1 the AGW temperature plotted against Co2 with predictions for future results.
2 temperatures plotted against 400yrs of sunspot activity
And I know which one looks right to me, Co2 is having very little effect or nil effect as far as I can see.
and the sun has a big effect and will continue to do so.
Bunch of lies and sh*t is what you have read
In real time measurement,
10 Warmest years Globally since 1880
2010
2005
1998
2003
2002
2006
2009
2007
2004
2012
Dear Bolter arrange it so I can speak with black board I will show you how climates change
They are lying because they want total control setting s up for Sharia law.
They are lying for the money they are lying because they work for foriegn companies against Australia.
They are lying because they have not got the principles which would allow them to admit they are wrong they seek a One World government in which we are all controlled read Agenda 21.
The Chinese are going to end up a lot freer than us the way we are been misled.
These are starting to get quite sad, a two paragraph blurb from a paper known to push the denier line.
Do some basic math, even deniers claim 1998 as the warmest year with a decline since then, 1998 is barely 15 years ago not 17.
Which ignores the point that 1998 itself was warm well above the effect due to a well documented El Nino consider the strongest of the last century.
Of course if you look at the science rather than the media, you may get a nasty shock, as 17 years ago (1995) was at the time the warmest year on record, it is now being beaten in temperature levels by our cooler years like 2011 and 2008, this is the denier fantasy of 17 years of cooling.
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#g...
A point raised to Lord Mockingtone last night at his little evening of fiction at the University of Tasmania, one he would not or could not answer amid his usual swill about communist and nazi plots.
Although the flat earthers in 15th century period costume out the front put mockingtone in his true context.
The IPCC who's head, the above quote is attributed to, put the average rise in temp due to AGW at ~0.11c per decade, again look at the graph from 1995 - 2012 temps are up 0.2c and we still have 3 years to go to make 2 actual decades, the only place there has been no warming for 17 years is deniers overactive imaginations. Frankly their rants are starting to look very sad indeed.
Yes, The Australian is all lies
Rajendra Pachauri is just a common socialist. He has proclaimed his desire to end Capitalism and wants Global Governance. Nobody disputes what he wants the world to be like. He's a mouse in a man's body who hides behind the seal of the United Nations. Cry-baby pee-pants! Always whining about how unfair the world is.
Gimme a break!
The claim of “no warming for 17 years” is a misnomer and is one that’s perpetuated by those with insufficient knowledge of climatic systems to determine whether it’s valid or even if it’s of significance.
The reality is that the rate by which the world has warmed over the last 17 years has slowed down, it’s now about half that of 20 or so years ago.
To claim that global warming has stopped requires taking those 17 years in isolation and applying a linear trend to the data. This is not how climate science works.
For a start, nothing should be inferred using anything less than 30 years worth of data, this is because there are too many short-term variables in the climatic systems. By analysing long-term data the variables are smoothed and if needs be they can be normalised and the data homogenised.
Furthermore, the claim that global warming has stopped is a completely fallacious one because it conveniently excludes any explanation as to why warming has slowed. Despite the fact that this claim has been made repeatedly, have you ever seen those making the claim offer any kind of explanation. You won’t have done, and the reason is that they don’t want you to know why. To provide an honest explanation deflates the claim that global warming has stopped.
The booming Asian economies are largely unregulated when it comes to the emission of pollutants and the result is that our atmosphere is now becoming contaminated with pollutants that we banned decades ago. Amongst these are numerous sulphate aerosols including sulphur dioxide.
Whilst the greenhouse gases cause warming by trapping heat within the atmosphere, sulphur dioxide causes cooling by reflecting photons back out into space. The more of this gas there is in the atmosphere the less heat energy from the Sun reaches Earth’s surface.
Similarly, emissions of black particulate matter are accumulating in the atmosphere, these absorb solar energy and are further reducing the amount that makes it through the atmosphere.
This absorption and reflection of incoming solar energy is causing what’s known as dimming and it’s this dimming that makes it appear that global warming has slowed. But it’s not slowed, it’s actually speeded up. The difference is that there’s now a cooling component that’s masking some of the warming.
China and India have both stated their intentions to pass Clean Air Acts and this would significantly reduce the level of these dimming emissions. When that happens, levels of the dimming materials will fall rapidly, BPM only remains in the atmosphere for a few months, sulphates reside for two to three years. Once they’ve dissipated out, warming will return, and if things don’t change then it will be more pronounced than ever.
I've read that he said it would also take 30-40 years on no warming to break the warming trend. Then it will be 50 to 60 years. Then it will be 80 to 100 years. Then it will be 200 to 300 years. Then it will be "The science is settled. CO2 is causing dangerous global cooling."
Because the anti-science nitwits doing the lying here on Yahoo Answers are ignorant of the science (a) because they are too stupid to understand it, and (b) too arrogant and dishonest to want to even try.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
The agenda for climate change is not about climate change. The agenda is to coerce an unwilling world population into adopting strict socio-economic policies to restrict freedoms and redistribute wealth and to create a massive world government full of unelected and unaccountable elitist politicians.
The UN's climate change chief admits there has been no warming in 17 years ?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134
Control... if people can control all the ways you use energy, they can control almost everything you ever do.
I get so confused.
The denier industry tell us that Rajendra Pachauri is a crook and a fraud and a failed railway mechanic - now you are pretending he is a climate expert and using a fake quote to prove climate science is a lie.
Oh, now I get it ................ your icon is Andrew Bolt - a tea party crank and News Ltd columnist (sorry for the tautology) with a long history of climate science dishonesty and a vile racist who makes up stories to justify his bigotry http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-28/bo...
That explains your post
Because "The Australian" is owned by the same people that own Fox news, which is found to be an astonishingly 93% wrong when it comes to reporting on AGW. To top it off, Fox News has argued in court (and won) they have the right to distort the news.
Follow the money...
Peter J states "Control... if people can control all the ways you use energy, they can control almost everything you ever do." Another (failed) conspiracy theory. You will still be allowed to use energy just like you are today, you will even be allowed to generate it the same way, you just won't be allowed to dump your waste into the atmosphere. And if you want to get away from the control, capture the energy from the sunshine, "they" can't control or tax sunshine...
This is a question that you need to ask of the major fossil fuel interests. They have the answer to this question.
Speaking of this, what does Rex Tillerson have to say on the matter of global warming? - Source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...
We can adapt?
It is an engineering problem?
What he is really saying is that he and his fellow fossil fuel industry leaders will continue to contribute to global warming and it is our problem as to how to fix it. He offered no engineering solutions. He did not even offer any of his engineers. He gave no suggestions as to how we might adapt.
No warming for the past 17 years? What rock have you been living under? - Do you ever read much? http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warmi...
Yes, you are lying.
Read what he actually said:
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/interna...
Some quotes from his speech today:
"..The good news is that we now have knowledge about climate change and therefore human society knows what needs to be done. If you want to look at it from the point of view of bad news, then the bad news is that we can't allow the current situation to continue, we really have to bring about change, because the impacts are getting progressively more serious."
"...By and large the impacts of climate change are going to affect every part of the globe. Of course in some cases it'll be worse than others. And it happens some of the poorest regions in the world are the most vulnerable and therefore we could possibly see climate refugees."
Agenda 21.
It's all about control.
Scientists are to scared to tell the truth because their funding will be cut .
