How to talk to a climate change denier, and then what?

[Joe]

NSB, Cape Canaveral... The photos on 2ndlight are usually somewhere between Cocoa Beach and Sebastian.



As long as I've been alive.



No. I don't understand why you would think anybody here would assert such.

Air miles by commercial flights have more than doubled in the last 20 years. A lot of that is bigger jets flying higher and longer.

The amount of trails has gone up pretty close to in proportion to the number of flights. More flights, more trails. There's either a thread here about it or an article on contrail science about contrail frequency vs. increases in jet traffic. I might look for them. I might not. I've done my interval workout on the river and now I'm headed to the beach.

Well post the pictures ? Im sorry even if persistent contrails have always existed . My memory still says the skies never looked like this along with thousands of my own photos . Id Like to see those air traffic statistics ? I heard flights were down, planes are packed and they are using much smaller aircraft . No more wide bodied comfort .

 

[scombrid]

My memory still says the skies never looked like this along with thousands of my own photos .

https://www.google.com/search?q=PON...z89gS8mIH4AQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=668

Pictures of Ponce Inlet Lighthouse have a lot more sky visible than surf pictures. Most of the pictures on the first few pages of hits from a google image search are very recent. Seems that when people aren't fixated on trails, trails don't feature in most photos even in this time when we are supposedly being sprayed like cockroaches. We're getting sprayed like cockroaches, right? Why aren't the lighthouse photos full of trails? I see trails all the time at Ponce/NSB since that is where I surf the most. Is google deliberately filtering out the chemtrail photos? Or do they just not show up in most photos taken by people that aren't fixated on them. Seems that random photos that include but are not focused on the sky are not a good indicator of the frequency of occurrance or total coverage of contrail cirrus.

Id Like to see those air traffic statistics ? I heard flights were down,

You heard? This is important stuff. You haven't looked up the stats?

US passenger flights are flat since the economic meltdown. Passenger miles are up. Basically they're stuffing more people into the same number of flights. Back in 2001 red-eyes often had lots of empty seats. Now we're packed in like sardines. Planes haven't gotten any smaller. Departures and total miles have increased a hell of a lot in the last few decades. Of course there are more contrails on days with favorable tropopause weather than in 2003 and 1993. There are a lot more jets up there. Even regional carriers are moving to jets. I haven't been on a turbo-prop in a long time. Patrick Henry Field to PHL on US Airways still runs a turbo-prop... Air cargo in big heavy lift jets is up.

Here's start:

https://www.metabunk.org/posts/43136

I'd think you'd research this topic instead of going on "what you heard" since it seems so important to you.

 

[scombrid]

http://contrailscience.com/30-years-of-airline-travel/

 

[Joe]

http://contrailscience.com/30-years-of-airline-travel/

anything up to 2012 ?

 

[scombrid]

What does that matter? Are you really that the contrail frequency is significantly different in 2013 than in 2008? If that's the case then I need to see data because that has not been my experience. I specifically remember in winter 2002 when I was in graduate school looking out my east window on a cold clear January day and counting 10 airplanes leaving trails and thinking "damn, I don't remember seeing that many planes in the sky at once before". Well, since then I've been doing a LOT of traveling for work meetings and as a member of a US National Team in a sport (traveling to training camps, various races, team trials, plus flying back home to see family...). Turns out that a majority of the traffic between Florida and northeastern hubs passes within view of that window.

Anyway, if you are telling us that the sky looks totally different now than 1, 2, 3 years ago then we might wish to see data. Else it is your annecdote versus ours. I see the same cloud types today as at any time in the past. There are more contrails than when I was little but I haven't noticed a substantial change in the last several years.

I did a google image search for "apollo launch pad". That returned a lot of pictures from the 1970s. Sky didn't look different in those than in the "ponce inlet lighthouse" photos that are 2 years old or younger.

 

[Joe]

global warming ???? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...winds-town-gets-month-rain-just-24-hours.html

 

[scombrid]

Seems you're seeking out regions that are experiencing episodic cold.

Have you bothered to look for regions that are experiencing epicodic hot and then comparing the frequency of above average conditions to below average or comparing the land area experiencing above average to below?

With weather being as variable as it is, pointing at a data point that is out in the tail of the distribution of observations tells us nothing about the average.

The average monthly temperature in January in Orlando was 6F above average. That is a huge departure. I swam at New Smyrna in January without a wetsuit. The water was 75F. It is usually around 58F in January. That tells me nothing about the annual average though and I don't pretend that it does.


Do you really think that warming troposphere by a global average of a couple of degrees would or should be expected to preclude regional and temporal variation such that episodic cold periods would no longer occur?

BTW: Just went from late Sunday afternoon to late Thursday afternoon without one contrail in Volusia county. Funny the contrails come back and it is going to be hot today.

repeat

 

[scombrid]

If we are going to ignore averages and just play with annecdotes from variation:

CLIMATE REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HASTINGS NE
154 AM CDT WED MAY 15 2013


THE GRAND ISLAND NE CLIMATE SUMMARY FOR MAY 14 2013...

CLIMATE NORMAL PERIOD 1981 TO 2010
CLIMATE RECORD PERIOD 1895 TO 2013


WEATHER ITEM OBSERVED TIME RECORD YEAR NORMAL DEPARTURE LAST
VALUE (LST) VALUE VALUE FROM YEAR
NORMAL
..................................................................
TEMPERATURE (F)
YESTERDAY
MAXIMUM 102R 250 PM 99 1941 72 30 85
MINIMUM 63 534 AM 28 1953 49 14 45
AVERAGE 83 60 23 65




...................................

...THE GRAND ISLAND NE CLIMATE SUMMARY FOR MAY 14 2013...

 

[scombrid]

So there was a storm in the UK. It was 102 in Nebraska yesterday.

If we want to play with averages. I planted USDA zone 8 plants in my parents' landscape in Virginia in 1996. They were USDA zone 7. Those plants are still thriving and have never experienced cold damage. USDA updated the zones a couple of years ago and put my parents' property in zone 8. If you plot the frequency of observed temperatures with cold on the left of the x axis and hot on the right, the distribution has shifted to the right a bit. It is still a wide distribution with a high variance on possible weather on a given day. Pointing out occasions when weather is observed on the left hand side of the distribution doesn't change the fact that it is warmer on average.

 

[Joe]

So there was a storm in the UK. It was 102 in Nebraska yesterday.

If we want to play with averages. I planted USDA zone 8 plants in my parents' landscape in Virginia in 1996. They were USDA zone 7. Those plants are still thriving and have never experienced cold damage. USDA updated the zones a couple of years ago and put my parents' property in zone 8. If you plot the frequency of observed temperatures with cold on the left of the x axis and hot on the right, the distribution has shifted to the right a bit. It is still a wide distribution with a high variance on possible weather on a given day. Pointing out occasions when weather is observed on the left hand side of the distribution doesn't change the fact that it is warmer on average.

Link ? of course they changed the zones its the corrupt USDA pushing the myth of Global warming . I heard that years ago .

 

[scombrid]

Link to what? You think I fabricated the observation from the Hastings, NE National Weather Service Office?

USDA faked the zones? Really? Is that why the zone 8 plants I planted 17 years ago in what was then zone 7 are still thriving? It looks to me more like the frequency of occurrance of freezes in that location severe enough to kill zone 8 plants has decreased. Did they release a bunch of genetically engineered plants that are really more cold hardy than cultivars are supposed to be? Is that why plant and animal ranges have shifted north?

 

[Pete]

global warming ???? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...winds-town-gets-month-rain-just-24-hours.html

Global warming doesn't infer every location on the planet will be getting warmer, it merely means the average global temperature will increase. Weather systems could change in such a way that some areas see temperatures drop.

As for the weather in the UK, let me explain to you about that (as I live there).

The UK sits at the same latitude as Hudson Bay, and that is pretty far north and pretty darn cold. If it wasn't for the Gulf Stream (warm water coming up from the mid-Atlantic) we'd be even colder! Our climate is inherently connected to our sea temperatures and the jet stream. All it takes is the jet stream to be in the wrong location, and our sea temps to be down, and its a really wet/cold summer here. But this doesn't mean global warming isn't occurring!

In fact, there is some research that suggests global warming, and the increased melting of the poles actually effects ocean cycles, and in turn breaks/changes systems such as the Gulf Stream.

One could even argue that such bizarre weather events in mid-May are evidence of climate change?!

 

[Met Watch]

Global warming doesn't infer every location on the planet will be getting warmer, it merely means the average global temperature will increase. Weather systems could change in such a way that some areas see temperatures drop.

As for the weather in the UK, let me explain to you about that (as I live there).

The UK sits at the same latitude as Hudson Bay, and that is pretty far north and pretty darn cold. If it wasn't for the Gulf Stream (warm water coming up from the mid-Atlantic) we'd be even colder! Our climate is inherently connected to our sea temperatures and the jet stream. All it takes is the jet stream to be in the wrong location, and our sea temps to be down, and its a really wet/cold summer here. But this doesn't mean global warming isn't occurring!

In fact, there is some research that suggests global warming, and the increased melting of the poles actually effects ocean cycles, and in turn breaks/changes systems such as the Gulf Stream.

One could even argue that such bizarre weather events in mid-May are evidence of climate change?!

This is something I feel should be looked into more carefully, as trends in severe weather events and storm reports, as well as trends in hurricane frequency and strength, don't really match up with global temperature averages.

 

[Ron J]

I'd wait until the entire year is over to start jumping to conclusions - the data used to show rising global temperatures is on a yearly scale. There can be plenty of reasons to explain a colder spring besides that "the earth is actually cooling" (not saying that you're suggesting that, Joe - pointing out that some people will).

There hasn't been any global warming in 15 years, yet the term global warming continues to be used. What conclusion should be jumped to?

Has there been any warming since 1975? Yes there has. But the global warming models showed temperature inexorably moving higher and higher according to the CO2 hockey stick. That isn't happening. The scientific climate model is broken.

Is the climate changing? It is always changing. Many high temperature records were set in the 1930's.
It then got colder into 1970's. Then it got warmer again. Then it stopped warming. Is cooling next? That is what cycles do.

"Second coldest start to spring in history". "Well, it doesn't mean anything." Well, neither does the record heat of last summer mean anything. Last summer a global warming alarmist said "this is what climate change looks like." Prolonged record cold is also what climate change looks like, as in the "Little Ice Age". Climate change works in two directions, warmer and colder, not just warmer.

Several years ago it was very warm in December in New York City. Out came the story about how snowless winters would become the norm. Then two years ago, work had to stop on World Trade One for months, because of constant snow storms.

In 2005, it was a bad hurricane year. Out came the warnings that this was going to become the norm.
Currently we are in a record long period of time without a category 3 or above hurricane hitting the U.S.
Not one global warming alarmist predicted a record long lack of major hurricanes hitting the U.S.
That record now stands at 2,777 days. The record went back to 1900.

All the alarmism over last years drought and this year places that were in severe drought are getting deluged with rain. Last year the alarmist reaction was as though the drought was going to last forever. It didn't.

If it be bad weather, play it up as due to global warming. Ignore the blocking high pressure weather pattern that that prevented the normal rain fall. Several years ago France had a major heat wave that killed many people. It's global warming. Well, why have there not been these killer heat waves in France every year since?

In 1861, it rained for 45 straight days in California. There was no global warming. A similar storm today would be blamed on global warming.

 

[Pete Tar]

Is there more co2 in the atmosphere or not? If there is, there is no valid position to deny that it will effect the climate.

 

[Pete]

Is there more co2 in the atmosphere or not? If there is, there is no valid position to deny that it will effect the climate.

Here here! I also find it odd that they would rather the Human race carry on regardless, instead of actually considering/reducing our impact on the world we live. This has always annoyed me... Its almost like they would rather argue against the most likely outcome (that CO2 is a Greenhouse gas) just for the hell of it, with no concern for what 'doing nothing' might have.

Doing nothing will:

Increase pollution, because there would be no restriction on fossil use/efficiency.
Shorten the time we will have easy access to fossil fuels, as they will be used up faster.
Increase the environmental impact in areas such as the Artic in our pursuit for more fossil fuels.

Do they also support these?!

 

[Ron J]

"Global warming doesn't infer every location on the planet will be getting warmer, it merely means the average global temperature will increase. Weather systems could change in such a way that some areas see temperatures drop."

Global warming alarmism infers whatever it wants to infer. A chart of global temperatures shows there has been no global warming in 15 years. The term global warming morphed into climate change.

Not all weather systems are treated equally by global warming alarmists. If it is cold, it is just weather, if it is hot it is global warming. If it is bad weather it is global warming. A July with a record lack of tornadoes is ignored while a month with a record number of tornadoes is played up. A record year of hurricanes is played up while a record long period of time with out a major hurricane, is ignored. It is a double standard.

I forget the name, but someone predicted that the Arctic Ocean would be ice free by the summer of 2013. Last summer had record low ice, but there was plenty of ice coverage at the low point. I doubt the arctic will be anything close to ice free this summer, even if it is less than last summer.


Headline 1974: "2 Scientists Think Little Ice Age is Near" (The Hartford Courant, August 11)

Headline 1972: "British Climate expert Predicts New Ice Age" (The Christian Science Monitior, September 23)

Headline 1974: Pollution could Spur Ice Age, NASA Says (Beaver Country Times, December 4)

Headline 1970: Is Mankind Manufacturing New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15)

Headline 1978: Little Ice Age, Severe Winters and Cool Summers Ahead (Calgary Herald, January 10)

Headline 1975: Is another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice expands in the last decade (Youngstown Vindicator, March 2)

So, whatever happened to that scientist predicted Ice age?

 

[Ron J]

I forget the name, but someone predicted that the Arctic Ocean would be ice free by the summer of 2013.


Change would to could.

 

[Met Watch]

There hasn't been any global warming in 15 years, yet the term global warming continues to be used. What conclusion should be jumped to?

Has there been any warming since 1975? Yes there has. But the global warming models showed temperature inexorably moving higher and higher according to the CO2 hockey stick. That isn't happening. The scientific climate model is broken.

Is the climate changing? It is always changing. Many high temperature records were set in the 1930's.
It then got colder into 1970's. Then it got warmer again. Then it stopped warming. Is cooling next? That is what cycles do.

"Second coldest start to spring in history". "Well, it doesn't mean anything." Well, neither does the record heat of last summer mean anything. Last summer a global warming alarmist said "this is what climate change looks like." Prolonged record cold is also what climate change looks like, as in the "Little Ice Age". Climate change works in two directions, warmer and colder, not just warmer.

Several years ago it was very warm in December in New York City. Out came the story about how snowless winters would become the norm. Then two years ago, work had to stop on World Trade One for months, because of constant snow storms.

In 2005, it was a bad hurricane year. Out came the warnings that this was going to become the norm.
Currently we are in a record long period of time without a category 3 or above hurricane hitting the U.S.
Not one global warming alarmist predicted a record long lack of major hurricanes hitting the U.S.
That record now stands at 2,777 days. The record went back to 1900.

All the alarmism over last years drought and this year places that were in severe drought are getting deluged with rain. Last year the alarmist reaction was as though the drought was going to last forever. It didn't.

If it be bad weather, play it up as due to global warming. Ignore the blocking high pressure weather pattern that that prevented the normal rain fall. Several years ago France had a major heat wave that killed many people. It's global warming. Well, why have there not been these killer heat waves in France every year since?

In 1861, it rained for 45 straight days in California. There was no global warming. A similar storm today would be blamed on global warming.

So what's with the attack on alarmists? Are you assuming we're alarmists?

 

[Ron J]

Is there more co2 in the atmosphere or not? If there is, there is no valid position to deny that it will effect the climate.

Was there more CO2 in the atmosphere in the 1970's than there was in the 1930's? Yet it was hot in the 1930's and cold in the 1970's, to the point of expectation being that of another little ice age approaching.

Even more importantly, the current climate modeling projected an inexorable climb in temperature. There has been no global warming in the last 15 years according to actual data. The model is incorrect in its projection.

"From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain."

There is no 97% consensus among scientists, as President Obama claims.

 

[Met Watch]

Was there more CO2 in the atmosphere in the 1970's than there was in the 1930's? Yet it was hot in the 1930's and cold in the 1970's, to the point of expectation being that of another little ice age approaching.

Measurements disagree.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ge_-_decadal_averages,_1880s-2000s_(NOAA).png

Also, only a small number of scientists called for global cooling. The majority in the '70s still expected continued warming.

Even more importantly, the current climate modeling projected an inexorable climb in temperature. There has been no global warming in the last 15 years according to actual data. The model is incorrect in its projection.

Last decade was the warmest on record. Top 10 warmest years were all in the 21st century, with the only year on that scale not during that time being 1998.

"From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain."

There is no 97% consensus among scientists, as President Obama claims.

Citation please.

 

[Ron J]

So what's with the attack on alarmists? Are you assuming we're alarmists?

What is with the attack by alarmists?

President Obama tweeted "ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man made and dangerous."


Actual data:

"Here’s the genesis of the lie. When you take a result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW, ignoring the 66% that don’t, and twist that into 97%, excluding any mention of that original value in your media reports, there’s nothing else to call it – a lie of presidential proportions."

"From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain."


What is the purpose of such a lie? Control over what people do. "climate change is dangerous".

The climate has always been dangerous. It will always be dangerous. In 1861 it rained for 45 straight days in California. It did a lot of damage. My home town was flooded in the 1930's and 1971. In 1971 several people were killed. The great Galveston Hurricane and Katrina. Many decades apart and many were killed in both.

If a hurricane runs up the eastern seaboard, it can hit New York City, global warming or no global warming. The last category 3 or above hurricane to hit the U.S. was Wilma in 2005. It is now 2013.
Hurricane Sandy wasn't even a hurricane when it hit land fall. Record storm surge- it was high tide when the water went into the subway. If it was low tide it would not have happened. Yet all the apoplectic reaction to what was two storms colliding, creating a super storm. A super storm is not the product of global warming, it is the product of two storms coming together. What if a high pressure ridge had set in around New York City and Sandy had been sent off into the Atlantic? Would it have been said that global warming had protected New York City from a hurricane? I would have to guess the answer would have been no. The same climate that existed at the time of the 2012 drought is the same climate that exists as the rainfall that is extinguishing the 2012 drought.

Do i assume you are all alarmists? Did i call anyone here an alarmist? I referred to alarmists. There is a lot of propaganda by those who have an agenda.

 

[Ron J]

Measurements disagree.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ge_-_decadal_averages,_1880s-2000s_(NOAA).png

Also, only a small number of scientists called for global cooling. The majority in the '70s still expected continued warming.



Last decade was the warmest on record. Top 10 warmest years were all in the 21st century, with the only year on that scale not during that time being 1998.



Citation please.

The warmest decade on record. WOW. Show me the chart of global warming in the last 15 years.

Why do you think global warming morphed into climate change and Dr. Jones said in an Email, "where's the warming?

 

[Met Watch]

The warmest decade on record. WOW. Show me the chart of global warming in the last 15 years.

Why do you think global warming morphed into climate change and Dr. Jones said in an Email, "where's the warming?

It's right there on the first link - I gave you nearly 150 years instead of 15, but I'm sure you can infer. The decade information, again, is on the second link.

 

[Ron J]

Measurements disagree.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ge_-_decadal_averages,_1880s-2000s_(NOAA).png

Also, only a small number of scientists called for global cooling. The majority in the '70s still expected continued warming.


What continued warming? It was colder in the 1970's than in the 1930's

 

[Met Watch]

Measurements disagree.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ge_-_decadal_averages,_1880s-2000s_(NOAA).png

Also, only a small number of scientists called for global cooling. The majority in the '70s still expected continued warming.


What continued warming? It was colder in the 1970's than in the 1930's

Then show me a chart that says that. The two I've provided you say your claim is false.

 

[Ron J]

Here here! I also find it odd that they would rather the Human race carry on regardless, instead of actually considering/reducing our impact on the world we live.


Who is considering on reducing their impact? Having lived in Hawaii, President Obama wanted the temperature in the White House a nice 80 degrees in the winter. When we had a drought, the mayor of Los Angles ran his sprinklers as much as he liked, while telling others to reduce water usage. When he got caught, he made up an excuse that the sprinkler system was not working properly.

do as i say, not as i do.

An economic depression has done more to reduce carbon emissions than any artificial controls have. Yet politicians who call for controlling carbon emissions, are calling for government spending stimulus to increase economic growth, which will increase carbon emissions.

 

[Ron J]

It's right there on the first link - I gave you nearly 150 years instead of 15, but I'm sure you can infer. The decade information, again, is on the second link.

As Dr. Jones said, "where's the warming?" the charts don't show any global warming over the last 15 years.

 

[Met Watch]

As Dr. Jones said, "where's the warming?" the charts don't show any global warming over the last 15 years.

And despite the 150 year trend, you're going to say this shows global warming is a hoax?

 

[Ron J]

And despite the 150 year trend, you're going to say this shows global warming is a hoax?

A 150 year trend? Ice covered what is now NYC 10,000 years ago. Just how long is the actual trend?

If there has been no global warming over the last 15 years, is it still a trend? The model predicted inexorable global warming. That has not happened. If a model is broken how does it predict the future?

There has been no major hurricane to hit the U.S. since 2005. What did the global warming alarmists say- that 2005 was supposed to become the norm. It has not happened. We were supposed to have less snowy winters and One World trade construction had to shut down for months because of numerous snow storms. Now we get a very cold April and iced over lakes in Minnesota in May and global warming alarmists are scrambling to tell people to ignore the less snowy winters, that frigid weather is also part of global warming.

When is someone going to get their story straight?

 

[Met Watch]

A 150 year trend? Ice covered what is now NYC 10,000 years ago. Just how long is the actual trend?

If there has been no global warming over the last 15 years, is it still a trend? The model predicted inexorable global warming. That has not happened. If a model is broken how does it predict the future?

There has been no major hurricane to hit the U.S. since 2005. What did the global warming alarmists say- that 2005 was supposed to become the norm. It has not happened. We were supposed to have less snowy winters and One World trade construction had to shut down for months because of numerous snow storms. Now we get a very cold April and iced over lakes in Minnesota in May and global warming alarmists are scrambling to tell people to ignore the less snowy winters, that frigid weather is also part of global warming.

When is someone going to get their story straight?

Yes, just how long is a trend? Obviously not 15 years.

The model incorrectly predicted the rate of warming. If you'd look at the data, it is still going up, just not nearly as quickly. There isn't any evidence that the overall warming trend has stopped.

I've already cautioned on this thread I think it is unwise to link meteorological events to global warming, as there is no definite link between the two. See post #53.

 

[Pete Tar]

There hasn't been any global warming in 15 years,...

Please detail your objection to this data...

The 2012 global land and ocean surface temperature during January–December 2012 is estimated to be 0.45°C (±0.11°C) above the 1961–1990 average of 14.0°C. This is the ninth warmest year since records began in 1850 and the 27th consecutive year that the global land and ocean temperatures were above the 1961–1990 average, according to the statement. The years 2001–2012 were all among the top 13 warmest years on record.

Content from External Source

http://www.skepticalscience.com/2012-Among-Top-Ten-Warmest-Years_WMO.html

 

[Ron J]

Please detail your objection to this data...

The 2012 global land and ocean surface temperature during January–December 2012 is estimated to be 0.45°C (±0.11°C) above the 1961–1990 average of 14.0°C. This is the ninth warmest year since records began in 1850 and the 27th consecutive year that the global land and ocean temperatures were above the 1961–1990 average, according to the statement. The years 2001–2012 were all among the top 13 warmest years on record.

Content from External Source

http://www.skepticalscience.com/2012-Among-Top-Ten-Warmest-Years_WMO.html

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...unts-governments-short-term-warming-forecast/

Two charts from Britain's climate agency. Two different forecasts for future temperature into 2020. Note the peak in 1998, which the chart does not show was exceeded. Note that the 2012 projection, if it were to come true, would leave the 1998 peak in tact, which would mean no global warming for 22 years.

If the two projections are compared there is a dramatic difference in the 2011 forecast and the 2012 forecast.

 

[Joe]

Calling some one a climate change denier is a Insult and shouldnt be tolerated . Its meant to say someone is stupid or a idiot because they dont believe in the Hoax

 

[Met Watch]

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...unts-governments-short-term-warming-forecast/

Two charts from Britain's climate agency. Two different forecasts for future temperature into 2020. Note the peak in 1998, which the chart does not show was exceeded. Note that the 2012 projection, if it were to come true, would leave the 1998 peak in tact, which would mean no global warming for 22 years.

If the two projections are compared there is a dramatic difference in the 2011 forecast and the 2012 forecast.

Yes, and note the quote saying that saying global warming as "stopped" altogether is a misleading statistical sleight of hand. Did you pull this article because of the graphs only? The article itself doesn't really help your case - there is still warming, just at a slower rate.

 

[Ron J]

Yes, just how long is a trend? Obviously not 15 years.

The model incorrectly predicted the rate of warming. If you'd look at the data, it is still going up, just not nearly as quickly. There isn't any evidence that the overall warming trend has stopped.

I've already cautioned on this thread I think it is unwise to link meteorological events to global warming, as there is no definite link between the two. See post #53.

If 15 years is not a trend, how many years is? In the chart on post 72, i see temperature rising from about 1980 to 2000. From there I see 6 grey bars at about .50 with one at about .55. From the first grey bar at .50, i count 10 bars at or below .50 and 2 above .50.


The problem with meteorological events is that they do become linked with global warming. An abnormally warm December in New York City and someone writes that children will grow up not knowing what snow is, as if it was a foregone conclusion.

 

[Met Watch]

If 15 years is not a trend, how many years is? In the chart on post 72, i see temperature rising from about 1980 to 2000. From there I see 6 grey bars at about .50 with one at about .55. From the first grey bar at .50, i count 10 bars at or below .50 and 2 above .50.


The problem with meteorological events is that they do become linked with global warming. An abnormally warm December in New York City and someone writes that children will grow up not knowing what snow is, as if it was a foregone conclusion.

Yes, and in the chart I posted with 150 years of data, you can see the last several years have clearly been warmer than the 1880s through 1930s.

Again, the meteorological events shouldn't be tied. People do it, but I agree, it's a bad move to do it.

 

[Ron J]

Yes, and note the quote saying that saying global warming as "stopped" altogether is a misleading statistical sleight of hand. Did you pull this article because of the graphs only? The article itself doesn't really help your case - there is still warming, just at a slower rate.

Statistical sleight of hand? Really. No global warming in the last 15 years is not a statistical sleight of hand. The projected forecast was dramatically changed from 2011 to 2012. The revised 2012 projection does not show the temperature exceeding the 1998 peak through 2020. So where is the "there is still warming, just at a slower rate" in that revised chart?

 

[Met Watch]

Statistical sleight of hand? Really. No global warming in the last 15 years is not a statistical sleight of hand. The projected forecast was dramatically changed from 2011 to 2012. The revised 2012 projection does not show the temperature exceeding the 1998 peak through 2020. So where is the "there is still warming, just at a slower rate" in that revised chart?

You keep saying that, but Pete Tar and myself are waiting for you to point that out with the data, which says you're wrong. Give me hard numbers, Ron.

 

[Pete]

"Global warming doesn't infer every location on the planet will be getting warmer, it merely means the average global temperature will increase. Weather systems could change in such a way that some areas see temperatures drop."

Global warming alarmism infers whatever it wants to infer. A chart of global temperatures shows there has been no global warming in 15 years. The term global warming morphed into climate change.

But the irony is, you are inferring that global warming means year on year warming, everywhere, the sheer fact your argument is based on headlines/specific locations, AND that you hark on about a 15 year period as if it proves global warming is a fallacy? Do you not see that you have created your own argument?!

The term 'global warming' is just a simplistic way of saying, that on average the world will get warmer if you chuck more CO2 into it. And sadly the world has got warmer since the 1880s, which is when we started producing more CO2 emissions. There are countless graphs showing a fairly stable temperature/CO2 pattern since 1000AD, and BOOM, up it goes with the Industrial Revolution.

As for the Ice caps, and even glaciers, they are showing a marked retreat. There is no denying this, some glaciers in the Alps just don't exist anymore, and they were there in the 1990s, they are even still on maps. But when you go there, just expect to see barren rock. Many of the older Inuit communities report massive issues with hunting, and ice flows in the past century, so I don't think you are looking at the bigger picture, or even looking at it objectively... Anyone can pick on one or two examples of predictions that haven't come true, but that doesn't mean something isn't wrong!