GeneralJim: Jon Snow: The slope is positive, lies from TFA not withstanding.
Lies? Check out the NASA GISS lies above. And, here is our ONLY real set of truly global measurements, from the very start of them:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Or, are you claiming that the satellites are lying?


You're of course omitting the rest of the argument:

Jon Snow: However, the interval is insufficiently long over which to assess the climatological significance of the trend. You need 20-30 years or more to make meaningful statements about climatological trends if you're just looking at a plot of global temp anomaly.

This is what the past 30 years looks like:

 

The trend is positive, statistically significant, and climatologically meaningful.

.
Besides the indefensibly of ignoring argumentation, you're providing a response that would be argued against by the very post you're responding to. In effect, your post is pre-refuted.

Come on now. Take a step back and seriously ask yourself how rational do you think this sort of dishonest argumentation makes you look?

HighZoolander: GeneralJim: SevenizGud: OF COURSE the recent years are always the warmest. How could it be any other way when they inflate the current temperature and then downwardly revise it post-facto every year?

Look at 1998. It started as first report of anomaly of +1 or greater. Then a couple of years later it was .88, then it was .79, then it was .71. Pretty soon, 1998 will be FARKing sub-zero.

These numbers are fudged so bad they should be renamed Vioxx.
Yep. People look to NASA GISS for "official" temperature records. But, these records are "adjusted," which since James Hansen has been in charge is shorthand for "falsified to support my activist position on global warming. Here are the NASA GISS data, in two views:

[www.powerlineblog.com image 742x539]
First, "adjusted" data as presented by NASA GISS

[www.powerlineblog.com image 680x472]
And a simple plot of the raw data, without James Hansen altering it

Here's what the guy who created the second graph in your post had to say about it (bolded for 'whar statistics, whar?):

"A linear least squares trend line, created using the Excel trend line function (Red trace) shows a small temperature rise of 0.09C per century which is far less than the rise claimed by AGW supporters and clearly of no concern. However, the data shown in figure 5 bears little if any resemblance to a linear function. One can always fit a linear trend line to any data but that does not mean the fitted line has any significance. For example, if instead I fit a second order trend line (a parabolic) the result is extremely different. That suggests a temperature peak around 1950 with an underlying cooling trend since. Which trend line is the more significant one? If there was really a strong underlying linear rise over the time period it should have shown up in the 2nd order trend line as well. This suggests that it is questionable whether any relevant underlying trend can be determined from the data."

post is here

(GeneralJim's source is here ...

Wow. Stats fail there too, besides begging the question.

GeneralJim: SevenizGud: OF COURSE the recent years are always the warmest. How could it be any other way when they inflate the current temperature and then downwardly revise it post-facto every year?

Look at 1998. It started as first report of anomaly of +1 or greater. Then a couple of years later it was .88, then it was .79, then it was .71. Pretty soon, 1998 will be FARKing sub-zero.

These numbers are fudged so bad they should be renamed Vioxx.
Yep. People look to NASA GISS for "official" temperature records. But, these records are "adjusted," which since James Hansen has been in charge is shorthand for "falsified to support my activist position on global warming. Here are the NASA GISS data, in two views:

[www.powerlineblog.com image 742x539]
First, "adjusted" data as presented by NASA GISS

[www.powerlineblog.com image 680x472]
And a simple plot of the raw data, without James Hansen altering it

By the way, you're also comparing the adjusted GLOBAL data (top graph) against the "raw" data from just the US (bottom graph).

Good jorb!
(even your source appears to recognize this, and only uses the global data to illustrate the 5 year smoothing).

GeneralJim: Jon Snow: The slope is positive, lies from TFA not withstanding.
Lies? Check out the NASA GISS lies above. And, here is our ONLY real set of truly global measurements, from the very start of them:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Or, are you claiming that the satellites are lying?


Forgot to point out this flat out lie (in bold). From the description of the data set from RSS (about the MSU/AMSU data):

"We do not provide monthly means poleward of 82.5 degrees due to difficulties in merging measurements in these regions, and because these regions are not sampled by all central fields of view."




You can make your point without lying, you know.

Damnhippyfreak: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: SevenizGud: OF COURSE the recent years are always the warmest. How could it be any other way when they inflate the current temperature and then downwardly revise it post-facto every year?

Look at 1998. It started as first report of anomaly of +1 or greater. Then a couple of years later it was .88, then it was .79, then it was .71. Pretty soon, 1998 will be FARKing sub-zero.

These numbers are fudged so bad they should be renamed Vioxx.
Yep. People look to NASA GISS for "official" temperature records. But, these records are "adjusted," which since James Hansen has been in charge is shorthand for "falsified to support my activist position on global warming. Here are the NASA GISS data, in two views:

[www.powerlineblog.com image 742x539]
First, "adjusted" data as presented by NASA GISS

[www.powerlineblog.com image 680x472]
And a simple plot of the raw data, without James Hansen altering it

Here's what the guy who created the second graph in your post had to say about it (bolded for 'whar statistics, whar?):

"A linear least squares trend line, created using the Excel trend line function (Red trace) shows a small temperature rise of 0.09C per century which is far less than the rise claimed by AGW supporters and clearly of no concern. However, the data shown in figure 5 bears little if any resemblance to a linear function. One can always fit a linear trend line to any data but that does not mean the fitted line has any significance. For example, if instead I fit a second order trend line (a parabolic) the result is extremely different. That suggests a temperature peak around 1950 with an underlying cooling trend since. Which trend line is the more significant one? If there was really a strong underlying linear rise over the time period it should have shown up in the 2nd order trend line as well. This suggests that it is questionable whether any relevant underlying trend can be determined from the data."

post is here

(GeneralJim's ...

Wow. Stats fail there too, besides begging the question.


The last sentence of the paragraph is also hilarious. "I can add a linear or quadratic trend line with excel, therefore I suspect that no trend line of any sort will fit the data"

dready zim: At it`s core, science makes testable predictions.

Are You Sure You Need An Apostrophe?

kg2095:

Climate scientists account for background noise like varying levels of solar activity. Just because you don't know anything about scientific analysis doesn't mean those who are qualified don't.

Funny you should mention that... Since, as we have recently learned, measuring the insolation of the Sun is not counting all of the effects. The magnetic activity of the Sun ALSO warms the Earth, and is therefore an amplifier of insolation. (Bonus points: Why isn't it a feedback?) And, until very recently "those who are qualified" did not know this. Even today, warmer alarmists deny the science involved, because it is one more way in which the AGW hypothesis is falsified.

MayoSlather:

I know the article is shiat, however it seems as the an aggregate world temperature would be misleading with the massive amount of ice melting in polar regions. Seems as though all that cold water would at least for a time cause other areas to be slightly cooler. Then again, I really have no idea what I'm talking about...just conjecture.

I like your honesty. But, what you are talking about is a situation in which increasing heat in a system is used to change the state of the ice to liquid, rather than using it to warm the temperature. While I am sure SOME of that happens, it is clearly not enough to absorb all of the increased energy, as the planet did warm. Now, of course, it seems likely to be cooling for decades.

archichris:

Of course if you scaled the rise to something noticeable ....for instance it usually takes a change of several degrees Fahrenheit before a person can tell a difference.... so to put that in Celsius language you might need a 5 degree change in cel to be noticeable to the average person. so a .75 degree change on a chart with a 5 degree scale could be called barely detectable.

Erm, a change of 5 degrees Celsius is 9 degrees Fahrenheit...

GeneralJim: are you claiming that the satellites are lying?

The claim is that "Global warming stopped 16 years ago".

I downloaded the past 16 years (192 months) of UAH AMSU satellite data, the preferred satellite data of fake "skeptics" everywhere, and plotted it along with a linear regression:



Please note, that even though the satellite data likewise confirm that the trend over the past 16 years is one of warming, that it is an insufficiently long time over which to evaluate climatological significance. For that, you want 20-30 years or more. Here are the past 30 years:



In terms of NASA data, here are the 16 and 30 year trends, respectively, in green:





Also, please note that only a small fraction of our global increase in radiative forcing goes into heating the surface air temperature. Most of it goes into the ocean, as explained above.

kg2095:

The only people in Australia who are climate change deniers are ignorant authoritarians. Just like in the US.

So, apparently, all pretense to science has left the warmer movement, to be replaced by ad hominem. The death rattle commences.

T.rex:

ghare: LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication

Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.


You answered your own question. Only in America, do bogus theories like man-made global warming or the efficacy/safety of vaccines get any traction from do-gooder Liberals in the first place. Be grateful for the deniers, 'cause otherwise we'd be nothing but a fully hood-winked nation wearing tin-foil hats.

"Commissioned by the AXA Group, an international insurance firm, agreement on whether climate change has been scientifically proven was the lowest in Japan at 58 percent, followed by Britain at 63 percent and the U.S. at 65 percent." ARTICLE HERE.

Please explain to be about all those fundamentalist Christian Japanese...

GeneralJim: kg2095: Climate scientists account for background noise like varying levels of solar activity. Just because you don't know anything about scientific analysis doesn't mean those who are qualified don't.

