Remember that we are here for telling others that I lied about that, I was right, popular denier media has reported it. I will let others judge how you are not willing to take that accusation back.
Nope, I described the claim (from came from some video) as a lie. So, your description of what happened is, well, it’s not right.
But, you saying I said something I did not, that would be … false.
:rolleyes:
The video had Crichton saying that and I concentrating on the denier media and blogs (Hot Air) I linked to what they claimed, I was correct. So I consider this yet another doubling down of calling me a liar.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDFSomebody had better tell the MetOffice about the OP.
They, of course, ARE NOT SAYING that GW doesn’t exist, simply a lull.
“No creationist claims that the earth is less than 4000 years old!”
<cites ten pages asserting the age of the earth as less than 6000 years old>
“See, those just say it’s less than 6000 years old! That it’s less than 4000 years old is just a strawman!”
…Kind of missing the point, aren’t we? It’s not exactly shifting the goalposts, but it sure as hell isn’t reasonable debating. No, climate deniers don’t by and large claim that all scientists believed an ice age was coming. But of course, Sinclair never presented that as a scientific claim. It’s the type of hyperbole you can expect from a video of his, mocking dishonest deniers. And in this case, there’s not a whole lot wrong with the hyperbole. It doesn’t matter whether they tell us all scientists believed an ice age was coming, or just imply quite heavily that there was a majority or consensus view that an ice age was coming, the issue remains the same: the consensus was pointing in the other direction and those who went against the consensus based their views on . And to most people, the precise degree to which a bullshit myth gets it wrong doesn’t quite matter that much when it’s established that the entire myth is, well, bullshit. It doesn’t matter to most of us whether the creationist claims the earth is less than 4000 years old or less than 6000 years old when he’s still off by 6 orders of magnitude.
Look, true or false: denialist websites very frequently try to claim that in the 70s, there was a reasonable consensus to the claim that there was an ice age coming?
Ummm… I’m pretty sure the Met Office is quite aware, since the paper cited in the OP deals with coverage bias in their own HadCRUT4 temperature series. The pamphlet you cite was published about 6 months before this new paper.
Incidentally, that Met Office pamphlet says all the same things that I and others have been saying about the role of the oceans in mitigating temperature. The new paper just adds another component. Taken together, and with all the other evidence, we can be pretty confident that external forcings haven’t changed and the heating of the planet is rolling along as it has been for the last half-century.
A humorous sidebar to this is that Kevin Cowtan, one of the co-authors of the OP-cited paper about extreme Arctic warming, in a separate note has referenced the consistency of his results with the Cohen et al. (2012) paper with respect to the diverse distribution of high-latitude temperatures and the coverage bias that exists particularly in the winter. It’s funny of course because as I pointed out several times, the poster who cited that paper didn’t understand it, and cited it as allegedly “proving” the opposite.
They say more than that of course, just about what me and many others are saying, not a surprise and warming is expected after this “pause”
Derp, forgot to finish a sentence.
What I meant to say was:
It doesn’t matter whether they tell us all scientists believed an ice age was coming, or just imply quite heavily that there was a majority or consensus view that an ice age was coming, the issue remains the same: the consensus was pointing in the other direction and those who went against the consensus based their views on an increase in aerosol concentration which simply didn’t happen due to improved environmental legislation.
I’ll take all your dodging as meaning that you accept that, for whatever reason and without conceding anything else, there is a lull in temps for about 15 years.
Not really.
I wish contrarians would make up their minds, generally they like the met office data because it showed or shows the lowest rises in temperature compared to other data sets.
Warmists are running out of places where to find the missing heat. Antarctica’s been gaining ice so it’s very unlikely they’ll find much more there.
Again, this is like the 10th thread about GW going faster than expected, that can only mean that the models and observation used to forecast are consistenly wrong.
GB? Are you saying that the MetOf paper is wrong? If six months after they said “there’s been a 10-to-15 year pause” anohter paper say “not only is there no pause, it’s going even faster” then the MetOf is a joke.
Heat and temp are not the same.
I’ll repeat the question: Has there been a lull in observed temps, regardless whether the is more heat or not in the oceans?
That is funny, the report you cited and the one I made later points at the oceans as the big place.
You did not read the thread uh?
No, only that I’m on record on reporting before that Hadcrut has issues, just like Hansen and others reported before, of course the bigger joke is that contrarians out there relied a lot on that data for their past pronouncements of less warming, so contradiction is their motto.
“Missing”? Not only does the article cited in the OP show that warming is progressing far faster than thought, but who said anything about missing heat? Have you tried the ocean? Or are you going to do the same thing FXMastermind did and just dismiss it out of hand as fraudulent? :rolleyes:
Ok, NASA/NOAA, 4 days ago.
NOAA: 1998-2013 -0.01°C NASA 1998-2013 -0.02°C (Jan 21st 2014)
Still no answer as to the lull from you
As usual, the context of that is omitted:
As usual it was answered before.
Wrong. Please stop posting bullshit:
http://ps.uci.edu/scholar/velicogna/files/rignot_etal_grl2011.pdf
As for “where the heat is going”, you can start here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract
Please stop posting 2011 papers.
Posted on October 22, 2013
NASA Announces New Record Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent
Researchers have measured a new record for sea-ice extent in the Antarctic. Why the white splendour is extending there while it is rapidly disappearing in the Arctic is a mystery.
Here’s a thought. Accurately predict something and stop posting excuses for why all the past predictions failed.
Poles apart, and you need to stop relying on denier sources.
Incidentally, none other than Judith Curry published a paper explaining the apparent paradox of more ice in the antarctic in a warming world.
No, it’s not a difference between 2011 and 2013 papers, it’s a matter of understanding the facts, like the difference between the Antarctic continental ice sheet and seasonal sea ice. The net loss of Antarctic continental ice sheet mass has been established for many years. Antarctic sea ice is entirely different. Sea ice there – as gleefully proclaimed by the denialist WUWT site that you quote – has indeed been growing, and one of the likely reasons for that is the freshwater outflows from the melting ice sheet. Antarctica is practically the opposite of the Arctic in its geographic topology, and sea ice is largely seasonal and almost entirely disappears by the end of summer. It is no measure at all of polar glaciation. In the Arctic, however, sea ice is the dominant form of ice and tends to be landlocked, so its measure is significant. A few basic scientific facts go a long way.