UH OH Spaghetti Oh! Hansen says the temps have been flat!

[CrusaderFrank]

Low Total Solar Irradiance.

No wonder its so cold

 

[edthecynic]

Still trolling...Still blundering....Still no significant warming, according to the Pope of the Chicken Little Cult..

Still the stupid ass.

Nine out of the ten hottest years on record in this decade. In spite of a couple strong La Nina's and a low Total Solar Irradiance for a few years. And in 2005 and 2010, the super El Nino record year of 1998 was surpasses, without a significant El Nino. The El Nino of 2010 was weak to moderate, and only lasted the first six months, the last months of 2010 were in La Nina. Yet it was hotter than 1998.

So, let's do a little prognosticating here. I say that the next time that we have a significant El Nino, that the years of 1998, 2005, and 2010 will seem insignificant. Now, you on the other side, who claim that it is cooling, or at least not warming, what do you predict? Got enough balls to come right out and make a prediction?

I predict that the trend for the last 100 years will continue. There has been no cooling period for the last 100 years. Each warming period is followed by a flat period and the next warming period begins where the previous flat period left off. So there will be no cooling period in the future and this flat period will continue until the next warming period starts from our flat point now.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'm interested in how we're going to warm up 3c in 87 years? We hardly done 2c coming out of the little ice age(1680-2000). That would be quite the event to behold.

 

[RollingThunder]

I'm interested in how we're going to warm up 3c in 87 years? We hardly done 2c coming out of the little ice age(1680-2000). That would be quite the event to behold.

So then....the physics of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has totally escaped your comprehension thus far? That's too bad. It is actually quite possible, according to a number of scientific studies, that the world will see a six degree increase in temperatures by the end of the century. This would be utterly catastrophic for the Earth's biosphere (mass extinctions) and would inevitably be accompanied by at least several feet, more likely several yards, of sea level rise. Of course, unless the world begins very soon to drastically reduce human industrial and transportation carbon emissions, the warming and sea level rises will not end in 2100 but rather will continue for many centuries.

Even at the current CO2 levels of just under 400ppm, even if the levels weren't still rapidly rising, the world would see considerably more warming and sea level rise over the next few centuries. If we let CO2 levels continue to rise at current rates, the damage to our world will be much, much more severe and impossible to reverse.

Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report
ScienceDaily
Oct. 9, 2009
(excerpts)
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences. "Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history", she said. "A slightly shocking finding", Tripati said, "is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different."

Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years — until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new. Prior to the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the carbon dioxide level was about 280 parts per million, Tripati said. That figure had changed very little over the previous 1,000 years. But since the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide level has been rising and is likely to soar unless action is taken to reverse the trend, Tripati said. "During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today," Tripati said. "Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount."

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes, the grand old man has finally been forced to admit that the last ten years have been flat, global tempwise, further he also admits that 2012 was the NINTH warmest on record.

Who forced him and how did they do it?

 

[westwall]

Neither Dr. Jones nor Dr. Hansen think that warming has stopped. Denier cultists always try to twist and misinterpret what the scientists are saying.

'No statistically significant global warming since 1995' admits Professor Phil Jones - YouTube

LOLOLOL......


Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
BBC News
By Richard Black - Environment correspondent
10 June 2011
(excerpts)
Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not [statistically] significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis. By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use", Professor Jones told BBC News. "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

You're funny, in a retarded sort of way. You post an article from 2011 and think that trumps one from 2012 Only a true whackaloon such as yourself could even begin to think that.

 

[westwall]

So much for the claims of 2012 being the HOTTEST YEAR EVAH! Fools.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....oh walleyed, you are soooo funny.....and sooooooooooo retarded.....

2012 is the hottest year on record in the contiguous US of A, moron. Not the world.

2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says
The Washington Post
January 08, 2013
(excerpts)
Temperatures in the contiguous United States last year were the hottest in more than a century of record-keeping, shattering the mark set in 1998 by a wide margin, the federal government announced Tuesday. The average temperature in 2012 was 55.3 degrees, one degree above the previous record and 3.2 degrees higher than the 20th-century average, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. They described the data as part of a longer-term trend of hotter, drier and potentially more extreme weather.

Once again I am proven right!

If you remember back when the USA temps were lower than the Global temps, the deniers said only the USA temps were accurate because the USA had the most temp stations, and I predicted that as soon as the USA temps were higher than the Global temps the USA temps would no longer be the most accurate.

Deniers are piss easy to predict.

Ummmm, this study is from your head priest. Not from the sceptic side....do get your targets correct.

 

[westwall]

Still trolling...Still blundering....Still no significant warming, according to the Pope of the Chicken Little Cult..

Still the stupid ass.

Nine out of the ten hottest years on record in this decade. In spite of a couple strong La Nina's and a low Total Solar Irradiance for a few years. And in 2005 and 2010, the super El Nino record year of 1998 was surpasses, without a significant El Nino. The El Nino of 2010 was weak to moderate, and only lasted the first six months, the last months of 2010 were in La Nina. Yet it was hotter than 1998.

So, let's do a little prognosticating here. I say that the next time that we have a significant El Nino, that the years of 1998, 2005, and 2010 will seem insignificant. Now, you on the other side, who claim that it is cooling, or at least not warming, what do you predict? Got enough balls to come right out and make a prediction?

So, Hansen no longer speaks for your cult?

 

[westwall]

Still trolling...Still blundering....Still no significant warming, according to the Pope of the Chicken Little Cult..

Still the stupid ass.

Nine out of the ten hottest years on record in this decade. In spite of a couple strong La Nina's and a low Total Solar Irradiance for a few years. And in 2005 and 2010, the super El Nino record year of 1998 was surpasses, without a significant El Nino. The El Nino of 2010 was weak to moderate, and only lasted the first six months, the last months of 2010 were in La Nina. Yet it was hotter than 1998.

So, let's do a little prognosticating here. I say that the next time that we have a significant El Nino, that the years of 1998, 2005, and 2010 will seem insignificant. Now, you on the other side, who claim that it is cooling, or at least not warming, what do you predict? Got enough balls to come right out and make a prediction?

I predict that the trend for the last 100 years will continue. There has been no cooling period for the last 100 years. Each warming period is followed by a flat period and the next warming period begins where the previous flat period left off. So there will be no cooling period in the future and this flat period will continue until the next warming period starts from our flat point now.

Ummm, what about that cold snap from the 60's through the 70's. I understand you weren't born then, but you really should do a teensy weensy little tiny bit of research before you go and make a fool of yourself.

 

[westwall]

Yes, the grand old man has finally been forced to admit that the last ten years have been flat, global tempwise, further he also admits that 2012 was the NINTH warmest on record.

Who forced him and how did they do it?

I think he finally figured out that the climatologists have been so blatantly stupid that they are discrediting themselves (just look at the comments whenever the UK papers post an AGW story) and, as he actually was a decent scientist at one time, this may be the beginning of his efforts to rehab his name.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Still the stupid ass.

Nine out of the ten hottest years on record in this decade. In spite of a couple strong La Nina's and a low Total Solar Irradiance for a few years. And in 2005 and 2010, the super El Nino record year of 1998 was surpasses, without a significant El Nino. The El Nino of 2010 was weak to moderate, and only lasted the first six months, the last months of 2010 were in La Nina. Yet it was hotter than 1998.

So, let's do a little prognosticating here. I say that the next time that we have a significant El Nino, that the years of 1998, 2005, and 2010 will seem insignificant. Now, you on the other side, who claim that it is cooling, or at least not warming, what do you predict? Got enough balls to come right out and make a prediction?

I predict that the trend for the last 100 years will continue. There has been no cooling period for the last 100 years. Each warming period is followed by a flat period and the next warming period begins where the previous flat period left off. So there will be no cooling period in the future and this flat period will continue until the next warming period starts from our flat point now.

Ummm, what about that cold snap from the 60's through the 70's. I understand you weren't born then, but you really should do a teensy weensy little tiny bit of research before you go and make a fool of yourself.

That was caused by us putting shit into the Atmosphere. The cooling effect of the energy reflecting off of that helped to stop the warming.

 

[westwall]

I predict that the trend for the last 100 years will continue. There has been no cooling period for the last 100 years. Each warming period is followed by a flat period and the next warming period begins where the previous flat period left off. So there will be no cooling period in the future and this flat period will continue until the next warming period starts from our flat point now.

Ummm, what about that cold snap from the 60's through the 70's. I understand you weren't born then, but you really should do a teensy weensy little tiny bit of research before you go and make a fool of yourself.

That was caused by us putting shit into the Atmosphere. The cooling effect of the energy reflecting off of that helped to stop the warming.

Or, it was just another, in a long series of cycles.

 

[RollingThunder]

'No statistically significant global warming since 1995' admits Professor Phil Jones - YouTube

LOLOLOL......


Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
BBC News
By Richard Black - Environment correspondent
10 June 2011
(excerpts)
Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not [statistically] significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis. By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use", Professor Jones told BBC News. "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

You're funny, in a retarded sort of way. You post an article from 2011 and think that trumps one from 2012 Only a true whackaloon such as yourself could even begin to think that.

