Coal-fired electricity production is bad on so many levels.
You'd think humans could learn from history, but sadly, no, and no. The childhood asthma statistics alone should be enough. Coal burning power plants are a leading producer of asthma causing pollution. And then there's the mercury...and the mountain-top removal, and the waste products..and, well, when do we say "enough"?
- Log in to post comments
We can see two coal-fired powerplants from our deck (actually, our trees hide the closest but the most distant is clearly visible), and yet our local newspaper hates the very idea that the federal government thinks our fine particulate concentrations are too high, thus preventing more industry and development that would increase those levels even more.
When do we say "enough?"
When we run out.
when, on net, it's use is more costly than the alternative.
Yes, using coal is on net more costly than the alternatives.
Then it's use is zero.
Wow. More reality being denied...
By which party?
wow is right: coal is the cheapest energy
"....when, on net, it’s use is more costly than the alternative..."
That's a reasonable position to take Paul - as long as you factor in all the costs that have been externalised in order to make a valid comparison.
This article raises the issue of health care, which should be included. There are also things like the lost opportunity costs of degraded agricultural land (taken away by huge open cut mines), transportation costs, carbon pollution, acid rain, etc.
Here are a couple of recent studies which analyse the full impacts and undertake an accrual based accounting assessment of the full costs of coal.
http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_full%20cost%20…
http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
So given their findings, I guess you would be in favour of us moving away from using coal for energy then?
What is it with science-denying idiots, that they can't use apostrophes correctly?
Come on Paul, please tell us, what level of schooling did you achieve?
craig, apart from nasty wording and bla bla bla about apostrophes and other essential things like that, are you able to produce one sentence with clearly structured logical and informed substance or is your brain only full of strange moron bollocks?
Only if you ignore all the costs, freedy.
Then again, coal is going up in price whilst the renewables are dropping in cost.
Score 1 for Craig!
Mandas,
Each site should make that determination based on all factors.
Including effects on their fellow man.
Thanks for the links. I looked at the first briefly and will further review both.
I'll be interested to see how lifting the standard of living for the masses in china is treated.
#7: by you.
now, by observation, that wouldn't seem to be true now, would it?
maybe, we should try one more.
which costs more gasoline or propane?
Which costs more, coal or hydropower?
depends on the application and location
No, it doesn't.
It depends on whether you know the answer or not.
wow,
it is clear now,
thanks for your time.
paul, wowtroll is just an agw-robot programmed by some alarmist freak, not even badly coded. but what i enjoy with him that's so easy to bring him to his limits and teach him how he loses all duscussions. there one could improve the code which determines his reactions.
So you agree with me, then, Pauline.
Well done, you're learning, if slowly.
freddy,
that''s what I meant.
he is trapped in an imaginary box, apparently of his own making.
I don't often have the opportunity to observe these creatures.
What you meant where, Pauline?
You said it was clear. Since you didn't say what, I assumed it was something relevant to the post you were responding to. If you were not, then maybe you need to work on how you're supposed to communicate to people who aren't mind-readers or yourself.
I see, your tactic is reverting to its old M.O.
hey wowtroll bot, i will awake you now again from your sleeping state:
arctic sea extent is far below the preceding years, hein.
you have lost all arguments against the climate truth realists, as you are a mean unintelligent climate hallucinator
hahahahaha hahahahaha
Current Arctic sea ice extent is well below the 1980s average, and well below the 1990s average, and currently sitting at around the average for the 2000's.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
So current ice extent is *well* below the long-term average (just under 2 standard deviations from that average):
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Lost all arguments? Where?
So I guess that's another argumentative claim you've made and lost, freedy.
"freddy"'s gone all quiet about Arctic sea ice now that it is at exactly the same extent as it was for this week in 2012, which was the record year for ice melt.
Even without any detectable intelligence or education, he's figured out that his arctic ice "records" argument has fallen flat on its face.
Ironic isn't it? the antivaccine crowd has been screaming their heads off for nearly two decades about the nonexistent mercury and metals in vaccines causing autism,but have never said a word about coal.
craigtroll and wowbot: the june 4, 2013 value of arctic sea ice extent shows a 10-year record high: 11353125 sqkm
everybody in the public can see how furiously you hate the truth. you should be ashamed by your ignorance, poor education and occultistic partianship of failed warming
You've tried that lie once already, freedy.
You couldn't substantiate it for just one person, you're going to fail twice with two, aren't you.
Hell, you're not even going to try.
Average value for 4 June in the 1980s:
11895531
Average value for 4 June in the 1990s:
11679938
Average value for 4 June 1980-2009:
11615854
June 4 today: 11353125
craig, i already taught you that you should abstain from furious cherry picking with old data of old fashioned technology, your averages of past decades, 80s, 90s etc. are worth NOTHING = OLD SATELLITES WITH INSUFFICIENT TECHNOLOGY AND NON COMPARABLE DATA TO CURRENT TECHNOLOGY SINCE 2002.
YOU CHERRYSUCKER CRAIGTROLL DO WHAT WARMING HYSTERICS ALWAYS DO: YOU PUT DATA TOGETHER TO CHEAT THE PUBLIC WITH NOT EXISTING TRENDS
SHAME ON YOU
hockeystick manipulation is the same scientific fraud
"GLOBAL TEMPERATURES" don't go up since 15 years
haha hahaha hahahahaha ha ha ha HA!
the warming deceivers have lost their criminal battle to suck the public out for money, next station for fraudulents : jail
al gore sentenced soon to jail?
james hansen sentenced soon to jail?
phil jones sentenced soon to jail?
mike mann sentenced soon to jail?
schellnhuber sentenced soon to jail?
rahmstorf sentenced soon to jail?
wowtroll sentenced soon to jail?
craigtroll sentenced soon to jail?
mandastroll sentenced soon to jail?
I HOPE SO, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS SOON as the damages of your rotten warming ideology to economy and society are SO CATASTROPHIC!!!!
craigtroll, the only thing you really can manage is how you vomit yor nasty warming propaganda over and over again
you never face critical argument, no, you just vomit your nasty propaganda again and again, you are not able to do anything else: just vomiting again and again your nasty deceiving warming propaganda, and you feel even bad with your nasty propaganda
"“GLOBAL TEMPERATURES” don’t go up since 15 years"
What didn't go up since 15 years?
(also, what age are you? 13? 'cos you still haven't finished school)
wowtrollbot, any susbstance?
you failed once more in all dimensions, no wonder as you being a deperate warming troll without hope, you loser
Yes, plenty, but you're not able to answer, are you.
What "don't go up since [sic] 15 years"?
Put it this way, thalodomide-child, you don't know what global temperature is.
So you cannot make any claims about it.
wowtroll, nobody knows "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" as it is not reliably defined
you have again lost the discussion
"nobody knows “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” as it is not reliably defined"
It is defined..
You can't really have been said to have lost the discussion, because you never found it in the first place.
Since you don't know what GLOBAL TEMPERATURE is, you cannot claim anything about it.
Since others DO know what GLOBAL TEMPERATURE is, they CAN claim things about it.
wowbot, you are one of the greatest idiots on the planet, since you pretend to know things which nobody knows, and blame others what they know or don't know something without having any knowledge or information of the persons about which you produce absurd assumptions.
in one of my companies a special department maintains all temperature record data from the ghcn database and follows closely all manipulations of giss, noaa and hadcrut of the temperature measurements around the gobe.
i would never allow any of my hr departments to employ such a low performer like you, wowtroll, craigtoll or mandastroll.
you have really no idea what a deplorable performance you deliver here? you are such a shame for your parents!
wowtroll, you never eject anything of subsance, only cheap shit with copy and paste. are you completely unable to phrase a sentence on your own? give it a try that we have something to laugh
You don't know what GLOBAL TEMPERATURE is, you cannot make any statements about what it's doing.
