Talk-Polywell.org

Global climate investing is tanking:
http://www.euractiv.com/development-pol ... ews-531212
You can keep the lid on a scam for just so long.

Jccarlton wrote:Global climate investing is tanking:
http://www.euractiv.com/development-pol ... ews-531212
You can keep the lid on a scam for just so long.

More silliness.

Climate isn't determined by vote, nor by chance. Over the long run it is deterministically determined by heat.

Jccarlton wrote:Global climate investing is tanking:
http://www.euractiv.com/development-pol ... ews-531212
You can keep the lid on a scam for just so long.

Looks like there's a reason they're starting to divest.

From the Site That Must Not Be Named...

The RSS monthly satellite global mean surface temperature anomaly data, delayed by the US Government shutdown, are now available. The data show no global warming at all for 16 years 11 months. This dataset could be the first of the five to pass the strict Santer test: no global warming at all for 17 years.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/23/g ... ming-test/



CO2 concentration, meanwhile, continues its upward trend. And it is this disconnect between rising CO2 concentration and stable near-surface temperatures that makes the present long hiatus in global warming more significant than the previous periods of a decade or more without warming over the 163 years of global mean surface temperatures. In none of the previous periods was CO2 concentration either as high or rising as fast as it is today.

Climate extremists are prone to show the data since 1970 as an “escalator” with a series of “steps” consisting of decade-long pauses, but an overall rising trend:



However, a trend is not a prediction. There is no guarantee that merely because the trend has been upward it will continue upward. The effect of the frequent supra-decadal periods without warming is to constrain the overall warming rate since 1970 to a not particularly thrilling 1.6 Cº/century equivalent.

Taking the trend since 1950, a fairer benchmark since the period covers a full warming and cooling cycle of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, shows warming at a rate equivalent to less than 1.1 Cº/century.



So, can one clearly distinguish an anthropogenic warming signal in these post-1950 data from the data before 1950, when we could have had no measurable influence on the climate?

The answer is No. Professor Richard Lindzen likes to play a game with his audiences. He shows the following slide, and explains that one of the panels represents the global warming over the 52-year period 1895-1946, and the other represents the warming over the 52-year period 1957-2008. He explains that both graphs are to the same scale and invites his audience to guess which is the earlier period and which is the later.



In fact, the later period is on the left. Let us determine the linear warming trends on each of the two periods:



The later period has a very slightly steeper slope than the earlier, but only by the equivalent of a third of a Celsius degree per century. On these figures, it seems difficult to justify the IPCC’s assertion of 95% confidence that most of the warming since 1950 was anthropogenic.

Meanwhile, the discrepancy between IPCC prediction and observed reality in the monthly Global Warming Prediction Index remains glaring. A shame that the IPCC did not deal honestly or clearly with this discrepancy in its latest Summary for Policymakers.



--------------

Reality doesn't care about theories, or reports - or personalities.

And just for fun...

Identifying human influences on atmospheric temperature

An interesting read.

And the organizations the authors hail from are interesting, too...

Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550
Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Environment Canada, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 3V6
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ 08542
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado and NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Physical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO 80305
Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139
United Kingdom Meteorology Office, Hadley Centre, Exeter EX1 3PB, United Kingdom
Sciences de l’Univers au Centre Européen de Recherche et de Formation Avancée en Calcul Scientifique (CERFACS), CERFACS/Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, URA1875 Toulouse, France
Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites, North Carolina State University, and National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC 28801
Computational Research Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia; nNational Centre for Atmospheric Science,
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, United Kingdom; and oCenter for Satellite Applications and Research, National
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, College Park, MD 20740

Looks like all second-rate colleges and organizations to me. /sarc

The graphs are fakes; they show an upward tending line in the background, when an upward trend in temperature is indicated by a straight line across their graph.

Typical Watts BS.

Schneibster wrote:The graphs are fakes; they show an upward tending line in the background, when an upward trend in temperature is indicated by a straight line across their graph.

Typical Watts BS.

Care to post counter data? Or maybe you could drag out a model to counter data. You know. The modern scientific way. If the data doesn't agree with the models the data must be wrong.

But OK. Let us say it is CO2 causing all the warming. Are you serious about that?

Serious enough to go to war with China? After all their CO2 output is rising and ours is falling. But maybe we should give them a break and go to war with Europe to make them cut back their CO2 output. India should be in the cross hairs as well.

I have yet to find a believer whose belief is sufficiently strong to do something about the folks intentionally wrecking the planet for their own profit. All they want to do is to wreck their local economy with State controls.

The power mad always claim they are grabbing power for the greater good. There is a long history of it.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. CS Lewis

MSimon wrote:

Schneibster wrote:The graphs are fakes; they show an upward tending line in the background, when an upward trend in temperature is indicated by a straight line across their graph.

Typical Watts BS.

Care to post counter data?

Not really. I don't see any reason to counter fake data.

I suppose I could put a background of a burned human body that obviously died screaming while being burned alive behind every graph I post here. Would that be OK with you? I can get such a picture off ogrish dot com right now.

Don't post propaganda. I'm just going to point out it's propaganda. It's silly.

If you want to discuss climate geophysics I'm here, but so far I'm only actually discussing it with myself. Apparently you're all afraid to. You keep using lies other people like Watts made up instead of thinking for yourselves, and when you do you make up fairy tales, or leave out important details to see if you can "gotcha" me. Rhetorical BS.

What are you people afraid of?

Look:

THIS

IS

THE

HOTTEST

DECADE

ON

RECORD.

Period. There is nowhere to hide.

Schneibster wrote:

MSimon wrote:

Schneibster wrote:The graphs are fakes; they show an upward tending line in the background, when an upward trend in temperature is indicated by a straight line across their graph.

Typical Watts BS.

Care to post counter data?

Not really. I don't see any reason to counter fake data.

An upward trend is indicated by a straight line?

BTW no one who is rational says temps aren't rising - we are rebounding from a little ice age after all. What is in dispute is that the rate of rise doesn't match the predictions. And what has been noted that the current very mild rise (we may be in fact at the beginning of a falling temperature regime) was not predicted.

There are something like 15+ climate models used to predict what rising CO2 will do. I would think that if the scientists actually knew something there would be one model.

On top of that the most important greenhouse gas (water vapor) is poorly understood ad poorly measured (error bars of 30% to 40% just in the measurements). This is a fact well known and even admitted by the faithful. Could we be getting water vapor wrong in the models? Almost certainly.

Unless the sun starts pumping out a whole lot of extra infrared all that rising CO2 ain't nuthin but plant food, because all the available infrared coming in and going out has already been absorbed, just a teeny tiny fraction left for any additional gas to collect.

As noted, we have a real b14(h of a time modeling a small polywell device, does anybody honestly think we can model the climate.

MSimon wrote:

Schneibster wrote:The graphs are fakes; they show an upward tending line in the background, when an upward trend in temperature is indicated by a straight line across their graph.

An upward trend is indicated by a straight line?

Yep, if the straight line is anomalies away from the upward trend.

This is duh. Are you really an engineer?

If you are you failed graphs, right?

The slope of a straight line graph with an upward trend is a constant. I guess that's all new to you and you aren't really an engineer, you're actually a technician.

Hooray

The glaciers will all start growing again.

Stubby wrote:Hooray

The glaciers will all start growing again.

Yep, the banksters all say so, it must be troo, right?

Stubby wrote:Hooray

The glaciers will all start growing again.

Snows of Kilimanjaro defy global warming predictions

I guess it couldn't be some sort of cyclical thing... could it?

JLawson wrote:

Stubby wrote:Hooray

The glaciers will all start growing again.

Snows of Kilimanjaro defy global warming predictions

I guess it couldn't be some sort of cyclical thing... could it?

One mountain out of how many tens of thousands?

That's anecdote, not evidence.