Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

[longknife]

Doesn't seem to be an “extremist” site to me. So, why are they reporting that all of the previous warnings may no longer be valid?


Again, I'm not an expert but this seems worthwhile reading.


Article @ Matt Ridley in the WSJ Whatever Happened to Global Warming Watts Up With That


Snow in Calgary, Canada next week @ Snow in the forecast for Calgary next week - Calgary - CBC News

 

[Billy_Bob]

Many alarmists wont like what is coming.

In effect, this is all that’s left of the global-warming emergency the U.N. declared in its first report on the subject in 1990. The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3).

Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.

Source

They already dont like the fact that their faith in AGW has been neutered by mother nature. Were looking at snow on wed night where I live on the great divide. a full two months early.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is going to make Liberal Alarmist heads EXPLODE...

If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.”

Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statistical calculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.

They gave us a falsification time line and what would falsify the CAGW hypothesis. We have surpassed it by 2 years...

Source

Alarmist just cant catch a break can they...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Doesn't seem to be an “extremist” site to me. So, why are they reporting that all of the previous warnings may no longer be valid?


Again, I'm not an expert but this seems worthwhile reading.


Article @ Matt Ridley in the WSJ Whatever Happened to Global Warming Watts Up With That


Snow in Calgary, Canada next week @ Snow in the forecast for Calgary next week - Calgary - CBC News

The IPCC backing off, because they look like total fools, comes as no surprise to me. WUWT is not an extremist site. Anthony Watts is a more center of the road skeptic as are many of the scientists who publish on his site. Anthony does not use heave handed moderation like Tamino (aka Grant Foster) or SKS does by deleting any and all dissenting points of view. Watts allows real discussion and assessment of work posted as long as you are civil.

As for the snow in Calgary, here in Wyoming we are going to get hit as well Thursday morning. snow in September...

 

[tinydancer]

I was getting ready for frost but what's coming at me is ridiculous. To add insult to injury, some jerk will tell me that an early winter is just global warming hiding in the ocean.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! Check this out.

On its way south: The latest data shows snow falling as much as a month early across at least eight northern U.S. states over the next week

Snow comes a month early this year for northern US Mail Online

 

[Billy_Bob]

I was getting ready for frost but what's coming at me is ridiculous. To add insult to injury, some jerk will tell me that an early winter is just global warming hiding in the ocean.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! Check this out.

On its way south: The latest data shows snow falling as much as a month early across at least eight northern U.S. states over the next week

Snow comes a month early this year for northern US Mail Online

Nice to see you again TD!!!!! (((((HUG))))))

 

[tinydancer]

I was getting ready for frost but what's coming at me is ridiculous. To add insult to injury, some jerk will tell me that an early winter is just global warming hiding in the ocean.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! Check this out.

On its way south: The latest data shows snow falling as much as a month early across at least eight northern U.S. states over the next week

Snow comes a month early this year for northern US Mail Online

Nice to see you again TD!!!!! (((((HUG))))))

Hey ditto!. Glad you're here!

 

[Crick]

AAAaaaggh, Rossby Waves ! ! !

 

[longknife]

Calgary and area this Sept 8.

Read story @ Southern Alberta hit with blanket of summer snow lightning strikes

 

[SAYIT]

Many alarmists wont like what is coming.

In effect, this is all that’s left of the global-warming emergency the U.N. declared in its first report on the subject in 1990. The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3).

Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.

Source

They already dont like the fact that their faith in AGW has been neutered by mother nature. Were looking at snow on wed night where I live on the great divide. a full two months early.

Time to wax the skis.

 

[flacaltenn]

"Our children will never know what snow looks like.. "

 

[RollingThunder]

Doesn't seem to be an “extremist” site to me. So, why are they reporting that all of the previous warnings may no longer be valid?

Again, I'm not an expert but this seems worthwhile reading.

