Slashdot Mirror

Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".

... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?

... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate. ... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]

Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.

Global Warming Lies: thinkprogress.org/climate... "It's Happening Now"
No, it isn't. NO warming

Why do you think the process is linear? Present sea level rise is due to expansion of the water due to higher temperatures. Arctic and Antarctic ice sheet melting is only a small contribution to that. However, this will change in future. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/f...

I'm the same AC who tried to explain the concept of gravity waves. Parcel theory is a common assumption in meteorology (see http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/upperair/parcels.html as one of a huge number of examples), even though its conditions are usually violated to some degree in the real atmosphere. Sure, parcel theory isn't perfect, but it does a pretty good job of explaining a lot of things in the atmosphere. It's also extremely common to use it in meteorology to determine things like the amount of instability in the atmosphere or to estimate vertical motions resulting from isentropic upglide and downglide. Anyone who has ever looked at a skew-t diagram from computer model forecast (extremely common in thunderstorm and severe weather forecasting) is applying parcel theory. There area a lot of things we do in meteorology that simplify how the atmosphere works to make forecasting easier. Parcel theory is one of those things, and yet it does a pretty damn good job when we apply it to the real atmosphere.

Yes, the conditions of parcel theory are violated in the real atmosphere. Yes, mixing is one of the ways parcel theory is violated. However, it still works quite well and is extremely common in forecasting. So, although you're technically correct that parcel theory is violated in the real atmosphere, it's usually a close approximation. Entrainment usually isn't significant enough to make a big difference most of the time. That's because usually large volumes of air are displaced, and entrainment generally only occurs around the edges. For example, in a growing cloud, there's entrainment of dry air at the edges, but the interior of the cloud is unlikely to experience much impact from entrainment. The cloud is large enough that the entering is mostly insulated from the effects of entrainment.

As for your cows comment, fuck you.

Most people are tired of the fact that almost every year in the last 20 has been significantly above average, and there's no indication that that's going to change unless we start fixing out damage. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc... [noaa.gov] So yeah, a lot of us care, and that caring adjusts our buying decisions. Power draw is one of the biggest considerations when buying new stuff, for me.

Well, while I don't mind if companies and people do things to try to prevent global warming, be green, etc....I don't go out of my way to do it, nor do I want to be inconvenienced or pay more $$ for it.

I mean, my life is short, and I don't wanna have my comforts impinged upon unnecessarily.

By the time the world gets too warm or something catastrophic comes of it...I'll be LONG dead and buried in the ground, so, what do I care?

Most people are tired of the fact that almost every year in the last 20 has been significantly above average, and there's no indication that that's going to change unless we start fixing out damage. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc... So yeah, a lot of us care, and that caring adjusts our buying decisions. Power draw is one of the biggest considerations when buying new stuff, for me.

Ok: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...

Wow. Just wow. Where do I start? How about the MIT paper - written in 2005, so before Al Gore and other's claim that GW is causing them. Never the less, we have a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere and we have fewer. You like NOAA's stuff - http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/ . Look towards the bottom for a bar graph. If I were to take 2000-today by year and mix it up the years by that decade with say the 1950s randomized in the 1950s (so it's not obvious which one is which, however with correct data for that decade) and see if you can tell which one is which, I bet you'd lose that one. Unless you really studied the data carefully. I honestly don't understand how you can say there are more and they are worse. The NOAA graph just doesn't show that, at least not yet. Maybe next month it will after they "adjust" it so it's not a problem anymore like they're doing with the other stuff.

(previous stuff I showed you) You looked at the graphs, saw the data was different and that didn't concern you? The "adjustments" are always in favor of GW. If you're a TA or a Professor going over someone's scientific work, that is one of the things you look out for. Faked or wrong data. The fact NASA has been caught red handed changing this stuff REALLY should bother you.

Here are some references, but look below
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
You like the telegraph?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Here's one for you and you can see it with your own (as the Eagles would say - lying) eyes - Hansen's page (He no longer works for nasa BTW)- http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea... . Not as I remembered it. That's because they keep changing it - http://web.archive.org/web/*/h... Check out the 2007/2/24 version to today. Wow, same page where he admits in 2007 that the 1930s was the hottest decade on record. Now 1930s looks a lot colder. I don't think anyone would say the 1930s was the hottest on record as Hansen had to admit to in the early 2000s looking at the new graph. He claimed 1990s were until he was shown to be wrong. He claimed it was a Y2K bug. I don't think anyone believed that one.

Greenland - what about Venice Italy? It wasn't just Greenland, it was global.

To me this captain obvious moment (shown by the documented change in web page above) really should concern you, and make you mad that you've been lied to all of this time. Could go on and show you page after page or as that other site did, he overlaid them for you. Not that you seem to care, or perhaps you don't understand the material. I'm reminded a lot that other people aren't like me. Things that are painfully obvious to me aren't obvious to others.

Now, about concensus? http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB... Yea, not so much.

Well I've enjoyed going down memory lane a bit here if you're not persuaded by the very definitive evidence I've shown you, you probably never will be. I understand I'm asking a lot because a great deal of money has been spent to make you believe, change data, and so on. MMGW is all about making a bunch of money and control.

The comparison to tobacco is disingenuous BTW. I was a scientist back in those days, in the 1970s. I felt it was clear. Again, I could find where the tobacco industry had faked data and weren't being honest. It wasn't hard even without something like the Internet. This in a time when science wasn't so good, calling a lot of things cancer causing that weren't. Showing other people without something like the Internet was just about impossib

Oh, I looked at your "damning" links - and not one of them cited a relevant or useful study. What I saw instead was a lot of "here's a graph, here's another graph - they're different in a way I don't like - therefore, it must be deliberately faked". No attempt was made to find out why the data was adjusted, no evidence that the adjustments made readings less accurate instead of more, and no challenge to the peer-reviewed methodology of the corrections. Instead they leaped immediately to the conclusion that it was a hoax and a conspiracy - just as you are. No contrary evidence of your own, no studies, no science, just "I don't like the results so that science must have been faked". That's the very soul of denial.

Why just the 1970s? If they go further back, it disproves what they're trying to indoctrinate you with. They'd have you believe that bad storms never happened before. Hogg wash. In fact HOGG Island, NYC.

If you bothered to read the paper you'd see the data they present goes back to 1930, and only the recent increase in intensity starts in the 70s. And maybe you'd care to explain how a single storm from 1893 somehow disproves a peer-reviewed statistical analysis about storms getting stronger a hundred years later?

Likewise, please explain where the original "cold snap" study claims that Greenland before 1300 was "MUCH warmer" than today. Please explain how ice cores from two lakes in Greenland somehow mean that the average temperatures for the entire globe were warmer at that time, when no reconstruction places them anywhere close to modern levels. You think the Medieval Warm and Little Ice Age periods are unknown to climatologists? But you're already convinced it's all a scam, despite the evidence directly contradicting your claims.

As for the fuel companies, do you really think that? You think that they won't adapt?

You really think they'll happily wave goodbye to trillions of dollars without a care in the world? You're quite wrong. They'll adapt if they're forced to, but you can be certain they'll do whatever they can to exploit the reserves they have first - there's plenty of evidence of them spending hundreds of millions to confuse and delay the issue as long as they can - just like the tobacco companies did.

Instead, you're harping on about Al Gore - who's not even a scientist. Nobody cares what he says - we care what the climatologists say. They saw the problem long before Gore made a movie, and why would they care if he made money from it? Is Gore paying climatologists to falsify evidence? The ones doing that are the oil companies. Frankly, your efforts to claim that Gore somehow orchestrated the whole thing to make a buck are laughable in the face of the evidence - all the more so when you're so keen to ignore the FAR bigger amounts being made by those who benefit from ignoring it.

3) The first graph in Appendix A should surprise every CAGW alarmist, because it completely destroys your narrative.

Three things:
That graph only covers the USA, less than 3% of the Earth's surface.

I'm not sure that the number of 100 degree days is particularly meaningful in the context of global warming. Since more warming is occurring overnight and in winter than in summer it's certainly possible that warming is occurring without increasing the number of 100 degree days.

I'd like to see Christy's method of selecting those 982 stations.

His criticism don't change the fact that the models are WRONG by a whopping FACTOR of 3.

Climate observations remain well within the 95% uncertainty range of most climate models. If you think they should be more accurate than that I think your criteria for judging models needs to be revised.

It was the super El Nino of 2016. This is already ending and it looks like severe La Nina may be building, which is why Greenland is putting on ice at a record rate (fourth graphic on the following page):

Here's a discussion of current ENSO conditions. It looks like there are currently some weak La Nina conditions but that's expected to end and ENSO neutral conditions will persist through the spring.

I've read the Groenland page in detail. I agree that this year so far is way above average in surface mass balance. But it's only one year. Neither you nor anybody else has any idea at this point what is means in the long run. It may be the start of a trend or it may be just a part of natural variability. We'll have to wait and see. In the context of climate you just make a fool of yourself emphasising such a short period.

In short, the models were WRONG.

In short your criteria for judging the models is wrong. How can you predict ahead of time the strength of solar cycles? How can you predict ahead of time volcanic eruptions? How can you predict ahead of time the cycle of El Nino/La Nina? The answer is you can't. All you can give a climate model is a realistic scenario for those things based on past behavior.

Rerunning the models with actual behavior of those things is a check on how good the model is. They don't change the model, just the input to more accurately reflect what happened in the real world for things they couldn't predict ahead of time. How can you possibly think that they should be able to know ahead of time exactly what would happen?

And you would be wrong. Perhaps you shouldn't skim next time.

I read that part around Christy's radiosonde graph in detail before I brought it up with you. That graph does indeed end in 2005. In this blog post Tamino (statistician Grant Foster) compares satellite to radiosonde out to about 2015. The second graph clearly shows the divergence of radiosonde (RATPAC) data to UAH and RSS satellite date after about 2006. Christy had access to that data so why didn't he show it.

You go all political again at the end. I can find plenty of analyses that show it will be far more costly to ignore AGW than to do something about it. I guess the way things are going people who are younger than me will find out how bad it gets.

Again, if you want to unconditionally accept the word of a guy in a YouTube video, while ignoring the thousands of peer-reviewed studies cited and summarised in the reports I linked to, there's nothing I can say you'll listen to.

But if you want to know who's lying to who, ask for proof. And proof isn't people saying or writing whatever they feel like on blogs or videos, it's peer-reviewed evidence. The climatologists have produced the evidence cited above, while deniers have only produced rhetoric. Evidence like rising global temperatures and hurricanes getting stronger for the last 40 years, despite what you've been told.

If you just want to follow the money instead, look at the $33 trillion dollars of fossil fuel revenue at stake. Who do you think has the biggest incentive to mislead you - scientists on an $80k salary with their reputations on the line, or oil execs earning hundreds of millions from stock options?

This isn't some super-sophisticated robot submarine designed to spy on underwater Chinese communications (not that you could - EM signals only penetrate a few mm in seawater anyway). It's an underwater glider. It doesn't even have a motor. It moves by changing its density to alternately sink or rise, using its wings to convert that into forward motion - usually less than 1 knot. The electronics wake up every few seconds, measure the pressure to determine its depth, chirp the sonar to measure the distance to the bottom, sample the salinity and temperature, then go back to sleep. We use them in oceanography all the time for measuring temperature and salinity of the water column, and for mapping underwater terrain. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't identical to gliders NOAA uses.

Caffeine, acetaminophen and estriol (a natural estrogen) also were frequently detected in sewage but had high removal rates.

Thanks for the info .Now I can keep peeing with a clear conscience as long as I'm in the city. I remember the stories about estrogen found in untreated waste from septic tanks causing problems with fish. I wondered what happened for urban waste.

Never even considered caffeine ... mind you, it's not like fish sleep the same way we do.

Actually it's a link to all of the data if you scroll down. Click on methane and it'll show you the methane plot.

It is a nonetheless a number to get upset about even though it's small. If you'd like a larger number: the mass of methane in the atmosphere is 5x10^12 kg. That seems like a lot, right? A hundred years ago it was 2.5x10^12 kg.

Feel free to do some research on your own about why 2 ppm is still a significant amount of methane from a radiative forcing perspective. Here is data showing the role of methane in climate forcing. A factor of 2 increase in CH4 will double that "methane" contribution. If you're still not concerned about such a small concentration, here is a link to CFC concentrations. They were only in the part per trillion (yes, trillion) range in the atmosphere when they were wreaking chemical havoc on the ozone. This is an example where small concentrations in the atmosphere can have a large impact.

We have the data in 5 years or shorter increments back to 1000 AD. Also, there is no model that would suggest that such swings could or would happen on such a short timescale. Without external meddling (such as humans), atmospheric concentrations of this kind of gas just don't move around that quickly (however others can).

The problem of course, is that while the US has a good bit of coastline, we have a lot of real estate that is a long way from the ocean.

Of course we do. We also have the ability to transmit electricity there. And don't kid yourself. A huge percentage of the population of the US lives within two hundred miles of the ocean. This includes the entire populations of New York City, Boston, Washington DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami, Jacksonville, Houston, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and plenty more. Counties directly on the shoreline account for 40% of US population. All of these cities could easily be supplied by off shore wind power. We're idiots for not taking advantage of this power source.

The east coast of the US is prone to some serious weather excursions in the form of hurricanes. A lot of them. Even in Rhode Island. So an offshore wind facility has to be designed with that in mind.

They are. My understanding is that they stop the turbines from spinning above a certain wind load (somewhere around 125kph currently). They have a hurricane mode where the blades are pitched to neutral so it doesn't spin and then locked down facing the wind. Of course if the wind gets high enough damage is likely to result from a hurricane on land or off shore. Cuba had some wind farms survive hurricane Sandy which had winds of 110mph.

To (1), see this and this and this and the obligatory xkcd. Important take home message - it's not just the raw scale of increase, but the rate of increase. It's well outside of a natural timescale which those same historical records indicate is on the order of thousands of years. What's happening now is 8x faster. Also, we know what natural causes drive global temperatures (Milankovitch cycles, ninos, volcanic eruptions, and other things) and can model that. When we take those into account, the observed warming is NOT recovered. Only including the effects of increased CO2 and CH4 levels accounts for the observations.

To (2), see this, and this and a lot of other refs if you google it. Main take home point: in the past, natural global warming (which should take place over thousands of years, see above links), has lead to the further emission of CO2 coming out of the oceans and other places (see here, hence the lag. This was predicted to be the case by Hansen et al before the lag was discovered.

I assume that those 20X are referring to the sentence in the early years of this century, concentrations of methane rose by only about 0.5ppb each year, compared with 10ppb in 2014 and 2015"

As usual the article is misleading.

Look at the data in https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/....

There was no noticeable increases during the period 2000-2010. There was some small fluctuations and the methane concentration was even decreasing for a few yers. Computing the ratio of two values only make sense if both values are large.

Here some of the values are even negative. Can we say that between 2001 and 2015, there was an acceleration of 9.98/-0.65 = -15.3X ?
If one year, the increase was exactly 0 then all other years would show an infinitely acceleration.
That does not make sense

The only important value is the long term trend. Looking at the graph, the increase was approximatively 210ppb during the last 30 years so an average of 7-8ppb per year.

Increases of 12.61 ppb and 9.98 ppb measured in 2014 and 2015 are above average but not by much. The increase was even higher during the late 80th.

again you post completely wrong information.

They refuse to release un-'adjusted' data sets, even going so far as to attempt to use copyright claims on publicly-funded research

Wrong.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
https://www.newscientist.com/a...
http://berkeleyearth.org/data/

Also, BS on the copyright claim.

They will not release the actual programs, algorithms, and data used in their computer models,

Wrong.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...

which still are unable to both track past climate changes while modeling the future global temperature rise rates claimed.

Wrong.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
https://www.wunderground.com/c...

Models which most accurately track past changes do not show the predicted increases,

Wrong.
See above.

while models that show predicted increases in global temperature averages do not track against past climate records.

Wrong.
see above.

In order to assume this is reason enough to greatly disrupt the US national economy (guaranteed other nations like China, Russia, and India will not harm *their* economies b/c of CAGW alarmism) requires a 'leap of faith' equal to that of a religion.

That is a completely BS talking point.
No one is harming anyone's economy as a result of fighting this.
The idea that this somehow requires harming your economy is complete BS.

China and India are already more committed to it than the US is, and have, relatively, done more. And China's economy is both the largest in the world, and fastest growing, growing at a whopping 8% GDP every year for the past decade and a half, including during the global recession (ie, they weren't even hit by the recession), and while they are enacting more and more environmental regulations to do their part.

And in the US the "Green Energy Revolution" has created thousands of jobs and economic opportunity.
But that's what happens when a new industry grows; the naysayers (like you) who said it would be different this time, that it would harm people, were idiots.

It requires faith without any more proof than Christians have to believe in the God of Abraham. The way that CAGW alarmists have been acting has not been that different from the Westboro Baptist Church nutters.

This only shows that you are ignorant about both groups of people.

They try to shout-down and silence opposing voices, substituting outrage, anger, and argument/appeal from/to authority for reason and logic.

No, that's what you're doing.

Even their precious IPCC/Dr. Roy Cook "97% scientific consensus" is bullshit. The "97%" includes scientists who think humans have *some* effect on climate, which humorously includes many on the "Denier(TM)"-side.

Not sure what your point is here.
Best I can tell is that you're disproving your own point and not even realizing it.

This is essentially what you just did:
-You said gravity wasn't real
-You threw an apple in the air
-It hit you on the head.
-You then said "See? Gravity is BS."

Hell, *I* believe humans have *some* effect, I've simply seen no evidence that justifies massive immediate changes

Well, the willfully ignorant typically remain that way until forced into action.
Especially when they are as determined to ignore reality as you are.

again you post completely wrong information.

They refuse to release un-'adjusted' data sets, even going so far as to attempt to use copyright claims on publicly-funded research

Wrong.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
https://www.newscientist.com/a...
http://berkeleyearth.org/data/

Also, BS on the copyright claim.

They will not release the actual programs, algorithms, and data used in their computer models,

Wrong.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...

which still are unable to both track past climate changes while modeling the future global temperature rise rates claimed.

Wrong.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
https://www.wunderground.com/c...

Models which most accurately track past changes do not show the predicted increases,

Wrong.
See above.

while models that show predicted increases in global temperature averages do not track against past climate records.

Wrong.
see above.

In order to assume this is reason enough to greatly disrupt the US national economy (guaranteed other nations like China, Russia, and India will not harm *their* economies b/c of CAGW alarmism) requires a 'leap of faith' equal to that of a religion.

That is a completely BS talking point.
No one is harming anyone's economy as a result of fighting this.
The idea that this somehow requires harming your economy is complete BS.

China and India are already more committed to it than the US is, and have, relatively, done more. And China's economy is both the largest in the world, and fastest growing, growing at a whopping 8% GDP every year for the past decade and a half, including during the global recession (ie, they weren't even hit by the recession), and while they are enacting more and more environmental regulations to do their part.

And in the US the "Green Energy Revolution" has created thousands of jobs and economic opportunity.
But that's what happens when a new industry grows; the naysayers (like you) who said it would be different this time, that it would harm people, were idiots.

It requires faith without any more proof than Christians have to believe in the God of Abraham. The way that CAGW alarmists have been acting has not been that different from the Westboro Baptist Church nutters.

This only shows that you are ignorant about both groups of people.

They try to shout-down and silence opposing voices, substituting outrage, anger, and argument/appeal from/to authority for reason and logic.

No, that's what you're doing.

Even their precious IPCC/Dr. Roy Cook "97% scientific consensus" is bullshit. The "97%" includes scientists who think humans have *some* effect on climate, which humorously includes many on the "Denier(TM)"-side.

Not sure what your point is here.
Best I can tell is that you're disproving your own point and not even realizing it.

This is essentially what you just did:
-You said gravity wasn't real
-You threw an apple in the air
-It hit you on the head.
-You then said "See? Gravity is BS."

Hell, *I* believe humans have *some* effect, I've simply seen no evidence that justifies massive immediate changes

Well, the willfully ignorant typically remain that way until forced into action.
Especially when they are as determined to ignore reality as you are.

They refuse to release un-'adjusted' data sets, even going so far as to attempt to use copyright claims on publicly-funded research

Knock yourself out. However unadjusted data is pretty useless for drawing conclusions from.

> I would like to get Emergency Alerts ("flash flooding in your area for the next two
> hours") while disabling Amber alerts ("child abducted by parent 500 miles away."
> Seriously. The last Amber Alert I got was two months ago for an event 383
> miles away.. which had happened 18 hours earlier). How do I do that?

If you want to do that at home, and you live in North America...
* block the messages on your cellphone
* get a weather radio for USA http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/ or Canada https://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-wea... depending on where you live

They work in standby mode, and come on when the appropriate signal is transmitted.

The imagery looks like the actual measurements are LiDAR derived.
Similar levels of accuracy are available from the GPS system when differential GPS is used. More information about GPS here:
Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) http://geodesy.noaa.gov/CORS/

It is rocket science, however today not surprising. The really hard part of this is that the data is available in near real time. See the Sentinel mission website
https://sentinel.esa.int/web/sentinel/missions.

Any time a building incurs settlement like this I wounder if the foundation layer - likely some sort of clay - is a thixotropic material potentially subject to liquefaction when shaken. Reference Jan. 17, 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu Earthquake:Technical Paper on Liquifaction and,Earthquake Impact on Kobe

Sorry. NOAA shows global temperatures with uncertainty of ± 0.08. This is confirmed by several scientific studies. Conspiracy blogs don't trump science.

Well, let's see now:

The wildest projections for global temperatures predict a max of 5C global temperature increase

The strongest RCP 8.5 scenario assumes continued and increasing (business-as-usual) emissions reaching 936ppm CO2 by 2100. This is likely to result in 3 to 5 degrees temperature increase by 2100 - but will certainly keep increasing well beyond that, even if we suddenly stopped all our emissions. So no, 5 is not the max. Also, that's an average, and thus specific areas can climb well beyond 5C (see Fig SPM 8 [a]).

never mind that these models have been wrong and every 10 years they have to turn them down to avoid losing all credibility

Citation needed. The first IPCC report in 1990 predicted a temperature increase between 1 and 2 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures (see Figure 8), with a rise rate of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees per decade. Right now we're about 1.2 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures, and rising at 1.7 degrees per decade.

the tropics aren't going to get much hotter due to the effects of evaporation, most of the rise will be seen at the poles and further latitudes

Again, citation needed, because Fig SPM 8 (a) shows pretty clearly that tropical land temperatures can expect 4C to 7C average rises (again under RCP 8.5).

The past is massively important to what we are currently seeing.

But solely for the purpose of identifying past forcings, so that we can evaluate them in the context of today's increases (obviously there is no direct effect). Past changes can (and did) have entirely different causes to current changes. Every natural and cyclical cause that we've identified from the paleontological record has been evaluated in the context of modern warming, and found to be insufficient to cause the observed changes.

If this global warming is due to increased solar flux/frequency shift

It definitely isn't (surely you knew that much?) See IPCC AR5 WGI Chapter 8, particularly section 8.5.

a myriad of other factors not directly or indirectly caused by man

I welcome any suggestions that climatologists may not have considered. But considering you seem to believe they didn't even check solar flux, I'm not hopeful you'll think of anything new.

that argument can be made easily looking at the global temperatures over the past 500k years; hint: palm trees used to grow on Antarctica)

Again I say: so? Why do you think that current climate changes must have the same cause as past changes? Is it not conceivable to you that we could be seeing an entirely different proximate cause? I remind you once again that we've accounted for all known natural forcings, and found them insufficient to cause current observations.

BTW, palm trees grew on Antarctica 52 million years ago (not 500k), and atmospheric CO2 was at least 600ppm. That doesn't bode well for the scope of changes we're likely to see.

all the resources we pour into fighting global warming are 100% wasted

Even if we assume (against all evidence) that current warming is unrelated to human activity, transitioning our energy infrastructure to renewable and/or carbon-neutral sources is hardly wasted. Simply getting off coal will save hundreds of billions in health costs every year, in the US alone. Removing oil-burni

Why do you claim the models ignore clouds? Of course they're included. The problem is their effect is difficult to predict precisely, as they trap heat as well as increase albedo, so the net contribution can vary significantly. There are a great many studies about their contribution though, and confidence is very high that the increasing humidity is a positive feedback even with the resulting extra clouds factored in.

I'm glad you agree that the climate is steadily warming. Obviously all record temperatures will be on El Niño years, just as La Niña contributes to the cooler periods between them (which some have mistakenly labelled a "pause"). The important part is that this El Niño year has been hotter than all the previous El Niño years - just like 2015, 2014, 2010, 2005 and 1998. Such a string of broken records can only be a sustained warming trend.

And may I suggest less complaining about others examples, and more looking for citations to back up your own claims.

I see claims for this on both sides of the argument. Where can I find temperature data output from a model in the past in comparison to actual temperature data as recorded since that model was run?

I've been graphing it myself. What you need is the climate sensitivity out of the model-- this will be in units of degrees C per doubling. The prediction is that the delta-T equals the sensitivity times the Log_(base2) of the carbon dioxide currently divided by the carbon dioxide at the reference year. You can find carbon dioxide levels in the Mauna Loa dataset, here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c... and you can find temperatures in whichever source you like, such as Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST), or the NASA GISS data. This site has list of different sources of data, with a link to the BEST: https://climatedataguide.ucar....

The older the prediction, the longer a run of years you can compare predictions to reality, of course. The 1979 National Academy of Sciences report "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment" is a good place one; it has error bars on the prediction: 3 C, plus or minus 1.5 C (per doubling): https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12... The prediction hasn't actually changed much since then though, so that's a good one to pick in that it's representative of pretty much all the later models

It's too early to celebrate because the data really doesn't show this purported downturn yet. Here's the measured carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the last five years:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c...
And the full record:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c...

If there's a recent downturn, I can't see it.

(A different link graphing the same data: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/progr... )

It's too early to celebrate because the data really doesn't show this purported downturn yet. Here's the measured carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the last five years:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c...
And the full record:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c...

If there's a recent downturn, I can't see it.

(A different link graphing the same data: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/progr... )

Bullshit. Did you even look at the article?

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/...

Show me your trend. Please.

If you are looking at the high end tornado figure, there appears to be a weak downward trend over several decades, but 2011 just rang and asked if El Reno, Joplin and Tuscaloosa wanted to come out and play.

The annual number of tornadoes and the number of strong tornadoes are both trending down. The data doesn't lie.

The Earth may be warming, but we should take any claimed models or predicted outcomes with a HUGE block of salt, especially since climate scientists claimed that higher temperatures lead to more tornadoes and other extreme weather events. The facts show that the trend for tornadoes and hurricanes are both falling...

The Earth may be warming, but we should take any claimed models or predicted outcomes with a HUGE block of salt, especially since climate scientists claimed that higher temperatures lead to more tornadoes and other extreme weather events. The facts show that the trend for tornadoes and hurricanes are both falling...

How about 1/5th of a mile?
Or 1/20th of a mile?
Not so easy.

Easier to think in lots of 100m if you're just giving rough measurements such as driving instructions or lots of 50m for walking instructions.
Eg, go 300m past the post office and turn left.
Eg, the pub (bar) is 50m after the post office.

My tool box has 2 sets of sockets for parts from the civilised world and parts from the US.
The metric sockets go up in terms of 1mm each (eg 8mm, 9mm, 10mm, 11mm, etc) - easy.
The imperial sockets go up in inch sizes (1/2, 9/16, 5/8, 11/16, 3/4, etc) - weird and hard to calculate while I'm concentrating on the job at hand.

For the record, I grew up in Australia while we were converting from imperial to metric.
The "pain" wasn't that great and the new method (metric) is so much easier.
Any of us from schoolchild to pensioner can convert millimetres to metres to kilometres and vice-versa just by shifting the decimal point.
Converting between inches, feet, yards and miles involves oddball conversion factors (12, 3*12, 1760*3*12) that generally don't come easy to most people.

By the way, the official definition of the US inch is exactly 25.4mm.
Yep, US inches have been defined by the metric system since 1959.
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_L... (page 2)
https://www.nist.gov/sites/def...
ASA (American Standards Association) adopted this even earlier in 1933 and NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, precursor to NASA) adopted it in 1952.

I just about can't believe that this is about kids going to school in the dark. Let's see how this works. Assume my kids need to be at school at 8am.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/g...

Fall: (switchover at beginning of November) Gets light an hour earlier. What was 8am is now 7am. Was not dark for kids when the switchover occurred, and isn't going to keep them lined up with a sunrise before school even until the end of the month.

Spring: (switchover around March 12) they don't even get three weeks of there being a sunrise before school starts before we spring ahead, denying them sunlight before school for another month.

We want to panic. The data isn't bad enough, it must be worse! So they hypothesize - with no proof whatsoever - that sea level is rising faster wherever there are no tide gauges.

There is plenty of evidence that this is nonsense. For example, looking at current sea level trends, we do not see a faster rise in the southern hemisphere, even though this is what they say should be happening.

Different organizations have different sensors all over the world. Furthermore, people use satellite measurements. Have a look at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.g...

They show similar data to the NASA estimate.

NASA is once again figuring out how to doctor data to make you panic.

A university study has analyzed data to result in a very minor change (about a 6% correction) in average rate of sea level rise and the media has figured out how to make you panic. By the way, if you look at the "funded by" part of the abstract, the study was funded by NOAA.

NOAA has other thoughts.

Nice link, but I'm not sure why you say that this is "other thoughts"-- that's a link to the raw data. The University of Manoa/Old Dominion University/Caltech study takes these readings as input data to calculate the average.

What a shame that NASA, an organization once devoted to science, has fallen so far to become essentially the national enquirer of climate. sea level rise is the new Bat Boy...

What a shame that even very minor reanalysis papers get politicized. This wasn't even primarily a NASA study: the first author is funded by the University of Hawaii Sea Level Center, which is a NOAA program.

NASA is once again figuring out how to doctor data to make you panic. NOAA has other thoughts.

What a shame that NASA, an organization once devoted to science, has fallen so far to become essentially the national enquirer of climate. sea level rise is the new Bat Boy...

As 1998 is only the sixth hottest year, drawing a line to any of the hotter ones (all more recent) will not be horizontal. 2016 isn't over yet, but as every month so far has also been record-breakers, it'll probably be the new hottest.

As the models have predicted, temperatures clearly are still going up, just like they have been for many decades. Cyclic random noise from periodic oscillations like ENSO, PDO, and NAO, are not factored into the models (as they're random), but have no long-term effect on the trend (as they're oscillations).

CO2 going up one year doesn't automatically mean land temperatures also go up that year, not when there's other cyclic factors at play - but at smoothing windows longer than the oscillation periods, the observational record fits within the models' predictions - particularly when you add in the other observed external factors like volcanic & man-made aerosols, and solar & ENSO cycles.

Yes.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/produ...

Yes.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/produ...

We're fortunate the storm is grazing land along its left side (relative to the direction it's moving). The right side has the higher wind speeds and bigger storm surge.

hi the latest image is at http://www.goes.noaa.gov/brows...

Wow! that's dumb. How many people "deny climate change" ? no one denies the climate changes. What is debated is the proportion of man-made change (from our piddling 5% contribution to the CO2 budget) to the natural change (which started over 150 years ago at the end of the Little Ice Age and did not magically stop in 1950 as the alarmists claim).

The natural warming trend didn't "magically stop", it stopped because the natural factors driving the warming trend ended, but you are free to ignore inconvenient truths like the fact that the sun has had a small cooling trend over the last 35 years.

Quoting skeptical science's ignorant opinion is not how the Scientific Method is done.

Really? Didn't you just direct me the ignorant opinion of a series of elder crackpot scientists with little expertise in the field of climate change? Were you being unscientific then? The article I directed you on Skeptical Science isn't opinion, it's an explanatory article that links to the sources for they're providing you can, if you chose to, verify everything they've stated from the sources provided.

The IPCC made specific predictions that the Lower Tropical Troposphere would show a specific warming pattern if AGW was the correct hypothesis. The RSS and UAH satellites, backed up by thousands of balloons, have not observed this signature. So we have hypothesis, prediction, observation, and the observation does NOT match the prediction.

The failure to detect the signal was most likely measurement error, according to this article co-authored by John Christy (who is definitely not a global warming proponent). There is also a stratospheric cooling trend that biases the results on the cold side because the microwave signal is travelling through a cooling band of atmosphere above the warming band and the balloon data actually shows warming.

Furthermore the specific nature of the the AGW models predict a TCS whose most probable value is greater than 3 (after revision downward from failure after failure of earlier predictions). The observed value is currently between 1 and 2 and looks like will converge lower than that.

According to this article on the history of climate sensitivity there hasn't actually been much revision to the estimate, it was established as in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 in 1979, and the most recent IPCC report (5th) has the range as 1.5 to 4.5.

In short, the specific predictions of AGW have been falsified by observed reality.

The main problem here is that the specific predictions of AGW have not been proven accurate by observed reality. There are some people claiming that if you cherry-pick the data, squint and tilt your head then the data doesn't look as good. But they are going to great lengths to create data that doesn't match the predictions. In the particular case you cite, they use one particular measurement, use an old, outdated copy of the data, ignore the inherent problems in the measurement, splicing, and orbital decay adjustments due to indirect nature of the measurements, and then cherry-pick a time segment for minimal warming. Just to get one piece of data that doesn't look like it matches the predictions, but it's all deliberate framing to cover up the underlying truth.

Who cares what the psychologists are skepticalscience have to say, what matters is that the AGW predictions do not match REALITY. Hence the skeptics were right and the Scienti

Pics or GTFO

Will scans of the cancerous tumors growing inside you from eating a food supply laced with plastic suffice?

Just curious, since the real damage isn't 10,000 feet in the air.

No they wont'! Nice try at hyperbolic bullshit, though. If you're going to try that kind of argument, I'll respond that your tumors are from exposure to your WiFi and have nothing to do with Pacific garbage or any other pollutants.

What we MUST HAVE is scientific evidence/proof, and none exist. These bullshit artists - who stand to benefit financially from their false claims - claim to have seen it with their own eyes, but were unable to photograph it or provide a video of it. How odd that the eye could see it but the camera could not possibly...

Meanwhile, I can provide actual citations to long established and reputable scientific organizations that have stated that the garbage patch is a myth and that there is no scientific estimate or measure of the extent of any pollution that may be or is present.

Pics or GTFO

Will scans of the cancerous tumors growing inside you from eating a food supply laced with plastic suffice?

Just curious, since the real damage isn't 10,000 feet in the air.

No they wont'! Nice try at hyperbolic bullshit, though. If you're going to try that kind of argument, I'll respond that your tumors are from exposure to your WiFi and have nothing to do with Pacific garbage or any other pollutants.

What we MUST HAVE is scientific evidence/proof, and none exist. These bullshit artists - who stand to benefit financially from their false claims - claim to have seen it with their own eyes, but were unable to photograph it or provide a video of it. How odd that the eye could see it but the camera could not possibly...

Meanwhile, I can provide actual citations to long established and reputable scientific organizations that have stated that the garbage patch is a myth and that there is no scientific estimate or measure of the extent of any pollution that may be or is present.

The U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) stated several years ago that this is a myth.

NOAA's position has not changed and there is no scientifically sound estimates exist for the size or mass of these garbage patches

The U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) stated several years ago that this is a myth.

NOAA's position has not changed and there is no scientifically sound estimates exist for the size or mass of these garbage patches

Because it is a very large area of the ocean in which plastic particulates float. It probably doesn't look much different from the rest of the ocean to the naked eye.

You don't realise that, because you haven't read the article, nor any of the linked articles that might help further your understanding of the problem. That's ok, you're probably busy. I've taken the following quote from here, to help you out a bit.

The debris is continuously mixed by wind and wave action and widely dispersed both over huge surface areas and throughout the top portion of the water column. It is possible to sail through the “garbage patch” area and see very little or no debris on the water’s surface. It is also difficult to estimate the size of these “patches,” because the borders and content constantly change with ocean currents and winds. Regardless of the exact size, mass, and location of the “garbage patch,” manmade debris does not belong in our oceans and waterways and must be addressed.

All that plastic rubbish is not collected into a huge floating island, nor does it look at all impressive on photos (which is why there are none in the articles). It isn't clumped together - it's more like flecks of plastic floating in a soup.

That does not lessen the problem. There's still a vast amount of debris out there, just spread out a lot, over multiple areas. And any plastics that do break down form "microplastics" that have now found their way into more than a quarter of fish sold in Indonesia and China.

And still no cited studies. For someone who raves about the scientific method so much, you don't care much for actual data or observation - just the same empty claims, repeated louder each time. You still haven't even stated with any clarity which hypothesis you think has been falsified, let alone by what.

For example, the 1990 IPCC report makes not one but four projections about future temperature rises, right there in the Executive Summary. The most extreme of those (Scenario A, Business as Usual) predicts a 1C rise by 2025 - and we're already getting close to that. However the other scenarios predict rises as low as 0.1C per decade (depending on global emissions), and we're well ahead of those. So yeah, 1990 IPCC predictions so far confirmed by real observational data, rather than the mysterious numbers in your head.

Though of course, models of any system with underlying randomness aren't invalidated by a couple of outlier numbers anyway, only by a sustained series of observations that collectively fall outside the three-sigma probability range - since the scientific method isn't nearly as black & white as your hugely over-simplified idea of it. Go talk to some particle physicists; you might learn something about that.