Funny you should mention that... Since, as we have recently learned, measuring the insolation of the Sun is not counting all of the effects. The magnetic activity of the Sun ALSO warms the Earth, and is therefore an amplifier of insolation. (Bonus points: Why isn't it a feedback?) And, until very recently "those who are qualified" did not know this. Even today, warmer alarmists deny the science involved, because it is one more way in which the AGW hypothesis is falsified.


Funny you should mention that, indeed, because you've mentioned the cosmic-ray connection over and over, no matter how many times you've been shown that Svensmark is wrong. Here's why:

Henrik Svensmark has proposed that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) could exert significant influence over global temperatures (Svensmark 1998). The theory goes that the solar magnetic field deflects GCRs, which are capable of seeding cloud formation on Earth. So if the solar magnetic field were to increase, fewer GCRs would reach Earth, seeding fewer low-level clouds, which are strongly reflective. Thus an increased solar magnetic field can indirectly decrease the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), causing the planet to warm. Therefore, in order for this theory to be plausible, all four of the following requirements must be true.

Solar magnetic field must have a long-term positive trend.
Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend.
Cosmic rays must successfully seed low-level clouds.
Low-level cloud cover must have a long-term negative trend.

Fortunately we have empirical observations against which we can test these requirements.

Links to Svensmark's original article and the articles discrediting Svensmark's hypothesis, as well as some graphs that haven't been reposted here yet, are included (so don't blame Skeptical Science for the content; blame Lockwood, Viera and Solanki, Krivova...). And if you disagree with the above summary of Svensmark's hypothesis and its requirements, please explain.

heavymetal:

Of course it could mean that global efforts have made an impact so we should continue the efforts of limiting the emissions of greenhouse gasses.

Or not....

GeneralJim: Yep. People look to NASA GISS for "official" temperature records. But, these records are "adjusted," which since James Hansen has been in charge is shorthand for "falsified to support my activist position on global warming. Here are the NASA GISS data, in two views:

www.powerlineblog.com
First, "adjusted" data as presented by NASA GISS

www.powerlineblog.com
And a simple plot of the raw data, without James Hansen altering it

Also, doesn't look like anyone has pointed out that the second graph, irrespective of the absurd polynomial trendline, is some version of the US-only data, not the global set it's being compared to: http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/06/hammer-graph-5- u s-temps.jpg   

Back in reality, GeneralJim can't even lob accusations of fraud without making himself look like the idiot.

Because back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.

GeneralJim: People look to NASA GISS for "official" temperature records. But, these records are "adjusted," which since James Hansen has been in charge is shorthand for "falsified to support my activist position on global warming. Here are the NASA GISS data, in two views:

Hilarious.

Here are GISTEMP data in blue, which GeneralJim routinely claims are ZOMGBBQWTFHaxorz to fraudulently show warming, vs. UAH satellite data that GeneralJim routinely cites as being completely a-okay in magenta. They have been plotted using a common baseline and a 12 month average:



Back in reality, the GISTEMP data and satellite data show essentially the same thing. They're in even better agreement when the influence of ENSO and volcanism (which affect the surface temps and lower troposphere temps differently) are removed.

Back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.

chuckufarlie: an awful lot of words in defense of a cherry-picked timeline

Note that some of the questions were from self-described "climate sceptics." The choice of a timeline since 1995 is no accident.

Just ask sevenisgud.

chuckufarlie:

Even the man in charge of the CRU went on the record stating that the warming stopped at least ten years ago. I suppose that you [Snowjob] think that you are smarter than him? You're not.

You refer to Phil Jones. Also interesting is Phil Jones' claim that every climatologist he knows understands that the medieval warm period was real, and quite possibly warmer than today. Since he worked closely with Michael Mann, he is saying that Mann engaged knowingly in fraud.

Damnhippyfreak:

The trend is positive, statistically significant, and climatologically meaningful.

.
Besides the indefensibly of ignoring argumentation, you're providing a response that would be argued against by the very post you're responding to. In effect, your post is pre-refuted.

So, first off, you show an unlabelled graph, which, when someone with whom you disagree does, is indicative of dishonesty. Just curious: are you dishonest, or is this one of those rules which apply to your opponents and not to you?

Second, we're talking about the last few years, and you throw up a longer term graph. Again, done by someone arguing with you, this is dishonest. Just curious: are you dishonest, or is this one of those rules which apply to your opponents and not to you?

But, allow me to do the same... Here it clearly shows that the temperature trend is downward, without all that single-digit century cherry-picking...

Jon Snow:

Please note, that even though the satellite data likewise confirm that the trend over the past 16 years is one of warming, that it is an insufficiently long time over which to evaluate climatological significance. For that, you want 20-30 years or more.

No, only if you share the blindness to cyclical trends that James Hansen has. The thirty years you are looking at are the upside of the 60-year cycle. Which means, for you impaired types, that we are in for about 30 years of cooling. Note how closely temperatures match the oceanic forcings:

Jon Snow:

In terms of NASA data, here are the 16 and 30 year trends, respectively, in green:

So "color-blind" is another way in which you are blind.... at least you're consistent.

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
The trend is positive, statistically significant, and climatologically meaningful.

.
Besides the indefensibly of ignoring argumentation, you're providing a response that would be argued against by the very post you're responding to. In effect, your post is pre-refuted.

So, first off, you show an unlabelled graph, which, when someone with whom you disagree does, is indicative of dishonesty. Just curious: are you dishonest, or is this one of those rules which apply to your opponents and not to you?

You wouldn't be able to tell unless you followed the responses back a couple of posts, but the data set was the same as in TFA: HadCRUT4. I have a problem when someone doesn't give any indication whatsoever of where their data is coming from (something you and others sometimes do) - this isn't the case in this instance. Plus, I wouldn't say that when you neglect to do so is dishonest, but sloppy and operationally an argument from authority (since it's difficult to confirm what the data is). I mean, just upthread you attempted to compare a global data set with a US-only one - a blunder on your part you could have easily avoided had you given some indication of where the data came from.


GeneralJim: Second, we're talking about the last few years, and you throw up a longer term graph. Again, done by someone arguing with you, this is dishonest. Just curious: are you dishonest, or is this one of those rules which apply to your opponents and not to you?

But, allow me to do the same... Here it clearly shows that the temperature trend is downward, without all that single-digit century cherry-picking...

Looks like you're trying to change the subject again, instead of responding to the argument presented. However, the response to what you've said here has the same basis as the argument you're ignoring - if you wish to examine a particular phenomenon, you have to look at a time scale over which that phenomenon actually acts. This means you can lose your 'signal' by choosing too small a time frame in which said 'signal' is lost in the noise of short-term variability, but you can equally do so with an overly long time frame. The long time scale you've chose here swamps out any effect from ENSO (something that would be more apparent in the prior 16 year frame).

I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you before. Let's hope it sticks this time.

GeneralJim: Jon Snow: In terms of NASA data, here are the 16 and 30 year trends, respectively, in green:
So "color-blind" is another way in which you are blind.... at least you're consistent.

So you're ignoring the argument yet again?

Take a step back and think of what this says about you and your ability to argue rationally.

GeneralJim: Jon Snow: Please note, that even though the satellite data likewise confirm that the trend over the past 16 years is one of warming, that it is an insufficiently long time over which to evaluate climatological significance. For that, you want 20-30 years or more.
No, only if you share the blindness to cyclical trends that James Hansen has. The thirty years you are looking at are the upside of the 60-year cycle. Which means, for you impaired types, that we are in for about 30 years of cooling. Note how closely temperatures match the oceanic forcings:

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]


Swing and a miss, even when trying to change the topic.

What Jon Snow is referring to is a rule of thumb of a length of time needed to detect a climatologically-relevant trend in the face of short-term variability, not the length of time such a frame should be applied. Even in the graph you've presented there appears to be a certain amount of smoothing - something necessitated by the same principle that Jon Snow is talking about.

Take a read of the link he posted since you've really, really missed the point.

common sense is an oxymoron:

Funny you should mention that, indeed, because you've mentioned the cosmic-ray connection over and over, no matter how many times you've been shown that Svensmark is wrong.

Well, YOU have been shown, over and over, that the AGW hypothesis has been falsified. How's THAT working for you?

And, it's funny how CERN's CLOUD experiment backed him up on the most controversial of his propositions...
NATURE ARTICLE.

It's also funny how the Director of CERN directed scientists to avoid discussing what the results of the CLOUD experiment might mean.
ARTICLE HERE.

Jon Snow:

Because back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.

Scientific as always, I see, oh denier of science.

Jon Snow:

Back in reality, the GISTEMP data and satellite data show essentially the same thing. They're in even better agreement when the influence of ENSO and volcanism (which affect the surface temps and lower troposphere temps differently) are removed.

Back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.

I see... So, are you claiming the satellite data from the 1930s are the same as GISTEMP?

Damnhippyfreak:

Plus, I wouldn't say that when you neglect to do so is dishonest,

You forgot the "any more." You certainly HAVE claimed this. My guess is that you will again.

Damnhippyfreak:

Looks like you're trying to change the subject again, instead of responding to the argument presented. However, the response to what you've said here has the same basis as the argument you're ignoring - if you wish to examine a particular phenomenon, you have to look at a time scale over which that phenomenon actually acts. This means you can lose your 'signal' by choosing too small a time frame in which said 'signal' is lost in the noise of short-term variability, but you can equally do so with an overly long time frame. The long time scale you've chose here swamps out any effect from ENSO (something that would be more apparent in the prior 16 year frame).

I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you before. Let's hope it sticks this time.

Now THIS is dishonest. You are implying, if not outright stating, that this 16 (or 32) year time frame is sufficient to detect a 60-year trend. Are you stupid or are you lying? I can't tell. The whole AGW pants-wetting has occurred during the upwards cycle. This is appropriate... how? And, of course, the whole temperature picture is taken from the end of the little ice age. Naughty, naughty.

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Plus, I wouldn't say that when you neglect to do so is dishonest,
You forgot the "any more." You certainly HAVE claimed this. My guess is that you will again.

I don't think so, but you're more than welcome to prove me wrong. Let's say its problematic, as you showed when you (hopefully) mistakenly tried to compare global temperature to just the US.

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Looks like you're trying to change the subject again, instead of responding to the argument presented. However, the response to what you've said here has the same basis as the argument you're ignoring - if you wish to examine a particular phenomenon, you have to look at a time scale over which that phenomenon actually acts. This means you can lose your 'signal' by choosing too small a time frame in which said 'signal' is lost in the noise of short-term variability, but you can equally do so with an overly long time frame. The long time scale you've chose here swamps out any effect from ENSO (something that would be more apparent in the prior 16 year frame).

I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you before. Let's hope it sticks this time.
Now THIS is dishonest. You are implying, if not outright stating, that this 16 (or 32) year time frame is sufficient to detect a 60-year trend. Are you stupid or are you lying? I can't tell. The whole AGW pants-wetting has occurred during the upwards cycle. This is appropriate... how? And, of course, the whole temperature picture is taken from the end of the little ice age. Naughty, naughty.


Goodness no. In fact, the bit you're responding to would explicitly argue against your contention in bold. As I said, if you wish to examine a particular phenomenon, you have to look at a time scale over which that phenomenon actually acts. If were were interested in a process that occurs over a 60 year cycle, then it would be misleading to use exclusively a scale of 16 years - again, you would risk lose your 60-year 'signal' in 'noise' from shorter-term variability. However, it would also be misleading to exclusively use an overly long scale, such as as the one you posted that covers 12,000 years - you would lose that 60 year cycle you're interested in 'noise' from longer-term changes.

Do you understand now? The reason why your selecting of very short or very long scales in an attempt to disprove anthropogenic climate change is misleading is the same reason why it would be misleading to try to use a "16 (or 32) year time frame [...] to detect a 60-year trend."

GeneralJim: Jon Snow: Back in reality, the GISTEMP data and satellite data show essentially the same thing. They're in even better agreement when the influence of ENSO and volcanism (which affect the surface temps and lower troposphere temps differently) are removed.

Back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.
I see... So, are you claiming the satellite data from the 1930s are the same as GISTEMP?


I think you've gotten confused here as there is, of course, no such thing as "satellite data from the 1930s", and GISTEMP covers the 1930s.

The idea that Jon Snow is trying to get across is that there is a great deal of corroboration between the GISTEMP record (which you claim is falsified) and the UAH satellite data which you use yourself (and presumably don't believe is falsified) - thereby undermining the idea that the GISTEMP record is falsified.

GeneralJim: Jon Snow: Because back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.
Scientific as always, I see, oh denier of science.

Who do you think is more deserving of the mantle 'denier' considering that right here you're denying and ignoring the problem that Jon Snow is pointing out. You can't handle even that in an honest fashion, never mind the science.

GeneralJim: chuckufarlie: Even the man in charge of the CRU went on the record stating that the warming stopped at least ten years ago. I suppose that you [Snowjob] think that you are smarter than him? You're not.
You refer to Phil Jones. Also interesting is Phil Jones' claim that every climatologist he knows understands that the medieval warm period was real, and quite possibly warmer than today. Since he worked closely with Michael Mann, he is saying that Mann engaged knowingly in fraud.

It is easier to call him a confirmed liar because that is what he is.

GeneralJim: chuckufarlie: Why is it that you refuse to believe what is in the article? You continue to push your agenda even when the facts show that you are wrong. That is hardly intelligent.
Of all the people I've seen post in climate threads, Snowjob is the single most likely to be a shill.

He is one of three, although I suspect that all three are one person. He has a political agenda to push, but all warmers do. He does a good job of following the orders sent down from the politicos pushing this crap.

