Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[David Rodale]

Not updated, I'm afraid, but here it is... the anomalies of the later months have been in the highs 0.4s, IIRC, but the 00's average is still 0.52.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2814805cd616042f.jpg

Still recycling the same pap?

The problem is your graphs are stuck on long term trends, which is fine except that it says nothing about the current decade. It is laughable you're even bothering with it again. Come back in 6 months with the same nonsense. It was one year ago this month you and others laughed at the idea temperatures would drop.


Very simply for the nth time:

Have fun convincing people it is still warming.

 

[lomiller]

The problem is your graphs are stuck on long term trends, which is fine except that it says nothing about the current decade.

As opposed to being stuck on short term trends which say nothing at all. You may want to look up the phrase statistically significant.

 

[David Rodale]

As opposed to being stuck on short term trends which say nothing at all. You may want to look up the phrase statistically significant.

Oh but it does say something. After more than a year, none of you have presented one shred of direct evidence that rising CO2 levels results in a net warming of the surface. If the oceans are not gaining heat, there is no global warming and your precious consensus becomes obsolete.

Ten years was plenty for Hansen to conclude his charade during a time when it was already warming, with Congressional hearings being planned for one of the hottest days of summer in July, complete with inoperable air conditioners. How convenient. It is not that difficult to predict warming while it is warming; its like predicting rain during a thunderstorm.

No statistically significant warming since 1995. How's that?

Note the divergence from the IPCC AR4 "projections"? Note the divergence from the CO2 levels? 15 years with no volcanic interference, temperatures flatten and fall the last 7. You don't see a problem with that? Nah, you just have to believe.

All indicators are pointing toward cooling. Come next April if you warmers are still here shrilling, let us all know how well climate data metrics follow the CO2 AGW talking points. Will we still get the pleasure of BenBurch making bets the Arctic ice extent loss will exceed 2007? I asked the same question one year ago....which way will temperatures go, up?

BTW, have you read the weather reports for the Arctic region lately?

September global temps are likely to spike up due to activity in the tropics. In your giddiness assuming that translates into the return to regularly scheduled global warming, be prepared for the months that follow. Just a heads up.

 

[David Rodale]

I only indicated a path toward credibility. And noted they wouldn't like it.

Watch it, yourself. What makes you think I have not written computer models ?

Don't you like the scripted talking points these warmers use to defend climate models?

 

[David Rodale]

http://www.weather.gov/view/validProds.php?prod=ICE&node=PAFC

Why, how can this be?

SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES ALONG THE ALASKA COASTS OF THE CHUKCHI AND
BEAUFORT SEAS ARE 3 TO 8 DEGREES CELSIUS COLDER TODAY THAN AT THE
SAME TIME IN 2007. WATER TEMPERATURES ACROSS THE CHUKCHI AND BEAUFORT
SEAS ARE UP TO 5 DEGREES COLDER THIS YEAR THAN LAST YEAR. SEA SURFACE
TEMPERATURES ALONG THE COAST FROM WAINWRIGHT TO KAKTOVIK HAVE DROPPED
TO LESS THAN 2 DEGREES CELSIUS. WEATHER FORECAST MODELS ARE BRINGING
COLDER AIR OVER THESE AREAS LATE THIS WEEK. IN 2007 SIGNIFICANT SEA
ICE HAD FORMED ALONG THE ALASKA NORTH COAST BY THE 7TH OF OCTOBER. IN
2008 SEA ICE WILL RETURN EARLIER TO ALASKA WATERS.

SEA ICE IN THE CHUKCHI AND BEAUFORT SEAS HAS REACHED ITS MINIMUM FOR
2008. NEW ICE WILL BEGIN DEVELOPING IN THE BEAUFORT SEA THIS WEEK AND
WILL START TO FORM ALONG THE BARRIER ISLANDS OFF THE ALASKA NORTH
COAST BY THE WEEKEND. SIGNIFICANT SEA ICE WILL DEVELOP ALONG THE
ALASKA COAST FROM WAINWRIGHT TO KAKTOVIK BY THE 4TH OF OCTOBER.
COASTAL WATERS EAST OF PRUDHOE BAY MAY HAVE ICE CONCENTRATIONS
GREATER THAN 4 TENTHS AS SOON AS THE 28TH OR 29TH OF SEPTEMBER.

KCOLE SEPTEMBER 2008

 

[Megalodon]

Climate, weather... all the same for ol'Dave... how is it possible that my coke is cold? Warmers said it was the heat in it that melted the ice cubes!

And again the ocean not gaining heat, despite all the times that that same old canard was debunked, thread after thread, and despite the conspicuous melt in the Artic. We all know that, for delayers, ice melts due to the Melt Fairies... heat as nothing to do with it.

You are pathetic, and again plagiarizing other peoples work. Stupid work, but theirs nonetheless.

 

[Spud1k]

Still recycling the same pap?

The problem is your graphs are stuck on long term trends, which is fine except that it says nothing about the current decade. It is laughable you're even bothering with it again. Come back in 6 months with the same nonsense. It was one year ago this month you and others laughed at the idea temperatures would drop.


Very simply for the nth time:
[qimg]http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/corn_burner/global%20warming/hadcrut31995-1.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/corn_burner/global%20warming/2001.jpg[/qimg]

Have fun convincing people it is still warming.
[qimg]http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/corn_burner/global%20warming/trend.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/corn_burner/global%20warming/UAHCO2MaunaLoa.jpg[/qimg]

One day I'll get sick of pointing it out; climate change is all about the long term trends. Not sure how you define the warming since 1995 statistically insignificant, but hey-ho.

As far as the short term stuff goes, anyone can cherry-pick data from the plethora of those available to suit what they'd rather believe. I can't speak for everyone, but I personally would have never guaranteed no short-term cooling six months ago. If the current trend continues for six years then I'd be surprised. If that happens, I won't be that annoyed because in spite of being wrong about it, we'll have all just somehow got a reprieve. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Spud1k]

Don't you like the scripted talking points these warmers use to defend climate models?

The reason we keep repeating ourselves is because you don't seem to even acknowledge what we're saying. It's clearly evident from your posts that the likes of you and mhaze know very little about how models are really used but you keep on insisting on shouting about it when you think you've found evidence that they 'don't work'. It's like complaining a rivet gun is a useless tool when you can't use it to saw planks of wood in half.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Still recycling the same pap?

The problem is your graphs are stuck on long term trends, which is fine except that it says nothing about the current decade. It is laughable you're even bothering with it again. Come back in 6 months with the same nonsense. It was one year ago this month you and others laughed at the idea temperatures would drop.

It matters not how often you deny it but climate is all about long term trends.

Have fun convincing people it is still warming.
[qimg]http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/corn_burner/global%20warming/trend.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/corn_burner/global%20warming/UAHCO2MaunaLoa.jpg[/qimg]

I refer you to uses and abuses of trend lines. In particular I invite you to replace your period 2001-2008 with 1999-2008 and compare.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Oh but it does say something. After more than a year, none of you have presented one shred of direct evidence that rising CO2 levels results in a net warming of the surface. If the oceans are not gaining heat, there is no global warming and your precious consensus becomes obsolete.

Oceans not gaining heat? You have heard of the Arctic, haven't you?

Ten years was plenty for Hansen to conclude his charade during a time when it was already warming, with Congressional hearings being planned for one of the hottest days of summer in July, complete with inoperable air conditioners. How convenient. It is not that difficult to predict warming while it is warming; its like predicting rain during a thunderstorm.

June, actually.

No statistically significant warming since 1995. How's that?

See my references to trend lines.

Note the divergence from the IPCC AR4 "projections"? Note the divergence from the CO2 levels? 15 years with no volcanic interference, temperatures flatten and fall the last 7. You don't see a problem with that? Nah, you just have to believe.

All indicators are pointing toward cooling. Come next April if you warmers are still here shrilling, let us all know how well climate data metrics follow the CO2 AGW talking points. Will we still get the pleasure of BenBurch making bets the Arctic ice extent loss will exceed 2007? I asked the same question one year ago....which way will temperatures go, up?

Use of "shrilling" noted. Use of this sort of word seems to be one of the tics of GWSceptics.

I have already placed a $10 bet that 2009's Arctic minimum will be less than 2005's. Capel Dodger is predicting, foolishly IMO, that it will be less than 2007's. What are you predicting?

BTW, have you read the weather reports for the Arctic region lately?

September global temps are likely to spike up due to activity in the tropics. In your giddiness assuming that translates into the return to regularly scheduled global warming, be prepared for the months that follow. Just a heads up.

Yes, let's see.

 

[Spud1k]

Watch it, yourself. What makes you think I have not written computer models ?

That first line was meant as a semi-humorous retort to a perceived insult.

 

[Spud1k]

Was bored and I found this, which seems relevant to this discussion.

Anyone who thinks global warming has stopped has their head in the sand.

It's not often the Met Office is that frank in its press releases...

Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming.

Bolding mine. They then go on to give an explanation of why DR's argument about ocean temperatures doesn't hold up.

 

[CapelDodger]

Still recycling the same pap?

The problem is your graphs are stuck on long term trends, which is fine except that it says nothing about the current decade.

The current decade says nothing about the long-term trend. The long-term trend is what matters (unless you intend to settle down in this decade).

It is laughable you're even bothering with it again. Come back in 6 months with the same nonsense. It was one year ago this month you and others laughed at the idea temperatures would drop.

Prove it. None of us expect a year-on-year increase, so why would a one-year drop be laughed at? I strongly suspect that you're just making that up (for the reason given).

Very simply for the nth time:

There are some words you should avoid using.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/corn_burner/global warming/hadcrut31995-1.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/corn_burner/global warming/2001.jpg

Have fun convincing people it is still warming.
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/corn_burner/global warming/trend.png

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/corn_burner/global warming/UAHCO2MaunaLoa.jpg

Pictures again, unattributed and unexplained. What do the various lines mean, what's their statistical significance, and where's the code?

 

[CapelDodger]

I have already placed a $10 bet that 2009's Arctic minimum will be less than 2005's. Capel Dodger is predicting, foolishly IMO, that it will be less than 2007's.

I naturally prefer to think of it as a bold prediction.

 

[lomiller]

I naturally prefer to think of it as a bold prediction.

2009 being below 2007 isn’t all that unlikely. An ice free Artic, something that probably hasn’t happened in millions of years, occurring by 2015 is… bold.

 

[CapelDodger]

2009 being below 2007 isn’t all that unlikely. An ice free Artic, something that probably hasn’t happened in millions of years, occurring by 2015 is… bold.

I like to live on the edge .

 

[TrueSceptic]

The current decade says nothing about the long-term trend. The long-term trend is what matters (unless you intend to settle down in this decade).

Prove it. None of us expect a year-on-year increase, so why would a one-year drop be laughed at? I strongly suspect that you're just making that up (for the reason given).

It would be good to see references. I wasn't even here then.

There are some words you should avoid using.

Pictures again, unattributed and unexplained. What do the various lines mean, what's their statistical significance, and where's the code?

woodfortrees actually looks to be genuine and very useful, especially for those of us fed up with downloading the latest version of the right dataset, opening it in a spreadsheet app, and producing graphs, just to check that someone isn't "lying". See my previous post about trend lines.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I naturally prefer to think of it as a bold prediction.

And indeed it is. I'm surprised no one wants to put money on the table. Heck, I'm tempted to do so myself, to wit: the 2009 Arctic minimum extent will not be less than that for 2007.

 

[TrueSceptic]

2009 being below 2007 isn’t all that unlikely. An ice free Artic, something that probably hasn’t happened in millions of years, occurring by 2015 is… bold.

You have to be careful: what do you mean by "ice free Arctic". All of it? For how long? Just the geographic pole? How is that defined? How large a radius? Again, for how long?

 

[CapelDodger]

You have to be careful: what do you mean by "ice free Arctic". All of it? For how long? Just the geographic pole? How is that defined? How large a radius? Again, for how long?

I'm going by the NSIDC (area of ocean with at least 15% sea-ice) http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png. When that hits zero we have an ice-free Arctic.