The "Science is settled" narrative is STOOPID

[mamooth]

Billy, I've asked you several times before for the source of your plainly fudged data. Every time, you refuse to give the source. You just throw out your fraudulent pictures, and demand that they be accepted as accurate.

I've also pointed out how your graphs are flatly contradicted by the actual data I show, with primary sources.

Conclusion: You are a fraud. You're proudly faking data.

So, why are you faking the data?

If you're not faking all the data, there's a way to prove it. Provide your sources.

DO you mean this data?

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate according to AR1 and succeeding papers.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Now do you want to discuss how the "forcing" which is now zero by empirical evidence and how the null hypothesis shows the theroy of CO2 induced has failed at producing the base LOG rate warming, found in a closed cylinder lab environment, where water vapor has removed all warming possibly caused by CO2?

 

[mamooth]

Lets start with the mid tropospheric hot spot which doe not exist..

Except it does exist. Some denier fables just refuse to die.

It is essential to the AGW theroy and a coupled state to water vapor. Since it does not exist, neither does the coupled state.

It's actually essential to any natural warming theory as well. It has to happen, no matter what the cause of the warming is.

This kind of illustreates how Billy works, in that he reliably gets every single thing totally wrong. There's too much of his crap to work through here, but the commonality of it is that all of his claims are the direct opposite of reality. He's basically fabricated his own special delusional reality.

 

[Coyote]

What is the margin of error of *your* devices and spatial position?

Did you take time to read the whole paper and research the instruments in use?

That is not my field of science and I make no pretense of being a chemist, phsyicist, climate scientist, oceanographer or any sort of specialist - nor do I think are most of the participants here. I can read what other scientists write however and form opinions based on that. You like to throw out a lot of technical terms like confetti, which add nothing to the discussion beyond obfuscation.

Funny, neither am I but I don't believe in blind faith as you do, so what is the answer, I say debate it and perform needed experiments by those who do. Ah, but here is the problem those with the power say no. Which then begs the question why not and the answer from them is it's settled. Hah, it's far from settled. Before anyone forces me for money, I have to have the challenge and experiment. And the left on here says no! To which we are where we are here. All anyone has to do is publish the experiment that shows what 120 ppm of co2 does to temperature. Oh and show how ice makes fire warmer!

Editing: oh, and because those in power don't want to debate it, is the reason I have my doubts that they know they're right! They are afraid of being shown their wrong.

Why not have the debate and it validated, pound their chests and say I told you so!

It's kind of like debating evolution. Those who counter it's an unproven theory aren't able to offer an alternative explanation but rather base their position on the inconsistencies they can find in the prevailing theory as if that totally disproves the theory.

Generally inconsistencies do invalidate a theory, but the creationist don't find any real inconsistencies in the theory. What they find is a bunch of strawmen. They claim "if evolution was true then we should see 'X'." However, there's nothing about evolution that implies we should see 'X.'

I agree. But they also find inconsistencies - or "holes" in the theory to exploit. For example - gaps in the fossil record. Or they take examples that show that maybe evolution did not occur in slow gradual changes but in sudden jumps that caused big changes in relatively short times. They then use those examples to "disprove" the theory. The thing is, with any scientific theory, good science demands that when new evidence comes to light, the theory is re-examined. Changes in science across the disciplines has been exponential due to new technology opening up vistas we never before examined. So, I do agree that "settled science" may not always be "settled" - something could be completely reversed or, merely revised. Our understanding of climate is in it's infancy, and it's hardly a certain science yet because there is so much that affects it and I'm sure some of what we think now will end up being proven wrong. But I am not a climate scientist - I'm not a physicist, oceanographer, geologist, chemist, or a member of any of the disciplines that make up climate study. Neither, I suspect are many here. So we depend on what we read, our analysis of the sources, and our understanding of it, to base our opinions of it. I find it compelling that a huge percentage of qualified scientists, who's work crosses many disciplines, feel that man does have an effect on science. Once you get that kind of consensus - a consensus that has been increasing not decreasing - then it's pretty compelling.

 

[bripat9643]

When have the global warming cult leaders ever gotten a prediction correct?

Pretty much every time. That's why global warming science has such credibility, because it's been getting everything right for decades running now. Your crazy cult claims otherwise, but your cult is just ignored, on account that it's crazy.

Global Warming science has no credibility. Every prediction it has made has turned out to be false. After Katrina, all the AGW Chicken Littles were predicting more frequent extreme hurricanes. Instead we've had fewer hurricanes. After a few disastrous tornadoes the AGW Chicken Littles were predicting more extreme tornadoes. Instead we've had fewer tornadoes. The AGW Chicken Littles predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by now. Instead the ice has come roaring back. Out of 100 computer models 98 were nowhere near the actual climate record.

What have the AGW Chicken Littles been right about?

You can scream that's not true, but you're not making any difference by screaming to the choir here. You need to convince the world of science, and you've failed completely in that regard, because all the evidence says you're making everything up. It's not that there's a conspiracy against you. It's that your science just stinks.

Actually all we need to do is convince the voters. No one is ever going to convince a bunch of paid-off "scientists" to detach themselves from their gravy train.

 

[mamooth]

After Katrina, all the AGW Chicken Littles were predicting more frequent extreme hurricanes. Instead we've had fewer hurricanes.

No, more frequent hurricanes were not predicted. That's one of your cult's big lies.

After a few disastrous tornadoes the AGW Chicken Littles were predicting more extreme tornadoes. Instead we've had fewer tornadoes.

Nope, more tornadoes were not predicted. That's another one of your cult's big lies.

The AGW Chicken Littles predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by now. Instead the ice has come roaring back.

Nope. Nobody predicted that, and the ice extent is still declining. More of your cult's big lies.

Out of 100 computer models 98 were nowhere near the actual climate record.

Nope. The models have been remarkably accurate. So, yet more of your cult's big lies.

What have the AGW Chicken Littles been right about?

As you've so aptly demonstrated, we've been absolutely right about how your cult tends to lie about essentially everything. No, I don't expect you to understand that, as your brainwashing is too complete.

On a more serious note, the science has been spot on correct about the temperature rise, ice decline, polar amplification, outgoing longwave changes, backradation changes, tropospheric hotspot, stratospheric cooling, ocean acidification ... that is, pretty much everything.

Actually all we need to do is convince the voters. No one is ever going to convince a bunch of paid-off "scientists" to detach themselves from their gravy train.

And your political cult's conspiracy theory makes its inevitable appearance. Only cultists try to make this a political issue. The rational people just talk about the science. Because we can. You can't.

 

[bripat9643]

After Katrina, all the AGW Chicken Littles were predicting more frequent extreme hurricanes. Instead we've had fewer hurricanes.

No, more frequent hurricanes were not predicted. That's one of your cult's big lies.

After a few disastrous tornadoes the AGW Chicken Littles were predicting more extreme tornadoes. Instead we've had fewer tornadoes.

Nope, more tornadoes were not predicted. That's another one of your cult's big lies.

The AGW Chicken Littles predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by now. Instead the ice has come roaring back.

Nope. Nobody predicted that, and the ice extent is still declining. More of your cult's big lies.

Out of 100 computer models 98 were nowhere near the actual climate record.

Nope. The models have been remarkably accurate. So, yet more of your cult's big lies.

What have the AGW Chicken Littles been right about?

As you've so aptly demonstrated, we've been absolutely right about how your cult tends to lie about essentially everything. No, I don't expect you to understand that, as your brainwashing is too complete.

On a more serious note, the science has been spot on correct about the temperature rise, ice decline, polar amplification, outgoing longwave changes, backradation changes, tropospheric hotspot, stratospheric cooling, ocean acidification ... that is, pretty much everything.

Actually all we need to do is convince the voters. No one is ever going to convince a bunch of paid-off "scientists" to detach themselves from their gravy train.

And your political cult's conspiracy theory makes its inevitable appearance. Only cultists try to make this a political issue. The rational people just talk about the science. Because we can. You can't.

 

[mamooth]

Poor Bri. Cognitive dissonance is causing him problems. He believes his cult is infallible, but now he's seeing how his cult keeps lying. The contradiction is causing him severe mental discomfort.

His solution? Lash out at the source of the pain, the ones who keep pointing out that his infallible cult is making it all up.

 

[jc456]

That is not my field of science and I make no pretense of being a chemist, phsyicist, climate scientist, oceanographer or any sort of specialist - nor do I think are most of the participants here. I can read what other scientists write however and form opinions based on that. You like to throw out a lot of technical terms like confetti, which add nothing to the discussion beyond obfuscation.

Being technically precise is the only way the science can resolve the issue. Not understanding the mechanics of the convection cycle, atmospheric cycles or IR bandpass/absorption is the difference between actual predictive forecasts or failure, like we have seen from the current crop of failed models.

What has 120ppm of CO2 increase over 155 years done to our atmosphere? Please provide Data, Method and process used to determine this.

I'm not a scientist in that specialty so no. I'm not going to provide "data, method, and process". I'm happy to discuss it, but you don't seem to be doing that.

So you debate things from a feel good perspective rather than a fact based perspective. That is the problem with AGW'ers and fear mongers. they do not use facts, they use conjecture and non truths' and expect everyone to believe them.. You are the one who did not come here to debate it, you want religious adherence without basis in fact.

he is just someone who believes because the left told him he had to. I don't believe for the exact same reason.

Me, I need proof. I'm not a practicing catholic because I need more evidence than what I received to believe. I do however believe in a higher being. Maybe they are alien, maybe spiritual. Not sure. I do wonder how someone invented the things that were invented. Somewhere there was an exchange of knowledge from higher source, at least in my eyes.

So you're someone who just believes what the right tells you? Thanks for the confirmation

huh? I have no leader like you and yours. I supposed since you have that thought that you indeed have a leader. Me, I use my own brain. I got it when I was born and I use it frequently. I go out and do research, it is what most respectable/ responsible people do. I have found that there is no experimental (science) proof of man made global warming. I know, based on research that once the earth was frozen and at some time millions of years ago it began to thaw. man evolved and the earth continued to warm. Beyond that, you have nothing to prove the earth isn't still warming naturally, although the last 18 plus years there has been a hiatus. Conceded as such in the IPCC AR5 report. Go read it. it's amazing. There are also many lies in that report or probably more accurately put, they ignored the observed data that was presented to them and instead march forward with the lies of the left peer review. There is a rep Judith Curry, notable skeptic doesn't recognize the man made accusations in the AR5 report.

Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM Climate Etc.

abstract:
"
My main point is this. If there are substantial changes in a conclusion in the AR5 relative to a confident conclusion in the AR4, then the confidence level should not increase and should probably drop, since the science clearly is not settled and is in a state of flux. While there has been a reduction in either the magnitude of the change or in a confidence level in some of the supporting findings, these changes do not seem to have influenced the main conclusion on climate change attribution:

It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951-2010.

The ‘extremely likely’ represents an increase in confidence from the ‘very likely’ of the AR4. An increase in confidence in the attribution statement, in view of the recent pause and the lower confidence level in some of the supporting findings, is incomprehensible to me. Further, the projections of 21st century changes remain overconfident. These inconsistencies seems to me to reflect a failure in meta-reasoning by the IPCC. I hope that these inconsistencies are pointed out at the forthcoming meeting in Stockholm."

Here is a write up of hers for August 2013...Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years Climate Etc.

abstract:
"
Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.


The latest issue of Nature Climate Change includes the following Opinion & Comment by Fyfe, Gillett and Zwiers: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. [link; behind paywall]. Its a short piece, here are some excerpts:

Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval). This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models. By averaging simulated temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty."

And her following:
from Wikipedia:
"In September 2010, she created Climate Etc., a blog related to climate change and hosted by Curry. She wrote that "Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface."[6] She wrote: "I have a total of 12,000 citations of my publications (since my first publication in 1983). Climate Etc. gets on average about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments." She gets " zero academic credit or incentives for my blogging and tweeting," but hopes that " social media and the associated skill set [will become] better recognized within the academic system.""

 

[jc456]

Billy, I've asked you several times before for the source of your plainly fudged data. Every time, you refuse to give the source. You just throw out your fraudulent pictures, and demand that they be accepted as accurate.

I've also pointed out how your graphs are flatly contradicted by the actual data I show, with primary sources.

Conclusion: You are a fraud. You're proudly faking data.

So, why are you faking the data?

If you're not faking all the data, there's a way to prove it. Provide your sources.

DO you mean this data?

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate according to AR1 and succeeding papers.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Now do you want to discuss how the "forcing" which is now zero by empirical evidence and how the null hypothesis shows the theroy of CO2 induced has failed at producing the base LOG rate warming, found in a closed cylinder lab environment, where water vapor has removed all warming possibly caused by CO2?

hmmmm.. you have a lot of nerve making a statement like: "I've asked you several times before for the source of your plainly fudged data" when you haven't supplied the experiment that shows 120 PPM of CO2 increases temperature. I think that makes you a hypocrite.

 

[jc456]

Lets start with the mid tropospheric hot spot which doe not exist..

Except it does exist. Some denier fables just refuse to die.

It is essential to the AGW theroy and a coupled state to water vapor. Since it does not exist, neither does the coupled state.

It's actually essential to any natural warming theory as well. It has to happen, no matter what the cause of the warming is.

This kind of illustreates how Billy works, in that he reliably gets every single thing totally wrong. There's too much of his crap to work through here, but the commonality of it is that all of his claims are the direct opposite of reality. He's basically fabricated his own special delusional reality.

It does? oh pray-tel, let's see that information that shows that.

 

[jc456]

After Katrina, all the AGW Chicken Littles were predicting more frequent extreme hurricanes. Instead we've had fewer hurricanes.

No, more frequent hurricanes were not predicted. That's one of your cult's big lies.

After a few disastrous tornadoes the AGW Chicken Littles were predicting more extreme tornadoes. Instead we've had fewer tornadoes.

Nope, more tornadoes were not predicted. That's another one of your cult's big lies.

The AGW Chicken Littles predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by now. Instead the ice has come roaring back.

Nope. Nobody predicted that, and the ice extent is still declining. More of your cult's big lies.

Out of 100 computer models 98 were nowhere near the actual climate record.

Nope. The models have been remarkably accurate. So, yet more of your cult's big lies.

What have the AGW Chicken Littles been right about?

As you've so aptly demonstrated, we've been absolutely right about how your cult tends to lie about essentially everything. No, I don't expect you to understand that, as your brainwashing is too complete.

On a more serious note, the science has been spot on correct about the temperature rise, ice decline, polar amplification, outgoing longwave changes, backradation changes, tropospheric hotspot, stratospheric cooling, ocean acidification ... that is, pretty much everything.

Actually all we need to do is convince the voters. No one is ever going to convince a bunch of paid-off "scientists" to detach themselves from their gravy train.

And your political cult's conspiracy theory makes its inevitable appearance. Only cultists try to make this a political issue. The rational people just talk about the science. Because we can. You can't.

Talk about a denier, dude/ dudette you are the poster child for that!!!! hahahahahahahaaha your eyes still brown?

 

[Coyote]

Being technically precise is the only way the science can resolve the issue. Not understanding the mechanics of the convection cycle, atmospheric cycles or IR bandpass/absorption is the difference between actual predictive forecasts or failure, like we have seen from the current crop of failed models.

What has 120ppm of CO2 increase over 155 years done to our atmosphere? Please provide Data, Method and process used to determine this.

I'm not a scientist in that specialty so no. I'm not going to provide "data, method, and process". I'm happy to discuss it, but you don't seem to be doing that.

So you debate things from a feel good perspective rather than a fact based perspective. That is the problem with AGW'ers and fear mongers. they do not use facts, they use conjecture and non truths' and expect everyone to believe them.. You are the one who did not come here to debate it, you want religious adherence without basis in fact.

he is just someone who believes because the left told him he had to. I don't believe for the exact same reason.

Me, I need proof. I'm not a practicing catholic because I need more evidence than what I received to believe. I do however believe in a higher being. Maybe they are alien, maybe spiritual. Not sure. I do wonder how someone invented the things that were invented. Somewhere there was an exchange of knowledge from higher source, at least in my eyes.

So you're someone who just believes what the right tells you? Thanks for the confirmation

huh? I have no leader like you and yours. I supposed since you have that thought that you indeed have a leader. Me, I use my own brain. I got it when I was born and I use it frequently.

You sure about all that? Who's my leader?

I go out and do research, it is what most respectable/ responsible people do. I have found that there is no experimental (science) proof of man made global warming. I know, based on research that once the earth was frozen and at some time millions of years ago it began to thaw. man evolved and the earth continued to warm.

Sounds like your "respectable/responsible" research was limited to skeptic science blogs.

Beyond that, you have nothing to prove the earth isn't still warming, although the last 18 plus years there has been a hiatus. Conceded as such in the IPCC AR5 report. Go read it. it's amazing. There are also many lies in that report or probable more accurately put, they ignored the observed data that was presented to them and instead march forward with the lies of the left peer review. There is a rep Judith Curry, notable skeptic doesn't recognize the man made accusations in the AR5 report.

Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM Climate Etc.

abstract:
"
My main point is this. If there are substantial changes in a conclusion in the AR5 relative to a confident conclusion in the AR4, then the confidence level should not increase and should probably drop, since the science clearly is not settled and is in a state of flux. While there has been a reduction in either the magnitude of the change or in a confidence level in some of the supporting findings, these changes do not seem to have influenced the main conclusion on climate change attribution:

It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951-2010.

The ‘extremely likely’ represents an increase in confidence from the ‘very likely’ of the AR4. An increase in confidence in the attribution statement, in view of the recent pause and the lower confidence level in some of the supporting findings, is incomprehensible to me. Further, the projections of 21st century changes remain overconfident. These inconsistencies seems to me to reflect a failure in meta-reasoning by the IPCC. I hope that these inconsistencies are pointed out at the forthcoming meeting in Stockholm."

Here is a write up of hers for August 2013...Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years Climate Etc.

abstract:
"
Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.

Where is the actual IPCC report? It looks like links are to a discussion of excerpts, not the report itself.

The latest issue of Nature Climate Change includes the following Opinion & Comment by Fyfe, Gillett and Zwiers: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. [link; behind paywall]. Its a short piece, here are some excerpts:

Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval). This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models. By averaging simulated temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty."

And her following:
from Wikipedia:
"In September 2010, she created Climate Etc., a blog related to climate change and hosted by Curry. She wrote that "Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface."[6] She wrote: "I have a total of 12,000 citations of my publications (since my first publication in 1983). Climate Etc. gets on average about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments." She gets " zero academic credit or incentives for my blogging and tweeting," but hopes that " social media and the associated skill set [will become] better recognized within the academic system.""

It sounds like it's saying the rate of change is slower than originally predicted - it's not saying it is not occuring.

 

[jc456]

When have the global warming cult leaders ever gotten a prediction correct?

Pretty much every time. That's why global warming science has such credibility, because it's been getting everything right for decades running now. Your crazy cult claims otherwise, but your cult is just ignored, on account that it's crazy.

You can scream that's not true, but you're not making any difference by screaming to the choir here. You need to convince the world of science, and you've failed completely in that regard, because all the evidence says you're making everything up. It's not that there's a conspiracy against you. It's that your science just stinks.

so why didn't the IPCC AR5 report state that, instead they stated something slimy.

I'm not a scientist in that specialty so no. I'm not going to provide "data, method, and process". I'm happy to discuss it, but you don't seem to be doing that.

So you debate things from a feel good perspective rather than a fact based perspective. That is the problem with AGW'ers and fear mongers. they do not use facts, they use conjecture and non truths' and expect everyone to believe them.. You are the one who did not come here to debate it, you want religious adherence without basis in fact.

he is just someone who believes because the left told him he had to. I don't believe for the exact same reason.

Me, I need proof. I'm not a practicing catholic because I need more evidence than what I received to believe. I do however believe in a higher being. Maybe they are alien, maybe spiritual. Not sure. I do wonder how someone invented the things that were invented. Somewhere there was an exchange of knowledge from higher source, at least in my eyes.

So you're someone who just believes what the right tells you? Thanks for the confirmation

huh? I have no leader like you and yours. I supposed since you have that thought that you indeed have a leader. Me, I use my own brain. I got it when I was born and I use it frequently.

You sure about all that? Who's my leader?

I go out and do research, it is what most respectable/ responsible people do. I have found that there is no experimental (science) proof of man made global warming. I know, based on research that once the earth was frozen and at some time millions of years ago it began to thaw. man evolved and the earth continued to warm.

Sounds like your "respectable/responsible" research was limited to skeptic science blogs.

Beyond that, you have nothing to prove the earth isn't still warming, although the last 18 plus years there has been a hiatus. Conceded as such in the IPCC AR5 report. Go read it. it's amazing. There are also many lies in that report or probable more accurately put, they ignored the observed data that was presented to them and instead march forward with the lies of the left peer review. There is a rep Judith Curry, notable skeptic doesn't recognize the man made accusations in the AR5 report.

Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM Climate Etc.

abstract:
"
My main point is this. If there are substantial changes in a conclusion in the AR5 relative to a confident conclusion in the AR4, then the confidence level should not increase and should probably drop, since the science clearly is not settled and is in a state of flux. While there has been a reduction in either the magnitude of the change or in a confidence level in some of the supporting findings, these changes do not seem to have influenced the main conclusion on climate change attribution:

It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951-2010.

The ‘extremely likely’ represents an increase in confidence from the ‘very likely’ of the AR4. An increase in confidence in the attribution statement, in view of the recent pause and the lower confidence level in some of the supporting findings, is incomprehensible to me. Further, the projections of 21st century changes remain overconfident. These inconsistencies seems to me to reflect a failure in meta-reasoning by the IPCC. I hope that these inconsistencies are pointed out at the forthcoming meeting in Stockholm."

Here is a write up of hers for August 2013...Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years Climate Etc.

abstract:
"
Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.

Where is the actual IPCC report? It looks like links are to a discussion of excerpts, not the report itself.

The latest issue of Nature Climate Change includes the following Opinion & Comment by Fyfe, Gillett and Zwiers: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. [link; behind paywall]. Its a short piece, here are some excerpts:

Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval). This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models. By averaging simulated temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty."

And her following:
from Wikipedia:
"In September 2010, she created Climate Etc., a blog related to climate change and hosted by Curry. She wrote that "Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface."[6] She wrote: "I have a total of 12,000 citations of my publications (since my first publication in 1983). Climate Etc. gets on average about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments." She gets " zero academic credit or incentives for my blogging and tweeting," but hopes that " social media and the associated skill set [will become] better recognized within the academic system.""

It sounds like it's saying the rate of change is slower than originally predicted - it's not saying it is not occuring.

again, I never said that, I said that I wanted to see an experiment that shows that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. That sir, is what I have been saying on here for over 14 months. I have not varied from that position, and until one of you all on the left can present such a thing, I will maintain my directive.

I see enough of all the lefty loser material on a daily basis right here. it comes out daily, I go read it and I have questions that most never get answered.

And as for you and the left, your debating skills mimics those already on here that were here before you started your presentations. You can be the moderator and I'll respect that part of your job, but a climate specialist you ain't, and again, your position and responses are mirror images of those on the left in here. And it is your lack of debate that I use as your attachment to a leader. It is the same mantra.

 

[IanC]

.
Experiment for what?

Please show us how 120 ppm has affected the global temperature in the mid troposphere and why it has not caused any warming as your CAGW mongers have screamed, at the top of their lungs, that we are all going to fry.. I await the Math, Method and data to reproduce your experiment.

For what point?

Lets start with the mid tropospheric hot spot which doe not exist... It is essential to the AGW theroy and a coupled state to water vapor. Since it does not exist, neither does the coupled state.

It's not essential to AGW theory. At least not in the way you think.

The so called "Positive Feedback loop" is integral to the theroy. Showing that it is not coupled, in even the most remote way, is damning to the theroy.

The climate sensitivity estimates are probably the most important issue to be dealt with in climate science. I believe you have touched upon one of the reasons why climate models are running so hot. CO2 does affect the system but as a component that is separate from the whole rather than the driving factor in the feedback system. CO2 is not the control knob for climate, as was commonly proclaimed five years ago.

 

[bripat9643]

Billy, I've asked you several times before for the source of your plainly fudged data. Every time, you refuse to give the source. You just throw out your fraudulent pictures, and demand that they be accepted as accurate.

I've also pointed out how your graphs are flatly contradicted by the actual data I show, with primary sources.

Conclusion: You are a fraud. You're proudly faking data.

So, why are you faking the data?

If you're not faking all the data, there's a way to prove it. Provide your sources.

DO you mean this data?

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate according to AR1 and succeeding papers.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Now do you want to discuss how the "forcing" which is now zero by empirical evidence and how the null hypothesis shows the theroy of CO2 induced has failed at producing the base LOG rate warming, found in a closed cylinder lab environment, where water vapor has removed all warming possibly caused by CO2?

hmmmm.. you have a lot of nerve making a statement like: "I've asked you several times before for the source of your plainly fudged data" when you haven't supplied the experiment that shows 120 PPM of CO2 increases temperature. I think that makes you a hypocrite.

You're wasting your time on Mamooth. She isn't capable of posting facts or logic. In fact most of the time she is incapable of posting undisputed facts, like the fact that 98 out of 100 models failed to come anywhere near the correct temperature for last year. She's simply a denial machine. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[IanC]

I'm not a scientist in that specialty so no. I'm not going to provide "data, method, and process". I'm happy to discuss it, but you don't seem to be doing that.

So you debate things from a feel good perspective rather than a fact based perspective. That is the problem with AGW'ers and fear mongers. they do not use facts, they use conjecture and non truths' and expect everyone to believe them.. You are the one who did not come here to debate it, you want religious adherence without basis in fact.

he is just someone who believes because the left told him he had to. I don't believe for the exact same reason.

Me, I need proof. I'm not a practicing catholic because I need more evidence than what I received to believe. I do however believe in a higher being. Maybe they are alien, maybe spiritual. Not sure. I do wonder how someone invented the things that were invented. Somewhere there was an exchange of knowledge from higher source, at least in my eyes.

So you're someone who just believes what the right tells you? Thanks for the confirmation

huh? I have no leader like you and yours. I supposed since you have that thought that you indeed have a leader. Me, I use my own brain. I got it when I was born and I use it frequently.

You sure about all that? Who's my leader?

I go out and do research, it is what most respectable/ responsible people do. I have found that there is no experimental (science) proof of man made global warming. I know, based on research that once the earth was frozen and at some time millions of years ago it began to thaw. man evolved and the earth continued to warm.

Sounds like your "respectable/responsible" research was limited to skeptic science blogs.

Beyond that, you have nothing to prove the earth isn't still warming, although the last 18 plus years there has been a hiatus. Conceded as such in the IPCC AR5 report. Go read it. it's amazing. There are also many lies in that report or probable more accurately put, they ignored the observed data that was presented to them and instead march forward with the lies of the left peer review. There is a rep Judith Curry, notable skeptic doesn't recognize the man made accusations in the AR5 report.

Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM Climate Etc.

abstract:
"
My main point is this. If there are substantial changes in a conclusion in the AR5 relative to a confident conclusion in the AR4, then the confidence level should not increase and should probably drop, since the science clearly is not settled and is in a state of flux. While there has been a reduction in either the magnitude of the change or in a confidence level in some of the supporting findings, these changes do not seem to have influenced the main conclusion on climate change attribution:

It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951-2010.

The ‘extremely likely’ represents an increase in confidence from the ‘very likely’ of the AR4. An increase in confidence in the attribution statement, in view of the recent pause and the lower confidence level in some of the supporting findings, is incomprehensible to me. Further, the projections of 21st century changes remain overconfident. These inconsistencies seems to me to reflect a failure in meta-reasoning by the IPCC. I hope that these inconsistencies are pointed out at the forthcoming meeting in Stockholm."

Here is a write up of hers for August 2013...Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years Climate Etc.

abstract:
"
Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.

Where is the actual IPCC report? It looks like links are to a discussion of excerpts, not the report itself.

The latest issue of Nature Climate Change includes the following Opinion & Comment by Fyfe, Gillett and Zwiers: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. [link; behind paywall]. Its a short piece, here are some excerpts:

Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval). This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models. By averaging simulated temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty."

And her following:
from Wikipedia:
"In September 2010, she created Climate Etc., a blog related to climate change and hosted by Curry. She wrote that "Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface."[6] She wrote: "I have a total of 12,000 citations of my publications (since my first publication in 1983). Climate Etc. gets on average about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments." She gets " zero academic credit or incentives for my blogging and tweeting," but hopes that " social media and the associated skill set [will become] better recognized within the academic system.""

It sounds like it's saying the rate of change is slower than originally predicted - it's not saying it is not occuring.

One of the problems with the last IPCC report was that although it did acknowledge some of the lower estimates for climate sensitivity etc, it still went with climate model numbers for forecasts of temperature and sea level rise. And in a bizarre twist, they claimed even greater certainty ranges as their figures were being shown to be incorrect.

 

[Coyote]

When have the global warming cult leaders ever gotten a prediction correct?

Pretty much every time. That's why global warming science has such credibility, because it's been getting everything right for decades running now. Your crazy cult claims otherwise, but your cult is just ignored, on account that it's crazy.

You can scream that's not true, but you're not making any difference by screaming to the choir here. You need to convince the world of science, and you've failed completely in that regard, because all the evidence says you're making everything up. It's not that there's a conspiracy against you. It's that your science just stinks.

so why didn't the IPCC AR5 report state that, instead they stated something slimy.

So you debate things from a feel good perspective rather than a fact based perspective. That is the problem with AGW'ers and fear mongers. they do not use facts, they use conjecture and non truths' and expect everyone to believe them.. You are the one who did not come here to debate it, you want religious adherence without basis in fact.

he is just someone who believes because the left told him he had to. I don't believe for the exact same reason.

Me, I need proof. I'm not a practicing catholic because I need more evidence than what I received to believe. I do however believe in a higher being. Maybe they are alien, maybe spiritual. Not sure. I do wonder how someone invented the things that were invented. Somewhere there was an exchange of knowledge from higher source, at least in my eyes.

So you're someone who just believes what the right tells you? Thanks for the confirmation

huh? I have no leader like you and yours. I supposed since you have that thought that you indeed have a leader. Me, I use my own brain. I got it when I was born and I use it frequently.

You sure about all that? Who's my leader?

I go out and do research, it is what most respectable/ responsible people do. I have found that there is no experimental (science) proof of man made global warming. I know, based on research that once the earth was frozen and at some time millions of years ago it began to thaw. man evolved and the earth continued to warm.

Sounds like your "respectable/responsible" research was limited to skeptic science blogs.

Beyond that, you have nothing to prove the earth isn't still warming, although the last 18 plus years there has been a hiatus. Conceded as such in the IPCC AR5 report. Go read it. it's amazing. There are also many lies in that report or probable more accurately put, they ignored the observed data that was presented to them and instead march forward with the lies of the left peer review. There is a rep Judith Curry, notable skeptic doesn't recognize the man made accusations in the AR5 report.

Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM Climate Etc.

abstract:
"
My main point is this. If there are substantial changes in a conclusion in the AR5 relative to a confident conclusion in the AR4, then the confidence level should not increase and should probably drop, since the science clearly is not settled and is in a state of flux. While there has been a reduction in either the magnitude of the change or in a confidence level in some of the supporting findings, these changes do not seem to have influenced the main conclusion on climate change attribution:

It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951-2010.

The ‘extremely likely’ represents an increase in confidence from the ‘very likely’ of the AR4. An increase in confidence in the attribution statement, in view of the recent pause and the lower confidence level in some of the supporting findings, is incomprehensible to me. Further, the projections of 21st century changes remain overconfident. These inconsistencies seems to me to reflect a failure in meta-reasoning by the IPCC. I hope that these inconsistencies are pointed out at the forthcoming meeting in Stockholm."

Here is a write up of hers for August 2013...Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years Climate Etc.

abstract:
"
Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.

Where is the actual IPCC report? It looks like links are to a discussion of excerpts, not the report itself.

The latest issue of Nature Climate Change includes the following Opinion & Comment by Fyfe, Gillett and Zwiers: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. [link; behind paywall]. Its a short piece, here are some excerpts:

Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval). This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models. By averaging simulated temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty."

And her following:
from Wikipedia:
"In September 2010, she created Climate Etc., a blog related to climate change and hosted by Curry. She wrote that "Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface."[6] She wrote: "I have a total of 12,000 citations of my publications (since my first publication in 1983). Climate Etc. gets on average about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments." She gets " zero academic credit or incentives for my blogging and tweeting," but hopes that " social media and the associated skill set [will become] better recognized within the academic system.""

It sounds like it's saying the rate of change is slower than originally predicted - it's not saying it is not occuring.

again, I never said that, I said that I wanted to see an experiment that shows that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. That sir, is what I have been saying on here for over 14 months. I have not varied from that position, and until one of you all on the left can present such a thing, I will maintain my directive.

I see enough of all the lefty loser material on a daily basis right here. it comes out daily, I go read it and I have questions that most never get answered.

And as for you and the left, your debating skills mimics those already on here that were here before you started your presentations. You can be the moderator and I'll respect that part of your job, but a climate specialist you ain't, and again, your position and responses are mirror images of those on the left in here. And it is your lack of debate that I use as your attachment to a leader. It is the same mantra.

I never claim to be a climate specialist. As to mantra - you seem to parrot the right

 

[jc456]

When have the global warming cult leaders ever gotten a prediction correct?

Pretty much every time. That's why global warming science has such credibility, because it's been getting everything right for decades running now. Your crazy cult claims otherwise, but your cult is just ignored, on account that it's crazy.

You can scream that's not true, but you're not making any difference by screaming to the choir here. You need to convince the world of science, and you've failed completely in that regard, because all the evidence says you're making everything up. It's not that there's a conspiracy against you. It's that your science just stinks.

so why didn't the IPCC AR5 report state that, instead they stated something slimy.

he is just someone who believes because the left told him he had to. I don't believe for the exact same reason.

Me, I need proof. I'm not a practicing catholic because I need more evidence than what I received to believe. I do however believe in a higher being. Maybe they are alien, maybe spiritual. Not sure. I do wonder how someone invented the things that were invented. Somewhere there was an exchange of knowledge from higher source, at least in my eyes.

So you're someone who just believes what the right tells you? Thanks for the confirmation

huh? I have no leader like you and yours. I supposed since you have that thought that you indeed have a leader. Me, I use my own brain. I got it when I was born and I use it frequently.

You sure about all that? Who's my leader?

I go out and do research, it is what most respectable/ responsible people do. I have found that there is no experimental (science) proof of man made global warming. I know, based on research that once the earth was frozen and at some time millions of years ago it began to thaw. man evolved and the earth continued to warm.

Sounds like your "respectable/responsible" research was limited to skeptic science blogs.

Beyond that, you have nothing to prove the earth isn't still warming, although the last 18 plus years there has been a hiatus. Conceded as such in the IPCC AR5 report. Go read it. it's amazing. There are also many lies in that report or probable more accurately put, they ignored the observed data that was presented to them and instead march forward with the lies of the left peer review. There is a rep Judith Curry, notable skeptic doesn't recognize the man made accusations in the AR5 report.

Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM Climate Etc.

abstract:
"
My main point is this. If there are substantial changes in a conclusion in the AR5 relative to a confident conclusion in the AR4, then the confidence level should not increase and should probably drop, since the science clearly is not settled and is in a state of flux. While there has been a reduction in either the magnitude of the change or in a confidence level in some of the supporting findings, these changes do not seem to have influenced the main conclusion on climate change attribution:

It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951-2010.

The ‘extremely likely’ represents an increase in confidence from the ‘very likely’ of the AR4. An increase in confidence in the attribution statement, in view of the recent pause and the lower confidence level in some of the supporting findings, is incomprehensible to me. Further, the projections of 21st century changes remain overconfident. These inconsistencies seems to me to reflect a failure in meta-reasoning by the IPCC. I hope that these inconsistencies are pointed out at the forthcoming meeting in Stockholm."

Here is a write up of hers for August 2013...Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years Climate Etc.

abstract:
"
Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.

Where is the actual IPCC report? It looks like links are to a discussion of excerpts, not the report itself.

The latest issue of Nature Climate Change includes the following Opinion & Comment by Fyfe, Gillett and Zwiers: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. [link; behind paywall]. Its a short piece, here are some excerpts:

Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval). This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models. By averaging simulated temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty."

And her following:
from Wikipedia:
"In September 2010, she created Climate Etc., a blog related to climate change and hosted by Curry. She wrote that "Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface."[6] She wrote: "I have a total of 12,000 citations of my publications (since my first publication in 1983). Climate Etc. gets on average about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments." She gets " zero academic credit or incentives for my blogging and tweeting," but hopes that " social media and the associated skill set [will become] better recognized within the academic system.""

It sounds like it's saying the rate of change is slower than originally predicted - it's not saying it is not occuring.

again, I never said that, I said that I wanted to see an experiment that shows that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. That sir, is what I have been saying on here for over 14 months. I have not varied from that position, and until one of you all on the left can present such a thing, I will maintain my directive.

I see enough of all the lefty loser material on a daily basis right here. it comes out daily, I go read it and I have questions that most never get answered.

And as for you and the left, your debating skills mimics those already on here that were here before you started your presentations. You can be the moderator and I'll respect that part of your job, but a climate specialist you ain't, and again, your position and responses are mirror images of those on the left in here. And it is your lack of debate that I use as your attachment to a leader. It is the same mantra.

I never claim to be a climate specialist. As to mantra - you seem to parrot the right

never said you did. I referenced your debating skills here and you are the one that brought politics into the discussion by inaccurately damning me to some political agenda on the right. I owe alliance to no one. I speak for me and mine. That's it. As I stated once already, I did research and again, the facts are, there isn't an experiment on the internet nor presented to verify what I need to convince me the earth is behaving anything but normal. That is the debate. You want to debate, then post an experiment. Show me the science. Otherwise it is you doing parroting by dissing the science.

 

[mamooth]

You're wasting your time on Mamooth. She isn't capable of posting facts or logic. In fact most of the time she is incapable of posting undisputed facts, like the fact that 98 out of 100 models failed to come anywhere near the correct temperature for last year. She's simply a denial machine. Ironic, isn't it?

Back in reality, here's how the models compare to the real world. Pretty damn good, any honest person would have to say.

Obviously, that excludes Bri.

Bri, I suggest you now post that faked graph from Goddard which all the deniers love, just to absolutely confirm your status as a cult parrot.

 

[jc456]

You're wasting your time on Mamooth. She isn't capable of posting facts or logic. In fact most of the time she is incapable of posting undisputed facts, like the fact that 98 out of 100 models failed to come anywhere near the correct temperature for last year. She's simply a denial machine. Ironic, isn't it?

Back in reality, here's how the models compare to the real world. Pretty damn good, any honest person would have to say.

Obviously, that excludes Bri.

Bri, I suggest you now post that faked graph from Goddard which all the deniers love, just to absolutely confirm your status as a cult parrot.

yo, yo, tooth, now show us the graph with the raw data, let's see the temperatures.

Even at that, the graph shows a difference of .7 degree C for a century, 1.26 degree F. Holy crap the sky is falling. What was the hundred years prior to 1900? Let's see that one.