Next 15 years vital for taming warming: UN panel

Jan 17, 2014
L-R: Panelists Jonathan Lynn, Michel Jarraud, Rajendra K Pacahauri, Thomas Stocker and Dahe Qin present the first volume of its Fifth Assessment Report of scientific evidence for climate change on September 27, 2013 in Stockholm

The next 15 years will be vital in determining whether global warming can be limited to 2C (3.6F) by 2100, with energy and transport presenting the heftiest challenges, according to a draft UN report.

"Delaying mitigation through 2030 will increase the challenges.... and reduce the options," warns a summary of the report seen by AFP.

The draft is the third volume in a long-awaited trilogy by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a Nobel-winning group of scientists.

Major efforts are needed to brake the growth in for a good chance to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, says the summary.

"(It) would entail global consumption losses of one to four percent in 2030, two to six percent in 2050 and two to 12 percent in 2100," the 29-page summary says.

These costs do not factor in benefits, such as growth in new areas of the economy, or savings from avoiding some of the worst impacts of .

The estimates are based on the assumption that "all countries of the world" begin curbing carbon emissions immediately and that there are "well-functioning markets" to establish a single global price for carbon.

The report looks at options, but makes no recommendations, for mitigating greenhouse gases that are driving the climate-change crisis by trapping solar heat and warming Earth's surface.

Harvester-threshers can be seen in front of the Frimmersdorf power station on August 10, 2010 in Grevenbroich, western Germany

The final version of the document is due to be thrashed out at a meeting in Berlin in April.

The trilogy is the IPCC's long-awaited Fifth Assessment Report, the first great overview of the causes and effects of , and options for dealing with it, since 2007.

The draft document notes that of surged by an average 2.2 percent per year between 2000 and 2010, compared to 1.3 percent per year over the entire 30-year period between 1970 and 2000.

"The 2007-2008 has temporarily reduced emissions but not changed the trend," it says.

Members of the UN, in global negotiations, have endorsed the goal of limiting warming over pre-industrial levels to 2C, but not set a date for achieving it.

Some experts say that on current trends, warming by 2100 could be 4C (7.2F) or higher, spelling drought, flood, storms and hunger for millions.

Over the past decade, more than three-quarters of the annual increase in came from energy (47 percent) and industry (30 percent), led in particular by activity in emerging giant economies, says the summary.

Emissions from the energy supply sector are on track to almost double or even triple by 2050 compared to 2010, unless there are major changes.

These include gains in efficiency, a bigger switch to renewables or—provided obstacles can be overcome—widening the use of bio-energy and carbon capture at power plants.

A similar warning is sounded for transport, where CO2 emissions could double by 2050 from 2010 without changes to fuel consumption patterns.

Explore further: Temperatures to rise 0.3-4.8 C this century, UN panel says

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

UN report to point to mounting climate challenge

Sep 21, 2013

Scientists will hike pressure next week on the UN's troubled climate talks as they release a report pointing to the dizzying challenge of meeting the international body's target for global warming.

CO2 emissions 'increased at slower rate in 2012'

Oct 31, 2013

The world's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions increased at a slower rate in 2012—1.1 percent compared to a 2.9 percent annual increase over the past decade, a report said Thursday.

Carbon emissions still growing when they must fall: report

Nov 19, 2013

Growth in global carbon emissions is slowing, but is still more than enough to increase global temperatures by more than 2C, according to a report released today by the Global Carbon Project. Carbon emissions increased by ...

Recommended for you

Shell files new plan to drill in Arctic

16 hours ago

Royal Dutch Shell has submitted a new plan for drilling in the Arctic offshore Alaska, more than one year after halting its program following several embarrassing mishaps.

Reducing water scarcity possible by 2050

17 hours ago

Water scarcity is not a problem just for the developing world. In California, legislators are currently proposing a $7.5 billion emergency water plan to their voters; and U.S. federal officials last year ...

User comments : 55

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

VENDItardE
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2014
fkn BS
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2014
Consensus definition of 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."

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

So what "global warming" are they talking about?

BSD
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2014
fkn BS

So all the past records of global temperature is BS?
Or are you just a science hater?
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2014
Consensus definition of 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."

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

So what "global warming" are they talking about?



Whack-a-mole!
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2014
fkn BS

So all the past records of global temperature is BS?
Or are you just a science hater?


He's a science hater. His only comments on any article are that it is BS.
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2014
VENDItardE
fkn BS
Evidence please.
Why are you trying so hard to ignore
1. Thermal properties of CO2
&
2. Rising CO2 levels

Where did you achieve any sort of education in Science, especially properties of gases, heat flow & all the subsidiary training climate scientists achieve all over the world ?

ubavontuba desperately needs education http://en.wikiped...capacity
to be able to understand heat flow & especially immense importance of
"Latent heat of Fusion". Trouble is to understand it, you need a training in Science &
a moderate intelligence to be able to deal with combinatorial complexity.

Get an education ubavontuba & VENDItardE, PLEASE do thinking, it is obvious to
many but not you two that as we continue to burn some 230,000L of petrol/sec whilst CO2
continue to rise that the heat must be going somewhere - doh also Latent heat of fusion.

There is a tremendous amount of ice close to 0 deg C, which melts, this absorbs heat with no temp rise - doh !
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2014
ubavontuba picks arbitrarily again without understanding
Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....9/trend


This is the link you need to STUDY & have been told about it before, why do you stubbornly refuse to understand it yet quote other links from the same site - are you mentally incapable ?
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

You ubavontuba, come across as somewhat retarded, ie Not able to read, not able to understand, no recollection & complete inability to consider consequences & even consider a BASIC experiment in your kitchen re HEAT !

What do you do ubavontuba, other than waste your OWN time with complaints and STILL take no effort to think & get an education ?

What do you imagine you are achieving ?

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2014
ubavontuba desperately needs education http://en.wikiped...capacity
to be able to understand heat flow & especially immense importance of
"Latent heat of Fusion". Trouble is to understand it, you need a training in Science &
a moderate intelligence to be able to deal with combinatorial complexity.
Here, you're just trying to redifine the term. If you doubt my definition, look it up yourself.

Get an education ubavontuba & VENDItardE, PLEASE do thinking, it is obvious to
many but not you two that as we continue to burn some 230,000L of petrol/sec whilst CO2
continue to rise that the heat must be going somewhere - doh also Latent heat of fusion.
Pie-in-the-sky. You present no evidence, but insist "heat must" which simply shows you "believe" in this heat and that it "must" be doing something.

There is a tremendous amount of ice close to 0 deg C, which melts, this absorbs heat with no temp rise - doh !
Again, hand-waving.

There is no ice in the tropics, and yet they continue to cool:

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

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2014
ubavontuba picks arbitrarily again without understanding

This is the link you need to STUDY & have been told about it before, why do you stubbornly refuse to understand it yet quote other links from the same site - are you mentally incapable ?

You ubavontuba, come across as somewhat retarded, ie Not able to read, not able to understand, no recollection & complete inability to consider consequences & even consider a BASIC experiment in your kitchen re HEAT !

What do you do ubavontuba, other than waste your OWN time with complaints and STILL take no effort to think & get an education ?

What do you imagine you are achieving ?
For one, I'm obviously enetertaining myself, at your expense.

Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2014
heat with no temp rise - doh !
Again, hand-waving.

There is no ice in the tropics, and yet they continue to cool:

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


Whack-a-mole!
Bill_Collins
4 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2014
If the next 15 years are critical, then we are out of luck. Nothing about human behavior changes that quickly unless the danger is here and now. With the accelerated industrialization of Asia, the use of fossil fuels is only going to increase for the next several decades. It is only through the appearance of a fuel source that can compete with oil derivatives on an economic footing that we will slow our CO2 pollution. Fortunately there is a finite supply of oil and supply and demand will drive us to solutions.
3432682
2.4 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2014
If the next 15 years are like the last 15 years, there will be no warming. Most here cannot handle the truth.
The Shootist
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2014
Next 15 years vital for taming warming: UN panel


You can SEE the politicians eyes bug out at the prospect of all that tax money.

"The polar bears will be fine" - Freeman Dyson
"The sun has gone to sleep" - BBC
Returners
2.4 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2014
You can SEE the politicians eyes bug out at the prospect of all that tax money.

"The polar bears will be fine" - Freeman Dyson
"The sun has gone to sleep" - BBC


I see it as more of a power grab by the EU, as most of the major climate complaints are powered by either the EU, or by "up and coming" nations who just want to gripe because they weren't the first to modernize or develop modern infrastructure; namely some S. America and African nations.

The EU would love it if the U.S. crippled itself by heavily restricting CO2 production.
OZGuy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2014
The estimates are based on the assumption that "all countries of the world" begin curbing carbon emissions immediately and that there are "well-functioning markets" to establish a single global price for carbon.


Well assumption #1 isn't happening anytime soon and #2 isn't happening a all. Good luck.
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2014
From the article:
Major efforts are needed to brake the growth in carbon emissions for a good chance to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, says the summary.
"(It) would entail global consumption losses of one to four percent in 2030, two to six percent in 2050 and two to 12 percent in 2100," the 29-page summary says.
In other words we need a reduction of fossil fuels of 22 percent by 2100.
Some fool says:
The EU would love it if the U.S. crippled itself by heavily restricting CO2 production.
The U.S. has to reduce it's CO2 production or risk being a bad neighbor in the world's eyes. China will soon surpass the US in CO2 reduction even with it's amazing (but unsustainable) growth as it goes green.

Benni
2.7 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2014
If the next 15 years are critical, then we are out of luck. Nothing about human behavior changes that quickly unless the danger is here and now. With the accelerated industrialization of Asia, the use of fossil fuels is only going to increase for the next several decades. It is only through the appearance of a fuel source that can compete with oil derivatives on an economic footing that we will slow our CO2 pollution. Fortunately there is a finite supply of oil and supply and demand will drive us to solutions.


Everybody buy a Tesla. Install photovoltaic panels on your garage roof for use as your charging station. Mine's on order, I'm getting the Model X SUV with the long range battery about the end of this year. By the way I own Tesla stock & that company they refer you to for solar panels.
Howhot
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2014
Everybody buy a Tesla. Install photovoltaic panels on your garage roof for use as your charging station

Your tongue-n-cheek quip trying to mock green energy just demonstrates more ignorance. Eventually solar will be the only viable energy source because mankind will be extinct, just like the dodo bird. The UN is correct, the next 15 years are critical for mankind's survival otherwise we face doom.
Bill_Collins
3 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2014
Howhot - Of course humans will one day become extinct just as all species do. However, unless there is a meteor that wipes us out, we are here to stay for a long time. We have a finite supply of oil that we can burn. Eventually we will burn it all and be forced to use a cleaner source of energy. The damage that we have done will correct itself. Someday we will explore the stars. Our odds of survival will increase as we spread out. We will be around for a very long time.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2014
Howhot - Of course humans will one day become extinct just as all species do. However, unless there is a meteor that wipes us out, we are here to stay for a long time.

I disagree. Nothing indicates the survival of mankind for the next 100 years from now is certain. Nothing. Obviously we all live with the possibility that a meteor can wipe out humanity. However, that is not the point. The point is we are destroying our own world with CO2 and deniers do not agree.

To say deniers do not agree, minimizes the issue. The issues are extreme. The issues have consequences. The issues will have an effect on human's existence. The issues are well defined. Get rid of excess CO2 or human existence will fade into a Soylent Green.

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2014
ubavontuba hits another sour note with
Consensus definition of 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."

seems pretty darn close to the DICTIONARY meaning, posted below
global warming
noun
an increase in the earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect.

http://dictionary...ming?s=t

so there goes your whiny consensus argument right out the window
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2014
uba got her spitvalve backed up into her mouth with
Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....9/trend

So what "global warming" are they talking about?

you HAD to know I would find you, right?
I would think it was THIS global warming that they are talking about:
http://www.woodfo...60/trend

http://data.giss....gistemp/

http://data.giss....gistemp/graphs_v3/

http://data.giss....gistemp/graphs_v3/ plot land and ocean from 1880 to today

http://www.epa.go...ure.html

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2014
Uba's sour tuba is GOING to toot
Global warming stopped 12 – 16 years ago.

because she already tooted it... and posted her woodfortrees link... BUT

using YOUR logic, 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 perceived stopping/dropping, there was still an overall rise? The big picture...

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

why do you keep posting the same, tired argument that has been refuted, Uba?

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2014
@Uba uber-tuba
one last thing to think about:
over the past 100 years, during every lull and for every chance they could cherry-pick data
just like you did
the anti-warming activists like yourself chose to post short trends that "proved" what they felt

and the temps still rise
and the overall temps globally still rise

you see where I am going, right?
(unless, of course, you cant read...)

Cherry pick all you want
pick the last whatever years
it still makes NO difference
the overall trend is still climbing

that is the big picture I told you about
that is the irrefutable proof that your cherry-picking is just another way to cause confusion and play a head game

you cant fight the SCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2014
If the next 15 years are like the last 15 years, there will be no warming. Most here cannot handle the truth.

@3432682
really?
and if the next hundred years are anything like the last hundred years, we are in for a WHOLE lot of trouble...

perspective is everything.

if ANYTHING, YOU are hiding from the truth!
comment with no evidence = what, really?
are you a sock-puppet?

at least Uba joins in the fight and posts links to her comments!
that deserves far more respect than someone like you posting arbitrary unsubstantiated personal opinion like
Most here cannot handle the truth

and all that hogwash based upon a tiny 15 year window...

Learn some science
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2014
Whack-a-mole!
1. troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2014
The point is we are destroying our own world with CO2 and deniers do not agree.
You must not get out much. Close your laptop and go immediately to the nearest national park. Natural beauty abounds, and awaits!
goracle
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2014
Whack-a-mole!
1. troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.


Deliberately quoting out of context to pretend it's the other guy, when the trolling behaviour is your established pattern, does much to confirm the assertion that countering your stubbornly-continued malarkey is akin to playing Whackamole.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2014
Whack-a-mole!
1. troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
Deliberately quoting out of context to pretend it's the other guy, when the trolling behaviour is your established pattern, does much to confirm the assertion that countering your stubbornly-continued malarkey is akin to playing Whackamole.
How's it out of context when that was his message in its entirety?

freethinking
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2014
Wow, AGWist are great for a laugh. Next 15 years are vital..... followed by uncontrolled laughter......yup, even as global warming has not happened for the last 15 years.....

In his Dec. 10, 2007 "Earth has a fever" speech, Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic's summer ice could "completely disappear" by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions.

Maslowski told members of the American Geophysical Union in 2007 that the Arctic's summer ice could completely disappear within the decade. "If anything," he said, "our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer… is already too conservative." -

That was 7 years ago.....nothing to see here folks....
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2014
Wait a sec.... I'm sorry everyone.... Global warming caused the ice to grow in the arctic. All the glaciers that are growing is caused by Global warming. All the record cold weather we are having is caused by Global warming. Even thought the temperature of the earth has not risen, that too is proof of and a cause of Global warming. The idiots who voted for Obama twice was caused by Global warming. Obama care disaster, where more people lost health care than who gained health care, where health care costs rose instead of decreased.... that too was because of Global warming.

goracle
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2014
Whack-a-mole!
1. troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
Deliberately quoting out of context to pretend it's the other guy, when the trolling behaviour is your established pattern, does much to confirm the assertion that countering your stubbornly-continued malarkey is akin to playing Whackamole.
How's it out of context when that was his message in its entirety?


He's explained the use of "Whackamole!" before, and while I cannot speak for Maggnus, I believe the context is your comment history on climate science: https://www.googl...Bclimate
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2014
He's explained the use of "Whackamole!" before, and while I cannot speak for Maggnus, I believe the context is your comment history on climate science: https://www.googl...Bclimate
"Whack-a-mole" is not an argument, but rather a petulant retort. Therefore Maggnus is embodying the very definition of an internet troll.

This is a science site. If he has a disagreement with the science I presented, then he needs to explain this disagreement, in context. Bullying and name-calling are childish.

And personally, I think Maggnus presents some good and interesting insights at times. It's a shame he debases himself so.

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2014
This is a science site. If he has a disagreement with the science I presented, then he needs to explain this disagreement, in context. Bullying and name-calling are childish.

And personally, I think Maggnus presents some good and interesting insights at times. It's a shame he debases himself so.

@ubavontuba
maybe he is just tired of repeating himself, as you could effectively argue against most of your post by simply cutting/pasting from previous posts, as your argument seems to be more about repetition and claiming we are "ignoring data" or we are "cherry-picking", or we dont understand or are not addressing some particular minuscule point that is really included in the previous post/data...

when you refuse to acknowledge reality, what is left but to result to comical retort, satire and hyperbole in order to elicit emotional responses due to your lack of functional grasp of the argument, let alone the rest of the situation?
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2014
"Whack-a-mole" is not an argument, but rather a petulant retort.
No Ubamoron, it is the response to the game you play.
Therefore Maggnus is embodying the very definition of an internet troll.
No, Ubamoron, I am responding to your game.

This is a science site.
I agree. You should try employing some.
If he has disagreement with the science I presented, then he needs to explain this disagreement, in context. Bullying and name-calling are childish.
What science? The zombie arguments you continually repost have been dealt with many times. You just childishly repost them to the very next article.

You know dumdum, people actually follow these degenerate discussions. Those who have seen your ongoing psychotic babbling understand the game "whack-a-mole'. Who do you think you fool?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2014
maybe he is just tired of repeating himself, as you could effectively argue against most of your post by simply cutting/pasting from previous posts, as your argument seems to be more about repetition and claiming we are "ignoring data" or we are "cherry-picking", or we dont understand or are not addressing some particular minuscule point that is really included in the previous post/data...
B.S., you're the one avoiding data. So why is it so difficult for you to discuss just the last 16 years?

when you refuse to acknowledge reality,
This definitely seems to be an AGWite characteristic. Imagine if folks lived as if the last 16 years of their lives simply didn't exist. Wouldn't you think they're a bit wacky?

what is left but to result to comical retort, satire and hyperbole in order to elicit emotional responses due to your lack of functional grasp of the argument, let alone the rest of the situation?
And now you just openly admitted you're an internet troll. Figures.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2014
"Whack-a-mole" is not an argument, but rather a petulant retort.
No Ubamoron, it is the response to the game you play.
And yet another petulant retort....

Therefore Maggnus is embodying the very definition of an internet troll.
No, Ubamoron, I am responding to your game.
...and another.

This is a science site.
I agree. You should try employing some.
So are you suggesting the global temperature records of the last 16 years aren't science?

If he has disagreement with the science I presented, then he needs to explain this disagreement, in context. Bullying and name-calling are childish.
What science? The zombie arguments you continually repost have been dealt with many times. You just childishly repost them to the very next article.
And more bullying and name calling...

You know dumdum, people actually follow these degenerate discussions. Those who have seen your ongoing psychotic babbling understand the game "whack-a-mole'. Who do you think you fool?
...and still more.

Maggnus = troll.

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2014
@Uba-troll repeats
B.S., you're the one avoiding data. So why is it so difficult for you to discuss just the last 16 years

i've avoided nothing
i INCLUDED it, and then i said,
WHAT MAKES YOU THINK IT HAS STOPPED
but i guess you ignored that... better and easier for you to argue with.
This definitely seems to be an AGWite characteristic. Imagine if folks lived as if the last 16 years of their lives simply didn't exist. Wouldn't you think they're a bit wacky

and so you repeat yourself again, only proving what i said earlier.
Trolls repeat time and again with no regard for logic.

so what we have here is you repeating
not reading
lying about it
betting caught
now getting MAD about it
calling us trolls, while you openly demonstrate troll behaviour
all the while getting your kicks as you argue the same thing, in every thread with the same results... being proven WRONG

So... keep repeating.
i proved you wrong
used your data & site to do it
INCLUDED your data WITH mine

PEACE
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2014
@Uba
So are you suggesting the global temperature records of the last 16 years aren't science?

maybe he is suggesting that culling data to prove a false assumption is not science.
Maybe he is suggesting, like I did, that if you include the past data (as I showed you already), that you cannot make the ASSUMPTION that global warming has stopped.
... = troll.

and this is not TROLL behavior?
...you just openly admitted...

nope. i just understand why he did what he did when dealing with a Troll

You have made a false claim
then I proved that you did, and you are still attempting to push blame

ya got served with logic and science
now you retort to name calling and bullying
especially since i used your own words/site/data against you

by YOUR OWN DEFINITION

YOU ARE A TROLL

http://www.woodfo...60/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2014
B.S., you're the one avoiding data. So why is it so difficult for you to discuss just the last 16 years

i've avoided nothing
i INCLUDED it,
Which any sane and honest person would have to admit is not the same thing as discussing just the last 16 years.

Ergo, you're insane, or patently dishonest, or both.

'nuff said.

goracle
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2014
In your context, "sane and honest" is about as accurate as Fox News being 'fair and balanced'.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2014
@Uba
Which any sane and honest person would have to admit

troll behaviour
Ergo, you're insane, or patently dishonest, or both.

troll behaviour

When i refuted your argument to me, i used links and proof
copied your exact words
even used your site
you call names
IOW - ubavontuba=mega troll

discussing just the last 16 years

and if you would have bothered to READ
you would SEE that it is not relevant
especially given the overall trend
which i stated
over and over

any other names you would like to call me?
after all, i simply refuted your argument that warming stopped
using your own data included with mine
using your own site
linking to your own words
logical refute

your reply?
Ergo, you're insane, or patently dishonest, or both


therefore we can conclude that you are here only to Troll

Sorry, uba
you are refuted
and proven a TROLL
by your OWN LOGIC
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jan 26, 2014
discussing just the last 16 years
and if you would have bothered to READ
you would SEE that it is not relevant
especially given the overall trend
which i stated
over and over
Which is not discussing just the last 16 years, now is it?

using your own data included with mine
Which isn't using just "my data," now is it?

Captain Stumpy = liar.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2014
@Uba
Captain Stumpy = liar.

I have never said anything here that is not supported by facts

I have told you time and again, your cherry picking of 16 years is NOT support of a trend

I am not discussing specifically the last 16 years because it is not relevant
if you take the past 100 years, it SHOWS various short term drops and quite a few level moments
you could cherry pick any of those points and say that global warming reversed itself...
much like you are doing NOW
cherry picking your 16 and saying it stopped

therefore discussing ONLY the last 16 is irrelevant and pointless
get a trend 30yrs or greater and we will talk
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2014
Captain Stumpy = liar.

I have never said anything here that is not supported by facts

I have told you time and again, your cherry picking of 16 years is NOT support of a trend

I am not discussing specifically the last 16 years because it is not relevant
if you take the past 100 years, it SHOWS various short term drops and quite a few level moments
you could cherry pick any of those points and say that global warming reversed itself...
much like you are doing NOW
cherry picking your 16 and saying it stopped

therefore discussing ONLY the last 16 is irrelevant and pointless
get a trend 30yrs or greater and we will talk
What's happening now is most relevant.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2014
@uba
What's happening now is most relevant

what is happening now is relevant in context

you are making an assumption based upon evidence that supports only your perception and when you include all the relevant data, it data does not support your prediction

as for your particular prediction that global warming stopped, I will wait at least another 15 years before I make any definitive assumptions about it

THEN we will have supporting data

therefore, as stated, discussing NOW is relevant in context of all available data, which is not included with JUST a sample of 16 yrs
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2014
What's happening now is most relevant
what is happening now is relevant in context

you are making an assumption based upon evidence that supports only your perception and when you include all the relevant data, it data does not support your prediction

as for your particular prediction that global warming stopped, I will wait at least another 15 years before I make any definitive assumptions about it

THEN we will have supporting data
So you think closing your eyes for a time will just make it go away?

therefore, as stated, discussing NOW is relevant in context of all available data, which is not included with JUST a sample of 16 yrs
So maybe you think the time to apply the paddles is when the patient is in his coffin?

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2014
@Uba
So you think closing your eyes for a time will just make it go away?

who said i was closing my eyes?
So maybe you think the time to apply the paddles is when the patient is in his coffin?

if you are referring to defibrillator paddles
they work on fibrillation and are not indicated for use in acute myocardial infarction unless specified by physician, and if it is, would most likely be used with direct injection of medications like adrenaline, or during surgery, etc

addressing the situation means researching the causes and knowing how to fix the problems, therefore what is going on now by scientists is helping the situation.

but arguing over the relevance of culled data is neither effective nor helpful

IOW- you just want to argue about your culled data and I say it is irrelevant till more data supports your conclusions
this is not closing my eyes
this is avoiding making a statement based upon culled data that does not support a valid conclusion and awaiting facts
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2014
who said i was closing my eyes?

if you are referring to defibrillator paddles
they work on fibrillation and are not indicated for use in acute myocardial infarction unless specified by physician, and if it is, would most likely be used with direct injection of medications like adrenaline, or during surgery, etc
But how do you know when it's time to use the paddles, maybe you think by looking at data from yesterday?

addressing the situation means researching the causes and knowing how to fix the problems, therefore what is going on now by scientists is helping the situation.
And as I pointed out in the other thread, scientists are addressing the pause.

but arguing over the relevance of culled data is neither effective nor helpful
Data is data, and it's all relevant in its context.

IOW- you just want to argue about your culled data and I say it is irrelevant till more data supports your conclusions
this is not closing my eyes
this is avoiding making a statement based upon culled data that does not support a valid conclusion and awaiting facts
This is you avoiding the truth.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2014
@uba
But how do you know when it's time to use the paddles, maybe you think by looking at data from yesterday

this is strictly regulated by the local protocols and training
And as I pointed out in the other thread, scientists are addressing the pause

and? I never said they weren't
Data is data, and it's all relevant in its contex

in its context being the key word, and I dont believe that the context of 16 years is enough to definitively state that global warming is stopped, as I have stated already many times before
This is you avoiding the truth

nope
this is me not arguing using culled data and attempting to make unsubstantiated arguments without evidence
IOW- not making definitive statements on your data because it is not in context
it is like assuming that the world is flat based upon the measurements of your yard, or even your neighbourhood, but ignoring the image of a receding sail boat, or the global satellite pic's
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2014
@Uba
there is another way of putting this

it seems to me that you are getting tunnel vision
that is why you keep wanting to address ONLY the data from now, or the last 16 years

you can call me cautious, or whatever

using your criterion of < or = 16 yrs (short periods of time), i could also show where global warming has stopped or reversed itself in the past
but that would not be the case taken in context today
and it was the same back then... I am sure some would state definitively that it was over, etc

therefore I will NOT make the same statements without longer periods of data collection for purposes of factual statements

this is just rational reasoning in my opinion
it is not that I will not address your argument, it is that I dont believe you have a valid argument with such short time spans
the overall picture
but i have already said that
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2014
What's happening now is most relevant.
No, not in the way you are trying to portray. You take one line of research, consisting of data you have cherry picked to show the short-term, incomplete, inaccurate trend that you think supports your position, while ignoring thousands of data points from a whole range of disciplines, all of which support the premise that the globe is warming, then try to make others believe in your flawed attempt to obfuscate the science by posting the same short-term, incomplete, inaccurate graph to every single discussion you have on every single thread you post on.

Your graph is not relevant! What is happening now IS relevant Uba, which you would realize if you could just take the time to try to comprehend the whole of the data, not just your one cherry-picked graph.

Why can't you discuss the whole picture Uba?

Why are you so fixated on that one data set?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jan 28, 2014
Why can't you discuss the whole picture Uba?
I have, and am quite willing at any time. What do you suggest?

Why are you so fixated on that one data set?
Because it's current and now, and it's in violation of the expected. Aren't these the very criteria where true science opportunities exist?

And why aren't you celebrating the hiatus? If you abhor warming and abhor a hiatus, are you for cooling then, perhaps into a new iceage?

Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2014
I have, and am quite willing at any time. What do you suggest?
First I suggest reading up on critical thinking. Then I would suggest you start by going back to read many of your own cites, only shake off your denialist mindset and actually work to comprehend what the researchers are saying. Stop fixating on the quibbling bits and look at the whole picture. Release your desire to see politics where there are none, and focus on what the researchers are saying.
Because it's current and now,
No its a false data set
and it's in violation of the expected.
and that's because the data is cherry picked. It is not reflective of the whole, nor is it reality.
Aren't these the very criteria where true science opportunities exist?
No.
And why aren't you celebrating the hiatus?
Because there isn't one
If you abhor warming and abhor a hiatus, are you for cooling then, perhaps into a new iceage?
Fallacy of the excluded middle
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2014
First I suggest reading up on critical thinking.
LOL, you obviously don't even know what this is.

Then I would suggest you start by going back to read many of your own cites, only shake off your denialist mindset and actually work to comprehend what the researchers are saying. Stop fixating on the quibbling bits and look at the whole picture. Release your desire to see politics where there are none, and focus on what the researchers are saying.
LOL. You're confusing conventional thinking with critical thinking.

And why are you trying to tell me what to think, instead of "discussing the whole picture" as was the topic and context?

No its a false data set
How can it be false, when it's real data?

and that's because the data is cherry picked. It is not reflective of the whole, nor is it reality.
B.S. It represents the real and current trend, going back 16+ years. Denying this is denying the science.

No.
I guess you don't know much about science then.

Because there isn't one
Maggnus = denier.

Fallacy of the excluded middle
Idiot. You're the one excluding the middle!