Quote:

The world’s most influential climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri speaks to Crikey on the need for sanity and fair reporting in media coverage of climate change — and explains why Australia should care. As The Australian claims sea level rise is not linked to global warming, the world’s most influential climate scientist has called on “sane and rational voices” to speak out and correct the record. More than 250 scientists have gathered in Hobart today for a summit of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN’s climate science body. The Oz marked the summit’s opening with a front-page “exclusive” story which claimed there was “no link” between sea level rises and global warming. In a telephone interview, Crikey asked the long-term chair of the IPCC Dr Rajendra Pachauri, in Tasmania for the summit, about the story. “What is particularly important is that sane and rational voices must respond to these questions and this scepticism, and I think that should get adequate currency,” said Pachauri, who in 2007 accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC. “Then people can make up their minds on their own.” He called on the media to take responsibility for the stories they run. “Unfortunately in several parts of the world, the media gives disproportionate coverage to those who take a contrarian view, even if they represent a very very small percentage of either the scientific consensus or public opinion. They get almost equal billing, and to my mind that seems a little unfair,” he said. Pachauri said climate change was particularly serious for Australia: ”From the looks of it, Australia is very very vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, you have droughts, you have heat waves. Sea level rise could be a serious problem in some parts of the country. So Australia undoubtedly is very vulnerable, perhaps more so than several other places in the world.” The Australian has long run a sceptical line on climate change, particularly in its opinion pages. Today’s story, written by environment editor Graham Lloyd, relied on a paper co-authored by Australian scientist Dr John Church. The paper apparently “said it could not link climate change and the rate of sea level rises in the 20th century”. But Church, a sea level expert with the CSIRO, told a media conference today that was not an accurate description of the paper. “So sea level clearly is linked to climate change, it is clearly linked to increases in greenhouse gases, and that’s actually in the paper which was quoted by The Australian. So the quote is, I’m sorry, inaccurate,” said Church, a co-ordinating lead author with the IPCC. While The Australian claimed the paper had found no increase in the rate of sea level rise, Church said the paper showed the rate of sea level rise had increased between the 18th and 19th centuries, and research showed a further acceleration of the rate during the 20th century. Despite the persistence of scepticism, Pachauri was upbeat about global acceptance of the science of human-induced climate change. He thought some prominent sceptics were changing their minds: “I hope that will be the case once they see all the compelling scientific evidence, in this country and in other parts of the world.” The public tended to respond slowly to difficult realities, he says, so time was needed to change attitudes “Business-as-usual has a very strong force behind it, and therefore to move away from business-as-usual takes time, takes effort, and I imagine you’ll see signs of change in the near future,” he said. The IPCC chief was confident the world was getting the message on climate change: “I think the extent of awareness is growing very rapidly … I feel quite optimistic about the way things are going”. Pachauri praised Australia’s carbon price, saying the IPCC had found a price on carbon was one of the most effective ways of encouraging low-carbon technology. “I think what Australia has done has to be commended and I hope other parts of the world will also see something similar being done,” he said. He also called on governments to remove subsidies on fossil fuels because they acted as a deterrent to alternative sources of energy.

It's tragic that certain sections in the media are using his own words to propagate unfounded skepticism.

Rajendra Pachauri fronts a scientific body which has been set the task of assessing the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. This body has found that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations” (GHG refers to greenhouse gas). The IPCC defines “very likely” as over 90% certainty.

He, like the vast bulk of climate scientists, reads very little into the statistical pause that only exists if you cherry pick the El Niño fuelled outlier of 1998. Yet the same dill he criticised for misrepresenting a scientific paper on rising sea levels is now doing his best to misrepresent his views on anthropogenic global warming.

250 of 'em.

The carbon foot print for all these panels, summits etc must be massive.

:o ::)

There is now a concensus, a peer-reviewed concensus, not just a made up fudge factor piddly number like in the past, that AGW is bunk.

Anyway 17 year pause in warming. 15 - 17 year model rule to go back to the drawing board if no warming for that time period. "would suggest we dont know what we thought we knew"

The IPCC needs to stop misrepresenting science, then they can expect themselves not to be misrepresented.

So here comes MOTR-mouth to defend the indefensible. Of course, you ahd to wait for someone else to give you your script before commenting.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:29am:

There is now a concensus, a peer-reviewed concensus, not just a made up fudge factor piddly number like in the past, that AGW is bunk. Anyway 17 year pause in warming. 15 - 17 year model rule to go back to the drawing board if no warming for that time period. "would suggest we dont know what we thought we knew" The IPCC needs to stop misrepresenting science, then they can expect themselves not to be misrepresented.

What are you talking about, progs. What was then an exceptionally hot outlier is now the norm. Yes you can construct a 17 year statistical pause, no one is disputing that.

Come on MOTR... are you now going to admit that there has been a 17 year pause in GW? After all, the head of the IPCC said exactly that. You spent dozens of posts refuting that allegation only to have the very TOP of the ACC tree admit it is true.

So... do you agree with him or not??

BTW thats a yes or no answer

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:37am:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:29am: There is now a concensus, a peer-reviewed concensus, not just a made up fudge factor piddly number like in the past, that AGW is bunk. Anyway 17 year pause in warming. 15 - 17 year model rule to go back to the drawing board if no warming for that time period. "would suggest we dont know what we thought we knew" The IPCC needs to stop misrepresenting science, then they can expect themselves not to be misrepresented. What are you talking about, progs. What was then an exceptionally hot outlier is now the norm. Yes you can construct a 17 year statistical pause, no one is disputing that.

a 17year pause is not an outlier. in fact, it is by the ACC community's OWN STANDARDS, what is considered to constitute an undeniable pause in GW.

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:37am:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:29am: There is now a concensus, a peer-reviewed concensus, not just a made up fudge factor piddly number like in the past, that AGW is bunk. Anyway 17 year pause in warming. 15 - 17 year model rule to go back to the drawing board if no warming for that time period. "would suggest we dont know what we thought we knew" The IPCC needs to stop misrepresenting science, then they can expect themselves not to be misrepresented. What are you talking about, progs. What was then an exceptionally hot outlier is now the norm. Yes you can construct a 17 year statistical pause, no one is disputing that.

I did not make up the model rule time period. I did not make the temperature hit the model rule of 15 - 17 years.

You cant change the model rule just because the rule got a hit and the rule does not state only if cooler. It states 'if no wrming trend' for that time period.

AGW lives off the models. The models have failed in every respect. Every.

What rule, progs?

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:38am:

Come on MOTR... are you now going to admit that there has been a 17 year pause in GW? After all, the head of the IPCC said exactly that. You spent dozens of posts refuting that allegation only to have the very TOP of the ACC tree admit it is true. So... do you agree with him or not?? BTW thats a yes or no answer

I've never denied that you can construct a 16 or 17 year statistical pause if you pick the right starting point. It just doesn't mean anything, as the MET has pointed out.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/warmestdecade.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/MetOffice.gif

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:46am:

What rule, progs?

For goodness sake MOTR... we discusses this at some length last year. the models are considered to have gone off track if temperatures have stopped rising for 17 years. Thats not my determination but actually those of the ACC high priests that you quote. Even the IPCC admits to the 17year pause but now says (rather ridiculously) that we actually need 47-57 YEARS of pausing to prove anything.

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:49am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:38am: Come on MOTR... are you now going to admit that there has been a 17 year pause in GW? After all, the head of the IPCC said exactly that. You spent dozens of posts refuting that allegation only to have the very TOP of the ACC tree admit it is true. So... do you agree with him or not?? BTW thats a yes or no answer I've never denied that you can construct a 16 or 17 year statistical pause if you pick the right starting point. It just doesn't mean anything, as the MET has pointed out. http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/warmestdecade.jpg http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/MetOffice.gif

good greif motr... what exactly does it take to get thru to you? its not about getting a convenient starting point. Just take today and look back 17 years!!

the IPCC have stated that there is as 17 year pause. Why cant you? you constantly demand that we accept their word as the final say so on climate but here you are rejecting their own gospel? How is that working out?

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:51am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:46am: What rule, progs? For goodness sake MOTR... we discusses this at some length last year. the models are considered to have gone off track if temperatures have stopped rising for 17 years. Thats not my determination but actually those of the ACC high priests that you quote. Even the IPCC admits to the 17year pause but now says (rather ridiculously) that we actually need 47-57 YEARS of pausing to prove anything.

Perhaps you could provide a link to where this particular rule has been articulated by the "ACC high priests."

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:53am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:49am: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:38am: Come on MOTR... are you now going to admit that there has been a 17 year pause in GW? After all, the head of the IPCC said exactly that. You spent dozens of posts refuting that allegation only to have the very TOP of the ACC tree admit it is true. So... do you agree with him or not?? BTW thats a yes or no answer I've never denied that you can construct a 16 or 17 year statistical pause if you pick the right starting point. It just doesn't mean anything, as the MET has pointed out. http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/warmestdecade.jpg http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/MetOffice.gif good greif motr... what exactly does it take to get thru to you? its not about getting a convenient starting point. Just take today and look back 17 years!! the IPCC have stated that there is as 17 year pause. Why cant you? you constantly demand that we accept their word as the final say so on climate but here you are rejecting their own gospel? How is that working out?

Why don't you go back twenty years or 15 years.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/global/decadal-global-temps-1881s-2001s.gif

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:54am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:51am: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:46am: What rule, progs? For goodness sake MOTR... we discusses this at some length last year. the models are considered to have gone off track if temperatures have stopped rising for 17 years. Thats not my determination but actually those of the ACC high priests that you quote. Even the IPCC admits to the 17year pause but now says (rather ridiculously) that we actually need 47-57 YEARS of pausing to prove anything. Perhaps you could provide a link to where this particular rule has been articulated by the "ACC high priests."

what would be the point? All you would do is say it isnt true. you would then point to the MET but ignore the fact that the IPCC has has said there has been a pause.

but seriously, at what point does it start to become a ridiculous thing for you? you tell me when it would be a pause in GW? Just for you. what would prove to YOU that GW had stopped? IM interested because I'm betting that you dont even have a measurment that you would abide by.

so again, what length of time would convince you the GW has stopped.

and a second question. How many years of DROPPING temperatures would convince you that tht entire ACC hypothesis was wrong?

The point would be to prove this particular rule isn't a figment of your poor comprehension

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:57am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:53am: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:49am: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:38am: Come on MOTR... are you now going to admit that there has been a 17 year pause in GW? After all, the head of the IPCC said exactly that. You spent dozens of posts refuting that allegation only to have the very TOP of the ACC tree admit it is true. So... do you agree with him or not?? BTW thats a yes or no answer I've never denied that you can construct a 16 or 17 year statistical pause if you pick the right starting point. It just doesn't mean anything, as the MET has pointed out. http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/warmestdecade.jpg http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/MetOffice.gif good greif motr... what exactly does it take to get thru to you? its not about getting a convenient starting point. Just take today and look back 17 years!! the IPCC have stated that there is as 17 year pause. Why cant you? you constantly demand that we accept their word as the final say so on climate but here you are rejecting their own gospel? How is that working out? Why don't you go back twenty years or 15 years. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/global/decadal-global-temps-1881s-2001s.gif

why not go back 1000 years? or 2000 years?

We are talking about a pause in CURRENT temperatures and as such it would be rather helpful to measure current times.

and your 20 year range doesn't change the determination anyhow. the last 17 years of that range is still flat - whether you like it or not.

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:01pm:

The point would be to prove this particular rule isn't a figment of your poor comprehension

okay let's just accept that we need 10 years of rises to create a religious cult of climate change but that we need 100 years of no rises or drops to reject it.

THIS is why people dont trust ACC hysterics like yourself. Every bit of evidence - EVERY BIT - is construed to support your ridiculous and patently absurd doomsday scenario.

temperatures up?  GW
Temperatures down? GW
less rain? GW
more rain? GW
sea levels up? GW
sea levels down? GW
artic ice decreases? GW
arctic ice increases? GW

and now we can add... temperatures not rising - GW

after a while it all gets a bit absurd.

Quote:

Climate change is a growing problem. Each year in the past decade has been hotter than the 1981-2010 average, and extreme heat waves are becoming more frequent. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/slowing-global-warming-no-cause-for-complacency-20130112-2cm06.html#ixzz2LgTlOYFz

For the buggers. ::)

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:58am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:54am: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:51am: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:46am: What rule, progs? For goodness sake MOTR... we discusses this at some length last year. the models are considered to have gone off track if temperatures have stopped rising for 17 years. Thats not my determination but actually those of the ACC high priests that you quote. Even the IPCC admits to the 17year pause but now says (rather ridiculously) that we actually need 47-57 YEARS of pausing to prove anything. Perhaps you could provide a link to where this particular rule has been articulated by the "ACC high priests." what would be the point? All you would do is say it isnt true. you would then point to the MET but ignore the fact that the IPCC has has said there has been a pause. but seriously, at what point does it start to become a ridiculous thing for you? you tell me when it would be a pause in GW? Just for you. what would prove to YOU that GW had stopped? IM interested because I'm betting that you dont even have a measurment that you would abide by. so again, what length of time would convince you the GW has stopped. and a second question. How many years of DROPPING temperatures would convince you that tht entire ACC hypothesis was wrong?

Enough so that when you take out well known short term natural drivers we can clearly see a pause.

skippy. wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:06pm:

Quote: Climate change is a growing problem. Each year in the past decade has been hotter than the 1981-2010 average, and extreme heat waves are becoming more frequent. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/slowing-global-warming-no-cause-for-complacency-20130112-2cm06.html#ixzz2LgTlOYFz For the buggers. ::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W705cOtOHJ4&sns=em

Quote:

a)  the IPCC detection arguments rely on a clear separation between the signals from forced climate change and natural internal variability.  Numerous climate model analyses find that it is very unlikely that a plateau or period of cooling extends beyond 15-17 years in the presence of anthropogenic global warming. b)  failure of the climate models to predict a >17  year plateau raises questions about the suitability of the climate models for detection and attribution analyses, particularly in terms of accounting adequately for multidecadal modes of climate variability c)  comparison of the observed temperature trend with the IPCC projection of 0.2C increase in the early 21st century raises issues about the models’ reliability in terms of sensitivity to external forcing and ability to deal with natural internal variability

http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/17/pause-waving-the-italian-flag/

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:58am: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:54am: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:51am: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:46am: What rule, progs? For goodness sake MOTR... we discusses this at some length last year. the models are considered to have gone off track if temperatures have stopped rising for 17 years. Thats not my determination but actually those of the ACC high priests that you quote. Even the IPCC admits to the 17year pause but now says (rather ridiculously) that we actually need 47-57 YEARS of pausing to prove anything. Perhaps you could provide a link to where this particular rule has been articulated by the "ACC high priests." what would be the point? All you would do is say it isnt true. you would then point to the MET but ignore the fact that the IPCC has has said there has been a pause. but seriously, at what point does it start to become a ridiculous thing for you? you tell me when it would be a pause in GW? Just for you. what would prove to YOU that GW had stopped? IM interested because I'm betting that you dont even have a measurment that you would abide by. so again, what length of time would convince you the GW has stopped. and a second question. How many years of DROPPING temperatures would convince you that tht entire ACC hypothesis was wrong? Enough so that when you take out well known short term natural drivers we can clearly see a pause.

so an answer that is so poorly and hopelessly undefined that you can basically say 'never' no matter what happens. Yours is the standard answer to model failure which is pretty much 'if you take out all the stuff we couldn't predict, didnt know about or just got wrong, our model is perfect'

just for some background, I run training courses in computer modelling of a particular environmental area. If I told people the kind of crap you just sprouted, they'd laugh. If models don't work then the models are worthless. excuses after-the-fact dont cut it if your model misses by a mile. You either get it right or your entire model is worthless. not ONE SINGLE MODEL  has predicted a pause of any significance.

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:08pm:

skippy. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 12:06pm: Quote: Climate change is a growing problem. Each year in the past decade has been hotter than the 1981-2010 average, and extreme heat waves are becoming more frequent. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/slowing-global-warming-no-cause-for-complacency-20130112-2cm06.html#ixzz2LgTlOYFz For the buggers. ::) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W705cOtOHJ4&sns=em

so what you are saying now is that the IPCC was wrong in saying that there has bene a pause?  I thought you claimed that they were virtually impeccable in their science?

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:09pm:

Quote: a)  the IPCC detection arguments rely on a clear separation between the signals from forced climate change and natural internal variability.  Numerous climate model analyses find that it is very unlikely that a plateau or period of cooling extends beyond 15-17 years in the presence of anthropogenic global warming. b)  failure of the climate models to predict a >17  year plateau raises questions about the suitability of the climate models for detection and attribution analyses, particularly in terms of accounting adequately for multidecadal modes of climate variability c)  comparison of the observed temperature trend with the IPCC projection of 0.2C increase in the early 21st century raises issues about the models’ reliability in terms of sensitivity to external forcing and ability to deal with natural internal variability http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/17/pause-waving-the-italian-flag/

So is Judith Curry now an ACC high priest?

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:16pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 12:08pm: skippy. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 12:06pm: Quote: Climate change is a growing problem. Each year in the past decade has been hotter than the 1981-2010 average, and extreme heat waves are becoming more frequent. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/slowing-global-warming-no-cause-for-complacency-20130112-2cm06.html#ixzz2LgTlOYFz For the buggers. ::) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W705cOtOHJ4&sns=em so what you are saying now is that the IPCC was wrong in saying that there has bene a pause?  I thought you claimed that they were virtually impeccable in their science?

You have a serious comprehension problem, longy. Did you actually watch the video?

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:58am: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:54am: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:51am: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:46am: What rule, progs? For goodness sake MOTR... we discusses this at some length last year. the models are considered to have gone off track if temperatures have stopped rising for 17 years. Thats not my determination but actually those of the ACC high priests that you quote. Even the IPCC admits to the 17year pause but now says (rather ridiculously) that we actually need 47-57 YEARS of pausing to prove anything. Perhaps you could provide a link to where this particular rule has been articulated by the "ACC high priests." what would be the point? All you would do is say it isnt true. you would then point to the MET but ignore the fact that the IPCC has has said there has been a pause. but seriously, at what point does it start to become a ridiculous thing for you? you tell me when it would be a pause in GW? Just for you. what would prove to YOU that GW had stopped? IM interested because I'm betting that you dont even have a measurment that you would abide by. so again, what length of time would convince you the GW has stopped. and a second question. How many years of DROPPING temperatures would convince you that tht entire ACC hypothesis was wrong? Enough so that when you take out well known short term natural drivers we can clearly see a pause.

like the warming is a natural variation? I see.

Yes, there are natural drivers, progs. That's why we haven't seen a monotonic increase in temperatures and it's why climate models predict pauses and declines.

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:50pm:

Yes, there are natural drivers, progs. That's why we haven't seen a monotonic increase in temperatures and it's why climate models predict pauses and declines.

They do not predict the pause we have had. Hence back to the drawing board because we dont know what we thought we knew.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:52pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 12:50pm: Yes, there are natural drivers, progs. That's why we haven't seen a monotonic increase in temperatures and it's why climate models predict pauses and declines. They do not predict the pause we have had. Hence back to the drawing board because we dont know what we thought we knew.

Absolute nonsense, progs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_qdETSYcDM&sns=em


Notice the 21 year cooling period from 1957 to 1978.

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 1:26pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 12:52pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 12:50pm: Yes, there are natural drivers, progs. That's why we haven't seen a monotonic increase in temperatures and it's why climate models predict pauses and declines. They do not predict the pause we have had. Hence back to the drawing board because we dont know what we thought we knew. Absolute nonsense, progs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_qdETSYcDM&sns=em Notice the 23 year cooling period from 1957 to 1980.

Damn!!!
I can dig it....

:)

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 1:26pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 12:52pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 12:50pm: Yes, there are natural drivers, progs. That's why we haven't seen a monotonic increase in temperatures and it's why climate models predict pauses and declines. They do not predict the pause we have had. Hence back to the drawing board because we dont know what we thought we knew. Absolute nonsense, progs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_qdETSYcDM&sns=em Notice the 21 year cooling period from 1957 to 1978.

That was pretty desperate nonsense.

oh look it was getting cooler at that time hehehehe

oops, oh look, there is a natural warming trend behind it.

This freak shows us nothing.

All we see is the models have failed. AGW lives off the models. Back to the drawing board.

How is it a desperate ploy to point out that we have experienced lengthier periods of cooling during a long term warming period. Back in the late 70s you could have argued that warming has stopped based on the same emaciated argument that you are pushing at the moment. We all know what happened.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/warmestdecade.jpg

You still arent answering why you now disagree with the IPCC in saying there has been a 17year pause in GW. I thought their word was gospel to you?

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 2:00pm:

How is it a desperate ploy to point out that we have experienced lengthier periods of cooling during a long term warming period. Back in the late 70s you could have argued that warming has stopped based on the same emaciated argument that you are pushing at the moment. We all know what happened. http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/warmestdecade.jpg

back in the 1970s you WERE arguing that global cooling was occuring.

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 2:00pm:

How is it a desperate ploy to point out that we have experienced lengthier periods of cooling during a long term warming period. Back in the late 70s you could have argued that warming has stopped based on the same emaciated argument that you are pushing at the moment. We all know what happened. http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/warmestdecade.jpg

like climate scientists arguing there was an ice age coming. Yeh.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 2:20pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 2:00pm: How is it a desperate ploy to point out that we have experienced lengthier periods of cooling during a long term warming period. Back in the late 70s you could have argued that warming has stopped based on the same emaciated argument that you are pushing at the moment. We all know what happened. http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/warmestdecade.jpg back in the 1970s you WERE arguing that global cooling was occuring.

The same pseudo climate science back then calling out an ice age in the 70's.

They dont know what the hell they are on about. All over the shot and now living off the models to prove their failed theory, the model rule failing, they still cant get themselves to admit that AGW is bunk and we need to wipe the board and start again.

The world’s most influential climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri speaks to Crikey on the need for sanity and fair reporting in media coverage of climate change — and explains why Australia should care.

But he's not is he?  Its a blatant lie, he's no more a climate scientist than I'm James Bond.

But then, what would you expect from this joke and the pond scum that push it.

Rider wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 3:09pm:

The world’s most influential climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri speaks to Crikey on the need for sanity and fair reporting in media coverage of climate change — and explains why Australia should care. But he's not is he?  Its a blatant lie, he's no more a climate scientist than I'm James Bond. But then, what would you expect from this joke and the pond scum that push it.

he is a railway engineer.

perfect person to put in place of a climate project!

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 2:18pm:

You still arent answering why you now disagree with the IPCC in saying there has been a 17year pause in GW. I thought their word was gospel to you?

There has been a statistical pause. 17 years ago we had our hottest year on record. It was exceptionally hot, 0.24 degrees hotter than the average for that decade. We have now reached a stage where that exceptionally hot year is about to become the norm if the predictions from the MET are correct. That represents warming to me in a real sense. Imagine what sort of temperatures we are going to get come the next massive El Niño event.

There is no contradiction as the MET has consistently pointed out.

Rider wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 3:09pm:

The world’s most influential climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri speaks to Crikey on the need for sanity and fair reporting in media coverage of climate change — and explains why Australia should care. But he's not is he?  Its a blatant lie, he's no more a climate scientist than I'm James Bond. But then, what would you expect from this joke and the pond scum that push it.

It is mostly said that Rajendra Pachauri is the biggest most influencial political hack for climate change.

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 4:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 2:18pm: You still arent answering why you now disagree with the IPCC in saying there has been a 17year pause in GW. I thought their word was gospel to you? There has been a statistical pause. 17 years ago we had our hottest year on record. It was exceptionally hot, 0.24 degrees hotter than the average for that decade. We have now reached a stage where that exceptionally hot year is about to become the norm if the predictions from the MET are correct. That represents warming to me in a real sense. Imagine what sort of temperatures we are going to get come the next massive El Niño event. There is no contradiction as the MET has consistently pointed out.

AGW lives off the models. The models fail after a pause of 17 years along with every other fail the models have.

IPCC chief calls for ‘sane voices’ in local climate debate
CATHY ALEXANDER | JAN 15, 2013 12:51PM      

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 4:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 2:18pm: You still arent answering why you now disagree with the IPCC in saying there has been a 17year pause in GW. I thought their word was gospel to you? There has been a statistical pause. 17 years ago we had our hottest year on record. It was exceptionally hot, 0.24 degrees hotter than the average for that decade. We have now reached a stage where that exceptionally hot year is about to become the norm if the predictions from the MET are correct. That represents warming to me in a real sense. Imagine what sort of temperatures we are going to get come the next massive El Niño event. There is no contradiction as the MET has consistently pointed out.

so to be clear now... you are saying that there HAS BEEN A PAUSE IN GLOBAL WARMING?

This is what the IPCC said and what you have fought against for the past few months.

so again... you are confirming that you now accept the undeniable fact that there has been no warming for the last 17 years.

Of course I accept that there has been a statistical pause in atmospheric warming over the last 17 years. Just as I accept there has been warming trend over the last 16 years and a warming trend over the last 18 years. You have to cherry pick 17 years for this to be statistically correct.

What does it mean in the real world. It means that what was once an extremely hot outlier is now normal.

Did the cooling trend that lasted 21 years between 1957 and 1978 mean the end of the long term warming trend? No it didn't. The physics hasn't magically changed. Our planet is accumulating heat, and it will only be a matter of time before this particular statistical trick disappears.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_qdETSYcDM&sns=em

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:34pm:

Of course I accept that there has been a statistical pause in atmospheric warming over the last 17 years. Just as I accept there has been warming trend over the last 16 years and a warming trend over the last 18 years. You have to cherry pick 17 years for this to be statistically correct. What does it mean in the real world. It means that what was once an extremely hot outlier is now normal. Did the cooling trend that lasted 21 years between 1957 and 1978 mean the end of the long term warming trend? No it didn't. The physics hasn't magically changed. Our planet is accumulating heat, and it will only be a matter of time before this particular statistical trick disappears.

it has taken 3 months for you to accept that 16 year pause. the fact that it took the UN IPCC to prove it to you is deeply disturbing. plus you are wrong in that there has NOT been warming in the last 16 years - not statistically speaking.

It has been an interesting experience watching you and your idiot sidekick- rabbitfood - defending the indefensible. for months you said it wasnt true and now you finally admit - without further evidence - that we were right. and what changed??  a train driver said it was true.

while you go on and on about deniers and sceptics remember that the one thing they have in common is a refusal to blindly swallow an orthodoxy simply because some group of scientists say so. However you DO blindly accept an orthodoxy and cherry pick the data to support it.

watch now as temperatures over the next 10 years fall slightly and watch just as predictably the IPCC and is cabal of goons continue to call it global warming. Make sure you are not one of them.

We all know the atmosphere is just an open sewer that we can pour pollution into without any consequences to us or the planet.
Its just common sense and all you greenie communist tree huggers should stop lying just so you can rip govts off to buy new Aston Martins and bottles of Krug to spoil your high class hookers with.

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:34pm:

Of course I accept that there has been a statistical pause in atmospheric warming over the last 17 years. Just as I accept there has been warming trend over the last 16 years and a warming trend over the last 18 years. You have to cherry pick 17 years for this to be statistically correct. What does it mean in the real world. It means that what was once an extremely hot outlier is now normal. Did the cooling trend that lasted 21 years between 1957 and 1978 mean the end of the long term warming trend? No it didn't. The physics hasn't magically changed. Our planet is accumulating heat, and it will only be a matter of time before this particular statistical trick disappears. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_qdETSYcDM&sns=em

what it means is that we know bugger-all about climate. we still cant predict tomorrows weather with an accuracy above that of seers of 5000 years ago. every single climate model has been a spectacular failure in predicting real-world results. climate is extraordinarily complex and makes particle physics look simple. The difference is that particle physicists dont say that it IS simple or that the science is settled. We leave that to the arrogance fools called climate scientists and the IPCC

adelcrow wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:44pm:

We all know the atmosphere is just an open sewer that we can pour pollution into without any consequences to us or the planet. Its just common sense and all you greenie communist tree huggers should stop lying just so you can rip govts off to buy new Aston Martins and bottles of Krug to spoil your high class hookers with.

moron

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:41pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 5:34pm: Of course I accept that there has been a statistical pause in atmospheric warming over the last 17 years. Just as I accept there has been warming trend over the last 16 years and a warming trend over the last 18 years. You have to cherry pick 17 years for this to be statistically correct. What does it mean in the real world. It means that what was once an extremely hot outlier is now normal. Did the cooling trend that lasted 21 years between 1957 and 1978 mean the end of the long term warming trend? No it didn't. The physics hasn't magically changed. Our planet is accumulating heat, and it will only be a matter of time before this particular statistical trick disappears. it has taken 3 months for you to accept that 16 year pause. the fact that it took the UN IPCC to prove it to you is deeply disturbing. plus you are wrong in that there has NOT been warming in the last 16 years - not statistically speaking. It has been an interesting experience watching you and your idiot sidekick- rabbitfood - defending the indefensible. for months you said it wasnt true and now you finally admit - without further evidence - that we were right. and what changed??  a train driver said it was true. while you go on and on about deniers and sceptics remember that the one thing they have in common is a refusal to blindly swallow an orthodoxy simply because some group of scientists say so. However you DO blindly accept an orthodoxy and cherry pick the data to support it. watch now as temperatures over the next 10 years fall slightly and watch just as predictably the IPCC and is cabal of goons continue to call it global warming. Make sure you are not one of them.

You are a liar, longy. I never suggested that you couldn't construct a statistical pause. What I've always questioned is what that means in reality. And what it means is that an exceptionally hot outlier has become the norm. Look at the 5 year period around 1998 and the last 5 years. If you can't see that the planet has got warmer, you really are a dill.

By the way, longy, if you pick 1999, you certainly have a 16 year warming trend.

Quote:

....every single climate model has been a spectacular failure in predicting real-world results.

Including any posted by you, melielongtime?

:D

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 5:41pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 5:34pm: Of course I accept that there has been a statistical pause in atmospheric warming over the last 17 years. Just as I accept there has been warming trend over the last 16 years and a warming trend over the last 18 years. You have to cherry pick 17 years for this to be statistically correct. What does it mean in the real world. It means that what was once an extremely hot outlier is now normal. Did the cooling trend that lasted 21 years between 1957 and 1978 mean the end of the long term warming trend? No it didn't. The physics hasn't magically changed. Our planet is accumulating heat, and it will only be a matter of time before this particular statistical trick disappears. it has taken 3 months for you to accept that 16 year pause. the fact that it took the UN IPCC to prove it to you is deeply disturbing. plus you are wrong in that there has NOT been warming in the last 16 years - not statistically speaking. It has been an interesting experience watching you and your idiot sidekick- rabbitfood - defending the indefensible. for months you said it wasnt true and now you finally admit - without further evidence - that we were right. and what changed??  a train driver said it was true. while you go on and on about deniers and sceptics remember that the one thing they have in common is a refusal to blindly swallow an orthodoxy simply because some group of scientists say so. However you DO blindly accept an orthodoxy and cherry pick the data to support it. watch now as temperatures over the next 10 years fall slightly and watch just as predictably the IPCC and is cabal of goons continue to call it global warming. Make sure you are not one of them. You are a liar, longy. I never suggested that you couldn't construct a statistical pause. What I've always questioned is what that means in reality. And what it means is that an exceptionally hot outlier has become the norm. Look at the 5 year period around 1998 and the last 5 years. If you can't see that the planet has got warmer, you really are a dill. By the way, longy, if you pick 1999, you certainly have a 16 year warming trend.

that's called cherry picking of data which is a climate hysterics favorite tool. no one is saying the GW hasn't occurred. what we are saying and you have FINALLY ADMITTED is that in the last 17 years there has not been any statistically significant warming. and that doesn't mean just the 1st and 17th year. "statistically' implies EVERY year.

