Global Warming is over.

[gwb72tii]

it is challenging to talk science with people who know little about it without pointing out that truth.

in other words, you're fucking stupid and rwh is smarter than all of us

because, as rwh will point out, presenting opinions from scientists that analyze scientific data on climate and come to a different conclusion than he just means they're deniers, funded by oil, lack the intellect to dissect critical information and are just plain old ignorant.

hard to have a conversation with people who know less than the experts and won't admit it, eh?

[herbivor]

so herbie, whos the denier now, when it is common, widely accepted, and proven from empirical scientific evidence that global warming has shown no statistical change for 15 years?

apparently CO2 does not drive global warming (oops i mean the more socially acceptical and politically correct term coined by alarmists, "climate change")

I think we've shown more than a dozen times with plenty of articles, graphs, etc, to try and explain to you how and why those statements are completely false. Global warming HAS shown statistical change in the past 15 years. That's a fact. CO2 DOES drive global warming. That's a fact. So what you are saying would be the opposite of facts. See how that works? Whatever you are thinking or saying is not based in reality. It's kind of like that movie a Beautiful Mind, except that you have not yet figured out that many of your observations in this world are illusions you are creating in your head. Good luck with that. I would suggest medication or something to help you get by, but that would require some respect for science.

[rwh11385]

so herbie, whos the denier now, when it is common, widely accepted, and proven from empirical scientific evidence that global warming has shown no statistical change for 15 years?

apparently CO2 does not drive global warming (oops i mean the more socially acceptical and politically correct term coined by alarmists, "climate change")

It's good to recycle, but perhaps consider not doing so with a dumb argument that you seem to not understand why it is flawed.

George, I really have a hard time figuring out if you just constantly try to build strawmen or are actually going senile before our eyes. Either way, most people understand that global temperature is a result of multiple factors, not just CO2. And with that, other influences can change the temperature, even if there remains a GHG-based forcing that increases the temperature from what it would have been based solely on the other, natural factors.

Let's rewind and go back to another time you've tried to use this simpleton's approach:

Anyway, to respond the the argument that you leaned on several times...

Although apparently you forgot that the "warming had stopped" rebuttal had been mentioned before.


Just like the cherry picking you usually do, using one high data point to focus comparison against while ignoring the large overall trend is misleading. 1998 made it possible to average out a flat line, even if:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

"We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting," said GISS Director James E. Hansen. "So we are continuing to see a trend toward higher temperatures. Even with the cooling effects of a strong La Niña influence and low solar activity for the past several years, 2011 was one of the 10 warmest years on record."

The difference between 2011 and the warmest year in the GISS record (2010) is 0.22 degrees F (0.12 C). This underscores the emphasis scientists put on the long-term trend of global temperature rise. Because of the large natural variability of climate, scientists do not expect temperatures to rise consistently year after year. However, they do expect a continuing temperature rise over decades.

The first 11 years of the 21st century experienced notably higher temperatures compared to the middle and late 20th century, Hansen said. The only year from the 20th century in the top 10 warmest years on record is 1998.

And guess wait a couple of years and see if this prediction pans out...

Hansen said he expects record-breaking global average temperature in the next two to three years because solar activity is on the upswing and the next El Niño will increase tropical Pacific temperatures. The warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010, in a virtual tie.

"It's always dangerous to make predictions about El Niño, but it's safe to say we'll see one in the next three years," Hansen said. "It won't take a very strong El Niño to push temperatures above 2010."

So even though there were elements in nature that should have influenced the climate cooler, warm temperatures were still found. What do you think will happen if those factors turn back to normal? It seems that Hansen at least expects new records coming.


What is insufficient is your grasp of science George. And lack of ability to state your case for why the planet can absorb more energy than it emits and that this energy somehow disappears??? Anyone with the most basic understanding of science knows that energy cannot be created nor destroyed - yet for some reason the deniers seem to assume it possible because the implications of such reality might negatively impact coal or oil companies.


