Slashdot Mirror

Some places are not warming at all. Look at the white blob in the north Atlantic. This is possibly a sign that the Atlantic Ocean’s Meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) may be weakening as a result of increased fresh water due to Greenland glacier melt. This was the premise of "day after tomorrow".

If the AMOC were disrupted, it could divert the Gulf Stream waters that usually flow northward, past the British Isles and Norway, and cause them to instead circulate toward the equator. If this were to happen, Europe's climate would be seriously impacted

Ok, sure.

http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrh...

Prediction: An increase in CO2 will result in net increase in global temperatures.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital...

There's the global temperature

https://www.climate.gov/news-f...

Only the results over overlapping timeframes are relevant. As you can see, the prediction is matched with observation and has not been falsified.

Are you satisfied? Of course not! Because this was never about facts, this was about your fears that science might contradict something important to you.

...12,000 years ago we were coming out of an ice age - and have been doing so since.

"Have been doing so since? Only if you ignore the last 6000 years.

On the contrary. We had been heading back into a glacial period over the last 6000 years... until the industrial revolution when something happened to abruptly reverse the trend.

Yes it does.
But both phenonema have the exact same effect: only at different places on the earth. While El Nino makes is cold her and warm there, La Nina just reverses that.
So: the average temperature as far as the two ENSO extremes are concerned: are the same.

E.g. look at the maps here: https://www.climate.gov/enso
The BoM used to have good maps, but they reworked the website so I don't find them right now, but here is a start: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/...

Show the opposite. Show three top climate change models that can predict global mean temperatures any time in the past and temperatures after they were created.

Actually hindcasting like that is one thing they do to test climate models and they do a reasonably good job of it.

Primer: climate models

Look under the heading "How climate models are tested?".

In POF, the globe's average is above 405 PPM.

Justify your statement. Prove that the Earth would not have warmed from the last glaciation without humans being present.

Temperature record, meet the industrial revolution.

5000 years of cooling prior to the 1800s say otherwise, but I'm sure you'll have some explanation for it.

People who disprove well-known and accepted theories are extremely famous, and often rich.

Yeah? Please, name the hero, who became famous and well-off by disproving the scientific consensus, on which the "war on fat" was waged? Mind you, that war did not have the vast government-paid research institutions attached to it, who'd fear for their survival. Unlike the climate quacks.

Also, most climate scientists are not getting rich.

They are earning a comfortable living, which will disappear for most of them, if the underlying assumptions — that Global Warming is an imminent threat facing humanity — are even questioned, much less disproven. The conflict of interest is obvious.

So if you are a "distrust people who are getting the money" kind of person, you should probably distrust those who are making record profits.

I'm well aware of the conflict of interest of any researcher paid by a company, whose product may lose demand based on the researcher's conclusions. This thread, however, is about a different group of people with their own conflict of interest. Please, don't change the subject.

Some theories do it pretty accurately, and some do it less accurately.

Funny, that you continue making these claims without offering any citations — despite an explicit request for some... Meanwhile, consider this — none of the theories you are alluding to would be acceptable for American financial institutions. Had a bank's models come up with predictions so far apart from reality, the bank wouldn't be able to buy back stocks, pay bonuses to executives, etc.

The problem isn't that the experiments are not falsifiable, it's that the time frames are too long and we don't really have dozens of planets where we can run 300-year-long double-blind tests, so any experiments on climate will be hard to falsify soon enough to be useful. That sucks, but it doesn't mean we should throw up our hands

What it does mean, however, is that the theory is not scientific. As in "not confirmed by scientific method". It does not, of course, disprove it — but it does remove the "scientific" mantle from it. And therefore, questioning it is not automatically tantamount to "rejecting science", contrary to an assertion made by aepervius above.

guess we'll pretend that the teamperatures and sea levels are not rising

Are they? The only evidence of the rise comes from the folks at NASA and NOAA (and similar government institutions in other countries), who have the above-discussed conflict of interest.

And before you say "but raw data!" — don't. The raw data is imperfect, so they massage it with their own software "to bring it closer to pristine"... Ha-ha...

The trick is, human contributions are dynamic - they change unpredictably all the time. It's surprising to see carbon *sinks* track that essentially in real time.

Are you kidding me? Human emissions of CO2 do not change unpredictably all the time. In fact they have been consistently rising for the past 150+ years. Check out the curve on this web page. Yes there are a few small drops in emissions. The biggest one appears to have happened during the 1970s energy crisis and another small one around 2007 during the great recession but other than that it shows continually rising emissions. And that curve matches the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as well when you consider that only about 45% of it remains in the atmosphere.

Carbon Dioxide vs Volcanoes.

Since you sound almost rational, you do know that the sea level has been rising at a roughly constant rate since the end of the last Ice Age?

It hasn't, if you look at figure 4.31 on this page. You notice a rapid rise in sea level after the end of the glacial period, followed by a leveling off of sea level rise. Natural forces would eventually turn that into a slow sea level fall as we descended into the next glacial period. Instead sea level rise is now accelerating due to anthropogenic factors.

I agree the earth is warming, it has been warming since the last Ice Age.

No, it hasn't "been warming since the last Ice Age", global temperatures have, in fact been declining since they peaked about 7,500 years ago.

We don't really know if the rate of warming is unusual, but judging by HADCET, it would appear that the period since 1800 has seen temperature rises over decades that are not unusual.

Yes we do, anthropogenic forces have inverted the direction of the climate change (see previous point), and I doubt any actual climate experts would agree with your amateur assessment of the HADCET data.

As to CO2, yes the fossil fuel emissions do hang around in the atmosphere, and so CO2 has increased. But, the greenhouse effect is due to CO2 is small, and easily overwhelmed by changes in water vapor and albedo.

I'm sorry, but that's also wrong. Water vapour concentrations are determined by air temperature so increases in CO2 concentration cause a feedback effect that also increases the greenhouse effect of water vapour by increasing air temperature and therefore also increasing the amount of water vapour as well. While Albedo may have the potential be larger than CO2 forcings, current measurements do not show a significant change in the earth's albedo.

The albedo effect is the dominant part of the equation, and none of their computer models account for changes in albedo in the future.

I sincerely doubt the veracity of a claim that none of the computer models account for changes in albedo. Can you prove this claim? Because this 2014 paper claims to be examining the accuracy of surface albedo feedback in 11 different models. It seems it would be difficult to do that if none of the models accounted for surface albedo feedbacks.

It kind of seems like everything you think you know about the climate and climate modelling is wrong. You might want to go back and check your sources, if they are telling you things that aren't true, you need to find better sources.

Maybe take a second look? I think you missed something.

This graph illustrates nicely: https://www.climate.gov/sites/...

Something happened over the last hundred or so years to abruptly reverse our course... but what?

This graph illustrates nicely: https://www.climate.gov/sites/...

Something happened over the last hundred or so years to abruptly reverse our course... but what?

the "Nuclear Winter" debacle

What Nuclear Winter debacle? That a nuclear war would cause a Nuclear Winter? Don't think there's much appetite to test that theory.

the "Limits to World Growth" debacle

Do you think you can continue to consume non-renewable resources indefinitely?

the "Hockey Stick" debacle

Yet since that was published it's kept on getting warmer...

Each had one thing in common: the claim that the only way to avoid catastrophe was to adopt Marxism

[citation needed]

In fact, the Russians invented the kind of hysteria being promoted today. It's called Lysenkoism: the use of faked science to push political agendas.

No, this is quite different. With Lysenkoism it was a small group of people going against massive scientific consensus for their own gain. With climate change there is a massive scientific consensus by individual scientists who have nothing to gain personally from it.

I'll tell you what is like Lysenkoism though, a small number of politicians with links to fossil fuel pushing back against scientific consensus who are set to personally gain massively from being able to continue to sell coal and oil until the stocks start to run low.

This graph starts in 1980. it counts number of events as well as cost. Look at the trend.

The changing frequency of billion-dollar disaster events

The U.S. has experienced a rising number of events that cause significant amounts of damage. From 1980–2016, the annual average number of billion-dollar events is 5.5 (CPI-adjusted). For the most recent 5 years (2012–2016), the annual average is 10.6 events (CPI-adjusted). The year 2005 was the most costly since 1980 due to the combined impacts of Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Dennis, as shown in the following time-series. The year 2012 was the second most costly due to the extreme U.S. drought ($30 billion) and Sandy ($65 billion) driving the losses.