GeneralJim: And, it's funny how CERN's CLOUD experiment backed him up on the most controversial of his propositions...
NATURE ARTICLE.

This is, unsurprisingly, orthogonal to reality, as I've pointed out to GeneralJim many times. What the CLOUD results have found so far say nothing about Svensmark's ludicrous claims, but rather have mostly offered tentative support for the consensus on GCR-CCN interactions. This is something I've pointed out to GeneralJim repeatedly:

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71706779#c71706779

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71729384#c71729384

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71731247#c71731247

Back in reality, the CERN experimental results so far have done nothing to demonstrate that GCRs can actually influence real world cloud formation, or more importantly that such an influence could be climatically significant. All the CERN results have done so far is demonstrate that sulfuric acid aerosol nucleation rates increase in the presence of ammonia and ionization (and orders of magnitude less so for the latter than the former), but that even under controlled conditions neither are capable of actually reproducing observed nucleation rates, and that the effect of increased ionization was negligible in temperature conditions relevant to climatically significant cloud formation (i.e. the boundary layer).

That GCRs can hypothetically influence cloud nucleation is not something denied by the climate science community generally or the IPCC specifically. That there is any evidence either in the paleoclimatic or observational records or in the CERN results that demonstrates a large GCR effect on clouds, let alone global climate, is simply false.

In other words- back in reality, GeneralJim is still wrong about everything.

Jon Snow: GeneralJim: And, it's funny how CERN's CLOUD experiment backed him up on the most controversial of his propositions...
NATURE ARTICLE.

This is, unsurprisingly, orthogonal to reality, as I've pointed out to GeneralJim many times. What the CLOUD results have found so far say nothing about Svensmark's ludicrous claims, but rather have mostly offered tentative support for the consensus on GCR-CCN interactions. This is something I've pointed out to GeneralJim repeatedly:

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71706779#c71706779

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71729384#c71729384

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71731247#c71731247

Back in reality, the CERN experimental results so far have done nothing to demonstrate that GCRs can actually influence real world cloud formation, or more importantly that such an influence could be climatically significant. All the CERN results have done so far is demonstrate that sulfuric acid aerosol nucleation rates increase in the presence of ammonia and ionization (and orders of magnitude less so for the latter than the former), but that even under controlled conditions neither are capable of actually reproducing observed nucleation rates, and that the effect of increased ionization was negligible in temperature conditions relevant to climatically significant cloud formation (i.e. the boundary layer).

That GCRs can hypothetically influence cloud nucleation is not something denied by the climate science community generally or the IPCC specifically. That there is any evidence either in the paleoclimatic or observational records or in the CERN results that demonstrates a large GCR effect on clouds, let alone global climate, is simply false.

In other words- back in reality, GeneralJim is still wrong about everything.

Considering your record, that would be too much of a coincidence. Although I have to admit that you are probably too stupid to realize that you are consistently wrong.

chuckufarlie: Jon Snow: GeneralJim: And, it's funny how CERN's CLOUD experiment backed him up on the most controversial of his propositions...
NATURE ARTICLE.

This is, unsurprisingly, orthogonal to reality, as I've pointed out to GeneralJim many times. What the CLOUD results have found so far say nothing about Svensmark's ludicrous claims, but rather have mostly offered tentative support for the consensus on GCR-CCN interactions. This is something I've pointed out to GeneralJim repeatedly:

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71706779#c71706779

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71729384#c71729384

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71731247#c71731247

Back in reality, the CERN experimental results so far have done nothing to demonstrate that GCRs can actually influence real world cloud formation, or more importantly that such an influence could be climatically significant. All the CERN results have done so far is demonstrate that sulfuric acid aerosol nucleation rates increase in the presence of ammonia and ionization (and orders of magnitude less so for the latter than the former), but that even under controlled conditions neither are capable of actually reproducing observed nucleation rates, and that the effect of increased ionization was negligible in temperature conditions relevant to climatically significant cloud formation (i.e. the boundary layer).

That GCRs can hypothetically influence cloud nucleation is not something denied by the climate science community generally or the IPCC specifically. That there is any evidence either in the paleoclimatic or observational records or in the CERN results that demonstrates a large GCR effect on clouds, let alone global climate, is simply false.

In other words- back in reality, GeneralJim is still wrong about everything.

Considering your record, that would be too much of a coincidence. Although I have to admit that you are probably too stupid to realize that you are consistently wrong.


nicksteel: See, all you people do is attack the person. Not one of you has had the intelligence or the ability to take a position against what I posted.

Damnhippyfreak: chuckufarlie: Jon Snow: GeneralJim: And, it's funny how CERN's CLOUD experiment backed him up on the most controversial of his propositions...
NATURE ARTICLE.

