New data falsifies basis of man-made global warming alarm, shows water vapor feedback is negative
Oops. There is a feedback the AGW cult was looking forward too.


Physicist Clive Best has analyzed the latest NASA satellite and radiosonde data to find that global water vapor has declined despite the consensus belief among climate scientists that it would rise in response to man-made carbon dioxide. Dire predictions of global warming all rely on positive feedback from water vapor. The argument goes that as surface temperatures rise so more water will evaporate from the oceans thereby amplifying temperatures because H2O itself is a strong greenhouse gas. The fact that water vapor has instead declined indicates water vapor feedback is negative, overwhelming alleged warming from CO2, and accounting for the stall in global temperatures over the past 16+ years. As Dr. Best notes, "All climate models (that I am aware of) predict exactly the opposite. Something is clearly amiss with theory. Is it not now time for “consensus” scientists to have a rethink?"


http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TPW-global.png

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/new-data-falsifies-basis-of-man-made.html

iNTERESTING!

What  want to know is why isn't this front page news.

And shown on prime time TV.

It's a variation of the "No warming since 1998" theme. Too short a period, plus cherry picking the time frame.

It's also a very simplistic strawman. Nobody ever said that the  factor affecting short term global water concentration was CO2 concentration. The main driving force is temperature.

As you know perfectly well, there has been a recent short term reduction in solar irradiance. 

muso wrote on Jul 24^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

It's a variation of the "No warming since 1998" theme. Too short a period, plus cherry picking the time frame.

Muso there has been NO warming since 1998 when we had the El Nino, temperatures after 1998 have not surpassed the 1998 value.

Unequivocal warming??????????......where???????...in their compuetr models...LOL

No themes or variations.....just facts!


Quote:

It's also a very simplistic strawman. Nobody ever said that the  factor affecting short term global water concentration was CO2 concentration. The main driving force is temperature.

Now are you playing with words here????

The IPCC computer simulated models say that as more manmade CO2 gathers at the equator so then this produces more and more water vapor to cause their ficticious runaway greenhouse effect.

But ofcourse emprical data cannot find their hot spot, their accumulated manmade CO2 or any build up of water vapor.


Quote:

As you know perfectly well, there has been a recent short term reduction in solar irradiance.

Thats why we're not going to see any warming for the next couple of decades.

Which means that we have been taxed on the air we breath for nothing, cause the IPCC is dead wrong.

Ofcourse in the mean time they would have created a $2 trillion dollar market.

Now they will probably say that even though the IPCC have got it wrong the world's econmy rests on the trading of carbon credits therefore we have to keep it.

Hang those greenies..............

Ajax wrote on Jul 25^th, 2013 at 10:54am:

Muso there has been NO warming since 1998 when we had the El Nino, temperatures after 1998 have not surpassed the 1998 value.

http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/files/2013/04/updated-global-temperature.png

As I said, it's far too short a period. There have been previous short-term fluctuations, but the overall trend is that of rising temperatures.


Quote:

Now are you playing with words here???? The IPCC computer simulated models say that as more manmade CO2 gathers at the equator so then this produces more and more water vapor to cause their ficticious runaway greenhouse effect.

A few strawmen there. You obviously haven't read the IPCC Reports. You prefer to get second hand disinformation.
It's fairly simple. As temperature varies- increases or decreases, the partial pressure of water in the atmosphere increases or decreases in response. It doesn't matter what forcings cause that temperature rise (or fall) - the result is the same. If the net forcing remains at a similar level (Solar forcing (input) plus radiative forcing (reducing output)) then the water vapour concentration will remain at about the same level. (There are other forcings of course)

Quote:

[quote]As you know perfectly well, there has been a recent short term reduction in solar irradiance.

Thats why we're not going to see any warming for the next couple of decades.
[/quote]

Is that a pious hope, or do you have an extremely good crystal ball? Don't tell me that you're starting to believe scientists?


Quote:

Hang those greenies..............

- or perhaps you mean scientists who don't fit your personal agenda? The average greenie would have as little a clue about the underlying atmospheric science as you have demonstrated. 

I've never seen any scientific papers published by Al Gore either. Isn't he just a politician and a mouthpiece?  Criticising Al Gore is a bit like criticising a TV anchorman. You might as well criticise Arnie Schwarzenegger for that matter.

I'm not commenting on the implementation of carbon taxes. It may well be that any required corrective action will end up being a lot more expensive in the future.

muso wrote on Jul 25^th, 2013 at 9:55pm:

As I said, it's far too short a period.

What's a short period?

What's a suitably long period?

Who determines these periods?

Is it subjective?

Please explain.

Ajax wrote on Jul 25^th, 2013 at 10:54am:

muso wrote on Jul 24th, 2013 at 9:27pm: It's a variation of the "No warming since 1998" theme. Too short a period, plus cherry picking the time frame. Muso there has been NO warming since 1998 when we had the El Nino, temperatures after 1998 have not surpassed the 1998 value.

Don't be silly.  You have been fooled by the nonsense David Rose writes in the Daily Mail

THere has been warming since 1998.
It is clear and unambiguous


Ajax wrote on Jul 25^th, 2013 at 10:54am:

Unequivocal warming??????????......where???????...in their compuetr models...LOL

In the oceans and in the melting of ice caps and glaciers, idiot.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jul/22/climate-change-slowdown-warming-oceans

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 12:43am:

muso wrote on Jul 25th, 2013 at 9:55pm: As I said, it's far too short a period. What's a short period? What's a suitably long period? Who determines these periods? Is it subjective? Please explain.

The main short term periodicity is related to solar cycles, which have a period of approximately 11 years. (plus of course the Southern Oscillation index)  It's pretty obvious that if you focus on a 10 year period, or even a 15 year period, you're going to see these short term trends relating to these cycles.

What does that tell you in terms of long term trends? Obviously it's not very useful. It makes more sense to look at the overall changes over a much longer period.  Typically the standard averaging period is 30 years. Climate by definition is concerned with long term trends.   

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 6:50am:

Ajax wrote on Jul 25th, 2013 at 10:54am: muso wrote on Jul 24th, 2013 at 9:27pm: It's a variation of the "No warming since 1998" theme. Too short a period, plus cherry picking the time frame. Muso there has been NO warming since 1998 when we had the El Nino, temperatures after 1998 have not surpassed the 1998 value. Don't be silly.  You have been fooled by the nonsense David Rose writes in the Daily Mail THere has been warming since 1998. It is clear and unambiguous Ajax wrote on Jul 25th, 2013 at 10:54am: Unequivocal warming??????????......where???????...in their compuetr models...LOL In the oceans and in the melting of ice caps and glaciers, idiot. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jul/22/climate-change-slowdown-warming-oceans

Soooooo....your tabloid source has a bigger dick than his tabloid source  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Rider wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 7:10am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 6:50am: Ajax wrote on Jul 25th, 2013 at 10:54am: muso wrote on Jul 24th, 2013 at 9:27pm: It's a variation of the "No warming since 1998" theme. Too short a period, plus cherry picking the time frame. Muso there has been NO warming since 1998 when we had the El Nino, temperatures after 1998 have not surpassed the 1998 value. Don't be silly.  You have been fooled by the nonsense David Rose writes in the Daily Mail THere has been warming since 1998. It is clear and unambiguous Ajax wrote on Jul 25th, 2013 at 10:54am: Unequivocal warming??????????......where???????...in their compuetr models...LOL In the oceans and in the melting of ice caps and glaciers, idiot. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jul/22/climate-change-slowdown-warming-oceans Soooooo....your tabloid source has a bigger dick than his tabloid source  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

No.  My tabloid source actually referred to published science:

The heat content of the world ocean for the 0-700 m layer increased by 16.7x1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 Wm-2 (per unit area of the world ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18ºC. The world ocean accounts for approximately 90% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The thermosteric component of sea level trend is 0.54 mm yr-1 for the 0-2000 m layer and 0.41 mm yr-1 for the 0-700 m layer of the world ocean for 1955-2010.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml

His tabloid source was a silly opinion piece.

Do you understand the difference?

muso wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 6:55am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:43am: muso wrote on Jul 25th, 2013 at 9:55pm: As I said, it's far too short a period. What's a short period? What's a suitably long period? Who determines these periods? Is it subjective? Please explain. The main short term periodicity is related to solar cycles, which have a period of approximately 11 years.  It's pretty obvious that if you focus on a 10 year period, or even a 15 year period, you're going to see these short term trends relating to these cycles. What does that tell you in terms of long term trends? Obviously it's not very useful. It makes more sense to look at the overall changes over a much longer period.  Typically the standard averaging period is 30 years. Climate by definition is concerned with long term trends.

I understand perfectly well what climate is concerned with.

My question is, who says 30 years is "long term"?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 7:50am:

Rider wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 7:10am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 6:50am: Ajax wrote on Jul 25th, 2013 at 10:54am: muso wrote on Jul 24th, 2013 at 9:27pm: It's a variation of the "No warming since 1998" theme. Too short a period, plus cherry picking the time frame. Muso there has been NO warming since 1998 when we had the El Nino, temperatures after 1998 have not surpassed the 1998 value. Don't be silly.  You have been fooled by the nonsense David Rose writes in the Daily Mail THere has been warming since 1998. It is clear and unambiguous Ajax wrote on Jul 25th, 2013 at 10:54am: Unequivocal warming??????????......where???????...in their compuetr models...LOL In the oceans and in the melting of ice caps and glaciers, idiot. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jul/22/climate-change-slowdown-warming-oceans Soooooo....your tabloid source has a bigger dick than his tabloid source  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D No.  My tabloid source actually referred to published science: The heat content of the world ocean for the 0-700 m layer increased by 16.7x1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 Wm-2 (per unit area of the world ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18ºC. The world ocean accounts for approximately 90% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The thermosteric component of sea level trend is 0.54 mm yr-1 for the 0-2000 m layer and 0.41 mm yr-1 for the 0-700 m layer of the world ocean for 1955-2010. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml His tabloid source was a silly opinion piece. Do you understand the difference?

I do, do you know how many 10's of thousands of years it will take for ocean heat increase (naturally occurring or otherwise) to affect surface temperatures and induce any statistically significant anythingness??

