Remember me
▼ Content

no leveling off of warming



Page 1 of 212>
no leveling off of warming27-05-2017 17:33
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-02520-7


Scott Pruitt – the new Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – received a written question regarding observed warming estimates. In response, Mr. Pruitt claimed that "over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming"


In each of the six satellite datasets, all 20-year TMT trends are positive, irrespective of the trend start date (Fig. 1
. The specific period of "the past two decades" yields 20-year TMT trends that have not "leveled off". As expected, there are multi-decadal changes in trend size


something that is actually being discussed.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-05-2017 18:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
spot wrote:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-02520-7


Scott Pruitt – the new Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – received a written question regarding observed warming estimates. In response, Mr. Pruitt claimed that "over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming"


In each of the six satellite datasets, all 20-year TMT trends are positive, irrespective of the trend start date (Fig. 1
. The specific period of "the past two decades" yields 20-year TMT trends that have not "leveled off". As expected, there are multi-decadal changes in trend size


something that is actually being discussed.


No valid datasets, with any instrumention lists and corresponding tolerances, are presented for scrutiny.

No margin of error, as computed from any aforementioned datasets, is discussed.

This fake "report" is summarily dismissed.

Review the "Data Mine" thread for requirements.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-05-2017 18:25
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-02520-7


Scott Pruitt – the new Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – received a written question regarding observed warming estimates. In response, Mr. Pruitt claimed that "over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming"


In each of the six satellite datasets, all 20-year TMT trends are positive, irrespective of the trend start date (Fig. 1
. The specific period of "the past two decades" yields 20-year TMT trends that have not "leveled off". As expected, there are multi-decadal changes in trend size


something that is actually being discussed.


No valid datasets, with any instrumention lists and corresponding tolerances, are presented for scrutiny.

No margin of error, as computed from any aforementioned datasets, is discussed.

This fake "report" is summarily dismissed.

Review the "Data Mine" thread for requirements.


.


****nugget, that's right I'm addressing you.

If what I linked is not up to requirements I suggest you take it up with the journal that published it. If you wish to only read stuff that comes up to your standards I suggest you open your own forum where you have moderator privileges I however see no reason to think your comments are anything more then your usual gobbledygook.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-05-2017 19:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-02520-7


Scott Pruitt – the new Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – received a written question regarding observed warming estimates. In response, Mr. Pruitt claimed that "over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming"


In each of the six satellite datasets, all 20-year TMT trends are positive, irrespective of the trend start date (Fig. 1
. The specific period of "the past two decades" yields 20-year TMT trends that have not "leveled off". As expected, there are multi-decadal changes in trend size


something that is actually being discussed.


No valid datasets, with any instrumention lists and corresponding tolerances, are presented for scrutiny.

No margin of error, as computed from any aforementioned datasets, is discussed.

This fake "report" is summarily dismissed.

Review the "Data Mine" thread for requirements.


.


****nugget, that's right I'm addressing you.

If what I linked is not up to requirements I suggest you take it up with the journal that published it. If you wish to only read stuff that comes up to your standards I suggest you open your own forum where you have moderator privileges I however see no reason to think your comments are anything more then your usual gobbledygook.


Why do you believe that a magazine is an Oracle of Truth?

Data dismissed. See the requirements set forth in the first article of the Data Mine thread. I have a much higher standard of acceptable data than you. You will believe anything you see in a magazine or on the internet.


The Parrot Killer
27-05-2017 20:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
spot wrote: If what I linked is not up to requirements I suggest you take it up with the journal that published it.

When I wrote that it was summarily dismissed, I meant that I will not even be bothering to take it up with anyone.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-05-2017 17:55
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
When you summarily dismiss things. Do you put on a wig and a gown and pound a gavel on your computer table? Because it doesn't count unless you do.
28-05-2017 19:32
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
How much has the temperature of the world warmed by since 1998?

I choose this date because that is when it stopped warming. Well, to any significant degree.

If in 10 years it has not warmed up by 0.2c will you accept that we are not going to get close the top half of the IPCC's predictions?
28-05-2017 20:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
spot wrote:
When you summarily dismiss things. Do you put on a wig and a gown and pound a gavel on your computer table? Because it doesn't count unless you do.


He doesn't have to. What is acceptable to him is decided by him and him alone. You do not have the power to decide for anyone except yourself.

What I decide to accept is for me and me alone. I have designated my requirements quite clearly in the first article in the Data Mine. I do not accept data under any conditions less than this.

I do not accept any link used to replace an argument. Holy Links are summarily dismissed.


The Parrot Killer
28-05-2017 20:03
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Tim the plumber wrote:
How much has the temperature of the world warmed by since 1998?

I choose this date because that is when it stopped warming. Well, to any significant degree.

If in 10 years it has not warmed up by 0.2c will you accept that we are not going to get close the top half of the IPCC's predictions?


I'm just eyeballing a graph and I can tell your statement is not true. In fact that is the whole point of the paper it goes into the claim that there has been no warming in great detail and proves it false.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-05-2017 20:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
Tim the plumber wrote:
How much has the temperature of the world warmed by since 1998?

I choose this date because that is when it stopped warming. Well, to any significant degree.

If in 10 years it has not warmed up by 0.2c will you accept that we are not going to get close the top half of the IPCC's predictions?


How do you know? We can't determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.

It's not even worth trying to outbid the IPCC. They are just manufacturing data. NOAA copied it. NASA copied NOAA.


The Parrot Killer
28-05-2017 20:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
How much has the temperature of the world warmed by since 1998?

I choose this date because that is when it stopped warming. Well, to any significant degree.

If in 10 years it has not warmed up by 0.2c will you accept that we are not going to get close the top half of the IPCC's predictions?


I'm just eyeballing a graph and I can tell your statement is not true. In fact that is the whole point of the paper it goes into the claim that there has been no warming in great detail and proves it false.


Argument from randU.

You are quibbling over manufactured data. You can certainly choose to waste your time there, but there is really no point.


The Parrot Killer
28-05-2017 20:09
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
How much has the temperature of the world warmed by since 1998?

I choose this date because that is when it stopped warming. Well, to any significant degree.

If in 10 years it has not warmed up by 0.2c will you accept that we are not going to get close the top half of the IPCC's predictions?


I'm just eyeballing a graph and I can tell your statement is not true. In fact that is the whole point of the paper it goes into the claim that there has been no warming in great detail and proves it false.


Argument from randU.

You are quibbling over manufactured data. You can certainly choose to waste your time there, but there is really no point.


And your point in posting this is?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-05-2017 20:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-02520-7


Scott Pruitt – the new Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – received a written question regarding observed warming estimates. In response, Mr. Pruitt claimed that "over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming"


In each of the six satellite datasets, all 20-year TMT trends are positive, irrespective of the trend start date (Fig. 1
. The specific period of "the past two decades" yields 20-year TMT trends that have not "leveled off". As expected, there are multi-decadal changes in trend size


something that is actually being discussed.


That dataset does NOT show growth. It clearly demonstrated nothing more than an average of zero degrees over the length of the dataset. You absolutely cannot make predictions on the length of that dataset because the trend over that period of time is up.

The claim that the warming FAR exceeded the estimates totally ignores other datasets that show spectacular growth over shorter periods of time only to fall again to the negative column.

This article was written especially with an end result in mind.
28-05-2017 20:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
When you summarily dismiss things. Do you put on a wig and a gown and pound a gavel on your computer table? Because it doesn't count unless you do.


spot - ignore anything IB or IntotheNight have to say. I think that these are one person signing on under two accounts.

Nevertheless that article was written with the results in mind.
28-05-2017 20:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Tim the plumber wrote:
How much has the temperature of the world warmed by since 1998?

I choose this date because that is when it stopped warming. Well, to any significant degree.

If in 10 years it has not warmed up by 0.2c will you accept that we are not going to get close the top half of the IPCC's predictions?


