rhaig 0 #76 January 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Of course, there is the little matter of the entire decade 2001-2010. so does 10 years of weather finally make climate? Is that what you're implying here? It's a whole lot better as an indicator than a cold month in the eastern USA, or a cold month in Australia, which mnealtx and other deniers have seized on. zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Global%20Temperature_6.gif so it's still just weather then. weather is not climate. Global temperature and precipitation trends over an entire decade are NOT just weather, much as you would like them to be. Go buy a dictionary, you'll find it very helpful. www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html so is a 10 year trend an indicator, weather or climate? because you reply with vitriol when I imply it's just weather, and when I imply it's climate you call it an indicator. Why don't you just read the definition. it's more fun watching you redefine the term.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #77 January 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteYep. The last decade was warmer. The problem is credibility because all the horrible things that were supposed to be happening aren't happening and haven't been happening. The dire predictions aren't coming true. Is deliberately confusing predictions of a complex and incomplete model with actual experimental data something they teach you to do in law school? Did deniers predict bigger, stronger, and more numerous with greater furation droughts, floods, snow, hail, heat, cold, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc? If your answer is "Yes" then pass go. Is missing out on my "AGW is probably happening" comment the lack of attention to detail that engineers are used to that cause multiple deaths from structural collapses, metal fatigue, or other entirely predictable matters? "But kallend, I agree with you. Metal fatigue is increased under the expected in this circumstance but not as much as you say." "Bah. Are you saying metal fatigue won't happen?! You denier, you." Are you so into dispute that you can't even stomach agreement? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #78 January 17, 2011 Quote Of course, there is the little matter of the entire decade 2001-2010. That would be the decade where the temps have been essentially flat (absent GISS) while CO2 continued to rise (+5.08%)? HADCRUT Global: -.025 degree/decade. HADCRUT Variance-Adjusted global: -.022 degree/decadeMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #79 January 17, 2011 QuoteQuote Of course, there is the little matter of the entire decade 2001-2010. That would be the decade where the temps have been essentially flat (absent GISS) while CO2 continued to rise (+5.08%)? HADCRUT Global: -.025 degree/decade. HADCRUT Variance-Adjusted global: -.022 degree/decade How did it compare with, say, 1961-70? 1971-80? 1981-90? 1991-2000? Still flat? Do you NOT understand the concept of a long term trend, or are you deliberately ignoring it?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #80 January 18, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Of course, there is the little matter of the entire decade 2001-2010. That would be the decade where the temps have been essentially flat (absent GISS) while CO2 continued to rise (+5.08%)? HADCRUT Global: -.025 degree/decade. HADCRUT Variance-Adjusted global: -.022 degree/decade How did it compare with, say, 1961-70? 1971-80? 1981-90? 1991-2000? Still flat? Do you NOT understand the concept of a long term trend, or are you deliberately ignoring it? Done moving goalposts yet? YOU are the one that SPECIFICALLY mentioned the 2001-2010 decade, perfesser.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #81 January 18, 2011 Long term trend? Shall we go back 20k years? Yep. Climate warming and sea level rising. Or shall we go back 165 million years where climate was so warm, lizards grew stories tall because they didn't have to devote energy to being warm and therefore could simply grow. Or do you think 30 years is long term? 50 years? 1000? 10? Ask Kevin Trenberth about the trend... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #82 January 18, 2011 This must be why Kalland defense of AGW is so vociferous: "And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100072360/warmists-we-cant-win-the-game-so-lets-change-the-rules/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #83 January 18, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Of course, there is the little matter of the entire decade 2001-2010. That would be the decade where the temps have been essentially flat (absent GISS) while CO2 continued to rise (+5.08%)? HADCRUT Global: -.025 degree/decade. HADCRUT Variance-Adjusted global: -.022 degree/decade How did it compare with, say, 1961-70? 1971-80? 1981-90? 1991-2000? Still flat? Do you NOT understand the concept of a long term trend, or are you deliberately ignoring it? The latest on your "trend" right here http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/noaa_2010_report.pdf "In fact, adjustments account for virtually all the trend in the data. Unadjusted data for the best sites/rural shows cyclical multi-decadal variations but no net long term trend as former NASA scientist Dr. Ed Long showed" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #84 January 18, 2011 >The latest on your "trend" right here A little while ago you admitted that there would be some warming. Now you're back to type 1 denial? Rapid flip-flops between positions makes it look like you don't really have a position; that you are just taking whatever position your political leaders told you to take for that day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #85 January 18, 2011 Quote>The latest on your "trend" right here A little while ago you admitted that there would be some warming. Now you're back to type 1 denial? Rapid flip-flops between positions makes it look like you don't really have a position; that you are just taking whatever position your political leaders told you to take for that day. So your opinion of the scientists quote about the trend data is . . . ?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #86 January 18, 2011 Quote>The latest on your "trend" right here A little while ago you admitted that there would be some warming. Now you're back to type 1 denial? Rapid flip-flops between positions makes it look like you don't really have a position; that you are just taking whatever position your political leaders told you to take for that day. When I get new data I refine and update my position. What do you do? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #87 January 18, 2011 >So your opinion of the scientists quote about the trend data is . . . My opinion on the weatherman's opinion? That paper is a political opinion piece. It's all the same stuff that was in the last SPPI paper, with the addition of "So is 2010 the warmest year? … Don’t bet on it!" tacked on to the end. Given that they released it the same day the 2010 averages were announced, it's likely that they had it written and ready to go long before any data was available - which is characteristic of denier groups. The data really doesn't matter. (SPPI is a denier group that regularly releases the same arguments against AGW.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #88 January 18, 2011 >When I get new data I refine and update my position. >What do you do? Same thing. I'd suggest that places like Nature and Science are better places to get data than denier organizations and FOX News. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #89 January 18, 2011 And they get their data from NASA/NOAA, whose data is highly corrupted, by their own account! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #90 January 19, 2011 >And they get their data from NASA/NOAA . . . Why - that's true! And who else do they get data from? Scripps Oceanographic Institute! They must be in on the conspiracy too. And the EPA! And the IPCC! They all must be conspiring to destroy the oil and coal companies, who are only trying to save the US economy from the evil Al Gore. So many conspiracies, so little time. So have you found evidence of nano-thermite in the offices of Hansen and Mann yet? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #91 January 19, 2011 Quote>So your opinion of the scientists quote about the trend data is . . . My opinion on the weatherman's opinion? That paper is a political opinion piece. It's all the same stuff that was in the last SPPI paper, with the addition of "So is 2010 the warmest year? … Don’t bet on it!" tacked on to the end. Given that they released it the same day the 2010 averages were announced, it's likely that they had it written and ready to go long before any data was available - which is characteristic of denier groups. The data really doesn't matter. (SPPI is a denier group that regularly releases the same arguments against AGW.) Given that GISS was predicting 2010 to be the warmest year ever, and the data suddenly *changed* to make it so at the end of the year, you'll pardon us for not having the same religious fervor in the AGW crowd that you do. You can get back to your attempts to stifle dissent of the 'consensus' now.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #92 January 19, 2011 Not only was 2010 "corrected: (upward), all of the previous temp data was "corrected" (down) so 2010 ended up as second warmest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #93 January 19, 2011 Cite, please. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #94 January 19, 2011 Google is your friend take your pick http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=temp+data+was+%22corrected%22+%28down%29+so+2010+ended+up+as+second+warmest&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq="America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #95 January 19, 2011 In case you skip this one http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/03/rss-data-2010-not-the-warmest-year-in-satellite-record-but-a-close-second/"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
