How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Ben D]

but Rory is right, BenD posts endless shit with the same aim, disruption and time-wasting

to post a link to a dude who thinks God is regulating the biosphere is either moronic or manipulative

i'd go with manipulative

Ok that's so funny....from a true believer of the human derived CO2 is destroying the climate religion....why does the new CAGW religion get a pass and old time religion not?

Now let's get back to topic smiths, or did you only drop by to pile on with off topic personal abuse?

17 year pause folks...any suggestions as to why temps stopped rising?

[Ben D]

Chill, fellers. Honestly, I don't know what this is about other than the topic of the OP. But if you hate each other, I would suggest taking it to PM and not keeping this on the general board. A mod's gonna come in here soon. Shake virtual hands and be done with it and/or this thread should now be locked. Just get along. . .

Why would I hate anyone here my friend 82_28....I forgive them for they know not what they do....but posts related to the 17 year pause in global warming is threatening their faith that AGW is going to destroy the planet, and they don't want to be reminded of it. Instead they would prefer posts that spell doom and gloom...all the result of human occupation of the planet. Does anyone want this thread locked...not me for sure...but I would suggest that the CAGW congregation may want that outcome to prevent contrary evidence to their beliefs surfacing here on RI...hence their off topic personal attacks on me...and on skeptical climate scientists whose work happens to be relevant to the discussion.

[82_28]

You know, Ben D. I don't know. I side with "global climate change" and I have to admit, "just because".

My mom a couple of decades ago lamented that you could play in puddles and shit when it was raining when she was a kid. She told me a long time ago that lightning was way more rare in her day even some twenty years ago. Totally anecdotal. But there is that.

However the hype on "both sides" is a little artificially bitter. There should be no hype in shit like this. There should be prudence. We know the life we've lived in cars and shit is not natural and we also have only had a little less than a century using plastic. I think the larger issue when it comes to this shit is the plastic in the ocean.

Then again, I don't know.

[Ben D]

You know, Ben D. I don't know. I side with "global climate change" and I have to admit, "just because".

My mom a couple of decades ago lamented that you could play in puddles and shit when it was raining when she was a kid. She told me a long time ago that lightning was way more rare in her day even some twenty years ago. Totally anecdotal. But there is that.

However the hype on "both sides" is a little artificially bitter. There should be no hype in shit like this. There should be prudence. We know the life we've lived in cars and shit is not natural and we also have only had a little less than a century using plastic. I think the larger issue when it comes to this shit is the plastic in the ocean.

Then again, I don't know.

You need to clarify what you mean by "global climate change" 82_28....of course there is climate change..but do you claim humans are primarily the cause or it?

That's the difference...of course humans do contribute something to climate warming...but from my understanding of the science...it is far from being the primary cause.

Now I have no dislike for those who think humans are the blame, they post material that is pro-AGW and I post material that is skeptical...do you or the mods find this unacceptable?

Otoh, there are CAGW types here on this thread who seem to think that I am fair game to attack because I dare post the contrarian evidence...and the more science is involved...the madder they get because they can't refute it due to the fact that the science is solid or that they don't really understand the science. I mean why would you get mad if you had solid evidence that humans GHG caused the warming because the temperature went up as the human GHG emissions went up as the climate models all predicted.....but it's not happening!

[Rory]

Everything Ben posts is from:

a), Pro-Growth, Business As Usual, rightwing, conservative (patriarchal) mainstream press. Like the Daily Hate, or Wall Street Journal, etc.

b), libertairian, rightwing, pro-capitalism, blogs that claim climate science is a Green Consipracy, to force people into a socialist new world order.

c), blatant oil industry shills and pro fossil fuel blogs, using pseudo science to muddy the waters and generally act with a veneer of legitimacy, while their real motive is disinfo and lies.

d), actual oil industry propoganda and disinfo.

You will note that Ben is pro growth, pro nuclear, pro business as usual. You will note that he is misogynistic, and patriarchal in his discourse (see entire convo with C2w, back in the day - she tore him to shreds mind, so it might not be pleasant reading for Ben). You will note that he has lied on several occasions and lied further when challenged. You will note for the record that he firmly believes that the USA is the actual biblical antichtist, and that the bible end times are being played out. And, in contradiction with that, that we will build nuclear and eventually fusion powered rocket ships to colonize the universe. His MO is to act in bad faith, pretending to be all new age and whiteboy eastern mystic, but in reality, he represents the very, free market capitalist, Business As Usual sociopatholigarchy that is destroying the planet with avarice and greed.

Ben is a cheerleader for the predator class that will see you and yours sold off into debt slavery to feed the machine and it's malignant pursuit of profit.

[Rory]

Namaste

[82_28]

Ben, I really don't know. I am a hype and propaganda afficionado. My "science" deals in "memes" and I still don't even know what that even means. And if you are posting links and snippets from right wing sources, so be it. Make your case and don't be a dick. This goes for all of us. Make your case and speculate away.

