Global Warming Pause May Disappear.

[DKW 86 7,419]

And here we are back at ground zero once again.

Look, IF, and lets be very very very very generous here, IF the models were anything near sanity we wouldnt be having this discussion. The models that were championed by the Extremist Left were sssooo unbelievably in error that they are just buffoonery. The models we were assured were going to show how we were all gonna die in 1985 1995, 2005, 2015 or so were sacred. They could not be challenged at all even though they were sssooo grossly in error. When questions were asked about the contribution from sun spots, we were long windedly told that, oh stupid little people, the sun spot activity is a very minor contributor to global warming, afterall some unemployed cartoonist with a two-bit "troll everything in sight, alter posts made by real credentialed scientists" website told us so. Turns out now that it is a very significant part of the whole.

Could you please just dismiss the models? You misrepresent what they say, but more importantly, they shouldn't be used as proof that AGW is occurring or not.

We have a history of actual data that does that.

And as Ben has demonstrated, the models as a congregate haven't been all that far off. OMG!!!!

Arguing about what this model or that model is predicting for the future is interesting if the subject it modeling, but in the final analysis, it really doesn't address what is actually happening.

So quit worrying about what the 1985 models predicted for 2015 and just focus on what actually happened.

Sorry, you want to know why people dont buy the shiny little turds at face value, but you still have to deal with all those brightly polished turds first.

The data is now being undermined so as to try fix the models that looked so ridiculously out of step with reality. The data didnt meet with the models, so they are now changing the data.

[DKW 86 7,419]

"If sanity is the problem i suggest you need to look at yourselves. Using the global ice cap, a statistic we only started collecting since 1980, is just garbage. 35 years of data is absolutely meaningless versus billions of years of existence. It is anti-science to even quote it as meaningful. 35 years is way too short a time to grasp any meaning from the data."

Are core samples drilled from the arctic ice meaningless garbage? Serious question.

I SPECIFICALLY stated the Ice Cap, nothing at all about core samples. Do not know who or where you got that from, sheesh!

Do you folks sit around snorting your body waste or something? I said absolutley ZERO about core sampling. I was referring to the 1980 and up graph of the size of the polar ice cap that was from SkS posted above. NO WHERE IN THERE IS THERE ONE REFERENCE TO CORE SAMPLES.

Sorry to offend you. Perhaps you did not understand or, perhaps my question is inane but, do core samples not provide a much longer historical record (pre 1980)? Are core samples not part of monitoring the ice cap?

If possible, please reply with information, not disdain. I am neither a civil engineer nor climatologist. Thank you.

Again, no one was talking about core samples.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

"If sanity is the problem i suggest you need to look at yourselves. Using the global ice cap, a statistic we only started collecting since 1980, is just garbage. 35 years of data is absolutely meaningless versus billions of years of existence. It is anti-science to even quote it as meaningful. 35 years is way too short a time to grasp any meaning from the data."

Are core samples drilled from the arctic ice meaningless garbage? Serious question.

I SPECIFICALLY stated the Ice Cap, nothing at all about core samples. Do not know who or where you got that from, sheesh!

Do you folks sit around snorting your body waste or something? I said absolutley ZERO about core sampling. I was referring to the 1980 and up graph of the size of the polar ice cap that was from SkS posted above. NO WHERE IN THERE IS THERE ONE REFERENCE TO CORE SAMPLES.

Sorry to offend you. Perhaps you did not understand or, perhaps my question is inane but, do core samples not provide a much longer historical record (pre 1980)? Are core samples not part of monitoring the ice cap?

If possible, please reply with information, not disdain. I am neither a civil engineer nor climatologist. Thank you.

Again, no one was talking about core samples.

I understand that. However, monitoring the ice cap was mentioned. Data limited to, 1980 to current, was mentioned. Are core samples relevant in terms of pre-1980 data or information? I admit, the question may reflect limited understanding but, it appears you are intentionally avoiding an answer.

[AUDub 11,147]

And here we are back at ground zero once again.

