ADVERTISEMENT

Here is some liberal SCIENCE FICTION for you!!!

LMAO!!! o_O
That's an actual REFERENCE being used to discount the consensus???

Holy cow there are some uneducated people who post here....there have to be grade-schoolers who can discern better quality information....:eek:
There was that show "Are you smarter than a 5th grader." Now we know it had an audience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Who are those mentioned that made the statements - do you not consider them at a high level within the GW\CC society? I guess not...

Makes no difference since we're talking science. Given that, the only relevant information is, you know, the science. So...again...peer-reviewed papers. Can you produce? I guess not...
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Makes no difference since we're talking science. Given that, the only relevant information is, you know, the science. So...again...peer-reviewed papers. Can you produce? I guess not...

tumblr_nhpz7elOji1tu1beso1_500.jpg


:cool:
 
Getting back to the original post and claims (from Christy) regarding 'no warming' in the data....here are 4 separate datasets which debunk that claim, INCLUDING a repost of the graph I linked earlier with Christy's OWN data.

I'm using the same method:
RED indicates temperatures UP TO the 1997 El Nino (thru Fall '97)
GREEN indicates temperatures during the '97/'98 El Nino up to Fall 2015 (just before this El Nino)
BLUE indicates temperatures starting from Fall 2015 (onset of the current El Nino)

All of the datasets clearly show minimal (if any) discernable warming during the 20 years leading up to the '97 El Nino. But there is a very clear bump in temperatures following the El Nino (nearly ALL of the GREEN temperature data is 0.2°C higher than the RED). And we can see the same pattern now developing with the BLUE data. This El Nino is going to bump us up another 0.1-0.2°C or more. The peak of this El Nino's effects will very likely spur a 0.5-0.6°C spike in the satellite data, just like the 1997 one did. And then temperatures won't settle back down below pre-El Nino levels; they will keep climbing. And we may wait another 10 or 20 years for the next big El Nino that will bump the temperatures up again, but it is virtually certain to happen.

Also, remember that the satellite data is lower troposphere - about Mt Everest height. It is actually a poorer indicator of surface warming, and is also less accurate (larger error bars in the actual data).

This is the RSS-MSU dataset, a separate satellite dataset from the UAH Christy data:

from:2015.75


Here is Christy's own UAH satellite data:
from:2015.65


Here is GISTEMP data, one of the more comprehensive global land/sea coverage datasets (instrumental)

from:2015.65


Here is CRUTEM4 data (land only):
from:2015.65


So, look at the datasets for yourself, and decide if the pundit claims and media coverage of 'no warming since 1997' is accurate, or if there doesn't appear to be any warming in the past 35 years.

Also, bear in mind that a change in global temperatures that is only a few °C is the difference between an Ice Age and now. And that temperature shifts on the paleo-scale like Ice Ages, take thousands of years to manifest - not just a few decades.

All of the graphs were made using the online tool at Woodfortrees.org, where they pull the actual data from the respective sites and let you do your own analysis/graphing. IMO, one of the nicer sites to look at the data objectively w/o some other website hiding aspects of the data from you....
 
So the Koch bros' Cato Institute's pet "scientists" are reported by the Koch-supported right-wing attack operation Daily Caller to think that climate change is a hoax.

Tell me something I couldn't have invented on my own
[one of several mentions of The Daily Caller in Dark Money]

First off I agree 100% with you on this as I think most liberals and democrats do. Secondly why doesn't this logic, a bought and paid for corporate shill (in this case the scientist), apply to Hillary, a bought and paid for politician, for a majority of democrats?
 
First off I agree 100% with you on this as I think most liberals and democrats do. Secondly why doesn't this logic, a bought and paid for corporate shill (in this case the scientist), apply to Hillary, a bought and paid for politician, for a majority of democrats?
The Ds acknowledge this.
 
First off I agree 100% with you on this as I think most liberals and democrats do. Secondly why doesn't this logic, a bought and paid for corporate shill (in this case the scientist), apply to Hillary, a bought and paid for politician, for a majority of democrats?
I don't know. Fear, mainly, I would guess. And some of that fear is justified.

For some - women in particular - they like some of her stands more than they worry about her corporate tattoos. Yes, I think candidates should have to get and display corporate tattoos.

It's like peace-loving conservatives (both of them) supporting the neocon R because of the R position on abortion.

Unfortunately, unless you are voting for Bernie or Jill or maybe some other 3rd party candidate, you don't have a choice of a non-corporate candidate. And most people consider voting 3rd party a wasted vote - no matter how good the 3rd party candidate or how awful the alternatives.
 
Check out the two satellite plots in my post #126 above (RSS and UAH).

They auto-update as the RSS and UAH groups add to their online datasets - they apparently have just added in February for 2016, and the RSS data ALREADY exceed the 1998 El Nino peak (just as I had indicated earlier in the thread that this is what was going to happen - post #7). The UAH data is at the same level as 1998 and still climbing. The actual 'peaks' may still be 3 months away.

These graphs are generated using online tools, so they will always be the 'latest' data whenever they are pulled up, as they are reading the realtime data from UAH, RSS, CRUTEM and GISTEMP. (This is why I really like this woodfortrees.org website the guy put up: http://www.woodfortrees.org/). However, all the datasets to not always 'update' at the same time, and his site can only read what the scientists have updated on their public sites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unIowa
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT