Are there any actual non-Deniers?

You ask a good question,which for me only gives rise to more questions.Possibly because of my academic ignorance,but doesn't the melting of glaciers and rise in sea levels have an effect on tectonic plates?

What are you talking about? Are you making the claim that earthquakes are caused by AGW? If not, what is the relevance? You trying to prove some skeptics lack scientific understanding? Fine, some do. But do you think that a warmer who talks about the end of civilization or the world because of AGW has scientific understanding? You trying to say some deniers doctor the data, yet you defend Al Gore when he presents doctored data and half-truthes to make his case. Why don't you just admit that this is a religion for you? Go on get it out. You'll feel better. And I tend not to insult people's religion, so I won't think any less of you. I'm sure that Al Gore will forgive you of all your CO2 transgressions if you accept him as your personal savior.

Also I love the whole thing that since we have had more earthquakes, it must be caused by man. That the winning science that supports AGW?

Oh I see, your argument is that earthquakes are not caused by AGW, but if an AGWers makes this claim then he is a heretic. Global warming is not about small changes seen over a short period of time, but about the gradual increases in temp, but if an AGWers makes this claim than he is a heretic. As for the Al gore cliams that were wrong and shown in court as wrong, evidently you are not able to go to the websites provided to you, because it would be too much of an inconvenience so here they are:

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Now your inability to accept the truth when it is staring you in the face shows how this is a religion for you. Your pretending everyone who disagrees with you is a fool is rather stupid, given that I have already schooled you in statistics. Tell me again how you do linear regression?

Benjamin,

I have never met an AGWer who wasn't a communist intent on the killing of many innocent people. Not really true, but just a demonstration of the absurdity of what you are saying.

Paul,

I will dismiss your idiotic claim that it will wipe out civilization, or that it is even a possibility. Statements like this made with no reason can be dismissed for no reason.

Meadow,

I agree these posts of Paul's are entertaining beyond belief. It is like he is trying to have his own AGW come to Jesus meeting.

Keep up the good work Paul, your posts always make me laugh.

Yeah great call 600 years from now. You have <100 years of good data and want to say what is going to happen 600 years from now? You know we don't have the oil reserves to continue on for even 100 years. No wonder you back Al Gore, you and him think alike.

Linlyons and Jeff M,

Good posts, but dude does not understand statistics, I have already shown that he doesn't even understand rudimentary linear regression. You should not be surprised that he is not getting this.

I provided evidence for the Earthquake sources directly from the USGS website. It stated that yes, indeed we did have 17 earthquakes on average per year. It also stated that we had at least 1 earthquake above 8.0 per year. In 2007 we had 4. You are thinking that since we got 1 earthquake so far this year above 8.0 that means we are going to get 3 more. We are not above average on anything. You are skewing the numbers to meet your belief. You also stated that the rate was something like 1700 times the average. Your grasp on reality is worse than my math considering you are counting made up and make believe Earthquakes.

However, as I believe I stated in the last thread, isostatic rebound does provide a valid argument for an increase in Earthquakes. I'd be interested in seeing the effects isostatic rebound may have on the surrounding land. Would the effects be localized? Is the displacement large enough and fast enough to cause plate stress? We just have to wait and see if your predictions come true. However, as of now, it doesn't look like they are.

Edit: I left out the 8.8 Earthquake because it isn't between 7.0 and 7.9. I did not state "Over 7.0". As you can see by the number of Earthquakes in the past and the averages we have had 1 above 8 Earthquake and there is an average of over 1 above 8 Earthquakes just in the last 10 years alone. That is not above average. I did not skew any numbers.

And stating "we've only had six 8.8s in 100 years!" Does not mean anything. All it means is that we get them and we will probably have them in the future.

By your calculations if we get an 8.8 Earthquake in July during 1 year and the yearly average is 1 that would mean that we are 200% over our yearly average. Sorry that's not how it works. Having an Earthquake during the first 3 months of 2010 does not mean we are going to get 1 every three months after this date. And that is exactly what your calculations suggest.

My suggestion would be calm down. Breathe. And realize what you're saying. Of course if you really want to skew the numbers you can say "We had an 8.8 earthquake in one day!!! That puts us 99 x 10^364 above average!!!" or something.

la Niña and El Niño are opposite stages of a organic oscillation of equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures over numerous years. subsequently, over some years, they cancel one yet another out. for this reason, El Nino won't be able to describe the long-term WARMING tend! "there is often an interest interior the as quickly as a year temperature numbers and on a given 12 months's score, yet many times that misses the element," mentioned James Hansen, the director of GISS. "there is important 12 months-to-12 months variability of world temperature led to with the aid of the tropical El Niño-la Niña cycle. yet as quickly as we user-friendly temperature over 5 or ten years to cut back that variability, we detect that worldwide warming is persevering with unabated." "So can a Denier call any incredibly non-Deniers who've been brushing off El Nino consequences? not that i know of. you have of course primary what we "non-deneirs" are announcing approximately El Niño. while la Nina comes around, and worldwide temperatures are surprisingly heat, yet cooler than 2010, the deniers would be announcing "The earth is now in a cooling variety!". (this is precisely what got here approximately in 2008.) Deniers will do something to forget relating to the final warming variety.

"But it really was.4 degrees this year."

No, it was a 0.4 degree rise in one month. GISS only measured a 0.12 degree rise between December and January. HadCRUt measured 0.07. You still think the 0.4 was significant?

"We had the hottest March ever in recorded weather history. "

As measured by UAH only. Anyway, I already explained to you why we shouldn't take too much away from this on the other question, and also why your calculation of "less than one percent" was wrong.

Overall I agree with you, though--there is a point where we have to stop considering extreme events as 'noise' and start considering them 'signal'.

-----------

You're wrong Linlyons--we have on average 0.003 earthquakes that are >8.0 in magnitude every day, so February 27 saw 365.25x average. If I linearly extrapolate, that means the Earth will fall apart in approximately 1.3 days.

-----------

"We are seeing rises in periods of a year or a month that the models predict should take decades, and rather than accepting the actual data, that supposed NON-Deniers are trying to dismiss the reality in order to appear more reasonable to the unreasobable people who harass them."

What the hell are you talking about? You've done no analysis whatsoever, and yet you're sure the 'non-deniers' are wrong. A rise of 0.4 degrees in either one month or one year is not statistically significant. Plain and simple. The fact that neither GISS nor HadCRUt show such a rise makes it even less so. Modeling the temperature noise as an ARMA(1,1) process, at most we can say that the trend between March '09 and March '10 is likely positive, but we can't even say that at the 95% confidence level.

And given that this question is aimed at 'non-deniers', why do you spend so much time responding to 'deniers'?

I didn't chime in on the earthquakes because I don't know by what physical mechanism AGW would increase earthquake frequency or intensity. If the first 3 months of 2010 have had above-average earthquake activity, it could very well just be coincidental, and we would need to examine the long-term trends to observe if it's increasing, and if so, then determine the cause.

As for the global temperature data, it's valid to look at short-term temperatures as long as that's not all you're looking at. An increase of 0.4°C over a month or two can be caused by an intensifying El Nino cycle, for example. But if you compare apples to apples, for example 2010 to 1998, then you can draw some useful conclusions. For example, El Nino and the 11-year solar cycle were stronger in 1998, but global temperatures are higher in 2010, thus the AGW signal is pretty clear.

@ Littlerobbergirl -

If there's a wolf at your shoulder its only because the UK has had such a long, cold Arctic winter that we could now have wolves again.

-----------------------------------------------

As to Paul's rant . . . where to begin? With his total lack of references? With his inability to formulate and then articulate a coherent and logical argument? With the constant skipping from one claim to another with no data to back it up, and then trying to claim that he relies only on substantiated data?

Paul -

SHOW ME THE DATA.

Links please? EDIT - Any - just to see if you really research anything you claim.

-------------------------------------------------

LOL - THIS IS BEAUTIFUL:

PAUL'S ALIAS 2 THINKS JEFF M IS A SCEPTIC !

Oh, this is >too< funny.

no just people living with their head up thier asses

I would say it could show the climate getting more variable, which is also predicted. I agree, a lot of people are keen not to appear 'alarmist', but hey, when the wolf is staring over your shoulder, is it really alarmist to cry wolf?

not my shoulder meadow, yours. i can see it.

All deniers are either completely ignorant or liars deliberately spreading misinformation. I've never met a global warming denier who wasn't either one or the other.