Some studies indicate that due to projected climate change, pythons will be a common feature of the “alien wildlife” in San Francisco by the year 2020.And they make half-decent pets. You set 'em loose and they catch their own food. However, they're not good around small children--they catch their own food--and they won't fetch the morning newspaper. They will crawl into your bed sometimes on cold nights, attracted by the smell of weak pathetic mammal, and your body heat.
PS. I am obviously pro-reptile. They're what people would have evolved into if we'd had any class.
PPS. I'm offsite today. Play especially nice in comments. I won't be around to tell you when you're stuupid.
26 comments:
Of course the earth is actually cooling, not warming.
And it's projected to cool for some time to come.
A couple of questions:
If global warming was this unstoppable cataclysmic event of unprecedented warming, why do the "natural" variants so easily override it?
And to such a great extent.
I mean, if we were supposed to be well on our way to overheating by now, as predicted eight years ago, I could understand varying degrees of warming, some years a lot, some years neutral, some little, but generally constant warming (as the models no doubt attempted to factor in),
but since '98 its pretty much been cooler.
The past four months have been among the coldest worldwide, ever recorded. And now its supposed to be even getting colder?
It's funny, but as a kid, I remember getting sunburns, camping outside in the warm spring, on May long weekends.
This year's been the coldest, but I also can't remember the last time it was warm enough to camp outdoors on the May long. It's been some time.
Shouldn't my memory actually be the opposite?
Of course, my experience just accords with the actual data of temperature.
It's sad that so many people had bought into this AGW hysteria.
Of course the earth is actually cooling, not warming.
Liar.
What are you a "senior executive" of, Biff?
Biff: Here's an experiment for you to try. Go to the NASA GISS data (I can provide a link if you wish) and look at the Land Ocean Index. Take the Jan to Dec values for the years 1998 to 2007 (inclusive) and plot the results. Calculate a linear trend on the data. (Note, as an aside, I don't think that a 10 year trend is significant in terms of climate, but if we restrict ourselves to 1998 and onwards that is the best we can do).
I get a warming rate of +0.17C per decade which is pretty much what is predicted.
Don't take my word for it - but for god's sake, don't take anyone else's word either. Calculate the results, calculate the R2 data and then we can talk.
You also say that the past four months have been among the coldest ever recorded. Well, the coldest one that I see is January and in terms of cold it comes in at #39 out of 129. I thought you meant that the 4 averaged would produce something exceptional, but if you use Dec (of year N) and Jan, Feb and Mar (of your N+1) it works out to be the 14th warmest out of 128. Not what I would call exceptional cold.
In regards to the hysteria, this is my test of knowledge. I propose that there are three fundamental points at the heart of AGW.
1) we are responsible for ALL of the recent increase in CO2.
2) adding CO2 will enhance the longwave IR radiation on the earth's surface.
3) if you shine IR radiation on an object it will either warm or cool less quickly.
Which of these do you not agree with and why?
Regards,
John
John,
the cooling since '98 is now well documented, and as I understand it, generally accepted.
BCL actually posted a study on this site about the projected cooling (though it's supposed to heat right up again after that period...cough, cough).
As for your graphs, I'll refer you to a good site:
http://www.climateaudit.org/
And your questions:
all three are highly speculative, and unproven.
Some would argue that since the actual data is now contradicting the predictive models premised on those three assumptions, that they are in fact not true.
Cheers.
Debating climate change deniers is like debating young earth ("Flintstones" is a documentary) creationists.
John,
I'll leave you with my own "prediction".
The next IPCC report will again come out with another downward revision (as it did the last time),
as the actual data fail to conform with the models.
And the AGW theory, like many scientific theories over the ages, will wane and be replaced by more definitive studies and science that relies on tradditional scientific methods rather than on computer modeling that can never predict something as complex as the climate, about which we still know very little.
Cheers.
Biff: As I said, please don't let others do your thinking for you. The information is there and you can check the my yourself. If you have a problem with my calculations then you can present it. If not then you are free to agree.
In regards to my three points, all are rock solid (provided you accept basic scientific principles such as basic quantum mechanics). However in order to simplify things lets look at the first one - we are responsible for all the current rise in CO2.
This is based on some observations which are quite well accepted by (almost) all parties. From oil / coal production and consumption numbers we can get a pretty good idea of the total amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere.
From the Mauna Loa record (and other more recent records) we can get a good idea of the total CO2 content of the atmosphere. From these two numbers we see that the total increase in CO2 is less than the total amount produced. This means that we are producing more than is showing up in the atmosphere. The only logical conclusion is that we are responsible for the current rise.
Let propose an analogy. Say the atmosphere is a back account but there a huge number of people who can put money in and take money out. We don't know who does what but we see that at the start of the year the balance is $100 and at the end of the year it is $103. We know we put in $7 through the year. What would be the balance if we had not put in our $7?.
Finally I note that you appear to have no comment on my analysis that shows that he last 4 months were not among the coldest on record. Does that mean you are retracting your statement?
Regards,
John
Does that mean you are retracting your statement?
Yeah, right. Global Cooling will happen before Biff ever retracts anything. He's been wrong about everything he's predicted for the last few years and that's not including all the counter-factual assertions he made while sock-puppetting.
We really need better science on what's motivating this demographic to be not only ignorant, but aggressively so and proud of it. I'd be relieve to find out it's simply the result of all the troll welfare vested interest are doling out, but some people seem to be actually enjoying it and doing it out of "love" more than anything else. Like extinguishing the Enlightenment is their higher calling or something.
Maybe Biff's just bored being a "senior executive" at his call centre, and passes the time this way?
Maybe it's the effect of Bisphenol-A during their gestation?
John,
far from letting others do the thinking for me, my judgments are my own, based on common sense logic, reason, and the desire to see things for what they really are, as opposed to what I want them to be.
John,
one two part question, that goes to the very heart of decisions this nation faces today:
Do you believe Canada should take steps to curb AGW, and why?
How about, instead of us parrying sites with competing statistics we address this with good old fashioned logic and reason.
Again,
do we take steps, and why?
I'll start it off:
Let's begin with the assumption that AGW is real (for the sake of argument of course).
Canada's global contribution to emissions is 2% (though its now likely much less given the increase output from China, India, ect going on as we speak...but for the sake of argument lets go with 2%).
In raw numbers that's a .02.
A few follow up questions from that:
Is there any decrease in output from Canada which could materially affect world AGW emissions?
Let's say we could limit total output by 20% tomorrow (an massive feat which would likely cause incredible economic disruption).
Let's work that through: We mandate that all cars must immediatly drive 20% less. Good's will cost drastically more (as they require transportation), homes will be required to "heat ration" in the winter, manufacturing plants shut down 20% of the time ect.
Let's take all that.
Now lets do the math.
.02 x .2 = .004 (less than one half of one percent)
Our massive sacrifice would not even cover the increased output caused by other developing nations, let alone have any material impact.
Simple math tells us that this entire debate/movement, is therefore about the APPEARANCE of stopping AGW, with the near certain knowlege that even drastic steps will be effectively meaningless.
In fact, its the appearance of "saving the world" and all the corresponding benefits one seeks to gain from such a movement that gives this movement its life blood.
Now we can come full circle. It is precisely these benefits, subtle and otherwise, which was behind the calculus built into the hockey stick model, which resulted in a "hockey stick" curve to result, with even random numbers being inserted into the model (that's right, it was shown that ANY number put into the model that produced the hockey stick graph would result in that shape - in other words, it was CONCLUSION driven).
But I digress:
John, what of the above do you disagree with?
Biff: In your very first post you made some specific claims. You stated that:
1) The earth is actually cooling.
I took the trouble to provide a statistical analysis that shows it is not cooling!
2) The last 4 months were among the coldest ever recorded.
I also showed that in fact the average of the last 4 months compared to the average of other identical times actually ranks as the 14th warmest (out of 128).
You are now trying to change the argument to one that nobody has made. Your initial comment contained nothing about CO2 production or solutions to AGW.
So, once again are you going to defend your claims or are you going to retract them? I am sorry, there is no third option.
Regards,
John
Biff...just how much medication and which ones do you have to take to make these incessant (and retarded) inquisitions of yours enjoyable for you?
.02 x .2 = .004 (less than one half of one percent)
Heh. I love how he "showed work" here. Very impressive. Scientilicious, in fact.
Biff, what are you "a senior executive" of?
John,
I also find it interesting that you (and seemingly all proponents of "government action" on AGW) don't really want to discuss the real issue:
The entire debate is about our feelings, and not real results.
"Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down. "
The link, which links to all the official sources here:
http://tinyurl.com/yq2hpw
John,
the inside scoop (inside being from the head of the IPCC..read below):
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."
Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"
Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.
"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."
Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"
Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."
Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"
Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."
Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."
Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."
here:
http://tinyurl.com/3xangr
I'll take their word over yours, John, no offence.
Cheers
Biff: I also find it interesting that you post things as facts and then when someone disagrees with you, instead of defending or retracting you change the topic. If you were really interested in discussing solutions, why did you not start there.
If you are not prepared to discuss a topic that you brought up, why should anyone engage in other discussions with you?
John
John,
I take it the last comment was before I linked (and quoted) a highly reputable source,
saying a head of the IPCC
agrees with me
100%.
No apologies necessary,
it's all in good spirit.
Cheers.
Here's an experiment for you to try. Go to the NASA GISS data (I can provide a link if you wish) and look at the Land Ocean Index. Take the Jan to Dec values for the years 1998 to 2007 (inclusive) and plot the results
Better be quick and reference a date due to Nasa's tendency to revise historical data. You'll need a common point of reference.
By pushing such an example, you show yourself to be either dishonest or unaware of the current controversy regarding Nasa numbers.
Climate audit has already caught their bullshit a few times.
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental
and engineering geology.
"CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington
March 30, 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
QUOTE: "The time of maximum CO2 emissions started in 1945 and
temperatures should have shot up, but we cooled off. That's an
anti-correlation."
But, the things he [Gore] does, the things he says, are so outrageous, I
don't forgive him anymore. For example, when he says things like 'people
like me are right in there with the flat earth theory'. He says the
debate is over. The debate is not over-it's just getting started. There's
a huge uproar in the scientific world because in the last ten years, the
climate has cooled slightly, but the media won't tell you that. This
year is a big downturn, you can't miss it. Global warming simply ended
in 1998, but the public doesn't know it.
KLC: I could draw it myself, you have a peak in '98 and it's been flat
or declining since then. The trend depends on where you start. They love
starting in 1850.
DJE: That doesn't work because there are 30-year cycles. The chairman of
the IPCC admits we've had global cooling for at least eight years, and
there are sources on the Internet, you've probably seen them, that show
the IPCC folks are panicking.
KLC: Talk about an inconvenient fact.
DJE: On the temperature curve, 1998 was the high point, and this year,
we've cooled dramatically. It's been kind of flat for ten years, sort of
a plateau, but if you take 1998 as your starting point, it's down
slightly, not soaring as predicted by IPCC.
KLC: Playing the devil's advocate, if you start in the early 90's, you
would still have a positive trend.
DJE: If you want to be really honest about this, the curve should rise
from 1977 and end after 1998. It depends on what you want to show and
how you want to filter it. You can filter it with a two-year average, a
five-year average, or over whatever period you want and you'll get a
differently-shaped curve. The point is, it has not gotten warmer since
1998; it has not continued to warm in the last ten years."
Biff: I did post my last comment before I read your comment, unfortunately it changes nothing. If you will please read what I wrote in my initial reply to you I said but for God's sake, don't take anyone else's word either.
What have you gone and done now - you have taken someone else's word for it instead of thinking about it and working it out on your own. Again, I offer to link to the numbers so you could check my work.
So, you don't get an apology but instead the opportunity for something far more valuable - a chance to actually do some of your own thinking.
regards,
John
I could give you many more quotes and links,
but that's a lot of personal attacks for folks here to cover, espcially the esteemed author and scientist above (you'll need to spew extra venom in his direction, given his credentials..not referring to you John BTW, appreciate your civility).
so I'll leave it at the above.
Cheers.
I take it the last comment was before I linked (and quoted) a highly reputable source, saying a head of the IPCC agrees with me
100%.
No apologies necessary, it's all in good spirit. Cheers.
(edited to remove all the idiotic hard returns).
This is classic Biff. Hijack a discussion, cut and paste a variety of unsourced material (meaning whatever the content the cut and paste is itself unsourced, or missing necessary context or is not published research material), claim he's been proved correct and then assert it's all been fun. A more practiced liar you'll never meet And practiced lying and deception is course, "civil."
John Cross...I'm not sure if you're aware of the years-long history of Biff's sock-puppeting and trolling of progressive blogs to derail discussions and amplify the pseudo-science underlying AGW denialism.
Good thing this topic was just a joke anyway, although Biff's dreary lying always manages to suck the fun out of everything.
I can't wait until I finally track him down; his stuffed head will look sterling mounted in my den.
Biff: Thanks for another quote, but I am afraid that all the quotes won't change the statistics. They are there for you or anyone to calculate. Just run the numbers and you can see for yourself.
Ti-Guy: From Biff's responses (no offense Biff) I suspect you are correct. Certainly his actions here would imply such. But I live in hope that perhaps someone else reading this will do the calculations for themselves.
Regards,
John
Post a Comment