Kazakhstan – Hundreds of people rescued from raging snowstorm
Monster blizzards pound Mammoth
Record Snowfall in British Columbia
Almost 26 feet of snow at Mammoth Mt
NASA shows mass ice gains in Antarctica – “A very large gain”
It´s just some interesting headlines that I´ve come across while checking out the progress of global warming.
Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 61. (Read 636455 times)
Surprise snow in the semidesert – Mexico
Mexico – Historic snowfall in the Santuarios
Heavy snowfall in Spain
Turkey – Heavy snowfall closes hundreds of villages
Stage three at Paris-Nice bike race cancelled after snow
Mexico – Historic snowfall in the Santuarios
Heavy snowfall in Spain
Turkey – Heavy snowfall closes hundreds of villages
Stage three at Paris-Nice bike race cancelled after snow
You are new to this forum it seems. No one is following anyone. Everyone has an opinion. We may agree on a lot of things, and not all on a lot of other things. A big red sign "Information post" is not going to make you taller. Try Stilettos instead.
As for NASA, their mission and goal has changed a bit:
NASA chief says agency's goal is Muslim outreach, forgets to mention space
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0714/NASA-chief-says-agency-s-goal-is-Muslim-outreach-forgets-to-mention-space
No for sure. But it seems important to explain that you're willingly lying and transforming informations =)
As you (not you but Spendulus) took an article based on a scientific report, and that the blog article you quoted willingly lied about the report, it seems important to underline it.
But hey, you all keep lying so it's nothing new ^^
Making things up, lol. Easy to do.
Your logical method is faulty. You've attempted to use a discussion about surface temperature measurements to prove it is warming. But my discussion was strictly about satellite records.
Not only do you ignore that, but misrepresent it. Then you go shouting about lying. I'm getting convinced you just, as you said elsewhere, hate. And haters do what haters do.
No, that's you that. Here's your source:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/mann-splaining-the-pause.php
Of course ti's not a scientific article or study just a blog. But no problem the article says there is a pause so it's interesting. It's using a very biased vocabulary but hey, who has no opinion? It's not a crime to be happy when your side wins!
Let's check the sources then. Not very diversified sourcing but well. Mainly Nature articles so let's check them.
First source:
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20160225&spMailingID=50779167&spUserID=MTc2NjY4OTI4MwS2&spJobID=863136582&spReportId=ODYzMTM2NTgyS0
Do they talk about a pause in temperature?
"The debate revolves in part around statistics on temperature trends. The study1 that questioned the existence of the slowdown corrected known biases in the surface temperature record maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), such as differences in temperature readings from ships and buoys. This effectively increased the warming recorded, and the researchers also extended the record to include 2014, which set a new record high for average temperatures.
That work, led by Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, calculated the rate of global warming between 1950 and 1999 as being 0.113 °C per decade, similar to the 0.116 °C a decade calculated for 2000–14. This, Karl said, meant that an assessment done by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 20133 showing that warming had slowed was no longer valid.
Fyfe and his colleagues argue2 that Karl’s approach was biased by a period of relatively flat temperatures that extended from the 1950s into the early 1970s. Greenhouse-gas emissions were lower then, and emissions of industrial pollutants such as sulphate aerosols were cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14."
Ok so they never talk about a pause here... They talk about a slow down...
Let's check the second source:
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700
"All told, Karl's team finds that global temperatures increased at a rate of 0.116°C a decade in 2000–14, compared to a rate of 0.113°C in 1950–99. And Karl says that rate will probably go up once his team calculates the temperature increase for the entirety of the rapidly warming Arctic. Researchers found in 2013 that gaps in Arctic observations artificially cooled the Met Office temperature record2.
The latest study only resolved part of the question. Climate models used by the IPCC still project warming to continue, but scientists have documented various factors for which the models have not accounted, resulting in suppressed temperatures. These contributors include weak solar irradiation, volcanic aerosols that block sunlight and ocean circulation3.
“Once you take into account the slight forcing errors, the actual occurrence of El Niños, et cetera, there is very little left to explain,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City."
Damn no pause here either!
Anything to say?
Sure, you are just repeating misinformation.
First, let's look at the ACTUAL thing happening in the blog I suggested you look at. Quoting the final paragraph is a nice way to get to the heart of the controversy.
Here’s Scientific American on the story yesterday:
The disagreement may seem esoteric, but it underpins the biggest climate disagreement of the past decades. Climate models, which are virtual representations of our planet, project that temperatures were much higher in the early 2000s than was the case in reality. Scientists have been trying to understand why.
Here the question is the disagreement of climate models with reality. So you don't even have the subject right, do you? Strange that you blow the horn of triumph on your bicycle that just sailed off the cliff of reason, but hey, stranger things have happened.
Next,
Please look at the EXACT claim that I made, which for convenience you may call the "Pause Claim." It has to do with satellite data, very specifically the lack of any statistically significant warming showed in a particular data set.
You are not refuting this claim, and neither are those you quote. Rather you are just sort of talking side by side, like babies do when they play side by side with other babies. Babies have not yet learned to play with others.
That's very simple and should be obvious. Is it not?
You are new to this forum it seems. No one is following anyone. Everyone has an opinion. We may agree on a lot of things, and not all on a lot of other things. A big red sign "Information post" is not going to make you taller. Try Stilettos instead.
As for NASA, their mission and goal has changed a bit:
NASA chief says agency's goal is Muslim outreach, forgets to mention space
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0714/NASA-chief-says-agency-s-goal-is-Muslim-outreach-forgets-to-mention-space
No for sure. But it seems important to explain that you're willingly lying and transforming informations =)
As you (not you but Spendulus) took an article based on a scientific report, and that the blog article you quoted willingly lied about the report, it seems important to underline it.
But hey, you all keep lying so it's nothing new ^^
Making things up, lol. Easy to do.
Your logical method is faulty. You've attempted to use a discussion about surface temperature measurements to prove it is warming. But my discussion was strictly about satellite records.
Not only do you ignore that, but misrepresent it. Then you go shouting about lying. I'm getting convinced you just, as you said elsewhere, hate. And haters do what haters do.
No, that's you that. Here's your source:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/mann-splaining-the-pause.php
Of course ti's not a scientific article or study just a blog. But no problem the article says there is a pause so it's interesting. It's using a very biased vocabulary but hey, who has no opinion? It's not a crime to be happy when your side wins!
Let's check the sources then. Not very diversified sourcing but well. Mainly Nature articles so let's check them.
First source:
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20160225&spMailingID=50779167&spUserID=MTc2NjY4OTI4MwS2&spJobID=863136582&spReportId=ODYzMTM2NTgyS0
Do they talk about a pause in temperature?
"The debate revolves in part around statistics on temperature trends. The study1 that questioned the existence of the slowdown corrected known biases in the surface temperature record maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), such as differences in temperature readings from ships and buoys. This effectively increased the warming recorded, and the researchers also extended the record to include 2014, which set a new record high for average temperatures.
That work, led by Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, calculated the rate of global warming between 1950 and 1999 as being 0.113 °C per decade, similar to the 0.116 °C a decade calculated for 2000–14. This, Karl said, meant that an assessment done by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 20133 showing that warming had slowed was no longer valid.
Fyfe and his colleagues argue2 that Karl’s approach was biased by a period of relatively flat temperatures that extended from the 1950s into the early 1970s. Greenhouse-gas emissions were lower then, and emissions of industrial pollutants such as sulphate aerosols were cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14."
Ok so they never talk about a pause here... They talk about a slow down...
Let's check the second source:
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700
"All told, Karl's team finds that global temperatures increased at a rate of 0.116°C a decade in 2000–14, compared to a rate of 0.113°C in 1950–99. And Karl says that rate will probably go up once his team calculates the temperature increase for the entirety of the rapidly warming Arctic. Researchers found in 2013 that gaps in Arctic observations artificially cooled the Met Office temperature record2.
The latest study only resolved part of the question. Climate models used by the IPCC still project warming to continue, but scientists have documented various factors for which the models have not accounted, resulting in suppressed temperatures. These contributors include weak solar irradiation, volcanic aerosols that block sunlight and ocean circulation3.
“Once you take into account the slight forcing errors, the actual occurrence of El Niños, et cetera, there is very little left to explain,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City."
Damn no pause here either!
Anything to say?
You are new to this forum it seems. No one is following anyone. Everyone has an opinion. We may agree on a lot of things, and not all on a lot of other things. A big red sign "Information post" is not going to make you taller. Try Stilettos instead.
As for NASA, their mission and goal has changed a bit:
NASA chief says agency's goal is Muslim outreach, forgets to mention space
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0714/NASA-chief-says-agency-s-goal-is-Muslim-outreach-forgets-to-mention-space
No for sure. But it seems important to explain that you're willingly lying and transforming informations =)
As you (not you but Spendulus) took an article based on a scientific report, and that the blog article you quoted willingly lied about the report, it seems important to underline it.
But hey, you all keep lying so it's nothing new ^^
Making things up, lol. Easy to do.
Your logical method is faulty. You've attempted to use a discussion about surface temperature measurements to prove it is warming. But my discussion was strictly about satellite records.
Not only do you ignore that, but misrepresent it. Then you go shouting about lying. I'm getting convinced you just, as you said elsewhere, hate. And haters do what haters do.
You are new to this forum it seems. No one is following anyone. Everyone has an opinion. We may agree on a lot of things, and not all on a lot of other things. A big red sign "Information post" is not going to make you taller. Try Stilettos instead.
As for NASA, their mission and goal has changed a bit:
NASA chief says agency's goal is Muslim outreach, forgets to mention space
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0714/NASA-chief-says-agency-s-goal-is-Muslim-outreach-forgets-to-mention-space
No for sure. But it seems important to explain that you're willingly lying and transforming informations =)
As you (not you but Spendulus) took an article based on a scientific report, and that the blog article you quoted willingly lied about the report, it seems important to underline it.
But hey, you all keep lying so it's nothing new ^^
This is weird...
"NASA's core mission remains one of space exploration, science and aeronautics," NASA spokesman Michael Cabbage told SPACE.com. "Administrator Bolden regrets that a statement he made during a recent interview mischaracterized that core mission. The success of NASA's efforts is increasingly enhanced by mutual cooperation with dozens of other countries around the world that are also committed to these efforts."
Bolden made the comments in an interview while visiting Egypt two weeks ago. It aired June 30 on the Arabic news network Al-Jazeera.
Bolden said President Barack Obama had charged him with three things upon becoming NASA administrator.
"One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering," Bolden said.
"NASA's core mission remains one of space exploration, science and aeronautics," NASA spokesman Michael Cabbage told SPACE.com. "Administrator Bolden regrets that a statement he made during a recent interview mischaracterized that core mission. The success of NASA's efforts is increasingly enhanced by mutual cooperation with dozens of other countries around the world that are also committed to these efforts."
Bolden made the comments in an interview while visiting Egypt two weeks ago. It aired June 30 on the Arabic news network Al-Jazeera.
Bolden said President Barack Obama had charged him with three things upon becoming NASA administrator.
"One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering," Bolden said.
Information post
Here is a quote of myself as Spendulus and his followers seem to just ignored it.
Please feel free to not blindly trust me but follow the links. You'll see it appear they just made plain lies and can't admit it.
Unless you understand "the increase went from 0.17 to 0.11 which is not understood by our models and is interesting" as "there is no longer increase and a pause".
Spendulus and Wilikon gave this article out saying it proves the "pause they're all claiming". here is the article:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/mann-splaining-the-pause.php
Of course ti's not a scientific article or study just a blog. But no problem the article says there is a pause so it's interesting. It's using a very biased vocabulary but hey, who has no opinion? It's not a crime to be happy when your side wins!
Let's check the sources then. Not very diversified sourcing but well. MainlyNature articles so let's check them.
First source:
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20160225&spMailingID=50779167&spUserID=MTc2NjY4OTI4MwS2&spJobID=863136582&spReportId=ODYzMTM2NTgyS0
Do they talk about a pause in temperature?
"The debate revolves in part around statistics on temperature trends. The study1 that questioned the existence of the slowdown corrected known biases in the surface temperature record maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), such as differences in temperature readings from ships and buoys. This effectively increased the warming recorded, and the researchers also extended the record to include 2014, which set a new record high for average temperatures.
That work, led by Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, calculated the rate of global warming between 1950 and 1999 as being 0.113 °C per decade, similar to the 0.116 °C a decade calculated for 2000–14. This, Karl said, meant that an assessment done by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 20133 showing that warming had slowed was no longer valid.
Fyfe and his colleagues argue2 that Karl’s approach was biased by a period of relatively flat temperatures that extended from the 1950s into the early 1970s. Greenhouse-gas emissions were lower then, and emissions of industrial pollutants such as sulphate aerosols were cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14."
Ok so they never talk about a pause here... They talk about a slow down...
Let's check the second source:
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700
"All told, Karl's team finds that global temperatures increased at a rate of 0.116°C a decade in 2000–14, compared to a rate of 0.113°C in 1950–99. And Karl says that rate will probably go up once his team calculates the temperature increase for the entirety of the rapidly warming Arctic. Researchers found in 2013 that gaps in Arctic observations artificially cooled the Met Office temperature record2.
The latest study only resolved part of the question. Climate models used by the IPCC still project warming to continue, but scientists have documented various factors for which the models have not accounted, resulting in suppressed temperatures. These contributors include weak solar irradiation, volcanic aerosols that block sunlight and ocean circulation3.
“Once you take into account the slight forcing errors, the actual occurrence of El Niños, et cetera, there is very little left to explain,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City."
Damn no pause here either!
Could it be possible that they talk only about a slow down because it's all there is?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/mann-splaining-the-pause.php
Of course ti's not a scientific article or study just a blog. But no problem the article says there is a pause so it's interesting. It's using a very biased vocabulary but hey, who has no opinion? It's not a crime to be happy when your side wins!
Let's check the sources then. Not very diversified sourcing but well. Mainly
First source:
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20160225&spMailingID=50779167&spUserID=MTc2NjY4OTI4MwS2&spJobID=863136582&spReportId=ODYzMTM2NTgyS0
Do they talk about a pause in temperature?
"The debate revolves in part around statistics on temperature trends. The study1 that questioned the existence of the slowdown corrected known biases in the surface temperature record maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), such as differences in temperature readings from ships and buoys. This effectively increased the warming recorded, and the researchers also extended the record to include 2014, which set a new record high for average temperatures.
That work, led by Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, calculated the rate of global warming between 1950 and 1999 as being 0.113 °C per decade, similar to the 0.116 °C a decade calculated for 2000–14. This, Karl said, meant that an assessment done by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 20133 showing that warming had slowed was no longer valid.
Fyfe and his colleagues argue2 that Karl’s approach was biased by a period of relatively flat temperatures that extended from the 1950s into the early 1970s. Greenhouse-gas emissions were lower then, and emissions of industrial pollutants such as sulphate aerosols were cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14."
Ok so they never talk about a pause here... They talk about a slow down...
Let's check the second source:
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700
"All told, Karl's team finds that global temperatures increased at a rate of 0.116°C a decade in 2000–14, compared to a rate of 0.113°C in 1950–99. And Karl says that rate will probably go up once his team calculates the temperature increase for the entirety of the rapidly warming Arctic. Researchers found in 2013 that gaps in Arctic observations artificially cooled the Met Office temperature record2.
The latest study only resolved part of the question. Climate models used by the IPCC still project warming to continue, but scientists have documented various factors for which the models have not accounted, resulting in suppressed temperatures. These contributors include weak solar irradiation, volcanic aerosols that block sunlight and ocean circulation3.
“Once you take into account the slight forcing errors, the actual occurrence of El Niños, et cetera, there is very little left to explain,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City."
Damn no pause here either!
Could it be possible that they talk only about a slow down because it's all there is?
You are new to this forum it seems. No one is following anyone. Everyone has an opinion. We may agree on a lot of things, and not all on a lot of other things. A big red sign "Information post" is not going to make you taller. Try Stilettos instead.
As for NASA, their mission and goal has changed a bit:
NASA chief says agency's goal is Muslim outreach, forgets to mention space
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0714/NASA-chief-says-agency-s-goal-is-Muslim-outreach-forgets-to-mention-space
Information post
Here is a quote of myself as Spendulus and his followers seem to just ignored it.
Please feel free to not blindly trust me but follow the links. You'll see it appear they just made plain lies and can't admit it.
Unless you understand "the increase went from 0.17 to 0.11 which is not understood by our models and is interesting" as "there is no longer increase and a pause".
Spendulus and Wilikon gave this article out saying it proves the "pause they're all claiming". here is the article:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/mann-splaining-the-pause.php
Of course ti's not a scientific article or study just a blog. But no problem the article says there is a pause so it's interesting. It's using a very biased vocabulary but hey, who has no opinion? It's not a crime to be happy when your side wins!
Let's check the sources then. Not very diversified sourcing but well. MainlyNature articles so let's check them.
First source:
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20160225&spMailingID=50779167&spUserID=MTc2NjY4OTI4MwS2&spJobID=863136582&spReportId=ODYzMTM2NTgyS0
Do they talk about a pause in temperature?
"The debate revolves in part around statistics on temperature trends. The study1 that questioned the existence of the slowdown corrected known biases in the surface temperature record maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), such as differences in temperature readings from ships and buoys. This effectively increased the warming recorded, and the researchers also extended the record to include 2014, which set a new record high for average temperatures.
That work, led by Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, calculated the rate of global warming between 1950 and 1999 as being 0.113 °C per decade, similar to the 0.116 °C a decade calculated for 2000–14. This, Karl said, meant that an assessment done by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 20133 showing that warming had slowed was no longer valid.
Fyfe and his colleagues argue2 that Karl’s approach was biased by a period of relatively flat temperatures that extended from the 1950s into the early 1970s. Greenhouse-gas emissions were lower then, and emissions of industrial pollutants such as sulphate aerosols were cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14."
Ok so they never talk about a pause here... They talk about a slow down...
Let's check the second source:
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700
"All told, Karl's team finds that global temperatures increased at a rate of 0.116°C a decade in 2000–14, compared to a rate of 0.113°C in 1950–99. And Karl says that rate will probably go up once his team calculates the temperature increase for the entirety of the rapidly warming Arctic. Researchers found in 2013 that gaps in Arctic observations artificially cooled the Met Office temperature record2.
The latest study only resolved part of the question. Climate models used by the IPCC still project warming to continue, but scientists have documented various factors for which the models have not accounted, resulting in suppressed temperatures. These contributors include weak solar irradiation, volcanic aerosols that block sunlight and ocean circulation3.
“Once you take into account the slight forcing errors, the actual occurrence of El Niños, et cetera, there is very little left to explain,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City."
Damn no pause here either!
Could it be possible that they talk only about a slow down because it's all there is?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/mann-splaining-the-pause.php
Of course ti's not a scientific article or study just a blog. But no problem the article says there is a pause so it's interesting. It's using a very biased vocabulary but hey, who has no opinion? It's not a crime to be happy when your side wins!
Let's check the sources then. Not very diversified sourcing but well. Mainly
First source:
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20160225&spMailingID=50779167&spUserID=MTc2NjY4OTI4MwS2&spJobID=863136582&spReportId=ODYzMTM2NTgyS0
Do they talk about a pause in temperature?
"The debate revolves in part around statistics on temperature trends. The study1 that questioned the existence of the slowdown corrected known biases in the surface temperature record maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), such as differences in temperature readings from ships and buoys. This effectively increased the warming recorded, and the researchers also extended the record to include 2014, which set a new record high for average temperatures.
That work, led by Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, calculated the rate of global warming between 1950 and 1999 as being 0.113 °C per decade, similar to the 0.116 °C a decade calculated for 2000–14. This, Karl said, meant that an assessment done by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 20133 showing that warming had slowed was no longer valid.
Fyfe and his colleagues argue2 that Karl’s approach was biased by a period of relatively flat temperatures that extended from the 1950s into the early 1970s. Greenhouse-gas emissions were lower then, and emissions of industrial pollutants such as sulphate aerosols were cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14."
Ok so they never talk about a pause here... They talk about a slow down...
Let's check the second source:
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700
"All told, Karl's team finds that global temperatures increased at a rate of 0.116°C a decade in 2000–14, compared to a rate of 0.113°C in 1950–99. And Karl says that rate will probably go up once his team calculates the temperature increase for the entirety of the rapidly warming Arctic. Researchers found in 2013 that gaps in Arctic observations artificially cooled the Met Office temperature record2.
The latest study only resolved part of the question. Climate models used by the IPCC still project warming to continue, but scientists have documented various factors for which the models have not accounted, resulting in suppressed temperatures. These contributors include weak solar irradiation, volcanic aerosols that block sunlight and ocean circulation3.
“Once you take into account the slight forcing errors, the actual occurrence of El Niños, et cetera, there is very little left to explain,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City."
Damn no pause here either!
Could it be possible that they talk only about a slow down because it's all there is?
Heh...plastic_fork says -Mar. 9, 2016 at 10:25pm
Put Congresses asses on bicycles first when they outlaw oil driven vehicles.
They already peddle their asses all over town for a fee.
Put Congresses asses on bicycles first when they outlaw oil driven vehicles.
They already peddle their asses all over town for a fee.
I wonder if this thread could be collected as evidence of fraud... With more than 375000 witnesses...
AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/
Oh fuck yeah! Please, Please, Please make this mistake.
The fact of the matter is that the money flows associated with the 'science' behind 'global climate change' SHOULD be investigated. Even this trial balloon is enough of an excuse to justify doing so if/when we have a non-globalist executive branch. And there is a chance that that day is coming.
Discovery, in the law of the United States and other countries, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as a request for answers to interrogatories, request for production of documents, request for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.
AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/
Oh fuck yeah! Please, Please, Please make this mistake.
The fact of the matter is that the money flows associated with the 'science' behind 'global climate change' SHOULD be investigated. Even this trial balloon is enough of an excuse to justify doing so if/when we have a non-globalist executive branch. And there is a chance that that day is coming.
AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/
None dare call it treason. It's almost time...
AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/
Climate Change Killed Ancient Seafaring Dinosaurs…
Imagine dolphins disappearing from the world’s oceans as a result of prolonged climate change and slower evolution. As shocking and unlikely as such an event might be, it happened in the past to a group of marine animals: the ichthyosaurs.
These “fish-reptiles” were an iconic group of marine predators from the dinosaur era – and the ichthyosaurs underwent the most profound modifications to become fast, efficient swimmers. They evolved a shark-like body shape, their limbs transformed into muscular paddles, and they had some of the largest eyes in the entire animal kingdom, presumably to seek out and hunt prey in deep or turbid marine settings.
About a hundred ichthyosaur species are currently known, covering a 157m-year reign in the ancient oceans that ended around 90m years ago.
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-climate-dinosaurs-underwater-cousins.html#jCp
-------------------------------------
Global Warming slows down Evolution now... Hmm.
Imagine? Yeah, that´s good of course but sometimes it can go overboard. Has the climate change ate my homework meme gained traction yet?
Kinda.....
Climate Change Killed Ancient Seafaring Dinosaurs…
Imagine dolphins disappearing from the world’s oceans as a result of prolonged climate change and slower evolution. As shocking and unlikely as such an event might be, it happened in the past to a group of marine animals: the ichthyosaurs.
These “fish-reptiles” were an iconic group of marine predators from the dinosaur era – and the ichthyosaurs underwent the most profound modifications to become fast, efficient swimmers. They evolved a shark-like body shape, their limbs transformed into muscular paddles, and they had some of the largest eyes in the entire animal kingdom, presumably to seek out and hunt prey in deep or turbid marine settings.
About a hundred ichthyosaur species are currently known, covering a 157m-year reign in the ancient oceans that ended around 90m years ago.
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-climate-dinosaurs-underwater-cousins.html#jCp
-------------------------------------
Global Warming slows down Evolution now... Hmm.
Imagine? Yeah, that´s good of course but sometimes it can go overboard. Has the climate change ate my homework meme gained traction yet?
Climate Change Killed Ancient Seafaring Dinosaurs…
Imagine dolphins disappearing from the world’s oceans as a result of prolonged climate change and slower evolution. As shocking and unlikely as such an event might be, it happened in the past to a group of marine animals: the ichthyosaurs.
These “fish-reptiles” were an iconic group of marine predators from the dinosaur era – and the ichthyosaurs underwent the most profound modifications to become fast, efficient swimmers. They evolved a shark-like body shape, their limbs transformed into muscular paddles, and they had some of the largest eyes in the entire animal kingdom, presumably to seek out and hunt prey in deep or turbid marine settings.
About a hundred ichthyosaur species are currently known, covering a 157m-year reign in the ancient oceans that ended around 90m years ago.
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-climate-dinosaurs-underwater-cousins.html#jCp
-------------------------------------
Global Warming slows down Evolution now... Hmm.
NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years
That's bullshit.Here's the data, see for yourself:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ratpac/ratpac-a/RATPAC-A-annual-levels.txt
No they prefer saying the data is wrong/false/flawed or whatever.
Easy to understand:
-it has scientific data showing rise: it's a false report paid by governments.
-it has nothing no data at all and takes a short part of an a scientific article and willingly misinterpret it: it's the truth and you're dumb for not understanding it.
Exactly like a religion.
I take the last link, it being the ONLY scientific one you have presented. Read what it says.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.
If you have to lie to support your position, doesn't your position have a problem?
Hurricanes are becoming more frequent and stronger. For god sakes simply take the data, take the number of hurricanes by year since 1900 and you'll see.
What I have told you is if you do that, you will see the position is false.
Lying again?
I quote myself here. Just reread the whole text not only what you want:
Quote
They all say the same thing:
Hurricanes are becoming more frequent and stronger. For god sakes simply take the data, take the number of hurricanes by year since 1900 and you'll see.
What we still don't know is if it's directly linked to human activity. It may also be part of a natural cycle. So nobody is saying it's because of global warming, everybody is saying it MIGHT be because of it.
We'll know it un a dozen of years. If hurricanes keep becoming stronger and more frequent we'll know it came from us.
Hurricanes are becoming more frequent and stronger. For god sakes simply take the data, take the number of hurricanes by year since 1900 and you'll see.
What we still don't know is if it's directly linked to human activity. It may also be part of a natural cycle. So nobody is saying it's because of global warming, everybody is saying it MIGHT be because of it.
We'll know it un a dozen of years. If hurricanes keep becoming stronger and more frequent we'll know it came from us.
A. Hurricanes are becoming more frequent and stronger. For god sakes simply take the data, take the number of hurricanes by year since 1900 and you'll see.
B. We'll know it un a dozen of years.
(A) is false. (B) is a future claim.
I don't understand how you can't see the difference.
A is right. And all articles (including the one you quoted) says so. What would be wrong would be to claim that it's all because of global warming because we still can't say if it's the case as it's too early!
But A is right.
I quoted the relevant paragraph from A. Here it is again.
I take the last link, it being the ONLY scientific one you have presented. Read what it says.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.
If you want to assert that the article supports (A) please quote where it does so. Otherwise, lose what little credibility you have...
Here it is. Sorry you can't read :
"Existing records of past Atlantic tropical storm or hurricane numbers (1878 to present) in fact do show a pronounced upward trend, which is also correlated with rising SSTs "
Paragraph C as it seems you don't give a fuck about reading a real scientific article
Jump to: