more on the global warming front

[Cancel 2016.2]

I guy like you wouldn't bother with something published by Forbes would you?

Sure...

What about the last decade, as claimed above? The linear trend (the blue line) over the past decade is relatively flat, but in fact it still exhibited a warming trend, despite the temporary cooling forces that are masking the overall warming.

That is quite comical. The cooling forces that are masking the overall warming. In other words 'it really is warming, I swear, the temperatures just don't show it because something is causing a counter effect and we really really want to ignore that so that we can pretend the earth is still warming.'

As the British Met Office noted this week, in a reply to a misleading claim that the warming had stopped: “what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850.

Yet another attempt to divert. 2000-2009 being the warmest on 'instrumental record' (ie... only 150 years of the Earths 6 billion years of existence... talk about cherry picking) is irrelevant. Being the warmest decade on record does not indicate that temps are still increasing.

What about the last 15 years? This claim, too, is false, in two important ways: First, it actually has warmed over the past 15 years

The claim (and fact) is that there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years. Which is true. The author warps the claim into a straw man so that he can burn said straw man to the ground.

, and second, the past 15 years are themselves among the warmest in the past 130 years.

Same bullshit as above as it is irrelevant. The point is that there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years despite a continued rise in CO2 levels. Which means the computer models the fear mongers are using are incorrect.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Side note Dune, this is the ethical nature of the author...

On February 20, 2012, Gleick announced he was responsible for the unauthorized distribution of documents from The Heartland Institute in mid-February. Gleick claimed he had received "an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy", and in trying to verify the authenticity of the document, had "solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name".[8] Responding to the leak, The Heartland Institute said one of the documents released, a two-page 'Strategy Memo', had been forged.[26] Gleick described his actions as "a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics" and said that he "deeply regret[ted his] own actions in this case" and "offer[ed his] personal apologies to all those affected". He stated that "My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts -- often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated -- to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved."[8][27]

He resorts to lying and distorting information to 'support' his position. Enough said.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Do enlighten us, please.

I just did!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0728/Vital-ocean-phytoplankton-a-casualty-of-global-warming

A new study suggests that a global rise in ocean temperatures has cut the number of phytoplankton, which are the bedrock of the food chain, by 40 percent since 1950. Other scientists link the rise in ocean temperatures to global warming.


The foundation of the ocean food chain is eroding, and global warming is partly to blame.
Skip to next paragraphRelated stories

• 
  [h=5]Climate change messes with the food chain[/h]
• World’s oceans turning acidic faster than expected
• Global warming? Lake Tanganyika, world's second-deepest lake, heating up fast

That's the broad conclusion from a newly released study of a century's worth of measurements of the abundance of phytoplankton in the world's oceans.
Between 1899 and 2008, phytoplankton – microscopic, plant-like organisms in ocean surface waters – declined by roughly 1 percent of the global average per year, the study estimates. That works out to a 40 percent drop in amount of phytoplankton between 1950 and 2008, according to the study, which appears in tomorrow's issue of the journal Nature.
Beyond disruptions to the ocean food chain, such a decline would undercut the ocean's ability to take up the carbon dioxide humans have pumped into the atmosphere through increased burning of coal, oil, and gas, as well as through land-use changes, say scientists.
If the findings hold up to additional scrutiny, "that's quite remarkable," says Peter Franks, a phytoplankton ecologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. "If it's true, there's a lot of bad stuff going on."
Phytoplankton use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen and into the sugars that keep the plankton alive long enough to become another creature's meal. By some estimates ocean phytoplankton are responsible for half of all the photosynthetic activity on the planet.
The trend noted in the study becomes most pronounced near the poles and in the tropics since 1950, the researchers say.
Of the factors the team considered to explain the decline, the most influential appeared to be rising sea-surface temperatures – a trend many other scientists have traced to global warming.
[h=2]More at link[/h]

As always, the point is... is MAN causing global warming due to carbon emissions. The data currently is far from conclusive despite the chest pounding of the fear mongers.

 

[Rune]

Posted by SimpleFreak;

Yet another attempt to divert. 2000-2009 being the warmest on 'instrumental record' (ie... only 150 years of the Earths 6 billion years of existence... talk about cherry picking) is irrelevant. Being the warmest decade on record does not indicate that temps are still increasing.

So it got warmer but the warming trend had already stopped. I get it now. Thanks. lol

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Posted by SimpleFreak;

Yet another attempt to divert. 2000-2009 being the warmest on 'instrumental record' (ie... only 150 years of the Earths 6 billion years of existence... talk about cherry picking) is irrelevant. Being the warmest decade on record does not indicate that temps are still increasing.

So it got warmer but the warming trend had already stopped. I get it now. Thanks. lol

Apparently you do not get it. Being the warmest decade 'on record' (again, 150 years out of 6 Billion)... does not mean that global temperatures are still rising. You do comprehend the fact that they can rise and then remain stagnant at high levels?

If the decade went 70, 71, 69, 70, 72, 71, 70, 70, 71, 70... it would still be where it was ten years ago. (note: this is an example, not the actual data as I didn't feel like looking it up)

 

[Rune]

Apparently you do not get it. Being the warmest decade 'on record' (again, 150 years out of 6 Billion)... does not mean that global temperatures are still rising. You do comprehend the fact that they can rise and then remain stagnant at high levels?

If the decade went 70, 71, 69, 70, 72, 71, 70, 70, 71, 70... it would still be where it was ten years ago. (note: this is an example, not the actual data as I didn't feel like looking it up)

Dixie? Why are you posting as Superfreak?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Dixie? Why are you posting as Superfreak?

So in other words, you have nothing. Understood, most fear mongers like you end up spouting nonsense. Unfortunately for you the data shows the computer models were wrong about CO2.

 

[Rune]

Apparently you do not get it. Being the warmest decade 'on record' (again, 150 years out of 6 Billion)... does not mean that global temperatures are still rising. You do comprehend the fact that they can rise and then remain stagnant at high levels?

If the decade went 70, 71, 69, 70, 72, 71, 70, 70, 71, 70... it would still be where it was ten years ago. (note: this is an example, not the actual data as I didn't feel like looking it up)

Do you even read your own writing?

Being the warmest decade on record does not mean the temperature is still rising?

At this point you are the one spouting nonsense and you know it.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Dixie? Why are you posting as Superfreak?

You need to apprise yourself of the CLOUD experiment being done by Jasper Kirkby and his multi-national team at CERN.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

A new study suggests that a global rise in ocean temperatures has cut the number of phytoplankton, which are the bedrock of the food chain, by 40 percent since 1950. Other scientists link the rise in ocean temperatures to global warming.

Okay, SO WHAT? Just because the oceans or climate is warming, does NOT prove it is being caused by man.

Greenhouse gasses are not caused by man! If the planet didn't have a greenhouse effect, it could have never sustained life! Greenhouse gasses trapping heat in our atmosphere, is precisely why life emerged on our planet. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, existed before anything was living on this planet. If the greenhouse gasses were eliminated, or we stopped experiencing the greenhouse effect, everything on the planet would die....all signs of life would disappear.

CO2 is a natural element. It is one of the most common elements in the universe, it is not a pollutant. Almost all vegetation and plant life requires adequate CO2 to live. Without plants to produce oxygen for us to breathe, we would die. An argument can be made, that man's attempt to ban CO2 emissions, is detrimental to the planet. .....Plant more TREES!

 

[cancel2 2022]

Okay, SO WHAT? Just because the oceans or climate is warming, does NOT prove it is being caused by man.

Greenhouse gasses are not caused by man! If the planet didn't have a greenhouse effect, it could have never sustained life! Greenhouse gasses trapping heat in our atmosphere, is precisely why life emerged on our planet. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, existed before anything was living on this planet. If the greenhouse gasses were eliminated, or we stopped experiencing the greenhouse effect, everything on the planet would die....all signs of life would disappear.

CO2 is a natural element. It is one of the most common elements in the universe, it is not a pollutant. Almost all vegetation and plant life requires adequate CO2 to live. Without plants to produce oxygen for us to breathe, we would die. An argument can be made, that man's attempt to ban CO2 emissions, is detrimental to the planet. .....Plant more TREES!

That is absurd, man does generate greenhouse gases such as CO2, CH4 and indeed water vapour, but that's not the issue. The issue is the extent to which that contributes to climate forcing. Maybe the answer, in part, is to genetically engineer cows to produce far less methane or go vegetarian.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/zoology/mammals/methane-cow.htm

 

[cancel2 2022]

There is a shitload more here.

http://wn.com/Jasper_Kirkby_The_CLOUD_experiment_at_CERN

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That is absurd, man does generate greenhouse gases such as CO2, CH4 and indeed water vapour, but that's not the issue. The issue is the extent to which that contributes to climate forcing. Maybe the answer, in part, is to genetically engineer cows to produce far less methane or go vegetarian.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/zoology/mammals/methane-cow.htm

Yes, man just like every other living thing, does contribute to greenhouse gasses, and again, greenhouse gasses and the greenhouse effect are ESSENTIAL in supporting carbon-based life on this planet.

As for what amount mankind is contributing, we can do everything in our power to restrict and limit that amount, and one single small volcanic event can erase hundreds of years worth of our efforts. Since we have several such events every decade or two, it is safe to say we will never be able to limit our contributions enough to make a discernible difference overall. It's certainly not worth the money required to do so, or the burden it places on industrialization.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Do you even read your own writing?

Being the warmest decade on record does not mean the temperature is still rising?

At this point you are the one spouting nonsense and you know it.

If the warmest decade on record previous to this one was say an avg of 68 degrees and the current decade went 70,71,72,71,70,70,71,70,71,70

The current decade would avg higher than the previous record. yet the avg temp at the start and end of the decade was the same. So it would not be rising you idiot. It would be stagnant at the higher levels. You do understand what the term 'rising' means?

 

[Rune]

If the warmest decade on record previous to this one was say an avg of 68 degrees and the current decade went 70,71,72,71,70,70,71,70,71,70

The current decade would avg higher than the previous record. yet the avg temp at the start and end of the decade was the same. So it would not be rising you idiot. It would be stagnant at the higher levels. You do understand what the term 'rising' means?

[url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/[/URL]

What about the last 15 years? This claim, too, is false, in two important ways: First, it actually has warmed over the past 15 years, and second, the past 15 years are themselves among the warmest in the past 130 years.

Global temperature changes past 15 years.
But even these selections of time periods are cherry picking. What about the entire instrumental record going back 130 years – the period of time when scientists know that growing concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere have been piling up? Well, you look at the graph. The warming is unmistakable, despite the year-to-year ups-and-downs.
130 years of global temperature changes







What if we look decade by decade in order to smooth out some of the year-to-year natural variability? OK, here you go. The last decade had less warming than the one before (because of these natural variations I’ve mentioned), but is it cooling? No. Instead we see a continuation of the bad news.
Decadal changes in global temperatures








Finally even this is cherry-picking, because it turns out that the heat imbalance of the planet is not only measured by rising surface temperatures. Scientists now know that a massive amount of the extra heating effect is also going into melting ice (in the Arctic and Greenland and mountain glaciers) and also heating the oceans, and that even when surface heating slows, ocean heating continues. This next figure based on data from a 2011 paper by Church et al. shows that most of the heat actually goes into the oceans, not into rising surface temperatures.
Total

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

[url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/[/URL]

I have already debunked his nonsense and shown you why he is not a credible source. Simply reposting his article doesn't support your nonsense. Nor does it change what I stated.

Do you understand what statistically significant means? There has been no meaningful change in avg. temps. We are not still rising. You also ignore the fact that your author is himself cherry picking.

 

[Rune]

I have already debunked his nonsense and shown you why he is not a credible source. Simply reposting his article doesn't support your nonsense. Nor does it change what I stated.

Do you understand what statistically significant means? There has been no meaningful change in avg. temps. We are not still rising. You also ignore the fact that your author is himself cherry picking.

The only thing you have debunked today are the last vestiges of your credibility on this and the China thread.