Nation is still experiencing Globull Warming

[Kosh]

If the AGW religion was true then Mars would be a ball of flame as it's atmosphere is 96% CO2.

Yeah because AGW says that CO2 will cause us to turn into the sun...except it doesnt. Dont be stupid.

So you are saying that you don't believe the AGW mantra?

Given that only about 3.5 percent of annual atmospheric CO2 emissions are man-made (96.5 percent are from natural sources), I doubt it very much that “mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth’s climate out of balance.”

 

[mamooth]

Please explain this graph. If rising CO2 is causing global warming, as you believe, why hasn't it been happening for the last 15 or more years?

But it has been warming. Your rookie mistake is only looking at air temps. The oceans have been heating up big time, but the persistent La Nina condition has been chilling air temps.

By the way, when the whole world disagrees with you, it's best to start out assuming you might have made a mistake. Starting out with the assumption of a worldwide conspiracy is not a good beginning towards the path of reason.

Also, constantly invoking Gore as some sort of demon makes you look even more like a cultist. Gore isn't a scientist, so the rational people never talk about him when the topic is science. Only the people incapable of discussing science constantly bring up Gore, as a deflection tactic when they can't discuss the actual issues.

 

[mamooth]

Given that only about 3.5 percent of annual atmospheric CO2 emissions are man-made (96.5 percent are from natural sources), I doubt it very much that “mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth’s climate out of balance.”

Great. Another rookie who doesn't understand the 3rd-grade level concept of how an equilibrium system works.

Kosh, any conversation you enter here is made dumber. There are lots of sources that would attempt to deprogram you and teach you some of the basic science. Use them. I'd suggest something at an elementary school level.

 

[Zander]

Please explain this graph. If rising CO2 is causing global warming, as you believe, why hasn't it been happening for the last 15 or more years?

But it has been warming. Your rookie mistake is only looking at air temps. The oceans have been heating up big time, but the persistent La Nina condition has been chilling air temps.

By the way, when the whole world disagrees with you, it's best to start out assuming you might have made a mistake. Starting out with the assumption of a worldwide conspiracy is not a good beginning towards the path of reason.

Also, constantly invoking Gore as some sort of demon makes you look even more like a cultist. Gore isn't a scientist, so the rational people never talk about him when the topic is science. Only the people incapable of discussing science constantly bring up Gore, as a deflection tactic when they can't discuss the actual issues.

Gore is a joke. Just like you, and the phony "consensus".

But an even bigger joke is the continually "evolving" theories from the AGW freaks. Now it's "the deep ocean is absorbing the heat"? lol...It's pretty easy to get the results you desire when you constantly move the goalposts.

Here's a chart from NASA of global land-ocean temperature index. It presents a far more holistic view of air/ocean temps. Oddly enough - It has not gone up in 15 years! In fact, it's actually cooling.

There is no "rookie mistake"- you're just full of shit and desperate to fit a round peg into a square hole....

PS - AGW theory is not science- it's Politics..plain and simple.

 

[Abraham3]

Please explain this graph. If rising CO2 is causing global warming, as you believe, why hasn't it been happening for the last 15 or more years?

But it has been warming. Your rookie mistake is only looking at air temps. The oceans have been heating up big time, but the persistent La Nina condition has been chilling air temps.

By the way, when the whole world disagrees with you, it's best to start out assuming you might have made a mistake. Starting out with the assumption of a worldwide conspiracy is not a good beginning towards the path of reason.

Also, constantly invoking Gore as some sort of demon makes you look even more like a cultist. Gore isn't a scientist, so the rational people never talk about him when the topic is science. Only the people incapable of discussing science constantly bring up Gore, as a deflection tactic when they can't discuss the actual issues.

Gore is a joke. Just like you, and the phony "consensus".

Gore is not "a joke". Gore won the popular election for the presidency. Gore managed to make an issue that interested almost no one into an issue of worldwide import. And the consensus among the world's climate scientists that global warming is taking place and that it's primary cause is a result of human activity is quite real. The joke here is you attempting to make such ridiculous and unsupportable contentions by fiat.

But an even bigger joke is the continually "evolving" theories from the AGW freaks. Now it's "the deep ocean is absorbing the heat"? lol...It's pretty easy to get the results you desire when you constantly move the goalposts.

As you and every other denier alive has repeatedly pointed out, something changed around the turn of the century. Surface temperatures stopped rising despite the continuing increase in GHGs and even despite the growing radiative imbalance at the top of our atmosphere. Climate science's best explanation so far is that circulation changes in the ENSO cycle have caused the subduction of warmed surface waters into the deep ocean and replaced it with cooler water from the depths. The data collected and the models run support that hypothesis, but being scientists, they're still looking. The rate of increase of the world's ocean heat content began to accelerate at almost precisely the same time that surface temperatures seemed to stabilize. So it is not mainstream science - the "AGW freaks" in your parlance - who have moved the goal posts. It is the novel processes and effects created by the unprecedented rate of GHG, temperature and ocean acidity that our combustive wastes have produced.

Here's a chart from NASA of global land-ocean temperature index. It presents a far more holistic view of air/ocean temps. Oddly enough - It has not gone up in 15 years! In fact, it's actually cooling.

My turn to be repetitious. Look at your graph and tell me what happened in 1941 that lasted until 1977 or so. Temperatures didn't just stabilize, they plummeted. And it didn't last for 15 years. It lasted for over 35. What do you think caused that? I've asked that question of the deniers on this board easily a dozen times. Do you know what I've gotten back in the way of answers? Nothing. For some reason none of you want to talk about it. One of the obvious possibilities is that the cooling was caused by aerosols driven into the atmosphere by the explosives of World War II. We see transient cooling periods from major volcanic eruptions right in your graph. Look at the temperatures between 1991 and 1995. See the dip? That's from Pinatubo. Go back just a few years. See the sharper dip from 1982-1984? That's El Chichon. So, blasting aerosols (SO2 for the most part) into the stratosphere, cools the planet. You certainly wouldn't be the first to assume WWII must have put up enough particulates to have cooled the planet for 37 years. Only problem with that is reality. Pinatubo, which dropped world temperatures about 0.05C for 4-5 years put up several dozen times more aerosols and to greater altitudes than all the explosives of World War II combined - including Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the effect we're looking for dropped temperatures ~0.25C for over 35 years. The math just doesn't work.

You know what I think? I think what happened in 1941 is something very similar to what's happening now. I think the climate can make major rearrangements as to where it puts the incoming energy. But I'm certainly no climate scientist.

There is no "rookie mistake"- you're just full of shit and desperate to fit a round peg into a square hole....

? ? ? Usually folks say "fit a square peg into a round hole" but in either case, it doesn't apply to anything Mamooth said to you. However, thinking that the last 15 years' warming hiatus refutes AGW is a rookie mistake. Satellite observations at the ToA (the Top of Atmosphere) show by direct measurement that the Earth is actually accumulating (trapping) MORE solar energy than it was before. That cooler surface radiates LESS heat towards space while essentially the same amount is coming at us from the sun and the same proportion or more (CO2 is increasing after all) of that outbound LW radiation is being trapped. That cooler surface is not a good thing. It's a BAD thing. It's a little like someone with heat stroke - the current regime reduces the Earth's ability to shed thermal energy. Not a good thing at all.

PS - AGW theory is not science- it's Politics..plain and simple.

PS: AGW is a scientific theory supported by a mountain of evidence and accepted by very close to 100% of active climate scientists. Those scientists have all manner of political persuasion. To contend that they're all lying to us because they're evil socialists looking to redistribute the world's wealth or that they're all lying to us to get rich on research grants... those are rookie mistakes. Those are junior high school rookie mistakes.

 

[Zander]

Please explain this graph. If rising CO2 is causing global warming, as you believe, why hasn't it been happening for the last 15 or more years?

But it has been warming. Your rookie mistake is only looking at air temps. The oceans have been heating up big time, but the persistent La Nina condition has been chilling air temps.

By the way, when the whole world disagrees with you, it's best to start out assuming you might have made a mistake. Starting out with the assumption of a worldwide conspiracy is not a good beginning towards the path of reason.

Also, constantly invoking Gore as some sort of demon makes you look even more like a cultist. Gore isn't a scientist, so the rational people never talk about him when the topic is science. Only the people incapable of discussing science constantly bring up Gore, as a deflection tactic when they can't discuss the actual issues.

Gore is not "a joke". Gore won the popular election for the presidency. Gore managed to make an issue that interested almost no one into an issue of worldwide import. And the consensus among the world's climate scientists that global warming is taking place and that it's primary cause is a result of human activity is quite real. The joke here is you attempting to make such ridiculous and unsupportable contentions by fiat.



As you and every other denier alive has repeatedly pointed out, something changed around the turn of the century. Surface temperatures stopped rising despite the continuing increase in GHGs and even despite the growing radiative imbalance at the top of our atmosphere. Climate science's best explanation so far is that circulation changes in the ENSO cycle have caused the subduction of warmed surface waters into the deep ocean and replaced it with cooler water from the depths. The data collected and the models run support that hypothesis, but being scientists, they're still looking. The rate of increase of the world's ocean heat content began to accelerate at almost precisely the same time that surface temperatures seemed to stabilize. So it is not mainstream science - the "AGW freaks" in your parlance - who have moved the goal posts. It is the novel processes and effects created by the unprecedented rate of GHG, temperature and ocean acidity that our combustive wastes have produced.



My turn to be repetitious. Look at your graph and tell me what happened in 1941 that lasted until 1977 or so. Temperatures didn't just stabilize, they plummeted. And it didn't last for 15 years. It lasted for over 35. What do you think caused that? I've asked that question of the deniers on this board easily a dozen times. Do you know what I've gotten back in the way of answers? Nothing. For some reason none of you want to talk about it. One of the obvious possibilities is that the cooling was caused by aerosols driven into the atmosphere by the explosives of World War II. We see transient cooling periods from major volcanic eruptions right in your graph. Look at the temperatures between 1991 and 1995. See the dip? That's from Pinatubo. Go back just a few years. See the sharper dip from 1982-1984? That's El Chichon. So, blasting aerosols (SO2 for the most part) into the stratosphere, cools the planet. You certainly wouldn't be the first to assume WWII must have put up enough particulates to have cooled the planet for 37 years. Only problem with that is reality. Pinatubo, which dropped world temperatures about 0.05C for 4-5 years put up several dozen times more aerosols and to greater altitudes than all the explosives of World War II combined - including Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the effect we're looking for dropped temperatures ~0.25C for over 35 years. The math just doesn't work.

You know what I think? I think what happened in 1941 is something very similar to what's happening now. I think the climate can make major rearrangements as to where it puts the incoming energy. But I'm certainly no climate scientist.

There is no "rookie mistake"- you're just full of shit and desperate to fit a round peg into a square hole....

? ? ? Usually folks say "fit a square peg into a round hole" but in either case, it doesn't apply to anything Mamooth said to you. However, thinking that the last 15 years' warming hiatus refutes AGW is a rookie mistake. Satellite observations at the ToA (the Top of Atmosphere) show by direct measurement that the Earth is actually accumulating (trapping) MORE solar energy than it was before. That cooler surface radiates LESS heat towards space while essentially the same amount is coming at us from the sun and the same proportion or more (CO2 is increasing after all) of that outbound LW radiation is being trapped. That cooler surface is not a good thing. It's a BAD thing. It's a little like someone with heat stroke - the current regime reduces the Earth's ability to shed thermal energy. Not a good thing at all.

PS - AGW theory is not science- it's Politics..plain and simple.

PS: AGW is a scientific theory supported by a mountain of evidence and accepted by very close to 100% of active climate scientists. Those scientists have all manner of political persuasion. To contend that they're all lying to us because they're evil socialists looking to redistribute the world's wealth or that they're all lying to us to get rich on research grants... those are rookie mistakes. Those are junior high school rookie mistakes.

I appreciate the time you've taken to respond. Thank you.

Still, I remain unconvinced. There are merits to the arguments you've presented and I, like you, am not a "climate scientist" (sic), but in my opinion, there is no basis for taking "climate science" seriously at all. The science is not worthy. The simple fact is that "climate scientists" have yet to produce even one accurate climate prediction model!! They've been dead wrong for 20 years and we are supposed to still believe them?


