By Whit Gibbons
For the Salisbury Post
according to the American Meteorological Society : “Earth’s atmospheric and oceanic temperatures are rising unabated” and “the world continues to warm.
That is why climate scientists came up with the Chinese aerosol story – to explain why the Earth is not warming.
You see cold is the new warm. It’s simple – didn’t you get the memo?
This gives something like a -0.05 K/decade gradient – they can’t cover their ass with “aerosols” in light of what they said CO2 forcing is
There is no decline and if there were, according to that cherry picked chart, it would be trivial.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/mean:1/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2011/trend
Furthermore, the drop in solar radiance beginning in the late 1980s and dramatically declining since 2002 is real, empty mockery notwithstanding. It is obviously offsetting, that is depressing the trend-regardless of your empty ridicule.
Experience has shown that the posters here rarely respond to hard questions. Let’s see if anyone here can answer this;
Has the sun not dropped in radiance and isn’t it obvious that such a drop will depress the trend, particularly from 2002 onward?
What are you freaking talking about?
Do you mean to say that the laugh-your-ass-off at the “denialst” joke about “it’s the sun ha ha it can’t be” thrown at denialists over the 1977-1998 era is not a joke any more?
Or are you saying that the average radiance decrease over that period was different than it is now?
Why don’t you just find a solar radiance chart and find out for yourself?
And since you’re in the habit of name calling, please get your head out of your anal orifice and discover the fact that we are in a deep solar radiance decline since 2002. Or do you think that your pontifical arrogance can change solar physics?
You mean like this here?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/media/109622/Monthly-satellite-measurements-of-total-solar-irradiance-since-1980-comparing
And how is the 11 year periodicity different now than it was in prior decades when “global warming can’t be the sun you jerk denialists” was used to demonstrate how stupid denialsts could behave?
Why should we? Does “unabated” mean something different in your world?
(minor [but telling] point)
Ill-wind,
You really have to learn to read text before you respond to it. I assume you read the word “ass” in the above comment and immediately assumed that someone was name-calling … Look at the context: laugh-your-ass-off-at-the-“denialist” joke (corrections added) is not name-calling – it’s “joke” that’s being designated, not you (or any other warmist). More generally (and this is a friendly hint), when you respond in a way that verges on the incoherent (the word “raving” comes to mind), you certainly don’t impress anybody except perhaps minds that are resonating at the same frequencies as yours is.
“No decline” is the same as “continues to warm.” Thanks for clearing that up.
Among others, Trenberth can set you straight on the utter lack of influence solar activity has had on recent global temperature trends-
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/24/lump-of-coal-award-to-ipcc-lead-author-kevin-trenberth-for-hiding-the-decline-or-the-lack-of-increase-in-global-temperatures/
“Sweet: Can you say something about the widespread belief that solar activity somehow accounts for the temperature changes we’ve seen in recent decades?
Trenberth: That’s easily disproven. It’s nonsense. Since 1979 we’ve had spacecraft measuring total solar irradiance, and there’s been no change—if anything the sun has cooled slightly. There’s nothing in the record that indicates that the sun is responsible for any of the warming in this period.”
There you go. To even entertain the notion that solar activity has any influence on recent temperature trends (increase or decrease) is utter nonsense; specious drivel; denier dross; anti-science; neanderthalian thinking; worthy of arrest and Nurenburg trials.
The Trenberth hath spake. So it is written. So it shall be done!
This is “rebuke the denier 101,” or it used to be, anyway.
I meant to add, that I think that someday Dr Trenberth will be saying similar things about “carbon dioxide” as he says about “solar activity,” although it may take some while.
If the guy is basically honest with himself, he will (I think he is)
That statement re “lack of influence solar activity has had on recent global temperature trends” (and other similar ones as reported by the London Independent) is actually what changed my mind from being a warmist to being a skeptic – it’s non-science.
Which part of “no increase over the last decade” do you not understand? “Earth’s atmospheric and oceanic temperatures are rising unabated” means NOW, and the recent past, and that clearly isn’t happening. Trenberth admitted it several years ago, a recently published paper admits it. Are you in denial? HADCRUT shows it, GISTEMP (as above) shows it, UAH shows a very small upward trend.
Your understanding of TSI is non-existent. Why is your “drop in solar radiance beginning in the late 1980s and dramatically declining since 2002” not mentioned in IPCC AR4 or anywhere else? Has it escaped the notice of “97% of climate scientists”.? Do you not think that the “deniers and sceptics” would have seized on it as evidence of a significant natural effect on climate?
Oh I see. The sun can cool the earth but the 1500 year confluence of solar activity the earth had in the late 1990s, along with an El Nino and the Northern hot cycle of the PDO had nothing to do with the relative mild warming? it always works for you nuts doesn’t it?
So you completely agree with the “Denialist” position that the sun plays a significant role in climate change? Answer is YES according to your post. Hooray… we have a convert. Finally we can see a warmist with a brain. No if only we can convince him that if the sun plays a role in cooling then it should also play a role in warming. What do you reckon Ill Wind?
And since yopu chose Hadcrut here’s the difference a year makes; from 2000 to 2011 instead of 2001 to 2011.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:1/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2011/trend
A year makes a difference all right, but you’ve still got no explanation for no warming since 1998.
You aren’t praying to the global warming gods fervently enough to give you some global warming. That’s your basic problem. That and the fact they can tell you are slightly skeptical. They won’t give you any global warming unless you believe in their power with all your heart.
The arctic has never ever ever been so boiling hot. The Mammoth learned quickly to subsist on bits of lichen and by straining leadwater for plankton. Before Unicorns learned to fly, they would migrate every year across the arctic ocean, and the Vikings would send mail and supplies with them to their settlers in the frigid new land. The world was perfect then, before the evil gas.
I can just imagine what the Chinese think of the Chinese aerosol “theory”. What are they supposed to do now, ramp up the aerosols to save the planet?
Yes, but ONLY after they all stand up in chairs and jump down simultaneously, and throw the earth out of orbit……
Better, there is another data set which is in almost total agreement with HadCrut’s trend line.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/offset:-0.175/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/offset:-0.175
****Notice the exaggeration of extremes with the sat data and how it appears to be biased towards warmth.
Ill wind blowing is having a dickens of a time defending unfalsifiable theories.
Odd.
Well it appears Obama kept his promise to us…
…”this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…”
Silly scientists crediting China for the work of the saviour.
1895 “Geologists think that the world may be frozen up again” (NY Times)
1912 “Human race will have have to fight for its existance against cold” (LA Times)
1912 “Titanic hits an iceberg and sinks. An ice age is encroaching” (NY Times)
1923 “The ice age is coming here” (Washington Post)
1930 “America is in longest warm spell since 1776, with temperatures in a 25 year rise (NY Times)
1939 “..weathermen have no doubt, that the world, at least for the time being, is growing warmer (Time Magazine)
I could keep going. The “we are warming to death crowd” kept going into 1950’s. Then in the 70’s it switched back to “we are all going into an ice age again.” Then in the 80’s it switched back into global warming again. Since the late 1800’s, the NY Times has said 2 times we were entering an ice age, followed by 2 times that global warming is coming.
As a Stanford grad (a long time ago), I knew the late Stephen Schneider. He was one of the AGW proponents that was screaming ice age in the 70’s and switched in the 80’s to screaming AGW. I asked him what he would do if the world started cooling again, and he said, “switch back to ice age.”
To believe either that we are going into an ice age or going to heat to death is to suspend disbelief completely and to completely ignore history.
You guys arguments are childish and rediculous. The world is not going to warm to death and we aren’t going to enter an ice age. You guys need to put your toys back where they belong and go to bed. The entire AGW, climate change fiasco is a government funding doomsday scenario. No doomsday scenario has ever happened and every one has ended up making those who believed it look like idiots. This will be no different.
True, but at the same time it’s an extraordinary experience to be living at the time of a world-wide social hysteria (while fully agreeing with Stephen Dedalus’ comment about history). The parallels with the Great Witch Hysteria of the 16th-17th centuries are downright eerie (once you look past the modern frills and trappings – and thank God for all the checks and balances that have so far kept the present hysteria within civilized bounds).
Incidentally, I appreciate those historical references. They raise a lot of questions, among them: Why did the overblown claims of yesteryear not ignite the way the present ones have?
Man you said it in a nutshell. Now I understand the Salem Witch trials, now I understand National Socialism in Germany, now I understand the Scopes Monkey Trial… The joke here is that everybody thinks that humans are becoming more civilised…
I just ran across this passage in the Wikipedia entry for the Malleus Maleficarum:
It’s almost as if the writer were thinking about the present times when he/she wrote this.
Pinky and the Brain continues to warm…
Trivial warming or entirely lack of warming over the last 10-15 years, all the while atmospheric co2 has increased by what about 30ppm? What does that tell you about how improbable future warming will be using the IPCC models? Does anyone really believe that after global temps will suddenly jump by 2C+ in 40 more years after doing nothing the last 10-15?
Of course. It’s not called, “Runaway Global Warming” for nothing! LOL