The Global Warming Plateau

[Shady]

ah yes, more of your obsession with Al Gore. Do you think Gore put that movie together on his own? Do you now claim Gore had no scientific advisers? Will this be your latest unsubstantiated claim? Point in fact, regardless of it's now dated relevance, that movie was critiqued to no end (of course, it had to be) on it's scientific merits... and for what it's worth, there were very few outright errors. None of this is news Shady. Rather, this is old news Shady!

Nope, no obsession, just pointing out your utter hypocrisy. Proponents of warning can have absolutely no scientific background. But a journalist simply reporting on a story must be scientifically certified. Carry on.

[bush_cheney2004]

Suddenly Mr. Gore and his "science is settled" are persona non grata. The failed IPCC models and lack of warming have the alarmists on the run....to the mountains....to the oceans.....to the prairies....God Bless America Al Gore !

Even the "freepers" are having a good time with the "anthropomorphic" climate change hoax:

There is clearly a backlash against the global warming hoax, particularly from nations that have discovered the costs to their economies that idiotic “renewable” energy schemes and emissions reductions incur. In the real world, they are experiencing longer, harsher winters as the result of the cooling cycle the Earth has been in for the last seventeen years!

...Literally thousands of scientists around the world have disputed the IPCC “science” and many former “warmists” have reversed their former beliefs. Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, a top Swedish climate scientist, formerly affiliated with the IPCC, said in February “We are creating great anxiety without it being justified…there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic…

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55939

[bush_cheney2004]

Nope, no obsession, just pointing out your utter hypocrisy. Proponents of warning can have absolutely no scientific background. But a journalist simply reporting on a story must be scientifically certified. Carry on.

Excellent point.....the alarmists are losing the scientific and political battle. Carbon taxes are for suckers !

[waldo]

Nope, no obsession, just pointing out your utter hypocrisy. Proponents of warning can have absolutely no scientific background. But a journalist simply reporting on a story must be scientifically certified. Carry on.

no hypocrisy Shady. It's certainly fair game to challenge the credibility of sources. In the case of your Al Gore obsession, I simply pointed out he had considerable scientific consultants that helped put the movie together. The journalists reporting are not scientists... a good case in point is that piece of fluff printed by the NYT - there isn't a single scientist referenced, named or quoted. That journalist has simply taken his full liberty with a subject he has no credibility in presenting - clearly, why should one expect him to... he's a journalist!

you can continue to bark loudly and project your outright denial... you can choose to ignore the science/studies/scientific references presented to you. You can ignore it all - that is certainly your prerogative.

[waldo]

enjoy your denial guys... you wear it well!

[bush_cheney2004]

More data is coming in from the "denier nation" USA, and it is poking yet more holes in the already shredded climate change models. NASA'a Terra satellite data for longwave radiation and the thermosphere indicate that the planet radiates far more heat into space than assumed by modeling to date; we already knew that extermal heat/radiation was reflected back into space otherwise we would be crispy critters.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

...Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

Sorry alarmists, you could hide the data for only so long. Similar work has been done with NASA's TIMED (Thermosphere-Ionosphere-Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics) mission in an effort to collect current datasets for the upper atmosphere and heat radiation into space. This helps to better understand TOTAL "heat budgets" for the entire system, not just fragmented guesses as seen in the now failing IPCC climate change models.

Edited July 7, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

More data is coming in from the "denier nation" USA, and it is poking yet more holes in the already shredded climate change models. NASA'a Terra satellite data for longwave radiation and the thermosphere indicate that the planet radiates far more heat into space than assumed by modeling to date; we already knew that extermal heat/radiation was reflected back into space otherwise we would be crispy critters.

oh man... you're on a roll. You really should learn how to use MLW search - we've had a dedicated thread on this latest gem of yours! Of course, these kinds of things will continually bite you in the keister, particularly when you haven't a clue what you're talking about, particularly when you simply cut&paste anything... particularly from the likes of the Heartland Institute and WTFIUWT!

we've talked about your latest guy a lot in past MLW threads - Spencer, the avowed creationist! Spencer, the guy with a track history of failed science that goes all the way back to his most embarrassing period when his maintained satellite data was so egregiously flawed that other scientists had to come to his rescue... which ultimately spawned the RSS group/system to provide an alternate satellite monitoring capability... and keep Spencer in check!

in this particular case, Spencer's "clouds as a negative feedback" nonsense, Spencer took it upon himself to approach an obscure open access journal, one that had little, if any, prior involvement in publishing climate science related research/studies. Spencer chose not to even attempt to challenge the prevailing science of the day - through the traditional journals. Here's a short recap of the timeline I provided earlier:

event/timeline progression:

=> Spencer begins to offer teasers about a new paper coming soon... avoids answering queries as to what journal the paper will be published in. Speculation begins to mount that Spencer is "shopping" around to find a journal that will accept the paper.

=> paper is published in a new 2-year old, "Open Access", relatively obscure journal, "Remote Sensing"... a journal that has tangential relation to atmospheric/climate change science, proper... a journal that has not published climate change papers of significance/repute... a journal that does not have editors versed, accordingly. A journal that requires it's paper's authors to recommend 5 reviewers... just who did Spencer recommend to align with his ongoing failed "low climate-sensitivity" premise (those that line up with it, one can presume...the likes of Lindzen, Pielke Sr., Choi, etc.,... the guys who have had their like, low-sensitivity crapola, punted through the regular peer-review/response process). Did I say... "Open Access" journal? Yes, publication for pay... something becoming the favoured darling of the skeptic/denier crew - we've touched upon this in other MLW climate change related threads. Apparently, there are a few reputable Open Access format journals coming forward, attempting to carve out a status within this relatively new niche... it would appear, given the resignation of the editor, Remote Sensing, might be attempting to place it's reputation above the denier charade that has unfolded.

=> Spencer's UAH issues a press release... one, itself, exaggerating on the Spencer paper results/claims.

=> Pielke Sr.'s blog prints the UAH press release (weeeeeeee... and now it begins!).

=> Pielke Sr. posts the UAH press release on the most disreputable WTFIUWT blog (yeeeehaaaa... the denialsphere is off to the parteee!!!).

=> Heartland Institute Senior Fellow, James Taylor... a, uhhhh..... lawyer... authors up a most outrageous article, hyping and further exaggerating on the Spencer paper - article is printed by Forbes. And then it gets... mainstream crazy... principally Conservative Media outlets extending on... and further exaggerating on... the Forbes article! All of it, without any foundation... certainly not anything that can be supported by the failed Spencer paper, is intending to cast doubt and uncertainty on the consensus... even to the extent that warming outright is being challenged/denied within these media exaggerations/fabrications.

as I said, your latest gem's authors chose not to challenge/address the prevailing science papers. A few scientists took it upon themselves to actually respond to the Spencer/Braswell nonsense... even in the same obscure open access journal: within this response, key on SB11 as a direct reference to your parroted Spencer/Braswell nonsense (index reference 8) - enjoy!

of course, another more prominent response, more directly and pointedly went after Spencer's 'cloud negative feedback ' premise - here: with the full detailed paper found - here: Cloud variations and the Earth's energy budget - equally, enjoy!

[bush_cheney2004]

oh man... you're on a roll. You really should learn how to use MLW search -

You mean the way you search the "denier nation" for "copy and paste" opportunities ? Why the hell would I search MLW for my own nation's research and data ? Remember, I don't live in Canada...and neither does this forum !!!!

The utter inadequacy of IPCC climate change models is now plain to see, and those in the "science is settled" space are now scrambling to get on the right side of the research. Warmies and alarmists have lost their momemntum, along with any credibility they pretended to have.

Edited July 7, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

you just had your xxx handed to you on a platter! And now you're in full squawk mode!


here, again: enjoy these responses to your latest piece of parroted crap!

as I said, your latest gem's authors chose not to challenge/address the prevailing science papers. A few scientists took it upon themselves to actually respond to the Spencer/Braswell nonsense... even in the same obscure open access journal: within this response, key on SB11 as a direct reference to your parroted Spencer/Braswell nonsense (index reference 8) - enjoy!

of course, another more prominent response, more directly and pointedly went after Spencer's 'cloud negative feedback ' premise - here: with the full detailed paper found - here: Cloud variations and the Earth's energy budget - equally, enjoy!

Edited July 7, 2013 by waldo

[bush_cheney2004]

as I said,

Don't care what you said....this is not about you and your warmie religion that worships Al Gore and uses "denier nation" research. Why do you waste time trying to convince "deniers" who will only continue to string you along ? Is it because you must follow the alarmist manifesto that requires shouting down all contrary views and skepticism ?

Are you Nick Fillmore ?

Edited July 7, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Don't care what you said....this is not about you and your warmie religion that worships Al Gore and uses "denier nation" research. Why do you waste time trying to convince "deniers" who will only continue to string you along ? Is it because you must follow the alarmist manifesto that requires shouting down all contrary views and skepticism ?

like I said... whether you care or not... you just stumbled and bumbled through another of your cut&paste parroted gems! You have no game - none whatsoever! My heartfelt suggestion to you would be for you to stay away from the actual science - you're clearly out of your element! Go with your strengths... continue to prattle on about "warmies", "Al Gore", "denier nation", "alarmist manifesto"...

[bush_cheney2004]

like I said... whether you care or not...

But I won't/don't....playing rope-a-dope with warmies is just part of the game, made far easier by broke dick IPCC climate change models and its sheeple worshippers. The ruse is up, shattered by the very same data that built the false idols to begin with. Hockey sticks can go back to just being...hockey sticks.

Edited July 7, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

enjoy your denial and your absolute inability to present a single non-parroted thought of your own. Enjoy your inability to argue anything without falling back into a full-blown denier squawk! Enjoy your contentment in your total lack of understanding in anything technical/science based. Enjoy your floundering, your misinformation, your disinformation, your blustering... your blowhard self!

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

enjoy your denial and your absolute inability to present a single non-parroted thought of your own. Enjoy your inability to argue anything without falling back into a full-blown denier squawk! Enjoy your contentment in your total lack of understanding in anything technical/science based. Enjoy your floundering, your misinformation, your disinformation, your blustering... your blowhard self!

Clearly I have and will continue to enjoy myself with or without your alarmist copy and pastes from my "denier nation". It is fitting that unvarnished elitism and arrogance has been the downfall for warmies. It was a good run....while it lasted. Now the (American) NASA and GISS data that you are so dependent on has become a warmie's undoing. How fitting.....

[Keepitsimple]

Bushy - I see that Waldo is once again being schooled on the practical observations of Climate Change - and how those observations have shredded the credibility of Climate Change modelling predictions. One thing you'll notice about ol' Waldo - he will never raise a topic of his own. He'll criticize others - but never raise a topic on his own. I'll leave it to others to speculate on why that is.

[bush_cheney2004]

Bushy - I see that Waldo is once again being schooled on the practical observations of Climate Change - and how those observations have shredded the credibility of Climate Change modelling predictions. One thing you'll notice about ol' Waldo - he will never raise a topic of his own. He'll criticize others - but never raise a topic on his own. I'll leave it to others to speculate on why that is.

The tide has turned on the alarmists and warmies....not just the datasets than shred IPCC models, but in the political space as well. "Getting the science right" has become the new, conciliatory stance because "science is settled" arrogance is/was a losing strategy. Shouting down "deniers" and "skeptics" is now counterproductive, because it only attracts more attention to gaps and problems with the original global warming climate change religion.

Now recognized for the political battle it always was, the warmies are outgunned on all sides.

[waldo]

Bushy - I see that Waldo is once again being schooled on the practical observations of Climate Change - and how those observations have shredded the credibility of Climate Change modelling predictions. One thing you'll notice about ol' Waldo - he will never raise a topic of his own. He'll criticize others - but never raise a topic on his own. I'll leave it to others to speculate on why that is.

