Global warming LOL
- Thread starter John_Wensink
- Start date
just to settle the b.s. pushed by the lying as troll I went the MET website... the home of the agw nutter scientists... you know the email hacks.
here is the data they show... from 4 different sources.
There is no discernable warming trend in surface temperature since 1997.
Which is why spencer was not lying when he showed observed temperature to be below the 70 failed global warming models.
and this is also proof FC is lying his ass off.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature
2012 0.45 (0.35 to 0.55) 0.40 (0.30 to 0.49) 0.46 0.47
2011 0.41 (0.31 to 0.50) 0.35 ( 0.25 to 0.44) 0.41 0.46
2010 0.55 (0.46 to 0.64) 0.50 ( 0.40 to 0.59) 0.54 0.58
2009 0.49 (0.40 to 0.59) 0.44 ( 0.34 to 0.54) 0.47 0.50
2008 0.39 (0.30 to 0.48) 0.31 ( 0.21 to 0.41) 0.39 0.40
2007 0.48 (0.40 to 0.57) 0.40 ( 0.30 to 0.50) 0.47 0.54
2006 0.50 (0.41 to 0.59) 0.43 ( 0.33 to 0.53) 0.48 0.50
2005 0.54 (0.45 to 0.63) 0.47 ( 0.37 to 0.58) 0.53 0.57
2004 0.44 (0.35 to 0.54) 0.43 ( 0.33 to 0.53) 0.46 0.43
2003 0.50 (0.41 to 0.60) 0.46 ( 0.36 to 0.56) 0.50 0.51
2002 0.49 (0.40 to 0.59) 0.46 ( 0.36 to 0.55) 0.49 0.53
2001 0.44 (0.35 to 0.53) 0.40 ( 0.30 to 0.50) 0.43 0.44
2000 0.29 (0.20 to 0.38) 0.24 ( 0.14 to 0.33) 0.31 0.31
1999 0.30 (0.21 to 0.39) 0.26 ( 0.17 to 0.36) 0.33 0.31
1998 0.53 (0.44 to 0.62) 0.52 ( 0.42 to 0.61) 0.51 0.52
1997 0.39 (0.31 to 0.48) 0.36 ( 0.26 to 0.45) 0.39 0.37
here is the data they show... from 4 different sources.
There is no discernable warming trend in surface temperature since 1997.
Which is why spencer was not lying when he showed observed temperature to be below the 70 failed global warming models.
and this is also proof FC is lying his ass off.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature
2012 0.45 (0.35 to 0.55) 0.40 (0.30 to 0.49) 0.46 0.47
2011 0.41 (0.31 to 0.50) 0.35 ( 0.25 to 0.44) 0.41 0.46
2010 0.55 (0.46 to 0.64) 0.50 ( 0.40 to 0.59) 0.54 0.58
2009 0.49 (0.40 to 0.59) 0.44 ( 0.34 to 0.54) 0.47 0.50
2008 0.39 (0.30 to 0.48) 0.31 ( 0.21 to 0.41) 0.39 0.40
2007 0.48 (0.40 to 0.57) 0.40 ( 0.30 to 0.50) 0.47 0.54
2006 0.50 (0.41 to 0.59) 0.43 ( 0.33 to 0.53) 0.48 0.50
2005 0.54 (0.45 to 0.63) 0.47 ( 0.37 to 0.58) 0.53 0.57
2004 0.44 (0.35 to 0.54) 0.43 ( 0.33 to 0.53) 0.46 0.43
2003 0.50 (0.41 to 0.60) 0.46 ( 0.36 to 0.56) 0.50 0.51
2002 0.49 (0.40 to 0.59) 0.46 ( 0.36 to 0.55) 0.49 0.53
2001 0.44 (0.35 to 0.53) 0.40 ( 0.30 to 0.50) 0.43 0.44
2000 0.29 (0.20 to 0.38) 0.24 ( 0.14 to 0.33) 0.31 0.31
1999 0.30 (0.21 to 0.39) 0.26 ( 0.17 to 0.36) 0.33 0.31
1998 0.53 (0.44 to 0.62) 0.52 ( 0.42 to 0.61) 0.51 0.52
1997 0.39 (0.31 to 0.48) 0.36 ( 0.26 to 0.45) 0.39 0.37
"Lost world: There were jungles on Antarctica once"
http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...99876_1_antarctica-antarctic-treaty-anarctica
"The icy wastes of Antarctica were once covered with lush vegetation where palm and baobab like trees waved in the breeze. This is not science fiction - evidence for this lost world was discovered by scientists recently.
On the eastern coast of the vast continent that covers the South Pole region, in a place called Wilkes Land, scientists drilled through the four kilometers of ice and another one kilometer down below the ground. They found pollen and certain natural chemicals that could only have come from certain tree species.
Also discovered were tiny single-celled organisms called Archaea. Their cell walls contain chemicals that were frozen when they were buried in ice - and thus they give an idea of the time elapsed.
Evidence suggests that while the coastal and lowland regions had palm, baobab and macadamia like trees, more inland and on higher slopes, conifers and beech trees swathed the terrain.
The drilling was carried out by a multi-national team of scientists under the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP). Their findings are published in the scientific journal Nature yesterday.
The effort drew plaudits from scientists in another part of Anarctica who are spending the seven month long sun-less winter there in an isolated station run by the European Space Agency. When informed of the study results, Alexander Kumar, told TOI by email from the Concordia Base Station in the Antarctica, that Antarctica was a place of dreams and nightmares, especially in science.
Temperatures in Antarctica are currently running at below -80 degrees Celsius and below -100C windchill, according to Kumar. To imagine that this hostile environment was once a lush jungle is very difficult..."
http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...99876_1_antarctica-antarctic-treaty-anarctica
"The icy wastes of Antarctica were once covered with lush vegetation where palm and baobab like trees waved in the breeze. This is not science fiction - evidence for this lost world was discovered by scientists recently.
On the eastern coast of the vast continent that covers the South Pole region, in a place called Wilkes Land, scientists drilled through the four kilometers of ice and another one kilometer down below the ground. They found pollen and certain natural chemicals that could only have come from certain tree species.
Also discovered were tiny single-celled organisms called Archaea. Their cell walls contain chemicals that were frozen when they were buried in ice - and thus they give an idea of the time elapsed.
Evidence suggests that while the coastal and lowland regions had palm, baobab and macadamia like trees, more inland and on higher slopes, conifers and beech trees swathed the terrain.
The drilling was carried out by a multi-national team of scientists under the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP). Their findings are published in the scientific journal Nature yesterday.
The effort drew plaudits from scientists in another part of Anarctica who are spending the seven month long sun-less winter there in an isolated station run by the European Space Agency. When informed of the study results, Alexander Kumar, told TOI by email from the Concordia Base Station in the Antarctica, that Antarctica was a place of dreams and nightmares, especially in science.
Temperatures in Antarctica are currently running at below -80 degrees Celsius and below -100C windchill, according to Kumar. To imagine that this hostile environment was once a lush jungle is very difficult..."
Again with the 16 years! Why 16 years? What's so special about 16 years?
Why can't Spencer and you use global temps and not just tropical temps? The models are not predicting tropical temps.
Why do all your charts start in 98? Are you really so stupid as to not see the deception? Of course you see the deception, and you're fine with it. Because you are a lying piece of shit.
You really have no interest in the actual truth do you?
Tell us again why you're choosing 98 as your cherry picked point?
1. you lied your ass off and now you are trying to change the subject.
2. The only science you had saying global warming was being caused by man made co2 was all these agw nutter models.
The models predicted strong warming... there has been no warming for 16 years...That blows up your "science".
Your models failed - so you have no science. You have no reason to say the previous warming was not just natural cycling.
Let me provide you a former agw nutter scientist to explain it to you... again.
---
From a former agw nutters scientist... showing the models are outside the acceptable confidence level of 2.5%
http://www.spiegel.de/international...s-a-906721.html
SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
2. The only science you had saying global warming was being caused by man made co2 was all these agw nutter models.
The models predicted strong warming... there has been no warming for 16 years...That blows up your "science".
Your models failed - so you have no science. You have no reason to say the previous warming was not just natural cycling.
Let me provide you a former agw nutter scientist to explain it to you... again.
---
From a former agw nutters scientist... showing the models are outside the acceptable confidence level of 2.5%
http://www.spiegel.de/international...s-a-906721.html
SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
Quote from futurecurrents:
Again with the 16 years! Why 16 years? What's so special about 16 years?
Why can't Spencer and you use global temps and not just tropical temps? The models are not predicting tropical temps.
Why do all your charts start in 98? Are you really so stupid as to not see the deception? Of course you see the deception, and you're fine with it. Because you are a lying piece of shit.
You really have no interest in the actual truth do you?
Tell us again why you're choosing 98 as your cherry picked point?
I'm not sure but I believe that any excursion beyond a certain standard deviation is considered an anomaly. The number of those excursions are then plotted. I'm not sure if degree of the deviation is considered.
So maybe I missed it. Why are you choosing 16 years again? What about 15 ? How about 17?
Forgive me if you answered and I didn't see it.
You ignorant, lying, deceiving, intellectually dishonest, partisan-crazed scumbag.