Lindzen got his @$$ kicked!

[_Themis]

My understanding is that there is not a literal pause in the sense of the raw observational data, but that the pause manifests when comparing with model forecasts and CO2 concentrations. Models predicted a certain temp, raw data shows something much lower, and that's even with the CO2 being at higher levels and other things like increased solar activity. It's like operating an oven. You keep dialing up the temperature knob, and the temperature is rising, but not at all at the level it's supposed to. Indicating that internally a kind of "pause" or even "cooling" is happening. Everything is relative to something else. I am honestly not sure what the current state of the supposed warming is. That is the conversation I'd love to have with RI, if he could trouble himself to stop being an horseface for 5 minutes. As you point out though, there are clearly some very credible guys who keep talking about and insisting upon this pause. Let's get to the bottom of that.

So you admit then that heating is still going on and that there was no pause in heating as some have tried to suggest from 1998?

[_canpakes]

When using a link, offer relevant quotes and summaries. The link is just there for additional information, one should not have to click on it to understand what's going to be there. And keep things to a reasonable length. You don't actually "win" or "persuade" by dumping a mountain of paperwork ontop of someone.

I thought you analyzed the data for yourself, what happened?

So much of the material in arguments supporting the denialist position is often presented in very selectively edited ways as if to create the impression of a particular conclusion that differs from what the source as a whole actually asserts. Both WD and subs have presented information in the past week that uses this tactic.

[_Gunnar]

So much of the material in arguments supporting the denialist position is often presented in very selectively edited ways as if to create the impression of a particular conclusion that differs from what the source as a whole actually asserts. Both WD and subs have presented information in the past week that uses this tactic.

Yes, Subgenius is particularly noted for that, and has often been called on it. Sometimes, when he is exposed for doing that, he has no more to say on the particular thread in which he was caught doing it. It is called "quote mining" and is one of the most egregiosly dishonest and deliberately deceptive things they can possibly do. it is sneakier and probably even more effective than Trump's, pathological lying because he doesn't care whether or not any of his lies that he spurts out at the spur of the moment can be sourced, and/or how easily they can be fact checked. Whenever it becomes undeniably obvious that he has been caught in a lie, he either says: "Well, someone told me that" and proceeds to the next lie, and/or he merely doubles down on the same lie.

[_Themis]

Yes, Subgenius is particularly noted for that, and has often been called on it. Sometimes, when he is exposed for doing that, he has no more to say on the particular thread in which he was caught doing it. It is called "quote mining" and is one of the most egregiosly dishonest and deliberately deceptive things they can possibly do. it is sneakier and probably even more effective than Trump's, pathological lying because he doesn't care whether or not any of his lies that he spurts out at the spur of the moment can be sourced, and/or how easily they can be fact checked. Whenever it becomes undeniably obvious that he has been caught in a lie, he either says: "Well, someone told me that" and proceeds to the next lie, and/or he merely doubles down on the same lie.

It's why subby is 100% troll. Consistently going silent after being caught shows he knows he is being dishonest.

[_Water Dog]

So you admit then that heating is still going on and that there was no pause in heating as some have tried to suggest from 1998?

I'm suggesting it's not a simple is or isn't answer. For instance, this. Spike in 1998, then flat, or "pause" until 15/16.



There is no appreciable "warming" trend that can be discerned from this. Moreover, nothing about this suggests anything going on that is outside normal variability. There damn sure isn't any reason to think we're headed for an apocalypse. It depends on what data you look at. If looking strictly at surface temperatures, which are considered some of the least relevant in this whole discussion, the data has shown a continuous, albeit slowing, increase in average temps. And don't forget what we're talking about. From 2000 to today, supposedly an increase in the average temperature of ~0.3C. Which itself isn't universally agreed on, because the datasets aren't agreed on, and the manner in which to go about calculating the global temperature anomaly isn't agreed on. At any rate, I don't have any reasons to argue with this figure and am happy to accept it. But my reaction to it is a big "so what?"

And this is where RI lobs another personal attack. I'm not engaging him further or coming back to his. But I wanted to give you a response because you were polite.

All of the forecasts have been wrong. All of the doom predictions, wrong. No increase in storm activity. No decrease in farm yields, in fact, they are up defying expectations. Studies showing coral reefs are not only not dying, they are in expansion. They they will benefit from temps that are a bit warmer.

