Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

New report on (lack of) Global warming

1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 9:02:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.foxnews.com...:

Climate change skeptics are doing a bit of gloating following a series of mainstream media reports that acknowledge what those skeptics have long held -- the earth is not warming, at least not in the last 10 years.

"The idea that CO2 is the tail that wags the dog is no longer scientifically tenable," said Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com, a website devoted to countering the prevailing acceptance of man-made global warming.

In recent weeks, Der Spiegel, the Telegraph and the Economist have reported the unexpected stabilizing of global surface temperatures. Even former NASA scientist and outspoken climate change activist James Hansen has acknowledged the 10-year lull.

Morano said: "In the peer-reviewed literature we're finding hundreds of factors influence global temperature, everything from ocean cycles to the tilt of the earth's axis to water vapor, methane, cloud feedback, volcanic dust, all of these factors are coming together. They're now realizing it wasn't the simple story we've been told of your SUV is creating a dangerously warm planet."

Many climate scientists and environmentalists agree with Morano's description of climate complexity, but reject his denials of global warming as a problem.
"This is a highly complex calculation to make in the first place. The short period of time, only 10 years in which the increasing temperature has leveled, really doesn't tell us very much other than the fact that temperatures may still be rising but just not as fast as they were before," said Elgie Holstein, the senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund and a former assistant secretary at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"What's compelling about the climate science," Holstein said, "is that we have literally thousands of the world's leading scientists around the country pretty much saying the same thing about where we're headed, and it's not reassuring."
But the surface temperature stabilization suggests that computer models which predict harsh consequences of global warming may need reassessing.

As The Economist put it on March 30, "It may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy."

Indeed, no one disputes that levels of carbon dioxide are increasing globally, but CO2's impact has not been as great as many scientists had predicted.

"In the peer-reviewed literature, they've tried to explain away this lull," said Morano. "In the proceedings of the National Academy of Science a year or two ago they had a study blaming Chinese coal use for the lack of global warming. So, in an ironic twist, global warming proponents are now claiming that that coal use is saving us from dangerous global warming."

Holstein believes the temperature lull is not entirely unexpected or unpredicted.
"We're within ranges of these climate models that are saying we're still on track to some pretty troublesome impacts if we don't do something about it," he said.
A Gallup survey conducted March 7-10 found 58 percent of Americans say they worry a great deal or fair amount about global warming.

That was up from 51 percent in 2011 -- but still below the 62-72 percent levels seen between 1999 and 2001.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 11:56:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 9:02:41 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...:

Climate change skeptics are doing a bit of gloating following a series of mainstream media reports that acknowledge what those skeptics have long held -- the earth is not warming, at least not in the last 10 years.

"The idea that CO2 is the tail that wags the dog is no longer scientifically tenable," said Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com, a website devoted to countering the prevailing acceptance of man-made global warming.

In recent weeks, Der Spiegel, the Telegraph and the Economist have reported the unexpected stabilizing of global surface temperatures. Even former NASA scientist and outspoken climate change activist James Hansen has acknowledged the 10-year lull.

Morano said: "In the peer-reviewed literature we're finding hundreds of factors influence global temperature, everything from ocean cycles to the tilt of the earth's axis to water vapor, methane, cloud feedback, volcanic dust, all of these factors are coming together. They're now realizing it wasn't the simple story we've been told of your SUV is creating a dangerously warm planet."

Many climate scientists and environmentalists agree with Morano's description of climate complexity, but reject his denials of global warming as a problem.
"This is a highly complex calculation to make in the first place. The short period of time, only 10 years in which the increasing temperature has leveled, really doesn't tell us very much other than the fact that temperatures may still be rising but just not as fast as they were before," said Elgie Holstein, the senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund and a former assistant secretary at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"What's compelling about the climate science," Holstein said, "is that we have literally thousands of the world's leading scientists around the country pretty much saying the same thing about where we're headed, and it's not reassuring."
But the surface temperature stabilization suggests that computer models which predict harsh consequences of global warming may need reassessing.

As The Economist put it on March 30, "It may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy."

Indeed, no one disputes that levels of carbon dioxide are increasing globally, but CO2's impact has not been as great as many scientists had predicted.

"In the peer-reviewed literature, they've tried to explain away this lull," said Morano. "In the proceedings of the National Academy of Science a year or two ago they had a study blaming Chinese coal use for the lack of global warming. So, in an ironic twist, global warming proponents are now claiming that that coal use is saving us from dangerous global warming."

Holstein believes the temperature lull is not entirely unexpected or unpredicted.
"We're within ranges of these climate models that are saying we're still on track to some pretty troublesome impacts if we don't do something about it," he said.
A Gallup survey conducted March 7-10 found 58 percent of Americans say they worry a great deal or fair amount about global warming.

That was up from 51 percent in 2011 -- but still below the 62-72 percent levels seen between 1999 and 2001.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...

Yes, let's just ignore a clear long-term trend of warming starting at the Industrial Revolution and just look at a few years of data!
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
slo1
Posts: 4,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 8:52:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It seems this article adequately explains that a 10 year lull in the rise is not statistically significant and within the bounds of expected variance.

So the 10 year lull does not prove anything.
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 2:45:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 8:52:02 AM, slo1 wrote:
It seems this article adequately explains that a 10 year lull in the rise is not statistically significant and within the bounds of expected variance.

So the 10 year lull does not prove anything.

25/50/75 year spans dont quite prove anything either, so...
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 3:25:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 2:45:25 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 4/11/2013 8:52:02 AM, slo1 wrote:
It seems this article adequately explains that a 10 year lull in the rise is not statistically significant and within the bounds of expected variance.

So the 10 year lull does not prove anything.

25/50/75 year spans dont quite prove anything either, so...

Do 133 year spans prove anything? In fact, I'll just give you NASA's evidence:
http://climate.nasa.gov...
Refute all of that and I'll give you a cookie.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 5:48:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
But the surface temperature stabilization suggests that computer models which predict harsh consequences of global warming may need reassessing.'

In my opinion, what they are really saying is computer climate models need reprogramming to give the desired warming results results. Back to the algorithm drawing board and retweeking all the input.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 6:32:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 3:25:16 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:45:25 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 4/11/2013 8:52:02 AM, slo1 wrote:
It seems this article adequately explains that a 10 year lull in the rise is not statistically significant and within the bounds of expected variance.

So the 10 year lull does not prove anything.

25/50/75 year spans dont quite prove anything either, so...

Do 133 year spans prove anything? In fact, I'll just give you NASA's evidence:
http://climate.nasa.gov...
Refute all of that and I'll give you a cookie.

1) Thats just a graph that shows Co2 levels, wheres the temperature in that as well?

2) Correlation =/= Causation

3) Tell me buddy, taking the earths climate over a hundreds of millions of years span, its divided into seperately named parts. What climatic period are we currently in?

How long does the climatic period we are in typically last?

How long has this one lasted?

Then answer this, what should we really by worried about? Global warming, or something else in entirety?
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 11:02:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 6:32:31 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 4/11/2013 3:25:16 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:45:25 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 4/11/2013 8:52:02 AM, slo1 wrote:
It seems this article adequately explains that a 10 year lull in the rise is not statistically significant and within the bounds of expected variance.

So the 10 year lull does not prove anything.

25/50/75 year spans dont quite prove anything either, so...

Do 133 year spans prove anything? In fact, I'll just give you NASA's evidence:
http://climate.nasa.gov...
Refute all of that and I'll give you a cookie.

1) Thats just a graph that shows Co2 levels, wheres the temperature in that as well?

2) Correlation =/= Causation

3) Tell me buddy, taking the earths climate over a hundreds of millions of years span, its divided into seperately named parts. What climatic period are we currently in?

How long does the climatic period we are in typically last?

How long has this one lasted?

Then answer this, what should we really by worried about? Global warming, or something else in entirety?

It appears that you only looked at the graph. This is the relevant section I wanted you to see:
Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth"s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth"s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 3:07:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You gonna answer the questions? Cause i honestly dont give a sh!t about the graph. Go ahead and answer the questions instead of ignoring them
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 3:09:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh yeah, interesting tid-bit, did you know was carbeon dioxoide levels increase did you know the effectiveness of it trapping heat dramatically decreases?

But thats beside the point... answer the questions
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 5:12:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Club of Rome admittedly manufactured the "idea" of man-made global warming back in 1990.

On page 75 of their 1990 publication entitled The First Global Revolution (http://www.scribd.com...), the organization outlined how they would manufacture ecological scares in order to manipulate the public into accepting the imposition of a dictatorial world government run by them.

"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill". All these dangers are caused by human intervention" The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

-- http://www.infowars.com...
http://www.scribd.com...

"We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this [global carbon tax]."
-- United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (http://www.latimes.com...)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 5:12:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 3:25:16 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:45:25 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
25/50/75 year spans dont quite prove anything either, so...

Do 133 year spans prove anything? In fact, I'll just give you NASA's evidence:
http://climate.nasa.gov...
Refute all of that and I'll give you a cookie.

Too bad. I have a millenial chart.

http://www.infowars.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 10:44:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 5:12:49 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/11/2013 3:25:16 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:45:25 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
25/50/75 year spans dont quite prove anything either, so...

Do 133 year spans prove anything? In fact, I'll just give you NASA's evidence:
http://climate.nasa.gov...
Refute all of that and I'll give you a cookie.

Too bad. I have a millenial chart.

http://www.infowars.com...

One which proves nothing when you haven't cited the study which this data is based upon. Get me a chart that goes back at least one or two ice age cycles and we'll have something to work with.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
slo1
Posts: 4,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 9:17:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 2:45:25 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 4/11/2013 8:52:02 AM, slo1 wrote:
It seems this article adequately explains that a 10 year lull in the rise is not statistically significant and within the bounds of expected variance.

So the 10 year lull does not prove anything.

25/50/75 year spans dont quite prove anything either, so...

In a very rough 100,000 year global cooling/warming cycle we have temp data going back to 1880 or 130 years. 130/100,0000 is a .13% sample size. 10/100,000 = .001% sample size.

I'm not a stats guy, but if I recall correctly the end result of a significance test is dependent upon the size of the sample and the distance from the mean the sample is from the base data (the 100,000 years in this case). Since the avg temp is much higher than the 100,000 year mean, it would require a much less sample size to have a 95% significance rating. I'm not certain what sample size would be required to be there, but I can assure you that the significance is much higher and if you were a betting man you would be on the short end of the odds.

Not to mention, your 10 year sample is still very much higher temp than the 100,000 mean. It is high enough to continue to support the theory of global warming. Nobody ever said for global warming trend to be true every consecutive year has to increase in temp.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 3:47:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 6:32:31 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
3) Tell me buddy, taking the earths climate over a hundreds of millions of years span, its divided into seperately named parts. What climatic period are we currently in?

How long does the climatic period we are in typically last?

How long has this one lasted?

Then answer this, what should we really by worried about? Global warming, or something else in entirety?

Given that natural variations in climate tend to take a fairly long time to happen, I'm going with global warming.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 8:55:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 6:32:31 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 4/11/2013 3:25:16 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:45:25 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 4/11/2013 8:52:02 AM, slo1 wrote:
It seems this article adequately explains that a 10 year lull in the rise is not statistically significant and within the bounds of expected variance.

So the 10 year lull does not prove anything.

25/50/75 year spans dont quite prove anything either, so...

Do 133 year spans prove anything? In fact, I'll just give you NASA's evidence:
http://climate.nasa.gov...
Refute all of that and I'll give you a cookie.

1) Thats just a graph that shows Co2 levels, wheres the temperature in that as well?

2) Correlation =/= Causation

http://www.aip.org...
You can thank for Joseph Fourier for coming up with the greenhouse gas theory back in the 1820's and John Tyndall to prove it in 1859 (then we had a huge war over it, which was later revised in history to be about slavery in an attempt to cover the truth of GHGs).

The causation that CO2 CAUSES a green house effect is established scientific fact. What is left is how much of a factor it causes, but it is no longer a mere correlation.


3) Tell me buddy, taking the earths climate over a hundreds of millions of years span, its divided into seperately named parts. What climatic period are we currently in?

http://www.foresight.org...

We are currently in a warm period based on the available data we have (we have nothing even slightly accurate going back more than several hundred thousand years).

http://www.foresight.org...

However we must take it all in context.

1) We've been in this warm period for about 10,000 years.

2) The difference between an ice age and a warm period is only 10 degrees C.

