Jump to content

Global warming stopped 16 years ago


Recommended Posts

A.) Believe that GW has stopped?

B.) Do not believe in any MMGW?

A.)

Professor Judith Curry (Georgia Tech) and Dr Marcia Wyatt wrote in a peer-reviewed paper in the journal Climate Dynamics exactly this.

 

They called it a "pause", but until more data is collected, it can only be called a "stop".

 

B.)

While not directly addressing MMGW, Curry said,

 

"The growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations raises the prospect that climate models are inadequate in fundamental ways"

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is funny, even if Fox does have a crappy reputation for accurately reporting climate science. Seems to be a running trend with Murdoch properties. Go fig.

I was only referring to the few quotes they had that came from blogs or other news sites.

 

The running trend you speak of is from all US news, Their side and your side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Or maybe someone that has a few more credentials than climate writers for ultra-conservative rags ;) Getting your science news from the DailyMail or the Australian is like getting it from Fox News or NBC.

The fine point that's often overlooked is to question the source of the data and reports that are presented.

So many want to discredit a "blogger" for presenting commentary or substantiation of their comments by citing third party studies. When the issue should be dissecting the study as cited, regardless of the author of the blog.

 

Drudgereport is often accused of lying or deceptive reporting, when what he actually does is aggregate other's articles. So, when he posts a story that is critical of the administration or MMGW, critics blame him for the story, rather than address the original story and it's author.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yours is an even better diversionary tactic, and exactly what Hansen accuses you of doing.

 

 

How many times are you going to say that he agrees with you when in fact he openly says that the 5 year mean stabilizing is not long term.

 

 

 

Now, if Hansen's own paper shows that the 5 year mean has increased since 2000 and it is almost 2014 how did Global warming STOP 16 years ago?

It must be painful to be you.

 

Hansen is the one pointing out that the five year mean has more or less stabilized. It is his opinion that the stabilization is not long term. His facts stop with data. His opinion starts where the data leaves off.

 

Hansen states twice in early 2013, that the the FIVE year mean has been stable for the past decade. Than means it includes data as old as 1997. the period from 1997 to 2013 is 16 years.

 

If find it interesting that you interpret the data supplied by Hansen differently than he does.

 

Until the data shows a resumption of warming, and the most recent data does not lean in that direction, then it is a stop, to be a pause, the data has to reflect upward movement of the mean.

 

You continue to misrepresent what I contend to be true. I don't disagree that there has been warming over the period from about 1975 or so. I don't disagree that it is partially man made, and I have explained that the heat island effect is indisputable. My main area of disagreement is simple: CO2 is not the sole driver of climate change. We are not currently able to accurately model the climate to such a high degree of confidence that we are able to make correct policy decisions using those models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many climate artists scientists have one mission, make a living telling the tree-hugging populists what they want to hear in order to get grants.

How much money would our current administration give to any scientist that proposed studies that show MMGW does not contribute to climate change? Or that the MMGW movement is a self-perpetuating lie. Not necessarily a conspiracy, as that implies complicity with an intent to deceive, and potentially collusion, but as if they are glomming onto the popular topic of the day.

 

About as much as the "Green Energy" fashion of the day. When the government throws millions and billions at a concept, everyone jumps on-board. For nothing else but to grab the cash before it dries out.

 

Here's a similar event:

Professor admits faking AIDS vaccine to get $19M in grants

An Iowa State University professor resigned after admitting he falsely claimed rabbit blood could be turned into a vaccine for the AIDS virus.

Dr. Dong-Pyou Han spiked a clinical test sample with healthy human blood to make it appear that the rabbit serum produced disease-fighting antibodies, officials said.

The bogus findings helped Han’s team obtain $19 million in research grants from the National Institutes of Health, said James Bradac, who oversees the institutes’ AIDS research.

 

Edited by FiredMotorCompany
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently a few more that actually address the point of this thread.

 

How many of the sources you listed here:

A.) Believe that GW has stopped?

B.) Do not believe in any MMGW?

 

The title, and central point of the thread is this: Global Warming stopped 16 years ago.

 

Science is not about what you believe, it is about what the facts and evidence shows to be true. The data shows, and pretty much everyone but Langdad agrees, that the 5 year mean has remained stable for more than a decade. Some, like Hansen who acknowledged the current data, hypothesize that the current stability has been caused by a number of factors that he had not previously taken into account, and that in the longer term the data will once again indicate further warming.

 

Any MMGW? Any? This is the crux of why this issue is so contentious. It is not a dichotomy where man is entirely at fault or not at all at fault. Any one that can figure out how to take an average will tell you that by virtue of the heat island effect that the average global temperature must rise, and that the heat islands are of course directly attributable to man. The behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere is well understood from a physics standpoint and it does contribute very slightly to an increase in atmospheric temperature. The disagreement you will get from real scientists is in whether the change in CO2 levels are adequate to shift the equilibrium at all, or whether the very complex chain reaction called for in the models will occur at all.

 

Here is an example of what the people who study the water cycle are talking about: They say that an increase in air temperature, in particular in the lower atmosophere as would occur with CO2 since it is heavier than air, would increase the evaporation rate over the 2/3rds of the planet cover by water. This would result in multiple effects: evaporation cools the surface of the oceans, it increases the thermal mass of the air, decreasing the speed at which it will increase or decrease in temperature. This warm wet air would then form dense cloud cover that would result in blocking the solar radiation that really heats up the surface, leading to an increase in rain / snow fall. Precipitation is accompanied by evaporative cooling on a massive scale. And none of this is built into the models. These are all powerful forces that maintain equilibrium in the atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fine point that's often overlooked is to question the source of the data and reports that are presented.

So many want to discredit a "blogger" for presenting commentary or substantiation of their comments by citing third party studies. When the issue should be dissecting the study as cited, regardless of the author of the blog.

 

Drudgereport is often accused of lying or deceptive reporting, when what he actually does is aggregate other's articles. So, when he posts a story that is critical of the administration or MMGW, critics blame him for the story, rather than address the original story and it's author.

 

I agree, but all to often the blogger is the one intentionally misrepresenting the results/conclusions which all to often refute the bloggers arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I wonder how many climate artists scientists have one mission, make a living telling the tree-hugging populists what they want to hear in order to get grants.

 

That is part of it too. It's not like scientists can't be dirty scumbags. A PHD doesn't mean you are ethical ;)

 

On the flip side of that, how much money has big oil poured into the fight against cleaner energy initiatives? How many billions have they spent over the years fighting CAFE, while producing cars so inefficient and undesirable they nearly destroyed the domestic auto industry? It wasn't very long ago when people on this very forum made statements like "I only buy American...you know you are going to have more maintenance issues, but that's ok, it's American. I'd rather push my domestic than drive an import." The definition of sheep.

 

I look at it as man is likely having a negative effect on the environment. We know fossil fuels are dirty and pollute the environment. We use combustion engines that have been around since the 1700s and are terribly inefficient at producing energy. Without getting terribly alarmist (Gore, others) we should look into alternative methods for cleaner energy. We used to innovate in this country. Why not become a leader in new, cleaner sources of energy (whatever they may be) and innovate again? Or are we content to follow, yet again?

 

While many people are content to follow, you would think that Americans - with all their blustering about American exceptionalism - would maybe want to lead the world in something other than obesity rates and outstanding student debt.

Edited by the_spaniard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree, but all to often the blogger is the one intentionally misrepresenting the results/conclusions which all to often refute the bloggers arguments.

Then make the challenges toward those misrepresentations.

Even I could accept a report from Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews if they fairly represent the issue and the source. Their opinions however, are fodder for the discussion of slanted propaganda as others could be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That is part of it too. It's not like scientists can't be dirty scumbags. A PHD doesn't mean you are ethical ;)

 

On the flip side of that, how much money has big oil poured into the fight against cleaner energy initiatives? How many billions have they spent over the years fighting CAFE, while producing cars so inefficient and undesirable they nearly destroyed the domestic auto industry? It wasn't very long ago when people on this very forum made statements like "I only buy American...you know you are going to have more maintenance issues, but that's ok, it's American. I'd rather push my domestic than drive an import." The definition of sheep.

 

I look at it as man is likely having a negative effect on the environment. We know fossil fuels are dirty and pollute the environment. We use combustion engines that have been around since the 1700s and are terribly inefficient at producing energy. Without getting terribly alarmist (Gore, others) we should look into alternative methods for cleaner energy. We used to innovate in this country. Why not become a leader in new, cleaner sources of energy (whatever they may be) and innovate again? Or are we content to follow, yet again?

 

While many people are content to follow, you would think that Americans - with all their blustering about American exceptionalism - would maybe want to lead the world in something other than obesity rates and outstanding student debt.

There is people all the time trying to develop new technologies. I know it's a different subject but one of the reasons I believe is BIG companies lobby the government for rules and regulations that are little to them but the killer for some people trying to start a company. Think about it, it's a little cost to them to make sure nobody comes in with some leading edge new technology that would put a dent in their business or possibly put them out of business.

 

Like I have always believed "follow the money". Everybody talks about evil Republicans taking all this money from big oil but when you dig a little there are many big name save the earth Dems that are at the top of the list also.

