Slashdot Mirror

I think you sorely overestimate the impact a few degrees can have on global climate

Thought I'd FTFY.

If you'd take the trouble to actually study the materials spewed forth my the IPCC and it's goons (people like Michael E. Mann, et al you know, the faux nobel laureates) and also read what the critics have to say, you'd soon see through the scam very clearly.

This is how good a little warming is: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

And how was was it fairly recently? A few centuries ago: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

This is not hard. It only becomes hard if you have an agenda and try to make the data fit your agenda.

48% confidence that 2014 is the warmest year on record. (Straight from the 2014 NOAA state of climate report)

Warmest year on record, by 0.04C with an error margin of 0.09C (Seriously?)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Is it too difficult to use google? The top hit goes to wattsupwiththat:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Or even look at John Coleman's points? Wattsupwiththat even pops in the top 3 of that even:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Objectively, unbiasedly and openly stated: We do not have all the answers and it's bullshit to assume we know we do.

Is it too difficult to use google? The top hit goes to wattsupwiththat:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Or even look at John Coleman's points? Wattsupwiththat even pops in the top 3 of that even:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Objectively, unbiasedly and openly stated: We do not have all the answers and it's bullshit to assume we know we do.

I actually wasn't referring to the WatsUpWithThat blog, although it does have an interesting analysis of the U.S. Climate Reference Network data, which is what I was referring to, and the raw data, which is also what I'm referring to.

As I said in my first comment, I'm just curious why some data is used, and other data is ignored.

As to that last comment...in general, if there's adjustment happening to something like research data, it has to be disclosed in findings reports. Eg, "I adjusted the weight readings by 10.5 grams, because I forgot to tare my scale with the crucible on it". I don't think that all unadjusted data is better. I think that if data is adjusted, the reasons for doing so and the method should also be fully disclosed.

Okay, so let's say I'm sceptic and not a denier. After a quick Google search, I stumbled on these two links:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Your first clue is that anyone who says climate is warming based on a period that not an integer number of years is an imbecile. If you are taking odd months on, at best you're contaminating the data with seasons rather than years.

Once you've appreciated that, realise that climate is an average of temperature over enough years that the noise is minimised. At 18 years it's still mostly weather. For a strong climate signal you have always needed at about 30 at least.

Anyone using less WAS doing it because they were cherry picking a period to start at the high point El Nino. It's no longer possible to do even that because 2014 exceeded that temperature. Which is why they are no reduced to the stupidity of using periods that are not even divisible by 12 months.

In this sucking mud swamp of a debate, it is entirely possible to get completely opposite claims with lots of supporting data depending on which Google search terms you use to fortify your position.

Quote:

Numbers released today by NOAAâ(TM)s National Climatic Data Center show that not only has July been abnormally cool in the USA, but so has 2014 in general. For the last 30 days, there have been 574 record highest temperatures in the USA, and 1,726 record lowest. A ratio of 3 to 1, indicating that July was very cool. But, the year so far has also been cool.

So far for the USA year to date, the numbers of record lows outpace the highs two to one.

This year, here have been been 12,644 daily record lowest temperatures versus 6,615 record highest temperatures in the USA, a ratio of 1.91 to 1.0.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Remember the "Polar Vortex"? It was a cold damned Spring and Summer through 2014...

From Wikipedia:

The 2013-14 North American cold wave was an extreme weather event extending from December 2013 to April 2014, and was also part of an unusually cold winter affecting parts of Canada and the Eastern United States.[6] The event consisted of 2 episodes, the first one in December 2013 and the second in early 2014, both caused by southward shifts of the North Polar Vortex. Record cold temperatures also extended well into March.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...â"14_North_American_cold_wave

Though, of course, this is blamed on AGW once again. "The planet is warming up, which is why you're freezing your tail off. Obviously."

Back in the debate swamp, "True Believers" claim that the "Deniers" are funded by the petro-chem industry to fudge data. That may be true. Truthfully, I've not checked. I *have* however checked to see that the AGW side can be accused of similar things; their funding comes from those who would benefit from carbon tax scams. Driven by fear of unemployment and professional crucifixion, they engage in all sorts of funny business...

BOM finally explains! Cooling changed to warming trends because stations "might" have moved!
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/...

But the thing I find interesting is that, as per usual, *nobody* in the MSM or really anywhere in the debate is looking at or discussing the other parallel trends. We've seen massive increases in comet/fireball activity and volcanic activity

"If you plot data from the last 200 years, there's a clear increase in the number of eruptions over time," Siebert said, "but that's not a function of the actual number of eruptions but rather due to reporting effects."
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/are-volcanic-eruptions-increasing.htm

-You'll notice that while the up-trend is beyond denial every official volcano news site in the first few Google page returns races to assure us that incidence of mountains blowing up are not *actually* on the increase. -It's simply that we have only recently become better at noticing when MOUNTAINS BLOW UP.

You'll excuse me if I find this to be a rather tenuous bit of self-calming very likely (my opinion) linked to the official media directives telling us that any of the bad CO2 must be due to human activities and certainly not any natural events. -Which, please note, is NOT why I bring up volcanoes.

CO2 doesn't interest me because nobody has yet put forth a viable explanation for why it would cause any significant net heat capture. CO2 works in both directions. CO2 is opaque to IR; like the clouds of Nuclear

Okay, so let's say I'm sceptic and not a denier. After a quick Google search, I stumbled on these two links:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Both are clearly claiming there is no global warming since 1997. Reading it quickly doesn't provide any clue as to whether they are bullshit or not - or at least it would require me to dig into the problem, but I don't have that amount of free time right now.

Do you have any indication about what's wrong with these assertions?

Okay, so let's say I'm sceptic and not a denier. After a quick Google search, I stumbled on these two links:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Both are clearly claiming there is no global warming since 1997. Reading it quickly doesn't provide any clue as to whether they are bullshit or not - or at least it would require me to dig into the problem, but I don't have that amount of free time right now.

Do you have any indication about what's wrong with these assertions?

The science is on the skeptical side of the CAGW argument.

No, it's not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

97 Articles Refuting The ‘97% Consensus’ on global warming

Tabloid, much?
Who cares what dem people call dem other people??
Only freaks publicly insist on labeling other people freaks.
Says I, in public.

There are places where folks are still covering topics of pure-CO2 temperature causation (or not) that involve studies of available data, and just as important these days, breakdown and evaluation of the various 'corrections' that have been retroactively applied to those datasets, the reliability of models and various proxy methods. WattsUpWithThat is one such resource. If you conclude that it is on the other side of the fence than perhaps you should ask yourself, who built the fence?

Branding dissenters as heretics in the popular press on this level --- it is as if they are appealing to some Supreme Diety to descend from the heavens with a 'Mighty Dog' branding iron --- to mark the foreheads of chosen persons. It's ridiculous, boring and trite.

The climate furor may be part of a larger trend in science noted by master lexicographer Daniele Fanelli. The paper Negative Results are Disappearing from Most Disciplines and Countries [2011] is a fascinating read. It notes that "Of the hypothesized problems, perhaps the most worrying is a worsening of positive-outcome bias. A system that disfavours negative results not only distorts the scientific literature directly, but might also discourage high-risk projects and pressure scientists to fabricate and falsify their data."

Let me spell it out, what is being claimed here is a progressive shortage of applied effort to discredit popular hypotheses. Is it because we are such great guessers. we tend to get these things right so often the first time it's a waste of time and effort to back-check, to reproduce? Does it come down to money?

Or are people letting themselves become religious about science?
Isn't this what Carl Sagan warned us about?

Note to self: add citation to paper, "Climate Change may decrease eggshell thickness of duck-billed salamanders by 0.25mm by the year 2050."

Well, it seems over the last 11,000 years we've had considerably warmer periods - and our species survived and even flourished! The Minoan warm period, the Roman warm period, the Medieval warm period - all were good for worldwide cultures. We're not "headed" anywhere our species hasn't been, and our species has done pretty darn well when it's warmer as opposed to when it's colder.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Note how the temp shift is regular and pretty much like today. Almost like a heart beat.

