of water. If you think it does, you show me with references where GISSTemp, HadCRUT, the GHCN, or even RSS and UAH data from the MSU satellites makes any reference to the specific heat capacity of water, or the thermal inertia of the oceans in measuring the change of the global average temperature over time.

It's not factored in, it's known. But Tom Nelson and folks like Walter don't seem aware.

Put up or shut up. Show us the references. It's simply superfluous information to consider when measuring delta T.

 

[captain morgan]

Nice bevvy of excuses that you buy into, based on the imaginary scenario you paint, you'd almost believe that there was never any form of relative warming/cooling at anytime in the past right, it has only existed since the carbon trading scheme was initiated?.. I particularly like the comment that:

"GISSTemp, HadCRUT, the GHCN, or even RSS and UAH data from the MSU satellites makes any reference to the specific heat capacity of water, or the thermal inertia of the oceans in measuring the change of the global average temperature over time... It's not factored in, it's known"

... So, I am to believe that despite the knowledge of these elements and their effects, they are deliberately left out of the equations as well as all of the fake/fraudulent models out there?Sure... You just keep going on and fabricate whatever excuse that is convenient to help you sleep at night.

On the put up or shut note: Try this... Your inept argument that "refuted" (and I use that term extremely loosely as it has no real bearing on your effectiveness) Walter's post/links regarding avg temps etc is the biggest loser going... You've forwarded a flimsy argument thus far to "explain" the comment, but in doing so, you are supporting the contention that there is indeed no agreement or basis of fact in the "scientific" reporting from the ecotards that all seem to claim that their region or research boasts the fastest warming.

Nice... Really nice

 

[AnnaG]

There is one positive thing about the Gore and Suzuki idolaters is that they do have some funny cartoons.

Who would that be?

Too bad they don't apply that time objectively analyzing the issue, they'd quickly realize that AGW is a sci-fi fantasy and nothing more.

Only if they ignored the evidence.

The fantasy is that science can't answer these retarded questions that deniers think are so witty.

lol Good way to put it.

The AGW crowd eats this stuff up.
Tom Nelson: Settled science: Can everyplace really be warming much faster than everyplace else?

For one thing, it's a blog. The blogger cannot comprehend that no-one is saying everywhere warms more than everywhere except him. If one actually paid attention to those things he cited, one would realize that those places are not everywhere, they are just some places among everywhere.
I am almost stupefied over the ignorance displayed between the post containing the link and this one. It's almost unbelievable.
There are a number of places on the planet that actually do warm faster than the average rate. But they aren't "everywhere".

 

[Tonington]

And yet this diversionary explanation does nothing to explain how it is possible for all these areas to be simultaneously heating at the fastest rate... Notice that I emboldened the word "fastest", that's important.

How many actually claim to be warming the fastest, rather than faster than the globe? Warming faster than the globe just means faster than the average. And as I already explained, there's nothing inconsistent about that.

Not one of those actually claims fastest. You have a reading comprehension problem.

If you want to rail about the accuracy of science reporting by the lame stream media, then take a number and fall in line with the rest of us.

 

[Tonington]

Let's take a look-see, alright?

According to the ecotards,

No, according to the thermometers and satellites.

Australia warming faster than rest of globe,

Your persistence in failing to understand how averages works is mind boggling. Here's a set of numbers that corresponds to a change in some parameter over a period of time.

1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,5,5,6,7,8,10

The average is 4.4, the value at 8 (Australia) is warming faster than the set (Globe). Australia is warming faster than the rest of the planet. But it's not the largest number....so what? In fact there are eight places warming faster than the average.

It doesn't mean Australia is the fastest warming place on the planet.

The choice of words here matters, because if you think that those links are claiming that each place, Australia, Spain, Kuwait, etc. is each the fastest warming place on the planet, then that could be logically inconsistent (there is such a thing as ties). But that is not what they're saying. It's entirely possible, in fact it's highly probable that there will be many places on the planet which can legitimately claim to be warming faster than a larger set that they belong to, whether that's country, continent, hemisphere, or planet, without being the largest number of that set.

I suspect you'll now try to back away from the bold emphasis you added earlier. That would be wise.

 

[captain morgan]

"Faster than anywhere else"

"Faster than the rest of the globe"

"Faster than the rest of the world"

"Faster than anywhere in the world"


... Nope, no mention of averages here. In fact, no suggestion that these areas are faster than the average, particularly the last quote, "faster than anywhere in the world" does not leave any room for interpretation whatsoever .

You see, you want to believe that they say faster than the average, but try as you might, the link that Walter provided does not say any such thing.

Fact is, these research papers/studies have presented themselves in a very specific manner... You are attempting to question the semantics of the language rather than analyze the actual studies... That in itself, is indicative of the nature of the strength of your position.

 

[Tonington]

Fact is, these research papers/studies have presented themselves in a very specific manner... You are attempting to question the semantics of the language rather than analyze the actual studies... That in itself, is indicative of the nature of the strength of your position.

Ahh, so those look like research papers and studies to you? That explains a lot actually.

This is what a research paper looks like:
http://epic.awi.de/Publications/Kar2001a.pdf

 

[captain morgan]

Ahh, so those look like research papers and studies to you? That explains a lot actually.

This is what a research paper looks like:
http://epic.awi.de/Publications/Kar2001a.pdf

Why don't you start with admitting that your initial analysis (of Walter's links) is erroneous, unless of course you want to keep defending your position based on semantics

 

[captain morgan]

Boy! Deja Vu or what, eh captain. Takes me back a few years to the old CanCom days, eh. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

No doubt. As every year passes, I appreciate the idiom more acutely (the more things change, the more things stay the same).

What, if not pollution of all types, is causing the atmosphere to warm up? Oh Ya, the sun. Perhaps, but to deny that pollution has something to do with it is ludicrous at best. 7 billion people producing millions of tonnes of crap on a daily basis has a profound effect on the biosphere. To deny that would require a blindness caused by an inability to breath fresh air because it is blocked off by a sphincter muscle.

I don't disagree with you, particularly on the population element. In the end, I believe that this has more to do with the # of polluters more than anything else, and as you suggest (correctly in my mind), all form of "pollution" affects the system.

If we identify this as "the problem", well, Pandora's box gets cracked wide open.

That you think my responses in the religious threads are "over-the-top" just shows that you don't read them.

Let's not go down that road... Resurrecting that won't serve any purpose that will be positive.

 

[Tonington]

The oceans certainly are feeling the effects of man made pollution. All that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms the ocean, and warming surface waters produces greater thermoclines. This decreases the deep ocean waters mixing into the surface waters, and they are now finding decreases in phytoplankton abundance in most of the world's oceans. And of course there is the ocean acidification problem. Observations and laboratory experiments have shown the damage that can occur in marine calcifiers. Now we have experiments which have identified the mechanisms of hypothesized fish declines. A new paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds increased mortalities from predation (the larvae above a threshold are actually attracted to the smell of predators), and reduced larval recruitment.

Why don't you start with admitting that your initial analysis (of Walter's links) is erroneous

How about you show how it is erroneous?

 

[Ron in Regina]

Personal Attacks & such have been Reported in this Thread. I'm not
going to read through and attempt to edit 30+ pages here....removing
the sniping & personal attacks while try'n to leave the posts intact.

If you use a personal attack, call someone stupid, etc...or quote the
same....I'll just remove that post due to the shear volume of the endeavor.
This is fair advance warning.

If you don't want to loose your post(s) here...don't personally attack each
other. Right now I'm not sure if I should start at the beginning and work to
the end, or start at the end & work backwards to the beginning or until I'm
just tired of removing posts like I usually do.

 

[Walter]

Emotions, the last refuge of a scoundrel.

 

[AnnaG]

"Faster than anywhere else"

"Faster than the rest of the globe"

"Faster than the rest of the world"

"Faster than anywhere in the world"


... Nope, no mention of averages here.

No, there isn't in those short little excerpts. I agree.

In fact, no suggestion that these areas are faster than the average

Dead wrong.

You see, you want to believe that they say faster than the average, but try as you might, the link that Walter provided does not say any such thing.

Blatant proof you didn't even read the links in the blog.

Fact is, these research papers/studies have presented themselves in a very specific manner...

Dead wrong. The fact is that those links are from mainstream newsmedia and a blog.

You are attempting to question the semantics of the language rather than analyze the actual studies... That in itself, is indicative of the nature of the strength of your position.

And that comment is glaring proof that you haven't a clue what was in Walter's link nor what you are gibbering about.

#1. From The Hindu (regular old general e-news):
"Prof Gordon Conway, the outgoing chief scientist at the British government’s Department for International Development, and former head of the philanthropic Rockefeller Foundation, said in a scientific paper that the continent is already warming faster than the global average and that people living there can expect more intense droughts, floods and storm surges. "

#2. From a blog by C. Johnson, physicist: "It seems that many scientists are mystified by the fact that the measured temperature increases near the North Pole have recently been several times faster than the temperature increases measured in other places on Earth."

#3. From a science news source: "According to the bureau's annual climate statement Australia's mean temperature last year was 0.47 degrees above the average for 1961 to 1990 - the period now used as the international standard for tracking climate patterns.
As Plummer said, the figures showed that the country had warmed 0.9 degrees during the century, compared with 0.7 to 0.8 degrees for the world.
'Australia is warming slightly faster than the global change,' he said."


#4. From some environmental news outfit "The seawater temperature in Kuwait Bay has been increasing at three times the global average rate since 1985,"


etc. etc. etc.


You want to continue to claim these sources are research papers and studies? roflmao

Why don't you start with admitting that your initial analysis (of Walter's links) is erroneous, unless of course you want to keep defending your position based on semantics

You brought the issue up. You are the one claiming those links were research papers.
Why don't you admit you were wrong and your comprehension of science is virtually non-existent?

 

[captain morgan]

You brought the issue up. You are the one claiming those links were research papers.
Why don't you admit you were wrong and your comprehension of science is virtually non-existent?

The links are based on research/studies. The research/studies either drew conclusions or strongly supported a direction. The "conclusions" were what the alarmist headlines were based upon.

My comprehension is just fine Anna, but seeing how you believe otherwise, can you show me my error as it relates to the headlines and the conflict that they represent?.. Tonnington is unable to, perhaps you can