Current Rate of Warming Slower Than Previous Rates of Warming..

[jon_berzerk]

you should have put a **graphic content** warning label on that

to best prepare the leftards

--LOL

 

[Matted Joybeard]

This should send the alarmists into orbit... When EMPIRICAL DATA is used, our current rate of warming if far less than the one ending in 1937... The last half of the twentieth century was not uncommon or unprecedented....

The curve shows 2 major periods of cooling since 1880. Each lasted approximately a decade (1900 to 1910, and 1942 to 1952), and reached cooling rates of about -2.0 °C per century. There is a large interval of continuous warming from 1910 to 1942 (about 32 years). This reached a maximum rate of warming of about +2.8 °C per century around 1937. 1937 is the year with the highest rate of warming since the start of the GISTEMP series in 1880

This article is sure to leave a permeate mark in the CAGW agenda showing all of their dire warnings and alramisim a LIE!

OUCH.. This is going to leave a mark!

Source

Graph suggests the globe is warming, no?

Sure.. You'd have to take an integral here and there to be math certain,, but I'll give ya that..

The argument has never been over whether it's warming -- but how much and how quickly..
If the rate is 1degC/century instead of the 5degC/century that Doc Hansen told Congress in 1988 -- we've wasted a shitload of enviro hysteria on the topic.. The actual science is ALSO about HOW MUCH of the effect is due to man as opposed to well known natural cycles..

From THAT chart -- knowing that CO2 has done nothing but INCREASE fairly linearly throughout that time period -- you'd have to conclude that CO2 ALONE is not the clear forcing function in our recent temperature record..

Most all of the doomsday scare propaganda still stems from the absurd projections (now failed) that were made decades ago... Skeptics have already prevailed...

Which BTW -- is why the GWarming propaganda is getting more and more shrill as the early predictions continue to fail.. And why remediation efforts and political schemes have failed to get traction..

If you took an eyeball estimate of the linear trend in that chart -- you'd have to conclude about 1deg/century.. Which is in fact -- where we actually are. Right at the CO2 only estimate of warming without all the GWarming magic multiplliers and hocus poci and fear mongering for political advantage..

Wouldn't the rate of warming be increasing then, according to the chart and estimating a linear trend?

 

[Billy_Bob]

This should send the alarmists into orbit... When EMPIRICAL DATA is used, our current rate of warming if far less than the one ending in 1937... The last half of the twentieth century was not uncommon or unprecedented....

The curve shows 2 major periods of cooling since 1880. Each lasted approximately a decade (1900 to 1910, and 1942 to 1952), and reached cooling rates of about -2.0 °C per century. There is a large interval of continuous warming from 1910 to 1942 (about 32 years). This reached a maximum rate of warming of about +2.8 °C per century around 1937. 1937 is the year with the highest rate of warming since the start of the GISTEMP series in 1880

This article is sure to leave a permeate mark in the CAGW agenda showing all of their dire warnings and alramisim a LIE!

OUCH.. This is going to leave a mark!

Source

Graph suggests the globe is warming, no?

Sure.. You'd have to take an integral here and there to be math certain,, but I'll give ya that..

The argument has never been over whether it's warming -- but how much and how quickly..
If the rate is 1degC/century instead of the 5degC/century that Doc Hansen told Congress in 1988 -- we've wasted a shitload of enviro hysteria on the topic.. The actual science is ALSO about HOW MUCH of the effect is due to man as opposed to well known natural cycles..

From THAT chart -- knowing that CO2 has done nothing but INCREASE fairly linearly throughout that time period -- you'd have to conclude that CO2 ALONE is not the clear forcing function in our recent temperature record..

Most all of the doomsday scare propaganda still stems from the absurd projections (now failed) that were made decades ago... Skeptics have already prevailed...

Which BTW -- is why the GWarming propaganda is getting more and more shrill as the early predictions continue to fail.. And why remediation efforts and political schemes have failed to get traction..

If you took an eyeball estimate of the linear trend in that chart -- you'd have to conclude about 1deg/century.. Which is in fact -- where we actually are. Right at the CO2 only estimate of warming without all the GWarming magic multiplliers and hocus poci and fear mongering for political advantage..

Wouldn't the rate of warming be increasing then, according to the chart and estimating a linear trend?

Considering we had just exited the LIA in the early 1800's one should expect a natural rise in temp. Blaming it all on man is the ridicules part of their meme..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The current rate of warming is 1.6C per century. Very close to Hansen's 1988 prediction.

Can't get away with that lie... Your handlers haven't purged the evidence yet..

Hansen's band of merry activist zealots in 1988 -- just prior to the famous senate hearing was predicting 0.5degC/decade or 5 degC/century for the "A" scenario. Which was a modest 1.5% INCREASE in CO2.

And he was juicing the propaganda passed to the media behind the scenes in that Senate appearance. From the NY TIMES coverage of that Senate appearance.. The article has Hansen's name all over it..

Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate

Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate

Mathematical models have predicted for some years now that a buildup of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil and other gases emitted by human activities into the atmosphere would cause the earth's surface to warm by trapping infrared radiation from the sun, turning the entire earth into a kind of greenhouse.

If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections. This rise in temperature is not expected to be uniform around the globe but to be greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees, and lower at the Equator.

Now where the fuck do you think the NYTimes got that "modeling" information? At the time NASA was the home to the climate modeling.. And this is the PROPAGANDA COVER that Hansen gave to the media and politicians to JUSTIFY their anti-fossil fuel campaign. The opening shot in the this long war.. It's the Fort Sumter of the Global Weirding wars..

Hansen was well quoted by 1988 as referring to coal trains as "trains of death"... THIS is the witchdoctory that built your movement. No wonder you can't confront it rationally or intelligiently..

Blantant lying about simple stuff like this is what I WANT you to do.. Because as a sack of lying shit -- you EXCEL at it..

Too Funny;

I had to go check but sure enough the 1.6 trend line was if we stopped all CO2 output.. OMG they are getting desperate! Omitting basic facts and hoping we wont check... Excellent catch sir!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

This should send the alarmists into orbit... When EMPIRICAL DATA is used, our current rate of warming if far less than the one ending in 1937... The last half of the twentieth century was not uncommon or unprecedented....

The curve shows 2 major periods of cooling since 1880. Each lasted approximately a decade (1900 to 1910, and 1942 to 1952), and reached cooling rates of about -2.0 °C per century. There is a large interval of continuous warming from 1910 to 1942 (about 32 years). This reached a maximum rate of warming of about +2.8 °C per century around 1937. 1937 is the year with the highest rate of warming since the start of the GISTEMP series in 1880

This article is sure to leave a permeate mark in the CAGW agenda showing all of their dire warnings and alramisim a LIE!

OUCH.. This is going to leave a mark!

Source

Graph suggests the globe is warming, no?

Sure.. You'd have to take an integral here and there to be math certain,, but I'll give ya that..

The argument has never been over whether it's warming -- but how much and how quickly..
If the rate is 1degC/century instead of the 5degC/century that Doc Hansen told Congress in 1988 -- we've wasted a shitload of enviro hysteria on the topic.. The actual science is ALSO about HOW MUCH of the effect is due to man as opposed to well known natural cycles..

From THAT chart -- knowing that CO2 has done nothing but INCREASE fairly linearly throughout that time period -- you'd have to conclude that CO2 ALONE is not the clear forcing function in our recent temperature record..

Most all of the doomsday scare propaganda still stems from the absurd projections (now failed) that were made decades ago... Skeptics have already prevailed...

Which BTW -- is why the GWarming propaganda is getting more and more shrill as the early predictions continue to fail.. And why remediation efforts and political schemes have failed to get traction..

If you took an eyeball estimate of the linear trend in that chart -- you'd have to conclude about 1deg/century.. Which is in fact -- where we actually are. Right at the CO2 only estimate of warming without all the GWarming magic multiplliers and hocus poci and fear mongering for political advantage..

Wouldn't the rate of warming be increasing then, according to the chart and estimating a linear trend?

Probably would be if the warming rate was greater than 1deg/Century.. But as it is --- one good ocean El Nino cycle or a volcanic eruption can wipe the warming signature away. There are DOZENS of known natural cycles on land and ocean that are part of the way the Climate system redistributes heat. And occasionally the phases of these cycles act to change the very shape of a curve like the rate of warming.

We've only had 30 years of extensive space based monitoring of these things. It's just too early to get a handle on the delays and storage of heat that determine "global" temperature..

 

[flacaltenn]

The current rate of warming is 1.6C per century. Very close to Hansen's 1988 prediction.

Can't get away with that lie... Your handlers haven't purged the evidence yet..

Hansen's band of merry activist zealots in 1988 -- just prior to the famous senate hearing was predicting 0.5degC/decade or 5 degC/century for the "A" scenario. Which was a modest 1.5% INCREASE in CO2.

And he was juicing the propaganda passed to the media behind the scenes in that Senate appearance. From the NY TIMES coverage of that Senate appearance.. The article has Hansen's name all over it..

Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate

Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate

Mathematical models have predicted for some years now that a buildup of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil and other gases emitted by human activities into the atmosphere would cause the earth's surface to warm by trapping infrared radiation from the sun, turning the entire earth into a kind of greenhouse.

If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections. This rise in temperature is not expected to be uniform around the globe but to be greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees, and lower at the Equator.

Now where the fuck do you think the NYTimes got that "modeling" information? At the time NASA was the home to the climate modeling.. And this is the PROPAGANDA COVER that Hansen gave to the media and politicians to JUSTIFY their anti-fossil fuel campaign. The opening shot in the this long war.. It's the Fort Sumter of the Global Weirding wars..

Hansen was well quoted by 1988 as referring to coal trains as "trains of death"... THIS is the witchdoctory that built your movement. No wonder you can't confront it rationally or intelligiently..

Blantant lying about simple stuff like this is what I WANT you to do.. Because as a sack of lying shit -- you EXCEL at it..

Too Funny;

I had to go check but sure enough the 1.6 trend line was if we stopped all CO2 output.. OMG they are getting desperate! Omitting basic facts and hoping we wont check... Excellent catch sir!!!

Yep.. One of those all too frequent half lies that get the job done for the cause.
It is PERVASIVE now out of any branch of Federal Govt and supported by the media in collusion with the political goals.. Mammy either got badly punked by one of the crap sources he relies on --- or (if he/she/it) was witty enough --- might have attempted to spin that one on his/her/its own... In either case -- it's a perfect example of zealots defending crap that is indefensible..

 

[mamooth]

Hansen's band of merry activist zealots in 1988 -- just prior to the famous senate hearing was predicting 0.5degC/decade or 5 degC/century for the "A" scenario. Which was a modest 1.5% INCREASE in CO2.

And flac starts out with a faked graph. Ruh-roh. It's not looking good for flac. That's flac's first problem, going off into the unknown wilds of denierstan to get faked data. Here's the actual graph.

Second issue, the observed temp on flac's graph is a fantasy. I think flac went cherrypicking RSS again, though we can't be sure, because flac gives no source for his faked graph. The usual. Hansen's model is for surface temps, but flac compares it to tropospheric temps. Not honest at all, to do such an apples to oranges comparison.

Flac also doesn't seem to understand what the 1.5% means. He says "1.5% increase in CO2", when it actually meant a cumulative 1.5% increase in CO2 emissions every year, an entirely different thing that didn't even come close to happening. Actual CO2 emissions followed closely to Scenario B. It is absolutely unquestionable that flac is simply using the wrong scenario.

But, it keeps getting even worse for flac. CO2 wasn't the only greenhouse gas projected for each scenario. Methane and CFCs were in the mix as well, and the real world levels of those ended up way lower than those scenarios assumed. If all the GHG forcings are added up, the real world looked like Scenario C. And real world temps tracked right along with that scenario.

Dang, Hansen was good, though being that spot-on correct also required a good deal of luck.

Updates to model-data comparisons

Blantant lying about simple stuff like this is what I WANT you to do.. Because as a sack of lying shit -- you EXCEL at it...

Flac, explain why you just tried pushing such such outrageous falsehoods. Were you being deliberately dishonest, or had you merely been brainwashed into parroting really stupid cult nonsense?

Flac is, of course, free to keep deliberately using his big ol' lie and ramping up his unhinged conspiracy cult kookery. Nobody can stop him. Deniers just need to understand that their chronic reprehensible behavior is why no ethical scientist will give any of them the time of day.

 

[mamooth]

The only thing that stops me from going full commando on this leprechaun warmers

Flac, your life's purpose now is to serve as a warning to others, a demonstration of how a previously intelligent person can self-lobotomize themselves by guzzling too much of the koolaid.

is I KNOW they are picking their sources from some of the most biased and twisted backwaters of the internet.

There's that cult thing you do again, where you auto-define anything that contradicts your moron conspiracy cult as faked. It's why your type isn't taken seriously by anybody outside of the cult. If the evidence supported you, you wouldn't have to deny all the evidence. You do have to deny all the evidence. 'Nuff said.

Sometimes I'm just too gentle with these victims of propaganda..

Flac, don't hold back on our account. After all, you've already told us how you want climate scientists executed by hanging. Unleash all of your fearsome commando rage! That will really convince people that you're serious about science, instead of being just a hysterical and somewhat homicidal conspiracy cultist.

And by the way, kissing Billy's ass isn't helping your image. If you're following the normal devolution path of the hardcore cultist, you'll soon join him as a full-blown greenhouse theory denier.

 

[flacaltenn]

You should have stopped while you were just mildly embarrassed.. Whatever source you are using is spinning you like a top..

The "how well did Hansen do" is EXACTLY THE SAME as the one I posted.. They just cut off the years after 2015. Because for the jerks who massage Hansen graphs -- the ORIGINALS were waaaay too embarassing when extended out to 2020 and beyond.. YOUR source cut off the projection...

Secondly --- are you asserting that man-made emissions have not INCREASED (cumulatively or otherwise) over the period from 1988 to 2015 ??? Stop the presses.. All that 3rd world industrialization failed to add 1.5% per year?

Than I'd say our little spat over science is truly over and it's a great day for planet.. Because you have no cause for alarm...

But you're wrong. And you're butt-hurt right now.. And you CONTINUE to wallow in whatever muck you pull this from and then back up by half.. You STILL contend that Hansen only predicted 1.6deg/century?? Of course you don't. You went from column C which is Homestyle Bean Curd and eggroll to Column B which is Moo Shu Pork and Egg Drop soup... When actually --- your correct choice should have been closer to Column A all along..

If you knew anything about the topic..

 

[flacaltenn]

There's a certain pleasure in quoting the NYTimes and PNAS to a jerk warmer...

Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions

Abstract
CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning and industrial processes have been accelerating at a global scale, with their growth rate increasing from 1.1% y−1 for 1990–1999 to >3% y−1 for 2000–2004. The emissions growth rate since 2000 was greater than for the most fossil-fuel intensive of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emissions scenarios developed in the late 1990s. Global emissions growth since 2000 was driven by a cessation or reversal of earlier declining trends in the energy intensity of gross domestic product (GDP) (energy/GDP) and the carbon intensity of energy (emissions/energy), coupled with continuing increases in population and per-capita GDP. Nearly constant or slightly increasing trends in the carbon intensity of energy have been recently observed in both developed and developing regions. No region is decarbonizing its energy supply.

You should concentrate on what's left of your cred and not worry so much about who's ass I'm kissing.. I support EVERYONE who is making an effort to debate and absorb this stuff..

 

[flacaltenn]

Very interesting.. I donned my full biohazard gear and took a peek over at skepshitscience..
They credit your 1st graph to ----------- -------------- wait for it ----------------

Gavin Schmidt provides a comparison between all three scenarios and actual global surface temperature changes in Figure 3.

So THAT'S who truncated the original charts to avoid embarrassment. And who is Gavin Schmidt? The activist political appointee selected to take over the helm at NASA GISS when James Hansen retired.. Aint that sweet?

Want to hear what James Hansen's boss said about the early primitive Climate models that Hansen et al were pushing? Of course ya don't. Because he accused the researchers of leaping to conclusions and coaching those models with bias...

 

[flacaltenn]

Just like Hansen was lying to the NYTimes in 1988 about Northern Hemisphere being 20 deg warmer between 2025 and 2050 --- His replacement is now spinning those crap projections that started this mess.

Got a great debate for ya to watch between ole Gavin and some warmers.. One of the VERY FEW times any Climate scientists attempted to defend the "consensus".. Even Gavin admits that the warmers had their asses whooped in that debate. Interesting to watch. And YET --- Gavin Schmidt still managed to get a political appointment to be the chief witchdoctor at GISS..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Just like Hansen was lying to the NYTimes in 1988 about Northern Hemisphere being 20 deg warmer between 2025 and 2050 --- His replacement is now spinning those crap projections that started this mess.

Got a great debate for ya to watch between ole Gavin and some warmers.. One of the VERY FEW times any Climate scientists attempted to defend the "consensus".. Even Gavin admits that the warmers had their asses whooped in that debate. Interesting to watch. And YET --- Gavin Schmidt still managed to get a political appointment to be the chief witchdoctor at GISS..

IT is amazing how these people can make totally false and fear-mongering predictions and when they fall flat they are not held to account... unfreaking believable these alarmist drones are..

 

[Crick]

Just like Hansen was lying to the NYTimes in 1988 about Northern Hemisphere being 20 deg warmer between 2025 and 2050 --- His replacement is now spinning those crap projections that started this mess.

Got a great debate for ya to watch between ole Gavin and some warmers.. One of the VERY FEW times any Climate scientists attempted to defend the "consensus".. Even Gavin admits that the warmers had their asses whooped in that debate. Interesting to watch. And YET --- Gavin Schmidt still managed to get a political appointment to be the chief witchdoctor at GISS..

Where is the link to this debate?

 

[mamooth]

I think I'll stop responding to Flac.

First, it just upsets him. A lot.

And second, there's no point. His stuff is just gibberish, peppered with a lot of insults.

 

[Old Rocks]

Just like Hansen was lying to the NYTimes in 1988 about Northern Hemisphere being 20 deg warmer between 2025 and 2050 --- His replacement is now spinning those crap projections that started this mess.

Got a great debate for ya to watch between ole Gavin and some warmers.. One of the VERY FEW times any Climate scientists attempted to defend the "consensus".. Even Gavin admits that the warmers had their asses whooped in that debate. Interesting to watch. And YET --- Gavin Schmidt still managed to get a political appointment to be the chief witchdoctor at GISS..

Link. Or this can be regarded as just another lie.

 

[IanC]

There was an IQ squared debate over global warming that Gavin was in. The skeptics won convincingly according to the audience vote.

 

[mamooth]

"The audience vote".

A self-selected internet audience, composed mainly of denier cult acolytes who were directed to spam-vote by their denier leaders.

But then, if you fail completely in the realm of science, I guess rigged internet polls are all you have.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just like Hansen was lying to the NYTimes in 1988 about Northern Hemisphere being 20 deg warmer between 2025 and 2050 --- His replacement is now spinning those crap projections that started this mess.

Got a great debate for ya to watch between ole Gavin and some warmers.. One of the VERY FEW times any Climate scientists attempted to defend the "consensus".. Even Gavin admits that the warmers had their asses whooped in that debate. Interesting to watch. And YET --- Gavin Schmidt still managed to get a political appointment to be the chief witchdoctor at GISS..

Where is the link to this debate?

1) You will FORGET I ever gave it to you in week and forget you ever watched it.. (Fact)

2) Do NOT muck up an existing thread discussing it.. If it MOVES you (doubtful) -- start a thread to discuss it.

3) You should look up the comments of Gavin Schmidt about this debate and read his concession to the warmers.

Global Warming is Not a Crisis

 

[flacaltenn]

Wow.. I guess all these warmers never thought of LOOKING for anykind of debate on the topic.. NPR even took this audio live and discussed for weeks. Tell me OldiRocks isn't an NPR fan..


BTW O-Rocks ---- I NEVER LIE about serious shit... I COULD very rarely occasionally be slightly mistaken..
But you're not gonna catch me lying for a cause..


PS -- I'm belly laughing over the snide comments about the audience that was GREATLY swayed by this debate.. As tho you three lost mouseketeers are a much more qualified and elite audience than the folks that get dressed up to attend Intelligience Squared public policy debates... Funny crap right there..