IPCC - Exposed!

[-1=e^ipi]

Here's what it's based on according to NOAA.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

I'm not disagreeing about the existence of NOAA's claim...

And look at the uncertainty, +/- 0.09 (I'm assuming this is the 2 sigma confidence level). That means that 2014 is statistically tied with at least two other years.

Also, I saw neither HadCRUT, nor GIS, nor satellite anywhere in that link.

So thanks for proving my point.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm not disagreeing about the existence of NOAA's claim...

And look at the uncertainty, +/- 0.09 (I'm assuming this is the 2 sigma confidence level). That means that 2014 is statistically tied with at least two other years.

Also, I saw neither HadCRUT, nor GIS, nor satellite anywhere in that link.

So thanks for proving my point.

Sounds like a lot of hair splitting to try and evade the actual point.

[-1=e^ipi]

Sounds like a lot of hair splitting to try and evade the actual point.

Not it isn't hair splitting. It's about alarmist misleading the public's perspective.

Imagine if the NOAA data had 2014 ranked 3rd, but statistically tied for 1st. Then the headline would be '2014 statistically tied for hottest year on record'. But in the case we have now, statistical significant gets thrown out the window and the headline is '2014 hottest year on record'. And if the HadCRUT or GIS data has 2014 as 1st and the NOAA data had it as 3rd, the alarmists would ignore the NOAA data and instead go with the HadCRUT or GIS data and the headline would be '2014 hottest year on record'.

Whatever the data is, it always gets presented in the most alarmist way. You don't see anything wrong with that?

[-1=e^ipi]

And actually, if +/- 0.09 is the 95% confidence interval for each year, then two years are only statistically different at the 95% level if two years differ by sqrt(2)*0.09 = 0.13. This means that 2014 is actually statistically tied with 5 other years...

Edit: and the reason they are using 'hottest year on record' is because the alarmists don't want to point out that warming has slowed/stopped for the past decade and a half. If 2014 wasn't statistically tied for hottest year on record, but the slowdown in the warming for the past decade and a half did not occur, then the headline would be 'NOAA confirms that Earth has warmed by 0.1 degrees over past 15 years' or something.

Edited January 23, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[On Guard for Thee]

And actually, if +/- 0.09 is the 95% confidence interval for each year, then two years are only statistically different at the 95% level if two years differ by sqrt(2)*0.09 = 0.13. This means that 2014 is actually statistically tied with 5 other years...

Edit: and the reason they are using 'hottest year on record' is because the alarmists don't want to point out that warming has slowed/stopped for the past decade and a half. If 2014 wasn't statistically tied for hottest year on record, but the slowdown in the warming for the past decade and a half did not occur, then the headline would be 'NOAA confirms that Earth has warmed by 0.1 degrees over past 15 years' or something.

It seems like only the naysayers who are clinging to this so called "slowdown" in warming. Once again the actual stats show there never was a pause.

[WIP]

You appear to have made some pretty definite conclusions in this thread along the lines of 'the world is going to end and humans are going to go extinct if we don't change our ways and reject the capitalist system'.

I'm waiting for someone to tell me how endless growth can be accommodated with finite resources. The concerns expressed by a group of academics in the 1968 Club of Rome Report are still looming over us today: they warned of a population bottleneck and dieoff if our populations and resource exploitation continued on unchecked. And over the last 40 years, all we've done is double the population and industrialize agriculture to degrade topsoil and water supplies even further.

Any renewable resource that is used up beyond its capacity to rebuild, becomes used up and in a worse collapse than if the extra efforts had never been made in the first place. the difference today is that civilization, food supplies and industrial agriculture are global. So a famine in one region raises demand and food prices everywhere. Once the tipping point is reached where degraded farm lands are unable to meet rising population demands for food, then everything starts collapsing in unexpected ways. That's how civilizations have collapsed in the past and will continue to do so in the future. But, this global civilization has put all of the chips on the table at once, so collapse could be complete and leave nothing afterwards, as the blowbacks from mass migrations, wars...including nuclear wars, make this world even more dangerous than it is today.

Here is a question: Why did it take until the end of the last ice age for agriculture to become viable and for civilization to take off?

