Warmers ....another pesky data point

 Well there you have it, when Beeno endorses your argument, its time to rethink your position.

 
I wasn't going to answer anymore in this thread but this is too much,...  too much...... who the f*ck do you think you are?

"My own guess, is that we are in a naturally warming period after the little ice age... "

The scientific community is virtually unanimous on what the data demonstrate about anthropogenic global warming.
Naomi Oreskes surveyed all peer-reviewed papers on climate change published between 1993 and 2003 in the world’s leading scientific journal, Science, she found that there were 980 supporting the idea of human-induced global warming and none opposing it.
In 2009, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman surveyed all the climate scientists who were familiar with the data. They found that 95–99% agreed that global warming is real and that humans are the reason.
In 2010, the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a study that showed that 98% of the scientists who actually do research in climate change are in agreement with anthropogenic global warming.
Every major scientific organization in the world has endorsed the conclusion of anthropogenic climate change as well.
This is a rare degree of agreement, this is the same degree of scientific consensus that scientists have achieved over most major ideas, including gravity, evolution, and relativity. These and only a few other topics in science can claim this degree of agreement among nearly all the world’s leading scientists.

All these scientists are trully experts on their working areas, they have studied and work for years in their subjects related to the climate but here comes the great Mozart, who doesn't know his elbow from his ass, and dare to launch his own theory,...... how insolent is the ignorance

According to Dr. Pothero who is Professor of Geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles, and Lecturer in Geobiology at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. He earned M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. degrees in geological sciences from Columbia University in 1982, and a B.A. in geology and biology from the University of California, Riverside. He is currently the author, co-author, editor, or co-editor of 32 books and over 250 scientific papers,

"Geologists and paleoclimatologists know a lot about past greenhouse worlds, and the icehouse planet that has existed for the past 33 million years. We have a good understanding of how and why the Antarctic ice sheet first appeared at that time, and how the Arctic froze over about 3.5 million years ago, beginning the 24 glacial and interglacial episodes of the “Ice Ages” that have occurred since then. We know how variations in the earth’s orbit (the Milankovitch cycles) controls the amount of solar radiation the earth receives, triggering the shifts between glacial and interglacial periods. Our current warm interglacial has already lasted 10,000 years, the duration of most previous interglacials, so if it were not for global warming, we would be headed into the next glacial in the next 1000 years or so. "

But who is this doctor to contradict the super-scientific theory of the great Mozart? we are in a naturally warming period, no doubt about it, the great Mozart has sentenced having never read a book about geology or climate, having never ever read and manage any data collection about it,..... the great Mozart who begins this thread saying that the global warming doesn't exist because in NYC it's very cold and end up launching the theory that there is a global warming. What has happened with NYC? sudenly the ice thawed and all the new yorkers are on the beach or what?

I've never seen such level of self-importance and stupidity together before. You can't be more ridiculous

"I've never seen such level of self-importance and stupidity together before. You can't be more ridiculous"
Oh I don't know . . . scroll back through some of this conceited old fool's posts over the years . . .

Its "Mozart", that's who. Not only is he deaf, but he is also stupid. 
He challenges the finding of Nasa and many of the leading scientific minds in the world with a chart he found on the internet created by 2 christian school teachers.
After years of dealing with complex formulate he allways recommends checking the credibility of sources.  

Just more of the same, tired old stuff. Do you honestly think in the absence of man made carbon releases the temperature would stay flat? It has never stayed flat. And after a little ice age recently temps are naturally going up....do you get it plank.
Now on top of that, on top of increase in solar activity we have man made CO2 ...all contributing to 1.2 degrees over a 115 years.
Now what experience do you have in modeling?  I have a PhD from a top US university. My minor was in mathematical modeling. I have built econometric models, which are similar to climate models in that the equations have to be empirically derived, both in academia and in real world consulting. Companies paid money for these models.
So when I tell you these models are so complex they can plausibly made to say anything...I know whereof I speak. And the only way to verify you have made the literally thousands of decisions well....is if the models can be made to replicate reality.

