Global Warming Deniers Become More Desperate By the Day

Let's get this over with.

Common remarks from people who disagree with AGW:
1) TAX MONEY TAX TAX MINE TAX
Stop dismissing science because of economic reasons.

2) TEMPERATURE RISES BEFORE CO2
Context - this only happens in Antarctica. Northern Hemisphere? CO2 rises before Temperature. Oh, and historically (not prehistorically - the distinction is important), CO2 leads temperature.

3) IT WAS WARMER IN THE PAST
The entire range of global mean temperature using moving 5-year averages from 0AD to 1850 was around 1.2 degrees Celsius from high to low temperature. Including up until 2000, this range expands to 1.9 degrees Celsius because the Earth has warmed that much in such a short time. Some fractional amount in degrees Celsius doesn't seem like a lot without that context. For more context with regard to how narrow a temperature we are talking about here, we're approximately 5 degrees Celsius warmer than the last Ice Age, when continental glaciers were hundreds of feet thick.

4) GLOBAL WARMING PAUSED THE LAST 16/18/20 YEARS
Of those years, 9 of them were statistically significant in the last 134 years for being exceptionally warm: 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2013. Of course it's going to look like there is no warming trend - or even cooling depending on what year you start with and what year you end with - when half the years in the data set are exceptionally high outliers. This despite the fact that the low point of solar activity during Solar Cycle 23 was quite low and over a long time span (805 days without sunspots, the lowest since Solar Cycle 14, 1902-1913).

5) IT'S NATURE - NOT US - INCREASING CO2 / 4% OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS MANMADE
We emit more than 29 gigatonnes of CO2 annually. Since 2007, atmospheric CO2 has increased by a little under 19 gigatonnes of CO2 annually. The remainder is absorbed by sinks.

a reply to: jrod

You can question my level of knowledge all you want, as I question your understanding of the entire system that contributes to changes in the earth's climate. Just because we question each other's knowledge doesn't mean anything from a realistic standpoint, other than you seem to dismiss me because you think I know nothing about your (too often mentioned) radiative forcing. Your assumptions concerning me indicate the level of ego with which you are entering this 'debate' (word used loosely).

My comment about "the Church of AGW" is tongue-in-cheek, although many people (the ignorant who don't research all sides of the science) have a belief system in the AGW theories that are tantamount to a religion. The fact that this phrase ("the Church of AGW") "proves [I] have already dismissed global warming" shows me that you're not at all paying attention to my comments, but instead are just creating defensive comments to support your 'understanding' of the science (which is known to be far from fully understood).

Also, did you even watch the video? Whether it is on YouTube or not is irrelevent--it's the content that matters. For you to dismiss it just because of its location on the web is contradictory to your claim that you research all sides of the debate.

Lastly, when you say:

Humans are causing great changes to this planet. Anyone who tries to debate this is truly living in the dark.

and then follow that post and berate me for closing my mind in the debate, your opinion on the subject loses just as much weight in a scientific debate as you claim mine does. Again, this appears to be your ego coming through in lieu of honest discussion on the topic.

You can see me as close-minded and having no weight in this discussion--that's fine, that's your choice--but don't believe for a second that you have superior intelligence or understanding over those who research all sides and have formed our conclusion thusly. So, keep questioning my level of knowledge, and I'll take solace in the fact that any comment you make about me and my knowledge is based on assumption...and we know what assuming does.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
I know......isnt global warming so crazy! Ugh I can almost hear the polar icecaps melting and hear polar bears crying out.....

Ps...isnt this the mildest Summer we've had in like, at least 5 years?

LoL where do you people come up with this stuff

That rather depends on where you are. June 2014 was the third consecutive warmest month on record according to NOAA. April 2014 was a tie with a previous April, but the other two are brand new record holders. NASA only thinks it was the third warmest June on record, though.

In Canada, permafrost has thawed from an exceptional heatwave and a quarter million acres are burning.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Also, did you even watch the video? Whether it is on YouTube or not is irrelevent--it's the content that matters. For you to dismiss it just because of its location on the web is contradictory to your claim that you research all sides of the debate.

I watched a bit of it, but he makes a mockery of himself rather early on by mocking AGW by saying it was the coldest winter in 30 years in the U.S. - and that it's laughable that NOAA claimed 2013 one of the warmest years on record. Globally, it was something like the 8th warmest winter on record. It just happened to be rather cold in the U.S. - someone likened it to Mother Earth trolling U.S. AGW activists.

John Coleman was a weatherman and co-founded the Weather Channel - but he's a journalist and businessman. That's the extent of his academic credentials. It's funny that he cites having been given an award from the American Meteorological Society, but he himself left that same society because he disagreed with their views (they accept AGW).

a reply to: Greven

Oh, those crazy since-1880 records that are often used to show our dramatic climate problems. Big deal, the average earth temperature tied for the fourth hottest on record. That doesn't negate the truth that people like me (Cincinnati area) experienced one of the coldest winters on record with (I think) a top-three ranking for the longest consecutive period of standing or accumulating snow on the ground.

And besides, you mean the claims by this NOAA? There's reason enough to be skeptical of their rankings of anything these days.

ETA: You should watch the whole video--the things he talks about at the beginning are not at all the reason I posted it.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
Yeah, you experienced cold. Other people experienced hot. It's called "weather."

"Steven Goddard" is a pseudonym, you realize.
Whoever it is lies about his name and hides his identity.
Why would you take anything he says at face value?

edit: Ah, I see I am mistaken; he finally did reveal who he is - one Tony Heller, with degrees in geology and electrical engineering. In light of this, I will add the following:

"I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better. I also pointed out to him that his initial claim was wronger than wrong, as he was claiming that 40% of USCHN STATIONS were missing.

Predictably, he swept that under the rug, and then proceeded to tell me in email that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Fortunately I saved screen caps from his original post and the edit he made afterwards."
-Anthony Watts

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey


I've written this over 100 times this year on ATS:

As a result of the industrial revolution there has been over a 40% rise of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. This is accepted by climate scientist all over the world. Pre-industrial CO2 levels were 280ppm, now they are around 400ppm. It is also true that CO2 causes radiative forcing. Humans without any reasonable doubt are responsible for this spike of CO2!

I have yet to meet a reasonable person who does not agree that we are doing great harm to this planet. Unfortunately most who realize this feel powerless and continue on as if there is nothing they can do about it

Ah, yes, a "reasonable person," per your definition. "Great harm," per your definition.

Here's the problem--and apparently you missed my comment earlier: Historic records (drawn from ice-core samples and tree ring samples, amongst other things) that are widely accepted by "reasonable people" (to include me) show that rises in CO2 are a RESULT OF global temperature increases, not the cause.

Except for now, because humans are digging up and burning fossil fuels!!

And now, CO2 goes up before the temperature dloes, just as laws of physics say.

The import of the historical record means that there are geophysical processes which (in geological time) result in additional CO2 being released from sinks---so the importance of that is not that we shouldn't worry but that we should worry even more because more greenhouse gas will be emitted in the future because of our increasing the temperature.

The fossil fuels were totally inert and underground for all those ice age cycles, as they were produced and sequestered deep in rock much further back in time.

So, even IF the industrial revolution has increased the CO2 by 40% (keep in mind, the scientific measuring devices back then were NOT of the same degree of sensitivity or consistency as they are now), that does not indicate AT ALL that it is causing any warming--or changes in climate, period.

Yes, historical record alone is not sufficient proof, but that was not the key reason to understand it. The actual reason is the laws of physics---there is more electromagnetic radiation hitting the ground because of changes in infrared emissivity caused by changed atmospheric composition. This is not a theory, it is well confirmed experimental FACT.

Historical patterns are only partially informative---current specific experimental evidence is much more important.

THIS IS A PHYSICS PROBLEM NOT A STATISTICAL HISTORICAL CORRELATION PROBLEM

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Real science has no consensus.

That's bull#. Ask cardiologists if they think circulation is driven by the heart and lungs, or if it's driven by the thymus.

Fortunately, other than the shameful tobacco companies, there hasn't been economically driven BS to convince people that smog is not a problem because the scientific "consensus' that you breath through your lungs is a conspiracy hoax by grant-seeking greedy cardiologists and pulmonologists.
After all, the body is very complex, and there are all sorts of natural cycles and stuff, and who knows about the thymus? And insects breath through their skin!

Consensus is a political term. Anyone using the word consensus is pushing to make something involuntary.

AGW is political sophistry, not scientific knowledge.

