Twenty years of overestimating global warming?

I have never cited the Carbon Brief. That's 0-for-2 for you.

 

Makes absolutely no sense to me; try again.
And another incorrect assumption by you.

Really!? That's what you got out of my post?

So by your logic you can quote an article to back your point but when I quote the same article you dismiss my quote? Not sure I follow your logic there, sport.
How does "Natural and human influences are affecting the world's climate. As a new video shows, if you subtract natural influences on global temperature over the last 30 years - leaving only the human influence - there's a steady warming trend. In other words, human-caused global warming hasn't slowed or stopped." demonstrate how wrong I am?

You do realize we were discussing observations and not models and simulations, right?

I sure hope you are being paid well for you to keep coming back and embarrassing yourself.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest.

 

Again I know, You do not seem to grasp the simplest of things, Tell me what is it you do not understand the fact that a cooling period is being offset by manmade global warming forcing a pause??? LOL

Yes it is what I got from it... When you quoted my article you tried to extrapolate it was to demonstrate a pause. The fact is was to demonstrate models being changed. That is misleading and stupidly you continue to attempt to score the wrong point from the wrong article...LOL

That is the claim you are making of the article, but the article actually claims that while a cooling period can be demonstrated, manmade global warming is causing the temperature to paused... Not continue to rise...as you would assume but you are correct they are claiming man made global warming has not stopped, due to the pause... LOL

What you now want to change the debate again? We are discussing both models and actual observations and the difference of both... Do you stupidly think that they are both different subjects. We are discussing your obtuseness with the fact there is no pause and that models are not modified to closely emulate the actual observations in comparison to actual observations. So far you have flipping about saying this and that, and that even your side of the debate is wrong because they admit what you do not…LOL

I do not need to be paid, you obviously are grasping, trying to defend your IPCC and their claims as a religious cult. It is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about so you try and subvert the debate to anything you think you can win. But obviously you have been caught out again. Of course you are not going to bother with the rest... You have no answer.

 

No but I have...LOL and you ignored it because?... It agreed there is a pause... LOL

I think perhaps before you interject yourself, you should read previous posts.

 

I'm done. Learn to understand what you read.
Bottom line:
1) one year's data is not statistically significant in determining the validity of a projection.
2) The energy imbalance of the earth's climate has increased in the last 14 years, and
3) The energy balance of the earth's climate is not in the process of being restored.

 

The fact remains you quoted two statements from the Daily Mail about global warming, both of which are false. These two statements are:

1. There was no discernible warming between January 1997 and August 2012.

and

2. The previous warming lasted from 1980 to 1996.

If you want to defend these falsehoods, be my guest; you will go down in flames. If you don't, you should disavow your posting of them.

 

You will notice that nowhere in that response does Rose actually address the question. He gives a non answer. Long yerm trend us still up, paset decade warmest. None of those statements address the issue of temperature rise having paused.

I can saw that is far more representative of you. As you can't even recognize a non answer when you see it

 

Love that you do not even admit what your beloved IPCC admit.

 

Yes, something that the head of the IPCC admits to

http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-head-pachauri-acknowledges-global-warming-standstill/
But they are liars aren't they?

LOL... Perhaps if you also look back you will see that is not in the article. It states that the 'current pause lasted the same time as the previous period of warming'

LOL so you have failed again... far too much.

 

Pachauri is wrong, just as you are, and just as the Daily Mail is.
EDIT: The IPCC is claiming that Pachauri's views were misrepresented by the story in the Australian (which was picked up by the Daily Mail).

1996-2012 regression slope of global temperature, according to
GISS: +.11° C/decade
HADCRUT4: +.09° C/decade
NCDC: +.09° C/decade
RSS: +.03° C/decade
UAH: +.12° C/decade

All slopes are positive, which means warming. That's "discernible".

Now that's a lie. Next time, quote the whole sentence, which states:

So in fact, the article stated exactly what I said it did. And you quoted that full sentence here. Are you going to defend that falsehood? Or are you going to admit that the Daily Mail was wrong, and that you were wrong for quoting them?

 

LOL... The head of the IPCC is wrong now... LOL so tell me is the IPCC got anything right? LOL

Mmm....
'Current pause lasted the same time as the previous period of warming'
'The ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose'

Which is the lie?... LOL

What did you say
'2. The previous warming lasted from 1980 to 1996.'
No not the same is it.

I do not need to admit anything. The facts 'quoted' from the daily mail are well supported by the Met office and the IPCC. Because you do not like the extrapolated outcome of the article of the daily mail does not deter from the fact there is a pause currently in Global temperatures by actual observations that are supported by the MET office and the IPCC which has made it necessary to change projections of the religion to attempt to closer emulate actual observations.

Of course now you have decided that the head of the IPCC is incorrect. You would also ignore the evidence of such a pause from other sites because it does not suite your case. So in other words, prove them wrong. Will seem pretty stupid to show that your great AGW leaders are wrong and yet still proclaim them to be the great sources of this completely nutty religion.

Love your signiture, perhaps you should consider it again in light of your attempts to mislead people upon this subject. I would expect number 4 and 5 are good place for you to begin.

 

Pachauri wasn't even quoted by the Australian, probably so they could claim their misrepresentation wasn't a direct quote.

The lie is that warming began in 1980, which the article explictly stated, and which you explicitly quoted, and which is absolutely false.

Not unless you're honest. Which clearly you aren't.

Another lie. Because the IPCC immediately disavowed that "fact", and because the Met Office's own data shows that the global climate has warmed since 1996. Want to see the data yourself? It's right here.

The same lie yet again. Here's a hint: when you lie about something, it's best not to lie about something that is (a) numerical; and (b) easily checked. Because when you do that, people can tell that you're lying.

No I haven't. I have decided that he was misquoted. Because he says he was, and because no reporter can come up with an actual quote.

I haven't ignored any evidence because you haven't presented any. You do know what evidence is, don't you? Actual data? Numbers? Verifiable? Like the regression slopes I gave in the previous post, which you can check for yourself if you want. Or the graph I posted above, which you can also check for yourself. Bare assertions are not evidence, no matter how often you assert them.

 

Oh dear, apparently it is a misrepresentation now. Apparently you are oblivious of your own.

Oh so you extrapolated that from the statement of previous period of warming? That is a misrepresentation on your part. They simply state that the previous period of continues warming is the same as the current pause. It is you who assumes they are stating that the warming only started from 1980, But then again, You assume the planet is currently continuing to warm. Constantly due to your understanding of the models you have posted.

Again, look in the mirror.

You do know what the hadcrut4gl is?

Is it? So you do like the fact? LOL

Yet you ignore that fact that the responses to articles
As response to the very article states

from http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/tag/david-rose/
Is that a misquote as well? When they state that simulations for this pause is not uncommon in their models? LOL

Oh he is misquoted, they are liars, carbon brief... not me... You have tried everything to justify something your own people admit.

Yes, I could check the modelling, seems pretty pointless

LOL... yes, I know but when you’re defending subjects against religious zealots, it does not matter what is posted. It is either misquotes or a lie or something that was intended for so does not count. OR in this case just ignore everybody about them and proclaim it is not occurring as it actually is. I do not need to repeatedly paste graphs of the actual observations to demonstrate things, I had assumed you read the earlier posts.

 

Is drawing a line from initial data point to end data point statistically relevant when determining the accuracy of a projection? Yes or no?

 

Enough with you strawman. The graph doesn't draw a line from 1990 to 2012. It uses a least squares regression of all annual data between the points.

For christs sake are you ever going to grasp what you are reading? You go from one totally wrong analysis to the next without ever missing beat. When will you just admit that the graph is exactly what it says it is.

 

Oh poor debater. The argument is from 1997. You just were so happy that Garry's statement was not precise enough and you could interpret it either way.

Yes if you go all the way back to the 1995-1996 la nina you get a slightly positive trend. Still significantly less than anything predicted by climate models however.

 

No, the 1980 was in the Daily Mail, which you quoted and you apparently agree with (because you never retracted it). Remember all the way back, oh, four days ago, when you posted it? It was in post #59 in this thread. Let me refresh your memory:

There it is: the date "1980" as the start of "the previous period when temperatures rose." In your post. Maybe you just don't remember all the way back to four days ago. Maybe you were drunk when you posted it. Maybe you don't do well at four in the morning. But you posted it, dumbass, not me. Now if you want to retract it, be my guest.

 

Yes, but apparently you don't. The HAD part stands for the Hadley Centre, which is a part of the UK's Met Office. The HADCRUT4 global temperature dataset is the Met Office's own official global data.

No, that's an accurate quote. Are you now agreeing that models are accurate? Because you'd have to, if you accept that quote as accurate.

Thank you for admitting that you don't have a shred of evidence to support your position. Why then should anyone agree with it?

 

You still lose.

 

That is flat.

 

It doesn't???


Explain to me what I'm missing?

 

And yet you still get all upset and resentful when we call you people "deniers".

You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. The regression slope of that data is +.046°C per decade. That's a discernible increase.

 

No, I remember but is you who assumes that is what the article is stating, not the MET office and apparently not anybody else. It is you who also assumes that Warming has been constant since the concept of this religion, which it has not.

The MET office itself understands that this is not the claim of the article, but apparently that is missed upon you. Talk about cherry picking and logical fallacies. Perhaps again when you post a sentence you should post the entire sentence; otherwise you are misrepresenting the quote.

"This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996" Of which you seem to be the only person extrapolating that warming only started in 1980...LOL that ‘pervious period’ is so hard to comprehend isn’t it.

Just for your comprehension, the article is attributing a previous period of rise which was constant from 1980-1996 to the current pause and stating it is the same length period. You are assuming warming is stated to have started in 1980. That is not categorically stated as you assume it to be. Talk about attempting to mislead people. Do you deny that the last period of warming did not start in 1980? Perhaps you could post a graph from woodfortrees.com showing that it was rising in 1979 or a period before that?...LOL

 

Now that is another misrepresentation of the facts isn't it? What is it actually

oops forgot that word didn't you. Are they the actual observations?
This might help your to understand that this does not mean what you consider it to mean

but no they are actual observations?

No, it is you who assumes that they are. It is you who assumes that there is no pause, yet the MET and IPCC now say that it has been found to be likely as modelling does allow for it. If they are so accurate, why the hell do they have to keep changing them? Oh, I see, to closer emulate actual observations...LOL

I don't care if you agree or not. Fact is, because of these highly religious zealots that misrepresent the truth of this subject, more and more people are not believing your side when you can be shot down with your own side of the debate.

 

I have never made such an assumption, nor such a statement. You're lying again.

What nonsense. If temperatures rose starting in, say, 1979, that would mean that "the previous period when temperatures rose" would be 18 years, not 17, which would mean that the alleged (but false) "pause" would NOT have lasted as long as the current period when temperatures rose -- which is what the sentence claims. Which would mean that the sentence would contradict itself. The only way the sentence cannot contradict itself is if the warming started in 1980. Since the warming started earlier than 1980, the sentence is false, and you were wrong (and are wrong) to defend it.

I know subtraction is a little hard for deniers to grasp, but do try to keep up.