Piers Morgan wouldn't know a fact if it hit him in the face, and he still hasn't learnt the fundamental lesson of good journalism that when chairing a debate, he must remain neutral.
Bill Nye should also go and read the scientific literature. The MWP has hundreds of pr papers supporting it, many now demonstrating it was a global phenomenon, not just Europe, so to keep saying it was just Europe is extraordinarily disingenuous.
For Bill to also now claim it's the *rate* of CO2 rise when all the previous claims have been (and still mostly are) about the *level*, is somewhat two-faced. The core CAGW claim is that man's CO2 emissions will dangerously raise global (near surface) temperatures. This is clearly a *level* based claim and not a *rate* based claim. The stark evidence is that the increased CO2 level does not cause temperature rise, as the last 16+ years have clearly demonstrated.
Posted by ted rising (Twitter) on Dec 5th 2012, 3:19 PM EST
@Simon
It is not 16 years of no temperature rise. If you very carefully select your dates to be precisely September '97 to August '12 you can see only slight warming. However a month or two either side of this shows more substantial warming. 16 years implies going back to 1996, long before the '97 to '98 El Nino, if you went back this far you would see substantial global warming! And it's the same as if you started in '99.
by this plot and using your preferred cherry-pick date in order to incorporate one of the biggest El Nino events on record. , we are lucky if we get 0.05 in 16 years Ted.
That is equal to 0.5º C in 160 years Ted. Is that really what you are wetting your pants about?
Is that what you call "substantial global warming" Ted? Half a degree in 160 years??
Hardly proof of "no warming for 16 years". In fact it is the opposite. You can see the warming trend clearly. It is little bit on the low side I grant you (I make it about 0.1 degrees a decade) but, as you say, it does incorporate one of the biggest El Nino events on record, and no-one said the warming would always be consistent
Comment edited by ted rising (Twitter) on Wednesday December 05, 2012 at 6:46 PM EST
Comment edited by ted rising (Twitter) on Wednesday December 05, 2012 at 6:49 PM EST
Posted by Will Pratt (Twitter) on Dec 7th 2012, 5:36 AM EST
"Wrong, by starting during a record warm period, fairly obviously it is going to be difficult to show warming since then."
Ted, as always, you are completely devoid of any logic.
If you have a warming trend in place followed by an event which causes a step up in the same direction, your trend will continue on the other side of that event. If it does not then you need an explanation as to why the trend has ended.
A bit like a large tank of water being slowly heated by a small electric element. Add in a small percentage of boiling water and the temperature is quickly stepped up, yet the heating element, representing your GHG forcing in this case, keeps the trend of warming going. In other words there will be no cooling after adding the boiling water.
All you have done here is say its obvious you would not see warming because its already warmer. That stance is completely devoid of any logic.
You need to explain why your trend has ended when your GHG forcing (heating element) is still in place.
If you can't do that then you have no evidence of a forcing. Simply saying, of course it is cooling because it was warmer, is a circular argument.
Why is it cooling after El Nino when your GHG forcing is still increasing? Why was there no step up and continuation of the trend, as should have happened?
If you can't explain the pause, you can't explain the cause.
Posted by ted rising (Twitter) on Dec 7th 2012, 7:56 AM EST
Will, you seem to be saying that for warming to be happening, it has to be continuous - year after year must be warmer than the preceding year...This isn't going to happen! The climate has warmed over the last hundred and fifty years but it wasn't continuous. There have been many periods when the warming has flatlined or even cooled. We are now in a period of slower warming.
You are forgetting other weather and climate forcings; solar output, volcanoes, aerosols, la ninas etc.etc.etc. Your large tank is being warmed by the GHG "element" but it is being bombarded by ice cubes and boiling water at different rates from La Nina events or El Ninos or low solar output etc., so of course the tempurature will fluctuate over short periods of time. Over the long term though, the warming trend continues.
Posted by Will Pratt (Twitter) on Dec 7th 2012, 3:48 PM EST
Ted, one more time.
Your supposed GHG forcing is increasing, OK?
But your trend has ended.
That is simple enough to understand Ted?
You claim to know the cause of the warming and say it is CO2. Even though this claim has no scientific verification whatsoever.
Yet when it comes to the pause you are so vague that you claim it to be any number of possibilities. Surely you can see the inconsistency of your ridiculous position.
For example:"Over the long term though, the warming trend continues."
This long term trend you are referring to has been in place since the 'little ice age' Ted. Long before human CO2 emissions were ever an issue.
Therefore your argument is inconsistent.
So once again, if you cannot explain the pause, you cannot explain the cause.
Posted by ted rising (Twitter) on Dec 7th 2012, 10:00 PM EST
This little ice age that you talk about; is this the cool period which ended at the precise time that man started to produce more CO2 than could be naturally adsorbed? I thought so. You will hand wave this away as just being a coincidence.
Posted by ted rising (Twitter) on Dec 9th 2012, 6:53 AM EST
The Maunder Minimum finished in the 1750's.
The little ice age finished in the 1850's, when the industrial revolution was in full flood and Co2 levels started to rise.
Solar activity in recent years has dropped, global temperatures continue to climb but at a slower rate. Could this be your "cause"?
Posted by Will Pratt (Twitter) on Dec 9th 2012, 12:26 PM EST
The Maunder Minimum ended in the 1750's then there was a brief warming which was quickly followed by the Dalton Minimum. The Dalton minimum ended 1850's where you say the 'little ice age' ended. As is clear from the link above.
So despite your usual cherry-picking Ted, all such cooling periods like the one we are in now, coincide with and are explainable by low solar activity.
» News articles may contain quotes, these are copyright to the respective publication which will be stated, along with a link to the source article where available.
» If you feel your copyright has been violated please contact us and the article will be removed or amended at your request.
Articles Recently Viewed
4,943
Donations
» Please support the site by making a donation. No matter how big or small, your contribution helps to support the cause.
Tweet Article
Post to Facebook
Print Article
Bill Nye should also go and read the scientific literature. The MWP has hundreds of pr papers supporting it, many now demonstrating it was a global phenomenon, not just Europe, so to keep saying it was just Europe is extraordinarily disingenuous.
For Bill to also now claim it's the *rate* of CO2 rise when all the previous claims have been (and still mostly are) about the *level*, is somewhat two-faced. The core CAGW claim is that man's CO2 emissions will dangerously raise global (near surface) temperatures. This is clearly a *level* based claim and not a *rate* based claim. The stark evidence is that the increased CO2 level does not cause temperature rise, as the last 16+ years have clearly demonstrated.