Climate Change Denial, Anyone?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

So I say the rate of warming slowed since 1998 - and you say - "compared to what?

Yes. Yes I did.

You are catagorically claiming that the rate of warming did not slow sine 1998.

Again, compared to what?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

During a climate change event in which warming occurs, the warmer the planet gets, the more water vapor the troposphere(atmosphere) can contain which leads to a feedback effect...

Yes, indeed.
An increase in temperature caused by CO2 is amplified because increased temperatures mean that the atmosphere can hold more water vapor.

Water vapor content is governed by temperature. CO2 content is not. If the atmosphere cools water vapor condenses. But CO2 doesn't let it cool.

a reply to: Phage

During a warming event, like the one we are undergoing, CO2 levels increase naturally as well, and as for "acidification" some other members were talking about, you should know that warmer waters tend to change their ph levels. Not to mention that corals that are near underwater volcanic vents the water ph level around those areas also changes "acidification". Yet we have seen the AGW crowd use these natural events to proclaim "mankind is the one doing it"...

a reply to: Phage

An increase in temperatures by CO2 is neglegible... Can't you understand that GCMs are wrong, and even scientists "cannot understand" why they are doing so poorly?... According to the claims from the AGW crowd it should have been A LOT WARMER than it actually is. The warming capacity of CO2 has been exaggerated which is why the GCMs do so poorly, and why it hasn't gotten warmer...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Phage
Yup. You're wrong. That's too low. If that's the rate of increase we get, we're doing a whole lot of stuff right. The goal for the Paris agreement is to limit warming to 2º (which includes the 0.8º we've already got, so 1.2º) at the end of the century.

Since at least 97% if not more of the greenhouse effect in the Troposphere, the atmospheric layer where all surface weather and climate occurs, is caused by water vapor then the increase in temperature for the past 100 years has been mostly caused by water vapor and not CO2... So out of the 0.8C increase in the last 100 years 0.776C was caused by water vapor...

During a climate change event in which warming occurs, the warmer the planet gets, the more water vapor the troposphere(atmosphere) can contain which leads to a feedback effect...

It looks like you believe the greenhouse effect does exist. That's good.

A reminder:

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Naa, at least he is not making claims such as "the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is in the hundreds to thousands of years" as you have made in the past. Dr. Latour is explaining it within the context of electrical and chemical engineering.

heh... They seem to have differences in opinions. In case you didn't know scientists do not agree on everything... That does not disprove anything at all...

...
I'll ask this only once:
Do you repudiate Dr. Latour's claims, in light of him claiming that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Phage

An increase in temperatures by CO2 is neglegible... Can't you understand that GCMs are wrong, and even scientists "cannot understand" why they are doing so poorly?... According to the claims from the AGW crowd it should have been A LOT WARMER than it actually is. The warming capacity of CO2 has been exaggerated which is why the GCMs do so poorly, and why it hasn't gotten warmer...

Hmm... poor models?

Recall that satellite temperature data (which is based on models as it does not directly measure temperature) is a bit suspect, as it appears to underestimate warming as compared to terrestrial measurements.

How well do these models do when comparing them to terrestrial measurements, rather than satellite data?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Phage

During a warming event, like the one we are undergoing, CO2 levels increase naturally as well, and as for "acidification" some other members were talking about, you should know that warmer waters tend to change their ph levels. Not to mention that corals that are near underwater volcanic vents the water ph level around those areas also changes "acidification". Yet we have seen the AGW crowd use these natural events to proclaim "mankind is the one doing it"...

just probing the depths here. does the combustion of a carbon based fuel release CO2 into the atmosphere ?

a reply to: Phage

ok now you can at least admit what you said

www.noaanews.noaa.gov...

rate slowdown compared to what???

From 1950 to 1999, the rate was warming was approximately 0.18 degrees Farenheit / decade. Jim Hanson, Micheal Mann, Phil Jones, the IPCC all declared that it was not the warming per se that was alarming but actually the rate of warming was alarming.

Then from about 2000 to 2014, the rate of warming slowed down to about 0.11 degrees Farenheit / decade. Quite surprising given that during that time period CO2 continued to be discharged and not predicted by anyone.

Then low and behold - the climate scientists at NOAA "adjusted" the temperature record AGAIN and the slowdown disappeared.

I will once again ask the question - does anyone really know what the global temperature is at any given time now, in the past or the future.

The global temperature is "adjusted" to whatever the AGW crowd need it to be to provide proof of global warming. Anytime they like. There could be glaciers in the great lakes again and the AGW crowd would simply "adjust" the temperature record to "prove" that it is not as cold as we think it is.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Further Phage, and this is the really really unacceptable part, the scientists at NOAA made the "pause" disappear, as if it never existed, and the method they used to do so is really over the top when it comes to scam artists.

They "added" in the last two years (that would be 2015 and 2015), the El Nino years, to make the "pause" disappear. These "scientists" used a weather event to alter the global climate record.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Wow, that is insane and absurd but I expect that from you.

Do you realize how crazy and ignorant that claim is?

a reply to: syrinx high priest

that last line coming out is sooooooo ominous

It really is -

If you watch the data progress you can see that the temperature goes up and down even while it continues to rise steadily over the years

Let's just hope we get a few more years inside that 1.5 mark - though - we're seeing the affects of all of it now

We need to come to grips with this and begin making adjustments

But, people - what're ya gonna do?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Further Phage, and this is the really really unacceptable part, the scientists at NOAA made the "pause" disappear, as if it never existed, and the method they used to do so is really over the top when it comes to scam artists.

They "added" in the last two years (that would be 2015 and 2015), the El Nino years, to make the "pause" disappear. These "scientists" used a weather event to alter the global climate record.

Tired of Control Freaks

A reminder:

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The 'pause' only existed in datasets over specific start and end dates - namely, satellites, which aren't beyond critique insomuch as their accuracy is concerned.

There are 8 data sets in this tool: GISTEMP, BEST, RSS, NOAA, UAH, HadCRUT4, HadCRUT krig v2, Karl.
1979 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
...
1997 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
1998 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1999 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2000 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2001 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2002 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2003 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2004 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2005 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except BEST (land).
2006 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2007 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2008 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2009 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2010 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2011 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2012 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2013 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2014 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.

The 'pause' was merely a trick to get you to believe in the conspiracy against climate change. You no longer have it to rely on.

a reply to: Greven

And yet, still yet, the climate scientists record that the "pause" existed?????

Read the link I posted.

Just because the "adjusted" and "re-adjusted" and "adjusted daily" and "adjusted whenever we feel like it" temperature data sets all show warming, it does not mean that the rate of warming has not slowed.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Well frankly, I am going to go about living my life. I am going to use fossil fuels to run my car and heat my home. I am going to continue to use electricity.

And I am going to watch the chicken little AGW global faithful suffer the agonies of guilt because they exist.

And I am going to laugh.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

It appears to me that you simply don't care about the next generation.

I feel bad for people with no foresight, it is like you don't even try.

Given the buzz words you use to attack the science and science 'believers' like me. I seriously doubt you are a happy person....but for all I know you could getting paid to spread disinformation and astroturf threads like this.

A good soul cannot laugh at the destruction we are causing on this planet.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Well frankly, I am going to go about living my life. I am going to use fossil fuels to run my car and heat my home. I am going to continue to use electricity. And I am going to watch the chicken little AGW global faithful suffer the agonies of guilt because they exist.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Green - of course

Well, this isn't really surprising is it? Do you think anyone much cares what you're going to do?

Someday it just might be that somebody will be telling you how much fuel you get to use, how much food you get to consume and what kind of food that is, how much water you're allowed, where and how you will live...

I wish I was wrong. For now - you can't prove that I am. Information and real world evidence is on my side. Sucks for all of us

a reply to: jrod

I am not laughing at the destruction of the planet at all....I am laughing at YOU!

Think of the billions of dollars that have been spent installing windfarms....money that could have been spend cleaning plastics out of the ocean.

Think of the billions of dollars spent turning agricultural land from food production to biofuel and consider the money that could have been spent reclaiming contaminated hot spots.

Think of the billions of dollars that have been spent on real environmental gains.

Have you no foresight - do you not think of the children??/

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: syrinx high priest

that last line coming out is sooooooo ominous

It really is -

If you watch the data progress you can see that the temperature goes up and down even while it continues to rise steadily over the years

Let's just hope we get a few more years inside that 1.5 mark - though - we're seeing the affects of all of it now

We need to come to grips with this and begin making adjustments

But, people - what're ya gonna do?

living in the northeast USA, all I have been able to do is insulate my house better and tell everyone who will listen to get an energy audit.

China is the elephant in the room. they burn soooooo much coal. I was encouraged they participated in the talks, but they don't have a great history of putting the earth ahead of economics.

a reply to: syrinx high priest

Let's face it - it's all talk now. Most of this is only going to be addressed when the worst of it is not only obvious but affecting people's ability to eat or have access to water

The rest of the people that are proactive and outspoken will be ridiculed just the same as Gore and many others were before it was even as acceptable as it is now

Human beings don't think about the future unless it's the future of money

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

oh trust me - the AGW supporters are very much thinking of money. They have nothing to sell to pay their mortgages except the theory of AGW.

The people who question AGW have real jobs and real products to sell.

But hey, if it makes you feel ethically superior - you go on and donate your paycheque. I hear Al Gore needs a new private jet.

Tired of Control Freaks