Slashdot Mirror

Here is the press release from the University of Victoria:
www.communications.uvic.ca/releases/tip.php?date=23052016

and here are some sources that discuss the paper without quite as much in the way of scare words and hype:
www.reportingclimatescience.com/2016/05/23/unmitigated-emissions/
www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2016/05/23/uvic-researcher-models-worst-case-climate-change.html

Try again http://www.reportingclimatesci...

Total ice covering antarctica expanding despite Geothermal Melting

Want to explain just how atmospheric CO2 triggers vulcanism ?

But please keep on proving Emily Dickinson correct about the perils of an unexamined life.

From your source: "Antarctica as a whole has been shrinking in volume by 125 cubic kilometres a year." Do you read those sources, or do you just google for confirmation using bad search terms?

Try again
http://www.reportingclimatesci...

Total ice covering antarctica expanding despite Geothermal Melting

Want to explain just how atmospheric CO2 triggers vulcanism ?

But please keep on proving Emily Dickinson correct about the perils of an unexamined life.

Wow. 0.1C of warming in 30 years.

Nope. Nearer 0.5C.

That's statistically indistinguishable from 0.

If it's not, then you have no basis for claiming there's a pause. A pause is when you can show that there has been at most 0 increase.
Perhaps you should test against the weaker criteria, that it is distinguishable from 0.16C. Then at least you could claim there's been a slowing.

Even the IPCC would admit that; that's why they're in a panic trying to explain "the pause."

Dude, the AR5 was last year. IPCC aren't doing WG1 publications now.

In terms of climate science, analysis of deeper ocean warming is now consistent with radiative forcing from other calculations. You're ten months behind the science.

Finally, I'll leave you with the words of a noted global warming proponent and researcher: "Pauses as long as 15 years are rare in the simulations, and âwe expect that [real-world] warming will resume in the next few years,â(TM) the Hadley Centre group writes. Researchers agree that no sort of natural variability can hold off greenhouse warming much longer." - Richard Kerr, Science (2009) So, we'll see...2009 is already five long years in the past, and the pause shows no sign of stopping at this point...

What pause? The one you've been hearing about on denialist websites? How about instead of hearsay, we actually look at the data?

No, the one that everyone admits is ongoing, including climate scientists and the latest IPCC report.

For instance:

Leading climate scientist Kevin Trenberth has told reportingclimatescience.com that he believes the pause in global warming may be caused by long term changes in the Pacific Ocean.

So, the very real pause is a subject of hot debate even among climate scientists. I suggest you re-read the quote from Richard Kerr above, as it also references the pause way back in 2009. It will be interesting seeing how things go over the next few years. We're currently right at solar maximum, and the tail end of this solar cycle will be long and low. Then, Cycle 25 will begin (starting probably in roughly 2020-2022) and it is predicted to be much lower than the current cycle, with the first estimate being a maximum sunspot number of 7 (versus about 67 for the current very low cycle - this one is already the lowest in over a century). So, the next 20+ years will give us an excellent idea of the true influence of extremely low solar activity on climate - and I believe the results will not be positive for climate alarmism.

As to the big picture on CO2, the US is no longer the biggest producer, nor will it be going forward. If growing CO2 concentration is in fact a crisis, the task of the alarmist community will be to convince China, India, Russia and the host of growing third-world economies to forgo growth and save the planet. Good luck with that.

The one possibility that might be a win-win is the proliferation of thorium or LENR nuclear technology in a major way. That route would provide plenty of energy at low cost, without producing a gram of CO2. Regardless of CO2 production, there are a lot of good reasons to displace coal electricity production with cleaner technologies. Solar will also play a role, but it is not a good source of baseline power, and is unlikely to ramp up to the levels needed anytime soon.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the rest of your post (for the three people that might actually read this lol) but I'll hit a couple of high points...

They aren't "theories". They are measurements.

You know, legitimate climate scientists going out with scientific instruments and collecting real-world sea-temperature measurements to do legitimate reliable science.

The ocean temperature measurements aren't nearly as straightforward as you make out. The purported "extra heat hiding in the oceans" amounts to changes of hundredths of a degree in the water column. Reliable measurements of that accuracy simply don't exist.

On the other hand, we do have accurate satellite measurements of sea surface temperatures going back for some time. Here's the most current data I could find. (If you track it down, you'll find temperatures have been similar back to 1998, the year of a major El Niño event.) You'll note that sea surface temperatures have not noticeably risen. As I said before, it doesn't pass the "sni

The headline writer in TFA said 2010 was the warmest on record, not James Hansen. He said that it was equal top. The second paragraph in your first article states that the NOAA agrees with NASA's results, that the surface temperature for 2010 was tied with 2005.

The second article shows that the delta of the temperatures was the second highest (meaning the change in temperature not absolute temperature). That measures something different than NOAA and NASA.

Your third article shows that the lower atmosphere was tied with 1998. Once again, that is measuring something different than NOAA and NASA, and therefore does not conflict with their findings.

NOAA said "tied". Japan said "second highest". UAH says "tied" with 1998.

That's not what the media wants. When you need a really good headline you go to Hanson. He never hesitates to hand-wave statistical error and say "hottest" on cue.

While you are correct about the religious-like fanaticism, the problem is that some people cite one of these facts and act as though it debunks every bit of science out there.

From the skeptics point of view, the citation of one of these facts tends to result in the warmers redefining it as further proof of warming... er, climate change. Look at Mann's model. Some statisticians entered random data into Mann's model and it produced hockey sticks. Rather than admit the model was flawed, Mann seems to insist that random data should produce hockey sticks. Wow! Amazing science there.

Frankly, I don't know of a scientist that is never wrong. Scientists are wrong all the time. That is the nature of science. They have a hypothesis, they test it using the scientific method, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes results are mixed. The problem skeptics have with the warmers, is that the believe they are right despite any any contradicting studies (a.k.a. Oil Shills!!). Warmers get one test or one model to show whatever reinforces their beliefs. Then they declare "consensus" and refuse to consider retesting. Sorry, but science doesn't work that way. Real science must be able to stand up to the harshest criticism. The warmer's exhibit a "circle the wagons" mentality. They refuse to share data, hiding it by claiming it is some sort of intellectual property, or through outright destruction of data. Fear of scrutiny may not prove they are wrong, but it is a pretty strong indicator.