The ABC's of debating AGW.

a reply to: amazing

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Although global temperatures have been rising over the past century, a slowdown in the rate of warming in the past few years has left some scratching their heads over a seeming "global warming pause."

The suggestion that global warming has stopped is "nonsense," climatologist Richard Alley of Penn State University said last fall. The fact that the year 2012 was no warmer than 2002, he said, ignores the long-term trend of warming.

But scientists say that trend has been partially obscured by the ocean, which is likely absorbing the excess heat.

A paper published in the journal Nature in August 2013 by staff of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, suggests the extra heat has been absorbed by the surface waters of the Pacific Ocean, aided by the warming and cooling cycles of weather patterns known as El Niño and La Niña.

I tried to pick the least offensive source I could find. Now, if there is not PAUSE, why in the hell would this guy be trying to explain it?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yea, I was using dramatic affect since 99.99999999999% of all scientist think man made GW is real.

(see, in reality, there are some who aren't quite sure yet, but nobody seems to count them.)

Sarcasm for humor. It helps me deal with being talked down to.

Wrong... please give a list of all those scientists. That "99.99999999999%" figure you claim is also a figment of your imagination. Because I can tell you that several times evidence has been posted that many of those "so called experts" who were also included in the IPCC reports "as being experts" did not have any real knowledge on Climate Change...

For example...

Memorandum by Professor Paul Reiter, Institut Pasteur; Paris




THE IPCC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION. EXAMPLE: IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH



INTRODUCTION

1. This evidence is presented to the Select Committee to provide a perspective on the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in compiling and assessing technical information.


2. I am a specialist in the natural history and biology of mosquitoes, the epidemiology of the diseases they transmit, and strategies for their control. My entire career, more than thirty years, has been devoted to this complex subject. My research has included malaria, filariasis, dengue, yellow fever, St Louis encephalitis and West Nile encephalitis, and has taken me to many countries in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe and the Pacific. I spent 21 years as a Research Scientist for the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). At present, I am a Professor at the Institut Pasteur in Paris, and am responsible for a new unit of Insects and Infectious Disease.


3. I have been a member of the WHO Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control since 1998, and a consultant for several WHO Scientific WorkingGroups. I have worked for the World Health Organization (WHO), the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and other agencies in investigations of outbreaks of mosquito-borne diseases, as well as of AIDS and Ebola haemorrhagic fever and onchocerciasis. I was a Lead Author of the Health Section of the US National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, and a contributory author of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (see below). I have been Chairman of the American Committee of Medical Entomology of the American Society for Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, and of several committees of other professional societies.
...
IPCC SECOND ASSESSMENT REPORT, WORKING GROUP II. CHAPTER 18. HUMAN POPULATION HEALTH

11. This chapter appeared at a critical period of the climate change debate. Fully one third was devoted to mosquito-borne disease, principally malaria. The chapter had a major impact on public debate, and is quoted even today, despite the more informed chapter of the Third Assessment Report (see below).


12. The scientific literature on mosquito-borne diseases is voluminous, yet the text references in the chapter were restricted to a handful of articles, many of them relatively obscure, and nearly all suggesting an increase in prevalence of disease in a warmer climate. The paucity of information was hardly surprising: not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.


13. Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Niño, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motor cycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cell phones).


14. The amateurish text of the chapter reflected the limited knowledge of the 22 authors. Much of the emphasis was on "changes in geographic range (latitude and altitude) and incidence (intensity and seasonality) of many vector-borne diseases" as "predicted" by computer models. Extensive coverage was given to these models, although they were all based on a highly simplistic model originally developed as an aid to malaria control campaigns. The authors acknowledged that the models did not take into account "the influence of local demographic, socioeconomic, and technical circumstances".
...

www.publications.parliament.uk...

Bravo! the foxnews crowd are the main group on the planet that doesn't think climate change is happening...

You guys are gonna seriously believe this ideological infotainment are telling you the truth?

