Written with Engineers in mind.

>>Welcome back to my epic miniseries on the so-called pause in global warming.

So what is this ‘pause’? Did the relentless rise in the Earth’s temperature come to a halt? No. Was there an easing off in the rate at which the Earth’s surface temperature is increasing? Yes, but unfortunately, only slightly.

I previously mentioned two causes for this. One was that the observation window (only nine years) was much too short to see a long-term trend. Plus, the temperatures in the Arctic, which is the fastest warming part of the planet, were excluded — for various technical reasons.

Let’s combine these two causes with a whole bunch of cooling factors. These cooling factors include volcanic dust and increased pollution from industrial processes (which reflect the Sun’s incoming solar energy back into space), La Niña events in the Pacific Ocean, slightly reduced power output from the Sun and so on. All of what I have just mentioned accounts for roughly half of the pause.

The other half of the reason for the pause is that less heat is staying at the surface, and instead, is going into the oceans.

Now this is a little complicated, so let me introduce you to a technical term that is very relevant — heat capacity. Heat capacity is a measure of how much heat energy a substance can store. Mathematically, it’s the ratio between how much heat energy enters a material, and the resulting temperature change.

You might have noticed that when you unload the dishwasher, the ceramic plates are dry, while the plastic plates are still wet with a myriad of droplets.

At the end of the washing cycle, a heater switches on and heats everything inside the dishwasher. Plastic has a lower heat capacity, and can’t store much heat energy. So there’s not enough heat energy to evaporate off the water droplets. But ceramic has a much greater heat capacity. So when the ceramic plates get heated to the same temperature as the plastic plates, they can absorb and store much more heat energy. This extra heat energy can then heat up, and evaporate away, the water droplets. So the ceramic plates come out perfectly dry, while the plastic plates are sparkling with water droplets.

It turns out that, volume for volume, water has over 3000 times the heat capacity of air. If you shove the same amount of heat energy into the same volumes of water and air, the air will get a lot hotter than the water. The air’s temperature will increase over 3000 times more than will the temperature of the water. Water has a massive heat capacity, as compared to air.

Now about 93 per cent of all the extra heat of global warming goes into the oceans, and only about one to two per cent remains to heat up the air. So you need only a tiny increase in the percentage of heat energy going into the oceans to slow down the rate of increase in air temperature.

The Earth’s oceans form a very complex system. They cover some 70 per cent of the Earth’s surface, and are hard to access because they have an average depth of some 3.7 kilometres.

Even so, we have taken tens of millions of measurements of ocean temperature and saltiness across the globe since 1970. These have been collected by buoys, ships and the Argo profiling floats. As a result, we have very good evidence that a few conveyor belt of various ocean currents have pushed the warmer surface waters into the depths — below 700 metres.

Recently, a very small part of the eastern Pacific, amounting to just 8.2 per cent of the Earth’s entire surface, has become unusually cool. It has been sending warm surface waters into the deep Pacific Ocean. It turns out that there are roughly 30-year natural cycles in the Pacific Ocean involving the movement of heat energy – the so-called Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Since around the late 1990s, this cycle has been in a phase where the surface water in this patch of the central and eastern tropical Pacific is cooler. This has caused a rapid build-up and storage of heat in the deeper ocean below 700 metres.

A similar pattern, with the same result, has been happening on the other side of the Americas, in the Atlantic Ocean.
Over the last 50 years, the oceans have stored 250 zetajoules of energy. That’s 500 times the total annual energy generation capacity of the human race.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/09/30/4097388.htm
Much of this heat will be transferred back into the atmosphere over the next few decades. Next time, I’ll finish off by talking about what we can do about this …<<

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/09/30/4097388.htm

So the Doctor’s pushing the excuse for the 18 year pause in warming not only on “””the oceans ate global warming’’’ but also the unproven theory the ‘extra heat’ has been transported & hidden below 700 m. What evidence did he link to back his theory???

None! Of course.

>>>> Even so, we have taken tens of millions of measurements of ocean temperature and saltiness across the globe since 1970. These have been collected by buoys, ships and the Argo profiling floats.
<<<<<

Wunsch and Heimbach (2014)
Bidecadal Thermal Changes in the Abyssal Ocean

The major observational obstacle to understanding the role of the ocean in climate is the extreme
brevity of the instrumental record in a system having some memory exceeding several thousands
of years. Data sets depicting the global interior ocean state begin with high accuracy altimetry
only in 1992. The Argo array became quasi-global in the mid-2000s. Assuming that these
technologies continue to be supported (by no means clear), the community will ultimately have
comparatively long records at least of the phenomena visible in upper-ocean hydrographic profiles
and sea surface elevation.
Even in this recent period, major spatial and temporal inhomogeneities exist in these and related data.
Consider, for example, that greenhouse gas warming of the ocean is widely believed to be of order 1 W/m2 (e.g., Hansen et al., 2005) or less. Recent observationally-based estimates (Church et al., 2011) produce estimates closer to 0.5 W/m2 exacerbating the detection problem.
That the atmospheric radiation budget, includes such poorly determined elements as changes in aerosals and cloud distributions is a major impetus to determining actual ocean heat storage changes.

& from ARGO itself –
The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 7-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g. Leuliette and Miller, 2009). Analyses of decadal changes presently focus on comparison of Argo to sparse and sometimes inaccurate historical data. Argo’s greatest contributions to observing the global oceans are still in the future, but its global span is clearly transforming the capability to observe climate-related changes.

>>>> As a result, we have very good evidence that a few conveyor belt of various ocean currents have pushed the warmer surface waters into the depths — below 700 metres.
<<<<

Ha! Really Doctor? What is this evidence? Oh that’s right, you provided none. No worries Doctor, we believe you.

>>>>> Since around the late 1990s, this cycle has been in a phase where the surface water in this patch of the central and eastern tropical Pacific is cooler. This has caused a rapid build-up and storage of heat in the deeper ocean below 700 metres.
<<<

“Before the ARGO floats were deployed (2004 – 5), there were so few temperature and salinity observations at depths below 700 meters that the NODC does not present ocean heat content data during that period for depths of 0-2000 meters on an annual basis. That is, the NODC only presents its annual ocean heat content data for the depths of 0-2000 meters starting in 2005.”
BoB Tisdale.

“If Balmaseda and Trenberth’s model of deep ocean warming was correct, any increase in ocean heat content must have occurred between 700 and 2000 meters, but the mechanisms that would warm that “middle layer” remains elusive. In order to support their contention that the deep ocean has been dramatically absorbing heat, Balmaseda/Trenberth must provide a mechanism and the regional observations where heat has been carried from the surface to those depths. But few are to be found. Warming at great depths and simultaneous cooling of the surface is antithetical to climate models predictions.”
Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus

Two of the world’s premiere ocean scientists, Carl Wunsch – Harvard and Patrick Heimbach – MIT, have addressed the data limitations that currently prevent the oceanographic community from resolving the differences among various estimates of changing ocean heat content.
As a by-product of that analysis Wunsch and Heimbach (2014)
1) determined the deepest oceans are cooling
2) estimated a much slower rate of ocean warming
3) highlighted where the greatest uncertainties existed due to the ever changing locations of heating and cooling
4) specified concerns with previous methods used to construct changes in ocean heat content, such as Balmaseda and Trenberth’s re-analysis.

>>>>Now about 93 per cent of all the extra heat of global warming goes into the oceans temperature.
<<<<

Besides that statement being meaningless (how long is a piece of string) because it is dependent on climate sensitivity 2 x co2 = ?C, where does the Doctor get that figure from? Argo says 80%. ?

The extra heat of global warming<<< – the increase in back radiation – infrared radiation in this case, absorbed by the ocean. The ocean is warmed by the sun. Infrared penetrates the ocean by only a few micron. The infrared energy contacting the ocean surface predominantly is used up changing the state of water from a liquid to a gas – evaporation, not to heat the water.

Experiment: Two identical plastic (for the doctors sake) cups filled with an equal volume of water placed outdoors on identical foam bases. One in direct sunlight, the other in shade.

Starting temperature 17.4 C.
After 30 minutes:-
cup of water placed in the shade ………… 17.5C
cup of water placed in direct sunlight …..26.5C

After 1 hour & 30 minutes:-
cup of water placed in the shade ………… 18.5C – ambient air temperature 22.3C
cup of water placed in direct sunlight ….. 31.8C – ambient air temperature direct sunlight 24.6C

clearly the sun is what warms the oceans.

In future writings about the one topic the Doctor is political about, climate change, Kruszelnicki was an unsuccessful candidate for the Australian Senate in the 2007 Australian federal election. He was placed number two on the Climate Change Coalition ticket in New South Wales (& considering his undoubted financial investments in the renewable energy sector) will he mention either the uncertainty in cloud feedback? How it is still an unknown? How a mere 1 % decline in total cloud cover can explain the most recent period of warming that took place prior to the present 18 years of no warming?

Will he mention how the strongest feedback theorised – positive water vapour feedback, has failed to materialise? How millions of radiosonde measurements for humidity since the late 1950s all show a decline in upper tropospheric humidity, not an increase as shown in every climate model with a greater than 1 C warming for a 2 x co2 scenario? Will he mention how the accompanying negative lapse rate feedback to this theorised positive water vapour feedback, produced by models is not only missing but the opposite?

Hell no.

RSS data october 1996 to August 2014
.
.

.
.
The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant. –Phil Jones, University of East Anglia 5 July 2005

Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried. -Phil Jones, University of East Anglia 7 May 2009

What I find moronic is that lets say global warming from human civilisation is completely false wouldn’t it still make sense to not pollute our environment with toxic byproducts from power generation, industry, etc and have decentralised power generation using renewable energy as one its harder to destroy them in an act of war or terrorism and two you aren’t relient on some other nation to supply your energy needs. As usual it all comes down to money and not changing the status quo.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/1001/Antarctica-s-ice-loss-is-messing-with-Earth-s-gravity-scientists-say

Antarctica’s ice loss is messing with Earth’s gravity, scientists say

After your non-science speal Observer, you might like to absorb a little.

>>There are, however, disputes about the accuracy of Argo buoys and expendable measuring devices dropped into the sea, and the reporting of temperatures down to only 700 metres. How do scientists resolve these kind of disputes – bearing in mind that such disputes are the very stuff of science, the essence of true scepticism? One way is to find more data sources – different ways of measuring the phenomenon in dispute. By using results from seven different teams of scientists, all using different tools and methods, we are able to see a clear trend. And while there is variation between team results due to the differences in technique and measurement methods, one thing they all agree on: long term, temperatures are going up.

Source: Lyman 2010

The reaction of the oceans to climate change are some of the most profound across the entire environment, including disruption of the ocean food chain through chemical changes caused by CO2, the ability of the sea to absorb CO2 being limited by temperature increases, (and the potential to expel sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere as the water gets hotter), sea-level rise due to thermal expansion, and the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.
While there is a great deal we don’t know about how the oceans behave, we do however know that it’s safer to discuss all aspects of climate change using multiple sets of data, rather than just one, as Pielke Sr did. If ocean heat is a guide, then global warming is still on track to cause great disruption if we don’t modify our actions to reduce the release of anthropogenic CO2.

Claims that global warming is not happening on the basis of short-term ocean temperatures are not supported by the evidence.<<

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm

I bet this thread is great.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that June was the globe’s warmest in 134 years of records following its report that May was also the hottest on record. These reports are feeding anticipation that 2014 could become the warmest year on record.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/07/21/june-2014-was-earths-warmest-on-record-as-ocean-temperatures-surged/

dv said:

I bet this thread is great.

As it effects just about all living organisms on this plant, it should be at the front of everyone’s mind, as our futures and that of our offspring depend upon what we do in the very near future. It is not something you can simply ignore as it will not let you; it is far too serious.

the main thing is we do nothing

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

I bet this thread is great.

As it effects just about all living organisms on this plant, it should be at the front of everyone’s mind, as our futures and that of our offspring depend upon what we do in the very near future. It is not something you can simply ignore as it will not let you; it is far too serious.

True enough.

In the fair dinkum department, there’s been significant warming over the last 18 years: anyone who is looking at the data and claiming there’s been an 18 year pause is either stupid or lying.

The average Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index anomaly from 2009-2013 was 0.3 K higher than the corresponding period 18 years prior (1991-1995).

However, there has not been significant warming in the last say seven years. The average from 2009-2013 is identical to the average from 2002-2006. There has not been a flat patch comparable to this since 1960s.

>>>>What I find moronic is that lets say global warming from human civilisation is completely false wouldn’t it still make sense to not pollute our environment with toxic byproducts from power generation, industry, etc
<<<<

the toxic pollutants are filtered & captured at power plants, not pumped into the air. Australia like most other countries have pollution emitting regulations.

>>>>>and have decentralised power generation using renewable energy as one its harder to destroy them in an act of war or terrorism
<<<<<

you can have panels on the roof, but what will you use for power when the suns down or its cloudy???

>>>and two you aren’t relient on some other nation to supply your energy needs.
<<<<

every solar panel on every roof & every windmill in every paddock in australia is manufactured overseas

wookiemeister said:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/1001/Antarctica-s-ice-loss-is-messing-with-Earth-s-gravity-scientists-say

Antarctica’s ice loss is messing with Earth’s gravity, scientists say

antarctic sea ice is at records levels,,& if antarctic land ice is melting it’s not because of ocean water or air temperature
.
.
.
lower tropospheric temperature southern polar = minus -0.014 K/decade trend
.

The_observer said:

>>>>What I find moronic is that lets say global warming from human civilisation is completely false wouldn’t it still make sense to not pollute our environment with toxic byproducts from power generation, industry, etc
<<<<

the toxic pollutants are filtered & captured at power plants, not pumped into the air. Australia like most other countries have pollution emitting regulations.

They still have to dispose of them though, millions of tonnes worldwide. China who buys our coal is apparently turning away from coal usage because of pollution problems.

>>>>>and have decentralised power generation using renewable energy as one its harder to destroy them in an act of war or terrorism
<<<<<

you can have panels on the roof, but what will you use for power when the suns down or its cloudy???

>>>and two you aren’t relient on some other nation to supply your energy needs.
<<<<

every solar panel on every roof & every windmill in every paddock in australia is manufactured overseas

True but once purchased they can’t hold you to ransom over price and people won’t invade your nation to steal them

PermeateFree said:

After your non-science speal Observer, you might like to absorb a little.

firstly factfree, your assertion that my speal was “non-science” is baseless & ridiculous.
One only has to read my post to see you a full of crap & desperate.

also, you mate the doctor says the heat is hiding below 700 metre,,, you graph is only down to 700 metres,,, you fuckwit.

& as my post demonstrated, something that is well accepted, is that the data for ocean heat content is very poor,
& Karl has no right to make his claim

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

>>>>What I find moronic is that lets say global warming from human civilisation is completely false wouldn’t it still make sense to not pollute our environment with toxic byproducts from power generation, industry, etc
<<<<

the toxic pollutants are filtered & captured at power plants, not pumped into the air. Australia like most other countries have pollution emitting regulations.

They still have to dispose of them though, millions of tonnes worldwide. China who buys our coal is apparently turning away from coal usage because of pollution problems.

>>>>>and have decentralised power generation using renewable energy as one its harder to destroy them in an act of war or terrorism
<<<<<

you can have panels on the roof, but what will you use for power when the suns down or its cloudy???

>>>and two you aren’t relient on some other nation to supply your energy needs.
<<<<

every solar panel on every roof & every windmill in every paddock in australia is manufactured overseas

True but once purchased they can’t hold you to ransom over price and people won’t invade your nation to steal them

china has replaced almost every old tech coal powered plant with new tech ones,,, & then some

dv said:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that June was the globe’s warmest in 134 years of records following its report that May was also the hottest on record. These reports are feeding anticipation that 2014 could become the warmest year on record.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/07/21/june-2014-was-earths-warmest-on-record-as-ocean-temperatures-surged/

really? by how much? in how long???

dv said:

In the fair dinkum department, there’s been significant warming over the last 18 years: anyone who is looking at the data and claiming there’s been an 18 year pause is either stupid or lying.

Yeh, I’ve always said the IPCC was stupid & lied.

The_observer so exactly what do you think is happening.
Is human caused global warming all a lie?

Cymek said:

The_observer so exactly what do you think is happening.
Is human caused global warming all a lie?

It is not caused by human economic activity.

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

The_observer so exactly what do you think is happening.
Is human caused global warming all a lie?

It is not caused by human economic activity.

Economic expansion is ultimately self defeating though isn’t it and humans have a really poor record at not exploiting every available resource to extinction or exhaustion. Economics isn’t evil but people do just about anything for wealth which does include ruining the planet for the future mainly because they will be dead or have enough money to weather it.

Wunsch and Heimbach concluded that much less heat is being added to the oceans compared to claims in previous studies.

Due to the constant time-varying heat transport, regions of warming are usually compensated by regions of cooling as illustrated in their Figure 15. It offers a wonderful visualization of the current state of those natural ocean oscillations by comparing changes in heat content between 1992 and 2011. Those patterns of heat re-distributions evolve enormous amounts of heat and that makes detection of changes in heat content that are many magnitudes smaller extremely difficult.

Again any uneven sampling regime in time or space, would result in “artificial changes in the global average”.

Cymek said:

The_observer so exactly what do you think is happening.
Is human caused global warming all a lie?

Its a matter of climate sensitivity.

2 x CO2 = ? celcius

if we knew 2 x co2 equivalent forcing would result in an equilibrium temperature change of say 6C, then were fucked.

But it is clear that climate sensitivity is no where near 6C for 2 x co2 equivalent.

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

The_observer so exactly what do you think is happening.
Is human caused global warming all a lie?

Its a matter of climate sensitivity.

2 x CO2 = ? celcius

if we knew 2 x co2 equivalent forcing would result in an equilibrium temperature change of say 6C, then were fucked.

But it is clear that climate sensitivity is no where near 6C for 2 x co2 equivalent.

Isn’t it better to ere on the side of caution when talking about the future of the planet

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

The_observer so exactly what do you think is happening.
Is human caused global warming all a lie?

Its a matter of climate sensitivity.

2 x CO2 = ? celcius

if we knew 2 x co2 equivalent forcing would result in an equilibrium temperature change of say 6C, then were fucked.

But it is clear that climate sensitivity is no where near 6C for 2 x co2 equivalent.

Isn’t it better to ere on the side of caution when talking about the future of the planet

I’m fine with taking action. It’s how much money is spent, & in what areas the money is spent that matters.

Just say australia spends 5 trillion dollars to fight the ‘climate crisis’ (lol) & it turns out that the effect of the added co2 is benign.

How happy will you be knowing your grand children & great grand children & your etcetc.will have to pay that back.

re: Wunsch and Heimbach (2014)

Most interesting is the observed cooling throughout the upper 700 meters of the Arctic ocean. There have been 2 competing explanations for the unusually warm Arctic air temperature that heavily weights the global average. (north polar trend = 0.328 K/decade. Global trend = 0.123 K/decade)

CO2 driven hypotheses argue global warming has reduced polar sea ice that previously reflected sunlight, and now the exposed dark waters are absorbing more heat and raising water and air temperatures. But clearly a cooling upper Arctic Ocean suggests any absorbed heat is insignificant.

Despite greater inflows of warm Atlantic water, declining heat content of the upper 700 meters supports the competing hypothesis that warmer Arctic air temperatures are, at least in part, the result of increased ventilation of heat that was previously trapped by a thick insulating ice cover.

That second hypothesis is also in agreement with extensive observations that Arctic air temperatures had been cooling in the 80s and 90s.
as shown below.

Warming occurred after subfreezing winds, re‑directed by the Arctic Oscillation, drove thick multi-year ice out from the Arctic.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

After your non-science speal Observer, you might like to absorb a little.

firstly factfree, your assertion that my speal was “non-science” is baseless & ridiculous.
One only has to read my post to see you a full of crap & desperate.

also, you mate the doctor says the heat is hiding below 700 metre,,, you graph is only down to 700 metres,,, you fuckwit.

& as my post demonstrated, something that is well accepted, is that the data for ocean heat content is very poor,
& Karl has no right to make his claim

Dear oh dear, absolutely nothing will make this ‘always right’ dummy actually stop and think. Everything, yes everything is trending upwards, most scientists agree everything is trending up, they are also telling anyone who will listen that we are heading into catastrophic climate conditions, unless we act very, very promptly. Most countries are working on ways to reduce their co2 emissions (that is except Australia) and are very, very concerned about the world we are leaving our children, yet we have these people like you who are not just on the outer, but floating around beyond the reach of reason from any except your small circle of advisers

You are a total idiot Observer, you are wrong, wrong, wrong and you damn well know you are wrong, but that does not stop you one iota. Our planet simply does not have time for everything to be proved 100%, with all the T’s crossed and the i’s dotted, which you insist is the only proof you will accept. We currently have more than sufficient information to know where we are heading and why, it is completely pointless and a total waste of time to argue about points that will not affect the outcome and of which climate change experts are confident will prove correct in time.

Observer you are way beyond reason as has always been the case. The real tragedy is you have no idea what you and people like you are doing and the havoc you are silently causing to billions of living organisms and the billions more you will be harming in future. Someone like that, not only without a conscience, but very actively working to disguise the seriousness of the position we find ourselves has a very, very sick mind.

Life’s too short for SSSF climate threads! But here’s my monthly minute.

The TLT trend starting from 1998 is indeed flat.

Of course if you calculate a trend starting from 1999 you get a significant positive trend entirely consistent with longer-term trends.

This suggests that such trends are highly sensitive to choice of end values and shouldn’t be relied on; longer term trends that are more robust with respect to choice of end values would be better.

Hope this Helps!

I return you to your scheduled programming.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

After your non-science speal Observer, you might like to absorb a little.

Dear oh dear, absolutely nothing will make this ‘always right’ dummy actually stop and think. Everything, yes everything is trending upwards, most scientists agree everything is trending up, they are also telling anyone who will listen that we are heading into catastrophic climate conditions, unless we act very, very promptly. Most countries are working on ways to reduce their co2 emissions (that is except Australia) and are very, very concerned about the world we are leaving our children, yet we have these people like you who are not just on the outer, but floating around beyond the reach of reason from any except your small circle of advisers

You are a total idiot Observer, you are wrong, wrong, wrong and you damn well know you are wrong, but that does not stop you one iota. Our planet simply does not have time for everything to be proved 100%, with all the T’s crossed and the i’s dotted, which you insist is the only proof you will accept. We currently have more than sufficient information to know where we are heading and why, it is completely pointless and a total waste of time to argue about points that will not affect the outcome and of which climate change experts are confident will prove correct in time.

Observer you are way beyond reason as has always been the case. The real tragedy is you have no idea what you and people like you are doing and the havoc you are silently causing to billions of living organisms and the billions more you will be harming in future. Someone like that, not only without a conscience, but very actively working to disguise the seriousness of the position we find ourselves has a very, very sick mind.

thank you factfree for that scientific analyisis,,, no, no,,,,speal … (lol) or should it be ‘spiel’. ….giggles

MartinB said:

Life’s too short for SSSF climate threads! But here’s my monthly minute.

The TLT trend starting from 1998 is indeed flat.

Of course if you calculate a trend starting from 1999 you get a significant positive trend entirely consistent with longer-term trends.

This suggests that such trends are highly sensitive to choice of end values and shouldn’t be relied on; longer term trends that are more robust with respect to choice of end values would be better.

Hope this Helps!

I return you to your scheduled programming.

work both way MB

The_observer said:

MartinB said:

Life’s too short for SSSF climate threads! But here’s my monthly minute.

The TLT trend starting from 1998 is indeed flat.

Of course if you calculate a trend starting from 1999 you get a significant positive trend entirely consistent with longer-term trends.

This suggests that such trends are highly sensitive to choice of end values and shouldn’t be relied on; longer term trends that are more robust with respect to choice of end values would be better.

Hope this Helps!

I return you to your scheduled programming.

work both way MB

also mb, thanks for ignoring the cloud feedback & water vapour feed – lapse rate feedback comments I mentioned in my initial post!
?
?
?
?

>>>Everything, yes everything is trending upwards<<<
.
well fuck me,,, that’s never happened before
.
.

.
.
.
lol

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

MartinB said:

Life’s too short for SSSF climate threads! But here’s my monthly minute.

The TLT trend starting from 1998 is indeed flat.

Of course if you calculate a trend starting from 1999 you get a significant positive trend entirely consistent with longer-term trends.

This suggests that such trends are highly sensitive to choice of end values and shouldn’t be relied on; longer term trends that are more robust with respect to choice of end values would be better.

Hope this Helps!

I return you to your scheduled programming.

work both way MB

also mb, thanks for ignoring the cloud feedback & water vapour feed – lapse rate feedback comments I mentioned in my initial post!
?
?
?
?

not to mention Wunch – Heimbach 2014

will El Nino Nincompoopo persisit tonight?

will El Nino Nincompoopo persisit tonight?

This global warming stuff is getting a bit tiresome. Since I have been proclaimed infallible on such matters (apart from my spelling and grammar) I think it would be better if the forum just deferred to me on the subject.

There, I said it.

work both way MB

Indeed; neither the series starting at 1998 or at 1999 are adequate. So we should look at longer-term series which are positive.

also mb, thanks for ignoring the cloud feedback & water vapour feed – lapse rate feedback comments I mentioned in my initial post!

I do apologise; as I said life is too short. Indeed I have now blown this month’s budget and will need to stay silent for two months.

I have no expectation your opinion will change and I do not seek to change it. My judgement is that very few people looking for information are lurking in these threads so I feel no need to speak to them either. So as not to be rude I will say, in general terms, that we know that there are uncertainties in our measurements and understandings of clouds and convection and it is good that these are further investigated but these uncertainties are not such as to affect the major results of conventional climatology.

I wish you well and bid you a good night.

MartinB said:

bq. work both way MB

Indeed; neither the series starting at 1998 or at 1999 are adequate. So we should look at longer-term series which are positive.

also mb, thanks for ignoring the cloud feedback & water vapour feed – lapse rate feedback comments I mentioned in my initial post!

I do apologise; as I said life is too short. Indeed I have now blown this month’s budget and will need to stay silent for two months.

I have no expectation your opinion will change and I do not seek to change it. My judgement is that very few people looking for information are lurking in these threads so I feel no need to speak to them either. So as not to be rude I will say, in general terms, that we know that there are uncertainties in our measurements and understandings of clouds and convection and it is good that these are further investigated but these uncertainties are not such as to affect the major results of conventional climatology.

I wish you well and bid you a good night.

I have no expectation your opinion will change and I do not seek to change it.

MartinB said:

bq. work both way MB

Indeed; neither the series starting at 1998 or at 1999 are adequate. So we should look at longer-term series which are positive.

also mb, thanks for ignoring the cloud feedback & water vapour feed – lapse rate feedback comments I mentioned in my initial post!

I do apologise; as I said life is too short. Indeed I have now blown this month’s budget and will need to stay silent for two months.

I have no expectation your opinion will change and I do not seek to change it. My judgement is that very few people looking for information are lurking in these threads so I feel no need to speak to them either. So as not to be rude I will say, in general terms, that we know that there are uncertainties in our measurements and understandings of clouds and convection and it is good that these are further investigated but these uncertainties are not such as to affect the major results of conventional climatology.

I wish you well and bid you a good night.

Come back and fight ya bastard.

The_observer said:

I have no expectation your opinion will change and I do not seek to change it.

I had always suspected that your relationship with PF had an undercurrent of homo-eroticism and had nothing to do with the climate whatsoever.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

I have no expectation your opinion will change and I do not seek to change it.

I had always suspected that your relationship with PF had an undercurrent of homo-eroticism and had nothing to do with the climate whatsoever.

MartinB said:

bq. work both way MB

Indeed; neither the series starting at 1998 or at 1999 are adequate. So we should look at longer-term series which are positive.

also mb, thanks for ignoring the cloud feedback & water vapour feed – lapse rate feedback comments I mentioned in my initial post!

I do apologise; as I said life is too short. Indeed I have now blown this month’s budget and will need to stay silent for two months.

I have no expectation your opinion will change and I do not seek to change it. My judgement is that very few people looking for information are lurking in these threads so I feel no need to speak to them either. So as not to be rude I will say, in general terms, that we know that there are uncertainties in our measurements and understandings of clouds and convection and it is good that these are further investigated but these uncertainties are not such as to affect the major results of conventional climatology.

actually, I’d love to hump Martin ;)

>>actually, I’d love to hump Martin ;)

The defendant can step down, there’ll be no further questions.

Peak Warming Man said:

>>actually, I’d love to hump Martin ;)

The defendant can step down, there’ll be no further questions.

giggles,,,that’s funny,,,,but true

The_observer said:

This graph is wrong.
.
.
It’s obsolete
.
.

.
.

.
.

No, it hasn’t been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn’t the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What’s more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

Though humans love record-breakers, they don’t, on their own, tell us a much about trends — and it’s trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables — like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity — not by cherry-picking single points.

There’s also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on surface air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance — due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called ‘thermal mass’) — tend to give a much more ‘steady’ indication of the warming that is happening. Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon (Figure 1). More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3% goes into increasing the surface air temperature.

Figure 1: Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). From Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

Even if we focus exclusively on global surface temperatures, Cowtan & Way (2013) shows that when we account for temperatures across the entire globe (including the Arctic, which is the part of the planet warming fastest), the global surface warming trend for 1997–2012 is approximatley 0.11 to 0.12°C per decade.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

again

LOL

1997; the beginning of no warming

U.S. President Bill Clinton is inaugurated for his second term.

Yasser Arafat returns to Hebron after more than 30 years, and joins celebrations over the handover of the last Israeli-controlled West Bank city.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closes above 7,000 for the first time, gaining 60.81 to 7,022.44.

In Roslin, Scotland, scientists announce that an adult sheep named Dolly had been successfully cloned, and was born in July 1996.

A small fire occurs on the Russian space station Mir.

U.S. President Bill Clinton bans federal funding for any research on human cloning.

The Phoenix Lights, a series of UFOs, are seen over Phoenix, Arizona.

The 69th Academy Awards, hosted by Billy Crystal, are held at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles, California, with The English Patient winning Best Picture.

A Pegasus rocket carries the remains of 24 people into earth orbit, in the first space burial.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), CWC treaty enters into force.

The Labour Party of the United Kingdom returns to power for the first time in 18 years, with Tony Blair becoming Prime Minister, in a landslide majority in the 1997 general election.

IBM’s Deep Blue defeats Garry Kasparov in the last game of the rematch, the first time a computer beats a chess World champion in a match.

The second-deadliest tornado of the 1990s hits in Jarrell, Texas, killing 27 people.

In Denver, Colorado, Timothy McVeigh is convicted on 15 counts of murder and conspiracy for his role in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

The fast food chain McDonald’s wins a partial victory in its libel trial, known as the McLibel case, against two environmental campaigners.

The United Kingdom hands sovereignty of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China.

NASA’s Pathfinder space probe lands on the surface of Mars.

The Great Flood begins in southern Poland

The_observer said:

1997; the beginning of no warming

U.S. President Bill Clinton is inaugurated for his second term.

Yasser Arafat returns to Hebron after more than 30 years, and joins celebrations over the handover of the last Israeli-controlled West Bank city.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closes above 7,000 for the first time, gaining 60.81 to 7,022.44.

In Roslin, Scotland, scientists announce that an adult sheep named Dolly had been successfully cloned, and was born in July 1996.

A small fire occurs on the Russian space station Mir.

U.S. President Bill Clinton bans federal funding for any research on human cloning.

The Phoenix Lights, a series of UFOs, are seen over Phoenix, Arizona.

The 69th Academy Awards, hosted by Billy Crystal, are held at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles, California, with The English Patient winning Best Picture.

A Pegasus rocket carries the remains of 24 people into earth orbit, in the first space burial.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), CWC treaty enters into force.

The Labour Party of the United Kingdom returns to power for the first time in 18 years, with Tony Blair becoming Prime Minister, in a landslide majority in the 1997 general election.

IBM’s Deep Blue defeats Garry Kasparov in the last game of the rematch, the first time a computer beats a chess World champion in a match.

The second-deadliest tornado of the 1990s hits in Jarrell, Texas, killing 27 people.

In Denver, Colorado, Timothy McVeigh is convicted on 15 counts of murder and conspiracy for his role in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

The fast food chain McDonald’s wins a partial victory in its libel trial, known as the McLibel case, against two environmental campaigners.

The United Kingdom hands sovereignty of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China.

NASA’s Pathfinder space probe lands on the surface of Mars.

The Great Flood begins in southern Poland

That’s your problem Observer ……… You can’t tell fact from fiction.

Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty
Posted on September 24, 2014 | 539 Comments
by Judith Curry

Our new paper on climate sensitivity is now published.

The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates. Climate Dynamics, September 2014

2 x co2

equilibrium climate sensitivity = 1.64C

transient climate response 1.33C

The_observer said:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

again

LOL

This is your normal reaction to science.

.
.
.
that’s the science bozo el nincompoopo

The_observer said:

Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty
Posted on September 24, 2014 | 539 Comments
by Judith Curry

Our new paper on climate sensitivity is now published.

The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates. Climate Dynamics, September 2014

2 x co2

equilibrium climate sensitivity = 1.64C

transient climate response 1.33C

Is the results based on her 6 week ocean research?

The article I presented has a number of references, of which I strongly recommend you watch the first video that explains the results gathered.

.
.

.
.

.
.
.
that’s the science bozo el nincompoopo

The_observer said:

.
.
.
that’s the science bozo el nincompoopo

Just confirms your lack of scientific knowledge Observer. You expect, if not demand, a linear transition of data, but it does not work that way, Science checks and rechecks itself and if predictions don’t work out (up or down) they are investigated in greater detail to see what additional information has not been taken into account.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

.
.
.
that’s the science bozo el nincompoopo

Just confirms your lack of scientific knowledge Observer. You expect, if not demand, a linear transition of data, but it does not work that way, Science checks and rechecks itself and if predictions don’t work out (up or down) they are investigated in greater detail to see what additional information has not been taken into account.

what’s you estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity for 2 x co2 el nincompoop ?

The_observer said:

.
.

.
.

.
.
.
that’s the science bozo el nincompoopo

In some respect by not in all. You as usual cherry-pick information instead of looking at the entire picture. Approximately 80% of global temperatures are not taken into account, including those from the Arctic and Antarctic, plus many regions of Africa. However if you view the first video in my link it will see where you are misinterpreting the data.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

.
.
.
that’s the science bozo el nincompoopo

Just confirms your lack of scientific knowledge Observer. You expect, if not demand, a linear transition of data, but it does not work that way, Science checks and rechecks itself and if predictions don’t work out (up or down) they are investigated in greater detail to see what additional information has not been taken into account.

what’s you estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity for 2 x co2 el nincompoop ?

Just view the first video in the link I supplied. However I don’t think you will as you are afraid of being revealed as scientifically illiterate.

PermeateFree said:

.
.
that’s the science bozo el nincompoopo

In some respect by not in all. You as usual cherry-pick information instead of looking at the entire picture. Approximately 80% of global temperatures are not taken into account, including those from the Arctic and Antarctic, plus many regions of Africa. However if you view the first video in my link it will see where you are misinterpreting the data.

what!!! RSS & UHA cover 70 S to 82.5 N in their global data graphs nincompoop.

you’re full of excuses sonny.

the globe hasn’t warmed & water vapour feed back aint happening

enjoy the interglacial

PermeateFree said:

Just view the first video in the link I supplied. However I don’t think you will as you are afraid of being revealed as scientifically illiterate.

Oh yeh, I for one take you very seriously ,,,el nincompoopO..

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

.
.
that’s the science bozo el nincompoopo

In some respect by not in all. You as usual cherry-pick information instead of looking at the entire picture. Approximately 80% of global temperatures are not taken into account, including those from the Arctic and Antarctic, plus many regions of Africa. However if you view the first video in my link it will see where you are misinterpreting the data.

what!!! RSS & UHA cover 70 S to 82.5 N in their global data graphs nincompoop.

you’re full of excuses sonny.

the globe hasn’t warmed & water vapour feed back aint happening

enjoy the interglacial

When you refuse to view the evidence, no wonder you make such stupid statements Observer. The more you talk the worse you appear and the less your credibility.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Just view the first video in the link I supplied. However I don’t think you will as you are afraid of being revealed as scientifically illiterate.

Oh yeh, I for one take you very seriously ,,,el nincompoopO..

And people take you seriously? What a joke!

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

.
.
that’s the science bozo el nincompoopo

In some respect by not in all. You as usual cherry-pick information instead of looking at the entire picture. Approximately 80% of global temperatures are not taken into account, including those from the Arctic and Antarctic, plus many regions of Africa. However if you view the first video in my link it will see where you are misinterpreting the data.

what!!! RSS & UHA cover 70 S to 82.5 N in their global data graphs nincompoop.

you’re full of excuses sonny.

the globe hasn’t warmed & water vapour feed back aint happening

enjoy the interglacial

When you refuse to view the evidence, no wonder you make such stupid statements Observer. The more you talk the worse you appear and the less your credibility.

I’ve never debated anyone quitew like you perm

you’re special

Arthur the Observer Vs the Black nincompoop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

what!!! RSS & UHA cover 70 S to 82.5 N in their global data graphs nincompoop.

you’re full of excuses sonny.

the globe hasn’t warmed & water vapour feed back aint happening

enjoy the interglacial

When you refuse to view the evidence, no wonder you make such stupid statements Observer. The more you talk the worse you appear and the less your credibility.

I’ve never debated anyone quitew like you perm

you’re special

No Observer I only relate the science, what I say is straight from the researchers mouths, but unlike you who will quote anything from anyone who will knock the science. Get over it Observer, you are the nincompoop, only you don’t know it.

The_observer said:

Arthur the Observer Vs the Black nincompoop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw

So much for your science. But there again we expect no more.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

When you refuse to view the evidence, no wonder you make such stupid statements Observer. The more you talk the worse you appear and the less your credibility.

I’ve never debated anyone quitew like you perm

you’re special

No Observer I only relate the science, what I say is straight from the researchers mouths, but unlike you who will quote anything from anyone who will knock the science.

example please?

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Arthur the Observer Vs the Black nincompoop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw

So much for your science. But there again we expect no more.

Yes, you are the black night, through n through

Bruce Observer Vs Perm O’Hara

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

I’ve never debated anyone quitew like you perm

you’re special

No Observer I only relate the science, what I say is straight from the researchers mouths, but unlike you who will quote anything from anyone who will knock the science.

example please?

Climate scientists speak, they write papers. I only relate what I see, read or hear. Where do you get your information from – Texas?

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Arthur the Observer Vs the Black nincompoop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw

So much for your science. But there again we expect no more.

Yes, you are the black night, through n through

You are totally crazy Observer. Do they lock you up at night?

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

I’ve never debated anyone quitew like you perm

you’re special

No Observer I only relate the science, what I say is straight from the researchers mouths, but unlike you who will quote anything from anyone who will knock the science.

example please?

example please.

Just one from this thread will do.

The_observer said:

Bruce Observer Vs Perm O’Hara

Can’t even get it right, still probably not worth looking at.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

So much for your science. But there again we expect no more.

Yes, you are the black night, through n through

You are totally crazy Observer. Do they lock you up at night?

it just an accurate analogy nincompoop

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Bruce Observer Vs Perm O’Hara

Can’t even get it right, still probably not worth looking at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpu_lTDyd88

oh yeh its worth looking at

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

No Observer I only relate the science, what I say is straight from the researchers mouths, but unlike you who will quote anything from anyone who will knock the science.

example please?

example please.

Just one from this thread will do.

Scientists are everywhere Observer. In the link I provided there were several, why don’t you check them out?

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Yes, you are the black night, through n through

You are totally crazy Observer. Do they lock you up at night?

it just an accurate analogy nincompoop

:))))))))))

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Bruce Observer Vs Perm O’Hara

Can’t even get it right, still probably not worth looking at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpu_lTDyd88

oh yeh its worth looking at

:)))))))))))))))

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

example please?

example please.

Just one from this thread will do.

Scientists are everywhere Observer. In the link I provided there were several, why don’t you check them out?

well I know who I quoted on this thread.

You have posted a link to a Dr Karl article LOL

& linked sceptical science LOL x 2

pathetic nincompoopO

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

example please.

Just one from this thread will do.

Scientists are everywhere Observer. In the link I provided there were several, why don’t you check them out?

well I know who I quoted on this thread.

You have posted a link to a Dr Karl article LOL

& linked sceptical science LOL x 2

pathetic nincompoopO

Observer, you need to go to the link, look through it unti you see peoples names (often highlighted) with a date. These are the scientists. If you take your time I’m sure you will find some.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

So much for your science. But there again we expect no more.

Yes, you are the black night, through n through

You are totally crazy Observer. Do they lock you up at night?

very few people are locked up of a night now

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Yes, you are the black night, through n through

You are totally crazy Observer. Do they lock you up at night?

very few people are locked up of a night now

Well some definitely should, the Observer for one (and they should take his computer away).

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Scientists are everywhere Observer. In the link I provided there were several, why don’t you check them out?

well I know who I quoted on this thread.

You have posted a link to a Dr Karl article LOL

& linked sceptical science LOL x 2

pathetic nincompoopO

Observer, you need to go to the link, look through it unti you see peoples names (often highlighted) with a date. These are the scientists. If you take your time I’m sure you will find some.

LOL

you still haven’t told me you’re figure for climate sensitivity La nincompoop

2 x co2 = ?C

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

well I know who I quoted on this thread.

You have posted a link to a Dr Karl article LOL

& linked sceptical science LOL x 2

pathetic nincompoopO

Observer, you need to go to the link, look through it unti you see peoples names (often highlighted) with a date. These are the scientists. If you take your time I’m sure you will find some.

LOL

you still haven’t told me you’re figure for climate sensitivity La nincompoop

2 x co2 = ?C

:)))))))))))))))))))))

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Observer, you need to go to the link, look through it unti you see peoples names (often highlighted) with a date. These are the scientists. If you take your time I’m sure you will find some.

LOL

you still haven’t told me you’re figure for climate sensitivity La nincompoop

2 x co2 = ?C

:)))))))))))))))))))))

well well, that’s all sciency nincompoomie

you always avoid answering that question

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

LOL

you still haven’t told me you’re figure for climate sensitivity La nincompoop

2 x co2 = ?C

:)))))))))))))))))))))

well well, that’s all sciency nincompoomie

you always avoid answering that question

I haven’t, I referred you to the video in the link I supplied, plus that entire article was updated in this year. Don’t blame me if you can’t be bothered checking the information supplied.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

:)))))))))))))))))))))

well well, that’s all sciency nincompoomie

you always avoid answering that question

I haven’t, I referred you to the video in the link I supplied, plus that entire article was updated in this year. Don’t blame me if you can’t be bothered checking the information supplied.

what’s you figure for climate sensitivity perm???

2 x CO2 = ? C ???

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

LOL

you still haven’t told me you’re figure for climate sensitivity La nincompoop

2 x co2 = ?C

:)))))))))))))))))))))

It doesn’t help your argument when you refuse to answer simple questions.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

well well, that’s all sciency nincompoomie

you always avoid answering that question

I haven’t, I referred you to the video in the link I supplied, plus that entire article was updated in this year. Don’t blame me if you can’t be bothered checking the information supplied.

what’s you figure for climate sensitivity perm???

2 x CO2 = ? C ???

This all you can do isn’t it Observer, bring one of the most complicated systems down to single point. I suppose you are also a big fan of the number 42. What is the matter with you Observer are you the total fool? Read and watch the link I supplied and all the important information regarding temperatures will be revealed.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

LOL

you still haven’t told me you’re figure for climate sensitivity La nincompoop

2 x co2 = ?C

:)))))))))))))))))))))

It doesn’t help your argument when you refuse to answer simple questions.

The answer is in the link I supplied. Might help if you read and watched the video too.

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

:)))))))))))))))))))))

It doesn’t help your argument when you refuse to answer simple questions.

The answer is in the link I supplied. Might help if you read and watched the video too.

lets have it in your own words then perv

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

It doesn’t help your argument when you refuse to answer simple questions.

The answer is in the link I supplied. Might help if you read and watched the video too.

lets have it in your own words then perv

Because it is too complex, you cannot bring such matters down to simple slogans, you have been given the information, now go and view it!

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

I haven’t, I referred you to the video in the link I supplied, plus that entire article was updated in this year. Don’t blame me if you can’t be bothered checking the information supplied.

what’s you figure for climate sensitivity perm???

2 x CO2 = ? C ???

This all you can do isn’t it Observer, bring one of the most complicated systems down to single point. I suppose you are also a big fan of the number 42. What is the matter with you Observer are you the total fool? Read and watch the link I supplied and all the important information regarding temperatures will be revealed.

I’m a fan of 5.5

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The answer is in the link I supplied. Might help if you read and watched the video too.

lets have it in your own words then perv

Because it is too complex, you cannot bring such matters down to simple slogans, you have been given the information, now go and view it!

the ipcc can do it,,, with a simple slogan

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

lets have it in your own words then perv

Because it is too complex, you cannot bring such matters down to simple slogans, you have been given the information, now go and view it!

the ipcc can do it,,, with a simple slogan

What a jerk!

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Because it is too complex, you cannot bring such matters down to simple slogans, you have been given the information, now go and view it!

the ipcc can do it,,, with a simple slogan

What a jerk!

would you like to know what the ippc says for 2 x co2 = c ???

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

what’s you figure for climate sensitivity perm???

2 x CO2 = ? C ???

This all you can do isn’t it Observer, bring one of the most complicated systems down to single point. I suppose you are also a big fan of the number 42. What is the matter with you Observer are you the total fool? Read and watch the link I supplied and all the important information regarding temperatures will be revealed.

I’m a fan of 5.5

5.5 what?

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Because it is too complex, you cannot bring such matters down to simple slogans, you have been given the information, now go and view it!

the ipcc can do it,,, with a simple slogan

What a jerk!

you have no idea what I’m even talking about do you perv

The_observer said:

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

This all you can do isn’t it Observer, bring one of the most complicated systems down to single point. I suppose you are also a big fan of the number 42. What is the matter with you Observer are you the total fool? Read and watch the link I supplied and all the important information regarding temperatures will be revealed.

I’m a fan of 5.5

5.5 what?

oh you’d like it observer – its one of my thoughts, totally originally and available only here on the holiday forum

the idea is that if you want to know the meaning of life – its 5.5

5.5 meaning the lowest unemployment rate needed to keep the value of the currency – the government manufactures unemployment because if too many people were employed it would mean people could demand more money in wages as virtually no one would be unemployed seeking work and willing to work for any money

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

the ipcc can do it,,, with a simple slogan

What a jerk!

you have no idea what I’m even talking about do you perv

Observer, the climate is a highly complex subject with thousands of scientists adding pieces of information for us to appreciate the scale of the situation. You on the other hand think single snippets of information, especially from deniers tell it all. Well sorry to disappoint you Observer It doesn’t and never will. This is why you will never see the big picture as you are too busy sifting through the dirt.

wookiemeister said:

The_observer said:

wookiemeister said:

I’m a fan of 5.5

5.5 what?

oh you’d like it observer – its one of my thoughts, totally originally and available only here on the holiday forum

the idea is that if you want to know the meaning of life – its 5.5

5.5 meaning the lowest unemployment rate needed to keep the value of the currency – the government manufactures unemployment because if too many people were employed it would mean people could demand more money in wages as virtually no one would be unemployed seeking work and willing to work for any money

that’s informative, but I was talking climate sensitivity

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

What a jerk!

you have no idea what I’m even talking about do you perv

Observer, the climate is a highly complex subject with thousands of scientists adding pieces of information for us to appreciate the scale of the situation. You on the other hand think single snippets of information, especially from deniers tell it all. Well sorry to disappoint you Observer It doesn’t and never will. This is why you will never see the big picture as you are too busy sifting through the dirt.

you don’t understand the question perv. your rambling really shows your ignorance

wookiemeister said:

5.5 meaning the lowest unemployment rate needed to keep the value of the currency – the government manufactures unemployment because if too many people were employed it would mean people could demand more money in wages as virtually no one would be unemployed seeking work and willing to work for any money

I didn’t think this thread could get any stupider… Stupider is a word isn’t it?

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

you have no idea what I’m even talking about do you perv

Observer, the climate is a highly complex subject with thousands of scientists adding pieces of information for us to appreciate the scale of the situation. You on the other hand think single snippets of information, especially from deniers tell it all. Well sorry to disappoint you Observer It doesn’t and never will. This is why you will never see the big picture as you are too busy sifting through the dirt.

you don’t understand the question perv. your rambling really shows your ignorance

ok perv, whats the IPCC’s figure for climate sensitivity, & how has it changed since the last report????

you have 60 seconds from now….

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

5.5 meaning the lowest unemployment rate needed to keep the value of the currency – the government manufactures unemployment because if too many people were employed it would mean people could demand more money in wages as virtually no one would be unemployed seeking work and willing to work for any money

I didn’t think this thread could get any stupider… Stupider is a word isn’t it?

it is now brother

The_observer said:

wookiemeister said:

The_observer said:

5.5 what?

oh you’d like it observer – its one of my thoughts, totally originally and available only here on the holiday forum

the idea is that if you want to know the meaning of life – its 5.5

5.5 meaning the lowest unemployment rate needed to keep the value of the currency – the government manufactures unemployment because if too many people were employed it would mean people could demand more money in wages as virtually no one would be unemployed seeking work and willing to work for any money

that’s informative, but I was talking climate sensitivity

the climate is dependent on our economy

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

5.5 meaning the lowest unemployment rate needed to keep the value of the currency – the government manufactures unemployment because if too many people were employed it would mean people could demand more money in wages as virtually no one would be unemployed seeking work and willing to work for any money

I didn’t think this thread could get any stupider… Stupider is a word isn’t it?

feel free to throw anything in , I am

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Observer, the climate is a highly complex subject with thousands of scientists adding pieces of information for us to appreciate the scale of the situation. You on the other hand think single snippets of information, especially from deniers tell it all. Well sorry to disappoint you Observer It doesn’t and never will. This is why you will never see the big picture as you are too busy sifting through the dirt.

you don’t understand the question perv. your rambling really shows your ignorance

ok perv, whats the IPCC’s figure for climate sensitivity, & how has it changed since the last report????

you have 60 seconds from now….

times up stupid

wookiemeister said:

The_observer said:

wookiemeister said:

oh you’d like it observer – its one of my thoughts, totally originally and available only here on the holiday forum

the idea is that if you want to know the meaning of life – its 5.5

5.5 meaning the lowest unemployment rate needed to keep the value of the currency – the government manufactures unemployment because if too many people were employed it would mean people could demand more money in wages as virtually no one would be unemployed seeking work and willing to work for any money

that’s informative, but I was talking climate sensitivity

the climate is dependent on our economy

stop now before you disintegrate

The_observer said:

wookiemeister said:

The_observer said:

that’s informative, but I was talking climate sensitivity

the climate is dependent on our economy

stop now before you disintegrate

too late

wookiemeister said:

The_observer said:

wookiemeister said:

the climate is dependent on our economy

stop now before you disintegrate

too late

I come back only to find The_observer has grown feathers and taken to playing chess.

Anyway, for the Observer.

Predicting the Future

Good scientific theories are said to have ‘predictive power’. In other words, armed only with a theory, we should be able to make predictions about a subject. If the theory’s any good, the predictions will come true.

Here’s an example: when the Table of Elements was proposed, many elements were yet to be discovered. Using the theory behind the Periodic Table, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was able to predict the properties of germanium, gallium and scandium, despite the fact they hadn’t been discovered.

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.

What they don’t agree on is by how much. This issue is called ‘climate sensitivity’, the amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels. Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

PermeateFree said:

Anyway, for the Observer.

Predicting the Future

Good scientific theories are said to have ‘predictive power’. In other words, armed only with a theory, we should be able to make predictions about a subject. If the theory’s any good, the predictions will come true.

Here’s an example: when the Table of Elements was proposed, many elements were yet to be discovered. Using the theory behind the Periodic Table, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was able to predict the properties of germanium, gallium and scandium, despite the fact they hadn’t been discovered.

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.

What they don’t agree on is by how much. This issue is called ‘climate sensitivity’, the amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels. Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

so fuckwit, it took 3 hours for you to google ‘climate sensitivity’ & gain enough understanding of the concept to finally give me an answer to the simplest question one could be asked. And then you have the hide to give me a lecture on it, with an out dated & obsolete cut n paste.

You are void of the basics yet argue so arrogantly.

and again you link sceptical science,,, OMG

for your information the current estimate for climate sensitivity from the last IPCC report was

>> likely in the range 1.5 C to 4.5 C … changed from the previous report of 2 C to 4.5 C

Quite a “simple slogan” wouldn’t you say (no, of course you wouldn’t)

& with no ‘best estimate’ given!

The stated reason for not citing a best estimate in the AR5 is the substantial discrepancy between observation-based estimates of ECS (lower),
versus estimates from climate models (higher). AR4 was overconfident in its conclusions regarding climate sensitivity.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Anyway, for the Observer.

Predicting the Future

Good scientific theories are said to have ‘predictive power’. In other words, armed only with a theory, we should be able to make predictions about a subject. If the theory’s any good, the predictions will come true.

Here’s an example: when the Table of Elements was proposed, many elements were yet to be discovered. Using the theory behind the Periodic Table, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was able to predict the properties of germanium, gallium and scandium, despite the fact they hadn’t been discovered.

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.

What they don’t agree on is by how much. This issue is called ‘climate sensitivity’, the amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels. Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

so fuckwit, it took 3 hours for you to google ‘climate sensitivity’ & gain enough understanding of the concept to finally give me an answer to the simplest question one could be asked. And then you have the hide to give me a lecture on it, with an out dated & obsolete cut n paste.

You are void of the basics yet argue so arrogantly.

and again you link sceptical science,,, OMG

for your information the current estimate for climate sensitivity from the last IPCC report was

>> likely in the range 1.5 C to 4.5 C … changed from the previous report of 2 C to 4.5 C

Quite a “simple slogan” wouldn’t you say (no, of course you wouldn’t)

& with no ‘best estimate’ given!

The stated reason for not citing a best estimate in the AR5 is the substantial discrepancy between observation-based estimates of ECS (lower),
versus estimates from climate models (higher). AR4 was overconfident in its conclusions regarding climate sensitivity.

Observer, not only did I need to prepare my evening meal, but then had to eat it, plus watch a film on the TV. I apologise if I kept you waiting it was quite unintentional.

One other thing, I am becoming rather irritated with you continually calling me a fuckwit and nincompoop, so let us get things into perspective. It is you that is the Global Warming Denier and who calls thousands (vast majority) of Climate Scientists liars and charlatans. It is you who ignores and completely disregards their work, simply because they do not reflect your ridiculous and self-interested views. So Observer, just who is the fuckwit and nincompoop around here. Please remember you represent a tiny minority (although highly vocal group) of those that are total nutters or with vested interests. I think you should seriously consider the situation and no matter how unlikely, try to amend your ways.

PermeateFree said:

Observer, not only did I need to prepare my evening meal, but then had to eat it, plus watch a film on the TV. I apologise if I kept you waiting it was quite unintentional.

Lets recap
.
.
From: The_observer . . ID: 604351 time 20:49

what’s you estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity for 2 x co2 el nincompoop ?
================================

From: The observer . . ID: 604402 time 21:43

you still haven’t told me you’re figure for climate sensitivity La nincompoop
2 x co2 = ?C
===============================

From: PermeateFree . . ID: 604403 time 21:46

:)))))))))))))))))))))
==============================

From: The_observer . . ID: 604404 time 21:47 (now 1 hour since I first asked the question )

well well, that’s all sciency nincompoomie
you always avoid answering that question
==================================

From: PermeateFree . . . ID: 604405 time 21:53

I haven’t, I referred you to the video in the link I supplied, plus that entire article was updated in this year. Don’t blame me if you can’t be bothered checking the information supplied.
===============================

From: The_observer . . ID: 604406 time 21:54

what’s you figure for climate sensitivity perm???

2 x CO2 = ? C ???
=================================

From: Witty Rejoinder . . ID: 604408 time 21:57

To PermeateFree

“It doesn’t help your argument when you refuse to answer simple questions.”
===============================

From: PermeateFree . . ID: 604413 time 22:00

To Witty Rejoinder
The answer is in the link I supplied. Might help if you read and watched the video too.
====================================

From: PermeateFree . . ID: 604411 time 21:59

The observer: quote
>>> what’s you figure for climate sensitivity perm???
2 x CO2 = ? C ???

PermeateFree response
“This all you can do isn’t it Observer, bring one of the most complicated systems down to single point. I suppose you are also a big fan of the number 42. What is the matter with you Observer are you the total fool? Read and watch the link I supplied and all the important information regarding temperatures will be revealed.”
==================================

From: The_observer . . ID: 604414 time 22:01

PermeateFree; quote
>>The answer is in the link I supplied. Might help if you read and watched the video too.<<<

The observer response
“lets have it in your own words then perv”
===============================

From: PermeateFree . . ID: 604417 time 22:06

“Because it is too complex, you cannot bring such matters down to simple slogans, you have been given the information, now go and view it!”

================================

From: The_observer . . ID: 604422 time 22:09

PermeateFree; quote
>>>Because it is too complex, you cannot bring such matters down to simple slogans, you have been given the information, now go and view it!<<<

The observer response
“the ipcc can do it,,, with a simple slogan”
===================================

From: PermeateFree . . . ID: 604424 time 22:10

The observer: quote
>>>the ipcc can do it,,, with a simple slogan<<<

PermeateFree response
“What a jerk!”
================================

From: The_observer . . ID: 604426 time 22:12

would you like to know what the ippc says for 2 x co2 = c ???
===============================

From: The_observer . . ID : 604429 time 22:14

PermeateFree; quote
>>What a jerk!<<

The observer response # 2
“you have no idea what I’m even talking about do you perv”
======================================

From: PermeateFree . . ID: 604436 time 22:20

Observer, the climate is a highly complex subject with thousands of scientists adding pieces of information for us to appreciate the scale of the situation. You on the other hand think single snippets of information, especially from deniers tell it all. Well sorry to disappoint you Observer It doesn’t and never will. This is why you will never see the big picture as you are too busy sifting through the dirt.
==================================

From: The_observer . . ID: 604439 time 22:22

you don’t understand the question perv. your rambling really shows your ignorance
=============================

From: The_observer . . ID: 604441 time 22:25

ok perv, whats the IPCC’s figure for climate sensitivity, & how has it changed since the last report????

you have 60 seconds from now….
===============================

From: The_observer . . ID: 604447 time 22:28….(1 hour 39 minutes after first asking Perm the question)

times up stupid

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

the original question I put to Perm @ time 20:49 was –

what’s you estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity for 2 x co2?

The simple answer to that question, at least for anyone who has any understanding of climate change theory at all, would have been somewhere within the latest IPCC report; simply 1.5 C to 4.5 C for 2 x co2 or equivalent greenhouse gas forcing. If a person asked that question gave an answer outside that range one would expect that person to provide reasons for their conclusion.

After an exchange lasting one hour & thirty nine minutes, Perm the nincompoopO ignorant fuckwit could not supply the simple answer.
Perm’s – the nincompoopO ignorant fuckwit liar – excuse for not answering the simple question during the one hour & thirty nine minute exchange,,, plus a further 3 hours (googling)???

Quote “Observer, not only did I need to prepare my evening meal, but then had to eat it, plus watch a film on the TV. I apologise if I kept you waiting it was quite unintentional.

LOL El nincompoop La stupido

Arthur the Observer Vs the Black nincompoop signing off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Observer, not only did I need to prepare my evening meal, but then had to eat it, plus watch a film on the TV. I apologise if I kept you waiting it was quite unintentional.

Lets recap
.
.
From: The_observer . . ID: 604351 time 20:49

what’s you estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity for 2 x co2 el nincompoop ?
================================

From: The observer . . ID: 604402 time 21:43

you still haven’t told me you’re figure for climate sensitivity La nincompoop
2 x co2 = ?C
===============================

From: PermeateFree . . ID: 604403 time 21:46

:)))))))))))))))))))))
==============================

From: The_observer . . ID: 604404 time 21:47 (now 1 hour since I first asked the question )

well well, that’s all sciency nincompoomie
you always avoid answering that question
==================================

From: PermeateFree . . . ID: 604405 time 21:53

I haven’t, I referred you to the video in the link I supplied, plus that entire article was updated in this year. Don’t blame me if you can’t be bothered checking the information supplied.
===============================

From: The_observer . . ID: 604406 time 21:54

what’s you figure for climate sensitivity perm???

2 x CO2 = ? C ???
=================================

From: Witty Rejoinder . . ID: 604408 time 21:57

To PermeateFree

“It doesn’t help your argument when you refuse to answer simple questions.”
===============================

From: PermeateFree . . ID: 604413 time 22:00

To Witty Rejoinder
The answer is in the link I supplied. Might help if you read and watched the video too.
====================================

From: PermeateFree . . ID: 604411 time 21:59

The observer: quote
>>> what’s you figure for climate sensitivity perm???
2 x CO2 = ? C ???

PermeateFree response
“This all you can do isn’t it Observer, bring one of the most complicated systems down to single point. I suppose you are also a big fan of the number 42. What is the matter with you Observer are you the total fool? Read and watch the link I supplied and all the important information regarding temperatures will be revealed.”
==================================

From: The_observer . . ID: 604414 time 22:01

PermeateFree; quote
>>The answer is in the link I supplied. Might help if you read and watched the video too.<<<

The observer response
“lets have it in your own words then perv”
===============================

From: PermeateFree . . ID: 604417 time 22:06

“Because it is too complex, you cannot bring such matters down to simple slogans, you have been given the information, now go and view it!”

================================

From: The_observer . . ID: 604422 time 22:09

PermeateFree; quote
>>>Because it is too complex, you cannot bring such matters down to simple slogans, you have been given the information, now go and view it!<<<

The observer response
“the ipcc can do it,,, with a simple slogan”
===================================

From: PermeateFree . . . ID: 604424 time 22:10

The observer: quote
>>>the ipcc can do it,,, with a simple slogan<<<

PermeateFree response
“What a jerk!”
================================

From: The_observer . . ID: 604426 time 22:12

would you like to know what the ippc says for 2 x co2 = c ???
===============================

From: The_observer . . ID : 604429 time 22:14

PermeateFree; quote
>>What a jerk!<<

The observer response # 2
“you have no idea what I’m even talking about do you perv”
======================================

From: PermeateFree . . ID: 604436 time 22:20

Observer, the climate is a highly complex subject with thousands of scientists adding pieces of information for us to appreciate the scale of the situation. You on the other hand think single snippets of information, especially from deniers tell it all. Well sorry to disappoint you Observer It doesn’t and never will. This is why you will never see the big picture as you are too busy sifting through the dirt.
==================================

From: The_observer . . ID: 604439 time 22:22

you don’t understand the question perv. your rambling really shows your ignorance
=============================

From: The_observer . . ID: 604441 time 22:25

ok perv, whats the IPCC’s figure for climate sensitivity, & how has it changed since the last report????

you have 60 seconds from now….
===============================

From: The_observer . . ID: 604447 time 22:28….(1 hour 39 minutes after first asking Perm the question)

times up stupid

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

the original question I put to Perm @ time 20:49 was –

what’s you estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity for 2 x co2?

The simple answer to that question, at least for anyone who has any understanding of climate change theory at all, would have been somewhere within the latest IPCC report; simply 1.5 C to 4.5 C for 2 x co2 or equivalent greenhouse gas forcing. If a person asked that question gave an answer outside that range one would expect that person to provide reasons for their conclusion.

After an exchange lasting one hour & thirty nine minutes, Perm the nincompoopO ignorant fuckwit could not supply the simple answer.
Perm’s – the nincompoopO ignorant fuckwit liar – excuse for not answering the simple question during the one hour & thirty nine minute exchange,,, plus a further 3 hours (googling)???

Quote “Observer, not only did I need to prepare my evening meal, but then had to eat it, plus watch a film on the TV. I apologise if I kept you waiting it was quite unintentional.

LOL El nincompoop La stupido

Arthur the Observer Vs the Black nincompoop signing off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw

actually I think PermeateFree is a better observer than yourself
you can stay signed off if you like

CrazyNeutrino said:

actually I think PermeateFree is a better observer than yourself
you can stay signed off if you like

That’s great Crazy, El Nincompoop needs all you support

here a prize for your effort

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaqQhdt1qqk

The name calling really does detract from any scientific information given and even if correct would get peoples back up.

Cymek said:

The name calling really does detract from any scientific information given and even if correct would get peoples back up.

very true

Cymek said:

The name calling really does detract from any scientific information given and even if correct would get peoples back up.

He’s like a broken record.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

The name calling really does detract from any scientific information given and even if correct would get peoples back up.

He’s like a broken record.

from the grub who said he would harass, name call, & do whatever else it took to drive me from this forum.

I just can’t believe how pathetic your effort has been fuckwit

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

The name calling really does detract from any scientific information given and even if correct would get peoples back up.

He’s like a broken record.

from the grub who said he would harass, name call, & do whatever else it took to drive me from this forum.

I just can’t believe how pathetic your effort has been fuckwit

Like you normally do Observer, most if not all of the above, has been twisted to mean something else or is a figment of your imagination. The unfortunate part is you use the same distorted methods with scientific facts.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

He’s like a broken record.

from the grub who said he would harass, name call, & do whatever else it took to drive me from this forum.

I just can’t believe how pathetic your effort has been fuckwit

Like you normally do Observer, most if not all of the above, has been twisted to mean something else or is a figment of your imagination. The unfortunate part is you use the same distorted methods with scientific facts.

