Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Shady

The Global Warming Plateau

Recommended Posts

your timing reference is incorrect and disputable... your isolating on surface-temperatures only is purposely biased and skewed. There is no "at loss to explain it"... see continued heat transfer into respective ocean layers. Please elaborate on your "more to the story" - waiting.

So is this heat transfer into ocean layers new? Wasn't the same thing happening 10 and 20 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now gone are the nefarious secondary schemes of wealth transfer to "developing" nations.

don't be too disheartened! :lol:

Kyoto is dead.

no - you're trolling - as you well know, Kyoto I ended per schedule. Kyoto II continues on per those nations choosing to do so. How are you making out on the challenge you received to show/prove that Kyoto I was a failure in terms of emissions reductions... it's been a long time now - is there a problem?

Sacred prediction models for average temperature increases are now laughable monuments to alarmist hysteria.

do tell, do tell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is this heat transfer into ocean layers new? Wasn't the same thing happening 10 and 20 years ago?

this is your originated thread, right? Are you actually following it? :lol: One of the following links is even a reply to... YOU!

see this link - previously from this thread:

see this link - previously from this thread:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the multi-decades old Hansen multi-scenario projections have been spoken of on MLW, many times over. As has been shown, many times over, one scenario of the projections, the scenario Hansen stated as 'most likely, most probable'... as explained via an assortment of MLW posts, that scenario has stood the test of time.

As expected, the usual apologist retort closely follows, as if AGW dissent of any kind must be engaged and silenced. Heretics must be silenced as DENIERS !!

No matter, the alarmists have lost at every turn. Economics will determine policy, not self anointed "climate scientists" and their Chicken Little followers.

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. I don't understand the close-mindedness. It's like they think we've learned everything we'll ever know about the climate. It's such a neanderthal mindset.

clearly... you are a guy who also doesn't understand the concept of radiative forcing! Or the difference between weather and climate, or the distinction between local/regional and global!

The sun, most certainly, is not irrelevant. The sun is factored. However, how many times do you need to be shown that there is no correlation between the increased warming of (relatively) recent years and solar irradiance/solar cycles? You have been shown this... over and over, again! You just ignore it!

again, in regards the others items you mention, you clearly do not understand the concept of 'radiative forcing' no matter how many times it's mentioned, no matter how many times it's described, no matter how many times it's defined. You seem to spend an inordinate amount of your time on weather/localized/regional items, none of which have global impact... perhaps you might be better served to broaden your narrowly skewed perspective - yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As expected, the usual apologist retort closely follows, as if AGW dissent of any kind must be engaged and silenced. Heretics must be silenced as DENIERS !!

No matter, the alarmists have lost at every turn. Economics will determine policy, not self anointed "climate scientists" and their Chicken Little followers.

simply responding to your direct linked quote/graph... do you think your continued nonsense just stands on it's own... that it warrants "no reply"? :lol: Clearly, you need better material!

enjoy your denial... and your continued MLW trolling. You're becoming nauseatingly predictable - as if!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no - you're trolling - as you well know, Kyoto I ended per schedule. Kyoto II continues on per those nations choosing to do so. How are you making out on the challenge you received to show/prove that Kyoto I was a failure in terms of emissions reductions... it's been a long time now - is there a problem?

Kyoto is dead...and it died the most dramatic and painful death in Canada, exposed for the political exercise it always was. Canada's Kyoto FAIL irked some here at MLW, and they still try to spin it as a success. The fanciful carbon emissions markets created out of thin air collapsed when demand evaporated with the real world's economic downturn. Welcome back to reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

simply responding to your direct linked quote/graph... do you think your continued nonsense just stands on it's own... that it warrants "no reply"? :lol: Clearly, you need better material!

enjoy your denial... and your continued MLW trolling. You're becoming nauseatingly predictable - as if!!!

I have lots of better material...from the same "denier nation" from which you often get yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, it's the same ole, tired stream of direct trolling - your one-trick pony show, interspersed with fabrications, misinformation and disinformation.

And yet you continue to engage...why? My views are permitted here despite your objections. Please leave the slurs at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of closed mindedness, calling this a 'plateau' as per the thread title seems to brazenly celebrate starting with a conclusion and working backwards. Nobody knows if warming is reaching a limit or not.

At least 'plateau' implicitly acknowledges that warming DID happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kyoto is dead...and it died the most dramatic and painful death in Canada, exposed for the political exercise it always was. Canada's Kyoto FAIL irked some here at MLW, and they still try to spin it as a success. The fanciful carbon emissions markets created out of thin air collapsed when demand evaporated with the real world's economic downturn. Welcome back to reality.

yes - as stated, Kyoto I ended per schedule. In Canada, Harper Conservatives, effectively, pulled the pin on Canada's participation in Kyoto in 2006 (bringing in the alternative Harper Conservative 'Made in Canada' emission reduction commitment)... of course, that became official when, in 2010, Harper Conservatives (to avoid paying the Kyoto penalty for not meeting commitments), formally removed Canada from Kyoto I. Equally, of course, you and your (claimed) country have no standing in challenging any country on Kyoto participation... given the U.S. reneged on it's signing of the Kyoto protocol; i.e., "the U.S. Kyoto FAIL". As you also know, counter to your repeated claims, in the context of Kyoto and the Kyoto timeframe, you have been unable to substantiate your claim that, 'the U.S. bettered the emissions reductions of Canada... even without Kyoto participation'. Have you been working feverishly to provide your missing substantiation? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of closed mindedness, calling this a 'plateau' as per the thread title seems to brazenly celebrate starting with a conclusion and working backwards. Nobody knows if warming is reaching a limit or not.

At least 'plateau' implicitly acknowledges that warming DID happen.

I just took the title from the New York Times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of closed mindedness, calling this a 'plateau' as per the thread title seems to brazenly celebrate starting with a conclusion and working backwards. Nobody knows if warming is reaching a limit or not.

At least 'plateau' implicitly acknowledges that warming DID happen.

Warming (and cooling) was never seriously in doubt, despite continued attacks against so called "DENIERS". The conflict(s) arise for those who wish to arrest such warming (regardless of cause) through political coercion and the power of the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes - as stated, Kyoto I ended per schedule. In Canada, Harper Conservatives, effectively, pulled the pin on Canada's participation in Kyoto in 2006 (bringing in the alternative Harper Conservative 'Made in Canada' emission reduction commitment)...

Yes, as I stated, Kyoto died a slow and painful death in Canada, despite much fanfare and political celebration upon ratification. Canada helped to kill Kyoto....THANKS !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet you continue to engage...why? My views are permitted here despite your objections. Please leave the slurs at home.

it usually only takes a short time - you present no real challenge that takes any significant amount of time to counter. Your views are permitted; however, much to your personal consternation, they are... and they will continue to be, challenged and shown to be the failed and lacking nonsense they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it usually only takes a short time - you present no real challenge that takes any significant amount of time to counter. Your views are permitted; however, much to your personal consternation, they are... and they will continue to be, challenged and shown to be the failed and lacking nonsense they are.

That's fine by me, but your position is not consistent, rather preferring that I do not post such perspectives from a "denier nation". Odd.....

I wish to personally thank you for goosing my post count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, as I stated, Kyoto died a slow and painful death in Canada, despite much fanfare and political celebration upon ratification. Canada helped to kill Kyoto....THANKS !!

it wasn't slow at all! It was pretty immediate upon Harper Conservatives assuming government in 2006. Why do you, thread after thread, post after post, continue to interject Kyoto into the discussion? You do so, but are unwilling, after repeated challenges, to substantiate your repeated claim, in the context of reduced emissions, that Kyoto was a failure.

like I said, you need new material!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don Easterbrook waded into the deep end years ago:

Don Easterbrook (geologist at Western Washington University) made predictions in 2001 as to the future global (and northern hemisphere) temperatures to the year 2100.

In 2001, I put my reputation on the line and published my predictions for entering a global cooling cycle about 2007 (plus or minus 3-5 years), based on past glacial, ice core, and other data. As right now, my prediction seems to be right on target and what we would expect from the past climatic record, but the IPCC prediction is getting farther and farther off the mark. With the apparent solar cooling cycle upon us, we have a ready explanation for global warming and cooling. If the present cooling trend continues, the IPCC reports will have been the biggest farce in the history of science.” [http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/glocool_summary.pdf]

image016.jpg

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine by me, but your position is not consistent, rather preferring that I do not post such perspectives from a "denier nation". Odd.....

I wish to personally thank you for goosing my post count.

I could careless what you post... I revel in showing your posts for what they are! Up to a point of tolerance... the same point I've reached twice in the past, only to finally put you on ignore... once for a complete year!!! I do appreciate your record post count - where else could one find a self-proclaimed foreigner/interloper, so enthralled with Canadians, the inner politics of Canadians, Canadian-U.S. relations and Canadian views on the United States. By the by... are you only here because you aren't aware of any discussion boards within your own (claimed) country? I could help you out there, if you'd like. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it wasn't slow at all! It was pretty immediate upon Harper Conservatives assuming government in 2006. Why do you,

Wrong....it was political theatre from the git go, long before Harper in 2006. Canada paid lip service to the treaty's requirements, ultimately failing and withdrawing entirely. Kyoto is worthy of continued mention in "climate change" threads for obvious reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could careless what you post... I revel in showing your posts for what they are! Up to a point of tolerance...

This is not correct usage....what you mean is that you "could NOT care less". A while back you posted a tearful goodbye to MLW, only to edit the post away. I saw it for that fleeting moment, the wavering and disgust at the thought of a relentless and "prolific poster" never dying....never stopping....never going away.

Accordingly, I remain in good health with a very high speed internet connection.

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong....it was political theatre from the git go, long before Harper in 2006. Canada paid lip service to the treaty's requirements, ultimately failing and withdrawing entirely. Kyoto is worthy of continued mention in "climate change" threads for obvious reasons.

wrong - you talked of the 'end of Kyoto' in Canada... as stated, that correlates directly with Harper Conservatives actions in 2006 - in countering the Kyoto commitments with their own "Made in Canada" emission reduction commitments. No - the only reason you continue to mention Kyoto, to derail thread after thread, most pointedly, with respect to Canada... is you troll for responses to your same inane comments that presume to question/challenge Canada's resolve/commitments to a treaty you yourself called 'stupid'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A while back you posted a tearful goodbye to MLW, only to edit the post away. I saw it for that fleeting moment, the wavering and disgust at the thought of a relentless and "prolific poster" never dying....never stopping....never going away.

this is now the second time you've stated as such - what post was, as you say, "edited away"? Put up or...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don Easterbrook waded into the deep end years ago:

ah yes, the "renowned" and failed 'skeptic geologist'. Are you really sure you want to engage? The last time you went, as I recall, 7failures-for-7lameAttempts, when you repeatedly threw down nothing more than blind links to... whatever denier blogger your googly found!. This one is a very easy one... as you can expect, there are no shortages of refute to Easterbrook and his failed/flawed projections.

as you've been challenged in the past, before we take another shot here, instead of you blindly copying/pasting (parroting) yet another denier blogger, let's have you take a shot at actually laying down your own personal interpretation of that projection - hey? What's the projection based on? What assumptions does he make? Since he doesn't accept that greenhouse gases have an affect on global temperature, what physics/physical-science foundations is he relying upon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...