Twenty years of overestimating global warming?

Can't see it. All the arguments support the climatologists, nobody produces any counter-arguments, yet quite a few mugs believe what their masters want, illiterately but strongly. Who sets it up - the holy angels, or the wingéd Founding Fathers you holy buggers worship? Come ON!

 

Well that tangent had nothing to do with the subject matter.

 

Which is, according to you lot? It is still colder in December than it was in August, so our Masters must be right, eh?

 

Dont think that I dont see your dishonest cherry pick running linear trends on two different ranges.

You run the linear trend on the solar forcing from 2001-2012 and then run the temperature from 1997-2008.

In what world would you think that you are better at using the woodfortrees interface than I am? I'm the one who first showed you how to use it.

Here is the temperature trend comparing the same on the same range as you used for the solar 2001-2012.



Holly (*)(*)(*)(*) its lightly down.

And you accuse me of cherry picking

 

I'll address this later but first back on topic.
From the OP and Watts:
"Actual warming was much less than that: 0.28 F, according the data the IPCC cites."
Do you agree with Glickstein: A one year data point (1990 as the beginning data point and 2012 as the end data point) can be used to show that observed warming does not match the IPCC trend projection?

 

Perhaps if you put into context of what I stated, you might in the slightest chance understand what the link was placed to point out. The entire article was blog to state that while there is a pause over the last 15-16 years adjustment demonstrates that man is still causing warming.

However, unlike you they do admit to a pause... which is the point entirely... Do you consider in any way this will justify your assumption that there is no pause? No matter what you think, as GHG emissions have increased... it is obvious to those who actually examine this stuff... there is a problem with the theory of the IPCC. It appears that you do not see the problem and are simply trying to justify that fact.

Also to the point, of changing the models and inputs... which you seem to find so hard to understand... to try and align their findings closer to ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS.

 

Quote the sentences where anyone states that there is a pause in global warming (not atmospheric warming, but global warming of the the earth/ocean system)

 

I reject your entire premiss because he shows every year and the range of that year.

 

I am not playing your stupid pedantic games.

You seem to know not what you are talking about when you first say ‘there is no pause’… then ‘even if there is a pause the IPCC has accounted for it’

That shows more to your faith than real understanding

 

You didn't answer my question:
"Do you agree with Glickstein: A one year data point (1990 as the beginning data point and 2012 as the end data point) can be used to show that observed warming does not match the IPCC trend projection?"

 

Just admit it. Nowhere in your link does any climate scientist state that global warming has paused.
You, like all the other pseudo-scientists, resort to making things up and personal attacks when you cannot respond.

 

The point of the blog post was to say that the IPCC got it wrong. But the blog post itself is wrong, because simple observation shows that the IPCC got it right.

 

it's funny how they always begin "it's getting colder" or "it's paused" and it always has the same start point, the record el Nino of 1997-98...in the years immediately following 97-98 it was "it's getting colder" well of coarse it was cooler than 97-98, duh!...and once temps began approaching the el nino year the story has now changed to "it's paused"....once we have another record el Nino on top of the current warming trend that shatters the existing records the whole cherry picking scenario will begin once again with a new start point...

 

Precisely the point of Foster & Rahmstorf 2012, which removed the effect of El Niño (and volcanoes, and solar) from global temperature records, and found no slowdown of global warming at all. Which also agrees with OHC, when you include the deep ocean. And also, of course, agreeing with anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Foster is a stupid tool both when he goes by his real name and his alias Tamino.

If Tamino has no credibility because he has screwed up so many times why should Foster. They are the same person.

As to his paper its crap. He assumes that the El Nino dissapears in the La Nina phase that isn't true at all. The warm el nino water continue to circulate around the globe raising the net temperature for many years.

 

If using an online alias is your criterion for being a stupid tool, what does that make the guy who calls himself "Windigo"?

On the contrary, Foster has tons of credibility. He shows it every time he debunks some of the junk seen on WUWT.

It's passed peer-review, which is more than you've ever done.

Liar. Foster made no such assumption in his paper. Read it if you don't believe me. Or if you can read.

If that's the case, it will show up in the temperature record. And if it's in the temperature record, it can be statistically removed. Oh gee: Foster & Rahmstorf have already removed it!

 

The rest of your response is the usual junk so let me just focus on the important part.

I know you have no idea what the bloded part means.

 

And where's your claimed bit about El Niño disappearing (or not)? Not in Foster's paper. You just made that one up. Which is a lie.

 

Yes we know that you don't understand what the bolded part means so you would rather just call me a liar.

 

LOL... did you even read the blog refered to? OOPS... Might have a problem stating that, it had nothing to do with the IPCC it was about the British Met office down grading it's projections...LOL

 

LOL... and you call me a pseudo-scientist... perhaps if you actually read the links that referred to the Pause instead of a link pointing out your obtuseness at the changes in models... but just for your edifications

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/01/skeptical-science-video-on-global-warming-pause-(1)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...y-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2L8T9QjAV

Are you trying to mislead everybody with your obviously attempt to try and gain some ground upon this issue.

Again this shows more to your faith than your understanding and comprehension.

 

Seriously? I know English is not your primary language, but you need to work on your reading comprehension skills if you think your quote backs your position. Look up the word "offsetting".
And the initial paragraph of your link should have given you a clue on what side of the debate the article is on.

I am not the one attempting to mislead. The MET Office 's strong response to Rose's claims show that Rose (and you by re-posting Rose's lies) was attempting to mislead.

Now that is funny considering your repeated inability to understand what you read.

 

Here's a little hint: quoting the Daily Mail on climate has about as much credibility as quoting Fox News on political polling.

Thousands of actual peer-reviewed papers on climate are published every year. Why not pick one of those instead? If, that is, you actually have evidence to support your position instead of spin.

 

So we have a cooling effect which is offset by the so called warming effect of GHG and thus there is no pause due to the fact it is offset? Perhaps you could examine the point that a pause means no increase or decrease. It does not mean there is no pause, as you claim. But if you have actually paid attention to what I have said, it is a pause. The fact that now you are trying to state that the pause is not real because you can offset cooling with warming means it does not exist? Perhaps you could work out yourself that this BLOG was by a AGW person such as yourself in an attempt to demonstrate that MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING was still occurring because there is a strong cooling effect going on. Stupidly you are assuming that this person is a liar because it clearly again demonstrates that the AGW religion do also accept the premise that there is a pause but really believe that the climate is having a cooling trend which is offset by man. Perhaps it is not me that needs to look up OFFSET but you. And I thought your first language was English, Apparently it only extends to your own understanding of what you want to believe.

So is it your claim that this is all crap? That man is not still warming the planet? So far you have been arguing that this is the case, yet now when you’re confronted with your own religious beliefs, they are all lies?

Ummm... it does not matter what side of the debate they are on... You are the one claiming there is no such thing as a pause, not your side of the debate, just you. The fact that I can use your side of the debate to demonstrate how wrong you are should actually say something to you.

Seriously,

From your own article... Even they admit the pause, Just you do not...LOL

Again you have tried to attempt to mislead the forum with the quote about the MET office using a different model (which you claimed was incorrect).

Your stupid attempt to mislead everybody is the fact you will not even acknowledge the same things as your gurus of the AGW theory

http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-head-pachauri-acknowledges-global-warming-standstill/
or try
http://climatedepot.com/a/19791/UN-...ses-confirmed-recently-by-Britains-Met-Office
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/53275

So perhaps you could simply bow out with this, as it has done nothing to aid you.

Actually what is very amusing is the lengths you have gone to attempt to demonstrate your own opinion. You say this is wrong but if it isn't it is accounted for. Figures are lies and that they are being fudged to suite something you obviously have little knowledge of, but great faith. What I find really amusing is that you do not even accept facts as your great Gurus and your great sources do.

Talk about pseudo-scientist, You do not even make the level of crack pot.

- - - Updated - - -

So we have a cooling effect which is offset by the so called warming effect of GHG and thus there is no pause due to the fact it is offset? Perhaps you could examine the point that a pause means no increase or decrease. It does not mean there is no pause, as you claim. But if you have actually paid attention to what I have said, it is a pause. The fact that now you are trying to state that the pause is not real because you can offset cooling with warming means it does not exist? Perhaps you could work out yourself that this BLOG was by a AGW person such as yourself in an attempt to demonstrate that MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING was still occurring because there is a strong cooling effect going on. Stupidly you are assuming that this person is a liar because it clearly again demonstrates that the AGW religion do also accept the premise that there is a pause but really believe that the climate is having a cooling trend which is offset by man. Perhaps it is not me that needs to look up OFFSET but you. And I thought your first language was English, Apparently it only extends to your own understanding of what you want to believe.

So is it your claim that this is all crap? That man is not still warming the planet? So far you have been arguing that this is the case, yet now when you’re confronted with your own religious beliefs, they are all lies?

Ummm... it does not matter what side of the debate they are on... You are the one claiming there is no such thing as a pause, not your side of the debate, just you. The fact that I can use your side of the debate to demonstrate how wrong you are should actually say something to you.

Seriously,

From your own article... Even they admit the pause, Just you do not...LOL

Again you have tried to attempt to mislead the forum with the quote about the MET office using a different model (which you claimed was incorrect).

Your stupid attempt to mislead everybody is the fact you will not even acknowledge the same things as your gurus of the AGW theory

http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-head-pachauri-acknowledges-global-warming-standstill/
or try
http://climatedepot.com/a/19791/UN-...ses-confirmed-recently-by-Britains-Met-Office
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/53275

So perhaps you could simply bow out with this, as it has done nothing to aid you.

Actually what is very amusing is the lengths you have gone to attempt to demonstrate your own opinion. You say this is wrong but if it isn't it is accounted for. Figures are lies and that they are being fudged to suite something you obviously have little knowledge of, but great faith. What I find really amusing is that you do not even accept facts as your great Gurus and your great sources do.

Talk about pseudo-scientist, You do not even make the level of crack pot.

 

LOL... It is not me trying to spin something out. I just cannot believe that people such as yourself do not even accept the published articles from your own side of the debacle, yet can still claim they are right. Go figure…
So the carbon brief is acceptable but we can ignore that because the daily extrapolates something from the same thing, you consider is a poor link…LOL
So far 0 for 2 going well.