why don't you asshole. no one is disputing that temps have risen a tiny bit and short time scales. (especially with all the smoothing and data manipulation.) The point is that the rise could very easily all be part of natural variability and therefore you would need some science to show man man CO2 is causing a rise in temps outside natural variability.
When you post nonsense like this.... then I know it is time to go buy winter gear to survive the upcoming mini ice age over the next 40 years. And you never address the IPCC stating that all the CO2 models have failed. Typical!
You're a joke. You don't know shit. Do you actually think you know more than virtually the entire world's science community? Breathtaking hubris.
No, I've posted enough charts. You ignore them. Maybe if you actually did it yourself it would sink in. You aren't afraid to are you ?
FC You are an ignorant leftist fool. You need to understand todays science. (this scientist is / was an agw nutter and he is giving you the best slant he can.) http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this? Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year. SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now? Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase. SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts? Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations. SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models? Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
"If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. " That sounds to me like right now that they don't have to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with the models. But really, it's no surprise to climatologists that the models have not predicted this short term anomaly. The oceans are a huge variable. They hold 94% of the earth's heat. The actions of currents and ocean phenomena are not very predictable. The extra heat has gone into the oceans. The climatologists are not surprised by this. Modeling the earth's climate systems precisely is a very difficult endeavor. The models are always improving and are never perfect. To expect them to be is ignorant and foolish. However, the fact remains that CO2 is still the earth's most important long term greenhouse gas and the the levels have gone up along with the earth's heat content. The earth's heat content is 94% in the oceans. 97% of the world's climatologists and all it's science organizations still believe that almost all the warming over the last fifty years is due to man. And they don't use 16 year charts to determine long term trends.
And still you can't find a chart can you? Word's are cheap and subject to being perverted for deceptive purposes by crazed right wing nutjob lawerly types Just show us a chart. You DO know how to post an image right?
if you read with knowledge you would know that agw science modelers themselves state that when the results fall out of the 2.5% level its consider a fail. He is trying to buy some more sigma with this statements... but based on modeling (science) the models have failed. Also, recent studies have been showing the oceans have been warming for 135 years. Your oceans warming is another story altogether. considering as oceans warms they release co2 it would seem you have a long way to go to show man made co2 causes ocean warming. The climate records shows warming followed by the release of co2 by the oceans.
Actually you have simply re-cycled the same old charts that have been completely debunked over and over again. Maybe you need to read the information posted by informed people that is relevant to the current era and not a decade in the past. As a first step - you need to acknowledge that the earth has not warmed for 16 years.