Recommended Posts
billvon 2,691
>Yes yes, I know. But the problem was about global warmING, not global warmER.
Cool, semantics games! Taking lessons from Gravitymaster?
But in any case, fine. The planet is becoming warmer but it's not warming. If that's the only way it makes sense to you, then at least you're accepting the science.
> It was to be this, runaway, melt the south pole, hellscape of super hurricanes and F5
>tornadoes, with marauding polar bears eating baby seals.
You've been watching too many Hollywood movies.
Cool, semantics games! Taking lessons from Gravitymaster?
But in any case, fine. The planet is becoming warmer but it's not warming. If that's the only way it makes sense to you, then at least you're accepting the science.
> It was to be this, runaway, melt the south pole, hellscape of super hurricanes and F5
>tornadoes, with marauding polar bears eating baby seals.
You've been watching too many Hollywood movies.
brenthutch 416
"in 2008 NOAA said that pauses of 15 years or more would not fit with climate simulations. James Hansen was caught in ClimateGate saying that ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ When the pause got a bit longer still, Ben Santer said in a paper, that really it was 17 years we needed to see. That was 2011.
Now in 2013, Pachauri says we’ll need 30 -40 years of the IPCC being wrong before we can say they’re wrong."
Moving the goal posts anyone?
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/pachauri-quietly-blows-goalposts-away-pretends-to-like-skeptics-its-all-pr-to-keep-the-gravy-train-running/
Now in 2013, Pachauri says we’ll need 30 -40 years of the IPCC being wrong before we can say they’re wrong."
Moving the goal posts anyone?
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/pachauri-quietly-blows-goalposts-away-pretends-to-like-skeptics-its-all-pr-to-keep-the-gravy-train-running/
brenthutch 416
Quote>Yes yes, I know. But the problem was about global warmING, not global warmER.
Cool, semantics games! Taking lessons from Gravitymaster?
But in any case, fine. The planet is becoming warmer but it's not warming. If that's the only way it makes sense to you, then at least you're accepting the science.
> It was to be this, runaway, melt the south pole, hellscape of super hurricanes and F5
>tornadoes, with marauding polar bears eating baby seals.
You've been watching too many Hollywood movies.
-------------------------------------
An Inconvenient Truth?
billvon 2,691
>An Inconvenient Truth?
More like "The Day After Tomorrow."
More like "The Day After Tomorrow."
The British Met Office (Britain's "NOAA") responded to the article Sunday, and continues to address with comments in the Met Office News Blog.
Again here's an excerpt. You can read the whole post from the link above.
The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.
As we've stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous - so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.
Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.
minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/assets_c/2012/10/130%20BMO-thumb-490x348.png
As was PREVIOUSLY pointed out to you several times, Mr. Shill, cherry picking a particular short period and then claiming that warming has stopped is not only silly because it's so easily spotted and debunked, it's also intellectual fraud.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites