Toronto Escorts

Climate Alarmists Foiled: No US Warming Since 2005

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,150
113
You should have taken courses in climatology if you want to discuss the climate.
Not chemistry.
You should have taken any course in science, not propaganda
Do you have any idea how obnoxious and foolish that statement is?


Bullshit claim.
Provide the quote from the IPCC or admit you just read it from wattsupwiththat and don't understand what it means.
DO NOT PRESUME TO GIVE ME ORDERS!!!
What is wrong with you?
I do not answer to obnoxious and insulting demands

Ask in a respectful way & I will consider providing all the proof needed
The IPCC made this prediction. No question
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,150
113
Actually, you need to apologize.
Here's a quote from your 2012 poll that you claim is the latest.
(and note that this is a poll of weathermen, not climatologists)

This is a direct quote from the poll that shows your claims to be bullshit.

https://www.ametsoc.org/cwwce/index...tions/ams-member-survey-preliminary-findings/

The 53% number comes from a dispute about conflict within the AMS.

On top of that, your poll is 7 years old.
Here is a quote from a more recent poll from the AMS, done in 2016.

https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3

On top of that, only 7% support your claim that climate change is happening because of 'natural' causes.

You should apologize right away for posting false claims about an old and outdated poll of weathermen (meteorologists).
First of all it is the claim of the The American Meteorological Society

The article is from 2014 so 5 years. You were quite comfortable posting a graph 19 years old and implying forecasted data was actuals
I made no claim about any time
and the 97% poll by John Cook, how old is that?

Finally The numbers don't lie 53% is no where close to 97%

weathermen (meteorologists) !!!!!!
Again with the character assassination. This time on Climate Scientists who know a whole lot more than you ! Shameful

https://www.google.ca/search?source....0i131j0j0i70i249j0i10j0i22i10i30.wd9D6qjWGB0

The basic requirement for becoming a meteorologist or a climatologist is a 4-year Bachelor of Science degree in Meteorology or Atmospheric Sciences. Some teaching, research or management positions require a Masters of Science degree or a Ph.D.
https://www.google.ca/search?ei=N4J...hUKEwiovbzP0c_kAhUlgK0KHYc_D80Q4dUDCAs&uact=5

In most cases, the minimum education required to work as a climate change specialist is a university bachelor's degree.
and your highest grade achieved was what?
I am doubtful you have a diploma of any kind

The American Meteorological Society wold not publish such a table unless it is back up by facts
Unless you are going claim the Weathermen are in on the conspiracy

 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,749
17,571
113
DO NOT PRESUME TO GIVE ME ORDERS!!!
What is wrong with you?
I do not answer to obnoxious and insulting demands

Ask in a respectful way & I will consider providing all the proof needed
The IPCC made this prediction. No question
I didn't think you could provide a link.
Its a bullshit claim, as I expected.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,749
17,571
113
First of all it is the claim of the The American Meteorological Society

The article is from 2014 so 5 years. You were quite comfortable posting a graph 19 years old and implying forecasted data was actuals
I made no claim about any time
and the 97% poll by John Cook, how old is that?

Finally The numbers don't lie 53% is no where close to 97%
larue, I gave you direct quotes from the 2012 poll you posted as the most current that totally contradict your claims, including links to the polls.
I also gave you links and quotes to a more recent 2016, poll that even more strongly contradicts your claims.

Your claims came from a biased second hand source, an article written by James Taylor, who was employed by the Heartland Institute, one of the largest oil funded disinformation organizations around.
The table you posted is not from the AMS site, its from a denier site.

This is a direct quote from the published poll, with the link below.
Nearly all AMS members (96%) think climate change – as defined by AMS – is happening, with
almost 9 out of 10 (89%) stating that they are either ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ sure it is happening.
Only 1% think climate change is not happening, and 3% say they don’t know.
https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3

Your chart shows no authorship, no AMS log, has no link and did not come from the
Your chart does not appear on the study, it is not from the AMS.

