Jump to content

Global Warming Pause May Disappear.


AFTiger

Recommended Posts

I'd say someone overstepped their bounds. Lock it down mods.....personal attacks and degrading comments about ones academic standing as it relates to a subject like this is irresponsible and not at all the actions represented in the Auburn Creed. This crap needs to stop now!

Don't see it, at least not the personal attacks and questioning their knowledge within their respective field. It's a valid criticism. I'd react much the same way if a theoretical physicist claimed he was able to do your job. A civil engineer != climatologist. Period.

You guys are swinging and missing. He wasn't claiming to know anything about climate. He claimed to work with the model types they were using. Unless you are outright calling the guy a liar, you need to go back and read his post again. #13 in this thread.

Not so.

He was talking about modeling in general. He projected his experience with (relatively) small scale modeling on "air dispersion" to the nature of current climatological models (which aren't even relevent to the topic of this thread, which is about history, not models).

In short, he set himself up as an expert, threw out a few red herrings, then proclaimed the consensus of current Climatological and related sciences are an "insult" to his (presumably engineering) profession. :-\/>

He is now reaping what he sowed.

Yeah.....that's not childish in the least. What little respect I had for you is gone (not that you'd give a damn). Same old tactics that you love to use. Instead of disagreeing (respectfully) you try to turn it into some BS competition. Sow that jackass.

Apparently, I am not "politically correct" enough to suit you.

Or maybe you would prefer soft ball?

This has nothing to do with PC. This is homer doing what homer does when homer doesn't like the information provided. You decided to slam the guy by going after his area of expertise. That's not PC....that's demeaning and irresponsible.

Yeah, just like you are addressing the particulars huh? :-\

You don't like my style but you aren't able to address substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 384
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Are there differences in immediate and localized effects of pollution versus broad and cumulative effects? If so, would this apply to the views of a civil engineer versus those of a climatologist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, science is something proven. Let me explain what calling global warming "science" sounds like to me. Remember when Bush put up the banner that read "Mission Accomplished"? You libs with the blinders on should understand that comparison.

Please explain what science is and isn't to these guys:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html#.VXXc5M9VhBd

I am sure they will be very grateful for having you straighten them out. :-\

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, science is something proven. Let me explain what calling global warming "science" sounds like to me. Remember when Bush put up the banner that read "Mission Accomplished"? You libs with the blinders on should understand that comparison.

Please explain what science is and isn't to these guys:

http://climate.nasa....ific-consensus/

http://opr.ca.gov/s_...ganizations.php

http://www.ucsusa.or...ml#.VXXc5M9VhBd

I am sure they will be very grateful for having you straighten them out. :-\

When he/she claimed superior knowledge, I was okay with it. However, the use of, "you libs", sounds a lot more political than scientific. I hate the political side of this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was to be classified it would be as a Political Conservative but like most Americans on individual issues I don't always match what would be expected from basic views. Global Warming is one. I do believe Global warming is occurring and I do believe that man is responsible for some of it. I am on the fence as to whether some of the warming is normal cyclic changes as while our science has progressed climate change is a very complex issue and our Models don't always take in enough variables so while I believe they are correct in the general direction I don't necessarily agree with the speed that they project.

The reason I have my doubts in reading papers from both sides I have seen a bias where one side won't address legitimate criticism of the other side. The people on the no Global Warming side have mentioned multiple times that some of the land based stations are no longer valid to use in comparison as they are no longer like to like. Initially these stations were in rural areas no buildings and no concrete around them as population has grown some on now in Suburbs or outskirts of the city where local variables skew the results. Some type of weight needs to be used when comparing temp readings for sites that are in basically the same environmental location versus where the environmental location has changed.

The ones who don't believe there is any Global warming will focus on one thing like over last few years the change didn't match what was predicted so the whole model must be wrong.

Finally I am sad to say maybe because of ego or because they want to re-enforce their views there have been people on both sides who have skewed the results to fit their views. When caught this gives the other side ammunition in the fight for their viewpoint. Ideally Science should be sacrosanct but sadly science is done by people who are not perfect and sometimes have agendas.

There is enough evidence that there has been change in the temperature of the ocean and that we have higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere that there has to be some correlation but how much and how bad of an issue it is and if the Planet itself can find a way to balance it has still not been determined.

Well stated. :thumbsup:

I can completely respect this. I also feel the same way in regards to how each side finds their ammo. Both sides are going at it the wrong way no matter who is right or wrong. I can say that if a few years of modeling data is wrong then the whole thing is wrong - it is just one of 2 problems. Is it the model or the data. I would simply argue the model based on what I know of how models work and how the data is gathered and used.

If you want my political perspective - I would be a fiscal conservative. Homer really liked me when I first started posting on here and we were on the same side of OTC PlanB and birth control debating Titan Tiger. Then I posted in another thread where I was on the opposite side with Titan. Suddenly, I was just dumb engineer. Its tough when you dont see politics as AUvsUA.

I don't tailor my posts to how well I "like" someone. I tailor my posts to what someone else has posted. I am supportive - or not - based on content.

I will admit in responding in kind when it comes to style. If someone cops an arrogant attitude - especially when based in ignorance - I will reflect it in my response.

But even so, I don't think I could ever match the arrogance of "the science is an insult to my profession". That's just totally over-the-top in absurdity.

Let's see. '09. That puts you south of 30 years old, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am happy that you are so well educated in this field that you are able to state my expertise in the field. My knowledge regarding climatology is far greater than "narrow" - thank you. Climatology is not a high level advanced course that no one understands. I can do a climatologists job. They probably could not do mine. The air dispersion models I work with are far advanced from what goes in to climate models.

Go educate yourself and debate me on my points --> www.google.com

I would advise avoiding facebook for your data.

Fine. Let's parse your statements and discuss the science behind them, then.

All of the data showing doom and gloom in the future is based on modeling.

There are other factors. Increased acidification of the ocean and glacial melt and the corresponding rise in sea levels, for a few.

...These are all places that suffer the heat island effect. Now that you have added more receptors in areas that are always warmer than places like Auburn and you are averaging these in with old receptors....guess what.....Warming Trends! This is the data they are using....

How do you explain the corresponding observed warming trend on rural temperature receptors, the ocean and the troposphere?

Even to this day when the models they have are provided data from our known past history of over 30 years the range of temperatures provided by the models are COMPLETELY outside the actual range.

News to me:

7320A925-42AC-4E4E-8287-CDF5613A642C_zpsnotccyii.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am actually 32. But close. I am sorry you have such a hatred for engineers. You should try listening to them sometime.

I read the links you posted. The California link we can toss out. For all we know - one paper could have been published and they claim a victory.

The NASA link is the interesting one. First things first - take every association or academy with "climate change" in the name and toss it out. They make their money on this topic and are pretty far from unbiased. The IPCC is the worst of them. They cherry pick which reports they want to present. I have attended lectures from those included and those excluded. Those that were included support their theory. Those excluded either said data was inconclusive or cast doubt on man-made climate change. Several of the associations listed are credible, well respected, and knowledgeable on the topic. If you actually read what they are saying though it is a lot of fluff for bandwagon effect. Many of the sites listed simply say they they support someone else findings. Not based on their own research, but the corporate heads simply gave a thumbs up. Not the concrete evidence an engineer looks for when determining what should be called science. To point one of the associations out "American Association for the Advancement of Science" - check out their bio.

"However, AAAS's permanence was not preordained and, despite the many contributions it made during its first 50 years, the Association came close to extinction more than once. Ultimately, an alliance with Science magazine, which had failed as a private venture, rejuvenated both the magazine and AAAS."

Two failed ventures trying to stay afloat. I am willing to bet you can find a money trail in there.

Your third link is a copy of the second link. If you google something to post you should at least review it for relevance and addition to the argument. Engineering 101

Once again, I am sorry I have experience in this field and my views go against your team, but a hot headed keyboard rant does not exactly make it sound like you are even trying to have an opinion outside of what your team feeds you. Try being supportive - or not - based on content. Not political lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say someone overstepped their bounds. Lock it down mods.....personal attacks and degrading comments about ones academic standing as it relates to a subject like this is irresponsible and not at all the actions represented in the Auburn Creed. This crap needs to stop now!

Don't see it, at least not the personal attacks and questioning their knowledge within their respective field. It's a valid criticism. I'd react much the same way if a theoretical physicist claimed he was able to do your job. A civil engineer != climatologist. Period.

You guys are swinging and missing. He wasn't claiming to know anything about climate. He claimed to work with the model types they were using. Unless you are outright calling the guy a liar, you need to go back and read his post again. #13 in this thread.

Not so.

He was talking about modeling in general. He projected his experience with (relatively) small scale modeling on "air dispersion" to the nature of current climatological models (which aren't even relevent to the topic of this thread, which is about history, not models).

In short, he set himself up as an expert, threw out a few red herrings, then proclaimed the consensus of current Climatological and related sciences are an "insult" to his (presumably engineering) profession. :-\/>

He is now reaping what he sowed.

Yeah.....that's not childish in the least. What little respect I had for you is gone (not that you'd give a damn). Same old tactics that you love to use. Instead of disagreeing (respectfully) you try to turn it into some BS competition. Sow that jackass.

Apparently, I am not "politically correct" enough to suit you.

Or maybe you would prefer soft ball?

This has nothing to do with PC. This is homer doing what homer does when homer doesn't like the information provided. You decided to slam the guy by going after his area of expertise. That's not PC....that's demeaning and irresponsible.

Yeah, just like you are addressing the particulars huh? :-\

You don't like my style but you aren't able to address substance.

The substance is you are a complete ideological train wreck who waits like a house cat for the mouse to come out of the hole in the baseboard. Given the opportunity you pounce. But like most house cats you've been fed 9 lives and don't know what else to do with the mouse once it's been caught. It's not a "style"....it's a personality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, science is something proven. Let me explain what calling global warming "science" sounds like to me. Remember when Bush put up the banner that read "Mission Accomplished"? You libs with the blinders on should understand that comparison.

Please explain what science is and isn't to these guys:

http://climate.nasa....ific-consensus/

http://opr.ca.gov/s_...ganizations.php

http://www.ucsusa.or...ml#.VXXc5M9VhBd

I am sure they will be very grateful for having you straighten them out. :-\

When he/she claimed superior knowledge, I was okay with it. However, the use of, "you libs", sounds a lot more political than scientific. I hate the political side of this discussion.

The political arm of the Global Warming front is the reason for a lot of the lies and backlash. It can also be said of the political arm of big business and their Republican puppets. My problem with the entire thing is the seamstress from starsville teaching us all on the ins and outs of Hypocrite 101. Like I've said before....just another Equus Asinus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am actually 32. But close. I am sorry you have such a hatred for engineers. You should try listening to them sometime.

I read the links you posted. The California link we can toss out. For all we know - one paper could have been published and they claim a victory.

The NASA link is the interesting one. First things first - take every association or academy with "climate change" in the name and toss it out. They make their money on this topic and are pretty far from unbiased. The IPCC is the worst of them. They cherry pick which reports they want to present. I have attended lectures from those included and those excluded. Those that were included support their theory. Those excluded either said data was inconclusive or cast doubt on man-made climate change. Several of the associations listed are credible, well respected, and knowledgeable on the topic. If you actually read what they are saying though it is a lot of fluff for bandwagon effect. Many of the sites listed simply say they they support someone else findings. Not based on their own research, but the corporate heads simply gave a thumbs up. Not the concrete evidence an engineer looks for when determining what should be called science. To point one of the associations out "American Association for the Advancement of Science" - check out their bio.

"However, AAAS's permanence was not preordained and, despite the many contributions it made during its first 50 years, the Association came close to extinction more than once. Ultimately, an alliance with Science magazine, which had failed as a private venture, rejuvenated both the magazine and AAAS."

Two failed ventures trying to stay afloat. I am willing to bet you can find a money trail in there.

Your third link is a copy of the second link. If you google something to post you should at least review it for relevance and addition to the argument. Engineering 101

Once again, I am sorry I have experience in this field and my views go against your team, but a hot headed keyboard rant does not exactly make it sound like you are even trying to have an opinion outside of what your team feeds you. Try being supportive - or not - based on content. Not political lines.

Obfuscating about the particular links aside, can you name one major scientific organization or society that has not accepted AGW as valid science?

Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists revised their position in 2007.

And again, I don't care what sort of experience you claim you have "in this field". It is obvious from your general statements dismissing the science wholesale that reveals you don't really have a clue about what you are talking about.

Finally I don't "hate" engineers. I once hired an engineer for a non-engineering position because I thought his background would be helpful. And the best boss I ever worked for was an engineer.

But my lengthy experience in working with engineers in general - particularly the glibly confident ones - has taught me to be very skeptical of their views until they have proven themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say someone overstepped their bounds. Lock it down mods.....personal attacks and degrading comments about ones academic standing as it relates to a subject like this is irresponsible and not at all the actions represented in the Auburn Creed. This crap needs to stop now!

Don't see it, at least not the personal attacks and questioning their knowledge within their respective field. It's a valid criticism. I'd react much the same way if a theoretical physicist claimed he was able to do your job. A civil engineer != climatologist. Period.

You guys are swinging and missing. He wasn't claiming to know anything about climate. He claimed to work with the model types they were using. Unless you are outright calling the guy a liar, you need to go back and read his post again. #13 in this thread.

Not so.

He was talking about modeling in general. He projected his experience with (relatively) small scale modeling on "air dispersion" to the nature of current climatological models (which aren't even relevent to the topic of this thread, which is about history, not models).

In short, he set himself up as an expert, threw out a few red herrings, then proclaimed the consensus of current Climatological and related sciences are an "insult" to his (presumably engineering) profession. :-\/>

He is now reaping what he sowed.

Yeah.....that's not childish in the least. What little respect I had for you is gone (not that you'd give a damn). Same old tactics that you love to use. Instead of disagreeing (respectfully) you try to turn it into some BS competition. Sow that jackass.

Apparently, I am not "politically correct" enough to suit you.

Or maybe you would prefer soft ball?

This has nothing to do with PC. This is homer doing what homer does when homer doesn't like the information provided. You decided to slam the guy by going after his area of expertise. That's not PC....that's demeaning and irresponsible.

Yeah, just like you are addressing the particulars huh? :-\

You don't like my style but you aren't able to address substance.

The substance is you are a complete ideological train wreck who waits like a house cat for the mouse to come out of the hole in the baseboard. Given the opportunity you pounce. But like most house cats you've been fed 9 lives and don't know what else to do with the mouse once it's been caught. It's not a "style"....it's a personality.

If it makes you uncomfortable, I suggest you skip over my posts.

As for me taking advantage of stupid posts, take it up with the mice, not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think these guys were prepared for an actual expert to come in here.

*Self-proclaimed

Let's hear his response to post #82 before his coronation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the problem with this discussion. Global warming based on suspect data is science but showing that data is suspect is anti-science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, science is something proven. Let me explain what calling global warming "science" sounds like to me. Remember when Bush put up the banner that read "Mission Accomplished"? You libs with the blinders on should understand that comparison.

Please explain what science is and isn't to these guys:

http://climate.nasa....ific-consensus/

http://opr.ca.gov/s_...ganizations.php

http://www.ucsusa.or...ml#.VXXc5M9VhBd

I am sure they will be very grateful for having you straighten them out. :-\

When he/she claimed superior knowledge, I was okay with it. However, the use of, "you libs", sounds a lot more political than scientific. I hate the political side of this discussion.

The political arm of the Global Warming front is the reason for a lot of the lies and backlash. It can also be said of the political arm of big business and their Republican puppets. My problem with the entire thing is the seamstress from starsville teaching us all on the ins and outs of Hypocrite 101. Like I've said before....just another Equus Asinus

Disagree with this part. I did not think Homer was rude in questioning the credentials of a civil engineer in regard to his expertise in climatology. He may have been a little over-the-top with his rant about engineers in general but, I think he would admit that justified, or not, that was opinion built on some bias. IMHO, it appeared more like you were "quick to pass judgement" or, at least as quick.

Homer is typically a thoughtful poster even if he is a liberal, hippie, tree-hugger.

Anyhow, I hate the arguing about arguing but, I will take up for Homer, or you, if I think either of you are not being treated fairly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think these guys were prepared for an actual expert to come in here.

*Self-proclaimed

Let's hear his response to post #82 before his coronation.

I will absolutely answer your questions after I finish at work. I appreciate some constructive debate! You have 2 questions and 1 statement. I will get back to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think these guys were prepared for an actual expert to come in here.

*Self-proclaimed

Let's hear his response to post #82 before his coronation.

I will absolutely answer your questions after I finish at work. I appreciate some constructive debate! You have 2 questions and 1 statement. I will get back to you.

Take your time. No urgency. I'm just sitting here running through an alarm cycle on a hypo/hyperthermia system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, science is something proven. Let me explain what calling global warming "science" sounds like to me. Remember when Bush put up the banner that read "Mission Accomplished"? You libs with the blinders on should understand that comparison.

Please explain what science is and isn't to these guys:

http://climate.nasa....ific-consensus/

http://opr.ca.gov/s_...ganizations.php

http://www.ucsusa.or...ml#.VXXc5M9VhBd

I am sure they will be very grateful for having you straighten them out. :-\

When he/she claimed superior knowledge, I was okay with it. However, the use of, "you libs", sounds a lot more political than scientific. I hate the political side of this discussion.

The political arm of the Global Warming front is the reason for a lot of the lies and backlash. It can also be said of the political arm of big business and their Republican puppets. My problem with the entire thing is the seamstress from starsville teaching us all on the ins and outs of Hypocrite 101. Like I've said before....just another Equus Asinus

Disagree with this part. I did not think Homer was rude in questioning the credentials of a civil engineer in regard to his expertise in climatology. He may have been a little over-the-top with his rant about engineers in general but, I think he would admit that justified, or not, that was opinion built on some bias. IMHO, it appeared more like you were "quick to pass judgement" or, at least as quick.

Homer is typically a thoughtful poster even if he is a liberal, hippie, tree-hugger.

Anyhow, I hate the arguing about arguing but, I will take up for Homer, or you, if I think either of you are not being treated fairly.

"even if"....? :dunno:

I've always thought liberal, hippie, tree-huggers were thoughtful. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, science is something proven. Let me explain what calling global warming "science" sounds like to me. Remember when Bush put up the banner that read "Mission Accomplished"? You libs with the blinders on should understand that comparison.

Please explain what science is and isn't to these guys:

http://climate.nasa....ific-consensus/

http://opr.ca.gov/s_...ganizations.php

http://www.ucsusa.or...ml#.VXXc5M9VhBd

I am sure they will be very grateful for having you straighten them out. :-\/>

When he/she claimed superior knowledge, I was okay with it. However, the use of, "you libs", sounds a lot more political than scientific. I hate the political side of this discussion.

The political arm of the Global Warming front is the reason for a lot of the lies and backlash. It can also be said of the political arm of big business and their Republican puppets. My problem with the entire thing is the seamstress from starsville teaching us all on the ins and outs of Hypocrite 101. Like I've said before....just another Equus Asinus

Disagree with this part. I did not think Homer was rude in questioning the credentials of a civil engineer in regard to his expertise in climatology. He may have been a little over-the-top with his rant about engineers in general but, I think he would admit that justified, or not, that was opinion built on some bias. IMHO, it appeared more like you were "quick to pass judgement" or, at least as quick.

Homer is typically a thoughtful poster even if he is a liberal, hippie, tree-hugger.

Anyhow, I hate the arguing about arguing but, I will take up for Homer, or you, if I think either of you are not being treated fairly.

Respectfully disagree about homerstarsville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, science is something proven. Let me explain what calling global warming "science" sounds like to me. Remember when Bush put up the banner that read "Mission Accomplished"? You libs with the blinders on should understand that comparison.

Please explain what science is and isn't to these guys:

http://climate.nasa....ific-consensus/

http://opr.ca.gov/s_...ganizations.php

http://www.ucsusa.or...ml#.VXXc5M9VhBd

I am sure they will be very grateful for having you straighten them out. :-\/>

When he/she claimed superior knowledge, I was okay with it. However, the use of, "you libs", sounds a lot more political than scientific. I hate the political side of this discussion.

The political arm of the Global Warming front is the reason for a lot of the lies and backlash. It can also be said of the political arm of big business and their Republican puppets. My problem with the entire thing is the seamstress from starsville teaching us all on the ins and outs of Hypocrite 101. Like I've said before....just another Equus Asinus

Disagree with this part. I did not think Homer was rude in questioning the credentials of a civil engineer in regard to his expertise in climatology. He may have been a little over-the-top with his rant about engineers in general but, I think he would admit that justified, or not, that was opinion built on some bias. IMHO, it appeared more like you were "quick to pass judgement" or, at least as quick.

Homer is typically a thoughtful poster even if he is a liberal, hippie, tree-hugger.

Anyhow, I hate the arguing about arguing but, I will take up for Homer, or you, if I think either of you are not being treated fairly.

Respectfully disagree about homerstarsville.

Certainly your right but, I should remind you that the only times you have ever been wrong, were the times when we did not agree. :poke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you go.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Sorry I do not have time for a further explanation, but I have met and attended lectures from Dr. Spencer. He is where I got my start. He uses real unfiltered data and is at the forefront of climate research. His stories shed light on just how shady the IPCC really is. Enjoy. I can explain in more detail at a later time

I am happy that you are so well educated in this field that you are able to state my expertise in the field. My knowledge regarding climatology is far greater than "narrow" - thank you. Climatology is not a high level advanced course that no one understands. I can do a climatologists job. They probably could not do mine. The air dispersion models I work with are far advanced from what goes in to climate models.

Go educate yourself and debate me on my points --> www.google.com

I would advise avoiding facebook for your data.

Fine. Let's parse your statements and discuss the science behind them, then.

All of the data showing doom and gloom in the future is based on modeling.

There are other factors. Increased acidification of the ocean and glacial melt and the corresponding rise in sea levels, for a few. Neither of these point towards global warming. Glacial melt is another overstated term. Our ice caps have actually grown recently. This has been cyclical for centuries since the end of the ice age. Both of these could be another debate.

...These are all places that suffer the heat island effect. Now that you have added more receptors in areas that are always warmer than places like Auburn and you are averaging these in with old receptors....guess what.....Warming Trends! This is the data they are using....

How do you explain the corresponding observed warming trend on rural temperature receptors, the ocean and the troposphere? There is no warming trend shown on rural receptors. The ocean is ever so slightly warmer - read more on Roy's page for the answer on why. Also, he discusses the Troposphere. The mysterious hot spots you are referring to have never been seen or recorded.

Even to this day when the models they have are provided data from our known past history of over 30 years the range of temperatures provided by the models are COMPLETELY outside the actual range.

News to me: This is from the IPCC - the one place you question more than any. They are extremely picky on the work they use and cherry pick EVERYTHING they use. Their entire existence is based on global warming being real. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/ refer here again for some actual data

7320A925-42AC-4E4E-8287-CDF5613A642C_zpsnotccyii.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A follower of Dr. Roy Spencer? :rolleyes:

Gee, I was even more right about you than I imagined. :no:

Down the rabbit hole we go. :glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you go.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Sorry I do not have time for a further explanation, but I have met and attended lectures from Dr. Spencer. He is where I got my start. He uses real unfiltered data and is at the forefront of climate research. His stories shed light on just how shady the IPCC really is. Enjoy. I can explain in more detail at a later time

Great. Here I was expecting your expertise and I get an argument from authority from a major crank with a persecution complex. The "official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show" no less. There's a reason I brought him up earlier when I mentioned cranks with PT. It's because I've encountered his nonsense before.

I like this off the wall ex-cathedra statement about "unfiltered" data, as if he's the only one looking at the "real" data. :rolleyes:

Neither of these point towards global warming.

Glacial retreat is an obvious indicator that the earth is warming.

The acidification is a key indicator of climate change. The ocean acts as a sink for excess CO2. Increases in atmospheric CO2 eventually leads to more acidic oceans. More acidic oceans aren't a good thing for life that evolved in oceans with a relatively steady pH over the last 50 million years. This kind of rapid ecological change historically leads to mass extinction events.

Glacial melt is another overstated term. Our ice caps have actually grown recently. This has been cyclical for centuries since the end of the ice age.

Nope.

Arctic sea ice and total global sea ice are currently at record lows.

Here's your silly "growth."

6FDC4D9C-DA26-4C17-8C3D-05863B999199_zpsqvdgvqdv.gifsource SKS

Now, Antarctica is in fact gaining sea ice, but there is a good explanation for this and it's very likely the effect is temporary. Even then, there has been a reduction in Antarctic land ice as the planet has warmed, and the gains do not offset the loss elsewhere on the globe.

Both of these could be another debate.

Probably so, but we started with the "pause," which never existed to begin with, and expanded from there. As good a place as any.

There is no warming trend shown on rural receptors.

As a matter of fact, the warming trend has been observed. Below is a graph comparing the trend of rural sites and urban sites adjusted so the temperature anomalies match.

57C87D33-4908-47F0-BC08-5120559A678C_zpsvxtwehlj.gifsource SKS

The Li et al. study is interesting because, given China's rapid economic growth within the last few decades, that's where you would expect the anomalies exhibit more divergence. They still match.

Here a closer look at the the Jones et al. 2008 study comparing the urban and rural sites.

F806BA36-FDC0-43D0-93AA-0BF37F3550E0_zps7t0hpfom.gifsource SKS

Without a doubt, the cities are warmer, but the trends are a near perfect match.

The ocean is ever so slightly warmer - read more on Roy's page for the answer on why.

Of course they're warming. Shoot, sea level rise itself is a thermometer. What we're seeing in the rise is perfectly consistent with the the oceans gaining energy.

Also, he discusses the Troposphere. The mysterious hot spots you are referring to have never been seen or recorded.

I haven't mentioned the hot spots. Don't know where you heard that. Intersting paper I found in response to the "hotspot," though.

Satellite data that he collaborated on with others like John Christy, his colleague at UAH and also a denialist (more specifically, a lukewarmer), that at first indicated a discrepancy has actually been adjusted, in part by Christy, and brought in line with the models. There were some flaws with the measuring equipment on the satellites. When properly adjusted, I t matches, even if he doggedly denies it. UAH data, (Christy,Spencer) have seen correction after correction, nearly all in the upward direction, and many errors discovered by others. How much can it be trusted?

This is from the IPCC - the one place you question more than any. They are extremely picky on the work they use and cherry pick EVERYTHING they use. Their entire existence is based on global warming being real. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/ refer here again for some actual data

So let's not focus on these models and focus on the source instead.

ETA: your provided link is dead.

ETA2: Cut off some spaces and it worked. Working link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...