These are of course, a smaller 10 year subset of the 25 year graphs you used in your earlier post. The point that the 2002-2012 has not seen as much warming as the years around only means that it is easy to limit data to say what you want. It is adding in more data, rather than limiting it, that gets you to the truth.
Plus, there are many places for the increasing heat energy to accumulate that is not reflected in surface temperatures. These have all been gone over in this thread, but if you are genuinely curious about how they work, it’s not that hard to understand if you are willing to put in a bit of work.
previewed to add…
Those science papers you linked to, you should read them, not only are they chock full of facts, they don’t evenly remotely support your position. They don’t contradict global warming, but rather acknowledge it, and use it to explain why the climate is changing in such a way that some areas are cooling and will see more snow. Did you actually read and understand the papers? Do you understand that they are not challenging any of the fundamental theories behind greenhouse gas induced warming? That they are only adding to the bulk of data about the phenomena we are creating with our changing climate?
…you didn’t say you were being serious, maybe you are still trying to be humorous?
Nah. Only thing that’s getting old is your scientific illiteracy.
You know what’s sad? Given your posting history, literally nobody on this entire forum would have a damned clue whether or not you’re serious until you explained it down-post. Because that’s how dumb you are.
For someone with such a - shall we call it “differentiated”? - sense of humor, you sure are bad at recognizing obvious hyperbole for a humorous point about how much of a fucking retard you are. Of course, the fact is that if you fell for Climategate, it’s entirely believable that you’d buy into the “global cooling in the 70s” myth, and it’s entirely possible that you’re a complete fucking idiot. One of these two statements has been established as fact.
Would you mind defining what you mean by the phrase “global warming”?
Is it simply an increase in global surface temperatures, regardless of the time period, regardless of the rate, and regardless of the causes? Or does it mean something else?
It’s my understanding that most people mean “global warming” as the increase of the Earth’s temperature over what it would be, due to the amount of carbon we’re putting into the air.
This is a complex issue, of course, because the Earth’s temperature varies naturally for a bunch of reasons.
More warmist bullshit, which is so regular, so predictable, so fucking boring.
I defined both the pop culture “global warming” as well as the “AGW theory”, or “the theory of enhanced greenhouse effect climate change”, which is the basis of models that predict global warming. In this thread.
The thing is, a lot of people use both with out actually knowing what they are talking about. The fact that you can’t simply define your terms, it makes you look like a tool.
No, and that is just more nonsense. Anyone who makes pseudo-scientific claims is, by definition, promoting pseudo-scientific nonsense. It doesn’t even take an expert to see that if the claim is straight up and clear, and the data supports the claim, (or rather, the data actually makes the case), then anyone arguing against the data is not being scientific, or even rational about it.
When speaking about trends in hurricanes, and pointing out that Al Gore was full of it, and the predictions about monster storms and bigger hurricanes becoming the "new normal" turned out to be wrong, then pointing at the data for the time period under discussion is quite scientific. It would be in fact, the very thing to look at. If "global warming" was to cause stronger, more intense, more numerous hurricanes, or any other claim, then looking at the temperature data is simply a rational and scientific thing to do.
If the data showed the same rate of warming as was measured in the years leading up to the predictions about monster storms, then it is reasonable to say warming didn't lead to worse hurricanes. (or tornadoes, as the link in the OP discusses)
But if the global average temperature actually went down (speaking of a trend, certainly some years were very warm), then it's a different story. Asking why global warming didn't lead to an increase in storms, when there wasn't warming, that is another question. If the trend was down (and it is, since 2002), or flat (it is, since 1998), or statistically flat (it is since 1995), then the answer to "what happened/" might be, the warming stalled. That's why storms didn't increase. or some other answer.
It's exactly why I brought up the recent trends. Over the long term, the trend is warming, even if we see an 12 year slight decrease, the long term trend is still warming. But in regards to storms, you have to actually consider the climate (or global temp average), as well as the SSTs, for the years in question. Of course it's far more complicated than the simplistic nonsense some people try to pass off as science. "More heat = worse storms" isn't even close to science. Nor is "more heat=more moisture=bigger hurricanes", That shows a remarkable lack of understanding, and it's quite right to point this out.
I don’t believe you for a second. In fact, if I posted links to a dozen topics in the last year that talked about climategate, it wouldn’t change anything in your mind at all. Which is why you are fucked in the head. It’s really that simple. Just like how GIGOgalloper runs away when he can’t copy and paste from a blog somewhere.
So in this imaginary world of global warming, no matter what is observed, it just supports global warming. And you wonder why people want to know what you mean by “global warming”?
Once again, even when the predictions are for less snow, when we observe more snow, that is also “global warming”. And the warmistas don’t get how they sound.
Priceless.
yes, the one you read all the time, but ran off from when you couldn’t answer the questions at hand.
In essence the real problem with the enhanced greenhouse theory (global warming) is in the predictions made by the theory. These involve many things, but the key ones are usually the big stumbling block.
On it’s own, the calculations for doubling CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm (the numbers are fluid, it could be 280 to 560 ppm) is one degree C warming.
If that was all there was to it, not much drama at all.
It’s the theoretical parts that are the real drama, and when somebody refuses to discuss them, or worse, doesn’t seem to know about them, or even worse, says there is no fucking theory at all, that’s when it gets fucked up.
Oh, just for the record, FX…you’re holding pretty steady at 37.8%. I can’t say it’s a record for a thread of this size, but I’d be willing to put odds on it. Well done!
Well, assuming they weren’t all started by you, it would change one thing: my opinion of the average poster on this forum. Please, by all means, inform us - which emails, exactly, present any sort of subterfuge, fraud, or collusion, and why have no less than 7 independent reviews by major scientific bodies both in the US and abroad decided that those things didn’t actually happen?