A long series on climate change

[Cullion]

I see Jonny still isn't willing to make a bet on future temperatures.

Well, not with his own money. Not surprising given the public rape of Muller's conclusions by his own research partner, Curry.

[Bneterasedmynam]

There is no betting needed at this point the future is here we are having 60 degree days in December in Illinois and a record drought. Now before anyone says "oh but that's not long term proof of change", it has been getting progressively worse over the last few years.

[W. Rabbit]

Not surprising given the public rape of Muller's conclusions by his own research partner, Curry.

Surprising is that unscientific exaggeration and misinterpretation of the actual disagreements between Muller and Curry. Hyperbole like "public rape"...nope, not even close to the facts.

Do Judith Curry and Richard Muller disagree?

Below is a joint statement by Judith Curry and Richard Muller (July 2012):

Berkeley Earth released results today that give a new and improved estimate of the global land temperature going back 250 years. In addition to providing a detailed temperature record, the paper, “A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011” also analyses volcanoes and changes to the diurnal temperature range. Richard Muller and Judith Curry are broadly in agreement over these two findings, which both feel provide a useful contribution to the field.

However, Muller and Curry disagree over the use of a simple model fitting the temperature of the past 250 years to human CO2 emissions and volcanoes to conclude that the best explanation for the observed warming is greenhouse gas emissions. While Richard Muller and the Berkeley Earth team value the simplicity of the model (indeed, in physics the simple model is generally considered the best), Curry believes that it is overly simplistic and is not convinced. These sorts of disagreements are common among scientists and contribute usefully to advancing science.

But I've learned facts don't matter to AGW deniers anyway. They're too busy trying to disprove major name scientists that they've completely failed to recognize the thousands of others providing fresh, unchallenged data...

Antarctica and Greenland are rapidly losing their ice sheets because of climate change, says a comprehensive review.

[Cullion]

Surprising is that unscientific exaggeration and misinterpretation of the actual disagreements between Muller and Curry. Hyperbole like "public rape"...nope, not even close to the facts.

Do you suffer from an autistic-spectrum disorder ? I can see you have trouble distinguishing metaphor from literal statements.

Why don't you go and read Judith Curry's blog to find out what she actually thinks BEST has been able to demonstrate succesfully. http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/30/ob...d-attribution/

But I've learned facts don't matter to AGW deniers anyway. They're too busy trying to disprove major name scientists that they've completely failed to recognize the thousands of others providing fresh, unchallenged data...

Strike 1) Argument from authority Strike 2) Attempted Gish gallop without even citing sources. Strike 3) Irony: Complete failure to keep up with relevant literature on your own part. Have you actually read the climategate emails yet ?

I'm willing to bet that you haven't. You aren't in a position to lecture others about their grasp of the relevant data. All you bring to this are links to pop-science editorial pieces.

Antarctica and Greenland are rapidly losing their ice sheets because of climate change, says a comprehensive review.

The red line is the antarctic ice cover trend. See how it points up and to the right.

[Cullion]

There is no betting needed at this point the future is here we are having 60 degree days in December in Illinois and a record drought. Now before anyone says "oh but that's not long term proof of change", it has been getting progressively worse over the last few years.

Do you really believe that your local weather is a proxy for the average temperature of the entire world?

Idiot.

[W. Rabbit]

I can see you have trouble distinguishing metaphor from literal statements.

Whether you were being metaphorical or literal, you're still wrong and hyperbolic to refer to Judith's positions as "public rape" of Muller's work, especially since she's not even a denier.

You're the problem with AWG debate...you read a few blogs and some energy lobby garbage and you think you see all the chinks in the armor of AWG theory. Wrong.

Why don't you go and read Judith Curry's blog /[/url]

I have it bookmarked. How else would I know you were full of ****? I've been following this debate for over twenty years, knucklehead. A quick review of the thread will show you I've been following Muller's work for years too.

without even citing sources.

So it's fine for you to call Judith's comments "public rape", but don't even cite the "sources" because you know it makes your comment look stupid?

No thanks, not playing.

Have you actually read the climategate emails yet ?

It's sad someone who claims to support science keeps hounding on the non-issue of Climagegate.

You aren't in a position to lecture others

Neither are you, yet here you are in the bully pulpit, misrepresenting the work of others.

You should read more of Judith's blog...at least then I could take you seriously when you comment about her.

[W. Rabbit]

Do you really believe that your local weather is a proxy for the average temperature of the entire world?

Idiot.

Do you REALLY believe the "average temperature of the entire world" matters at all compared to devastating local effects of AWG which are already being identified around the world (by actual scientists)???

Before you claim I posted no sources, you need to first learn to read, and then re-read the Nature article I posted. Then attempt to dissect the science there, instead of my humble posts. No, Nature is not "pop science", jerkoff.

Oh wait I forgot you don't care about scientists unless they are in the public eye or openly disagreeing with mainstream AWG models and so become easy targets for hit pieces, like the ones I'm sure you are immersed in.

You don't care about the thousands of scientists who are beyond convinced, nor do you care about Nature article I posted which shows why "Climagegate" emails are such a poor place to spend your time.

LOL And to think YOU accused ME of "not keeping up with relevant literature" but you think Climategate is still relevant.

Turkey. Thanksgiving is over.

[goodlun]

This conversation is ridiculous

[W. Rabbit]

This conversation is ridiculous

No it's ludicrous.

Ridiculous is Cullion calling Nature, one of the most cited scientific journals on the planet, "pop science". And he wonders why we have trouble taking him seriously with his AWG denial...

In his opinion teh REAL science comes from blogs and leaked emails no one cares about anymore.

Fine, here's more "pop science":

The Arctic is thought to be undergoing some of the most dramatic effects of climate change anywhere in the world.

http://www.nature.com/news/gas-hydra...-found-1.11988

Now comes the part when Cullion posts a bunch of graphs and charts he doesn't really understand and that don't really prove any of his points, in a doomed attempt to make me doubt the twenty years of (once upon a time non-partisan) research I've been consuming about AWG, from multiple points of view.

I'm outta here like the English will be when their great isles sink under the rising Atlantic.

[It is Fake]

This conversation is ridiculous

This meme is ridiculous.