New Record - "The Pause lengthens again – just in time for Paris" - No GW 18 years 9 months

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1

The Pause lengthens again – just in time for Paris

clip_image0022.jpg


Posted by Anthony Watts

No global warming at all for 18 years 9 months – a new record

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

As the faithful gather around their capering shamans in Paris for the New Superstition’s annual festival of worship, the Pause lengthens yet again.

One-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since February 1997.

Yet the 225 months since then show no global warming at all (Fig. 1). With this month’s RSS temperature record, the Pause beats last month’s record and now stands at 18 years 9 months.



Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 9 months since February 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause.

The accidental delegate from Burma provoked shrieks of fury from the congregation during the final benediction in Doha three years ago, when he said the Pause had endured for 16 years. Now, almost three years later, the Pause is almost three years longer.

It is worth understanding just how surprised the modelers ought to be by the û of the Pause. NOAA, in a very rare fit of honesty, admitted in its 2008 State of the Climate report that 15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation.

The reason for NOAA’s statement is that there is supposed to be a sharp and significant instantaneous response to a radiative forcing such as adding CO2 to the air.

The steepness of this predicted response can be seen in Fig. 1a, which is based on a paper on temperature feedbacks by Professor Richard Lindzen’s former student Professor Gerard Roe in 2009. The graph of Roe’s model output shows that the initial expected response to a forcing is supposed to be an immediate and rapid warming. But, despite the very substantial forcings in the 18 years 9 months since February 1997, not a flicker of warming has resulted.



Figure 1a: Models predict rapid initial warming in response to a forcing. Instead, no warming at all is occurring. Based on Roe (2009).

At the Heartland and Philip Foster events in Paris, I shall reveal in detail the three serious errors that have led the models to over-predict warming so grossly.

The current el Niño, as Bob Tisdale’s distinguished series of reports here demonstrates, is at least as big as the Great el Niño of 1998. The RSS temperature record is beginning to reflect its magnitude.

From next month on, the Pause will probably shorten dramatically and may disappear altogether for a time.

However, if there is a following la Niña, as there often is, the Pause may return at some time from the end of next year onward.

The hiatus period of 18 years 9 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. The start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated. And the graph does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate.

And yes, the start-date for the Pause has been inching forward, though just a little more slowly than the end-date, which is why the Pause continues on average to lengthen.

So long a stasis in global temperature is simply inconsistent not only with the extremist predictions of the computer models but also with the panic whipped up by the rent-seeking profiteers of doom rubbing their hands with glee in Paris.

The UAH dataset shows a Pause almost as long as the RSS dataset. However, the much-altered surface tamperature datasets show a small warming rate (Fig. 1b).



Figure 1b. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC terrestrial monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly datasets shows global warming at a rate equivalent to 1.1 C° per century during the period of the Pause from January 1997 to September 2015.

Bearing in mind that one-third of the 2.4 W m–2 radiative forcing from all manmade sources since 1750 has occurred during the period of the Pause, a warming rate equivalent to little more than 1 C°/century is not exactly alarming.

As always, a note of caution. Merely because there has been little or no warming in recent decades, one may not draw the conclusion that warming has ended forever. The trend lines measure what has occurred: they do not predict what will occur.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/05/the-pause-lengthens-again-just-in-time-for-paris/
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
From the review.,,

A growing body of reviewed papers find climate sensitivity considerably below the 3 [1.5, 4.5] Cº per CO2 doubling that was first put forward in the Charney Report of 1979 for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and is still the IPCC’s best estimate today.

On the evidence to date, therefore, there is no scientific basis for taking any action at all to mitigate CO2 emissions.

Finally, how long will it be before the Freedom Clock (Fig. T12) reaches 20 years without any global warming? If it does, the climate scare will become unsustainable.



Figure T12. The Freedom Clock edges ever closer to 20 years without global warming

 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
26,383
21,055
1
The Pause lengthens again – just in time for Paris

clip_image0022.jpg


Posted by Anthony Watts

No global warming at all for 18 years 9 months – a new record

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

As the faithful gather around their capering shamans in Paris for the New Superstition’s annual festival of worship, the Pause lengthens yet again.

One-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since February 1997.

Yet the 225 months since then show no global warming at all (Fig. 1). With this month’s RSS temperature record, the Pause beats last month’s record and now stands at 18 years 9 months.



Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 9 months since February 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause.

The accidental delegate from Burma provoked shrieks of fury from the congregation during the final benediction in Doha three years ago, when he said the Pause had endured for 16 years. Now, almost three years later, the Pause is almost three years longer.

It is worth understanding just how surprised the modelers ought to be by the û of the Pause. NOAA, in a very rare fit of honesty, admitted in its 2008 State of the Climate report that 15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation.

The reason for NOAA’s statement is that there is supposed to be a sharp and significant instantaneous response to a radiative forcing such as adding CO2 to the air.

The steepness of this predicted response can be seen in Fig. 1a, which is based on a paper on temperature feedbacks by Professor Richard Lindzen’s former student Professor Gerard Roe in 2009. The graph of Roe’s model output shows that the initial expected response to a forcing is supposed to be an immediate and rapid warming. But, despite the very substantial forcings in the 18 years 9 months since February 1997, not a flicker of warming has resulted.



Figure 1a: Models predict rapid initial warming in response to a forcing. Instead, no warming at all is occurring. Based on Roe (2009).

At the Heartland and Philip Foster events in Paris, I shall reveal in detail the three serious errors that have led the models to over-predict warming so grossly.

The current el Niño, as Bob Tisdale’s distinguished series of reports here demonstrates, is at least as big as the Great el Niño of 1998. The RSS temperature record is beginning to reflect its magnitude.

From next month on, the Pause will probably shorten dramatically and may disappear altogether for a time.

However, if there is a following la Niña, as there often is, the Pause may return at some time from the end of next year onward.

The hiatus period of 18 years 9 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. The start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated. And the graph does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate.

And yes, the start-date for the Pause has been inching forward, though just a little more slowly than the end-date, which is why the Pause continues on average to lengthen.

So long a stasis in global temperature is simply inconsistent not only with the extremist predictions of the computer models but also with the panic whipped up by the rent-seeking profiteers of doom rubbing their hands with glee in Paris.

The UAH dataset shows a Pause almost as long as the RSS dataset. However, the much-altered surface tamperature datasets show a small warming rate (Fig. 1b).



Figure 1b. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC terrestrial monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly datasets shows global warming at a rate equivalent to 1.1 C° per century during the period of the Pause from January 1997 to September 2015.

Bearing in mind that one-third of the 2.4 W m–2 radiative forcing from all manmade sources since 1750 has occurred during the period of the Pause, a warming rate equivalent to little more than 1 C°/century is not exactly alarming.

As always, a note of caution. Merely because there has been little or no warming in recent decades, one may not draw the conclusion that warming has ended forever. The trend lines measure what has occurred: they do not predict what will occur.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/05/the-pause-lengthens-again-just-in-time-for-paris/


Global warming = the biggest political hoax thrust upon the world population by liberals
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,686
5,071
1
The Pause lengthens again – just in time for Paris

clip_image0022.jpg


Posted by Anthony Watts

No global warming at all for 18 years 9 months – a new record

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

As the faithful gather around their capering shamans in Paris for the New Superstition’s annual festival of worship, the Pause lengthens yet again.

One-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since February 1997.

Yet the 225 months since then show no global warming at all (Fig. 1). With this month’s RSS temperature record, the Pause beats last month’s record and now stands at 18 years 9 months.



Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 9 months since February 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause.

The accidental delegate from Burma provoked shrieks of fury from the congregation during the final benediction in Doha three years ago, when he said the Pause had endured for 16 years. Now, almost three years later, the Pause is almost three years longer.

It is worth understanding just how surprised the modelers ought to be by the û of the Pause. NOAA, in a very rare fit of honesty, admitted in its 2008 State of the Climate report that 15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation.

The reason for NOAA’s statement is that there is supposed to be a sharp and significant instantaneous response to a radiative forcing such as adding CO2 to the air.

The steepness of this predicted response can be seen in Fig. 1a, which is based on a paper on temperature feedbacks by Professor Richard Lindzen’s former student Professor Gerard Roe in 2009. The graph of Roe’s model output shows that the initial expected response to a forcing is supposed to be an immediate and rapid warming. But, despite the very substantial forcings in the 18 years 9 months since February 1997, not a flicker of warming has resulted.



Figure 1a: Models predict rapid initial warming in response to a forcing. Instead, no warming at all is occurring. Based on Roe (2009).

At the Heartland and Philip Foster events in Paris, I shall reveal in detail the three serious errors that have led the models to over-predict warming so grossly.

The current el Niño, as Bob Tisdale’s distinguished series of reports here demonstrates, is at least as big as the Great el Niño of 1998. The RSS temperature record is beginning to reflect its magnitude.

From next month on, the Pause will probably shorten dramatically and may disappear altogether for a time.

However, if there is a following la Niña, as there often is, the Pause may return at some time from the end of next year onward.

The hiatus period of 18 years 9 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. The start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated. And the graph does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate.

And yes, the start-date for the Pause has been inching forward, though just a little more slowly than the end-date, which is why the Pause continues on average to lengthen.

So long a stasis in global temperature is simply inconsistent not only with the extremist predictions of the computer models but also with the panic whipped up by the rent-seeking profiteers of doom rubbing their hands with glee in Paris.

The UAH dataset shows a Pause almost as long as the RSS dataset. However, the much-altered surface tamperature datasets show a small warming rate (Fig. 1b).



Figure 1b. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC terrestrial monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly datasets shows global warming at a rate equivalent to 1.1 C° per century during the period of the Pause from January 1997 to September 2015.

Bearing in mind that one-third of the 2.4 W m–2 radiative forcing from all manmade sources since 1750 has occurred during the period of the Pause, a warming rate equivalent to little more than 1 C°/century is not exactly alarming.

As always, a note of caution. Merely because there has been little or no warming in recent decades, one may not draw the conclusion that warming has ended forever. The trend lines measure what has occurred: they do not predict what will occur.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/05/the-pause-lengthens-again-just-in-time-for-paris/

This is pretty much all you need to read from Moncktons mess:

From next month on, the Pause will probably shorten dramatically and may disappear altogether for a time.

Whoa. You mean this month there is an 18 year pause in global warming but next month it may disappear? We will go from an 18 year pause to a zero year pause in warming?

So next month if the temps go high enough then for the last 18 years it has been warming and not "paused" at all! Amazing!

TJ and Monckton, you two are made for each other!
 

Osprey Lion

Well-Known Member
Dec 16, 2011
11,347
3,733
1
Osprey, Florida
This is pretty much all you need to read from Moncktons mess:

From next month on, the Pause will probably shorten dramatically and may disappear altogether for a time.

Whoa. You mean this month there is an 18 year pause in global warming but next month it may disappear? We will go from an 18 year pause to a zero year pause in warming?

So next month if the temps go high enough then for the last 18 years it has been warming and not "paused" at all! Amazing!

TJ and Monckton, you two are made for each other!

TJ and Lord Monkey are two nuts in a pod. I enjoy throwing a fact at him once in a while just to see him scramble.
Much like humans do with food to stir up animals at the zoo.
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
This is pretty much all you need to read from Moncktons mess:

From next month on, the Pause will probably shorten dramatically and may disappear altogether for a time.

Whoa. You mean this month there is an 18 year pause in global warming but next month it may disappear? We will go from an 18 year pause to a zero year pause in warming?

So next month if the temps go high enough then for the last 18 years it has been warming and not "paused" at all! Amazing!

TJ and Monckton, you two are made for each other!

You are a dope.

The Pause is defined here as a zero trend. Lack of a zero trend, by a small amount, is still a disaster for the Alarmists' anti-science hysteria.

As stated every month, the bigger issue is the gap between the Climate Model predictions and reality,

NOAA, in a very rare fit of honesty, admitted in its 2008 State of the Climate report that

15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation.

Bingo!

The problem is the climate models are wrong. They have always been wrong. They have never been right.


They 18 year 9 month period exists. It's in the books. That period could NOT happen, per NOAA and Alarmists, if their assumptions were correct. The models and the Alarmists' Assumptions are wrong.

The Alarmists' hysterical CAGW projections are not supported by science and the real world data.
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
TJ and Lord Monkey are two nuts in a pod. I enjoy throwing a fact at him once in a while just to see him scramble.
Much like humans do with food to stir up animals at the zoo.

You are an ignorant fool, who has no integrity.

You only disgrace yourself with your mindless posts and dishonesty.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,686
5,071
1
You are a dope.

The Pause is defined here as a zero trend. Lack of a zero trend, by a small amount, is still a disaster for the Alarmists' anti-science hysteria.

As stated every month, the bigger issue is the gap between the Climate Model predictions and reality,

NOAA, in a very rare fit of honesty, admitted in its 2008 State of the Climate report that

15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation.

Bingo!

The problem is the climate models are wrong. They have always been wrong. They have never been right.


They 18 year 9 month period exists. It's in the books. That period could NOT happen, per NOAA and Alarmists, if their assumptions were correct. The models and the Alarmists' Assumptions are wrong.

The Alarmists' hysterical CAGW projections are not supported by science and the real world data.


The Pause is defined here as a zero trend. Lack of a zero trend, by a small amount, is still a disaster for the Alarmists' anti-science hysteria.

But next month is might not be?

So it's a disaster now for "alarmists" but next month it might be what? Something we need to worry about?

Isn't this exactly what you are lord monckey doing? Escalator science?

You only look at a short time period when you can graph a straight line even though temps are increasing over time. Then when that "trick" no longer works you just start the time period over at a new higher level. There is never any warming just series of "steps" that you ignore.

Escalator500.gif
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
The Pause is defined here as a zero trend. Lack of a zero trend, by a small amount, is still a disaster for the Alarmists' anti-science hysteria.

But next month is might not be?

So it's a disaster now for "alarmists" but next month it might be what? Something we need to worry about?

Isn't this exactly what you are lord monckey doing? Escalator science?

You only look at a short time period when you can graph a straight line even though temps are increasing over time. Then when that "trick" no longer works you just start the time period over at a new higher level. There is never any warming just series of "steps" that you ignore.

Escalator500.gif

Good golly you are ridiculous.

Your Nazi Boys created that chart. It has nothing to do with science or the rational skeptical review of real world factors. It's false propaganda. They target ignorant dupes like you, because you are too stupid to look at the real trends and understand the cause and effects.

You ignore the information from NOAA, that a pause over 15 years demonstrates the models are wrong, which means you've got nothing.

"NOAA, in a very rare fit of honesty, admitted in its 2008 State of the Climate report that

15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation."
Bingo!

You demonstrate how clueless you are when you throw your stupid anti-science Nazi Boy's propaganda crap against the wall.
 
Last edited:

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,686
5,071
1
Good golly you are ridiculous.

Your Nazi Boys created that chart. It has nothing to do with science or the rational skeptical review of real world factors. It's false propaganda. They target ignorant dupes like you, because you are too stupid to look at the real trends and understand the cause and effects.

You ignore the information from NOAA, that a pause over 15 years demonstrates the models are wrong, which means you've got nothing.

"NOAA, in a very rare fit of honesty, admitted in its 2008 State of the Climate report that

15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation."
Bingo!

You demonstrate how clueless you are when you throw your stupid anti-science Nazi Boy's propaganda crap against the wall.


You know TJ is really lost when pulls the old "you are a nazi" strategy out.

So that's your answer, you and buddy lord monckey are not just looking at short term "steps" in a longer term upward rising trend? It's all due to the nazis?
 

WishfulLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2001
4,559
82
1
Rumble - let me explain it to you. Try to pretend you can understand physics and I'll do my best. I know you've got some moronic degree like urban studies, but I'll try.

CAGW theory rests on feedback mechanisms which amplify the agreed upon role of carbon dioxide in reducing the outgoing radiation from the surface. Those feedback mechanisms are in all the models which show ever-increasing temperature as CO2 increases.

But no model showed any pause of 15 years, and now up to 18 years. Since the model doesn't even remotely match the real data (especially above the surface, where CAGW theory shows there should be even MORE warming), the model is falsified (that's what science is about - putting forth theories that can be falsified).

TJ's point to you is that even if there's a slight increase in the line (using falsified nasa data for instance), the model is still falsified because the rate of increase in the real data looks nothing like the model output from the past.
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
You know TJ is really lost when pulls the old "you are a nazi" strategy out.

So that's your answer, you and buddy lord monckey are not just looking at short term "steps" in a longer term upward rising trend? It's all due to the nazis?

You are a goofball rumble. You are so ignorant, you are the one using false claims from your Nazi Boys website.

Your ignorance for using the Nazi Boys' false claims only reflects on you.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,686
5,071
1
Rumble - let me explain it to you. Try to pretend you can understand physics and I'll do my best. I know you've got some moronic degree like urban studies, but I'll try.

CAGW theory rests on feedback mechanisms which amplify the agreed upon role of carbon dioxide in reducing the outgoing radiation from the surface. Those feedback mechanisms are in all the models which show ever-increasing temperature as CO2 increases.

But no model showed any pause of 15 years, and now up to 18 years. Since the model doesn't even remotely match the real data (especially above the surface, where CAGW theory shows there should be even MORE warming), the model is falsified (that's what science is about - putting forth theories that can be falsified).

TJ's point to you is that even if there's a slight increase in the line (using falsified nasa data for instance), the model is still falsified because the rate of increase in the real data looks nothing like the model output from the past.

But no model showed any pause of 15 years, and now up to 18 years. Since the model doesn't even remotely match the real data (especially above the surface, where CAGW theory shows there should be even MORE warming), the model is falsified (that's what science is about - putting forth theories that can be falsified).


First, there is no 18 year pause in global warming. When you talk about the incredibly stupid graphs the lord monckey fires out every month it only covers warming in the lower troposphere. And it only one interpretation of the satellite data that he uses(RSS). To call that the only indicator of global warming is a complete joke. He ignores global surface temperatures, ocean surface and deep ocean measurements.

Plus the only reason his little method works anyway is the huge spike in lower troposphere warming that occurred in 1998 is his start point. Of course it doesn't really matter at this point as the current warming is finally exceeding 1998 spike so lord monckey is going to have to "reset" his "global pause" period probably in the next few months.

Second, the models only predict long term trends of which they have been very accurate. There all short variations like volcano eruptions that cannot be predicted precisely, but over the long term don't really matter.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,686
5,071
1
You are a goofball rumble. You are so ignorant, you are the one using false claims from your Nazi Boys website.

Your ignorance for using the Nazi Boys' false claims only reflects on you.


Nice response TJ, don't address the fact, just hurl insults, how typical.
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
But no model showed any pause of 15 years, and now up to 18 years. Since the model doesn't even remotely match the real data (especially above the surface, where CAGW theory shows there should be even MORE warming), the model is falsified (that's what science is about - putting forth theories that can be falsified).

First, there is no 18 year pause in global warming. When you talk about the incredibly stupid graphs the lord monckey fires out every month it only covers warming in the lower troposphere. And it only one interpretation of the satellite data that he uses(RSS). To call that the only indicator of global warming is a complete joke. He ignores global surface temperatures, ocean surface and deep ocean measurements.

Plus the only reason his little method works anyway is the huge spike in lower troposphere warming that occurred in 1998 is his start point. Of course it doesn't really matter at this point as the current warming is finally exceeding 1998 spike so lord monckey is going to have to "reset" his "global pause" period probably in the next few months.

Second, the models only predict long term trends of which they have been very accurate. There all short variations like volcano eruptions that cannot be predicted precisely, but over the long term don't really matter.

You're just blabbering to blabber.

The UN IPCC acknowledged the pause and there are some 60 studies referencing it.

You ignore all of the information that debunks your silliness and then spew false comments, because you haven't comprehended the information provided .

Stop spewing lies rumble. It just makes you look more ridiculous.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,686
5,071
1
You're just blabbering to blabber.

The UN IPCC acknowledged the pause and there are some 60 studies referencing it.

You ignore all of the information that debunks your silliness and then spew false comments, because you haven't comprehended the information provided .

Stop spewing lies rumble. It just makes you look more ridiculous.


More insults and no facts. Typical TJ.
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
Still waiting to see any facts in your posts.

Your blindness is your own personal problem.

You ignored all of the info in the lead post and link that address your foolish comments.
 
Last edited:

WishfulLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2001
4,559
82
1
Stumble lion, I knew your inability to grasp physics would prove problematic. First, the pause goes back to 1997 or so. But if we use the same methodology, the pause would extend to 2003 or 2004, completely ignoring 1998's El Nino spike. Again, no model shows any such pause. But the fact that the regression line is zero really is irrelevant. What matters is that the models don't match the data at all. THINK about that - the models show something like 2C per century and all the debate over temperature measurements show a trend in the last 20 years from 0.0C per century to 0.3C per century. Does it really matter if the error in the models is 100% of the expected rise or if the error is 85% of the expected rise?

So, if we use Tom Karl's fudged data (he fudged it just this year to "get rid of the pause" for idiots like you who were losing faith, but are willing to follow blindly, the data STILL doesn't come close to matching the models. Politicians like Tom Karl know that dupes like you will NEVER ask "why do the models show a hotspot in the troposphere, but all out data (satellite and balloon) show no hotspot?" Tom Karl and that moron Obama know that they can restore the faith of their followers simply by eliminating the 0.0 trend and replacing it with an 0.2 trend. Congratulations, there really is no bottom limit to the stupidity of the typical democrat voter.

Bottom line - for the last 15 years or so, there's been very little global warming, consistent with what the deniers have been saying all along (deniers do NOT say that Co2 doesn't warm the atmosphere a little, they say that the feedback mechanisms necessary for catastrophic warming are not highly positive, and that the minor amount of warming that can be reasonably expected is harmless or beneficial).

Don't ask yourself any tough questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T J

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
26,383
21,055
1
Still waiting to see any facts in your posts.
Rumble, At least your posts should demonstrate some critical thinking rather than regurgitating some leftist garbage about the "global warming" hoax.
 

WishfulLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2001
4,559
82
1
What rumble is posting does demonstrate "critical thinking" for the left. He really is doing as well as he can. Most people are simply voting their self interest. Rumble and other leftists know they cannot compete (low IQ, personality issues, whatever) in the free market, so they vote themselves free stuff. It really is as simple as that - these guys are losers and know they cannot compete. So, vote yourself some free stuff.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,686
5,071
1
Stumble lion, I knew your inability to grasp physics would prove problematic. First, the pause goes back to 1997 or so. But if we use the same methodology, the pause would extend to 2003 or 2004, completely ignoring 1998's El Nino spike. Again, no model shows any such pause. But the fact that the regression line is zero really is irrelevant. What matters is that the models don't match the data at all. THINK about that - the models show something like 2C per century and all the debate over temperature measurements show a trend in the last 20 years from 0.0C per century to 0.3C per century. Does it really matter if the error in the models is 100% of the expected rise or if the error is 85% of the expected rise?

