Oh well...Another global warming protest delayed by cold...

[westwall]

Who cares. The graph I posted showed that CO2 rises after warming.

No, it didn't. You're directly lining up the CO2 and temp measurements from the ice cores, which is wrong. The air bubbles in each ice layer (which give the CO2 measurement) are younger than the ice (which gives the temperature measurement) in each ice layer . To match dates correctly, the CO2 line has to be shifted left a few thousand years. Given the ambiguity involved, it's hard to tell which came first, the CO2 or the higher temps.

But even if you didn't mess that up, you'd still be failing in another way. The present is not going to act like the past if conditions are much different in the present. And conditions are different. A clever third grader could spot the logical error that you're depending on here. Rest assured that the actual scientists don't make such a basic error.

This is merely more of that. Further, we KNOW that CO2 increases plant growth. You are falling for the oldest scam in the book. The reality is this "CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION". It's a fundamental precept of science.

The scientists directly measure the outgoing longwave IR squeezing down in the CO2 bands, the downward backradiation increasing, and the heat balance changing. Those are smoking guns that have nothing to do with correlation or models.

The entire totality of global warming theory rested on the fact that temperature was rising along with CO2 content. That correlation STOPPED 18 years ago.

Fantasy statistics don't count. Real world, 2014 was the hottest year ever, and the temperature trend has been steadily upwards the whole time.

Thus, the only foundation that they had to build their theory on, was destroyed.

This is where the scientific method shows its value.

Global warming science is a superb example of the scientific method. Climate scientists had a theory, made predictions based on that theory, and saw those predictions come true, over and over, for decades running. That's why global warming science has such credibility, because of its long record of success according to the scientific method.

Deniers? They refuse to even make predictions. That's how averse to the scientific method they are. They seem to think that screaming at the other guy proves their own theory.

Wrong. It is going to get colder over the next 20 years. You will wish that the planet were warming up.

 

[skookerasbil]

Dang West.....beat me to it s0n!!!

And how funny is it when this stuff happens? More k00k losing.........almost daily these days, we see the AGW crowd kicked in the nut sack!!! And I'm laughing...........

 

[westwall]

NASA has an opinion based on a consensus of scientists who study/practice climate science:

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
​

One can disagree with NASA, but based on what? What expertise? What science? What evidence?

There is this 'evidence': Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.)​

Consensus is the language of politics, not science. Remember that. If I ask a scientist what the speed of light is, he'll tell me "it's 186,282 miles per second. He won't say "well, the scientific consensus is"...

That 97% number has likewise been shown to be fraudulent repeatedly, and yet you drones continue to trot that bullshit meme out as if it is a talisman. It isn't. It is sheer and utter bullshit.

Consensus is a word. Scientific consensus is a term that has existed way before climate science came into being. You are not sounding nutty. Although I do enjoy challenging you I am serious about asking what and why people believe what they do. I have seen and heard scientists on television specials and documentaries use the phrase "well, the scientific consensus is" when asked specific questions about things having nothing to do with climate science. Now enough of this red herring.

Scientific consensus can be wrong. Nothing new here, but this does not make your case "They've been wrong before, so they are wrong now"

I think you are coming around to the reality that you do not actually dispute a single scientific fact put out by NASA on the subject of climate science

But consensus has no basis in scientific literature other than as a political tool. I dispute the causal relationship that NASA claims. I don't dispute that CO2 levels are rising. That is normal. I don't dispute that the globe has been warming. That has been going on in a cyclical way for 14,000 years.

I dispute the claim that 2014 was one of the ten warmest years. Even NASA backpedaled away from that claim when it became evident that their claim couldn't stand up to even the most rudimentary of tests.

I dispute that CO2 has any effect on global temperatures whatsoever. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is not in question. However, the Earth is not a closed system. It is an open system. Thus the greenhouse effect of CO2 is eliminated. The DOMINANT GHG in the Earths atmosphere is water vapor. The water vapor acts as a blanket to keep heat from escaping to space. If we had no water vapor the Earths temp would be 123C on the sun side and -233C on the night side. Just like the Moon.

Most importantly is the fact that we simply don't know very much about what drives global temperatures period. We now know for a fact that CO2 has no effect. The global temps have been level for the last 18 years while the CO2 content has increased at a dramatic rate. That is one thing we do know.

But that's it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

NASA has an opinion based on a consensus of scientists who study/practice climate science:

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
​

One can disagree with NASA, but based on what? What expertise? What science? What evidence?

There is this 'evidence': Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.)​

Consensus is the language of politics, not science. Remember that. If I ask a scientist what the speed of light is, he'll tell me "it's 186,282 miles per second. He won't say "well, the scientific consensus is"...

That 97% number has likewise been shown to be fraudulent repeatedly, and yet you drones continue to trot that bullshit meme out as if it is a talisman. It isn't. It is sheer and utter bullshit.

Consensus is a word. Scientific consensus is a term that has existed way before climate science came into being. You are not sounding nutty. Although I do enjoy challenging you I am serious about asking what and why people believe what they do. I have seen and heard scientists on television specials and documentaries use the phrase "well, the scientific consensus is" when asked specific questions about things having nothing to do with climate science. Now enough of this red herring.

Scientific consensus can be wrong. Nothing new here, but this does not make your case "They've been wrong before, so they are wrong now"

I think you are coming around to the reality that you do not actually dispute a single scientific fact put out by NASA on the subject of climate science

But consensus has no basis in scientific literature other than as a political tool. I dispute the causal relationship that NASA claims. I don't dispute that CO2 levels are rising. That is normal. I don't dispute that the globe has been warming. That has been going on in a cyclical way for 14,000 years.

I dispute the claim that 2014 was one of the ten warmest years. Even NASA backpedaled away from that claim when it became evident that their claim couldn't stand up to even the most rudimentary of tests.

I dispute that CO2 has any effect on global temperatures whatsoever. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is not in question. However, the Earth is not a closed system. It is an open system. Thus the greenhouse effect of CO2 is eliminated. The DOMINANT GHG in the Earths atmosphere is water vapor. The water vapor acts as a blanket to keep heat from escaping to space. If we had no water vapor the Earths temp would be 123C on the sun side and -233C on the night side. Just like the Moon.

Most importantly is the fact that we simply don't know very much about what drives global temperatures period. We now know for a fact that CO2 has no effect. The global temps have been level for the last 18 years while the CO2 content has increased at a dramatic rate. That is one thing we do know.

But that's it.

Let us keep the facts straight: NASA did NOT backpedal on the warmest year record. They were pushed into admitting it was a 38% likelihood. They still think 2014 was probably the warmest year given the data available, the data they have. Do you have other/opposing data? From where?

In a press release...Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’ --- Nasa admited that considering the margin of error, it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all --- the Nasa press release failed to mention this --- GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent.

Do you dispute the 38% likelihood, and if you do based on what evidence? Or is your issue with the way the press release inferred some things?
​

"I dispute that CO2 has any effect on global temperatures whatsoever...Most importantly is the fact that we simply don't know very much about what drives global temperatures period. We now know for a fact that CO2 has no effect."

You even appear to be misrepresenting a supposed fact:

Fact: Since 1999, multiple technical, peer reviewed articles have been available that demonstrate exactly the opposite conclusion. CO2 changes lagged temperature changes as temperature increased or decreased. Temperature changed and then, several hundred years later, CO2 levels changed. Since a cause does not follow an effect, this indicates that CO2 is not a primary driver of climate change...

Empirical Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change​

The site above appears to be mostly concerned with monetary costs of regulation. That is as political as it gets, but even there you have misrepresented what they say. Maybe they mislead people like you?

.......... The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming ​

It appears you are one who is using politics or something to make your points
.

You have still failed at refuting one single fact on the NASA page.
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ

 

[Billy_Bob]

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence Evidence.

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Global Temperature Temperature

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus consensus

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Effects

FACTS: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Carbon Dioxide Can any deniers here dispute one Fact NASA puts out?

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet News

NASA is full of crap!

Lets start with temperature. NASA uses a homogenization algorithm which alters site records of individual sites by assessing sites around it and adjusting up those which show cooling.. They also take huge areas of ocean and use one temp to produce the anomaly derived from thin air in the grid squares. They make aberrant adjustments without concern for the pressures in the area or water vapor levels which greatly affect temperature. The data is suspect and unreliable because of this.

Consensus has no place in science. It is a political term for those who are political whores. True scientists should always be skeptical and looking for the flaws. NASA's use of the term exposes them for what they are. You are aware that if you dissent while working for the government you get fired, dont you? Check Obama's EO to the EPA and NASA..

Carbon Dioxide.. Is a total load of shit! I have posted several times what the current climate sensitivity is when natural variation is considered. As all warming of the last 150 years can be attributed to natural variation CO2 has Zero to do with it.

NASA is busy fabricating a temperature rise world wide because the earth stopped warming over 20 years ago. They have been caught manipulating data and refuse to give up their methodology or math justifications..

Several of the retired NASA scientists have spoken out about the forced agenda and the results if you expose their lies while employed..

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Consensus has no place in science

Of course it does and always has.

Where does this talking point come from?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

NASA is full of crap!

...

Several of the retired NASA scientists have spoken out about the forced agenda and the results if you expose their lies while employed..

You appear to be the one who is full of crap. Please troll elsewhere if you can't be serious

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
Posted on 24 January 2013 by dana1981

Answering the NASA Retirees' Questions

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Can somebody PLEASE refute the facts on NASA's climate science page?

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ

 

[Billy_Bob]

Consensus has no place in science

Of course it does and always has.

Where does this talking point come from?

No it does not but then the alarmist liked the way the Catholic Church Consensus maintained that the earth was flat for so long..

 

[Billy_Bob]

NASA is full of crap!

...

Several of the retired NASA scientists have spoken out about the forced agenda and the results if you expose their lies while employed..

You appear to be the one who is full of crap. Please troll elsewhere if you can't be serious

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
Posted on 24 January 2013 by dana1981

Answering the NASA Retirees' Questions

LOL Skeptical Science as a credible source? That site should be named JUNK SCIENCE as it misleads, lies and misdirects.. Cook and his cronies are very short on facts...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Can somebody PLEASE refute the facts on NASA's climate science page?

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ

Please justify the alterations of the record.. You think these people walk on water... Justify their actions! Homogenization is deception and it always has been. Why do you think the CRU dumped empirical evidence once their ADJUSTED AND HOMOGENIZED DATA was created?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Consensus has no place in science

Of course it does and always has.

Where does this talking point come from?

No it does not but then the alarmist liked the way the Catholic Church Consensus maintained that the earth was flat for so long..

boy, you're on a roll. too bad it is stale.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

NASA is full of crap!

...

Several of the retired NASA scientists have spoken out about the forced agenda and the results if you expose their lies while employed..

You appear to be the one who is full of crap. Please troll elsewhere if you can't be serious

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
Posted on 24 January 2013 by dana1981

Answering the NASA Retirees' Questions

LOL Skeptical Science as a credible source? That site should be named JUNK SCIENCE as it misleads, lies and misdirects.. Cook and his cronies are very short on facts...

two sites with opposing views and you attack one? You have yet to refute one single fact on NASA's climate science page: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Can somebody PLEASE refute the facts on NASA's climate science page?

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ

Please justify the alterations of the record.. You think these people walk on water... Justify their actions! Homogenization is deception and it always has been. Why do you think the CRU dumped empirical evidence once their ADJUSTED AND HOMOGENIZED DATA was created?

Walk on water? What people? You are at odds with the scientific consensus and that is okay. But why do you attack consensus as a source? Does it threaten your agenda?

You have yet to refute a single fact on NASA's climate science page: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If NASA and the scientific consensus are wrong, most people would want to know. People like Dante have no agenda. We do not follow anything Al Gore says or ever said who cares?

What we care about is the science. When an overwhelming majority of scientists in a specialized field say one thing and their opponents engage in personal attacks and more...

well you see where this brings us

 

[Billy_Bob]

If NASA and the scientific consensus are wrong, most people would want to know. People like Dante have no agenda. We do not follow anything Al Gore says or ever said who cares?

What we care about is the science. When an overwhelming majority of scientists in a specialized field say one thing and their opponents engage in personal attacks and more...

well you see where this brings us

Then you will enjoy this.. A new paper that just came out and they state the models and math are wrong...

The paper is Douville et al. (2015) The recent global warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability? [paywalled].
ABSTRACT;
"The observed global mean surface air temperature (GMST) has not risen over the last 15 years, spurring outbreaks of skepticism regarding the nature of global warming and challenging the upper range transient response of the current-generation global climate models. Recent numerical studies have, however, tempered the relevance of the observed pause in global warming by highlighting the key role of tropical Pacific internal variability. Here we first show that many climate models overestimate the influence of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation on GMST, thereby shedding doubt on their ability to capture the tropical Pacific contribution to the hiatus. Moreover, we highlight that model results can be quite sensitive to the experimental design. We argue that overriding the surface wind stress is more suitable than nudging the sea surface temperature for controlling the tropical Pacific ocean heat uptake and, thereby, the multidecadal variability of GMST. Using the former technique, our model captures several aspects of the recent climate evolution, including the weaker slowdown of global warming over land and the transition toward a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Yet the observed global warming is still overestimated not only over the recent 1998–2012 hiatus period but also over former decades, thereby suggesting that the model might be too sensitive to the prescribed radiative forcings"

In other words, the models are extremely out of touch with reality. The paper goes on to demonstrate the many problems with GCM's and why the predictions are dead wrong.

At the very foundation of the entire AGW hoax is a hideous mistake that can never be erased. Climastrologists and NASA treat the oceans as a near blackbody not an extreme SW selective surface. This means there can be no warming from CO2. Which is why CO2 had no effect over the last 150 years and why not one of the alarmists can tell us how CO2 is affecting the earth, Nor can they explain why all rise can be and is attributed to natural variation.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If NASA and the scientific consensus are wrong, most people would want to know. People like Dante have no agenda. We do not follow anything Al Gore says or ever said who cares?

What we care about is the science. When an overwhelming majority of scientists in a specialized field say one thing and their opponents engage in personal attacks and more...

well you see where this brings us

Then you will enjoy this.. A new paper that just came out and they state the models and math are wrong...

The paper is Douville et al. (2015) The recent global warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability? [paywalled].

ABSTRACT;
"The observed global mean surface air temperature (GMST) has not risen over the last 15 years, spurring outbreaks of skepticism regarding the nature of global warming and challenging the upper range transient response of the current-generation global climate models. Recent numerical studies have, however, tempered the relevance of the observed pause in global warming by highlighting the key role of tropical Pacific internal variability.

Here we first show that many climate models overestimate the influence of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation on GMST, thereby shedding doubt on their ability to capture the tropical Pacific contribution to the hiatus.

Moreover, we highlight that model results can be quite sensitive to the experimental design.

We argue that overriding the surface wind stress is more suitable than nudging the sea surface temperature for controlling the tropical Pacific ocean heat uptake and, thereby, the multidecadal variability of GMST.

Using the former technique, our model captures several aspects of the recent climate evolution, including the weaker slowdown of global warming over land and the transition toward a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Yet the observed global warming is still overestimated not only over the recent 1998–2012 hiatus period but also over former decades, thereby suggesting that the model might be too sensitive to the prescribed radiative forcings"​

In other words, the models are extremely out of touch with reality. The paper goes on to demonstrate that the many problems with GCM's and why the predictions are dead wrong.

At the very foundation of the entire AGW hoax is a hideous mistake that can never be erased. Climastrologists and NASA treat the oceans as a near blackbody not an extreme SW selective surface. This means there can be no warming from CO2. Which is why CO2 had no effect over the last 150 years and why not one of the alarmists can tell us how CO2 is affecting the earth.

Reading your comments after the snippet, I'm not quite sure are understanding what the paper is saying. It is not saying what you have just suggested.

This paper is not a refutation of any facts here: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ is it?

Please do not go on tangents about CO2 as you are arguing with yourself here.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

as far as the Pacific variability role:
Scholarly articles for the role of pacific variability global warming climate change
the role of pacific variability global warming climate change,

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

yep, as Dante suggested Billy_Bob misunderstands things he links to: New Paper Implicates Pacific In Pause

another resource: The sensitivity of Sahel rainfall to global warming implications for scenario analysis of future climate change impact - ResearchGate

Now can we get somebody to refute the facts on the NASA page on climate science? Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ

 

[skookerasbil]

I love the posts by the AGW mental cases that always speak to "the facts"......."the consensus"......"the science"........as if saying it over and over makes it an absolute.( lol....the typical snooty arrogance of the modern progressive ). But this methodical stunt has impressed nobody in the past 25 years.........in 2014, nobody except these mental cases care about global warming as has been displayed vividly in major poll after major poll!!

To be fair........in the early 2000's the AGW community had made some strides, but in recent years, in the wake of numerous bomb thrower predictions that have turned out to be dud's, they have just been tuned out by a clear majority = fAiL. The fact that the president has to do anything climate change related via executive fiat means that the public has called bs on all of this crap!!