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.
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.
Here we go yet again. Isn't it 'wearisome' yet for you to be caught out lying and repeating tabloid press drivel over and over again?:
No, NASA did NOT say that there was "only a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year". You clearly don't understand the probability table from the NASA/NOAA press conference or what was actually said.
Once again you've gullibly swallowed lies from a tabloid opinion piece and are just repeating them without checking the facts. This time it was David Rose and the Daily Mail UK.
Here, I've posted this analogy before:
I was trying to think of an analogy to show how fake 'skeptics' and conspiracy theorists are either weirdly confused, brain dead, or deliberately obfuscating about what NASA/NOAA said at the press conference when they said 2014 was the hottest year on record, because they keep getting the simple probabilities table used in the slideshow at the press conference wrong. (Some are even lying and claiming the probabilities weren't even mentioned at the press conference and that Gavin Schmidt spoke of the 38% figure 'later' or 'subsequently'- which is weird because you can clearly see the table in the slideshow and hear Gavin discussing it in the audio recording of the press conference.)
Anyone who claims that is obviously just parroting what hack journalist David Rose from the Daily Mail tabloid wrote and didn't actually listen to the conference themselves, just like David obviously didn't listen to it either.
Let's say we were testing drugs for treating cancer.
The results of the tests were analyzed and the top 4 drugs for effectiveness were codenamed Snap, Crackle, Pop, Fizz.
There were a lot of other drugs that didn’t score anywhere close enough to make the top four. They were lumped all together and called “Others”.
Snap is the most effective at 38%.
Fizz is the least effective of the top four drugs at only 4%.
None of the “Others” (18%) came close enough to even 4% to make it into the top four.
Now if someone said things like:
"Snap is likely NOT to be the most effective drug because the researchers say there's only a 38% chance it's the most effective. "
"There's no difference between Snap and Fizz."
"There is only a 38% chance that Snap is the most effective drug, so ANY of the other drugs could be more effective"
“Snap couldn’t be the most effective drug because if you add up the results of ALL the other drugs together they come to 62%"
What would most rational people think of their 'logic'? What rational person would choose any other drug that Snap if they had cancer?
Now replace Snap with 2014, Crackle with 2010, Pop with 2005 and Fizz with 1998.
And with NOAA's data 2014 was 48% and next closest was 2010 at 18%and 1998 at 5%.
So 2014 was about 1.6 to 2.7 times more likely than 2010 to be the hottest year. And 2.2 to 3.7 times more likely than 2005, and 9.5 to 9.6 times more likely that 1998, after taking into account the uncertainties.
But hey, those who keep mindlessly parroting "it's hasn't warmed since 1998!" would be the stupid ones who would take Fizz (at 4% effectiveness) if they had cancer rather than Snap at 38% or 48% effectiveness.
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?
The original models didn't predict the hiatus because their variability wasn't as finely-tuned, but the hiatus is possible under the IPCC's middle of the road scenario and the long-term projections are identical.
This experiment has created a model that can better account for short-term climate variations. It doesn't overrule the long-term projections.
The hiatus is a TEMPORARY trend that doesn't affect the long-term predictions under the middle-of-the-road scenario. As such, we are due for a burst of very rapid warming that will bring us closer to the predicted levels, and potentially beyond.
“By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the ‘big picture’ right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,” Brown said. “Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.”
This is EXACTLY what I and the other 'warmers' have been saying over and over, but it has constantly been met with ignorance from deniers. Either you're not reading it, it's too hard for you to understand, or you get it but it hurts too much to acknowledge it so you just move on to some other denier BS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
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.
Thanks for clearing that up for us. LOL.
The planet isn't cooling. We are in a cooling CYCLE that is reducing the effects of the warming. Sort of like adding ice cubes to a boiling pot. The pot is still getting warmer, it's just got these ice cubes making it cooler than it otherwise would have been.
The only people pretending that the 'hiatus' (which isn't a hiatus, but a slowdown) is in any way undermining the notion of a warming planet are the deniers. The only one pretending that I or anyone else have ever denied that it exists is YOU. There is a dispute over what it should be called, since warming has not stopped or reversed, merely slowed... but whatever you want to call it, it exists and I have never claimed that it doesn't.
Last edited by Spatula City; 04-25-2015 at 09:36 AM..
Ever since an unusually warm mass of seawater began spreading along the Pacific Coast of North America a year ago - wreaking havoc on the marine food chain - scientists have struggled to explain its presence.
In recent months, however, some experts have argued that this 500-mile-wide, 300-foot-deep wedge of warm seawater may in fact signal an epic cyclical change in the Pacific Ocean - a change that could possibly bring soaking rains to Southern California this winter but also accelerate the rise in global temperatures.
At the center of this debate is a poorly understood pattern of wind, ocean current and temperature variations that some scientists call the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO.
For decades at a time, researchers say, the Pacific Ocean can linger in either a warm or cold phase, switching between the two suddenly and unexpectedly. Each phase exerts unique and far-reaching effects on sea life and global climate, they argue, mirroring the warm and cool tropical cycles known as El Nino and La Nina, but over a longer period of time.
"I think we may be shifting from a cool, dry phase to a warm, wet phase, which is usually the drought-buster," said William Patzert, a climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Canada Flintridge. "I wouldn't cash in my 401(k) and bet it all just yet, but we'll know soon."
"We still have a lot to learn about the PDO," Bond said. "We don't fully understand its character, nor the physics behind it."
climatologists and oceanographers agree that PDO shifts are an inevitable fact of life
----------------------
hmmm the science is NOT settled
notice the key words:
unusually
struggled to explain
some
argued
may
cyclical change
that could possibly
debate
poorly understood
pattern
think
may
but you liberals DENY the science and the research....its all SETTLED to you...it MUST be mans fault...how else will you get another tax, to make rich liberals richer
Last edited by workingclasshero; 04-25-2015 at 10:28 AM..
Yes, the climate changes. But that has nothing to do with the government giving your money away to campaign donors who own "green" technology corporations. That's just corruption justified by the myth that humans control the planet's climate.
What were your marks like in high school, workingclasshero?
Don't you think that based on what you know about yourself, you might want to consider the possibility that posting all of these graphs might not actually be proving the point you're trying to make?
they certainly prove that we have warmed and cooled many, many times...and its all natural baby
high school kinda goofed off a little, only have b's and a's
got my masters in structural engineering, I enjoy using my hands
And how do you know this? Because of the same 'science' that shows that the recent rapid warming since the mid 20th century is NOT due to just 'natural' causes like in the past.
If you want to learn more about the earth's past climates and the major role of CO2, try watching a lecture from the 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference by Professor Richard Alley. There has also been more recent research in several large studies since 2009 that adds even more paleoclimate evidence to confirm what he is saying.
This is what happens when you get your info from the DailY Fail.
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.
