To "Tyler D" so, then you are saying that Phil Jones has no credibility,
eventhough he is the man responsibile for maintaining the temperature record
that the IPCC report was based on? He also was the main writer for one of the
chapters in the IPCC?Either Phil Jones is a very credible
climatologist that has the attention of world governments, or else the world
governments have used him for their own agenda. Either way, it just shows that
the current climate theories are wrong. If he is credible, then the NOAA
statement about the climate models is wrong. If he is not credible, then the
IPCC is wrong because much of it is based on his temperature records.
@5000 Year Leap – “Ayn Rand was a "she", not a "he".
Ayn Rand is a woman… know a little about what your talking
about.”Yes, I know that… The parentheses
portion of the comment was meant to refer to Phil Jones and not Ayn Rand, but
thanks for pointing out my poor sentence structure. And it was an
analogy, not a response to anything said about Ayn Rand directly – an
analogy meant to highlight the fact that both of them are/were egomaniacal
bullies prone to making unsubstantiated assertions and are/were generally
regarded as incompetent in their respective fields (and Ms. Rand boldly claimed
herself to be a philosopher and her cult followers hold her up as the most
brilliant since Aristotle). So other than serving as the grammar
police (by the way, “you’re” is you are), was there another
point you wanted to make? Reached comment limit…
Tyler D,Ayn Rand was a "she", not a "he". Ayn Rand is a
woman.YOU may want to look Him (sic) or Her up and and know a little
about what your talking about.But I agree she was not a great
philosopher. But who said she was? She was a Russian-American novelist with
philosophical views, but I don't know anybody here who called her a great
Citing Phil Jones as the foremost authority on climate change is like citing Ayn
Rand as a foremost philosopher (I’ll leave it to others to look him
up).FYI - I’ve hear Shout works well on removing cherry
To "Tyler D" you are saying that Phil Jones cherry picked the data? You
realize that he is one of the leading climatologists. If he cherry picked the
data during his 2010 interview, what other data has he cherry picked and
manipulated for his own purposes.Either way, your ilk are having a
harder time defending the so-called experts.Lets review what you and
"atl134" have brought up in this thread.First, the climate
models are wrong, according to the NOAA, UK Met office, and Phil Jones. None of
which are exactly conservative.Second, Phil Jones has cherry picked
the data. Phil Jones is a leading expert and often quoted source of information
for AGW alarmists. Do you know something that Dr Phil Jones doesn't?So, if the models are wrong and the leading climatologists are cherry
picking data, why should we trust anything that they are reporting or trusting
@RedShirtMIT – “They have stated quite clearly that between 1997 and
2010 that the change in temperature is not statistically significant.”How many times does this cherry-picked 15 year time span need to be
debunked before you and your “ilk” get it?Please reread
atl134’s previous comment (i.e., we should have seen cooling, but
didn’t)Or do you have an ulterior motive for continuing to
post this red herring?
To "atl134" the change, accoring to the experts, is not significant.Do you know something that the experts don't know? They have
stated quite clearly that between 1997 and 2010 that the change in temperature
is not statistically significant.The NOAA may say that AGW is
occuring, but they have also said that the models are wrong.So, what
are we to do with the predicitons and their assumptions of what is causing the
warming.Think of it this way. If the NOAA built airplanes, and
their computer model was shown to be totally wrong, would you fly on that
airplane?Basically, if the computer model is wrong what does that
say about the assumptions going into the computer model?
@RedshirtMIT"does it really matter what the temperatures were, if
statistically the .2F change is not statistically significant?"Actually .2F/decade is statistically significant as is the .12-.15F/decade
during the satellite era (late 70s onward) we see in all major datasets (NOAA,
NASA, CRU, RSS, and UAH). The part that wasn't a statistically significant
increase in warming was the part from 1997-2011 which has something like a
.01F/decade.There is no statistically significant warming at this
moment, but the period you cite starts with the strongest El Nino in half a
century and ends with 4 La Ninas in the last 5 years (along with a deeper than
usual solar minimum), frankly it's telling that we have a flat line the
past 15 years when really the natural cycles involved in those 15 years suggest
it should be cooling, not staying flat. It's not a matter of
agreeing with NOAA or "alarmists" because NOAA still says the same thing
which is that anthropogenic climate change is occurring.
The Alaska permafrost is thawing. The Northern Polar ice cap is disappearing.
Soon Hudson Bay will have a year round port. Seawalls are being built to
protect coastal Eskimo communities. This implies some sort of warming trend,
does it not?
To "atl134" does it really matter what the temperatures were, if
statistically the .2F change is not statistically significant?You
still haven't answered the question. The NOAA said that 15 years or more
where there is no warming means that the model is WRONG. We have between 16 and
18 years of no significant warming (depending on who you ask).So, do
you trust the NOAA and their statement that the models predicting warming are
wrong, or do you trust the alarmists that say AGW is true?
@RedshirtMIT"So, do you trust the NOAA, or do you trust the
Alarmists?"NOAA. But tell me... what does NOAA say about the
long term trend in temperatures and future projections of them? NOAA is the
entity that says temperatures in the 2000s were .2F higher than they were in the
1990s. If you trust them so much then why do you ignore the vast majority of
what they say?
You have to go back to the 1950s to find a decade that was not warmer than the
previous decade. The 2000s were hotter than the 90s. Warming continues.
"2F warmer than the 90s and the 90s were around .15F warmer than the
80s." atl134 you need to change your numbers they far exceed global warming
advocate chart numbers that show the global temperature increase since 1890 to
current is 1 degree Celsius. That equates to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit in
one hundred and twenty three years.
To "Kent C. DeForrest" the number 16 is just a coincidence. It is,
however, based on things that the NOAA and leading climatologists have said.From the NOAA, "Near-zero and even negative trends are common for
intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s
internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero
trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of
warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected
present-day warming rate."According to the UK Met office, there
has been no warming since 1997.According to Phil Jones, in a 2010
interview was asked "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has
been no statistically-significant global warming?" He responded
"Yes"If there has been no significant warming since his
interview, that means we have nearly 18 years without significant warming.Now, according to the NOAA, if we have 15 years OR more without warming,
the models are wrong and must be evaluated.So, do you trust the
NOAA, or do you trust the Alarmists?
Mman:Perhaps you should do some research. Why do you suppose the
conservatives pick the strange number 16? It's because 16 years ago there
was an anomalous spike in temperatures. If you pick 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, or 30
years, you'll find a distinct average increase. Weather patterns go in
cycles, so you have plateaus in the increase, but each new plateau is higher
than the previous one. Yes, the earth's temperature is increasing. In fact,
much of the warming is being trapped in the oceans in recent years. But this
will be released, and when it is, air temperatures will climb even faster.So please stop using Faux News statistics tricks to misrepresent facts.
Do some research!
I can see the party of "watch the paint dry" and "kick the can down
the road" is at it again in this thread! See, my father was never rich like
Bro Romney growing up, but he taught us so many valuable life lessons. One of
them being that we should not complain about things if we weren't willing
to work to change them. This same strategy applies so well to the current GOP.
In the last election the GOP complained about the Electoral College.
Funny, because n 2000 the GOP candidate was elected by the Supreme Court and
Electoral College. They didn't want to change things back then, they,
"watched the paint dry."Pre 9/11? Did they beef up security?
Nope. "Watched the paint dry."For 8 years, the GOP could
have done something about illegal immigration, health care, and the deficit.
What did they do? "Kicked the can down the road." Somebody else would
solve those problems, don't ya know? Now, these same folks are
weighing in on climate change. Given their track record? Hahaha! why would we
ever trust them? Lets stop kicking the can down the road. Our
children and grandchildren are at stake.
To "LDS Tree-Hugger" you are ignoring the fact that many
environmentalists have loved the forests to death. They don't allow
prescribed burns, and have encouraged policies that have allowed the forests to
become old-growth forests that are very prone to become large fires quickly.According to the Pacific Northwest Research Station's report
"NEW FINDINGS ABOUT OLD-GROWTH FORESTS" they found that the old growth
forests were created because of fires burining out some trees. The also found
that many of the protected forests with the old growth are more prone to fires
now than they previously were.They also produced a report for the US
Forest Service titled "OLD GROWTH REVISITED: INTEGRATING SOCIAL, ECONOMIC,
AND ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES" There they found that "Fire suppression
and other activities over the years have resulted in increasing the risk to some
of the old forests we want to retain" Again, forest policies have made them
more prone to bad fires.In other words, we have loved our old growth
forests to death. Now they burn too easily.
@atl134 – “Climate norms are calculated over 30 year periods, you
use 16 because that's what's useful for cherrypicking.”You are assuming that truth is what he is interested in…Scientists have the “unfortunate” habit of epistemic humility
– they speak of evidence and probability and because they don’t wish
to have their reputation destroyed by some young upstart looking to stake their
own reputation, they are always quick to point out what we (as of yet)
don’t know.And that is where all the ideologues, with their
presuppositions, step in with their cherry-picking or worse
“proving” why the scientists are wrong. We see it with
the “god-in-the-gaps” folks who argue against evolution, and we see
it in spades with respect to climate science.Current evidence (not
proof) strongly suggests man made climate change, but the deniers don’t
care about evidence (except for those sparse cherry picked pieces that support
their ideology). If it wasn’t for the fact that science
“delivers the goods” and eventually its conclusions simply compel
agreement (assuming one is not brain damaged), we would still be living under
the theocratic yoke of the Dark Ages.
Glenn Beck says the earth is actually cooling so that's what I believe.
@higv"Fires exist because of nature and in some cases human
carelessness not over a climate we cannot change"Nobody said
fires only exist because of climate change... it's saying climate change
affects drought frequency and severity and that fires tend to be more severe in
extreme droughts. @Mountanman"The largest forest fire in
recorded history of the US occurred in N. Idaho and Montana in 1910"We didn't have the current technology and manpower to fight fires
then like we do now. It's not a very good comparison."since
recent data has shown that the earth has not warmed for 16 years. "Climate norms are calculated over 30 year periods, you use 16 because
that's what's useful for cherrypicking. Nevermind that the 2000s were
.2F warmer than the 90s and the 90s were around .15F warmer than the 80s.@samhill"I suppose the fact that I haven't needed to
water my lawn for the last 2+ weeks is an indication that we need to be
concerned about an impending global **flood**!"You all seem to
be doing a good job of arguing against things that nobody is claiming... just
read part of the report...
glad to see the chicken little sky is falling global warming alarmists rallying
in support of their arguments.
Glad to see the Anti-Science conservatives out promoting their: "Scorch and Burn" everything in sight environmental policies this
Nice try. Here in utah, we know two things. We didn't cause it, and we
don't have to fix it. It's lazy, and probably stupid, but that's
where we are.
Hmmm! Recent forest fires as confirmation of global climate warming/change. If
an increasing incidence of forest/range/grass/etc. fires are some measure of
global conditions then I suppose the fact that I haven't needed to water my
lawn for the last 2+ weeks is an indication that we need to be concerned about
an impending global **flood**!Surely, what I see as a trend in my
own neighborhood during the past few weeks is indicative of what the world will
be experiencing now and years or decades in the future!Yes, folks,
we **can** know, with unshakable certitude, that past performance IS a guarantee
of future results....but only when it comes to computer models of incredibly
complex and chaotic systems like global climate conditions.
"Although often harmful and destructive to humans, naturally occurring
wildfires play an integral role in nature. They return nutrients to the soil by
burning dead or decaying matter. They also act as a disinfectant, removing
disease-ridden plants and harmful insects from a forest ecosystem. And by
burning through thick canopies and brushy undergrowth, wildfires allow sunlight
to reach the forest floor, enabling a new generation of seedlings to grow."
I agree with Mountainman, we have suppressed wild fires in order to present a
non-realistic view of nature for the urban tourist to visit. We want tourist
dollars in the local economies so we suppress natural fires that clear out the
overgrowth and which are part of the natural cycle of nature. We also suppress
logging that would thin the forests and make catastrophic fires less possible by
reducing fuel loads. There is some opinions that logging to thin forests will
lessen damage by insect infestation. Logging will also make more
clearings for herbivores to give birth away from predators and help maintain a
balance of animal life.As to "experts" on almost any subject
relying upon computer models for anything I am skeptical to the max. Your
output is dependent upon input and input is usually subjective and can be skewed
to fit the thesis desired.
The largest forest fire in recorded history of the US occurred in N. Idaho and
Montana in 1910, long before SUVs Forest fires are natural and necessary for
the health of any forest or rangeland. Even native Americans used to set the
dead grass on the prairie on fire to improve the plant growth. Remember the
Yellowstone fire in the 80's which burned over one third of the park? Even
the US Forest Service has acknowledged that fire suppression management has
increased the intensity of forest fires because it disrupts the natural burn and
growth cycle of forests and adds to the fuel burden for fires. Calm down folks,
fires are part of nature and have nothing to do with "climate change"
since recent data has shown that the earth has not warmed for 16 years. Do some
Pretty sickening to exploit a tragedy for a political agenda that does not
exist. Fires exist because of nature and in some cases human carelessness not
over a climate we cannot change.