Eric Worrall writes: The Sydney Morning Herald has a hilarious article claiming that one day, long embarrassing pauses in the global temperature record will be a ‘thing of the past’.
According to Nicola Maher, a UNSW PhD-candidate and lead author of the paper “When it does cool, it will not be enough to overcome the warming.” … By 2100, assuming greenhouse emissions continue to build at the present rate, “even a big volcano like Krakatau is very unlikely to cause a hiatus”, Ms Maher said.
Excerpts:
Global temperatures have largely plateaued during the past 15 years as natural variability – including oceans absorbing more heat and volcanic activity – have acted to stall warming at the planet’s surface.
However, such “hiatuses” are increasingly unlikely if carbon emissions continue on their present trajectory, and will be “a thing of the past” by the century’s end, according to a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters.
“From about 2030, it’s highly unlikely that we will get one of these cooling decades,” said Nicola Maher, a UNSW PhD-candidate and lead author of the paper. “When it does cool, it will not be enough to overcome the warming.”
The researchers used about 30 models to simulate different events, including volcanic eruptions of the size of Krakatau, the Indonesian island that erupted in 1883 with an explosion so loud it was heard almost 5000 kilometres away.
By 2100, assuming greenhouse emissions continue to build at the present rate, “even a big volcano like Krakatau is very unlikely to cause a hiatus”, Ms Maher said.
The full story is here
When I first read the article, I thought it was a spoof of the infamous “snowfalls will be a thing of the past” claim – but no, these are serious deep greens, trying to stoke the dying embers of global warming alarm.
UNSW is also the home of Chris Turney, lead idiot of the ship of fools.
The paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060527/abstract
Drivers of decadal hiatus periods in the 20th and 21st centuries
Nicola Maher, Alexander Sen Gupta and Matthew H. England
Abstract
The latest generation of climate model simulations are used to investigate the occurrence of hiatus periods in global surface air temperature in the past and under two future warming scenarios. Hiatus periods are identified in three categories: (i) those due to volcanic eruptions, (ii) those associated with negative phases of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), and (iii) those affected by anthropogenically released aerosols in the mid-twentieth century. The likelihood of future hiatus periods is found to be sensitive to the rate of change of anthropogenic forcing. Under high rates of greenhouse gas emissions there is little chance of a hiatus decade occurring beyond 2030, even in the event of a large volcanic eruption. We further demonstrate that most nonvolcanic hiatuses across Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) models are associated with enhanced cooling in the equatorial Pacific linked to the transition to a negative IPO phase.
==================================
Note that one of the co-authors, Matthew England is one of the “scared scientists” who wrote:
MATTHEW ENGLAND
Oceanographer, Climate scientist,
University of NSW, Sydney
FEAR: CLIMATE INDUCED GLOBAL CONFLICT
Accelerated warming and expansion of water in the oceans, and increased melting rates of glaciers and ice caps are expected to increase sea levels by a metre or more over the next 100 years. This will pose a decisive threat to the existence of human settlements, infrastructures and industries across the world that are close to the shore lines. Those environmental degradations will aggravate global conflict as tens of millions of people migrate and their food supplies become threatened.
We need to understand that the cost of solving the problem is so much less than the cost of dealing with it down the track; that cost is going to be huge for future generations. Not dealing with it is selfish, short-sighted, narrow minded and obscene. It represents such a level of injustice as those that are going to be impacted are not playing a role in the decisions that are being made now.
Given that climatologists are not sure why the current hiatus is occurring (numerous theories are being thrown about) it seems reckless to claim it won’t happen again. Certitude in the face of ignorance is no virtue.
After following the warmists arm waving and curling up in a corner hiding from heat that isn’t here for as long as Wattsupwiththat has been around, I am amazed at the efforts the AGW crowd exert. Critical thinking seems totally lacking. When we came out of the last ice age some 12,500 years ago, the most likely reason was solar events as many papers and studies are slowly finding. When it’s humid the temperature holds on retaining heat built up during the daylight hours. Regardless of CO2, when the night comes, if humidity is low, temperature drops rapidly. This small fact seems to evade the models. Sometimes it just seems there are too many people without a clue.
“This small fact seems to evade the models.”
Weather models don’t accurately predict nighttime tempertures? I think they do a pretty good job of it.
BTW, why doesn’t the surface cool rapidly, with ~ 12 hours of no solar radiation?
Sonics – Have you been in the desert lately? Believe me, it cools rapidly when the sun goes down. For example, today’s forecast for Barstow, California is a high of 103 F during the day and a low of 72 F tonight. As pointed out by John C, humidity plays a large part of heat retention.
Why doesn’t it cool much further? With no sunlight, the air would seem to be getting little-to-no solar energy for many hours. It should quickly drop below freezing…
Perfect example of the lack of critical thinking. Sonicguy doesn’t get how a solid might retain heat better than gas….but jayhd gets it. I’m in the desert so it’s obvious to me as well especially during the southwest monsoon season. There isn’t enough CO2 at almost any level to keep dry air warm after the sun goes down. But water content does a marvelous job. Rocks and buildings help, but CO2 alone does little.
“There isn’t enough CO2 at almost any level to keep dry air warm after the sun goes down.”
Do you know that the surface gets about twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it does from the Sun?
[Please use a verifiable email address. Yours is bad. ~ mod.]
Models can’t explain the pause(s) in warming,- but their consequences? Ooops Ms Maher, go, tell it to the mammoths!
Models that, by chance, align with recent ENSOs do project pauses (Risbey et al, Nature Clim Chg 2014)
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2310.html
How would you know, you’ve only read the abstract? But ‘we know’ it’s not ENSO or natural variability in the Pacific as per Chen & Tung et al.
“The finding is a surprise, since the current theories had pointed to the Pacific Ocean as the culprit for hiding heat,” Tung said. “But the data are quite convincing and they show otherwise.”
They can’t be all right at the same time, because each study is effectively quantifying the mismatch between models and observations.
Your arguments are all over the place, could you please stick with one narrative so it is at least possible to have a meaningful discussion.
“How would you know, you’ve only read the abstract? But ‘we know’ it’s not ENSO or natural variability in the Pacific as per Chen & Tung et al.”
I’ve read the paper. ENSOs have global consequences, and they’re not inconsistent with Chen & Tung’s conclusion. That’s not to say ENSOs *have* caused more heat in the N Atlantic depths. I don’t think anyone yet knows why Chen & Tung is happening, just that it seems to be happening based on their results.
Science is difficult. You usually can’t get immediate answers, and in some cases it’s taken decades to sort out. That’s its nature.
If ‘Science is difficult. You usually can’t get immediate answers, and in some cases it’s taken decades to sort out.’ how would you go about falsifying the models?
What would you regard as a good enough set of evidence or events to convince you they were totally useless ?
“How would you go about falsifying the models?”
The models cannot be “falsified,” and never will be. There will only modifications to the existing way they portray the physics (and changes in GHG radiative forcing are very unlikely to change; as they are probably the *best* know parts of the problem).
The climate models of 2061 will be in the same relation to today’s as today’s are to Manabe’s 1967 model — faster computers, incorporation of more physics, solving the PDEs on smaller grids. They will give about the same projections as they do today, once you factor in the unknown ENSOs, volcanoes, and solar changes, but with a little more precision.
Future models will include all the GHGs that they include today. The absorption spectrum of CO2 will be the same, as will the quantum laws of radiation. Faster computers mean the Schwarzschild equations can be solved with more precision, but the problems of climate models (clouds, deep ocean dynamics, changes in ocean cycles and circulation) are not related to the way they calculate GHG forcings.
CO2 will always be a heat-trapping gas. That’s simple physics. Above pre-Industrial levels it is now understood to be pollution, and that will never change.
[Third warning: per site policy, you must use a verifiable email address. ~mod.]
priceless.
I guess you hadn’t heard. For a theory to be considered scientific instead of, say, religious or philosophical theories, did you know that it has to yield testable predictions?
If climate models cannot be falsified, regardless of the observations, that’d mean the climate models have nothing to do with science, right?
I’ve read the paper. ENSOs have global consequences, and they’re not inconsistent with Chen & Tung’s conclusion.
That would be the first factual statement (the ENSO part) where probably most here will agree with you. But if you did in fact read the paper, you should know that the claim these tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns. is unsupported by their own results.
You can find two excellent discussions about the study right here at this blog. Contrary to their claims, the climate models they’ve used were not able to simulate the observed Pacific spatial trend patterns and did not provide good estimates of 15-year trends.
But you’ve missed the point again. Each study that claims to have found the cause for the discrepancy between models and observation, had to provide a quantification for the mismatch in order to get through peer-review.
Anything else would have been pointless anyways. Logic alone dictates they can’t be all right at the same time.
Science is difficult.
The science is settled. Models cannot simulate the observed climate system.
I’m surprised that everyone is missing the real thrust of the paper. . . .
“We need to understand that the cost of solving the problem is so much less than the cost of dealing with it down the track; that cost is going to be huge for future generations. Not dealing with it is selfish, short-sighted, narrow minded and obscene. It represents such a level of injustice as those that are going to be impacted are not playing a role in the decisions that are being made now.”
In other words. . . .”Listen, you selfish, shortsighted, narrow-minded and obscene Philistines. . . . .give us more money and power or the children are going to suffer!!!”
The money is for dealing with the issue…. If all climate scientists wanted was more grant money, they would be stressing how *uncertain* they are about climate change. Yet every IPCC AR has claimed *less* uncertainty in its conclusions. How can that be?
Really? There are “climate scientists” that are saying “Since the science is settled, there’s no reason to spend any more money on climate research. . . . ???
I don’t know how many of them still “practice”, but at least a few decades ago there were a number of people in the Philippines who billed themselves as “psychic surgeons”. . . . and claimed supernatural ability to perform surgery on people without the terrible bother of either making or suturing an incision. In truth, they were neither psychics nor surgeons, but were merely con artists practicing some rather mediocre slight of hand solely for the purpose of deceiving desperate and gullible people.
I would not be terribly surprised is some of the former “psychic surgeons” have now become “psychic scientists”, at least in the climate field, since the climate models seem to be ever bit as validated as psychic surgery ever was. . . . .
“There are “climate scientists” that are saying “Since the science is settled.”
SOME of the science is settled (that warming is manmade, and more is bound to come), but many details are still uncertain. If you read an IPCC AR, they are very clear about this. There are still important questions about aerosols, clouds, deep ocean heating, and the consequences of a rapidly melting Arctic. CO2’s climate sensitivity is only known to about +/- 50%. These are important to answer, and it takes money to do research. But we know enough now to understand we need rapid and significant cuts in CO2 emissions.
“But we know enough now to understand we need rapid and significant cuts in CO2 emissions.”
No we don’t. Humans have made the world perhaps half a deg warmer in my long lifetime. If everyone in the whole USA completely quit using fossil fuels, then the temperature might be lowered .08 deg C by 2050.
The cost benefit ratio is ridiculously poor. Fossil fuels have given rise to a century of wealth, health, discovery and abundance. Sure, they create problems. But I prefer to keep them and learn to adapt to another tenth of a degree next decade.
“No we don’t. Humans have made the world perhaps half a deg warmer in my long lifetime.”
And that’s a geologically huge rate of warming.
“If everyone in the whole USA completely quit using fossil fuels, then the temperature might be lowered .08 deg C by 2050.”
I don’t know about that number, but yes, the problem is huge and requires international attention.
“The cost benefit ratio is ridiculously poor.”
Are you thinking only of yourself? Most scientists economists who have looked seriously at the problem disagree — they see the possibility of large costs under AGW, that last essentially forever, especially in the risk of a long-tail.
Oh silly! When skeptics point out uncertainty they are loudly labeled “merchants of doubt,” which you are only too well aware of, and when academics do so they are attacked and even fired due to intense campaigns by the hockey stick team mafia.
Here’s what you are doing wrong that comes off as trolling: using cult member support group defense mechanisms that place mere peer review above and beyond logic and reason based scientific criticism of results, but putting this sort of intellectual bubble content into the midst of seasoned skepticism. You cannot use peer review alone to support arguments, not here you can’t, not where members are fully aware that peer review is garbage in climate “science” where false results are not retracted as they are in normal fields like genetics where fraud is also common. You’re no different from some doctor who still promotes the old carbohydrate bomb Food Pyramid based on similarly corrupted “science” with its own single bullet theory of heart disease that carried on for decades after it was disproven. Well now we have the Internet, and so reason is defeating you scammers.
SonicsGuy
It is hard to know which is the most stupid of your comments intended to troll this thread from its subject, but this has to be a contender
Say what!?
0.5°C rise in global temperature in 50 years is NOT “a geologically huge rate of warming”: it is trivially small.
Global temperature rises by 3.8°C in six months each year (and falls by the same amount in the other six months).
Richard
richardscourtney
August 28, 2014 at 12:06 pm
“Global temperature rises by 3.8°C in six months each year (and falls by the same amount in the other six months”
Citation?
Edward Richardson
From the previous thread I know you act as the trolling wingman for Sonicsguy.
And from that thread you know that I have learned to regard you with such contempt that I have refused – and refuse – to engage with you.
In this case if you know so little of how the global climate system varies with the seasons that you need a citation then clear off until you know enough to comment.
Richard
Bias obviously. Less uncertainty with over 30 DIFFERENT attempts at explanations to save the theory co2 is a major climate driver?? More certain as reality and the models diverge ever further? How can that be?
It seems many let the precautionary principle push them into being fanatics during a period we simply did not have enough data to make any solid claims. Except as we started getting the needed data and of course time passed and things didnt materialize, instead of following the data they became more steadfast in trying to save their precious.
I used to be very worried where this would lead, with so many political ramifications hanging in the balance, and other very real enviro issues half ignored in favor of fighting c02. Lately though reading the published work has just been hilarious. The intellectual dishonesty is alarming and obvious. No doubt this phenomena will be studied for decades.
Mr Courtney,
…
Could you please provide me with a citation for your statement,
“Global temperature rises by 3.8°C in six months each year (and falls by the same amount in the other six months”
…
I’m interested in learning which mechanism causes this.
Edward Richardson, thaks for giving me a chance to put one over my father.
You see, I thought it was about 2.5°C. And this link (juvenile but seemingly educational) says 2.3°C – which means I’m about right..
Now, while that is less than 3.8°C it is still substantially more than 0.5°C in half a century.
When you think about it, it is obvious that the North and South heat differently because they have different land and sea distribution. Therefore summer and winters are different in each half of the year.
Quite a fun fact.
Edward Richardson
Search the WUWT archives because I and others have explained the matter repeatedly: Also, there are web sites devoted to the subject. Hint, water and land have different thermal properties and there is less land South of the equator than there is North of it.
Your request for a citation in this thread is similar to your ignorance of reasons for sea level rise in the other thread: stop trolling about things of which you know nothing. I will NOT assist you to troll this thread from its subject: look up the issues for yourself.
And please do not think my providing a hint for you in this thread is a change to my policy of reacting to my disdain for you by refusing to interact with you. This helpfulness is to avoid you and your trolling partner repeating your behaviour on the other thread where you tried to pretend that I am as ignorant of these matters as the pair of you.
Richard
Mr Courtney,
…
Can you please point out to me the +/- 3.8 degree C swing in these plots of global data for the past 4 years?
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2010/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2010/plot/gistemp/from:2010
…
I don’t even see a swing of more than one degree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season#mediaviewer/File:Jones_et_al._Surface_air_temperature.jpg
Hemispheres.
mouruanh
Yes, your linked graph shows and references Jones et al. providing a seasonal variation of global surface temperature being (as I said) 3.8°C. Your posting it no longer matters, but I am pleased you did not post it earlier.
I was trying to keep the trolls looking for the information instead of disrupting every attempt at discussion in the thread.
We now know the trolls were fakes trying to wind-up our host. So, a ‘holding action’ to constrain their disruption of the thread is no longer needed.
Richard
Yes, except the children are just stage props, like veterans.
SonicsGuy
August 28, 2014 at 10:25 am
SOME of the science is settled (that warming is manmade, and more is bound to come),
No.
While SOME of the science may be settled, the idea that warming IS manmade is not part of that settled science.
Better, perhaps, is that “some of the warming may be manmade”. However, there is nothing settled about the actual amount of the manmade warming or if it is even discernable with modern technology, nor is there certainty that more is bound to come.
If we are going to base our opinion on “settled science”, then currently the best general conclusion would be:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” (Oregon Petition Project)
“the idea that warming IS manmade is not part of that settled science.”
It certainly is, and the IPCC 5AR was (yet again) even more certain of that. Sorry.
SonicGuy asserts: “It certainly is, and the IPCC 5AR was (yet again) even more certain of that.”
