Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[itfitzme]

Two researchers have created an advanced model that, when fed information about water temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, is able to recreate the surface warming hiatus of the last 15 years.

The Pacific Ocean fills in another piece of the global warming puzzle, and puzzles Curry

Note the purplke line that keeps climbing. That's what happens when you just work with surface and air temps. The red line is the new model and note how well it tracks the black - observations - line.

Bernie Madoff accounting

My models show a 10% after tax ROI

Bernie, your models don't account for the 50% tax.

Hmm, OK, fixed. My models show a 10% after tax ROI

Bernie! You genius! Where can I sign up?

What the F are you talking about?

Newton, F=ma, v=dx/dt, a=dv/dt.

Einstein, L'=L*sqrt( 1-(v/c)2), t'=t/sqrt( 1-(v/c)2)

It's called resolution.

 

[PMZ]

Clearly, the best science available to the deniers comes from Bernie Madoff.

They are running blindly from the giant flushing get sound.

 

[Abraham3]

The problem with denial is the absolute vacuum of replacement theories. What have we heard as alternative possible causes for the climate's temperature trend of the last 150 years:

1) Increased solar radiation with an absolutely magical time correlation
2) Super-elastic rebound from the LIA
3) Cosmic rays doing something to our clouds
4) Black parking lots and AC condensors being built next to every weather station on Earth
5) Random, idiopathic, climatic wandering

Have I missed any? Tell me I've missed some. There's GOT to be an alternative explanation with a little less nutcase-factor to it. Anyone? Anyone?

 

[itfitzme]

Once I lock onto what is right, I try not learning what is wrong.

The obvious concern is how high the temp will jump up once it cycles. The longer it takes, the greater will be that rate of change. It will rise and overshoot the linear trend. And it is always the rate of change of energy, power, that kills things. That it is low is far worse.

AWG is the slowest moving issue ever. You can just come back and check it every New Year. 100 years of data concludes that CO2 alone is sufficient to extrapolate a linear trend. After that, it is little more than noting how far off the expected value that the natural variability is taking it.

CARVE remains the current hot ticket item, seeing what comes of the methane. The problem is that the natural variability is currently working against the heating factors and masks any absolute measurement of new effects.

It's been moving that way and getting bigger, for better than fifty years.... A person has to be pretty F'in stupid not to get that...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Once I lock onto what is right, I try not learning what is wrong.

The obvious concern is how high the temp will jump up once it cycles. The longer it takes, the greater will be that rate of change. It will rise and overshoot the linear trend. And it is always the rate of change of energy, power, that kills things. That it is low is far worse.

AWG is the slowest moving issue ever. You can just come back and check it every New Year. 100 years of data concludes that CO2 alone is sufficient to extrapolate a linear trend. After that, it is little more than noting how far off the expected value that the natural variability is taking it.

CARVE remains the current hot ticket item, seeing what comes of the methane. The problem is that the natural variability is currently working against the heating factors and masks any absolute measurement of new effects.

It's been moving that way and getting bigger, for better than fifty years.... A person has to be pretty F'in stupid not to get that...

100 years of data concludes that CO2 alone is sufficient to extrapolate a linear trend.

Yes! Because the temperature has gone up in a straight line for the last 100 years. Wut?

 

[Abraham3]

AWG is the slowest moving issue ever. You can just come back and check it every New Year. 100 years of data concludes that CO2 alone is sufficient to extrapolate a linear trend. After that, it is little more than noting how far off the expected value that the natural variability is taking it.

Yes! Because the temperature has gone up in a straight line for the last 100 years. Wut?

Reading all the words is hard, Especially if you're Todd.

 

[itfitzme]

Once I lock onto what is right, I try not learning what is wrong.

The obvious concern is how high the temp will jump up once it cycles. The longer it takes, the greater will be that rate of change. It will rise and overshoot the linear trend. And it is always the rate of change of energy, power, that kills things. That it is low is far worse.

AWG is the slowest moving issue ever. You can just come back and check it every New Year. 100 years of data concludes that CO2 alone is sufficient to extrapolate a linear trend. After that, it is little more than noting how far off the expected value that the natural variability is taking it.

CARVE remains the current hot ticket item, seeing what comes of the methane. The problem is that the natural variability is currently working against the heating factors and masks any absolute measurement of new effects.

It's been moving that way and getting bigger, for better than fifty years.... A person has to be pretty F'in stupid not to get that...

100 years of data concludes that CO2 alone is sufficient to extrapolate a linear trend.

Yes! Because the temperature has gone up in a straight line for the last 100 years. Wut?

Yeah, math (adding and subtracting) is hard, statistics and regression is really tough, especially for you.

Do you know what ANOVA means? R^2? Sum of squares? Sum of square error?

Like I said, Tod, "A person has to be pretty F'in stupid not to get that..."

Go learn some math.

 

[itfitzme]

Once I lock onto what is right, I try not learning what is wrong.

The obvious concern is how high the temp will jump up once it cycles. The longer it takes, the greater will be that rate of change. It will rise and overshoot the linear trend. And it is always the rate of change of energy, power, that kills things. That it is low is far worse.

AWG is the slowest moving issue ever. You can just come back and check it every New Year. 100 years of data concludes that CO2 alone is sufficient to extrapolate a linear trend. After that, it is little more than noting how far off the expected value that the natural variability is taking it.

CARVE remains the current hot ticket item, seeing what comes of the methane. The problem is that the natural variability is currently working against the heating factors and masks any absolute measurement of new effects.

It's been moving that way and getting bigger, for better than fifty years.... A person has to be pretty F'in stupid not to get that...

