2011 was the ninth warmest year on record

[Paratus]

You know that really bright thing up in the sky? You know the one that when it's out it's light and warmer and when it's not out it's darker and colder? It's called the sun and it's the ultimate driver of all things climate in one way or another.

I know it's an overly simplistic answer, but you anthropogenic CO2 climate alarmists seem to want simple answers to complex questions.

Yes the sun who's output we measure on a day today basis. If the sun was driving the change we'd know.

In its most recent report in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted 54 ‘key uncertainties’ that complicate climate science.

Such a declaration of unresolved problems could hardly be called ‘hidden’. And some of these — such as uncertainties in measurements of past temperatures — have received consid- erable discussion in the media. But other gaps in the science are less well known beyond the field’s circle of specialists. Such holes do not undermine the fundamental conclusion that humans are warming the climate, which is based on the extreme rate of the twentieth-century temperature changes and the inability of climate models to simulate such warming without including the role of greenhouse-gas pollution. The uncertainties do, however, hamper efforts to plan for the future. And unlike the myths regularly trotted out by climate-change denialists, some of the outstanding problems may mean that future changes could be worse than currently projected.

I read some of your links. I'm not sure it says what you think it says.

 

[cybrsage]

Do you not understand that something has to cause these natural cycles? What is the cause of the natural cycle?

You will have to do that in depth research yourself if you want the specifics on how the existing natural cycle works. There are a lot of factors, but I suspect you already know this and are just playing dumb. I do not have to know how gravity works to know that it both exists and actually does work. I do not have to know how the natural cycle of the season and the natural cycle of the ice ages work to know that it both exists and actually does work.

If you want to pretend something either does not exist or does not work simply because you personally do not fully understand it, go right ahead. Don't expect others to do it, though.

 

[Paul98]

You will have to do that in depth research yourself if you want the specifics on how the existing natural cycle works. There are a lot of factors, but I suspect you already know this and are just playing dumb. I do not have to know how gravity works to know that it both exists and actually does work. I do not have to know how the natural cycle of the season and the natural cycle of the ice ages work to know that it both exists and actually does work.

If you want to pretend something either does not exist or does not work simply because you personally do not fully understand it, go right ahead. Don't expect others to do it, though.

So you don't understand why climate changes. Your argument seems to have been the climate goes through natural cycles, they can't change, and have no knowledge of what causes climate change. Then you say that we can't make any changes to these natural cycles because they happened before their for they will always happen, yet have no clue what these natural cycles consist of or do. Why wouldn't you listen to the vast majority of climate scientists who do study this stuff, and do know what causes most of these natural cycles. Do studies on man's role in the climate,...

You are just saying I have no clue about anything that has to do with climate change. But I do know climate changed in the past, yet have no clue what caused any of these changes. Then I won't listen to the people who study this stuff and instead make random claims with nothing to back them up.

 

[monovillage]

Yes the sun who's output we measure on a day today basis. If the sun was driving the change we'd know.

I read some of your links. I'm not sure it says what you think it says.

If you meant that I posted links that are as factual, true, unbiased and scientifically accurate as I could, then I know what they say. We may measure the sun's output, but it doesn't explain the myriads of effects it has in regard to clouds, changing albedo, land use, AMO, PDO, ENSO and the many other cycles that GCMs don't cover.

BTW i'm a skeptic that agrees that temperatures have been rising and that people have contributed to that warming. Now we should be discussing how much we're affecting them? What percentage is natural and what is anthropogenic? Since land use contributes more to the warming then CO2 does, should we change our focus? Is it a good or a bad thing? Can we do anything to change it? Do we want to do anything to change it? What will the costs be?

 

[blackangst1]

This chart shows a similar pattern as the OP's:

World population

 

[Paul98]

You know that really bright thing up in the sky? You know the one that when it's out it's light and warmer and when it's not out it's darker and colder? It's called the sun and it's the ultimate driver of all things climate in one way or another.

I know it's an overly simplistic answer, but you anthropogenic CO2 climate alarmists seem to want simple answers to complex questions.

Yep, sun is one of the major driving factors in the climate obviously. But it's only one factor, there are lots of factors, some of them we effect others we don't.

 

[monovillage]

Can you tell me why seal level went DOWN in 2010? Every Global Climate Model (GCM), every alarmist climate scientist, the IPCC, almost every climatologist predicted that sea levels would not only continue to rise (as they had since the last glacial period) but that they'd accelerate faster and faster. Instead they've been decelerating and actually went down in 2010.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

 

[NeoV]

mono - along the trendline, yes, there will be ups and downs from year to year - but the overall trend is still, very clearing, rising sea-levels - if you can't see that, you are blind

 

[cybrsage]

So you don't understand why climate changes. Your argument seems to have been the climate goes through natural cycles, they can't change, and have no knowledge of what causes climate change.

Here is where you fail. I did not say humanity does not know. I said:

"You will have to do that in depth research yourself if you want the specifics on how the existing natural cycle works."

You decide that means something else entirely. This is strange, since I was under the impression you understood English.

If you going to keep pretending the above quoted sentence means something else entirely then you might as well also realize I will stop replying to you.

 

[Paul98]

Can you tell me why seal level went DOWN in 2010? Every Global Climate Model (GCM), every alarmist climate scientist, the IPCC, almost every climatologist predicted that sea levels would not only continue to rise (as they had since the last glacial period) but that they'd accelerate faster and faster. Instead they've been decelerating and actually went down in 2010.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

from that link

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262

 

[cybrsage]

What percentage is natural and what is anthropogenic?

It is obviously 100% anthropogenic. The already existing natural cycle is irrelevant to temp change.

/globalwarningnut

 

[Paul98]

Here is where you fail. I did not say humanity does not know. I said:

"You will have to do that in depth research yourself if you want the specifics on how the existing natural cycle works."

You decide that means something else entirely. This is strange, since I was under the impression you understood English.

If you going to keep pretending the above quoted sentence means something else entirely then you might as well also realize I will stop replying to you.

What are you even talking about, of course I will have to do research if I want to know how climate cycles and climate change works.

I am trying to figure out if YOU know anything about this. But once again you totally missed the point, and I am not sure what that has to do with what you quoted.

As you clearly have zero understanding of climate change as you have already stated. I am wondering why you think you do understand, and that all the scientists who study this stuff don't understand.

 

[Darwin333]

Considering how much and how fast the Siberian and Greenland ice is melting, i sincerely doubt that any measures would make a difference at this point in time, we already passed the limit of when we could change the outcome.

Shrug. Again, I have no friggen clue. What you say sounds very reasonable but I don't even pretend to know enough about the subject to make any sort of scientific claim.

But lets say you are right, I doubt that at any point in our history we would have been able to prevent it either.

 

[IGBT]

AGW is dead. The theory has only accurately matched empirical global temps 17 yrs out of 112 yrs, which is a laughable result: 1900-'40 temps rose but there was insufficient man-made CO2, 1941-'80 man-made CO2 rapidly rose but global temps FELL (scientists actually theorized an imminet ice-age LOL!), '81-'97 man-made CO2 & temps rose in tandem (FINALLY! LOL) '98-2011 man-made CO2 rose at historic rates yet global temps were flat. What a joke. In real science, any theory that so poorly matched empirical data would be abandoned forthright. AGW theory in no way reflects nature itself, but rather reflects the nature of politicians, which is simply to part money for hard-working taxpayers. More and more courageous scientists are finally denouncing that failed AGW theory, and it will only be a matter of time before this hoax is thrown on the trash heap of bad ideas...

 

[monovillage]

mono - along the trendline, yes, there will be ups and downs from year to year - but the overall trend is still, very clearing, rising sea-levels - if you can't see that, you are blind

I clearly said that sea levels have been increasing since the last ice age, you dodged the question that why are they going down when every global climate model, every single damn alarmist climate scientist and the IPCC all said they would accelerate their rising?

 

[monovillage]

from that link

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262

Why did all these climate scientists, global climate models and the IPCC not know it?

I'll tell you, because according to their hypothesis it shouldn't be happening, but since it is actually happening and can be measured, they scramble for an explanation.

What happened is another example of the complete failure of the Global Climate Models to be anything close to accurate in predicting reality. It's the GCMs that have been used by all the alarmists to scare people and nations into spending huge sums of money and resources on faulty science.

"speed bump" "pot hole" lol

 

[cybrsage]

I am trying to figure out if YOU know anything about this. But once again you totally missed the point, and I am not sure what that has to do with what you quoted.

Then you should ask me if I know anything about this. You have been dancing around in circles instead.

As you clearly have zero understanding of climate change as you have already stated. I am wondering why you think you do understand, and that all the scientists who study this stuff don't understand.

You would not know, you never bothered to ask. You instead asked me to give you a doctorate level dissertation on climate and I said no, research it yourself.

How you manage to take the false leap from me not giving you a dissertation to you thinking this means I know nothing of the subject is beyond all logical comprehension.

 

[Paul98]

Then you should ask me if I know anything about this. You have been dancing around in circles instead.



You would not know, you never bothered to ask. You instead asked me to give you a doctorate level dissertation on climate and I said no, research it yourself.

How you manage to take the false leap from me not giving you a dissertation to you thinking this means I know nothing of the subject is beyond all logical comprehension.

No one was asking for a complex explanation. You couldn't answer a simple question. As for asking how much you know about a subject, that is meaningless you will only say how much you THINK you know. You get a much better grasp on a persons knowledge asking them questions about the subject. This shows what they actually know and what they don't know. It became clear that you don't know much about this subject from the answers you gave.

 

[Paul98]

Why did all these climate scientists, global climate models and the IPCC not know it?

I'll tell you, because according to their hypothesis it shouldn't be happening, but since it is actually happening and can be measured, they scramble for an explanation.

What happened is another example of the complete failure of the Global Climate Models to be anything close to accurate in predicting reality. It's the GCMs that have been used by all the alarmists to scare people and nations into spending huge sums of money and resources on faulty science.

"speed bump" "pot hole" lol

You are trying to make an argument against something that there was no science making the argument for. They know that these things have variation, and that it's not just a strait line up when looking at a single data point. It is also why they gave an explanation about where the extra water that isn't in the ocean went.

 

[NeoV]

Mono - you are the one dodging - the trend in the very article you linked - clearly shows a very obvious rise in sea levels.

A trend is, by definition, more like an average - meaning you may have data points above and/or below the trendline, as is this case with your silly "why did it seem to go down last year?" question.

 

[monovillage]

Mono - you are the one dodging - the trend in the very article you linked - clearly shows a very obvious rise in sea levels.

A trend is, by definition, more like an average - meaning you may have data points above and/or below the trendline, as is this case with your silly "why did it seem to go down last year?" question.

You are hiding the fact that I posted the damn thing, I know what's in it. What you are lying about and avoiding is the fact that none of the scientists expected it to happen, none predicted it. The reason why they didn't predict it is that none of their climate models thought it would happen.
Yet in the middle of all the ignorance and uncertainty you want the U.S. to be spending tens of billions of dollars trying to solve a problem which may not even exist.

 

[monovillage]

This is the most important trend. The fact that in this poll global warming places 22nd out of 22 choices for Americans top concerns.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/205885-poll-economy-remains-americans-top-concern

PDF of the poll

http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/1-23-12 Priorities Release.pdf

Keep spurring that dead horse, it's not going to take you anywhere.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Can you tell me why seal level went DOWN in 2010? Every Global Climate Model (GCM), every alarmist climate scientist, the IPCC, almost every climatologist predicted that sea levels would not only continue to rise (as they had since the last glacial period) but that they'd accelerate faster and faster. Instead they've been decelerating and actually went down in 2010.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Why do you ask why the SEA level went down when YOUR SOURCE tells you it was the massive flooding events in South Asia/Australia and South America caused by OCEAN water evaporation due the the sudden change from El Nino to La Nina? A quarter inch drop predicted to return to a steady rise. Don't you read your own source?

 

[monovillage]

Why do you ask why the SEA level went down when YOUR SOURCE tells you it was the massive flooding events in South Asia/Australia and South America caused by OCEAN water evaporation due the the sudden change from El Nina to La Nino? A quarter inch drop predicted to return to a steady rise. Don't you read your own source?

Yes I did, why don't you answer the question about GCMs? You and NeoV just dance and avoid and dodge around it. None have answered it.

 

[WHAMPOM]

You are hiding the fact that I posted the damn thing, I know what's in it. What you are lying about and avoiding is the fact that none of the scientists expected it to happen, none predicted it. The reason why they didn't predict it is that none of their climate models thought it would happen.
Yet in the middle of all the ignorance and uncertainty you want the U.S. to be spending tens of billions of dollars trying to solve a problem which may not even exist.

Quit your backpedding, you know you misrepresented the facts of the sea level drop in your post with the *link* in it.