Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Don't play dumb, deniers are denying that the Earth is warming.just to make things clear, I am talking about legitimate public figures who have been called deniers, like McIntyre, Watts, Lindzen, Curry or the Pielkes. hell, I'll even throw in Monckton if your side takes credit for Mann.
let's start with the basics-
1. my side says there has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. 0.7C was the acknowledged concensus amount circa Y2K. after Y2K the massive amounts of 'corrections' to the temperature data make the total very uncertain.
2. my side says that doubling atmospheric CO2 should theoretically warm the surface by 1.0-1.2C, with everything else being equal. your side?
3. my side says that CO2 has increased and that human burning of fossil fuels is responsible for a significant portion of that increase. yours?
those three things are the basis of AGW and I would like to point out that both warmists and skeptics agree to a very close degree on them. it may seem like baby steps but I would like to document our agreements before we diverge into our differences and the reasons for them.
are most people who are interested in the science rather than the politics OK with it so far?
An op-ed article is science to you?.....
The third characteristic is selectivity, drawing on isolated papers that challenge the dominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among those that support it as a means of discrediting the entire field.
Don't play dumb, deniers are denying that the Earth is warming.
Well, since you edited the newspaper article about deniers claiming global cooling, here is another. There are plenty more.Don't play dumb, deniers are denying that the Earth is warming.
Don't make stuff up. Skeptics don't deny that the earth is warming...we deny that mankind is changing the global climate via CO2.
"Turds like you". Impressive command of the epithet there Paddy.
Honestly, gentlemen, the repetitious expressions of your long standing hostility towards the educated has never really been necessary to establish the gaping dichomtomy twixt the two of you. I can't imagine that anyone would EVER get you confused. Move on, laddies. Move on.
Don't play dumb, deniers are denying that the Earth is warming.just to make things clear, I am talking about legitimate public figures who have been called deniers, like McIntyre, Watts, Lindzen, Curry or the Pielkes. hell, I'll even throw in Monckton if your side takes credit for Mann.
let's start with the basics-
1. my side says there has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. 0.7C was the acknowledged concensus amount circa Y2K. after Y2K the massive amounts of 'corrections' to the temperature data make the total very uncertain.
2. my side says that doubling atmospheric CO2 should theoretically warm the surface by 1.0-1.2C, with everything else being equal. your side?
3. my side says that CO2 has increased and that human burning of fossil fuels is responsible for a significant portion of that increase. yours?
those three things are the basis of AGW and I would like to point out that both warmists and skeptics agree to a very close degree on them. it may seem like baby steps but I would like to document our agreements before we diverge into our differences and the reasons for them.
are most people who are interested in the science rather than the politics OK with it so far?
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
Complete bullshit.. Many outspoken critics at the top echelons of "climate science". You only need a few to refute the "science is settled" crowd. And THEY DO debate openly.. In the past 4 yrs, Climate Science has done a superb job of contradicting itself with revelations that the oceans are a HUGE negative feedback on the climate, the climate system contains significant DELAYS in equibrilium, and that the modeling performance is NOT sufficient to predict LONG LULLs in the warming and overemphasizes the effects of CO2 while underestimating the effects of natural cycles..Who are the climate change deniers?
Despite the international scientific community's consensus on climate change, a small number of critics continue to deny that climate change exists or that humans are causing it. Widely known as climate change "skeptics" or "deniers", these individuals are generally not climate scientists and do not debate the science with the climate scientists directly—for example, by publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or participating in international conferences on climate science. Instead, they focus their attention on the media, the general public and policy-makers with the goal of delaying action on climate change.
Over the years, the deniers have employed a wide range of arguments against taking action on climate change, some of which contradict each other. For example, they have claimed that:
• Climate change is not occurring
• The global climate is actually getting colder
• The global climate is getting warmer, but not because of human activities
• The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but this will create greater benefits than costs
• The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but the impacts are not sufficient to require any policy response
Think about it, with the sun entering a minimum, warming only slows down! Obviously some other forcing influence is approaching the equivalent of the sun's influence! What do you think will happen when the sun is no longer at a minimum?Don't play dumb, deniers are denying that the Earth is warming.just to make things clear, I am talking about legitimate public figures who have been called deniers, like McIntyre, Watts, Lindzen, Curry or the Pielkes. hell, I'll even throw in Monckton if your side takes credit for Mann.
let's start with the basics-
1. my side says there has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. 0.7C was the acknowledged concensus amount circa Y2K. after Y2K the massive amounts of 'corrections' to the temperature data make the total very uncertain.
2. my side says that doubling atmospheric CO2 should theoretically warm the surface by 1.0-1.2C, with everything else being equal. your side?
3. my side says that CO2 has increased and that human burning of fossil fuels is responsible for a significant portion of that increase. yours?
those three things are the basis of AGW and I would like to point out that both warmists and skeptics agree to a very close degree on them. it may seem like baby steps but I would like to document our agreements before we diverge into our differences and the reasons for them.
are most people who are interested in the science rather than the politics OK with it so far?
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
Confusing yes.. But part of the legit debate.. Not statement of deniers.. Just observations on empirical evidence. That being the 15 year hiatus, the minimal rate of temp rise, and strong indications that the sun may be entering some kind of minimum..
Judith Curry (quoted in that article) is one of the few top climate scientists taking the line that the climate system is more complicated than the simplistic CO2 modeling that has been done. And she is absolutely correct in that observation..
Think about it, with the sun entering a minimum, warming only slows down! Obviously some other forcing influence is approaching the equivalent of the sun's influence! What do you think will happen when the sun is no longer at a minimum?Don't play dumb, deniers are denying that the Earth is warming.
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
Confusing yes.. But part of the legit debate.. Not statement of deniers.. Just observations on empirical evidence. That being the 15 year hiatus, the minimal rate of temp rise, and strong indications that the sun may be entering some kind of minimum..
Judith Curry (quoted in that article) is one of the few top climate scientists taking the line that the climate system is more complicated than the simplistic CO2 modeling that has been done. And she is absolutely correct in that observation..
Think about it, with the sun entering a minimum, warming only slows down! Obviously some other forcing influence is approaching the equivalent of the sun's influence! What do you think will happen when the sun is no longer at a minimum?Don't play dumb, deniers are denying that the Earth is warming.
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
Confusing yes.. But part of the legit debate.. Not statement of deniers.. Just observations on empirical evidence. That being the 15 year hiatus, the minimal rate of temp rise, and strong indications that the sun may be entering some kind of minimum..
Judith Curry (quoted in that article) is one of the few top climate scientists taking the line that the climate system is more complicated than the simplistic CO2 modeling that has been done. And she is absolutely correct in that observation..
The earth will continue its exit from the present ice age just as it has been doing for millennia
The earth will continue its exit from the present ice age just as it has been doing for millennia
The world exited the ice age 5000 years ago. It's been heading back into one since then.
Well, at least until the past few years. Then the slow cooling suddenly switched to fast warming, for reasons that no natural causes can explain.
Jeez admiral, when you go full stupid you don't mess around! I had to capture this post of yours just so people can see what happens when you post something of your own. That's when we get to see the REAL admiral, and boy...is he DUMB!
Variations in total solar irradiance were too small to detect with technology available before the satellite era. Total solar output is now measured as varying (over the last three 11-year sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1%Think about it, with the sun entering a minimum, warming only slows down! Obviously some other forcing influence is approaching the equivalent of the sun's influence! What do you think will happen when the sun is no longer at a minimum?Confusing yes.. But part of the legit debate.. Not statement of deniers.. Just observations on empirical evidence. That being the 15 year hiatus, the minimal rate of temp rise, and strong indications that the sun may be entering some kind of minimum..
Judith Curry (quoted in that article) is one of the few top climate scientists taking the line that the climate system is more complicated than the simplistic CO2 modeling that has been done. And she is absolutely correct in that observation..
Except that solar scientists are looking at patterns and seeing a FUTURE decrease in the total solar output.. Like (maybe) what happened in the 1700s.. CURRENTLY, the Total Solar Isolation is holding steady at 300 yr relative HIGH.. Imagine what will happen to the temp curve that's been essentially flat for 15 yrs if we come off that relative solar high?
That and the realization that ocean thermal oscillations are additive when it comes to Global averages. And THEIR effect on the temperature is large enough to have stalled out the temp rise.. All of these confounding issues are now INCORPORATED into mainstream climate science. Should have happened decades ago..
Its not over -- we don't even SEE a fat lady singing anywheres...
You might want to go back and take a look at the last 14,000 years and then you can come back and post your retraction.
Hansen's predictions were 300% off,
Variations in total solar irradiance were too small to detect with technology available before the satellite era. Total solar output is now measured as varying (over the last three 11-year sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1%Think about it, with the sun entering a minimum, warming only slows down! Obviously some other forcing influence is approaching the equivalent of the sun's influence! What do you think will happen when the sun is no longer at a minimum?
Except that solar scientists are looking at patterns and seeing a FUTURE decrease in the total solar output.. Like (maybe) what happened in the 1700s.. CURRENTLY, the Total Solar Isolation is holding steady at 300 yr relative HIGH.. Imagine what will happen to the temp curve that's been essentially flat for 15 yrs if we come off that relative solar high?
That and the realization that ocean thermal oscillations are additive when it comes to Global averages. And THEIR effect on the temperature is large enough to have stalled out the temp rise.. All of these confounding issues are now INCORPORATED into mainstream climate science. Should have happened decades ago..
Its not over -- we don't even SEE a fat lady singing anywheres...
You might want to go back and take a look at the last 14,000 years and then you can come back and post your retraction.
So you're even ignorant of how ice age cycles work? When you fail this hard at the basics, you make geologists look bad.
Hansen's predictions were 300% off,
You've seen the debunking of that crazy fable before, yet you still choose to repeat it. You just conveniently discard any facts that aren't convenient for your cult.
Here's the wiki entry for you...that seems to be the limit of your abilities....
Complete bullshit.. Many outspoken critics at the top echelons of "climate science". You only need a few to refute the "science is settled" crowd. And THEY DO debate openly.. In the past 4 yrs, Climate Science has done a superb job of contradicting itself with revelations that the oceans are a HUGE negative feedback on the climate, the climate system contains significant DELAYS in equibrilium, and that the modeling performance is NOT sufficient to predict LONG LULLs in the warming and overemphasizes the effects of CO2 while underestimating the effects of natural cycles..Who are the climate change deniers?
Despite the international scientific community's consensus on climate change, a small number of critics continue to deny that climate change exists or that humans are causing it. Widely known as climate change "skeptics" or "deniers", these individuals are generally not climate scientists and do not debate the science with the climate scientists directly—for example, by publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or participating in international conferences on climate science. Instead, they focus their attention on the media, the general public and policy-makers with the goal of delaying action on climate change.
Over the years, the deniers have employed a wide range of arguments against taking action on climate change, some of which contradict each other. For example, they have claimed that:
• Climate change is not occurring
• The global climate is actually getting colder
• The global climate is getting warmer, but not because of human activities
• The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but this will create greater benefits than costs
• The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but the impacts are not sufficient to require any policy response
Prime example of why this thread is LONG overdue.. Only the last 2 are SIGNIFICANT denier positions.. You could make a much longer list of what Global Warming zealots are claiming. There are THOUSANDS of laughable claims that pass media scrutiny.. Including claims of higher crime and hair loss.
You've exactly proved the point that debate is being avoided by mocking and slurs. And THERE IS NO Global Warming Consensus.. Not by polling, not by predictions. Ask the IPCC what the temperature increase will be for the next 50 years. What is the "consensus" on that? There is none.. There is a wide range of scraggly fears and prognostications. But no SCIENTIFIC consensus...
Interesting how you have a chart going back to the 1600s when there were no instruments capable of accurately measuring solar radiation. So you are using proxies, which vary greatly depending which proxy used. No problem, pick the inaccurate proxy that fits what you want and ignore all the other inaccurate proxies.Variations in total solar irradiance were too small to detect with technology available before the satellite era. Total solar output is now measured as varying (over the last three 11-year sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1%Except that solar scientists are looking at patterns and seeing a FUTURE decrease in the total solar output.. Like (maybe) what happened in the 1700s.. CURRENTLY, the Total Solar Isolation is holding steady at 300 yr relative HIGH.. Imagine what will happen to the temp curve that's been essentially flat for 15 yrs if we come off that relative solar high?
That and the realization that ocean thermal oscillations are additive when it comes to Global averages. And THEIR effect on the temperature is large enough to have stalled out the temp rise.. All of these confounding issues are now INCORPORATED into mainstream climate science. Should have happened decades ago..
Its not over -- we don't even SEE a fat lady singing anywheres...
Great chart.. You just need a larger historical perspective on the climate..
Quite a runup on that scale.. It "paused" back in the 80s.. But delays being what they are to equilibrium on a ball as big as the Earth.. There are likely substantial delays involved in distributing all that heat.. Over 1W/m2 since the Maunder Min back in the 1700s..
Warmers LOVE to use sunspot counts, include the 22 yr cycle variance, ANYTHING they can toss out there to ignore the baseline increase in insolation...
The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years ago.
Wait a second. Are you saying we averted an oncoming ice age?The world had been slowly cooling for the past 5000 years, until the past couple decades.
