Why HAS global warming has slowed? Scientists admit they don't know...

Aug 21, 2013 Full story: Daily Mail 12

Why HAS global warming slowed? Scientists admit they don't know why - but are '95% sure' humans are to blame for climate change Scientists believe volcanic ash and more heat being absorbed by oceans could explain why global warming seems to have decelerated in recent times Governments will use the final report to work out how to invest in renewable ... (more)

Full Story
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#1 Aug 21, 2013
More crap. Despite the scientists clearly stating that AGW has NOT slowed and that the heat has been temporarily stored in the oceans, there are still some clueless denialists trying the 'big lie' approach.

Since: Mar 13

Washington, DC

#3 Aug 21, 2013
Wow, what a maroon that author is! The picture says that climate change is about burning fossil fuels "(pictured)" but then shows the steamy end of a cooling tower. Thats CLOUDS dude, not CO2.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#5 Aug 22, 2013
Back to your conspiracy theory.. I guess all the OTHER scientists are also faking it?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gr...

You are so pathetic when you randomly libel scientists with SO much more credibility than you.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#6 Aug 22, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
Wow, what a maroon that author is! The picture says that climate change is about burning fossil fuels "(pictured)" but then shows the steamy end of a cooling tower. Thats CLOUDS dude, not CO2.
So what? Does the caption state that the emissions of the cooling tower are smoke? The CO2 is there, but transparent to visible light. Pictures of the cooling tower at least illustrate the generation of CO2 from carbon stores.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#7 Aug 22, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Care to back up that accusation with something APPROACHING fact?
No? Didn't think so.
The difference is that Dr. Willis is a reasearch scientist and you are an ignorant troll.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Oce...

Since: Mar 13

Washington, DC

#8 Aug 22, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? Does the caption state that the emissions of the cooling tower are smoke? The CO2 is there, but transparent to visible light. Pictures of the cooling tower at least illustrate the generation of CO2 from carbon stores.
There is no more CO2 in the steam from a cooling tower than in the atmosphere itself. At least he could have pictured a smoke stack! JPD.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#9 Aug 22, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
Rather than an example of fraudulent data, it was about a real scientist recognising a flaw in the instruments that was then tracked down

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-ocean...

The FACT is that SOME of the readings had an error which threw off the study. Recognizing when you have data inconsistent with other studies is one job of a REAL scientist (which you will NEVER be).

Since: Mar 13

Washington, DC

#10 Aug 22, 2013
The point is folks, world temperature trends are NOT following ANY of the 79(?) credited global warming climate models. They are acting as they would react under typical earthly conditions. Since the temperatures are behaving normally, Occam's Razor suggests that the global warming hypothesis is an unneeded encumbrance.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#11 Aug 22, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
The point is folks, world temperature trends are NOT following ANY of the 79(?) credited global warming climate models. They are acting as they would react under typical earthly conditions. Since the temperatures are behaving normally, Occam's Razor suggests that the global warming hypothesis is an unneeded encumbrance.
Your cow jumped over the Moon!

You don't understand the role of scientific models. Neither should you as a lay person.

Do you read your own PETCT?

Since: Mar 13

Washington, DC

#12 Aug 22, 2013
I am a retired engineer, I have worked with "models" for ~ 4 decades and understand their strengths AND FAILINGS quite well. When ZERO out of 79 models accurately predict the actual data, something is wrong with the assumptions in the models. If it were 5 or 10 models that didn't track, well then details in those models are wrong. When 79 out of 79 don't, it suggests the fundamental assumptions are wrong.

PS: I guess I have a pretty powerful cow. Didn't know I owned a cow at all!
PPS: Never had one, never seen one, a PETCT I mean.
masterblaster

Bethlehem, PA

#13 Aug 24, 2013
I have worked with many engineers who couldn't even tie their shoes correctly.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#14 Aug 24, 2013
" Scientists admit they don't know why - but are '95% sure' humans are to blame for climate change "

Pretty much says it all.

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.

Alternative Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gov. Brown names Commissioner Michael Picker pr... 12 hr Solarman 1
Let's have a balanced plan for producing the el... 19 hr Solarman 78
September 2014: The Month SolarCity Residential... Tue Gerald Vonberger 1
Blythe City Manager Says Solar Power Brings Ben... Mon Solarman 1
APS will move ahead with free solar Dec 20 Solarman 1
NY's bad move on fracking Dec 20 Solarman 1
National View: Rooftop solar panels facing the ... Dec 18 Solarman 1
More from around the web