Networks Fail to Mention ‘Lull’ in Warming in All 92 Climate Change Stories

The agenda does not include the truth.

 

climate changes, always has always will

http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/26/noticeable-climate-change/#more-12039

and

 

So I went through the graph, and read the reference provided, and I need some help. From a laymen's perspective, it appears that the graph shows a gradual warming trend with respect to time, spanning some 400 years or so, pre-dating the industrial revolution. But after going through the text, and noting that there were comparisons to all sorts of other things I'm not familiar with, I'm not sure what the exact point was? If someone was to ask me what I took away from this exercise, it would be A) why can't I see the LIA in England, B) does the author suppose that this will continue, or C) has the author already accounted for the "why" and then just stopped there and let the reader decide something for themselves, that something perhaps missed by layman me?

 

It's nuance now.

and anyway it's not Global Warming anymore since there's too much data to show that the earth is actually cooling.

So they changed the name to "Climate Change"....

I know, it's really confusing. The scientists swore they saw temperatures rising and determined conclusively that man made global warming was the cause. Now, 30 years later we see that global temperatures aren't rising, that the industrial revolution produced a mini ice age and even all the coal based manufacturing pre - WWII drove the temperatures DOWN....

So now, when it turns out all the people who were certain to have been in the pay of the nasty oil companies because they claimed temperatures are going DOWN, were actually telling the truth and the global warming experts were wrong, they changed the name.

It's OK to be confused.

Has anyone noticed that this chart begins during the mini ice age? OF course temperatures are going to go up after they've been really, really cold duh.

But we are never going to see a chart from the time of the Norse Vikings, when grapes produced wine in Newfoundland and grain grew in Greenland and they sailed across the top of the world......

No, because it don't fit the theory and so we won't be talkin about that.

You have every right to be confused.....

 

don't you think dumping billions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere

would have some sort of negative impact on climate, air quality, water and etc?

[video=youtube;v1yJ4YV8yFQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1yJ4YV8yFQ[/video]

 

if you are referring to CO2 then considering this

http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/insights/authors/derektaylor/2011/11/11/how-much-carbon-dioxide

now how much will Obama's recent decrees cost, how much will they decrease Co2, and how much will it affect AGW warming in the next 150 years ?

I refer you to this link http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/11/24/effect-zero-co2-2050/

is it really worth throwing millions of people into energy poverty and destroying the GDP over, which is all they have seemed to accomplish when similar policies in Europe have been total failures. Unless of course you count making corporate cronies millions. At least be honest and stop with the fake environmental concerns and admit this is noting more than politics and millionaires getting richer off the backs of the poor and middle class

 

there's much more than co2 that's dumped into the atmosphere

i have a feeling it'll save money and lives

you didn't listen to the speech i posted, did you? here's an excerpt:

For example, in 1970, when we decided through the Clean Air Act to do something about the smog that was choking our cities -- and, by the way, most young people here aren't old enough to remember what it was like, but when I was going to school in 1979-1980 in Los Angeles, there were days where folks couldn't go outside. And the sunsets were spectacular because of all the pollution in the air.

But at the time when we passed the Clean Air Act to try to get rid of some of this smog, some of the same doomsayers were saying new pollution standards will decimate the auto industry. Guess what -- it didn’t happen. Our air got cleaner.
In 1990, when we decided to do something about acid rain, they said our electricity bills would go up, the lights would go off, businesses around the country would suffer -- I quote -- “a quiet death.” None of it happened, except we cut acid rain dramatically.

See, the problem with all these tired excuses for inaction is that it suggests a fundamental lack of faith in American business and American ingenuity. These critics seem to think that when we ask our businesses to innovate and reduce pollution and lead, they can't or they won't do it. They'll just kind of give up and quit. But in America, we know that’s not true. Look at our history.

When we restricted cancer-causing chemicals in plastics and leaded fuel in our cars, it didn’t end the plastics industry or the oil industry. American chemists came up with better substitutes. When we phased out CFCs -- the gases that were depleting the ozone layer -- it didn’t kill off refrigerators or air-conditioners or deodorant. American workers and businesses figured out how to do it better without harming the environment as much.

The fuel standards that we put in place just a few years ago didn’t cripple automakers. The American auto industry retooled, and today, our automakers are selling the best cars in the world at a faster rate than they have in five years -- with more hybrid, more plug-in, more fuel-efficient cars for everybody to choose from.

So the point is, if you look at our history, don’t bet against American industry. Don’t bet against American workers. Don’t tell folks that we have to choose between the health of our children or the health of our economy.

The old rules may say we can’t protect our environment and promote economic growth at the same time, but in America, we’ve always used new technologies -- we’ve used science; we’ve used research and development and discovery to make the old rules obsolete.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-25/-we-need-to-act-transcript-of-obama-s-climate-change-speech.html

here's what it looks like when pollutants aren't regulated:

[video=youtube;Ksps_1Zwg5o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksps_1Zwg5o[/video]

 

somehow I don't think that China is going to pay much attention to Obama's wants so why post that video ?

 

i'm talking about the usa and showed an example of a country that doesn't regulate pollutants

i explained that right above the video

 

things used to be that almost bad in the USA, they are not now so why post it for anything other than for the cheap emotional shock value. It is irrelevant to the issues here in the USA.

 

yes, until we passed the clean air act of 1970

then reinforced it in 1990 to fight acid rain and cfc's

it shows what things could have been like here

 

not arguing that it. last time I was in Rome in the late 90's the haze from the 2 stroke mopeds would make your eyes water at night. I also remember driving down into the Kanawha valley in WVa in the late 60's early 70's and seeing entire mountainsides of dead trees from the pollution from the chemical factories outside Charleston. However somewhere in the 80's organizations like Greenpeace and Sierra Club ceased to be about the environment and the people and all about progressive political activism. Dr. Patrick Moore has it right, political wackos have distorted the work that he and others began in pursuit of politics and big money

I am all for the environment but AGW is not about the environment, it is about politics, power, and money

 

What lull?



http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming


As we have previously discussed, the overall warming or heat accumulation of the planet has continued, and if anything accelerated over the past 10–15 years (Figure 1).



http://www.skepticalscience.com/clarifying-continuation-global-warming.html

 

oh yes trenberth finding a reason that the Earth has had no significant increase in temps in 15 years, gotta defend those climate models if daddy is going to have job I guess

 

you don't know what you're talking about

 

What warming? The planet is downright FRIGID!!!!

Cherry picking time scales is just way too easy to show one point or another. How about someone quantify the natural variability so we at least can take a stab at figuring out what is natural, and what is not?



- - - Updated - - -

Oh, it sure doesn't appear that way to me. There are reasons why CO2 was chosen to make a stink over, and it wasn't because it is a lagging indicator of global temperature.

 

sure I do. So far all the scare granny stories are just scare granny stories, ski slopes still have snow, Manhattan dry as a bone.Sometimes it rains sometimes it doesn't, some winter are mild and some are cold. More polar bears now than there were 40 years ago

you just want to pretend this about the environment. It's not, just millionaires trying to make more millions and politicians grabbing more power over your everyday life. You are screwing yourself for their betterment, and don't see it and they really could care less about you and your life as long as they get more money and power

 

i haven't endorsed any of the so called 'scary stories' you've mentioned

but a quick look at the facts shows that the arctic’s sea ice has melted to a record low level

there are numerous instrumental temperature records, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere, earlier leafing of trees and plants over many regions, movements of species to higher latitudes and altitudes, changes in bird migrations and shifting of the oceans' plankton and fish from cold to warm-adapted communities

oh please, the billionaires are backing your side

and most scientists seem to be in agreement on what's happening

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain

[video=youtube;6MKepOipLbM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MKepOipLbM[/video]

 

You are so sad thesd days. You usr to be a good debate opponen. You've been do beatrn down youvare reduced to streight copy paste from a propaganda blog.

 

arctic ice - you mean historic lows since when ? satellite records ? - note your lifetime is not a historic low

http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/

acid rain is caused by sulfur dioxide (SO2), ammonia (NH3), nitrogen oxides (NOx) we already have strict regulations on each

on the billionaires BS it is just that

http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-solutions/europe.html

on the consensus that is utter nonsense and science is not a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing consensus anyway, politics is a consensus

and as I keep pointing out you are spending billions on a problem that is not a problem and even if it were a problem by your own models you cant do a damn thing about it even if you killed every man woman and child. Unless you want top pretend that cutting emissions by 10 percent wil have more of a effect than cutting them by 100% like a couple of nut balls have tried to claim

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/11/24/effect-zero-co2-2050/

 

in the history of it's measurement

that's my point, we used a market based incentives to decrease so2 pollution and it's working

you still haven't watched the video of obama's climate speech, have you?

what a joke, that makes perfect sense, oil billionaires aren't against what scientists say about global warming and climate change

you really have to be brain-dead to think that's true

 

so a historic low means less than 100 years?

do some incvestigation on the NW passage it opened in 2007 I think, time before that was early 1900's time and they recently found the HMS investigator which appears to have been trapped in 1852 or 3 doing the last leg

you mean worked

no I can't stand politicians in general, I am convince all of them are just rip off artists, both GOP and Democrats. I don't need to listen to why he thinks my tax dollars should enrich his friends and enlarge an already bloated government. I would much rather see thos same tax dollars used to feed kids or get fresh water to the them. Offtopic but if yo want to get involved in a project to help people in the world that is my personal favorite.you want to think a political agenda is science that is your problem not mine

no a person has to be brain dead top think that doing the same actions that failed in Europe will do anything here or that reducing CO2 emissions a small amount is really going to change anything in the next century. We need to replace carbon based fuel but instead of knee jerk actions which have been failing for years.

 

yea, a significant era

i'm familiar with it, the endurance, shackleton and etc

and worked quite well

is kumbayah your favorite song?

show me where i said anything about that

my point is that you were completely wrong, billionaires like the kochs are fighting against scientists


"Between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires donated nearly $120 million to more than 100 anti-climate groups casting doubt on the science behind climate change."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

[video=youtube;IaKm89eVhoE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IaKm89eVhoE[/video]

 

why don't you just be honest and admit this is just a political issue for you the environment and the welfare of the poor and middle class has nothing to do with you fanaticism ? I notice the longer this conversation goes on the more your politics is showing. Hope your serving your masters works out for you, it did not work out for most middle class and below in Europe. However if you r goal isd to make the already rich and politicians richer the green energy initiative is the way to go

http://www.euractiv.com/energy/soaring-energy-costs-europeans-p-analysis-519884

 

I can say for a fact climate change is happening where I live, nothing like it was when I was growing up, but I also know that when you start changing the climate, fluctuation are to be expected