100 years of data concludes that CO2 alone is sufficient to extrapolate a linear trend.

Yes! Because the temperature has gone up in a straight line for the last 100 years. Wut?

Yeah, cuz things only move in straight lines. Doh!!!!

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

The 2014 winter will most likely answer all questions regarding Global Warming. we all just have to wait till March to see how bad the winter was.

 

[skookerasbil]

Perhaps if I was ignorant about science, I too would have more faith in politics than in science. But I'm not. So I know that science is based on available evidence. Politics is only what different groups wish was true. Not much competition.

OK s0n....you have now established yourself as the most naïve mofu on the forum!!! Take a bow!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

Perhaps if I was ignorant about science, I too would have more faith in politics than in science. But I'm not. So I know that science is based on available evidence. Politics is only what different groups wish was true. Not much competition.

OK s0n....you have now established yourself as the most naïve mofu on the forum!!! Take a bow!!!

OK, nitwit....you have long since established yourself as the most ignorant, retarded, deceptive, brainwashed troll on the forum!!! Pull your head out of your ass so you can take a bow!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

The 2014 winter will most likely answer all questions regarding Global Warming. we all just have to wait till March to see how bad the winter was.

So.....you're STILL completely clueless about the difference between long term climate patterns and yearly weather variations. Too bad you're so mentally handicapped.

 

[PMZ]

The 2014 winter will most likely answer all questions regarding Global Warming. we all just have to wait till March to see how bad the winter was.

So.....you're STILL completely clueless about the difference between long term climate patterns and yearly weather variations. Too bad you're so mentally handicapped.

Anyone who can't distinguish between science and politics, can't be expected to distinguish between weather and climate. Or facts and fantasy. Or Fahrenheit and Centigrade. Or women and sheep.

Clueless for them is as accurate a description as dittoheads.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How accurate were thermometers 100, 150 years ago?

AGW Cult is very culty

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Once I lock onto what is right, I try not learning what is wrong.

The obvious concern is how high the temp will jump up once it cycles. The longer it takes, the greater will be that rate of change. It will rise and overshoot the linear trend. And it is always the rate of change of energy, power, that kills things. That it is low is far worse.

AWG is the slowest moving issue ever. You can just come back and check it every New Year. 100 years of data concludes that CO2 alone is sufficient to extrapolate a linear trend. After that, it is little more than noting how far off the expected value that the natural variability is taking it.

CARVE remains the current hot ticket item, seeing what comes of the methane. The problem is that the natural variability is currently working against the heating factors and masks any absolute measurement of new effects.

It's been moving that way and getting bigger, for better than fifty years.... A person has to be pretty F'in stupid not to get that...

100 years of data concludes that CO2 alone is sufficient to extrapolate a linear trend.

Yes! Because the temperature has gone up in a straight line for the last 100 years. Wut?

Yeah, cuz things only move in straight lines. Doh!!!!

Yeah, I know, pretty stupid.

100 years of data concludes that CO2 alone is sufficient to extrapolate a linear trend.

LOL!

 

[PMZ]

How accurate were thermometers 100, 150 years ago?

AGW Cult is very culty

The AGW position is determined by qualified scientists with virtually unlimited capabilities and resources.

The denier position is determined by political hacks and entertainers. What they wish was true.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How accurate were thermometers 100, 150 years ago?

AGW Cult is very culty

The AGW position is determined by qualified scientists with virtually unlimited capabilities and resources.

The denier position is determined by political hacks and entertainers. What they wish was true.

The AGW position is determined by qualified scientists with virtually unlimited capabilities and resources.

You're right. Here's one now.

Looks like a Category 6.

 

[RollingThunder]

How accurate were thermometers 100, 150 years ago?

AGW Cult is very culty

The AGW position is determined by qualified scientists with virtually unlimited capabilities and resources.

The denier position is determined by political hacks and entertainers. What they wish was true.

The AGW position is determined by qualified scientists with virtually unlimited capabilities and resources.

You're right. Here's one now.

/Al_Gore_

There are highly educated scientists who do research on the climate and mankind's influence on it.....

....and then there are those who communicate those scientific findings to the public....

....Al Gore is one of the latter....

....the fact that you are incapable of distinguishing between the two is just another symptom of your severe retardation, Toad.

 

[skookerasbil]

Perhaps if I was ignorant about science, I too would have more faith in politics than in science. But I'm not. So I know that science is based on available evidence. Politics is only what different groups wish was true. Not much competition.

OK s0n....you have now established yourself as the most naïve mofu on the forum!!! Take a bow!!!

OK, nitwit....you have long since established yourself as the most ignorant, retarded, deceptive, brainwashed troll on the forum!!! Pull your head out of your ass so you can take a bow!!!

I take them daily on here s0n......at the expense of you and all the other climate crusader nutters and without all the multitude of personal insults so typical of the progressives!! But for we deniers....its evidence of one thing: we're winning!! The climate crusaders? Not so much. The lots of you are akin to being like vampire slayers trying to convince the world that we better get them by daylight!! Nobody is caring

 

[skookerasbil]

The AGW position is determined by qualified scientists with virtually unlimited capabilities and resources.

The denier position is determined by political hacks and entertainers. What they wish was true.

The AGW position is determined by qualified scientists with virtually unlimited capabilities and resources.

You're right. Here's one now.

/Al_Gore_

There are highly educated scientists who do research on the climate and mankind's influence on it.....

....and then there are those who communicate those scientific findings to the public....

....Al Gore is one of the latter....

....the fact that you are incapable of distinguishing between the two is just another symptom of your severe retardation, Toad.

consensus WHAT???!!!!!!!!!!