Climate Change Denial, Anyone?

a reply to: amazing

no I don't believe that EVERY scientist and EVERY scientific organization and EVERY University and College are in on some kind of weird conspiracy.

Then again, not EVERY scientist and not EVERY scientific organization and not EVERY University and College are in support of the AGW theory.

The globe has been warming since the last ice age. The tidbit that gave rise to the AGW theory is that the "rate" of warming was faster it had every been - from about 1980 to about 1998. That is a period of 20 years. The rate of warming has since decreased drastically and is no longer of concern

AGW is an interesting theory and climate research is important. But only a fool would believe that the evidence has been twisted by governments and turned into something it is not.

SOME scientist and SOME scientific oranizations and SOME Universities and Colleges actually predict that we are in for 30 years of cooling generated by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

That is in keeping with the pattern of 30 years of warming, 30 years of cooling that has occurred for quite some time.

So how do you explain that the global temperature cooled from 1945 to about 1979 when fossil fuels were being burned and CO2 was increasing?

How do you explain that the rate of warming has slowed since 1998. Were we not burning fossil fuels .and wasn't CO2 rising during that time period?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Is a satellite from 1970 in on the conspiracy?


In case you don't grok this, it's showing greenhouse gas absorption bands, which are dips on the solid line over each disparate location.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The globe has been warming since the last ice age.

False.

The tidbit that gave rise to the AGW theory is that the "rate" of warming was faster it had every been - from about 1980 to about 1998. That is a period of 20 years. The rate of warming has since decreased drastically and is no longer of concern

False.

So how do you explain that the global temperature cooled from 1945 to about 1979 when fossil fuels were being burned and CO2 was increasing?

It didn't cool.

How do you explain that the rate of warming has slowed since 1998. Were we not burning fossil fuels

Since you include the 1998 El Nino shall we include the current El Nino?


Or shall we skip both of them?

a reply to: Phage

why phage, I am shocked!!!!

Why are you of all people presenting satellite temp data as proof of anything?

As you yourself pointed out in this very thread, satellites temps are at least 5 times less accurate than ground temperatures.

What are you trying to get away with. Are you really going to deny that the rate of warming has slowed since 1998?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Why are you of all people presenting satellite temp data as proof of anything?

Which satellite data would that be?

As you yourself pointed out in this very thread, satellites temps are at least 5 times less accurate than ground temperatures.

What does "5 times less accurate" mean? I don't recall ever saying that.

Are you really going to deny that the rate of warming has slowed since 1998?

Compared to what? But no, I'm saying that this claim of yours is false:

The rate of warming has since decreased drastically and is no longer of concern

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

How do you explain that the rate of warming has slowed since 1998.? It might have slowed and I'm not a climate scientist but actual real climate scientists are telling me that the earth is still warming. In fact last year was the hottest year on record.

Then again, not EVERY scientist and not EVERY scientific organization and not EVERY University and College are in support of the AGW theory.--This might be true but what about the 200 scientific organizations that Nasa has linked to it's website. ARe they all lying to me. Each one of them has a position supporting or backing the science of the Man Made Global Warming theory.

Also almost every university or college website has a position supporting the man made global warming theory on there.

That's a lot of scientists. I can't just disgard that and listen to you and some right wing blogs.

It's not wrong to listen to thousands or scientists.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The GISS and HARDCRUT data is retrieved from ground stations, UAH and RSS is satellite data and IGRA, RATPAC,... is weather balloon data, if I'm not mistaken.

Phage did say that Satellite derived temperatures are problematic but at which amount i'm unaware off.
But the same can be said about the ground stations.

a reply to: Phage

So I guess when Micheal Mann (he of the infamous hockey stick graph) was completely out to lunch when he wrote this paper with Steinmann as recently as February 2015?

qz.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: intergalactic fire

yeah listen to yourself. Its all problematic. Its all "adjusted" to the nth degree. Its all manipulated. And the original data set for the Hadcrut data was destroyed by Phil Jones

www.nytimes.com...

Now I don't know about you but a theory is supposed to testable by other scientists (and rigorously, I might add). But in this case, there was a "data storage storage problem" that resulted in the destruction of the original raw data.

This doesn't sound like science at all really.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: intergalactic fire

here is the problem with satellite temperatures

www.accuweather.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

So I guess when Micheal Mann (he of the infamous hockey stick graph) was completely out to lunch when he wrote this paper with Steinmann as recently as February 2015?

Did he say:

The rate of warming has since decreased drastically and is no longer of concern

?

The paper was published in 2015 but it used data through 2012.

The CMIP5 All multimodel ensemble mean series (latitude weighted) for each of the target regions, along with the ensemble of individual simulations, were compared with the actual historical observations over the interval 1854–2012 C.E. (Fig. 1 and fig. S1) (27).

The closing sentence of the paper:

Given the pattern of past historical variation, this trend will likely reverse with internal variability instead, adding to anthropogenic warming in the coming decades.

It would seem that when data after 2012 (including the current El Nino) is considered, he could be right. Some of that heat stored in the ocean (remember those charts you didn't understand?) may be getting put back into the atmosphere.
www.meteo.psu.edu...

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

And the original data set for the Hadcrut data was destroyed by Phil Jones

You really should read your own sources.

Refuting CEI's claims of data-destruction, Jones said, "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: Phage

So what your saying is that since 1985 when Jim Hanson testified in front of congress that the science was incontrovertible and unmistakable - what he really meant is that the number could be "adjusted" and "corrected" to make the global temperature whatever they wanted it to be.

Until 2015, there was a "pause" in the rate of the warming, now there isn't. Its be "adjusted" out of existence.

Do anyone really know what the global temperature is?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

So what your saying is that since 1985 when Jim Hanson testified in front of congress that the science was incontrovertible and unmistakable - what he really meant is that the number could be "adjusted" and "corrected" to make the global temperature whatever they wanted it to be.

No. I didn't say that. I'm not sure why you think I did.

Until 2015, there was a "pause" in the rate of the warming, now there isn't. Its be "adjusted" out of existence.

No. Between 2002 and 2012 the rate of change decreased. That is readily apparent in the charts I posted.

a reply to: Phage

Oh so now you are saying that the "pause" did exist but earlier you posted GIS temp data showing that the rate of warming was perfectly angled across the chart?

Which is it - did the pause exist or didn't it?

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The globe has been warming since the last ice age.

False.

The tidbit that gave rise to the AGW theory is that the "rate" of warming was faster it had every been - from about 1980 to about 1998. That is a period of 20 years. The rate of warming has since decreased drastically and is no longer of concern

False.

So how do you explain that the global temperature cooled from 1945 to about 1979 when fossil fuels were being burned and CO2 was increasing?

It didn't cool.

How do you explain that the rate of warming has slowed since 1998. Were we not burning fossil fuels

Since you include the 1998 El Nino shall we include the current El Nino?

Or shall we skip both of them?

In case you forgot - here are the charts you posted.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Oh so now you are saying that the "pause" did exist but earlier you posted GIS temp data showing that the rate of warming was perfectly angled across the chart?

See the red squiggly line? That is the data. The green line is what is called a trendline.

Do you know the difference? A trend is the overall change. The squiggly line is what happens in between.
Do you own a dog?

Which is it - did the pause exist or didn't it?

Warming slowed, for a while. There was a big spike in 1998. A spike in the trend. We are experiencing a big spike now. A spike in a trend.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Why are you of all people presenting satellite temp data as proof of anything?

Which satellite data would that be?

As you yourself pointed out in this very thread, satellites temps are at least 5 times less accurate than ground temperatures.

What does "5 times less accurate" mean? I don't recall ever saying that.

Are you really going to deny that the rate of warming has slowed since 1998?

Compared to what? But no, I'm saying that this claim of yours is false:

The rate of warming has since decreased drastically and is no longer of concern

So I say the rate of warming slowed since 1998 - and you say - "compared to what? But no, I am saying that this claim of yours is false.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Now you want to try to pretend that I don't understand the difference between a trend line and spikes inbetween. You are catagorically claiming that the rate of warming did not slow sine 1998.

So is this how you debate an issue - say it - deny you said it - pretend that you didn't say it and that you were misunderstood then lastly pretend that your opponent is a fool?

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: Phage
Yup. You're wrong. That's too low. If that's the rate of increase we get, we're doing a whole lot of stuff right. The goal for the Paris agreement is to limit warming to 2º (which includes the 0.8º we've already got, so 1.2º) at the end of the century.

Since at least 97% if not more of the greenhouse effect in the Troposphere, the atmospheric layer where all surface weather and climate occurs, is caused by water vapor then the increase in temperature for the past 100 years has been mostly caused by water vapor and not CO2... So out of the 0.8C increase in the last 100 years 0.776C was caused by water vapor...

During a climate change event in which warming occurs, the warmer the planet gets, the more water vapor the troposphere(atmosphere) can contain which leads to a feedback effect...

originally posted by: Phage
Warming slowed, for a while. There was a big spike in 1998. A spike in the trend. We are experiencing a big spike now. A spike in a trend.

Spikes caused by super El Niños... Not caused by your magical act from CO2...