Thanks. For the record, you were calling people names like "naive mental lightweights" and ridiculing them for not being able to understand what the temperature data shows over the last decade. It appears you are the one who does not understand what the data shows.
The data also shows no statistically significant warming for about 17 years, contrary to climate models predictions. The "pause" has lasted almost as long as the ~20 year warming period that began in the mid-70's.
BS. Nobody is denying the warming trend since the 70's, which is what your graph shows. But there has been no statistically significant warming trend for 17 years or so. That's a fact.
Strangely, most of the warming predicted by the IPCC is not from CO2 directly. Most of the predicted warming is based upon a Rube Goldberg-like chain reaction of positive feedbacks. They call this 'climate sensitivity'. It's an estimate of how much EXTRA WARMING will occur per doubling of CO2. CO2 should warm the planet about a single degree per CO2 doubling. The IPCC tacks on an extra 2 - 3 degrees due to this 'climate sensitivity'. This extra heat from our supposedly hyper-sensitive climate is what is driving the climate panic. Which is odd since the estimates for 'climate sensitivity' are all over the map. There is huge uncertainty in this area, and there is no observational basis for high climate sensitivity. Quite the opposite in fact. And yet without a high climate sensitivity, there is no crisis.
Skeptics have been pointing this out for years but it has fallen on deaf ears.
Applies to: "the fabled 'breakeven point' of nuclear fusion....unless you're the Sun, we don't have a way to ignite and sustain that reaction", as though that were the only approach to fusion.
For example, LPP uses the inherent instability of plasma to its advantage. They do not require contained, sustained fusion reactions.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, read "Record proton-boron fusion rate achieved". Clearly aneutronic fusion HAS been demonstrated in a laboratory. I have no idea how you came to your conclusion or why you would express it so vehemently, when a simple google search shows that you are clearly wrong.
By "most viable fusion approach" I meant the approach most likely to succeed within the next decade. But hey, that's just an opinion. They say on their indiegogo page: "we have already achieved two of the three conditions needed to produce net fusion energy. We heated the fusion fuel up to 1.8 billion degrees—200 times hotter than the center of the sun, and confined it in a tiny plasmoid for 10 billionths of second. This is not a long time, but it is all we need. The third condition, which we still have not achieved, is enough density so the fuel will burn up during the confinement time."
Nobody is saying there aren't technical challenges, and nobody is saying it is a sure thing. For example, they have not yet achieved the densities needed, and there are issues both with arcing and x-rays with degrading materials. I think the biggest challenge is to demonstrate how the quantum magnetic field effect can prevent the plasmoid from cooling (caused by x-rays).
Regardless, these guys are doing real science and they deserve more respect than the dismissive nonsense you posted above.
Another fun fact: molten salt reactors don't need to burn thorium. They could be used to burn existing nuclear waste:
Dewan believes one of the MSRs biggest advantage is the its ability to burn SNF (spent nuclear fuel – “nuclear wastes”) more or less completely, extracting 20 times more energy from uranium than a conventional reactor,
That quote is from A Universally Acceptable and Economical Energy Source?, the worlds largest climate "denier" site. You would think environmentalists would be jumping up and down with joy. Here is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: reduce both nuclear waste and fossil fuel consumption; and climate "deniers" are fully on board!
...fusion will produce waste due to the high neutron flux.
Not necessarily. The most viable fusion approach does not produce neutrons as a product of the reaction. In addition, they don't need to contain and stabilize the plasma which is the bane of most fusion programs. They intend to leverage the inherent instability of plasma to produce 200 small reactions or pulses per second. They won't need steam generators since most of the energy is released in the form of an ion beam.
You kind of prove my point. Fossil fuels are coveted for a reason. But hey, I'm all for making fossil fuels obsolete. Even climate "deniers" want to move forward. Spreading complete BS like this report does only hinders progress.
Maybe you missed the word "low" in my statement: "2012 was an all-time record LOW for Arctic ice"
Obviously an all-time record high is going to be above average. They often measure sea ice extent in terms of anomalies, using the 30 year average from 1980 - 2010 as a baseline or reference point. In absolute terms you could say Antarctic ice extent hit a record high @ 19.2 million square kilometres in August. Or you could say the record high was 1.19 million square kilometres above the baseline average. They both mean the same thing. Maybe that is what is causing the confusion.
The sea ice measurements are not apples to oranges comparisons. They compare sea ice extent on Aug 17th 2014 with the sea ice extent on Aug 17th for every other year. Many daily records have been broken this year (around 150 of them I think). I think the record you are talking about is the highest Antarctic ice measurement ever, for any day. (That's the third year in a row that a new record has been set.)
Scientists have proposed a number of different, "plausible sounding" hypotheses to try to explain the unexpected increase in Antarctic sea ice. That may be reassuring to some, but it is certainly far from "solved".
"there can't be AGW and an ice record at the same time!"
Yes there can, if you believe otherwise, explain why:)
I don't believe otherwise. You are putting words into my mouth.
define significant
Significant as in "statistically significant", or "so slight as to be undetectable". Anthropogenic CO2 emissions prior to 1950 were quite small, especially compared to recent years where CO2 levels increased by about 25% since 2000. (Strangely enough there has been no additional warming during this same period.)
There was, in fact, a slight cooling trend from 1950 to 1976. And global warming has indeed "paused" for the past 17 years or so, depending on what data set you use. This image shows the various datasets where the warming trends hit zero. Taking the margins of error into account (where a zero trend can't be ruled out), there has been "no statistically significant warming for between 16 and 21 years."
For UAH: Since March 1996: CI from -0.001 to 2.341
For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.015 to 1.821
For Hadcrut4: Since November 1996: CI from -0.003 to 1.184
For Hadsst3: Since August 1994: CI from -0.014 to 1.666
For GISS: Since October 1997: CI from -0.002 to 1.249
From: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
You say the IPCC writes "nonsense", nsidc.org links are "retarded", and you give precedence to your own anecdotal experiences over mainstream scientific data. Who is the one denying science?
To find your mix up between ant and nonant, you only have to hit two or three times 'parent'.
Why don't you directly support your accusations with a quote? It's not hard to do, and it shows that you are a careful thinker and not just throwing baseless accusations around.
AGW started around 1910... no idea where your claim comes from it did not exist before 1970, somwe did not produce CO2 before 1970, wow.
According to the IPCC, anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for more than half of the warming since 1950. Prior to 1950 CO2 emissions were too small to have any significant effect. In fact, there was a slight cooling trend from 1950 - 75. It only started warming around 1976 and stopped around 1998. There has been no significant warming since.
How can something that is just above the average be a record? To be a record it must be above the maximum!
I don't think you thought that statement through very clearly... The fact remains: the Antarctic set all time record highs this year. I gave you a direct quote from nsidc.org, confirming that "Antarctic sea ice extent... reached new daily record highs through most of this year (2014)." If you can not accept this, then you are arguing against basic, mainstream consensus science.
The word record is a media buzz word.
No, in this case, it's just a plain fact, based on real data. I find it interesting that global warmers have such difficulty accepting plain facts when it doesn't suit them.
So we have an unexpected big extend of ice, meanwhile explained by...
I'm sure scientists are scrambling to explain why their predictions failed, but the fact is they do not know why Antarctic ice is at record highs. Of course, the simplest explanation is that their climate sensitivity estimates are wrong. But significantly reducing climate sensitivity would mean no more global catastrophe, and climate scientists seem extremely reluctant to remove the headline-grabbing-sensationalism-mechanism they have built into their climate models.
And because you are still stuck with your "oh, see record, there canr be AGW and an ice record at the same time!" - attitude, you did not even notice, that topic is solved...
As I state above, it is not solved. Scientist may propose various mechanisms and hypotheses as to why this may be happening, but their efforts only prove that it is not "solved". Funny how a few posts ago you weren't even aware of the record highs in the Antarctic and now you are declaring them "solved" and "boring". (Have you finally acknowledged that Antarctic sea ice is at record highs?)
Also interesting that you attribute nonsense to me: "there can't be AGW and an ice record at the same time!". I realize it must be easier for you to put words into my mouth rather than paying attention to what I actually say. Still, that's no excuse. It indicates sloppy thinking.
Feel free to quote where I said the "arctic" was at record highs. Reading comprehension matters.
Thank you for pointing out that there is more ice in winter than in summer. You must think I am really dumb. I did a quick google search and posted what I found below. I wonder why you couldn't do one for yourself? Since anthropogenic global warming didn't start till the 70's, the notion that sea ice was even larger in extent prior to '45 only supports the fact that the world was already warming naturally. How exactly could an extra ~1/3 degree of warming melt all that ice anyways?
July 2014: "Antarctic sea ice extent increased rapidly through June and early July, and reached new daily record highs through most of this year." August 2014:"Antarctic sea ice remains at a daily record high, and 1.19 million square kilometers (459,000 square miles) above the 1981 to 2010 average."
I have no clue what you are talking about. FYI, 2012 was an all-time record low for Arctic ice, largely due to a record Arctic cyclone that hit in the summer of that year and lasted for 2 weeks. According to nsidc.org, the average August ice extent in 2012 was 4.71 million square km. The average August ice in 2014 was 6.22 million square km. If you compare the ice extent for both years at the end of August the difference is even more pronounced, showing an increase of more than 40% by 2014. The ice is thickening as well as I have already pointed out: "In October 2013, CryoSat measured about 9000 cubic km of sea ice – a notable increase compared to 6000 cubic km in October 2012."
Antarctic ice has set all-time record highs this year. There seems to be some misunderstanding here, so let me repeat: Antarctic ice has set ALL-TIME RECORD HIGHS in 2014. (This should have been easy for you to check if you have access to the internet.)
Considering the stereotypes floating around I suppose it is easy to assume that a "denier" like myself *must* have his facts wrong. I wonder, are all global warming supporters so sure of their assumptions as you are? That would explain a few things. It is bizarre for you to tell me to "believe what I want" when it is you who have the facts so utterly wrong. And you feel you need to explain to me that "ice melts in the summer"? Thank you for your incredible insight.
You said "Arctic ice is not increasing". That's a present tense statement. I pointed out that *currently* Arctic ice is on the increase, and has been since it was decimated in 2012 by an Arctic cyclone. If I had been talking about the 30 year trend I would have specified the 30 year trend. Instead I specified 2012 in both of my responses. You then suggested the recovering ice was not thickening, so I showed you that the ice has indeed been thickening since 2012, and was not an "infinitely thin ice sheet" as you claimed.
I am well aware that Arctic sea ice is below the 30 year average. Antarctic ice is at record highs and global sea ice is about average.
What if we take into account the margin of error, where we can't rule out a trend of zero? (from here)
For UAH: Since March 1996: CI from -0.001 to 2.341
For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.015 to 1.821
For Hadcrut4: Since November 1996: CI from -0.003 to 1.184
For Hadsst3: Since August 1994: CI from -0.014 to 1.666
For GISS: Since October 1997: CI from -0.002 to 1.249
Judith Curry writes: "Depending on when you start counting, this hiatus has lasted 16 years. Climate model simulations find that the probability of a hiatus as long as 20 years is vanishingly small. If the 20 year threshold is reached for the pause, this will lead inescapably to the conclusion that the climate model sensitivity to CO2 is too large. Further, 20 years is approaching the length of the warming period from 1976-2000 that is the main smoking gun for AGW."
Nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about. (Have you even checked? The data shows a slight cooling trend from 2001.) This is what denial looks like: "statistical significance" becomes a "weasel word". You say AGW deniers pick 1998 every time. I can show you many articles on AGW "denier" sites that prove you absolutely wrong. Yet you accuse me of deliberately lying. Who exactly is playing fast and loose with the facts?
People claim that climate skeptics cherry pick 1998 as a start date, warping what would otherwise be an upward trend. And it sounds plausible, it fits their beliefs, so people seem to believe it uncritically. But it's simply not true; it's a myth. Most skeptics choose 1997 as their start date. If you don't like 1998 (I don't like it either) then pick another start date: 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001. You'll get the same result: no significant warming. The RSS data shows no significant warming since 1993
Nature magazine published an article that tries to explain the "mysterious global-warming hiatus". Nature magazine accepts it. The IPCC accepts it. The "pause" is real and is easily shown in the data sets. You are the one who is misinformed and in denial it seems.
Yeah, I am "one of them." It's easy to knock down a skeptic when you are deliberately choosing the easiest targets to knock down. There are intelligent, thoughtful skeptics who are willing to engage. But keep focusing on the Sarah Palins of the world if that suits you. They are easier targets. Selection bias at work.
Personally, I rarely stray from the IPCC reports and the temperature data. Most people are unaware of what the science actually says. It does not support many of the beliefs held by global warming activists.
I recommend Judith Curry's blog as a good place to start if you are truly interested in engaging with skeptics and lukewarmers. (Judith Curry does "actual research" by the way.)
I suppose you are correct if you only pay attention to the Sarah Palins of the world when seeking out skeptic opinions. I've had the same experience with global warming activists.
Interesting video. His numbers seem funny. Who is saying CO2 will quadruple this century? Who is claiming negative feedbacks of 8 watts/m^2? Nobody I know of. Why doesn't he talk about the huge positive feedbacks assumed by climate models, which is at the very crux of the debate?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. For the record, you were calling people names like "naive mental lightweights" and ridiculing them for not being able to understand what the temperature data shows over the last decade. It appears you are the one who does not understand what the data shows.
The data also shows no statistically significant warming for about 17 years, contrary to climate models predictions. The "pause" has lasted almost as long as the ~20 year warming period that began in the mid-70's.
Why don't you look at the data for the past decade?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
BS. Nobody is denying the warming trend since the 70's, which is what your graph shows. But there has been no statistically significant warming trend for 17 years or so. That's a fact.
Strangely, most of the warming predicted by the IPCC is not from CO2 directly. Most of the predicted warming is based upon a Rube Goldberg-like chain reaction of positive feedbacks. They call this 'climate sensitivity'. It's an estimate of how much EXTRA WARMING will occur per doubling of CO2. CO2 should warm the planet about a single degree per CO2 doubling. The IPCC tacks on an extra 2 - 3 degrees due to this 'climate sensitivity'. This extra heat from our supposedly hyper-sensitive climate is what is driving the climate panic. Which is odd since the estimates for 'climate sensitivity' are all over the map. There is huge uncertainty in this area, and there is no observational basis for high climate sensitivity. Quite the opposite in fact. And yet without a high climate sensitivity, there is no crisis.
Skeptics have been pointing this out for years but it has fallen on deaf ears.
Applies to: "the fabled 'breakeven point' of nuclear fusion....unless you're the Sun, we don't have a way to ignite and sustain that reaction", as though that were the only approach to fusion.
For example, LPP uses the inherent instability of plasma to its advantage. They do not require contained, sustained fusion reactions.
http://lawrencevilleplasmaphys...
At the risk of beating a dead horse, read "Record proton-boron fusion rate achieved". Clearly aneutronic fusion HAS been demonstrated in a laboratory. I have no idea how you came to your conclusion or why you would express it so vehemently, when a simple google search shows that you are clearly wrong.
By "most viable fusion approach" I meant the approach most likely to succeed within the next decade. But hey, that's just an opinion. They say on their indiegogo page: "we have already achieved two of the three conditions needed to produce net fusion energy. We heated the fusion fuel up to 1.8 billion degrees—200 times hotter than the center of the sun, and confined it in a tiny plasmoid for 10 billionths of second. This is not a long time, but it is all we need. The third condition, which we still have not achieved, is enough density so the fuel will burn up during the confinement time."
Nobody is saying there aren't technical challenges, and nobody is saying it is a sure thing. For example, they have not yet achieved the densities needed, and there are issues both with arcing and x-rays with degrading materials. I think the biggest challenge is to demonstrate how the quantum magnetic field effect can prevent the plasmoid from cooling (caused by x-rays).
Regardless, these guys are doing real science and they deserve more respect than the dismissive nonsense you posted above.
Oh boy, that is so utterly wrong.
But okay, I will do a quick google search for you and pass on the first result I find.
http://fire.pppl.gov/fusion_la...
That quote is from A Universally Acceptable and Economical Energy Source?, the worlds largest climate "denier" site. You would think environmentalists would be jumping up and down with joy. Here is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: reduce both nuclear waste and fossil fuel consumption; and climate "deniers" are fully on board!
So why isn't there more interest?
...fusion will produce waste due to the high neutron flux.
Not necessarily. The most viable fusion approach does not produce neutrons as a product of the reaction. In addition, they don't need to contain and stabilize the plasma which is the bane of most fusion programs. They intend to leverage the inherent instability of plasma to produce 200 small reactions or pulses per second. They won't need steam generators since most of the energy is released in the form of an ion beam.
You kind of prove my point. Fossil fuels are coveted for a reason. But hey, I'm all for making fossil fuels obsolete. Even climate "deniers" want to move forward. Spreading complete BS like this report does only hinders progress.
In other words it's complete BS. Thank you.
Obviously an all-time record high is going to be above average. They often measure sea ice extent in terms of anomalies, using the 30 year average from 1980 - 2010 as a baseline or reference point. In absolute terms you could say Antarctic ice extent hit a record high @ 19.2 million square kilometres in August. Or you could say the record high was 1.19 million square kilometres above the baseline average. They both mean the same thing. Maybe that is what is causing the confusion.
The sea ice measurements are not apples to oranges comparisons. They compare sea ice extent on Aug 17th 2014 with the sea ice extent on Aug 17th for every other year. Many daily records have been broken this year (around 150 of them I think). I think the record you are talking about is the highest Antarctic ice measurement ever, for any day. (That's the third year in a row that a new record has been set.)
Scientists have proposed a number of different, "plausible sounding" hypotheses to try to explain the unexpected increase in Antarctic sea ice. That may be reassuring to some, but it is certainly far from "solved".
"there can't be AGW and an ice record at the same time!" Yes there can, if you believe otherwise, explain why :)
I don't believe otherwise. You are putting words into my mouth.
define significant
Significant as in "statistically significant", or "so slight as to be undetectable". Anthropogenic CO2 emissions prior to 1950 were quite small, especially compared to recent years where CO2 levels increased by about 25% since 2000. (Strangely enough there has been no additional warming during this same period.)
There was, in fact, a slight cooling trend from 1950 to 1976. And global warming has indeed "paused" for the past 17 years or so, depending on what data set you use. This image shows the various datasets where the warming trends hit zero. Taking the margins of error into account (where a zero trend can't be ruled out), there has been "no statistically significant warming for between 16 and 21 years."
You say the IPCC writes "nonsense", nsidc.org links are "retarded", and you give precedence to your own anecdotal experiences over mainstream scientific data. Who is the one denying science?
To find your mix up between ant and nonant, you only have to hit two or three times 'parent'.
Why don't you directly support your accusations with a quote? It's not hard to do, and it shows that you are a careful thinker and not just throwing baseless accusations around.
AGW started around 1910 ... no idea where your claim comes from it did not exist before 1970, somwe did not produce CO2 before 1970, wow.
According to the IPCC, anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for more than half of the warming since 1950. Prior to 1950 CO2 emissions were too small to have any significant effect. In fact, there was a slight cooling trend from 1950 - 75. It only started warming around 1976 and stopped around 1998. There has been no significant warming since.
How can something that is just above the average be a record? To be a record it must be above the maximum!
I don't think you thought that statement through very clearly... The fact remains: the Antarctic set all time record highs this year. I gave you a direct quote from nsidc.org, confirming that "Antarctic sea ice extent... reached new daily record highs through most of this year (2014)." If you can not accept this, then you are arguing against basic, mainstream consensus science.
The word record is a media buzz word.
No, in this case, it's just a plain fact, based on real data. I find it interesting that global warmers have such difficulty accepting plain facts when it doesn't suit them.
So we have an unexpected big extend of ice, meanwhile explained by...
I'm sure scientists are scrambling to explain why their predictions failed, but the fact is they do not know why Antarctic ice is at record highs. Of course, the simplest explanation is that their climate sensitivity estimates are wrong. But significantly reducing climate sensitivity would mean no more global catastrophe, and climate scientists seem extremely reluctant to remove the headline-grabbing-sensationalism-mechanism they have built into their climate models.
And because you are still stuck with your "oh, see record, there canr be AGW and an ice record at the same time!" - attitude, you did not even notice, that topic is solved...
As I state above, it is not solved. Scientist may propose various mechanisms and hypotheses as to why this may be happening, but their efforts only prove that it is not "solved". Funny how a few posts ago you weren't even aware of the record highs in the Antarctic and now you are declaring them "solved" and "boring". (Have you finally acknowledged that Antarctic sea ice is at record highs?)
Also interesting that you attribute nonsense to me: "there can't be AGW and an ice record at the same time!". I realize it must be easier for you to put words into my mouth rather than paying attention to what I actually say. Still, that's no excuse. It indicates sloppy thinking.
Feel free to quote where I said the "arctic" was at record highs. Reading comprehension matters.
Thank you for pointing out that there is more ice in winter than in summer. You must think I am really dumb. I did a quick google search and posted what I found below. I wonder why you couldn't do one for yourself? Since anthropogenic global warming didn't start till the 70's, the notion that sea ice was even larger in extent prior to '45 only supports the fact that the world was already warming naturally. How exactly could an extra ~1/3 degree of warming melt all that ice anyways?
July 2014: "Antarctic sea ice extent increased rapidly through June and early July, and reached new daily record highs through most of this year." August 2014:"Antarctic sea ice remains at a daily record high, and 1.19 million square kilometers (459,000 square miles) above the 1981 to 2010 average."
I said ANTarctic ice set all-time record highs in 2014. You have trouble with reading comprehension yet you say I am the one who is confused.
I have no clue what you are talking about. FYI, 2012 was an all-time record low for Arctic ice, largely due to a record Arctic cyclone that hit in the summer of that year and lasted for 2 weeks. According to nsidc.org, the average August ice extent in 2012 was 4.71 million square km. The average August ice in 2014 was 6.22 million square km. If you compare the ice extent for both years at the end of August the difference is even more pronounced, showing an increase of more than 40% by 2014. The ice is thickening as well as I have already pointed out: "In October 2013, CryoSat measured about 9000 cubic km of sea ice – a notable increase compared to 6000 cubic km in October 2012."
Antarctic ice has set all-time record highs this year. There seems to be some misunderstanding here, so let me repeat: Antarctic ice has set ALL-TIME RECORD HIGHS in 2014. (This should have been easy for you to check if you have access to the internet.)
Considering the stereotypes floating around I suppose it is easy to assume that a "denier" like myself *must* have his facts wrong. I wonder, are all global warming supporters so sure of their assumptions as you are? That would explain a few things. It is bizarre for you to tell me to "believe what I want" when it is you who have the facts so utterly wrong. And you feel you need to explain to me that "ice melts in the summer"? Thank you for your incredible insight.
You said "Arctic ice is not increasing". That's a present tense statement. I pointed out that *currently* Arctic ice is on the increase, and has been since it was decimated in 2012 by an Arctic cyclone. If I had been talking about the 30 year trend I would have specified the 30 year trend. Instead I specified 2012 in both of my responses. You then suggested the recovering ice was not thickening, so I showed you that the ice has indeed been thickening since 2012, and was not an "infinitely thin ice sheet" as you claimed.
I am well aware that Arctic sea ice is below the 30 year average. Antarctic ice is at record highs and global sea ice is about average.
The 1998 starting date is always used by AGW deniers. Always.
Here is a "denier" graph using a starting date other than 1998. That was very easy to find. I suppose you will complain about the data set they are using. (The RSS data shows the least amount of warming.) Fair enough. Here's a "denier" graph showing where the trend lines hit zero for the various datasets. You will note that not one of them uses 1998 as a start point.
What if we take into account the margin of error, where we can't rule out a trend of zero? (from here)
I don't see 1998 anywhere.
What about mainstream sources? Here is a link to the journal Nature that acknowledges the "mysterious" 16 year pause.
Judith Curry writes: "Depending on when you start counting, this hiatus has lasted 16 years. Climate model simulations find that the probability of a hiatus as long as 20 years is vanishingly small. If the 20 year threshold is reached for the pause, this will lead inescapably to the conclusion that the climate model sensitivity to CO2 is too large. Further, 20 years is approaching the length of the warming period from 1976-2000 that is the main smoking gun for AGW."
Nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about. (Have you even checked? The data shows a slight cooling trend from 2001.) This is what denial looks like: "statistical significance" becomes a "weasel word". You say AGW deniers pick 1998 every time. I can show you many articles on AGW "denier" sites that prove you absolutely wrong. Yet you accuse me of deliberately lying. Who exactly is playing fast and loose with the facts?
People claim that climate skeptics cherry pick 1998 as a start date, warping what would otherwise be an upward trend. And it sounds plausible, it fits their beliefs, so people seem to believe it uncritically. But it's simply not true; it's a myth. Most skeptics choose 1997 as their start date. If you don't like 1998 (I don't like it either) then pick another start date: 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001. You'll get the same result: no significant warming. The RSS data shows no significant warming since 1993
Nature magazine published an article that tries to explain the "mysterious global-warming hiatus". Nature magazine accepts it. The IPCC accepts it. The "pause" is real and is easily shown in the data sets. You are the one who is misinformed and in denial it seems.
You are misinformed. The arctic ice has steadily been increasing in both extent and volume since an arctic cyclone decimated it in 2012. For example: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/Arctic_sea_ice_up_from_record_low
Antarctic ice is at record highs.
Sure I do.
Yeah, I am "one of them." It's easy to knock down a skeptic when you are deliberately choosing the easiest targets to knock down. There are intelligent, thoughtful skeptics who are willing to engage. But keep focusing on the Sarah Palins of the world if that suits you. They are easier targets. Selection bias at work.
Personally, I rarely stray from the IPCC reports and the temperature data. Most people are unaware of what the science actually says. It does not support many of the beliefs held by global warming activists.
Much research is done by scientists who don't identify as skeptics, but whose work supports what skeptics have been saying for a long time, such as this paper on climate sensitivity, or this one by Nick Lewis.
I recommend Judith Curry's blog as a good place to start if you are truly interested in engaging with skeptics and lukewarmers. (Judith Curry does "actual research" by the way.)
I suppose you are correct if you only pay attention to the Sarah Palins of the world when seeking out skeptic opinions. I've had the same experience with global warming activists.
Interesting video. His numbers seem funny. Who is saying CO2 will quadruple this century? Who is claiming negative feedbacks of 8 watts/m^2? Nobody I know of. Why doesn't he talk about the huge positive feedbacks assumed by climate models, which is at the very crux of the debate?