Skip to main content

"It’s been a busy year for climate scientists, who have been trying to explain why there has been no global warming for nearly two decades.

 

The Daily Caller News Foundation reported in February there were eight mainstream explanations for the pause, but there are now a whopping 52 explanations for why there has been no warming trend for the last 215 months.

 

Explanations for the pause in global warming range from ocean oscillation cycles to Chinese coal plant emissions, volcanic activity to some scientists even saying there is no hiatus in warming."



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09...rming/#ixzz3D9l13yPK

 

After reviewing the list, I realized parts read like David Letterman's top ten list. Perhaps, the writers are moonlighting as Letterman's time come to the end.

 

:Love the title of excuse number 52, :"52) ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend." 

 

Secular warming trend!  Is that versus the religious belief of the warmists.. Crash couldn't make up this silliness.

 

TRUTH -- THE NEW HATE SPEECH!

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Now didn't the Global Warming crowd say that warming was a settled science. So how come they have 52 reasons for it not getting warmer. Does not sound very settled to me either as a scientific fact OR as a theory. Perhaps those believers can explain it away as it seems to be the religion of the left that warming must be a fact and  reason to start riding horses and buggies.

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

you can't read your own 'references'.. even they support global climate change... and yet, i'm the one that has no 'cognitive skills'.. gotcha.

__________________________________________________________________

The theme of this thread is that global warming has stopped for more than a few years not that the Earth has not warmed since the Little Ice age. Get with the program. Note that Dr, Spencer has observed this.

 

2) Why Do Some Scientists Say It’s Cooling, while Others Say the Warming is Even Accelerating? Since there is so much year-to-year (and even decade-to-decade) variability in global average temperatures, whether it has warmed or cooled depends upon how far back you look in time. For instance, over the last 100 years, there was an overall warming which was stronger toward the end of the 20th Century. This is why some say “warming is accelerating”. But if we look at a shorter, more recent period of time, say since the record warm year of 1998, one could say that it has cooled in the last 10-12 years. But, as I mentioned above, neither of these can tell us anything about whether warming is happening “now”, or will happen in the future.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/my...pticism-for-dummies/

well, i'd say 'study to study', depending on who's paying for it, would explain a LOT of difference in 'opinion'. i'd say , depending on the location, that could explain differing 'scientific opinions'.  if i look at 'this week' it looks like we're in for another ice age... as i said, THREE TIMES BEFORE, the global climate is changing... the debate is over whether it's 'man-made' or not.  IF 'climate scientists' show the deep ocean currents have absorbed a large amount of the 'earth's warming', then we will still have the debate of 'man-made' or not.  now, feel free to insult my intelligence, again... it seems to be your 'go to' strategy.

I think there is supposed to be a warmer and wetter winter for us due to El Niño. Given the accuracy of "experts" lately, I may have to ready the anti-polar bear devices. As to climate change, since we live on the cooler end of the Holocene with an observed cooling trend for the last 6-8000 years, you might get your ice age within a century or ten.

The Earth's climate has always been changing and I doubt it will hold still for long.

 

(Reuters) - Swathes of the Amazon may have been grassland until a natural shift to a wetter climate about 2,000 years ago let the rainforests form, according to a study that challenges common belief that the world’s biggest tropical forest is far older.

 

The arrival of European diseases after Columbus crossed the Atlantic in 1492 may also have hastened the growth of forests by killing indigenous people farming the region, the scientists wrote in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

 

"The dominant ecosystem was more like a savannah than the rainforest we see today," John Carson, lead author at the University of Reading in England, said of the findings about the southern Amazon.

 

The scientists said that a shift toward wetter conditions, perhaps caused by natural shifts in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, led to growth of more trees starting about 2,000 years ago.

 

The scientists studied man-made earthworks, uncovered by recent logging in Bolivia, that included ditches up to about a kilometer (1,100 yards) long and up to 3 meters deep and 4 meters wide.

 

They found large amounts of grass pollen in ancient sediments of nearby lakes, suggesting the region had been covered by savannah. They also found evidence of plantings of maize, pointing to farming.

http://www.reuters.com/article...dUSKBN0FD00N20140708

The rainforests of the Amazon were farms before the coming of the Europeans. The works of the indigenous peoples of America would have contributed to a warmer, wetter climate over 400 years ago, if the findings are taken to the extreme.  The climate appears to be cooling, in contradiction to the warmiwts. 

However, again the main point is they lied about much of the warming trend, re-sized graphs to show false rise in the sea levels and were wrong, in general, about the consequences.

To be fair, one can say the human desire to cover everything in concrete and asphalt does cause warming on the micro-climate scale.

 

Some areas of Australia's cities will be up to 3.7 degrees hotter by 2050 due to the growth of urbanisation according to new research data.

 

Australia will experience the "urban heat island effect" in which temperatures will rise in built-up areas with more asphalt and concrete. Researchers from the University of NSW say the rising temperatures will enhance the effects of climate change.

 

Lead author of the study Daniel Argueso says if a person lives near the edge of the city, a change in temperature may be observed particularly during the night.  The researchers completed the study at the Centre for Excellence in Climate System Science.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles...ent.htm#.VBhIwxYlr7R

 

Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

It might also be of note that weather stations located near heat islands might give warmer temperatures.

http://www.foxnews.com/science...-temperature-record/


Urban heat islands were discussed in Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear".  Was the first time I heard of this effect and it has been shown, with no doubt, to increase ground temps quite a bit.

Good Book and while fiction it is probably very close to what is going on today with the Global Warming faithful oh I mean the climate change faithful .

`i read there is a prediction of another unusually cold winter, like last year.  The grid barely handled the higher output.  True, there are modernizations that would help, but a large limitation is the method of generating electricity.  To instantly provide electricity to the grid requires methods that have fuel readily available and, weeks, if not months of supply at hand.  There are only two such sources -- coal and nuclear.  Wind generation efficiency dips as the temperature drops -- many are taken off line.  Solar, of course, is only available during sunny days.  Dams,, especially up north, lose power as the rivers freeze.  Natural gas can't be stored economically onsite in sufficient amounts (there are safety concerns, as well).  If, the supply is interrupted, power generation drops immediately. 

 

One good cold winter and interrupted natural gas supplies and  no cola backup will be a disaster.

 

 

Another theory is that deniers single out "since 1998" since that year was an unusually warm outlier.  They don't want to discuss "since 2000" or  "since 1996" since 1998 is the only starting point prior to 2003 that would indicate anything other than warming.

And even when they start with 1998, they want to draw a line directly from 1998 to present, ignoring all the data in between, instead of doing a proper least squares analysis, which would show the actual trend for the data.

Originally Posted by Aeneas:

Another theory is that deniers single out "since 1998" since that year was an unusually warm outlier.  They don't want to discuss "since 2000" or  "since 1996" since 1998 is the only starting point prior to 2003 that would indicate anything other than warming.

And even when they start with 1998, they want to draw a line directly from 1998 to present, ignoring all the data in between, instead of doing a proper least squares analysis, which would show the actual trend for the data.

__________________________________________________________________

 

And why do believers only consider the few years of the 20'th Century and not the rest of the Holocene?

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×