This is, unsurprisingly, orthogonal to reality, as I've pointed out to GeneralJim many times. What the CLOUD results have found so far say nothing about Svensmark's ludicrous claims, but rather have mostly offered tentative support for the consensus on GCR-CCN interactions. This is something I've pointed out to GeneralJim repeatedly:

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71706779#c71706779

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71729384#c71729384

http://www.fark.com/comments/6556282/71731247#c71731247

Back in reality, the CERN experimental results so far have done nothing to demonstrate that GCRs can actually influence real world cloud formation, or more importantly that such an influence could be climatically significant. All the CERN results have done so far is demonstrate that sulfuric acid aerosol nucleation rates increase in the presence of ammonia and ionization (and orders of magnitude less so for the latter than the former), but that even under controlled conditions neither are capable of actually reproducing observed nucleation rates, and that the effect of increased ionization was negligible in temperature conditions relevant to climatically significant cloud formation (i.e. the boundary layer).

That GCRs can hypothetically influence cloud nucleation is not something denied by the climate science community generally or the IPCC specifically. That there is any evidence either in the paleoclimatic or observational records or in the CERN results that demonstrates a large GCR effect on clouds, let alone global climate, is simply false.

In other words- back in reality, GeneralJim is still wrong about everything.

Considering your record, that would be too much of a coincidence. Although I have to admit that you are probably too stupid to realize that you are consistently wrong.


nicksteel: See, all ...

he posted that General Jim is always wrong and I responded to his attack.

It is moronic posts like this that put you on my ignore list. Every one in a while I check in to see if you are still dumb as a rock. You are.

chuckufarlie: he posted that General Jim is always wrong and I responded to his attack.

It is moronic posts like this that put you on my ignore list. Every one in a while I check in to see if you are still dumb as a rock. You are.


nicksteel: Is the information wrong???? I love the way that you tree huggers attack the source of the data, but not the data itself. It shows a level of intelligence and maturity that is amazing.

Repo Man: dready zim: At it`s core, science makes testable predictions.

Are You Sure You Need An Apostrophe?

Its the easiest troll...

/Im very sure I didnt

Jon Snow: Here are GISTEMP data in blue, which GeneralJim routinely claims are ZOMGBBQWTFHaxorz to fraudulently show warming, vs. UAH satellite data that GeneralJim routinely cites as being completely a-okay in magenta. They have been plotted using a common baseline and a 12 month average:



Back in reality, the GISTEMP data and satellite data show essentially the same thing. They're in even better agreement when the influence of ENSO and volcanism (which affect the surface temps and lower troposphere temps differently) are removed.

Either there is a change in slope in the middle of that or there isn't.
If you have a good study that expertly hindcasts that change in slope, I'd be fascinated to read it.
Followup: was that change in slope predicted before it happened by existing GCM? If not, why not?

SVenus: Jon Snow: Here are GISTEMP data in blue, which GeneralJim routinely claims are ZOMGBBQWTFHaxorz to fraudulently show warming, vs. UAH satellite data that GeneralJim routinely cites as being completely a-okay in magenta. They have been plotted using a common baseline and a 12 month average:



Back in reality, the GISTEMP data and satellite data show essentially the same thing. They're in even better agreement when the influence of ENSO and volcanism (which affect the surface temps and lower troposphere temps differently) are removed.

Either there is a change in slope in the middle of that or there isn't.
If you have a good study that expertly hindcasts that change in slope, I'd be fascinated to read it.
Followup: was that change in slope predicted before it happened by existing GCM? If not, why not?

Broken-stick models aren't necessarily all they're cracked up to be.

/I crack me up...

SVenus: Either there is a change in slope in the middle of that or there isn't.

There isn't, once you remove variability associated with ENSO, solar, volcanism, etc.[1]:





[1] Foster, G., and S. Rahmstorf (2011), Global temperature evolution 1979-2010, Environmental Research Letters, 6(4), 044022, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: Funny you should mention that, indeed, because you've mentioned the cosmic-ray connection over and over, no matter how many times you've been shown that Svensmark is wrong.

Well, YOU have been shown, over and over, that the AGW hypothesis has been falsified. How's THAT working for you?


I have? Really? By you, O mighty savant? That's quite a boast coming from someone who can't even defend one of his primary sources. I'll repeat my challenge to you:

common sense is an oxymoron: Funny you should mention that, indeed, because you've mentioned the cosmic-ray connection over and over, no matter how many times you've been shown that Svensmark is wrong. Here's why:

Henrik Svensmark has proposed that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) could exert significant influence over global temperatures (Svensmark 1998). The theory goes that the solar magnetic field deflects GCRs, which are capable of seeding cloud formation on Earth. So if the solar magnetic field were to increase, fewer GCRs would reach Earth, seeding fewer low-level clouds, which are strongly reflective. Thus an increased solar magnetic field can indirectly decrease the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), causing the planet to warm. Therefore, in order for this theory to be plausible, all four of the following requirements must be true.