But the "predictions" were an increase of 3C.
28-05-2017 20:32
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
When you summarily dismiss things. Do you put on a wig and a gown and pound a gavel on your computer table? Because it doesn't count unless you do.


spot - ignore anything IB or IntotheNight have to say. I think that these are one person signing on under two accounts.

Nevertheless that article was written with the results in mind.


They can only work with the data they have, it's not the first study to show that it is increasingly getting warmer, I'm not surprised, what little I know of physics demands that it will get warmer. However you don't accept it and I would have to get a lot better at statistics to make intelligent argument based on the paper alone. I note however that their are good statisticians who are working now, doing useful work now, not retired among the people making the claims that you are arguing against.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-05-2017 20:36
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
How much has the temperature of the world warmed by since 1998?

I choose this date because that is when it stopped warming. Well, to any significant degree.

If in 10 years it has not warmed up by 0.2c will you accept that we are not going to get close the top half of the IPCC's predictions?


But the "predictions" were an increase of 3C.


Which predictions? My bullshit detector is going off at this claim. Remember I made a thread about predictions vs reality and I believe you commented on it. of course you might of not read anything that I posted and just been in a spamming mood but a scientist would not read before he commented right?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-05-2017 21:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
When you summarily dismiss things. Do you put on a wig and a gown and pound a gavel on your computer table? Because it doesn't count unless you do.


spot - ignore anything IB or IntotheNight have to say. I think that these are one person signing on under two accounts.

Nevertheless that article was written with the results in mind.


They can only work with the data they have, it's not the first study to show that it is increasingly getting warmer, I'm not surprised, what little I know of physics demands that it will get warmer. However you don't accept it and I would have to get a lot better at statistics to make intelligent argument based on the paper alone. I note however that their are good statisticians who are working now, doing useful work now, not retired among the people making the claims that you are arguing against.


Sorry but they can properly correct the very long temperature records from the 1700's for urban heat island effect. This is the major data records.
28-05-2017 21:19
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
How much has the temperature of the world warmed by since 1998?

I choose this date because that is when it stopped warming. Well, to any significant degree.

If in 10 years it has not warmed up by 0.2c will you accept that we are not going to get close the top half of the IPCC's predictions?


But the "predictions" were an increase of 3C.


Which predictions? My bullshit detector is going off at this claim. Remember I made a thread about predictions vs reality and I believe you commented on it. of course you might of not read anything that I posted and just been in a spamming mood but a scientist would not read before he commented right?


If you don't bother to look you of course can say something like that:

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

The chart shows an average of about 3 degrees C./decade with one guesstimate at 6.4 degrees C and a sea level rise of over a half inch. What has occurred is 0.2C/decade using highly questionable estimates and the sea levels do not seem to have even grown at all. The rises in sea level have occurred only in some areas while in others they appear to have fallen.

I think that we went over this in your questions about using satellites thinking that it was somehow possible to measure absolute sea levels from satellite data.

There is more to science than being a True Believer and simply questioning anything that doesn't agree with your religion.
28-05-2017 21:48
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
When you summarily dismiss things. Do you put on a wig and a gown and pound a gavel on your computer table? Because it doesn't count unless you do.


spot - ignore anything IB or IntotheNight have to say. I think that these are one person signing on under two accounts.

Nevertheless that article was written with the results in mind.


They can only work with the data they have, it's not the first study to show that it is increasingly getting warmer, I'm not surprised, what little I know of physics demands that it will get warmer. However you don't accept it and I would have to get a lot better at statistics to make intelligent argument based on the paper alone. I note however that their are good statisticians who are working now, doing useful work now, not retired among the people making the claims that you are arguing against.


I agree with you. I think some more research is needed but warming is happening. I let an editor at the local paper know one reason why I'm pursuing an atmospheric forcing experiment is to ask about the IPCC's 2 reports in 2013 that said global warming had paused when ozone depletion slowed.
Then they found out the eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans are warming. I tend to think waste heat will help natural events to create a much warmer planet than what we have now. It's just that there is a lot more that needs to be considered and hopefully scientists are getting a better idea of what's happening.


Jim
28-05-2017 21:55
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
When you summarily dismiss things. Do you put on a wig and a gown and pound a gavel on your computer table? Because it doesn't count unless you do.


spot - ignore anything IB or IntotheNight have to say. I think that these are one person signing on under two accounts.

Nevertheless that article was written with the results in mind.


They can only work with the data they have, it's not the first study to show that it is increasingly getting warmer, I'm not surprised, what little I know of physics demands that it will get warmer. However you don't accept it and I would have to get a lot better at statistics to make intelligent argument based on the paper alone. I note however that their are good statisticians who are working now, doing useful work now, not retired among the people making the claims that you are arguing against.


I agree with you. I think some more research is needed but warming is happening. I let an editor at the local paper know one reason why I'm pursuing an atmospheric forcing experiment is to ask about the IPCC's 2 reports in 2013 that said global warming had paused when ozone depletion slowed.
Then they found out the eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans are warming. I tend to think waste heat will help natural events to create a much warmer planet than what we have now. It's just that there is a lot more that needs to be considered and hopefully scientists are getting a better idea of what's happening.


Jim


The "heating" of the planet has been far less than occurred in the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period or the Midieval Warm Period. Are you frightened it might go away?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/

If you observe the last figure you can see that we are where we are supposed to be - about to plunge again into a thousands of years down into a ice age - isn't that what you really want?

Looking at figure 6 of http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.541.9053&rep=rep1&type=pdf you can see that the heating hasn't been ANYTHING like has been predicted and in fact from 1900 to 1940 actually cooled. This was too long a period to have been from the chaotic weather patterns.

https://climateaudit.org/2016/08/16/re-examining-cooks-mt-read-tasmania-chronology/#more-22805

This demonstrates that the data has been heavily doctored without any explanations as to why.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

This shows and even bigger problem - the Earth as has been shown in the first referent has been cooling and not warming.

http://nov79.com/gbwm/equations.html

This shows how all of the "guesstimates" are completely and totally bunk.
Edited on 28-05-2017 22:18
28-05-2017 22:17
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
How much has the temperature of the world warmed by since 1998?

I choose this date because that is when it stopped warming. Well, to any significant degree.

If in 10 years it has not warmed up by 0.2c will you accept that we are not going to get close the top half of the IPCC's predictions?


But the "predictions" were an increase of 3C.


Which predictions? My bullshit detector is going off at this claim. Remember I made a thread about predictions vs reality and I believe you commented on it. of course you might of not read anything that I posted and just been in a spamming mood but a scientist would not read before he commented right?


If you don't bother to look you of course can say something like that:

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

The chart shows an average of about 3 degrees C./decade with one guesstimate at 6.4 degrees C and a sea level rise of over a half inch. What has occurred is 0.2C/decade using highly questionable estimates and the sea levels do not seem to have even grown at all. The rises in sea level have occurred only in some areas while in others they appear to have fallen.

I think that we went over this in your questions about using satellites thinking that it was somehow possible to measure absolute sea levels from satellite data.

There is more to science than being a True Believer and simply questioning anything that doesn't agree with your religion.


Those projections you linked are into the future, since me and you aren't time travelers we can hardly comment on whether they are true or not we could argue about the likelihood of them being shown to be true but that is not what you said. You said things that have been predicted in the past to happen now are wrong, I take issue with that and I have discussed that previously

Now for your point about sea levels, that is demonstrably false;


I'm sure whatever science is, it's not just throwing random false statements into the argument.

Also learn English, look in a dictionary for the definition of religion. Whatever you and me are arguing about and whoever is right or wrong it's not a religion. Indeed the only reason you would describe it as such is to get a rise out of me like some 14 year-old edge lord. It is certainly a sign of an inferior intellect.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-05-2017 22:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
How much has the temperature of the world warmed by since 1998?

I choose this date because that is when it stopped warming. Well, to any significant degree.

If in 10 years it has not warmed up by 0.2c will you accept that we are not going to get close the top half of the IPCC's predictions?


But the "predictions" were an increase of 3C.


Which predictions? My bullshit detector is going off at this claim. Remember I made a thread about predictions vs reality and I believe you commented on it. of course you might of not read anything that I posted and just been in a spamming mood but a scientist would not read before he commented right?


If you don't bother to look you of course can say something like that:

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

The chart shows an average of about 3 degrees C./decade with one guesstimate at 6.4 degrees C and a sea level rise of over a half inch. What has occurred is 0.2C/decade using highly questionable estimates and the sea levels do not seem to have even grown at all. The rises in sea level have occurred only in some areas while in others they appear to have fallen.

I think that we went over this in your questions about using satellites thinking that it was somehow possible to measure absolute sea levels from satellite data.

There is more to science than being a True Believer and simply questioning anything that doesn't agree with your religion.


Those projections you linked are into the future, since me and you aren't time travelers we can hardly comment on whether they are true or not we could argue about the likelihood of them being shown to be true but that is not what you said. You said things that have been predicted in the past to happen now are wrong, I take issue with that and I have discussed that previously

Now for your point about sea levels, that is demonstrably false;


I'm sure whatever science is, it's not just throwing random false statements into the argument.

Also learn English, look in a dictionary for the definition of religion. Whatever you and me are arguing about and whoever is right or wrong it's not a religion. Indeed the only reason you would describe it as such is to get a rise out of me like some 14 year-old edge lord. It is certainly a sign of an inferior intellect.


That IPCC estimate was in 1999. This is almost two decades in the future of that paper. None of the predictions were true.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/24/alarmists-are-in-way-over-their-heads-on-rising-ocean-claims/#57640d7a1194

(Dr. Fred Singer to comment about the latest U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers report with particular regard to their most recent sea level rise projections. Dr. Singer is an expert in remote sensing measurements, having served as founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, vice chair of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, deputy assistant administrator for policy at the EPA, and as a reviewer for several of the IPCC reports. He is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Physical Society, and the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics.)

"Let's understand that the world's mean temperatures have been rising at a pretty constant rate of about one degree Fahrenheit (0.6oC) over the past 100 years, and is likely to continue , although with both warmer and cooler fluctuations, for many hundreds of years into the future. Over each of the past several centuries, including the last one, sea levels rose by about 7 inches (18 cm).

Accordingly, neither the overall warming trend or sea level rise began with the fossil-burning Industrial Revolution... nor have they changed in any detectable way due to human influences. And we can't even really know that the second follows the first. Sea levels rose during the Little Ice Age from about 1400-1859 AD... a period which was considerably colder than now."

For the unknowledgeable 20 cm = 7.9 inches and according to this expert it also occurred the previous century. Care to guess why?

Haven't I been explaining that since the Maunder Minimum the lower latitude glaciers that were caused by this and the Dalton Minimum that closely followed have been melting? That these SAME glaciers that chases the inhabitants from Greenland are not quite yet melted but most others are? That in fact the sea levels slowed their growth about the year Obama was born?

The only reasons that you seem to resist this is that it is your religion and you MUST retain your faith.
28-05-2017 22:40
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
How much has the temperature of the world warmed by since 1998?

I choose this date because that is when it stopped warming. Well, to any significant degree.

If in 10 years it has not warmed up by 0.2c will you accept that we are not going to get close the top half of the IPCC's predictions?


But the "predictions" were an increase of 3C.


Which predictions? My bullshit detector is going off at this claim. Remember I made a thread about predictions vs reality and I believe you commented on it. of course you might of not read anything that I posted and just been in a spamming mood but a scientist would not read before he commented right?


If you don't bother to look you of course can say something like that:

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

The chart shows an average of about 3 degrees C./decade with one guesstimate at 6.4 degrees C and a sea level rise of over a half inch. What has occurred is 0.2C/decade using highly questionable estimates and the sea levels do not seem to have even grown at all. The rises in sea level have occurred only in some areas while in others they appear to have fallen.

I think that we went over this in your questions about using satellites thinking that it was somehow possible to measure absolute sea levels from satellite data.

There is more to science than being a True Believer and simply questioning anything that doesn't agree with your religion.


Those projections you linked are into the future, since me and you aren't time travelers we can hardly comment on whether they are true or not we could argue about the likelihood of them being shown to be true but that is not what you said. You said things that have been predicted in the past to happen now are wrong, I take issue with that and I have discussed that previously

Now for your point about sea levels, that is demonstrably false;


I'm sure whatever science is, it's not just throwing random false statements into the argument.

Also learn English, look in a dictionary for the definition of religion. Whatever you and me are arguing about and whoever is right or wrong it's not a religion. Indeed the only reason you would describe it as such is to get a rise out of me like some 14 year-old edge lord. It is certainly a sign of an inferior intellect.


That IPCC estimate was in 1999. This is almost two decades in the future of that paper. None of the predictions were true.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/24/alarmists-are-in-way-over-their-heads-on-rising-ocean-claims/#57640d7a1194

(Dr. Fred Singer to comment about the latest U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers report with particular regard to their most recent sea level rise projections. Dr. Singer is an expert in remote sensing measurements, having served as founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, vice chair of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, deputy assistant administrator for policy at the EPA, and as a reviewer for several of the IPCC reports. He is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Physical Society, and the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics.)

"Let's understand that the world's mean temperatures have been rising at a pretty constant rate of about one degree Fahrenheit (0.6oC) over the past 100 years, and is likely to continue , although with both warmer and cooler fluctuations, for many hundreds of years into the future. Over each of the past several centuries, including the last one, sea levels rose by about 7 inches (18 cm).

Accordingly, neither the overall warming trend or sea level rise began with the fossil-burning Industrial Revolution... nor have they changed in any detectable way due to human influences. And we can't even really know that the second follows the first. Sea levels rose during the Little Ice Age from about 1400-1859 AD... a period which was considerably colder than now."

For the unknowledgeable 20 cm = 7.9 inches and according to this expert it also occurred the previous century. Care to guess why?

Haven't I been explaining that since the Maunder Minimum the lower latitude glaciers that were caused by this and the Dalton Minimum that closely followed have been melting? That these SAME glaciers that chases the inhabitants from Greenland are not quite yet melted but most others are? That in fact the sea levels slowed their growth about the year Obama was born?

The only reasons that you seem to resist this is that it is your religion and you MUST retain your faith.


The reason I resist that is because it's all bollox mate.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-05-2017 22:43
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote: The reason I resist that is because it's all bollox mate.


One cannot argue against a True Believer. No amount of evidence will make the slightest dent.
28-05-2017 22:55
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
Wake wrote:One cannot argue against a True Believer. No amount of evidence will make the slightest dent.

One can never present enough science to warmizombies or to Climate lemmings because there is no quantity of science too great for them to deny it.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-05-2017 22:58
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: The reason I resist that is because it's all bollox mate.


One cannot argue against a True Believer. No amount of evidence will make the slightest dent.


Only one party in this discussion has presented evidence.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
29-05-2017 01:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: The reason I resist that is because it's all bollox mate.


One cannot argue against a True Believer. No amount of evidence will make the slightest dent.


Only one party in this discussion has presented evidence.


You have presented extremely limited information from almost all of the Atlantic coastal region

The fact is that the US government ASIDE from Obama and his forced group do not believe in AGW for one second. The overwhelming majority of scientists disagree. Even those supposedly included in the 97% have published that they were included despite the fact that they strongly disagreed with AGW. Part of this "consensus" is the AMA. Can you explain what a medical doctor could possibly know about man-made global warming? Or the Boy Scouts of America? This is the sort of consensus you are willing to accept?

As far as the rising sea levels this is in the realm of radar and THAT is part of my specialty. The techniques that are used cannot be used to accurately measure sea levels despite the fact that NOAA thinks so. Even the briefest looking at how it's supposedly done via land measuring points which are known to be subsiding due to it being almost entirely sedimentary deposits and how they use GPS to measure the position of satellites (+-10 feet at the best) ALWAYS has an error.

In open oceans the NORMAL wave pattern is 10 foot waves with additional cross patterns that make it absolutely impossible to find even an average surface height.

inSAR and ESA have measured far more land subsidence than ocean level rises and this makes all of the data with attempted accuracy's of mere inches highly questionable to say the least since they use interferometry to measure it all and you cannot get accuracy if both land and sea levels are both moving.

You still have the problem that satellites do not have very stable nor accurate orbits. Most of these satellites are inside of Earth's Thermosphere and precise orbital positions cannot be maintained. It has to be measured every orbit and this cannot give you precise eccentricity without multiple readings. Do you realize that one of the satellites used for radar altimetry has a difference between apogee and perigee of a mile? That this is not a steady orbit but one in which this difference walks about the globe? And you believe they can measure inches?

Please get real.
29-05-2017 03:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
spot wrote:Only one party in this discussion has presented evidence.

Only Into the Night and I have presented science, which is all that matters.

All others have struggled to deny the science presented, which is all that needs to be mentioned.

Supporting has no role in science.

Supporting "evidence" is everything in religion. Just look for those who fixate on "evidence." They are the most likely to deny science.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-05-2017 13:07
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
How much has the temperature of the world warmed by since 1998?

I choose this date because that is when it stopped warming. Well, to any significant degree.

If in 10 years it has not warmed up by 0.2c will you accept that we are not going to get close the top half of the IPCC's predictions?


But the "predictions" were an increase of 3C.


Which predictions? My bullshit detector is going off at this claim. Remember I made a thread about predictions vs reality and I believe you commented on it. of course you might of not read anything that I posted and just been in a spamming mood but a scientist would not read before he commented right?


The predictions of the IPCC were of a 4.2c warming over pre-industrial temperatures by 2100 as a maximum.

That's 3.4c over now.

That's +0.41c per decade.

So if +0.2 over the next 10 years does not happen will you, spot, decied that the top half of the IPCC's figures are not going to happen?
29-05-2017 14:00
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Wake wrote:


You have presented extremely limited information from almost all of the Atlantic coastal region



It obviously isn't you halfwit.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
29-05-2017 14:01
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Tim the plumber wrote:

That's 3.4c over now.



How the hell did you come up with that figure numbnuts.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
29-05-2017 16:46
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
How much has the temperature of the world warmed by since 1998?

I choose this date because that is when it stopped warming. Well, to any significant degree.

If in 10 years it has not warmed up by 0.2c will you accept that we are not going to get close the top half of the IPCC's predictions?


But the "predictions" were an increase of 3C.


Which predictions? My bullshit detector is going off at this claim. Remember I made a thread about predictions vs reality and I believe you commented on it. of course you might of not read anything that I posted and just been in a spamming mood but a scientist would not read before he commented right?


The predictions of the IPCC were of a 4.2c warming over pre-industrial temperatures by 2100 as a maximum.

That's 3.4c over now.

That's +0.41c per decade.

So if +0.2 over the next 10 years does not happen will you, spot, decied that the top half of the IPCC's figures are not going to happen?


Tim,
The IPCC has changed the way it collects information and the way it now processes it's data. No one is asking how this changes previous views about why climate change is happening.


Jim
29-05-2017 17:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

That's 3.4c over now.



How the hell did you come up with that figure numbnuts.


Exactly how is it that you couldn't read the IPCC report that I gave you the source for? Talk about a numbnut.
29-05-2017 17:37
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
How much has the temperature of the world warmed by since 1998?

I choose this date because that is when it stopped warming. Well, to any significant degree.

If in 10 years it has not warmed up by 0.2c will you accept that we are not going to get close the top half of the IPCC's predictions?


But the "predictions" were an increase of 3C.


Which predictions? My bullshit detector is going off at this claim. Remember I made a thread about predictions vs reality and I believe you commented on it. of course you might of not read anything that I posted and just been in a spamming mood but a scientist would not read before he commented right?


The predictions of the IPCC were of a 4.2c warming over pre-industrial temperatures by 2100 as a maximum.

That's 3.4c over now.

That's +0.41c per decade.

So if +0.2 over the next 10 years does not happen will you, spot, decied that the top half of the IPCC's figures are not going to happen?


Tim,
The IPCC has changed the way it collects information and the way it now processes it's data. No one is asking how this changes previous views about why climate change is happening.
Jim


No they haven't. Information is still collected from ground stations as well as satellite data.
29-05-2017 19:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

That's 3.4c over now.



How the hell did you come up with that figure numbnuts.


Good question.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2017 19:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
How much has the temperature of the world warmed by since 1998?

I choose this date because that is when it stopped warming. Well, to any significant degree.

If in 10 years it has not warmed up by 0.2c will you accept that we are not going to get close the top half of the IPCC's predictions?


But the "predictions" were an increase of 3C.


Which predictions? My bullshit detector is going off at this claim. Remember I made a thread about predictions vs reality and I believe you commented on it. of course you might of not read anything that I posted and just been in a spamming mood but a scientist would not read before he commented right?


The predictions of the IPCC were of a 4.2c warming over pre-industrial temperatures by 2100 as a maximum.

That's 3.4c over now.

That's +0.41c per decade.

So if +0.2 over the next 10 years does not happen will you, spot, decied that the top half of the IPCC's figures are not going to happen?


Tim,
The IPCC has changed the way it collects information and the way it now processes it's data. No one is asking how this changes previous views about why climate change is happening.


Jim


The IPCC doesn't collect data. It manufactures it.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2017 19:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
How much has the temperature of the world warmed by since 1998?

I choose this date because that is when it stopped warming. Well, to any significant degree.

If in 10 years it has not warmed up by 0.2c will you accept that we are not going to get close the top half of the IPCC's predictions?


But the "predictions" were an increase of 3C.


Which predictions? My bullshit detector is going off at this claim. Remember I made a thread about predictions vs reality and I believe you commented on it. of course you might of not read anything that I posted and just been in a spamming mood but a scientist would not read before he commented right?


The predictions of the IPCC were of a 4.2c warming over pre-industrial temperatures by 2100 as a maximum.

That's 3.4c over now.

That's +0.41c per decade.

So if +0.2 over the next 10 years does not happen will you, spot, decied that the top half of the IPCC's figures are not going to happen?


Tim,
The IPCC has changed the way it collects information and the way it now processes it's data. No one is asking how this changes previous views about why climate change is happening.
Jim


No they haven't. Information is still collected from ground stations as well as satellite data.

Not anywhere near enough ground stations. Satellites can't measure temperature accurately.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2017 20:02
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

That's 3.4c over now.



How the hell did you come up with that figure numbnuts.


Well, the IPCC's IR5 report says that the maximum level of warming by 2100 is 4.2c over their base line which is from about 1850.

We have had 0.8c rise since then.

The rest is obviously magic that you will fail to understand.
29-05-2017 20:07
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
How much has the temperature of the world warmed by since 1998?

I choose this date because that is when it stopped warming. Well, to any significant degree.

If in 10 years it has not warmed up by 0.2c will you accept that we are not going to get close the top half of the IPCC's predictions?


But the "predictions" were an increase of 3C.


Which predictions? My bullshit detector is going off at this claim. Remember I made a thread about predictions vs reality and I believe you commented on it. of course you might of not read anything that I posted and just been in a spamming mood but a scientist would not read before he commented right?


The predictions of the IPCC were of a 4.2c warming over pre-industrial temperatures by 2100 as a maximum.

That's 3.4c over now.

That's +0.41c per decade.

So if +0.2 over the next 10 years does not happen will you, spot, decied that the top half of the IPCC's figures are not going to happen?


Tim,
The IPCC has changed the way it collects information and the way it now processes it's data. No one is asking how this changes previous views about why climate change is happening.


Jim


Yes, but that is a weak argument because it looks like you are getting bogged down in the detail.

Taking the over view of what the magical science of global warming predicts even though most of that is utterly impossible and actually looking at it is far better because it is still nothing to worry about.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate no leveling off of warming:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact