The global warming crowd has a problem. Global warming has disappeared. It’s missing in action. The public is cooling toward the idea that we need intervention by governments to stop global warming.
A recent article explained that the theory’s defenders are doing their best to come up with a plausible explanation. It’s the ocean.
Huge amounts of heat – equivalent to the power of 150 billion electric kettles – are being continuously absorbed by the deep ocean, which could explain why global warming has “paused” over the past 10 to 15 years, scientists have concluded in a series of reports to explain why the Earth’s rate of warming has slowed down.
I see. The ocean is a new factor. It was never there before. But now, without warning, it is sopping up heat like a Bounty paper towel in a TV ad.
What the GW proponents need is a theory of “what’s new.” But a British newspaper reporter dutifully reports this with a straight face.
Here is the political problem facing the GW crowd.
Global average temperatures are higher now than they have ever been since modern records began. However, after a period of rapid temperature increases during the 1980s and 1990s there has been a significant slow-down since the turn of the century, leading some sceptics to claim that global warming has stopped.
A scientific assessment of the planet’s heat balance has found that the most likely explanation for the recent hiatus in global warming is the continual absorption of thermal energy by the huge “heat sink” of the deep ocean many hundreds of metres below the sea surface, according to scientists from the Met Office.
If this is the most likely explanation, they have a problem. It’s called public skepticism.
Senior climate scientists said that they had always expected periods when the rate of increase in temperatures would level off for a few years and emphasized that the last decade was still warmer than any previous decade, with 12 of the 14 hottest years on record occurring since 2000.
Who are these “senior climatic scientists”? Where and when did they go into print with this prediction, namely, that temperatures would level off for 15 years? Where, precisely, did they say that the ocean would start causing this, when it never had before? We need specifics here. We do not get any.
Professor Rowan Sutton, a climate scientist at Reading University, said the temperatures have levelled off in the past, the latest example being in the 1940s and 1950s when sulphate pollutants from the post-war boom in industrial production may have acted as a shield against incoming solar radiation.
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,” Professor Sutton said.
Some people call it “return to normal.”
“Climate scientists absolutely expect variations in the rate at which surface temperature will rise….but that is not to say we understand all the details of the last 10 to 15 years,” Professor Sutton said.
Is that what they expect? For how long have they expected this? How long do they expect it to last? For as long as the world’s oceans act as a heat sink? That could be a very long time.
What is the problem they face? This:
The problem for the Met Office is to explain why the rate of increase in global temperatures has declined in recent years while concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have continued to accelerate. Sceptics claim that this shows there is not a strong link between the two, whereas climate scientists insist that rising carbon dioxide concentrations are largely responsible for the rise in global temperatures.
Skeptics are winning the argument. That’s because the global warming crowd is clearly grabbing at straws. The ocean is not a good place to find straws.
The most likely explanation for the current pause is that excess heat trapped by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is being transferred from the atmosphere to the oceans where it is being transported down to deeper layers that cannot be monitored by satellites, Professor Belcher said.
“It looks like the Earth is continuing to accumulate energy but it looks like it is being re-arranged and hidden from view,” he said.
This energy is hiding in the ocean. Maybe Atlantis is tapping into it as a thermal energy source.
However, measurements from hundreds of ocean floats released over the last decade, which descend and drift to depths of up to 2,000 metres, show that huge amounts of heat from the sea surface is now being transferred to the deep ocean, with unknown consequences for the environment, the scientists said.
“In summary, observations of ocean heat content and of sea-level rise suggest that the Earth system has continued to absorb heat energy over the past 15 years, and that this additional heat has been absorbed in the ocean,” says the Met Office report.
Will this heat sink end? Of course it will end. As surely as global warming is true, this heat sink phenomenon will reverse. Then we’ll see that global warming is still a threat to the world.
The pause, however, is unlikely to change the predictions over the future course of global warming. Temperature increases expected by 2015 will only be delayed by a further five or ten years, the scientists said. Average surface temperatures are still on course to increase by 2C this century, with further rises expected by the end of the century if nothing is done to curb carbon dioxide emissions, they said.
They will get back to us on this. Real Soon Now.
"The straining at gnats and swallowing of camels shall continue until temperatures resume their ascent."
As most of know, global wasrming was a fraud from the beginning, and it still is a fraud. The only change is that now most of us know it is a fraud. It is getting so bad that it is becomming a joke. Kind of like Al Gore's IQ.
Sun thermal cycles determine global temperatures. When the sun heats up the oceans release carbon dioxide by the trillions of tons; when it cools off the oceans absorb CO2 by trillions of tons. Human influence on the sun cycle has been and will stay totally negligible – as far as the production of CO2 is concerned. See on the Internet "Global Warming Petition Project".
Al Gore (beware of any scientific movement that has a politician for main spokesman) and his co-conspirators simply went out and said, “We have all this money to give out for research grants to prove global warming.” Scientists desperate for research grants said, “I’ll prove global warming, just give me some money!” They took the money and they concocted a bunch of theoretical models in a computer, then announced, “This proves global warming”.
Little reminder: a computer model can’t predict anything. A computer model just shows the outcomes of the initial assumptions, and if those assumptions are WRONG, the computer model will come up with completely wrong results.
Climate change has always been a fact of life , global warming has always been a scam , only SUCKERS buy that ship .
A single volcanic eruption could give us another "year without a summer" or maybe more than one…
150 billion electric kettles?? Where did these doofuses come up with that number? Do the math. Say a kettle holds 2 liters (for easy calculation). Then we're talking about 300 million cubic meters of water. Sounds like a lot, but…a cubic kilometer is a BILLION cubic meters. Lake Michigan is about 1000 cubic MILES in volume. That's over 4000 cubic kilometers of water. That "huge" number that they thought would really impress you turns out to be less than 1/12000 the volume of Lake Michigan! A lot of water to be sure, but compared to the volume of the oceans, it's less than the proverbial drop in the bucket. When I see stuff like this I know it's a scam.
BTW, when Mt. St. Helens erupted it vaporized one and a half cubic miles of material. That's about 13 times as much volume as they're talking about. In one "poof"!
Oops–last paragraph should read, 20 times as much volume. I multiplied by 1 instead of 1.5. (sheepish grin) But it reinforces my point with an even stronger argument.
So in other words, since they """""""CAN'T DAZZLE US WITH BRILLIANCE, THEY CONTINUE TO TRY AND BAFFLE US WITH BULL-CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yet so many dimwits listened to it. Calling us "global warming deniers" or some such garbage, as if it was like denying the Nazi Holocaust. Pathetic little punks.
don't forget the lies perpetrated by the "cilmate experts" falsifying data out of East Anglia University in England….. to "prove" global warming they cooked the statistics…. and got caught. Too many "scientists" forget about this. Too "inconvenient".
Industry polluters have been funding DEREGULATION, anti-environment studies for over a century. The Conservatives are on the wrong side of the population and history yet again!
Global temperatures have stopped going up since 1998. Did the industry polluters fund that?
See more, the sooner you stop focusing on the non-existent "problem" of carbon dioxide, and instead start focusing on real pollutants, the faster we can get back on track cleaning up the real environmental problems in our world.
Even by deniers' argument "flat" is not the same as saying "global temperatures are now going down". There is zero evidence for global temperatures to return to normalcy the way deniers are insinuating. It's the same with Peak Oil deniers – the price of oil has not gone down but is also flat. When fuel prices are down to way they were in the old days when running fuel guzzlers was cheap then deniers have a claim to say Peak Oil has been seriously postponed for another century or two.
"Even by deniers' argument "flat" is not the same as saying "global temperatures are now going down"."
Everyone, go and read the article at the top and look for the quote "global temperatures are now going down". Did you find it? Neither did I. Gil can't refute what is said so he makes up quotes.
"There is zero evidence for global temperatures to return to normalcy the way deniers are insinuating."
There is zero definition provided by Gil of the word "normalcy". Climate change is normal, but Gil pretends as if cooler temperatures are normal. Temperatures warmer than today were normal back in the early Middle Ages when Greenland was green. But apparently Gil would complain that is "not normal."
The Medieval warming event was localized instead of worldwide. Then again if you live in a cold climate then global warming would be beneficial. So what do you suppose warming means? "Well the world was natural warming anyway so if I find my town too hot to live comfortably I'll move to a cooler part of the world." Yes the world would be a lot cooler if humans weren't modifying the Earth and releasing GHGs. Then again people dying is natural so no one should care if they're getting murdered or get conscripted to the front line of a war zone.
"The Medieval warming event was localized instead of worldwide."
China has temperature recordings showing higher readings in the past than today Gil. So you claim the region from China to Greenland is local now?
"Then again if you live in a cold climate then global warming would be beneficial. So what do you suppose warming means? Well the world was natural warming anyway so if I find my town too hot to live comfortably I'll move to a cooler part of the world."
I am fit Gil, not fat. So I am not bothered if my local weather is uncomfortably warm. That is just part of life.
"Yes the world would be a lot cooler if humans weren't modifying the Earth and releasing GHGs"
Gil has provided zero evidence that humans are making the Earth warmer. Par for the course, of course.
"Then again people dying is natural so no one should care if they're getting murdered or get conscripted to the front line of a war zone."
At least this time you didn't try and fake a quote for this laughable nonsense Gil, so it is clear only you said these words.
Nor is the Medieval Warm Period some sort of "ace in the sleeve" for GW deniers:
The article makes it quite clear that the warming spike experienced still isn't as warm as it is nowadays even though the world is still warming.
On the other hand, you & friends are of the notion that "imagine if people were forbidden from polluting during the Industrial Revolution because we'd all still be peasant farmers" mentality hence such collateral damage of environment and the people who aren't the go-getters are the necessary broken eggs.
Once again Gil laughably tries a bait and switch. His first link throws out the strawman argument that the climate is cooling and then bravely beats up the strawman. As was already pointed out, the article here did not argue the climate is getting cooler, it pointed out global warmers like Gil have been refuted because the planet has not gotten warmer since 1998. "Not getting warmer" does not equal "getting cooler" Gil. Do you understand now or do I need to repeat once again using only one syllable words?
"Nor is the Medieval Warm Period some sort of "ace in the sleeve" for GW deniers:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Wrong again Gil, it utterly blows away your argument that the planet is "normal" when it is cooler than it is now. Fact is it has been warmer in the past and that was "normal". And even your link concedes the warm climate at that time…"may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including in China and other countries"
Around the world Gil….that is global Gil.
"The article makes it quite clear that the warming spike experienced"
was actually warmer than it is now, since you can't actually produce a warm, green Greenland Gil.
" still isn't as warm as it is nowadays"
Wrong again Gil.
" even though the world is still warming."
Three posts by Gil, zero evidence produced by Gil that the planet has gotten warmer since 1998. He just keeps repeating the same unsupported assertion.
"On the other hand, you & friends are of the notion that "imagine if people were forbidden from polluting during the Industrial Revolution because we'd all still be peasant farmers" mentality"
Everyone, go ahead and read my comments and the original article above. Do you see the words, "imagine if people were forbidden from polluting during the Industrial Revolution because we'd all still be peasant farmers"? Neither did I. Second time Gil flat out lies and makes up a quote.
Big tough Gil beating up his own stuffed strawman. Let me know when you want to address the actual argument Gil.
" hence such collateral damage of environment"
Gil, when you exhale, are you causing collateral damage to the environment?
"and the people who aren't the go-getters are the necessary broken eggs."
Gil goes off on a completely incoherent ramble here, which has nothing to do with what I pointed out.
I never stated the article said "the climate is cooling" rather they're saying "we believe that there's been no warming since 1998 therefore global warming is disproved". Even though there's no evidence for flat temperatures that doesn't disprove global warming any more than saying "my cancer hasn't spread therefore I must be getting better". Rather I said a consistent cooling trend would be what it would take to disprove global warming just as when fuel prices go down to olden days when people had fuel inefficient cars because petrol was so cheap will there be a case that Peak Oil is too far away to matter.
On the other hand, no, if humans didn't exist or we all suddenly became environmentally-friendly to the point that the GHGs revert their normal levels then the Earth gets cooler, period. It's also theoretically possible to determine an optimum temperature in which it's best for human habitation and farming concerns. Besides do tell whenever Greenland was ever cosy and green in human existence other than taking Erik the Red's word for it?
Of course I cite the Industrial Revolution: imagine if Greenies existed then and banned all polluting technology and only allowed Green alternatives? The improvements in the standard of living for people in the West would not have happened. Hence GW deniers like to point that if Greenies have their way they would use GW as their agenda to force humanity back a thousand years in technology to save Mother Earth as well it's a scam to impose new taxes, vie for world domination, Green is the new Red, etc.
Finally, yes poorer people will have to suck it up while rich folk will move to cooler climate zones. For example one country that suffer significantly from GW is Bangladesh. But they're already poor and if they haven't gotten themselves out of poverty in a century time then only have themselves to blame, don't they?
I never stated the article said "the climate is cooling"
You setup the strawman argument with your words here-
"Even by deniers' argument "flat" is not the same as saying "global temperatures are now going down"."
Nobody here said it was the same, and suggesting the article was making such a claim was completely false.
"rather they're saying "we believe that there's been no warming since 1998"
There hasn't been global warming since 1998. It is not a belief, it is a fact. Now the idea that man-made carbon dioxide prodution causes global warming, that is a belief, because it certainly isn't supported by the scientific evidence.
"therefore global warming is disproved". Even though there's no evidence for flat temperatures"
Your own links admit temperatures have flattened, did you even bother to read them?
" that doesn't disprove global warming"
It completely destroys the claim that man-made carbon dioxide production causes global warming. We have produced plenty of carbon dioxide since 1998, and yet surface temperatures remain flat. When a scientific hypothesis fails, it ceases to be science.
"any more than saying "my cancer hasn't spread therefore I must be getting better". "
Again, Gil implies that cooler is "better". That is only his opinion. I have no problem with the temperatures we have now. What Gil considers to be normal is of no interest to myself or the other few billion people on this planet who are not Gil.
"Rather I said a consistent cooling trend would be what it would take to disprove global warming"
FYI Gil, you don't get to arbitrarily decide what "disproves" global warming. The global warming hypothesis is falsifiable if temperatures remain flat while carbon dixoide production continues.
"just as when fuel prices go down to olden days when people had fuel inefficient cars because petrol was so cheap will there be a case that Peak Oil is too far away to matter."
Again Gil, your personal opinion on petrol prices being cheap is not going to be shared by everyone. "Cheap", "better" and "normal" do not make for precise scientific measurement.
"On the other hand, no, if humans didn't exist or we all suddenly became environmentally-friendly to the point that the GHGs revert their normal levels then the Earth gets cooler, period."
Your unsupported assertion.
Nope the first link addressed the supposed flat temperature argument and second shows the MWP was not as warm as the present. But then even if temperatures are flat how does that disprove global warming? Temperatures are slowly and steadily with scientific basis (increased manmade GHG – mostly CO2) yet deniers thinks temperatures are flat at best (as opposed to receding in cooling) and this somehow proves their case. Actually, yes, car makers have increasing stride in fuel consumption efficiencies whereby a good V8 sports car can have just as good if not better fuel economy than an old 4-cylinder car from the '60s and '70's. When the real price of fuel matches that of the time when it was cheap is a positive sign. Humans release more GHGs than any natural process making it warmer than it would be, period: simple science.
Settling Greenland and making wine in England does not automatically mean "it must have been more warm than today despite the considerably lower population incapable of producing as much CO2 as we do today".
The notion that temperatures have been flat since 1998 has no known basis than deniers cherrypicking two points and ignoring everything else:
Instead real graphs show temperatures continuing to rise at an overall linear rate without any flatlining.
And here's a bonus on the Hockey Stick Graph:
I think your math is right ….congratulations for exposing their "HUGE" number as a insignificant 'drop in the bucket'
In support of my thesis that the environmentalism is a cult of death, let me provide you with some select sayings by our eco-Nazis (thanks, Prof. Williams!):
Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, wrote in a 1990 biographical essay: "My own doubts came when DDT was introduced for civilian use. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem."
Dr. Charles Wurster, former chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, was once asked whether he thought a ban on DDT would result in the use of more dangerous chemicals and more malaria cases in Sri Lanka. He replied: "Probably. So what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and (malaria) is as good a way as any." (cont.)
According to "Earthbound," a collection of essays on environmental ethics, William Aiken said: "Massive human diebacks would be good. It is our duty to cause them. It is our species' duty, relative to the whole, to eliminate 90 percent of our numbers."
Prince Philip — Duke of Edinburgh and patron of the World Wildlife Fund — said, "If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
The late Jacques Cousteau told The UNESCO Courier: "One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."
Former National Park Service research biologist David Graber opined, "Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. … We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. … Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."
The interior temperature of our planet is extremely high; heat rises, to surface & oceans, without regard to human activity. The rest is nonsense, merely the squawking of Chicken Littles.
Why isn't anyone concerned about the U.S. debt? It continues to rise exponentially, compared to global warming, it definitely has a human cause, and will destroy us long before "global warming" (if it even exists) could possibly harm us.
Our obsession with the Irwin Allen Scif-fi scenario of global warming disaster is like a man who is bleeding to death begging his attacker to call the A/C repairman because he is too hot.
We already have the right virus here. It's called racism. Every ethnic group and interest group in the world is determined to kill off all the others and have the earth for itself. With the breakdown of Western Civilization proceeded apace, it is only a matter of time before third world countries get easy access to weapons of mass destruction, and start "cleaning house," by filling it with dead bodies. Just imagine the Midianites, HIttites, Phiistines, Caananites, and Ishmaelites with nuclear weapons and poison gas trying to achieve ethinc cleansing.
The REAL issue isn't even if the planet is warming, cooling, or cycling. The issue is if man is making a significant contribution, and can we do anything about it. The answer to both is NO.
What there is zero evidence for is that normalcy EVER existed. In fact, 100% of the evidence presented by ALL sides supports the claim that CHANGE is the only thing normal.
What about the melting ICE CAPS!!!
Why should today's Americans care if the national debt is out of control? Suppose today's Americans are reaping the benefits of living high off the hog but it will be their grandchildren who suffer when America is broke and the nation is impoverished? The Americans can adapt by being undocumented workers in Canada or Mexico or, even, sail in leaky ships and seek economic asylum in China. Today's Americans don't owe a thing to their descendants let alone make sure the standard of living is maintained.
Wrong again Gil.
" the first link addressed the supposed flat temperature argument"
By lying. Lies do not refute facts Gil.
" second shows the MWP was not as warm as the present."
That second link utterly failed to do so, it is laughable you would even pretend to suggest it did.
" But then even if temperatures are flat how does that disprove global warming?"
Everyone, notice how Gil now changes my statement. I pointed out it falsifies the hypothesis that man-made carbon dioxide production causes global warming. Either he doesn't understand the difference between my statement and his editing of my statement above, or he is trying a bait and switch(again).
" Temperatures are slowly and steadily with scientific basis (increased manmade GHG – mostly CO2) yet deniers thinks temperatures are flat at best (as opposed to receding in cooling) and this somehow proves their case."
Notice how Gil continues to deny temperatures are flat…he simply can't admit they are. Only people "think" they are.
"Actually, yes, car makers have increasing stride in fuel consumption efficiencies whereby a good V8 sports car can have just as good if not better fuel economy than an old 4-cylinder car from the '60s and '70's. When the real price of fuel matches that of the time when it was cheap is a positive sign. Humans release more GHGs than any natural process making it warmer than it would be, period: simple science."
You making unsupported assertions is not science Gil. It is your belief system. Humans have released more GHGs since 1998, and yet temperatures have flattened. Ergo, your scientific hypothesis is wrong. It is no longer science, it is simple faith.
"Settling Greenland and making wine in England does not automatically mean "it must have been more warm than today despite the considerably lower population incapable of producing as much CO2 as we do today"
Everyone, notice how Gil now suddenly wants to talk about making wine in England. I never mentioned that at all. So why is he bringing it up now? Because his link attempts to refute the fact that it was warmer in the medieval period than now by discussing vineyards in England. Again Gil introduces a strawman argument in order to knock it down. And he stupidly lumps Greenland into vineyards of England, despite the fact the article doesn't even discuss Greenland.
You have failed again Gil.
"The notion that temperatures have been flat since 1998 has no known basis than deniers cherrypicking two points and ignoring everything else:"
Actually it is global warmers like Gil who cherry pick the data. Global warmers would deliberately take their temperature readings from urban areas with industrial production that would warm the local area, in order to gin up the numbers to show temperatures increasing. But don't expect Gil to ever admit that.
Furthermore Gil's link actually does cherry pick the data by suggesting we ignore the Hadley Center and just focus on the NASA Giss data, which shows a continuing warming trend.
So why am I still smiling? Because Gil doesn't know NASA Giss doesn't actually take temperature readings, they just use models. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/30/nasa-data-w…
Maps from NASA’s GISS reveal temperatures where no data exist, thanks to mathematical extrapolation of data.
NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can’t tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA’s temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.
E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.
"Instead real graphs show temperatures continuing to rise at an overall linear rate without any flatlining."
Wow Gil, "real" graphs with MADE UP NUMBERS shows a continuing rise at an overall linear rate without any flatlining!
I am not impressed. Let me know when you are ready to stop denying simple reality Gil.
"And here's a bonus on the Hockey Stick Graph:"
Gil's definition of "a bonus" – more strawman arguments, more gainsaying, more deceptions, but little in the way of facts.
In 2007, NASA scientists reported that after years of research, their team had assembled data showing that normal, decade-long changes in Arctic Ocean currents driven by a circulation known as the Arctic Oscillation was largely responsible for the major Arctic climate shifts observed over the past several years. These periodic reversals in the ocean currents move warmer and cooler water around to new places, greatly affecting the climate.
It is normal See More, nothing to worry about.
Here it is, late July in North Central Ohio area and the temperature outside in the sun is a mere 68 friggin degrees at 2:00 PM!
Where in the hell is this "blessed" warming B.S. these Green Religious nut jobs keep spewing about? Needless to say, it's been getting colder than normal then what it was when I was younger. Summers here were hot & humid from late May until around mid September, but not anymore. the last 10-12 years it's been cooling more year over year!
One reason may just be due to these increasing daily aerosol spraying op's in our skies. What was once random 2-3 days a week on seeing them appear, has now become an everyday event! I watch daily as these early morning blue skies are turned to a murky gray by noon as these "chem-trail" aerosol tankers just keep flying overhead, 40-50 times a day, with their endless crisscrossing & looping spray dispersing maneuvers dumping their toxins by the tons out in long semi-white lines that drift & grey out the whole horizon. It creates a metallic like hue around around the sun that barely shines through their man-made haze…….
If anyone is disrupting our environment, it's these bastards & their aerosol spraying operations! They really hammer us with such a massive aerosol dump, right before a rain storm is forecast, in large part to deliberately try to electrify the atmosphere and increase the both the amount & magnification power of lightning. Our thunderstorms are becoming like enormous & dangerous laser light shows. I read somewhere awhile back, that our military's HAARP program is possibly engaging in some of Nikola Tesla's theories of "weather control & manipulation" in efforts to eventually enable control in utilizing natural forces to wield it as a weapon!
Who says temperatures have flattened other than deniers? No scientific graph shows it. Deniers think they at long last found a "gotcha" moment but they haven't.
"Who says temperatures have flattened other than deniers?"
Gil, go back and read the article at the top of this page. Remember the one you decided to respond to initially? Did you actually read it? Did you catch the following sentence? …"Senior climate scientists said that they had always expected periods when the rate of increase in temperatures would level off for a few years"
Senior climate scientists Gil…that is who.
"Deniers think they at long last found a "gotcha" moment" but they haven't."
Then why has Gil repeatedly posted fraudulent information in his comments and careened from web link to web link desperately trying to move the goalposts so he can deny reality? Why has he thrown out strawman argument after strawman argument?
Because he can't deal with my actual arguments, that's why.
As for Gil's link, the hilarious bit is it actually admits temperatures have flattened! Read it for yourself…"Thus, if one draws a straight-line fit of global surface temperatures from 1998 to 2012, a climate trend showing little global warming results."
So according to Gil, the thinkprogress.org website are a bunch of deniers. Way to go Gil.
I particularly find amusing the website's whining further down…"The choice of 1998 is a deliberate abuse of statistics in an attempt to manipulate people into drawing a false conclusion on global temperature trends."
This is only true for the global warmers. You see, in 1998 the global warmers were shrieking that 1998's El Nino event was proof postitive of man-made carbon dioxide production causing global warming. And they issued dire warnings we would see more of those in the future. This turned out to be false. So it was actually global warmers who attempted, based on the El Nino event, to manipulate people to false conclusions on global temperature trends back in 1998.
As for those people pointing out temperatures flattened, yes, they flattened starting in 1998, they have not gotten significantly higher since then. That is a simple fact. Global warmers are SOL, the graph has flattened. To show it flattened, you have to look at the flat part of the graph. Global warmers lie when they claim that is somehow unfair.
A denier site hosted by a weather guy. Then again Creationists can (unfortunately) find actual scientists who doubt evolution
Some telling quotes:
"I remember being told that some scientists predicted that we would soon enter a new ice age."
Outside the media hype the scientific part about a coming Ice Age was in thousands of years time. Presumably the only scientific usage of "soon" meant on a geological time scale. Then again at that time artificially emitting GHGs would actually be beneficial.
''Now, being English I knew all about the vagaries of the weather"
The standard canard about confusing weather and climate. (part 1 of 2)
"A denier site"
Wrong again Gil, a site that uses actual science instead of using made up numbers…you know, like the made up numbers you laughingly cited earlier.
"hosted by a weather guy."
Meaning someone who knows actually knows something about the climate…unlike Gil.
"Then again Creationists can (unfortunately) find actual scientists who doubt evolution"
Well Gil the latest in genetic science does require at least some revision to the hypothesis of evolution, but deniers like yourself inhibit the scientific method.
"Some telling quotes:"
Now note that the quotes Gil cites are not inaccurate, he just pretends they are.
"I remember being told that some scientists predicted that we would soon enter a new ice age."
True fact, in the historical record.
"Outside the media hype"
And here Gil just admitted it is fact. Everything he says after this is just him gainsaying trying to pretend it doesn't mean anything. In this he fails.
"the scientific part about a coming Ice Age was in thousands of years time. Presumably the only scientific usage of "soon" meant on a geological time scale."
Nothing here disputes the fact that the media hyped this up and promoted the scientists in question. The same hysteria global warmers promote. Ordinary people get swept up the hysteria.
"Then again at that time artificially emitting GHGs would actually be beneficial."
And yet another unsupported assertion by Gil.
''Now, being English I knew all about the vagaries of the weather"
"The standard canard about confusing weather and climate. (part 1 of 2)"
Since Gil likes to manipulate definitions of words for his own benefit, we should define climate… .http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/climate
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.