Posted by Stella, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Dec 22, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Sean: then get to work. A half million up front should get the project rolling, then you can be a big time movie producer, interviewed on Fox, become a fringe conservative mouthpiece, the whole bit. Go for it!
Then write the book. Newsmax will buy 50k copies, Freedomworks and ALEC another 50k, which puts you on the NYT list as a best "seller".
Worked for Breitbart. Worked for that ACORN pimp/hooker costume kid, before the felony charge for B&E.
Don't worry, Sean, facts never stopped them either.
Posted by Stella, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Dec 22, 2012 at 9:41 pm
"The list of warmest years on record is dominated by years from this millennium; each of the last 11 years (2001–2011) features as one of the 12 warmest on record."
That kind of extreme.
20 warmest years on record (°C anomaly from 1901–2000 mean)
Year ... Global .. Land .. Ocean
2005 0.6183 0.9593 0.4896
2010 0.6171 0.9642 0.4885
1998 0.5984 0.8320 0.5090
2003 0.5832 0.7735 0.5108
2002 0.5762 0.8318 0.4798
2006 0.5623 0.8158 0.4669
2009 0.5591 0.7595 0.4848
2007 0.5509 0.9852 0.3900
2004 0.5441 0.7115 0.4819
2001 0.5188 0.7207 0.4419
2011 0.5124 0.8189 0.3970
2008 0.4842 0.7801 0.3745
1997 0.4799 0.5583 0.4502
1999 0.4210 0.6759 0.3240
1995 0.4097 0.6533 0.3196
2000 0.3899 0.5174 0.3409
1990 0.3879 0.5479 0.3283
1991 0.3380 0.4087 0.3110
1988 0.3028 0.4192 0.2595
1987 0.2991 0.2959 0.3005
The values in the table above are anomalies from the 1901–2000 global mean of 13.9°C. For instance, the +0.55°C anomaly in 2007 added to the 1901–2000 mean of 13.9°C gives a global average temperature of 14.45 °C (58.00 °F) for 2007.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Dec 23, 2012 at 12:11 am
I saw this and want to see it, but I am not sure I can really bear paying to see yet another documentary where I see basically better shots of the same thing.
Our whole media seems to just replay the same old stuff. This glacier thing has been going on since even before Al Gore's Inconvenient truth and the realities of the audience and market mean that in terms of science and real analysis not much will or could be said. This is why the market utterly fails us as a means for evolving culture ... it always goes after the worst and lowest common denominator. The free-market fascination is a Newtonian low-level motivator that when pushed into cancerous primacy does not fit an Einsteinian living systems view or move towards any positive vision of any philosophy, just creates the chaotic excuse for those who confidently meddle to meddle and mess around with our common legacy ... since no humanistic or logical view of that would ever justify that.
Over and over we see pictures and the same pleas all over, and it is all to get money. Someone should go and put a satellite in orbit for all of us to watch on the web so we can get our own base data ... on everything.
It's so true that human beings just cannot get back looking at the short-term linear realities of everything, and that is one reason we do not get a lot of varied ideas ... there are so many that it betrays the real ignorance we have about almost everything, except the tricks that some of us know and can use to manipulate everyone else. The shame we should all feel that none of us really know if we have already pushed things too far and will end up killing off most of what we have called the world for the last 10,000 years.
I enjoyed Herzog's "Encounters At The End Of The World" simply because it was mostly a travelogue of a very interesting place. I am just not sure I am interested in this because all it does it seems to do is highlight for me how chaotic our world is run ... like a runaway train or out of control car.
But, I'm glad you enjoyed it Alice Smith, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood. Thanks for posting.
Posted by Sean, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 23, 2012 at 7:42 am
“THE ARCTIC OCEAN IS WARMING UP, ICEBERGS ARE GROWING SCARCER AND IN SOME PLACES THE SEALS ARE FINDING THE WATER TOO HOT. REPORTS ALL POINT TO A RADICAL CHANGE IN CLIMATE CONDITIONS AND HITHERTO UNHEARD-OF TEMPERATURES IN THE ARCTIC ZONE. EXPEDITIONS REPORT THAT SCARCELY ANY ICE HAS BEEN MET WITH AS FAR NORTH AS 81 DEGREES 29 MINUTES. GREAT MASSES OF ICE HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY MORAINES OF EARTH AND STONES, WHILE AT MANY POINTS WELL KNOWN GLACIERS HAVE ENTIRELY DISAPPEARED.”
US WEATHER BUREAU, 1922
Stella, could you please provide the data for 1915 - 1925? The Great Greenland Meltdown must have due to global warming, right?
Imagine the great movie that could have been made back then?! How did ANY polar bears survive that disaster?
