The Great Global Warming Swindle

Quote from 377OHMS:



AGW doesn't exist. Even the people who promulgated this fraud initially have admitted it.
More...

The first part of this post was all ad homenim attack. That's what someone without any facts resorts to. So I cut it out.

The only thing you say of significance is above and that is absurdly wrong.

How could the 35% increase of manmade CO2 which is a greenhouse gas NOT raise temps? Try to use your brain.
 
Quote from 377OHMS:

I think it is safe to say that you have capitulated and that this debate if effectively over.

If you could just go ahead and mention Hitler or the Nazis to make it official that would be great. Thanks again for playing and better luck next time.
More...

So 377, you were an engineer, looking at this chart, can we say the warming trend has stopped?
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

So 377, you were an engineer, looking at this chart, can we say the warming trend has stopped?
More...

What is clear is the issue is dead and there isn't anything to discuss now. Of course you can keep yammering away but I'm not sure there is anyone left here who wishes to engage you in any form of debate about it.

Its hard to find someone to argue that the Earth is flat these days as well. I'm sure you could find someone willing to argue but I don't think anyone in P&R is interested in your assertions any longer.
 
OHMS, you'll have to excuse futurecurrent for being a little PO'd. He studied global warming for four years as part of his waste management degree and now we've blown all those years of study to hell and back. Now he's getting his real education.

I think he should go back to Podunk U. and get his tuition back. They've obviously filled him full of liberal lies and took his money to boot.
 
Quote from 377OHMS:

What is clear is the issue is dead and there isn't anything to discuss now. Of course you can keep yammering away but I'm not sure there is anyone left here who wishes to engage you in any form of debate about it.

Its hard to find someone to argue that the Earth is flat these days as well. I'm sure you could find someone willing to argue but I don't think anyone in P&R is interested in your assertions any longer.
More...

You really can't bring yourself to even say whether the trend is changed or not can you. You can't let yourself see anything that conflicts can you. It's amazing.

Do you see why the sixteen year period was chosen?

Can we say the warming trend has stopped?
 
here is a real graph...



http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/9/1357730121443/-460.png

and here are the new lowered predictions by the agw nutters themselves...


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/9/1357729982514/-460.png


regarding your chart...

A NOTE ON THE DIVERGENCE BETWEEN GISS AND THE OTHER DATASETS

Much of the divergence between GISTEMP and the Hadley Centre and NCDC combined surface temperature products is likely caused by the fact that GISS deletes SST data in the Southern and Arctic Oceans and replaces it with LST data, which has a significantly higher linear trend than the SST data it replaces. This was discussed in the post GISS Deletes Arctic And Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperature Data.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/giss-land-and-sea-ratios-revisited/




Quote from futurecurrents:

See this chart below jem? Print it out, roll it up, and stick up your ass.


SwindleGISS.png
More...
 
even your giss data set is stalled out...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/10/has-global-warming-stalled/#more-79260

On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 3 months to 16 years and 1 month:

1. For GISS, the slope is flat since May 2001 or 11 years, 7 months. (goes to November)
2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months. (goes to November)
3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or an even 12 years. (goes to November)
4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 2 months. (goes to December.)
5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 10 months. (goes to December)
6. For UAH, the slope is flat since October 2004 or 8 years, 3 months. (goes to December)
7. For RSS, the slope is flat since January 1997 or 16 years and 1 month. (goes to January) RSS is 193/204 or 94.6% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.


http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ha.../uah/from:2004.75/plot/uah/from:2004.75/trend


-

the next analysis is for statistically significant warming or the 95% level.


For this analysis, data was retrieved from WoodForTrees.org and the ironically named SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level on various data sets. The first number in each case was sourced from WFT. However the second +/- number was taken from SkepticalScience.com

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut3, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut4, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
For GISS: 0.116 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
 
So jem, looking at the chart I posted, which is accurate, would you say the warming trend has stopped? If you were invested in this stock would you say the trend has stopped? Or would this be place to buy since it is near the bottom bollinger band?

Why is the ten year and twenty year trend unchanged and both going up? What is so special about 16? Why do you need to try and deceive? Is your argument so weak that you need deceptive tricks? Why can't you use reliable sources like NOAA? Does it have something to do with having been a public defender? You know it's deceptive. You are not THAT dumb. So why?
 
Do you understand what I just posted.
Do you understand what it means to say the slope is flat.

Its not just starting at one point. you could start at many.


Quote from futurecurrents:

So jem, looking at the chart I posted, which is accurate, would you say the warming trend has stopped? If you were invested in this stock would you say the trend has stopped? Or would this be place to buy since it is near the bottom bollinger band?

Why is the ten year and twenty year trend unchanged and both going up? What is so special about 16? Why do you need to try and deceive? Is your argument so weak that you need deceptive tricks? Why can't you use reliable sources like NOAA? Does it have something to do with having been a public defender? You know it's deceptive. You are not THAT dumb. So why?
More...
 
Quote from jem:

Do you understand what I just posted.
Do you understand what it means to say the slope is flat.

Its not just starting at one point. you could start at many.
More...

Do you know how to read a chart? Has the long term warming trend stopped? Do you understand why 16 years is a deceptive trick?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top