Global warming stopped 16 years ago

[fmccap]

Still waiting for someone with a PHD in front of their name that is a solid source against MMGW.

Something in front of someones name don't mean shit. Look at this IDIOT!

 

[the_spaniard]

"....spewed more carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere than all of mankind's activities in our entire history."

 

 

Quite the claim, but he doesn't cite any sources. Do we know who did the study with the comparison?

 

The truth is that data from the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the International Energy Agency indicate that light-duty vehicles (cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, vans, wagons) contribute about 3,040 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, and industry adds another 6,100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. The combined output is about 35 times greater than estimates of global volcanic carbon dioxide output.

 

 

http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/voices-volcanic-versus-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-missing-science?page=1

[the_spaniard]

Something in front of someones name don't mean shit. Look at this IDIOT!

 

Hey you can throw the ancient aliens guy in there too and a host of others (including that idiot from Duck Dynasty).

 

If you are a publishing scientist with a PHD, you can't just spout off nonsense....your reputation is your career in academics more than other careers. You have to back up what you say...unlike non-PHDs.

 

In science if you don't have a PHD and are not publishing regularly your opinion isn't worth much. So while you may not think it means much, scientists the world over likely think differently. A PHD is a ten-year commitment from an undergraduate degree...and that gets you admission...publications are the rungs in the ladder. If you don't publish, then you might as well have an undergraduate degree....or just teach.

Edited December 30, 2013 by the_spaniard

[fmccap]

 

Quite the claim, but he doesn't cite any sources. Do we know who did the study with the comparison?

 

 

http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/voices-volcanic-versus-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-missing-science?page=1

You guys make quite the claim also. We're going to bake and flood. Was the earth not hotter before and the sea levels higher? Hell Florida was barely a Florida before. IT WAS UNDER WATER.

[the_spaniard]

You guys make quite the claim also. We're going to bake and flood. Was the earth not hotter before and the sea levels higher? Hell Florida was barely a Florida before. IT WAS UNDER WATER.

 

If only things were that simple. That's why we need scientists to do research and publish their results.

[cal50]

Nikola Tesla never attained a PhD and his opinion and experiments changed history. I believe he actually dropped out of college the 1st semester. Thomas Edison was largely self educated and could more than hold his own lacking a PhD.

They were actually doing things instead of writing papers trying to gain social acceptance.

 

If someone attains a PhD you read, write & repeat what you were told to do. If you do it to the bodies satisfaction you advance and will obtain the title. That in itself is no guarantee of that persons judgements being more right or wrong than anyone's opinion.

 

Some are easily impressed with titles, others real results.

 

 

(My aunt holds a PhD & uncle a MD & are normal people)

[FiredMotorCompany]

I thought PhD came AFTER the name, not before. Marcus Welby, MD comes to mind.

Military Rank and others precede the name, Gen. George S. Patton, President Barack Obama, Chief Justice Roberts, Senator Hillary Clinton, Secretary Of State Condoleeza Rice...........

[Langston Hughes]

You guys make quite the claim also. We're going to bake and flood. Was the earth not hotter before and the sea levels higher? Hell Florida was barely a Florida before. IT WAS UNDER WATER.

 

 

That doesn't mean it was hospitable to our modern human existence.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Langston Hughes

[Langston Hughes]

Yes, this guy:

 

 

 

Here is the paper: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

 

Here are the quotes:

 

Here is his reply to yours and others who say that he agrees with you.

 

"This is a diversionary tactic. Our understanding of global warming and human-made climate change has not been affected at all," he said. "It's because the deniers [of the science] want the public to be confused. They raise these minor issues and then we forget about what the main story is. The main story is carbon dioxide is going up and it is going to produce a climate which is going to have dramatic changes if we don't begin to reduce our emissions."

http://www.theguardi...stalled-climate

 

For the second time.

 

You can't say that he believes the same thing as you when he openly calls you "DENIER(S)" and "want the public to be confused". I still don't see him and you on the same page with all that. I mean your quoting a guy who says that YOU are a denier and that YOU want the public to be confused.

 

There's something that doesn't add up. And how exactly has global warming stopped 16 years ago if the link you use says that it hasn't?

 

Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998

 

 

I can look at the first graphic in your link and see that the 5 year mean has risen since 2000.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Langston Hughes

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

That doesn't mean it was hospitable to our modern human existence.

Oh. So now you want to actively modify the environment to suit your ideal needs. Cloud seeding on a global scale. What of the droughts caused by the theft of moisture when seeding in one region and the next has to do without?

And you think mankind is capable of manipulating a weather system when he can't accurately predict the weather more than about 5 days? Or are still surprised when global warming fails to climb when predicted?

 

And who decides what temperature we should go for? I'm sure The Sudan would like to swap with Alaska for a century or so.

[Langston Hughes]

Nikola Tesla never attained a PhD and his opinion and experiments changed history. I believe he actually dropped out of college the 1st semester. Thomas Edison was largely self educated and could more than hold his own lacking a PhD.

They were actually doing things instead of writing papers trying to gain social acceptance.

 

If someone attains a PhD you read, write & repeat what you were told to do. If you do it to the bodies satisfaction you advance and will obtain the title. That in itself is no guarantee of that persons judgements being more right or wrong than anyone's opinion.

 

Some are easily impressed with titles, others real results.

 

 

(My aunt holds a PhD & uncle a MD & are normal people)

 

You meant to say that Tesla spent 3 years at Austrian Polytechnic didn't you ?

 

 

Not to continue your hijacking but it's utterly stupid to go off about Grad student education as if it's all about pleasing people and that nothing of consequence is ever written or done because of it. There are hundreds of thousands of people with college degrees and higher that have done millions of things to advance our knowledge, our society, our understanding of science and so on and so on.

 

[fmccap]

 

If only things were that simple. That's why we need scientists to do research and publish their results.

I remember their results from 10 years ago. WHAT HAPPENED?

[fmccap]

 

You meant to say that Tesla spent 3 years at Austrian Polytechnic didn't you ?

 

 

Not to continue your hijacking but it's utterly stupid to go off about Grad student education as if it's all about pleasing people and that nothing of consequence is ever written or done because of it. There are hundreds of thousands of people with college degrees and higher that have done millions of things to advance our knowledge, our society, our understanding of science and so on and so on.

 

There are many without a degree that have changed the world also. It works both ways.

[xr7g428]

 

Here is his reply to yours and others who say that he agrees with you.

 

http://www.theguardi...stalled-climate

 

For the second time.

 

You can't say that he believes the same thing as you when he openly calls you "DENIER(S)" and "want the public to be confused". I still don't see him and you on the same page with all that. I mean your quoting a guy who says that YOU are a denier and that YOU want the public to be confused.

 

There's something that doesn't add up. And how exactly has global warming stopped 16 years ago if the link you use says that it hasn't?

 

 

I can look at the first graphic in your link and see that the 5 year mean has risen since 2000.

Nice diversionary tactic of your own.

 

The link I provided you is Hansen's own work. It very clearly discusses the lack of warming and then hypothesizes on what might be causing this. If you disagree with Hansen, and believe that the data he is looking at tells you something he isn't seeing, then knock yourself out.

 

The central point of the thread is that global warming has not proceeded as expected for the past decade or more. It is Hansen's opinion in the paper he wrote, that there has been at least a pause in warming.

 

Where Hansen and many many others disagree is this:

carbon dioxide is going up and it is going to produce a climate which is going to have dramatic changes if we don't begin to reduce our emissions."

 

 

If you ask scientists across a broad spectrum of disciplines about this statement, you will find a very very broad range of views. Pay attention here: this statement says that there is a single lever that controls global climate, and it is labeled CO2. The situation as it stands today, as even Hansen is beginning to postulate, is that there are other factors that must be taken into consideration, as the data is not supporting the perfect positive correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. Right now Hansen is proposing that CO2 is producing the warming effect, he predicted, but other unforeseen factors are acting to diminish the effect. Others have been saying that those other factors were, and always have been, pretty foreseeable.

 

The next central question is this: how long must the pause last before the premise of CO2 as sole driver of climate is discarded as obsolete?

 

If you care about the truth or science, you will want this to be settled as the science dictates. If you are wanting to use this as a policy tool to get people out of their cars and into mass transit, and out of the suburbs and packed into high density little apartments, shivering in the dull flickering of florescent lights, and eating tofu and beans, than of course you will oppose the science if it doesn't allow you the tool you want to create your paradise.

[the_spaniard]

There are many without a degree that have changed the world also. It works both ways.

 

Sure it has, but the world has changed as well. If you are a scientist and you want your work to be taken seriously, you have a PHD and publish regularly. The point to this whole discussion being that deniers have a habit of pointing to charlatans and blog writers as their sources of facts, instead of scientists with academic credentials. That's why most of their claims are so easy to dismiss.

 

I truly hope you aren't comparing people like David Rose to Einstein.

 

 

 

If you ask scientists across a broad spectrum of disciplines about this statement, you will find a very very broad range of views

 

Sure you do, but those views really narrow when you look at climate scientists doing the research. It reminds of that mythical 31K scientists list that reject MMGW. I really don't care what a mechanical engineer has to say about climate science, any more than a psychologist.