Denial and misinterpretation of scientific results is sophistry yes.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I have a close friend who is a meteorologist for NASA

He says that global warming is in no way man made, rather it is part of the regular cycle of the earth

He also says we can no more stop it or start it by what we do on the planet

I remember in the 1970's when all the scientists were warning us that an ice age was coming if we didn't stop using hydrocarbens. They blamed global cooling on what people were doing.

Sorry the science changes regularly, just because a scientist says it doesn't mean it is true.

Scientists have basically all agreed in my lifetime that I recall:
1st - man made global cooling
2nd - man made global warming

Funny, actual science is more complicated than simple sound bites, and both are true.

There are multiple ways that humans can contribute to both cooling and warming.

Burning badly combusted fossil fuels can result in particulates (can both cool and warm) and sulfates which have cooling effects. This was understood earlier and was seen in Northern Hemisphere measurements through the 70's when there were few pollution controls. It was also understood then, in the 70's that there was also a warming effect from greenhouse effect. The science then was not clear which effect would dominate. Now, it is. Pollution has been cleaned up, to the great improvement of health of people & ecosystems, and increased knowledge of greenhouse effect and emissions shows that it is now clear that warming is the primary problem.

There was NO previous scientific consensus about man-made global cooling!

Myth of the 1970's global cooling scientific consensus

The implication that there once was is YET ANOTHER DECEPTIVE MYTH from the economically and politically motivated denialists and people who want to believe them.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Real science has no consensus.

That's bull#. Ask cardiologists if they think circulation is driven by the heart and lungs, or if it's driven by the thymus.

Fortunately, other than the shameful tobacco companies, there hasn't been economically driven BS to convince people that smog is not a problem because the scientific "consensus' that you breath through your lungs is a conspiracy hoax by grant-seeking greedy cardiologists and pulmonologists.
After all, the body is very complex, and there are all sorts of natural cycles and stuff, and who knows about the thymus? And insects breath through their skin!

Consensus is a political term. Anyone using the word consensus is pushing to make something involuntary.

AGW is political sophistry, not scientific knowledge.

Denial and misinterpretation of scientific results is sophistry yes.

The heart is not the power of circulation by consensus. Consensus is language. Science is fact and prediction.

AGW says 10 C change, and a sea level rise.

Reality is less than 1 C change, and no perceivable sea level change.

ALL of the models

used to get funding

and

pass laws

were wrong and high


www.drroyspencer.com...

If the models weren't wrong, why was anybody excited about 1.7C over a century?

a reply to: mbkennel

There was NO previous scientific consensus about man-made global cooling!

The 70's scientists were economists and political scientists who claimed that energy should be rationed because we would run out when the climate turned colder.

Same as now, the collectivists "know" and strive to stifle everything natural about human life.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

You can see me as close-minded and having no weight in this discussion--that's fine, that's your choice--but don't believe for a second that you have superior intelligence or understanding over those who research all sides and have formed our conclusion thusly. So, keep questioning my level of knowledge, and I'll take solace in the fact that any comment you make about me and my knowledge is based on assumption...and we know what assuming does.

What makes you think I have not researched many angles of the climate?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: mbkennel

There was NO previous scientific consensus about man-made global cooling!

The 70's scientists were economists and political scientists who claimed that energy should be rationed because we would run out when the climate turned colder.

You mean, people thinking of the consequences of what would happen if there was significant cooling? What's the problem with that?

Back then economists and political scientists didn't pretend to be climatologists, unlike now. IF there was going to be significant cooling, then yes you would need to lower energy consumption and increase insulation because all else being equal consumption for heating might increase.

a reply to: Semicollegiate
Looks to me that chart still shows global warming.

Even if the models listed differ in 'how much' (assuming the chart to be accurate).
It's more blatant here, though.

Edit: Also, I think the last IPCC estimate was 4 °C by 2100, not 10 °C by 2010.

a reply to: Greven

You know, it's funny, but it's always just weather ... until it's suddenly climate. At what point do we cross the magic weather/climate divide? Is it when the "weather" suddenly supports the conclusion you wish it to - namely that the globe is catastrophically warming and that we are all going to die?

Come-On People Please,,,, It's All Just Our Mother Earth,,,She has had a Cold and then a Fever and the Shakes and still does.
Here, they're saying for the past 17 years it has not been getting Hotter,,,,,,

Much has been written and argued, from all sides in the global warming debate, about the meaning of the asserted 17-year pause in global warming. Is a 17-year pause significant? Is a pause even occurring? Does the pause signal a longer-term halt to global warming or even a long-term cooling trend? Would a resumption of global warming to pre-pause rates end the global warming debate? A look at recent temperatures and their appropriate context provides helpful meaning to the much-discussed global warming pause.

Satellite instruments began uniformly measuring temperatures throughout the Earth’s lower atmosphere in 1979. Climate scientists overseeing these NASA satellite instruments produced the chart below showing the following temperature trends:

a plateau of temperatures, with absolutely no warming, from 1979 through 1997
a large temperature spike in 1998
a return to the 1979-1997 mean in 1999-2000
a modest escalation of temperatures in 2001
an elevated plateau of essentially flat temperatures from 2002-2014

If we choose a starting point of mid-1998, the planet has cooled during the past 16 years. If we choose a starting point of late 1997 or early 1999, temperatures have been flat during the past 15 and 17 years. Examining the totality of the 35-year temperature record, we see approximately 1/3 of 1 degree Celsius warming during the period. Accordingly, global warming has occurred at a pace of approximately 1 degree Celsius per century over the duration of the satellite record.

OK Now,,,,Oh, almost forgot Link...
Forbes
Now, for more on this,,, let try NASA, They have to Push Obama's Agenda,,,,,

HAMPTON, Va. (WNEW) – A NASA scientist described a recent “global warming hiatus” that shows Earth’s surface temperatures warming at a slower rate than previous decades – but it is still warming.
Norman Loeb delivered a lecture entitled, “The Recent Pause in Global Warming: A Temporary Blip or Something More Permanent?” at the NASA Langley Research Center auditorium on Tuesday. The talk addressed challenges to scientists and increased skepticism among climate change skeptics due to the recent “hiatus” of global warming.
The federal space agency climate scientist explored research into a slow-down in surface warming over the last 15 years referred to as the “Global Warming Hiatus.” In recent years, the global mean surface temperature on Earth has increased at a rate that is about one-third of that from the past 60 years.

NASA
( hoping to upset a poster or two that don't like my pictures )

And let's not forget those Scientist that were looking for that body of Supposedly open water

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

That doesn't negate the truth that people like me (Cincinnati area) experienced one of the coldest winters on record with (I think) a top-three ranking for the longest consecutive period of standing or accumulating snow on the ground.

You know what a system does when it is out of homeostatis? It swings wider in the opposite way, in the hopes of coming back to it's set point.

Unfortunatly, this set point is moving and with it you get just what we are seeing wider and wider weather/climate extremes.

It's like the body maintaining a temperate of 98.6 F. Some people run a bit cooler, some a bit hotter and everyone varies a bit throughout the day. But if we get too hot, the body sweats to cool it'self; if too cold, the body shivers to warm up. Now take a body that has had it's themostate constainly moved (due to disease or design); the body can't compensate - what happens - death or extreme disability.

The Bio-Shere is analogous.

From Joel de Rosnay's "The Macroscope" at: pespmc1.vub.ac.be...

A very simple Balancing Loop diagram, on the left generic on the right the human body. The Biosphere operates the same just a much vaster scope.



Here's another way of looking at it: (trying to be none judmental here) Bill Clintons main stagtey was called "trianglution" wherein his 'people' (one has doubts) would take a stance in the middle of the extremes and over time this middle (of extremes) moved the whole country to the right.

A clear example of Balancing Loop Set Point Creep. It's what causes people to get fat, it's what causes addicts to need ever more of 'their thang' to get a bang. And it's what we are facing (too little and too late) with the enire climate system.

You made believe it's God's will - but I recall from my Sunday school days that God enjoined Man to husband the earth - not destroy it.

a reply to: Greven

For clarily (and simplisity) sake I'm posting the graph that Greven refers to:

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: canucks555

Science has to be used to be proved. That is what science is for, to make things possible.

There are just as many true believers on the secular side as on the Christian, Moslem, Jewish, Hindu, Buddist, Shinto sides.

The secular true believers are just going with the flow.

Real science has no consensus. Consensus is a political term. Anyone using the word consensus is pushing to make something involuntary.

AGW is political sophistry, not scientific knowledge.

And Mr. Semi (?) Collegiate there are more religious beleivers in Climate Crisis and working towards pulling other religious heads out of religious - well - places.

a reply to: guohua

Two points:

1) Wikipedia
2) Some 50 out of hundreds of thousands - I'll take the majority vote on this one since all life is dependent on it.