Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

Actually the only people that seem to think this pull most if not all their information from blogs and skeptic websites, not scientific journals. Had you bothered to look at the huge amount of peer-reviewed literature that spans across many scientific practices you would see how staggeringly far off the mark you are. I'd get your own credibility in check before disparaging others.

 

There have been threads on it so if you don't know do the research

 

That is why scientists leave the IPCC and speak of the corruption

http://ukipscotland.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/fifty-ipcc-experts-expose-global-warming-lies/

 

You mean like global warming?

 

No.

You wrote:
There is evidence that warming has stopped

Please show us this evidence.


Don't run away.

You made a claim. Back it up.

I say your claim is complete crap. Here is my evidence to support what I say:



Global temperature evolution 1979–2010
We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022


Now - please show some evidence to support your statement.

 

There are threads here on this but you are to lazy to do the research

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

 

Thank you.

Let's see what your little tabloid article says shall we?

But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Goodness me!!! What a scoop by the Mail!!! What a fine newspaper!

I wonder what Prof. Curry really said?


a British newspaper said one of Muller's co-authors, Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry, accused Muller of another Climategate-like scandal and trying to "hide the decline" of recent global temperatures.

The Associated Press contacted Curry on Sunday afternoon and she said in an email that Muller and colleagues "are not hiding any data or otherwise engaging in any scientifically questionable practice."

The Muller "results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma..._he_now_agrees_global_warming_is_real/?page=2

Curry also said:

With regard to the Rose article. The article spun my comments in ways that I never intended.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/rosegate_rose_hides_the_inclin.php


So - it appears you were 100% wrong when you wrote:

There is evidence that warming has stopped

There isn't.
It hasn't.

What was it you said about being too lazy to do research? You should probably apologise to the boards for circulating misinformation.

 

So you have to go back 40 years. the truth is in the last 10 years she still says has no warming.

Nice try to go on a rabbit trail that proves nothing

From the OP

 

If most of the atmosphere is not involved in warming (and I think it's more like 99%) then there must be very little, if any, measurable effect. I am, in fact, correct because for the past 100 years the Earth has 'warmed' about 0.7C. If one accepts the fact that the measurment protocols were stiffly enforced, that all the instruments were calibrated accurately...etc. and that data hasn't been tossed because it didn't 'fit' in some way. Oh wait....yeah....

 

No - she DID NOT say there was no warming in the last 10 years.
That was a fabrication by the author David Rose. SHE DIDN'T SAY IT

She said:
"results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960"

The author attributed something to her that she did not say:
With regard to the Rose article. The article spun my comments in ways that I never intended.

You have been conned.

 

warming has stopped in the last 10 years




is there any hope of an intelligent discussion with people who think that short term data is relevant projecting long term trends...I try to find the words to describe them but I can't think of any that won't get this post deleted...

 

ptif219 proved it

He showed me a tabloid newspaper article that misquoted a scientists.

Hard to argue with that evidence.

 

Well, the LIA was "only" about 0.6C colder, so I would say that the effects of a 0.7C temperature swing is not as small as you seem to suggest.

And I notice you did not respond to this:
"Cholesterol makes up about .05% of your body weight. Do you believe that a 40% increase would be harmful to your health? "

 

How can you say that Warmer "scientists" are any more credible than tabloids?

Confronted with massive fraud, the Warmers whitewashed it and restored the miscreants to the their previous positions.

 

There is no comparison because cholesterol comes in different forms (LDL, HDL..) and each individual can have a different sensitivity to cholesterol. Studies show that blood types are a key to cholesterol sensitivity. Therefore, a 40% increase in cholesterol may have little or no effect on less cholesterol sensitive folks and may actually be beneficial if HDL is increased.

C02 has only 1 form and there is only 1 earth. In addition cholesterol is actually manufactured by the body. C02 is made up of Carbon and Oxygen neither of which can be manufactured.



Nice try but....another epic fail.

 

As are all of your very ignorant and anti-science posts.

 

I see so comparing cholesterol with CO2 is somehow 'science' in your ignorant, highly estimable non-intellectual opinion? You are a serial abuser here on the Forum which is why I usually ignore your posts.

 

An unwarranted and very ignorant assumption. The greenhouse gas effect is quite measurable and is responsible for the Earth not being a frozen ball of ice. The greenhouse effect is, in fact, currently melting the ice caps and glaciers, raising sea levels, causing shifts in the seasons and a number of other changes in the Earth's climate patterns.

Rather amusingly, you seem to assume that if you're clueless and completely ignorant about something, then everyone else must be too. LOL.

 

There you go again with your abusive tone. Your ignorance is epic...Water vapor constitutes 95% of so-called 'greenhouse gases' in our atomshpere and of that 95%, 99.999% is of natural origin. Simply put, water vapor overwhelms all other natural and man-made greenhouse contributions.

References:

1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.

2) "Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2n the construction of the 'Greenhouse Effect Global Warming' dogma;" Tom V. Segalstad, University of Oslo

3) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC), U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

4) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.

5) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:

a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT

e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:
f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:

g. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:

h. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65
Link:

5) Global Climate Change Student Guide
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom

6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California

7) Methane record and budget
Robert Grumbine

 

So you agree that a 40% increase in a substance that is only .05% of body weight has an effect! Good! You are on your way to understanding!

 

Did you read the a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264
paper? Because I am familiar with Ramaswamy and there is no way in hell that he ever stated that water vapor contributes 95% to warming!

 

Bingo!

Gottcha!

You got that list from here http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

next time you copy something without a link you will be reported

Now I wil ask the question that I always ask when this stupid argument about water vapour comes up - a question that is never answered

"Just how dumb do you think scientists are?"

Bloody hell! You think they have NOT factored in the effects of water vapour?

In fact this particular argument has lost so much credibility that it has slid to position 32 on the most frequent (debunked) arguments list
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

 

Those are references and obviously anyone can google them...After all YOU did...Ha Ha Ha...

Let us remember that we are talking here about THOUSANDTHS of a degree per year...if that. We are arguing about a TRACE gas (CO2) that constitutes LESS THAN a fraction of a percentage of the Earth's total atmosphere and less than one tenth of 1% of the total greenhouse gas constituent of that atmosphere that SUPPOSEDLY has the magical effect of causing catastrophic climatic changes which have not happened and most likely will not happen due to human life.

Then you have the unmitigated gall to post a link to a pro-GW site that claims to be skeptical and claim legitimacy...You're hilarious.

 

Do you have trouble with basic grammar skills? Are you claiming that water vapor does not constitute 95% of all so-called greenhouse gases?

 

Doesn't matter I won;t be the one paying the fine for copyright breach ha ha ha ha........

Something this and every forum should take seriously - but if it does not worry you you will not mind me reporting it.

BASIC grade school science

That is what you are failing to refute here

BASIC GRADE SCHOOL SCIENCE

Science that has been known since the middle of the 1800's http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Oh! and just for the record that link is to This is mounted on the Website of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics.

Now this same trace gas that you aim has no effect on global temperature is one of the main reasons why the globe is not an big ball of ice
talk about your epic fails.....................................