You guys really believe this crap?

a reply to: LDragonFire

How about this. Provide an intelligent argument instead of making claims that seem to be coming out of parts of you where the sun don't shine?...

Who the hell said anything about a "polar vortex" or linked Donald Trump as a source?...

Discuss the evidence shown instead of going off tangent and making stupid claims please...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Dude, your sarcasm detector sucks. I was making light of the article the other day that claimed the fictitious 99.9999% number.

Just trying to show that both sides give poor information.

I'd love to find some information that both sides agree is good, but that may never happen.

Perhaps the meteorological event most often used by global warming skeptics as a counterargument is the Medieval Warm Period. Around the 9th to 14th centuries, regions around the world experienced an increase in temperatures, similar to what we see today [source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]. Following this period, the Earth experienced a Little Ice Age where global temperatures cooled. It is conceivable that the Earth is currently experiencing something similar to this, skeptics say. Their point is, we simply don't know enough about long-term weather systems to say for certain one way or the other.

And this is kind of how I feel right now. Especially when the limited mentality crowd wants to make this political.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: amazing

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Although global temperatures have been rising over the past century, a slowdown in the rate of warming in the past few years has left some scratching their heads over a seeming "global warming pause."

The suggestion that global warming has stopped is "nonsense," climatologist Richard Alley of Penn State University said last fall. The fact that the year 2012 was no warmer than 2002, he said, ignores the long-term trend of warming.

But scientists say that trend has been partially obscured by the ocean, which is likely absorbing the excess heat.

A paper published in the journal Nature in August 2013 by staff of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, suggests the extra heat has been absorbed by the surface waters of the Pacific Ocean, aided by the warming and cooling cycles of weather patterns known as El Niño and La Niña.

I tried to pick the least offensive source I could find. Now, if there is not PAUSE, why in the hell would this guy be trying to explain it?

I just think it's only one minor point. In the overall view and data of long term analysis.

Here's a link that makes sense to me.

www.scientificamerican.com...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No, the original data was not lost. Stop pushing a long-debunked talking point from half a decade ago.

NASA climate modeler: "The original data is curated at the met services where it originated." In response to a comment on his blog Real Climate asking whether it is true that the CRU lost the data, Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, replied: "No. The original data is curated at the met services where it originated."

And:

Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency.

The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.

"When you're looking at climate data, you don't want stations that are showing urban warming trends," Jones said, "so we've taken them out." Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. "We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world."

Refuting CEI's claims of data-destruction, Jones said, "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."
...
CEI and Cato Institute senior fellow Patrick Michaels argued that the "destruction of [CRU's] raw data violates basic scientific norms regarding reproducibility, which are especially important in climatology."

Ben Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, dismissed that argument. "Raw data were not secretly destroyed to avoid efforts by other scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based estimates of global-scale changes in near-surface temperature," he wrote in comments to the advocacy group Climate Science Watch.

Santer said CRU's major findings were replicated by other groups, including the NOAA climatic data center, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and also in Russia.

Here is what the skeptics do not seem to understand when pushing this decrepit point: CRU got their data from meteorological sources. Those sources still have the data. Other data sets closely match what the CRU reported. It's frankly quite pathetic that people are still pushing this.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: LDragonFire

How about this. Provide an intelligent argument instead of making claims that seem to be coming out of parts of you where the sun don't shine?...

Who the hell said anything about a "polar vortex" or linked Donald Trump as a source?...

Discuss the evidence shown instead of going off tangent and making stupid claims please...

Did you ever find the Apaches in Florida? Or just more ideological driven drivel?

I don't trust your sources even when you post the entire article, is this a debate?

Your good doctor is a doctor and not a climate change or environmental scientist. It states this in the opening of the huge quote you posted. He has about as much a valid opinion about climate change as does Donald Trump!

Mosquitoes spreading malaria in colder climates has no bearing on climate change. In my lifetime I don't recall malaria outbreaks in colder climates, the good doctor says otherwise, referring to the little ice age and malaria in the British Isles.

From the CDC and notice I'm not just gonna copy and paste the entire article:

Malaria’s Impact Malaria occurs mostly in poor tropical and subtropical areas of the world. In many of the countries affected by malaria, it is a leading cause of illness and death. In areas with high transmission, the most vulnerable groups are young children, who have not developed immunity to malaria yet, and pregnant women, whose immunity has been decreased by pregnancy. The costs of malaria – to individuals, families, communities, nations – are enormous.

CDC

Funny how the doctor claims past malaria outbreaks in the distant past yet no cold climate outbreaks of malaria in modern times...

I believe the climate change scientist claim that if areas warm Malaria could become a problem in those areas, do you really think the doctor debunked this?

a reply to: amazing

From your link:

To the casual observer, the lack of warming at the Earth's surface, contrasted to climate scientists' insistence that the planet is still warming, might seem like a conundrum.

As scientists like Willis explain, though, most of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases does not warm the Earth's surface anyway.

Why do rising sea levels ignore the pause?
"Over 90 percent of the heat that we trap ... is warming the oceans," Willis said.

So as a measure of global warming, surface temperatures are not a good yardstick, because the atmosphere can only hold a small percentage of the heat that is trapped, he said.

Rather, the oceans should be the primary barometer of global climate change.

Why is he trying to explain the lack of rising temperatures if there is not such thing as a break in rising temperatures?

dp

a reply to: network dude

There is actual evidence which shows volcanoes have been heating ocean areas such as.

Underwater volcanoes, not climate change, reason behind melting of West Antarctic Ice Sheet


By James Maynard, Tech Times | June 10, 10:43 PM

Melting of a major glacier system in western Antarctica may be caused by underwater volcanoes, and not by global climate change, according to new research.

Thwaites Glacier, a massive outlet for ice that empties into Pine Island Bay, is flowing at a rate of one-and-a-quarter miles per year. The bay opens up into the Amundsen Sea.

The Thwaites Glacier has been the subject of scrutiny by climatologists in the last few years, as new information about the severity of the melting becomes available. Traditional models had assumed heating from subterranean sources was fairly even around the region. New data provides details about areas where little was previously known.

University of Texas researchers studied how water moves underground in the region. They found liquid water was present in a greater number of sources than previously believed, and it is warmer than estimated in previous studies.

"It's the most complex thermal environment you might imagine. And then you plop the most critical, dynamically unstable ice sheet on planet Earth in the middle of this thing, and then you try to model it. It's virtually impossible," Don Blankenship, senior research scientist at the University of Texas, said.

Dusty Schroeder, lead author of the article announcing the results, helped lead a team that used aerial surveys to create radar maps capable of penetrating the surface of the ice. They found two bodies of water under the glacier which interacted with each other, distributing heat in the process.

The source of heating is believed to be a tearing apart, or rifting, of the crust under the Antarctic ice sheet. This allows movement of magma and creates volcanic eruptions, melting the ice. Liquid water and geological activity under the sheet allows the massive feature to slip off the continent.

The Thwaites Glacier is roughly the size of Florida, and is about 2.5 miles thick. Most climatologists estimate that if this structure were to melt, global sea levels would rise by between three-and-a-half and seven feet. The feature is considered one of the greatest factors in modeling rising sea levels. If the entire West Antarctic ice sheet were to melt, that amount could double.
...

www.techtimes.com...

BTW, did you know that because there has been an increase activity in Earth's core the Earth' magnetic field in he last 7 months has ben weakening 10 times more than ever before?

Did you know that it is a known fact that in previous "climate changes" similar geomagnetic jerks a the one Earth has been experiencing since around 1840-1860 caused dramatic climate changes in the past?...

Did you know that we know as a fact, that magnetic storms in the Sun had been on an increase during all his time that "climate change" has been occurring, and we know small changes in the Sun affect Earth greatly? Heck, just look at the temperature differences between the Earth's pole and the ecuator. That alone should tell you small variations in the Sun have big consequences on Earth.



The data points in blue in the above graph show the increase in magnetic storm strength n the Sun. Despite claims by the AGW crowd the Sun wasn't "so quiet" during the present period. In fact we even know that Earth's magnetic field is now weaker than it has been in over 800,000 years and the Sun has a big influence on Earth's magnetic field.

Earth's Magnetic Field Weakening More Quickly

Jul 9, 2014 06:22 PM ET // by Kelly Dickerson, LiveScience

Changes measured by the Swarm satellite over the past 6 months shows that Earth's magnetic field is changing. Shades of red show areas where it is strengthening, and shades of blue show areas that are weakening.
ESA/DTU

Earth's magnetic field, which protects the planet from huge blasts of deadly solar radiation, has been weakening over the past six months, according to data collected by a European Space Agency (ESA) satellite array called Swarm.

The biggest weak spots in the magnetic field -- which extends 370,000 miles (600,000 kilometers) above the planet's surface -- have sprung up over the Western Hemisphere, while the field has strengthened over areas like the southern Indian Ocean, according to the magnetometers onboard the Swarm satellites -- three separate satellites floating in tandem.

The scientists who conducted the study are still unsure why the magnetic field is weakening, but one likely reason is that Earth's magnetic poles are getting ready to flip, said Rune Floberghagen, the ESA's Swarm mission manager. In fact, the data suggest magnetic north is moving toward Siberia.
...

news.discovery.com...

But of course, none of that "can possibly change Earth's climate"... it "all" revolves around "mankind"...

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: amazing

From your link:

To the casual observer, the lack of warming at the Earth's surface, contrasted to climate scientists' insistence that the planet is still warming, might seem like a conundrum.

As scientists like Willis explain, though, most of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases does not warm the Earth's surface anyway.

Why do rising sea levels ignore the pause?
"Over 90 percent of the heat that we trap ... is warming the oceans," Willis said.

So as a measure of global warming, surface temperatures are not a good yardstick, because the atmosphere can only hold a small percentage of the heat that is trapped, he said.

Rather, the oceans should be the primary barometer of global climate change.

Why is he trying to explain the lack of rising temperatures if there is not such thing as a break in rising temperatures?

There are many papers and articles on this but the gist of it is that we aren't having a pause in global warming. Again, I'm not a scientist, and don't claim to be one but I read dozens of these things and they all say the same things. That global warming is warming the oceans at a faster rate than our land or surface temperatures.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: network dude

There is actual evidence which shows volcanoes have been heating ocean areas such as.

Underwater volcanoes, not climate change, reason behind melting of West Antarctic Ice Sheet


By James Maynard, Tech Times | June 10, 10:43 PM

Melting of a major glacier system in western Antarctica may be caused by underwater volcanoes, and not by global climate change, according to new research.

Thwaites Glacier, a massive outlet for ice that empties into Pine Island Bay, is flowing at a rate of one-and-a-quarter miles per year. The bay opens up into the Amundsen Sea.

The Thwaites Glacier has been the subject of scrutiny by climatologists in the last few years, as new information about the severity of the melting becomes available. Traditional models had assumed heating from subterranean sources was fairly even around the region. New data provides details about areas where little was previously known.

University of Texas researchers studied how water moves underground in the region. They found liquid water was present in a greater number of sources than previously believed, and it is warmer than estimated in previous studies.

"It's the most complex thermal environment you might imagine. And then you plop the most critical, dynamically unstable ice sheet on planet Earth in the middle of this thing, and then you try to model it. It's virtually impossible," Don Blankenship, senior research scientist at the University of Texas, said.

Dusty Schroeder, lead author of the article announcing the results, helped lead a team that used aerial surveys to create radar maps capable of penetrating the surface of the ice. They found two bodies of water under the glacier which interacted with each other, distributing heat in the process.

The source of heating is believed to be a tearing apart, or rifting, of the crust under the Antarctic ice sheet. This allows movement of magma and creates volcanic eruptions, melting the ice. Liquid water and geological activity under the sheet allows the massive feature to slip off the continent.

The Thwaites Glacier is roughly the size of Florida, and is about 2.5 miles thick. Most climatologists estimate that if this structure were to melt, global sea levels would rise by between three-and-a-half and seven feet. The feature is considered one of the greatest factors in modeling rising sea levels. If the entire West Antarctic ice sheet were to melt, that amount could double.
...

www.techtimes.com...

BTW, did you know that because there has been an increase activity in Earth's core the Earth' magnetic field in he last 7 months has ben weakening 10 times more than ever before?

Did you know that it is a known fact that in previous "climate changes" similar geomagnetic jerks a the one Earth has been experiencing since around 1840-1860 caused dramatic climate changes in the past?...

Did you know that we know as a fact, that magnetic storms in the Sun had been on an increase during all his time that "climate change" has been occurring, and we know small changes in the Sun affect Earth greatly? Heck, just look at the temperature differences between the Earth's pole and the ecuator. That alone should tell you small variations in the Sun have big consequences on Earth.

The data points in blue in the above graph show the increase in magnetic storm strength n the Sun. Despite claims by the AGW crowd the Sun wasn't "so quiet" during the present period. In fact we even know that Earth's magnetic field is now weaker than it has been in over 800,000 years and the Sun has a big influence on Earth's magnetic field.

Earth's Magnetic Field Weakening More Quickly

Jul 9, 2014 06:22 PM ET // by Kelly Dickerson, LiveScience

Changes measured by the Swarm satellite over the past 6 months shows that Earth's magnetic field is changing. Shades of red show areas where it is strengthening, and shades of blue show areas that are weakening.
ESA/DTU

Earth's magnetic field, which protects the planet from huge blasts of deadly solar radiation, has been weakening over the past six months, according to data collected by a European Space Agency (ESA) satellite array called Swarm.

The biggest weak spots in the magnetic field -- which extends 370,000 miles (600,000 kilometers) above the planet's surface -- have sprung up over the Western Hemisphere, while the field has strengthened over areas like the southern Indian Ocean, according to the magnetometers onboard the Swarm satellites -- three separate satellites floating in tandem.

The scientists who conducted the study are still unsure why the magnetic field is weakening, but one likely reason is that Earth's magnetic poles are getting ready to flip, said Rune Floberghagen, the ESA's Swarm mission manager. In fact, the data suggest magnetic north is moving toward Siberia.
...

news.discovery.com...

But of course, none of that "can possibly change Earth's climate"... it "all" revolves around "mankind"...

The climate scientists take all that into account. You didn't discover something that they all missed.

originally posted by: LDragonFire



Did you ever find the Apaches in Florida? Or just more ideological driven drivel?

I don't trust your sources even when you post the entire article, is this a debate?
...

LOL... That thread has NOTHING to do with this one...

That was a really "bad" attempt to derail the topic...

originally posted by: LDragonFire

Your good doctor is a doctor and not a climate change or environmental scientist. It states this in the opening of the huge quote you posted. He has about as much a valid opinion about climate change as does Donald Trump!

That doctor was explaining that many of the "so called experts" that participated in the IPCC reports WERE NOT EXPERTS... That was the point...

Learn to discuss the argument within context... I did not show that excerpt as proof that AGW is false, but as proof that the "majority of the experts included in the reports were not experts"... That was just one of the many statements made by scientists who participated in the IPCC reports that other members and myself have shown.

It doesn't have to be as hot as the tropics for mosquitoes to thrive. Mosquitoes thrive in wet conditions, and in colder climates (not talking about winter but colder than the tropics) wet conditions can and do occur which increases the chances of mosquito proliferation, hence increasing the chance of malaria. Proliferation of mosquitos is not dependent on temperatures, but on humid/wet conditions and "hotter doesn't always mean more humid/wet".

originally posted by: amazing


The climate scientists take all that into account. You didn't discover something that they all missed.

They do not...

Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.

[doc_id=864]

[English]

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

www.itia.ntua.gr...

And...

There is not even an attempt to model such complex climate details, as GCMsare too coarse for such purposes. When K. Hasselmann (a leading greenhouse protagonist)was asked why GCMs do not allow for the stratosphere’s warming by the suns ultravioletradation and its impact on the circulation in the troposphere, he answered: “This aspect is too complex to incorporate it into models”[8]. Since there are other solar-terrestrial relationships which are “too complex” such as, for example, the dynamics of cloud coverage modulated by the solar wind, it is no wonder that the predictions based on GCMs do not conform to climate reality.

plasmaresources.com...

And...

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005


PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

www.springerlink.com...


Another of the many flaws of GCMs...

The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

www.uah.edu...

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: amazing

news.nationalgeographic.com...

I tried to pick the least offensive source I could find. Now, if there is not PAUSE, why in the hell would this guy be trying to explain it?

It's a slowdown in the rate of increase that science is trying to explain, not a 'pause.' I put forth the idea some time ago (and you can see the solar cycles perhaps in better detail in ElectricUniverse's post above, as the following chart is annual) that a long, rather deep decline in the Sun's activity might be a reason why warming has slowed:


Years ago, there was the hockey stick chart by the CRU:

Today, there's this one with more public sources:


Neither have trendlines, but until warming goes down to 1990 levels, color me unimpressed with claims that it isn't happening.

a reply to: Greven

I don't understand, the Sun has an affect on the climate? I can remember being told this is mans fault. If the sun has an affect, what percentage it it?

a reply to: network dude

If the sun has an affect, what percentage it it?

It's apparently very minimal.

Very very very very minimal.

Mind you, that's only in a warming situation. In a cooling situation, apparently the sun has a much stronger effect.

So when it warms, it's our fault. When it cools, it's the sun's fault.

... and that's all you need to know.



Now run along and be a good little peon and go pay your carbon tax bill.

originally posted by: CranialSponge

It's apparently very minimal.

Very very very very minimal.

Mind you, that's only in a warming situation. In a cooling situation, apparently the sun has a much stronger effect.

So when it warms, it's our fault. When it cools, it's the sun's fault.

... and that's all you need to know.



Now run along and be a good little peon and go pay your carbon tax bill.

lol, I know right?

The problem is a lot of people don't seem to understand what's a stake.

I don't care about the stocks of ANY oil company. Don't care if they succeed, or fail. However, a lot of regular people seem to think that we, the regular people, will win if more taxes, and more laws are passed based on the AGW claim, and that's not true.

In the end the people that will have to pay for all the taxes the elite want to implement, and all the laws they want enforced "to combat climate change" will control every aspect of people's lives.

There is no single shred of proof that CO2 causes the warming claimed by the AGW proponents. These claims are based from claims made in the early 1900s by Svante Arrhenius, and this was before we learned that Earth has been undergoing warming since the early 1600s, and the Earth has since then been undergoing changes that haven't been felt in over 800,000 years+.

Today this claim that AGW is happening (different from climate change since climate changes always happens naturally) has the backing of Global Computer Models which have been shown to be wrong time and again as they don't account for many natural factors which do affect the climate.

CO2 is a ghg, yes, but that doesn't mean it is a relevant ghg. In the Troposphere, Earth's atmospheric layer where all surface weather occurs and which affects surface temperatures water vapor accounts for 95% -98% of the greenhouse effect, meanwhile CO2 accounts at most for 5% if not less of the greenhouse effect. And we are talking about educated guesses. The observations tell us CO2 does not cause noticeable warming that would cause the "massive warming claimed by the AGW camp."

But of course since blaming water vapor, and the Sun, and other natural factors which affect the climate of Earth does not benefit the elite, they have to blame it on human activity.

But do you really think they will be paying for it?

Do you really think these laws and taxes they want to impose on people based on a false belief will affect them?

Think again.