Article @ Matt Ridley in the WSJ Whatever Happened to Global Warming Watts Up With That

LOLOL....you are soooo gullible....sources like 'WattsUpMyButt' and the corporate-stooging, Murdoch owned WSJ don't seem "extremist" to you???....LOL....."Matt Ridley"???....LOL.....a British newspaper writer with no education, training or experience in any field of climate science.....long time denier with ties to the usual astroturfed, fossil fuel industry sponsored organizations denying AGW....repeatedly debunked by real scientists like this one....and you take his fraudulent twaddle as gospel???....LOLOL....

John Abraham Slams Matt Ridley for Climate Denial Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal
DeSmogBlog
This is a guest post by Dr. John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas, in response to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by British House of Lords member Matt Ridley.
2013-09-16
(excerpts)
A recent error-filled opinion piece by Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal was so egregious that readers deserve a correction. The article, “Dialing back the alarm on climate change”, was written by someone who has never researched anything in the field of climate change (literature search on September 14, 2013). So what did Mr. Ridley have to say that makes a real scientist cringe? First, Mr. Ridley states that a forthcoming major climate change report (for which I was an expert reviewer) will lower the expected temperature rise we will experience in the future. He also claims that the temperature rises will be beneficial. Since the report hasn’t been released yet, and reviewers promise confidentiality, my answer is based on available literature. I can inform the readers that this isn’t necessarily the case. What Mr. Ridley is focusing on is the lower bound of warming (the best case scenario for human society). What he doesn’t tell the readers is that regardless of which estimate of warming is correct, human society will be severely stressed. Basically, he is arguing that the Earth may undergo a slow simmer whereas most scientists think it will be a faster boil. Either way, the consequences are enormous. Second, Mr. Ridley makes the unsubstantiated claim that warming of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit will result in “no net or ecological damage”.

 

[jc456]

Doesn't seem to be an “extremist” site to me. So, why are they reporting that all of the previous warnings may no longer be valid?

Again, I'm not an expert but this seems worthwhile reading.

Article @ Matt Ridley in the WSJ Whatever Happened to Global Warming Watts Up With That

LOLOL....you are soooo gullible....sources like 'WattsUpMyButt' and the corporate-stooging, Murdoch owned WSJ don't seem "extremist" to you???....LOL....."Matt Ridley"???....LOL.....a British newspaper writer with no education, training or experience in any field of climate science.....long time denier with ties to the usual astroturfed, fossil fuel industry sponsored organizations denying AGW....repeatedly debunked by real scientists like this one....and you take his fraudulent twaddle as gospel???....LOLOL....

John Abraham Slams Matt Ridley for Climate Denial Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal
DeSmogBlog
This is a guest post by Dr. John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas, in response to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by British House of Lords member Matt Ridley.
2013-09-16
(excerpts)
A recent error-filled opinion piece by Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal was so egregious that readers deserve a correction. The article, “Dialing back the alarm on climate change”, was written by someone who has never researched anything in the field of climate change (literature search on September 14, 2013). So what did Mr. Ridley have to say that makes a real scientist cringe? First, Mr. Ridley states that a forthcoming major climate change report (for which I was an expert reviewer) will lower the expected temperature rise we will experience in the future. He also claims that the temperature rises will be beneficial. Since the report hasn’t been released yet, and reviewers promise confidentiality, my answer is based on available literature. I can inform the readers that this isn’t necessarily the case. What Mr. Ridley is focusing on is the lower bound of warming (the best case scenario for human society). What he doesn’t tell the readers is that regardless of which estimate of warming is correct, human society will be severely stressed. Basically, he is arguing that the Earth may undergo a slow simmer whereas most scientists think it will be a faster boil. Either way, the consequences are enormous. Second, Mr. Ridley makes the unsubstantiated claim that warming of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit will result in “no net or ecological damage”.

This claim could only be made by someone who is unfamiliar with climate science. With a fraction of that warming, we are already seeing economic and ecological damage. Among them are increased precipitation in some regions with consequent flooding, more severe drought in other regions, increased storms, heat waves, rising sea levels. In the U.S. we have seen incredible weather costs over the past three years, including heat waves and droughts in 2011, 2012, and 2013; Superstorm Sandy, incredible flooding just this week in Colorado and elsewhere including my home state of Minnesota. Around the world we’ve seen similar impacts. Alternating flooding and heat waves in Europe, China, India, and Australia, to name a few examples. With these impacts being seen already, it makes a real scientist shudder about what will occur when we reach 3.6 degrees of warming. Where did Mr. Ridley get his information? Hard to say because he cited no studies that support his claim. Mr. Ridley made other irresponsible and unsupported claims – for instance stating that the benefits of rising sea levels will outweigh the consequences. That just doesn’t pass the smell test. It certainly isn’t consolation for regions like Southern Florida, which are severely threatened by rising seas. The basic facts are clear: humans are causing climate change and there are already economic costs. We scientists have known this for over one hundred years. But there is good news; we can do something about it. We don’t need futuristic technology - we can solve it today. By using energy more efficiently, we save money and the planet at the same time. By investing in smart, renewable energy, we can create the economy of the future. That is the message that should be heard, not non-science nonsense from persons like Mr. Ridley.

wow does that piece smell!!!

 

[SAYIT]

Doesn't seem to be an “extremist” site to me. So, why are they reporting that all of the previous warnings may no longer be valid?

Again, I'm not an expert but this seems worthwhile reading.

Article @ Matt Ridley in the WSJ Whatever Happened to Global Warming Watts Up With That

LOLOL....you are soooo gullible....sources like 'WattsUpMyButt' and the corporate-stooging, Murdoch owned WSJ don't seem "extremist" to you???....LOL....."Matt Ridley"???....LOL.....a British newspaper writer with no education, training or experience in any field of climate science.....long time denier with ties to the usual astroturfed, fossil fuel industry sponsored organizations denying AGW....repeatedly debunked by real scientists like this one....and you take his fraudulent twaddle as gospel???....LOLOL....

John Abraham Slams Matt Ridley for Climate Denial Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal
DeSmogBlog
This is a guest post by Dr. John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas, in response to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by British House of Lords member Matt Ridley.
2013-09-16
(excerpts)
A recent error-filled opinion piece by Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal was so egregious that readers deserve a correction. The article, “Dialing back the alarm on climate change”, was written by someone who has never researched anything in the field of climate change (literature search on September 14, 2013).

Note that what was referred to in the original study as "global warming" has morphed into "climate change" (moving the goalpost) and clearly the backpeddling is in top gear.

 

[flacaltenn]

Doesn't seem to be an “extremist” site to me. So, why are they reporting that all of the previous warnings may no longer be valid?

Again, I'm not an expert but this seems worthwhile reading.

Article @ Matt Ridley in the WSJ Whatever Happened to Global Warming Watts Up With That

LOLOL....you are soooo gullible....sources like 'WattsUpMyButt' and the corporate-stooging, Murdoch owned WSJ don't seem "extremist" to you???....LOL....."Matt Ridley"???....LOL.....a British newspaper writer with no education, training or experience in any field of climate science.....long time denier with ties to the usual astroturfed, fossil fuel industry sponsored organizations denying AGW....repeatedly debunked by real scientists like this one....and you take his fraudulent twaddle as gospel???....LOLOL....

John Abraham Slams Matt Ridley for Climate Denial Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal
DeSmogBlog
This is a guest post by Dr. John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas, in response to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by British House of Lords member Matt Ridley.
2013-09-16
(excerpts)
A recent error-filled opinion piece by Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal was so egregious that readers deserve a correction. The article, “Dialing back the alarm on climate change”, was written by someone who has never researched anything in the field of climate change (literature search on September 14, 2013). So what did Mr. Ridley have to say that makes a real scientist cringe? First, Mr. Ridley states that a forthcoming major climate change report (for which I was an expert reviewer) will lower the expected temperature rise we will experience in the future. He also claims that the temperature rises will be beneficial. Since the report hasn’t been released yet, and reviewers promise confidentiality, my answer is based on available literature. I can inform the readers that this isn’t necessarily the case. What Mr. Ridley is focusing on is the lower bound of warming (the best case scenario for human society). What he doesn’t tell the readers is that regardless of which estimate of warming is correct, human society will be severely stressed. Basically, he is arguing that the Earth may undergo a slow simmer whereas most scientists think it will be a faster boil. Either way, the consequences are enormous. Second, Mr. Ridley makes the unsubstantiated claim that warming of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit will result in “no net or ecological damage”.

This claim could only be made by someone who is unfamiliar with climate science. With a fraction of that warming, we are already seeing economic and ecological damage. Among them are increased precipitation in some regions with consequent flooding, more severe drought in other regions, increased storms, heat waves, rising sea levels. In the U.S. we have seen incredible weather costs over the past three years, including heat waves and droughts in 2011, 2012, and 2013; Superstorm Sandy, incredible flooding just this week in Colorado and elsewhere including my home state of Minnesota. Around the world we’ve seen similar impacts. Alternating flooding and heat waves in Europe, China, India, and Australia, to name a few examples. With these impacts being seen already, it makes a real scientist shudder about what will occur when we reach 3.6 degrees of warming. Where did Mr. Ridley get his information? Hard to say because he cited no studies that support his claim. Mr. Ridley made other irresponsible and unsupported claims – for instance stating that the benefits of rising sea levels will outweigh the consequences. That just doesn’t pass the smell test. It certainly isn’t consolation for regions like Southern Florida, which are severely threatened by rising seas. The basic facts are clear: humans are causing climate change and there are already economic costs. We scientists have known this for over one hundred years. But there is good news; we can do something about it. We don’t need futuristic technology - we can solve it today. By using energy more efficiently, we save money and the planet at the same time. By investing in smart, renewable energy, we can create the economy of the future. That is the message that should be heard, not non-science nonsense from persons like Mr. Ridley.

"Non-science, nonsense" is what the daffy professor just sold you..
Not worth the time it took to read that childish drivel.... Especially the pitch for "Smart Renewable energy" as opposed to the Dumb UnUsable Energy we've been tossing tons of money at? The Prof needs to focus on the science and stay the FUCK away from making prescriptions he can't cash..

 

[RollingThunder]

Note that what was referred to in the original study as "global warming" has morphed into "climate change" (moving the goalpost) and clearly the backpeddling is in top gear.

Wow, SUCKIT, you must be really retarded and dead ignorant to have fallen for that old denier cult chestnut.

The terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' have both been in use in the scientific literature since at least the 1960s, and the two terms mean slightly different things. Climate changes are one of the consequences of anthropogenic global warming; they are not equivalent or interchangeable terms. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988, moron. Pretty good trick going back in time like that if they just now 'deceptively' changed the name in order to "move the goalpost". LOL.

Get a clue, cretin, your rightwingnut sources have lied to you. Nobody HAD to "move the goalpost" or "backpeddle", because the planet is still warming quite rapidly due to the excess CO2 mankind has put into the atmosphere, and that warming is still causing rapid climate changes. Nothing had changed, except possibly the increased flow of thermal energy into the deeper parts of the oceans.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]

 

[SAYIT]

Note that what was referred to in the original study as "global warming" has morphed into "climate change" (moving the goalpost) and clearly the backpeddling is in top gear.

Wow, SUCKIT, you must be really retarded and dead ignorant to have fallen for that old denier cult chestnut...

Woo. Is that's your way of making new friends and influencing people? I have a logical, common sense reply to your shrill and desperate post, Princess ...