Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[flacaltenn]

Good psuedoscience always clouds the data as much as possible. Why just list the average temp, when you can cherrypick some new arcane statistic? That'll toss a lot more FUD in the mix, which is the point.

Both of you dupes are clueless as to what your own theorists state.. Hansen comes out and says --'if you move the MEAN --- than the distribution of EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS will shift to the "more likely" category' --- and thus GW became CChange..

Moving the MEAN by 1degC can cause MORE HURRICANES, MORE SNOW, MORE DROUGHT, MORE TORNADOES, MORE MOSQUITOES, MORE Forest Fires ------



............. but it can't cause more MORE 100 deg readings?? Get a clue.. Or at least be consistent. Makes all of ItfitzMe attempts at math look silly.. Or was Hansen just blowing smoke??

If you had to make a prediction, what would you predict would be the result of adding more and energy to the atmosphere over a sustained period of time?

Duuhhhh.... More 100 degree days in the summer??

Did I get that right?

What does +0.6degF surface temp. mean to a building thunderstorm?? To a tornado??
Is it a SUFFICIENT CONDITION for DEADLY MAYHEM?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here it comes. The next incarnation of denial. No facts, no science, no theories even. Just, we, the ignorant, wish that it wasn't, and we feel entitled to our own truth.

Describes your hoax EXACTLY.


Interestingly enough this is the mildest summer in the US in 100 years. Fewer areas with temp readings of 100 or over than have been seen in a century.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/hcn/

What is the average?

It is, afterall, a question of global mean temperature, not number of days over 100. Why not over 90? Or 80? How about over 75? What about the minimums? How about days below 50? 60?

Why leave out all those days?

It is, afterall, a question of global mean temperature

Ohhhh....global mean temperature. How many data points do you need to calculate that?

 

[westwall]

Funny how the heat can't seem to be found or measured but we are expected to believe those statements? Get real.

Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen are quite real.

Yeah? So? Trenberths assertion is ridiculous on its face. It is an excellent example of the con man in action. Never make a prediction that can be checked..........ever.

 

[flacaltenn]

Funny how the heat can't seem to be found or measured but we are expected to believe those statements? Get real.

Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen are quite real.

Yeah? So? Trenberths assertion is ridiculous on its face. It is an excellent example of the con man in action. Never make a prediction that can be checked..........ever.

Aye Matey.. Arrgh.. Only Davey Jones knows where it's hidden..
And maybe a half dozen diving Walruses working for NOAA..

B, T, and K are NOT REAL --- their "letter" was inadequate to assess what happened, and the results are from a MODEL (not real).

Seriously -- since this is yet another juvenile "GLOBAL" study --- are you surprised that the temperature at certain depths is coherent enough worldwide to leave those footprints?

The concept that the ENTIRE OCEAN VOLUME was surveyed NOT ONCE but for a 60 year continuous record. And that at 650meters -- EVERY PLACE ON the globe returned a warming signature that is barely measurable at that exact depth? --- Aint that just about the limit of credibility right there?

That in the Indian Ocean 650meters down is the same thermocline structure as in the Atlantic 650meters down? And Globally --- shows such a consistent temperature increase at that exact depth?

This model surely was vetted by veteran submariners and oceanographers right??

 

[Abraham3]

The model B,T and K used was reset with measured values every ten days. How far do you think it could have wandered from reality with that arrangement?

And just for a bit of a reality check, what's the average distance between Argos floats?

 

[Abraham3]

146 kilometers. And that's including the sensors mounted on turtles and elephant seals.

 

[Abraham3]

Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen are quite real.

Yeah? So? Trenberths assertion is ridiculous on its face. It is an excellent example of the con man in action. Never make a prediction that can be checked..........ever.

Aye Matey.. Arrgh.. Only Davey Jones knows where it's hidden..
And maybe a half dozen diving Walruses working for NOAA..

That you have repeatedly made fun of the animal-mounted sensors tells me you aren't familiar with the Argos program.

B, T, and K are NOT REAL --- their "letter" was inadequate to assess what happened, and the results are from a MODEL (not real).

Are you suggesting that it's only a "letter" because it was published in Geophysical Research Letters"? Don't be an idiot. It's a research paper that has been published in a peer reviewed journal. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full

Seriously -- since this is yet another juvenile "GLOBAL" study --- are you surprised that the temperature at certain depths is coherent enough worldwide to leave those footprints?

Have you had ANY oceanography class work?

The concept that the ENTIRE OCEAN VOLUME was surveyed NOT ONCE but for a 60 year continuous record. And that at 650meters -- EVERY PLACE ON the globe returned a warming signature that is barely measurable at that exact depth? --- Aint that just about the limit of credibility right there?

No, it is not.

That in the Indian Ocean 650meters down is the same thermocline structure as in the Atlantic 650meters down? And Globally --- shows such a consistent temperature increase at that exact depth?

This was the line that told me you don't know diddly squat about ocean dynamics. See if you can tell me why its no surprise at all to find the same "structure" 650 meters down at widely separated areas. If you can't figure it out, ask a student. If you can't find a student, just pull up a dozen BT traces and examine their structure at 650 meters and tell us what you find.

This model surely was vetted by veteran submariners and oceanographers right??

It likely was. Or did you mean me?

 

[westwall]

The model B,T and K used was reset with measured values every ten days. How far do you think it could have wandered from reality with that arrangement?

And just for a bit of a reality check, what's the average distance between Argos floats?

Who cares. Models ARE NOT DATA! Never have been, never will be.

 

[orogenicman]

Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen are quite real.

Yeah? So? Trenberths assertion is ridiculous on its face. It is an excellent example of the con man in action. Never make a prediction that can be checked..........ever.

Aye Matey.. Arrgh.. Only Davey Jones knows where it's hidden..
And maybe a half dozen diving Walruses working for NOAA..

B, T, and K are NOT REAL --- their "letter" was inadequate to assess what happened, and the results are from a MODEL (not real).

Seriously -- since this is yet another juvenile "GLOBAL" study --- are you surprised that the temperature at certain depths is coherent enough worldwide to leave those footprints?

The concept that the ENTIRE OCEAN VOLUME was surveyed NOT ONCE but for a 60 year continuous record. And that at 650meters -- EVERY PLACE ON the globe returned a warming signature that is barely measurable at that exact depth? --- Aint that just about the limit of credibility right there?

That in the Indian Ocean 650meters down is the same thermocline structure as in the Atlantic 650meters down? And Globally --- shows such a consistent temperature increase at that exact depth?

This model surely was vetted by veteran submariners and oceanographers right??

Well, you can always download the data and crunch the numbers yourself. You can do that, can't you?

 

[orogenicman]

The model B,T and K used was reset with measured values every ten days. How far do you think it could have wandered from reality with that arrangement?

And just for a bit of a reality check, what's the average distance between Argos floats?

Who cares. Models ARE NOT DATA! Never have been, never will be.

Models are small facsimiles of the real thing. Models are used in weather forecasting every day with great success. Are they perfect? No, and no one has said that they are. But every scientific discipline uses them. I've conducted ground water modeling to determine flow direction, contaminant dispersal, and the heterogeneity of permeability of an aquifer in order to make predictions on the fate of those contaminants. The are useful tools that can provide valuable insights that can't otherwise be obtained in complex systems. And until you actually use one, I suggest you keep your uninformed criticisms to yourself.

 

[westwall]

The model B,T and K used was reset with measured values every ten days. How far do you think it could have wandered from reality with that arrangement?

And just for a bit of a reality check, what's the average distance between Argos floats?

Who cares. Models ARE NOT DATA! Never have been, never will be.

Models are small facsimiles of the real thing. Models are used in weather forecasting every day with great success. Are they perfect? No, and no one has said that they are. But every scientific discipline uses them. I've conducted ground water modeling to determine flow direction, contaminant dispersal, and the heterogeneity of permeability of an aquifer in order to make predictions on the fate of those contaminants. The are useful tools that can provide valuable insights that can't otherwise be obtained in complex systems. And until you actually use one, I suggest you keep your uninformed criticisms to yourself.

No, they're not. They are fictitious representations of the world skewed by the abilities (or, in the case of the climate modelers, their INABILITIES) governed by algoreithims (sic!) that generate the results the climate modelers wish to generate. They bear no resemblance to the real world and as MIT stated in the paper released a few weeks ago they are "CLOSE TO USELESS"

ABSTRACT
Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to
estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models
have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the
discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models'
descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical
foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility
of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge
and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading.


http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf

 

[jon_berzerk]

Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating

not for the last 200 months

- no "lull"

yes for the last 200 months

with dropping for the last 120 months

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

 

[orogenicman]

Who cares. Models ARE NOT DATA! Never have been, never will be.

Models are small facsimiles of the real thing. Models are used in weather forecasting every day with great success. Are they perfect? No, and no one has said that they are. But every scientific discipline uses them. I've conducted ground water modeling to determine flow direction, contaminant dispersal, and the heterogeneity of permeability of an aquifer in order to make predictions on the fate of those contaminants. The are useful tools that can provide valuable insights that can't otherwise be obtained in complex systems. And until you actually use one, I suggest you keep your uninformed criticisms to yourself.

No, they're not. They are fictitious representations of the world skewed by the abilities (or, in the case of the climate modelers, their INABILITIES) governed by algoreithims (sic!) that generate the results the climate modelers wish to generate. They bear no resemblance to the real world and as MIT stated in the paper released a few weeks ago they are "CLOSE TO USELESS"

ABSTRACT
Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to
estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models
have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the
discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models'
descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical
foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility
of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge
and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading.


http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf

That paper does not conclude that all models are useless. His conclusion is that IAMs (generated by economists) are useless in assessing the possibility, for the purposes of policy-making, of a catastrophic (economic) climate outcome. But those models are not the climate models we are discussing here. He also doesn't agree with your apparent conclusion that global warming is not real and is not manmade. In his introduction, he states:

There is almost no disagreement among economists that the full cost to society of burning a ton of carbon is greater than its private cost. Burning carbon has an external cost because it produces CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that accumulate in the atmosphere, and will eventually result in unwanted climate change — higher global temperatures, greater climate variability, and possibly increases in sea levels.

Furthermore, in his concluding remarks, he states:

My criticism of IAMs should not be taken to imply that because we know so little, nothing should be done about climate change right now, and instead we should wait until we learn more. Quite the contrary. One can think of a GHG abatement policy as a form of insurance: society would be paying for a guarantee that a low-probability catastrophe will not occur (or is less likely). Some have argued that on precautionary grounds, there is a case for taking the Interagency Working Group’s $21 (or updated $33) number as a rough and politically acceptable starting point and imposing a carbon tax (or equivalent policy) of that amount.20 This would help to establish that there is a social cost of carbon, and that social cost must be internalized in the prices that consumers and firms pay. (Yes, most economists already understand this, but politicians and the public are a different matter.) Later, as we learn more about the true size of the SCC, the carbon tax could be increased or decreased accordingly.

Did you even read it?

 

[RollingThunder]

Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating

not for the last 200 months

- no "lull"

yes for the last 200 months

with dropping for the last 120 months

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Read the OP, you brainless bozo. There's more to the story than just surface temperatures. The oceans have been absorbing at least 90% of the extra solar energy that the increased CO2 has been retaining. However, even the surface temperatures show clear warming. This last decade was the warmest decade on record and the last twelve years are all among the 14 warmest years on record. 2010 is tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record globally and 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental United States. Shove your cherry-picked short term temperature charts up that dark stinky place where you keep your head.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating

not for the last 200 months

- no "lull"

yes for the last 200 months

with dropping for the last 120 months

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Read the OP, you brainless bozo. There's more to the story than just surface temperatures. The oceans have been absorbing at least 90% of the extra solar energy that the increased CO2 has been retaining. However, even the surface temperatures show clear warming. This last decade was the warmest decade on record and the last twelve years are all among the 14 warmest years on record. 2010 is tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record globally and 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental United States. Shove your cherry-picked short term temperature charts up that dark stinky place where you keep your head.

even the surface temperatures show clear warming

no it does not

i just posted a graph showing that not to be the case

 

[flacaltenn]

146 kilometers. And that's including the sensors mounted on turtles and elephant seals.

How wide is the Gulf Stream>????

You're a freaking dupe... Did the model include the major ocean currents? THOSE carry the majority of the "heat".. How did they model the Depth coordinate. The "letter" (it was NOT even a full paper -- and SHORTER than a page on USMB) only gave the patch sizes.

The model could EASILY lurch "off the rails" in terms of actual heat transport and thermal layering characteristics of EACH ocean..

And the numbers are SO small --- that forming this as A GLOBAL number is just a concession to getting the press and politicians to buy in..

Tell you what ---- Let them publish a REAL PAPER, with actual interactive graphics of the thermal layering --- for just ONE OCEAN --- and do a convincing job of THAT.. And then we'll all leap to conclusions about the "global" implications..

Is that a REASONABLE proposal???

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah? So? Trenberths assertion is ridiculous on its face. It is an excellent example of the con man in action. Never make a prediction that can be checked..........ever.

Aye Matey.. Arrgh.. Only Davey Jones knows where it's hidden..
And maybe a half dozen diving Walruses working for NOAA..

B, T, and K are NOT REAL --- their "letter" was inadequate to assess what happened, and the results are from a MODEL (not real).

Seriously -- since this is yet another juvenile "GLOBAL" study --- are you surprised that the temperature at certain depths is coherent enough worldwide to leave those footprints?

The concept that the ENTIRE OCEAN VOLUME was surveyed NOT ONCE but for a 60 year continuous record. And that at 650meters -- EVERY PLACE ON the globe returned a warming signature that is barely measurable at that exact depth? --- Aint that just about the limit of credibility right there?

That in the Indian Ocean 650meters down is the same thermocline structure as in the Atlantic 650meters down? And Globally --- shows such a consistent temperature increase at that exact depth?

This model surely was vetted by veteran submariners and oceanographers right??

Well, you can always download the data and crunch the numbers yourself. You can do that, can't you?

I don't pretend to own a comprehensive and unbelievably accurate computer MODEL of the entire GLOBAL OCEAN THERMAL COMPLEX in 3 dimensions.. And they don't have one either.

If I had one --- I'd be rich..

They did not publish enough intermediate results from the model. It was NOT a comprehensive paper --- just a rush to judgement in a "letter" form...

 

[flacaltenn]

Models are small facsimiles of the real thing. Models are used in weather forecasting every day with great success. Are they perfect? No, and no one has said that they are. But every scientific discipline uses them. I've conducted ground water modeling to determine flow direction, contaminant dispersal, and the heterogeneity of permeability of an aquifer in order to make predictions on the fate of those contaminants. The are useful tools that can provide valuable insights that can't otherwise be obtained in complex systems. And until you actually use one, I suggest you keep your uninformed criticisms to yourself.

No, they're not. They are fictitious representations of the world skewed by the abilities (or, in the case of the climate modelers, their INABILITIES) governed by algoreithims (sic!) that generate the results the climate modelers wish to generate. They bear no resemblance to the real world and as MIT stated in the paper released a few weeks ago they are "CLOSE TO USELESS"

ABSTRACT
Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to
estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models
have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the
discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models'
descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical
foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility
of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge
and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading.


http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf

That paper does not conclude that all models are useless. His conclusion is that IAMs (generated by economists) are useless in assessing the possibility, for the purposes of policy-making, of a catastrophic (economic) climate outcome. But those models are not the climate models we are discussing here. He also doesn't agree with your apparent conclusion that global warming is not real and is not manmade. In his introduction, he states:

There is almost no disagreement among economists that the full cost to society of burning a ton of carbon is greater than its private cost. Burning carbon has an external cost because it produces CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that accumulate in the atmosphere, and will eventually result in unwanted climate change — higher global temperatures, greater climate variability, and possibly increases in sea levels.

Furthermore, in his concluding remarks, he states:

My criticism of IAMs should not be taken to imply that because we know so little, nothing should be done about climate change right now, and instead we should wait until we learn more. Quite the contrary. One can think of a GHG abatement policy as a form of insurance: society would be paying for a guarantee that a low-probability catastrophe will not occur (or is less likely). Some have argued that on precautionary grounds, there is a case for taking the Interagency Working Group’s $21 (or updated $33) number as a rough and politically acceptable starting point and imposing a carbon tax (or equivalent policy) of that amount.20 This would help to establish that there is a social cost of carbon, and that social cost must be internalized in the prices that consumers and firms pay. (Yes, most economists already understand this, but politicians and the public are a different matter.) Later, as we learn more about the true size of the SCC, the carbon tax could be increased or decreased accordingly.

Did you even read it?

I've BUILT models for earth resource estimation.. Some are still in use. NONE of them purported to map an entire GLOBAL volume equivalent to ALL THE WATER IN THE OCEANS to several THOUSAND meters of depth. Looking for a couple Joules of energy per meter depth.. I'd be embarrassed to show myself at the next conference..

And for you to select that last paragraph about "let's tax it anyway" --- really shows how little interest you have in the science of the topic..

 

[Abraham3]

I've BUILT models for earth resource estimation.. Some are still in use. NONE of them purported to map an entire GLOBAL volume equivalent to ALL THE WATER IN THE OCEANS to several THOUSAND meters of depth. Looking for a couple Joules of energy per meter depth.. I'd be embarrassed to show myself at the next conference..

Built or programmed?

If programmed, when?

How big was your address space? That is, how much memory did you expect to have available to people running your code?

 

[westwall]

Models are small facsimiles of the real thing. Models are used in weather forecasting every day with great success. Are they perfect? No, and no one has said that they are. But every scientific discipline uses them. I've conducted ground water modeling to determine flow direction, contaminant dispersal, and the heterogeneity of permeability of an aquifer in order to make predictions on the fate of those contaminants. The are useful tools that can provide valuable insights that can't otherwise be obtained in complex systems. And until you actually use one, I suggest you keep your uninformed criticisms to yourself.

No, they're not. They are fictitious representations of the world skewed by the abilities (or, in the case of the climate modelers, their INABILITIES) governed by algoreithims (sic!) that generate the results the climate modelers wish to generate. They bear no resemblance to the real world and as MIT stated in the paper released a few weeks ago they are "CLOSE TO USELESS"

ABSTRACT
Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to
estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models
have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the
discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models'
descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical
foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility
of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge
and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading.


http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf

That paper does not conclude that all models are useless. His conclusion is that IAMs (generated by economists) are useless in assessing the possibility, for the purposes of policy-making, of a catastrophic (economic) climate outcome. But those models are not the climate models we are discussing here. He also doesn't agree with your apparent conclusion that global warming is not real and is not manmade. In his introduction, he states:

There is almost no disagreement among economists that the full cost to society of burning a ton of carbon is greater than its private cost. Burning carbon has an external cost because it produces CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that accumulate in the atmosphere, and will eventually result in unwanted climate change — higher global temperatures, greater climate variability, and possibly increases in sea levels.

Furthermore, in his concluding remarks, he states:

My criticism of IAMs should not be taken to imply that because we know so little, nothing should be done about climate change right now, and instead we should wait until we learn more. Quite the contrary. One can think of a GHG abatement policy as a form of insurance: society would be paying for a guarantee that a low-probability catastrophe will not occur (or is less likely). Some have argued that on precautionary grounds, there is a case for taking the Interagency Working Group’s $21 (or updated $33) number as a rough and politically acceptable starting point and imposing a carbon tax (or equivalent policy) of that amount.20 This would help to establish that there is a social cost of carbon, and that social cost must be internalized in the prices that consumers and firms pay. (Yes, most economists already understand this, but politicians and the public are a different matter.) Later, as we learn more about the true size of the SCC, the carbon tax could be increased or decreased accordingly.

Did you even read it?

Yes, I did. As well as this one...

Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming? | Hans von Storch - Academia.edu

And this one....

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/3489/2013/cpd-9-3489-2013.pdf

And this one....

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


All of which tell us that the models are worthless.


Then I found this paper which makes a compelling case for planetary mechanisms. It was a far more accurate model than any of your precious climate models...

http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Scafetta_EE_2013.pdf