"Bushy"! Well... Simpy... you really should join in once in a while. Your drive-by's are so limiting to allow you to showcase your "knowledge", your "prowess". You really need to get over the past - move along... leave it behind. A fresh start is what you need. The waldo promises to give you a handicap this time!!! As for raised topics - "never"? Never? Really? You need to check again, hey? But really, if you want me to drop a dozen a day, you could be accommodated... is that what you'd like?

on edit: ya made me look! Simple, you've added a grand total of 6... 6... topics in the last year (from July 11, 2012). Me thinks you doth protest too much!

Edited July 9, 2013 by waldo

[BubberMiley]

I thought this would be an excellent place to cite this article, which gives a good indication of what bold-faced liars many of these climate change deniers are.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/17/climate_change_denial_speak_up_speak_out.html

[Shady]

I also thought that this would be a good place to post facts about the related plateau and/or reversal of any so-called warming.

The earth gained a record amount of sea ice during 2013!!! I bet you won't hear that FACT from any alarmist!

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/14/earth-gains-a-record-amount-of-sea-ice-in-2013-earth-has-gained-19000-manhattans-of-sea-ice-since-this-date-last-year-the-largest-increase-on-record/

[sharkman]

Yeah, I heard about that yesterday, but it may take a few days for the enviros to work up an excuse.

[waldo]

Yeah, I heard about that yesterday, but it may take a few days for the enviros to work up an excuse.

I also thought that this would be a good place to post facts about the related plateau and/or reversal of any so-called warming.

The earth gained a record amount of sea ice during 2013!!! I bet you won't hear that FACT from any alarmist!

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/14/earth-gains-a-record-amount-of-sea-ice-in-2013-earth-has-gained-19000-manhattans-of-sea-ice-since-this-date-last-year-the-largest-increase-on-record/

wow! Sourced from Marc Marano/Steven Goddard! Goddard... the guy so moronic even the idiot WilliardTony had to ditch him from his infamous denialist blog WTFIUWT!!!

setting aside area vs. rate of area change, setting aside issues of extent versus volume, setting aside issues of multi-year versus single-year ice, setting aside distinctions between Southern & Northern Hemisphere, setting aside any discussion of 'regression to the mean'....... a couple of visuals put this latest ShadyNonsense in perspective:

[BubberMiley]

I also thought that this would be a good place to post facts about the related plateau and/or reversal of any so-called warming.

You obviously didn't read the article I cited because it also debunked that particular lie.

But I thought you said that you were joking when you deny climate change exists, and that you only deny its human cause? You really need to get your denials straight or else you'll start to look like you have no credibility.

[Keepitsimple]

I thought this would be an excellent place to cite this article, which gives a good indication of what bold-faced liars many of these climate change deniers are.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/17/climate_change_denial_speak_up_speak_out.html

Bubber - firstoff, Phil Plait is an Astronomer....that's a fair ways away from Climatology and its related fields. Secondly, he's engaing himself in semantics in a lame attempt to downplay the warming plateau that now spans 15 years. From what I've read, virtually every computer model failed to predict this plateau - and almost without fail - every computer prediction grossly exceeded what has been observed. One would think that with over 100 models in action - at least some of them would have predicted the plateau - or even maybe a cooling - if only through random chance by using different variables. But no - they have all been alarmist in nature. Could this be an example of built-in bias? I think the results speak for themself.

[Shady]

You obviously didn't read the article I cited because it also debunked that particular lie.But I thought you said that you were joking when you deny climate change exists, and that you only deny its human cause? You really need to get your denials straight or else you'll start to look like you have no credibility.

Nope. Sea ice has been added. You're denying reality.

[BubberMiley]

Bubber - firstoff, Phil Plait is an Astronomer....that's a fair ways away from Climatology

That's right, but he's referring to studies done by scientists. If you have to be a scientist to even discuss the topic, what is your profession?

Secondly, he's engaing himself in semantics in a lame attempt to downplay the warming plateau that now spans 15 years.

Semantics? Do you know what "semantics" means? He's pointing out misdirection and lies, which you've apparently fallen for, hook, line and sinker.

Could this be an example of built-in bias? I think the results speak for themself.

They do. But you don't want to look at them, and instead are blinded by your "built-in bias" that if computer models aren't 100% accurate, or if someone can make you think they're inaccurate, then nothing is going on.