A group of scientists recently put out a new study confirming the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming. That study made headlines, but what went largely unnoticed was a major admission made by the paper’s authors: the climate models were wrong.
“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing 
and what the observations are showing,” John Fyfe, Canadian climate modeler and lead author of the new paper, told Nature. “We can’t ignore it.”
“Reality has deviated from our expectations – it is perfectly normal to try and understand this difference,” Ed Hawkins, co-author of the study and United Kingdom climate scientist, echoed in a blog post.
This is a huge admission by climate scientists and a big victory for skeptics of man-made global warming who have for years been pointing to a mismatch between climate model predictions and actual temperature observations.
“Overall, the paper is an admission by prominent members of the ‘mainstream’ scientific community that the earth’s surface temperature over the past two decades or so has not evolved in a way that was well-anticipated by either the scientific community and/or the climate models they rely on,” Chip Kappenberger, climate scientist at the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News foundation.
“Something that the skeptic have been pointing out for years,” Knappenberger said.
Knappenberger and fellow Cato climate scientist Patrick Michaels have been prominent critics of climate models relied upon by “mainstream” scientists because they say the models have not accurately predicted global temperature rises for the past six decades.
In a recent paper, Michaels and Knappenberger compared observed global surface temperature warming rates since 1950 to predictions made by 108 climate models used by government climate scientists. What they found was the models projected much higher warming rates than actually occurred.
Michaels and Knappenberger aren’t alone. Satellite-derived temperature readings have shown a “hiatus” in global warming for at least the last 18 years, despite rising carbon dioxide emissions.
While some scientists have tried to discredit satellite readings, they have been unable to explain the lack of significant warming in recent years.
“When a theory contradicts the facts” you need to change the theory, climate scientist John Christy told Congress in January hearing. “The real world is not going along with rapid warming. The models need to go back to the drawing board.”
Christy and his colleague Roy Spencer compile satellite-derived temperature readings at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Their satellite data has shown no warming for about two decades, and has been cited by researchers skeptical of claims of catastrophic global warming.
“The bulk atmospheric temperature is where the signal is the largest,” Christy said in the hearing, referring to the greenhouse gas effect. “We have measurements for that — it doesn’t match up with the models.”
“Because this result challenges the current theory of greenhouse warming in relatively straightforward fashion, there have been several well-funded attacks on those of us who build and use such datasets and on the datasets themselves,” Christy said.
Now, skepticism seems to have won the day — at least in terms of convincing other scientists there’s a big problem with climate models.
Fyfe’s study — which was co-authored by Michael Mann of “hockey stick” curve fame — contradicts a study by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists claiming there was no global warming hiatus.
“Overall, there is compelling evidence that there has been a temporary slowdown in observed global surface warming,” Hawkins wrote in a blog post about the study, noting “the most recent observed 15-year trends are all positive, but lower than most previous similar trends in the past few decades” which is a “clear demonstration that the rate of change has slowed since its peak.”
But even with the admission, some skeptics are still critical because the study’s authors employed research methods they have been critical of in the past.
“All of this said, the authors used techniques to demonstrate a slowdown, that when employed by the skeptics, are harshly criticized,” Knappenberger said. “This seems to me to indicate that the mainstream community gives a free pass to some researchers more so than others.”
Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter
This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller
What I continue to find compelling (even more so with this report confirming), is that during the period between 1950 – 2014, some 64 years, during which the consensus supports the view that there is a human
footprint on global temperature (AGW), we’ve only experienced some 29 years
(using 1950 as the starting date – though many say more like the 1970’s) of significant warming. Even then, only some the warming is believed to be caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
29 out of 64 years. Less than 1/2.
And, as CO2 continues to rise, there is less and less GW.
” some ”
Just curious, what are the
the other components?
At least you acknowledge warming,
which puts you waaay in front
of the dickheads.
Li D Australia
The components – long understood now – is right there in the published paper by Fyfe, Michael Mann and crew; since the beginning of any potentially observable human footprint on GW (1950) – 64 years ago, the only period of time with any significant GW (some of which should have a human footprint on it) is between 1972 and 2001 (which they use as their baseline for the analysis). That’s 29 years.
You can look at any global GW graph and see that during the years from approx the mid 1940’s leading up to 1972ish, the globe was in a slight cooling cycle. And now, once again from 2001 (the satellite data shows a bit longer) to present – the pause in warming (or at least any meaningful GW) has once again continued.
Only 29 years out of the past 64 yrs (actually longer if you go back into the 1940’s starting date) has brought Mother Earth any significant period of warming.
And – it’s been great. Now, if we’re really lucky, it will stay around this warm for a couple hundred years, as it did during the MWP, and all those glaciers will continue to retreat a bit or vanish, like they did during the MWP – before the next advance of cold and ice comes again.
Speaking of some recent glacier history. Remember the Exit Glacier which Obama visited back in Sept? Attached is a graphic from a National Park Service report (The retreat of the Exit Glacier – you can easily search for it – great little read). I added the 1950 delineation line.
Within the report they describe how a few years back as the glacier retreated, old tree trumps were exposed from under the ice. These trees carbon dated to less than 1,000 years ago. During the MWP, the glacier had retreated far above it’s current terminus and had remained so for a long enough period to allow for trees to take root and to grow to maturity. Then, in about 1,250AD, the warm period ended, and the glacier began to advance again – and continued to until perhaps the early 1,800’s.
Similar evidence of the same, all around the globe – of the same period and events.
We’re not to that place yet.
Oops – the graphic:
You need to consider that while the 1976 – 2007 interval has a hefty component of natural positive PDO, the flat intervals should have been cooling intervals.
If you take that into account, the Arrhenius experiments seem to be borne out — ~+1.1C or so per doubling — which is the raw CO2 forcing.
And CO2 re-radiation has actually been recently observed in the atmosphere by satellites. The basic theory seems pretty sound to me.
But there are obviously no net positive feedbacks to triple it, as the CMIP models assert. That’s the biggest fly in the ointment for the alarmists (not to mention the maladjusted surface metrics).
That claim is not mathematically compatible with the following:
“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC, Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2, page 774. (emphasis added)
So it is. Much of the flap comes from ignoring first-order cycles like PDO (AMO, NOA, etc.) and drawing trendlines that blow off such issues.
CO2 does appear to be a mild thumb under the scale. Even most hardened skeptics in the scientific community will go that far. It is a relatively small thumb. But not nothing.
Evan, you asserted that you are unable to afford a real climate studies education at the University level. This, according to you, was because of lack of funds. Odd that a person like yourself would rather volunteer their time on a science project instead of investing their time otherwise.
Recognizing, as Dr V pointed out, you spend the most of your time in the Watts Up With That circle of Lukewarmist religion. I have provided here a lecture/talk by Professor David Battisti,
David Battisti is The Tamaki Endowed Chair of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington and a fellow at the American Geophysical Union. His research interests include understanding how interactions between the ocean, land, atmosphere, and sea ice lead to climatic variability at timescales that vary from seasonal to decadal timescales,[1] as well as the paleoclimate. He is also interested in how climate variability (including El Nino) affects food production.[2]
He received his PhD in 1988 at the University of Washington Department of Atmospheric Sciences.[3] He has published over 100 papers in peer-review journals in atmospheric sciences and oceanography.
He also helps organize an annual set of climate dynamics courses
This video is what you need to study to rectify your misunderstanding of climate dynamics, so you stop this foolish comment posts once and for all.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KPfJvZ9TfPQ
I not only don’t have the money, I also don’t have the time.
Just watt I thought, not only are blind, dense, and dumm, but a waste of time and space.
The cheque is in the mail…LOL. You are indeed a credit to your rat pack.
Positive PDO from 1976, heeling over in 2001 and flipping to negative in 2007 explains the pause. That does two things. Negative PDO (not aerosols) also explains the 1950s-1970s pause and the following positive PDO explains the “double warming” from 1976 – 2001. This supports raw (sic) CO2 warming — but also puts paid the net positive feedbacks that were supposed to triple it.
Those feedbacks have simply not shown up in the data and showing up in the data is what positive feedbacks do.
So we have a modest (hugely beneficial, so far) lukewarming, much of it likely anthropogenic, yes. But, as Sr. Osborne points out (correctly), CO2 effect has diminishing returns. Large ones (~+1.1C/doubling). We may (possibly) double, but we will never, ever redouble.
The land surface metrics are also in severe question and appear to have been highballed by closing on double, thanks to the faulty design of CRS equipment and poor microsite, both of which are brushed aside.
Way ahead of one in Australia perhaps?
It takes a rare breed of dickhead to maintain there is something strange or necessarily our fault that the climate changes, since little man, it has been doing that ever since the planet evolved.
Hilarious. It failed the giggle test.
Best,
D
He who giggles last, googles best.
True, Evan, very true….
Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:
That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.
The poleward movement of storm tracks.
The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.
References
Troposphere warms, stratosphere cools
Manabe and Wetherald 1967
Manabe and Stouffer 1980
Ramaswamy et al. 1996, 2006
De F. Forster et al. 1999
Langematz et al. 2003
Vinnikov and Grody 2003
Fu et al. 2004
Thompson and Solomon 2005
Nights warm more than days
Arrhenius 1896
Dai et al. 1999
Sherwood et al. 2005
Winter warms more than summer
Arrhenius 1896
Manabe and Stouffer 1980
Rind et al. 1989Balling et al. 1999
Volodin and Galin 1999
Crozier 2003
Polar amplification
Arrhenius 1896
Manabe and Stouffer 1980
Polyakov et al. 2001
Holland and Bitz 2003
Arctic warms more than Antarctic
Arrhenius 1896
Manabe and Stouffer 1980
Doran et al. 2002
Comisa 2003
Turner et al. 2007
Pinatubo effects
Hansen et al. 1992
Hansen et al. 1996
Soden et al. 2002
Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures
Rind and Peteet 1985
Farreral et al. 1999
Melanda et al. 2005
Temperature trend versus UAH results
Christy et al. 2003
Santer et al. 2003
Mears and Wentz 2005
Santer et al. 2005
Sherwood et al. 2005
Water vapor feedback from ENSO
Lau et al. 1996
Soden 2000
Dessler and Wong 2009
Ozone hole effect on southern ocean winds
Fyfe et al. 1999
Kushner et al. 2001
Sexton 2001
Thompson and Solomon 2002
Hadley Cells expand
Quan et al. 2002
Fu et al. 2006
Hu and Fu 2007
Storm tracks move poleward
Trenberth and Stepaniak 2003
Yin 2005
Tropopause and radiating altitude rise
Thuburn and Craig 1997
Kushner et al. 2001
Santer et al. 2003
Seidel and Randel 2006
Tropical “super greenhouse effect”
Vonder Haar 1986
Lubin 1994
Constant average relative humidity
Manabe and Wetherall 1967
Minschwaner and Dessler 2004
Yes, to quite a bit of that.
Now, if they had only gotten the amounts right, instead of off by a factor of three. #B^)
Evan, this propaganda you and your denial machine are spewing, is causing great harm.
I already proved by court documents it is being funded by the Fossil Fuel Industry directly to your hands,regardless of your repeated pleas of denial. I suppose when one is caught in one lie, it multiples further on until it becomes the norm and morphs into the homogenized.
Even using K-15, they got the amount wrong.
They had the basic science pretty tight from the start and a fair amount of statistical-historical evidence for raw CO2 forcing, which is an upward thumb under the scale, be it in periods of natural or other-anthropogenic warming or cooling).
Basic observational result: CO2 increase since 1950 has turned what would naturally have been close to a sine wave into a sort of 30-year stepladder.
But there was a variable unknown (anthropogenic aerosols), and a flawed assumption (positive feedback). The cause is right, the amount is wrong.
Going by known raw CO2 forcing, we should top out under +2C, still in net benefit territory in terms of both the environment and human endeavor. I doubt we will ever see 800 ppm. Probably we will have left CO2 in the dust long since, at least for the electricity-generation game, writ large. (We could even do it now with safe nukes.)
There are three aspects to all this: Scientific, demographic, and political (which is fluff).
For the post 1950 interval (the CO2 Age, if you like), skeptics (including lukewarmers) are wrong to stress that there was only one 30-year stretch with a strong trend. Likewise, alarmists are wrong to chalk the 1950-1975 flat-to-cooling up to aerosols. Areosols are a sword that cuts both ways. ENSO/PDO must be accounted for — by both sides. PDO will eventually flip back and we will likely see a 30-year warming period akin to the 1976-2007 interval. Then back to flat. Rinse and repeat.
Bottom line? A tad over a degree C per century and only if technological progress somehow comes to a screeching halt. And only for one more century, even then. This whole big flap is a legit concern, but not a crisis.
Stop already…you are in over your head with stringing up sound bites of meaningless jargon that is cherry picked propaganda. Boy, talk about obsessive, compulsive, neurotic behavior. These fossil fuel agents sure knew their proflic makeup when they hired you, Evan. What a nuttjob.
Acutaly. it becomes rather obvious by just looking at the observations (however adjusted; raw won’t do).
Actually, if it is that obvious why is it not already published?! Is this fella something else or watt? Boy, you must be be getting some bonus from Willard this quarter pay period.
It is not only published, since 2011, it is the 95% consensus in the peer-review journals. (If one put’s one’s stock in consensus.)
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20160303-eric-holthaus-global-warming-unleashing-on-us-in-a-way-it-never-has-before.ece
also means that for many parts of the planet, there basically wasn’t a winter. Parts of the Arctic were more than 16 degrees Celsius (29 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than “normal” for the month of February, bringing them a few degrees above freezing, on par with typical June levels, in what is typically the coldest month of the year. In the United States, the winter was record-warm in cities coast to coast. In Europe and Asia, dozens of countries set or tied their all-time temperature records for February. In the tropics, the record-warmth is prolonging the longest-lasting coral bleaching episode ever seen.
The northernmost permanent settlement, Norway’s Svalbard archipelago, has averaged 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal this winter, with temperatures rising above the freezing mark on nearly two dozen days since Dec. 1. That kind of extremely unusual weather has prompted a record-setting low maximum in Arctic sea ice, especially in the Barents Sea area north of Europe.
The data for February is so overwhelming that even prominent climate change skeptics have already embraced the new record. Writing on his blog, former NASA scientist Roy Spencer said that according to satellite records — the dataset of choice by climate skeptics for a variety of reasons—February 2016 featured “whopping” temperature anomalies especially in the Arctic. Spurred by disbelief, Spencer also checked his data with others released today and said the overlap is “about as good as it gets.” Speaking with the Washington Post, Spencer said the February data proves “there has been warming. The question is how much warming there’s been.”
Ever look into the effects of “The year without a summer”?
Heh,heh, but we have the arctic with no winter, he he
But, but, the weather stations are not properly sited, heh,heh,
InAlaska says:
March 12, 2016 at 3:50 am
“Should be fun this Summer seeing what happens in the Arctic. Lined up to be a potentially record melt year.”
I live in the Arctic and I can tell you that is is HOT up here. No reason to wait for summer. It already feels like summer now.
Stilgar Wilcox says:
March 12, 2016 at 5:23 am
“It already feels like summer now.”
