Global warming discussion III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Haig said:
Care to explain it then, for the numpties like me ?




It's the very essence of the The Pause that it was totally unpredicted by any warmist believer, who first deny it's happening then, after 18 years 5 months we now have an ad hoc list of "Fifty odd shades of Warming" to "explain" it :D
Click to expand...

Care to show any predictions made for temperature trends less than 20 years.

Even the IPCC only predicted that the trend would be about 0.2 C per decade for the first three decades of the 21st century.

Of course no climatologists predicted the paws, they are not in the business of making short term predictions.
 
Regarding the pause,



Two years old, but always relevant, even if just because it annoys the feeble-minded...
 
CapelDodger said:
Do tell. One example would be good. More would be better, of course, but one to be getting on with would be fine for now.
Click to expand...

Take your pick ...

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry
Warnings have been issued for many decades now regarding catastrophic climate change that forecasted certain trends or occurrences that we should already have witnessed. Yet such predictions have turned out to be very, very wrong. This was certainly the case with the alarmist predictions of the 1960s and ’70s that man’s activities on Earth were causing a catastrophic cooling trend that would bring on another ice age. And it is also the case with the more recent claims about catastrophic global warming.

What follows is a very brief review of these predictions compared to what actually happened.
Click to expand...

The one on Arctic ice claims is telling ( they forget about the Antarctic )

"Arctic Ice

Perhaps nowhere have the alarmists’ predictions been proven as wrong as at the Earth’s poles. In 2007, 2008, and 2009, Al Gore, the high priest for a movement described by critics as the “climate cult,” publicly warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” in the summer by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.”

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited in compliance with rule 4


Nobody is denying that climate changes and the planet has warmed some 0.3 C however it was supposed to be 2C by 2006 which was 8 years ago! :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...a-big-one-scientists-say-20150507-ggw8bo.html

The world is headed into an El Nino event – potentially a big one – which will lift global temperatures and likely exacerbate bushfires and drought in eastern Australia, climate specialists say..

Fairfax Media understands that Australia's Bureau of Meteorology will announce next Tuesday that the El Nino event is all but certain.

Sea-surface temperatures in the central and eastern Pacific are recording anomalies of more than 1 degree, a combination that has not previously been seen in weekly data going back to 1991, according to a bureau climate forecaster.

Australia's measure of El Nino thresholds is sustained warmth of sea-surface temperatures of 0.8 degrees above average in the key regions surveyed, a higher bar to clear than set by the US and some other agencies.

"You can see a warming in the eastern Pacific, which looks to be a classic [El Nino] event," said Agus Santoso, an El Nino modeller at the University of NSW's Climate Change Research centre.
Click to expand...
 
Just a quick word on my example and the issue of homogenization:

Let's say we wanted to compare the hypothetical sprinter in my example to the legendary Jesse Owens.

Now it should be obvious to anyone that the conditions a modern sprinter like Usain Bolt races in are vastly different to that of Jesse Owens. Factors such as equipment, training, nutrition and the actual timing technology are all different.

We could, theoretically, assign values to each of these factors in terms of how much the disadvantaged Jesse Owens. We could then 'adjust' his records to compare them to Usain Bolt's.

This is a pretty standard approach to comparing two sets of data that have differences in how they are calculated. So long as the adjustments are accurate (which we could insure by using a large statistical database as the basis for the adjustments), the comparisons are valid.

Doing a similar kind of adjustment with weather stations is even easier, as the factors are much clearer to distinguish (location, height above sea-level, surroundings).
 
Haig said:
Take your pick ...

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry
Click to expand...
Just the lies one would expect from that source. Do you have any real predictions made by mainstream climate scientists which have not panned out? You've been claiming for years that they exist; even you must have identified at least one.


The one on Arctic ice claims is telling ( they forget about the Antarctic )

"Arctic Ice

Perhaps nowhere have the alarmists’ predictions been proven as wrong as at the Earth’s poles. In 2007, 2008, and 2009, Al Gore, the high priest for a movement described by critics as the “climate cult,” publicly warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” in the summer by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.”
Click to expand...
Typical of the lies to be expected from your source.

Nobody is denying that climate changes and the planet has warmed some 0.3 C however it was supposed to be 2C by 2006 which was 8 years ago! :)
Click to expand...
"Supposed" by whom - you? When was it proposed that by 2006 the planet would have warmed by 0.3C and from what? Enquiring minds would love to know.

For predictions of the ice-age which has failed to cometh ask ak WattsUpMyButt, they have lots of faithful believers over there. In particular you might want to ask your guru Piers Corbyn how the last ten years of his "long-term cooling trend" (which he claims began in 2005) have worked out and where he might have gone wrong.
 
Haig said:
So, if that was all true, what's ALL the panic about ?
Click to expand...


Because even this reduced trend is bad news.

If you poke someone in the cheek repeatedly and simple observation indicates that, as a result, you'll be punched in the face two minutes from now if you keep it up, a more comprehensive examination that indicates you'll actually be punched in the face three minutes from now is not really less of a reason to stop poking that person.
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/3823654d6af0489ae0.png
Click to expand...

Why are you still using a temperature change graph with a positive trend line in your effort to show that temperature change doesn't have a positive trend?
 
Not that it would apply to the deniers who frequent this thread, but... For real sceptics out there that want to test claims around data homogenisation for themselves, University of Queensland have released a temperature tool. You can look at temperature records at any scale, from a local weather station to national and global records. You can investigate common myths, such as the impact of urban heat islands and adjustments to the data. And you can use simple statistical tests to examine the accuracy of the record for yourself.

https://tools.ceit.uq.edu.au/temperature/index.html

Here's an introductory video on using the temperature tool:

 
Haig said:
You have not included the "adjustment practice" that justifies the increasing the times of long past sprinters and reducing the times of recent sprinters :eye-poppi
Click to expand...
Sorry but that reflects a denier lie about climate science, Haig :jaw-dropp!
If someone found that the stopwatches used to time the races ticked faster at higher altitudes than lower altitudes then the obvious, reasonable and justifiable thing to do is to measure the effect and adjust the data.

That is what climate scientists do about changes in weather stations - measure the effect and adjust the data. Unlike the climate change deniers climate scientists are not stupid enough to throw away centuries of data.

The insulting part of the denier lie is the implication that climate scientists purposely adjust the data to produce a greater warming trend.
 
Fixed link :o

bit_pattern said:
Not that it would apply to the deniers who frequent this thread, but... For real sceptics out there that want to test claims around data homogenisation for themselves, University of Queensland have released a temperature tool. You can look at temperature records at any scale, from a local weather station to national and global records. You can investigate common myths, such as the impact of urban heat islands and adjustments to the data. And you can use simple statistical tests to examine the accuracy of the record for yourself.

https://tools.ceit.uq.edu.au/temperature/index.html

Here's an introductory video on using the temperature tool:

Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Take your pick ...
Click to expand...
Citing denier myths in a political rant is never a good pick, Haig.
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.
Click to expand...
The delusion that the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) is an association of climate scientists! UNEP made the bad mistake of relying on a single 2005 paper by an environmental scientist (Norman Myers).
Guess what, Haig - a document called “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security,” is about ... an Abrupt Climate Change Scenario!
A delusion that a scientists opinion is climate science.
Lots of delusions about weather being climate!
We have the delusion that Gore is a climate scientist high priest :p!
An inability to understand what are basically lies about the Artic ice extent is very telling: Has Arctic sea ice returned to normal?
Thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat.
Click to expand...
A bit of a lie about Antarctic Ice: Models predict net loss of land and sea ice for the Antarctic and it is the land ice that it important for global effects.
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate which has implications for sea level rise.
Click to expand...

A last (almost desperate!) emphasizing of the reporter or magazine bias is citing Watts Up With That as if it were a credible source.
 
Haig said:
...random images snipped..
Click to expand...
We certainly have what looks like efforts of the feeble minded in those images, Haig :p!
  1. Total ignorance about the effects of a new Maunder Minimum.
  2. A lie by cherry picking the source and start date about "No global warming for 18 years and 3 months" as easily seen by anyone who looks at the data, e.g. using Wood For Trees.
  3. The stupidity of thinking that climate projections are straight lines.
 
Discussion of sun spot and their effect on climate change moved to this thread. Please confine the discussion to there.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: KMortis
 
Reality Check said:
We certainly have what looks like efforts of the feeble minded in those images, Haig :p!
  1. Total ignorance about the effects of a new Maunder Minimum.
  2. A lie by cherry picking the source and start date about "No global warming for 18 years and 3 months" as easily seen by anyone who looks at the data, e.g. using Wood For Trees.
  3. The stupidity of thinking that climate projections are straight lines.
Click to expand...


Just making the point RC that climate change isn't limited to man made Co2

The Iceman Cometh?
Solar activity is in free fall, Reading University (UK) space physicist Mike Lockwood confirms, perhaps “faster than at any time in the last 9,300 years.” He raised the likelihood of another grand minimum to 25% (from 10% three years previously). However, he claims a new little ice age is unlikely.

“Human-induced global warming is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles,” Professor Lockwood insists. That warmist mantra may keep him from getting excoriated for even mentioning solar influences. But it ignores Earth’s long history of climate change.

And what if Lockwood is wrong about human influences and the extent of a coming cold era? Habibullo Abdussamatov, director of Russia’s space research laboratory and its global warming research team, is convinced another little ice age is on its way. (See pages 18-21 of this report.) That would be LIA #19.
Click to expand...



kmortis said:
Discussion of sun spot and their effect on climate change moved to this thread. Please confine the discussion to there.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: KMortis
Click to expand...

N.B. Does the moderation above mean we can't post on this thread about the Sun and Global Warming ? That would seem a bit odd imo
 
Haig said:
Just making the point RC that climate change isn't limited to man made Co2
Click to expand...
No Haig. By relying on ignorant and lying images and climate denier web sites you are simply making the point that you are relying on ignorant and lying images and climate denier web sites.
Anyone who knows about climate science knows that climate change is not limited to human emitted CO2. Climate change happened even there were no humans, Haig :eek:!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom