Global Warming is over.

[BraveUlysses]

its on subject you dolt, and i'm not here to answer your questions

so you're here just to demand answers from others?

stop posting for fuck's sake

[tjts1]

its on subject you dolt, and i'm not here to answer your questions

If you don't want to answer any questions why the fuck are you here?

[z31maniac]

gwb is the greatest troll of all time.

Or should jump off a bridge.


I can't decide.

[BraveUlysses]

gwb is the greatest troll of all time.

Or should jump off a bridge.


I can't decide.

both.

[CorvallisBMW]

wow, just in time

cale, rwh etc please do your best to discredit the signers of this letter

quote
"The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion."



http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...25-scientists/

So if there's been no global warming in the last 16 years, why are both antarctic and arctic ice still melting at a record rate, and why are the oceans rising?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20543483

[Farbin Kaiber]

If he was a troll, wouldn't he live UNDER a bridge?

[tjts1]

[Cliche Guevara]

So if there's been no global warming in the last 16 years, why are both antarctic and arctic ice still melting at a record rate, and why are the oceans rising?



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20543483

And then there's this:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/28/15512957-sea-level-rose-60-percent-faster-than-un-projections-study-finds

Sea levels are rising 60% faster than scientists anticipates. Unless you get your climate change news solely from deniers, this shouldn't come as a surprise to you. Climate scientists have consistently underestimated both the degree and effects of climate change.

[cale]

wow, just in time

cale, rwh etc please do your best to discredit the signers of this letter

quote
"The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion."



http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...25-scientists/

First off I'd like to thank you for proving a point, that you rely heavily on what is in the headlines on your particular propaganda machines. You want to debate science with a Financial Post link? Why is it you think this and Forbes are such strong scientific resources? I'm sure it's only a coincidence that 8 of the 10 worlds largest businesses are in the energy and fossil fuel industry, and that articles contesting AGW (something that is bad for business for those companies) being found on a business news website is absolutely hidden agenda free

Secondly, allow me to pull up a source of my own. I'm not quite sure NASA is as reliable as the Financial Times when it comes to science though, so I'll let you be the judge of that.

"The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last eight years," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS. They stack up as follows: the warmest was 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

So all 5 of the warmest years having taken place in the last 15 years CERTAINLY proves that no warming has occurred in the last 16 years as your articles claims, right?

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

You're ridiculous, you just see an article upon your daily stumbling's on websites you normally scroll through and think it's a nail in the coffin without doing any of your own reading, in fact this article is only a day old. You really do just stumble upon these things. Do you really think you're going to win any arguments that way?

I hope this will suffice as to me not ignoring your message.

[rwh11385]

wow, just in time

cale, rwh etc please do your best to discredit the signers of this letter

quote
"The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion."



http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...25-scientists/

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."

[rwh11385]

First off I'd like to thank you for proving a point, that you rely heavily on what is in the headlines on your particular propaganda machines. You want to debate science with a Financial Post link? Why is it you think this and Forbes are such strong scientific resources? I'm sure it's only a coincidence that 8 of the 10 worlds largest businesses are in the energy and fossil fuel industry, and that articles contesting AGW (something that is bad for business for those companies) being found on a business news website is absolutely hidden agenda free

You're ridiculous, you just see an article upon your daily stumbling's on websites you normally scroll through and think it's a nail in the coffin without doing any of your own reading, in fact this article is only a day old. You really do just stumble upon these things. Do you really think you're going to win any arguments that way?

Truth. I'm not sure why he thinks a lazy scan of right-leaning publications could possibly educate him about science. I'm not sure he can understand any of it and just reads the headlines and holds it up, holding he can just say "see, this should prove it, right?? right??".

But Forbes is sometimes good - it's hit or miss depending on who is writing and how much it is based on truth and logic. I used to find a lot of good and engaging pieces and read it daily... but approaching the election it was just a wash of opinions with not much to hang a hat on with facts to support them.

That's why critically analyzing the source's credibility is important. Obviously Heartland Institute is not a credible science source after their "research" said that second hand smoke was not harmful on their client's behalf.

But unlike gwb's inability to read or understand opposing viewpoints, Forbes sometimes has the other side post: http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergle...-climate-data/
"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data

The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth.

These statements are scurrilous deceptions and falsehoods. The planet is warming – an observation noted by every climate research institution tracking temperatures, the US National Academy of Sciences (over and over and over), every other national academy of sciences on the planet, and every professional society in the geosciences.

The actual data are easy for anyone to find – they are posted and regularly updated, freely, on public websites around the world. The most consistent, highly respected, and regularly analyzed and updated data on global surface temperatures are available from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Sciences, NOAA’s National Climate Data Center, and the United Kingdom’s Met Office Hadley Center. [Feel free to redo my analysis using any of these – they all independently say the same thing: I’m using the NASA GISS data in my pictures below.]

All of the false claims take advantage of one fundamental truth about the average temperature of our planet: it varies a little, naturally, from year to year. Some years are a bit warmer than average and some are a bit colder than average because of El Niños, La Niñas, cloud variability, volcanic activity, ocean conditions, and just the natural pulsing of our planetary systems. When you filter these out, the human-caused warming signal is clear. But natural variability makes it possible for scurrilous deceivers to do a classic “no-no” in science: to cherry-pick data to support their claims. They pick particular years or groups of years; they pick particular subsets of data. But when you look at all the data, or when you look at long-term trends, the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is warming – precisely the conclusion the scientific community has reached based on observations and fundamental physics.

What if we look decade by decade in order to smooth out some of the year-to-year natural variability? OK, here you go. The last decade had less warming than the one before (because of these natural variations I’ve mentioned), but is it cooling? No. Instead we see a continuation of the bad news.

Finally even this is cherry-picking, because it turns out that the heat imbalance of the planet is not only measured by rising surface temperatures. Scientists now know that a massive amount of the extra heating effect is also going into melting ice (in the Arctic and Greenland and mountain glaciers) and also heating the oceans, and that even when surface heating slows, ocean heating continues. This next figure based on data from a 2011 paper by Church et al. shows that most of the heat actually goes into the oceans, not into rising surface temperatures.

The next time you hear someone say it isn’t warming, or it hasn’t warmed for “xx” years, or “it’s actually cooling,” remember: someone is trying to deceive you with cherry-picked numbers.

That's the problem with gullible or people unfamiliar with numbers or science, they don't know when they are being fooled or misled. George is a lemming for the deniers and eats it all up - mostly because he doesn't understand. When he is challenged to explain what he "gets" about the source he posts, he gets upset and says he's not here to answer our questions because simply - he can't. He attacks Brave, "predicts" us questioning his logic, and laughs when he can't refute our reasoning.

[cale]

A graph in reality



the same graph as gwb wants to see it

[rwh11385]

that's because 1997 was a really strong el nino which resulted in an exceptionally warm year. Basically the date is cherry picked by the deniers to say there's been no change, when the trend is still obvious. going from 1997 to 2012 in a straight line is not a trend, because you're ignoring all the data before and after.

hell, if you'd bothered to pull your head out of your ass and read, you'd see that was already covered, and that almost all of the hottest recorded years have been since the year 2000.

keep pretending nothing is happening. you live in an area that will be heavily affected by many aspects of AGW, you'll find the truth eventually.

god you're predictable nando
ignore the data, perfect
it doesn't matter if you start in 1997, the "hottest year on record"
atmospheric CO2 has risen, "substantially"
yet temps have not

GOD EVERYONE IS PREDICTABLE. Maybe it's because you repeat the exact same stupid arguments again and again and fail to see that you are the one ignoring the majority of the data.

Actually, cherry picking your analysis window does matter.

As said before you seem to forget an argument has failed in the past and simply repeat it as - while avoiding questions about new points you've thrown into the mix and then abandoned.

[streetwaves]

By far the funniest thing about GWB is "predicting" your responses. If I say something stupid but predict that you'll point it out, apparently I still somehow win. Glad I've learned this new trick.

Anyways, climate change deniers are really a group there's no point in arguing with. Their position is obviously informed by right-wing bullshit sources rather than credible ones or real knowledge of or interest in science. You won't convince them by attempting to appeal to their logic, because that's not what it's about.

[gwb72tii]

so are you, or are you not, going to try and discredit the scientists who do not depend on taxpayer dollars for their living, who do not swallow the non science you all spew, which i conveniently provided for you?

or are they all right wing bullshit sources?