I’m saying flat out you provided no evidence for your claims.
Especially the “it’s doing so with unnatural force and speed”. If you are only talking about the CO2 levels, no evidence needed of course.
Wait, what? ISTM that “unnatural force and speed” is the one claim about anthropogenic impacts on atmospheric composition that isn’t at all controversial.
We may argue about how much humans are putting into the atmosphere and about what net effects it can be expected to have on climate, but it seems pretty self-evident that whatever anthropogenic impacts exist are by definition unnatural, in the sense that they’re outside of the natural climate variability.
Since i posted the full document, it’s hard to see how anything was omitted.
However, and for the last time on this thread, I will ask and hope against hope that you 'll answer with a simple yes or no.
Do the NOAA and NASA numbers indicate that temperatures between 1998 and 2013 have decreased very little WHILE IN THE CONTEXT OF A **SUSTAINED LONG TERM WARMING TREND **AND ALSO THAT, EVEN IF IT WERE NOT EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE TEXT, THIS REDUCTION IN TEMPERATURES **IN NO WAY **DIMINISHES THEIR (NASA’S AND NOAA’S) CONFIDENCE IN THE MODELS/PREDICTION/DATA OF A WARMING THAT WILL CONTINUE IN THE FUTURE AND THAT MOST/ALL OF THE LAST YEARS HAVE BEEN THE HOTTEST OF THE INSTRUMENTAL RECORD?
That is not the whole picture anyhow.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
[looks at the ocean graph from NOAA]
No.
Between 1998 and 2013 the global temperature has increased.
Were they? I thought there was evidence of the Medieval Warm period from many locations on the planet. And hasn’t the MWP been re-added to past temperature reconstructions in the latest IPCC review?
Sure. But there are many ways science can go wrong here. For example, would a paper be published in today’s scientific climate if an excluded area showed a decrease in warming? Considering that such papers will be tagged ‘denialist’ and the scientists who write it would come under harsh criticism, I worry about selection bias in such a heavily politicized field. But that’s a different subject. Your basic point is correct - if the measurements are accurate and were previously missing from the dataset, it makes perfect sense to add them. And if that shows more warming in the near past, that’s fine.
There have been a number of papers recently predicting a decline in extreme weather events when the earth is warmer. Here is one of them
It makes sense to me that global warming would increase the amount of energy in the atmosphere, and therefore lead to more extreme weather events, or stronger weather events when they occur. And I believe that’s been the consensus in the global warming community in the past. But now that the number and severity of extreme events has been falling, we’re starting to see more scientific effort being spent in reconciling that with global warming theory.
The real question is, if extreme weather events were increasing as predicted, would anyone be spending the effort to falsify the conclusion? Or would it just be accepted as a priori evidence that global warming is correct?
And if the number of Atlantic hurricanes were increasing, would those same facts have led you to the conclusion that maybe there’s something unknown about global warming theory because the number of hurricanes should be decreasing? Or do you just suppose that this would have been accepted as evidence for global warming without much critical analysis?
First of all, the many claims of AGW proponents do not make up a ‘core issue’ in science. As I said before, the ‘wide consensus’ of scientists is around the very basic facts of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and the transient effect of its increase in the atmosphere. Once you get past that and start predicting economic and climatological effects decades in the future, you are WAY past where the scientific consensus is. Even the IPCC couches their future projection in terms of likelihood, not as fact, and admits that there are large error bars around most of it.
Second, if you seriously think the ‘denialists’ are getting even a tiny fraction of the funding that the pro-warming side receives, you’re smoking something.
This is not necessarily correct. Changes can include things like changes to the Earth’s albedo due to changes in snow or cloud cover, which directly affect the global energy budget. Energy transport mechanisms can move energy to areas where it can be converted into something other than heat, or be stored in heat sinks as a form of hysteresis that could smooth out climate variation when other short-term factors attempt to change it. Sequestration mechanisms can change, which can change the rate at which CO2 or other greenhouse gases are scrubbed from the atmosphere. A single algae bloom can contain as much carbon as the U.S. emits in a year. These interactions are complex and very hard to understand.
I agree with that. What I disagree with is that we understand what will happen as a result. For example, even with the higher CO2 concentrations, current global temperatures are still a few degrees cooler than they were at the peak of past intra-glacial periods, when CO2 was much lower. So clearly there are climate drivers we don’t understand. But what makes it even more difficult is that being a complex adaptive system, studying the behavior of the climate in the past is of limited help in understanding how today’s climate might behave. It’s certainly useful to do so, but we need to be suitably humble about the conclusions we draw from that.
I’m not talking about the basic atmospheric chemistry of greenhouse gases, or the science that has shown the forcing due to CO2. Nor am I talking about measurements of CO2 concentrations in the recent past or other ‘basic science’.
I’m talking about predictions of catastrophic climatological or economic effects predicted decades into the future.
Sure, but not as warmer as we are seeing now.
Very recently I saw that from some northern regions related to snow fall, of course the mechanism was also related to the warming. Of course that part about the warming from all around was omitted by the contrarian that posted it.
You asking that after you posted a paper that could? 
On a previous discussion I found out that one of the scientists reporting that it was likely that hurricanes would be less in numbers was Kerry Emannuel. Back then I made the point that that was in reality a big counterpoint to the idea that climate scientists are only alarmists and only looking for disasters to get more money; well, needless to say the contrarians did not accept that scientists indeed are doing science and willing to lose all that money :rolleyes: they should had gotten by claiming that more hurricanes would come.
The only fly in the ointment is that Emannuel also reported that it is also likely that once a hurricane manages to form, despite the increase of forces against them forming (and IIRC it was mostly for hurricanes in the north Atlantic, in the Pacific more are possible) the hurricanes will then become more intense, as all that energy and water vapor in the regions the hurricanes form (and lets not forget the ocean rise) will lead to harsher hurricanes when they come.
As the Frontline program called “Climate of Doubt” showed, they only need to invest in politicians to make a difference nowadays. And that is where most of the denier action is nowadays.
IIRC I think I told you before that so far no mechanism with the reach you mention has been identified to make the difference that one wishes.
This seems to ignore that scientists reported that there is a lag on the full temperature effects that all the CO2 dumped already will cause.
Considering that global warming is happening far faster than anyone thought it would, it’s surprising that we haven’t seen any of the predicted disasters yet. Now if they had been predicting for the last two decades the increasingly brutal winters, a cooling trend for the NH boreal winters, and the economic costs of endless blizzards each year, the alarmists would be rejoicing about now.
“You see! We tried to warn you about global warming!!”.
Instead the dazed predictors are scrambling to somehow say the extreme cold is from warming.
And they just don’t get it.
As pointed before that is not what the scientists reported, they actually claim that there is more research needed in this area, but there are hints that less hurricanes and tornadoes would form, so much for the scientists being alarmists.
As pointed before, they did get it, but you only read the memos from denier sources.
What did I ommit? Or does “not the whole picture / not the whole context” mean "not sayin what you want?
You did see that I only refered to the NOAA/NASA official document, didn’t you, not every single chart?
Can anyone look at page 8 of this NOAA/NASA official documentand check that in BOTH charts show that 2013 had a lower temperature than 1998 in both? GB and I seem to disagree on the reading of those numbers. I say the show temps betwwen 1998 and 2014 decreased, he says the increased.
It’s interesting that now it’s all about heat content and registered temperature by the MetOffice, NOAA, and NASA are now basically useless.
What?
Seriously? Now we have to argue over what the numbers say? On an official document?
This is sad. really sad.
Yep, of course page 8 says what you stated it did. Why wouldn’t it?
what’s the bigger picture here? Why is it important? And why would anyone argue over what a document says?
Sorry, you are misrepresenting what I said, I do not disagree with the surface record, but let the record show that you do not like the answer the big picture shows.
Not really, do you know that the one making that report is Gavin A. Schmidt and that he contributes to RealClimate? His regular contribution about “How well are the climate models doing?” will come soon, but he is not likely to dismiss what other contributors are posting:
As pointed, we are not arguing about that number, only about the clear cherry pick that omitted the big picture of the ocean temperatures, together with what the latest temperature records show.
First of all, considering some of the utter bullshit that gets thrown around here sometimes when climate change is discussed, I appreciate the opportunity to have a reasonable discussion, although I disagree with many of your points. Since there are a lot of them, I’ll try to be brief. But if anything needs more information, I’d be happy to clarify.
