16 years of no global warming? Yeah, ...

16 years of no global warming? Yeah, right

There are 175 comments on the Grist Magazine story from Jan 14, 2013, titled 16 years of no global warming? Yeah, right. In it, Grist Magazine reports that:

The difficulties in debunking blatant anti-reality are legion. You can make up any old nonsense and state it in a few seconds, but it takes much longer to show why it's wrong and how things really are.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Grist Magazine.

First Prev
of 9
Next Last
SpaceBlues

United States

#1 Jan 14, 2013
That's why I don't recommend it for the local deniers on salary.

Otherwise, read it, folks. Watch the video as well. All clear?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2 Jan 15, 2013
http://www.viewzone.com/magnetic.weather.html
Another science answer to global warming cooling climate change.Now this is a must read folks.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#3 Jan 15, 2013
PHD wrote:
http://www.viewzone.com/magnet ic.weather.html
Another science answer to global warming cooling climate change.Now this is a must read folks.
Another piece is the very large climate puzzle. The heliosphere is our first defense for cosmic rays. Our sun has had very high activity. High activity results in a strong/larger heliosphere, the stronger heliosphere reduces the amount of cosmic rays, fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, higher temps.

Our mag field protects us not only from cosmic rays, but from the solar wind as well. Mars has a low mag field, 95% CO2 atmosphere, very cold because the solar wind blows away most of the atmosphere.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#4 Jan 15, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Another piece is the very large climate puzzle. The heliosphere is our first defense for cosmic rays. Our sun has had very high activity. High activity results in a strong/larger heliosphere, the stronger heliosphere reduces the amount of cosmic rays, fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, higher temps.
Our mag field protects us not only from cosmic rays, but from the solar wind as well. Mars has a low mag field, 95% CO2 atmosphere, very cold because the solar wind blows away most of the atmosphere.
Only by the direction of poles.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#5 Jan 15, 2013
PHD wrote:
http://www.viewzone.com/magnet ic.weather.html
Another science answer to global warming cooling climate change.Now this is a must read folks.
<<Svensmark's theory, which pitted him against today's mainstream theorists who claim carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for global warming, involved a link between the earth's magnetic field and climate, since that field helps regulate the number of GCR particles that reach the earth's atmosphere.>>

Again, an interesting hypothesis, but it did not pass tests to it.

1. His hypothesis would predict that we should have been in cooling periods when the sun is in a low sunspot activity phase and we're getting warmer, just the opposite of what he predicts.

2. Svensmark's condensation nuclei (these are the precursors of clouds) are orders of magnitude smaller than those needed to produce clouds.

3. It appears there are already plenty of cloud condensation nuclei present in the atmosphere without need for cosmic ray synthesis.

Parts of his theory have been proven wrong.

<<In April 2008, Professor Terry Sloan of Lancaster University published a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters titled "Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover",[16] which found no significant link between cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity in the last 20 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

His ideas were tested, but showed it couldn't explain the mechanism for creating more low altitude clouds.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#6 Jan 15, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Our sun has had very high activity. High activity results in a strong/larger heliosphere, the stronger heliosphere reduces the amount of cosmic rays, fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, higher temps.
But the CHANGE in solar activity has been relatively constant over the last 50 years, and cannot explain the increase in temperature measured by weather stations, satellites, and weather balloons.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#7 Jan 16, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
But the CHANGE in solar activity has been relatively constant over the last 50 years, and cannot explain the increase in temperature measured by weather stations, satellites, and weather balloons.
How do you figure?

Since 1959 with exception of cycle 20, we have had the highest activity in the last 400 years of recorded data and activity in the top 10% of the holocene proxy data.

The major high "constant" activity happened after 1976. With solar activity lows being higher than ever recorded. You know kinda like the nighttime lows are high.

The sun heats the oceans and the oceans make climate. It doesn't all happen on Tuesday. Takes a while for the sun to heat the ocean. Different estimates by different scientists, but a common estimate is 10 years. Same with cool downs. Just like a tub of water in the bath, over time without additional heat input, the water cools.

Thankfully, our sun is still supplying our oceans with heat energy, just at a reduced rate. That will still result in a cool down, just takes longer.

Our current cycle 24 as compared with cycles 21, 22 and 23 starting in 1976.

http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#8 Jan 16, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
<<Svensmark's theory, which pitted him against today's mainstream theorists who claim carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for global warming, involved a link between the earth's magnetic field and climate, since that field helps regulate the number of GCR particles that reach the earth's atmosphere.>>
Again, an interesting hypothesis, but it did not pass tests to it.
1. His hypothesis would predict that we should have been in cooling periods when the sun is in a low sunspot activity phase and we're getting warmer, just the opposite of what he predicts.
2. Svensmark's condensation nuclei (these are the precursors of clouds) are orders of magnitude smaller than those needed to produce clouds.
3. It appears there are already plenty of cloud condensation nuclei present in the atmosphere without need for cosmic ray synthesis.
Parts of his theory have been proven wrong.
<<In April 2008, Professor Terry Sloan of Lancaster University published a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters titled "Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover",[16] which found no significant link between cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity in the last 20 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
His ideas were tested, but showed it couldn't explain the mechanism for creating more low altitude clouds.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
It is always important to remember that every one has an agenda/bias. Scientists are people too and have the same agendas and biases as everyone else.

Did you read the paper by Svensmark. It's important to do that before looking at various analyses of the work. Just like people web sites have agendas and will cherry pick various aspects of any paper to support or deny their particular viewpoint.

In liew of reading the paper, a course I don't recommend, you must gather a variety of opinions, pro and con, before forming your own opinion.

It's pretty easy, google will let you ask for rebuttals. But if you haven't read the paper, not even the rebuttals will give you a good picture.

Science takes work. Understanding this stuff takes lots of work. If you don't put in the work, all you're doing is parroting someone else's opinion of the paper's author's opinion, we've all seen that.

We're treated to cut and paste on a regular basis. Once you have your own opinion/viewpoint, you won't have to cut and paste what someone else thinks.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#9 Jan 16, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
It is always important to remember that every one has an agenda/bias. Scientists are people too and have the same agendas and biases as everyone else.
Did you read the paper by Svensmark. It's important to do that before looking at various analyses of the work. Just like people web sites have agendas and will cherry pick various aspects of any paper to support or deny their particular viewpoint.
In liew of reading the paper, a course I don't recommend, you must gather a variety of opinions, pro and con, before forming your own opinion.
It's pretty easy, google will let you ask for rebuttals. But if you haven't read the paper, not even the rebuttals will give you a good picture.
Science takes work. Understanding this stuff takes lots of work. If you don't put in the work, all you're doing is parroting someone else's opinion of the paper's author's opinion, we've all seen that.
We're treated to cut and paste on a regular basis. Once you have your own opinion/viewpoint, you won't have to cut and paste what someone else thinks.
God you are a patronising little turd.

And entirely unconscious of your own inadequacy in evaluating science.
SpaceBlues

United States

#10 Jan 16, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
It is always important to remember that every one has an agenda/bias. Scientists are people too and have the same agendas and biases as everyone else.
Did you read the paper by Svensmark. It's important to do that before looking at various analyses of the work. Just like people web sites have agendas and will cherry pick various aspects of any paper to support or deny their particular viewpoint.
In liew of reading the paper, a course I don't recommend, you must gather a variety of opinions, pro and con, before forming your own opinion.
It's pretty easy, google will let you ask for rebuttals. But if you haven't read the paper, not even the rebuttals will give you a good picture.
Science takes work. Understanding this stuff takes lots of work. If you don't put in the work, all you're doing is parroting someone else's opinion of the paper's author's opinion, we've all seen that.
We're treated to cut and paste on a regular basis. Once you have your own opinion/viewpoint, you won't have to cut and paste what someone else thinks.
"In liew of reading the paper" is wrong. What you posted is wrong.

Foremost, what is needed is science and mathematics on par with that of the paper. You don't have that.

Copy/paste is needed for credit, also, not just for reference. But you would know none of that.

Your arrogance is misbegotten.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#11 Jan 16, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
<<Svensmark's theory, which pitted him against today's mainstream theorists who claim carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for global warming, involved a link between the earth's magnetic field and climate, since that field helps regulate the number of GCR particles that reach the earth's atmosphere.>>
Again, an interesting hypothesis, but it did not pass tests to it.
1. His hypothesis would predict that we should have been in cooling periods when the sun is in a low sunspot activity phase and we're getting warmer, just the opposite of what he predicts.
2. Svensmark's condensation nuclei (these are the precursors of clouds) are orders of magnitude smaller than those needed to produce clouds.
3. It appears there are already plenty of cloud condensation nuclei present in the atmosphere without need for cosmic ray synthesis.
Parts of his theory have been proven wrong.
<<In April 2008, Professor Terry Sloan of Lancaster University published a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters titled "Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover",[16] which found no significant link between cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity in the last 20 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
His ideas were tested, but showed it couldn't explain the mechanism for creating more low altitude clouds.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
There you have it you proved my point. They really really dont'n know science.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#12 Jan 16, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>"In liew of reading the paper" is wrong. What you posted is wrong.
Foremost, what is needed is science and mathematics on par with that of the paper. You don't have that.
Copy/paste is needed for credit, also, not just for reference. But you would know none of that.
Your arrogance is misbegotten.
Wow the commander of cut and paste calling the kettle.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#13 Jan 16, 2013
phud fetid feces face wrote:
you proved my point.
"phud fetid feces face" uses his point to puncture its fetid feces face.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#14 Jan 16, 2013
'fun farts' farting:
We're treated to cut and paste on a regular basis.
//////////
'Fair Game' wrote:
God you are a patronising little turd.
//////////
litesong wrote:
& I only call him 'fun farts'.'fun farts' & 'phud fetid feces face' love the letter 'f'.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#15 Jan 16, 2013
pinheadlitesout wrote:
<quoted text>
"pinheadlitesout fetid feces face" I use MY point on MY head to puncture MY fetid feces face.
So did you get that check up from the neck up?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#16 Jan 16, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
"phud fetid feces face" uses his point to puncture its fetid feces face.
Just vote him a peanut, then ignore him.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#17 Jan 16, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you figure?
Since 1959 with exception of cycle 20, we have had the highest activity in the last 400 years of recorded data and activity in the top 10% of the holocene proxy data.
The major high "constant" activity happened after 1976. With solar activity lows being higher than ever recorded. You know kinda like the nighttime lows are high.
The sun heats the oceans and the oceans make climate. It doesn't all happen on Tuesday. Takes a while for the sun to heat the ocean. Different estimates by different scientists, but a common estimate is 10 years. Same with cool downs. Just like a tub of water in the bath, over time without additional heat input, the water cools.
Thankfully, our sun is still supplying our oceans with heat energy, just at a reduced rate. That will still result in a cool down, just takes longer.
Our current cycle 24 as compared with cycles 21, 22 and 23 starting in 1976.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...
Solar radiation has been roughly the same in the last 50 years, so cannot explain why global temperature is increasing.

And it is CO2 that correlates closely with temperature in ice cores going back 400,000 years.[something like 95%-- VERY high]

Notice you want the blue and green lines for comparing temperature and CO2.

http://www.google.com/imgres...

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#18 Jan 16, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
It is always important to remember that every one has an agenda/bias. Scientists are people too and have the same agendas and biases as everyone else.
Er are YOU projecting here?
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>

If you don't put in the work, all you're doing is parroting someone else's opinion of the paper's author's opinion, we've all seen that.
We're treated to cut and paste on a regular basis. Once you have your own opinion/viewpoint, you won't have to cut and paste what someone else thinks.
I would like to be proven wrong actually. The problem is I see far too much lies from the hard right.

And you are wrong about scientists -- they LOVE to elevate their status by finding some new research that proves their predecessor wrong.

Are you aware climatologists are about 97% agreement global warming is going on, but they aren't in agreement that hurricanes have been impacted by global warming.

So you are simplistically listing right wing talking points, seems to me. Sorry.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#19 Jan 16, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just vote him a peanut, then ignore him.
WOW the narcissist came out of it shell.You let that commander word go to your peanut head again.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#20 Jan 17, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Solar radiation has been roughly the same in the last 50 years, so cannot explain why global temperature is increasing.
And it is CO2 that correlates closely with temperature in ice cores going back 400,000 years.[something like 95%-- VERY high]
Notice you want the blue and green lines for comparing temperature and CO2.
http://www.google.com/imgres...
I like ice core data. Have you read any of those papers? Ice core data shows that CO2 changes follow temperature changes. Temperatures go up and CO2 follows, temps go down and CO2 follows. There is an issue with ice core data in that it is a proxy study of a specific location. CO2 values in the ice core data are a relevant to the entire world as the temperature values from the ice core data. Co2 is a well distributed gas, more well distributed at low latitudes and low elevations. At 11,000 ft elevation and 95*S latitude the antarctic CO2 values are not what they would be at the equator.

In addition, CO2 is a gas and takes time to become sequestered in the ice. Until it becomes sequestered, a process of time and pressure approx 70 years, it migrates through the ice. The result is an "averaging" of the values within the ice itself. The next variable in the ice core data that is essential to understanding the value of the data is the time spans between data points. Some data points in the ice core data are as much as 1000 years apart. If we look at just the last 1000 years and chose just one data point to express the CO2 values of the last 1000 years, which year would you pick? Scientists don't really have much opportunity to pick years, but a look at historical temps of the last 1000 years will tell you that any one year doesn't represent the entire 1000 years.

Despite it's limitations, I'm a fan of the ice core data, both antarctic and greenland. What we have learned from this information is priceless.

Back to the sun. Our solar activity in the last half of the 20th century was higher than in the last 400 years of recorded history. If you condider a thermostat in your home, the thermostat controls the temperature. When a desired temp is achieved, the thermostat turns off the heat source. Well the sun has been on 'high' and there is no thermostat to turn it off. Even in the cycle minimums, the last three cycles were higher than ever recorded. So the sun was inputting heat energy to our system at a very high level and doing so consistently for about 50 years. The fact that temperature have risen as a result is expected.

Now to add to the fun. Look at solar activity as compared to the greenland ice core data of the last 1500 years. They correlate. Why greenland not antarctica? Because of precession, the earth's wobble.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

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.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump meets with Princeton physicist who says g... 1 hr Cordwainer Trout 6
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr Brian_G 62,879
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 6 hr Lips9431 35,839
News Prominent climate-denying politician gets schoo... 6 hr Grinder1373 65
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 6 hr Into The Night 4,812
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 6 hr Into The Night 10,654
News The NASA data conspiracy theory and the cold sun 12 hr 1st Grade Math Wiz 1
More from around the web