Study sheds new insights into global warming 'hiatus'

November 22, 2016, American Geophysical Union
A composite image of the Western hemisphere of the Earth. Credit: NASA

A new study of the temporary slowdown in the global average surface temperature warming trend observed between 1998 and 2013 concludes the phenomenon represented a redistribution of energy within the Earth system, with Earth's ocean absorbing the extra heat. The phenomenon was referred to by some as the "global warming hiatus." Global average surface temperature, measured by satellites and direct observations, is considered a key indicator of climate change.

In a study published today in Earth's Future, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, lead author Xiao-Hai Yan of the University of Delaware, Newark, along with scientists from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, and several other institutions discuss new understanding of the phenomenon. The paper grew out of a special U.S. Climate Variability and Predictability Program (CLIVAR) panel session at the 2015 American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting.

"The hiatus period gives scientists an opportunity to understand uncertainties in how climate systems are measured, as well as to fill in the gap in what scientists know," Yan said.

"NASA's examination of observations has provided its own unique contribution to our knowledge of decadal climate trends and global warming," said Veronica Nieves, a researcher at JPL and the University of California, Los Angeles and co-author of the new study. "Scientists have more confidence now that Earth's ocean has continued to warm continuously through time. But the rate of global surface warming can fluctuate due to natural variations in the climate system over periods of a decade or so."

Where's the missing heat?

While Yan said it's difficult to reach complete consensus on such a complex topic, a thorough review of the literature and much discussion and debate revealed a number of key points on which these leading scientists concur:

  • Natural variability plays a large role in the rate of global mean surface warming on decadal time scales.
  • Improved understanding of how the ocean distributes and redistributes heat will help the scientific community better monitor Earth's energy budget. Earth's energy budget is a complex calculation of how much energy enters our climate system from the sun and what happens to it: how much is stored by the land, ocean or atmosphere.

"To better monitor Earth's and its consequences, the ocean is most important to consider because the amount of heat it can store is extremely large when compared to the land or atmospheric capacity," said Yan.

According to the paper, "arguably, ocean heat content—from the surface to the seafloor—might be a more appropriate measure of how much our planet is warming."

Charting future research

In the near term, the researchers hope this paper will lay the foundation for future research in the global change field. To begin, they suggest the climate community replace the term "global warming hiatus" with "global surface warming slowdown" to eliminate confusion.

"This terminology more accurately describes the slowdown in global mean surface temperature rise in the late 20th century," Yan said.

The scientists also called for continued support of current and future technologies for ocean monitoring to reduce observation errors in sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. This includes maintaining Argo, the main system for monitoring ocean heat content, and the development of Deep Argo to monitor the lower half of the ocean; the use of ship-based subsurface ocean temperature monitoring programs; advancements in robotic technologies such as autonomous underwater vehicles to monitor waters adjacent to land (like islands or coastal regions); and further development of real- or near-real-time deep ocean remote sensing methods.

Yan's research group reported in a 2015 paper that some coastal oceans (e.g., U.S. East Coast, China Coast) responded faster to the recent global surface warming rate change than the global ocean.

"Although these regions represent only a fraction of the ocean volume, the changing rate of ocean heat content is faster here, and real-time data and more research are needed to quantify and understand what is happening," Yan said.

Variability and heat sequestration over specific regions (e.g., Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Southern Oceans, etc.) require further investigation, the authors conclude. However, there is broad agreement among the scientists and in the literature that the slowdown in the global mean surface temperature increase from 1998 to 2013 was due to increased uptake of heat energy by the global ocean.

Explore further: Pacific sea level predicts global temperature changes

More information: Earth's Future, DOI: 10.1002/2016EF000417 , http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000417/pdf

Related Stories

New project investigates the global warming hiatus

March 10, 2016

To investigate why the global warming trend varies from decade to decade, scientists from the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) will work alongside those from nine other research organisations as part of a major new multidisciplinary ...

How to monitor global ocean warming—without harming whales

November 21, 2016

Most of the extra heat trapped by human-generated emissions is ending up in the oceans. But tracking the temperature of the world's oceans to monitor the change is trickier than it might seem. While satellites monitor surface ...

Past decade saw unprecedented warming in the deep ocean

July 2, 2013

From 1975 on, the global surface ocean has shown a pronounced-though wavering-warming trend. Starting in 2004, however, that warming seemed to stall. Researchers measuring the Earth's total energy budget-the balance of sunlight ...

Recommended for you

Propping up glaciers to avoid cataclysmic sea level rise

September 20, 2018

As global warming outpaces efforts to tame it, scientists have proposed building massive underwater structures to prevent an Antarctic glacier the size of Britain from sliding into the sea and lifting the world's oceans by ...

NASA balloon mission captures electric blue clouds

September 20, 2018

On the cusp of our atmosphere live a thin group of seasonal electric blue clouds. Forming 50 miles above the poles in summer, these clouds are known as noctilucent clouds or polar mesospheric clouds—PMCs. A recent NASA ...

Study tracks Hurricane Harvey stormwater with GPS

September 20, 2018

Hurricane Harvey dumped more than 5 feet (1.5 meters) of water on southeast Texas in late August 2017, making it the wettest recorded hurricane in U.S. history. But after the storm passed, where did all that water go?

51 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

CCMcCombs
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 22, 2016
The oceans are a tremendous buffer to our climate system, both because there is so much water and the physical properties of water (specific heat). All buffers eventually reach a tipping point though. We must monitor the heck out of the oceans, they are the indicator of where climate is going.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 22, 2016
according to the paper, "arguably, ocean heat content—from the surface to the seafloor—might be a more appropriate measure of how much our planet is warming."
The problem is, in anthropogenic theory of global warming the source of warming is atmosphere, the oceans are supposed to warm secondarily from atmosphere.


The problem is you are an idiot. And a lying idiot at that. Land air and sea all absorb heat from solar irradiation, irregardless of your ham-handed attempt at revisionism.

This makes the rest of your comment entirely irrelevant, and probably most --if not all-- of every other comment you've posted to this forum.

Now, piss off.

hawkingsbrother
Nov 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
Nov 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2016
@zephTROLL
The problem is, in anthropogenic theory of global warming the source of warming is atmosphere, the oceans are supposed to warm secondarily from atmosphere
by all means, please show the study where you got this information from

i would like to see where you are quoting this from, because i've never seen this in any AGW paper anywhere
In my theory the global warming is of geothermal origin
1- this is speculation on your part, not a theory

2- you have absolutely no evidence to support your belief in your speculation

3- science aint about beliefs: it's about evidence and validation - just saying it don't magically make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it
Who is idiot here (and fraudster in addition
easily answered: you are

you made the claims, now show the evidence
starting with your AGW claims

Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2016
observed between 1998 and 2013


That's implying the hiatus is over and a warming trend has resumed.

But that can't really be called with data over the past three years period for the very same reason - as pointed out by the people who denied that there was a hiatus when it was first suggested - it's too short a time to call a trend.

So there seems to be a double standard: A hiatus wasn't a hiatus until it had been going on for 15 years, and still some were arguing that it wasn't there, yet now couple years worth of additional data is seen as the end of it.

Applying the same standards both ways, let's wait till 2028 before calling the science done. It's only fair.
enviro414
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 23, 2016
Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Terrestrial EMR absorbed by CO2 is effectively rerouted to space via water vapor.

CO2 is not merely harmless, it is profoundly helpful. It is helpful in that it is plant food and reduces plant's need for water.

Sunspot number anomaly time-integral plus net of the effect of all ocean cycles plus effect of water vapor increase provides a 98% match to temperature anomaly measurements 1895-2015.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2016
Terrestrial EMR absorbed by CO2 is effectively rerouted to space via water vapor.
@414
read Lacis et al, please

CO2 is not merely harmless, it is profoundly helpful
in refute to your claim, perhaps you should read the actual science and not the biased sites? start here:
http://www.int-re...285-294/

http://onlinelibr...561/full

http://link.sprin...4-5766-x

see also: Lobell et al. 2008, Luo 2009, Zhao and Running 2010, Challinor et al. 2010, Lobell et al. 2011, Leaky et al. 2009, Long et al. 2006, Ainsworth 2005, Morgan et al. 2005, Leaky et al. 2006, Crafts-Brandner & Salvucci, 2000, Salvucci et al. 2001, Stöcklin and Körner 2002, Norby et al. 2010, Larson et al. 2010, Bloom et al. 2010, Taub and Wang 2008, Zhu 2005 and Högy et al. 2009

long story short: CO2 can be good for certain plants but not for others
and not for us and our food sources
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2016
@414 cont'd
...plant food
sigh... so i see you drank the kool-aid
1- plants require more than just CO2 to live

2- CO2 in greenhouses does better than CO2 in reality, probably due to the extreme controls and lack of pests/etc (See FACE experiments)

3- excess CO2 can benefit C3 plants, but no effect on C4 plants (WRT our food sources -see studies above)

4- even within a specific species—the positive responses to enhanced CO2 can vary widely

5- It has also been found that excess CO2 can make certain agricultural plants less nutritious for human and animal consumption

6- Increased CO2 has been shown to lead to lower production of certain chemical defense mechanisms in soybeans, making them more vulnerable to pest attack and diseases (Zavala et al. 2008 and Eastburn et al. 2010)

7- Peñuelas and Estiarte 1999 have shown production of phenolics and tannins to increase under enhanced CO2 in some species, as well as many alkaloids -Ziska et al. 2005

need more?
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2016
long story short: CO2 can be good for certain plants but not for others
and not for us and our food sources

Short story long... you are Stumpid.
Ever heard of something called a greenhouse.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2016
@antigTROLL
Short story long... Ever heard of something called a greenhouse
glad you brought that up... since you obviously missed #2 above and half the studies (which directly comment on the issues of testing in a greenhouse with the FACE project), perhaps you should consider visiting the following site: http://www.readingbear.org/

they really can teach you how to read and write...

Maybe then you won't miss the bloody obvious like the above #2-#7 , the part where i stated "(See FACE experiments)" or the studies referenced above it that directly contradict 414's claim?

when you get a chance, maybe you can provide equivalent evidence to actually refute those studies?

antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2016
they really can teach you how to read and write...

Maybe then you won't miss the bloody obvious.....

Stumpid not taking his own advice and confirming why he is Stumpid.
Check your point 2 again, you may notice in your own words, PROBABLY. Only to the Chicken Little idiot, that translates to FACTUAL.
I know it's beyond your stumpidness, but try to imagine for a moment why greenhouse operators would spend millions on filling them with CO2 if it did not show a proven return on their investment.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2016
@antigTROLL
so, you want to argue my wording instead of reading the studies?
try this, then
FACE studies are therefore superior to greenhouse studies in their ability to predict how natural plants should respond to enhanced CO2 in the real world
or perhaps this part
... in a greenhouse, the isolation of individual plants, constrained root growth, restricted pest access, lack of buffer zones, and unrealistic atmospheric interactions all contribute to artificially boost growth and yield under enhanced CO2.
would you like me to extract more details and facts from the validated studies above for you to be able to play them on your text-to-speech, since you're not literate?

or is that enough to get you to actually read the studies yet?

it's not like there aint plenty more to make you look stupid in those studies...

LMFAO

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2016
@idiot illiterate antiG troll
but try to imagine for a moment why greenhouse operators would spend millions on filling them with CO2 if it did not show a proven return on their investment
... another text-to-speech fail on your laptop?

and again:
3- excess CO2 can benefit C3 plants, but no effect on C4 plants (WRT our food sources -see studies above)

4- even within a specific species—the positive responses to enhanced CO2 can vary widely

5- It has also been found that excess CO2 can make certain agricultural plants less nutritious for human and animal consumption

6- Increased CO2 has been shown to lead to lower production of certain chemical defense mechanisms in soybeans, making them more vulnerable to pest attack and diseases (Zavala et al. 2008 and Eastburn et al. 2010)

7- Peñuelas and Estiarte 1999 have shown production of phenolics and tannins to increase under enhanced CO2 in some species, as well as many alkaloids -Ziska et al.