3) Historically, it takes about 2,000 - 3,000 years to go from a cool period to a warm period. This means that it naturally averages about 1 degree every 250 years, when going from ice age to warm.

4) Our long term historical data is based entirely off of arctic temps, not global temps. So it is fallacious to compare those trends to our current global trends. It needs to be compared to our current arctic trends.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov...

5) We've gone up (in the arctic, not global) about 2 degrees C in the last 100 years. That is 5 times faster than what would be historically expected.

6) We're already in a warm period and so should be expecting the temp to gradually fall (over the course of over 50,000 years). This clearly indicates that what is going on is not part of that typical cycle.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 7:32:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 10:44:52 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/12/2013 5:12:49 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/11/2013 3:25:16 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:45:25 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
25/50/75 year spans dont quite prove anything either, so...

Do 133 year spans prove anything? In fact, I'll just give you NASA's evidence:
http://climate.nasa.gov...
Refute all of that and I'll give you a cookie.

Too bad. I have a millenial chart.

http://www.infowars.com...

One which proves nothing when you haven't cited the study which this data is based upon. Get me a chart that goes back at least one or two ice age cycles and we'll have something to work with.

I think that chart is based on the Leohole Reconstructions
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 7:41:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 8:55:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/11/2013 6:32:31 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 4/11/2013 3:25:16 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:45:25 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 4/11/2013 8:52:02 AM, slo1 wrote:
It seems this article adequately explains that a 10 year lull in the rise is not statistically significant and within the bounds of expected variance.

So the 10 year lull does not prove anything.

25/50/75 year spans dont quite prove anything either, so...

Do 133 year spans prove anything? In fact, I'll just give you NASA's evidence:
http://climate.nasa.gov...
Refute all of that and I'll give you a cookie.

1) Thats just a graph that shows Co2 levels, wheres the temperature in that as well?

2) Correlation =/= Causation

http://www.aip.org...
You can thank for Joseph Fourier for coming up with the greenhouse gas theory back in the 1820's and John Tyndall to prove it in 1859 (then we had a huge war over it, which was later revised in history to be about slavery in an attempt to cover the truth of GHGs).

The direct effect of CO2 isn't enough to claim it has caused the current warm period. It only has caused about 40% according to the direct effects. Depending on feedbacks, it could be more or less. My review of the data indicates less.

No one disagrees CO2 can cause *some* warming. The question is how much. If I had to put my guess on a number, 20-35% of the warming is anthropogenic via GHG's.


The causation that CO2 CAUSES a green house effect is established scientific fact. What is left is how much of a factor it causes, but it is no longer a mere correlation.

This is idiotic. You're still assuming CO2 is the main cause of warming. The fact CO2 causes warming is indisputable. Most of the GH affect is by water vapor, and CO2 is a trace gas. CO2 cannot cause enough warming to have caused the current warming.

It is still correlation until it is proved it can warm significantly, with the feedbacks necessary to form the current warming



3) Tell me buddy, taking the earths climate over a hundreds of millions of years span, its divided into seperately named parts. What climatic period are we currently in?

http://www.foresight.org...

We are currently in a warm period based on the available data we have (we have nothing even slightly accurate going back more than several hundred thousand years).

Agreed. We are in a warm period. But Proxy data is accurate (as when compared with surface data it often replicates). But I also think you're correct we can only measure within the last few interglacials before it becomes iffy.


http://www.foresight.org...

However we must take it all in context.

1) We've been in this warm period for about 10,000 years.

Yes. We're in an ice age still, but an interglacial which means we are warm, comparatively.


2) The difference between an ice age and a warm period is only 10 degrees C.


k

3) Historically, it takes about 2,000 - 3,000 years to go from a cool period to a warm period. This means that it naturally averages about 1 degree every 250 years, when going from ice age to warm.

Agreed. Ice age -> interglacial is a lengthy process.


4) Our long term historical data is based entirely off of arctic temps, not global temps. So it is fallacious to compare those trends to our current global trends. It needs to be compared to our current arctic trends.

Not true. Many reconstructions of the MWP and RWP include proxies from all over the world.


http://www.arctic.noaa.gov...

5) We've gone up (in the arctic, not global) about 2 degrees C in the last 100 years. That is 5 times faster than what would be historically expected.

That is from the IPCC climate models. The IPCC's models assume TSI has fallen from 1980, ignore aerosols, the PDO, AMO, GCR's, and clouds.


6) We're already in a warm period and so should be expecting the temp to gradually fall (over the course of over 50,000 years). This clearly indicates that what is going on is not part of that typical cycle.

LOL. Our current warm period is right on the mark according to any credible geologist. Cooling can be expected soon, though we do not know when. With the 16 year halt in temperatures, I would not be surprised if it happens within the next 100 years.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 7:42:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 11:56:04 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/10/2013 9:02:41 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...:

Climate change skeptics are doing a bit of gloating following a series of mainstream media reports that acknowledge what those skeptics have long held -- the earth is not warming, at least not in the last 10 years.

"The idea that CO2 is the tail that wags the dog is no longer scientifically tenable," said Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com, a website devoted to countering the prevailing acceptance of man-made global warming.

In recent weeks, Der Spiegel, the Telegraph and the Economist have reported the unexpected stabilizing of global surface temperatures. Even former NASA scientist and outspoken climate change activist James Hansen has acknowledged the 10-year lull.

Morano said: "In the peer-reviewed literature we're finding hundreds of factors influence global temperature, everything from ocean cycles to the tilt of the earth's axis to water vapor, methane, cloud feedback, volcanic dust, all of these factors are coming together. They're now realizing it wasn't the simple story we've been told of your SUV is creating a dangerously warm planet."

Many climate scientists and environmentalists agree with Morano's description of climate complexity, but reject his denials of global warming as a problem.
"This is a highly complex calculation to make in the first place. The short period of time, only 10 years in which the increasing temperature has leveled, really doesn't tell us very much other than the fact that temperatures may still be rising but just not as fast as they were before," said Elgie Holstein, the senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund and a former assistant secretary at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"What's compelling about the climate science," Holstein said, "is that we have literally thousands of the world's leading scientists around the country pretty much saying the same thing about where we're headed, and it's not reassuring."
But the surface temperature stabilization suggests that computer models which predict harsh consequences of global warming may need reassessing.

As The Economist put it on March 30, "It may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy."

Indeed, no one disputes that levels of carbon dioxide are increasing globally, but CO2's impact has not been as great as many scientists had predicted.

"In the peer-reviewed literature, they've tried to explain away this lull," said Morano. "In the proceedings of the National Academy of Science a year or two ago they had a study blaming Chinese coal use for the lack of global warming. So, in an ironic twist, global warming proponents are now claiming that that coal use is saving us from dangerous global warming."

Holstein believes the temperature lull is not entirely unexpected or unpredicted.
"We're within ranges of these climate models that are saying we're still on track to some pretty troublesome impacts if we don't do something about it," he said.
A Gallup survey conducted March 7-10 found 58 percent of Americans say they worry a great deal or fair amount about global warming.

That was up from 51 percent in 2011 -- but still below the 62-72 percent levels seen between 1999 and 2001.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...

Yes, let's just ignore a clear long-term trend of warming starting at the Industrial Revolution and just look at a few years of data!

1850 - 1970 = non anthropogenic
1980-now = anthropogenic

~30 years

Warming as stopped for ~16 years

Almost half the trend

you lose
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 7:43:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 8:52:02 AM, slo1 wrote:
It seems this article adequately explains that a 10 year lull in the rise is not statistically significant and within the bounds of expected variance.

So the 10 year lull does not prove anything.

16*

it has cooled for 10 years, but warming stopped 16 years ago, give or take 2 years.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:27:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 9:02:41 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...?

Stopped reading.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:28:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If Fox News or Sean Hannity told me that water was wet, I would have to go splash myself in the face to make sure it was still true.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 10:08:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 9:28:52 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
If Fox News or Sean Hannity told me that water was wet, I would have to go splash myself in the face to make sure it was still true.

That's a genetic fallacy...

But lets say its not.

All dataset a show cooling in the last 10 years. (Except MSU).

3/5 show cooling in the last 5 years

1/5 shows cooling in last 15 years & 3/5 show warming but non-significant
http://www.climate4you.com...

El Ni"o adjusted MSU shows cooling too.
http://www.drroyspencer.com...

The trend is -0.010 degrees C

Sea temperature is falling too.
http://www.drroyspencer.com...

Getting it yet?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 10:27:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Fox news said it, I believe it, that settles it!!!! Link us to the scientific papers.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 10:37:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 10:08:14 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/21/2013 9:28:52 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
If Fox News or Sean Hannity told me that water was wet, I would have to go splash myself in the face to make sure it was still true.

That's a genetic fallacy...

I suppose that if Kim Jong-Un applied to be our secretary of National Defense, you'd take all his points at face-value because you are afraid of committing the genetic fallacy.

But lets say its not.

All dataset a show cooling in the last 10 years. (Except MSU).

3/5 show cooling in the last 5 years

1/5 shows cooling in last 15 years & 3/5 show warming but non-significant
http://www.climate4you.com...


El Ni"o adjusted MSU shows cooling too.
http://www.drroyspencer.com...

The trend is -0.010 degrees C

Sea temperature is falling too.
http://www.drroyspencer.com...

Getting it yet?

So it's just fine and dandy that we are dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and raising the proportion of it steadily without fail? Where's your evidence to prove that this activity isn't going to harm anything? I don't care about weather statistics, because a) nobody understand the weather and b) the burden of proof should be on those who are changing the dynamics of the climate, not on those who are arguing for us to use caution.

What biases are at play here? On one hand, we have the intensely-moneyed interests of our corporations who wish to continue to grow and expand, and on the other hand we have what? Geo's conspiracy theories about the new world order using GCC as a vehicle for global domination?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 12:15:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 10:37:49 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 4/21/2013 10:08:14 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/21/2013 9:28:52 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
If Fox News or Sean Hannity told me that water was wet, I would have to go splash myself in the face to make sure it was still true.

That's a genetic fallacy...

I suppose that if Kim Jong-Un applied to be our secretary of National Defense, you'd take all his points at face-value because you are afraid of committing the genetic fallacy.


That's a strawman. I'm not saying FOX is infallible. But it isn't even intelligent to compare Un to news. Or "news", if the quotations make you feel better on the fox issue.

But lets say its not.

All dataset a show cooling in the last 10 years. (Except MSU).

3/5 show cooling in the last 5 years

1/5 shows cooling in last 15 years & 3/5 show warming but non-significant
http://www.climate4you.com...


El Ni"o adjusted MSU shows cooling too.
http://www.drroyspencer.com...

The trend is -0.010 degrees C

Sea temperature is falling too.
http://www.drroyspencer.com...

Getting it yet?

So it's just fine and dandy that we are dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and raising the proportion of it steadily without fail? Where's your evidence to prove that this activity isn't going to harm anything? I don't care about weather statistics, because a) nobody understand the weather and b) the burden of proof should be on those who are changing the dynamics of the climate, not on those who are arguing for us to use caution.

Lol. This post was really ignorant. If anything, all co2 does is produce benefit. I would say those pro AGW, pro changing our whole economy, pro getting rid of a non-pollutant because they "don't care about weather statistics" is pretty conclusive as to who has the BOP. But, I'll take it for fun.

1. CO2 has not been proven to harm the biosphere, and often times increases species populations by expanding their habitat. Into formerly cool areas. Further, animals in colder climates have evolved historically (see MWP) or migrated often having little effect on them.
http://www.co2science.org...

2. CO2 is colorless, odorless, and not harmful. The only "harm" is possible warming, which is often good.

3. CO2 increases plant growth. It's plant food.
http://www.co2science.org...

Levis, S., Foley, J.A. and Pollard, D. 1999. CO2, climate, and vegetation feedbacks at the Last Glacial Maximum. Journal of Geophysical Research 104: 31,191-31,198.[http://www.co2science.org...]

Campbell, B.D., Stafford Smith, D.M., Ash, A.J., Fuhrer, J., Gifford, R.M., Hiernaux, P., Howden, S.M., Jones, M.B., Ludwig, J.A., Manderscheid, R., Morgan, J.A., Newton, P.C.D., Nosberger, J., Owensby, C.E., Soussana, J.F., Tuba, Z. and ZuoZhong, C. 2000. A synthesis of recent global change research on pasture and rangeland production: reduced uncertainties and their management implications. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82: 39-55.[http://www.co2science.org...]
--> " they find that the legume content of grass-legume swards is increased by about 10% due to a doubling of the air's CO2 content."

Idso, C.D. 2001. Earth's rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere. Energy & Environment 12: 287-310. [http://www.co2science.org...]

--> "
Idso begins his essay with an overview of basic plant responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. The best known of these biological impacts is probably CO2's aerial fertilization effect, which works its wonders on plants that utilize all three of the major biochemical pathways of photosynthesis (C3, C4, CAM). In the case of herbaceous plants, Idso notes this phenomenon typically boosts their productivity by about a third in response to a 300 ppm increase in the air's CO2 content, while it enhances the growth of woody plants by 50% or more."

Krull, E.S., Skjemstad, J.O., Burrows, W.H., Bray, S.G., Wynn, J.G., Bol, R., Spouncer, L. and Harms, B. 2005. Recent vegetation changes in central Queensland, Australia: Evidence from ^8;13C and 14C analyses of soil organic matter. Geoderma 126: 241-259. [http://www.co2science.org...]

--> "Krull et al. conclude their paper by saying their findings "stress the importance of viewing soils as dynamic systems and indicating the potential for soil organic carbon sequestration in grazed semi-arid woodlands," which land use represents a form of agroforestry whose virtues have recently been touted by Mutuo et al. (2005). Also, their findings suggest the operation of an important negative feedback phenomenon that has the potential to slow the rate-of-rise of the air's CO2 content, wherein the ongoing enrichment of the air with CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels enables woody species to more readily colonize less productive grasslands and thereby extract greater amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, which tends to retard atmospheric CO2's upward concentration trend while simultaneously providing many benefits to the soil and the plants that grow upon it."

"it is clear that carbon dioxide does not contaminate or defile things; it enhances and actually makes possible the very existence of life on earth. By all counts, then, CO2 would seem to be just the opposite of a pollutant. Indeed, it is a vital atmospheric ingredient that makes our planet a place where all forms of life may thrive (Idso, 1995)."
[http://www.co2science.org...]

Here is a short pamphlet on the issue: http://www.co2science.org...


What biases are at play here? On one hand, we have the intensely-moneyed interests of our corporations who wish to continue to grow and expand, and on the other hand we have what? Geo's conspiracy theories about the new world order using GCC as a vehicle for global domination?

Actually the amount of pro AGW bias is more rampant in this field with the HadCRU data the IPCC (pro AGW) a gold standard. And, btw, they show the least warming.

But since most skeptics aren't oil funded (I can think of 4...) this is just you being a crybaby and yelling oil.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 12:55:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course Through some unforeseen force And come to a premature end?" Alec Cairncross, 1969
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 3:58:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but water vapor is far the dominant greenhouse gas in earth's atmosphere. CO2 crisis theory is that the effects of CO2 are multiplied to cause a lot more warming than the straight physics predicts. The way alarmists derived that conclusion was that from 1983 to 1997 temperatures rose rapidly, and they claimed to have accounted for every other factor that might cause warming. Since every else was not responsible it must have been CO2.

There has been no warming since 1997, while CO2 continued to rise. So at minimum we know that the claim that everything except CO2 was accounted for is false. It is possible that something stronger than the CO2 effect has been masking the effect. It's less plausible that the CO2 effect is super-strong but has still been masked. The CO2 warming is probably small.

Greening of the earth due to increased CO2 has been observed by satellite. It is good for plants.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 4:05:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 3:58:25 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but water vapor is far the dominant greenhouse gas in earth's atmosphere. CO2 crisis theory is that the effects of CO2 are multiplied to cause a lot more warming than the straight physics predicts. The way alarmists derived that conclusion was that from 1983 to 1997 temperatures rose rapidly, and they claimed to have accounted for every other factor that might cause warming. Since every else was not responsible it must have been CO2.

There has been no warming since 1997, while CO2 continued to rise. So at minimum we know that the claim that everything except CO2 was accounted for is false. It is possible that something stronger than the CO2 effect has been masking the effect. It's less plausible that the CO2 effect is super-strong but has still been masked. The CO2 warming is probably small.

Greening of the earth due to increased CO2 has been observed by satellite. It is good for plants.

Liberal PC speak insists CO2 is a toxic gas.