The rising sea level myth[W:565]

[Dittohead not!]

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

There is no guarantee of future anything.
But, what has happened in the past is our best indication of what is likely to happen in the future.

 

[Lord of Planar]

There is no guarantee of future anything.
But, what has happened in the past is our best indication of what is likely to happen in the future.

I disagree.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

I'm glad I re-read what I posted. The UAH anomaly increase through 2013 was not 1 degree as I wrote; it was .1 degree.

An increase is still an increase. And that invalidates the "well it stopped 15 years ago" spiel.

The rise of temperature from 1988 to 2013 was in fact an increase. All of that rise occurred before the year 2000. The rise over the last decade has actually been a decrease. The drop from 1998, which is the 15 year mark that everyone seems so excited about, is from a little under .6 degrees anomaly in 1998 to a little under .1 degrees anomaly in 2013. This is using the May number from both years. June 2013 is not out yet, I don't think.

The moral of the story, though, is that CO2 continues to rise and Anthropogenic Global Warming Science demands that we see an increase in temperature. A reduction in the temperature is impossible according to this discipline while the CO2 climbs. Of course, this depends on a complete lack of understanding for how any incremental increase in CO2 will impact the temperature, but that is beside this point.

If the temperature is dropping or flat as CO2 is increasing at the same pace it always has for the last 60 years, then the AGW Science is just so much more hot air, isn't it?

I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Here's these:

 

[Dittohead not!]

I disagree.

Yes, I know.
And, should the impossible happen, and the little graph I posted actually continue to do in the future what it has been doing in the past, you'll still disagree.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, I know.
And, should the impossible happen, and the little graph I posted actually continue to do in the future what it has been doing in the past, you'll still disagree.

Not if it continues to occur.

I simply believe most of global warming has run its course. We will still see a little more warming from the northern ice exposing more and more ocean, but not much more. It's been about 60 years since the last increase in the sun's output.

I put this together several years ago:

Now I don't know what the lag time is, I now suspect it's close to 50 years. It fits reasonably well, and it you superimpose more things like adding pollution, then cleaning it up, ESNO, El Niño/La Niña, etc; then things fit prett good to observed temperature.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Not if it continues to occur.

I simply believe most of global warming has run its course. We will still see a little more warming from the northern ice exposing more and more ocean, but not much more. It's been about 60 years since the last increase in the sun's output.

I put this together several years ago:

Now I don't know what the lag time is, I now suspect it's close to 50 years. It fits reasonably well, and it you superimpose more things like adding pollution, then cleaning it up, ESNO, El Niño/La Niña, etc; then things fit prett good to observed temperature.

Want to make a bet?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Want to make a bet?

Bet what?

If global warming has mostly run its course or not?

What would the criteria be?

I always tell people who are in such belief that I will let the future's history judge me.

 

[Threegoofs]

Not if it continues to occur.

I simply believe most of global warming has run its course. We will still see a little more warming from the northern ice exposing more and more ocean, but not much more. It's been about 60 years since the last increase in the sun's output.

I put this together several years ago:



Now I don't know what the lag time is, I now suspect it's close to 50 years. It fits reasonably well, and it you superimpose more things like adding pollution, then cleaning it up, ESNO, El Niño/La Niña, etc; then things fit prett good to observed temperature.

Luckily, science doesnt work by random guys believing things without evidence, or by people who work in completely different fields pretending to be able to make graphs based off other peoples data and passing it off as analysis.

This may have worked in the late 1700s, when all science was done by, basically, amateurs, but the last couple hundred years have pretty definitively shown that education is kinda critical in cutting edge science. And I dont know youre background, but since you seem to have a very tenuous view of how science works, I'm guessing its no more than undergraduate (and probably underclassman) science courses. At most.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Bet what?

If global warming has mostly run its course or not?

What would the criteria be?

I always tell people who are in such belief that I will let the future's history judge me.

It would have to be a long term bet.
Ten years from now, if we're both still around, and if global warming has, indeed run its course and the planet is no warmer on average than it was back in 2003, then you'd be right, and I'd have to join the ranks of the conspiracy theorists against the scientific organizations. If, on the other hand, the graph in question continues on its upward course, as I expect it will, then you'd have to join the ranks of the "alarmists" and "warmers" arguing that modern science is, after all, right.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And I dont know youre background, but since you seem to have a very tenuous view of how science works, I'm guessing its no more than undergraduate (and probably underclassman) science courses. At most.

It is my view of the unethical practices the climate community uses that you don't grasp. I get tired of you not grasping simple things people say. I have now repeatedly said, in one form or another, that the climate community does not practice proper science.

Will you please stop responding in such manners. It makes you look bad.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It would have to be a long term bet.
Ten years from now, if we're both still around, and if global warming has, indeed run its course and the planet is no warmer on average than it was back in 2003, then you'd be right, and I'd have to join the ranks of the conspiracy theorists against the scientific organizations. If, on the other hand, the graph in question continues on its upward course, as I expect it will, then you'd have to join the ranks of the "alarmists" and "warmers" arguing that modern science is, after all, right.

LOL...

We will still warm some, unless the sun takes a deep dive in power output. It will be minor though. The oceans have been storing heat, and will add could add some for centuries to come. Another study and graph I plotted from another study has as high of solar output today, as around 750 to 900 years ago. For this reason, I am too uncertain how much the ocean water may still warm since the flow turnover is about 800 to 1000 years. Part of the warmer oceans we see may be from that long in the past.

I think it's safe to say, unless the sun has another increase in average output, that the alarmist community projections will continue to fail. I think it's also safe to say, the sun is going into a slight cooling phase for at least a few decades, and we might possible see cooling.

As for any bet, I will limit it to correlation of temperature with solar activity.

FYI on the graph in post #1055. The solar data if from Lean et. al. 2004. The data ended in the year 2000, and I repeated the last cycle for the future projection on it.

 

[Threegoofs]

It is my view of the unethical practices the climate community uses that you don't grasp. I get tired of you not grasping simple things people say. I have now repeatedly said, in one form or another, that the climate community does not practice proper science.

Will you please stop responding in such manners. It makes you look bad.

Right. And I get tired of you not grasping the fact that describing an entire scientific discipline on not practicing proper science, when such organizations as the National Academy of Sciences or the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) or the Royal Society endorse not only the climate science field, but the specific AGW issues you are disagreeing with because you did some sekrit calculations. The fact that you say this is absurd. Crazy. Laughable. Flaky. Irrational. Non-sensical. Preposterous. Etc, etc.

So responding in this manner doesnt make me look bad. It may make me look persistent, or repetitive, or like a slave to truth, but that would only be bad in the perspective of one who wants to dismiss reality and doesnt like to hear his folly getting called out again and again.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Right. And I get tired of you not grasping the fact that describing an entire scientific discipline on not practicing proper science, when such organizations as the National Academy of Sciences or the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) or the Royal Society endorse not only the climate science field, but the specific AGW issues you are disagreeing with because you did some sekrit calculations. The fact that you say this is absurd. Crazy. Laughable. Flaky. Irrational. Non-sensical. Preposterous. Etc, etc.

So responding in this manner doesnt make me look bad. It may make me look persistent, or repetitive, or like a slave to truth, but that would only be bad in the perspective of one who wants to dismiss reality and doesnt like to hear his folly getting called out again and again.

Fine.

You will be proved wrong in the future. i cannot do so today, but let the future's history judge your assessment for today.

 

[Threegoofs]

Fine.

You will be proved wrong in the future. i cannot do so today, but let the future's history judge your assessment for today.

My assessment is irrelevant, as is yours.

Much like in 1905, no one cared about you're great grandfathers assessment of the accuracy of the theory of Special Relativity, no matter how much he railed on about Einstein's paper as he sat in the telegraph office.

 

[Lord of Planar]

My assessment is irrelevant, as is yours.

Much like in 1905, no one cared about you're great grandfathers assessment of the accuracy of the theory of Special Relativity, no matter how much he railed on about Einstein's paper as he sat in the telegraph office.

WTF?

Why are you on the edge of flamebaiting?

 

[Threegoofs]

I'm not. I'm making my position clear.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm not. I'm making my position clear.

By implying BS about my family history?

Goodbye troll. You are the first I have used the IGNORE option on here.

 

[Threegoofs]

Sorry. Pretend I said 'my grandfather'. Or a generic grandfather.

Same difference.

 

[Threegoofs]

And as for the 'ignore' issue, I find this tactic to be used quite frequently by Conservatives who can't handle the cognitive dissonance of reality vs their beliefs.

I don't know if you consider yourself Conservative, but it certainly is a striking feature of Conservative ideologues. That probably deserves a seperate thread tho.

 

[code1211]

There are several periods of cooling shown on the graph, the most notable around 1942 or so, but the general trend is upward, as anyone can see.

Which is exactly what the 60 year cycle predicts.

CO2 can only warm the planet. Why would there be periods of cooling at all if CO2 has been constantly increasing?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Which is exactly what the 60 year cycle predicts.

CO2 can only warm the planet. Why would there be periods of cooling at all if CO2 has been constantly increasing?

Because CO2, as I've said before, and so have others, is only one of many factors that affect climate.

 

[code1211]

An increase is still an increase. And that invalidates the "well it stopped 15 years ago" spiel.



I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Here's these:

Use this site. If you plug in 2003, the trend lines all go down.

In you plug in 1998.5, the trend lines all go up.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

It depends greatly on which year you want to choose to start.

The key to this, though, is that the notion of AGW demands that if the CO2 is rising, the temperature must also rise as a direct impact of the most powerful forcing agent. It is not.

The proof is in the effect from the cause. if the predicted effect is not there, then the cause is suspect. If the predicted effect is always there as predicted in all cases at all times in all places, then the notion becomes a theory. If the predicted effect is never there in any case in any place, the cause should be questioned quite strongly. I am questioning your stated cause.

Here is a table of 73 predictions of AGW. They are united one to the other by the fact that they are all wrong. How many models have to be wrong and by how much before we can accept that the modelers are not capable of making a prediction that works?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

That is a pretty good representation of 73 incorrect predictions. The average of all of the incorrect models is way off.

If this science is really a science, why is everyone making predictions that are so inaccurate? In a real science, they would be hitting it pretty well.

Like this:

http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Mazzarella-Scafetta-60-yr.pdf

 

[code1211]

Because CO2, as I've said before, and so have others, is only one of many factors that affect climate.

You may have said that, but the "scientists" that depend on this to make their living are saying that 50% of the warming is due to the activities of man.

This means that CO2 is half of the driving force and all of the other 50 or so factors, including the Sun, make up the other half.

 

[Dittohead not!]

You may have said that, but the "scientists" that depend on this to make their living are saying that 50% of the warming is due to the activities of man.

This means that CO2 is half of the driving force and all of the other 50 or so factors, including the Sun, make up the other half.

No, that simply isn't true.
and I seriously doubt you can show on any but the blogger anti sites that they do.
One thing that is still being debated among scientists is the degree to which global warming is due to human activities.
Not whether, just how much, and not whether it already ended. Were that the case, there would be no reason to assign it a cause, or causes.

 

[Deuce]

You may have said that, but the "scientists" that depend on this to make their living are saying that 50% of the warming is due to the activities of man.

This means that CO2 is half of the driving force and all of the other 50 or so factors, including the Sun, make up the other half.

No, that is not at all what that means. You are missing basic concepts here and I'm not sure how to explain them. I'll give it a shot, though.

Factors A, B, and C all influence the change in Widget Production. All conditions "standard," 100 widgets are produced.

A is the biggest factor. From its low to high oscillation, Widget Production shifts +/- 50 units.
B is the next biggest. From its low to high oscillation, Widget Production shifts +/-20 units.
C is a small variable. From its low to high oscillation, Widget Production shifts +/- 5 units.

From 1950 to 2000, Factor A goes from its baseline and falls to 10% of its maximum "down" oscillation. Net result: -5 units. (10% of its maximum oscillation of 50)
In the same period, Factor B goes from its baseline to 100% of its maximum "up" oscillation. Net result: +20 units.
In the same period, Factor C goes from its baseline and falls to its maximum "low" oscillation. Net result: -5 units.

The end result is only + 10 units. Factor B could clearly be said to be driving this shift, as the other factors are actually resisting this trend. That doesn't mean A has suddenly become unimportant, its oscillations are still going to have a major influence on things. Why, who knows, over the next few years it could swing way down and completely erase the progress that B has made. Stranger still, Factor C turned out to have the same effect as Factor A, -5 units, despite it being the smallest of the three variables. This is because it fluctuated a lot from the norm while Factor A did not.


This is the deal with temperature. We'll call Factor B the green house effect. It has been steadily increasing for more than a century now. However, Factor A (the sun), has oscillated up and down quite a bit. This has the effect of temporarily halting the rise in temperature. And then boosting it. And then halting it. And then boosting it. But the overall solar influence on the change in temperature has been small, because the sun just hasn't changed much in the last 50 years. Its oscillations have been pretty regular up until this latest cycle, which dipped down lower than before. And sure enough, this caused the temperature rise to halt.

So, pondering it, the basic concept you're missing is the net change in any given variable being key. The sun is very, very important to temperature. It just hasn't been doing much, allowing the influence of CO2 to show.