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2016
@illiterate idiot antiG cont'd
to continue
Photosynthesis comes in a few different flavors, two of which are C3 and C4. Together C3 and C4 photosynthesis make up almost all of modern agriculture, with wheat and rice being examples of C3 crops while corn and sugarcane are C4. The distinction deals mainly with the specific enzyme that is used to collect CO2 for the process of photosynthesis, with C3 directly relying on the enzyme RuBisCO. C4 plants also use RuBisCO, but unlike C3 plants, they first collect CO2 with the enzyme PEP-carboxylase in the mesophyll cell prior to pumping it to RuBisCO...
Going a bit deeper, it has recently been found that in some C3 plants—such as cotton and many bean species—a further enzyme known as RuBisCO activase is required to convert RuBisCO into its "active" state, the only state in which it can be used for photosynthesis.
get the point yet?
there's plenty more that makes you look worse, but you would know that had you read the ref's
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2016
@antiG cont'd
but lets not stop there!
many "cyanogenic" species, which include 60% of all known plant species, been found to increase their cyanide production wi/ increased CO2 in the world. which may be a benefit to those who use cyanide to inhibit overconsumption, but it may reduce their safety as a food supply (Gleadow et al., 2009a and Gleadow et al. 2009b)

That some plant species may benefit more fully and/or rapidly from excess CO2 also introduces the possibility that the abundance of certain species in an ecosystem will increase more than that of others, potentially forcing the transformation from one type of ecosystem to another (Poorter and Navas 2003). -SS

still want to talk about "greenhouse operators would spend millions" as it is absolutely not the same thing???

or will you actually read the studies now ?

(sarc/hyperbole - ya already demonstrated you can't read! LMFAO)
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2016
Stumpid tripling down on his stumpidness.
Tell us Stumps, how much has CO2 increased in the last century?
How much has food production decreased during that time?
How much has cyanide increased in food during that time?
enviro414
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2016
Just to put things in context:

Carbon dioxide levels, ppmv
40,000 Exhaled breath
20,000 No symptoms in healthy young people below this level
8,000 OSHA limit for 8 hr exposure
5,000 OSHA limit for continuous exposure
5,000 Approximate level 500 million years ago
1,500 Artificial increase in some greenhouses to enhance plant growth
1,000 Approximate level 100 million years ago
1,000 Common target maximum for ventilation design for buildings
404 Current atmospheric level
275 Atmospheric level before industrial revolution
190 Atmospheric level at end of last glaciation
150 All land plants and animals become extinct below this level.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2016
Why are the personal attack here permitted? I thought this was a science forum with moderation.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2016
@Disgusticle
how much has CO2 increased in the last century?
How much has food production decreased during that time?
How much has cyanide increased in food during that time?

Why do yo ask these questions?
Are you incapable of making a point with factual arguments?
As in totally fact free?

@physRetard
Why do you persist in being the retard? The Retard of the Decade wasn't enough?
Are you incapable of not reaffirming the fact that you are retarded?
As in totally retarded.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2016
@physRetard
Were you born this stupid or have you been practicing?
Why did you your parents repeatedly drop you as a baby?
Did they think that's what a bouncing baby boy meant?
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2016
anti, why can't you discuss ideas without the need to offend?

Do you not understand it reveals more about you than those you attack?
enviro414
1 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2016
Cap - Invalid preconceived notions can lead to misinterpretation of observation and if you can find like-thinkers to peer review your work, you can even get it published.

Take the blinders off and try to understand what is going on instead of simply remembering what others have done which might or might not be objectively and/or correctly interpreted. You are not grasping what Mother Nature is doing.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2016
You are not grasping what Mother Nature is doing
@414
then you can fill us in with plenty of studies to support your claims, right?

I actually *am* trying to understand "what is going on" - the problem is:
1- your not making a clear, concise argument
2- you are irrationally thinking that CO2 is good because certain plants like it

if you read the linked info and studies, you will see that not only is that not the case, but that greenhouses and reality aren't mixing, nor is a greenhouse study able to predict what reality will be in an area not a greenhouse

more importantly, the evidence clearly states exactly what i said - CO2 can be good for certain plants but not for others
and not for us and our food sources

if you can produce evidence otherwise, i am willing to read it
just remember to make sure it's equivalent to my evidence
thanks
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2016
Why are the personal attack here permitted? I thought this was a science forum with moderation.
Yeah I hate it when lying cheating psychopaths call me a goober and claim they are playing me like a cheap kazoo.

And I hate it when they make fun of the way our good brothers down on the bayou talk. etc.

And I really hate it when they come here and lie and make up facts. That would annoy anybody I think. Anybody except the mods that is.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2016
not for us and our food sources

The Stumpidness just parroting the garbage he's been fed again.
Tell us Stumps -
How much has CO2 increased since 1900?
How much has food production decreased since then?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2016
"How much has food production decreased since then?"
--------------------------------------------------

How much arable land was developed for crops, and aided with fertilizers and water and care and insecticides and herbicides and tended with mechanized personnel, . . . since then?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2016
@physTard
Why do you keep reaffirming how retarded you are?
Hungry for the Retard of the Century award? Echo in the empty space between your ears becoming bothersome?
Why are you so retarded physTard?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2016
I really do not understand .

Aww... what did you expect, being the Retard of the Decade.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2016
Were you called that growing up? Physically, I mean, . . . your emotional level is still five years old.

Because it displays the resentment of being bullied yourself. What did they call you?

Retard?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2016
In a study published today in Earth's Future, a journal of the American Geophysical Union,

Ahh yes, the soothsayers of the present are published by the Oracle of the AGU using the Divination provided by statistical Numerology. The fortune-tellers of the AGW will be in contact with Dione Warwick to sell their statistical ouija boards on overnight infomercials to the AGWite rubes.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2016
Get rich from "Trickle-Down"?

Find them "WMD!" yet?

Paid for them old Bush/Blair wars of Mass Killing and Corporate Profit?

When conservatives lie, they are real zingers. How many died in the last Bush Wars?
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2016
Get rich from "Trickle-Down"?

Find them "WMD!" yet?

Paid for them old Bush/Blair wars of Mass Killing and Corporate Profit?

When conservatives lie, they are real zingers. How many died in the last Bush Wars?
gkam:
What a nasty man!

claiming to be an engineer while then admitting he isnt an engineer while also claiming a combat V while he can't legitimately prove he has one

What happened to you in life to make you like that?

Is that why you have to hide behind your wife and threats and use a pseudonym?

Can't we get rid of this offensive tone?
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2016
The "I know you are, but what am I" routine?

Real class, real deep thinking.

Outgrow your need to get even. I told you if you were really a veteran you could get help for your emotional instability from the Vet Centers. They have anger management classes for it.

I am not attacking you, I am trying to help. If nothing else, they can help you get rid of the nastiness so you can make your points more clearly.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
Real class, real deep thinking

http://phys.org/n...tic.html

I am not attacking you, I am trying to help stop pseudoscience, blatant lies and stolen valor on the site.

If nothing else, maybe the MODS can help you get rid of the nastiness so you can make your points more clearly by banning the chronic liars and those who post pseudoscience.

Outgrow your need to get even since i've proven you're a liar. I told you if you were really a veteran you could get help for your emotional instability from the Vet Centers. They have anger management classes for it.

maybe you can get meds for your other neurosis too?
enviro414
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2016
cap - Most of the refs I have used are listed (and linked) in the refs to this paper

http://globalclim...spot.com

which calculates and graphs average global temperature 1895-2015 with 98% match to 5-yr smoothed measured average global temperatures using only two inputs plus an approximation of the net effect of all ocean cycles.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2016
Most of the refs I have used are listed (and linked) in the refs to this paper
@414
that is not a paper, that is a blog made to resemble a paper
where is the original source?
is that "paper" (as you call it) published in a peer reviewed journal?
is that peer reviewed at all?

.

please note that every single reference i used is to source material and journals, not to blogs

a blog is an opinion, not proof, evidence or a reference of any kind
i also have the ability to reference a blog and refute your claims easily, however i chose not to do that and gave you the scientific contend with source material

if you can't do the same then it's just your opinion against the scientific evidence
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2016
@414 part two
...which calculates and graphs average global temperature...
about your blog... lets examine the very first sentence:
Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has no significant effect on climate.
this is directly refuted by the validated study of Lacis et al, repeatedly linked on this site (and to you in the past)

for starters, if the author of the paper can't comprehend how CO2 works in conjunction with water vapor (as noted, proved and validated) then i can directly state that this is a bunch of pseudoscience bullsh*t

once again, i implore you to read Lacis et al
keywords: radiative forcing, feedback,
http://science.sc...412756c9
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2016
@414
one last thing: on your blog, there was one link that was to a "publication": http://www.middle...urn.html

it takes you to the "to the Middlebury, Vermont Community Network" tm
that link is also to an OP-ED, not to a scientific peer reviewed publication
this person also states they are
Licensed mechanical engineer
as such, i wonder why they would intentionally produce material that is structured exactly like a scientific study but cannot get said study peer reviewed and then linked through said reputable journal

understandably, one who seeks confirmation bias will not care about the location of said data, only that it looks legitimate

it aint legit unless it's peer reviewed - and even then, it's a point of interest unless it's VALIDATED

why would anyone try this type of deception to those who are not familiar with source material?
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
enviro414
1 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2016
cap - Lacis (and Schmidt) are part of that swamp that desperately needs draining. They are not merely incompetent, they appear to be intentionally deceitful.

Apparently, invalid preconceived notions can lead to misinterpretation of observation and if you can find like-thinkers to peer review your work, you can even get it published.

Did you intentionally misrepresent what I said? I made it quite clear that I was referring to the references in that blog not the blog itself. (Apparently you lack the engineering science skill to understand the blog). Anyone who bothers to look will discover that nearly all of the references qualify as credible sources.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2016
I am not attacking you, I am trying to help. If nothing else, they can help you get rid of the nastiness so you can make
george kamburoff the psychopath thinks that detractors with superior intellects who take the time to debunk his ignorance, actually make him look smarter.

More insight into the twisted reasoning of the professional parasite.

"Psychopaths just have what it takes to defraud and bilk others: they can be fast talkers, they can be charming, they can be self-assured and at ease in social situations; they are cool under pressure, unfazed by the possibility of being found out, and totally ruthless. And even when they are exposed, they can carry on as if nothing has happened, often making their accusers the targets of accusations of being victimized by THEM."

-Psychogeorge perceives criticism as a complement. He enjoys the thrill of the hunt. Sadly he gets bagged every time.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
@414
Lacis (and Schmidt) are part of that swamp that desperately needs draining
this is called your opinion
They are not merely incompetent, they appear to be intentionally deceitful
then why haven't you been able to provide the evidence proving that?

lets be honest - all the crackpot anti-science idiots make this exact same claim, so why should i take you seriously when you can't actually give evidence proving it true?
Apparently, invalid preconceived notions can lead to misinterpretation of observation and if you can find like-thinkers to peer review your work, you can even get it published
considering your statement then it seems you obviously have the ability and overwhelming evidence to refute the study with methodical logical evidence based studies of your own...

so where are they?

it's nice that you can make a lot of claims but... you aren't actually making a point by saying "nuh-uh! they're wrong"

the scientific method requires evidence
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2016
@414
Did you intentionally misrepresent what I said?
i misrepresented absolutely nothing
I made it quite clear that I was referring to the references in that blog not the blog itself
1- you linked the blog, not the references IN the blog, therefore you wanted people to read the delusional ranting of an intentionally misleading blog structured to make people thing it is legit

2- then why didn't you just link the studies? because you wanted the blog to be noticed
that makes you intentionally presenting a false point to support your claims which still have no evidenciary value
Anyone who bothers to look will discover that nearly all of the references qualify as credible sources
but do they say what you think they say?

I just directly refuted your claims with evidence
your argument starts with a false premise that is refuted by the evidence i presented
period

gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
Science needs proof, like performance reports and awards in military affairs, science needs documentation and the ability to find out. Without it, the person may be lying.
philstacy9
1 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2016

"The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare."

http://www.breitb...armists/
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2016
Breitbart? REALLY?

It is a Nazi news source, of White Supremecists trying to live down the issue of White Trash. The fact it is read is sufficient to charge ignorance of the reader.

Der Sturmner has the same stuff.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2016
@phil
http://www.breitb...armists/
that is what is called an "article"
an article is the opinion of the author
it isn't proof of anything other than:
1- the authors opinion
2- the validity of a quote's source

so i see your argument is still to present subjective opinion for science

therefore - I raise you a pair of studies: Francis, Vavrus 2015, Francis et al 2009
(i've linked them to you already more than a few times)
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2016
therefore - I raise you a pair of studies: Francis, Vavrus 2015, Francis et al 2009
(i've linked them to you already more than a few times)

Stumpid tripling down on his stumpidness. If only someone could raise you a brain.
http://barnes.atm...supp.pdf
HeloMenelo
not rated yet Dec 04, 2016
First you gotta grow your own brain before trying to understand the words you just rambled, for 15 years we've seen it be difficult for you to accomplish, so we won't hold our breath... on the bright side... i have some more bananas for youuuu... :D

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.