A pause in Global Warming
- Thread starter mop
- Start date
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
You, like mop, cannot read English. The Met does not agree that warming stopped or paused. The Met admits that if you cherry pick a phony starting point (in the Summer of 1997 not January of 2000 or 2001) that you can artificially make it appear that the trend is something that it is not. You do not get to read a single sentence in isolation just as you do not get to cherry pick a starting point. You guys are either liars or morons. Personally, I pick both.
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
Are you really this dense?
Do you seriously not comprehend that choosing August of 1997 as a starting point is cherry picking?
Trend is all that matters. The earth is and remains out of balance where it is continuing to retain more heat. This trend has not changed over the past 35-40 years.
You cannot explain the graphic from the Met Office because it obviously demonstrates this. You can play a cheap (and stupid) parlor trick claiming that the trend is somehow altered by picking a phony starting point at the height of a strong El Nino.
Does this silliness ever get old?
There was a great sequence in Climate of Doubt on Frontline. It was about climate change and its likely impact on the coastal region of North Carolina. The scientific panel originally appointed to research the issue determined that the likely sea rise by 2100 was 39 inches. The response from the business community (no doubt the "conservative" or Republican response) was to eliminate all reference to sea level rise. The lead scientist, who was seeing his work ignored, pointed to the ocean and said that there will be the real test.
Our real test is coming when temperatures rise 2-3 degrees Celsius and droughts last decades. Our real test is coming when the oceans are too warm and acidic to support corral reefs. Our real test is coming when the breadbasket of this country becomes a dustbowl.
The real shame is that this will impact my children and grandchildren too rather than just the cretins who won't listen to actual science or just stay out of the way of stuff they are incapable of understanding. This makes me sad because, as an old backpacker, I was always taught to leave a place better than how I found it.
Do you seriously not comprehend that choosing August of 1997 as a starting point is cherry picking?
Trend is all that matters. The earth is and remains out of balance where it is continuing to retain more heat. This trend has not changed over the past 35-40 years.
You cannot explain the graphic from the Met Office because it obviously demonstrates this. You can play a cheap (and stupid) parlor trick claiming that the trend is somehow altered by picking a phony starting point at the height of a strong El Nino.
Does this silliness ever get old?
There was a great sequence in Climate of Doubt on Frontline. It was about climate change and its likely impact on the coastal region of North Carolina. The scientific panel originally appointed to research the issue determined that the likely sea rise by 2100 was 39 inches. The response from the business community (no doubt the "conservative" or Republican response) was to eliminate all reference to sea level rise. The lead scientist, who was seeing his work ignored, pointed to the ocean and said that there will be the real test.
Our real test is coming when temperatures rise 2-3 degrees Celsius and droughts last decades. Our real test is coming when the oceans are too warm and acidic to support corral reefs. Our real test is coming when the breadbasket of this country becomes a dustbowl.
The real shame is that this will impact my children and grandchildren too rather than just the cretins who won't listen to actual science or just stay out of the way of stuff they are incapable of understanding. This makes me sad because, as an old backpacker, I was always taught to leave a place better than how I found it.
omnipresent
1,000+ Posts
That kid pasotex - he mad, smarty too!
you are a funny man Paso. so, to use your logic, if it were to continue to stay flat for another 20 years you can just keep saying "it is still warming unabated. nothing has changed! Look at the graph!" bro, you aren't very good at this. you are persistent, but being persistently wrong still doesn't make you right. I am saying something quite moderate here. I am not saying it has not warmed. I am not saying that the trend isn't up if you choose years longer ago than 1997 (by the way, I didn't start in August of 1997 as you erroneously claimed). I am not even saying it has cooled or even begun to cool. I am just saying that we have not seen any warming since the the graph stopped going radically up in 1998. We have had a pause. Many scientists have admitted this. You yourself have even linked to a study that tried to explain this pause. It's not the end of the world bro. You can accept what i am saying and still believe in AGW. Sure, it makes your alarmism look a bit less well-grounded, but as I have said MANY times, it may start warming again tomorrow.
I guess everyone needs their own personal apocalypse eh?
I guess everyone needs their own personal apocalypse eh?
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
You don't even know what trend is and yet you have an opinion. The height of hubris.
I think this is what most irritates me about the fake skeptics. The overwhelming majority of them are way too stupid to have an opinion on any of this and it would be great if they just admitted that they don't understand it.
You admit the earth is warming and yet you think it has not warmed for the last (fill in the blank) years using a high point as the start? My dog is way smarter than this. Seriously.
