Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The whole "we found a thermometer that was upside down therefore AGW false" routine is bizarre. It's like saying evolution is proven false because somebody assembled a brontosaurus skeleton with the wrong skull, or that the sky isn't blue because you found a white patch.
That is a strawman argument, either you know that and are being disingenuous or you don't and this conversation is a waste of time.
The SKEPTICS, not dentists as you wish to call them, aren't positing that AGW is false but that the results are exaggerated for political or activist reasons or simply wrong because of human error or that the field of climatology has not matured enough to predict the future climate.
I'm sure there are some who will claim that AGW is completely bogus and false, they do not represent the entirety or even the majority of the skeptical community
Did I misread their statements and their graphs as well?
NOOA: The “pause” in global warming observed since 2000 followed a period of rapid acceleration in the late 20th century. Starting in the mid-1970s, global temperatures rose 0.5 °C over a period of 25 years. Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero..
We had a little ice-age, we've been slowly warming out of it since around 1910. How much more will we warm up out of it? Were we supposed to warm up 0.5 degrees in 1970, and then stop?
Firstly, there's no suggestion for how the ebbing causes of the LIA would create our current warming trend. Secondly, there's a great deal of variation which is sufficient to explain the so-called "pause". The long-term trend is still clear.
Correction, they say it was warming, but it has not warmed this century.
they are predicting a warm El Nino this year, but then CO2 does not influence the creation of an el Nino, does it.
Nobody is claiming that there's no such thing as natural variability. However, if human-caused and natural variations are conspiring between warm periods and periods of no change, that still adds up to warming over time. It doesn't make sense to look at a flat decade and say "problem is over!", especially when, as you say, we are going to have a warming period up next.
You're misinterpreting what people are saying. Everyone knows that the climate has changed, is changing and will change in the future. The debate is over how much and why.
Regarding how much, the Global Warming models that were used while I was in college predicting all manner of doom and gloom have all been either horrendously exaggerated or deceitful falsehoods. Can you show that there have been any negative consequences of Global Warming to date if we assume that all of the Global Warming is caused by human activity?
As to why the climate is changing, do you have confidence that "Scientists" are able to separate the vast causes of climate changes irrespective of man's activities from those caused by man's activities? If so, why have the "Scientists" Global Warming Models so often been incorrect and overstated?
I've gone from being among the gullible believers to being a skeptic due to seeing how wrong these models have been. I do try to limit my "carbon footprint" by a large solar array and riding my bike as much as possible. I just now a skeptic.
Hannity does not deny climate change. Try you insult another way.
Yeah, tell me another one...
In a juicy bit of irony, Fox News is bumping climate change denier Sean Hannity’s show and replacing it with an hour of news coverage dedicated to the extreme winter storms. Last year, Hannity claimed that the Earth is no longer warming. It’s cooling.
Steven Goddard is not a climate scientist. He is not a working scientist at all. He is just a professional climate change denier. The fact Booker would reference the work of such a well-known crank ought to have been your first red flag.
Honestly, do you climate change deniers have any respect for science or truth at all?
Steven Goddard is not a climate scientist. He is not a working scientist at all. He is just a professional climate change denier. The fact Booker would reference the work of such a well-known crank ought to have been your first red flag.
Honestly, do you climate change deniers have any respect for science or truth at all?
But "it's on the internet so it must be true." -Abraham Lincoln
How about science that refutes the alarmism and the level of man's involvement? After all, that is what is REALLY in contention here. I don't think many people deny AGW per se, they question the severity and the question the level of man's involvement.
(Let the Googling of the scientist's names for ad hominem attacks against their character commence)
Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications
Nicola Scafetta
We investigate whether or not the decadal and multi-decadal climate oscillations have an astronomical origin.
The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030–2040. http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pd...etta-JSTP2.pdf
On the recovery from the Little Ice Age
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
A number of published papers and openly available data on sea level changes, glacier retreat, freezing/break-up dates of rivers, sea ice retreat, tree-ring observations, ice cores and changes of the cosmic-ray intensity, from the year 1000 to the present, are studied to examine how the Earth has recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA).
These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and remove them On the recovery from the Little Ice Age
What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979?
John R. Christy 1,* email, Benjamin Herman 2email, Roger Pielke Sr. 3email, Philip Klotzbach 4email, Richard T. McNider 1email, Justin J. Hnilo 1email, Roy W. Spencer 1email, Thomas Chase 3email and David Douglass 5email
Updated tropical lower tropospheric temperature datasets covering the period 1979–2009 are presented and assessed for accuracy based upon recent publications and several analyses conducted here.
This result indicates the majority of AR4 simulations tend to portray significantly greater warming in the troposphere relative to the surface than is found in observations. Remote Sensing | Free Full-Text | What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979?
Actually I agree with this statement "I don't think many people deny AGW per se, they question the severity and the question the level of man's involvement."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.