Obama 'took the wrong side' on climate change, says physicist Freeman Dyson

Really? What satellite? It's not RSS



And it's not UAH

 

No statisical warming for 18+ years, just because you can draw a line does not make you be able to understand. This graph is about a year old and before NASA manipulated the data to remove the hiatus.

 

You are aware that NASA is not in change of any measurement than GISS correct?

And sorry there homeslice, but significance calculated from extremely cherrypicked dates by some guy at WUWT does not count as evidence of no warming. The fact that all of those have different dates is absolute proof of the insane cherrypicking. It's mind boggling. What is dude saying counts as "significant warming" anyway? What are his qualifications to make that distinction?

Let's take a look at the actual data shall we?

RSS from 1992



Hmmm not sure how he came up with that not being statistically significant (generally significance is defined as 0.05). Shall we continue?

HADSST3 from 1995



UAH 1996



HADCRUT4 1996



GISS 1997





How exactly did the author of your picture come to his conclusion that there wasn't statistically significant warming?

 

I am aware of that fact and the fact that the 'pause buster' data came directly from Karl that works for the NCDC.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/welcomefromdirector.html

Also, you seem not to be aware of the one thing that is never mentioned in the media, uncertainty. statistically the previous graph is correct. There is a reason there are now 60 explanations for the pause until the NCDC manipulated the data to remove it which was very convenient for the upcoming COP21 meeting. Unfortunately it still does not make the hiatus go away in all other data sets.

 

Nobody is going to slander him. But face facts. If the best climate deniers can do is a retired physicist who hasn't worked for decades then climate deniers are probably in trouble.

 

I used to have a friend... grew up with him from middleschool through mid 30's (when the bro-mance ended) during our early 30's, it became pretty clear, that if there was ever an important choice in life to make for him... .he would inevitably make the wrong choice

Got a speeding ticket.... he didn't deny he sped, only that the mustang beside him was also speeding, so ........ should he fight the out of town ticket or not?

Friends told him no
He decided to fight it.

Drove an hour, got lost, got ANOTHER TICKET for an illegal u-turn, didn't get there in time, had to pay 2 tickets.

WWSD? (what would scott do?)


quit a job at Rentacenter because he hated it
had a job at Aarons (same kind of business) and hated it
got an interview at Rentacenter (about a year later) and was verbally offerered the job to start in 4 days.


"should I put in my resignation for Friday"

I told him, at this point, since it was under 2 weeks and going to work for the competition, they may just let him go that day. So he needed to think about it... is "time off" before a new job a priority, or is the lost pay for not working 4 days a priority. He said "no way they fire me, they will need me to train the next guy"


He turned in his resignation, and they let him go immediately...... the issue was, however, the very next day, Rentacenter calls back and says they have to rescind the job offer because upon further investigation, they realized he was placed on a "do not rehire" list from his first time with the company. He then went back to Aaron's, 2 business hours after he was let go but still before his next shift, and asked for his job back and they said NO. Had he just worked out the week, he would have got the bad news from RAC prior to quitting Aarons, and noone would have been the wiser.

WWSD?


all that to illustrate.... WWOD? if there is an issue to choose sides on... Obama will inevitably choose the wrong side

 

You act as if all you have to do is call someone a denier and walk away....

 

I have no idea what this has to do with anything that I posted.

Again, none of this has anything to do with what I posted. Shall we try again? You seem to have ignored everything that I posted. Let's start from the beginning, shall we? I posted all of the data from all of the data sets that your unsourced picture is claiming is not statistically significant. Maybe try reading it this time.

 

You still keep proving you don't understand uncertainty and statistics but instead rely on a simple linear graph on a small scale as some kind of proof. Statistically, there is no warming.

 

I get really tired of all or nothing thinking.. Climate change caused by tectonic plates and continental drift is not exactly the same as clear cutting the rainforest, reducing the water table and creating desertification.

 

How old is Dyson?

 

Too old to be believed by the young with heads full of mush. How old is Michael Mann when he made the hockey stick?

 

I have a pretty good grasp on statistics, I have taken several university level stats classes. It seems to be YOU that is having the issue here.

It also seems you are having issues reading simple graphs. Seeing how graphs are the actual temperature data (and the line is called a "trend line", a basic statistical tool) that is certainly proof of what the temp was.

Lets take a look at what the warming according to the data is. And this is from the temperature data that your own picture referenced by the way.

RSS 1992


That comes out to roughly 0.25-0.3 degrees C over the past two decades. Seeing how we have a predicted warming of ~0.15 degrees per decade, this is as expected. I have no idea how anyone could say that isn't statistically significant. Unless they have no idea what they are talking about.

Looking at the rest of the graphs, they have similar warming, some more. Your random picture doesn't hold up even under mild scrutiny.

 

That's O.K.

Everyone ELSE understands.

 

Then (*)(*)(*)(*)ing enlighten me. What does deflecting to something completely different have to do with his claims that there was no significant warming being completely false?

What does his deflection have to do with his apparent hallucination that NASA somehow manipulates all of the global temperature and satellite data?

FFS

 

Awwwwwww!

It's O.K., Lunchy.

We get it.

WE understand!

 

IPCC AR5 accepts the hiatus so I guess you are now just a science denier. LOL

 

I think what the Inuit are talking about is larger. There is a 10 degree shift that shows up in the geological record. Since the Mayan calendar is based on the sun, a tilt of the axis will show in the relation to the sun. Of course if your calendar is based on the sun, and the axis tilts, then it is the "end of time" keeping.

It is acknowledged that the Mayan calendar is the most accurate and its cycle of 25k years (estimates vary) just ended. The quakes in the last few years may be accumulative in tilt causing a slow shifting.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-the-earthquake-that-s/
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.earthquake.tsunami.earth/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4137727.stm

At any rate, the church controls academia and, therefore, no matter how important the information, Pagans cannot be right.

 

See the Milankovitch Cycles. Those are the only axial tilt cycles.

So many layers of conspiracy here.

 

So you have nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Red herrings! Red herrings everywhere!

I'll take that as you are completely incapable of actually addressing my post. Here, let me link it again for you.

 

Still denying science I see.

 

Still completely incapable of addressing my post I see.

 

Well, since you still don't understand that there has been no statistical warming in all data sets, there is no need to follow along.

 

I have already thoroughly debunked that silly nonsense, as proven by your inability to address it in any way.

You can't even tell me how the person who made that picture came to the conclusion there was not statistical warming.What makes you think that 0.15 degrees per decade isn't significant? That (*)(*)(*)(*) adds up.Fast.

 

Yes, I know, statistics are just silly and the ignoring the uncertainty in the data sets is smart.