[Ben D]

Ben, I really don't know. I am a hype and propaganda afficionado. My "science" deals in "memes" and I still don't even know what that even means. And if you are posting links and snippets from right wing sources, so be it. Make your case and don't be a dick. This goes for all of us. Make your case and speculate away.

Good grief 82_28 ..right wing sources? ...you actually think Rory is an honest broker?....anyplace other than wacko leftie green CAGW sources ir right wing to Rory...haha!!! ...my interest in climate science is real...I spend considerable time every single day reading up on the latest discussions and science related to climate wherever they lead....and my posts generally aren't snippets...they cut to the core of the mistaken belief that humans are the primary cause of global warming.

Anyways I think it admirable that you admit to not knowing...honesty is a sign of humility in this instance and you are open to learning the truth....those that just roll over and let the UN green AGW bandwagon run over them and their ability to think for themselves have not seen how weak the case is for AGW...though despite that, I am happy to jostle with them about the science...sooner or later the penny will drop for them.

[82_28]

Chill, fellers. Honestly, I don't know what this is about other than the topic of the OP. But if you hate each other, I would suggest taking it to PM and not keeping this on the general board. A mod's gonna come in here soon. Shake virtual hands and be done with it and/or this thread should now be locked. Just get along. . .

Why would I hate anyone here my friend 82_28....I forgive them for they know not what they do....but posts related to the 17 year pause in global warming is threatening their faith that AGW is going to destroy the planet, and they don't want to be reminded of it. Instead they would prefer posts that spell doom and gloom...all the result of human occupation of the planet. Does anyone want this thread locked...not me for sure...but I would suggest that the CAGW congregation may want that outcome to prevent contrary evidence to their beliefs surfacing here on RI...hence their off topic personal attacks on me...and on skeptical climate scientists whose work happens to be relevant to the discussion.

You are my friend in humanity, but the others here are also "my friends". Just bring, as they say, something to the table as far as being civil with this ongoing discussion. I am probably the most fooul mouthed member here as far as profanity. I think with RI, is that I really care about it as it continues to dribble away.

DON'T DO YOUR PART. Get along and move on.

As far as the "17 year pause" in global warming, I don't know. I have noticed a lot of shit go down in the skies and honestly, I can't tell what's what. This is why in some capacity, I "feel you". I guess it's because I don't side on either side. Reason being is that I don't believe there are any REAL sides in this fake ass morass. It's either happening or it is not. If it's not, then what is happening? If it is, then what is happening? Either "side" something is happening. What is the core truth to what is happening? It is going on on many levels of comprehension and natural evidence. Then again, what is comprehension and natural evidence? All of it very subjective and no matter where we sit on this matter SOMETHING is happening -- and no, I do not mean climate change.

[82_28]

Ben, I really don't know. I am a hype and propaganda afficionado. My "science" deals in "memes" and I still don't even know what that even means. And if you are posting links and snippets from right wing sources, so be it. Make your case and don't be a dick. This goes for all of us. Make your case and speculate away.

Good grief 82_28 ..right wing sources? ...you actually think Rory is an honest broker?....anyplace other than wacko leftie green CAGW sources ir right wing to Rory...haha!!! ...my interest in climate science is real...I spend considerable time every single day reading up on the latest discussions and science related to climate wherever they lead....and my posts generally aren't snippets...they cut to the core of the mistaken belief that humans are the primary cause of global warming.

Anyways I think it admirable that you admit to not knowing...honesty is a sign of humility in this instance and you are open to learning the truth....those that just roll over and let the green AGW bandwagon run over them and their ability to think for themselves have not seen how weak the case is for AGW...though despite that, I am happy to jostle with them about the science...sooner or later the penny will drop for them.

Bro, that's what others have "accused" you of. I'm just trying to smooth the pavement. I don't believe anything, but believe there is all. (I guess my sig says that, come to think of it)

I think that all who remain posting and commenting here are honest, including you and Rory. If you or Rory are not being honest then I say keep it up. It just isn't an issue that we should sully the forum with. You guys have an honest disagreement and cases should be made and not flaming one another or whoever.

[Ben D]

You are my friend in humanity, but the others here are also "my friends". Just bring, as they say, something to the table as far as being civil with this ongoing discussion. I am probably the most fooul mouthed member here as far as profanity. I think with RI, is that I really care about it as it continues to dribble away.

DON'T DO YOUR PART. Get along and move on.

As far as the "17 year pause" in global warming, I don't know. I have noticed a lot of shit go down in the skies and honestly, I can't tell what's what. This is why in some capacity, I "feel you". I guess it's because I don't side on either side. Reason being is that I don't believe there are any REAL sides in this fake ass morass. It's either happening or it is not. If it's not, then what is happening? If it is, then what is happening? Either "side" something is happening. What is the core truth to what is happening? It is going on on many levels of comprehension and natural evidence. Then again, what is comprehension and natural evidence? All of it very subjective and no matter where we sit on this matter SOMETHING is happening -- and no, I do not mean climate change.

Thanks friend 82_28, I have always known you to be a friendly face here..to all concerned. I try always to be civil with my fellowman whenever wherever, and that includes this thread...but there are people as you well know who take the position..."if you're not for me, you're against me" and these types seem to constitute most of my detractors here on this thread who hate hearing of the evidence that undermines their core beliefs and resort to personal abuse rather than discuss. Do I cuss back...no I don't, but I don't cease the case I was making because of their intimidation...and that often brings on a paroxysm.

And the bigger picture....apart from climate wars...yes..lots happening and that's my other love...geopolitics and religion...I just keep on observing and meditating...insights come but there are no answers...I am just happy to be in good space where all the activity whirling round does not disturb my peace too much.

[Ben D]

Ben, I really don't know. I am a hype and propaganda afficionado. My "science" deals in "memes" and I still don't even know what that even means. And if you are posting links and snippets from right wing sources, so be it. Make your case and don't be a dick. This goes for all of us. Make your case and speculate away.

Good grief 82_28 ..right wing sources? ...you actually think Rory is an honest broker?....anyplace other than wacko leftie green CAGW sources ir right wing to Rory...haha!!! ...my interest in climate science is real...I spend considerable time every single day reading up on the latest discussions and science related to climate wherever they lead....and my posts generally aren't snippets...they cut to the core of the mistaken belief that humans are the primary cause of global warming.

Anyways I think it admirable that you admit to not knowing...honesty is a sign of humility in this instance and you are open to learning the truth....those that just roll over and let the green AGW bandwagon run over them and their ability to think for themselves have not seen how weak the case is for AGW...though despite that, I am happy to jostle with them about the science...sooner or later the penny will drop for them.

Bro, that's what others have "accused" you of. I'm just trying to smooth the pavement. I don't believe anything, but believe there is all. (I guess my sig says that, come to think of it)

I think that all who remain posting and commenting here are honest, including you and Rory. If you or Rory are not being honest then I say keep it up. It just isn't an issue that we should sully the forum with. You guys have an honest disagreement and cases should be made and not flaming one another or whoever.

Fine 82_28...I was mostly being rhetorical....and yes....let those that are honest be honest still and those that are dishonest...carry on...the goodies always win in the end...rhetoric again but there is I believe a universal principle underlying the long term benefit of honesty... and I love your sig..

[DrEvil]

Here's a summary of just how competent Dr. Spencer is (hint: It's not pretty):

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/roy-spencer/

Seriously....posting a 3 year old blog post from bbickmore (never heard of him), did you not read it first?

The blog post says....

The Great Global Warming Blunder

1. Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1. In his latest book, The Great Global Warming Blunder, Roy Spencer lashes out at the rest of the climate science community for either ignoring or suppressing publication of his research. This research, he claims, virtually proves that the climate models used by the IPCC respond much too sensitively to external “forcing” due to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, variations in solar radiation, and so on.

So the claim of a The Great Global Warming Blunder is busted by none other than the IPCC itself.....

Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years, page 31, (bold emphasis added):

(c) Model Response Error

The discrepancy between simulated and observed GMST trends during 1998–2012 could be explained in part by a tendency for some CMIP5 models to simulate stronger warming in response to increases in greenhouse-gas concentration than is consistent with observations… This finding provides evidence that some CMIP5 models show a larger response to greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic factors (dominated by the effects of aerosols) than the real world (medium confidence).

Now this is what I've been saying all along...the 17 year old pause shows us that the models use too much forcing for the CO2/GHG and thus produce too high a temperature projection compared to actual temperature over time....so Dr Spenser isn't busted but bbickmore is....along with his climate change science ignorant patsy DrEvil....

So you dismiss my obscure blog out of hand, and respond with an even more obscure blog? You can't even stay consistent in one single post.

Here's the summary at the end (p. 31, from here: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images ... pter09.pdf):

The causes of both the observed GMST trend hiatus and of the model–observation GMST trend difference during 1998–2012 imply that, barring a major volcanic eruption, most 15-year GMST trends in the near-term future will be larger than during 1998–2012 (high confidence; see 11.3.6.3. for a full assessment of near-term projections of GMST). The reasons for this implication are fourfold: first, anthropogenic greenhouse-gas concentrations are expected to rise further in all RCP scenarios; second, anthropogenic aerosol concentration is expected to decline in all RCP scenarios, and so is
the resulting cooling effect; third, the trend in solar forcing is expected to be larger over most near-term 15–year periods than over 1998–2012 (medium confidence), because 1998–2012 contained the full downward phase of the solar cycle; and fourth, it is more likely than not that internal climate variability in the near-term will enhance and not counteract the surface warming expected to arise from the increasing anthropogenic forcing.

