There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[olofscience 420]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Let’s try one more time or are you going to run away with your tail tucked between your legs?

You're the one running away from your IPCC quote. Why are you suddenly changing to polar bears?

You're trying to change the topic but you haven't explained why you posted the IPCC model predictions yet.

Is it another case of mistaking a model for real-world observations?

Edited March 16, 2021 by olofscience

[olofscience 420]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

the climate models run much hotter than observation

But you just quoted a model from IPCC. Repeatedly.

Why?

Edited March 16, 2021 by olofscience

[olofscience 420]

11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

As Steven Crowder would say.....change my mind.

And just to be clear...I'm not even trying to change your mind. That's just not going to happen.

But what I can do is make it really, painfully obvious, to any readers here that your argument is a house of cards that collapses at the slightest breeze.

And no, I'm not even one of those "gaia hypothesis" hippies. I don't think the world is going to end, but I do believe there is a serious problem that needs to be solved as soon as possible. And as soon as it's solved I can go back to not worrying about it and focus on other things. But I'm not going to listen to you while you say "don't worry about it now" because you're clearly full of it.

[mistercwood 287]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Wow, just personal sniping, no engagement on the substance.

Brent there is literally zero point engaging you on the topic. YOU don't engage on substance in the first place.

Your ideas have been debunked repeatedly over many, many, many years.

There's only been maybe two or three posters here over my entire time here that I wouldn't sit down and have a beer with. You're still not one of them.

I was merely pointing out that - given that you have admitted that who you "are" here isn't really you - maybe there's some room for self-reflection on why you picked this version.

[brenthutch 383]

36 minutes ago, olofscience said:

You're the one running away from your IPCC quote. Why are you suddenly changing to polar bears?

You're trying to change the topic but you haven't explained why you posted the IPCC model predictions yet.

Is it another case of mistaking a model for real-world observations?

I’m not running away from the IPCC quote.  It was to show the “settled science” is not so settled.  They have model predicting sea level rise and they have other studies showing the opposite.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I don’t know why you are having difficulty wrapping your brain around that.  Since you get stuck on polar bears, I will remove and restate.  Again forget the models, forget the IPCC, forget Zoe. Focus on the real-world observations.  One more time.....

I say food production is at an all time high, deaths from floods, droughts, wildfires, tornadoes and hurricanes are at an all time low, the climate models run much hotter than observation, “it’s cold because it’s hot” nonsense has been debunked, deserts are shrinking not growing, vegetation has grown by 10% since 2000 because of elevated CO2, arable land has increased not decreased.

where am I wrong?

Im sorry if I confused you.

[brenthutch 383]

10 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

Brent there is literally zero point engaging you on the topic. YOU don't engage on substance in the first place.

Your ideas have been debunked repeatedly over many, many, many years.

Name just one of the eight observations I made that had been debunked.

I said NOAA showed February 2021 was colder than February 1998.  Debunk that

Edited March 17, 2021 by brenthutch

[olofscience 420]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

It was to show the “settled science” is not so settled.

I think it was to show that you have no idea about science, let alone know whether it was settled or not.

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

the climate models run much hotter than observation

Yet again...if the climate models run much hotter than observation, why did you quote one so many times?

[brenthutch 383]

2 minutes ago, olofscience said:

I think it was to show that you have no idea about science, let alone know whether it was settled or not.

Yet again...if the climate models run much hotter than observation, why did you quote one so many times?

Because it’s true and you still can’t wrap your brain around it.  Just say “you’re right Hutch, those climate models seem to predict temperatures which are higher that actual observation” and I will never mention it again.

Still having difficulty I see, I have overestimated you.

[olofscience 420]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Because it’s true and you still can’t wrap your brain around it.  Just say “you’re right Hutch, those climate models seem to predict temperatures which are higher that actual observation” and I will never mention it again.

Still having difficulty I see, I have overestimated you.

But you were quoting that model because you thought it showed ice buildup in Antarctica.

And there's NO ACTUAL OBSERVATION to compare for that model because the model was for the year 2100. It's 2021. So you're lying, yet again.

[olofscience 420]

12 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Just say “you’re right Hutch,

That's all you have to say? You don't have an argument, so I should just say you're right? Dream on

[brenthutch 383]

37 minutes ago, olofscience said:

But you were quoting that model because you thought it showed ice buildup in Antarctica.

And there's NO ACTUAL OBSERVATION to compare for that model because the model was for the year 2100. It's 2021. So you're lying, yet again.

I’m not lying, you just can’t understand.  If your reading comprehension was on point you would have picked up on the part of the quote which stated “over the next eighty years”  

I’m telling you why I posted that....IT WAS TO SHOW THE MODELS PREDICTING FUTURE SEA LEVEL RISE ARE CONTRACTED BY MODELS PREDICTING THE OPPOSITE AND BOTH ARE FROM THE IPCC!!!!

I have long been a critic of models because they can be tuned to produce what ever outcome the modelers want.  That is why I put more faith in actual OBSERVATION as laid out several times today.  If you would like to dispute the observations I have made, have at it.  But you can’t so you will continue to obfuscate.

[olofscience 420]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I’m telling you why I posted that....IT WAS TO SHOW THE MODELS PREDICTING FUTURE SEA LEVEL RISE ARE CONTRADICTED BY MODELS PREDICTING THE OPPOSITE AND BOTH ARE FROM THE IPCC!!!!

Well, why didn't you say it when you posted it? that would have saved us so much trouble!

I can actually clarify the confusion for you: they predicted several "what if" scenarios so there's no surprise some of them will contradict each other. They've actually already superseded this with another set of models and scenarios.

15 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I have long been a critic of models because they can be tuned to produce what ever outcome the modelers want.

This is definitely true, but the main problem is you don't have the knowledge to be a critic. That's not an insult - I don't have the knowledge either, since I work in a different field.

And no, attacking them or their integrity isn't criticism of their model - it's an attack on their person. So if you don't have any expertise to actually criticise their model, that's all you'll fall back to.

[murps2000 86]

https://www.noaa.gov/news/earth-just-had-its-2nd-hottest-february-on-record
 

This is how the weather was a little over a year ago. Now we have three data points.

[brenthutch 383]

9 hours ago, olofscience said:

Well, why didn't you say it when you posted it? that would have saved us so much trouble!

but the main problem is you don't have the knowledge to be a critic. 

1. It was literally in the very post in question, you just didn’t pick up on it.

2. You don’t need (to be)  a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.  IOW one need not be a mechanic to figure out their car won’t start.  It may take a mechanic to find out why, but a layperson can figure out it is broken.  Same with the climate models.  When observed temperatures are well below what is predicted in the models, it doesn’t take a climate scientist to make that observation.  It may take a scientist to figure out why however. But any layperson can make that observation.

Edited March 17, 2021 by brenthutch

[olofscience 420]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

1. It was literally in the very post in question, you just didn’t pick up on it.

Nope it wasn't. Here's the post in question:

18 hours ago, brenthutch said:

“With rising global temperature, GCMs indicate increasingly positive SMB for the Antarctic Ice Sheet as a whole because of greater accumulation (Section 10.6.4.1). For stabilisation in 2100 with SRES A1B atmospheric composition, antarctic SMB would contribute 0.4 to 2.0 mm yr^–1 of sea level fall (Table 10.7). Continental ice sheet models indicate that this would be offset by tens of percent by increased ice discharge (Section 10.6.4.2), but still give a negative contribution to sea level, of –0.8 m by 3000 in one simulation with antarctic warming of about 4.5°C (Huybrechts and De Wolde, 1999).”

No sign of any brenthutch comment on it.

There's another one, but you actually look like you agree with their model, A1B scenario:

20 hours ago, brenthutch said:

According to the IPCC, global warming has lead to no significant trend in floods, droughts, hurricanes and wildfires.  That leaves sea level rise......what does the IPCC say about sea level rise?  Let’s check in.

”The IPCC-endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm finds a warming Antarctica results in more precipitation locked up as ice on the continent. This contributes to reducing sea levels: a -1.2 mm/year⁻¹ mitigation of sea level rise over the next 80 years.”

Looks like you're running out of excuses now.

[brenthutch 383]

6 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Nope it wasn't. Here's the post in question:

No sign of any brenthutch comment on it.

There's another one, but you actually look like you agree with their model, A1B scenario:

Looks like you're running out of excuses now.

Except for the fact I posted the “over the next eighty years” one first.  

[olofscience 420]

20 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

2. You don’t need (to be)  a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.  IOW one need not be a mechanic to figure out their car won’t start.  It may take a mechanic to find out why, but a layperson can figure out it is broken.  Same with the climate models.  When observed temperatures are well below what is predicted in the models, it doesn’t take a climate scientist to make that observation.  It may take a scientist to figure out why however. But any layperson can make that observation.

But the problem is you've demonstrated at least twice that you can't tell between actual observations and models, because both are usually written in highly technical language.

So if you can't tell between observed temperatures and models, why should anyone believe you?

[brenthutch 383]

6 minutes ago, olofscience said:

But the problem is you've demonstrated at least twice that you can't tell between actual observations and models, because both are usually written in highly technical language.

“Coldest February for the globe since 2014”

That doesn’t sound like highly technical language to me.  That is straight from the NOAA website.

[olofscience 420]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

“Coldest February for the globe since 2014”

That doesn’t sound like highly technical language to me.  That is straight from the NOAA website.

Yeah but that's just about the limit of your understanding.

You want to compare that with models, but you can't even READ the models correctly.

[Phil1111 908]

44 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

“Coldest February for the globe since 2014”

That doesn’t sound like highly technical language to me.  That is straight from the NOAA website.

Why Lie? Because the moderators have lost interest in your posts out of boredom? I know for many US citizens the world ends at the US borders. But many from outside the US read these posts. Surely your public school education can't be that bad? Your Facebook feeds so filled with disinformation?

Below from NOAA

"The February 2021 global surface temperature was 1.17°F (0.65°C) above the 20th-century average of 53.9°F (12.1°C). This was the smallest February temperature departure since 2014 and the 16th highest for February in the 142-year record. 

• February 2021 marked the 45th consecutive February and the 434th consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th-century average.
• The Northern Hemisphere’s February 2021 temperature departure was the 14th highest for February on record at 1.51°F (0.84°C). This was also the smallest February temperature departure for the Northern Hemisphere since 2014.
• The Southern Hemisphere’s surface temperature departure from average was 0.81°F (0.45°C) above average — the smallest February temperature departure since 2012 and the 19th-warmest February on record. 
• The most notable warmer-than-average February 2021 temperatures of at least +3.6°F (+2.0°C) were present across eastern Canada, western, central, and southeastern Europe and southern and northeastern Asia. The most notable cool temperature departures from average during February were observed across much of North America, Scandinavia and northern Asia, where temperatures were at least 5.4°F (3.0°C) below average. Other notable cool temperatures were observed across the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, Australia and parts of the southern oceans.
• North America had its coldest February since 1994 and the 20th-coldest February in the regional 112-year record. Oceania had its coldest February since 2012. South America and the Caribbean region had a top-10 warm February."

[olofscience 420]

One more gem from that NOAA article that brent keeps quoting:

Quote

According to a statistical analysis done by NCEI scientists, the year 2021 is very likely to rank among the 10 warmest years on record.

But he doesn't get past the first sentence of the title

[brenthutch 383]

3 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Why Lie? Because the moderators have lost interest in your posts out of boredom? I know for many US citizens the world ends at the US borders. But many from outside the US read these posts. Surely your public school education can't be that bad? Your Facebook feeds so filled with disinformation?

Below from NOAA

"The February 2021 global surface temperature was 1.17°F (0.65°C) above the 20th-century average of 53.9°F (12.1°C). This was the smallest February temperature departure since 2014 and the 16th highest for February in the 142-year record. 

• February 2021 marked the 45th consecutive February and the 434th consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th-century average.
• The Northern Hemisphere’s February 2021 temperature departure was the 14th highest for February on record at 1.51°F (0.84°C). This was also the smallest February temperature departure for the Northern Hemisphere since 2014.
• The Southern Hemisphere’s surface temperature departure from average was 0.81°F (0.45°C) above average — the smallest February temperature departure since 2012 and the 19th-warmest February on record. 
• The most notable warmer-than-average February 2021 temperatures of at least +3.6°F (+2.0°C) were present across eastern Canada, western, central, and southeastern Europe and southern and northeastern Asia. The most notable cool temperature departures from average during February were observed across much of North America, Scandinavia and northern Asia, where temperatures were at least 5.4°F (3.0°C) below average. Other notable cool temperatures were observed across the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, Australia and parts of the southern oceans.
• North America had its coldest February since 1994 and the 20th-coldest February in the regional 112-year record. Oceania had its coldest February since 2012. South America and the Caribbean region had a top-10 warm February."

All of that is correct.  None of it changes the fact that GLOBAL temperatures in February 2021 were COLDER than February 1998.  Pointing out regional exceptions does not change that. 
You guys are really going to loose your sh*t if the trend continues.

[olofscience 420]

11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

You guys are really going to loose your sh*t if the trend continues.

Then betting that 2021 will be colder on average wouldn't be a problem, right?

And no, I'd be personally glad if the warming trend stopped. Jeez you have issues

[billvon 2,380]

3 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Then betting that 2021 will be colder on average wouldn't be a problem, right?

I think Brent's claims are especially funny given that he is posting them in a thread entitled "there is a problem with global warming - it stopped in 1998!"

For the next 25 years or so, deniers will see a cold year and state "SEE?  Climate change STOPPED this year!"  And they will be just as wrong as the person who posted the first post in this thread - 15 years ago.

One of the requirements of being a climate change denier is that you have to be unable to learn from experience.

 

[Phil1111 908]

3 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

...Below from NOAA

"The February 2021 global surface temperature was 1.17°F (0.65°C) above the 20th-century average of 53.9°F (12.1°C). This was the smallest February temperature departure since 2014 and the 16th highest for February in the 142-year record. .....

 

12 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

All of that is correct.  None of it changes the fact that GLOBAL temperatures in February 2021 were COLDER than February 1998.  Pointing out regional exceptions does not change that. 
You guys are really going to loose your sh*t if the trend continues.

"Based on preliminary data, January through March of 1998 ranked as the sixth warmest such year-to-date in the 104-year national record, with an area-averaged temperature of 39.00 degrees F. This is a departure of 3.46 degrees F from the long-"term mean.

You can't even cherry pick data to support your representations. The first quarter(1998) was 3.46 degrees warmer in your cherry picked term. Further more last month was 1.17°F above the long term average.

An inability to sustain an attention span and focus for short periods of time can be an indicator of depression. Surely you didn't short Tesla after everyone here warned you not to?