Posts by Stamper Stamp
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Hi Bart
You asked if I could quote “a blog post that dubunks the increased frequency to extreme weather events predicted by global warming model and observed over the last decade during your “flat-line” “.Well happened upon this information from the USA’s House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. This comment pertains to President Obama:
Quote: “Even the U.N. doesn’t agree with him [Obama] on that one: In its 2012 Special Report on Extreme Events, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there is “high agreement” among leading experts that long-term trends in weather disasters are not attributable to human-caused climate change. Why do the president and others in his administration keep repeating this untrue claim?”
See : http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/
I hope this is of some help.
Enjoy the inter-glacial – S S -
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to Bruce Ward,
Hi Bruce
One of the more high profile Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists was/is? Dr Phil Jones of the CRU of the University of East Anglia and was concerned about the flat-lining of temperatures. He reported slight cooling in 2005 and in 2009 said in the CRU emails:
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’Well, I guess Dr Phil is worried; I must say he has been a lot quieter in recent years.
Maybe he sees the end of the gravy train looming in the not too distant future.Enjoy the inter-glacial – S S
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Hi Bart
The 18+ year pause in world temperatures continues to be a difficulty for the alarmists. Many of them have tried to explain it, after all – atmospheric CO2 continued to rise from approx 350ppm to 400ppm during this time.A recent list of excuses for the pause has more than 60 reasons and counting. It really is a thorn in the side of the “settled science” believers. Maybe CO2 is not the driver of world temperatures as they hoped. Down the gurgler goes another theory.
At least the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming alarm is a change from the Global Cooling / another Ice-age alarm of the 1970’s.
Anyway, this link shows a list of reasons/excuses for the 18 year pause.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/updated-list-of-64-excuses-for-18-26.htmlNote # 2 - Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
Enjoy the inter-glacial – S S
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Hi Bart
"But what you and your ilk fail to realise (or just blindly ignore) is they do so BY PRESENTING DATA"Well - the problem with data is that it doesn’t always suit your story.
E.g. It is now widely accepted that the world’s surface temperature has remained static for some 18 years to-date, while CO2 has increased from approximately 350 ppm to 400 ppm.
That is data which the alarmists have difficulty rationalizing. -
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to william blake,
Hi William
I see from the comments that many commenters here don’t like Prof Judith Curry – pity, as she certainly is a lot more reasonable and balanced in her views than some of the skeptics.How about skeptic and MIT Prof. Richard Lindzen?
You earlier suggested I read the “fifth IPPC report”. Well Lindzen was a contributor to the 1995 IPCC report and the lead author of Chapter 7 (“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks”) of the IPCC’s 2001 report. He has spent a life-time studying physics and climate. He appears more skeptical of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming [CAGW] today than ever. 18 years flat-lining temperatures while CO2 increases from approx. 350ppm to 400ppm helps too !I recommend this link:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.htmlBy the way - don’t assume the so-called consensus on CAGW is correct.
The story of plate tectonics is the story of how one man, Alfred Wegener, came up with the theory of continental drift, only to be widely opposed and mocked. Wegener challenged the earth science “consensus” of his day. And in the end, his view prevailed. Food for thought eh? -
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to Alfie,
+1
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to william blake,
Hi William
Many people have done just that - Prof Judith Curry said:“Evidence reported by the IPCC AR5 weakens the case for anthropogenic factors dominating climate change in the 20th and early 21st centuries.”
Her analysis can be found here:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/A worthwhile read.
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to william blake,
Hi William
Many people have done just that - Prof Judith Curry said:“Evidence reported by the IPCC AR5 weakens the case for anthropogenic factors dominating climate change in the 20th and early 21st centuries.”
Her analysis can be found here:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/A worthwhile read.
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to Alfie,
Hi Alfie
Sorry to see you’re beginning to hyperventilate; stay charm. Re-read it again and you will find I am not quoting misinformation from climate change deniers, I am just pointing out that carrying out more investigation means the science is not settled. There there now, feeling better? -
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to tom dale,
Hi Tom
I agree - those items you mention may well turn out to have an influence on why we have been "flat-lining" temperature wise for some 18 years. The problem with these investigations for the believers in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is two fold:
* this means "the science is settled" is not true
* and the corollary is that man-made CO2 is not the main/only driver of temperature change; which is not surprising given that CO2 has risen from roughly 350ppm to 400ppm during the 18 years of flat-lining.