Only a true retard like yourself could even begin to think that this article from 2001 was intended to "trump" one(?) from 2012. The article was posted in response to a deceptive quote from Dr. Jones from 2010 that ol' Screwball posted. Try to follow what's happening as best you can, walleyed, as hard as that may be for a clueless retard like you.

BTW, just out of curiosity, just what article from 2012 did you imagine that this article I posted was supposed to "trump"?

 

[westwall]

LOLOLOL......


Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
BBC News
By Richard Black - Environment correspondent
10 June 2011
(excerpts)
Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not [statistically] significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis. By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use", Professor Jones told BBC News. "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

You're funny, in a retarded sort of way. You post an article from 2011 and think that trumps one from 2012 Only a true whackaloon such as yourself could even begin to think that.

Only a true retard like yourself could even begin to think that this article from 2001 was intended to "trump" one(?) from 2012. The article was posted in response to a deceptive quote from Dr. Jones from 2010 that ol' Screwball posted. Try to follow what's happening as best you can, walleyed, as hard as that may be for a clueless retard like you.

BTW, just out of curiosity, just what article from 2012 did you imagine that this article I posted was supposed to "trump"?

Read the OP idiot.

 

[RollingThunder]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....oh walleyed, you are soooo funny.....and sooooooooooo retarded.....

2012 is the hottest year on record in the contiguous US of A, moron. Not the world.

2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says
The Washington Post
January 08, 2013
(excerpts)
Temperatures in the contiguous United States last year were the hottest in more than a century of record-keeping, shattering the mark set in 1998 by a wide margin, the federal government announced Tuesday. The average temperature in 2012 was 55.3 degrees, one degree above the previous record and 3.2 degrees higher than the 20th-century average, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. They described the data as part of a longer-term trend of hotter, drier and potentially more extreme weather.

Once again I am proven right!

If you remember back when the USA temps were lower than the Global temps, the deniers said only the USA temps were accurate because the USA had the most temp stations, and I predicted that as soon as the USA temps were higher than the Global temps the USA temps would no longer be the most accurate.

Deniers are piss easy to predict.

Ummmm, this study is from your head priest. Not from the sceptic side....do get your targets correct.

Tonight, you must be not only severely retarded, as always, but also extremely drunk or on unfriendly drugs.

You started this abortion of a thread with an incredibly stupid OP that revealed that you thought that scientists were saying that 2012 was the hottest year on record worldwide and you crowed about finding evidence that they were being deceptive because 2012 is only the 9th or 10th warmest year on record and I then debunked your nonsense by pointing out that scientists were saying that it was the USA that experienced its hottest year on record. In an immediate knee-jerk reaction to this fact, Matthew objected that the US is only "7% of the world". Ed then pointed out that "back when the USA temps were lower than the Global temps, the deniers said only the USA temps were accurate because the USA had the most temp stations, and I predicted that as soon as the USA temps were higher than the Global temps the USA temps would no longer be the most accurate.", which is what Matthew was trying to do.

Your comments are incomprehensible and just show that, once again, you have no idea what is going on, you poor deluded retard. "Target"??? LOLOLOL.

 

[RollingThunder]

Ummm, what about that cold snap from the 60's through the 70's. I understand you weren't born then, but you really should do a teensy weensy little tiny bit of research before you go and make a fool of yourself.

That was caused by us putting shit into the Atmosphere. The cooling effect of the energy reflecting off of that helped to stop the warming.

Or, it was just another, in a long series of cycles.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......ah yes, the mysterious, unknown, un-namable "cycles" that the denier cultists blame for everything, even though they can never actually point out what "cycles" they're talking about or just why the climate scientists don't know about these phantom "cycles", 'cause none of the real climate cycles they do know about are causing the current changes.

‘What about mid-century cooling?’–No one said CO2 is the only climate influence
Grist
By Coby Beck
6 Nov 2006
(excerpts)

Objection: "There was global cooling in the ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s, even while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising. Clearly, temperature is not being driven by CO2."

Answer: None of the advocates of the theory of anthropogenic global warming claim that CO2 is the only factor controlling temperature in the ocean-atmosphere climate system. It is a large and complex system, responsive on many different timescales, subject to numerous forcings. AGW only makes the claim that CO2 is the primary driver of the warming trend seen over the last 100 years. This rise has not been smooth and steady — nor would it be expected to be.

Global Temperature Land-Ocean Index

If you look at the temperature record for the 1990s, you’ll notice a sharp drop in ’92, ’93, and ’94. This is the effect of massive amounts of SO2 ejected into the stratosphere by Mount Pinatubo’s eruption. That doesn’t mean CO2 took a holiday and stopped influencing global temperatures; it only means that the CO2 forcing was temporarily overwhelmed by another, opposite forcing. The situation is similar to the cooling seen in the ’40s and ’50s. During this period, the CO2 warming (a smaller forcing at the time) was temporarily overwhelmed by by other factors, perhaps foremost among them an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution. Pollution regulations and improved technology saw a decrease in this latter kind of emissions over the ’60s and ’70s, and as the air cleared, the CO2 signal again emerged and took over.

 

[asterism]

Still trolling...Still blundering....Still no significant warming, according to the Pope of the Chicken Little Cult..

Still the stupid ass.

Nine out of the ten hottest years on record in this decade. In spite of a couple strong La Nina's and a low Total Solar Irradiance for a few years. And in 2005 and 2010, the super El Nino record year of 1998 was surpasses, without a significant El Nino. The El Nino of 2010 was weak to moderate, and only lasted the first six months, the last months of 2010 were in La Nina. Yet it was hotter than 1998.

So, let's do a little prognosticating here. I say that the next time that we have a significant El Nino, that the years of 1998, 2005, and 2010 will seem insignificant. Now, you on the other side, who claim that it is cooling, or at least not warming, what do you predict? Got enough balls to come right out and make a prediction?

I predict that the trend for the last 100 years will continue. There has been no cooling period for the last 100 years. Each warming period is followed by a flat period and the next warming period begins where the previous flat period left off. So there will be no cooling period in the future and this flat period will continue until the next warming period starts from our flat point now.

"Each warming period is followed by a flat period."

Show me proof of this.

 

[asterism]

I'm interested in how we're going to warm up 3c in 87 years? We hardly done 2c coming out of the little ice age(1680-2000). That would be quite the event to behold.

So then....the physics of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has totally escaped your comprehension thus far? That's too bad. It is actually quite possible, according to a number of scientific studies, that the world will see a six degree increase in temperatures by the end of the century. This would be utterly catastrophic for the Earth's biosphere (mass extinctions) and would inevitably be accompanied by at least several feet, more likely several yards, of sea level rise. Of course, unless the world begins very soon to drastically reduce human industrial and transportation carbon emissions, the warming and sea level rises will not end in 2100 but rather will continue for many centuries.

Even at the current CO2 levels of just under 400ppm, even if the levels weren't still rapidly rising, the world would see considerably more warming and sea level rise over the next few centuries. If we let CO2 levels continue to rise at current rates, the damage to our world will be much, much more severe and impossible to reverse.

Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report
ScienceDaily
Oct. 9, 2009
(excerpts)
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences. "Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history", she said. "A slightly shocking finding", Tripati said, "is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different."

Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years — until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new. Prior to the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the carbon dioxide level was about 280 parts per million, Tripati said. That figure had changed very little over the previous 1,000 years. But since the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide level has been rising and is likely to soar unless action is taken to reverse the trend, Tripati said. "During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today," Tripati said. "Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount."

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,"

So why aren't the temps as high now as back then?

 

[Wicked Jester]

It truly is entertaining to see one of the enviroloon's gods come out and admit they're full o' shit, and then watch the loons scurrying, while frothing at the mouth, in a pathetic attempt to, "SAY IT AIN'T SOOOOO, JOOOOOOOOOOOOOE"

Seriously, these envirodupes are getting to be as ridiculous as the twooferdupes.

But, that's cool....the entertainment value they provide, is worth it's weight in gold.....Particularly the laughs.

 

[edthecynic]

Still the stupid ass.

Nine out of the ten hottest years on record in this decade. In spite of a couple strong La Nina's and a low Total Solar Irradiance for a few years. And in 2005 and 2010, the super El Nino record year of 1998 was surpasses, without a significant El Nino. The El Nino of 2010 was weak to moderate, and only lasted the first six months, the last months of 2010 were in La Nina. Yet it was hotter than 1998.

So, let's do a little prognosticating here. I say that the next time that we have a significant El Nino, that the years of 1998, 2005, and 2010 will seem insignificant. Now, you on the other side, who claim that it is cooling, or at least not warming, what do you predict? Got enough balls to come right out and make a prediction?

I predict that the trend for the last 100 years will continue. There has been no cooling period for the last 100 years. Each warming period is followed by a flat period and the next warming period begins where the previous flat period left off. So there will be no cooling period in the future and this flat period will continue until the next warming period starts from our flat point now.

Ummm, what about that cold snap from the 60's through the 70's. I understand you weren't born then, but you really should do a teensy weensy little tiny bit of research before you go and make a fool of yourself.

I was born in the 1940s and there was no "cold" snap in the 1960s and 1970s. There was a FLAT period at the elevated levels from the warming that started in the 1910s. But you knew that already from your extensive research.