How global warming works, in 35 words, or 52 seconds

Jan 06, 2014

Earth transforms sunlight's visible light energy into infrared light energy, which leaves Earth slowly because it is absorbed by greenhouse gases. When people produce greenhouse gases, energy leaves Earth even more slowly – raising Earth's temperature.

And that, in an ultra-brief nutshell, is how works.

This 35-word description can be a powerful tool in helping people understand the science behind global warming and climate change, said GSE Professor Michael Ranney, a cognitive psychologist. Global climate change seems urgent, given that it was just announced that November was the 345th straight month with temperatures above the 20th-century average.

Ranney's research focuses on the nature of explanation and understanding in both formal and informal settings. Along with GSE student Lee Nevo Lamprey, undergraduate Kimberly Le, other students (e.g., Myles Crain) and other collaborators (e.g., Lloyd Goldwasser, Rachel Ranney, and Chemistry's Prof. Ronald Cohen, among many others), he has been looking at how much people understand global warming – and with brief explanations of the phenomenon – how that understanding changes.

In their paper, "Changing Global Warming Beliefs with Scientific Information: Knowledge, Attitudes, and RTMD (Reinforced Theistic Manifest Destiny Theory)," Ranney and his co-authors – Dav Clark, Daniel Reinholz and Sarah Cohen – surveyed 270 people in San Diego to find out what they knew (or didn't know) about global warming. Not a single person could explain it correctly at even the basic level, he said.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

The researchers developed a 400-word explanation – including the 35 words from above – as well as a series of videos (ranging from 52 seconds to 4 minutes and 45 seconds) to explain how global warming works. Within four days after the videos were launched, the videos had more than 35,000 site-views.

Interestingly, for California and Texas undergraduates, who had little to no knowledge of why the Earth's temperature is rising, reading the 400-word explanation increased not only the students' understanding of global warming, but also their acceptance that it's actually occurring. Such effects have since been replicated with other groups (e.g., Clark, Ranney, & Felipe, 2013, with high-school students, etc.), including a more nationally representative sample of adults. Clark and Ranney have also recently found that even a handful of critically germane statistics (e.g., seven of them) can significantly yield attitudes and concerns that are more in keeping with accepted climate science.

To boost the website's reach, the videos are being translated into some ubiquitous non-English languages. Lamprey, Le, and other students, along with Ranney, will also be analyzing the site's "naturalistic" data to better hypothesize about which videos are most informative and satisfying.

Ranney's Reasoning Group also plans to run controlled experiments to more diagnostically determine which of the videos' elements are most effective. (One can't necessarily fully tell which video is more effective for one's self, as one is hardly naïve when viewing a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th video.) Ranney's RTMD theory, which has a good deal of empirical evidence – and inspired the 400-word explanation and the videos – is itself also slated for more experimental assessment.

400-Word Explanation

How does climate change ("global warming") work? The mechanism of the greenhouse effect

[Or: "Why do some gases concern scientists – like carbon dioxide (CO2) – but not others, like oxygen?"]

Scientists tell us that human activities are changing Earth's atmosphere and increasing Earth's average temperature. What causes these climate changes?

First, let's understand Earth's "normal" temperature: When Earth absorbs sunlight, which is mostly visible light, it heats up. Like the sun, Earth emits energy – but because it is cooler than the sun, Earth emits lower-energy infrared wavelengths. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (methane, carbon dioxide, etc.) let visible light pass through, but absorb infrared light – causing the atmosphere to heat up. The warmer atmosphere emits more infrared light, which tends to be re-absorbed – perhaps many times – before the energy eventually returns to space. The extra time this energy hangs around has helped keep Earth warm enough to support life as we know it. (In contrast, the moon has no atmosphere, and it is colder than Earth, on average.)

Since the industrial age began around the year 1750, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 40% and methane has increased by 150%. Such increases cause extra infrared light absorption, further heating Earth above its typical temperature range (even as energy from the sun stays basically the same). In other words, energy that gets to Earth has an even harder time leaving it, causing Earth's average temperature to increase – producing .

[In molecular detail, greenhouse gases absorb infrared light because their molecules can vibrate to produce asymmetric distributions of electric charge, which match the energy levels of various infrared wavelengths. In contrast, non-greenhouse gases (such as oxygen and nitrogen – that is, O2 and N2) don't absorb infrared light, because they have symmetric charge distributions even when vibrating.]

Summary: (a) Earth absorbs most of the sunlight it receives; (b) Earth then emits the absorbed light's energy as infrared light; (c) greenhouse gases absorb a lot of the infrared light before it can leave our atmosphere; (d) being absorbed slows the rate at which energy escapes to space; and (e) the slower passage of energy heats up the atmosphere, water, and ground. By increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, humans are increasing the atmosphere's absorption of infrared light, thereby warming Earth and disrupting global climate patterns.

Shorter summary: Earth transforms sunlight's visible light energy into energy, which leaves Earth slowly because it is absorbed by greenhouse gases. When people produce , energy leaves Earth even more slowly – raising Earth's temperature.

Explore further: Geoengineering approaches to reduce climate change unlikely to succeed, study says

More information: See the entire set of videos at www.howglobalwarmingworks.org/

Read the full research paper: hamschank.com/convinceme/downl… yEtAl-CogSci2012.pdf

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Feds allows logging after huge California wildfire

8 hours ago

The U.S. Forest Service has decided to allow logging on nearly 52 square miles of the Sierra Nevada burned last year in a massive California wildfire, a move contested by environmentalists.

User comments : 102

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

BrianBoston
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 06, 2014
It's that simple, is it? Hold on a minute.

Not all incoming light will be uniformly transformed to infrared light, especially if we re-green the earth's surfaces by increasing plant growth and photosynthesis. We have a responsibility to reverse trends like deforestation, desertification and industrial agriculture that turn soils bare and barren, and by taking carbon out of the atmosphere and building it into soil we will be solving multiple problems and restoring living systems.
deatopmg
2.2 / 5 (17) Jan 06, 2014
Sounds like that's how it should work and that's how the models were written, but ALL of them have failed to predict the warming "hiatus" of the past 10 to 17 yrs (depending on whose measurements are used). And some of the most important tenets of GHG theory have never been confirmed because the measurements show NO temp change as required by GHG theory. Therefore, GHG theory as written = fail as confirmed by all the models.

No consideration or even understanding in the GHG theory that the global temperature control is, in part, an autonomic negative feedback system that increases Earths albedo in the tropics when the solar energy input increases ocean water temp beyond a narrow range. In addition, the high albedo clouds transport water vapor to the top of the atmosphere where the heat of evaporation is released and transported into space. This self regulating system limits the ocean temperature to a maximum of 88 - 90°F in spite of any increases in GHG's in the atmosphere.
Scroofinator
2.1 / 5 (13) Jan 06, 2014
Climate change seems to be the more accurate term to me. North America has seen some wild weather over the past few years, not to mention the current deep freeze that is going on. Has man played a hand in this change, yes, are we the main culprit, probably not. Mother nature emits enough emissions through forest fires, volcanism, ice melt, permafrost unthawing, etc... Core drilling samples show that typically every 10-12k years there is a major ice age, are we just at the front end of it?
runrig
3.8 / 5 (16) Jan 06, 2014
Fantastic Deaty…
You've managed to regurgitate several denialist myths there is 2 paras of bollocks.

which is all hand-waving and meaningless except to the converted my friend.
Papers concerning or at least references please.
What's special that there should be some "auto" control at 88/90F?
You do know that GCMs via ensembles can only predict a range of temp. Do have a look eh?
Heard of climate cycles? – PDO/ENSO gives around +/-0.2C to/from a Nina & Nino. What have we had since '05?
You expect a constant/unvarying trend do you?
GHG theory does not require that natural climate cycles stop to suite your interpretation of it.
The equation is simple my friend – Climate is balanced by SW absorbed vs LWIR emitted. And that's out of balance. Albedo isn't (it's measured).

Cont

Modernmystic
3.5 / 5 (15) Jan 06, 2014
People understand this at varying degrees of consciousness. It's really not that they don't. They can't allow themselves to accept it, because that would mean they then have to deal with what they know to be the crazy policies being put forth to combat it. It's a preemptive mechanism about a policy fight.

Change the conversation about policy and you will have a MUCH easier time with people denying the sky is blue and insisting CO2 doesn't trap IR heat...
runrig
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 06, 2014
Cont

Oh, ever thought about the wet bits that cover 71% of the planet?
If you had, and bothered to look, you would see energy pouring into it. You wont see it in Deg Celsius as 1C in the atm is only 0.00025C in Oceans – go look up volumetric specific heat.

http://skepticals...php?g=65

The upper Troposphere is very dry and the Stratosphere exceedingly. And it's not transported to space without first interacting with the rest of the atmosphere.
It's in the high/dry atmosphere that CO2 has greatest effect.
Go take your D-K brain away and try to conceive how it is that experts in multi-disciplinary fields have arrived at the conclusion they have… And, sorry, it's not because you know more than them. Nor even "Socialists" making a grab for world domination.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 06, 2014
You wont see it in Deg Celsius as 1C in the atm is only 0.00025C in Oceans

What is the mass for each?
Heat is energy measured by a changing temperature, unless the temperature is at a freezing or boiling point.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (13) Jan 06, 2014
You wont see it in Deg Celsius as 1C in the atm is only 0.00025C in Oceans

What is the mass for each?
Heat is energy measured by a changing temperature, unless the temperature is at a freezing or boiling point.


Mass Atmosphere = 5.15x10^18 Kg http://en.wikiped...of_Earth
Mass of Ocean (inc fresh) = 1.4x10^21 Kg http://en.wikiped...ki/Ocean

Volumetric Heat capacity Air = 0.001297 J/cm^3 K
Water = 4.1796

Ratio Air/water = 3.1 x10^-4 and reciprocal is (sorry) = 0.00031 C

And no heat is no comparable via temperature in differing substances ryggy.
You need to take into account Mass (water 1000x heavier) and SH ~4x more for water.
In other words it needs to be measured in Joules to compare.

http://theseamons...1-AM.png

ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2014
In other words it needs to be measured in Joules to compare.

Right.
So what's this BS of 1K = .00025K?

BTW, what is the mass and heat capacity used when surface temps are reported?
Surface temp data is useless for any energy comparison unless you specify the material and mass.
enviro414
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 06, 2014
The cause of the warming, the end of it, and why temperatures are headed down are no longer a mystery.

Curiosity resulted in the discovery of the two primary drivers of average global temperatures that explain the reported measurements since before 1900 with 90% accuracy and credible estimates back to 1610. CO2 is not one of them. http://agwunveile...pot.com/
runrig
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 06, 2014
"In other words it needs to be measured in Joules to compare."

Right.
So what's this BS of 1K = .00025K?

BTW, what is the mass and heat capacity used when surface temps are reported?
Surface temp data is useless for any energy comparison unless you specify the material and mass.


It's precisely what I said.
Look, it was you that was comparing heat content with temperature - not me.
Not that you twigged.
You are at a Uba type obtuseness level here my friend.
Basic thermal properties of substances.
Joules of energy heat different things to different temps depending on their thermal properties. N'est'pa?
There's 1000x more water in the ocean (by mass) than air in the atm. Since the Sun puts it's Joules into both, then a 1C rise in air temps does NOT equate to a 1C rise in water temp (assuming mixing throughout). Rather a temperature ~1/4000th of that.
Stick to radical politics ryggy - at least your opinion is as god as mine - in science you're way behind.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 06, 2014
The cause of the warming, the end of it, and why temperatures are headed down are no longer a mystery.

Curiosity resulted in the discovery of the two primary drivers of average global temperatures that explain the reported measurements since before 1900 with 90% accuracy and credible estimates back to 1610. CO2 is not one of them. http://agwunveile...pot.com/


I think we saw that the first time. Shouting LOUDLY doesn't make your assertion true.
I'll be grateful for his peer-reviewed paper.
But, put simply, the Sun's magnet field strength and GCR's do not correlate with global temps and they follow a ~11 year cycle, opposite to the sunspot cycle.
Also to use "bulk" sea temperature from 1700 as a means of scientific analysis is absurd.
And smacks of someone wanting to prove his theory correct rather than consideration of proper scientific causes of error. Where are his uncertainties. Estimates of possible error?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2014
Earth transforms sunlight's visible light energy into infrared light energy,

Yep, but that's not all there is to it. A new discovery by the Van Allen probes revealed last month shows the Earth has a direct ELECTRICAL connection to the Sun's plasma environment.

http://prl.aps.or.../e235002

Such a discovery nullifies any model that does not accurately account for this connection and it's ramifications. That includes every AGWite model and otherwise, any discussion thereof is merely mental masturbation, something that is quite prevalent around here..
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2014
Cold is MUCH better:
""Fuel and glycol supplies are frozen – at ORD [Chicago O'Hare International Airport] and other airports in the Midwest and Northeast. Additionally, our employees are only able to be out on the ramp for a few minutes at a time because wind chills are as low as 45 below zero at some airports," Powell said."
http://newyork.cb...irports/
ahaveland
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2014
Quite shocking at the level of undereducation regarding the Greenhouse Effect, but then there are powerful forces trying to ensure that potential voters won't know too many uncomfortable facts about the reality and realise how they have been systematically misled.

Now work out how many Greenland ice sheets can be completely melted by the energy contained in 'just' 0.1°C of ocean warming...
Returners
2.3 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2014
Now work out how many Greenland ice sheets can be completely melted by the energy contained in 'just' 0.1°C of ocean warming...


The ocean does not warm uniformly. The top warms much faster than middle and lower levels of the watter, so when you talk about 0.1C of ocean warming it is misleading.

Ice is an objective measure of total global heat budget, however, the fact that CO2 goes up every year, while the total ice does not always go down is by itself evidence that CO2 alone can't be the biggest variable involved. If it were, melting would always get worse. After all, we've long ago passed what was supposedly the pre-industrial levels, so if CO2 was all that bad, the forcing should always be net positive, and should always be larger than the previous year. Yet last year's rebound year proves the forcing is not always net positive. I don't recall there being any volcanoes large enough to explain the rebound last year.

There is much left unexplained.
Zephir_fan
Jan 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 06, 2014
Oh yeah, and before it gets misconstrued, the Northern Hemisphere had a net gain in total ice budge last year, as the gains in sea ice were much larger than the losses in continental ice. While that's the first year since 2008 to have a net gain, it still something.

While I agree the sea ice trend has been exponentially downward, what bothers me about immediately taking the full bait on CO2 is the ice trend really is not doing what it should do if we were already in an excess of CO2.

Remember, Correlation =/= causation.

If you see certain portions of a sine curve in a data set it can look very much like an exponential or quadratic curve, at least until you hit the next inflection point, which we may or may not hit. Maybe there is one, maybe there isn't.

Prior to last year, I had thought 2013 was going to be a hot year, personal musings based on apparent patterns, and yet it turned out to be the coldest year in decades.
goracle
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2014
On global warming and cold snaps: http://qz.com/163...n-worse/
verkle
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2014
If only it were that easy. Unfortunately it is not. Instead, it is misleading.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2014
There is much left unexplained.

The science disagrees with you returners. The Climate system has cycles, in which stored heat is moved around spacially/temporally. This is akin to the water in boiling pan churning around whilst being heated to 100C. Now given known conditions that water will ALWAYS reach 100C in the same time with the same energy put into it. What skeptics think is that somehow the water in the pan can alter the rate at which it takes to reach 100C. It just cant. If the energy is put in then it has effects and comes out. It is just a simple thermodynamic process in the end. The energy can't be magicked away or gained from anywhere but the Sun (ultimately). HOWEVER – this is true only if we cannot see oceans cooling, as heat would be transferring from water to air. We don't. On the contrary oceans at all levels are (on ave) warming (best current est 0.06C - see below posts for the Joules that takes) That heat can only come from the Sun. Therein is AGW.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2014
Returners:
Prior to last year, I had thought 2013 was going to be a hot year, personal musings based on apparent patterns, and yet it turned out to be the coldest year in decades.


What?
Were did you get spectacular bit if disinformation?
Note the following is from a denialists site…
http://wattsupwit...er-2013/
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2014
Cold is MUCH better:
""Fuel and glycol supplies are frozen – at ORD [Chicago O'Hare International Airport] and other airports in the Midwest and Northeast. Additionally, our employees are only able to be out on the ramp for a few minutes at a time because wind chills are as low as 45 below zero at some airports," Powell said."
http://newyork.cb...irports/


Another thing in quotes again I see ryggy.

Go tell that to Europeans and peeps in Moscow and E Siberia + Alaska.

https://02varvara...ecember/
http://www.climat...hs-16817
http://www.dailym...ory.html

enviro414
2 / 5 (8) Jan 07, 2014
The CO2 level continues to go up while the average global temperature (AGT) doesn't. Apparently, the separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising AGT will need to get even wider for the AGW mistake to become evident to the deniers of natural climate change.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2014
When the data can't support the faith, fire the propagandists:
"It is unclear exactly why many climate change organizations are installing new executives, but it appears they are following the professional sports paradigm: When a team loses more than it wins, you can't fire all the players, but you can fire the coach. "
http://www.breitb...adership

Why must there be so many climate change groups pushing propaganda if the 'science is sound'?
And AGWites claim there is no money in AGWism.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 07, 2014
When the data can't support the faith, fire the propagandists:


then why are YOU still here Ryggy?
Skepticus
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2014
When they are sick, people go to professionals - doctors and surgeons. (Almost all of them will - but some religious nuts will pray instead!). When talking about Earth's heat balance, we should heed the words of specialists in thermodynamics. Apparently, too many people are having a delusional trust of their feeble mental powers!
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jan 11, 2014
we should heed the words of specialists in thermodynamics.

Who are these specialists?
Which ones do you heed? The ones you agree with?
Why would NASA and NPL want calibrated radiometers on orbit, CLARREO and TRUTHS, if those specialists knew it all?
Skepticus
4 / 5 (8) Jan 11, 2014
we should heed the words of specialists in thermodynamics.

Who are these specialists?
Which ones do you heed? The ones you agree with?
Why would NASA and NPL want calibrated radiometers on orbit, CLARREO and TRUTHS, if those specialists knew it all?


I would trust those that are not in administrative positions that are reigned in by politics, those that actually practice, measure, and present their views clearly with measurements and scientific laws behind the findings.
orti
1 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2014
If it's as simple as same-energy-in / less-energy-out, it should be easy to verify by satellite measurements. I think that experiment has been done. Where are the results? Silly little videos be damned.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2014
It is one thing to know how signals are passed between neurons via axons, dentrites, and through synapses, ....it can even be modeled on a computer, ... but it is quite another to then predict which way a polar bear will lean when it takes a dump.
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2014
How global warming works, in 35 words, or 52 seconds
More AGWite B.S.. I can do better:

How global warming DOESN'T work in only 24 words, or 36 seconds

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....9/trend

runrig
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2014
we should heed the words of specialists in thermodynamics.

Who are these specialists?
Which ones do you heed? The ones you agree with?
Why would NASA and NPL want calibrated radiometers on orbit, CLARREO and TRUTHS, if those specialists knew it all?


Like I keep saying to you ryggy - there's no mitigating against shit happening - and to go with the ones YOU choose, because there are mistakes made on the "other" side throws the baby out with the bathwater.
Balance of probability rules that we go with the majority of the people who know best. It's just common sense - which you throw out with the bathwater too.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2014
How global warming works, in 35 words, or 52 seconds
More AGWite B.S.. I can do better:

How global warming DOESN'T work in only 24 words, or 36 seconds

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....9/trend



Whack-a-mole!
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2014
Hi cantdrive85. You already know I am always scrupulously fair when reading/understanding you, yes? :)

In this spirit of fairness I now point out to you/everyone that all these longstanding astronomical (solar) and geological (planetary) processes/factors causing climate/weather cycles and atmospheric/ocean currents/convections (transporting heat around/away from the planet) have already been allowed for.

It is ADDITIONAL unusual factors/processes that humans have introduced into the dynamics that are being scrutinized/modeled specifically. OK?

In any case, if you've ever simmered/boiled an egg in a wide and deep pot you must know that the more/faster heating in one region then the more quickly/violently it's distributed from hotter to cooler. The greater the energy content/gradient between hot-cold regions (poles and tropics, deep oceans and surface waters, mountains and lowlands) means 'old cycles' of currents/convection increasingly extreme/frequent/widespread. That's all. :)
RealityCheck
3.2 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2014
Oh, and for those who don't realize the complexity of the transition period, the change will manifest via 'steps and spikes' as result of PHASE CHANGE and COLD MASS 'regions/reservoirs' absorbing some of the additional hear energy until a critical point is reached and the next 'step' is started. Consider: Gas hydrates in deep oceans and permafrost and cold masses (mountain ranges and polar etc ice sheets/glaciers) absorb heat, so temporarily/periodically ameliorating global warming effects into 'steps' (which still trend upwards overall). Methane and COS hydrates absorb energy and gasify, while cold masses absorb heat energy but still seem cold (but not as cold as before). Much heat has gone into melting ice, so temporarily varying ocean/air circulation/warming. All these thing complicate and make non-linear the overall warming process/distribution/events/cycles etc. Those arguing (for/against) from simplistic notions/views misses the real/big picture.

Good luck to us all! :)
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2014
Balance of probability rules that we go with the majority of the people who know best. It's just common sense


Then you supported eugenics when the majority of people "knew best". Murdering and aborting the degenerate is just common sense, right?
runrig
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2014
Balance of probability rules that we go with the majority of the people who know best. It's just common sense


Then you supported eugenics when the majority of people "knew best". Murdering and aborting the degenerate is just common sense, right?


Common sense comes in applying my own standards and sensibilities, as well as in using the knowledge of people who know more than I can about something to inform my judgement. Should those things apply then the balance of probability is ALL we can put our faith in.
Always bearing in mind that it is not infallible and shit happens despite our best efforts. Error/disaster can only be mitigated and NOT avoided.

ryggy - What comes across in your posts is your seeming need to be in control. And extreme distrust of others
Are you a control freak?
A sociopath?
SamB
2.5 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2014
Neat!
We now have a way to fight off the next ice age...
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
How global warming works, in 35 words, or 52 seconds
More AGWite B.S.. I can do better:

How global warming DOESN'T work in only 24 words, or 36 seconds

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....9/trend
Whack-a-mole!
Are we still having trouble coming up with an argument against the thermometers?
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2014
Uba writes
Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....9/trend

Are we still having trouble coming up with an argument against the thermometers?


If your article shows no warming, then the following link
http://www.noaane...ats.html
directly refutes it.
And I would trust NOAA
woodfortrees is
C++ software tools for analysis and graphing of time series data, and an interactive graph generator where you can play with different ways of analysing data

hardly a SCIENTIST.
you really should have read the warning on the main page
Beware sharp tools
However, with sharp tools comes great responsibility... Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it's easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others

Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2014
@Uba continued
also from the main page
I welcome constructive suggestions of new algorithms or datasets I could add, and in particular help from experts if I've got any of the maths badly wrong (which is quite possible)

therefore you MAY or MAY NOT have valid mathematical data posted.

Also
Computers are great tools for helping you think; just never rely on them to do the thinking for you


just something worth mentioning: if it came down to it, I would trust peer reviewed science posted publicly (not a pseudo science site or conspiracy site) over a site which allows any user to generate cherry picked data for posting elsewhere

in this case, NOAA trumps woodfortrees

just sayin...
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
If your article shows no warming, then the following link http://www.noaane...ats.html directly refutes it.
No it doesn't. This is a data spike from 2009, it says nothing about the trend. Here's the sea surface temperature trend for the last 16 years:

http://www.woodfo....9/trend

And I would trust NOAA woodfortrees is...
Woodfortress data comes directly from the various reporting agencies.

hardly a SCIENTIST. you really should have read the warning on the main page
Beware sharp tools...
This is your shtick. You're the one who used an article on a data spike, thinking it proves something.

therefore you MAY or MAY NOT have valid mathematical data posted.
Presumptuous. If you feel there's an error, graph it yourself to prove it is wrong. It's easy enough to verify. Click the "Raw data" link and compare it to the source data.

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
Also
Computers are great tools for helping you think; just never rely on them to do the thinking for you
I would suggest you not rely on anyone else to do your thinking for you, either.

just something worth mentioning: if it came down to it, I would trust peer reviewed science posted publicly (not a pseudo science site or conspiracy site) over a site which allows any user to generate cherry picked data for posting elsewhere
And this is why you've foolishly bought into AGW. Like I said above, try thinking for yourself.

in this case, NOAA trumps woodfortrees
I'll believe raw data over an opinion, every time.

just sayin...
Let's have less "sayin" and more thinking.

Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@Uba
http://www.ncdc.n.../2011/11

I just looked specifically at
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the year-to-date

ok, so, in the past THREE years the data shows that there is a continual rise.
Now... I only went three years because it pretty much supported my argument.and again, NOAA trumps woodfortrees.
Roll another blunt and blame the conspiracy, I guess
I'll believe raw data over an opinion, every time

you also believe in conspiracy, apparently.

I believe in SCIENCE
I might not know a lot right now, BUT at least I try to learn.
Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@Uba continued
Woodfortress data comes directly from the various reporting agencies

and publishes his own WARNINGS on the page, which I took DIRECTLY from them!
Presumptuous

nope. Just used his own words.
I would suggest you not rely on anyone else to do your thinking for you, either

no one thinks for me, but when a snot-load of trained professionals agree on something, I tend to consider that a much better source of information than a pseudo-science mouthpiece at a public site
considering that I can at least SEE their science, know that they are trained, and verify that it is peer reviewed, it means that it is valid. And not manipulation of SOURCE CODE.
Call it what you will.
therefore NOAA and SCIENCE trumps UBA

AGAIN

sorry ubbie
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@Uba
http://www.ncdc.n.../2011/11

I just looked specifically at
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the year-to-date
ok, so, in the past THREE years the data shows that there is a continual rise.
Now... I only went three years because it pretty much supported my argument.and again, NOAA trumps woodfortrees.
You obviouly don't understand the data. This isn't data from the "past THREE years."

Roll another blunt and blame the conspiracy, I guess
I'll believe raw data over an opinion, every time

you also believe in conspiracy, apparently.
Ooh, you really cut me quick there (not).

I believe in SCIENCE
I might not know a lot right now, BUT at least I try to learn.
Learn a little faster.

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@Uba continued
Woodfortress data comes directly from the various reporting agencies
and publishes his own WARNINGS on the page, which I took DIRECTLY from them!
If you think there's an error in the data I present, prove it.

I would suggest you not rely on anyone else to do your thinking for you, either
no one thinks for me, but when a snot-load of trained professionals agree on something, I tend to consider that a much better source of information than a pseudo-science mouthpiece at a public site
All you're saying is you let these "snot-load of trained professionals" do the thinking for you.

considering that I can at least SEE their science, know that they are trained, and verify that it is peer reviewed, it means that it is valid.
...therefore NOAA and SCIENCE trumps UBA


http://www.ncdc.n...ear=2012

'nuff said.

Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@Uber-confused
You obviouly don't understand the data. This isn't data from the "past THREE years."

ok... how is THIS
http://www.ncdc.n...ear=2012
and THIS
http://www.woodfo...60/trend

GLOBAL by decade from 1880 to NOW!
the data I present

it TOTALLY CHERRY PICKED for YOUR argument

Sorry, you LOSE AGAIN
Learn a little faster

obviously I learn quick, as your argument is completely destroyed using YOUR OWN LINK AND DATA
Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@uba-cant read
All you're saying is you let these "snot-load of trained professionals" do the thinking for you

nope
the argument is about trustworthy data
and NOAA trumps UBA every time

then I used real data from YOUR OWN LINK and found that YOU ARE CHERRY-PICKING data, which YOUR OWN LINK's HOMEPAGE told you to be careful of! next time you should READ the ENTIRE PAGE you use to link! I DID!

I'll believe raw data over an opinion, every time

it's right THERE (previous post)... from YOUR OWN LINK
you really SHOULD have read the entire page, uba.
READ IT AND WEEP

I will leave you with YOUR OWN QUOTES
Learn a little faster

'nuff said
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
ok... how is THIS http://www.ncdc.n...ear=2012
and THIS http://www.woodfo...60/trend
Here, all you're doing is masking the trend you don't like with larger data sets. It changes nothing.

GLOBAL by decade from 1880 to NOW!
Even the IPCC defines global warming as starting in 1950. Did you ever wonder where the warming came before that?
the data I present
it TOTALLY CHERRY PICKED for YOUR argument

Sorry, you LOSE AGAIN
I'm just showing the current trends. If you don't like them, feel free to hide your head in the sand.

Learn a little faster
obviously I learn quick, as your argument is completely destroyed using YOUR OWN LINK AND DATA
Obviously, not.

Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@Uba
Here, all you're doing is masking the trend you don't like with larger data sets. It changes nothing


so what you are saying is that when you are proven wrong, go back to cherry-picking data to prove YOUR point?
Even the IPCC defines global warming as starting in 1950. Did you ever wonder where the warming came before that

which is visible on my graph I posted
I'm just showing the current trends. If you don't like them, feel free to hide your head in the sand

and I am showing you that the overall trend is against your argument

you are using specific data to prove that warming doesn't exist
I used the data to show Irrefutably that it DOES
this is pretty much the only proof I need right now

you are going to argue semantics and "current trends"
I am much more worried about he overall picture

it is YOU who has their head in the sand

just because you SAY it aint so,
doesnt mean it really AINT SO!

so i PROVED IT with your own links
IOW- it really IS SO
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
All you're saying is you let these "snot-load of trained professionals" do the thinking for you

nope
the argument is about trustworthy data
and NOAA trumps UBA every time
Again, feel free to falsify the data.

then I used real data from YOUR OWN LINK and found that YOU ARE CHERRY-PICKING data, which YOUR OWN LINK's HOMEPAGE told you to be careful of! next time you should READ the ENTIRE PAGE you use to link! I DID!
How's it cherry picking, if it's the most current data available?

I'll believe raw data over an opinion, every time

it's right THERE (previous post)... from YOUR OWN LINK
you really SHOULD have read the entire page, uba.
READ IT AND WEEP
I've read the entire site, and the sites the data comes from. It's good data. Simply not liking it, seems to be your problem.

I will leave you with YOUR OWN QUOTES
Learn a little faster

'nuff said
Good advice. I suggest you take it to heart.

Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@Uba
my argument has ALWAYS been that Global warming exists
so when you say
all you're doing is masking the trend you don't like with larger data sets. It changes nothing.

after i prove that it DOES exist...
it only shows that it is YOU who is cherry-picking
it also shows that it is YOU who has their head in the sand
it also shows that it is YOU who is arguing and defending a false argument, from the start, knowing full well that YOUR data set is selected to reinforce YOUR argument

therefore it is YOU who starts the argument from a false premise
and cannot defend your argument

IOW- i said global warming exists
you said it didnt
i proved it did
you are still arguing from cherry picked data and hiding from reality

Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@uba
Again, feel free to falsify the data

actually, i did, using your own link
and i proved that i was right
and supported MY argument that there is a trend for warming temp's
(this is often called global warming)

Simply not liking it, seems to be your problem.

i liked the data just fine, as i used YOUR site to show i was right
again... i didnt cherry pick
i used the data to show MY point of view
that global warming exists

guess you couldnt read that
Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@Uba
How's it cherry picking, if it's the most current data available?

you used a small data set to prove that you were right
or rather to "attempt to prove" that global warming does NOT exist

and i used your site to prove it DOES
i know that weather and climate are complex, and can show various trends over short periods of time that can confuse and dont always show the overall picture, so i used the OVERALL DATA to show the OVERALL PICTURE

no short term data
i wanted to prove the BIG PICTURE
which is
GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS

and so i did
and so you hide from that fact
and attempt to go back to your CHERRY PICKED set
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
so what you are saying is that when you are proven wrong, go back to cherry-picking data to prove YOUR point?
How does this prove global warming stopped more than a dozen years ago?

Even the IPCC defines global warming as starting in 1950. Did you ever wonder where the warming came before that
which is visible on my graph I posted
Answer my question. How did all that warming before AGW happen?

and I am showing you that the overall trend is against your argument
You're arguing a different argument then. Mine is that warming stopped 12 - 16+ years ago.

you are using specific data to prove that warming doesn't exist
I used the data to show Irrefutably that it DOES
No, you showed that it did (not does) exist.

this is pretty much the only proof I need right now
Naturally, 'cause you want to "believe."

you are going to argue semantics and "current trends"
I am much more worried about he overall picture
Why?

cont....
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
...cont:

it is YOU who has their head in the sand
I'm not the one runnig from, or hiding data.

just because you SAY it aint so,
doesnt mean it really AINT SO!
Indeed ...same back at 'cha.

so i PROVED IT with your own links
IOW- it really IS SO
Proved what?

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
my argument has ALWAYS been that Global warming exists
Does it? Or would it be more accurate to state; "There's been some warming, but currently warming has stalled."

And do you really think repeating your mantra over and over again somehow changes the facts?

Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@uba
How does this prove global warming stopped more than a dozen years ago

who said it stopped
Mine is that warming stopped 12 - 16+ years ago

wrong
your argument was
How global warming DOESN'T work in only 24 words, or 36 seconds

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."
[SIC]
with your LINK
the woodfortrees link that only gave selected years

WHICH I REFUTED
I dont see ANYWHERE where you are saying it is STOPPED in that, do you? NO, because you are JUST NOW changing the argument
because you know YOU are WRONG

Naturally, 'cause you want to "believe."

I am only following the PROOF
not a matter of belief, really
it shows a trend, and there is no definitive evidence that it is stopped

you only see a trend because that is what you WANT to see.
i will wait and see ...
the evidence will speak for itself
Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@Uba
Proved what?

guess you really didnt look at the links
I proved that there is a global warming trend
but why bother with details like facts when you have your faith, uba,isnt that what this is really about?
Yep
YOU BELIEVE that it is stopped
YOU pick data that YOU believe supports your hypothesis
YOU think that ends the conversation
but YOU are wrong
the overall picture is NOT changed

Or would it be more accurate to state; "There's been some warming, but currently warming has stalled."

And do you really think repeating your mantra over and over again somehow changes the facts

you are the one repeating a mantra
I provided proof
I even used YOUR link to prove what I said
but YOU wont let FACTS and PROOF get in YOUR WAY
it is YOU who is repeating a MANTRA
I stand by my argument
YOU can go back and re-read it.

Why?

why what? about the overall picture? or you arguing semantics and whatnot?
define which and i will answer
VENDItardE
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@captain stumpey...I seriously doubt that you could define the difference between your a$$hole and your mouth yet alone anything ti do with the real world.
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2014
@captain stumpey...I seriously doubt that you could define the difference between your (expletive deleted) and your mouth yet alone anything ti do with the real world.


and i doubt you ever saw a dictionary and dont know how to use spell check built into the site either (not using punctuation i can understand...)
and i bet you are probably no more than a sock-puppet TROLL with bad grammar

if you used your brain rather than let the anti's think FOR you, you would see where my argument is logical, uses Uba's OWN LINK to supply the data which supports my argument, and uses NOAA to verify it, therefore it speaks volumes about its validity

guess yall dont like it when your own links are used against you... i can see why
as it tears your argument to shreds

i stand by my assessment and original argument
Global Warming exists
there is no definitive proof that it is stopped

Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2014
Good ole VENDitardE, proving his handle fits him perfectly. Stupid is as stupid does I guess.
RealityCheck
4 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
@captain stumpey...I seriously doubt that you could define the difference between your a$$hole and your mouth yet alone anything ti do with the real world.

You're on the 'retard' side on this one, VENDitardE. Cut uba loose and so cut your losses before you disappear up uba's nonsensical backside where his 'arguments' are formulated out of his own personal 'shite' colored, shape and rightwing/idiot- biased by whatever denialist/profiteering propaganda he has swallowed that makes him so dangerous to global warming because of all the hot air and methane his half-digested propaganda/agenda generates. I suggest you leave this one alone and concentrate on issues you do have some hope of being right on. Cheers....and in future, be more discriminating in what/whom you 'support'. Cheers! :)
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2014
How does this prove global warming stopped more than a dozen years ago
who said it stopped
Mistyped. I meant: " How does this prove global warming didn't stop more than a dozen years ago?"

Mine is that warming stopped 12 - 16+ years ago
wrong
your argument was
How global warming DOESN'T work in only 24 words, or 36 seconds

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."
[SIC]
with your LINK
the woodfortrees link that only gave selected years
Which served to show there's been no global warming for the last 16 years of available data. How are you not getting this?

WHICH I REFUTED
I dont see ANYWHERE where you are saying it is STOPPED in that, do you? NO, because you are JUST NOW changing the argument
because you know YOU are WRONG
Are you having trouble understanding the graph?

Naturally, 'cause you want to "believe."
I am only following the PROOF
What proof?
...not a matter of belief, really
Assertion without evidence is belief.
it shows a trend, and there is no definitive evidence that it is stopped
Again, are you having trouble with the graph?

you only see a trend because that is what you WANT to see.
The data determines the trend.
i will wait and see ...
the evidence will speak for itself
Sure, things could change...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2014
guess you really didnt look at the links
I proved that there is a global warming trend
Not for just the last 12 -16 years (dependent on the data used).

but why bother with details like facts when you have your faith, uba,isnt that what this is really about?
You're the one running from the data.

the overall picture is NOT changed
Time will tell...

you are the one repeating a mantra
I provided proof
What proof did you provide that shows an upward trend for just the last 12 -16 years?

I even used YOUR link to prove what I said
but YOU wont let FACTS and PROOF get in YOUR WAY
it is YOU who is repeating a MANTRA
I stand by my argument
YOU can go back and re-read it.
Why are you so desperate to bury the last 12 -16 years? As already explained, hiding the current trend in overwhelming data, does nothing to change the current trend.

Why?
why what? about the overall picture? or you arguing semantics and whatnot?
define which and i will answer
Why are you so worried about the overall picture?

Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2014
It has been shown repeatedly that temperature has continued to rise non stop, and that the cherry-picked data some morons use to try and show otherwise is inaccurate, fails to take into account all areas of the globe, especially those areas that are showing the greatest degree of warming, and speaks only to a single aspect of the global climate system.

That some morons continue to repeatedly post the same mantra speaks more to their denialism and lack of scientific understanding than anything to do with climate. It is simply a version of the game whack-a-mole. There are some morons who think that posting the same thing over and over will somehow give it credence, as if it will be less wrong if it is posted multiple times than it was when it was posted once.

Zombie arguments are a manifestation of the same thing. Some morons will continually point to arguments that have been previously discredited as if stating them multiple times will somehow make them more credible.

Moronic!
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2014
Ubavontuba goes flat with
Are you having trouble understanding the graph?

I could ask you the same thing. Perhaps you cannot read? My arguments are still standing.
What proof?

the proof in front of your face
maybe you CANT read...
Assertion without evidence is belief

i've been trying to tell you that, but you keep ignoring it
Again, are you having trouble with the graph?

(see above)
The data determines the trend.

Assertion without evidence is belief
Sure, things could change...

is this so that when you are proven wrong you have a plausible out to show where you allowed for the possibility that you were wrong?
You're the one running from the data

i have been arguing the same point over and over
it is YOU who is attempting to change the argument
therefore, you who is running
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2014
Uba toots her horn with possessed vigor when she posts
Not for just the last 12 -16 years (dependent on the data used)

the last 16 years is irrelevant to MY argument... that there IS warming
that there is an upward trend
that it is PROVEN
you are attempting to switch arguments, but I will continue to argue from my same points, which is, if you remember
(paraphrased) you said global warming doesnt exist, and I said it DOES
"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

I showed where there WAS an increase, you used cherry picked data to show there wasnt
which still included fluctuations

doesnt matter WHERE you go from there
the argument that I made still stands
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2014
Uba is still on the rag with
Why are you so desperate to bury the last 12 -16 years? As already explained, hiding the current trend in overwhelming data, does nothing to change the current trend

I did not bury it, I included it in my graph
cherry picking a section of the graph is meaningless to my argument
do I really need to re-state it?

You are becoming fanatical, you know
Why are you so worried about the overall picture?

this was the basis of my argument
that overall, there is global warming (or climate change)
there is proof that it is being exacerbated by humans
this is NOT a totally natural increase in temperature
WHICH IS MY ARGUMENT

it is YOU who keeps trying to change it to whatever you wish to see...
I will be doggedly persistent in reminding you of that, BTW
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2014
so Uba... lets go back to the beginning and see what happened:
you posted
How global warming works, in 35 words, or 52 seconds

More AGWite B.S.. I can do better:

which then assumes that everyone arguing for global warming is in the exact same camp- fallacy
How global warming DOESN'T work in only 24 words, or 36 seconds

which states that you dont believe in global warming
"global warming n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

proves you have a dictionary and are at least minimally capable of reading
Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....9/trend

cherry picked data from a select few years that shows, IN YOUR MIND that there is no global warming
so I showed where there IS global warming with the SAME site, and correlated it with NOAA
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2014
Uba – beginnings continued
THEN I showed where, on YOUR site, it cautions against cherry picking and tells you that the site MAY have math issues
in which you argued
If you feel there's an error, graph it yourself to prove it is wrong. It's easy enough to verify.

and so I did
using YOUR site and graphing system that YOU linked
and I proved that there was global warming
and I correlated it with NOAA

so, in conclusion, you now argue that your original intent was that global warming STOPPED but …
this does NOT change MY argument
that it existed
that it is real
that there are correlations with humans that point to anthropomorphic influences
and that the SCIENCE is real

should I continue, or do YOU finally get the point?
one vote all you want... the truth is there in black and white
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2014
Uba's sour tuba
Global warming stopped 12 – 16 years ago.

using YOUR logic & site (based on your posts), then during the 1940-1950's-global warming stopped/dropped
and during '60-'68 it dropped
and '70-'76 it dropped
and in around '82... well, you get the point, I hope

therefore, according to your logic, the global mean should be at or below the pre-industrial temperature levels
so... why aren't they?
Maybe because there has been a continual upward trend over the long term that shows, even in times of precieved stopping/dropping, there was still an overall rise? The big picture...

Sounds vaguely familiar... Oh, RIGHT!
That is MY argument!
Wow... huh...

you are so much Fun , uba!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2014
Common sense comes in applying my own standards and sensibilities,


Margaret Sanger likely said the same about aborting black babies.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2014
When sunspot activity goes down and we don't get many CMEs to charge the ionosphere, the climate tends to destabilize. At least it did that last recorded time (http://www.dailym...ge.html) The sun is involved in climate much more then we tend to think.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2014
When sunspot activity goes down and we don't get many CMEs to charge the ionosphere, the climate tends to destabilize. At least it did that last recorded time (http://www.dailym...ge.html) The sun is involved in climate much more then we tend to think.


AGWites can't control the sun so it must be rejected as having anything to do with 'climate change'.
Scroofinator
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2014
AGWites can't control the sun so it must be rejected as having anything to do with 'climate change'.


Who said anything about controlling the sun? We can't even control the emissions on this planet so let's not get ahead of ourselves.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2014
It has been shown repeatedly that temperature has continued to rise non stop,
B.S.. Virtually every current global data set shows temperatures have fallen off for at least the last 12 years.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2014
the last 16 years is irrelevant to MY argument... that there IS warming
Using the present tense "IS" and then ignoring the current data is dishonest.

you said global warming doesnt exist, and I said it DOES
Saying it "DOES" and then hiding the current data to support this claim is dishonest

I showed where there WAS an increase
Exactly ("was" being the keyword).

the global mean should be at or below the pre-industrial temperature levels
According to this logic, everytime I stop my car, I should automatically transport to where I started.

How can you not see how shrill and irrelevant your arguments have become?

Nestle
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2014
Sounds like that's how it should work and that's how the models were written, but ALL of them have failed to predict the warming "hiatus"
IMO it's sensible to consider, this mechanism can apply, it's even sensible to force the fossil fuels replacement, because with increasing price of oil we would face the instability at the geopolitical level (which is IMO even greater problem, than the global warming itself). But the high cost of "sustainable" sources of energy indicates, we are just replacing the energy consumption with energy consumption required for building of wind and solar plants, so this solution just robs Peter to pay Paul.

If the AGW movement would promote the protection of environment and the research of effective sources of energy (like the cold fusion), it would be great. But IMO it failed in this role, because it just represents the fight of green lobby against fossil fuel lobby. The AGW people just seek how to drain money from the rest, not about actual savings.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2014
AGWites can't control the sun so it must be rejected as having anything to do with 'climate change'.


Who said anything about controlling the sun? We can't even control the emissions on this planet so let's not get ahead of ourselves.


AGWites are using force to control CO2.
They have discussed controlling the sun by seeding the atmosphere with dust to block the sun.
Nestle
3 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2014
The unsustainability of "green" solutions are quite evident, the people involved just refuse to see it. That is to say, every of AGW proponents twaddles about science, but he is not able to do any simple economical calculation. If the contribution from wind turbines and solar energy to global energy production is to rise from the current 400 TWh to 12,000 TWh in 2035 and 25,000 TWh in 2050, as projected by the WWF for Nature, about 3,200 million tonnes of steel, 310 million tonnes of aluminium and 40 million tonnes of copper will be required to build the latest generations of wind and solar facilities. This corresponds to a 5 to 18% annual increase in the global production of these metals for the next 40 years. Everyone of you can judge, if this plan is realistic, not to say about its impact for the life environment. These plans are considered seriously only because they do provide the jobs for people involved.
Nestle
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2014
controlling the sun by seeding the atmosphere with dust to block the sun
This dust will induce the droughts, as it would prohibit the condensation of water into larger droplets capable to precipitate. It would be an essentially just another smog generators. The China which produces most of such smog suffers with droughts in largest extent. In addition, there are another, not just apparent consequences of geoengineering. These plans are welcomed just by some lobbyist groups, who are expecting to collect huge money from the rest of human society for their realization. Whole the capitalism is just about strategy, how to suck the money from the rest, nothing else.

What can we think about biofuels? We are ruining the rainforests for it and at the moment, when the minerals will be drained from soil, the soil will change into desert. The sustainable agriculture would require huge amount of fertilizers, which we haven't.
Nestle
5 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2014
So far the USA managed to keep the price of oil low with military interventions. It's the main reason, why the cost of oil was so low in USA with compare to the rest of world. But this neocolonial strategy isn't working anymore, because the oil reserves are so depleted, that every oil war (which consumes lotta oil for military) increases the oil price instead, which induces another fossil fuel and subsequent economical crisis (the Vietnam war in 1975, the Kuwait and Iraq war and so on). So that the only solution of energetic crisis is the nuclear fission (which is not sustainable anyway and the consequences of which are still waiting to happen) - or the research of cold fusion. The only other option is the desperate fight of everyone with everybody for the rest of oil sources, which will not take long time, as everyone of you can imagine.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2014
Uba-tubular hallucinates with
B.S.. Virtually every current global data set shows temperatures have fallen off for at least the last 12 years

Holey Underwear, Tuba!
just like the drop in 1940's till about 1950-something, Right?
Or the drop in the 60's then right?
Or that drop... this is getting repetitious...
I guess you didnt read the whole chart or verify all those other drops that I talked about..
Wow... but overall they still show an increase from 1950-present
isnt THAT something?
I wonder if yall anti's used that same tired argument then?
Probably...

this is how ANTI-propaganda works.
cherry pick a few years that supports a trend, then hope no one notices that they were wrong

wonder what the past anti's think now?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2014
Uba's wadded knickers chafe her with
Using the present tense "IS" and then ignoring the current data is dishonest

I could flip this argument right back at you...
culling the data from ONLY the past 16 years and saying it is over is dishonest.
Especially given that I have shown that, even with all the previous drops or periods that YOU would say are trends of slow/low/stopped inactivity, it has still risen to the current levels. In fact, had you and I been having this argument around 1950, you would be saying "yeah, but look at the last ten years of dropping temps" and I would be saying, yeah, but overall..."
and we see where THAT went, dont we? Yup!
Higher and higher!
Saying it "DOES" and then hiding the current data to support this claim is dishonest

see above

you are the one ignoring/hiding data, not i

this is just how the propaganda machine works
show them ONLY what supports the lie
say that everyone else is ignoring/hiding the data

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2014
Uba squashes her bell with
Exactly ("was" being the keyword)

lets try this again, shall we?
IF you and I were making this argument during 1950
OR during the mid '60's
OR around '78
YOU would be making the EXACT same argument
global warming is over based upon a trend:
look at the past (culled data) years
you would use the LARGEST time frame showing the LEAST amount of activity, or the largest drop in activity,
and yet, looking from our CURRENT perspective, you can see the misconception of the argument.
Just because it stops/drops and you perceive a short term trend, doesnt mean the overall trend is finished.
From those dates, there has been a considerable jump up in temps globally
therefore, it is YOUR culled data that is illogical and holds no water, as, in the overall scheme, I can also cherry pick data and say
"Yes, it stopped and dropped in THESE years too!"
BUT that still doesnt change that the overall trend rises, not stops
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2014
Uba tuba

i still cant see how you can ignore the overall trend of rising temps.

either:

1) you are intentionally ignoring it for purposes nefarious, be it propaganda or to support your "faith" that you cannot bear to see punctured, or some other unnamed purpose

or

2) you are not very intelligent

some would argue the latter.
i am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

it is you who is ignoring all the data and selecting short periods that support your argument

thats like a platoon taking on the infantry platoon in front of them but ignoring the artillery and cavalry flanking them

As far as I can tell, given that you are ignoring valid scientific data,
and trying to rationalize away relevant data, then
BY YOUR DEFINITION
you are NOT doing TRUE SCIENCE

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2014
Holey Underwear, Tuba!
just like the drop in 1940's till about 1950-something, Right?
Or the drop in the 60's then right?
Or that drop... this is getting repetitious...
So you don't believe that a stronger CO2 signal should precipitate a stronger warming signal then?

I guess you didnt read the whole chart or verify all those other drops that I talked about..
Wow... but overall they still show an increase from 1950-present
isnt THAT something?
Not current and irrelevant. Just because warming resumed before, doesn't foretell it will do so again.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2014
I could flip this argument right back at you...
And I, at you.

The Earth has been much warmer in the past. Why not consider this the norm?

http://www.giss.n...fig1.gif

culling the data from ONLY the past 16 years and saying it is over is dishonest.
When did I supposedly say anything is over?

Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2014
Uba trips herself on her tuba with
Not current and irrelevant. Just because warming resumed before, doesn't foretell it will do so again

so you really ARE ignoring all the previous data! Wow
well, the reciprocal also is true: just because the data is not rising now does not mean it will not rise again

When did I supposedly say anything is over?

well, you can infer it by this statement
How global warming DOESN'T work

or this statement
Mine is that warming stopped 12 - 16+ years ago.

how about
How does this prove global warming didn't stop more than a dozen years ago?

what about
Which served to show there's been no global warming for the last 16 years of available data

I said there is a global warming trend, to which you replied
Not for just the last 12 -16 years (dependent on the data used).

do I really need to continue?

after all, the fact that it is NOT OVER is my whole argument, and you've been arguing against it.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2014
Not current and irrelevant. Just because warming resumed before, doesn't foretell it will do so again


just because it is stopped now doesnt mean it will not continue in the future.
THAT is pretty much the whole point of the argument... of my posts above.

either you CANNOT read, or you are refusing to read, after all, my exact words were
Just because it stops/drops and you perceive a short term trend, doesnt mean the overall trend is finished

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2014
you really ARE ignoring all the previous data! Wow
This is a lie, as we've already been over this. I've readily admitted there's been warming in the past. Why won't you equally admit warming is stalled now?

l, the reciprocal also is true: just because the data is not rising now does not mean it will not rise again
So? I've made no prediction.

When did I supposedly say anything is over?
well, you can infer it by this statement
How global warming DOESN'T work
or this statement
Mine is that warming stopped 12 - 16+ years ago.
how about
How does this prove global warming didn't stop more than a dozen years ago?
what about
Which served to show there's been no global warming for the last 16 years of available data
I said there is a global warming trend, to which you replied
Not for just the last 12 -16 years (dependent on the data used).
do I really need to continue?
How are any of these supposedly predictive?

after all, the fact that it is NOT OVER is my whole argument, and you've been arguing against it.
Now this IS predictive, as you're clearly implying global warming will continue. How can you even think to know this, when you won't even admit it's stalled out these last 16 years?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2014
Not current and irrelevant. Just because warming resumed before, doesn't foretell it will do so again
just because it is stopped now doesnt mean it will not continue in the future.
THAT is pretty much the whole point of the argument... of my posts above.
Well then, again you're arguing a different argument. Why won't you adhere to the context of these last 16 years?

either you CANNOT read, or you are refusing to read, after all, my exact words were
Just because it stops/drops and you perceive a short term trend, doesnt mean the overall trend is finished
Sure, but it doesn't mean it isn't finished, either.

But all of that is irrelevant to the fact that it did stall out, and it has been stalled now for 16+ years.

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
@Uba
So? I've made no prediction.

WRONG
you posted on Jan 18, '04
Global warming stopped 12 – 16 years ago.

now back to
you're clearly implying ... think to know this,

based upon previous data
http://www.woodfo...60/trend
I feel the overall data shows that the trend will continue
but it doesn't mean it isn't finished, either.

and you base your assumptions on only 16 years

you argue that it stopped
i argue that it is not
the overall pic shows that i have a great deal of data to support me
as trends have shown dropping/stalling in the past
i showed a trend of a decade that dropped, then contd rising
you still argue that it is stopped
you got 16 years
my data includes your data

your "arguing a different argument" is YOU
NOT me
my argument is and will be the same
and i used your data/site to prove it
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
So? I've made no prediction.
WRONG
you posted on Jan 18, '04
Global warming stopped 12 – 16 years ago.
Apparently you don't even know the difference between a prediction and an observation.

'nuff said.

goracle
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
So? I've made no prediction.
WRONG
you posted on Jan 18, '04
Global warming stopped 12 – 16 years ago.
Apparently you don't even know the difference between a prediction and an observation.

'nuff said.


What you call an observation, others call an unsupported assertion.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
@uba
Apparently you don't even know the difference between a prediction and an observation.

an unsubstantiated observation
made in the heat of the moment
based upon culled data
that implies warming will not continue to rise in the future

that last sentence is what is relevant

your implication, based upon your DIRECT QUOTE
Global warming stopped 12 – 16 years ago

is that global warming will NOT continue to rise

this unsubstantiated assertion, in conjunction with your continual denial of relevant data, is logically equivalent to a prediction, especially given the quote
Sure, but it doesn't mean it isn't finished, either.

and SO MANY other quotes...

your assertion is equivalent to a prediction, therefore

You predicted, not "just" observed!

observation takes into consideration ALL relevant facts, whereas you are cherry picking data
if you do not want your quotes thrown back in your face
you should THINK before you type
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
" Some years ago in a critical essay on Diamond's book Collapse, anthropologist Joseph Tainter wrote: "Jared Diamond is a man with a message. Collapse was meant to tell how anthropogenic environmental degradation doomed past societies and, on a grander scale, will undermine us if we don't change."

There may well be something to this larger message, but it appears we will no longer find it expressed in the history of Easter Island."
http://blogs.disc...kNbROlLN
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2014
I can't believe I haven't weighed in on a single point in this whole thread! All you guys must be doing a good job!
Actually I'm only doing it now cuz it makes me the 100th caller and I thought I heard you could win a prize....
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2014
What you call an observation, others call an unsupported assertion.
Are you having trouble viewing the data?

ubavontuba
not rated yet Jan 26, 2014
Apparently you don't even know the difference between a prediction and an observation.
an unsubstantiated observation
made in the heat of the moment
based upon culled data
that implies warming will not continue to rise in the future

that last sentence is what is relevant

your implication, based upon your DIRECT QUOTE
Global warming stopped 12 – 16 years ago
is that global warming will NOT continue to rise

this unsubstantiated assertion, in conjunction with your continual denial of relevant data, is logically equivalent to a prediction, especially given the quote
Sure, but it doesn't mean it isn't finished, either.
and SO MANY other quotes...

your assertion is equivalent to a prediction, therefore

You predicted, not "just" observed!

observation takes into consideration ALL relevant facts, whereas you are cherry picking data
if you do not want your quotes thrown back in your face
you should THINK before you type
Wow. ...just, wow.