29 excuses for "the pause"!!!

[Crick]

Graphs of CO2 v temperature before humans were producing CO2 on industrial scales MAGICALLY show temperature increases preceding CO2. Would any of you care to suggest how they could have occurred in any other fashion? Interestingly, per the work of Jeremy Shakun et al, 2012, these are followed in almost every instance by a swap as robust greenhouse warming overtakes the mild-mannered Milankovitch effects that started the affairs. CO2 leads warming in the latter portions of each instance of interglacial warming. And, of course, since the rise in CO2 that begun with the Industrial Revolution wasn't caused by Milankovitch heating or heating of any other sort, it obviously could NOT be lagging any heating. And since none of you have made the slightest headway in your attempts to refute THIS

the 120 ppm of CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere is collecting IR radiation and warming the planet (and coincidentally acidifying the world's oceans).

Period.

 

[jc456]

Graphs of CO2 v temperature before humans were producing CO2 on industrial scales MAGICALLY show temperature increases preceding CO2. Would any of you care to suggest how they could have occurred in any other fashion? Interestingly, per the work of Jeremy Shakun et al, 2012, these are followed in almost every instance by a swap as robust greenhouse warming overtakes the mild-mannered Milankovitch effects that started the affairs. CO2 leads warming in the latter portions of each instance of interglacial warming. And, of course, since the rise in CO2 that begun with the Industrial Revolution wasn't caused by Milankovitch heating or heating of any other sort, it obviously could NOT be lagging any heating. And since none of you have made the slightest headway in your attempts to refute THIS

the 120 ppm of CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere is collecting IR radiation and warming the planet (and coincidentally acidifying the world's oceans).

Period.

And yet....there is no warming. So your science is wrong. WRONG.............LoSiNg

 

[Crick]

Hey, asshole

This is warming.

And if you think that little wiggle at the very tip is sufficient reason to pretend none of the rest of this ever happened, you first need to explain what happened between 1941 and 1979 that did NOT mark the end of global warming. Do you understand the point I'm making? Cause I've made it a hundred times before and not ONCE have any of you so much as acknowledged I even asked the question.

 

[jc456]

Hey, asshole

This is warming.

And if you think that little wiggle at the very tip is sufficient reason to pretend none of the rest of this ever happened, you first need to explain what happened between 1941 and 1979 that did NOT mark the end of global warming. Do you understand the point I'm making? Cause I've made it a hundred times before and not ONCE have any of you so much as acknowledged I even asked the question.

k00k...LOL nothing, wishful graphs with data that you're working so hard at trying to convice yourself that there is warming. Dude, go to the internet and type in 'climate pause' or 'Global Warming Pause' and you can open up quite a few links that explain we're in a pause. First, do you know what the term pause means? Maybe that is the better question.

 

[jc456]

Hey, asshole

This is warming.

And if you think that little wiggle at the very tip is sufficient reason to pretend none of the rest of this ever happened, you first need to explain what happened between 1941 and 1979 that did NOT mark the end of global warming. Do you understand the point I'm making? Cause I've made it a hundred times before and not ONCE have any of you so much as acknowledged I even asked the question.

k00k...LOL nothing, wishful graphs with data that you're working so hard at trying to convice yourself that there is warming. Dude, go to the internet and type in 'climate pause' or 'Global Warming Pause' and you can open up quite a few links that explain we're in a pause. First, do you know what the term pause means? Maybe that is the better question.

Oh, and the globe has been warming since the big Ice Age, and it does it in thirty year cycles, hence 1940 to 1970. Go back in history and you will find thirty year warming cycles. I know I'm not a scientist, but what's your excuse?

Here from your favorite source wikipedia: File PDO.svg - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

and a new link I found today:THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Paper finds 50 of warming over past 30 years was due to natural ocean oscillations

 

[jc456]

Interesting link...2014 Accurate Hurricane -Typhoon Predictions 4 Years into the Future

 

[rightwinger]

2014 was a summer sizzler Earth s hottest on record

 

[edthecynic]

Hey, asshole

This is warming.

And if you think that little wiggle at the very tip is sufficient reason to pretend none of the rest of this ever happened, you first need to explain what happened between 1941 and 1979 that did NOT mark the end of global warming. Do you understand the point I'm making? Cause I've made it a hundred times before and not ONCE have any of you so much as acknowledged I even asked the question.

k00k...LOL nothing, wishful graphs with data that you're working so hard at trying to convice yourself that there is warming. Dude, go to the internet and type in 'climate pause' or 'Global Warming Pause' and you can open up quite a few links that explain we're in a pause. First, do you know what the term pause means? Maybe that is the better question.

Oh, and the globe has been warming since the big Ice Age, and it does it in thirty year cycles, hence 1940 to 1970. Go back in history and you will find thirty year warming cycles. I know I'm not a scientist, but what's your excuse?

Here from your favorite source wikipedia: File PDO.svg - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

and a new link I found today:THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Paper finds 50 of warming over past 30 years was due to natural ocean oscillations

30 year warming cycles and 30 year FLAT cycle. 1940 to 1970 was a flat cycle sandwiched in between two 30 year warming cycles, we are now half way through another FLAT cycle. There has been no cooling cycle for 100 years. Some warming forcing, whatever it is, has offset the 30 year cooling cycles.

If 50% of the warming was due to ocean OSCILLATIONS, why did not the ocean's cooling oscillations bring about a cooling cycle, or at least 50% of a cooling cycle????? There is some type of warming forcing that seems capable of offsetting both ocean and solar cooling cycles!

 

[jc456]

Hey, asshole

This is warming.

And if you think that little wiggle at the very tip is sufficient reason to pretend none of the rest of this ever happened, you first need to explain what happened between 1941 and 1979 that did NOT mark the end of global warming. Do you understand the point I'm making? Cause I've made it a hundred times before and not ONCE have any of you so much as acknowledged I even asked the question.

k00k...LOL nothing, wishful graphs with data that you're working so hard at trying to convice yourself that there is warming. Dude, go to the internet and type in 'climate pause' or 'Global Warming Pause' and you can open up quite a few links that explain we're in a pause. First, do you know what the term pause means? Maybe that is the better question.

Oh, and the globe has been warming since the big Ice Age, and it does it in thirty year cycles, hence 1940 to 1970. Go back in history and you will find thirty year warming cycles. I know I'm not a scientist, but what's your excuse?

Here from your favorite source wikipedia: File PDO.svg - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

and a new link I found today:THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Paper finds 50 of warming over past 30 years was due to natural ocean oscillations

30 year warming cycles and 30 year FLAT cycle. 1940 to 1970 was a flat cycle sandwiched in between two 30 year warming cycles, we are now half way through another FLAT cycle. There has been no cooling cycle for 100 years. Some warming forcing, whatever it is, has offset the 30 year cooling cycles.

If 50% of the warming was due to ocean OSCILLATIONS, why did not the ocean's cooling oscillations bring about a cooling cycle, or at least 50% of a cooling cycle????? There is some type of warming forcing that seems capable of offsetting both ocean and solar cooling cycles!

There is? then why don't you show it. So one of you posts the 30 years cooling and another says no it isn't it's flat. Hmmm.... you all need to get together and get your story straight.

As I stated and as you have confirmed there are 30 year cycles. You also know there are longer cycles right? You can look them up on the internet.

 

[edthecynic]

Hey, asshole

This is warming.

And if you think that little wiggle at the very tip is sufficient reason to pretend none of the rest of this ever happened, you first need to explain what happened between 1941 and 1979 that did NOT mark the end of global warming. Do you understand the point I'm making? Cause I've made it a hundred times before and not ONCE have any of you so much as acknowledged I even asked the question.

k00k...LOL nothing, wishful graphs with data that you're working so hard at trying to convice yourself that there is warming. Dude, go to the internet and type in 'climate pause' or 'Global Warming Pause' and you can open up quite a few links that explain we're in a pause. First, do you know what the term pause means? Maybe that is the better question.

