5 Scientific Reasons That Global Warming Isn't Happening

[longknife]

John Hawkins | Feb 18, 2014

This should rile up the Global Warming Pundits no end. Should be fun to read their rants about this:

There hasn't been any global warming since 1997

There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man:

Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012

Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over

Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong

Oh yeah! I know. It's no longer GW, it's Man-made Climate Change. Read the full piece – with links – @ 5 Scientific Reasons That Global Warming Isn't Happening - John Hawkins - Page full

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Er, it's not Global Warming any longer it's The Great Climactic Googly Moogly, Charlie Brown!

 

[skookerasbil]

An elaborate hoax

 

[ScienceRocks]

Biggest hoax in history if so...wow

 

[Abraham3]

Yeah... god... am I riled up. Yeah... man... really riled. There's no telling what I might (...yaawwnn...) say.

 

[ScienceRocks]

John Hawkins | Feb 18, 2014

This should rile up the Global Warming Pundits no end. Should be fun to read their rants about this:

There hasn't been any global warming since 1997

There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man:

Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012

Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over

Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong

Oh yeah! I know. It's no longer GW, it's Man-made Climate Change. Read the full piece – with links – @ 5 Scientific Reasons That Global Warming Isn't Happening - John Hawkins - Page full

1. Surface yes, energy/climate system = no.
2. Most of the text books and climate scientist would disagree.
3. 2008, 2009 and 2010 was above 2007. Weather patterns are important as the level goes around the means.
4. They don't do a very good job at the short range. Wasn't designed to handle that.
5. Prove it.

 

[Politico]

Of course it's happening. That's never been the point though. It's about whether some insignificant bipeds are causing it.

 

[Old Rocks]

John Hawkins | Feb 18, 2014

This should rile up the Global Warming Pundits no end. Should be fun to read their rants about this:

There hasn't been any global warming since 1997

There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man:

Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012

Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over

Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong

Oh yeah! I know. It's no longer GW, it's Man-made Climate Change. Read the full piece – with links – @ 5 Scientific Reasons That Global Warming Isn't Happening - John Hawkins - Page full

A blog. OK, that is your 'scientific' source.

1. Since 1997, there have been two years warmer than than 1998, 2005, and 2010. All ten of the warmest years recorded have occurred since 1997.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

2. No scientific consensus? Every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements stating that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.
Climate Change: Consensus

3. 2012 was a very unusual year for the minimum. It was the lowest on record, but 2013 was sixth lowest on the satellite record. Here is where you can look at the real data for yourself;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

4. Yes, the climate models have been wrong. None of them predicted that we would be so close to losing all of the Arctic Ice this early in the 21st century. They predicted a buildup of ice in Antarctica from the warming, but the melting of the ice at the ice shelves by a warming ocean has allowed continental ice there to flow much faster, so Antarctica is experiancing a net and accelerating loss of ice. As is Greenland. The 'alarmists' were not alarmist enough.

You assholes, on the other hand, stated that there was no warming or weather changes at all until the very obvious changes that everyone was seeing forced you to change that tune. Now it is all 'oh, it's a natural cycle'. But you cannot name the cycle or the forcing in that 'cycle.

5. Just another example of what a bunch of fucked up liars you people are. The world continues to warm, the sea level continues to rise, and there is a demonstrable increase in extreme weather events.
UAH Global Temperature Update for January 2014: +0.29 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/sea-level-rise.gif
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/extremes/201313.gif

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course it's happening. That's never been the point though. It's about whether some insignificant bipeds are causing it.

The single largest change in our atmosphere was caused by an insignificant lifeform, blue-grean algea.

 

[longknife]

Of course it's happening. That's never been the point though. It's about whether some insignificant bipeds are causing it.

The single largest change in our atmosphere was caused by an insignificant lifeform, blue-grean algea.

So nice to note that you made at least one post without name-calling and confrontation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

John Hawkins | Feb 18, 2014

This should rile up the Global Warming Pundits no end. Should be fun to read their rants about this:

There hasn't been any global warming since 1997

There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man:

Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012

Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over

Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong

Oh yeah! I know. It's no longer GW, it's Man-made Climate Change. Read the full piece – with links – @ 5 Scientific Reasons That Global Warming Isn't Happening - John Hawkins - Page full

A blog. OK, that is your 'scientific' source.

1. Since 1997, there have been two years warmer than than 1998, 2005, and 2010. All ten of the warmest years recorded have occurred since 1997.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

2. No scientific consensus? Every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements stating that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.
Climate Change: Consensus

3. 2012 was a very unusual year for the minimum. It was the lowest on record, but 2013 was sixth lowest on the satellite record. Here is where you can look at the real data for yourself;
Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

4. Yes, the climate models have been wrong. None of them predicted that we would be so close to losing all of the Arctic Ice this early in the 21st century. They predicted a buildup of ice in Antarctica from the warming, but the melting of the ice at the ice shelves by a warming ocean has allowed continental ice there to flow much faster, so Antarctica is experiancing a net and accelerating loss of ice. As is Greenland. The 'alarmists' were not alarmist enough.