Solar magnetic field must have a long-term positive trend.
Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend.
Cosmic rays must successfully seed low-level clouds.
Low-level cloud cover must have a long-term negative trend.

Fortunately we have empirical observations against which we can test these requirements.

Links to Svensmark's original article and the articles discrediting Svensmark's hypothesis, as well as some graphs that haven't been reposted here yet, are included (so don't blame Skeptical Science for the content; blame Lockwood, Viera and Solanki, Krivova...). And if you disagree with the above summary of Svensmark's hypothesis and its requirements, please explain.

Your move.

But wait, there's more.


And, it's funny how CERN's CLOUD experiment backed him up on the most controversial of his propositions...
NATURE ARTICLE.

Reading comprehension FAIL. The correlation between cosmic rays and condensation nuclei remains unproven:

Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate


It's also funny how the Director of CERN directed scientists to avoid discussing what the results of the CLOUD experiment might mean.
ARTICLE HERE.

Given the inconclusive nature of the experiment's results, this seems like a perfectly reasonable request:

"I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them."

Problem?

Jon Snow: [1] Foster, G., and S. Rahmstorf (2011), Global temperature evolution 1979-2010, Environmental Research Letters, 6(4), 044022, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.

Noted.
So, the "pause" isn't one, it's just the ENSO manipulating the global heat.
I'd be if any scientific model could successfully predict the ENSO some years in the future, that'd really be something.

SVenus: Jon Snow: [1] Foster, G., and S. Rahmstorf (2011), Global temperature evolution 1979-2010, Environmental Research Letters, 6(4), 044022, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.

Noted.
So, the "pause" isn't one, it's just the ENSO manipulating the global heat.
I'd be if any scientific model could successfully predict the ENSO some years in the future, that'd really be something.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL, He has no knowledge on this subject. He only repeats what he has been told and he is wrong a lot more often than he gets it right.

chuckufarlie: SVenus: Jon Snow: [1] Foster, G., and S. Rahmstorf (2011), Global temperature evolution 1979-2010, Environmental Research Letters, 6(4), 044022, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.

Noted.
So, the "pause" isn't one, it's just the ENSO manipulating the global heat.
I'd be if any scientific model could successfully predict the ENSO some years in the future, that'd really be something.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL, He has no knowledge on this subject. He only repeats what he has been told and he is wrong a lot more often than he gets it right.


nicksteel: When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.

chuckufarlie: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL, He has no knowledge on this subject. He only repeats what he has been told and he is wrong a lot more often than he gets it right.

I read enough to know the talking points. I understand some of the warmist's logic. That given a steady state Earth, carbon dioxide is the main driver, and that ENSO is the main hider of heat. I have a hard time buying any other method for explaining why there's such the "Time Lag" that very few want to talk about with the link between CO2 and earth's temp. Is it ten years, is it 50, or 200? Have the oceans hidden the heat trapped from the carbon dioxide from Napoleon's camp fires and we're just now seeing it? If not, what truly IS the heat cycle of the ocean, if it's truly hiding all that heat in the mddle depths? It probably isn't. But it could be.

I'm not convinced the ENSO is known to the extent, with respect to volumetrics and temperature exchange so as to be predictable.

So, air temps are pretty much useless when discussing the latent heat of the ocean.
But I am interested if someone can predict the future heat flow of the ocean.
Hindcasting it is a great parlour trick. Works 100% of the time.
Predicting future ocean heat... Well, that's the wild card.

SVenus: So, the "pause" isn't one, it's just the ENSO manipulating the global heat.

I think a more accurate way to frame it is that natural variability without a trend itself can create the illusion of a trend or changes to existing trends if you think going by eye is a sufficient method of analyzing the data.

ENSO certainly plays a role in redistributing heat, but if you look at the OHC data I posted, the actual accumulation isn't terribly disrupted.

SVenus: I'd be if any scientific model could successfully predict the ENSO some years in the future, that'd really be something.

ENSO is not an externally-forced phenomenon (i.e. it's an initial value problem, not a boundary value problem). That's akin to wishing for accurate weather forecasting years into the future- over a relatively short distance out, forecasting skill becomes no better than background climatology. In a sense it's kind of the inverse of climate change, i.e. making accurate projections of the forced component of climate over time, which is a boundary value problem.