Why do you hate corporate executives? Are you too stupid to become one?
BREAKING NEWS Earth Sets Temperature Record for 3rd Straight Year
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
Remember...all those record temperatures that have been busting the thermometer year after year happened under Obama.
Yes, look here folks^ the average dumb fucking Trumper. No clue at all. Incredibly ignorant and seemingly proud of it. Just like Rump himself.
I hate the increasing inequality where wealth begets wealth and I hate polluted air and water you fucking dumb ass ignorant moronic Rumper.
http://www.thelocal.es/20170118/gallery-amazing-images-of-spains-beaches-in-snow
Snowfall is even forecast for Thursday in the North African Spanish enclave of Ceuta, which has not seen snow since 1993.
In mountainous areas of the Pyrenees region temperatures were predicted to plunge to below -15C in a cold snap that was predicted to last until Friday, but the windchill factor meant it felt as cold as -30C.
Weather warnings were issued for 43 provinces across Spain (all bar the Canary Islands) for snow, cold temperatures, wind , adverse sea conditions and even avalanches (in Huesca, Lleida and Navarre).
I remind troll currents of a passage from the al gore sponsored skeptical science site he always quotes.
"The divergence problem has been discussed in the peer reviewed literature since the mid 1990s when it was noticed that Alaskan trees were showing a weakened temperature signal in recent decades (Jacoby 1995). This work was broadened in 1998 using a network of over 300 tree-ring records across high northern latitudes (Briffa 1998). From 1880 to 1960, there is a high correlation between the instrumental record and tree growth. Over this period, tree-rings are an accurate proxy for climate. However, the correlation drops sharply after 1960. At high latitudes, there has been a major, wide-scale change in tree-growth over the past few decades."
Your team likes to pretend that the proxies are broken because they don't show warming.
Common sense says its more like the proxies are working fine its just that the thermometers records has been changed to show more warming that there really is.
Either way... its ridiculous to pretend that we have resolution into the past temperatures to the point where you can say that we are warming quickly based on historical records.
"The divergence problem has been discussed in the peer reviewed literature since the mid 1990s when it was noticed that Alaskan trees were showing a weakened temperature signal in recent decades (Jacoby 1995). This work was broadened in 1998 using a network of over 300 tree-ring records across high northern latitudes (Briffa 1998). From 1880 to 1960, there is a high correlation between the instrumental record and tree growth. Over this period, tree-rings are an accurate proxy for climate. However, the correlation drops sharply after 1960. At high latitudes, there has been a major, wide-scale change in tree-growth over the past few decades."
Your team likes to pretend that the proxies are broken because they don't show warming.
Common sense says its more like the proxies are working fine its just that the thermometers records has been changed to show more warming that there really is.
Either way... its ridiculous to pretend that we have resolution into the past temperatures to the point where you can say that we are warming quickly based on historical records.
A commenter alerted me to a post by science denier Pierre Gosselin (archived here). He reckons that because there are quite a few climate cranks who run blogs, it disproves the fact that 97% of science papers on the topic find that humans are causing climate change. Or something like that. Which of course it doesn't.
Pierre Gosselin, you may recall, back in 2008, two years before the equal hottest year on record so far, said he thought that Earth would become icy cold by 2020, writing (archived here):
Pierre Gosselin says:
October 23, 2008 at 2:03 am-2.5°C by 2020!
Some powerful cycles appear to be aligning to deliver a vicious deep freeze.
- Solar cycles
- Ocean cycles – PDO, AMO, etc.
- and the 100K year ice-age cycle
There are some things to keep in mind:
1. Climate does not change gradually.
2. Climate changes abruptly, without warning.
3. Temperatures over the last 2 million years have been colder than today’s 95+% of the time.
4. Warm, like today, is in fact highly unusual.
5. Our current interglacial has been abnormally long.
6. Interglacial are more often much briefer, short-lived spikes.
6. Thus, the climate dice are not in our favour!
Ice ages have occurred right ON SCHEDULE for the last 3 million years.
And if you examine the interglacial temperature peaks, i.e the brief optimums between the cold intervals, you’ll see our modern optimum is indeed prolonged. More often the interglacials are just brief spikes that suddenly nosedive back into prolonged deep-freezes. Now the sun is going to sleep, and the oceans are reversing to boot!
My prediction is we’ve started a nasty cold period that will make the 1960s look balmy. We’re about to get caught with our pants down.
And a few molecules of CO2 is not going to change it.
Here is what Pierre's prediction looks like. In six years from now, according to Pierre Gosselin, the temperature will drop to 2.5 degrees Celsius below that at the beginning of the 20th century:
Data sources: NASA and WUWT
Now we've established Pierre's credentials, let's look at how he measures scientific acumen. He was referring to a list of mostly climate disinformers, made up on a blog called "ScottishSceptic" (archived here) and made an odd observation. He wrote at Notrickszone (archived here):
Having done a quick count of the warmist sites, I came up with 48 from a total of 137. That’s crunches to be only 35%. That’s a far cry from the 97% the warmists like to try to have the rest of the world believe.
He thinks that because ScottishSceptic found a whole bunch of crank climate disinformation blogs that somehow PROVES that only 35% of the scientific literature on the subject finds that humans are causing climate change.
Credit: Plognark
You think that's weird? He goes even further and writes:
That means that almost two thirds of all climate science blogs are very skeptical or somewhat skeptical of the IPCC science (skeptic or luke-warmer). That’s hardly a consensus! Many of the skeptic sites are run by scientists and meteorologists…also showing that that “consensus among experts” is a complete myth.Moreover, the top 20 sites are clearly dominated by skeptics.
I'd love to know which "skeptic" sites are run by "scientists and meteorologists". Anyone?
The list puts websites like Jeff Masters at Wunderground.com and ClimateProgress, which would both beat WUWT readership by a mile, way down in the rankings. That's because ScottishSceptic used wrong and outdated addresses. The list doesn't rank any of the scienceblog blogs because they aren't shown separately in Alexa. It leaves off the really popular blogs such as the BadAstronomy on Slate.com, and the myriad of general and specialist science websites that post articles on all sorts of topics, not just climate science. All of which, like Carl Zimmer on the Loom and Ed Yong at National Geographic would leave Anthony Watts' pitiful effort at WUWT in the dust. And it doesn't include discussion boards like Reddit, which was the subject of my last article.
Thing is, fake sceptics have very little choice when it comes to quack websites. They have blogs run by cranks like Anthony Watts and Pierre Gosselin and that's it. Their choice is very limited.
Pseudoscience nutters don't have science blogs or specialist climate science blogs. They don't have quality websites like ArsTechnica.com or Smithsonian.com or Scientific American or National Geographic. They don't have science and environment sections in mainstream media, like at the Guardian or the Sydney Morning Herald.
And there is no such thing as in-depth discussion of pseudo-science, which is why they are stuck with the sort of quackery you read at WUWT and notrickszone and similar.
There are no equivalents in pseudo-science land of climate websites run by scientific organisations, like NASA, the CSIRO, all the universities and meteorological offices around the world. They would get vastly more web traffic than the piddly little anti-science blogs at which science deniers congregate - and from a much better educated and informed class of visitor, too.
Of course, one big information source the fake sceptics lack is pseudo-scientific journals. They is no pseudo-science equivalent of Nature, Science, PNAS, the Journal of Climate or any of the dozens of other high quality scientific journals. Fake sceptics and contrarians have a few, like Energy and Environment and the dog astrology journal. But not many fake sceptics bother with getting their pseudo-science published. Why would they when it's so much more fun to attack scientists personally and make silly "ice age cometh" predictions?
