Global Warming Pause May Disappear.

[Mims44 1,867]

Seriously, we all know global warming is a hoax, it's a scientific fact that jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

Seriously, we all know scientific fact is a hoax, it's a steel beam that global warming can't melt jet fuel.

Seriously, we all know jet fuel is a scientific fact, it's a hoax that steel beams can't melt global warming.

Seriously, we all know steel beams is a jet fuel, it's a global warming that hoax can't melt scientific fact.

[AUDub 11,147]

[homersapien 11,367]

Seriously, we all know global warming is a hoax, it's a scientific fact that jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

Seriously, we all know scientific fact is a hoax, it's a steel beam that global warming can't melt jet fuel.

Seriously, we all know jet fuel is a scientific fact, it's a hoax that steel beams can't melt global warming.

Seriously, we all know steel beams is a jet fuel, it's a global warming that hoax can't melt scientific fact.

Thank you, Franz.

[AUDub 11,147]

Stumbled across this. Interseting little cabal they got going on. Look at the cc on page 3.

[DKW 86 7,419]

And here we are back at ground zero once again.

Look, IF, and lets be very very very very generous here, IF the models were anything near sanity we wouldnt be having this discussion. The models that were championed by the Extremist Left were sssooo unbelievably in error that they are just buffoonery. The models we were assured were going to show how we were all gonna die in 1985 1995, 2005, 2015 or so were sacred. They could not be challenged at all even though they were sssooo grossly in error. When questions were asked about the contribution from sun spots, we were long windedly told that, oh stupid little people, the sun spot activity is a very minor contributor to global warming, afterall some unemployed cartoonist with a two-bit "troll everything in sight, alter posts made by real credentialed scientists" website told us so. Turns out now that it is a very significant part of the whole.

Anyway, AGW is a problem. Do we need to do something about it? Yes. Do we need to destroy the economies of all industrialized nations? Uh...NO! What we need to do is to start shifting away from fossil fuels. That is going to take some time. Breathlessly stopping life so can feel better about your crazy ideas that have been demonstrated to be in horrible error is just insane. Dr Spencer is one of the leading people in his field and has access to REAL UN-MOLESTED RAW DATA from the Latest-Most-Up-to-Date-Sources. He is not beholden financially to scaring the crap out of the civilized world for money. He didnt give us the "Looming Ice Age Scare" of the 1970-80s, etc.

If sanity is the problem i suggest you need to look at yourselves. Using the global ice cap, a statistic we only started collecting since 1980, is just garbage. 35 years of data is absolutely meaningless versus billions of years of existence. It is anti-science to even quote it as meaningful. 35 years is way too short a time to grasp any meaning from the data.

The shear chutzpah of trying to conflate the Extreme Lefty Lunacy of Trutherism with those on the Center-Right that question some details of AGW is just too fricking stupid for words. How do you blame the ANTI-SCIENCE of those on YOUR SIDE and SMEAR those opposite of you for your side's lunacy?

[AFTiger 282]

Again the scientist is attacked as a denier for providing science questioning the validity of the data.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Quoting Skeptical Science means that you are TRULY UNINFORMED AND YOU ARE NEVER TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY WITH A SCIENCE QUESTION.

[AUcivE09 582]

Look - I cant change peoples opinions who only want to believe what suits their political lines. I could sit here and trade google links with you all day and we would still be at the same place when all is said and done. The greatest point you can take away from all of this is that we have very little data for a grand view. Giving me graphs from a site called skeptical science is a joke. Maybe you do not agree with the guy I give a link for, but he explains very well what is going on and he can show you where his data comes from. This is probably a good reason you want to dismiss him just as much as me. You should go see him sometime and drill him with your questions. I would LOVE to watch that!

Just for fun:

Ocean acidification - not really - http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/pics7/193723_5_.jpg - people love using a report that was based off of data from 1989 forward instead of using the whole picture. Its a money trail thing. The guy won and award from John Kerry's wife and was taken as the be all of ocean acidification. This is the rest of his chart after using all available data. Not proof - but it cant be dismissed

Sea Ice - from your same site - http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ You could say its climate change reducing the northern ice, but what about the south? Is it possible it nature balancing itself? the antartic ice reflect more of the suns heat due to the fact it is larger and can grow larger because it is not land locked. Again, I am not just going to claim that this proves climate change wrong - but it cannot be dismissed that there is actually more ice on this planet now than a decade ago.

Rural warming - here you go - not from skeptic science - http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1189&context=natrespapers says the same thing I do

[AUDub 11,147]

Again the scientist is attacked as a denier for providing science questioning the validity of the data.

I do consider claims that raise questions about the validity of the models and data, if they are sound.

[Weegle777 78]

Again the scientist is attacked as a denier for providing science questioning the validity of the data.

I do consider claims that raise questions about the validity of the models and data, if they are sound. And,if and only if they line up with what I believe about the subject.

FIFY.

[AUDub 11,147]

Again the scientist is attacked as a denier for providing science questioning the validity of the data.

I do consider claims that raise questions about the validity of the models and data, if they are sound. And,if and only if they line up with what I believe about the subject.

FIFY.

Sure you did. Didn't even bother to see what the paper was about, did you?

[autigeremt 6,600]

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.

I'm good with that....at least you are being honest with me and yourself and respectful at the same time.

[homersapien 11,367]

Quoting Skeptical Science means that you are TRULY UNINFORMED AND YOU ARE NEVER TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY WITH A SCIENCE QUESTION.

In case you didn't realize it, Skeptical Science does not conduct research. As far as I know, not one person who writes or manages the Skeptical Science page has ever published a paper on climate change.

They are not presenting their own work.

What they are doing is explaining the false assumptions and statements on AGW using valid scientific research that has been published in peer-reviewed journals. It's the same body of work that persuaded all - and I mean "all" literally - of the professional associations listed earlier to issue position statements.

So if you want to dismiss Skeptical Science as a source of information, then you are by definition, rejecting every piece of scientific research on the subject.

And that's what deniers are all about.

[homersapien 11,367]

And here we are back at ground zero once again.

Look, IF, and lets be very very very very generous here, IF the models were anything near sanity we wouldnt be having this discussion. The models that were championed by the Extremist Left were sssooo unbelievably in error that they are just buffoonery. The models we were assured were going to show how we were all gonna die in 1985 1995, 2005, 2015 or so were sacred. They could not be challenged at all even though they were sssooo grossly in error. When questions were asked about the contribution from sun spots, we were long windedly told that, oh stupid little people, the sun spot activity is a very minor contributor to global warming, afterall some unemployed cartoonist with a two-bit "troll everything in sight, alter posts made by real credentialed scientists" website told us so. Turns out now that it is a very significant part of the whole.

Could you please just dismiss the models? You misrepresent what they say, but more importantly, they shouldn't be used as proof that AGW is occurring or not.

We have a history of actual data that does that.

And as Ben has demonstrated, the models as a congregate haven't been all that far off. Arguing about what this model or that model is predicting for the future is interesting if the subject it modeling, but in the final analysis, it really doesn't address what is actually happening.

So quit worrying about what the 1985 models predicted for 2015 and just focus on what actually happened.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

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.

I'm good with that....at least you are being honest with me and yourself and respectful at the same time.

That is ironic, at least to me. This is an issue on which I have to say, I honestly don't know. I just hope the only alternatives are not "denier" or, "alarmist". I am probably closer to alarmist than denier but, I think it is very telling when someone like Hawking doesn't list global warming in his top three threats to humankind.

[homersapien 11,367]

Anyway, AGW is a problem. Do we need to do something about it? Yes. Do we need to destroy the economies of all industrialized nations? Uh...NO! What we need to do is to start shifting away from fossil fuels. That is going to take some time. Breathlessly stopping life so can feel better about your crazy ideas that have been demonstrated to be in horrible error is just insane. Dr Spencer is one of the leading people in his field and has access to REAL UN-MOLESTED RAW DATA from the Latest-Most-Up-to-Date-Sources. He is not beholden financially to scaring the crap out of the civilized world for money. He didnt give us the "Looming Ice Age Scare" of the 1970-80s, etc.

You are really schizophrenic on this.

If your concern is "destroying the economies of all industrialized nations", then how can we best avoid that?

I would suggest the real danger to our petroleum based economy is the necessity of having to make a rapid transition to a non-petroleum based economy. The ultimate need to make the change is clear. The harm comes from how fast the change is made - the more gradual the transition, the less damage to the economy.

By kicking the can down the road and resisting measures to start effecting that change in the near term only increases the probability of having to make radical changes in a hurry. We cannot afford to use the remaining hydrocarbon resources in the ground without drastically effecting global temperature. The people making money off hydrocarbons would just as soon put off the necessary changes as long as possible. They are either in denial or they really don't care about future generations.

BTW, the only "real, unmolested raw data" (whatever that's suppose to mean) available to Spencer is his own. And as Ben pointed out, that data has undergone several revisions (aka, corrections), invariably upward.

Spencer has issues. He obviously imagined himself as the brilliant contrarian it hasn't turned out that way. Rather than accept the truth, he has chosen to react as if there is a conspiracy against him. The irony is even if his paper was dead-on accurate, it would do very little to refute AGW theory which is supported by a huge amount of data in various fields of research.

[AUDub 11,147]

Look - I cant change peoples opinions who only want to believe what suits their political lines. I could sit here and trade google links with you all day and we would still be at the same place when all is said and done. The greatest point you can take away from all of this is that we have very little data for a grand view. Giving me graphs from a site called skeptical science is a joke. Maybe you do not agree with the guy I give a link for, but he explains very well what is going on and he can show you where his data comes from. This is probably a good reason you want to dismiss him just as much as me. You should go see him sometime and drill him with your questions. I would LOVE to watch that!

Those graphs are sourced from perfectly valid studies. That you would dismiss them out of hand because you don't like who compiled them in one place shocks me not at all. If you want to dispute the data, that's fine. Let's do that.

And I have no interest in giving someone that considers me a Nazi and dismisses an entire field of science (biology) out of hand because of his religious views an interview, as I'm sure he can Gish-Gallop with the best of them. Most creationists can.

Ocean acidification - not really - http://www.climatech...7/193723_5_.jpg - people love using a report that was based off of data from 1989 forward instead of using the whole picture. Its a money trail thing. The guy won and award from John Kerry's wife and was taken as the be all of ocean acidification. This is the rest of his chart after using all available data. Not proof - but it cant be dismissed

It can be dismissed. What you've presented is a bastardized example of an analysis.

A global-ocean mean pH: what could possibly go wrong?

Consider what would happen if one simply took all available temperature data used this to estimate annual mean temperatures over the last 100 years, rather than calculating anomalies and gridding quality checked data. The result would obviously be nonsense. Changing geographical and seasonal biases in data availability, and incorrect data would corrupt the analysis. Wallace’s analysis suffers from exactly the same problems.

Sea Ice - from your same site - http://nsidc.org/arc...icenews/ You could say its climate change reducing the northern ice, but what about the south? Is it possible it nature balancing itself? the antartic ice reflect more of the suns heat due to the fact it is larger and can grow larger because it is not land locked.

If it's balancing itself, it's doing a horrible job. Antarctica has seen a gain. That is a weakly positive in contrast with the strong decline in Arctic sea ice extent.

source NSIDC

Again, I am not just going to claim that this proves climate change wrong - but it cannot be dismissed that there is actually more ice on this planet now than a decade ago.

OK. I'll walk that one back because I probably did yank that one directly out of my ass, especially in light of stumbling across this animation:

Rural warming - here you go - not from skeptic science - http://digitalcommon...spapers the same thing I do

Fixed link. Thanks for throwing an actual research paper at me. It's a nice change of pace. But does it say the same thing you do? If so, would you be so kind as to point it out? It does not appear to support your claim of "no warming trend shown on rural receptors."

[homersapien 11,367]

Again the scientist is attacked as a denier for providing science questioning the validity of the data.

Providing science questioning the validity of what data? Ocean temperature? Acidity levels? Polar ice? Surface temperature?

And how exactly could his satellite work cast doubt on data accumulated on so many completely different variables?

[homersapien 11,367]

If sanity is the problem i suggest you need to look at yourselves. Using the global ice cap, a statistic we only started collecting since 1980, is just garbage. 35 years of data is absolutely meaningless versus billions of years of existence. It is anti-science to even quote it as meaningful. 35 years is way too short a time to grasp any meaning from the data.

Do you have attribution for those statements or are you just relying on your own expertise?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

"If sanity is the problem i suggest you need to look at yourselves. Using the global ice cap, a statistic we only started collecting since 1980, is just garbage. 35 years of data is absolutely meaningless versus billions of years of existence. It is anti-science to even quote it as meaningful. 35 years is way too short a time to grasp any meaning from the data."

Are core samples drilled from the arctic ice meaningless garbage? Serious question.

[DKW 86 7,419]

"If sanity is the problem i suggest you need to look at yourselves. Using the global ice cap, a statistic we only started collecting since 1980, is just garbage. 35 years of data is absolutely meaningless versus billions of years of existence. It is anti-science to even quote it as meaningful. 35 years is way too short a time to grasp any meaning from the data."

Are core samples drilled from the arctic ice meaningless garbage? Serious question.

I SPECIFICALLY stated the Ice Cap, nothing at all about core samples. Do not know who or where you got that from, sheesh!

Do you folks sit around snorting your body waste or something? I said absolutley ZERO about core sampling. I was referring to the 1980 and up graph of the size of the polar ice cap that was from SkS posted above. NO WHERE IN THERE IS THERE ONE REFERENCE TO CORE SAMPLES.

[AUDub 11,147]

"If sanity is the problem i suggest you need to look at yourselves. Using the global ice cap, a statistic we only started collecting since 1980, is just garbage. 35 years of data is absolutely meaningless versus billions of years of existence. It is anti-science to even quote it as meaningful. 35 years is way too short a time to grasp any meaning from the data."

Are core samples drilled from the arctic ice meaningless garbage? Serious question.

I SPECIFICALLY stated the Ice Cap, nothing at all about core samples. Do not know who or where you got that from, sheesh!

Do you folks sit around snorting your body waste or something? I said absolutley ZERO about core sampling. I was referring to the 1980 and up graph of the size of the polar ice cap that was from SkS posted above. NO WHERE IN THERE IS THERE ONE REFERENCE TO CORE SAMPLES.

Man, you need to chill out a bit.

[DKW 86 7,419]

If sanity is the problem i suggest you need to look at yourselves. Using the global ice cap, a statistic we only started collecting since 1980, is just garbage. 35 years of data is absolutely meaningless versus billions of years of existence. It is anti-science to even quote it as meaningful. 35 years is way too short a time to grasp any meaning from the data.

Do you have attribution for those statements or are you just relying on your own expertise?

OMG are we going to have to beat this dead horse one more time?

Look, the first satellite that photographed Polar Ice Pack size was launched in 1979 or 1980. It is where your graph from SkS came from.

There is no data from anytime before 1980 on the graphic size of the Ice Pack. Yall have referenced it twice here and it is just a garbage statistic. If you think a sample size of 35 years means anything, you need to get a life.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Quoting Skeptical Science means that you are TRULY UNINFORMED AND YOU ARE NEVER TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY WITH A SCIENCE QUESTION.

In case you didn't realize it, Skeptical Science does not conduct research. As far as I know, not one person who writes or manages the Skeptical Science page has ever published a paper on climate change.

They are not presenting their own work.

What they are doing is explaining the false assumptions and statements on AGW using valid scientific research that has been published in peer-reviewed journals. It's the same body of work that persuaded all - and I mean "all" literally - of the professional associations listed earlier to issue position statements.

So if you want to dismiss Skeptical Science as a source of information, then you are by definition, rejecting every piece of scientific research on the subject.

And that's what deniers are all about.

Wrong. SkS does do penny-ante misquotes 24/7 and commando blogging of other websites in an effort to put out narratives. There are whole web pages dedicated to SkS doing robo posting and aggressively, knowingly, proactively MODIFYING quotes of REAL LIFE SCIENTISTS. They hide their crazy stuff with some cover, no doubt, but they are still covered up in bat crap crazy.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

"If sanity is the problem i suggest you need to look at yourselves. Using the global ice cap, a statistic we only started collecting since 1980, is just garbage. 35 years of data is absolutely meaningless versus billions of years of existence. It is anti-science to even quote it as meaningful. 35 years is way too short a time to grasp any meaning from the data."

Are core samples drilled from the arctic ice meaningless garbage? Serious question.

I SPECIFICALLY stated the Ice Cap, nothing at all about core samples. Do not know who or where you got that from, sheesh!

Do you folks sit around snorting your body waste or something? I said absolutley ZERO about core sampling. I was referring to the 1980 and up graph of the size of the polar ice cap that was from SkS posted above. NO WHERE IN THERE IS THERE ONE REFERENCE TO CORE SAMPLES.

Sorry to offend you. Perhaps you did not understand or, perhaps my question is inane but, do core samples not provide a much longer historical record (pre 1980)? Are core samples not part of monitoring the ice cap?

If possible, please reply with information, not disdain. I am neither a civil engineer nor climatologist. Thank you.