I think this is what most irritates me about the fake skeptics. The overwhelming majority of them are way too stupid to have an opinion on any of this and it would be great if they just admitted that they don't understand it.
You admit the earth is warming and yet you think it has not warmed for the last (fill in the blank) years using a high point as the start? My dog is way smarter than this. Seriously.
zzzzzzz. man, you are getting sort of boring. You can't defend your point so you just repeat poor arguments.
I understand what a trend is. I know that starting at 1998 is a "cherry-pick." but that's what we do when we look back at history. for instance, now that we are 70 years after the fact, we could look at the graph and say it stopped warming after 1940 for about 35 years. Now, 1940 may have MANy good reasons for having been so warm, but looking back at a graph, we see that it stopped going up in 1940 and stayed flat to cool for the next 35 years or so.
No difference than what I am doing. It has not warmed any further since 1998. that is interesting. it may only turn out to be a longer than expected pause, it may be the start of cooling, or it may remain flat for another decade or two. only time will tell. for now, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the temperature stopped rising in 1998.
I understand what a trend is. I know that starting at 1998 is a "cherry-pick." but that's what we do when we look back at history. for instance, now that we are 70 years after the fact, we could look at the graph and say it stopped warming after 1940 for about 35 years. Now, 1940 may have MANy good reasons for having been so warm, but looking back at a graph, we see that it stopped going up in 1940 and stayed flat to cool for the next 35 years or so.
No difference than what I am doing. It has not warmed any further since 1998. that is interesting. it may only turn out to be a longer than expected pause, it may be the start of cooling, or it may remain flat for another decade or two. only time will tell. for now, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the temperature stopped rising in 1998.
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
You again demonstrate your ignorance of the meaning of the word trend. There is a statistically significant warming trend from approximately 1975 until the present. There is no pause. None. This is just a complete fabrication by liars and believed by ignorant fools.
You do not get to cherry pick the point at which you begin your measurement when looking for a trend. There was no clear trend before approximately 1975 although there was some warming earlier in the century. The modern trend begins in about 1975.
What happened a few years before 1975 to cause the earth to retain more heat? Do you ever get tired of being so utterly (look bronco - used as an adverb or I could call him an utter idiot and use it as an adjective) ignorant?
You do not get to cherry pick the point at which you begin your measurement when looking for a trend. There was no clear trend before approximately 1975 although there was some warming earlier in the century. The modern trend begins in about 1975.
What happened a few years before 1975 to cause the earth to retain more heat? Do you ever get tired of being so utterly (look bronco - used as an adverb or I could call him an utter idiot and use it as an adjective) ignorant?
Paso, you repeatedly seem to accuse me of being unintelligent, yet I think I am ready to compare my intelligence with yours. So, since you want to make this topic about comparing you to me, go ahead and tell me what your educational background and current job are. I think I would like to know exactly who it is that is so much smarter than I.
Go ahead, Mr. personal attack and comparison, what is your resume?
Somehow, I predict you won't say. Kind of easy to accuse everyone of being stupid when behind an anonymous screen name.
Go ahead, Mr. personal attack and comparison, what is your resume?
Somehow, I predict you won't say. Kind of easy to accuse everyone of being stupid when behind an anonymous screen name.
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
I graduated with honors from The University of Texas School of Law where I was an associate editor of Texas Law Review. I was premed as an undergrad (including two years of chemistry, a year of physics, and calculus) and have a minor in biology (28 hours). I am a board certified (civil and consumer) trial attorney.
The most impressive thing on my resume I doubt you have the first clue about so I will just tell you. I graded on to Texas Law Review. This means that I was one of the top six students (I was #3) in my section of 110 first year law students at UT. Do you have any idea how hard this is to do? This means that I can rapidly research, read, and assimilate information particularly in an area that dovetails with my undergrad education.
Your turn. Dazzle me.
BTW the primary target of my scorn on these threads is mop. I do find the cheerleading annoying, but I rarely intend to address it beyond some mocking. I do generally find "skeptics" contemptible because they have neither the intellectual capacity to understand the issues nor have they spent any amount of time actually becoming familiar with the literature.
This thread is a good example where anyone claiming that warming has "stopped" is either stupid or a liar. There really is no other choice. It is a stupid parlor trick to pick a high point 14 or 15 years ago and then claim warming "stopped" at that point. It reflects either mendaciousness of the first order or just incredible ignorance.
When you have a variable set of data, like temperature, you examine it to determine whether there is a statistically significant trend within the data. There is with temperature from 1975 until the present. The reality is that 1997 and 1998 were somewhat distorted up by a strong El Nino. The trend was somewhat lower. Therefore, you use the trend for examining future data (or if you are really good and interested in science, you remove the impact of El Nino). This isn't magic, but good science.
The most impressive thing on my resume I doubt you have the first clue about so I will just tell you. I graded on to Texas Law Review. This means that I was one of the top six students (I was #3) in my section of 110 first year law students at UT. Do you have any idea how hard this is to do? This means that I can rapidly research, read, and assimilate information particularly in an area that dovetails with my undergrad education.
Your turn. Dazzle me.
BTW the primary target of my scorn on these threads is mop. I do find the cheerleading annoying, but I rarely intend to address it beyond some mocking. I do generally find "skeptics" contemptible because they have neither the intellectual capacity to understand the issues nor have they spent any amount of time actually becoming familiar with the literature.
This thread is a good example where anyone claiming that warming has "stopped" is either stupid or a liar. There really is no other choice. It is a stupid parlor trick to pick a high point 14 or 15 years ago and then claim warming "stopped" at that point. It reflects either mendaciousness of the first order or just incredible ignorance.
When you have a variable set of data, like temperature, you examine it to determine whether there is a statistically significant trend within the data. There is with temperature from 1975 until the present. The reality is that 1997 and 1998 were somewhat distorted up by a strong El Nino. The trend was somewhat lower. Therefore, you use the trend for examining future data (or if you are really good and interested in science, you remove the impact of El Nino). This isn't magic, but good science.
Paso is a plaintiff attorney. It is plainly obvious from the way he posts. And that is fine, like all occupations there are good ones and bad ones.
It is one thing to call people dumb on this board, but why would you call Judith Curry dumb? I wouldn't necessarily be surprised, but I doubt even your own over inflated opinion of yourself would not allow you to think you have more understanding of the issue than Curry. What is her "agenda"? Curry says there has been a pause and that the models are flawed. Do you really think she doesnt understand "trend"? Do you think she is not privy to every climate study and bit of evidence that exists on this subject?
And she very well might be wrong. But she is not dumb and she is not unimformed. And folks that agree with her aren't either.
It is one thing to call people dumb on this board, but why would you call Judith Curry dumb? I wouldn't necessarily be surprised, but I doubt even your own over inflated opinion of yourself would not allow you to think you have more understanding of the issue than Curry. What is her "agenda"? Curry says there has been a pause and that the models are flawed. Do you really think she doesnt understand "trend"? Do you think she is not privy to every climate study and bit of evidence that exists on this subject?
And she very well might be wrong. But she is not dumb and she is not unimformed. And folks that agree with her aren't either.
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
I do primarily commercial litigation which means I am a plaintiff's attorney and defendant's attorney about equally. I am not sure why this would matter though because being a plaintiff's attorney is not an insult. In commercial cases, it usually just means you won the race to the courthouse.
Judith Curry is a liar and far more importantly (from a science standpoint), she is just wrong. Most of her followers are unimformed (sic). I certainly think that I know as much or more about statistics and math than she does. The claim that the warming stopped in (fill in the blank) is just false. It is false if you know anything about the data or statistics. This is maybe high school level stuff (for me), but I suppose it is really tricky for some of you.
Read the link that I provided to Open Mind and tell me how Curry (or whomever) is right and why Tamino is wrong. Can you do this? I will provide it here again.
The Link
Judith Curry is a liar and far more importantly (from a science standpoint), she is just wrong. Most of her followers are unimformed (sic). I certainly think that I know as much or more about statistics and math than she does. The claim that the warming stopped in (fill in the blank) is just false. It is false if you know anything about the data or statistics. This is maybe high school level stuff (for me), but I suppose it is really tricky for some of you.
Read the link that I provided to Open Mind and tell me how Curry (or whomever) is right and why Tamino is wrong. Can you do this? I will provide it here again.
The Link
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
I read the articles and I see scientists disagreeing over data. I don't see one side ignoring anything. I don't see a side with an obviously superior interpretation.
It's an honest discussion about statistics which is always an adventure in itself. I read graphs and fit lines to data in my job all the time. If I didn't understand statistics I would have been fired or marginalized a long time ago. I have sit in many meetings with a room full of PhDs looking at data. One person sees an effect. Another doesn't. Both can explain with science why their interpretation is correct. Both are reasonable explanations even though they contradict. You know what always solves the disagreement? More data!
I think the statements Rose has made are justifiable. I also think it is possible that nothing has changed warming wise, but it is really interesting to see what has been recorded over the last 15-17 years. The temperature is trend is flat. It just is. Whether you look at the data from 1997-2012 or include the data 1975-2012, the last 15-17 years are virtually flat. That statement doesn't mean that the underlying factors causing the previous heating have changed. It doesn't mean that the next 15 years will continue to be level or fall. In 30 years, 1997-2012 may indeed appear just like you describe. But, sitting in 2012 it is hard to tell. It's interesting and could signal a change, but no one knows at this point.
It's an honest discussion about statistics which is always an adventure in itself. I read graphs and fit lines to data in my job all the time. If I didn't understand statistics I would have been fired or marginalized a long time ago. I have sit in many meetings with a room full of PhDs looking at data. One person sees an effect. Another doesn't. Both can explain with science why their interpretation is correct. Both are reasonable explanations even though they contradict. You know what always solves the disagreement? More data!
I think the statements Rose has made are justifiable. I also think it is possible that nothing has changed warming wise, but it is really interesting to see what has been recorded over the last 15-17 years. The temperature is trend is flat. It just is. Whether you look at the data from 1997-2012 or include the data 1975-2012, the last 15-17 years are virtually flat. That statement doesn't mean that the underlying factors causing the previous heating have changed. It doesn't mean that the next 15 years will continue to be level or fall. In 30 years, 1997-2012 may indeed appear just like you describe. But, sitting in 2012 it is hard to tell. It's interesting and could signal a change, but no one knows at this point.
it's funny how those of us who are skeptical are FAR more nuanced and reasonable in our positions. Paso, you are a religionist. You have chosen your religion, AGW and you adhere to it like a medieval acolyte in the Roman Catholic Church. We regular say that we could be wrong, we regularly point out that while the warming has paused, it could continue tomorrow. we regularly acknowledge that if you go back 30 years, there is an upward trend (just not near as dramatic of an upward trend due to the last 15 years). you can't grant any ground at all. you are a blind faith sort of guy with only debating skills (rather poor ones actually since you need to regularly resort to sophomoric levels of insult) on your side. It is funny to watch how people on this board ar by in large quite reasonable about this issue, but you are a ranting and raving lunatic with no room for any position that doesn't adhere to what the "bishops" of Climate Change are telling you.
Just out of curiosity, if this "non-flat" trend of the past 15 years continues for another 5 years, is it THEN a pause? How long would the line have to be virtually flat before you are willing to admit that the warming has paused? because it could remain flat for another 30 years and the "Trend" from 1975 would still be upwards. so what does it take for YOU to admit that we are on a plateau?
Just out of curiosity, if this "non-flat" trend of the past 15 years continues for another 5 years, is it THEN a pause? How long would the line have to be virtually flat before you are willing to admit that the warming has paused? because it could remain flat for another 30 years and the "Trend" from 1975 would still be upwards. so what does it take for YOU to admit that we are on a plateau?
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
This is a joke and not worth my time.
You have data for over a hundred years and yet choose to isolate a time frame that just happens to include an unusual high as the starting point? If you do this, you are either stupid or a liar or I guess both.
There is nobody on this thread interested in discussing science (or real data). It is, however, interesting to get accused of some "religious" bias. By interesting I mean it is laughable.
If you have a statistically significant trend from 1975 until the present, why would you start in 1997? Can anyone explain this conundrum? Why would you pick 1997 as your starting point in the first place?
You have data for over a hundred years and yet choose to isolate a time frame that just happens to include an unusual high as the starting point? If you do this, you are either stupid or a liar or I guess both.
There is nobody on this thread interested in discussing science (or real data). It is, however, interesting to get accused of some "religious" bias. By interesting I mean it is laughable.
If you have a statistically significant trend from 1975 until the present, why would you start in 1997? Can anyone explain this conundrum? Why would you pick 1997 as your starting point in the first place?
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
BTW I know that you are not telling the truth about TLR because of the time frame (something changed by 1995 to the manner in which you received an invitation). It also is never called UT law review especially by anyone who was actually on it.
If you really do have a math degree (and know something about statistics), why don't you read my link to Open Mind and tell us whether Tamino is right? There really is a right and wrong answer to whether the warming stopped or paused. There is a statistically significant warming trend from 1975 until the present. This is mathematically indisputable, no?
VYfan won that contest.
So Paso, why won't you tell us what it would take for you to consider a "pause" in global warming. If we had 15 more years exactly like the last 15 years, would you still be claiming unabated warming? The question is this, is there EVER a point at which one can say "man, the warming has stopped!" ? What does it take to see a pause?
