MMGW = redistribution of wealth to poor countries...

[calfoxwc]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/exclusive-noaa-relies-on-compromised-thermometers-that-inflate-u-s-warming-trend/

[Pumpkin Eater]

Co2 is plant food. We need more of it in the air so we can grow more food to feed the hungry.

[MLD Woody]

Oh god, he did the "throw shit at the wall" technique.

 

He always resorts to that.

 

Now if you can't prove why everything he posted us wrong, Cal wins. And if you do, he has all of google to find more shit

 

 

 

... Because he knows better than the experts

[calfoxwc]

Experts did the studies that resulted in information that led to

the creation of the graphs.

 

You are pecking again. I didn't make the graphs you so woodpeckerishly are ignoring

unless you peck at em.

[Clevfan4life]

haven't we already gone over why the earth might temporarily cool in certain places despite the warming trend? I was a kid in the 80's and they were saying that would happen. Well in any case it was 70 degrees in late Dec so wake up folks.

[calfoxwc]

yes, you and the left rationalized it away, you thought.

 

but, the truth is, over eons of time, the weather changes.

 

that does not mean man made global warming is true.

 

It is not - at least as much as it has not been proven to be true.

 

A lot of true scientists say they believe it...and a lot of them don't believe it.

 

CO2 does not drive temps accordingly, plain and simple.

[Clevfan4life]

Co2 is plant food. We need more of it in the air so we can grow more food to feed the hungry.

 

please google this. If you choose to, you may see why it's a myth that "more co2 is good for plants". It might make them grow large but in many plants it reduces photosynthesis....which means more biomass but less nutrition.

 

 

 

No offense dude, i'm certainly not singling you out....but this ignorant bullshit on this board has to stop. I don't understand trying to find the upside to shitting on your dinner table.

[Clevfan4life]

oh and rising c02 levels may be dropping atmospheric oxygen levels. Is that good or bad? I dunno someone help me out here i'm just so dumb and liberal apparently.

[MLD Woody]

Also understand the difference between weather and climate

[calfoxwc]

and rising O2 levels created poverty, and the rising tides of the oceans

when the moon is full...

 

if you meatheads weren't stuck on being emotional knee jerks,

 

you'd look at the graphs posted.

 

But as usual, just more interpersonal sissy sassy bitch sessions to hide the truth.

Truth is...

 

you're just wrong.

[MLD Woody]

You posted 6 graphs, one of which has a source. You need to source your graphs for them to be considered

 

You also don't understand the difference between climate and weather

 

or how multiple variables can affect a single output

 

or what an actual climate expert is

[calfoxwc]

you don't understand you are an asshole. Given sources, you bitch about them superficially.

 

You are the asshole woodypeckerhead of the board.

 

congrats. You prove me right every time.

[jbluhm86]

You posted 6 graphs, one of which has a source. You need to source your graphs for them to be considered

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/the-global-warming-hoax-in-charts.php

 

and............

 

 

I was wondering who the "sources" for these graphs were, so I did a little digging around. Here's what I found:

 

These first two graphs are from the website of Joe Bastardi ( http://notrickszone.com/2011/08/08/joe-bastardi-calls-manmade-co2-global-warming-an-obvious-fraud/#sthash.25vUBYKJ.qNwfCyKj.dpbs ), a meteorologist and noted climate change skeptic (the second graph posted here is slightly different than the one on Bastardi's website, however, they are derived from the same information and are nearly identical).

 

The problems I have with the first graph are twofold: 1) The graph uses temperature data trends from only the United States, yet is marketed here as being indicative of the entire globe. Seems rather disingenuous to me. The second problem is with the model itself; R-squared value for the graph is only 0.44. In general, a model fits the data well if the differences between the observed values and the model's predicted values are small and unbiased; in statistical analysis, this is represented by what is known as an R² value. R-squared values range from between 0 and 100%, with 0% indicating that the model explains none of the variability of the response data around its mean and 100% indicating that the model explains all the variability of the response data around its mean. The 0.44 value indicates to me that the model represented by the first graph is a rather poor fit for the data, and that the model should be suspect.

 

As for the problems of the second graph, the data is limited to only a range of a decade. Temperature may fluctuate from a single year to another year, but the overall trend over a long time frame shows that the mean global temperature is on the rise; also on the rise is the man made CO₂ output. And, as before, the linearity of the second graph is also very poor, R² = 0.04, so this model indicates to me that the model this graph represents shows a high degree of variability, or that is is highly biased; in either case, the results are rather poor. I also noticed that how the data is modeled is suspect in itself. As noted by one commentator on Bastardi's website:

 

I don’t know where Joe D’Aleo got his “Earth temperature” graph, but it bears little resemblance to mainstream global temperature indices (GISS, Hadcrut). This is the only plot I’ve ever seen showing a 2C peak to peak drop between 1935 and 1975. Funny how it changes to a different value in the 2nd plot. The pattern of variation matches but the magnitude of change in temperature is different.

Graphs 2, 3 and 4 of temperature vs. CO2 use one of the oldest and weakest tricks in the book: plotting 2 different datasets on arbitrary relative scales. It’s SO arbitrary that the relative scaling is substantially different in all three graphs. We can only hallucinate by what basis. Why don’t you try at least approximating reality by plotting CO2 on a scale that gives 0.18C/ decade from 1975 to 2010, the average rate of change of global temperature since the mid-70s.

As for the author himself, Joe Bastardi, he has been roundly criticized by climatologists, physicists, and other scientists alike:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/18/299067/joe-bastardi-science/

http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/08/17/why-is-fox-going-to-joe-bastardi-for-climate-ch/183022

[jbluhm86]

According to ice core analysis, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all four prior interglacials never rose above approximately 290 ppm; whereas the atmospheric CO2 concentration today stands at nearly 390 ppm. The present interglacial is about 2°C colder than the previous interglacial, even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration now is about 100 ppm higher.

 

I found this graph here:

 

http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Carbon%20Dioxide%20(CO2)%20Does%20Not%20Cause%20Global%20Warming%20%20--%20Update.htm

 

From the website:

 

"I have found an unusual website that posts only factual climate information, without articles and conclusions on the controversial global warming subjects. It has voluminous information about our climate – past and present. It is Climate4you.[6] The website is furnished by a scientist from Norway, Professor Ole Humlum[7] He has been Professor of Physical Geography at the Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway, and Adjunct Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), Norway, since 2003. The information on the website that I will refer to below is from The Big Picture part of the website.

The following is some critical information from that source:

From time to time the planet has been affected for millions of years with relatively cold climate, each such period leading to a long succession of glacial and interglacial periods. During the last couple of millions of years, planet Earth has been in such a cold stage. The last (until now) ice age ended around 11,600 years ago, and we are for the time living in a so-called interglacial period, until the next ice age will begin some time into the future.

The last four glacial periods and interglacial periods are shown in the diagram below (Fig.2), covering the last 420,000 years in Earth's climatic history.

The diagram above (Fig.2) shows a reconstruction of global temperature based on ice core analysis from the Antarctica. The present interglacial period (the Holocene) is seen to the right (red square). The preceding four interglacials are seen at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now, with much longer glacial periods in between. All four previous interglacials are seen to be warmer (1-3°C) than the present. The typical length of a glacial period is about 100,000 years, while an interglacial period typical lasts for about 10-15,000 years. The present interglacial period has now lasted about 11,600 years".

 

Here is the actual report from which the ice core data mentioned above is derived: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html

 

Conclusions from the actual report:

 

"There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels (~280 ppmv) are found during all interglacials, with the highest values (~300 ppmv) found approximately 323 kyr BP. When the Vostok ice core data were compared with other ice core data (Delmas et al. 1980; Neftel et al. 1982) for the past 30,000 - 40,000 years, good agreement was found between the records: all show low CO2 values [~200 parts per million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the glacial-Holocene transition. According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations."

 

Ice core database kept by NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core

 

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

[jbluhm86]

 

 

 

These "charts" are actually still shots from a documentary entitled "The Great Global Warming Scandal", which aired on the BBCs Channel 4 back in 2007:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Viewpoints_expressed_in_the_film

 

The charts represent one theory, postulated in the film, that global warming is influenced by varying amounts of solar output; this is known as the solar variation theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#Solar_variation_theory

 

However, the documentary has come under heavy criticism from many scientists and scientific organizations for "[misuse] and [fabrication of] data, some of which was out-of-date, and promoting misleading arguments". Two scientists (one who was interviewed in the documentary and the other who's research was used to support the film's premise) have both publicly stated that the film deliberately misrepresents their viewpoint:

 

"...Eigil Friis-Christensen's (Danish geophysicist specializing in space physics, and Director of the Danish National Space Center) research was used to support claims about the influence of solar activity on climate, both in the programme and Durkin's subsequent defense of it. Friis-Christensen, with environmental Research Fellow Nathan Rive, criticised the way the solar data were used:

"We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled 'Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years'. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless. Secondly, although the narrator commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming" http://web.archive.org/web/20080620094936/http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html

In response to a question from The Independent as to whether the programme was scientifically accurate, Friis-Christensen said: "No, I think several points were not explained in the way that I, as a scientist, would have explained them ... it is obvious it's not accurate..."

The second chart that Cal posted is the "Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years" which Dr Friis-Christensen says the documentary misrepresented.

"...Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, is featured in the Channel 4 version of the programme. Afterwards he said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed. He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two", and he lodged a complaint with Ofcom [uK's Office of Communications]. He particularly objected to how his interview material was used:

"In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous—because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening."

Professor Wunsch has stated that he finds the statements at both extremes of the global climate change debate distasteful; wrote in a letter dated 15 March 2007 that he believes climate change is "real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars' because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess." He further cautiously states that "The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for which the observational record is so clear, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise, ...). Other elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society should be deeply concerned about their possibility: failure of US midwestern (sic) precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples."

Wunsch has said that he received a letter from the production company, Wag TV, threatening to sue him for defamation unless he agreed to make a public statement that he was neither misrepresented nor misled. Wunsch refused,[34] although he states he was forced to hire a solicitor in the UK.[35]

Following Wunsch's complaints, his interview material was removed from the international and DVD versions of the film."

Scientific Response to 'The Great Global Warming Swindle: http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/?id=82

Letter to the documentary's director, signed by 37 scientists: http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/1

The British Antarctic Survey released a statement about The Great Global Warming Swindle. It is highly critical of the programme, singling out the use of a graph with the incorrect time axis, and also the statements made about solar activity: "A comparison of the distorted and undistorted contemporary data reveal that the plot of solar activity bears no resemblance to the temperature curve, especially in the last 20 years." Comparing scientific methods with Channel 4's editorial standards, the statement says: "Any scientist found to have falsified data in the manner of the Channel 4 programme would be guilty of serious professional misconduct." It uses the feedback argument to explain temperatures rising before CO2. On the issue of volcanic CO2 emissions, it says:

"A second issue was the claim that human emissions of CO2 are small compared to natural emissions from volcanoes. This is untrue: current annual emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production are estimated to be around 100 times greater than average annual volcanic emissions of CO2. That large volcanoes cannot significantly perturb the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is apparent from the ice core and atmospheric record of CO2 concentrations, which shows a steady rise during the industrial period, with no unusual changes after large eruptions".

Alan Thorpe, professor of meteorology at the University of Reading and Chief Executive of the UK Natural Environment Research Council, commented on the film in New Scientist: "First, let's deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays in Earth's atmosphere is a better explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO2 and other gases. This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role...Let scepticism reign, but let's not play games with the evidence.

The Royal Society has issued a press release in reaction to the film. In it, Martin Rees, the president of the Royal Society, briefly restates the predominant scientific opinion on climate change and adds:

'Scientists will continue to monitor the global climate and the factors which influence it. It is important that all legitimate potential scientific explanations continue to be considered and investigated. Debate will continue, and the Royal Society has just hosted a two day discussion meeting attended by over 300 scientists, but it must not be at the expense of action. Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the best possible future".

[bbedward]

I'm happy somebody took the time to do it, but I'm not sure what difference it'll make to Cal

[Westside Steve]

I'm happy somebody took the time to do it, but I'm not sure what difference it'll make to Cal

Mostly what difference does it make to you or anybody else here?

 

With or without all the screaming and hyperventilation from the left we will continue to switch to cheaper and more efficient means of producing our energy demands. It will happen as quickly as it will with or without the hysteria.

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

the point is, CO2 is going up, and temperature does not

follow that pattern.

 

You redistribution of wealth from us to the poor countries can

give obamao great big smoochies on his ass 24 x 7, but the

simple truth is,...

 

it is about money from rich countries to poor countries.

 

It should not be about money...and suv's...and cows farting...

and our thermostats, or campfires...

 

or trucks...or coal.

 

A simple volcanic eruption - dwarfs every bit of concern, even if it WERE valid,

which it is not.....by so many times over....

 

but you libs don't care about volcanic eruptions or the destruction of the rain forests...

 

because there's no money in it, no votes in it.

 

Kyoto treaty exempted the dirtiest polluters on the planet.

 

Now, just STFU with the nonsense.

[MLD Woody]

He only cares about being lock step with conservative views. Throw all of the facts and logic at cal you want, it doesn't matter. He's made up his mind and that's that. He only finds sources he agrees with as legitimate, even if they are anything but.

 

He's putty in the hands of his political group. They can make him do whatever they want by playing to his emotions. By giving him multiple media sources to display their agenda to him.

 

He doesn't understand. He's blind. He's a hypocrite. He's hopeless. Conservative. Liberal. This is the only way he sees the world.

 

He needs to be a minority or we really are heading to worse times. It doesn't matter the ideology, blind acceptance and willful ignorance don't help anyone.

[calfoxwc]

Yes, I disagree with your woodypeckhead assholeness.

 

The whole point is, mmgw political redistribution of wealth

skunks say it's absolute fact.

 

The rest of us who know how to think, and think critically,

know it is NOT.

 

Because there are two sides of this. Therefore, a valid pro and con

means, it's not proven as fact. We can't prove it has absolutely no

miniscule role in global temps...

 

but you all can NOT prove it's the only factor, and it's role is significant.

 

So, STFU. You are wrong to keep chirping that it's all settled in your political favor,

you freaking, childish, dimwitted, becknosed, lillylivered, scum sucking, leftist ass-kissing,

bowling call humping, pot smoke eating, fart-licking, aluminum telephone pole peckiing woodypeckerhead sumbeech.

 

http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/10/carbon-dioxide-and-temperature/

[tiamat63]

 

 

Now, just STFU with the nonsense.

If anything, the quotes and articles posted to counter your claims certainly aren't nonsense. That was a solid effort put forth by another poster to provide a rebuttal.

[Clevfan4life]

you know before i logged i had the pleasure of being exposed to Cals nonsense again as it doesn't hide it until i'm logged in. He actually said again that libs don't care about the destruction of the rain forests. You just can't talk to someone that ignorant. I don't want to read any of his words, they're intellectually soiling. Your brain needs a shower after reading 2 paragraphs from Cal. It takes 2 because after the 1st one you're not convinced this isn't a troll despite months of evidence to the contrary. You still think "no way, he's stupid but not this stupid". But by midway through the 2nd paragraph you realize his mind is infact gone. Never coming back. His dumb boiler plated bullshit is all that has anymore, THat's why he's holding on so hard to it.

[calfoxwc]

libs support obamao's talk of mmgw.

 

Obamao never, ever talks about the rainforests.

 

Therefore, cleveage is a fatmouth black hole taking up space on the board.

 

mmgw is a farce, until it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt.

 

However, mmgw has to a degree been disproven. All in all, it is not

an abolute truth.

 

But the claims "we just have to DO something" always comes down to getting money, getting votes,

political power, and a giant win in the culture war they fight.

 

Cleveage is a boob with no sense of humor, no sense of intellectual integrity - because he has no intellect.