Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

You mean he's been sober all along!?

 

Does not compute!

My wife is getting her hair done this morning so I wrote this for you:

This is of course a friendly ribbing, not meant to insult you!

PHP:

#import "ALRICAppDelegate.h"

@implementation ALRICAppDelegate

- (void)applicationDidFinishLaunching:(NSNotification *)aNotification {

    NSArray *alricGraphs = [NSArray arrayWithObjects: 
                                @"debunkedHockeyStick1.jpg", 
                                @"debunkedHockeyStick2.jpg", 
                                @"misrepresentedData1.jpg", nil];
    NSArray *alricArgumentTactics = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:
                                @"copyPasteWebsite", 
                                @"insultSourceIgnoreContent", 
                                @"changeSubject",
                                @"quoteRealClimate", nil];
    
    while (false == false) {
    
        int random_graph = (rand ()%3);
        int random_argument_tactic = (rand ()%4);
                
        NSLog(@"New A.L.R.I.C. Post:\n");
        NSLog(@"%@", [alricGraphs objectAtIndex: random_graph]);
        NSLog(@"%@", [alricArgumentTactics objectAtIndex: random_argument_tactic]);
    }
    
}

@end


Sample output:

 

Like most everything else you post,, blah, blah blah, blah blah,, insult, blah blah blah..........

 

Did you find the *one* post that you made that shows you've ever contributed to the actual discussion of climate science? One post that links a legitimate paper and commentary on it?

 

I believe we will leave the answer about whose contributions are more valuable, you or I, to others!

 

Sorry Icarus but I have to say NevadaPrius, Radioprius and the others have you outdone by a long shot, They have far better info than you

 

I'm not so sure. It all depends what the 'outdone' is based on. Number of posts? Statements of opinion, rather than fact? Whoever yells the loudest?

 

Just search through this thread and find *one* (1) post that Icarus made that contains insightful commentary on a scientific article.

 

This is not particularly insightful, nor does it comment on scientific article, but I think it is thought provoking and instructive

"Now he's (by his own admission) stumbling around drunk, ranting to himself. Perhaps we should let him, until he sobers up!

So sad!"

 

I think what's sad is a 60 year old man with no family trolling the internet on Christmas eve Gotta go, my beautiful wife just got out of the bathroom. We just had a great family get together

 

Once again, assuming facts that are not in evidence. I just had a family dinner with my lovely wife and my adopted son, along with my sister, her husband and a niece and nephew.

Tomorrow we are having family, plus several folks who have no where else to go as their families are abroad. You may live under the bridge in your own fantasy world, not I.

PS Other step son and daughter in across the continent!

 

WOW!

Did I miss some good action! Icarus and Alric, my old friends, yikes! This new guys is just breaking apart everything you write.

NevadaPrius, I'd like to use a couple of your posts as a basis for some blog posts. I'll PM you with the details.

 

Merry Christmas everyone!

I give to you the Medieval Warm Period!

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_what_hockey_stick.pdf

Be sure to read about the outright fraud by Mann, the fraud by the IPCC, the failure of Peer Review, etc. Be sure to read about the Wegman report that supported McIntyre and McKitrick.


(CWP = Current Warm Period / MWP = Medieval Warm Period)



See here:

CO2 Science

For many links to papers showing the WMP was as warm or warmer than what we see now. Our current warming is not unique. Alarmists are freaking out over nothing. Sorry that reality offends you!

 

This is just a blogpost with no proper citations to scientific journals. There is also no way to reconstruct that graph since they provide no methodology. For the correct current understanding of paleoclimate please visit the NOAA site:

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - D'Arrigo et al. 2006 Northern Hemisphere Tree-Ring-Based STD and RCS Temperature Reconstructions



"Direct interpretation of the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7C cooler than in the late twentieth century, with an amplitude difference of 1.14C from the coldest (1600-1609) to warmest (1937-1946) decades. However, we advise caution with this analysis. Although we conclude, as found elsewhere, that recent warming has been substantial relative to natural fluctuations of the past millennium, we also note that owing to the spatially heterogeneous nature of the MWP, and its different timing within different regions, present palaeoclimatic methodologies will likely "flatten out" estimates for this period relative to twentieth century warming, which expresses a more homogenous global "fingerprint." Therefore we stress that presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale."

 

Something else is really funny about the CO2science site. If you look through the supposedly references you see something like this:

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_perushelf.php



Not the "Description" heading. Not "abstract". That's because the abstract is nothing like what they published in their website:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004PA001099.shtml



Again. From the information they provide there is no way to verify their "conclusions". If you look at the "we estimate" part of their description the "we" is CO2Science, not the scientists.

 

I guess you missed the graphics that demonstrated qualitative and quantitative studies comparing the MWP to the CWP. Let's not forget this like that NvP posted.

Google Nachricht

I love that you post one graph as your evidence. I have dozens. You look for one outlier and use that as evidence, while the majority says otherwise. Truly, you are a denialist. When I get back from my event tonight I'll happily go through and post ever single graph for you.

(The description is different because they, unlike you, read the paper and are giving key data facts. Read the paper then come back! That's a great graph you posted, showing the MWP being 1.2'C warmer that the CWP.)

Do you honestly believe that the WMP was a nothing? Or are you just trolling?

 

Sigh!

You gotta love that the graph you posted, Alric, doesn't include any shaded error areas, etc.

Also, from the text you quoted:

You truly have to love how dendrochronology is such a joke of a science. They can't distinguish tree ring growth causes between CO2 concs, temperatures, etc (it all means good growth for the trees). Different reconstructions rarely match up, except to show an elevated MWP and a low LIA, etc. They try to act like they are exact to a .1 of a 'C and the entire thing is a joke. They run ridiculous statistics on the results to flatten out the temperature fluctuations, etc. It's hilarious.

Edit: I see RP already got you, but I think you still have not figured out that there is more to a scientific article than its abstract!

 

Weather model fail!

Our current weather: A test for forecast models – December shaping up to be one of the coldest on record in the USA Watts Up With That?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/27/the-unbearable-complexity-of-climate-2/

 

As noted before, you do (or should!) know the difference between weather and climate don't you?

 

As noted before, you do (or should!) read the post before replying don't you?