The Pause Resumes.... Place your bets here....

[Billy_Bob]

Over at WUWT they have placed up an article stating the pause might resume around Christmas according to RSS.. But when will it officially resume?

UAH- my bet is by the September inclusion of data.. RSS will happen by Novembers data inclusion..

And the 2002 to present Cooling trend will resume by march of next year..

Cue: the magic Karl-ization of all data and upward adjustments....

Santa Pause may be coming to town… The “pause” might be back by December.

Merry Christmas... In July!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Data all points to NO STEP INCREASE from the El Niño in GAT... but were set up for a huge step down in about a year.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Over at WUWT they have placed up an article stating the pause might resume around Christmas according to RSS.. But when will it officially resume?

UAH- my bet is by the September inclusion of data.. RSS will happen by Novembers data inclusion..

And the 2002 to present Cooling trend will resume by march of next year..

Cue: the magic Karl-ization of all data and upward adjustments....

Santa Pause may be coming to town… The “pause” might be back by December.

Merry Christmas... In July!

I'll bet Barnaby's got a hand in this

 

[boedicca]

Sunspot activity has slowed dramatically. We are heading into a mini Ice Age.

Buy your used fur coats on Ebay now while they are still bargains!

 

[RollingThunder]

Meanwhile, in the real world......

‘99 Percent Chance’ 2016 Will Be Hottest Year on Record
Scientific American
May 18th, 2016

 

[Billy_Bob]

Meanwhile, in the real world......

‘99 Percent Chance’ 2016 Will Be Hottest Year on Record
Scientific American
May 18th, 2016

Only in your fantasy pea brain world.... When we remove your arbitrary adjustments 2016 doesn't even make the top 5.

 

[flacaltenn]

Over at WUWT they have placed up an article stating the pause might resume around Christmas according to RSS.. But when will it officially resume?

UAH- my bet is by the September inclusion of data.. RSS will happen by Novembers data inclusion..

And the 2002 to present Cooling trend will resume by march of next year..

Cue: the magic Karl-ization of all data and upward adjustments....

Santa Pause may be coming to town… The “pause” might be back by December.

Merry Christmas... In July!

You are a gambler. It should not matter what happens tomorrow or in 6 months. Not to Climate. I'll give ya pass because you're in Meteorology -- and you feel it's your duty.. But the statistics gave you a pause, the statistics can take it away.

Want to impress me? Give the MASTemp or the decadal rate for 2020.. On UAH or RSS...

Skepticism and dissent to exaggerations of GW should NEVER rely on a "pause". Or we become as they are with their idiotic fascination about "hottest hour in the past day" mania. It's VARIANCE on a mean with a distinct distribution for the variance. When you reach a "relative high" EVERY day stands a chance of being a "record". Does NOT mean shit to the LONG TERM projection..

 

[flacaltenn]

The Dow is now within an all-time high. How many records do you think MIGHT be set in July? Compared to last February?

It's magic... Anyone can be a Medicine man..

 

[RollingThunder]

Meanwhile, in the real world......

‘99 Percent Chance’ 2016 Will Be Hottest Year on Record
Scientific American
May 18th, 2016

Only in your fantasy pea brain world.... When we remove your arbitrary adjustments 2016 doesn't even make the top 5.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.......yeah, Boober, my "fantasy pea brain world" where all of the scientists and sane people live. Very unlike the deranged Bizarro-World where you and the other denier cult dingbats stew in your demented conspiracy theories about all of the world's scientists. Your denial of reality is once again insane and pathetic.

In the real world....

2016 is likely to be the hottest year on record
ChinaDaily USA
06-20-2016
2016 is on pace to be the hottest year on record. This past May was the warmest May month in a 137-year period, breaking global temperature records, according to a report published on June 23 by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), said a CNN report. The new data shows that May was the 13th consecutive month to have soaring global temperatures across land and sea surfaces. This is the longest and hottest streak since temperature record-keeping began in 1880, according to NOAA. Warmer conditions are being felt across areas like Alaska, Canada, Mexico, Central America, northern South America, northern Europe, Africa, Oceania, and parts of southern and eastern Asia, according to the Land & Ocean Temperature Percentiles map by NOAA. As the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide rises, so does the temperature. Carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million in May at the South Pole — the last place on the planet to hit the milestone, NOAA said. Increased carbon dioxide comes partly from burning fossil fuels, which is driving global warming, NASA has previously reported. The ongoing heat has hit areas like the Arctic pretty hard, prompting an early onset melting of critical sea ice. The same is happening for Greenland’s ice sheet and the increased temperatures are bringing less snow cover for the Northern Hemisphere too.


***

 

[Billy_Bob]

Over at WUWT they have placed up an article stating the pause might resume around Christmas according to RSS.. But when will it officially resume?

UAH- my bet is by the September inclusion of data.. RSS will happen by Novembers data inclusion..

And the 2002 to present Cooling trend will resume by march of next year..

Cue: the magic Karl-ization of all data and upward adjustments....

Santa Pause may be coming to town… The “pause” might be back by December.

Merry Christmas... In July!

You are a gambler. It should not matter what happens tomorrow or in 6 months. Not to Climate. I'll give ya pass because you're in Meteorology -- and you feel it's your duty.. But the statistics gave you a pause, the statistics can take it away.

Want to impress me? Give the MASTemp or the decadal rate for 2020.. On UAH or RSS...

Skepticism and dissent to exaggerations of GW should NEVER rely on a "pause". Or we become as they are with their idiotic fascination about "hottest hour in the past day" mania. It's VARIANCE on a mean with a distinct distribution for the variance. When you reach a "relative high" EVERY day stands a chance of being a "record". Does NOT mean shit to the LONG TERM projection..

I was poking fun at the alarmists... They live and die on the next record as proof of AGW.

The whole point is, what we are seeing and have seen is within the bounds of natural variation. Records in our very short span of modern record keeping are not really records when you look long term. Were pretty much in the low to middle span of historical earth temperatures.

Its fun to see alarmist like Rolling Blunder and Old Fraud melt down... They simply can not come to grips with reality..

 

[RollingThunder]

I was poking fun at the alarmists...

Nope, you poor retard.....you were making a fool out of yourself...again!

They live and die on the next record as proof of AGW.

Another stupid lie and bogus myth if your cult.

There is no "proof" in science, you ignorant fool.

The long term temperature trends are better evidence of the reality of global warming, one element among many pieces of evidence.....although the current long string of 'the hottest months of that name on record' amounts to strong evidence in its own right - June 2016 marks the 14th consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken—the longest such streak since global temperature records began in 1880.

IThe whole point is, what we are seeing and have seen is within the bounds of natural variation.

Complete bullshit, Boober. Th entire world scientific community agrees that the current abrupt rapid warming is far beyond the bounds of natural variation.

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
(excerpts)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill. They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous. They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent. And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough.

There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say. That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951. One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent. Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say. But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.

"Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control. George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense. "There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less. They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close." Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly. Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

IRecords in our very short span of modern record keeping are not really records when you look long term. Were pretty much in the low to middle span of historical earth temperatures.

Your ignorance of science is not an argument, numbnuts, it is an affliction.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I was poking fun at the alarmists...

Nope, you poor retard.....you were making a fool out of yourself...again!

They live and die on the next record as proof of AGW.

Another stupid lie and bogus myth if your cult.

There is no "proof" in science, you ignorant fool.

The long term temperature trends are better evidence of the reality of global warming, one element among many pieces of evidence.....although the current long string of 'the hottest months of that name on record' amounts to strong evidence in its own right - June 2016 marks the 14th consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken—the longest such streak since global temperature records began in 1880.

IThe whole point is, what we are seeing and have seen is within the bounds of natural variation.

Complete bullshit, Boober. Th entire world scientific community agrees that the current abrupt rapid warming is far beyond the bounds of natural variation.

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
(excerpts)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill. They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous. They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent. And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough.

There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say. That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951. One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent. Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say. But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.

"Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control. George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense. "There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less. They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close." Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly. Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

IRecords in our very short span of modern record keeping are not really records when you look long term. Were pretty much in the low to middle span of historical earth temperatures.

Your ignorance of science is not an argument, numbnuts, it is an affliction.

Melt down and ignoring the facts of the paleo record...Thanks for proving my point!

 

[Crick]

Have you got something comparable to the warming of the past 150 years from any point in the Holocene? Any point in the span of human culture?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Have you got something comparable to the warming of the past 150 years from any point in the Holocene? Any point in the span of human culture?

The slopes in the paleo record are equal to today's. Those slope are of 300 - 500 year spans. This means there were slopes within the 500 year spans which were more pronounced than today's.

But then you would have to admit basics statistics prove you wrong on all AGW counts and we all know that wont happen with you..

 

[Crick]

Let's see your data, dickwad.

 

[bripat9643]

Have you got something comparable to the warming of the past 150 years from any point in the Holocene? Any point in the span of human culture?

We don't know. We don't have records of the Holocene.

 

[Crick]

Then perhaps you should speak to FlaCalTenn who just posted such data in "Millions Evacuated from Floods in China and Pakistan"

And let's speak to the actual point here. We do have data - records - that indicate there has been no CO2 or temperature spike comparable to the current one at any point in the Holocene. We have records that tell us we are currently experiencing the highest CO2 levels in at least 800,000 years and most likely several million.

Your claim that we have no such data does NOT entitle you to say such spikes existed and thus the current situation is not unprecedented.

And your claimed lacking most CERTAINLY does not entitle you to say such spikes have existed in the past and thus humans cannot or did not cause this one.

The ONLY thing your claim of no records would actually entitle you to say is "we don't know what happened in the past". Period.