On the above point: the MWP was mainly a NH phenomenon, mostly confined to Europe, Greenland, and a few other areas, and the LIA, too, was more associated with regional and seasonal variations rather than any global impact. Not sure what you mean by “hasn’t the MWP been re-added … in the latest IPCC review?” It was always there in the paleo reconstructions, but never considered globally synchronous and never matching today’s global average temperatures.
Jesus H. Christ, the science isn’t politicized – the way that vested interests abuse the science is! There is a huge, huge disconnect between the manufactured public perception and the actual facts of the science.
The paper you cite is an attempt at a 7Ky paleoclimate reconstruction of storm activity. It says nothing about a prediction of fewer severe weather events, and since there weren’t any global climate forcings even remotely comparable to today in that time period, it’s not even particularly relevant to the topic. Except, perhaps, that insofar as it posits thermal gradients to lead to enhanced lower-troposphere baroclinicity, it actually argues the opposite: that thermal gradients contribute to climate destabilization. As indeed they do. Here is what’s been predicted and what’s really happening with extreme weather:
http://www.climatecommunication.org/new/articles/extreme-weather/overview/
Forgive me if I’m reading too much into that, but I detect hints of conspiracy theory. My honest answer? Scientific curiosity and the prospect of discovery would prompt the investigation of ANY significant change in any of these critically important phenomena, whether up or down, conforming to theory or contrary to theory. That’s how science works.
Wrong. Everything published by the IPCC WG1, WG2, WG3, and the special reports are all the result of consensus. There is always scientific uncertainty, even if the confidence is high, and the IPCC expresses their assessments in well-calibrated language. The assessment reports convey a tremendous amount of objective information about the knowns and unknowns in the vast areas of physical sciences, impacts and vulnerabilities, and potential mitigation measures, all without being policy-prescriptive.
Wow – with all respect, you’ve gone off the rails on that one. Funding for legitimate scientific research, if that’s what you’re thinking of, is mostly agenda-neutral, and most of climate science is publicly funded. PR funding by the $12 trillion global energy industry for their self-interest, not so much. It amounts to almost $1 billion a year, mostly dark money funnelled through “donor-directed” foundations and other means to a plethora of front groups preaching denialism and spreading misinformation and doubt about climate science in the mass media and on the Internet. You need to at least read this post I made about that:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16993891&postcount=62
That doesn’t change anything I said. Albedo changes are reasonably predictable feedbacks that are part of the forcings model and thus part of the measured and modeled radiative fluxes. Changes in sequestration mechanisms are a red herring because carbon sequestration for the most part can only decrease under the present circumstances, since most of the dynamic uptake is due to oceans. More importantly, the idea that we’ll have sudden algae growths all over the planet or some other magical occurrence that will save us is right up there with the fantasy of other self-limiting factors that are supposed to occur with increasing atmospheric carbon. The only problem with that? In paleoclimate records, it doesn’t happen. Look at the events of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
Wrong again. What we understand is that the somewhat higher temperatures during the previous interglacial were equilibrium temperatures. It takes thousands of years to reach equilibrium once CO2 accumulation has stopped. We are just beginning the journey. And CO2 is still increasing with no end in sight. We truly are in a completely new climate regime unprecedented since long before the dawn of humanity.
You’re right and I’m wrong in everything, I get it. That’s your position. Thanks
An entirely justifiable position.
But unbelievable. Which is basically the same problem, given their history, that the UN/IPCC/CO2-is-evil-camp has had convincing the public that their data and man-made-inputs should not be questioned. It’s simply not believable.
More ignorance, Steve McIntyre gained fame in 2007 by finding an error in the GISS record that affected the readings a little, the error was acknowledged and corrected and it did not change the overall pattern of increased warming.
The problem has been that after that contrarians like McIntyre have been coasting, he and many others have even more access to the records and have virtually not reported any other significant issue. That they have failed after so many years should had been enough for many to dismiss them, but failure is not a problem for contrarians.
Sure, it obviously has nothing to do with the fact that the fossil fuel industry is spending almost $1 billion a year on concerted, diversified, and massive PR campaigns to undermine the science. It only has to do with the fact that the general public understands climate science much better than climate scientists. :rolleyes:
Have you ever even looked at an IPCC report? The AR5 WG1 contains almost as many pages of citations as it does pages of content. The IPCC reports ARE the science. The contrarian arguments are all on Internet blogs, with a few occasionally appearing in very bad second-rate vanity journals.
I’d love a quote for the “1 billion a year” stuff.