Climate models go cold

[skookerasbil]

Yet the glaciers and ice caps continue to melt. And, in spite of the strongest La Nina in forty years, the best the anamoly could do was -0.1. In fact, the lowest point of the running mean for 2011 looks like it will be higher than any high point prior to 1998.

You never will get this will you. The earth doesn't care if it climate is a nice warm place for humans to live in.

Hot, Warm, Cold.

And a silly ass like you cannot fathom that it is us that is creating this change. And the danger is not that the planet does not care about the conditons that the human race has to face, but rather, that the human race is short sighted enough that it does not care what our descendents face. And, judging from what is going on right now, that is the case.

no proof s0n!!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

No proof that you have ever had a brain or will ever have one.

 

[konradv]

Yet the glaciers and ice caps continue to melt. And, in spite of the strongest La Nina in forty years, the best the anamoly could do was -0.1. In fact, the lowest point of the running mean for 2011 looks like it will be higher than any high point prior to 1998.

You never will get this will you. The earth doesn't care if it climate is a nice warm place for humans to live in.

Hot, Warm, Cold.

True, but irrelevant. If it was just the earth fine, we'd have to cope. But what happens if GHGs continue to rise? How could one expect anything but warming? Where are the gases coming from, if not from man?

 

[konradv]

Yet the glaciers and ice caps continue to melt. And, in spite of the strongest La Nina in forty years, the best the anamoly could do was -0.1. In fact, the lowest point of the running mean for 2011 looks like it will be higher than any high point prior to 1998.

The glaciers have been melting for some 14,000 years now. They have melted back nearly 2,000 miles in some places. Again, what exactly do you find distressing, or unusual in the fact that nature's trend for the past 14,000 years continues; and what the hell do you believe we can do about it?

But I thought we were heading towards a new Ice Age? If glaciers are still melting, what caused the change? What made scientists change their minds?

 

[konradv]

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

I've lost track of how many times I've caught CF posting this deliberate deception on other threads and the only change he's made is to add the ellipsis. But it does serve to show the complete dishonesty of CONS, so thank you CF.

First of all, CF gives no link because he knows that if you see the whole quote you will see his obvious attempt at deception by taking the much less than half quote completely out of context. The context of the quote was not that there was no global warming during the period, but that the time period was just a tiny bit too short for the MEASURED WARMING of +.12C to be "statistically-significant!" So the warming was statistically-significant but the time period wasn't!!!!!

Of course, this exposing your premeditated lie will not stop you from posting the same lie in another trhread, after all, you ARE a CON$ervative.

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming


Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

the whole answer is what we like to call hedging. "quite close to significance level" is sci-speak for not out of the margin of error.

My issues with the whole global temperature debate are as follows:

The various methods of measuring temperature, as well as the various methods use to "smooth" the data.
The fact we only have reliable temperature data (limited earlier on) for the past 200 years or so. Everything before that is inferred, or from less accurate direct measurement methods.
The complexity of the models, as the OP's post discusses. There are simply too many "ins and outs" for me to trust these models to the level required to radically change our society.
The short period we are discussing as the problem. Even if we were influencing the climate natural variations could have such an effect to drown out any changes we make.

And yet the sketics/deniers keep bringing up the MWP. I believe that was more than 200 years ago! Seems you trampled on their main argument.

 

[martybegan]

I've lost track of how many times I've caught CF posting this deliberate deception on other threads and the only change he's made is to add the ellipsis. But it does serve to show the complete dishonesty of CONS, so thank you CF.

First of all, CF gives no link because he knows that if you see the whole quote you will see his obvious attempt at deception by taking the much less than half quote completely out of context. The context of the quote was not that there was no global warming during the period, but that the time period was just a tiny bit too short for the MEASURED WARMING of +.12C to be "statistically-significant!" So the warming was statistically-significant but the time period wasn't!!!!!

Of course, this exposing your premeditated lie will not stop you from posting the same lie in another trhread, after all, you ARE a CON$ervative.

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming


Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

the whole answer is what we like to call hedging. "quite close to significance level" is sci-speak for not out of the margin of error.

My issues with the whole global temperature debate are as follows:

The various methods of measuring temperature, as well as the various methods use to "smooth" the data.
The fact we only have reliable temperature data (limited earlier on) for the past 200 years or so. Everything before that is inferred, or from less accurate direct measurement methods.
The complexity of the models, as the OP's post discusses. There are simply too many "ins and outs" for me to trust these models to the level required to radically change our society.
The short period we are discussing as the problem. Even if we were influencing the climate natural variations could have such an effect to drown out any changes we make.

You may like to call it hedging, but that does not make it so. And it is "sci-speak" for exactly what it says, longer periods of time are more significant.

My issues with the deniers "debate" is if the deniers really have the problems you point out, then why do they lie about the global temps being level since 2001, like the link the OP used when they have been rising or the deliberately misleading way they quoted Jones in an earlier post, and why YOU seem to have no issue with that?!!! To me that kind of deception says the deniers know the facts are not on their side so they have to at least create doubt by any means possible!!!

I dont concern myself with how others debate the issue, unless they debate directly with me. And to be honest, both sides have people who simplify the argument. Hell you had idiots trying to say global warming made the tsunami in japan worse that it was.

The fact is that the topics involved in the earths climate as complex enough to require a decent scientific background to understand beyond a basic level. Both sides are required to simplify thier points to reach the broader masses to prove thier position.

Or do I not see global warming adherents going apeshit every time a heat wave hits an area?

To me both sides have issues. yes, AGC skeptics can sometimes spout unscientifc reasons for opposing it, but that is countered by the almost religous zeal some AGC supporters show when confronted with data or studies that go against thier held beliefs. Skeptics are almost treated as heretics in some circles, something we havent seen when it comes to science since Gallieo.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yet the glaciers and ice caps continue to melt. And, in spite of the strongest La Nina in forty years, the best the anamoly could do was -0.1. In fact, the lowest point of the running mean for 2011 looks like it will be higher than any high point prior to 1998.

You never will get this will you. The earth doesn't care if it climate is a nice warm place for humans to live in.

Hot, Warm, Cold.

And a silly ass like you cannot fathom that it is us that is creating this change. And the danger is not that the planet does not care about the conditons that the human race has to face, but rather, that the human race is short sighted enough that it does not care what our descendents face. And, judging from what is going on right now, that is the case.

Yet, you still can't point to one single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows how this happens.

 

[konradv]

You never will get this will you. The earth doesn't care if it climate is a nice warm place for humans to live in.

Hot, Warm, Cold.

And a silly ass like you cannot fathom that it is us that is creating this change. And the danger is not that the planet does not care about the conditons that the human race has to face, but rather, that the human race is short sighted enough that it does not care what our descendents face. And, judging from what is going on right now, that is the case.

Yet, you still can't point to one single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows how this happens.

So you say, but since you don't have a clue how science works, your opinion is basically worthless.

 

[westwall]

From your link:

A better question is why are deniers such pathological liars?

Below is the satellite data collected by deniers Spencer and Christy at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Notice the decade from 2001 to 2010 is [FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]+.14°C, not level, and that's even after the deniers changed their standard to lower the anomalies by .1[/FONT][FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]°[/FONT][FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]C!!!!!!!![/FONT]

[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica][FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]UAH MSU [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica][FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]TAKE NOTE: From Update 13 Sep 2010 *************************

As an alert, we will be generating anomalies when the December data have been processed to be based on the 30-year mean annual cycle of 1981-2010 to match the 30-year normal time frame of many meteorology anomalies. This will replace the older reference annual cycle of 20-years (1979-1998).[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica][FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]From Update 8 Dec 2010 ************************* [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica][FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]Preliminary runs show that the new mean annual cycle will be about 0.1 C warmer each month for the global averages, meaning all monthly anomalies will appear to decrease by about 0.1 when the new 30-year base period is used (see below).

... End update[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]Temperature Variation From Average:
Lower Troposphere:
Global:
[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]March 2011: -0.10 °C[/FONT]
Northern Hemisphere: -0.07 °C
Southern Hemisphere: -0.13 °C[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]Peak recorded anomaly:
February, 1998: +0.66 °C
Current relative to peak recorded: -0.76 °C [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]DECADAL TREND:
Global: +0.14 °C
Northern Hemisphere: +0.20 °C
Southern Hemisphere: +0.07 °C [/FONT]

Seems that the area with the best temperature recording capability disagrees with that assesment. Even the warmists have to admit the US has seen no warming.

A look at mid tropospheric temps vs the lower level temps reveals that globally, the atmosphere is more unstable because of the deep level cooling that has taken place! Its that simple. The cooling in the low levels has not yet caught up to what is going on aloft, and because of that, the way to balance that out is in the form of more atmospheric fights.

And there we see the deniers move the goalposts once their lies are exposed.

The OP's link was talking about GLOBAL temps and how SATELLITES read nearly the whole globe WITHOUT BIAS, and now suddenly it's the US and not the globe that has seen no warming, and only that US data is accurate because the US has the best GROUND station capabilities.

And as I predicted way back when deniers Christy and Spencer were cooking the lower troposphere satellite data by using the wrong sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift, that as soon as the lower troposphere data no longer supported their global cooling claims, the deniers would move away from using the lower troposphere to the mid and/or upper troposphere.

The rest of your post is a feeble attempt to divert the thread. FAIL!

Look at the first link nimrod. Only one level is warming, the others are cooling.....the ones closest to the ground. The point about the US not warming is telling. Don't you think it odd that the country that has the best temp recording ability is showing no warming? How is it the only places that show warming are those areas with little ability to record temps? In other words the only places that are warming are those where there are no thermometers.

 

[westwall]

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

I've lost track of how many times I've caught CF posting this deliberate deception on other threads and the only change he's made is to add the ellipsis. But it does serve to show the complete dishonesty of CONS, so thank you CF.

First of all, CF gives no link because he knows that if you see the whole quote you will see his obvious attempt at deception by taking the much less than half quote completely out of context. The context of the quote was not that there was no global warming during the period, but that the time period was just a tiny bit too short for the MEASURED WARMING of +.12C to be "statistically-significant!" So the warming was statistically-significant but the time period wasn't!!!!!

Of course, this exposing your premeditated lie will not stop you from posting the same lie in another trhread, after all, you ARE a CON$ervative.

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming


Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

ONLY JUST Means NO idiot!

 

[westwall]

Yet the glaciers and ice caps continue to melt. And, in spite of the strongest La Nina in forty years, the best the anamoly could do was -0.1. In fact, the lowest point of the running mean for 2011 looks like it will be higher than any high point prior to 1998.

You never will get this will you. The earth doesn't care if it climate is a nice warm place for humans to live in.

Hot, Warm, Cold.

And a silly ass like you cannot fathom that it is us that is creating this change. And the danger is not that the planet does not care about the conditons that the human race has to face, but rather, that the human race is short sighted enough that it does not care what our descendents face. And, judging from what is going on right now, that is the case.

Our descendents have faced far worse and thrived because of it. Where you see fear and dread, progressives see opportunity and a means to better the human race. You have no plan other than to take us back to a bronze age economy with all the attendant death and misery.

Life is about change. It's called EVOLUTION or don't you believe in evolution? Evolution happens because populations become stressed in some way and so must adapt to overcome that stress. You jackasses have no plan other then to attempt and control that which is uncontrollable.

And the fact that a few very greedy pricks get to become extraordinarily wealthy on the backs of the poor is OK with you because that will just hasten the death of the poor, who you don't give a spit about. They are an inconvenience to you and the fact that environementalism has killed at least 60 million people worldwide in the last 50 years is just the beginning for pricks like you.

You are a fraud of the most base level. Take your hypocritical prostheletyzing religiuos cult ass and jump in a lake. It will be better for the planet....you said so.

 

[westwall]

Yet the glaciers and ice caps continue to melt. And, in spite of the strongest La Nina in forty years, the best the anamoly could do was -0.1. In fact, the lowest point of the running mean for 2011 looks like it will be higher than any high point prior to 1998.

You never will get this will you. The earth doesn't care if it climate is a nice warm place for humans to live in.

Hot, Warm, Cold.

True, but irrelevant. If it was just the earth fine, we'd have to cope. But what happens if GHGs continue to rise? How could one expect anything but warming? Where are the gases coming from, if not from man?

Who cares. When CO2 levels were 20 times higher the temps were only 10 to fifteen degrees warmer. Oh yeah the planet thrived. All life did well. Well there were a couple of forams that died out but that is most probably due to local conditions. The rest of the biosphere saw rapid diversification and life ran rampant.

 

[westwall]

I've lost track of how many times I've caught CF posting this deliberate deception on other threads and the only change he's made is to add the ellipsis. But it does serve to show the complete dishonesty of CONS, so thank you CF.

First of all, CF gives no link because he knows that if you see the whole quote you will see his obvious attempt at deception by taking the much less than half quote completely out of context. The context of the quote was not that there was no global warming during the period, but that the time period was just a tiny bit too short for the MEASURED WARMING of +.12C to be "statistically-significant!" So the warming was statistically-significant but the time period wasn't!!!!!

Of course, this exposing your premeditated lie will not stop you from posting the same lie in another trhread, after all, you ARE a CON$ervative.

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming


Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

the whole answer is what we like to call hedging. "quite close to significance level" is sci-speak for not out of the margin of error.

My issues with the whole global temperature debate are as follows:

The various methods of measuring temperature, as well as the various methods use to "smooth" the data.
The fact we only have reliable temperature data (limited earlier on) for the past 200 years or so. Everything before that is inferred, or from less accurate direct measurement methods.
The complexity of the models, as the OP's post discusses. There are simply too many "ins and outs" for me to trust these models to the level required to radically change our society.
The short period we are discussing as the problem. Even if we were influencing the climate natural variations could have such an effect to drown out any changes we make.

And yet the sketics/deniers keep bringing up the MWP. I believe that was more than 200 years ago! Seems you trampled on their main argument.

No the MWP was warmer then now. What was the cause of that warming? Did SUV's get transported back in time? If not then what caused the warming back then? Here's a clue....the same thing that caused the warming back then is causing it now....and it's not man.

 

[westwall]

And a silly ass like you cannot fathom that it is us that is creating this change. And the danger is not that the planet does not care about the conditons that the human race has to face, but rather, that the human race is short sighted enough that it does not care what our descendents face. And, judging from what is going on right now, that is the case.

Yet, you still can't point to one single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows how this happens.

So you say, but since you don't have a clue how science works, your opinion is basically worthless.

The fact is konrad that you are the most scientifically illiterate person on this board. My soon to be 5 year old daughter knows more about the physical world then you ever will..... and that is sad.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And a silly ass like you cannot fathom that it is us that is creating this change. And the danger is not that the planet does not care about the conditons that the human race has to face, but rather, that the human race is short sighted enough that it does not care what our descendents face. And, judging from what is going on right now, that is the case.

Yet, you still can't point to one single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows how this happens.

So you say, but since you don't have a clue how science works, your opinion is basically worthless.

Science is done in a laboratory which is why you Warmers look at the Lab like Dracula staring at a garlic laced, holy water dipped wooden stake at sunrise.

 

[konradv]

Yet, you still can't point to one single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows how this happens.

So you say, but since you don't have a clue how science works, your opinion is basically worthless.

Science is done in a laboratory which is why you Warmers look at the Lab like Dracula staring at a garlic laced, holy water dipped wooden stake at sunrise.

Science can be done anywhere. You've once again proven your ignorance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you say, but since you don't have a clue how science works, your opinion is basically worthless.

Science is done in a laboratory which is why you Warmers look at the Lab like Dracula staring at a garlic laced, holy water dipped wooden stake at sunrise.

Science can be done anywhere. You've once again proven your ignorance.

You mean science can be done like a Game Show?

It's that time again!

Time for everyones' game of "feel good, almost but not quite science...."

Wheel

Of

Climate

Change!

 

[konradv]

Science is done in a laboratory which is why you Warmers look at the Lab like Dracula staring at a garlic laced, holy water dipped wooden stake at sunrise.

Science can be done anywhere. You've once again proven your ignorance.

You mean science can be done like a Game Show?

It's that time again!

Time for everyones' game of "feel good, almost but not quite science...."

Wheel

Of

Climate

Change!

Ahhhh.... the skeptics' "What BS Are We Going to Push Today" Show? NO, I mean REAL scientists.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Science can be done anywhere. You've once again proven your ignorance.

You mean science can be done like a Game Show?

It's that time again!

Time for everyones' game of "feel good, almost but not quite science...."

Wheel

Of

Climate

Change!

Ahhhh.... the skeptics' "What BS Are We Going to Push Today" Show? NO, I mean REAL scientists.

Wheel of Climate Change is real science?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you say, but since you don't have a clue how science works, your opinion is basically worthless.

Science is done in a laboratory which is why you Warmers look at the Lab like Dracula staring at a garlic laced, holy water dipped wooden stake at sunrise.

Science can be done anywhere. You've once again proven your ignorance.

Phrenology is science? Palmistry? Astrology?