The $100k Global Warming Challenge

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
notice how they put hiatus in quotes to signal dubiousness?

those are called scare quotes or sneer quotes. this should be obvious by the way they noted an "increasing linear trend" as well as the fact that "the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST".

but i guess you are too stupid to notice that they are mocking people like you.

or, to put it another way, you are too "special" and "smart" to let standard english language conventions get in the way of your "totally intelligent analysis".

LOL
And here? Same source.

In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend. Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus. There is medium confidence that the GMST trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some CMIP5 models overestimating the response to increasing GHG and other anthropogenic forcing. The CMIP5 model trend in ERF shows no apparent bias against the AR5 best estimate over 1998–2012. However, confidence in this assessment of CMIP5 ERF trend is low, primarily because of the uncertainties in model aerosol forcing and processes, which through spatial heterogeneity might well cause an undetected global mean ERF trend error even in the absence of a trend in the global mean aerosol loading. 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.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012
they defined it this way when they called it a "hiatus."

remember this?

the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012...Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend
a hiatus is a pause or a gap in some trend or process, not a slower continuation of some trend or process.

hence why they called it a "hiatus" to placate you fox news tards, and not an actual hiatus.

i remember when i thought you carried a decent amount of intelligence. i was wrong.
 

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
they defined it this way when they called it a "hiatus."

remember this?



a hiatus is a pause or a gap in some trend or process, not a slower continuation of some trend or process.

hence why they called it a "hiatus" to placate you fox news tards, and not an actual hiatus.

i remember when i thought you carried a decent amount of intelligence. i was wrong.
How many more links to the ipcc use of the term hiatus would you like me to post? Or are you satisfied now?

Shall we move on to the satellite data?
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
How many more links to the ipcc use of the term hiatus would you like me to post? Or are you satisfied now?

Shall we move on to the satellite data?
In an previous thread on the same subject, with a 20 minute Gugleė search, I found more than 30 explanations for the hiatus (that several nitwits on RIU claim didn't happen) from CLIMATE SCIENTISTS who are not only proponents of the MMGW farce, but are considered leaders of the movement, many of whom have been extolled as experts by the same RIU nitwits and are included on the IPCC's list of complicit assholes.

I posted several of them with links to their published explanations, only to be met with absolute silence or flaccid insults.
 

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
In an previous thread on the same subject, with a 20 minute Gugleė search, I found more than 30 explanations for the hiatus (that several nitwits on RIU claim didn't happen) from CLIMATE SCIENTISTS who are not only proponents of the MMGW farce, but are considered leaders of the movement, many of whom have been extolled as experts by the same RIU nitwits and are included on the IPCC's list of complicit assholes.

I posted several of them with links to their published explanations, only to be met with absolute silence or flaccid insults.
These hiatus deniers are a strange bunch!
 

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
they didn't call it a hiatus. they called it a "hiatus".

see how "smart" you are?
Curious that not long ago you didn't even recognize the word was defined and used in the IPCC report. Maybe we should debate after you actually read the IPCC assessment, and not the skepticalscience interpretation?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Curious that not long ago you didn't even recognize the word was defined and used in the IPCC report. Maybe we should debate after you actually read the IPCC assessment, and not the skepticalscience interpretation?
a hiatus is a pause or a gap in a sequence or process, not a continuation of that process at some other rate.

hence "hiatus".

they are literally mocking you for your stupidity, and you take it as a victory.
 

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
a hiatus is a pause or a gap in a sequence or process, not a continuation of that process at some other rate.

hence "hiatus".

they are literally mocking you for your stupidity, and you take it as a victory.
Tell us more about how the ipcc is mocking me. They observed a hiatus and speak to it. Does that make them racists like David Duke? You crack me up!
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Tell us more about how the ipcc is mocking me. They observed a hiatus and speak to it. Does that make them racists like David Duke? You crack me up!
they did not observe a hiatus.

they specifically defined what "hiatus" (aka not a hiatus) they were talking about.

you are too stupid to realize they are mocking you.
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
It was warm here on the East coast for a few days over Xmas and that totally wasn't weather, cause you know, global warming. But, now we're heading down into the 40's and 30's over the next couple weeks. Since, we have been informed by our resident idiots that that isn't weather, we MUST be heading into an ice age.

Apparently, we aren't doing a good enough job at spewing CO2 into the atmosphere if we can't sustain the warming for more than a few days. Or is this just another hiatus that will be explained by dozens of leading climate scientists, yet denied by Eco-Loon mongoloid zealots on forums across the interwebz?
 

heckler73

Well-Known Member
I appreciate your sentiment, but that's not what's being said.

Any data set can be lowpass filtered, the question is, does it provide a useful analysis?

Apparently for the gullible it might.
This isn't about "low-pass filtering". It is about the Thermodynamic concepts underlying the idea of "average global temperature".
The paper bluntly states near the end,

"There is no global temperature.
...
The purpose of this paper was to explain the fundamental meaninglessness of so-called global temperature data."


The reason it is meaningless is due to the lack of physics behind the statistical narrative. If there is no physical basis for the metric, for all intents and purposes, it does not exist.

I hope that clarifies my prior statement.
 

god1

Well-Known Member
This isn't about "low-pass filtering". It is about the Thermodynamic concepts underlying the idea of "average global temperature".
The paper bluntly states near the end,

"There is no global temperature.
...
The purpose of this paper was to explain the fundamental meaninglessness of so-called global temperature data."


The reason it is meaningless is due to the lack of physics behind the statistical narrative. If there is no physical basis for the metric, for all intents and purposes, it does not exist.

I hope that clarifies my prior statement.

The point is, you can name a data set anything you want and take moving averages tell hell freezes over but if the premise driving the concept is wrong it's useless.

The name attributed to the data set is a result of the fact that temps around the global exist and that somebody has averaged them. The authors are arguing, (and rightfully so), that the exercise is useless. That doesn't mean that the data set doesn't exist.

The fact is, the state of the art as a collective science, for long term accurate and precise climate prediction, is immature. This is the arrangement they wanted or should be making.

Btw, I hope it's clear we're having a disagreement about semantics re a data set and not the meat of the issue in general. At least that's my point of view and I do understand where you're coming from.
 
Top