No Global Warming for 18 years 4 months now

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>things change

So your latest change is from a Type II to a Type I denier.

I expect that will change back again once you see something on the Internet.

Another bottom of the pyramid reply

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,119]

>Tell the whole story and not just the part you agree with

OK.

NASA - 2014 warmest year ever.
WMO - 2014 warmest year ever.
NOAA - 2014 warmest year ever.
JAMA - 2014 warmest year ever.
Hadley - not quite sure yet. Trend since 1998 - .083C increase per decade.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Normal or average? take your pick

Which one did you mean in your question? Both would likely have a different answer. To calculate an average, you only need two numbers. To get to normal, you will first have to define it.

Quote

.02 degrees is not a true statistical difference.

How do you define true statistical? What is that?

edited because to isn't two

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>Tell the whole story and not just the part you agree with

OK.

NASA - 2014 warmest year ever.
WMO - 2014 warmest year ever.
NOAA - 2014 warmest year ever.
JAMA - 2014 warmest year ever.
Hadley - not quite sure yet. Trend since 1998 - .083C increase per decade.

Thanks. Add RSS and UAH. There's a more complete picture.

NOAA a says the earth's temp has risen on average .8 degrees since 1880. Which is consistent with the Hadley trend. Yes it is warming. What's the big deal?

WRmest year ever is nice sound bite. And is no more true or false than the statement that there has been no warming in 18 years. Both statements have validity. It's funny seeing two sides argue when they are both right

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,119]

>Yes it is warming. What's the big deal?

I was replying to the OP which stated "No Global Warming for 18 years 4 months now."

>WRmest year ever is nice sound bite. And is no more true or false than the
>statement that there has been no warming in 18 years.

No. If 2014 was the warmest year in recorded history, then there has been warming in the past 18 years. That's the definition of the word "warmest" - "warmer than all others."

But of course you know that.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Yes it is warming

Not according to rushmc and the folks at whatsupwiththat?

Rush, who are you going to believe now?

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

Yes it is warming

Not according to rushmc and the folks at whatsupwiththat?

Rush, who are you going to believe now?

Refer to lawrockets WHOLE post

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

***

Quote

Yes it is warming

Not according to rushmc and the folks at whatsupwiththat?

Rush, who are you going to believe now?

Refer to lawrockets WHOLE post

So it is warming, but it isn't global warming?

Do explain!

[lawrocket 3]

Bill:

I know that you know what I am talking about. Whether 2014 was the warmest year depends on whom you ask. This it is subject to interpretation. Thus qualification.

Making an unqualified statement about qualified facts is problematic. Rush says no warming and cites data to prove it. You say warming and cite data to prove it.

You're behaving no differently from rush in this. Neither of you are wrong. Neither of you are right. You think GCN data is better, fine. You want to argue that RSS and UAH are inferior? No problem. Those are qualifications.

Warmest year is an objective conclusion reached through. Subjective selection process.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

Yes it is warming

Not according to rushmc and the folks at whatsupwiththat?

Rush, who are you going to believe now?

Refer to lawrockets WHOLE post

So it is warming, but it isn't global warming?

Do explain!

As lawrocket explained, it depends on which data set you look at
And even then, how said data is interpreted

That said, this is not really the issue now is it
The real issue is cause and radical controls of those causes if truly man made, to the disastrous degree the alarmists would have us believe now isn’t it?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

As lawrocket explained, it depends on which data set you look at

No, that is not what he said.

What he said was that it depends on the data set whether it is the warmest year or not. He already admitted it was warmer.

So, how do you reconcile that with your claim in the title that there is no global warming for 18 years and 4 months?

Quote

The real issue is cause and radical controls

How can that be the issue if you claim there is no global warming?

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

As lawrocket explained, it depends on which data set you look at

No, that is not what he said.

What he said was that it depends on the data set whether it is the warmest year or not. He already admitted it was warmer.

So, how do you reconcile that with your claim in the title that there is no global warming for 18 years and 4 months?

***The real issue is cause and radical controls

How can that be the issue if you claim there is no global warming?