Definitely a bad omen, InAlaska.
http://web.nersc.no/WebData/arctic-roos.org/observation/ssmi_range_ice-ext.png
This is the extent of ice extent loss since 1979 (NORSEX). 2.6% annualized/decade. And 1979 was a naturally high year, coming off of a negative PDO.
Neither are we at record lows at this point.
So, as usual, there is a loss, just not nearly as great nor as fast as the models have projected.
“But, but, the weather stations are not properly sited…”
It’s worse than that. Here is the global land temperature data from GHCN for the year 2015 (see the map below):
All the gray areas have no temperature data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global- https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a45b16b94a1c366d502854059671649a6379f8824340b476a9ea488d9790a9b7.gif
maps/201513?products[]=map-land-sfc-mntp
Yes it is….much, much worse. Evvie…now watt? We need ocean temperatures!
Why certainly, we can get ocean temperatures, and that can distract you from the fact that most of the land “data” do not exist. Great science you got there. Would you take any FDA-approved drugs based upon data that were half estimated?
Evvie and Ali read this
http://www.immortal.org/24831/co2-levels-jumped-3-05-ppm-2015/
Remember the post of CO2 rising 3.76 ppm yoy February 2015 to feb. 2016?
Well, a new article today reports the CO2 ppm level for the year of 2015 went up 3.05
That’s a new record folks!
Just a couple years ago on Neven’s arctic blog I wrote a post saying it wouldn’t be long before CO2 levels increased by 3 ppm in a year, and I was lambasted for a failure to understand it had only gone up 2 ppm in a couple of recent years. I took my medicine because those people supposedly know so much more. Well, it turned out I was correct. Up over 3 ppm in one year and it already occurred in 2015. First time ever in modern human history. Keep in mind it took until the 70’s before it breached 1 ppm added in a year. So we are at a rate of 3 times that much increase.
At 3 ppm it would only take 33 years to equal another 100 ppm added to the 404 currently and we’d be at 504 ppm. Hopefully predictions of financial collapse are correct and we will never breach 500 ppm.
As carbon sinks like the oceans phytoplankton decrease and the forest get felled, the rate of CO2 ppm will increase to 4 then 5 ppm added a year. When it’s 5 it will only take 20 years to add another 100 ppm. Ouch!
So, Evvie claims C02 for now has little effect on the ecosystems….now watt does he claim by the exponent increase? Let him tell us all when those feedbacks kick in all is well!
Good luck with that guys!
The little I read of your comment indicates that you didn’t care to reply to what I wrote, so I won’t bother to read your comment.
Good, don’t and stay away.
What was it George Washington Carver said about the FDA? Oh yes: “Gentlemen, I give you Thalidomide”
Yes, and the more common problem is the number of deaths or frequency of morbidity due to delays in the approval of drugs. The delay in the approval of beta blockers resulted in the deaths of more than 30,000 in the 70s, because of the myth that the government bureaucrats are better at prescribing drugs than real doctors are.
A real doctor at a major hospital prescribed sulfa for my wife even though her emergency room intake form had NO SULFA in red ink stamped on it. That is not an FDA-approved off-label Rx.
Does that mean you trust yourself and your wife to the bureaucrats at the FDA? Or do you still go to real doctors?
We don’t go to that one. And we research the medicines we use. If you notice commercials for medicines that are FDA approved usually consist of 13 seconds of benefits and 47 seconds of side-effects. Whish usually end with “or death”.
True. But not all of the warnings are immediately viewed as bad. “Erections lasting longer than 4 hours may require immediate medical attention.”
Would that be something addressed by the head nurse?
I have always thought they made that one up just to sell the pills.
I forgot to say that she almost died that night at home from anaphylactic shock due to the sulfa drug.
That’s crappy sloppy. Sounds like a law suit.
She didn’t want to sue. We weren’t married yet, so I had no standing.
No such thing as “scientific consensus”. Something is either true or not. It is not dependent on how many people believe it.
There is such a thing. But such a thing does not always turn out to be correct.
So we are
cookingadjusting data again.What our team is doing is more like uncooking. But there are artifacts in the raw data that need adjusting. it’s just that it needs to be done right.
Who decides?
Someone who tosses all the data that does not support his hypothesis?
That’s whatfor god made peer review. And, yes, I know about the problems. Been there. Had data yanked (B44s and station curators). And a ringer slipped into peer review of Fall (2011). But be realistic. The first thing a good manager want’s to know when he gets a new pitcher is how good is his spitter and his balk move.
Yet peer review is the best game in town. And the straightest. It is self-correcting; sustainable (given time). Besides, I think I can beat ’em using the sneaky strategy of playing it straight-up.
There is another factor at work here, too: Independent review has manifestly improved as a direct result of the internet, so don’t sneer at it (as a concept) writ large. A lot of papers have fallen flat and headlong within a month of publication, often less.
So fiddle with peer review, in light of all that? Fine. Be my guest. Because it always comes back to bite you. Independent review will put the feet to the fire. A paper’s got to pass two tests: Ivory Tower (peer review) and Real World (independent review). And, like your teach told you, if you cheat, you’re only cheating yourself. The Real World will out. That one they got right. It’s getting harder and harder to withhold data and methods. (If you want to be taken seriously, that is.)
You still harping about peer review? That paper is so soggy and wet and just melting down the drain with the new record breaking data!!!
Hey, best you save all of yourselves a lot of enbarrassment and call it a day.
You milked it for all you could up to now, Evvie.
http://bellona.org/news/climate-change/2016-03-new-temperature-records-reached-arctic
– An increasing number of highly recognised climate scientists that Bellona cooperates with, are expressing the same worries. Many highly-ranked institutions conclude that there is an even more pressing need for climate action than what the IPCC has expressed, argues Hauge.
The IPCC includes only what is scientifically proven. As there are uncertainties concerning the effects of the slow moving processes such as melting of ice, marshlands and tundra areas, these have to a small extent been considered in the Panel’s final conclusions.
– We can expect some uncomfortable adjustments in the IPCC conclusions in the upcoming years, however we must see the urgency now already. This makes me even more motivated to contribute to solving the climate problem, says Hauge.
2015 became the warmest year ever measured. The difference from the last record measured was the longest ever. Some of it is caused by the weather phenomenon El Niño, however NASA clearly underlines that the main cause is human activity.
– This should worry us, adds Hauge.
But Evvie worried? Not a chance because his Dada , I mean is Willard says so.
The paper has nothing to do with current records. It is to do with equipment issues.
And even so, warming is a mere 1.2C/century since 1950, current records included.
Will you be singing the same tune the next La Nina, which NOAA predicts for this fall? I expect not, as you twist with the wind. (As for me, I’ll just be saying it’s a natural cycle and the cooling is temporary.)
Fossil Fuels saved the whales.
Not from the Japanese!
The magic words. Not a crisis.
Evan, this propaganda you and your denial machine are spewing, is causing great harm.
We do our best, thanks.
Yes you do, no doubt, earning every penny of that Quid.
The quid not being money. Unfortunately.
Wattever it is, you sure are rolling in it!
OK. I just noticed the names. You guys a father and son team or what?
Frick and Frack more like it….if I told you the real story, you wouldn’t believe it.
Evan Jones is a team member of the Willard denial rat pack only purpose is to derail public policy in regard to curtail fossil fuel consumption. Him and I been at it for a number of years. Just giving him a taste of watt they dish out day in day out. Evan claims to be mister innocent and is pursuing pure science. In reality the opposite is watt they are doing. Hence is title,Dr. Spin and Twist.
Have fun
Sure am…best waste of time ever….stay curious
I understand the DEA is looking at Disqus with a view to putting it in the Class V narcotics list.
Hmmm, is it now? You don’t understand, it’s not like crack…I don’t get a rush out of this at all, more personal with my pal Evan….he is an oddity that needs to be cracked!
I do what I do. (He follows me around doing what he does.)
You got of all wrong again Evan…this is not following at all…you got it all backwards (again). I am leading you are the one resisting….remember what you were told…we will meet in a room on no darkness.
You’re right that I follow. The data is what I follow.
Keep lookin up…
Try looking down.
At the heat sink you are standing on.
The heat is there too, going down into the ocean waters….energy can’t be destroyed just converts me laddie
Indeed it does. Other things, too.
Eure does, from usuable to unusable, order to disorder….bingo brother spoon feeding baby Evvie
It passes the time.
More like passing air
These things will pass.
California had been hoping that by this time of year, rains from a record-strength Pacific El Niño would bolster state water supplies and help it recover from a devastating, four-year-long drought.
Instead, the state has seen record heat and a prolonged dry spell in the month of February that, if continued through the end of winter and spring, could spell the end of any meaningful chance El Niño ever had of dragging California out of drought.
February 2016 may have been the hottest February ever recorded in California, with an average high temperature of 77.5 degrees, according to an analysis of temperature data conducted by the Los Angeles Times. Temperatures across the state soared into the high-70s to mid-80s as a high pressure system moved over Southern California and Nevada in early February, and led to an unusual heat wave that repelled El Niño-fueled rainstorms.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/03/01/seeking-el-nino-rain-drought-weary-california-gets-record-heat/
All energy will eventually be dissipated we can agree on that.
I am unable to agree that the insignificant effect of a slight increase in a minor gas can cause warming when C02 is released by heating water. (An effect of heat)
It can not also be the cause of water heating.
Can you explain the mechanism?
Must be the interpretor that is corrupted
Causes addictive behavior. Just a joke.
Does it now? Just a joke..or is it truth?
Probably leans to the right looking at your 2nd question.
Me thinks it is just the wind blowing
Not actually. I am a Big Government liberal, and a defender of the Great Society.
But that has little to do with science and the data.
Sure you are, especially having that super cheap rent controlled apartment for decades in NYC.. As the old saying goes…ignore watt I do, just pay attention to watt I say
No, not rent controlled. Sweat equity. But cheap. (Besides, nearly all liberals support rent control. Whatever objections I have to it are the unintended consequences, not its objectives.)
Let me quess, you are the buildings pest control guy, yep, that explained it all right. Too much pesticides to the brain. Poor thing you are
Interesting set of disjointed facts.
Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs have cost, collectively, about $15 trillion since 1965.
George Bush’s (and Obama’s) Afghanistan and Iraq wars have cost, collectively, about $5 trillion since 10/07/2001.
The National Debt was:
Source – https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
$317,273,898,983.64 on 06/30/1965. (approximate start of the Great Society)
$907,701,000,000.00 on 09/30/1980. (approximate end of Carter’s presidency)
$2,602,337,712,041.16 on 09/30/1988 (approximate end of Reagan’s second term)
$4,064,620,655,521.66 on 09/30/1992. (approximate end of GHW Bush’s presidency)
$5,674,178,209,886.86 on 09/30/2000. (approximate end of the Clinton second term)
$5,807,463,412,200.06 on 09/30/2001. (approximate start of Afghanistan war on 10/07/01)
$10,024,724,896,912.49 on 09/30/2008 (approximately the end of the GWB presidency.)
$16,066,241,407,385.89 on 09/30/2012 (approximately the end of the first Obama term.)
$18,150,604,277,750.63 on 09/30/2015 (the end of Federal FY2015)
Each and every president since pre-Johnson has (at least) left about twice as much debt as his predecessor. Some, like Reagan, didn’t quite double it in 8 years. Johnson about tripled it.
The whole point of this is that without the load of social programs like the Great Society, we would not have this debt for our great-grandchildren to pay.
Nonetheless, all that has little to do with CO2 or climate science.
The issue has become polarized, yes, but not all liberals are alarmists and not all conservatives are skeptics.
There is a lot of yammering about the unrelated politics in all this. But it has little to do with the data and its many methods and adjustments.
Look at Lomborg, a hard left Danish liberal who accepts the IPCC. Yet he has his own take on the demographics, a take most distressing to his liberal brethren.
IPCC is a farce. Bad science reshaped by manipulation into good headlines. A worldwide tax on a necessity. That’s certainly a way to go.
Next will be the urine contamination of the environment which will result, after peer-reviewed studies by the ICPP (International Commission on pee-pee) in a tax on drinking water.
I did not realize that this discussion was about AGW or ACC if it’s getting cooler or staying the same. If it was, my bad.
This conservative is a skeptic.
IPCC sure is a farce compared with what it thinks it is. But it is not an entirely lost cause (maybe). And AR5 backtracked a lot from AR4, in any case.
You see it’s statements like this which reveal the true nature of a person. I can’t recall another “liberal” ever referring to themselves as “Big Government”. Obviously, through ready analysis of data, conservatism gives us as big or bigger governance than liberalism. Why else do we feel the need for a trillion dollar military, for invasion into womens private parts, and peoples bedrooms, etc?
Thus it’s become clear by watching one person over time, that they feel the need to insinuate lies into their (attempted) logic in order to try to win the day. INDEED Such intellectual dishonesty, if it’s even fair to use such an adjective, has no place in science. One then wonders whether science has ever been the goal. Well, we know from prior data it hasn’t since science doesn’t begin with the end in mind and then reverse engineer itself to produce that end. Probably a good reason not to involve game makers in the serious business known as science.
I can’t recall another “liberal” ever referring to themselves as “Big Government”.
Well you have, now.
Nope. Only ever heard one…and that one remains to be proven.
All and all it is an interesting experience. I have learned more from him than he suspects (and I am not referring to anything dark or pejorative).
Evan….he is an oddity that needs to be cracked!
You are not the first who has tried.
Go feed you pet rats some cheezos, that’s your crack, LOL
Stay curious about both sides.
They may not even be the sides you think they are.
The real (i.e., peer-review journal) debate is not between those who deny AGW and those who don’t. It is between lukewarmers and strong-warmers with a bit of solar on the side.
This debate is subtle and elusive. It is over TCR vs. ECS. Feedbacks. ENSO. Equipment. Siting. And all sorts of means and metrics. And data and stats, offsets and trends, and neither last nor least, adjustments, smoothing, joining, kriging, infill, and other inference.
It is not over “if”. It is not even a lot about “how”. It is about “how much”. “How fast”.
My advice is that if you are going to fight in a war (on either side), know your battlefield.
Well, he was doing pretty good there for a while, actually, before going completely off the rails. Not a lot unlike the AGW movement writ large.
Evvie…seems the climate data ain’t so lukewarm as you all proclaim, is it now?
That 4,000 plus hours of slavin for Willard was just a waste.
So funny, loser
Run whichever series, drop in a linear trend and answer that for yourself.
Watt or what? The English language is so rich with oar, or or whore. Duel, dual, jewel.
I would also like to conserve fossils fuel by efficiency and all energy recycling. Curtail sounds dire to me have you had thoughts of suicide before?
On non de plumes, why not just use your own or do have you something to conceal behind Evan’s real name? That seems timid to me.
The intangible results are sufficiently gratifying.
Yep, especially when you ignore the tangible evidence.
Like heat sink or CRS-bias?
Hmmmmm, suppose you are just not paying attention there, Evvie. Seems you bypass all the comment posts that have been given you over the years by myself and others.
That is why you are not just a lukewarmer, but more accurately, a denier.
Great harm??
Any way you slice it, a warmer earth is good for mankind. Longer growing seasons, more tillable, less sever winters to kill people. Pretty much ALL good.
One problem: mosquito and other disease vector populations increase when the temperature is above hatchling survival minimums. That allows the spread of known and new diseases.
But the warming occurs naturally. AGW’s incremental effect is negligible.
Arguably true in a non-tech context. But in 1800, both Alaska and Siberia were so thick with mosquitoes, it was near-intolerable. Not any longer, and not as a result of nature.
Insect-borne diseases are way down in any/all even partially developed nations.
Know why mosquitos are way down in Siberia and Alaska? DDT. Know what the nations of the world have agreed is not to be used anymore for insect control? DDT. There is an increase in such things as dengue, Malaria and now Zika in the western hemisphere that will continue until they re-enable DDT’s use or come up with as effective an insecticide. Sterilizing male mosquitos and ticks won’t do the job.
Are you aware that once fertilized, a female bedbug lays 5-10 eggs per day for the rest of its life? Fertile eggs. And they are on the rise. They are not vectors (so far) for any disease, but could be. Their proboscis is equipped with an anticoagulant injector just like mosquitos and ticks. They just don’t have the gripping power to take a big drink from a mobile host.
I know, I know. I could add some. But I didn’t want to go there.
Tell that to the people in Alaska.
I did.
“Know why mosquitos are way down in Siberia and Alaska from the 1900 level??
DDT.”
When I said that.
Sure Herb, you forgot to add this too…something you yourself wrote
Finally, a church conference that has the backbone to stand up to the homosexual onslaught
What has this to do with Man Made Climate Change? unless it anal friction.
Another low life response
Your opinion which I don’t share, keep your deviant preferences for elsewhere please.
Keep your trap zipped up, bye
poof, and he disappeared.
Yes, another low-life (yet accurate) response.
Coming from one that literally shares a room with low life rodents that is no surprise!
Send more funding. My Big Oil check musta got lost in the mail.
They know you ain’t worth a check….it was never in the mail.
We are so glad you provided the condensed version.
You are most welcomed. But as you can see those in denial refuse to acknowledge.
ROTFLMAO @ your delusions! You are one seriously ignorant FOOL!
Climate models predicted that if we added 580 billion tons of human CO2 to the atmosphere (over 1/3 of all the human CO2 produced since 1750) from 1997-2016, the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere would increase by ~0.5C, or 0.28C/decade.
Well we did add that much, and the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere didn’t increase at all (0.002C, or 0.001C/decade. A total FAIL by the climate models.
Lean&Rind(2009) predicted: “From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic forcings and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperatures by 0.15 +/- 0.03C, at a rate 50% higher than IPCC projections.”
Well the anthropogenic forcings did increase greater than projected and solar irradiance did increase as solar cycle 24 transitioned to its max, but acutal temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere (where warming is supposed to be the greatest) COOLED by 0.14C!
A total FAIL by the climate models.
ps. Your whole list is pure baseless, evidence-free bull$hit propaganda.
Rubbish!
Take out the trash
Look, Evan can cite articles he hasn’t even read and probably doesn’t understand. Just another troll promoting an agenda with junk science and pseudo-intellectualism devoid of the scientific method.
I was wondering if His Douchesty would weigh in. You did.
Yes, the so called greenhouse effect is logarithmic. Regardless of the source, the limit of heat that CO2 can add to the planet is very close to being reached. In the geological past,, the atmosphere held 3,000 ppm and more, now it is only 380 to 400 ppm….we’re safe from disaster in that area fore sure.
Bingo.
There is no GHE.
And we know there isn’t a GHE empirically.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/washtimes/physicist_who_foresees_global_cooling_says_other_scientists_tried_to_silence_her/#comment-2920596759
ANYONE who reckons temps are at the
same level as 15 years ago is away with
the faeries.
Thats what a pause means. Standing still.
I have never seen a chart showing this.
The shitty Heartland Monkton chart dosnt
even show it.
If it did, the static line would be at 0C.
Its not. Its ABOVE it. Idjits cant even
understand their own crap lying chart.
What for Bastasch? What for you
keep talking crap? Always again and again!
Someone paying you to talk crap?
Money aint worth more than
integrity.
Bastasch, go and have a gander at
ocean heat content and write about that eh.
And try not to imply some crap NASA are
communists
conspiracy wank when you do.
Are ya up for it? Can ya do a straight
bit of journalism sans conspiracy on
ocean heat content?
Li D Australia
Thanks for proving that you are a total moron with your nonsensical illogical and completely unreadable load of BULLSHYTE. How sad when someone suffering from Recto-cranial insertion syndrome displays their ignorance in public as you have done. Now Back to your Methane sniffing so the atmosphere doesn’t get polluted.
You must be fun at parties.
Denier scum.
Li D
Australia
probably not yours.
ROTFLMAO If “If you “JUST HAD A THOUGHT” wasn’t funny enough Pam, this one takes the provebial cake. Keep up the good work. LOL. my side hurt, stop it. AH HA HA HA
15 year hateus? I thought it was 18 years 5 months…or some exact cherry-picked date. Which is it?
Best,
D
The truth, Global Warming by man made C02 is a hoax. Just admit it and feel the lies and guilt lifted from you shoulders.
You have zero evidence it is a hoax. You just had a psychological tic to keep the cognitive dissonance at bay.
Best,
D
If satellite data is inaccurate for earths temp. How can you believe that satellite data that determines earth revolutions, and other movements are accurate. We have no way of accurately reporting anything and the accuracy of our data does not go back only a few hundred years. after that its all guess work. Your blind belief that someone has all the answers is amazing.
Sure, sure.
Best,
D
Amazing and misguided.
You still have no viable explanation for C02 being the cause.
You still lack talent and capacity to grasp I’ve already met your puerile and petulant little demands. Maybe you just have zero memory capacity? Is that it? You can’t remember which petulant little demands were fulfilled?
Best,
D
I think there is good evidence for CO2 warming. (But it just ain’t that much warming.)
That’s if we just close our eyes
http://www.alternet.org/environment/carbon-dioxide-levels-reach-highest-point-15-million-years
The 10 indicators are:
Land surface air temperature as measured by weather stations. You know all those skeptic arguments about how the temperature record is biased by the urban heat island effect, badly-sited weather stations, dropped stations, and so on? This is the only indicator which suffers from all those problems. So if you’re arguing with somebody who tries to frame the discussion as being about land surface air temperature, just remind them about the other nine indicators.
Sea surface temperature. As with land temperatures, the longest record goes back to 1850 and the last decade is warmest.
Air temperature over the oceans.
Lower troposphere temperature as measured by satellites for around 50 years. By any of these measures, the 2000s was the warmest decade and each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the previous one.
Ocean heat content, for which records go back over half a century. More than 90% of the extra heat from global warming is going into the oceans – contributing to a rise in…
Sea level. Tide gauge records go back to 1870, and sea level has risen at an accelerating rate.
Specific humidity, which has risen in tandem with temperatures.
Glaciers. 2009 was the 19th consecutive year in which there was a net loss of ice from glaciers worldwide.
Northern Hemisphere snow cover, which has also decreased in recent decades.
Perhaps the most dramatic change of all has been in Arctic sea ice. Satellite measurements are available back to 1979 and reliable shipping records back to 1953. September sea ice extent has shrunk by 35% since 1979.
Science isn’t like a house of cards, in that removing one line of evidence (eg. land surface air temperature) wouldn’t cause the whole edifice of anthropogenic global warming to collapse. Rather, “land surface warming” is one of more than ten bricks supporting “global warming”; and with global warming established, there is a whole other set of bricks supporting “anthropogenic global warming”. To undermine these conclusions, you’d need to remove most or all of the bricks supporting them – but as the evidence continues to pile up, that is becoming less and less likely.
Basic rebuttal written by James Wight
https://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm
FWIW, I don’t think it is a hoax either. But there are severe errors that stick out like a fish in a tree when one examines the individual station data (both raw and in varying stages of adjustment). Scientists make errors all the time. Error is not fraud, it’s just error.
Either one makes you a fool.
Uh-huh. Sure, sure.
Best,
D
True. He has no explanation other than the mantra.
Homicide detectives look for MMO METHOD MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY
Besides the FINANCIAL opportunity of the Global Carbon credits scam, uranium futures prices and regulation (more government employees) there is another possible MOTIVE for propagating HUMAN induced warming…because good men need a good reason to do evil…
**IF** a man is convinced that HUMAN induced global warming means the end-of-the-world… he just might consider a proposed HUMAN solution, to maintain the American Empire and serve the Eugenics agenda…a HUMAN solution called LIMITED NUCLEAR WAR… and the NUCLEAR WINTER that would cause..
Even a limited exchange would create enough atmospheric soot loading to induce a global winter due to one single word that did not exist when Nagaski & Hiroshima were nuked… that word is PLASTIC.
1.) I doubt it.
2.) Geoengineering is an unacceptable risk except as a last, sesperate resort.
3.) There have been strong net benefits from both the mild warming and additional CO2 so far. Both environmental and in terms of human endeavor. Cooling would have very bad results.
Nevertheless cooling is coming and it has little or nothing to do with man. Governments (If they weren’t so corrupt) should be planning for the future on a large scale. I mean there is a serious water shortage in California but the democrap run State government still dumps HUGH amounts of usable fresh river water into the Pacific. I think California’s water shortage has much to do with the El Nino effect and the moving of the jet stream. Israel has developed some great technology for de-desalination plants on a large scale. I think they are building one in San Diego right now. Several decades ago in Phoenix I saw front yards that had no grass to water. Instead they had crushed rock with small flower beds and often cactus for plants. It looked beautiful and just think how much water would then be saved to use for more important things like food, washing dishes and showers. Building cisterns on a large or small scale might also make sense. Are all those millions of swimming pools necessary?
The Israelis have also pioneered and improved on drip irrigation on a large scale so large that they export produce. Imagine that, with the water shortage they have to deal with.
Yes, it appears to be a Modoki. But I don’t think desal is necessary. Just a few more reservoirs would more than do the trick.
As to whether we are in for cooling, time will tell. But even if warming continues on it’s current modest track, I still see no cause for alarm.
I would love to re post this on https://www.facebook.com/newlittleiceage but the nice chart does not come with it, and I am tired of the Eifel Tower.