Global Warming is over.

[gwb72tii]

Inconvenient facts. Where the hell is Jim Hansen and Mikie Mann when you need them?

Who knew? And why wasn't it reported? Global cooling.

https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/04/24/did_you_know_the_greatest_two-year_global_cooling_event_just_took_place_103243.html

[parkerbink]

Inconvenient facts. Where the hell is Jim Hansen and Mikie Mann when you need them?

Who knew? And why wasn't it reported? Global cooling.
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...ce_103243.html

Do you live on another planet? It has been hotter year by year where I live (based on my daily awareness of temperatures)

Additionally, 2 years is not a reasonable amount of time and 0.56c is infinitesimal (if true)

Also, did you read your post?

"None of this argues against global warming. The 1950s was the last decade cooler than the previous decade, the next five decades were all warmer on average than the decade before."

[mrsleeve]

Additionally, 2 years is not a reasonable amount of time and 0.56c is infinitesimal (if true)
]

Unless of course the report said it was warming a 1/2 degree C every 2 years, then your bunch would be running around with flaming hair screaming the world's gonna end the world's ending it's Global warming

[parkerbink]

Unless of course the report said it was warming a 1/2 degree C every 2 years, then your bunch would be running around with flaming hair screaming the woods gonna end the world's ending it's Global warming

Except, no.


Also, did you read his link? I copied & bolded it for you & your ilk that post shit without actually reading what you post..

I'll try again. FROM HIS LINK:
"None of this argues against global warming. The 1950s was the last decade cooler than the previous decade, the next five decades were all warmer on average than the decade before."

[gwb72tii]

do you see a trend here?

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/chart1_shadow-15.png

[parkerbink]

do you see a trend here?

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-co..._shadow-15.png

The trend I see is you finding one fringe site after another to support your idiotic views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard

Steven Goddard (pseudonym for Tony Heller) is a blogger and the publisher of "Real Climate Science," a website he established to assert that concerns over anthropogenic global warming are exaggerated and false. Before establishing his own blog, Heller built his reputation as a challenger to anthropogenic climate change theories through frequent postings on the Watts Up with That? blog.[1] Goddard wrote pseudonymously until 2014 when he revealed his true real identity on his blog.[2] He has a BS in geology from Arizona State University and a Master's degree in electrical engineering from Rice University.[3]

Claims of NASA manipulation of temperature data
In June 2014, Goddard attracted considerable media attention for his claims that NASA had manipulated temperature data to make it appear that 1998 was the hottest year in United States history. In fact, he claimed, it was 1934, but NASA had started incorrectly citing 1998 as the hottest year beginning in 2000.[7] Goddard had been promoting these claims for years before this, including in a chapter of a book by Don Easterbrook,[8] but the mainstream media had not paid significant attention to it before then.[9] Those who promoted the claim included Christopher Booker, in a June 21 article in the Daily Telegraph,[10] and Fox News Channel host Steve Doocy three days later in a Fox and Friends segment.

The claim was dismissed by Politifact.com, which rated it as "pants on fire"—its lowest possible rating. Politifact contacted Berkeley Earth energy systems analyst and environmental economist Zeke Hausfather,[11] who told them that the problem with Goddard's analysis was that it ignored the changes the network of U.S. weather stations had undergone over the last eighty years.[12] Goddard's claims were also criticized by fellow climate skeptic Anthony Watts, who argued that his assertions of data fabrication were "wrong", and criticized him for using absolute temperatures rather than anomalies in his analysis.[13] Watts later apologized to Goddard (Heller) and admitted that his "confirmation bias" influenced his thinking. Watts wrote " this time Steve Goddard was right and my confirmation bias prevented me from seeing that there was in fact a real issue in the data and that NCDC has dead stations that are reporting data that isn’t real: mea culpa." [14]

In a response to Politifact on his blog, Goddard argued that while NASA has official reasons for the adjustments they make to temperature data, "their adjustments are highly subjective, and are subject to software and algorithm errors. Politifact’s claim is the result of a failure to understand the topic, for the following reasons. There is no question that the temperature record has been dramatically altered, to turn a long term cooling trend into a long term warming trend. No one disputes this. Anthony Watts was discussing a different specific topic related to missing station data, and has since admitted he was wrong. If you actually contact him, you will find that out."[15]

Noted global warming skeptic Judith Curry initially characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus." [16] Curry analyzed the situation further and stated " I infer from this that there seems to be a real problem with the USHCN data set, or at least with some of the stations". [17]

[gwb72tii]

The trend I see is you finding one fringe site after another to support your idiotic views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard

Steven Goddard (pseudonym for Tony Heller) is a blogger and the publisher of "Real Climate Science," a website he established to assert that concerns over anthropogenic global warming are exaggerated and false. Before establishing his own blog, Heller built his reputation as a challenger to anthropogenic climate change theories through frequent postings on the Watts Up with That? blog.[1] Goddard wrote pseudonymously until 2014 when he revealed his true real identity on his blog.[2] He has a BS in geology from Arizona State University and a Master's degree in electrical engineering from Rice University.[3]

Claims of NASA manipulation of temperature data
In June 2014, Goddard attracted considerable media attention for his claims that NASA had manipulated temperature data to make it appear that 1998 was the hottest year in United States history. In fact, he claimed, it was 1934, but NASA had started incorrectly citing 1998 as the hottest year beginning in 2000.[7] Goddard had been promoting these claims for years before this, including in a chapter of a book by Don Easterbrook,[8] but the mainstream media had not paid significant attention to it before then.[9] Those who promoted the claim included Christopher Booker, in a June 21 article in the Daily Telegraph,[10] and Fox News Channel host Steve Doocy three days later in a Fox and Friends segment.

The claim was dismissed by Politifact.com, which rated it as "pants on fire"—its lowest possible rating. Politifact contacted Berkeley Earth energy systems analyst and environmental economist Zeke Hausfather,[11] who told them that the problem with Goddard's analysis was that it ignored the changes the network of U.S. weather stations had undergone over the last eighty years.[12] Goddard's claims were also criticized by fellow climate skeptic Anthony Watts, who argued that his assertions of data fabrication were "wrong", and criticized him for using absolute temperatures rather than anomalies in his analysis.[13] Watts later apologized to Goddard (Heller) and admitted that his "confirmation bias" influenced his thinking. Watts wrote " this time Steve Goddard was right and my confirmation bias prevented me from seeing that there was in fact a real issue in the data and that NCDC has dead stations that are reporting data that isn’t real: mea culpa." [14]

In a response to Politifact on his blog, Goddard argued that while NASA has official reasons for the adjustments they make to temperature data, "their adjustments are highly subjective, and are subject to software and algorithm errors. Politifact’s claim is the result of a failure to understand the topic, for the following reasons. There is no question that the temperature record has been dramatically altered, to turn a long term cooling trend into a long term warming trend. No one disputes this. Anthony Watts was discussing a different specific topic related to missing station data, and has since admitted he was wrong. If you actually contact him, you will find that out."[15]

Noted global warming skeptic Judith Curry initially characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus." [16] Curry analyzed the situation further and stated " I infer from this that there seems to be a real problem with the USHCN data set, or at least with some of the stations". [17]

no your right I don't trust GISS temperature either

[Schnitzer318is]

Interesting research......https://www.manhattan-institute.org/.../R-JA-0518.pdf

Very short summary. ZEV vehicles are worse for environment than IC vehicles. ZEV are are also disproportionately subsidized by the poor, who cannot afford ZEV, for the wealthy who can.

From their front page:

"Manhattan Institute: A leading free-market think tank focusing on Economic Growth, Education, Energy and Environment, Health Care, Legal Reform, Public Sector, Race, & Urban Policy"


A quick browse of the site shows any "research" they present, most likely be cherry picked, and will be slanted decidedly one way (to the right).

I skimmed through that paper... my suggestion, watch Merchants of Doubt. Think tanks are a misnomer and are paid for by big business to influence politicians who are then paid by the "think tanks" in the form of lobbying.

Think tanks should be outlawed, as should lobbying, and Citizens United should be reversed. But seeing as none of those things are going to happen we can continue to enjoy our continuing devolution into an oligarchy, plutocracy, or plutarchy. Choose your terminology.

Except, no.


Also, did you read his link? I copied & bolded it for you & your ilk that post shit without actually reading what you post..

I'll try again. FROM HIS LINK:
"None of this argues against global warming. The 1950s was the last decade cooler than the previous decade, the next five decades were all warmer on average than the decade before."

I would guess no... they don't want to address that.

[ForcedFirebird]

no your right I don't trust GISS temperature either

One simple question for you in particular. Seems you like to challenge until death, so: What DO you trust exactly?

I never considered myself a scientist, but I do create a theroum, then back it up with proof, so the shoe fits.

You cannot possibly argue the fact of carbon polution from us (which we are already heavily into the recently named "antripologian period")

But dude....what evidence can you provide that we ARE NOT at 400ppm+ of carbon in our air? Fact is fact. We are opposing the carboniferous age where insect larvea had to be so large to NOT be toxized by oxygen since it was so abundant and absorbed from the exoskeleton. We are in a perfectly opposing situation.... aside the fact that most oxygen breathing organisms cannot process dioxides. Everything humas do produces more more dioxides than oxygen, so the runaway effect is inevitable.

I repeat, 400ppm. That IS something you can leave the internet, go outside and measure!!!!

[cale]

What DO you trust exactly?

Blog posts from retired weather station personalities which reaffirm his beliefs. This isn't about what's factual and can be proven, it's about what pats him on the back and makes him feel right.

[gwb72tii]

The chart I posted is from databases that NASA and alarmists use to tell us the world is coming to an end.

Google GISS

And tell me from the chart why I should be alarmed

400 is no magic number btw

[gwb72tii]

And I’ll repeat myself from previous posts

THE PLANET IS WARMING!

Omg

Co2 is a greenhouse gas

And all you have are models telling us we’re going to die.

There is no science that shows co2 to be THE driver of the planet warming and that man made co2 is THE problem. It’s conjecture. It’s a hypothesis.

The fact that models have not predicted or explained why global temps have stalled for close to 20 years means the hypothesis is wrong. The left adopted global warming as a political issue.

[Schnitzer318is]

There is no science that shows co2 to be THE driver of the planet warming and that man made co2 is THE problem. It’s conjecture. It’s a hypothesis.

The fact that models have not predicted or explained why global temps have stalled for close to 20 years means the hypothesis is wrong. The left adopted global warming as a political issue.

There is. You refuse to believe it in favor of your science presented by people who were paid to come up with "science" that could deny, or disinform, or at the very least confuse an issue.

You only see one side of this particular coin so neither your posting here, or anyone else rebutting you is going to make one bit of difference. I quoted your article that you must have either not read, or misunderstood. Did not get a response. Others mentioned it... no response.

I'll say it again. That anthropogenic climate change is a thing... can not be debated. What can be is how worried we should be. Or even if anything could be or should be done. Ocean temperatures have risen steadily no matter whose graph you reference. Deniers and AGW supporters alike use the same graph. The difference is how they explain it... and who paid them to do so.

[ForcedFirebird]

And I’ll repeat myself from previous posts

THE PLANET IS WARMING!

Omg

Co2 is a greenhouse gas

And all you have are models telling us we’re going to die.

There is no science that shows co2 to be THE driver of the planet warming and that man made co2 is THE problem. It’s conjecture. It’s a hypothesis.

The fact that models have not predicted or explained why global temps have stalled for close to 20 years means the hypothesis is wrong. The left adopted global warming as a political issue.

This is the P&R subsection but no agenda involved from this post.

To say 400ppm is "nothing" is like saying you can walk through a cloud of mustard has and just because you didn't notice the odor, you won't sustain injury or even pass completely.

Try using 400ppm less ZDDP in your m20 oil and report back, in even 5yr.

GW isn't a "sky is falling" attitude, but in case you missed the point, it is fact, we are contributing as anthropolics, and just because it doesn't happen in your life time, it IS a measurable and quantified situation that is exponential AND quantifiable.

If co2 and c1o1 are not a big deal, then run your car in a garage with the door closed, or crawl in a box, make it air right, then report back after you reach 400ppm

The planet is a closed system. Just like you garage, or box will be.


Spouting out about non tangible evidence is just trolling.

[mbonder]

This is the P&R subsection but no agenda involved from this post.

To say 400ppm is "nothing" is like saying you can walk through a cloud of mustard has and just because you didn't notice the odor, you won't sustain injury or even pass completely.

Try using 400ppm less ZDDP in your m20 oil and report back, in even 5yr.

GW isn't a "sky is falling" attitude, but in case you missed the point, it is fact, we are contributing as anthropolics, and just because it doesn't happen in your life time, it IS a measurable and quantified situation that is exponential AND quantifiable.

If co2 and c1o1 are not a big deal, then run your car in a garage with the door closed, or crawl in a box, make it air right, then report back after you reach 400ppm

The planet is a closed system. Just like you garage, or box will be.


Spouting out about non tangible evidence is just trolling.

I hate to do it, because I'm actually all about being pissed off at the global warming deniers, however...

gwb didn't say 400ppm was nothing, nor did he deny the existence of higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, he simply stated that there is no defined concentration of CO2 (at least as far as I'm aware) that would with 100% certainty create a rise in global temperatures. You might not agree, but that is what he said.

Additionally, none of your examples have any correlation to global warming. The content of ZDDP in motor oil has no relation to warming of an atmosphere.

The poisonous nature to humans of CO2 and CO in a closed space like a garage has nothing to do with global temperatures rising.

If we were arguing that these gasses are harmful to humans and other organisms at certain concentrations, I would say your examples are valid, however, the whole point that gwb is arguing is that it can't be determined whether these gasses are THE variable that has made global temperatures rise. Your examples don't actually touch on that argument.


It's stuff like this that deniers eat up because people try to create correlations that aren't actually there and then scream from the hilltops about impending doom.

As I stated at the beginning, I'm certainly interested in reducing emissions and preparing a better world for tomorrow's generations, but if we're going to create an argument at least make it one that would stand up in a middle school mock trial.