why do you have to be so childish? if you have a problem with a claim I make, simply point it out and tell me why. Don't act like a 6th grader in a put down war. It is so petulant and pathetic. I am not lying I assure you. I may, however, be mistaken. If I am mistaken, I would love to know so I can stop reporting something that is false. So help me out.
paso, I am not an idiot. If you go back to 1950 and look at the trend, it is clearly up. I would never deny that, nor have i denied that. The pause is the past 17 years. Take a look at your graph and you will see that it is there. You know, the anger and more bombastic you get, the more you look insecure in your position. At this point, you are looking very insecure indeed. There are now scientific articles coming out attempting to explain the pause from those on your side, so to put quotes around it, while perhaps cute, doesn't keep it from being verifiable scientific fact. It is simply the case that we have not warmed for between 12-17 years. This isn't my claim, this isn't Watts' claim, this is an empirical fact. The sooner you will admit this and argue as to why it does not matter, the sooner you will make a compelling argument. At this point, you seem highly unscientific and very ideological. why is that?
You are intentionally lying. It is not funny. I am sick and tired of you and your ilk distorting and lying about science for short term political gain. You cannot "debate" me or the science. The earth is retaining more and more heat for a known reason. This is not debatable. I have nothing but contempt for Watts and anyone who thinks he is anything other than a charlatan and a joke. This thread is going on what four years? You have shown zero capability of learning anything in that entire time. Zero. You have shown a rope-a-dope ability to copy whatever inane garbage Watts puts out in an effort to obfuscate and delay actually addressing an important issue.
incidentally, even in the graph you showed, it doesn't warm from 1950-1975 or so. From there it warmed rather rapidly until the late 90's and then it has stopped. So what is the trend? It is up since 1950 (actually since about 1850), I do not deny that. The question is why have we stopped warming for the past 12-17 years in the middle of rapid release of CO2?
The planet has not stopped warming. This is a lie. It is also childishly stupid because it ignores actual scientific data. Please explain this:
Additionally, the earth is retaining more and more heat. Where is the largest repository of heat on the planet? Is this repository warming? You have zero desire to understand this. Zero.
This is what you are doing. The Climate of Doubt shows how the piece of **** Koch brothers (and others) have attempted to create doubts where little to none should exist. Shame on you and them. The Link
paso, can you admit that the global temperature has failed to rise for 12-17 years? Are you able to admit something that goes against your agenda and your ideology? Look, I am gladly willing to admit that the long term trend on ice loss in the Arctic is down, that the longterm global temperature is up. etc etc. So are you able to put down your weapons and admit something that doesn't fit your larger argument? You seem like an ideologue and a devotee rather than a true scientifically minded individual. Why are papers being written about the global pause? Why are even dogmatic warmist scientists admitting that there has been a pause in the warming but you can not?
The planet has not stopped warming. This is a complete and utter lie. I can say that if you cherry pick a starting date on atmospheric temperatures close to the 1998 El Nino record high that you can falsely make it appear like atmospheric temperatures are warming more slowly than they are if you use the overall actual trend. Even with the cherry picked starting point, the planet is still warming. 1998 is a disingenuous starting point. Additionally, the biggest repository of heat on the planet is the ocean. What has it been doing over that time frame?
And your use of the term "warmist" is entertaining. Explain this chart and how it fits with your claim that there is a "pause" in global warming. Can you?
you're losing all credibility. you can't admit something that many others on your side have openly admitted. that suggests that you are far from scientific in your thinking. you are a "true believer" which is a scary place for someone who claims to be scientifically inclined and motivated to be.
This isn't a debate. I destroyed you long ago. You cannot deal with either facts or science. It is really simple physics and the heat has to go somewhere. You cannot explain the ocean chart because to do so is to admit the unpleasant truth that the ocean is where 90% of the retained heat goes and exchanges between the upper and lower levels can cause short term variability even though the planet continues to warm. There is no pause in either global warming or the level of sophistry by deniers.
The term "settled science" is at odds with the very essence of what science really is. Skepticism and debate are not contrary to science. In fact they are the central essence of science.
Came close or much closer in 2012, but this means nothing. You guys are clowns. BTW I did not originate this thread which, like my post without the context, asked a question. How about you link that post so we can all see the context? Quote mining should be beneath you, but I guess not. Pity. You want to see someone being wrong about everything? Look at mop's posts.
BTW I believe that I have opined on this thread that the arctic is likely to be ice free in the summer somewhere between 2030 and maybe 2050 which is significantly ahead of the IPCC projection.