You are correct - there are issues with Nikolov's ideas (I was actually referencing Jelbring, but some of the ideas are similar), specifically, now can the equilibrium temperature of a black body be different with an atmosphere without GHGs? I don't think it can, but that doesn't mean that the tiny amount of CO2 is going to make up all the difference, and I think it's a good starting point to describe why the "radiative forcing" theory is clearly wrong.

There is a better discussion at (Oh Nos! DENIERS site) Watt's blog, and he has the same problem with those theories himself.

If we approached risks of Artificial Intelligence with the same attitude, with which we are told to approach the risk of Global Warming, we would've shut and banned all AI-research — and denounced any and all such researchers as death-deserving traitors to humanity — and KKKapitalist whores.

Especially since the ARGO data gives us VERY little ocean temperature rises, like the Northern Pacific at 0.02 deg C per decade. Hardly catastrophic. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Actually, that was debunked last year...from someone not exactly an AGW proponent either...

That was NOT the article or the study I sited - my link is from a paper just published last April, and it's about the coolant effect of CO2 in the middle and lower atmosphere, not the troposphere. Since you couldn't even bother to click on the link when I posted it, here is a quote from the abstract:

Infrared radiative cooling of the thermosphere by carbon dioxide (CO2, 15m) and by nitric oxide (NO, 5.3m) has been observed for 12years by the Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER) instrument on the Thermosphere-Ionosphere-Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics satellite. For the first time we present a record of the two most important thermospheric infrared cooling agents over a complete solar cycle. SABER has documented dramatic variability in the radiative cooling on time scales ranging from days to the 11 year solar cycle. Deep minima in global mean vertical profiles of radiative cooling are observed in 2008–2009. Current solar maximum conditions, evidenced in the rates of radiative cooling, are substantially weaker than prior maximum conditions in 2002–2003. The observed changes in thermospheric cooling correlate well with changes in solar ultraviolet irradiance and geomagnetic activity during the prior maximum conditions. NO and CO2 combine to emit 7×1018 more Joules annually at solar maximum than at solar minimum.

Actually, that was debunked last year...from someone not exactly an AGW proponent either...

Science is finding new ways to tell us apart from one another.

Well Lordy be, they chose a Climate Change issue to do a psychological study of people-perceptions, again. What a surprise. Perhaps a disproportionately large number of Republicans have encountered various other analyses that plot observed reality against model projection and said, "well maybe that 3.2degC is not so scientific after all." How did/could they control for the participants' private assessment of the "scientific" statement they were given?

I'd be more curious about the pollution portion, there is far less scientific dispute about the effects particulates and aerosols on people and planet. Too bad the press release didn't cover that. At $11.95 for the PDF its TE;DR.

The hidden component to these studies is not necessarily political people-prejudices or even brain wiring, it is how people perceive and apply risk. Without a pivot of risk you're not going to get a straight answer on anything. None of these issues (climate, pollution, guns) are simple.

For pure-CO2 global average temperature causation my risk-O-meter is barely twitching, just enough that I'll glance out of the corner of my eye for the huge juggernaut of extraordinary evidence that would be required to prove it at this point. It would be large enough to see from a distance and would be a great deal slower than a speeding train .

My other risk-O-meter is PEGGED, the one that attempts to assess my personal risk from politically motivated shoddy conclusions, emerging secular belief systems, 'new' government regulation (by a government that seems to have forgotten how to repeal anything, preferring to tune legislation to greater heights of obfuscation and uselessness) ... some of the dumb-ass solutions being proposed out there are TERRIFYING.

So if someone drew me into a study where I'm expected to weigh a stated 'problem' with and proposed 'solution' empirically, expecting me to decouple one from the other so they can draw some sort of conclusion from it, forget that.

If I had grown up in a place where solutions did not often create their own set of problems, that need to be weighed and factored --- such as inside a comic book --- maybe.

And I'm not even a Democrat or a Republican or liberal or conservative. That's just me looking at the world.

Sure... Here's an article about the constant "adjustments" to HadCRUT that cause it to constantly lower past temperatures, and increase current temperatures. Additionally, HadCRUT is based on 5+ degree latitude/longitude "cells" that are extremely coarse, and use just 1300 points worldwide for all land mass... And none for much of the oceans (the overwhelming number of measurements are limited to established shipping lanes). Why wouldn't a satellite with full-world coverage be more accurate and higher resolution?

Pure CO2 causation, the forced feedback in climate models and the machinations on the data that attempt to leverage a 400% CO2 rise into an extremely-slight-yet-lost-in-noise rise or flatline (depending on how you rearrange the noise) average global temperature... it has been like a bad dream that does not end.

Will the world end in ***FIRE*** or ***ICE***? Or will the world fail to end at all, that would be really embarrassing. It's time to put the steep rise in people-generated pure-CO2 and the observed not steep at all global temperature curve in proper perspective. As in, pure-CO2 causation is a non-starter yet worthy of study --- but it's time to focus on other aspects for awhile. Without all that 'climate denier' noise too.

Let's just talk about actual particulates and albedo. Stratospheric sulfur aerosols reflect more sunlight. In the Arctic, nearby soot may be a larger forcing than CO2. One effect would cause net cooling at the surface and the other a net warming as near-perfect blackbody particles settle on ice crystals. The photograph of a melt water canal with concentrated black carbon particles lining the bottom of the pool begs the question, does this melt channel owe its very existence to the presence of the carbon, or was it caused by other factors? I guestimate that the area of black is about 1/10 the size of the surrounding melt pit... so we are definitely seeing 'grey snow' in the Arctic here.

It has taken five years for the failed 'Glory' satellite mission to be re-launched as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. It is my hope that OCO2 will help to answer these questions by showing where pollution plumes originate and how they move, so that we know where to take samples and what to look for.

Politics demands simplified models and pure-CO2 causation so they can tax everybody without pissing off the coal industry. F*ck politics. It is my view that pure-science demands a balanced approach that will reveal the true impact of coal, among other manmade and natural causes.

And the folks in California would really appreciate a green-tax refund for the 29% of their pollution that is actually from Asia.

I am sure you are more of an expert than this person. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... But i am afraid that you are just another climate change junky.

link
Meanwhile the number of record low temps outnumbers record high temps 2 to 1 in 2014. Thats right, more record highs means global warming, but more record lows is just temperature. 18 years of no warming is just temperature, but 6 months of warmer is climate.

No one believe your lies anymore, give up, you are the only delusional ones that belive yourselves.

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?

What makes you think "Steve Goddard's" blog is "anti-science"? Because it doesn't conform to your world-view? That's name-calling, not an argument.

Goddard examines raw data records and compares against the "adjusted" data. This is what allowed him (and others) to show the massive amount of manipulation that is done to data that comes out of NCDC, and GISS in particular. GISS has been widely criticized for questionable manipulation of its data sets, and in fact not long ago it was found (by who? your "anti-science" Steve Goddard that NCDC was improperly "infilling" as much as 40% of its data in some cases from temperature stations that were offline or did not even exist.

Not only that, NCDC publicly admitted that infilling was a problem, that they had known about it (for some unspecified time), and that they "intended to fix it" at some unspecified time in the future. Nobody knows how long they had known about it or when they intend to fix it.

Obviously, nobody needs to "fix" something that is working properly.

Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted.

Further, your sources are not all "independent", since most of them incestuously rely on the same questionable data sets. It doesn't have to be "a conspiracy" or "lying", if they all work with the same questionable data. This is a valid point that people have been making for well over a decade.

So don't sit there and tell me what your vaunted sources say, until you address the data they are all using. There are KNOWN serious problems with it. Not just minor problems; big ones.

I suspect that this is bullshit.

You suspect incorrectly. My "collection" consists of web links to official data, of course, it's not all right here on my hard drive. But I do have it. Don't expect me to post it all here on Slashdot. Regardless, your "suspicions" are irrelevant.

I see you don't read your own links very well. From the abstract of the first paper: These adjustments yield large increases (2.2â"7.1 Ã-- 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.

I see you didn't read my comment very well, AND have poor analysis skills. First, the conclusion is drawn from the second paper, which references the first. Second, the Argo array has been measuring the upper-level sea temperatures since 2005. THOSE temperatures are no surprise and have already been accounted for.

Deep ocean warming was the last gasp attempt to show that the CO2-based warming models were sound, by discovering the "missing heat" that they predict. There is none. Therefore the CO2-based warming models are unsound.

You can try to obfuscate this fact all you like, but it really doesn't get much simpler than that.

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

Really. Citation please.

Seriously? Do you know absolutely nothing about the subject you are discussing, and pretending to refute me on?

Even the latest IPCC AR report, which is of course based largely

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?

What makes you think "Steve Goddard's" blog is "anti-science"? Because it doesn't conform to your world-view? That's name-calling, not an argument.

Goddard examines raw data records and compares against the "adjusted" data. This is what allowed him (and others) to show the massive amount of manipulation that is done to data that comes out of NCDC, and GISS in particular. GISS has been widely criticized for questionable manipulation of its data sets, and in fact not long ago it was found (by who? your "anti-science" Steve Goddard that NCDC was improperly "infilling" as much as 40% of its data in some cases from temperature stations that were offline or did not even exist.

Not only that, NCDC publicly admitted that infilling was a problem, that they had known about it (for some unspecified time), and that they "intended to fix it" at some unspecified time in the future. Nobody knows how long they had known about it or when they intend to fix it.

Obviously, nobody needs to "fix" something that is working properly.

Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted.

Further, your sources are not all "independent", since most of them incestuously rely on the same questionable data sets. It doesn't have to be "a conspiracy" or "lying", if they all work with the same questionable data. This is a valid point that people have been making for well over a decade.

So don't sit there and tell me what your vaunted sources say, until you address the data they are all using. There are KNOWN serious problems with it. Not just minor problems; big ones.

I suspect that this is bullshit.

You suspect incorrectly. My "collection" consists of web links to official data, of course, it's not all right here on my hard drive. But I do have it. Don't expect me to post it all here on Slashdot. Regardless, your "suspicions" are irrelevant.

I see you don't read your own links very well. From the abstract of the first paper: These adjustments yield large increases (2.2â"7.1 Ã-- 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.

I see you didn't read my comment very well, AND have poor analysis skills. First, the conclusion is drawn from the second paper, which references the first. Second, the Argo array has been measuring the upper-level sea temperatures since 2005. THOSE temperatures are no surprise and have already been accounted for.

Deep ocean warming was the last gasp attempt to show that the CO2-based warming models were sound, by discovering the "missing heat" that they predict. There is none. Therefore the CO2-based warming models are unsound.

You can try to obfuscate this fact all you like, but it really doesn't get much simpler than that.

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

Really. Citation please.

Seriously? Do you know absolutely nothing about the subject you are discussing, and pretending to refute me on?

Even the latest IPCC AR report, which is of course based largely

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?

What makes you think "Steve Goddard's" blog is "anti-science"? Because it doesn't conform to your world-view? That's name-calling, not an argument.

Goddard examines raw data records and compares against the "adjusted" data. This is what allowed him (and others) to show the massive amount of manipulation that is done to data that comes out of NCDC, and GISS in particular. GISS has been widely criticized for questionable manipulation of its data sets, and in fact not long ago it was found (by who? your "anti-science" Steve Goddard that NCDC was improperly "infilling" as much as 40% of its data in some cases from temperature stations that were offline or did not even exist.

Not only that, NCDC publicly admitted that infilling was a problem, that they had known about it (for some unspecified time), and that they "intended to fix it" at some unspecified time in the future. Nobody knows how long they had known about it or when they intend to fix it.

Obviously, nobody needs to "fix" something that is working properly.

Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted.

Further, your sources are not all "independent", since most of them incestuously rely on the same questionable data sets. It doesn't have to be "a conspiracy" or "lying", if they all work with the same questionable data. This is a valid point that people have been making for well over a decade.

So don't sit there and tell me what your vaunted sources say, until you address the data they are all using. There are KNOWN serious problems with it. Not just minor problems; big ones.

I suspect that this is bullshit.

You suspect incorrectly. My "collection" consists of web links to official data, of course, it's not all right here on my hard drive. But I do have it. Don't expect me to post it all here on Slashdot. Regardless, your "suspicions" are irrelevant.

I see you don't read your own links very well. From the abstract of the first paper: These adjustments yield large increases (2.2â"7.1 Ã-- 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.

I see you didn't read my comment very well, AND have poor analysis skills. First, the conclusion is drawn from the second paper, which references the first. Second, the Argo array has been measuring the upper-level sea temperatures since 2005. THOSE temperatures are no surprise and have already been accounted for.

Deep ocean warming was the last gasp attempt to show that the CO2-based warming models were sound, by discovering the "missing heat" that they predict. There is none. Therefore the CO2-based warming models are unsound.

You can try to obfuscate this fact all you like, but it really doesn't get much simpler than that.

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

Really. Citation please.

Seriously? Do you know absolutely nothing about the subject you are discussing, and pretending to refute me on?

Even the latest IPCC AR report, which is of course based largely

Dewan believes one of the MSRs biggest advantage is the its ability to burn SNF (spent nuclear fuel – “nuclear wastes”) more or less completely, extracting 20 times more energy from uranium than a conventional reactor,

That quote is from A Universally Acceptable and Economical Energy Source?, the worlds largest climate "denier" site. You would think environmentalists would be jumping up and down with joy. Here is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: reduce both nuclear waste and fossil fuel consumption; and climate "deniers" are fully on board!

So why isn't there more interest?

You kind of prove my point. Fossil fuels are coveted for a reason. But hey, I'm all for making fossil fuels obsolete. Even climate "deniers" want to move forward. Spreading complete BS like this report does only hinders progress.

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.

I'm sorry, but you have bought into the movement by first, using the term denier, second thinking science is on the side of the righteous climate movement.

Take the time to read this and let me know what conclusions you come to.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... Real Science Debates are Not Rare

You assume there is warming to be found, because the models say so?
Isn't it possible that a chaotic system is just that, chaotic?

In my opinion it describes in a clear and concise way, what the science is not only not settled, but also rests and very shaky ground.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

I agree.

I dont know how if it its possible to modify ones own posts, so here is a correction.

The link I wanted to post is this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... Real Science Debates are Not Rare.

I think this brings things back to the source and demonstrates why we are so off the mark.

Hmm, for some reason my link got mixed up.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... Real Science Debates are Not Rare

This is the link I think is quite important.

Hmm, links got mixed up.

This is what I wanted to post.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... Real Science Debates are Not Rare.

I agree with your measured position.

I had a long read last night that really put this in perspective and explained why and how the science just doesn't seem to make sense when it comes to the climate change debate.

If you have a little patience, read the following recent link, to get a good grasp of how Science and peer review have been redefined by the climate movement and why.
Also about the "basic" science surrounding climate science which is flawed from the ground up.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... [wattsupwiththat.com]

Read it with an open mind and make your own conclusions. Its what I suggest to anyone.
Its just hard to look at the whole subject with the same mindset after reading this.

Nice way to spin it.
I'm happy and actually quite suprised that NASA decided to write this instead of hide it. However James Hansen is no longer at NASA... so...

But then you go and trash it all up.

CO2 is plant food, as you stated, we all know that. What you might not know is another double of CO2 is exactly what we need to grow the food to feed the growing population we have.

There is nothing to update, as CO2 was, is and always will be plant food.

Now, that aside. The link between CO2 and runaway global warming is a theory with models which does not rest on solid science.

Now before you go and talk about settled this and settled that....

If you have a little patience, read the following recent link, to get a good grasp of how Science and peer review have been redefined by the climate movement and why. Also about the "basic" science surrounding climate science which is flawed from the ground up.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... [wattsupwiththat.com]

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, yes.
Causing warmer temperatures, still not proven to the extent the models claim.
Warmer temperatures causing economic losses, there is nothing to demonstrate that is true.

We have no losses to cut, yet. However going towards carbon trading schemes will definitely generate losses for the population and society as a whole.

If you have a little patience, read the following recent link, to get a good grasp of how Science and peer review have been redefined by the climate movement and why.
Also about the "basic" science surrounding climate science which is flawed from the ground up.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... [wattsupwiththat.com]

If you don't want to take the time to read it = I would suggest you should stop all discussion as you are n

Your belief, does not give you a right to be intolerant towards others.
Your beliefs do not make you righteous, no matter what they are.
They are beliefs.

Your comparison to religion is apt. as you make the point of those that state AGW and the CC movement is more akin to a religious movement and dogma than it is to actual science.

If you have a little patience, read the following recent link, to get a good grasp of how Science and peer review have been redefined by the climate movement and why.
Also about the "basic" science surrounding climate science which is flawed from the ground up.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

The problem here is that AGW supporters loved to toss Hurricanes out as "proof" of global warming AND evidence that GW makes Hurricanes worse. The problem is neither is factual, and neither is even remotely accurate. Making falsifiable claims is one reason why I don't listen to AGW proponents any longer. They are just Religious nutjobs, using quasi-science to foist their belief systems on to others. Here is more detailed and significant analysis that basically makes "hurricanes" a non-issue and why the AGW proponents should stop using hurricanes as "proof" of anything.

Here is a good outline of the problem :http://www.growth-dynamics.com/news/DEC27_04.htm

Here is an outline that proves my point ... http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Or here: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

Or here: http://climateaudit.org/2007/0...

Or here (pay attention to Fig 3-6) https://coaps.fsu.edu/papers/r...

Of course, the fact that this probably means the species is doing well, has passing these loons like a ship in the night.

"there can't be AGW and an ice record at the same time!" Yes there can, if you believe otherwise, explain why :)

I don't believe otherwise. You are putting words into my mouth.

define significant

Significant as in "statistically significant", or "so slight as to be undetectable". Anthropogenic CO2 emissions prior to 1950 were quite small, especially compared to recent years where CO2 levels increased by about 25% since 2000. (Strangely enough there has been no additional warming during this same period.)

There was, in fact, a slight cooling trend from 1950 to 1976. And global warming has indeed "paused" for the past 17 years or so, depending on what data set you use. This image shows the various datasets where the warming trends hit zero. Taking the margins of error into account (where a zero trend can't be ruled out), there has been "no statistically significant warming for between 16 and 21 years."

For UAH: Since March 1996: CI from -0.001 to 2.341
For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.015 to 1.821
For Hadcrut4: Since November 1996: CI from -0.003 to 1.184
For Hadsst3: Since August 1994: CI from -0.014 to 1.666
For GISS: Since October 1997: CI from -0.002 to 1.249
From: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

You say the IPCC writes "nonsense", nsidc.org links are "retarded", and you give precedence to your own anecdotal experiences over mainstream scientific data. Who is the one denying science?

Let's be very clear here:

1) oceans are *basic* not acidic. Reducing pH of oceans at this point is *neutralization*, not acidification;

2) ocean pH varies orders of magnitude more than any proposed amount of neutralization:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

"It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day."

It could be an indication that the compensation effect of the oceans is coming at an end.

How can you possibly assert that as an explanation? Let's assume, for the moment, that the missing sink is the oceans (rather than say, increased plant life, or some other part of the carbon cycle we don't understand) - the moderator of how much CO2 they could absorb every year must be the amount of surface area of the oceans, yet without changing the surface area of the oceans, you're asserting that they magically figured out how to absorb *more* CO2 in later years?

Please, *why* would the oceans in 1980 absorb x CO2 from the atmosphere, but then in 2014, they absorb Y > 10x?

Possible suggestion: Absorption of oceans is driven by ocean temperature, and from say, 1980 - 2014, increasing ocean temps absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere. So then what regulates ocean temperature? Cloud albedo and solar activity primarily, with maybe some minuscule contribution from underwater vulcanism. Sadly, we've got no model linking cloud albedo to CO2, or solar activity to CO2, much less human CO2.

In any case, the fact that natural CO2 absorption has varied so greatly over the years indicates some other moderator than human CO2 emissions on final global CO2 levels.

The 1998 starting date is always used by AGW deniers. Always.

Here is a "denier" graph using a starting date other than 1998. That was very easy to find. I suppose you will complain about the data set they are using. (The RSS data shows the least amount of warming.) Fair enough. Here's a "denier" graph showing where the trend lines hit zero for the various datasets. You will note that not one of them uses 1998 as a start point.

What if we take into account the margin of error, where we can't rule out a trend of zero? (from here)

For UAH: Since March 1996: CI from -0.001 to 2.341
For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.015 to 1.821
For Hadcrut4: Since November 1996: CI from -0.003 to 1.184
For Hadsst3: Since August 1994: CI from -0.014 to 1.666
For GISS: Since October 1997: CI from -0.002 to 1.249

I don't see 1998 anywhere.

What about mainstream sources? Here is a link to the journal Nature that acknowledges the "mysterious" 16 year pause.

Judith Curry writes: "Depending on when you start counting, this hiatus has lasted 16 years. Climate model simulations find that the probability of a hiatus as long as 20 years is vanishingly small. If the 20 year threshold is reached for the pause, this will lead inescapably to the conclusion that the climate model sensitivity to CO2 is too large. Further, 20 years is approaching the length of the warming period from 1976-2000 that is the main smoking gun for AGW."

If you want a more nuanced vision and a fun one you can read http://wattsupwiththat.com/. It sits square in the middle of "we are all going to die" and "what global warming?" and looks critically at both sides. Real charts to debunk political campaigns and often fun to read.

On the subject at hand: Monday mirthiness – 97 hours, 97 opinions, 97% consensus, 100% cartooned climate science

If you want a more nuanced vision and a fun one you can read http://wattsupwiththat.com/. It sits square in the middle of "we are all going to die" and "what global warming?" and looks critically at both sides. Real charts to debunk political campaigns and often fun to read.

On the subject at hand: Monday mirthiness – 97 hours, 97 opinions, 97% consensus, 100% cartooned climate science

My understanding is that most of the warming since the 1850's was natural, a recovery from the little ice age. There was roughly the same amount of warming in the first half of the 20th century, almost all of it natural, as there was in the second half, where humans are said to be responsible for "more than half" of the warming.

To answer your question though, the largest "denier" site in the world supports innovative nuclear power. If people were genuinely concerned about global warming I would think they would jump at this opportunity. But all I hear is crickets.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/27/a-universally-acceptable-and-economical-energy-source/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

"FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006

****

2. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10, 2010.

****

3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter Climate models over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the eastIn the Alps winters will be 2C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

****

4. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.”
Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), March 2, 2007

****

5. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4C, in the Alps by up to 5C.”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.

****"

Maybe that waveform didn't collapse the way you thought it would?

The only debatable point is what do these facts mean for the climate and the environment going forward.

And let's review what it might mean:

1) could mean major changes to the climate system, good or bad;
2) could mean minor changes to the climate system, good or bad;
3) could mean undetectable changes to the climate system, overwhelmed by natural variation.

Your "best modeling" currently disagrees with reality, with nearly 20 years of statistically insignificant warming during a period of ever increasing human CO2 emissions.

If you want to plead your malthusian doom predictions, maybe it'd go better if you actually made predictions that came true?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

...and lying gets you a bad reputation.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

"Although the authors of the research claim to have shown that most climate change papers accept that mankind is responsible for the majority of recent warming, in fact the underlying study shows no such thing.

One senior climatologist described the paper as ‘poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed’. Another researcher called it ‘completely invalid and untrustworthy’, adding that there was evidence of scientific fraud.

Andrew Montford, the author of the paper, said: “It has now been shown beyond doubt that the claims of a 97% consensus on climate change are at best misleading, perhaps grossly so, and possibly deliberately so. It’s high time policymakers stopped citing this appalling study.”"