Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Shady

The Top 30 Excuses For The 18 Year Pause In Warming

Recommended Posts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/21/noaa-sotc-claim-that-2012-was-warmest-la-nina-year-is-wrong/

NOAA’s Definition and Data Contradict Their Claim That 2012 Was The Warmest La Niña Year

The report has since been corrected but it is an excellent example of how various government agencies misrepresent the data into order to create fear and draw funding.

:lol: linking to WTFIUWT and renowned (unpublished anywhere... well, anywhere except denier blogs) serial misinformer 'Bob Tisdale'!!! Well done, sir.

so for the sake of 3 years, the original statement that positioned La Nina years (2012 versus 2009), this is your "excellent example" - well done! Of course, NOAA has a rather detailed explanation - here:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? It is is nothing but alarmist drivel which completely misrepresents the data that we have today.

NASA scientists have confirmed the pause. You're a denier.

Gentlemen, I immediately posted a link in which Norman Loeb, the actual NASA scientist that Shady is claiming "confirmed the pause", points out that he did no such thing. The story listed in the OP is false and you have been made aware of that fact. So Shady, as Waldo has already pointed out, you are now purposely spreading a lie.

The point? Loeb writes it out: “Decadal periods of minimal surface warming, or even cooling [translation: the pause], interspersing decades of rapid surface warming, are not inconsistent with a long-term warming trend” (emphasis added). “Rather, it characterizes the interplay between steadily increasing greenhouse gas forcing and internally generated climate variability.”

As to the idea that global warming isn’t happening? Loeb stresses that he never suggested that — in fact, he said the opposite. All of these observations indicate that the Earth, as a whole, is continuing to heat up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, I immediately posted a link in which Norman Loeb, the actual NASA scientist that Shady is claiming "confirmed the pause", points out that he did no such thing. The story listed in the OP is false and you have been made aware of that fact. So Shady, as Waldo has already pointed out, you are now purposely spreading a lie.

You're conflating issues. I never insisted that Norman Loeb said warming wasn't happening. I simply posted his acceptance of a pause. And your initial claim of my link was wrong. I didn't link to the cite you mentioned. I linked to CBS News. So stop with the lies please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're conflating issues. I never insisted that Norman Loeb said warming wasn't happening. I simply posted his acceptance of a pause. And your initial claim of my link was wrong. I didn't link to the cite you mentioned. I linked to CBS News. So stop with the lies please.

Your link comments on the same false story about a Norman Loeb lecture and purposely misrepresents the material. As Loeb explained in the link I posted, his lecture showed uninterrupted ocean warming and that:

"What looks like a slowdown, Loeb explained, isn’t — it’s a fluctuate in a long-term pattern of surface temperatures that tend to fluctuate, but that, taken as a whole, are clearly trending upward."

“Decadal periods of minimal surface warming, or even cooling [translation: the pause], interspersing decades of rapid surface warming, are not inconsistent with a long-term warming trend” (emphasis added). “Rather, it characterizes the interplay between steadily increasing greenhouse gas forcing and internally generated climate variability."

I understand that you were duped by a headline, that happens. However, by continuing to spread the falsehood after the error has been brought to your attention, you are deliberately lying. If you have any regard for your own credibility you should acknowledge your mistake and cease repeating this false claim.

Edited by Mighty AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Loeb explained in the link I posted, his lecture showed uninterrupted ocean warming and that:

What Loeb says is self-serving BS. He acknowledges that the data shows that warming is NOT proceeding at rates previously predicted but he makes the completely baseless assertion that it means nothing because the previously claimed warming will appear in the future. The trouble is the evidence to support what he wants to believe is ambiguous at best. At this point in time no one can say if the pause means that previous estimates of warming are grossly exaggerated or if (as he claims) it is a temporary lull. People who claim it is "just lull" are misrepresenting the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stumbled across this today while doing some reading. It's a somewhat lighter-sided look at some of the excuses made to explain a very serious topic, the hiatus of warming over the last decade and a half.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/28/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-the-18-year-pause-in-global-warming-if-you-cant-explain-the-pause-you-cant-explain-the-cause/

Remember. if you can't explain the pause, then you can't explain the cause.

What if it's all natural variability?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bureaucrats always want more funding. The NOAA budget has more than doubled over the the last 15 years - must faster than the rate of inflation or the growth in the economy.

They should tie the NOAA budget directly to a powerful environmental indicator.

Growth or shrinkage of the icecaps? Mean temperatures? Al Gores electricity bill? David Suzukis net income?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should tie the NOAA budget directly to a powerful environmental indicator.

Growth or shrinkage of the icecaps? Mean temperatures? Al Gores electricity bill? David Suzukis net income?

When's the last time you heard about growth of an icecap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When's the last time you heard about growth of an icecap?

Check out Antarctica - its ice expanse is the largest in sattelite history.....it's been growing for some time now......but we never hear about that, do we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out Antarctica - its ice expanse is the largest in sattelite history.....it's been growing for some time now......but we never hear about that, do we?

We certainly do hear about and I've mentioned it on here before that if you do some research on it you find the best explanation is that warming temperatures have substantially increased the amount of precipitation occuring there. Precip. as I'm sure you know is a process where water evaporates and then condenses and falls back to earth as rain and that rain has no salt content even if it originates from salt water. When you add fresh water to salt you reduce it's salt content and therefore increase it's freezing point. So ironically enough GW causes increase in the ice in antarctica. But don't forget the huge ice sheets slipping from the land into the sea, and take a look at teh other pole if you want to see missing ice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out Antarctica - its ice expanse is the largest in sattelite history.....it's been growing for some time now......but we never hear about that, do we?

