Earth's average temperature showed no detectable warming from December 1978 until...

"If you look at the 30-year graph of month-to-month temperature anomalies, the most obvious feature is the series of warmer than normal months that followed the major El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event of 1997-1998," said Christy. "Right now we are coming out of one La Nina Pacific Ocean cooling event and we might be heading into another. It should be interesting over the next several years to see whether the post La Nina climate 're-sets' to the cooler seasonal norms we saw before 1997 or the warmer levels seen since then."

Virtually all of the warming found in the satellite temperature record has taken place since the onset of the 1997-1998 El Nino. Earth's average temperature showed no detectable warming from December 1978 until the 1997 El Nino.

Click to expand...

Yeah, damn.. 1998-99. CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING!!!

Re: Earth's average temperature showed no detectable warming from December 1978 until

MrVicchio said:

Yeah, damn.. 1998-99. CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING!!!

Click to expand...

:lamo are you really this dense?

Re: Earth's average temperature showed no detectable warming from December 1978 until

jfuh said:

:lamo are you really this dense?

Click to expand...

Is that all you've got?

Re: Earth's average temperature showed no detectable warming from December 1978 until

MrVicchio said:

Is that all you've got?

Click to expand...

To respond to this thread? That's all that is needed
Happy trolling

Re: Earth's average temperature showed no detectable warming from December 1978 until

jfuh said:

To respond to this thread? That's all that is needed
Happy trolling

Click to expand...

If you are incapable of responding to the thread, you shouldn't post, and if you do post, it should some how pertain to the thread, at least on the first page. You are trolling this thread, which is against the rules.

Re: Earth's average temperature showed no detectable warming from December 1978 until

jfuh said:

:lamo are you really this dense?

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

If you are not going to discuss the topic, there is no reason to post. Further, please do not post personal attacks towards posters.

Re: Earth's average temperature showed no detectable warming from December 1978 until

My Lord, Mr Vicchio, you're trying a different angle now? :rofl

You have been going on-and-on since god knows when about the cooling that has been happening since 1998, and now you're saying that it's the only time it's warmed since 1978? So which is it? :doh

Instead of trying to prove points to back up your pre-conceived notions, take a look at the whole picture and get back to me. Unless you're as stubborn as a mule, you'll eventually come to the conclusion that the world is getting warmer, and it's because of human activity. It might take years, but it will happen.

Re: Earth's average temperature showed no detectable warming from December 1978 until

No, I just bring new and different science to the forum. Ya know, the stuff that keeps showing AGW isn't the slam dunk deal you keep going on it is. I'm also showing how many different views there on this. Here's science, here's a take on the issue that's totally different then either the no warming at all, and the "ZOMG earths gonna burn!" crowd.

You guys miss the point... completely.

Re: Earth's average temperature showed no detectable warming from December 1978 until

MrViccio, Just out of curiosity, what would you consider to be evidence of AGW?

I mean, when I consider the same question for myself, I think that before I should accept AGW, I would want to see:

• Multiple source temperature measurement studies where average recorded temperatures in air and water are generally shown to correspond and generally to increase over time.
• Evidence gathered which enables a comparison of the recent rate of increase to historical rates of increases, with the current one showing a higher rate.
• Evidence of the historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and other Evidence of the historic average temperatures showing a correspondence between these measurements.
• Scientific verification that CO2 actually does retain heat better than Nitrogen and Oxygen in a laboratory setting.
• Evidence that CO2 levels are rising and generally correspond to increased industrialization worldwide.

When I go to check off each of these things, I am satisfied that I can do so.

Do you feel that the list is flawed?

Do you feel that the evidence for some or all of the points is lacking?

Re: Earth's average temperature showed no detectable warming from December 1978 until

Dezaad said:

MrViccio, Just out of curiosity, what would you consider to be evidence of AGW?

I mean, when I consider the same question for myself, I think that before I should accept AGW, I would want to see:

• Multiple source temperature measurement studies where average recorded temperatures in air and water are generally shown to correspond and generally to increase over time.
• Evidence gathered which enables a comparison of the recent rate of increase to historical rates of increases, with the current one showing a higher rate.
• Evidence of the historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and other Evidence of the historic average temperatures showing a correspondence between these measurements.
• Scientific verification that CO2 actually does retain heat better than Nitrogen and Oxygen in a laboratory setting.
• Evidence that CO2 levels are rising and generally correspond to increased industrialization worldwide.

When I go to check off each of these things, I am satisfied that I can do so.

Do you feel that the list is flawed?

Do you feel that the evidence for some or all of the points is lacking?

Click to expand...

My problem with the AGW movement isn't so much the science, shock shock.
It's the way it's playing out. The science needs more study, yes man has an impact on the environment, but the measures being pushed to fight it are highly suspect and not going to make much if any difference in the end.

Pushing for massive deductions in CO2 output have a known negative impact on our standard of living, cost of living and economic growth for very little in return. This is IMHO an unacceptable position to take.

Also, "consensus" science brought such wonders like Eugenics, an other dubious science that was very political. History teaches to watch for repeats, the whole global warming crap is IMHO another Eugenics. Some scientific basis for some concern but the political angle blows it out of proportion.

If CO2 was such a threat, those pushing for reduciton would be living as CO2 free as they could. Instead they "Buy" carbon credits, they demand cap and trade.. hey guys, cap and trade is nothing but a shell game enriching those on one side and costing US, the average joe a **** ton.

THAT'S why I am against it.

Re: Earth's average temperature showed no detectable warming from December 1978 until

MrVicchio said:

My problem with the AGW movement isn't so much the science, shock shock.

Click to expand...

Then why do you continually refuse to accept the science?

MrVicchio said:

It's the way it's playing out. The science needs more study, yes man has an impact on the environment, but the measures being pushed to fight it are highly suspect and not going to make much if any difference in the end.

Click to expand...

I agree we need to continually be in pursuit of higher order knowledge, but you continually provide the lowest order knowledge possible to try and prove your "point".

Pushing for massive deductions in CO2 output have a known negative impact on our standard of living, cost of living and economic growth for very little in return. This is IMHO an unacceptable position to take.

Click to expand...

This is simply not true. Promoting higher energy efficiency leads to the same outputs with lower inputs. This decreases the cost of living, and implementing these processes stimulates considerable growth.

MrVicchio said:

Also, "consensus" science brought such wonders like Eugenics, an other dubious science that was very political. History teaches to watch for repeats, the whole global warming crap is IMHO another Eugenics. Some scientific basis for some concern but the political angle blows it out of proportion.

Click to expand...

Wow. Just wow. How is advocating pollution and waste reduction so future generations are unaffected by our generations choices even remotely similar to Eugenics? This demonstrates a level of neurosis that I hadn't expected, even out of you.

MrVicchio said:

If CO2 was such a threat, those pushing for reduciton would be living as CO2 free as they could. Instead they "Buy" carbon credits, they demand cap and trade.. hey guys, cap and trade is nothing but a shell game enriching those on one side and costing US, the average joe a **** ton.

Click to expand...

Give me a break. All we advocate is that everyone does their part. If your company has been profiting for years off of negative externalities that EVERYONE in society has to face the consequences of, you should be expected to play a role in fixing the problem. This is a simple concept of justice.

Also, from the article you failed to source:

According to the map, half of the globe has warmed at least 0.3 degrees C in the past 30 years, while half of that - a full quarter of the globe - warmed at least 0.6 degrees C.
...
But, areas of cooling were isolated: Only four percent of the globe cooled by at least half of one degree Fahrenheit.

Click to expand...

I know you don't think small numbers can mean big things, but I don't think this article implies what you think it does. An extra increase of 2 degrees over 50 years has the potential for catastrophic effects, especially if it is highly concentrated in the Greenland areas where most of the ice is resting on land (rather than floating at sea like a majority of Antarctica...where additional melting or freezing won't change sea levels)