Global Warming is over.

[BraveUlysses]

Stop feeding the troll guys, it's very easy.

[gwb72tii]

You claimed they're on the stupidity bandwagon that you climbed onto which states there is no warming, and they most certainly are not proposing that. Like I said, you need to learn to read and not selectivlely picking out what can add to your argument. You need to take in the entire article, and that very article which you quote makes you look like a fool.

A lack of knowledge as to what is causing this particular slowdown...one more time so you read it again, SLOWDOWN (re. not stopped) is not evidentiary that AGW is a hoax. Maybe when you learn some of the fundamental basics as to how science functions you'll figure that out.

cale, at some point you'll understand that when an alarmist left wing rag newspaper like the NYT prints an article admitting scientists haven't a clue as to why warming has slowed or paused, that that kind of admission is significant. or as others have shown, no statistical significance from ZERO warming over the same time period.
you're as slippery as rwh.
so now that we've exceeded the 17yr time period your side said is necessary to disprove current AGW hypotheses, how much longer before you admit you don't understand it any better than the climate scientsits?

[gwb72tii]

Stop feeding the troll guys, it's very easy.

this is a political thread "brave"

why not actually add something of value?

[cale]

how much longer before you admit you don't understand it any better than the climate scientsits?

Not until you at least stop recycling the same fallacious arguments and making inaccurate statements you believe to be true?

slowed or paused

There is no 'or', it's simply slow. Again you're pushing fallacies.

[salvuhdor]

Guys I'm hungry.

[gwb72tii]

come on cale, i provided links, and the quotes are from somone on your side of the argument
and if you do not know who phil jones is, this might help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)

so if you think i'm making this up, shoot an email to phil

[rwh11385]

this is a political thread "brave"

why not actually add something of value?

Geez, and here I thought that it was about science...

Maybe that's the problem, cognitive dissonance prevents you from regarding ideas that aren't published by Matt Drudge or Anthony Watts or Dan Ivandjiiski. And instead of pursuing understanding by learning basic principles of science or math, you parrot someone else's ideas as your own and then repeat the same broken argument - unable to comprehend its weaknesses because you refuse to consider them.

If you were here to actually have an intelligent and adult discussion, then you would attempt to understand that there are multiple inputs to global temperature and yet you want to dumb it down to only look at one vs. the result. Additionally, you've repeatedly failed to provide any rationale while the increased energy absorbed by the planet just "disappears".

Until you do that, you add the same amount of value as this troll:

Lol I'm sorry to say but we don't change a damn thing. Hahaha lol if you want to say you did go ahead but the earth still spins the same.

Yeah... about that whole 1990 Clean Air Act and the impact on acid rain...

Acid Deposition: Between the 1989–1991 and 2007–2009 observation periods, regional decreases in wet deposition of sulfate across the Eastern United States averaged 43 percent.

[Q5Quint]

Yeah I cant really figure this one out~


I mean technically global climate modeling is just that, modeling the climate.

If the model says the climate is warming people start freaking out.

Here we have two quotes that say:

Scientists and statisticians reject this sort of selective use of numbers, and when they calculate the long-term temperature trends for the earth, they conclude that it continues to warm through time. Despite the recent lull, it is an open question whether the pace of that warming has undergone any lasting shift.

and

Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
[A] “Yes, but only just”

So if you actually read those, you will see words like 'statistically-significant' and 'whether the pace of that warming has undergone any lasting shift'.

I am a bit confused as to what victory you think the articles may have for you, when they point point out the world is still warming, but at a potentially slower rate? Could we venture that perhaps Obama's cash for co2 clunkers project did have an affect after all?

I have still yet to see a conflicting climate model with the warming trend.

Try framing it in a way something like this, except with opposite findings (ie the temperature going down):

Frame and Stone (2012) also simulated the possible range of natural temperature variability since 1990 by using the ensemble of 587 21-year-long segments of control simulations with constant external forcings from 24 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) climate models. These give a 90% range of about ±0.19°C, and are shown in black and gray in Figure 1. The observed warming from 1990 through 2011 was approximately 0.39±0.20°C (95% confidence range); thus there is only a very small chance that the observed global surface warming over the past 21 years could be explained purely by natural variability.

