Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why Global Warming Isn't Consistant
#1
Finally... a study that helps explain why the warming of the planet has not been as steady and consistent as the increase in CO2...

Quote:Many different factors affect Global temperature. Fake “skeptics” like to claim that mainstream climate scientists ignore everything but greenhouse gases like CO2, when in fact it’s mainstream climate scientists who identified those other influences. Natural factors cause temperature fluctuations which make the man-made global warming signal less clear, fluctuations which are often exploited by fake skeptics to suggest that global warming has paused, or slowed down, or isn’t happening at all. A new paper by Foster & Rahmstorf accounts for some of those other factors, and by removing their influence from the temperature record makes the progress of global warming much more clear.

And that global warming without much of the natural influences looks like this:

[Image: figure08.jpg?w=500&h=499]

Read about this study here:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/t...ng-signal/

I can't wait to see how you denialists spin this one.
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#2
This "fake skeptic" understands that nature has certain influences that might over ride the miniscule human input. What I don't understand is you "fake true believers" not factoring in the research previously posted here that shows the following:

A) More heat escapes into outer space than the theory factored in

B) The theory posited heat clouds from water vapor would accelerate the natural CO2 heat paradigm and since the late 1980s, there has never been 1 heat cloud identified yet by any research institute

C) The theory has now been proven to exaggerate the warming that might exist and this according to BBC


D) The fascist mentality of the "fake researchers" at Nazi U that was outed by all the released e mails, the attempts to denigrate skeptics via intimidation(better than your ridiculous "fake skeptics" juvenile mentality), suggestions of "finding dirt" on them, admitting some of their data was false, etc, covering up inside skepticism , etc.

E) Learn how to spell before becoming a scientist
Reply
#3
The title of "Open Mind" says it all when he starts talking about 'fake skeptics'.

I'm sure JW and Tommy will want to address your 'open mind' here Buzz. I've been gone for a couple of days and have to catch up with things.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#4
Hey John L -

Tamino's "Open Mind" website is a CAGW supporting spin site.

Buzz wondering how folks will spin Tamino's spin simply shows how absurd the CAGW supporters have become.

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!
Reply
#5
Maybe we can avoid a war over this and just pay the UN annual payments for our "climate crimes"?

http://climatedepot.com/a/14072/Exclusiv...obal-temps
Reply
#6
The one given with government/bureaucracy is that like any other organism, it has to get bigger and self-perpetuate itself, if it is to survive. And naturally there are always enough enablers, such as our resident Collectivist, who is willing to subjugate himself, and the rest of us to this almighty self-perpetuating entity. Go figure that one.

What is also so illuminating is that our Founding Fathers knew full well about this, and did their best to keep it from occurring. Too bad we have such a sorry education system that students are not aware of all this.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#7
(12-10-2011, 10:19 AM)Palladin Wrote: Maybe we can avoid a war over this and just pay the UN annual payments for our "climate crimes"?

The lunacy never ends.

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!
Reply
#8
from Buzz's quote Wrote:...when in fact it’s mainstream climate scientists who identified those other influences.

Nope. The mainstream scientists work very hard to keep articles about new influences out of peer reviewed journals, as the two climategate email collections showed conclusively.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#9
(12-10-2011, 05:59 PM)jt Wrote: Nope. The mainstream scientists work very hard to keep articles about new influences out of peer reviewed journals, as the two climategate email collections showed conclusively.

Well, are they "main stream scientists" or are they part of the small group that is not allowing proper science to enter the conversation?

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!
Reply
#10
I should have know none of you guys would be able to come up with anything other than ad hominem attacks, stupid denialist talking points or other unrelated misinformation. I guess this means that none of the denialist web sites you guys get all your BS from have come up with any rebuttals to this study yet... have they? Probably no mention of it what so ever. And since none of you really understand the science or are just plain dishonest if you do, you all with just have to ignore this study. Typical.

Well... what the heck. I'll give you guys one more chance to prove your not all brainwashed and can actually discuss this study. Remember this graph?

[Image: 6a010536b58035970c0162fd1309af970d-pi]

I'm pretty sure someone here posted this in the past. And there are numerous other arguments you guys have made that are along the same lines. Well this study helps explain or refute many of them including this.

So... do any of you guys have anything intelligent to say about it?
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#11
Actually, I believe it is a waste of time to take what is in a CAGW spin site and reply regarding it.

However, just to play along:

Quote:The paper studies the five most often-used global temperature records. Three of them are surface temperature estimates, from NASA GISS, HadCRU, and NCDC, the other two are satellite-based lower-atmosphere estimates from RSS and UAH. These are compared to three factors which are known to affect climate: the el Nino southern oscillation, atmospheric aerosols (mostly from volcanic eruptions), and variations in the output of the sun. The time span studied was from January 1979 through December 2010, for which all five data sets have complete coverage.

The impact of el Nino is characterized by the Multivariate el Nino index (MEI), that of volcanic aerosols by Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD), and solar output by Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).

Their influence was estimated by multiple regression. In addition to these natural influences the regression also included a linear trend in time, allowing a simultaneous estimate of the rate of global warming as well as the impact of these other factors. ...

So, "estimates" of the influence were compared to "estimates" of the effect of atmospheric CO2 and, viola!, Tamino, Foster and Rahmstorf conclude, and Buzz accepts, that "That shows, with great clarity and impact, the real global warming signal."

The real strawman here is that one can not find any "skeptic" who argues that global warming, even a "real global warming" is not happening. Implying that this is what skeptics believe is a demonstration of the ignorance of Buzz and his fellow alarmists.

One more time:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Where, in the above, does it say we have not been warming since the end of the LIA?
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!
Reply
#12
(12-12-2011, 12:15 PM)JohnWho Wrote: Actually, I believe it is a waste of time to take what is in a CAGW spin site and reply regarding it.

Oh really?... But you have no problem taking what is in anti-AGW spin sites and believing every bit of it and then repeating it on this forum. Typical denialist hypocrisy. I have no problem replying to your guy's anti-AGW spin. Are you not smart enough to do what I do on a regular basis? And if you are incapable of replying to what is said on this "spin" site you could just simply reply to the study. Or if you are really as smart as you think you are you could tell us all what this site is spinning like I frequently do to your spin sites.

JohnWho Wrote:So, "estimates" of the influence were compared to "estimates" of the effect of atmospheric CO2 and, viola!, Tamino, Foster and Rahmstorf conclude, and Buzz accepts, that "That shows, with great clarity and impact, the real global warming signal."

No... estimates of global temps are being compared to estimates of natural influences to come up with an estimate of the effect of CO2 on the climate. Oh... and I would point out that almost everything in the science of climate is an estimate.

JohnWho Wrote:The real strawman here is that one can not find any "skeptic" who argues that global warming, even a "real global warming" is not happening. Implying that this is what skeptics believe is a demonstration of the ignorance of Buzz and his fellow alarmists.


OMFG!!! Are you serious?? I can show just that over and over and over again. Like John L's 47 page "Why, and How, We Are Cooling Down" thread. Or numerous other threads and posts claiming that the planet is cooling. Or how about the most influential and most listened to denialist in the U.S.... Rush Limbaugh. That guy regularly claims that not only is global warming a hoax but that the planet is actually cooling. And if you denialists aren't claiming that the planet is cooling you are claiming that CO2 is not the cause of the warming. There is no straw-man here.

JohnWho Wrote:One more time:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Where, in the above, does it say we have not been warming since the end of the LIA?

It doesn't say that the planet is not warming but it does say that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." when this study shows that there is just that!!

Well... I knew it... nothing intelligent from any of you guys.
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#13
(12-14-2011, 01:57 AM)Buzz Wrote: Well... I knew it... nothing intelligent from any of you guys.

And of course you are the only one offering a cogent response? S13

Hey, its always easy to hurl ad hominems when you are not seeing your side being taken seriously. Add some Projection, and the side show is pure entertainment.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#14
(12-14-2011, 01:57 AM)Buzz Wrote: No... estimates of global temps are being compared to estimates of natural influences to come up with an estimate of the effect of CO2 on the climate. Oh... and I would point out that almost everything in the science of climate is an estimate.

See, estimates of estimates equal Buzz alarmism.

Exactlly what I pointed out.

Quote:
JohnWho Wrote:The real strawman here is that one can not find any "skeptic" who argues that global warming, even a "real global warming" is not happening. Implying that this is what skeptics believe is a demonstration of the ignorance of Buzz and his fellow alarmists.


OMFG!!! Are you serious?? I can show just that over and over and over again. Like John L's 47 page "Why, and How, We Are Cooling Down" thread.

Uh, did John L deny that we've been warming since the end of the LIA? His thread discusses the possibility that we may be entering a cooling phase and the statistical lack of warming over the last 10 years or so may or may not fit with this.

Only a fool would expect that the warming will never end.

Quote:...Rush Limbaugh. That guy regularly claims that not only is global warming a hoax but that the planet is actually cooling.

Well, there you go - even Rush gets it right every once in a while!

S1

Oh, and for the record - doesn't he claim that CAGW is a hoax? He may, just as others do, use the phrase "global warming" in context to mean CAGW.

Quote:
JohnWho Wrote:One more time:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Where, in the above, does it say we have not been warming since the end of the LIA?

It doesn't say that the planet is not warming but it does say that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." when this study shows that there is just that!!

No, the estimates of the estimates estimate it. Since you admit that they are using estimates, how can you state that using estimates are "proof" of anything?


Quote:Well... I knew it... nothing intelligent from any of you guys.

I'm trying to dumb down my responses in the hope that they won't still be above your comprehension level.

Looks like I'll need to try harder.

S6
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!
Reply
#15
buzz Wrote:I should have know none of you guys would be able to come up with anything other than ad hominem attacks ...
Please point out the ad hominem attacks.

Are you accusing others of what you do?
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#16
Jt... go look up ad hominem then look for them yourself. And if your still not able to identify them then I will make you look stupid and point them out to you.
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#17
(12-14-2011, 03:54 PM)JohnWho Wrote:
(12-14-2011, 01:57 AM)Buzz Wrote: No... estimates of global temps are being compared to estimates of natural influences to come up with an estimate of the effect of CO2 on the climate. Oh... and I would point out that almost everything in the science of climate is an estimate.

See, estimates of estimates equal Buzz alarmism.

Damn... do you not know that almost everything in climate science is an estimate? Everything from the different global temperature records to proxy temperature reconstructions to the amount of energy the earth receives from the sun. If you are going to claim this study is wrong based on that means that to be consistent then everything is wrong including everything you denialists say because it is also based on estimates. And that is just plain stupid.

JohnWho Wrote:Exactlly what I pointed out.

No... it is not exactly what you pointed out.

JohnWho Wrote:
Buzz Wrote:
JohnWho Wrote:The real strawman here is that one can not find any "skeptic" who argues that global warming, even a "real global warming" is not happening. Implying that this is what skeptics believe is a demonstration of the ignorance of Buzz and his fellow alarmists.


OMFG!!! Are you serious?? I can show just that over and over and over again. Like John L's 47 page "Why, and How, We Are Cooling Down" thread.

Uh, did John L deny that we've been warming since the end of the LIA? His thread discusses the possibility that we may be entering a cooling phase and the statistical lack of warming over the last 10 years or so may or may not fit with this.

Sure... there are times where John L just claims that we are going to start cooling or that we are headed into another ice age but there are plenty of times that you denialist have claimed that we are cooling. Do I seriously need to go though that thread and others and quote where John L, you and others have claimed that the planet is cooling?

JohnWho Wrote:Only a fool would expect that the warming will never end.

I have NEVER said that the warming will never end.

JohnWho Wrote:
Quote:...Rush Limbaugh. That guy regularly claims that not only is global warming a hoax but that the planet is actually cooling.

Well, there you go - even Rush gets it right every once in a while!

OMFG!! Are you an idiot or what? You have just admitted that the planet has been warming since the LIA. So global warming is not a hoax and we are not cooling.

JohnWho Wrote:Oh, and for the record - doesn't he claim that CAGW is a hoax? He may, just as others do, use the phrase "global warming" in context to mean CAGW.

I have been listening to Rush for years and I have never even once heard him mention catastrophic much less anthropomorphic. So no... he is not talking about catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming. He is seriously trying to get his listeners to believe that the planet is not and has not warmed. Besides... I seriously doubt Rush even knows what anthropomorphic even means.

JohnWho Wrote:
Quote:
JohnWho Wrote:One more time:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Where, in the above, does it say we have not been warming since the end of the LIA?

It doesn't say that the planet is not warming but it does say that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." when this study shows that there is just that!!

No, the estimates of the estimates estimate it. Since you admit that they are using estimates, how can you state that using estimates are "proof" of anything?

I never stated that this is proof. What it is is convincing scientific evidence.

Still nothing intelligent from you.





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

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#18
(12-16-2011, 03:01 AM)Buzz Wrote: Damn... do you not know that almost everything in climate science is an estimate?

You obviously do not realize how stupid you sound.

You Alarmists "estimate" that humans are the cause of warming and we must act now!

LOL

Who are the bigger fools, the ones that claim this or the ones that believe this?


Quote:You have just admitted that the planet has been warming since the LIA.

This is why I know you are a Troll.

How many times do we have to say that "Global Warming" is real - at least since the end of the LIA? It is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming that is not something that you, me, or Rush Limbaugh needs to worry about.

Quote:No, the estimates of the estimates estimate it. Since you admit that they are using estimates, how can you state that using estimates are "proof" of anything?
Quote:I never stated that this is proof. What it is is convincing scientific evidence.

Estimates are evidence?

S3
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!
Reply
#19
There are serious questions about this entire AGW enterprise. There simply is no logical reason for hiding data like the below story indicates. This is NOT SCIENCE, not at all:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/1...latestnews
Reply
#20
It's no more science that the Vatican excommunicating and executing those who believed that the Sun did not revolve around the Earth. Same mindset, different times.
[Image: 760.png]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Disaster Addiction And Global Warming John L 109 10,906 12-04-2019, 10:23 AM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...PT. 2 John L 526 158,931 10-30-2019, 12:36 AM
Last Post: Canuknucklehead
  Positive News about Global Warming. John L 78 30,586 05-17-2015, 09:55 AM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait... Lisa 1,668 684,803 08-23-2014, 06:13 PM
Last Post: John L
  Global Warming Nazis John L 134 56,257 07-01-2014, 04:12 PM
Last Post: Paul In Sweden
  Science Fraud And Con Men: Diederik Stapel and Global Warming John L 0 1,748 04-30-2013, 08:58 PM
Last Post: John L
  Global Warming Debate, Split From ANWR Drilling Thread Matrix 113 49,405 12-28-2012, 10:53 AM
Last Post: sunsettommy
  Death By Global Warming John L 12 9,494 01-06-2012, 06:11 PM
Last Post: jt
  global warming to cause an extraterrestial attack mv 10 6,582 08-20-2011, 03:06 PM
Last Post: John L
  Catholic church warns of global warming quadrat 9 6,371 05-22-2011, 02:23 PM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)