Global Warming Refuted

As you can see there was a pause between 1998 and 2014 so this refuted that global warming is happening.

 

It always amazed me that the denialist would simultaneously claim that the pause meant that global warming had stopped whilst ALSO claiming that scientists had manipulated the figures in the first place to prove something was happening when it wasn't

 

"For a pause to be distinctive, it must deviate below the longer-term trend more than previous periods deviated above the longer-term trend; otherwise, it can be considered to be just a fluctuation like others observed in the past. [We show] that this criterion for distinctiveness is not met" https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00106.1

Bloody commies and their bad news!

 

Can you not read a graph? If this were a stock graph and you owned the stock , would you not be making money?

 

Yep. I totally see what you're saying. It looks like we could refute GW by the pauses from 1981-1995 and other periods as well. I don't know how a warmist could look at this chart and honestly think that the planet is getting warmer. Lunatics...

 

That was actually a good read. I make it a point to browse the AMS journals periodically, but somehow I missed this publication. One of the interesting points in the paper is that when people are presented with graphs (like the global mean temperature trend or a stock chart) they have a bias towards visually underestimating the upward trend vs. the linear regression. They do, however, overwhelmingly identify the secular upward trend. So it's more an issue of underestimating than not identifying it. Even scientists who are used to seeing graphs like these on a daily basis exhibit this bias. What's not so well known is why deniers are predisposed to just not seeing the obvious upward trend at all.

 

Distraff,

I can't agree with your post because warming has been ongoing since 1979, by Satellite data. But is far less than what the IPCC reports predicted/projected said it would warm since 1990.

The chart (which is junk) you posted doesn't support your pause claim either, which is irrelevant anyway because the AGW conjecture is a failure. The warming trend is well within historical norms going back to the 1860's.

Here is chart based on HadCrut4 data from DR. Jones BBC interview, as shown in 2009:

 

I'm pretty sure Distraff was being sarcastic. Also, his chart uses the Berkeley Earth dataset which matches HadCRUT reasonably well. Note, that his chart is current as of 2017 and the one directly above ^^^ only contains data up to 2009. The HadCRUT dataset actually has more errors than the other conventional datasets (like GISS, NOAAGlobalTemp, Cowtan&Way, and Berkeley) because they don't cover as much of the surface of the Earth. Despite that their computation on the global mean temperature trend actually matches Berkeley's within a few hundredths of a degree.

 

AGW is based on the correlation between C02 levels and warming. In those so called pause years C02 levels rose drastically as asian countries enterd the industrial era in the dirtiest of fashions with China alone adding a new coal fired power plant monthly. Somehow during this era the climate didn't warm. Myth busted.

 

Technically AGW is based on the net effect of all processes both natural and anthroprogenic. CO2's greenhouse effect is one among many processes that influence the atmospheric global mean temperature and oceanic heat content. During "the pause" in which air temperatures did not rise the oceanic heat content rose considerably. I often find myself focused too much on air temperatures mostly because that's what people like to talk about the most, but the fact is that the oceans are an even bigger heat reservoir than the air. So yeah, while the air temperature paused the oceanic heat content marched upward. So even during "the pause" the biosphere as a whole warmed significantly.

 

Technically and in real life the AGW hoax says man's C02 is the primary factor in warming the climate and there is direct correlation between our C02 output and warming. This thesis failed a huge test as man's C02 output grew exponentially as Asia became industrialized in a very dirty manner and the Earth's temperature remained constant.
As for your heat hiding in the ocean excuse it's been debunked by no less than NASA who is the warmer crowds god.

NASA: Missing climate heat not in deep ocean
Human-caused greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, but in the last decade, scientists say average surface temperatures have not risen as much as that accumulation was expected to generate.

A new study from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena discovered that this so-called "missing heat" is not hiding in the deep ocean.

JPL climate scientist Josh Willis co-authored the study and said if the deep-sea were the repository of the missing heat, the water would be expanding as it warmed. That in turn would lead to an increase in global sea levels.

Willis and his team used data from satellites and ocean probes to see if deep ocean waters were warming enough to have an effect on rising sea levels.

"And the answer from our point of view is no," Willis said. "There’s a small amount of heat going down there, but it’s not big enough to raise sea level."

This is not surprising since models of ocean current flow suggest it can take up 1000 years for water at the surface to cycle down to the bottom.

Still, he said the upper layers of the world's oceans were warming enough to cause sea water to expand and levels to rise, though not to the extent they would have with a warmer deep layer.

Willis said there are other theories about why average surface temperatures over the past ten years haven't risen as much as scientists thought they would.

He said it could be due to natural El Niño and La Niña cycles temporarily blunting the increases.

https://www.scpr.org/news/2014/10/06/47213/nasa-missing-climate-heat-not-in-deep-ocean/

 

As I already showed the Earth's heat content (air + ocean) increased. It did not remain constant.

That article is misleading. That is most definitely not the message the study cited in the article was conveying. That study was testing a hypothesis that if heat was hiding in the deep oceans than it should be detectable. They attempted to detect it. They did not. This is not a shocking result since it falls in line with what everyone else is concluding. That is, the layer of the ocean above the thermocline is warming rapidly while the deep ocean is remaining constant or warming only slightly. Note, the chart I posted above is for the top 2000m of the ocean (generally above the thermocline). Again, note that the ocean warmed considerably during "the pause". Is it possible that the heat flux processes that transfers that ocean heat to the air slowed down?

 

I would hope so but I'm not familiar with Distraff...it's not at all unusual for deniers to post evidence such as that graph that completely contradicts their claim because they're science challenged and can't even interpret a simple graph...or they put on their tinfoil hats and blame NASA and the deep state for a global climate conspiracy

 

The fattening properties of sugar and the cancer risk (plus addiction) of tobacco were also refuted. They even hired doctors to say so.

 

Translation. The graph, it trends upwards. Run for the hills.....

Oh, wait. Actually, all the graph says is that the overall average temperature for a short duration is trending upwards. Great. It trends upwards. The actual impact of which is? nothing? anything? Hard to tell because the graph just shows an upward trend.

The graph, also, does not ascribe the portions of warming that are naturally occurring, vs induced exclusively my mankind. So, when iamanonman drove to work in the carbon spewing 82 Subi, did their commute irrevocably doom the planet? Hardly. Which is probably why iamanonman doesn't care to upgrade from the 82 Subi estate wagon.

What is absolutely astonishing though, is that folks like iamanonman don't perceive themselves as deniers. And why is that? Obviously, they are wedded to a static system that is too fragile to allow for change. Clearly, they will deny the climate to ability to self determine it's own equilibrium, or for that matter, allow for the idea that perhaps a little additional warming might be very beneficial to the world around them.

No, all must be doom and gloom. Why? Research dollars. Have you noticed that since the federal dollars have started to dry up, the level of hyperbolic flame throwing from the enviro Nazis has amped up? Shocking I say...

 

In the last 3 decades, how many times have eggs been "good" and "bad" for you?

 

I looked it up. the '82 Subaru Wagon gets a combined 21 mpg. My dual turbocharged V6 Ford Explorer SUV gets like 18 mpg. Yeah, the '82 wagon has me beat in style and overall coolness, but I guarantee I can crush it in a drag race.

Oh, and don't be hating on station wagons. That's just rude.

 

Nothing misleading here except your response.Spin all you want but NASA said not only did air temperature fail to rise as predicted so did ocean temperature in the depths and on the surface.

"NASA: Missing climate heat not in deep ocean"


"Willis said there are other theories about why average surface temperatures over the past ten years haven't risen as much as scientists thought they would."

That decade long "pause" was yet another test of a hypothesis that fails every test every time and it is a failed hypothesis. Time to let it go.

 

I rest my case.....

 

lol!...here you are posting to thread pretending that you understand the presented evidence then you go and post this verifying to everyone reading that you don't even understand the basic scientific processes involved ...

 

What can I say? I love fast cars. I also have a PHEV. But, it's not because I think I'm saving the planet. I'm a techie who loves high tech things. That's all.

 

Sure, if the hypothesis were "global warming will always result in year Y+1 being warmer than Y" then I agree that is falsified. But, that's not a hypothesis that AGW posits. That is your strawman to tear down how you like.

The fact is that scientists predict that both the air temperature and oceanic heat content will ebb and flow with periods of decline while still following a broader secular trend up. And I have some shocking news for you. There is a near 100% chance that there will be another pause in the not too distant future. Who knows...2016 may be the start of yet another pause. Hell, we may even have periods where the temperature actually...gasp...declines even over the span of many years. Actually, I guarantee that will happen at some point in the next decade or two.

Let me ask you a question...when you look at the chart in the OP and you see those red dots bouncing up and down do you genuinely not see the bigger picture of a warming trend is does the noise make that hard to see? I ask because the article referenced in post #3 says that there is a genuine cognitive bias for some people to underestimate broader trends in a chart.

 

None that I recall. I don't buy eggs that are stuck to the carton and I don't eat more than three at any one sitting. How about you? How many times have eggs been "bad" for you? Do the amount of "bad" eggs for you (or for me) determine how much of it is found sugar and tobacco?

 

Well, I suppose if that position makes you feel better.... Obviously, the point being made is problematic for folks who are so slavishly wedded to the position that you do, and I understand this. Knowing that certainty is relative to point in time, I would suppose that acknowledging this wouldn't be your first inclination. If only there was a salve for you.....

 

only in the mind of a denier does this show the Earth is NOT warming,