You assholes, on the other hand, stated that there was no warming or weather changes at all until the very obvious changes that everyone was seeing forced you to change that tune. Now it is all 'oh, it's a natural cycle'. But you cannot name the cycle or the forcing in that 'cycle.

5. Just another example of what a bunch of fucked up liars you people are. The world continues to warm, the sea level continues to rise, and there is a demonstrable increase in extreme weather events.
UAH Global Temperature Update for January 2014: +0.29 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/sea-level-rise.gif
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/extremes/201313.gif

Ever hear of Max Planck Institute?

"Max Planck Institute For Meteorology: “Prognoses Confirm Model Forecasts” Warming Postponed “Hundreds Of Years”
By P Gosselin on 26. Mai 2013
Now that global temperatures have not risen in 15 years, a number of scientists find themselves having great difficulty coming to terms with that new reality.

- See more at: Max Planck Institute For Meteorology: ?Prognoses Confirm Model Forecasts? Warming Postponed ?Hundreds Of Years?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Real scientists have finally decided to weigh in on "ManMade Global Warming" the biggest scientific fraud ever

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course it's happening. That's never been the point though. It's about whether some insignificant bipeds are causing it.

The single largest change in our atmosphere was caused by an insignificant lifeform, blue-grean algea.

So nice to note that you made at least one post without name-calling and confrontation.

Po' baby, have I hurt your feelings in the past? You fellows have no compunction about name calling and telling outright lies, without any supporting sources at all. But you sure do whine and snivel when you get called on your falsehoods and stupidity.

Well, live with it. I am not a nice civilized scientist, I am a knuckledragging millwright, and when I smell the stink, I am willing to call it shit.

 

[Old Rocks]

Real scientists have finally decided to weigh in on "ManMade Global Warming" the biggest scientific fraud ever

Frankie Boy, this is even dumber than your usual posts. It is not the scientists from the Max Planck Institute that are calling global warming a fraud, on the contrary, their paper states that global warming is very real. It is your non-scientist blog author that is calling scientists at the Max Planck Institute frauds.

Max Planck Institute For Meteorology: ?Prognoses Confirm Model Forecasts? Warming Postponed ?Hundreds Of Years?

The MPI starts its press release by telling readers not to be fooled by the warming pause (my emphasis):


Global warming continues to baffle climate scientists, but one thing is sure: Over the next decades the average mean temperature on Earth will increase, even if the increase in the years from 2001 – 2010 was much slower than the decade before. This is backed up by prognoses from an international team of scientists led by scientists at the University of Oxford, of which both directors Jochem Marotzke and Björn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology were a part. Using the current climate data, the scientists have newly calculated how much the air and Earth’s surface will have warmed up as soon as the CO2 concentration in the air doubles.”

- See more at: Max Planck Institute For Meteorology: ?Prognoses Confirm Model Forecasts? Warming Postponed ?Hundreds Of Years?

The warming is in the pipes, and it will happen. And, no matter what we do from here on out, the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere now will be affecting us hundreds of years from now. The paper did not state that it would take that long to happen, rather that it would take that long for the full effects to be felt.

You fellows are sure adept at telling lies. Best you be, for that is all you have.

 

[SwimExpert]

Biggest hoax in history if so...wow

No, that would be Christianity. The other white man religion.

 

[skookerasbil]

"models" are not science......but the alarmist warmers would like people to think that. The models are frequently wrong. Computer models on all sorts of predictions end up being wrong.


But don't take my word for it.......check it out yourself >>>>>


The models are wrong | Behind The Black



Fact is......the "models" are laughable......but its part of the ruse of climate change science.


This generation has completely lost ALL of its credibility in terms of "science". When you fuck with the data, its non-science.

 

[Politico]

Of course it's happening. That's never been the point though. It's about whether some insignificant bipeds are causing it.

The single largest change in our atmosphere was caused by an insignificant lifeform, blue-grean algea.

Algae have legs? Who knew?

 

[Abraham3]

No warming since 1998

Reduced SURFACE warming since 1998. Warming is still taking place. Deep ocean warming increased at the same time surface warming slowed. The radiative imbalance at ToA is STILL present. See Figure 2-11 in WG-I of AR5 and explanatory text.

Models are crap

Simplistic criticism. Models can not BE perfect. However, they have been improving as climatologists understanding of the underlying processes and the computer power to deal with them in increasingly fine granularity, have grown. Most models failed to predict the 1998 change. The process that caused that change is not yet well understood. But data clearly indicate that it is NOT a cessation of global warming but a change in the distribution of the heat that the Earth is still accumulating.

No consensus on human causation

See Wikipedia's article on the Scientific Opinion on Climate Change. You've all seen that a dozen times or more and no one has produced ANYTHING like an acceptable challenge to ANY of it. Deniers have never produced a survey/poll/study showing anything but absolutely trivial support among climate scientists for non-anthropogenic causes of global warming. The challenges deniers have made to the validity of the various surveys/polls/studies noted in this Wiki article have only demonstrated a willingness to exploit a deficiency among the general public in statistics by pushing knowingly dishonest contentions regarding these results.

Here is an abbreviated version of the information noted in

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia under Surveys of Scientists and Scientific Literature

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

1) 2004, Science Historian Naomi Oreskes conducted a study of the scientific literature on climate change:
Out of 928 papers' abstracts from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, NONE disagreed with the consensus position (AGW).

2) 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected member of either the AMS or the AGU:
97% agreed that temperatures had increased over the prior 100 years
84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring
74% agreed that scientific evidence substantiates human-induced warming is taking place
5% said they thought human activity did NOT contribute to greenhouse warming

3) 2008, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch invited 2,058 climate scientists from 34 different countries to participate in a web-bases survey.
373(18.2%) of invited scientists responded.
o To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", ALL respondents answered that they agreed to some small extent, some large extent or very much. NONE responded that they did not agree at all.
o To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?"98.65% of respondents agreed to a small extent, a large extent or very much. 1.35% did not agree at all.

4) 2009, Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman, at UI at Chicago, polled 10,257 Earth scientists and received responses from 3,146 of them. Results were analyzed both globally and by specialization. 79 respondents listed climate science as their area of expertise AND had published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.
Among the 79 actively publishing climate scientists:
o 96.2% (76) believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels.
o 94.9% (75) believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures
Among ALL 3,146 Earth scientist respondents:
o 90% agreed that temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels
o 82% agreed that humans signficantly influenced global temperatures

5) 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the US, Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010, reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and found:
o 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
o the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers

6) 2011, Farnsworth and Lichter, Repeated the 2007, Harris Interactive survey of AMS and AGU members. Published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research a survey and analysis of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry.
o 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century
o 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring
o 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global
warming

7) 2013, Environmental Research Letters, John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting that 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

8) Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers. Among the 1,381 authors who chose to participate, 97.2% rated their own papers as supporting the AGW consensus.

9) 2014, James Lawrence Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed 13,950 published research papers on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and a follow-up analysis of 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 and found:
o 24 out of 13,950 (0.172%) rejected anthropogenic global warming [leaving 99.828%]
o 1 out of the 2,258 (0.044%) papers in the follow-up rejected anthropogenic global warming [leaving 99.956%]

There IS a very strong consensus among active climate scientists supporting AGW.

 

[Abraham3]

Why don't some of you who reject ALL this information out of hand, give the rest of us some reason to believe you have a rational justification for doing so? Eh?

Here is an abbreviated version of the information noted in

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1) 2004, Science Historian Naomi Oreskes conducted a study of the scientific literature on climate change:
Out of 928 papers' abstracts from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, NONE disagreed with the consensus position (AGW).

2) 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected member of either the AMS or the AGU:
97% agreed that temperatures had increased over the prior 100 years
84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring
74% agreed that scientific evidence substantiates human-induced warming is taking place
5% said they thought human activity did NOT contribute to greenhouse warming

3) 2008, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch invited 2,058 climate scientists from 34 different countries to participate in a web-bases survey.
373(18.2%) of invited scientists responded.
o To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", ALL respondents answered that they agreed to some small extent, some large extent or very much. NONE responded that they did not agree at all.
o To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?"98.65% of respondents agreed to a small extent, a large extent or very much. 1.35% did not agree at all.

4) 2009, Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman, at UI at Chicago, polled 10,257 Earth scientists and received responses from 3,146 of them. Results were analyzed both globally and by specialization. 79 respondents listed climate science as their area of expertise AND had published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.
Among the 79 actively publishing climate scientists:
o 96.2% (76) believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels.
o 94.9% (75) believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures
Among ALL 3,146 Earth scientist respondents:
o 90% agreed that temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels
o 82% agreed that humans signficantly influenced global temperatures

5) 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the US, Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010, reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and found:
o 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
o the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers

6) 2011, Farnsworth and Lichter, Repeated the 2007, Harris Interactive survey of AMS and AGU members. Published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research a survey and analysis of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry.
o 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century
o 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring
o 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of
global warming

7) 2013, Environmental Research Letters, John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting that 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

8) Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers. Among the 1,381 authors who chose to participate, 97.2% rated their own papers as supporting the AGW consensus.

9) 2014, James Lawrence Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed 13,950 published research papers on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and a follow-up analysis of 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 and found:
o 24 out of 13,950 (0.172%) rejected anthropogenic global warming
[leaving 99.828% who don't]
o 1 out of the 2,258 (0.044%) papers in the follow-up rejected
anthropogenic global warming [leaving 99.956% who did not]

There IS a very strong consensus among active climate scientists supporting AGW.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

If it's in Wki, it must be true!