The Planet is not warming as fast as predicted, the oceans are not acidifying and now, the ice is doing just fine

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

one is due to an invisible force coming magically from the Moon?"

OHHHHHH, so now there's a MAGICAL force coming from the moon that works with the rotation of the earth to cause the water on the planet to have weird levels moving around

And now I suppose I'm gonna be told this mysteriously magical 'moon force' is slowing down the rotation of the earth and throwing the moon out to a bigger and bigger orbital distance


next thing you know you'll be telling me there isn't any cheese on the moon

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

From Yahoo News:
===============
WASHINGTON (AP) — For the third time in a decade, the globe sizzled to the hottest year on record, federal scientists announced Friday.

Both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA calculated that in 2014 the world had its hottest year in 135 years of record-keeping. Earlier, the Japanese weather agency and an independent group out of University of California Berkeley also measured 2014 as the hottest on record.

About that Berkeley finding. Kinda interesting what the Berkeley group itself had to say.
[Url]http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf[/url]

Look how awesome it is when the agency puts out all the stuff in the press release. The good. The bad. The in between. The quantified. The qualified.

Berkeley really explained well. The warmest year on record for sea surface temps. 4th armest for land. Gave the uncertainty, reasons for, method and context. Even stating the bad: that this means there is a stasis trend for the last decade.

This is the sort of middle-of-the-road press release that alarmists and deniers should strive for. And note: it only says what can be supported. It might be the hottest year. They aren't saying it wasn't. But it was within the uncertainty and statistically no different from 2004.

It's something for every person with an agenda to hate. Meaning berkeley is doing it right.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,114]

>And now I suppose I'm gonna be told this mysteriously magical 'moon force' is slowing
>down the rotation of the earth and throwing the moon out to a bigger and bigger
>orbital distance

And some people claim that that tiny little moon (heck, it looks to be the size of a dime) can actually affect huge oceans and make them fall meters at a time? Lunatics.

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>And now I suppose I'm gonna be told this mysteriously magical 'moon force' is slowing
>down the rotation of the earth and throwing the moon out to a bigger and bigger
>orbital distance

And some people claim that that tiny little moon (heck, it looks to be the size of a dime) can actually affect huge oceans and make them fall meters at a time? Lunatics.

Why don't you bet your annual pay 10 times, just let it roll over and over again.
You win, you get to go double or nothing.

38% are the odds of winning.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,114]

>Why don't you bet your annual pay 10 times, just let it roll over and over again.

Sure. It would be easy money.

But let's see if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is with a more concrete bet that affects you directly. Every year since 1984 has been above the baseline for temperature measurements. I will bet you $1000 (payable to your favorite charity) that next year will also be above average. In fact I will make it easier - I will bet it will be more than .3C over the average.

How about it? If, as you claim, this is all a lie, then next year has even odds of being on average, and about a 70% chance of being within .3C of average. Easy money for you, right?

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>Why don't you bet your annual pay 10 times, just let it roll over and over again.

Sure. It would be easy money.

But let's see if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is with a more concrete bet that affects you directly. Every year since 1984 has been above the baseline for temperature measurements. I will bet you $1000 (payable to your favorite charity) that next year will also be above average. In fact I will make it easier - I will bet it will be more than .3C over the average.

How about it? If, as you claim, this is all a lie, then next year has even odds of being on average, and about a 70% chance of being within .3C of average. Easy money for you, right?

Ha.

Its not about the future - its about their certainty.

what will their certainty be next year?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,114]

>>But let's see if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is with a more
>>concrete bet that affects you directly.

>Ha.

Exactly what I expected. To use a Texan term, your posts are all hat, no cattle.

If you do suddenly discover the courage of your convictions, let me know and the bet will be on.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>Why don't you bet your annual pay 10 times, just let it roll over and over again.

Sure. It would be easy money.

But let's see if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is with a more concrete bet that affects you directly. Every year since 1984 has been above the baseline for temperature measurements. I will bet you $1000 (payable to your favorite charity) that next year will also be above average. In fact I will make it easier - I will bet it will be more than .3C over the average.

How about it? If, as you claim, this is all a lie, then next year has even odds of being on average, and about a 70% chance of being within .3C of average. Easy money for you, right?

I'll moderate this. There's have to be an agreement on the following:
(1) Average - which average? Different datasets have different baselines. If the average is "1998-2014" odds are you'll lose that bet.
(2) What dataset?
(3) Raw or adjusted?

Bill - you know I wouldn't take the bet. But I'm interested in how this pans out.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,114]

NOAA/NCDC global dataset, adjusted. Baseline 1880-present day.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

NOAA/NCDC global dataset, adjusted. Baseline 1880-present day.

Adjusted, yes of course.

Quote

There is a consistent revision of the record to lower historic readings. This increases the gradient of supposed warming. It is apparent in the New Zealand record

A search of WUWT, using the term “Temperature adjustments”, yields a plethora of evidence. Every adjustment serves to change the gradient of the curve making today warmer than the past. Explanations, when given, usually provide little justification for the adjustment. The other tell tale sign is that virtually all adjustments occur before the UAH satellite temperature record began in 1991.

So how about considering this?

Quote

How valid is the 2014 claim? In the 10,000 – year context, it is significant because it is among the 3 percent coldest years, which is far more significant than the 100-year warm alarmists proclaim. There are two major reasons: Highest readings occur in the most recent years of a rising temperature record. Every alteration, adjustment amendment and abridgment of the record so far, was done to create and emphasize increasingly higher temperatures.

1. The instrumental data is spatially and temporally inadequate. Surface weather data is virtually non-existent and unevenly distributed for 85 percent of the world’s surface. There are virtually none for 70 percent of the oceans. On the land, there is virtually no data for the 19 percent mountains, 20 percent desert, 20 percent boreal forest, 20 percent grasslands, and 6 percent tropical rain forest. In order to “fill-in”, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), made the ridiculous claim that a single station temperature was representative of a 1200 km radius region. Initial claims of AGW were based on land-based data. The data is completely inadequate as the basis for constructing the models.

From Dr. Tim Ball who did a guest opinon on Wattsup

http://drtimball.com/category/biography/

Of course for full discloser....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

then there is this too

Of course from Wattsup. People need to remember that this site sensors no opinoin
Some of the debates are a very interesting read

Quote

2014: The Most Dishonest Year on Record

Quote

‘Warmest Year On Record’ Claims Falling Apart Under Scrutiny

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true. Yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 18 January 2015

and this

Quote

Last week, according to our crackerjack mainstream media, NASA announced that 2014 was the hottest year, like, ever. No, really. The New York Times began its report with: “Last year was the hottest in earth’s recorded history.” Well, not really. As we’re about to see, this is a claim that dissolves on contact with actual science. But that didn’t stop the press from running with it. –Robert Tracinsk, The Federalist, 19 January 2015

Despite fears that global warming is harming the Arctic region faster than the rest of the world, Greenland is defying climate scientists and currently growing at its fastest rate in four years. The Danish Meteorological Institute reports that Greenland’s ice sheet has seen more growth so far this year than in the last four years. Greenland’s growth in 2015 is also higher than the mean growth for 1990 to 2011. –Michael Bastasch, The Daily Caller, 14 January 2015

What remains of the original description of this ‘warmest year on record’ news? Nothing but bluff, spin, and the uncritical press-release journalism that dominates mainstream reporting on the climate. It may or may not be the hottest year ever, but this is definitely in the running for the most dishonest year on record. –Robert Tracinsk, The Federalist, 19 January 2015
Regardless of which side of the man-made climate change debate you are on, one thing is clear: The claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record is shaky at best. –Inquisitr, 19 January 2015

If anybody is still in any doubt that it is UNSCIENTIFIC to make claims about hottest years, without taking into account error bars, I would advise what the World Meteorological Organisation had to say on the issue in their report on global temperatures for 2006: “All temperature values have uncertainties, which arise mainly from gaps in data coverage. The size of the uncertainties is such that the global average temperature for 2006 is statistically indistinguishable from, and could be anywhere between, the first and the eighth warmest year on record.” –Paul Homewood, Not A Lot of People Know That, 17 January 2015

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Rush:

It's pretty much not deniable that the world is warmer now than it was 100 years ago. As the GOP in the Senate just pointed out, that's not the debate.

