Strawman, what the scientists say is that the MWP is not as warm as today.
As for the implication that seas rises fast in the past with no human intervention, it has to be pointed that the paper you cites agree that the warming is happening. And the current warming and ocean rise have other reasons for happening now.
As pointed before, Richard Lindsen proposed the Iris effect as a mechanism that would lead the clouds to increase and be mostly a negative feedback, it failed to show up.
BTW this slowdown on the activity by the sun is one of the reasons the contributing scientists to the IPCC to be more confident that the sun is not the main driver of the current warming.
I’ll ammend my question once more to see if any AGWers finally commit or simply say nothing or simply do a wall-of-text or chain of links.
Since it’s been mentioned several times in several AGW threads that 1998 is an evil, oil-industry-shill,denier-of-death, puppy-kicking cherry-picked year to show the pause, I wonder, for the fourth time on this thread I ask:
What’s the non-Niña, non-big-volcano year that is OK? (i.e., the year that would show that temperatures have not increased or have decreased from THAT year to now and that would not be considered cherry-picked and that could be considered that start of a scientifically and statistically significant long-term trend)
(BTW, the answer is a four-digit number, not unrelated quotes or even fully-related ones)
Venice is sinking, tht effect is much greater than sea-level rise.
NYC was flooded by a particularly strong storm, not sea-level rise. The barriers you built to protect against normal, snail-speed sea-level rise are different from storm gates.
Maybe it’s a case of TL,DR but I seem to unable to find anyone on this thread saying that seas weren’t rising
The walls of text are important, suffice to say, you are looking for a simple answer for a complex item; sucks, but you have to read. Stop looking for the red herring.
This phrase is the worst possible one in the actual IPPC AR5 SPM.
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given becuase of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
While I aplaud the honesty, if you can’t give **the most important number **of the whole AGW debate because you can’t agree on the number, then, sorry, it ain’t settled.
It also states, “As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012;** 0.05 **[–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; **0.12 **[0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)”.
(my bolding)
Finally admiting some pause even if they say that it starts at a particularly warm point.
Exactly the point made before by other researchers, so stop going for the strawmen.
Yet in the body of the report, they do indicate a likely range. Again, not settled; but once again, the confidence on the most likely outcome is still reported.
Every year is part of the overall data set. No one in their right mind is going to say, “1956 is the cut off: we can ignore all data prior to that.” We can assign greater weight to more recent years, as measurement techniques have improved, but if we found a list of temperatures in a set of Dead Sea Scrolls, we wouldn’t simply dismiss it.
Yet, in your very own post, you seek to belittle it, comparing other things to it as larger. You may not be denying it (although others certainly have, not in this thread, but in others) but you seem to be de-emphasizing it, minimizing it, and sidelining it. Venice is sinking and sea levels are rising. The combination is worse than either effect alone.
I’ll ammend my question once more to see if any AGWers finally commit or simply say nothing or simply do a wall-of-text or chain of links.
Since it’s been mentioned several times in several AGW threads that 1998 is an evil, oil-industry-shill,denier-of-death, puppy-kicking cherry-picked year to show the pause, I wonder, for the fifth time on this thread I ask:
What’s the non-Niña, non-big-volcano year that is OK? (i.e., the year that would show that temperatures have not increased or have decreased from THAT year to now and that would not be considered cherry-picked and that could be considered that start of a scientifically and statistically significant long-term trend, not a cutoff point but the start of the trend. It’s really, really basic)
(BTW, the answer is a four-digit number, not unrelated quotes or even fully-related ones)
And the ECS is?
I’d love you to find one person on the whole SDMB that has denied even once, that sea levels are not rising.
In the case of Venice, AGW-derived changes in the speed of the sea level rise, are a minimal part of the problem. Aqua Alta is a tide-related event, not a sea-level rise one.
If I understand you correctly, it follows from your reasoning that it’s essentially impossible for global warming to pause. Even if global surface temperatures stay the same for the next 50 years, one can still say that they have risen, on average, since 1950.
Even if global surface temperatures drop to the levels they were at in the 1970s and stay there for 100 years, that’s still warmer than temperatures in 1900. So by your reasoning, one still cannot say that global warming has paused.
Basically, according to your reasoning, we would need to re-enter a Little Ice Age type condition for you to even consider the possibility that global warming has paused.
Do you agree that sea levels have been steadily rising since at least 1900? If so, do you happen to know what caused the sea level rise between 1900 and 1950? And did that cause go away or is it still having effects today?
By the way, if the question on the table is whether global warming has paused, it is completely reasonable to look at how many years have passed since there has been a record high global surface temperature for the year.
The post calculated predicted wait times for a new temperature record based on IPCC Models. Just eyeballing the chart, the chances of waiting 15 years or more for a new temperature record are less than 1%.
So based on one of the most prominent warmist web sites, it’s totally reasonable to use 1998 as a reference point. At least going by what they were saying 5 years ago.
Basically this is ignoring was was reported back in 2008
What it is demanded is less than a complete falsification, but it does apply also to the so called pause. (BRW contrarians continue to ignore the oceans to get a misleading point going on.)
That made a commenter mention how to falsify this, and it applies also to what a real pause that would give pause to the climatologists would look like:
Essentially, if there had been a real pause from the warming part caused by human activities, temperatures like the 50s-70s need to be seen and then remain there for 20 years or so to get a trend. The reason why this chase of a single year to start counting is a red herring is that the observed temperatures have not reached the previous temperatures when nature was the one doing warming or cooling, indeed more than one factor is needed to begin to start to claim that the temperature record is showing a pause or that our contributions to the warming should be dismissed.
As pointed before, it takes more than a single cherry picked year, the influence of other forcings and feedbacks needs to continuously be looked at. The increase in temperature caused by human emissions began to clearly overwhelm the natural ones (on the surface temperatures) from the 50’s-60’s. But the human activities began to influence the system early on.
It’s also totally and completely reasonable to wait for the new-and-as-of-yet-unvetted IPCC report to be officially released AND vetted by ANY independent group that is given access to the man-made inputs and software used for the IPCC Modeling.
Or the IPCC can refuse to share it’s data and processes with those it deems unworthy of questioning MMCO2GW, in which case, the doubts about the validity of the IPCC “claims” will continue.
Yes, I have made similar points in the past. Every last paper relied on by the IPCC; every last scrap of data; every last computer program; etc. should be made 100% open to public scrutiny, including hostile scrutiny.
No, as the commentary by the author explained you also need to see the warming added by human activities to go away and observe temperatures to remain like the ones seen in the 50s-70s for a significant amount of time.
One could go farther back than that, but to keep it simple it is easier to understand that the sun activity and the surface temperatures did go to in different directions around that period and now we are mostly driving the increase in temperature.
to the climatologists would look like: