Warming Trend Slump

[GPS_Flex]

Over the past 15 years, Co2 radiative forcing levels are at the highest they have ever been yet the global warming trend has leveled out during this same time period. Just curious, is 15 years of no significant warming just a statistical micro trend or are there other factors at play here? If you think there are other factors causing this slowdown or temporary cessation in global warming, what are your favorite theories?


Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[Deuce]

You left decreasing solar output out of your poll!

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Maybe Deuce isn't flying his plane as much, that could account for the levelig off.

 

[GPS_Flex]

You left decreasing solar output out of your poll!

Is that to say that you believe fluctuations in solar output are what really cause warming and cooling trends?

 

[Matt Foley]

You left decreasing solar output out of your poll!

and

*I don't give a flying monkey's _____.

 

[GPS_Flex]

and

*I don't give a flying monkey's _____.

That wasn't an option because no one gives a **** if you give a flying monkey's _____.

 

[Deuce]

Is that to say that you believe fluctuations in solar output are what really cause warming and cooling trends?

Is that to say that you believe only one variable can be at play?

It's a checkbox poll where more than one option can be selected. I was suggesting an option was missing. I'm really not sure how you would come anywhere near the conclusion this question implies.

Aerosols and solar output were both major factors in the slowdown of temperature increases.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Is that to say that you believe only one variable can be at play?

It's a checkbox poll where more than one option can be selected. I was suggesting an option was missing. I'm really not sure how you would come anywhere near the conclusion this question implies.

Fair enough. Obviously I knew you didn’t subscribe to the implied conclusion, as stated, just as you know there are too many options to include in a poll such as this.

Aerosols and solar output were both major factors in the slowdown of temperature increases.

I can’t say I’m surprised that you include aerosols as a primary factor; it is a favorite among modelers such as Hanson after all. It’s one of those parameters they have used in their models to “tweak” the data and force it to fit past observations while maintaining their position that the climate is highly sensitive.

Personally, I don’t think skeptics have been endued with the power to say “told you so” based upon the current trend but another 5 to 10 years of relatively flat temperature datasets will blow a significantly large hole in the alarmist’s theory that the climate is hyper sensitive to Co2 forcing. After all, alarmists are already singing a different tune in an attempt to explain the current trend.

 

[Deuce]

Fair enough. Obviously I knew you didn’t subscribe to the implied conclusion, as stated, just as you know there are too many options to include in a poll such as this.



I can’t say I’m surprised that you include aerosols as a primary factor; it is a favorite among modelers such as Hanson after all. It’s one of those parameters they have used in their models to “tweak” the data and force it to fit past observations while maintaining their position that the climate is highly sensitive.

Personally, I don’t think skeptics have been endued with the power to say “told you so” based upon the current trend but another 5 to 10 years of relatively flat temperature datasets will blow a significantly large hole in the alarmist’s theory that the climate is hyper sensitive to Co2 forcing. After all, alarmists are already singing a different tune in an attempt to explain the current trend.

So, you think the aerosol calculations are wrong based on... what, exactly? The fact that calculations change? Do you have any evidence to support any of these implications that they were "cheating" on the models, by incorrectly using aerosols? Or does the mere fact that someone changed their calculations based on further research strike you as sinister?

 

[GPS_Flex]

So, you think the aerosol calculations are wrong based on... what, exactly? The fact that calculations change? Do you have any evidence to support any of these implications that they were "cheating" on the models, by incorrectly using aerosols? Or does the mere fact that someone changed their calculations based on further research strike you as sinister?

Allow me to reiterate the point that I have consistently made: The models are unreliable because we cannot account for all of the natural variables involved in climate change. These models you seem to revere as sacrosanct don’t have a defined value for the negative/positive forcing effect of aerosols, i.e. aerosols are simply one variable parameter among many in these models. They are not the empirical evidence you seem to prescribe to them. As the great mathematician John von Neumann responded, in reference to quantitative measurements and data analysis, “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk”.

So, my challenge to you is: please provide the measured aerosol feedback data that has led to these “changed calculations”. If the calculations aren’t changing due to fluctuations in feedback, pray tell why adjustments must be made for reasons other than fitting the models to the elephant.

 

[Deuce]

Allow me to reiterate the point that I have consistently made: The models are unreliable because we cannot account for all of the natural variables involved in climate change. These models you seem to revere as sacrosanct don’t have a defined value for the negative/positive forcing effect of aerosols, i.e. aerosols are simply one variable parameter among many in these models. They are not the empirical evidence you seem to prescribe to them. As the great mathematician John von Neumann responded, in reference to quantitative measurements and data analysis, “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk”.

So, my challenge to you is: please provide the measured aerosol feedback data that has led to these “changed calculations”. If the calculations aren’t changing due to fluctuations in feedback, pray tell why adjustments must be made for reasons other than fitting the models to the elephant.

You made the assertion that they're wrong. Your argument, so far, is "it's too complicated because I say so." You made the implication that these models were changed for shady reasons. Provide evidence of this.

 

[GPS_Flex]

You made the assertion that they're wrong. Your argument, so far, is "it's too complicated because I say so." You made the implication that these models were changed for shady reasons. Provide evidence of this.

I don’t need to make the assertion that the models are wrong; the model builders themselves are busily explaining away the unexpected trends that don’t fit their modeled projections. I appreciate your attempt at defining my argument for me but you really ought to focus more on your own argument because it isn’t holding much water.

I already provided evidence to support my conclusion. Feel free to explain how the assumed surge in aerosols can be attributed to the lack of projected warming in the absence of the measured feedback they would surely provide. I’m not interested in assigning terms such as “shady” to the adjustments, I’m interested in some empirical evidence to support said adjustments. Without such evidence, I’m free to assume the reason must be political wouldn’t you say?

 

[Muhammed]

Gee...


...yesterday it was x degrees out, and today it is y degrees out, therefore since CO2 levels have risen toooooo....

That is the logic if the global warming idiots.

They can't even understand their idiocy.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Gee...


...yesterday it was x degrees out, and today it is y degrees out, therefore since CO2 levels have risen toooooo....

That is the logic if the global warming idiots.

They can't even understand their idiocy.

Honestly, comments like this don’t have much value and aren’t productive at all. There is no question that the earth has been warming and that anthropogenic increases in Co2 levels will cause warming. We disagree over the level of warming and the sensitivity of the climate to these increases in Co2 levels.

Deniers are no better than alarmists. Unfortunately this topic has become so politicized that empirical evidence and reason are no longer treated with the respect they deserve.

 

[Deuce]

Gee...


...yesterday it was x degrees out, and today it is y degrees out, therefore since CO2 levels have risen toooooo....

That is the logic if the global warming idiots.

They can't even understand their idiocy.

If you think that AGW theory is based on a vague correlation alone, you are sorely mistaken. I mean, think about it. If that's all there was to it, why have 40 years and billions of dollars been spent on the research? What is it that you think these scientists do all day?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Gee...


...yesterday it was x degrees out, and today it is y degrees out, therefore since CO2 levels have risen toooooo....

That is the logic if the global warming idiots.

They can't even understand their idiocy.

When Clinton was president I had alot more hair and could bench press 250 lbs. I wish he would run again so I could vote for him, get my hair and strength back.

 

[Thunder]

warming trend....slump????

its going to be 80 degrees tomorrow in NYC.

and that's 80 degrees Fahrenheit...NOT Kelvin.

 

[Republic Now!]

and that's 80 degrees Fahrenheit...NOT Kelvin.

Wow! So you're NOT experiencing an almost complete loss of entropy in New York?

 

[Matt Foley]

That wasn't an option because no one gives a **** if you give a flying monkey's _____.

Yes you do. You Global Warmists are like Mormon missionaries.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Yes you do. You Global Warmists are like Mormon missionaries.

I'm not sure what you think a global warmist is exactly, but in the words of someone I have no reason to admire, I don’t "give a flying monkey's _____".

 

[GPS_Flex]

warming trend....slump????

its going to be 80 degrees tomorrow in NYC.

and that's 80 degrees Fahrenheit...NOT Kelvin.

Fortunately I’ve never been to NYC but I heard somewhere that this isn’t the first time it’s been warm in March. Was it this warm last year in March? Not that it really matters, just curious.

 

[PrometheusBound]

If you think that AGW theory is based on a vague correlation alone, you are sorely mistaken. I mean, think about it. If that's all there was to it, why have 40 years and billions of dollars been spent on the research? What is it that you think these scientists do all day?

Make money off scare stories, just like Stephen King.