Global Warming Pause May Disappear.

[homersapien 11,388]

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.

I understand that. However, the extreme scenario is what everyday people are subjected to that do not have this conversation we are having. Even the less extreme scenarios model higher than the observed. Just less so. These models would not create the panic of the 8.5 models.

I don't really care what everyday people are exposed to. It shouldn't need to be explained that trying to counterbalance a (perceived) wrong with another one. Not really germane to this discussion.

I'd suggest looking at runs of the various models with RCP 4.5, one of the middling scenarios. The observations do fall within the range of uncertainty for those.

I'd also suggest looking at other observed temperature data sets than your preferred UAH data, which has been a bit of an outlier compared to most others.

I look at much data and quite often. Like ive said - it is an aspect of my job. You guys know I worked at the Department of Environmental Management in the Air Division before going private, right? I am not on here as THE expert of all, but I am willing to bet my understanding of this far exceeds many in the US

You are NOT a scientist...therefore you are just a numbers guy with the ability to create what others have come up with. lmao

Correct, I am not a scientist. I do something practical and tangible with my degree! =) Unfortunately for them I can understand what they do and ask the educated questions, making their life a living hell! lol

Give it up E09; these guys will never understand that in theory, theory and practice are the same thing...in practice, they aren't. A scientist or a bureaucrat said it...it must be true. After all, we can trust our government implicitly; I mean they would never lie to us.

WTF?

[homersapien 11,388]

Everyone can use a good editor.

[DKW 86 7,428]

http://www.foxnews.c...use-in-warming/

And in an interview, Curry told FoxNews.com that that the adjusted data doesn’t match other independent measures of temperature.

“The new NOAA dataset disagrees with:

1) a UK dataset, which is generally regarded as the gold standard for global sea surface temperature datasets,” she said.

2)“The new dataset also disagrees with ARGO buoys and

3) satellite analyses.”

The NOAA paper, produced by a team of researchers led by Tom Karl, director of the agency’s National Climatic Data Center, found most of its new warming trend by adjusting past measurements of sea temperatures.

Global ocean temperatures are estimated both by thousands of commercial ships, which record the temperature of the water entering their engines, and by thousands of buoys – floatation devices that sit in the water for years.

The buoys tend to get cooler temperature readings than the ships, likely because ships’ engines warm the water. Meanwhile, in recent years, buoys have become increasingly common. The result, Karl says, is that even if the world’s oceans are warming, the unadjusted data may show it not to be warming because more and more buoys are being used instead of ships. So Karl’s team adjusted the buoy data to make them line up with the ship data. They also double-checked their work by making sure that the readjusted buoy readings matched ships’ recordings of nighttime air temperatures.

The paper came out last week, and there has not been time for skeptical scientists to independently check the adjustments, but some are questioning it because of how much the adjusted data vary from other independent measurements.

First, it disagrees with the readings of more than 3,000 “ARGO buoys,” which are specifically designed to float around the ocean and measure temperature. Some scientists view their data as the most reliable.

The ARGO buoy data do not show much warming in surface temperature since they were introduced in 2003. But Karl’s team left them out of their analysis, saying that they have multiple issues, including lack of measurements near the Arctic.

In an email, Karl told FoxNews.com that the ARGO buoy readings may be added to his data “if scientific methods can be found to line up these two types of temperatures together … (of course after correcting the systematic offsets) … This is part of the cumulative and progressive scientific process.”

Karl’s study also clashes with satellite measurements. Since 1979, NOAA satellites have estimated the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere. They show almost no warming in recent years and closely match the surface data before Karl’s adjustments.

The satellite data is compiled by two separate sets of researchers, whose results match each other closely. One team that compiles the data includes Climate Professors John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, both of whom question Karl’s adjusted data.

“The study is one more example that you can get any answer you want when the thermometer data errors are larger than the global warming signal you are looking for,” Spencer told FoxNews.com.

“We believe the satellite measurements since 1979 provide a more robust measure of global temperatures, and both satellite research groups see virtually the same pause in global temperatures for the last 18 years,” he said.

Karl said satellite data also have issues, including “orbital decay, diurnal sampling, instrument calibration target temperatures and more.”

Spencer said he agreed that those are issues, but they are less problematic than using data from thousands of ships and buoys. He added that there are a couple of satellites monitoring temperature at any given time, and that they are used to check each other.

Skeptics say there are yet more measurements, including those coming from balloon data, that line up with existing data more than with Karl’s newly adjusted data. They also note that even with Karl’s adjustments, the warming trend he finds over the last 17 years is below what U.N. models had predicted.

Some climate scientists applaud Karl’s adjustments and say they debunk the idea that the Earth has stopped warming.

“[This] points out just how small and fragile a notion that was,” Peter Frumhoff, director of science & policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com

Asked about the contradiction with satellite data, he said he trusted the new paper.

“I trust the process of legitimate scientific peer review that this paper has undergone, as well as the care that its authors bring to their respected work,” he said, adding that, “the faux debate over a so-called ‘hiatus’ has been an unfortunate diversion from meaningful dialogue about how best to address the broadly recognized serious problem of climate change.”

But skeptics say Karl’s adjusted data is the outlier that conflicts with everything else. “Color me ‘unconvinced’,” Curry wrote.

FOLKS THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT. THIS NEW DATA SET IS OBVIOUSLY BS THAT RUNS COUNTER TO ALL THE DATA THEY CLAIM TO BE BE RIGHTEOUS

“The new NOAA dataset disagrees with:

1) a UK dataset, which is generally regarded as the gold standard for global sea surface temperature datasets,” she said.

2)“The new dataset also disagrees with ARGO buoys and

3) satellite analyses.”

[Weegle777 78]

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.

I understand that. However, the extreme scenario is what everyday people are subjected to that do not have this conversation we are having. Even the less extreme scenarios model higher than the observed. Just less so. These models would not create the panic of the 8.5 models.

I don't really care what everyday people are exposed to. It shouldn't need to be explained that trying to counterbalance a (perceived) wrong with another one. Not really germane to this discussion.

I'd suggest looking at runs of the various models with RCP 4.5, one of the middling scenarios. The observations do fall within the range of uncertainty for those.

I'd also suggest looking at other observed temperature data sets than your preferred UAH data, which has been a bit of an outlier compared to most others.

I look at much data and quite often. Like ive said - it is an aspect of my job. You guys know I worked at the Department of Environmental Management in the Air Division before going private, right? I am not on here as THE expert of all, but I am willing to bet my understanding of this far exceeds many in the US

You are NOT a scientist...therefore you are just a numbers guy with the ability to create what others have come up with. ;)/> lmao

Correct, I am not a scientist. I do something practical and tangible with my degree! =) Unfortunately for them I can understand what they do and ask the educated questions, making their life a living hell! lol

Give it up E09; these guys will never understand that in theory, theory and practice are the same thing...in practice, they aren't. A scientist or a bureaucrat said it...it must be true. After all, we can trust our government implicitly; I mean they would never lie to us.

Thank you for your contribution. :glare:/>

Your Welcome Ben...

Am I allowed to riff on this since Weegs went all grammar nazi on us? ;)/>

We are educated people here. Act and post that way.

[AUDub 11,153]

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.

I understand that. However, the extreme scenario is what everyday people are subjected to that do not have this conversation we are having. Even the less extreme scenarios model higher than the observed. Just less so. These models would not create the panic of the 8.5 models.

I don't really care what everyday people are exposed to. It shouldn't need to be explained that trying to counterbalance a (perceived) wrong with another one. Not really germane to this discussion.

I'd suggest looking at runs of the various models with RCP 4.5, one of the middling scenarios. The observations do fall within the range of uncertainty for those.

I'd also suggest looking at other observed temperature data sets than your preferred UAH data, which has been a bit of an outlier compared to most others.

I look at much data and quite often. Like ive said - it is an aspect of my job. You guys know I worked at the Department of Environmental Management in the Air Division before going private, right? I am not on here as THE expert of all, but I am willing to bet my understanding of this far exceeds many in the US

You are NOT a scientist...therefore you are just a numbers guy with the ability to create what others have come up with. ;)/> lmao

Correct, I am not a scientist. I do something practical and tangible with my degree! =) Unfortunately for them I can understand what they do and ask the educated questions, making their life a living hell! lol

Give it up E09; these guys will never understand that in theory, theory and practice are the same thing...in practice, they aren't. A scientist or a bureaucrat said it...it must be true. After all, we can trust our government implicitly; I mean they would never lie to us.

Thank you for your contribution.

Your Welcome Ben...

Am I allowed to riff on this since Weegs went all grammar nazi on us?

We are educated people here. Act and post that way.

Everybody flubs a sentence or a word or two from time to time, educated, highly intelligent people included.

[AUDub 11,153]

I look at much data and quite often. Like ive said - it is an aspect of my job. You guys know I worked at the Department of Environmental Management in the Air Division before going private, right? I am not on here as THE expert of all, but I am willing to bet my understanding of this far exceeds many in the US

And I wouldn't question that. I know a lot relative to my field compared to many in the US.

But, do you not see the inherent dishonesty, the lie by omission, if you will, of Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy's use of this graph:

vs this one:

or these:

to justify dismissing the models in their entirety?

[DKW 86 7,428]

Not really. Spencer & Christy say that "Reality is Lower than X out of Y Models." That is about right.

The S&C Graph is really cool looking tho.

[AUDub 11,153]

Not really. Spencer & Christy say that "Reality is Lower than X out of Y Models." That is about right.

The S&C Graph is really cool looking tho.

No, he says it is an epic failure for the models. Not "X out of Y" models.

[DKW 86 7,428]

Do you folks just refuse to live in reality anymore?

[AUDub 11,153]

Do you folks just refuse to live in reality anymore?

Oh, for heaven's sake:

Now, in what universe do the above results not represent an epic failure for the models?

These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

And that still completely ignores the fact that he fudges the numbers and only shows model runs for the most extreme scenario.

[autigeremt 6,646]

Facts v/s Facts = No Win Situation

[homersapien 11,388]

Do you folks just refuse to live in reality anymore?

I'm confused. Did you not say earlier that you thought AGW was real?

[DKW 86 7,428]

Do you folks just refuse to live in reality anymore?

I'm confused. Did you not say earlier that you thought AGW was real?

Hell no...You need real help.

[AUDub 11,153]

Do you folks just refuse to live in reality anymore?

I'm confused. Did you not say earlier that you thought AGW was real?

Hell no...You need real help.

Does he?

...Anyway, AGW is a problem. Do we need to do something about it? Yes...

[homersapien 11,388]

Do you folks just refuse to live in reality anymore?

I'm confused. Did you not say earlier that you thought AGW was real?

Hell no...You need real help.

Well, I am not particularly eager to go back and find it in a 30 page thread, so yeah, I'll gladly take help if you care to provide it.

Was it just global warming without any anthropogenic effect? Or am I remembering something that didn't happen?

[homersapien 11,388]

Do you folks just refuse to live in reality anymore?

I'm confused. Did you not say earlier that you thought AGW was real?

Hell no...You need real help.

Does he?

...Anyway, AGW is a problem. Do we need to do something about it? Yes...

Well see, that's exactly what I thought I remembered! Thanks Ben! I feel much better now.

Maybe it's DKW that needs to start worrying.

[DKW 86 7,428]

OMG! Do yall really think anyone with a brain could get that quote that wrong? I clearly state AGW is a problem facing mankind and that we need to do something about it and you expect any sane person to actually think that yall translated that to mean that I meant the exact oppposite? Yall really do need help.

[AUDub 11,153]

LOL at you denying your own words. I'ma pile on now. Follow the arrows for context.

...Anyone with an open mind knows three things.

1) Global Warming/Pollution is a fact and needs to be a concern going forward.

2) More than a few of the clowns advocating all this are financially tied to making $BNs off this.

3) That there have been some gigantic frauds perpetrated by those in the Global Warming Community to further the cause...

[AUDub 11,153]

...If you read the my posts recently, i have stopped challenging much of the AGW Conclusions, i would however take huge exceptions to many of the methodologies they conveniently utilize....

[DKW 86 7,428]

What in the name of hell are you guys talking about. I have agreed with AGW for some time. Where are you getting this crapola from?????

Yall need to get back on your meds.

[Strychnine 1,802]

What in the name of hell are you guys talking about. I have agreed with AGW for some time. Where are you getting this crapola from?????

Yall need to get back on your meds.

They're going on about post # 263.

[DKW 86 7,428]

Do you folks just refuse to live in reality anymore?

I'm confused. Did you not say earlier that you thought AGW was real?

I am guessing that this is where you dolts got sssooo incredibly off track.

As anyone with two functioning brain cells in their head knows, I am referring to graphs that bigbens put up.

They clearly say ON THE FREAKIN GRAPHS that the results were for "X out of Y Models."

I circled them notes in red and reposted them so that anyone can clearly see them.

bigben then tried to post these ridiculous, absurd, over the top claims that Spencer never made.

I pointed out in IM and on the forum that bigbens was lying about what SPENCER WROTE CLEARLY ON THE FREAKIN GRAPHS!

You delusional batcrappers are now trying to say i said the exact opposite of what i said. I was clearly talking about bigbens' NOT AGW!!!

TO BE CLEAR, JUST SO YOU DOLTS CANNOT GET IT WRONG AGAIN: I BELIEVE AGW IS FOR REAL. I AM MAKING FUN OF THE CRAZY WAY YALL BELIEVE EVERY CRAZY THING THAT IS PUT OUT THERE. ben is CLEARLY misquoting Spencer here. There is zero doubt about that. It is clearly written on the graph. Bens says something completely opposite. homer comes along and agrees with bens crazy assertions that what is black is really white.

This entire discussion was started by this: The reworking of previously good data so that embarrassing gaps in the AGW EXTREMIST CLAIMS can be covered over.

There is a pause, a gap, a hiatus. Everyone knows that. We have some batcrappers on here now trying to rewrite FACTS. In doing so they take a comment i make on bens crazy graphs that blow up in his face and then try and twist and mangle that comment into being what it clearly was not about. IT WAS NOT ABOUT AGW. IT WAS ABOUT HOW BEN COULD LOOK AT THE GRAPHS HE SUPPLIED AND LIE ABOUT WHAT IS CLEARLY WRITTEN UPON THOSE SAME GRAPHS.

[DKW 86 7,428]

What in the name of hell are you guys talking about. I have agreed with AGW for some time. Where are you getting this crapola from?????

Yall need to get back on your meds.

They're going on about post # 263.

You too???? WTH! I never ever said that about AGW. I was CLEARLY TALKING ABOUT BENS ignoring what is clearly written on the graphs bens supplied.

sheesh!

[DKW 86 7,428]

Do you folks just refuse to live in reality anymore?

I'm confused. Did you not say earlier that you thought AGW was real?

ONE MORE TIME. MY COMMENT HERE IS CLEARLY BEING TAKEN COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT.

I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT AGW. I AM TALKING ABOUT BENS BATCRAP CRAZY STATEMENTS CONTRADICTING WHAT IS CLEARLY WRITTEN ON THE GRAPHS HE SUPPLIED. I CIRCLED THE FREAKING COMMENTS IN RED AND REPOSTED THAT DAMN GRAPHS.

ARE YOU FOLKS REALLY THIS DAMN DENSE?

[Strychnine 1,802]

What in the name of hell are you guys talking about. I have agreed with AGW for some time. Where are you getting this crapola from?????

Yall need to get back on your meds.

They're going on about post # 263.

You too???? WTH! I never ever said that about AGW. I was CLEARLY TALKING ABOUT BENS ignoring what is clearly written on the graphs bens supplied.

sheesh!

In that case, perhaps you will accept a suggestion: When someone asks "Did you not say earlier that you thought AGW was real?", and you respond with "Hell no...You need real help.", you might consider that a reasonable person would conclude that you were answering a direct question in the negative.