Chat thread….…El Nino La Nina (some months ago)

Peak Warming Man
Are they still forcasting an El Nino

OCDC
Yes

Peak Warming Man said
Fair enough

The observer
Peru says El Niño threat over, waters cooling and fish returning
LIMA (Reuters) – The worst of the potentially disastrous weather pattern El Nino is now behind Peru and cooling sea temperatures are luring back schools of anchovy, the key ingredient in fishmeal, authorities said on Friday. Temperatures in Peru’s Pacific peaked in June, rising 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit) above average levels, but have since retreated and will likely return to normal by August, the state committee that studies El Nino said. “The possibility of us seeing an extraordinary Nino is ruled out,” said German Vasquez, the head of the committee.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/peru-says-el-nino-threat-over-waters-cooling-232314417.html

PermeateFree
Now that is very embarrassing, fancy not knowing that when El Niño is active in Peru, it is the opposite in Australia (La Niña).

The_observer
Oh dear, yes, very embarrassing perm. I did not know that the earth simultaneously had a La nina & El nino going at the same time.
But then meteorologists don’t know that either.

PermeateFree
Bit irritating when you know you are right, yet the interpretation of the troll is regarded by many as being the correct explaination.

PermeateFree
But that is the situation. Dog you are so embarrassing Observer and you are just making it worse. Go and read what the Climate Scientists say about the El Nino and La Nina system.

The_observer
Hands up anyone who agrees with this statement –
“when El Niño is active in Peru, it is the opposite in Australia (La Niña).”
my hand is firmly down

PermeateFree
You are so ignorant Observer, no wonder no one can point anything out to you. As I said before, you are not only an embarrassment to yourself, but to everyone else. Please go somewhere else and make others cringe at your blunders

PermeateFree
There he goes again, just confusing and misleading. For your short attention span Observer, they do occur at the same time, but not in the same place. They swap between Australia and Peru. Gees you are so unbelievably dumb, go and read about it before coming here with your drivel and misinterpretations.

PermeateFree
>>Witty rejoinder “You cannot have an El Nino in Peru and Australia at the same time.”
Go read about it Witty, I’m tired of arguing with you.

Witty Rejoinder
Everyone agrees that you are wrong. It is you who should do some reading.

PermeateFree
OK then I have produced evidence, but you and others are just fucking with me. I am right and you know it. So if you can’t produce evidence then kindly FO.

PermeateFree
Don’t believe me, go read what the climate scientists say and of which I have produced two quotes. If you are so sure of your position, then supply some supporting information.

The_observer
Oh for fuck sakes
What is La Niña?
La Niña is defined as cooler than normal sea-surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific ocean
What us El Nino?
El Nino is defined as warmer than normal sea-surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific ocean

La Niña and El Niño are climate patterns.

CrazyNeutrino said:

La Niña and El Niño are climate patterns.

Bill & Ben are flower pot men

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

from the grub who said he would harass, name call, & do whatever else it took to drive me from this forum.

I just can’t believe how pathetic your effort has been fuckwit

Like you normally do Observer, most if not all of the above, has been twisted to mean something else or is a figment of your imagination. The unfortunate part is you use the same distorted methods with scientific facts.

Chat thread….…El Nino La Nina (some months ago)

Peak Warming Man
Are they still forcasting an El Nino

OCDC
Yes

Peak Warming Man said
Fair enough

The observer
Peru says El Niño threat over, waters cooling and fish returning
LIMA (Reuters) – The worst of the potentially disastrous weather pattern El Nino is now behind Peru and cooling sea temperatures are luring back schools of anchovy, the key ingredient in fishmeal, authorities said on Friday. Temperatures in Peru’s Pacific peaked in June, rising 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit) above average levels, but have since retreated and will likely return to normal by August, the state committee that studies El Nino said. “The possibility of us seeing an extraordinary Nino is ruled out,” said German Vasquez, the head of the committee.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/peru-says-el-nino-threat-over-waters-cooling-232314417.html

PermeateFree
Now that is very embarrassing, fancy not knowing that when El Niño is active in Peru, it is the opposite in Australia (La Niña).

The_observer
Oh dear, yes, very embarrassing perm. I did not know that the earth simultaneously had a La nina & El nino going at the same time.
But then meteorologists don’t know that either.

PermeateFree
Bit irritating when you know you are right, yet the interpretation of the troll is regarded by many as being the correct explaination.

PermeateFree
But that is the situation. Dog you are so embarrassing Observer and you are just making it worse. Go and read what the Climate Scientists say about the El Nino and La Nina system.

The_observer
Hands up anyone who agrees with this statement –
“when El Niño is active in Peru, it is the opposite in Australia (La Niña).”
my hand is firmly down

PermeateFree
You are so ignorant Observer, no wonder no one can point anything out to you. As I said before, you are not only an embarrassment to yourself, but to everyone else. Please go somewhere else and make others cringe at your blunders

PermeateFree
There he goes again, just confusing and misleading. For your short attention span Observer, they do occur at the same time, but not in the same place. They swap between Australia and Peru. Gees you are so unbelievably dumb, go and read about it before coming here with your drivel and misinterpretations.

PermeateFree
>>Witty rejoinder “You cannot have an El Nino in Peru and Australia at the same time.”
Go read about it Witty, I’m tired of arguing with you.

Witty Rejoinder
Everyone agrees that you are wrong. It is you who should do some reading.

PermeateFree
OK then I have produced evidence, but you and others are just fucking with me. I am right and you know it. So if you can’t produce evidence then kindly FO.

PermeateFree
Don’t believe me, go read what the climate scientists say and of which I have produced two quotes. If you are so sure of your position, then supply some supporting information.

The_observer
Oh for fuck sakes
What is La Niña?
La Niña is defined as cooler than normal sea-surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific ocean
What us El Nino?
El Nino is defined as warmer than normal sea-surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific ocean

For a start the above has nothing to do with your last post and what you claimed I said, but that is typical of you, when caught out change the subject. When you think of all things you have been wrong over the years (almost every post), you forget all those but remember a single one of mine and repeat it at ad infinitum. I have admitted I was wrong on several occasions now, but still you persist, plus it is hardy a major error as it just one event following the other, rather than alternating at the same time as I thought, but it is an error no less.

What is the matter with you Observer, are you mental, stupid or what. You are certainly fixated on anyone or any organisation who dares counter your crazy views that disregard just about all recent research; you appear to think this is the only way you can shut-up scientific facts. Well I am sorry science does not work like that, but it does however get fed up with those who present the same misinformation time and time again only in slightly different form.

You ought to see a doctor Observer and preferably a Psychiatrist. You are impossible to argue with, as you just keep going on and on to wear down your opponent. You never concede anything and never admit that you might be wrong.

Arthur the Observer Vs the Black nincompoop signing off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw

The_observer said:

Arthur the Observer Vs the Black nincompoop signing off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw

Seriously, you need to see a Psychiatrist Observer.

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

La Niña and El Niño are climate patterns.

Bill & Ben are flower pot men

Medical cannabis will be legal soon, NSW and Vic are considering its legalization

No point in attacking me, Im not going to stop smoking pot

and I dont let other people manipulate my emotions

this is one of the things about being emotionally intelligent

to be aware of and control your emotions all the time

swearing or referring to my pot smoking will do nothing

I dont get emotionally connected or emotionally involved with people online

La Niña and El Niño are well established climate patterns.

and most people know that

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

La Niña and El Niño are climate patterns.

Bill & Ben are flower pot men

Medical cannabis will be legal soon, NSW and Vic are considering its legalization

No point in attacking me, Im not going to stop smoking pot

and I dont let other people manipulate my emotions

this is one of the things about being emotionally intelligent

to be aware of and control your emotions all the time

swearing or referring to my pot smoking will do nothing

I dont get emotionally connected or emotionally involved with people online

La Niña and El Niño are well established climate patterns.

and most people know that

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

Bill & Ben are flower pot men

Medical cannabis will be legal soon, NSW and Vic are considering its legalization

No point in attacking me, Im not going to stop smoking pot

and I dont let other people manipulate my emotions

this is one of the things about being emotionally intelligent

to be aware of and control your emotions all the time

swearing or referring to my pot smoking will do nothing

I dont get emotionally connected or emotionally involved with people online

La Niña and El Niño are well established climate patterns.

and most people know that

http://amsterdammarijuanaseeds.com/seedshop/amnesia-trance-feminized-seeds

>>>> Subject: re: Global warming: oceans hide the heat <<<<

From: The_observer . . . .ID: 603159
Subject: re: Global warming: oceans hide the heat

So the Doctor’s pushing the excuse for the 18 year pause in warming not only on “””the oceans ate global warming’’’ but also the unproven theory the ‘extra heat’ has been transported & hidden below 700 m.

What evidence did he link to back his theory???

None! Of course.

======================

continuing on from my post ID: 603159

Wunsch and Heimbach (2014)
Bidecadal Thermal Changes in the Abyssal Ocean

Two of the world’s premiere ocean scientists, Carl Wunsch – Harvard and Patrick Heimbach – MIT, have addressed the data limitations that currently prevent the oceanographic community from resolving the differences among various estimates of changing ocean heat content.

As a by-product of that analysis Wunsch and Heimbach (2014)
1) determined the deepest oceans are cooling
2) estimated a much slower rate of ocean warming
3) highlighted where the greatest uncertainties existed due to the ever changing locations of heating and cooling
4) specified concerns with previous methods used to construct changes in ocean heat content, such as Balmaseda and Trenberth’s re-analysis.

I now present

Evidence of deep ocean cooling?
Posted on October 5, 2014
by Judith Curry

New research suggests that the upper layer of the ocean has warmed more than had been thought previously while the deeper ocean has cooled rather than warmed in recent years.

Context

Kevin Trenberth summed up the problem in his famous statement – “it’s a travesty that we can’t find the missing heat”.

Climate scientists have been inferring (mainly from models) that the missing heat (during the pause) is hiding in the deep ocean.

Two new papers have just been published in Nature Climate Change:

Nature Climate Change
Deep-ocean contribution to sea level and energy budget not detectable over the past decade
W. Llovel, J. K.Willis, F.W. Landererand and I. Fukumori

Nature Climate Change
Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming:
Paul J. Durack, Peter J. Gleckler, FelixW. Landerer and Karl E. Taylor

Reporting Climate Science< has a good article covering both papers Scientists Find Clues to Missing Energy. Excerpts:

The implication of this is that a build up of heat in the deep oceans is not the solution to the so called missing energy mystery that has puzzled climate scientists trying to match the observed heat build up on the planet with what the theory of global warming suggests should be happening. A number of climate scientists had previously suggested that heat is accumulating in the deep oceans and that this accounts for the missing energy.

Separately, an analysis of satellite measurements and ocean temperature data has revealed that that the deeper half of the ocean (below 2 km depth) has, on average, not warmed from 2005 to 2013 and may have cooled – in contrast to the prevailing view, based on sparse ship-based measurements, that had suggested deep ocean warming between the 1990s and 2005.

JC reflections

Both papers indeed present clues related to ocean heat content and the missing heat, but there are substantial uncertainties associated with both analyses.

