"A study conducted by scientists at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, in collaboration with scientists in Ethiopia, reports that climate change alone could lead to the extinction of wild Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica) well before the end of this century..."
Study: Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming "Here, we use coupled ocean–atmosphere model simulations under different climate-forcing scenarios to investigate satellite-observed changes in global-mean upper-tropospheric water vapor. Our analysis demonstrates that the upper-tropospheric moistening observed over the period 1979–2005 cannot be explained by natural causes and results principally from an anthropogenic warming of the climate."
Article: German renewables break yet another record "28.5 percent of the electricity consumed in Germany in the first half of 2014 came from renewable sources, preliminary estimates from the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW) show. This is up from 24.6 percent in the same period last year thanks to new installations and favorable weather.
“The reoccurring records for renewables in Germany demonstrate the incredible success of Germany’s EEG legislation,” says Max Hildebrandt, renewable energy industry expert at Germany Trade & Invest, the country’s foreign trade and inward investment promotion agency."
Article: Vikram Solar to Build India’s First Floating Solar Plant "The 15-kilowatt pilot plant will be constructed by December on top of a 1,400-square-foot (130-square-meter) platform anchored to the lakebed next to Kolkata’s New Town Eco Park, said S.P. Gon Chaudhuri, a member of the governing body of the West Bengal Renewable Energy Development Agency."
“Acquiring land for solar projects is a very big problem now,” Chaudhuri said by phone. “Water bodies are available in plenty.”
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 08-13-2014).]
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Death nail of the "CO2 causes global temperature rise" hypothesis:
Coffin nail? Death knell? Whatever...
"The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature"
2012 (August)
Humlum, et al.
It's been critiqued by other climate researchers. I may post some material about this later.
Hailing this as the "coffin nail" of the AGW CO2 consensus is highly imaginative, but just wishful thinking. It may have been seized upon by some CO2 rejectionists like a Hail Mary pass--something of a tradition among that group--but the material (which I may get around to posting later) will explain why this one recent report has not changed the scientific consensus.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-14-2014).]
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Death nail of the CO2 causes global temperature rise hypothesis:
Not even close. This paper argues the CO2 increase is due to natural causes instead of fossil fuels.
First published comment on this paper: "Humlum et al., 2013 conclude that the change in atmospheric CO2 from January 1980 is natural, rather than human induced. However, their use of differentiated time series removes long term trends such that the presented results cannot support this conclusion. Using the same data sources it is shown that this conclusion violates conservation of mass. Furthermore it is determined that human emissions explain the entire observed long term trend with a residual that is indistinguishable from zero, and that the natural temperature-dependent effect identified by Humlum et al. is an important contributor to the variability, but does not explain any of the observed long term trend of + 1.62 ppm yr− 1." Source.
Second published comment on this paper: "The paper by Humlum et al. (2013) suggests that much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1980 results from changes in ocean temperatures, rather than from the burning of fossil fuels. We show that these conclusions stem from methodological errors and from not recognizing the impact of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation on inter-annual variations in atmospheric CO2." Source.
Those critiques are humorous after reading the paper. I don't believe either one of those responders actually read what they were responding to. The paper is very comprehensive and addressed those criticisms.
Just like the historic record, CO2 in the recent record follows temperature, not the other way around. The cause cannot follow the effect therefore CO2 cannot be the cause of the warming.
Game over alarmist.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
Not even close. This paper argues the CO2 increase is due to natural causes instead of fossil fuels.
First published comment on this paper: "Humlum et al., 2013 conclude that the change in atmospheric CO2 from January 1980 is natural, rather than human induced. However, their use of differentiated time series removes long term trends such that the presented results cannot support this conclusion. Using the same data sources it is shown that this conclusion violates conservation of mass. Furthermore it is determined that human emissions explain the entire observed long term trend with a residual that is indistinguishable from zero, and that the natural temperature-dependent effect identified by Humlum et al. is an important contributor to the variability, but does not explain any of the observed long term trend of + 1.62 ppm yr− 1." Source.
Second published comment on this paper: "The paper by Humlum et al. (2013) suggests that much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1980 results from changes in ocean temperatures, rather than from the burning of fossil fuels. We show that these conclusions stem from methodological errors and from not recognizing the impact of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation on inter-annual variations in atmospheric CO2." Source.
I'm just waiting for the twenty some odd posts FlyinFieros is going to post now. I guess he thinks if he throws enough crap against the wall some of it might stick.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 08-14-2014).]
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Those critiques are humorous after reading the paper. I don't believe either one of those responders actually read what they were responding to. The paper is very comprehensive and addressed those criticisms.
Just like the historic record, CO2 in the recent record follows temperature, not the other way around. The cause cannot follow the effect; therefore, CO2 cannot be the cause of the warming.
Positive feedback loop involving temperature and carbon dioxide.
It's hard to believe that this line of discussion--the "no, it's not caused by man-made CO2 emissions" advocacy--is actually motivated by anyone's opinion about the science.
I think what this is about is that there is zero expectation that government could ever do anything that would cap or limit the extent of man-made global warming: irrespective of any scientific consensus. The subconscious mind is speaking, and it's speaking about its perceptions of what governments can and cannot achieve. It's not speaking about scientific issues and the findings (pro or con) of climate researchers.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-15-2014).]
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Those critiques are humorous after reading the paper. I don't believe either one of those responders actually read what they were responding to. The paper is very comprehensive and addressed those criticisms.
You should read it again.
The 5th conclusion states the following: “Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.”
Ocean acidification immediately debunks this.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Just like the historic record, CO2 in the recent record follows temperature, not the other way around. The cause cannot follow the effect therefore CO2 cannot be the cause of the warming.
“Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them.” Source.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Game over alarmist.
re: coffin nail (or death knell?) for Anthropogenic Global Warming
There's no reference to the Humlum paper anywhere in IPCC, Climate Change 2013, The Physical Science Basis.
Here's what RealClimate's Rasmus E. Benestad had to say about the Humlum report :
quote
I think that the analysis presented in Humlum et al. (2012) is weak on four important accounts: the analysis, the physics, reviewing past literature, and logic.
Benestad's full critique, plus 66 other responses :
Just like the historic record, CO2 in the recent record follows temperature, not the other way around. The cause cannot follow the effect therefore CO2 cannot be the cause of the warming.
Game over alarmist.
Congratulations, you found one paper (with dubious merit) that supports your position, and suddenly you act like its 100% settled.
Again you use the same faulty logic that you just wrote off as my "strawman":
"Since we are not 100% sure that AGW is true, we are 100% sure AGW is false"
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Those critiques are humorous after reading the paper. I don't believe either one of those responders actually read what they were responding to. The paper is very comprehensive and addressed those criticisms.
Just like the historic record, CO2 in the recent record follows temperature, not the other way around. The cause cannot follow the effect therefore CO2 cannot be the cause of the warming.
Game over alarmist.
kinda. the CO2 does in fact spike greatly AFTER the warming. But, it does climb before as well. This is because the oceans, which do most of the CO2 scrubbing, cannot keep up as their temperature goes up, and you get the run away CO2, in a self defeating (for us) circle.
and, next, every event is quickly followed by an Ice Age. which is HIGHLY counter intuitive to the CO2 warming idea.
before I knew better - and in fact it is in this very thread - I argued the very same thing. I am still not convinced either way. because it is true - the same models used to show this is gonna be bad - show that this happens. almost on a schedule. and while we are not quite due yet - it is close enough to say its cyclical.
I would like to see a explanation of the previous 3-4 global warming/ice age events, and why this is unlike them.
But, I also fully understand taking stored energy from millions of years, and then releasing in a span of 100 years cannot be without impact.
kinda. the CO2 does in fact spike greatly AFTER the warming. But, it does climb before as well. This is because the oceans, which do most of the CO2 scrubbing, cannot keep up as their temperature goes up, and you get the run away CO2, in a self defeating (for us) circle.
and, next, every event is quickly followed by an Ice Age. which is HIGHLY counter intuitive to the CO2 warming idea.
before I knew better - and in fact it is in this very thread - I argued the very same thing. I am still not convinced either way. because it is true - the same models used to show this is gonna be bad - show that this happens. almost on a schedule. and while we are not quite due yet - it is close enough to say its cyclical.
I would like to see a explanation of the previous 3-4 global warming/ice age events, and why this is unlike them.
But, I also fully understand taking stored energy from millions of years, and then releasing in a span of 100 years cannot be without impact.
One of the main drivers is that of Milankovitch cycles; the several degrees of freedom that earth rotates not just about its axis (days) and the sun (years), but also the axial transgression of those.
There are other factors that also come into play including plate tectonics and how continental drift can disturb oceanic and atmospheric currents. Other factors such as large volcanic eruptions or solar cycles also play a part.
This provides some of the key evidence towards global warming. We understand how the climate is effected during those periods and what was going on. For example, we can find an ice age through ice core samples or tree ring data, then find volcanic sediment correlating to the same time frame. Also, since Milankovitch cycles are cyclical by nature, we can easily figure out their maximums and minimums and how they correlate to climate. We can look at all this data and figure out the degree of their influence and how it effects our climate. Out of all the data, nothing can account for the rate of change we're experiencing. This then causes scientists to look for this extra force. Thus far, there is nothing out there or combination there of that can explain this difference other than human influence.
And here's the rub where the deniers tend to hide. Has it been hotter? Sure. But the rate of acceleration of temperature is faster than anything that's occurred naturally (without some catastrophic force like an asteroid). This is why the 'its been hotter before!' argument displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject. Its the equivalent of arguing that "I've watched indy cars go 200mph for hundreds of laps and have to slow down to pit" And using that 'logic' to insinuate that if you throw a concrete barrier in the middle the track before they come around for the next lap, there will be no effects let alone consequences. After all, they've slowed down from 200mph before. Its this rate of change, not just the final speed that the largest threat.
The other "The science isn't settled" argument resides on the fact we don't have every single variable nailed down and accounted for with infinite precision. In engineering, you take a course called "Dynamic Systems and Controls", a 400 level class. It teaches you how to handle and approach single input single out (SISO) and multiple input multiple output (MIMO) systems. One of the subjects learned is the degree as to how much variables can effect a system, especially the dampening ratio (or K factor), and how these can make a system unstable. If you gave me a bunch of variables, I could fairly easily identify the main drivers of the output. The deniers argument is that we haven't expanded the variable matrix to a trillion x trillion accounting for every variable down to a single knat fart in kentucky, the science isn't settled, regardless if we've already identified nearly all the major contributing factors. Further, we can look at what we don't know and even account for them at their maximum influence, determine that they would have negligible effect. This is why you see estimates for the future temperature in ranges. We can take these unknowns, substitute minimums and maximums to determine the range of the output.
Deniers go on to insert logic failure as well. Dubbed the Kehoe Principle (contrary to the Precautionary Principle) after the whole leaded gasoline fiasco. They suggest that there's no risk associated with actions until we experience the ramifications. Its the equivalent of stating you can jump off a bridge, and if you don't know how tall the bridge is to infinite precision or say down to machine zero (10^-1022) rather than a range of say 197.45ft to 204.21ft, that there's absolutely no danger in doing so. Its only at the instant of a picosecond one makes contact with the bottom, should they be able to tell if there's any risk with jumping off the bridge.
As maso has stated, the "we don't have enough data" (aka "The science isn't settled) is an open admission of ignorance. However, after this admission, they go on to make declarative statements. You can't say "I don't have enough information to make a conclusion" then immediately state a conclusion. Imagine going to your doctor complaining about not feeling well. Without any tests, your doctor states "Well I don't know why you're sick. . . but its cancer. . . people have had cancer before." I'm pretty sure you'd be finding a new doctor. . .
[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 08-15-2014).]
Actually, you are the one who does not understand how science works.
quote
In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it. Richard Feynman
Congratulation, your strawman just beat the **** out of you. First time I ever saw that. LOL
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti:
Congratulations, you found one paper (with dubious merit) that supports your position, and suddenly you act like its 100% settled.
Again you use the same faulty logic that you just wrote off as my "strawman":
"Since we are not 100% sure that AGW is true, we are 100% sure AGW is false"
Wrong. He claims the paper's authors failed to take into account El Nino's effect. The paper clearly does take that into account and is discussed in depth. Even he admits that CO2 lags temperature.
IPCC will NEVER come up with any answer other than human caused global warming. It is their stated purpose. Duh
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
re: coffin nail (or death knell?) for Anthropogenic Global Warming
There's no reference to the Humlum paper anywhere in IPCC, Climate Change 2013, The Physical Science Basis.
Here's what RealClimate's Rasmus E. Benestad had to say about the Humlum report :
Benestad's full critique, plus 66 other responses :
The 5th conclusion states the following: “Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.”
Actually, you are the one who does not understand how science works.
As an undergraduate at Caltech I was one of Richard Feynman's students, and I can safely say that when it comes to science you have no idea what you're talking about. Either you do not understand what Dr. Feynman was saying, or you have chosen to misrepresent it.
For further reading I highly recommend Richard Feynman: Cargo Cult Science. Read it for content and understanding, not just to validate your own prejudices.
"The first principle [of scientific integrity] is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool." ~ Richard Feynman
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT:
Game over alarmist.
Take it easy. I'm starting to worry that you're going to injure yourself taking all those Victory Laps you keep awarding yourself in this thread.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" ~ Charles Darwin
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 08-18-2014).]
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Congratulation, your strawman just beat the **** out of you. First time I ever saw that. LOL
You do realize that the "strawman" that you keep referring to is the basis of 90% of deniers' arguments, right? Do you realize how stupid this makes you sound?
quote
Actually, you are the one who does not understand how science works.
Of things that I don't understand, science is not one of them.
quote
Originally posted by RandomTask:
Deniers go on to insert logic failure as well. Dubbed the Kehoe Principle (contrary to the Precautionary Principle) after the whole leaded gasoline fiasco. They suggest that there's no risk associated with actions until we experience the ramifications. Its the equivalent of stating you can jump off a bridge, and if you don't know how tall the bridge is to infinite precision or say down to machine zero (10^-1022) rather than a range of say 197.45ft to 204.21ft, that there's absolutely no danger in doing so. Its only at the instant of a picosecond one makes contact with the bottom, should they be able to tell if there's any risk with jumping off the bridge.
Well said, and I can relate fully to "Dynamic Systems" as well, I also had to go through it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...on-ICE-FREE-now.html Myth of arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now
The orange outline represents the extent of Arctic sea ice over the period from 1981 to 2010. It's computed from the statistical mean of the measurements from 1981 to 2010 for the ice coverage on August 30 of every year.
The white area is the Arctic sea ice as of 08/30/2014--two days ago.
Remark the difference between the smaller area in white and the larger area enclosed by the orange outline.
So that's where the Arctic ice is, as of two days ago, compared to the trend that was characteristic of the 30 years from 1981 to 2010. It's visibly smaller.
It's always gratifying (I guess) to take another potshot at the perennial straw man Al Gore, but if anyone were to have a closer look at the media report that was just cited (by NickD3.4), they would see that the Arctic sea ice as of this date is more robust than it was just two years ago in 2012--as proclaimed in all capital letters MORE as the Daily Mail "headline"--but they would also see this:
quote
Yesterday Dr Ed Hawkins, who leads an Arctic ice research team at Reading University, said: ‘Peter Wadhams’s views are quite extreme compared to the views of many other climate scientists, and also compared to what the IPCC report says.’
Dr Hawkins warned against reading too much into ice increase over the past two years on the grounds that 2012 was an ‘extreme low’, triggered by freak weather.
‘I’m uncomfortable with the idea of people saying the ice has bounced back,’ he said.
However, Dr Hawkins added that the decline seen in recent years was not caused only by global warming. It was, he said, intensified by ‘natural variability’ – shifts in factors such as the temperature of the oceans. This, he said, has happened before, such as in the 1920s and 1930s, when ‘there was likely some sea ice retreat’.
Dr Hawkins said: ‘There is undoubtedly some natural variability on top of the long-term downwards trend caused by the overall warming. This variability has probably contributed somewhat to the post-2000 steep declining trend, although the human-caused component still dominates.’
Like many scientists, Dr Hawkins said these natural processes may be cyclical. If and when they go into reverse, they will cool, not warm, the Arctic, in which case, he said, ‘a decade with no declining trend’ in ice cover would be ‘entirely plausible’.
So, apart from the Daily Mail's well established style of all-caps HYPE and misleading headlines, the reality is that there is no reversal or rollback of the latest climate trend profiles from the IPCC to be found in this latest data from Arctic surveillance satellites.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-01-2014).]
First, the author is an ECONOMIST who works for a right wing political think tank. Trusting him for science on the AGW is the same as trusting your mechanic for open heart surgery.
Second, this argument has so many logical failures that its outright dishonest. On the first, it only accounts for global SURFACE temperature. So one data point out of the myriad available? In thermodynamics you need two thermodynamic properties to describe the state of a system. You provide one and declare everything is known and its not humans. What about the oceanic heat content? Why don't you model that and tell us there's a pause?
Speaking of pause, this 'pause' ONLY occurs if you choose to start at a very specific month of a specific year. Move forward or back a couple of months and this pause goes away. This is cherry picking to the nth degree.
[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 09-02-2014).]
And to add, the 'journal' he posted this in is a joke. SCIRP is open publishing; just pay them and regardless of whatever junk you propose, it will get 'published'.
SCIRP Company, well-known for its fake journals, fake conferences and its continuous and disturbing SPAM is growing rapidly with the ethical support of IEEE. Read the breaking news in our site only:
First of all, SCIRP is a commercial fake company and you can find several eponymous denunciations against SCIRP. For instance:http://www.jjj.de/fake-conf.html Everyday, SCIRP send us emails inviting us to submit our papers to SCIRP journals and conferences. SCIRP is acommercial publishing house and has an absolutely money-oriented policy. Publications without review. Journal publications ("open-access") if and only if you are willing pay very high fees for their disreputable SCIRP journals. This is SCIRP.
*Yawn* same argument, regurgitated. ... Speaking of pause, this 'pause' ONLY occurs if you choose to start at a very specific month of a specific year. Move forward or back a couple of months and this pause goes away. This is cherry picking to the nth degree.
I've beaten that horse to death, multiple times. Hope you have better luck than me.
The same year that former Vice President Al Gore predicted that the Arctic sea ice could be completely gone, Arctic ice reached its highest level in two years, according to a report by the Danish Meteorological Institute.
According to that report, which was cited by the Daily Mail (UK) on Aug. 30, “[t]he Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in a row.” The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) confirmed this trend, but didn’t go into as much detail as the Danish Meteorological Institute.
But an examination of ABC, CBS and NBC news programs since the Daily Mail story was published found that all three networks ignored news that Arctic sea ice was at a two-year high.
Yet, the broadcast networks have spent years promoting Gore’s environmental agenda. On Jan. 29, 2013, on NBC “Today,” host Matt Lauer asked Gore, “After years of calling people’s attention to this issue, and now we’ve seen Superstorm Sandy and tornadoes and drought and extreme temperatures, do you feel vindicated?”
In his Dec. 10, 2007 Nobel Prize speech, Gore said “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”
Meanwhile, the Antarctic Ice cap has been steadily increasing. However, climate alarmists dismiss this increase as actually being caused by warming temperatures
Ah, a latecomer. We were just discussing this report from the Daily Mail, four posts before this latest one from avengador1.
"The Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in a row."
After declining to a near record low in 2012, which was exacerbated by unusual short term weather patterns. superimposed upon a long term Arctic warming trend that most climate researchers attribute to man made global warming.
"Meanwhile, the Antarctic ice cap has been steadily increasing."
I call this the "Don't worry about global warming: After two or three more generations, most people will have relocated to the Southern Hemisphere" approach.
Most of the reports that I have been reading describe the Antarctic's land ice as decreasing, while the sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent has been expanding.
quote
Scientists continue to investigate the reasons behind Antarctica’s increasing sea ice, examining possibilities both close to home and further afield. As the studies show, most trends are small and mean different things than the Arctic sea ice trend, but scientists also agree this isn’t a signal of non-warming in Antarctica.
First, the author is an ECONOMIST who works for a right wing political think tank. Trusting him for science on the AGW is the same as trusting your mechanic for open heart surgery.
Irrelevant. You missed the PROOF and made the lazy argument mistake of trying to dismiss the proof by way of dismissing the source.
If you paid attention to the proof, instead of trying to dismiss the source, you'd see the proof is included.
quote
Second, this argument has so many logical failures that its outright dishonest. On the first, it only accounts for global SURFACE temperature. So one data point out of the myriad available? In thermodynamics you need two thermodynamic properties to describe the state of a system. You provide one and declare everything is known and its not humans. What about the oceanic heat content? Why don't you model that and tell us there's a pause?
Speaking of pause, this 'pause' ONLY occurs if you choose to start at a very specific month of a specific year. Move forward or back a couple of months and this pause goes away. This is cherry picking to the nth degree.
Again, you missed the proof. Included in the article are two datasets, hadcrut4 (surface) and RSS (satellite).
As for your "cherry picking" comment,, that's absurd. It wouldn't matter what MONTH you begin and end with over 18 or 19 YEARS.
I do not think global warming is logical. The earths core is molten and is very very gradually cooling off. Very long term temperature trends are downward. I believe that weather is cyclical and the cycles can be very long. That being said I think it is good to try to reduce air pollution but I think at a certain point its not cost effective or beneficial. I do think its a good idea not to clear cut when developing and not to interfere with natural water flow patterns if it can be avoided
Say goodbye to Summer! Snow comes a month early with SEVEN states due to drop into freezing conditions over the next week thanks to another Polar Vortex http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...-twitter_dailymailus
The so-called deniers of global warming were right all along. The world hasn’t warmed and no longer accepts catastrophe as its inevitable fate, except for the U.N. and the U.S., which still milk the hype for all it is worth.
Those who cling to climate catastrophe will meet at the U.N. in New York on September 23. Matt Ridley opines in the Wall Street Journal that the Catastrophist Extraordinaire, President Obama, may sit alone in the session. Representatives from India, China, and Germany announced that they will not attend.
Those nations that differentiate fact from fiction recognize that whatever global warming might have existed in antiquity stopped more than 17 years ago in the modern era. What global warming are we talking about here?
The proponents of global warming rely exclusively on models, all of which are wrong and predict temperature rise that is not borne out by actual temperature records. In science, the models that do not match the data are thrown out in favor of the ones that do. Contrarily, the IPCC keeps all of the models, concentrating them into an assemblage of errors in hopes that bad predictions may somehow come true.
The hope, of course, is that the worldwide fear mongering will mislead the public and allow the imposition of impossible standards for emissions around the world. Such standards strangle national economies with taxes and penalties that produce no environmental benefit nor change in global temperatures. •The U.N. and the U.S. hype the global warming narrative at home and abroad as Agenda 21, a movement of statist societies seeking to transform the world to a classless, moneyless, public society. •The U.S. appoints its enviro henchman, the EPA, to overstep its bounds in promoting the hoax.
Ridley's WSJ account reviews the science that shows catastrophic global warming will not come to pass as predicted, inasmuch as the political benefactors of the hype would like to conclude. Scientists made the future sound even less alarming than before, while global warming still serves as an unnecessary distraction from serious issues.
“Let's hope that the United Nations…asks the delegates to…concentrate on more pressing global problems like war, terror, disease, poverty, habitat loss and the 1.3 billion people with no electricity.”
As for your "cherry picking" comment,, that's absurd. It wouldn't matter what MONTH you begin and end with over 18 or 19 YEARS.
I posted this awhile ago:
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti:
If you start at year 1997, you get a 0.10 C increase over 16 years. If you start at year 1999, you get a 0.16 C increase over 14 years. If you start at year 2000, you get a 0.19 C increase over 13 years.
See where I'm going with this?
1998 is the obvious outlier. If you use any other year besides 1998, there's still an obvious warming trend.
The entire premise that there's been no warming in 19 years completely relies on the year 1998 - because 1998 was an exceptionally hot year, well above 1997 or 1999.
This graph shows it pretty nicely.
quote
RSS dataset (17 years 11 months, no warming) versus failed IPCC projections for the same period
That article shows a clear warming trend from 1990 to 2014. So which is it? Is the earth not warming, or is it just warming a bit less than the IPCC projected?
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 09-09-2014).]
Warming and cooling in the climate runs in cycles. It really has nothing to do with what we do. We had a difficult and cold winter this past year. The new winter appears to be deepening right on schedule.
Warming and cooling in the climate runs in cycles. It really has nothing to do with what we do. We had a difficult and cold winter this past year. The new winter appears to be deepening right on schedule.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Warming and cooling in the climate runs in cycles. It really has nothing to do with what we do. We had a difficult and cold winter this past year. The new winter appears to be deepening right on schedule.
