So, not even one of Germnay’s chief environmentalists with a Ph.D. in chemistry, working in renewable energy is good enough?
Of course, imediately you go to “debate generic denier” and link to a supposed answer to a miniscule part of the article.
The misleading graph your link shows a short term cooling trend from 02 to11 (it’s misleading because it counters a non-existing position).
Your very own link (which in no way deals with the heart of the article) says that there’s been a cooling trend (not even starting from the 1998). Of course it shows the 40-year warming trend. If you disagree with your own pet website
Of course, no mention of the real allegations, made by a respected member of the environmental and scientific community. I do hope your answers, if any, don’t start with “he’s a denier”.
No catastrophe (He doesn’t say no warming, before you try to counter that and not the real stuff).
The long version of the IPCC report does mention natural causes of climate change, like the sun and oscillating ocean currents. But they no longer appear in the summary for politicians. They were simply edited out.
The importance of the sun for the climate is systematically underestimated, and the importance of CO2 is systematically overestimated.
There are two effects: the declining solar activity, as well as the fluctuations in ocean currents, such as the 60-year Pacific oscillation, which was in a positive warm phase from 1977 to 2000 and, since 2000, has led to cooling as a result of its decline. Their contribution to the change in temperature has also been wrongly attributed to CO2.
They [IPCC lead authors] claim that they are using 18,000 publications evaluated by their peers. But 5,000 of them are so-called gray literature, which are not peer-reviewed sources [my bolding]
In addition to carbon dioxide, we also have black soot, for example. It creates 55 percent of the warming effect of CO2
These mistakes come out in the end, just like the absurd claim that there will no longer be any glaciers in the Himalayas in 30 years.
No, because he is not an expert on this and he needs to publish to show how wrong others are, an interview just only shows his opinion, nothing else.
Of course, as if we needed any more evidence, this shows that you are not capable of noticing who is misleading. As pointed out before independent statisticians reported already that it is dishonest to claim there is no warming trend going on.
And as you only go then to just killing the messenger points, it remains that you are just resorting to illogical rhetoric to make your sorry points. And the rest is dismissed as it has been dealt before and it is just more evidence of the unreliability of your latest “champion”
Moot point as always, the point here is that you may sound that you are doing something useful, but in context it is just wasting time.
The fact that paint will dry is not the issue :), and I would not be surprised that the people at Velspar and Sherwin Williams have researchers watching it dry, the point is that for practical purposes and the evidence at hand, it is unlikely that we will find paint that will take longer to dry from the rates of the speed of dryness that they have found before.
So, as there is no request from you and others to stop and do nothing, what you request here is just academic, and useless for any planning purposes, and useless for the matter at hand, and the worst thing is that the testing was done and it is made constantly by the experts, and still they tell you that it would be silly to claim that it has stopped warming or expect a different result as even independent statisticians told us already what there a warming trend.
As you are not demanding that the efforts to do something about it should stop your contributions here so far are indeed of the watching paint variety.
You are becoming extremely tiresome. You are no better than someone who links to nothing but articles in the Daily Mail. You don’t seem to understand that Skeptical Science is nothing more than a very biased source providing a very one sided view on the actual data. Do you ever read read anything written by actual scientists or do you just limit yourself to bloggers?
I didn’t request anything here. What an odd thing for you to say.
Oh, I wouldn’t dream of quibbling with someone who figures the next six or seven years will likely be like the last thirteen or fourteen; rather the opposite.
That you are trying to make me an equivalent of them is just a shooting the messenger fallacy.
The fact that you are ignoring that on Skeptical Science and others I cite do link to the published science is telling us something else alright. I do not expect others to be lazy or assume that they will not look or check at the links.
“He’s not an expert on this” is ad hominem at its finest. Is Cook? Dana1981? Painting ? Bailey? Wight? Way? Andy S? Jokimäki ? Tamblyn ? Riccardo? Blackburn? sweet ? King? (The skeptical science team)
No comments on the points. Why do you participate in GW threads if you’re always “it’s been discussed”.
Perhaps this graph will help clarify what is meant by short periods being insignificant. The 12 month mean suggests cooling, while the 60 month mean shows little warming in recent years (due to three La Ninas and just one El Nino from 2008-2011) and the 132 month mean shows continued warming at the same rate as recent decades - as you use longer periods, fluctuations are smoothed out. Notice that even the 132 month mean shows slight fluctuations, such as a few years back when 1998 fell out the 11-year average and the cooling in 2008 came in - but it continued to rise afterwards. But even the 12 month mean suggests continued warming to me, just by looking at the peaks and troughs; e.g. compare the dips in 2000 to 2008 and now.
Also, see this link: The Real Global Warming Signal, which removes the influence of natural cycles like ENSO and solar; the result shows warming so obvious that there isn’t any need at all to use longer time periods to average out noise (there are still some remaining year-year fluctuations, but mostly less than 0.05°C, within measurement error).
Er, no, that doesn’t clarify it at all. If you mention that a given period is too short to be significant, the obvious clarification would involve mentioning what period would be long enough to be significant. If you start off with “ten or fifteen years aren’t enough,” you can follow up with a quick “but twenty or thirty would be.”
When you merely note that a different trend shows up over a longer period, you’re not actually telling me how long a period has to be for you to see it as significant.
Not an ad hominem, you are misrepresinting always what I do, I do always look at the link, and once an item that a denier has brought forward hundreds of times is noticed is that then one can safely ignore the rest, what you posted later showed that it was the correct approach, as Feynman could tell you:
(“Seeking New Laws”, page 161 in The Character of Physical Law.)
No, it is not my problem that in the end you usually throw your “champions” under the bus once they are found to be just reheating baloney that is not even theirs.
Actual scientists? You mean like the ones mentioned here?
Most scientists, especially when it comes to politics, are also reluctant to admit to worst-case scenarios; it is well known that the IPCC report was intentionally watered down (and it considered very outdated now, such is the advancement in the science since 2007).
That is very clearly evident on this daily global temperature map; note the extreme warmth in the Arctic, over 20°C above average* (and much warmer than most of Asia in absolute temperature…), which also happens to be just where record low ice cover exists over the Barents and Kara seas.
*That isn’t just something that has existed recently either, I regularly look at that map and it has been like that for months now, even before the cold in Europe, so it isn’t due to a simple weather pattern of cold air leaving the Arctic and it happened last winter too, and the winter before, etc, such that they now call it the “warm Arctic cold continents pattern”:
No, a longer averaging period just brings the trend out by smoothing out noise, it doesn’t change the underlying trend at all. What about the second link I posted, which shows the same thing but with natural influences removed, leaving a nearly continuously increasing trend.
Again, this doesn’t actually tell me how long a period has to be before it becomes significant by “smoothing out noise”; it tells me why you think a longer period would be significant, but not what you mean by “longer”. Would, say, twenty years without warming be long enough, or would short-term “noise” still drown out significance?
What about it? If the topic is “how long a period has to be before it becomes significant”, then it’s exactly as irrelevant as the first link.
If the topic is “sure, the temperature hasn’t increased in the ‘short period’ of these last fourteen years, but here’s why it’s gotten cooler and may never get any warmer,” then I suppose it’d be relevant – but that’s not the point you seemed to be interested in clarifying.
1)Yes to the ad hominen. If you simply say “he’s a denier” it’s an ad hominen, and then you look for one thing to say you’ve solved the problem and no more reading is necessary. Maybe he split an infinitive,
2)No answer to the “there’s no cooling” even though your own link from your gods at sceptical science? I want to make sure you get it: The link you providedhas a chart that shows a cooling trend for the last 9 years. Is the chart wrong? Are the NOAA data wrong?
You are misrepresenting your very own link (on the specific topic of a cooling trend in the last 9-10 years).
Your “gods” at skeptical science, they aren’t experts, are they? Why do you ignore them? Are you afraid we’ll find out they aren’t the calibre experts you want them to be? Why don’t you defend them? Do you vouch for any of them?
4)Who have I thrown under the bus? (Plese, oh please, don’t say Monckton; that’d show you weren’t paying attention or that you have a crush on him). Also, you said “usually” so that’s mean more than 50% of the time. Can you show this to be true? I say it is false and you know it is false.
Let’s see how you nitpick my post and escape the real debate by finding a spelling mistake.
(This is from your playbook) I won’t answer to skeptical science link until you prove they are experts and accept that similary quealified people are also experts.
Hey no problem, he is a denier. You are actually acting like if he is not, the reality is that even before the BEST review this evidence on the current warming is one of the most basic ones to say that there is a problem, now unless you want to admit that what you said early “that there is a problem” you need to toss this guy under the bus like you did all others that you attached your trust before.
And so the rest or your fallacies can be ignored. It is really you who is resorting to childish behavior in an attempt to put down others, it won’t work.
Incidentally yes, it is really silly to pretend you did not had to toss down the others you pushed before; as mentioned, claiming that you do think that there is a problem should lead you to continue forward with how to deal with the issue, **not to go back to sources that discredit themselves when they still ignore what science says.
**
“now unless you want to admit that what you said early “that there is a problem” you need to toss this guy under the bus like you did all others that you attached your trust before.”
What I wanted to say is that you said early that you agree that “there is a problem” you need to toss this guy under the bus like you did with all others that you attached your trust before; because really, one can not get a better reason to do so than seeing someone that should know better not caring at all that he will be “discredited for lying with statistics.”
Again ignoring the central issue. Commended for sticking to guns.
By changing to a different link I imagine that you have accepted that our very own link showed cooling in the last 9-10 years. So which one is right? the first or the second link? Interestingly both say basically the same thing, i.e. general warming trend in the last 4 decades and a slight cooling/levelling in the last decade.
Do you understand the difference between “cooling trend” (as described in YOUR OWN link and “global warming stopped”?
No answer to 3, so it means your gods at SkS are not experts.
You didn’t answet to 4, that means you accept that you were not telling the truth by saying I usually throw my “champions” under the bus .
How can I believe in your links if you don’t vouch for your gods? Are they experts? All, some, none of them?
Not my problem that you miss the point, but others already see what you are doing. only a shrinking number of irrelevant scientists are willing to be discredited making statements claiming that warming has stopped or that it is cooling, like the one that you are still defending here.
Does that work in real life?
I mean, backing away every time you are confronted with evidence?
Because you fail to respond even to your own links, which show you are being untruthful. I’m defending our link.
That means that every time you say there is no cooling trend you are contradicting NOAA.
