"fallen sky is itself a cause of more sky falling." - DogBerTard
Poor DogBerTard. He didn't even read the article, but feels he magically knows enough to comment on it's content.
Retards are often like that... Spectacularly ignorant about the magnitude of their own ignorance.
I rather like the warmer winters
"Name me ONE thing that would disprove it." - TripleTard
30 years of continuous global cooling.
Do you intend to remain a fool for the rest of your life?
That is because you continue to use a data set that omits most of the polar regions, and then within that set you cherry pick intervals that show what you want them to show.Oh please. HadCRUT4 was intentionally manipulated to show increased warming in the late 20th century. And it's not as valued as HadCRUT3, by the scientific community. Since 2012, papers citing HadCRUT3 (only) outnumber HadCRUT4 (only) papers nearly two to one (and a lot of the HadCRUT4 papers are just trying to justify HadCRUT4).
30 years of continuous global cooling.Hmm... doesn't look exactly continuous to me...
That seems highly unlikely given that every year in the last 20 years has been in the top ten warmest years ever recorded.Well, this establishes you can't even do simple math...
This year will come in as the 7th warmest year in the last 2,000 years, and the temperature trend is up, up, up.Really? I don't see it...
Fundamental science, science that has been known for the last 150 years, Science that is integral to everything that came after it, Science that has been verified by countless experiments and applications, Science that is regularly verified by high school students, That science tells us that adding CO2 to the atmosphere must warm the plant.Warm the "plant?"
Really? Why does the data call you a liar?Looks like you're the liar:
You do realize that the trend like slopes upward from left to right, don't you?Obviously:
Do you intend to remain a liar for the rest of your life?Lying is what you do.
That seems highly unlikely given that every year in the last 20 years has been in the top ten warmest years ever recorded.
This year will come in as the 7th warmest year in the last 2,000 years, and the temperature trend is up, up, up.
Fundamental science, science that has been known for the last 150 years, Science that is integral to everything that came after it, Science that has been verified by countless experiments and applications, Science that is regularly verified by high school students, That science tells us that adding CO2 to the atmosphere must warm the plant.
The fact that your Political ideology tells you something else, shows how devoid of reason your political ideology is.
"We have all read the CRU emails" - TripleTard
Yup. Full of scientific banter that you can't understand.
"As a scientist, I take great pride in figuring things out" - TripleTard
The only place that you are a scientist, TardieBoy is in your imagination.
You have now lied twice in one post. Claiming the world has cooled since 1980, and claiming that you are a scientist.
Liar, Liar... Pants on Fire...
NASA says the average temperature of the Earth has risen 0.15C in 30 years, with the greatest increase recently. Less ice is able to cool, and it gets further away from the habitable regions. I have no reason to doubt NASA.Temperatures refuse to climb:
NASA says the average temperature of the Earth has risen 0.15C in 30 years, with the greatest increase recently. Less ice is able to cool, and it gets further away from the habitable regions. I have no reason to doubt NASA.Temperatures refuse to climb:
http://www.woodfo....7/trend
And STILL the AGW alarmists whine. What will it take to satisfy them?
You do know your charts are interactive, and if you plug in 30 years, temperature changes, right?Of course, as there was some warming prior to the last 16 years. I have not claimed otherwise.
And your arctic ice articles reflect seasonal changes.What I quoted had to do with the Arctic summer minimum.
As line judge, I'll have to rule the point against you. With a 30 yard penalty for cheating.Then you're a lousy line judge. The instant replay verifies my score.
Why are people so interested in this issue they are willing to lie and subvert reality?I don't know, why do you lie about it?
I can see drawing poor conclusions from data, that is unavoidable, we all do that under the best of conditions, but this?Apparently, you draw poor conclusions often then.
No I don't accept it!"Designed" by whom?
It is a term designed to cause dissension and obfuscation.
That we are adding Energy to the Earth system is undeniableSupposedly it's not about the energy "added," but rather the energy retained.
Warming, if it were happening is a secondary effect to the primary damage.What damage?
why did you present facts the were not germane to the topic?What facts did I present that you think were not germane to the topic?
Why do you continue to omit most of the polar regions in your plot?Oh please. HadCRUT4 was intentionally manipulated to show increased warming in the late 20th century. And it's not as valued as HadCRUT3, by the scientific community. Since 2012, papers citing HadCRUT3 (only) outnumber HadCRUT4 (only) papers nearly two to one (and a lot of the HadCRUT4 papers are just trying to justify HadCRUT4).
If you include more of the globe you get...
Designed by those who benefit from there NOT being resolution.And who are "they?"
Energy added vs retained:So it's that it's contestable that bothers you? If it's not contestable, how is it provable?
At last we have some trade-space!
Thermodynamically, the atmosphere and terra-firma do not retain heat significant amounts of time. Which is why the term "warming" in GW is so objectionable and deliberately contentious. Even psychologically, if there were noticeable warming joe-average could contest.
Ice melting and then not reforming, ergo 6cm increase in the ocean levels, are both not argued much by either side, and definitive proof of energy retention, and if the much more than 30 year trend continues, proof that we perpetually add energy to the system.How is this proof of anything? Did you not know sea levels have been rising for thousands of years (hence the lack of argument)?
PS-I can't believe you are still reading Vendi's posts. He's a cancer on the site,Indeed.
What does a pause mean? It means some kind of change has occurred. LeChatlier's Principle.Global warming, by definition, stopped about 16+or- years ago.
Well, what is it?
It may be simply that just as an ice-cube melts faster as it gets smaller, and so the polar and other ice reservoirs are able to dump cooling water into the Earth-system faster.What are you talking about? Antarctic ice is setting records, and Arctic ice is doing okay too.
Winds have increased, which means heat is being transferred more rapidly.What winds, where?
Or perhaps using corn and non-fossil fuel sources are adding to a zero-sum increase in heat, I even suspect that we recycle better,Renewables are only a small fraction of total energy consumption.
have you noticed that water bottles burn very cleanly?Burning plastics releases toxins into the environment.
Interesting times.I can't help but notice you post a lot of unsubstantiated assertions. Is AGW all about "believing" then?
@Uba,Propose your own mechanism.
Even before 16 years ago!
Temperature increase could never be the primary effect of adding heat or insulation to the Earth system. A secondary as a transient between equilibriums, perhaps. Ice melting is, for example.
Propose a mechanism where it could be. The equipartition theorem fights you all the way.
VendicarE
Nov 24, 2013