On this I have no doubt, mind you one way tickets to Mars a too expensive.
I'll get a copy of AMP and get back to you.
Damn climate change!
- Thread starter Insidious Von
- Start date
I'll get a copy of AMP and get back to you.
Nonsense. The computer models made predictions on how they thought it should work but the predictions were spectacularly wrong. The opposite of "solid," in fact.
Indeed, if you were to look at the changes in the Earth's temperature over the past 100 years, you would find there's nothing "rapid" occurring at all. My strong suspicion is that you've never actually looked at the numbers (why bother, when you can just keep quoting the false propaganda numbers about the "consensus.")
You keep claiming the scientists support your assertions, but that's not necessarily true. To prove my point, I'll acquiesce and examine the NOAA statement that you have repeatedly insisted you want me to comment on.
Here's the NOAA analysis for April 2014 that you referenced earlier in this thread: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/04
When you initially posted it, you made the following comment: "What happened to that 'pause'?" (post #28).
You followed up in post #54 by saying it was evidence of the "CONTINUATION" of global warming -- ie, that the pause had ended or perhaps never existed (emphasis in caps added by you).
However, the NOAA did not say the pause has ended. Neither has NASA, the Met Office, the IPCC or anyone else.
The pause is accepted science that is recognized throughout the world. Even the New York Times admits it (and that the climate researchers have been unable to explain what is happening): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0
Your assertion that the pause has ended was completely baseless and at odds with accepted science throughout the world. It was an unacceptable extrapolation from the NOAA release and was ultimately based on nothing more than your imagination.
Some "evidence" that is.
---
As for scientists who support the view that nothing unusual has occurred in the Earth's temperature and that they are not convinced that greenhouse gases are causing warming, you should look into the controversy the American Physical Society ran into after it issued its 2007 statement (now under review) that asserted that global warming is happening.
That led to some high-profile resignations, including the resignation of a Nobel Prize winner in physics. Forbes has reported that, in 2009, some 80 prominent scientists, researchers and environmental business leaders asked the APS to change its policy statement.
Their open letter included the following point: "measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th [and] 21st century changes are neither exceptional or persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today" (bolded emphasis added by me).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
My view, as you like to refer to it, is commonly held by many experts, including Nobel Prize-winning scientists. And those are scientists who are genuine recipients of the Nobel Prize, not fake "Nobel laureates" like Michael Mann.
We've been over this way too many times.
First the models are spectacularly accurate.
A person versed in science would understand that there are multiple influences on the climate, making the lines on the chart 'squiggly'.
El nino and volcanos being two of the bigger ones.
Yet the reality has been falling within range of the IPCC projections:
Secondly, the continuation of the pathetic cherry based years uses one of the larger non-anthropomorphic forcings as the fenceposts for its dates. Moviefan's lobbysist dates start with the largest El Nino event in recent history, giving us the 2010 heat records. '97-98 being one of the other biggest events in recent history.
This year the predictions are at about 75% certainty of an El Nino year starting this fall, watch out for Australian drought, warm winters here, poor fishing globally and more record global surface temperatures.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/upshot/how-el-nino-might-alter-the-political-climate.html?_r=0
Only in your dreams, Groggy.
From the New York Times: "(T)the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=1&
I can't tell if you are clueless or if you are just academically dishonest.
The science of how greenhouse gasses behave is extremely well understood as is the increasing amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activity.
Yes, the exact magnitude that greenhouse gases affect the earth system aren't 100% nailed down but they still represent the theory best backed by the science. Scientists argue about how much increasing CO2 will impact the system at large but they pretty much all agree that it has a significant impact. In fact despite your claims of spectacular failure, the results are in the range of some models.
Can you find any scientists who support your view that increasing atmospheric CO2 is not a significant factor in global warming?
Hey fool, from your link:
Thanks for posting a link that backs up my claim that you are using cherry picked dates based on El Nino weather events.
Stand by for a 75% chance of a disastrously warm year this year if we get another El Nino.
No and not really.
No, the scientists don't "pretty much all agree" that it has a significant impact -- or any impact, for that matter. There are differing views on both those points.
As for the results being in the range of some models, the current results were predicted by only two per cent of the models. Ninety-eight per cent of the models got it wrong.
Yes, I can. I have listed many of them before, and my previous post included the scientists who complained to the APS about its statement on global warming. They were very clear that the results do not show any evidence that anything unusual or unique to recent times has occurred in the changes to the Earth's temperature. The critics who take that view include a Nobel Prize winning physicist (Dr. Ivar Giaever).
More significantly, the fact that you don't realize there are many scientists who question the man-made global warming premise reaffirms that you don't know as much as you should about this issue.
Forget the foolishness about a "consensus." Apart from the fact that it's factually wrong, it's intellectually dishonest. It's nothing more than a fabricated political talking point to try to shut down debate. It isn't working, and it won't work.
(Indeed, as Michael Crichton once said, if there were truly a consensus, you wouldn't need to tell people there's a consensus.)
If you genuinely care about the issue, you should take the time to look at the projections and the results for yourself. You should also look at the variety of scientific views on the matter. Maybe you'll draw the same conclusion as me. Maybe not.
Either way, you'll be much further ahead.
You are calling NASA liars with this claim as they clearly back it. Do you really think that either you are smarter then them or that they are lying?
Which is it?
James Hansen (now retired) and Gavin Schmitt don't speak for all scientists, nor do they speak for all climate researchers.
Indeed, they don't even speak for everyone at NASA.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/health-sci...tell-nasa-stop-‘unproven’-climate-change-talk
Nice CYA.
You've brought these guys up before, old news, april 2012. Then again there are about 4000+ other retired NASA scientists, many of them probably climatologists who have said nothing.
I especially love this part;
Kind of makes one wonder why it was noted at all. Slow news week at The First. File it under MEH?
You just have to laugh
49 Cliff Clavins Walk into a Bar and Talk Climate Change
You could almost set your watch by it. It has become a regular absurdity that a bunch of non-scientists try to tell the world that they know something the experts don’t.
Those of us who watched that iconic television show called Cheers remember Cliff, the mailman. He considered himself the expert on everything even though it was painfully obvious he knew very little about anything.
Well we got our latest batch of Cliff Clavin wisdom this past week when 49 former staff members from NASA wrote a letter to NASA administrators decrying the work that the organization does on climate. It makes one wonder what the thousands of current NASA employees think of their former colleagues.
It is important to point out that the leader of this gang is none other than Harrison Schmitt, a well-known, and self-described “denier” of human-caused climate change. While he trumpets his scientific expertise, none of it relates to climate.
For those who follow the more extreme fringes of climate denialism, Harrison’s participation is not a surprise. Approximately one year ago he claimed the arctic sea ice had recovered from its dramatic declines in preceding years. That claim was false and it attracted the attention of the National Snow and Ice Data Center who had to tell us what we already knew… Harrison Schmitt didn’t know what he was talking about.
Also not surprising to real climate scientists is that the other person who apparently spearheaded this letter, Walter Cunningham, has zero climate experience.
But there must be someone in the group who knows of what they speak, right? Probably not. I performed a scientific literature search on over half the signers and found, you guessed it, zero experience. So, this is a group that might be able to build spacecraft, but they certainly aren’t a group with notable climate backgrounds.
So why the charade? While I cannot be certain, I can only guess. Perhaps, in the era of tight science budgets, this group bemoans the money spent on Earth sciences when it could be spent on manned spaceflight. I am also guessing that the denialists have run out of real scientists to speak for their cause. The small and decreasing cadre of denialist climate scientists have had a few bad years. We have had continued increases in the Earth’s temperature, extraordinary weather that has made people in states like Texas, Oklahoma, and North Dakota wonder what was happening, and increasing costs of severe weather including droughts and massive, repeated flooding.
The few second-rate scientists who used to tell us “don’t worry, this is all natural” have now mainly had their work shown to be faulty or have seemingly given up on publishing altogether. Now over 97% of experts in this field agree, humans are changing the climate. So, the denialist camp has now turned to their third-string lineup.
I’m just glad that I know some of the hard working scientists at NASA who spend long hours studying our Earth, helping us make wise decisions to protect this beautiful and bountiful planet for our future generations. It is those people and the uncountable real scientists and engineers who are working every day to solidify our understanding of the climate and help bring clean technologies to market that will not only save our environment but also create jobs, improve national security and truly diversify our energy supply.
Dr. John Abraham
Associate Professor
University of St. Thomas
http://www.desmogblog.com/49-cliff-clavin-s-walk-bar-and-talk-climate-change
49 Cliff Clavins Walk into a Bar and Talk Climate Change
You could almost set your watch by it. It has become a regular absurdity that a bunch of non-scientists try to tell the world that they know something the experts don’t.
Those of us who watched that iconic television show called Cheers remember Cliff, the mailman. He considered himself the expert on everything even though it was painfully obvious he knew very little about anything.
Well we got our latest batch of Cliff Clavin wisdom this past week when 49 former staff members from NASA wrote a letter to NASA administrators decrying the work that the organization does on climate. It makes one wonder what the thousands of current NASA employees think of their former colleagues.
It is important to point out that the leader of this gang is none other than Harrison Schmitt, a well-known, and self-described “denier” of human-caused climate change. While he trumpets his scientific expertise, none of it relates to climate.
For those who follow the more extreme fringes of climate denialism, Harrison’s participation is not a surprise. Approximately one year ago he claimed the arctic sea ice had recovered from its dramatic declines in preceding years. That claim was false and it attracted the attention of the National Snow and Ice Data Center who had to tell us what we already knew… Harrison Schmitt didn’t know what he was talking about.
Also not surprising to real climate scientists is that the other person who apparently spearheaded this letter, Walter Cunningham, has zero climate experience.
But there must be someone in the group who knows of what they speak, right? Probably not. I performed a scientific literature search on over half the signers and found, you guessed it, zero experience. So, this is a group that might be able to build spacecraft, but they certainly aren’t a group with notable climate backgrounds.
So why the charade? While I cannot be certain, I can only guess. Perhaps, in the era of tight science budgets, this group bemoans the money spent on Earth sciences when it could be spent on manned spaceflight. I am also guessing that the denialists have run out of real scientists to speak for their cause. The small and decreasing cadre of denialist climate scientists have had a few bad years. We have had continued increases in the Earth’s temperature, extraordinary weather that has made people in states like Texas, Oklahoma, and North Dakota wonder what was happening, and increasing costs of severe weather including droughts and massive, repeated flooding.
The few second-rate scientists who used to tell us “don’t worry, this is all natural” have now mainly had their work shown to be faulty or have seemingly given up on publishing altogether. Now over 97% of experts in this field agree, humans are changing the climate. So, the denialist camp has now turned to their third-string lineup.
I’m just glad that I know some of the hard working scientists at NASA who spend long hours studying our Earth, helping us make wise decisions to protect this beautiful and bountiful planet for our future generations. It is those people and the uncountable real scientists and engineers who are working every day to solidify our understanding of the climate and help bring clean technologies to market that will not only save our environment but also create jobs, improve national security and truly diversify our energy supply.
Dr. John Abraham
Associate Professor
University of St. Thomas
http://www.desmogblog.com/49-cliff-clavin-s-walk-bar-and-talk-climate-change
There are 18,000 people that work at NASA. Finding 49 deniers, representing zero experience in climatology and about half of whom are administrators, equals about 0.002 percent deniers. That's an even higher ration then the 97% statement. Thank you for confirming that even including janitors, desk clerks and wackos they couldn't even find as many doubters as the IPCC.
You have confirmed my point, thanks.
97% of climatologists back the findings of the IPCC and 99.998% of NASA employees also back their work.
Are you still calling NASA liars, this isn't Hansen, this is a prime page on the NASA site:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Now I'd like to step back a post and accuse you of being dishonest.
Its one thing to repeatedly cherry pick one date, 1998, as the source of your one and only argument, but its another thing to take quotes out of context and try to lie to make a point.
Its very 'fujiesque'.
In post #128 you took a quote out of context to try to lie about the authors intent. That NYT article is not in the least a climate change denial article, as I pointed out with the quote that contradicted your claims and supported mine but which you ignored.
But its worse.
The full paragraph you quoted from:
This is the author posing a rhetorical question for which he and science have a number of theories probable answers. To claim that they admit they don't know what's going based on this authors rhetorical question in an article in which he clearly suggests that El Nino and deep ocean currents have slowed down the recent temperature increases is bald faced lying. its one thing to accuse you of being stupid, I know lots of stupid people who I really like, but its another thing to lie to try to make a point. Now, its still possible that you just did your contrarian google dance and went and googled 'climate pause' then came up to a heartland funded post that used this article out of context and you just blindly copied it. In which case you're still stupid but also a bad researcher. But its far more likely that you scanned this article for one sentence you could take out of context hoping that nobody would check up on you.
I did.
You took your quote out of context and lied about the authors intent.
The full article fully supports everything I've been saying to you, that global surface temperatures are still rising, but may have been slightly slowed by El Nino, decadal ocean currents and deep ocean heating, but that the climate is still warming, the energy has been going more into the ocean of recent.
You should apologize and cease from dishonest tactics.
Here's the rest of the authors point:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=2&
Your point about NASA is stupid but I can only handle so much foolishness at one time. So let's ignore your stupid comments about NASA and focus on your latest assertion that I'm lying.
The only thing I'm going to apologize for is that my post somehow led to your pointless blathering.
For the record, I did not say the New York Times article was a "denial" article. In post 126, I very clearly said it was an article that confirms the pause "is accepted science that is recognized throughout the world."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=2&
Furthermore, the quote that says the climate researchers "do not" know what is going on is directly from the article. And the speculation that follows about the deep ocean and/or other possibilities is clearly identified in the article as speculation.
Your record remains intact, at least in your dealings with me. Every time you accuse me of "lying," it is ultimately revealed that you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Even you should be able to do the math on that one, moviefan.
And I note that you are still calling NASA liars.
I note that the article first doesn't contain the quotes 'is accepted science that is recognized throughout the world', nor does the article say anywhere that its accepted science that there is a pause.
In fact the articles describes it as a slowdown in surface temperature increases, not as a 'pause'. Nowhere in the article does it suggest that climate change 'paused'.
Are you lying again or did you not read the article?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=2&
What the author means with his full statement and what you are claiming it means are entirely different things.
Your lack of science makes you call 'theories' speculation, your use of a partial sentence taken out of context to infer that climatologists don't know how the climate works are all dishonest.
I still accuse you of lying (unless you admit you are too stupid to fully read and comprehend the article) and will now add an extra charge of lying with claiming that the article says:
Which is it?
Are you stupid or are you lying?
Putting aside the fact the word "plateau" appears in the headline (I'm assuming you don't know what the word "plateau" means), there is nothing in your most recent posts that can explain your false assertion that I called it a "denial" article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=3&
Even worse than the false claim about the "denial" article, you doubled down on your stupidity by claiming I was "lying."
I never called it a "denial" article, nor did I imply any such thing. As for the "accepted science" quote, that was a quote of what I said (in rebuttal to your false assertion). I never said it was a direct quote from the article.
Apart from the fact that you don't know anything about the science, it also appears you are borderline illiterate (which may explain why you don't know the difference between a table of contents and an index).
No matter. I will happily abandon the thread because you didn't have the integrity to apologize for your defamatory comments, and your ignorance of the science and of the entire subject matter is no longer amusing.
There is nothing to be gained in discussing science with a fundamentalist from the Church of Global Warming. Much as I predicted all along.
The fact that the word plateau appears is a big whoop. So does the words climate change.
From the same article the;
The climate patterns are affected by numerous cycles, two of the perhaps more than a dozen, are Arctic Oscillations and El Ninos, both explained in the article you claim to have read and heavily influencing the Jet stream and give rise to the vortex we experienced earlier. The more variables involved the more short term variations are affected, but the running averages not so much. The trend is up, not necessarily in a constant increase, but up just the same.
Sort of like the scientists on the 9/11 conspiracy sites - with expertise in biology or computers.
Science is a big field but of those who are trained in and work with climatology, hundreds of papers are published every year about human driven global warming. The number of climatologists who publish on human driven CO2 NOT being a major driver?
You are claiming you said this:
A pause in climate change infers that the process of climate change had stopped, whereas this article argues that climate change continued, even though the increases in surface temperature slowed down slightly and that climate change was still putting heat into the climate just that a) that heat was going into deeper ocean areas and b) increases in surface temperatures were offset by a combo of El Nino and/or decadal ocean currents.
You also claimed this article 'confirmed' that the 'pause was accepted science'.
Yet the article does not back either of these claims.
As for this:
Either that's as far as you actually read in this article, you didn't understand this article or you are out and out lying about this article.
Which is it?
Are you stupid, lazy or dishonest?
"Slowed down slightly?'
The IPCC reported that if there was any increase at all (and the IPCC's range included the possibility that the temperature may have cooled), it was statistically insignificant. In plain English, that means no increase.
