Inconvenient Truth for Global Warming Alarmists

[Theowl32]

Cooling cycle for 18 years?

Doesn't look like it.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

Actually in fact it has. I already provided ALL of the links.

Hey, you are seem like a smart guy. Give us all your best guess as to why YOU think the term was changed from global warming to something more ambiguous and more inclusive to ALL weather incidents in CLIMATE CHANGE?

I mean if it is WARMING, then why the change?

Go ahead. Smart guy. It couldn't be because they wanted to encompass ALL weather changes is it? Oh, naaaaaah. It is just a 1.5 TRILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY. Why would they ever do that?

I will be waiting for your best guesses. BTW, just to reiterate. It is a fact that the earth has been cooling over the last 18 years or so.

Cannot wait for your double talking, maybe even a four sided answer as to why there was a concerted effort to change the term.

 

[Theowl32]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The IPCC flat out admitted AGW was a scheme to redistribute wealth and its one of the few times you can believe them

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL. Here we are in 2015, shaping up to be the warmest year on record, and 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000, yet you fruitloops stand there blabbering about no warming. We have had billions of dollars of private property in the West burned by forest fires, fires during which no attempts are made to save the forests at all, because everyone is too busy trying to keep whole towns from being burned. And on the other coast, record precipitation events.

There is no Scientific Society on earth that denies AGW. No National Academy of Science. And no major university. And the flap-yap so called science that the deniers come up with is on the same intellectual level as ol' CrusaderFrank. Obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and an un-degreed ex-TV weatherman. And two scientists, one now deep into senility, that also testified before Congress that cigarettes were harmless.

The "Warmest" is bullshit because you add in "Warming" from the oceans and the IPCC said the whole AGWCult is a scheme to redistribute wealth

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Maybe there should be a recovery program for alarmists ?

 

[Old Rocks]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Goddard Space Flight Center
Sciences and Exploration Directorate
Earth Sciences Division
Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

• Download PDF (2.6 MB; scanned, no OCR)
• Go to journal webpage

The Northwest Passage, as well as the Northeast Passage is presently open. The whole of the West is still in drought, and experiancing record fires. And this was written 34 years ago when you denialists were still claiming that there was no warming happening, period. It is your record that is one of dismal failure to predict what was going to happen concerning the warming of this planet.

first of all your cite says .4 of a degree. are you really so naive that you think anyone can measure the temperature of the earth to that level ?

second, the climate of earth has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now when man no longer exists

third, there is absolutely no evidence that the acts of humans are causing the climate to change.

fourth, man is polluting parts of earth. BUT, while pollution is bad it does not cause climate change.

finally, if you fools want a real problem to take on, get involved in stopping pollution and clear cutting of forests in south america and asia.

first of all your cite says .4 of a degree. are you really so naive that you think anyone can measure the temperature of the earth to that level ?

First, that was in 0.4 in 1981. And, yes, they were capable of measuring temperatures to that and much better accuracy then.

second, the climate of earth has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now when man no longer exists

Second. Yes, climate is always changing. Sometimes it changes very rapidly. Those are known as periods of extinction. Now we are putting GHGs into the atmosphere at a faster rate than it happened in any of the known periods of extinction, save the K-T event.

third, there is absolutely no evidence that the acts of humans are causing the climate to change.

Third. Since most of the physicists and chemists on this planet state that our use of fossil fuel, which has added over 40% more CO2 and over 250% more CH4 to the atmosphere is causing a warming by retaining more of the heat from the sun, I will go with the experts, rather than someone on the internet that evidently has not even a good high school science education.

fourth, man is polluting parts of earth. BUT, while pollution is bad it does not cause climate change.

When that pollution is GHGs, it most certainly warms the globe, and changes the climate.

finally, if you fools want a real problem to take on, get involved in stopping pollution and clear cutting of forests in south america and asia

And you do the same. Might also attempt to do some basic research as to what the scientists are actually saying, instead of repeating the shit from an obese junkie on the AM radio.

 

[Old Rocks]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Goddard Space Flight Center
Sciences and Exploration Directorate
Earth Sciences Division
Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

• Download PDF (2.6 MB; scanned, no OCR)
• Go to journal webpage

The Northwest Passage, as well as the Northeast Passage is presently open. The whole of the West is still in drought, and experiancing record fires. And this was written 34 years ago when you denialists were still claiming that there was no warming happening, period. It is your record that is one of dismal failure to predict what was going to happen concerning the warming of this planet.

first of all your cite says .4 of a degree. are you really so naive that you think anyone can measure the temperature of the earth to that level ?

second, the climate of earth has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now when man no longer exists

third, there is absolutely no evidence that the acts of humans are causing the climate to change.

fourth, man is polluting parts of earth. BUT, while pollution is bad it does not cause climate change.

finally, if you fools want a real problem to take on, get involved in stopping pollution and clear cutting of forests in south america and asia.

Your post contains a great deal of scientific ignorance.

First of all trends in global average temperature certainly can be measured even if the rate of change is only 0.2 degrees over two decades.

Here's a question for you ... if global CO2 continues to rise, do you believe that eventually the average surface temperature will have to also rise? Or do you think your God designed climate feedbacks to be able to withstand any change to CO2 concentration?

There are lots of scientists who dispute not only the degree to which human activity may contribute to AGW and the overreach of policy to address potential problems but they dispute that there is any AGW at all.
Follow the grant money trail and you'll be led to AGW science.
As laymen, the people have a responsibility to respect conflicting expert opinion and stop parroting what politicians -- especially on the left -- continue to hammer.
When politicians say 'there is no debate' or that 'the debate is over' and 'the science is settled' that should be reason in and of itself for debate.
To take polticians' opinions on science issues as if they are absolute is how Hitlers evolve.

And just who the fuck was funding Svante Arrhenius?

 

[Freewill]

The GW models predicted the models would be wrong and that the GW deniers would use that as excuse to dismiss the models. Thus the models are correct.

GW models actually did predict that they'd be wrong because they admittedly have a large range of solutions between them and between initial conditions and assumptiond on the same model. Any earth system modeler would admit there is considerable uncertainty. But that's not a reason to deny the basic science of global warming.

That is hilarious, let's put your Dad out of a job over a model that itself is wrong.

here is a reason not to to be concerned:Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, silly person, some of us work for a living, instead of sitting in front of a computer all day. Even on weekends. By the way, I like that picture of you. Really sums up the level of intelligence you employ.

Global warming addresses one aspect of the results of the warming of the atmosphere. Climate change addresses the whole, the fact that some places will cool for a bit, before warming with the rest of the planet. The fact that and increasingly acidic ocean will affect the very base of the food chain there. The fact that a warmer atmosphere will carry more water, creating more intense precipitation events, and more intense storms.

That this is not obvious to you ............................... well, the picture says it all.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Alarmists have produced nothing in the way of useful models going forward...but somehow they can predict the end of the world.

 

[Old Rocks]

The GW models predicted the models would be wrong and that the GW deniers would use that as excuse to dismiss the models. Thus the models are correct.

GW models actually did predict that they'd be wrong because they admittedly have a large range of solutions between them and between initial conditions and assumptiond on the same model. Any earth system modeler would admit there is considerable uncertainty. But that's not a reason to deny the basic science of global warming.

That is hilarious, let's put your Dad out of a job over a model that itself is wrong.

here is a reason not to to be concerned:Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

View attachment 50583

My goodness. The US now does not include Alaska and Hawaii? So, if we use all 50 states, that line will slope up. You see, Alaska has a very large land area, and it has been warming really fast.

History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian

Alaska is often called the front lines of climate change, because it and the rest of the Arctic region are warming faster than the rest of the planet due to Arctic amplification. Excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap heat near Earth’s surface, which causes warming that melts ice and snow. Without that light-colored covering, the ground and ocean absorb more heat instead of reflecting it into space, producing even more warming.

Already the speed of warming in the Arctic is twice what it is in lower latitudes. And by the 2020s, the region could be heating up by 1 degree Fahrenheit per decade, researchers warn.

But rising temperatures are only the start, and the extreme events happening in Alaska demonstrate the types of changes the rest of the world may soon experience if climate change progresses unchecked.

1) Wildfires Are Running Rampant

Warmer, drier weather raises the risk of wildfires, as Alaska has seen this summer. The recent wildfires in California and elsewhere on the West Coast have gotten a lot of attention because they put people in danger. But the wildfire season in Alaska has been far worse, with hundreds of fires burning more than 5 million acres of Alaskan forest and tundra so far this year. Most of the fires have occurred far from human habitation, but the smoke can travel far, with plumes enveloping the Arctic. The fires also contribute to climate change by pumping additional carbon into the atmosphere and releasing tiny particles called aerosols that, when they interact with clouds, also have a warming effect.




Read more: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter





Read more: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

 

[Old Rocks]

Alarmists have produced nothing in the way of useful models going forward...but somehow they can predict the end of the world.

Dumb ass;

post # 9

Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

The Northwest and Northeast Passages are both open right now.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Alarmists have produced nothing in the way of useful models going forward...but somehow they can predict the end of the world.

Dumb ass;

post # 9

Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

The Northwest and Northeast Passages are both open right now.

You bet.....I can predict the weather century by century too.

Next century....cloudy with a chance of aids.

 

[Old Rocks]

A fitting two digit IQ answer.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Goddard Space Flight Center
Sciences and Exploration Directorate
Earth Sciences Division
Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

• Download PDF (2.6 MB; scanned, no OCR)
• Go to journal webpage

The Northwest Passage, as well as the Northeast Passage is presently open. The whole of the West is still in drought, and experiancing record fires. And this was written 34 years ago when you denialists were still claiming that there was no warming happening, period. It is your record that is one of dismal failure to predict what was going to happen concerning the warming of this planet.

first of all your cite says .4 of a degree. are you really so naive that you think anyone can measure the temperature of the earth to that level ?

second, the climate of earth has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now when man no longer exists

third, there is absolutely no evidence that the acts of humans are causing the climate to change.

fourth, man is polluting parts of earth. BUT, while pollution is bad it does not cause climate change.

finally, if you fools want a real problem to take on, get involved in stopping pollution and clear cutting of forests in south america and asia.

Your post contains a great deal of scientific ignorance.

First of all trends in global average temperature certainly can be measured even if the rate of change is only 0.2 degrees over two decades.

Here's a question for you ... if global CO2 continues to rise, do you believe that eventually the average surface temperature will have to also rise? Or do you think your God designed climate feedbacks to be able to withstand any change to CO2 concentration?

There are lots of scientists who dispute not only the degree to which human activity may contribute to AGW and the overreach of policy to address potential problems but they dispute that there is any AGW at all.
Follow the grant money trail and you'll be led to AGW science.
As laymen, the people have a responsibility to respect conflicting expert opinion and stop parroting what politicians -- especially on the left -- continue to hammer.
When politicians say 'there is no debate' or that 'the debate is over' and 'the science is settled' that should be reason in and of itself for debate.
To take polticians' opinions on science issues as if they are absolute is how Hitlers evolve.

And just who the fuck was funding Svante Arrhenius?

If he was alive today it would be someone involved in IPCC propaganda.

 

[Davros]

Well, silly person, some of us work for a living, instead of sitting in front of a computer all day. Even on weekends. By the way, I like that picture of you. Really sums up the level of intelligence you employ.

Global warming addresses one aspect of the results of the warming of the atmosphere. Climate change addresses the whole, the fact that some places will cool for a bit, before warming with the rest of the planet. The fact that and increasingly acidic ocean will affect the very base of the food chain there. The fact that a warmer atmosphere will carry more water, creating more intense precipitation events, and more intense storms.

That this is not obvious to you ............................... well, the picture says it all.

You are correct about me working. And you answered his question quite well.

 

[Davros]

The GW models predicted the models would be wrong and that the GW deniers would use that as excuse to dismiss the models. Thus the models are correct.

GW models actually did predict that they'd be wrong because they admittedly have a large range of solutions between them and between initial conditions and assumptiond on the same model. Any earth system modeler would admit there is considerable uncertainty. But that's not a reason to deny the basic science of global warming.

That is hilarious, let's put your Dad out of a job over a model that itself is wrong.

here is a reason not to to be concerned:Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

View attachment 50583

What's hilarious is you putting up a chart for US lower 48 average temperature to try to prove something about global warming.

 

[Redfish]

Sorry libs, man is not changing the climate of our planet. Never has, never will. But you are free to live your fantasy if it makes you feel good.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Sorry libs, man is not changing the climate of our planet. Never has, never will. But you are free to live your fantasy if it makes you feel good.

The problem is that acting on their fantasy creates restrictions on freedom and hardships for others including the starving of people in hard-pressed third world countries.

 

[Davros]

Sorry libs, man is not changing the climate of our planet. Never has, never will. But you are free to live your fantasy if it makes you feel good.

And that's obviously a religiously motivated statement. Whereas the idea that man can change the climate is a scientifically based statement.

Now I'm sorry to say I'm working so I'm done posting for the night.