What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
Oh, heck....all those STILL on this thread.....
....are REQUIRED to watch this.....
....then normal programming will resume....
I watched it. British humor is not appreciated by itself by me. Idiots are idiots. Karma to whoever converts an idiot to a contributing human being.
Karl, basically you're going over previously shredded points that have zero basis in fact, or are just purposefully misleading statements.
The 97% support for AGW among scientists is a lie, pure and simple. A group took peer reviewed papers, discounted everything but the ones that picked a side, and among that fraction of a percent of the papers, they had 97% support for AGW. It's more along the lines of 99% undecided.
You have bought into a theory based on grossly inaccurate data sets taken by people with an agenda, modified to fit their theories, and then presented to the wider scientific community as being accurate, with the backing of governments. The tree ring problems are far from the only problems. Our temperature record in totality is a joke. The only portion that is reliable is the last few decades of satellite records, and they got caught faking the numbers for those several years back as well.
More evidence free bullshit...99% undecided..hahahaha.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus/
Unreliable temperature record....another classic talking point:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/temperature-record-reliability-attack/
The statements that I've posted are supported by articles in many prestigious peer review scientific journals (many of which were linked earlier in this thread), multinational reports written by hundreds of scientists from over 50 countries, and the national academy of sciences of every first world country on this planet.
Your statements are supported by nothing other than the ramblings of some right wing bloggers.
Thats all that needs to be said really.
I mean, if what you say is true, then why does every national academy of science from a first world country explicitly disagree with you? Some kind of conspiracy?
In fact, if you read the wikipedia (I know, I know) summary on this subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
You get this nice little (cited) summary:
"As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[11] no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[10][12]"
On the other hand, they are quite happy to have massive (cited) lists of the national and international scientific bodies explicitly agreeing with the consensus on climate change.
No.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
http://aas.org/search/node/climate
Adopted 2 June 2004
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) notes that human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is significantly contributing to the warming of the global climate. The climate system is complex, however, making it difficult to predict detailed outcomes of human-induced change: there is as yet no definitive theory for translating greenhouse gas emissions into forecasts of regional weather, hydrology, or response of the biosphere. As the AGU points out, our ability to predict global climate change, and to forecast its regional impacts, depends directly on improved models and observations.
The American Astronomical Society (AAS) joins the AGU in calling for peer-reviewed climate research to inform climate-related policy decisions, and, as well, to provide a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global change and to help communities adapt and become resilient to extreme climatic events.
In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement, the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012) pdf version
The following is an AMS Information Statement intended to provide a trustworthy, objective, and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large. Background This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature.
How is climate changing? Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century. The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat. Other changes, globally and in the U.S., are also occurring at the same time. The amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events (the heaviest 1% of all precipitation events) has increased over the last 50 years throughout the U.S. Freezing levels are rising in elevation, with rain occurring more frequently instead of snow at mid-elevations of western mountains. Spring maximum snowpack is decreasing, snowmelt occurs earlier, and the spring runoff that supplies over two-thirds of western U.S. streamflow is reduced. Evidence for warming is also observed in seasonal changes across many areas, including earlier springs, longer frost-free periods, longer growing seasons, and shifts in natural habitats and in migratory patterns of birds and insects. Globally averaged sea level has risen by about 17 cm (7 inches) in the 20th century, with the rise accelerating since the early 1990s. Close to half of the sea level rise observed since the 1970s has been caused by water expansion due to increases in ocean temperatures. Sea level is also rising due to melting from continental glaciers and from ice sheets on both Greenland and Antarctica. Locally, sea level changes can depend also on other factors such as slowly rising or falling land, which results in some local sea level changes much larger or smaller than the global average. Even small rises in sea level in coastal zones are expected to lead to potentially severe impacts, especially in small island nations and in other regions that experience storm surges associated with vigorous weather systems.
Why is climate changing? Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years. Water vapor also is an important atmospheric greenhouse gas. Unlike other greenhouse gases, however, the concentration of water vapor depends on atmospheric temperature and is controlled by the global climate system through its hydrological cycle of evaporation-condensation-precipitation. Water vapor is highly variable in space and time with a short lifetime, because of weather variability. Observations indicate an increase in globally averaged water vapor in the atmosphere in recent decades, at a rate consistent with the response produced by climate models that simulate human-induced increases in greenhouse gases. This increase in water vapor also strengthens the greenhouse effect, amplifying the impact of human-induced increases in other greenhouse gases. Human activity also affects climate through changes in the number and physical properties of tiny solid particles and liquid droplets in the atmosphere, known collectively as atmospheric aerosols. Examples of aerosols include dust, sea salt, and sulfates from air pollution. Aerosols have a variety of climate effects. They absorb and redirect solar energy from the sun and thermal energy emitted by Earth, emit energy themselves, and modify the ability of clouds to reflect sunlight and to produce precipitation. Aerosols can both strengthen and weaken greenhouse warming, depending on their characteristics. Most aerosols originating from human activity act to cool the planet and so partly counteract greenhouse gas warming effects. Aerosols lofted into the stratosphere [between about 13 km (8 miles) and 50 km (30 miles) altitude above the surface] by occasional large sulfur-rich volcanic eruptions can reduce global surface temperature for several years. By contrast, carbon soot from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels warms the planet, so that decreases in soot would reduce warming. Aerosols have lifetimes in the troposphere [at altitudes up to approximately 13 km (8 miles) from the surface in the middle latitudes] on the order of one week, much shorter than that of most greenhouse gases, and their prevalence and properties can vary widely by region. Land surface changes can also affect the surface exchanges of water and energy with the atmosphere. Humans alter land surface characteristics by carrying out irrigation, removing and introducing forests, changing vegetative land cover through agriculture, and building cities and reservoirs. These changes can have significant effects on local-to-regional climate patterns, which adds up to a small impact on the global energy balance as well.
http://www.fas.org/press/statements/_docs/08grand_challenges.html
Protect the Environment There is no serious doubt that human activity is altering the earth’s climate in potentially catastrophic ways. Even skeptics are forced to admit that the risk is real and that prudence demands action if only as an insurance policy, the only serious debate is about how best to respond. This is a global problem demanding global solutions and international collaborations on research and policy are essential to ensure that remedies do not adversely affect the competitive positions of the US or other nations. But in the near term the US has an essential role to play in demonstrating how a prudent policy based on innovation can combine strong economic growth with reduced impact on the environment.
Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment ReportClimate Change 2013: The Physical Science BasisSummary for Policymakers
D. Understanding the Climate System and its Recent ChangesUnderstanding recent changes in the climate system results from combining observations, studiesof feedback processes, and model simulations. Evaluation of the ability of climate models tosimulate recent changes requires consideration of the state of all modelled climate systemcomponents at the start of the simulation and the natural and anthropogenic forcing used to drivethe models. Compared to AR4, more detailed and longer observations and improved climatemodels now enable the attribution of a human contribution to detected changes in more climatesystem components.Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhousegas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, andunderstanding of the climate system. {2–14}
Here are other organizations you can search through for yourself.
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:
Other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:
Call it a lull, hiatus, pause or vacation. You are again confusing 2 points.
Point 1: The model predicted increase
Point 2: The pause
The article showed the models to be completely wrong. EVEN without acknowledging their is a pause.
The data shows a pause. Temperatures have not statistically increased in the past 16 years, 8 months (to be exact).
The premise of AGW was based on an 18 year time table (1980-1998). Temperatures have not responded for almost as long a period of time. It is measurable. But what it is not is significant due to the short time period. Perhaps that is what you meant?
If so, you are denying that AGW exists at all. I will not go that far.
Again, using the wrong tool for the wrong point. I give you the tools, I cannot make you use them correctly. This will help you. You are familiar with Phil Jones, are you not?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
That was 2 years (and 15 years of no warming) ago. It is now up to 17 years.
Sorry, argue with him. As woodfortrees.org also proves, there is no there there. But you are welcome to argue with the numbers.
Um, ever heard of the Oregon Petition? Over 31,000 is not "small percentage".
And where are you getting your notes from about the "overwhelming majority"? Would that be the UMD study that showed the actual number to be only .7%? http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Or the now debunked Cook-Nuccitelli paper? http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
There are actually several problems with the latter. In their zeal to get to that magic 97% number, they actually screwed up their own math (which when added, shows their numbers SHOULD have been 98.6%). But after deciding 64 of almost 12,000 papers supported it (and using magic to make that out to 97%), the AUTHORS of half the papers they declared supported it, said they were full of bunk. The authors are noted supporters of AGW, so you cannot claim they are skeptics (or worse).
Sorry, you are wrong again.
Or one as the Briffa continuation had.
How about turning the Tiljander data set upside down? That must be worth a few laughs. All those and more! (Don't forget "hide the decline") In the debunked hockey stick.
Except it was not even the warmest in the past 120 years: http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/25/can-science-fix-climate-change/#comment-387145
But here is some real data for you: http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/04/21/dr-pachauri-call-your-office/
The warming in the past 30 years has been matched by many 15 years periods in the last 120 years.
Indeed, one thing you have to realize is that the IPCC is NOT a science organization. It does no science. It is supposed to rely on science, but as Donna LaFramboise documented with AR4 (5 has not been officially released yet), over 5800 were from PR pieces, not science. http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/04/21/dr-pachauri-call-your-office/
Ever wonder how they got the Himalayan glaciers so much? It came from a PR piece, not peer reviewed science.
Yes: http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/97pct/
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/what-does-it-take-for-a-worldwide-consensus-just-75-opinions/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full#ref-107
http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/docs/BEC/CICCC/2012-02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/24/quantifying-the-consensus-on-global-warming-in-the-literature-a-comment/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/25/my-personal-path-to-catastrophic-agw-skepticism/#comment-1372530
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
You mean the petition that was signed by "Britney Spears"..multiple times? The petition that was signed by multiple characters from Star Wars? The one that was signed by Charles Darwin? By members of the Spice Girls? By names like "I.C.Ewe"?
Come on now. I point out that every major national academy of science agrees with the consensus. You try and come back with...a petition that anybody could sign and whose own author admitted that he could not verify that the signees were authentic scientists (hint: every single followup showed that the VAST majority of the signees had absolutely nothing to do with climatology). That petition is known to be an open joke.
I never cited specific papers. I'm not interested in you frothing about methodologies used in specific papers that you think you can debunk. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I'm saying that I have the support of every major academy of science in the world. Period. No major national or international body of scientists have publicly said they go against the consensus. I linked this above. Thats a consensus.
I've already linked multiple scientific sources above showing that your statements about a lull are incorrect. I've already shown that your own source from Nature says that your statements about a long term lull are incorrect. Since you are apparently refusing to read sources that contradict your pre-existing views, I see no need to continue that discussion.
Also, citing right wing climate change blogs doesn't defend yourself from the accusation that only right wing climate change blogs dont support the consensus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Criticism
No
(I presented you with the position statements of SCIENTIFIC associations. organizations and academies. Not Forbes and opinion articles).
In edit-You can also see what the consensus is in the summary published by the IPCC released today (you can download the PDF).
In a second edit-Weird. I THINK you were replying to me, but the system somehow attributed my quote to krazykarl...but I could be mistaken.
From what I can tell, he is spamming a bunch of links debunking a study that I never cited anywhere (the 97% thing). But since he can't deal with the argument that I am actually making (basically IPCC plus national academics of science and other organizations), he is moving the goalposts to the argument that he thinks he can actually debunk.
Yes it is. It's 0.3% of all science graduates. That list has 39 who are climate scientists. Scientific American debunked that petition long ago. All of these silly little objections have been destroyed years ago but they keep coming back like little zombie memes. The OISM also supports the "science" of young earth creationism and intelligent design. You really want to hang your hat on that? Were you even aware of that?
Jafo to the rescue. Love it.
Trouble is....looks like there are strange creatures out there tha tdon't understand/appreciate Python humour.....
.....they'll never work for Stardock...
He's referencing debunked studies because the idiots that did it actually disproved their own findings. One group did an absolutely massive study on peer reviewed work, the gold standard you yahoos always talk about in your diatribes whenever someone points out that the entire body of evidence has been doctored.
It was quite the impressive study, they went through an ungodly number of papers, and classified them by standing. Conclusive in either direction, or non-conclusive. Of the ones they determined to be conclusive, they then contacted the actual writers to verify their opinions. At the end of this, they threw out everything that wasn't conclusive, which just happened to be nearly every paper they checked.
You guys should really stop attributing political organizations, who spend their time lobbying legislatures for science funding and spend no time actually doing science, with the scientists that may or may not bother to pay them dues to try and get that funding.
This is all about money. The people that force us to give it to them, and the people that want as much of it as possible to stick to their fingers. There has never been anything to show the members, let alone the unaffiliated scientists with degrees in the fields, have ever supported this nonsense idea that the science is settled.
It smells like bullshit for a reason, take the blinders off and look at the crap you've waded out into. If you get any deeper you'll be breathing the stuff.
Canada’s federal scientists used to be encouraged to openly discuss their work with the media and public. That changed under the Harper government about five years ago when media policies were introduced to tightly control access to scientists. Interviews and often the questions to be asked are now vetted ahead of time, and responses given by scientists are frequently monitored. In several documented cases ministers office’s have stopped researchers from giving interviews. http://sciencewriters.ca/initiatives/muzzling_canadian_federal_scientists/
Canada’s federal scientists used to be encouraged to openly discuss their work with the media and public. That changed under the Harper government about five years ago when media policies were introduced to tightly control access to scientists. Interviews and often the questions to be asked are now vetted ahead of time, and responses given by scientists are frequently monitored. In several documented cases ministers office’s have stopped researchers from giving interviews.
http://sciencewriters.ca/initiatives/muzzling_canadian_federal_scientists/
So really, how can you have any faith in what is reported. I sure as hell don't.
I'm pretty sure Monty Python would find the topic of AGW as it's applied by both sides fairly funny.
myfist0
please follow the rules for this section as requested by the site owner.
https://forums.wincustomize.com/414995/page/2/#3388978
No political posts allowed.
This entire thread is related to government action. Governments pay for the research claiming we're all going to die if it gets a little warmer, and that it's our fault. Governments keep the records that say the earth is(was, currently) getting warmer that the research is based on. Governments make the decisions that cost us vast sums of money to pay for pet projects that are supposedly going to help solve the problem.
Government is a central player in every possible course this topic can go without sticking to whether the pool is open. Calling out a single reply for linking a news article is a more politically driven post than most of what's in this thread.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
