AGW +2C? +6C? It has happened before.

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>I wonder if the usual suspects will argue with scientists from MIT.

I won't. Will you? Further in the article:

"There’s little question that global warming is happening. Climate data show that Earth’s average temperature has risen at least 0.7  oC (1.3 oF) over the 20th century. Temperature increases over the 21st century will probably be two and a half to five times as large,because greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide allow sunlight to penetrate the atmosphere but make it harder for outgoing infrared radiation to escape. . . .Even if the rate of growth could be moderated enough to stabilize levels at about 550 ppmv, average temperatures might well rise by about 5 oC–with devastating effects for us earthlings, such as rising sea levels and dramatic changes in weather patterns."

If you've now accepted that, excellent. (And yes, Milankovitch cycles happen as well and drive climate on a long timescale.)

Might, may, could . . .

I might win the lottery, you may have a meteorite hit your house, the U.S. government could be looking to invade Texas . . .

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

[Amazon 7]

turtlespeed

***>I wonder if the usual suspects will argue with scientists from MIT.

I won't. Will you? Further in the article:

"There’s little question that global warming is happening. Climate data show that Earth’s average temperature has risen at least 0.7  oC (1.3 oF) over the 20th century. Temperature increases over the 21st century will probably be two and a half to five times as large,because greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide allow sunlight to penetrate the atmosphere but make it harder for outgoing infrared radiation to escape. . . .Even if the rate of growth could be moderated enough to stabilize levels at about 550 ppmv, average temperatures might well rise by about 5 oC–with devastating effects for us earthlings, such as rising sea levels and dramatic changes in weather patterns."

If you've now accepted that, excellent. (And yes, Milankovitch cycles happen as well and drive climate on a long timescale.)

Might, may, could . . .

I might win the lottery, you may have a meteorite hit your house, the U.S. government could be looking to invade Texas . . .

Why the hell would anyone but Mexicans want to invade Tejas for the Reconquista?

[turtlespeed 226]

Amazon

******>I wonder if the usual suspects will argue with scientists from MIT.

I won't. Will you? Further in the article:

"There’s little question that global warming is happening. Climate data show that Earth’s average temperature has risen at least 0.7  oC (1.3 oF) over the 20th century. Temperature increases over the 21st century will probably be two and a half to five times as large,because greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide allow sunlight to penetrate the atmosphere but make it harder for outgoing infrared radiation to escape. . . .Even if the rate of growth could be moderated enough to stabilize levels at about 550 ppmv, average temperatures might well rise by about 5 oC–with devastating effects for us earthlings, such as rising sea levels and dramatic changes in weather patterns."

If you've now accepted that, excellent. (And yes, Milankovitch cycles happen as well and drive climate on a long timescale.)

Might, may, could . . .

I might win the lottery, you may have a meteorite hit your house, the U.S. government could be looking to invade Texas . . .

Why the hell would anyone but Mexicans want to invade Tejas for the Reconquista?

THAT is what you took away from my reply?

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

[billvon 3,120]

>Might, may, could . . .

This is the part I am referring to:

========
There’s little question that global warming is happening. Climate data show that Earth’s average temperature has risen at least 0.7C (1.3F) over the 20th century.
========

Since you posted it, and claimed that MIT scientists should be heeded, I assume you now also heed their statement that global warming is happening. (Or you just posted it without reading it, which I guess is possible too.)

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>Might, may, could . . .

This is the part I am referring to:

========
There’s little question that global warming is happening. Climate data show that Earth’s average temperature has risen at least 0.7C (1.3F) over the 20th century.
========

Since you posted it, and claimed that MIT scientists should be heeded, I assume you now also heed their statement that global warming is happening. (Or you just posted it without reading it, which I guess is possible too.)

1) you either do not read my posts, or are going senile.
2) I don't think that I have ever said Agw is not happening.
3) I don't dispute that the human race is harming the environment as we know it
4) what is in question is the severity.

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

[billvon 3,120]

Quote

1) you either do not read my posts, or are going senile.
2) I don't think that I have ever said Agw is not happening.
3) I don't dispute that the human race is harming the environment as we know it
4) what is in question is the severity

Despite the angry-sounding rhetoric above, it sounds like we agree, as well as agree with the (factual, not predictive) statements from MIT.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

Quote

1) you either do not read my posts, or are going senile.
2) I don't think that I have ever said Agw is not happening.
3) I don't dispute that the human race is harming the environment as we know it
4) what is in question is the severity

Despite the angry-sounding rhetoric above, it sounds like we agree, as well as agree with the (factual, not predictive) statements from MIT.

Always amazing how much major agreement is out there hidden by little disagreement.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

Quote

1) you either do not read my posts, or are going senile.
2) I don't think that I have ever said Agw is not happening.
3) I don't dispute that the human race is harming the environment as we know it
4) what is in question is the severity

Despite the angry-sounding rhetoric above, it sounds like we agree, as well as agree with the (factual, not predictive) statements from MIT.

Ok, fixed for you. It wasn't angry, just banter.

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

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

Quote

1) you either do not read my posts, or are going senile.
2) I don't think that I have ever said Agw is not happening.
3) I don't dispute that the human race is harming the environment as we know it
4) what is in question is the severity

Despite the angry-sounding rhetoric above, it sounds like we agree, as well as agree with the (factual, not predictive) statements from MIT.

So you guys are Type III deniers?

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[cvfd1399 0]

Now kiss.

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>And to suggest climate change occurring faster than at any time in the last 65 million
>years basically is an insult to history.

OK. When has it changed more rapidly?

1910-1940

[billvon 3,120]

>So you guys are Type III deniers?

Nope. I think that some of the changes resulting from a warming planet will be good for us, some will be bad for us.

[billvon 3,120]

>1910-1940

Agreed. Also 1982-1998.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>1910-1940

Agreed. Also 1982-1998.

If manipulated data is used
Kind of like the just newly manipulated NASA data

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

rushmc

***>1910-1940

Agreed. Also 1982-1998.

If manipulated data is used
Kind of like the just newly manipulated NASA data

Non manipulated data shows it. And this includes the cooling that occurred after Pinatubo. I have little doubt that 1998 was as hot as the data suggests it was.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

lawrocket

******>1910-1940

Agreed. Also 1982-1998.

If manipulated data is used
Kind of like the just newly manipulated NASA data

Non manipulated data shows it. And this includes the cooling that occurred after Pinatubo. I have little doubt that 1998 was as hot as the data suggests it was.

Yes
That may be
I am speeking to the speed of the change
NASA just re-manipulated the data again to to show the cooling as lower so the heating (what little there is) as more exessive.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>If manipulated data is used

So now you are claiming that 1998 wasn't exceptionally hot?

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>If manipulated data is used

So now you are claiming that 1998 wasn't exceptionally hot?

Read my previous post

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>Read my previous post

I did. When you posted the story "there's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1998!" you were relying on manipulated data to support that. Now you are objecting to manipulated data. It sounds like you only object to data manipulation when it does not support your agenda.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Read my previous post

I did. When you posted the story "there's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1998!" you were relying on manipulated data to support that. Now you are objecting to manipulated data. It sounds like you only object to data manipulation when it does not support your agenda.

The data has been manipulated to show lower cool temps in the past
In a effort to show (lie about) the speed of what little (if any ) change there has been

Fits pefectly for warmists

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>The data has been manipulated to show lower cool temps in the past

And warmer cool temps in the past. Every time scientists have an opportunity to improve the accuracy of the historical record they take it. When the result shows a slightly higher rate of warming the "data is manipulated" "warmists are lying" etc. When the result shows a slightly lower rate of warming you trumpet "solid peer-reviewed science shows alarmists are full of shit!"

Nothing new.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>The data has been manipulated to show lower cool temps in the past

And warmer cool temps in the past. Every time scientists have an opportunity to improve the accuracy of the historical record they take it. When the result shows a slightly higher rate of warming the "data is manipulated" "warmists are lying" etc. When the result shows a slightly lower rate of warming you trumpet "solid peer-reviewed science shows alarmists are full of shit!"

Nothing new.

there is shit flying alright
but not where you say it is

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

NOAA just released a new conclusion based on adjusting their Their data. It appears that the discussion went something like this:

"We gotta to something about the hiatus"
"What do you mean?"
"Every data set in existence, including our own, shows that warming stalled or slowed down. We can't have that. It makes us look like fools."
"Well, we've already adjusted the data to homogenize it. Adjusting it again will look bad."
"Then we have to find more data sources."
"How about we use ocean water temperatures from engine intake channels on ships?"
"We have never used that before because we know the data is contaminated by heat conduction from the engines."
"Thr public doesn't know that. That's our ace in the hole. We say that our SST buoy data is inaccurate and adjust it to match the data from the engine intakes. Then we can show the warming we have to show."
"But that is like adjusting the HCN data to the thermometers in cars. Everyone knows they read hot on sunny days."
"Not everyone knows that engine intakes do that."
"but the buoys are specifically designed for scientific use. Those engine temperature readings are not."
"so what. Let's trust them and adjust the buoys. See what happens."
"I just did. We've got the warming you're looking for. But the statisticians can't give us the 95% confidence. That's been the standard for significance in climate science."
"Hey. This is important stuff. Naomi Oreskes just published that thing in the New York Times a few months ago. She made a good point about proof. This climate change stuff is so important that 95% confidence is absurd. There is too much at stake. It's better to be wrong and get stuff done. We are in the business of saving lives. This fear of Type 1 errors must be stopped. I'd say we need more of them."
"Okay. But as much as you want this it's not going to pass review or be published by any decent journal."
"You underestimate me. Peer review is fine. All of the peers agree with me. We have a point to make. All the unfriendlies are not on the panel of Science."
"What do you mean? Science will publish it?"
"Sure. This is groundbreaking. The first paper to show that warming never paused. It'll pass review. And some arbitrary confidence standard won't stand in the way. We are preventing Type 2 errors. Not encouraging Type 1. Preventing Type 2. "
"So Science is on board then?"
"You bet. They've embargoed the paper. But they've went it out to friendly Journalists and peers who blog and give speeches and stuff to generate a buzz. The President will talk about it and it'll be in time for the Paris Convention. This will put us up at the top."

The above is pretty much exactly what happened.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Quote

The above is pretty much exactly what happened.

Wow, you were there? Did they serve good Danishes?

- Dan G

[kallend 2,150]

lawrocket

NOAA just released a new conclusion based on adjusting their Their data. It appears that the discussion went something like this:

"We gotta to something about the hiatus"
"What do you mean?"
"Every data set in existence, including our own, shows that warming stalled or slowed down. We can't have that. It makes us look like fools."
"Well, we've already adjusted the data to homogenize it. Adjusting it again will look bad."
"Then we have to find more data sources."
"How about we use ocean water temperatures from engine intake channels on ships?"
"We have never used that before because we know the data is contaminated by heat conduction from the engines."
"Thr public doesn't know that. That's our ace in the hole. We say that our SST buoy data is inaccurate and adjust it to match the data from the engine intakes. Then we can show the warming we have to show."
"But that is like adjusting the HCN data to the thermometers in cars. Everyone knows they read hot on sunny days."
"Not everyone knows that engine intakes do that."
"but the buoys are specifically designed for scientific use. Those engine temperature readings are not."
"so what. Let's trust them and adjust the buoys. See what happens."
"I just did. We've got the warming you're looking for. But the statisticians can't give us the 95% confidence. That's been the standard for significance in climate science."
"Hey. This is important stuff. Naomi Oreskes just published that thing in the New York Times a few months ago. She made a good point about proof. This climate change stuff is so important that 95% confidence is absurd. There is too much at stake. It's better to be wrong and get stuff done. We are in the business of saving lives. This fear of Type 1 errors must be stopped. I'd say we need more of them."
"Okay. But as much as you want this it's not going to pass review or be published by any decent journal."
"You underestimate me. Peer review is fine. All of the peers agree with me. We have a point to make. All the unfriendlies are not on the panel of Science."
"What do you mean? Science will publish it?"
"Sure. This is groundbreaking. The first paper to show that warming never paused. It'll pass review. And some arbitrary confidence standard won't stand in the way. We are preventing Type 2 errors. Not encouraging Type 1. Preventing Type 2. "
"So Science is on board then?"
"You bet. They've embargoed the paper. But they've went it out to friendly Journalists and peers who blog and give speeches and stuff to generate a buzz. The President will talk about it and it'll be in time for the Paris Convention. This will put us up at the top."

The above is pretty much exactly what happened.

Yeah, much the same way as NASA faked the Moon Landings too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.