That tremendous silence you hear...

And editing quoted posts and removing context of what they said, does not mean you can make up whatever you feel like and pretend that was what they said...

Can you point to where I said climate science predicted yearly events? Or where I said anything that makes such a contention..

Here, the part you edited out may clarify...

First you said

"What prediction? One thing you can say about denialists is they remain relentless clueless about AGW."

And I responded with

"The predictions of more, and more severe weather and storms due to CO2 induced warming.. A little google-action will jog your memory."

https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+change+to+cause+more+severs+storms#q=climate+change+to+cause+more+and+more+severe+storms&spell=1

"Quite a list huh... LOL

One thing you can say about warmerists is they have short memories when they need to.."

Your question was "what predictions" I answered it.

 

Oh, that's easy: in AGW-land, anything that shows cooler temperatures is local, anything that shows warmer temperatures is global. Except if it was in the past. Then if it was warm, it was only local, but if it was cooler than now, it was global.

That about right?

 

The earlier local-global equivalent would have been the flat earth fall off the edge folks versus the spherical gravity folks. What also seems to never change in principle is this absolute celebration of indolent ignorance. I think a lot of folks would just as soon be relieved of the burdens of uncomfortable reality and judging from the rise of the Tea Party and the stranglehold they seem to have on the political process it appears that reality denial is becoming widely popular. Well placed conspiracy theories provide endless mumbo jumbo possibilities.

 

As I suggested the shameless celebration of indolent ignorance seems to have no bounds. The basis for earth temperature trend determination starts as its baseline measuring the average temperature of the entire earth for a year, which is then repeated the next year and the next year and so on. What could you definitively learn about global warming if you merely measured a section of the earth and/or only part of the year? Really! this can't be that hard to understand. Well, for the severely math challenged perhaps it is.

 

I provided the meaningful context and of course you choose to spin your wheels and deny. That's human. Perhaps you need to push your storm points in some kind of meaningful context that you wish to create, just don't play some apples and oranges game by inappropriately injecting your topic into a different one.

Denialists are commonly so desperate to play their gotcha games that they lose the thread of the topics they are posting to. I think it has something to do with that closed system echo chamber effect. They end up having conversations with themselves.

 

I'm not going to feed you buddy.

 

It has to do with the hysteria the AGWF engage in and the cost it has on people affected. That the accumulated data was reported to show an increase in the numbers and severity of tropical storms/hurricanes that has not come to furition and in fact the activity seems to have lessened and the strength has appeared to have decreased. The one threatening TS we have had this year cut down by a cold front.

- - - Updated - - -

I would be happier if you could figure out global is made up of all the locals.

 

Maybe the biggest problem is something I have stated for years now.

For most in the "Global Warming" community, the "Baseline" is at the tail end of the 19th century. During a period known as "The Little Ice Age" for a reason. After several hundred years of the coldest climate in millennium, some individuals decide that is the new norm for the planet.

That is the entire problem right there in a nutshell. That is the era more accurate modern instruments were invented, and when the "scientific method" really took off. So of course that is where our data starts, and what became the baseline.

But the baseline is wrong. Imagine if I went into your house, and told you that the baseline temperature I was setting was 350 degrees. Or it was 0 degrees. Well, one temperature I made was in your oven while cooking, the other in your freezer. Well, I take another which is 70 in the living room and 34 in the fridge. I now average that all out and the baseline temperature for your house is 104.8.

That is the problem with every single baseline I have ever seen. I am well aware of The Little Ice Age, and I know that was among the lowest averages our planet has seen since the end of the last ice age.

And that is what every one of these idiots is using as their baseline.

That is probably the biggest reason why I laugh at most of them. Oh, and the amazing number of "models" I have seen that pretty much ignore the Medieval Warm Spell. Combine those two with the models and I see a fail-fail.

Throw in the fact that a lot of these same people were looking at the same figures and saying "new Ice Age", and you now have a fail-fail-fail in my eyes.

And if you don't believe me, research Dr. Kenneth Watt. Faculty at UC Davis, and one of the loudest bandleaders for Global Warming. 40 years ago for about 15 years he was one of the loudest screaming about "New Ice Age".

 

Utterly irrelevant to establishing baseline measuring criteria. You talk about elephants and these denialists divert to some weird babble about camels. The sad thing is they are probably going to determine the outcome. Too many evolutionary wrong turns built into the biosphere's primate brainiacs. Maybe the molluscs will rise to do better the next time around.

 

Sounds nice, but it still does not address the fact that the "baseline" has been established at a point of unusually cold weather.

So how about addressing the facts, instead of going on a nonsensical rant?

 

Data doesn't show anything permanent. It is tentatively modeled to project a possible future, generally fanning out to a spread of possibilities. When new data comes in that model is modified. Denialists invariably get science mixed up with their right or wrong ideological approach. That's why denialists hold on to impossible views long after the data ceases to support them. Science simply adjusts to the new data. What we really need around here is a discussion of the nature of ideological idiocy.

The problem is denialists take the isolated local information and metastasise it into the whole, a model of how cancer operates if you think about it. They seem to be devoid of basic analytic tools in favor of emotional faith and mucho paranoid conspiracy theories.

 

You do know that the flat earth myth is just a myth. People have know the earth was round since Aristotle. Talk about ignorance. Perhaps if you dont want to make ignorant statements you should research your analogies more thoroughly.

The moment some pseudo intellectual liberal brings up the flat earh myth they disqualify themselves from any credibility.

 

Yes and it works just fine as an analogy to denialist nonevidence based myths. As for earlier knowledge the old Greeks were aware of basic evolutionary theory well before Darwin. That doesn't prevent a robust belief in Genesis to this day. Folks like you are all over the place.

 

That the accumulated data was reported to show an increase in the numbers and severity of tropical storms/hurricanes that has not come to furition and in fact the activity seems to have lessened and the strength has appeared to have decreased.

DUH, nothing is permanent you have point to make.

The only views still held while the data no longer supports is the AGW.

Except when it comes to the AGW side.

We have as the fallacy of the AGW side has been exposed along with it's fraud.

The problem is the AGW faithful refuse to acknowledge their computer model predictions have not come true and all the hysteria they have tried to create has cost us needless dollars.

 

I'd say gravity stands in for permanent pretty well. Denialist ideology doesn't even get out of the starting gate but has lots of believers, kind of like Genesis.

Science does not involve faith which I don't expect you as a denialist to understand. The models projections within a range have generally been roughly accurate but not always in which case they are adjusted. The inherent conservatism of the IPCC tends to make them err so to speak when they do on the downside. At one time they modeled the complete summer melting of the arctic ocean ice as being roughly midcentury. Now their projection I believe is somewhere in the decade of the 20s.

 

Yet you have no evidence that such a belief was prevalent before Columbus. As such you claims of ignorance are laughable.

 

I think you need to research just how much gravational theory has changed since Newton. It is anything but static.

 

Of course, we also realize that the Earth is a dynamic and constant changing place. Continents shift around, climates warm and chill, even evolution continues as some animals die off and others evolve.

Yet to me the "Climate Chicken Little's" are all people who want to throw all of that away. Even as you throw around throw around digs about Genesis and evolution, you try to cling onto a static planet that never changes. And that is the biggest fail of your argument.

I actually recognize that the climate will change, expect this to happen, and would be shocked if we were not warming after the end of the Little Ice Age. You want it to remain the same forever, and that is just not what history has shown us to be the case.

And sorry, when I see a chart predicting "1c of global warming" with a 1-2 degree error of probability plotted in, I know it is all a lie.

 

Mystery Change in Earth's Gravity Field
Aug 2 2002 @ 09:06 by NASA/Goddard SFC
Satellite data since 1998 indicates the bulge in the Earth's gravity field at the equator is growing, and scientists think that the ocean may hold the answer to the mystery of how the changes in the trend of Earth's gravity are occurring.
http://hypography.com/article.cfm/32545-Mystery-Change-in-Earth's-Gravity-Field

Which is why AGW is not science.

Yes the problem is they are being adjusted in the directions predicted and that the evidence we are gathering does not support the predictions and we get to the case of everything that occurs is massaged to say it proves AGW. The problem with that is that it violates scientific method, when everything is evidence then nothing is evidence.

 

Okay...think about this. If man had continued to kill off the Bison out west, Bison would have become extinct and MAN would have been the cause and it would not have been a natural cycle or caused by nature unless you consider mans stupidity as part of nature. Another thing to consider is the FACT that new fishing areas of the oceans have been opened up to native Canadians because the part of the ocean that was once covered with ice no longer is. And, when ice melts in the Arctic cool, fresh water tends to stay on top of salt water because it is less dense and this could possibly slow the developement of Gulf hurricanes...but...on the other side of the world a hurricane is called a typhoon and east asia has had several.

Also consider the unnatural rain that just hit Colorado and is now threatening Lousiville kentucky. When ice melts in the high Arctic it causes the areas further south to cool to some extent but it is only temporary. Just follow the weather channel...fires out west and very warm air temps inland and cool and rainy near the coast. Also the fires and drought out west were predicted as well as the summer of rain we have had in the southeast. You can not call foul just because we haven't had a rash of hurricanes this year.

The island of Japan is being invaded by jellyfish, migration routes of animals are changing, trees are growing higher on the mountains and for the first time in history goats are migrating over the high mountains in Tibet.

Hardiness zones for plants has moved 200 miles north in the U.S. and I can now garden year round in central Alabama.

Deny that.

 

And none of this was even remotely possible 100 years ago?

As I said, things are getting warmer, and they will continue to get warmer. Do you think the planet is fixed and unchanging?

And weep not for the bison. Almost all the megafauna of the past 10,000 years have gone extinct. From the Mammoth and Mastodon to the Short Faced Bear, giant armadillo and Smilodon. I still fail to see your point because you are acting hysterical about things that science expects to see. That is change.

 

There is a difference between being hysterical and being a realist. I am old enough remember Lake Chad, the snow on top of Mt. Fuji, the jungles in Africa, and the ice on the lakes in the winter where I was born. Science also knows that if you kill and burn a tree it no longer filters air. Science also knows that green plants keep us alive.

Maybe you should listen to the people that know the science. Not the people that claim to know....but the people that know.

So...as with every species...when man becomes so succesfull he depletes his environment....he too will die.

 

There is a difference between being hysterical and being a realist. I am old enough remember Lake Chad, the snow on top of Mt. Fuji, the jungles in Africa, and the ice on the lakes in the winter where I was born. Science also knows that if you kill and burn a tree it no longer filters air. Science also knows that green plants keep us alive.

Maybe you should listen to the people that know the science. Not the people that claim to know....but the people that know.

So...as with every species...when man becomes so succesfull he depletes his environment....he too will die.

 

And less then 200 years ago, the Thames used to freeze solid and you could walk from one side to the other. And at roughly the same period the Potomac and Delaware Rivers used to freeze solid for months at a time as well. That also has not happened in a century.

Your references once again have nothing to do with humans, only pointing out that the planet is warming - as it has been for thousands of years. So your references are meaningless.

I think you will find nobody denying that the planet is warming, we only question the cause, and the claims that many are making that it is caused by humans.

Oh, and most species do not die from depleting their environment, that normally is only on the microbial level when they kill their host. Most life goes extinct simply because it can not adapt. Evolution 101 my friend, Evolution 101.

 

Wrong. There is no measurement of the entire earth's temperature. All we have are local temperature readings and proxies. Satellite temperature readings are better, but they only go back a few decades. In most cases, local temperature readings are highly problematic and do not accurately represent how the entire earth's temperature has changed over time. Proxies are often little more than a hash of guesswork and cherry picking, and certainly cannot be considered a measure of global temperature.