It's the new religion. The new apocalypse cult. Time will tell. CO2 does not live in the atmosphere forever. If the predictions start to pan out, which will take several more decades to even begin to draw any conclusions like that, then at that point we can implement changes. The CO2 concentrations will drop back. Drastic changes, by force, if necessary. Maybe in the next 30 years someone will come up with a solar panel that actually pays for itself, and electric energy storage technology with a specific power greater than 300W/kg.

Also, I'll believe that the alarmists actually believe their own hype when they 1) start shorting the market because they believe doom is around the corner. IPCC put out its report and guess what, world markets didn't even flinch. And 2) they become advocates for nuclear power. Want to reduce CO2, take it down to virtually nothing, start building nuclear power plants all over the globe. Come up with an international waste disposal system that shoots spent rods out into space. Or buries them so deep they are of no concern. Come up with a virtually flawless reactor design that is impervious to all forms of natural disaster. The absolute cheapest, cleanest power that there is. No chemical output whatsoever. It's a steam generator. Nearly 100% energy efficient. About 1.5 cents / kWh. Add another 3-4 cents for distribution. By comparison, national avg is 13 cents right now. Pushing 20+ in the lefty areas.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly ... epmt_5_6_a

In Africa they're spending 18 cents just on generation. What is the true consequence of all this warming hysteria? Racism. Keeping the black man down. Doesn't impact the United States, or China, or anybody in the west. It doesn't impact any of the rich corporations. It only impacts those in developing countries who have limits imposed on them by these international bodies, preventing them from catching up with the rest of the world.

https://www.afdb.org/en/blogs/afdb-cham ... ica-11496/

[_Themis]

I'm suggesting it's not a simple is or isn't answer. For instance, this. Spike in 1998, then flat, or "pause" until 15/16.

Lets just stick with the claimed pause for now. When it comes to graphs we don't draw a line from a high point to try and show a pause. I remember someone for fun did this with the temperature record throughout the 1900's showing all these pauses yet the average temperature was going up the whole time. Look at the years 2002 to 2007. All are well above the years before 1998. That's not a pause in rising temperatures. You should be able to see the overall trend line going up throughout this graph.

Moreover, nothing about this suggests anything going on that is outside normal variability.

What we see is temperatures rising over the whole time period in this graph.

From 2000 to today, supposedly an increase in the average temperature of ~0.3C.

That's a good amount and if it continues over time then it adds up to quite a bit.

[_canpakes]

(Dog highlights the lowest possible point on the graph from the last two years that he can find)

There is no appreciable "warming" trend that can be discerned from this.

Lol. OK.

In Africa they're spending 18 cents just on generation. What is the true consequence of all this warming hysteria? Racism. Keeping the black man down. Doesn't impact the United States, or China, or anybody in the west. It doesn't impact any of the rich corporations. It only impacts those in developing countries who have limits imposed on them by these international bodies, preventing them from catching up with the rest of the world.

I was waiting for this one to come up. The conservative faux concern and crocodile tears for developing countries with particular emphasis on those having a high population of blacks, because GW needs to be packaged as ‘racist’ by deniers as an argument tactic.

First, if you’re going to go down this road, you might instead use India as your example of third-world use due to their exponentially higher energy needs and growing use of coal. I know, it’s harder to paint a picture of GW being ‘racist’ when you’re using India because the population there isn’t black enough for your manipulative purposes, but at least try to make your argument more meaningful in scale.

Next, maybe you can tell us later why places such as the US, the EU or China are imposing a racist burden on countries like South Africa if the first-world nations attempt to reduce their own use of fossil fuels in an effort to curb CO2 emissions? Perhaps a small reduction in worldwide demand for oil - and the resulting softening of crude pricing - is bad for South Africa? ; )

Maybe tell us how a country like South Africa is better able to deal with challenges to infrastructure brought about by climate change effects better than first-world countries can. Maybe tell us how their economies can better shoulder the fallout caused by use from more industrialized nations that have benefited from massive fossil fuel consumption over the last century without having to pay the modern price that South Africa will also now need to deal with.

Details, details.

