Global warming stopped 16 years ago...
- Thread starter Grandluxe
- Start date
Wrong dickhead. You denier morons don't seem to get it. The hockey stick is proven. The world's ice is melting- proven. CO2 levels are 33% higher over the last two hundred from man's emissions of CO2..proven. CO2 is a greenhouse gas - proven. The CEO of Exxon believes in GW. Rupert Murdoch believes in GW. Romney used to believe it but now is walking it back as the oil/coal/gas money comes toward him. There is virtually no argument within the science community that it is real.
Only deluded, stubborn partisan pawns like yourselves still deny it. Just like Big Coal/Oil wants. You are letting yourselves get duped by them and their propaganda, distributed by outlets like Fox News. No matter the evidence you will never leave the tribal political mentality.
that you stubbornly identify yourself with so much.
here are charts which put your charts in perspective.
I am sure you can find the 400000 year old one.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg
I am sure you can find the 400000 year old one.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg
These are long enough to show the effect of two hundred years of CO2 emissions and if you can't find some meaningful things in the charts I put up then there is something seriously wrong with you. And yeah, if we wait long enough another ice age will come. We don't have that long.
This one completes the picture....
Spencer is a hack and a whore who garners no respect within the science community.
It bears repeating that Spencer committed one of the most egregious blunders in the history of remote sensing â committing multiple errors in analyzing the satellite data and creating one of the enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didnât show the global warming that the surface temperature data did.
It also bears repeating that Spencer wrote this month, âI view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.â
That doesnât mean Spencerâs new paper on remote sensing is wrong, but it means his work on the subject does not deserve the benefit of the doubt, as most climate journals would know. And it means we should pay attention to serious climate scientists when they explain how Spencer is, once again, pushing denier bunk.
As the famous critique goes, âYour manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not goodâ:
âHeâs taken an incorrect model, heâs tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct,â Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.
âIt is not newsworthy,â Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience.
NCARâs Kevin Trenberth in an email: âI have read the paper. I can not believe it got published. Maybe it got through because it is not in a journal that deals with atmospheric science much?â
Trenberth and John Fasullo at RealClimate: âThe bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper.â
As for the second denier trick, well, they got Yahoo News to host a ânews storyâ on the article â written by James Taylor. Not the brilliant singer song-writer who wrote, âIâve seen fire and Iâve seen rain, Iâve seen sunny days that I thought would never end.â No, the uber-denier James Taylor whose Heartland Institute wants to bring to Americaâs heartland too much fire and too much rain â and heat waves that you thought would never end. Sorry, couldnât resist.
And so Yahoo enables this headline of denier bunk â âNew NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmismâ â to spread through the web like so much kudzu. LiveScience noted in its debunking post:
The paper was mostly unnoticed in the public sphere until the Forbes blogger declared it âextremely important.â
In fact, as Dessler emailed me, Spencerâs âpaper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take him seriously anymore (heâs been wrong too many times).â Here are his full comments:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...sts-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/
fc you are just a propagandist. its not the author its the data.
1. the data shows temperature precedes CO2 accumulation and dissipation.
2. We have not been warming the last 15 years.
3. We are within the range on the historical cycles...
just check any long term chart.
now if you wish to engage us in an intellectual manner fine.
if you are going to post your out of context charts we will know you know you are full of shit.
1. the data shows temperature precedes CO2 accumulation and dissipation.
2. We have not been warming the last 15 years.
3. We are within the range on the historical cycles...
just check any long term chart.
now if you wish to engage us in an intellectual manner fine.
if you are going to post your out of context charts we will know you know you are full of shit.
here is website which admits that warming precedes CO2 increase but then guesses that after a while the CO2 kicks in to continue warming.
The later is conjecture.
The fact is the record shows warming precedes CO2 increase and cooling preceded CO2 dissipation.
the chart is here.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags Antarctic temperature changes by around 1,000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.
The later is conjecture.
The fact is the record shows warming precedes CO2 increase and cooling preceded CO2 dissipation.
the chart is here.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags Antarctic temperature changes by around 1,000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.
A chart with as long a time frame as you have posted is essentially meaningless to the discussion of something that has occurred over the last two hundred years. For that charts that cover several thousand years is more appropriate.
Once again. If you have even the slightest inkling to understand the subject, I suggest you start by reading here. But I suspect you, like most deniers have made their mind up and there is no evidence that will change it. None, nada, zip. If at this point you haven't relented, you never will. Rationality has no part.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html
And do we really have to revisit your old tired temps lead CO2 thing? It's been done. We've been through this. Like pigs in the slop. Yes, historically temps have led CO2. But CO2 is a greenhouse gas and there has never been this huge increase of CO2 so quickly before, and it's due to man. So this time CO2 is leading temperatures. It's really pretty simple. That you don't seem to get it is astounding. So can we move on now? No you can't.
I am just a concerned citizen with a training in environmental science. Nothing more. Perhaps I'm frustrated I'm not working in the field and am trying to compensate. But I'm not wrong. Neither are the 97% of climate scientist and all the world's science organizations, the Catholic Church, the ceo of Exxon, Rupert Murdoch, Al Gore and virtually anyone with a little science education and more than half a brain who is not a party loyalist above everything else.