Global mean, land and sea combined
Cold season for NH
if that doesn’t look like it’s going up, you would be correct
I think you really need to stop following what FX claims, that only does leads to accepting flack from his explosions.
Once again, he was wrong on telling you that I was using Skeptical Science to debunk Shaviv, what is it clear that the objective is to find an easy way out to not deal with the fact that FX linked to real denialist sources like senator Inhofe and he in turn was using a researcher that has been debunked many times already.
Piffle, I did it before in another thread, the same one where you willfully ignored that the basis for the famous Skeptical Science escalator graph came from woodfortrees.org
I’m sure it’s just a “coincidence” that you used the same term, in “quotes”, as skepticalscience did when mentioning Shaviv.
Like Nixon with his “enemies list”, the alarmists movement keeps a list of who they consider the enemy.
Type in Shaviv into the skepticalscience app. Watch what happens.
Keep just attacking the poster, it is not me the one that will get into trouble.
Don’t tell people what to do or think. it’s a debate. You need to present evidence, use logic and reason, use your mind.
Just a copy and paste of what somebody else has done, using other people work, rather than you thinking, that isn’t going to help you win anything. It certainly isn’t going to help you against me.
Gentlemen-
If the personal animosity doesn’t stop right now there’ll be warnings and a thread closure.
Is that clear?
So, what you are saying here Jonathan is, um, to cool it because things have been heating up? 
In regards to the solar sidetrack, in which it is claimed the sun isn’t the cause of the recent warming, there is a huge irony in this.
Because it hasn’t been warming for 17 years now.
So on the one hand we hear “the sun isn’t the cause of the warming”, because the solar influence is going down, while the temperatures are going up.
Except the temperatures are not going up. That is the hilarious part.
The warmist just “knows” it is still warming, and the sun is cooling, so they can’t be connected.
But when you look at the actual reality, the temperatures are not increasing. In fact, they are slightly down.
How ironic is that?
Jonathan Chance - I’m wondering if you caught this? I for one concur with RaftPeople, I’d like to have a Great Debate thread free of this “Eliza” programming. I caused myself physical pain because I fell out of my chair laughing at FX having a “quotation war” with a robot. Seriously though, wouldn’t using an app to create automated responses violate the “Good Faith” requirements of the particular board?
It has been warming. This has been points out many times before, in reality just calling researchers warmists continues to be a very silly thing.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20140121/
And the trend is very clear.
While I agree with you, I think it’s a tough call to make. But if one reads through a few of the threads I think they can see how often his responses with walls of cites don’t really answer address what he was responding to. The frustration is NOT to disagreement—hell, there’ve been times I was basically agreeing with him, but I guess some word or phrasing in my post pinged Eliza and then it’s straight downhill.Now that we know the why of this, I do think that the board should announce a policy that doesn’t allow it. Even so, though, enforcing it I guess is next to impossible.
Hey, GIGO. How about coding you and everyone else a favor and just voluntarily trying to have more of a conversation. Something more like a tennis match than your version of Whack-A-Mole, where any disagreement that pops up MUST BE DEMOLISHED TO OBLIVION? Seriously. I think you might even enjoy it more. And it certainly would get more people to digest what you have to say. Just a thought.
:sigh:
It is really hard to take **watchwolf49 **and **magellan01 **seriously as there has been no acknowledgement that I did not use Skeptical Science to debunk Shaviv.
You really need to complain to another poster.
Has the world actually been cooling since 2002? Yes/no/who cares–this has been answered long ago.
The IMPLICATION to the OP's post is that (yawn) AGW is a fiction, etc. And that implication pushes a highly improbable premise into the "probable", tacitly assuming it's worth everyone's valuable time.
The world's scientific bodies (no, I'm not going to reference this) have decided with a ca 90-95% confidence interval that AGW is a reality. Summary risk analysis follows (probability of the event multiplied by its cost--a cost which isn't trivial (and no, I'm not going to reference this)), and makes AGW an actionable problem. To put their conclusions in question allows the OP (yes, wiggle room--through that "implication") to raise the highly improbable (the world's scientists in the back pockets of the liberals, conspiracies about liberals wanting big govt's everywhere, etc.) to the "probable", a premise for which he/she is almost entirely responsible for assuming the burden of proof (as with statements like "The sky is falling.").
Society runs on a division of labor, in this context a hierarchy of expertise on GW. I don't ask my car mechanic for legal advice, and I don't see the OP questionning whether it's electrons or tiny little ghosts that run the IC's that make his/her computer work. This takes what we admire as healthy skepticism and raises it to ridiculous levels, a probability manipulation that if the "other side" (to the OP) were to even approach, it would easily warrant all kinds of action to address and curb AGW TODAY, right now, immediately.
The insidious division point is contained on the first pages of this debate: OP's (and others') premise that the world scientific bodies are wrong. The minute people (and very intelligent ones I might add) jump in and accept this as a debatable point, without the OP humbly, immediately, convincingly taking on the lion's share of proof, is the minute they begin wasting their valuable time.Uqbar: very nicely said, thank you.
:o It’s the Dope. GD, yet. Of course we’re wasting our valuable time, and we’ll debate anything! We’re Dope Addicts!
But you assured us here that solar influence is positively absolutely NOT going down; in fact, that such an assertion was tantamount to “willful ignorance”. You were wrong but it’s interesting that your claims aren’t even consistent.
The bottom line here is that it’s the science that matters, like the statement from the National Academy NRC here, similar statements from the IPCC that I quoted elsewhere, or the radiative forcings chart that I also linked elsewhere. The NRC doesn’t even consider the issue controversial. What does NOT matter is random editorials in right-wing tabloids with a history of denialism, or the blog of a lunatic denialist senator who is one of the most flagrant scientific illiterates in existence. It’s astounding that anyone would consider such stuff even remotely credible. What else is there to say?
Oh you now already what they are saying wolfpup :), just the usual, they will talk about a poster and not about the debunking that was done many times before. Not my problem.
And thank you Uqbar. 
I see that you also noticed that the ongoing theme from the OP is that climate scientists are doing bad science, unwarranted doubt as well as outright rejection of what the organizations that search and collect the data are telling us is the idea here.
I know it’s going to be a battle, but still I will try to answer the rambling points, that I think are being made. It really is unclear, and for a good reason.
No, and that isn’t an answer either. You just handwaved the entire debate away in your first line. Claiming something isn’t important is not the same as winning the debate. It doesn’t work like that.
You are wrong, and clearly you didn’t actually read the OP, much less some of the other points that came up later.
I clearly stated up front that the data shows what has happened. And that “It is clear from looking at the GISS data that the cooling NH cold season, and especially the winter, is the reason the global mean is negative for a trend.” Most people just can’t grasp what that means.
In later posts I pointed to the summer trends, which are still going up. So that in essence, we are seeing warming for most of the year, with an extreme cold season trend, that is actually so negative, it causes the annual trend to seem negative. This is a complete surprise, no model predicted it, and the greenhouse theory does not predict this sort of climate change.
And it is CLIMATE CHANGE, which is the scientific term for the climate changing. Global warming is not a scientific term, nor does it apply to what we are seeing for at least the last 17 years. The cooling trend for the boreal winters goes back EVEN FARTHER than that. These are facts. They actually matter.
Again, no model predicted it, and it’s difficult to even run a model to explain it, not that there isn’t a lot of effort going into this at the moment. Butr it does not match CO2 theory, something else is going on.
I’ve quoted and linked multiple peer reviwed scientific papers explaining both why we know things, and their ideas about explaining it. Hell, the OP starts off with a paper from Nature no less. The data is linked to, you can verify everything. The proof ios in the OP, as well as links so you can check. Every bit of it.
Horseshit. You missed the basic message, and now are arguing with your own creation. I never said any of that. In fact, if this trend is going to continue, it is very important to know. Cold is much more deadly than warm. And expensive as well.
More horseshit. It’s not so much that they “are” wrong, it’s that they were wrong. You probably don’t realize the number of papers that have appeared for the last five years about the winters, the much colder winters. Certainly there appears to be a united front that warming hasn’t stopped, the models are right, it’s just that something else happend and … yadda yadda yadda … the models are right and it is warming and … yadda yadda yadda
In science, people will be wrong. That;s how science works, how new things are discovered. If this entire “warming” thing wasn’t a political football, this would be a boring debate over climate trends and how we measure them.
But what you missed, is that the entire issue sits upon actual data, evidence, lots of evidence. If “the world scientific bodies” are ignoring what is actually happening, clinging to their old models, making excuses and playing games with data presentation, we will know. It’s no mystery, both the data, as well as what people have predicted, none of it is a mystery. It is possible to know who is right. And it doesn’t depend on me at all. Or on you.
That’s how real SCIENCE works, it’s not up to opinion, it doesn’t deoend on a person to be able to know the truth about your world.
It’s not like anyone has a choice. If there was no data, no evidence, no way to look and see, this entire thing might be a matter of opinion.
But here’s the thing. Everything in the OP is true. And anyone can check and see if this is so.
That’s a scientific way of going about things.