More climate change crow for ab ASS to consume

Mozart is once again in full pompous rant & well supported by Beeno - a case of "birds of a feather"?
Wee Beeno under a protective wing


Don't look down Beeno, the waters are rising

Well done JW, it only took you a day to screw up the courage to come back.....nice ankle nip

Tell you what Basque...integrate x cubed.

 Mozart, did I miss a barb from you?I only recall something about me being earnest but I had a decent response to that one. Please re-post if I missed something, rugby news is slow & Beeno isn't providing much banter these days.

Hahaha.....thought so. A response is only decent if it hits something. Quite obviously you were afraid you missed.

 And those in climate change denial keep on diggingEvidence provided by JW BS detection system (license pending).
When they get to China will they be told it was all a hoax

 No proof there is significant warming, no proof man is solely responsible, no proof it's a bad thing. In fact far more distress and morbidity occur when temps are temporarily below average. But look you are a believer, because you were told to believe....far be it from me to criticize such compliance

Well, we have a choice it seems, i.e. we can believe what Mozart tells us we believe or we can believe what others tell us to believe. There may be other options, i.e. we believe what we believe based on logic and facts or we take a contrarian view regardless of our beliefs - some take this approach to absurdity to the amusement of most while others are thrown into rage induced insanity 
Still one has to admire Mozart's restraint in clearly stating that he doesn't want to criticize his characterization of my perceived compliance. "Very noble" is my characterization of his response, there may be others... far be it from me to cast aspersions on him when he is trying so earnestly.

Actually you can believe much of what I tell you, because nobody, not even the Warming Believers deny it: 1 All the significant warming models have overestimated actual temps....when tested against reality 2 Much of the supposed global warming occured before 1950 when Co2 concentrations were much lower than today. 3 There is a declining impact of CO2 as it's concentration increases.....the shape of this curve determines everything. 4 If you look at the hottest days by State in the US, 51 days in all, only 2 days were recorded since 2000.....29 were recorded before 1940. Kinda makes one think ...huh? But if you still want to just believe, be my guest.

By the way I prefer the term Global Warming Heretic.....more apt coming from a group whose intolerance for debate borders on religious fanaticism.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. I choose to believe Global Warming is a BIG load of BS.Thank you. 

 Not sure if you need a PhD to understand this graph:



Denialists are either Americans or very stupid people (often both). Stupid people are just stupid while Americans don't like the fact that their country is responsible for over a quarter of the world's CO2 emissions over the last 250 years.

But you might need decent primary school education to ask yourself what the absolute level of CO2 is.....0.04 % of the earth's total atmosphere and that it contributes 3.6 % of the Greenhouse effect. But only 0.1% of the effect is man made. Not even 1 % .....unlike water vapor which contributes 95%. The debate is way beyond your graph which nobody disputes, but you have no idea of the relevance of the vertical axis. Read some more.

A teaspoon of arsenic is only 0.04% of the liquid of the human body but that's ok right?
[image pending discovery]
In the Trum@p age, facts & truth are an option but usually the option of last resort

Here's a start. Nobody should even comment on Global Warming without knowing these numbers.....and I can guarantee you 99.99% of Warmers don't. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

The T.rump age....what a cop out. CO2 is not arsenic. It's a naturally occurring gas.......our contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is about 3%. You guys need to educate yourselves before you debate....or just repeat what you are told. .................. Here are the numbers, total CO2 in the atmosphere contributes 3.6 % of the greenhouse effect. Man made CO2 is 3.25% of total CO2.....which means man made CO2 contributes 3.6 % x. 3.25 % of the total greenhouse effect. That's right, man made CO2 contributes 0.1% of the greenhouse effect. .................... To have changes in a variable which contributes 1 in 1000 of the total effect make a major difference......you have to construct models that are are hair trigger sensitive. That's what they did......but the only proof is if they predicted reality, which they never have.

Yes, there are a lot of ho hum mumbo jumbo mathematical models which are clutched onto by those who don't trust their own common sense & good judgement. 
Science is always behind reality & each generation thinks they have it right. If it makes you feel more secure Mozart by all means embrace it. Facts, logic & reasoning are all passe now we have "evolved" & are about to embark on a more enlightened era.

 Actually a model is an abstraction. The fact that CO2 only contributes 3.6% of the greenhouse effect is not an abstraction, it's a simple fact. The fact that only 3.25% of the CO2 effect is man made is another fact and at best the total man made effect of 1 in 1000 is a simple extrapolation. No model. Let's get you onto a subject you may actually know something about. A wine club just sent me some Spot Light Sauvignon Blanc from the Malborough district. Is this NZ plonk any good?

 Mozart, well I see I can't get you up with the times but I felt obliged to try at least. 
On the NZ wines, I am a teetotaler  but I have bought NZ wines for years for friends at dinner parties and they have always thought they were good. Malborough district is renowned for producing good wine. I have never purchased Spot Light Sauvignon Blanc so I don't have any specific "facts". My good sense & good judgement tell me you will enjoy it

Jeez I thought I couldn't go wrong with a Sauvignon Blanc. But it fits, after getting scientific advice from a Basque I shouldn't be surprised to get wine advice from a teetotaler. Tell you what I'll just pop the cork.....or given it's from NZ, I'll twist the cap.

 "You guys need to educate yourselves before you debate....or just repeat what you are told."

yeah, not like the pompous pr¡ck who dare to say this stupidity after havig posted a collection of false statements, fake numbers, irrelevant stats, cherry-picked data and misunderstandings.

1. "All the significant warming models have overestimated actual temps....when tested against reality".
False, completely false statement. The temperature models have been very accurate as it can be seen HERE. Just one of the IPCC models and its accuracy:



If something could be imputed to the models is that they have underestimated the impacts caused by the climate change, like the retreat of the Arctic Sea Ice Extent that can be observed in this scientific research.

2."Much of the supposed global warming occured before 1950 when Co2 concentrations were much lower than today."
Another false statement clearly discarded just watching one of the many temperature graphs


as anybody can see the temperatures of the 40' (when there was a sharp increase) have been clearly surpassed.

3. "There is a declining impact of CO2 as it's concentration increases.....the shape of this curve determines everything."
False and irrelevant. The authors of the above graph "used the latest global climate models that couple the oceans and the atmosphere to project how often record highs would be seen vs record lows. What did they find? If the planet warms 3°C then we will see a ratio of around 15 record highs to each record low, and if we continue to increase the carbon in our atmosphere in a business as usual scenario, we will reach 3°C well before the end of this century." http://www.pnas.org/content/113/49/13977.abstract

4. "If you look at the hottest days by State in the US, 51 days in all, only 2 days were recorded since 2000.....29 were recorded before 1940."

this is an example of extreme cherry-picking data omitting all the relevant temperature data. Choosing the hottest days while omitting the monthly, by years or by decades temperature records is a very filthy practice (apart from been irrelevant). All the monthly records were beaten this last year,... the 16 warmer years are the 15 of this century plus 1998,... the 80' decade was the warmer until the 90' came and then the 2000 decade broke the record

5. "Here are the numbers, total CO2 in the atmosphere contributes 3.6 % of the greenhouse effect. Man made CO2 is 3.25% of total CO2.....which means man made CO2 contributes 3.6 % x. 3.25 % of the total greenhouse effect. That's right, man made CO2 contributes 0.1% of the greenhouse effect."

And this is the complete package with fake numbers and stats and the complete misunderstanding of how the greenhouse effect works.
If you use the link provided by our fellow PhD in Pomposity and C0 ckiness you could check that only the first graph and its data are from a known and reliable source (U.S. Department of Energy), the rest of the graphs and data from where he obtain his numbers are fake.
If someone wants to understand the influence of the water vapor and the CO2 and its mutual relation visit the NASA page:
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Sure thing Cloudy, but hold on while I swot the Basque. ......... 1 From the Economist an early and aggressive proponent of global warming. ...... GLOBAL warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years. There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. Nate Cohn of the New Republic reports: "Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections. ...... 2 As with all an.alyses it depends on where you start. Start at 1910 when the auto kicked up carbon emissions and you have 0.4C increase by 1950 and another 0.7 C increase since then over a longer period with much more carbon. The rate of increase 1910 to 1940 was almost exactly the same as 1980 onwards. NASA likes to start it's an.alysis in 1880, after which there was a period of cooling and end their an.alyses with El Nino warming .....which is just bending the data. ......... 3. Everybody knows the CO2 effect is not linear, and of course that's relevant....it's very relevant. ....... 4.Choosing the second biggest continent and looking at extremes over recorded history is totally legitimate. No averaging.....just straight recorded temps. Only two states had record all time highs since 2000.....two states also had record lows since 2000. Showing the tails of the distributions are fairly well anchored. If you aren't setting more new highs nothing is happening unless the temperature probability distribution is compresssing, belied by the fact that you are also setting new lows. ............. 5. The Percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere and the % of total greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is not disputed. The effect of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas may be....but even if it's doubled it's only 1 part in 500 of Greenhouse forcing. ....... So what you are stumbling blindly towards are the feedback loops these models are stuffed with....in this case it gets warmer and therefore releases more water vapor which is all charged to CO2. Of course stabilising feedback loops like increased cloud cover and the expansion of CO2 supercharged, greenhouse gas eating forests are downplayed. It's a crock.....temps today in Chicago are minus 13 degrees centigade. iI don't think we have hit 100 degrees F since 1998, something which happened quite often before 2000. Is Chicago unique? Nope it reflects a huge continental mass with similar results It's a crock.....but it sure is making a lot of weathermen famous.