So, if we use Tom Karl's fudged data (he fudged it just this year to "get rid of the pause" for idiots like you who were losing faith, but are willing to follow blindly, the data STILL doesn't come close to matching the models. Politicians like Tom Karl know that dupes like you will NEVER ask "why do the models show a hotspot in the troposphere, but all out data (satellite and balloon) show no hotspot?" Tom Karl and that moron Obama know that they can restore the faith of their followers simply by eliminating the 0.0 trend and replacing it with an 0.2 trend. Congratulations, there really is no bottom limit to the stupidity of the typical democrat voter.

Bottom line - for the last 15 years or so, there's been very little global warming, consistent with what the deniers have been saying all along (deniers do NOT say that Co2 doesn't warm the atmosphere a little, they say that the feedback mechanisms necessary for catastrophic warming are not highly positive, and that the minor amount of warming that can be reasonably expected is harmless or beneficial).

Don't ask yourself any tough questions.

Yeah, you can really tell how global warming has stopped when you look at the long term trends eh?

Global average temperature anomalies for the major global surface temperature datasets (Met Office/CRU, NASA and NOAA) and the tropospheric temperatures (RSS and UAH). All temperatures are relative to 1981-2010 average. Source: Rosamund Pearce, Carbon Brief.

satellite2.gif
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
What rumble is posting does demonstrate "critical thinking" for the left. He really is doing as well as he can. Most people are simply voting their self interest. Rumble and other leftists know they cannot compete (low IQ, personality issues, whatever) in the free market, so they vote themselves free stuff. It really is as simple as that - these guys are losers and know they cannot compete. So, vote yourself some free stuff.


We are still in a cold period in this interglacial period.

[/URL]

In geologic time, the most common global temperature is 22 degrees. Current temps are closer to about 14.8 degrees. We are still in one of the coldest periods on Earth, nearly 7 degrees below "normal."
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
Yeah, you can really tell how global warming has stopped when you look at the long term trends eh?

Global average temperature anomalies for the major global surface temperature datasets (Met Office/CRU, NASA and NOAA) and the tropospheric temperatures (RSS and UAH). All temperatures are relative to 1981-2010 average. Source: Rosamund Pearce, Carbon Brief.

satellite2.gif

rumble is actually dumb enough to have said, "Yeah, you can really tell how global warming has stopped when you look at the long term trends eh?"

It's hilarious that you can't grasp what's going on and the claims that have been made, as evidenced by your moronic comment above. You are clueless.

You post like you are a dolt rumble. You don't pay attention. You don't even know the issues.
So it's no surprise that you are arguing about your fantasy straw men claims, because you have no clue about the issues at stake. Wishful and others have tried repeatedly to lay things out for you, but you post like you are not bright enough to understand, based upon your irrelevant posts.



From the OP...

The UAH dataset shows a Pause almost as long as the RSS dataset. However, the much-altered surface tamperature datasets show a small warming rate (Fig. 1b).



Figure 1b. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC terrestrial monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly datasets shows global warming at a rate equivalent to 1.1 C° per century during the period of the Pause from January 1997 to September 2015.

Bearing in mind that one-third of the 2.4 W m–2 radiative forcing from all manmade sources since 1750 has occurred during the period of the Pause,

a warming rate equivalent to little more than 1 C°/century is not exactly alarming.
 

WishfulLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2001
4,559
82
1
Let's look at your graph. from 1910 to about 1945, there's a pretty big temperature increase, not much different at all from the rise from 1970 to 2000.

But even the warmist liars agree that prior to 1950 man could not have much influence on temperature (because our worldwide emissions of Co2 were pretty negligible until 1950.

You can't differentiate the warming trend before man's influence and the one after it is at least possible that man is having an impact, right? So, your graph (fraudulently adjusted though the NASA/NOAA portion may be) actually shows that you can't discern man's influence.

The pause shows (the pause is very obvious in the RSS/UAH datasets - the ones that were not altered for dupes like yourself) that the models simply are wrong and each year, the models diverge more from the actual data (including the tampered data), but especially the RSS/UAH datasets.

Really, I have only one question - do you understand that the key isn't whether temperature is increasing a little (it appears to be), or if man is having some impact (we have to have SOME impact, even if it is very little), the important question is, "Is there any evidence that there are strong, positive feedbacks in the climate system that will cause harmful "runaway" warming?"

Honestly, I don't even think you understand what you are supposed to be supporting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T J

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,686
5,071
1
Let's look at your graph. from 1910 to about 1945, there's a pretty big temperature increase, not much different at all from the rise from 1970 to 2000.

But even the warmist liars agree that prior to 1950 man could not have much influence on temperature (because our worldwide emissions of Co2 were pretty negligible until 1950.

You can't differentiate the warming trend before man's influence and the one after it is at least possible that man is having an impact, right? So, your graph (fraudulently adjusted though the NASA/NOAA portion may be) actually shows that you can't discern man's influence.

The pause shows (the pause is very obvious in the RSS/UAH datasets - the ones that were not altered for dupes like yourself) that the models simply are wrong and each year, the models diverge more from the actual data (including the tampered data), but especially the RSS/UAH datasets.

Really, I have only one question - do you understand that the key isn't whether temperature is increasing a little (it appears to be), or if man is having some impact (we have to have SOME impact, even if it is very little), the important question is, "Is there any evidence that there are strong, positive feedbacks in the climate system that will cause harmful "runaway" warming?"

Honestly, I don't even think you understand what you are supposed to be supporting.

So, your graph (fraudulently adjusted though the NASA/NOAA portion may be)


Oh no! The data doesn't support my argument so it must be wrong!
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
So, your graph (fraudulently adjusted though the NASA/NOAA portion may be)

Oh no! The data doesn't support my argument so it must be wrong!

That's how the Alarmists view the data, as something to be manipulated to fit their agendas. They act contrary to the Scientific Method, which requires assumptions to be changed when they don't match reality. Instead, Alarmists fudge the data.
Garbage In -Garbage Out!

The adjustments they made to the data to try to eliminate the Pause, aren't supported by the science.

=====

Yet as mentioned many times, you don't even understand the issue at hand. You are arguing irrelevancies, because you don't even understand the basic issues.

Go back and read Wishful Lion's posts. Repeat the points he is making and start to understand that the real world evidence doesn't support the Alarmists' runaway CAGW hysteria claims.
 
Last edited:

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
  • richardscourtneyon November 9, 2015 at 1:14 am
    Neville:

    To stop your off-topic questioning I reply that opinions don’t matter when nature says the answer to your question is 0.4°C.

    Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is ~0.4°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent.

    This is indicated by the studies of Idso from surface measurements
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf


    and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

    and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf

    These findings indicate that feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be too small to discern

    because natural climate variability is much, much larger.

    Indeed, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent.

    If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).

    In other words, the increase will be indistinguishable from zero.

    Richard
 
Last edited:

WishfulLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2001
4,559
82
1
Stumblelion, you should be ashamed of yourself. You're stupid, but too dishonest to admit you're out of your league. My words are exactly this:

"So, your graph (fraudulently adjusted though the NASA/NOAA portion may be) actually shows that you can't discern man's influence."

This means the data supports my view, DESPITE the fact that fraudsters adjusted it.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,686
5,071
1
Stumblelion, you should be ashamed of yourself. You're stupid, but too dishonest to admit you're out of your league. My words are exactly this:

"So, your graph (fraudulently adjusted though the NASA/NOAA portion may be) actually shows that you can't discern man's influence."

This means the data supports my view, DESPITE the fact that fraudsters adjusted it.


Why did the NASA/NOAA scientists fake the data if it still supports your argument? I guess they aren't very smart? They could calculate how much to fake it?

You are truly delusional....
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
Why did the NASA/NOAA scientists fake the data if it still supports your argument? I guess they aren't very smart? They could calculate how much to fake it?

You are truly delusional....

You are truly a moron.

There is an all out Paid Political Propaganda Push for Paris underway.

You have already been told that

the UN IPCC acknowledged the Pause in Temps and

there have been some 60 plus (whatever the number), published studies that have focused upon The Pause.

Alarmists live on via Anti-Science Propaganda, because they know individuals like you are suckers for false headlines and their anti-science corruption.

They just wanted to make a publicity stunt attack on Mother Nature's Real World Temps, because the Real World Temps demonstrate the Climate Models are based upon bogus fantasies, that don't reflect the real world.

Their fudged data aren't supported by the Database they claimed to have used and they threw out the world's best Ocean Data. Their made up numbers are based on believing shoddy ship buckets lowered into the ocean with thermometers and other cr@ptastic disasters for Ocean Temps. A total disaster.

=======

However, as has been stated EVERY MONTH that the Pause data has been published,

the BIGGER issue is that the Models are in Runaway Extremist Mode, in flighty fantasy failure away from the Real World Data.

Alarmists can't justify their data Fudging For False Headlines. Yet, even their attempt to try to whitewash their incredible incompetence can't cover up the fact that their Made-up Models are Steadily Streaking Skyward away from reality.


Climate Models = Garbage In + Garbage Out
 
Last edited:

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,686
5,071
1
You are truly a moron.

There is an all out Paid Political Propaganda Push for Paris underway.

You have already been told that

the UN IPCC acknowledged the Pause in Temps and

there have been some 60 plus (whatever the number), published studies that have focused upon The Pause.

Alarmists live on via Anti-Science Propaganda, because they know individuals like you are suckers for false headlines and their anti-science corruption.

They just wanted to make a publicity stunt attack on Mother Nature's Real World Temps, that demonstrate the Climate Models are based upon bogus fantasies, that don't reflect the real world.

Their changes aren't supported by the Database they claimed to have used and they threw out the world's best Ocean Data, in favor of basing results made up results in favor of shoddy ship buckets with thermometers and other cr@ptastic disasters for Ocean Temps. A total disaster.

=======

However, as has been stated EVERY MONTH that the Pause data has been published, the BIGGER issue is that the Models are in Runaway Extremist Mode, in flighty fantasy failure away from the Real World Data.

They can't justify the changes they made for False Headlines, yet even their attempt to cover for their incompetence can't cover up the fact that the Models are Streaking Skyward away from reality.


Climate Models = Garbage In + Garbage Out

Oh no!

Can you please bold the important parts of your post? oh wait never mind.......
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
Oh no!

Can you please bold the important parts of your post? oh wait never mind.......

It doesn't matter in your case. You can't understand even the most basic information.

If there is a crayon font, will try to post things with it for you, even though that still won't get down to your level.

;)
 

WishfulLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2001
4,559
82
1
Rumble. They didn't fake the data for me, they faked the data for YOU. Gullible, low IQ'd YOU! These guys know that all they had to do was "erase the pause" and a rumble guy who never could understand physics would believe them because he wanted to desperately believe them. That's YOU - the guy with the worthless degree - that they knew they could fool if they just changed the trend line from 0.0C/century to 0.3C/century.

They knew that good scientists couldn't be fooled, but we represent only 1% of the population, and didn't really need to be convinced. They knew they only needed to fool you (and you were soooooo willing to be fooled).

The correct argument (my argument, and the argument of other skeptics with advance degrees in engineering and science) is that the data (including the fudged data) doesn't even come close to what the models predict. Thus, the models are wrong, and there's no evidence for CAGW.

But you keep right on believing that dem/liberal line.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,686
5,071
1
Rumble. They didn't fake the data for me, they faked the data for YOU. Gullible, low IQ'd YOU! These guys know that all they had to do was "erase the pause" and a rumble guy who never could understand physics would believe them because he wanted to desperately believe them. That's YOU - the guy with the worthless degree - that they knew they could fool if they just changed the trend line from 0.0C/century to 0.3C/century.

They knew that good scientists couldn't be fooled, but we represent only 1% of the population, and didn't really need to be convinced. They knew they only needed to fool you (and you were soooooo willing to be fooled).

The correct argument (my argument, and the argument of other skeptics with advance degrees in engineering and science) is that the data (including the fudged data) doesn't even come close to what the models predict. Thus, the models are wrong, and there's no evidence for CAGW.

But you keep right on believing that dem/liberal line.


Rumble. They didn't fake the data for me, they faked the data for YOU. Gullible, low IQ'd YOU! These guys know that all they had to do was "erase the pause" and a rumble guy who never could understand physics would believe them because he wanted to desperately believe them. That's YOU - the guy with the worthless degree - that they knew they could fool if they just changed the trend line from 0.0C/century to 0.3C/century.

Only crazy fringe whackos thing all the scientists in the world "faked" the data.

You don't have any clue what degree I hold.

They knew that good scientists couldn't be fooled, but we represent only 1% of the population, and didn't really need to be convinced. They knew they only needed to fool you (and you were soooooo willing to be fooled).


The 99% are on the take! You really believe this stuff? Sometimes you have take a look around, if 99% don't agree with you, maybe you are wrong.

he correct argument (my argument, and the argument of other skeptics with advance degrees in engineering and science) is that the data (including the fudged data) doesn't even come close to what the models predict. Thus, the models are wrong, and there's no evidence for CAGW.

So you work with climate models and understand how they work and what they model? Because from your posts it sure doesn't appear that you know much about them at all.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,686
5,071
1
It doesn't matter in your case. You can't understand even the most basic information.

If there is a crayon font, will try to post things with it for you, even though that still won't get down to your level.

;)

It doesn't matter in your case. You can't understand even the most basic information.

Oh I think I understand you pretty good. You take whatever position supports the maximum use of fossil fuels. That pretty much sums up all your posts. You ignore or disagree with anything that implicates Co2 is responsible for global warming and thus implies that we leave coal, oil and gas in the ground.
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
It doesn't matter in your case. You can't understand even the most basic information.

Oh I think I understand you pretty good. You take whatever position supports the maximum use of fossil fuels. That pretty much sums up all your posts. You ignore or disagree with anything that implicates Co2 is responsible for global warming and thus implies that we leave coal, oil and gas in the ground.

Thanks for proving my point.

You are clueless and instead of looking rationally at the science, you create false fantasies.
 

WishfulLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2001
4,559
82
1
Rumble, I don't work with models, I discretized the PDEs and programmed them. Fluid mechanics and Heat Transfer - you know - the principal fields of study that govern the climate.

Now what's that degree in?