Ice Age Alert!


#21

Alarmist propaganda fails to notice the failures of the IPCC reports such as their short term predictions of per decade warming trends. Most warmists are either unaware of it or chose to ignore it.


#22

The IPCC’s short term predictions are too high. But there is no real way to deny that there has been a clear warming trend over a century that is dramatically more rapid that the historical norm for natural warming and cooling trends.


#23

Ok, before I panic about this I want a second opinion. What does the Mayan calendar say about this? (wink).


#24

NEW ALERT: The climate changes. That is all. In other news Congress considers legislation regulating Mother Nature.


#25

No it is warming more slowly since 2001 than from 1979.


#26

Here let me fix that for you “The Climate changes, meaning that before you draw conclusions about what is causing the changes you have to know and account for several short-term up or down fluctuations (solar output, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, El Nino-La Nina cycle, The heat capacity of the world’s oceans, particulates and albido to name just a few) and isolte them from specific underlying long-term increases in specific gases like CO2 and Methane.”

Oh, wait, never mind…“The Climate Just Changes” There are no causes, just effects.


#27

Not when you isolate known factors.

It would be like walking into a cold house on a cold day and lighting a fire and measuring the temperature difference over time, then deciding to turn on the heat in the house as well, but at the same time opening a window and then saying, “well, I started a fire and noted that the house began to warm, then I turned on the heater, I noted that the house got warmer, but not as quickly as before”, completely ignoring the fact that you opened a window.

Since understands this, most Conservatives, don’t seem to grasp this idea. It’s not surprising given the sheer amount of misinformation that takes information out of context and tries to convince you that there is no warming.


#28

I see no difference. As you said, the climate just changes.


#29

That’s not the issue. We’ve known that climate changes for a long, long time. The question is whether human activity is affecting the change and trying to understand the potential long-term consequences. When you isolate all the other known factors, like solar output, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, El Nino-La Nina cycle, The heat capacity of the world’s oceans, particulates and albedo, how do gasses like CO2 and methane affect climate.

Clearly, when you cut through the crap, we are having an influence on the climate.

From there you can ask if we can/ should try to change things, or if we should just figure out the consequences and how to adapt to them.


#30

There’s another question. If human activity is affecting climate change, should we care? Maybe it’s desirable in the long run even if it might cause some discomfort in the short term. Maybe it’s not. I know folks have discussed that a little, but it’s not been a common discussion. Of course, we know how the sides will line up on it, but still. It’s another question. It’s not a given that human activity causing warming is even a bad idea.


#31

Ha ha,

now you are making it clear you don’t look up official Satellite temperature data.From RSS land only global mean:

LINKWood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss-land/from:2001/mean:60/trend/plot/rss-land/from:1979/mean:60/trend


#32

I’m not sure what that is supposed to prove in light of what I’ve already said.


#33

You made a claim that is clearly false since NONE of the data sets supports your claim.Here straight from Dr. Jones who specifically states that TODAY’S Modern per decade warming trend is almost identical to previous ones dating back to the mid 1800’s.

From the BBC,

Roger Harrabin ask,

“A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?”

Dr. Jones replies,

"An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:"

Here is what his numbers look like on a chart:


#34

You said my statement is wrong,then I show you this chart in response.

My statement:

“No it is warming more slowly since 2001 than from 1979.”

your reply:

"Not when you isolate known factors.

It would be like walking into a cold house on a cold day and lighting a fire and measuring the temperature difference over time, then deciding to turn on the heat in the house as well, but at the same time opening a window and then saying, “well, I started a fire and noted that the house began to warm, then I turned on the heater, I noted that the house got warmer, but not as quickly as before”, completely ignoring the fact that you opened a window.

Since understands this, most Conservatives, don’t seem to grasp this idea. It’s not surprising given the sheer amount of misinformation that takes information out of context and tries to convince you that there is no warming."

You are clearly spinning in circles here, since I backed up my statement that warming is SLOWING down and has been for more than a decade.You posted absurd babble with ZERO information.


#35

From post 29,csbrown writes:

“Clearly, when you cut through the crap, we are having an influence on the climate.”

A vague claim,which anyone can say easily, but essentially meaningless,since it is VAGUE!

It is a dishonest statement because there are ZERO skeptics out there,who specifically say humans have no influence on the climate. Almost all skeptics already agree there is some warming ongoing,and has been for over 300 years. Have long accepted warming from 1979 too. Even accepted years ago that the first part of the AGW conjecture is valid,that CO2 does absorb some IR to make it warmer,than it would have. But additional CO2 in the atmosphere has a smaller and smaller effect on temperature,a logarithmic effect that is well known. Most of the warming from CO2 occurred in the first 50 ppm,much less rapidly afterwards.

However the second part of the AGW conjecture is a total failure since the climate system is DOMINATED by negative feedbacks. Positive feedback are minor and impossible to overcome the current hydrological set up. Waters of the oceans would have to reach boiling point to finally defeat the built in power of Negative feedbacks that dominates.


#36

I don’t have the patience to debunk these myths…I leave you with this…

<div class=“lazyYT” data-youtube-id=“kmECHrOcFlc” data-width=“480” data-height=“270” data-parameters=“feature=oembed&wmode=opaque”></div>


#37

So if it speeds up in the coming decade, will you concede you have been wrong?


#38

An even newer study says that there will be more studies before then.


#39

CWolf, do you know what a LOADED question is?

Hint:

“So if it speeds up in the coming decade, will you concede you have been wrong?”

The IPCC 1990 report per decade temperature warming trend PREDICTION is a already a colossal failure. Why do you ignore it?

Ha ha ha ha ha…

It is clear neither YOU or brown can address my Satellite data based,CO2 log chart posts.

You guys show your ignorance so deeply,that I don’t think you realize how little know,since your replies are devoid or cogent thinking.


#40

Um, I seem to remember Carl Sagan making such a statement with all seriousness. I never took him seriously, because he never took anyone but himself seriously.