Where Did Global Warming Go?

OK...sure...duh..talk about little comprehension! And you were an engineer? Ha!

Also I don't know what you think my lifestyle is within your fevered psychotic imagination but it is certainly not a high carbon one.

For your education...

 

That chart is horseshit.

Just about every scientist in the field understands the data shows that co2 concentrations lag temperature.

Now many of the paid ones still speculate CO2 drives warming... but thousands of scientists who do not derive their pay for the govt... question man made global warming.

 

There you go again, mixing the idea of global warming with anthropomorphic global warming. They are two separate postulates.

Your failure to discern between them and your habit of mixing and matching disparate data with such ignorance is the primary reason I don't argue science with guys who drive little white utility trucks with a ladder on top who are more suited to sitting in front of the television holding a beer.

 

No shit Sherlock. I repeat. There has NEVER been the huge release of CO2 as we are seeing now from the burning of fossil fuel. So history is of limited value here. However history does show that CO2 will raise temps further than solar variations alone would do. Why is that so hard for you to understand? You simply don't want to. As a conservative any kind of change upsets you. Including changing your mind. That goes for the other deniers here also though so you're not alone in your stubborn stupidity.

 

OK

LOL...uh...OK

No, but over 40% of it currently does. And your HVAC systems are consuming enormous amounts of it.

Because he says so? Really? LOL
He had no problem flying on my employer's corporate jet when I met his arrogant ass years ago.

 

377 you stupid ass. This chart, when referring to GW means AGW.


Back in 2005 (which is a loooong time ago in Internet time), Naomi Oreskes published a famous paper in Science titled "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". It's a meta-study that looked at 928 scientific papers between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that, despite what the media often implied, there was a very strong consensus among scientists about climate change, with none of the papers disagreeing with consensus position.
Fast-forward to the present, and James Lawrence Powell has done a similar meta-study, but including a lot more peer-reviewed papers (thousands have been published since 2003). (You can see his methodology here.)

What did he find? Well, out of 13,950 scientific papers published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012, he found 24, or 0.17%, or 1 in 581, that clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. That last part is important, as CO2 is central to the mainstream scientific view on global warming.

The pie chart above is a good visual representation of the very strong scientific consensus.

"If one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science."

And if corroborated over time, such a paper would probably deserve a Nobel prize... Yet these 24 papers are on average less-cited than the rest of the 13,950 papers.

http://www.treehugger.com/climate-c...limate-finds-24-rejecting-global-warming.html

 

Ok... fool.

Now that you acknowledge in the earths systems... we see temperature as the driver for Co2 concentrations...

please show me the science which indicates co2 is every the driver. not that it could be a driver in closed system... but that is a driver on earth.

 

There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

"97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didn’t even know about would turn up later on – and they did!

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm





but don't let facts get in the way of your rigid ideology. We wouldn't want that.

 

OK You have no deductive capability do you? You are unable to project a conclusion or extrapolate from existing data aren't you.

 

Did you know the guy who invented the Lobotomy shared a Nobel prize?

Given their history, I'm not impressed with the Nobel prize committee.