Why are people more scared of diffuse evil than of concentrated one?

Sorry, I made a mistake in that sentence. What I meant to write was:

‘Why are people LESS scared of diffuse evil than of concentrated one?’

I’m not an engineering PhD but I can recognize the wrong graph when I see it. 3 months you say?

Flat-earthers can hardly equal the kind of stupid in your screed. But even if you imagine that you can’t measure physical quantities, what physical quantity melts ice? Hmm?

Simple one word answer from your second grade science class.

“And, do you think they’d give him a Nobel Prize if the science was that bad?”

They gave Obama a Nobel Prize for being an elected empty suit, didn’t they?

You Mr. Wizard experiment needs refining to make its point more obvious to the more obtuse in our midst. Freeze water in a polyethylene graduated cylinder. Mark the ccs and then thaw it out with a cover to preclude/minimize evaporation.

Just as I said, picked up from a few posts ago:
“Study: NASA’s estimate of Earth’s long-term temperature rise in recent decades is accurate to within less than a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, providing confidence that past and future research is correctly capturing rising surface temperatures.

The study also confirms what researchers have been saying for some time now: that Earth’s global temperature increase since 1880 – about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, or a little more than 1 degree Celsius – cannot be explained by any uncertainty or error in the data. Going forward, this assessment will give scientists the tools to explain their results with greater confidence.”

Do they really think we are that stupid? Measurement in 1880 compared to 2018 yields accuracy of 0.8 mm (slightly less than 1 C, 2 F sounds definitely more dramatic…. How many measurement devices we had in places in 1880? How many working ones we have now? Are they compareable at all? On at Greenlang and one in Amazon, can thay really be compared? And one in New York with none in Siberia?

Come on people, we must be smarter than this…

Holly mackerel. Somebody mentioned that sea level increased as much as 8 mm (1/3 of an inch), or maybe it was 0.8mm over last 10-200 years. Now, can anybody measure anything with acuracy of 1 mm? When the sea is absolutely calm, but it isn’t Even if it is, it is somewhere between high tide and low tide, whuch is not constatnt for any given point, it fluctuates in rather unpredictable patterns. I spent 50 years measuring water levels, on much smaller scale than seas, water tanks indeed, and anything better than plus minus 5 cm is veeery good result. Yes, thare are instruments that can use electromagnetis vawes or ultrasound, or laser, what not, to get accuracy of much less than 0.1 mm, and that is true – for things that stay stable and do not move. Water and air always move and there is so much noise in measured data, too much for predictions.

Average temperature on Earth? There is no such thing. If there was, it would have to take into account volcanos, warm bosise temperature, 37 C for humans and 42 for chicken, anything and anybody on Earth, in ALL points on the Earth surface. Is it possible today? Was it ever possible, 100-200 years ago? Carbon dating of anything? Does anybody knows about margines of error for such a thing?

Perhaps “average temperature on Earth” means average value of measurements taken on some selected places (airports, parking lots, large cities, mountain peaks, somewhere in the ocean). Selection for places to measure anything does not come from scientific importance, no, it comes from convenience and feasibility. And then we need hundreds of thousands measurement points, covering roughly entire Earth’s surface, more or less uniformely. Do you really believe wehave enough propperly located and maintained measuring devices to determine such a thing as average measurement of anything, as sum of all values divided number of values? At the same moment? Noon at Europe, mudnight in China? Spring in North America, Winter in Austraila? Do you believe that most of them are read correctly and data is transmitted to a central place correctly, completely and in time? What with outliers – values that fall out of ‘normal’ intervals of fluctuation? Does anybody looks into them at all? Do we assume they are freak errors in measurement or there may be reason for them? Collecting any kind of data, correctly and completely enough is extremly difficult task, with lots of footwork and dirty hands. Do you believe that most of tenured scaientists do the footwork and dirty their hands? If you do, good I have a Brooklin Bridge to sell you. And a few of them in San Francisco Bay area.

Soo many uncertain and inherently inaccurate inputs, and yet we claim changes in milimeters or parts thereof, or parts of a degree or few degress? I have 5 thermometers inside my house, they disagree with each other by 2-3 Celsius degrees. Outdoor ones, difference of 4-5 Celsius is not uncommon. For some discrepancies, there is easy or obvious explanation, but some are mistery. Every measure is a chancy thing and there simply is not a correct measure of anything, until we know unambiguously what we are talking about. Average temperature from 100,000 weather thermometers cannot and does not represent “average temperature of Earth”. Put those 100,000 thermometers in different places, not far from where they are now, and you will get different result.

Like it says in the article, scientists are good at observing, much less in explaining things, and mostly wrong in predictions. Statistics 101: NEVER extrapolate trends you see when data is charted. And be carefull with finding causality. As a kid, I would hear a rooster every moning, before Sun would appear, for many years. There are many historical records of roosters being heard at the time of sunrise. Shoul we conclude that teh rooster causes Sun to rise? Or vice versa?

Therefore, we cannot talk about warming or cooling on such a big scale.

I guess, it must be good for business, and people arguing at forums.

🙂

Why all the lies?

No, the Earth has not warmed 0.4 C over the last 100 years. Its 1.1 C.

June 2019:

Study: NASA’s estimate of Earth’s long-term temperature rise in recent decades is accurate to within less than a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, providing confidence that past and future research is correctly capturing rising surface temperatures.

The study also confirms what researchers have been saying for some time now: that Earth’s global temperature increase since 1880 – about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, or a little more than 1 degree Celsius – cannot be explained by any uncertainty or error in the data. Going forward, this assessment will give scientists the tools to explain their results with greater confidence.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2876/new-studies-increase-confidence-in-nasas-measure-of-earths-temperature/?fbclid=IwAR3TPedFoSEUUK44JYzwhyzC_5xzHxZklazgSa9s0sJfDT0DuU0zRWEAzeM

http://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JD029522

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

_____________________________________

What about that NASA “Greening Earth” study deniers love to link to?

That study included a stark GW warning deniers always “forget” to mention;

That NASA study also made it very clear that the “fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

“The gas (C02), which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.”

“Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

A greening earth also adds to the land albedo effect thus amplifies GW.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

DEBUNKING “THE AL GORE MOVIE WAS BANNED IN ENGLAND AND HAD 9 ERRORS MYTH”:

IT WAS NEVER BANNED. I GOT THE JUDGE PAPER RIGHT HERE:

UK High Court judge rejected a call to restrict the showing of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) in British schools.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

The judge, Justice Burton found that “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate”(which accords with our original assessment). There has been a lot of comment and controversy over this decision because of the judges commentary on 9 alleged “errors” (note the quotation marks!) in the movie’s description of the science. The judge referred to these as ‘errors’ in quotations precisely to emphasize that, while these were points that could be contested, it was not clear that they were actually errors.

There are a number of points to be brought out here. First of all, “An Inconvenient Truth” was a movie and people expecting the same depth from a movie as from a scientific paper are setting an impossible standard. Secondly, the judge’s characterisation of the 9 points is substantially flawed. He appears to have put words in Gore’s mouth that would indeed have been wrong had they been said (but they weren’t). Finally, the judge was really ruling on how “Guidance Notes” for teachers should be provided to allow for more in depth discussion of these points in the classroom.

ALL 9 POINTS EXPLAINED BY TOP CLIMATE SCIENTISTS:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/

Overall, our verdict is that the 9 points are not “errors” at all (with possibly one unwise choice of tense on the island evacuation point). But behind each of these issues lies some fascinating, and in some cases worrying, scientific findings and we can only applaud the prospect that more classroom discussions of these subjects may occur because of this court case.

Full AL Gore “failed” predictions debunk:

While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth,

the main truths presented –

-evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts

-is consistent with peer reviewed science.

“An Inconvenient Truth” was a movie and people expecting the same depth from a movie as from a scientific paper are setting an impossible standard.”

Gores movie reviewed by top climate scientists:

http://www.realclimate.org/index…

http://ninepoints.pbworks.com/w/…

https://www.skepticalscience.com…

And, do you think they’d give him a Nobel Prize if the science was that bad?

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/summary/

https://www.quora.com/How-well-have-Al-Gore-s-global-warming-predictions-held-up-over-the-years/answer/Roger-Fjellstad-Olsen

WOW..thats alot of disinformation.

Predictions from non scientists and newspapers?

Whats thats got to do with climate science?

Not very impressive.

Science is conservative by nature and climate science even more. The science of climate science is based upon basic physics, cold cold facts. Eschatology comes from religions and cults and from the fringe cult of climate deniers. We get to that but first,

STUDY FINDS IPCC PREDICTIONS ARE CONSERVATIVE:

Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/

Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001215

In actuality, the science of climate change is apolitical, being based on credible evidence and physics. The denial of climate science, is based on no credible evidence and no physics, and is all-political.

The denial of science is also like a true religion, for its acolytes also deny evidence and physics based on no evidence and no physics.

It’s christianity and other doomsday cults which has a mile long list of failed doomsday predictions -and counting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

That’s what happens when you trust superstition over science. Thats what happens when wacko cult leaders are scaring their sheeple into putting money on him for a promise of an afterlife in Lala land.

second,

Words like “alarmist” are straw man. Tobacco industry used the same condescending terms against the science and scientists who found out about the hazards of tobacco smoking. The tobacco industry didn’t want to hear about science which was in “conflict” with their money flow. Just like the oil industry now.

These terms are

media exaggerations and denier cry wolf tactics to talk down the real dangers of global warming.

No climate report has ever used such terms.

Climate change” and “catastrophic climate change”, are often made up “distinctions” by climate change deniers to make them seem more “moderate” and those who accept global warming as “paranoid”.

Deniers wants people to believe that the scientists have predicted doomsday, and as long as this never happens, they are “wrong” again and there is nothing to worry about, we can continue to burn fossil fuels like never before.

Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/

Roger Fjellstad Olsen’s answer to Why is opposition to climate science more common in the United States than other countries?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-opposition-to-climate-science-more-common-in-the-United-States-than-other-countries/answer/Roger-Fjellstad-Olsen

Deniers, not climate scientists or activists,

are the real alarmists:

hyperbolic, fear-mongering, and completely divorced from scientific reality.

