Cause of Pause in Global Warming

[Billy_Bob]

Only when Spencer lies about them.

HotWhopper Roy Spencer s latest deceit and deception

This must be the fifth time I've posted a link to this article. Not one of you has attempted a single word of rebuttal yet you all keep posting Spencer's lies.

Very, very few models predicted the hiatus, so you would think it wasn't necessary for Spencer to do what he did, but there you go.

I have often pondered starting a thread on Hotwhopprer's criticism. every time I do I find it hard to simplify the case to a few graphs and a clear statement that will be easily understood.

I will certainly respond to your restatement, in your own words, of Sou's tirade against Spencer.


here is the original graph by Christy, Spencer's boss.

it is clear and concise, with no noise to distract from his point that climate models are running too hot. is 1979 a 'cherrypicked' year to start? perhaps, but any year will show the same example of higher trends for the models compared to the trend of satellite/radiosonde when a base year is used to start the comparison.

in response to criticisms Spencer made a new graph with five year averages, to make the starting date offsets 'more fair'.

the critics still complained so he added a surface temperature dataset and offset every thing to 0 at 1983.

why did he use the second five year avg? (eg 1980-1985 rather than 1979-1984). I dont know. perhaps it had something to do with baseline periods.

I think I will leave it there until I hear back from crick. perhaps we can compare Spencer's cherrypicking to SkepticalScience's cherrypicking at a future time.

Miriam's crap is pointless. It would not matter where we began it would still have the same end result. The models were adjusted to match a 30 year period (training period) in an effort to see if they diverge from reality. the first day of prediction failed and the errors grow exponentially from there. Miriam's deceit plan is to show the training period as a prediction period in an effort to give models credibility and Spencer wont give them that.

Just one more Hot Whooper of a lie by Miriam. Never mind she defames Spencer....

 

[Crick]

The key to your comments, Ian, is where you say "why did he use the second five year avg? (eg 1980-1985 rather than 1979-1984). I dont know. perhaps it had something to do with baseline periods."

If you were planning on countering Miriam's hypotheses (that Spencer manipulated the models to achieve his desired end) with "I don't know", you might want to rethink your strategy... or your choice of trusted sources.

 

[IanC]

The key to your comments, Ian, is where you say "why did he use the second five year avg? (eg 1980-1985 rather than 1979-1984). I dont know. perhaps it had something to do with baseline periods."

If you were planning on countering Miriam's hypotheses (that Spencer manipulated the models to achieve his desired end) with "I don't know", you might want to rethink your strategy... or your choice of trusted sources.

I noticed that you did not explain in your own words the basis of what Sou claims is a deception. Probably you just don't understand it at all and are just happy to post up any slander.

As you are so good at ferreting out people's intentions, perhaps you can tell me why Sou used Gistemp in her example rather than Had4? Was she being deceptive?

Christy produced a clear and concise graph that shows GCMs run hot. Everyone knows they run hot. Spencer left himself open to criticism by making halfassed 'improvements'.

Warmist defences of GCMs usually start at 1990. Why? Because GCMs have an exaggerated response to volcanoes and the big dip for Pinatubo adds a much needed correction. Is that deception? Cherrypicking? I don't know.

What I do know is that climate models run hotter than reality.

 

[skookerasbil]

The whole CO2 angle is a total farce. Total farce........it is a punch-line tied to the political goals of the progressives as achieved via wealth redistribution, ie: sustainable growth!!! They know it too.......as can clearly be displayed watching their heads explode every time something is posted up that makes their religion look silly!!! Just look at some ofthe threads posted up in the past few weeks that didnt concur with their alarmist views........they come into those threads like slugs to beer on a summer night attempting to douse the flames. Indeed............curious behavior for people who's favorite punch-line is, 'the science is settled"!!!!


The OP nailed it citing the whole "predictions" part........a total disaster for the religion over the last several years!!! All the ghey predictions that crashed and burned = nobody cares about global warming anymore. Ive posted up volumes of data from polls in recent months to prove it too!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Models of chaotic systems never match observations. Do we throw out our hypothesis?

YES!
is it predictive of anything empirically? NO
it is of no use and should not be used to make or drive policy.

So you think we should throw out the O2/CO2 cycle and severe weather forecasts? Gotcha.

Now then, please explain how ANYTHING can be PREDICTED EMPIRICALLY

Storm energy is way down. Storm severity is way down. Cyclonic events are way down. The process we use today to try and be predictive has failed. NOAA is less than 5% correct in forecasts beyond 24 hrs. The Farmers Almanac has a long term success rate of over 80% because they look at empirical cycles.

And every single one of the hard core AGW crusaders were on board with all of the ghey doomsday predictions on so many climate related areas........extreme weather............tornados........hurricanes.................snow.........wildfires.............all taking about how the frequency would grow exponentially = fAiL. Now.......theyve tried to distance themselves from all the past gheyness.

But the public has sure noticed!!!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

You will find in life.........phonies ALWAYS get exposed in the long run. Weve seen it in our families.......with ouor friends........at our jobs........in the public arena. You might get away with being a $3.00 bill for awhile........but eventually, you get exposed!!!

 

[jc456]

Where do you guys get the idea that the models are perfect embodiments of AGW and the nearly-infinite processes of the Earth's climate?

Let's take the hypothesis that animal life turns O2 into CO2 and that plants turn it back. Now let's make a model of the Earth's atmosphere and biota with which we will attempt to verify that hypothesis. Because of limitation of our understanding of the Earth's atmosphere and biota and the limitations of our computing power, our models will not be perfect. Models of chaotic systems never match observations. Do we throw out our hypothesis?

then how do you claim consensus if you have to have a but?

 

[mamooth]

You will find in life.........phonies ALWAYS get exposed in the long run.

True. The deniers have been caught lying outright and fudging data too often for anyone to take them seriously now. That's why the world just ignores them, no matter how hysterical their tantrums get.

Meanwhile, let's get back to the topic, which is how the "pause" is essentially another denier fudge. Does this look like a "pause" to anyone?

RealClimate Recent global warming trends significant or paused or what

 

[jc456]

You will find in life.........phonies ALWAYS get exposed in the long run.

True. The deniers have been caught lying outright and fudging data too often for anyone to take them seriously now. That's why the world just ignores them, no matter how hysterical their tantrums get.

Meanwhile, let's get back to the topic, which is how the "pause" is essentially another denier fudge. Does this look like a "pause" to anyone?

RealClimate Recent global warming trends significant or paused or what

that is right the denier you are, has been caught lying quite frequently here. still no lab work

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Where do you guys get the idea that the models are perfect embodiments of AGW and the nearly-infinite processes of the Earth's climate?

Let's take the hypothesis that animal life turns O2 into CO2 and that plants turn it back. Now let's make a model of the Earth's atmosphere and biota with which we will attempt to verify that hypothesis. Because of limitation of our understanding of the Earth's atmosphere and biota and the limitations of our computing power, our models will not be perfect. Models of chaotic systems never match observations. Do we throw out our hypothesis?

I thought your models eliminated all variables except a wisp of CO2?

So if the system is too complicated for your models how can you possible have "Settled Science Consensus" that a wisp of CO2 is doing ANYTHING to the climate?

 

[jc456]

Where do you guys get the idea that the models are perfect embodiments of AGW and the nearly-infinite processes of the Earth's climate?

Let's take the hypothesis that animal life turns O2 into CO2 and that plants turn it back. Now let's make a model of the Earth's atmosphere and biota with which we will attempt to verify that hypothesis. Because of limitation of our understanding of the Earth's atmosphere and biota and the limitations of our computing power, our models will not be perfect. Models of chaotic systems never match observations. Do we throw out our hypothesis?

I thought your models eliminated all variables except a wisp of CO2?

So if the system is too complicated for your models how can you possible have "Settled Science Consensus" that a wisp of CO2 is doing ANYTHING to the climate?

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!