Global Warming Pause May Disappear.

[AUDub 11,148]

Wait a minute, I just noticed you linked this pic from RooshV's website. You don't follow that a**hole, do you?

[homersapien 11,373]

Quoting Skeptical Science means that you are TRULY UNINFORMED AND YOU ARE NEVER TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY WITH A SCIENCE QUESTION.

In case you didn't realize it, Skeptical Science does not conduct research. As far as I know, not one person who writes or manages the Skeptical Science page has ever published a paper on climate change.

They are not presenting their own work.

What they are doing is explaining the false assumptions and statements on AGW using valid scientific research that has been published in peer-reviewed journals. It's the same body of work that persuaded all - and I mean "all" literally - of the professional associations listed earlier to issue position statements.

So if you want to dismiss Skeptical Science as a source of information, then you are by definition, rejecting every piece of scientific research on the subject.

And that's what deniers are all about.

Wrong. SkS does do penny-ante misquotes 24/7 and commando blogging of other websites in an effort to put out narratives. There are whole web pages dedicated to SkS doing robo posting and aggressively, knowingly, proactively MODIFYING quotes of REAL LIFE SCIENTISTS. They hide their crazy stuff with some cover, no doubt, but they are still covered up in bat crap crazy.

If you are going to make specific charges like that you really need to include an example.

(And seriously, you really don't see the relevance of ice core sampling when discussing polar ice coverage?)

[homersapien 11,373]

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

Yeah, he's got a hair trigger. Make a perfectly reasonable point and BANG! - a "Hitler rant".

The scatological jabs are new though. Wonder where that came from?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I hate to complain but, all of you are doing a fine job of arguing with each other and lousy job convincing me of anything. I have yet to get a reasonable answer to a single question.

[AUDub 11,148]

I hate to complain but, all of you are doing a fine job of arguing with each other and lousy job convincing me of anything. I have yet to get a reasonable answer to a single question.

Well, I'm trying.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I hate to complain but, all of you are doing a fine job of arguing with each other and lousy job convincing me of anything. I have yet to get a reasonable answer to a single question.

Well, I'm trying.

I say you are NOT. You asked if anyone wanted an explanation for the deviation in the models. I said, yes, and you gave me a critique of DKW's posts.

I am asking questions and, for the most part being ignored. Except for the one time when DKW blasted me for asking a question.

Now, I am prepared to forgive and forget but, I want answers. I want them free of political bias. I want them now. All of you sound like a bunch of BS artists including the self-proclaimed expert. I will give all of you just one more chance. ARE WE CLEAR?

[homersapien 11,373]

I hate to complain but, all of you are doing a fine job of arguing with each other and lousy job convincing me of anything. I have yet to get a reasonable answer to a single question.

The bottom line is you either accept the (global) scientific community's general conclusions expressed in the form of position statements by the representative organizations, or you think they are all deliberately lying.

If you have something more specific in mind, please repeat the question.

[AUDub 11,148]

I hate to complain but, all of you are doing a fine job of arguing with each other and lousy job convincing me of anything. I have yet to get a reasonable answer to a single question.

Well, I'm trying.

I say you are NOT. You asked if anyone wanted an explanation for the deviation in the models. I said, yes, and you gave me a critique of DKW's posts.

I am asking questions and, for the most part being ignored. Except for the one time when DKW blasted me for asking a question.

Now, I am prepared to forgive and forget but, I want answers. I want them free of political bias. I want them now. All of you sound like a bunch of BS artists including the self-proclaimed expert. I will give all of you just one more chance. ARE WE CLEAR?

You mean like I did here?

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.

[homersapien 11,373]

You mean like I did here?

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:

(snip)

Guess which pathway he's simulating with the models?

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

This illustrates the fallacy of interpreting these models as literal predictions or forecasts.

It's sort of "cherry picking" in reverse.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I hate to complain but, all of you are doing a fine job of arguing with each other and lousy job convincing me of anything. I have yet to get a reasonable answer to a single question.

The bottom line is you either accept what the (global) scientific community's general conclusions or you think they are deliberately lying. All of them.

If you have something more specific in mind, please repeat the question.

NO. I do not have to choose in the manner you are defining. I may lack the requisite knowledge of a climate scientist but, I am quite educated when it comes to quantitative analysis and predictive modeling. If some of you are as smart as you claim to be, you should be able to convince me with facts and/or logic.

If you attempt that BS liberal tactic again, I will put you on my informal GW ignore list and, deduct two credibility points from your account. I mean really, I have to take it on faith? That is your trump card?

ALL OF YOU should know that someone is keeping score.

[homersapien 11,373]

I hate to complain but, all of you are doing a fine job of arguing with each other and lousy job convincing me of anything. I have yet to get a reasonable answer to a single question.

The bottom line is you either accept what the (global) scientific community's general conclusions or you think they are deliberately lying. All of them.

If you have something more specific in mind, please repeat the question.

NO. I do not have to choose in the manner you are defining. I may lack the requisite knowledge of a climate scientist but, I am quite educated when it comes to quantitative analysis and predictive modeling. If some of you are as smart as you claim to be, you should be able to convince me with facts and/or logic.

If you attempt that BS liberal tactic again, I will put you on my informal GW ignore list and, deduct two credibility points from your account. I mean really, I have to take it on faith? That is your trump card?

ALL OF YOU should know that someone is keeping score.

That's a helluva way to talk to your "lap dog".

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I hate to complain but, all of you are doing a fine job of arguing with each other and lousy job convincing me of anything. I have yet to get a reasonable answer to a single question.

Well, I'm trying.

I say you are NOT. You asked if anyone wanted an explanation for the deviation in the models. I said, yes, and you gave me a critique of DKW's posts.

I am asking questions and, for the most part being ignored. Except for the one time when DKW blasted me for asking a question.

Now, I am prepared to forgive and forget but, I want answers. I want them free of political bias. I want them now. All of you sound like a bunch of BS artists including the self-proclaimed expert. I will give all of you just one more chance. ARE WE CLEAR?

You mean like I did here?

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.

Okay. Thank you. The link was helpful. Spencer has artificially flattened the slope and, he is using all models in an attempt to discredit the more accurate ones. Can you explain the RCP graph of CO2 concentrations, please.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I hate to complain but, all of you are doing a fine job of arguing with each other and lousy job convincing me of anything. I have yet to get a reasonable answer to a single question.

The bottom line is you either accept what the (global) scientific community's general conclusions or you think they are deliberately lying. All of them.

If you have something more specific in mind, please repeat the question.

NO. I do not have to choose in the manner you are defining. I may lack the requisite knowledge of a climate scientist but, I am quite educated when it comes to quantitative analysis and predictive modeling. If some of you are as smart as you claim to be, you should be able to convince me with facts and/or logic.

If you attempt that BS liberal tactic again, I will put you on my informal GW ignore list and, deduct two credibility points from your account. I mean really, I have to take it on faith? That is your trump card?

ALL OF YOU should know that someone is keeping score.

That's a helluva way to talk to your "lap dog".

No matter how much you love your dog, there are times when you must roll up the newspaper and whack him on the nose. JK of course, JK.

[AUDub 11,148]

Okay. Thank you. The link was helpful. Spencer has artificially flattened the slope and, he is using all models in an attempt to discredit the more accurate ones. Can you explain the RCP graph of CO2 concentrations, please.

Gladly.

First a little background. It's going to be a bit elementary.

We measure atmospheric CO2 in parts-per-million (ppm). It currently averages about 400ppm. It was extremely high early on, hundreds of millions of years ago, when the earth was warmer and dropped when cyanobacteria and plants, things that metabolized it through photosynthesis, absorbed it and produced O2 as a waste product. This had the effect of sequestering some carbon and giving us things like coal and oil. When we run our cars, generate electricity, etc., we're releasing a lot of that back into the atmosphere in the form of CO2, which is a byproduct of combustion. But you probably knew that.

More recently, it's tended to fluctuate a bit. During the fluctuating ice ages of the last 400,000 years, it would alternate between roughly 180ppm during glaciations and 280ppm during interglacials. The ice cores you mentioned earlier have been a big help in this regard.

We got to where we are now by, well, running our cars and generating electricity, among other things. We started at roughly 280ppm before the Industrial Age and are now at roughly 400ppm.

The thing is, it's still rising. We need more energy than ever and fossil fuels are still the best way to do that. That's where those scenarios come in. They're basically predictions of what GHG concentrations will be in the year 2100 measured in CO2 equivalents.

RCP 2.6 assumes GHG emissions will begin to decline this decade.

RCP 4.5 assumes GHG emissions will peak in 2040 and decline thereafter.

RCP 6 assumes GHG emissions will peak in 2080 and decline thereafter.

RCP 8.5 assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise.

The graph is giving you an approximation of what the concentrations will be along the way for each scenario.

Hope this helps.

[homersapien 11,373]

Guess which pathway he's simulating with the models?

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

Thanks for that link. Comments are worth reading as well.

I had a folder of bookmarks on Roy Spencer, but I lost it when I changed operating systems. (I am a computer klutz.)

But this was one I hadn't seen.

[AUDub 11,148]

Guess which pathway he's simulating with the models?

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

Thanks for that link. Comments are worth reading as well.

I had a folder of bookmarks on Roy Spencer, but I lost it when I changed operating systems. (I am a computer klutz.)

But this was one I hadn't seen.

May I recommend Dropbox? 5GB free.

[Weegle777 78]

I hate to complain but, all of you are doing a fine job of arguing with each other and lousy job convincing me of anything. I have yet to get a reasonable answer to a single question.

That is because it's all crap, and it's all relative. The climate changes. What a revelation!

[DKW 86 7,423]

73 models cherry picked? I dont follow.

Of course, Iffin it dont agree within ussin, than it's just racist bigoted blah blah or blah cauzin nothin can be a disgreein within uz....an not be pure eeeeeeevile!!!!!!

[DKW 86 7,423]

I hate to complain but, all of you are doing a fine job of arguing with each other and lousy job convincing me of anything. I have yet to get a reasonable answer to a single question.

That is because it's all crap, and it's all relative. The climate changes. What a revelation!

You is eeeeeeevile!!!!! You must agree within uz or you iz just eeeeeevile!

[Weegle777 78]

I hate to complain but, all of you are doing a fine job of arguing with each other and lousy job convincing me of anything. I have yet to get a reasonable answer to a single question.

The bottom line is you either accept the (global) scientific community's general conclusions expressed in the form of position statements by the representative organizations, or you think they are all deliberately lying.

If you have something more specific in mind, please repeat the question.

Ah yes, you either believe what we say, and be our sheep, or you are just an uneducated denier! What a joke.

[AUDub 11,148]

I think I broke DKW, guys.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Okay. Thank you. The link was helpful. Spencer has artificially flattened the slope and, he is using all models in an attempt to discredit the more accurate ones. Can you explain the RCP graph of CO2 concentrations, please.

Gladly.

First a little background. It's going to be a bit elementary.

We measure atmospheric CO2 in parts-per-million (ppm). It currently averages about 400ppm. It was extremely high early on, hundreds of millions of years ago, when the earth was warmer and dropped when cyanobacteria and plants, things that metabolized it through photosynthesis, absorbed it and produced O2 as a waste product. This had the effect of sequestering some carbon and giving us things like coal and oil. When we run our cars, generate electricity, etc., we're releasing a lot of that back into the atmosphere in the form of CO2, which is a byproduct of combustion. But you probably knew that.

More recently, it's tended to fluctuate a bit. During the fluctuating ice ages of the last 400,000 years, it would alternate between roughly 180ppm during glaciations and 280ppm during interglacials. The ice cores you mentioned earlier have been a big help in this regard.

We got to where we are now by, well, running our cars and generating electricity, among other things. We started at roughly 280ppm before the Industrial Age and are now at roughly 400ppm.

The thing is, it's still rising. We need more energy than ever and fossil fuels are still the best way to do that. That's where those scenarios come in. They're basically predictions of what GHG concentrations will be in the year 2100 measured in CO2 equivalents.

RCP 2.6 assumes GHG emissions will begin to decline this decade.

RCP 4.5 assumes GHG emissions will peak in 2040 and decline thereafter.

RCP 6 assumes GHG emissions will peak in 2080 and decline thereafter.

RCP 8.5 assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise.

The graph is giving you an approximation of what the concentrations will be along the way for each scenario.

Hope this helps.

Now this is what I am talking about! I hope Homer is paying attention. Thank you very much Big. You move up on the hero board.

One more question. Has deforestation also contributed to higher concentrations of CO2? I would seem inevitable. Is there any data that attempts to reconcile how much is attributable to both factors?

[AUDub 11,148]

Now this is what I am talking about! I hope Homer is paying attention. Thank you very much Big. You move up on the hero board.

One more question. Has deforestation also contributed to higher concentrations of CO2? I would seem inevitable. Is there any data that attempts to reconcile how much is attributable to both factors?

As a matter of fact, it has. So much so that I should have mentioned it. There's some uncertainty concerning the contribution, but it's estimated to be between 6-17% of emissions.

[DKW 86 7,423]

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.

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA!!!!!!

And you are going to tell everyone that the worst scenarios werent part and parcel of the AGW Scare Machine FOR DECADES? :lmao:

[AUDub 11,148]

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.

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA!!!!!!

And you are going to tell everyone that the worst scenarios werent part and parcel of the AGW Scare Machine FOR DECADES? :lmao:

Care to argue the science with me, or are you planning on lecturing me on the "scare machine."

You can't take the worst case scenario and apply it to the entirety of the models. Doing so is deceptive, and Dr. Spencer should know better.