Climate Deniers Are the Hysterical Alarmists

https://newrepublic.com/article/154014/climate-deniers-hysterical-alarmists

Your idiocy, like every other common climate denial idiocy, is addressed at the Skeptical Science website:

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone: More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily good for plants.
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

More CO2 for plants means more oxygen given off by plants. More oxygen may well set off any damage to humans done by CO2.

My line is that “the only warrant for government power is ‘existential peril.’”

Normally, down the ages, this has meant enemies, foreign and domestic. But it has also included the wrath of God, and, as now, the tears of Gaia.

The point is that if there isn’t an existential peril, then we rulers better find one, quick.

Climategate II: Revenge of the Jedi is coming soon to a theater near you.

Never ask a barber if you need a haircut. Borgen is invested in the promotion of the idea of food scarcity. It’s their job.

Meanwhile,one of the 10 facts:

In wealthy households, 26 percent of children below 5 years are stunted and 12 percent are wasted. Undernutrition then is not just a symptom of poverty. Poverty has declined remarkably since the year 2010, dropping from 49 percent to roughly 25 percent in 2016. Yet hunger still persists.

is quite curious. They go on to discuss micronutrients. Maybe it is a food desert. When will obesity show up as a problem?

“That is until last year, when scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association found that global emissions of Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) have actually been increasing since 2013.
The increase implied that someone was secretly violating the Montreal Protocol. But the limitations of measuring devices meant the location of the polluter could only be traced to somewhere in east Asia.
Now, in a new study published in Nature on May 22, scientists from the University of Bristol, Kyungpook National University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that between 40 and 60 per cent of total global CFC-11 emissions originate from eastern China.”
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/world/scientists-discover-china-has-been-secretly-emitting-banned-ozone-depleting-gas/wcm/98061939-4b4b-470a-add6-582de9b52e9a

Yes there is

When deniers use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn’t a major problem. If CO2 isn’t as powerful as water vapor, which there’s already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn’t be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a ‘positive feedback loop’ in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works
https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

You know what else is a greenhouse gas? Get this, water.

Isn’t happening, especially with what we know a half century later.

1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

Really? I bet you don’t care about the koala bear chlamydia epidemic, either.

In Search Of S02E23 The Coming Ice Age

Video Link

For what purpose, as an example for Strawman Studies? One could just as easily nitpick all the mistakes engineers have made over decades, and then declare engineering, math, and physics to be fake.

A truly well written article worthy of widespread dissemination in academia.

You’ve described right-wingers perfectly; their feeling of disgust triggers a negative reaction to the evidence of climate change.

“Disgust” was the strongest predictor for people who opposed those policies. In other words, if people feel worry or disgust about the global warming issue, those emotions predict whether they will support or oppose doing something about the problem more than their political ideologies or cultural affiliations.

Climate Change and Emotions. How We Feel Matters More Than What We Know.
https://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/climate-change-and-emotions-how-we-feel-matters-more-than-what-we-know

Triggered!

If you read my comment, it said most or nearly all.
It’s majorities — all the more when large majorities — that determine the shape things take and the “flow of events”.

People (most, or nearly all of them) react to things (and to whom brings them the thereof) based on how they make them feel. Positive feelings will be rewarded, negative emotions will trigger negative reactions.
There can be only one guiding standard. As long as it is “I like; I don’t like” it won’t be “It is true; it is not true”.

Already considered, zero evidence. Try again.

It should also be noted that the authors examined whether the large-scale ocean circulation, the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC), and two other ocean phenomena – the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Meridional Oscillation (AMO) – could explain the warming in the 20th century simulations, but found no evidence in the models.

Observed Warming of the Ocean and Atmosphere is Incompatible with Natural Variation
https://skepticalscience.com/Observed-Warming-of-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere-is-Incompatible-with-Natural-Variation.html

One acronym AMO or 3 words “Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation”.

JC, an interesting chart from 1982 has been unearthed from the eXXon-Files. For all the pot banging how predictions can’t be made, 37 years later, the CO2 levels it predicted are amazingly accurate. We’re at 415 ppm right now, just like it shows. Exxon scientists knew exactly what would happen. And then they were shut up in favor of denialism.

Source: Exxon Predicted 2019’s Ominous CO2 Milestone in 1982
https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-predicted-2019-s-ominous-co2-milestone-in-1982-1834748763/amp

I showed a graph from 800,000 years ago too. And going back millions of years. What’s your point, other than nitpicking about nothing? What year do you like your graphs beginning, 1750?

Source: Climate Change Skeptic U-Turns And Says Warming Is Real And Humans Caused It https://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-skeptic-u-turns-and-says-warming-is-real-and-humans-caused-it-2012-7

Too bad your exact turning point is a lie, but then a circle-jerk of parroted lies are all you denialists have.

“The ‘decline’ refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.”
https://skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

Now the question is, will you turn back from parroting poorly constructed lies?