Maybe you chose to ignore the information about the deep ocean heating, but finding nearly a third of ocean's heat that was previously not accounted for seems pretty important. That may have thrown off the correlation of land surface temperatures but still represents GHG influence on the global environment and should help refine the models in the future. This would not have been possible without the investment and data collection to support such. Likewise, accounting for variable intake of CO2 by plankton can help revise models as well. The key is to use science and research to explain the world around us and understand the impact of our decisions - instead of acting in complete and utter ignorance.

Again and again you fire and forget, never actually responding to the question of the disappearing energy...

and then repeat the same line a few pages later.

[BraveUlysses]

Call him what he is--intellectually dishonest to the point of outright lying.

[cale]

Dishonesty presumes having the knowledge to be honest, which I'm quite confident he doesn't. Hence recycled argument 15x over.

[rwh11385]

in other words, you're fucking stupid and rwh is smarter than all of us

because, as rwh will point out, presenting opinions from scientists that analyze scientific data on climate and come to a different conclusion than he just means they're deniers, funded by oil, lack the intellect to dissect critical information and are just plain old ignorant.

hard to have a conversation with people who know less than the experts and won't admit it, eh?

George, again with putting words into people's mouths in order to attempt the building of a strawman. Most fundamentally your response assumes that intelligence and knowledge are the same thing, whereas they can be quite separate. Being smart or stupid does not absolutely define a person's understanding of a particular subject matter. That said, your problem is not only a lack of care to actually learn about the subject you are arguing about but also apparently a total lack of ability to grasp the concepts required to acquire a proper understanding of it. In lieu of obtaining such, you substitute knowledge and science for parroting someone else's opinion - and from someone is also poorly educated about science. Alas, you don't know the basic principles of science so are easily fooled by the charlatan.

What opinions from scientists? (And more importantly, science is not about opinions but rather about support with statistics and theory.) Anthony Watts did not graduate from college and simply had an approval to be able to read the forecast on TV, and this has been phased out in favor of weatherpeople who actually have degrees in the field. His "analysis" of scientific data is an non-statistical drawn flat line - which of course you were not able to understand when I posted charts that showed a least squares line showed a rising trend still. (But alas again, you have a lack of understanding of statistics so it is able for you to be fooled by Watts's gimmicks) Anthony Watts was funded by the Heartland Institute. And his crowdsourced "research" was laughable. You deny completely the science of NASA and NOAA for the promises of someone who tells you what you want to hear with zero proof. (Kinda like all of the conspiracy theories you enjoy)

I'd enjoy it if anyone would ever care to explain with theory why the additional absorbed energy disappears somehow. That's the goal of science - to understand. You might be confused by organizations or people who seek to use research to support political moves, but science is about understanding - whether the initial theory is right or wrong. But the vast majority of those who aware of the fact that GHG absorb additional energy and that energy cannot be destroyed agree that humans have had an influence on the planet and that the planet is on a warming trend. (Regardless of whether it 82% of all surveyed or 97% of the subset with most experience in climate science) Most people with views contrary to that have flawed arguments or try to cherry pick data to convince people who don't want to learn about reality and science that it's all BS. However, I've not come across any research that proposes an alternate reasoning to what happens to the energy.


No - it remains challenging to have an informed conservation about a subject in which some participants are willfully ignorant of and don't care to take it upon themselves to learn the most fundamental principles to understand it.

yes, we, on the r3v, are essentially idiots about AGW.

In your view, everyone is as uneducated about science as you are. But in reality that is not true. Until you understand that or try to do something about it to improve your knowledge of science, then you will continue to believe a college dropout pandering to the unsuspecting and fail to construct a reasonable argument or defense of your position.

[Q5Quint]

this is NOT discrediting the data because it comes from publicly funded orgs, it is presenting said data as it has been collected

that is why Q5's post was not replied to

so herbie, whos the denier now, when it is common, widely accepted, and proven from empirical scientific evidence that global warming has shown no statistical change for 15 years?

apparently CO2 does not drive global warming (oops i mean the more socially acceptical and politically correct term coined by alarmists, "climate change")

So you are hypothesizing that global warming and that co2 is not a driving factor behind global temperature because global temperature increase has slowed down since 1997?

Let me re-phrase that.

You think that the last 400k years of data is being trumped by the last 15 years of data?

I am curious as to why you would think that.



Your arguments lack credibility (which you explain by the global illuminati conspiracy), they lack logic (as illustrated above and by the world record temps we have experienced in the last 10 years), and they lack direction (you cant use data, you cant use scientific information, you cant use oil industry motive, you cant use anything to argue against your belief).

It is obvious that you just 'don't want to believe' in global warming even though every data point points towards it, hence why you have to explain away why every data point is wrong.

Prove that the climate is not warming~ and you can't because the climate is warming, and has been for the last 20k years.

Prove that carbon is not related to climate change- and you cant because carbon and temps rise at a similar rate.

Prove what will happen when we double the amount of carbon in our atmosphere compared to what the last 400k years have been. And you cant because you have no models based on anything. There is no 'global cooling' or 'global temperate stay the same' model. You are literally just denying the obvious without any other explanation.

It will take another 100 years of data and testing for us to pin with 99% certainty the co2 link to global temperature~ the problem is... if we keep going at the rate we are going and we are right about that link.... we will probably make the earth temperature warmer than it has been in 400k years.

That isn't necessarily bad, new york city may become new miami and florida may become a desert, all the coral reefs will die and we will melt off all the ice and raise the sea level, but hey! all in the name of a neat science experiment, right?

[gwb72tii]

now this is what i call global warming LOLOL

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/23/cold-and-snow-wave-grips-the-usa-nearly-10000-cold-and-snow-records-set-in-the-last-month/

The tally to present for the last 6 weeks

High temperature records: 1214

Low temperature records: 3464

High minimum temperature records: 1957

Low maximum temperature records: 4323

Snowfall records: 2000

There is no corresponding anti-snowfall record.

h/t to Robert W. Felix at iceagenow.com


but to summarize the responses forthcoming, the info was found on a website found adhere to the scientific method of questioning scientific consensus, whatever the heck that is, and therefore is to be ignored

[gwb72tii]

I think we've shown more than a dozen times with plenty of articles, graphs, etc, to try and explain to you how and why those statements are completely false.

And i have shown you dozens of articles etc showing your head is buried in the sand.

Global warming HAS shown statistical change in the past 15 years. That's a fact.

Sorry, you're saying something is true does not make it so. There is a consensus of opinion saying the opposite, from both sides.

CO2 DOES drive global warming. That's a fact.

CO2 amplifies warming. There are scientifically sound studies (ice core etc) showing CO2 concentrations lag warming, and then amplify it.

So what you are saying would be the opposite of facts. See how that works? Whatever you are thinking or saying is not based in reality. It's kind of like that movie a Beautiful Mind, except that you have not yet figured out that many of your observations in this world are illusions you are creating in your head. Good luck with that. I would suggest medication or something to help you get by, but that would require some respect for science.

So you alledge scientists that have come to a different conclusions than you are deluded? I do not claim to be smart enough in climate science to have an opinion that means anything. so i post links/quotes from those that actually are experts in climate science.

you're funny :p

[Q5Quint]

So yet again you are trying to say that the recent temperature records of the last 6 weeks, many of those which have hit low temperature records, and from the article just in the united states, prove that global warming is not true?

You are just going to ignore the whole 'global climate change' thing right? You know, the idea that the higher average temperature creates more extreme temperature anomalies both hot and cold ..... right?

An extra 2 degrees warmer could still mean a below freezing winter, but now there is more water in the atmosphere so you get 5ft extra snow.

That same extra water vapor could lead to a cloudy-er summer, or it raining in the deserts.


I am not sure that your argument that the last 6 weeks or the last 15 years can stand because the average global temperatures have been rising for the last what? 100 years? or 20k years?



Look! Georgia is cooling! Global warming is false!

Since 1901, the average surface temperature across the contiguous 48 states has risen at an average rate of 0.13°F per decade (1.3°F per century) (see Figure 1). Average temperatures have risen more quickly since the late 1970s (0.31 to 0.45°F per decade). Seven of the top 10 warmest years on record for the contiguous 48 states have occurred since 1990.

Source: NOAA 2012

So you are predicting, based on the last 6 months or weeks or 15 years or whatever, that the warming trend that has existed since 1901 is reversing or stopping? How long do you think it will stop, do you think the temp will rise or fall after that stop, and why do you think that prediction is true?



I would really like to know why you think the measured and known increase in temperature that we have measurably seen the last 200+ years, and seen with ice core data for the last 20k years, would suddenly stop or reverse.

Why did we have a temp spike 130k years ago, and why did it cool back down? Why did we have a temp spike 230k years ago and it cooled back down. Again 320k years ago.

I enjoy your arguments 'against' human caused global warming and would enjoy hearing your sciency ideas about why the earths temperature has warmed and cooled so many times in the past, and see what equations you come up with to predict the future temperature changes in our atmosphere.

Here is a funny gif of a bmw to amuse you in the meantime.

[BraveUlysses]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/when-it-comes-to-the-environment-conservatives-dont-like-conserving/

When it comes to the environment, many conservatives don’t like conserving

Energy efficiency is often a hard sell in the US. Energy efficient devices can require a bit more money up front, which is then paid back gradually often over the course of several years. But a new study in the latest edition of PNAS suggests that the problem isn't only a matter of economics—instead, like so much else, energy efficiency has become politicized. Because they so strongly object to the thought of climate change, many conservatives won't spend more for energy-efficient light bulbs if their packaging contains a message about cutting carbon emissions.

The study had two parts. All participants were asked a bit about their demographic information and their political leanings. Then, one set was asked a series of questions about energy efficiency, which gauged how much the participants valued things like energy independence, limiting carbon emissions, or simply saving money on energy.

In the initial analysis, each of these factors appeared to be a negative for the conservatives, which didn't make a lot of sense—who actually devalues saving money on energy? But the lack of enthusiasm for curbing carbon emissions among the conservatives was rather dramatic, so the authors separated that out. When it was controlled for, it turns out that the conservatives in the study actually valued energy independence and saving money more than the more liberal study participants. It's just that they disliked the thought of avoiding carbon emissions so much that it overwhelmed these tendencies. (This effect was much stronger among conservative males.)

To see whether this played out in practical decisions, the authors gave a second set of participants some cash and asked them to buy either an incandescent or compact fluorescent lightbulb; they were able to keep the change. When the two bulbs cost the same amount, all but one of the participants opted for the more energy-efficient bulb.

Then the researchers priced the incandescent bulb at $.50 and the compact fluorescent bulb at $1.50. When the bulbs carried no special label, the majority of participants opted for the energy-efficient one, even though it cost more up front, and there was little ideological divide on matters. Slap a “Protect the Environment” sticker on, however, and things changed—only the most liberal participants were more likely to opt for it. The more centrist liberals were indifferent to the message and, by the time moderates were examined, the message became a turnoff. Things got even worse with the conservatives.

In other words, a pro-environment message is enough to get a significant number of people to change their purchase decisions and avoid an environmentally friendly product—even if it would save them money.

In many ways, these results echo those of a variety of previous surveys, which suggested things like energy-efficient and renewable technology was more popular when it was sold as that—technology. This resonates across the political spectrum, because most US citizens appreciate technological advances and associate them with jobs and economic well-being.

But environmental concerns have become politicized, and conservative candidates often portray environmental regulations as a threat to jobs. In that context, helping the environment in any way can seem like an attack on a person's cultural identity—even if it's something the person would happily support otherwise. "Our results demonstrate that individuals will forego economically beneficial options if these options promote a value that is in conflict with their political ideology," as the authors put it.

[z31maniac]

It's because Jebus put us here specifically to rape the planet.

[BraveUlysses]

I thought it illustrates how well certain posters here like to step on their own dicks to appeal to their sense of spite.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Personally, I enjoy stepping on my own dick, it just reaffirms how large it is.

[nando]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...ke-conserving/

When it comes to the environment, many conservatives don’t like conserving

these are the same people that give a rifle to a 5 year old and are shocked when something bad happens..