WTF, is it global warming, cooling, or pausing now? I can't keep track.

even the failing NYTimes is got this one right:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/climate-and-the-spotless-sun/?ei=5070&emc=eta1

The ocean can store loads of energy. That's how water works. I'm not saying that's exactly what's happening. Just consider it.

DiscoGary wrote:

lolozy wrote:

Trump admits there's a connection between climate change and human activity. Are you saying big strong trump, with a brain full of bigness, is wrong?

"I think there is some connectivity. Some, something. It depends on how much,"

"It depends on how much."

Indeed it does. Wait until Trump finds out how much it matters, and he will, then you'll see him act accordingly.

Drill, baby, drill!

So let me get this straight. First the earth wasn't warming. Then it was warming, but not because of human activity. Not its warming because of human activity, but only somewhat from human activity. If a truly objective person evaluated your history on this topic they'd see the trend pretty clearly. And your unwillingness to introspectively evaluate your past beliefs to see where you went wrong and how you can improve predictive ability would lead any objective person disregard your views as not credible.

You'll never improve yourself by insisting for 20 years that you're right about something that's been proven wrong by qualified scientists throughout the world. Although the increasingly ridiculous mental jumping jacks you have to perform to get back to the conclusion that you're right provide entertainment value, the highly educated future generations will look upon your kind as a less developed species of human. Closer to a chimp than the then present day human.

Rater of trollage wrote:

Interesting, btw, that global land temps have fallen--I'm going to assume that's a true stat (I know, I know, don't assume that about Breitbart).

Usually, propaganda of this sort is based on a very selective set of facts rather than outright falsehood. The particular dataset they've used is known to have issues and the premise of the article is statistical malpractice, but the target audience isn't anyone who is inclined to look at the article's claims critically.

I'd be interested to know what's happened with *sea* temps--given, you know, that ~70% of Earth's surface is water.

The essence of an El Nino is energy transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere, so on that one would expect ocean energy content to go down during an El Nino event and go up during a La Nina. That said, the thermal mass of the oceans is so much greater than the atmosphere that isn't an obvious feature in ocean heat content data.

random6 wrote:

Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/30/global-temperatures-plunge-icy-silence-climate-alarmists/

OP, here's your answer, sort of. It really depends on the time frame.

1 year: Direction is down. Steepest decline in recorded history. Over 1 degree C. in the past 9 months. Cause: End of El Nino spike in temperature in 2015.

18 year: Direction is sideways. Continued pause, possibly 18 years into a 30 year cycle of decline/pause. Similar 30 year pause/declines can be seen as far back as recorded temperature readings.... 1880-1910, 1940 to 1970, and 1998 to present date. Cause: Unknown. Likely a natural cycle.

Several hundred years: Direction is up. After the Roman Warming period about 800AD to 1200AD, the world went into a cooling period known as the Little Ice Age which lasted until the late 1600s. The trend began to move up in 1700 and accelerated in the 1800s (long before CO2 levels began to increase dramatically after WWII). This cycle appears to be roughly 400-500 years long.

So, what you're seeing is a long term 400+ year upwards trend overlapping a 30 year cycle that is currently in the down phase with periodic bursts up and down due to El Nino.

On top of all this, there MIGHT be a minimal warming effect due to CO2, but it's not the driving force, as Al Gore and the IPCC would have you believe. If warmer temps were due to CO2, then the 1940-1970 decline would never have existed.

THE WHOLE CLIMATEGATE fiasco was to "hide the decline", referring to the 1940 -1970 decline because it blows up the whole global warming hypothesis.

The warning tend is 20,000 years and counting. Not 400.

My 401k voted for trump wrote:

The warning tend is 20,000 years and counting. Not 400.

That's an even larger cycle. There is definitely a visible cycle of 400-600 year cycle going back over 2,000 years.

fisky wrote:

If warmer temps were due to CO2, then the 1940-1970 decline would never have existed.

I'm struggling to reconcile your claim that natural temperature variation is sufficient to explain all known temperature variation with your apparent claim that natural variation can not possibly be large enough to overwhelm anthropogenic variation over any period.

It is just "weather."

Always changing and humans have always tried and failed to control it.

Does anyone know if clouds matter? Its been unusually cloudy this week which is supposed to reflect sunlight making it cooler but instead its really warm this week.

The bigger question is "Why should we even care?" Yes, it will be sad if some species go extinct, but they've been doing that for millions of years. What does it matter if it's caused by humans or "natural" causes?

Go narf youself wrote:

The bigger question is "Why should we even care?" Yes, it will be sad if some species go extinct, but they've been doing that for millions of years. What does it matter if it's caused by humans or "natural" causes?

Yes, if you are self-involved and don't care about others or don't have any descendants then it is true, it doesn't matter too much.

Awright. It's time to bring out the big hammer.

Science is where you observe phenomena, create a theory to explain it, and then search for any evidence which would disprove your theory. If you find any then you either change the theory or drop it.

Global Warmists created a theory independent of any data, and then go around searching ONLY for evidence supporting their conclusions, ignore any contradictory data while destroying the character and career of anyone who dares to challenge them. Global Warmists do not back off their claims no matter how much non-conforming evidence is presented.

Therefore, Global Warming is not based on science.

Global Warming is simultaneously a political movement, a religion, a mythology, an apocalyptic cult, superstitious junk science, and a very very big business. But it isn't science.

You lose.

DiscoGary wrote:

Awright. It's time to bring out the big hammer.

Science is where you observe phenomena, create a theory to explain it, and then search for any evidence which would disprove your theory. If you find any then you either change the theory or drop it.

Global Warmists created a theory independent of any data, and then go around searching ONLY for evidence supporting their conclusions, ignore any contradictory data while destroying the character and career of anyone who dares to challenge them. Global Warmists do not back off their claims no matter how much non-conforming evidence is presented.

Therefore, Global Warming is not based on science.

Global Warming is simultaneously a political movement, a religion, a mythology, an apocalyptic cult, superstitious junk science, and a very very big business. But it isn't science.

You lose.

Moronic drivelings. It is a theory created to explain the observed phenomenon of Earth's rapid average temperature increase. Other theories (sunspots, etc.) are entertained and eventually found to be more unlikely than the anthropogenic explanations, while many opposing theories come from oil-backed "think tanks".

The political movement nonsense is asinine as there's no clear political motivation.

The reality is that the overwhelming amount of research on the topic all points to the same general conclusion, and the non-conforming data you mentioned are rare, cherry-picked, funded by special interests or all of the above. Just because you prescribe yourself to confirmation bias and "see" articles everywhere refuting doesn't provide merit to the argument that there is a strong mountain of evidence opposing the anthropogenic theories.

It's officially called Climate Change.

Citizen Runner wrote:

No doubt the OP is simply trolling for a reaction, but for anyone who might actually care, this particular meme is deconstructed in a blog post here:

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/28/how-stupid-does-david-rose-think-you-are/

This ^

When it comes to climate change always listen to Citizen Runner. He is the only one on these boards with any real knowledge of the topic.

Everybody else is just a purveyor (often a proud purveyor) of ignorance. DiscoGary is the classic such proud purveyor of ignorance.

Nope. The average temperature is not rising, and the political motivation to raise money and gain control over people, markets, and governments is obvious to any impartial observer.

The New Ice Age in the 1970's wasn't based on science.

Global Warming in the 1990's wasn't based on science.

The current "Climate Change", where every change in temperature is declared to be further proof for their ever changing scam, isn't based on science either.

ALL the climate models have been wrong. Very wrong. They have no ability to predict future temperature patterns, and therefore are completely useless as a guide for controlling carbon output.

It's all a junk science hoax.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Citizen Runner wrote:

No doubt the OP is simply trolling for a reaction, but for anyone who might actually care, this particular meme is deconstructed in a blog post here:

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/28/how-stupid-does-david-rose-think-you-are/

This ^

When it comes to climate change always listen to Citizen Runner. He is the only one on these boards with any real knowledge of the topic.

Everybody else is just a purveyor (often a proud purveyor) of ignorance. DiscoGary is the classic such proud purveyor of ignorance.

When Citizen Runner can provide a climate model which can correlate carbon output to future temperature trends, then we should start listening to him. Until then, it's all junk science promoted for power and money.

DiscoGary wrote:

Nope. The average temperature is not rising, and the political motivation to raise money and gain control over people, markets, and governments is obvious to any impartial observer.

The New Ice Age in the 1970's wasn't based on science.

Global Warming in the 1990's wasn't based on science.

The current "Climate Change", where every change in temperature is declared to be further proof for their ever changing scam, isn't based on science either.

ALL the climate models have been wrong. Very wrong. They have no ability to predict future temperature patterns, and therefore are completely useless as a guide for controlling carbon output.

It's all a junk science hoax.

Fine, the entire science community has been lying to us and the global temperature is not rising. NASA, the NOAA, leading scientists from every developed nation, they're all in on it. If the conspiracy runs that deep, I'm just gonna play along.