Maybe it was because the US gave the UN $100,000,000,000 last year.
Maybe it was because we all went, or were forced, to mercury light bulbs.
Maybe it was because the CO2 level went down. (oops didn't it go up ALL during that period.)
Maybe it was because China's pollution caused all that dimming.
Maybe it was because all those tyrannical laws that were enacted.
Maybe it was because that mean old ocean gobbled up the heat.
Maybe it was because Paul Ehrlich was right back in the seventies, we are going into an Ice Age.
Maybe it was because James Hansen retired and can no longer cook the books.
But you know what it really scientifically tracks to? The SUN! H-m-m-m-m. Just maybe that lying, mean spirited, ignorant, stupid, lowlife MAXX was right all along!
Maxx, telling the truth to a greenie is just like waving a red flag in front of a bull. It makes the bull do irrational actions.
Elizabeth: So what if the 'pause' ends? It still shows that the temperature is NOT controlled by CO2. You can't deny that. We have been saying all along that the temperature is CYCLIC in nature. I am sure that the Earth's temperature WILL go up sometime in the future, irregardless of the CO2 level. The Earth and science has proved you wrong and you are just too stubborn to admit it publicly.
Fact: there has been no global warming for 17 years 8 months. I'll explain to the deniers how you can have ten of the warmest years on your inaccurate record* in a period of no warming. You simply hit the high temp mark before those ten years started. If the temperature of my oven hits a record 500 degrees, I turn it off and it neither warms nor cools, it will remain at a record temperature. It does not have to warm! Duh!
As for 17 years 8 months not being long enough, the warming 1980-1998 was 18 years. Duh!
As for the cherry picking lie, use the most recent RSS data and work backwards as far as possible to a 0.00 trend using the IPCC's own least squares regression. The data sets the dates. Duh!
Don't take my word for it and don't take the word of angry people who are told what & how to think. Try it yourself. Then you'll know the truth.
Where is the empirical evidence linking co2 and global warming?
There is NONE! It has NOT been proven.
*It was warmer during the M and RWPs
"There's none so blind as those who will not see."
RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) data shows that the trend for the last 17 years has been flat. Other datasets show extended flat periods. The IPCC mention it in their reports. Several attempts have been made by the "scientists" to explain it away.
Surely, anyone who says it is not true is a Denier?
"The 17 warmest years on record have all been in the last 18 years ..."
Let me go into CF Quiz mode.
Do people know the difference between:
1. It is warm.
2. It is warming.
As for the pause ending ...
Will those believers who worry about that talk to the ones that think the pause does not exist, please?
Also, what if the pause does end? I don't think anyone knows which way it will move next. Will whatever is causing the pause just stop or will it increase. We don't even know what it is never mind how it will act in the future.
The pause will still need to be explained by the "settled science". Waiting for a new increase will not mean that explanations are no longer necessary. Until now we sceptics have found it difficult to get the AGW enthusiasts to stop and think about whether the suggested cause and effect are really linked. While it kept happening no-one showed any interest. Even now that CO2 is obviously not increasingly warming the atmosphere many are still reluctant to re-look at the supposedly causal link.
When the mechanism has been discovered and explained it will need to be inserted into the models and the model runs for the past will need to be repeated. If the model outputs agree with past events then we will have a starting point.
Its' about money. It always is . There is no man made warming. The earth warms and cools all the time and sometimes to extremes. Dinosaurs, wholly mammoth. Egypt was once a tropical paradise. The proponents of warming make lots of money speaking and writing books . If they are so worried maybe they should stay home and quit flying all over the country using all that fuel and shipping their books all over which takes a lot of gas which they say is warming the planet. Maybe they should also stop wearing those expensive suits which also take a lot of energy to make and ship. Their crazy and I wish they would stick a sock in it.
Scientists have recently found a correlation between solar decline and more solar radiation arriving at earth.
Whatever happens in the solar cycle, it is a cycle, taking 9 to 13 years to complete. Significant long-term radiation changes after completion of a solar cycle have not been observed by satellite measurements of the last 30+ years.
All of the points in the article you reference are standard denier cant, easily refuted, as in the references cited above.
What happens if the 'pause' ends? It'll be interesting to see how you and Sage respond to that.
Additional: Well, I rest my case. If the temperatures continue to rise, you'll claim it's natural variability. If the temperatures fall, it's natural variability. If the temperatures stay the same, it's natural variability. If the temperatures pause, then rise, then pause, then rise, you'll continue to claim its natural variability. I mean, what kind of 'scientific theory' basically says 'no matter what happens, I'll explain it with the phrase natural variability'. You might as well use the phrase 'weather goblins' for all the scientific merit that would have. It's pretty clear that you've decided that a) humans can't affect the climate (which isn't true because we've shown it twice - the effect of sulphate particles in the 1940s and 50s, and the effect of CO2 since the 1970s) and b) that all changes must therefore be part of natural variability. That's starting with a conclusion and picking the data that fits rather than taking data and drawing the conclusion afterwards. Natural variability doesn't explain the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the ratio of isotopes we see, the rising sea levels, or the rate at which oceans are warming. It doesn't explain the cooling of the troposphere, the energy imbalance measured by satellite systems or the inability of anyone to show mathematically what these 'natural variables' are that keep changing on your whim. Which is it, warming, a pause, or cooling? When you and Sage can make up your minds, get back to us on that.
The claim that there has been no global warming for the past 17 years is absolutely false, as was very well pointed out with the links that Lunt provided for us.
Elizabeth made an excellent post. You, and some of the others here, have painted yourself into a corner with the ludicrous claims that you will make now. 17 years is not even looking at the long term trends of the climate. How do you escape the next 17 year period of an increased rate of warming by using the failed logic that use now? Answer, you cannot. You have already painted yourself into a corner. More aptly said, you have put yourself into a box that you cannot escape.
True, the atmosphere hasn't warmed more than a fraction of a degree or maybe a bit more...nobody has ever suggested the it has. The reason for this is that 'heat' moves rapidly from 'hot' to cold'. That's why the heat generated by your car's engine doesn't melt the block... the heat moves rapidly into the coolant and from the coolant via the radiator into the atmosphere. Atmospheric heat moves from the atmosphere to seawater and to ice fields. Melting ice fields tells the story of the 'missing atmospheric heat index'.
No matter how many times this is explained the 'deniers' simply deny the established science of heat physics. They deny the data, the science and physics because either thy don't understand how this works, or they don't want to understand how it works. Strange but true!
NASA doesn't know how to get an accurate reading on Global temperatures and they have admitted this time and time again. That's why they use averages (anomalies). It's a "best guess" just as all scientists use to form their summaries. I'd like to know when they "can be" absolute about temperatures. Maybe they can make an accurate prediction after they achieve that?
Get a grip 2012 was the tenth warmest year on record.
The 17 warmest years on record have all been in the last 18 years and you call this no warming The story you linked to is a denier lie and not a very good lie at that
Plus 2013 is in line to be in or near the top ten warmest. The only thing u got right in this post is you left out those stupid videos
I have seen this as 15,16 and 17 years of no warming: This relates to a story written by David Rose Jan 29th 2012 in the DailyMail who ignored pertinent info from a MET interview where he lied about no warming. The MET responded to his article in their blog the same day discounting his story as bunk. Daily mail reprinted this story again as if it were a new article this year even though they knew it was bullsh*t It is an authenticated lie, nothing more and everyone who posts it is perpetuating the lie
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-bl...
climate is and has always changed naturally , but yes, ever since the industrial revolution human actions have had a great impact on it.
-----------------------
Not only do we have no man-made Global Warming, we've got no Global Warming (period).
17 years -- NO Global Warming
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/20/the-top-seven-global-warming-alarmist-setbacks-in-2013/
Don't complain that I linked the DailyCaller, there are plenty of links within the story to verify the story's content.
-----------------------
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/d...
No warming, yet the ten warmest years on record were in the last 20 years. That's strange...
Hasn't the man-made bit just been masked by the natural variation, temporarilarily...?
It's all Bush's fault. Why the hell did Al Gore get a Nobel prize when there was absolutely no global warming during any of Bush's 8 years in office. Bush should have gotten 8 Nobel Prizes for that magnificent accomplishment.
Alright, let's go:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheet...
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingu...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/coog...
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/how-...
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/pre...
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/...
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warmin...
Why bother?
Same article as mine, a slap in the face for warmists
