"the world has cooled or been flat" Allow me to find that funny. The world has been flat... No hard feelings, mate. I hope you find it funny, too.
Anyway, since you're asking people to do some research, would you please be so kind to read this article from the Fox News website. w w w . foxnews . com /scitech/2009/10/26/statisticians-reject-global-cooling-earth-heating/ Read it, come back, and we'll have a civilized discussion. I'll wait.
@arneperschel Flat temperatures. And I don't need to read your 2009 article when I have 2011 papers and measurements and I have the Boston report making up excuses for the cooling.
Hi, have you read the article yet? Here's a quote: "In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented." and "NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend "will be never talked about again." " Well, Schmidt got it right about that record (NASA and NOAA record, HADCrut and UAH tie, RSS second) but not about the public's perception.
@arneperschel I can't open the link and personally I don't give a much credence what a bunch of alarmist interpret a trend as. The NASA GISS dataset has been known to be fabricated with "spatial extrapolations and interpolations" But let's look at RAW data, I say... my research shows, flat temperatures in most of the data sets, with MAYBE a .01 - .04 increase. The facts are, they predicted massive warming, it never happened, now it's time for them to go back in the box.
"four independent statisticians" What makes you think they are a bunch of alarmists? Aren't you drawing conclusions a little fast? You haven't even read the article. Nobody ever predicted warming on a decadal scale. 'Massive warming' is being predicted by the 2060's if we keep pumping GHG's into the atmosphere. Can you provide a link to the proof of NASA GISS fraud? Did you know the satellite measurements are actually computer models that extrapolate temperature from microwave readings?
@arneperschel just google NASA GISS FRAUD, the links are abundant, verify the sources of course.. you'll see for yourself. I'll send a link to your youtube account.
@Eriksz You seem very dismissive on a very in-depth report, whereas you seem totally sold on the scepticism of others - scepticism being a position of doubt, but not necessarily one where you claim to have any proof.
But then I guess that's Confirmation Bias in action on both our opinions here. I'm not 100% sure either way, but have sided pro-belief on CC. Going with the other side seems to be taking one heck of a gamble if my side turns out to be right ?!!
@phantomwhale There is no empirical data connecting human activity with global temperatures. Correlation is not Causation. So the fact that some "on the gravy train" scientists, had a "consensus" on AGW, means jack.
I can show you 900+ Peer reviewed papers skeptical of AGW, while all the "human induced" papers are purely based on climate modelling, which is theory and which have constantly been wrong. That's right the FACTS don't change, no proof of AGW at all, PERIOD.
@Eriksz No you can't. You might want to double-check those "900+" papers. Many of them were reviewed by the same peers. Many of them reference each other. Many of them have never been published in CREDIBLE peer-reviewed journals. Many do not dispute AGW. Many of the authors were funded by Exxon.
@charbonou2 And how would you know? Have you even looked at the papers? You're talking out your ass. And you claim that papers funded by Exxon (which is unlikely) is any different from Pro Global Warming Governments funding the AGW gravy train? Give me a break, stop talking crap.
Good work. Humour can cut through the BS being peddled by many in the MSM and those who don't want to pay for the the pollution they emit. Get ready for an avalanche of astroturfers and conservatives who refuse to recognise the huge amount of scientific evidence supporting argument that AGW is to blame for increase temp trend.
What flat temperatures? Last time I checked they sent the data to several independent statisticians without telling them what the data were. They all concluded the trend was up. Last time I checked, Phil Jones said the trend from 1995 to 2010 was statistically significant, meaning there's less than 5 percent chance the upward trend is just noise. Tell you what: on March 12th it was 14ºC, on April 7th it was also 14ºC, therefore seasons do not exist.
@arneperschel Wow, I love the straw man you just created. Too bad your argument is hollow. Phil Jones himself said there was "No Statisticaly significant temperature increases since 1995" That's what he said, not what you claim. He said this to the BBC and you can check it at the Daily Mail UK news site.
In fact the flat temperature line was a "travesty" that they could "not explain" said Kevin Trenberth (IPCC 1995-2007), in his leaked climate gate email.
I know he said that. One year of extra data and the significance level has crawled over the arbitrary 95% significance level.
w w w . bbc . co . uk / news / science-environment-13719510
"HadCRUT shows a warming 1995-2010 of 0.19C"
And yes, I know the Kaufmann study. What's so hard to understand? Sulfur is a negative forcing. Over the period 1998-2008 that forcing increased, adding a cooling influence on top of the negative forcing by ENSO and solar cycles. The result: a pause in warming.
@arneperschel How about this theory... Solar, moon and planet interactions determine climate temperatures. As is evident in the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period. CO2 is a bogus contributor being used by organisations for their own benefit. We're going through a warming trend with a slight pause and every IPCC prediction since the 90's has been completely wrong. I think that is a more plausible theory.
Thankyou for confirming the cooling, now we call tell all the AGW clowns to STFU
Nice hypothesis. The moon influencing climate. By which mechanism? Nobody's holding you back from submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal. Maybe you'll get a Nobel Prize!
A few questions: Do you agree CO2 absorbs infrared radiation? And do you agree the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased by about 35% over the last two centuries? And could you please explain why Venus is warmer than Mercury?
@arneperschel The SUN, EARTH AND MOON together influence climate. The SUN obviously sends heat our way, that is something you AGW groupies can never understand. The magnetic interaction between the Moon and Earth affect the amount of radiation we get. This is how Piers Corbyn of Weather Action is able to predict weather accurately while the AGW clowns always seem to mess it up.
You know your track record is horrendous: "Children just aren’t going to know what snow is” Dr David Viner (2000) rofl
Did Mr. Corbyn publish any of his work in peer-reviewed journals?
Talking about strawmen: "The SUN obviously sends heat our way, that is something you AGW groupies can never understand." Right...
More from the article: Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said. - So, obviously he aimed at least past the year 2021 with that prediction.
@Eriksz sorry, not sure I follow. If we take it (only!) for the sake of discussion that climate change is a natural phenomenon and not at all caused by human activity, isn't it a good idea to cut pollution anyway? Isn't that what this video is about?
@Eriksz Are you suggesting that human respiration is contributing to climate change?.
Not sure I buy the other part of the argument either: Nitrogen and oxygen are both heavily toxic but try to live a minute without them in your body. Like so many things, it's a very fine balance.
@arneperschel In fact the Decline or Flat Temperature is such a concern that they released an study recently. Dr Robert Kaufman of Boston University (google it!) said that China's coal power plants have release Sulpher, which is why we have COOLING!.... So, you are wrong twice. Not only is Co2 emissions so WEAK that small amounts of sulpher cause cooling, but the temperatures have been FLAT. Now, go and get educated before you reply.
@Eriksz Global warming refers to climate, not weather. There's a significant distinction, there. 13 years says very little about long term shifts in climate.
@Abbiesilk Oh yes... here we go... "no single event determines climate" great one, then we get a flood or drought and... "that's because of climate change" Give me a break!
What about the Medieval Warming period?? What cause the warming then, Viking in SUV's? The facts are the CLIMATE ALWAYS CHANGES and nothing you can do will stop it! This is something the AGW clowns lie about constantly, the hockey stick graph used FALSE data to diminish the Medieval Warming Period, they're all criminals
@Eriksz Did you actually read his paper? What he actually says and what was reported are 2 quite different things. Firstly his paper only covers the 10 year period 1998-2008.
He also says this in his conclusion:
" The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic
@stickyTree Yes I did read it... and it's a BOGUS CLAIM either way... I suppose you notice the "Likely" comment? What that translate to in common English is... "we have no real idea if CO2 causes warming and correlation is not causation"
The Article CONFIRMS my claim of COOLING which is measurable and also SMASHES the AGW claim that CO2 drives climate.. it's weak that a minor amount of sulphur can derail it the CO2 warming process.
The VOSTOK ICE RECORD (google it) shows, Climate drives CO2.
I love this ad. Very clever!
Lenkic13 7 months ago
Windbaggers with tin foil hats.
What ARE they selling? Oh wait. Carbon.
rapauli 7 months ago
Hahahahahahhaha what a joke.....
rremsiJackson 7 months ago
croc of crap because he is back and we won.Time for your green to go back to the green slimey gooey soup you believe you evolved from.
JOSEPHDANCE75 7 months ago
shit propaganda..
blackthird 7 months ago
LOL @ Abbott "the world has cooled", according to crackpots like Monckton and Jo Nova, but unfortunately the data disagrees.
charbonou2 7 months ago
@charbonou2 Wrong, the world has cooled or been flat from 98 to now. So do some research before posting again.
Eriksz 7 months ago
@Eriksz
"the world has cooled or been flat" Allow me to find that funny. The world has been flat... No hard feelings, mate. I hope you find it funny, too.
Anyway, since you're asking people to do some research, would you please be so kind to read this article from the Fox News website. w w w . foxnews . com /scitech/2009/10/26/statisticians-reject-global-cooling-earth-heating/ Read it, come back, and we'll have a civilized discussion. I'll wait.
arneperschel 7 months ago
@arneperschel Flat temperatures. And I don't need to read your 2009 article when I have 2011 papers and measurements and I have the Boston report making up excuses for the cooling.
Eriksz 7 months ago
@Eriksz
I knew you meant flat temperatures, I was just joking. Come on, take five minutes to read the article. I think it's relevant to our discussion.
arneperschel 7 months ago
@Eriksz
Hi, have you read the article yet? Here's a quote: "In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented." and "NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend "will be never talked about again." " Well, Schmidt got it right about that record (NASA and NOAA record, HADCrut and UAH tie, RSS second) but not about the public's perception.
arneperschel 7 months ago
@arneperschel I can't open the link and personally I don't give a much credence what a bunch of alarmist interpret a trend as. The NASA GISS dataset has been known to be fabricated with "spatial extrapolations and interpolations" But let's look at RAW data, I say... my research shows, flat temperatures in most of the data sets, with MAYBE a .01 - .04 increase. The facts are, they predicted massive warming, it never happened, now it's time for them to go back in the box.
Eriksz 7 months ago
@Eriksz
"four independent statisticians" What makes you think they are a bunch of alarmists? Aren't you drawing conclusions a little fast? You haven't even read the article. Nobody ever predicted warming on a decadal scale. 'Massive warming' is being predicted by the 2060's if we keep pumping GHG's into the atmosphere. Can you provide a link to the proof of NASA GISS fraud? Did you know the satellite measurements are actually computer models that extrapolate temperature from microwave readings?
arneperschel 7 months ago
@arneperschel just google NASA GISS FRAUD, the links are abundant, verify the sources of course.. you'll see for yourself. I'll send a link to your youtube account.
Eriksz 7 months ago
@Eriksz You seem very dismissive on a very in-depth report, whereas you seem totally sold on the scepticism of others - scepticism being a position of doubt, but not necessarily one where you claim to have any proof.
But then I guess that's Confirmation Bias in action on both our opinions here. I'm not 100% sure either way, but have sided pro-belief on CC. Going with the other side seems to be taking one heck of a gamble if my side turns out to be right ?!!
phantomwhale 7 months ago
"Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced."
This was the Key Finding from the largest (funding and participating scientific bodies), longest (20 year) scientific research into climate change.
In the scientific community, climate change is a fact ! But in the media, debate makes money, I guess. Facts honestly don't.
phantomwhale 7 months ago
@phantomwhale There is no empirical data connecting human activity with global temperatures. Correlation is not Causation. So the fact that some "on the gravy train" scientists, had a "consensus" on AGW, means jack.
I can show you 900+ Peer reviewed papers skeptical of AGW, while all the "human induced" papers are purely based on climate modelling, which is theory and which have constantly been wrong. That's right the FACTS don't change, no proof of AGW at all, PERIOD.
Eriksz 7 months ago
@Eriksz No you can't. You might want to double-check those "900+" papers. Many of them were reviewed by the same peers. Many of them reference each other. Many of them have never been published in CREDIBLE peer-reviewed journals. Many do not dispute AGW. Many of the authors were funded by Exxon.
charbonou2 7 months ago
@charbonou2 And how would you know? Have you even looked at the papers? You're talking out your ass. And you claim that papers funded by Exxon (which is unlikely) is any different from Pro Global Warming Governments funding the AGW gravy train? Give me a break, stop talking crap.
Eriksz 7 months ago
Yay! Brahms' Requiem!
arneperschel 7 months ago 2
What a very silly video. Whenever was science about consensus?
trouper3 7 months ago
Good work. Humour can cut through the BS being peddled by many in the MSM and those who don't want to pay for the the pollution they emit. Get ready for an avalanche of astroturfers and conservatives who refuse to recognise the huge amount of scientific evidence supporting argument that AGW is to blame for increase temp trend.
ThomasKingAU 7 months ago
@ThomasKingAU AGW must be to blame for the flat temperatures over the last 13 years also Thomas?
Eriksz 7 months ago
@Eriksz
What flat temperatures? Last time I checked they sent the data to several independent statisticians without telling them what the data were. They all concluded the trend was up. Last time I checked, Phil Jones said the trend from 1995 to 2010 was statistically significant, meaning there's less than 5 percent chance the upward trend is just noise. Tell you what: on March 12th it was 14ºC, on April 7th it was also 14ºC, therefore seasons do not exist.
arneperschel 7 months ago
@arneperschel Wow, I love the straw man you just created. Too bad your argument is hollow. Phil Jones himself said there was "No Statisticaly significant temperature increases since 1995" That's what he said, not what you claim. He said this to the BBC and you can check it at the Daily Mail UK news site.
In fact the flat temperature line was a "travesty" that they could "not explain" said Kevin Trenberth (IPCC 1995-2007), in his leaked climate gate email.
Eriksz 7 months ago
@Eriksz
I know he said that. One year of extra data and the significance level has crawled over the arbitrary 95% significance level.
w w w . bbc . co . uk / news / science-environment-13719510
"HadCRUT shows a warming 1995-2010 of 0.19C"
And yes, I know the Kaufmann study. What's so hard to understand? Sulfur is a negative forcing. Over the period 1998-2008 that forcing increased, adding a cooling influence on top of the negative forcing by ENSO and solar cycles. The result: a pause in warming.
arneperschel 7 months ago
@arneperschel How about this theory... Solar, moon and planet interactions determine climate temperatures. As is evident in the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period. CO2 is a bogus contributor being used by organisations for their own benefit. We're going through a warming trend with a slight pause and every IPCC prediction since the 90's has been completely wrong. I think that is a more plausible theory.
Thankyou for confirming the cooling, now we call tell all the AGW clowns to STFU
Eriksz 7 months ago
@Eriksz
Did I confirm cooling? When? Where?
Nice hypothesis. The moon influencing climate. By which mechanism? Nobody's holding you back from submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal. Maybe you'll get a Nobel Prize!
A few questions: Do you agree CO2 absorbs infrared radiation? And do you agree the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased by about 35% over the last two centuries? And could you please explain why Venus is warmer than Mercury?
arneperschel 7 months ago
@arneperschel The SUN, EARTH AND MOON together influence climate. The SUN obviously sends heat our way, that is something you AGW groupies can never understand. The magnetic interaction between the Moon and Earth affect the amount of radiation we get. This is how Piers Corbyn of Weather Action is able to predict weather accurately while the AGW clowns always seem to mess it up.
You know your track record is horrendous: "Children just aren’t going to know what snow is” Dr David Viner (2000) rofl
Eriksz 7 months ago
@Eriksz
Did Mr. Corbyn publish any of his work in peer-reviewed journals?
Talking about strawmen: "The SUN obviously sends heat our way, that is something you AGW groupies can never understand." Right...
More from the article: Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said. - So, obviously he aimed at least past the year 2021 with that prediction.
arneperschel 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arneperschel Ya and he was wrong then and he was wrong now!
Eriksz 7 months ago
@Eriksz sorry, not sure I follow. If we take it (only!) for the sake of discussion that climate change is a natural phenomenon and not at all caused by human activity, isn't it a good idea to cut pollution anyway? Isn't that what this video is about?
DownloadJames 7 months ago
@DownloadJames Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. You exhale it and it makes the planet green.
Eriksz 7 months ago
@Eriksz Are you suggesting that human respiration is contributing to climate change?.
Not sure I buy the other part of the argument either: Nitrogen and oxygen are both heavily toxic but try to live a minute without them in your body. Like so many things, it's a very fine balance.
DownloadJames 7 months ago
@arneperschel In fact the Decline or Flat Temperature is such a concern that they released an study recently. Dr Robert Kaufman of Boston University (google it!) said that China's coal power plants have release Sulpher, which is why we have COOLING!.... So, you are wrong twice. Not only is Co2 emissions so WEAK that small amounts of sulpher cause cooling, but the temperatures have been FLAT. Now, go and get educated before you reply.
Eriksz 7 months ago
@Eriksz Global warming refers to climate, not weather. There's a significant distinction, there. 13 years says very little about long term shifts in climate.
Abbiesilk 7 months ago
@Abbiesilk Oh yes... here we go... "no single event determines climate" great one, then we get a flood or drought and... "that's because of climate change" Give me a break!
What about the Medieval Warming period?? What cause the warming then, Viking in SUV's? The facts are the CLIMATE ALWAYS CHANGES and nothing you can do will stop it! This is something the AGW clowns lie about constantly, the hockey stick graph used FALSE data to diminish the Medieval Warming Period, they're all criminals
Eriksz 7 months ago
@Eriksz It's not cool to put words in other peoples' mouths - so to speak. I beg to differ, but you've obviously well and truly made your mind up.
Abbiesilk 7 months ago
Too bad Abbot is right, the science is not settled and there has been 13 years of cooling.
Eriksz 7 months ago
@Eriksz Really! How about some references.
S
stickyTree 7 months ago
@stickyTree Sure, how would you like me to provide them? Email on youtube?
Eriksz 7 months ago
@Eriksz Just list them here for everyone to see.
S
stickyTree 7 months ago
@stickyTree You can't link URL's in youtube comments.
But you can google "Dr Robert Kaufman of Boston University flat temperatures"
Eriksz 7 months ago
@Eriksz Did you actually read his paper? What he actually says and what was reported are 2 quite different things. Firstly his paper only covers the 10 year period 1998-2008.
He also says this in his conclusion:
" The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic
greenhouse gases"
stickyTree 7 months ago
Comment removed
Eriksz 7 months ago
@stickyTree Yes I did read it... and it's a BOGUS CLAIM either way... I suppose you notice the "Likely" comment? What that translate to in common English is... "we have no real idea if CO2 causes warming and correlation is not causation"
The Article CONFIRMS my claim of COOLING which is measurable and also SMASHES the AGW claim that CO2 drives climate.. it's weak that a minor amount of sulphur can derail it the CO2 warming process.
The VOSTOK ICE RECORD (google it) shows, Climate drives CO2.
Eriksz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eriksz The climate drives CO2 theory has been debunked long ago.
stickyTree 7 months ago
Try this with Muslims and see how far the CFMEU gets? Ahhh but it's anti Christian hate from a union that gives fuck all about it's workers?
milkshaker74 7 months ago