Global Warming

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer WHY, if Anthropogenic CO2 has been increasing is there currently a cooling period? Please answer the question specifically. I don't want the tired old nonsense about the IPCC said this or that..why can't you answer that simple questiion with a specific answer? Your addled memory leads you to believe you've answered it..produce the specific answer for all of us to see? If you can?

Your question has been answered, Xyzer. The answer now is the same one given to you over a year ago: If the planet is currently cooling (a notion which I challenge), it's because some other forcing mechanism has (most likely temporarily) overwhelmed the warming signal from the CO2. Your repeated failure to understand this one, simple concept is simply astounding.

[xyzer]

Parrot..

Your question has been answered, Xyzer. The answer now is the same one given to you over a year ago: If the planet is currently cooling (a notion which I challenge), it's because some other forcing mechanism has (most likely temporarily) overwhelmed the warming signal from the CO2. Your repeated failure to understand this one, simple concept is simply astounding

At least you can interpret part of the question...it's because of some other factor other than CO2. I would question your built in assumption that that faxctor is a forcing mechanism? Talking about forcing, Do you know what 'forcing' means? Are you ignoring the fact that the sun directly influences the amount of heat that reaches earth?
For your information the other part of the question has been stated many times..Since CO2 which had been named as the primary reason that temperatures rose over the last part of the 1900's,has been increasing why would we have a cooling trend? Could it just be that another factor is the cause. Don't give us the old variation argument that avoids the the question? Pooey ducks that reality over and over agin saying its already been explained? If it has, you give me the answer? He cant?

Pooey posts..

Do you remember citing this link. It has the very latest data and it shows that although this year may not be hotter than last year (due to La Nina effect) but it is still above the 20 year average. Does that answer your question?

Durn it Pooey. Surely you can't be so naive as to offer that as an answer? You take the 20 year average of a warming period and then compareTHAT AVERAGE to all the ensuing years? Thats statistical chicanery! From 2000 to 2008 temperaturess have been cooler Lets take the average of that span and compare it to the average of the last decade of the 90s. Is it cooler? If so then there is a coolling trend

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Parrot.. At least you can interpret part of the question...it's because of some other factor other than CO2. I would question your built in assumption that that faxctor is a forcing mechanism? Talking about forcing, Do you know what 'forcing' means? Are you ignoring the fact that the sun directly influences the amount of heat that reaches earth?

The real question is, do you know what it means? And do you have any evidence to suggest that solar activity has increased in the past few decades to account for the warming?

Quote by: xyzer For your information the other part of the question has been stated many times..Since CO2 which had been named as the primary reason that temperatures rose over the last part of the 1900's,has been increasing why would we have a cooling trend?

Which cooling trend? Based on what data? And how long is this cooling trend? We've already explained what happened in the 1940s to 60s and why we're getting the read outs for this decade so far.

Quote by: xyzer Could it just be that another factor is the cause. Don't give us the old variation argument that avoids the the question? Pooey ducks that reality over and over agin saying its already been explained? If it has, you give me the answer? He cant?

No, I've given you the answer but you're refusing to acknowledge them. You are trolling. Again, let's blame it on your selective blindness and amnesia, at least then you have an excuse...

Quote by: xyzer Pooey posts.. Durn it Pooey. Surely you can't be so naive as to offer that as an answer? You take the 20 year average of a warming period and then compareTHAT AVERAGE to all the ensuing years?

The past 20 years is where we have the most accurate satellite data. Surely you knew that already? You said that there's a cooling trend so surely we'd see an actual decline below the 20 year average of most accurate measurements? Else how can you know it's a cooling trend? Oh wait, premature conclusion!

Quote by: xyzer Thats statistical chicanery!

Says the man that's extrapolated a cooling trend from a few years of data!

Quote by: xyzer From 2000 to 2008 temperaturess have been cooler Lets take the average of that span and compare it to the average of the last decade of the 90s. Is it cooler? If so then there is a coolling trend

You have proposed a hypothesis, care to put some effort to support it with evidence?

But here's a graph
Source
You can't draw a trend line till you've got at least a decade of data, the variability (aka weather) is just too great most of the time.
You'll note that 1998 has an anomalous spike which can be attributed to very strong El Nino activity.

My guess is, you're going to skim over what's been said and ask the same question in the next post. Because that's all you can do; you lack any form of scientific credibility.

[xyzer]

Durn right I am..Pooey

My guess is, you're going to skim over what's been said and ask the same question in the next post. Because that's all you can do; you lack any form of scientific credibility

If you look closelyat your graph (from an unidentified source) You will note that temps level off and are dropping? This while anthropogenic CO2 is increasing? This trend started in the early 2000s(as near as I can determine) and has continued even more abruptly this year. It is a cooling trend occurring while CO2 (the supposed culprit in increasing) is increasing? It has shown up in other measurement sources and they have been referenced on this thread?
I can simplify the issue which you obviously don't understand by asking why this downward temperature change? The natural climate variability question shows up in your graph. We know there is variability caused by various natural factors and has been since way before humans started lighting fires.
Which leads one to ask is anthropogenic CO2 the main cause of warming. Which leads an inquiring person to pay attention to the reality of accurate measurement data that is coming it lately. We have given you 'beleivers' samples of ocean, land surface and satellite measurements which show that there is a cooling trend. You can't muddy that up with such nonsense as the use of averages of the hottest 20 years of the last century as a leverage point to measure subsequent trends> It's measurably cooler this early decade of the 21st century? Whats causing it? What caused the cooler period on most of your chart even when CO2 increased due to industrial expansion??

Answer the question, please?

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Parrot.. At least you can interpret part of the question...it's because of some other factor other than CO2. I would question your built in assumption that that faxctor is a forcing mechanism? Talking about forcing, Do you know what 'forcing' means? Are you ignoring the fact that the sun directly influences the amount of heat that reaches earth?

A climatic forcing is any agent which alters Earth's radiative balance (e.g., changes in Earth's orbit or changes in the greenhouse effect).

And I don't ignore the sun's direct influence on the amount of heat that reaches Earth, since the sun is responsible for essentially all of the energy reaching Earth!

For your information the other part of the question has been stated many times..Since CO2 which had been named as the primary reason that temperatures rose over the last part of the 1900's,has been increasing why would we have a cooling trend? Could it just be that another factor is the cause. Don't give us the old variation argument that avoids the the question? Pooey ducks that reality over and over agin saying its already been explained? If it has, you give me the answer? He cant?

And for your information the answer has been stated many times (hint: scroll up to my last post ): "If the planet is currently cooling (a notion which I challenge), it's because some other forcing mechanism has (most likely temporarily) overwhelmed the warming signal from the CO2." This explanation does not contradict the theory that CO2 is responsible for the bulk of 20th century warming.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Durn right I am..Pooey If you look closelyat your graph (from an unidentified source)

The source is clearly given in most post. I said that you wouldn't read my post but just skim it.

Quote by: xyzer You will note that temps level off and are dropping? This while anthropogenic CO2 is increasing? This trend started in the early 2000s(as near as I can determine) and has continued even more abruptly this year.

So I'm guessing that if you were present in 1945, you'd would have also back the hypothesis that there would be a cooling trend? Except, we know that this was only temporary and also due to human activity & a large volcanic event (sulphates). Doesn't that alone tell you it's wrong to extrapolate a trend line from just a few years of data?

Quote by: xyzer It is a cooling trend occurring while CO2 (the supposed culprit in increasing) is increasing? It has shown up in other measurement sources and they have been referenced on this thread?

What we're seeing is a counteract of the warming by the La Nina effect. This is well documented phenomenon and we know that it can cause dramatic drops in temperature, just as El Nino can cause a huge boost as seen in 1998. We know that strong La Nina activity has been taking place for the past few years, so it stands to reason that temperature rises would be countered. Is that so hard to understand?
News snippet about La Nina causing major drop in sea surface temperature. As you can see, a two degree Celsius drop is huge compared to the warming we've seen in the last century!

Quote by: xyzer I can simplify the issue which you obviously don't understand by asking why this downward temperature change? The natural climate variability question shows up in your graph. We know there is variability caused by various natural factors and has been since way before humans started lighting fires.

You've just busted your own argument there. As you've said, there's much variability and especially due to weather from year to year, therefore, any attempt to draw a conclusion from a few years of data is hard to validate and justify.

Quote by: xyzer Which leads one to ask is anthropogenic CO2 the main cause of warming. Which leads an inquiring person to pay attention to the reality of accurate measurement data that is coming it lately. We have given you 'beleivers' samples of ocean, land surface and satellite measurements which show that there is a cooling trend.

Please stop using that label, it's highly inaccurate. You forget to mention that that readings come from scientific bodies who endorse the IPCC report, and therefore, "you" haven't given us anything. Merely a poor and uneducated guess of what the data is showing.

Quote by: xyzer You can't muddy that up with such nonsense as the use of averages of the hottest 20 years of the last century as a leverage point to measure subsequent trends>

There is no muddling up, the 20 year average is used because it contains the most accurate data. You've always complained about the use of proxy data, therefore, I am now using the most precise data I can find.

Quote by: xyzer It's measurably cooler this early decade of the 21st century? Whats causing it?

Cooler compared to the last decade? By how much? What statistical analysis have you done to show that it is greater than the relative standard deviation and therefore, out of trend?

Quote by: xyzer What caused the cooler period on most of your chart even when CO2 increased due to industrial expansion??

Which period do you refer to?

Quote by: xyzer Answer the question, please?

I have done, many times already. But your selective blindness is kicking in again so I guess I'll be repeating myself in the next post.

[xyzer]

Here are some sites that verify the cooling trend by actual measurement as opposed to predictive models..

Is the climate cooling? « ClimatePolice


Sweet vindication – It really is climate cooling!

From the reference...

Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun’s changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again. “We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun’s surface. This will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet.

As to what these changes are Casey says, “The sun’s surface flows have slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface movement, what NASA calls the “conveyor belt” essentially sweeps up old sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA’s studies have found that when the surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing - an intense cold climate, globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that starts this spring will be at 50 or lower. The general opinion of the SSRC scientists is that it could begin even sooner within 3 years with the next solar cycle 24. What we are saying today is that my own research and that of the other scientists at the SSRC verifies that NASA is right about one thing – a solar cycle of 50 or lower is headed our way. With this next solar minimum predicted by NASA, what I call a “solar hibernation,” the SSRC forecasts a much colder Earth j

We know there are nina and nino affects. At least we now know NASA thinks the sun is the overruling climate influencer?

Now answer the question Pooey? Why is it cooling when CO2 is measureably increasing? Could it be that natural causes(as NASA thinks) have a much more important influence of climate change? Can we predict the extent of thei suns influence?. The so called references you post predict that when nina wanes its going to get even hotter? Where do they get that prediction except from an underlying assumption that CO2 is the main cause?

You post this..

There is no muddling up, the 20 year average is used because it contains the most accurate data. You've always complained about the use of proxy data, therefore, I am now using the most precise data I can find.

We are talking about the most recent measurments here. The past 7 years plus several new systems to measure weather data.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here are some sites that verify the cooling trend by actual measurement as opposed to predictive models.. Is the climate cooling? « ClimatePolice

Wow, a convincing blog citation! Except even taken as a legitimate source, the analysis is flawed. Why? Because they take 1998 as the warmest year when we know full well that it is an anomalous high point that is out of trend.
Are you seriously telling me that you can extrapolate a long term trend out of this??

Quote by: xyzer Sweet vindication – It really is climate cooling! We know there are nina and nino affects.

Really? Do you know what they can do?

Quote by: xyzer At least we now know NASA thinks the sun is the overruling climate influencer?

Do you know what your source cites from? It sources from here, a website that has no association with NASA. Also, I've tried looking for this so called scientific paper, apart being available off that website, it doesn't appear to be published in any journals. Doesn't that already tell you something?

Quote by: xyzer Now answer the question Pooey? Why is it cooling when CO2 is measureably increasing?

I already answered the question many times. Please stop trolling by asking it again.

Quote by: xyzer Could it be that natural causes(as NASA thinks) have a much more important influence of climate change?

I think you're referring to this NSSTC. As far as I can see, they do not have any press releases which points that natural influence is the major cause of the recent warming.

Quote by: xyzer Can we predict the extent of thei suns influence?. The so called references you post predict that when nina wanes its going to get even hotter?

My "so called references"? From the BBC, Met Office UK and UEA? As opposed to your blogs and thinktank websites?

Quote by: xyzer Where do they get that prediction except from an underlying assumption that CO2 is the main cause?

Well, any major climate models predict that temperatures will continue to rise even if we levelled off the CO2 emissions (to varying degrees).

Quote by: xyzer You post this.. We are talking about the most recent measurments here. The past 7 years plus several new systems to measure weather data.

Yes, in that particular webpage I cited with the interactive graph for which you can compare all the recent years. So show me this cooling trend...

Btw, I love your sources, always amusing to pick through them. You really ought to check them out before you post them up.

[xyzer]

Btw, I love your sources, always amusing to pick through them. You really ought to check them out before you post them up.

I also enjoy your interpretation of climate change by placing graphs that show one thing and telling us they show something else? This latest one shows a downward trend(green line) for 2000/2005 (seven measurements are cooler) Why don't you take that comparison with the last decade of the 90s?Take 7 measurements from the 90s and compare them? Unless you are trying to rationalize a warming trend?

By the way are La Nina/El Nino affects caused by CO2 or are they natural influences that change climate temps inspite of the influence of human CO2 ? Is the suns influence overwhelmed by human generated CO2 or is it the other way around? Your weakening but determined effort to rationalize anthropogenic warming is being overtaken by reality?

Its almost pathetic the way Gore, Prince Charles and others doggedly stick to the IPCC predictions made some 7 years ago from data that was much older than that. And which are not being confirmed by the latest data and new studies? But it gives us something to do and stimulates our interests

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Here are some sites that verify the cooling trend by actual measurement as opposed to predictive models.. Is the climate cooling? « ClimatePolice

Xyzer, you make me sad by ignoring my posts. Don't you love me anymore?

Seriously though, I don't trust your link. Both GISS and HadCRUT show a positive trend for the past decade. And since your site doesn't show the results of their regression, or even which data set they used, I'm inclined to be highly skeptical of them.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I also enjoy your interpretation of climate change by placing graphs that show one thing and telling us they show something else? This latest one shows a downward trend(green line) for 2000/2005 (seven measurements are cooler)

I told you, the trend line in itself is flawed as the use of 1998 as a starting data point is wrong. Why? Because it's a record warm year caused by a very strong El Nino effect that year. Also, I might add that any climatologist would acknowledge that trying to draw a temperature trend line with less than a few decades of data is just not viable given the variability of weather. Which leads on to how you can be so sure of a cooling trend with very limited data when you've been arguing that we don't know enough about global warming yet!

Quote by: xyzer Why don't you take that comparison with the last decade of the 90s?Take 7 measurements from the 90s and compare them? Unless you are trying to rationalize a warming trend?

You're going to have to clarify what you mean by that. In fact, do one better and do the comparison yourself

Quote by: xyzer By the way are La Nina/El Nino affects caused by CO2 or are they natural influences that change climate temps inspite of the influence of human CO2 ?

There has never been any doubt that this ocean oscillation cycle has a huge impact on global temperatures. In fact, I have already cited how it caused a 2 degrees Celsius drop in sea surface temperature in SE Asian. Furthermore, I have constantly repeated that its effects can have positive and negative impact on global warming, for example, causing the heatwave record of 1998.

Quote by: xyzer Is the suns influence overwhelmed by human generated CO2 or is it the other way around?

What an odd question? The sun is almost the sole reason why we have any warming at all, but the question is whether we've increased this warming in recent times. Your misleading questions do nothing to support your arguments, but merely shows how desperate you've become.

Quote by: xyzer Your weakening but determined effort to rationalize anthropogenic warming is being overtaken by reality?

You're very good at describing your own situation. It seems like you have an inversely proportional notion of winning, which would explain why you keep on going...

Quote by: xyzer Its almost pathetic the way Gore, Prince Charles and others doggedly stick to the IPCC predictions made some 7 years ago from data that was much older than that.

I see you've managed to miss the IPCC 2007 report that came out in February. Oh no, you didn't, because you and I debated over it more than a year ago.
So you are lying again.

Quote by: xyzer And which are not being confirmed by the latest data and new studies? But it gives us something to do and stimulates our interests

The report reviewed all the latest research since 2001 and up to their first draft for 2007. But you knew this however, you still saw it necessary to make a misleading remark with outright lies.

[xyzer]

Several interesting holes are begining to show up in your passionate defense of anthropengic influences on climate? Pooey, your like the Energizer Bunny on battery commercials, you neve run down?

told you, the trend line in itself is flawed as the use of 1998 as a starting data point is wrong. Why? Because it's a record warm year caused by a very strong El Nino effect that year. Also, I might add that any climatologist would acknowledge that trying to draw a temperature trend line with less than a few decades of data is just not viable given the variability of weather. Which leads on to how you can be so sure of a cooling trend with very limited data when you've been arguing that we don't know enough about global warming yet!

So now when your intrepretation of graphic proof of trend lines is questioned, your defense is, its flawed? Interesting?


By the way the 2007 IPCC report IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is based on pre 2000 temperature data is it not? Thus the cooling trend we have been discussing is not included in the predictive modelsl they are so proud of, is it? The most recent data is ignored? Or should I say missing and we are regurgitating the same old conclusions influenced by the late century warmning period.? Total less than 1 degree C in a century.
Underlying the screaming hysterical data about a high percentage rise in anthropogenic CO2 ..I think I recall one figure of 80% over a given period.. is the fact that the total atmospheric CO2 content is less that 1% of atmospheric gas! And humans contributions some small fraction of that? Obviously its dangerous to us all.......because even so the temperaure has cooled over the past 7 or so years? 80% is impressive but misleading.
The logic of some of those, and these interpretations, bothers me? If I trade some carbon credits, quit driving and flying and burning coal will my effort help changer the climate? Make it cooler? Will the zealots at the UN be able to pull all of us together in an effective effort to reduce anthropogenic created gases, and bovine flatulence enough to impact climate?
By the way parrot I still ?love? you just like the rest of those bowlegged cowboys down in Texas. Interestingly unsophisticated believers in, and tellers of, tall tales.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Several interesting holes are begining to show up in your passionate defense of anthropengic influences on climate? Pooey, your like the Energizer Bunny on battery commercials, you neve run down? So now when your intrepretation of graphic proof of trend lines is questioned, your defense is, its flawed? Interesting?

Hold on, are you defending the fact that the anomalous 1998 was used as a data point benchmark? I thought you said that you had scientific credibility?

Quote by: xyzer By the way the 2007 IPCC report IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is based on pre 2000 temperature data is it not?

Have you even looked at the supporting material section? That's just an example, but I'm betting you haven't bothered looking at, at least one of Working group's report, have you?

Quote by: xyzer Thus the cooling trend we have been discussing is not included in the predictive modelsl they are so proud of, is it?

There is no actual cooling trend. Only an idiot who doesn't know why 1998 was such a hot year or that La Nina has been in effect for the past few years would think that there's a cooling trend. You wouldn't happen to be one of those people, would you?

Quote by: xyzer The most recent data is ignored?

It's a report that's written over half a decade and they've only released one last year so how can include the readings we've only just got now?

Quote by: xyzer Or should I say missing and we are regurgitating the same old conclusions influenced by the late century warmning period.?

You can say what you like but it doesn't make it any truer.

Quote by: xyzer Total less than 1 degree C in a century. Underlying the screaming hysterical data about a high percentage rise in anthropogenic CO2 ..I think I recall one figure of 80% over a given period..

An increase from 280ppm to 380ppm, which is roughly 36% increase over about 150 years. But you know this because we've told you about a dozen times over the past 18 months.

Quote by: xyzer is the fact that the total atmospheric CO2 content is less that 1% of atmospheric gas! And humans contributions some small fraction of that?

Again, we've covered the fact that, for example, 79% of the air is nitrogen which has NO thermal forcing. Whereas CO2 contributes to between 9 and 26% of total. So again, you've tried to use your flawed and misleading statement to bolster a point despite the fact that we've explained this to you a dozen times already. This behaviour is known as trollling.

Quote by: xyzer Obviously its dangerous to us all.......because even so the temperaure has cooled over the past 7 or so years?

For the last time, there is no true cooling trend. Please show me a scientific paper that has done the appropriate analysis to prove it. Otherwise, you're just making things up.

Quote by: xyzer 80% is impressive but misleading.

Yet you pulled that figure out of your arse, as usual.

Quote by: xyzer The logic of some of those, and these interpretations, bothers me? If I trade some carbon credits, quit driving and flying and burning coal will my effort help changer the climate? Make it cooler? Will the zealots at the UN be able to pull all of us together in an effective effort to reduce anthropogenic created gases, and bovine flatulence enough to impact climate?.

Quit drawing strawman's. Once again, you fan the flames with your hysteria, the IPCC does not recommend that you cease all machine transport or energy generation, but merely tells us that CO2 emission has to be curbed. We do have the technology and the capacity to be more energy efficient and to generate that energy using alternate methods.

This post again, demonstrates how you are ignoring what's been said to time and time again. You continue to ask the same answered questions and press the same refuted points, which means you are trolling.

[xyzer]

Pooey..This is some of the illogical nonsense one has to contend with in your overly detailed and trivially detailed responses?

There is no actual cooling trend. Only an idiot who doesn't know why 1998 was such a hot year or that La Nina has been in effect for the past few years would think that there's a cooling trend. You wouldn't happen to be one of those people, would you?

There is measurable proof that you LIE on that one! You just posted a graph showing that since 2000 temps have cooled? Did you know what you were doing? Is La nina a recent climate influencer, or was it around during all those warming years? Now inspite of the increase in human CO2 its suddenly shown up and cooled world temps? Surely you jest?
You are living in a cloud of make believe.

It's a report that's written over half a decade and they've only released one last year so how can include the readings we've only just got now?

This is your reponse to what I just told you ..the data in the IPCC report is pre 2000..which was the data from a warming period? Are you nuts? My point was only that the report doesn't include the latest data not that the IPCC could include data that didn't exist at the time?
Here is another invented figmernt of your stunted mentality?

This behaviour is known as trollling

Show me where there is a connection with repeatedly asking an intellectual pigmy to answer a question and his repeated refusal to do so? Better yet show me in a reputable dictionary what the definition of trolling is?Here is another reflection of ignorance? Plus its a sure sign that yor argument is weakening! Ad hominem nonsense is the weakest of logical arguments!

Again, we've covered the fact that, for example, 79% of the air is nitrogen which has NO thermal forcing. Whereas CO2 contributes to between 9 and 26% of total. So again, you've tried to use your flawed and misleading statement to bolster a point despite the fact that we've explained this to you a dozen times already

This is a pityfull attempt to deny reality?What does CO2 contribute 9 to 26% of? the atmosphere or forcing? You dont distinguish between the two? What truly determines how much heat is subjected to forcing? The sun, the sun, the flickering sun. CO2 contributes less than 1% of the earths gasses. CO2 comes from other sources besides humans. They contribute less than that 1%

Answer my question with specific evidence? Not an outdated IPCC report. Quit ducking truth.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey..This is some of the illogical nonsense one has to contend with in your overly detailed and trivially detailed responses?

Once again, you aptly describe your own situation to the very last letter.

Quote by: xyzer There is measurable proof that you LIE on that one! You just posted a graph showing that since 2000 temps have cooled?

A drift in the average temperature does not automatically mean a cooling trend. All you've got so far in an attempt to support your argument is a graph drawn with 1998 as the benchmark point.

Quote by: xyzer Did you know what you were doing? Is La nina a recent climate influencer, or was it around during all those warming years?

El Nino and La Nina are diametrically opposed events, perhaps you'd like to read up on it. I often find it a good idea to research and find out about what I'm debating. Otherwise, I end up asking stupid questions and misinterpreting things.

Quote by: xyzer Now inspite of the increase in human CO2 its suddenly shown up and cooled world temps? Surely you jest?

No, I don't. Do you doubt that this phenomenon exists? Because your words above there tell me that you do.

Quote by: xyzer You are living in a cloud of make believe.

I think you'll find it is you who've been living in a fantasy land with your eyes and ears covered.

Quote by: xyzer This is your reponse to what I just told you ..the data in the IPCC report is pre 2000..which was the data from a warming period?

And I pointed out that what you said was false, a complete lie.

Quote by: xyzer Are you nuts? My point was only that the report doesn't include the latest data not that the IPCC could include data that didn't exist at the time?

Yet I pointed out that on their website, even in the supporting material, we can see that it's post 2000 references. Therefore, as you are continuing to support your false claim, you are lying.

Quote by: xyzer Here is another invented figmernt of your stunted mentality?

Great description of what you're doing, bravo. *applause*

Quote by: xyzer Show me where there is a connection with repeatedly asking an intellectual pigmy to answer a question and his repeated refusal to do so?

I have answered the questions, even EnragedParrot has come back to repeat a point he'd said last year.

Quote by: xyzer Better yet show me in a reputable dictionary what the definition of trolling is?Here is another reflection of ignorance? Plus its a sure sign that yor argument is weakening! Ad hominem nonsense is the weakest of logical arguments!

I'm not familiar with latin terms but I'll talk that as your attempt at showcasing your intellectual superiority. Shame your arguments hold no water.

Quote by: xyzer This is a pityfull attempt to deny reality?What does CO2 contribute 9 to 26% of? the atmosphere or forcing?

My apologies, seeing as this range of figure has been repeated to you over a dozen of times. For future reference, that % range is the thermal forcing attributed to CO2 in our atmosphere. In fact, I might go back to my posts previously where've I referred to said figure range before specifically at you. If you don't know what those percentages are then you've clearly not read any of my past posts, exactly as I suspected.

Quote by: xyzer You dont distinguish between the two? What truly determines how much heat is subjected to forcing? The sun, the sun, the flickering sun. CO2 contributes less than 1% of the earths gasses. CO2 comes from other sources besides humans. They contribute less than that 1%

And again, we'll point out that Nitrogen, 79% component of the atmosphere has next to zero thermal retention value. So you can keep throwing the <1% pointer but it won't aid your argument, merely show again how ignorant you are.

Quote by: xyzer Answer my question with specific evidence? Not an outdated IPCC report. Quit ducking truth.

Xyzer, you've been ducking the truth and facts for the past 18 months. I've always addressed your posts almost point to point. However, the same can't be said of yourself.

For example, just a few posts prior, you posted this. Of course, once we looked at the source of that article, we find it's from a website with no association to NASA and nor do their supposed scientific paper appear in any official journals.
You said, and I quote;

Quote by: xyzer Could it be that natural causes(as NASA thinks) have a much more important influence of climate change?

Yet I cannot actually find real evidence to support this claim you have here.

Of course, you've skipped over this, just like how you skipped over many of points that I've questioned over the past 18 months.

[Deadeye]

Global Warming has become a political debate and not so much a scientific one.

But if there is Global Warming; even if it's man made; the destruction of the American economy, and/or capitalism will not effect it one way or the other.

In my view most who support man made global warming also support the demise of the US as we know it today. For that reason alone I'm not a supporter of the theory.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Pooeypants The real question is, do you know what it means? And do you have any evidence to suggest that solar activity has increased in the past few decades to account for the warming? Which cooling trend? Based on what data? And how long is this cooling trend? We've already explained what happened in the 1940s to 60s and why we're getting the read outs for this decade so far. No, I've given you the answer but you're refusing to acknowledge them. You are trolling. Again, let's blame it on your selective blindness and amnesia, at least then you have an excuse... The past 20 years is where we have the most accurate satellite data. Surely you knew that already? You said that there's a cooling trend so surely we'd see an actual decline below the 20 year average of most accurate measurements? Else how can you know it's a cooling trend? Oh wait, premature conclusion!Says the man that's extrapolated a cooling trend from a few years of data! You have proposed a hypothesis, care to put some effort to support it with evidence? But here's a graph Source You can't draw a trend line till you've got at least a decade of data, the variability (aka weather) is just too great most of the time. You'll note that 1998 has an anomalous spike which can be attributed to very strong El Nino activity. My guess is, you're going to skim over what's been said and ask the same question in the next post. Because that's all you can do; you lack any form of scientific credibility.

You have just proven that the temperature of the Globe fluxuates. We all know this. It has been in a state of flux since the place was formed about 4.5 billion years ago.

The fact is the temperature of the Globe, no matter what we do will stay in a state of flux. It's equally factual that the state of that fluxuation has nothing to do with me driving my car, or heating my house, or snubbing out my cigarette.

[Century 25]

El Nino.. check it out: Climate Prediction Center - ENSO FAQ

and: National Weather Service - NWS Flagstaff

"Jet streams off track, may affect weather patterns"

From: "Science" & climate scientist Qiang Fu:

"Seattle researchers have discovered that warming of the Earth's atmosphere seems to be shoving jet streams out of their normal tracks — a change that could expand deserts and profoundly affect the world's weather patterns.

Over the past 27 years, the high-speed air currents that steer storms to temperate zones in both hemispheres have shifted about one degree toward the poles, or about 70 miles, scientists estimate in a paper published today in the journal Science.

"This gives direct, observational evidence of massive atmospheric circulation changes," said University of Washington climate scientist Qiang Fu, (the paper's lead author.)

Look at what el nino did for Baghdad this past January, lol:

For the first time in living memory: Of All Things in Baghdad, Snow - The Lede - Breaking News - New York Times Blog

Here in Phoenix we have a similar climate.. as Phoenix is among the hottest cities in the world.. a desert (it's a.. ha-ha, "dry heat") that gets to the 120F + range at times.. (50C or so) and 110F is not a big deal. I have never seen any snow here, at Tucson it is rare, Yuma also gets none.. Yuma may pass a year without rain.. we get only a few inches.. I use an oven thermometer for getting the backyard temp, because shade is a precious commodity around here.. and much of the time your body will be exposed to "sun temp" heat loads.. and that is about 155F to 170F You cannot pick up exposed metal items.. or fall off bike in the street.. without chance of 2nd (even 3rd) degree burns..

However.. this last week.. it was like the old saying: "it will be a cold day in hell" - it happened to us. We had several 100F + days, it was 111F on Monday & Tuesday.. but by Thursday a huge trough in the jet stream came plunging down (never happened before this far into "summer" ) - and we had a couple of "chilly" days.. only in 70's..!!!! Let me tell you, that is freak weather..!! I never saw before, or even old people around Phoenix..

The el nino has deflected the jet stream off it's normal pattern(s) - the entire earth is feeling this warming. It is causing anomalies that may cause some to (mistakenly) believe we are cooling, not warming. But, we surely are warming. And drier, even in the deserts.. drier than average. We have more nights that never drop below 90F.. even at mid-night it may be over 100F here..

.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Deadeye You have just proven that the temperature of the Globe fluxuates. We all know this. It has been in a state of flux since the place was formed about 4.5 billion years ago. The fact is the temperature of the Globe, no matter what we do will stay in a state of flux. It's equally factual that the state of that fluxuation has nothing to do with me driving my car, or heating my house, or snubbing out my cigarette.

I didn't prove anything, science does not do proofs, except for in theoretical science of pure mathematics.
Once again, I'll use this analogy; you're trying to say that just because cancer occurs naturally in humans (ever since the dawn of time, so to speak), that we can't do anything to increase their occurrence. Obviously, this is flawed thinking...

[xyzer]

I invite you, particularly Pooey the believer, to visit this site.Ocean Surface Topography from Space-Science

This contains actual data plus a scientifally based prediction that the PDO has large control over global temps(translated to global climate) It just so happens there is a measured cooling trend and science is looking into the PDO and ocean currents as the cause of climate variation. They now predict a cooling phase in spite of CO2 influence?

It turns out Pooey, who still dwells on pre 2000 predictions based on correlations with CO2 and climate change may have hooked his evidence on the wrong outmoded theory?. He has forgotten the scientific axiom, "correlation is not necessarily causation"?

An example? He is still fussing over a near record decade of global warming and its so called evidence of human driven global warming.

A drift in the average temperature does not automatically mean a cooling trend. All you've got so far in an attempt to support your argument is a graph drawn with 1998 as the benchmark point

Hey Pooey, wake up! There is new evidence(actual evidence) that its begun to cool in the last decade and He probaly wont even read the reference I posted because his juvenile mentality might reveal that he is afraid to have been wrong about the concoction that anthopogenic CO2 increases have set us on an uninterruptable course to increasing warming? He infers nothing can stop it but reductions in human carbon energy use?