Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes Rose

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Yes, that will work until it doesn't.

That's true. If we enter into a whole different temperature trend that lasts for centuries, like the Little ice Age or the warming that is bringing us out of the Little ice Age, then that wouldn't work so well at those hinge times.

 

[LowDown]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

That's true. If we enter into a whole different temperature trend that lasts for centuries, like the Little ice Age or the warming that is bringing us out of the Little ice Age, then that wouldn't work so well at those hinge times.

The Little Ice Age is an interesting phenomenon. Had our current climate scientists been living at the height of the Medieval Warm Period with all their computers and methods they would not have been able to predict that the following 600 years would see temperatures drop steadily. There are several explanations proposed for what caused the Little Ice Age, and most of them involve things that are currently not predictable, such as volcanic activity, changes in solar activity, a shutdown of oceanic thermohaline circulation, and shifts in populations due to catastrophes. Needless to say, climate models don't take these factors into account except in terms of assumptions about aerosol levels and so on.

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

The Little Ice Age is an interesting phenomenon. Had our current climate scientists been living at the height of the Medieval Warm Period with all their computers and methods they would not have been able to predict that the following 600 years would see temperatures drop steadily. There are several explanations proposed for what caused the Little Ice Age, and most of them involve things that are currently not predictable, such as volcanic activity, changes in solar activity, a shutdown of oceanic thermohaline circulation, and shifts in populations due to catastrophes. Needless to say, climate models don't take these factors into account except in terms of assumptions about aerosol levels and so on.

That is true. Looking at CO2 as a "magic bullet" to explain all climate vacillation is like killing the guy on the triangle when the orchestra can't get the rhythm right.

Wow, how many metaphors can one guy mix into a confusing statement?

 

[monkeyloveafight]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

That is true. Looking at CO2 as a "magic bullet" to explain all climate vacillation is like killing the guy on the triangle when the orchestra can't get the rhythm right.

Yes it would be. Who is looking at CO2 as a "magic bullet" to explain all climate vacillation?

What is the point of this silly strawman?

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Yes it would be. Who is looking at CO2 as a "magic bullet" to explain all climate vacillation?

What is the point of this silly strawman?

The A in AGW means that Man is causing the warming. Without CO2 as the "Magic Bullet", then the A goes away and the causal line to Man disappears.

GW warming is one thing. AGW is a very different thing.

It's the difference between dying in your sleep and getting shot in a premeditated murder.

 

[monkeyloveafight]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

The A in AGW means that Man is causing the warming. Without CO2 as the "Magic Bullet", then the A goes away and the causal line to Man disappears.

GW warming is one thing. AGW is a very different thing.

It's the difference between dying in your sleep and getting shot in a premeditated murder.

No - you wrote:

Looking at CO2 as a "magic bullet" to explain all climate vacillation....


Please answer the question:

Who is looking at CO2 as a "magic bullet" to explain all climate vacillation?



What is the point of this silly strawman?

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

No - you wrote:

Looking at CO2 as a "magic bullet" to explain all climate vacillation....


Please answer the question:

Who is looking at CO2 as a "magic bullet" to explain all climate vacillation?



What is the point of this silly strawman?

With apologies to Kipling, "To hear you words twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..." Are you really trying to get into a it depends on what is is?

Alright then. Please enlighten me. Exactly what share of climate vacillation is directly attributable to the activities of Man? I am sorry that offended your delicate sensibilities.

Pending your clarification, I will amend the the request for the explanation to include only that portion that you are ready to prove.

 

[monkeyloveafight]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

With apologies to Kipling, "To hear you words twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..." Are you really trying to get into a it depends on what is is?

Alright then. Please enlighten me. Exactly what share of climate vacillation is directly attributable to the activities of Man? I am sorry that offended your delicate sensibilities.

Pending your clarification, I will amend the the request for the explanation to include only that portion that you are ready to prove.

No - I think you better explain why you deliberately tried to set up a stupid strawman argument.

Nobody is looking at CO2 as a "magic bullet" to explain all climate vacillation

So why did you write:
Looking at CO2 as a "magic bullet" to explain all climate vacillation....

Why don't you try being honest with whatever it is you want to say?

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

No - I think you better explain why you deliberately tried to set up a stupid strawman argument.

Nobody is looking at CO2 as a "magic bullet" to explain all climate vacillation

So why did you write:
Looking at CO2 as a "magic bullet" to explain all climate vacillation....

Why don't you try being honest with whatever it is you want to say?

Those who support the notion of AGW say that if the man made emission of CO2 never occurred, then Global warming also would never have occurred. They cite nothing else. It is they who are citing the magic bullet. I am merely noticing what they have said.

Are you saying that the Man made contribution of CO2 has no impact on climate? Some impact? I have no idea why you are so excited about this particular choice of words. If you want to discuss the topic, then proceed if not, then don't. You can not discuss something by simply not discussing it. There is no need to flounder around saying nothing at all with so many words.

I may read your next rave.

 

[monkeyloveafight]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Those who support the notion of AGW say that if the man made emission of CO2 never occurred, then Global warming also would never have occurred. They cite nothing else. It is they who are citing the magic bullet. I am merely noticing what they have said.

No - you are being deliberately dishonest.

You wrote:
Looking at CO2 as a "magic bullet" to explain all climate vacillation....
i have never heard anyone suggest that CO2 can explain all climate vacillation....

you told a deliberate lie.
Why did you attempt to set up a stupid strawman arguement like this?

Are you saying that the Man made contribution of CO2 has no impact on climate?

No - the Man made contribution of CO2 has a significant impact on climate.
This is acknowledged by virtually every scientific and academic body on the planet.

Some impact? I have no idea why you are so excited about this particular choice of words.

Because you told a deliberate lie to try to set up a strawman arguement

You wrote:

Looking at CO2 as a "magic bullet" to explain all climate vacillation....
i have never heard anyone suggest that CO2 can explain all climate vacillation. Why did you suggest anyone had?

If you want to discuss the topic, then proceed if not, then don't. You can not discuss something by simply not discussing it. There is no need to flounder around saying nothing at all with so many words.

If you want to discuss the topic, then proceed with out telling lies. If not, then don't. You can not discuss something by starting out with a false premise.

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

No - you are being deliberately dishonest.

You wrote:
Looking at CO2 as a "magic bullet" to explain all climate vacillation....
i have never heard anyone suggest that CO2 can explain all climate vacillation....

you told a deliberate lie.
Why did you attempt to set up a stupid strawman arguement like this?


No - the Man made contribution of CO2 has a significant impact on climate.
This is acknowledged by virtually every scientific and academic body on the planet.



Because you told a deliberate lie to try to set up a strawman arguement

You wrote:

Looking at CO2 as a "magic bullet" to explain all climate vacillation....
i have never heard anyone suggest that CO2 can explain all climate vacillation. Why did you suggest anyone had?



If you want to discuss the topic, then proceed with out telling lies. If not, then don't. You can not discuss something by starting out with a false premise.

The AGW proponents claim that CO2 is the prime driver of Climate Change. If you would like to address that, then do so. If you would like to continue to direct throw away words, then do that.

Have fun playing with yourself.

 

[monkeyloveafight]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

The AGW proponents claim that CO2 is the prime driver of Climate Change. If you would like to address that, then do so. If you would like to continue to direct throw away words, then do that.

Have fun playing with yourself.

Typical. Tell a lie and try to squirm away when confronted with it

You wrote:

Looking at CO2 as a "magic bullet" to explain all climate vacillation....
i have never heard anyone suggest that CO2 can explain all climate vacillation. Why did you suggest anyone had?

You can not discuss something by starting out with a false premise.

Stop trying to set up stupid strawmen, tell the truth, and people may take you seriously.

You can't just tell lies, then try to pretend it didn't happen.

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Typical. Tell a lie and try to squirm away when confronted with it

You wrote:

Looking at CO2 as a "magic bullet" to explain all climate vacillation....
i have never heard anyone suggest that CO2 can explain all climate vacillation. Why did you suggest anyone had?

You can not discuss something by starting out with a false premise.

Stop trying to set up stupid strawmen, tell the truth, and people may take you seriously.

You can't just tell lies, then try to pretend it didn't happen.

*yawn*

 

[Deuce]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

*yawn*

"Prime" is not the same thing as "all." Hope this helps your confusion.

The second thing that might help is realizing that the "prime" driver of a climate change is not always the same thing, so when someone references CO2 as a prime driver of climate change they mean the current trend. Not all trends in history. Sometimes its solar variations, sometimes its orbital mechanics, this one time it was a freaking huge asteroid even!

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

"Prime" is not the same thing as "all." Hope this helps your confusion.

The second thing that might help is realizing that the "prime" driver of a climate change is not always the same thing, so when someone references CO2 as a prime driver of climate change they mean the current trend. Not all trends in history. Sometimes its solar variations, sometimes its orbital mechanics, this one time it was a freaking huge asteroid even!

I appreciate the nuance.

I just don't happen to think that the climate system has a "prime driver" unless, of course, you are referring to the Sun.

It's difficult to grasp how CO2 could be the Prime driver when seemingly every other cause and effect displaces it and makes the climate reaction depart from the predicted outcomes laid forth by those who claim to know.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

I appreciate the nuance.

I just don't happen to think that the climate system has a "prime driver" unless, of course, you are referring to the Sun.

It's difficult to grasp how CO2 could be the Prime driver when seemingly every other cause and effect displaces it and makes the climate reaction depart from the predicted outcomes laid forth by those who claim to know.

You're literally arguing semantics here.

And this departure from predicted outcomes isn't as significant as you think.

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

You're literally arguing semantics here.

And this departure from predicted outcomes isn't as significant as you think.

In most cases, it's more than 100%.

At the level of change they are calling to question, the amount of actual temperature is insignificant, but the whole point of their thesis is that the small change is very important. Their inability to make accurate predictions calls to question their competence.

If they are incompetent, and their predictions say they are, then then their predictions of change and the accompanying doom seem poorly founded.

There is plenty of evidence to say that we have been warmer than today during this interglacial. Given that, I just don't see the point in constructing a man made cause for climate change.

Is it interesting to you that controlling the spending of the federal Government is said to be impossible while the control of the climate is within our grasp? This is an interesting combination of delusion from my perspective.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

In most cases, it's more than 100%.

At the level of change they are calling to question, the amount of actual temperature is insignificant, but the whole point of their thesis is that the small change is very important. Their inability to make accurate predictions calls to question their competence.

If they are incompetent, and their predictions say they are, then then their predictions of change and the accompanying doom seem poorly founded.

There is plenty of evidence to say that we have been warmer than today during this interglacial. Given that, I just don't see the point in constructing a man made cause for climate change.

Is it interesting to you that controlling the spending of the federal Government is said to be impossible while the control of the climate is within our grasp? This is an interesting combination of delusion from my perspective.

This premise is built upon a fundamental misunderstanding as to the nature of climate modeling.

And since when does "it has been warmer before" rule out the possibility of human influence? That's like saying cigarettes can't possibly cause lung cancer because lung cancer existed before cigarettes.

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

This premise is built upon a fundamental misunderstanding as to the nature of climate modeling.

And since when does "it has been warmer before" rule out the possibility of human influence? That's like saying cigarettes can't possibly cause lung cancer because lung cancer existed before cigarettes.

Actually, no, it's not the same thing.

While lung cancer did exist before smoking, the advent of lung cancer was a very rare thing. Doctors would actually call others over to see the lungs of a victim saying that you may never see this again, but look at this example of lung cancer. Smoking tobacco was happening at the time, but the use of "ready mades" was not yet wide spread. When the tobacco companies starting adding their Flavor enhancers which were and are a witch's brew of poisons, that is what created the dramatic increase in the advent of Lung cancer cases.

This is more like the old joke about the guy standing in Times Square and snapping his fingers claiming that it keeps the elephants away. When told there were no elephants in Times Square, he simply replies that it's working.

If you are trying to prove that something is happening and it is happening for a particular cause, that is exactly what is required. That proof is not available.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Actually, no, it's not the same thing.

While lung cancer did exist before smoking, the advent of lung cancer was a very rare thing. Doctors would actually call others over to see the lungs of a victim saying that you may never see this again, but look at this example of lung cancer. Smoking tobacco was happening at the time, but the use of "ready mades" was not yet wide spread. When the tobacco companies starting adding their Flavor enhancers which were and are a witch's brew of poisons, that is what created the dramatic increase in the advent of Lung cancer cases.

This is more like the old joke about the guy standing in Times Square and snapping his fingers claiming that it keeps the elephants away. When told there were no elephants in Times Square, he simply replies that it's working.

If you are trying to prove that something is happening and it is happening for a particular cause, that is exactly what is required. That proof is not available.

Now you're changing the argument.

There is plenty of evidence to say that we have been warmer than today during this interglacial. Given that, I just don't see the point in constructing a man made cause for climate change.

You seem to think that because the climate has previously been warmer, there's no point in even trying to research the topic. You seem to think that past temperature changes makes human influence impossible.

So, clarify what your argument is, please. Is AGW impossible or is it possible but unproven?

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Now you're changing the argument.



You seem to think that because the climate has previously been warmer, there's no point in even trying to research the topic. You seem to think that past temperature changes makes human influence impossible.

So, clarify what your argument is, please. Is AGW impossible or is it possible but unproven?

Anything is possible. This thing is unproven in the large sense.

If the argument is that reducing the Man Made emission of CO2 will reduce warming, and it is, then that argument is not supported by the evidence.

The impact of the increase of CO2 on the temperature as forecast by the AGW is simply not happening.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Anything is possible. This thing is unproven in the large sense.

If the argument is that reducing the Man Made emission of CO2 will reduce warming, and it is, then that argument is not supported by the evidence.

The impact of the increase of CO2 on the temperature as forecast by the AGW is simply not happening.

Again, the misunderstanding of the models.

They aren't... precognition. A climate model isn't telling you "this is what is going to happen."

Instead, a climate model is telling you "given X inputs, we expect Y results." The inputs include more than just CO2, obviously, because climate depends on more than just CO2.

Say I have a climate model. I enter in certain parameters. It tracks with real temperatures well for a while, but then a massive asteroid strikes the earth and plunges us into an ice age, which my model failed to predict.

Is the model useless? Is it wrong?

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Again, the misunderstanding of the models.

They aren't... precognition. A climate model isn't telling you "this is what is going to happen."

Instead, a climate model is telling you "given X inputs, we expect Y results." The inputs include more than just CO2, obviously, because climate depends on more than just CO2.

Say I have a climate model. I enter in certain parameters. It tracks with real temperatures well for a while, but then a massive asteroid strikes the earth and plunges us into an ice age, which my model failed to predict.

Is the model useless? Is it wrong?

If that was the reason for the models failing, that would be a different thing than reality. The failing is caused not by interstellar disasters but by the misunderstanding a of a system whose complexities are beyond the level of the current understanding offered by the state of the art.

I'm not claiming a conspiracy or anything of that sort. I am simply pointing to the obvious.

The models do not account for all of the interactions and there are plenty. When the fail rate is 100%, at some point we need to accept that they are failing.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

If that was the reason for the models failing, that would be a different thing than reality. The failing is caused not by interstellar disasters but by the misunderstanding a of a system whose complexities are beyond the level of the current understanding offered by the state of the art.

I'm not claiming a conspiracy or anything of that sort. I am simply pointing to the obvious.

The models do not account for all of the interactions and there are plenty. When the fail rate is 100%, at some point we need to accept that they are failing.

The "failing" was caused by an external factor - the sun. (smaller but contributing factor: some assumptions have to be made about CO2 emissions when you run the model. emissions ended up slightly less than the "most likely" model)

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

The "failing" was caused by an external factor - the sun. (smaller but contributing factor: some assumptions have to be made about CO2 emissions when you run the model. emissions ended up slightly less than the "most likely" model)

If you're talking about the Hansen Scenarios from the 1988 testimony, then the Scenario closest to the one defined was A and the actual performance of the climate was exceeded by the projection of C. That was a miss of about a 150%.