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

That is exactly right. The high CO2 concentrations and the associated higher temperatures of that time were responsible for the lush vegetation that grew at mid-latitudes 65 million years ago!

And what became of that lush vegetation that grew at mid-latitudes 65 million years ago?

It became the fossil fuels we are using today. And that CO2 from millions of years ago is being re-released to the atmosphere. Causing the climate to change.

No - I think most people know considerably more than you do about it.

Tell us - how were human societies organised in this world of lush vegetation millions of years ago? What major infrastructure had human societies developed?

 

You are mistaken, bugalugs.

<<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>The statement she agreed with was, "the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years." What Judith is saying is by the statement is we simply do not know if global warming has stopped or if it has continued to increase.

You cannot interpret this statement to mean global warming has continued to increase. The truth is we do not know because the examination period is simply too short.

Here is exactly what Judith Curry said in the "update" to her blog.

"Update: A few days ago, I received an email from Liz Muller, asking for suggestions for issues to deal with on their FAQ. I suggested dealing with the issue of whether there has been a stop/slowdown in the warming. Their response is posed here. The state &#8220;This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years &#8221; Which I agree with. But take a look at the graph. The year 1998 shows up as relatively cool, starkly different from say CRU."

Source: http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/

 

Look up.

There goes my point whistling over your head.

 

Ha-Ha!

Now you are "crawfishing" and everyone knows it!

For some reason, most liberals find it very difficult to ever admit when they are wrong. Why is that?

Sad. Very Sad.

 

Hahahaha how hypocritical, since you refuse to admit your OP was completely wrong.

 

Is it just me or are you trying to tell us that 2012 - 2007 = 15??

 

You are indeed correct, Don.

The liberals in this group are intentionally misleading our readers with incorrect statments.

Here is what Richard Muller has actually concluded.

"Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA."

Wow! Global warming has caused the temperature of the earth to increase by 1.6 degrees in 60 years! ... I'm now worried to death the world is going to end!

Muller went on to say, "Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world,” he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is."

Wow! Let's now spend billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to solve a problem that may or may not exist. And what if this problem is caused by natural forces and not by mankind and fossil fuels ... What do we do then? ... Do we get our money back? ... NOT!

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-now-agrees-global-warming-is-real/?page=all

 

Hmmmmm once again we have cherry picking

The full transcript surrounding that statements is

A few days ago, I received an email from Liz Muller, asking for suggestions for issues to deal with on their FAQ. I suggested dealing with the issue of whether there has been a stop/slowdown in the warming. Their response is posed here. The state “This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years. ” Which I agree with. But take a look at the graph. The year 1998 shows up as relatively cool, starkly different from say CRU[.


Indicating there is a larger discussion surrounding this and it is found here

http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#skepticismSome people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.

So you see James it is not saying what you are claiming it is saying

 

We agree!

We are both correct!

I am please this discussion is finally settled!

The recognized authorities now agree that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years." Depending on what analysis method you use, you can easily conclude "global warming has stopped or if it has continued to increase."

The statement Judith Curry agreed with was, "the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years." What Judith is saying is by the statement is we simply do not know if global warming has stopped or if it has continued to increase.

And from The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature team:

"Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years."

http://berkeleyearth.org/about-us/

 

Oh! Dear! Sorry I did not realise the depth of the numeracy problem among denialists

No wonder there is so little understanding of what "cherry picking" means in statistical terms

I also accept that the "worldview effect" has an impact where people continue to "see" what they want to see or rather take an interpretation that suits their own worldview rather than what is there but truly the posted article does NOT say that there has been an end to global warming

Rather it is pointing out that cherry picking data is meaningless

And perhaps that is my fault - I should have posted the graph that went with that explanation



Now draw the lines they talk about on that graph and you will see what they meant

 

Ha-Ha!

Excellent response, Mac.

The global alarmists in this group are really something else!

None of their arguments make any sense.

The liberals in this group are intentionally misleading our readers with incorrect statments.

 

Evasion

We caught you out cherry picking

We caught you out with mathematical error whilst telling the world that "Liberals" could not count

We caught you out on many issues - which you now ignore

 

Here's a thought. I challenge you to take a good look at their baseline. It's made of ice core samples. Something that melts. Not tree rings that do not.
They had to throw out the tree ring data because they said it didn't match the ice core samples.

The problem with that is... if the ice is melting now, they wouldn't have any samples of ice from this era in the future. So why would you think there were no periods of melting before modern day? No ice to sample from an era doesn't leave a nice gap. The next layer of ice wouldn't just conveniently leave an air gap. Gravity wouldn't allow it. This is why the tree rings don't match the core samples. They just aren't smart enough to realise it.


You're welcome.
Of course you won't address this, like you never do. All of you warmistas ignore the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of it because you don't have the intellectual firepower to attempt it.

 

I love how these trash heads ignore the fact that the planet's natural temperature has always been higher than it is today:

 

Here is a thought - check data BEFORE you post

Proxy data is from multiple sources not just ice cores

Just how dumb do you think scientists ARE?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/proxydata.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Part1_PreHistoricalRecord.htm

 

While at the same time researching it enough to give you the graph you just posted?

I mean if you are believing the scientists about past temperature variance why disbelieve them about current climate change?

 

Because there is a concerted effort to obfuscate certain facts (like that graph, tree rings etc) in order to build hysteria and ever inaccurate predictions to fund themselves?

I mean... as a start...

 

And 97% of scientists are in on this? I mean for there to be a concerted effort there must also be a group doing it yes?

So that means a conspiracy - and for that to occur in this case it must involve hundreds of climate scientists, thousands of meteorologists, hundreds of atmospheric chemists, thousands of chemists, most of the physicists on the planet, nearly all of the marine biologists and ecologists etc etc etc

Explain to me how they all got together for a "concerted effort"

 

You don't really need 97% so long as you keep saying 97%.

97% believe what? That the earth is warming? Or that we are the cause? I do not doubt that we have contributed... but as I keep pointing out... science requires prediction to be considered accurate. That being the measure... you come up short.

It's a nice theory. Would not be shocked if it were accurate... but don't (*)(*)(*)(*) on my leg and tell me it's raining. You deal in the field. What does that graph say to you?

Specifically.

 

You are mistaken if you think I "deal in the field" although I take that as a compliment for all of the personal research I have done in this field

What that tell me is that things like precession has affected our climate in the past


That things like Milankovitch cycles have affected our climate in the past

Earth's orbit


and that SOlar Cycles have affected our climate in the past

Is any of that happening now?

 

Another deflection. Answer the question. Why wouldn't the planet return to it's NORMAL temperature? Right now it seems to have a cold.

 

Yes. The planet is warming and continues to warm. The results are unambiguous.

Your OP is bogus
It's claim:
the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

is simply untrue

You should apologise to the forum for posting misinformation

 

And you have proof that the ice cores are the BASELINE data?

 

The reason why the planet will not return to it's normal temperature is that man has upset the normal balance

Meanwhile I note you are ignoring my question which was, which of the natural causes of Earth's temperature variance are causing the current climate change?

And BTW the whole "cooling thing" - it is a lie and we have proven that - time to move on