Global warming discussion III

[greybeard]

Well the announcements by various weather agencies around the world appear to have driven those who deny the science into a frenzy. When even the WSJ has to report it as fact though you just know the games up.

Climate experts from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, working independently, calculated that the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was 58.24 degrees Fahrenheit, 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average, the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880. By their reckoning, nine of the 10 warmest years now on record all occurred during the 21st century.

Their finding confirms an analysis by the Japan Meteorological Agency, which announced earlier this month that 2014 was the hottest year world-wide on record. The records used by Japan go back to 1891.

So fourteen of the fifteenth hottest years since records began were this century. No one born after 1976 has experienced a year where the global temperatures were less than the 20th century average. The last record cold year was 1911. Under these circumstances it's only possible to feel pity for those who try to make out it's not happening or even that this increase in temperatures is the start of a new ice age.

 

[Haig]

The average of what, though?

But no, if the blue line is the average, then the blue line is the trend line. The trend line is at just over .2, not 0. It is not talking about the change over time of the blue line.

You are brilliant ehcks I bow to your wisdom,

Can you also explain why the pause in temperatures the last 18 years has occurred even as CO2 has continued to rise over 11% ?

Well the announcements by various weather agencies around the world appear to have driven those who deny the science into a frenzy. When even the WSJ has to report it as fact though you just know the games up.

Climate experts from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, working independently, calculated that the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was 58.24 degrees Fahrenheit, 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average, the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880. By their reckoning, nine of the 10 warmest years now on record all occurred during the 21st century.

Their finding confirms an analysis by the Japan Meteorological Agency, which announced earlier this month that 2014 was the hottest year world-wide on record. The records used by Japan go back to 1891.

So fourteen of the fifteenth hottest years since records began were this century. No one born after 1976 has experienced a year where the global temperatures were less than the 20th century average. The last record cold year was 1911. Under these circumstances it's only possible to feel pity for those who try to make out it's not happening or even that this increase in temperatures is the start of a new ice age.

Put all the spin you want on it greybeard the bottom line is this ...

"No matter how you measure it, the global average temperature trend has flattened out over the past decade and a half. Even so, the tiny fraction of a degree increase in temperature expected for 2014 over previous years will be hailed as being the highest on record. Despite this almost meaningless increase, there is a distinct possibility that temperatures will be once more dropping as solar activity and ocean circulations relentlessly work to redistribute heat across the globe."

Josh writes: By the slimmest of margins, 2014 has been declared the “hottest year ever”. It’s everywhere you look – there’s dodgy numbers, vague impressions and tweets galore – yes, it’s the warmist year evah!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

explain why the pause in temperatures the last 18 years has occurred even as CO2 has continued to rise over 11% ?

Well there really isn't a pause in warming. But if you mean why the actual increase has been less than many models projected?

Simple. The models are not perfect.

But just for kicks and grins. Draw a sinusoidal wave horizontal on a piece of paper (~). Now tilt the whole piece of paper a few degrees upward on the right. Now lets suppose the wave represents temps and the upward tilt is AGW. Notice how the sinusoidal curve still has periodic flat or even dropping temps, yet the wave as a whole is increasing?

 

[CapelDodger]

The graph legend gives a Trend of 0.00 C per century

Why do you ask ?

There you have it, folks, the quintessential Haig. The graph legend says it and it's what Haig wants to hear - why would he ask what the lines mean or if the legend is true? Why would anyone?

 

[Pixel42]

Well there really isn't a pause in warming. But if you mean why the actual increase has been less than many models projected?

Simple. The models are not perfect.

And they can only model the underlying trend, there's no way they can predict what the noise is going to do.

Suppose a climatologist modelled the underlying trend from winter to summer in the northern hemisphere; they would of course produce a graph showing a smooth upward increase. Suppose February 1st turned out to be unusually warm for the time of year. If someone turned round on February 18th and said "Hey, it's no warmer today than it was 18 days ago! Didn't predict that, did you Mr clever dick climatologist! Clearly the warming has stopped, and your assumption that the earth is tilted on its axis must be wrong!" even Haig would know they were being a blithering idiot. But for some reason he is unable to recognise identical blithering idiocy when applied to climate change.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's sad that there are people with so little regard for the scientific process as Monckton that he's willing to abuse it for money.

To understand Monckton's contempt for science one has to understand something of the intellectual environment that formed him - that of the British Public School and the Oxford classics crowd. And if you're not British be glad of it - we Brits are currently being ruled by exactly the same sort of people.

Of course if you're a US American you've got your own problems with your rulers but at least you have Obama as a backstop. We have the Queen. And, waiting in the wings, Batty Prince Charlie .

 

[CapelDodger]

"... the earth is tilted on its access ..."

That's to make it wheelchair-friendly .

 

[Pixel42]

That's to make it wheelchair-friendly .

Oops.

Fixed.

 

[Haig]

There you have it, folks, the quintessential Haig. The graph legend says it and it's what Haig wants to hear - why would he ask what the lines mean or if the legend is true? Why would anyone?

Yip, you know me so well ... just a numpty

To understand Monckton's contempt for science one has to understand something of the intellectual environment that formed him - that of the British Public School and the Oxford classics crowd. And if you're not British be glad of it - we Brits are currently being ruled by exactly the same sort of people.

Of course if you're a US American you've got your own problems with your rulers but at least you have Obama as a backstop. We have the Queen. And, waiting in the wings, Batty Prince Charlie .

If you add a single word to that we would almost agree ... e.g. Monckton's contempt for corrupt science ... not too sure about Obama, he has been a bit of a let down imho

Getting back to Global Warming discussion III

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE PDF ... says Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory, Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria


But what DEFINES THE SUN ?

What modulates our Sun? The majority of science work on the principle that the Sun is self modulating

Comment

The past year of this solar cycle (year 6) has been the strongest by far in terms of flux and solar wind....and cornal holes ! Not only the number of holes, but their size also. Which, of course, is why the solar wind has been much higher in months 72 thru 85...6 years after the start of this cycle...which in all other cycles in the past century these numbers were much lower than the peeks only 3 to 4 years after the start of the cycles...WHY !! No one has the answer...and why so many/large cornal holes this past year...anyone, anyone??

 

[Trakar]

What modulates our Sun? The majority of science work on the principle that the Sun is self modulating

Comment

Please explain in your own words, in what way, and by what mechanism you perceive the weak solar cycle to be affecting the global climate. Most specifically, how do you feel that the current weak solar cycle is generating an increasingly warm climate?

 

[greybeard]

You are brilliant ehcks I bow to your wisdom,

Can you also explain why the pause in temperatures the last 18 years has occurred even as CO2 has continued to rise over 11% ?




Put all the spin you want on it greybeard the bottom line is this ...
Denier cut and paste snipped

What I said is the truth backed up by science. You are just copy and pasting propaganda and as ehcks has shown you are taking things at face value which have been deliberately designed to fool you. Global temperatures are rising. The scientific consensus is that this is caused by CO2 emissions. Your insistence that we are heading for a mini ice age when you have shown you can't see that there are people on the internet whose only motive is to pull the wool over your eyes only emphasises your gullibility.

 

[greybeard]

Yip, you know me so well ... just a numpty



If you add a single word to that we would almost agree ... e.g. Monckton's contempt for corrupt science ... not too sure about Obama, he has been a bit of a let down imho

Getting back to Global Warming discussion III

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE PDF ... says Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory, Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria


But what DEFINES THE SUN ?

What modulates our Sun? The majority of science work on the principle that the Sun is self modulating

Comment

With the statement I have highlighted Haig you again show that you can't distinguish between real science and those who just make things up for financial or political reasons. Monckton has been continually debunked. Somebody already mentioned Potholer54's youtube videos debunking Monckton nonsense but this is also a good site. by a Republican scientist.

 

[ehcks]

You are brilliant ehcks I bow to your wisdom,

Can you also explain why the pause in temperatures the last 18 years has occurred even as CO2 has continued to rise over 11% ?

There is no pause. Your own graph shows it.

That graph is a temperature change graph, not a temperature graph. The black line shows how much temperature changed from previous. The blue line is the average of that change.

Since the blue line is at .2, that means that the temperature change over the time period was +.2 degrees. Even using the obvious 1998 outlier.

 

[ehcks]

Please explain in your own words, in what way, and by what mechanism you perceive the weak solar cycle to be affecting the global climate. Most specifically, how do you feel that the current weak solar cycle is generating an increasingly warm climate?

I think the problem is that he thinks the bold is false. He thinks the temperature trend is down, somehow. He thinks the world is already getting colder, and that the solar minimum means that will get worse, so we should pump more CO2 to counter that nonsense.

 

[Haig]

Please explain in your own words, in what way, and by what mechanism you perceive the weak solar cycle to be affecting the global climate. Most specifically, how do you feel that the current weak solar cycle is generating an increasingly warm climate?

In my own words > Global Warming ended with the passing of the "HOT" Sun in the 20th century. Due to our massive Oceans we enter a Pause and a Lag as the heat tops out and we begin the Grand Solar Minimum slide down with the "COOL" Sun into another New Little Ice Age. < as I said in post #1779 the full explanation is HERE or you can just scroll up this page to it

And NO Trakar, I DON'T think "the current weak solar cycle is generating an increasingly warm climate" as is obvious from my comments previously

I think the problem is that he thinks the bold is false. He thinks the temperature trend is down, somehow. He thinks the world is already getting colder, and that the solar minimum means that will get worse, so we should pump more CO2 to counter that nonsense.

Problem ehcks ? Nope, not for me but you're following me fine apart from the last bit "we should pump more CO2" ... that's just irrelevant. The C02 effect is insignificant when compared to the natural causes of Global Warming ... The Pause ... and shortly ... Global Cooling

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE PDF

The earth is no longer threatened by the catastrophic global warming forecast by some scientists; warming passed its peak in 1998-2005, while the value of the TSI by July - September of last year had already declined by 0.47 W/m2 (Fig. 1).

For several years until the beginning in 2013 of a steady temperature drop, in a phase of instability, temperature will oscillate around the maximum that has been reached, without further substantial rise.

So that would explain The Pause of 18 years then as we start the slide down to the Grand Solar Minimum that has Already started, next comes the New Little Ice Age.

 

[Haig]

What I said is the truth backed up by science. You are just copy and pasting propaganda and as ehcks has shown you are taking things at face value which have been deliberately designed to fool you. Global temperatures are rising. The scientific consensus is that this is caused by CO2 emissions. Your insistence that we are heading for a mini ice age when you have shown you can't see that there are people on the internet whose only motive is to pull the wool over your eyes only emphasises your gullibility.

True I'm just a "copy an paste" hack but that doesn't mean there are NO facts in it !

The failed dire predictions of the CAGW Alarmists together with the failure to predict OR give a credible explanation for The Pause should give you second thoughts !

To be clear greybeard, there is NO place for "consensus" in Science. The Scientific Method is the only true way forward.

With the statement I have highlighted Haig you again show that you can't distinguish between real science and those who just make things up for financial or political reasons. Monckton has been continually debunked. Somebody already mentioned Potholer54's youtube videos debunking Monckton nonsense but this is also a good site. by a Republican scientist.

Well greybeard, in answer to ALL the ad homs against Monckton he has produced (together with et al ) a GREAT peer reviewed paper in a highly respectable science journal of a model of Global Warming and it is far more predictive that ALL the IPCC models. And that it's by Skeptics is ... priceless, just priceless

Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model PDF Christopher Monckton • Willie W.-H. Soon • David R. Legates • William M. Briggs

 

[greybeard]

In my own words > Global Warming ended with the passing of the "HOT" Sun in the 20th century. Due to our massive Oceans we enter a Pause and a Lag as the heat tops out and we begin the Grand Solar Minimum slide down with the "COOL" Sun into another New Little Ice Age. < as I said in post #1779 the full explanation is HERE or you can just scroll up this page to it

And NO Trakar, I DON'T think "the current weak solar cycle is generating an increasingly warm climate" as is obvious from my comments previously




Problem ehcks ? Nope, not for me but you're following me fine apart from the last bit "we should pump more CO2" ... that's just irrelevant. The C02 effect is insignificant when compared to the natural causes of Global Warming ... The Pause ... and shortly ... Global Cooling

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE PDF



So that would explain The Pause of 18 years then as we start the slide down to the Grand Solar Minimum that has Already started, next comes the New Little Ice Age.

So from your quote "The earth is no longer threatened by the catastrophic global warming forecast by some scientists; warming passed its peak in 1998-2005" he has already been disproved. He shows a chart showing declining temperatures over a very short period as proof we are going into a period of cooling. That was 2009, he has already been proved wrong.

True I'm just a "copy an paste" hack but that doesn't mean there are NO facts in it !

The failed dire predictions of the CAGW Alarmists together with the failure to predict OR give a credible explanation for The Pause should give you second thoughts !

To be clear greybeard, there is NO place for "consensus" in Science. The Scientific Method is the only true way forward.




Well greybeard, in answer to ALL the ad homs against Monckton he has produced (together with et al ) a GREAT peer reviewed paper in a highly respectable science journal of a model of Global Warming and it is far more predictive that ALL the IPCC models. And that it's by Skeptics is ... priceless, just priceless

Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model PDF Christopher Monckton • Willie W.-H. Soon • David R. Legates • William M. Briggs

Monckton is not a scientist and I have shown you proof that he is not to be trusted and with all due respect you are not capable of judging whether it's a great paper or not. You are just taking what you have read at Wattsupwiththat at face value because you want to believe it. WUWT is not a science site.

As for "To be clear greybeard, there is NO place for "consensus" in Science. The Scientific Method is the only true way forward." This is something else you only read on science denial sites. Come on, think for yourself Haig you can figure out why that is totally illogical. Are you really trying to say that the less scientists that believe in something the more we should believe it? Then try looking into the background of the few climate scientists who say that global warming isn't happening. Willie Soon for instance, who you put so much faith in is paid by the fossil fuel industry, only found out by a FOI request.

 

[CapelDodger]

If you add a single word to that we would almost agree ... e.g. Monckton's contempt for corrupt science ...

Monckton is the essence of corrupt science. Corrupting science is what he does for a living; of course he depends on others to do a lot of the work, he's not terribly bright himself and is, of course, as ignorant of science as his target audience.

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE

PDF ... says Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory, Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria

You're still clinging to that crackpot? How has that project come along since the 90's? Did the good doctor find the solar pulsations he said he was going to - the ones he knew were there but were previously unobservable? Does he even still have a job in Putin's Russia? I can't imagine joint Ukrainian/Russian projects are the apple of anybody's eye these days.

But

what DEFINES THE SUN ?

What modulates our Sun? The majority of science work on the principle that the Sun is self modulating

Comment

There's another strange authority of yours - an IT guy.

A huge amount of solar research has been done in the last couple of decades, much of it fascinating. If you're so interested in the Sun your time would be better spent on that instead of these people, who really have nothing to tell you. Apart from what you want to hear, of course, and you already know what that is.

 

[CapelDodger]

Originally by Haig:

True I'm just a "copy an paste" hack but that doesn't mean there are NO facts in it

Inclusion some facts is what good propaganda depends on. Start with some facts, blend in some lies, add non sequiturs, sprinkle with conspiracy themes ("all those other scientists are corrupt! Don't listen to them!") and serve all mixed up in a bucket. With the facts on top.

 

[greybeard]

True I'm just a "copy an paste" hack but that doesn't mean there are NO facts in it !

The problem is Haig that you have already admitted that you don't understand what you are copy and pasting. So can you not see that it's wrong to spam a science forum with loads of stuff from science denial sites in the forlorn hope that something, anything, might stick?