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.
Be careful of placing complete faith in consensus.
Be careful of placing complete faith in consensus.
Everyone has "consensus" with their own side, but we've also got all the science and all the data, while you've just got handwaving and conspiracy theories. A consensus is the only thing you have, but only a tiny part of what we have.
Hey, I'm not the one rambling out cult conspiracy theories and hatin' on the actual data. It's not my fault that the only thing you have is a consensus of kookery. You really need to put less emphasis on your precious consensus.
It must kind of suck to have the real world always contradicting you, but fortunately for you, you rarely dwell there.
.it uses data from NOAA and as you can see this year is the lowest on record for number of days with a reading of 100 degrees or more.
Interesting how poorly your graph lines up with actual temperature data.
I think what you just did is called CHERRY PICKING.
Interesting how poorly your graph lines up with actual temperature data.
I think what you just did is called CHERRY PICKING.
Since you pulled your graph from an image hosting site, perhaps you would like to advise us what site it came from? If you don't know, why do you trust it?
And given the general consensus based age of the Earth, do you honestly think 60 years of recorded temperatures are proof of anything?
Interesting how poorly your graph lines up with actual temperature data.
I think what you just did is called CHERRY PICKING.
Since you pulled your graph from an image hosting site, perhaps you would like to advise us what site it came from? If you don't know, why do you trust it?
And given the general consensus based age of the Earth, do you honestly think 60 years of recorded temperatures are proof of anything?
The age of the Earth is absolutely irrelevant in this discussion. The time span necessary to give indication of climatic changes (vice weather) is what you're looking for. From 15 to 30 years is usually sufficient, depending on the parameter in question.
Pardon my lapse. The source of that graphic is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ninõ The graph was originally produced by NOAA.
Interesting how poorly your graph lines up with actual temperature data.
I think what you just did is called CHERRY PICKING.
Since you pulled your graph from an image hosting site, perhaps you would like to advise us what site it came from? If you don't know, why do you trust it?
And given the general consensus based age of the Earth, do you honestly think 60 years of recorded temperatures are proof of anything?
The age of the Earth is absolutely irrelevant in this discussion. The time span necessary to give indication of climatic changes (vice weather) is what you're looking for. From 15 to 30 years is usually sufficient, depending on the parameter in question.
Pardon my lapse. The source of that graphic is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ninõ The graph was originally produced by NOAA.
During the last several decades, the number of El Niño events increased, and the number of La Niña events decreased,[47] although observation of ENSO for much longer is needed to detect robust changes.[48] The question is whether this is a random fluctuation or a normal instance of variation for that phenomenon or the result of global climate changes toward global warming.
The studies of historical data show the recent El Niño variation is most likely linked to global warming. For example, one of the most recent results, even after subtracting the positive influence of decadal variation, is shown to be possibly present in the ENSO trend,[49] the amplitude of the ENSO variability in the observed data still increases, by as much as 60% in the last 50 years.[50]
The exact changes happening to ENSO in the future is uncertain:[51] Different models make different predictions.[52] It may be that the observed phenomenon of more frequent and stronger El Niño events occurs only in the initial phase of the global warming, and then (e.g., after the lower layers of the ocean get warmer, as well), El Niño will become weaker than it was.[53] It may also be that the stabilizing and destabilizing forces influencing the phenomenon will eventually compensate
Interesting how poorly your graph lines up with actual temperature data.
I think what you just did is called CHERRY PICKING.
Interesting how poorly your graph lines up with actual temperature data.
I think what you just did is called CHERRY PICKING.
Since you pulled your graph from an image hosting site, perhaps you would like to advise us what site it came from? If you don't know, why do you trust it?
And given the general consensus based age of the Earth, do you honestly think 60 years of recorded temperatures are proof of anything?
The age of the Earth is absolutely irrelevant in this discussion. The time span necessary to give indication of climatic changes (vice weather) is what you're looking for. From 15 to 30 years is usually sufficient, depending on the parameter in question.
Pardon my lapse. The source of that graphic is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ninõ The graph was originally produced by NOAA.
Here's a good one to address that bogus "Days over 100" graph that the right-wing side of this argument has been throwing around today.
Did you actually have some doubt as to what temperatures have done during the instrumented era?
The age of the Earth is irrelevent?
Really?
You want to trust the paleoclimate models your guys are showing us as evidence of global warming and then say that the age of the Earth is irrelevent?
We only need to go back 15 to 30 years to determine a climate shift? Is that honestly what you are saying here?
And your graph indicates temperature anomalies due to El Nino and La Nina, not mean temperatures.
That's a pretty important distinction if you are going to use a graph like that to refute Westwall's post.
Different graphs showing different information for different purposes.
Now the following quoted paragraphs are from the Wiki link you provided. It includes a brief discussion on ENSO that includes the obligatory tribute to global warming that Wiki writers will insert every time in these articles. But it does appear to be adequately referenced. (I will not take the time to check the references cited.) But at least it was honest enough to admit that there is insufficient data to know much for certain, the computer models are all over the place, and there is a possibility that the Earth's climate will stabilize itself over time as it has done for the entire history of the Earth.
That all needs to be part of the debate too, don't you think?
During the last several decades, the number of El Niño events increased, and the number of La Niña events decreased,[47] although observation of ENSO for much longer is needed to detect robust changes.[48] The question is whether this is a random fluctuation or a normal instance of variation for that phenomenon or the result of global climate changes toward global warming.
The studies of historical data show the recent El Niño variation is most likely linked to global warming. For example, one of the most recent results, even after subtracting the positive influence of decadal variation, is shown to be possibly present in the ENSO trend,[49] the amplitude of the ENSO variability in the observed data still increases, by as much as 60% in the last 50 years.[50]
The exact changes happening to ENSO in the future is uncertain:[51] Different models make different predictions.[52] It may be that the observed phenomenon of more frequent and stronger El Niño events occurs only in the initial phase of the global warming, and then (e.g., after the lower layers of the ocean get warmer, as well), El Niño will become weaker than it was.[53] It may also be that the stabilizing and destabilizing forces influencing the phenomenon will eventually compensate
Here's a good one to address that bogus "Days over 100" graph that the right-wing side of this argument has been throwing around today.
What fraudulent site produced that hogwash?
The age of the Earth is irrelevent?
To any discussion of contemporary climate, yes.
Really?
Yes, really.
Yes, it is irrelevant.
Yes, that is honestly what I'm saying here. But I suspect you're misunderstanding me. I am not saying that 15-30 years is sufficient to show the entire span of AGW. I am saying that 15-30 years is sufficient to show a change in climate trends.
I have a large collection of graphics and just grabbed the first one that showed temperatures. The graph is actually temperature anomalies color coded to indicate La Nina / El Nino status. The values of the bars ARE mean temperatures, they just aren't using 0C as a baseline.
You need to slow down and try to get a better handle on this stuff before you try to jump anyone. The graph I presented far, far more clearly shows mean temperature than does a graph that indicates the number of days in a year that gets over 100F.
Yes.
Now the following quoted paragraphs are from the Wiki link you provided. It includes a brief discussion on ENSO that includes the obligatory tribute to global warming that Wiki writers will insert every time in these articles. But it does appear to be adequately referenced. (I will not take the time to check the references cited.) But at least it was honest enough to admit that there is insufficient data to know much for certain, the computer models are all over the place, and there is a possibility that the Earth's climate will stabilize itself over time as it has done for the entire history of the Earth.
That all needs to be part of the debate too, don't you think?
During the last several decades, the number of El Niño events increased, and the number of La Niña events decreased,[47] although observation of ENSO for much longer is needed to detect robust changes.[48] The question is whether this is a random fluctuation or a normal instance of variation for that phenomenon or the result of global climate changes toward global warming.
The studies of historical data show the recent El Niño variation is most likely linked to global warming. For example, one of the most recent results, even after subtracting the positive influence of decadal variation, is shown to be possibly present in the ENSO trend,[49] the amplitude of the ENSO variability in the observed data still increases, by as much as 60% in the last 50 years.[50]
The exact changes happening to ENSO in the future is uncertain:[51] Different models make different predictions.[52] It may be that the observed phenomenon of more frequent and stronger El Niño events occurs only in the initial phase of the global warming, and then (e.g., after the lower layers of the ocean get warmer, as well), El Niño will become weaker than it was.[53] It may also be that the stabilizing and destabilizing forces influencing the phenomenon will eventually compensate
Whatever you may think, this does not show you to be open minded.
Due to recent research, it is now believed that global warming has altered the historical behavior of the ENSO (El Nino, Southern Oscillation) pseudo cycle. It is this change that has caused warm surface waters to be driven into the deep ocean. It is suggested that this is what has stopped atmospheric and land warming and caused the ocean's temperatures - particularly the deep ocean's - to rise precipitously.
Did you see the graph of global heat content recently posted? It was produced by Nuccitelli and the rest of the gang at Skeptical Science. I think it was PMZ that posted it. I'll try to find it. I thought it resembled the graphs produced by Foster and Rahmstorff showing the global warming signal devoid of aerosol, vulcanism, TSI and ENSO effects.
Until you can identify what caused the temperature trends of the last 150 years, you can't say it's stopped. Do you understand? Westwall and FCT and the rest keep crowing that global warming has stopped, but since they reject AGW, they don't have a cause for the warming in the first place and can only guess that whatever it might have been, it now has stopped. Do you see their problem?