New york times articles are nice, but just like most things these days, are written to sell issues, not give facts. Claiming that :

cale, at some point you'll understand that when an alarmist left wing rag newspaper like the NYT prints an article admitting scientists haven't a clue as to why warming has slowed or paused, that that kind of admission is significant. or as others have shown, no statistical significance from ZERO warming over the same time period.
you're as slippery as rwh.
so now that we've exceeded the 17yr time period your side said is necessary to disprove current AGW hypotheses, how much longer before you admit you don't understand it any better than the climate scientsits?

Could you quote that left wing rag article and say exactly where they said 'warming has slowed or paused', and on whos data? Could you quote 'others' where you said 'no statistical significance from ZERO warming over the same time period.'

Because it seems like you just made those up in your head so that you can claim to be right, even with mountains of evidence towards the opposite.

George, you're the king of "screw the future generations".

you haven't shown even a shred of "data" anywhere that wasn't either outright made up or completely misinterpreted.

Exactly. Please stop making shit up and actually show some data. A new york times article without any research into their numbers could be just as bad as your favorite blog sites that you post, again with no research into their numbers. Hype media. Why are you letting it into your head?

"so now that we've exceeded the 17yr time period your side said is necessary to disprove current AGW hypotheses,"

Who the waffles said that? The world has been warming for the last 20k years..... would you mind explaining to me how the last 17 is statistically significant?

EDIT: And again this is not on the AGW anything, this is a climate modeling soapbox. Show me a list of climate models with a co2 driver vs a climate models without a co2 driver. If co2 is a climate driver, and if people have doubled the amount of co2 we are supposed to have in the atmosphere naturally.... you can cite all the new york times articles you want but it just makes you look like an cognitive dissonance idiot.

[gwb72tii]

Q, you're starting to sound like bob, cale and others
i've posted many links, if you care to re-read what i've posted
what i and others see, from you now in addition to the ususal suspects, is invective hurled at us for any questioning about your side's methodologies and outright manipulation of data

here's a couple of charts for you to chew on
a puase? depending on the year you care to start from, yes. and bravo to you for at least admitting that whatever warming there is is at a much slower pace than predicted.

to be continued.........

edit, here are the two charts with links

"WARMING"


"COOLING"


"NO WARMING"

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

"THE 17 YEAR TIME PERIOD, OR WHAT TIME PERIOD IS SIGNIFICANT?"
Dr.Santer

https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

NOAA - 15yrs or more, page 22

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

"THE ACCURACY OF CLIMATE MODELS VS REAL WORLD DATA"

SOURCE: http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...model-failure/

and mr Q, you're not being honest in dismissing the importance of climate models. they are used to formulate policies that affect us all. climate models are the very root of this mess.

[nando]

we have read what you've posted, it's always the same crap sites with no basis in reality, or the actual article totally contradicts whatever your point was.

meanwhile, Colorado is having the largest wildfire ever.

[rwh11385]

your side's methodologies and outright manipulation of data

Uh, your favorite source is a college drop-out putting a flat line on a chart without any statistics / regression to support it to manipulate people like you who know nothing about math or science and eat it up. You might want to at least find a good paper explaining how this plateau at the warmest temperatures on record is a long enough time period to find it statistically significant or proves a deviation from the trend.

edit: Let's leave behind this "side" mentality - there's really only those who seek truth and those who revel in bullshit. Swimming in opinion of an uneducated TV weathermen is as useless as the alarmist pandering of a former presidential candidate. Instead of wasting time on those who don't actually care to base the discussion on facts and data and focused on their selfish motives, why isn't a matter of science based on science? This isn't a political debate where opinion should dictate the future but rather focus on the best understanding science can provide and its implications. We as mankind ought to continuously work to improve the models and better explain our world instead of simply giving up or ruling it out entirely without any theory or explanation of reality in the place of a wealth of climate science because someone might not want to accept because it is against their political views. Politics shouldn't trump science, nor should business, like Heartland / Philip Morris tried to do. Otherwise, lobbyists and think tanks will determine what facts are in order to corrupt the system in their favor, with voters being little more than hapless, brainwashed drones who have forgotten how to think for themselves like some of both sides seem to have become, with George especially demonstrating this.

Or, again, explain where the energy goes to if it doesn't create warming somewhere on the planet.

[cale]

Or, again, explain where the energy goes to if it doesn't create warming somewhere on the planet.

I got bored after counting the 9 times this has been brought up and went without being addressed.

[Thizzelle]

Geez, and here I thought that it was about science...

Maybe that's the problem, cognitive dissonance prevents you from regarding ideas that aren't published by Matt Drudge or Anthony Watts or Dan Ivandjiiski. And instead of pursuing understanding by learning basic principles of science or math, you parrot someone else's ideas as your own and then repeat the same broken argument - unable to comprehend its weaknesses because you refuse to consider them.

If you were here to actually have an intelligent and adult discussion, then you would attempt to understand that there are multiple inputs to global temperature and yet you want to dumb it down to only look at one vs. the result. Additionally, you've repeatedly failed to provide any rationale while the increased energy absorbed by the planet just "disappears".

Until you do that, you add the same amount of value as this troll:


Yeah... about that whole 1990 Clean Air Act and the impact on acid rain...

sucks for the east coast

[gwb72tii]

George, you're the king of "screw the future generations".

you haven't shown even a shred of "data" anywhere that wasn't either outright made up or completely misinterpreted.

nando, this is typical of anyone without facts to back up their argument.

in fact, i'm trying to save my children from the likes of you and your "oh my God, the world is ending, we have to do something, even if i'm wrong" attitude.

your side has had its way politically, aided and furthered by progressive republicans, since teddy roosevelt.

and where are we today?

in such a mess financially that it will take many many years to work our collective way back to financial health. your politics has bankrupted developed economies around the world. there is always a government solution to every perceived problem. lets just pass new laws and that will fix it attitude.

at what point do you actually realize your side has been a major FAIL?

you infer you're concerned with future generations? i call BS. you have no concern whatsoever. you'll spend whatever sum of money it takes to correct a perceived problem that no data, collected from those sympathetic with your side of the argument, supports.

you sir, and your politics, are bankrupting my children

[rwh11385]

nando, this is typical of anyone without facts to back up their argument.

in fact, i'm trying to save my children from the likes of you and your "oh my God, the world is ending, we have to do something, even if i'm wrong" attitude.

your side has had its way politically, aided and furthered by progressive republicans, since teddy roosevelt.

and where are we today?

in such a mess financially that it will take many many years to work our collective way back to financial health. your politics has bankrupted developed economies around the world. there is always a government solution to every perceived problem. lets just pass new laws and that will fix it attitude.

at what point do you actually realize your side has been a major FAIL?

you infer you're concerned with future generations? i call BS. you have no concern whatsoever. you'll spend whatever sum of money it takes to correct a perceived problem that no data, collected from those sympathetic with your side of the argument, supports.

you sir, and your politics, are bankrupting my children

The children of a financial advisor are bankrupt? Irony.

Soooooo environmental concerns are what created our current financial situation? You sure advisors who promised their clients that mortgage-backed securities had a great return with low risk weren't involved instead?

Again, go back to what I said about sides and look and see if you present any facts whatsoever here, or are just sharing your biased and baseless opinion.

Also, what happens to the additional energy absorbed by the atmosphere? Disappears?

sucks for the east coast

Well it wasn't happy days for the limestone structures and artwork around the major contributors (coal power plants, etc.) before 1990.



But then the map displays how better the situation got when those creating negative externalities were properly connected to them through market-driven mechanisms. Holding polluters accountable for the total cost of their production is important to have a fair and healthy nation - just look at China's air quality if you just let people run wild.