Yet you continue to do so.
wowtroll
You don’t know what GLOBAL TEMPERATURE is, you cannot make any statements about what it’s doing.
Yet you continue to do so.
You are not very intelligent
Is there ANY cognition going on in that infantile pinhead of yours?
YOU don't know what GLOBAL TEMPERATURE is, therefore you cannot make any claims on what it is doing.
no wowtroll, in your head there Is NO cognition going on in that infantile pinhead of yours?
I'll try even smaller thoughts to see if they fit in that pint sized tin of mush in your brain case.
Do you know what GLOBAL TEMPERATURE is?
Yes or no.
no, nobody knows, it's not defined, basta
So no, you DON'T know what GLOBAL TEMPERATURE is.
Now, here's the next tiny bite-sized chunk of question you need to answer.
Have you made claims about what the GLOBAL TEMPERATURE is doing?
Yes or no.
there is a chapter on "temperature" in wikipedia
there is a chapter on "america" in wikipedia
there is a chapter on "meter" in wikipedia
there is a chapter on "new york" in wikipedia
THERE IS NO CHAPTER ON "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" IN WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHY????????
WHAT IS "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE"??????????????
Here,gain, is the next tiny bite-sized chunk of question you need to answer.
Have you made claims about what the GLOBAL TEMPERATURE is doing?
Yes or no.
wow, no need to answer YOU. you never answer any question you don't like. you are just a nasty brat without any manners, a completely wrong perception of your own standing. i have repeatedly asked you on a defiinition of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" and you are unable to provide one. you only produce junk.
so again the question: what is the definition of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE"???????
why don't you dare to give a meaningful answer?
No, there's no need to answer me, but if you're not going to answer me and do not consider that an answer in itself, then I have no need to answer you nor for that to be considered an answer in itself.
Global Temperatures...AKA Average Global Temperature freddy.
Eamon, thank you for trying to answer my question.
When I enter in the Wikipedia search line: global temperature
i am autonatically redirected to the following wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature
with the title
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Climate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Global temperature)
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
In a subchapter of this page there is a mentioning of "global temperature" without providing a further link for explanation:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Increases in greenhouse gases, such as by volcanic activity, can increase the global temperature and produce an interglacial. Suggested causes of ice age periods include the positions of the continents, variations in the Earth's orbit, changes in the solar output, and volcanism
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
When I enter "Average Global Temperature" in the wipikedia search line (the term you suggested), i get the following result:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Search results
For search options, see Help:Searching.
Content pages
Multimedia
Help and Project pages
Everything
Advanced
Results 1–20 of 3,366 for Average Global Temperature
The page "Average Global Temperature" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.
For search help, please visit Help:Searching.
Temperature record (redirect from Global average temperature)
The temperature record shows the fluctuations of the temperature of the atmosphere ... (TLT), UAH find a global average trend since 1978 of + ...
11 KB (1,568 words) - 00:03, 14 March 2013
Instrumental temperature record (redirect from Average surface temperature)
instrumental temperature record shows fluctuations of the temperature of the global ... evidence of an average global temperature increase in ...
52 KB (7,057 words) - 22:58, 19 May 2013
Global warming (section Observed temperature changes)
Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected ...
157 KB (21,810 words) - 04:38, 6 June 2013
Attribution of recent climate change (redirect from Attribution of global warming)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures ...
102 KB (13,148 words) - 14:40, 6 April 2013
The Summer That Never Was
For the year (1816) in which severe summer climate abnormalities caused average global temperatures to decrease drastically see Year ...
2 KB (268 words) - 21:10, 22 March 2013
Climate (redirect from Global temperature)
........
........
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
hence, neither "global temperature" nor "average global temperature" are dealt with in detail in wikipedia, like so many other topics, and are not explicitly explained there.
Do you know of a unanimously accepted, reliable definition of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" in any scientifically acceptable source, e.g. an IPCC document, a scientific paper or textbook, or whatever other source from official sites like WMO, Met Office, NOAA, or whatever?
Eamon, the wikipedia chapter on "Instrmental temperature record" mentions the term "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" but does not provide a clear definition of the term and a clear definition of how "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" is unanimously calculated:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Instrumental temperature record
The instrumental temperature record shows fluctuations of the temperature of the global land surface and oceans. This data is collected from several thousand meteorological stations, Antarctic research stations and satellite observations of sea-surface temperature. The longest-running temperature record is the Central England temperature data series, that starts in 1659. The longest-running quasi-global record starts in 1850.[1]
...
Global records databases
The Hadley Centre maintains the HadCRUT4, a monthly-mean global surface temperature analysis,[2] and NASA maintains GISTEMP, another monthly-mean global surface temperature analysis, for the period since 1880.[3] The two analyses differ in the details of how they obtain temperature values on a regular grid from the network of irregularly spaced observation sites; thus, their results for global and regional temperature differ slightly. The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) data base contains historical temperature, precipitation, and pressure data for thousands of land stations worldwide.[4] Also, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), which has "the world's largest active archive"[5] of surface temperature measurements, maintains a global temperature record since 1880.[6]
Calculating the global temperature
Deriving a reliable global temperature from the instrument data is not easy because the instruments are not evenly distributed across the planet, the hardware and observing locations have changed over the years, and there has been extensive land use change (such as urbanization) around some of the sites.
The calculation needs to filter out the changes that have occurred over time that are not climate related (e.g. urban heat islands), then interpolate across regions where instrument data has historically been sparse (e.g. in the southern hemisphere and at sea), before an average can be taken.
There are three main datasets showing analyses of global temperatures, all developed since the late 1970s: the HadCRUT analysis is compiled in a collaboration between the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research,[2][3], independent analyses largely based on the same raw data are produced using different levels of interpolation by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and by the National Climatic Data Center.[7] These datasets are updated on a monthly basis and are generally in close agreement.
In the late 1990s, the Goddard team used the same data to produce a global map of temperature anomalies to illustrate the difference between the current temperature and average temperatures prior to 1950 across every part of the globe.[8]
...........
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
hence, there is obviously no unanimous definition of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" in wikipedia??
Is there some definition anywhere else, e.g. in an IPCC report?
coby, i recommend to you to author an article on your blog titled:
"How to argue to a climate skeptic why there is no definition of GLOBAL TEMPERATURE"
There’s no need to answer me, but if you’re not going to answer me and do not consider that an answer in itself, then I have no need to answer you nor for that to be considered an answer in itself.
But, because you're a hypocrite and a complete moron, you will continue to try and do so.
so i conclude that nobody of the climate hysterics is able to provide a definition of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" and cannot explain why the IPCC has never defined this term.
i will now try to get a reaction from stoat or real "climate scientists". thereafter you will be confronted with the results which will be very embarrassing for you, especially wowtroll
"freddy", why are you making that conclusion when you haven't even bothered to read what the IPCC does or does not do?
In particular, seeing as the IPCC explains quite clearly what "global temperature" is all about in Ch.3 of WGI of AR4, it would seem that if there are any "hysterics" here who have embarrassed themselves, it would be yourself with your characteristically ignorant assertions about stuff you have not even the slightest beginning of an inkling about.
well, craigtroll the ar4 wg1 chapter 3 completely ignorant idiot:
do you consider THE FOLLOWNG from AR3 WGI, chapter 3, as a definition of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE"?????
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
3.2.2.4Land and Sea Combined Temperature: Global, Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere and Zonal Means
Gridded data sets combining land-surface air temperature and SST anomalies have been developed and maintained by three groups: CRU with the UKMO Hadley Centre in the UK (HadCRUT3; Brohan et al., 2006) and NCDC (Smith and Reynolds, 2005) and GISS (Hansen et al., 2001) in the USA. Although the component data sets differ slightly (see Sections 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.3) and the combination methods also differ, trends are similar. Table 3.3 provides comparative estimates of linear trends. Overall warming since 1901 has been a little less in the NCDC and GISS analysis than in the HadCRUT3 analysis. All series indicate that the warmest five years have occurred after 1997, although there is slight disagreement about the ordering. The HadCRUT3 data set shows 1998 as warmest, while 2005 is warmest in NCDC and GISS data. Thus the year 2005, with no El Niño, was about as warm globally as 1998 with its major El Niño effects. The GISS analysis of 2005 interpolated the exceptionally warm conditions in the extreme north of Eurasia and North America over the Arctic Ocean (see Figure 3.5). If the GISS data for 2005 are averaged only south of 75°N, then 2005 is cooler than 1998. In addition, there were relatively cool anomalies in 2005 in HadCRUT3 in parts of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, where sea ice coverage (see Chapter 4) has not declined.
Table 3.3. Linear trends (°C per decade) in hemispheric and global combined land-surface air temperatures and SST. Annual averages, along with estimates of uncertainties for CRU/UKMO (HadCRUT3), were used to estimate trends. For CRU/UKMO, global annual averages are the simple average of the two hemispheres. For NCDC and GISS the hemispheres are weighted as in Section 3.2.2.1. Trends are estimated and presented as in Table 3.2. R2 is the squared trend correlation (%). The Durbin Watson D-statistic (not shown) for the residuals, after allowing for first-order serial correlation, never indicated significant positive serial correlation, and plots of the residuals showed virtually no long-range persistence.
$$$$$$$$$$$$££$£$$£¥£$£££
Or something else?
SO WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE in your beloved ar4, CRAIGTROLL???????!!!!!
explanation required!
OR, craigtroll, the low-intellect warming troll who has not even an idea of what a DEFINITION IS, is THE FOLLOWING from a4 a definition of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE":
$$$$$$$$£££££$$$$$$$$$$
3.2Changes in Surface Climate: Temperature
3.2.1Background
Improvements have been made to both land surface air temperature and sea surface temperature (SST) databases during the six years since the TAR was published. Jones and Moberg (2003) revised and updated the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) monthly land-surface air temperature record, improving coverage particularly in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) in the late 19th century. Further revisions by Brohan et al. (2006) include a comprehensive reassessment of errors together with an extension back to 1850. Under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), daily temperature (together with precipitation and pressure) data for an increasing number of land stations have also become available, allowing more detailed assessment of extremes (see Section 3.8), as well as potential urban influences on both large-scale temperature averages and microclimate. A new gridded data set of monthly maximum and minimum temperatures has updated earlier work (Vose et al., 2005a). For the oceans, the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) has been extended by blending the former COADS with the UK’s Marine Data Bank and newly digitised data, including the US Maury Collection and Japan’s Kobe Collection. As a result, coverage has been improved substantially before 1920, especially over the Pacific, with further modest improvements up to 1950 (Worley et al., 2005; Rayner et al., 2006). Improvements have also been made in the bias reduction of satellite-based infrared (Reynolds et al., 2002) and microwave (Reynolds et al., 2004; Chelton and Wentz, 2005) retrievals of SST for the 1980s onwards. These data represent ocean skin temperature (Section 3.2.2.3), not air temperature or SST, and so must be adjusted to match the latter. Satellite infrared and microwave imagery can now also be used to monitor land surface temperature (Peterson et al., 2000; Jin and Dickinson, 2002; Kwok and Comiso, 2002b). Microwave imagery must allow for variations in surface emissivity and cannot act as a surrogate for air temperature over either snow-covered (Peterson et al., 2000) or sea-ice areas. As satellite-based records are still short in duration, all regional and hemispheric temperature series shown in this section are based on conventional surface-based data sets, except where stated.
Despite these improvements, substantial gaps in data coverage remain, especially in the tropics and the SH, particularly Antarctica. These gaps are largest in the 19th century and during the two world wars. Accordingly, advanced interpolation and averaging techniques have been applied when creating global data sets and hemispheric and global averages (Smith and Reynolds, 2005), and advanced techniques have also been used in the estimation of errors (Brohan et al., 2006), both locally and on a global basis (see Appendix 3.B.1). These errors, as well as the influence of decadal and multi-decadal variability in the climate, have been taken into account when estimating linear trends and their uncertainties (see Appendix 3.A). Estimates of surface temperature from ERA-40 reanalyses have been shown to be of climate quality (i.e., without major time-varying biases) at large scales from 1979 (Simmons et al., 2004). Improvements in ERA-40 over NRA arose from both improved data sources and better assimilation techniques (Uppala et al., 2005). The performance of ERA-40 was degraded prior to the availability of satellite data in the mid-1970s (see Appendix 3.B.5).
$$$££$££££$$£££¥£$£££
NO, THIS IS NO DEFINITION OF "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE", craigtroll
specify you, what the definition is!
Cutting and pasting isn't the same thing as reading, "freddy", although if you keep looking, you might find the following:
'nuff said?
no
"no", what?
"no", you don't understand the IPCC?
I'm sure nobody would be surprised.
It's surprising enough that you have so far managed to feed yourself and stay out of the way of moving vehicles.
Having said that, this state of affairs could be thanks to you being in receipt of some very competent care, no doubt paid for by the taxpayer or a big insurance payout.
It's more "NOOOOOOOO!!!!" since you've just ripped him a new metaphorical asshole.
The moron makes statements about things he absolutely doesn't understand and assumes that everyone else is doing it to, otherwise he'd have to acknowledge he's scum.
I miss crakar.
Heck, even snowman had better grasp of reality.
I accept from you climate hysteric guys that you are unable to answer my question why there is no meaningful, reliable, generally accepted definition of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE"
but i will confront you now with an easier question, which you might be able - given your level of intellect - to tackle:
can you explain why an honest, excellently informed scientist gets hooligan-like low-primitive aggression from losers like wow, craig et al. when he dares to criticize "climatology" for its most obvious flaws, i.e. that the "specialists" there are not even able the core measures of their ideology church, e.g. the "GLOBAL TEMPERATUTE", which is at the heart of the warmists religious belief?????
explanation required
kaitroll: explanation required
wow, i acknowledge that somebody like you is incapable to admit the superiorty of his / her opponent in a discussion.
you should better focus more on the flaws of the so called "climate science" which escape totally your comprehension.
you are not even able to tell me why there is no definition of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" in wikipedia, you poor underperformer
Does anybody know here wether MetOffice/CRU uses the same raw data as NOAA and GISS to calculate a "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE"???
Hansen's GISS says "The current [global temperature -f] analysis uses satellite observed nightlights to identify measurement stations located in extreme darkness and adjust temperature trends of urban and peri-urban stations for non-climatic factors, verifying that urban effects on analyzed global change are small"
Does anybody know whether NOAA or MetOffice/CRU adopt a similar method to detect urban heat islands?
to the deep thinker at #20
see here
http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2013/06/02/the-pro…
arctic sea ice extent at 10-year maximum extent (on june 15):
2004: 10806250
2005: 10552656
2006: 10379844
2007: 10626250
2008: 10664531
2009: 10813906
2010: 10153594
2011: 10062969
2012: 10200000
2013: 10939063
terribly bad news for warming hysterics: please inform al gore and warn him that he should not tell lies about record melting arctic sea ice: IT IS THE OPPOSITE: A NEW RECORD!!!!!!!
hallelujah, there is no global warming and coal is a wonderful source of energy which enables general welfare in many countries which cannot afford the idiotic eco-lefty "sustained" expensive and totally unreliable "renewables", which provide dooms days for dying societies in undescribable decadence of the wowtrolls, mandastrolls etc.
freddy, freddy, freddy,
You have it all wrong.
Didn't you get the memo advising that the unusually cool summer this year is caused by lack of ice?
Hey, you can't make this stuff up!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130326-arctic-sea-ice-g…
And apparently cold everywhere is now the signature of global warming!
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Like I've said, you can't make this stuff up.
Like a dog returning to its own vomit, "freddy" is straight back onto, "why there is no definition of “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE”", despite having already been shown where to find the information he admits he lacks.
And then he doubles-down on his already record-breaking stupidity by talking about Arctic ice, a rapidly-vanishing commodity, as explained by this graphic:
http://haveland.com/share/arctic-death-spiral-1979-201301.png
Also note that if you point to a 20 year trend showing warming, it's refused by this idiotic parrot, but when it comes to a 10 year "trend" (that he's probably taken as "first point to last point, pick two points that 'fit'") that can be claimed to show cooling, he's all for such a short term bullshitting.
wowtrollparrot, so you hate the recent 10-year trend?
WHY??????
explanation required, don't be lazy
craigtroll, always wrong, your self deception:
€$£¥£$££¥
freddy” is straight back onto, “why there is no definition of “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE””, despite having already been shown where to find the information he admits he lacks.
€£$£¥££$£
YOU ARE LACKING THE INFORMATION WHICH YOU PRETEND TO HAVE
listen, craigtroll, some elementary logic to somebody so terribly limited in mental capacity and logical thinking:
if somebody tells me something lke: "the global temperature is the average temperature of the globe", or similar self-complacent idiotisms of your sources, i diagnose low-intellect impairment disease with progressing inability of what the individual has been told. the poor individual, like wow or craigtroll, is even so low in basic information that he does not even know of what belongs to a decent definition. before you vomit your bullshit here you should first learn the significance of elemntary terms and better logical thinking
also the mastering of a second language would help to improve the level of your brain capability, if it's not too late because of senile degradation
well, at least we know that the threshold for significance for wow is 20 years
progress freddy, progress
slow, but progress
Wrong.
WMO decides it, but you can also calculate an appropriate interval from looking at the data and discovering when the noise becomes less than the signal.
Generally the absolute minimum is 17 years, but that's only if the period is particularly placid. After 30 years you get a noise floor less than the expected trend.
Which if you'd informed yourself AT ALL on the subject, you would have known.
wowtroll pulled out: "... bla bla bla ... Generally the absolute minimum is 17 years, but that’s only if the period is particularly placid ... bla bla bla ...."
... and there was some rain or snowfall, otherwise it is 42 years ...
hahaha, THIS IS WOWTROLL SCIENCE AS UGLY AS IT CAN BE
except, it was your comment that was being discussed, not what I understand or know.
and, wowtroll, you pretend that you have heard that there is a WMO?
have you ever heard of a definition of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" from WMO??
ah, you are not interested because you don't consider this relevant? nothing is relevant to you except your limited intellectual climate level
It can't have been my comment since I never said that the threshold for significance is 20 years.
Unless you're making shit up.
Unpossible.
However, in your quest to deny reality, your inability to read stands you in good stead, Pauline.
wow,
that is true (#92), of course, because you are the master -
at saying and not saying, at once, everything and nothing.
Oh fuck off you tiresome little twat. What I said is there in black and white.
When "freddy" and Pauline talk about a "10-year trend", would that be the trend as illustrated in the following graphic:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/picture1.jpg?w=400&h=256
?
Yes wow, in black and white, a series of straw men drawn with letters.
Black and white letters.
And there's little Craig Thomas tugging on your pant leg saying "see, I can do it too! Just like the big kid's." ;-)
If your 10-year trend is something other than as displayed in the link I provided, please provide details.
Well, you mean freddys 10 year trend.
But, a quick review of freddy posts shows data points.
I did not see "trend" mentioned.
Well, Pauline, maybe you should get your eyes tested:
I want to know what trend he's talking about and whether it resembles the graphic I provided a link to.
And is not a 10 year period SHORTER than a 20 year one?
Pauline is a big baby who doesn't understand a fucking thing. Or at least pretends not to because they're a moronic little twat whose only care in the world is trolling people. Because he's a fucking arsehole.
"I did not see “trend” mentioned."
So where in my post did you see "significance" mentioned? Hmm?
Fucking moron.
Craig,
I stand corrected.
Wow #84.
"point to a 20 year trend showing warming"
Or are you once again saying and not saying everything and nothing.
Looked through that entire text of #105 and I couldn't even get all the letters of "significance", never mind in the right order and consecutive.
So, please, show where you see “significance” mentioned.
"I stand corrected."
Of course, your tirade will not abate and you will not learn to look things up before claiming them, will you.
After all, you've admitted you were wrong, what do we expect you to do? Do better as well??!?!?!?!?
Fucking moron.
I mentioned a TREND.
FUCK ALL about significance. That was YOUR invention, you retard.
wowtroll, why is there no definition of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" in wikipedia? you always try to escape the questions which you are unable to answer as these questions represent dangers to your warming belief and compromise your climate church
Fucking moron.
Climate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Global temperature)
wowtroll, what a nauseating performance you again deliver here, in an outrageous, arrogant, idiotic way
you searched for "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" in the wiki search line, got redirected to an article titled "CLIMATE" and have the nastiness to misbehave as if this deplorable result of your primitive internet action has something to do with a definition of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE"?
go to a corner for a few hours and confess that you feel ashamed by your low performance and humble mental talents
Go look for the definition of "Idiocy" moron.
Go on, look it up on Wikipedia.
no!
That's because you're a fucking idiot, kaitroll.
coby, can you kick this sad four-year-old off this fucking place?
I mean, jesus fucking christ on a stick, look at his response!
"no!".
Frigging four year old, and an under-developed one at that.
"Wowwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnaaaaaaaah! Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Coby! These guys aren't being nice to me! I am Wow and I demand that anyone I don't like be dismissed from any place I like to comment. Since this is my entire life, I can't have things go so poorly for me. I insist you protect me Coby! How dare you let these meanies treat me this way."
-Wow
(In other words, Wow, shut your whiny ass pie hole. Nobody gives a shit. In fact, since nobody respects your opinion, they all probably think it's as funny as I do. Ditto for your bitching to Tim at Deltoid. You could just go away. Nobody would miss you. I had you pegged as an arrogant douche, I just didn't know you were a gigantic pussy as well.)
Looks like "freddy" missed it the first time.
Here it is again, and I'll type it very slowly for you this time, "freddy", to improve your chances of comprehension:
Seems perfectly clear to me.
bill, no, I've not said that at all.
However, it is a version of reality that you'd prefer to be true, so you pretend it is.
In other words: you're a lying asshole.
In a battle of wits, you turn up unarmed and then Black Knight the result into a "win for the team!".
No, the fuckwit is TOLD what the global average temperature is and insists this isn't the case. WHINES that it isn't defined on wikipedia. Claims this "proves" it isn't defined ANYWHERE. Then when told to check idiocy on Wikipedia (it isn't defined there, but redirects to "idiot") screams like an infant "NO!".
Then YOU come along and, because you're a moronic twat like kai, pauline and the other anti-reality retards out there and rewrite events to fit your personal preferences, truth be hanged.
Look loser, you can call me all the names you like. Don't care. Because they aren't backed up in reality. Whereas, my take on you has basis in fact all over this blog and others. But nice try. And I don't recall bringing up global average temps. Only your whiny, bitchy, childish request that someone be banned because you don't like them. You have a history of this. Like me to point out some examples?
Let me make it more clear...I don't defend anything anyone has said here other than myself. But you are being played and instead of shutting the fuck up about it, you bitch that others are hurting your feelings.
So, moronic twat? Sorry, no. Like "kai" "pauline" and the "other anti-reality retards"? Again, no (I don't even know who "kai" is, I guess the other would be Paul whoever and, as always, a good "retard" blast really boosts your case). And there is absolutely zero basis for that other than in your twisted reality. Evidence simply does not exist. Just assertion. As usual.
It isn't a battle of wits dumbass. You have too few of those for a true battle. Worst of all? I am not denying anything, so you can't fall back on that. To the contrary, as I have said before, I believe in AGW. I just think you are an idiot with little life outside the blogosphere, and little respect within it. 'sfunny how few come to your defense when this is pointed out. Crickets.
Go back upstairs Sally. Your mom will make it all better with some hugs. If even she can tolerate your tired act.
Wow.
What really is your point?
Bill comes as close as anything I've seen to date.
Btw, "denying" is the wowsers favorite line, but still has not defined what is being denied.
The Greenhouse Effect. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 is increasing. The increase is a result of human activity. Increased CO2 is causing increased retention of heat. That heat is heating up the planet.
These are all facts which the likes of "freddy" like to deny. We call their incompetent observations, "denialism" for that obvious reason.
craigtroll, a short analysis of your recent assertions:
craigtroll said: "The Greenhouse Effect"
you mean a real greenhouse where tomatoes grow when it's cold outside the greenhouse. the greenhouse effect is due to blocking convection, this keeps the air warm within the greenhouse
craigtroll said: "CO2 is a greenhouse gas"
WRONG, as CO2 does not block convection!!! you must learn this, craigtroll
craigtroll: "CO2 is increasing"
MORE SCIENTIFIC PRECISION NEEDED TO SUPPORT THIS ASSERTION!!! where and when is CO2 increasing, according to your assertion
craigtroll: "The increase is a result of human activity"
SCIENTIFIC PROOF REQUIRED. please cite two papers
craigtroll: "Increased CO2 is causing increased retention of heat"
SCIENTIFIC PROOF REQUIRED. please cite two papers
craigtroll: "That heat is heating up the planet"
SCIENTIFIC PROOF REQUIRED. please cite two papers
listen, craigtroll, just listing primitive assertions has nothing to do with science!!! you are a dreaming dancer devoid of a sense of reality
Oh dear, "freddy" thinks the Greenhouse Effect is about convection.
Here's a hint, "freddy": The Greenhouse Effect is a well-documented physical process that isn't related to convection or glasshouses.
And I see you are in denial of the rest of what I wrote.
Here's another hint: science says it's true. All *you* have is denial. Denial based on an abysmal level of ignorance and self-delusion.
All you've done in your last comment is demonstrate that you have no understanding of the topic. You are looking very, very stupid right now, "freddy".
We have plenty of evidence that freddy doesn't think at all. Ever.
Bill, you can call me loser because that makes you feel better, but I will still call you out on your idiotic bullshit, even though that makes you feel worse.
Live with it.
Craig, apparently the acceptable answer to kaitroll's petulant demands is:
no!
pauline, you've no clue what ANYONE writes. You just write that script in your own head then play that when the bits you're not saying are going on.
Insanity.
Pure and simple insanity.
Wow just keeps making my point.
Here's some more rope.
Keep going.
Freddy,
Perhaps we should focus on one of Craig's claims.
It is claimed by Craig that CO2 is increasing.
Do you believe this?
no!!
PaulinMI
I don't believe anything craigtroll, wowtroll or other warming trolls because i have nothing in common with these individuals:
1. i always stand rockhard on scientific grounds, whereas the warming hysterics only speculate with their consensus of knowing nothing for sure (the IPCC said: the climate is a chaotic, non-linear process whose future cannot be predicted: i agree for once with this statemen from the IPCC). the hysterics have no clue about cloud dynamics etc.
2. i have no predefined political spin or any other bias in the climate question, wheras the craigtrolls, wowtrolls, mandastrolls etc. always have either a green-socialist-liberal basic conviction and interpret everything in their brains from this perspective
3. warming hysterics normally are not very intelligent, educated and well informed, were poor pupils as a rule in their school classes, whereas i know if a lot of great scientists who detest climate hysterisms as a product of middle class brains and who try to keep a great distance to these environments
the warming speculation is an offense in itself to any more intelligent person since its main message is so disgustingly primitive: "IT WILL BECOME WARMER", similarly primitive as "I AM HUNGRY", "I WILL GO TO THE TOILET", etc.
oh, you all primitive warming hysterics: PLEASE SPARE US WITH YOUR UTTER PRIMITIVE SLOGANS: "ITS GETTING WARMER"
this is no science, its sayings from everyday majnstream life, like: how are, i am fine, how will the weather be tomorrow, it will be raining, thereafter maybe a little bit warmer, then colder.
you must understand, craigtroll, wowtroll, that your central message is of utmost primitivity: WARMER
how thrilling, you losers of a decent life, without ethics and morale
pauline, you haven't GOT a point.
You can't read. It's plainly obvious, but for the peanut gallery:
#84: Also note that if you point to a 20 year trend showing warming, it’s refused by this idiotic parrot, but when it comes to a 10 year “trend” (that he’s probably taken as “first point to last point, pick two points that ‘fit’”) that can be claimed to show cooling, he’s all for such a short term bullshitting.
#87: well, at least we know that the threshold for significance for wow is 20 years
#92: It can’t have been my comment since I never said that the threshold for significance is 20 years.
#103: So where in my post did you see “significance” mentioned? Hmm?
#105: Wow #84. “point to a 20 year trend showing warming”
#106: Looked through that entire text of #105 and I couldn’t even get all the letters of “significance”, never mind in the right order and consecutive.
You cannot read.
Plainly evidenced, pauline.
"I don’t believe anything"
Denial.
wowtroll is ALWAYS wrong:
wow tried to express something like: ah, you don't believe, so you are a denier
how low is your degree of stupidity really, wowtroll? you are even a shame for your warming troll peers, who already suffer from a very low average intellectual level, but now you achieve new until now unknown low intellectual levels: "you do not believe, therefore you are a denier", that's what the priest preaches his sheeps to follow the warming sheperds
there is a category in science which is totally eclipsed by climate warming hysterics: scientific proof. climate church followers hate this term because it is genuinely strange to religiously-minded subjects without knowledge like them. these poor guys have to rely on beliefs! hahahahaha
"wowtroll is ALWAYS wrong:"
As long as you get to decide what wrong is, right?
"wow tried to express something like: ah, you don’t believe, so you are a denier"
Yes, something like that. In the same way as levitating is like matter disintegration. I.e. not at all.
Your entire basis was "I DO NOT". Denial. No positive position, no genuine skepticism (since after proofs, skepticism goes away. contrarianism is not skepticism).
Fucks sake.
Coby, fuck you sideways with a porcupine.
Tied to a plank.
Fuck your blog, fuck yourself, fuck everything.
YOU do the fucking work here. Or if you don't give a shit, why the fuck should I?
wowtroll, please try to contain your mental state better controlled. your outrageous outbursts because of your inability to provide an intelligent explanation of why there is no chapter on "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" and a reliable definition of this in wikipedia, despite the fact that your warming brother bill connolley censured for a long time your warming bible wikipedia, drives you to unexplicable explosions of misbehavior and falsehood.
start to face the reality by trying to be honest to understand why there is no definition in wikipedia of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE": BECAUSE THERE IS NONE, YOU FOOL.
THERE IS NO RELIABLE DEFINITION OF "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" in wikipedia, BECAUSE THERE IS NONE EXISTING, you loser. this would have been the answer to my question, which you and craigtroll were totally unable to give.
you two, wow craig, are terriible underperformers without any significant skills in civilized argueing. you better shut up and troll away
Wow,
here is some more rope
I hope it can pass through to the alternate universe you live in.
freddy,
on CO2 levels in the atmosphere -
"no"
I know of no credible source that agrees with your position.
If you can not acknowledge that CO2 is increasing, then there would be no point to continue any sort of discussion.
paulinmi, you had asked me whether i "believe" that co2 is increasing. indeed i don't "believe" anything. however i consider the measurements of increasing co2 levels from mauna loa as correct. i am missing co2 concentration measurements from many more points around the globe except the few where measurements are taken.
fair enough, believe is probably a poor choice,
glad you agree on the mauna loa data, you had me worried for a moment.
How about Cape Grim, "freddy", did you miss that one?
http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/
How many of the other sites where CO2 is measured have you missed?
CO2 is increasing. It's an observed fact.
none, but many many sites where co2 is not measured, eg south pole, north pole, summit in greenland, new york, beijing, london, capetown, a few sites in the sahara, etc. etc.
in addition i do not only want comparable measurements going back a few decades, but centuries back.
i also want co2 data from various heights above sea level: every 500m from surface to 50km above the surface
data coverage like this would be real science, but you laymen are already satisfied by gut-feeling and concensus
freddy @ 61, 62
Do you know of a unanimously accepted, reliable definition of “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” in any scientifically acceptable source
You will like not find it for the same reason you won't find a definition of "Global Average Heights of 4-years olds", because it is so trivial that it does not need definition.
"freddy", CO2 is a well-mixed gas up the atmospheric column. If you want to know this, you can go and look for the information.
What I suggest, "freddy", is that you inform yourself of these basic, easily-obtained facts, *before* coming on here to entertain us with your ignorance and lack of understanding.
...and if you want to know what CO2 concentrations were in the past, where are you going to look? How is this information going to be obtained? Who is doing this work?
Here's clue: dimwit ex-TV-weathermen who run crank-blogs on the internet aren't doing the research that produces the information you admit you lack. That research is being done by scientists. You can continue to hang around crank blogs like Anthony Watts' WUWT and thus remain uninformed, or you can read the published research of professional scientists and become better informed.
Your choice.
craigtroll bleatherskite, instead of bullshitting uninformed nonsense ("you admit .bla bla bla .. lacking data .... bla ...") you should have mentioned some papers with the information. but you: zero, zero. shouting around, nasty wording, no substance. YOU are the uninformed idiot.
eamon, nice try, but WRONG, pure nonsense:
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€$$$$$$$$££
a definition of “Global Average Heights of 4-years olds”
€€£$£¥££$££££$££¥¥£$££¥¥£££¥¥
or similar trivia is not comparable to a definition of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" since the measurement of height is trivial and does not need further mentioning, whereas the method of determination of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" by the three who try it (noaa, giss, metoffice/cru) is completely different and mentioning of a reliably and unanimously adopted methodology is a mandatory part of such a definition of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE"
Oh dear, "freddy" is so deep in Denial that he keeps missing this:
Everybody else understands, "freddy", so perhaps a bit of self-criticism is in order here, seeing as you are almost unique in your inability to appreciate these simply-spelled-out facts.
"freddy" wants to deny that CO2 is
a. measured
and
b. well-mixed
To do this, "freddy" has to deny the work of scientists, such as Keeling (eg, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JZ068i013p03899/full ) in 1963, the numerous subsequent research, and the recent work that confirms Keeling's using satellites, for example, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL024165/full.
Of course, for people like "freddy" who are clearly too dim to read science texts, we can find pictures on the internet that are suitable for his trailer-park level of intellect:
http://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/visualization/googleearth/
Unfortunately, the result of all this research, all these plain facts that fly in the face of "freddy's" denial really leave "freddy'"'s nonsense looking like...er...well, the nonsense that it plainly is.
craigtroll, your interpretation of what i want is ridicolously wrong. the data i mentioned are missing, and you ignorant and climate church faithful don't even know in our ubiquitous stupidity. you are unable to proof what you maintain, therefore you act here only as lobbyist of the green-left side of your political bias and are far away from any scientific behavior. in addition you all to evidently and in an extemely primitive manner try to avoid to admit why the climate is unable to define its most holy value, the "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" in a clear, unanimous way and stop the incredibly unscientific situation that everybody who wants it defines his own version of a "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE". this is no science, but junk methodology. and you are a fanatic fellow of this failing pseudo-science.
craigtroll, your "text" on global temperature
€€€€€£$£¥$
There is no single thermometer measuring the global temperature. Instead, individual thermometer measurements taken every day at several thousand stations over the land areas of the world are combined with thousands more measurements of sea surface temperature taken from ships moving over the oceans to produce an estimate of global average temperature every month
€£$£¥£££¥£$££
immediately shows that you are really handicapped to understand my criticism of a lack of a unanimous and generally accepted definition of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" which allows to reproduce its value from the observation data.
in order to enlighten you in your darkness, although this seems to be impossible, some pieces of information which you maybe are able to digest: the three publicly well known institutes from the climate church (noaa, giss, metoffice/cru) which produce a "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" have completely different procedures to calculate a land surface temperature and a sea surface temperature. in addition their resp. methods to combine land and sea surface temperature to a hemispheric and global mean differ from each other. as a consequence also the values of the three "GLOBAL TEMPERATURES" differ from each other. this is extremely strange as all three are based on existing observatonal data.
by the way, i calculate my own global temperature from the ghcn database of noaa. i assume that you or any other climate church fellow here is completely unable to do the same because of severe lacks of required scientific and computer skills. the only thing you are able to do is copy/paste and to believe what others have predigested for you.
Yes, different procedures that allow us to compare the results obtained by those different methods. If they were all the same, they might all be defeated by using the same faulty assumption(s). Using different methods enables us to see the effects of those differing assumptions. It's called science.
Your trailer-park opinions, on the other hand, are not science, they are simply the vapid mindless meanderings of the mental midget that you are.
Freddy@149
a definition of “Global Average Heights of 4-years olds”
or similar trivia is not comparable to a definition of “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” since the measurement of height is trivial and does not need further mentioning, whereas the method of determination of “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” by the three who try it (noaa, giss, metoffice/cru) is completely different and mentioning of a reliably and unanimously adopted methodology is a mandatory part of such a definition of “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE”
Actually Freddy, if you had thought about it, the measurement of height, whilst being trivial, needs a methodology - so that researchers can be sure they are comparing like-with-like. Were the kids measured standing up or lying down? Were kids from representative areas of their countries measured, or just those from convenient areas for the researchers to reach? However, as long as the methodology used in a study is the same for all measurements then the results are a useful measure of global average heights of 4-year-olds. Other researchers might use different methodologies, and so get different results, but that does not mean their research conflicts with that of others. It's all useful, as what is of interest is the average height, and the other information that can be extracted from the dataset - like regional differences.
The same holds for global temperature sets. As long as their internal methodologies are consistent, they are useful, and the dataset can certainly be used to extract an average global temperature.
eamon, no. your comparison with children height misses the decisive point, that the methodology is simple with a meter. you know this and behave like you would not know. shame on you. go and try to recap how giss, noaa, and phil jones calculate global temps and you will invest months to get close to the details of how they do it, and you will never which stations they have for a specific year of land or sea data, how they have corrected the data scarcely or not documented, extrapolate for a world of missing values in early years and vast regions of the planet. and you hypocrite behave as if this would be same as measuring heights of children with a meter. hahaha, you have really no clue how ridiculous your argument is????
you are fooling yourself, eamon, another defender of hysteric climate alarmism to deceive decent citizens
craigtroll, your text is abominably ridiculous and has nothing to with science:
€€€€€€€€€
Yes, different procedures that allow us to compare the results obtained by those different methods. If they were all the same, they might all be defeated by using the same faulty assumption(s). Using different methods enables us to see the effects of those differing assumptions. It’s called science
€€€€€€€€€€
what an incredible junk you again deliver. you have no clue what science is, what a definition is. you are an extemely primitive mainstream guy who misundersgands his inferior position as important, correct, wise. nothing of all of this. you are just a narcistic loser without qualification and knowledge
Freddy,
Do you have any scientific experience?
yes, of course, but you, craig, wow etc. obviously not at all
hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Freddy - what a retard!
mandas, that's all you are able to ouburst? very poor, but typical for envying want-be something
i AM a scientist, and you NOT, what a frustration for you. i have published a lot of original articles in peer-reviewed journals, given lectures on several universities, guided many students through their theses to doctorates. YOU ARE A SCIENTIFIC NOBODY, and i am scientist. so just shut up you bleatherskite and idiot.
Freddykaitroll, if you actually are a scientist, you sure are doing a good job at pretending to be an ideological hack.
I remember, not so long ago, when you again accused other scientists of something they didn't do. As you stated:
"In other words the guys from CRU admit, that one cannot reproduce their calculation of “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE”, version MetOffice/CRU."
All because you could not understand some rather basic English:
"Why can I not produce the hemispheric and global averages for HadCRUT4 and HadSST3 that are given here?
Both these are ensemble datasets. This means that there are 100 realizations of each in order to calculate the possible assumptions involved in the structure of the various components of the error (see discussion in Morice et al., 2012). All 100 realizations are available at the above Met Office site, but we have selected here the ensemble median. For the gridded data this is the ensemble median calculated separately for each grid box for each time step from the 100 members. For the hemispheric and global averages this is again the median of the 100 realizations. The median of the gridded series will not produce the median of the hemispheric and global averages, but the differences will be small."
Which explained how you COULD reproduce their results. But yes, it requires one to understand what scientists actually say, rather than assuming they say something that fits your ideology.
"...i AM a scientist, and you NOT, what a frustration for you...."
Let me fix that for you:
"...i AM a moron, and you NOT, what a frustration for you...."
mandastroll and marcotroll
i am in contact with metoffice and will inform here in the results of my criticisms. you can stop your angry and zero-sense bullshitting in the meantime, as you have no clue about what i am talking regarding the reproducibility of global temp calculations.
******** BREAKING NEWS ********* BREAKING NEWS
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE NEWS FROM NOAA (May 2023)
"The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–May period (year-to-date) was 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 13.1°C (55.5°F), the eighth warmest such period on record"
THE NOAA GLOBAL TEMPERATURE DOES NOT INCREASE. THERE IS NO CORRELATION WITH 400 ppm CO2
WHATVA DISAPPOINTMENT FOR CLIMATE ALARMISTS
hahaha hahaha haha, HA!
Freddykaitroll, you made a false claim, you know you made a false claim, and now you move the goalposts. You claimed CRU admitted their calculation could not be reproduced. That was a false claim, based on an inability to understand basic scientific language. Moving the goalposts is a classical denier tactic, which you then followed-up with the next denier tactic: attempting to change the subject (May 2013 was 3rd highest on record, and we're not even in an el Nino year!).
marco and other warmist trolls
you are no authority to prescribe what anybody here has to write! understood!
second: you make false claims regarding noaa global temp announcements: go and learn before you write your misleading and cheating bullshit.
moving goal posts is nothing I have in common with you and the climate church: you and your warming ideology brothers contantly move goal posts by constantly changing the calculation rules of global temps (all 3 alarmist institutions: noaa, metoffice/cru, giss):
YOU ARE A TERRIBLY BLEATHERSKITE WITH THE SYNDROME OF STUBBORN WILLINGNESS TO BE WRONG
a vote on http://www.myworld2015.org/?page=results shows that participants ranked "action taken on climate change" as least important among 16 topics.
this judgement of internet voters is very reasonable, considerably more reasonable than the alarmistic frustrations of climate hysterics
The only hysteric here is you, "freddy".
You have no education and no understanding of the science, and yet you come on here making wild assertions that are either meaningless or wrong, and you pepper your posts with masses of ALL-CAPS DENIALIST HYSTERIA.
"craig", everybody knows that uneducated agw brothers like you suffer from WARMING HYSTERIA
Freddykaitroll, I certainly don't want to deny you the opportunity to show, time after time, how dumb you really are.
And regarding my supposed "false claim", straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-releases-may-2013-global-climate-rep…
"According to NOAA scientists, the globally averaged temperature for May 2013 tied with 1998 and 2005 as the third warmest May since record keeping began in 1880"
So, not only did you make a false claim about CRU at the Stoat's, you now falsely accuse me of making false claims. I guess no excuses are forthcoming, since you will most likely not even understand what NOAA is saying, since it does not fit your ideology.
There was a time, long ago, where I thought that being ideologically blinded could be nice: cope with unpleasant reality by denying that unpleasant reality as reality when it didn't fit one's ideology. Seeing your comment reinforces my later transition to realising it isn't very nice, since you constantly are in a struggle to decide which reality to deny, and get all confused. In your case you just get angry when the reality you just denied gets mentioned again by others. How dare we contradict your self-imagined alternative universe?
"freddy", who are you quoting?
My name is Craig, not "craig".
The facts of global warming are very clear:
- There is something very real, called the Greenhouse Effect;
- CO2 is a greenhouse gas;
- Humans are causing CO2 to increase in the atmosphere;
- CO2 has now increased to a level unprecedented in 1 million years
- The additional CO2 has caused an imbalance between the amount of energy arriving on Earth, and the amount leaving it
- This imbalance results in a warming world;
- This warming is observed to be happening.
The only HYSTERIC here you and your ignorant ilk.
craigtroll, marcotroll
temps don't go up, co2 goes up
you are unable to digest the truth and face reality, you poor pigs
"craig"-troll
your utmost nasty assertion "This warming is observed to be happening"
instead of insane assertion statements you must give references to observation data which support your delusions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PROVIDE REFERENCE OF FACTS FROM THE REAL WORLD instead of nasty assertions which nobody can verify. YOUR WISHFUL THINKING PROVIDES GREATEST HARMS TO ALL ECONOMIES AROUND THE GOBE WITHOUT ANY BENEFIT.
MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!
GLOBAL TEMP is faked, it's cold in antarctica and greenland, therefore no sea level increase
MORON!!!!!!!!!!!
ABOMINABLE BULLSHIT FROM YOU WITHOUT ANY PROOF IN REALITY, JUST COMPUTER VIRTUAL ADDICTS WHO YOU ARE
MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
INSANE BOLLOCKS FROM BLATHERSKITES OF YOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
improve yous life style instead of wasting your life time
MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gosh, all I do is point out a few basic, inarguable realities of the physical world around us, and you go completely hysterical with CAPS everywhere and !!! everywhere.
I think you ignorant denialist hysterics need to calm down a little bit.
"craig"-troll
your bollocks "Gosh, all I do is point out a few basic, inarguable realities of the physical... bls bla bla bla bla.... bla bla .,."
is typical for absolutistic religious church brothers who want to indoctrinate others with their insane undisputable "truths"
YOU BETTER SHUT UP WITH YOUR INSANE BULLSHIT
learn to live with that human-induced warming does not take place
MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"craig"-troll
"inarguable realities"
hahahahagahahaha, what an insane shit
One thing people with mental problems almost always exhibit in addition to Denial, is Projection.
"freddy", it is *you* who are the "insane shit". If you want to disprove the Greenhouse Effect, the atmospheric CO2 observations, or the energy imbalance that is causing warming, you might need to get started right away with remediating your trailer-park level of education: you will need 6 years of primary education (it can be assumed you have 2 or maybe 3 of those under your belt already, although you might want to start again from scratch, judging by the state of your nonsense). You wil then need 6 years of secondary education. Following on from that, and assuming you don't need a couple of additional years due to learning difficulties, you will need to spend 4 years completing an undergraduate degree. At that stage, about 4 years of research experience should be undertaken, possibly another 3 years to complete a second degree, and following on from that, you could spend another 4 years to get a PhD completed.
At this stage, (it will be the year 2038), you will now be a very junior participant in the process to elucidate the physical realities of the world around us, and 20 years of successful research (so, by the Year 2058), you will be able to offer opinions that carry the same sort of weight as Michael Mann's.
Until then, you remain an uneducated ignoramus whose opinion is entirely without value or merit except as an illustration of the kind of intellectual level that climate-denial relies on.
"craig"troll: YOU are the idiot here
Still Projecting, "freddy", I see.
Anybody who witnesses your witless scribblings can see perfectly well that you are an idiot.
"craig"-troll, stop betraying yourself. this helps as a cure from your climate disease
What we want to know is - what disease made you illiterate and incapable of capitalisation?
I suspect it was poverty, coupled with being flung out of the family trailer on schoolnights while your mother entertained your many "uncles" in private.
Freddy@161
AM a scientist, and you NOT, what a frustration for you. i have published a lot of original articles in peer-reviewed journals, given lectures on several universities, guided many students through their theses to doctorates.
Care to give us all a summary of your doctoral thesis, the names of some of the journals you have published in, some paper titles?
why?
Because you have to release the data. And the code.
Unless you have something to hide?
i do not want to be beaten in the public by green wacko fascists like bbd, wow, mandas, craig, you, and the mob aroused by you and your fuckwit brothers from the immoral climate church
So, you're keeping all your data secret, are you? And all your code?
You make assertions, but you provide nothing to enable others to check your assertions against reality?
You know what that means, don't you Freddy?
It means we *know* you're a liar and fraud.
stinking vince, you behave as ugly as the german gestapo agents
So you won't release your code, is that it Freddy?
Freddy@184
why?
Because I'm interested in your research background.
I suspect his "research" was undertaken at the University of Cair Paravel, with subsequent post-graduate work at the University of Minas Tirith.
Coby,
Ahead of our time?
revisit here http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/action-on-global-warming-…
_____________________________________
PaulinMI
March 17, 2010
Skip,
I agree the one way out is a progressive tax or CAP and Trade with the caveat that the proceeds go to the population.
Then the solutions will be real and effective. Throwing the proceeds to the government guarantees boondoggle solutions and therefore reliance on fossil fuels until they’re exhausted.
_______________________________________
compare to -
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873236116045783964019657996…
Why We Support a Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax
Coupled with the elimination of costly energy subsidies, it would encourage competition.
. . . In the case of administration by the IRS, an annual distribution could be made to every taxpayer and recipient of the Earned Income Tax Credit. In the case of the SSA, the distribution could be made, in terms proportionate to the dollars involved, to everyone either paying into the system or receiving benefits from it. In any case, checks to recipients should be identified as "Your carbon dividend."
It's worked in Australia. The Carbon tax has resulted in reduced emissions.
Read this story:
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2013/07/04/575710_cattle.html
The carbon tax has funded technology that reduces their CO2 emissions by 95% and reduces their cost of operations by over 30%.
@ craigtroll
i being a vegetarian totally despise mass murder of animals for human food production. i therefore reject your brutal story regarding co2 reduction in australian slaughter companies
A vegetarian? Why do you have canine teeth then? More denial, "freddy"?
Hi freddy,
any idea when you'll be able to give us all some information on your research areas?
Interesting how total coal power emissions have declined to less 1/1000 of of what they were 100 years ago but asthma just keeps going up? If you have historic data to prove any correlation between coal use and asthma then let's see it. Plenty of scientific studies conclude that children exposed to more allergens at an early age reduce their likelihood of developing asthma, (search "amish + asthma + farm effect" for example).
One correlation you cannot deny, the richest countries of the world are the ones that most exploited their fossil energy reserves and are also now the same ones that ~happen~ to have the CLEANEST air quality.
The greatest threat to air and water quality is .. POVERTY.
The greatest threat to poverty is ... free market capitalism fueled by cheap energy.
Chris, your claim that "total coal power emissions have declined to less 1/1000 of [sic] of what they were 100 years ago" is missing a reference (which you likely do not have).
Also, it is not true that the richest countries have the cleanest air quality. See for example this picture:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/483897main_Global-PM2.5-map.JPG
Note that the high levels of particle matter in Africa is due to sand.
This picture:
http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2004/10…
shows NO2 pollution. Again, it looks like the richest countries aren't doing that well.
Sorry, that should have been "Mike M", not "Chris".
"....One correlation you cannot deny, the richest countries of the world are the ones that most exploited their fossil energy reserves and are also now the same ones that ~happen~ to have the CLEANEST air quality...."
The insanity of deniers just keeps getting worse and worse doesn't it? Perhaps Mike M might like to move to the largest city in the second richest country on Earth and tell us all about the air quality.
Last time I checked, Shanghai had pretty bad air quality - caused by the burning of coal I believe.