There is absolutely no sane reason to be concerned. Time to put the boffins back in their boxes till they can come up with a cure for cancer or something that will actually bring benefit to mankind.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 9:41am:

I understand perfectly well what climate is concerned with. My question is, who says 30 years is "long term"?

I didn't actually use the term "long term" related to the 30 year averaging period.

However, to answer your question directly about who chose the 30 year averaging period, it was the World Meteorological Organisation. A better question might be - Why do they settle on 30 years (The Classical Period). I can answer that if you want. It's to do with natural variability and how you can determine long term trends over any particular period that you're interested in.

There are a number of natural forcings that affect the global temperature. We're seeing the effect of a temporary drop in solar forcing over the last few years, but other forcings include sulphates, high cloud, low cloud etc.
  http://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html

WMO Website - Look under FAQ.

---

muso wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 11:11am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 9:41am: I understand perfectly well what climate is concerned with. My question is, who says 30 years is "long term"? I didn't actually use the term "long term" related to the 30 year averaging period. However, to answer your question directly about who chose the 30 year averaging period, it was the World Meteorological Organisation. A better question might be - Why do they settle on 30 years (The Classical Period). I can answer that if you want. It's to do with natural variability and how you can determine long term trends over any particular period that you're interested in. There are a number of natural forcings that affect the global temperature. We're seeing the effect of a temporary drop in solar forcing over the last few years, but other forcings include sulphates, high cloud, low cloud etc.   http://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html WMO Website - Look under FAQ.

An arbitrary number.  Nothing more.

To consider 30 years "long term", in this context, is incredibly naive.

The arrogance of humans is astounding at times.

Our concept of "long term" is based on our own human experiences. Incredibly narrow-minded and naive.

Future generations will look back at the AGW cult and laugh at them the same way we laugh at flat-earthers now.

Such is life.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 12:23pm:

An arbitrary number.  Nothing more.

Well, I was going to tell you about how it was derived, but you've made up your mind that it's arbitrary, so go on believing what you want. 


Quote:

To consider 30 years "long term", in this context, is incredibly naive.

Who said that 30 years was long term apart from you? You seem to have that mistaken impression from somewhere, but not from me. It's just a  period for averaging data. Nothing to do with being long term. It's a period of time over which running averages can be applied without the interference of natural short-term variation, and it's not even universally applied.

To entertain the idea that people think 30 years is long term is incredibly naive.

Rider wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 10:52am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 7:50am: Rider wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 7:10am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 6:50am: Ajax wrote on Jul 25th, 2013 at 10:54am: muso wrote on Jul 24th, 2013 at 9:27pm: It's a variation of the "No warming since 1998" theme. Too short a period, plus cherry picking the time frame. Muso there has been NO warming since 1998 when we had the El Nino, temperatures after 1998 have not surpassed the 1998 value. Don't be silly.  You have been fooled by the nonsense David Rose writes in the Daily Mail THere has been warming since 1998. It is clear and unambiguous Ajax wrote on Jul 25th, 2013 at 10:54am: Unequivocal warming??????????......where???????...in their compuetr models...LOL In the oceans and in the melting of ice caps and glaciers, idiot. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jul/22/climate-change-slowdown-warming-oceans Soooooo....your tabloid source has a bigger dick than his tabloid source  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D No.  My tabloid source actually referred to published science: The heat content of the world ocean for the 0-700 m layer increased by 16.7x1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 Wm-2 (per unit area of the world ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18ºC. The world ocean accounts for approximately 90% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The thermosteric component of sea level trend is 0.54 mm yr-1 for the 0-2000 m layer and 0.41 mm yr-1 for the 0-700 m layer of the world ocean for 1955-2010. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml His tabloid source was a silly opinion piece. Do you understand the difference? I do, do you know how many 10's of thousands of years it will take for ocean heat increase (naturally occurring or otherwise) to affect surface temperatures and induce any statistically significant anythingness??

Yes - I do know exactly  how many 10's of thousands of years it will take for ocean heat increase (naturally occurring or otherwise) to induce any statistically significant anythingness.

And you were not so pig-ignorant and read my previous post - you may have been able to work out the answer too.

It will take exactly ZERO 10's of thousands of years  for ocean heat increase (naturally occurring or otherwise) to induce any statistically significant anythingness.

This is because very significant effects of the ocean warming are already being observed.

As I quoted in my last post:
The thermosteric component of sea level trend is 0.54 mm yr-1 for the 0-2000 m layer and 0.41 mm yr-1 for the 0-700 m layer of the world ocean for 1955-2010.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml


Sea level rise.
Do you understand what that means?
It is happening now.
Not tens of thousands of years in the future.
Now.
It is caused by the thermal expansion of warming oceans.
Oceans warming due to the increased thermal energy being re-emited back to earth as a result of the increase in the concentration of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses.


Yet you and that other retard posting on here want to believe some idiot in the Daily Mail who thinks there has been "no warming since 1998"

Morons.


Rider wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 10:52am:

There is absolutely no sane reason to be concerned. Time to put the boffins back in their boxes till they can come up with a cure for cancer or something that will actually bring benefit to mankind.

Sea level rise is no cause for concern?

I suspect that hundreds of millions of people around the world being impacted by larger storm surge events and a decline in groundwater quality would disagree with you.

Actually - there would be absolutely no sane reason for anyone to agree with you - idiot.

Good post, apart from the personal insults.

Hhhh..mmmmmm

Now lets see from 1940 to 1975 we had global cooling (tempratures fell for 35 years straight).......and these very same clowns were scaring us all about an ice age.

From 1975 to 1998 we had global warming and these clowns managed to pass a tax on the air we breath.

From 1998 till now temperatures have once again been dropping, and according to scientists who are not on the AGW gravy train temperatures will drop for thext few decades.

What are these clowns going to think of next??

Maybe antropogenic global cooling (AGC), still to do with manmade CO2, as more accumulates it contributes to cooling not warming??????

All it takes is a computer simulated model.........

BUT hold on a minute according to IPCC scientist Mojib Latif author of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

Good old Mojib is predicting cooling for the next 30 or so years?????!!!!!!!!!

But still attributes this cooling to the AGW religion which has changed its spots from global cooling to global warming to climate change to now green energy.

He needs a good kick in the back side, its one or the other, you cannot sit on the fence in this debate.

You gotta hand it to them though they have been successful in taxing us all on the air we breath.

Hay rabbittoh07

You should really brush up on your homework dude before calling people names and acting as though your the only one that understands the theory that is AGW.

The oceans have not been warming since 2003.

Want proof here it is.............................


Quote:

The Argo buoy network uses 3,000 floating thermometers that spread through the worlds oceans and dive 2,000 m deep. They record the temperatures and radio them back when they surface every couple of weeks. It is the gold standard in measuring ocean temperatures. Argo became operational in mid-2003; before then we relied on erratic and highly uncertain measurements from boats. (See The UCSD Argo website.)

If the deep oceans are warming dont you think this missing heat would first affect the first 700 metres of the ocean before is got down to deeper water?

Raeding Mr.Cook over at skeptical science is like reading science fiction.

Algorians thats what they are................

If you cannot prove your thoery or hypothesis with emprical data then your theories and hypotheis are just hot wind.

joannenova.com.au/2011/12/the-travesty-of-the-missing-heat-deep-ocean-or-outer-space/

No warming since 2003? An even shorter interval and totally flying in the face of the data.

You know, I reckon we haven't had any warming since last Summer either.  Maybe that's significant. Damn those greenies.  ;D

At least we now know that you get most of this from Joanne Nova's blog. (psst - she's a molecular biologist. She doesn't have any climatology credentials and several times, she has demonstrated her ignorance of basic climate science almost as effectively as you have. )

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/sea-surface-temp-figure1-2012.gif

Ajax wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 12:07pm:

Hhhh..mmmmmm Now lets see from 1940 to 1975 we had global cooling (tempratures fell for 35 years straight).......and these very same clowns were scaring us all about an ice age.

Who were these clowns scaring you abou an ice age?

Could you provide a reference please?

Morons repeating things they here Jonesy say are not considered particularly reliable.

What have you got for us Champ?

Ajax wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 12:07pm:

From 1998 till now temperatures have once again been dropping, and according to scientists who are not on the AGW gravy train temperatures will drop for thext few decades.

From 1998 till now the planet has been warming.

Only retards deny it.

What have you got Champ?

Show us some evidence that the planet has not been warming since 1998?


Do you have anything beyond an opinion piece in the Daily Mail by David Rose?

Anything at all?

Please show us.

Idiot.

Ajax wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

Hay rabbittoh07 You should really brush up on your homework dude before calling people names and acting as though your the only one that understands the theory that is AGW. The oceans have not been warming since 2003. Want proof here it is............................. Quote: The Argo buoy network uses 3,000 floating thermometers that spread through the worlds oceans and dive 2,000 m deep. They record the temperatures and radio them back when they surface every couple of weeks. It is the gold standard in measuring ocean temperatures. Argo became operational in mid-2003; before then we relied on erratic and highly uncertain measurements from boats. (See The UCSD Argo website.) If the deep oceans are warming dont you think this missing heat would first affect the first 700 metres of the ocean before is got down to deeper water? Raeding Mr.Cook over at skeptical science is like reading science fiction. Algorians thats what they are................ If you cannot prove your thoery or hypothesis with emprical data then your theories and hypotheis are just hot wind. joannenova.com.au/2011/12/the-travesty-of-the-missing-heat-deep-ocean-or-outer-space/

You quote the website of a Childrens TV presenter?!?!?  As your defence of your bizarre conspiracy theory?!?!?
WHat is the Wiggles opinion on this?  What is High-5 saying?  Where do the Hooley=Dooleys stand?!?

Fvcing retard.


THe oceans  are warming.  Despite what a Children's TV host has told you.  Moron.

http://news.sp@m/earth/oceans/ocean-holds-answer-reduced-warming-130411.htm
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-temperature-rise/
http://epa.gov/climatestudents/impacts/signs/oceans.html

Ajax wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

The oceans have not been warming since 2003. Want proof here it is............................. Quote: The Argo buoy network uses 3,000 floating thermometers that spread through the worlds oceans and dive 2,000 m deep. They record the temperatures and radio them back when they surface every couple of weeks. It is the gold standard in measuring ocean temperatures. Argo became operational in mid-2003; before then we relied on erratic and highly uncertain measurements from boats. (See The UCSD Argo website.) If the deep oceans are warming dont you think this missing heat would first affect the first 700 metres of the ocean before is got down to deeper water?

OK, I looked up the Joanne Nova Blog post.  The obvious question is why do they (Joanne and Super Dave Evans, the self styled rocket scientist) discard the data from 0-700 metres. The data that is plotted represents 700 metres to 2000 metres.  If they had read the paper that they cited in its entirety they would have found the missing data.

Considering that most heat would be present in the first 700 metres, this amounts to a very elaborate version of what is known as Murphy's correlation factor:


Quote:

. An experiment may be considered successful if no more than half the data must be discarded to agree with the theory.

That's meant to be humorous, but in the case of Joanne Nova's article it's just very sad that some people fall for it. For more Murphy's Law related humour, see:

http://www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/cheap/cheap3_murphy.htm

Actually Joanne Nova follows some very unusual conspiracy theories.  Doesn't she belief that the AGW "hypothesis" was invented so that Obama could create a worldwide economic crash in the space of an afternoon so that he could declare a military dictatorship in the US?

You should see what else she believes in. Very entertaining.

Ajax wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 12:07pm:

From 1998 till now temperatures have once again been dropping, and according to scientists who are not on the AGW gravy train temperatures will drop for thext few decades.

From 1998 till now the  earth has been warming.
Unambiguously - despite what David Rose in the Daily Mail told you.

Oceans have been warming.
The artic ice cap has been decreasing
Global glacial mass balance has been decreasing.
Sea levels have been rising.

The earth has been warming.

ANd you deny it?!?!?

muso wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 6:02pm:

No warming since 2003? An even shorter interval and totally flying in the face of the data. You know, I reckon we haven't had any warming since last Summer either.  Maybe that's significant. Damn those greenies.  ;D At least we now know that you get most of this from Joanne Nova's blog. (psst - she's a molecular biologist. She doesn't have any climatology credentials and several times, she has demonstrated her ignorance of basic climate science almost as effectively as you have. )

Do you dismiss the empirical data of 3000 buoys all over our oceans against a hypothesis from a computer simulated model?

Theory vs Real data??????

Simulated computer models vs actual measured data in the real world.

If your theory cannot be proven by real world data its just a theory!!!!

No matter how convincing the theory maybe.

And we all know about computers right, sh!t in sh!t out??

BTW Jo was an alarmist in her former life, but she saw the light and now knows the truth.

Her blog is one of the best if you want the TRUTH.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 7:14pm:

Ajax wrote on Jul 28th, 2013 at 12:07pm: From 1998 till now temperatures have once again been dropping, and according to scientists who are not on the AGW gravy train temperatures will drop for thext few decades. From 1998 till now the planet has been warming. Only retards deny it. What have you got Champ? Show us some evidence that the planet has not been warming since 1998? Do you have anything beyond an opinion piece in the Daily Mail by David Rose? Anything at all? Please show us. Idiot.

How can you blatantly lie like that, even the IPCC have admitted that there has been no warming since 1998??




Quote:

'Nothing off-limits' in climate debate THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend. Dr Pachauri, the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.

Quote:

Surprise Surprise... Global warming has stalled, admits Met Office THE great global warming debate was blown wide open again yesterday when the Met Office predicted cooler than expected temperatures for the next five years. The Met Office, one of the top cheerleaders for the man-made climate change camp, said global temperatures are likely to be lower than it forecast in December 2011.

Quote:

Leading global warming scienstist agree there has been no warming in the last 16 years, Hansen, Sato and Ruedy

muso wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 7:41pm:

OK, I looked up the Joanne Nova Blog post.  The obvious question is why do they (Joanne and Super Dave Evans, the self styled rocket scientist) discard the data from 0-700 metres. The data that is plotted represents 700 metres to 2000 metres.  If they had read the paper that they cited in its entirety they would have found the missing data. Considering that most heat would be present in the first 700 metres, this amounts to a very elaborate version of what is known as Murphy's correlation factor:

I dont think Jo disregards it at all (0-700metres) the problem is its not there.

And the buoys go down to 2000 metres.


Quote:

That's meant to be humorous, but in the case of Joanne Nova's article it's just very sad that some people fall for it. For more Murphy's Law related humour, see: Actually Joanne Nova follows some very unusual conspiracy theories.  Doesn't she belief that the AGW "hypothesis" was invented so that Obama could create a worldwide economic crash in the space of an afternoon so that he could declare a military dictatorship in the US? You should see what else she believes in. Very entertaining.

Hhhh....mmmmmmm

Cant battle the data (truth) then go for a character assasination, very warmist of you muso.

I thought you were a scientist???

Ajax wrote on Jul 29^th, 2013 at 9:08am:

If your theory cannot be proven by real world data its just a theory!!!!

Stand by for one of the AGW cult's most ridiculous statements:

"Gravity is a theory too".

;D

muso wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 7:19pm:

Good post, apart from the personal insults.

Well insults are the stock in trade for alarmist clap trap.

Oh, and I'm not scared of a few mm of ocean rises, and there is no basis for attributing any naturally occurring event (every natural event seen today has been seen before, there is no increase proven in occurrence nor severity - you turn your panic control back to normal..ok??)

Have you noticed the discord between rising co2 and temperatures......another oops moment - you do realise your primary tenet is now proven to be broken? you need to take your hypothesis back to the shop and I do hope us tax payers get a refund.

Oceans rise, oceans fall, no biggy so get over it and get on with your life and stop trying desperately to create a fear based political solution to a non problem. Climate blah blah blah is so yesterday.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 29^th, 2013 at 9:46am:

Ajax wrote on Jul 29th, 2013 at 9:08am: If your theory cannot be proven by real world data its just a theory!!!! Stand by for one of the AGW cult's most ridiculous statements: "Gravity is a theory too". ;D

or you massage / amend the data......up with temperatures, hide an ice age, create a few new records (third day in a row in the same socks...I think this is a new record  ;D) make some homogenising averaging calculations to make yourself a......hockey stick  :D

Rider wrote on Jul 29^th, 2013 at 9:53am:

muso wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 7:19pm: Good post, apart from the personal insults. Well insults are the stock in trade for alarmist clap trap.

There is no need to resort to insults.


Quote:

Oh, and I'm not scared of a few mm of ocean rises, and there is no basis for attributing any naturally occurring event (every natural event seen today has been seen before, there is no increase proven in occurrence nor severity - you turn your panic control back to normal..ok??)

First of all, you can panic all you like, but I don't think I've said anything about panicking.  There has been a statistically proven increase in severity. I'll give you the link to the paper if you want, but as it's against your agenda, I suppose you'll dismiss it in some way or other. 

There have been storms in the past, and it makes sense that if you increase the energy of the system by reducing radiated Long Wave Infrared emissions to space, storms will continue to be more frequent and more severe in the future. Put it this way, how many 1 in 100 year flood events do you need to show that things have changed?  There is a sound statistical basis for this.


Quote:

Have you noticed the discord between rising co2 and temperatures......another oops moment - you do realise your primary tenet is now proven to be broken? you need to take your hypothesis back to the shop and I do hope us tax payers get a refund.

What exactly is the primary tenet that you're referring to? I don't have anything to do with government policies. All I'm concerned about is those who bastardise basic atmospheric physics to support their cause of "Do nothing"


Quote:

Oceans rise, oceans fall, no biggy so get over it and get on with your life and stop trying desperately to create a fear based political solution to a non problem. Climate blah blah blah is so yesterday.

Ocean rises and falls are caused. They don't just happen and we understand the causes pretty well.  During the last Ice Age it was due to the Milankovitch cycles. Obviously this is not the cause today. We know this because we can and do measure the orbital parameters of the Earth pretty accurately. How do you think they can get satellites and space probes to go where we want them to go without a detailed knowledge of orbital parameters? The causes of past cooling and warming are different to those of today.   

I'm not interested in political solutions or wealth distribution. I'm certainly not left of centre and it's not a partisan issue by any means.

Atmospheric Physics just happens to be one of my subjects, and I've had over 20 years experience in Environmental Management for large corporations.   

There are other ways of maintaining the current economic system without resorting to burning coal and oil. It should be obvious to anyone with solar panels on their roof (for example) that we can maintain or improve our standard of living and reduce impact on the environment at the same time. Nobody is asking you to wear tie died clothes and sing Kumbaya or go back to living in straw huts.  Renewable energy is a totally practical proposition.

muso wrote on Jul 29^th, 2013 at 11:39am:

Rider wrote on Jul 29th, 2013 at 9:53am: muso wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 7:19pm: Good post, apart from the personal insults. Well insults are the stock in trade for alarmist clap trap. There is no need to resort to insults. Quote: Oh, and I'm not scared of a few mm of ocean rises, and there is no basis for attributing any naturally occurring event (every natural event seen today has been seen before, there is no increase proven in occurrence nor severity - you turn your panic control back to normal..ok??) First of all, you can panic all you like, but I don't think I've said anything about panicking.  There has been a statistically proven increase in severity. I'll give you the link to the paper if you want, but as it's against your agenda, I suppose you'll dismiss it in some way or other.  There have been storms in the past, and it makes sense that if you increase the energy of the system by reducing radiated Long Wave Infrared emissions to space, storms will continue to be more frequent and more severe in the future. Put it this way, how many 1 in 100 year flood events do you need to show that things have changed?  There is a sound statistical basis for this. [quote] Have you noticed the discord between rising co2 and temperatures......another oops moment - you do realise your primary tenet is now proven to be broken? you need to take your hypothesis back to the shop and I do hope us tax payers get a refund.

What exactly is the primary tenet that you're referring to? I don't have anything to do with government policies. All I'm concerned about is those who bastardise basic atmospheric physics to support their cause of "Do nothing"


Quote:

Oceans rise, oceans fall, no biggy so get over it and get on with your life and stop trying desperately to create a fear based political solution to a non problem. Climate blah blah blah is so yesterday.

Ocean rises and falls are caused. They don't just happen and we understand the causes pretty well.  During the last Ice Age it was due to the Milankovitch cycles. Obviously this is not the cause today. We know this because we can and do measure the orbital parameters of the Earth pretty accurately. How do you think they can get satellites and space probes to go where we want them to go without a detailed knowledge of orbital parameters? The causes of past cooling and warming are different to those of today.   

I'm not interested in political solutions or wealth distribution. I'm certainly not left of centre and it's not a partisan issue by any means.

Atmospheric Physics just happens to be one of my subjects, and I've had over 20 years experience in Environmental Management for large corporations.   

There are other ways of maintaining the current economic system without resorting to burning coal and oil. It should be obvious to anyone with solar panels on their roof (for example) that we can maintain or improve our standard of living and reduce impact on the environment at the same time. Nobody is asking you to wear tie died clothes and sing Kumbaya or go back to living in straw huts.  Renewable energy is a totally practical proposition.
[/quote]

That'll be great, post up the evidence of any increased weather event severity attributable to man made global warming. Should be interesting.

Rider wrote on Jul 29^th, 2013 at 2:47pm:

That'll be great, post up the evidence of any increased weather event severity attributable to man made global warming. Should be interesting.

http://www.climate.org/topics/extreme-weather/images/north-atlantic-tropical-storms.gif

http://www.climate.org/topics/extreme-weather/


Quote:

Since 1970, tropical cyclone activity has increased in the North Atlantic (1). Activity is measured not only by the frequency and number of storms that develop, but also by their intensity and duration (collectively named the Power Dissipation Index). A marked increase in the PDI began around 1970, though a less-defined (but still substantial) increase began in the early 1950’s.

Also see:

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/48/19601

Quote:

The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923. In particular, we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years (P < 0.02).

and,
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/30/12219.abstract?sid=b7f0cbc6-d5af-4b76-9326-196205be7f32

Read very carefully. It's based on past evidence as well as predictions based on ocean surface temperature trends.  This latest study (Jul 8 2013) is the latest in a growing body of evidence that cyclones are becoming more intense as global warming heats the oceans.

Another link to a paper showing increased storm frequency was posted here last year.  I'll try to find that one too. 

Can't find it. Anyway, have a read here too:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121130151651.htm

Ajax wrote on Jul 29^th, 2013 at 9:08am:

muso wrote on Jul 28th, 2013 at 6:02pm: No warming since 2003? An even shorter interval and totally flying in the face of the data. You know, I reckon we haven't had any warming since last Summer either.  Maybe that's significant. Damn those greenies.  ;D At least we now know that you get most of this from Joanne Nova's blog. (psst - she's a molecular biologist. She doesn't have any climatology credentials and several times, she has demonstrated her ignorance of basic climate science almost as effectively as you have. ) Do you dismiss the empirical data of 3000 buoys all over our oceans against a hypothesis from a computer simulated model? Theory vs Real data??????

What I'm dismissing is cherry picking the data so that the 0-700 metre data  is overlooked, even though that section of the ocean  contains the most heat! It's obvious when you look at the graph that they have "diluted" the data from the original study (which was not theirs). You do realise that they are discarding approximately 85% of the data?

muso wrote on Jul 29^th, 2013 at 7:53pm:

Ajax wrote on Jul 29th, 2013 at 9:08am: muso wrote on Jul 28th, 2013 at 6:02pm: No warming since 2003? An even shorter interval and totally flying in the face of the data. You know, I reckon we haven't had any warming since last Summer either.  Maybe that's significant. Damn those greenies.  ;D At least we now know that you get most of this from Joanne Nova's blog. (psst - she's a molecular biologist. She doesn't have any climatology credentials and several times, she has demonstrated her ignorance of basic climate science almost as effectively as you have. ) Do you dismiss the empirical data of 3000 buoys all over our oceans against a hypothesis from a computer simulated model? Theory vs Real data?????? What I'm dismissing is cherry picking the data so that the 0-700 metre data  is overlooked, even though that section of the ocean  contains the most heat! It's obvious when you look at the graph that they have "diluted" the data from the original study (which was not theirs). You do realise that they are discarding approximately 85% of the data?

Hey Muso

Come on dude get real FFS, where have they discarded 85% of the data???

The data is freely available.

Climateorg???...............is that brother or sister to Skeptical science???

Hey muso just a thought champ, since 1998 one thrid of all manmade CO2 emissions have been released into our atmosphere yet the temperatures are dropping!!!!!!

How can you explain that one?

Ajax wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 9:02am:

Hey Muso Come on dude get real FFS, where have they discarded 85% of the data???

85% of the heat absorbed by the ocean is in the layer from the surface to 700metres. Their data comprises  the 700metre to 2000 metre segment only.


Quote:

I dont think Jo disregards it at all (0-700metres) the problem is its not there.

Actually it is there, but she and partner Dave Evans didn't notice it.

If you compare their data with the real data, it's pretty obvious that they have manipulated the data.

The actual observations in the paper that they cite (of course they omit that part)  aligns almost perfectly with model predictions, whereas their manufactured data is clearly much lower.


Quote:

Climateorg???...............is that brother or sister to Skeptical science???

It's the Climate Institute.  Their credentials seem quite sound in contrast with the Radio Announcer Anthony Watts or the Microbiologist/ Children's TV presenter Joanne Nova, or her husband Dave (Rocket Scientist) Evans.


Quote:

Hey muso just a thought champ, since 1998 one thrid of all manmade CO2 emissions have been released into our atmosphere yet the temperatures are dropping!!!!!!

Hang on, didn't you say earlier that they were not manmade?  Which of your posts are we supposed to believe?

Remember your post?


Quote:

The crux of AGW is how much CO2 in our atmosphere is natural and how much is manmade. The problem with the IPCC reports is that they attribute all CO2 rises in our atmosphere to antropogenic emissions.

- then you went on to say that it's actually only 3% of that.

So have you changed your mind since that post?

muso wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 7:45pm:

85% of the heat absorbed by the ocean is in the layer from the surface to 700metres. Their data comprises  the 700metre to 2000 metre segment only.

The buoys would have detected this heat, Jo didn't manipulate it she is just pointing it out.


Quote:

Actually it is there, but she and partner Dave Evans didn't notice it.

Sorry champ like i said its not there in the empirical data.


Quote:

If you compare their data with the real data, it's pretty obvious that they have manipulated the data.

If you can show where they have manipulated the data please do so.


Quote:

The actual observations in the paper that they cite (of course they omit that part)  aligns almost perfectly with model predictions, whereas their manufactured data is clearly much lower.

Yes and its purely due to AGW, nothing else matters but that right.......WRONG.


Quote:

It's the Climate Institute.  Their credentials seem quite sound in contrast with the Radio Announcer Anthony Watts or the Microbiologist/ Children's TV presenter Joanne Nova, or her husband Dave (Rocket Scientist) Evans.

Skeptical science is anything but a climate institute, its a blog run by Mr. Cook who has very close ties to Al Gore hence my naming of these disciples as Algorians.


Quote:

Hang on, didn't you say earlier that they were not manmade?  Which of your posts are we supposed to believe?

I said that since 1998 more than 1/3 of ALL antropogenic CO2 emissions have been released into our atmosphere, yet temperatures are falling.

Where is the unequivocal warming....where every year the temperature surpasses the previous year?


Quote:

Remember your post? [quote]The crux of AGW is how much CO2 in our atmosphere is natural and how much is manmade. The problem with the IPCC reports is that they attribute all CO2 rises in our atmosphere to antropogenic emissions.

- then you went on to say that it's actually only 3% of that.

So have you changed your mind since that post?
[/quote]

Please read it again.

Ajax wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 9:53am:

Sorry champ like i said its not there in the empirical data.

I'm trying to get you to think for yourself rather than parroting Joanne Nova's blog, because I think you're capable of some reason. Do you have the link for the source data, and have you actually read the paper?

I'm not going to hand it on a platter to you. Do some digging, and keep an open mind.  If you can't find the link, let me know and I'll give it to you.

Ajax wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 9:53am:

Quote: It's the Climate Institute.  Their credentials seem quite sound in contrast with the Radio Announcer Anthony Watts or the Microbiologist/ Children's TV presenter Joanne Nova, or her husband Dave (Rocket Scientist) Evans. Skeptical science is anything but a climate institute,

I wasn't talking about Skeptical Science. That was on another thread.  I was talking about the Climate Institute.

http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/

The Climate Institute is an independent research organisation.

Quote:

Parts of the country saw back-to-back wet years in 2010 and 2011 - Australia's wettest two-year period on record. But it wasn't soggy everywhere: while the north copped heavy and widespread flooding, Western Australia's rainfall in April was nearly at 60 per cent below average. This is the lowest since 2001. In fact, most of Australia saw drier-than-average conditions in 2011, according to CSIRO. This follows the warmest decade since records began. The 2013 summer has been excessively hot, prompting the Bureau of Meteorology to add new colours—purple and pink—to its weather map to denote temperatures once considered off the scale: up to 54°C. In fact, January 2013 became Australia’s hottest month on record, with an average temperature of 40.3°C. For the first time since records began, the average temperature exceeded 39°C for seven days straight, breaking the earlier record set 1972.  - See more at: http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/explore-climate-change.html#sthash.2cJBYEPK.dpuf

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 10:22pm:

New data falsifies basis of man-made global warming alarm, shows water vapor feedback is negative Oops. There is a feedback the AGW cult was looking forward too. Physicist Clive Best has analyzed the latest NASA satellite and radiosonde data to find that global water vapor has declined despite the consensus belief among climate scientists that it would rise in response to man-made carbon dioxide. Dire predictions of global warming all rely on positive feedback from water vapor. The argument goes that as surface temperatures rise so more water will evaporate from the oceans thereby amplifying temperatures because H2O itself is a strong greenhouse gas. The fact that water vapor has instead declined indicates water vapor feedback is negative, overwhelming alleged warming from CO2, and accounting for the stall in global temperatures over the past 16+ years. As Dr. Best notes, "All climate models (that I am aware of) predict exactly the opposite. Something is clearly amiss with theory. Is it not now time for “consensus” scientists to have a rethink?" http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TPW-global.png http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/new-data-falsifies-basis-of-man-made.html

The hydrological cycle says HIGH!  ;) ;)

...oh, and I"m reliably informed greg is about to give this forum a world exclusive on the particle that sends gravity!!

Ajax wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 9:02am:

muso wrote on Jul 29th, 2013 at 7:53pm: Ajax wrote on Jul 29th, 2013 at 9:08am: muso wrote on Jul 28th, 2013 at 6:02pm: No warming since 2003? An even shorter interval and totally flying in the face of the data. You know, I reckon we haven't had any warming since last Summer either.  Maybe that's significant. Damn those greenies.  ;D At least we now know that you get most of this from Joanne Nova's blog. (psst - she's a molecular biologist. She doesn't have any climatology credentials and several times, she has demonstrated her ignorance of basic climate science almost as effectively as you have. ) Do you dismiss the empirical data of 3000 buoys all over our oceans against a hypothesis from a computer simulated model? Theory vs Real data?????? What I'm dismissing is cherry picking the data so that the 0-700 metre data  is overlooked, even though that section of the ocean  contains the most heat! It's obvious when you look at the graph that they have "diluted" the data from the original study (which was not theirs). You do realise that they are discarding approximately 85% of the data? Hey Muso Come on dude get real FFS, where have they discarded 85% of the data??? The data is freely available. Climateorg???...............is that brother or sister to Skeptical science??? Hey muso just a thought champ, since 1998 one thrid of all manmade CO2 emissions have been released into our atmosphere yet the temperatures are dropping!!!!!! How can you explain that one?

Don't know much about phase change do ya buddy!  ;D ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 29^th, 2013 at 9:46am:

Ajax wrote on Jul 29th, 2013 at 9:08am: If your theory cannot be proven by real world data its just a theory!!!! Stand by for one of the AGW cult's most ridiculous statements: "Gravity is a theory too". ;D

Yes Greggery.  "Gravity is a theory too".

What do you find ridiculous about that?

Can you explain?

Ajax wrote on Jul 29^th, 2013 at 9:19am:

How can you blatantly lie like that, even the IPCC have admitted that there has been no warming since 1998??

No they haven't don't be silly.

The IPCC have NOT "admitted that there has been no warming since 1998"


Look at the quote you provided yourself:



Quote:

'Nothing off-limits' in climate debate THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.

How does saying that it would take at least 30 or 40 years of static surface temperature to break the long-term global warming trend equate to:
the IPCC have admitted that there has been no warming since 1998??

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 5^th, 2013 at 6:17pm:

Ajax wrote on Jul 29th, 2013 at 9:19am: How can you blatantly lie like that, even the IPCC have admitted that there has been no warming since 1998?? No they haven't don't be silly. The IPCC have NOT "admitted that there has been no warming since 1998" Look at the quote you provided yourself: Quote: 'Nothing off-limits' in climate debate THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend. How does saying that it would take at least 30 or 40 years of static surface temperature to break the long-term global warming trend equate to: the IPCC have admitted that there has been no warming since 1998??

Of course not...because that would mean that they are fraudulently accepting money....

amusingly...have you noticed that the 'required' interval gets longer and longer, as time goes on???...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 5^th, 2013 at 7:41pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 6:17pm: Ajax wrote on Jul 29th, 2013 at 9:19am: How can you blatantly lie like that, even the IPCC have admitted that there has been no warming since 1998?? No they haven't don't be silly. The IPCC have NOT "admitted that there has been no warming since 1998" Look at the quote you provided yourself: Quote: 'Nothing off-limits' in climate debate THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend. How does saying that it would take at least 30 or 40 years of static surface temperature to break the long-term global warming trend equate to: the IPCC have admitted that there has been no warming since 1998?? Of course not...because that would mean that they are fraudulently accepting money.... amusingly...have you noticed that the 'required' interval gets longer and longer, as time goes on???...

WTF are you taliking about?

Ajax was caught red-handed telling a lie.

He said:

the IPCC have admitted that there has been no warming since 1998

They have said nothing of the sort.

He told a lie and was caught telling it.

Do you have anything relevant to add?

Rider wrote on Jul 29^th, 2013 at 9:53am:

muso wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 7:19pm: Good post, apart from the personal insults. Well insults are the stock in trade for alarmist clap trap. Oh, and I'm not scared of a few mm of ocean rises, and there is no basis for attributing any naturally occurring event (every natural event seen today has been seen before, there is no increase proven in occurrence nor severity - you turn your panic control back to normal..ok??) Have you noticed the discord between rising co2 and temperatures......another oops moment - you do realise your primary tenet is now proven to be broken? you need to take your hypothesis back to the shop and I do hope us tax payers get a refund. Oceans rise, oceans fall, no biggy so get over it and get on with your life and stop trying desperately to create a fear based political solution to a non problem. Climate blah blah blah is so yesterday.

Oceans rise, oceans fall - yes.  But over recent decades they have only risen:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg

Which is exactly what you would expect since the oceans are warming.  It is called thermal expansion.

The oceans are warming because the entire planet is warming due to the increased heat energy being redirected to the earth's surface due to the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gasses from anthropogenic sources.

Denying this is silly.  Despite what columnists in the Daily Mail may tell you.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 6^th, 2013 at 1:10pm:

Denying this is silly.

Denying, yes.

Being sceptical, however, is not silly: quite the opposite in fact.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 6^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 6th, 2013 at 1:10pm: Denying this is silly.  Denying, yes. Being sceptical, however, is not silly: quite the opposite in fact.

You don't know what being sceptical means!

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 6^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 6th, 2013 at 1:10pm: Denying this is silly.  Denying, yes. Being sceptical, however, is not silly: quite the opposite in fact.

You're right to question everything. Be suspicious and test everything. I did that too, but there comes a time after you've exhausted all reasonable questions  to accept the results.  To fail to do that is unscientific.


Quote:

When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains--however improbable--must be the truth

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

What I don't accept is some of the political agendas that are bundled with very valid theory. The fact remains that there is a problem that we have to deal with ... somehow.  That "somehow" in my opinion is to shift towards renewable energy sources.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 6^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 6th, 2013 at 1:10pm: Denying this is silly.  Denying, yes. Being sceptical, however, is not silly: quite the opposite in fact.

Yes Greggery.  It is good to be sceptical.

Could you tell us what particularly raises your scepticism about the widely held scientific opinion that
the oceans are warming because the entire planet is warming due to the increased heat energy being redirected to the earth's surface due to the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gasses from anthropogenic sources?

Are you sceptical that the oceans are warming?  Do you doubt that the oceans are warming?  Do you have any facts to support this notion? Could you tell us?

Are you sceptical that the planet is warming?  Do you doubt that the planet is warming?   Do you have any facts to support this notion? Could you tell us?

Are you sceptical that there is increased heat energy being redirected to the earth's surface due to the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gasses?  Do you doubt that there is increased heat energy being redirected to the earth's surface due to the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gasses?  Do you have any facts to support this notion? Could you tell us?

Are you sceptical that the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gasses is revived mainly from anthropogenic sources?  Do you doubt that the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gasses is revived mainly from anthropogenic sources?  Do you have any facts to support this notion? Could you tell us?

We would love to hear Greggery.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 5^th, 2013 at 3:26pm:

The hydrological cycle says HIGH!  ;) ;)

Weather baloons ans satelite data say DECREASE.

Rather believe real world measured data rather than a computer simulated model and its predictions.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 5^th, 2013 at 3:31pm:

Don't know much about phase change do ya buddy!  ;D ;D

No matter how you wrap bullsh!t its always going to be just that when opened.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 5^th, 2013 at 6:14pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 29th, 2013 at 9:46am: Ajax wrote on Jul 29th, 2013 at 9:08am: If your theory cannot be proven by real world data its just a theory!!!! Stand by for one of the AGW cult's most ridiculous statements: "Gravity is a theory too". ;D Yes Greggery.  "Gravity is a theory too". What do you find ridiculous about that? Can you explain?

Is it now?

When all your theory is confirmed by real world data, how can this be???

Too bad AGW is just a theory and a very bad one at that, meaning it has so many holes in its armour it wont be long before all people on this planet will cast it away as junk.

Which is precisley what it is.

No NO its a new $2 trllion dollar market for bankers to once again fleece nations of their money.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 5^th, 2013 at 6:17pm:

Ajax wrote on Jul 29th, 2013 at 9:19am: How can you blatantly lie like that, even the IPCC have admitted that there has been no warming since 1998?? No they haven't don't be silly. The IPCC have NOT "admitted that there has been no warming since 1998" Look at the quote you provided yourself: Quote: 'Nothing off-limits' in climate debate THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend. How does saying that it would take at least 30 or 40 years of static surface temperature to break the long-term global warming trend equate to: the IPCC have admitted that there has been no warming since 1998??

Crikies champ are you on the AGW gravy train????

There has been no warming since 1998, meanining temperature have not passed the 1998 value.

Even the IPCC head, the met office and even the father of global warming Hansen have aknowledged this.

So just face the facts.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 6^th, 2013 at 6:36pm:

Are you sceptical that the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gasses is revived mainly from anthropogenic sources?

Yes.

The AGW cult don't have any "facts" (your term, not mine) to support that claim.

I'll remain open-minded and sceptical.  You'll remain closed-minded and gullible.

Such is life.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 5^th, 2013 at 8:49pm:

WTF are you taliking about? Ajax was caught red-handed telling a lie. He said: the IPCC have admitted that there has been no warming since 1998 They have said nothing of the sort. He told a lie and was caught telling it. Do you have anything relevant to add?

You alarmists really make me laugh, cause you do yourself a great disservice to the reader by acting like a monkeys fighting for the last bannana.

Once again here it is for your understanding.

Do you know that Rajendra Pachauri is the head of the IPCC????????


Quote:

'Nothing off-limits' in climate debate THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend. Dr Pachauri, the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.

Quote:

Surprise Surprise... Global warming has stalled, admits Met Office THE great global warming debate was blown wide open again yesterday when the Met Office predicted cooler than expected temperatures for the next five years.

Quote:

The Met Office, one of the top cheerleaders for the man-made climate change camp, said global temperatures are likely to be lower than it forecast in December 2011.

Quote:

Leading global warming scienstist agree there has been no warming in the last 16 years, Hansen, Sato and Ruedy

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 9:08am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 3:26pm: The hydrological cycle says HIGH!  ;) ;) Weather baloons ans satelite data say DECREASE. Rather believe real world measured data rather than a computer simulated model and its predictions.

I'm sorry...!??!

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 9:09am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 3:31pm: Don't know much about phase change do ya buddy!  ;D ;D No matter how you wrap bullsh!t its always going to be just that when opened.

Ajax hasn't done year 11 chemistry- lol!

Daddykins took good care of you did he???

** I love it when Dad buys me crack and a house to smoke, I mean sell, i mean smoke it in!!

  :D :D :D :D :D :D

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 9:18am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 6:17pm: Ajax wrote on Jul 29th, 2013 at 9:19am: How can you blatantly lie like that, even the IPCC have admitted that there has been no warming since 1998?? No they haven't don't be silly. The IPCC have NOT "admitted that there has been no warming since 1998" Look at the quote you provided yourself: Quote: 'Nothing off-limits' in climate debate THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend. How does saying that it would take at least 30 or 40 years of static surface temperature to break the long-term global warming trend equate to: the IPCC have admitted that there has been no warming since 1998?? Crikies champ are you on the AGW gravy train???? There has been no warming since 1998, meanining temperature have not passed the 1998 value. Even the IPCC head, the met office and even the father of global warming Hansen have aknowledged this. So just face the facts.

Show us where the  "IPCC head, the met office and even the father of global warming Hansen" have aknowledged that there has been " no warming since 1998"

Please show us.

And:
Why have the oceans continued to warm if there has been no warming since the year 1998?
Why has global glacial mass balance continued to decrease if there has been no warming since the year 1998?
Why has the arctic ice cap continued to melt if there has been no warming since the year 1998?
Why has sea level continued to rise if there has been no warming since the year 1998?

Can you explain?

And if you can't - would you please apologise for lying to the forum

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:08am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 3:26pm: The hydrological cycle says HIGH!  ;) ;) Weather baloons ans satelite data say DECREASE. Rather believe real world measured data rather than a computer simulated model and its predictions. I'm sorry...!??!

Have you measured it yourself..............?????!!!!!

OR

Are the computer simulated models saying so...??????

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:09am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 3:31pm: Don't know much about phase change do ya buddy!  ;D ;D No matter how you wrap bullsh!t its always going to be just that when opened. Ajax hasn't done year 11 chemistry- lol! Daddykins took good care of you did he??? ** I love it when Dad buys me crack and a house to smoke, I mean sell, i mean smoke it in!!   :D :D :D :D :D :D

Wise cracks and insults....all great debating data......

I'll leave you to wollow in your own escriment.....

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 1:01pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:09am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 3:31pm: Don't know much about phase change do ya buddy!  ;D ;D No matter how you wrap bullsh!t its always going to be just that when opened. Ajax hasn't done year 11 chemistry- lol! Daddykins took good care of you did he??? ** I love it when Dad buys me crack and a house to smoke, I mean sell, i mean smoke it in!!   :D :D :D :D :D :D Wise cracks and insults....all great debating data...... I'll leave you to wollow in your own escriment.....

Better than outright lies.

Please show us where the  "IPCC head, the met office and even the father of global warming Hansen" have aknowledged that there has been " no warming since 1998"

Please show us.

And:
Why have the oceans continued to warm if there has been no warming since the year 1998?
Why has global glacial mass balance continued to decrease if there has been no warming since the year 1998?
Why has the arctic ice cap continued to melt if there has been no warming since the year 1998?
Why has sea level continued to rise if there has been no warming since the year 1998?

Can you explain?

And if you can't - would you please apologise for lying to the forum

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:18am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 6:17pm: Ajax wrote on Jul 29th, 2013 at 9:19am: How can you blatantly lie like that, even the IPCC have admitted that there has been no warming since 1998?? No they haven't don't be silly. The IPCC have NOT "admitted that there has been no warming since 1998" Look at the quote you provided yourself: Quote: 'Nothing off-limits' in climate debate THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend. How does saying that it would take at least 30 or 40 years of static surface temperature to break the long-term global warming trend equate to: the IPCC have admitted that there has been no warming since 1998?? Crikies champ are you on the AGW gravy train???? There has been no warming since 1998, meanining temperature have not passed the 1998 value. Even the IPCC head, the met office and even the father of global warming Hansen have aknowledged this. So just face the facts. Show us where the  "IPCC head, the met office and even the father of global warming Hansen" have aknowledged that there has been " no warming since 1998" Please show us. And: Why have the oceans continued to warm if there has been no warming since the year 1998? Why has global glacial mass balance continued to decrease if there has been no warming since the year 1998? Why has the arctic ice cap continued to melt if there has been no warming since the year 1998? Why has sea level continued to rise if there has been no warming since the year 1998? Can you explain? And if you can't - would you please apologise for lying to the forum

You should really get your head out of the sand and look around now and again.

Many more were that came from

The con artist of global warming
http://canadianawareness.org/2013/02/ipcc-head-rajendra-pachauri-acknowledges-17-year-stall-in-global-warming/

The father of global warming
http://www.thegwpf.org/hansen-admits-global-temperature-standstill-real/

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 1:18pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 1:01pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:09am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 3:31pm: Don't know much about phase change do ya buddy!  ;D ;D No matter how you wrap bullsh!t its always going to be just that when opened. Ajax hasn't done year 11 chemistry- lol! Daddykins took good care of you did he??? ** I love it when Dad buys me crack and a house to smoke, I mean sell, i mean smoke it in!!   :D :D :D :D :D :D Wise cracks and insults....all great debating data...... I'll leave you to wollow in your own escriment..... Better than outright lies. Please show us where the  "IPCC head, the met office and even the father of global warming Hansen" have aknowledged that there has been " no warming since 1998" Please show us. And: Why have the oceans continued to warm if there has been no warming since the year 1998? Why has global glacial mass balance continued to decrease if there has been no warming since the year 1998? Why has the arctic ice cap continued to melt if there has been no warming since the year 1998? Why has sea level continued to rise if there has been no warming since the year 1998? Can you explain? And if you can't - would you please apologise for lying to the forum

In a computer simulated model, oceans may even dry up!!!!

Where is the evidence......???????

Remember the 3000 buoys around the world...??????

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 1:21pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 1:09pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:18am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 6:17pm: Ajax wrote on Jul 29th, 2013 at 9:19am: How can you blatantly lie like that, even the IPCC have admitted that there has been no warming since 1998?? No they haven't don't be silly. The IPCC have NOT "admitted that there has been no warming since 1998" Look at the quote you provided yourself: Quote: 'Nothing off-limits' in climate debate THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend. How does saying that it would take at least 30 or 40 years of static surface temperature to break the long-term global warming trend equate to: the IPCC have admitted that there has been no warming since 1998?? Crikies champ are you on the AGW gravy train???? There has been no warming since 1998, meanining temperature have not passed the 1998 value. Even the IPCC head, the met office and even the father of global warming Hansen have aknowledged this. So just face the facts. Show us where the  "IPCC head, the met office and even the father of global warming Hansen" have aknowledged that there has been " no warming since 1998" Please show us. And: Why have the oceans continued to warm if there has been no warming since the year 1998? Why has global glacial mass balance continued to decrease if there has been no warming since the year 1998? Why has the arctic ice cap continued to melt if there has been no warming since the year 1998? Why has sea level continued to rise if there has been no warming since the year 1998? Can you explain? And if you can't - would you please apologise for lying to the forum You should really get your head out of the sand and look around now and again. Many more were that came from The con artist of global warming http://canadianawareness.org/2013/02/ipcc-head-rajendra-pachauri-acknowledges-17-year-stall-in-global-warming/

From your link:



Pachauri said a stall in average global surface temperature would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.”

He did not say There has been no warming since 1998.

You told a lie.

Please apologise for lying to the forum



Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 1:21pm:

The father of global warming http://www.thegwpf.org/hansen-admits-global-temperature-standstill-real/

From the paper referenced in your link:



We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature.”

He did not say There has been no warming since 1998.

You told a lie.

Please apologise for lying to the forum

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 1:31pm:

Can you explain? And if you can't - would you please apologise for lying to the forum From your link: Pachauri said a stall in average global surface temperature would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.” He did not say There has been no warming since 1998. You told a lie. Please apologise for lying to the forum From the paper referenced in your link: We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature.” He did not say There has been no warming since 1998. You told a lie. Please apologise for lying to the forum

There has been no warming dude.

http://i45.tinypic.com/zwi8gh.png

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 12:58pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:08am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 3:26pm: The hydrological cycle says HIGH!  ;) ;) Weather baloons ans satelite data say DECREASE. Rather believe real world measured data rather than a computer simulated model and its predictions. I'm sorry...!??! Have you measured it yourself..............?????!!!!! OR Are the computer simulated models saying so...??????

Wow, DOOD: you don't sem to understand that the trick in science is measurement itself!

You are such a junior- can I have some crack??  :D :D :D

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 1:01pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 9:09am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 3:31pm: Don't know much about phase change do ya buddy!  ;D ;D No matter how you wrap bullsh!t its always going to be just that when opened. Ajax hasn't done year 11 chemistry- lol! Daddykins took good care of you did he??? ** I love it when Dad buys me crack and a house to smoke, I mean sell, i mean smoke it in!!   :D :D :D :D :D :D Wise cracks and insults....all great debating data...... I'll leave you to wollow in your own escriment.....

Ajax doesn't know what the hydrological cycle is or even phase change and yet he thinks the world is against him for pointing out things a 15 year old kid ought to know- unless that 15 year old kid is some sort of spazz of course!

There has been no warming dude.

http://i45.tinypic.com/zwi8gh.png

Life is sinusoidal: hence the use of moving averages!

Ajax has never heard of complex systems: which is obviously why he is pretending not to understand the physical reality of phase change.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 2:20pm:

Life is sinusoidal: hence the use of moving averages! Ajax has never heard of complex systems: which is obviously why he is pretending not to understand the physical reality of phase change.

There has been no warming since 1998 dude

http://i46.tinypic.com/2055ve8.png

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 2:04pm:

There has been no warming dude.

So - we have established that you lied when you wrote that the IPCC Head said there has been no global warming since 1998.

Your link showed Pachauri  saying the exact opposite

Pachauri said a stall in average global surface temperature would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.”

We have established that you lied when you wrote that Hansen said there has been no global warming since 1998.

Your link referred to a paper showing Hansen saying the exact opposite:

We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature

You are still yet to explain to us:
Why have the oceans continued to warm if there has been no warming since the year 1998?
Why has global glacial mass balance continued to decrease if there has been no warming since the year 1998?
Why has the arctic ice cap continued to melt if there has been no warming since the year 1998?
Why has sea level continued to rise if there has been no warming since the year 1998?

All you have show us are some graphs showing a very high average global surface temperature in 1998 (according to one data set - others show 2005 or 2010 to be the warmest year), and every year subsequent to that being warmer than the long term average - more compelling evidence that the planet is clearly and unabiguously warming.

Don't you think it is about time you apologised for telling lies to the forum and stopped mindlessly repeating the silly opinion of a Daily Mail columnist?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 5:41pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 2:04pm: There has been no warming dude. So - we have established that you lied when you wrote that the IPCC Head said there has been no global warming since 1998. Your link showed Pachauri  saying the exact opposite Pachauri said a stall in average global surface temperature would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.”

Did Pachauri say there was warming??...NO

What did he say he said there was a STALL, where temperatures in the last 15 years the same as 1998 in value?

NO they were lower LOWER, LOWER.

Just because Pachauri cant bring himself to say LOWER and instead called it STALL, we all know what it means.

Just look at their graph, and the met office's too BTW.

He confirmed that there had been no warming but added that it must continue for 30 odd years or so, well how many years has it been since 1998?

Half way there dont you think?

But hold on a minute if there's no warming what's that called.

What does this graph show...stalling..warming or cooling???

http://i46.tinypic.com/2055ve8.png


Quote:

We have established that you lied when you wrote that Hansen said there has been no global warming since 1998. Your link referred to a paper showing Hansen saying the exact opposite: We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature You are still yet to explain to us: Why have the oceans continued to warm if there has been no warming since the year 1998? Why has global glacial mass balance continued to decrease if there has been no warming since the year 1998? Why has the arctic ice cap continued to melt if there has been no warming since the year 1998? Why has sea level continued to rise if there has been no warming since the year 1998? All you have show us are some graphs showing a very high average global surface temperature in 1998 (according to one data set - others show 2005 or 2010 to be the warmest year), and every year subsequent to that being warmer than the long term average - more compelling evidence that the planet is clearly and unabiguously warming. Don't you think it is about time you apologised for telling lies to the forum and stopped mindlessly repeating the silly opinion of a Daily Mail columnist?

You should apologise for making a dick of yourself, but if thats what you want be my guest.

Now about Hansen whats he exactly saying??


Quote:

We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature

Global warming is continueing in the back ground even though temperatures are droping..............??!!

Which climate forcing is he talking about...???!!! someone should remind him that one third of ALL manmade CO2 emissions have gone into our atmosphere AFTER the year 1998.

Which forcing has slowed down, which drop in growth rate affected the temperature to go down instead of up as his has been saying it would.....????????

Oceans have not been warming..........??????

We have emprical data that says so.

Now who is lieing and who is telling the truth.

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 5:41pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 2:04pm: There has been no warming dude. So - we have established that you lied when you wrote that the IPCC Head said there has been no global warming since 1998. Your link showed Pachauri  saying the exact opposite Pachauri said a stall in average global surface temperature would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.” Did Pachauri say there was warming??...NO

Actually - he did.

Pachauri said a stall in average global surface temperature would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.”


There is a long term warming trend.
Yes - it is acknowledged that average surface temperature, while being the warmest ever recorded - has not increased in the last few years - but there is more to global warming than just the surface temperature.

The oceans continue to warm
the arctic ice cap continues to decline
Sea level continues to rise
Global glacial mass balance continues to decline.

There is an increasing amount of heat in the system
THe earth continues to warm


Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

What did he say he said there was a STALL, where temperatures in the last 15 years the same as 1998 in value?

There is more to global warming than just the surface temperature.

The oceans continue to warm
the arctic ice cap continues to decline
Sea level continues to rise
Global glacial mass balance continues to decline.

There is an increasing amount of heat in the system
THe earth continues to warm


Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

NO they were lower LOWER, LOWER. Just because Pachauri cant bring himself to say LOWER and instead called it STALL, we all know what it means. Just look at their graph, and the met office's too BTW.

There is more to global warming than just the surface temperature.

The oceans continue to warm
the arctic ice cap continues to decline
Sea level continues to rise
Global glacial mass balance continues to decline.

There is an increasing amount of heat in the system
THe earth continues to warm



Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

He confirmed that there had been no warming but added that it must continue for 30 odd years or so, well how many years has it been since 1998?

There you go  - telling lies again.

He did not confirm "there had been no warming"
He said the exact opposite.

You really need to learn how to comprehend what you read.

He said:
a stall in average global surface temperature would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.”[/i]

Just because one part of the earth has not shown a large increase in temperature is the past few years does not mean the earth is not warming.

There is more to global warming than just the surface temperature.

The oceans continue to warm
the arctic ice cap continues to decline
Sea level continues to rise
Global glacial mass balance continues to decline.

There is an increasing amount of heat in the system
THe earth continues to warm

What don't you understand about this?

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

Half way there dont you think? But hold on a minute if there's no warming what's that called. What does this graph show...stalling..warming or cooling??? http://i46.tinypic.com/2055ve8.png

It would help if you gave some reference to what the graph actually is - but assuming that the y axis is temperature anomaly and every single point on the graph is positive - then that would imply very clear and unambiguous warming


Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

You should apologise for making a dick of yourself, but if thats what you want be my guest.

I apologise for making a dick of myself.
Now - explain to us why you feel the need to tell lies.



Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

Now about Hansen whats he exactly saying?? Quote: We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature Global warming is continueing in the back ground even though temperatures are droping..............??!!

No - he is saying global warming is continueing in the back ground even though average global surface temperatures have reached an apparent standstill.

There is more to global warming than just the surface temperature.

The oceans continue to warm
the arctic ice cap continues to decline
Sea level continues to rise
Global glacial mass balance continues to decline.

There is an increasing amount of heat in the system
The earth continues to warm



Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

Which climate forcing is he talking about...???!!! someone should remind him that one third of ALL manmade CO2 emissions have gone into our atmosphere AFTER the year 1998.

He is probably talking about the decrease in solar irradience in recent years.  Or an increase in aerosols
Why don't you read his paper and find out?


Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

Which forcing has slowed down, which drop in growth rate affected the temperature to go down instead of up as his has been saying it would.....????????

Maybe solar forcing?  Maybe an increase in aerosols
Why don't you read his paper and find out?


Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

Oceans have not been warming..........??????

Yes - they have.
http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/Media/Rapid-upper-ocean-warming-linked-to-declining-aerosols.aspx
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130804144456.htm


Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

We have emprical data that says so.

No.  You don't.
You have a blog from a children's TV presenter.
Big difference


Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

Now who is lieing and who is telling the truth.

You are lying.

You claimed that the IPCC said that there had been "no warning for 15 years"
This is clearly and blatantly a lie.

THe head of the IPCC said the exact opposite.  He said the the current stall in average global surface temperature would have to last for 30 or 40 years before you could start to think that there had been no warming.

The oceans continue to warm
the arctic ice cap continues to decline
Sea level continues to rise
Global glacial mass balance continues to decline.

There is an increasing amount of heat in the system
The earth continues to warm.

I am happy to try to explain to you anything you don't understand here.

What a whole lot of waffle i'm not even going to respond.

Let the readers make up their own minds.


Quote:

'Nothing off-limits' in climate debate THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend. Dr Pachauri, the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.

Quote:

Surprise Surprise... Global warming has stalled, admits Met Office THE great global warming debate was blown wide open again yesterday when the Met Office predicted cooler than expected temperatures for the next five years.

Quote:

The Met Office, one of the top cheerleaders for the man-made climate change camp, said global temperatures are likely to be lower than it forecast in December 2011.

Quote:

Leading global warming scienstist agree there has been no warming in the last 16 years, Hansen, Sato and Ruedy

The graph is self explanatory

http://i46.tinypic.com/2055ve8.png

Maybe you understand IPCC graphs better,

http://i45.tinypic.com/zwi8gh.png

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/burt-rutan-this-says-it-all-and-says-it-clear/

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

What a whole lot of waffle i'm not even going to respond.

Yes.  That is what most people do when they have been caught red-handed lying.



Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

Let the readers make up their own minds. Quote: 'Nothing off-limits' in climate debate THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend. Dr Pachauri, the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.

Yes.  You told a lie.

You claimed that the IPCC said that there had been "no warming for 15 years"
As you have just shown us again - he said the exact opposite:

THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.


The oceans continue to warm
the arctic ice cap continues to decline
Sea level continues to rise
Global glacial mass balance continues to decline.

There is an increasing amount of heat in the system
The earth continues to warm.



Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

Surprise Surprise... Global warming has stalled, admits Met Office THE great global warming debate was blown wide open again yesterday when the Met Office predicted cooler than expected temperatures for the next five years.

Quote:

The Met Office, one of the top cheerleaders for the man-made climate change camp, said global temperatures are likely to be lower than it forecast in December 2011.

Yes - but the Met Office did not say that there had been "no warming for 15 years" - did they.

You told a lie.

The oceans continue to warm
the arctic ice cap continues to decline
Sea level continues to rise
Global glacial mass balance continues to decline.

There is an increasing amount of heat in the system
The earth continues to warm.


Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

Quote: Leading global warming scienstist agree there has been no warming in the last 16 years, Hansen, Sato and Ruedy

We have already established that Hansen said no such thing.  You told a lie.

Hansen said:
We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature



Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

The graph is self explanatory http://i46.tinypic.com/2055ve8.png

[/quote]
No - actually the graph is meaningless without some sort of information telling us what it is a graph of.

But assuming that the y-axis is temperature anomaly and every single point on the graph is positive - then that would imply very clear and unambiguous warming.

Do you know what "temperature anomaly" means"

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

Maybe you understand IPCC graphs better, http://i45.tinypic.com/zwi8gh.png

Could you show us the reference to that graph in any IPCC publication please?

Or are you lying again?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 7:00pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 6:41pm: Maybe you understand IPCC graphs better, http://i45.tinypic.com/zwi8gh.png Could you show us the reference to that graph in any IPCC publication please? Or are you lying again?

Yeah sure i just got on this forum and i would lie to everyone around here.

Are you sure your not a liar, after all liars think everyone else is a liar too, dont they.     :P ::) 8-)


http://i45.tinypic.com/zwi8gh.png

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/burt-rutan-this-says-it-all-and-says-it-clear/

Is it an IPCC graph probably not, i thought it may have been because they placed that title across it.

Tried to find it in IPCC data sets no luck.

I could be wrong.....dont know.

Which in that case we can refer to

There can be no descrepancy about this graph.
http://i46.tinypic.com/2055ve8.png

The Earth is COOLING get it through your thick skull.

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

There can be no descrepancy about this graph. http://i46.tinypic.com/2055ve8.png

What is that a graph of?
Why are there no titles?
No units?
No description?
No reference?

Although -  assuming that the y-axis is temperature anomaly and every single point on the graph is positive - then that would imply very clear and unambiguous warming.

Do you know what "temperature anomaly" means"



Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

The Earth is COOLING get it through your thick skull.

You are still yet to explain to us:
Why have the oceans continued to warm if the earth is "cooling"
Why has global glacial mass balance continued to decrease if the earth is "cooling"
Why has the arctic ice cap continued to melt if the earth is "cooling"
Why has sea level continued to rise if the earth is "cooling"


And - assuming your graph is showing temperature anomaly somewhere - how can the earth be cooling if every single one of the past 14 years has a positive temperature anomaly over some long term average?

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

Is it an IPCC graph probably not, i thought it may have been because they placed that title across it. Tried to find it in IPCC data sets no luck. I could be wrong.....dont know.

You are.

You told a lie when you said it was an IPCC graph.
It isn't.
Just another lie from you.

Just as you told a lie when you said that the Head of the IPCC said there had been "no warming for 15 years".  As we now all know - he said the exact opposite.  He said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" of stable average surface temperature to break the long-term global warming trend.  You told a lie.

And just as you told a lie when you said that Hansen said there had been "no warming for 15 years".  As we now all know - he said the exact opposite.  He said: "We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature"  You told a lie.

Doesn't it bother you that you are have to tell lies like this to try and make an argument?
Why can't you try telling the truth?
See how that goes?

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

Yeah sure i just got on this forum and i would lie to everyone around here. Are you sure your not a liar, after all liars think everyone else is a liar too, dont they.     :P ::) 8-) .

Please feel free to point out any lie I may have told, and show your evidence to demonstrate it.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 8^th, 2013 at 6:29am:

Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 11:03pm: There can be no descrepancy about this graph. http://i46.tinypic.com/2055ve8.png What is that a graph of? Why are there no titles? No units? No description? No reference? Although -  assuming that the y-axis is temperature anomaly and every single point on the graph is positive - then that would imply very clear and unambiguous warming. Do you know what "temperature anomaly" means" Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 11:03pm: The Earth is COOLING get it through your thick skull. You are still yet to explain to us: Why have the oceans continued to warm if the earth is "cooling" Why has global glacial mass balance continued to decrease if the earth is "cooling" Why has the arctic ice cap continued to melt if the earth is "cooling" Why has sea level continued to rise if the earth is "cooling" And - assuming your graph is showing temperature anomaly somewhere - how can the earth be cooling if every single one of the past 14 years has a positive temperature anomaly over some long term average?

Are you trolling...?????

Its very typical of warmists to do so when they haven't got a leg to stand on...!!!

You act as though your very smart, yet you cannot read a graph..?????

Like i said its self explanatory and it even tells you where to find it.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 8^th, 2013 at 6:35am:

You are.

I could be on that one.....i honestly dont know...?


Quote:

You told a lie when you said it was an IPCC graph. It isn't. Just another lie from you.

True i dont whether it is or not, i assumed it was.


Quote:

Just as you told a lie when you said that the Head of the IPCC said there had been "no warming for 15 years".

 

This is where you come unstuck, the head of the IPCC said there had been no warming for the last 15 years, he aknowledged it.

So if there has been no warming what else could it be, does heat STALL well not in my books.


Quote:

As we now all know - he said the exact opposite.  He said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" of stable average surface temperature to break the long-term global warming trend.  You told a lie.

Didn't lie, we have already had 15 years of no warming half way there.


Quote:

And just as you told a lie when you said that Hansen said there had been "no warming for 15 years".  As we now all know - he said the exact opposite.  He said: "We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature"  You told a lie.

What does the recent apparent stand still mean in your books?

Does heat stand still......????


Quote:

Doesn't it bother you that you are have to tell lies like this to try and make an argument?

I'm not telling lies champ, like all the global warming religion zealots as soon as you feel the pressure you stop talking about the science and go for the character attack.

Bring it on dude....???????


Quote:

Why can't you try telling the truth? See how that goes?

The truth is today we have some of the coldest temperatures we have ever had on Earth, we also have one of the lowest amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere that we have ever had.

The oceans are not heating as 3000 buoys all over the world keep telling every 2 weeks or so when they surface from a dive of about 2000 metres and give us the temperature of the ocean.

CO2 has never driven climate change here on Earth, look to our history for that when we had 7000ppm actually life flourished when we has 20 times the CO2 we have today.

Weather baloons and satelitte data have failed to find the computer simulated model's hot spot in the tropopause its just not there.

This fact alone in the old days when scientists worked for the love of science and not the love of money wouid have been enough to have the hypothesis of AGW discarded into the rubbish bin.

We all know that 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect is from water vapour, all other green house gases make up the remaining %5.

Problem for bankers with that is they cant tax you on water can they...????.......or can they...?????

Do you want a water vapour tax too.....???

The bankers will create a $2 trillion dollar market tradign carbon credits, when this happens cleaning up manmade CO2 emissions will go on the back burner.

My suppa your suppa and any other investments will find their way into this market.

And once again there will be booms and busts in accordance with there strategies.

That is the truth.

In November 2010, German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer stated that climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection.


Quote:

"Ottmar Edinhofer stated But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole." http://www.hotheads.com.au/carbon%20tax%20scam.htm

Quote:

"International carbon markets will cover billions of consumers this decade. Ask the bankers at your table whether they want Australia to clip that ticket. We’re going to help them get their share." Julia Gillard http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/speech-business-council-australia-dinner

Ajax wrote on Aug 8^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

... Quote: Just as you told a lie when you said that the Head of the IPCC said there had been "no warming for 15 years".   This is where you come unstuck, the head of the IPCC said there had been no warming for the last 15 years, he aknowledged it. ...

Where and when? If your assertion is true, then you'll have no difficulty linking to where the statement is recorded. Repeating an assertion doesn't validate it.

# wrote on Aug 8^th, 2013 at 9:23pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 10:03am: ... Quote: Just as you told a lie when you said that the Head of the IPCC said there had been "no warming for 15 years".   This is where you come unstuck, the head of the IPCC said there had been no warming for the last 15 years, he aknowledged it. ... Where and when? If your assertion is true, then you'll have no difficulty linking to where the statement is recorded. Repeating an assertion doesn't validate it.

Scroll up and see.

Its also all over the interenet.

Not hard to find at all.

dr google : yeh vote murdoch 1  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

The graph is self explanatory

http://i46.tinypic.com/2055ve8.png

It's self explanatory in that it's a short cherry-picked trend using the least representative of all global temperature datasets.

The data is snipped off this data:

If you take raw data like this and choose your intervals carefully, it's very easy to find short term downward trends in an overall rising trend.

---

muso wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 9:11am:

Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 6:41pm: The graph is self explanatory http://i46.tinypic.com/2055ve8.png It's self explanatory in that it's a short cherry-picked trend using the least representative of all global temperature datasets. The data is snipped off this data: If you take raw data like this and choose your intervals carefully, it's very easy to find short term downward trends in an overall rising trend.

Hi muso

Yes you are correct.

I have been using the snippet to show that there has been no warming since 1998.

In other words if you smooth out the snippet temperatures are falling not rising.

There are four problems.

1. The Hadcrut dataset doesn't adequately cover the near polar regions.  The GISS dataset is much more comprehensive, and this shows a more pronounced warming trend.

2. It's a land surface dataset only. To be comprehensive you need to consider the increased heat uptake in the ocean as well as the land surface.

3. If you say that there has been no warming, what's your line of best fit for that data?  You do realise that you can't just take the first and last points?

4. There are other factors at play apart from carbon dioxide, especially taken over such a short period. Everybody, including every climatologist in the world realises that there is short term variation.  Even if the trend leveled off over a short period, it doesn't disprove the fact that radiative forcing for carbon dioxide is a logarithmic function of concentration.

You're simplifying the hypothesis to such an extend that it becomes a strawman.

Is there a single climatologist in the world who states that there should be a steady increase with absolutely no natural variation over a 10-15 year period as a result of rising CO2 concentration?

If there is, then please let me know.

Now, are you stating that there is an issue with the radiative forcing equation for carbon dioxide? - with climate sensitivity?

What exactly are you stating and how does it differ from what climatologists the world over are claiming?

muso wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 12:52pm:

There are four problems. 1. The Hadcrut dataset doesn't adequately cover the near polar regions.  The GISS dataset is much more comprehensive, and this shows a more pronounced warming trend. 2. It's a land surface dataset only. To be comprehensive you need to consider the increased heat uptake in the ocean as well as the land surface. 3. If you say that there has been no warming, what's your line of best fit for that data?  You do realise that you can't just take the first and last points? 4. There are other factors at play apart from carbon dioxide, especially taken over such a short period. Everybody, including every climatologist in the world realises that there is short term variation.  Even if the trend leveled off over a short period, it doesn't disprove the fact that radiative forcing for carbon dioxide is a logarithmic function of concentration. You're simplifying the hypothesis to such an extend that it becomes a strawman. Is there a single climatologist in the world who states that there should be a steady increase with absolutely no natural variation over a 10-15 year period as a result of rising CO2 concentration? If there is, then please let me know. Now, are you stating that there is an issue with the radiative forcing equation for carbon dioxide? - with climate sensitivity? What exactly are you stating and how does it differ from what climatologists the world over are claiming?

Whatever dude.......??!!

You use it when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't....

Science doesn't work like that now does it??????

Anyway according to that political body known as the IPCC who publish scientific papers based on computer simulated models of our climate.

All the heat should be at the equator should it not?????

With the hot spot and all.............???????????

So then what's wrong with these readings......??????????