Posted by Stella, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Dec 23, 2012 at 2:35 pm
That quote from above is NOT from the US Weather Bureau. It is a COMMERCE Dept report. It is a series of reports sent TO the weather bureau at that time, as published in a newspaper, hardly a scientific paper, let alone peer reviewed science. Anecdotal, verbal reports.
THAT IS REALLY LAME OF YOU. No wonder everyone laughs at the deniers, if that is the best you have.
What's the next line in the news article that you left out?
“Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers. . . "
The same guys that reported giant sea monsters a generation before.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Dec 23, 2012 at 4:00 pm
> THAT IS REALLY LAME OF YOU. No wonder everyone laughs at the deniers, if that is the best you have.
The deniers are nothing to laugh at, they very well already could have allowed and even driven that marginal damage that could have or will push the climate into an unknown and unstably hostile state, and not to mention that the continual use of these tactics makes democracy, even representative democracy a sad illusion of the past.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Dec 24, 2012 at 10:30 am
Sean, you seen to be equating some anecdotal reports of local weather in Norway in 1922 to global satellite data of today. I think most now realize that climate change is not just a matter of every location getting warmer, and that the transformation of large areas of the north pole from white ice that refects heat to dark water that absorbs heat affects more than just a local area. Not to mention all the other areas of the planet that have changed along with the constituents of the atmosphere. Did you find anything in NOA's archives as to the last time there was no ice at the North Pole?
I guess we just find out what you climate change deniers will say when it finally becomes obvious that they are wrong ... you just say "Sorry", or will you even bother to do that?
Posted by Sean, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 24, 2012 at 11:16 am
That report in the NOAA archives is not just anecdotal stuff(by experienced local observers)...there were serious temperature intersects by a respected oceanographer. If you and the other global warming alarmists want to make a big deal about current Arctic ice dimunition, then yoou also need to explain the 1922 obervations, when atmospheric CO2 was (presumably) lower than it is today. Surely, the measurements that Stella provides must also contain similar measurements from the 1915-1925 period, since her quoted data is based on a baseline that includes that period.
Stella, please provide the data for 1915 - 1925.
Another thing about anectdotal obervations: When Innuit coastal villages claim that the old timers knew that the ice was more abundant in the past, the alrmists are all over it, and agree with them! Yet the same alarmists dismiss the obervations of experienced Norwegian seafarers.
Let me try this another way: Assume that the Arctic was in a relative melt in 1922, then explain what caused it. No need for adhominen attacks, just offer your opinion about what casued the Great Melt of 1922.
Posted by Stella, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Dec 24, 2012 at 11:18 am
Sean: giving us link just verifies your example is as bogus as previously described; thanks to Anon for thoughtfully summing it up. I hereby present the un-thoughtful reply to your nonsensical anecdote.
"the American consul at Bergen Norway, submitted the following to the State Department. The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas..."
Posted by 2cents, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Dec 24, 2012 at 12:51 pm
What about the Global Cooling crisis in the 70's? Big front cover stories ran in Time and Newsweek predicting world catastrophes of climate change albeit this was freezing weather caused by human activities. Well, that cold weather crisis changed to warming trends, so now we have the opposite. That's why Global Warming sounds fishy to me. (It reminds me of the Indulgences people were encouraged to pay in order to save their souls, meanwhile the churches used that money to build St. Peters in Rome.) And, climate/weather does change.
If we are talking about environmental crises due to human activities, I agree wholeheartedly with trying our best to clean up and protect the environment.
Posted by Sean, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 24, 2012 at 1:27 pm
>Sean: 15-25? I haven't done that search, obviously you have.
Oh come on, Stella, you MUST have access to that data, since you based your limited data set on that baseline. Just give us the 1915-1925 data. Then attempt to explain the 1922 meltdown. A very simple and straight-forward request.
Posted by Stella, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Dec 24, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Sean: honestly don't get what you're looking for. Equally as obvious, you seem to know the answer -- enlighten us, now that you are past your anecdotal tales from the Men Who Sail The Seas.
Her's the dates you requested by decade, ie.. the warmest decades being the most recent. Are you cherry picking 15-25 because it makes your case better than the Men Who Sail The Seas?
Years ...... Temp. anomaly
1880–1889 -0.274 °C (−0.493 °F)
1890–1899 -0.254 °C (−0.457 °F)
1900–1909 -0.259 °C (−0.466 °F)
1910–1919 -0.276 °C (−0.497 °F)
1920–1929 -0.175 °C (−0.315 °F)
1930–1939 -0.043 °C (−0.0774 °F)
1940–1949 0.035 °C (0.0630 °F)
1950–1959 -0.020 °C (−0.0360 °F)
1960–1969 -0.014 °C (−0.0252 °F)
1970–1979 -0.001 °C (−0.00180 °F)
1980–1989 0.176 °C (0.317 °F)
1990–1999 0.313 °C (0.563 °F)
2000–2009 0.513 °C (0.923 °F)
Merry Christmas, Sean. Stew on it a little more and look real hard for a very specific set of numbers that let you try to tell most of the climate community that they (and all their data) are wrong.
And Sean from Midtown is right.
Why don't we talk in January, when the final data is in, and 2012 is declared the warmest year on record in the US. And we can discuss this: “According to the November 27, 2012 U.S. Drought Monitor report, 62.7 percent of the contiguous United States was experiencing moderate-to-exceptional drought”
Posted by Sean, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 24, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Please note that the temperature differential (from the baseline) was COLDER during the 1922 melt. I knew this, but I wanted you to provide the data, so that you would not accuse me of cooking it. Colder temperatures, but melting Arctic: How would you explain this, Stella?
Posted by Stella, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Dec 24, 2012 at 2:29 pm
"Colder temperatures, but melting Arctic: How would you explain this, Stella?" Bad verbal anecdotes from Norway in 1922? Thought we solved that, with lyrics, even.
Or any number of other reasons, but sorry Sean, I'm not going to look up all the possibilities for you, when you'll just copy and paste something from newsmax or some other ("our math is the only real math") fringe site.
So I give up.....
Sean, YOU ARE CORRECT!!! All the scientists who have spent their life dedicated to the study of climate are WRONG, and SEAN FROM MIDTOWN IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN SEE TRUTH!!!!
Seriously, no matter how much data I show you, you'll never see it because you are so blinded.
It's like Karl Rove making a complete fool of himself on election night, not admitting Obama was winning in a landslide, because Karl's "special numbers" had a secret TRUTH NO ONE ELSE COULD SEE!!!!! No one else could see the secret numbers that Karl could see, even the Fox number crunchers, as skewed as they were, were wrong, too.
Sean and Karl have a special, divine look at the real numbers that mere mortals, and scientists, just can't see as clear!
Posted by Sean, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 24, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Let me suggest a possibe solution for you: Warm currents, despite colder average surface temperatures. Unrelated to CO2 or anthropogenic forcing. More likely due to salinity gradients with or without undersea deep heat production (i.e. thermal vents).
Keep your mind open, Stella. There is a wonderful world out there.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Dec 24, 2012 at 8:40 pm
All these historic observations have a point, there was a mini-iceage when some of them were taken ... the reasons are accounted for. Just hand-waving and saying it got cold or hot before is pointless.
Posted by Stella, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Dec 28, 2012 at 8:07 am
Sean, I'm sorry, I misled you. About the lack of peer reviewed studies. I was unaware of the peer reviewed studies that support climate change denial. I was implying there were none. In fact, there ARE 24 peer reviewed studies supporting the deniers.
Shcokingly, you didn't have the answer that supported your denier case.
I'm a little stunned. Here's the link to a chart at the St Louis Post Dispatch, a mainstream newspaper.
A conservative did a review of all the peer reviewed studies -- TWENTY FOUR support climate change denial!
"It was produced by James Lawrence Powell, a former member of the National Science Board under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He did a broad search in scientific journals for every peer-reviewed study of climate change and/or global warming since 1991."
Obviously not a flaming lib, having worked for Reagan and Bush 1.
He made a chart of all the studies, with a nice slice reserved for the 24 studies that support Sean.
24 for Sean and the deniers.
Of course, appoiinted by two very conservative Presidents, he was bound to find those 24 studies that support Sean and the deniers, including those all important seal hunters that Sean constantly refers to.
24 for Sean and the deniers.
13,926 for the reality based community
17/100ths of one percent of the studies support Sean and the fringe seal hunters he hides behind.
Well over 99.8% recognize Climate Change.
The StL Post: "He found 13,950 of them, the combined work of 33,690 scientists from around the world. Precisely 24 of the 13,950 studies rejected global warming. That piece represents 17 hundredths of 1 percent of the pie. End of debate"
Again, Sean, I'm sorry, I misled you. 24 studies. I feel so bad, just awful, that I wasn't more clear.
Posted by Stella, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Dec 28, 2012 at 8:47 am
Not even one/half of one percent.
HALF, of half of one percent.
(notice the decimal point) .17%
17/100th of one percent
That, my friends, is the entirety of the science community that support Sean, Exxon, Shell and the coal companies. Together, the coal and oil companies fund a marketing campaign that Sean believes in wholeheartedly. So do many folks that don't have the time or interest in investigating the facts. Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming.
We know that science, as a whole, does not disagree about climate change.
Not even a rounding error.
Sean: how much do you get paid, directly or indirectly (ie.. the oil funded Heartland Institute) to not believe 99.93% of scientists?
You must be getting something for it. No normal person, presented with the facts would continue to believe something as ridiculous as that, unless he was being paid, like the bio-stitutes at Heartland.
You're smart enough to be making a little something on it, aren't you? With all the money that Exxon shovels to their supporters. You're in on it, aren't you?
If not, that's really sad. That means you're just a consumer of the absurd notions being presented by those paid by Exxon.
Really sad, that.
17/100th of one percent -- and they're getting paid, while Sean, for free, laps it up.
Late at night, when the reealization hits, that's gotta hurt.
Posted by Stella, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Dec 28, 2012 at 8:51 am
Note to all: I refuse to engage in Sean's deflection about Piltdown. It is pure deflection. He desperately seeks to change the subject, and by using false claims such as 100% of science believed in Piltdown, seeks to shift the discussion away from Climate Change.
Not going to happen, Sean, so keep up your false claims. I'll discuss your Piltdown errors in another thread, not here.
Posted by Alice Smith, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Dec 28, 2012 at 11:48 am
This exchange has been enlightening. Sadly, many think that "Chasing Ice" is a commercial movie - this documentary is enlightening in its visual camera studies from 2007 to 2011. This 5 years and the graphs that they have devolved from ice core extractions may be more educative than the above exchanges. Do go and see for yourselves. For $7 or whatever fee you pay, you will be informed.
Posted by D MacDonald, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Dec 28, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Stella: stay with the 99.83% of science that have peer reviewed studies that state that Climate Change is real. You've done good work in exposing the silly arguments here.
Let the fringe keep their <1% (00.17%, actually,) and blather on, spouting Exxon's talking points. Someone has to take Exxon's money, might as well have it flow locally to the anonymous poster who believes fables from fur traders in 1919.
Posted by D MacDonald, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Dec 28, 2012 at 1:55 pm
99.83% is now a "super majority opinions, funded by the political true believers." So virtually all science is somehow secretly funded by politicians, forced to support climate change, for some ridiculous reason.
The remaining TINY sliver of 1 percent, funded by grants from Exxon, coal, etc are the real heroes, supposedly.
Dude: 99.83 vs 0.17
That's like 500 to 1. Well over 500 studies to every one that denies reality.
Your assessment of math is as bad as your assessment of science.
It does qualify you, however, to replace Karl Rove as a Fox election night ballot predictor.
Posted by D MacDonald, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Dec 28, 2012 at 2:55 pm
500 to 1.
Why should I waste my time researching your Denier Conspiracy Theory of the Day, just to poke holes in it like Stella slayed all your other phony rants above, like the fur traders of 100 years ago? God bless her, she spent more time tracking down the crackpot theories than I would have.
Seal hunters? Shessh!
99.83% vs 0.17%
There IS consensus among international science. All you have is the conspiracy theory that government is somehow involved in 99.83% of the studies.
Posted by Sean, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 28, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Stella and D. Mac,
I am trying to engage you in a real debate, with the true facts being exposed. Why are the two of you so reluctant to engage?
Galileo said that the earth was not the center of the solar system...he said it was the sun. However, the Inquistion instructed him, otherwise. He was outgunned a million to one (or worse). So, super opinions are less persuasive than facts, at the end of the day.
Just put your main spokesman forward. Simple request. Surely, you must be able to do that, since you assume that your view is correct. Right?
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Dec 28, 2012 at 7:58 pm
>The scientific community has spoken.
What did it say?
How do you know this is not one of those rare cases when what passes for scientific or public consensus is wrong ... it seems to happen quite a lot actually, and ironically is usually about big important things.
Posted by D MacDonald, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Dec 30, 2012 at 9:33 am
Sean: ">The debate over warming is over... Says who?"
The science community said Climate Change is real, every industrialized country that has a national science institute, 500 studies support Climate Change for every denier conspiracist, the list goes on.
By a margin of over 500 to 1.
Only 24 of 13,950 peer reviewed studies support the deniers.
99.83% vs 0.17%
See ya Sean, S 's from Midtown, have a Happy New Year.
Don't forget to stock up on tin foil, I hear its on sale at Costco.
Posted by Sean, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 30, 2012 at 10:15 am
Global warming, as a theme, was put forth by Margaret Thatcher, in order to break a coal strike (she wanted nuclear power, as a counter to the coal interests). She allowed herself to be used by the academic community in England to fund various global warming scare tactics. Nothing has, fundamentally, changed since that time.