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

GOLDBANGER

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2013
1,515
1,851
1
We are still in a cold period in this interglacial period.

http://[IMG]
']
']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."[/URL]

This is the closest to an answer to a question I always ask in one of these debates which is, "Before we can even discuss this topic we need to know what the IDEAL temperature of the Earth actually is?"
Which begs another question, "Who is to say what that temperature is?"
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,909
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.

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.

rumble - Your false fantasies are typical of liberals. When you lose on the issues, libs make up false attacks on the messengers.

That's not science.

Supporting the Scientific Method is critical, against the false and anti-science hysteria from Alarmists.

Digest this rumble.

From the report...

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).​
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,689
5,475
1
rumble - Your false fantasies are typical of liberals. When you lose on the issues, libs make up false attacks on the messengers.

That's not science.

Supporting the Scientific Method is critical, against the false and anti-science hysteria from Alarmists.

Digest this rumble.

From the report...

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).​

Earths surface is warming and it caused by man burning fossil fuels.

2014%20Berkeley%20Earth%20global%20surface%20temperature.png
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,909
1
Earths surface is warming and it caused by man burning fossil fuels.

2014%20Berkeley%20Earth%20global%20surface%20temperature.png

A) Your start date is cherry picked to the end of a 350 year Little Ice Age period, that is Not correlated with CO2. Whoops!

B) All the warming from 1850 to 1950 is BEFORE the CO2 rise. So it is NOT linked to man. CAGW theory doesn't work during these periods, just like it doesn't work in the 21st century, with 18 years, 9 months of a zero trend in global temps.

Climate Model outputs are unvalidated nonsense. Garbage In - Garbage Out

C) Even if you allow for the fudged data, the cherry picked start date and the NON-corresponding CO2 rise...

The graph runs against Alarmists' CAGW hysteria claims.

A rise from -.3 to +.7 is only 1 degree in about 165 years. That's a rate of only about .5 degree in 85 years, which is the time between now and the end of the century.

.5 degrees is essentially meaningless on a global scale. That runs against the CAGW hysteria.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,689
5,475
1
A) Your start date is cherry picked to the end of a 350 year Little Ice Age period, that is Not correlated with CO2. Whoops!

B) All the warming from 1850 to 1950 is BEFORE the CO2 rise. So it is NOT linked to man. CAGW theory doesn't work during these periods, just like it doesn't work in the 21st century, with 18 years, 9 months of a zero trend in global temps.

Climate Model outputs are unvalidated nonsense. Garbage In - Garbage Out

C) Even if you allow for the fudged data, the cherry picked start date and the NON-corresponding CO2 rise...

The graph runs against Alarmists' CAGW hysteria claims.

A rise from -.3 to +.7 is only 1 degree in about 165 years. That's a rate of only about .5 degree in 85 years, which is the time between now and the end of the century.

.5 degrees is essentially meaningless on a global scale. That runs against the CAGW hysteria.


Your start date is cherry picked to the end of a 350 year Little Ice Age period, that is Not correlated with CO2. Whoops!


The start date is determined by the start of the data. That is as far back as the surface temperature records go. Whoops!

Just go back to your copy/paste posts of Lord monckeys 18 year "pause" in global warming to see good example of cherry picking dates. The satellite data starts in the mid to late 1970's and yet he starts his chart in 1997 right after a huge spike in lower troposphere temperature. Hmmmmm, I wonder why he would do that?

Developing......
 

WishfulLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2001
4,559
82
1
Dumlion - I'm now conducting an experiment to see if someone with a 110 IQ can understand a simple algorithm. Yes, you guessed it, you're the experiment.

Here is the Monckton algorithm - Start with today's date. Go back one month. See if a line with a zero slope or negative slope is found, record that date. Go back in time another month. Repeat.

Monckton has found that the LAST date where a negative or zero slope appears is somewhere around 1996. This means that the El Nino driven peak of 1998 is in the graph. But it's also the case that there is a zero line if we go back to only 2002, 13 years without any warming.

Again, it really isn't possible for this algorithm to cherry pick - it simply determines the longest period backward, starting from today, that a zero slope fits the data.

Now, what is the result of my experiment? Can you teach someone with a 110 IQ to understand a simple algorithm?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,689
5,475
1
Dumlion - I'm now conducting an experiment to see if someone with a 110 IQ can understand a simple algorithm. Yes, you guessed it, you're the experiment.

Here is the Monckton algorithm - Start with today's date. Go back one month. See if a line with a zero slope or negative slope is found, record that date. Go back in time another month. Repeat.

Monckton has found that the LAST date where a negative or zero slope appears is somewhere around 1996. This means that the El Nino driven peak of 1998 is in the graph. But it's also the case that there is a zero line if we go back to only 2002, 13 years without any warming.

Again, it really isn't possible for this algorithm to cherry pick - it simply determines the longest period backward, starting from today, that a zero slope fits the data.

Now, what is the result of my experiment? Can you teach someone with a 110 IQ to understand a simple algorithm?

Lord Monckey never gets old. How are his predictions for a communist world government going?


Monckton Believes Climate Treaty Will "Impose A Communist World Government On The World." During an October 2009 presentation in Minnesota, Moncton stated:

MONCKTON: How many of you think that the word election or democracy or vote or ballot occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn't appear once. So at last the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who founded it left within a year because they'd captured it, now the apotheosis is at hand.

They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He's going to sign. He'll sign anything. He's a Nobel Peace laureate -- of course he'll sign. And the trouble is this: If that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution. And you can't resile from that treaty unless you get the agreement of all the other states' parties.

Anthony Watts / 59 mins ago August 4, 2015

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

In the carefully-planned build-up to the Paris “climate” conference whose true purpose is to establish an unelected and all-powerful global “governing body” (they’re no longer brazenly calling it a “government” as they did in the failed Copenhagen draft of 2009, but one can imagine what they’re thinking), the three longest-standing terrestrial temperature records – HadCRUt4, GISS, and NCDC – have all decided to throw caution to the winds.

In fact, I expect that we’ll hear a great deal less about climate change once the world government is safely installed. As the divergence between prediction and reality continues to widen, the new dictators will not want anyone to be reminded of the great lie by which they took supreme and – for the first time – global power.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,689
5,475
1
Dumlion - I'm now conducting an experiment to see if someone with a 110 IQ can understand a simple algorithm. Yes, you guessed it, you're the experiment.

Here is the Monckton algorithm - Start with today's date. Go back one month. See if a line with a zero slope or negative slope is found, record that date. Go back in time another month. Repeat.

Monckton has found that the LAST date where a negative or zero slope appears is somewhere around 1996. This means that the El Nino driven peak of 1998 is in the graph. But it's also the case that there is a zero line if we go back to only 2002, 13 years without any warming.

Again, it really isn't possible for this algorithm to cherry pick - it simply determines the longest period backward, starting from today, that a zero slope fits the data.

Now, what is the result of my experiment? Can you teach someone with a 110 IQ to understand a simple algorithm?

You can always find a zero trend in a set of noisy data if you pick your end and start dates. What does that tell you of the long term trend? Nothing. You don't need a high IQ to know why his "analysis" is bogus.

original.jpg
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,909
1
Lord Monckey never gets old. How are his predictions for a communist world government going?


Monckton Believes Climate Treaty Will "Impose A Communist World Government On The World." During an October 2009 presentation in Minnesota, Moncton stated:

MONCKTON: How many of you think that the word election or democracy or vote or ballot occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn't appear once. So at last the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who founded it left within a year because they'd captured it, now the apotheosis is at hand.

They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He's going to sign. He'll sign anything. He's a Nobel Peace laureate -- of course he'll sign. And the trouble is this: If that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution. And you can't resile from that treaty unless you get the agreement of all the other states' parties.

Anthony Watts / 59 mins ago August 4, 2015

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

In the carefully-planned build-up to the Paris “climate” conference whose true purpose is to establish an unelected and all-powerful global “governing body” (they’re no longer brazenly calling it a “government” as they did in the failed Copenhagen draft of 2009, but one can imagine what they’re thinking), the three longest-standing terrestrial temperature records – HadCRUt4, GISS, and NCDC – have all decided to throw caution to the winds.

In fact, I expect that we’ll hear a great deal less about climate change once the world government is safely installed. As the divergence between prediction and reality continues to widen, the new dictators will not want anyone to be reminded of the great lie by which they took supreme and – for the first time – global power.

The funny part is you have never read the exact wording in the document, which supports the information you are posting. Whoops!

When the exact wording was unmasked in the document, it went viral. President Obama was set to attend the event and to swoop in with huge fanfare to approve the document. But, when the actual wording was released just before the conference, all of a sudden Obama's plans changed.

It's no surprise you are bone-headedly ignorant on the issue. If you had actually gone to the document and done a word search you'd find the passages and could read them for yourself. Some references gave the exact sections in the document to see the wording directly.

It was all posted here multiple times prior to the event, with all of the sections listed and all of the exact wording posted. No surprise you continue to post out of petty, illogical zealotry.

It is hilarious watching the ignorant puppets like rumble continue to stumble and bumble out of ignorance and blind zealotry.

Funny Stuff...
 
Last edited:

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,909
1
You can always find a zero trend in a set of noisy data if you pick your end and start dates. What does that tell you of the long term trend? Nothing. You don't need a high IQ to know why his "analysis" is bogus.

original.jpg

rumble - You continue to be incapable of understanding the basics.

A) The technique used is approved for use by the UN IPCC. Whoops!

B) You continue to ignore that by Alarmists own standard, a flat trend for 15 years was a huge problem for their climate model assumptions.

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.


Whoops! Rumble continues to bumble and stumble out of ignorance and blind zealotry.

Funny Stuff...
 
Last edited:

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,689
5,475
1
rumble - You continue to be incapable of understanding the basics.

A) The technique used is approved for use by the UN IPCC. Whoops!

B) You continue to ignore that by Alarmists own standard, a flat trend for 15 years was a huge problem for their climate model assumptions.

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.


Whoops! Rumble continues to bumble and stumble out of ignorance and blind zealotry.

Funny Stuff...

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.


Not at all. Your time period is far to short.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,689
5,475
1
The funny part is you have never read the exact wording in the document, which supports the information you are posting. Whoops!

When the exact wording was unmasked in the document, it went viral. President Obama was set to attend the event and to swoop in with huge fanfare to approve the document. But, when the actual wording was released just before the conference, all of a sudden Obama's plans changed.

It's no surprise you are bone-headedly ignorant on the issue. If you had actually gone to the document and done a word search you'd find the passages and could read them for yourself. Some references gave the exact sections in the document to see the wording directly.

It was all posted here multiple times prior to the event, with all of the sections listed and all of the exact wording posted. No surprise you continue to post out of petty, illogical zealotry.

It is hilarious watching the ignorant puppets like rumble continue to stumble and bumble out of ignorance and blind zealotry.

Funny Stuff...


Oh my gosh! Do you mean that lord Mocnkey and yourself saved us from having " a communist world government imposed on the world"! Wow, you two should write a book and then make movie! You aren't lord monckey are you?

Fascinating stuff......
 

WishfulLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2001
4,559
82
1
Rumble, I just want to see what an intellectual lightweight you are. I know it is some garbage degree. Philosophy, English Literature, something that is basically worthless.
 

WishfulLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2001
4,559
82
1
I don't believe you. Computer science majors are logical and can understand physics. You're so ignorant in those areas that you really just cannot be.
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,909
1
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.


Not at all. Your time period is far to short.

LOL - You post like a silly goose.

It's NOAA's standards. They are stating the Alarmist position, by the Climate Cabal's own standards.

It's hilarious that you can't even acknowledge the Alarmist claims.
 

WishfulLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2001
4,559
82
1
Rumble is basically insane. He knows nothing himself. You use alarmists' own standard (15 years without warming), and the same guy who admits he knows nothing about CAGW but "trusts the 97% of scientists" says, "Not at all. Your time period is too short"

Computer science major, yeah right.
 

Latest posts