[_Res Ipsa]

Dog can't find a warming trend in that graph because he actually hasn't looked for a trend. It's not hard to figure out why he's "happy" to accept UAH as his source: it shows the lowest trend of all the available data sets. He would know that if he clicked the links I posted.

He's also strawmannirg when he says all models are "wrong." The models produce a range of results because they look at different scenarios for inputs. He's claimed that the models are never tested. I've posted a link to where the models are compared to actual temps.

Purports to describe "doom predictions" without ever having looked at what the predictions are or when they are expected to happen. He refers to studies, without citing them. More importantly, he refuses to look at the body of scientific literature.

The notion that people who accept the science have to meet some arbitrary "purity test" set by Water Dog is beyond ridiculous. Deniers always trot out nuclear power generation this way. When he talks about the cost of nuclear power, he only includes the cost of operating a nuclear plant. The capital costs of building a nuclear plant are what makes nuclear power cost ineffective in the US, where it can't compete with natural gas. Also, nuclear plants require large quantities of cement, which has substantial CO2 emissions. Nukes aren't getting built because the private market won't touch them. The construction costs inevitably balloon out of control. The industry has had decades to come up with a "flawless reactor design," but has failed to do so.

And the keeping that black man down? Disingenuous as hell. Conservatives bitch about how unfair it is for the U.S. to have to cut emissions more than developing countries, then argue that it's racist not to do the thing they bitch about? Give me a break. Does Water Dog show these nefarious plans? Hell no.

If Dog doesn't like his ignorance and mendacity pointed out when he posts BS, he can fix that.

[_Water Dog]

Lets just stick with the claimed pause for now. When it comes to graphs we don't draw a line from a high point to try and show a pause. I remember someone for fun did this with the temperature record throughout the 1900's showing all these pauses yet the average temperature was going up the whole time. Look at the years 2002 to 2007. All are well above the years before 1998. That's not a pause in rising temperatures. You should be able to see the overall trend line going up throughout this graph.

People are not photoshopping graphs to conceal warming. Okay? With the exception of some outliers, that crap isn't happening. And such outliers are on both sides. There have been numerous controversies related to climate scientists being caught literally making data up. Notice in this discussion I have not brought that up a single time? I generally try to assume people are acting in good faith.

I'm not drawing a line from 98. Neither are guys like Lindzen. Nobody is trying to play such games to fool people. That's quite an accusation.

I'm excluding 98. Ignore that outlier bump, from 99 onward it's basically flat. A dip/rise/dip around 2010, which averaged out is flat, starts to rise again 15/16, and now it's coming back down again. Does it continue to go down? No way to know, we'll see. I don't disagree with the point you're making at all. But, being fair, that argument flows in both directions. Why are we starting in 1979? Or 1890 or wherever?

The time scale for this stuff goes a lot further back... millions of years. This chart questions the notion that CO2 drives the climate. CO2 concentrations are going up up up. The rate of increase has been increasing. And yet, from 99 to 16, the atmosphere temp is effectively flat. Some ups, some downs. According to the models this shouldn't be happening, it should just be going up, no dips, just up.

Moreover, nothing about this suggests anything going on that is outside normal variability.

What we see is temperatures rising over the whole time period in this graph.

No. They go up, they go down, they go up, they go down. A trendline laid over the thing from 79 to today, yes, it goes up. So what? How is this at odds with natural variability and the known history of the earth?

That's a good amount and if it continues over time then it adds up to quite a bit.

On what basis is it a "good amount" and on what basis will it "continue over time" and what does that even mean? Here's the bottom line. There has been no empirical evidence of any negative warming effects whatsoever. None. Zilch. There isn't anything to point to. The polar bears are fine. Species that are under threat due to human activity, which I don't dispute, has nothing to do with warming and has to do with overt actions, pollution, etc.

At this very moment, polar ice is reported to be higher than ever, over the past 10,000 years.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8018302274

Question. From a systems modeling perspective, if you have a region of the planet that is getting colder, while another is getting hotter, what does this mean? Do you understand the difference between a process and a system? Can we make statements about a system, based on the observations of a process? What are the limitations of any statements we might make?

[_Res Ipsa]

i wonder why Dog never posts links to the sources of these graphs he posts?

ETA: Dog could find answers to his questions if he would only look at the science. He keeps himself deliberately ignorant and then demands that everyone else do his homework.