27 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyThe Reuters link I posted has scientists trying to explain it with several different theories from different scientists. Are you claiming that these scientists are stupid for trying to explain it?Global warming has been slowing down for over a decade. Just because you don't want to accept that doesn't make it untrue.
NO, that was NOT what I said at all. I did NOT say nor imply in any way that global warming was NOT slowing down over the last few decades. If science says that “Global warming has been slowing down for over a decade” ...[text shortened]... O2 warming because the global weather is a chaotic system as explained by chaos theory.
You need to read the Reuters article carefully. You don't make much sense. They are scientists that specialize in the area of climate change. Are you a climate change scientist?
27 Jun 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeMany people on this forum will not even read one link, let alone 9. I did read one of them though. One debunked the claim that global warming slowed starting in 1998. No surprise there since it started 2 years after that.
No it's untrue because its not true.
Global warming has not been slowing down by any measure.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/06/11/climate_change_denial_zombies_ams_president_marshall_shepherd_talks_global.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-inte ...[text shortened]... ://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
Here is an excerpt from the Reuters link:
"(Reuters) - Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon."
You can debunk other people's false claims all you want. It doesn't prove me or the Reuters article wrong at all. Stop digressing into nonsense.
27 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainSorry, I did not see your edit until later. I was also not criticizing you, as it is quite easy to forget who posted what, I was merely pointing out that it was not me.
You saw my edit. Why are you pretending that I didn't correct my mistake before you read it?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brainhttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/16/1873531/reuters-contradicts-its-own-accurate-reporting-on-rapid-warming-of-oceans/?mobile=nc
Many people on this forum will not even read one link, let alone 9. I did read one of them though. One debunked the claim that global warming slowed starting in 1998. No surprise there since it started 2 years after that.
Here is an excerpt from the Reuters link:
"(Reuters) - Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that h ant. It doesn't prove me or the Reuters article wrong at all. Stop digressing into nonsense.
Why are so many climatologists now speaking out about global warming? As Lonnie Thompson explained a couple of years ago, “Virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization.”
But you’d never know how increasingly concerned climate scientists have become from reading Reuters’ absurdly-headlined piece, “Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown.” Amazingly, the piece doesn’t actually quote a single climate scientist struggling to explain this “slowdown” — perhaps because it doesn’t exist (see ”Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms&ldquo😉.
EDIT:
Even more amazingly, by which I mean, even more likely to cause your head to explode, the same Reuters reporter reported on new studies of ocean warming just last week in an article headlined, “Oceans may explain slowdown in climate change: study“!!!
Kind of hard to square that story with ”Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown.” But then rather than quoting any struggling climate scientists, the new Reuters piece starts with Bjorn Lomborg:
“The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought,” said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” who estimates that moderate warming will be beneficial for crop growth and human health.
Who ever thought the climate system was simple? Nobody. Heck, if it were simple, reporters would have noticed that Lomborg, who has been repeatedly debunked by actual climate scientists, has also repeatedly flip-flopped his position and doesn’t merit a quote in an article about what climate scientists do or do not think.
http://news.yahoo.com/oceans-may-explain-slowdown-climate-change-study-170410831.html
EDIT EDIT:
Unlike you I actually know what I am talking about.
You are the one here spouting nonsense.
27 Jun 13
5 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
The Reuters link I posted has scientists trying to explain it with several different theories from different scientists. Are you claiming that these scientists are stupid for trying to explain it?
You need to read the Reuters article carefully. You don't make much sense. They are scientists that specialize in the area of climate change. Are you a climate change scientist?
The Reuters link I posted has scientists trying to explain it with several different theories from different scientists. Are you claiming that these scientists are stupid for trying to explain it?
No. And I didn't say nor imply anything about the link. What has this got to do with what I just said?
You said:
“Warming is slowing down and scientists cannot explain it based on their assertion that it is rising CO2 levels that is causing the warming.”
and I pointed out this is erroneous because we shouldn't expect to see a constant steady rise in the rate of warming due to CO2 because the weather is a chaotic system as explained by chaos theory. For now at least, that is ALL I am claiming here.
Which part of that debunk of your claim do you deny?
Do you deny that the weather is a chaotic system?
Or do you deny that if it is a chaotic system that we should not expect to see a perfectly steady rate of temperature rise due to CO2?
If you deny neither, then, logically, the assertion that “ it is rising CO2 levels that is causing the warming” is NOT challenged by any, if any, recent slowdown of the warming of the climate because any such slowdown in the rate of warming would be perfectly consistent with CO2 warming.
And, as if that was not enough, judging from recent posts by others here, this so-called slowdown in the rate of global temperature increase is a lie made up by global warming deniers and doesn't even exist!
27 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyThe Reuters link I posted has scientists trying to explain it with several different theories from different scientists. Are you [b]claimingthat these scientists are stupid for trying to explain it?
No. And I didn't say nor imply anything about the link. What has this got to do with what I just said?
You said:
“Warming is slowing ...[text shortened]... lobal temperature increase is a lie made up by global warming deniers and doesn't even exist![/b]What would have to happen to make you believe that global warming isn't happening and that "man made global warming" is nothing but hype?
Could a cooling trend that lasts for the rest of your life ever make you change our view? Or would this simply be the result of a relatively short natural downturn in global temps?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jun 13
Originally posted by EladarYeah... But there IS no slowdown in warming let alone a cooling trend.
What would have to happen to make you believe that global warming isn't happening and that "man made global warming" is nothing but hype?
Could a cooling trend that lasts for the rest of your life ever make you change our view? Or would this simply be the result of a relatively short natural downturn in global temps?
27 Jun 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeWait long enough and there will be no cooling trend. I was just wondering what kind of window you'd need to see so that you'll reject the theory of man made global warming.
Yeah... But there IS no slowdown in warming let alone a cooling trend.
Yes, we have had a slight cooling periods in the past 20 years.
I'm just wondering if any cooling trends would make you change your worldview on this matter.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jun 13
Originally posted by Eladarhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html
Wait long enough and there will be no cooling trend. I was just wondering what kind of window you'd need to see so that you'll reject the theory of man made global warming.
Yes, we have had a slight cooling periods in the past 20 years.
I'm just wondering if any cooling trends would make you change your worldview on this matter.
Have a look at those charts.
There's been no cooling, just variations in the speed of warming.
27 Jun 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeAre you going to answer my question? Even if it hasn't happened, how long of a cooling pattern would it take for you to change your mind?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html
Have a look at those charts.
There's been no cooling, just variations in the speed of warming.
Here is the chart I was looking at.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html&h=358&w=644&sz=69&tbnid=LzReAZR3A5Xn1M:&tbnh=67&tbnw=121&prev=/[WORD TOO LONG]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Jun 13
Originally posted by EladarProbably one longer than a complete cycle of the oceanic oscillations. (a couple of decades, although it depends on the rapidity of change).
Are you going to answer my question? Even if it hasn't happened, how long of a cooling pattern would it take for you to change your mind?
Here is the chart I was looking at.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/arti ...[text shortened]... OTJ8_0b3rKkcep5tm7Xs=&docid=ulIwtqi4DS8ucM&sa=X&ei=b7XMUZ6_B43W0gGw0ICACw&ved=0CGIQ9QEwCQ&dur=0
However I would point out that that 'chart' and article have been completely debunked and refuted.
They are so wrong it's not even funny.
This is the met offices response to that article:
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
And here is a post on it on Bad Astronomy.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/10/23/flatly_wrong_global_warming_denial.html
And another here...
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/10/response-to-david-rose-global-warming-has-stopped
and here...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1668
And here....
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/temperature-analysis-by-david-rose-doesnt-smell-so-sweet/
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarProbably one [A period of cooling] longer than a complete cycle of the oceanic oscillations. (a couple of decades, although it depends on the rapidity of change).
Are you going to answer my question. I'm just looking for a concrete number. How many years must there be actual global cooling do you need to reject your present belief?
28 Jun 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo you are saying that you'll reconsider your position every 20 years or so. That is a very small window when it comes to this kind of thing. Of course when it comes to these kind of discussions this makes you a bit closed minded of any 'new' information.
Probably one [A period of cooling] longer than a complete cycle of the oceanic oscillations. (a couple of decades, although it depends on the rapidity of change).