Paso, your lack of creativity and ability to consider alternate theories is what makes you so very unscientific. I don't question if CO2 is a GHG. I don't question that the earth has warmed. I have long said that my doubts are what the response of the earth will be. As you are rightly pointing out, the Oceans are the largest repository of global heat. From what I can gather, the top 2,000 meters have warmed about .4 degrees in the past 70 years. Hurricane strength and frequency are neither up (in some metrics they are quite down). Droughts over the past Century are quite consistent (neither increasing or decreasing) etc etc. I believe the climate system is quite chaotic and that adding a small amount of heat isn't going to mean the end of the world. My guess is that there are many ways the earth could reasonably respond and not harm us at all. Cloud cover increasing sends reflects more heat out into space....it doesn't even take very much. Meanwhile, the sun is going quiet on us and this may more than compensate for any fractional warming we are owed due to CO2. Say what you want, but the fact that the global temperatures have not risen for 12-17 years is actually quite devastating to the theory that you hold with religious fervor. The fact that the models have utterly failed to predict the reality and are at great odds with actually empirical data shows that we ar still in a space of great lack of knowledge. You are very good at bluster and bravado, but your actual track record is fairly lousy. You seem far more committed dogmatically and ideologically to your position the more it fails to materialize. Just admit it, the atmosphere has not warmed in well over a decade and in 3 more years, we will be at 20 years in some indices. This is at the very least quite awkward for your position. If the heat somehow can sneak by the atmosphere and hide out in the oceans, what is the problem? With the sun potentially going into a Maunder or Dalton type minimum right now, we may see flat temperatures to cooling temperatures for the next 30 years.
incidentally, a study out in 2012 in Nature online suggests that the warming of the oceans is centennial and goes back at least a century. It furthermore suggests that recent decades have shown a slow down in warming rather than a speed up. Regardless, it appears that the surface warming of the oceans are approximately .59 Celsius over the past 140 years (this information was estimated by comparing Challenger data to Argo data) Seeing as this began before mankind could have possibly had much to do with it, blaming recent decades of warming on us seems a bit inconsistent. Nature.Com
You have been wrong about every single thing that you have predicted on this thread. You have been predicting a "spring back" on ice and temperatures since 2008. And yet average temperatures are up and average ice extent and volume ice are down. How many times do you need to be wrong? How much you want to bet that we will set a new global record high atmospheric temperature record in the next five years? We set one in 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2010. NASA/GISS indicates that all of these years eclipsed 1998. NASA/GISS also indicates that global atmospheric temperatures have continued to rise despite an enormous amount of heat being transferred to the lower ocean level. So now you claim that we are up to 17 years without "atmospheric" warming? You know this is lie, right? Why don't you accurately chart NASA/GISS (using the proper data with 1998 as the 5th highest year - I have noticed that denialists cannot seem to use the proper data) over the last 17 years? What does NASA/GISS show over this time frame? What is the statistically significant trend? And, yet again, where does 90% of the heat retained by the earth go? Rinse, wash, repeat This chart shows exactly what you are trying to do:
i know you will love this graph Paso. This is according to the Remote Satellite System. One of the two global temperature indices that is based upon satellites. From your favorite website
oh and that graph goes back to September of 1996. It does not start in 1998 as you so often claim. It is the answer to the question: " how long can you go back without seeing any warming?" This answer is according to the RSS, admittedly the most favorable for we skeptics because it shows the longest amount of time with no warming.
Why not graph NASA/GISS over that time frame like I asked? And you are either stupid or a liar (or I suppose both) to still not understand trend. The trend is up and you do not cherry pick the start point when you have longer term data. The proper start point should be when you first have access to the data or when a long term trend can be discerned. You do not intentionally pick a high starting point so the trend appears flat or even down. There is a reason that 2005 and 2010 are the warmest years on record (and 8 of the warmest 10 years in recorded history are in the 2000's) and even some "cooler" years now are much warmer than the 80's or most of the 90's. And the funny thing is that even with RSS the trend is slightly up over the 1996-2013 time frame (it is .02 C over that time frame). There are at least 8 different temperature records and every single one shows temperatures rising over that time frame with RSS being the lowest of the 8. For example, NASA/GISS is up .11 C, NOAA is up .08 C, and UAH is up .12 C. So you cherry pick the start date and the source and still lose? Impressive.
Except this is the West Mall and deals with an issue with an actual answer. Other than that you make a great point.
