More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[orogenicman]

r

More proof the deniers can't tell the difference between climate and weather.

Hey.....what can we say?

It is always the AGW religion posting up threads about the weather getting "wilder and..........." due to global warming!!!


Anyway s0n......as usual, you miss the main point. Reality is 95% perception s0n......except in the alarmist world. Trust me........when people in Chicago walk out their door into 15 degree's below zero temps on Wednesday, they wont be worrying about global warming......in fact, the jokes will be plentiful in those parts about the Stoopids who push the global warming agenda. Of course, when your balls are blue and frozen, it kinda works that way.......


And Orangeman.......c'mon and admit it. You look up on the top of this forum and see this thread with 113,000 views and 350 pages long, your fucking head explodes!!! Page after page of lOsE if you are an AGW nutter.

If reality were truly 95% perception, this would be real:

But it isn't. It is an illusion. What can you say? Well, you have posted page after page that is not of much value. Most is complete gibberish, and the rest is word salad. Maybe one day when you grow up you can join the rest of the adults here in meaningful conversation.

give it up dude!! that is some pathetic post!! and I know all you have to communicate with!!!! Yu still have no lab experiment to present right? hahahhahahaaha,LoSiNg............

Apparently, you and skooterboy are competing for immature post of the month. How old are you, anyway?

I see you are threatened by the skeptics on the board. Do you need a blanket? a Bottle? There there grasshopper, one day you might learn.

What skeptics, where? There are no skeptics on this thread. There are only those who accept AGW as fact, and those who deny it. Deniers aren't skeptics.

 

[jc456]

rHey.....what can we say?

It is always the AGW religion posting up threads about the weather getting "wilder and..........." due to global warming!!!


Anyway s0n......as usual, you miss the main point. Reality is 95% perception s0n......except in the alarmist world. Trust me........when people in Chicago walk out their door into 15 degree's below zero temps on Wednesday, they wont be worrying about global warming......in fact, the jokes will be plentiful in those parts about the Stoopids who push the global warming agenda. Of course, when your balls are blue and frozen, it kinda works that way.......


And Orangeman.......c'mon and admit it. You look up on the top of this forum and see this thread with 113,000 views and 350 pages long, your fucking head explodes!!! Page after page of lOsE if you are an AGW nutter.

If reality were truly 95% perception, this would be real:

But it isn't. It is an illusion. What can you say? Well, you have posted page after page that is not of much value. Most is complete gibberish, and the rest is word salad. Maybe one day when you grow up you can join the rest of the adults here in meaningful conversation.

give it up dude!! that is some pathetic post!! and I know all you have to communicate with!!!! Yu still have no lab experiment to present right? hahahhahahaaha,LoSiNg............

Apparently, you and skooterboy are competing for immature post of the month. How old are you, anyway?

I see you are threatened by the skeptics on the board. Do you need a blanket? a Bottle? There there grasshopper, one day you might learn.

What skeptics, where? There are no skeptics on this thread. There are only those who accept AGW as fact, and those who deny it. Deniers aren't skeptics.

I see, you never got the latest update, those who accept AGW are the true 'deniers' Skeptics are those who formulate and ask questions. You need to pick up another paper s0n!!!!

And you're exactly right, Deniers are far from Skeptics.

 

[orogenicman]

If reality were truly 95% perception, this would be real:

But it isn't. It is an illusion. What can you say? Well, you have posted page after page that is not of much value. Most is complete gibberish, and the rest is word salad. Maybe one day when you grow up you can join the rest of the adults here in meaningful conversation.

give it up dude!! that is some pathetic post!! and I know all you have to communicate with!!!! Yu still have no lab experiment to present right? hahahhahahaaha,LoSiNg............

Apparently, you and skooterboy are competing for immature post of the month. How old are you, anyway?

I see you are threatened by the skeptics on the board. Do you need a blanket? a Bottle? There there grasshopper, one day you might learn.

What skeptics, where? There are no skeptics on this thread. There are only those who accept AGW as fact, and those who deny it. Deniers aren't skeptics.

I see, you never got the latest update, those who accept AGW are the true 'deniers' Skeptics are those who formulate and ask questions. You need to pick up another paper s0n!!!!

And you're exactly right, Deniers are far from Skeptics.

Put the bottle down before you hurt yourself.

 

[jc456]

give it up dude!! that is some pathetic post!! and I know all you have to communicate with!!!! Yu still have no lab experiment to present right? hahahhahahaaha,LoSiNg............

Apparently, you and skooterboy are competing for immature post of the month. How old are you, anyway?

I see you are threatened by the skeptics on the board. Do you need a blanket? a Bottle? There there grasshopper, one day you might learn.

What skeptics, where? There are no skeptics on this thread. There are only those who accept AGW as fact, and those who deny it. Deniers aren't skeptics.

I see, you never got the latest update, those who accept AGW are the true 'deniers' Skeptics are those who formulate and ask questions. You need to pick up another paper s0n!!!!

And you're exactly right, Deniers are far from Skeptics.

Put the bottle down before you hurt yourself.

Perhaps you should step away from the keyboard since you're so lost.

 

[orogenicman]

Apparently, you and skooterboy are competing for immature post of the month. How old are you, anyway?

I see you are threatened by the skeptics on the board. Do you need a blanket? a Bottle? There there grasshopper, one day you might learn.

What skeptics, where? There are no skeptics on this thread. There are only those who accept AGW as fact, and those who deny it. Deniers aren't skeptics.

I see, you never got the latest update, those who accept AGW are the true 'deniers' Skeptics are those who formulate and ask questions. You need to pick up another paper s0n!!!!

And you're exactly right, Deniers are far from Skeptics.

Put the bottle down before you hurt yourself.

Perhaps you should step away from the keyboard since you're so lost.

Says the denier who can't tell the difference between climate and weather.

 

[jc456]

I see you are threatened by the skeptics on the board. Do you need a blanket? a Bottle? There there grasshopper, one day you might learn.

What skeptics, where? There are no skeptics on this thread. There are only those who accept AGW as fact, and those who deny it. Deniers aren't skeptics.

I see, you never got the latest update, those who accept AGW are the true 'deniers' Skeptics are those who formulate and ask questions. You need to pick up another paper s0n!!!!

And you're exactly right, Deniers are far from Skeptics.

Put the bottle down before you hurt yourself.

Perhaps you should step away from the keyboard since you're so lost.

Says the denier who can't tell the difference between climate and weather.

I knew you didn't!

 

[orogenicman]

What skeptics, where? There are no skeptics on this thread. There are only those who accept AGW as fact, and those who deny it. Deniers aren't skeptics.

I see, you never got the latest update, those who accept AGW are the true 'deniers' Skeptics are those who formulate and ask questions. You need to pick up another paper s0n!!!!

And you're exactly right, Deniers are far from Skeptics.

Put the bottle down before you hurt yourself.

Perhaps you should step away from the keyboard since you're so lost.

Says the denier who can't tell the difference between climate and weather.

I knew you didn't!

You're attempts to make this about me is lame, shallow, and ineffective. But then, you knew that.

 

[skookerasbil]

I see, you never got the latest update, those who accept AGW are the true 'deniers' Skeptics are those who formulate and ask questions. You need to pick up another paper s0n!!!!

And you're exactly right, Deniers are far from Skeptics.

Put the bottle down before you hurt yourself.

Perhaps you should step away from the keyboard since you're so lost.

Says the denier who can't tell the difference between climate and weather.

I knew you didn't!

You're attempts to make this about me is lame, shallow, and ineffective. But then, you knew that.

So.........how about contributing to the thread s0n.........something beside gheyness.

Like this.......could you please show us where the science is mattering in the real world? Link(s) please.........

 

[orogenicman]

Put the bottle down before you hurt yourself.

Perhaps you should step away from the keyboard since you're so lost.

Says the denier who can't tell the difference between climate and weather.

I knew you didn't!

You're attempts to make this about me is lame, shallow, and ineffective. But then, you knew that.

So.........how about contributing to the thread s0n.........something beside gheyness.

Like this.......could you please show us where the science is mattering in the real world? Link(s) please.........

Okay, I'll bite. Prove that you are a skeptic, and not a denier.