But that greater certainty is simply laughable since the temperature stayed flat even longer between edition 4 and 5. You know this. We all know this. Logically, thus you know the claim is ridiculous, and citing the IPCC is like citing a study by Enron or a profit projection by Solyandra, or good old Soviet farm science. It comes from the exact same hockey stick team that Robert Way himself debunked as being scammers. Robert Way, who you cite above. Way also admitted in secret that Climategate was a real scandal:
“Similarly, with regard to “hiding the decline” in Climategate, I am left with the impression that the real question is, Why would you believe the tree-ring proxies at earlier times when you KNOW that they didn’t work properly in the 1990s? I guess there is a good answer to that, but no one has ever given it to me.”
Mr Son of Courtney,
…
While you are at it, you can also use this link
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2010/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2010/plot/gistemp/from:2010
…
And ask him to point out the +/- 3.8 degree C annual fluctuation.
Nah, sorry.
Hadcrut is lower troposphere. The difference in heating during the seasons comes from the different thermal capacities of liquid water and solid rock.
Most of the Ocean is in the southern hemisphere. And being liquid tends to be near the surface due to gravity.
I’ll have to take a rain check on that one.
I suspect you are plotting anomalies and not absolute temperatures. The anomalies are values relative to the long term average (usually 30 year) for that month/season/year.
The Courtneys are correct there is an annual variation of a few degrees (can’t remember exactly) in the average global temperature. I’m not sure it’s terribly relevant though.
[Snip. Invalid email address. ~mod.]
M Courtney
According to Hadley temperature determinations the variation is 3.8°C. But that is not important.
Please do not feed these two especially unpleasant trolls.
Pater
Gah I can’t restrain myself. I’m dropping thread for awhile.
The likelihood of future hiatus periods is found to be sensitive to the rate of change of anthropogenic forcing. Under high rates of greenhouse gas emissions there is little chance of a hiatus decade occurring beyond 2030, even in the event of a large volcanic eruption.
I thought that was a clear-cut prediction, but the “little chance” qualification means that a hiatus decade after 2030 would not cause them to lose confidence in their prediction.
Once again, this piece of “research” just goes to show that you don’t have to be the sharpest tool in the shed to become a PhD candidate at some institutions. How did this get by his committee?
It also shows you a little something about how poor standards are for accepting papers at many of the so-called “scientific journals” these days. It’s all quite shameful and disgraceful.
Long pauses and snow. yea, I will wait on that.
…and wishfull thinking will bring rainbows and unicorns..
sonicsguy says:
SOME of the science is settled (that warming is manmade, and more is bound to come)…
What a mental delusion. The science is anything but settled, on either assertion.
First, there is no empirical evidence measuring the fraction of a degree of global warming attributable to human CO2 emissions. None. It is not just that there is scant evidence; there is no evidence at all. No such empirical measurements exist. Therefore, to falsely claim that “the warming is manmade” indicates either prevarication, or delusion. Possibly both. Probably both.
Next, to assert that “more is bound to come” implies that the future can be seen. If that were so, the anonymous commenter would be wasting his time here, when there is a stock market to successfully predict.
This is the level that the climate alarmist crowd has devolved to. They have been flat wrong every step of the way. The planet is falsifying all of their predictions. So now they make ridiculous assertions, like “the science is settled”.
Of course, the science is not settled, it is never settled, and the more we learn about the climate the more we see that we do not know nearly enough to predict it. What we do know is this: EVERY alarmist prediction has failed, from declining Polar bear populations, to corals being wiped out from bleaching, to decimated frog populations, to accelerating sea level rise, to vanishing Arctic ice, to the ocean “acidification” scare, to increasing extreme weather events, to runaway global warming itself. All alarmist predictions suffer the same fate: they have been proven to be flat wrong.
When one side in a debate is 100.0% wrong in every prediction they make, why would rational people still listen to their nonsense? Good question. And the proof that rational folks are rejecting the global warming scare is everywhere: read the public’s comments in any average newspaper or magazine. We see a dramatic turnaround from just a few years ago. Now the public is laughing at the alarmist contingent. Climate alarmist are being universally ridiculed. Nine out of ten comments are making fun of the “carbon” scare and everything associated with it. ‘Runaway global warming’ is on the ropes, and it is going down for the count. Why? Because there is no global warming. Global warming stopped, many years ago [but some deluded folks cannot accept that fact, because their egos are too tightly intertwined with their CAGW belief].
Like the lying shepard boy, the alarmist crowd can only cry “Wolf!” for so long, until their scare becomes stale. That is happening. The public is tired of their endless false alarm. And it will only get worse for those purveyors of pseudoscience, whose ‘warming is manmade’ claims are increasingly ridiculous, as the planet continues on without the predicted runaway global warming.
Well stated.
The alarmists even admit that the GCM’s are worthless for policy making but still smirk at the skeptics.
You are correct about the models not predicting the vanishing Arctic ice.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MbmDA5AtX08/UFsjFj7yA4I/AAAAAAAAFAE/6uYIZp33KrM/s1600/6a0133f03a1e37970b017744cf5360970d.jpg
It’s funny that this graph claims that I’m “here” in 2012. Do any other months, other than September, exist?
A one year trend is weather.
Long pauses already have been things of the past; so what is new about that, other than, NOW is very new, in fact, NOW just got here.
SonicsGuy, the models were most certainly meant as predictions. They have failed.
“” They *project* X given assumptions A, and get Z. “”
Yes, and they claimed that assumptions A were the right assumptions to be making. They have failed. But if you’re admitting that modelers still don’t know how to provide proper assumptions, then welcome to the club.
Am I the only one getting pop up adds top and bottom and right, all the time; they never stop, from NIKON advertising $6,000 up to as much as $18,000 NIKKOR lenses, complete with price. I don’t have 18,000 pennies to spend on fancy NIKON lenses
I am not getting ads, popup or otherwise. But I have placed some sites on my Restricted Sites list.
I’m not getting pop-ups. And I don’t use any sort of ad blocker.
Is SonicsGuy actually trying to claim that no pause exists simply because he can cherry pick a time period which shows warming? I think we should merely let him fight it out with the authors of the paper and other warmists that admit that a pause exists.
“When it does cool, it will not be enough to overcome the warming”
So we have found a way to avoid the next ice age? Sounds sweet! Throw another tire in the bonfire.
So the lefty sonicsguy says “There isn’t enough CO2 at almost any level to keep dry air warm after the sun goes down.”Do you know that the surface gets about twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it does from the Sun?”
I would love to take him out to the desert for an overnight in January. He can bring as much hot air as he can carry and I’ll bring a box of hot rocks. Which of us would you like to be in the tent with?
“Which of us would you like to be in the tent with?”
…
That would depend on solely on if there is a XX-XY chromosome differentiation.
Nice one! Wasn’t thinking in that direction. But I bet if it’s cold outside most will want to cuddle with the rocks!
There is another way to think about this bit of arm waving: If the temps are still diong a plateau in 30 years to going down, no one will cause that a ‘pause’ so in a way the ‘study’ is correct, like so many AGW defense studies, no matter the outcome.
Our children just won’t know what a long pause in warming is.
We’re in an interglacial. Of course the planet’s long-term trend is warming. The key point here is that virtually all of the relied-upon models failed (most utterly failed) to predict the very slow pace of warming in recent years, if there has truly been any at all.
In science, when your predictive models fail, you have an obligation to be skeptical about your input variables, at the very least, if not your entire hypothesis. But that’s not what the IPCC and associated CAGW believers did. Their reaction is the most telling thing in all of this debate. It simply is not science any longer when you take a decidedly anti-science approach to legitimate criticism. It’s more akin to religion if you are not duly humbled and refuse to question your basic premises.
By 2100, when I will be dead and therefore not around to be remind of my BS claims .
Climate ‘science’ has been be the easy area to work in , all you have to do is claim it ‘must happen ‘ but I can’t tell you how far into the future it will be when it does . And bank the money .
I notice that ‘sonicsguy’ has posted here far more than anyone else.
When someone clutters up the thread that much, a couple thoughts come to mind:
First, his insecurity. Endless nitpicking means he is trying desperately to convince rational folks here that Down is Up, Ignorance is Strength, and Global Warming is Gonna Getcha. But of course, that scare is a dead horse. Flogging it is a waste of time.
Next, sonicguy, like every alarmist around, cannot ever give an inch. That’s because his belief is religious, not scientific. In religion, you are an apostate if you waver. So sonicguy is in the silly position of claiming that global warming is still continuing — when every professional organization admits that it has stopped. They may use Orwellian terms like “Pause” and “Hiatus”. But those terms mean that global warming has stopped. Only the despearately deluded try to convince folks here that global warming is still chugging along. It’s not. It stopped, years ago. In turn, that has deconstructed the entire belief system of the dwindling alarmist clique. Now they are just a small handful of crazies, head-nodding to each other and arguing incessantly with the rational folks here.
Finally, either sonicsguy is unemployed, or he is cheating his employer — unless his employer likes the fact that he posts here all throughout the workday, 24/7. But if he’s on the dole, I encourage him to get productive. Pay taxes, instead of collecting them. Why waste his life trying to convince people who know better that he’s got the answers, when the ultimate Authority, Planet Earth, is debunking his nonsense?
Intelligent people listen to what the planet is saying. Soncisguy should, too.
Intelligent people discuss the topic of the thread and do not comment on the participants.
dbstealey actually provided a simple analysis of several quantifiable habits of the poster, sonicsguy:
1. number of comments on the thread by him or addressed to him
2. times of day the posts are made – in this case, all – which reflects possibly no work schedule
3. euphemistic language used to describe a halt in “global warming”
So he has not been as personal as it appears.
So, you’re basically saying “hands off, this is my threadjacking”, right? Well, yours and Sonics mostly.
Tough break buddy. People don’t respect anything these days, do they.
Sorry if my remark was unclear, I was address Edward. 🙂
The topic of this thread is “Long ‘pauses’ in warming will soon be ‘a thing of the past’”
…
Nowhere in the article is “SonicGuy” mentioned.
Dbstealey is off topic, and practicing ad-hominem, as evidenced by:
” his insecurity”
“the silly position”
” is unemployed”
“cheating his employer”
” he’s on the dole, I encourage him to get productive”
Nowhere in the article is DBStealey mentioned either. Yet you cannot seem to stop thinking about him.
Sure Edward, I get that. But it’s every bit as on topic as what Sonic has been talking about, which is to say not at all. So, is the issue that this is Sonics threadjack and we should all respect that for some reason?
BTW, Stealey isn’t saying Sonics arguments are wrong because of all of these things. That would indeed be an example of ad hom.
I think it’s more of what I’ve been doing, pointing out that Sonic is a loser because he’s disruptive and annoying (I.E. threadjacking). If this discourages Sonic from threadjacking, so much the better in my book.
You just commented on the participants, as am I now. Let’s all form a support group for non intelligent people.
Yet you just commented on the participants. Interesting.
From my count of number of comments…
I’m quite offended.
But I have had fun.
wobble says:
Do any other months, other than September, exist?
Edward Richardson cherry-picks September because that is the annual low for Arctic ice. But viewed on a yearly basis, Arctic ice is recovering very strongly. Thus yet another alarmist prediction is falsified by Planet Earth:
What is your opinion of this graphic?
..
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1_CY.png
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
This is a graph of Antarctic sea ice anomaly
[Nothing visible, nothing linked? .mod]
He also stopped at 2012 and said “you ARE here”. The correct nomenclature is we WERE there. I guess some people forgot to turn their calendar.
I feel like I just lost an hour of my life reading some of these comments which try to explain away the obvious. I tend to associate word parsing with legal not scientific discussions. Richardscourtney is right: “don’t feed the troll.” I think I will now go do something constructive.
I am no scientist.
but sonicsguy says the models cannot be falsified and never will be.
He keeps asking us to dispute his numbers and seems to get frustrated that we don’t even enter that arena.
I think he should understand that we have been here before. Erlich made some pretty outrageous predictions and challenged people to dispute the numbers in his ‘arena’
We know now that he was woefully wrong. I wonder if sonic supports Erlichs position and predictions.
I know that Erlich is still feted in some places
Edward Richardson,
PIOMAS is a continuing source of amusement here. Their wild-eyed charts are constructed for propaganda, not for calm, reasoned science.
But that chart does show that your other wild-eyed chart upthread cherry-picks September — the month of the lowest Arctic ice. Now, why would you pick that one month out of 12? We’re not even in September yet.
Earth to Robert: the ‘Arctic ise is disappearing’ scare is debunked nonsense. What we are observing is normal cyclicality. CO2 has nothing to do with it, either.
[Snip. Invalid email address. ~mod.]