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.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#148 Jan 28, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a simple explanation
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanog...
It doesn't say it's the source of generating heat over 30 years, FF.

And if you want to use NASA as a source, you must look at ALL the evidence, not your simplistic cherrypicking a fact here or there, while ignoring the rest, ok???

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#149 Jan 28, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
The oceans have also increased in temperature based on ARGO measurements.
After Dr. Josh Willis and his team "corrected" the data.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#150 Jan 28, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
There are any number of graphs:
http://www.google.com/search...
It's obvious to the lay non-statistician that the correlation is very tight, especially over the past several hundred thousand years, where we have ice cores rather than earlier, less precise proxies.
We all know the Milankovitch cycles, with changing insolation, must initially trigger the interglacials to start, meaning that temp rises initially precede CO2 rises. But positive feedbacks soon occur, including rising CO2 & reduced albedo, which then become forcing factors themselves. Temp rises then follow CO2 rises. Eventually, as temps rise even further, methane is released, with even stronger positive feedbacks.
Precisely. A good example where FF cherrypicks the evidence, to ignore firm evidence while looking at more obscure, undefined areas and proclaiming it is the only thing out there.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#151 Jan 28, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>

"Jeremy's postdoctoral research is supported by the NOAA Climate & Global Change Postdoctoral Fellowship Program administered by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. The overarching purpose of the program is to help create and train the next generation of leading researchers needed for climate studies. The fellowship program has developed an outstanding reputation of attracting the best and the brightest PhDs in the sciences relevant to the NOAA Climate and Global Change Program. "

Wow. Really??? What area of study did he receive his doctorate in?
You think NOAA and atmospheric reseach is about basket weaving?

I'm afraid I am seeing no honesty by you in this exchange.

It's looking like you are just another ideologue influenced by the lying right wing rags out there like WattsUp and Climate Depot.

Doesn't give me any pleasure to say that. Was hoping for better out of you.

Regards, Wallop.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#152 Jan 28, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
After Dr. Josh Willis and his team "corrected" the data.
Well,

(1) ocean rising is one of the least relevant pieces of evidence for me on global warming, simply because the ice caps above the water haven't melted yet.

(2) Not enough for me to find a conspiracy. Now if you had another source of data to compare this with -- then I would give you praise. Doesn't sound to me like you have that. You are really just guessing.

The combination of (1) AND (2) doesn't impress me. There is plenty of other (and much stronger) evidence for global warming. Doesn't that bother you any to ignore that?

Regards, Wallop
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#153 Jan 28, 2013
More scientific science fiction from the above

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#154 Jan 28, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
After Dr. Josh Willis and his team "corrected" the data.
Yes, this is called "science": something you don't understand.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#155 Jan 28, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
There are any number of graphs:
http://www.google.com/search...
It's obvious to the lay non-statistician that the correlation is very tight, especially over the past several hundred thousand years, where we have ice cores rather than earlier, less precise proxies.
We all know the Milankovitch cycles, with changing insolation, must initially trigger the interglacials to start, meaning that temp rises initially precede CO2 rises. But positive feedbacks soon occur, including rising CO2 & reduced albedo, which then become forcing factors themselves. Temp rises then follow CO2 rises. Eventually, as temps rise even further, methane is released, with even stronger positive feedbacks.
What I am looking for is the science. The papers/studies that show what was examined, how it was calculated and the results. But if you see a graph in this group that shows CO2 increasing the warming please point it out. Generally there are references associated with the publihsed graphs and we can access the paper from that point.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#156 Jan 28, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
I did. Both say the solar radiation has not increased in the last 30 years to correlate with the measured increase in temperatures.
You make it up.
You read the Solanki paper and still make the statement that TSI has not changed in the last 30 years? You read Usoskin and did not see the grand solar maximum?

I thought Solanki was an excellent paper on TSI as measured since 1978 and the new information that has resulted from the measurements. Solanki also shows how the measured TSI looks in comparison with the last 400 years. There is a noticeable increase in TSI over the 400 year period.

Usoskin shows the grand solar maximum of the last half of the 20th century and compares solar activity for the entire holocene.

As I stated before, you can't jump from TSI to 95* without going thru the climate processes.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#157 Jan 28, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't say it's the source of generating heat over 30 years, FF.
And if you want to use NASA as a source, you must look at ALL the evidence, not your simplistic cherrypicking a fact here or there, while ignoring the rest, ok???
No, it would not say "it's the source of generating heat over 30 years," the oceans do not generate/make/create heat, the sun does that.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#158 Jan 28, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
You think NOAA and atmospheric reseach is about basket weaving?
I'm afraid I am seeing no honesty by you in this exchange.
It's looking like you are just another ideologue influenced by the lying right wing rags out there like WattsUp and Climate Depot.
Doesn't give me any pleasure to say that. Was hoping for better out of you.
Regards, Wallop.
It's not good to make things up. With this small fabrication you have destroyed you credibility. What a waste for so little impact.

post 131

Judged:
2
SpaceBlues wrote:

Jeremy's postdoctoral research is supported by the NOAA Climate & Global Change Postdoctoral Fellowship Program administered by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. The overarching purpose of the program is to help create and train the next generation of leading researchers needed for climate studies. The fellowship program has developed an outstanding reputation of attracting the best and the brightest PhDs in the sciences relevant to the NOAA Climate and Global Change Program.

