Unfortunately this is also an argument made from ignorance.
http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc/ddc_exist.html
Yes, since 1998, of course one should wonder why the usual point I make is ignored:
When are the ones following the contrarian media will take their sources to task for not informing them properly?
So, it is evident that there is no year (apparently none in the 20th century at least) from which to start a statistically significant long-term trend that could indicate a pause, none; not even as a purely theoretical hypothesis. This is a unique occurence on the SDMB. We can ask “what if gravity suddenly became 9.5m/s2?” or “what if Obama were actually a Kenyan muslim” and people would, albeit with tons of provisos, try to get an answer. Heck, you can get deeply religious, 0%-chance-God-doesn’t-exist, like me to answer “what if Jesus didn’t die in the cross?”.
However, in the AGW world, even considering that a pause is possible, no matter how improbable it may be, is taboo. No number, no year, no condition can exist; the only thing that s certain is that 1998 is 1000000000% cherry-picked-by-Hitler-Stalin-Mao-and-PolPot wrong.
Even pointing out that saying that a year is wrong means that another is right is the Satan’s spawn.
Let’s see, one more time.
I’ll ammend my question once more to see if any AGWers finally commit or simply say nothing or simply do a wall-of-text or chain of links.
Since it’s been mentioned several times in several AGW threads that 1998 is an evil, oil-industry-shill,denier-of-death, puppy-kicking cherry-picked year to show the pause, I wonder, for the sixth time on this thread I ask:
What’s the non-Niña, non-big-volcano year that is OK? (i.e., the year that would show that temperatures have not increased or have decreased from THAT year to now and that would not be considered cherry-picked and that could be considered that start of a scientifically and statistically significant long-term trend, not a cutoff point but the start of the trend even if such a trend is either almost scientifically impossible or even if real not denying to even-longer-term warming trend. It’s really, really basic)
(BTW, the answer is a four-digit number, not unrelated quotes or even fully-related ones)
OR (taking **Brazil’s **idea)
If starting today (2013-09-29) and for the next 100 years ALL datasets without exception show that temperatures have decreased 0.5° despite CO2 rising up to at least 450 PPM, would that trend be considered a pause or decrease even if AGW theory remains true?
(BTW, the answer is YES/NO)
Providing copiuos link as to why sceptics are wrong or what the IPCC says is not the answer
BTW The IPPC purpose besides recommending policy is to actually vet the recent scientific research done, and it is vetted by contributing scientists.
The reality is that I was correct, the report was not going to be enough for contrarians and now the goal posts are moving to demand that others look at the data to accept the report, seeing that the contrarians already had access to the data from the research groups themselves even before the IPCC used them, the realization should be that deception is now the main reason the contrarian media specially when they also refuse the research from independent researchers that looked at data that the IPCC also used before and contributors to the current report also noticed and clearly used to raise the confidence levels in the new report:
Not accurate at all, I already mentioned the pause seen in the 50s-70s that caused the popular media to claim the scientists reported that an ice age was coming, not true as a super majority of the papers reported that warming was coming after that pause in surface temperatures.
As for your robotic requests, once again as Gavin Schmidt reported, one has to see first temperatures going back to previous decades and remain there for a couple to make that a dent on the theories. One big problem for your robotic request is that it omits the ocean temperature rise.
So once we do take the oceans into account then one can say that yes, a pause is possible, but we are not there yet, the limited range of the surface temperature was already predicted to “pause” and this has happened in the recent past already. So only by cherry picking the surface temperature is that the popular and contrarian media gets “something” meaningful to use to mislead others.
So, that’s another long-winded, self-congratulatory post without any answer value.
We ALL know your belifes and the studies and the Sks links.
Why can’t you commit to either answer?
Answer for question 1: A four-digit number
Answer fot question 2: Yes or No.
Any 4 digit year that starts a cooling trend based on what contrarian Joe Bastardy promised:
He actually promised that the big drop in temperature to those levels should be seen already, instead all his conditions are not happening.
Yes.
And it has to be pointed out that I already answered that, but keep on telling others that you are not reading cites and posts, it is not a problem I have.
This is a great post. I wish more shills and contrarians would post at this level of drunkeness. Really adds value.
Lol, nice ad homenim attack. Anything to avoid responding to the actual point.
And the point is of course a reasonable one.
In deciding whether global warming has “paused” there needs to be a baseline year. I think it’s reasonable to use 1998 since it is the most recent high and it’s been long enough that if the warmists were right, one would have expected another high temp since then.
But if you think 1998 is a bad choice, then what baseline year do you think should be chosen to determine if warming has paused?
It’s a simple, reasonable question but I highly doubt you will answer it.
I guess he continues to ignore the posts.
GISSTEMP says 2005 is the hottest year ever.
Correcting a previous post as I ran out edit time:
BTW The IPPC purpose, besides recommending policy, is to actually vet the recent scientific research already done, and it is vetted once again by contributing scientists.
The reality is that I was correct, the report was not going to be enough for contrarians and now the goal posts are moving to demand that others look at the data to accept the report.
The contrarians already had access to the data from the research groups themselves even before the IPCC did use them.
The realization should be that deception is now the main reason for the contrarian media to continue. Specially when they also reject the research from independent researchers that looked at data that the IPCC also used before.
The contributors to the current IPCC report also noticed independent research like the Berkeley one, and research like that was clearly used to raise the confidence levels in the new report:
Lol, let me amend my previous statement:
I think it’s reasonable to use 1998 since, according to most of the leading indexes of global surface temperatures, it is the most recent high and it’s been long enough that if the warmists were right, one would have expected another high temp (according to the leading indexes of global surface temperatures) since then.
There is enough hostility in this thread without personal attacks.
Back off.
[ /Moderating ]
:smack::smack::smack::smack:
I missed the YES for #2.