68 replies to this topic

[Doug1o29]

Global temperature anomalies on a callendar-year basis since 1996.  Source:  NCDC.  Temperatures listed are in hundredths of a degree Celsius above the 1951-1980 baseline.

1996:  31
1997:  42
1998:  59
1999:  34
2000:  36
2001:  49
2002:  57
2003:  56
2004:  49
2005:  62
2006:  56
2007:  59
2008:  44
2009:  57
2010:  63
2011:  51

Any questions?
Doug

[Rafterman]

Frankly I don't know what to think anymore.

It seems impossible to find any non-agenda driven information on the topic - on both sides.

[Br Cornelius]

Rafterman, on 15 October 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

Frankly I don't know what to think anymore.

It seems impossible to find any non-agenda driven information on the topic - on both sides.

Try reading the scientific papers then if you don't like your facts predigested.
The scientists really haven't got an agenda - that is conspiracy theory territory.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

Br Cornelius, on 15 October 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Try reading the scientific papers then if you don't like your facts predigested.
The scientists really haven't got an agenda - that is conspiracy theory territory.

Br Cornelius

Where I have to agree. The only one's with something to gain or to loose in this game are politicians (i.e. Carbon Tax) and Big Carbon (oil, gas and coal companies). The rest don't get anything more or less depending on the results, in fact many of them still get paid with or without publications.

Edited by questionmark, 15 October 2012 - 07:17 PM.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 15 October 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Try reading the scientific papers then if you don't like your facts predigested.
The scientists really haven't got an agenda - that is conspiracy theory territory.

Br Cornelius

lol, it is the scientists that disagree with man made warming.
funny how the alarmists always accuse those scientists that disagree as part of a "big oil" conspiracy theory. so you are saying that scientists that agree with you have no agenda, scientists that disagree have an agenda.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 15 October 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Try reading the scientific papers then if you don't like your facts predigested.
The scientists really haven't got an agenda - that is conspiracy theory territory.

Br Cornelius

lol, it is the scientists that disagree with man made warming.
funny how the alarmists always accuse those scientists that disagree as part of a "big oil" conspiracy theory. so you are saying that scientists that agree with you have no agenda, scientists that disagree have an agenda.

[Doug1o29]

Rafterman, on 15 October 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

Frankly I don't know what to think anymore.

It seems impossible to find any non-agenda driven information on the topic - on both sides.

http://www2.sunysuff...ate_change.html

[Little Fish]

questionmark, on 15 October 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Where I have to agree. The only one's with something to gain or to loose in this game are politicians (i.e. Carbon Tax) and Big Carbon (oil, gas and coal companies). The rest don't get anything more or less depending on the results, in fact many of the still get paid with or without publications.

oh really.

climategate email - "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse sceptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." - alarmist tom wigley, and yes Saiers was "ousted".

lots more examples in the climategate emails of scientists having their careers damaged for merely not adhering to the warming doctrine, you know all this already though.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 15 October 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

oh really.

climategate email - "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse sceptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." - alarmist tom wigley, and yes Saiers was "ousted".

lots more examples in the climategate emails of scientists having their careers damaged for merely not adhering to the warming doctrine, you know all this already though.

Just wondering if you were planning to answer Posts 29 and 31 with some "facts" of your own, or are you planning to cut your losses and ignor them?
Doug

[questionmark]

Little Fish, on 15 October 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

oh really.

climategate email - "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse sceptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." - alarmist tom wigley, and yes Saiers was "ousted".

lots more examples in the climategate emails of scientists having their careers damaged for merely not adhering to the warming doctrine, you know all this already though.

Right we know, now put on your tinfoil hat straight, it does not protect crooked.

[Little Fish]

questionmark, on 15 October 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

Right we know, now put on your tinfoil hat straight, it does not protect crooked.

the words are not mine, they are Tom Wigley, himself, and the email is real.
http://di2.nu/foia/f...1/mail/2151.txt

you are living in denial of the facts, and as usual you just insult the messenger.

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 15 October 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

Just wondering if you were planning to answer Posts 29 and 31 with some "facts" of your own, or are you planning to cut your losses and ignor them?
Doug

there is nothing to answer. you claimed "global temperatures are rising". this is a present tense statement. since global temperatures have not risen for the last 16 years it is incorrect to say they ARE rising. it would have been correct to say they rose for 15 years, then did not rise for the next 16 years. but you can't say that because someone might ask you why the "global temperature" did not rise for 16 years at a time when co2 increased by 10%. the usual speculative response to that question would then be that the heat has been absorbed by the oceans and will resurface sometime in the future,  but again the ocean measurements to 700 meters depth have shown that the oceans have not been warming, they have in fact been coolling, but then the usual speculative response is that the heat must be below the ocean mix layer below 700 meters, but of course that cannot be the case either since co2 rereadiates in the long wave and is all absorbed in the first few microns of water, so heat from co2 infra red reradiation cannot penetarte the oeans at below 700 meters so would have to be first detected in the top 700 meters, so you are STUCK with the FACT that the man made warming hypothesis has failed, and as a bonus I've saved you from 20 pages of pointless discussion and meandering personal anecdotes.

[Br Cornelius]

It is not speculation to say that the heat is been sequestered in the deep ocean - it is recorded fact and accounts for the pause in surface warming over the last 16yrs. Global warming (warming of the globe as a whole) has not stopped but has continued as predicted;


http://www.sciencedi...375960112010389

Concentrating on the first 700meters is cherry picking the facts that suit a denialist agenda - nothing more. Little Fish should know this since we have discussed it at length and is ample evidence of his dishonesty.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 15 October 2012 - 08:17 PM.

[Nathan DiYorio]

Everytime I see this thread on the front page, I think it says: "Global Warming stopped by 16 year old!"

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 15 October 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

there is nothing to answer. you claimed "global temperatures are rising". this is a present tense statement. since global temperatures have not risen for the last 16 years it is incorrect to say they ARE rising. it would have been correct to say they rose for 15 years, then did not rise for the next 16 years. but you can't say that because someone might ask you why the "global temperature" did not rise for 16 years at a time when co2 increased by 10%. the usual speculative response to that question would then be that the heat has been absorbed by the oceans and will resurface sometime in the future,  but again the ocean measurements to 700 meters depth have shown that the oceans have not been warming, they have in fact been coolling, but then the usual speculative response is that the heat must be below the ocean mix layer below 700 meters, but of course that cannot be the case either since co2 rereadiates in the long wave and is all absorbed in the first few microns of water, so heat from co2 infra red reradiation cannot penetarte the oeans at below 700 meters so would have to be first detected in the top 700 meters, so you are STUCK with the FACT that the man made warming hypothesis has failed, and as a bonus I've saved you from 20 pages of pointless discussion and meandering personal anecdotes.

Didn't read Post 31, did you?  The average temperature rise from 1996 to 2011 was 0.0485 degrees C. per year.  Try looking at those numbers again, then answer with some data of your own.  Global warming continues.  Looks like you're the one blathering on with irrelevant cherry-picking.
Doug

P.S.:  Just ran the calculations:  The 30-year average interval between major winter storms in the Ouachita National Forest increased from two years in 1780 to three years in 1900 to 5 years in 1980.  That's from the McCurtain County Wilderness dataset.  Climate change continues, too.
Doug

P.P.S.:  Do you know how deep water is formed?  Suggest you do some reading on thermohaline circulation.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 15 October 2012 - 08:39 PM.