Slashdot Mirror

This is not specificaly about tropical storms though it goes to my point.

Nope sorry the issue here is very specifically the science of tropical storm formation. As you admit your citation does not go to that issue and is out for want of relevance.

A bit of searching on the site you quote, got me from a page entitled What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?. This page does not claim that global warming will increase frequency of tropical storm formation, it claims the jury is still out on that question. I note this page is more than ten years old so it really doesn't go to what current science says either.

Because its not the sensible scientists im worried about, its the craxy [sic] ones luke Mann, Cook, Hansen and the UN political agenda.

Do you have any interview from the last 5 years with Mann, Cook, Hansen or any publishing climate scientist who contributed to the recent IPCC process in which they predict that global warming will lead to increased frequency of hurricane formation (as opposed to hurricane intensity, as opposed to any other extreme weather event or any other irrlevancies)? You made the claim these exist ... now's the showdown, show me the cards or muck your hand.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

This is not specificaly about tropical storms though it goes to my point.

There is scientific litterature stating predictions about "extreme" weather linked to clumate change.

Restricting myself to published papers would be a joy. If they didint publish just about anything that says climate change regardless if it is science or not.

  But that point aside, it would be like burying my gead in the sand. Because its not the sensible scientists im worried about, its the craxy ones luke Mann, Cook, Hansen and the UN political agenda.

Telling me to restrict my reading to the science is like telling me to look at the right hand of the magician while he pulls the dove out of the left one.

See below for one analysis of Hansen's predictions vs real-world observations. The main issue is that the value he used for climate sensitivity was on the high side; adjusting that value downwards and making no other changes gives a pretty good agreement with observations.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

There are other comparisons but this is the most layman-friendly yet thorough I've yet found.
Keep in mind that the polar regions, especially the Arctic, have been warming the quickest (one of Hansen's longstanding predictions) but are not well-represented in any dataset, especially the HadCRUT ones which is what your linked paper is using for their reconstructions, although HadCRUT4 is significantly better in this regard than HadCRUT3.

Here you go. An entire list of responses to climate denialists. Now you have a reference so you wont sound just like a paid-off concern trolling douche who needs to go fuck himself.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't enough to raise the temperature a measurable amount, see the last 18 years for proof of that.

Spare us. Please. http://www.skepticalscience.co...

You keep saying that, but that doesnt make it true.

First, the Sun:
This is a solar activity compared to global temperatures:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Solar activity has actually declined over the past 40 years, while temperatures have gone up.
I'd challenge you to explain that, except you cant. And neither can the people you mention.
And the fact you even mention them shows your level of ignorance.

Piers Corbyn in particular claims to make accurate weather predictions up to a year in advance.
He isnt even a meteorologist. He is a fraud and a conman.

It's not the sun and there is zero scientific evidence to support such a claim.
If it were the sun, then we should be cooling right now. Which we are not.
End of story.

Next the models:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Same thing: you're wrong.
The models have been very accurate over time and only gotten better.

You keep saying that, but that doesnt make it true.

First, the Sun:
This is a solar activity compared to global temperatures:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Solar activity has actually declined over the past 40 years, while temperatures have gone up.
I'd challenge you to explain that, except you cant. And neither can the people you mention.
And the fact you even mention them shows your level of ignorance.

Piers Corbyn in particular claims to make accurate weather predictions up to a year in advance.
He isnt even a meteorologist. He is a fraud and a conman.

It's not the sun and there is zero scientific evidence to support such a claim.
If it were the sun, then we should be cooling right now. Which we are not.
End of story.

Next the models:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Same thing: you're wrong.
The models have been very accurate over time and only gotten better.

just because you say it doesnt make it true.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Again: Incorrect.
Solar activity has no correleation whatsoever.
We are currently in a period of LOWER solar activity.
If solar activity were teh culprit we should expect to see lower temperatures.
We do not.

Let me state it again clearly for you just so you do not misunderstand:
For the last 35 years solar activity and global temperature have been going in opposite directions.

Read http://www.skepticalscience.co...
It even includes a handy graph which shows both solar activity and global temperatures over the same time period, so that any idiot, including you, can grasp that is no connection between the current warming trend and solar activity.

And again: Climategate was a completely manufactured scandal. IE, hoax.
Some people hacked a server, and then read statements out of context without any actual idea what they were reading.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Again: Incorrect.
Solar activity has no correleation whatsoever.
We are currently in a period of LOWER solar activity.
If solar activity were teh culprit we should expect to see lower temperatures.
We do not.

Let me state it again clearly for you just so you do not misunderstand:
For the last 35 years solar activity and global temperature have been going in opposite directions.

Read http://www.skepticalscience.co...
It even includes a handy graph which shows both solar activity and global temperatures over the same time period, so that any idiot, including you, can grasp that is no connection between the current warming trend and solar activity.

And again: Climategate was a completely manufactured scandal. IE, hoax.
Some people hacked a server, and then read statements out of context without any actual idea what they were reading.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

that fact that you dont even compherend that "climategate" was a completely fabricated scandal shows how ill informed you are.
you also are apparently ignorant of how scientfic funding works.

you're also wrong about how science works. climate science is a real phsyical science, unlike economics which is a behavorial science. physical science does not lend itself to different conclusions as the methods of science itself quickly weed out conclusions that arent supported by evidence. This is very different from economics in which the unpredictability of the human animal is a tremendous factor. in a phsyical science the same inputs cause the same outputs. In a behavioral science like economics there is no such garuntee.

you are in short, an ill informed idiot.

http://arstechnica.com/science...
http://mythopedia.mediamatters...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://mythopedia.mediamatters...

and too lazy to spend the hundreds of hours it would take for me to properly educate myself on all the issues.

This is the only thing you got right.
Yes, you're too lazy to actually know what youre talking about.
That's why you're spouting misinformatoin and BS rather than actual facts.

"Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate"
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

"City sensors account for very few of the data sources and even when city sensors are omitted the trend is apparent."
"Multiple sources of data all show the same thing."
"The temperature increase is not an artifact of declining numbers of stations."
"The temperature increase is not an artifact of stations being located at airports/cities."
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

and too lazy to spend the hundreds of hours it would take for me to properly educate myself on all the issues.

This is the only thing you got right.
Yes, you're too lazy to actually know what youre talking about.
That's why you're spouting misinformatoin and BS rather than actual facts.

"Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate"
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

"City sensors account for very few of the data sources and even when city sensors are omitted the trend is apparent."
"Multiple sources of data all show the same thing."
"The temperature increase is not an artifact of declining numbers of stations."
"The temperature increase is not an artifact of stations being located at airports/cities."
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Here is the paper I mentioned, and here is the USGS's take on the matter. From what I understand there are a number of ways to estimate human CO2 output, one being to add up all the fossil fuels that are being consumed globally, which is likely not terribly accurate but we're still talking about two or three orders of magnitude difference. Another estimation method uses carbon isotope ratios. I get the impression that estimating volcanic emissions is somewhat difficult, but there's a fair amount of continuous monitoring for various reasons. Terrence Gerlach, a vulcanologist with the USGS, seems to have done quite a bit of research into the subject. The nice thing about scholarly publications is that they have to tell you where the numbers come from; if one wants to find out more about either part of the estimates then you just follow the references.

In summation, parts of the estimates come from direct measurements and the other parts seem to be estimates based on fossil fuel consumption. I am sure that there's a whole world of study out there for estimating various factors.

As an aside, humans are still far from matching or exceeding the most violent outgassings that have resulted from the formation of Large Igneous Provinces. I believe the Deccan Traps and Siberian Traps released about 3 orders of magnitude more CO2 than humanity has liberated. While our current burn rate would have us match those outgassings in about a thousand years, I don't believe that our fossil fuel reserves are projected to last that long. However, Large Igneous Provinces generally took millions of years to form, not hundreds; there is every reason to believe that what we are doing to the planet is unprecedented. On the other other hand, we're mostly skipping the problems with particulate matter and sulfides that came along with volcanic eruptions. For what it's worth.

And of course your little - how would you call it - PROPAGANDA blog makes big claims I'll counter with mine:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cloud-proves-cosmic-rays-causing-global-warming.htm

CERN scientist Jasper Kirkby, about his recent cosmic ray experiment:

"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step"

But what about now? Well, instead of a "warming hiatus", according to the Gospel of Svensmark we should actually see massive cooling: Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High

"In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen in the past 50 years," says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech.

Was 2009 anywhere near the coldest year since the 1959? No? Then we can just forget about including Cosmic Voodoo Rays in any climate models if we want them to be acceptable to you.

embarrassed themselves by proposing obvious nonsense

Okay, I'll bite. here's a comparison of historic forecasts from skeptics and from mainstream scientists, versus actual measured temperatures. Who, exactly, is embarrassing themselves here?

Concerning divergent hypotheses on climate change cause:
The article on scientific opinion on climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) is twice as long as the one for climate change itself. This is mainly because it is a very dear topic that is constantly, erroneously (but effectively) 'discredited' by 'news outlets'. It is very important that the world know, beyond a doubt, that there is a scientific CONSENSUS that climate change is caused by human activity -- specifically the release of CO2 into the atmosphere through combustion of fossil fuels.

Yes the models need to be adjusted, they will be, repeatedly. But it doesn't change the fact that the problem is somewhere between bad and hellish.

Cosmic rays, as the previous comment suggests is an example of a differing hypothesis that may explain the same observations, is the theory that decreased activity from the Sun (sunspots and related activity) decreases the protection provided from solar wind and increases the effect of cosmic rays on the planet (reducing cloud formation/cover). This hypothesis has been calculated to contribute, at maximum, 10% of the change we have observed, and, since this is a cyclic process(the ebb and flow of solar activity) on the order of 11 years, historic data can show the effect during previous cycles*.

*'Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate',T Sloan and A W Wolfendale, 2013, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 045022
Also Check http://www.skepticalscience.co... for this topic.

-h4x0t

the statement "the models do match the observations" is factual in nature. that is, it is falsiable. it is either true, or it is not.

I said it is. and provided evidence for that.
its not a proganda site, but even if it were, it wouldnt matter.
Factual or falsifiable statements stand or fall on their own on the basis of evidence.

And you failed to provide any evidence that the models do not match the observations.
What you did, was to link without understanding. All you did was cherry pick one paper published in Nature, out of the dozens they have, that sounded like it confirmed your beliefs based on the title. Which is what a lot of deniers did, without undestanding what the paper is actualyl saying. That paper is about one data set, specifically the HadCRUT4 set. One of the major factors in that papers conclusions is El Nino/La Nina events that have both amplified and dampened temperatures in relation to expectations.

If you'd even bvothered to read the provided links you'd have seen that they actually deal specifically with the data set that that paper is about. And they talk about that dataset's relation to both models and actual observations. in other words, i already addressed your concerns, but you dont know that because you didnt bother to actually read before linking something that you dont understand. So you didnt see statements that address the issues raised in that paper, such as:

Climate models, however, cannot predict the timing and intensity of La Niña and El Niño, natural cycles that greatly affect global temperature in the short-term by dictating the amount of heat available at the ocean surface.
By failing to account for these and other factors, the CMIP5 collection of climate models erroneously simulate more warming of Earth's surface than would be expected.
When the input into the climate models is adjusted to take into consideration both the warming and cooling influences on the climate that actually occurred, the models demonstrate remarkable agreement with the observed surface warming in the last 16 years.

You missed another Nature article ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncli... ) that partially address the concerns in the one you linked, and is about better addressing El Nino/La Nina events.

You also didnt see this handy GIF, which clearly illustrates the situation, and that the models are still within the expected envelope: http://skepticalscience.com//p...

That paper you linked wasnt an indictment of global warming or the models.
It was a climate scientist saying to his fellows "hey guys, we under/overestimated a few things, this is what we need to tweak in the models, especially in regards to El Nino/La Nina".

This isnt a definititive process, it is an iteritive one. And as time goes on, the tweaks get smaller and smaller, and the conformance between observations and expectations gets closer and closer. But some things cannot be accurately predicted yet, specifically El Nino and La Nina events which have a very large impact on observations and carry a significant impact on global weather and climate. It appeared for a bit that an El Nino was building for this year, though it never materialized, which would have dramatically altered global observations, making various places hotter, cooler, wetter, or drier than normal. These events cause short term spikes (higher highs, lower lows) in observations, but are not themselves invalidations of either observations or models.

Done:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Next question?

Done:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Next question?

Done:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Next question?

Done:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Next question?

According to current definitions of "pollutant", CO2 fits the bill. http://www.skepticalscience.co... And "plant food" and "pollutant" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Phosphate is also a plant food and a potential pollutant at the same time.

Not all plants thrive with higher CO2, especially when the CO2 causes increases in temperature at the plant's location which allows pests to attack it.

You can educate yourself here so you stop making yourself look quite so foolish. Fat chance, right?

http://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210

http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/MarkBaseloadFallacyANZSEE.pdf

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374

http://bze.org.au/media/newswire/living-green-power-renewables-131007 (and that's from the energy market!)

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/08/rmi-blows-lid-baseload-power-myth-video/

Well if your asserting that I'm in denial of the problem because I don't like the solution, then in all honesty, you have to seriously consider that there are significant numbers of persons that have created a problem for the purpose of requiring their desired solution, such as UN Agenda 21.

Non sequitur. Unless you were trying to give another example of that same flawed reasoning.

They know that weather is an instance of climate, and if weather is chaotic, then by definition climate is chaotic...

This is a tired argument. The path of an individual photon as it travels from Earth to space is chaotic and unpredictable; that it will be either absorbed as heat or ultimately re-emitted to space is a certainty. It's very easy to make statistical claims about how often this will happen and how long it will take, and this can generally be confirmed by satellite measurement.

...some models are counting butterflies in a 22.5 km^2 cell and others in a 62.5 km^2 cell.

And some models are two-dimensional and do not use cells at all. You are very obviously not qualified to evaluate the usefulness of any of them.

Even worse is 70% of the planet is water and water is where most of the planet's most effective heat engine is, and there is almost no monitoring of conditions there.

This is an important area of study but it is a non sequitur in discussions of composition changes in the upper atmosphere and the effects on radiative transfer. The oceans are a heat engine, but their effects are confined to this planet; the other end of the heat pipe is not in space.

The bottom line is if we can't predict the weather 30 days out, there is no reason to believe we can predict the climate a century from now.

False. You can easily make statistical claims about weather more than 30 days out; in most areas in the Northern Hemisphere you may confidently predict that July will be warmer than December, and further make accurate predictions about temperature ranges given a set of historical data. Weather predictions on a daily basis are also frequently given as statistical claims, especially the chance of precipitation.

A further note on models would be that even obviously wrong models can still give useful results. A one-dimensional model will tell you what the black body temperature of Earth is. From that you can calculate the "greenhouse effect" of Earth's atmosphere, which makes the difference between a permanently frozen world and abundant life. A simple two-dimensional model can tell you what percentage of this can be attributed to various gases, based on absorption spectra. From there you can start calculating heat transfer due to convection and other effects, working from known physical principles, and mathematically describing the world as we know it in as much detail as possible, and comparing it to observations.

Your rationalizations are ignorant and false. If you're going to drag in a bunch of obviously wrong talking points, you should try a Gish Gallop. If you want to construct a rational argument, you might try arranging your thoughts around a central premise ('climate is unpredictable', e.g.). The best way to argue against a scientific theory, however, is with another scientific theory, but that requires you to learn something more about the subject than just what factoids match your preconceptions. Personally, I'm not really interested in responding to a string of incoherent factoids, so if you are still convinced you have some sort of rational response to make, maybe you can find some other forum.

What, like this?

Fucking dickhead.

Here's a freebie.

And a slight drop since 1997. If you look at RSS, it was essentially flat from 1979 to 1996, then the big 1998 spike happened, then flat since then. It's not really an increasing trend, but a flat/stable with a single big step function that happened in 1998. If it was driven by man, we'd expect to see a relatively consistent, ongoing rise, wouldn't we? Rather than two basically flat/declining periods with one big step function year between...

Oh, you mean like so? http://woodfortrees.org/plot/r.... What does that remind me of?

Oh, yeah, The Escalator - "Global Warming" is nothing but long periods of stagnant temperatures with ignorable jumps in between, right?

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

I see that you don't bother to argue scientifically either. In those Climategate emails, Phil Jones, the former head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, admits to two crimes, obstructing a legitimate FOIA request and tax evasion for a payment to a colleague in Russia (though that would only be a crime in Russia not in the UK where Phil Jones resides). That's two more crimes than you'll find rummaging around in my emails.

Then there's the "Hiding the decline" remark and "Mike's Nature trick". While there's a lot of spin claiming the two aren't related, it remains that Jones reused a scientifically dubious method pioneered by his associate, Mann, and not only did this hide divergent tree ring data (which drops sharply downward after 1960), it also found its way into the next IPCC report.

I mean shit, look at Al Gore, if there was a list of everybody on the planet sorted by personal carbon consumption, he'd probably be in the top 1%.

Gore is carbon neutral isn't he?

I don't care how energy efficient his 20 bedroom house or his private jet are;

Gore doesn't have a private jet.

both inevitably consume a LOT more energy than your typical person's luxuries.

How does a jet consume energy without existing?

In a small contained lab environment we can sit there and measure how much of a greenhouse effect different gases have, but historical data doesn't even so much as show a correlation between greenhouse gases and climate change.

That's not true for any of the past 420 million years

IIt doesn't appear to harm ocean life

Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit.

plant life, or land animals either

Bullshit

as during one of Earth's "greenest" periods in history we had 20 times the present atmospheric CO2, really fucking massively sized insects, dinosaurs, and more.

Kind of irrelevant. We have existent species now. Those are the ones that have to be able to live. Really fucking massively sized insects, and dinosaurs are already dead.

Other data suggests that rises in atmospheric CO2 follow rises in climate, not the other way around

Nope:
CO2, increasing since about 1750.
Temp, from about 1900.

As for global warming itself, it could be fully or partially man caused. I don't know, but again, I don't think it's a problem either way, so I don't really give a crap.

Well, we've got a lot of science now, so we don't need to base our decisions on what you think.

It's entirely possible that the higher CO2 we're seeing is yet another rise following a climate change that we had no part in.

No it's not. It's from the combustion of fossil fuels.

And by the way, the arguments for stopping climate change so that we can save the economy are also incredibly stupid and self defeating.

Bullshit

We have not, even one time, seen a case where climate change has caused long term economic damage.

Bullshit. Economic impact of global warming is costing the world more than $1.2 trillion a year, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP

Meanwhile we have seen on well more than one occasion where stupid economic decisions cause global long term collapse. Hurting the economy for what is probably much ado about nothing is therefore pointless

The 10 state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative saw their combined economies increase by 1.6 billion in the first three years. Oh, the pain! The pain! Ouch! Stop the hurt!


Why did /. vote this bullshit +5, interesting? I would have thought anti-science grandstanding was antithetical to "news for nerds". This place really has dropped in discernment over the past few years hasn't it. .

This is why not:

Crop yields are expected to decline because plants need more water as the temperature goes up:
http://www.qaafi.uq.edu.au/mai...
http://www.circleofblue.org/wa...
http://www.seeddaily.com/repor...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...

Also try this on for size; The spread of pests and disease:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scie...
http://www.wunderground.com/ne...

As for the rest of your assumptions: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

but that will - eventually - be countered somewhat by the albedo effect of the large scale clouds that will form.

Possibly, but probably not.

No http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Sorry but that article claims the heat is going into the ocean. However, NASA says NO it's not. http://science.nasa.gov/scienc... Again real science trumps.

If you don't believe, try looking HERE [wordpress.com], and HERE [wordpress.com].

You think if I read some anti-science blogs I would find that science is all wrong, and that the real truth can only be found in blogs that say that the scientists are all lying?

Do you think that would help?

What kind of luddite world are you posting from?

I have quite a collection of official government raw data that show a very different truth than what NOAA claims.

I suspect that this is bullshit.

The luddite blogs you linked to only discussed the USA for a reason: There is a time of observation bias that is in one direction in that data set. For the global data set the adjustments average nearly zero.

NOAA's claim (verified by GISTemp), is that the last 6 months are the warmest ever globally.

Hell, even the majority of climate scientists admit that it hasn't really warmed for 16 years or more now.

Really. Citation please.

Their last best hope for explaining why their CO2-warming climate models didn't correspond with reality was that the "missing heat" was hiding in the deep ocean.

That would explain sea level rising unabated, wouldn't it?

What's the luddite explanation for that? Alas, THIS PAIR [nature.com] OF PAPERS [nature.com] shows rather solidly that there isn't any "missing heat" being stored in the deep oceans.

I see you don't read your own links very well. From the abstract of the first paper:
These adjustments yield large increases (2.2–7.1 × 1022 J 35 yr1) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates, and have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments.

The second paper also confirms warming, explicitly in the abstract.
The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 ± 0.44 W m2 from 2005 to 2013.

That estimate agrees with the 0.9 W/m-1 that is calculated from energy imbalance, which shows the opposite of what you claim. The warming of the oceans is consistent with accepted values of global warming.

Too bad, so sad. Which is sarcasm, of course. People should be celebrating (and some are). But too many are so caught up in their ties to research grants or their "CO2 religion" to admit they're looking more foolish by the day.

Pro tip: Try to get one of my facts right before calling the scientific community "foolish".

There is probably another reason people aren't celebrating.

Please don't talk about runaway greenhouse effects here on Earth. It really isn't possible.

It isn't possible NOW. It WILL happen at the latest, about a billion years in the future when the Sun's solar output is about 25 percent brighter than it is today and exceeds the limit for what our biosphere can compensate.

Please don't talk about runaway greenhouse effects here on Earth. It really isn't possible.

Quick summary: for a runaway greenhouse effect, you need a big surface reservoir of some greenhouse gas (on Earth, water vapor). Theoretically, you increase the temperature a little, this vaporizes more of the gas, trapping more heat, which vaporizes more gas, and so on until the planet no longer has a radiative balance. Then things get a bit warm.

On Earth, the tropopause generally keeps water vapor near the surface; if water vapor rises to that point, it usually freezes and precipitates. This prevents it from building up in the upper atmosphere. One of the effects of CO2 on Earth is to cool the stratosphere, so ironically adding more of it could be moving us further away from a runaway greenhouse effect.

There is a vague possibility that we might make some lasting change to the climate, but probably not. We're still a few orders of magnitude away from the most drastic outgassings that the Earth has experienced. We're drastically compressing the timeframe of those events, but we will exhaust all fossil fuels long before we match the CO2 emissions of the largest LIPs. We can and seemingly will fuck up the planet for a geologic age, but the planet has recovered from worse extinction events before. We'll have to be satisfied with 90% of terrestrial life, I am afraid that the Ultimate Species Fuckup is beyond us.

Except global temperatures have not plateaued and continue to rise. The rate of the rise changes but it is continuing to rise. The "plateau" is only spin using a very crude line from a peak in 1998. http://www.skepticalscience.co...

The warming cannot be explained by an inter-glacial. Dumping millions of years of stored carbon into the upper atmosphere is not surprisingly having an effect on the climate. Land use changes, clear felling, road and city concreting do not help either.

This study is going to help refine the calculations of where heat is stored and how it changes over time but don't delude yourself that this is not related to human activity. Even most deniers have stopped denying that.

Except you're linking to a site with flawed science (look at their Consensus Project), and the article you linked to says the missing heat is in the oceans -- which NASA is saying is not there.

What is worse is this:

Landerer also is a coauthor of another paper in the same journal issue on 1970-2005 ocean warming in the Southern Hemisphere. Before Argo floats were deployed, temperature measurements in the Southern Ocean were spotty, at best. Using satellite measurements and climate simulations of sea level changes around the world, the new study found the global ocean absorbed far more heat in those 35 years than previously thought -- a whopping 24 to 58 percent more than early estimates.

That means that there was more warming after 1975 than was previously thought, thus climate models have been UNDERESTIMATING the amount of warming from 1975-1998. If the climate models get adjusted to create more warming, then the warming pause during the past 18 years is even less explained by the science which the models are using.

Fortunately, there are plenty of excuses for the pause, maybe the models will adopt some more. Here are dozens of explanations for the pause.

CO2 is one of many compunds plants require. That is not the whole picture.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Except global temperatures have not plateaued and continue to rise. The rate of the rise changes but it is continuing to rise. The "plateau" is only spin using a very crude line from a peak in 1998. http://www.skepticalscience.co...

The warming cannot be explained by an inter-glacial. Dumping millions of years of stored carbon into the upper atmosphere is not surprisingly having an effect on the climate. Land use changes, clear felling, road and city concreting do not help either.

This study is going to help refine the calculations of where heat is stored and how it changes over time but don't delude yourself that this is not related to human activity. Even most deniers have stopped denying that.

Crop yields down. Yes, seriously.

All you've shown is that we're growing more corn - which should be no surprise to anyone given how it's used in all our first-world processed junk food, and now we're even using it to fuel our cars. And the US has been subsidizing the hell out of it.

Suggesting that global warming could be a net positive for global crop yields flies in the face of all research to date:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

http://www.theguardian.com/env...

This is one of the biggest problems global warming is bringing with it, I don't know how you'd missed it.

It has already been explained.

Cartoon to educate you: http://static.skepticalscience...

Cognitive filter. Example: you.

You do know that your local man on Tv usually isnt an actual meteorologist? And what's on the teleprompter may or may not have been based on NOAA's official forecast. Weather modeling and forecasts are very good, boasting >95% accuracy over the first 3-4 days, with accuracy decreasing the further ahead you go.

"This claim is based more on an appeal to emotion than fact. The inference is that climate predictions, decades into the future, cannot be possibly right when the weather forecast for the next day has some uncertainty.
In spite of the claim in this myth, short term weather forecasts are highly accurate and have improved dramatically over the last three decades."

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Myth: The models arent accurate

Fact: The models are accurate.

"Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean."
"While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations."

http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Myth: The models arent accurate

Fact: The models are accurate.

"Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean."
"While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations."

http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Ah yes.
"The Little Ice Age" myth.

Here you go, since you dont seen to know what youre talking about:
  http://www.skepticalscience.co...

I presume you're referring to the interglacial warm periods, as shown in this graph.

We have a very good idea of what causes those - they align nicely with orbital variations (Milankovitch cycles). And we're not due for another one - we just passed the peak of one a few thousand years back. The temperature had been dropping slowly since then (up until a century ago).

Plants love CO2.

Most of them also hate increased heat and reduced moisture. And they dont really "love CO2". That's a misunderstand of plant respiration.

The Sun and it's Cycles really do have the most extreme effect on our climate.

No, they don't. This has been proven decisively. In fact, if they were having an effect, the Earth should be cooling right now, as the sun is actually going through a period of lower solar output for some time now.

Further: "The claim that solar cycle length proves the sun is driving global warming is based on a single study published in 1991. Subsequent research, including a paper by a co-author of the original 1991 paper, finds the opposite conclusion. Solar cycle length as a proxy for solar activity tells us the sun has had very little contribution to global warming since 1975." http://www.skepticalscience.co...

But keep trying Mr AC.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Also, if you had any interest in actually looking, all the numbers you need to do the math are available on the Internet.