Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

Look - I posted the charts that the GIS themselves generated. Some how, you claim that your plots are more accurate.

This is EXACTLY the problem with armchair climate scientists "analyzing" data.

Who should I believe? Should I believe the scientists who gathered and analyzed the data? Or should I believe the armchair "scientist" who claims to know more about climate than the guys who do it for a living and have been doing it for decades?

(Don't bother answering - I know you'll just counter by claiming that all climate scientists are liars, they fudge all their data, they are all part of a huge conspiracy theory to turn the world into a huge communist love fest and are running around scaring up as much research grant money from the poor, starving working class as they can to line their own pockets with gold bouillon.)

Sorry - couldn't resist cherry-picking a few choice quotes.

Thanks for the permission, but really - no time to read 15 page rambling, incoherent essays. Might want to try condensing that into something people might want to read.

 

And isn't that the purpose of all denialist efforts? Create noise and misinformation so that lay people like us ignore the real data and interpretation by the experts.

 

You would have been better served to just ignore my post and let it get lost in the mix. Now you just demonstrated that you have no clue what you are talking about. Let's recap our exchange:

Your original post was saying that you believed the earth would have kept cooling in the 1850s if it were not for human intervention. You also made a statement about solar irradiance being at an all time low. I replied telling you that is completely wrong, provided you with tons of data. You then said that solar activity is relatively constant.

So then you are claimed that something can be both constant and at an all time low (this is your magic math?) Well then I showed again that you are wrong, that solar activity is cyclical, and I showed that you perhaps are not capable of understanding scientific graphs.

And what was your reply? None!

And what were you wrong about:
1. You knew nothing about the normal warming of the earth
2. You knew nothing about solar activity, outside of some talking point you heard
3. You were unable to look at graphs of solar activity and scientifically/mathematically understand them
4. Also, you are wrong about the GISTEMP graphs - you fail to understand my graph is made using their data, with a computer generated trend line in it
5. You also are wrong about your attitude. You should be pleased to find out you are so wrong.

A gentleman would have said "Ah, I now see what I was misunderstanding. Thank you for making this clear for me!" And what did you say? Not that!

And you guys claim that "denialists" are spreading misinformation! LOL

 

Really? Because all I see is AGWers spreading misinformation.

If you start reading here you will see a little thread that shows this exact story. An AGWer making a bunch of claims, like AGW is based on repeatable scientific experiments that lead to conclusive proof, but when challenged to show one repeatable scientific experiment that leads to conclusive proof, they completely fail.

Likewise, we see a AGWer claiming earth would never have warmed without human intervention, that it would have remained at the 1850 temperatures. I stomped on them in this post, and this post, and then completely wiped the floor with them in this post.

And what was their reply? They had none. It sure seems like it's the AGWers spreading misinformation.

And it makes sense - they are so attached to this belief that they feel if one little hole is poked in it then the whole thing is invalid - which is not the case! These guys are literally putting their fingers in their ears when it comes to reading anything bad about their beloved theory. I can not imagine being such a person.

Edit: Oops, I forgot the biggest misinformation spreader in this entire thing:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece

 

You won. Congrats.

 

The "alarmist" comment is one of the most amusing things because it illustrates how completely out of touch with reality denialists are. In the real world or at least here in "Real America (TM)" :usa: little to nothing happens until folks become alarmed.

Big and necessary public policy changes/initiatives happen when folks become duly alarmed to a threat. Sometimes it is pre-emptive (the lunar exploration program, CFC's and stratospheric ozone), other times it is in response to a threat that was long ignored or dismissed as "alarmist" (New Orleans flooding, 9/11, Pearl Harbor.)

By RP's logic it is alarmist to correctly comment that the light is red when the driver stomps on the accelerator instead of the brakes while approaching an intersection. :car: :scared:

 

Interestingly, you, among several other AGWers, thanked drees for his post in which he said claimed earth would never have warmed without human intervention, that it would have remained at the 1850 temperatures or gotten colder.



I guess you found that bit of misinformation informative?

 

Dude, you realize that that is a direct contradiction of the findings of numerous professional organizations not the least of which includes the World Meteorological Organization. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/science/earth/09climate.html

Also telling is the findings reported in this article:

Global cooling? Statisticians reject climate claims - Environment - Canoe.ca

What arrogance!

 

That's what the data shows. Right..you don't believe the data.

 

Ahh...information is beautiful...



Entire graphic Deniers Vs The Consensus debate here:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

 

RP,

Didn't you try to slap my wrists for assailing the messenger when I mentioned the potential veracity of the "daily express" nonesense? I think you said "even if I was the biggest liar in the world, why wouldn't you believe me if I told the truth on this" (sic)

And yet, a few post ago in this thread, you assail the source: "Edit: Oops, I forgot the biggest misinformation spreader in this entire thing:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6956783.ece"
__________________

Oh I guess the rules and etiquette are different if it is YOU making them up as you go along.

But what do I know, I'm only an alarmist!

(Proud of it too!)

 

With 2009 trending to be one of the hottest (probably all but 1998 or the 2005 peak), plus the start of a new solar cycle and the El Nino it doesn't look good for them in 2010. The denialists better hope for a large volcanic eruption event and the associated aerosol cooling.

If 2010 eclipses 1998 then I'm sure they will rush here to apologize for being so incredibly wrong. Nah, they don't have an ounce of intellectual integrity among them, particularly our most frequent denialist posters.

BTW: There is a pretty good sunspot group today SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids It's been growing over the past week and is a member of the current solar cycle. If the activity continues to increase I'll try to arrange some solar observing for the kids at the elementary schools again.

 

The only arrogance is from Seth Borenstein (the person who wrote the article you pasted)

Read these:

Discussing Seth Borenstein's post you pasted in:
Pielke Senior on the Borenstein AP statistics article Watts Up With That?

Specific Seth Borenstein criticsm:
AP’s Seth Borenstein is just too damn cozy with the people he covers – time for AP to do something about it Watts Up With That?

And lastly, this is funny:

Seth Borenstein left out in the cold (lol)
AP’s Seth Borenstein left out in the cold at Copenhagen for 7 hours thanks to U.N. incompetence Watts Up With That?

 

You are truly helpless. The graph you posted in no way supports anything you just said. And what you said has already proven to be wrong, and what I said is supported by the peer-reviewed literature you always ask for.

You are really sad.

 

:crazy:

 

It must really hurt that you come here, with RealClimate, etc, linked in your signature, and the "denialists" keep wiping the floor with you.

I mean, it's not even a challenge. TimBikes and I wipe the floor with you and everyone else. You guys have failed to made even a single point against us. It's really, really sad.

 

And this coming again from the guy who complains when others call him names.

As Politburo said earlier:

Hope you feel better, because it certainly doesn't change the facts.

 

You're exactly right. You didn't know any facts. I posted facts. You were wrong, and thus you lost. The facts don't change.

I hope you learned something in the process. That's what we all should be doing.

 

RP sounds like the Iraqi Information Minister most of the time. He denies the obvious and claims victory. There is really no "debate" once someone reaches that stage. It's equivalent to arguing with a lunatic...it is pointless noise.

RP claiming victory doesn't make it so. His "belief" (quoting him) that man can't change climate doesn't make it so. His claimed inability to understand the physics of green house gases doesn't change their impact any more than a failure to believe in gravity would protect one jumping out of an aircraft without a parachute. His denial of the accuracy of global temperature datasets and proxies doesn't change them. His many strawman arguments and avoidance of the central points demonstrate that he's got nothing but a belief system to claim victory on. His cherry picking to make specious claims actually discredits him. And many of his denialist arguments are self-contradictory. The other over arching problem is that he/they demand completely different levels of proof from one side of the argument than from the other.

If this was an actual debate of the science then all of the deniers here would have to admit that:
1. CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere.
2. The increase has been caused by man's activities--this is calculable and has been measured and cross examined.
3. The green house gas characteristics of CO2 are undeniable and based on known physics.

Dispute any of those three and it is game over, you lose because nothing you say after that is the least bit credible.

 

Just back from a refreshing vacation!

http://s3.amazonaws.com/ppt-downloa...260995813&AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJLJT267DEGKZDHEQ

University of Hawaii keeps up to date sea level measurements from a lot of places. Recent trend is DOWN.