The planet is no longer warming

[Old Rocks]

Watts Up With That?

The planet is no longer warming

February 6, 2019

Guest Post By Javier

Selected Excerpt:

According to the IPCC at least 77%, but more probably 120%, and up to 200% of the observed warming, has been caused by GHGs.

The rate of CO2 change (the atmospheric increase in CO2 every year) has been increasing almost linearly since 1959 and is currently ~2.4 ppm/year.

If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly. The warming rate can only decrease (decelerate) if CO2 is increasing more slowly and can only turn into cooling (negative rate) if CO2 is decreasing.

But the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations.

LINK

===================

Now watch the befuddled warmists here make clear they misunderstand the post as written since they are so wedded to the CO2 bogeyman so deeply that they will never understand it.

You don't understand the article either. He didn't say there is no warming at all, he is saying the RATE of temperature change, has changed into the negative region in late 2016. The last time it was like that was in 1970, which then went up the peak year of 1994 in the article, it has been falling ever since.

Javier in the comment section states that he thinks year 2019 will end up warmer than 2018, but will cool down again next year:

"Javier
February 6, 2019 at 2:29 pm Edit

2019 might be warmer than 2018 given the positive Niño index and atmospheric situation, but I expect 2020-22 to be cooler than 2018 on account of low solar activity, East QBO and La Niña."

Go read the article carefully, otherwise you will join the only other confirmed science illiterate warmist Mamooth in not understanding the article, the conclusions are obvious, don't embarrass yourself in tilting against the claims in it.

Look at this graph, then tell me we are in a cooling period;

 

[Sunsettommy]

Watts Up With That?

The planet is no longer warming

February 6, 2019

Guest Post By Javier

Selected Excerpt:

According to the IPCC at least 77%, but more probably 120%, and up to 200% of the observed warming, has been caused by GHGs.

The rate of CO2 change (the atmospheric increase in CO2 every year) has been increasing almost linearly since 1959 and is currently ~2.4 ppm/year.

If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly. The warming rate can only decrease (decelerate) if CO2 is increasing more slowly and can only turn into cooling (negative rate) if CO2 is decreasing.

But the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations.

LINK

===================

Now watch the befuddled warmists here make clear they misunderstand the post as written since they are so wedded to the CO2 bogeyman so deeply that they will never understand it.

You don't understand the article either. He didn't say there is no warming at all, he is saying the RATE of temperature change, has changed into the negative region in late 2016. The last time it was like that was in 1970, which then went up the peak year of 1994 in the article, it has been falling ever since.

Javier in the comment section states that he thinks year 2019 will end up warmer than 2018, but will cool down again next year:

"Javier
February 6, 2019 at 2:29 pm Edit

2019 might be warmer than 2018 given the positive Niño index and atmospheric situation, but I expect 2020-22 to be cooler than 2018 on account of low solar activity, East QBO and La Niña."

Go read the article carefully, otherwise you will join the only other confirmed science illiterate warmist Mamooth in not understanding the article, the conclusions are obvious, don't embarrass yourself in tilting against the claims in it.

Look at this graph, then tell me we are in a cooling period;

I see that you have nothing but ignorance to sell here. You have completely misunderstood me and the article, which is why you are going in circles, asking dumb questions.

 

[SSDD]

Watts Up With That?

The planet is no longer warming

February 6, 2019

Guest Post By Javier

Selected Excerpt:

According to the IPCC at least 77%, but more probably 120%, and up to 200% of the observed warming, has been caused by GHGs.

The rate of CO2 change (the atmospheric increase in CO2 every year) has been increasing almost linearly since 1959 and is currently ~2.4 ppm/year.

If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly. The warming rate can only decrease (decelerate) if CO2 is increasing more slowly and can only turn into cooling (negative rate) if CO2 is decreasing.

But the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations.

LINK

===================

Now watch the befuddled warmists here make clear they misunderstand the post as written since they are so wedded to the CO2 bogeyman so deeply that they will never understand it.

You don't understand the article either. He didn't say there is no warming at all, he is saying the RATE of temperature change, has changed into the negative region in late 2016. The last time it was like that was in 1970, which then went up the peak year of 1994 in the article, it has been falling ever since.

Javier in the comment section states that he thinks year 2019 will end up warmer than 2018, but will cool down again next year:

"Javier
February 6, 2019 at 2:29 pm Edit

2019 might be warmer than 2018 given the positive Niño index and atmospheric situation, but I expect 2020-22 to be cooler than 2018 on account of low solar activity, East QBO and La Niña."

Go read the article carefully, otherwise you will join the only other confirmed science illiterate warmist Mamooth in not understanding the article, the conclusions are obvious, don't embarrass yourself in tilting against the claims in it.

Look at this graph, then tell me we are in a cooling period;

I see that you have nothing but ignorance to sell here. You have completely misunderstood me and the article, which is why you are going in circles, asking dumb questions.

Ever notice that as they get more shrill about climate change, the length of the data set they use gets shorter and shorter. This one only goes back to 1979...

They know that if they show a long term trend, their hysterical handwaving would be nothing more than comic relief.

 

[xband]

I can only hope that Global Warming gets to Ohio.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Now it has become apparent no warmists will ever post a cogent counter to the posted article,

Why did you lie by claiming that the IPCC predicted an increasing rate of warming?

Why are you still openly lying about that?

Why are you relying on flagrant cherrypicks to calculate the rate of warming, and then lying about doing that?

Why are you lying about the measured rate of warming? It's 0.19C/decade.

Why did you expect not to get busted for such stupid lies?

You don't understand the article either. He didn't say there is no warming at all, he is saying the RATE of temperature change, has changed into the negative region in late 2016. The last time it was like that was in 1970, which then went up the peak year of 1994 in the article, it has been falling ever since.

So like we keep saying, he's using flagrantly dishonest cherrypicking.

2019 might be warmer than 2018 given the positive Niño index and atmospheric situation, but I expect 2020-22 to be cooler than 2018 on account of low solar activity, East QBO and La Niña."

Your side has been predicting cooling nonstop for the past 40 years. It never happens. Given your perfect track record of failure, why should anyone think that this latest prediction is any less stupid?

Go read the article carefully, otherwise you will join the only other confirmed science illiterate warmist Mamooth in not understanding the article, the conclusions are obvious, don't embarrass yourself in tilting against the claims in it.

We have read it, and ripped it shreds. In response, you've pissed yourself and run away crying.

Don't worry. Nobody expects a hardcore denier cult fanatic not to be a simpering intellectual coward, so you're not disappointing anyone. You're even earning brownie points with your cult, by demonstrating your willingness to endure humiliation on behalf of the cult.

Everything you blabbed about is completely devoid of evidence, just spittle is all you offer. I posted evidence many times, have ZERO counter evidence come from you in return, not ONCE have you showed where this Logarithmic function is being brought up the author or in the article, you haven't quoted at all!

You post ZERO evidence of lies.

You never made a case of a cherrypick, never respond to my case of valid 60 years of data being used, which was fully explained to you. You avoided that completely, since you fear my next level reply on it.

I have not been making a case of cooling trend for 40 years at all (Your hyperbole), I have been accepting the warming trend since 1979, said so many times to your face. You are the liar here, since many skeptcs have repeatedly acknowledge the warming trend since at least 1979.

You haven't refuted anything, since you have abundantly made it clear you haven't read the article, and badly misunderstood what it is about, your repeated absurd "cherrypick" is proof of that.

Your delusions are well known, it is possible that you are posting your messages from an insane asylum, since your tactless debate and evidence free, data deficient prose are so common, that you HAVE to be mentally deficient.

 

[mamooth]

not ONCE have you showed where this Logarithmic function is being brought up the author or in the article,

And that's the point. Not bringing it up is fraud. When the topic is how CO2 drives climate, you have to talk about how CO2 drives climate, which is logarithmically. Not doing so is fraud-by-omission.

You post ZERO evidence of lies.

Your article lied about the rate of warming, which is +0.19C/decade over the last two decades.

Your article lied massively by claiming the IPCC predicted an accelerating rate of warming.

You never made a case of a cherrypick,

Nick Stokes explained it better. The fundamental cherrypick was in the use of a second order polynomial fit, a statistical technique which was guaranteed to "show" recent cooling, given the time frame chosen/cherrypicked. In such polynomials, if the front end curves down, the back end has to curve down to match. Since the past was cooler, the front end curved down, forcing the back end to curve down.

If you had taken that 2nd order polynomial fit deeper into the past, before the warming started, the front end would not have curved down, so the back end wouldn't have curved down either. That's why no competent statistician uses such a technique, because the output of it depends very much on how big of a slice you grab. If you had grabbed a time frame that went deeper into the past, your present "cooling" would have vanished completely. And that's kind of the definition of cherrypicking, picking a data set that gives the output you want, and then pretending that more complete data sets don't exist.

I have not been making a case of cooling trend for 40 years at all (Your hyperbole),

I didn't say you were. I'll write that off as your lack of reading comprehension.

I have been accepting the warming trend since 1979, said so many times to your face. You are the liar here, since many skeptcs have repeatedly acknowledge the warming trend since at least 1979.

Yes, you've always accepted warming after the fact. Then you always follow that acceptance of past warming with new predictions of strong future cooling, which never happens.

Anyways, I hope I've dumbed this down enough now so that you understand the basis of the cherrypicking fallacy you're using. If you need it dumbed down more, let me know. I make no guarantees that I can dumb things down to a level that you and SSDD can understand, but I'll try.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You did it again, you offer ZERO evidence to back your assertions. You have offered NOTHING in the way of data, evidence or quote on your stupid cherry pick claims, they are stupid as hell!

Meanwhile it appears you did look into the link a little, but not enough since Stokes doesn't reply well to Javier over it, he is trying to fool you warmists with his misleading bullcrap:

Mamooth writes,

"Nick Stokes explained it better. The fundamental cherrypick was in the use of a second order polynomial fit, a statistical technique which was guaranteed to "show" recent cooling, given the time frame chosen/cherrypicked. In such polynomials, if the front end curves down, the back end has to curve down to match. Since the past was cooler, the front end curved down, forcing the back end to curve down.

If you had taken that 2nd order polynomial fit deeper into the past, before the warming started, the front end would not have curved down, so the back end wouldn't have curved down either. That's why no competent statistician uses such a technique, because the output of it depends very much on how big of a slice you grab. If you had grabbed a time frame that went deeper into the past, your present "cooling" would have vanished completely. And that's kind of the definition of cherrypicking, picking a data set that gives the output you want, and then pretending that more complete data sets don't exist."

===

LOL, here is what he actually stated (You didn't quote him, which is understandable since you lied about it),

"Nick Stokes
February 6, 2019 at 3:27 pm


Well, it is pretty primitive curve fitting. Fig 4 sums it up. The differences are so noisy that they don’t come close to fitting in the plot, but a neat parabola is fitted, which just happens to dip below zero in 2018, hence the headline.

But the shape of the parabola is determined by all the data since 1959, not just recent years. It has just three parameters determined by all that data. Since 1959-1975 was cool, that pulls one end of the parabola down, and so the other end has to come down too. It’s little to do with recent warming."

then Javiers reply,

Javier
February 6, 2019 at 4:01 pm


"Sorry, Nick.

That argument falls flat on its face when a 3rd order polynomial fit is used, that forces another inflection point in the data and should not result in a parabola.
https://i.imgur.com/khxdRuj.png

The result is an extraordinarily similar curve that indicates a 3rd order polynomial fit is not an improvement and therefore a 2nd order polynomial fit should be used.

I know it is hard for you to accept that the planet is no longer warming, and that all these years you have been at the wrong side of the debate. “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”


He DESTROYED Nicks stupid claim, by showing what it looks using the "3rd order polynomial fit" set up in the chart above

Nicks stupid reply,

"Nick Stokes
February 6, 2019 at 5:12 pm


"Javier,
No, the result depends on what happens at the other end. If you start at 1959, your analysis says that “warming has stopped”. The quadratic fitted trend drops to -0.00053 °C/year in Dec 2018.

But if you start in 1969, with the same data, the quadratic fitted trend is 0.00018 °C/year in Dec 2018. No change in recent circumstances. Warming restored. The result just changes because of what happened in the 1960’s."

see the goalpost move, a clear indication he knows he has nothing against Javier's superior math skills, the bullshitter propose to throw away TEN YEARS of temperature data!



Javier cleans up with this haymaker.

"Javier
February 6, 2019 at 6:33 pm


What a discovery, Nick. The trend is affected by when it starts and ends.

The problem for you is that since the quadratic fit identifies 1994 as the peak, we can run a linear trend from 1994 to better identify when it cuts the X axis and the warming turns into cooling. With the linear trend since 1994 the planet is cooling since early 2016.

Any way you look at it your thesis is a failure and picking dates won’t change that."

=========================================


You make clear at how easily you fall for bullcrap, Nick is a long known bullshitter, which is why you eat it up, because you have no science literacy skills at all.

 

[SSDD]

You make clear at how easily you fall for bullcrap, Nick is a long known bullshitter, which is why you eat it up, because you have no science literacy skills at all.

Stokes is an alarmist, and of the same political persuasion as the hairball...those are her requisites for trust...the actual science is irrelevant to her.....they hold a religious belief...and their faith is strong.

 

[mamooth]

LOL, here is what he actually stated

I dumbed down his version of it. As I expected, you lack the intellect to even understand my dumbed-down version.

This is kind of hopeless. It's like trying to debate a baboon. You and SSDD are both sterling examples of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, people who are much too stupid to ever understand how stupid they are.

That argument falls flat on its face when a 3rd order polynomial fit is used, that forces another inflection point in the data and should not result in a parabola.

No competent statistician or scientist uses any kind of polynomial fit for everything, because they go completely wrong around the endpoints. Nature doesn't make polynomials. It makes noisy trends, which is why something like a least squares approximation is almost always more appropriate.

The result is an extraordinarily similar curve that indicates a 3rd order polynomial fit is not an improvement and therefore a 2nd order polynomial fit should be used.

That's not right. That's not even wrong. That's just babbling nonsense.

The crap you're peddling here is discussed in grad-level statistics classes as an example of what not to do. Sadly, essentially no denier in the world has that kind of academic training, so you're all hilariously ignorant of such things.

I know it is hard for you to accept that the planet is no longer warming,[QUOTE and that all these years you have been at the wrong side of the debate. “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Says the kook who is actually trying to tell us that this shows strong cooling:

You can't make this stuff up. The warming is very obviously strong and ongoing. You're telling everyone to believe your BS statistical tricks over our lying eyes. Good luck with that.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Mamooth empty replies, not a single quote, data or evidence to contest post one with, just a lot of huffing and puffing with childish useless insults:

I dumbed down his version of it. As I expected, you lack the intellect to even understand my dumbed-down version.

This is kind of hopeless. It's like trying to debate a baboon. You and SSDD are both sterling examples of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, people who are much too stupid to ever understand how stupid they are.

No debate points offered here.

again,

No competent statistician or scientist uses any kind of polynomial fit for everything, because they go completely wrong around the endpoints. Nature doesn't make polynomials. It makes noisy trends, which is why something like a least squares approximation is almost always more appropriate.

Still nothing but words, No data, evidence or quotes to offer.

Just a lot of NOTHING!

Meanwhile Nick who continually argue end points, NEVER disputed the use of Polynomial functions:

"Nick Stokes
February 6, 2019 at 3:27 pm Edit

Well, it is pretty primitive curve fitting. Fig 4 sums it up. The differences are so noisy that they don’t come close to fitting in the plot, but a neat parabola is fitted, which just happens to dip below zero in 2018, hence the headline.

But the shape of the parabola is determined by all the data since 1959, not just recent years. It has just three parameters determined by all that data. Since 1959-1975 was cool, that pulls one end of the parabola down, and so the other end has to come down too. It’s little to do with recent warming."

Here is the chart this goofball whined about, it was 100% based on HadCRUT temperature data (C/Year). This is how screwed up Nick is.

Figure 4. Zoom of the HadCRUT 4 rate of temperature change (°C/year). The best fit polynomial (black line) shows the long-term evolution in the rate of temperature change.

To which Javier then went to a THIRD order polynomial fit

Javier destroyed his "noisy data" argument so deeply that Nick then dropped that baloney to advocate lopping off ten years of data for NO decent reason at all. Javier has made clear from the start WHY he used the 1959-2019 time frame, to which YOU and that jackass Nick ignored completely:

Nick never made any sense since the use of 60 years of temperature data, which was the same number of years of CO2 data, is WHY Javier made that decision, something Nick who ignores that reality over and over, making hilarious replies in turn.

From Wikipedia about Polynomial

"In mathematics, a polynomial is an expression consisting of variables (also called indeterminates) and coefficients, that involves only the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and non-negative integer exponents of variables. An example of a polynomial of a single indeterminate, x, is x2 − 4x + 7. An example in three variables is x3 + 2xyz2 − yz + 1."

Now look at the chart above, see the specific Polynomial equation?



again Mamooth drones on,

That's not right. That's not even wrong. That's just babbling nonsense.

The crap you're peddling here is discussed in grad-level statistics classes as an example of what not to do. Sadly, essentially no denier in the world has that kind of academic training, so you're all hilariously ignorant of such things.

Still nothing but words, No data, evidence or quotes to offer.

then he lies, and post an unsourced chart that is junk, since it removed about 95% of the cooling trend from the 1940's to the 1970's. A well known cooling trend that was much cooler than his junk chart shows.

Says the kook who is actually trying to tell us that this shows strong cooling:

You are a bald faced liar, since Javier posted this statement about cooling:

The global warming deceleration since 1994, and cooling since 2017 are incompatible with the hypothesis that the increase in CO2 is driving global warming. Other factors must be more important than CO2.

He talks of a cooling since 2017, that was it.

You are so pathetic and possibly the STUPIDEST warmist in the forum.

 

[SSDD]

You can't make this stuff up. The warming is very obviously strong and ongoing. You're telling everyone to believe your BS statistical tricks over our lying eyes. Good luck with that.

Actually you can make it up....your chart proves it... All that need be done is heavily manipulate, homogenize, and infill the available data and viola...you have what appears to be strong global warming....

Never mind the fact that if you look at regional temperature histories from across the globe, you see a couple of places warming, slightly more cooling, and most aren't doing much of anything...so yes, a myth of strong warming can be made up and every time one of you cultists post your chart, you prove it.

By the way...a degree in 150 years, even if it were true could hardly be called strong....the earth has experienced much more significant changes in much shorter times numerous times over just the past 10,000 years.

 

[ReinyDays]

One degree in 150 years ... give or take a degree ... yawn ... just an hour of morning sun will do that ...

 

[SSDD]

One degree in 150 years ... give or take a degree ... yawn ... just an hour of morning sun will do that ...

I liked the point you made some threads back.....where you pointed out that if you drive south for an hour and a half or so, you can see what climate change will look like in your area in 100 years....