It is now official. No global warming of the earth's environment in 15 years.

You appear to have very poor comprehension skills.


I accused RedStatesRuls of being dishonest for posting that that the decrease of the arctic ice cap and the decrease of global glacial mass balance are "myths". These claims are clearly and demonstrably untrue - as he have been shown


Your news article does not contradict my statement in any way. In fact - it supports it:

"The new data does not mean that concerns about climate change are overblown in any way. It means there is a much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought. Taken globally all the observations of the Earth's ice – permafrost, Arctic sea ice, snow cover and glaciers – are going in the same direction."

It appears that you owe me an apology

 

You are correct,WertyFArmer.

To the radical Left and the global "alarmists” in our group, the end always justifies the means.

These thoughtful comments just about say it all!

Marc Morano, publisher of the popular Climate Depot blog, told FoxNews.com that Gleick’s revelation of his activities could ruin his career.

"Climate activists have been frustrated for years at their inability to convince the public and Washington to 'solve' global warming. So Gleick took it upon himself to reverse this trend," Morano said.

"He instead did massive harm to the cause he holds so dear."

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012...s-from-conservative-think-tank/#ixzz1n3b0riEe

 

These additional discussions were also very revealing.

The lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. However, these effects are not due to the presence of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere. Instead, they are clearly due to heat inputs from the Atlantic Oscillation and more intense El Nino conditions in the northern hemisphere.

 

You are correct, Mac-7.

Many producers add CO2 to their greenhouses to make their vegetables and flowers grow faster, more luscious and much larger

By the way, when these libs breathe in and exhale, they exhale CO2 and water vapor, two very intense greenhouse gases.

The global warming "fanatics" in this discussion group are polluting our planet!

 

You are indeed correct, Subdermal.

When you study the GISS global surface temperature data closely, there is absolutely no credible evidence of global warming in over 50 years.

A temperature increase of 0.51 deg-C in over 50 years IS NOT credible evidence of global warming!

NASA GISS Global Surface Temperature Data​

The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, when the GISS global temperature record begins. By 1960, the average concentration had risen to about 315 parts per million. Today it exceeds 390 parts per million and continues to rise at an accelerating pace. However, there has been no discernible temperature increase in average annual mean global surface temperatures since 1997.

 

Reapeating your posts only further demonstrates your very poor comprehension skills.


I accused RedStatesRuls of being dishonest for posting that that the decrease of the arctic ice cap and the decrease of global glacial mass balance are "myths". These claims are clearly and demonstrably untrue - as he have been shown


Your news article does not contradict my statement in any way. In fact - it supports it:

"The new data does not mean that concerns about climate change are overblown in any way. It means there is a much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought. Taken globally all the observations of the Earth's ice – permafrost, Arctic sea ice, snow cover and glaciers – are going in the same direction."

It appears that you owe me an apology

 

No. Still incorrect. And repeating this drivel does not make it less incorrect


There has been a discernible and statistically significant temperature increase in average annual mean global surface temperatures since 1995.

"The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.

"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.

"It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

Stop trying to play with statistics. It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

You are mistaken, bugs.

A global surface temperature increase of 0.51 deg-C in over 50 years (1960-2011) is certainly not credible evidence of any global warming.

Perhaps it is in your mind, but I assure you, it is not credible evidence in any one else's mind!

By the way, anything you quote by Phil Jones of "Climategate" fame cannot be believe or accepted! He has been totlally discredited!

 

Please learn to understand what you are actually reading.

It is an AVERAGE global surface temperature increase of 0.51 deg-C over the the AVERAGE global surface temperature of the base period 1951-1980

That is certainly credible evidence of global warming.

Sorry - but virtually every scientist on the planet disagrees with you.

 

you are indeed correct, Don.

Only the far-Left global "alarmists" will insist this information is not true.

And they never provide any credible sources to back up their unsupported claims!

 

Look at your reference again:

It is an AVERAGE global surface temperature increase of 0.51 deg-C over the the AVERAGE global surface temperature of the base period 1951-1980

Do you understand the difference? It appears not.

 

Bugs,

You have no idea what you are talking about.

It is now obvious to everyone you are not a mathematician and you are simply blowing smoke!

This following statement is taken directly from the official NASA report dated Jan. 19, 2012.

"The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.51°C warmer than the mid-20th century baseline." This is what the expression “global temperature difference” that is clearly printed on the official NASA chart actually means.

Furthermore, reading directly from the chart, the average temperature around the globe in 1960 was 0.00°C warmer than the mid-20th century baseline.

Therefore, the average temperature increase from 1960 until 2011 was 0.51°C (0.51°C - 0.00°C = 0.51°C). An average temperature increase of 0.51°C over 51 years is not considered an appreciable increase in global warming.

This value an increase of much less than 1.0 °C in the average surface temperature represents a miniscule increase in global warming, and its effects on the environment are insignificant.

Case closed. Problem solved.

 

Yes. that is exactly correct.

Not "a global surface temperature increase of 0.51 deg-C over the time period 1960-2011 " as you incorrectly stated

Not surprising since 1960 is one of the years which forms the mid-20th century baseline.

No - the average temperature anomaly from the 1951-1980 baseline was 0.51°C in 2011.

And as your graph very clearly shows - that anomaly have been positive every year since the early 1980s

No. An average global temperature anomaly of 0.51 deg-C is very significant.

Paleoclimate data indicates it is a larger anomaly than has been seen in at least the last 1000 years


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/last2000-large.jpg

It is the reason that the arctic ice cap is receding
It is the reason sea levels are rising
It is the reason that global mass balance is decreasing.

Go back to school and learn some basic maths sonny.

 

The post you refer to is utterly clueless in its assertions. That isn't uncommon. Well debunked!

 

Where's my Bugs Bunny cartoon?

 

Oh really? You're posting the corrected numbers? No you're not. You're posting GISS data - which is the very dataset that I've skewered in my posts. You must be speaking of Cessna's chart - not mine.

In short, you don't have the foggiest notion about which you're speaking. In fact, it's you who has the problem with basic statistics, as well as reading comprehension, as you would have at least acknowledged what I wrote before trying to peddle the exact same data that I critiqued.

IF you didn't bother to read what I posted, GISS data is corrupted by removing "anomaly" data in several parts of the globe - which is a data scrubbing that wasn't undertaken in the past - even though this 'new' form of data collection causes it to appear as though our temps are increasing at a faster pace. You're crowing about a .51C increase as actually meaningful, when the AGW crowd has said that such a rate of increase would not support their case. Regardless: what I posted shows a .35C difference by even Mannie D's own admission.

Pay attention.

 

bugalugs used a debunked dataset to debunk a case?

Not so - and you don't even care to pay attention. What I posted nearly 10 pages ago hasn't been refuted at all - only a lame attempt at taking out the messenger.

 

You are mistaken, bugs.

An average global temperature anomaly of 0.51 deg-C over 50 years is not significant.

You are a global "alarmist". It is obvious no amount of scientific data that says otherwise is going to change your mind.

In your strange world, an average global temperature anomaly of something as small as 0.01 deg-C is significant.

We will just have to agree to disagree.



Compare the length of the “manipulated" shadow cast by the chimney and the “true” length of the squirrel’s actual shadow!

 

You don't have a clue, do you James? Why is he wrong, in your educated opinion...because he doesn't agree with you and you can't award him any stars?

 

First off, prove they changed the data to make one scarier? You guys are always complaining about how a small change in temperature does not matter. So why is a .0009 change in slope suddenly significant?

 

Ha-Ha!

Bugs is wrong because he is a global "alarmist". It is obvious no amount of scientific data that says otherwise is going to change his mind or your mind.

In his strange world and in your strange world, an average global temperature anomaly of something as small as 0.01 deg-C is significant.

You, "bugs" and I will just have to agree to disagree.

 

So you have no answer then. Why am I not surprised James? So, I'll ask you again-why is he wrong? In your own words this time, please. Thank you.

 

Totally agree.

 

Now we can actually get somewhere without insulting each other over-and-over again about our views on global warming!

Bugs is wrong because he is a global "alarmist". It is obvious no amount of scientific data that says otherwise is going to change his mind or snake's mind.

In their strange world, an average global temperature anomaly of something as small as 0.01 deg-C is significant.

"Bugs" and "snake" and I will just have to agree to disagree.

By the way, Mannie, I do have an open mind on the global warming issue.

We have not seen evidence of global warming in the past 10 years because the sun's sunspot activity has been very low. The sun's activity is picking up again, and consequently, we may soon see an increase in global warming.

Here are three excellent articles you and others in our group may enjoy reading. Are you aware recent satellite data now conclusively show global warming is not "global"?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0415124059.htm

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_NotGlobal.htm

This following article is very good.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul...nrik-svensmark

Thank you and thank others in our group for having an open mind on this issue.