Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change

[BrainGlutton]

@FXMastermind

And no, you won’t find much about that in the IPCC reports, or any warmer blogs. That’s because those are not science based sources.

I suppose some “warmer blogs” are and some are not, but the IPCC is. (And some of the author of the Fourth Assessment Report are affiliated with NOAA, which you seem to find more credible on this subject than NASA, for some reason.)

[Ludovic]

@watchwolf49

First of all, there may not be more than 15 billion to feed. Second of all, I probably should have said 2 billion eh?

Well, there’ll only be 700 million screaming Chinese.

[BrainGlutton]

@Ludovic

I think we should cut down on water emissions…

[hands Ludovic a clothespin, and a diagram and industrial specifications and schematics for a Fremen stillsuit, but most importantly and imagistically a clothespin]

[marshmallow]

If it gets so hot we start growing wheat and corn where there used to be tundra doesn’t that mean current bread baskets are hosed? Or they’d have to start growing something different than they do now.

[GIGObuster]

@marshmallow

If it gets so hot we start growing wheat and corn where there used to be tundra doesn’t that mean current bread baskets are hosed? Or they’d have to start growing something different than they do now.

Of course, but it seems that many contrarians think that being lovely in Siberia and Canada is the most important thing.

23 -- Medieval Warm Period -- fact vs. fiction

This video looks at the scientific research to answer three basic questions: 1) Was the Medieval Warm Period global? 2) Was it warmer than today? 3) And what does this all mean anyway? I examine the internet feud over the hockey stick and the various myths and misinterpretations about the Medieval Warm Period that seem to be rife on the Internet

As more research is going on to investigate the medieval warm period evidence of where droughts were taking place in other places around the world has been gained, A warm Greenland, Canada or Siberia does mean a dry grain belt in the USA.

And as in the medieval warm period other parts of the world will also become drier.

But here is the good news that somewhat vindicates those who say that the medieval warm period was a golden balmy era full of riches.

Greenland is going to be lovely.

[FXMastermind]

@marshmallow

If it gets so hot we start growing wheat and corn where there used to be tundra doesn’t that mean current bread baskets are hosed? Or they’d have to start growing something different than they do now.

The questions are sort of nonsensical, since current tundra areas would not be where corn or wheat would be grown, rather the current belts would move further north, or enjoy a longer frost free season, both of which would be a huge increase in productivity.
US corn belt
US wheat belt
Russia wheat belt

But the areas where agriculture would move, if it were warming, are actually showing a cooling trend for large areas since 1992, and extreme cooling since 2002. Don’t mistake the boreal regions with the arctic, which still shows warming in some areas, but nothing like we saw from 1974-1995. In fact, the entire eastern Siberian area as well as most of Alaska and the Bering sea region shows an extreme cooling trend.

These idiot panics over extreme or runaway warming simply ignore current reality.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

But the areas where agriculture would move, if it were warming, are actually showing a cooling trend for large areas since 1992, and extreme cooling since 2002. Don’t mistake the boreal regions with the arctic, which still shows warming in some areas, but nothing like we saw from 1974-1995. In fact, the entire eastern Siberian area as well as most of Alaska and the Bering sea region shows an extreme cooling trend.

These idiot panics over extreme or runaway warming simply ignore current reality.

The idiocy is to pretend that all experts that look at the data are wrong. Or that only you can see what they do not see, as pointed before even statisticians that looked at the data without being told where it came from declared that it is indeed dishonest to claim that a recent “slowdown” means that we are in a cooling trend.

Statisticians reject global cooling

Temps rising once more
Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA’s climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.

“The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,” said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.”

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA’s year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Saying there’s a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

The idiocy is to pretend that all experts that look at the data are wrong.

Nobody but you seems to be saying that. I got my information from GISS, NCDC, NOAA, HADCRUT and CRUTEMP, all of which are sort of run by experts.

The pronounced cooling trend for large areas of the NH during the boreal winter I got from the researchers who published about it. Not that I hadn’t noticed it myself, but they published, I didn’t.

A main reason I post links to actual science, it makes it really hard to handwave it away. Well, not for an idiot like GIGO, but for anyone wanting to remove ignorance.

You can see the areas that are experiencing a cooling trend, for decades now.

Compare with the wheat and corn producing areas, you can see why warming isn’t the concern right now.

Even the spring shows a cooling trend for large areas.

Sciences! Bitch.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

even statisticians that looked at the data without being told where it came from declared that it is indeed dishonest to claim that a recent “slowdown” means that we are in a cooling trend.

I know English is hard for you to follow, so I go easy on you. Anyone else I would be mentioning butthurt and suggesting therapy.

Here is the
Annual trend, a very slight cooling. That is global. -.01 C

Here is the NH winter trend. It’s still global, though the majority of cooling is in the boreal regions. Still, -.17C

The two are not the same. While the global temperatures are slightly falling, the NH winter has been trending down for decades, and since 2002 it has dropped a lot more.

You can see for yourself. Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (v4): Global Maps

Anyone can. Big difference between myself and the alrmists fuckheads. I want you to go see for yourself. Not take my word for it.

[GIGObuster]

Indeed, the “problem with timelines” syndrome is strong with this one.

Moving averages over 10 years important
Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it’s important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years.

“To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous,” said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University.

So, they are also fuckheads in FX world. What it is clear is that besides being a liar by declaring that there are no scientists at the IPCC or in the cites used by my sources FX still continues to pretend that he will fool many by cherry picking the data in what many experts reported is just a dishonest maneuver.

[FXMastermind]

The most up to date consensus from global climate models predicts warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter. However, recent trends in observed NH winter surface temperatures diverge from these projections. For the last two decades, large-scale cooling trends have existed instead across large stretches of eastern North America and northern Eurasia. We argue that this unforeseen trend is probably not due to internal variability alone.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014007

[GIGObuster]

And lets see if you can show any honesty now:

[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
I got my information from GISS, NCDC, NOAA, HADCRUT and CRUTEMP, all of which are sort of run by experts.
[/QUOTE]

GISS for example looks at at more than your cherry pick and reports this:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html

NASA scientists say 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record.

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis Tuesday that compares temperatures around the globe in 2012 to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago.

The dishonesty is clear so far, those experts report that the earth continues to warm, and that:

World of Change: Global Temperatures

The world is getting warmer. Whether the cause is human activity or natural variability—and the preponderance of evidence says it’s humans—

Do you deny that the experts you claim to rely on are telling us the opposite of what you claim? Do you deny that you are selecting the data to get the results you want?

[FXMastermind]

The last time I tried to educate you, the butthurt was long and deep, and you ran off. But once more, with feeling.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014007

The most up to date consensus from global climate models predicts warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter.

The theory that says CO2 levels will cause global warming predicts, quite clearly, - “warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter.” This is a key issue for CO2 forced warming.

However, recent trends in observed NH winter surface temperatures diverge from these projections.

In other words, instead of warming, as was predicted, cooling has been observed. This means colder winters, more snow, all the things that go along with it getting colder. Winters have not been warming, in large areas of the boreal winter. Which is exactly what is stated next.

For the last two decades, large-scale cooling trends have existed instead across large stretches of eastern North America and northern Eurasia.

Up until this point, it’s all just background info. Theory predicts warming, trends don’t show warming, they show cooling, and for decades. Then they get to the meat of the paper, claiming it isn’t natural variation, and saying it might actually be from the WARMING which took place up until the COOLING started.

We argue that this unforeseen trend is probably not due to internal variability alone.

Since there was global warming in the last two decades, the cooling winter trend happened at the same time as the global trend was warming.

Get that through your thick stupid head. It isn’t until 2002 that both the global as well as the winter trends both show cooling. The extreme winter cooling may actually be the reason for the trend, since spring and summer certainly don’t show any sign of cooling in most areas.

Now was that so hard to follow?

[GIGObuster]

Not hard to follow that choose dishonesty as your mantra. Give us any cite from an expert at GISS, NCDC, NOAA, or that manages the HADCRUT and CRUTEMP, that agrees with you on looking only at recent data and declares that there has been no warming.

It is clear to all that you are proclaiming that the experts are fuckheads.

[GIGObuster]

Correcting this:

It is not hard to follow that **you **choose dishonesty as your mantra. Give us any cite from an expert at GISS, NCDC, NOAA, or that manages the HADCRUT and CRUTEMP, that agrees with you on looking only at recent data and declares that there has been no warming.

It is clear to all that you are proclaiming that the experts are fuckheads. And you still remain a liar for what you declared about the IPCC.

[FXMastermind]

The unexpected winter trend, which is not global, but mostly in the boreal winter, also shows up in the global data as well. Which is sort of freaky.

No really, the widespread winter cooling doesn’t mean the entire NH is seeing a cooling trend for winter. That would be another story. But looking at January using HADCRUT4 is damn interesting.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1992/every:12
Sort of surprising, the last four years look like 92-94, but pretty much a flat trend.

But looking at the 2002-2013 data, where the boreal cooling really shows up, we find
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:2002/every:12

No doubt that January in the NH is showing a cooling trend. Which is about as far from the model predictions as you can get. (remember, the models are based on the theory)

Something is going on, but it doesn’t look like CO2 forced warming. Not at all.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

The last time I tried to educate you, the butthurt was long and deep, and you ran off.

What is clear is that you did not read this thread, your delusion is complete, I did not run because you made something to me, what it was clear is that you are a chronic molester of quotes, and an insulting jerk and as the moderators put you in the pit for a reason and others recommend me to stay out of that one I comply.

[FXMastermind]

Damn, February shows the same thing.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:2002.1/every:12

That’s sort of fucked up. Land only December
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vnh/from:1992.9/every:12

Land only January
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vnh/from:2002.1/every:12

Hmm … something is not right.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Something is going on, but it doesn’t look like CO2 forced warming. Not at all.

Not at all what GISS is reporting.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/

Human-caused climate change and air pollution remain major global-scale problems and are both due mostly to fossil fuel burning. Mitigation efforts for both of these problems should be undertaken concurrently in order to maximize effectiveness. Such efforts can be accomplished largely with currently available low-carbon and carbon-free alternative energy sources like nuclear power and renewables, as well as energy efficiency improvements.

So, that post of your was just more demonstrated dishonesty from a demonstrated liar like you.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Damn, February shows the same thing.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

That’s sort of fucked up. Land only December
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Land only January
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Hmm … something is not right.

Indeed.

“If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a microtrend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

There is no suspicion here, FX is being dishonest.