Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
02-11-2012, 09:05 AM
Post: #721
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
Once again the predictions and models fail.

Instead of 'stunned' and 'shocked', at this point they should be used to observation showing that they are wrong.

[Image: figure9new_thumb.png]

Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pag...mperature/

Note that this is just one comparision using the solar-lunar cycle, but even so, it is much closer to what has been happening than the IPCC forecast.

I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Find all posts by this user
02-11-2012, 10:58 AM
Post: #722
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
(02-11-2012 09:05 AM)JohnWho Wrote:  Once again the predictions and models fail.

Instead of 'stunned' and 'shocked', at this point they should be used to observation showing that they are wrong.

[Image: figure9new_thumb.png]

Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pag...mperature/

Note that this is just one comparision using the solar-lunar cycle, but even so, it is much closer to what has been happening than the IPCC forecast.

That is because the IPCC follows the unverified and discredited AGW conjecture.

Global Warming Skeptics
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
02-11-2012, 11:56 AM
Post: #723
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
Anyone up on this man's research?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...13090.html
Find all posts by this user
02-11-2012, 06:02 PM
Post: #724
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
From Palladin's link:

Quote:("Warmther," by the way, is a coin termed—if I recall correctly—by occasional TIA Daily contributor Tom Minchin. It's intended to put advocates of the global warming hysteria in the same category as the "truthers" and the "birthers.")

"Warmther" - I like it.

Quote:The CLOUD experiment used CERN's particle accelerator to send a beam of artificially generated charged particles—simulated cosmic rays—into a gas-filled chamber and then measured the formation of aerosols, the kind of compounds that can serve as cloud nucleation sites. It found a direct and very significant relationship.

This is not a total demonstration of Svensmark's theory. The Nature paper on the CLOUD experiment notes that "the fraction of these freshly nucleated particles that grow to sufficient sizes to seed cloud droplets, as well as the role of organic vapors in the nucleation and growth processes, remain open questions experimentally."

Well, remember - in the real world Svensmark is talking about a constant bombardment of cosmic rays, day in, day out, 24/7/365+, not the relatively short term of the CLOUD experiment. Out of small nucleated particles larger particles grow, so to speak.

I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Find all posts by this user
02-11-2012, 06:26 PM
Post: #725
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
(02-11-2012 06:02 PM)JohnWho Wrote:  From Palladin's link:

Quote:("Warmther," by the way, is a coin termed—if I recall correctly—by occasional TIA Daily contributor Tom Minchin. It's intended to put advocates of the global warming hysteria in the same category as the "truthers" and the "birthers.")

"Warmther" - I like it.

I also liked it the moment I read it earlier.

JohnWho Wrote:
Quote:The CLOUD experiment used CERN's particle accelerator to send a beam of artificially generated charged particles—simulated cosmic rays—into a gas-filled chamber and then measured the formation of aerosols, the kind of compounds that can serve as cloud nucleation sites. It found a direct and very significant relationship.

This is not a total demonstration of Svensmark's theory. The Nature paper on the CLOUD experiment notes that "the fraction of these freshly nucleated particles that grow to sufficient sizes to seed cloud droplets, as well as the role of organic vapors in the nucleation and growth processes, remain open questions experimentally."

Well, remember - in the real world Svensmark is talking about a constant bombardment of cosmic rays, day in, day out, 24/7/365+, not the relatively short term of the CLOUD experiment. Out of small nucleated particles larger particles grow, so to speak.

Svensmark has been hammering in all the strategic nails, into just the right places within the AGW coffin for some time now. But I got the impression that the writer was less familiar with the terminology than we are. He didn't use 'Solar Wind' even once.

Democracy is indispensable to socialism - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
The goal of socialism is communism - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Would you like some other reasons why 'democracy' is not what it is advertised?


[Image: governmentstupidity.jpg?w=320&h=79]
Find all posts by this user
02-12-2012, 07:16 PM
Post: #726
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
From Palladins link,

LINK

Quote:So there you have the rules of the game, as played by the political-scientific establishment. If you have a study that you think backs up the global warming dogma, preface it with a press release drawing wildly speculative conclusions from the data. If you have a study that contradicts the global warming dogma, preface it with a press release declaring that no conclusions can be drawn.

I wonder if Buzz can understand the contrast and why despite it why they are losing the argument catastrophically?

S13

Global Warming Skeptics
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
02-12-2012, 07:38 PM
Post: #727
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
(02-12-2012 07:16 PM)sunsettommy Wrote:  From Palladins link,

LINK

Quote:So there you have the rules of the game, as played by the political-scientific establishment. If you have a study that you think backs up the global warming dogma, preface it with a press release drawing wildly speculative conclusions from the data. If you have a study that contradicts the global warming dogma, preface it with a press release declaring that no conclusions can be drawn.

I wonder if Buzz can understand the contrast and why despite it why they are losing the argument catastrophically?

S13

Naturally all this is the 'modus operandi of the Collectivist Left. And since the overwhelming majority of the AGW fanatics are Leftists, and the rest dupes, it is all tied neately together, no matter how ugly it is. This is how the Collectivist Left makes themselves appear to be above board, authentic, and accurate, when in fact they are anything but that.

That is exactly why Collectivism is the core ingredient to the religious branch of Environmentalism, within the holy church of Collectivism.

This is why if you defeat Collectivism, you will by default defeat all this environmentalist manure, especially global warming.

Democracy is indispensable to socialism - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
The goal of socialism is communism - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Would you like some other reasons why 'democracy' is not what it is advertised?


[Image: governmentstupidity.jpg?w=320&h=79]
Find all posts by this user
02-12-2012, 08:30 PM
Post: #728
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
I still see widespread indication that most skeptics are STILL unaware of the CURRENT dominant climate driver and where we are in it.

Today we now witness the daily warmthers bullshit that global warming means more snow and less snow.Warmer temperatures and colder temperatures.More heat waves and more hurricanes and other idiotic bilge.The torrential flow of warmther patented shallow contradictions are well codified.It is a mental illness that is most vivid to those who knows what the difference between empirical evidence and modeling delusions are.

This dominant climate driver that easily overrides any alleged warmforcing power of CO2.Because the range of Insolation change is of several magnitudes larger than what is being given for the feeble CO2 GH effect.That dominant driver you probably have not given much thought about because you are being distracted by the torrential flow of AGW pseudoscientific babbling.

The actual math is so conclusive that I wonder why warmthers are still willing to embarrass themselves in their wallowing ignorance.While the skeptics are not grabbing the biggest refutation of all.They continue to babble over teeny weeny changes of the CO2 effect with the long incorrect warmthers morons who can not see the yawning energy gap between their conjecture and reality.

In effect many skeptics are just as small minded as the warmthers.Arguing over tiny CO2 effect changes that should have made people wonder why they are still at it 25 years later.

Warmthers are known liars.Fight hard against data disclosure of their absurd published papers.Try hard to prevent contrary science papers from being published and so many more unethical behavior warmthers have done in the last 25 years.They are well funded by powerful environmentalist socialist groups who are determined to force up on us their idiotic "green" solutions to non problems.To make us live by THEIR way of life.

They are the jerks who have politicized science research and poisoned science debate with threats and intimidation.Yet lose the very rare climate debates.Their "hero" Al $$$$$$ Gore is too scared to debate anybody in public.The same man who live the opposite of what he tells us to live.Buys huge expensive homes and openly shows his massive conflict of interest by pushing the carbon credit scam.The very same market that has made him filthy rich.

Hell he would be too scared to debate ME in public.That is how convinced he is of the science he professes to follow.It is the modeling shit just like everything else that reeks and that is the depth of understanding he has.Which is why he does everything one sided and avoids even basic questions from the public.Because he KNOWS the warmther pseudoscience is crap and he is just exploiting the millions of sycophantic idiots who has made him famous and rich despite being always wrong!

S2

I have given up on it and just show that the warming trend from the 1850's is nothing big deal and ALL three periodic warming trends since then are quite similar.

People like Buzz will ignore it as he already has the last several times I pointed them out.It is indicative of a captive mind with no independent thinking being allowed.That is why he make us laugh at his stupid shallow retorts that comes out of him in short stinking bursts.He is still in love with the heavily modeled "science" that the AGW conjecture is.But he fails to realize the conjecture has failed many many times and the sycophantic idiots never will admit that it has failed.

It only takes one single effective counter to the hypothesis to invalidate it.And it has happened many times.

So why are skeptics still rolling in the mud with warmthers over the long invalidated AGW conjecture?

It is DEAD and buried by the weight of contrary empirical science research of the last 10-15 years.It is time to go on and read something else.

The conjecture is being supported by just a tiny group of warmther people.The rest of the science world have in recent years been bypassing the AGW bullshit and posting credible research instead.Almost all of this tiny camp are well known leftist environmentalists turds who have made it clear they want to push their ideological fantasies on the rest of us.

Instead don't why you skeptics read up and learn about the true and current undisputed climate driver that has been operating in dominant fashion the last 41 million years.Coupled with significant geological changes that helped shape the ongoing uninterrupted cooling world of the last 3.6 million years and longer.

Important geological changes that have favored the ongoing cooling and expansion of the glacial sheets of the last 41 million years:

Drakes Passage,Isthmus and the Bering sea.Also the creation of the Mediterranean sea of 6 million years ago.

If you can do that then you will see the futility of arguing the dead AGW science with the small brained warmthers.It is a waste of time to argue an idea that has died of multiple wounds with climate religious fanatics.

You do not need to read any more about their DEAD AGW science that is a complete waste of time to haggle over on.It will only impair your reasoning skills having all that mush swirling around in your head.

Global Warming Skeptics
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
02-12-2012, 08:31 PM
Post: #729
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
(02-12-2012 07:38 PM)John L Wrote:  
(02-12-2012 07:16 PM)sunsettommy Wrote:  From Palladins link,

LINK

Quote:So there you have the rules of the game, as played by the political-scientific establishment. If you have a study that you think backs up the global warming dogma, preface it with a press release drawing wildly speculative conclusions from the data. If you have a study that contradicts the global warming dogma, preface it with a press release declaring that no conclusions can be drawn.

I wonder if Buzz can understand the contrast and why despite it why they are losing the argument catastrophically?

S13

Naturally all this is the 'modus operandi of the Collectivist Left. And since the overwhelming majority of the AGW fanatics are Leftists, and the rest dupes, it is all tied neately together, no matter how ugly it is. This is how the Collectivist Left makes themselves appear to be above board, authentic, and accurate, when in fact they are anything but that.

That is exactly why Collectivism is the core ingredient to the religious branch of Environmentalism, within the holy church of Collectivism.

This is why if you defeat Collectivism, you will by default defeat all this environmentalist manure, especially global warming.

Well said!

The coming cooling will do the damage.

Global Warming Skeptics
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
02-12-2012, 08:36 PM
Post: #730
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
The real motive of the warminists is that the pretended emergency gives them an excuse to urge more and more controls over everyone else, for doing things like assessing manufacturing with enormous carbon taxes, and campaigning for support from voters for their tyrannical agendas.
Find all posts by this user
02-22-2012, 02:58 AM
Post: #731
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
O.K... I've got some time to respond to some of this stupidity.

(02-07-2012 10:01 AM)JohnWho Wrote:  Buzz is trolling again and making an "Azz" of himself!

He gets up in the morning, looks in the mirror and sees the reflection of a "denialist", becomes irate, and goes around calling everyone else one.

Ya know what? I'll give a sh!t about you thinking I'm trolling when you and John L quit trolling. As a matter of fact the only reason I made my last post here is due to John L's trolling.

JohnWho Wrote:He denies proper science and proper observation.


What a load of crap!! I have never denied proper science and proper observation. That is what you denialists do on a regular basis. And when your not doing that your mistaking denialist propaganda for proper science and proper observation. Like John L's constant citing of anecdotal instances of cold weather as proof that the planet is cooling. Or do you think that this kind of stuff is proper science and proper observation? Or what about that article that falsely claimed that almost no records were broken during last summers heat wave? Or what about WUWT showing data that actually showed that there is no "Gore effect"? What about Sunsettommy comparing 1 proxy temperature reconstruction to the earths temperature record as if it proved something? Or what about the fact that all you denialist want to cherry pick your temperature stats to show that the planet is no longer warming? I could go on for days pointing out all the times you denialists do this kind of thing.

JohnWho Wrote:If it isn't the "slop" he's being fed, in his mind it isn't worth eating. Too bad, too - there is some great steak and lobster and truffles out here - he just needs to step away from the trough.


Other than a few minor mistakes you denialists have NEVER shown me that anything that I have ever stated is any kind of "slop".

JohnWho Wrote:Oh, and only the overly manipulated NASA GISS Gistemp shows warming over the last roughly 15 years (since 1998):

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mea...ss/mean:12

Of course, that's the only one Buzz believes, while he denies the other ones.


Again... you don't know what your talking about. For one thing only 2 of those 4 temperature records show no warming. Second, those 4 are not the only records being put out. One of them that Wood For Trees doesn't include is from NOAA and it says we have warmed. I don't know for sure about the JMO, WMO or any of the others. And I still find it very funny that you guys used to claim that the "climategate" e-mails proved that CRU's numbers were falsefied... that is until they didn't find 2010 to be the warmest year on record. Now all of a sudden it is the other records that are "overly manipulated".

JohnWho Wrote:Nothig unusual going on - just as in the early 1900's and around the 1970's when the recovery from the LIA took a slight downturn - so too does it appear to be happening now. Of course, Buzz doesn't see that because he denies the LIA (and the WMP), but like the scorpion, "it is what he does".

Hogwash! I have never denied the LIA. And I have shown data that supports my belief that the MWP wasn't a planet wide warming.

(02-07-2012 11:03 AM)John L Wrote:  Buzz, if I wasn't aware of your incessant need to 'Project' your scientific strengths, I would be offended with your innuendos. However, I know what is driving your remarks, so I allow you to keep us informed of your strengths. S5

Innuendos?!?! No John... I am straight up calling you scientifically illiterate and a brainwashed dumb ass. And, as usual, you are unable to show otherwise.

(02-08-2012 10:31 AM)sunsettommy Wrote:  In reply to Buzz from post #713 is this statement he wrote:

"What a load of crap!! I have shown on several occasions that this kind of cherry picking of facts is down right dishonest. But you denialists just ignore me and keep repeating stupid shit like this.

Here is what the MET office has to say about this denialist BS:"

He then quotes from the Met office:

Quote:Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997...

...what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850.

It is funny that Buzz rants about us being "cherrypickers" when the Met office did that very thing and highly misleading too.See the specific quote below that shows it nakedly.

Quote:“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850.

The lies pour out in a gusher here because their own chart make it clear there has been ZERO warming for the decade.

You are wrong. From 2000 to 2009 the planet warmed slightly.

sunsettommy Wrote:In direct contradiction to the 2011 IPCC report first decade projections.That showed a .20C increase.

The 2011 IPCC report was wrong about the decade from 2000 to 2009??

S2

sunsettommy Wrote:See for yourself:

[Image: compare_datasets.png?w=459&h=326]

See the flatness since 1998?

I see 2 out of 3 temperature records showing a slight warming trend. And this "flatness" has been happening for just 14 years. This is way to short of a time period to declare that global warming is over.

sunsettommy Wrote:The other chart is also misleading as well.It is no wonder the Met office has been miserable in their forecasts in recent years.They are infected with AGW pseudoscience.

What is misleading about it? Do you just not like it because it doesn't show the all important "flatness" of the last few years? This is just 1 of many different ways that one can look at the numbers and still see the warming trend. You denialists can't really do this. All you can do is compare all recent temps to just 1998.

sunsettommy Wrote:Here is a much better chart using Hadley Centre data that shows the recent warming trend is very similar to the OTHER two warming trends since the 1850's.Dr Jones himself admits this as true:

[Image: Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg]

From the BBC is the Q and A interview with Dr. Jones who admits to the similar warming trends since the 1850's.

There is a chart supplied in the link.It clearly shows no unusual warming trend that may have ended recently.

LINK

So What?? You keep making a big deal about this like it proves or disproves something. IT DOESN'T!! All it really shows is that global warming isn't always going to be consistent.

There is just way too much more BS for me to debunk all of it tonight but I want to give you guys a link that repeats much of what I am saying and debunks some other common denialist talking points. See if you can respond to any of it without making yourselves look stupid.

Read and learn here.

The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Find all posts by this user
02-22-2012, 08:46 AM
Post: #732
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
Do any of you hear a buzzing sound?

It is there, even with my speakers off.

S1

I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Find all posts by this user
02-22-2012, 11:12 AM
Post: #733
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
I see Buzz has as usual missed the big picture.From the METoffice link he generously gave us:

Quote:One, held at the National Climate Data Centre (NCDC), run by America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, suggests that global temperatures rose by an average of 0.074C since 1997. That’s small, too — but it is another rise.

A third and very different data set is overseen by John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He gathers figures from three satellites that orbit the Earth 14 times a day. They measure the average temperature of the air from ground level to a height of 35,000ft, a method completely different from those of the Met Office and NCDC. Oddly, given his reputation as a climate sceptic, he found the biggest rise of all.

“From 1997-2011 our data show a global temperature rise of 0.15C,” he said. “What’s more, our satellites have been taking this data since 1979, and over that period [the] global temperature has risen 0.46C, so the world has been getting warmer.”

Overall, then, the world has got slightly warmer since 1997. Perhaps the real question is: why has it warmed so much less than was predicted by the climate models?

A range from 0.074C to .15C

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Thank you for showing that what I posted below is being agreed to by you AND the METoffice.

[Image: Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg]

It is funny when you as usual fail to realize that even the latest warmist warming claims from the late 1990's still fail to show a AGW signature.Because the trend is still no higher than all the other ones.There is no acceleration in the most recent warming trends and below the IPCC's projected bottom level of warming for the first decade of .20C that was based on the AGW conjecture.

Dr. Jones admits this and even you do without realizing it.

Then we have this line from the above quote:

Quote:Overall, then, the world has got slightly warmer since 1997. Perhaps the real question is: why has it warmed so much less than was predicted by the climate models?

Their answer actually destroys their argument because the IPCC posted in 2001 a map showing a range of modeling scenarios all based on the AGW conjecture.

Quote:For most climate scientists the answer is simple. “Fifteen years is just too short a period over which to measure climate change,” said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the Met Office. “The world undergoes natural temperature changes on all kinds of time scales from daily variations to seasonal ones. It also varies naturally from year to year and decade to decade.”

They correctly note what the IPCC says with their modeling runs for the first decade.

Quote:The answer goes back to the 2001 and 2007 science reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that had predicted the world was likely to warm by an average of about 0.2C a decade.

But then deviate from what the IPCC stated with this dishonest crap:

Quote:The implication was that temperatures would rise steadily, not with 15-year gaps. The existence of such gaps, the critics argue, implies the climate models themselves are too flawed to be relied on.

The years from 2000 to 2010 is a 10 year run.The IPCC made it clear they see a .20C increase in the first decade.

LINK

This chart is based on Dr. Hansen's three scenarios first published in 1988:

[Image: 6a010536b58035970c0154327e47d7970c-pi]

The warmist excuses continues on and on.

There is no evidence of a visible AGW signature in the trends.There is no evidence of the latest warming trend (That appears to have stopped) accelerating or above the usual .16C increase seen in other small warming trends.

Dr. Jones admits this and ignored by Buzz.Here is what Dr. Jones says about the trends since the mid 1800's

Quote:A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

He also states this:

Quote:C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.


While I agree with him that the 8 year timeline is way too short it does show a COOLING trend for most of the decade in contradiction to the IPCC's projected increase of .20C for the decade.

One more time again from the METoffice:

Quote:“What’s more, our satellites have been taking this data since 1979, and over that period [the] global temperature has risen 0.46C, so the world has been getting warmer.”

An average of about .15C per decade.

Oops.

S3

Global Warming Skeptics
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
02-22-2012, 11:50 AM
Post: #734
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
Buzz tries to be smart and fails utterly.Here he posted this:

Quote:You are wrong. From 2000 to 2009 the planet warmed slightly.

in reply to what I wrote:

Quote:The lies pour out in a gusher here because their own chart make it clear there has been ZERO warming for the decade.

Here is the chart he created for his 2000-2009 argument:

[Image: trend]

He did not confine it to the 2000-2009 trendline.

But when you change from the year 1997 to 2000 it shows no significant change and the trendline is now from 2000:

[Image: trend]

It shows a statistical flat line that falls within the noise of dataline.

Here is what it looks like using the trendline from 1997 but starting year of 1997:

[Image: trend]

In any case there is no evidence of ANY accelerated warming going on or that it is even close to the IPCC's projected .20C increase for the decade.No evidence of any AGW signature is evident either.

But evidence of the long observed natural warming trends as seen from 150 years ago.

Your own argument supports the skeptics position to a tee.

When are you ever going to get it Buzz?

Global Warming Skeptics
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
02-22-2012, 12:11 PM
Post: #735
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
Buzz's stupidest line of all:

Quote:So What?? You keep making a big deal about this like it proves or disproves something. IT DOESN'T!! All it really shows is that global warming isn't always going to be consistent.

He was aggrieved by this chart he can not contradict that shows the obvious similarities of previous warming trends of the past 150 years:

[Image: Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg]

The chart makes it clear that we have periods of warming and periods of cooling trend of the last 150 years.The 3 warming trends are nearly identical in this chart.

You again ignore what Dr. Jones says about it.

It is clear that the chart shows no significant warming change in the trends and that includes the latest one from 1979 to 2012.

[Image: trend]

Right about .165C per decade.

To sum it up:

1860-1880 .163C per decade
1910-1940 .15C
1975-1998 .166C
1975-2009 .161C
1979-2012 .165C

The warming periods since 1860 have been more significant than the cooling periods thus explains the over all slow warming trend for the 150 years.

When will you warmists understand that there is NO visible AGW signal in it?

Global Warming Skeptics
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
02-22-2012, 12:38 PM
Post: #736
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
Buzz tries his gotcha with this astute observation:

Quote:The 2011 IPCC report was wrong about the decade from 2000 to 2009??

S2

It was a typo mistake that was supposed to be 2001.

But his stupid errors are evident here that even HE should take note:

Quote:I see 2 out of 3 temperature records showing a slight warming trend. And this "flatness" has been happening for just 14 years. This is way to short of a time period to declare that global warming is over.

and this other stupid statement:

Quote:What is misleading about it? Do you just not like it because it doesn't show the all important "flatness" of the last few years? This is just 1 of many different ways that one can look at the numbers and still see the warming trend. You denialists can't really do this. All you can do is compare all recent temps to just 1998.

A cute set of contradicting statements from the flatline thinking power of Buzz.

Meanwhile once again for the umpteenth time I show this chart to the stupid one that shows periodic warming periods that stays close to the trendline.

[Image: Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg]

The latest trend is like all the other ones since 1850.

This moron keeps forgetting that I have continually acknowledged past warming trends and have been for 5 years here in the forum.

It is the lack of evidence for the Anthropogenic Warming signature in all these warming trends that I keep pointing out.

The latest one that appears to have ended shows no evidence of accelerating upward trend or substantial length of the warming trend.

You keep calling us denialists and yet it is you clods who ignore the obvious evidence of natural warming trends that is overwhelmingly evident in the past temperature records.

How much longer are YOU going to deny the highly visible similar warming trends of the last 150 years?

Global Warming Skeptics
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
02-27-2012, 07:08 PM
Post: #737
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
To annoy Buzz some more.Here is a nice blog post explaining what I mentioned in passing in a single line earlier in this thread page.He make his point much better.Post # 734.

Peter Gleick Fools Himself

It is a reply to that warmist moron Peter Gleick who does what YOU do buzz.Make a flat warming trend be a warming trend to cry in fear over.Ok so I injected hyperbole but YOU deserve the scorn and derision because it destroys the AGW conjecture and the many IPCC modeling projections that say it should be about .20C PER DECADE!

Instead it is far less than that.Here is the chart Gleick himself posted:

[Image: GlobalT-Decade.png]

Gleick make it clear that he is desperate about it all.He tries hard to tell us that is a warming trend we should be so worried about:

Quote:What about the last decade, as claimed above? The linear trend (the blue line) over the past decade is relatively flat, but in fact it still exhibited a warming trend, despite the temporary cooling forces that are masking the overall warming. As the British Met Office noted this week, in a reply to a misleading claim that the warming had stopped: “what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850.”

The actual warming trend as explained the blog I linked to is that chart shows a warming trend of ...... .27C in the next...... ONE THOUSAND YEARS!

Waaaaaay below the IPCC's projected DECADAL warming trend of .20C

And way below the previous few warming trends since the 1850's of around the .16C per decade warming trend.

Dr. Jones himself said at the time of his interview that it was MINUS .12C for the decade:

Quote:C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.


From January 2002 to January 2010

LINK

You guys are so dumb these days.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!

Global Warming Skeptics
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
02-27-2012, 08:39 PM
Post: #738
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
(02-12-2012 08:36 PM)Ron Lambert Wrote:  The real motive of the warminists is that the pretended emergency gives them an excuse to urge more and more controls over everyone else, for doing things like assessing manufacturing with enormous carbon taxes, and campaigning for support from voters for their tyrannical agendas.

I would love to watch warmists plague you as much as you smite other people with your religion. Where did you speak up in the pretented emergency of islamic terrorism?

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Find all posts by this user
03-19-2012, 12:56 AM
Post: #739
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
As I have stated here numerous times, the real agenda for environmentalists and Eco-Wacko is really about more than this. It is about punishing the achievers, forcing Egalitarianism on everyone, and bringing about a "One World Collectivist State". And all this AGW manure is ultimately about that one thing.

And finally someone is coming right out and saying this, In public. Here is the article: Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe.

You can expect more Collectivists to come out in force in the near future. And Elle Macpherson's coming out of the closet is just the beginning: wait and see.

Democracy is indispensable to socialism - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
The goal of socialism is communism - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Would you like some other reasons why 'democracy' is not what it is advertised?


[Image: governmentstupidity.jpg?w=320&h=79]
Find all posts by this user
03-19-2012, 02:11 AM
Post: #740
RE: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...
(02-27-2012 08:39 PM)quadrat Wrote:  Where did you speak up in the pretented emergency of islamic terrorism?

If we indulge in the moral cowardice of Neville Chamberlain and his ilk, and do not stop Islamic Jihad, it will not go away. It will increase in strength, until finally millions will have to die to stop it. There is nothing pretended about this.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...PT. 2 John L 38 968 10-20-2014 10:54 AM
Last Post: Palladin
  Why Global Warming Isn't Consistant Buzz 39 6,937 10-19-2014 03:34 PM
Last Post: SFX
  Global Warming Nazis John L 134 2,991 07-01-2014 04:12 PM
Last Post: Paul In Sweden
  Positive News about Global Warming. John L 54 5,807 03-18-2014 02:50 PM
Last Post: John L
  Science Fraud And Con Men: Diederik Stapel and Global Warming John L 0 396 04-30-2013 08:58 PM
Last Post: John L
  Global Warming Debate, Split From ANWR Drilling Thread Matrix 113 16,543 12-28-2012 10:53 AM
Last Post: sunsettommy
  Death By Global Warming John L 12 2,234 01-06-2012 06:11 PM
Last Post: jt
  global warming to cause an extraterrestial attack mv 10 2,314 08-20-2011 03:06 PM
Last Post: John L
  Catholic church warns of global warming quadrat 9 2,324 05-22-2011 02:23 PM
Last Post: Palladin
  Global Warming is real! mv 5 1,587 04-22-2011 02:58 AM
Last Post: Buzz

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)