"Death Penalty for 'climate deniers' ..." eco fundamentalists run riot

I didn't choose 1998 I chose 1997. So there goes that argument.

I'm not arguing arguing that the earth has cooled to any significance only that it has stopped warming and we have reached a plateau. I think you need to grab a dictionary and look up the words plateau, and warming.

It was what Dr. Jones said trends longer than 15 years are not supposed to happen at 95% confidence and that includes natural ENSO variations. So the odds of the plateau being pure chance are below 5% regardless of start points so your argument about cherry picking is statistically speaking bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Acutally that doesn't say anything at all. Just that Dr. Jones can move beyond 15 years and still show a warming trend. It says nothing as to the current plateau. As to the statistical significance of the warming since 1995 Dr. Jones plays a nice game here coming out after an El Nino and claiming statistical significance before the La Nina drives the trend back down which is what happened. As you can see once the ENSO finished its cycle the trend line went back down.

I can clearly show that is false. Looking at the wood for trees graph we can see that the earth has warmed in phases.



1860-1880
1910-1942
1980-2000

If we calculate trends for these warming periods we find that they are essentially the same



So no the warming has not accelerated. All previous warming periods occurred at almost exactly the same rate.

Fraudulent. How amusing you should say that given what follows in your post. The irony in your response makes this hilarious. I'll show you fraud.

No it doesn't it says right on the graph where the start point is 1997.33.

No it doesn't. It starts at 0.29. You need to look at the red line not the green. I don't think you know how to read a graph.

No it doesn't. The data is the red. It starts 0.3. I think you need to go back and relearn linear trending.

You seem to think that I have this magic power to manipulate woodfortrees.org don't worry you aren't the first warmmonger who has attacked woodfortrees not even knowing what it is.

It has stalled. We have longer than 15 years with no trend. That is stalled. You have to move the start point back further beyond the point originally set by your own scientists to show any trend.

Yes it is rising at an exponential rate.

I think you need to go back and relearn your wrammonger history. Dr. Schneider and the rest of his flunkies were able to do a double take on global cooling because they found that aerosols were not well mixed and could only cause local cooling.



We are not experiencing global dimming.

2010 wasn't a record. They jumped out to claim it was a record before the La Nina phase dropped the running average .

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/gistemp/from:1995/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995[/quote]

Warmonger scientists are very good at jumping out at the height of El Ninos and making grand claims before the La Nina hits the data. Yet you accuse me of cherry picking.

[quote]expect to see even higher record temperatures as the decade progresses.[/QUOTE]

I do expect it. There is no reason to expect any real significant cooling over the next 30 years only a flattening if temperature as we saw from 1940-1979. After such time I expect to see warming at a rate exactly equal to what we say in the mid 19th century early 20th and late 20th. We are coming out of an ice age and the earth is well below its historic mean temperature. I expect the earth to continue warming until we hit the 22C that is the earths normal mean temperature.

 

OK. I am tired of your whining about "El Nino" to "La Nina" trends. Here is a Woodfor trees graph of the trends from the month of maximum El Nino to maximum El Nino. Data for ENSO is from NOAA



As you can see the temperature trend for ENSO peak to Enso peak from 12/94 to 1/2010 is obviously significant and positive.

 

And your point is??? My point was that the Jones statement is significance was only the result of a high El Nino at the time in 2010. Once the La Nina hit the trend went back to statistical insignificance. I think you need to go research the term statistically significant. You can see that my graph also has a positive trend. All you did was graph it such that the scale of the axis changed so the slope appears more positive.

Look I can make it appear even more positive by changing the scale again



Nice try. Such slight of hand wont work with me.

 

It's been a busy weekend and I'm still catching up so I don't have time right now to deal with all of the lame BS you just posted, Windy, but this one thing highlights how wrong you usually are about things scientific. As I said before, you literally seem to have no idea what "exponential" even means. The rise in CO2 levels is linear, not 'exponential'.


The graph illustrates how exponential growth (green) surpasses both linear (red) and cubic (blue) growth.
Exponential growth
Linear growth
Cubic growth

Exponential growth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Wow did you come up with that yourself. Oh wait you copied pasted as always. No genius exponential growth means that the rate of change is growing. The 90s saw a higher average annual growth than the 80s. The 00s saw a greater annual growth than the 90s. The growth is exponential.

 

Nope, still wrong. The Dunning-Kruger Effect bites you again.

The definition of 'exponential growth' is an "increase in number or size, at a constantly growing rate".

Atmospheric CO2 levels were fairly steady at about 280ppm for millenia until about 200 years ago when human industrialization started raising levels. So from a rate of increase of zero, the rate increased unevenly to something like the current rate of increase which has held pretty steady. So, CO2 levels are rising now but at a fairly steady rate of increase. Not at a "constantly growing rate" and NOT EXPONENTIAL.

The 2007 IPCC report said: “There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 …."

Changes in concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide]
(excerpts)


Fig 1: Atmospheric CO2 concentrations measured at Mauna Loa in Hawaii. Measurements started in 1958.

The fundamental reason why scientists are generally confident that we are and soon will be experiencing global warming is because the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) has been increasing steadily in the global atmosphere (Fig 1). It can be seen from Fig 1 that the recent rate of increase has been fairly steady, but closer inspection reveals slight variations.


Fig 2: Annual growth rate of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa

The rate of increase itself is shown in Fig 2. The rate was about 0.7 ppm annually in the early 1960's, but it had more than doubled by 1994. There was a decline from 1.7 ppm/a around 1987 to 1.3 ppm/a five years later (possibly due to high oil prices in the early 1980's), but a renewed increase since then. More recent evidence suggests that that this renewed acceleration is short-lived, and that the growth rate now is steady around 1.6 ppm/a. Many developed countries, especially in Europe, have stepped up measures to reduce fossil-fuel consumption and any other industrial/agricultural processes that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.

So, Windy......does that more detailed second graph look like a "constantly growing rate" to you?

 

1994??? You had to scour the internet to find a source from 1994 to make your argument. Last year CO2 grew at 2.56ppm. Come back with something current!

 

I already did show you something current.

"The 2007 IPCC report said: “There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 …."

 

#1 Its the IPCC

#2 The line of best fit is still an exponential. Look at your graph. In 1958 the growth rate was 0.9. In 1994 it was 1.5. Today its 2.6.

 

1. It is not the question, whether or not the planet is warming, but if these effects are human made or if human made effects are irrelevant.
2. There are scientists who argue that there is are human made effects, there are those who deny this. This is where politics and our media with its lust for sensation come into play and pamper one side with money and try to bring those glacier scientists, mathematicans and physicians to silence who doubt the thesis of human made clima change. This is an interference into science to get out the result needed to spread hysteria.
The last glacier would have been melted in the early 90ies, the Netherlands under water, Haburg too and Berlin had a harbor according to the hyterians. Now we have 2013 and Hamburg, the Netherlands still exist, funny, eh?
3. Whether or not the consequences of a warming in certain limits is as bad as clima change hysterians state, is still to be prove, history shows up to know exactly the opposite. Warm periods turned out to be better for humans. Especially as it comes to Greenland, Canada or Russia winning lots of agricultural land.

Believe that political extremist (*)(*)(*)(*), if you want, I dont care. I care nevertheless, if one of "you" demands the death penalty for scientists who dont support his thesis and turning our society into a totalitarian lieftist state.

 

The values you show yourself, are without any doubts more precise with a linear growth than with an exponential growth (in your graphic its impossible). How can one be so blined by an ideology to deny that simple fact, you see that at the first sight.

 

How can you be? Exponential growth doesn't have to be a curve shooting out into infinity. The rate of change today is almost 3 times what it was when recording first began. That is by definition exponential growth.

 

No, sorry, but learn some maths and the definitions. This information alone is by the way never sufficient to make a conclusion.

 

who said what and when? if you're going to make broad generalizations back them up with proper citations of "who said "what" and "when""otherwise it's just B***s***...

oh please show us where all this agricultural land is, I lived in canada's arctic and centuries of warming will not turn bedrock and muskeg into agricultural land, virtually all the suitable agricultural land that can be used is being used now, extensive warming will likely reduce our agricultural output not increase it...

so at least we're clear that your position on CC is political leaning and not scientific...

 

Linear growth - grows by the same amount in each time step.

Is 2.6 = 0.9? No.

 

Is a curve that goes up and then goes down and then back up again an 'exponential' curve? No.

 

That's a funny move. For decades the clima change hysterians flooded us with lies, proganada and alarmism, but when it comes to take their scenarios serious like the predictions of the club of Rome 1972, they cannot remember. Great!

Dont worry, there is every year new nonsense from clima hysterians:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm

These are pathetic little liars who know about that they produce bull(*)(*)(*)(*) non stop and now this pathetic exmaple finds it funny, I cannot cite all the stuff the paid spin doctors of the Club of Rome or the IPCC spread.

These scientists like the Indian cited by the BBC should now face death penalty for correcting their junk science.

How do you come to this nonsense? Did you not have geography in school?

http://www.spiegel.de/international...-a-boon-for-greenland-s-farmers-a-434356.html

How stupid must one be to ask for processes little children could understand at least phenomenological.

Oh, yes, you are a great scientist, I am sure, you ask me how global warming could increase the crops in Russia, Canada or Greenland, sure thats an oh so intelligent question. I dont come to the effects of process kinetics and the temperature influence, because it would be expalinable rather to a Gorilla than you.

But death penalty for deniers that the global warmining should be human made is a great scientific demand.

 

Yes and every non-linear function is an exponential function of course. Sorry, but that was irony. You use the term definitely wrong.

 

which is to say that other than a typo you got nothing...

the Dunning-Kruger effect makes another appearance..what idiotic comments, you sitting in urbanized germany lecturing me on canadian/arctic geography where I've lived....the farmers of canada await your brilliant ideas on how they will farm the granite of the arctic, temperature doesn't prevent them forming moving north the lack of soil does...

 

"Death penalty for climate deniers?"

Sounds like we have returned to the days of Galileo and Copernicus.

 

Your graph is a graph of the growth. On the average the anual growth as been increacing infact it has more than doubled ergo CO2 growth is an exponential.

 

According to you, any graph showing growth must be exponential. <<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC/INSULT >>>


The graph illustrates how exponential growth (green) surpasses both linear (red) and cubic (blue) growth.
Exponential growth
Linear growth
Cubic growth

Exponential growth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

No I said that a graph that shows an increacing growth rate is an exponential. In 1958 it was 0.9 today its 2.6. That is more than double the growth rate we had when we first started recording.

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC >>>

 

In 1987 the rate was 1.7ppm and in 1992 the rate had dropped to 1.3ppm. Curves that show both positive and negative rates of growth are not exponential.

 

I can use that same argument 'curves that show both positive and negative rates of growth are not linear'. See how easy that was.

You argument makes no sense because the graph isn't a perfect linear function either.

Perhaps you should stick to stuff you understand. In the real world we do not expect a perfect exponential we do not expect that each individual year to have a rate of growth higher than the last. The question is what is the best fit over the range. Its closer to an exponential than it is a linear. The average annual growth rate has more than doubled over the decades. That is an exponential function not a linear one. If the growth rate was still around 0.9 then it would be linear function.

Once again you continue to try and derail this thread because you want to ignore that you said plainly that you want me and those like me tried and executed.