North pole to melt this year?

why don't you ever answer my questions? your responses are borderline mantric in nature. I have told you ad nauseum why I am looking at different timeframes. Why do you keep asking the same question over and over as if it is entirely uninformed by my repeated answers to it?

Let me ask you very simply...if we go another 20 years and actually cool by .3 Celsius, is it your contention that we are still warming because the 150 year trend would still show warming? When does a halt in warming become interesting? I understand why 5 years is rather meaningless, and why 10 years doesn't mean too much, but the RSS is now showing 17 years and 5 months of no warming. This is just a fact. So is that interesting? When does it become a possibility for you that the warming has actually stopped for some reason? Does 20 years get your attention (we are 2.5 years away from that), 25 years? 30 years?

These are earnest questions.
 
This is not an honest question.

There are how many worldwide temperature indices?

There are also measures of ocean heat content.

If all of these (air, land, and water), show no heating for 20 years, I would say it is very significant and needs to be explained and if external sources (like diminished solar activity or volcanoes) do not explain it then something significant probably has occurred.

This is not even remotely the case.

Even your cherry picked start date on your cherry picked temperature record shows a slight amount of warming.

The other temperature records show even more warming.

And then we get to the place where 90% of the heat goes, the ocean. This has shown zero signs of slowing down although the upper layer has been transferring a large amount of heat to the lower level.

So you are genuinely interested in learning?

You have six years on this thread of being anything but interested in learning a thing.

If you just want to focus on atmospheric temperatures, why wouldn't you average NASA/GISS, HAD (3 or 4 or whatever), NOAA, UAH, and RSS?

Why would you pick just one?

And then why do all your starting points include 1998?

As if you will ever honestly answer these questions.

laugh.gif
 
It would have been easier to type that you have no idea how many years of flat or lowering temperatures it would take to convince you that we are not experiencing anthropogenic global warming.
 
No. I typed a very precise and accurate answer.

20 years of zero additional heat retention would convince me or make me question the science.

90% of the heat retained by the earth goes into the ocean. This is, overall, a good thing but it does at times lead to variations in atmospheric temperatures particularly when the surface waters transfer heat to the lower levels. This heat does not go away and warming the lower ocean is going to be very problematic in the future.
 
mop, your statements about the ocean heat measurements are echoed by Garth Paltridge who is an emeritus professor at the University of Tasmania and a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science. He is the author of The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming. He was a chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research.

I'm sure pasotex thinks Dr. Paltridge is a clown too. So who really cares.
 
paso appears to not have an argument. he repeats the same thing over and over and acts as if he is making profound points, but refuses to be informed by the points i make. his argument is not nuanced or insightful, it is worthy of Bill Nye or that Youtube goon that had everyone who knew nothing very excited, Mr Craven.

Paso will die convinced that anything bad which happens in the climate is our fault regardless of whether or not we cool quickly in the next 30 years.
 
A new paper that doesn't fit the "consensus." There is a new peer-reviewed paper out in Geophysical Research letters that establishes only a 4.3 inch sea level rise during the 20th Century. This is far below previous estimates and suggests only localized extreme sea level rises based on other factors. There seems to be a rather dramatic delta in NH sea level rise versus SH sea level rise as well:

Sea Level Rise less than previously estimated
 
wow, a new study out in Nature is showing to a 95% confidence level that all but 2 of the climate models failed to predict the current global warming pause we are currently experiencing. now some around here say that there is no pause and it is an invention of we skeptics. unfortunately for these science deniers, this study was done by John Fyfe who is a co-chair of the IPCC. He also has another study recently published which shows that we have not experienced any statistically significant warming in over 20 years. man, it is crazy to see how powerful we skeptics have become. we are even convincing a co-chair of the IPCC to publish false studies in a peer-reviewed journal. crazy eh? I feel so prescient having been arguing this for about 7 years now.

climate models failed to predict pause
 
The head of the largest mining company in the world said this week in Houston, "that climate change is real and driven by human activity.(more)
Speaking to energy industry leaders at the CERAWeek conference in Houston, Mackenzie, a geologist by training, said evidence of the climate trend is clear and compelling.

“You can’t argue with a rock,” Mackenzie said, noting geological signs of the change."

And then he went on to discuss CARBON PRICING SYSTEMS.
fuelfix.com/blog/2014/03/04/energy-ceo-climate-change-is-real-and-driven-by-humans/



Combined with the document jointly released last week from the National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Academy, this essentially ends the debate about whether or not AGW is occurring and moves the discussion onto what to do about it.


Report from NAS & Royal AcademyThe Link
.
 
I attempted to engage him for 20 or 30 pages of this thread. It is a complete waste of my time. He has zero interest in actually learning anything. He just wants to play the role of false skeptic while we continue to do nothing. This is it.

You can take his latest ploy with the "pause" as an example. There is no "pause" in heat retention. As a result of the greenhouse gas increase in the atmosphere, the earth has an energy imbalance. The heat must go somewhere. This is very simple and settled physics.

It is going into the middle layer of the ocean primarily. The scientists have also found and corrected for an instrumentation gap over the arctic. There is also natural short term variation called by most people weather.

This is real science.

The real way to correct for this short term variability and cherry picking of starting points is to either to run your trend lines over a significant amount of time or to smooth and correct for ENSO (and solar and volcanos).

You should also look at the entire planetary system meaning atmosphere, water, ice, and land. This is exactly what real scientists have been doing for a long time. It is not any mystery that the heat retained transfers to and from the ocean and that most of it actually goes into the ocean.

But neither mop nor you (as best I can tell) is interested in this real science where you attempt to explain things that do not precisely match the prevailing theory or vary slightly.

You instead want this discussion to be a series of "gotcha" moments where politeness and every single detail must be instantly explained or else the entire theory and work of numerous scientists over numerous years backed by plenty of hard physics just gets thrown out the window.

This is stupid.

It is a cheap parlor trick. Sophistry at its finest. It is exactly what the Koch brothers and Exxon have paid a fortune to accomplish with the public. It is the same thing that the tobacco industry did with smoking for years. Since you guys are not even remotely interested in actually learning, I will just treat you like clowns.

Why shouldn't I?

It is not like this thread is going to do anything or change anyone's mind. The Koch brothers and Exxon made this a political issue for a reason. You ignore the National Academy of Sciences for a reason.

We have done absolutely nothing for 25 years to curb our carbon output although thankfully economics and fracking have reduced at least our per capita output (the world's carbon output has remained about the same growing at approximately 2 ppm per year).

And you think I want to be proven right?

****.

I hope I am wrong (or really the overwhelming majority of actual scientists working in this arena), but hope is not going to change the physical properties of CO2, CH4, and NO2 nor the work of thousands of good scientists.
 
paso, your problem is that you aren't near as smart as you think you are. you repeat talking points like mantras and when you lose an argument you drop the f-bomb and bail. you are a child. quite a few of us on this board are very open and inquisitive, but you are not our teacher. a discussion is when two people come to the table and want to learn and grow. you have it in your mind that you don't have any growing to do and that we are all idiots. the problem is, it has been proven many times in this thread that this is not the case. it's a shame that you don't have the attitude that could help you learn and grow. i know i have learned a lot in the past 7 years of this thread. i love it. it is fascinating all that i have learned and i have even allowed for my position to morph and change. i was probably less open to anthropogenic causation of any sort at the beginning of this thread. now i feel that we do contribute some, but not very much. natural variation still seems to dwarf human causation. could i be wrong? sure! humans could have no impact at all, or we could be the driving reason for the warming we have experienced. time will probably lead us to one conclusion or the other, but just like other dogmatically claimed scientific "facts" that were established or overturned, this may take a while.

incidentally, why is it that when a mining company CEO speaks in favor of AGW, we are to trust him/her but when they speak against it, they are not to be trusted? you do know that Steve McIntyre is a mining expert and mathematician right? ; )
 
You are confusing me with Texoz.

Your problem is you think this is a debate. It isn't. It is like a classroom and your grade is an F. I get an A-.

This is science not some high school debate club.

You do not even understand the most basic elements of climate science. I have seriously had more interesting discussions with my cat.
 
and then you make my point for me. thanks man.

you are a child and you don't know very much, particularly about the topics discussed on this thread.
 
Are you going to address the National Academy of Sciences report in Texoz's link?

bahahahahaha!!!!

laugh.gif


(I know you are not capable so don't bother.)
 
zzzzzz

you really don't have any nuances to your argument do you? mantra mantra mantra mantra....boilerplate talking points paso. meanwhile the world continues to warm, seas rise, hurricanes etc at the same rate as the last 100 years.
 
Are you seriously suggesting that heat does not transfer between the ocean and atmosphere? Where did you learn this?

ENSO suggests otherwise. Hurricanes suggest otherwise. El Niño events do what? What does a warmer ocean do with ENSO?

So ocean stored heat does nothing?

Wow. This is amazing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top