Global Warming is over.

[gwb72tii]

there is a 97% consensus that 100% of the IPCC climate model temperature rise projections are 100% wrong

[herbivor]

there is a 97% consensus that 100% of the IPCC climate model temperature rise projections are 100% wrong

hahaha. Is it me or does that graph look like it is following the IPCC "Best Estimate" line pretty well? If you don't see it, you fail at graphs.

[cale]

But it ends with the graph descending, therefore hoax.

'Murica

[gwb72tii]

hahaha. Is it me or does that graph look like it is following the IPCC "Best Estimate" line pretty well? If you don't see it, you fail at graphs.

Looks a lot like no warming since 1990

[Q5Quint]

Looks?

Cant you just put a trend line on that data?

Trolling is fun but only if you can actually make people mad about it. About 10 seconds on google and I can find graphs and a paper that prove your no-trend line graph and statement wrong?



You still have to give me a global cooling prediction:




Interesting paper. http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1768

there is a 97% consensus that 100% of the IPCC climate model temperature rise projections are 100% wrong

False: Frame and Stone (2012) also simulated the possible range of natural temperature variability since 1990 by using the ensemble of 587 21-year-long segments of control simulations with constant external forcings from 24 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) climate models. These give a 90% range of about ±0.19°C, and are shown in black and gray in Figure 1. The observed warming from 1990 through 2011 was approximately 0.39±0.20°C (95% confidence range); thus there is only a very small chance that the observed global surface warming over the past 21 years could be explained purely by natural variability.

At the least we warmed .19C and the most .39C. Where is your info coming from again?

[Q5Quint]

there is a 97% consensus that 100% of the IPCC climate model temperature rise projections are 100% wrong

.....

Source?

[gwb72tii]

Source?

mr q, you need a sense of humor

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/29/is-it-a-failure-to-communicate-or-faulty-climate-science/

[gwb72tii]

and this just in, maybe CO2 is not the evil pollutant mrQ, cale eh?, herbal and others of the 97% consensus of the 38% answering "yes" to a faulty survey claim it to be

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/30/study-says-global-warming-caused-by-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide/

or perhaps, as with CO2, correlation is not by definition causation

[rwh11385]

mr q, you need a sense of humor

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/2...imate-science/

And you need to learn how models work and the most basic understanding of statistics, as well as basic comprehension of scientific laws such as conservation of energy, before you try to include yourself in a grown-up conversation about science.

Look how low 2008 (experienced La Lina) is on the chart, yet the data bounced right back up to above the best estimate line in 2010 (weak El Nino) and 2011 and 2012 experienced La Nina and lower solar levels and were among the hottest years on record.

Now, as has been attempted to be explained to you about fifty times in this thread [http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...ostcount=1978] and you continue to ignore and then repeat this simplistic "global warming has stopped" argument, where do you think the temperature is going to go when we experience El Nino again?

and this just in, maybe CO2 is not the evil pollutant mrQ, cale eh?, herbal and others of the 97% consensus of the 38% answering "yes" to a faulty survey claim it to be

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/30/study-says-global-warming-caused-by-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide/

or perhaps, as with CO2, correlation is not by definition causation

Here is a clear sign when you aren't using an actual scientist as a source:

This may be nothing more than coincidental correlation. But, I have to admit, the graph is visually compelling.

And instead have found someone who caters is scientifically ignorant people.

... just like drawing a flat line with MS Paint instead of doing a regression.

[DIIRTY-30]

[Q5Quint]

mr q, you need a sense of humor

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/2...imate-science/

Oh neat- a climate denial blog post with completely false information.

Based on model projections, the IPCC First Assessment Report of 1990 told the world to expect a “best estimate” rise of 0.3oC per decade in global temperatures, leading to 2025 temperatures that would be 1oC higher than 1990 temperatures. The IPCC also projected a “high estimate” and a “low estimate” rise. Today, global temperatures remain well below the IPCC’s low estimate. Contrary to model projections, temperatures have been flat for the last 15 years.

Where is your blogger getting his temperature information from?

At least these guys post actual data instead of a general statement with no facts or source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...termediate.htm

Why would you post a link to an obvious ideological instead of scientific blog site that has no links to sources of their data or theories of global temperature prediction?

Here is a great website to learn about how climate modeling works.

http://nas-sites.org/climatemodeling/index.php

Yes, we know that different scientists are predicting different levels of natural and human caused climate change based on what factors they are using for temperature drivers. I would love to read articles about that instead of non-scientific blog posts saying that there has been no warming when I can find multiple sources saying that that is completely false

(ie 'no warming' except that 2010 is the hottest year ever on record, tied with 2005). That fact alone still seems pretty hot to me.

[gwb72tii]

selected quotes from Phil Jones

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
—–
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
—–
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
—–
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
[A] “Yes, but only just”.

[gwb72tii]

and this just in
the NY Times is now on the no warming bandwagon

"But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=1&

[cale]

Haha wow, do you even read what you post or do you just glance at the title and then race over here in what you think is a glorious slap in the face to those who are not as willfully ignorant as yourself?

Allow me....

As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.

Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.

Somebody who wanted to sell you gold coins as an investment could make the same kind of argument about the futility of putting your retirement funds into the stock market. If he picked the start date and the end date carefully enough, the gold salesman could make it look like the stock market did not go up for a decade or longer.

But that does not really tell you what your retirement money is going to do in the market over 30 or 40 years. It does not even tell you how you would have done over the cherry-picked decade, which would have depended on exactly when you got in and out of the market.

Scientists and statisticians reject this sort of selective use of numbers, and when they calculate the long-term temperature trends for the earth, they conclude that it continues to warm through time. Despite the recent lull, it is an open question whether the pace of that warming has undergone any lasting shift.

It's a good thing those involved with investments do not deal with stats amirite? Oh wait..shit!

What happened when the mid-20th-century lull came to an end? You guessed it: an extremely rapid warming of the planet.

So, if past is prologue, this current plateau will end at some point, too, and a new era of rapid global warming will begin.

To summarize, you need to learn to read.

[salvuhdor]

So much information you fellas got here.

Such a waste. Nothing a human can virtually do to change this