Slashdot Mirror

Honestly, when the fuck are people going to be done banging the fucking global warming bell?

Do you have a problem with us using our best understanding to make decisions?

We've gone from global warming to global climate change to global wow the ice caps are bigger than we remember from last 10 years.

Both the terms global warming and global climate change are in current use in the literature. The ice caps are smaller now than they have been in the recent past, as studies like this one show.

Give it a fucking rest already.

It is kind of important. If Antarctic ice sheet mass loss is accelerating, it is critical to know how fast, as it is closely related to sea level rise, which in turn takes large engineering projects to adapt to.

The damn naturally occuring volcanoes give off more greenhouse gasses in a week than 50 years of modern innovation has ever produced.

This would be bullshit.
The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes.
Atmospheric CO2 does not even blink at large volcanic eruptions.

Honestly.

That would help. But truthfully is more important, and for that you'd have to know what you're taking about.

Enough. Tired of it now. Can I vote against you all? Somehow? I want to. Seriously.

If you've got enough mod points you can.

All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 14 and almost 18 years.

UAH shows .112 deg/decade warming over 14 years. I didn't check any of your other claims. Yes, 2008 was a unusually cold year and for six years now, deniers have been abusing that one data point. You can make your own plots here. If you plot longer times you can see the variability that makes these claims that global warming has stopped obviously based on noise.

I don't think you understand the difference between global warming and climate change.

The only thing false is how you selectively link to a site that ADMITS CO2 follows warming, they even try linking to shady study that tries to arm wave that away:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

You seem to misunderstand the CO2 cycle.
You see, in an ideal world, the cycle is neutral. It runs at 100%.
IE, what gets created gets pumped back into the system.

We could create 4% of what's atmosphere, 50%, or 0.02%.
It doesnt matter, cause what matters is that what we create is NOT PART OF THE CYCLE. IT'S IN ADDITION TO THE CYCLE.
That's what causes the problems. We add CO2 without removing it, increasing hte overall concentration over time, increasing hte ability of hte atmosphere to trap heat over time.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Also: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

You seem to misunderstand the CO2 cycle.
You see, in an ideal world, the cycle is neutral. It runs at 100%.
IE, what gets created gets pumped back into the system.

We could create 4% of what's atmosphere, 50%, or 0.02%.
It doesnt matter, cause what matters is that what we create is NOT PART OF THE CYCLE. IT'S IN ADDITION TO THE CYCLE.
That's what causes the problems. We add CO2 without removing it, increasing hte overall concentration over time, increasing hte ability of hte atmosphere to trap heat over time.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Also: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Short version: you're full of shit.

Long version:
1: Nope. What you said is just gibberish covered bullshit, with a side of ignorance.

2: Ah yes! The "secret data set no one has ever seen" myth. Actually try a few dozen different and separate lines of evidence, each with multiple scientists studying it, each with multiple data sets, NONE OF IT SECRET.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

3: Nope. The models are good.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

No, temps have not stalled or declined.
No, you have nothing coherent, factual, or worthwhile to say.
Yes, you are an ignorant buffoon just spreading more BS.

Short version: you're full of shit.

Long version:
1: Nope. What you said is just gibberish covered bullshit, with a side of ignorance.

2: Ah yes! The "secret data set no one has ever seen" myth. Actually try a few dozen different and separate lines of evidence, each with multiple scientists studying it, each with multiple data sets, NONE OF IT SECRET.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

3: Nope. The models are good.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

No, temps have not stalled or declined.
No, you have nothing coherent, factual, or worthwhile to say.
Yes, you are an ignorant buffoon just spreading more BS.

bullshit.
nothing you just stated is true.

Increased CO2 is NOT a response to global warming caused by something else.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

bullshit.
nothing you just stated is true.

Increased CO2 is NOT a response to global warming caused by something else.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

the only thing false here is everything you spew.
Increased CO2 is NOT a response to global warming caused by something else.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

the only thing false here is everything you spew.
Increased CO2 is NOT a response to global warming caused by something else.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

But it increased — a lot — instead of shrinking

Did you read the part of the summary that says " two dimensional area". The volume of ice is not increasing, not even a little. Below is a link with a pretty thorough explanation with lots of citations pertaining to how the data is gathered and measured. The last line clearly states "Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly." http://www.skepticalscience.co...

troll be trolling.
or troll needs to learn to read a graph:
http://static.skepticalscience...
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/...

Courtesy: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

troll be trolling.
or troll needs to learn to read a graph:
http://static.skepticalscience...
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/...

Courtesy: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Fox news... ...one of the biggest climate misinformers and climate misquoters and "simply doesnt know what they are talking about concerning...anything"... ...is your source....

Ya.....nope. At best, in court, it would be hearsay. As in "my friend said that jonny said that beth said..."

Here's what actual science has to say on the subject:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Fox news... ...one of the biggest climate misinformers and climate misquoters and "simply doesnt know what they are talking about concerning...anything"... ...is your source....

Ya.....nope. At best, in court, it would be hearsay. As in "my friend said that jonny said that beth said..."

Here's what actual science has to say on the subject:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

miniscule?
miniscule?!

The level of average CO2 has risen from approximately 280ppm to 400+. That's almost a 50% increase. In the entire atmosphere.
Do you have any idea just how large a volume that is???
Yearly human activity puts out over 40 BILLION tons of the stuff.
40 billion tons is the same weight as 100,000 aircraft carriers.
And we put out that much of a GAS yearly.

Make no mistake: the only one making an error here is you. He presented the very essence of a scientific argument, with testable observations (that have been made and done over and over again). Ever heard of a positive feedback loop? If everything is in equilibrium, fine and dandy. But increase one factor, like say increasing CO2 by 50%, and you trigger a series of events. One of which is: it gets warmer -> leading to mroe water vapor in the air -> trapping more heat -> it gets warmer -> leading to mroe water vapor in the air -> trapping more heat -> it gets warmer -> leading to mroe water vapor in the air -> trapping more heat -> it gets warmer -> leading to mroe water vapor in the air -> trapping more heat -> it gets warmer -> .....

Get the idea? Edumicate thyself: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Just because water vapor is common in the atmosphere doesnt mean that CO2 can be ignored. Toe ven posite such a thing proves your own ginorance of the system.

I agree with your basic premise but most AGW advocates ignore and will not address contrary evidence, preferring instead to ridicule and cast aspersions, as you do.

Increasing seasonal sea ice in Antarctica is not "contra-evidence", it's a prediction that most models have been making for over 20yrs now, the mechanism that causes the counter intuitive result is well understood. So called "skeptics" are flogging a dead horse in their attempts to cite it as some sort of "smoking gun" that climate scientists are attempting to hide. The often intentionally misleading claim is ranked at #10 on skeptical sciences list of most popular climate myths.

As for Al Gore, any internet idiot can play "gottcha science" by taking words out of context and deliberately misinterpreting them. However the scientists who were lead authors of the IPCC reports that Gore's documentary was based on gave it a good review for it's representation of the report. Of course there were minor errors, and yes, the scientists pointed them out. The reason Gore shared the Nobel prize with the IPCC is that he put the IPCC's monumental lit-review effort squarely at the center of public policy debate.

Useful idiots? - As someone who has followed climate science with interest since the late 70's, Gore's documentary was an excellent (but imperfect) explanation of the science and it's real world consequences. It's a shame so many slashdotters mindlessly join in when the Gore bashing starts, he's the only well educated geek that has come close to sitting in the whitehouse for a very long time. History will admire his charitable public education efforts, even if most american's currently do not.

Disclaimer: I've been well known on slashdot for commenting on climate related stories for around 15yrs now, I'm not and have never been an "AGW advocate", I'm a science advocate.

Ooooh! It's the biggest conspiracy in human history! By the sheer scale of it, I wager it must have been perpetrated by the Illuminati, the Masons, the Elders of Zion and the New World Order all at once, because each of these organizations hate the fossil fuel industry as they're handsomely funded by the scary-powerful alternative energy lobby. Luckily, it has now been exposed by a handful of diligent bloggers, with no connection to any polluting industry at all. Because everyone knows blog posts have more weight than peer-reviewed scientific papers. </sarcasm>

Seriously, knock it off with regurgitating debunked climate myths. Yours is #9 on the list. Also related.

Ooooh! It's the biggest conspiracy in human history! By the sheer scale of it, I wager it must have been perpetrated by the Illuminati, the Masons, the Elders of Zion and the New World Order all at once, because each of these organizations hate the fossil fuel industry as they're handsomely funded by the scary-powerful alternative energy lobby. Luckily, it has now been exposed by a handful of diligent bloggers, with no connection to any polluting industry at all. Because everyone knows blog posts have more weight than peer-reviewed scientific papers. </sarcasm>

Seriously, knock it off with regurgitating debunked climate myths. Yours is #9 on the list. Also related.

Ooooh! It's the biggest conspiracy in human history! By the sheer scale of it, I wager it must have been perpetrated by the Illuminati, the Masons, the Elders of Zion and the New World Order all at once, because each of these organizations hate the fossil fuel industry as they're handsomely funded by the scary-powerful alternative energy lobby. Luckily, it has now been exposed by a handful of diligent bloggers, with no connection to any polluting industry at all. Because everyone knows blog posts have more weight than peer-reviewed scientific papers. </sarcasm>

Seriously, knock it off with regurgitating debunked climate myths. Yours is #9 on the list. Also related.

The point is that less ice in Antarctica was bad because it would contribute to sea levels rising. If global warming is helping reduce sea levels, then this is a good thing, right? (Yes, I know thermal expansion probably is the main driver, so it's still probably going to be a net "bad.")

Sea ice is irrelevant to sea levels.

Land ice matters for sea levels, and the land ice is shrinking.

The problem here is that what's important isn't areas so much as volume. Please read and learn something.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

The first two points have been scientifically demonstrated to be true to a staggering degree of certainty, whereas the third point you plucked out of thin air. Classy.

The carbon is in the air; it doesn't magically disappear; from the AGW activists themselves: http://www.skepticalscience.co... Capping or reducing carbon emissions will have very little effect on climate change; it may delay it by a few years if that. And even those steps have proven to be impossible.

Sorry to bust your belief in Santa Claus, but here's no viable plan for stopping climate change.

You don't know shit. When the results were announced people thought they were flawed. In a few years this was proven definitively.

Your favorite hobby horse of climate science, though, has held up after 200 years of study. Also, it had to overcome the null hypothesis, that humans can't affect the climate. You just haven't bothered to find out what the actual science is, because you're convinced that no one can know it. You are intellectually dishonest. Climate science is not that hard. The concept of AGW comes from a very small set of unequivocally proven facts, mostly the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide.

You just want to believe that you know something the rest of us don't. Your complete ignorance of science does not help this. If you really want to troll, you have to be more subtle about it. First, accept the general principles of AGW: that a higher partial pressure of CO2 extends the opaque region further into space, effectively trapping heat, and that the increase in CO2 is due to human industry. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence (not consensus) for these things, and the first part is simple enough that you can probably test it yourself experimentally. The trolling part (or the "real" skepticism, if you prefer) comes from suggesting that tail-wagging-the-dog feedbacks with the H2O cycle are net negative. This is on the edge of plausibility, because while a tabletop experimental setup would show a positive feedback (at STP), the Earth as a whole is more complicated, and your claim that the models are inaccurate is more persuasive. More specifically, you can point to studies which show that e.g. increased cloud formation will increase the Earth's albedo enough to offset the CO2-induced warming. Another good one would be Arctic glaciation as a result of the Gulf Stream shutting down, although that may still leave you the issues of [a] climate change, and [b] the fundamental theory still being correct, in that the atmosphere as a whole would retain more energy. Another good troll is that the lower atmosphere is already opaque to IR and that increased CO2 will have no (additional) effect. This is true, but irrelevant, but not many people are aware of it, so you can catch those slimy lieberals and make them look dumb. Take that! Where is your 'science' now?!

Ahem. It's not enough to just say "You're wrong! You can't prove anything!" without accounting for the observations (that CO2 absorbs OLR). Doing that means there's millions of laymen who can tell you you're an idiot. Proposing a subtle flaw (and being explicit about it) means that there's far fewer people who can refute your arguments. If you continue to research and refine your arguments, you will eventually be doing real science, or at least actual scientific skepticism. Just trolling is fine too, but don't settle for this sort of second-rate stuff.

A) CO2 accumulates. Plants absorb it, they also release it. So does the ocean. And even though the ocean is absorbing more than it releases (making it more acidic), the amount we have been releasing into the atmosphere is still pushing CO2 levels higher and higher. This is easily measured.

B) CO2 historically has not driven temperatures, it's acted as a feedback, making warming temperatures even warmer. Orbital cycles or other factors cause some initial warming, which triggers higher CO2 concentrations, which causes further warming. This is also easily measured in a lab, and shows up in countless lines of observations. CO2 and temperatures have both been higher in the past, but now we're the ones releasing CO2, and we'll have to deal with the results. "Runaway" warming effects are unlikely, but what we expect is going to be plenty expensive enough.

C) Climate models are intended to predict trends, not short-term variation. Longer term trends are easier to predict than random fluctuations, as the random cycles all average out. Only those who don't understand the models (e.g. they're not "all feedback-based models") claim that they're not "working".

D) The effects are already here, you just haven't been looking. They're showing up, not in dramatic unheard-of catastrophes, but in increased likelihood of heat waves, droughts, and fires (in some areas), floods (in other areas), melting glaciers, reduced ice mass (arctic and antarctic). These things aren't new, but they're getting steadily more common, and the costs are already adding up.

Increased CO2 means global average temperatures rise, both on the surface and (more significantly) in the oceans. This has been happening for 150 years, as predicted. More rainfall in some areas, less in others.

There are many studies about the feedback effects of CO2 on plant growth. The overall conclusions are that this will affect the climate, but not very much.

The predictions have been made for decades and longer. They're coming true all around us. Only the deniers refuse to look and see for themselves, insisting that this or that one little thing hasn't changed yet, so nothing could possibly be happening. But a glance at the bigger picture shows overwhelming evidence, which is precisely why there is such a strong consensus among climatologists.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

http://home.web.cern.ch/about/...

Did you hear anything about this research? If it promoted anthropogenic global climate change you would have.

You haven't reviewed the data, you can't, its not public, so stop acting like you know any better than I do what the truth is.

All of the data. ALL OF IT. Is public. You are an idiot.

http://www.noaa.gov/climate.ht...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Or even just google of wikipedia for it. It's all out there.

There have been studies on volcanoes in the past, in general the influence of volcanoes is very small vs. man-made emissions:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Skeptical Science does a good job of explaining the science behind climate change and answering about every objection there is with cited sources. It also answers each question at three different levels of scientific fluency.

Or, deniers were simply pissing off the researchers.

The NIPCC Reports go to great lengths explaining exactly what the IPCC report on the same topic skipped over or misinterpreted.

Because, as we all know, an ideologically Libertarian political "think tank" funded by gas and coal owners is clearly the most reliable source of information on the effects of pollution released by the gas and coal industries and whether that pollution requires government intervention. There is absolutely no bias, no politics and no conflict of interest there.

a) there isn't one. the most that can be said is it's a concept misunderstood by deniers who have no clue what they are talking about.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...

b) wrong.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-...

c1) wrong. they are NOT naturally absorbed. if they were, the planet would not be warming, leading to ever increasing amounts of stored energy unable to re-radiate out into space. the natural carbon cycle deals out no where near the amount of CO2 humans do. 40 billion tons. That's the YEARLY output of human activity. Imagine the biggest aircraft you can think of...they weigh ~100,000 tons. So now imagine 400,000 of those aircraft carriers. That's the weight of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere yearly. Alternatively, think of a cubic volume of gas (CO2)....18 miles on each side (that's ~95k feet high...almost to space)...that's also 40 billion tons. And we do that every year. And before you spout some bullshit about volcanoes...no. Volcanic yearly output of the entire planet is only ~3 billion tons of CO2.

c2) the rest of c was pretty stupid, and just frankly not worth it.

you didnt debunk anything.

you just linked to another faulty denier site that has itself been proven wrong, and an article that trots out the same "warm period and "little ice age" misconceptions.
Roy Spencer is not a valid source.

Tree ring reliability: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.

Medieval Warm Period: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ) AND ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The Medieval Warm Period predominantly affected the North Atlantic and Europe, not the whole world. While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.

The Little Ice Age: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ) AND ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The sceptical argument that current warming is a continuation of the same warming that ended the LIA is unlikely. There is a lack of evidence for a suitable forcing (e.g. the sun) and numerous correlations with known natural forcings that can account for the LIA itself, and the subsequent climate recovery. Taken in isolation, the LIA might cast doubt on the theory of climate change. Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.

As for Roy Spencer himself:
-He believes in the "global scientific conspiracy" ...a conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, and perfect secrecy...
-He believes that they lie to make money off research grants" myths....cause theres just so much money to be made that way...as opposed to being on the payroll of a big oil company, like him.
-Oh, and he also believes that GW cant be happening....because God.

So ya...that's a "wonderful" source you have there.

http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-...
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014...
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

you didnt debunk anything.

you just linked to another faulty denier site that has itself been proven wrong, and an article that trots out the same "warm period and "little ice age" misconceptions.
Roy Spencer is not a valid source.

Tree ring reliability: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.

Medieval Warm Period: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ) AND ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The Medieval Warm Period predominantly affected the North Atlantic and Europe, not the whole world. While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.

The Little Ice Age: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ) AND ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The sceptical argument that current warming is a continuation of the same warming that ended the LIA is unlikely. There is a lack of evidence for a suitable forcing (e.g. the sun) and numerous correlations with known natural forcings that can account for the LIA itself, and the subsequent climate recovery. Taken in isolation, the LIA might cast doubt on the theory of climate change. Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.

As for Roy Spencer himself:
-He believes in the "global scientific conspiracy" ...a conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, and perfect secrecy...
-He believes that they lie to make money off research grants" myths....cause theres just so much money to be made that way...as opposed to being on the payroll of a big oil company, like him.
-Oh, and he also believes that GW cant be happening....because God.

So ya...that's a "wonderful" source you have there.

http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-...
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014...
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

you didnt debunk anything.

you just linked to another faulty denier site that has itself been proven wrong, and an article that trots out the same "warm period and "little ice age" misconceptions.
Roy Spencer is not a valid source.

Tree ring reliability: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.

Medieval Warm Period: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ) AND ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The Medieval Warm Period predominantly affected the North Atlantic and Europe, not the whole world. While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.

The Little Ice Age: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ) AND ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The sceptical argument that current warming is a continuation of the same warming that ended the LIA is unlikely. There is a lack of evidence for a suitable forcing (e.g. the sun) and numerous correlations with known natural forcings that can account for the LIA itself, and the subsequent climate recovery. Taken in isolation, the LIA might cast doubt on the theory of climate change. Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.

As for Roy Spencer himself:
-He believes in the "global scientific conspiracy" ...a conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, and perfect secrecy...
-He believes that they lie to make money off research grants" myths....cause theres just so much money to be made that way...as opposed to being on the payroll of a big oil company, like him.
-Oh, and he also believes that GW cant be happening....because God.

So ya...that's a "wonderful" source you have there.

http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-...
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014...
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

you didnt debunk anything.

you just linked to another faulty denier site that has itself been proven wrong, and an article that trots out the same "warm period and "little ice age" misconceptions.
Roy Spencer is not a valid source.

Tree ring reliability: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.

Medieval Warm Period: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ) AND ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The Medieval Warm Period predominantly affected the North Atlantic and Europe, not the whole world. While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.

The Little Ice Age: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ) AND ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The sceptical argument that current warming is a continuation of the same warming that ended the LIA is unlikely. There is a lack of evidence for a suitable forcing (e.g. the sun) and numerous correlations with known natural forcings that can account for the LIA itself, and the subsequent climate recovery. Taken in isolation, the LIA might cast doubt on the theory of climate change. Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.

As for Roy Spencer himself:
-He believes in the "global scientific conspiracy" ...a conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, and perfect secrecy...
-He believes that they lie to make money off research grants" myths....cause theres just so much money to be made that way...as opposed to being on the payroll of a big oil company, like him.
-Oh, and he also believes that GW cant be happening....because God.

So ya...that's a "wonderful" source you have there.

http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-...
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014...
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

you didnt debunk anything.

you just linked to another faulty denier site that has itself been proven wrong, and an article that trots out the same "warm period and "little ice age" misconceptions.
Roy Spencer is not a valid source.

Tree ring reliability: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.

Medieval Warm Period: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ) AND ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The Medieval Warm Period predominantly affected the North Atlantic and Europe, not the whole world. While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.

The Little Ice Age: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ) AND ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The sceptical argument that current warming is a continuation of the same warming that ended the LIA is unlikely. There is a lack of evidence for a suitable forcing (e.g. the sun) and numerous correlations with known natural forcings that can account for the LIA itself, and the subsequent climate recovery. Taken in isolation, the LIA might cast doubt on the theory of climate change. Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.

As for Roy Spencer himself:
-He believes in the "global scientific conspiracy" ...a conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, and perfect secrecy...
-He believes that they lie to make money off research grants" myths....cause theres just so much money to be made that way...as opposed to being on the payroll of a big oil company, like him.
-Oh, and he also believes that GW cant be happening....because God.

So ya...that's a "wonderful" source you have there.

http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-...
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014...
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

CAGW predicted rapid and accelerating warming. But the data fails to bear it out, so post-hoc rationalisations are put forth and the capacity of the hypothesis to yield falsifiability tests is shrinking : which urges the question is the development of this hypothesis robust?

Speaking of fallacies, the use of CAGW is generally associated with a strawman, goalpost moving or loaded language fallacies, depending on context. It's use is rarely associated with honest debate because there is no actual definition for CAGW.

CO2 emission records are actually what predicts accelerating warming, if C02 is a greenhouse gas and we increase the rate at which we're releasing CO2 into the air, we increase the speed at which the planet warms. And rapid is at best a relative term when applied to changes that are far too slow for human senses to observe.

Your comment " Every time we hit a new high temperature", is with respect absurd particularly given admonishments about dodgy statistics in this thread and the OP.

My comment was about the cyclical nature of some "skeptic" arguments. There is always a previous record high which we almost always below, thus the argument can always be made that there has been "no warming" for some time period. The argument goes out of style for a bit after a new record high has been set, but give it a year or two and it comes back into fashion until the next record high is set. The comment had nothing to do with presenting actual evidence of global warming.

An interesting null would be to compare # high temp records against # of low temp records.

It is interesting and has been done. According to that paper, the split for 2001-2011 temperature anomalies was about 85% high to 15% low. According to Skeptical Science, the records were split 67% high to 33% low over 1999-2009.

That's called the temperature escalator.

Do you realize that the #1 Greenhouse Gas is water vapor?

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

no, the science is EXTREMELY clear.
and you are an idiot, who repeatedly quotes non-experts and non-scientists or scientists who are not subject matter experts.
reality DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE MODELS. the fact is that reality has continually proven the models right.

every single line of evidence, and we're talking about hundreds of different data sets, that scientists have thought to look at all say the same thing: THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED AND IT IS GETTING WARMER.

It's like instead of listening to Einstein about relativity, or Hawking about black holes, you've chosen to go with Bob the janitor.
Well I got news for you, Good Will Hunting was just a movie.

1) it's not unproven, it's proven by every dataset taken so far. Western antartica is decreased by warming, the west is increased, because of the shifted wather patterns of moisture over the continent.
2) No. Sea Ice does NOT come from freezong seawater. Sea ice comes from calving ice sheets, which is fresh water. if sea ice came from seawater the seas would form and experience similar dynamics as freezing lakes and rivers, with kernals of ice growing frm contact with the surrounding seas. That fact you could even state this shows how stupid you are.
3) You are apparently unaware that antarctica is the driest "desert" on the planet. No, it doesn't snow down there. precipitation is nearly nonexistant. The ice sheet is not in a constantly stay of replenishment; in fact, that's WHY the western sheet is disappearing and showing a dramatic decrease in mass. the ice sheets are ANCIENT. again: you are stupid and completely ignorant of basic facts concerning Antarctica.
4) it does not remain to be seen. You apparently missed the big press release a month ago, or so, about the western sheet losing mass at and even faster rate than expected. and again: it is NOT gaining land ice, it is gaining SEA ICE, which DOES NOT indicate cooling. it indicates the opposite, because of the source of sea ice.

Idiot, educate thyself, with actual science, from actual scientists: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

I can only assume your problem with the "97%" meta-study result was not considering those that didn't express a position on the issue in their abstract. They weren't counted either way. But if you're expecting that considering those would move the percentage downward, other studies suggest you'd be in for a nasty shock:

http://skepticalscience.com/97...

Next, how are the graphs not of the same thing? Both compare the predictions of various models with observed temperatures. The only difference is that the one I linked to takes the observed temperatures from 3 different institutions' sensor systems, and the one you linked to takes them from 2 satellites and 4 balloons. Also the date range on yours is slightly wider in both directions.

In case you weren't looking at the right one, it's this one specifically:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

The study you linked to about overestimations basically makes the "only atmospheric warming" argument, which is what creates the illusion of "the pause." The UK's MET office has a nice page on this:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/re...

I can only assume your problem with the "97%" meta-study result was not considering those that didn't express a position on the issue in their abstract. They weren't counted either way. But if you're expecting that considering those would move the percentage downward, other studies suggest you'd be in for a nasty shock:

http://skepticalscience.com/97...

Next, how are the graphs not of the same thing? Both compare the predictions of various models with observed temperatures. The only difference is that the one I linked to takes the observed temperatures from 3 different institutions' sensor systems, and the one you linked to takes them from 2 satellites and 4 balloons. Also the date range on yours is slightly wider in both directions.

In case you weren't looking at the right one, it's this one specifically:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

The study you linked to about overestimations basically makes the "only atmospheric warming" argument, which is what creates the illusion of "the pause." The UK's MET office has a nice page on this:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/re...

Global Historical Climate Network raw vs. adjusted temperatures.

Anyone can shit out garbage in graph form. Here are some more graphs which on the face of it are just as good as yours, but if you do some research you'll find are not composed of bullshit, unlike yours.

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

(Jump to "Earth has warmed as expected")

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

There's this whole world where you can live in your delusion if you don't want out. You have to stop falling for paid shills like Anthony Watts and others who have been fooled by their ilk. They're making a sucker out of you. You're taking their word over 97% of scientists.

Which is an easier conspiracy to pull off, one involving tens of thousands of scientists around the world or one involving a handful of mostly American bloggers, most of which been outed for being on the take from conservative think-tanks and fossil fuel companies?

Anyone can shit out garbage in graph form. Here are some more graphs which on the face of it are just as good as yours, but if you do some research you'll find are not composed of bullshit, unlike yours.

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

(Jump to "Earth has warmed as expected")

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

There's this whole world where you can live in your delusion if you don't want out. You have to stop falling for paid shills like Anthony Watts and others who have been fooled by their ilk. They're making a sucker out of you. You're taking their word over 97% of scientists.

Which is an easier conspiracy to pull off, one involving tens of thousands of scientists around the world or one involving a handful of mostly American bloggers, most of which been outed for being on the take from conservative think-tanks and fossil fuel companies?