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

[billvon 2,990]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

There are a lot more folks making predictions other than the IPCC.

Of course.  Science fiction movies often make lots of predictions, as do politicians.  It would be foolish in the extreme to heed those and ignore the one worldwide science body dedicated to studying AGW.

[brenthutch 444]

Politicians make policy not the IPCC.

[DJL 235]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

That’s the point.  If AGW predictions were accurate we would be sailing the North West Passage impeded only by the carcasses of dead polar bears, the Midwest would be a dust bowl and Florida would be underwater.  To paraphrase Richard Feynman, “it doesn’t matter how smart you are or how beautiful your theory is (or if 97% of climate scientists agree).  If it doesn’t agree with observation IT IS WRONG”

(going to Wilmington BTW)

You've had a little bit of a Troll Slumber since we talked about your sources so I'll have to remind you that you can't cherry pick the fringe and say that's the scientific consensus.  Specifically you were talking about Arctic Sea Ice loss for which all recorded data and models show a loss of about 924,000 sq km per decade which puts it at about 50 years from now.  There is also a giant asterisk associated with this that events don't happen is such a perfect linear fashion (like an ice cube melting on a counter-top) and this 50 year span is a period in which that no-ice event increases in likelihood.  At the 50 year mark both models AND historic trends say that in any given year the continuous ice mass refer to as the Arctic Ice Sheet will be gone and the sea will be mostly open with the exception of scattered ice flows.

So, what you just brought up is something I've already shown you to be an entirely false statement in the context of claims by the worldwide scientific community.

Edited August 6, 2019 by DJL

[billvon 2,990]

26 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Politicians make policy not the IPCC.

Yep.  And you were talking about predictions, not policy.  The IPCC makes predictions.

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Yep.  And you were talking about predictions, not policy.  The IPCC makes predictions.

So do James Hanson, John Holden and Michael Mann.

Since you are a big fan of the IPCC, I assume you would agree there is “low confidence due to limited evidence, that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and the magnitude of floods” and “low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at a global scale” and “there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers”

All from the IPCC’s 2013 climate assessment 

Edited August 6, 2019 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,990]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

So do James Hanson, John Holden and Michael Mann.

Since you are a big fan of the IPCC, I assume you would agree there is “low confidence due to limited evidence, that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and the magnitude of floods” and “low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at a global scale” and “there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers”

All from the IPCC’s 2013 climate assessment 

So to recap - 

Climate science make these firm predictions that turn out to be wrong, so AGW is falsified, like Richard Feynmann said.  But you meant individuals, not AGW science as a whole - and not even the one body tasked with evaluating climate change risks.  When I pointed out that the IPCC has actually made very accurate predictions, you first said that they weren't politicians so they don't really count.  But now you say they DO count, but that those firm predictions aren't firm at all so we should disregard them.  Even when they are correct.

Not such an effective troll when you keep switching positions like that.  I could just refer you to your earlier posts to refute your later ones.  (Is that trolling yourself?)

[brenthutch 444]

 I know it can be hard to keep track sometimes.  The flaws in AGW theory present a target rich environment, as do its “solutions”.

So, do you agree with the IPCC with regard to AGW and floods, droughts and tropical cyclones?

[billvon 2,990]

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 I know it can be hard to keep track sometimes.  The flaws in AGW theory present a target rich environment, as do its “solutions”.

So, do you agree with the IPCC with regard to AGW and floods, droughts and tropical cyclones?

I'll let you play your trolling games with someone else today. 

In the meantime. remember, there's only one problem with global warming - it stopped in 1998!

[brenthutch 444]

8 minutes ago, billvon said:

I'll let you play your trolling games with someone else today. 

In the meantime. remember, there's only one problem with global warming - it stopped in 1998!

Write it down folks August 6, 2019 5:16 EST BillV was trolled by the IPCC.

[kallend 2,026]

9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Write it down folks August 6, 2019 5:16 EST BillV was trolled by the IPCC.

You are not as clever as you think you are.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

 I know it can be hard to keep track sometimes.  The flaws in AGW theory present a target rich environment, as do its “solutions”.

So, do you agree with the IPCC with regard to AGW and floods, droughts and tropical cyclones?

Sure it does. Anytime someone tries to make predictions on something as big and complex as climate, there are bound to be errors.
And if someone (else) only looks at what was predicted incorrectly, or missed targets or whatever, it sure looks like the 'flaws' call the overall science into question.
But one has to be very selective to reach that conclusion. Either because they don't care about the truth, or are actively lying. 

Anyone who looks at the entire data set has to be blind (accidentally or deliberately) to not see what's happening.

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

You are not as clever as you think you are.

Perhaps not, but you have to admit that bit on polar bears and the NW Passage was a real gem.

[brenthutch 444]

5 hours ago, kallend said:

You are not as clever as you think you are.

I  am curious, since you have claimed the IPCC is the gold standard and pinnacle of peer reviewed science, I would like you to reconcile your position on AGW with that of the IPCC, with regard to floods, droughts and hurricanes. 

[DJL 235]

9 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I  am curious, since you have claimed the IPCC is the gold standard and pinnacle of peer reviewed science, I would like you to reconcile your position on AGW with that of the IPCC, with regard to floods, droughts and hurricanes. 

You already went  through this one too but with the 2017 report.  IPCC didn't track floods, they said droughts are increasing and hurricanes are likely increasing but they're unable to say if that's a local trend as there's insufficient data before satellite records.  All other markers for extreme weather showed increases consistent with the effects of global warming. Go find your "Truth for Breakfast" post that didn't hold up for even the first paragraph.

[kallend 2,026]

12 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I  am curious, since you have claimed the IPCC is the gold standard and pinnacle of peer reviewed science, I would like you to reconcile your position on AGW with that of the IPCC, with regard to floods, droughts and hurricanes. 

Please provide a link to any post where I claimed that.

Using a strawman in an attempt to make a point just proves that your point is not a very good one.

[brenthutch 444]

Imminent catastrophe update

https://www.noaa.gov/news/alaska-had-its-hottest-month-on-record-in-july

To sum up, YTD Temperature is average, drought conditions and wildfires are low, hurricanes nearly nonexistent.

Looks like we don’t need a green new deal after all.(but look at NOAA’s hyperbolic headline)

Edited August 8, 2019 by brenthutch

[DJL 235]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Imminent catastrophe update

https://www.noaa.gov/news/alaska-had-its-hottest-month-on-record-in-july

To sum up, YTD Temperature is average, drought conditions and wildfires are low, hurricanes nearly nonexistent.

Looks like we don’t need a green new deal after all.(but look at NOAA’s hyperbolic headline)

....YTD global land and air temperatures are the highest they've ever been.  Global land and sea temperatures are the second/third highest surpassed only by the 2012 El Nino year highs (July NOAA data to be released EDIT Aug 19).  This has been proven to you time and time again even as you post links that contradict your own statements.  We get it, headlines trigger you.  Your text above is equivalent to having blinders on and the only thing you see is what happened this year in the US.  

Edited August 8, 2019 by DJL

[brenthutch 444]

2 hours ago, DJL said:

....YTD global land and air temperatures are the highest they've ever been.  Global land and sea temperatures are the second/third highest surpassed only by the 2012 El Nino year highs (July NOAA data to be released EDIT Aug 19).  This has been proven to you time and time again even as you post links that contradict your own statements.  We get it, headlines trigger you.  Your text above is equivalent to having blinders on and the only thing you see is what happened this year in the US.  

So it was warmer seven years ago, still waiting for that imminent catastrophe.

The reason I mention the US is that it is thoroughly covered in state of the art meteorological stations that actually measure the temperature whereas the global temperatures use modeling to fill in the blank spaces (about 96%), using models that overstate the greenhouse effect of CO2.

”reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled”

RF

[DJL 235]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

So it was warmer seven years ago, still waiting for that imminent catastrophe.

You're again quoting one person as saying there's an imminent catastrophe looming as if he means that next week a superflood is going to wipe out your Wilmington vacation house.  Does that get us up to speed?  Try putting that on the scale of human's time on Earth to make it something we can actually discuss.

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The reason I mention the US is that it is thoroughly covered in state of the art meteorological stations that actually measure the temperature whereas the global temperatures use modeling to fill in the blank spaces (about 96%), using models that overstate the greenhouse effect of CO2.

Please cite your sources.

[billvon 2,990]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The reason I mention the US is that it is thoroughly covered in state of the art meteorological stations that actually measure the temperature whereas the global temperatures use modeling to fill in the blank spaces (about 96%),

96% is way too low.  It is vanishingly close to 100%.  Call it 99.9999999999999999999999%.

Let's say you measure the temperatures in the backyard of your house and your neighbor's house with an accurate (i.e. shaded, calibrated) thermometer.  Your back yard is 82F, your neighbor's backyard is 82F.   An intelligent person would therefore conclude that the average temperature in that area is around 82F, with some error bars based on how accurate the thermometers were and the possibility of missing a hot spot or something.

However, a denier could claim "hey, you are only measuring two spots!  In between those two spots it could be 130F.  Or it could be -20F.    And the AVERAGE could be -19F with only those two spots being 82F.  There's no proof of anything!  Why can't you admit that you don't really know what temperature it is?" 

And he would be literally correct.  However, we can know to a very high degree of accuracy that it's about 82F.

[kallend 2,026]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

So it was warmer seven years ago, still waiting for that imminent catastrophe.

The reason I mention the US is that it is thoroughly covered in state of the art meteorological stations that actually measure the temperature whereas the global temperatures use modeling to fill in the blank spaces (about 96%), using models that overstate the greenhouse effect of CO2.

”reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled”

RF

You bring up natural cycles when it suits you, but ignore them completely when THAT suits you.

You are intellectually dishonest.  

[brenthutch 444]

31 minutes ago, kallend said:

You bring up natural cycles when it suits you, but ignore them completely when THAT suits you.

You are intellectually dishonest.  

Exactly to which natural cycle/cycles are you referring?

Edited August 8, 2019 by brenthutch

[DJL 235]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Exactly to which natural cycle/cycles are you referring?

Since you're here can you cite a reference for your statement that fewer global temperature readings inherently flaws towards overstating the role of CO2 in AGW?

[brenthutch 444]

It is not the lack more extensive coverage that leads to overstating temps it is the use of models to fill in the blanks.  Recently NOAA claimed an all time record high for an are in SE Africa (an area where no actual readings were taken) people on the ground did not witness anything close to what NOAA claimed  

[DJL 235]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It is not the lack more extensive coverage that leads to overstating temps it is the use of models to fill in the blanks.  Recently NOAA claimed an all time record high for an are in SE Africa (an area where no actual readings were taken) people on the ground did not witness anything close to what NOAA claimed  

Ok, cite your source please?