You should apologize right away for posting false claims about an old and outdated poll of weathermen (meteorologists).
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,150
113
Your chart shows no authorship, no AMS log, has no link and did not come from the
Your chart does not appear on the study, it is not from the AMS.
The chart is in the link I provided from the AMS
You did no bother o scroll down to view the entirety of the survey
https://www.ametsoc.org/cwwce/index...tions/ams-member-survey-preliminary-findings/

You are too much

You should apologize right away for posting false claims about an old and outdated poll of weathermen (meteorologists).
Do not hold your breath waiting for that
You should apologize for all the Character assassination
That is all you do
absolutely shameful

I guess since the meteorologist updated their survey you will stop attacking them as inferior scientists ?
(and note that this is a poll of weathermen, not climatologists)
You have zero integrity
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,150
113
I didn't think you could provide a link.
Its a bullshit claim, as I expected.
Nope its there
Now I cant make this any more clear

DO NOT PRESUME TO GIVE ME ORDERS!!!
What is wrong with you?
I do not answer to obnoxious and insulting demands

Ask in a respectful way & I will consider providing all the proof needed
The IPCC made this prediction. No question
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,749
17,571
113
The chart is in the link I provided from the AMS
You did no bother o scroll down to view the entirety of the survey
https://www.ametsoc.org/cwwce/index...tions/ams-member-survey-preliminary-findings/
No, the chart that you published is not on the AMS report that you linked, not on the old 2012 you posted or the newer 2016 survey I posted.
According to your own links, its not there.

Now, I did some research on my own and found that chart on the full release of the AMS survey, so am will to accept that the chart is real even if you were unable to source the chart that you used.
Its here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

And once again, your statements about the results are false.
This is what they said about their findings:
Climate science experts who publish mostly on
climate change and climate scientists who publish
mostly on other topics were the two groups most
likely to be convinced that humans have contributed
to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating
their concurrence. The two groups least likely
to be convinced of this were the nonpublishing
climate scientists and nonpublishing meteorologists/
atmospheric scientists, at 65% and 59%, respectively.
In the middle were the two groups of publishing
meteorologists/atmospheric scientists at 79% and
78%, respectively.
Your opinion piece from the Heartland Institute tries to claim that only 53% of AMS believe climate change is happening, but that chart does not say that.
It says 53% of AMS believe that humans are responsible for all climate change, while ignoring the 30% who aren't sure about how much influence humans are having on the climate.
Only 5% back your claim that the change is 'natural'.

That is why your Heartland Institute claims are false.
Those are the facts.

Do not hold your breath waiting for that
You should apologize for all the Character assassination
That is all you do
absolutely shameful
Shall I go through this thread and highlight how many times you've attacked my character and how many times you've provided 'facts'?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,749
17,571
113
Ask in a respectful way & I will consider providing all the proof needed
The IPCC made this prediction. No question
Please provide the IPCC report and quote that back your claims that the IPCC cannot find a theorized hot spot.
If this theory was correct it would produce a hot spot in the upper troposphere (as predicted by the IPCC- fools) and they have not found it despite decades of searching
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,150
113
Please provide the IPCC report and quote that back your claims that the IPCC cannot find a theorized hot spot.
https://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
The Missing Hotspot
Dr David Evans (david.evans@sciencespeak.com)
21 July 2008
Last major revision 22 Mar 2009, Last minor revision 18 Sept 2010
Web address: http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
An easy two-page version of this paper is at sciencespeak.com/SimpleHotspot.pdf
Signatures From the IPCC, for 1958 − 1999
The published theoretical signatures produced by the IPCC climate theory that best
matches the period of the observed warming pattern (1979 – 1999) appeared in the US
Climate Change Science Program, 2006, Chapter 1,
www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap1.pdf.
It shows six signature diagrams in Figure 1.3, in Section 1.5 on page 25, for the period
1958 − 1999, which are reproduced here:
T
hese diagrams show what the IPCC say occurred, according to their climate models.
In particular, diagram A is the signature of warming due to an increase in greenhouse
gases other than water vapor, that is, from carbon emissions. And diagram F is the
warming pattern expected from the sum of all the five signatures A – E in the
7
proportions the IPCC believe those causes contributed to global temperature changes;
it is dominated by signature A because the IPCC’s theory is that the warming was
mainly due to carbon emissions.
These signatures are for 1958 – 1999. But since there was little warming or cooling
from 1958 to 1978, they are fairly directly comparable to the observed warming
pattern for 1979 − 1999.
Notice that the signature A for increased greenhouse warming has two main features:
1. A hotspot over the tropics at about 10 – 12 kms.
2. Broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming.
That second feature is also present in signature C for ozone depletion.
Conclusion 1: IPCC Climate theory is wrong
Compare the observed warming for 1979 − 1999 in Figure 1 to what the IPCC climate
models say happened for 1958 – 1999 in Figure 3F:
Figure 5: Observed warming (left) versus IPCC theory (right).
 The IPCC climate theory predicts a hotspot.
 There was no hotspot.
=˃ IPCC climate theory is wrong.
Below we examine the role of water vapor feedback in IPCC climate theory. That
feedback both creates the hotspot and is responsible for a half to two-thirds of the
temperature rises predicted by the IPCC climate models. So the hotspot is not an
incidental or optional part of the IPCC’s climate theory—it is an integral part.
Thus the
missing hotspot shows that IPCC climate theory is fundamentally wrong.



The IPCC climate model similuations are found on page 675 of the fourth IPCC assessment report chapter 9
https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
Note simulation (c) is the same as the right hand picture above

From Cahpter 9 page 675
Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) wellmixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa
(shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a)
You will not be able to understand this let alone pick it apart
You now have someone new you need to apply Character Assassination to: Dr. David Evans

Your list of permanent scientist who you slag off is growing
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,749
17,571
113
https://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf




T






The IPCC climate model similuations are found on page 675 of the fourth IPCC assessment report chapter 9
https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
Note simulation (c) is the same as the right hand picture above

From Cahpter 9 page 675


You will not be able to understand this let alone pick it apart
You now have someone new you need to apply Character Assassination to: Dr. David Evans

Your list of permanent scientist who you slag off is growing
Ah, gotcha.

Its a 10 year old false claim that there should be a hotspot in the troposphere. Its not a claim made in the IPCC reports, its a claim made by misinterpreting charts.
The lack of a 'hotspot' does not prove anything about surface warming, as its not related.

What is to be expected with adding GHG into the atmosphere is that the surface and lower troposphere will warm and the stratosphere will cool. That's what the IPCC proposed and that's what they saw, but the deniers misinterpreted that and claimed that only a 'hotspot' in the troposphere would be proof of global warming, which is a false claim.

Skeptical science explains it better than I can.
Climate “skeptics” apparently became convinced that the “hot spot” in Figure 9.1c was the fingerprint of anthropogenic warming the IPCC was referring to, rather than stratospheric cooling coupled with tropospheric warming.

As he so often does, Monckton serves as a useful example of getting things wrong, claiming:

the models predict that if and only if Man is the cause of warming, the tropical upper air, six miles above the ground, should warm up to thrice as fast as the surface, but this tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot” has not been observed...
This unequivocally incorrect claim was also made in the NIPCC "skeptic" report (Section 3.4), which was signed off on by such supposedly "serious" contrarians as Craig Idso and S. Fred Singer.

The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period. Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well. Stratospheric cooling is the real "fingerprint" of enhanced greenhouse vs. natural (e.g. increased solar) warming.
https://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm

And note that there are major issues with measuring the temp of the upper troposphere, which includes measurements made by Christy and Spencer.

So no, when investigated, the IPCC made no such prediction.

Try again.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,150
113
Ah, gotcha.

Its a 10 year old false claim that there should be a hotspot in the troposphere. Its not a claim made in the IPCC reports, its a claim made by misinterpreting charts.
The lack of a 'hotspot' does not prove anything about surface warming, as its not related.

What is to be expected with adding GHG into the atmosphere is that the surface and lower troposphere will warm and the stratosphere will cool. That's what the IPCC proposed and that's what they saw, but the deniers misinterpreted that and claimed that only a 'hotspot' in the troposphere would be proof of global warming, which is a false claim.

Skeptical science explains it better than I can.

https://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm

And note that there are major issues with measuring the temp of the upper troposphere, which includes measurements made by Christy and Spencer.

So no, when investigated, the IPCC made no such prediction.

Try again.
That is a really lame

If you carefully read what "Skeptical Science" says he offers no proof, no evidence, he just says "no the missing hot spot does not matter" because "I say so"
That is not a scientific response.
It is a propaganda response, typical of so many of these sites, particularly the ones by the well funded John, ( thumb on the scale) Cook


too bad Alarmists have been searching for the hot spot for decades. What do you think the millions of weather balloons were for?

Too bad if a model / theory predicts an event and the event does not occur then the model/ theory is flawed....... period
That is how science works
Again the hot spot was predicted by the IPCC models/ Theory

All the IPCC models are based upon a positive feedback being present. This feedback & the hot spot are part of the same theory
They did not change the theory, they just stop publishing those predictions because they were not occurring as predicted.
Confession by silence
No hotspot, No feedback>>>>>>>, nice gentle warming which will has peaked out

A positive feedback loop will become a runaway event, by definition
Ask yourself , how often does run away event occur in nature? Never?
The earth has had CO2 levels 10X today's level and runaway heating did not occur. The planet did not turn into a roasted hunk of rock

Further more
As per Dr. David Evans
Below we examine the role of water vapor feedback in IPCC climate theory. That
feedback both creates the hotspot and is responsible for a half to two-thirds of the
temperature rises predicted by the IPCC climate models.
So the hotspot is not an
incidental or optional part of the IPCC’s climate theory—it is an integral part.
Thus the
missing hotspot shows that IPCC climate theory is fundamentally wrong.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,749
17,571
113
If you read what "Skeptical Science" says
The offer no proof, no evidence, they just say no the missing hot spot does not matter
Sure they do, they detail the science, with links peppered throughout the post and a list of references at the bottom:
Allen, R.J. and S.C. Sherwood (2008): Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature Geoscience, 1, 399-403, doi:10.1038/ngeo208.
Bengtsson, L. and K.I. Hodges (2009): On the evaluation of temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. Climate Dynamics, “Online First”, doi:10.1007/s00382-009-0680-y.
Johnson, N.C. and S.-P. Xie (2010): Changes in the sea surface temperature threshold for tropical convection. Nature Geoscience, 3, 842–845, doi:10.1038/ngeo1008.
Randel, W.J. and F. Wu (2006): Biases in Stratospheric and Tropospheric Temperature Trends Derived from Historical Radiosonde Data. Journal of Climate, 19, 10, 2094-2104, doi:10.1175/JCLI3717.1.
Sherwood, S.C., et al. (2008): Robust Tropospheric Warming Revealed by Iteratively Homogenized Radiosonde Data. Journal of Climate, 21, 20, 5336-5352, doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2320.1 .
Sobel, A. (2010): Raised bar for rain. Nature Geoscience, 3, 821–822, doi:10.1038/ngeo1025.
Thorne, P.W., et al. (2007): Tropical vertical temperature trends: A real discrepancy? Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L16702, doi:10.1029/2007GL029875.
Thorne, P.W. (2008): The answer is blowing in the wind. Nature Geoscience, 1, 347-348, doi:10.1038/ngeo209.
Thorne, P.W., et al. (2010) Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy. WIRES: Climate Change, in press, doi:10.1002/wcc.80.
Zhang, G.J., and H. Wang (2006): Toward mitigating the double ITCZ problem in NCAR CCSM3. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L06709, doi:10.1029/2005GL025229.
This is exactly how you would ask for a post on a scientific question.
They give the science behind it, give links to the reports backing their findings and fully credit their post.
Lots and lots of facts.

Too bad if a model predicts an event and the event does not occur then the model is flawed period
That is how science works
Again the hot spot was predicted by the model
Further more
The model didn't predict it, that's the central flaw with your claim.
Your quote claims
So the hotspot is not an
incidental or optional part of the IPCC’s climate theory—it is an integral part.
But that's editorial, as the IPCC didn't make that claim, they made the claim that its 'integral', the IPCC stated it was 'incidental'.

Its just more hot air from you, larue.
One little hot spot of hot air, 'cuz its not in the IPCC like you claimed.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,150
113
Sure they do, they detail the science, with links peppered throughout the post and a list of references at the bottom:
If you carefully read what "Skeptical Science" says he offers no proof, no evidence, he just says "no the missing hot spot does not matter" because "I say so"
Explaining why the hot spot did not appear would be proof
Show us which one of the references explains how their theory can predict two events (runaway positive feedback) and the hotspot
But still remains valid when one of events does not occur (hotspot) and the other is empirically impossible to prove
Besides if the runaway feedback were to occur it would push hot air into the upper troposphere & be detectable

This is a propaganda response, typical of so many of these sites, particularly the ones by the well funded John, ( thumb on the scale) Cook
He must have be paying a pretty penny to google as his site is always first in any search
Real scientist are far more interested in the truth vs spreading propaganda