IM not overly fussed by the pause. In is own right it is relatively meaningless unless it is followed by a drop. what HAS been very illuminating is watching the hysterics come out one-by-one saying it hasn't happened and it will never happen and btw the world is going to die and the ooops... apparently the train driver disagrees and suddenly there IS a pause.

the ACC crowd is a religion with its own pope and this week the pope spoke and the faithful rallied around.

Meanwhile in the land of actual real scientist - aka skeptics by nature - we smile and move on knowing what weve always known to be true. its a hyped up non-catastrophe.

I'm tipping a fall in temperatures soon, its going to be hilarious watching the climate change death cult explain that one  ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:47pm:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 5:44pm: We all know the atmosphere is just an open sewer that we can pour pollution into without any consequences to us or the planet. Its just common sense and all you greenie communist tree huggers should stop lying just so you can rip govts off to buy new Aston Martins and bottles of Krug to spoil your high class hookers with. moron

Im agreeing with you...in stating that treating our atmosphere as an open sewer in which we can pour billions of tonnes of pollution into will never create problems for us or future generations.
Why so aggressive?

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:34pm:

Of course I accept that there has been a statistical pause in atmospheric warming over the last 17 years. Just as I accept there has been warming trend over the last 16 years and a warming trend over the last 18 years. You have to cherry pick 17 years for this to be statistically correct. What does it mean in the real world. It means that what was once an extremely hot outlier is now normal. Did the cooling trend that lasted 21 years between 1957 and 1978 mean the end of the long term warming trend? No it didn't. The physics hasn't magically changed. Our planet is accumulating heat, and it will only be a matter of time before this particular statistical trick disappears. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_qdETSYcDM&sns=em

What. Now you are gibbery and drooling as well as linking to a freaks video who shows nothing at all.

You accept that there has been a 17 year pause, but then you go on with this shite

Quote:

warming trend over the last 16 years and a warming trend over the last 18 years. You have to cherry pick 17 years for this to be statistically correct.

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:00pm:

I'm tipping a fall in temperatures soon, its going to be hilarious watching the climate change death cult explain that one  ;D

remember that a fall in temperatures doesnt disprove gw. in fact, is there ANYTHING that could ever disprove GW? Not according to the hysterics? after all didnt the IPCC just this week say it would require 60 years of no temperature change to say that GW had even PAUSED?

in any religion there is no possible way to disprove its tenets. ACC is a religion.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 5:47pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 5:44pm: We all know the atmosphere is just an open sewer that we can pour pollution into without any consequences to us or the planet. Its just common sense and all you greenie communist tree huggers should stop lying just so you can rip govts off to buy new Aston Martins and bottles of Krug to spoil your high class hookers with. moron Im agreeing with you...in stating that treating our atmosphere as an open sewer in which we can pour billions of tonnes of pollution into will never create problems for us or future generations. Why so aggressive?

still a moron, with a touch of SOB to boot.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 5:34pm: Of course I accept that there has been a statistical pause in atmospheric warming over the last 17 years. Just as I accept there has been warming trend over the last 16 years and a warming trend over the last 18 years. You have to cherry pick 17 years for this to be statistically correct. What does it mean in the real world. It means that what was once an extremely hot outlier is now normal. Did the cooling trend that lasted 21 years between 1957 and 1978 mean the end of the long term warming trend? No it didn't. The physics hasn't magically changed. Our planet is accumulating heat, and it will only be a matter of time before this particular statistical trick disappears. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_qdETSYcDM&sns=em What. Now you are gibbery and drooling as well as linking to a freaks video who shows nothing at all. You accept that there has been a 17 year pause, but then you go on with this shite Quote: warming trend over the last 16 years and a warming trend over the last 18 years. You have to cherry pick 17 years for this to be statistically correct.

Richard Alley has authored more than 170 refereed scientific publications about the relationships between Earth's cryosphere and global climate change. He is recognised by the Institute for Scientific Information as a "highly cited researcher." He is certainly not a freak.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:57pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 5:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 5:41pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 5:34pm: Of course I accept that there has been a statistical pause in atmospheric warming over the last 17 years. Just as I accept there has been warming trend over the last 16 years and a warming trend over the last 18 years. You have to cherry pick 17 years for this to be statistically correct. What does it mean in the real world. It means that what was once an extremely hot outlier is now normal. Did the cooling trend that lasted 21 years between 1957 and 1978 mean the end of the long term warming trend? No it didn't. The physics hasn't magically changed. Our planet is accumulating heat, and it will only be a matter of time before this particular statistical trick disappears. it has taken 3 months for you to accept that 16 year pause. the fact that it took the UN IPCC to prove it to you is deeply disturbing. plus you are wrong in that there has NOT been warming in the last 16 years - not statistically speaking. It has been an interesting experience watching you and your idiot sidekick- rabbitfood - defending the indefensible. for months you said it wasnt true and now you finally admit - without further evidence - that we were right. and what changed??  a train driver said it was true. while you go on and on about deniers and sceptics remember that the one thing they have in common is a refusal to blindly swallow an orthodoxy simply because some group of scientists say so. However you DO blindly accept an orthodoxy and cherry pick the data to support it. watch now as temperatures over the next 10 years fall slightly and watch just as predictably the IPCC and is cabal of goons continue to call it global warming. Make sure you are not one of them. You are a liar, longy. I never suggested that you couldn't construct a statistical pause. What I've always questioned is what that means in reality. And what it means is that an exceptionally hot outlier has become the norm. Look at the 5 year period around 1998 and the last 5 years. If you can't see that the planet has got warmer, you really are a dill. By the way, longy, if you pick 1999, you certainly have a 16 year warming trend. that's called cherry picking of data which is a climate hysterics favorite tool. no one is saying the GW hasn't occurred. what we are saying and you have FINALLY ADMITTED is that in the last 17 years there has not been any statistically significant warming. and that doesn't mean just the 1st and 17th year. "statistically' implies EVERY year. IM not overly fussed by the pause. In is own right it is relatively meaningless unless it is followed by a drop. what HAS been very illuminating is watching the hysterics come out one-by-one saying it hasn't happened and it will never happen and btw the world is going to die and the ooops... apparently the train driver disagrees and suddenly there IS a pause. the ACC crowd is a religion with its own pope and this week the pope spoke and the faithful rallied around. Meanwhile in the land of actual real scientist - aka skeptics by nature - we smile and move on knowing what weve always known to be true. its a hyped up non-catastrophe.

There is nothing to finally admit. I never questioned the fact that you could cherry pick 1998 to create a statistical pause. However, see what happens when you pick 1997 or 1999.

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:27pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:06pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 5:34pm: Of course I accept that there has been a statistical pause in atmospheric warming over the last 17 years. Just as I accept there has been warming trend over the last 16 years and a warming trend over the last 18 years. You have to cherry pick 17 years for this to be statistically correct. What does it mean in the real world. It means that what was once an extremely hot outlier is now normal. Did the cooling trend that lasted 21 years between 1957 and 1978 mean the end of the long term warming trend? No it didn't. The physics hasn't magically changed. Our planet is accumulating heat, and it will only be a matter of time before this particular statistical trick disappears. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_qdETSYcDM&sns=em What. Now you are gibbery and drooling as well as linking to a freaks video who shows nothing at all. You accept that there has been a 17 year pause, but then you go on with this shite Quote: warming trend over the last 16 years and a warming trend over the last 18 years. You have to cherry pick 17 years for this to be statistically correct. Richard Alley has authored more than 170 refereed scientific publications about the relationships between Earth's cryosphere and global climate change. He is recognised by the Institute for Scientific Information as a "highly cited researcher." He is certainly not a freak.

that doesn't make him infallible or even close. ultimate the proof of every hypothesis is that it holds true in the real world and that its predictions actually happen. Anything less that that means it is either not really right or is totally wrong. It seems the climate hysterics definition of proof and accuracy is a little different to everyone else's

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 5:57pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 5:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 5:41pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 5:34pm: Of course I accept that there has been a statistical pause in atmospheric warming over the last 17 years. Just as I accept there has been warming trend over the last 16 years and a warming trend over the last 18 years. You have to cherry pick 17 years for this to be statistically correct. What does it mean in the real world. It means that what was once an extremely hot outlier is now normal. Did the cooling trend that lasted 21 years between 1957 and 1978 mean the end of the long term warming trend? No it didn't. The physics hasn't magically changed. Our planet is accumulating heat, and it will only be a matter of time before this particular statistical trick disappears. it has taken 3 months for you to accept that 16 year pause. the fact that it took the UN IPCC to prove it to you is deeply disturbing. plus you are wrong in that there has NOT been warming in the last 16 years - not statistically speaking. It has been an interesting experience watching you and your idiot sidekick- rabbitfood - defending the indefensible. for months you said it wasnt true and now you finally admit - without further evidence - that we were right. and what changed??  a train driver said it was true. while you go on and on about deniers and sceptics remember that the one thing they have in common is a refusal to blindly swallow an orthodoxy simply because some group of scientists say so. However you DO blindly accept an orthodoxy and cherry pick the data to support it. watch now as temperatures over the next 10 years fall slightly and watch just as predictably the IPCC and is cabal of goons continue to call it global warming. Make sure you are not one of them. You are a liar, longy. I never suggested that you couldn't construct a statistical pause. What I've always questioned is what that means in reality. And what it means is that an exceptionally hot outlier has become the norm. Look at the 5 year period around 1998 and the last 5 years. If you can't see that the planet has got warmer, you really are a dill. By the way, longy, if you pick 1999, you certainly have a 16 year warming trend. that's called cherry picking of data which is a climate hysterics favorite tool. no one is saying the GW hasn't occurred. what we are saying and you have FINALLY ADMITTED is that in the last 17 years there has not been any statistically significant warming. and that doesn't mean just the 1st and 17th year. "statistically' implies EVERY year. IM not overly fussed by the pause. In is own right it is relatively meaningless unless it is followed by a drop. what HAS been very illuminating is watching the hysterics come out one-by-one saying it hasn't happened and it will never happen and btw the world is going to die and the ooops... apparently the train driver disagrees and suddenly there IS a pause. the ACC crowd is a religion with its own pope and this week the pope spoke and the faithful rallied around. Meanwhile in the land of actual real scientist - aka skeptics by nature - we smile and move on knowing what weve always known to be true. its a hyped up non-catastrophe. There is nothing to finally admit. I never questioned the fact that you could cherry pick 1998 to create a statistical pause. However, see what happens when you pick 1997 or 1999.

But the Train Driver for the IPCC doesnt seem to agree which is a sin, isnt it?  He said there IS a statistically significant pause - not by comparing 1996 to 2013 but by comparing EVERY year inbetween.

give it up MOTR. you are wrong. The only shame is in pretending you are right when the facts and evidence points the other way.

You are wrong, longy. If you pick 1997 or 1999 you can't create a statistically significant warming trend. You've claimed to have some sort of expertise in modelling, create your own trendline using 1997 and 1999 as your starting dates.

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:52pm:

You are wrong, longy. If you pick 1997 or 1999 you can't create a statistically significant warming trend. You've claimed to have some sort of expertise in modelling, create your own trendline using 1997 and 1999 as your starting dates.

wow... you just dont get it do you? Perhaps it is because cherry-picking is (literally) a climate scientist tool-in-trade and it has just seeped into your methodology. Why not 1998 or 2000? well that would be because its not the answer you want.

the trend has gone flat. That is all. it is no real biggie. the 'biggie' is the outright refusal of so many otherwise bright people to accept it without being virtually forced to do so. the clowns running the ACC hysteria could have simply accepted it had happened and even tried to explain it away but no, they took the politicians handbook and simply denied it every happened. That is why everything these bozos say is so unbelievable - because they lie ad obfuscate over everything.

is this the end of GW? I don't know. But one thing I am absolutely sure of and that is that the last people on the planet to know when it ends will be the IPCC and is legion of clown followers. the blind religious followers are always the last to know.

Who is disputing the fact it's flattened out. Look at the 5 year running mean, longy.

http://globalcooler.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/project1.jpg

You'll see plenty of times when the graph has flattened out, or even dropped over the last century. It doesn't mean the long term warming has stopped. The physics hasn't changed so we know the next most likely direction is up.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:29am:

There is now a concensus, a peer-reviewed concensus, not just a made up fudge factor piddly number like in the past, that AGW is bunk. Anyway 17 year pause in warming. 15 - 17 year model rule to go back to the drawing board if no warming for that time period. "would suggest we dont know what we thought we knew" The IPCC needs to stop misrepresenting science, then they can expect themselves not to be misrepresented.

And dumb schoolteachers should stop frightening their pupils with the GW hoax. Even if it were a fact, shouldn't our kids have some worry-free years?

I'd advise parents to tell their kids not to listen to leftard-teachers. That it'll make children less respectful is the only problem.

olde.sault wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:23am:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:29am: There is now a concensus, a peer-reviewed concensus, not just a made up fudge factor piddly number like in the past, that AGW is bunk. Anyway 17 year pause in warming. 15 - 17 year model rule to go back to the drawing board if no warming for that time period. "would suggest we dont know what we thought we knew" The IPCC needs to stop misrepresenting science, then they can expect themselves not to be misrepresented. And dumb schoolteachers should stop frightening their pupils with the GW hoax. Even if it were a fact, shouldn't our kids have some worry-free years? I'd advise parents to tell their kids not to listen to leftard-teachers. That it'll make children less respectful is the only problem.

Is this what you want, olde.sault.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DjPo0ewuCw&sns=em

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 7:00pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:52pm: You are wrong, longy. If you pick 1997 or 1999 you can't create a statistically significant warming trend. You've claimed to have some sort of expertise in modelling, create your own trendline using 1997 and 1999 as your starting dates. wow... you just dont get it do you? Perhaps it is because cherry-picking is (literally) a climate scientist tool-in-trade and it has just seeped into your methodology. Why not 1998 or 2000? well that would be because its not the answer you want. the trend has gone flat. That is all. it is no real biggie. the 'biggie' is the outright refusal of so many otherwise bright people to accept it without being virtually forced to do so. the clowns running the ACC hysteria could have simply accepted it had happened and even tried to explain it away but no, they took the politicians handbook and simply denied it every happened. That is why everything these bozos say is so unbelievable - because they lie ad obfuscate over everything. is this the end of GW? I don't know. But one thing I am absolutely sure of and that is that the last people on the planet to know when it ends will be the IPCC and is legion of clown followers. the blind religious followers are always the last to know.

Yeah right, longy. The top 700m of ocean increased in heat content from 3 x 1022 Joules in 1997 to 10 x 1022 Joules in 2010. The chances of this being the end of GW are very remote indeed.

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:05am:

Who is disputing the fact it's flattened out. Look at the 5 year running mean, longy. http://globalcooler.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/project1.jpg You'll see plenty of times when the graph has flattened out, or even dropped over the last century. It doesn't mean the long term warming has stopped. The physics hasn't changed so we know the next most likely direction is up.

we are not talking running means. we are talking annual temperatures with no statistical measures take over the data.

and anyhow, the entire argument has been about getting you and your cabal of climate clowns to actually accept that the pause has happened. What it means is an entirely different topic and one that maybe we can now discuss now that you have  reluctantly and at the prodding of the IPCC admitted, finally that the pause has happened.

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:33am:

olde.sault wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 7:23am: progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:29am: There is now a concensus, a peer-reviewed concensus, not just a made up fudge factor piddly number like in the past, that AGW is bunk. Anyway 17 year pause in warming. 15 - 17 year model rule to go back to the drawing board if no warming for that time period. "would suggest we dont know what we thought we knew" The IPCC needs to stop misrepresenting science, then they can expect themselves not to be misrepresented. And dumb schoolteachers should stop frightening their pupils with the GW hoax. Even if it were a fact, shouldn't our kids have some worry-free years? I'd advise parents to tell their kids not to listen to leftard-teachers. That it'll make children less respectful is the only problem. Is this what you want cods? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DjPo0ewuCw&sns=em

I'm not cods and I don't understand why the pasted-in photograph.

Our children face a lot of horrors, one being snatched off the street by paedophiles. Having them frightened by faulty science if not leftard hoax is an under-belly blow.

Whatever climates brings it'll not be solved by turbines or lies from leftards such as you, Mohr!

By the way, do you still believe taht the sun rises in the west?

Sorry, olde.sault. I confused you with cods.

Now, without the frothing, explain to me why you think our school children are going to benefit from ignorance. Perhaps you could also explain why the discussion of scientific theories is a left wing thing.

olde.sault wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:23am:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:29am: There is now a concensus, a peer-reviewed concensus, not just a made up fudge factor piddly number like in the past, that AGW is bunk. Anyway 17 year pause in warming. 15 - 17 year model rule to go back to the drawing board if no warming for that time period. "would suggest we dont know what we thought we knew" The IPCC needs to stop misrepresenting science, then they can expect themselves not to be misrepresented. And dumb schoolteachers should stop frightening their pupils with the GW hoax. Even if it were a fact, shouldn't our kids have some worry-free years? I'd advise parents to tell their kids not to listen to leftard-teachers. That it'll make children less respectful is the only problem.

That is what I tell my kids. There is no need for kids to take on stress of any kind, let alone doomsday stress. There is plenty of time for kids to start worrying about meteors, world annialation, doomsday cults when they get older.

If I find anyone brainwashing my child with doomsday cult AGW, I will give them a piece of my mind.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:38am:

Come on MOTR... are you now going to admit that there has been a 17 year pause in GW?

THAT is a total FURPHY !

One of those it was hoped - if told OFTEN enough - would start to be believed

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 12:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:38am: Come on MOTR... are you now going to admit that there has been a 17 year pause in GW? THAT is a total FURPHY ! One of those it was hoped - if told OFTEN enough - would start to be believed

Is that what IPCC are up to. Well I never.

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 12:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:38am: Come on MOTR... are you now going to admit that there has been a 17 year pause in GW? THAT is a total FURPHY ! One of those it was hoped - if told OFTEN enough - would start to be believed

You can certainly construct a 17 year pause in atmospheric temperatures if you cherry pick 1998. However, unless the physics has magically changed, the warming hasn't stopped. It's just accumulating somewhere else.

https://weatherdem.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/world-ocean-heat-content-levitus-et-al-2012.png

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 12:39pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:38am: Come on MOTR... are you now going to admit that there has been a 17 year pause in GW? THAT is a total FURPHY ! One of those it was hoped - if told OFTEN enough - would start to be believed You can certainly construct a 17 year pause in atmospheric temperatures if you cherry pick 1998. However, unless the physics has magically changed, the warming hasn't stopped. It's just accumulating somewhere else. https://weatherdem.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/world-ocean-heat-content-levitus-et-al-2012.png

Cherry picking by the IPCC chief. Well I never.

Jesus prophesized climate changes long before infidels jumped on the bandwagon and warned that they were signs of the end of the age and the coming great and terrible day of  the Lord.... 8-)

When atmospheric temperatures begin to rise again, which they inevitably will, are you going to apologise for your pig ignorance, progs.

The physics is sound, are oceans are still accumulating heat and it's only a matter of time before the heat is transferred to our atmosphere.

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

When atmospheric temperatures begin to rise again, which they inevitably will, are you going to apologise for your pig ignorance, progs. The physics is sound, are oceans are still accumulating heat and it's only a matter of time before the heat is transferred to our atmosphere.

Heat from what motr. Short wave deep pentetration or atmospheric pentetration within the microns (less that 1mm) deep

Reading what the  Bible says about the signs of the coming day of wrath is like reading the daily headlines... 8-)

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 1:32pm: When atmospheric temperatures begin to rise again, which they inevitably will, are you going to apologise for your pig ignorance, progs. The physics is sound, are oceans are still accumulating heat and it's only a matter of time before the heat is transferred to our atmosphere. Heat from what motr. Short wave deep pentetration or atmospheric pentetration within the microns (less that 1mm) deep

Are you asking, how is the heat transferred from the oceans to the atmosphere?

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 1:37pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 1:32pm: When atmospheric temperatures begin to rise again, which they inevitably will, are you going to apologise for your pig ignorance, progs. The physics is sound, are oceans are still accumulating heat and it's only a matter of time before the heat is transferred to our atmosphere. Heat from what motr. Short wave deep pentetration or atmospheric pentetration within the microns (less that 1mm) deep Are you asking, how is the heat transferred from the oceans to the atmosphere?

perhaps it is time to wonder exactly why this heat  myusteriously seems to be going into oceans instead as you claim. Does that not sound suspciously like a feedback function specifically designed to regulate temperature? there are these remarkable sytems without our biosphere seemingly very effective in keeping our temperatures and radiation and all other types of issues within the proper range of human confort. perhap it might be worth a few moments consideration as to why this is occuring.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 3:37pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 3:29pm: progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 1:37pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 1:32pm: When atmospheric temperatures begin to rise again, which they inevitably will, are you going to apologise for your pig ignorance, progs. The physics is sound, are oceans are still accumulating heat and it's only a matter of time before the heat is transferred to our atmosphere. Heat from what motr. Short wave deep pentetration or atmospheric pentetration within the microns (less that 1mm) deep Are you asking, how is the heat transferred from the oceans to the atmosphere? perhaps it is time to wonder exactly why this heat  myusteriously seems to be going into oceans instead as you claim. Does that not sound suspciously like a feedback function specifically designed to regulate temperature? there are these remarkable sytems without our biosphere seemingly very effective in keeping our temperatures and radiation and all other types of issues within the proper range of human confort. perhap it might be worth a few moments consideration as to why this is occuring.

-->> Longy can't understand that it's all heat engines!

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 1:39pm:

Reading what the  Bible says about the signs of the coming day of wrath is like reading the daily headlines... 8-)

:) :) corporate whitey doesn't believe in a heavenly government!! (THAT'S WHY HE'S ON A POLITICS FORUM!!)

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 1:32pm: When atmospheric temperatures begin to rise again, which they inevitably will, are you going to apologise for your pig ignorance, progs. The physics is sound, are oceans are still accumulating heat and it's only a matter of time before the heat is transferred to our atmosphere. Heat from what motr. Short wave deep pentetration or atmospheric pentetration within the microns (less that 1mm) deep

PROGS WANTS TO REINVENT THE WHEEL!

;D ;D

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 1:37pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 1:32pm: When atmospheric temperatures begin to rise again, which they inevitably will, are you going to apologise for your pig ignorance, progs. The physics is sound, are oceans are still accumulating heat and it's only a matter of time before the heat is transferred to our atmosphere. Heat from what motr. Short wave deep pentetration or atmospheric pentetration within the microns (less that 1mm) deep Are you asking, how is the heat transferred from the oceans to the atmosphere?

Not that hard since you were the one who wrote it. It is in relation to "still accumulating heat "

Heat from what motr. Short wave deep pentetration or atmospheric pentetration within the microns (less that 1mm) deep

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 8:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 3:29pm: progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 1:37pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 1:32pm: When atmospheric temperatures begin to rise again, which they inevitably will, are you going to apologise for your pig ignorance, progs. The physics is sound, are oceans are still accumulating heat and it's only a matter of time before the heat is transferred to our atmosphere. Heat from what motr. Short wave deep pentetration or atmospheric pentetration within the microns (less that 1mm) deep Are you asking, how is the heat transferred from the oceans to the atmosphere? Not that hard since you were the one who wrote it. It is in relation to "still accumulating heat " Heat from what motr. Short wave deep pentetration or atmospheric pentetration within the microns (less that 1mm) deep

So you're not questioning how the heat will be transferred back to the atmosphere, you're asking how CO2 can impact on ocean temperatures.

Does that mean you accept that warmer oceans will eventually lead to a warmer atmosphere?

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 8:26pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 8:12pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 3:29pm: progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 1:37pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 1:32pm: When atmospheric temperatures begin to rise again, which they inevitably will, are you going to apologise for your pig ignorance, progs. The physics is sound, are oceans are still accumulating heat and it's only a matter of time before the heat is transferred to our atmosphere. Heat from what motr. Short wave deep pentetration or atmospheric pentetration within the microns (less that 1mm) deep Are you asking, how is the heat transferred from the oceans to the atmosphere? Not that hard since you were the one who wrote it. It is in relation to "still accumulating heat " Heat from what motr. Short wave deep pentetration or atmospheric pentetration within the microns (less that 1mm) deep So you're not questioning how the heat will be transferred back to the atmosphere, you're asking how CO2 can impact on ocean temperatures. Does that mean you accept that warmer oceans will eventually lead to a warmer atmosphere?

I dont know how you dont even know what YOU said  "still accumulating heat "

If the oceans are still accumulating heat, then where is the heat coming from. Is it the short wave radiation that penetrates the ocean by depths in the metres, or is it the atmosphere(back radiation)  that is warming the ocean by penetrating in the order of nanometres, far less than the thickness of a human hair

Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works, progs? Why are you asking me about short wave radiation?

You still haven't answered my question, do you accept that heat accumulating in the oceans will eventually warm the atmosphere.

Perhaps this is why you want to talk about short wave radiation?

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-comparison-1979-2012-v21.png

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 2:18pm:

You still arent answering why you now disagree with the IPCC in saying there has been a 17year pause in GW. I thought their word was gospel to you?

Where did the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW"?

Can you show us evidence?

Or did you just make that up?

Can you explain exactly how there could possibly be a " 17year pause in GW" - when every single on of those 17 years has been warmer than the long term average?

In in those 17 years - global glacial mass balance has continued to decline, the arctic ice cap has continued to decline and the oceans have continued to warm?

THe earth is continuing to warm - despite what a Daily Mail columnist has told you.

Can you explain to us why global glacial mass balance has continued to decline, the arctic ice cap has continued to decline and the oceans have continued to warm if - as you and David Rose say - there has been a " 17year pause in GW" ?

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 9:32pm:

Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works, progs? Why are you asking me about short wave radiation? You still haven't answered my question, do you accept that heat accumulating in the oceans will eventually warm the atmosphere. Perhaps this is why you want to talk about short wave radiation? http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-comparison-1979-2012-v21.png

avoid if you must

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 10:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 2:18pm: You still arent answering why you now disagree with the IPCC in saying there has been a 17year pause in GW. I thought their word was gospel to you? Where did the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW"? Can you show us evidence? Or did you just make that up? Can you explain exactly how there could possibly be a " 17year pause in GW" - when every single on of those 17 years has been warmer than the long term average? In in those 17 years - global glacial mass balance has continued to decline, the arctic ice cap has continued to decline and the oceans have continued to warm? THe earth is continuing to warm - despite what a Daily Mail columnist has told you. Can you explain to us why global glacial mass balance has continued to decline, the arctic ice cap has continued to decline and the oceans have continued to warm if - as you and David Rose say - there has been a " 17year pause in GW" ?

The late comer tool. If you are going to come late, be daft as usual, then first check the whole thread. Then come back and ask a question. If you ask the same question, then you can rightly be ignored for the ignorant doomsday cultist you are.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 10:23pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 10:08pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 2:18pm: You still arent answering why you now disagree with the IPCC in saying there has been a 17year pause in GW. I thought their word was gospel to you? Where did the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW"? Can you show us evidence? Or did you just make that up? Can you explain exactly how there could possibly be a " 17year pause in GW" - when every single on of those 17 years has been warmer than the long term average? In in those 17 years - global glacial mass balance has continued to decline, the arctic ice cap has continued to decline and the oceans have continued to warm? THe earth is continuing to warm - despite what a Daily Mail columnist has told you. Can you explain to us why global glacial mass balance has continued to decline, the arctic ice cap has continued to decline and the oceans have continued to warm if - as you and David Rose say - there has been a " 17year pause in GW" ? The late comer tool. If you are going to come late, be daft as usual, then first check the whole thread. Then come back and ask a question. If you ask the same question, then you can rightly be ignored for the ignorant doomsday cultist you are.

I have checked the whole thread and nowhere can I see evidence that the IPCC has said that there has been  a " 17year pause in GW"?

tHat is why I asked.  Where did the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW"?

Can you show us evidence?  Or did you just make that up?

Can you explain exactly how there could possibly be a " 17year pause in GW" - when every single on of those 17 years has been warmer than the long term average?

In in those 17 years - global glacial mass balance has continued to decline, the arctic ice cap has continued to decline and the oceans have continued to warm?

THe earth is continuing to warm - despite what a Daily Mail columnist has told you.

Can you explain to us why global glacial mass balance has continued to decline, the arctic ice cap has continued to decline and the oceans have continued to warm if - as you and David Rose say - there has been a " 17year pause in GW" ?

How about you answer the question?

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 10:21pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 9:32pm: Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works, progs? Why are you asking me about short wave radiation? You still haven't answered my question, do you accept that heat accumulating in the oceans will eventually warm the atmosphere. Perhaps this is why you want to talk about short wave radiation? http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-comparison-1979-2012-v21.png avoid if you must

Annoying, isn't it, progs. Next time rather than beating about the bush how about you state your position and then have a go at justifying it.

Firstly, if you are just asking about the direct effects of CO2, or the green-house gas induced warming of the oceans, then it's silly to be talking about short wave radiation. It is long wave radiation, not short wave radiation, that is trapped and reflected back to the earth by green-house gasses. What it does do is warm the surface layer, or the cool skin layer of the ocean. It's called the cool skin layer because it is the interface where ocean heat is lost to the ocean, and is therefore cooler than the water immediately below it.

Warming the top of the cool skin layer reduces the heat gradient of the interface. The warmer the top of the cool skin layer the slower the rate at which heat is lost to the atmosphere through conduction. This allows the oceans to slowly warm.

However, if you want to include the indirect effects of CO2, we can start talking about short wave radiation. As we all well know the Arctic minimum has shrunk considerably since 1998.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-comparison-1979-2012-v21.png

This means that more of the short wave radiation coming directly from the sun is hitting our oceans during the Northern summer.

MOTR wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:16am:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 10:21pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 9:32pm: Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works, progs? Why are you asking me about short wave radiation? You still haven't answered my question, do you accept that heat accumulating in the oceans will eventually warm the atmosphere. Perhaps this is why you want to talk about short wave radiation? http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-comparison-1979-2012-v21.png avoid if you must Annoying, isn't it, progs. Next time rather than beating about the bush how about you state your position and then have a go at justifying it. Firstly, if you are just asking about the direct effects of CO2, or the green-house gas induced warming of the oceans, then it's silly to be talking about short wave radiation. It is long wave radiation, not short wave radiation, that is trapped and reflected back to the earth by green-house gasses. What it does do is warm the surface layer, or the cool skin layer of the ocean. It's called the cool skin layer because it is the interface where ocean heat is lost to the ocean, and is therefore cooler than the water immediately below it. Warming the top of the cool skin layer reduces the heat gradient of the interface. The warmer the top of the cool skin layer the slower the rate at which heat is lost to the atmosphere through conduction. This allows the oceans to slowly warm. However, if you want to include the indirect effects of CO2, we can start talking about short wave radiation. As we all well know the Arctic minimum has shrunk considerably since 1998. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-comparison-1979-2012-v21.png This means that more of the short wave radiation coming directly from the sun is hitting our oceans during the Northern summer.

Not annoying. You want to avoid and dont answer, thats up to you.