Oh, and the globe has been warming since the big Ice Age, and it does it in thirty year cycles, hence 1940 to 1970. Go back in history and you will find thirty year warming cycles. I know I'm not a scientist, but what's your excuse?

Here from your favorite source wikipedia: File PDO.svg - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

and a new link I found today:THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Paper finds 50 of warming over past 30 years was due to natural ocean oscillations

30 year warming cycles and 30 year FLAT cycle. 1940 to 1970 was a flat cycle sandwiched in between two 30 year warming cycles, we are now half way through another FLAT cycle. There has been no cooling cycle for 100 years. Some warming forcing, whatever it is, has offset the 30 year cooling cycles.

If 50% of the warming was due to ocean OSCILLATIONS, why did not the ocean's cooling oscillations bring about a cooling cycle, or at least 50% of a cooling cycle????? There is some type of warming forcing that seems capable of offsetting both ocean and solar cooling cycles!

There is? then why don't you show it. So one of you posts the 30 years cooling and another says no it isn't it's flat. Hmmm.... you all need to get together and get your story straight.

As I stated and as you have confirmed there are 30 year cycles. You also know there are longer cycles right? You can look them up on the internet.

Learn how to read!

 

[jc456]

Hey, asshole

This is warming.

And if you think that little wiggle at the very tip is sufficient reason to pretend none of the rest of this ever happened, you first need to explain what happened between 1941 and 1979 that did NOT mark the end of global warming. Do you understand the point I'm making? Cause I've made it a hundred times before and not ONCE have any of you so much as acknowledged I even asked the question.

k00k...LOL nothing, wishful graphs with data that you're working so hard at trying to convice yourself that there is warming. Dude, go to the internet and type in 'climate pause' or 'Global Warming Pause' and you can open up quite a few links that explain we're in a pause. First, do you know what the term pause means? Maybe that is the better question.

Oh, and the globe has been warming since the big Ice Age, and it does it in thirty year cycles, hence 1940 to 1970. Go back in history and you will find thirty year warming cycles. I know I'm not a scientist, but what's your excuse?

Here from your favorite source wikipedia: File PDO.svg - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

and a new link I found today:THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Paper finds 50 of warming over past 30 years was due to natural ocean oscillations

30 year warming cycles and 30 year FLAT cycle. 1940 to 1970 was a flat cycle sandwiched in between two 30 year warming cycles, we are now half way through another FLAT cycle. There has been no cooling cycle for 100 years. Some warming forcing, whatever it is, has offset the 30 year cooling cycles.

If 50% of the warming was due to ocean OSCILLATIONS, why did not the ocean's cooling oscillations bring about a cooling cycle, or at least 50% of a cooling cycle????? There is some type of warming forcing that seems capable of offsetting both ocean and solar cooling cycles!

There is? then why don't you show it. So one of you posts the 30 years cooling and another says no it isn't it's flat. Hmmm.... you all need to get together and get your story straight.

As I stated and as you have confirmed there are 30 year cycles. You also know there are longer cycles right? You can look them up on the internet.

Learn how to read!

I read just fine, you?

 

[Ernie S.]

Hey, asshole

This is warming.

And if you think that little wiggle at the very tip is sufficient reason to pretend none of the rest of this ever happened, you first need to explain what happened between 1941 and 1979 that did NOT mark the end of global warming. Do you understand the point I'm making? Cause I've made it a hundred times before and not ONCE have any of you so much as acknowledged I even asked the question.

That little wiggle at the very tip is sufficient reason to expect a drop in global temps over the next 10 - 15 years just has happened repeatedly when there has been a similar pause. Sorry guy. The Church of Gore is bleeding members. They have a proven record of fudging data and stifling contrary opinion. Only those with a financial interest in promoting AGW, still keep the faith.

 

[Crick]

Hey, asshole

This is warming.

And if you think that little wiggle at the very tip is sufficient reason to pretend none of the rest of this ever happened, you first need to explain what happened between 1941 and 1979 that did NOT mark the end of global warming. Do you understand the point I'm making? Cause I've made it a hundred times before and not ONCE have any of you so much as acknowledged I even asked the question.

k00k...LOL nothing, wishful graphs with data that you're working so hard at trying to convice yourself that there is warming. Dude, go to the internet and type in 'climate pause' or 'Global Warming Pause' and you can open up quite a few links that explain we're in a pause. First, do you know what the term pause means? Maybe that is the better question.

Are you blind as well as stupid? That data is quite real. We are in a pause. We haven't denied it. The pause is the little nearly horizontal wiggle in the very tip of that graphic. Can you look at the scale of your wiggle, of how far it REDUCES temperatures, of how long it has lasted, of how it matches KNOWN forcing factors and REALLY tell us that in the face of the rest of that data, in the face of the size and character of the fluctuation it has already presented - WITHOUT coming to an end - you believe that anthropogenic global warming either has ended or has never taken place at all? Can you? If so, it's going to take a WHOLE lot more justification than "Dude, go to the internet and type in "climate pause". I bet I can get a hundred times as many responses by typing in "fucking idiot".

 

[edthecynic]

Hey, asshole

This is warming.

And if you think that little wiggle at the very tip is sufficient reason to pretend none of the rest of this ever happened, you first need to explain what happened between 1941 and 1979 that did NOT mark the end of global warming. Do you understand the point I'm making? Cause I've made it a hundred times before and not ONCE have any of you so much as acknowledged I even asked the question.

That little wiggle at the very tip is sufficient reason to expect a drop in global temps over the next 10 - 15 years just has happened repeatedly when there has been a similar pause. Sorry guy. The Church of Gore is bleeding members. They have a proven record of fudging data and stifling contrary opinion. Only those with a financial interest in promoting AGW, still keep the faith.

Time will tell.

 

[Crick]

This is warming.

And if you think that little wiggle at the very tip is sufficient reason to pretend none of the rest of this ever happened, you first need to explain what happened between 1941 and 1979 that did NOT mark the end of global warming. Do you understand the point I'm making? Cause I've made it a hundred times before and not ONCE have any of you so much as acknowledged I even asked the question.

That little wiggle at the very tip is sufficient reason to expect a drop in global temps over the next 10 - 15 years just has happened repeatedly when there has been a similar pause. Sorry guy. The Church of Gore is bleeding members. They have a proven record of fudging data and stifling contrary opinion. Only those with a financial interest in promoting AGW, still keep the faith.

I'm curious what you believe that "sufficient reason" to be. I'm not denying it's not possible. I have already opined on a few occasions that maybe what's happening now has some similarity or relationship to what happened in 1941. The changes to the ENSO cycle that have been moving warmed surface waters into the depth may very well be what happened then. We have insufficient data to tell. But in any case, neither events then or now mark any termination of anthropogenic global warming. The radiative imbalance at the ToA is still climbing as is the world's total heat content.

As far as scientists are concerned, "the church of Gore" is not bleeding members. It's become very close to the only game in town. Acceptance of AGW among active climate scientists is approaching 100%. And very few governments are siding with the deniers.

Data has NOT been "fudged". Adjustments to the record have been made openly, openly justified and have done nothing but improved their accuracy. Contrary opinion has not been "stifled". The problem (from your PoV) is that valid studies of these topics do not come to the conclusions that most deniers would like to see. As the 98.75% of the last 13,000 studies have shown, when you look at the data, the conclusion it all points to is that AGW is valid. The alternatives just don't work.