Twenty years of overestimating global warming?

No, and I never said they were. I said they were data. (And they are.) So do you now admit that the Daily Mail story is not, in fact, supported by the Met Office? One point for me.

This is a logical non sequitur. Just because models allow something to occur, that does not mean it has actually occurred. It just means that if it were to occur, it would not be unexpected.

In order to determine if something has actually occurred, you have to look at actual data, not at models. And when you look at actual data, the Earth is still getting warmer.

Please tell us, why is it a bad thing to tune models to match observations?

Pretty hard to shoot when you don't have any ammo, dude. That's what evidence is.

 

Really? That is exactly what you assumed and stated the article explicitly states such. Now it is a fabrication... Much like everything else you do not like.

Now that is a lie…LOL

Really? But it is a lie isn't it? Is that not your claim? That the last warming period was not from 1980-1996? Apparently all you will need to prove is this premise... But it is nonsense?... LOL

LOL... you do understand what the word period stands for? LOL... but you never stated such a thing, isn't that what you said above? Gee you contradict yourself in the same post...LOL

If you had the comprehension skills to understand sentences (as you claim) you would understand that previously the climate was doing something else, such as a pause or even cooling for a period. Then began a further period of warming, but hey, breaking things into different periods is not as understandable to you as you would make out to believe is it?

LOL... apparently it is your problem with the facts of the article, not mine. I do not need to subtract (I do think you mean retract) anything. After all it is all lies until you can find a way to refute it...LOL but you have not found that.

 

Yes they are data, As stated 'YOU DO KNOW WHAT HADCRUT4GL IS?' Apparently the answer is obviously, NO.

The story is not supported by the MET office, I never claimed that. I claimed the facts used in the article where. You extrapolated something from that to mean the article was supported. Stupidly you are now trying to state, that is the premise of my post...LOL

Clearly read the response to the article to understand that the premise of the article "GLOBAL WARMING HAS STOPPED" is what the MET office is refuting, not the facts held within the article... LOL talk about comprehension problems. Oh wait, that would be a lie as well... No point for you...LOL

It is if that is the question being asked... LOL

What? You would use modelling to support your claims but now it is actual observations? Perhaps you should look at the observable data. According to your carbon brief the planet is in a cooling phase that is being offset by man forcing a pause. As actual observations demonstrate there is a pause... LOL

LOL... does it matter? I proclaim that is what is happening and you decided it was not. You decided to attack me on the article that posted quotes from the MET office to demonstrate that very fact in the denial of you and another. NOW what is bad about it?... LOL but they are all fabrications aren't they?

LOL... already done... You obviously do not know what has occurred here in your futile attempt to discredited articles and people (some of your own) to win something you really know little about. Talk about misleading and misrepresentation and logical fallacies. Perhaps you should change your signature.

 

Is it even possible for you to write a sentence without lying about what I have said? Apparently not. I have never said warming was constant. I have only said it's non-zero during the period 1996-2012.

So you're defending the false idea that 1980 was the beginning of a warming period. And utterly without evidence, as usual.

My claim is that warming started sooner than 1980. Which makes the Daily Mail sentence false, and means that you're wrong to defend it.

Happy to do so.

If that were true, then the Daily Mail would be right and you would be right. But since in fact the globe was warming prior to 1980, as the above graph shows, the Daily Mail is wrong and you are wrong. If you had the comprehension skills to understand math concepts such as "greater" and "less", you would understand that.

 

Apparently you ignore your own comments and pretend something else was said...LOL

That is why I quoted YOUR comment back to, but again that was a lie as well… LOL

Again you ignore your own side when they say it is...LOL

So 1980 was not the beginning of a warming period?... As you have claimed it was explicitly stated it was the beginning of global warming I would now assume you are going to ignore your previous statements as such... LOL

Again, you are assuming that warming is constant, which is the only way you can justify your obtuseness with the fact that during one period it did not warm and another it did.

LOL... there is that data set again. Do I have to ask the question that shows that you do not know what your linking? You do know what HADCRUT4GL is don't you? I do know the answer is NO, but it seems so stupid of you to continue to post graphs you really do not understand. Do you believe that HADCRUT4GL is the actual observed data?... LOL

What part of the article would be right? I say the data is correct but the extrapolation is incorrect. You demand that if one is correct the other must be. In case you did not know, that is a logical fallacy on your part which again opposes your signature. Should you not change your signature if you continue to be hypocritical to your own standards, as indicated by your signature?

So the data is wrong is it? Yet while the MET and the IPCC do not deny the data, but refute the extrapolation, in your opinion they are wrong.... LOL

Oh so you assume that adjusted data is the actual observations and statistical analysis of that data shows the true insight of the climate...LOL
Perhaps if you knew what you were talking about when attributing the modelling to actual observations, you might get a bit of a clue as to what you are actually arguing.

 

And I can just as easily show that up and downs was common for the two decades prior to 1980. It was in 1980 when we broke the trend and had a clear warming.

 

Hottest summer in Australia since records began in 1910. And this without El Nino. Word is that we will never see an "average" summer again, they're all going to be hot as Hades. I am not impressed.