Hint: They're not concluding that their model is wrong (Seriously - read the whole thing, not just the bit cherry picked for you by yet another right-wing troll. I would have quoted more but for some reason copy-paste from that pdf is borked).

[Ben D]

Here's a summary of just how competent Dr. Spencer is (hint: It's not pretty):

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/roy-spencer/

Seriously....posting a 3 year old blog post from bbickmore (never heard of him), did you not read it first?

The blog post says....

The Great Global Warming Blunder

1. Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1. In his latest book, The Great Global Warming Blunder, Roy Spencer lashes out at the rest of the climate science community for either ignoring or suppressing publication of his research. This research, he claims, virtually proves that the climate models used by the IPCC respond much too sensitively to external “forcing” due to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, variations in solar radiation, and so on.

So the claim of a The Great Global Warming Blunder is busted by none other than the IPCC itself.....

Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years, page 31, (bold emphasis added):

(c) Model Response Error

The discrepancy between simulated and observed GMST trends during 1998–2012 could be explained in part by a tendency for some CMIP5 models to simulate stronger warming in response to increases in greenhouse-gas concentration than is consistent with observations… This finding provides evidence that some CMIP5 models show a larger response to greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic factors (dominated by the effects of aerosols) than the real world (medium confidence).

Now this is what I've been saying all along...the 17 year old pause shows us that the models use too much forcing for the CO2/GHG and thus produce too high a temperature projection compared to actual temperature over time....so Dr Spenser isn't busted but bbickmore is....along with his climate change science ignorant patsy DrEvil....

So you dismiss my obscure blog out of hand, and respond with an even more obscure blog? You can't even stay consistent in one single post.

Here's the summary at the end (p. 31, from here: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images ... pter09.pdf):

The causes of both the observed GMST trend hiatus and of the model–observation GMST trend difference during 1998–2012 imply that, barring a major volcanic eruption, most 15-year GMST trends in the near-term future will be larger than during 1998–2012 (high confidence; see 11.3.6.3. for a full assessment of near-term projections of GMST). The reasons for this implication are fourfold: first, anthropogenic greenhouse-gas concentrations are expected to rise further in all RCP scenarios; second, anthropogenic aerosol concentration is expected to decline in all RCP scenarios, and so is
the resulting cooling effect; third, the trend in solar forcing is expected to be larger over most near-term 15–year periods than over 1998–2012 (medium confidence), because 1998–2012 contained the full downward phase of the solar cycle; and fourth, it is more likely than not that internal climate variability in the near-term will enhance and not counteract the surface warming expected to arise from the increasing anthropogenic forcing.

Hint: They're not concluding that their model is wrong (Seriously - read the whole thing, not just the bit cherry picked for you by yet another right-wing troll. I would have quoted more but for some reason copy-paste from that pdf is borked).

Yes, the blog you linked to has implied that Dr Spencer is wrong for saying that the IPCC GHG sensitivity is over estimated in the GCModels....but the so called obscure blog I quoted from is not implying....it is quoting verbatim from the IPCC itself admitting that the GHG sensitivity has been over estimated in some of the models....do you understand the difference?

As to the rest of the IPCC report you quoted....that is the summary...."The causes of both the observed GMST trend hiatus and of the model–observation GMST trend difference during 1998–2012 imply that, barring a major volcanic eruption, most 15-year GMST trends in the near-term future will be larger than during 1998–2012 (high confidence; see 11.3.6.3. for a full assessment of near-term projections of GMST)."....well it is 2 years on and the hiatus continues...the trend is not larger and the IPCC model projections continue to fail....

Of course they're not concluding the models fail...the governments of the world are funding the UN IPCC...the UN IPCC was set up in 1988 to "....assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.".....somewhere along the road, that 'risk of human induced' morphed into 'actually human induced' and all their funding from the governments of the world are now provided on the basis that AGW is REAL......any science that may imply that humans are not the threat it initially seemed 26 years ago threatens the UN IPCC's continued existence.

The hiatus is now approaching 18 years and the models are still expecting warming.....the models are wrong and they won't openly admit it and won't until the believers withdraw their support...but so long as the people believe the AGW hype...the UN wins!

What is it about the far left green activists that they believe the UN is the source of the ultimate truth wrt climate change...do you all think that anyone who questions the authority of the United Nations to dictate to human that humans are fully responsible for the state of the planets climate, no matter what it does, is some right wing oil shill?

C'mon....RI deserves better than this!

[brainpanhandler]

I see what you did there O' bendy one.

You've done enough. Have you nooo sense of decency 'sir'? At long last have you left NO sense of decency?