Then there are all the lies and misleading graphs.......Every Climatologist will tell you the Earth's temperature has been much hotter and colder than it is now. Why is that not talked about? There was an Ice Age and it warmed up, there was a Mini Ice Age just 500 years ago and it has been warming up ever since. The Industrial Revolution was not around during those periods. Why no discussion of that? I suppose it is easier to blame SUV's and cow farts!!



As for the phony consensus argument - How many "active climate scientists" are there? Why not survey all scientists? Why focus one narrowly defined specialty science that is notoriously unreliable?

By the way- There was a "scientific" consensus that the earth was flat at one time. The Sun revolved around the earth too........

 

[westwall]

Please explain this graph. If rising CO2 is causing global warming, as you believe, why hasn't it been happening for the last 15 or more years?

But it has been warming. Your rookie mistake is only looking at air temps. The oceans have been heating up big time, but the persistent La Nina condition has been chilling air temps.

By the way, when the whole world disagrees with you, it's best to start out assuming you might have made a mistake. Starting out with the assumption of a worldwide conspiracy is not a good beginning towards the path of reason.

Also, constantly invoking Gore as some sort of demon makes you look even more like a cultist. Gore isn't a scientist, so the rational people never talk about him when the topic is science. Only the people incapable of discussing science constantly bring up Gore, as a deflection tactic when they can't discuss the actual issues.

Only you can't measure the so called heating of he oceans. You can't point to anything solid and say "here is the warming". No you rely on massaging computer models to tell you the heat is hiding in the oceans. In defiance of all laws of thermodynamics BTW. But hey, you've never let a thing called physics get in your way. Right admiral?

 

[flacaltenn]

So add Contumacious and Zander to the list of people who can't understand what "global" means.

Not all deniers are stupid people. However, almost all of the stupid people are deniers. Intelligent people rarely get sucked into that cult.

[MENTION=39072]mamooth[/MENTION]

I am open to being wrong. Are you?

Please explain this graph. If rising CO2 is causing global warming, as you believe, why hasn't it been happening for the last 15 or more years?

Not all cult members are stupid. But all global warming alarmists are cult members.

Because nothing has to happen when you feel like it should idiot.

Actually you are quite right. All these years the GW fanatics have been looking for a perfectly correlated forcing function to match the shape of the temperature chart.. But a big ball of stuff like a planet doesn't and SHOULDN'T ever respond IMMEDIATELY and solely to one control knob.. It's bad expectations. LATELY -- to explain the hiatus --- climate science just got more interesting and difficult since the IPCC and lead research institutions had to ADMIT THESE truths. So you've seen a flurry of excuses including Deep Ocean Storage and Long Equilibrium Delays that were NOT part of the public fable of GW before. It's better science, but it also demonstrates how far we are from "settled science" on the topic..

Bottom line is -- only fools would expect the Earth to stabilize instantaneously to changes in radiation. And any system with significant storage and delays could take decades to thermo equilize.. So -- forcing functions that have been ignored because "they don't look like" the temperature curve have to be reconsidered BECAUSE of the excuses given for the hiatus...

 

[westwall]

[MENTION=39072]mamooth[/MENTION]

I am open to being wrong. Are you?

Please explain this graph. If rising CO2 is causing global warming, as you believe, why hasn't it been happening for the last 15 or more years?

Not all cult members are stupid. But all global warming alarmists are cult members.

Because nothing has to happen when you feel like it should idiot.

Actually you are quite right. All these years the GW fanatics have been looking for a perfectly correlated forcing function to match the shape of the temperature chart.. But a big ball of stuff like a planet doesn't and SHOULDN'T ever respond IMMEDIATELY and solely to one control knob.. It's bad expectations. LATELY -- to explain the hiatus --- climate science just got more interesting and difficult since the IPCC and lead research institutions had to ADMIT THESE truths. So you've seen a flurry of excuses including Deep Ocean Storage and Long Equilibrium Delays that were NOT part of the public fable of GW before. It's better science, but it also demonstrates how far we are from "settled science" on the topic..

I don't think it's "better" science. It's reactionary science, and that is rarely good.

 

[flacaltenn]

I think they knew the story was more complex.. But needed to control the "optics" (as they say in politics) so that the general public (ie, our resident GW faithful here) could parrot the fables..

I'd quit science and technology today if they were all actually that incompetent and stupid.. I'd rather think they just were biased to follow the public relations script.. IOW -- It will kill me to believe they were stupid, I can accept that they were corrupted by the fame and attention and the public relations and politics. But you're right -- either way it IS reactionary. The truth got them in a squeeze play...

 

[westwall]

I think they knew the story was more complex.. But needed to control the "optics" (as they say in politics) so that the general public (ie, our resident GW faithful here) could parrot the fables..

I'd quit science and technology today if they were all actually that incompetent and stupid.. I'd rather think they just were biased to follow the public relations script.. IOW -- It will kill me to believe they were stupid, I can accept that they were corrupted by the fame and attention and the public relations and politics. But you're right -- either way it IS reactionary. The truth got them in a squeeze play...

The field of climatology is riddled with mediocre and lazy scientists. They are fighting tooth and nail to protect the fraud because they have based their professional reputations and wealth generation on it. Climategate exposed them to the general scientific world and scientists realize just how damaging these idiots have been to science in general.

They will not forget, nor forgive. Now, it is just a matter of time.

 

[Abraham3]

Now, it is just a matter of time.

Ooh... how very suspenseful. Make sure you hold your breath.

 

[Abraham3]

[MENTION=39072]mamooth[/MENTION]

I am open to being wrong. Are you?

Please explain this graph. If rising CO2 is causing global warming, as you believe, why hasn't it been happening for the last 15 or more years?

Not all cult members are stupid. But all global warming alarmists are cult members.

Because nothing has to happen when you feel like it should idiot.

Actually you are quite right. All these years the GW fanatics have been looking for a perfectly correlated forcing function to match the shape of the temperature chart.. But a big ball of stuff like a planet doesn't and SHOULDN'T ever respond IMMEDIATELY and solely to one control knob.. It's bad expectations. LATELY -- to explain the hiatus --- climate science just got more interesting and difficult since the IPCC and lead research institutions had to ADMIT THESE truths. So you've seen a flurry of excuses including Deep Ocean Storage and Long Equilibrium Delays that were NOT part of the public fable of GW before. It's better science, but it also demonstrates how far we are from "settled science" on the topic..

Bottom line is -- only fools would expect the Earth to stabilize instantaneously to changes in radiation. And any system with significant storage and delays could take decades to thermo equilize.. So -- forcing functions that have been ignored because "they don't look like" the temperature curve have to be reconsidered BECAUSE of the excuses given for the hiatus...

No one with any science education at all was ever looking or expecting immediate and/or perfectly mapped response. No temperature graph has ever shown a rise as linearly tidy as the Keeling curve and it has surprised NO ONE, most certainly not climate scientists. No one has had to "ADMIT THESE truths" because they were never denied. If you want to argue the validity of AGW, you should try sticking to what actual scientists say about it. Arguing that the theory is invalid because some internet poster with fourth graded science education spouts nonsense does not show us you have arguments with any merit. And arguing the sensible position that the response is exceedingly unlikely to be linear and perfectly mapped is NOT support for the contention that the system is somehow able to produce the observed warming from a thoroughly inadequate increase in TSI

Or are you simply explaining to the unwashed masses why the temperature graph doesn't look like a mirror image of the Keeling curve?

 

[Abraham3]

I think they knew the story was more complex.. But needed to control the "optics" (as they say in politics) so that the general public (ie, our resident GW faithful here) could parrot the fables..

How about some evidence that climate scientists EVER pushed the idea that the response to GHG emissions would be linear and immediate? Cause it looks to me as if you're the one parroting fables.

I'd quit science and technology today if they were all actually that incompetent and stupid.. I'd rather think they just were biased to follow the public relations script.. IOW -- It will kill me to believe they were stupid, I can accept that they were corrupted by the fame and attention and the public relations and politics. But you're right -- either way it IS reactionary. The truth got them in a squeeze play...

Oh be still my beating heart.

You can believe 97% of the were corrupt but it would kill you to learn they were stupid? What's going to happen when an awareness of your own errors gets through to you?

 

[flacaltenn]

I think they knew the story was more complex.. But needed to control the "optics" (as they say in politics) so that the general public (ie, our resident GW faithful here) could parrot the fables..

How about some evidence that climate scientists EVER pushed the idea that the response to GHG emissions would be linear and immediate? Cause it looks to me as if you're the one parroting fables.

I'd quit science and technology today if they were all actually that incompetent and stupid.. I'd rather think they just were biased to follow the public relations script.. IOW -- It will kill me to believe they were stupid, I can accept that they were corrupted by the fame and attention and the public relations and politics. But you're right -- either way it IS reactionary. The truth got them in a squeeze play...

Oh be still my beating heart.

You can believe 97% of the were corrupt but it would kill you to learn they were stupid? What's going to happen when an awareness of your own errors gets through to you?

Total unmitigated BullShit.. The IPCC did that IMMEDIATE and CORRELATED trick every time they prepared a "radiation anomaly" budget.. Even to the point of FUDGING TSI to be a new invented quantity representing the IMMEDIATE value of solar radiation.. So did Trenberth when you prepared his misnamed "energy balance" cartoon. By balancing all the radiative thermal paths on an IMMEDIATE basis with no actual reference to a time variable (even though he CALLED it an ENERGY diagram)... EVERYTHING about the fairytale had been looking to produce an INPUT forcing function for CO2 that MATCHED EXACTLY the temperature curve without any consideration of delays, storages, transfer functions, etc.


More importantly, if this was all "common knowledge" in Global Warming science, where the hell did YOU get infected with the stupid notion of expecting that any climate forcing can't possibly be in play "if it doesn't look like the temperature curve" ??? Are you admitting that you were fooled ?? or ignorant of these facts ???

That there should be NO EXPECTATION the the output performance of a complex system needs to resemble it's inputs....

 

[mamooth]

The simple fact is that "climate scientists" have yet to produce even one accurate climate prediction model!! They've been dead wrong for 20 years and we are supposed to still believe them?

Deniers say that, but they're making crap up. You've been fed a load of shit by paid professional liars.

Sure, it's possible I've been fed a load of shit ... but the data agrees with me. The real data, not the fudged data from deniers who keep getting caught lying and fudging.

And the world agrees with me. When the whole world says you're wrong, the rational response is to assume you might have made a mistake. Instead, most deniers claim the whole planet is engaged in a vast socialist conspiracy against them. Instead of acting like reasonable people, they act like loons.

Then there are all the lies and misleading graphs......

The stop posting them. Problem solved. Like the misleading graph you posted comparing the keeling curve to temp.

Every Climatologist will tell you the Earth's temperature has been much hotter and colder than it is now. Why is that not talked about?

It is talked about, all the time. Where did you get the crazy idea it wasn't?

Oh, that's right. Your cult told you, and you saw no reason to look further.

Try being like the reason-based community. We look at all the sources, especially the ones that disagree with us. Sharpens our skills, spotting all the fallacies in their claims.

There was an Ice Age and it warmed up, there was a Mini Ice Age just 500 years ago and it has been warming up ever since. The Industrial Revolution was not around during those periods. Why no discussion of that? I suppose it is easier to blame SUV's and cow farts!!

Rookie logic error on your part, one that we see over and over from deniers. That is, claiming the present must act exactly like the past, even if conditions are wildly different now. It's just dumb, and it's difficult to take anyone seriously when they rely on an argument that dumb.

 

[elektra]

Scientists?

The most misused term, is there an actual certification to be a Scientist or is any idiot that spends enough money on school, gets the Diploma, and lands a job at the University he hardly graduated from, is any idiot then a Scientist.

The Answer is an obvious yes.

Scientists are parasites contributing little to society.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nation and World is still experiencing Climate Change

 

[westwall]

Nation and World is still experiencing Climate Change

Of course it is dipshit. CLIMATE CHANGE NEVER STOPS! If it ever does life as we know it will be over PDQ!

 

[Abraham3]

Why?