From you, I'll take that as a compliment.
The study says that the PROCESS has a cooling effect that to some percentage minimizes the WARMING effect of AGW, not that the world is cooling. The global temperatures are still going up.
Top scientist resigns admitting gobal warming is a big scam!
- Thread starter PornAddict
- Start date
The study says that the PROCESS has a cooling effect that to some percentage minimizes the WARMING effect of AGW, not that the world is cooling. The global temperatures are still going up.
Ah, you've gone back to the "Santa Claus is real" sophistry where you falsely claim that "the models" got it right.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-a-big-scam!&p=5368545&viewfull=1#post5368545
In fact, the IPCC reported that only three of the 114 model runs were correct. And, as always, you never mention that the three model runs that were correct predicted stagnant temperatures -- not increasing temperatures.
As for the IPCC's predictions, try reading page 769 of Chapter 9 of the IPCC's AR5 report from 2013. The IPCC clearly states that its predictions were based on the "mean trend" of the CMIP5 models, and the IPCC predicted increases of 0.21 degrees C per decade.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
How did that work out? In the IPCC's own words: "During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends...".
The predictions were spectacularly wrong.
Goosh are you so stubborn!!!
The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate,
In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the "microlayer" at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals - no life being necessary. And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.
What part of this sentence you dont understand "With the discovery of the new abiotic sea process, the idea that cutting carbon emissions may not be all that urgent is looking stronger. That's probably good news, as it has emerged lately that efforts to cut carbon emissions to date are having the unfortunate side effect of poisoning us all." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/0...ctor_discovered_ahead_of_paris_climate_talks/
Not according to the IPCC: "During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends...".
And incredibly inconsistent.
Half the time, Basketcase and Frankfooter argue there hasn't been a "pause" or "hiatus" in warming.
Then, when their own sources confirm that such a hiatus did occur, they say it doesn't matter because they claim that's just what IPCC predicted.
Here's a link to the Summary for Policy Makers from the IPCC's third report in 2001: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/pdf/spm.pdf
Nowhere in that report does it predict a 15- to 20-year "hiatus" or "pause" in warming.
These climate alarmists are so fricking stubborn!!! (Basketcase, Frankfooter, Fuji, Al Gore, Of course Mann and his famous graph "hockey stick", etc) I beginning think they have been reincarnate with the mind of a person from Galileo timeline ( Earth is the center of the universe or the earth is flat )...Now I beginning to know have Galileo felt.The sad thing about this "global warming aka climate change aka ocean acidification have been politicized And billions dollars have been wasted!! The left wing and the environmentalists should abandon this theory and they lost this war... Here hint go pick another causes like GMO on food to support or save the whales and stop wasting taxpayer money and time on climate change.
Last edited:
Now, you've just gone back to lying. I've talked about the recent period plenty of times -- and you know it.
The temperatures have been stagnant.
As I recall, when we did an apples-to-apples comparison of 2015 (so far) with the same period in 1998, we found a temperature difference of about 0.06 degrees C -- nothing like the approximate 0.35 degrees C increase the IPCC had predicted (that's actually from the significantly reduced version of IPCC predictions).
Even in this El Nino year, the temperature anomalies remain far below the CMIP5 average. The IPCC's predictions remain spectacularly wrong (sorry, GPIDEAL, but basketcase forced me to say it.
)Except when you actually consider the past few years.
Take a look at NASA's data; take a look at NOAA data; take a look at the hadcrut 4 data you keep posting. The data from all these sources fits in the IPCC projections you keep posting and all show the warming trend has continued. Also, the Dutch study you keep referencing has only 9% of scientists agreeing with you that temperatures have been stagnant.
But sure, keep on going with your catch phrases. They work for some politicians; maybe they'll work to overturn the masses of opposing scientific data.
Nonsense. All of the graphs -- including the Gavin Schmidt graph -- showed current temperatures well below the average of the CMIP5 model runs, which was the basis for the IPCC's predictions. The predictions remain spectacularly wrong.
(By the way, since you've acknowledged that I posted this information, we can agree that you were lying when you said I don't want to talk about the past four years. You knew that was a blatant falsehood when you posted it.)
As for the "warming trend has continued," you've confirmed what exactly I said in post 246 -- you can't make up your mind if there has been a "hiatus" or whether "the warming trend has continued."
Others don't seem to share your struggle.
Frankfooter's AMOC guy is convinced there has been a "hiatus" that has continued up to the present.
And here's what Freeman Dyson, one of the world's most brilliant physicists, had to say:
"What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/
Indeed, even global warming enthusiasts such as Kevin Trenberth have noted the discrepancies between the models and reality:
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t." - Kevin Trenberth email to Michael Mann, Oct. 12, 2009.
There is a significant discrepancy between the predictions and the observed data that has continued to this day. That is a statement of fact, not an opinion.
http://www.inspirationgreen.com/the-problem-with-oil.html
Here's the thing with common sense. It's a tad hard to argue.
The basic structure of the earth was not built to sustain parasitic entities such as humans. And don't be fooled, we are indeed akin to parasites.
You don't have to be a tree-hugger to understand trees and clean water are vital to life.
Here's the thing with common sense. It's a tad hard to argue.
The basic structure of the earth was not built to sustain parasitic entities such as humans. And don't be fooled, we are indeed akin to parasites.
You don't have to be a tree-hugger to understand trees and clean water are vital to life.
Lets take a look at our bet, for a bit of a refresher, as it was a bet based on how accurate the IPCC projections are.
Note that we are now at 0.81ºC with 3 months remaining to be reported, which is really quite spectacularly accurate.
Are you trying to deny that the IPCC projections are only 0.02ºC off their mark?
Isn't that really, really quite good?
It's not my hiatus. Your AMOC guy called it a hiatus.
If you think he's wrong, say so. This business of taking quotes you don't like and trying to shift the attribution to me is something we would expect from a pre-schooler.
Once again, you're getting a little ahead of yourself.
As I have repeatedly explained to you -- if you want to discuss the details of the bet, you first have to agree to settle up.
Put up or shut up.
Its not his hiatus, its your hiatus. You and your denier crowd are the ones who cherry picked the last El Nino year.
All buddy was doing was responding to your claims.
How many times on this board have you claimed that warming has 'paused'?
That's amusing.
I'm just reminding you of the terms, and every time I do you try to weasel out of the terms.
Afraid, aren't you?
Cluck, cluck, as you like to say.
But lets get back to todays challenge.
You can't find any sign of a 'pause' or a 'hiatus' in this chart, can you?
I've challenged you 3 times and each time you tried to change the subject.
I'll give you one more chance and if you can't I think its fair to say that any claims to a 'pause' are dead and that you should cease and desist from mentioning it?
Fair?
Wrong. He stated as a fact that there was a hiatus.
If you think he's wrong, say so.
Not in the least.
Indeed, I've been willing to settle up any time you want. You're the guy that said you wanted to wait, then you keep raising the issue again.
You talk a good game -- but you're all talk.
Put up or shut up. If you want to settle the bet, let's settle it.
Show that the observed data falls within the range of predictions.
Fine, I'll admit you have posted it but you somehow continue to ignore what it says, just like you ignore that the survey of scientists you posted that says only 9% support a 'hiatus'.
Fact is that any data set you want to discuss shows a clear warming trend in the past several years and fit well withing the range of the IPCC projections.
And when continuing data showed otherwise, he admitted it. Unlike you he's not stuck in the evidence of 2010.