So the mountains of scientific evidence and the confirmation by every major climate institution on the planet, and every major scientific organisation are all meaningless to you - but the science-free claims in a youtube video by a TV personality with no experience or credentials in climatology convinced you completely?

Sorry, I can't help anyone so doggedly determined to ignore all the inconvenient parts of reality.

Try this. Climate is a system and both "el" are seasonal patterns. Global warming however is the increasing trend in global average temperature meaning that there is more heat being absorbed and retained in the system. Anthropogenic global warming is the idea that the increasing retention of heat energy is powered by the greenhouse effect from CO2, which is something Svante Arrhenius demonstrated more than 100 years ago but which was ignored. Analysis now confirms that the acceleration in trend was caused by the industrial revolution freeing previous stored carbon from fossil fuels into the atmosphere where it formed CO2 and is driving a runaway greenhouse effect increasing global average temperatures year over year. Climate is dynamical system so results can't be predicted with high certainty but the local effects of increased heat are easy to observe, and will result in desertification of previously arable land.

Not only that but it was one of the strongest on record.

Is the NOAA good enough? Why Did Earth's Surface Temperature Stop Rising in the Past Decade?

1998 was an exceptionally warm El Nino year, which brought up temperatures in late 1997 and 1998, and once the El Nino subsided, temperatures trended back more closely with 1996-1997 levels. The ocean is a massive heat-sink and has been absorbing much of the additional heat generated, and the El Nino's altered currents bring some of that heat back to the surface during those years.

Ok, I've done some of your work for you. Here is the page on "11.5 Future Sea Level Changes 11.5.1 Global Average Sea Level Change 1990 to 2100" from the IPCC Third Archive Report from 2001. If you click on the graph on that page you get an enlarged versionhere. If you take a straight edge to the graph you can estimate that the projected sea level rise from 1990 to 2016 was around 0.05-0.06 meters or 50-60 mm. Here is a page that shows the methods they used for projections.

Here is a page from NOAA that shows sea level rise as measured by tide gauges from 1880 to the start of 2016. You can hover your mouse over the graph to get the exact numbers for a point in time. You can also use your mouse to squish the graph to zero in on the 1990 - 2016 part for better resolution. By my calculations the sea level rise from 1990 to the start of 2016 is around 80 mm, clearly greater than the projections from the IPCC in 2001.

But you'll probably reject the data from NOAA so here is another graph that shows sea level rise as measured by satellite altimeters from 1993 (when the first one went up) to mid 2015. It clearly also shows around 80 mm of sea level rise since 1993, clearly greater than the projections from the IPCC in 2001.

So there is your prediction from 2001 of sea level rise from 1990 to the start of 2016 and two observational datasets that show the IPCC predictions were on the low side.

Are you happy now?

Bingo. "Sea level rise is like a set of stairs. The 12-inch increase in New York Harbor over the last century means we’ve already gone up one step. When a coastal storm occurs, the surge caused by the storm’s winds already has a step up, literally. For Sandy, that meant greater coastal flooding in New York and the surrounding region than we would have experienced a century ago. Continuing to climb the staircase of sea level rise means we’ll see greater extent and greater frequency of coastal flooding from storms, even if storms don’t get any stronger." - https://www.climate.gov/news-f...

Where exactly are these additional hurricanes, anyway? We were told there would be more hurricanes.

No, we weren't.

We were told by some scientists (but not at all a consensus) that by the end of the century-- that is, in a hundred years-- there might be more hurricanes. Here's the popular press version, from USA Today (www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/07/08/climate-change-global-warming-hurricanes/2498611/ ):

"The world could see as many as 20 additional hurricanes and tropical storms each year by the end of the century because of climate change, says a study out today.

Other studies suggested that it's more likely that hurricanes could be somewhat stronger, although not more numerous. https://www.climate.gov/news-f...

My apologies, this ended up being way longer than I anticipated it would be. However I think it's all important.

