Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

[code1211]

Worthless blogs are just worthless. We're expected to believe Watts, who barely left college, against actual science.

What is the actual science to which you refer?

 

[Earthling]

.. data comes from multiple sources,

hat's probably why so much cherry picking is done by climate scientists.

You know that scientists actually spend months in places like the arctic and the oceans doing field work, and dont[sic] sit behind a screen all day, blogging at leisure in between waiting for NOAA to update their website, right? Thats not because its cool to do field work, its[sic] because its gathering primary data.

When did Mann last spend months doing field work?

And lets not forget... the 'existing data' is gathered, analyzed and interpreted by... climate scientists!

You forgot to mention 'adjusted' and 'readjusted.'

Odd that none of them seem to be deniers, huh? It just so happens that the people who are closest to the data and understand it best are all in pretty universal agreement. Theres[sic] a reason for that, dude.

Yep, the reason is that it doesn't pay to swim against the tide of consensus science.

 

[code1211]

Well, not really.... just glance at a climate journal and you'll see that data comes from multiple sources, depending upon the study. You know that scientists actually spend months in places like the arctic and the oceans doing field work, and dont sit behind a screen all day, blogging at leisure in between waiting for NOAA to update their website, right? Thats not because its cool to do field work, its because its gathering primary data. And lets not forget... the 'existing data' is gathered, analyzed and interpreted by... climate scientists! Odd that none of them seem to be deniers, huh? It just so happens that the people who are closest to the data and understand it best are all in pretty universal agreement. Theres a reason for that, dude.

What most of these deniers do is critique existing studies, and they certainly seem to do it with a dedicated agenda.

I was surprised that you produced more than the one token article that Watts has published. And in Nature Climate Change! But of course, when I actually pulled it up, it was in the 'correspondence', not a peer reviewed paper. But then again, it makes your post look really good for those who dont actually care about, you know, truth.

You have posted on numerous occasions that data from a single point on the globe, like Indianapolis, is weather.

In light of your opinion on this, why would you suppose that traveling to a remote position absent access to global information benefit a climastrologist?

 

[Threegoofs]

You have posted on numerous occasions that data from a single point on the globe, like Indianapolis, is weather.

In light of your opinion on this, why would you suppose that traveling to a remote position absent access to global information benefit a climastrologist?

It has to do with science.

You wouldn't understand.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Well, not really.... just glance at a climate journal and you'll see that data comes from multiple sources, depending upon the study. You know that scientists actually spend months in places like the arctic and the oceans doing field work, and dont sit behind a screen all day, blogging at leisure in between waiting for NOAA to update their website, right? Thats not because its cool to do field work, its because its gathering primary data. And lets not forget... the 'existing data' is gathered, analyzed and interpreted by... climate scientists! Odd that none of them seem to be deniers, huh? It just so happens that the people who are closest to the data and understand it best are all in pretty universal agreement. Theres a reason for that, dude.

What most of these deniers do is critique existing studies, and they certainly seem to do it with a dedicated agenda.

I was surprised that you produced more than the one token article that Watts has published. And in Nature Climate Change! But of course, when I actually pulled it up, it was in the 'correspondence', not a peer reviewed paper. But then again, it makes your post look really good for those who dont actually care about, you know, truth.

Do you think that the people who model climate over the world do their own field work to get the data they use?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yep, the reason is that it doesn't pay to swim against the tide of consensus science.

Yep.

George Taylor will attest to that.

 

[code1211]

It has to do with science.

You wouldn't understand.

I see…

Your infallibility is noted.

 

[Earthling]

There Are Now 52 Explanations For The Pause In Global Warming

Read more: There Are Now 52 Explanations For Pause In Global Warming | The Daily Caller

 

[Tim the plumber]

There Are Now 52 Explanations For The Pause In Global Warming

Read more: There Are Now 52 Explanations For Pause In Global Warming | The Daily Caller

European Union scientists don’t know the exact what caused the “downturn of the secular warming trend,” but say “ the Earth hasn’t warmed at the same pace during the 20th century.” JRC researchers analyzed surface temperature records going back to 1850 to “separate natural variations from secular” ones.

Scientists discovered three hiatus periods in the temperature records — 1878 to 1907, 1945 to 1969 and 2001 to today — and concluded that these “hiatus periods coincide with natural cooling phases – the multidecadal variability (MDV), most likely caused by natural oceanic oscillations.”

For settled science it's very odd that so much new stuff keeps coming out.

 

[Threegoofs]

For settled science it's very odd that so much new stuff keeps coming out.

Only if you're totally unfamiliar with science!

 

[Tim the plumber]

European Union scientists don’t know the exact what caused the “downturn of the secular warming trend,” but say “ the Earth hasn’t warmed at the same pace during the 20th century.” JRC researchers analyzed surface temperature records going back to 1850 to “separate natural variations from secular” ones.

Scientists discovered three hiatus periods in the temperature records — 1878 to 1907, 1945 to 1969 and 2001 to today — and concluded that these “hiatus periods coincide with natural cooling phases – the multidecadal variability (MDV), most likely caused by natural oceanic oscillations.”

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
For settled science it's very odd that so much new stuff keeps coming out.

Only if you're totally unfamiliar with science!

Which other branch of settled science keeps producing new stuff which goes to the heart of the subject?

 

[Threegoofs]

Which other branch of settled science keeps producing new stuff which goes to the heart of the subject?

Every single one.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Every single one.

Can you cite such an event?

 

[Threegoofs]

Can you cite such an event?

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...gest-mammals-appeared-much-earlier-previously

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/volcanic-forces-not-what-you-were-taught

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/scientists-discover-new-mechanism-gene-regulation

And that's just from this week.

Maybe you should spend more time reading and less time watching TV and expressing strong opinions on areas of knowledge you don't really understand. Just a tip.

 

[Tim the plumber]

New Species Suggests Mammals Appeared Much Earlier Than Previously Believed | IFLScience

New Theory Could Rewrite Our Understanding Of Volcanoes | IFLScience

Scientists Discover New Mechanism of Gene Regulation | IFLScience

And that's just from this week.

Maybe you should spend more time reading and less time watching TV and expressing strong opinions on areas of knowledge you don't really understand. Just a tip.

None of those supply information which changes the basis of our understanding of the science involved.

The exact date of the appearance of the first mammals is hardly settled.

The process of magma flow up to the surface in volcanoes is also not settled science. That's why there is still research into it.

The intricate processes of DNA reproduction are also hardly settled. That is why it's the frontier of human understanding. Not settled.

 

[code1211]

None of those supply information which changes the basis of our understanding of the science involved.

The exact date of the appearance of the first mammals is hardly settled.

The process of magma flow up to the surface in volcanoes is also not settled science. That's why there is still research into it.

The intricate processes of DNA reproduction are also hardly settled. That is why it's the frontier of human understanding. Not settled.

There are various areas of science in which research continues and adds to the body of knowledge.

However, in AGW Science, all of the possibly knowable knowledge is already completely understood and nothing can be added to it that will ever change any of the conclusions currently held by the experts that hold them inviolate.

The conclusion is what is important. Facts are not important. Data is not important. Facts and data are transitory. Facts and data can change. Their conclusion will never change.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Worthless blogs are just worthless. We're expected to believe Watts, who barely left college, against actual science.

Once again, we see an attack on the individual and not the contents.

Secondly, there is nothing to indicate the attack has any substance and no where do the issues of the PO get raised.

Are they right or not, and if not, how?

Please show your work with credible sources

 

[Threegoofs]

Once again, we see an attack on the individual and not the contents.

Secondly, there is nothing to indicate the attack has any substance and no where do the issues of the PO get raised.

Are they right or not, and if not, how?

Please show your work with credible sources

If it was actual science, it would be published in an actual, you know, scientific journal.

And if it was real scientific critique, it would be a critique given at a, you know, scientific conference.

But those who understand science as blogs and newspaper articles don't get those facts.

 

[Fearandloathing]

For settled science it's very odd that so much new stuff keeps coming out.

But the "findings" never change....

They just get more and more radical...even when the most radical have been disproven or the date of the predicted date of the "catastrophic" [my how they love that word] event comes and goes.



It has amazed me that the conclus

 

[Lord of Planar]

For settled science it's very odd that so much new stuff keeps coming out.

Yep.

It's a bit unsettling, isn't it!

 

[Earthling]

Yep.

It's a bit unsettling, isn't it!

I find more hilarious than anything.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I find more hilarious than anything.

Agreed, but I could help the "settled" >>>>> "unsettling."

 

[Earthling]

Agreed, but I could help the "settled" >>>>> "unsettling."

Apologies, I meant to say that I find the "settled science" part hilarious.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Some years ago Phil Jones of East Anglia conceded that if the halt in global warming continued for more than 15 years it would be highly significant and would invalidate the climate models upon which policy was being based at the UN. Well, now the halt has gone on for between 16 and 26 years depending on which temperature data set you care to use.

It was with supreme schadenfreude that I followed the travails of Kevin Trenberth who, in attempting to explain the global warming halt, came up with the idea that it was due to a natural cooling cycle in the Pacific. This he published and promoted only to see his own theory of Pacific cycles used to attack the claim that most warming between 1975 and 1998 was man made. If Pacific cycles can cool the atmosphere they can also warm it. And so we had a picture of CO2 increasing in the atmosphere at a rapid rate only to have a weak effect on global temperatures, an effect easily swamped by natural variation in the climate.

Matt Ridley: Whatever Happened to Global Warming? - WSJ

It's only a matter of time before the global warming cultists give up on the alarmism and attempt to take credit saying: "Glory be! Hallejuhah! We stopped global warming!"

 

[NeverTrump]

Some years ago Phil Jones of East Anglia conceded that if the halt in global warming continued for more than 15 years it would be highly significant and would invalidate the climate models upon which policy was being based at the UN. Well, now the halt has gone on for between 16 and 26 years depending on which temperature data set you care to use.

It was with supreme schadenfreude that I followed the travails of Kevin Trenberth who, in attempting to explain the global warming halt, came up with the idea that it was due to a natural cooling cycle in the Pacific. This he published and promoted only to see his own theory of Pacific cycles used to attack the claim that most warming between 1975 and 1998 was man made. If Pacific cycles can cool the atmosphere they can also warm it. And so we had a picture of CO2 increasing in the atmosphere at a rapid rate only to have a weak effect on global temperatures, an effect easily swamped by natural variation in the climate.

Matt Ridley: Whatever Happened to Global Warming? - WSJ

The answer to your thread is simple: ISIS came to power. And that cop that killed Michael Brown might have been gay...I mean racist. But you didn't hear that from me...