The model didn't predict it, that's the central flaw with your claim.
Your quote claims
But that's editorial, as the IPCC didn't make that claim, they made the claim that its 'integral', the IPCC stated it was 'incidental'.
Oh, so when the part of the feedback theory which can be tested does not materialize it was just "incidental", where as they will stick with the part which can not be empirically tested.
any graduate student would be immediately disqualified if they presented that
Puedo science pure and simple

When a model / theory predicts an event & it does not occur, the model / theory are flawed. Period
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,749
17,571
113
If you carefully read what "Skeptical Science" says he offers no proof, no evidence, he just says "no the missing hot spot does not matter" because "I say so"
The editorializing about the hot spot came from your claims, that this hotspot somehow proved or disproved all of climatology.
Your link says:
So the hotspot is not an incidental or optional part of the IPCC’s climate theory
(That's what the IPCC says about this hotspot)
—it is an integral part.
That is the claim David Evans makes about this hotspot.
Its not the IPCC"s claim.

Skeptical Science makes this clear through quotes from the report and the studies to prove it.

The problem with your argument is your claims come from Dr David Evans alone.
Nobody else has made this claim and nobody else backs it.
What he says about the IPCC is just not right, it wasn't right 11 years ago when he said and has been totally dropped since then.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,150
113
The editorializing about the hot spot came from your claims, that this hotspot somehow proved or disproved all of climatology.
Your link says:

(That's what the IPCC says about this hotspot)

That is the claim David Evans makes about this hotspot.
Its not the IPCC"s claim.

Skeptical Science makes this clear through quotes from the report and the studies to prove it.

The problem with your argument is your claims come from Dr David Evans alone.
Nobody else has made this claim and nobody else backs it.
What he says about the IPCC is just not right, it wasn't right 11 years ago when he said and has been totally dropped since then.
Look, the theory states the hotspot should be observed if there is a feedback & the IPCC's models based upon that theory predicted it. as displayed by the IPCC in their report
You cant have a theory which is only right about the stuff which can not be observed

Puedo science pure and simple

Skeptical Science makes this clear through quotes from the report and the studies to prove it.
You mean John Cook the guy who came up with the 97% by assigning a favourable rating requardless of the scientist conculsion?
Odd how he could not produce the working papers for an audit
He is not the one to trust on this subject

has been totally dropped since then.
Perhaps it is time you understood something
Thee is no statute of limitations on bad scientific theory

Old bullshit is still bullshit & since the IPCC is sticking to its bad theory the models are still flawed
You have a real hard time with simple logic dont you?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,749
17,571
113
Look, the theory states the hotspot should be observed if there is a feedback & the IPCC's models based upon that theory predicted it. as displayed by the IPCC in their report
You cant have a theory which is only right about the stuff which can not be observed

Puedo science pure and simple
This is David Evans theory, not the IPCC's theory.
This hotspot claim is nonsense, its not in the IPCC as confirmed by the quote you provided.

You mean John Cook the guy who came up with the 97% by assigning a favourable rating requardless of the scientist conculsion?
Odd how he could not produce the working papers for an audit
He is not the one to trust on this subject
The consensus has been confirmed by multiple studies.
And its easily confirmed by noting that you quote only 3 climate change deniers here.
If the consensus is false, where are all these scientists who dispute its happening?



Perhaps it is time you understood something
Thee is no statute of limitations on bad scientific theory
Is that why you keep posting 10 year old, previously debunked, nonsense?
Like the decades old Time cover, the 9 year old false claim about AMS and your 5 year old bait and switched atmospheric chart?

Old bullshit is still bullshit & since the IPCC is sticking to its bad theory the models are still flawed
You have a real hard time with simple logic dont you?
The IPCC is sticking to the same theory that Exxon's own scientists found, they are sticking to the century old theory of the greenhouse effect.
And you want to know why?
Because every year it gets more solid, with more evidence to back it up as the planet keeps getting warmer.

How do you explain the fact that Exxon's own scientists came up with the same findings as the IPCC?
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
Shut down the fossil fuel industry & you will see a significant decline in human population & it will be rapid
And more of your bullshit. No one with half a brain advocates shutting down fossil fuels.

It is quite obvious that your ridiculous statements are simply because you are afraid to actually discuss science.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,094
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
And more of your bullshit. No one with half a brain advocates shutting down fossil fuels.

It is quite obvious that your ridiculous statements are simply because you are afraid to actually discuss science.
More bullshit on your part.. I don't see you debating science with John Laure. Afraid that you lose to him.
 
Toronto Escorts