What?
You and yours push the change agenda. Radical un-needed controls.

what warming there is, is normal

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

SkyDekker

Quote

As lawrocket explained, it depends on which data set you look at

No, that is not what he said.

What he said was that it depends on the data set whether it is the warmest year or not. He already admitted it was warmer.

So, how do you reconcile that with your claim in the title that there is no global warming for 18 years and 4 months?

***The real issue is cause and radical controls

How can that be the issue if you claim there is no global warming?

I agree that RSS hasn't shown warming in 18 years.

I agree that it is warmer now than when tht he dataset started and the full trend is warmer.

Edited to add: I picture it like a pot of water on a stove. It warned up but the warming has paused. It hasn't cooled down much but sure hasn't risen much. In effect the RSS is showing that we are maintaining a higher temperature. But the troposphere isn't holding more heat.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

what warming there is, is normal

So it has been warming globally. Even though in your title you say there is no global warming?

So from the first post you go from, there has been no increase in 18 years and 4 months to now stating there is an increase, but it is natural. Those two are mutually exclusive.

Sounds like you don't really know what to believe without some website telling you. What's up with that?

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

what warming there is, is normal

So it has been warming globally. Even though in your title you say there is no global warming?

So from the first post you go from, there has been no increase in 18 years and 4 months to now stating there is an increase, but it is natural. Those two are mutually exclusive.

Sounds like you don't really know what to believe without some website telling you. What's up with that?

Go dance with yourself
There has not been any warming for nearly twenty years acording to the most accurate sat data we have

Clear enough?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

***

Quote

what warming there is, is normal

So it has been warming globally. Even though in your title you say there is no global warming?

So from the first post you go from, there has been no increase in 18 years and 4 months to now stating there is an increase, but it is natural. Those two are mutually exclusive.

Sounds like you don't really know what to believe without some website telling you. What's up with that?

Go dance with yourself
There has not been any warming for nearly twenty years acording to the most accurate sat data we have

Clear enough?

No, then why say that the warming is natural?

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

what warming there is, is normal

So it has been warming globally. Even though in your title you say there is no global warming?

So from the first post you go from, there has been no increase in 18 years and 4 months to now stating there is an increase, but it is natural. Those two are mutually exclusive.

Sounds like you don't really know what to believe without some website telling you. What's up with that?

Go dance with yourself
There has not been any warming for nearly twenty years acording to the most accurate sat data we have

Clear enough?

No, then why say that the warming is natural?

natural is what climate is and does

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Driver1 0]

wmw999

The main problem I see with desalination is the same as with nuclear power: there will be waste. And in the case of salt, just dumping it back into the ocean will change the ocean, eventually in ways that we don't like. If we can figure out early how not to do that, all the better. Then we won't have to perch the salt on top of the giant plastic trash island that we've created "because the ocean is so big."

It's almost certainly going to end up as part of the solution. But it shouldn't be anything but part

Wendy P.

Solution for the leftover salt. Fill up the old salt mines with it.

There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"!

[normiss 897]

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

natural is what climate is and does

I guess when you run out of links to post we must do with wonderful insightful statements like this.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

natural is what climate is and does

I guess when you run out of links to post we must do with wonderful insightful statements like this.

I am sorry nature is just too complex for you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

nature or natural?

Fuck...now I get it.....you meant that there is no natural global warming, but there is global warming in nature.

[rushmc 23]

Still at the bottom

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[cvfd1399 0]

Does criticizing the persons grammar instead of replying with opinions about the actual argument fall into one of those, or does it merit its own new level of fuctardary on that pyramid?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

cvfd1399

Does criticizing the persons grammar instead of replying with opinions about the actual argument fall into one of those, or does it merit its own new level of fuctardary on that pyramid?

Where on the pyramid are people who say there is no global warming, but that there is warming globally?

I am not criticizing his grammar or spelling....I am criticizing his inability to explain his logic beyond posting links from whatsupwiththat.com.

And when he gets challenged he comes with statements along the lines of:

Nature does what nature does.
The sun goes up and the sun goes down.
The tide ebbs and flows.

Then when you ask what the hell that means, he says stuff like:

Not my fault you don't know how nature works.

Quite frankly I think his grammar and spelling are the best of his shown abilities.