3 trillion tons of Antarctic ice lost since 1992, seas rising, study suggests
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
somebody who refuses to read stuff he don't like has no business commenting on my articles he never reads.
and claiming the chart is based on the upper atmosphere only shows you are a scientific illiterate. your lack of science skills is displayed in pass climate change threads
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment...ith-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?
The first sentence of your article started off with a false premise, claiming there was no increase in global temperature since 1998.
I provided a link to the most trusted source of temp data, NASA.
You replied with an unsourced and unverified chart of RSS satellite readings of the upper atmosphere and didn't even understand the difference between surface temp and upper atmosphere temp.
Here, if you think you are right, show us the source for your chart and show us why you don't think its atmospheric temps.
Otherwise your just another denier who can't back his positions and instead just starts spamming the board with more random crap.
I challenge you, back up your claims with something solid for a change.
the evidence is already presented in previous climate change threads other members here already presented facts too bad you refuse to read them
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment...ith-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?
Here a Nobel prize winner saying your climate change is pseudoscience!
1350+ peer reviewed papers skeptical of AGW
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
1350+ peer reviewed papers skeptical of AGW
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
ROTFLMAO. My morning laugh, this will keep me chuckling all day. Cut-and-paste man lecturing others on "partisan propagandist views" and being "scientific illiterate". Thanks C-M, at least your posts have some value.
i am nott he only one that thinks frankfooter lack science skills
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ays-subways!&p=6152851&viewfull=1#post6152851
Frankfooter,the expert on:
Climate Change, however he could not pass a grade 10 level science test
That's a solid team you've got there, CM, larue and moviefan.
Just as I predicted above, that once it was pointed out the major flaw in one article that you'd just start spewing out different denier links instead.
They will all be just as dodgy, the first one claimed that temps hadn't risen since 1998, which is patently false, which you tried to defend with an unsourced chart depicting the temp in the clouds.
So what's the point in trying to discuss this with you if can't defend your claims and instead just keep trying to change the subject?
change the subject? you are the one that claimed the temps are based on upper atmospheric without evidence now you are claiming they are based on clouds without showing any evidence. again showing your scientific illiteracy NOBODY in metereology and climatology use temps of clouds to determine weather and climate. continue display your scientific illiteracy and and ignorance of basic high school geography.
Fools
Check out this home at Realtor.com
$23,500,000
7beds · 9+baths
7833 Atlantic Way, Miami Beach
https://www.realtor.com/realestatea..._33141_M66386-35161?cid=other_shares_core_ldp
Check out this home at Realtor.com
$23,500,000
7beds · 9+baths
7833 Atlantic Way, Miami Beach
https://www.realtor.com/realestatea..._33141_M66386-35161?cid=other_shares_core_ldp
Somebody should warn the buyer that home is likely to be under water in the next 25 years.
https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
This seems to corroborate the articles claim. Statistically nil surface temperature change from 1998-2012. Actually continued until 2015 when the next El Nino caused another rise. This, despite doctoring data.
The idea that there was a 'pause' in the increase in warming has been debunked.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...tic-denial-real-sea-temperature-a7510691.html
Your article, from 2015, is from a particular window where it was under discussion. The rise in global temp from 2016, which was the year moviefan lost the bet, has really put those claims to rest.
1998 was an El Nino year, so deniers pick it as a starting point as it was the hottest year to date at the time. It worked for cherry picked arguments. Since then its been clear that there was no pause, with new records happening almost every year.
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-global-years-on-record
Canada Man's article went even further and claimed there has been no warming at all since 1998, which is undeniably wrong.
Yeah, not how the smart money is bettingSomebody should warn the buyer that home is likely to be under water in the next 25 years.
97% of Scientists acknowledge Manmade Climate Change. But CM is the "Supreme" Scientists who seems to know it all.
I think threads of this topic has been started numerous times. It is really now a waste of time and effort to convince any of the right wing climate change deniers.
the 97% claim has been debunked. appeal to numbers is a logical fallacy science is not a democracy
even the liberal guardian disagrees with the 97% consensus
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
Dana Nuccitelli writes that I “accidentally confirm the results of last year’s 97% global warming consensus study”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I show that the 97% consensus claim does not stand up.
At best, Nuccitelli, John Cook and colleagues may have accidentally stumbled on the right number.
Cook and co selected some 12,000 papers from the scientific literature to test whether these papers support the hypothesis that humans played a substantial role in the observed warming of the Earth. 12,000 is a strange number. The climate literature is much larger. The number of papers on the detection and attribution of climate change is much, much smaller.
Cook’s sample is not representative. Any conclusion they draw is not about “the literature” but rather about the papers they happened to find.
Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.
If you look at the link that you posted, it was written by a guest and not a Guardian Reporter and he is a Professor of "Economics' and nothing to do with Climate Change.
Obviously, I would go with The Guardian's real updated article:
"30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction":
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...out-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction
Read and learn the facts.
When Hansen made up the 'greenhouse effect' and therefore made up predictions he panicked when mother nature didn't cooperate. Instead he abused his power to change data to fit his predictions. And last 10 years that false data has confused people. Facts below is proof.
