2014 On Track To Be Hottest Year On Record

[RollingThunder]

Nope!!!

Idiotic, anti-science, mindless denial of reality in its purest and most insane form. Way to go, JustCrazy, you win the "biggest retard of the day" award.

To my science, no, to your psuedoscience Damn Yes. CAN YOU HEAR ME? It doesn't matter how many times you post your lies, I and others will continue to take a dump on it. Your links are mostly all lies. THAT AIN'T GOING TO CHANGE HERE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

I post the scientific facts about AGW/CC from the most reputable sources in the world scientific community to debunk the lies, pseudo-science and propaganda the little retarded stooges for the fossil fuel industry like you try to push. It is your lies that have been debunked here, JustCrazy, as any objective observer would agree. Your ideologically motivated denial of the scientific facts about AGW is just very pathetic as well as very insane.

 

[flacaltenn]

If the "deniers" are wrong about global warming being nothing more than a leftwing scam, then we're well down the road to self destruction and things are getting ready to break off--and there's nothing we can do.

Get a grip Wabbit -- It's changed a whole 0.4degC in your lifetime (if that). That's 1/3 of the change between your weather today and yesterday... Here --- the skeptics will warn you in ample time to panic..

 

[flacaltenn]

The Earth has continued to get hotter at an accelerating rate as CO2 levels have continued to rise. This added heat energy is distributed among all of the parts of the Earth from a number of feet under the ground and thousands of feet deep in the oceans to high in the atmosphere, with the large majority of the energy going into the biggest heat sink on the planet, the oceans. This is not new. Over 90% of ALL of the sun's energy, not just the extra AGW portion, has always been going into the oceans. That seems like 'news' to you denialists because you all seem so very ignorant about basic science, as well as the science involved in climate change studies.

See that "big font" quote above? Absolutely conclusive evidence that NONE of ANYTHING you're posted has even sunk into your tiny brain..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nope!!!

Idiotic, anti-science, mindless denial of reality in its purest and most insane form. Way to go, JustCrazy, you win the "biggest retard of the day" award.

To my science, no, to your psuedoscience Damn Yes. CAN YOU HEAR ME? It doesn't matter how many times you post your lies, I and others will continue to take a dump on it. Your links are mostly all lies. THAT AIN'T GOING TO CHANGE HERE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

I post the scientific facts about AGW/CC from the most reputable sources in the world scientific community to debunk the lies, pseudo-science and propaganda the little retarded stooges for the fossil fuel industry like you try to push. It is your lies that have been debunked here, JustCrazy, as any objective observer would agree. Your ideologically motivated denial of the scientific facts about AGW is just very pathetic as well as very insane.

a flawed model isn't a scientific fact

 

[jc456]

Nope!!!

Idiotic, anti-science, mindless denial of reality in its purest and most insane form. Way to go, JustCrazy, you win the "biggest retard of the day" award.

To my science, no, to your psuedoscience Damn Yes. CAN YOU HEAR ME? It doesn't matter how many times you post your lies, I and others will continue to take a dump on it. Your links are mostly all lies. THAT AIN'T GOING TO CHANGE HERE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

I post the scientific facts about AGW/CC from the most reputable sources in the world scientific community to debunk the lies, pseudo-science and propaganda the little retarded stooges for the fossil fuel industry like you try to push. It is your lies that have been debunked here, JustCrazy, as any objective observer would agree. Your ideologically motivated denial of the scientific facts about AGW is just very pathetic as well as very insane.

Dude, Again, I don't care! I don't believe your psuedoscience. You can post it all you want, it doesn't matter, the planet is not agreeing with you as crusaderfrank has already pointed out. So, for the facts that you can't seem to understand, there is a pause while CO2 increased. That is something you can't disprove, I have your own IPCC ar5 report to use against any come back. So friend, you LoSe!!!! Go ahead and repeat it again, I'll just get on and do what I've been doing, You don't seem to learn.Hah!!!!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Do I bring out the Null Hypothesis?

But AGW admirably disproves the null hypothesis. Where did you get the loony idea that it hasn't? Remember, your ignorance of the science doesn't meant the science is wrong.

Normal humans, when they see how the whole planet says they're wrong, are willing to entertain the concept that yes, they probably are wrong. In contrast, most deniers manifest large amounts of paranoia and narcissism, so they'll declare they can't be wrong, ever, and that clearly the whole world is conspiring against them.

Lets do this one more time... for the morons who cant read or do math..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

The Null Hypothesis describes the natural state being the correct one even if there is potential for an alternative state. AGW states that increasing CO2 causes warming. However, the Null Hypothesis states that empirical evidence trumps theroy or hypothesis.

The alarmists can not stop natural variation so that natural cycle must continue. All that remains is then suspect in it origins. There isn't anything left over.... Thus the forcing can be stated at 0.0 Deg C for an increase of 130ppm.

 

[RollingThunder]

The Earth has continued to get hotter at an accelerating rate as CO2 levels have continued to rise. This added heat energy is distributed among all of the parts of the Earth from a number of feet under the ground and thousands of feet deep in the oceans to high in the atmosphere, with the large majority of the energy going into the biggest heat sink on the planet, the oceans. This is not new. Over 90% of ALL of the sun's energy, not just the extra AGW portion, has always been going into the oceans. That seems like 'news' to you denialists because you all seem so very ignorant about basic science, as well as the science involved in climate change studies.

See that "big font" quote above? Absolutely conclusive evidence that NONE of ANYTHING you're posted has even sunk into your tiny brain..

What I said is true and scientifically affirmed. Thank God none of the bogus bullshit and fraudulent pseudo-science you've posted has ever managed to sink its insanity into my well informed brain. Too bad your tiny brain is so full of misinformation, propaganda and lies.

The 'pause' in global warming is not even a thing
All signs point to an acceleration of human-caused climate change. So why all this talk of a pause?
The Guardian
Graham Readfearn
11 February 2014

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Earth has continued to get hotter at an accelerating rate as CO2 levels have continued to rise. This added heat energy is distributed among all of the parts of the Earth from a number of feet under the ground and thousands of feet deep in the oceans to high in the atmosphere, with the large majority of the energy going into the biggest heat sink on the planet, the oceans. This is not new. Over 90% of ALL of the sun's energy, not just the extra AGW portion, has always been going into the oceans. That seems like 'news' to you denialists because you all seem so very ignorant about basic science, as well as the science involved in climate change studies.

See that "big font" quote above? Absolutely conclusive evidence that NONE of ANYTHING you're posted has even sunk into your tiny brain..

What I said is true and scientifically affirmed. Thank God none of the bogus bullshit and fraudulent pseudo-science you've posted has ever managed to sink its insanity into my well informed brain. Too bad your tiny brain is so full of misinformation, propaganda and lies.

The 'pause' in global warming is not even a thing
All signs point to an acceleration of human-caused climate change. So why all this talk of a pause?
The Guardian
Graham Readfearn
11 February 2014

"scientifically affirmed" by predictive MODELS which have no basis in reality....

 

[flacaltenn]

Uh - Oh.. Big Font guy is in deep denial here. Even questions the head council of his IPCC church elders..

Job is done. The Cub Scouts can mop up the rest of the resisters..

 

[flacaltenn]

The Earth has continued to get hotter at an accelerating rate as CO2 levels have continued to rise. This added heat energy is distributed among all of the parts of the Earth from a number of feet under the ground and thousands of feet deep in the oceans to high in the atmosphere, with the large majority of the energy going into the biggest heat sink on the planet, the oceans. This is not new. Over 90% of ALL of the sun's energy, not just the extra AGW portion, has always been going into the oceans. That seems like 'news' to you denialists because you all seem so very ignorant about basic science, as well as the science involved in climate change studies.

See that "big font" quote above? Absolutely conclusive evidence that NONE of ANYTHING you're posted has even sunk into your tiny brain..

What I said is true and scientifically affirmed. Thank God none of the bogus bullshit and fraudulent pseudo-science you've posted has ever managed to sink its insanity into my well informed brain. Too bad your tiny brain is so full of misinformation, propaganda and lies.

The 'pause' in global

The Earth has continued to get hotter at an accelerating rate as CO2 levels have continued to rise. This added heat energy is distributed among all of the parts of the Earth from a number of feet under the ground and thousands of feet deep in the oceans to high in the atmosphere, with the large majority of the energy going into the biggest heat sink on the planet, the oceans. This is not new. Over 90% of ALL of the sun's energy, not just the extra AGW portion, has always been going into the oceans. That seems like 'news' to you denialists because you all seem so very ignorant about basic science, as well as the science involved in climate change studies.

See that "big font" quote above? Absolutely conclusive evidence that NONE of ANYTHING you're posted has even sunk into your tiny brain..

What I said is true and scientifically affirmed. Thank God none of the bogus bullshit and fraudulent pseudo-science you've posted has ever managed to sink its insanity into my well informed brain. Too bad your tiny brain is so full of misinformation, propaganda and lies.

The 'pause' in global warming is not even a thing
All signs point to an acceleration of human-caused climate change. So why all this talk of a pause?
The Guardian
Graham Readfearn
11 February 2014

"scientifically affirmed" by predictive MODELS which have no basis in reality....

warming is not even a thing
All signs point to an acceleration of human-caused climate change. So why all this talk of a pause?
The Guardian
Graham Readfearn
11 February 2014

"scientifically affirmed" by predictive MODELS which have no basis in reality....

Hard to tell what the poor deluded zealot is relying on.. The article is quite a laugh. A variation on the Ocean Ate My Warming, but THIS TIME, the culprit is wind.. And WIND moves the heat from the surface to 700 meters deep.. No explanation of how the heat rate hasn't changed in 60 yrs, but SUDDENLY pulls heat deep into the ocean.. Kinda of fucking impossibility there -- yet to be explained..

Not gonna pull another muscle over this... Especially since TinkerBelle believes it's ACCELERATING.. Now that deserves a chuckle...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hard to tell what the poor deluded zealot is relying on.. The article is quite a laugh. A variation on the Ocean Ate My Warming, but THIS TIME, the culprit is wind.. And WIND moves the heat from the surface to 700 meters deep.. No explanation of how the heat rate hasn't changed in 60 yrs, but SUDDENLY pulls heat deep into the ocean.. Kinda of fucking impossibility there -- yet to be explained..

Not gonna pull another muscle over this... Especially since TinkerBelle believes it's ACCELERATING.. Now that deserves a chuckle...

He must of found a new law of thermal dynamics that the rest of us are not privy to...

 

[flacaltenn]

Do I bring out the Null Hypothesis?

But AGW admirably disproves the null hypothesis. Where did you get the loony idea that it hasn't? Remember, your ignorance of the science doesn't meant the science is wrong.

Normal humans, when they see how the whole planet says they're wrong, are willing to entertain the concept that yes, they probably are wrong. In contrast, most deniers manifest large amounts of paranoia and narcissism, so they'll declare they can't be wrong, ever, and that clearly the whole world is conspiring against them.

Lets do this one more time... for the morons who cant read or do math..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

The Null Hypothesis describes the natural state being the correct one even if there is potential for an alternative state. AGW states that increasing CO2 causes warming. However, the Null Hypothesis states that empirical evidence trumps theroy or hypothesis.

The alarmists can not stop natural variation so that natural cycle must continue. All that remains is then suspect in it origins. There isn't anything left over.... Thus the forcing can be stated at 0.0 Deg C for an increase of 130ppm.

There is a small problem here.. Although your numbers are reliable, the deal is that to EXPECT a linear rise in temp. at the surface, you require an EXPONENTIAL rise in CO2.. That comes from the other analysis of the CO2 forcing function that you've posted. So --- unless I curve-fit that documented rise in CO2 -- I can't RULE OUT that it could produce a linear rise in temp. Even over BOTH of those time segments.

There are bigger issues with expecting a complex system like the Climate to produce an output that EXACTLY MATCHES any one of it's input forcing functions. Should NEVER be anticipated. And that comes from Systems Theory that imposes integrals and delays on any system that has transfer delays and storage. The whole curve-matching thingy is Sesame Street level science.. We KNOW for instance that delays of 10 to 100 years are postulated for thermal equilibrium. And that MASSIVE storage elements are present. No reason to be looking for inputs that look like the thermal inputs to the Earth's climate system. None at all..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's another model!!

 

[mamooth]

Deniers illustrate the problems with the self-esteem cult. They've been told all their lives what special little unique snowflakes they are, and that all opinions have equal validity, and that trying is only the important thing. Then they run into science, where only results matter, and they can't understand why their special little snowflake opinions aren't taken seriously, and why they don't get a participation trophy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Deniers illustrate the problems with the self-esteem cult. They've been told all their lives what special little unique snowflakes they are, and that all opinions have equal validity, and that trying is only the important thing. Then they run into science, where only results matter, and they can't understand why their special little snowflake opinions aren't taken seriously, and why they don't get a participation trophy.

Then they run into science, where only results matter,

I'd like to see your cost/benefits analysis that justifies your desire to spend tens of trillions on unreliable energy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...and then we added the temperature increase from the Deep Pacific Ocean plus the square of the sum of: the deep interior of Mount Pinatubo plus Mt St Helens plus Mont Blanc pen company

 

[Billy_Bob]

Do I bring out the Null Hypothesis?

But AGW admirably disproves the null hypothesis. Where did you get the loony idea that it hasn't? Remember, your ignorance of the science doesn't meant the science is wrong.

Normal humans, when they see how the whole planet says they're wrong, are willing to entertain the concept that yes, they probably are wrong. In contrast, most deniers manifest large amounts of paranoia and narcissism, so they'll declare they can't be wrong, ever, and that clearly the whole world is conspiring against them.

Lets do this one more time... for the morons who cant read or do math..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

The Null Hypothesis describes the natural state being the correct one even if there is potential for an alternative state. AGW states that increasing CO2 causes warming. However, the Null Hypothesis states that empirical evidence trumps theroy or hypothesis.

The alarmists can not stop natural variation so that natural cycle must continue. All that remains is then suspect in it origins. There isn't anything left over.... Thus the forcing can be stated at 0.0 Deg C for an increase of 130ppm.

There is a small problem here.. Although your numbers are reliable, the deal is that to EXPECT a linear rise in temp. at the surface, you require an EXPONENTIAL rise in CO2.. That comes from the other analysis of the CO2 forcing function that you've posted. So --- unless I curve-fit that documented rise in CO2 -- I can't RULE OUT that it could produce a linear rise in temp. Even over BOTH of those time segments.

There are bigger issues with expecting a complex system like the Climate to produce an output that EXACTLY MATCHES any one of it's input forcing functions. Should NEVER be anticipated. And that comes from Systems Theory that imposes integrals and delays on any system that has transfer delays and storage. The whole curve-matching thingy is Sesame Street level science.. We KNOW for instance that delays of 10 to 100 years are postulated for thermal equilibrium. And that MASSIVE storage elements are present. No reason to be looking for inputs that look like the thermal inputs to the Earth's climate system. None at all..

My point, while being simplistic, was to eviscerate the hypothesis put in place by our alarmist friends. The IPCC's theroy explicitly looks for direct causation which is NOT PRESENT. The rise from 270 to 400 should have resulted in .37% of the expected doubling rate of the original 280. This should have resulted in 2.5 deg C rise over 60 years... That also did not occur..

We simply do not have a full understanding of our planets systems. Without that full understanding pointing at one item and saying 'that did it' is totally ludicrous.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Deniers illustrate the problems with the self-esteem cult. They've been told all their lives what special little unique snowflakes they are, and that all opinions have equal validity, and that trying is only the important thing. Then they run into science, where only results matter, and they can't understand why their special little snowflake opinions aren't taken seriously, and why they don't get a participation trophy.

The liberal participation trophy..means absolutely nothing... just like most liberal degrees... they mean nothing because like the trophy they mean squat!

 

[Crick]

I'd like to see your cost/benefits analysis that justifies your desire to spend tens of trillions on unreliable energy.

Here you go

Fifth Assessment Report - Impacts Adaptation and Vulnerability

IPCC WGIII Fifth Assessment Report - Mitigation of Climate Change 2014

 

[Billy_Bob]

...and then we added the temperature increase from the Deep Pacific Ocean plus the square of the sum of: the deep interior of Mount Pinatubo plus Mt St Helens plus Mont Blanc pen company

Are you and Trenbreth diving buddies? (/sarc)