Mainstream scientists finally admit global warming has not occurred for 2 decades

originally posted by: Cinrad
Im not saying we should just burn all the coal and oil on the planet, but I would like to say to global warming (climate change) proponents "you don't know everything and not everybody who disagrees with you is and idiot or a criminal"

And yet, that's exactly what this thread accomplished.

You thoroughly misrepresented the article in the OP, suggesting either poor reading comprehension or deliberate dishonesty.

Another day, another "skeptical" climate thread reinforcing the stereotype that global warming skeptics are either idiots or criminals.

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: thesearchfortruth
a reply to: Cinrad

You seem a little off on this....

The article says...

The near two-decade long "pause" in rising average global surface temperatures was a "distraction" that did not change long term model predictions of a much hotter world this century

www.pressreader.com...

I think the fact that their model did not predict this pause speaks volumes about their 'research'. It says two things: Either what many folks have said is true, that is: Global Warming is a political scandal,

False, except that one side is trynig to turn it into a scandal that doesn't exist.

or their are faults in their research.

Sort of---the atmospheric models did not include most accurate coupling to large-scale ocean circulation and storage. (It's very very hard)

The models of the forcing were bang on right.

The people who do climate research for real, honestly, were and still are much more right about it than anybody else.

Both say that global warming is not as bad as the global warming doom porn advocates would have.

Sigh.

www.nodc.noaa.gov...

The ocean, not the atmosphere or land takes 80-90% of the heat capacity. It's barreling straight up, no "pause". It's the BEST physical measurement of heat flux changes. It's taking up the heat, and may deposit it back into the atmosphere over years/decades.

There is more research to be understood, theoretically and experimentally about what will happen to patterns of ocean circulation and heat transfer in the new situation not observed in the recent historical record, and that is a major subject of climate research. The decrease in equatorial to polar temperature differences (as poles warm more than equator relatively) will decrease certain kinds of circulation and winds which may have large effects on weather and then to ocean circulation as well.

It is not lost on some of you that man is polluting but the powers that be want to control us theme is ever obvious to me.

I know we can all find something to support our feelings one way or another but i would say this might enlighten both sides

www.skepticalscience.com...

this key quote caught my attention

"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."


Sure you can bash the skeptical science site but the 4000 ppmv is what is important and we are 1/10th of that with 400 being the most in centuries.

Listen to the real scientist who are in the IPCC here contradict the summary in "AN inconsistent truth".

www.youtube.com...

I watched it and there is some attempt at humor in here but for sure you can use the YOUTUBE marker to skip around to see the meetings of Al Gore with Congress , the avoidance of real debate at all in the media with the "believers" verses the "deniers" and the very important interviews with various climate scientist stating point blank their data was basically hijacked in the conclusions. They state that while there IS SOME evidence of man made changes it is not very significant.

SO, I conclude that it is not worth it to pursue a Carbon tax that enriches the few, allows criminal money laundering to the cronies of the current regime in power for those in solar cell manufacturing that starts up and takes millions and then they ignore the Hydrogen car i keep sharing in these threads.

But we really should concentrate our Environmental efforts on Mercury and Arsenic type of pollution that DOES cause us harm.

Any fact-based takes on this?
stevengoddard.wordpress.com...

I'm not qualified to evaluate and too confused to know what's what anymore on the subject.

a reply to: mbkennel

I think volcanic activity might better explain this graph of energy affect listed as 10 to the 22nd Joules, than CO2 forcing would. Throw in the geological data for cyclical warming and cooling and I have some reason to have serious doubt. At this point we all should ultimately question if we can trust that the NASA agenda is not skewed by politics.

originally posted by: anno141
Any fact-based takes on this?
stevengoddard.wordpress.com...

I'm not qualified to evaluate and too confused to know what's what anymore on the subject.

The data appears to show very reasonable changes in Degrees C here. Another key point the data shows correlation to being under the range of statistical error calculations which means it is truly insignificant change based on obervations in the big picture of the Earths climate. Might explain why they were caught "tweeking" the data.

Magnetic Pole shifts catch my attention as to the cause in the apparent shifts of weather patterns and these shifts did not fit the predictions so much they changed the name to climate change.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

www.mnn.com...

originally posted by: here4this
a reply to: Greven
See , thats what is driving this whole thing. Evidence can be posted for , and then someone will deny it and post something else.I go deeper on this subject than numbers or what someone "says". Numbers can be altered , people lie to get what they want. I want to know how "carbon tax credits" going to a company backed by politicians and ex-politicians (you know who I am talking about) is going to save the world ? Even our current President is a mega stock holder.Billions in cash to them ? From the lower and middle class families of the world . Now , who stands to gain all these billions? It isnt the GW Deniers' club. Does anyone stop and think about that ? If you had invested millions in an "investment" and stood to gain billions worldwide from it , would you continue to press the idea no matter what ? Yes. Didn't Al Gore state that the Ice Caps would be melted by last year ? The GW crowd is getting desperate as the data fails them. All they see is all that money going away.And as far as that goes , if I though for an instant (and I dont) they would actually utilize that money to improve the world in some way I would not be against it . But they wont . Not one penny. This is just their greed showing its face in one more way . The old saying goes (and it is an absolute must in this case) "Follow the money"
"Nuff Said"

Well stated and accurate. The only thing I would change for me is that even if the money was going toward improving things, I wouldn't support it. If they benefit in any way from lies and actions, they will continue those lies and actions. I'm so sick of being lied to by my government. As a smart woman once said "my government has forgotten their place". Ours has not only forgot, but have made a whole system of screwing us all.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I could not have said it better.

They think they are our rulers and that we should give in and let them rule as if naked, and we are not supposed to notice their nakedness.

originally posted by: Cinrad
This is the frankest admission yet that the Earth has not been warming for the last 2 decades, and they don't know why not.

Article

After rejecting its existence for years, climate scientists have in ­recent years proposed a wide range of factors to explain it,

The paper also suggests that decadal climate oscillations were not pushing heat into the deep oceans, another explanation for the “missing heat”

Im not saying we should just burn all the coal and oil on the planet, but I would like to say to global warming (climate change) proponents "you don't know everything and not everybody who disagrees with you is and idiot or a criminal"

You've linked a paywalled article.. Go directly to jail, do not pass go.

a reply to: Justoneman

You understand that the quote you used was labeled a climate myth on the site you linked it from? Go back and look at it again.

a reply to: Kali74

Do you yet understand that the theories presented as facts by the Climate Change Team, constantly leave massive gaps and are curiously lead by people whom NEVER tell the truth but tell spun stories ??

Really there is no point at all in listening to anything they have to say, the science they use is enough to show us that.

I will wait for someone to prove why the models they have presented are so badly flawed because we need more time to see it.

These models, are CLEARLY presented like a new religion, something could be going on but sure as hell they will not let anyone actually try and find out the WHOLE truth.

a reply to: ParasuvO

I don't care for word salad.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Justoneman

You understand that the quote you used was labeled a climate myth on the site you linked it from? Go back and look at it again.

And what "myth" would that be in your opinon? I am open to honest review.

a reply to: Justoneman

And what "myth" would that be in your opinon? I am open to honest review.

Are you playing with a full deck today?

You said this

this key quote caught my attention

"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."

Did you not read any further?

To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.

Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."

What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.

Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.

In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.

Hey did you catch the part where the sun was dimmer back then. Everything I have read said it was about 4% dimmer to give you an idea the difference between summer and winter is about 3% so higher c02 back then kept the planet from freezing over those same levels today would mean certain extinction.

a reply to: Justoneman

My opinion aside... it's the opinion of the site you linked.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Whatever you are talking about? I have showed why i believe this way and backed it with data. You appear to be cherry picking ad ready to throw any out who don't think like you as being some kind of fool. What about the scientist from the IPCC disputing the conclusions? You have fallen for lies and are willing to continue in the process. Check these scientist out in that youtube.

a reply to: Justoneman

You seem to be the one cherry picking here. You posted a piece from skeptical science but left out the important part.

Ae you having a hard time comprehending what it said or did you purposely cherry pick the argument part leaving out the explanation? That would be on par with the OP.


BTW I had to add to my post because it got cut off while pasting so re-look at my post to you.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Ok so i picked the data that is from a historical standpoint prior to the data from the tweekers with an agenda.

I have seen a trend of ignoring past data, ignoring real ideas that save the planet and seeing the Feds givie money to people who get to walk away from their failures rich.

I see Al Gore nor Bill Nye debating the scientist in dispute with their "facts".

I show you how i came to my conclusion and i have very good reasons, which some of them are stated above in this post, to doubt the media and the people they send out to tell us CO2 is the cause.

I understand that those huge amounts of CO2 were hard on animal life from those periods but the data shows high CO2 AND glacial cycles. Thus it was the reason i chose hat information.

Keeping my head in the sand has never been for me. I look around and see what is going on and after I see lies, I feel compelled to wonder why? My skepticism is based on studying these materials for decades. Watching the media trot out those that are pooh poohing the data that contradicts the lie is their tried and true way of stifling the scientific debate is how this game is working.

The models we work with in air data analysis in my office can't predict pollution further than a few days just like the weather data on TV can't. Virtually no one in my office full of scientist reviewing real data, believes an iota of this CO2 claim, Except those fresh out of the brainwashing in college. Because we studied when the data was not lied about and we could trust our professors. I have good reasons based on tried science, to come to these conclusions and welcome open debate of my scholars verses Al Gores scholars.

a reply to: Cinrad

First of all, that is not what the free article said (I don't know what the pay walled article says). Then there are all of these things to consider, because this is a complicated issue:

1. Politics is always involved on both sides of this issue. The ones with the most money at stake by many times over are the oil companies. Guess who I am willing to trust more, in general? Not the ones supporting the oil companies.

2. This "pause" is only a pause if you start looking at it around the year 2000, when there was a local spike in temperature. If you smooth out that spike to get a general trend, the "pause" largely goes away.

3. There have been many reports of the ocean temperature taking the heat. That has not been discounted.

4. The charts showing the CO2 trailing the heating are based on ice core samples. However, there is a lag as to when the extra CO2 is deposited in the ice, making the lag of CO2 nonexistent and the charts possibly wrong.

5. More people are starting to wake up to the fact that some geo-engineering has been taking place in the form of military chemtrails, which undoubtedly affects the temperature recorded by our monitoring devices. This mucks everything up, possibly intentionally and especially affects the debate, since chemtrails are still considered controversial by many people, in spite of the whistleblowers that have surfaced.

6. The long term history of Earth's temperature changes says that we should be in a cooling phase. This is being offset by global warming. When that normal cooling phase ends, we are likely to see the global temperature rise much more quickly.

7. The placement of our monitoring stations near population centers has affected the charts. Scientists have tried to use various methods to compensate for the resulting unreliability of the data, but some of those methods are not the best. This is a difficult problem.

8. Even if there was a real pause, that is no excuse to continue to pour more CO2 into the atmosphere. There are more serious things here than temperature. In particular, the acidification of the oceans by the CO2 threatens to kill off much of our sea creatures and those who depend on them for food. The change in salt concentration due to changes in the melting of glaciers causes changes in currents which threaten to disrupt the weather in certain locales.

9. Reports of increasing Arctic sea ice are offset by more reliable reports saying the exact opposite. I see a lot of cherry picking going on.

a reply to: Justoneman


You as a person that is ignoring data claiming there is a trend of ignoring past data is ironically priceless.

You are not debating science at this point you are simply arguing your opinion which is not backed up by the science.

You already admitted that you cherry pick from science that suits you while ignoring other science.

I know that trying to debate someone who does that is about as fruitful as playing chess with pigeons. You are a step above some of your compatriots in my book though because by you being honest about being intellectually dishonest has saved me the time and effort of coming to that conclusion on my own so I thank you for not wasting my time.