Look, IF, and lets be very very very very generous here, IF the models were anything near sanity we wouldnt be having this discussion. The models that were championed by the Extremist Left were sssooo unbelievably in error that they are just buffoonery. The models we were assured were going to show how we were all gonna die in 1985 1995, 2005, 2015 or so were sacred. They could not be challenged at all even though they were sssooo grossly in error. When questions were asked about the contribution from sun spots, we were long windedly told that, oh stupid little people, the sun spot activity is a very minor contributor to global warming, afterall some unemployed cartoonist with a two-bit "troll everything in sight, alter posts made by real credentialed scientists" website told us so. Turns out now that it is a very significant part of the whole.

Could you please just dismiss the models? You misrepresent what they say, but more importantly, they shouldn't be used as proof that AGW is occurring or not.

We have a history of actual data that does that.

And as Ben has demonstrated, the models as a congregate haven't been all that far off. OMG!!!!

Arguing about what this model or that model is predicting for the future is interesting if the subject it modeling, but in the final analysis, it really doesn't address what is actually happening.

So quit worrying about what the 1985 models predicted for 2015 and just focus on what actually happened.

Sorry, you want to know why people dont buy the shiny little turds at face value, but you still have to deal with all those brightly polished turds first.

The data is now being undermined so as to try fix the models that looked so ridiculously out of step with reality. The data didnt meet with the models, so they are now changing the data.

Who wants to know why the above image is a blatant distortion? LOL Christy and Spencer are some deceptive individuals.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

And here we are back at ground zero once again.

Look, IF, and lets be very very very very generous here, IF the models were anything near sanity we wouldnt be having this discussion. The models that were championed by the Extremist Left were sssooo unbelievably in error that they are just buffoonery. The models we were assured were going to show how we were all gonna die in 1985 1995, 2005, 2015 or so were sacred. They could not be challenged at all even though they were sssooo grossly in error. When questions were asked about the contribution from sun spots, we were long windedly told that, oh stupid little people, the sun spot activity is a very minor contributor to global warming, afterall some unemployed cartoonist with a two-bit "troll everything in sight, alter posts made by real credentialed scientists" website told us so. Turns out now that it is a very significant part of the whole.

Could you please just dismiss the models? You misrepresent what they say, but more importantly, they shouldn't be used as proof that AGW is occurring or not.

We have a history of actual data that does that.

And as Ben has demonstrated, the models as a congregate haven't been all that far off. OMG!!!!

Arguing about what this model or that model is predicting for the future is interesting if the subject it modeling, but in the final analysis, it really doesn't address what is actually happening.

So quit worrying about what the 1985 models predicted for 2015 and just focus on what actually happened.

Sorry, you want to know why people dont buy the shiny little turds at face value, but you still have to deal with all those brightly polished turds first.

The data is now being undermined so as to try fix the models that looked so ridiculously out of step with reality. The data didnt meet with the models, so they are now changing the data.

Who wants to know why the above image is a blatant distortion? LOL Christy and Spencer are some deceptive individuals.

"I do", he said reluctantly, not wanting to incite DKW.

[AUDub 11,147]

And here we are back at ground zero once again.

Look, IF, and lets be very very very very generous here, IF the models were anything near sanity we wouldnt be having this discussion. The models that were championed by the Extremist Left were sssooo unbelievably in error that they are just buffoonery. The models we were assured were going to show how we were all gonna die in 1985 1995, 2005, 2015 or so were sacred. They could not be challenged at all even though they were sssooo grossly in error. When questions were asked about the contribution from sun spots, we were long windedly told that, oh stupid little people, the sun spot activity is a very minor contributor to global warming, afterall some unemployed cartoonist with a two-bit "troll everything in sight, alter posts made by real credentialed scientists" website told us so. Turns out now that it is a very significant part of the whole.

Could you please just dismiss the models? You misrepresent what they say, but more importantly, they shouldn't be used as proof that AGW is occurring or not.

We have a history of actual data that does that.

And as Ben has demonstrated, the models as a congregate haven't been all that far off. OMG!!!!

Arguing about what this model or that model is predicting for the future is interesting if the subject it modeling, but in the final analysis, it really doesn't address what is actually happening.

So quit worrying about what the 1985 models predicted for 2015 and just focus on what actually happened.

Sorry, you want to know why people dont buy the shiny little turds at face value, but you still have to deal with all those brightly polished turds first.

The data is now being undermined so as to try fix the models that looked so ridiculously out of step with reality. The data didnt meet with the models, so they are now changing the data.

Who wants to know why the above image is a blatant distortion? LOL Christy and Spencer are some deceptive individuals.

"I do", he said reluctantly, not wanting to incite DKW.

Incite away. Doesn't really matter. You had a perfectly cordial manner about you when asking your question, yet he still snapped and asked if we "snorted our own excrement."

That what I like about ol' DKW. He can always be counted on for his friendliness

[DKW 86 7,419]

Anyway, AGW is a problem. Do we need to do something about it? Yes. Do we need to destroy the economies of all industrialized nations? Uh...NO! What we need to do is to start shifting away from fossil fuels. That is going to take some time. Breathlessly stopping life so can feel better about your crazy ideas that have been demonstrated to be in horrible error is just insane. Dr Spencer is one of the leading people in his field and has access to REAL UN-MOLESTED RAW DATA from the Latest-Most-Up-to-Date-Sources. He is not beholden financially to scaring the crap out of the civilized world for money. He didnt give us the "Looming Ice Age Scare" of the 1970-80s, etc.

You are really schizophrenic on this.

If your concern is "destroying the economies of all industrialized nations", then how can we best avoid that?

I would suggest the real danger to our petroleum based economy is the necessity of having to make a rapid transition to a non-petroleum based economy. The ultimate need to make the change is clear. The harm comes from how fast the change is made - the more gradual the transition, the less damage to the economy.

By kicking the can down the road and resisting measures to start effecting that change in the near term only increases the probability of having to make radical changes in a hurry. We cannot afford to use the remaining hydrocarbon resources in the ground without drastically effecting global temperature. The people making money off hydrocarbons would just as soon put off the necessary changes as long as possible. They are either in denial or they really don't care about future generations.

BTW, the only "real, unmolested raw data" (whatever that's suppose to mean) available to Spencer is his own. And as Ben pointed out, that data has undergone several revisions (aka, corrections), invariably upward.

Spencer has issues. He obviously imagined himself as the brilliant contrarian it hasn't turned out that way. Rather than accept the truth, he has chosen to react as if there is a conspiracy against him. The irony is even if his paper was dead-on accurate, it would do very little to refute AGW theory which is supported by a huge amount of data in various fields of research.

Spencer uses the highest tech, easily studied data out there that does not rely on areas of urbanization etc. he uses satellite maps that take thousands of points and records them. His data isnt effected by a new building, new parking lot, clear cutting etc. He ses all that and more and has highly accurate generalized average temps for an area that before might have had one gauge effected greatly by sprawl, construction, forest cutting or forest fire. His dat can compensate for all that.

EUA, you remember the guys that lost all their data sets so no one could even challenge their work/conclusions/modeling? Spencer shares his data with everyone. He doesnt hide behind bogus claims of corrupted data magically disappearing.

LOOK, BOTTOM LINE:

AGW is for real. I dont think it is as screaming mimi horrible as the Extremists on the Left want us to believe, but it is real and we need to do something about it. We dont need to destroy the standard of living of whole nations so that a few uber elites can continue to live in extreme wealth and screw the rest of us over.

If AGW was anywhere near as bad as some proclaim, then why in the name of hell do govt and private individuals go to conference after conference and act as if AGW is nothing more than a really bad joke? Why do they burn 1000s# of jet fuel on private jets and limousines if "Earth is in the Balance?"

[autigeremt 6,598]

Anyway, AGW is a problem. Do we need to do something about it? Yes. Do we need to destroy the economies of all industrialized nations? Uh...NO! What we need to do is to start shifting away from fossil fuels. That is going to take some time. Breathlessly stopping life so can feel better about your crazy ideas that have been demonstrated to be in horrible error is just insane. Dr Spencer is one of the leading people in his field and has access to REAL UN-MOLESTED RAW DATA from the Latest-Most-Up-to-Date-Sources. He is not beholden financially to scaring the crap out of the civilized world for money. He didnt give us the "Looming Ice Age Scare" of the 1970-80s, etc.

You are really schizophrenic on this.

If your concern is "destroying the economies of all industrialized nations", then how can we best avoid that?

I would suggest the real danger to our petroleum based economy is the necessity of having to make a rapid transition to a non-petroleum based economy. The ultimate need to make the change is clear. The harm comes from how fast the change is made - the more gradual the transition, the less damage to the economy.

By kicking the can down the road and resisting measures to start effecting that change in the near term only increases the probability of having to make radical changes in a hurry. We cannot afford to use the remaining hydrocarbon resources in the ground without drastically effecting global temperature. The people making money off hydrocarbons would just as soon put off the necessary changes as long as possible. They are either in denial or they really don't care about future generations.

BTW, the only "real, unmolested raw data" (whatever that's suppose to mean) available to Spencer is his own. And as Ben pointed out, that data has undergone several revisions (aka, corrections), invariably upward.

Spencer has issues. He obviously imagined himself as the brilliant contrarian it hasn't turned out that way. Rather than accept the truth, he has chosen to react as if there is a conspiracy against him. The irony is even if his paper was dead-on accurate, it would do very little to refute AGW theory which is supported by a huge amount of data in various fields of research.

Spencer uses the highest tech, easily studied data out there that does not rely on areas of urbanization etc. he uses satellite maps that take thousands of points and records them. His data isnt effected by a new building, new parking lot, clear cutting etc. He ses all that and more and has highly accurate generalized average temps for an area that before might have had one gauge effected greatly by sprawl, construction, forest cutting or forest fire. His dat can compensate for all that.

EUA, you remember the guys that lost all their data sets so no one could even challenge their work/conclusions/modeling? Spencer shares his data with everyone. He doesnt hide behind bogus claims of corrupted data magically disappearing.

LOOK, BOTTOM LINE:

AGW is for real. I dont think it is as screaming mimi horrible as the Extremists on the Left want us to believe, but it is real and we need to do something about it. We dont need to destroy the standard of living of whole nations so that a few uber elites can continue to live in extreme wealth and screw the rest of us over.

If AGW was anywhere near as bad as some proclaim, then why in the name of hell do govt and private individuals go to conference after conference and act as if AGW is nothing more than a really bad joke? Why do they burn 1000s# of jet fuel on private jets and limousines if "Earth is in the Balance?"

Won't matter...........

[AUDub 11,147]

What he's doing is running those 102 model runs and then averaging them to get that line. OK on its face.

Here's the thing: There are four different Representative Concentration Pathways. Basically an estimation of future emissions:

Guess which pathway he's simulating with the models?

Not the first time they've fudged the numbers either.

[DKW 86 7,419]

This whole thread is from the fudging of data going on with those trying to hide The Hiatus, The Plateau, The Pause, etc.

Non-Averaged from Spencer @UAH

From Forbes Magazine

From the National Oceanic Data Center NODC

From Reason Magazine

From Ludwig Von Mises Institute @ Auburn University

[DKW 86 7,419]

Yep, here comes the PC drones:

If it dont agree with me, it must be wrong.

[AUDub 11,147]

Yep, here comes the PC drones:

If it dont agree with me, it must be wrong.

Solid non-sequitur.

[AUDub 11,147]

Non-Averaged from Spencer @UAH Non-Averaged LOL. I guess that thick red line in the middle escaped your notice. In fact, it's the same data.

From Forbes I guess you're just trying to see how many times you can post the same data without anyone noticing.

[AUDub 11,147]

Reason Magazine

Proof positive that DKW thinks we're stupid.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Nope, just pointing out that several/many people and places see the same data saying the same things.

I showed you multiples of sources for the essentially the same point: The raw data shows that the predictions of global warming were horribly wrong.

AGW is in fact the business of PREDICTING the future.

Said it before, say it again. I think we have a problem with AGW. Yall are trying to brow beat everyone into agreeing exactly with your POV. The reality is that there are many many many differing POVs on AGW. There is not a two laned discussion here. It is all over the place. The models were badly wrong, doesnt mean that we dont have a problem still.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Non-Averaged from Spencer @UAH Non-Averaged LOL. I guess that thick red line in the middle escaped your notice. In fact, it's the same data.

From Forbes I guess you're just trying to see how many times you can post the same data without anyone noticing.

Non-averaged: All those other squiggly little lines that werent there on the first graph.

OMG, i am beginning to get the idea that you really are that dumb.

[AUDub 11,147]

Non-averaged: All those other squiggly little lines that werent there on the first graph.

OMG, i am beginning to get the idea that you really are that dumb.

That thick black line is a mean, DKW. Just because the other models are there doesn't mean it hasn't been averaged.

And to think, you have the gall to call me dumb!

[AUDub 11,147]

Nope, just pointing out that several/many people and places see the same data saying the same things.

I showed you multiples of sources for the essentially the same point: The raw data shows that the predictions of global warming were horribly wrong. That mutliple (right-wing, mind you) sources all using the same UAH and Radiosonde data reach the same conclusion means, well, nothing. It's just the same data repeated over and over again.

And I made my point clear. All those model runs are using the most extreme scenario. Why don't you Google comparisons with the other RCP scenarios?

I'll tell you why, because they'll blow your paltry excuse for an argument out of the water.

AGW is in fact the business of PREDICTING the future.

Said it before, say it again. I think we have a problem with AGW. Yall are trying to brow beat everyone into agreeing exactly with your POV. The reality is that there are many many many differing POVs on AGW. Many of which, like yours are simply flat wrong. There is not a two laned discussion here. It is all over the place. The models were badly wrong, doesnt mean that we dont have a problem still. Not as badly as you're presenting. Still, the models will never be perfect, and you know what? That's OK.

[AUcivE09 582]

This whole thread is from the fudging of data going on with those trying to hide The Hiatus, The Plateau, The Pause, etc.

Non-Averaged from Spencer @UAH

From Forbes Magazine

From the National Oceanic Data Center NODC

From Reason Magazine

From Ludwig Von Mises Institute @ Auburn University

No matter how "charts are aligned" they still show the same outcome. They are wrong by a good margin. Nice find DKW. People like to bash Spencer because he is dang good at what he does and the facts hurt many people making their living off of ramming this down our throats.

[AUDub 11,147]

This whole thread is from the fudging of data going on with those trying to hide The Hiatus, The Plateau, The Pause, etc.

Non-Averaged from Spencer @UAH

From Forbes Magazine

From the National Oceanic Data Center NODC

From Reason Magazine

From Ludwig Von Mises Institute @ Auburn University

No matter how "charts are aligned" they still show the same outcome. They are wrong by a good margin. Nice find DKW. People like to bash Spencer because he is dang good at what he does and the facts hurt many people making their living off of ramming this down our throats.

Well on the Spencer ones at least, are you saying it's fair to cherry-pick the most extreme scenario of the four and declare all of the models wrong?

[AUcivE09 582]

73 models cherry picked? I dont follow.

[AUDub 11,147]

73 models cherry picked? I dont follow.

73 runs of various models, all using the most extreme emissions scenario. None of those graphs include runs with the othe RCPs.

[AUDub 11,147]

Look at the one I blew up in post 139. Every single one of those runs were with RCP 8.5. The most extreme scenario.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

This whole thread is from the fudging of data going on with those trying to hide The Hiatus, The Plateau, The Pause, etc.

Non-Averaged from Spencer @UAH

From Forbes Magazine

From the National Oceanic Data Center NODC

From Reason Magazine

From Ludwig Von Mises Institute @ Auburn University

No matter how "charts are aligned" they still show the same outcome. They are wrong by a good margin. Nice find DKW. People like to bash Spencer because he is dang good at what he does and the facts hurt many people making their living off of ramming this down our throats.

The Ludwig Von Mises Institute is now a part of Auburn University?

[AFTiger 282]

QUESTION: What happens if the alarmists win and stop warming and send us into global cooling? What would happen to us?

For one historical perspective: http://www.history.com/news/little-ice-age-big-consequences