Why we should listen to the 97%

[flacaltenn]

Leveling off of what?

The ignorance and level of denial is stunning.

He's trying to make a point. Nothing is leveling off.

If only that was REALLY the official surface temp. graph and not a lying fabrication from the worst science website on the planet ---- you might have a point.. In additiion....

1) skepticalscience.com is the leading cause of STDs transmitted on the web.
(scientifically transmitted disinformation = STD)

2) As soon as there is a single climate model that shows a staircase approximation to surface temp warming -- I'll pay attention..

3) That is NOT a real temp. graph.

4) Fact is --- in at LEAST 12 years --- there has been no significant additional warming. The LINEAR APPROX rate for warming during the satellite era is just 0.13degC/decade --- far BELOW the hysterical predictions of AGW --- and that's over 35 years...

Yeah that would be inconvienient wouldn't it??

BTW --- here's a couple REAL temp. graphs..

 

[JoeNormal]

The ignorance and level of denial is stunning.

He's trying to make a point. Nothing is leveling off.

If only that was REALLY the official surface temp. graph and not a lying fabrication from the worst science website on the planet ---- you might have a point.. In additiion....

1) skepticalscience.com is the leading cause of STDs transmitted on the web.
(scientifically transmitted disinformation = STD)

2) As soon as there is a single climate model that shows a staircase approximation to surface temp warming -- I'll pay attention..

3) That is NOT a real temp. graph.

4) Fact is --- in at LEAST 12 years --- there has been no significant additional warming. The LINEAR APPROX rate for warming during the satellite era is just 0.13degC/decade --- far BELOW the hysterical predictions of AGW --- and that's over 35 years...

Yeah that would be inconvienient wouldn't it??

BTW --- here's a couple REAL temp. graphs..

I downloaded the raw data from the 7(?) weather stations that track global temperatures a few years ago when on another site, a very similar debate was raging. I plotted it in Matlab and performed a regression analysis. I found a period that you could accurately track that showed no rise in temperature. Turns out, there are a bunch of them. That was way before I knew of the existence of skeptical science - maybe it was before it existed. It's not that hard. Try it.

 

[Snookie]

So you're in favor of an 80% infant mortality rate, occasional famines, non-existent medical care and all the other creature comforts that our stone age ancestors enjoyed?

He didn't say that, you dumb fuck. You just did, though.

Sure he did. he said if we had continued the stone age way of life, "we would be fine." All the things I listed are part of the stone age way of living.

Well a neanderthal knuckle dragger like you should know.

 

[flacaltenn]

He's trying to make a point. Nothing is leveling off.

If only that was REALLY the official surface temp. graph and not a lying fabrication from the worst science website on the planet ---- you might have a point.. In additiion....

1) skepticalscience.com is the leading cause of STDs transmitted on the web.
(scientifically transmitted disinformation = STD)

2) As soon as there is a single climate model that shows a staircase approximation to surface temp warming -- I'll pay attention..

3) That is NOT a real temp. graph.

4) Fact is --- in at LEAST 12 years --- there has been no significant additional warming. The LINEAR APPROX rate for warming during the satellite era is just 0.13degC/decade --- far BELOW the hysterical predictions of AGW --- and that's over 35 years...

Yeah that would be inconvienient wouldn't it??

BTW --- here's a couple REAL temp. graphs..

I downloaded the raw data from the 7(?) weather stations that track global temperatures a few years ago when on another site, a very similar debate was raging. I plotted it in Matlab and performed a regression analysis. I found a period that you could accurately track that showed no rise in temperature. Turns out, there are a bunch of them. That was way before I knew of the existence of skeptical science - maybe it was before it existed. It's not that hard. Try it.

Don't need to ----

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.134 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.146 +/- 0.170 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.095 +/- 0.115 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
For GISS: 0.111 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

I also have reliable information on how this compares to PREVIOUS lapses in warming and it's significantly longer than most 20th century "flat spots".

Most climate orgs agree that you need 12 - 17 yrs of no warming to invalidate the modeling and theory.. Well son --- we're mostly there..

NOAA says...

”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Now will you cease your support of folks who are attempting to IGNORE this significant event and acknowledge that there is a troublesome "pause, lull, or flatspot" in the MEASURED warming?

Or do you want to be a valuable skepticalscience dupe and continue to deny science?

 

[Snookie]

If only that was REALLY the official surface temp. graph and not a lying fabrication from the worst science website on the planet ---- you might have a point.. In additiion....

1) skepticalscience.com is the leading cause of STDs transmitted on the web.
(scientifically transmitted disinformation = STD)

2) As soon as there is a single climate model that shows a staircase approximation to surface temp warming -- I'll pay attention..

3) That is NOT a real temp. graph.

4) Fact is --- in at LEAST 12 years --- there has been no significant additional warming. The LINEAR APPROX rate for warming during the satellite era is just 0.13degC/decade --- far BELOW the hysterical predictions of AGW --- and that's over 35 years...

Yeah that would be inconvienient wouldn't it??

BTW --- here's a couple REAL temp. graphs..

I downloaded the raw data from the 7(?) weather stations that track global temperatures a few years ago when on another site, a very similar debate was raging. I plotted it in Matlab and performed a regression analysis. I found a period that you could accurately track that showed no rise in temperature. Turns out, there are a bunch of them. That was way before I knew of the existence of skeptical science - maybe it was before it existed. It's not that hard. Try it.

Don't need to ----

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.134 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.146 +/- 0.170 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.095 +/- 0.115 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
For GISS: 0.111 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

I also have reliable information on how this compares to PREVIOUS lapses in warming and it's significantly longer than most 20th century "flat spots".

Most climate orgs agree that you need 12 - 17 yrs of no warming to invalidate the modeling and theory.. Well son --- we're mostly there..

NOAA says...

”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Now will you cease your support of folks who are attempting to IGNORE this significant event and acknowledge that there is a troublesome "pause, lull, or flatspot" in the MEASURED warming?

Or do you want to be a valuable skepticalscience dupe and continue to deny science?

Way too prolix for me.

 

[JoeNormal]

If only that was REALLY the official surface temp. graph and not a lying fabrication from the worst science website on the planet ---- you might have a point.. In additiion....

1) skepticalscience.com is the leading cause of STDs transmitted on the web.
(scientifically transmitted disinformation = STD)

2) As soon as there is a single climate model that shows a staircase approximation to surface temp warming -- I'll pay attention..

3) That is NOT a real temp. graph.

4) Fact is --- in at LEAST 12 years --- there has been no significant additional warming. The LINEAR APPROX rate for warming during the satellite era is just 0.13degC/decade --- far BELOW the hysterical predictions of AGW --- and that's over 35 years...

Yeah that would be inconvienient wouldn't it??

BTW --- here's a couple REAL temp. graphs..

I downloaded the raw data from the 7(?) weather stations that track global temperatures a few years ago when on another site, a very similar debate was raging. I plotted it in Matlab and performed a regression analysis. I found a period that you could accurately track that showed no rise in temperature. Turns out, there are a bunch of them. That was way before I knew of the existence of skeptical science - maybe it was before it existed. It's not that hard. Try it.

Don't need to ----

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.134 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.146 +/- 0.170 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.095 +/- 0.115 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
For GISS: 0.111 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

I also have reliable information on how this compares to PREVIOUS lapses in warming and it's significantly longer than most 20th century "flat spots".

Most climate orgs agree that you need 12 - 17 yrs of no warming to invalidate the modeling and theory.. Well son --- we're mostly there..

NOAA says...

”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Now will you cease your support of folks who are attempting to IGNORE this significant event and acknowledge that there is a troublesome "pause, lull, or flatspot" in the MEASURED warming?

Or do you want to be a valuable skepticalscience dupe and continue to deny science?

I think the period I found was about 17 years. I know it was longer than the claimed flat spot was back when I found it. I have no idea why they would claim a 15 year lull would invalidate the climate models when it was so easy to find a period when it had already happened. Nevertheless, warming continued. So is your beef that the models aren't quite accurate or that hallelujah, global warming is over.

 

[flacaltenn]

I downloaded the raw data from the 7(?) weather stations that track global temperatures a few years ago when on another site, a very similar debate was raging. I plotted it in Matlab and performed a regression analysis. I found a period that you could accurately track that showed no rise in temperature. Turns out, there are a bunch of them. That was way before I knew of the existence of skeptical science - maybe it was before it existed. It's not that hard. Try it.

Don't need to ----

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.134 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.146 +/- 0.170 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.095 +/- 0.115 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
For GISS: 0.111 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

I also have reliable information on how this compares to PREVIOUS lapses in warming and it's significantly longer than most 20th century "flat spots".

Most climate orgs agree that you need 12 - 17 yrs of no warming to invalidate the modeling and theory.. Well son --- we're mostly there..

NOAA says...

”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Now will you cease your support of folks who are attempting to IGNORE this significant event and acknowledge that there is a troublesome "pause, lull, or flatspot" in the MEASURED warming?

Or do you want to be a valuable skepticalscience dupe and continue to deny science?

I think the period I found was about 17 years. I know it was longer than the claimed flat spot was back when I found it. I have no idea why they would claim a 15 year lull would invalidate the climate models when it was so easy to find a period when it had already happened. Nevertheless, warming continued. So is your beef that the models aren't quite accurate or that hallelujah, global warming is over.

Common sense man.. The last lull this long was BEFORE a Global Warming crisis was declared.. Because CO2 levels were insufficient to blame as the primary cause of temperature changes.

More importantly, those older historical lulls were WAAAY before climate models had a computer to run on... And nobody was making predictions back then from flawed models.

My IMMEDIATE goal is to smash the lie (repeated on this thread) that we are still CURRENTLY measuring warming.

My Secondary goal is to be aware of when we can declare decisively that the models have pretty all failed. Time is nigh captain.. Pretty damn soon if not already..

We need better climate science.. SOONER rather than later.

 

[SSDD]

Increased atmospheric instability is caused by excess global energy.

Your priests say that all that excess energy is hiding out at the bottom of the ocean....if it exists at all, it isn't in a position to effect the atmosphere from the bottom of the ocean.

 

[SSDD]

Billions of years over which only nature had the capability.

Now humanity can recreate what nature created and uncreated in the past. Pre-carboniferous CO2 concentrations.

If we had followed conservatives and stayed in the caves and not had babies and the Industrial Revolution, we'd be fine.

Some of us will be fine. Others will be dead by our own common hand adapting to a new climate.

I'll bet there are some new believers in science in Boulder now. As well as a few ''told you so's''.

We don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and decade to decade. Our contribution is paltry.

Of course before your argument has any validity at all, you must provide observed evidence that x amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere will produce y amount of warming. Any such evidence?

Of course not.

 

[JoeNormal]

Don't need to ----

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.134 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.146 +/- 0.170 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.095 +/- 0.115 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
For GISS: 0.111 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

I also have reliable information on how this compares to PREVIOUS lapses in warming and it's significantly longer than most 20th century "flat spots".

Most climate orgs agree that you need 12 - 17 yrs of no warming to invalidate the modeling and theory.. Well son --- we're mostly there..

NOAA says...

”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Now will you cease your support of folks who are attempting to IGNORE this significant event and acknowledge that there is a troublesome "pause, lull, or flatspot" in the MEASURED warming?

Or do you want to be a valuable skepticalscience dupe and continue to deny science?

I think the period I found was about 17 years. I know it was longer than the claimed flat spot was back when I found it. I have no idea why they would claim a 15 year lull would invalidate the climate models when it was so easy to find a period when it had already happened. Nevertheless, warming continued. So is your beef that the models aren't quite accurate or that hallelujah, global warming is over.

Common sense man.. The last lull this long was BEFORE a Global Warming crisis was declared.. Because CO2 levels were insufficient to blame as the primary cause of temperature changes.

More importantly, those older historical lulls were WAAAY before climate models had a computer to run on... And nobody was making predictions back then from flawed models.

My IMMEDIATE goal is to smash the lie (repeated on this thread) that we are still CURRENTLY measuring warming.

My Secondary goal is to be aware of when we can declare decisively that the models have pretty all failed. Time is nigh captain.. Pretty damn soon if not already..

We need better climate science.. SOONER rather than later.

Let's say that global warming WAS the hot topic then that it is now. And let's say that the lull I found ended in 1985. I'm sure there'd be people 1984 who'd claim that the crisis was a dud. I'm not quite ready to call this one settled.

 

[flacaltenn]

I think the period I found was about 17 years. I know it was longer than the claimed flat spot was back when I found it. I have no idea why they would claim a 15 year lull would invalidate the climate models when it was so easy to find a period when it had already happened. Nevertheless, warming continued. So is your beef that the models aren't quite accurate or that hallelujah, global warming is over.

Common sense man.. The last lull this long was BEFORE a Global Warming crisis was declared.. Because CO2 levels were insufficient to blame as the primary cause of temperature changes.

More importantly, those older historical lulls were WAAAY before climate models had a computer to run on... And nobody was making predictions back then from flawed models.

My IMMEDIATE goal is to smash the lie (repeated on this thread) that we are still CURRENTLY measuring warming.

My Secondary goal is to be aware of when we can declare decisively that the models have pretty all failed. Time is nigh captain.. Pretty damn soon if not already..

We need better climate science.. SOONER rather than later.

Let's say that global warming WAS the hot topic then that it is now. And let's say that the lull I found ended in 1985. I'm sure there'd be people 1984 who'd claim that the crisis was a dud. I'm not quite ready to call this one settled.

Seven yrs is interesting.. Especially if the pros are shouting about ACCELERATED warming (more than linear)..

But it ain't 12 or 20 yrs is it now? Especially when the linear extrapolated rate is about 1/3 of the the predicted...

 

[JoeNormal]

Common sense man.. The last lull this long was BEFORE a Global Warming crisis was declared.. Because CO2 levels were insufficient to blame as the primary cause of temperature changes.

More importantly, those older historical lulls were WAAAY before climate models had a computer to run on... And nobody was making predictions back then from flawed models.

My IMMEDIATE goal is to smash the lie (repeated on this thread) that we are still CURRENTLY measuring warming.

My Secondary goal is to be aware of when we can declare decisively that the models have pretty all failed. Time is nigh captain.. Pretty damn soon if not already..

We need better climate science.. SOONER rather than later.

Let's say that global warming WAS the hot topic then that it is now. And let's say that the lull I found ended in 1985. I'm sure there'd be people 1984 who'd claim that the crisis was a dud. I'm not quite ready to call this one settled.

Seven yrs is interesting.. Especially if the pros are shouting about ACCELERATED warming (more than linear)..

But it ain't 12 or 20 yrs is it now? Especially when the linear extrapolated rate is about 1/3 of the the predicted...

I said 17 years.

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's say that global warming WAS the hot topic then that it is now. And let's say that the lull I found ended in 1985. I'm sure there'd be people 1984 who'd claim that the crisis was a dud. I'm not quite ready to call this one settled.

Seven yrs is interesting.. Especially if the pros are shouting about ACCELERATED warming (more than linear)..

But it ain't 12 or 20 yrs is it now? Especially when the linear extrapolated rate is about 1/3 of the the predicted...

I said 17 years.

I told you why this would not rise to importance.. No one BACK THEN had models showing CONTINUOUS ACCELERATING warming. It would have invalidated nothing except the wild ass stinky numbers that were coming straight out of J. Hansen's ass..

You're slogging an uninterested mule here. I've shown that we are measuring 12 to 16 yrs of no warming. That's all that is required... No what ifs. No ficticuous set-ups or gimmicks.

 

[JoeNormal]

Seven yrs is interesting.. Especially if the pros are shouting about ACCELERATED warming (more than linear)..

But it ain't 12 or 20 yrs is it now? Especially when the linear extrapolated rate is about 1/3 of the the predicted...

I said 17 years.

I told you why this would not rise to importance.. No one BACK THEN had models showing CONTINUOUS ACCELERATING warming. It would have invalidated nothing except the wild ass stinky numbers that were coming straight out of J. Hansen's ass..

You're slogging an uninterested mule here. I've shown that we are measuring 12 to 16 yrs of no warming. That's all that is required... No what ifs. No ficticuous set-ups or gimmicks.

It's not as if there aren't indirect indicators of rising temperatures. Ice cap shrinking and oceans rising...

So you say we need better models. Agreed. There are a shload of people working on that as we speak. Am I correct in assuming that you're an electrical engineering student? You seem to have an interest in this topic. Maybe you can be the one to break the code. I hear there's money in it.

 

[daveman]

Soon it will be as if warmers never existed because no one will admit to having been one just like no one will admit to having supported eugenics even though at one time it was mainstream consensus science.

Keep your running shoes handy old man. Mobs can be quick.

So now you're down to threatening people into agreeing with you.

That should tell you how intellectually bankrupt you are.

But it won't.

 

[daveman]

Good Gaea, why is anyone even bothering with the Westboro Climate Church fundamentalists anymore?

They're not interested in facts or reason. All they have is emotion, flawed science which they believe because it FEELS right, and vague threats of violence.

 

[skookerasbil]

''It used to be CO2 is the control knob...now it is a complex system with complex natural variables.''

It's always been about CO2. That’s what FFs took out of the atmosphere when they were formed and we're putting back in.

Want you want is a favor from God that they won't do now what they did then.

What we accept from science is that they will do now what they did then even though it's inconvenient to man. Not to mention grossly expensive.

Guess you are unaware that the atmosphere is postively starved for CO2 at present relative to the rest of earth history. As the climate warms, CO2 follows. Billions of years of history bears this out.

Billions of years over which only nature had the capability.

Now humanity can recreate what nature created and uncreated in the past. Pre-carboniferous CO2 concentrations.

If we had followed conservatives and stayed in the caves and not had babies and the Industrial Revolution, we'd be fine.

Some of us will be fine. Others will be dead by our own common hand adapting to a new climate.

I'll bet there are some new believers in science in Boulder now. As well as a few ''told you so's''.

lmao....ZERO scientific evidence on any link between weather extremes and climate change!!!

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12310.html

 

[flacaltenn]

I said 17 years.

I told you why this would not rise to importance.. No one BACK THEN had models showing CONTINUOUS ACCELERATING warming. It would have invalidated nothing except the wild ass stinky numbers that were coming straight out of J. Hansen's ass..

You're slogging an uninterested mule here. I've shown that we are measuring 12 to 16 yrs of no warming. That's all that is required... No what ifs. No ficticuous set-ups or gimmicks.

It's not as if there aren't indirect indicators of rising temperatures. Ice cap shrinking and oceans rising...

So you say we need better models. Agreed. There are a shload of people working on that as we speak. Am I correct in assuming that you're an electrical engineering student? You seem to have an interest in this topic. Maybe you can be the one to break the code. I hear there's money in it.

.. a little more mature than "an engineering student".. I've got a lot of mileage in science and engineering.. I'm overexposed on these boards. So we'll leave it at that..

This is Hercules cleaning up the stable type of task.. EVERYTHING has to go. Starting with the fiction that simple Globally averaged numbers inform us as to the underlying system dynamics of how the planet works..

 

[flacaltenn]

Soon it will be as if warmers never existed because no one will admit to having been one just like no one will admit to having supported eugenics even though at one time it was mainstream consensus science.

Keep your running shoes handy old man. Mobs can be quick.

So now you're down to threatening people into agreeing with you.

That should tell you how intellectually bankrupt you are.

But it won't.

I "aim" for J. Hansen's salary and I get accused of making threats..

Notice the diff.. It takes a leftist MOB to do the job.. No individual initiative..

 

[westwall]

Billions of years over which only nature had the capability.

Now humanity can recreate what nature created and uncreated in the past. Pre-carboniferous CO2 concentrations.

If we had followed conservatives and stayed in the caves and not had babies and the Industrial Revolution, we'd be fine.

Some of us will be fine. Others will be dead by our own common hand adapting to a new climate.

I'll bet there are some new believers in science in Boulder now. As well as a few ''told you so's''.

So you're in favor of an 80% infant mortality rate, occasional famines, non-existent medical care and all the other creature comforts that our stone age ancestors enjoyed?

He didn't say that, you dumb fuck. You just did, though.

Actually he did... just not so directly, and wasn't it you who told me to mind my manners?