As On Guard for Thee mentioned the freshening ocean water more readily freezes thus increasing the area of sea ice in the Antarctic. In addition to increased precipitation, the continuous break off and melt of land ice contributes to the freshening process. Losing land ice in the Antarctic happens to be far worse for us as melting sea ice doesn't increase ocean water levels, but land ice does.

Antarctica_Ice_Mass.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has also been a redistribution of sea ice in the Antarctic. There have been large losses around the Antarctic Peninsula which is a large breeding ground for many species. Without sea ice, krill have nowhere to breed and they are the foundation of the area's eco system. Adelie penguin populations have plummeted, largely because they now have to travel much farther from their rookeries to find food.

One can always point to increases in ice somewhere, but are they enough to offset the losses elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has also been a redistribution of sea ice in the Antarctic. There have been large losses around the Antarctic Peninsula which is a large breeding ground for many species. Without sea ice, krill have nowhere to breed and they are the foundation of the area's eco system. Adelie penguin populations have plummeted, largely because they now have to travel much farther from their rookeries to find food.

One can always point to increases in ice somewhere, but are they enough to offset the losses elsewhere.

From what I read that shifting antarctic (land) ice is caused in large part by a combination of increased sea level along with sea temperature sloshing under the sheet's more and effectively "greasing the skids". The Thwaites seems to be the one suffering the fastest slippage currently. It only seems logical that the increase in sea ice due to various freshening influences on the seawater will be temporary as both sea and air temps. elevate.

But hey I currently have to walk a ways to get to the Pacific, I may soon be able to cast a line from my upstairs bedroom balcony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been large losses around the Antarctic Peninsula which is a large breeding ground for many species. Without sea ice, krill have nowhere to breed and they are the foundation of the area's eco system.

Because it's not like variations in Antarctic sea ice distribution has occurred before or anything. *sarcasm*

But hey I currently have to walk a ways to get to the Pacific, I may soon be able to cast a line from my upstairs bedroom balcony.

Could you please explain how long you expect to live and how tall your building is? Because this claim seems absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it's not like variations in Antarctic sea ice distribution has occurred before or anything. *sarcasm*

Could you please explain how long you expect to live and how tall your building is? Because this claim seems absurd.

How come you seem to understand your own sarcasm but note others? In any case, a little research will show you the unprecedented RATE of change occuring nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out Antarctica - its ice expanse is the largest in sattelite history.....it's been growing for some time now......but we never hear about that, do we?

It would disturb the propaganda narrative.

We certainly do hear about and I've mentioned it on here before that if you do some research on it you find the best explanation is that warming temperatures have substantially increased the amount of precipitation occuring there. Precip. as I'm sure you know is a process where water evaporates and then condenses and falls back to earth as rain and that rain has no salt content even if it originates from salt water. When you add fresh water to salt you reduce it's salt content and therefore increase it's freezing point. So ironically enough GW causes increase in the ice in antarctica.

In other words it's so hot it's cold? Edited by jbg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come you seem to understand your own sarcasm but note others? In any case, a little research will show you the unprecedented RATE of change occuring nowadays.

And? That doesn't somehow make your 'prediction' not absurd. Even If I assume that you were to live for 100 more years, and that your house is only 2 meters above sea level, you claim is still absurd and outside any reasonable projection models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would disturb the propaganda[/s] narrative.

In other words it's so hot it's cold?

Why should that be such an odd occurrence in a more energetic i.e. warmer climate? Ever notice what happens when you put a refrigerator's power setting at high?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And? That doesn't somehow make your 'prediction' not absurd. Even If I assume that you were to live for 100 more years, and that your house is only 2 meters above sea level, you claim is still absurd and outside any reasonable projection models.

Once again let me explain something to you. Don't use sarcasm if you fail to be able to identify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should that be such an odd occurrence in a more energetic i.e. warmer climate? Ever notice what happens when you put a refrigerator's power setting at high?

Sigh, the scientific illiteracy...

Please name a physical phenomenon on Earth that acts as a reverse carnot engine (i.e. refrigerator).

The Earth is not remotely like a refrigerator.

Once again let me explain something to you. Don't use sarcasm if you fail to be able to identify it.

This may be difficult for you to understand, but other people cannot read your mind and they cannot see your facial expression or other body language that may indicate sarcasm when you are on an online forum. When I use sarcasm, I usually follow it by *sarcasm* on and online forum for clarity. If you do not wish to make it clear that you are using sarcasm on an online forum then please do not be surprised when people misinterpret you and take what you say literally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh, the scientific illiteracy...

Please name a physical phenomenon on Earth that acts as a reverse carnot engine (i.e. refrigerator).

The Earth is not remotely like a refrigerator.

This may be difficult for you to understand, but other people cannot read your mind and they cannot see your facial expression or other body language that may indicate sarcasm when you are on an online forum. When I use sarcasm, I usually follow it by *sarcasm* on and online forum for clarity. If you do not wish to make it clear that you are using sarcasm on an online forum then please do not be surprised when people misinterpret you and take what you say literally.

OK, my apologies. If I quote something from you now I will make it very clear and simple so you don't get confused, or upset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please name a physical phenomenon on Earth that acts as a reverse carnot engine (i.e. refrigerator).

Why, you're saying heat isn't energy?
The Earth is not remotely like a refrigerator.

Never said the Earth was.

Edited by eyeball

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...