Yes it can. The El Nino of 1998 was so powerful it caused a step in global temperatures of about 0.12C. It remains to be seen whether the 2015 El Nino will do the same.
The new official climate change thread
- Thread starter K Douglas
- Start date
Really?
----
Dr. Phil Jones, director of the University of Anglia's Climactic Research Unit, May 7, 2009:
"Bottom line - the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried."
http://www.burtonsys.com/FOIA/4199.txt
----
NOAA, August 2009, (Page S23):
"The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
----
Dr. Ben Santer, lead author on the IPCC's 2005 report, Nov. 17, 2011:
"In order to separate human-caused global warming from the "noise" of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists."
https://www.llnl.gov/news/separating-signal-and-noise-climate-warming
Ahh I get it. 90% of scientists who disagree with you because they don't understand the data as well as you do.
p.s.
Considering you are the one who first posted the pbl study, I would expect you knew that it was published April 10, 2015 (but keep on making excuses as to why the scientific community completely rejects your BS).
What is it with you and these dumb conspiracy theory's that you have to bring up when you have no answers.
My post has NOTHING to do with any conspiracy theory, but simple logic involving percentages,...but I guess not simple enough for you.
And then,...you link to a NOAA report as something of value,...too funny footer.
FAST
Yes, that's a warming trend, even if you're just looking at the upper atmosphere for those who live in the clouds.
Its conspiracy theory talk when you claim that all scientists hired by government agencies would change their findings to fit what you claim is some hidden agenda by these agencies:
That's kooky conspiracy talk.
32 years of data to predict the planet is going to be cooked alive ?
That is a rather small fraction of the 5 B years it has been in existence
During that period there have been many warming / thawing cycles, most long before man showed up
You want to be 100% certain before demanding a complete overhaul & retardation of the worlds economy
You still have yet to answer how you plan to replace a growing100 MM bbls of oil / day????
Here's the definition of climate, you know, the actual official definition used by absolutely everybody:Really?
----
Dr. Phil Jones, director of the University of Anglia's Climactic Research Unit, May 7, 2009:
"Bottom line - the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried."
http://www.burtonsys.com/FOIA/4199.txt
----
NOAA, August 2009, (Page S23):
"The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
----
Dr. Ben Santer, lead author on the IPCC's 2005 report, Nov. 17, 2011:
"In order to separate human-caused global warming from the "noise" of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists."
https://www.llnl.gov/news/separating-signal-and-noise-climate-warming
What is Climate?
Climate, sometimes understood as the "average weather,” is defined as the measurement of the mean and variability of relevant quantities of certain variables (such as temperature, precipitation or wind) over a period of time, ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.
The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.php
Note the authoritative nature of the source.
Also note that we are discussing a wrong prediction made by a climate denier who explicitly cited the 30 year definition in the video we are refuting
You're saying the climate researchers I cited aren't "authoritative"?
Leading climate researchers at the University of East Anglia, the NOAA and the IPCC said 15 to 17 years was sufficient to determine if there is a problem with the models.
None your quotes were stating a definition of climate and we aren't discussing the models, we are discussing the wrong prediction made by climate denier Conway.
The WMO is authoritative on the definition of climate. They are actually THE authority, the standard setters.
It's hilarious that you don't even know what climate is. I think it's literally the case that you don't know what you are talking about: you are debating climate change without any fucking clue what "climate" means.
Last edited:
You made a claim and as evidence you picked a shoddy denier site that fudged the numbers to try to make a point.
They used surface temperature data up until it didn't agree with their claim then they switched their chart to upper stratosphere data.
If you aren't smart enough to pick up on such a simple cheat, you aren't smart enough to judge the real science.
As long as you are going to quote those researchers you also have to accept that they have all said the evidence supports the fact that we are experiencing AGW and there never was a 'pause'.
You have to accept that those same researchers noted that this year was the first time we hit 2ºC from pre-industrial temperatures, that we are on track for more increases and that we need to do something about it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...e-hottest-year-on-record-by-a-stunning-margin
Would you be surprised to know that almost 2/3 of the scientific community that studies climate factors has no opinion on what is the main driver of climate change? Therefore that 9% (which I believe is understated) seems relevant.
I've said this before and I'll keep saying it - there is a relatively small cadre of "scientists" that are driving the alarmism. They refuse to debate, instead they obfuscate. Chicken shits like Gavin Schmidt actually run away from debates https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V96k4BO2sBw
This is the side you choose to support BC. These aren't true scientists. They are political hacks in it for the money and power.
When this claim is disproven to you, and its shown that the consensus of climatologists and the support of nearly all legit scientists support the findings on AGW, would you retract this claim?
Or are you one of those zealots or conspiracy types who won't change their minds even shown real evidence?
Real evidence. That's too funny. You mean the "adjusted" surface temperature data records? Or the phony consensuses published by Cook, Zimmerman/Doran or Oreskes? Better yet the hockey stick fraud? Or the GCM's that are so flawed? Nope. I'll stick to empirical science thank you very much
Right, so in your weird world NASA, NOAA, IPCC, AAAS and pretty much every scientific organization out there aren't 'empirical science'.Real evidence. That's too funny. You mean the "adjusted" surface temperature data records? Or the phony consensuses published by Cook, Zimmerman/Doran or Oreskes? Better yet the hockey stick fraud? Or the GCM's that are so flawed? Nope. I'll stick to empirical science thank you very much
Just for fun, show me where you get your 'empirical science' from.
Show me what you think of as evidence.
Talk to movie. He has repeatedly quoted that study even though only 9% support his claims.
The IPCC,NASA,NOAA are more political than scientific based. The AAAS is a general scientific body but they also get a significant portion of their funding (25-30%) from government grants. Their board is full of academics from liberal universities. Their CEO is a former Democratic congressman from NJ (16 years). They also publish Science Magazine. A publication that has been criticized roundly for not providing a transparent peer review process, particularly when it comes to climate change. Politics has hijacked science, therein lies the problem we face.
