'Missing heat' discovery prompts new estimate of global warming

[bigrebnc1775]

AGW is a scientific certainty. The data that you are talking about is only chasing how and how long it takes the increased climactic temperatures to manifest themselves.

no it's not skewed data is not a scientific certainty

Very little, if anything in science is a certainty. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo was not a certainty. Yet it did, and was predicted to by science. Next.

skewed data is just that skewed data used for political purposes to push an agenda next.

 

[PMZ]

no it's not skewed data is not a scientific certainty

Very little, if anything in science is a certainty. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo was not a certainty. Yet it did, and was predicted to by science. Next.

skewed data is just that skewed data used for political purposes to push an agenda next.

Data is a raw material. Often it must be processed to make it useful. That's a large part of science, mathematics, and statistics. If you don't understand them, you are ill equipped to judge the data.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Very little, if anything in science is a certainty. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo was not a certainty. Yet it did, and was predicted to by science. Next.

skewed data is just that skewed data used for political purposes to push an agenda next.

Data is a raw material. Often it must be processed to make it useful. That's a large part of science, mathematics, and statistics. If you don't understand them, you are ill equipped to judge the data.

data also needs peer review the skewed data never received that

 

[Abraham3]

Which data do you believe to have been "skewed" and what is your evidence?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which data do you believe to have been "skewed" and what is your evidence?

the data that started the global warming theory are they any other?

 

[PMZ]

AGW is certain and mostly in the future. There are no future data. That’s why mankind invented math and science. So we didn't have to wait until too late to influence the future.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

AGW is certain and mostly in the future. There are no future data. That’s why mankind invented math and science. So we didn't have to wait until too late to influence the future.

all I can say is where's the data with peer review to support your opinion

 

[PMZ]

AGW is certain and mostly in the future. There are no future data. That’s why mankind invented math and science. So we didn't have to wait until too late to influence the future.

all I can say is where's the data with peer review to support your opinion

There is no data from the future. It hasn't been made yet.

There is, however, science. It has the amazing magic to predict the future from data from the past. That's what the IPCC does professionally.

 

[PredFan]

'Missing heat' discovery prompts new estimate of global warming



One has to wonder, if climate change deniers are as good at this as they claim (for instance they claim to have determined - not via the scientific method, mind you - that climate scientists are "hiding the decline"), how is it that they missed the heat? Were they "hiding the heat" at the same time they claim climate scientists were "hiding the decline"?

They found some missing heat did they? Kind of the same way that democrats find missing votes in the trunks of cars?

Yeah well we in the real world we found missing polar bears, missing ice caps, missing snow and a whole bunch if cherry picked data used by the AGW believers.

What you have no science to find is the energy caught here every day by increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations, that restrict radiation out into space, while incoming solar energy stays the same.

It has to be here and building. That will continue, and cause warming, until energy balance is restored. There are no other possibilities.

The IPCC is tracking it down with science. You are chasing it with politics.

You have no chance of finding it.

Regurgitate that AGW garbage all you want to, what we in the real world found, and I SAID found, not looking for, is the missing polar bears, the missing ice, the missing cold weather, the missing snow, ample scientific evidence that CO2 follows high temps and not vice versa, and geologic evidence that the earths temperatures have been higher in the past. In addition, we in the real world have found corruption, outright fraud, and intimidation from the AGW "scientists", plus a push from political forces that have interests that have nothing to do with saving the planet.

So you've found some missing heat? We've found a lot more than that.

 

[PredFan]

'Missing heat' discovery prompts new estimate of global warming



One has to wonder, if climate change deniers are as good at this as they claim (for instance they claim to have determined - not via the scientific method, mind you - that climate scientists are "hiding the decline"), how is it that they missed the heat? Were they "hiding the heat" at the same time they claim climate scientists were "hiding the decline"?

They found some missing heat did they? Kind of the same way that democrats find missing votes in the trunks of cars?

Yeah well we in the real world we found missing polar bears, missing ice caps, missing snow and a whole bunch if cherry picked data used by the AGW believers.

Erm, you found "missing ice caps"? There are only two on this planet, and we know exactly where they are. Is there any more misdirection you care to share with us, and are you ever planning to address the OP?

Speaking of misdirection, you know exactly what I was saying.

 

[PredFan]

The simplest metaphor for AGW is still the kitchen sink. Water coming in to it from the faucet is analogous to incoming solar energy. Water going down the drain is outgoing long wave radiation into space. The level of the water in the sink is the amount of energy in all earthly systems which climactic temperature is proportional to.

Increasing GHG concentrations slow the drain.

The water level does what the energy does here as a result. It increases until it's higher pressure due to its greater depth, restores the drain rate to the faucet rate, and that's where it stays.

We need to take a plunger to the whole AGW theory

We could ignore it like the animals are but that won't make it stop.

If its happening, we can't make it stop, nor can we even slow it down. It's ignorance and arrogance to even say otherwise.

 

[PredFan]

While Frank displays a significant paucity of objective knowledge on the matter.

That might be true, but at least he doesn't look as stupid as the people that believe three contradictory explanations for the lull at the same time.

One says that El Nino induced at peak in warming, and that the current lull is actually an increase because there was no drop after the spike in the 1970s.
The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955?2011 simulated with a 1D climate model - Online First - Springer

Then we have this thread, which says that it is the result of coverage bias. and that, if we ignore the actual data, there has been an increase.
Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends - Cowtan - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library

Then we have my personal favorite, the stadium wave theory.
?Stadium Waves? Could Explain Lull In Global Warming

Yet I am a denier because I see the different theories, and refuse to accept whichever paper some idiot stumbles over.

There is nobody with any scientific background that denies AGW.

All of the science now is going into when and how will the energy that is here, caused GHGs, going to manifest itself in what it must, higher climactic temperatures.

Nobody? Hey look, we've found something else; lies by the AGW crowd.

That's the thing I have a lot if trouble with. If the science us really there, if it is really settled, then why the lies, corruption, fraud, and intimidation of those who disagree? Science used to welcome disagreement, testing of hypothesis, bucking the trend or mainstream. Now all of a sudden, with AGW none if that is tolerated. Never before have I ever heard scientists say: "the science is settled".

It isn't settled, it is probably completely false and that is what the tremendous amount of insecurity is all about.

 

[PMZ]

We need to take a plunger to the whole AGW theory

We could ignore it like the animals are but that won't make it stop.

If its happening, we can't make it stop, nor can we even slow it down. It's ignorance and arrogance to even say otherwise.

We have to replace fossil fuels. The only question is when. If we do it earlier rather than when we're forced to, we will have some left for higher uses and less impact from AGW.

It's all economics.

 

[PMZ]

That might be true, but at least he doesn't look as stupid as the people that believe three contradictory explanations for the lull at the same time.

One says that El Nino induced at peak in warming, and that the current lull is actually an increase because there was no drop after the spike in the 1970s.
The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955?2011 simulated with a 1D climate model - Online First - Springer

Then we have this thread, which says that it is the result of coverage bias. and that, if we ignore the actual data, there has been an increase.
Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends - Cowtan - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library

Then we have my personal favorite, the stadium wave theory.
?Stadium Waves? Could Explain Lull In Global Warming

Yet I am a denier because I see the different theories, and refuse to accept whichever paper some idiot stumbles over.

There is nobody with any scientific background that denies AGW.

All of the science now is going into when and how will the energy that is here, caused GHGs, going to manifest itself in what it must, higher climactic temperatures.

Nobody? Hey look, we've found something else; lies by the AGW crowd.

That's the thing I have a lot if trouble with. If the science us really there, if it is really settled, then why the lies, corruption, fraud, and intimidation of those who disagree? Science used to welcome disagreement, testing of hypothesis, bucking the trend or mainstream. Now all of a sudden, with AGW none if that is tolerated. Never before have I ever heard scientists say: "the science is settled".

It isn't settled, it is probably completely false and that is what the tremendous amount of insecurity is all about.

The lies, corruption, fraud, and intimidation of those who disagree is, pure and simple, propaganda. You are being led by the nose to service fossil fuel corporations.

 

[PredFan]

you'd be a real hero to the denialists here if you could post one legitimate scientific theory that suggests that there is something other than agw that results from increasing atmospheric ghg concentrations.

you would do great to post a scientific theory that was not skewed that support global warming. Years ago science said the ice age was returning.

Do you really believe what you post?

The science concluding that AGW results from increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations is indisputable. Even by high school science.

Now you have exposed your own ignorance.

I learned in High School and subsequently in college as well that a gas can hold more particles of other elements such as GHG when the temperature is higher. More water vapor, more CO2, more oxygen, and more pollutants. Saying that the atmosphere is hot because of the GHG is putting the cart before the horse.

You are confusing cause and effect.

 

[PredFan]

We could ignore it like the animals are but that won't make it stop.

If its happening, we can't make it stop, nor can we even slow it down. It's ignorance and arrogance to even say otherwise.

We have to replace fossil fuels. The only question is when. If we do it earlier rather than when we're forced to, we will have some left for higher uses and less impact from AGW.

It's all economics.

Garbage. Your end if the world rantings are based solely upon your faulty reasoning.

 

[PredFan]

There is nobody with any scientific background that denies AGW.

All of the science now is going into when and how will the energy that is here, caused GHGs, going to manifest itself in what it must, higher climactic temperatures.

Nobody? Hey look, we've found something else; lies by the AGW crowd.

That's the thing I have a lot if trouble with. If the science us really there, if it is really settled, then why the lies, corruption, fraud, and intimidation of those who disagree? Science used to welcome disagreement, testing of hypothesis, bucking the trend or mainstream. Now all of a sudden, with AGW none if that is tolerated. Never before have I ever heard scientists say: "the science is settled".

It isn't settled, it is probably completely false and that is what the tremendous amount of insecurity is all about.

The lies, corruption, fraud, and intimidation of those who disagree is, pure and simple, propaganda. You are being led by the nose to service fossil fuel corporations.

Not at all. It's proven and real. You just don't want to admit it.

 

[PMZ]

you would do great to post a scientific theory that was not skewed that support global warming. Years ago science said the ice age was returning.

Do you really believe what you post?

The science concluding that AGW results from increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations is indisputable. Even by high school science.

Now you have exposed your own ignorance.

I learned in High School and subsequently in college as well that a gas can hold more particles of other elements such as GHG when the temperature is higher. More water vapor, more CO2, more oxygen, and more pollutants. Saying that the atmosphere is hot because of the GHG is putting the cart before the horse.

You are confusing cause and effect.

All that you don't want to know about global warming from Live Science.

What Is Global Warming?

by Marc Lallanilla, LiveScience Staff Writer | October 02, 2013

These images show the five-year average variation of global surface temperatures in 1884, 1927, 1969 and 2012. Dark blue indicates areas cooler than average. Dark red indicates areas warmer than average.
Credit: NASA/Goddard Scientific Visualization StudioView full size image
Global warming — the gradual heating of Earth's surface, oceans and atmosphere — has emerged as one of the most vexing environmental issues of our time.

The rise in average temperatures worldwide has been documented by scientists since the late 1800s. The Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) over the past century, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports.

Though the existence of global warming was once considered controversial, it is now acknowledged as real by an overwhelming majority of researchers throughout the international scientific community, according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).


Furthermore, most scientists agree that the rate of global warming we're now experiencing is not a natural occurrence, but is primarily the result of human activity. That consensus was made clear in a major climate report released Sept. 27, 2013, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); in it, climate scientists indicated they are more certain than ever of the link between human activities and global warming.

The greenhouse effect
Global warming begins with the greenhouse effect, which is caused by the interaction between Earth's atmosphere and incoming radiation from the sun.

Solar radiation passes through the atmosphere and is partially absorbed on the surface of Earth. Some of the incoming radiation, however, is reflected back out toward space.

Gases in Earth's atmosphere absorb some of that reflected radiation; as a result, the atmosphere heats up.

This atmospheric warming is known as the "greenhouse effect" because the same process keeps a greenhouse warm during cold weather: Solar radiation is trapped by the glass walls of a greenhouse, heating the greenhouse and keeping its plants warm throughout the winter.

The atmospheric gases primarily responsible for the greenhouse effect are known as "greenhouse gases" and include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide. Not all greenhouse gases are the same: methane, for example, has roughly 21 times the heat-trapping ability of carbon dioxide, according to the EPA.

Nonetheless, CO2 is frequently cited as the principal driver of global warming because human activity — primarily, the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil — has released unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution began in the late 1700s.

Global warming statistics
Before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of atmospheric CO2 was about 280 parts per million (ppm), according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

But since the late 1700s, CO2 levels have been increasing steadily; beginning in the year 2000, the rate of increase has been about 1.9 ppm per year, according to NOAA.

In May 2013, scientists reported measuring carbon dioxide levels as high as 400 ppm, a symbolic benchmark that nonetheless has climate scientists concerned: Levels of CO2 haven't been that high since the Pliocene Epoch, between 3 million and 5 million years ago, according to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

During that era, global average temperatures were between 5.4 and 7.2 degrees F (3 to 4 degrees C) warmer than today, and sea level was up to 131 feet (40 meters) higher in some areas.

The effects of global warming are already visible in many areas of the world: In Montana's Glacier National Park, where about 150 glaciers were once found, only 25 glaciers larger than 25 acres remain, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

And temperatures in North America reached record highs in 2012, making it the hottest year since recordkeeping began in 1895. Scientists also recorded the second-greatest number of temperature extremes (extreme highs and lows) in 2012.

[Related: Countdown: The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted]

Global warming and climate change
The rise in average global temperatures, serious as it is, is just one aspect of global warming. Scientists are also concerned that global warming will cause climate patterns to change worldwide.

Climate change resulting from warming temperatures will likely include major changes in wind patterns, annual precipitation and seasonal temperatures variations. These changes are expected to last for several decades or longer, according to the EPA.

In the northeastern United States, for example, climate change is likely to bring increased annual rainfall.

In the Pacific Northwest, however, summer rainfall is expected to decrease, while winter precipitation is more likely to fall as rain instead of snow. This will reduce the amount of water available as snowmelt during the summer months.

How to address global warming
A growing number of business leaders, government officials and private citizens are increasingly concerned about global warming and its implications, and are proposing steps to reverse the trend.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is perhaps the most fundamental way to address global warming, and decreasing the rate at which fossil fuels are burned is critical to that effort.

Development of clean energy, including solar, wind and geothermal energy, has immense potential to reduce the amount of coal and oil burned to power electrical generating plants.

More sustainable transportation options, such as mass transit and alt-fuel vehicles, will also reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. (The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that about 25 percent of energy-related CO2 emissions in the United States come from passenger vehicles).

Even individual efforts, such as lowering thermostats in winter and using energy-efficient light bulbs, will help to address global warming, but most climate researchers also stress the immediate need for large-scale, international policies to address the complex causes and effects of global warming.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

AGW is a scientific certainty. The data that you are talking about is only chasing how and how long it takes the increased climactic temperatures to manifest themselves.

So is the fact that the Sun rotates around the Earth.

At least it was before 1543.

The ignorance you denier cultists display about history, science, and just about everything else (except maybe guns) is just astounding. Although by now, I'm pretty much used to hearing braindead, historically inaccurate drivel like this from you nutbaggers. Your cult fills you with so many myths, there is no room for the facts. Yet your false certainty, fueled by the Dunning-Kruger Effect, makes you think you know everything. LOL.

Heliocentrism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heliocentrism, or heliocentricism,[1] is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the center of the Solar System. The word comes from the Greek (ἥλιος helios "sun" and κέντρον kentron "center"). Historically, heliocentrism was opposed to geocentrism, which placed the Earth at the center. The notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun had been proposed as early as the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos,[2] but Aristarchus's heliocentrism attracted little attention until Copernicus revived and elaborated it.[3] Lucio Russo, however, argues that this is a misleading impression resulting from the loss of scientific works of the Hellenistic Era. Using indirect evidence he argues that a heliocentric view was expounded in Hipparchus's work on gravity.[4]

It was not until the 16th century that a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus of Poland, leading to the Copernican Revolution. In the following century, Johannes Kepler elaborated upon and expanded this model to include elliptical orbits, and supporting observations made using a telescope were presented by Galileo Galilei.

You call me ignorant, and then confirm what I said.

Believe it or not, that says a lot more about you than it does me.

 

[RollingThunder]

So is the fact that the Sun rotates around the Earth.

At least it was before 1543.

The ignorance you denier cultists display about history, science, and just about everything else (except maybe guns) is just astounding. Although by now, I'm pretty much used to hearing braindead, historically inaccurate drivel like this from you nutbaggers. Your cult fills you with so many myths, there is no room for the facts. Yet your false certainty, fueled by the Dunning-Kruger Effect, makes you think you know everything. LOL.

Heliocentrism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heliocentrism, or heliocentricism,[1] is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the center of the Solar System. The word comes from the Greek (ἥλιος helios "sun" and κέντρον kentron "center"). Historically, heliocentrism was opposed to geocentrism, which placed the Earth at the center. The notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun had been proposed as early as the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos,[2] but Aristarchus's heliocentrism attracted little attention until Copernicus revived and elaborated it.[3] Lucio Russo, however, argues that this is a misleading impression resulting from the loss of scientific works of the Hellenistic Era. Using indirect evidence he argues that a heliocentric view was expounded in Hipparchus's work on gravity.[4]

It was not until the 16th century that a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus of Poland, leading to the Copernican Revolution. In the following century, Johannes Kepler elaborated upon and expanded this model to include elliptical orbits, and supporting observations made using a telescope were presented by Galileo Galilei.

You call me ignorant, and then confirm what I said.

Believe it or not, that says a lot more about you than it does me.

The fact that you're so ignorant and stupid that you imagine that what I posted confirms the nonsense you were spewing just demonstrates my point about how ignorant and stupid you are.

Retards who try to use your argument, or, alternatively, say that '"science" used to think that the Earth is flat', are very obviously ignorant about the nature of science or just when modern science emerged as a method for understanding the universe around us.