It's the [Climate Polcy] Stupid!

[sunsettommy]

I suspect cherry picking, such as you did when you picked 1998. This is to be suspected from advocates (I'll concede that the IPCC chair might go into that category) but not from scientists.

You are hopeless.

In the link SHOWS the chart.That SHOWS the undeniable fact.That it is cooler NOW than in 1998.

You came up with the typical "Cherrypicking" claim.It is so poor a counter when you got whacked by valid date from a prominent climatologist.Who is open with the data and posts them openly.

You seem to have a very hard time understanding that even a ZERO trend since 1998,is a big blow to the AGW hypothesis.

Do you even know what the 2001 and 2007 IPCC temperature modeling projections starting with year 2000.Predicted for the decade of 2001-2010?

Do you even know?

Try this link.It will be interesting what rationalization you will come up with:

Predictions Of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections

[sunsettommy]

Ok, in that case they're both qualified. Do they publish their material ? Is it peer reviewed ? What does the climate science community think of their theories ?

What is Physics?

LOL

[Michael Hardner]

What is Physics?

LOL

You didn't answer my questions.

[Michael Hardner]

You are hopeless.

In the link SHOWS the chart.That SHOWS the undeniable fact.That it is cooler NOW than in 1998.

You came up with the typical "Cherrypicking" claim.It is so poor a counter when you got whacked by valid date from a prominent climatologist.Who is open with the data and posts them openly.

Do you understand what I mean by cherrypicking ?

[sunsettommy]

Do you understand what I mean by cherrypicking ?

Yes and you have yet to make a rational counter to my use of the 1998 year.

It is common for AGW believers to use the Cherrypicking complaint.But not explain WHY the chosen years are improperly used.

LOL

Edited June 10, 2011 by sunsettommy

[sunsettommy]

You didn't answer my questions.

Nope,Yes,Yes,Negative responses is common.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes and you have yet to make a rational counter to my use of the 1998 year.

It is common for AGW believers to use the Cherrypicking complaint.But not explain WHY the chosen years are improperly used.

Because I can pick a year and say - it's warmer than THAT year. The point is the trend, which is warmer.

[sunsettommy]

Because I can pick a year and say - it's warmer than THAT year. The point is the trend, which is warmer.

It appears that you have forgotten that DR. Mann et al.stated that 1998 is the warmest year in last 1,000 years.

1998 Was Warmest Year Of Millenium, Climate Researchers Report

It was already wrong in 1999.Because even GISS temperature charts were showing 1934 as warmer than 1998.

Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product

This is one reason why I KNOW the H.S. is full of crap.Even Hansen's own GISS Temp was showing 1934 as being warmer.

[sunsettommy]

To expand on the undeniable evidence of the unchanging long term warming trend since the 1880's:

Keep Aiming Towards Your Big Toe

This was a response to Serioussam from this LINK.Who was continually shooting himself in the foot with comments.

He he...

[sunsettommy]

Going to call this cherrypicking?

LINK

He he...

[Michael Hardner]

It appears that you have forgotten that DR. Mann et al.stated that 1998 is the warmest year in last 1,000 years.

I could see how that could be seen as cherry picking too.

It was already wrong in 1999.Because even GISS temperature charts were showing 1934 as warmer than 1998.

Wait a second - it seems to me that ScienceDaily reported the 1998 number from the data in the report, not Dr. Mann - unless he did it elsewhere.

Also there's a note in your second link about incorrect source data.

[Michael Hardner]

To expand on the undeniable evidence of the unchanging long term warming trend since the 1880's:

Why doesn't he just show a correlation graph between CO2 levels and temperatures rather than saying "very little CO2 was accumulating" ?

This was a response to Serioussam from this LINK.Who was continually shooting himself in the foot with comments.

He he...

Overall record temperatures in the US are happening more on the record HIGH side than record LOW, and again this is just the US.

[Michael Hardner]

Going to call this cherrypicking?

LINK

He he...

No ! That's great. First thing I picked was HADCRUT global mean - every sample. A warming trend is clear there.

[sunsettommy]

No ! That's great. First thing I picked was HADCRUT global mean - every sample. A warming trend is clear there.

A warming trend that consist of 4 1/2 years out of 31 years.1994-1998.

The rest of the time.The trend is about ZERO.

[sunsettommy]

Why doesn't he just show a correlation graph between CO2 levels and temperatures rather than saying "very little CO2 was accumulating" ?

Why can't you see the obvious point he made?

The warming trend from 1880 to now,is falling on a straight linear line.

The warming trend is unchanged,over the time frame.

[sunsettommy]

I could see how that could be seen as cherry picking too.

The IPCC,NAS,Environmentalist groups and the media all liked it.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm going to consolidate replies into one post here.

A warming trend that consist of 4 1/2 years out of 31 years.1994-1998.

The rest of the time.The trend is about ZERO.

I disagree, as does the body of climate science - you can even see it going up over the whole time.

Why can't you see the obvious point he made?

The warming trend from 1880 to now,is falling on a straight linear line.

The warming trend is unchanged,over the time frame.

I certainly don't see that, and even skeptics aren't disputing that warming has happened. Moreover, I didn't see a statement from him saying there was no warming. Maybe I missed that ?

I'm not sure if the statements are coming from you or for him - for example you talked initially about a recent cooling period, but from the comments on the blog it seems he was talking about "no warming".

"No warming" does not equal "cooling".

The IPCC,NAS,Environmentalist groups and the media all liked it.

I'll explain this once again - statements policy groups and statements by the popular press aren't as rigorously scientific, and are more prone to bias.

This is important: even the climate scientists who are firmly on the side of CO2-caused warming have spoken against people who make extreme statements about warming and the potential effects.

Can you make the same statement about those outside the science community, including pseudo-scientific bloggers ?

[sunsettommy]

You need to see the link again.It shows the undeniable zero trend from 1979-1994.It is a GREEN line.

The 1998 event is a step up warming.Then from 2001 to now,it is back to about zero.That is the BLUE line.

This is based on the satellite data.

Most of the warming that significantly effected the trend.Occurred in 1977 and 1998.They are called STEP warming.Where the trendline was abruptly lifted upward to a new level.

[sunsettommy]

I certainly don't see that, and even skeptics aren't disputing that warming has happened. Moreover, I didn't see a statement from him saying there was no warming. Maybe I missed that ?

Sigh,

I wonder if you even looked at the link I gave you.

It clearly shows a WARMING trend since 1880.I have not disputed it.

The point Steve was making was that the warming trendline from 1880 to 2010 is unchanged.No acceleration in warming or a slowing down of warming is evident.Since 1880.

Steve did not dispute the warming trend either.But he shows that all the CO2 additions since 1880,has not at all increased the warming trend.

I'm not sure if the statements are coming from you or for him - for example you talked initially about a recent cooling period, but from the comments on the blog it seems he was talking about "no warming".

Gawad!

There has been a recent cooling trend.It has been cooling for months now.It was warmer last year at this time than now.

From 2001 to now.There is a slight cooling trend.But essentially ZERO because it is so close to the zero trendline.

But even if it is indeed NO warming or cooling trend since 2001.That alone is very damaging to the 2001 IPCC temperature modeling projections for the first decade of the 21st century.

They had projected a .20C increase for the decade.Based on the AGW hypothesis.

Not even close.

I'll explain this once again - statements policy groups and statements by the popular press aren't as rigorously scientific, and are more prone to bias.

The IPCC is the source of the AGW hypothesis and the driver of the global warming hysteria.

Most of the science groups endorse the AGW hypothesis and global warming.

Do you live in a cave?

Edited June 10, 2011 by sunsettommy

[Michael Hardner]

You need to see the link again.It shows the undeniable zero trend from 1979-1994.It is a GREEN line.

I already stated the parameters I used: global temperatures, full time scale. I didn't use a subset of years but the whole scale.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree with this:

It clearly shows a WARMING trend since 1880.I have not disputed it.

...

No acceleration in warming or a slowing down of warming is evident.Since 1880.

...

Steve did not dispute the warming trend either.But he shows that all the CO2 additions since 1880,has not at all increased the warming trend.

...

Ok but as I said, a correlation graph would be helpful.

There has been a recent cooling trend.It has been cooling for months now.It was warmer last year at this time than now.

From 2001 to now.There is a slight cooling trend.But essentially ZERO because it is so close to the zero trendline.

"Slight cooling" or zero ? The distinction is important. The trend fell short of 'significant warming' up until recently (2010?) but they weren't calling it 'slight warming'.

It's flat.

But even if it is indeed NO warming or cooling trend since 2001.That alone is very damaging to the 2001 IPCC temperature modeling projections for the first decade of the 21st century.

Very damaging ? I don't see that. If they change the degree of warming by some decimals then is that very damaging ? Only to the hopeful.

They had projected a .20C increase for the decade.Based on the AGW hypothesis.

Not even close.

It's constantly being revised, so no concerns here.

The IPCC is the source of the AGW hypothesis and the driver of the global warming hysteria.

Why 'the source' ? They consolidate scientific findings and comprise a body of governance, I would say. I'm not even sure if governance is the word, it may just be a central body that reviews the science.

But why call them 'the source' ? The sources are the scientific papers.

Most of the science groups endorse the AGW hypothesis and global warming.

Do you live in a cave?

I'm asking you honest questions and playing along nicely here, so I would thank you to do the same.

We got through the discussion of your cherrypicking examples well enough, let's continue to move forward in a positive way, I say.

[TimG]

Very damaging ? I don't see that. If they change the degree of warming by some decimals then is that very damaging ? Only to the hopeful.

The situation is this: the IPCC models predicted more warming than has occurred but there is a lot of variance within the models. This means some argue the lack of warming does not actually falsify the models. On the other hand, if trends continue the models will be falsified in 5-10 years. So we are really in a limbo period where one can plausibly argue that the models are both right and wrong. On the sceptic side we also have the ocean heat content (OHC) which has also failed to rise as predicted. This is actually a more serious issue because OHC is not subject to the same amount of variability as air temperatures so it takes less time to falsify the models. Unfortunately, there is data splice in 2003 that makes comparisons before and after that date problematic so we also have about 5-10 years before the data will change anyone's mind.

In short: I would not take any bets on the planet warming as predicted given the data we have now. There is a good chance that the models overpredict the warming.

Edited June 10, 2011 by TimG

[Avro]

Finally some acknowledgement in the media that the science of climate change is a secondary concern. What really matters is how we balance the risk of climate change among all of the other issues that governments have to deal with:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/rosebuds-of-consolation-in-a-warming-world/article1879305/

My own opinion is significantly reducing globally CO2 emissions is technically impossible given the need for economic development. Therefore any money spent trying to achieve CO2 reduction targets is money poured down a drain. More importantly, if money or resources are wasted on futile anti-CO2 measures it will not be available to address problems that matter more to most people.

The debate about about whether CAGW is a hoax is a distraction. For my part, even if there was compelling evidence that CAGW was really a coming catastrophe it would not change the fact that we can't do anything about it. People who think that all we need to is buy a few carbon credits are deluding themselves. The same is true for people who think that paying groteque subsidies for windmills or solar panels will make a difference. Even worse, I used to think that nuclear could make a difference but it is clear that nuclear costs are spiralling out of control and it would be impossible to built the number of nuclear facilities required to make a difference in the next 30-50 years.

The bottom line is we will be burning stuff for energy 50 years from now whether we like it or not. The only question is how much money will be wasted before politicians stop pandering to the spoiled little rich kids in environmental movement.

That has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

[Avro]

The situation is this: the IPCC models predicted more warming than has occurred but there is a lot of variance within the models. This means some argue the lack of warming does not actually falsify the models. On the other hand, if trends continue the models will be falsified in 5-10 years. So we are really in a limbo period where one can plausibly argue that the models are both right and wrong. On the sceptic side we also have the ocean heat content (OHC) which has also failed to rise as predicted. This is actually a more serious issue because OHC is not subject to the same amount of variability as air temperatures so it takes less time to falsify the models. Unfortunately, there is data splice in 2003 that makes comparisons before and after that date problematic so we also have about 5-10 years before the data will change anyone's mind.

In short: I would not take any bets on the planet warming as predicted given the data we have now. There is a good chance that the models overpredict the warming.

The models have grossly under predicted the warming we are going to see in the next fifty years.

[Avro]

Btw, any cave dwellers that get their reports on climate from a big boobed weather girl on some FOX station in Buffalo and believe she is part of any consensus on science read and weep this link.

Watt's up with that?