Has the AGW "consensus" come to an end?

[Jack Hays]

With no warming for the last sixteen years, and observed climate data diverging from climate model projections, has the AGW "consensus" been defeated by reality?

Climate change: A cooling consensus | The Economist

www.[B]economist[/B].com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/.../climate-change‎

:mrgreen:

 

[WCH]

With no warming for the last sixteen years, and observed climate data diverging from climate model projections, has the AGW "consensus" been defeated by reality?

Climate change: A cooling consensus | The Economist

www.[B]economist[/B].com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/.../climate-change‎

:mrgreen:

Not till ALGORE say's so! :roll:

Personally...I say yes

 

[Dezaad]

I don't really understand skepticism on this basis. When you look at temperatures for the last 100 years, there are actual periods of cooling for greater lengths of time than the period of this current stall. And yet, the overall trend for the century is obviously significant increasing temperature.

An analogy would be a stock price. If you held a good stock for 100 years, you would make out like a bandit. But if you sold it when after it had gone down for a while at 10 or 15 or 50 years, you would have cheated yourself.

I find it odd that a person as smart as the author of this article seems to be can't seem to figure all this out for himself. It truly is as if such people are just propagandizing. What their motivation might be is anyone's guess.

If this is a "normal" pause, I am sure someday we will discover the explanation. But the data indicates that temporary pauses and even reversals of years in length are unsurprising and should be expected.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I don't really understand skepticism on this basis. When you look at temperatures for the last 100 years, there are actual periods of cooling for greater lengths of time than the period of this current stall. And yet, the overall trend for the century is obviously significant increasing temperature.

Yes, but correlation does not necessarily equal causation. The dogma of CO2 tells us that CO2 is the primary reason for temperature increases. However, there are other causes and we are speaking of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) not just warming. Very few people dispute that the planet has warmed like you say, with brief periods of cooling. The skepticism is that CO2 is causing the majority of the warming.

An analogy would be a stock price. If you held a good stock for 100 years, you would make out like a bandit. But if you sold it when after it had gone down for a while at 10 or 15 or 50 years, you would have cheated yourself.

Don't forget, past performance does not imply future performance.

I find it odd that a person as smart as the author of this article seems to be can't seem to figure all this out for himself. It truly is as if such people are just propagandizing. What their motivation might be is anyone's guess.

It has been politicized, and the governments rule the purse strings for the grants. Skeptics in the field (heretics) have been forced to resign their positions. The schools teach the science incorrectly.

If this is a "normal" pause, I am sure someday we will discover the explanation. But the data indicates that temporary pauses and even reversals of years in length are unsurprising and should be expected.

Global temperature changes follow solar activity changes far better than CO2. However, people like me are heretics for insinuating such lunacy against the dogma of AGW.

 

[Dezaad]

Yes, but correlation does not necessarily equal causation. The dogma of CO2 tells us that CO2 is the primary reason for temperature increases. However, there are other causes and we are speaking of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) not just warming. Very few people dispute that the planet has warmed like you say, with brief periods of cooling. The skepticism is that CO2 is causing the majority of the warming.



Don't forget, past performance does not imply future performance.



It has been politicized, and the governments rule the purse strings for the grants. Skeptics in the field (heretics) have been forced to resign their positions. The schools teach the science incorrectly.



Global temperature changes follow solar activity changes far better than CO2. However, people like me are heretics for insinuating such lunacy against the dogma of AGW.

But right at this moment we are discussing whether the current pause is a reasonable expectation, given the existing historical data. If it is, then criticism of AGW on the basis of the pause is specious, whether AGW is real or not.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I don't really understand skepticism on this basis. When you look at temperatures for the last 100 years, there are actual periods of cooling for greater lengths of time than the period of this current stall. And yet, the overall trend for the century is obviously significant increasing temperature.

An analogy would be a stock price. If you held a good stock for 100 years, you would make out like a bandit. But if you sold it when after it had gone down for a while at 10 or 15 or 50 years, you would have cheated yourself.

I find it odd that a person as smart as the author of this article seems to be can't seem to figure all this out for himself. It truly is as if such people are just propagandizing. What their motivation might be is anyone's guess.

If this is a "normal" pause, I am sure someday we will discover the explanation. But the data indicates that temporary pauses and even reversals of years in length are unsurprising and should be expected.

A "normal pause" would indicate we are in a normal warming era and the hypotheses that man is causing the warming by introducing excess c02 into the atmosphere goes up in smoke. Pun not intended but hey, there it is.:lol:

 

[Dezaad]

A "normal pause" would indicate we are in a normal warming era and the hypotheses that man is causing the warming by introducing excess c02 into the atmosphere goes up in smoke. Pun not intended but hey, there it is.:lol:

At this moment, I am not saying whether or not I agree with AGW, so I am not assuming a "normal pause". I am saying that we cannot rule it out because the historical data shows sets of pauses and cooling years that are longer in duration than the last 15 years.

But, then, I am not a person who would believe that a 15 year period of warming would bolster the case for AGW either, and I never did. I think AGW proponents make a grave error when they do so, because it causes people on both sides to mistake relatively short term trends as evidence. Neither side should think that.

 

[Jack Hays]

At this moment, I am not saying whether or not I agree with AGW, so I am not assuming a "normal pause". I am saying that we cannot rule it out because the historical data shows sets of pauses and cooling years that are longer in duration than the last 15 years.

But, then, I am not a person who would believe that a 15 year period of warming would bolster the case for AGW either, and I never did. I think AGW proponents make a grave error when they do so, because it causes people on both sides to mistake relatively short term trends as evidence. Neither side should think that.

You seem like the sort of open minded person who might find this interesting.

[h=3]Did exploding stars help life on Earth to thrive? - Royal Astronomical ...[/h]www.ras.org.uk › News & Press › News 2012‎

:mrgreen:

 

[sawyerloggingon]

At this moment, I am not saying whether or not I agree with AGW, so I am not assuming a "normal pause". I am saying that we cannot rule it out because the historical data shows sets of pauses and cooling years that are longer in duration than the last 15 years.

But, then, I am not a person who would believe that a 15 year period of warming would bolster the case for AGW either, and I never did. I think AGW proponents make a grave error when they do so, because it causes people on both sides to mistake relatively short term trends as evidence. Neither side should think that.

This pause in warming has occurred during a time when C02 levels have been rising precipitously. The AGW hypotheses is built on C02 and warming correlation so the core foundation of AGW has been shattered.

 

[Deuce]

With no warming for the last sixteen years, and observed climate data diverging from climate model projections, has the AGW "consensus" been defeated by reality?

Climate change: A cooling consensus | The Economist

www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/.../climate-change‎

:mrgreen:

I don't think you understand what "consensus" means.

This pause in warming has occurred during a time when C02 levels have been rising precipitously. The AGW hypotheses is built on C02 and warming correlation so the core foundation of AGW has been shattered.

Oh look, sawyer still thinks AGW is based on an assumption that CO2 is the only variable involved. Man, he sure has trouble understanding climate science.

 

[Jack Hays]

I don't think you understand what "consensus" means.



.

I'm comfortable sharing the same understanding as "The Economist."eace

 

[Papa bull]

I don't really understand skepticism on this basis. When you look at temperatures for the last 100 years, there are actual periods of cooling for greater lengths of time than the period of this current stall. And yet, the overall trend for the century is obviously significant increasing temperature.

An analogy would be a stock price. If you held a good stock for 100 years, you would make out like a bandit. But if you sold it when after it had gone down for a while at 10 or 15 or 50 years, you would have cheated yourself.

I find it odd that a person as smart as the author of this article seems to be can't seem to figure all this out for himself. It truly is as if such people are just propagandizing. What their motivation might be is anyone's guess.

If this is a "normal" pause, I am sure someday we will discover the explanation. But the data indicates that temporary pauses and even reversals of years in length are unsurprising and should be expected.

Your problem is that you equate AGW to a "good stock". Think of it more as "Enron" and you'll be on the right track.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Just my imagination or does it seem like the warmers have been beaten into at least semi submission.:lol:

 

[Deuce]

I'm comfortable sharing the same understanding as "The Economist."eace

Not sure why an economic magazine would be your basis for discussion of climatology, but ok.

Just my imagination or does it seem like the warmers have been beaten into at least semi submission.:lol:

I think what you are perceiving is that people just aren't bothering with you as much as they used to. Because you post a new ad hominem thread every week.

 

[Jack Hays]

Not sure why an economic magazine would be your basis for discussion of climatology, but ok.

"The Economist" is, by a wide margin, the most prestigious English language news magazine in the world.

 

[Papa bull]

Just my imagination or does it seem like the warmers have been beaten into at least semi submission.:lol:

For the most part, they've ducked into their foxholes. Some that don't know any better are still sticking their heads up once in a while, though.

 

[Dezaad]

Your problem is that you equate AGW to a "good stock". Think of it more as "Enron" and you'll be on the right track.

Your problem is you think you've said something intelligent. Be silent and you'll be on the right track.

 

[Dezaad]

This pause in warming has occurred during a time when C02 levels have been rising precipitously. The AGW hypotheses is built on C02 and warming correlation so the core foundation of AGW has been shattered.

But, climate scientists have always indicated that there are other variable influences on average global temperature which would cause variation in the net readings. Did you think that climate scientists were expecting there to be no pauses, or even cooling trends? Or did you just read the popular media and skeptic sites?

Regardless. Would YOU really expect there to be a constant rise in temperature? I simply wouldn't, because I believe the picture is more complex than that. At times, you do too, because you often expound upon other possible influences of the average global temperature. Climate scientists don't disagree with you that there are other influences. Your disagreement with them is whether CO2 has a greenhouse effect at all and/or how much that effect would be exhibited compared to the other influences. Both your model and their model would predict relatively short term variation (influences lasting around a decade). The difference between your model and theirs would simply be in the longer term trend. Your model would show a generally flat trend line and show little general correlation with CO2 increases while still having ups and downs. Their model would also show ups and downs but would not be flat; rather it overall show a trend line generally rising as we move forward in time, and also generally correlating with the rise in CO2.

You want to claim that there are short term influences causing the average global temperature readings to have a variable character, and yet you want to deny AGW climate scientists the same influences. You seem to do this simply because they make the claim that CO2 has a powerful effect. Does that seem really rational to you? Couldn't CO2 have a powerful longer term effect and the other influences also keep their shorter term effects?

 

[Verax]

AGW has been debunked huh? LoL you guys are f'n nuts I swear.

Is this the same game as when you were 7 years old and lose a basketball game, you pretend you won and go home talking to your friend the whole way about how you kicked their ass.

 

[Verax]

"The Economist" is, by a wide margin, the most prestigious English language news magazine in the world.

Fox news is the #1 cable network. I guess that means they are also super trustworthy too, right?

The majority of Americans believe there is an invisible man in the sky that created the Earth 10,000 years ago. I guess that means its true, right?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I don't think you understand what "consensus" means.

You mean like the consensus of the past, that the world was flat?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Just my imagination or does it seem like the warmers have been beaten into at least semi submission.:lol:

I think they are starting to realize they are :beatdeadhorse ...

 

[Lord of Planar]

AGW has been debunked huh? LoL you guys are f'n nuts I swear.

Is this the same game as when you were 7 years old and lose a basketball game, you pretend you won and go home talking to your friend the whole way about how you kicked their ass.

You need to update that binary processor you have.

AGW is real. Just not as large of a factor as you warmers believe. AGW isn't a "yes" or "no" answer.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

But, climate scientists have always indicated that there are other variable influences on average global temperature which would cause variation in the net readings. Did you think that climate scientists were expecting there to be no pauses, or even cooling trends? Or did you just read the popular media and skeptic sites?

Regardless. Would YOU really expect there to be a constant rise in temperature? I simply wouldn't, because I believe the picture is more complex than that. At times, you do too, because you often expound upon other possible influences of the average global temperature. Climate scientists don't disagree with you that there are other influences. Your disagreement with them is whether CO2 has a greenhouse effect at all and/or how much that effect would be exhibited compared to the other influences. Both your model and their model would predict relatively short term variation (influences lasting around a decade). The difference between your model and theirs would simply be in the longer term trend. Your model would show a generally flat trend line and show little general correlation with CO2 increases while still having ups and downs. Their model would also show ups and downs but would not be flat; rather it overall show a trend line generally rising as we move forward in time, and also generally correlating with the rise in CO2.

You want to claim that there are short term influences causing the average global temperature readings to have a variable character, and yet you want to deny AGW climate scientists the same influences. You seem to do this simply because they make the claim that CO2 has a powerful effect. Does that seem really rational to you? Couldn't CO2 have a powerful longer term effect and the other influences also keep their shorter term effects?

AGW scientist draw or at least drew a direct correlation between C02 levels and temps, now that the correlation isn't there they and you are falling over yourselves to say there just may be other factors involved and C02 levels may just not be the primary driver of climate. Slowly but surly you are coming around to reality. First you changed global warming to climate change and now you are admitting that C02 may be nothing more than a bit player in a very complex system as us non warmers have been saying for years now.

 

[Threegoofs]

Slowly but surly you are coming around to reality. First you changed global warming to climate change and now you are admitting that C02 may be nothing more than a bit player in a very complex system as us non warmers have been saying for years now.

In other words, you made up your mind years ago irregardless of evidence.