AGW vs NATURE- One point at a time

Hi Garry

Yep sure is and i think the global warming reliogion is currently clutching at straws casue the weather hasn'r behaved as they predicted.

With CO2 rising and water vapor decreasing it certainely throws out the baby and the bath water imo in regards to IPCC Global Coputer Models.

I have read some papers in the past that do say if CO2 becomes saturated in our atmosphere it does have a cooling effect?? Is this what your are talking about??

I have read this opinion on Miskolczi's paper which explains why CO2 has no effect on temperature because it displases or rains out the excess water vapor which would seem to explain what is happening right now imo.

The Saturated Greenhouse Effect
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm

I haven't really noticed warm peaks are lower each time, is there are graph that actually highlights this?

Do you think we might be headed for colder temperatures in the near future?

If we're going to plummet it wont be during our life time i think, as its suppoe to take a few thousand years.

 

You really are a sad case TV,

Not only did you report me for calling you a name, do you want to get me kicked off TV?

But you never read what i write do you???

Fair enough monckton might be going around parading his bells and whistles about no warming in 16 years but it has been confirmed by non other than,

Now if these people have aknowledged and confirmed it, the people that are the main authory an instigators of global warming, the people that governments are listening to and passing carbon taxes and ETS systems all arounf the world because of them.

What you and your buddies (the algorians) over at the skeptical science blog say is irrelevant.

Do you understand the word irrelevant.????????!!!!!!!!!


.

 

lol......I never reported you. We both give as good as we get....hahahaha! But certainly didn't report you. PF wouldn't be the same without ya!

I read most of what you write but do tend to get sick of trying to read everything when you absolutely bombard a post. I don't think anyone actually reads long winded posts, especially when there are varied tangents.

By the way, none of your links provide anything(page not found).

Dumb, what is your hang up with skeptical science? It provides some very logical information and is a self funded site. I know there was excitement when Al Gore personally acknowledged them, and denialist wanted to try promulgate and imply he was funding them.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Legal Case concerning Gore was a beat up.

The film is also subject to attack on the grounds that Al Gore was prosecuted in the UK and a judge found many errors in the film. This is untrue.

The case, heard in the civil court, was brought by a school governor against the Secretary of State for Education, in an attempt to prevent the film being distributed to schools. Mr. Justice Burton, in his judgement, ordered that teaching notes accompanying the film should be modified to clarify the speculative (and occasionally hyperbolic) presentation of some issues.

Mr. Justice Burton found no errors at all in the science. In his written judgement, the word error appears in quotes each time it is used – nine points formed the entirety of his judgement - indicating that he did not support the assertion the points were erroneous. The rest can be read here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm

 

Sorry it is so small but could not bother increasing size


You will have to take into consideration that earlier temperatures are lacking accuracy, but I do believe it is the over all trend that needs to be certified before anybody should be considering they have any idea what is going to happen now.

No, I believe that the pause will end soon and a continue increase will be felt. I am not sure of peak time frames, but it is my expectation that cooling will not begin for some time.

No it will be a generational time frame. I certainly do not believe that the question of CO2 and the alarmists propaganda will be settled in our life time. But I do believe, while clowns around the planet believe they are so smart they can change nature, Nothing will be done to adapt until it is far to late.


Everybody man thinks it can control nature, it bites back to demonstrate how simply stupid it is.
Have a look here to see what I am talking about.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

 

Something must have dropped of

Here is one of many from the internet about Al Gore's inconveniet truth

 

Thanks Garry

Yeah there's one thing thats for sure the science isn't settled.

I hope your wrong about the warming up soon, sorry.

I agree we cant control the Earth's climate no matter how hard we try.

 

Here we have the classic example of deception

http://www.skepticalscience.com

Please note the graph I posted above

View attachment 18713

Check this one out.

Notice how it is the complete opposite of the first graph? It is the mirror image.

Without closer examination one would consider it tells you a different story to the first.

However, one has information cut off, in an attempt to deceive people. Further, when you head to the link that is attached (where I found it) the graph is not mentioned or even displayed. And this site wants to be taken seriously.

 

The sources provided in your link are essentially supporting human induced climate change.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...its-Met-Office: (Refer to notes on below link!)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226583112134 :(This article suggests that this is not an indication of climate but of "weather", simply due to it being a 5 year projection. Therefore 30 - 40 years is required to ascertain climate. Unfortunately the above link is an article of denialist deception!)

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailin...rature2012.pdf (This is a snippet from this document: "Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998." Probably not a source you would want to use for a denialist argument.)

Again, the graph below indicates climate as opposed to weather. "This comes from your sources by the way". It actually supports the argument above that temperatures would need a decline over an extended period of time to indicate warming is non conclusive. The oscillations are within the increasing range of rising temperature as can be noted in the graph below, which comes from the met office and again, sources you have provided. Therefore short term decreases in temperature, obviously as a consequence of natural variability are insignificant in the whole scheme of things.

 

That is preciscely my point, the sources i have quoted are all for global warming, they actually champion global warming and have even convinced governments to pass carbon taxes and ETS.

We are talking about the head of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri.

We are talking about the Met Office one of the top cheer leaders of global warming.

And we are talking about Hansen a poster boy global warming scientist.

All agree that global warming has stalled and there hasn't been any warming in 16 years.

All this was confirmed at the start of 2013 so your sources which i will not even look at are redundant and irrelevant.

We heard it from the horses mouth thats why i chose them, cause if they admitt it, it doesn'r really matter what skeptical science and the algorians say, its nothing more than hot wind.

 

Dumb, you didn't read or respond to the side notes. It is an obvious twist of their statements by denialists.

 

Sorry champ but it has been reported all over the world.

If their words where indeed twisted as you put it they would have come out and said so, maybe even sued.

The truth is out there TV.....??????

You just have to sort the wheat from the chaff.

 

So, that's your response, that it had been reported all over the world, and you think governments are going to simply rely on news paper reports regarding scientific evidence.......this is such a shallow view and argument dumb.

Sorting the wheat from the chaff is exactly what you need to do and this clip is an example of it. Despite a lull in temperature due to natural variation, there is still an overall upwards trend. You can't rely on oscillations to give you the story dumb, but this clip will provide a clear context.[video]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk[/video]

 

Pachauri, Hansen and the Met Office have all confirmed there has been no warming in 16 years.

Unless you have some evidence that says otherwise i'm afraid your clucthing at straws so as not to sink on this issue.

No warming in 16 years

 

Dumb, you haven't addressed any of those points I'd raised in response to your articles you posted. Again, oscillations are not an indication of climate. Anyway, I'm addressing your statements and was hoping that you would reciprocate. We could simply continue to post graphs, articles and websites from either side of the argument, which wouldn't achieve anything. We need oppose and support using logic.

 

He has answered every one of your claims. You have simply attempted subversion to weasel your way out of your claims.

You have not. You cannot answer the simplest, clear and concise question (which were your rules) and change the debate to suite YOUR agenda.

It appears that your logic is being demonstrated completely here, if you cannot refute everything you just ignore it. Much like your AGW religion, I must say.

 

I have repeatedly told you that the Head of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri,

The met office and Hansen (global warming scientist at NASA) have all confirmed that global warming has halted and there has been no warming in the last 16 years.

Now what part of my statement dont you understand????????????????????

Maybe you should convince the IPCC that there has not been any warming for 16 years FFS.

 

I know what it is TV

You haven't got a foot to stand on so instead of giving a good honest account of yourself in the debate, you resort to the twisting of words to fly of on a tangent.

Well here they are again for your perusal and if you take the time to read them you will see that they are connected in some.

If the head of the IPCC, the met office and Hansen agree that global warming has stalled for the last 16 years what you or the skeptical science blog say is irrelevant.

 

Your lucky champ its status has been upgraded to private reading and i cant open it anymore.

Did you know this??

Anyway for the record TV did report me and i have been warned.

Facts are,

1. The head of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri has confirmed that there has been no warming since 1997.

2. The Met office also has confirmed that there has been no warming since 1997.

3. Global warming scienstist and poster biy Hansen has also confirmed that there has been no warming since 1997.

There is nothing to argue about, if they have cut your lunch you should really take it up with them.

After all they are on your side and they do lead your mob in the science of AGW, if they aknowledge it, i'm not going to waste my time argueing about it with someone who doesn'r know what he's talking about.

BTW where is that graph from?

How many valconoes erupted and what was the composition of the clouds they emitted.

Where is your proof that enough valconoes erupted since 1940???

Mod edit..insult...flounder

 

Gee you are full of sh!t dumb regarding the reporting issue! You like telling tall ones, and if you can tell a tall one on this, then you will tell tall ones on everything!

So you decided not to respond to the "TREND" I see, which is the most obvious picture regarding cooling periods and how they fit in the whole scheme of things.

Like the misrepresentations regarding climategate, the Australian ran with one snippet without finding out what this meant. Can you provide a transcript or clip whereby Rajendra pachauri quotes this. If not you are simply relying on dodgy journalism. Again, do we have consensus that the media are after a good story and not always the truth?

As you should have read, I said volcanoes "etc". I was basically making reference to forces that cause cooling, but happy to investigate. In any instance there is an upwards "TREND" despite this cooling. The cooling was 0.1 degrees don't forget.

 

Your just lucky i can't access it.

No one can deny that global warming has stalled otherwise we would know they are misleading us or telling us lies, we have the data to prove it, so yeah Pachauri,Hansen and the Met Office have admitted it.

Here’s what temperatures look like more recently.

 

with reference

 

LOL... Commentary website... LOL Do you have any idea what website it is from??? Perhaps you should examine the bottom right of the graph to note exactly where this graph came from... LOL. So you disagree with the pretty pictures, and you have no idea what they are... LOL.

As said, stop pretending and get informed… LOL.

 

They didn't produce the data they graphed it - thats what they do. So fancy coming up with the source of the data

 

LOL... don't tell me you are going to fooled by the link provided as well. Perhaps if you go to the site, you might actually find out. But just to satisfy your curiosity

http://woodfortrees.org/credits

Perhaps this will help to understand

http://woodfortrees.org/

Now TV can create his own little pretty pictures

So TV attempts a logical fallacy because he has nothing, strawman debate is all he has... do you now attempt to support that?