Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Garpal Gumnut]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ah shucks bas.

Good to have you back.

gg

 

[basilio]

Thanks GG.. Just multiple kisses for all the good friends on the forum.

Actually... I was not able to put up a post for a couple of hours so the last one was a test run. But the thought is still there.

___________________________________________________________

Waye I can't agree with your statement that the Berkley study did not kill a big slab of "dissenting" science. For years now Watts up and others have been running very strongly on the urban heat island effect and stating that it might be responsible for up to 50% of the registered temp increase.

Whats were the results ? Lets see

“

The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”

Posted on 21 October 2011 by Andy S

A paper submitted for peer review by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (BEST) finds that urban heating has an influence on global temperature trends that is “nearly negligible” and that what effect has been observed is even slightly negative, which is to say that temperature trends in urban areas are actually cooler than the trends measured at rural sites, and that the Earth's land surface has warmed approximately 1 °C on average since 1950.
The Urban Heat Island Effect

It has long been observed that temperatures in cities are higher than in the surrounding countryside, caused, in part, by human structures that reduce albedo and evapo-transpiration, as well as by the effects of waste heat emissions, McCarthy et al 2010. Even though most (99%) of the Earth’s surface is not urbanized, some 27% of the Monthly Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-M) temperature stations are located in cities having populations of more than 50,000. Since urbanization has grown dramatically over the past few centuries, it seems reasonable to ask how much of the observed rise in global temperatures is due to urbanization.

For example, McKitrick and Michaels claimed in 2007 that about half of the recent warming over land is due to urban heat island effect, although this result was disputed by Schmidt in 2009.

.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/BEST-October-2011.html

 

[basilio]

Just to lighten the mood a little.

How about a Climate Change doc that doesn't give a rats rectum whether you believe in this climate change stuff or not?

Check out the clip and then perhaps the web site.

I'd be interested in feedback.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLs73KJI36w&feature=player_embedded
http://www.carbonnationmovie.com/home

 

[Julia]

Thanks GG.. Just multiple kisses for all the good friends on the forum.

Actually... I was not able to put up a post for a couple of hours so the last one was a test run.

Oh, how disappointing. And here I was thinking you were going all warm and fuzzy toward us.

 

[basilio]

But Julia you didn't quote my last comment.

"The thought was still there.."

 

[Calliope]

How about a Climate Change doc that doesn't give a rats rectum whether you believe in this climate change stuff or not?

Check out the clip and then perhaps the web site.

I'd be interested in feedback.

You seem to have to have switched your emphasis from your hysterical concentration on Global Warming to concentrating on Climate Change which is a natural cyclic phenomena. It appears you have realised that Joseph Goebbel's mantra which you once apparently espoused if flawed;

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

 

[sails]

Despite warmists and Bob Brown declaring that AGW is causing more floods...

a team from the National Technical University of Athens has now counted the floods over the past 30 years, and says, if anything, the world is getting fewer, not more

From Bolt's blog: No link found between warming and floods

For those who are terrified of Andrew Bolt's site...LOL - here is a direct link to the University site: http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1128/

And from What's up with that:
Why it seems that severe weather is “getting worse” when the data shows otherwise – a historical perspective

 

[Knobby22]

How comme the graphs end is 2000?
What happened to the last 11 years of data?

Looks like they copied someone elses report - beware of Greek students stating facts.

 

[sails]

How comme the graphs end is 2000?
What happened to the last 11 years of data?

Looks like they copied someone elses report - beware of Greek students stating facts.

Which report are you looking at? The 13 page PDF has quite a few graphs where the data goes past the 2000 mark. On page 6 it says this:

We also partitioned the total length of each time series into 30-year periods, (P1: 1891-1920, P2: 1921- 50, P3: 1951-80, P4: 1981-2010),

and I have seen other references to 2010, so not sure what you are on about, Knobby...

 

[sails]

...And from What's up with that:
Why it seems that severe weather is “getting worse” when the data shows otherwise – a historical perspective

and this from the What's up with that - again it mentions 2010 and it is another confirmation that weather is not getting any worse even IF the globe is going through a warming cycle:

Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

In your ongoing desperation you failed to post a link to the peer reviewed study that shows observed evidence of man's 3% contribution to total CO2 driving that 5 degrees. Can you put up that link now? It's only been 6 months of asking. Did I already mention "Models" do not represent observed evidence (in case you forgot - again).

As usual Basilio your assertions lack conviction and credibility. Again I ask, are you paid to be posting on this thread or are you a member of a AGW extremist group? Nothing wrong with spilling a little truth for once to the folks here.

Basilio, will you ever provide the simplest of answers to the questions above. Now approaching 7months of side stepping and misleading posts. Facts please - not propaganda. Or can you simply admit there's no observed evidence - it's actually ok to flip-flop sometimes.

 

[basilio]

Basilio, will you ever provide the simplest of answers to the questions above. Now approaching 7months of side stepping and misleading posts. Facts please - not propaganda. Or can you simply admit there's no observed evidence - it's actually ok to flip-flop sometimes.

I replied to your questions many times Ozzie. The analysis that proves man made CO2 is the prime mover in global warming can be found at

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-were-causing-global-warming-in-single-graphic.html

This brings together about 22 scientific papers that explore the human signature of global warming.

Unfortunately every time it's offered you reject this research as propaganda. I'm not interested in your refusal/inability to accept scientific research that you don't want to believe.
__________________________________________________________________

Moderators please note. This is the last time I want to see Ozzies repeated, incessant demands on this topic and refusal to accept a response. I find it abusive and against the spirit of any constructive debate. :

 

[wayneL]

This article highlights the desperate and laughable state of climate science and correctly summarizes BEST

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...warming-skepticism-or-the-birth-of-straw-men/

The Death Of Global Warming Skepticism, Or The Birth Of Straw Men?

SNIP: The mainstream media has been spiking the football in the proverbial end zone ever since a paper released last Friday claimed two-thirds of global temperature stations show some warming occurred during the past century. The media have been claiming the new paper delivers a death blow to skepticism, but the paper itself brings almost nothing new to the global warming debate and instead shows how far global warming advocates are from presenting credible evidence of a crisis. Rather than delivering a death blow to skepticism, the media has merely invented and shredded an insignificant straw man.

SNIP: Far from marking the death of skepticism, the media’s over-the-top sensationalism of the Muller paper shows just how far global warming advocates are from supporting their assertions of a human-induced global warming crisis. The straw man may be dead, but skepticism of a human-induced global warming crisis is alive and well.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

I replied to your questions many times Ozzie. The analysis that proves man made CO2 is the prime mover in global warming can be found at

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-were-causing-global-warming-in-single-graphic.html

This brings together about 22 scientific papers that explore the human signature of global warming.

Unfortunately every time it's offered you reject this research as propaganda. I'm not interested in your refusal/inability to accept scientific research that you don't want to believe.

__________________________________________________________________

Moderators please note. This is the last time I want to see Ozzies repeated, incessant demands on this topic and refusal to accept a response. I find it abusive and against the spirit of any constructive debate. :

This is becoming just too ludicrous....just so I've got this right, the climate alarmist establishment now refer to the inappropriately named "skeptical science" site, in fact a blog as the official site that publishes observed evidence of man's 3% contribution to CO2 as driving a nasty potential 5 deg of warming? If so, has anyone told Tim Flannery?

If this was a stock thread - your posts would be considered as ramping. Now, please provide a link to the paper(s) that are peer reviewed by all employed climate scientists that agree runaway global warming is from man's 3% CO2 contribution.

For example, proof of a Hot Spot would be a good starting point.

 

[Calliope]

Moderators please note. This is the last time I want to see Ozzies repeated, incessant demands on this topic and refusal to accept a response. I find it abusive and against the spirit of any constructive debate.

If you can't stand the heat, why are you still hanging around preaching your spurious doctrines. You have a strange idea of "constructive debate'???

 

[wayneL]

It gets worse and worse for BEST, Judith Curry (an honest broker) rips Muller a new one and states the obvious thing that no alarmist wants to accept:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...sed-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1cI53cckE

SNIP: Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.
In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.
‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’
However, Prof Muller denied warming was at a standstill.
‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. There was, he added, ‘no levelling off’.
A graph issued by the BEST project also suggests a continuing steep increase.

But a report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.
This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.
‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’

 

[Calliope]

‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.

Wayne, does this mean that Ms Gillard will have to change the title of her Carbon Tax to Electricity Tax? This would be one way of validating her big lie.

 

[basilio]

Gee Wayne you have the take first prize for the most credulous. open mouthed bait taker in history. Fancy swallowing that load of bollocks from of all places the Daily Mail.

Firstly did you notice something particularly interesting about the last value in the graph they used to show there was no warming ? It was a whopping 2.0 degrees below the trendline. It was an outlier. A freak figure that would certainly raise alarm bells when seen by scientists. Which of course it did and was duly corrected.

And when in the history of science has a slightly less than 10 year period been considered an accurate representation of long term climate trends? It is the equivalent of picking a 3 day cool spot in spring and using it to show temperatures don't rise in springtime! Just patently dishonest and totally daft.

I'm not going to copy and paste the whole article but there is a very good scientific analysis of the data that BEST has brought together which demonstrates how dishonest the Daily Mail has been. This is not a good look for a scientist who wants to be taken seriously.


http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/judith-curry-opens-mouth-inserts-foot/

 

[wayneL]

Oh and once again the alarmists play the man an not the ball.

It's a bit rich... actually downright laughable to slag off The Mail when you constantly quote that Fabian propaganda rag, The Guardian.

Please basilio, don't make me laugh. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Your blogger propagandist you linked to is no better, in true alarmist fashion, attacking JC's credibility and goofing around with least squares trendlines rather than arguing the science. And she is one of your's FFS! (I respect her however for her integrity, which cannot be said for most of the rest of the envirofascist cabal)

The truth is, contained in dozens of analyses of BEST, is that it offers nothing new... and certainly does not blow scepticism out of the water as you and your fellow apocolysts so breathlessly reported a few days ago.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

I'm really not sure why Basilio is still quoting from blogs and online entities from around the net when he/she still has not answered the most basic and fundamental questions of all:

In your ongoing desperation you failed to post a link to the peer reviewed study that shows observed evidence of man's 3% contribution to total CO2 driving that 5 degrees. Can you put up that link now? It's only been 6 months of asking. Did I already mention "Models" do not represent observed evidence (in case you forgot - again).​

You continually side step the above question and provide links to propaganda blogs.

When you've answered the above question, the obvious next question is: By how much will warming be forestalled by cutting 5%, 10% etc of man's 3% CO2 contribution to total CO2?

Time to be credible for a change and provide some honest debate?