Global warming discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Megalodon said:
So I take it from the gibberish that you also can't pinpoint the pause?
Click to expand...


Actually, taking only the satellite data (the land temperature data being so error prone) there has been a cooling over the last decade, never mind a just a Pause. :D

Piers Corbyn on the Myth of Man-Made Global Warming

Notice that the key to understanding climate change is the electromagnetic connection between Earth and the Sun. :cool:
 
So you have nothing but cherry-picking? There is no pause, and I have just shown it with two graphics. That some scientists got worked up by denialist propaganda into explaining a non-significant trend in a noisy dataset is their own problem, and doesnt invalidate the long term, significant warming trend.
 
Well measurement by satellite (UAH & RSS) doesn't agree with you :p

There has now been over 18 years with no measurable atmospheric global warming and a slight cooling in the past 12 years. LINK

 
Red Baron Farms said:
See Trakar? There he goes again, just like I said in post #559.
Click to expand...


That cuts both ways :p

Some bedtime reading ;)

A detailed review of the book: ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’, by Mark Steyn
The hockey stick was never validated, yet it became so famous that it was taught to young children all over the world in elementary schools. Many years later, in 2005, it was thoroughly debunked by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (often abbreviated M&M). They showed that using the statistical technique invented by Michael Mann even random number series (persistent trendless red noise, see M&M Figure 1) will generate a hockey stick. Basically, Mann had mined many series of numbers looking for hockey stick shapes and gave each series that had the shape he wanted a much higher weight, up to a weighting factor of 392! This was truly a case of selecting a desired conclusion and then molding the data to fit it.
Click to expand...
 
Haig said:
Well measurement by satellite (UAH & RSS) doesn't agree with you :p

There has now been over 18 years with no measurable atmospheric global warming and a slight cooling in the past 12 years. LINK

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_3823655e0e2dd90f8d.png
Click to expand...
Do you recall when you first had to take to the air to find your Pause? That was when the surface got too hot for you, a few years ago now. A great advantage of the satellite data, from your point of view, is the absence of Arctic data (ice and snow are a problem), that being where the amplification is happening. Don't delude yourself that we can't all see the trick. And as for the carefully tuned UAH model, even the spanking new one can't hide the warming.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
See Trakar? There he goes again, just like I said in post #559.
Click to expand...

It is rather bizarre. I'm one of those lurkers who watch this thread but don't really partake in it (and by pure chance, happen to be the OP of this branch of the discussion). From the shadows I see Haig who is basically pointing to a chicken and calling it a cow every time. Everyone else is saying "no Haig, the rest of the world calls that a chicken" and provides evidence. Yet he goes on calling it a cow over and over again in light of the overwhelming evidence (including in his own graph he keeps presenting which does not mean what he thinks it does). I'm glad to see folks continue to call him out on it though we all know it isn't for his benefit. It is for those like myself who clearly recognize Haig isn't understanding basic science.
 
Haig said:
Well measurement by satellite (UAH & RSS) doesn't agree with you :p

There has now been over 18 years with no measurable atmospheric global warming and a slight cooling in the past 12 years. LINK

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_3823655e0e2dd90f8d.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

You really only have cherry-picking to offer?

Here, global warming since 1999:



What have we learned, boys and girls? Unless you can statistically prove a change of trend, to limit the trend to a part of the available data is deceiving.
 
Haig said:
Well measurement by satellite (UAH & RSS) doesn't agree with you :p

There has now been over 18 years with no measurable atmospheric global warming and a slight cooling in the past 12 years. LINK

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_3823655e0e2dd90f8d.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...
What, again? How many times will you post that graph before you understand what everyone is telling you: it supports AGW?

The numbers on the graph - not the text, which lies - indicate a constant increase in temperatures, not a pause: about 0.1 or 0.2 C increase (per decade? the scale isn't clear). A correct title would be 'Trend: 0.1 C per decade'.
 
Trakar said:
"over a climatically significant timeframe," is a proper scientific qualification many a faux skeptic "conveniently" omits.
Click to expand...



:dl:

Was that post meant to be a joke Trakar?

If we look at the temperature over the last 10 and 25 thousand years we can get a much better "climatically significant time frame" and it shows 20th century warming to be nothing special and the natural state is an ICE AGE.

look back but not too far ...


With so much volatility in the graphs, anyone could play “pick a trend” and depending on which dot you start from, you can get any trend you want. — Jo

but not even farther ...


MAGNITUDE AND RATE OF CLIMATE CHANGES

So AGW alarmists need to get a grip :)

Global temperatures and levels of Co2 have been much higher than the present and much lower
 
Haig said:
...If we look at the temperature over the last 10 and 25 thousand years we can get a much better "climatically significant time frame" and it shows 20th century warming to be nothing special and the natural state is an ICE AGE....
Click to expand...

Again, not even enough of a grasp of the subject matter to be a good lie, you are simple fundamentally and functionally wrong. As an example of the inherent flaws to your statements please provide evidence of the last time in Earth's history when co2 and temperatures have risen as high and as fast as they have over the last 200 years.
 
Trakar said:
Again, not even enough of a grasp of the subject matter to be a good lie, you are simple fundamentally and functionally wrong. As an example of the inherent flaws to your statements please provide evidence of the last time in Earth's history when co2 and temperatures have risen as high and as fast as they have over the last 200 years.
Click to expand...


Take your pick Trakar, Medieval Warming, Roman Warming, Minoan Warming and many more in the Holocene interglacial,

The big picture: 65 million years of temperature swings

Telling points in the comments ...

"there was an extreme ice age at the end of the Ordovician 350 mya and CO2 was 4,400 ppm. Although the conditions existed back then to make an ice age possible, the level of CO2 was more than an order of magnitude greater (4,400 ppm) and an ice age should have been impossible. As MattB has correctly pointed out, there was “something” else affecting the climate. I believe it was the Milankovitch cycles. If the effect of CO2 is monotonic and the IPCC is correct about a positive feedback in relation to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, the ice age 350 mya should not have occurred, but it did. Also, since the CO2 content was lower and temperatures were higher during the MWP, RWP and the Minoan warm period during the Holocene Maximum of the Bronze age the theory of anthropogenic global warming is falsified."
 
Something else Trakar,

How fast is the Earth warming?
The rate of warming curves for all 4 major temperature series show that there has been a significant drop in the rate of warming over the last 17 years. In 1998 the rate of warming was between +2.0 and +2.5 °C per century. Now, in 2015, it is between +0.5 and +0.8 °C per century. The rate now is only about 30% of what it was in 1998. Note that these rates of warming were calculated AFTER the so-called “Pause-busting” adjustments were made.
Click to expand...

my bold
So, the next time that you hear somebody claiming that Global Warming is accelerating, show them a graph of the rate of warming. Some climate scientists seem to enjoy telling us that things are worse than predicted. Here is a chance to cheer them up with some good news. Somehow I don’t think that they will want to hear it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Oh, so we now descended into science fiction? Good to know, saves everyone the time...
 
Haig said:
Take your pick Trakar, Medieval Warming, Roman Warming, Minoan Warming and many more in the Holocene interglacial,

The big picture: 65 million years of temperature swings

Telling points in the comments ...

"there was an extreme ice age at the end of the Ordovician 350 mya and CO2 was 4,400 ppm. Although the conditions existed back then to make an ice age possible, the level of CO2 was more than an order of magnitude greater (4,400 ppm) and an ice age should have been impossible. As MattB has correctly pointed out, there was “something” else affecting the climate. I believe it was the Milankovitch cycles. If the effect of CO2 is monotonic and the IPCC is correct about a positive feedback in relation to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, the ice age 350 mya should not have occurred, but it did. Also, since the CO2 content was lower and temperatures were higher during the MWP, RWP and the Minoan warm period during the Holocene Maximum of the Bronze age the theory of anthropogenic global warming is falsified."
Click to expand...

Tell me Haig or anyone else why I would be interested in the climate for 65 million years ago?
 
Lennart Hyland said:
Tell me Haig or anyone else why I would be interested in the climate for 65 million years ago?
Click to expand...


Lennart it's showing climate change from the PRESENT all the way back to 65 million years ago and everything in between :rolleyes:

The climate has ALWAYS been changing and it's a natural cycle and we aren't causing it nor can we control it. :cool:
 
Lennart Hyland said:
Tell me Haig or anyone else why I would be interested in the climate for 65 million years ago?
Click to expand...

There were lots and lots of dinosaurs, and some of them - like sauropods - we really really big.

One of the proposed methods for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to tax agricultural production of methane produced by bovine flatulence.

Cows fart. All herbivores fart.

Cows weigh about 400kg.

A sauropod could weigh up to 50 tonnes or more, over 100 times more than a cow.

Therefore each of them must have produced at least 100 times more methane than a cow. We know from TV that there were lots of sauropods. You couldn't even have a decent picnic 65 mya, because as soon as you found a nice tree, some bleeding brontosaurus would come and eat it!

The world didn't burn up 65 millions years ago, despite the eleventy billion times more methane the sauropods farted.

Case closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom