How the GW myth is perpetuated

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Try & keep this one clean guys. Much (never all) of the more
repulsive and blatant trolling has been expunged from this
Thread over the last couple of months, in an effort to make
it more inviting to those interested in the topic to review and
debate the issue.

I think the subjects of Global warming, global cooling, climate change have all been discussed ad infinitum to the point where there is very little more to say about them. Given the age of the planet at close to 4 billion years and the time of 100 years or so that statistics have been documented, I doubt if there's person alive who knows what will transpire in the future and anyone who thinks he/she does, simply isn't credible!
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
I think the subjects of Global warming, global cooling, climate change have all been discussed ad infinitum to the point where there is very little more to say about them. Given the age of the planet at close to 4 billion years and the time of 100 years or so that statistics have been documented, I doubt if there's person alive who knows what will transpire in the future and anyone who thinks he/she does, simply isn't credible!

Oh I don't know about that. I'd put money on predicting the future. I'd be out of a job of I couldn't successfully predict the future.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
I think the subjects of Global warming, global cooling, climate change have all been discussed ad infinitum to the point where there is very little more to say about them. Given the age of the planet at close to 4 billion years and the time of 100 years or so that statistics have been documented, I doubt if there's person alive who knows what will transpire in the future and anyone who thinks he/she does, simply isn't credible!

based on the misrepresentations that regularly come forward here, there can't have been any real/meaningful discussion.

the long distant past has little to nothing to speak to in terms of the principal causal tie to today's relatively recent warming.

in terms of policy intent, in terms of economics, in terms of expenditures and action, etc., scientists are actively engaged in presenting the scientific foundation (as best as can be determined/estimated) to support those decision makers who will make/drive policy and all related decisions that will stem from those policy direction(s).
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
66
Alarmists Bizarrely Claim “Just what AGW predicts” about the Record High Global Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014

*trigger warning - contains graphs, lottsa scrolling

This post is the annual model-data comparison of satellite-era sea surface temperatures. (For the most-recent longer-term model-data comparison of sea surface temperature data, see the post IPCC Still Delusional about Carbon Dioxide.) We’re taking a slightly new direction by presenting sea surface temperatures (modeled and observed) in absolute form, not anomalies, in the time-series graphs. Sea surface temperature anomalies are still used, however, for the trend maps and for the graphs showing trends on a zonal-mean (latitude-average) basis.


The initial reason for the switch to absolute sea surface temperatures was the unwarranted complaints about the model-data comparison I’ve been presenting recently, in which the models and data are shifted so that the trend lines intersect at zero in the first month of the time-series graph. See Figure 1. As you will soon discover, I’m being kind to the modelers with that graph.




more

Alarmists Bizarrely Claim “Just what AGW predicts� about the Record High Global Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014 | Watts Up With That?
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Try & keep this one clean guys. Much (never all) of the more repulsive and blatant trolling has been expunged from this Thread over the last couple of months, in an effort to make it more inviting to those interested in the topic to review and debate the issue.

Ron - thanks for all your time and effort in working to remove trolling from this thread! I trust all members will recognize your efforts, respect them, respect the CC Forum and its membership and attempt to quell ongoing, as you say, "repulsive and blatant trolling".
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Ron - thanks for all your time and effort in working to remove trolling from this thread! I trust all members will recognize your efforts, respect them, respect the CC Forum and its membership and attempt to quell ongoing, as you say, "repulsive and blatant trolling".

Couldn't have removed all of it since you are still here.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Couldn't have removed all of it since you are still here.

my post was a sincere thankful statement on the efforts put forward by CC Forum moderator, 'Ron in Regina', to clean this thread up and expunge the, as he stated, "more repulsive and blatant trolling". I expect that would have taken time/effort on his part; accordingly, your post is not helpful and is not in the spirit of the positive action taken by said moderator.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
my post was a sincere thankful statement on the efforts put forward by CC Forum moderator, 'Ron in Regina', to clean this thread up and expunge the, as he stated, "more repulsive and blatant trolling". I expect that would have taken time/effort on his part; accordingly, your post is not helpful and is not in the spirit of the positive action taken by said moderator.

And yet you are still trolling on here.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
And yet you are still trolling on here.

my posts, typically, are replies to other posts; you refer to my replies that don't align with your denier sentiment as "trolling". Apparently, to you, those originating posts (that I'm responding) that align with your denier sentiment, they're fine... you likee those posts!

Alarmists Bizarrely Claim “Just what AGW predicts” about the Record High Global Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014

the author of your linked reference, 'Bob Tisdale', is a denier blogger... your link originates from a denier blog that presumes to project this same article available on the "Tisdale" blog. Tisdale has no qualifications... other than he has a blog. He hasn't published a thing and he has been repeatedly refuted (at the dueling blog level). But he is serious... he's a serious "funster"; the following is a gem regularly trotted out whenever someone presumes to hype Tisdale as a legitimate source:



oh wait... Tisdale does hype he's the author of 3 books!!! Uhhh... of course, those are "e-books" (aka, pdf files) he hosts on his own blog... apparently, no actual publishers have seen the merit in Tisdale's writing! Of course, anyone with a blog can be an e-book author! Of course, no one actually knows who Tisdale is, so he's free to say anything :mrgreen: Which is why he's one of Tony Willard Watts' go-to guys!
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
After mocking Sen @LisaMurkowski 4 saying volcanoes cause warming, warmists now claim volcanoes caused the pause.

http://goo.gl/0R9vWk

http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/12/study-global-warming-pause-caused-by-small-volcanic-eruptions/

not sure who the "mockers" of U.S. Republican Senator Murkowski would be; however, the scientist's quote that shows up repeatedly in relation to Murkowski's comment on volcanoes is one Princeton professor, Michael Oppenheimer... who was asked by NPR for a comment on Murkowski's statement:

Murkowski: "The emissions that are being put in the air by that volcano (Iceland's Bardarbunga volcano) are a thousand years' worth of emissions that would come from all of the vehicles, all of the manufacturing in Europe"

Oppenheimer: "It's simply untrue. I don't know where she gets that number from". Oppenheimer says it's actually the other way around: Annual emissions from Europe are 10 times bigger than the annual emissions of all volcanoes put together. And he says the argument misses a bigger point: Humans are adding carbon dioxide to what was a balanced system. "So not only is the number wrong, but the context is highly deceptive. Sulfur dioxide is toxic, but it's not responsible for global warming. In fact, it actually cools the planet".

volcanoes emit sulfate aerosols which reflect incoming sunlight, cooling the planet... the Bardarbunga volcano emits ~ 35,000 tons of toxic sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere every day - on par with a large power plant's monthly output. As an aerosol effect, SO2 isn't responsible for global warming... it actually has a cooling impact.

volcanoes have always been considered a part of the influence on why the rate of more recent surface temperature warming is reduced as compared to prior decades... this referenced study has scientists confirming volcano signal impact evidence. From the study abstract:
One contributory factor to this “warming hiatus" is an increase involcanically-induced cooling over the early 21st century. Here, we identify the signals of late 20th and early 21st century volcanic activity in multiple observed climate variables. Volcanic signals are statistically discernible in spatial averagesof tropical and near-global SST, tropospheric temperature, net clear-sky short-wave radiation, and atmospheric water vapor. Signals of late 20th and early 21st century volcanic eruptions are also detectable in near-global averages of rainfall. In tropical-average rainfall, however, only a Pinatubo-caused drying signal is identifiable. Successful volcanic signal detection is critically dependent on removal of variability induced by the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
guys, guys... the real world awaits. Please keep the CC Forum protected in my absence... I realize you won't actually have anything to post while I'm away, but hold firm, hold steady! I'll be back to allow you to post and validate your presence here! :mrgreen: