Where's my Global Warming!

[Abraham3]

The theory is Solar activity is the main cause of 'global climate change, and it has been proven.

I'd really like to see some sort of report on that proving. Have you got a link?

 

[Kosh]

The theory is Solar activity is the main cause of 'global climate change, and it has been proven.

I'd really like to see some sort of report on that proving. Have you got a link?

Have you got a link to the datasets and source code that prove CO2 drives climate?

Don't ask others to do what you are incapable of doing!

 

[Dot Com]

The theory is Solar activity is the main cause of 'global climate change, and it has been proven.

I'd really like to see some sort of report on that proving. Have you got a link?

I'd also be interested in seeing a link for that

Jroc?

 

[RollingThunder]

Says a majority of scientist. I welcome skeptics as this is the way science works but you have to find a real theory to replace it with.

The theory is Solar activity is the main cause of 'global climate change, and it has been proven. The fraudulent catastrophic effect of Co2 on the climate has been debunked, and the studies have been manipulated by these money hungry scientist

Your usual delusional bullshit, KrokoKrap, without any connection to reality.

Global warming is being caused by humans, not the sun, and is highly sensitive to carbon, new research shows
New research reinforces human-caused global warming and a climate that's highly sensitive to an increased greenhouse effect
The Guardian
Dana Nuccitelli
Thursday 9 January 2014
(excerpts)
Over the past few weeks, several important new papers related to human vs. natural climate change have been published. These papers add clarity to the causes of climate change, and how much global warming we can expect in the future. A paper published in Nature Geoscience by Andrew Schurer, Simon Tett, and Gabriele Hegerl investigates the sun's influence on global climate changes over the past 1,000 years. Although we know the sun can't be causing the current global warming because solar activity has declined slightly over the past 50 years, "it's the sun" nevertheless remains one of the most popular climate contrarian arguments. However, in recent years, research has pointed in the direction of a relatively small solar impact on the Earth's climate changes. It's important to realize that while the Earth is bombarded by a lot of heat from the sun, the amount of solar energy reaching the planet is relatively stable. According to the best recent estimates, it's only increased by about 0.1 percent over the past 300 years, causing a global energy imbalance less than 10 percent as large as that caused by humans over the same period.

In this study, the authors tested reconstructions that incorporated relatively large and small changes in solar activity, and compared them to northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions over the past millennium. The authors conclude: "Volcanic and GHG [greenhouse gas] forcings seem to contribute most to pre-twentieth-century climate variability, whereas the contribution by solar forcing is modest, agreeing with the simulations with low solar forcing." The study finds that the sun is unlikely to have caused more than 0.15°C of the observed approximately 1°C warming over the past 300 years. The authors find a detectable greenhouse gas influence on the climate before the 20th century, and consistent with the IPCC and Imbers, they conclude that humans are the dominant cause of recent global warming. "Over the twentieth century, anthropogenic forcings dominate with GHGs the largest forcing, offset by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols and land use changes"

 

[Jroc]

STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means

The models and observations have been plotted so that their respective 1979-2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models’ results for comparison to the observations.

In my opinion, the day of reckoning has arrived. The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years, despite the fact that some of us have shown that simply confusing cause and effect when examining cloud and temperature variations can totally mislead you on cloud feedbacks (e.g. Spencer & Braswell, 2010). The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time.

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the coming years. I frankly don’t see how the IPCC can keep claiming that the models are “not inconsistent with” the observations. Any sane person can see otherwise.

If the observations in the above graph were on the UPPER (warm) side of the models, do you really believe the modelers would not be falling all over themselves to see how much additional surface warming they could get their models to produce?

Hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into the expensive climate modelling enterprise has all but destroyed governmental funding of research into natural sources of climate change. For years the modelers have maintained that there is no such thing as natural climate change…yet they now, ironically, have to invoke natural climate forces to explain why surface warming has essentially stopped in the last 15 years!

Forgive me if I sound frustrated, but we scientists who still believe that climate change can also be naturally forced have been virtually cut out of funding and publication by the ‘humans-cause-everything-bad-that-happens’ juggernaut. The public who funds their work will not stand for their willful blindness much longer.

STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[Abraham3]

Do YOU believe that adjusting all the models so that they intersect at 1979 is the best way to plot those model's results?

Here is a comparison of the temperature output of several different climate models:

Note that for these, their anomalies were simply all referenced to the same value. That's not the same "trick" as Spencer has played.

This might be more informative:

The grey lines are the output of 23 different GCMs that were used by the IPCC to make forecasts in AR4. The black pixels are the averages of all the models. The red line is the observed global temperature from GISS. Versteht? Someone's been fibbing to you.

 

[Kosh]

Do YOU believe that adjusting all the models so that they intersect at 1979 is the best way to plot those model's results?

Here is a comparison of the temperature output of several different climate models:

Note that for these, their anomalies were simply all referenced to the same value. That's not the same "trick" as Spencer has played.

This might be more informative:

The grey lines are the output of 23 different GCMs that were used by the IPCC to make forecasts in AR4. The black pixels are the averages of all the models. The red line is the observed global temperature from GISS. Versteht? Someone's been fibbing to you.

Oh my the hockey stick again from the AGW propaganda files.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Do YOU believe that adjusting all the models so that they intersect at 1979 is the best way to plot those model's results?

Here is a comparison of the temperature output of several different climate models:

Note that for these, their anomalies were simply all referenced to the same value. That's not the same "trick" as Spencer has played.

This might be more informative:

The grey lines are the output of 23 different GCMs that were used by the IPCC to make forecasts in AR4. The black pixels are the averages of all the models. The red line is the observed global temperature from GISS. Versteht? Someone's been fibbing to you.

Oh my the hockey stick again from the AGW propaganda files.

That's not the hockey stick but the real temperature of the past 100+ years with the models modeled over it.

 

[Kosh]

Do YOU believe that adjusting all the models so that they intersect at 1979 is the best way to plot those model's results?

Here is a comparison of the temperature output of several different climate models:


Note that for these, their anomalies were simply all referenced to the same value. That's not the same "trick" as Spencer has played.

This might be more informative:


The grey lines are the output of 23 different GCMs that were used by the IPCC to make forecasts in AR4. The black pixels are the averages of all the models. The red line is the observed global temperature from GISS. Versteht? Someone's been fibbing to you.

Oh my the hockey stick again from the AGW propaganda files.

That's not the hockey stick but the real temperature of the past 100+ years with the models modeled over it.

Yes it is the Hockey stick!

And no it is not the "real" temperature it is the AGW church version of temperature.

 

[Abraham3]

Oh my the hockey stick again from the AGW propaganda files.

You play a weird game of hockey.

The reason that temperature vs time graphs look like hockey sticks, you stupid rat bastard, is because THAT is what the Earth's temperature has done.

 

[Abraham3]

And no it is not the "real" temperature it is the AGW church version of temperature.

Why don't you go get us the real one then? We want land and ocean combined with troposphere and SST included.

But, hey, I'm open minded. Show us whatever you've got.

 

[Kosh]

And no it is not the "real" temperature it is the AGW church version of temperature.

Why don't you go get us the real one then? We want land and ocean combined with troposphere and SST included.

But, hey, I'm open minded. Show us whatever you've got.

Still waiting for you to post the datasets with source code that shows CO2 controls climate.

Don't demand of others what you will not do yourself.

And you still show you don't understand what you posted.

 

[editec]

It's -4 here, I never remember it being this cold for so long.

Where's here?

Its brutal here in Maine, too but Ive seen it this bad (or worse) here at least a couple times in the last 25 years.

And FYI back in 1980 (81?) it was so bloody cold the tropical fish were dying in Key West. brrr!

Lucky me...that was the year I decided to get away from the New England winter.

 

[editec]

Solar Activity and Cosmic Rays Drives Climate Changes (6-6) - YouTube

YouTube videos of lame, debunked denier cult delusions and frauds aren't any more convincing than the written drivel you post, KrocoKrap.

You still obviously have no ability whatsoever to distinguish between demented propaganda and actual science.

if you say so religion boy. These people don't make millions off their research, cant say the same for you money grubbing global warming nuts

ARe you kidding me?

Do you really think there are no corporations that stand to lose billions per year if we take global warming seriously?

Compare THEIR potential loss to the pittance made by academics, lad.

Perspective..get some

And I say this as someone who admits I do not have a scientific clue, too

But as to understanding profit MOTIVES?

That I definitely can understand, kid.//and I suspect you can too, if you step back and look at it dispassionately.

And, FYI, the academic community has NO reason to make shit up. Really they do not. The vast majority of them get paid the same either way, ya know> (if you didn't know that, you do now)

OTOH

The Energy industry has BIILLION$ AND BILLION$ AND BILLION$ OF REASON$ TO fabricate non$en$e, (annually)

 

[Jroc]

YouTube videos of lame, debunked denier cult delusions and frauds aren't any more convincing than the written drivel you post, KrocoKrap.

You still obviously have no ability whatsoever to distinguish between demented propaganda and actual science.

if you say so religion boy. These people don't make millions off their research, cant say the same for you money grubbing global warming nuts

ARe you kidding me?

Do you really think there are no corporations that stand to lose billions per year if we take global warming seriously?

Compare THEIR potential loss to the pittance made by academics, lad.

Perspective..get some

And I say this as someone who admits I do not have a scientific clue, too

But as to understanding profit MOTIVES?

That I definitely can understand, kid.//and I suspect you can too, if you step back and look at it dispassionately.

And, FYI, the academic community has NO reason to make shit up. Really they do not. The vast majority of them get paid the same either way, ya know> (if you didn't know that, you do now)

OTOH

The Energy industry has BIILLION$ AND BILLION$ AND BILLION$ OF REASON$ TO fabricate non$en$e, (annually)

Yeah all of the sudden Co2 is a pollutant...Bullshit

I want my Co2

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE]Seeing is Believing - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Abraham3]

Now if only we were plants

 

[RollingThunder]

if you say so religion boy. These people don't make millions off their research, cant say the same for you money grubbing global warming nuts

ARe you kidding me?

Do you really think there are no corporations that stand to lose billions per year if we take global warming seriously?

Compare THEIR potential loss to the pittance made by academics, lad.

Perspective..get some

And I say this as someone who admits I do not have a scientific clue, too

But as to understanding profit MOTIVES?

That I definitely can understand, kid.//and I suspect you can too, if you step back and look at it dispassionately.

And, FYI, the academic community has NO reason to make shit up. Really they do not. The vast majority of them get paid the same either way, ya know> (if you didn't know that, you do now)

OTOH

The Energy industry has BIILLION$ AND BILLION$ AND BILLION$ OF REASON$ TO fabricate non$en$e, (annually)

Yeah all of the sudden Co2 is a pollutant...Bullshit. I want my Co2

Your mental masturbation over labels like 'pollution' doesn't change the fact that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, or the fact that human activities have increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 43%, or the fact that this extra CO2 is causing the Earth to warm up which is causing global climate patterns to change.

 

[HenryBHough]

No zeal like that of the converted religious fanatic!

 

[RollingThunder]

No zeal like that of the converted religious fanatic!

No stupidity like that of brainwashed anti-science AGW denier cultist.

 

[Jroc]

ARe you kidding me?

Do you really think there are no corporations that stand to lose billions per year if we take global warming seriously?

Compare THEIR potential loss to the pittance made by academics, lad.

Perspective..get some

And I say this as someone who admits I do not have a scientific clue, too

But as to understanding profit MOTIVES?

That I definitely can understand, kid.//and I suspect you can too, if you step back and look at it dispassionately.

And, FYI, the academic community has NO reason to make shit up. Really they do not. The vast majority of them get paid the same either way, ya know> (if you didn't know that, you do now)

OTOH

The Energy industry has BIILLION$ AND BILLION$ AND BILLION$ OF REASON$ TO fabricate non$en$e, (annually)

Yeah all of the sudden Co2 is a pollutant...Bullshit. I want my Co2

Your mental masturbation over labels like 'pollution' doesn't change the fact that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, or the fact that human activities have increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 43%, or the fact that this extra CO2 is causing the Earth to warm up which is causing global climate patterns to change.

Bullshit you could triple the co2 in the atmosphere and it wouldn't do what you nuts say