Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess changing the topic beats admitting that you didn't actually read the original report.
It has warmed, just not as rapidly... unless you're talking about the oceans.
It hasn't been 20 years, it has been 10-15.
I have never claimed anything to the contrary. What some people can't seem to understand is that it doesn't mean that global warming is a hoax, that the models are wrong, or that the planet is cooling.
You quoted the time period of 1993-2050 as the time period when there was supposed to be a 70% chance of an 11 year hiatus under a "middle of the road" case scenario. How did they determine this, I wonder?
In any case, 2014 - 1993 = 21 years, so as you can see, it was 20 years using the numbers you previously presented.
However, if you now want to use the 15 year time frame, it has not clearly warmed at all.
NASA has subsequently come out and said there was actually only a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year, and that only by 0.04 degrees. That is four one-hundredths of a degree. LOL.
And there were other more accurate measurements (which showed that this was not the hottest year on record), from satellites, that they apparently decided to overlook in the process of cherry-picking this pathetically small increase, of which there was actually a 62% chance that it really did not happen anyway.
But all that aside for a moment. Even if we just "believe" that this was the hottest year on record by four one-hundredths of a degree, what that really shows us is that temperatures have effectively been flat since 1998, which was the previous warmest year on record, as a four one-hundredth's degree increase is obviously not a material enough increase to justify announcing that the 16 year "pause" has ended. Instead, it is a clear confirmation that the "pause" continues.
And it is another year where the warmists prediction models get further away from what the actual results show, as their projections show the world getting hotter and hotter every year.
As we have all been hearing from you people with your shrilly-presented, alarmist predictions for over a decade now.
No. A warming planet is better than a return to another ice age. And of course climate change never stops, so if we have to have one or the other - which we do - let it be warming.
No. A warming planet is better than a return to another ice age. And of course climate change never stops, so if we have to have one or the other - which we do - let it be warming.
There's a certain logic to that.
If the Glaciers were advancing on New York, London, and Berlin, there's be an unholy ruckus to burn as much coal as possible. Personally, I believe that humans have an effect on the climate, just like they do on the environment in 1000 other ways due to overpopulation or bad practices, but sadly the whole climate deal turned into:
. A method to keep the weather where it is rather than where it wants to be. Humanity as a thermostat.
. A way to keep big $$$$ flowing into some sorts of science. Co-option of organizations like NASA into climate studies
. A propaganda item to be trotted out for elections
. A mechanism to remake the economy into a model that the loudest climate people would be interested in anyway. There are strong political and economic theories floating around in the brains of a lot of these folks and global emergencies are a good lever for getting you there.
You quoted the time period of 1993-2050 as the time period when there was supposed to be a 70% chance of an 11 year hiatus under a "middle of the road" case scenario. How did they determine this, I wonder?
In any case, 2014 - 1993 = 21 years, so as you can see, it was 20 years using the numbers you previously presented.
They said a 70% chance of an 11+ year hiatus happening in that time frame, not that it would definitely begin in 1993 and continue all the way to 2050. It could have happened in 1996 or 2003 or 2010 or 2030-- they weren't trying to pinpoint a year, just saying that it was probably going to happen. The hiatus is believed to have begun at some point around the turn of the century. If you don't understand something, read it over again.
They determined the likelihood of a hiatus by looking at the temperature records-- that's how the models work. They look at existing temperature data over the past century plus, then produce a model that can reproduce that trend exactly and continue the same trend into the future. Past warming hiatuses would have signaled natural cycles that could potentially offset the effects of manmade warming, and were therefore included in the models. There was another hiatus period from the 1940s to some point in the 1970s, and then rapid warming through the 70s, 80s and 90s... both of these trends combined with the current pause are informing the newer models, though the long-term predictions should be the same.
Of course, now that the planet is warmer overall, the recurring pause isn't going to behave in the same fashion... so it's still not an exact science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
However, if you now want to use the 15 year time frame, it has not clearly warmed at all.
NASA has subsequently come out and said there was actually only a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year, and that only by 0.04 degrees. That is four one-hundredths of a degree. LOL.
And there were other more accurate measurements (which showed that this was not the hottest year on record), from satellites, that they apparently decided to overlook in the process of cherry-picking this pathetically small increase, of which there was actually a 62% chance that it really did not happen anyway.
But all that aside for a moment. Even if we just "believe" that this was the hottest year on record by four one-hundredths of a degree, what that really shows us is that temperatures have effectively been flat since 1998, which was the previous warmest year on record, as a four one-hundredth's degree increase is obviously not a material enough increase to justify announcing that the 16 year "pause" has ended. Instead, it is a clear confirmation that the "pause" continues.
And it is another year where the warmists prediction models get further away from what the actual results show, as their projections show the world getting hotter and hotter every year.
As we have all been hearing from you people with your shrilly-presented, alarmist predictions for over a decade now.
I don't know where you're getting your cherry-picking stories from-- the Daily Mail again, perhaps?
This hiatus IS a part of their predictions. You've quoted multiple posts where I explained that it was.
Warming has continued through the hiatus, but as we're in a cooling cycle the natural cooling has offset the rate of warming. When the cooling cycle switches to a warming cycle, we're going to be getting both the effects of the natural AND manmade warming.
The pause hasn't ended, but they have found evidence suggesting that it is about to end.
It doesn't matter if 2014 is the warmest year, or the second warmest year or the third warmest... it hasn't been cooling and it definitely hasn't been 'flat' since 1998. The 2010s were warmer than the 2000s, which were warmer than the 90s, which were warmer than the 80s. Remember when we talked about climate normals being 30 year averages?
Last edited by Spatula City; 04-25-2015 at 08:17 AM..
Is it as wearisome for you to type this knee-jerk drivel as it is for others to read it?
That being said, it is somewhat of a treat to see a post from you with only one of those, rather than two, or even all three.
More of a treat would be a measure of humility towards this subject by you, along with a sincere desire to be civil and tolerant towards other posters.
Ironically, it's the Dunning and Kruger type arrogance and continual personal attacks in your posts that are actually quite entertaining.
This hiatus IS a part of their predictions. You've quoted multiple posts where I explained that it was.
Warming has continued through the hiatus, but as we're in a cooling cycle the natural cooling has offset the rate of warming. When the cooling cycle switches to a warming cycle, we're going to be getting both the effects of the natural AND manmade warming.
So, let me get this straight. The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) movement has been sounding the alarm about the supposed dangers of our world warming, which they have insisted is happening at an alarming rate, and that humans are causing it. You of course have been one of the chief advocates for this hypothesis here in this forum.
But now that the predicted warming has not materialized - we are all familiar with the hysterical predictions promoted by the AGW alarmism movement over the last decade - you are saying that the lack of warming was what you actually predicted. Although anyone who has been paying attention to this subject over the 10+ years certainly remembers otherwise.
That's your story and your sticking to it, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Warming has continued through the hiatus, but as we're in a cooling cycle the natural cooling has offset the rate of warming. When the cooling cycle switches to a warming cycle, we're going to be getting both the effects of the natural AND manmade warming.
Wut? So we are in a haitus, you appear to have finally conceded after a great many posts insisting otherwise. However, it is warming in the haitus, and also cooling.
Someone is clearly lying here - right through their teeth in fact. But it is not the climate scientists at Duke University, whose study the Daily Mail article is reporting on here.
Here is a better link to the article so people can read it easier, by the way:
Here is the actual published article, which you have clearly not read:
In this work we created a very large ensemble of stochastic realizations of unforced GMT noise that were based empirically on the instrumental record and reconstructions of surface temperature over the past millennium. We used this ensemble to create an empirical estimate of the EUN and used it in the comparison between observations and the forced signal produced by CGCMs over the 20th and 21st centuries. We find that the interdecadal variability in the rate of global warming over the 20th century (i.e., acceleration from ~1910–1940, deceleration until ~1975, acceleration until ~2000) is within the 2.5–97.5% EUN, even if the forced signal is represented as a linear trend, indicating that this observed interdecadal variability in the rate of warming does not necessarily require interdecadal variability in the rate-of-increase of the forced signal. We also find that recently observed GMT values, as well as trends, are near the lower bounds of the EUN for a forced signal corresponding to the RCP 8.5 emissions scenariobut that observations are not inconsistent with a forced signal corresponding to the RCP 6.0 emissions scenario.
Note that they conclude that the observations are not inconsistent with ICPP RCP 6.0 emissions scenario but are near the lower bounds for the ICPP RCP 8.5 emissions scenario and that interdecadal variability is to be expected.
Basically they confirm what the IPCC reports state. Unlike what the tabloid Daily Mail headline claims.
The original article talks about a study that suggests warming is more moderate than the ABSOLUTE WORST CASE SCENARIO. A scenario that was NEVER considered likely and was reserved only for the most extreme cases.
In other words, the IPCC was right, and everything that we're seeing has been accurately predicted by the models.
On CBS News, they reported that this study purportedly showed that mankind has not had the effect on a warming climate as was once previously thought. They deliberately spent little time on the story, just enough to plant a seed of doubt that viewers would remember, and then moved on to another story.
CBS News once used as their national consultant on weather someone from Miami who publicly doubted climate change. I emailed their corporate offices over this, and when stories broke of his doubt of climate change, I'm sure thousands more did as well. He is no longer consulted on the air, but the mindset amongst corporate America remains, and that is to push doubt on man's contribution to climate change.
"....a new paper by Mauritsen and Stevens (2015) revisits the iris hypothesis. The most important part of their work was to simulate the iris in a climate model by artificially tweaking the model’s convective parameterization. They do this by increasing the rate of conversion of cloud water to rain as the climate warms, thereby reducing the amount of detraining condensate in a warmer climate. In effect, this imposes a tweak that mimics the iris effect – it is not a demonstration that the iris effect emerges from any physical mechanisms."
"What they find is that, even though cloud cover is reduced as the climate warms, it does not generate a strong negative cloud feedback. While reducing cloud cover does indeed let more infrared energy out, it also lets more sunlight in. These two effects, while independently large, act in opposite directions. The net effect is the small residual of their difference. For runs with the strongest “iris”, the model’s climate sensitivity is reduced from 2.8°C for doubled carbon dioxide to 2.2°C — still well within the IPCC’s canonical range."
"Another argument against the iris comes from my work looking at the cloud feedback in response to short-term climate variability. If the iris provided a strong negative feedback, then we would expect to see it in response to short-term climate fluctuations.Analysis of observations doesn’t show anything like that (Dessler, 2013)."
A.E. Dessler, "Observations of Climate Feedbacks over 2000–10 and Comparisons to Climate Models*", Journal of Climate, vol. 26, pp. 333-342, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-11-00640.1
Last edited by Ceist; 04-25-2015 at 09:50 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