To be technical about it, agriculture was not some sort of invention 10,000 years ago, as envisioned by early anthropologists. Natufian hunter-gatherers had been gathering seeds and carrying them along with them to plant along hillsides in Asia Minor at least 10, 000 years earlier during the Pleistocene. Definitive evidence is provided by botanists who discovered evidence of hybridization of rye grains as far back as 18,000 years ago. They also started planting other non-shattering hybrid grains which they slowly developed over time along hillsides, because the weather changed too rapidly to allow for any permanent settlements using sedentary agriculture. And, it is almost certain that no hunter-gatherer bands were at all interested in taking up farming...just as hunter-gatherers in modern times only move out of the forests and become farmers when they are forced to by encroachment from slash-and-burn agriculture. They were more than happy to continue on doing the occasional planting of favorite foods as they migrated, and circled back to check for results. It has been noted many times that hunter-gatherers have had a much more comfortable life that involved much less work and effort to provide food, than from tilling the soil!

About 40 years ago, archaeologists digging in the hillsides around Greece were shocked to discover that pre-agricultural remains of 10 to 12,000 years ago, showed people who were taller, had much better teeth and greater bone density than those in the same region after the age of farming began! Since then, multiple lines of evidence show fixed agriculture to have been a cultural development that took place out of necessity/ not some great advance that motivated hunter-gatherers to leave the forests! Simple facts from archaeological evidence show that population densities grew too large to continue to support traditional living in Asia Minor and along the Nile and other areas.

It's worth noting that despite the usual progress BS, the knowledge of building monuments with stone tools was already in place long before fixed agricultural settlements began. The prime example being the Gobekli Tepe did in southern Turkey near the Syrian border, which until the untimely death of project leader - Klaus Schmidt, was still excavating lower layers of the site dated back 12,000 years ago. Schmidt's theory about Gobekli Tepe was that the site - consisting of a series of monuments with no permanent settlements surrounding the area, was a place of great spiritual significance for Natufian hunter-gatherers for thousands of years. and once or twice during the year, large numbers of different tribes would gather at the site for some sorts of ritualistic purposes and carry on with the task that went on for thousands of years - building the large stone monuments. Schmidt considers the burial of Gobekli Tepe which occurred more than 6,000 years ago, to be an even greater mystery than the building of the monuments; since the massive quantities of earth dumped over the site to bury the monuments, created a sizeable hill that everyone believed was a natural land feature, until erosion revealed glimpses of the site to goat herders several decades ago. Burying the monuments would have taken several generations of work also.

Why did they build the monuments, and why did they bury them? Both will remain mysteries which Schmidt believes tie in with the story of the Garden of Eden and later being cast out of paradise. Whatever happened, just like the evidence for hybridizing seeds, the building of large stone monuments for religious or ritualistic purposes, show that knowledge was already in place for everything that is later considered the great breakthrough in civilization. Also worth noting that the first agricultural settlements, like Catalhoyuk contained thousands of mud-brick homes, yet the city has no walls or fortifications. A sign that warfare and invasions and plundering were not a concern for people until more recent times as population densities became greater.

So, did civilization take off? Considering where we are today and the story of civilization for the last 5000 years, it looks like we started heading down the wrong road a

And topsoil loss? How is increasing CO₂ going to cause the global topsoil loss?

Also, have you not heard of the CO₂ fertilization effect? Do you not think that it will be easier to grow things in the two largest countries in the world, Russia and Canada, if the Earth warms slightly?

Have you not heard that wildfires are increasing in frequency and severity as the climate gets hotter? And the CO2 fertilization effect is one of those natural carbon sequestration effects which take large amounts of time to achieve results of reducing atmospheric carbon. Right now, forests are being burned, and post-WWII agriculture does not rebuild soil...which would have been the best way of reducing carbon increases today.

Yes, that's why we live in a 'Patriarchy' with its 'Rape Culture' and men are 'Privaleged' with their suicide rate that is 5 times the female suicide rate, a homeless rate that is 9 times higher than the female homeless rate, a life expectancy that is ~5 years lower, a court system that favours female custody during divorse, females serving 60% the jail time as males for similiar crimes, a male-only draft in some countries such as the USA, breast and cervical cancer getting far more funding than prostate cancer, 60-65% of university students being female, a large in discrepancy school performace, particularly reading, between boys and girls, young women in North American urban areas out-earning young men, etc. *sarcasm*

Yet another issue, and I'll just assume right now that you will load up lots of MRA propaganda that tries to pretend that it's the women who are the problem with today's world! Never mind who holds virtually all of the political and economic power in patriarchal societies...which still exist here in the west I might add! Lot's of Arab-haters like to point fingers so they can say 'there's someone over there who's worse than what we are,' but western civilization built upon the three Judeo-christian religions put a lot of obstacles in the path of any attempts to transition to more equal societies.

Even up to earlier agricultural societies...like the first nations of this continent, the women had their own leaders and the men had to deal with them, rather than have complete control as was the custom in the old world regimes.

[-1=e^ipi]

It seems like only the naysayers who are clinging to this so called "slowdown" in warming. Once again the actual stats show there never was a pause.

Wow, you are denying the existence of the hiatus, while subtly implying I'm a naysayer. Who is the 'denier' now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

Edited January 24, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[On Guard for Thee]

Wow, you are denying the existence of the hiatus, while subtly implying I'm a naysayer. Who is the 'denier' now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

I'm not denying the hiatus, science is though. I wish it were actually hapenning.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm not denying the hiatus, science is though. I wish it were actually hapenning.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/

So you quote an article that admits that global surface temperatures are not increasing as fast as they were than in the 90's.

Okay...

[On Guard for Thee]

So you quote an article that admits that global surface temperatures are not increasing as fast as they were than in the 90's.

Okay...

And that there was/is no pause. OK?

[WIP]

MOre than 90% of the Sun's energy reaching the Earth is absorbed by the world's oceans, and sometimes more heat is absorbed into lower ocean layers than at other times. So, what is the point here? Atmospheric temperatures are not a complete guide, and neither are ocean surface temperatures. Some day I'd like to know how this world can have more heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, while showing no significant increases in temperature! It's more likely that you're missing part of the picture than simple laws of physics like the greenhouse effect no longer apply.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm waiting for someone to tell me how endless growth can be accommodated with finite resources.

I have made no such claim.

The concerns expressed by a group of academics in the 1968 Club of Rome Report are still looming over us today: they warned of a population bottleneck and dieoff if our populations and resource exploitation continued on unchecked.

Yeah... Cause it's not like global population will not stabilize this century at 10 billion people or anything... *sarcasm*

Once the tipping point is reached where degraded farm lands are unable to meet rising population demands for food, then everything starts collapsing in unexpected ways.

Define this 'tipping point' and please explain why you think it is realistic that this 'tipping point' will be reached. Also, please explain how it relates to the topic of this thread because it appears to me that you are going off topic.

That's how civilizations have collapsed in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Proof?

If the sun rises every day for the past 4 billion years, does that imply that it will rise every day forever into the future?

That's how civilizations have collapsed in the past and will continue to do so in the future. But, this global civilization has put all of the chips on the table at once, so collapse could be complete and leave nothing afterwards, as the blowbacks from mass migrations, wars...

Baseless alarmist claim without evidence, yet again.

including nuclear wars, make this world even more dangerous than it is today.

Someone is going off topic.

Wait, I get it. Nuclear weapons therefore we must adopt communism and stop using fossil fuels. It all makes sense now! *sarcasm*

To be technical about it, agriculture was not some sort of invention 10,000 years ago, as envisioned by early anthropologists. Natufian hunter-gatherers had been gathering seeds and carrying them along with them to plant along hillsides in Asia Minor at least 10, 000 years earlier during the Pleistocene. Definitive evidence is provided by botanists who discovered evidence of hybridization of rye grains as far back as 18,000 years ago. They also started planting other non-shattering hybrid grains which they slowly developed over time along hillsides, because the weather changed too rapidly to allow for any permanent settlements using sedentary agriculture. And, it is almost certain that no hunter-gatherer bands were at all interested in taking up farming...just as hunter-gatherers in modern times only move out of the forests and become farmers when they are forced to by encroachment from slash-and-burn agriculture. They were more than happy to continue on doing the occasional planting of favorite foods as they migrated, and circled back to check for results. It has been noted many times that hunter-gatherers have had a much more comfortable life that involved much less work and effort to provide food, than from tilling the soil!

At least you have evidence this time.

My claim was that agriculture did not take off until the end of the ice age. Your evidence shows that human intelligence was clearly there to start agriculture 18000+ years ago (human intelligence was probably not 'evolved enough' during earlier interglacials), but clearly agriculture did not take off until the last ice age ended. So thank you for providing more evidence that the reason agriculture did not take off until the end of the ice age was because agriculture wasn't really viable until then.

About 40 years ago, archaeologists digging in the hillsides around Greece were shocked to discover that pre-agricultural remains of 10 to 12,000 years ago, showed people who were taller, had much better teeth and greater bone density than those in the same region after the age of farming began!

Yes this is very well known. If people move from a diet of mostly meat to a diet of primarily grains, plants, etc. that is going to make people taller, reduce bone density, etc. Why do you think homo erectus were so tall?

Since then, multiple lines of evidence show fixed agriculture to have been a cultural development that took place out of necessity/ not some great advance that motivated hunter-gatherers to leave the forests! Simple facts from archaeological evidence show that population densities grew too large to continue to support traditional living in Asia Minor and along the Nile and other areas.

Look, it's not about 'necessity'.

It's essentially basic Malthusian theory (alternatively, you can use Darwinian theory). Humans that decided to continue to be hunter gathers would have continued to exist, but would have a relatively stable population since their populations were already in rough equilibrium with the environment. Humans that decided to perform agriculture would have had their populations grow (until the new carrying capacity was reached) since they would have access to a new source of food that was previously unavailable. Agriculture enabled a much greater global population.

It's worth noting that despite the usual progress BS, the knowledge of building monuments with stone tools was already in place long before fixed agricultural settlements began.

Have I claimed that hunter gatherers wouldn't be able to build monuments with stone tools? No. So what is your point?

Why did they build the monuments, and why did they bury them?

Religious purposes? Cultural practice? Boredom?

Both will remain mysteries which Schmidt believes tie in with the story of the Garden of Eden and later being cast out of paradise.

Someone should tell Schmidt that the Garden of Eden is a fairy tale and he/she needs to stop confusing reality with fiction.

Whatever happened, just like the evidence for hybridizing seeds, the building of large stone monuments for religious or ritualistic purposes, show that knowledge was already in place for everything that is later considered the great breakthrough in civilization.

Yes, except civilization didn't take off despite the knowledge because the global climate made it enviable. Nothing you write contradicts anything I have said in this thread...

So, did civilization take off? Considering where we are today and the story of civilization for the last 5000 years, it looks like we started heading down the wrong road a

Therefore, we should all go back to a hunter gatherer society! Makes perfect sense! *sarcasm*

Have you not heard that wildfires are increasing in frequency and severity as the climate gets hotter?

Yes, and wildfires are also more common when it is drier, as the global climate was during the last glacial maximum.

Right now, forests are being burned, and post-WWII agriculture does not rebuild soil...which would have been the best way of reducing carbon increases today.

Yes, and forests were burning 10,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, 1,000,000 years ago, 10,000,000 years ago, and 100,000,000 years ago. Wait, now you are mixing up wildfires with human caused fires... okay...

And please stop using 'carbon' instead of 'carbon dioxide'. It annoys me!

Yet another issue, and I'll just assume right now that you will load up lots of MRA propaganda that tries to pretend that it's the women who are the problem with today's world!

Oh, is that what MRAs are about? They aren't about equal rights or gender equity at all! *sarcasm*

Never mind who holds virtually all of the political and economic power in patriarchal societies...

This is going off topic, so this should be discussed in another thread. I invite you to listen to Karen Straughan's positions with respect to your claim.

but western civilization built upon the three Judeo-christian religions

No it isn't. Did the ancient Greeks not exist? Did the ancient Romans not exist? Did the various pagan groups in Europe not exist? Did the enlightenment not exist? What was the french revolution about? etc.

Western Civilization was not build upon Judeo-christian religions. Judeo-christian religions hijacked western civilization and slowed it's progress for centuries.

Even up to earlier agricultural societies...like the first nations of this continent, the women had their own leaders and the men had to deal with them, rather than have complete control as was the custom in the old world regimes.

Yes there have been many Matriarchal societies including in the 'old world'. Basque culture is Matriarchal (which has interesting implications about the past since Basque is not an Indo-European language). Many pagan groups were Matriarchal, though over centuries these cultures were wiped out by the Judeo-Christian 'culture' for being witches or whatever.

So what is your point?

[-1=e^ipi]

And that there was/is no pause. OK?

No, there has been a slowdown in the increase in global average surface temperatures, that is a fact.

But apparently, if you point this out, climate alarmists interpret this to mean that you think that this somehow disproves anthropogenic climate change, which it doesn't. It's like you are trying to implicitly strawman me.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, there has been a slowdown in the increase in global average surface temperatures, that is a fact.

But apparently, if you point this out, climate alarmists interpret this to mean that you think that this somehow disproves anthropogenic climate change, which it doesn't. It's like you are trying to implicitly strawman me.

No there hasn't been a slowdown. But I'm sue you can find a Fox news caliber report that will say there was. I don't wish this to be hapenning, it just is.

[-1=e^ipi]

MOre than 90% of the Sun's energy reaching the Earth is absorbed by the world's oceans, and sometimes more heat is absorbed into lower ocean layers than at other times.

Yes, you have natural fluctuations such as the North Atlantic Mutidecadal Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc.

So, what is the point here? Atmospheric temperatures are not a complete guide, and neither are ocean surface temperatures.

It's about establishing what is true and what is not true. There has been a slowdown in the rate of increase of global surface temperatures during the past decade and a half. This is due to natural climate fluctuations.

But somehow, On Guard for Thee wants to ignore this and pretend this did not occur.

Some day I'd like to know how this world can have more heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, while showing no significant increases in temperature!

Well I guess you could always increase the Earth's albedo, or increase upper atmosphere aerosols, or have increased cosmic rays to increase cloud formation, or solar irradiance could decrease, or you could build a giant space mirror. There are many ways this could hypothetically happen!

It's more likely that you're missing part of the picture than simple laws of physics like the greenhouse effect no longer apply.

I've never even remotely implied anything of the sort. Wow you climate climate alarmists are deluded.

And I'm sure that On Guard for Thee, Waldo and other climate alarmists on these forums who in the past have been shown to not understand and refuse to understand the basics of cellular respiration or photosynthesis understand the physics much better than a person with a physics degree. Apparently 'CO₂ produced via cellular respiration is different from CO₂ produced from burning fossil fuels', 'CO₂ produced by cellular respiration is immediately reabsorbed by the body' and, 'Carbon and CO₂ are the same thing'. *sarcasm*

[-1=e^ipi]

I wanted to correct myself. HadCRUT4 data suggests that 2014 has the highest measured global temperature on record (not 3rd as I suggested before), but it is still statistically tied with many other years so it is uncertain if 2014 is the hottest year on record.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/01/hadcrut4-equalling-slightly-besting.html

[On Guard for Thee]

Wow, you are denying the existence of the hiatus, while subtly implying I'm a naysayer. Who is the 'denier' now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/

[TimG]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/

All that link does is show that many scientific institutions have abandoned any pretense of objective science and now only care about pushing the religion of global warming.

The pause is real. One can debate whether it is temporary or whether it is a sign that the establishment is wrong. But it is real and it was NOT predicted by climate models.

Edited January 28, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

All that link does is show that many scientific institutions have abandoned any pretense of objective science and now only care about pushing the religion of global warming.

The pause is real. One can debate whether it is temporary or whether it is a sign that the establishment is wrong. But it is real and it was NOT predicted by climate models.

There are ample presentations that say otherwise if you care to check. But of course you have the right to choose which ones you believe.

[TimG]

There are ample presentations that say otherwise if you care to check.

And they are all psuedo-scientific BS designed to fool idiots who don't want to think and just want to be assured that they can keep believing in the AGW cult.

Like I said: a reasonable person can argue that the pause is temporary and warming will resume soon. Claiming that the pause is not happening is pure quackery on par with homeopathy or astrology.

Edited January 28, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

And they are all psuedo-scientific BS designed to fool idiots who don't want to think and just want to be assured that they can keep believing in the AGW cult.

Like I said: a reasonable person can argue that the pause is temporary and warming will resume soon. Claiming that the pause is not happening is pure quackery.

A lot of peer reviewed studies say otherwise. But again, choose what you like to believe.

[TimG]

A lot of peer reviewed studies say otherwise.

Many more peer reviewed studies acknowledge the pause and attempt to explain it. No one who is not a quack claims that warming has not paused.

[On Guard for Thee]

Many more peer reviewed studies acknowledge the pause and attempt to explain it. No one who is not a quack claims that warming has not paused.

Only a quack would so easily dismiss such overwhelming data.

[TimG]

Only a quack would so easily dismiss such overwhelming data.

The overwhelming data in this case shows that warming has paused. Only quacks dispute it now. Edited January 28, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

The overwhelming data is this case shows that warming has paused. Only quacks dispute it now.

Again, only your opinion. Get on google you will find tons of info that says you're wrong. But going in circles is a bit of a waste of time.