waldo Posted March 7, 2014 Report Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) hey now... if you can't argue the science, try for the consensus! as in if you can't provide a correlation between natural variability cycles affecting the narrow, selective chosen confines of the single localized regional area warming, that warming affecting the mountain pine beetle life-cycle/range expansion, as in if you can't provide a correlation between natural variability cycles affecting an extended regional correlation within U.S./Canadian western states/provinces area warming, that warming affecting the mountain pine beetle life-cycle/range expansion, as in if you can't provide a correlation between natural variability cycles affecting global warming proper, try for the consensus. . Edited March 7, 2014 by waldo Quote
jbg Posted March 7, 2014 Report Posted March 7, 2014 hey now... if you can't argue the science, try for the consensus!You have criticized me for "eyeballing" temperature data in order to conclude that there in no material man-made climate change. Can you come up with any stations on your own that match the "hockey stick" graph? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted March 7, 2014 Report Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) Yes...you are right. I found the exact quote from the study.Do you have a link to that study? I'm not so sure that the study has it quite right since cold-phase Niña winters are not uniformly cold. See especially 1950-1, 1954-5 and 1971-2. But basically the effect of the PDO is to amplify and make more prevalent the respective warm and cold ENSO events. I did forget to mention that during "cold phases" the transitions from Niño to Niña tend to be extremely fast. Both early 1973 and 2010 featured epic plunges into Niña territory. In both cases late August into early September featured major East Coast late summer heat waves. Edited March 7, 2014 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Accountability Now Posted March 7, 2014 Report Posted March 7, 2014 Do you have a link to that study? I'm not so sure that the study has it quite right since cold-phase Niña winters are not uniformly cold. See especially 1950-1, 1954-5 and 1971-2. But basically the effect of the PDO is to amplify and make more prevalent the respective warm and cold ENSO events. I did forget to mention that during "cold phases" the transitions from Niño to Niña tend to be extremely fast. Both early 1973 and 2010 featured epic plunges into Niña territory. In both cases late August into early September featured major East Coast late summer heat waves. It was the one that The Squid posted earlier talking about the the localized region of Chi;cotin area (Quesnel) http://www.pacificclimate.org/sites/default/files/publications/Werner.ClimateChangeCaribooChilcotin.Sep2008.pdf My original point was that temperatures couldn't of dropped off that much as global warming on average is about 1 degree. Squid showed me this paper which shows the minimums in that area have decreased over time. I backed that up by looking at historical data on Environment Canada and it showed that it hasn't hit -40C since 1991 (in that area). It had a -38 minimum in 1996 and -36 in 2012 but not -40....as such the 100% mortality rate isn't being achieved. However a a drop in the minimum of 4C can't be accounted solely by global warming when global warming is about 1 degree. That is where The Squid's paper outlines the effects of PDO and ENSO on temperatures and provides the summary of the strong impact of PDO and ENSO on these regional areas. Of course, if you don't like this study you can always look to the work of Dr. Roy Spencer (a UAH climate scientist who is drastically hated by the alarmists) and his work on the effect of the PDO and how it explains the recent warming over 100 years. This is a study published by Spencer showing the correlation between natural variations (PDO) and global warming. In it he shows that CO2 has an effect but that the PDO plays a more signifcant role. http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/ Cue the alarmist.... Quote
waldo Posted March 7, 2014 Report Posted March 7, 2014 Of course, if you don't like this study you can always look to the work of Dr. Roy Spencer (a UAH climate scientist who is drastically hated by the alarmists) and his work on the effect of the PDO and how it explains the recent warming over 100 years. This is a study published by Spencer showing the correlation between natural variations (PDO) and global warming. In it he shows that CO2 has an effect but that the PDO plays a more signifcant role. http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/ Cue the alarmist.... published? Where... other than his personal blog? Quote
waldo Posted March 7, 2014 Report Posted March 7, 2014 You have criticized me for "eyeballing" temperature data in order to conclude that there in no material man-made climate change. Can you come up with any stations on your own that match the "hockey stick" graph? you were 'criticized' for taking raw station data from a single localized station within the continental U.S. and literally "eyeballing" that raw data to presume upon a correlated global warming trend. Not only did you misfire by globally projecting upon a single localized regional station, you took numbers, simple raw numbers, and the extent of your analysis was to simply "eyeball" those raw numbers into a trend. hockey stick graph? What does a proxy based paleoclimatic reconstruction have to do with the modern instrumental record? Quote
waldo Posted March 7, 2014 Report Posted March 7, 2014 However a a drop in the minimum of 4C can't be accounted solely by global warming when global warming is about 1 degree. see weather versus climate Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 7, 2014 Report Posted March 7, 2014 published? Where... other than his personal blog? see weather versus climate waldo....I have already told you that I will not engage you because you are a dishonest poster and I will not enter into any more debates with you. Like you said, you have an open canvas to have conversations with yourself all day long. Go for it. Quote
waldo Posted March 7, 2014 Report Posted March 7, 2014 waldo....I have already told you that I will not engage you because you are a dishonest poster and I will not enter into any more debates with you. Like you said, you have an open canvas to have conversations with yourself all day long. Go for it. no problem! I relish an open slate/canvass. In this case, I will continue to point out you've provided no correlation between internal variability ocean cycles... to a most select/small localized weather/climate analysis of warming affecting the mountain pine beetle life-cycle/range expansion... or to more extended correlated projections of more comprehensive U.S./Canada western states/provinces warming affecting the mountain pine beetle life-cycle/range expansion... or to global warming proper. I will also point out your continued difficulties, as in this latest post of yours trumpeting the unpublished "blog science" of noted creationist Roy Spencer. It reads like you thought you had a real gem there! Where is it published again... other than on his personal blog? by the by, you can continue to squawk your juvenile dishonesty labeling nonsense - no one is buying it. But hey, whatever gives you your presumed face-saving cover, right! how come there's no more extreme wailing against thread derailing anymore? I thought this was about you and Simple contesting the consensus, no? You know, the thing neither you or Simple is prepared to define (as you interpret it), no matter how many times you're asked/pressed to do so. Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 8, 2014 Report Posted March 8, 2014 by the by, you can continue to squawk your juvenile dishonesty labeling nonsense - no one is buying it. But hey, whatever gives you your presumed face-saving cover, right! . I have shown you three, direct examples of your utter lies in recent history. Add to this your countless attempts of deflection. The fact is that I don't need to sell anyone on anything.....they're already sold. Everything you say needs to be taken with extreme skepticism because of your constant dishonest approach. So....have fun talking to yourself. I'm sure you're used to it by now. Quote
waldo Posted March 8, 2014 Report Posted March 8, 2014 hey now! I thought you weren't engaging me! no - I've not lied or been dishonest... no matter how many times you continue to say so. This juvenile ploy of yours simply follows in line with the other antics of yours I've highlighted, like the half-dozen juvenile "grocery stock boy" insults of yours I grouped and quoted back to you... like the dozen juvenile "living in my mother's basement type" insults of yours I previously grouped and quoted back to you. You completely lost it earlier in the thread claiming over and over that I was derailing it... and yet, repeatedly you had... you have... no qualms in bringing forward any of your own non-OP related posts. As for deflection, that's you, repeatedly! The biggest deflection is your repeat pattern of nonsense labeling lies/dishonesty... and highlighting you won't engage (and yet you do... to repeat you won't engage while you throw down more of your juvenile labeling and deflection). Your fake-skeptic/denier self has been laid out to the point you have no choice but to play your juvenile act out - to deflect! You can't argue the OP and you most obviously can't argue the science! again, about your latest gem... the one you so touted and emphasized was "published". Again, just where was that linked reference from your creationist source published... other than on his own blog? You take postured peer-review/response to a whole new level! no need for you to reply saying you won't engage me... just use the board ignore feature. Not having to deal with actual science is a better place for your fake-skeptic/denier self. Quote
eyeball Posted March 8, 2014 Report Posted March 8, 2014 The fact is that I don't need to sell anyone on anything.....they're already sold. Well, given you're also competing against the vast vast VAST majority of climate scientists and other experts around the globe, what did you expect? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Accountability Now Posted March 8, 2014 Report Posted March 8, 2014 Well, given you're also competing against the vast vast VAST majority of climate scientists and other experts around the globe, what did you expect? Lol. I'm talking about everyone being sold in waldo's dishonesty......not global warming. Glad to see you're keeping up with the conversation. Quote
waldo Posted March 8, 2014 Report Posted March 8, 2014 Lol. I'm talking about everyone being sold in waldo's dishonesty......not global warming. Glad to see you're keeping up with the conversation. it's called turning your own word's against you! Again, your juvenile labeling means nothing... clearly, it's your safety blanket. It's your solace given you can't argue the science. Again, where's your much touted blog science published? Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 8, 2014 Report Posted March 8, 2014 it's called turning your own word's against you! Again, your juvenile labeling means nothing... clearly, it's your safety blanket. It's your solace given you can't argue the science. Again, where's your much touted blog science published? I will not engage someone in debate when they are as dishonest as you. Quote
waldo Posted March 8, 2014 Report Posted March 8, 2014 I will not engage someone in debate when they are as dishonest as you. debate? Is that what you presume to do? Again, your continued juvenile labeling means nothing... I've repeatedly asked you to stop but you persist; i.e., you use it to deflect from your inadequacy and inability to argue the science. again, no need to reply that you won't engage... again, use the board ignore feature. Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 8, 2014 Report Posted March 8, 2014 again, no need to reply that you won't engage... again, use the board ignore feature. I won't engage you in debate but I also won't ignore you. Any attempt you make to address me will be replied to with a reminder of your dishonesty. As such, I suggest it's you that uses the ignore feature. Quote
eyeball Posted March 8, 2014 Report Posted March 8, 2014 Lol. I'm talking about everyone being sold in waldo's dishonesty......not global warming. Glad to see you're keeping up with the conversation. So if you agree with 97%, why on Earth do you spend so much time disputing Waldo? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Keepitsimple Posted March 8, 2014 Author Report Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) Well, given you're also competing against the vast vast VAST majority of climate scientists and other experts around the globe, what did you expect? And that is precisely what this topic has been about. Exactly what is the consensus. What is the position of scientists in the context of "a clear and present danger" that would require immediate and punitive actions by government? The popular position of the Alarmist community is that we must hold temperature increase to less than two degrees celcius by 2100. Have a look at the summary of this study - which is not a "denier" article - it's actually quite supportive of a consensus - but again, what is the consensus? Of the 79% of scientists who agree that "human induced greenhouse warming" is occurring - and is significant (5% don't think it's significant), only a little more than half give more than a 50-50 chance that we'll exceed the two degree threshold. Plenty of room for debate, wouldn't you say......and the connecting question - what is the consensus? 97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.” Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.“There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50-50 chance that temperatures will rise” 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50 to 100 years. http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/# Edited March 8, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted March 8, 2014 Report Posted March 8, 2014 Exactly what is the consensus. - but again, what is the consensus? ......and the connecting question - what is the consensus? which is what you've been asked to state/define over and over and over again. You refuse to provide your interpretation of what that consensus is? You absolutely refuse to do so. As repeatedly stated, you've now started 2 separate threads on the topic (now merged into this single thread), and through both threads you've continued to state you "don't accept the consensus". Simple, again, just what is it... you don't accept? Just state and define what your interpretation of the consensus is? Tell us what you don't accept? Quote
waldo Posted March 8, 2014 Report Posted March 8, 2014 I won't engage you in debate but I also won't ignore you. Any attempt you make to address me will be replied to with a reminder of your dishonesty. As such, I suggest it's you that uses the ignore feature. debate? Is that what you think you do? No, you... you... you ignore me! have you found where your blog science was published yet? Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 8, 2014 Report Posted March 8, 2014 So if you agree with 97%, why on Earth do you spend so much time disputing Waldo? Who said I agree with the 97%? What does waldo's dishonesty have to do with the 97%? Quote
eyeball Posted March 8, 2014 Report Posted March 8, 2014 And that is precisely what this topic has been about. Exactly what is the consensus. What is the position of scientists in the context of "a clear and present danger" that would require immediate and punitive actions by government? The popular position of the Alarmist community is that we must hold temperature increase to less than two degrees celcius by 2100. Have a look at the summary of this study - which is not a "denier" article - it's actually quite supportive of a consensus - but again, what is the consensus? Of the 84% of scientists who agree that "human induced greenhouse warming" is occurring, over half give less than a 50-50 chance that we'll exceed the two degree threshold. Plenty of room for debate, wouldn't you say......and the connecting question - what is the consensus? Who cares when it's been as vast as it has been for so long now? What possible difference could another percentage point or two make either way? I think the more pressing question is how do we as a species expect to survive any other significant challenge that comes along when something as potentially threatening as the issue of climate change can still command so much inaction. We couldn't collectively agree on how to think or discuss our way out of a wet paper bag never mind actually take action even if our existence depended on it. Now that science itself has been so besmirched by this debacle we're probably doomed to become lost and confused on a range of issues that require a bias towards reality. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Accountability Now Posted March 8, 2014 Report Posted March 8, 2014 debate? Is that what you think you do? No, you... you... you ignore me! have you found where your blog science was published yet? I've engaged you numerous times on this board and each time I've shown you the door. I used to take pleasure in beating you in what I thought was a fair debate. Even though I have no problems with beating you, I do have a problem with engaging a dishonest poster....like yourself Quote
eyeball Posted March 8, 2014 Report Posted March 8, 2014 Who said I agree with the 97%? What does waldo's dishonesty have to do with the 97%? You made it pretty clear this all about Waldo, not the reality of the vast vast scientific and expert consensus that surrounds us. By the way, why we don't require such a high standard of consensus for other things, like our economic policies for example? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.