After the so called slowdown, that deniers reported, the ocean rise does continue:
Once again, as it has been pointed many many times before you need to take it to the groups of deniers that misled you.
Lets us remember that FX’s supporting evidence recently was a 40 year old article published in the popular press.
Peter Gwynne (The very same writer of that article that continues to be misused) told us that he looked again recently and he reports that the scientists are correct. Of course that memo continues to be ignored by FX as well as all the other evidence and what the experts are telling us, as Gwynne warned us:
Talk about cherry picking, along with not providing a link to the source, it’s the worst sort of cherry picking. Here’s the source link Remote Sensing Systems
And here is the complete statement.
Why leave that out? And why not provide the link?
The images at the site clearly show the problem.
You can also look at the data for yourself, something skeptics want you to do.
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
Way more fun that listening to somebody repeat “It’s warming durr hurr and it’s yurr fault herp derp”
I did not leave that out and I did provide the link, FX is really in a meltdown. 
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17865265&postcount=572
And his pathetic game was already noticed many times before, pretend that linking to more data shows automatically that his opponent is wrong **when the opponent already linked to it **and accepted the data, again the bullshit is on claiming that the data shows the opposite of what REMSS claims, and clearly what REMSS report is that there are good explanations for the so called “pause” that do not contradict at all with the main theory(es).
Once again: REMSS is telling us that a combination of factors is causing the current “pause” in surface temperatures. And that subduction of heat into the ocean is very likely a significant part of the explanation for the model/observation discrepancies.
FX already showed here how he is not paying attention, both to what the experts report and what posters post.
By “turn of the century” do you mean 1999-2000 or 2099-2100? In the former case: No I don’t remember; do you have a cite?
What a"nobody" at REMSS actually reported:
I gave up on getting a cite from DingoelGringo when on a previous discussion he never came back with it. And yes, he was talking about an alleged previous century prediction. The best bet is that once again that “cite” came from a popular magazine and not published science.
As usual contrarians will be more upset with someone that pointed them to the best current evidence and will never complain to the ones that misguided them.
I’ve never come across any prediction of that sort of rapid sea level rise. It’s illogical, because there is no physical mechanism to cause that kind of rise. Ocean warming simply can’t happen fast enough, and melting ice caps and glaciers at that rate is also impossible, with out some sort of unknown forcing.
In fact, our best records show that even during the fastest warming periods, sea level did not rise at rates high enough to cause that sort of rise. It’s far too short a time period.
While there may have been some way out there woo woo predicting such a thing, it certainly isn’t a scientific prediction.
The current “worst case” rise (it was in a story on NBC this morning) of 6 feet by 2100 is also an absurd idea. There is no physical way for such rates to happen.
Of course the previous estimates (that expected no acceleration of land ice loss) reported a likely increase of 3 feet. That value BTW has been mentioned many times before, and here it has to be pointed out that even that conservative value is rejected by deniers.
With the already observed accelerated loss of ice over the polar lands higher values are now possible.
Except for the ones that do not look at the published science and only rely on popular media like FX.
The educated conclusion? We are more certain that the ocean will rise about 3 feet or more by the end of the century or right after, and it could get worse, unless we control our emissions.
Of course, as the writer from the 40 year old article pointed out, there are many in the USA that continue to disparage the experts and the scientists.
It’s the sort of rampant denial of science that comes from alarmists who want to always be right, and deny any and all evidence, logic and reason, that is actually causing the global warming movement to appear as religious fever, as emotional shouting, which is a real shame.
Internet screaming matches are fun and a welcome diversion from reality, but hardly scientific. As I stated clearly, you have to counter that with science. Of course the response isn’t scientific at all.
So faced with a global measurement, by satellites and precision instruments, which matches up very well with surface station calculations, it’s called bullshit. That the resoning used is complete horseshit is just more irony.
Completely wrong, of course. But nobody will tell you this, since they either don’t know, or don’t care. The RSS/MSU data is considered the best data, free from UHI and adjustments surface stations must suffer. The microwave sounding satellite (MSU and AMSU ) measurements clearly show us several important things. Both the two decade long lack of warming, and the obvious NH winter cooling trend.
The lower troposphere data from RSS/MSU is not, as you claim, “just the upper atmosphere”, that is complete bullshit on your part. You also claim it’s from “satellites or balloons”, which is more horseshit, which is why it’s so ironic.
I clearly stated the 35 years of data is long enough to show a clear trend, which you seem to miss somehow.
Once more, you simply shout out nothing, and think you have said something.
That won’t sway anyone, while looking at the actual data has a profound effect on many people. So much that the blog post I linked to goes on and on trying to explain why the actual real data, which shows clearly the global warming theory has some serious problems, isn’t the entire story.
The intelligent person might ask, at what point can you ever say the theory has some problems? If twenty years ins’t enough, just how long can we observe no global warming, even as CO2 levels rise and rise? Thirty years? Forty years?
If the only way to know is simply wait a hundred years to see what happens, there is little science involved.
Which is why the theory has key predictions, things that we expect to see happen, the fingerprints of CO2 forced warming. Despite how much some protest these basic facts, they are well known and essential. Since everybody knows the climate always changes, there has to be some way to know if it’s an unnatural change, if it’s AGW happening.
Certainly when winters were warming, a lot, that was trumpeted as clear evidence, no doubt it’s AGW. You can see what this looks like with ease. If the last two decades looked like that, you would see that plastered all over the media, blogs and scientific journals, along with claims of how it proves beyond a doubt the rapid global warming happening.
The problem is, reality looks like this now. And it already looks like winter 2015 is going to make the trend even worse. Certainly unheard of cold, and especially nights below freezing, are not explained, much less predicted, by the CO2 theory. In 08/09, it might have worked to say “oh we will still see the occasional cold winter, but much less frequently”, some even handwaved away 2010, with it’s record breaking cold, but now we have 5 our of the last six winters unusually cold, that line won’t work.
The switch to “colder winters are predicted by global warming theory” is also not going to work.
The wonderful thing about all this, is that as time goes by, we actually will see. Not that facts and reality will change the believers mind, but the rest of us find it fascinating.
Now to speak to the inevitable objection, that “you have to look at the global picture”, you obviously didn’t follow the links, or see that the data is global.
That RSS data is the most obvious thing, and it’s easy as pie to show why the NH winters are so important. It’s also incredibly difficult to counter, since it’s just facts.
Summertime (this is global data) shows warming, warming, warming.
Winter (boreal) shows warming, then cooling, cooling. Combine the two you get the flat, or slightly cooling global mean. But that is far from the entire picture, as we know from the theory.
What we do know, is that with out some other forcing dominating CO2, this can’t be happening. If other forcings can dominate CO2, the theory is wrong. It doesn’t mean CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, or that CO2 doesn’t influence a tiny little bit of the infrared spectrum that water vapor doesn’t. It just means current theory is wrong somehow. Or more likely, we just don’t know as much as some people want to claim they know.
Of course since that is not what I said (the bullshit was referring to how good data was misused by you) your premise is completely wrong as usual and so is the rest of your tirade, and the folks at the satellite group already told you that your attempts at cherry picking are just that, they continue to agree with the main theory.
So, try again, and be serious and not abuse of the straw for a change.
We know what you wrote. Your problem is you are claiming the entire 35 years, the entire record, is “cherry picking”, which is horseshit, and you should know it.
Again, the fact is that that is not the complete record and the guys at RSS also told us that. Unlike FX they do accept that there are indeed other temperature records out there that are based on direct temperature measurements and the ones recording them have been at it for a longer period of time.
So they do recognize the limitations, but they and others do point out that it is the anomalies where the history is:
http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp_anomalies/
In fact they have a fun FAQ area where they do point out that indeed the deniers out there are abusing the data.
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
Nope, FX is not even wrong, as I said the record the RSS is recording is not the entire record, and I did point at the one the experts and statisticians before told us we should be looking up regarding this issue, and even the REMSS guys do think so.
Well at least you read his blog post. I doubt many people will.
Did you notice what he thinks is the cause of the pause?
I think that FX should first take back his accusations, the horseshit was not coming from me.
And others, besides REMSS have noticed the abuse.
Yes it is, you claimed the RSS measured the upper atmosphere, and involved balloons. Try correcting your own errors before demanding everybody else listen to you.
You also claimed using the entire RSS/MSU data is cherry picking, which is horseshit. And you should know better.
Here it is again. Why we know the theory is wrong.
January data, global land anomalies.
Everyone can see that they measure that too, BTW satelite measurements are also calibrated and checked against the more traditional systems to measure temperature, and those records are longer than the satellite ones.
Again, It was misleading by omitting the whole record (of the more accurate longer instrumental records) and the anomalies one in the RSS.
And the guys working at wood for the trees already advised FX to not do his tired cherry picks, but FX will ignore them too and assume that like the guys at RSS and NASA/GISS they are nobodies. Again, it is just some climate deniers that cite the data set from Remote Sensing Systems (remss.com) to support their claim that there has been no recent warming. This claim is patently false.
Doesn’t change the fact you posted false information, and now are avoiding correcting your error.
And this error is worse as FX claiming in the past that Gavin Schmidt and Pierrehurst were nobodies, sure. :rolleyes:
His error of dismissing the experts from where he is getting his cherry picks will never be corrected also.
As pointed before, I already explained further that I was referring to the misleading move of looking at just one line of the RSS record and not looking at the full record with anomalies and the full instrumental one, that he does not like the explanation that even the experts from the places he twists the information is coming from are supporting me he will never wonder about.