A previous graph you showed had a minimum around the 1820’s.

My thoughts exactly. My exact turning point was the Michael Mann graph where he added instrument readings to a tree ring proxy data set for surface temperature (and truncated the tree ring data). To an engineer like me the result smelt rotten. It turned out later that the tree ring data he had truncated actually showed the temperature falling!

Thanks.

JC, here’s a video, entitled “Carbon Dioxide Pumphandle 2017” an animation of the historical data of CO2 rise, that I just found fascinating and though you may enjoy:

Video Link

Source: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

P.S. It’s better watching in HD and full screen. 🙂

The Trump Administration’s “I fucking love global warming!“ train has really built up a head of steam, with more and more conservatives grabbing a seat. All aboard! Denialists will be Left Behind!

Well, a flood would wash out the human excrement from San Francisco’s streets. A great plus.

Interesting that you refer to rabid right-wing denialists as “Bolsheviks,” but that is indeed how denialists behave.

Prominent MIT researcher Kerry Emanuel has been receiving an unprecedented “frenzy of hate” after a video featuring an interview with him was published recently by Climate Desk.

Emails contained “veiled threats against my wife,” and other “tangible threats,” Emanuel, a highly-regarded atmospheric scientist and director of MIT’s Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate program, said in an interview. “They were vile, these emails. They were the kind of emails nobody would like to receive.”

MIT climate scientist receives frenzy of hate mail
http://www.grist.org/climate-skeptics/2012-01-13-mit-climate-scientist-receives-frenzy-of-hate-mail

If he is indeed a Ph.D, then I would expect him to cleverly camouflage his RL info and identity. We may not be in a shooting war just yet, but it’s best to take precautions as though we were.

I mean, you use the term ‘us’, and your reference to people scouring the Internet indicates the Bolsheviks have already set their best forensic eggheads to the task. “Baggins” clearly knows how the game is now played, and is proceeding accordingly.

Your denialism is on life-support. The Trump Administration has gone full “I fucking love global warming!”

Mike Pompeo claims rapidly melting Arctic sea ice could actually be a good thing, as it will create ‘new opportunities for trade’
https://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pompeo-melting-sea-ice-presents-new-trade-opportunities-2019-5

And yes, the Arctic ice melting is rapid so far this year, setting new records.

Thanks for that.

Yep, we’re doing the PETM again, except 15x faster, with no way to stop the crazy train to hothouse Jurassic Climate.

‘Denialists’ need not ‘worry’?

“So from the IPCC’s own report in 2014, we basically have a 1% chance of staying below 2C global warming if we now invent time travel and go back to 2010 to peak our global emissions. And again, you have to stop all growth and go into decline to do that. And long term feedbacks the IPCC largely blows off were ongoing back then too.”
https://www.facebook.com/wxclimonews/posts/455366638536345

Peter Baggins Ph.D., can you find him, and tell us in which field of study he earned his Ph.D.? People have scoured the internet, and not been able to find any information on this name, other than relation to a fictional novel.

I’ve suspected the author may be Tony Heller, or a close associate, for three resons: (1) the name of the article that is very close to a highlighted article at Tony Heller’s website, (2) Tony’s previous use of pseudonyms, and (3) similarity in writing. But maybe all denialists are NPCs spouting the same garbage. Who knows? 🙂

True. “Nearly all of the old Arctic Sea Ice is Vanished.” (Weather Channel, 3 days ago)

What melts ice? Warming.

What melts global ice? Global warming. (Old ice is depicted in the graph below. )

Source: https://www.arctictoday.com/arctic-sea-ice-extent-hits-a-record-low-for-april-and-old-ice-is-disappearing-fast/

Oh you’re so very clever! I saw what you did there! You debunked a scientific argument with snark, complete with one raised eyebrow.

Hey look over there! I could’ve sworn I just saw some Nazis. Go fetch, boy!

One reason people believe in global warming is because, in addition to the shrinking ice core samples from the North Pole region, NASA’s climate scientists believe as well.

Ever think of anything but me lately? That butthurt from the spanking you denialists got here must really smart! 🙂

Ever consider taking your own advice?

P.S. What is this, your 15th comment that doesn’t even begin to address science? Your magical thinking can’t stand up to the least critique with a few facts of scientific evidence, and you ran off with your tail between your legs. Now you’re just barking mad like a little Poodle. Mike P the yipping Poodle.

• Replies: , , , , , , , ,

Here’s an even more absurd one – from one of your own comments.

It’s actually worrying. Dear anon, if you read this, let’s agree to disagree and call it off; everyone has tuned out anyway. Get some rest.

Reconsider how you engage with people here. You cannot force them see things your way; no amount of shouting insults and stomping your foot is going to change that.

Nice catch. I don’t know exactly why, but a slight renaming from this

• Replies: , , , ,

to this

• Replies: @andon, @andon, @andon, @andon, @andon…

suggests itself.

We’ll just have to wait and see, true. Two things I think will bring global warming into stark reality, even with some of today’s denialists:

1. When the extreme single-city “state record temperatures” of the United State’s 1930’s dust bowl era, many of which still stand today and touted vociferously by denialists, are broken. [see chart in comment #622] Watch for those records to be broken when the US has more droughty “dry springs.”

This is consistent with the entire twentieth-century record: summer heat waves over the Great Plains develop on average ~15–20 days earlier after anomalously dry springs, compared to summers following wet springs.

Factors Contributing to Record-Breaking Heat Waves over the Great Plains during the 1930s Dust Bowl
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0436.1

2 . Arctic “blue ocean event” (nearly ice free) in some future September. The buffer of thick ice up there is nearly gone. Ice extent has been record low for the whole month of April 2019.

Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center

DESERT FOX says: Google , NASA reports Co2 acts as a coolant in the atmosphere, the report is there, I looked at again this morning, you do know how to google, right.

You’re lying. It’s not there. Never was.

What you are twisting into a lie is the fact that, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas that keeps heat from escaping, the upper atmosphere of the earth near the edge of space has cooled from less heat escaping.

You’re a moron for twisting that fact into a bald-faced lie. You google it, and read it, and try telling me different, ok?

In spite of all your gamma-soy-boi snark, this is what is happening with the ozone hole:

Source: NASA Ozone Watch

Glad I could clear this up for you.

So you agree with grandpa. He’s a smart fellow, wouldn’t you agree?

Climate movement grandpa James Hansen says the Green New Deal is ‘nonsense’
By Zoya Teirstein on Apr 24, 2019
https://grist.org/article/climate-movement-grandpa-james-hansen-says-the-green-new-deal-is-nonsense/

Maybe you can explain to Sparkon why Spencer’s UAH data is fairly close to NASA’s GISTEMP data, even though Spencer continues to try to fudge it down to fit his ideological bias, as this graph shows:

Notice that the GISTEMP (light blue and dark blue) stays nearly the same with adjustments. For all the accusation of fiddling and fudging from the denialists, it’s simply a case of psychological projection of their own fiddling and fudging.

But the funny thing is, try as they might, denialists can’t fiddle and fudge away global warming, they can only say it isn’t quite so bad by a little bit — a bit which they then exaggerate to the nth degree.

P.S. Can you ever talk science again? LOL

• Replies: , , , ,

LOL

You saw the photographs of Apollo 12, with the astronaut foot tracks on the moon, taken by the LRO, did you not?

Photos: New Views of Apollo Moon Landing Sites
https://www.space.com/12796-photos-apollo-moon-landing-sites-lro.html

You’re like the little kid who covers his eyes when he wants to ignore reality.

You seem completely ignorant of the past five mass extinctions on Earth. Not surprising from a science-fact-denier. And we’re already in the Sixth Mass Extinction. Your snarky comments about Mars don’t erase reality.

Source:

Throughout Earth’s history, there have been periods where climate changed dramatically. The response was mass extinction events, when many species went extinct followed by a very slow recovery. The history of coral reefs gives us an insight into the nature of these events as reefs are so enduring and the fossil record of corals is relatively well known (Veron 2008). What we find is reefs were particularly impacted in mass extinctions, taking many millions of years to recover. These intervals are known as “reef gaps”.
https://skepticalscience.com/Earths-five-mass-extinction-events.html

cassandra, If you have not been previously embarrassed by defending Tony’s climate science denialism—which is nothing but a pack of bald-faced lies—are you now?

What do you think of my guess that the author of this article is Tony Heller?

Tony Heller filters data, huh? Well jeeesh, I thought he was bellyaching about filtering data, and smoked his data like a Marlboro.

(cavil: to raise trivial objections) cassandra, what trivial objections do you have to this graph? Maybe that the “spectacular fraud” is Tony Heller? 🙂

I live where it is cold. Last year though it was as cold as it has been for a long time – winter lasted from sometime in November to sometime in May. Cold. Usually there is some kinda wind in early January where we get thawing conditions. That happened this year, then it went right back to being cold for the next two months, lot like the early weather we used to get back in the early two thousands.
I would be glad if it got even colder and kill the goddamn little beetle bugs which destroy the pine trees. Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t.
I actually think I am going to have a little more ketchup and mustard on my hamburgers tonight to celebrate your intellectual superiority.
Did you know that I actually have to pay 6.99 f0r celery up here? I don’t buy it anymore even though it is good for all kinds of dishes. It is not ‘can’t afford’ so much as it is ‘refuse to be hi-jacked’
There are tons of other greens which have as deathly prices in the winter as the good they are supposed to do you. (rinse them all extremely carefully and long to get most of the chemicals out, and say a little prayer. )
So, this philosophy brought me so much thought that I actually disobeyed the law and drove down to the beer and wine store to get some more beer. Drove very carefully though, becuz the last thing I want is to get a militant feminist stuck in my grill and have to abandon the car.
I’m not going to go there even though I would love to. It’s bin fun.

Speaking of gigantic lies…

“The El Nino is collapsing, and in a few months temperatures are likely to plummet.”
Trouble Ahead For Climate Alarmists (December 24, 2015 by tonyheller)

He missed that by a mile. Last 5 = hottest 5.

“I would add that the more CO2 in the air, the less leaf area, in proportion to root systems, is needed to supply plants.” (with bullshit, it is not logical even theoretically)
It is brilliant! As an analogy to the current ‘democratic’ political system. In fact, I am going to put a new piping system in my house to provide absolute soma to the servants sleeping quarters (they are always asleep) to keep them happy while they are doing my menial chores.

“Which implies that a disproportionate share of the new biomass is growing underground, where it will improve soil quality while sequestering CO2”
Dazzled!
Are you suggesting that with a little genomic engineering we can make the working class emit their own self destructing CO2? To cover for eternity their nasty propensity for freedom?
Re-engineer some to do the dishes, some to clean the floors and some to assure me that there is no dandruff whatsoever on my shoulders? It is brilliant sir, but unfortunately it has already been done and hasn’t really worked that well. Might I suggest that the next step is to re-engineer the internet? Sorry, that too has already been done (Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook et al) and is working fairly well. For how long?)
There is an old Chinese saying: ‘He who rides the tiger must be the cruelest of beasts.’ (No, I am not pro China anymore than I am pro whomever) but the price of riding the tiger is that if the tiger can get you off its back you will die.
Sorry. Just having fun. There are a couple of very old movies which might give one a glimpse into the human future: ‘Planet of the Apes’ (the original). And more to the point, ‘The Year of Living Dangerously’
Sorry, the only answer is to re-engineer the filthy little buggers to do what they are told and nothing else.
‘Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream … ‘

Democracy (the unrestricted version with universal suffrage) is a highly erosive, destructive system, the subject is already handled by Plato and Aristotle, and for us modern deniers, to experience how it destroys and erodes everything qualitatively good and everything competent.

Now, as everything else, science is already for decades in decline (as are our universities), what we have is an enormous amount of hyping, superstition, fiction science, and of course, the power mongering demagogues and media pundits (the pop priests of science) who inevitably seize on the general ignorantes and idiotes which the masses consist of, demagogues and various parties which instinctively know how to work on these masses, who instinctively know what a gigantic lie this system of equality is.

Tony Heller and his denialist NPC personalities specialize in cherry-picking data with a decreasing trend line, just like the “Illinois, Maximum Temperature, July” graph I created above. Of course, a single town isn’t Illinois, and Illinois isn’t the United States, and the United States isn’t the Globe. And a single day out of a single year doesn’t make climate. But let’s take the geography up a step up in scale, from an Illinois record from a single town, and make it the average of single-day state records highs for the US, and this is what we get, as follows:

I doubt Tony Heller & Co. will ever show this one. Wrong trend, even record high temperatures can’t be manipulated into a “plunging” trend “into a new ice age.”

Graphed here is your much vaunted record hottest day in a single town in Illinois. A shyster at statistics like Tony Heller will tell the gullible that it magically wipes out all global warming.

Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

Sparkon: “high temperature records were set”

Indeed. You’re saying exactly the same thing as this:

“The frequency of cold waves has decreased since the early 1900s, and the frequency of heat waves has increased since the mid-1960s (the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the peak period for extreme heat in the United States). (Very high confidence).”

Source: CSSR Highlights of the Findings of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report, Executive Summary
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

So you can bang away all day about a few extreme records in the 1930s. Climate scientist already acknowledge them. You can’t change their mind, because they agree with your very narrowly crafted statement! But keep in mind, this graph, Figure 5, from the same source:

The 1930’s were quite the time for setting extreme records. But now we’re setting even more daily records, way more.

Sparkon: “the hottest decade in the U.S.”

Wrong, and you’re wrong on 2 counts.

(1) First, we’re discussing global warming, not US warming. The US is only 2% of the globe.

(2) Second, even within the borders of just the US, the hottest decade wasn’t in the 1930’s. It’s now. It’s confirmed by more than one set of satellite data. It’s even confirmed by the satellite data from a denialist scientist Roy Spencer (UAH data) who has been dragged, kicking and screaming through 11 corrections, to get his data un-“fiddled”, which now closely agrees with NOAA’s GISTEMP record, as shown here:

Source: EPA Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and Global Temperature
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature

P.S. The global chart is on that page too, and is even more clear that global warming is taking place.

• Sparkon: “Some of the purported modern ‘global’ warming is due to the urban heat island (UHI) effect.”
• NASA: “Urban stations without nearby rural stations have been dropped in order to avoid bias due to urban heat island effects.” Source: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/

Welp, that settles that.

How many aliases are you posting under, tonyheller, aka sparkon, aka cassandra, aka stevegoddard, aka, peterbagginsPhD? Or are you all different denialist NPCs magically parroting the exact same lines?

I count 2 colder winters, with more heating degree days, than this ND February’s heating season. Yet Tony tries to make it the “Second Coldest February On Record In North Dakota” (tonyheller, 2019), which makes this February the third coldest. Is he “overstating his case” again? Maybe he missed that supercold Feb in the 1930s? LoL! And no wonder he picked February, because this year was the 39th coldest for the winter heating season (Nov-Mar.)

Some of the purported modern “global” warming is due to the urban heat island (UHI) effect, and much of our so-called modern global warming is the direct result of man-made temperature fiddling and artificial global cooling of the past, which is why some heads start exploding whenever the hot 1930s are introduced to the discussion.

In many cases, man-made artificial heat sources and heat sinks have been added to the environment in close proximity to existing temperature sensors and weather stations in and around built-up urban areas. All the urban infrastructure makes cities warmer than rural areas in the countryside, but even rural temperature sensors can be affected by any nearby buildings, paved surfaces, water tanks, fences, and what have you, that may have been added over time.

Not only do urban activities add heat to the local environment — just think of all the air conditioning systems running in any city — but the built-up urban areas act like heat sinks to store heat during the day, and release it after the sun sets, in the process making built-up urban areas appear to be warmer at night than those regions had been historically.

Again, I suggest the state and local temperature records are an excellent resource to reveal the true state of affairs with respect to the question of global warming simply because they haven’t been put through anyone’s temperature homogenizer, blender, adjuster, or fiddling device. For our purposes, these raw data are all we need to see what is really going on.

Note first that UHI and urban heat-making activities notwithstanding, their effect is not reflected in the state and local records.

Wikipedia’s list of U.S. state temperature extremes reflects the new Illinois state record low set in 2019, good evidence that it is up to date:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes

Using this list, it is easy to compile more overwhelming evidence that the 1930s were by far the hottest decade in the U.S. instrumental temperature record.

Out of 50 state records for all-time hottest day in the United States, 13 were set in 1936.

What is more, in the decade of the 1930s, no less than 24 all time U.S. state high temperature records were set, where no other decade has more than 5 records for hottest day (1990s).

cassandra, would you advise folks get rid of their A/C units in Minnesota for this summer on Tony Heller’s recent advice?

Tony Heller claimed in May 2018 that “Ashland, Nebraska is the closest USHCN station to Omaha” under the headline “Plummeting Summer Temperatures At Omaha, Nebraska.” A quick look at that data shows how badly he lies; a simple click of the “Get Neighbors” button of the GHCN data shows there are 4 other stations closer, namely: 0 km Omaha, Ne., 12 km Eppley Field, 29 km Omaha/Offutt Afb, 35 km Logan, and 47 km Ashland No 2. Now, Omaha’s data is sparse, but the much closer Eppley Field’s data—which Tony Heller chose to ignore—contains a long historical record, and it shows this:

No doubt, this fueled Tony Heller’s screamer headline for August 2018 entitled “Pentagon: Ice Age By 2020.” Well, we’ve got a whole year to wait to see if Tony Heller merely “sometimes overstates his case” as cassandra apologizes, or is a certifiable imbecile.

Another Tony Heller headline “Eleven Years Of Arctic Sea Ice Thickening” (03Jan2019) illustrated, with a public relations explainer from cassandra, as follows:

Peter Baggins Phd, in what subject exactly? “Denialist Studies.” The article author may be Tony Heller (a.k.a. Steve Goddard), a climate denialist whose deceptions were so embarrassing to an other climate denialist Anthony Watts that he got fired from writing for his website.

I’m also wondering if the commenter “cassandra” is Tony Heller in drag, since she’s writing basically public relations puff pieces for Tony Heller, singing his praises at every comment. Although Tony Heller identifies more as the female character “Dorothy Gale” from the Wizard of Oz, as screen-captured in comment #611, with her dog Toto pictured on his website.

Who is “Peter Baggins, Ph.D?” Take a look at my screenshot in comment #611 and you can see the Unz article and another website’s article are of the same title. My guess is the author is Tony Heller, a.k.a. Steve Goddard, which is why you can’t find the name “Peter Baggins.” It’s just another denialist fraud, and fraud is all they have in their playbook.

I think this Peter Baggins, Ph.D. may be Tony Heller, a.k.a. Steve Goddard, the title of this article is the title of one of the pages on his denialist website, as shown in this screen capture:

I posted the NOAA October-April temps chart at Tony Heller’s (a.k.a. Steve Goddard) blog. We’ll see if he lets it out of moderation. Funny as hell seeing commenters bellyaching about Spencer’s UAH satellite data debunking Heller. I bet they turn on Spencer soon, since he’s got his data un-fudged. Screenshot of my comment:

[MORE]

Tony Heller: Coldest October-April On Record In Over A Century, Posted on May 2, 2019

Let’s fact check that claim.

Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series/110/tavg/7/4/1895-2019?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1918&lastbaseyear=2019&trend=true&trend_base=100&firsttrendyear=1895&lasttrendyear=2019&filter=true&filterType=loess

If Tony Heller saw a circle, he’d tell you it was actually a square that NOAA alarmists had stretched by data stuffing. What Tony Heller does when accusing others of dishonesty is called “psychological projection.”

cassandra, you do have a wry knack for understatement! I’ve enshrined your sense of humor in this graph:

Do you think this would be an appropriate introductory graphic for Tony Heller’s “Hiding the Decline” page to show how those naughty, naughty scientists are manipulating unadjusted raw data in their “alarmist” favor?

What happens to the water in a glass of water filled to the brim with ice when the ice melts–it overflows?
No it doesn’t.
Look up Archimedes’ Principle or put a piece of ice in a glass and try it yourself.
The Arctic is just a huge piece of ice sitting in a “glass”; if it melts, the oceans will not rise.

cassandra, I made another chart that included your very own words that you parrot from Tony Heller. I trust you’ll find it helpful in evaluating the veracity of Tony Heller’s opinions of NASA’s GISS temperature record.

Source: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show.cgi?id=425700260000&dt=1&ds=5

Nobody ever claimed a “hockey stick” for sea level rise, cassandra. Liars like you try to put words in other people’s mouth.

“Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate.”
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

The sea level rise is accelerating, both from thermal expansion and from melting ice.

And CO2 rise is accelerating too. Take a look at this graph showing the increasing rate of CO2 rise:

Source:
Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards, smashing records
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/04/10/opinion/atmospheric-co2-levels-accelerate-upwards-smashing-records

cassandra continues to peddle the proven fraudster Tony Heller’s climate myth that the 1930’s were warmer than the present. This temperature record from comment #579, with cassandra’s quote and with the unadjusted data, shows what a whopper of a lie it is.

My apologies, Sparkon, for failing to have clicked the More button, and my thanks for your complaints that brought me back here. Your post is justifiably lengthy, but I can see where someone would put the break where they did. But the first part gives the casual reader (that’d have been myself, in this case) the impression that the post is over, so maybe there’s a lesson here, that we should put ‘More’ buttons in the middle of sentences!

But thanks most for your data. It’s a fine example of the common theme that temperature data as recorded shows the 30’s to be warmer than the present, and that recent temperature records in reported data is a figment of alarmist adjustment, if not imagination. Thanks for going back and inspecting the actual historical record to see what actually happened.

I follow the much-maligned Tony Heller at realclimatescience.com, because he shows historical data much along the lines of what you show here. He even provides free software for analyzing GHCN databases (search for the UNHIDING THE DECLINE on the home page.)

He sometimes discusses sea level change, sometimes showing tide level gauge data. NOAA maintains these at https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_us.html where ypou can view them yourself. These are also revealing: every one (that I’ve checked) shows a normal, century-long historical linear increase. There’s no particular “hockey-stick” increase in the ocean rise rate as CO2 concentration has risen.

The data are consistent with sea level rise due to continuation of glacial melting from the last ice age, along with possibly expansion due to warming ocean water. (The actual rise rates vary because of subsistence effects: the land in which the gauges are planted may move up or down as well).

Tony sometimes overstates his case, and injects annoying political commentary. But any exaggerations are easy enough to spot and discount, and any incivility you find is milder than that encountered here from unknown quarters.

Here’s another graph I created of Illinois HIGH (not average) temperatures. I also changed the “base period mean” to 1930-1940. Sure was hot back then! Still doesn’t erase the trend line of Illinois Warming.

Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/statewide/time-series/11/tmax/12/12/1895-2019?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1930&lastbaseyear=1940&trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1895&lasttrendyear=2019&filter=true&filterType=binomial

I am glad that you are finally researching NOAA’s data. I suggest you use the NOAA National Centers for Environmental information, Climate at a Glance: Statewide Time Series, to make your own graphs, like the following I created using NOAA’s data to address your interest in Illinois temperatures:

A troll-fest, indeed, with you being one of the worst trolls, as described here by a professor from Monash University:

“Some techniques are comically simple. Emotionally charged, yet evidence-free, accusations of scams, fraud and cover-ups are common.”

What I learned from debating science with trolls
http://theconversation.com/what-i-learned-from-debating-science-with-trolls-30514

That perfectly describes you.

Maybe the best approach is to preemptively insert the MORE tag yourself, and briefly explain above it what it will reveal. That way, most readers who care about your information at all will probably click on it.

As to the effectiveness of moderation on this thread in general, I think it is self-evident – the worst troll-fest in recent memory.

Yes, commenters have some control of the [more] tag, but so do the moderators here, along with the author, presumably, and they have the last say, including arbitrarily inserting [more] whenever and wherever they choose.

I certainly do know how to use the [more] tag, but I have done so only on a couple of rare instances, definitely not in this comment thread, but thanks for your attention to my point with your comment.

I also use the [preview comment] function here without fail to review and edit my posts so they are grammatically and logically sound to the best of my ability before hitting [publish comment], but even so, perfection is difficult to achieve, especially across the Internet, and the occasional flub slips in.

So no — emphatically — I did not insert that [more] tag into my comment, and why would I?

Indeed, as I mentioned, I have suffered from the heavy-handed application of the [more] tag by the mods on several occasions. Were I in the mood, I could find in my comment history several particularly egregious examples where virtually my entire comment was hidden behind [more].

Here is the NOAA/NWS page I used to extract the numbers for Rockford’s hottest days by year for the three summer months. Next time, I’ll just give the link and let somebody else do the work, as if anyone would.

https://www.weather.gov/lot/July_Daily_Records_Rockford