All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Randolph Kinney]

Poor Pete, he can't assimilate new data. The Arctic emits methane year round, even when the ground is frozen in winter. The climate scientists assumed if the ground was frozen, no methane would escape. That is how they built their climate models. The climate scientists underestimated the real concentration of methane that naturally occurs, which should increase global warming more so than what they predicted. But, what happens in reality? The temperature change, statistically, has been zero for 18+ years as measured by satellites as follows:

So Pete, tell me again about the global warming bunny. The bunny farts more than the climate scientists thought and yet temperature does not change. Why is that?

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

And poor Duncan forgets the cut and paste of yesterday that explains the recent halt in temperature increases:

"Lastly, we care because it demonstrates just why the average global temperature hasn’t been warming as fast over the last several years. We’ve had more La Nina cycles since 1998 than we’ve had El Nino cycles, and that means the Pacific ocean is storing more energy.

The problem with this, however, is that it means that energy is going to come back OUT of the ocean again eventually. And when (not if) that happens next, the average global temperature will spike."

Seems to me lying is like denying. You better keep track of the lies (or denials) you tell so as not repeat or contradict yourself! Cutting and pasting so much I can understand how you might lose track of your current argument!

 

[DTB]

And poor Duncan forgets the cut and paste of yesterday that explains the recent halt in temperature increases:

"Lastly, we care because it demonstrates just why the average global temperature hasn’t been warming as fast over the last several years. We’ve had more La Nina cycles since 1998 than we’ve had El Nino cycles, and that means the Pacific ocean is storing more energy.

The problem with this, however, is that it means that energy is going to come back OUT of the ocean again eventually. And when (not if) that happens next, the average global temperature will spike."

Seems to me lying is like denying. You better keep track of the lies (or denials) you tell so as not repeat or contradict yourself! Cutting and pasting so much I can understand how you might lose track of your current argument!

I'm certainly no scientist but as a trader I see many spikes on that chart above, both above and below some baseline.

So, if this big stored up spike is coming, how is it different than all the others that reverted back to that baseline?

 

[Gobears81]

And poor Duncan forgets the cut and paste of yesterday that explains the recent halt in temperature increases:

"Lastly, we care because it demonstrates just why the average global temperature hasn’t been warming as fast over the last several years. We’ve had more La Nina cycles since 1998 than we’ve had El Nino cycles, and that means the Pacific ocean is storing more energy.

The problem with this, however, is that it means that energy is going to come back OUT of the ocean again eventually. And when (not if) that happens next, the average global temperature will spike."

Seems to me lying is like denying. You better keep track of the lies (or denials) you tell so as not repeat or contradict yourself! Cutting and pasting so much I can understand how you might lose track of your current argument!

I'm with you on this Pete, although I might be the only one here. Kind of pointless to argue with those that don't believe in it, and there are 181-pages of proof. The temperature could skyrocket more than it already has and they would say it is natural fluctuations, who cares what the scientists say, they are part of a hoax. As the other climate change thread noted, there are those that recognize global warming is happening but don't care, those that recognize it is happening but think we are heading down the wrong path to deal with it, those that recognize global warming is happening but don't accept it as being manmade, and those that don't think there is any difference in weather since 1998, although that isn't really true anymore. Regardless, I'd say that bowing out isn't going to result in you "losing" the argument-it would just save you time and energy from talking to a brick wall. That is, unless you enjoy this

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA

BURNING fossil fuels and cutting down trees causes global COOLING

Major theories about what causes temperatures to rise have been thrown into doubt after NASA found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialisation where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place.

aerosols - also given off by burning fossil fuels - actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily

The research was carried out to see if current climate change models for calculating future temperatures were taking into account all factors and were accurate.

The assumptions made to account for these drivers are too simplistic and result in incorrect estimates of TCR and ECS.

NASA has concluded the lack of taking these factors into account means existing climate change models have underestimated at the future impact on global temperatures will be.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/62...k-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA

There you have it Pete. Read to your heart's content. Say the words over and over again. The climate models are wrong. They don't predict the future.

 

[Meandering]

Aerosols from burning fossil fuels may protect some regions from the effects of climate change

• Sulphur-containing aerosols in the atmosphere reflect sunlight into space

• This means less heat is absorbed by the Earth and so makes it cooler

• Man-made aerosols are released as pollution from burning coal and diesel

• It suggests temperatures will rise even as fossil fuel use is decreased

Reducing our reliance on fossils fuels is seen as crucial in tackling the threat of global warming, but cutting pollution from burning them may actually cause the Earth to get hotter in some places.

Scientists have warned that sulphur-containing aerosols released into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels, such as diesel, have actually been helping to keep parts of the planet cooler.

Researchers at Nasa, who have been studying these effects, said climate models predicting how temperatures will rise in the future may have been 'too simple'.

While carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for centuries, aerosols tend to only remain in the atmosphere for a few years.

While it has been known for decades that aerosols can produce a cooling effect on the climate, most studies on future climate change have focused on those coming from volcanoes.

The tiny particles can scatter and absorb sunlight, meaning less of it reaches the surface of the Earth.

They can also increase the formation of clouds, meaning more light is reflected back into space.

The latest study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, agreed with other research recently announced by Swiss scientists.

Drive around and watch the earth warm and cool and warm and cool and warm and cool.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

And poor Duncan forgets the cut and paste of yesterday that explains the recent halt in temperature increases:

"Lastly, we care because it demonstrates just why the average global temperature hasn’t been warming as fast over the last several years. We’ve had more La Nina cycles since 1998 than we’ve had El Nino cycles, and that means the Pacific ocean is storing more energy.

The problem with this, however, is that it means that energy is going to come back OUT of the ocean again eventually. And when (not if) that happens next, the average global temperature will spike."

Seems to me lying is like denying. You better keep track of the lies (or denials) you tell so as not repeat or contradict yourself! Cutting and pasting so much I can understand how you might lose track of your current argument!

Too bad you have no idea that the climate models do not predict either El Nino or La Nina. The explanation given has no bearing as to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. It is a feeble simplistic approach to excuse the huge error in understanding the climate.

Saying that there are more La Nina events than El Nino events is saying that cooling takes place because the atmosphere (and CO2 levels) has nothing to do with what's happening.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

The use of "denier" is a pejorative intended to link skeptical science to the holocaust, which of course, exposes those using it as a fraud fearful that they will be exposed as pandering to a line of science that is political not scientific.

 

[djd09]

Hey Pete nobody is stopping you from fixing your perceived problem. Just make sure you save my money for after the election.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

The use of "denier" is a pejorative intended to link skeptical science to the holocaust, which of course, exposes those using it as a fraud fearful that they will be exposed as pandering to a line of science that is political not scientific.

wow, now there's a total reach that could be construed as the ultimate ad hominem. If nothing you are consistent!