These climate models are universally over predicting temps. The Economist, a big Global Warming proponent wrote a lead article pointing this out.
You are viewing this subject from the perspective of an ill educated, uninformed sheep.

Why then cant you produce a model that proves that many of the leading scientific minds in the world are wrong? 
Or at the very least a model to prove the other models are wrong, or that your model is a closer approximation to reality than what others are. 
Just because some of the models these scientists have created are not 100% conclusive, does not mean they are wrong. They are separate individuals creating models to try reflect reality. The accepted consensus of these models are the closest thing we have to reality, until reliably proven otherwise. 
It is on this basis that the UN has been able to improve the ozone layer. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29152028

Perhaps the models you created are just a pile of crap. A sleezy sales person trying to rip of companies by only feeding the models with select information. An abomination to science. You were probably involved in the "waste" division. Crap in, Crap out. "So when I tell you these models are so complex they can plausibly made to say anything...I know whereof I speak." 

Dunno Moz - maybe this global warming thing is a good thing. Can you imagine the amount of energy resources (read: fossil fuel/pollution) it would take for humanity to survive the next glacial age? 

Well a simple linear regression on the first 50 years of the 20th century done in 1950 would give you a more accurate result for 2015 than all the climate models produced in 1995. Look at the chart and draw a straight line from 1900 through 1950... It's spot on

Do you think NASA, the UN and other leading scientific minds had not thought about drawing a line on a chart?
After a doctrine, that is all you can produce? What a joke. 

Building a climate model is a hugely expensive, slow process....and you want me to build one for the Board? Are you for real. Besides which I don't have the specific training to build the model....I do  however, know it can only be validated by reproducing results.

Sadly so far a simple linear regression beats the pants off the climate models in terms of prediction.

Do you think NASA, the UN and other leading scientific minds had not thought about drawing a line on a chart?
That's the point Sharkbok - they didn't think of it. Instead their scientific observations and incredible genius led them to projections, all of which have been wrong.  40 years ago they were calling for the next ice age. Can't call it climate science. Its more of a religion. Temple is the UN, the holy writ is the UN report on climate change and the high priest is Al Gore.

Matey the warming vs cooling thing is well recorded in Lungren's book "Cool It". He demonstrates that mankind has always suffered and declined in vigour in the periods of cold temps and expanded when the weather is warm.
It's an interesting question to ask. Would we be better5 degrees cooler or 5 degrees warmer....but the answer is obvious. Hell 100 miles off the surface everything is so cold we would insta freeze and the whole world is wringing their hands about1.2 degrees.

If man made global warming is real it will probably be good thing.....sadly we can't count on it.  

Agreed.
Conservation is a noble and worthy thing - we have limited resources and will never have another rock to hop onto - but global warming "science" seems to me to be more of a way to push an agenda of control than anything else. You can have one without bowing to the other. The amount of waste here in this country is absurd.

I was involved in one "heavy industry" and we cleaned up a lot of stuff from the past. My sense is, in spite of the lawyers, American industry has done a good job in the last 15 years and cut pollution substantially. The real issue now is China, but most of the bleeding hearts are still stuck on the States. China is pushing out 50% more carbon thatn the US is today....and a lot more of the other reall y bad stuff.

Industry has come a long way, but they needed a kick in the pants to do it and many were dragged kicking and screaming. Its ironic to see some of this come full circle though as the greenies are clamoring for nuclear energy as a "clean" source of energy but its next to impossible logistically and financially to build new plants because of the amount of regulation that is in place now.
My comment about "waste" though was more in reference to personal waste. I have friends that own these huge trucks that will never carry a load or tow a trailer but they are used as their daily drivers. Christmas is unbridled materialism, most people seem to eat out 2 or 3 times a week. Everything is on credit - little to no savings
Completely different from the values I learnt growing up in SA and honestly I find myself getting sucked into it and comprimising. Even with my kids, who are anything but typical American kids, I see them taking things for granted and expecting things.
The downfall of this great country (and I think it is great all things considered) will be economic. If the recent recession had been allowed to run its course without government interference it would have cured a lot of ills.
Sorry for the rant

 Keep going Moz you are winning trhe argument.
When I first started the "debate" about evolution there were howls from all the gullible. But I kept posting scientific evidence and the opinions of scientists inlcuing many noble laureats and the greatest scientists who ever lived and slowly these oaks lost confidence and realised they were beat.
Their stubborness though was an eye opener. Their inability to answer the facts presented was there for all to see. All they could do is insult and rants which made them look even sillier if possible.  
All this once again shows that there are very gullible people who are easy to lead by the nose. Its frightening to think the media can tell these types virtually anything and they will suck it up like sponges. BwahahhahahahahahahaThe evidence of outright persecution of dissenting academics is there for all to see but the tide has turned dramatically due to the evidence being unearthed.
Oimatey dont be too dismayed the USA is still very strong and shale oil is a game changer. USA of course needs revival. 

  what's this? a brainless' competition? or the Bigotry World Cup?

This blend of climate change deniers,anti-scientists, creationism, cheap US nationalism, the true values, goverment interference,........ sounds like Waco,......... or Oklahoma,..... it's lacking a little bit of racism,..... add it and you have the whole Bigotry Pack

"Cheap US nationalism".....haha you are tonic Basque. A living, walking, talking example of what happens when kids are schooled by the granola set. A completely unproductive thinker, who is frozen by perceived grievances ....let me guess you are a teacher yourself.

"Brainless" Abasque?
The only part of your posts that make any sense are what you copy and paste from elsewhere, but anything you actually write is just calling the other side names or ridiculing them - there is no thought in that.

 mozart
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 10686RE: Warmers ....another pesky data point
February 24, 2015, 19:02:25Matey the warming vs cooling thing is well recorded in Lungren's book "Cool It".

He demonstrates that mankind has always suffered and declined in vigour in the periods of cold temps and expanded when the weather is warm.

Ok, so I searched in Google for     Lungren's book "Cool It". 
This is the SERP (search engine results page).The whole page- i.e.- 10 results are all about al Dolph Lungren???
This is the guy that acted in Rocky as Drago and He-man.
Is he now writing books on the environment after saving the universe from Skeletor???  (Hell these cartoons were great as a 7 year old kid).
Their is only one well known Lungren, its the actor....
Now it seems that after just searching for the name of the Book on Amazon, without the author name- their is someone else who has written a book about the environment- He is called Bjorn Lombborg. This is his book on Amazon

Well folks, do these names sound anything alike? 

Lombborg  vs Lungren 
It does raise questions if Mozart has even read this book. What is most baffling is of all the people he could confuse the correct author with, it was Dolph?
Funny stuff. HE-MAN, HE-MAN!!! The Masters of the Universe!
Lungren's "Real Book" - Another Data Ppint
He discussed how man has allway suffered at the hands of the evil Skeletor.

Oimatey: ". . . but anything you actually write is just calling the other side names or ridiculing them - there is no thought in that."

Hmmmm . . . calling the other side names or ridiculing them, Oimatey? You mean a bit like this chap . . .

"There are the usual pathetic arguments that in fact the cold is due to global warming"

"This Basque couldn't even read a rain forest article without getting confused....a real granola type."

". . . but this fool is relying on his little Al Gore picture. Dumb and opinionated."

"You really don't have a clue do you?"

"The more the facts don't conform to their crack pot theories, the less tolerant they get."

"And these guys are raving warmers....enjoy your crow!"

"You lost this one, unless you can prove the warmers at wwwclimate.gov are lying. Lie down old chap. But if you are nice I'll give you the counter arguments."

"Just more of the same, tired old stuff."

"You are viewing this subject from the perspective of an ill educated, uninformed sheep."

"haha you are tonic Basque. A living, walking, talking example of what happens when kids are schooled by the granola set. A completely unproductive thinker, who is frozen by perceived grievances....let me guess you are a teacher yourself."

Is that the kind of name-calling and ridicule you're referring to, Oimatey?

If so, please explain why you turn a blind eye to it when Moffie does it yet you jump all over ABasque and take him to task for doing the same thing. Looks like double standards to me but go ahead and explain the difference to me. Thanks.

PS Just to be clear, please note that in this particular case, I'm not so interested in the global warming debate itself as I am in the double standards you seem to be applying here.

PPS Also note that the quotes I put up above were only a selection from this particular thread. If you want more examples of Moffie calling people names and ridiculing them on the global warming debates then just ask . . . or even easier, find them yourself on any of these global warming threads.

"Lungren" . . . Wehe!

Moffie's sources are often hilarious, Sharkbok. Don't forget this is the same clown whose arguments were based on the graph put up by the legendary Harris and Mann "climatologists"!

LMAO!

Rooinek, this guy is hilarious. I am never seen someone so self-deluded. 
It is like hitting your head on a pole, and the next day wake up thinking you are somebody of influence.
He claims he does not have the training to build an environmental model, but is still able to dissprove the models created by some of the leading scientific minds in  the world. Hell he does not even need a model to disprove NASA, UN and other leading scientific minds. He can simply draw a line on a chart to disprove the shared consensus. As if people at Nasa do not use charts......

 

Mozart that is what Google suggest, They even corrected your tiny spelling mistake. It is a silent d. It is obvious that you were thinking of the one and only- HE-MAN, HE-MAN . 

 

Ah, because you even screwed up the spelling of the one and only Dolph. It is spelt with a silent D, but not pronounced in this way. 

It's that time.....game, set and match!  

Based on your spelling error or your complete mix up with the name? If you cant get the name anything near correct, it can be assumed that you would also spell Dolphs name wrong.
No- you quoted an "expert" on the enviroment, and confused it with an actor. It was game, set and match ages ago. This is just prolonging your stupidity. 

 @moz,
granola???  granola my ass,........ but I prefer 1 million times a granola than a bigot like you.

You forgot to explain us how you can begin this thread bringing the cold in NYC, how this cold proves that the global warming doesn't exist and you end up launching the theory that there's a (natural) global warming.
You can use one of your "expertise's" models if you want,..... or you can quote your reference author, Dolph LunDgren,.....

Unbelievable . . . the blithering idiot who spelt "Lombborg" as "Lungren" is hopping up and down having a little finger-pointing frothy because the other guy spelt "Lundgren" as "Lungren".
Seriously hard to believe . . . but very funny nonetheless . . . especially considering it's the same gigantic arsehole who was lecturing people not too long ago about doing their homework if they want to debate with him and the same pompous twat who bragged: "And if you have studied as many of these macro statistical efforts as I have, as a doctoral student, consultant and executive you conclude that researchers frame the question to get the results they want" . . . just before he put up the hilarious global-warming-denial graph created by a pair of proven charlatans posing as climatologists!
LMAO! That was an all-time classic! 

 Well let's deal with the stupidissimo first....RooiAAS. When have you ever heard the name "Lombburg"? It's Lomborg you dolt.....Shark just inadvertently set  you up and gulp you swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker. 
Ever the fool, you are easy meat.

Basque. Of course one high temperature or low temperature is not definitive. But it is of interest. Why?
Well temperature follows a normal distribution, slightly skewed to the right . And the contention of the warmers is, because of Co2, we have shifted to a new normal distribution with a higher mean. Which means the tail of the distribution also moves higher. So we should be seeing less all time lows. If temps shifted 5 degrees you would likely see no new all time lows.

So if we see a tail of the distribution give a reading which is 5 degrees lower than ever before it raises the question whether we are on a new normal distribution with a lower mean.....and certainly raises the question as to whether we can possibly be on a new normal distribution with a higher mean.

These highly aberrant readings occur, but with very, very low frequency. So when we see lots of new all time lows in 2014 and 2015.... The odds they have occurred randomly are almost zero.

Now I don't believe we are a new distribution with a lower mean, and I don't believe in lightning striking thrice. So what's afoot? Well we are on a new distribution for winter in the NH infuenced by Pacific patterns. But these have occurred in the past, so we shouldn't just write off these aberrant temps so quickly.

There is a great deal of background noise, but as long as we see new record lows of roughly the same increment as the record highs.....we have probably not hopped onto a new probability distribution.

bump