Lindzen got his @$$ kicked!

[_Res Ipsa]

So, I don’t like that graph because the Hansen part is misleading. Hansen’s 1981 modeling used three scenarios, each with a different set of assumptions about greenhouse gas emissions. As time went on, the CO2 emissions were consistent with scenario A, while methane and ozone emissions were consistent with scenario C. Because of that, none of the three temperature graphs in Hansen’s 1988 scenario track actual temperatures as closely as that graph shows. If you take Hansen’s model and input the actual greenhouse gas emissions that occurred, the match between the forecast and the actual is much better. The graph is misleading because it doesn’t include the three actual temperature plots for Hansen’s scenarios and it doesn’t accurately portray any of the temperature plots in Hansen’s forecast.

Come to think of it, the Lindzen line is misleading as well, because Lindzen never did a formal forecast of any type. The line is based on a statement he made that he expected the temperature trend to be flat, with only the up and down for noise, ENSO, etc. The line is a fair representation of what that would look like, but it’s not an actual forecast of what that would look like.

So, it’s a bulkshit graph that is really unnecessary. Hansen predicted warming and Lindzen predicted stability. One of them was right, and we don’t need a misleading graph to make that point.

ETA: Real Climate plots the forecasts for Hansen 1981, Hansen 1988, CMIP 3, and CMIP 5. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/cl ... ervations/

These are the wildly incorrect forecasts that Dog keeps ranting about. It’s also the model validation that he claims climate scientists never do.

[_Themis]

You should post one of those graphs. Then compare it to the ones that Dog posted just yesterday, showing that same range within a longer time span. You can see why deniers have chosen the specific years that they have, and it’s almost laughable in how deceptive they’re trying to be.

Part of the reason I have so many links is that I'm lousy at posting images. Some times they work. Some times they don't. I often get an error about the dimensions of the image, and I don't know how to fix it. The promoters of the "pause" rely on noise in the temperature record, and not the trend. The deniers cherry pick a high starting point for the pause. It was generally 1997 or 1998. The thing is, if you compute a trend up to the starting point, and then a trend starting at that point, the trends are the same. Global warming is the trend -- not the noise.

If someone wants to give me a course in image posting for dummies, I'll happily enroll.

I can understand why the ignorant may see a pause from those dishonestly misusing statistics, but not those educated in a little statistics. I cannot recall for sure, but did Water dog say there was a pause? Looking at all the factors that influence climate I can only see that warming should be the expected trend into the future.

[_Water Dog]

Like,

“Do you believe that humans can or cannot affect the climate?”

You can do it, Dog. You can answer this one, if you just try.

; )

That is a stupid question. You know that the answer is, yes. So why would you incessantly ask a stupid question that you both know the answer to and which is manifestly obvious and already answered from my many comments? This is another one of those obnoxious lefty tactics. Instead of dealing with people honestly, you start sowing discord with accusations of racism and such things. And before you know it you're off in lala land with people demanding answers to binary questions like "are you a racist?"

[_Water Dog]

I can understand why the ignorant may see a pause from those dishonestly misusing statistics, but not those educated in a little statistics. I cannot recall for sure, but did Water dog say there was a pause? Looking at all the factors that influence climate I can only see that warming should be the expected trend into the future.

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.

And this is all before even debating whether the warming is man-made and/or catastrophic. My understanding is that a warming trend has not been established. In the sense that anything outside normal variance is taking place. The earth has gone through cooling and warming trends forever. We can point to many times in the past from ice core samples where crap was a lot hotter. On what basis are current observations alarming?

[_DarkHelmet]

So, I don’t like that graph because the Hansen part is misleading.

I removed the graph. Shame on me for posting a misleading graph on a post where I criticized misleading graphs

[_Res Ipsa]

I can understand why the ignorant may see a pause from those dishonestly misusing statistics, but not those educated in a little statistics. I cannot recall for sure, but did Water dog say there was a pause? Looking at all the factors that influence climate I can only see that warming should be the expected trend into the future.

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.

And this is all before even debating whether the warming is man-made and/or catastrophic. My understanding is that a warming trend has not been established. In the sense that anything outside normal variance is taking place. The earth has gone through cooling and warming trends forever. We can point to many times in the past from ice core samples where ____ was a lot hotter. On what basis are current observations alarming?

Dog again pulls something out of his ass to try and explain away his ignorance of actual facts about the climate. Here, he fabricates a definition for the "pause." The pause was based on the actual recorded temperatures at ground stations. It had zero do to with models. Dog already told us what he thinks the pause was:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=50134&start=84#p1149711

17 year cooling trend

And he told us here, when he quoted this from an article in the Telegraph:

This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=50134&start=147#p1149891

And this one from the daily Mail:

there [has] been no significant warming for 20 years.

And in yet another Lindzen quote:

Professor Lindzen said the IPCC report this week had reduced the alleged tipping point from 2C to 1.5C because there had been no significant warming for 20 years.

'Warming of any significance ceased about 20 years ago, and 2C warming was looking increasingly unlikely,' he wrote in an email to Daily Mail Australia.

Get it? The Dog was asserting an actual pause in the temperature record. Nothing about models. Because the pause was not about models: it was about temperature records.

So, when shown evidence that there was no pause, does Dog say: yeah, I guess there was no pause? No, he dishonestly tries to claim there really was a pause by running away from all those references he made before about a pause in the actual temperature record and spouting some sort of gobbledygook about model predictions and ovens and how things are cooling even though they're warming. His new rationalization makes zero sense. It's like Sarah Palin wrote it for him. And this is the guy who keeps whining about wanting to have a good faith conversation?

[_Res Ipsa]

So, I don’t like that graph because the Hansen part is misleading.

I removed the graph. Shame on me for posting a misleading graph on a post where I criticized misleading graphs

We all can get snookered from time to time. At least you didn't spout a bunch of gobbledygook trying to rationalize it.

[_Water Dog]

Dog again pulls something out of his ass

RI, I'm done. You win. Let it be known that Water Dog has officially conceded the debate. I lose. Res Ipsa wins. He is the superior man. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, or Climate Change, or whatever the “F” Res Ipsa wants to call it, is real. I was wrong. He was right. I will always be wrong. He will always be right.

Have a good day.

Oh, and DT, don't forget to wear the dental dam.

[_Res Ipsa]

Dog again pulls something out of his ass

RI, I'm done. You win. Let it be known that Water Dog has officially conceded the debate. I lose. Res Ipsa wins. He is the superior man. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, or Climate Change, or whatever the ____ Res Ipsa wants to call it, is real. I was wrong. He was right. I will always be wrong. He will always be right.

Have a good day.

Oh, and DT, don't forget to wear the dental dam.

I don't think he stuck the flounce this time. Stumbled on the landing.

Bye, Felicia.

[_canpakes]

Like,

“Do you believe that humans can or cannot affect the climate?”

You can do it, Dog. You can answer this one, if you just try.

; )

That is a stupid question. You know that the answer is, yes. So why would you incessantly ask a stupid question that you both know the answer to and which is manifestly obvious and already answered from my many comments? This is another one of those obnoxious lefty tactics. Instead of dealing with people honestly, you start sowing discord with accusations of racism and such things. And before you know it you're off in lala land with people demanding answers to binary questions like "are you a racist?"

Sometimes, you have to go back to basics to establish a baseline of belief.

Not sure where the ‘racism’ stuff is coming from; you might be confusing this thread with something else.

Next question: Do you believe that anthropogenic activity already has had some affect on climate trends? Or has not?