You asked why we would start at 1997. I would ask you, why start at 1975? Why not start at 1940? Remember, not one person on this board (that I am aware of) questions that the earth has warmed. None of us question whether it has warmed since 1975. It is clear that there was a fairly steep warming trend from 1975 to 1998. But since then, that steep upward trend has come to a stop. We have remained near the top of those temperatures and that is interesting, but it appears to all of us that the steep upward climb has stopped. Please tell us what a pause WOULD look like, since 15 years of flat global temperatures are evidently not a "pause" in your understanding. What would an actual pause look like? Can you answer this exceedingly simple question?
Judith Curry is an very moderate and fair luke warmer. She believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming, by the way, she just is skeptical of how much of it is caused by man and how much is natural. She is a true scientist as she remains open to all explanations. To act as if she is lying or has some agenda is absurd. She is the chair of the climatology department, she is a tenured professor and she has almost 200 peer-reviewed papers in climate. to suggest some malevolent motives or some nefarious goals is utterly absurd and makes you appear even more desperate.
So Paso, why won't you tell us what it would take for you to consider a "pause" in global warming. If we had 15 more years exactly like the last 15 years, would you still be claiming unabated warming? The question is this, is there EVER a point at which one can say "man, the warming has stopped!" ? What does it take to see a pause?
You asked why we would start at 1997. I would ask you, why start at 1975? Why not start at 1940? Remember, not one person on this board (that I am aware of) questions that the earth has warmed. None of us question whether it has warmed since 1975. It is clear that there was a fairly steep warming trend from 1975 to 1998. But since then, that steep upward trend has come to a stop. We have remained near the top of those temperatures and that is interesting, but it appears to all of us that the steep upward climb has stopped. Please tell us what a pause WOULD look like, since 15 years of flat global temperatures are evidently not a "pause" in your understanding. What would an actual pause look like? Can you answer this exceedingly simple question?
Judith Curry is an very moderate and fair luke warmer. She believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming, by the way, she just is skeptical of how much of it is caused by man and how much is natural. She is a true scientist as she remains open to all explanations. To act as if she is lying or has some agenda is absurd. She is the chair of the climatology department, she is a tenured professor and she has almost 200 peer-reviewed papers in climate. to suggest some malevolent motives or some nefarious goals is utterly absurd and makes you appear even more desperate.
clearly answering this question is either very difficult for you or very unpleasant. so let me ask again. how much more of what we have seen over the past decade would we need to see before you conceded a "pause" was in fact real?
while you consider this very very very difficult question for you to answer, here is another quote by an idiot unable to read a graph or spot a trend. this one happens to be from a gentlemen named Dr. Kevin Trenberth (yep, that one):
while you consider this very very very difficult question for you to answer, here is another quote by an idiot unable to read a graph or spot a trend. this one happens to be from a gentlemen named Dr. Kevin Trenberth (yep, that one):
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
As for what it would take for me to think there was a pause in global warming (perhaps your first interesting question in a year), I would need to see:
(1) a non-cherry picked starting point (ie one that is statistically significant or not abnormally high or low);
(2) a cluster of the years in the decade that are not the warmest ever measured by human instruments;
(3) an elimination of other factors such solar, volcano, and ENSO;
(4) a calculation of the planetary heat balance including ice, air, and oceans demonstrating a statistically significant flat trend (ie not noise caused by normal variability); and
(5) an explanation of the change in the physical characteristics of CO2, CH4, and N2O.
This would be the hard science that would convince me there is a pause.
I am going to try very hard to just stay off of these threads. They are a complete waste of my time. The earth and science will prove me right and you wrong, but sadly my children and grandchildren will pay for it just as much as your's will.
(1) a non-cherry picked starting point (ie one that is statistically significant or not abnormally high or low);
(2) a cluster of the years in the decade that are not the warmest ever measured by human instruments;
(3) an elimination of other factors such solar, volcano, and ENSO;
(4) a calculation of the planetary heat balance including ice, air, and oceans demonstrating a statistically significant flat trend (ie not noise caused by normal variability); and
(5) an explanation of the change in the physical characteristics of CO2, CH4, and N2O.
This would be the hard science that would convince me there is a pause.
I am going to try very hard to just stay off of these threads. They are a complete waste of my time. The earth and science will prove me right and you wrong, but sadly my children and grandchildren will pay for it just as much as your's will.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Happy Thanksgiving to all
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 5
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
