Hansen: Global Temperature Update

[Falcon]

The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
in the growth rate of net climate forcing. - James Hansen et al.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

[matt_sykes]

SO a five year mean goes back 10 years, and is flat eh? Well well,
looks like at least someone is capable of reading a graph, unlike the
idiots here.

I expect they will ignore this thread and pretend Hansen never said
this. Please bring it up at every opportunity. :)

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

why would you say that, im here lets talk

[Falcon]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:53:48 -0800 (PST), matt_sykes wrote:
>
> On 16 Jan, 13:42, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> > in the growth rate of net climate forcing. �- James Hansen et al.
> >
> > http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
> >
>

> SO a five year mean goes back 10 years, and is flat eh? Well well,
> looks like at least someone is capable of reading a graph, unlike the
> idiots here.

I expect someone will eventually explain difference between '5yr mean flat
for a decade' (Hansen) and 'no warming in 15 years' (Sykes) ;-)

> I expect they will ignore this thread and pretend Hansen never said
> this. Please bring it up at every opportunity. :)

I'll try.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

but you always fail

[Falcon]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:42:09 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:

>
> On Jan 16, 8:53�am, matt_sykes <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 16 Jan, 13:42, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >
> > > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> > > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> > > in the growth rate of net climate forcing. �- James Hansen et al.
> >
> > >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
> >
> >

> > SO a five year mean goes back 10 years, and is flat eh? �Well well,
> > looks like at least someone is capable of reading a graph, unlike the
> > idiots here.
> >
> > I expect they will ignore this thread and pretend Hansen never said
> > this. Please bring it up at every opportunity. �:)
>
> why would you say that, im here lets talk

Thanks.

Now that Hansen has confirmed what I've been stalked, derided and ridiculed
for over many months, when describing the current warming trend do you
prefer the 'hiatus', 'plateau', 'paused', or do you prefer Hansen's own
description "stalled".

Take your time.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

"The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down

in the growth rate of net climate forcing." �- Hansen et al (2012)

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

Thats funny as many of you have failed to admit aerosols play a factor
so lets examine the quote "The approximate stand-still of global
temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate
balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming". So this means
this same pattern happened recently due to human actions, do you agree?

[Falcon]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:09:42 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:

>
> On Jan 16, 10:00�ｿｽam, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:42:09 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 16, 8:53�ｿｽam, matt_sykes <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 16 Jan, 13:42, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> > > > > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down

> > > > > in the growth rate of net climate forcing. �ｿｽ- James Hansen et al.
> >
> > > > >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
> >
> > > > SO a five year mean goes back 10 years, and is flat eh? �ｿｽWell well,

> > > > looks like at least someone is capable of reading a graph, unlike the
> > > > idiots here.
> >
> > > > I expect they will ignore this thread and pretend Hansen never said

> > > > this. Please bring it up at every opportunity. �ｿｽ:)

> >
> > > why would you say that, im here lets talk
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Now that Hansen has confirmed what I've been stalked, derided and ridiculed
> > for over many months, when describing the current warming trend do you
> > prefer the 'hiatus', 'plateau', 'paused', or do you prefer Hansen's own
> > description "stalled".
> >
> > Take your time.
> >
>

> Thats funny as many of you have failed to admit aerosols play a factor
> so lets examine the quote "The approximate stand-still of global
> temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate
> balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming". So this means
> this same pattern happened recently due to human actions, do you agree?

Nice diversion. I linked to the paper, I know what it says.

Answer the question and admit that warming has "stalled", then maybe we can
discuss things like adults.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
"The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down

in the growth rate of net climate forcing." �ｿｽ- Hansen et al (2012)

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 16, 10:17 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:09:42 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 10:00 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:42:09 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> > > wrote:
>

> > > > On Jan 16, 8:53 am, matt_sykes <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 16 Jan, 13:42, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> > > > > > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down

> > > > > > in the growth rate of net climate forcing. - James Hansen et al.
>
> > > > > >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>
> > > > > SO a five year mean goes back 10 years, and is flat eh? Well well,

> > > > > looks like at least someone is capable of reading a graph, unlike the
> > > > > idiots here.
>
> > > > > I expect they will ignore this thread and pretend Hansen never said

> > > > > this. Please bring it up at every opportunity. :)

>
> > > > why would you say that, im here lets talk
>
> > > Thanks.
>
> > > Now that Hansen has confirmed what I've been stalked, derided and ridiculed
> > > for over many months, when describing the current warming trend do you
> > > prefer the 'hiatus', 'plateau', 'paused', or do you prefer Hansen's own
> > > description "stalled".
>
> > > Take your time.
>
> > Thats funny as many of you have failed to admit aerosols play a factor
> > so lets examine the quote "The approximate stand-still of global
> > temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate
> > balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming".  So this means
> > this same pattern happened recently due to human actions, do you agree?
>
> Nice diversion. I linked to the paper, I know what it says.
>
> Answer the question and admit that warming has "stalled", then maybe we can
> discuss things like adults.
>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> "The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down

> in the growth rate of net climate forcing." - Hansen et al (2012)

You dont make the rules, the paper clearly show aerosol forcing, and
la nina being key players. The paper clearly states something you
dont like, that recent history shows how sulfate aerosols counter the
warming from co2. I asked a question as well, answer it or admit you
are parsing this paper taking only what you want and using it out of
context to boost your failing trolling efforts. My response is well
reasoned and logical, your game is rather obvious, no you tell me who
is being more objective?

[gordo]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:42:44 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:

>
>The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
>which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
>in the growth rate of net climate forcing. - James Hansen et al.
>
>http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.
Does that mean anything to you?

[gordo]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:53:48 -0800 (PST), matt_sykes

Any you will be reminded that he said this

[Falcon]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:21:06 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation

I see you've chosen not to answer a straight question and maliciously and
erroneously accused me of ignoring aerosols - when I have consistently
maintained ever since I started posting here that a wide variety of factors
affect climate change in addition to CO2 levels.

Last chance. Hiatus, pause, plateau, or "stalled". Which is it?

If you cannot discuss matter like an adult, you will not be treated like
one. I hope we understand each other.

[Falcon]

No-one has EVER denied it. Have they?

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

"The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down

in the growth rate of net climate forcing." �- Hansen et al (2012)

[gordo]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:48:01 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:53:48 -0800 (PST), matt_sykes wrote:
>>
>> On 16 Jan, 13:42, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
>> > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
>> > in the growth rate of net climate forcing. �- James Hansen et al.
>> >
>> > http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>> >
>>
>> SO a five year mean goes back 10 years, and is flat eh? Well well,
>> looks like at least someone is capable of reading a graph, unlike the
>> idiots here.
>
>I expect someone will eventually explain difference between '5yr mean flat
>for a decade' (Hansen) and 'no warming in 15 years' (Sykes) ;-)

Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.
>

>> I expect they will ignore this thread and pretend Hansen never said
>> this. Please bring it up at every opportunity. :)
>
>I'll try.

Its about bloody time you started going to the source instead of
denier sites. Read the whole paper.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

can you believe his lame game? The paper clearly states one thing,
that aerosol forcing is countering the warming from co2.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 16, 10:33 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/14a68c71ce493068

> > > "The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> > > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> > > in the growth rate of net climate forcing." - Hansen et al (2012)
> > You dont make the rules, the paper clearly show aerosol forcing, and
> > la nina being key players.  The paper clearly states something you
> > dont like, that recent history shows how sulfate aerosols counter the
> > warming from co2.  I asked a question as well, answer it or admit you
> > are parsing this paper taking only what you want and using it out of
> > context to boost your failing trolling efforts.  My response is well
> > reasoned and logical, your game is rather obvious, no you tell me who
> > is being more objective?
> I see you've chosen not to answer a straight question and maliciously and
> erroneously accused me of ignoring aerosols - when I have consistently
> maintained ever since I started posting here that a wide variety of factors
> affect climate change in addition to CO2 levels.
> Last chance. Hiatus, pause, plateau, or "stalled". Which is it?
> If you cannot discuss matter like an adult, you will not be treated like
> one. I hope we understand each other.

page 6 graph B, clearly shows your game has been called out, care to
address the fact or are you still going to play the troll game. The
paper clearly states la nina, and aerosol forcing have been key
factors in the "slowdown in climate forcing growth rate".
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

[Falcon]

I've read it. Moron.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

"The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down

in the growth rate of net climate forcing." �- Hansen et al (2012)

[Falcon]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:45:45 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:

> > > la nina being key players. �ｿｽThe paper clearly states something you

> > > dont like, that recent history shows how sulfate aerosols counter the

> > > warming from co2. �ｿｽI asked a question as well, answer it or admit you

> > > are parsing this paper taking only what you want and using it out of

> > > context to boost your failing trolling efforts. �ｿｽMy response is well

> > > reasoned and logical, your game is rather obvious, no you tell me who
> > > is being more objective?
> > I see you've chosen not to answer a straight question and maliciously and
> > erroneously accused me of ignoring aerosols - when I have consistently
> > maintained ever since I started posting here that a wide variety of factors
> > affect climate change in addition to CO2 levels.
> > Last chance. Hiatus, pause, plateau, or "stalled". Which is it?
> > If you cannot discuss matter like an adult, you will not be treated like
> > one. I hope we understand each other.
>
> page 6 graph B, clearly shows your game has been called out, care to
> address the fact or are you still going to play the troll game. The
> paper clearly states la nina, and aerosol forcing have been key
> factors in the "slowdown in climate forcing growth rate".
> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

Fuck off, child.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

"The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 16, 10:49 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:"snip"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/baa68b9e0467ed14

Well, the author under his own free will used the phrase "slowdown in
climate forcing growth rate", its seems just as logical and reasonable
for me use that quote, as it makes the same point as your limited word
selection, its just a little more factually correct. In addition your
question tried to hold somebody to a specific set words not contained
within the paper, i disagree with your word selection and instead
directly used the authors words and data to address your misguided
question. Now if you have an emotional reaction to my direct
quotation from the author, even though you did the same thing, i would
really question your honesty, integrity and maturity as you once again
cant take what you dish out.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

[Dawlish]

In that time we've had 2 global temperature records. How on earth can the trend have been flat? Explain. Any denier feel free to step in, because spinner will retreat under his rock, leaving a smelly turd of a lie behind.

[Dawlish]

> > > > la nina being key players. �The paper clearly states something you

>
> > > > dont like, that recent history shows how sulfate aerosols counter the
>

> > > > warming from co2. �I asked a question as well, answer it or admit you

>
> > > > are parsing this paper taking only what you want and using it out of
>

> > > > context to boost your failing trolling efforts. �My response is well

>
> > > > reasoned and logical, your game is rather obvious, no you tell me who
>
> > > > is being more objective?
>
> > > I see you've chosen not to answer a straight question and maliciously and
>
> > > erroneously accused me of ignoring aerosols - when I have consistently
>
> > > maintained ever since I started posting here that a wide variety of factors
>
> > > affect climate change in addition to CO2 levels.
>
> > > Last chance. Hiatus, pause, plateau, or "stalled". Which is it?
>
> > > If you cannot discuss matter like an adult, you will not be treated like
>
> > > one. I hope we understand each other.
>
> >
>
> > page 6 graph B, clearly shows your game has been called out, care to
>
> > address the fact or are you still going to play the troll game. The
>
> > paper clearly states la nina, and aerosol forcing have been key
>
> > factors in the "slowdown in climate forcing growth rate".
>
> > http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>
>
>
> Fuck off, child.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Falcon:
>
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
>
> "The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
>
> which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
>

> in the growth rate of net climate forcing." �- Hansen et al (2012)

Well that sums up you and deniers perfectly. Scratch the surface, put you under pressure with facts you can't answer and you find an ignorant foul-mouthed right-winger, just waiting to stick their head out from underneath their rock and then run away again.

Just perfect spinner.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

Maybe, but if thats the case you have proven there is a difference
between reading and comprehension as you clearly dont understand what
you read.

[Dawlish]

So c does. He presents you with the science, which you cannot answer and your response, after stating what you have, is to say.........

"Fuck off child".

[Falcon]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:10:17 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:

He called it a "Global Warming Standstill". We'll discuss matters further
when and if you can admit that, and not accuse me of something I have not
said.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
"The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down

in the growth rate of net climate forcing." �- Hansen et al (2012)

[gordo]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:35:37 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:29:10 -0800, gordo wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:53:48 -0800 (PST), matt_sykes
>> <zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 16 Jan, 13:42, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> >> The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
>> >> which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
>> >> in the growth rate of net climate forcing. �- James Hansen et al.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Falcon:
>> >> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
>> >
>> >SO a five year mean goes back 10 years, and is flat eh? Well well,
>> >looks like at least someone is capable of reading a graph, unlike the
>> >idiots here.
>> >
>> >I expect they will ignore this thread and pretend Hansen never said
>> >this. Please bring it up at every opportunity. :)
>>
>> Any you will be reminded that he said this
>> "Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since
>> 1998."
>
>No-one has EVER denied it. Have they?

Yes and note it is getting warmer not flat.

[gordo]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:48:50 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:36:49 -0800, gordo wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:48:01 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:53:48 -0800 (PST), matt_sykes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 16 Jan, 13:42, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> >> > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
>> >> > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
>> >> > in the growth rate of net climate forcing. �- James Hansen et al.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> SO a five year mean goes back 10 years, and is flat eh? Well well,
>> >> looks like at least someone is capable of reading a graph, unlike the
>> >> idiots here.
>> >
>> >I expect someone will eventually explain difference between '5yr mean flat
>> >for a decade' (Hansen) and 'no warming in 15 years' (Sykes) ;-)
>> Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.
>> >
>> >> I expect they will ignore this thread and pretend Hansen never said
>> >> this. Please bring it up at every opportunity. :)
>> >
>> >I'll try.
>> Its about bloody time you started going to the source instead of
>> denier sites. Read the whole paper.
>
>I've read it. Moron.

You cherry picked one line neglected the others that showed warming
and tried to say it was flat. Don't call me names shithead.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 16, 11:20 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/f02717b73a594b98

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:10:17 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 10:49 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:"snip"
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/baa68b9e0467ed14
>
> > Well, the author under his own free will used the phrase "slowdown in
> > climate forcing growth rate", its seems just as logical and reasonable
> > for me use that quote, as it makes the same point as your limited word
> > selection, its just a little more factually correct.  In addition your
> > question tried to hold somebody to a specific set words not contained
> > within the paper, i disagree with your word selection and instead
> > directly used the authors words and data to address your misguided
> > question.  Now if you have an emotional reaction to my direct
> > quotation from the author, even though you did the same thing, i would
> > really question your honesty, integrity and maturity as you once again
> > cant take what you dish out.
>
> >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>
> He called it a "Global Warming Standstill". We'll discuss matters further
> when and if you can admit that, and not accuse me of something I have not
> said.

He also used the phrase "slowdown in climate forcing growth rate", as
the cause. I dont think you have clearly stated anything about the
cooling effect from sulfate aerosols, now is your chance to clarify
your views, as the paper you posted clearly states certain words. So
now its time for my word game, i understand you stated you read the
paper, but do you agree that "The approximate stand-still of global

temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate

balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming"? And do you
agree that la nina, and forcing from sulfate aerosols could do the
same thing over the past decade? I hope for the sake of an honest
and good discussion that you come back with a well reasoned logical
reply.

[Falcon]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:27:27 -0800, gordo wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:35:37 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:29:10 -0800, gordo wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:53:48 -0800 (PST), matt_sykes
> >> <zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 16 Jan, 13:42, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >> >> The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> >> >> which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> >> >> in the growth rate of net climate forcing. �- James Hansen et al.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
> >> >>
> >> >

> >> >SO a five year mean goes back 10 years, and is flat eh? Well well,
> >> >looks like at least someone is capable of reading a graph, unlike the
> >> >idiots here.
> >> >
> >> >I expect they will ignore this thread and pretend Hansen never said
> >> >this. Please bring it up at every opportunity. :)
> >>
> >> Any you will be reminded that he said this
> >> "Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since
> >> 1998."
> >
> >No-one has EVER denied it. Have they?
>
> Yes and note it is getting warmer not flat.

Not according to Hansen. Denial is no longer an option.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

"The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down

in the growth rate of net climate forcing." �- Hansen et al (2012)

[Falcon]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:40:17 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation

You are avoiding the issue. Read what I have written. Read the questions
you have flatly refused to answer. Why is it so hard for you to admit that
Hansen 2012 has candidly admitted that global warming is at a standstill,
and that temperatures have remained flat for the last 10-15 years? Unless
you can be honest with yourself and admit it, I honestly don't see why I
should continue the discussion any further.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 16, 12:24 pm, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/62633f8fcb461eca

Quite to the contrary my point is to expand the cause. Now given the
following two statements by the author its clear you are avoiding
admitting the cooling effects from sulfate aerosols, and la nina can
counter the warming from co2. Do you agree with the first statement
by the authors? Do you agree with the second statement from the
authors?

1. page 1 "The approximate stand-still of global temperature during

1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol
cooling and greenhouse gas warming"

2. page 6 "We conclude that background global warming is continuing,
consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it
is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed
to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature.

[Dawlish]

What a dreadful piece of spin. That is truly appalling. Hansen *does not* believe GW has stopped, no matter how much you cherry pick and spin to try to put words into his mouth.

Who on earth are you trying to convince, spinner?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Jan 16, 11:53 am, matt_sykes <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 Jan, 13:42, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> > in the growth rate of net climate forcing.  - James Hansen et al.
>
> >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>

> > --
> > Falcon:
> > fide, sed cui vide. (L)
>

> SO a five year mean goes back 10 years, and is flat eh?  Well well,
> looks like at least someone is capable of reading a graph, unlike the
> idiots here.

A five-year mean means you average 5 years at a time:

1999-2003, 2000-2004, 2001-2005, 2002-2006, etc.

Why am I having to explain a basic math technique?

[Eric�]

Falcon wrote...

>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:27:27 -0800, gordo wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:35:37 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:

> > >No-one has EVER denied it. Have they?
> >
> > Yes and note it is getting warmer not flat.
>
> Not according to Hansen. Denial is no longer an option.

But for gordo climate change is a religious experience.

[gordo]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:17:45 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:27:27 -0800, gordo wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:35:37 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:29:10 -0800, gordo wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:53:48 -0800 (PST), matt_sykes
>> >> <zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 16 Jan, 13:42, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> >> >> The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
>> >> >> which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
>> >> >> in the growth rate of net climate forcing.  - James Hansen et al.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >SO a five year mean goes back 10 years, and is flat eh? Well well,
>> >> >looks like at least someone is capable of reading a graph, unlike the
>> >> >idiots here.
>> >> >
>> >> >I expect they will ignore this thread and pretend Hansen never said
>> >> >this. Please bring it up at every opportunity. :)
>> >>
>> >> Any you will be reminded that he said this
>> >> "Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since
>> >> 1998."
>> >
>> >No-one has EVER denied it. Have they?
>>
>> Yes and note it is getting warmer not flat.
>
>Not according to Hansen. Denial is no longer an option.

"Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.

Does that mean anything to you?"

That quote is from the cite you posted. It means that using 1998 as
the start of the big lie is just that a lie.

He also said this "The observational data show that the frequency of
unusually warm anomalies has been increasing decade by decade over the
past three decades"

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:42:44 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:

> The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> in the growth rate of net climate forcing. - James Hansen et al.

Oops! You forgot the first part! I cannot imagine how you missed it:

"Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56�C (1�F) warmer
than the 1951 - 1980 base period average, despite much of the year
being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues
at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in
the frequency of extreme warm anomalies."

> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

They then wrote:

"The long - term warming trend, including continual warming since the
mid - 1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant
global climate forcing, human - made greenhouse gases 2 , which be gan
to grow substantial ly early in the 20 th century. The approximate
stand - still of global temperature during 1940 - 1975 is generally

attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse

gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with
little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory
quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence
of adequate aerosol measurements 3 , 4 ."

Ooops! Damn! Stings, does it?

--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"God told me that if I get an automatic weapon I won't need Viagra."

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:28:10 -0800, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca.remove>
wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:42:44 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> >which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> >in the growth rate of net climate forcing. - James Hansen et al.
> >

> >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

> Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.
> Does that mean anything to you?

Note that the alarmist forgot to quote the part where Hansen said
Earth is still warming anomalously, and that humans are the cause.

[Falcon]

It's a sickening but predictable reaction. We've seen it all before. Some
environmentalists react with denial and anger, some desperately attempt to
change the subject, others lie about what's been written in the thread or
deliberately misquote the writers, or flood the group with all the stories
they can find reaffirming the inevitable planetary apocalypse. Just like
the global surface temperature over the last 15 years, nothing really
changes.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

I dont think he even read the paper, if he did he does not understand
it.

[Falcon]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:09:30 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:

I read and understood it.

You and your fellow apocaholics are desperately obfuscating in order to
avoid the only point that Matt and I tried to make in the OP and response:
that Hansen 2012 has confirmed that global warming HAS been at a standstill
for the last fifteen years and that the Met Office HAVE forecast that it
will continue for at least another five years.

It's a scientific fact: denial isn't an option.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 16, 3:21 pm, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/b1eba90c8f283cee

The first quote below includes the word you are so hung up on, and
expands beyond a simple word, as it discusses the likely cause for the
observed trends. I asked two simple questions first do you agree with
the first statement below by the authors? And second do you agree
with the second statement from the authors? My asking such a question
nails down your misuse of the authors word selection, as and drives to
the point of how many of you will point directly avoid the discussion
of aerosol cooling. The historical repeat of sulfate aerosols
countering the warming from green house gasses is the weak spot of
your argument, as it gives a human action explanation, backing the
point of how human action effects the climate. The public record
shows your game has been called out, now you are just dodging a public
admission for your lack of honesty and integrity. Such an action on
your part is the only way you can show you are not a troll. But dont
fool yourself such an action on your part is of no real concern to me,
as a you have served your purpose of acting like the village idiot.

1. page 1 "The approximate stand-still of global temperature during

1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol

cooling and greenhouse gas warming"

[gordo]

That is not what he said but it is good that you are going to actual
sciece sources

>will continue for at least another five years.

That is a lie. I have a wager to call you on it. Within the next 5
years a new global warming record for the year. I posted what the Met
actually said. Why did you not read it?

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:42:44 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:

> The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> in the growth rate of net climate forcing. - James Hansen et al.
>
> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

Alarmist forgot to mention the fact that Hansen, _et_al.,_ also stated
human-caused climate change still happened and is still happening. But
then Alarmist also stated the Southeast USA was "cooling sharply."

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:10:17 -0800 (PST),
columbiaaccidentinvestigation

Note now the cultist forgot to mention the fact that the report shows
human-caused climate change still happenng.

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:10:49 -0800 (PST), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:42:44 PM UTC, Falcon wrote:

> > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> > in the growth rate of net climate forcing. - James Hansen et al.
> >
> > http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

> In that time we've had 2 global temperature records. How on earth can the
> trend have been flat?

It wasn't, and Dr. Hansen did not say it was. He pointed out that the
five-year mean was been "flat" (actually, very slight increase). The
actual yearly numbers show a steady increase.

> Explain. Any denier feel free to step in, because spinner will retreat
> under his rock, leaving a smelly turd of a lie behind.

Read what Dr. Hansen, _et_al.,_ actually wrote, just before the quote
above and which the Denialist conveniently forgot to include.

Note also that Dr. Hansen, _at_al.,_ then wrote "Note that the 10

warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998."

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:17:45 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:27:27 -0800, gordo wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:35:37 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:29:10 -0800, gordo wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:53:48 -0800 (PST), matt_sykes
> > >> <zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On 16 Jan, 13:42, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> > >> >> The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> > >> >> which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> > >> >> in the growth rate of net climate forcing. �- James Hansen et al.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >SO a five year mean goes back 10 years, and is flat eh? Well well,
> > >> >looks like at least someone is capable of reading a graph, unlike the
> > >> >idiots here.
> > >> >
> > >> >I expect they will ignore this thread and pretend Hansen never said
> > >> >this. Please bring it up at every opportunity. :)
> > >>
> > >> Any you will be reminded that he said this
> > >> "Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since
> > >> 1998."
> > >
> > >No-one has EVER denied it. Have they?
> >
> > Yes and note it is getting warmer not flat.

> Not according to Hansen. Denial is no longer an option.

"Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since

1998." -- Dr. Hansen

[Desertphile]

"Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since

[James]

"Falcon" <fal...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.2b60b09e9...@News.Individual.NET

> The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last
> decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability
> and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing. - James
> Hansen et al.
>
> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

So natual variability wins over global warming. In the alarmist's sense
anyway.

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:09:30 -0800 (PST),
columbiaaccidentinvestigation

Obviously cultist "falcon" did not read the paper. "Note that the 10

warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998."

[Desertphile]

1998." -- Hansen, _et_al._ 2013

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:58:11 -0500, "James" <king...@fewpb.net>
wrote:

No.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

He claims to have read it, but his lack of honesty brings even his
most basic claims in question.

[matt_sykes]

On 16 Jan, 20:10, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:42:44 PM UTC, Falcon wrote:
> > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
>
> > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
>
> > in the growth rate of net climate forcing.  - James Hansen et al.
>
> >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>

> > --
>
> > Falcon:
>
> > fide, sed cui vide. (L)
>

> In that time we've had 2 global temperature records. How on earth can the trend have been flat? Explain. Any denier feel free to step in, because spinner will retreat under his rock, leaving a smelly turd of a lie behind.

Sigh. Once again. You walk up a hill to a plateau. The plateau is
not dead flat but undulates. The hill is the warming, te plateau is
the stalled warming, the undulations are the record you speak of.

Got it now or do you want an even simpler explanation?

[Falcon]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 23:41:56 -0800 (PST), matt_sykes wrote:
>
> On 16 Jan, 20:10, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:42:44 PM UTC, Falcon wrote:
> > > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> >
> > > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> >
> > > in the growth rate of net climate forcing. �- James Hansen et al.
> >
> > >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
> >
> >

> > In that time we've had 2 global temperature records. How on earth can
> > the trend have been flat? Explain. Any denier feel free to step in,
> > because spinner will retreat under his rock, leaving a smelly turd of a
> > lie behind.
>
> Sigh. Once again. You walk up a hill to a plateau. The plateau is
> not dead flat but undulates. The hill is the warming, te plateau is
> the stalled warming, the undulations are the record you speak of.
>
> Got it now or do you want an even simpler explanation?

They are beyond reason. They are in denial. Garvey doubly so.

[matt_sykes]

They are really so in denial of the bare facts. How can they
maintain warming has continued when the likes of Hansen allude to it,
the Met Office talks of 'stalled' and the cabal themselves say they
cant account for the 'lack of warming'?

Of course when pushed they play their supposed trump card, appeal to
authority. However science alludes or even mentions explicitly the
uncertainties regarding feedbacks and therefore the entire foundation
of the GCMs with their WV driven 400% amplification!

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

matt, tries to through a rope to save his friend. FUNNY

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

Funny how quickly this thread was turned around to reveal his true
trolling nature.

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:37:45 -0800 (PST),
columbiaaccidentinvestigation

> He claims to have read it, but his lack of honesty brings even his
> most basic claims in question.

By actual count I see there are 18 facts in the paper that show
human-caused warming of the planet has not "stopped." Net.k00k
"falcon" posted *THE* one sentence in the entire paper that implied
the global increase in temperature has ceased ("flat"), and he ignored
the dozens of other facts that show it has not.

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 05:53:11 -0800 (PST),
columbiaaccidentinvestigation

<columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jan 16, 4:28 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:10:17 -0800 (PST),
> > columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 16, 10:49 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:"snip"
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/baa68b9e0467ed14
> >
> > > Well, the author under his own free will used the phrase "slowdown in
> > > climate forcing growth rate", its seems just as logical and reasonable
> > > for me use that quote, as it makes the same point as your limited word
> > > selection, its just a little more factually correct.  In addition your
> > > question tried to hold somebody to a specific set words not contained
> > > within the paper, i disagree with your word selection and instead
> > > directly used the authors words and data to address your misguided
> > > question.  Now if you have an emotional reaction to my direct
> > > quotation from the author, even though you did the same thing, i would
> > > really question your honesty, integrity and maturity as you once again
> > > cant take what you dish out.
> >
> > >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
> >
> > Note now the cultist forgot to mention the fact that the report shows
> > human-caused climate change still happenng.

> Funny how quickly this thread was turned around to reveal his true
> trolling nature.

He has run away again.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 16, 10:00 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:"Now that
Hansen has confirmed what I've been stalked, derided and ridiculed"

On Jan 16, 10:49 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:" Fuck off,
child."

laughing, the paper shows nothing of the sort, so what were you going
on about, oh yeah that feel you have been ridiculed, but you also feel
justified in acting like a hypocrite lashing out in frustration.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 17, 9:29 am, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 05:53:11 -0800 (PST),
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

He is still running

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

[Dawlish]

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:13:41 PM UTC, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Jan 16, 11:53 am, matt_sykes <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 16 Jan, 13:42, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
>
> > > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
>
> > > in the growth rate of net climate forcing.  - James Hansen et al.
>
> >
>
> > >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>
> >
>

> > > --
>
> > > Falcon:
>
> > > fide, sed cui vide. (L)
>
> >
>

> > SO a five year mean goes back 10 years, and is flat eh?  Well well,
>
> > looks like at least someone is capable of reading a graph, unlike the
>
> > idiots here.
>
>
>

> A five-year mean means you average 5 years at a time:
>
>
>
> 1999-2003, 2000-2004, 2001-2005, 2002-2006, etc.
>
>
>
> Why am I having to explain a basic math technique?

Mainly because half-brain didn't learn well at school.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 16, 9:48 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:53:48 -0800 (PST), matt_sykes wrote:
>
> > On 16 Jan, 13:42, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> > > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> > > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> > > in the growth rate of net climate forcing. - James Hansen et al.
>
> > >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>

> > SO a five year mean goes back 10 years, and is flat eh?  Well well,
> > looks like at least someone is capable of reading a graph, unlike the
> > idiots here.
>

> I expect someone will eventually explain difference between '5yr mean flat
> for a decade' (Hansen) and 'no warming in 15 years' (Sykes) ;-)

>
> > I expect they will ignore this thread and pretend Hansen never said
> > this. Please bring it up at every opportunity.  :)
>

> I'll try.

>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)

> "The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> in the growth rate of net climate forcing." - James Hansen et al.

im still laughing at this one.

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:38:39 -0800 (PST),
columbiaaccidentinvestigation

Ouch! Still warming, and at a steady rate. In fact the human-caused
warming is very nearly a straight inclining line. Fuck.

--
Nemo me impune lacessit.

"I'm a greenhouse skeptic."

[matt_sykes]

On 16 Jan, 20:12, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 6:49:52 PM UTC, Falcon wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:45:45 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 16, 10:33 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/14a68c71ce493068
>
> > > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:21:06 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 16, 10:17 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:09:42 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jan 16, 10:00 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:42:09 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > > > > > > > wrote:

>
> > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 8:53 am, matt_sykes <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On 16 Jan, 13:42, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
>
> > > > > > > > > > > in the growth rate of net climate forcing. - James Hansen et al.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>
> > > > > > > > > > SO a five year mean goes back 10 years, and is flat eh? Well well,
>
> > > > > > > > > > looks like at least someone is capable of reading a graph, unlike the
>
> > > > > > > > > > idiots here.
>

> > > > > > > > > > I expect they will ignore this thread and pretend Hansen never said
>
> > > > > > > > > > this. Please bring it up at every opportunity. :)
>

> > > > > > > > > why would you say that, im here lets talk
>
> > > > > > > > Thanks.

>
> > > > > > > > Now that Hansen has confirmed what I've been stalked, derided and ridiculed
>

> > > > > > > > for over many months, when describing the current warming trend do you
>
> > > > > > > > prefer the 'hiatus', 'plateau', 'paused', or do you prefer Hansen's own
>
> > > > > > > > description "stalled".
>
> > > > > > > > Take your time.
>
> > > > > > > Thats funny as many of you have failed to admit aerosols play a factor
>
> > > > > > > so lets examine the quote "The approximate stand-still of global

>
> > > > > > > temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate
>

> > > > > > > balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming". So this means
>
> > > > > > > this same pattern happened recently due to human actions, do you agree?
>
> > > > > > Nice diversion. I linked to the paper, I know what it says.
>
> > > > > > Answer the question and admit that warming has "stalled", then maybe we can
>
> > > > > > discuss things like adults.

>
> > > > > > "The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
>
> > > > > > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
>

> > > > > > in the growth rate of net climate forcing." - Hansen et al (2012)
>
> > > > > You dont make the rules, the paper clearly show aerosol forcing, and
>
> > > > > la nina being key players. The paper clearly states something you
>
> > > > > dont like, that recent history shows how sulfate aerosols counter the
>
> > > > > warming from co2. I asked a question as well, answer it or admit you
>
> > > > > are parsing this paper taking only what you want and using it out of
>
> > > > > context to boost your failing trolling efforts. My response is well
>
> > > > > reasoned and logical, your game is rather obvious, no you tell me who
>
> > > > > is being more objective?
>
> > > > I see you've chosen not to answer a straight question and maliciously and
>
> > > > erroneously accused me of ignoring aerosols - when I have consistently
>
> > > > maintained ever since I started posting here that a wide variety of factors
>
> > > > affect climate change in addition to CO2 levels.
>
> > > > Last chance. Hiatus, pause, plateau, or "stalled". Which is it?
>
> > > > If you cannot discuss matter like an adult, you will not be treated like
>
> > > > one. I hope we understand each other.
>
> > > page 6 graph B, clearly shows your game has been called out, care to
>
> > > address the fact or are you still going to play the troll game.  The
>
> > > paper clearly states la nina, and aerosol forcing have been key
>
> > > factors in the "slowdown in climate forcing growth rate".
>
> > >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>
> > Fuck off, child.

>
> > --
>
> > Falcon:
>
> > fide, sed cui vide. (L)
>
> > "The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
>
> > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
>

> > in the growth rate of net climate forcing." - Hansen et al (2012)
>
> Well that sums up you and deniers perfectly. Scratch the surface, put you under pressure with facts you can't answer and you find an ignorant foul-mouthed right-winger, just waiting to stick their head out from underneath their rock and then run away again.
>
> Just perfect spinner.

A good example of Paul Garvey of Quality Schools South West insulting
people.

[Dawlish]

Who is nothing like the foul little far right-winger who denies climate change at the same time as exhibiting appalling prejudice and racist and discriminatory tendencies whilst desperately trying to remain anonymous.

He was too stupid and it didn't work, so he issued open threats in public and just got laughed at. That's why he's called half-brain.

Go on. Try that again another time, half-brain. <laughing>

PS They are not insults. The truth never is.

[Falcon]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:42:44 -0000, Falcon wrote:
>
> The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> in the growth rate of net climate forcing. - James Hansen et al.
>
> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

Bump this thread to the top of the group

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

thanks, im glad you are still wanting to learn about sulfate aerosols.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 22, 5:46 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:" Bump this

thread to the top of the group"

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

wondering why you have run from this thread?

[Falcon]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:42:44 -0000, Falcon wrote:
>
> The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> in the growth rate of net climate forcing. - James Hansen et al.
>
> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

Bump this thread to the top of the group.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 23, 8:33 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:""

Global Temperature Update Through 2012
15 January 2013
J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

"The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is
generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and

greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel
use with little control on particulate air pollution,"

[Falcon]

Fucking annoying, isn't it?

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

HadCRUT4 Dec 2012.
http://i.imgur.com/9gGNSfr.jpg

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 23, 9:03 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:42:44 -0000, Falcon wrote:
>
> > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> > in the growth rate of net climate forcing.  - James Hansen et al.
>
> >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>
> Bump this thread to the top of the group.
>

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

Global Temperature Update Through 2012
15 January 2013
J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

page 6, par 2
"Comparing the global temperature at the time of the most recent three
La Ninas (1999-2000, 2008, and 2011-2012), it is apparent that global
temperature has continued to rise between recent years of comparable
tropical temperature, indeed, at a rate of warming similar to that of
the previous three decades. We conclude that background global warming
is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance,
even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth
rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global
temperature."

[gordo]

You seem to think that the five year mean is the same as the decadal
mean.
What does bump this thread to the top of the group mean?

[Desertphile]

Cultist hate it when you do that.

The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the
mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant
global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases [2], which began
to grow substantially early in the 20th century. The approximate

stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally
attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse
gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with

little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory
quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence
of adequate aerosol measurements [3,4].

2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis, eds. S. Solomon, et al., Cambridge Univ.
Press, New York, 2007.

3 Hansen, J., Storms of My Grandchildren, Bloomsbury, New York, 304
pp., 2009.

4 Mishchenko, M.I., et al., Accurate monitoring of terrestrial
aerosols and total solar irradiance, Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., May,
677-691, 2007

--
Nemo me impune lacessit.

"The problem is water, not global warming." -- Denialist "James" on alt.global-warming

[Desertphile]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:47:20 -0800 (PST),
columbiaaccidentinvestigation

<columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jan 22, 5:46�am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:42:44 -0000, Falcon wrote:
> >
> > > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> > > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> > > in the growth rate of net climate forcing. �- James Hansen et al.
> >
> > >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
> >
> > Bump this thread to the top of the group

> thanks, im glad you are still wanting to learn about sulfate aerosols.

Good to see the cultist finally taking an interest in the facts.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the
mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant
global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases [2], which began
to grow substantially early in the 20th century.

2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis, eds. S. Solomon, et al., Cambridge Univ.
Press, New York, 2007.

[Dawlish]

Spinner. I'll bet this is more "fucking annoying. Watch:

All anonymous little spinner’s…………

spinner and pauly both think that one published sceptical study about AGW is somehow more important than 14000 other studies which are not sceptical. Why do you ignore the 14000 other studies in favour of this one, spinner and pauly?

spinner; “why did you lie about the NCDC Southeast data? What did you believe your lie would accomplish?”.

spinner starts three threads in a week to say that GW stopped in 1998, In all three, he posts a graph starting in the year of the largest El Nino of recent times (1997/8) and ignore the other 148 years of data in the Hadley series. Why did you do that, spinner?

Spinner thinks that an email, sent to Christopher booker by a mum who wasn’t happy about her son’s “A” level grade shows that there has been a “corruption of science and the corruption of education”. Why on earth would you think that, spinner?

spinner thinks that an article about a paper about species diversity covering millions of years is relevant to what is happening to species due to the recent global warming. Why would you think that, spinner?

spinner thinks that his eyeball analysis of a graph showing warming over the last 150+ years show no real warming at all. Why do you think that, spinner, when every single scientific institution and National science academy believes that it shows clear warming, which continues?

Michael Mann is an internationally famous and highly respected scientist, who’s work is cited by hundreds of his peers. Spinner is a nobody who feels that Mann is a "putz" who writes "illogical shit". spinner, Why would anyone believe you above them?

spinner thinks that "The difference between 'a procedure' and judging things by eye, is called manipulation". Does spinner really think that all graphs should be judged by eye and no and statistical testing should be abandoned?

spinner thinks that a 9 - year period, starting in 1998, is enough to create a new baseline mean temperature to which one should compare current global temperatures. No-one else in science, except Ole would think that is a good idea. Why do you, spinner?

spinner thinks that a professor who thinks that we are currently (June 2012) in El Nino conditions should be a credible source for information about climate science. Why would you believe that, spinner? (spinner *believes* in people - see "Avoid, dodge, deny".

When March 2012 was the 16th warmest on record (out of 132 years' data) spinner thinks that this means it was "relatively cool". Why would you think that, spinner?


spinner thinks that a May which is 4th warmest in the UAH series and occurring only 3 months after the end of a La Nina is: “not very warm at all, really”. Why do you think that, spinner?

spinner thinks that “abuse” is being asked questions he can’t answer, then having that failure to answer recorded for posterity on the newsgroup. Spinner and the rest of the deniers reading this think that this list is “abusive”. Why would you think that?

spinner; why do you feel that homophobia is a tactic that can be use legitimately to escape answering the many questions that hang over you, unanswered?

spinner thinks a blogger who doesn’t even go by his own name “Stephen Goddard” should be believed over the NSIDC. Why do you think that, spinner, when “Goddard” was entirely wrong about the NSIDC “tampering with data”? You lied to attempt to denigrate good scientists, didn’t you?

spinner can’t explain why March 2012 was cooler than every other March since 2000, but warmer than 98/100 Marches during the last century. Every scientist knows why, but somehow, spinner can’t find it in him to explain it. If he did, or another denier did, their edifice would crumble.

spinner simply can’t see the “f****** warming”……..well just keep your eyes open during the next El Nino spinner and you are sure to see it.

spinner thinks that Christopher Booker, a “Daily Telegraph” hack with
no scientific qualifications whatsoever, but who has written articles
criticising both climate scientists and evolution, is expert enough to
be believable when he criticises the BBC for its science. Why would
you think that, spinner?

Deniers have posted almost 500 posts saying that local, temporary cold
means that the global climate is changing. Not a single denier has
ever criticised them for doing so. (including you; indeed you wouldn’t when you contribute weather posts of your own, would you?) Why is that?

"The earth has been cooling since 1998" (A. Nutcase, Feb 27th 2012). That’s exactly what every denier in this newsgroup knows is happening. Why do you all know that when Scientists think so differently

spinner tries to cast doubt on the extremely strong relationship
between CO2 increases and temperature increases in the GISS (or NOAA,
or Hadley, or the two satellite) temperature series, but can’t do the
calculations himself. Why can’t you do them spinner? Are you afraid of
the result?

giga, spinner and others deniers think CAGW is a real term, used in
the climate debate. Why then can they not point to a single published
paper that refers to this. You made it up, didn’t you?

spinner-cut-and-paste thinks that papers published in Chinese
journals, that quote Lindzen and Choi 2009 (that Lindzen himself
accepted was a flawed paper) has something to say about climate
science. Why do you think that, spinner?

spinner posts an unsourced graph, showing CO2 increases and
temperature increases on different vertical scales, over a cherry-
picked time period of 40 years, with no accompanying statistical
analysis and says that it shows that GW isn’t happening. Why did you
do that, spinner?

spinner and dancer think the strongest El Nino of modern times should
be used as a baseline from which to judge warming over 13 years. Why
would that be?

spinner and dancer think that 13 years is now considered a long enough
period after which to judge that a new climate trend has been
established, especially when you pick 1998, one of the warmest years
in a 200-year temperature sequence, as the baseline for that trend.
Why do you think that?

spinner, tundy, brucie and most recently, mad petey and a whole load
of others think that there are “real scientists” out there that agree
with them. Brucie thinks some work at the IPCC and agree with him that
deforestation is causing more GW than is CO2.

spinner thinks the Hadley temperature series started in 1979 and uses
that Hadley baseline date to show there is apparently no relationship
between temperatures and CO2 increases. Why, when the Hadley temp
series started in 1860?

spinner and every other denier thinks that climate models are wrong.
Point to a single one that has wrongly predicted a rise in global
temperatures based upon a linear increase in CO2 to date. Just
*one*.

spinner thinks that 7 years of data concerning ocean heat content is
enough to show a trend. No statistician, or scientist would agree. He
also thinks that a 5-years of data in a clear 160-year warming trend
is enough to show a reversal of a trend. Again, no statistician, or
decent scientist would agree. Why do you think these are long
enough, spinner

spinner thought that GW was measured by global SSTs and had to be
dragged kicking and screaming to admit that this was not true. Explain
why you did that and didn’t just accept your obvious mistake straight
away.

spinner, mad petey and others have been trying to tell us that the
oceans have not warmed. Source data from NOAA shows there has been
significant warming from 1955. Why do you continue to believe there
has been no warming?

spinner thinks that ships, temporarily stuck in the Gulf of Finland
last spring, were evidence that ice melt was slow in the Arctic. Why
would you think that the Gulf of Finland is in the Arctic?

spinner thinks that when there are gales in a small area of the UK, southern Scotland means that every windmill in the UK has to shut down. Why would that be so, spinner?

spinner thinks that global heat content has not increased recently and
has desperately tried to say it hasn’t. The data shows otherwise. Why
do you think you are right.

spinner thought that GW was measured by global SSTs and had to be
dragged kicking and screaming to admit that this was not true. Explain
why you did that and didn’t just accept your obvious mistake straight
away.

spinner, mad petey and others have been trying to tell us that the
oceans have not warmed. Source data from NOAA shows there has been
significant warming from 1955. Why do you continue to believe there
has been no warming?

Oh spinner; what have you been saying..........<laughing>

Annoyed now, aren't you?

[Falcon]

No, I don't.

> What does bump this thread to the top of the group mean?

Ask the man who started it.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 23, 2:59 pm, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:57:09 -0800, gordo wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:33:01 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > >On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:42:44 -0000, Falcon wrote:
>
> > >> The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> > >> which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> > >> in the growth rate of net climate forcing.  - James Hansen et al.
>
> > >>http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>
> > >Bump this thread to the top of the group.
>
> > You  seem to think that the five year mean is the same as the decadal
> > mean.
>
> No, I don't.
>
> > What does bump this thread to the top of the group mean?
>
> Ask the man who started it.

Kind of like placing a magazine at the top of the stack.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bump
1. bump
BUMP to bring up somebody's post typically by posting the word "bump"
on a message board

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 16, 4:42 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> in the growth rate of net climate forcing.  - James Hansen et al.
>
> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>

So this thread only attracted the attention of matt and falcon if they
thought they could use it to marginalize the effects of co2. At this
point, its obvious the two troll cant discuss the actual contents and
now thy have to run to other threads to continue their trolling
efforts.

[emoneyjoe]

And you try to divert attention from the
almost nil support for catastrophic calamity
in the pdf by attacking others.


The paper does show pretty much what
a data set filling in might show, and that
US National Weather Service stations at
airports have had heat islands crowding
them since 1950.
Also, choosing 1951-1980 for the
base period is about as unscientific
as any "science" ever has been, making
AGW a has been in urgency.

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:33:01 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:

James Hansen

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:44:14 -0800 (PST),
columbiaaccidentinvestigation

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:03:17 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:42:44 -0000, Falcon wrote:
> >
> > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> > in the growth rate of net climate forcing. - James Hansen et al.
> >
> > http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>
> Bump this thread to the top of the group.

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:07:43 -0800 (PST),
columbiaaccidentinvestigation

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:57:09 -0800, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca.remove>
wrote:

It means the troll agrees with Dr. Hansen:

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:59:23 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:57:09 -0800, gordo wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:33:01 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:42:44 -0000, Falcon wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> > >> which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> > >> in the growth rate of net climate forcing. - James Hansen et al.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
> > >
> > >Bump this thread to the top of the group.
> >
> > You seem to think that the five year mean is the same as the decadal
> > mean.
>
> No, I don't.

James Hansen

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 05:21:45 -0800 (PST),
columbiaaccidentinvestigation

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:40:23 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 05:21:45 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> <columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 16, 4:42�am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >> The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> >> which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> >> in the growth rate of net climate forcing. �- James Hansen et al.
> >>
> >> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
> >>
> >
> >So this thread only attracted the attention of matt and falcon if they
> >thought they could use it to marginalize the effects of co2. At this
> >point, its obvious the two troll cant discuss the actual contents and
> >now thy have to run to other threads to continue their trolling
> >efforts.

> And you try to divert attention from the

[emoneyjoe]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:33:57 -0700, Desertphile
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:40:23 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 05:21:45 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>> <columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jan 16, 4:42 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> >> The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
>> >> which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
>> >> in the growth rate of net climate forcing.  - James Hansen et al.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>> >>
>> >
>> >So this thread only attracted the attention of matt and falcon if they
>> >thought they could use it to marginalize the effects of co2. At this
>> >point, its obvious the two troll cant discuss the actual contents and
>> >now thy have to run to other threads to continue their trolling
>> >efforts.
>
>> And you try to divert attention from the
>
>James Hansen
>
>http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>
>The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the
>mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant
>global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases [2], which began
>to grow substantially early in the 20th century.

The 1970 decade when "scientists" were
so very afraid the Earth was headed toward
an ice age, big surprise it has warmed since.

>2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The
>Physical Science Basis, eds. S. Solomon, et al., Cambridge Univ.
>Press, New York, 2007.

Old news still clung to, and the only way
it could have been kept out of the trash can
was to move the "official" testing stations
to city airports where thousands of acres
of dry pavement prevented normal evaporative
cooling.

Evaporative Cooling = the physical
process totally ignored by the climate
change community.

Evaporative Cooling = where it is
missing is called "Heat Island" except
when there is precip or high wind.

IPCC = an organization created to
further the efforts of stale European
socialist efforts to increase taxes.

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:32:22 -0700, Desertphile
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:33:01 -0000, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:42:44 -0000, Falcon wrote:
> > >
> > > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> > > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> > > in the growth rate of net climate forcing. - James Hansen et al.
> > >
> > > http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
> >
> > Bump this thread to the top of the group.
>
> James Hansen
>
> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>
> The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the
> mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant
> global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases [2], which began
> to grow substantially early in the 20th century.
>
> 2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The
> Physical Science Basis, eds. S. Solomon, et al., Cambridge Univ.
> Press, New York, 2007.

That shut the yip.

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:44:15 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>

70s ice age: the facts that refute the claim.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on
Global Climate:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf

http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

The global cooling mole:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/

Killing the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 16, 4:42 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> in the growth rate of net climate forcing.  - James Hansen et al.
>
> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>

> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)

Its a good read, are you sure you dont want to continue our
discussion?

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:51:19 -0700, Desertphile

That shut off the noise. LOL!

--
Nemo me impune lacessit.

"Stop! Stop! It isn't ready!" -- Q

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:22:50 -0800 (PST),
columbiaaccidentinvestigation

James Hansen

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the
mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant
global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases [2], which began
to grow substantially early in the 20th century.

[emoneyjoe]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:44:00 -0700, Desertphile

You're kidding, I have been working to
keep the pipes under my house from freezing.

The number of papers sure is NOT
a way to evaluate science, just like the
number of uneducated nuts thinking
AGW is "irrefutable".


Ignore the economy, the lack of jobs,
the increasing dangers of the leftist
extremist nations, the increasing number
of homeless, the upward spiraling
national debt, and all important things,
and set the agenda as heading off
an increase in temperature of half
a degree.

According to the above link;

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

during 1898-99 the average winter
temperature was 28.76
and during 1904-05 29.48
and during 1909-10 29.07
and during 1911-12 30.25
and during 1916-17 29.92
and during 1917-18 29.92
and during 1928-29 29.63
then
during 1935-36 28.62

which was colder than 1898-1899.

What happened, a volcano blew?
But 1936 is the supposedly banner
year for high temperatures and
drought, but climate science says
warmer temperatures should cause
more atmospheric moisture.

And 1936 had some of the coldest
winter weather and some of the
warmest summer weather in the US.

So after all the coal burning for
more than 100 years, the average
temperature didn't seem to change.

Then during 1976-77 30.66
and during 1977-78 29.69

the two warmest periods are
listed, and then all of a sudden,
during 1978-79 27.28,
the lowest US winter period
listed, and one of the three
coldest periods since temperatures
have been recorded.


And the authors say there was
no talk of global cooling.

I know that the early 1950s had
the warmest temperatures in the
midwest, 100 degree temperatures
were common.


And now the climate science
literature says there has been no
warming in the US since 1999.


But according to you, the
sky is still falling!

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 25, 11:24 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:"SNIP"

why the crosspost to alt.politics.obama?

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 16, 10:00 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:42:09 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 8:53 am, matt_sykes <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > On 16 Jan, 13:42, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > > > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> > > > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> > > > in the growth rate of net climate forcing. - James Hansen et al.
>
> > > >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>

> > > SO a five year mean goes back 10 years, and is flat eh? Well well,
> > > looks like at least someone is capable of reading a graph, unlike the
> > > idiots here.
>
> > > I expect they will ignore this thread and pretend Hansen never said
> > > this. Please bring it up at every opportunity. :)
>
> > why would you say that, im here lets talk
>
> Thanks.
>
> Now that Hansen has confirmed what I've been stalked, derided and ridiculed
> for over many months, when describing the current warming trend do you
> prefer the 'hiatus', 'plateau', 'paused', or do you prefer Hansen's own
> description "stalled".
>
> Take your time.

im still waiting for your logical reply.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 16, 9:48 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:53:48 -0800 (PST), matt_sykes wrote:
>
> > On 16 Jan, 13:42, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> > > The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,
> > > which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down
> > > in the growth rate of net climate forcing. - James Hansen et al.
>
> > >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
>
> > SO a five year mean goes back 10 years, and is flat eh?  Well well,
> > looks like at least someone is capable of reading a graph, unlike the
> > idiots here.
>

> I expect someone will eventually explain difference between '5yr mean flat
> for a decade' (Hansen) and 'no warming in 15 years' (Sykes) ;-)

>
> > I expect they will ignore this thread and pretend Hansen never said
> > this. Please bring it up at every opportunity.  :)
>

> I'll try.

still wondering why you ran from this thread?

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Jan 25, 11:24 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:"You're

kidding, I have been working to keep the pipes under my house from
freezing."

Wow, maybe you should move to the southern hemisphere.

[emoneyjoe]

And you should move to the South Pole,
you won't bake there.