Fun Facts replied
What area of study did he receive his doctorate in?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#159 Jan 28, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
You read the Solanki paper and still make the statement that TSI has not changed in the last 30 years? You read Usoskin and did not see the grand solar maximum?
There was no increase in TSI in the last 30 years to correlate with the increase in temperatures.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought Solanki was an excellent paper on TSI as measured since 1978 and the new information that has resulted from the measurements. Solanki also shows how the measured TSI looks in comparison with the last 400 years.
I have consistently said I agree with both papers that solar radiation was the primary cause of temperature changes PRIOR to 1978.

Why are you playing these games?
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a noticeable increase in TSI over the 400 year period.
Usoskin shows the grand solar maximum of the last half of the 20th century and compares solar activity for the entire holocene.
Ditto.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
As I stated before, you can't jump from TSI to 95* without going thru the climate processes.
No, you start getting murky here into mystical forces we can't understand to get you from Point A to B.

When clearly that force is increased CO2.

That's why you have to literally ignore ALL the other evidence I post that CO2 is that mystical force you assign to the ocean -- although you never even attempt to try to understand the dynamics.

Pretty laughable. Sorry.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#160 Jan 28, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it would not say "it's the source of generating heat over 30 years," the oceans do not generate/make/create heat, the sun does that.
The fact remains you have not explained the NET CHANGE [delta] in temperatures. If TSI didn't increase, but temperature did over the last 30 years , there is some other mechanism going on.

Saying it must somehow be the oceans doesn't cut it, FF.

And again, you've literally ignored ALL The evidence I gave that missing factor was CO2. It's like you can't even bring yourself to read it.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#161 Jan 28, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
What I am looking for is the science. The papers/studies that show what was examined, how it was calculated and the results. But if you see a graph in this group that shows CO2 increasing the warming please point it out. Generally there are references associated with the publihsed graphs and we can access the paper from that point.
Would you accept something fom NASA?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2...
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#162 Jan 28, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact remains you have not explained the NET CHANGE [delta] in temperatures. If TSI didn't increase, but temperature did over the last 30 years , there is some other mechanism going on.
Saying it must somehow be the oceans doesn't cut it, FF.
And again, you've literally ignored ALL The evidence I gave that missing factor was CO2. It's like you can't even bring yourself to read it.
Climate is a multilayered process. Starts with the sun, the oceans are next, then the atmosphere. You need to understand each of the functions, how each function operates and how each function relates to all other functions.

Solar activity is more than spots, TSI. Solar activity impacts climate by the size of the heliosphere. It also impacts the strength of our magnetic field. Neither of these is going to correlate with temperatues both have an impact on climate. There are many other aspects of solar activity that impact climate on earth. You will need to discover those and understand what they do.

The oceans make our climate not our heat. I thought the NASA piece was easy to understand but if not, you'll just have to do the work it takes to obtain an understanding of how the oceans make climate.

Measured temperatures are the very last thing that happens in the climate process.

It's been fun, but your fabrication made you unreliable, not going to chase the stuff you make up. Adios.
SpaceBlues

United States

#163 Jan 28, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Climate is a multilayered process. Starts with the sun, the oceans are next, then the atmosphere. You need to understand each of the functions, how each function operates and how each function relates to all other functions.
Solar activity is more than spots, TSI. Solar activity impacts climate by the size of the heliosphere. It also impacts the strength of our magnetic field. Neither of these is going to correlate with temperatues both have an impact on climate. There are many other aspects of solar activity that impact climate on earth. You will need to discover those and understand what they do.
The oceans make our climate not our heat. I thought the NASA piece was easy to understand but if not, you'll just have to do the work it takes to obtain an understanding of how the oceans make climate.
Measured temperatures are the very last thing that happens in the climate process.
...
Two important points to show that you know NO science:

1. No, climate is NOT a multi-layered proces.

2. No, oceans DON'T make the climate.

You are incompetent.
SpaceBlues

United States

#164 Jan 28, 2013
No, climate is NOT a multi-layered process

[sometimes a letter drops out]
SpaceBlues

United States

#165 Jan 28, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text> to Wallop10

It's not good to make things up. With this small fabrication you have destroyed you credibility. What a waste for so little impact.
post 131
Judged:
2
SpaceBlues wrote:
Jeremy's postdoctoral research is supported by the NOAA Climate & Global Change Postdoctoral Fellowship Program administered by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. The overarching purpose of the program is to help create and train the next generation of leading researchers needed for climate studies. The fellowship program has developed an outstanding reputation of attracting the best and the brightest PhDs in the sciences relevant to the NOAA Climate and Global Change Program.
Fun Facts replied
What area of study did he receive his doctorate in?
But you make up things all the time.

You say: "Climate is a multilayered process."

You say: "Oceans make the climate."

And so on.

You make up science that doesn't exist to argue against science that exists [just like tina]. Your hatred of science is so strong that you call this recent PhD "a dead horse" for no reason at all. You refuse to call him with the proper title "Dr" just like another denier about another PhD.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#166 Jan 28, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
What I am looking for is the science.
Yeah, somebody please point out the science to fun farts so he can ignore it.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#167 Jan 28, 2013
More scientific science fiction from the above.

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.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News White Heat: The third global coral bleaching (Jun '16) 1 hr Into The Night 84
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Into The Night 63,626
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 1 hr Into The Night 5,249
News Hundreds Of Scientists Urge Trump To Pull Out O... 2 hr Into The Night 328
Global Cooling (Apr '15) 7 hr tina anne 2,476
News Interior Department agency removes climate chan... 8 hr Talkin To Stupid 7
News Rising sea levels could mean twice as much floo... 9 hr Climate Science 3
More from around the web