 

[skookerasbil]

Perhaps you should step away from the keyboard since you're so lost.

Says the denier who can't tell the difference between climate and weather.

I knew you didn't!

You're attempts to make this about me is lame, shallow, and ineffective. But then, you knew that.

So.........how about contributing to the thread s0n.........something beside gheyness.

Like this.......could you please show us where the science is mattering in the real world? Link(s) please.........

Okay, I'll bite. Prove that you are a skeptic, and not a denier.

meh........how typical........a progressive answering a question with a question!!

Not a single AGW k00k has been able to post up one single link in answer to my question.............yawn.............

Meanwhile, the Obama EIA is saying US oil production will increase in 2015 >>

U.S. Sees Huge Energy Opportunity In Europe RealClearEnergy


Of course, the response by Russia, Iraq and Iran will be to pump more crude!!!!



In the real world, the science isn't mattering for dick!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Billy.............JC.............check out this gem >>>


Top 50 excuses cited by AGW k00ks for the 18 year pause in warming


An updated list of at excuses for the 18-26 year statistically significant ‘pause’ in global warming, including recent scientific papers, media quotes, blogs, and related debunkings.
List last updated on September 11th, 2014
1) Low solar activity
2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
3) Chinese coal use [debunked]
4) Montreal Protocol
5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]
7) Stratospheric Water Vapor
8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]
9) Stadium Waves
10) ‘Coincidence!’
11) Pine aerosols
12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”
13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data” http://
14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere
15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]
16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
17) AMOC ocean oscillation
18) “Global brightening” has stopped
19) “Ahistorical media”
20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]
21) Few El Ninos since 1999
22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”
23) “Not scientifically relevant”
24) The wrong type of El Ninos
25) Slower trade winds [debunked]
26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]
27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here
28) ENSO
29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations
30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific
[paper] [debunked by Trenberth & Wunsch]
31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason”
32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important
33) NAO & PDO
34) Solar cycles
35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”
36) The models really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?
38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
[debunked] [Dr. Curry’s take] [Author: “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus”]
39) “Slowdown” due to “a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum”
40) The “pause” is “probably just barely statistically significant” with 95% confidence:The “slowdown” is “probably just barely statistically significant” and not “meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change”
41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:
The “recent hiatus in global warming is mainly caused by internal variability of the climate” because “anthropogenic aerosol emissions from Europe and North America towards China and India between 1996 and 2010 has surprisingly warmed rather than cooled the global climate.”
[Before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to have minimal effects on climate, but as of now, they “surprisingly warm” the climate]
42) Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ really is missing and is not “supported by the data itself” in the “real ocean”:
“it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself. Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic.” [Josh Willis]
43) Ocean Variability: [NYT article]
“After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of climate the “pause”] is ocean variability. That’s actually quite impressive progress.” [Andrew Dessler]
44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:
” I think the findings that the heat is going into the Atlantic and Southern Ocean’s is probably pretty robust. However, I will defer to people like Josh Willis who know the data better than I do.”-Andrew Dessler. Debunked by Josh Willis, who Dessler says “knows the data better than I do,” says in the very same NYT article that “it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself” – [Josh Willis]
45) We don’t have a theory that fits all of the data:
“Ultimately, the challenge is to come up with the parsimonious theory [of the ‘pause’] that fits all of the data” [Andrew Dessler]
46) We don’t have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the “pause” is due to such natural cycles:
“If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I don’t think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozens of cycles to determine what the actual underlying variability looks like. In fact, I don’t think we even know if it IS a cycle.” [Andrew Dessler]
47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both
“this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to implicitly take the position that it’s purely internal variability, which I’m not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future.” [Andrew Dessler in an NYT article ]
48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:
It’s the Atlantic, not Pacific, and “the hiatus in the warming…should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke” [John Michael Wallace]
49) The other papers with excuses for the “pause” are not “science done right”:
” If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.” [Carl Wunsch]
50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway: [Carl Wunsch in an NYT Article]
“The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up…How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?”
51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then” [NCAR press release]
[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] [“pause” due to natural variability]
52) ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend
PLOS one Paper Macia et al. discussed in European Commission news release here.



List of excuses for 8216 The Pause 8217 in global warming Watts Up With That






My favorite?

"Global brightening has stopped"

I think this is one used recently by Mamooth!!! I love these people!!!!

 

[jc456]

I see, you never got the latest update, those who accept AGW are the true 'deniers' Skeptics are those who formulate and ask questions. You need to pick up another paper s0n!!!!

And you're exactly right, Deniers are far from Skeptics.

Put the bottle down before you hurt yourself.

Perhaps you should step away from the keyboard since you're so lost.

Says the denier who can't tell the difference between climate and weather.

I knew you didn't!

You're attempts to make this about me is lame, shallow, and ineffective. But then, you knew that.

It seems to me, you made it about you a long time ago. You're shallow and uninformed. You have no information that can be validated. You believe that deflection is the means to a debate. tsk, tsk, when you're called on it, you melt like butter.

 

[IanC]

Hey Billy.............JC.............check out this gem >>>


Top 50 excuses cited by AGW k00ks for the 18 year pause in warming


An updated list of at excuses for the 18-26 year statistically significant ‘pause’ in global warming, including recent scientific papers, media quotes, blogs, and related debunkings.
List last updated on September 11th, 2014
1) Low solar activity
2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
3) Chinese coal use [debunked]
4) Montreal Protocol
5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]
7) Stratospheric Water Vapor
8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]
9) Stadium Waves
10) ‘Coincidence!’
11) Pine aerosols
12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”
13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data” http://
14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere
15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]
16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
17) AMOC ocean oscillation
18) “Global brightening” has stopped
19) “Ahistorical media”
20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]
21) Few El Ninos since 1999
22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”
23) “Not scientifically relevant”
24) The wrong type of El Ninos
25) Slower trade winds [debunked]
26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]
27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here
28) ENSO
29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations
30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific
[paper] [debunked by Trenberth & Wunsch]
31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason”
32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important
33) NAO & PDO
34) Solar cycles
35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”
36) The models really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?
38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
[debunked] [Dr. Curry’s take] [Author: “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus”]
39) “Slowdown” due to “a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum”
40) The “pause” is “probably just barely statistically significant” with 95% confidence:The “slowdown” is “probably just barely statistically significant” and not “meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change”
41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:
The “recent hiatus in global warming is mainly caused by internal variability of the climate” because “anthropogenic aerosol emissions from Europe and North America towards China and India between 1996 and 2010 has surprisingly warmed rather than cooled the global climate.”
[Before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to have minimal effects on climate, but as of now, they “surprisingly warm” the climate]
42) Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ really is missing and is not “supported by the data itself” in the “real ocean”:
“it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself. Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic.” [Josh Willis]
43) Ocean Variability: [NYT article]
“After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of climate the “pause”] is ocean variability. That’s actually quite impressive progress.” [Andrew Dessler]
44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:
” I think the findings that the heat is going into the Atlantic and Southern Ocean’s is probably pretty robust. However, I will defer to people like Josh Willis who know the data better than I do.”-Andrew Dessler. Debunked by Josh Willis, who Dessler says “knows the data better than I do,” says in the very same NYT article that “it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself” – [Josh Willis]
45) We don’t have a theory that fits all of the data:
“Ultimately, the challenge is to come up with the parsimonious theory [of the ‘pause’] that fits all of the data” [Andrew Dessler]
46) We don’t have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the “pause” is due to such natural cycles:
“If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I don’t think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozens of cycles to determine what the actual underlying variability looks like. In fact, I don’t think we even know if it IS a cycle.” [Andrew Dessler]
47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both
“this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to implicitly take the position that it’s purely internal variability, which I’m not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future.” [Andrew Dessler in an NYT article ]
48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:
It’s the Atlantic, not Pacific, and “the hiatus in the warming…should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke” [John Michael Wallace]
49) The other papers with excuses for the “pause” are not “science done right”:
” If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.” [Carl Wunsch]
50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway: [Carl Wunsch in an NYT Article]
“The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up…How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?”
51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then” [NCAR press release]
[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] [“pause” due to natural variability]
52) ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend
PLOS one Paper Macia et al. discussed in European Commission news release here.



List of excuses for 8216 The Pause 8217 in global warming Watts Up With That






My favorite?

"Global brightening has stopped"

I think this is one used recently by Mamooth!!! I love these people!!!!

#50 is not an excuse but the actual reason for this charade. With the Media's help, of course.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Billy.............JC.............check out this gem >>>


Top 50 excuses cited by AGW k00ks for the 18 year pause in warming


An updated list of at excuses for the 18-26 year statistically significant ‘pause’ in global warming, including recent scientific papers, media quotes, blogs, and related debunkings.
List last updated on September 11th, 2014
1) Low solar activity
2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
3) Chinese coal use [debunked]
4) Montreal Protocol
5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]
7) Stratospheric Water Vapor
8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]
9) Stadium Waves
10) ‘Coincidence!’
11) Pine aerosols
12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”
13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data” http://
14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere
15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]
16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
17) AMOC ocean oscillation
18) “Global brightening” has stopped
19) “Ahistorical media”
20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]
21) Few El Ninos since 1999
22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”
23) “Not scientifically relevant”
24) The wrong type of El Ninos
25) Slower trade winds [debunked]
26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]
27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here
28) ENSO
29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations
30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific
[paper] [debunked by Trenberth & Wunsch]
31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason”
32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important
33) NAO & PDO
34) Solar cycles
35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”
36) The models really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?
38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
[debunked] [Dr. Curry’s take] [Author: “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus”]
39) “Slowdown” due to “a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum”
40) The “pause” is “probably just barely statistically significant” with 95% confidence:The “slowdown” is “probably just barely statistically significant” and not “meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change”
41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:
The “recent hiatus in global warming is mainly caused by internal variability of the climate” because “anthropogenic aerosol emissions from Europe and North America towards China and India between 1996 and 2010 has surprisingly warmed rather than cooled the global climate.”
[Before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to have minimal effects on climate, but as of now, they “surprisingly warm” the climate]
42) Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ really is missing and is not “supported by the data itself” in the “real ocean”:
“it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself. Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic.” [Josh Willis]
43) Ocean Variability: [NYT article]
“After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of climate the “pause”] is ocean variability. That’s actually quite impressive progress.” [Andrew Dessler]
44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:
” I think the findings that the heat is going into the Atlantic and Southern Ocean’s is probably pretty robust. However, I will defer to people like Josh Willis who know the data better than I do.”-Andrew Dessler. Debunked by Josh Willis, who Dessler says “knows the data better than I do,” says in the very same NYT article that “it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself” – [Josh Willis]
45) We don’t have a theory that fits all of the data:
“Ultimately, the challenge is to come up with the parsimonious theory [of the ‘pause’] that fits all of the data” [Andrew Dessler]
46) We don’t have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the “pause” is due to such natural cycles:
“If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I don’t think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozens of cycles to determine what the actual underlying variability looks like. In fact, I don’t think we even know if it IS a cycle.” [Andrew Dessler]
47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both
“this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to implicitly take the position that it’s purely internal variability, which I’m not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future.” [Andrew Dessler in an NYT article ]
48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:
It’s the Atlantic, not Pacific, and “the hiatus in the warming…should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke” [John Michael Wallace]
49) The other papers with excuses for the “pause” are not “science done right”:
” If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.” [Carl Wunsch]
50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway: [Carl Wunsch in an NYT Article]
“The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up…How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?”
51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then” [NCAR press release]
[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] [“pause” due to natural variability]
52) ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend
PLOS one Paper Macia et al. discussed in European Commission news release here.



List of excuses for 8216 The Pause 8217 in global warming Watts Up With That






My favorite?

"Global brightening has stopped"

I think this is one used recently by Mamooth!!! I love these people!!!!

#50 is not an excuse but the actual reason for this charade. With the Media's help, of course.

agreed..........


50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway: [Carl Wunsch in an NYT Article]
“The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up…How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?”





The religion covers the ruse by constantly referring to "real scientists"......as if tens of thousands of other doctoral scientists are goofball nit-wits ALL being paid off by the oil companies.

 

[orogenicman]

Says the denier who can't tell the difference between climate and weather.

I knew you didn't!

You're attempts to make this about me is lame, shallow, and ineffective. But then, you knew that.

So.........how about contributing to the thread s0n.........something beside gheyness.

Like this.......could you please show us where the science is mattering in the real world? Link(s) please.........

Okay, I'll bite. Prove that you are a skeptic, and not a denier.

meh........how typical........a progressive answering a question with a question!!

Not a single AGW k00k has been able to post up one single link in answer to my question.............yawn.............

Meanwhile, the Obama EIA is saying US oil production will increase in 2015 >>

U.S. Sees Huge Energy Opportunity In Europe RealClearEnergy


Of course, the response by Russia, Iraq and Iran will be to pump more crude!!!!



In the real world, the science isn't mattering for dick!!!

Clue to the clueless. It was not a question. It was a challenge. Try again.

 

[orogenicman]

Put the bottle down before you hurt yourself.

Perhaps you should step away from the keyboard since you're so lost.

Says the denier who can't tell the difference between climate and weather.

I knew you didn't!

You're attempts to make this about me is lame, shallow, and ineffective. But then, you knew that.

It seems to me, you made it about you a long time ago. You're shallow and uninformed. You have no information that can be validated. You believe that deflection is the means to a debate. tsk, tsk, when you're called on it, you melt like butter.

Right. The world's scientists are all wrong but a handful of preliterate deniers are right. Seems to me that your argument uses the exact same sniveling tactics that creationists use. Congratulations, Mr. Lemming.

 

[skookerasbil]

Perhaps you should step away from the keyboard since you're so lost.

Says the denier who can't tell the difference between climate and weather.

I knew you didn't!

You're attempts to make this about me is lame, shallow, and ineffective. But then, you knew that.

It seems to me, you made it about you a long time ago. You're shallow and uninformed. You have no information that can be validated. You believe that deflection is the means to a debate. tsk, tsk, when you're called on it, you melt like butter.

Right. The world's scientists are all wrong but a handful of preliterate deniers are right. Seems to me that your argument uses the exact same sniveling tactics that creationists use. Congratulations, Mr. Lemming.

You mean......the tens of thousands of "phony" Phd scientists who say global warming is bogus? Those world scientists? Or......let me guess Orangeman.........they don't count??. Clearly........ ALL be being paid off by the oil industry!!!The ones who..........the tens of thousands............who ask the question, "Why don't these 'climate scientists' care about scientific methodology......that is it frequently conveniently ignored?". The one's who call bs on using computer models for projections and stating it is science?

Those world scientists???

 

[skookerasbil]

Meanwhile in Mobile Alabama this morning.........more decisive AGW k00k losing!!!!!


COLDEST TEMPS EVER FOR THE CITY OF MOBILE!!!!


Record-breaking weather Mobile hits 17 degrees beating 1886 temperature of 18 AL.com

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/happy_man_laughing.jpg.html][/URL]


nobody cares about the science!!!!

 

[orogenicman]

Says the denier who can't tell the difference between climate and weather.

I knew you didn't!

You're attempts to make this about me is lame, shallow, and ineffective. But then, you knew that.

It seems to me, you made it about you a long time ago. You're shallow and uninformed. You have no information that can be validated. You believe that deflection is the means to a debate. tsk, tsk, when you're called on it, you melt like butter.

Right. The world's scientists are all wrong but a handful of preliterate deniers are right. Seems to me that your argument uses the exact same sniveling tactics that creationists use. Congratulations, Mr. Lemming.

You mean......the tens of thousands of "phony" Phd scientists who say global warming is bogus? Those world scientists? Or......let me guess Orangeman.........they don't count??. Clearly........ ALL be being paid off by the oil industry!!!The ones who..........the tens of thousands............who ask the question, "Why don't these 'climate scientists' care about scientific methodology......that is it frequently conveniently ignored?". The one's who call bs on using computer models for projections and stating it is science?

Those world scientists???

Yeah, in some 37th dimensional parallel universe, I am sure that's true. In ours, not so much.