I think the Lloverl paper is important, in terms of attempting to reconcile available temperature and sea level rise measurements within the uncertainties, but the uncertainties are pretty substantial.

The Durack et al. paper has implications for ocean uptake in estimates of climate sensitivity (as per the methodology used by Lewis/Curry).

The bottom line is that uncertainties in ocean heat content are very large, and there is no particularly convincing evidence that the ‘missing heat’ is hiding in the ocean!

The_observer said:

>>>> Subject: re: Global warming: oceans hide the heat <<<<

From: The_observer . . . .ID: 603159
Subject: re: Global warming: oceans hide the heat

So the Doctor’s pushing the excuse for the 18 year pause in warming not only on “””the oceans ate global warming’’’ but also the unproven theory the ‘extra heat’ has been transported & hidden below 700 m.

What evidence did he link to back his theory???

None! Of course.

======================

continuing on from my post ID: 603159

Wunsch and Heimbach (2014)
Bidecadal Thermal Changes in the Abyssal Ocean

Two of the world’s premiere ocean scientists, Carl Wunsch – Harvard and Patrick Heimbach – MIT, have addressed the data limitations that currently prevent the oceanographic community from resolving the differences among various estimates of changing ocean heat content.

As a by-product of that analysis Wunsch and Heimbach (2014)
1) determined the deepest oceans are cooling
2) estimated a much slower rate of ocean warming
3) highlighted where the greatest uncertainties existed due to the ever changing locations of heating and cooling
4) specified concerns with previous methods used to construct changes in ocean heat content, such as Balmaseda and Trenberth’s re-analysis.

I now present

Evidence of deep ocean cooling?
Posted on October 5, 2014
by Judith Curry

New research suggests that the upper layer of the ocean has warmed more than had been thought previously while the deeper ocean has cooled rather than warmed in recent years.

Context

Kevin Trenberth summed up the problem in his famous statement – “it’s a travesty that we can’t find the missing heat”.

Climate scientists have been inferring (mainly from models) that the missing heat (during the pause) is hiding in the deep ocean.

Two new papers have just been published in Nature Climate Change:

Nature Climate Change
Deep-ocean contribution to sea level and energy budget not detectable over the past decade
W. Llovel, J. K.Willis, F.W. Landererand and I. Fukumori

Nature Climate Change
Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming:
Paul J. Durack, Peter J. Gleckler, FelixW. Landerer and Karl E. Taylor

Reporting Climate Science< has a good article covering both papers Scientists Find Clues to Missing Energy. Excerpts:

The implication of this is that a build up of heat in the deep oceans is not the solution to the so called missing energy mystery that has puzzled climate scientists trying to match the observed heat build up on the planet with what the theory of global warming suggests should be happening. A number of climate scientists had previously suggested that heat is accumulating in the deep oceans and that this accounts for the missing energy.

Separately, an analysis of satellite measurements and ocean temperature data has revealed that that the deeper half of the ocean (below 2 km depth) has, on average, not warmed from 2005 to 2013 and may have cooled – in contrast to the prevailing view, based on sparse ship-based measurements, that had suggested deep ocean warming between the 1990s and 2005.

JC reflections

Both papers indeed present clues related to ocean heat content and the missing heat, but there are substantial uncertainties associated with both analyses.

I think the Lloverl paper is important, in terms of attempting to reconcile available temperature and sea level rise measurements within the uncertainties, but the uncertainties are pretty substantial.

The Durack et al. paper has implications for ocean uptake in estimates of climate sensitivity (as per the methodology used by Lewis/Curry).

The bottom line is that uncertainties in ocean heat content are very large, and there is no particularly convincing evidence that the ‘missing heat’ is hiding in the ocean!

Bugger off Observer, you’re fucking crazy.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

>>>> Subject: re: Global warming: oceans hide the heat <<<<

From: The_observer . . . .ID: 603159
Subject: re: Global warming: oceans hide the heat

So the Doctor’s pushing the excuse for the 18 year pause in warming not only on “””the oceans ate global warming’’’ but also the unproven theory the ‘extra heat’ has been transported & hidden below 700 m.

What evidence did he link to back his theory???

None! Of course.

======================

continuing on from my post ID: 603159

Wunsch and Heimbach (2014)
Bidecadal Thermal Changes in the Abyssal Ocean

Two of the world’s premiere ocean scientists, Carl Wunsch – Harvard and Patrick Heimbach – MIT, have addressed the data limitations that currently prevent the oceanographic community from resolving the differences among various estimates of changing ocean heat content.

As a by-product of that analysis Wunsch and Heimbach (2014)
1) determined the deepest oceans are cooling
2) estimated a much slower rate of ocean warming
3) highlighted where the greatest uncertainties existed due to the ever changing locations of heating and cooling
4) specified concerns with previous methods used to construct changes in ocean heat content, such as Balmaseda and Trenberth’s re-analysis.

I now present

Evidence of deep ocean cooling?
Posted on October 5, 2014
by Judith Curry

New research suggests that the upper layer of the ocean has warmed more than had been thought previously while the deeper ocean has cooled rather than warmed in recent years.

Context

Kevin Trenberth summed up the problem in his famous statement – “it’s a travesty that we can’t find the missing heat”.

Climate scientists have been inferring (mainly from models) that the missing heat (during the pause) is hiding in the deep ocean.

Two new papers have just been published in Nature Climate Change:

Nature Climate Change
Deep-ocean contribution to sea level and energy budget not detectable over the past decade
W. Llovel, J. K.Willis, F.W. Landererand and I. Fukumori

Nature Climate Change
Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming:
Paul J. Durack, Peter J. Gleckler, FelixW. Landerer and Karl E. Taylor

Reporting Climate Science< has a good article covering both papers Scientists Find Clues to Missing Energy. Excerpts:

The implication of this is that a build up of heat in the deep oceans is not the solution to the so called missing energy mystery that has puzzled climate scientists trying to match the observed heat build up on the planet with what the theory of global warming suggests should be happening. A number of climate scientists had previously suggested that heat is accumulating in the deep oceans and that this accounts for the missing energy.

Separately, an analysis of satellite measurements and ocean temperature data has revealed that that the deeper half of the ocean (below 2 km depth) has, on average, not warmed from 2005 to 2013 and may have cooled – in contrast to the prevailing view, based on sparse ship-based measurements, that had suggested deep ocean warming between the 1990s and 2005.

JC reflections

Both papers indeed present clues related to ocean heat content and the missing heat, but there are substantial uncertainties associated with both analyses.

I think the Lloverl paper is important, in terms of attempting to reconcile available temperature and sea level rise measurements within the uncertainties, but the uncertainties are pretty substantial.

The Durack et al. paper has implications for ocean uptake in estimates of climate sensitivity (as per the methodology used by Lewis/Curry).

The bottom line is that uncertainties in ocean heat content are very large, and there is no particularly convincing evidence that the ‘missing heat’ is hiding in the ocean!

Bugger off Observer, you’re fucking crazy.

what??? still not sciency enough for you fuckwit???

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

>>>> Subject: re: Global warming: oceans hide the heat <<<<

From: The_observer . . . .ID: 603159
Subject: re: Global warming: oceans hide the heat

So the Doctor’s pushing the excuse for the 18 year pause in warming not only on “””the oceans ate global warming’’’ but also the unproven theory the ‘extra heat’ has been transported & hidden below 700 m.

What evidence did he link to back his theory???

None! Of course.

======================

continuing on from my post ID: 603159

Wunsch and Heimbach (2014)
Bidecadal Thermal Changes in the Abyssal Ocean

Two of the world’s premiere ocean scientists, Carl Wunsch – Harvard and Patrick Heimbach – MIT, have addressed the data limitations that currently prevent the oceanographic community from resolving the differences among various estimates of changing ocean heat content.

As a by-product of that analysis Wunsch and Heimbach (2014)
1) determined the deepest oceans are cooling
2) estimated a much slower rate of ocean warming
3) highlighted where the greatest uncertainties existed due to the ever changing locations of heating and cooling
4) specified concerns with previous methods used to construct changes in ocean heat content, such as Balmaseda and Trenberth’s re-analysis.

I now present

Evidence of deep ocean cooling?
Posted on October 5, 2014
by Judith Curry

New research suggests that the upper layer of the ocean has warmed more than had been thought previously while the deeper ocean has cooled rather than warmed in recent years.

Context

Kevin Trenberth summed up the problem in his famous statement – “it’s a travesty that we can’t find the missing heat”.

Climate scientists have been inferring (mainly from models) that the missing heat (during the pause) is hiding in the deep ocean.

Two new papers have just been published in Nature Climate Change:

Nature Climate Change
Deep-ocean contribution to sea level and energy budget not detectable over the past decade
W. Llovel, J. K.Willis, F.W. Landererand and I. Fukumori

Nature Climate Change
Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming:
Paul J. Durack, Peter J. Gleckler, FelixW. Landerer and Karl E. Taylor

Reporting Climate Science< has a good article covering both papers Scientists Find Clues to Missing Energy. Excerpts:

The implication of this is that a build up of heat in the deep oceans is not the solution to the so called missing energy mystery that has puzzled climate scientists trying to match the observed heat build up on the planet with what the theory of global warming suggests should be happening. A number of climate scientists had previously suggested that heat is accumulating in the deep oceans and that this accounts for the missing energy.

Separately, an analysis of satellite measurements and ocean temperature data has revealed that that the deeper half of the ocean (below 2 km depth) has, on average, not warmed from 2005 to 2013 and may have cooled – in contrast to the prevailing view, based on sparse ship-based measurements, that had suggested deep ocean warming between the 1990s and 2005.

JC reflections

Both papers indeed present clues related to ocean heat content and the missing heat, but there are substantial uncertainties associated with both analyses.

I think the Lloverl paper is important, in terms of attempting to reconcile available temperature and sea level rise measurements within the uncertainties, but the uncertainties are pretty substantial.

The Durack et al. paper has implications for ocean uptake in estimates of climate sensitivity (as per the methodology used by Lewis/Curry).

The bottom line is that uncertainties in ocean heat content are very large, and there is no particularly convincing evidence that the ‘missing heat’ is hiding in the ocean!

Bugger off Observer, you’re fucking crazy.

what??? still not sciency enough for you fuckwit???

If anyone is a fuckwit around here it is you, so fuck off idiot.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Bugger off Observer, you’re fucking crazy.

what??? still not sciency enough for you fuckwit???

If anyone is a fuckwit around here it is you, so fuck off idiot.

come on nincompoop,,, this is completely ON topic,,, to your thread.

why would you not want to discuss my post ???

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

what??? still not sciency enough for you fuckwit???

If anyone is a fuckwit around here it is you, so fuck off idiot.

come on nincompoop,,, this is completely ON topic,,, to your thread.

why would you not want to discuss my post ???

You cannot win arguing with an idiot.

come on nincompoop,,, this is completely ON topic,,, to your thread.

why would you not want to discuss my post ???

your mate Karl says the pause in warming is due to the ‘missing heat hiding below the waves,,, deep deep down.

he gave no evidence. You believe him.

I give evidence that shows he is a liar

comment ?

PS. WILL YOUR RESPONSE TAKE 3 HOURS