The inconvenient 17-year pause in global warming

Sep 13, 2013 Full story: South China Morning Post 123

Howard Winn has been with the South China Morning Post for two and half years after previous stints as business editor and deputy editor of The Standard, and business editor of Asia Times.

Full Story
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#82 Oct 1, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
No non sequitur.
Yes. A non-sequitur.
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
If la nina is responsible for cooling down the place then el nino was responsible for warming it up.
ENSO you idiot. And ENSO was responsible for 'warming up' the air in 1998 (El-Nino), followed by reducing the slope in 2010 and 2012 (La-Nina). The issue is the transfer of heat from the oceans to the air. On AVERAGE it is stable, but ENSO can cause noise in the air temperature. And going from a noise PEAK in 1998 to a noise trough in 2011 is faulty. http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php...
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
But it's not that simple, just like all climate science it's very complex. What causes the el ninos vs the la ninas is very important and all the ancillary processes as a result of these functions are also important.
The cause (wind patterns) that cause the upwelling warm or cold waters are irrelevant. They can, at most, move heat from the oceans to the air or the reverse. AGW is about the total thermal energy increase.
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
CO2 is not driving climate.
True. The thermal differences between regions drives climate. But CO2 is a major driver of AGW which increases and shift those differences so it CHANGES climate. Thus 'climate change'. Got it yet?
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the most important news because that's what the politicos are using to wring more money out of our economies.
The thing to do to improve the economy is to invest heavily in green energy (which creates jobs) and reduce the emphasis and subsidies on fossil fuels (which mostly are money to the ownership of energy reserves).
Cut n paste

Minneapolis, MN

#83 Oct 1, 2013
A perfect day on the shores of the Mississippi Ocean here in Minnesota!
Proof that AGW does NOT affect the weather.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#84 Oct 2, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The not so fun facts say otherwise.
Non sequitur.
ENSO is a short term effect and can't explain decade upon decade of warming.
And if ENSO was responsible for surface, you would expect to sea ocean cooling, whereas the long term trend is ocean warming.
Things I've been telling you for years.
But instead of taking facts on board, you prefer wishful thinking and lies.
<quoted text>
As I said, ENSO is part of the process. The biggest mistake climate science makes is trying to blame a single element for changing the climate.

I don't doubt climate is changing. What I doubt is that man made CO2 is the reason for the change.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#85 Oct 2, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, ENSO is part of the process. The biggest mistake climate science makes is trying to blame a single element for changing the climate.
I don't doubt climate is changing. What I doubt is that man made CO2 is the reason for the change.
LOL.

You try to blame anything and everything except CO2.

If the facts don't fit something you blame, you'll move on to another.

If the facts don't fit that, you'll move back to the first thing you blamed, ignoring the objections raised previously.

And of course you do doubt that climate is changing- you'll throw in the old claim that the scientists fixed the data from time to time, howver many times that claim is debunked.

You seem to believe you understand some higher truth that justifies ignoring the evidence, telling lies and slandering scientists.

You haven't.

All you have is unquestioning faith in your ideology and a lot of arrogance.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#86 Oct 2, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
You try to blame anything and everything except CO2.
If the facts don't fit something you blame, you'll move on to another.
If the facts don't fit that, you'll move back to the first thing you blamed, ignoring the objections raised previously.
And of course you do doubt that climate is changing- you'll throw in the old claim that the scientists fixed the data from time to time, howver many times that claim is debunked.
You seem to believe you understand some higher truth that justifies ignoring the evidence, telling lies and slandering scientists.
You haven't.
All you have is unquestioning faith in your ideology and a lot of arrogance.
Actually, I 'blame' anything and everything, including CO2. I just don't think CO2 is the driver of climate change. It's an effect of a changing climate, not the cause.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#87 Oct 2, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.

And of course you do doubt that climate is changing- you'll throw in the old claim that the scientists fixed the data from time to time, howver many times that claim is debunked.
The scientists have fixed the data from time to time. That's a documented fact. Not even the climate scientists at the various reporting agencies will deny that.

Their latest fixes are to the arctic temperatures. Why do you think we heard so much about arctic warming recently? But it doesn't matter, nothing we see today hasn't been seen before, including a 'melting' arctic.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#88 Oct 2, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientists have fixed the data from time to time. That's a documented fact.
No, it's a documented lie, as shown by countless independent enquiries.

But repeating a lie endlessly seems to be no problem for you.
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#89 Oct 2, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
You try to blame anything and everything except CO2.
If the facts don't fit something you blame, you'll move on to another.
If the facts don't fit that, you'll move back to the first thing you blamed, ignoring the objections raised previously.
And of course you do doubt that climate is changing- you'll throw in the old claim that the scientists fixed the data from time to time, howver many times that claim is debunked.
You seem to believe you understand some higher truth that justifies ignoring the evidence, telling lies and slandering scientists.
You haven't.
All you have is unquestioning faith in your ideology and a lot of arrogance.
All you have is unquestioning faith in your ideology of "Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Driven Catastrophic Global Climate Disruption" and a lot of arrogance.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#90 Oct 2, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
All you have is unquestioning faith in your ideology of "Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Driven Catastrophic Global Climate Disruption" and a lot of arrogance.
You are hallucinating. Where's your own evidence against the modern science?

From MIT Technology Review: Solar, nuclear, and other non-fossil-­fuel energy sources need to be developed now, before carbon emissions get out of hand. MIT alumni could play a prominent part in discovering the technology needed to keep us all going. And there are fortunes to be made from the effort. It’s worth thinking about.
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#91 Oct 2, 2013
There has never ever been a precedent for a Global Warming "Tipping Point".
There has never ever been a precedent for this planet having too much CO2.

As for the science... Sort fact from opinion before you believe the infallibility of your Prophets of The Carbon Dioxide Cataclysm.
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#92 Oct 2, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientists have fixed the data from time to time.
Sort of. They have 'corrected' for errors so they have, in a sense 'fixed' the problems with some data.

For example, if a weather station is moved, the baseline must be adjusted to reflect the different microclimate in the new site. But mostly they just reject 'bad data' from sites which were poorly managed or have systematic biases due to local conditions.

Raw data is never used for valid analysis or you end up 'analyzing noise'. A problem you deniers tend to favor.
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#93 Oct 2, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientists have fixed the data from time to time.
Oh, and the methodology for correcting systematic biases is well established and validates science, described in other science papers so you can say that it is well documented.

And here, I though you were going to claim a flaw in the research..
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#94 Oct 2, 2013
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
Sort of. They have 'corrected' for errors so they have, in a sense 'fixed' the problems with some data.
For example, if a weather station is moved, the baseline must be adjusted to reflect the different microclimate in the new site. But mostly they just reject 'bad data' from sites which were poorly managed or have systematic biases due to local conditions.
Raw data is never used for valid analysis or you end up 'analyzing noise'. A problem you deniers tend to favor.
GIGO
"OH F**K THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found." -
http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ ...
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#95 Oct 2, 2013
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, and the methodology for correcting systematic biases is well established and validates science, described in other science papers so you can say that it is well documented.
And here, I though you were going to claim a flaw in the research..
GIGO

.
From The University of East Anglia, Norwich, England:

"You can’t imagine what this has cost me – to actually allow the operator to assign false
WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’
database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).

False codes will be obtained by multiplying the legitimate code (5 digits) by 100, then adding
1 at a time until a number is found with no matches in the database. THIS IS NOT PERFECT but as
there is no central repository for WMO codes – especially made-up ones – we’ll have to chance
duplicating one that’s present in one of the other databases. In any case, anyone comparing WMO
codes between databases – something I’ve studiously avoided doing except for tmin/tmax where I
had to – will be treating the false codes with suspicion anyway. Hopefully.”

This is like the train wreck that you don’t want to watch, but you can’t look away from."
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#96 Oct 2, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
There has never ever been a precedent for a Global Warming "Tipping Point".
There has never ever been a precedent for this planet having too much CO2.
As for the science... Sort fact from opinion before you believe the infallibility of your Prophets of The Carbon Dioxide Cataclysm.
There has never been a precedent for this sudden ever expanding man-made greenhouse gas malady!

We know what happens with "too much" CO2, remember the modern physics of the learned!

As for the tipping point(s).. the planet never had this unique man-made malady. Any extreme is possible even in multiples... when you have kicked the planet out of its equilibium climate, DUH!

Instead of falling into your denier-religion dogma, provide the modern science a valid opposition, can't you? Of course not, you do the dishonest thing of badmouthing what the science has shown .. over and over again.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#97 Oct 2, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
All you have is unquestioning faith in your ideology of "Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Driven Catastrophic Global Climate Disruption" and a lot of arrogance.
Infantile projection.

It's not faith when belief is based on overwhelming evidence.
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#98 Oct 2, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Infantile projection.
It's not faith when belief is based on overwhelming evidence.
Again... You and I agree on the fundamental facts:
CO2 is a GHG
Man is adding CO2 to the air
The Earth is warming.

I am just saying that the scientists have made many mistakes that call into question their competence to predict what weather will be like 50 years from now.

They often change their predictions yet still say that are based on The same information and with an even higher degree of certainty.

Personally, I see good reason to be skeptical of their ability to accurately predict what they say they can predict.

I have noticed that global warming has been beneficial to mankind in the past and see no evidence (with the possible exception of computer models) that we will continue to benefit as CO2 levels go higher.
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#99 Oct 2, 2013
I see little evidence that suggests we won't continue to see benefits as CO2 goes higher.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#100 Oct 2, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
Again... You and I agree on the fundamental facts:
CO2 is a GHG
Man is adding CO2 to the air
The Earth is warming.
So far you are basing it on facts. So no disagreement.
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
I am just saying that the scientists have made many mistakes that call into question their competence to predict what weather will be like 50 years from now.
Two mistakes here. You do not give evidence of 'scientists making mistakes'. First, only theory is 'science'. The rest is pursuit of science and during the investigation, contradictory viewpoints can be held. A second mistake you make shows that YOU are not a serious voice here. You confuse climate with weather.
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
They often change their predictions yet still say that are based on The same information and with an even higher degree of certainty.
However, the basic fundamentals have not changed. You even agree with them above! Minor tweaking of the 'range of values' or even contradictory viewpoints on FUTURE climate do NOT represent a valid criticism of science. Future climate IS not yet predictable. It is the RISKS (read, probability) of major damage that is the issue. And some risks are beyond question and of major proportions, such as sea level rise, and agricultural failure.

We already use more of the earth than is sustainable. To mess with it at the same time is STUPID.
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
Personally, I see good reason to be skeptical of their ability to accurately predict what they say they can predict.
ANYONE can make a prediction. Science gives you the BEST prediction that is currently possible. Just as I stick my head out the window when depending on weather reports that were five days ago. But you will have to give up the 'smear job' and 'mud flinging' if you want a serious debate on the consequence of AGW. What is your plan? You cannot be ABSOLUTELY sure that you will have an accident while drinking and driving so you are 'skeptical' that there is no problem? How does that work for you?
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
I have noticed that global warming has been beneficial to mankind in the past and see no evidence (with the possible exception of computer models) that we will continue to benefit as CO2 levels go higher.
That shows that you have NOT followed the literature or even used economic common sense. Many of our investments in infrastructure are based on 'stable climate' of the past. For example, the siting of coastal cities and residences. Sea level rise for example will threaten those and cause major losses in the future. Agriculture is predictated on the local climate that supports specific crops. Not only are there changes that damage crops but you cannot predict what crops WILL be good for the area. Or in some cases, drought and storms will ruin ANY crop you plant, even though the 'rest of the year' may be fine.

CHANGE invokes costs. Costs for adaptation. Costs from losses. There is never a NET benefit from these things except to the individual that gets ahead of them. Like gambling at a casino, there is always a 'house percentage' and the customer will, on average, lose his shirt.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#101 Oct 4, 2013
SpamBrat wrote:
Daily manmade 90 million tons of it? Energy equivalent to 400,000 hiroshimas[sic]?
That figure is somewhere in the region of 2, 3 or 4% of natural emissions, take your pick.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 27 min HughBe 69,467
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 14 hr RiccardoFire 16,008
CA Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 19 hr El SupremoS 201,038
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Sun No Time for Tea 5,084
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Sep 27 Bucketeers 7,965
Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Sep 23 Shelly 12
Suri Cruise's dog is missing in Los Angeles Sep 21 fancy 3
Monterey Dating

more search filters

less search filters

Monterey Jobs

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Monterey News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Monterey

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]