Report: No "Global Warming" for 325 Months...

[findingZzero]

It seems that the consensus here is against the scientific consensus. So, I give up. You win.

BTW, I now have a friend. Thank you.

I have to admit though, the graphic is a powerful argument. It's not easy being me here, but I persist. Perhaps just to **** you off.... What doesn't kill you, makes you wary. You need me on that wall. C'mon. Admit it.

 

[spencer rifle]

Always follow the money. Who will global warming regulations make richer beyond the wildest dreams of avarice while stealing it from average Americans.

When Climate Exchange was a hot company I checked out the management and BOD. Almost all were European investment banking people.

^^ This. To quote a Murphyism, "When you see a situation you do not understand, look for the financial interest."

 

[actaeon277]

It seems that the consensus here is against the scientific consensus. So, I give up. You win.

BTW, I now have a friend. Thank you.

I have to admit though, the graphic is a powerful argument. It's not easy being me here, but I persist. Perhaps just to **** you off.... What doesn't kill you, makes you wary. You need me on that wall. C'mon. Admit it.

The consensus is that not all scientists agree.
The consensus is that no science is unquestionable.
The consensus is that CO2 makes up 0.039% of the atmo. Is a small change in a small percent have that big an effect.
The consensus is that... do humans have that much an effect compared to mother nature. Mother Nature itself is in a constant state of flux.
Volcanic eruptions tend to beat out everything we do.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Not this again......

For,
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

Against,
Rush Limbaugh

The temperature graph provided is about the last 100 years or so, but appears to provide independent correlation by different agencies. Realize NASA didn't start until the late 50's, NOAA was around 1970, etc. There was no Japanese Meteorology until well after WWII. So, rather than correlation of independent measurement activities, these are the same(ish) analyses of the same data gathered by "someone else". That usually ends up with a very high correlation (purple intended).

Also, realize there's been at most a 1C peak-to-peak (for you EE's) change in 100 years and is currently (14 years to the OP's point) in a "pause".

So then, why do all these agencies agree? Because they all agree with the assessment of the IPCC.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

The OP's point is a current "pause" in warming about 14 years (above graph).

Additionally there was a pause from 1940 to 1975. In fact 1980 saw a spike in arctic sea ice.

So, the conclusion that this 1C increase over 100 years is human induced. The IPCC says it's "likely" which means 90% confidence. That is the part that a great number of people (myself included) have difficulty. Our period between 1940 and 1975 was a HUGE increase in production of greenhouse gasses by humans, yet global climate surface temperatures, air temperatures and ocean temperatures were relatively flat.

We are witnessing the largest industrial revolution in the history of mankind right now - China. World wide greenhouse gasses produced by humans is wildly on the rise. Yet, we are experiencing yet another "multi-decade" pause.

Why? If greenhouse gasses and thus humans are the driver, why?

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

I'm so fortunate that I read this thread. I had no idea that movealong squared was the smartest person on the planet, let alone Bloomington, Indiana, which is really saying something. I now know that I have to have at least on tenth of his brain power to know that all the "scientific" models that have continuously predicted global warming gloom and doom aren't wrong, they just need to be "tweaked".

The fact that the data was all fudged over at East Anglia is not a factor. The discounting of some measuring points in favor of measurements in heat islands is not a factor. The made up hockey stick is not a factor. Government agency and academic funding tied to agreement is not a factor.

My challenge to you is simple: How is your personal economic benefit tied to this "settled science"..hmmm?

Oh and BTW, I aced all of my undergrad and graduate mathematics and statistics classes. They weren't necessary to smell out this fraud.

 

[findingZzero]

The consensus is that not all scientists agree.
The consensus is that no science is unquestionable.
The consensus is that CO2 makes up 0.039% of the atmo. Is a small change in a small percent have that big an effect.
The consensus is that... do humans have that much an effect compared to mother nature. Mother Nature itself is in a constant state of flux.
Volcanic eruptions tend to beat out everything we do.

There is truth in some of what you say.
I remember when acid rain from coal fired power plants in the Midwest was destroying forests/lake/fish in the northeast. We did that. Clean Air Act & amendments have helped fix this. It ain't over, but it is better. And yes, a volcano can create havoc with the atmosphere. And methane and CO2 can create a greenhouse effect. We are nature and we affect nature. Nature will adjust. We may not be happy with the adjustments. If there is a problem, when should we start addressing it? Clean air is healthier to breathe than dirty air. Humans make dirty air. Let's start there.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

There is truth in some of what you say.
I remember when acid rain from coal fired power plants in the Midwest was destroying forests/lake/fish in the northeast. We did that. Clean Air Act & amendments have helped fix this. It ain't over, but it is better. And yes, a volcano can create havoc with the atmosphere. And methane and CO2 can create a greenhouse effect. We are nature and we affect nature. Nature will adjust. We may not be happy with the adjustments. If there is a problem, when should we start addressing it? Clean air is healthier to breathe than dirty air. Humans make dirty air. Let's start there.

I agree and disagree. Rhino can answer as this was his job for quite a while, but "clean" is subjective. There's a cost. When is "clean" clean enough? Zero is simply unobtainable and would ruin civilization. Then there's the cost of all the steps in-between.

The cost of lowering our "carbon footprint" to the extinction of coal as an energy producer is not an option. Especially since as 277 pointed out greenhouse gasses are in the noise. And, as I pointed out, there have been pauses and we're experiencing a pause now, that seem to fly in the face of human influence.

 

[rhino]

I want zero of anything bad in my everything!

 

[indykid]

So how cold would it be today if there wasn't so-called global warming? On the other hand, how warm should it be if there is so-called global warming?

 

[Hoosier8]

The OP's point is a current "pause" in warming about 14 years (above graph).

Additionally there was a pause from 1940 to 1975. In fact 1980 saw a spike in arctic sea ice.

So, the conclusion that this 1C increase over 100 years is human induced. The IPCC says it's "likely" which means 90% confidence. That is the part that a great number of people (myself included) have difficulty. Our period between 1940 and 1975 was a HUGE increase in production of greenhouse gasses by humans, yet global climate surface temperatures, air temperatures and ocean temperatures were relatively flat.

We are witnessing the largest industrial revolution in the history of mankind right now - China. World wide greenhouse gasses produced by humans is wildly on the rise. Yet, we are experiencing yet another "multi-decade" pause.

Why? If greenhouse gasses and thus humans are the driver, why?

A couple of things should be noted:

1. The anomoly graphs are actually models also. There are so many areas of the planet that are not measured that they have to model much of it.
2. The IPCC says the significant CO2 rise above the Holocene average starts in the 50's.
3. The AGW models cannot hind cast, that is predict what has happened in the past based on actual data.

Keven Trenberth, the lead author of IPCC assessment 2, 3, and 4 penned this 7 years ago (assessment 4) in a blog post at Nature.com/

None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.

In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.

Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors.

… if the current state is one of drought then it is unlikely to get drier, but unrealistic model states and model biases can easily violate such constraints and project drier conditions.

However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate.

So the science is just beginning.

We will adapt to climate change. The question is whether it will be planned or not?

This one shows the self-deception.

The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity.

 

[printcraft]

I understand they had a consensus about drinking the kool-aid at Jonestown.

Yep, don't discount the human factor of wanting to be seen as the smartest person in the room.
(see upthread for this phenomenon first hand)
Or wanting to be loved by your peers.
Peer reviewed studies on this topic should be relabeled as peer pressure studies.
There is a consensus among hollywood actors that guns are bad, pro gun actors are put down, shamed, made fun of, etc.
They have a clear consensus based on nonsense. The consensus on global warming is based off of a flawed (intentionally) original study.
Saving the planet is a feel good fest at best. The planet doesn't care about us.... sorry for the bad news.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Yep, don't discount the human factor of wanting to be seen as the smartest person in the room.
(see upthread for this phenomenon first hand)
Or wanting to be loved by your peers.
Peer reviewed studies on this topic should be relabeled as peer pressure studies.
There is a consensus among hollywood actors that guns are bad, pro gun actors are put down, shamed, made fun of, etc.
They have a clear consensus based on nonsense. The consensus on global warming is based off of a flawed (intentionally) original study.
Saving the planet is a feel good fest at best. The planet doesn't care about us.... sorry for the bad news.

And NONE of the measures[STRIKE] suggested[/STRIKE] demanded by "Climate Change" alarmists are claimed to make any significant reduction in the rate of "change" - except perhaps to destroy the economies of any nations foolish enough to defenestrate their populations by taking up those destructive policies, which, come to think of it, might result in mass population reductions - perhaps the ultimate goal of these haters of humankind.

 

[AA&E]

I've had this account for something like 7 years.

I don't come in the politics threads too often, though, because of exact the kind of circlejerking that I'm seeing in here.

Movealongmovealong - Join Date Mar 2009

November 2014 minus March 2009 =

5 years 8 months... enter random smart-assed comments about basic elementary level mathematics.

 

[AA&E]

No. I don't keep track of age of some internet account that I rarely use so I estimated - EXACTLY like I stated.

There is nothing to track...

pssstt

it's listed right over there
<--------

next to your name every time you post something.

 

[churchmouse]

Hilarious.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Breaking: President Obama will announce $3 billion US contribution to new international climate change fund

 

[pudly]

 

[JollyMon]

Ohhh NO.

ZZAP! Yargh! Climate change means getting HIT BY LIGHTNING is likelier ? The Register

 

[churchmouse]

Breaking: President Obama will announce $3 billion US contribution to new international climate change fund

And the beat goes on. Follow the money folks.....just follow the money.

I went out side to get fire wood for the wood stove this A.M. and it was 18* on Nov. 14th.
Yup, sure is getting warmer.