[Closed] It's global cooling, not warming!

hainey,

That's right, the one three hours ago.

I'll go over it again for you. Please let me know where you disagree with my record of events.

You put up a picture of a "free energy oven"

I put up a picture of a solar oven.

You put up a picture of a solar oven.

I explained why I put up my posting and why your second posting made you look stupid.

You told me to get a sense of humour and also that I had "completely missed the point" of your posting.

I asked you what the "point" was.

You went back and edited out the bit where you told me I had missed the point, then disregarded all my subsequent postings asking you what you meant.

Then I looked back over the last page and noticed that you had edited your posting, and pausing only to question whether you thought editing the data was OK (see I do have a sense of humour), we got to here.

RPRT, I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about.

I put a funny picture up to post for some Friday humour.

You didn't see the funny side.

Everyone moved on, apart from you seemingly.

OK, I'm moving on. I accept that you have no idea what I am talking about. You don't have much idea about anything do you?

I see wit joins your sense of humour in being absent.

I'm trying to imagine you with a personality i really am.

For lots of places the winter was colder than average,

for lots of places it was warmer than average,

everywhere had lots of weather.

(bad science alert! bad science alert! - the following statement is based on nothing more than my own skeptical guesswork)

i don't believe that Global warming means flashfloods and hurricanes and scorching heatwaves and or the start of a new ice-age, i suspect the truth will be far more subtle; and will go largely un-noticed by lots of people, but will be very bad news for the millions (billions?) of people who live in marginal areas of the world.

anthropogenic or not or whatever, there is lots of evidence telling us the world is warming, and i think it's only right and proper that we use the best technology / models to predict (to our best ability) how a warming world will affect us. (us as a city/county/nation/species/planet).

The important thing to is how will the trails at Glentress ride once GW really kicks in?

best technology / models to predict (to our best ability) how a warming world will affect us.

Agreed to a certain extent but i also think that we need to invest more time and work to really fully understand past cycles on earth instead of doom-mongering statements on dodgy data.

You're the one who got it wrong in the first place! I had to physically spell it out for you, i thought it would have been easy unless you had lost a finger or toe so you could only count to 9

hainey - Member
Quoting me
Given the years on your scale Hainey that graph is not of the last 10 years is it?
Hainey
1998 - 2008? You will have explain your "special" maths on that one.

hainey - Member
[QUOTING ME ]
Ok let me try what year is it ? is it 2008? ok now then is 1998 more than 10 years BP[before present? hard innit. 98 -08 is also 11 YEARS YOU IDIOT
[Hainey]
sorry, 11 years, and your point is.

hainey - Member

How many years are there then betwen 1998 - 2008 - the period you refer to as the last ten years ?

98-99 - 1
99-00 - 2
00-01 - 3
01-02 - 4
02-03 - 5
03-04 - 6
04-05 - 7
05-06 - 8
06-07 - 9
07-08 - 10

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/its-global-cooling-not-warming/page/27?replies=1190

Yes Hainey you corrected me honestly you are just looking silly.
Again I call Bullsh1t.

I've got a past cycle in my attic. Its a Clockwork Orange 93 LX 🙂

LOL

Are you frickin serious, the only thing you are doing at the moment Junkyard is taking time out to humiliate yourself! 😯

sorry, 11 years, and your point is.

Yes i said this, but it was a flippant comment to move on to the more important topic at hand, the actual trend.

Would you like to discuss our counting ability or discuss more interesting matters? Muppet.

Edit: I just re-read your post and laughed out loud, i can't believe you spent so long typing it.

I said 10
You said 11
I was like whatever
I said 10 again.

You're a funny funny man.

Its a Clockwork Orange 93 LX

Nice wheels

I'm hoping to revive it at somepoint but will need to sort out a respray and look around for 1" headset and an excessive amount of other purple-anodised components!

I might be able to help you out there. I went round to my dads to try and find my old KHS steel hardtail and found the frame had been cut into pieces as it was "perfect size for repairs to his classic car" LOL

Thanks for the offer. Unfortunately I don't think I'll be working on it this year as my current bike needs a lot of TLC first but it'd be a shame not to get it riding again.

We're obviously generating the right sort of discussion here. I see that the google ad on the right hand side of the screen has now turned to one for scientology.

Think, what would Tom Cruise do?

Tom cruise would make us all stand in a pit so he looked tallest IMHO.

LOL

Are you frickin serious, the only thing you are doing at the moment Junkyard is taking time out to humiliate yourself

Jesus wept, is this still going??

Junkyard, you're a joke, seriously, just spend 10 mins re-reading the tripe you are spouting out.

It has taken you what, 250 postings to discuss whether 1998-2008 is 10 or 11 years, and what has quite [b]simply[/b] been put by myself and others, is that it can be interpreted as 9, 10 or 11 years.

I quite [b]simply[/b] made it clear by going through each year one by one what i interpreted it as.

Now, are you still struggling, cause if you are i am afraid there is no hope for you.

Now if you DO understand, then perhaps you can enter an adult debate and answer the question at hand instead of spending another 250 postings on diversionary tactics. 😯

It would appear it still is. [img] [/img]

🙄

So Mr Tree. If the CO2 is increasing will this help the sapling grow big and strong? Trees like CO2 do they not?

Hope so. Seems to be working either way, he's in the 98th percentile for height and weight.

In fact, that should be pretty conclusive proof of the rise of CO2, or at least enough to put in certain reports...

😉 *s*****

Hainey you posted up a graph showing the last ten years of data and it covered the period 1998-2008. Now it is not really possible to discuss how many data points there were on the graph 9,10 or 11 according to you.
It is clear to anyone who can do maths that there are 11 points with one average temperature for each year. ?
In case you are REALLY struggling here is your graph just count the BLACK dots for the years!!!
[img] [/img]

It is not a matter of interpretation it is [b]simply [/b] a fact that you got wrong. Your graph of 10 years clearly covers 11 years and has 11 data points to say anything else is [b]simply[/b] incorrect.
As I have said if you struggle with that fact no wonder you cannot grasp the complicated stuff.

Will this ever stop???

LOL

You're an idiot.

Ugh, i don't know why i bother engaging you. Just go ahead and divert away from the actual subject again and again and again........

Does it show a downward trend?

No more than weather and anecdotal but the lady on the piste in Canada was lamenting that it's the warmest winter thay have on record and 5° above average. The hurricane season also appears to have started five months early this year. When you start to cumulate large numbers of exceptional events it's time to start thinking in terms of a new norm.

Edukator yes apparently it was on Raido 4 that this is the warmest winter on record [not IPCC Hainey Alabahama uni iirc}- clearly not here though yet only 25% of population agree with the science.

Hainey if you cannot accept how many years the graph actually covers then there is little point discussing the actual graph with you? You wont understand clearly
So how many years then 9,10 or 11? Answer that correctly and I will discuss the trend.

Personally, I don't care what the weather man says. If the weather man says it's raining, you won't find me complaining.

Junkyard, you're a fool, i have already said it is 10 years, your inability to discuss further is just diversionary and to be honest i am now bored so forget it.

As to your rubbish regarding warmest winter on record, i remember that being said in 2002 when there was a poor season in snow in the alps, but for the last 3 years i have been skiing through plenty of powder throughout the whole season.

A trend? No.

Hainey, the graph starts at 1998, the warmest year on record.

The Graph finishes at 2008; a la-nina year (which was predicted - as was it's cooling effect)

And the graph appears to be unsmoothed (sounds petty i know, but the data is noisy - a rolling 10 year average would make more sense if you want to talk climate)

why do you rubbish the claim that january 2010 broke temperature records? - it's been measured, and the results are out. do you have more reliable measurements? ('i went skiing and saw snow' doesn't count as a temperature measurement)

please stop using 1998 as a starting point for any 'it's getting colder!' comments.

X

i have already said it is 10 years

Yes the graph you posted shows a downward trend FROM 1998 but the real issue is WHY does it show this - is this an accurate reflection of the real trend or not?. Now 1998 was an abnormally high year temperature wise and to use that as a starting point - when we are discussing a long term trend seems an odd choice. It is chosen because using the abnormally high year alters the trend line..it is why skeptics use it as it creates a misleading trend - WARNING GRAPH HEAVY CONTENT
see your graph starting 2000 which has an upward trend for example
[img] [/img]

Ok sill not convinced what about this then?
Starting form way back in 1850 where we get the following [img] http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3vgl/plot/gistemp/plot/uah/plot/rss [/img]
Still not convinced it is rising? ok now just using one data source I then plotted it from just 1978 [ arbitary choice I assume other years will give similar results] to show the data, trend from 1978 and trend from 1998 - HADCRUT3
- can you see the difference this makes to the trend line using 1998 as a starting point?
[img] http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3vgl/from:1978/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1978/trend [/img]
Again suggesting that by selecting that year you get an artifical downward trend.
[b]Note also the high spike for 1998 your staring point.[/b]

UAH does show a simlair distortion by choosing 1998 [img] http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/from:1978/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1978/trend [/img]

I am sure you can again see the large spike for 1998 in this data set as well which further suports my position as to why it is a bad choice as a starting point.You can see an upward trend for the entire data set and a downward one if we select 1998 as the starting point it is why you choose 1998 for your graphs. [b]This is the exact selective use of data you accuse others off.Your graph distorts the true picture [/b]

[url= http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Snow-And-Blizzards-Sweep-In-To-East-Coast-Of-America-As-States-Declare-Snow-Emergencies/Article/201002115543698?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header_1&lid=ARTICLE_15543698_Snow_And_Blizzards_Sweep_In_To_East_Coast_Of_America_As_States_Declare_Snow_Emergencies ]More evidence that the climate is cooling[/url]

no bob, that's just weather.

do we really need to explain the difference between climate and weather again?

WOW a sceptic getting things wrong ...surprising that is.
1. Weather is not climate - 31 pages and you have still not realised that!
2. Despite what they think 😉 America is not the entire world it is a geographical location - if you wish to talk about global warming use the figures for the GLOBE
I cannot decide which error is the most basic

You are wrong to suggest it has been a GLOBALLY cold winter BTW - I dont expect you to let inconvenient things like facts sway you though.

Global Highlights
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). This is the fourth warmest January on record.
The global land surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.83°C (1.49°F) above the 20th century average of 2.8°C (37.0°F)—the twelfth warmest January on record. Land areas in the Southern Hemisphere were the warmest on record for January. In the Northern Hemisphere, which has much more land, comparatively, land surface temperatures were 18th warmest on record.
The worldwide ocean surface temperature for January 2010 was the second warmest—behind 1998—on record for January, 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.5°F). This can be partially attributed to the persistence of El Niño across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (CPC), El Niño is expected to continue through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2010.

NOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

😯

Wow this is still going eh? 🙂

Enough is enough! 😯

Sorry, couldn't resist this......

[img] http://ifglobalwarmingisrealthenwhyisitcold.blogspot.com/ [/img]

[url= http://ifglobalwarmingisrealthenwhyisitcold.blogspot.com/ ]Cartoon content[/url]

@ Spongbob - brilliant link 😀

Blasphemy for the loonies who treat this like a religion though..

LOL.

Remember its weather though! 😉

And remember its the 4th warmest january in 1/3rd of the world in the last 35 years measured in one particular way. i.e conclusive proof we're all doomed! 😉

The ones who treat this like a religion are the deniers. They deny that the world is warming despite overwhelming proof because it suits their world view. Manmade - debatable. World warming - totally proven

Just when the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change thought it could put mistakes of the fourth assessment report behind it and
carry on with its work, fresh instances of alleged manipulations have emerged. The UN climate change panel has admitted that its 2007 report wrongly stated that 55% of the Netherlands lies below the sea level.
This is the second time that IPCC has had to admit to an error in the 2007 assessment report. Even as IPCC is dealing with its admission of a second error, allegations have been made that IPCC’s claim of unequivocal rise in temperature may have been manipulated.

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.
It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

🙄

Hainey, just background info - apparently the data was taken from the Netherlands government:

Sea level in the Netherlands: The WG2 report states that The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level. This sentence was provided by a Dutch government agency the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which has now published a correction stating that the sentence should have read 55 per cent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below sea level, and 29 per cent is susceptible to river flooding. It surely will go down as one of the more ironic episodes in its history when the Dutch parliament last Monday derided the IPCC, in a heated debate, for printing information provided by the Dutch government. In addition, the IPCC notes that there are several definitions of the area below sea level. The Dutch Ministry of Transport uses the figure 60% (below high water level during storms), while others use 30% (below mean sea level). Needless to say, the actual number mentioned in the report has no bearing on any IPCC conclusions and has nothing to do with climate science, and it is questionable whether it should even be counted as an IPCC error.

Indeed, it highlights great sloppieness (spl) in the IPCCs reports, something which as "highly peer reviewed scientific papers" should not happen, especially as they are the main guide for governments.

Hainey from your quote
"Some even suggest the world [b]may not be warming much[/b] at all."

So clearly not saying that the earth is not warming. T no doubt the erth is warming. How much and what the causes are can be debated but it is a clear and proven fact that the earth is warming.

to deny this shows how wedded you are to your point of view and how you do what you accuse others of doing - manipulaing the data and ignoring the data that doenst go along with your preconceived notions.

TJ,

Where have i EVER stated that the earth hasn't been warming?

I'll save you the time, i haven't.

I am actually semi with you on this one regarding the world has been warming, just as it has many times over the last 500000 years, manmade? - debateable.

Edit: A lot of the data i have presented have shown that the data can be interpreted in many ways. I, like many others think that we are at a peak at the moment.

A lot of the data i have presented have shown that the data can be interpreted in many ways.

And one of the ways, the one that you choose, is "wrongly"

The trouble with you hainey is that you are prepared to cut and past almost anything by anyone, so long as they don't support AGW - "my enemy's enemy is my friend"

That is why it is so difficult to debate with you. Not because you have a defensible POV, but because you can't hold one line of thought for more than the time it takes you to write a post.

Don't you see that a discussion about how much of the Netherlands might be below sea level is a completely different sort of problem to melting glaciers?

One is regarding a physical property that can be measured right now. Then people can argue over "interpretation", which isn't really interpretation anyway, but definition - whether we mean sea level at high tide, low tide, average tide etc. The fact that the IPCC say 55% and someone else says 26% doesn't really matter, so long as everyone knows what the measurement conditions are, which they do. ONLY AN ARSE would suggest that one measurement was right and one was wrong, because they can both be right, or both wrong as the answer depends entirely on the frame of reference.

The other one is about a forecast, which we all know IS to do with "interpretation" of data.

Interestingly, you say that you, like many others, think that we are "at a peak"

I know there are plenty of people who say that climate change is not caused by man made CO2 , but I can't say that I've heard many of them with the confidence (unlike yourself) to forecast that we are "at a peak"

Maybe you could tell us who else thinks we are "at a peak"?

Spot the difference.

[i]And one of the ways, the one that you choose RPRT, is "wrongly"

The trouble with you RPRT is that you are prepared to cut and paste almost anything by anyone, so long as they support AGW - "my enemy's enemy is my friend"

That is why it is so difficult to debate with you. Not because you have a defensible POV, but because you can't hold one line of thought for more than the time it takes you to write a post.[/i]

We could go round and round in circles, OR, you could accept that other people have different point of views from yourself? Or is that too hard to do? You're not THAT arrogant are you?

Don't you see that a discussion about how much of the Netherlands might be below sea level is a completely different sort of problem to melting glaciers?

Yes, totally, the point i am highlighting is that the only consistent thing about the IPCC at the moment seems to be their mistakes and flaws. You and Junkyard harped on for pages and pages about the wonderful IPCC and how they are gods, when in fact it is 10 underpaid scientists sitting in a room making a sh*t load of errors. My issue with this is that our governments are using this data to base extremely important decisions on.

ONLY AN ARSE would suggest that one measurement was right and one was wrong, because they can both be right, or both wrong as the answer depends entirely on the frame of reference.

And one of the ways, the one that you choose, is "wrongly"

Are you an arse?

See, you can't even follow the logic through one post. No wonder you can't make any sense of climate change.

LOL.

You didn't answer my question!!?

Hi i'm kettle, are you calling me black? 🙄

Climate change is a complete red herring, and debating whether its happening or not is sadly missing the real issue. Which is that there are too many people, and we are using the worlds resources up in a wasteful way, faster than they can be replenished. Our entire agricultural and economic system is based upon the availability of cheap oil, which will start to run out in our lifetime. So forget climate change, we'll just have to adapt to that. The real issue is living more frugally, and in harmony with the ecosystems on which we depend, not in conflict with them.

But it won't happen of course, and we are probably all doomed. In 50 years time people will look back and say now was the golden age of mankind. IMHO 😀

Rprt,Hainey,Junkyard,Zulu; Did you guys get lots of wedgies from the sporty kids at school?

You don't seem to have understood my point about the difference between "definition" and "interpretation"

duckman,

Want a bike race?

Sure,having your pants up your back will slow you down.

As will not being a lard arse, sporty kid.

BBC:

Q - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Professor [b]Phil Jones[/b], CRU

A - Yes...

😀

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm

Ha Ha! So you [b]did[/b] get wedgies at school from the "tough" kids!

Z11,

I'm not sure your summary of the 23 Q&As put to Prof Jones is really fair.

I know you know that you are quoting out of context, but what's the point of that exactly?

Have you given up on proper debate?

duckman,

why don't you get back to your really important discussion of your favourite chocolate bars?

duckman,

why don't you get back to your really important discussion of your favourite chocolate bars?

Which reflects how important you think your postings are.Why is your discussion on climate change any more important than a discussion on chocolate bars?

duckman,

Did I come onto the chocolate bar thread and ask all you "tough kids" about getting wedgies?

Or did you come on here and apropos of nothing start having a go at us for discussing something we are interested in?

If you don't like this discussion, sod off.

I know you know that you are quoting out of context

No, I'm quoting bang on context - Prof Jones specifically states that there has been [b]no significant warming since 1995[/b], he goes on to accept that it has cooled since 2002, but not significantly.

How long do you want to go on saying that there has been warming when the preeminent "warmist" climate change scientist, who clearly cannot be accused of sceptic bias, says there has not!

So;A number of points;

1) No need to be rude.
2) You are no longer discussing anything, you have been having an arguement for about the last week.
3) Does that mean that the chocolate bar thread has only been contributed to by the sort of person who liked to wedgie junior rprt?
4) At which point did I say that I used to dish out wedgies?
5) You do think you,and your opinion, are very important,don't you?
6) Answer the question, is your fight about climate any more important than a debate on Chocolate?

I wonder what Prof. Jones's favourite chocolate bar is?

Z11

Actually, if you want to be pedantic (and I know you do) he accepts that there has been cooling in the period from 1995 to the [b]present[/b], but goes on to say (in the same answer) that if you look from 1995 to 2009 (only 1 year earlier) then there is warming.

I think what he was trying to point out is that, yes, it is possible to cherry pick your data.

The context I mentioned were the other 22 questions and answers. I think if you really had to sum up the whole of what he said in a few sentences, then most people wouldn't do it the way you did. That is what context means - choosing something representative, not something counter to the main thrust.

So;A number of points;

1) No need to be rude.
2) You are no longer discussing anything, you have been having an arguement for about the last week.
3) Does that mean that the chocolate bar thread has only been contributed to by the sort of person who liked to wedgie junior rprt?
4) At which point did I say that I used to dish out wedgies?
5) You do think you,and your opinion, are very important,don't you?
6) Answer the question, is your fight about climate any more important than a debate on Chocolate?

1) You started it.
2) Isn't that our business?
3) I don't care.
4) You didn't, and neither did I
5) Doesn't everybody?
6) Yes.

Just as an aside, do you think pointless lists are more to do with OCD or anal retentiveness?

1) You started it.
2) Isn't that our business?
3) I don't care.
4) You didn't, and neither did I
5) Doesn't everybody?
6) Yes.

1) No; you did with your numerous comments to Hainey above.
2)

Isn't that our business?

1) I'm sure hainey will be delighted to find he's now got a tough kid to stand up for him.

2) Precisely. "Isn't that our business?", as in "Are we not entitled to talk about what we want without you butting in and telling us not to?"

3) Do you think anybody else cares?

4) All elephants are grey.

5) "Doesn't everybody?" as in "doesn't everybody think their OWN opinion is important?", not as in "doesn't everybody think MY opinion is important?" - you're not very good at this are you?

6) I don't know. Do you? Really?

Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

rightplacerighttime - Member

Actually, if you want to be pedantic (and I know you do) he accepts that there has been cooling in the period from 1995 to the present, but goes on to say (in the same answer) that if you look from 1995 to 2009 (only 1 year earlier) then there is warming.

I think what he was trying to point out is that, yes, it is possible to cherry pick your data.

Isn't "cherry picking" data exactly what the UEA and others have been doing?

No. Read the article Z11 linked to - it's interesting to hear from Prof Jones himself.

Contrary to the nonsense hainey and the like spout about climate science being a religion, Prof Jones is more than happy to explain where the doubt lies, but also why, despite the gaps in the science he thinks there is a solid case.

I wonder where this debate would be if we didn't have computers.

Prof Jones is more than happy to explain where the doubt lies, but also why, despite the gaps in the science he thinks there is a solid case

Funny that he's now made such a conversion to "see the light" - this was the same Prof Jones who's private emails revealed he threatened that "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone"

Crocodile tears!

Maybe global warming is debatable but one things for sure- we should stop raping our planet. It'll only end in tears and has already for many.

Contrary to the nonsense hainey and the like spout about climate science being a religion

I think you missed the point (again) my referral to religion is the way that you shout down and call people heretics if you disagree with them - like the church of scientology. IMHO just a little pathetic.

one things for sure- we should stop raping our planet.

Whole-heartedly agree.

Poor rprt,did my mention of playground bullys touch a raw nerve? I actually posted above as a troll;You bit.
This very long thread actually sums up all the science on climate change, lots of people fiddling(debating) while Rome (the planet) burns.

Poor rprt,did my mention of playground bullys touch a raw nerve? I actually posted above as a troll;You bit.

Well done. I'm sure everyone reaading this thread will be in awe of your verbal and psychological trickery. Have a chocolate bar.