Trudeau invites premiers to Paris climate talks

[maryjane48]

biased data you forgot to add . i proved your data was skewed by a person who openly admitted that he was biased

[Glacier]

biased data you forgot to add . i proved your data was skewed by a person who openly admitted that he was biased

When did you do that? UAH and RSS show the same thing. GISS shows a slowed warming and HADCRUT shows a pause, but a shorter one. GISS has the least number of weather stations, and thus has the most amount of error margin.

[Glacier]

Kind of an ironic analogy considering majority of scientists do indeed agree that climate change is taking place quickly.

When the theory conflicts with the data, I go with the data. The actual data shows that warming has slowed. The scary meme that temperatures are accelerating is totally bunk and anti-science.

(zero axis is the 20th century average)

(zero axis is the 1981 to 2010 average)

(zero axis is the 1961 to 1990 average)

[logicalview]

Basically right-wing claptrap that we've all heard before.

Really? Trying to help people in the third world by bringing them cheap and clean electricity is "right wing claptrap". Really?

Do you truly expect the poorest nations on earth to be the leaders in cutting emissions?

That's not what Rustled was saying. At all. When you type responses like this, it's clear you are just trolling. You probably aren't even an AGW religious cult member, you are just typing nonsense to get a rise out of people. Anyway, Rustled's post was spot-on point and brilliant, and it's too bad she has to suffer such fools. She deserves better.

[highway001]

Glacier...trends are done in roughly 30 year intervals.
Back your same GISS graph up till say 1880 and it looks like this:

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/115/

What would you say the trend is? That's using your data just over more time.

Since you believe only the data please let me know your conclusion of what that tend looks like.

[maryjane48]

Really? Trying to help people in the third world by bringing them cheap and clean electricity is "right wing claptrap". Really?




Do you truly expect the poorest nations on earth to be the leaders in cutting emissions?

That's not what Rustled was saying. At all. When you type responses like this, it's clear you are just trolling. You probably aren't even an AGW religious cult member, you are just typing nonsense to get a rise out of people. Anyway, Rustled's post was spot-on point and brilliant, and it's too bad she has to suffer such fools. She deserves better.
[/quote]


removed.

[Partmanpartfish]

It's a common meme in right wing circles, Limbaugh, FOX, that rich countries should not do anything to cut CO2 emissions because poor countries are not doing anything.

Poor countries burn coal because they're poor. Rich countries burn coal because they're greedy.

[Glacier]

Rich countries move away from coal because they develop cleaner technologies like nuclear, which your buddies on the left try to get shut down (just like they have with other emission-free sources like hydro-electric).

Glacier...trends are done in roughly 30 year intervals.
Back your same GISS graph up till say 1880 and it looks like this:

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/115/

What would you say the trend is? That's using your data just over more time.

Since you believe only the data please let me know your conclusion of what that tend looks like.

I started in 1979 because that's when all global temperature datasets started. HADCRUT goes back to 1850 and GISS goes back to 1880. As I've stated numerous times before, GISS is the only temperature record that does not show the hiatus. Note that all three graphs above show 3 degrees on the Y-axis.

One thing that all 4 temperature records agree on is that 2010 was the 2nd warmest year on record (GISS says 2014 was the warmest, HADCRUT says 2007 was the warmest, and UAH and RSS says that 1998 was the warmest year).

[highway001]

So your entire basis for not seeing global temperature change is because you don't see enough change within a small window?

That seems so shortsighted...it's like not believing the science of evolution or in geology because you have not seen it take place.

You've essentially eliminated any chance for debate since you have set an impossible standard. Satellite data.

Geology
Paleooceanography
Glaciology

To name a few...you dismiss all their data?

Astounding.

The data is right in front of you...yet as a person who only balues the data...you refuse to acknowledge it. Even worse you have decided based on your own criteria to eliminate data. Very empirical. Hypocrite.

[Glacier]

To name a few...you dismiss all their data?

That's completely untrue. I've posted lots of paleoclimatic data and not once did I dismiss them. If you're talking about the recent leveling off of the warming, it makes no sense to post a graph showing the last 500 million years. The graphs were an answer to a specific question around the recent slow down in warming.

If we were instead discussing how temperatures have dropped over the past 500 million years, I'd show 500 million years worth. If instead we were showing how the temperatures have gone up over the past 10,000 years, I'd show 10,000 years. We weren't doing that; we were discussing the pause and whether or not it is real. According to 3 of the 4 climate datasets it is real, hence the graphs.

You seem to want the complete climate record map back to 1850, so just to make you happy, this one is just for you:

[George+]

So, most graphs go up at a 45 degree plus angle and Glacier says it is slowing??

Ah ha ha ha....

[Glacier]

So, most graphs go up at a 45 degree plus angle and Glacier says it is slowing??

Ah ha ha ha....

Since 1950 or 1900 or 1850 or 1650, it's warming. The rate of warming over the past 20 years has slowed, however.

Here's the world's longest continuous climate record (just for fun, and because you love graphs):

[Partmanpartfish]

So, most graphs go up at a 45 degree plus angle and Glacier says it is slowing??

Ah ha ha ha....

Science marches on!

The problem with the right wingers is they cherry pick pieces of the puzzle to make their very poor case. Actual science works the other way.

[Glacier]

Science marches on!

The problem with the right wingers is they cherry pick pieces of the puzzle to make their very poor case. Actual science works the other way.

You do realize that the slope of the line has everything to do with the scaling of the axes, right? An increase of 0.000000001 degrees over 100 years could also have a 45 degree slope if your resolution is high enough. The graphs are actual science, and has nothing to do with the left or the right. I'm sorry that you don't know how to read graphs and interpret science without trying to go all political. Until you can figure out how to disassociate science and politics, you will never be objectively understand the data.

[logicalview]

The problem with the right wingers is they cherry pick pieces of the puzzle to make their very poor case. Actual science works the other way.

can you actually point to any example, anywhere, where Glacier has done this? I realize that you are only capable of spouting AGW religion talking points (and the one you've babbled above is classic AGW double-speak) but it would be interesting to see you go off script once in awhile, and show that you are more than just another cut-and-paste AGW cult member.