Global warming

[av8torntn]

Let a mod decide who is banned.

Are you afraid to say or can you not decipher the symbols in the title that we refer to as letters? If that's the case could you cut and paste it? I'd like to move this along so I can address your buddy the tree hating denier.

 

[av8torntn]

The one peer reviewed paper you posted a link to,referred to the climate 65 million years ago.

You produced no peer reviewed papers to bolster your denier argument.

Let a mod decide if you 'won your bet'.

Well, well, well what do you know another of many outright lies that you have posted in this thread. I will ignore, for now the denier argument lie as I have not taken a position one way or another and focus on the one peer reviewed paper about 65 million years ago lie.

Link to one of the peer reviewed papers that I had previously put up for your consideration.

Definition of peer review since you have proven that you do not know what it means and you are far too lazy to look it up.

"One of the most controversial issues emerging from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is the failure of global climate models to predict a hiatus in warming of global surface temperatures since 1998. Several ideas have been put forward to explain this hiatus, including what the IPCC refers to as 'unpredictable climate variability' that is associated with large-scale circulation regimes in the atmosphere and ocean."

Above is a excerpt from the paper and I highlight a couple of critical parts for you. As most of us already know(not you) since 1998 is not 65 million years ago. Also for your viewing pleasure are the words global climate in the first paragraph.

Is The Stadium Wave peer reviewed? Yes without question.

"A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy."


Is Climate Dynamics a peer reviewed journal? Why yes it is.

I am certain that you will complain, cry, whine, blame me for your failure but the fact is that you lost which I feel certain that is something you are accustomed to.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

 

[MAKAVELI]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html
And you think this article is scientific without bias? Yea right.

 

[av8torntn]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html
And you think this article is scientific without bias? Yea right.

Sent using BrownCafe App

You think ipcc is without bias but the question has nothing to do with bias. It's peer review so not even a good try on your part bubba.

 

[MAKAVELI]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/10/scientists-debunk-conservative-myth-of-global-warming-pause/

 

[av8torntn]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/10/scientists-debunk-conservative-myth-of-global-warming-pause/

So? This all started because I said the ipcc report wasn't scientific. That report claimed a pause so I'm assuming you agree with me.

 

[MAKAVELI]

So? This all started because I said the ipcc report wasn't scientific. That report claimed a pause so I'm assuming you agree with me.

Obviously you didn't read the article.

 

[av8torntn]

Obviously you didn't read the article.

I was actually thinking the same thing about you.

I re read what I posted and it came out wrong. Your article claimed there wasn't a pause like the ipcc claimed suggesting you also disagree with the settled science.

 

[roadrunner2012]

Well, well, well what do you know another of many outright lies that you have posted in this thread. I will ignore, for now the denier argument lie as I have not taken a position one way or another and focus on the one peer reviewed paper about 65 million years ago lie.

Link to one of the peer reviewed papers that I had previously put up for your consideration.
Blog pst, not a scientific paper

Definition of peer review since you have proven that you do not know what it means and you are far too lazy to look it up.

"One of the most controversial issues emerging from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is the failure of global climate models to predict a hiatus in warming of global surface temperatures since 1998. Several ideas have been put forward to explain this hiatus, including what the IPCC refers to as 'unpredictable climate variability' that is associated with large-scale circulation regimes in the atmosphere and ocean."

Above is a excerpt from the paper and I highlight a couple of critical parts for you. As most of us already know(not you) since 1998 is not 65 million years ago. Also for your viewing pleasure are the words global climate in the first paragraph.

Is The Stadium Wave peer reviewed? Yes without question.

"A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy."

Is Climate Dynamics a peer reviewed journal? Why yes it is.

I am certain that you will complain, cry, whine, blame me for your failure but the fact is that you lost which I feel certain that is something you are accustomed to.

Really? You want to put up a paper by Curry as your proof? When there are hundreds of papers that say the opposite?
Try this search:

https://www.google.com/#q=judith+curry+debunked

What is your point, besides attention?

I'm done arguing with a child.

 

[oldngray]

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/01/2258-meaningless-search-results.html

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Climate changes are cyclical.

Our global temperatures are warming.

 

[av8torntn]

Really? You want to put up a paper by Curry as your proof?

Proof of what? It met all of your multiple demands.

The only thing that matters now is that it was published in a peer reviewed journal. You lose again crybaby. Ban yourself. Have a little bit of honor.

 

[roadrunner2012]

 

[av8torntn]

Is that cartoon peer reviewed?

 

[oldngray]

Is that cartoon peer reviewed?

A cartoon meets his usual journalistic standards.

 

[av8torntn]

A cartoon meets his usual journalistic standards.

So funny after all his bravado about peer review this and that and he ended up reducing himself to a cartoon.

 

[moreluck]

"If we don't act on global warming, there will be a billion climate refugees." (Van Jones)



I’ll go way out on a limb and predict a billion people will not be displaced by “global warming.”
Via Newsbusters:

VAN JONES: Now, here’s a good question: should serious people focus on global political instability – terrorism, failing states, nuclear weapons – or should we focus on global climate instability – droughts, floods, extreme weather?

Here’s the correct answer: yes, both, because climate disruption will make every other national security problem worse – big floods, crazy weather – that can destabilize governments, especially weak governments. That makes it easier for extremists to grab power, or to grab nuclear weapons. No food – people riot; when the oceans rise, people flee. You can imagine a world – with some of these scenarios – with a billion climate refugees. That’s a dangerous

 

[roadrunner2012]

Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors.


Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.


It may be educational to those who are genuinely inquisitive.


This may be a bit too complex for some, but puts things in an easy to understand format for those that may have an interest and have an open mind.

 

[av8torntn]

Our planet's climate is anything but simple.

You don't say?

 

[roadrunner2012]

You don't say?

No, I didn't. A real scientist said that, and many more real scientists agree.

Things are complicated, but to ignore those things is foolish.