Also, the temps need to have some adjustment as different instrumentation is used.

I asked Bill to put out the variables for it. He did. Either take the challenge or not.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

lawrocket

Rush:

It's pretty much not deniable that the world is warmer now than it was 100 years ago. As the GOP in the Senate just pointed out, that's not the debate.

Also, the temps need to have some adjustment as different instrumentation is used.

I asked Bill to put out the variables for it. He did. Either take the challenge or not.

Never denied that the world is warmer today
NEVER
The issue is whether or not man has any impact of the speed of climate change
As you have stated yourself, IF man is having an effect it is small and will never get to the level of disaster the alarmists spew

the stuff I posted shows varied ways to look at what is being stated

I myself now think those that support AWG are doing it more so on faith than ever before

What we are seeing is natural variation in climate
The climate on this planet is not calm and will most likely never be calm


Now, you state that the world is warmer now than it was 100 years ago
Ok
What about the claim made in the info above that also states that 2014, when looked at in the 10,000 year context is in the 3 percent of the coldest years!!

AWG proponents look at climate in a small small window of time
That is why I have asked before what really is the earth temp average and who decided what that was?
Because looking at it in a 100 year window is really not worth much is it

Also, in the info posted above it is stated that some have asked why the data was "adjusted" and what methodology was picked. The adjusters will not answer that question

There is a goal for all of this IMO
But saving the planet is not in that goal

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,114]

>What about the claim made in the info above that also states that 2014, when looked
>at in the 10,000 year context is in the 3 percent of the coldest years!!

From SkepticalScience.com:

===================
CLIMATE MYTH
"Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Even if the warming were as big as the IPCC imagines, it would not be as dangerous as Mr. Brown suggests. After all, recent research suggests that some 9,100 of the past 10,500 years were warmer than the present by up to 3 Celsius degrees: yet here we all are." (Christopher Monckton)

This argument is based on the work of Don Easterbrook who relies on temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as a proxy for global temperatures. That’s a fatal flaw, before we even begin to examine the use of the ice core data. A single regional record cannot stand in for the global record — local variability will be higher than the global, plus we have evidence that Antarctic temperatures swing in the opposite direction to Arctic changes. Richard Alley discussed that in some detail at Dot Earth last year, and it’s well worth reading his comments. Easterbrook, however, is content to ignore someone who has worked in this field, and relies entirely on Greenland data to make his case.

. . .

This is Easterbrook’s main sleight of hand. He wants to present a regional proxy for temperature from 155 years ago as somehow indicative of present global temperatures. The depths of his misunderstanding are made clear in a response he gave to a request from the German EIKE forum to clarify why he was representing 1905 (wrongly, in two senses) as the present. Here’s what he had to say:

"The contention that the ice core only reaches 1905 is a complete lie (not unusual for AGW people). The top of the core is accurately dated by annual dust layers at 1987. There has been no significant warming from 1987 to the present, so the top of the core is representative of the present day climate in Greenland."

Unfortunately for Don, the first data point in the temperature series he’s relying on is not from the “top of the core”, it’s from layers dated to 1855. The reason is straightforward enough — it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice.
======================

From SciAm/Nature:

Global Average Temperatures Are Close to 11,000-Year Peak

By the end of this century, Earth is set to get hotter than at any time since the last ice age

March 8, 2013
By Sid Perkins and Nature magazine

Global average temperatures are now higher than they have been for about 75% of the past 11,300 years, a study suggests. And if climate models are any indication, by the end of this century they will be the highest ever since the end of the most recent ice age.

Instrumental records of climate extend back to only the late nineteenth century. Beyond that, scientists depend on analyses of natural chronicles such as tree rings and isotope ratios in cave formations.

But even these archives have their limits: many detailed reconstructions of climate, particularly of temperature, apply to only limited regions or extend back at most a couple of millennia, says Shaun Marcott, a climate scientist at Oregon State University in Corvallis.

Marcott and his colleagues set about reconstructing global climate trends all the way back to 11,300 years ago, when the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from the most recent ice age. To do so, they collected and analyzed data gathered by other teams. The 73 overlapping climate records that they considered included sediment cores drilled from lake bottoms and sea floors around the world, along with a handful of ice cores collected in Antarctica and Greenland.

Each of these chronicles spanned at least 6,500 years, and each included a millennium-long baseline period beginning in the middle of the post-ice-age period at 3550 BC.

For some records, the researchers inferred past temperatures from the ratio of magnesium and calcium ions in the shells of microscopic creatures that had died and dropped to the ocean floor; for others, they measured the lengths of long-chain organic molecules called alkenones that were trapped in the sediments.

After the ice age, they found, global average temperatures rose until they reached a plateau between 7550 and 3550 BC. Then a long-term cooling trend set in, reaching its lowest temperature extreme between ad 1450 and 1850.

Since then, temperatures have been increasing at a dramatic clip: from the first decade of the twentieth century to now, global average temperatures rose from near their coldest point since the ice age to nearly their warmest, Marcott and his team report today in Science.
. . .
This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on March 7, 2013.
=================

[rushmc 23]

your post actually makes the point Bill
what is really happening is not known
And what is known today, is the gloom and doom once predicted is not happening

Hell, Al Gore claimed once we have 10 years before the earth cooks

Well, there is 1 year and 4 days left for his prediction to come true

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,114]

One of your best backpedals ever.

RushMC: " . . . the claim made in the info above that also states that 2014, when looked at in the 10,000 year context is in the 3 percent of the coldest years!!"

SciAm/Nature - "Global Average Temperatures Are Close to 11,000-Year Peak . . .By the end of this century, Earth is set to get hotter than at any time since the last ice age."

RushMC: "what is really happening is not known."

>Hell, Al Gore claimed once we have 10 years before the earth cooks

Right. And he said he invented the Internet too, right? Very truthy.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Watch this NASA video on CO2. It is a timelapse of one year of the CO2 origins, and patterns as it makes its way around the earth. Notice how much plant life in the spring and summer change the models. Finally notice where majority of it is coming from Europe, and Asia. Majority of the CO2 is produced, and blown to the U.S. Although the video does not speak of global warming, its a very cool video to see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1421828030&x-yt-cl=84411374&v=x1SgmFa0r04&feature=player_embedded

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[rushmc 23]

billvon

One of your best backpedals ever.

RushMC: " . . . the claim made in the info above that also states that 2014, when looked at in the 10,000 year context is in the 3 percent of the coldest years!!"

SciAm/Nature - "Global Average Temperatures Are Close to 11,000-Year Peak . . .By the end of this century, Earth is set to get hotter than at any time since the last ice age."

RushMC: "what is really happening is not known."

>Hell, Al Gore claimed once we have 10 years before the earth cooks

Right. And he said he invented the Internet too, right? Very truthy.

Back peddle???

Weak Bill

But then I guess you know you really know it all

BTW Google Al Gore in Jan of 2006
where he talks about the tipping point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,114]

Anvilbrother

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1421828030&x-yt-cl=84411374&v=x1SgmFa0r04&feature=player_embedded

That is pretty cool, thanks. It's also cool to see how CO2 patterns change in the different hemispheres as vegetation grows and then goes dormant.

[rushmc 23]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502230.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,587]

The contention was that we may have 10 years (from 2006) to prevent a quickening of global warming. Not that the earth would become a hot ball of molten lava exactly 10 years later.

If you don't brush your teeth, there is no guarantee that you'll end up losing teeth from decay. If you smoke, there is no guarantee that you'll die of lung cancer. If you don't smoke, there's no guarantee you won't.

You decide what's most important to you and the people you care about, and act accordingly. If the short-term financial benefit of your immediate family is your top priority, your decisions might be different than if you consider the city as a whole, or some dude in Bangladesh as being important.


Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 226]

lawrocket

Rush:

It's pretty much not deniable that the world is warmer now than it was 100 years ago. As the GOP in the Senate just pointed out, that's not the debate.

Also, the temps need to have some adjustment as different instrumentation is used.

I asked Bill to put out the variables for it. He did. Either take the challenge or not.

Subjective to the last word.

We need impartiality.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

***https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1421828030&x-yt-cl=84411374&v=x1SgmFa0r04&feature=player_embedded

That is pretty cool, thanks. It's also cool to see how CO2 patterns change in the different hemispheres as vegetation grows and then goes dormant.

Skeptical Science says that CO2 molecules stay in the atmosphere for a 3-4 years. [Quote]A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years.

This animation seems to stand in stark contrast to Skeptical Science's claims (which seeks to explain how CO2 molecules can stay in play for centuries). Come spring, nature soaks up CO2 like a sponge. (And this animation shows exactly what you long ago proposed about using trees to scrub CO2 and the atmosphere to transport it).

The EPA says CO2 can stay in the atmosphere from a few years to thousands of years. [Url]http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html[/url]

The IPCC Fourth Assessment said about 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.

So is the video doctored? I mean, it shows CO2 being removed over a period of weeks/months instead of years/decades.

Note: if climate models are predicting global warming based on CO2 residence if decades, this video shows one of the reasons why the hell warming has been flat for the last decade (according to Berkeley).

[Url]http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html[/url]

In Nature:

Quote

Popular books on climate change — even those written by scientists — if they mention the lifetime of CO2 at all, typically say it lasts "a century or more"1 or "more than a hundred years".

"That's complete nonsense," says Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California. It doesn't help that the summaries in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports have confused the issue, allege Caldeira and colleagues in an upcoming paper in Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences2. Now he and a few other climate scientists are trying to spread the word that human-generated CO2, and the warming it brings, will linger far into the future — unless we take heroic measures to pull the gas out of the air.

University of Chicago oceanographer David Archer, who led the study with Caldeira and others, is credited with doing more than anyone to show how long CO2 from fossil fuels will last in the atmosphere.

Dear Messrs Caldeira and Archer: watch the video and then tell me how many thousands of years all that carbon stays there.

Alarmists are keen to tell us not to trust the observations but to trust the models. I mean, bill, that was NATURE that just got shown up by a video on youtube.

When are people going to get serious about this? And turn back the hands of the doomsday clock to something a bit more rational? (Understanding that the Doomsday Clock's whole purpose is political alarmism)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

wmw999

The contention was that we may have 10 years (from 2006) to prevent a quickening of global warming. Not that the earth would become a hot ball of molten lava exactly 10 years later.

If you don't brush your teeth, there is no guarantee that you'll end up losing teeth from decay. If you smoke, there is no guarantee that you'll die of lung cancer. If you don't smoke, there's no guarantee you won't.

You decide what's most important to you and the people you care about, and act accordingly. If the short-term financial benefit of your immediate family is your top priority, your decisions might be different than if you consider the city as a whole, or some dude in Bangladesh as being important.


Wendy P.

Your post starts from the premise the AGWing is actually happening

It is not

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

billvon

NOAA/NCDC global dataset, adjusted. Baseline 1880-present day.

Quote

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount

It appears as the sensationalizing is still the tactic of the day

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln