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

[Procrustes Stretched]

Here you go idiot. These are all Mullers views of AGW "theory" when he was supposedly a "sceptic". As can be plainly seen...well, probably not to the brain dead such as yourself,
but to a normal person he very clearly was never a sceptic.

Enjoy the truth silly person...

Author and physicist Richard A. Muller chats with Grist about getting science back in the White Hous | Grist

Physics the Next President Needs to Know | Wired Science | Wired.com

Medieval Global Warming | MIT Technology Review

Bay Area Nobel Prize winner named US Energy Czar | abc7news.com

Global Warming Bombshell | MIT Technology Review

context. you leave out the context of his shifting belief based on evidence...unlike you

In his own words without your filter:

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?

Bullcrap. These views are from as long ago as 2003 and they are all written in the vernacular of the AGW proponent. I see you are still not bothered by intellectual honesty.

Go figure.

go figure? how dumb are you? in 2012 and in 2009

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Published: July 28, 2012

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

 

[westwall]

context. you leave out the context of his shifting belief based on evidence...unlike you

In his own words without your filter:

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?

Bullcrap. These views are from as long ago as 2003 and they are all written in the vernacular of the AGW proponent. I see you are still not bothered by intellectual honesty.

Go figure.

go figure? how dumb are you? in 2012 and in 2009

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Published: July 28, 2012

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

Ummm, stoooopid...the articles I posted were 2008 and EARLIER. Wow, you have a problem with even the most basic of stuff don't you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Bullcrap. These views are from as long ago as 2003 and they are all written in the vernacular of the AGW proponent. I see you are still not bothered by intellectual honesty.

Go figure.

go figure? how dumb are you? in 2012 and in 2009

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Published: July 28, 2012

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

Ummm, stoooopid...the articles I posted were 2008 and EARLIER. Wow, you have a problem with even the most basic of stuff don't you.

Muller becomes a skeptic in 2009.

are you off your meds? his own words: "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming."

 

[RollingThunder]

Funny, that has never been stated by your high priests, ever...in fact they have proclaimed just the opposite...

LOLOLOLOLOL.....I see you've totally lost the thread again, walleyed.....are you still drunk???.....let me refresh your memory, you poor befuddled retard.....I posted an article referencing a scientific study showing that when CO2 levels were this high in the past, which hasn't happened in the last 15 million years, planetary temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees warmer and sea levels were 75 to 125 feet higher than today. The Ass-ter asked why temperatures aren't that hot now and I gave the answer you are so very idiotically responding to. Just because it would take a while for temperatures to catch up and equilibrate with the 'forcing' of the extra CO2 mankind has put into the air, assuming current CO2 levels were "sustained" at current levels (about 400ppm) for a long period of time, does not mean that, in the real world with rapidly rising CO2 levels that may hit 600ppm or even 900ppm, we aren't facing an immediate crisis that needs an immediate response or that there aren't some pretty severe consequences starting to happen now or that there aren't tipping points/feedback loops in wait that could potentially cause uncontrollable run-away global warming, possibly, for example, through the release of the methane under the permafrost or from the undersea methane clathrates.

You are a broken record pushing your little drug induced cult.

LOLOLOLOL.....yes, I'm sure all of those tens of thousands of scientists all around the world are "on drugs".....LOLOLOL......

Meanwhile, you are a deluded and very ignorant little cretin pushing the myths, misinformation and lies of your stupidity induced, fossil fuel industry sponsored cult of rightwingnut reality denial.

Yeah sure silly person, you see those are just the most recent "tipping points", there have been many others extending far back into the dark ages of AGW "theory".

Do you think you could manage to list those supposed previous "tipping points", walleyed? The only tipping point so far that we may have already passed, as far as I know, is the one associated with the loss of Arctic sea ice cover and that happens when highly reflective white ice melts and is replaced by dark ocean water that strongly absorbs the sun's energy, thus warming the waters and causing more ice to melt, exposing more ocean surface, and so on and so on.

So Walleyed, what are these "many others extending far back" that appear to exist only in your deranged little brain or perhaps in denier cult mythology?

Only a truely delusional idiot like you and your fellow travellers can think AGW "theory" has legs anymore. Even the high priest of the movement (bowel movement perhaps?) Hansen is backing off of the hysteria because it ain't working any more fool.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....an amusing mix of retarded denier cult drivel/wishful thinking and your own personal brand of gibbering insanity. LOL. That little denier cult bizarro-world you maintain in your rectum, where anthropogenic global warming isn't happening, glaciers and ice sheets aren't melting, seasons aren't shifting, climate patterns aren't changing and more CO2 is a good thing, that is really the only safe place for you to hang out now, walleyed. If you ever pull your head out, harsh reality might intrude on your delusions, so don't risk it. Keep your head firmly wedged up there, walleyed, and never give up your insanity or your guns. Seriously. You're much too funny to watch the way you are now for anybody to want you to change a thing.

Stay strong, walleyedretard,
and never lose that clothes-pin on your nose!​

 

[mamooth]

Welll, well. Look who discovered natural cycles and normal variability all of a sudden

So now you're choosing to lie about us to cover up yet another of your epic fails. And no one is surprised.

You nimrods were all about "there is no climate variability and there is only CO2".

No we weren't. Why do you make up this stupid BS? Everyone knows you're lying, you know you'll get called on it and humiliated, so why do you do it?

We, on the other hand were all about natural cycles.

And you've always been shown to be totally wrong.

Now that we have been proven correct you asshats try and jump on the bandwagon and claim that you were saying this all along....you silly liars!

A 5-year El Nino wave is not a repeating natural cycle. Dang, you're clueless. And even if there was regular repeating El Nino/La Nina cycle (there's not), it's _still_ getting overwhelmed by the warming. Just like the 11-year temp cycle corresponding to solar cycles (which, contrary to your big honkin' lies, we've always talked about) is getting totally overwhelmed by the AGW forcing.

But by all means, show everyone you're not as clueless as you appear. Just inform us of the natural cycle driving the warming now, the evidence that it is indeed a repeating natural cycle, and the driving force behind that natural cycle. If you're not just blowing smoke, that should be easy for you.

 

[westwall]

Welll, well. Look who discovered natural cycles and normal variability all of a sudden

So now you're choosing to lie about us to cover up yet another of your epic fails. And no one is surprised.

You nimrods were all about "there is no climate variability and there is only CO2".

No we weren't. Why do you make up this stupid BS? Everyone knows you're lying, you know you'll get called on it and humiliated, so why do you do it?

We, on the other hand were all about natural cycles.

And you've always been shown to be totally wrong.

Now that we have been proven correct you asshats try and jump on the bandwagon and claim that you were saying this all along....you silly liars!

A 5-year El Nino wave is not a repeating natural cycle. Dang, you're clueless. And even if there was regular repeating El Nino/La Nina cycle (there's not), it's _still_ getting overwhelmed by the warming. Just like the 11-year temp cycle corresponding to solar cycles (which, contrary to your big honkin' lies, we've always talked about) is getting totally overwhelmed by the AGW forcing.

But by all means, show everyone you're not as clueless as you appear. Just inform us of the natural cycle driving the warming now, the evidence that it is indeed a repeating natural cycle, and the driving force behind that natural cycle. If you're not just blowing smoke, that should be easy for you.

The only clueless ones are all of you. For thirty years you have been making claims that hve never come true. Congrats, you idiots have a worse record than known charlatan Sylvia Brown.

 

[westwall]

LOLOLOLOLOL.....I see you've totally lost the thread again, walleyed.....are you still drunk???.....let me refresh your memory, you poor befuddled retard.....I posted an article referencing a scientific study showing that when CO2 levels were this high in the past, which hasn't happened in the last 15 million years, planetary temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees warmer and sea levels were 75 to 125 feet higher than today. The Ass-ter asked why temperatures aren't that hot now and I gave the answer you are so very idiotically responding to. Just because it would take a while for temperatures to catch up and equilibrate with the 'forcing' of the extra CO2 mankind has put into the air, assuming current CO2 levels were "sustained" at current levels (about 400ppm) for a long period of time, does not mean that, in the real world with rapidly rising CO2 levels that may hit 600ppm or even 900ppm, we aren't facing an immediate crisis that needs an immediate response or that there aren't some pretty severe consequences starting to happen now or that there aren't tipping points/feedback loops in wait that could potentially cause uncontrollable run-away global warming, possibly, for example, through the release of the methane under the permafrost or from the undersea methane clathrates.






LOLOLOLOL.....yes, I'm sure all of those tens of thousands of scientists all around the world are "on drugs".....LOLOLOL......

Meanwhile, you are a deluded and very ignorant little cretin pushing the myths, misinformation and lies of your stupidity induced, fossil fuel industry sponsored cult of rightwingnut reality denial.

Yeah sure silly person, you see those are just the most recent "tipping points", there have been many others extending far back into the dark ages of AGW "theory".

Do you think you could manage to list those supposed previous "tipping points", walleyed? The only tipping point so far that we may have already passed, as far as I know, is the one associated with the loss of Arctic sea ice cover and that happens when highly reflective white ice melts and is replaced by dark ocean water that strongly absorbs the sun's energy, thus warming the waters and causing more ice to melt, exposing more ocean surface, and so on and so on.

So Walleyed, what are these "many others extending far back" that appear to exist only in your deranged little brain or perhaps in denier cult mythology?

Only a truely delusional idiot like you and your fellow travellers can think AGW "theory" has legs anymore. Even the high priest of the movement (bowel movement perhaps?) Hansen is backing off of the hysteria because it ain't working any more fool.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....an amusing mix of retarded denier cult drivel/wishful thinking and your own personal brand of gibbering insanity. LOL. That little denier cult bizarro-world you maintain in your rectum, where anthropogenic global warming isn't happening, glaciers and ice sheets aren't melting, seasons aren't shifting, climate patterns aren't changing and more CO2 is a good thing, that is really the only safe place for you to hang out now, walleyed. If you ever pull your head out, harsh reality might intrude on your delusions, so don't risk it. Keep your head firmly wedged up there, walleyed, and never give up your insanity or your guns. Seriously. You're much too funny to watch the way you are now for anybody to want you to change a thing.

Stay strong, walleyedretard,
and never lose that clothes-pin on your nose!​

No problem little silly person. Here are just a few for your enlightenment and my entertainement.

Poor clueless retard....are you able to wipe your own ass or do you need help with that too?

Scientists 'expect climate tipping point' by 2200 - Science - News - The Independent

'We have hours' to prevent climate disaster - thestar.com

BBC NEWS | UK | PM warns of climate 'catastrophe'

Just 96 months to save world, says Prince Charles - Green Living - Environment - The Independent

Five years to save world from climate change, says WWF - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[RollingThunder]

LOLOLOLOLOL.....I see you've totally lost the thread again, walleyed.....are you still drunk???.....let me refresh your memory, you poor befuddled retard.....I posted an article referencing a scientific study showing that when CO2 levels were this high in the past, which hasn't happened in the last 15 million years, planetary temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees warmer and sea levels were 75 to 125 feet higher than today. The Ass-ter asked why temperatures aren't that hot now and I gave the answer you are so very idiotically responding to. Just because it would take a while for temperatures to catch up and equilibrate with the 'forcing' of the extra CO2 mankind has put into the air, assuming current CO2 levels were "sustained" at current levels (about 400ppm) for a long period of time, does not mean that, in the real world with rapidly rising CO2 levels that may hit 600ppm or even 900ppm, we aren't facing an immediate crisis that needs an immediate response or that there aren't some pretty severe consequences starting to happen now or that there aren't tipping points/feedback loops in wait that could potentially cause uncontrollable run-away global warming, possibly, for example, through the release of the methane under the permafrost or from the undersea methane clathrates.

Yeah sure silly person, you see those are just the most recent "tipping points", there have been many others extending far back into the dark ages of AGW "theory".

Do you think you could manage to list those supposed previous "tipping points", walleyed? The only tipping point so far that we may have already passed, as far as I know, is the one associated with the loss of Arctic sea ice cover and that happens when highly reflective white ice melts and is replaced by dark ocean water that strongly absorbs the sun's energy, thus warming the waters and causing more ice to melt, exposing more ocean surface, and so on and so on.

So Walleyed, what are these "many others extending far back" that appear to exist only in your deranged little brain or perhaps in denier cult mythology?

Yeah sure silly person, you see those are just the most recent "tipping points", there have been many others extending far back into the dark ages of AGW "theory".

Do you think you could manage to list those supposed previous "tipping points", walleyed? The only tipping point so far that we may have already passed, as far as I know, is the one associated with the loss of Arctic sea ice cover and that happens when highly reflective white ice melts and is replaced by dark ocean water that strongly absorbs the sun's energy, thus warming the waters and causing more ice to melt, exposing more ocean surface, and so on and so on.

So Walleyed, what are these "many others extending far back" that appear to exist only in your deranged little brain or perhaps in denier cult mythology?

No problem little silly person. Here are just a few for your enlightenment and my entertainement(sic).

Oh, you "Poor clueless retard....are you able to" pull your head out of "your own ass or do you need help with that too?"

Although it shouldn't take me by surprise anymore after all the times I've interacted with you on this forum, it does still startle me sometimes to realize just how extremely clueless and retarded you actually are, walleyed. I sort of assumed, I guess, that everyone who has anything to say about this would have some idea of what the phrase "tipping point" means in the field of climate change but, as usual, you're clueless about the actual meaning and apparently have some screwed-up half-witted and very mistaken idea of what it means. Hint: it's not some Green politician in Canada talking about the urgency of taking action. I was pointing out earlier that the calls for urgent action to curb carbon emissions and slow global warming were quite valid, in part because of the very real possibility that rising temperatures could trigger "tipping points/feedback loops that could potentially cause uncontrollable run-away global warming, possibly, for example, through the release of the methane under the permafrost or from the undersea methane clathrates." You came back with a garbled, rather incoherent and very delusional claim that "there have been many others [tipping points] extending far back into the dark ages of AGW "theory". That didn't make much sense but I invited you to list these supposed "many other" tipping points that you seemed to feel had already been passed. LOLOLOLOL. It's obvious now that you had no idea what the term means. So you come back with, first, an article about how "Scientists 'expect climate tipping point' by 2200". ROTFLMAO...."2200"....just exactly what I was saying about the possibility of future tipping points.....how did you think that a tipping point in 2200 is happening "far back into the dark ages of AGW"??? All the rest of your articles are just various politician and public figures warning that the world has only a limited time to act to reduce carbon emissions before potentially irreversible changes take place. Those warnings are quite true and, indeed, we may have already passed a tipping point without realizing it. You seem to be confusing the warnings about probable looming tipping points as if the warning were the tipping points. You silly retard.

The Wiki article below is OK for starters but for a more detailed look at tipping points, this is a good analysis:
Climate Tipping Points: Current Perspectives and State of Knowledge


Tipping point (climatology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A climate tipping point is a somewhat ill-defined concept of a point when global climate changes from one stable state to another stable state, in a similar manner to a wine glass tipping over. After the tipping point has been passed, a transition to a new state occurs. The tipping event may be irreversible, comparable to wine spilling from the glass: standing up the glass will not put the wine back.

Global warming proceeds by changing the composition of gases in the Earth's atmosphere by the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. As warming proceeds it brings about changes to the natural environment which may result in other changes. For example, warming may begin to melt the Greenland ice sheet and/or West Antarctic Ice Sheet. At some level of temperature rise, the melt of the entire ice sheet will become inevitable, even though complete melting may not occur for millennia. Thus a tipping point may be passed without any immediately obvious consequences, nor any acceleration of the warming process. Carbon dioxide as of May 2012 makes up 396.18 ppm of Earth's atmosphere[1] and monitoring stations in the Arctic spring 2012 measuring more than 400 ppm of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere.[2] James E. Hansen said that this tipping point had already been reached in April 2008 when the CO2 level was 385 ppm. (Hansen states 350 ppm as the upper limit.) "Further global warming of 1°C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know."[3] He has further suggested potential projections of runaway climate change on Earth creating more Venus-like conditions in his book Storms of My Grandchildren.

Scientists and other specialists continue to express concern about global warming and irreversible tipping points. They have used metaphors such as "the door is closing" and warned of global food and water shortages, hundreds of millions of people being displaced by rising sea levels, and storms becoming ever more frequent and severe worldwide.[4] Others have tried systematically to short-list large scale components of the Earth system that may be subject to tipping points, defining tipping points as a variety of phenomena, including the onset of positive feedback, hysteresis effects, and the possible effect of statistical noise at critical points.[5]

Examples

Lenton et al. highlights a number of tipping points, including:[5]

* Boreal forest dieback
* Amazon rainforest dieback
* Loss of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice (Polar ice packs) and melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets
* Disruption to Indian and West African monsoon
* Formation of Atlantic deep water near the Arctic ocean, which is a component process of the thermohaline circulation.
* Loss of permafrost, leading to potential Arctic methane release[6] and clathrate gun effect​

 

[westwall]

Do you think you could manage to list those supposed previous "tipping points", walleyed? The only tipping point so far that we may have already passed, as far as I know, is the one associated with the loss of Arctic sea ice cover and that happens when highly reflective white ice melts and is replaced by dark ocean water that strongly absorbs the sun's energy, thus warming the waters and causing more ice to melt, exposing more ocean surface, and so on and so on.

So Walleyed, what are these "many others extending far back" that appear to exist only in your deranged little brain or perhaps in denier cult mythology?

No problem little silly person. Here are just a few for your enlightenment and my entertainement(sic).

Oh, you "Poor clueless retard....are you able to" pull your head out of "your own ass or do you need help with that too?"

Although it shouldn't take me by surprise anymore after all the times I've interacted with you on this forum, it does still startle me sometimes to realize just how extremely clueless and retarded you actually are, walleyed. I sort of assumed, I guess, that everyone who has anything to say about this would have some idea of what the phrase "tipping point" means in the field of climate change but, as usual, you're clueless about the actual meaning and apparently have some screwed-up half-witted and very mistaken idea of what it means. Hint: it's not some Green politician in Canada talking about the urgency of taking action. I was pointing out earlier that the calls for urgent action to curb carbon emissions and slow global warming were quite valid, in part because of the very real possibility that rising temperatures could trigger "tipping points/feedback loops that could potentially cause uncontrollable run-away global warming, possibly, for example, through the release of the methane under the permafrost or from the undersea methane clathrates." You came back with a garbled, rather incoherent and very delusional claim that "there have been many others [tipping points] extending far back into the dark ages of AGW "theory". That didn't make much sense but I invited you to list these supposed "many other" tipping points that you seemed to feel had already been passed. LOLOLOLOL. It's obvious now that you had no idea what the term means. So you come back with, first, an article about how "Scientists 'expect climate tipping point' by 2200". ROTFLMAO...."2200"....just exactly what I was saying about the possibility of future tipping points.....how did you think that a tipping point in 2200 is happening "far back into the dark ages of AGW"??? All the rest of your articles are just various politician and public figures warning that the world has only a limited time to act to reduce carbon emissions before potentially irreversible changes take place. Those warnings are quite true and, indeed, we may have already passed a tipping point without realizing it. You seem to be confusing the warnings about probable looming tipping points as if the warning were the tipping points. You silly retard.

The Wiki article below is OK for starters but for a more detailed look at tipping points, this is a good analysis:
Climate Tipping Points: Current Perspectives and State of Knowledge


Tipping point (climatology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A climate tipping point is a somewhat ill-defined concept of a point when global climate changes from one stable state to another stable state, in a similar manner to a wine glass tipping over. After the tipping point has been passed, a transition to a new state occurs. The tipping event may be irreversible, comparable to wine spilling from the glass: standing up the glass will not put the wine back.

Global warming proceeds by changing the composition of gases in the Earth's atmosphere by the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. As warming proceeds it brings about changes to the natural environment which may result in other changes. For example, warming may begin to melt the Greenland ice sheet and/or West Antarctic Ice Sheet. At some level of temperature rise, the melt of the entire ice sheet will become inevitable, even though complete melting may not occur for millennia. Thus a tipping point may be passed without any immediately obvious consequences, nor any acceleration of the warming process. Carbon dioxide as of May 2012 makes up 396.18 ppm of Earth's atmosphere[1] and monitoring stations in the Arctic spring 2012 measuring more than 400 ppm of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere.[2] James E. Hansen said that this tipping point had already been reached in April 2008 when the CO2 level was 385 ppm. (Hansen states 350 ppm as the upper limit.) "Further global warming of 1°C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know."[3] He has further suggested potential projections of runaway climate change on Earth creating more Venus-like conditions in his book Storms of My Grandchildren.

Scientists and other specialists continue to express concern about global warming and irreversible tipping points. They have used metaphors such as "the door is closing" and warned of global food and water shortages, hundreds of millions of people being displaced by rising sea levels, and storms becoming ever more frequent and severe worldwide.[4] Others have tried systematically to short-list large scale components of the Earth system that may be subject to tipping points, defining tipping points as a variety of phenomena, including the onset of positive feedback, hysteresis effects, and the possible effect of statistical noise at critical points.[5]

Examples

Lenton et al. highlights a number of tipping points, including:[5]

* Boreal forest dieback
* Amazon rainforest dieback
* Loss of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice (Polar ice packs) and melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets
* Disruption to Indian and West African monsoon
* Formation of Atlantic deep water near the Arctic ocean, which is a component process of the thermohaline circulation.
* Loss of permafrost, leading to potential Arctic methane release[6] and clathrate gun effect​

And none of it has happened. Congrats your high priests are batting .000

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Must suck to be a braindead propagandist like oltrakrtrollingblunderfraud and have the leader of the cult come out and say it's all been a lie.

But, being the nice little useful idiots they are, they'll figure out a way to rationalise it all away.



Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate.


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




http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

"Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998."

What's your rationalization for this claim?

How would you define "climate forcing?"

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

Well georgie old boy, when you only use weather stations that are situated at airports and parking lots you can get a nice high temp reading compared to the correctly sited weather stations in the rural areas. I would think even a brain dead socialist like you could figure that one out....but then I remembered...you're a fucking socialist!

The only humans stupider than AGW cultists are socialists! And lo and behold a lot of the AGW cultists ARE socialists (go figure) so you have fundamentally retarded people who think they can get a collectivist government to work, in the face of over a century of failure on multiple continents, and the deaths of hundreds of millions in the quest of that ridiculous fantasy.

And here we have yet again, collectivists seeking yet more carnage (Dantes post the page before) in the misbegotten quest of population and more importantly PEOPLE control.

Fuck you and all your murderous kind you lazy prick.

You are one really scary sissy.

Have you noticed all the capitalists tripping over tipping points?
Forbes has:

"There is no debate over the generally accepted finding that over the last 30 years 'the fruits of economic success have become increasingly unevenly distributed in the U.S.'

"The latest figures show that there is 'rising income inequality, very slow economic growth and high unemployment.' If 1% of Americans now take 25% of the nation’s income– double the amount of 25 years ago in the mid-1980s– then you can understand the rise of Occupy Wall Street and the depressing spectacle of 45 million people on food stamps and below the poverty cutoff line ( less than $22,000).

"There are some greedy people who adore the winner take all philosophy of finance, and who don’t give much of a damn for poor people. Look at that idiot Herman Cain blasting the poor for not making a fortune from pizza."

It's hardly surprising when punks like you and Cain deny the inherent inequality of capitalism and its global consequences for 90% of humanity. Shit clumps, as they say.

"Capitalism At A Tipping Point" - Forbes

 

[asterism]

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?

Because humans have added CO2 to the atmosphere so fast that it will take time for the temperatures to catch up. The process is not instantaneous. If current CO2 levels "were sustained at those levels" for a century or two, world average temperatures would be that high and sea levels would be vastly increased.

So there's a direct correlation between CO2 and heat until it isn't?

Where in history has it ever taken that long for temperatures to "catch up?"

That's a new one.

 

[daveman]

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

Muller was never a skeptic, you moron.

REALLY? says who, you?

Says reality. I know you won't be able to recognize that.

 

[daveman]

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

Muller was never a skeptic, you moron.

"Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.

"'The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago,' Muller said in a telephone interview. 'And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias.'

"Muller said that he came into the study 'with a proper skepticism,' something scientists 'should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism' before"

Do you lack sufficient skepticism of Koch brothers' motives?

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

Muller was skeptical about the means, not the conclusion. He's always been an AGW proponent.

 

[westwall]

go figure? how dumb are you? in 2012 and in 2009

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Published: July 28, 2012

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

Ummm, stoooopid...the articles I posted were 2008 and EARLIER. Wow, you have a problem with even the most basic of stuff don't you.

Muller becomes a skeptic in 2009.

are you off your meds? his own words: "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming."

If he became a sceptic in 2009 why was he writing articles as though he were a avowed AGW warmist from the years 2008 and EARLIER? The first warmist article I posted for you is from 2003 if he was a sceptic in 2009 why would he be writing a warmist article in 2003?

Are you really that stupid?

 

[georgephillip]

Muller was never a skeptic, you moron.

"Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.

"'The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago,' Muller said in a telephone interview. 'And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias.'

"Muller said that he came into the study 'with a proper skepticism,' something scientists 'should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism' before"

Do you lack sufficient skepticism of Koch brothers' motives?

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

Muller was skeptical about the means, not the conclusion. He's always been an AGW proponent.

Are you convinced Muller's correct when he claims steadily rising global temperatures are real?

"There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming.

"The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil.

"Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.

"Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.

"'Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world,' he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is."

Does it make sense to you to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels starting today?
Just in case...

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

 

[westwall]

"Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998."

What's your rationalization for this claim?

How would you define "climate forcing?"

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

Well georgie old boy, when you only use weather stations that are situated at airports and parking lots you can get a nice high temp reading compared to the correctly sited weather stations in the rural areas. I would think even a brain dead socialist like you could figure that one out....but then I remembered...you're a fucking socialist!

The only humans stupider than AGW cultists are socialists! And lo and behold a lot of the AGW cultists ARE socialists (go figure) so you have fundamentally retarded people who think they can get a collectivist government to work, in the face of over a century of failure on multiple continents, and the deaths of hundreds of millions in the quest of that ridiculous fantasy.

And here we have yet again, collectivists seeking yet more carnage (Dantes post the page before) in the misbegotten quest of population and more importantly PEOPLE control.

Fuck you and all your murderous kind you lazy prick.

You are one really scary sissy.

Have you noticed all the capitalists tripping over tipping points?
Forbes has:

"There is no debate over the generally accepted finding that over the last 30 years 'the fruits of economic success have become increasingly unevenly distributed in the U.S.'

"The latest figures show that there is 'rising income inequality, very slow economic growth and high unemployment.' If 1% of Americans now take 25% of the nation’s income– double the amount of 25 years ago in the mid-1980s– then you can understand the rise of Occupy Wall Street and the depressing spectacle of 45 million people on food stamps and below the poverty cutoff line ( less than $22,000).

"There are some greedy people who adore the winner take all philosophy of finance, and who don’t give much of a damn for poor people. Look at that idiot Herman Cain blasting the poor for not making a fortune from pizza."

It's hardly surprising when punks like you and Cain deny the inherent inequality of capitalism and its global consequences for 90% of humanity. Shit clumps, as they say.

"Capitalism At A Tipping Point" - Forbes

Of course not you fucking moron. Let's look at the insurance industry shall we? How cool would it be to find some scientific theory that says warming is going to screw everything up. You look at it with good scientists and they all say it's hogwash but it has political support because as we all know a politician loves nothing if not more power. So you jump on the bandwagon because it means you get to charge more for your policies with absolutely no risk.

It's the perfect insurance company scam. They can't be sued for overcharging because all they have to say is "well the government said so". All costs are going to go up under these schemes and the one constant is that the poor and middle class will get screwed.

If you were really for the poor and downtrodden you would rail against this shit but as you're a good little Stalinist, and people don't matter, you are right in line.

 

[westwall]

"Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.

"'The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago,' Muller said in a telephone interview. 'And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias.'

"Muller said that he came into the study 'with a proper skepticism,' something scientists 'should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism' before"

Do you lack sufficient skepticism of Koch brothers' motives?

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

Muller was skeptical about the means, not the conclusion. He's always been an AGW proponent.

Are you convinced Muller's correct when he claims steadily rising global temperatures are real?

"There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming.

"The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil.

"Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.

"Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.

"'Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world,' he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is."

Does it make sense to you to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels starting today?
Just in case...

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

Of course they ahve been warming. They've been doing so for the last 14,000 years. Rising, falling, and we haven't even come close to the temps during the Holocene Thermal Maximum of 8,000 years ago.

I don't remember there being a shitload of people or SUV's back then so what caused that temperature spike? CO2 levels were well within the "optimum" as decided by Bill McKibben and Co. So what gives....what caused that one?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Muller was never a skeptic, you moron.

REALLY? says who, you?

Says reality. I know you won't be able to recognize that.

ignore all the replies why don't ya...

 

[daveman]

"Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.

"'The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago,' Muller said in a telephone interview. 'And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias.'

"Muller said that he came into the study 'with a proper skepticism,' something scientists 'should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism' before"

Do you lack sufficient skepticism of Koch brothers' motives?

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

Muller was skeptical about the means, not the conclusion. He's always been an AGW proponent.

Are you convinced Muller's correct when he claims steadily rising global temperatures are real?

"There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming.

"The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil.

"Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.

"Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.

"'Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world,' he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is."

Does it make sense to you to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels starting today?
Just in case...

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

Again: Muller was always an AGW proponent.

 

[daveman]

REALLY? says who, you?

Says reality. I know you won't be able to recognize that.

ignore all the replies why don't ya...

Why should I pay attention to bullshit?