 "Sure thing Cloudy, but hold on while I swot the Basque"

try to take your head out of your arse first, you stupid arrogant,... and try a little bit harder next time,... your arguments are senseless,... I don't care what a guy from the Economist have to say,... he's a nobody,... and as the 2 graphs I last posted show there's no slowing of the warming,... let alone a wrong prediction of the models,.... and if you say otherise probe it, say what model is wrong

rest of the arguments are as senseless and useless ,... and as always all your arguments are reduced to the classical "there's no global warming because it's cold where I live"

 

I’ll see your “95 percent of scientists believe in global warming” talking point and raise you a “95 percent of reality thinks your climate models are garbage.” According to that chart of actual satellite and surface temperature observations vs. what was predicted by 90 different climate models, 95 percent of models overestimated actual temperatures. Nothing says Science™ like predicting stuff incorrectly over and over and over again.

 Gosh only 95% of the models overestimated actual temps....what a farce. Of course they do much better at predicting the past than the future. Anybody believe the models weren't tweaked to make them fit past results? But it's hilarious really. They predicted a period of slow warming.....maybe they had it right, warming is happening very slowly if at all.

 All I know is that Sydney is enjoying a great summer, nothing like a day at the beach when the temp is 37C...today...tomorrow...life!

My advice denny is enjoy ......with all this bumph about warming people feel guilty when they get a nice summer day.

 It's a lot cooler today, it's ok, one gets used to these aberrations .....so I'll go for a run instead...cya!

 another fake graph from unknown source?
next time try with something legible

 Sure:
(click on to enlarge)

Earlier this year, a comparison was done using the GISS global temperature observations dataset versus an earlier version of the NASA/GISS computer climate model output, as of 2015 year-end. That comparison can be viewed here.

It is now 4 months later with the current powerful El Niño producing some very high global temperature averages.

So, how does the GISS dataset, as of March 31, 2016, compare against a newer climate model, specifically, the IPCC's modern CMIP5 model using the supposed business-as-usual greenhouse gas scenario (RCP8.5)?

The adjacent chart tells the story, but we add some more content below:

• The current El Niño appears to have peaked (maybe not, though) with a strong and rapid rising of GISS global anomalies over the 6-month period ending in March
• The 6-month surge in anomalies placed the Feb. and Mar. observations above the model output
• Despite this huge 6-month surge, the GISS linear trend is still well below the model's simulated linear trend since 1988

 this is even more filthy and tricky than any other article or graph you posted,... of course with no source, no author,... published in a bodged web,.... no verification, no peer to peer,... with a selected very small lapse of time,... which "by chance" ends just before the temperatures rise sharply,... without the model deviations,... a genuine blunder


In a real scientific research, published in a scientific review

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50239/abstract

the authors study the same model CMIP5 (and also the previous CMIP3) and came to exactly the opposite conclusion:



Figure 2:  Global annual mean surface air temperature for CMIP3 (thin blue line) and CMIP5 (thin red line) for all external temperature influences (forcings) compared to the four observational datasets (black lines). The weighted ensemble average for CMIP3 (blue thick line) and CMIP5 (red thick line) are estimated by given equal weight to each model’s ensemble mean. All model and observed data have same spatial coverage as HadCRUT4. The baseline is 1880–1919.  Figure 4a from Jones et al. 2013.

"The climate model runs considering all external influences on global surface temperatures (mainly greenhouse gases, aerosols, the sun, and volcanic eruptions) simulate the observed temperature changes accuratelly."


And if you want an explanation to what the owners of the bodged website you brought here try to pass off as a model failure here you have:

"The average of the models does overestimate the observed surface warming over the past decade.  This is why the sum of human and natural contributions from Jones et al. 2013 exceeds 100% in Figure 1 – because the modeled warming slightly exceeds the observed warming.

As we have previously discussed, this is mainly due to the preponderance of El Niño events in the 1990s and La Niña in the 2000s. This internal variability has had a cooling effect on recent surface temperatures (though not of overall global temperatures) which is not captured in the average of the model simulations.  However, it is within the range of all individual model simulations, as is evident by the fact that the observational data in Figure 2 (black) falls within the envelope of CMIP5 model simulations (yellow)."

and by the way the conclusion of the scientific research is that:

"calculations of attributable temperature trends based on optimal detection support previous conclusions that human- induced greenhouse gases dominate observed global warming since the mid?20th century"

Of course the results are close you angry fool. Even NASA whose major purpose in life now apppears to be tracking Climate Change admits there has only been a 0.8 degree C change. How far can you be off in a range of 0 to 0.8. Well about as far off as the model shown above. ........... The calamitous miss by models is well recorded.....live with it. But of course you wont. Imagine being so ignorant as to assume the Economist would bias the result against global warming.....when firstly they are a higly reputable publication and secondly they believe passionately in warming. And no the argument that they aren't climate scientists doesnt wash. It was a survey of all the climate models done by the big names in warming. ............ As for ithe last model I showed conveniently ending before real warming. It was written with March 2016 as the last observation.....showing El Nino. Check the pretty spikes. Of course you wouldn't want it to extend beyond mid November because the spikes are now going the other way. Which is of course why one uses smoothing. ............. So just as I said and as they say in your last post "the average of models does overestimate the observed surface warming over the past decade".......followed by a bunch of excuses. Once again my statement is verified. ............ Game, set and match.

 pathetic

LMAOFY!

 Clearly global warming is a reality, how else can you explain the fact that rugby player can kick balls farther. I'm sure Moz has a graph that will show this clearly .
"Game, set, match"

 Some crybabies, here's a remedy..  #Beeno

Mach, you should annotate the picture with: "Medical degree obtained from Tru@ump university"

 




seems that some deniers have their heads so deep in their arse that they are completely unable to understand anything,... let's make things a little bit easier and give them a resume,...

all what the PhD in Pomposity and C0ckiness was able to bring here to refute real scientific researches with real and verifiable graphs and data published in real scientific peer reviews (like THIS, THIS or THIS), reduce to fake graphs and numbers from unknown authors published in dodged websites like THIS or THIS (Oh, and a quote from a nobody published in the Economist and also an illegible graph)

the thumping has been so massive that the pompous c0cky won't have enough with just one of those cans,... you should send him at least 4 or 5 (sure he loves its origin)

 Dr Moz thanks for attempting to school this dumb ASS ab ASS. No doubt he became a huge advocate for Al Gore and his hockey stick baloney. hahahahahahaha that Al Gore can still show his face in public is as amazing as Bill and Hillary Clinton not being locked up in jail along with Hussein Obummer.Fortunately Trum*p is going to activate American energy and stop paying billions to muslim states. I see the US market are up 8% which they say is the biggest bump after a presidential election in history. Takes a winner to recognise a winner.  
As bad a hoax as global warming was its nothing when compared to the darwinian hoax. You have to be brain dead and blind to cling to that bull.
However the most serious and dangerous blindness today is globalism. Most have no idea where globalism wishes to take humanity and its ultimate destination of a world tyranny the likes of which have never been seen before in term of its horror.Climate change appears to be a globalist invention which will result in the first universal tax. However it looks like Trump will give it the boot. One hopes he also closes down the globalist UN.
The globalist, smarting from their defeat in the USA, and in a froth about the social media and online websites giving real news is launching an attack on the real news sites. What should be closed down are fake news sites like CNN - a pure globalist propaganda machine.My hope is that the US Attorney General Jeff Session will, once in office, prosecute the Clintons, Obama, John Podesta etc etc so that they are taken to court and all their disgraceful activities are revealed to the world. Sick bunch of pedophiles and traitors.Its time to drain the swamp in the USA and in Europe. Hopefully 2017 will see that happening. Kick these rotten scumbag globalists out. Boycott their fake MSM sites etc. 

 Having destroyed every one of his points, he produces more little comic pics. Pathetic really, but it's a tough ask....I mean how do you prove the world is coming to an end with a one degree increase in temps over 150 years. Of course it totally ignores the fact that we are emerging out of The Little Ice Age.....this from Wiki The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of 2007 discusses more recent research, giving particular attention to the Medieval Warm Period. It states that "when viewed together, the currently available reconstructions indicate generally greater variability in centennial time scale trends over the last 1 kyr than was apparent in the TAR.... The result is a picture of relatively cool conditions in the seventeenth and early nineteenth centuries and warmth in the eleventh and early fifteenth centuries, but the warmest conditions are apparent in the twentieth century. Given that the confidence levels surrounding all of the reconstructions are wide, virtually all reconstructions are effectively encompassed within the uncertainty previously indicated in the TAR. The major differences between the various proxy reconstructions relate to the magnitude of past cool excursions, principally during the twelfth to fourteenth, seventeenth and nineteenth centuries."[11] So we had "relatively cool conditions in the early nineteenth century" .....when they started measuring their hahaha massive 1 degree C increase. So even that measly degree is not from a normal base. It's a joke.