If you are going to go with more short wave raditation hitting the ocean because of ice melt, then you would have to take global sea ice extent. The south canceling out the north.

I'll think you'll find I've answered your question, progs. Now how about you answer mine. Do you accept the heat that accumulates in the ocean will eventually transfer to our atmosphere.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:04am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 25th, 2013 at 4:16am: progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 10:21pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 9:32pm: Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works, progs? Why are you asking me about short wave radiation? You still haven't answered my question, do you accept that heat accumulating in the oceans will eventually warm the atmosphere. Perhaps this is why you want to talk about short wave radiation? http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-comparison-1979-2012-v21.png avoid if you must Annoying, isn't it, progs. Next time rather than beating about the bush how about you state your position and then have a go at justifying it. Firstly, if you are just asking about the direct effects of CO2, or the green-house gas induced warming of the oceans, then it's silly to be talking about short wave radiation. It is long wave radiation, not short wave radiation, that is trapped and reflected back to the earth by green-house gasses. What it does do is warm the surface layer, or the cool skin layer of the ocean. It's called the cool skin layer because it is the interface where ocean heat is lost to the ocean, and is therefore cooler than the water immediately below it. Warming the top of the cool skin layer reduces the heat gradient of the interface. The warmer the top of the cool skin layer the slower the rate at which heat is lost to the atmosphere through conduction. This allows the oceans to slowly warm. However, if you want to include the indirect effects of CO2, we can start talking about short wave radiation. As we all well know the Arctic minimum has shrunk considerably since 1998. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-comparison-1979-2012-v21.png This means that more of the short wave radiation coming directly from the sun is hitting our oceans during the Northern summer. Not annoying. You want to avoid and dont answer, thats up to you. If you are going to go with more short wave raditation hitting the ocean because of ice melt, then you would have to take global sea ice extent. The south canceling out the north.

You are the only one avoiding answers Progs.

You claim that the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW"

The IPCC clearly state in their most recent assessment report that:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level

Nothing about a " 17year pause in GW".  You appear to be lying

And if there were this  " 17year pause in GW" as you claim, why has global glacial mass balance continued to decline, the arctic ice cap continued to decline and the oceans  continued to warm?

You appear to be talking complete bollocks.

And your inability to show us evidence of where the the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW" - clearly demonstrates this

MOTR wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

I'll think you'll find I've answered your question, progs. Now how about you answer mine. Do you accept the heat that accumulates in the ocean will eventually transfer to our atmosphere.

It is all cycles of course. There is nothing of concern in the heat content. If you think an atmosphere 0.5 degrees over some arbitrary number, with back radiation that penetrates the ocean by less than a human hair is going to cause the earth issues. Then it is a wonder the earth survived all those heat cycles of the past that were warmer than now.

What you seem to advocate is a runaway effect from a human hair penetration of the ocean. Just ridiculous.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25th, 2013 at 8:04am: MOTR wrote on Feb 25th, 2013 at 4:16am: progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 10:21pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 9:32pm: Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works, progs? Why are you asking me about short wave radiation? You still haven't answered my question, do you accept that heat accumulating in the oceans will eventually warm the atmosphere. Perhaps this is why you want to talk about short wave radiation? http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-comparison-1979-2012-v21.png avoid if you must Annoying, isn't it, progs. Next time rather than beating about the bush how about you state your position and then have a go at justifying it. Firstly, if you are just asking about the direct effects of CO2, or the green-house gas induced warming of the oceans, then it's silly to be talking about short wave radiation. It is long wave radiation, not short wave radiation, that is trapped and reflected back to the earth by green-house gasses. What it does do is warm the surface layer, or the cool skin layer of the ocean. It's called the cool skin layer because it is the interface where ocean heat is lost to the ocean, and is therefore cooler than the water immediately below it. Warming the top of the cool skin layer reduces the heat gradient of the interface. The warmer the top of the cool skin layer the slower the rate at which heat is lost to the atmosphere through conduction. This allows the oceans to slowly warm. However, if you want to include the indirect effects of CO2, we can start talking about short wave radiation. As we all well know the Arctic minimum has shrunk considerably since 1998. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-comparison-1979-2012-v21.png This means that more of the short wave radiation coming directly from the sun is hitting our oceans during the Northern summer. Not annoying. You want to avoid and dont answer, thats up to you. If you are going to go with more short wave raditation hitting the ocean because of ice melt, then you would have to take global sea ice extent. The south canceling out the north. You are the only one avoiding answers Progs. You claim that the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW" The IPCC clearly state in their most recent assessment report that: Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level Nothing about a " 17year pause in GW".  You appear to be lying And if there were this  " 17year pause in GW" as you claim, why has global glacial mass balance continued to decline, the arctic ice cap continued to decline and the oceans  continued to warm? You appear to be talking complete bollocks. And your inability to show us evidence of where the the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW" - clearly demonstrates this

I dont answer you because you ask the wrong question. Take out GW, replace it with warming and then ask again.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25th, 2013 at 12:21pm: progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25th, 2013 at 8:04am: MOTR wrote on Feb 25th, 2013 at 4:16am: progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 10:21pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 9:32pm: Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works, progs? Why are you asking me about short wave radiation? You still haven't answered my question, do you accept that heat accumulating in the oceans will eventually warm the atmosphere. Perhaps this is why you want to talk about short wave radiation? http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-comparison-1979-2012-v21.png avoid if you must Annoying, isn't it, progs. Next time rather than beating about the bush how about you state your position and then have a go at justifying it. Firstly, if you are just asking about the direct effects of CO2, or the green-house gas induced warming of the oceans, then it's silly to be talking about short wave radiation. It is long wave radiation, not short wave radiation, that is trapped and reflected back to the earth by green-house gasses. What it does do is warm the surface layer, or the cool skin layer of the ocean. It's called the cool skin layer because it is the interface where ocean heat is lost to the ocean, and is therefore cooler than the water immediately below it. Warming the top of the cool skin layer reduces the heat gradient of the interface. The warmer the top of the cool skin layer the slower the rate at which heat is lost to the atmosphere through conduction. This allows the oceans to slowly warm. However, if you want to include the indirect effects of CO2, we can start talking about short wave radiation. As we all well know the Arctic minimum has shrunk considerably since 1998. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-comparison-1979-2012-v21.png This means that more of the short wave radiation coming directly from the sun is hitting our oceans during the Northern summer. Not annoying. You want to avoid and dont answer, thats up to you. If you are going to go with more short wave raditation hitting the ocean because of ice melt, then you would have to take global sea ice extent. The south canceling out the north. You are the only one avoiding answers Progs. You claim that the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW" The IPCC clearly state in their most recent assessment report that: Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level Nothing about a " 17year pause in GW".  You appear to be lying And if there were this  " 17year pause in GW" as you claim, why has global glacial mass balance continued to decline, the arctic ice cap continued to decline and the oceans  continued to warm? You appear to be talking complete bollocks. And your inability to show us evidence of where the the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW" - clearly demonstrates this I dont answer you because you ask the wrong question. Take out GW, replace it with warming and then ask again.

So - you acknowledge that the earth has continued to warm for the past 17 years - despite what the Daily Mail columnist says!

You seem to be making progress.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25th, 2013 at 12:28pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25th, 2013 at 12:21pm: progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25th, 2013 at 8:04am: MOTR wrote on Feb 25th, 2013 at 4:16am: progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 10:21pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 9:32pm: Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works, progs? Why are you asking me about short wave radiation? You still haven't answered my question, do you accept that heat accumulating in the oceans will eventually warm the atmosphere. Perhaps this is why you want to talk about short wave radiation? http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-comparison-1979-2012-v21.png avoid if you must Annoying, isn't it, progs. Next time rather than beating about the bush how about you state your position and then have a go at justifying it. Firstly, if you are just asking about the direct effects of CO2, or the green-house gas induced warming of the oceans, then it's silly to be talking about short wave radiation. It is long wave radiation, not short wave radiation, that is trapped and reflected back to the earth by green-house gasses. What it does do is warm the surface layer, or the cool skin layer of the ocean. It's called the cool skin layer because it is the interface where ocean heat is lost to the ocean, and is therefore cooler than the water immediately below it. Warming the top of the cool skin layer reduces the heat gradient of the interface. The warmer the top of the cool skin layer the slower the rate at which heat is lost to the atmosphere through conduction. This allows the oceans to slowly warm. However, if you want to include the indirect effects of CO2, we can start talking about short wave radiation. As we all well know the Arctic minimum has shrunk considerably since 1998. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-comparison-1979-2012-v21.png This means that more of the short wave radiation coming directly from the sun is hitting our oceans during the Northern summer. Not annoying. You want to avoid and dont answer, thats up to you. If you are going to go with more short wave raditation hitting the ocean because of ice melt, then you would have to take global sea ice extent. The south canceling out the north. You are the only one avoiding answers Progs. You claim that the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW" The IPCC clearly state in their most recent assessment report that: Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level Nothing about a " 17year pause in GW".  You appear to be lying And if there were this  " 17year pause in GW" as you claim, why has global glacial mass balance continued to decline, the arctic ice cap continued to decline and the oceans  continued to warm? You appear to be talking complete bollocks. And your inability to show us evidence of where the the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW" - clearly demonstrates this I dont answer you because you ask the wrong question. Take out GW, replace it with warming and then ask again. So - you acknowledge that the earth has continued to warm for the past 17 years - despite what the Daily Mail columnist says! You seem to be making progress.

No, I agree that you asked the wrong question.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 25th, 2013 at 12:09pm: I'll think you'll find I've answered your question, progs. Now how about you answer mine. Do you accept the heat that accumulates in the ocean will eventually transfer to our atmosphere. It is all cycles of course. There is nothing of concern in the heat content. If you think an atmosphere 0.5 degrees over some arbitrary number, with back radiation that penetrates the ocean by less than a human hair is going to cause the earth issues. Then it is a wonder the earth survived all those heat cycles of the past that were warmer than now. What you seem to advocate is a runaway effect from a human hair penetration of the ocean. Just ridiculous.

:-? :-?

This guy is fruity loopy and I've seen some drug casualties in my time let me tell you!  ;D ;D

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 25th, 2013 at 12:09pm: I'll think you'll find I've answered your question, progs. Now how about you answer mine. Do you accept the heat that accumulates in the ocean will eventually transfer to our atmosphere. It is all cycles of course. There is nothing of concern in the heat content. If you think an atmosphere 0.5 degrees over some arbitrary number, with back radiation that penetrates the ocean by less than a human hair is going to cause the earth issues. Then it is a wonder the earth survived all those heat cycles of the past that were warmer than now. What you seem to advocate is a runaway effect from a human hair penetration of the ocean. Just ridiculous.

I say again,..

:D :D :D This guy is fruity loopy and I've seen some drug casualties in my time let me tell you!  ::)

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

I dont answer you because you ask the wrong question. Take out GW, replace it with warming and then ask again.

Science is all definitions! This is how the free-market scamming liars argue black is white : by changing definitions and comparing apples with oranges. It's simple mis-communicatin that comes down to arrogance on behalf of those who wish to keep the status quo.

  Those same free-market scamming liars didn't like 9-11 when the same trick was playe don them....  :D :D

The free-market scamming liars lean on socialism when it suits them and then pretend that profits are private when they finally turn a profit.

They rely on the tolerance of the average person to get away with sugar coated intolerant behaviour!

  :D :D

THEY DON'T BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY, THEY SIMPLY IDOLISE THOSE RICHER THAN THEMSELVES AND FORGET ABOUT THEIR FAMILY GENERATIONS HENCE FORTH!

THE FREE-MARKET SCAMMERS ALL HATE THEMSELVES. THEY BUILD FORTRESSES AROUND THEIR HOUSES TO HIDE THEIR SHAME!!

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

No, I agree that you asked the wrong question.

Progs lol can't look at himself in the mirror!

WHAT DOES HE TELL THE KIDS AT CHRISTMAS WHEN THEY SAY THEY LOVE HIM? DOES HE LIE AND SAY HE LOVES THEM BACK??

OF COURSE HE DOES, EVEN THOUGH HE DOESN'T!

  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:04am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 25th, 2013 at 4:16am: progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 10:21pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 9:32pm: Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works, progs? Why are you asking me about short wave radiation? You still haven't answered my question, do you accept that heat accumulating in the oceans will eventually warm the atmosphere. Perhaps this is why you want to talk about short wave radiation? http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-comparison-1979-2012-v21.png avoid if you must Annoying, isn't it, progs. Next time rather than beating about the bush how about you state your position and then have a go at justifying it. Firstly, if you are just asking about the direct effects of CO2, or the green-house gas induced warming of the oceans, then it's silly to be talking about short wave radiation. It is long wave radiation, not short wave radiation, that is trapped and reflected back to the earth by green-house gasses. What it does do is warm the surface layer, or the cool skin layer of the ocean. It's called the cool skin layer because it is the interface where ocean heat is lost to the ocean, and is therefore cooler than the water immediately below it. Warming the top of the cool skin layer reduces the heat gradient of the interface. The warmer the top of the cool skin layer the slower the rate at which heat is lost to the atmosphere through conduction. This allows the oceans to slowly warm. However, if you want to include the indirect effects of CO2, we can start talking about short wave radiation. As we all well know the Arctic minimum has shrunk considerably since 1998. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-comparison-1979-2012-v21.png This means that more of the short wave radiation coming directly from the sun is hitting our oceans during the Northern summer. Not annoying. You want to avoid and dont answer, thats up to you. If you are going to go with more short wave raditation hitting the ocean because of ice melt, then you would have to take global sea ice extent. The south canceling out the north.

I guess you went to the trouble of checking whether the gain in the south is cancelled out by the loss of ice extent in the north, before you used this as an argument.

How about you stop pushing your political agenda, progs, and start debating honestly.

http://jameswight.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/sea-ice-extent-at-minimum-months.gif

Come on, progs. Did you actually think through your own argument. Or are you just posting things that might make you sound like you know what you are on about.

Quote:

Ultimately the only statement the Australian article attributes to Pachauri on this subject is that "global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming." Again note that the story is paraphrasing Pachauri rather than quoting him directly.  Had he said that global surface air  temperatures have plateaued and that this doesn't disprove global warming, he would be 100% correct.  Though it's also worth noting that over the past 17 years, the global surface temperature trend is approximately 0.10 ± 0.13°C per decade, which is most likely positive (warming). More importantly, over the past 17 years the planet has accumulated the equivalent energy to detonating 3.7 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second, every second.  It takes a fundamental misundertanding of the global climate to deny that immense amount of global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1889

MOTR wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 3:33am:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25th, 2013 at 8:04am: MOTR wrote on Feb 25th, 2013 at 4:16am: progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 10:21pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 9:32pm: Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works, progs? Why are you asking me about short wave radiation? You still haven't answered my question, do you accept that heat accumulating in the oceans will eventually warm the atmosphere. Perhaps this is why you want to talk about short wave radiation? http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-comparison-1979-2012-v21.png avoid if you must Annoying, isn't it, progs. Next time rather than beating about the bush how about you state your position and then have a go at justifying it. Firstly, if you are just asking about the direct effects of CO2, or the green-house gas induced warming of the oceans, then it's silly to be talking about short wave radiation. It is long wave radiation, not short wave radiation, that is trapped and reflected back to the earth by green-house gasses. What it does do is warm the surface layer, or the cool skin layer of the ocean. It's called the cool skin layer because it is the interface where ocean heat is lost to the ocean, and is therefore cooler than the water immediately below it. Warming the top of the cool skin layer reduces the heat gradient of the interface. The warmer the top of the cool skin layer the slower the rate at which heat is lost to the atmosphere through conduction. This allows the oceans to slowly warm. However, if you want to include the indirect effects of CO2, we can start talking about short wave radiation. As we all well know the Arctic minimum has shrunk considerably since 1998. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-comparison-1979-2012-v21.png This means that more of the short wave radiation coming directly from the sun is hitting our oceans during the Northern summer. Not annoying. You want to avoid and dont answer, thats up to you. If you are going to go with more short wave raditation hitting the ocean because of ice melt, then you would have to take global sea ice extent. The south canceling out the north. I guess you went to the trouble of checking whether the gain in the south is cancelled out by the loss of ice extent in the north, before you used this as an argument. How about you stop pushing your political agenda, progs, and start debating honestly. http://jameswight.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/sea-ice-extent-at-minimum-months.gif

Still running are we, progs.

What a great example of what my complaint is.  Two Threads....one after the other, now....on exactly the same Topic!

>:(

Aussie wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 6:32pm:

What a great example of what my complaint is.  Two Threads....one after the other, now....on exactly the same Topic! >:(

This thread was meant to be about the misrepresentation of climate scientists in the Australian media.

The other thread is a specific example of this misrepresentation.

They have certainly converged, but they are two separate issues.

MOTR wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 7:07pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 6:32pm: What a great example of what my complaint is.  Two Threads....one after the other, now....on exactly the same Topic! >:( This thread was meant to be about the misrepresentation of climate scientists in the Australian media. The other thread is a specific example of this misrepresentation. They have certainly converged, but they are two separate issues.

No matter the Thread Title.......it ALWAYS converges into the same Posters saying exactly the same thing on exactly the same topic.

News Limited has a sorry history of misrepresenting what the scientists are actually saying. In the other thread, Rabbitoh has done a tremendous job of clearly pointing out how the UN's Climate Chief has been reported as saying something he clearly hasn't.

Unfortunately, there are many other instances, including the one on sea level rises. I'll be sure to post other examples in this thread as they arise.

MOTR wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 7:22pm:

News Limited has a sorry history of misrepresenting what the scientists are actually saying. In the other thread, Rabbitoh has done a tremendous job of clearly pointing out how the UN's Climate Chief has been reported as saying something he clearly hasn't. Unfortunately, there are many other instances, including the one on sea level rises. I'll be sure to post other examples in this thread as they arise.

supporting rabbit-food does not help your credibility either. Rabbit-droppings is - unbelievably - saying that 17 years ot NOT getting warmer is actually warming. Now I know climate hysterics have hijacked many methodologies already but it is going to be a bit hard to hijack basic mathematics and infer that no increase in temperature is actually an increase in temperature!!

MOTR this is why we sceptics have so much fun mocking your nonsensical, illogical and at times pathological approach to climate.  you are now effectively said that warming is warming, cooling is warming and no change is also warming. if you want to support the rabbit-hole approach to mathematics - which an average 10yo could dispute - then you are wasting your time on hear debating. no one is going to take you seriously. For a short while you actually accepted that there had been a 17 year pause in warming - just as IPCC, NASA and the MET admitted. now you are backto denying it. What possible reason is left to not simply dismiss you as just a bloody idiot?

90% of global warming occurs in our oceans. A pause in air surface temperatures is not the same thing as a pause in global warming. We are talking about two separate things. I have never accepted that there has been a pause in global warming. The physics tell me otherwise. I accept that global surface air  temperatures have plateaued over a 17 year peroid, but this doesn't disprove global warming.

A clear case of misrepresentation.

The story.

http://www.readfearn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/lloydp1.jpg

The apology.


Quote:

A report in the Australian on Tuesday (Sea rise ‘not linked to warming’, page 1) said a paper by JM Gregory with a contribution from John Church had “found no link to global warming and no increase in the rate of glacier melt over the past 100 years”. In fact, the paper found the effect of anthropogenic global warming on the rate of sea level rise would have been greater in the 20th century but for volcanic activity. It found that in the past two decades the rate of sea level rise had been larger than in the 20th century.

I'm sure it's the misleading story that will be remembered by most.

MOTR wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 8:15pm:

90% of global warming occurs in our oceans. A pause in air surface temperatures is not the same thing as a pause in global warming. We are talking about two separate things. I have never accepted that there has been a pause in global warming. The physics tell me otherwise. I accept that global surface air  temperatures have plateaued over a 17 year peroid, but this doesn't disprove global warming.

thank you. no one said it did disprove GW. What it does do is question many of the underlying assumptions which the models are based on. It has been long understood that a 17year pause braeks theose assumptions and boundary conditions.

MOTR wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 8:37pm:

A clear case of misrepresentation. The story. http://www.readfearn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/lloydp1.jpg The apology. Quote: A report in the Australian on Tuesday (Sea rise ‘not linked to warming’, page 1) said a paper by JM Gregory with a contribution from John Church had “found no link to global warming and no increase in the rate of glacier melt over the past 100 years”. In fact, the paper found the effect of anthropogenic global warming on the rate of sea level rise would have been greater in the 20th century but for volcanic activity. It found that in the past two decades the rate of sea level rise had been larger than in the 20th century. I'm sure it's the misleading story that will be remembered by most.

to be fair in a similar incident the MET said that the journos interpretation of their own data was wrong when he said there had been a 16 year pause in warming. then, after a couple weeks admitted that he was right. there is a definite problem with some organizations in allowing obvious interpretations of their results. the article referred to was not completely accurate but nor was it inaccurate either. The report finds a strong disconnect between GW and sea level rises.

No it doesn't, Longy. The paper does not find a disconnect or any such thing between warming oceans and sea level rises. Have you looked at the paper yet, Longy?