• Who are the real deniers?

    Best answer: Well, it was my answer you're referring to so I'll explain. The original question, in the link you provided, examined the Hadcrut4 data which shows temperatures from 1850 to the present day. This set of data shows global average temperature per month. What the original questioner did was smooth that data... show more
    Best answer: Well, it was my answer you're referring to so I'll explain.

    The original question, in the link you provided, examined the Hadcrut4 data which shows temperatures from 1850 to the present day. This set of data shows global average temperature per month. What the original questioner did was smooth that data in such a way as to highlight a 60 year cycle. When combining this 60 year 'cycle' with a rising trend in temperature, you get a reasonable fit to the data.

    What I argued was that if you take this dataset, which shows temperature as a function of time, and perform an analysis on it to examine the cyclical patterns in it (a Fourier Transform which gives you a graph of amplitude of cycle versus frequency or period) you don't get an appreciable spike in the 'spectrum' with a 30 or 60 year cyclical time. Therefore, you cannot claim on the basis of a direct analysis of the Hadcrut4 data that it contains evidence of a 60 year cycle.

    How does this statement square with the PDO? Well, the following graph shows the PDO index from Jan 1900 to Jan 2017:

    http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo...

    What you can see is that there's a period from 1900 to 1940 where the PDO index flips high and low but is mostly high. There's a period from about 1940 to 1980 where the index is low. There's a bit from 1980 to 2000 where it's high again, but then goes low for a couple of years, then high, then low, then high. The point is, what you have here is not some nice uniform 60 year cycle. What you have is a spiky mess with highs and lows. Sometimes it looks like an almost 80 year cycle. Sometimes it's shorter. So the point is that taking the Hadcrut data and smoothing it so you get what looks like a 60 year cycle, and then claim that 60 year cycle is due to the PDO isn't correct. It's not as nice as that. Hence you don't see the 60 year spike in the Fourier Transform. It's not regular. It has different periods.

    The second issue is how does the PDO affect global temperature? Remember, the original Hadcrut4 data shows global averages. What we know is that the PDO index is not always directly correlated with temperature. For example, we know that temperatures are positively correlated with PDO index over western North America, mid-latitude central and eastern Asia, and central and northern Australia. However, the correlation is negative over northeastern North America, northeastern South America, southeastern Europe, and northern India.

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/...

    So, the PDO isn't a nice regular 60 year cycle and some regions are warmer during high PDO index and some are colder. Why would you subsequently expect the Hadcrut4 data to show you a nice 60 year cycle due to the PDO if it's based on averages?

    I'm not denying the existence of the PDO or it's impact on our climate over decade-length timescales. All I argued was that you can't take the Hadcrut4 data, smooth it to give you a 60 year cycle because it looks nice, and then subsequently say the 'shape of the smoothed data is due to the PDO because I want the PDO to be a 60 year cycle in the average global data'! Which appears to be your argument ...
    12 answers · Climate Change · 2 days ago
  • Why do global warmers keep pushing solutions that don't work, according to their own models?

    China's emissions are the same as US and Europe combined. You can't get a 90 percent reduction when China is at 30 percent and growing. India is likely to pass the US, and other developing countries will reach the level of China. Even deep decarbonization in US and Europe can only reduce emissions by one... show more
    China's emissions are the same as US and Europe combined. You can't get a 90 percent reduction when China is at 30 percent and growing. India is likely to pass the US, and other developing countries will reach the level of China. Even deep decarbonization in US and Europe can only reduce emissions by one third, which according to climate models does very little in terms of global warming. It doesn't take away one third of the warming, but much less.
    9 answers · Climate Change · 24 hours ago
  • Are global warmers giving away the game, openly declaring that capitalism is their target?

    Best answer: The Ctrl-Left hates Capitalism. The media and left blame extreme weather on climate change, global warming. Now, what is that caused by? What's causing climate change? Well, if you listen to them, capitalism is. Our progressive, advancing lifestyle, our SUVs, our air-conditioning is causing climate change. Our... show more
    Best answer: The Ctrl-Left hates Capitalism. The media and left blame extreme weather on climate change, global warming. Now, what is that caused by? What's causing climate change? Well, if you listen to them, capitalism is. Our progressive, advancing lifestyle, our SUVs, our air-conditioning is causing climate change. Our output of CO2, which is a direct result of our civilization and standard of living improving, and they blame that because they don't like capitalism. It's a threat to socialism. Socialism is where they are fully empowered. In Capitalism, they're not; they resent it.

    “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
    — Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III

    Every single policy of the un-American, regressive, totalitarian Left has redistribution of property at its root.
    13 answers · Climate Change · 2 days ago
  • Windmills?

    what is the best energy source a windmill or a watermill
    what is the best energy source a windmill or a watermill
    8 answers · Green Living · 17 hours ago
  • Should the Keystone XL Pipeline be blocked to prevent global warming?

    Best answer: It is one of the infrastructure things that improves the efficiencies of the transportation of oil. It is much cheaper and economical to transport it via pipeline than train and much safer so you'd think environmentalists would like it. It shouldn't increase GW, it should decrease it but it kind of... show more
    Best answer: It is one of the infrastructure things that improves the efficiencies of the transportation of oil. It is much cheaper and economical to transport it via pipeline than train and much safer so you'd think environmentalists would like it. It shouldn't increase GW, it should decrease it but it kind of reveals that many opponents are opponents of any fossil fuels.

    Even if they remove the government obstacles, they may decide it isn't worth it to build. If Obama didn't throw obstacles in front of it, it would have likely already been constructed but now it is less economically viable IMO. These businesses have to fight these PC warriors and their leftist lawyers and all the red tape they throw up as well and they may decide it isn't just isn't worth it.
    12 answers · Climate Change · 2 days ago
  • Is Mike a paid global warming denier shill?

    Best answer: He rotely and blindly copy-pastes the dumbest anti-science lies from the con man site Wattsup. The same garbage that has been shoveled here and shown to be patently false hundreds of times already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger) http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php With nearly half... show more
    Best answer: He rotely and blindly copy-pastes the dumbest anti-science lies from the con man site Wattsup. The same garbage that has been shoveled here and shown to be patently false hundreds of times already.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Wat...
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...

    With nearly half the US Congress http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/H... already fundamentally denying basic science,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
    http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

    no rational fossil fuel interest group would waste a dime funding such low-level copy-cat BS.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
    7 answers · Climate Change · 22 hours ago
  • Will the new scientists that Scott Pruitt appoints be paid to do nothing?

    Or, will they study peripherally related topics that seem to support the "skeptic" cause, such as solar activity or past climate change? But, not solar activity since the mid-20th century, since Earth has been warming while the Sun has been cooling. And not the Medieval Warm Period, or they will just... show more
    Or, will they study peripherally related topics that seem to support the "skeptic" cause, such as solar activity or past climate change? But, not solar activity since the mid-20th century, since Earth has been warming while the Sun has been cooling. And not the Medieval Warm Period, or they will just confirm that there is no evidence that it was as warm as or warmer than now.
    6 answers · Climate Change · 10 hours ago
  • Is global warming a myth like leprechauns, eskimos and bigfoot?

    Best answer: That is a pretty funny list, leprechauns, an obvious myth; Bigfoot, not proved; and Eskimos, an obvious real group of people (Inuit, they don't typically like the name of Eskimo). GW is a name given to a phenomena because it sounds vaguely threatening and it was already warming anyway so with luck alarmists... show more
    Best answer: That is a pretty funny list, leprechauns, an obvious myth; Bigfoot, not proved; and Eskimos, an obvious real group of people (Inuit, they don't typically like the name of Eskimo). GW is a name given to a phenomena because it sounds vaguely threatening and it was already warming anyway so with luck alarmists could blame everything including increased bigfoot and leprechaun sightings on our CO2 emissions.
    18 answers · Climate Change · 4 days ago
  • What are 5 consequences of climate change and why do they effect.?

    Best answer: Most of the suspected effects of global warming, good or bad, are speculative. But, even though some places with cold winters will get warmer, "perfect," warm climates already exist in lower latitudes. It seems to me that it would make more sense to move people to places with ideal climates, than to warm... show more
    Best answer: Most of the suspected effects of global warming, good or bad, are speculative. But, even though some places with cold winters will get warmer, "perfect," warm climates already exist in lower latitudes. It seems to me that it would make more sense to move people to places with ideal climates, than to warm an entire planet.

    One thing that we can be sure of Is that, as Earth warms, ice will melt, causing the sea level to rise. Many places that already have warm climates, such as Florida and many Pacific island nations will be under water.

    Another effect that according to historical and paleo records, is that some places will become wetter, and other places, such as Western North America, including Western Canada, will become dryer.

    Another effect will be that as glaciers melt, people will lose stable sources of drinking water.

    Some people will have you believe that warming will turn Earth into a lush paradise. Earth already is a lush paradise. Why mess with that?
    5 answers · Climate Change · 12 hours ago
  • Has the troll returned to the Global Warming section?

    Best answer: I did notice that it seemed the trolling was noticeably reduced but I haven't noticed the return yet, but I have had the flu so I a large troll might walk right on by me and I might miss it. While in the Army in Germany near the Essau River (Essau Fluss, spelling probably messed up) we were camped under a... show more
    Best answer: I did notice that it seemed the trolling was noticeably reduced but I haven't noticed the return yet, but I have had the flu so I a large troll might walk right on by me and I might miss it.

    While in the Army in Germany near the Essau River (Essau Fluss, spelling probably messed up) we were camped under a bridge which really was a nice place to camp but it was weird when people asked where you were staying and you had to tell them you lived under bridge. It really made you feel like a troll.

    I missed James's question / statement where he announced his retirement.
    He is still under the leader board as Pegminer last I checked so maybe James will join Peggy in retirement and a new James/Peggy will rise like a Phoenix. We'll just have to wait and see.
    9 answers · Climate Change · 3 days ago
  • How does saving paper save trees? It doesn t stop the industry from cutting more trees to make more paper.?

    I ve had this question for many years. I just don t get why people say "save paper, it saves trees".
    I ve had this question for many years. I just don t get why people say "save paper, it saves trees".
    5 answers · Conservation · 23 hours ago
  • Are global warming folks like Naomi Oreskes lying about Fred Singer?

    Best answer: It seems to me they are lying. For people like Oreskes, it seems more about their Cause than science and therefore very easy for them to justify lying. I remember decades ago the hype of second hand smoke and I remember dubious studies linking second hand smoke to cancer. It is out of my expertise but rather... show more
    Best answer: It seems to me they are lying. For people like Oreskes, it seems more about their Cause than science and therefore very easy for them to justify lying.

    I remember decades ago the hype of second hand smoke and I remember dubious studies linking second hand smoke to cancer. It is out of my expertise but rather than use science, the authors of some of those studies used emotional appeal and remind me a lot of alarmists crapola. I remember a long time ago reading something from Dr. Singer that seemed to point out the flawed studies. Personally, I hate tobacco and I think anyone that uses it is harming their health and increasing their chances for early death but that doesn't mean I have believe anything negative I read about it. I tend to believe that second hand smoke should increase the risk of cancer but the problem is earlier studies didn't really show that it did. I can't help but notice the irony since Gore's family wealth was largely based on tobacco until Algore learned carbon scams were more lucrative.
    8 answers · Climate Change · 3 days ago
  • I read several articles saying humans are going to use up all the resorces on earth, or most, within the next 50 years.?

    I doubt humans will make interstellar space crafts by then, why doesnt the world pass a law on having to many kids and such, just a fun question, what do you people think? Im 16 so i hope i dont live yo see the day we all die off
    I doubt humans will make interstellar space crafts by then, why doesnt the world pass a law on having to many kids and such, just a fun question, what do you people think? Im 16 so i hope i dont live yo see the day we all die off
    11 answers · Conservation · 4 days ago
  • Why are we worried about global warming when it says online we are still in an ice age?

    We have been in 5 ice ages over the last 2 billion years The first was like 2 billion years ago and lasted hundreds of millions of years The second one was 600 million years ago and lasted hundreds of millions of years Then we had another one about 300 million years ago lasting 100 million years And then... show more
    We have been in 5 ice ages over the last 2 billion years The first was like 2 billion years ago and lasted hundreds of millions of years The second one was 600 million years ago and lasted hundreds of millions of years Then we had another one about 300 million years ago lasting 100 million years And then another one 60 million years ago lasting 30 million years And then 2 million years ago, we had a MASSIVE ice age that peaked only 10,000 years ago! That means this is the EARLY part of a new ice age with millions of years left, right? So we could be in a retreat within an ice age pattern that isn’t over just yet. We might not even need to worry about global warming as ice age effects overtake human induced global warming with cold sun spots offsetting the greenhouse gases
    4 answers · Climate Change · 1 hour ago