 

Don't think I'm starting a political bickering contest. Just trying to point out to all of us "We The People" need to take back our country and start electing whomever is going to do the job they are supposed to do for us and not where ever the money comes from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now this:

 

Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER recorded, global warming is NOT eroding it'

Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey say that the melting of the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Antarctica has suddenly slowed right down in the last few years, confirming earlier research which suggested that the shelf's melt does not result from human-driven global warming

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/03/antarctic_ice_shelf_melt_lowest_ever_recorded_just_not_much_affected_by_global_warming/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now this:

 

Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER recorded, global warming is NOT eroding it'

Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey say that the melting of the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Antarctica has suddenly slowed right down in the last few years, confirming earlier research which suggested that the shelf's melt does not result from human-driven global warming

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/03/antarctic_ice_shelf_melt_lowest_ever_recorded_just_not_much_affected_by_global_warming/

 

Should I save Spaniard the time of suggesting that articles written by known a known denier who has played fast and loose with stats before are not going to help your side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Should I save Spaniard the time of suggesting that articles written by known a known denier who has played fast and loose with stats before are not going to help your side.

Same should go with the known believer tin foil hat wearers that have fudged numbers to there liking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Langdad you guys are so predictable... the author did it for you already.

 

Think this article is evil?

The usual suspects will no doubt choose to play the man rather than the ball here and complain that this article is an example of cherry-picking by an evil climate "denier", probably funded by the Koch brothers and unqualified to write on climate matters - and also that we never point out other research suggesting that in fact the Antarctic sheet will shortly slide off into sea inundating us all in movie-plot menace style.

Some notes on that:

1) We here on The Register climate desk actually do offer plenty of standard doom coverage - knock yourselves out, green readers. At the moment it is mostly not nearly as much read as the sceptical stuff. That latter may serve to illustrate the fact that reputable research from top boffins like this, suggesting that the human race is perhaps not imminently menaced by carbon emissions, is news - whereas the idea that it is imminently menaced is rather old hat.

2) Your correspondent "denies" nothing. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, plain and simple, and massive releases of it will obviously warm the atmosphere up to some degree. How much remains pretty uncertain: and the consequences of this uncertain warming in terms of sea levels, crop yields etc are very uncertain indeed. But it could be true that carbopocalypse is upon us - just as it could be true that we face species extinction or global disaster in the coming century from an asteroid or comet strike, or global pandemic, or some other threat.

3) What is really a lot more certain - and this is admitted by hardline greens - is that a shift to all or mostly renewable power means incredibly expensive energy and abandonment of economic growth. That means that the great majority of the human race, including many rich westerners who today live in reasonable comfort, must henceforth descend into/remain in miserable poverty under such a plan. Expensive luxuries such as welfare states and pensioners, proper healthcare (watch out for that pandemic), reasonable public services, affordable manufactured goods and transport, decent personal hygiene, space programmes (watch out for the meteor!) etc etc will all have to go if there is to be no economic growth. It won't be a painless matter of buying a G-Wiz, insulating the loft and getting rid of some small, cheap government departments like the nuclear weapons programme.

4) It is very likely, then, that the suggested climate cure will cause more misery than the disease. Sea defences capable of dealing with a 1m rise would be very, very cheap by comparison and a lot of farmers would actually be better off under global warming.

5) As to the ad hominem criticism. Your humble correspondent today, it is true, holds no PhD in climatology, pays only occasional visits to the climate beat over relatively recent times, and - horror - for a long time was not even a journalist (!). However the idea that this means I must not report on climate-related matters while normal environment or "science" correspondents can would seem pretty silly. Many such normal correspondents visibly don't even understand what a Watt is, how windfarms are paid for, etc etc. Frankly, if my climate/energy reporting is ignorant or activist, it is much less so than most.

6) The more general idea that The Register must not report on climate matters (unless, presumably, we do so in a politically correct way) falls under the eternal "where's the IT angle?" complaint and will not be given a lot of sympathy. We've always been "Sci/Tech news for the World", remember.

7) Koch brothers/oil industry funding. The only money we at The Reg have ever had that you could put even close to this are a couple of minor ad deals with the Norwegian government petro firm, Statoil. Those ads sought to suggest that Blighty might like to buy more relatively clean and reliable natural gas to help fund Norway's social miracles - as opposed to turning to coal or buying unreliable supplies from the Kremlin to fund weapons programmes and oppression. That ad money was not enough to be important to The Register commercially and involved no influence whatsoever on editorial stance - none was so much as hinted at. Your correspondent personally has never received a penny from writing about climate/energy issues other than as part of a Register salary.

8) Given all the above, comments on this site which just say "Lewis is evil" or "you know this is all utter guff" or in particular which show signs of being astroturf are, yes, liable to be suppressed. Play nice, commentards - especially new commentards.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your 2 parties and raise you a fat chance we won't be screwed no matter which view wins. Either way, we'll pay more taxes and have regulations adversely affect practical approaches to energy and lifestyles.

 

I'm going all in with Fired will end up casting a vote for the Republican candidate just like 2012 while casting aspersion at everyone for voting for either party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...