First let me start of by saying - yes, things are getting warmer. They've been getting warmer for over thousands of years with some brief cold spells. Check out sea water rise here - http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea... . So this is far and beyond man if you look at the scale in years. Another sign they're wrong - put people in jail - http://www.newsweek.com/should... . Some might call this typical leftist fascism. I was a bit surprised, I googled - "global warming skeptics in jail". No free speech, other than what they want. Where have we heard that before?

Bullshit. There is a mountain of proof - even though because you can't even begin to understand it you are suspicious.

Mountain of proof. So you should have no trouble showing me this mountain. Science isn't hard. There's the scientific method. I have no doubt you're familiar with it, I'll include it here for other people just as my comment before about moding me down was to other people - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
Here are recent co2 levels - http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c...
Here we have them trying to explain a decade of problems - https://www.climate.gov/news-f...
Then we have the hottest decade in the 20th century - the 1930s. This was embarrassing to Mr. Hansen (Mr. MMGW himself) as he had to admit he lied, of course he blamed it on a y2k error (it was a mistake, not a lie!) - when he claimed the 1990s where the hottest decade of the 20th century. I called full BULSHIT on that. I don't understand how a y2k bug could change his data and I'm a guy that used to fix those problems.

Don't say I don't understand it, it's likely you don't understand it. The above concerns break the scientific method, therefore it's almost certain it's not CO2 causing it. Not with a big rise in CO2 and when temperatures stop rising. Remember Algore's prediction that we'd be roasting in Washington DC in 2015 with desert like temperatures? Yea, not so much. Same old hot summers we've always had. Remember his predictions about more and stronger hurricanes after Katrina? Yea, not so much either. I bet he would be howling if Hog Island happened today - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Remember "Super Storm Sandy", yea, what crap. It was just a run of the mill hurricane. Nothing super about sandy.

As for the scientists - good luck conducting a study that disproves MMGW. Right now you're about as likely to get a grant proving that as say (not that I believe this, to illustrate the point - ) white people are superior to black people. That is, forget about it and don't come back. Only people that look at the data and say - hey, wait a minute. The bitch is, I may convince you and I've convinced hundreds over the years. They are making true believers every day in schools.

We do, for example, know that CO2 is a gas which does cause heat to be trapped in our atmosphere. As far as I know, aside from you and a small group of moronic skeptics, no one is saying otherwise.

A lot of people conclude when you resort to name calling, you've lost the argument. Otherwise, you'd state your case instead of calling someone names. Just so you know. Did you know there are definitions of what a moron, idiot, imbecile are? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .

It's not a small group, otherwise Kyoto, Paris, etc would have proceeded a whole lo

Ever hear of subsidence:

https://www.climate.gov/news-f...

Land subsidence [sinking] in the New York City area has been roughly 3-4 inches per century, which is primarily due to the Earth's crust.

i.e. Absolutely NOTHING to do with ice melting. and however told you it is, was lieing to you, and you should get your money back.

https://www.climate.gov/news-f...

8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?

"Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero."
"Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly." Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...

A hypothesis that the heat was sequestered in the ocean abyss was proven incorrect by NASA in October of 2014 - "the cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005", according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have stopped in 1998. It started in 1978. But there really has been no warming this century.

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014...

"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver

Global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide stalled in 2014
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...

Sea ice is increasing
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...

OP is less aware of the science than Cruz is. How is that even possible?

http://climate.gov/news-featur...

Looks more like it's getting colder to me.

The problem with this is that climate changes, whether or not humanity is involved. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

Once again, I've tried to point out that the scientific community who's warning about human-caused climate change is the same scientific community who discovered and named many of these modes of natural variability.

I've tried to point out that NASA's been measuring the Sun's brightness (etc.) for decades and concluded that natural variation can't explain the warming since 1950.

I've tried to point out that if the natural climate hadn't changed before, that would imply that it hadn't ever changed so we couldn't possibly change it now.

I've tried to point out that 420 million years of natural climate change support the idea that we are changing the climate, precisely because it has varied before.

I've tried to point out that some of the closest natural analogues to modern human-caused climate change, like the PETM and end-Permian, just reinforce my concern about treating the atmosphere like a free sewer.

I've repeatedly failed to communicate, and considering the stakes involved the weight of all these failures is becoming unbearable. I wish I could effectively counter the asymmetric strategies of the merchants of doubt.

The article you linked is now 5 years old, the cited studies even older, and I've been told by meteorologists that work for NOAA that some of these are tending in the opposite direction now. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

Oh, some anonymous NOAA meteorologists told an anonymous coward that "some of those are tending in the opposite direction now"? Even if we humor this vague unverifiable anecdote, how could we figure out if it paints the whole picture accurately?

One way would be to skip the anonymous anecdotes, and see what NOAA actually says. NOAA runs www.climate.gov which has a number of educational resources for topics like the greenhouse effect and causes of climate change. Anyone who learns science from these NOAA resources will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible. And, of course, dozens of large scientific societies agree. That seems like a more accurate way of painting the whole picture.

But what about even more recent publications? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF). Anyone who learns science from this NAS/Royal Society publication will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible.

You can appear to “prove” almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-12]

I know my argument is anecdotal vs. Yours which has very nicely laid out citations, but my overall point is simply this: you can get these studies to show just about anything you want if you work the numbe

The problem with this is that climate changes, whether or not humanity is involved. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

Once again, I've tried to point out that the scientific community who's warning about human-caused climate change is the same scientific community who discovered and named many of these modes of natural variability.

I've tried to point out that NASA's been measuring the Sun's brightness (etc.) for decades and concluded that natural variation can't explain the warming since 1950.

I've tried to point out that if the natural climate hadn't changed before, that would imply that it hadn't ever changed so we couldn't possibly change it now.

I've tried to point out that 420 million years of natural climate change support the idea that we are changing the climate, precisely because it has varied before.

I've tried to point out that some of the closest natural analogues to modern human-caused climate change, like the PETM and end-Permian, just reinforce my concern about treating the atmosphere like a free sewer.

I've repeatedly failed to communicate, and considering the stakes involved the weight of all these failures is becoming unbearable. I wish I could effectively counter the asymmetric strategies of the merchants of doubt.

The article you linked is now 5 years old, the cited studies even older, and I've been told by meteorologists that work for NOAA that some of these are tending in the opposite direction now. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

Oh, some anonymous NOAA meteorologists told an anonymous coward that "some of those are tending in the opposite direction now"? Even if we humor this vague unverifiable anecdote, how could we figure out if it paints the whole picture accurately?

One way would be to skip the anonymous anecdotes, and see what NOAA actually says. NOAA runs www.climate.gov which has a number of educational resources for topics like the greenhouse effect and causes of climate change. Anyone who learns science from these NOAA resources will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible. And, of course, dozens of large scientific societies agree. That seems like a more accurate way of painting the whole picture.

But what about even more recent publications? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF). Anyone who learns science from this NAS/Royal Society publication will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible.

You can appear to “prove” almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-12]

I know my argument is anecdotal vs. Yours which has very nicely laid out citations, but my overall point is simply this: you can get these studies to show just about anything you want if you work the numbe

The problem with this is that climate changes, whether or not humanity is involved. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

Once again, I've tried to point out that the scientific community who's warning about human-caused climate change is the same scientific community who discovered and named many of these modes of natural variability.

I've tried to point out that NASA's been measuring the Sun's brightness (etc.) for decades and concluded that natural variation can't explain the warming since 1950.

I've tried to point out that if the natural climate hadn't changed before, that would imply that it hadn't ever changed so we couldn't possibly change it now.

I've tried to point out that 420 million years of natural climate change support the idea that we are changing the climate, precisely because it has varied before.

I've tried to point out that some of the closest natural analogues to modern human-caused climate change, like the PETM and end-Permian, just reinforce my concern about treating the atmosphere like a free sewer.

I've repeatedly failed to communicate, and considering the stakes involved the weight of all these failures is becoming unbearable. I wish I could effectively counter the asymmetric strategies of the merchants of doubt.

The article you linked is now 5 years old, the cited studies even older, and I've been told by meteorologists that work for NOAA that some of these are tending in the opposite direction now. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

Oh, some anonymous NOAA meteorologists told an anonymous coward that "some of those are tending in the opposite direction now"? Even if we humor this vague unverifiable anecdote, how could we figure out if it paints the whole picture accurately?

One way would be to skip the anonymous anecdotes, and see what NOAA actually says. NOAA runs www.climate.gov which has a number of educational resources for topics like the greenhouse effect and causes of climate change. Anyone who learns science from these NOAA resources will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible. And, of course, dozens of large scientific societies agree. That seems like a more accurate way of painting the whole picture.

But what about even more recent publications? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF). Anyone who learns science from this NAS/Royal Society publication will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible.

You can appear to “prove” almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-12]

I know my argument is anecdotal vs. Yours which has very nicely laid out citations, but my overall point is simply this: you can get these studies to show just about anything you want if you work the numbe

I'm sorry, you're full of shit and don't have a clue what you're talking about. When you disagree with NASA and CERN and the fossil record you better be able to also drop an SUV on mars from a rocket powered skycrane and hold all the worlds antimatter.

The IPCC has not been right about anything, ever, and if you don't think 75% error is meaningful then 2+2=7 is for you.

You wouldn't happen to be the recipient of a climate grant would you?

"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.
"'I made a mistake'

As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding."

Oh fuck. The F word. F-f-f-f-f-uding.

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

"Warming" -> http://www.nature.com/nclimate...
http://www.nature.com/nclimate...
http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mu...
http://opinion.financialpost.c...
http://www.populartechnology.n...
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/...
http://www.climatechangedispat...
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/201...

If you have some other explanations of all these or proof of a warming world this might be a good time to drag it out.

http://www.spring.org.uk/2012/...

It's only "warming" in the sense of a global average

Which also has not been warming either for the past decade or so. :-)

For which, there are a lot of excuses but not much warming... all that time CO2 has continue to increase so obviously what temperature changes there are, is disconnected from CO2.

Ah, such a simple way of looking at it. But the increase in energy retained on the Earth by enhanced greenhouse warming manifests itself in several ways. Not only can the troposphere warm up but the oceans and the land surface can warm up and ice can melt. When you look at the whole picture it's obvious that the Earth continues to warm.

Since around 93% of the warming goes into the oceans normally is doesn't take much of a shift to make a difference in tropospheric warming which is what you've been seeing. There are some hints that that situation may be about to swing back to the situation we had in the 1980's and 1990's so all I can say is enjoy your "no warming for the past decade or so" while you can, it won't last.

Ah I can help you there. The ARGOS floats show no signs of that heat being "hidden" in the oceans. So I'd have to say that 99.7% of your argument was bullshit with made-up statistics on top.

Thanks for playing.

It's only "warming" in the sense of a global average

Which also has not been warming either for the past decade or so. :-)

For which, there are a lot of excuses but not much warming... all that time CO2 has continue to increase so obviously what temperature changes there are, is disconnected from CO2.

Ah, such a simple way of looking at it. But the increase in energy retained on the Earth by enhanced greenhouse warming manifests itself in several ways. Not only can the troposphere warm up but the oceans and the land surface can warm up and ice can melt. When you look at the whole picture it's obvious that the Earth continues to warm.

Since around 93% of the warming goes into the oceans normally is doesn't take much of a shift to make a difference in tropospheric warming which is what you've been seeing. There are some hints that that situation may be about to swing back to the situation we had in the 1980's and 1990's so all I can say is enjoy your "no warming for the past decade or so" while you can, it won't last.

It's only "warming" in the sense of a global average

Which also has not been warming either for the past decade or so. :-)

For which, there are a lot of excuses but not much warming... all that time CO2 has continue to increase so obviously what temperature changes there are, is disconnected from CO2.

Why is formal logic not mandatory in grades 9 through 13 ?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014...
http://www.nature.com/nclimate...
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/201...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...

""Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Nasa Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data"

When a 150 year melt cycle is "right on time" scientists question how this can happen in a warming world.

Hansen may have had something to do with the headline of this article "Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt"

Technically it's correct, there were no satellites 150 years ago. ut an unprecedented cyclical event?

Mr. Hansen left NASA shortly after this - he's the guy that complained the government was muzzling scientists. Personally I think he's clinically insane. Turns out he and the other tat were paid by a company owned by a company that Al Gore ownss to raise a fuss. As a liberal i'm appalled and no longer have faith in the Democratic party (not an uncommon sentiment, and fear not I have less faith in the mean spirited party of thugs formetly kown as th GOP) and fuckit I may move to Scotland or Norway. Their governments are not perfect but atleast they'r not for sale.

Because this is clearly inferior. Play with it a bit. Play spot the warming.

https://www.climate.gov/news-f...

Note:

1) 1998 - 2015
2) 1880 - 2015
3) 1978 - 1998
4) 1947 - 1957 - this is when all that sea ice grew.[1]

Odd is was so cold at a time of peak smog.[2]

[1]"In the early 1920s and 1930s, temperatures were high, similar to that of the present, and this affected the glacial melt. At the time many glaciers underwent a melt similar or even higher than what we have seen in the last ten years. When it became colder again in the 1950s and 1960s, glaciers actually started growing," says Dr. Kurt H. Kjær - in http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

Your quote is reference the Annual Average...which it is set to do, and shows absolutely NO SIGNS of not crossing that milestone.
Your post is one born of ignorance and an attempt to spread confusion.

Technically it was passed by in 2013...several times. But the monthly averages still came out slightly below 400ppm. April 2014 however was the first time the Monthly Average PPM level crossed 400ppm. And it's been theres since.

In fact I really dont see the point of your post. The trendline is quite clear, and is continually up. It has yet to FAIL to increase.
It couldnt be more irrelegent of ignorant if you had said "oh good, they have a testable predictiona bout gravity. but will they still claim gravity is real if hte apple fails to fall to the ground?"

http://www.climatecentral.org/...
http://www.climatecentral.org/...
https://www.climate.gov/news-f...
http://www.scientificamerican....

You know when they're using weasel words like this they're being disingenuous:

"Also, it puts to bed the supposed 'fact' that there's been a pause in temperature increase the last 17 years. Raw data shows it's still increasing."

"Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero." Note also CO2 rose the entire tie, it just didn't get any warmer for 17 years.

This is an NOAA.gov stateent based on NOAA data. And they disagree with this? Ok, what's the source of their data? Have they told the NOAA they're wrong yet?

http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...

really? that's who you go to for your information?

YOu shoudl read this. Over the last 100 yeas I can cherry pich 10 year tretchs where it is even, or seem to decreas, but the overall trend is an ncrease.
So, why is that? it's becasue gloable warming is in conjuction with other long standing cycles. SO it level out a bit depending on el nino.
If global warming was not true it would return back to center every time el nino had minimal impact*. It does not.

http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...

*it would also prove false some long standard scientific laws.

"...we've stalled for the past 6 years, actually cooled the last couple of years..."

I realize there's a legitimate debate over how many years constitutes which, but I think you fall in the category of people confusing weather and climate. I remember back in 2008 when AGW-skeptics said there had been a decade of global cooling by using 1998, the warmest year on record, as their baseline. Then increasingly warmer years eliminated that talking point. Now you are saying it's cooled the past couple of years, so you must be using 2010 as your baseline, which is the current warmest year on record.

If the predicted El Nino manifests this summer and fall, it might make 2015 an unusually warm year. So I guess in 2016 or 2017 I should expect to hear again about how the Earth has actually been cooling the past few years. A more intellectually honest way to look at climate is to observe the decade by decade warming trend.

From the article;

Since 1976, every year including 2012 has had an annual temperature above the long-term average. Including the 2012 temperature, the rate of warming is 0.06C (0.11F) per decade since 1880 and a more rapid 0.16C (0.28F) per decade since 1970, according to the 2012 annual report from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

Take look at the graph they are referring to. Between 1880 and 2010 there is a change of 1.43 F giving a per decade increase of .11F. But wait, that is not the whole picture. It ignores the period between 1880 and 1910 when global temperatures were decreasing. If you look at the increase since 1910 you get 2F over ten decades which is .2F per decade. It also ignores the time between 1910 and 1940 where the temperature changed 1.1F or 0.37F/decade. Compared with the time between 1910 and 1940 global warming is slowing.
To me it looks like they are picking data that agrees with their conclusion.

From the article;

Since 1976, every year including 2012 has had an annual temperature above the long-term average. Including the 2012 temperature, the rate of warming is 0.06C (0.11F) per decade since 1880 and a more rapid 0.16C (0.28F) per decade since 1970, according to the 2012 annual report from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

Take look at the graph they are referring to. Between 1880 and 2010 there is a change of 1.43 F giving a per decade increase of .11F. But wait, that is not the whole picture. It ignores the period between 1880 and 1910 when global temperatures were decreasing. If you look at the increase since 1910 you get 2F over ten decades which is .2F per decade. It also ignores the time between 1910 and 1940 where the temperature changed 1.1F or 0.37F/decade. Compared with the time between 1910 and 1940 global warming is slowing.
To me it looks like they are picking data that agrees with their conclusion.

As I'm sure you've been told, climate isn't weather and weather isn't climate.

Sea ice has been receding for decades. Or do you deny that?

If not, read this. At the very lease, watch the attached video showing arctic sea-ice, 1987 to present.

Here's what NOAA has to say month by month for 2013 (continued)

April Global Highlights - looks like an error has this page pointing to the June update so details can be found instead at
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/april-2013-global-climate-update

May Global Highlights - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/5

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2013 tied with 1998 and 2005 as the third warmest on record, at 0.66C (1.19F) above the 20th century average of 14.8C (58.6F).
The global land surface temperature was 1.11C (2.00F) above the 20th century average of 11.1C (52.0F), also the third warmest May on record. For the ocean, the May global sea surface temperature was 0.49C (0.88F) above the 20th century average of 16.3C (61.3F), tying with 2003 and 2009 as the fifth warmest May on record.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the March–May period was 0.59C (1.06F) above the 20th century average of 13.7C (56.7F), tying with 2004 as the eighth warmest such period on record.
The March–May worldwide land surface temperature was 0.97C (1.75F) above the 20th century average, the 11th warmest such period on record. The global ocean surface temperature for the same period was 0.45C (0.81F) above the 20th century average and tied with 2001 as the seventh warmest such period on record.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–May period (year-to-date) was 0.59C (1.06F) above the 20th century average of 13.1C (55.5F), the eighth warmest such period on record.

June Global Updates - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/6

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2013 tied with 2006 as the fifth highest on record, at 0.64C (1.15F) above the 20th century average of 15.5C (59.9F).
The global land surface temperature was 1.05C (1.89F) above the 20th century average of 13.3C (55.9F), marking the third warmest June on record. For the ocean, the June global sea surface temperature was 0.48C (0.86F) above the 20th century average of 16.4C (61.5F), the 10th warmest June on record.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–June period (year-to-date) was 0.59C (1.06F) above the 20th century average of 13.5C (56.3F), tying with 2003 as the seventh warmest such period on record.

Pretty clear from the charts that the CO2 levels are rising because of man made contributions. It is also completely clear that the models linking rising CO2 to rising temperature are not quantitatively accurate (temperature flat for 10 years while CO2 continues the predicted rise). http://www.climate.gov/#climateWatch . The question now is whether or not the the models are even qualitatively accurate. Being an engineer, I do not think the climate scientist have models to the 4th significant figure.

So far, it's been a scorcher for folks all around the world. So it might come as no surprise that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has released a report revealing 2010 having the record for warmest June, warmest April to June and warmest year to date. The announcement said 'Each of the 10 warmest average global temperatures recorded since 1880 have occurred in the last fifteen years. The warmest year-to-date on record, through June, was 1998, and 2010 is warmer so far.' So far we are even surpassing 1998's records which held the warmest year (despite directly contradicting reports). It certainly seems the scads of winter precipitation we enjoyed were no indication of how we would swelter through our summer this year. Will 2010 turn it around or are we set to break more records?

Aside from that, I'm not really interested in making comments on this anymore because I'm so sick and tired of the armchair idiocy that follows (and somehow gets moderated up). Prediction: Not even 300 scientists from 48 countries and NOAA are going to convince everyone that global warming is real. At this point, I think it's just going to get worse.

There's an interesting toy at this website. It's called the global climate dashboard. You can view Temperature, carbon dioxide, incoming sunlight, sea level, arctic sea ice for various periods, adjusting the siders to zoom in on various decades and so on. (Pay attention to the vertical axis, though)

The interesting thing is that 1998 stands out like a sore thumb. 1997 was cooler and so was 1999.

But the naughties? Warmer than 1999. Warmer than 1997. Most of the decade was just slightly cooler than 1998, with very little variability.