- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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:
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.Dezaad said: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.
Don't forget, past performance does not imply future performance.Dezaad said: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.
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.Dezaad said: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.
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 said: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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
I don't think you understand what "consensus" means.
.
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.
I'm comfortable sharing the same understanding as "The Economist."eace
Just my imagination or does it seem like the warmers have been beaten into at least semi submission.:lol:
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:
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.
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.
"The Economist" is, by a wide margin, the most prestigious English language news magazine in the world.
You mean like the consensus of the past, that the world was flat?I don't think you understand what "consensus" means.
Just my imagination or does it seem like the warmers have been beaten into at least semi submission.:lol:
You need to update that binary processor you have.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.
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?