Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Climate scientists keep getting it wrong


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

hahahaha I'm sorry. I was mistaken. I don't know why this is so funny. You're not a poor guy living in his mother's basement after all. You're an ACADEMIC. So you make $45K a year to wax poetic about why, even though the earth hasn't warmed significantly since 1998, the earth has actually warmed significantly since 1998.

hahahahahahaha. This is too fun. Sorry. Please do continue. I'm entertained. ;)

He actually explained the data he was using and making an argument, only for you to come back with some asinine snide remarks.

You know why you have nothing else to offer? Because he's right and you have absolutely nothing substantial to disprove it.

If you spent half as much time researching your arguments as you do insulting others' intelligence, you might actually give some semblance of knowing what you're talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about you make an argument before you start asking Socratic questions about others' arguments, hmm?

I kind of like the strategy of denying the earth is getting warm and then conceding it's getting warm but that it's not human-caused and then denying it's getting warm again. If you know that Waldo is going to cream you in a debate, don't let him nail you down on a coherent thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of like the strategy of denying the earth is getting warm and then conceding it's getting warm but that it's not human-caused and then denying it's getting warm again. If you know that Waldo is going to cream you in a debate, don't let him nail you down on a coherent thought.

a coherent thought?...no chance of that happening he's a drive by troll, shoot from the lip then refuse to give battle because he's got nothing but insults and bs....
Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of like the strategy of denying the earth is getting warm and then conceding it's getting warm but that it's not human-caused and then denying it's getting warm again. If you know that Waldo is going to cream you in a debate, don't let him nail you down on a coherent thought.

Huh? warm is good. The earth's climate changes all the time. I'm sorry if that's a problem for you.

It's cute though, how Waldo got the ol' "little engine that could" thing goin' on about how the warming stopped but it didn't really because you gotta adjust for this and that.

Finally Waldo got a chance to shine! :lol: All that studiousness in the bowels of university land paid off - he's a somebody! :P

Very important - to be sure.

Edited by JerrySeinfeld
Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? warm is good. The earth's climate changes all the time. I'm sorry if that's a problem for you.

It's cute though, how Waldo got the ol' "little engine that could" thing goin' on about how the warming stopped but it didn't really because you gotta adjust for this and that.

Finally Waldo got a chance to shine! :lol: All that studiousness in the bowels of university land paid off - he's a somebody! :P

Very important - to be sure.

jerry......just........shhhhhhh....it's getting embarassing now....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again folks, just take Jerry's word for it. Nothing's happening. George Carlin says so.

Hey bud - go ahead and stick to your dogma.

The essence of science is not to close off debate, but rather to encourage it.

Grow up and admit you don't know everything, I'm not sure why demonization is such a huge part of the liberal playbook, and frankly I don't care.

Making fun of people just because they don't agree with you is a uniquely liberal mindset.

Open your mind. And stop being so dismissive.

Edited by JerrySeinfeld
Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for you to support your argument.

What argument, that the world is fine? Go outside, buddy. :D

You (or should I say the warmongers) are the ones trying to make an argument. So the onus is upon you to prove your case, not on me.

So far, your results (ie. the accuracy of your predictions) are pretty shabby.

Edited by JerrySeinfeld
Link to post
Share on other sites
So far, your results (ie. the accuracy of your predictions) are pretty shabby.

But you've yet to prove that they're shabby. You've yet to give alternate explanations for the data that have been verified independently. You've yet to really do anything but rattle off insults and opinion masquerading as fact. It's pretty embarrassing actually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But you've yet to prove that they're shabby. You've yet to give alternate explanations for the data that have been verified independently. You've yet to really do anything but rattle off insults and opinion masquerading as fact. It's pretty embarrassing actually.

Really? Are you really debating whether or not the predictions were incorrect?

I thought even the most ardent warmist accepted this obvious fact.

But since you have your head in the sand, here you go.. Wait, let me quote:

"The observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the industrial era is less than 40% of that expected from observed increases in long-lived greenhouse gases together with the best-estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity given by the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

I kind of feel sorry for you in a weird way. You're still clinging to something that is obviously false.

Pretty much everyone knows this now, which is why climate change has been relegated to somewhere between the hovercraft and giant tomatoes on the national priority list.

It's kind of sad but I love rubbing it in your faces. Mostly because you were all such liars and so adamant about your belief. Religious is the word I would use,. Hateful of those who disagreed.

Truly hateful. That's the thing. I used to just not like liberals. Feel sorry for them. Recognize that maybe, just maybe, they wanted what is best.

But look at the global warming thing. Look how venomously they came after people. Normal scientists who only sought truth. Pure venom.

Liberals, I hav discovered, aren't nice people. They are leeches. Vampires. They suck off of good people. And they use good intentions as a disguise to do it. Liberals are truly awful, disgusting, vile individuals. Global warming isn't a "problem". It's a reason to take your money away from you. It's a reason to control people.

Liberals are the most disgusting vile creatures on the face of the earth, because they use "the greater good" as a reason to suck your blood, even when "the greater good" is a complete and utter sham.

Edited by JerrySeinfeld
Link to post
Share on other sites

What argument, that the world is fine? Go outside, buddy. :D

You (or should I say the warmongers) are the ones trying to make an argument. So the onus is upon you to prove your case, not on me.

So far, your results (ie. the accuracy of your predictions) are pretty shabby.

Hey, Fort Chipeweyan, I realize that a fully independant study with controls in place to redundancy proved that you were dying at an alarming rate from heavy metal induced bile duct cancer from the tar sands, but it's safe to come out now. The world is fine. Jerry says so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Fort Chipeweyan, I realize that a fully independant study with controls in place to redundancy proved that you were dying at an alarming rate from heavy metal induced bile duct cancer from the tar sands, but it's safe to come out now. The world is fine. Jerry says so.

It truly is amazing isn't it? Most rivers are cleaner than they were a decade or two ago. The country has way more trees than 20 or 30 years ago. The environment is truly in great shape!

As for the oil sands, isn't it fantastic that we have this resource? We are truly blessed in this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Kalamazoo, I realize that enbridge spewed oil across 40 miles of your state, and then rolled out truckloads of canvas cloth and planted grass over top of it instead of cleaning it up, and theres now 40 miles of oil leaching into the groundwater, and that it's all documented in graphic detail and posted all over youtube, but it's okay to drink the water now. The world is fine. Jerry says so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Kalamazoo, I realize that enbridge spewed oil across 40 miles of your state, and then rolled out truckloads of canvas cloth and planted grass over top of it instead of cleaning it up, and theres now 40 miles of oil leaching into the groundwater, and that it's all documented in graphic detail and posted all over youtube, but it's okay to drink the water now. The world is fine. Jerry says so.

Energy is important - no, VITAL.

It's an agreed upon idea that the few may have to suffer from time to time so that the many may thrive.

Oil is the reason our standard of living is as high as it is. People like to decry oil, but oil is seriously the source of so much good in our world. Travel, medicine, warmth...all of this is thanks to oil.

Have you ever driven or walked past a car accident? A fatality? Bloody horrible. Mangled bodies and blood everywhere. It's ugly. But we all, as a society, accept that this will happen. Nobody tries to ban cars because of accidents. Because we accept the cost benefit.

Again, oil is messy stuff. But our lives are all so soooo much better because of it. This is why we accept the odd spill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Even when everything they predicted was wrong.
everything predicted wrong Jer? Everything! :lol: Let's play - that's back to 1990, the very first IPCC report - the SAR. The stimulation scenarios associated with the respective models were the first iterations... GHG forcing levels were less precise then they are today. The FAR simulations were also run against models with differing climate sensitivities. These were the first ever IPCC projections made. Science advances/improves - go figure. A significant point is one I've beat upon many times over in assorted MLW climate change related threads. Your linked graph references the HadCrut3 dataset that is known to be the least warm of all surface temperature datasets (the reasons are well understood/documented... if you persist I will quote you them from an earlier MLW thread/post). The article that associates with your linked graph was written in June 2011... at that point in time the HadCrut version would be '3' (HadCrut3). Your graph showing the UAH satellite data is a relative non-starter in relation to 1990 IPCC projections as reflected against the referenced global-mean surface air temperature. The fact 'your guy' included the satellite reference is laughable.

are you with me so far Jer? :lol: Have a look at another graph... one updated to include new GHG forcing levels; one updated to reflect upon the more representative GISTemp surface temperature dataset. (outer lighter blue lines are the boundary ranges for sensitivity of the IPCC FAR projections; the darker blue line reflects the GHG changes observed in relation to the best sensitivity level definition of that time (2.5°C); the red line is the observed global surface temperature associated with a 5-year running average of the GISTEMP dataset). Are you liking this graph a little better Jer?

Is that a long verbose way of saying "we were wrong"? :lol:

no, not at all. As I said, if you focus on the simulation scenario associated with the best estimate climate sensitivity... while using a more globally representative surface temperature dataset, you'll very much appreciate the associated IPCC FAR projection does very well - indeed. It sure highlights the projection capabilities of climate models, hey Jer?... even those early iterations, now decades old; notwithstanding ongoing advances/improvements.

notwithstanding you haven't a clue about anything you reference or anything being presented to you. We've seen your type many times before... you lay down a 'ta da' link, without you having any understanding of what you're presenting, without you actually offering any interpretation of what you're posturing over. You can't argue a single point... any ole fake skeptic denier, like you, can drop links and scurry away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
... even though the earth hasn't warmed significantly since 1998, the earth has actually warmed significantly since 1998.

hahahahahahaha. This is too fun. Sorry. Please do continue. I'm entertained. ;)

ah yes, you've bumbled upon another nugget - the 'no warming since 1998' meme. Jer, is there any chance in hell you might step up and try to substantiate that, hey? :lol:

Jer, have a dose of reality with this animated graphic!

Jer... have some more:

in any case, if you actually read the Rose tabloid "article", you will find it devoid of who/what is actually making the claim concerning the British Met Office data release... in fact, the article is devoid of any real substance or detail. Even if one didn't look at the actual Met Office data, anytime the year 1997/1998 is flagged, one is immediately alerted to the cherry-picking best, given the effective anomaly that 97/98 was in terms of being one of the warmest years on record. But, of course, the article found a home as it's been spun hundreds of times across the blogging denialsphere. What you will realize from the following
, is that the claim has been made entirely by the "journalist", David Rose, himself... and he purposely ignores the Met Office responses to his own inquiries of them.
Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or
his belief
that we have seen no warming since 1997.

For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:

A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data.

“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.

“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”

(note: HadCRUT3 is the global historical surface temperature anomalies dataset within the grouping of Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets)

Jer... have another:

... Not ended... not slowed... and not natural, as you stated:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Finally Waldo got a chance to shine! :lol: All that studiousness in the bowels of university land paid off - he's a somebody! :P

Very important - to be sure.

Jer, if you want a handicap... if you need to be spotted... let me know.

it is heartening to see you following the anti-education/anti-academia mantra of the "conservative right" - that's always a winner for you guys, hey? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah yes, you've bumbled upon another nugget - the 'no warming since 1998' meme. Jer, is there any chance in hell you might step up and try to substantiate that, hey? :lol:

Jer, have a dose of reality with this animated graphic!

Jer... have some more:

Jer... have another:

Speaking of "cherry picking" - convenient how you and you'r buds in the science department picked 1970. :lol:

It;s cute how angry these guys are. "2000-2009 is warmest!!!"

Haha. A little touchy? Being warm doesn't a trend make. Just because the world got warmer in the 90's and stayed that way in the Oughts doesn't a trend make. To say nothing of causality. These dudes are grasping at straws. And so are you. :lol:

Have you ever considered, even for an instant, that you are wrong?

If you haven't, then you aren't a scientist, you are a religious zealot, which I think we all knew all along.

Edited by JerrySeinfeld
Link to post
Share on other sites

no, not at all. As I said, if you focus on the simulation scenario associated with the best estimate climate sensitivity... while using a more globally representative surface temperature dataset, you'll very much appreciate the associated IPCC FAR projection does very well - indeed. It sure highlights the projection capabilities of climate models, hey Jer?... even those early iterations, now decades old; notwithstanding ongoing advances/improvements.

notwithstanding you haven't a clue about anything you reference or anything being presented to you. We've seen your type many times before... you lay down a 'ta da' link, without you having any understanding of what you're presenting, without you actually offering any interpretation of what you're posturing over. You can't argue a single point... any ole fake skeptic denier, like you, can drop links and scurry away.

Aww - you're cute. Silly me. If only I had focussed on the simulation scenario associated with the best estimate climate sensitivity maybe that darn global warming would've happened, and then my life's work of taking core samples from glaciers in Tuktoyuktuk would have been worthwhile after all. :lol:

Or wait, that'd be you.

Edited by JerrySeinfeld
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...