[Pants-of-dog]

Truth to Power,

Which models make this claim? Please be specific.

Thank you.

Please note this is the second time I ask you.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Here is the NASA temperature anomaly from 1970 to 2015, with 2 trends - up to 1998, and post 1998, the periods cherry-picked by 'Truth to Power'.



Well, you can just see the change. It was 1.9 degrees per century before, and 1.5 degrees after. If, as looks likely, 2016 is warmer than 2015, it will be an even smaller difference. Truth to Power cannot, of course, give any reason for assuming there was a sudden change in the multi-year trend in 1998.

[Truth To Power]

Which models make this claim? Please be specific.

There are many models; here is a selection of the ones commonly considered to represent "the consensus" on temperature, plotted against the actual temperature :

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... means1.png

Please note this is the second time I ask you.

This, from you, after all the times I've asked you to support your claims and you haven't been able to...?

Whatevs...

Here is the NASA temperature anomaly from 1970 to 2015, with 2 trends - up to 1998, and post 1998, the periods cherry-picked by 'Truth to Power'.

Excuse me, but exactly which temperature anomaly is this? What is the source of the graph? What does the y-axis even mean?

Well, you can just see the change.

Because the data have repeatedly been altered to raise later temperatures and reduce earlier ones.

It was 1.9 degrees per century before, and 1.5 degrees after. If, as looks likely, 2016 is warmer than 2015, it will be an even smaller difference.

If you take the temperature data and change them to agree with AGW theory.

Truth to Power cannot, of course, give any reason for assuming there was a sudden change in the multi-year trend in 1998.

That is a lie. I have said many times that the ~30-year up-phase of the trendless ~60-year temperature cycle ended around 1998, and has been followed by the down-phase, which I assume will also last ~30 years.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Here is the NASA temperature anomaly from 1970 to 2015, with 2 trends - up to 1998, and post 1998, the periods cherry-picked by 'Truth to Power'.
Excuse me, but exactly which temperature anomaly is this? What is the source of the graph? What does the y-axis even mean?

As I said, and you quoted, NASA. Since you post about global warming, I would expect you to know where to find the NASA global temperature anomaly figures (the base years are 1951-1980). But they're here (it's the calendar year figures, and, as you could have worked out, the y axis is in hundredths of a degree Celsius): http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/table ... s+dSST.txt

Because the data have repeatedly been altered to raise later temperatures and reduce earlier ones.

Ah, conspiracy theories? That's what you're relying on now, is it? Well, there's no arguing against that ...

If you take the temperature data and change them to agree with AGW theory.

Yeah, when you are trying to argue like that, you may have gone beyond 'climate change denial' and into 'far right American political paranoia'.

Truth to Power cannot, of course, give any reason for assuming there was a sudden change in the multi-year trend in 1998.

That is a lie. I have said many times that the ~30-year up-phase of the trendless ~60-year temperature cycle ended around 1998, and has been followed by the down-phase, which I assume will also last ~30 years.

There you go - you still can't give a reason for 1998. You just claim that it happened, without any attempt at a reason. You see a temperature increasing at 1.5 degrees per century, and you call it a 'down-phase'? Wow. Your paranoia has reached the stage when you're literally calling 'up' 'down'.

[Pants-of-dog]

There are many models; here is a selection of the ones commonly considered to represent "the consensus" on temperature, plotted against the actual temperature :

And where does the creationist show that these models have predicted rapid warming in the 21st C caused by increased CO2, based on their misinterpretations of the relationship between rising CO2 in the late 20th C and the contemporaneous global temperature trend?

[Truth To Power]

Here is the NASA temperature anomaly from 1970 to 2015, with 2 trends - up to 1998, and post 1998, the periods cherry-picked by 'Truth to Power'.
Excuse me, but exactly which temperature anomaly is this? What is the source of the graph? What does the y-axis even mean?

As I said, and you quoted, NASA.

NASA is neither a temperature anomaly nor a temperature data set.

Since you post about global warming, I would expect you to know where to find the NASA global temperature anomaly figures (the base years are 1951-1980). But they're here (it's the calendar year figures, and, as you could have worked out, the y axis is in hundredths of a degree Celsius): http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/table ... s+dSST.txt

So it's based on GISS, the most uppity temperature record they could find, which no actual climate scientist takes seriously. Check.

Because the data have repeatedly been altered to raise later temperatures and reduce earlier ones.

Ah, conspiracy theories?

No, facts.

That's what you're relying on now, is it? Well, there's no arguing against that ...

Correct: there's no arguing against the fact that temperature data have been repeatedly altered, increasing later temperatures and reduce earlier ones.

If you take the temperature data and change them to agree with AGW theory.

Yeah, when you are trying to argue like that, you may have gone beyond 'climate change denial' and into 'far right American political paranoia'.

<yawn> The facts are what they are. Every time temperature data are, "adjusted," "smoothed," "weighted," "corrected," "reconciled," etc., later temperatures end up higher than the actual readings, earlier ones end up lower.

Truth to Power cannot, of course, give any reason for assuming there was a sudden change in the multi-year trend in 1998.
That is a lie. I have said many times that the ~30-year up-phase of the trendless ~60-year temperature cycle ended around 1998, and has been followed by the down-phase, which I assume will also last ~30 years.

There you go - you still can't give a reason for 1998.

I JUST GAVE IT TO YOU.

You just claim that it happened, without any attempt at a reason.

I JUST GAVE IT TO YOU.

You see a temperature increasing at 1.5 degrees per century, and you call it a 'down-phase'? Wow.

No, I see an altered and known-incorrect temperature record increasing at 1.5C/century and call it a down-phase.

Your paranoia has reached the stage when you're literally calling 'up' 'down'.

<yawn> Perhaps you can find a willingness to know the fact that you can be in a seasonal down-phase of the annual employment cycle while in a long-term growth trend that overrides the seasonal trend. This is analogous to our currently being in different phases of at least six different climate cycles and trends:

1. The ~100KY Milankovitch cycle is in its down-phase, moving the planet towards Ice Age conditions.
2. The millennium-scale solar activity cycle has just gone through a peak after rebounding from the low of the Little Ice Age, and may now be poised for a downturn.
3. The century-scale CO2 trend is up exponentially, and will likely continue to be for an unknown period.
4. The ~60-year cycle is in the middle of its down-phase.
5. The 11-year sunspot cycle is past its peak and is also near the middle of its down-phase.
6. The El Nino cycle is near or just past its peak.

So we currently have three up-factors in effect -- the solar activity cycle, the CO2 trend and El Nino -- and three down-factors: the Milankovitch cycle, the 60-year cycle and the sunspot cycle.

But probably you are not willing to know such facts.

And where does the creationist show that these models have predicted rapid warming in the 21st C caused by increased CO2, based on their misinterpretations of the relationship between rising CO2 in the late 20th C and the contemporaneous global temperature trend?

That's the only rationalization they give for their high assumed CO2 sensitivity.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

NASA is neither a temperature anomaly nor a temperature data set.

You asked where it came from. It comes from NASA.

So it's based on GISS, the most uppity temperature record they could find, which no actual climate scientist takes seriously. Check.

Right wing paranoia.

No, facts.

No, lies.

Correct: there's no arguing against the fact that temperature data have been repeatedly altered, increasing later temperatures and reduce earlier ones.

Right wing paranoia.

<yawn> The facts are what they are. Every time temperature data are, "adjusted," "smoothed," "weighted," "corrected," "reconciled," etc., later temperatures end up higher than the actual readings, earlier ones end up lower.

Right wing paranoia.

I JUST GAVE IT TO YOU.

No, there's no 'reason' there - you've just claimed you've found a 60 year cycle. You've no reason for such a cycle to exist.

I JUST GAVE IT TO YOU.

No, you don't understand what 'reason' means.

No, I see an altered and known-incorrect temperature record increasing at 1.5C/century and call it a down-phase.

Right wing paranoia, a lie, and calling 'up' 'down', all in one sentence. You're on a roll.

2. The millennium-scale solar activity cycle has just gone through a peak after rebounding from the low of the Little Ice Age, and may now be poised for a downturn.

OK, that's a figure worth discussing. Total solar irradiance is gradually decreasing, in terms of the peaks and troughs it reaches during the 11 year cycle, and has been doing so since they started measuring it directly with satellites: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... et_prt.htm . And if we look back at the peaks that sunspot activity reached, which does correlate well with the directly measured irradiance, we find the highest peak was 1960 - during the last time the global temperature actually was in a down phase, however small: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10571 . Really, the effect of the sunspot count on global temperature seems to be nothing, looking at that. It's swamped by greenhouse gas effects in the 20th and 21st centuries, anyway.

4. The ~60-year cycle is in the middle of its down-phase.

For which you can give no mechanism, and just comes from you glancing at a graph.

So we currently have three up-factors in effect -- the solar activity cycle, the CO2 trend and El Nino -- and three down-factors: the Milankovitch cycle, the 60-year cycle and the sunspot cycle.

But probably you are not willing to know such facts.

Except we see that solar activity has been slowly decreasing for some time, so it's not an 'up-factor'.

[Pants-of-dog]

Truth To Power,

Your creationist source does not support your claim about climate models.

[Besoeker]

A link.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming_2.html

And a pic.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Not the comment about unprecedented rate.

[Hindsite]

Do you agree that H2O is a greenhouse gas?

H2O is the chemistry symbol that describes the composition of a water molecule. It means a combination of 2 Hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom. That combination forms a liquid, not a gas.

[Godstud]

That combination forms a liquid, not a gas.

I find it VERY hard to believe that you took science in school.

Elements have 3 forms. Gaseous, Solid and liquid.

H20, or HOH, has 3 forms, as well.
Steam is HOH in its gaseous form.
Ice is HOH in its solid form.
Water is HOH in it's liquid form.

[Hindsite]

I find it VERY hard to believe that you took science in school.
Elements have 3 forms. Gaseous, Solid and liquid.

H20, or HOH, has 3 forms, as well.
Steam is HOH in its gaseous form.
Ice is HOH in its solid form.
Water is HOH in it's liquid form.

It is true. I took both Physics and Chemistry during my two years of college.

Under normal temperature, H2O is liquid water. Water vapor only occurs at the boiling point of water, which is about 100 degrees Celsius or 212 degrees Fahrenheit.

[Truth To Power]

It is true. I took both Physics and Chemistry during my two years of college.

Don't worry, there are people with doctorates in physical science making equally wrong statements on the subject of global warming.

Under normal temperature, H2O is liquid water. Water vapor only occurs at the boiling point of water, which is about 100 degrees Celsius or 212 degrees Fahrenheit.

Wrong. Google "vapor pressure of water" and start reading. Trillions of tons of water vapor come off the oceans every single day. Which is one reason we know AGW climate models are wrong.

[Hindsite]

Wrong. Google "vapor pressure of water" and start reading. Trillions of tons of water vapor come off the oceans every single day. Which is one reason we know AGW climate models are wrong.

The vapor pressure of water is the pressure at which water vapor is in thermodynamic equilibrium with its condensed state. At higher pressures water would condense. The water vapor pressure is the partial pressure of water vapor in any gas mixture in equilibrium with solid or liquid water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water

I was not referring to the vapor pressure of water. I do not claim to be an expert and I may have inaccurately stated what I meant, but as I understand it, high temperatures at the boiling point of water breaks the bonds and turns it into a vapor. Heat from the sun is the cause of evaporation over the oceans.

It should be obvious to anyone that water (H2O) has a cooling effect and can not be the cause of global warming.

[Pants-of-dog]

Seeing as how both of you are citing Creationists, I would expect more agreement.

[Hindsite]

Seeing as how both of you are citing Creationists, I would expect more agreement.

I believe we do agree, but he is just concerned with the details more than i.

[Pants-of-dog]

It does not surprise me at all to find that Creationists agree wth climate change denialists.

In both cases, there is an anti-scientific presupposition of an answer.

[Hindsite]

It does not surprise me at all to find that Creationists agree wth climate change denialists.

In both cases, there is an anti-scientific presupposition of an answer.

We agree with the denials of Al Gore's global warming. We all know that climate changes all the time. The climate has been changing for at least 200 years and maybe even 2,000 years. We see no problem with that. There is no need to panic for the climate will continue to change and there is nothing we can do to stop it. It would be a futile effort and a waste of a lot of money.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Hindsite,
There is water vapor in the atmosphere. Humidity is a measure of it. If you have a shallow puddle of water, it slowly evaporates, even though the water is not boiling. Water vapor gradually evaporates from the oceans, but when it reaches the colder air higher up, it exceeds the vapor pressure of water for that temperature, and condenses into water droplets - these are clouds.

There is water vapor in all the atmosphere. even when there are no clouds around. It is an important part of global warming, since it does act as a greenhouse gas. Because it has a natural cycle of evaporation from oceans, and falling as rain or snow, that takes just a few days, it is very different from carbon dioxide in its effects.

[Hindsite]

Hindsite,
There is water vapor in the atmosphere. Humidity is a measure of it. If you have a shallow puddle of water, it slowly evaporates, even though the water is not boiling. Water vapor gradually evaporates from the oceans, but when it reaches the colder air higher up, it exceeds the vapor pressure of water for that temperature, and condenses into water droplets - these are clouds.

There is water vapor in all the atmosphere. even when there are no clouds around. It is an important part of global warming, since it does act as a greenhouse gas. Because it has a natural cycle of evaporation from oceans, and falling as rain or snow, that takes just a few days, it is very different from carbon dioxide in its effects.

It is a science fact that water must reach its boiling point to turn from its liquid to its gaseous state.
Water is a coolant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolant