Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[IanC]

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

It's their JOB to minimize other numbers and squash evidence of other climate drivers..
Right there from the beginning...

No it's not. Your interpretation is whacked. Are the police all criminals? That's precisely what you are saying. They are working to assess the risk. Neither the UN nor the IPCC discovered AGW. Why would you fixate on those few words and ignore "comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis"? You do so because you are desperately trying to justify an unjustifiable position.

The science is NOT on your side. THAT'S what you should care about. That and the sort of world that YOUR current work here is going to leave to your children and theirs.

Ridiculous.

Morons like flatulence think the IPCC invented AGW and that "climate change" is a new term the media invented to brainwash everyone.

The term 'climate change' blossomed when it became obvious that temps were not following CO2 theory. The term 'extreme weather' became popular when reality showed no sign of cooperating. There is always extreme weather somewhere.

 

[flacaltenn]

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

It's their JOB to minimize other numbers and squash evidence of other climate drivers..
Right there from the beginning...

No it's not. Your interpretation is whacked. Are the police all criminals? That's precisely what you are saying. They are working to assess the risk. Neither the UN nor the IPCC discovered AGW. Why would you fixate on those few words and ignore "comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis"? You do so because you are desperately trying to justify an unjustifiable position.

The science is NOT on your side. THAT'S what you should care about. That and the sort of world that YOUR current work here is going to leave to your children and theirs.

Ridiculous.

Morons like flatulence think the IPCC invented AGW and that "climate change" is a new term the media invented to brainwash everyone.

The IPCC exists ONLY to study MAN-MADE causes of global warming. That's clearly in their charter. And as such -- they are free to study ONLY THE SCIENCE that confirms their charter. That ---- doesn't bother you?

You got an alternative reason why the IPCC reports purposely low-balled the 1.0W/m2 increase in solar insolation since 1700? Or you just want to be a parrot-head and attack me personally because you're incapable of debate?

 

[PMZ]

The number for TSI and the error bar are OUTRIGHT misrepresentations of the BASIC science data that's out there... I don't really CARE how they mangled it and lied about it.

I read their exposition on how they arrived at that number -- and It twas STILL mangled.

You only have to know ONE THING to understand WHY...



It's their JOB to minimize other numbers and squash evidence of other climate drivers..
Right there from the beginning...

Those words certainly read different to you than to me. I believe that to be a very precise definition of what they should be doing. AGW has been a given for decades. The risks associated with it are the question to be answered by science.

If AGW is such a "given", why has it stopped? If it is such a "given", why can't they produce a single lab experiment demonstrating it? If it's such a "given" why is it that the only time it is even seen is in the addled workings of computer models that Harvard has proclaimed "nearly useless"?

It hasn't stopped and you know it. It's heating earth's water mass rather than it's land mass. Why do you assume that it's possible to put planet earth in a testube? There are an infinite number of things that take 100s of experiments to confirm. One professor at Harvard proclaimed business models that study the economic impact of AGW caused extreme weather as questionable.

Does it ever occur that if you have to make up crap like this to attempt to prove your point that your point is pointless?

Stop acting stupid.

 

[PMZ]

No it's not. Your interpretation is whacked. Are the police all criminals? That's precisely what you are saying. They are working to assess the risk. Neither the UN nor the IPCC discovered AGW. Why would you fixate on those few words and ignore "comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis"? You do so because you are desperately trying to justify an unjustifiable position.

The science is NOT on your side. THAT'S what you should care about. That and the sort of world that YOUR current work here is going to leave to your children and theirs.

Ridiculous.

Morons like flatulence think the IPCC invented AGW and that "climate change" is a new term the media invented to brainwash everyone.

The IPCC exists ONLY to study MAN-MADE causes of global warming. That's clearly in their charter. And as such -- they are free to study ONLY THE SCIENCE that confirms their charter. That ---- doesn't bother you?

You got an alternative reason why the IPCC reports purposely low-balled the 1.0W/m2 increase in solar insolation since 1700? Or you just want to be a parrot-head and attack me personally because you're incapable of debate?

If you have science that proves X, would you spend your career trying to prove not X? Do you believe that there are people researching the absence of gravity?

You know the explanation behind the IPCCs choice of TSI values. You disagree. Your choice. They have the responsibility, the science and the resources. You have nothing but your opinion. You know what they say about opinions?

 

[westwall]

Those words certainly read different to you than to me. I believe that to be a very precise definition of what they should be doing. AGW has been a given for decades. The risks associated with it are the question to be answered by science.

If AGW is such a "given", why has it stopped? If it is such a "given", why can't they produce a single lab experiment demonstrating it? If it's such a "given" why is it that the only time it is even seen is in the addled workings of computer models that Harvard has proclaimed "nearly useless"?

It hasn't stopped and you know it. It's heating earth's water mass rather than it's land mass. Why do you assume that it's possible to put planet earth in a testube? There are an infinite number of things that take 100s of experiments to confirm. One professor at Harvard proclaimed business models that study the economic impact of AGW caused extreme weather as questionable.

Does it ever occur that if you have to make up crap like this to attempt to prove your point that your point is pointless?

Stop acting stupid.

Actually I DO KNOW that the temps have stopped rising. So does Hansen, he who was the font of all temperature records.... And more to the point...So. Do. You.

 

[itfitzme]

If AGW is such a "given", why has it stopped? If it is such a "given", why can't they produce a single lab experiment demonstrating it? If it's such a "given" why is it that the only time it is even seen is in the addled workings of computer models that Harvard has proclaimed "nearly useless"?

It hasn't stopped and you know it. It's heating earth's water mass rather than it's land mass. Why do you assume that it's possible to put planet earth in a testube? There are an infinite number of things that take 100s of experiments to confirm. One professor at Harvard proclaimed business models that study the economic impact of AGW caused extreme weather as questionable.

Does it ever occur that if you have to make up crap like this to attempt to prove your point that your point is pointless?

Stop acting stupid.

Actually I DO KNOW that the temps have stopped rising. So does Hansen, he who was the font of all temperature records.... And more to the point...So. Do. You.

Yesterday's high was 12 degrees above average. So, no, temps have not stopped rising.

Temps are rising and falling all the time, different in different locations, different at different times of the year. They can neither be said to have stopped rising or continued to rise, in your overgeneralized and mutable sense of context.

 

[westwall]

It hasn't stopped and you know it. It's heating earth's water mass rather than it's land mass. Why do you assume that it's possible to put planet earth in a testube? There are an infinite number of things that take 100s of experiments to confirm. One professor at Harvard proclaimed business models that study the economic impact of AGW caused extreme weather as questionable.

Does it ever occur that if you have to make up crap like this to attempt to prove your point that your point is pointless?

Stop acting stupid.

Actually I DO KNOW that the temps have stopped rising. So does Hansen, he who was the font of all temperature records.... And more to the point...So. Do. You.

Yesterday's high was 12 degrees above average. So, no, temps have not stopped rising.

Temps are rising and falling all the time, different in different locations, different at different times of the year. They can neither be said to have stopped rising or continued to rise, in your overgeneralized and mutable sense of context.

When you decide to make a stupid statement you really go all out don't you!

Special Weather Statement

SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT
FAIRBANKS AK AUG 16 2013

NORTHEASTERN BROOKS RANGE-
INCLUDING…ANAKTUVUK PASS…ATIGUN PASS…GALBRAITH LAKE… SAGWON…FRANKLIN BLUFFS

AN EARLY FALL STORM IS FORECAST TO IMPACT THE NORTH SLOPE AND WEST COAST OF ALASKA SUNDAY AND IMPACT THE ALASKA INTERIOR MONDAY AND TUESDAY OF NEXT WEEK.

A LOW DEVELOPING OVER NORTHEAST RUSSIA AND CHUKCHI SEA SATURDAY WILL BEGIN TO IMPACT THE WESTERN NORTH SLOPE SUNDAY WITH PERIODS OF RAIN…HEAVY AT TIMES.

GALE FORCE NORTH WINDS WILL DEVELOP IN THE SOUTHERN CHUKCHI SEA AND THROUGH THE BERING STRAITS SUNDAY NIGHT AND MONDAY.

RAIN…HEAVY AT TIMES WILL DEVELOP IN WESTERN ALASKA SUNDAY NIGHT.

AN UNSEASONABLY COLD AIR MASS MOVING ON TO THE NORTH SLOPE BEHIND THIS SYSTEM WILL CHANGE RAIN TO SNOW IN AREAS FROM THE BROOKS RANGE NORTH SUNDAY NIGHT AND MONDAY WITH SOME WET SNOW ACCUMULATION POSSIBLE IN THE BROOKS RANGE ABOVE 3000 FEET SUNDAY NIGHT AND MONDAY.

National Weather Service, Fairbanks Forecast Office, AK

And how about this,, a 50% growth in sea ice in the Arctic from last year...

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e
Or how about Missouri where it is colder than when Mark Twain lived there....

 

[IanC]

The interesting part about the whole global warming debate is how the focus keeps changing. Mann' hockeystick was irrefutable proof 10 years ago but when it was refuted warmers stopped talking about it. Every new hockeystick arrives to much prepublication publicity only to get shot down. AlGore's AIT won an Oscar and a Nobel Prize but he is unwelcome at the warmers' table now that it has been shown to be exaggerated in the few places that weren't outright lies. GRACE,
hurricanes, etc, etc all get trotted out for their 15 minutes of fame only to be exposed as less than what was hoped for. Trenberth's deep water warming is simply the latest. It was already exposed as crap two years ago but skeptic rebuttal hasn't really broken the surface of public knowledge yet. What will the next fad be?

 

[flacaltenn]

The interesting part about the whole global warming debate is how the focus keeps changing. Mann' hockeystick was irrefutable proof 10 years ago but when it was refuted warmers stopped talking about it. Every new hockeystick arrives to much prepublication publicity only to get shot down. AlGore's AIT won an Oscar and a Nobel Prize but he is unwelcome at the warmers' table now that it has been shown to be exaggerated in the few places that weren't outright lies. GRACE,
hurricanes, etc, etc all get trotted out for their 15 minutes of fame only to be exposed as less than what was hoped for. Trenberth's deep water warming is simply the latest. It was already exposed as crap two years ago but skeptic rebuttal hasn't really broken the surface of public knowledge yet. What will the next fad be?

AGW Headline coming soon...

"WideSpread Adoption of Solar Power is Slowing the Global Warming"

Trenberth will back them up with a revised energy budget and they'll be pics from space to show "cool spots" on the planet where Solar panels have soaked up incident radiation.

Don't laugh at me man --- I'm dialed in on this one..

 

[IanC]

The interesting part about the whole global warming debate is how the focus keeps changing. Mann' hockeystick was irrefutable proof 10 years ago but when it was refuted warmers stopped talking about it. Every new hockeystick arrives to much prepublication publicity only to get shot down. AlGore's AIT won an Oscar and a Nobel Prize but he is unwelcome at the warmers' table now that it has been shown to be exaggerated in the few places that weren't outright lies. GRACE,
hurricanes, etc, etc all get trotted out for their 15 minutes of fame only to be exposed as less than what was hoped for. Trenberth's deep water warming is simply the latest. It was already exposed as crap two years ago but skeptic rebuttal hasn't really broken the surface of public knowledge yet. What will the next fad be?

AGW Headline coming soon...

"WideSpread Adoption of Solar Power is Slowing the Global Warming"

Trenberth will back them up with a revised energy budget and they'll be pics from space to show "cool spots" on the planet where Solar panels have soaked up incident radiation.

Don't laugh at me man --- I'm dialed in on this one..

Excellent!

My money is on ocean currents. It is a perfect ares, little actual data with huge swings for small changes.

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually I DO KNOW that the temps have stopped rising. So does Hansen, he who was the font of all temperature records.... And more to the point...So. Do. You.

Yesterday's high was 12 degrees above average. So, no, temps have not stopped rising.

Temps are rising and falling all the time, different in different locations, different at different times of the year. They can neither be said to have stopped rising or continued to rise, in your overgeneralized and mutable sense of context.

When you decide to make a stupid statement you really go all out don't you!

Special Weather Statement

SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT
FAIRBANKS AK AUG 16 2013

NORTHEASTERN BROOKS RANGE-
INCLUDING…ANAKTUVUK PASS…ATIGUN PASS…GALBRAITH LAKE… SAGWON…FRANKLIN BLUFFS

AN EARLY FALL STORM IS FORECAST TO IMPACT THE NORTH SLOPE AND WEST COAST OF ALASKA SUNDAY AND IMPACT THE ALASKA INTERIOR MONDAY AND TUESDAY OF NEXT WEEK.

A LOW DEVELOPING OVER NORTHEAST RUSSIA AND CHUKCHI SEA SATURDAY WILL BEGIN TO IMPACT THE WESTERN NORTH SLOPE SUNDAY WITH PERIODS OF RAIN…HEAVY AT TIMES.

GALE FORCE NORTH WINDS WILL DEVELOP IN THE SOUTHERN CHUKCHI SEA AND THROUGH THE BERING STRAITS SUNDAY NIGHT AND MONDAY.

RAIN…HEAVY AT TIMES WILL DEVELOP IN WESTERN ALASKA SUNDAY NIGHT.

AN UNSEASONABLY COLD AIR MASS MOVING ON TO THE NORTH SLOPE BEHIND THIS SYSTEM WILL CHANGE RAIN TO SNOW IN AREAS FROM THE BROOKS RANGE NORTH SUNDAY NIGHT AND MONDAY WITH SOME WET SNOW ACCUMULATION POSSIBLE IN THE BROOKS RANGE ABOVE 3000 FEET SUNDAY NIGHT AND MONDAY.

National Weather Service, Fairbanks Forecast Office, AK

And how about this,, a 50% growth in sea ice in the Arctic from last year...

Arctic Sea-Ice Monitor
Or how about Missouri where it is colder than when Mark Twain lived there....

((The Missouri warming is hiding in the Mississippi.))

Try looking in the Lousiana delta..

 

[orogenicman]

So you jokers are looking at local weather trends and calling it climate change? Bhwahahahahahahahahaha!

You're insane.

 

[flacaltenn]

So you jokers are looking at local weather trends and calling it climate change? Bhwahahahahahahahahaha!

You're insane.

Really? An exception to your theory --- and you want to ignore it? Is it really weather when it's a 100 year trend? Or are you just here to kick your own ass?

 

[westwall]

So you jokers are looking at local weather trends and calling it climate change? Bhwahahahahahahahahaha!

You're insane.

Yes olfraud we're taking a page from your playbook. Remember when the Russian heat wave was proof positive of global warming? Or how about the floods in India? Or , well hell. Just about every single thing is "proof" of global warming. Till we shoot it down of course...

 

[westwall]

So you jokers are looking at local weather trends and calling it climate change? Bhwahahahahahahahahaha!

You're insane.

Really? An exception to your theory --- and you want to ignore it? Is it really weather when it's a 100 year trend? Or are you just here to kick your own ass?

Hell, he'd have to find it before he could kick it. That would be a problem for him....

 

[orogenicman]

So you jokers are looking at local weather trends and calling it climate change? Bhwahahahahahahahahaha!

You're insane.

Really? An exception to your theory --- and you want to ignore it? Is it really weather when it's a 100 year trend? Or are you just here to kick your own ass?

Yes, a 100 year local rain event is still a local rain event.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, a 100 year local rain event is still a local rain event.

Just out of curiosity....can you define "is" for me?

 

[flacaltenn]

So you jokers are looking at local weather trends and calling it climate change? Bhwahahahahahahahahaha!

You're insane.

Really? An exception to your theory --- and you want to ignore it? Is it really weather when it's a 100 year trend? Or are you just here to kick your own ass?

Yes, a 100 year local rain event is still a local rain event.

Not quite O-man.. A 100 yr rain event is a statistical occurence.. Happens once (on average) every 100 years. But what we see in that graph is a 100 yr trend.

Diff between a rare statistic and a trend? --- Missing the due date for a 100 yr rain by 10 or 20 years is a don't care.. Screwing up the trend line in a 100 yr trend for 10 or 20 yrs will matter to the confidence of the trend.

What's worse --- is that it completely IGNORES the CO2 concentration over the state of Missouri.. That's your bigger problem.. And it does that --- throughout the entire EXISTENCE of AGW theory.

The whole platform of AGW based on a mere 50 years of intense CO2 concentration increase -- that's not too short for you to consider THAT climate change is it?

 

[PMZ]

Deniers lack one thing. They have nothing as even a hypothesis that explains how higher atmospheric concentrations of GHGs don't cause AGW. Their only game is the old defense attorney trick of creating some doubt about the credibility of the 'witnesses' or the evidence.

No explanation at all of why something that nobody questions worked since earth has been around, now stops working.

No ideas even.

 

[orogenicman]

Really? An exception to your theory --- and you want to ignore it? Is it really weather when it's a 100 year trend? Or are you just here to kick your own ass?

Yes, a 100 year local rain event is still a local rain event.

Not quite O-man.. A 100 yr rain event is a statistical occurence.. Happens once (on average) every 100 years. But what we see in that graph is a 100 yr trend.

What you see is a 100 year trend in one locality. Look at another locality and you might get a different 100 year trend. That is why it is called weather (or local climate, if you will). Until you add up all the local trends, you aren't seeing the global picture. That is why it is called global warming, not local warming.