 

The central point of the thread is that global warming has not proceeded as expected for the past decade or more.

 

 

If that were true I would certainly agree with it. But the subject header states "Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago"...which is nonsense.

Edited December 30, 2013 by the_spaniard

[the_spaniard]

I remember their results from 10 years ago. WHAT HAPPENED?

 

Lets see. The earth is still warming - likely influenced by man, but their estimates were off. That pretty much sums it up. You still have mountains of research that support this.

[xr7g428]

Spaniard, I take it you didn't even read Hansen's paper saying that global warming has stopped?

 

You know, when he said this:

 

Global Warming Standstill. The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade.

 

 

And this:

 

A slower growth rate of the net climate forcing may have contributed to the standstill of global temperature in the past decade,

 

 

Or perhaps this guy: James Ephraim Lovelock, CH, CBE, FRS, Ph.D is an independent scientist, environmentalist and futurologist who lives in Devon, England.

 

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

 

 

 

Or even this guy:

Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein

Professor für Geographie mit den Schwerpunkten Geoinformatik und Fernerkundung im Ruhestand

 

Professor Werner Kirstein of the Institute for Geography at the University of Leipzig told MDR German Public Radio that sensational PR claims of the hottest year or hottest decade on record are just political spin, because they are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few hundredths of a degree. As Hansen told reporters on January 13, “2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that’s 0.018F).” And those are global averages reflecting a composite of hundreds of local weather station observations worldwide, a concoction that borders on alchemy.

 

 

Or maybe this guy: Dr. Lennart Bengtsson

 

He was Head of Research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts from 1975 to 1981 and then Director until 1990; then director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. He is now a Senior Research Fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre in the University of Reading.

In 2005 he was awarded the René Descartes Prize for Collaborative Research^[1] together with Prof. Ola M. Johannessen and Dr. Leonid Bobylev from the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre in Norway and Russia for the Climate and Environmental Change in the Arctic project. In 2006 he was awarded the 51st IMO prize of the World Meteorological Organization for pioneering research in numerical weather prediction.

 

Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, who has served on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the official global warming advocacy body, was also quoted publicly on February 3 as saying,

“We are creating great anxiety without it being justified…there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic. The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all. The Earth appears to have cooling properties that exceed the previously thought ones, and computer models are inadequate to try to foretell a chaotic object like the climate, where actual observations are the only way to go.”

 

 

 

How much more do you want?

[FiredMotorCompany]

Spaniard, I take it you didn't even read Hansen's paper saying that global warming has stopped?

 

You know, when he said this:

 

 

And this:

 

 

Or perhaps this guy: James Ephraim Lovelock, CH, CBE, FRS, Ph.D is an independent scientist, environmentalist and futurologist who lives in Devon, England.

 

 

Or even this guy:

Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein

Professor für Geographie mit den Schwerpunkten Geoinformatik und Fernerkundung im Ruhestand

 

 

Or maybe this guy: Dr. Lennart Bengtsson

 

He was Head of Research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts from 1975 to 1981 and then Director until 1990; then director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. He is now a Senior Research Fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre in the University of Reading.

In 2005 he was awarded the René Descartes Prize for Collaborative Research^[1] together with Prof. Ola M. Johannessen and Dr. Leonid Bobylev from the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre in Norway and Russia for the Climate and Environmental Change in the Arctic project. In 2006 he was awarded the 51st IMO prize of the World Meteorological Organization for pioneering research in numerical weather prediction.

 

 

How much more do you want?

Only the ones that agree with his bias.

[fmccap]

A few good ones.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/30/stuck-in-our-own-experiment-leader-trapped-team-insists-polar-ice-is-melting/

 

“Cute how these Warmists who hate fossil fuels take a trip to the Antarctic to show just how horrible fossil-fueled climate change is, then need rescue from their fossil-fueled trip by other fossil-fueled ships and helicopters, which still can’t rescue them,” wrote one blogger on Pirate’s Cove.

The website Newsbusters said much of the media has bent over backward to avoid linking the ship’s current fate with its mission.

“Somewhere far, far to the south where it is summer, a group of global warming scientists are trapped in the Antarctic ice,” read a post on the site. “If you missed the irony of that situation, it is because much of the mainstream media has glossed over that rather inconvenient bit of hilarity.”

So far, ice breakers have been unable to get closer than 10 miles from the stranded ship, which is surrounded by ice up to 10 feet thick. Stuck since Christmas Eve, it is about 100 nautical miles east of the French base Dumont D'Urville, and about 1,500 nautical miles south of Brisbane.

[Langston Hughes]

There are many without a degree that have changed the world also. It works both ways.

 

I thought we had already covered that.

[Langston Hughes]

Nice diversionary tactic of your own.

 

The link I provided you is Hansen's own work. It very clearly discusses the lack of warming and then hypothesizes on what might be causing this. If you disagree with Hansen, and believe that the data he is looking at tells you something he isn't seeing, then knock yourself out.

 

The central point of the thread is that global warming has not proceeded as expected for the past decade or more. It is Hansen's opinion in the paper he wrote, that there has been at least a pause in warming.

 

Where Hansen and many many others disagree is this:

 

If you ask scientists across a broad spectrum of disciplines about this statement, you will find a very very broad range of views. Pay attention here: this statement says that there is a single lever that controls global climate, and it is labeled CO2. The situation as it stands today, as even Hansen is beginning to postulate, is that there are other factors that must be taken into consideration, as the data is not supporting the perfect positive correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. Right now Hansen is proposing that CO2 is producing the warming effect, he predicted, but other unforeseen factors are acting to diminish the effect. Others have been saying that those other factors were, and always have been, pretty foreseeable.

 

The next central question is this: how long must the pause last before the premise of CO2 as sole driver of climate is discarded as obsolete?

 

If you care about the truth or science, you will want this to be settled as the science dictates. If you are wanting to use this as a policy tool to get people out of their cars and into mass transit, and out of the suburbs and packed into high density little apartments, shivering in the dull flickering of florescent lights, and eating tofu and beans, than of course you will oppose the science if it doesn't allow you the tool you want to create your paradise.

 

Yours is an even better diversionary tactic, and exactly what Hansen accuses you of doing.

 

"This is a diversionary tactic. Our understanding of global warming and human-made climate change has not been affected at all," he said. "It's because the deniers [of the science] want the public to be confused. They raise these minor issues and then we forget about what the main story is. The main story is carbon dioxide is going up and it is going to produce a climate which is going to have dramatic changes if we don't begin to reduce our emissions."

 

 

How many times are you going to say that he agrees with you when in fact he openly says that the 5 year mean stabilizing is not long term.

 

 

 

Now, if Hansen's own paper shows that the 5 year mean has increased since 2000 and it is almost 2014 how did Global warming STOP 16 years ago?

[Langston Hughes]

Oh. So now you want to actively modify the environment to suit your ideal needs. Cloud seeding on a global scale. What of the droughts caused by the theft of moisture when seeding in one region and the next has to do without?

And you think mankind is capable of manipulating a weather system when he can't accurately predict the weather more than about 5 days? Or are still surprised when global warming fails to climb when predicted?

 

And who decides what temperature we should go for? I'm sure The Sudan would like to swap with Alaska for a century or so.

 

HUH????? I want to do what? Where do you get this stuff?

 

Read what you wrote and then apply my comment that what had happened before might not be conducive to our modern society or human life as we know it.

[the_spaniard]

Spaniard, I take it you didn't even read Hansen's paper saying that global warming has stopped?

 

I'm still thinking of Hansen's quotes this year:

 

"It is not true that the temperature has not changed in the two decades. Suggestions that global warming has stalled are a "diversionary tactic" from "deniers" who want the public to be confused over climate change"

 

I certainly don't agree with Lovelock, but he doesn't say that global warming has stopped. He does say we should rely on nuclear power and he is against fossil fuels. So he doesn't believe the climate is changing as fast as he originally thought. He does not dismiss MMGW, so I don't understand what your point is?

 

I have heard of Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein before. His belief that CO2 emission has no effect on the climate is...interesting

 

Dr. Lennart Bengtsson is someone that has presented some interesting views on the subject. No arguments with him. He also never stated that GW has stopped. He too states it is not as large an impact and things are occurring more slowly. He also does not dismiss MMGW, so I don't understand what your point is?

 

How much more do you want?

 

 

Apparently a few more that actually address the point of this thread.

 

How many of the sources you listed here:

A.) Believe that GW has stopped?

B.) Do not believe in any MMGW?

Edited December 31, 2013 by the_spaniard

[the_spaniard]

Only the ones that agree with his bias.

 

Or maybe someone that has a few more credentials than climate writers for ultra-conservative rags Getting your science news from the DailyMail or the Australian is like getting it from Fox News or NBC.

[the_spaniard]

A few good ones.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/30/stuck-in-our-own-experiment-leader-trapped-team-insists-polar-ice-is-melting/

 

It is funny, even if Fox does have a crappy reputation for accurately reporting climate science. Seems to be a running trend with Murdoch properties. Go fig.