The red curve includes the revisions, the green curve the old data. The reason you can't see the green curve, is because it doesn't deviate from the new curve. In other words, such a minisule change to the trends, it doesn't even register on the graph. Nothing has changed, except the denier crowd will cling onto this new tidbit, extrapolate and exaggerate, confuse and try to muddy the discussion. Kudos to McIntryre for uncovering a real error, even if turns out to be empirically irrelevant.
15 comments:
Lighten up Steve . . . . its just a computer program!!!
Why not post the real, indisputable science that explaines how man's conribution to CO2 (which is 4% of .05% of the atmosphere) is causing the globe to warm to unprecedented levels?
Of course you can't . . . . because it does not exist . . . there is no concensis, only myths, fears, silly projections and lies. Is it not strange that most of the warming in the last 100 years took place before 1940?? Since 1998 we have seen a slight cooling. But the chicken-littles carry on, govts have given billions to econ-nuts and scientists who promote "computer model" so-called facts at the church of global warming.
5 years from now we will all look back and laugh at how so many were duped by Al and Maurice and company.
oldschool
You should change your nic to needstogobacktoschool. I'm in a blunt mood today- you're an ignorant fool :)
No Steve . . . you are the fool . . . and history will prove you so in a few short years!!!
Every week more and more real facts emerge from the skeptics and thinkers on the planet.
Why do you suppost Suzuki and Gore avoid debate??? They would be cut to pieces.
Kyoto is about global socialism, destroying economies nothin more.
Remember CO2 is plantfood . . . . without it we would all cease to exist!!!
Did these fools even pass basic algebra?
Since when does a lessening of the slope line (meaning the heating has slowed) turned into "a cooling period."
Time for a visual analogy. Say you're heading towards a cliff in your gas-guzzling convertible and have accelerated to 200 kph with the pedal punched to the floor. But in the last 50 meters, you ease off the gas so you're accelerating at half the amount you had been, resulting in only reach 220 kph at the time you go through the guard rail instead of 240 kph.
What are the chances that you'll be saved as a result whe you hit the canyone floor?
Do you math carefully . . . you only have a few seconds left so you'll wnat to make sure you've got it all clear in your head as you plummet.
anon
Enough with the common sense and logic would ya. Thanks.
As I have asked so many times of you "end of the world" folks . . . where's the science . . . just provable, repeatable scientific facts???
Show the world how the miniscule amount of CO2 created by man and his activities 4% is affecting the temperature. Or, could it be the 96% of CO2 created by Volcanoes, Oceans, decay and animals??? Why not stop Volcanoes??? Did the UN not say that cows create more heat trapping gasses than man???
Water vapour is 100's of times more pevalent in the atmosphere than CO2 . . . why not get rid of clouds??
My car is 98% cleaner than just 30 years ago . . .
Tell me steve what school teaches all about the nonsense that the GW crowd is pushing??? At my son's school they tried to show Al's silly movie, but when they were told they should show the Great GW Swindle as well, so the kids could actually have a real debate and do some critical thinking, the lefty teachers union would not let them show either.
The level of debate is laughable . . . the believers call anyone who questions their lack of facts "deniers" . . . boy that's an intelectual posision if I have ever seen one.
But, I do know a few facts from my school days, The Vikings once lived in Greenland and forests grew in what is now the arctic, they arn't there today, and at one time there was a mile of Ice over Winnipeg, so we are a long way from either senario . . .
Actually, old school. I am just addressing the fact that you are either a) stupid or b) lieing.
Please explain the "cooling period" since 1998 that you tossed out in your first comment. I just want to see you explain that commentary. But please glance at the "corrected" chart first. I just want to hear your explanation, without polar bears, vikings, or alien life-forms clouding the mathematical equation.
I mean, since we're so being precise and all.
Oldschool - you need some schooling. The earth will not end because of climate change/global warming. HUMANITY will end you old fool.
"where's the science . . . just provable, repeatable scientific facts???"
The last thing a denier wants, is a discussion of the science.
Oldschool, are really that stupid? or are you just pretending? It always amazes me how people with zero scientific understanding can think that they are right and the scientific community is wrong. Do you think that all medical doctors are wrong too? How about structural engineers?
So how about we go over some of your bullshit claims one at a time in simple language so there might be the slightest chance that you might understand it.
“how the world how the miniscule amount of CO2 created by man and his activities 4% is affecting the temperature. Or, could it be the 96% of CO2 created by Volcanoes, Oceans, decay and animals??? Why not stop Volcanoes??? Did the UN not say that cows create more heat trapping gasses than man???”
Maybe you should look into some real science instead of just quoting the “swindle.” There is not one scientist in the world who believes that volcanoes produce as much CO2 as the producer of the “swindle” states, that includes every scientist who appeared in the mockumentory. The producer just pulled a number out of his ass something that he did frequently. The real numbers which countless scientific studies can attest to is that humans produce about 150 times as much CO2 as volcanoes. Secondly, the fact that humans only produce 4% of the CO2 each year is a strawman argument which most readers of any blogs with even the slightest amount of intelligence won’t fall for (but you did). The CO2 produced by decay/animals etc is a closed loop – plants grow drawing CO2 out of atmosphere, then they are harvested or consumed returning the same amount of CO2 back into the atmosphere. This a pretty simple concept. Human CO2 emissions are different. We are taking carbon that has been trapped beneath the surface for millions and millions of years and spewing that carbon into the atmosphere at a increasing rate. So natural emissions are not changing atmospheric CO2 levels, but the burning of non-renewable fuels by humans is. The good thing is that by looking at the natural system we realize that we can get our energy from solar and wind power instead, thereby not adding CO2 to the atmosphere in the process. Oh, and don’t try to blame the oceans for our CO2 levels. The oceans are carbon sinks meaning that pull excess CO2 out of oceans (co2 that was not part of a closed loop such as volcanoes) and for the last century the oceans have been saving our asses, by working overtime trying to remove our excess. Currently the oceans pull almost half of our humans emissions from the atmosphere, but this percentage is going down, and if the ocean gets warmer it will end up reversing the process (ie releasing more CO2 then it absorbs) which will be bad news.
“Why not post the real, indisputable science that explaines how man's conribution to CO2 (which is 4% of .05% of the atmosphere) is causing the globe to warm to unprecedented levels?”
Maybe you should read a science magazine or journal. The most recent Scientific American has a lengthy article on how human caused climate change is indisputable. The prestigious journals Nature and Science have peer reviewed articles about the science of climate change in almost every issue.
“Of course you can't . . . . because it does not exist . . . there is no concensis, only myths, fears, silly projections and lies.”
Do you mean “consensus?” There is a massive scientific consensus. One of the strongest in modern science.
“Is it not strange that most of the warming in the last 100 years took place before 1940??”
Maybe you should look at that chart again.
“Since 1998 we have seen a slight cooling.”
Again maybe you should look at that chart again. Is there anything that a “global warming is a conspiracy” lunatic has ever said that you didn’t swallow without question?
“But the chicken-littles carry on, govts have given billions to econ-nuts and scientists who promote "computer model" so-called facts at the church of global warming.”
I would advise you to take an honest look into computer simulations before you continue to make an ass of yourself by attacking them.
“5 years from now we will all look back and laugh at how so many were duped by Al and Maurice and company.”
Sure, how about you give me your address and in five years I will stop by. We will see which one of looks like an idiot.
“Every week more and more real facts emerge from the skeptics and thinkers on the planet.”
Are you serious? The truth is that each week hundreds of thousands of facts emerge from the scientists and nothing comes from the denialists – not a thing.
“Remember CO2 is plantfood . . . . without it we would all cease to exist!!!”
Plants also need manure to grow. Here’s an experiment for you:
You know that manure makes plants grow faster, so create two flower beds with a bunch of growing flowers. Use a normal amount of manure on bed 1 (the control group), then use a ton of manure on bed 2 (bury the flowers in 4 feet of shit). Obviously bed 2 is going to grow like a thousand times faster right? Right? Brilliant logic noschool.
“where's the science . . . just provable, repeatable scientific facts???”
You must have never looked into the pseudo-science that your denialist heroes are pushing.
“Did the UN not say that cows create more heat trapping gasses than man???”
Strawman argument. Cows are part of the natural process. The food that cows eat absorbed ghgs from the environment when they were growing, the cows eat that food, releasing those ghgs back into the environment. Cows naturally produce very little methane, however, due to unnatural feeds, industrially produced cattle produce far more than is natural. However the amount of methane they produce is trivial to the amount of ghgs produced by humans. When cows start driving pickup trucks then we can start blaming them, but if you are really worried about their methane production, you could go vegetarian, or buy organic grass fed beef.
“Water vapour is 100's of times more pevalent in the atmosphere than CO2 . . . why not get rid of clouds??”
Strawman argument. Water vapor is feedback factor, CO2 is a forcing factor. That means that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cause levels of water vapor in the atmosphere to increase. Plus there is a big difference between CO2 in the atmosphere (which has something like a hundreds times the heat trapping affinity of water vapor AND often stays in the atmosphere for over a hundred years) and water vapor (which stays in the atmosphere for about 9 to 15 days).
“My car is 98% cleaner than just 30 years ago . . .”
The amount of CO2 that a car produces has not changed much in 40 years. Yes they do emit far less lead and ground level, smog forming pollution.
“Tell me steve what school teaches all about the nonsense that the GW crowd is pushing??? “
Obviously no the school you went to. But, any student who gets a science degree, should finish with the knowledge that the evidence for human caused climate change is obvious.
“At my son's school they tried to show Al's silly movie, but when they were told they should show the Great GW Swindle as well, so the kids could actually have a real debate and do some critical thinking, the lefty teachers union would not let them show either.”
Nothing like trying to ensure that your children are as scientifically ignorant as you are. I hope that you are also pushing for them to teach creationism in the science classes to counter evolution. Lets bring up a future generation as stupid as the dumbest among us right now. There is no “real” debate when it comes to climate change. Anyone with even a half a brain has realized that by now. There is a reason why we say that there is a scientific consensus. That reason? Because there ACTUALLY IS ONE. No articles skeptical of global warming have appeared in peer-reviewed scientific journals – not because of some conspiracy, but because deniers know that their “work” would never pass a peer review process. That is why they write books – so they can make money off of know-nothing deniers, who don’t have the brain capacity or skepticism to realize that they are being scammed by the likes of Patrick Michaels and the “swindle.” I just hope that your son, can rise above your level of ignorance and see the world for what it is.
“The level of debate is laughable . . . the believers call anyone who questions their lack of facts "deniers" . . . boy that's an intelectual posision if I have ever seen one.”
The level of debate is laughable, because your side is a joke. And the reason why people like me call you deniers, is because you are. You are not skeptics – both the magazines that promote skepticism have stated that human caused climate change is an overwhelming scientific fact, and that “so-called global warming skeptics” are not skeptics, but people who are completely ignorant of science (see the most recent two issues of “skeptical inquirer” and “skeptic” magazine from last year).
“But, I do know a few facts from my school days,”
Sadly not many.
“The Vikings once lived in Greenland”
So what? That doesn’t mean that it was green – it had more ice coverage then than it does today. However, they had better harvests back then because they chopped down all the trees and had good harvests while the soil lasted. Unfortunately the soil was weak, and with no protection from trees the soil eroded away. The fall of the Viking society in the middle ages had more to due with irresponsible farming practices than a warm period ending (see Diamond’s “Collapse”)
“and forests grew in what is now the arctic, they arn't there today, and at one time there was a mile of Ice over Winnipeg, so we are a long way from either senario . . .”
Again, so what? All climate scientists know this. Among other things it tells them that small changes in temperature can lead to big changes on the ground. Therefore, they realize that it is a bad idea for us to cause temperature changes.
"It always amazes me how people with zero scientific understanding can think that they are right and the scientific community is wrong."
Wayward, per usual, excellent rebuttal. These people think that we are sheep, sucked in by the environmental lobby, that is only interested in government funding, while they are the critical thinkers, smarter than the experts. They pull out a rogue study here, a Gore mis-speak there, and extrapolate that to undermine the mountain of the evidence, as though that follows any scientific model.
Experts are partisans, there is an agenda, which is the last resort, when you can't stomach the totality of the evidence. I don't give a shit about Al Gore or David Suzuki, frankly they are irrelevant to the evidence. Where they are valuable is awareness, motivation.
Much of the debate is centered around sidetracks, for instance Kilimanjaro. The deniers are quick to jump on the SCIENTISTS conclusions that the retreat isn't related to global warming, but then they fail to recognize the same SCIENTISTS who point to ranges all over the globe where the phenomenon is real and the co-relation exists.
NASA changed the numbers, because they are pursuing the truth, scientists are obliged. Again, the deniers fail to acknowledge the result, which is a statistically irrelevant deviation, that changes nothing, as it relates to the overall conclusions.
In five years, people like oldschool will still find something to cling onto, and unfortunately the internet provides enough pseudo-science to fill a WANTING heart. This is a political fight, as evidenced by the constant reference to the left, and their lobbyists, scientists. You can always find an alternative reality, if you try hard enough. We did land on the moon, Bush wasn't behind 9/11, the bullet did pass through the Governor and Kennedy, etc, etc, etc. You can spend your entire life in fantasy land, if you choose, I prefer to listen to the advice of people with NO agenda, other than a pursuit for the truth. Attack the messenger, when you can't handle the message.
Homo Sapiens has turned out to be an evolutionary dead end.
As proof I give you oldschool.
Maybe the next evolutionary bipedal human phase will turn out better but Homo Sapiens is kaput.
The "tipping point"on climate change opinion happened this year when both Bush and Harper (reluctantly & likely duplicitous-ly) abandoned the deniers.
Now "we" should simply ignore "them" and get on with things. Why debate oldschool and his/her ilk we we should be discussing how to mitigate the grave situation humans have created.
GW deniers belong in the dust bin of history along with other great conservative causes such as creationism, gender discrimination, racism etc. where they share space with holocaust deniers. (not implying the last group were/are a conservative cause.)
Why debate oldschool and his/her ilk we we should be discussing how to mitigate the grave situation humans have created."
Ron, that's why I'm increasingly flippant and dismissive, it's a waste of energy. It is sad, that the mainstream scientific community is already trying to grapple with adaptation, and we still have the stragglers arguing the world is flat. In the future, people won't laugh at oldschool, they will shake their heads in disgust, that some were so dense, not to accept something which has become obvious.
Steve, yes the deniers use typical conspiracy theory tactics. Where any error, no matter how small, or anything odd (one glacier expanding means global warming is a hoax. I doesn’t matter if every other glacier is retreating, or if there is a damn good scientific reason for that one to be expanding) overturns the weight of scientific evidence. It was great that you put up that chart showing the changes (or lack of changes). That is real evidence, something deniers hate to see.
I just finished reading a book called “Monkey Girl” which I recommend. It is about the court case in Dover, Penn where they tried to force intelligent design into the curriculum. I was surprised to read that the creationists on the school board were even more insane and ignorant than I originally thought (which is to say extremely). But the book also tried to show the mindset of the creationists. I mean if you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god, that belief in evolution is a guarantee to go to hell, and that the apocalypse is very near and only a tiny fraction of one percent of the world’s population will go to heaven, with the rest of world already under the influence of the devil. Well if your religious views tell you that greater than 99% of the world’s population is under the influence of the devil and is trying to shake your children’s faith, then it is easy to believe that the whole scientific community is involved in a conspiracy. Furthermore if you know that you are going to heaven, what could be worse than the threat of your child becoming educated about evolution and going to hell. How far would a parent go to save their child from damnation? (It reminds of the 8 part PBS NOVA special on evolution where a fundamentalist mother said that she would rather her daughter be dead than question her faith.) I have a feeling that the opposition to evolution is going to get much worse, and most conspiracy theories are coming from the same people – who more often than not – are Christian fundamentalists.
Ron – “Why debate oldschool and his/her ilk we we should be discussing how to mitigate the grave situation humans have created.”
I agree with you for the most part. I don’t generally end up debating the likes of oldschool. Instead I just try to show that they are wrong or irrelevant in every single point that they make and then most of time they don’t reappear on the same thread, but head out to spread their conspiracy crap on other threads. Plus my interest isn’t in converting oldschool, I know that is hopeless, my fear though is other people reading oldschool type posts and concluding that there is controversy in regards to global warming.
Post a Comment