Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Shady

The Global Warming Plateau

Recommended Posts

hey now! Stay tuned on Tuesday for Obama's version of a "getting to the moon" vision... you'll all be pulling together right? :lol:Obama to lay out climate change plan in speech on Tuesday

.

Sure...we get a lot of that each election cycle nowadays....not bad for a "denier nation", eh ? Maybe he will take another run at Cap & Trade, only to crash and burn again. Warmies can keep trying while the U.S. economy keeps on burning fossil fuels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure...we get a lot of that each election cycle nowadays....not bad for a "denier nation", eh? Maybe he will take another run at Cap & Trade, only to crash and burn again. Warmies can keep trying while the U.S. economy keeps on burning fossil fuels.

hey, you can keep plying your idiotic "denier nation" trolling BS forever... you know I never said it... you know you refuse to take-up my challenge and quote where I said it. So, as is your trolling way, you drop that turd of yours... as often as you can squeeze it out! :lol:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey, you can keep plying your idiotic "denier nation" trolling BS forever... you know I never said it... you know you refuse to take-up my challenge and quote where I said it. So, as is your trolling way, you drop that turd of yours... as often as you can squeeze it out! :lol:

.

So much negative energy and ill will....this is not a healthy outlook. Why do you issue so many challenges and demands to/from other members ? Such foul language as well...sad.

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey now... fill your boots! Apparently, you know soooooooooo much, you just can't be bothered to show some of your self-proclaimed know-who, know-what, know-when, know-where, know-why!!! Not even a lil' bit... not even a teensy-weansy lil' bit! :lol: You can't be bothered; apparently, your dodging act takes up all your time&energy. Carry on!

You can't be bothered to read what you've already been shown. Untll I see some of that, I'm not going to waste any effort on you bringing forth more sources that you also won't read, but will copy and paste an irrelevant graph parroting what someone else said that you don't actually understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't be bothered to read what you've already been shown. Untll I see some of that, I'm not going to waste any effort on you bringing forth more sources that you also won't read, but will copy and paste an irrelevant graph parroting what someone else said that you don't actually understand.

what graph would you like me to explain to you? Again, just say you haven't the intellectual honesty to back up your claims/statements. Your artfulDodger denier act has been exposed! You have 4... count em'... 4, outstanding citation requests coinciding with your blustering bravado --- 4 outstanding challenges to you, that you refuse to accept. The best lamest response you can put forward is that you also claim to be parroting the posts/links/references put forward by other MLW members in this thread... that's it... that's all ya got! :lol:

you claimed, "alarmists made surface warming up"... support your claim...citation request! You claimed, "no statistical warming for over 16 years"... support your claim...citation request! You claimed, "They weren't just a little off, they were completely wrong, and they were told they were wrong a long time ago"... support your claim...citation request! You claimed, "the consensus claimers control publishing and deny publishing papers that don't align with the consensus"... support your claim...citation request!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what graph would you like me to explain to you? Again, just say you haven't the intellectual honesty to back up your claims/statements. Your artfulDodger denier act has been exposed! You have 4... count em'... 4, outstanding citation requests coinciding with your blustering bravado --- 4 outstanding challenges to you, that you refuse to accept. The best lamest response you can put forward is that you also claim to be parroting the posts/links/references put forward by other MLW members in this thread... that's it... that's all ya got! :lol:

you claimed, "alarmists made surface warming up"... support your claim...citation request! You claimed, "no statistical warming for over 16 years"... support your claim...citation request! You claimed, "They weren't just a little off, they were completely wrong, and they were told they were wrong a long time ago"... support your claim...citation request! You claimed, "the consensus claimers control publishing and deny publishing papers that don't align with the consensus"... support your claim...citation request!

Asked and answered. Read the material you've already been supplied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asked and answered. Read the material you've already been supplied.

supplied by who? Where? What are you so afraid of? Just link to the MLW member's posts you claim to be parroting? What's so difficult here? What are you running from? Why won't you... why can't you, back up your words, your statements... your claims? Is there a problem you're having?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly recommend The Cooling Consensus in the current issue of The Economist. I'll link to it later today.

Edited by Shady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly recommend The Cooling Consensus in the current issue of The Economist. I'll link to it later today.

just another journalist who focuses solely on surface temperature while ignoring the 90% of warming that goes into the oceans. No problem Shady, but I thought you might actually want to read earlier posts... in the thread you started - your own thread. Don't tell me you're choosing to selectively read/accept only what you want to bolster your misunderstandings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly recommend The Cooling Consensus in the current issue of The Economist. I'll link to it later today.

Yes...good call...it's all right there in a neat little package:

"Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections".

..... But there's no way around the fact that this reprieve for the planet is bad news for proponents of policies, such as carbon taxes and emissions treaties, meant to slow warming by moderating the release of greenhouse gases. The reality is that the already meagre prospects of these policies, in America at least, will be devastated if temperatures do fall outside the lower bound of the projections that environmentalists have used to create a panicked sense of emergency. Whether or not dramatic climate-policy interventions remain advisable, they will become harder, if not impossible, to sell to the public, which will feel, not unreasonably, that the scientific and media establishment has cried wolf.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/climate-change

Far more entertaining is the immediate backlash attacks from "warmies" whenever such articles are published or discussed. The degree to which alarmists must silence any skepticism or "denial" has a life of its own. Remarkable.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apparently... all of Obama's scientific advisers from NAS, particularly those from the National Academies of Sciences, must have missed the journalist's findings!!! :lol:

Ahhhh....one of your American faves no doubt....the NAS....just like NASA, NOAA, GISS, and Rutgers !! Maybe if Canada had such investment and resources it wouldn't have made such a Kyoto FAIL blunder. Just sayin'......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhh....one of your American faves no doubt....the NAS....just like NASA, NOAA, GISS, and Rutgers !! Maybe if Canada had such investment and resources it wouldn't have made such a Kyoto FAIL blunder. Just sayin'......

why the Kyoto troll again? Have you such a limited capability that you can't reach beyond trolling? Just sayin'......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why the Kyoto troll again? Have you such a limited capability that you can't reach beyond trolling? Just sayin'......

Are you trying to forget the Kyoto FAIL ? Are my reminders too painful to bear ? Don't think of it as "trolling".....more like....wisdom from past mistakes to learn from. No matter, as American resources are at your disposal whenever you need them !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you trying to forget the Kyoto FAIL ? Are my reminders too painful to bear ? Don't think of it as "trolling".....more like....wisdom from past mistakes to learn from.

your claimed 'dispensed wisdom' has been heard... a brazillion times over. One questions why you need to continue derailing thread after thread to... dispense more of the same... wisdom! Perhaps you should try harder to bring meaningful new wisdom forward... reach a bit... you might like it - be all you can be! Be more than a trollMaster, hey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It used to be that there was a vast difference between anthropogenic global warming and weather. Proponents of AGW were quick to point that out but since it has changed to Climate Change, and global warming has cooled somewhat, weather seems to be the big topic.

Another little piece of wisdom that painfully points to the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It used to be that there was a vast difference between anthropogenic global warming and weather. Proponents of AGW were quick to point that out but since it has changed to Climate Change, and global warming has cooled somewhat, weather seems to be the big topic.

you are mixing the terms global warming and climate change. Global warming is not weather... it's not climate change. What proponents were/are quick to point out is the improper conflation of weather and climate.

you are perpetuating a tired meme when you suggest the phrases AGW/GW have changed to climate change. Global warming has not cooled... in recent years, surface temperatures have not risen at the same accelerated rate. A declining rate is not cooling. More pointedly, per previous discussion within this thread, in line with the long-standing acknowledged understanding that more than 90% of all warming goes into the oceans, in recent years accelerated warming of respective ocean layers has been measured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are mixing the terms global warming and climate change. Global warming is not weather... it's not climate change. What proponents were/are quick to point out is the improper conflation of weather and climate.

you are perpetuating a tired meme when you suggest the phrases AGW/GW have changed to climate change. Global warming has not cooled... in recent years, surface temperatures have not risen at the same accelerated rate. A declining rate is not cooling. More pointedly, per previous discussion within this thread, in line with the long-standing acknowledged understanding that more than 90% of all warming goes into the oceans, in recent years accelerated warming of respective ocean layers has been measured.

Is climate change the result of global warming?

I guess the latest is that 90% of all warming goes into the oceans. Let's see, over the last century, the temperature rose 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit, 1.5 degrees is ten percent of 15 - 1.5 = 13.5 or 90% of 15. Did the ocean warm 13.5 degrees over the last century, waldo?

I have read that the temperature over the last 15 years has risen minimally, I think it was .11 degrees or something like that. Have the oceans warmed 1.1 degree over the last 15 years? Can you check those figures for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the latest is that 90% of all warming goes into the oceans.

the latest??? C'mon Pliny, I responded to this same ploy of yours in this threads earlier post - here: drawing reference to heat transfer, ocean heat content (OHC) and a couple of (now dated) 2001/2005 studies that spoke directly to OHC... and your persistent nemesis, models! And yes, the >90% warming going into the oceans, and OHC, was referenced in this threads earlier post - here:

equally, from the (now relatively dated) IPCC AR4, addressing heat balance and putting the OHC in perspective:

To place the changes of ocean heat content in perspective, Figure 5.4 (the following figure) provides updated estimates of the change in heat content of various components of the Earth’s climate system for the period 1961 to 2003 (Levitus et al., 2005a). This includes changes in heat content of the lithosphere (Beltrami et al., 2002), the atmosphere (e.g., Trenberth et al., 2001) and the total heat of fusion due to melting of i) glaciers, ice caps and the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets (see Chapter 4) and ii) arctic sea ice (Hilmer and Lemke, 2000). The increase in ocean heat content is much larger than any other store of energy in the Earth’s heat balance over the two periods 1961 to 2003 and 1993 to 2003, and accounts for more than 90% of the possible increase in heat content of the Earth system during these periods. Ocean heat content variability is thus a critical variable for detecting the effects of the observed increase in greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere and for resolving the Earth’s overall energy balance.

figure-5-4.jpeg

Figure 5.4. Energy content changes in different components of the Earth system for two periods (1961–2003 and 1993–2003). Blue bars are for 1961 to 2003, burgundy bars for 1993 to 2003.

now, as for your other attempt to conflate metrics (global surface temperature vs. OHC), we haven't had a dose of your Mr. Wizard self in quite a while. Please proceed, Governor!

global surface temperature: the area-weighted global average of (i) the sea-surface temperature over the oceans (i.e. the subsurface bulk temperature in the first few meters of the ocean), and (ii) the surface-air temperature over land at 1.5 m above the ground.

ocean heat content (OHC): the integrated temperature change times the density of sea water, times specific heat capacity from the surface down to the deep ocean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is climate change the result of global warming?

I guess the latest is that 90% of all warming goes into the oceans.

Just give the warmies and alarmists time to get their story straight....I'm sure they will figure out something.....eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee waldo is the IPCC still around?

is that your comeback? Is that the best you've got Pliny? So, does this mean you won't be bringing forward your Mr. Wizard self after all? Of course you know full well the status of the IPCC... I expect you're waiting with baited breath for the upcoming late-2013/early-2014 release of AR5, right Pliny? Sure you are!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is that your comeback? Is that the best you've got Pliny? So, does this mean you won't be bringing forward your Mr. Wizard self after all? Of course you know full well the status of the IPCC... I expect you're waiting with baited breath for the upcoming late-2013/early-2014 release of AR5, right Pliny? Sure you are!

It was never a hat I wore, waldo. You have been conjuring up wizardry and hubble-bubble jargon for years. You're the best.

What's AR5? Nyuk Nyuk.

http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/

Edited by Pliny

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...