Still No Global Warming For 17 Years 10 Months

[sylas]

I'm not saying that the recent rate of change is trivial, but that the human contribution is trivial. Similar sharp rises (and drops) are a matter of geological record.

Changes in global temperature have causes. This applies for those in the geological record as well as those in the present.

Thermodynamics is pretty basic physics. The Earth is a complex system with a lot going on, and it isn't always easy to sort out causes and effects in the past; but that isn't because we need some kind of new physics. It's good old conventional physics applied to a complicated system.

One of the major factors is Earth's atmosphere. A crucial part of that is the greenhouse effect; without the capacity of certain gases in our atmosphere to interaction with infrared radiation, Earth would be a world frozen solid. And for Earth, one of the really crucial gases is carbon dioxide. That's just basic physics. Another very important gas is water vapour; indeed water vapour provides most of the greenhouse effect which keeps our planet at a livable temperature. But water can precipitate in and out of our atmosphere, which measure that it doesn't work very well as a driver of changes. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is strongly implicated in many of the major climate changes which are apparent over Earth's long prehistory. This isn't remotely controversial, scientifically speaking.

And in the present, carbon dioxide levels are changing drastically -- from human influences. Other factors have a part to play in the past; in the present the particular driving factor is fossil fuel burning. That too, is a pretty basic fact of life.

Carbon dioxide levels have changes in the past, before humans were around on the scene. Is that a reason for thinking humans are not the cause of rising CO2 levels in the present? Of course not. We really are changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide levels have been important to climate changes in the past (as best science can tell). The way this works is pretty straightforward thermodynamics; not in any doubt at all. The complexities arise in all the knock on effects regional factors in a complex world; which makes quantifying things hard work. But the simple consequence of rising temperature from rising CO2 was known from the nineteenth century and is now well understood.

So if changing CO2 is seen as causing climate change in the past (and it most certainly is!) then doesn't that figure now also? Of course it does.

This is no scientific or evidential basis at all for concluding that human factors are trivial. The evidence is that they are crucial for the changes happening at present.

Cheers -- sylas

[John Reece]

I'm not saying that the recent rate of change is trivial, but that the human contribution is trivial. Similar sharp rises (and drops) are a matter of geological record.

It's that simple.

[tabibito]

Is the recent rate of change also trivial?

I'm not saying that the recent rate of change is trivial, but that the human contribution is trivial. Similar sharp rises (and drops) are a matter of geological record.


Where did I put that pic???

[firstfloor]

Opinion
Human factors in global warming are real but trivial - Global warming was under way for a long time before any human activity could have made a contribution.

Is the recent rate of change also trivial?

[tabibito]

Direct measured evidence:
Ice sheets in the Arctic have extended in area, but volumes have still decreased.
The same applies in the Antarctic.
Sea levels continue to rise.
Total tundra area continues to reduce

Temperatures have stabilised, but the conditions that correspond to global warming haven't abated.
Between 4 degrees C and 0, liquid water volumes don't change. As temperature increases above 4 degrees, water will increase in volume with increasing temperature. As ice water increases in temperature, it will affect sea levels - and in increasing measure even if no further ice water enters the system. But for the fact that tundra area continues to decrease, that fact might indicate that current sea level rises are hang overs from past warming.

Speculation
Climate models failed to take into account the effect of gigalitres of ice water being dumped into the seas.
That water balances the factors contributing to global warming, and will continue to do so until imbalance again arises.
The failure to take into account the effect of super cold water entering the sea in large volumes resulted in wildly inaccurate projections.

Opinion
Human factors in global warming are real but trivial - Global warming was under way for a long time before any human activity could have made a contribution.

[firstfloor]

What if the most revolutionary thing is NOT taking it seriously, in the most public fashion possible? What if business as usual was never sustainable to begin with? What if grad school was all a carefully constructed set of lies?

Paragraph 5 -
“The charge that universities are directly responsible for almost all the violence in the world today, for example, strikes me as essentially accurate.”

Approximately Paragraph 60 -
“I actually haven't even started to explain how pernicious the university phenomenon is. For example, I haven't justified my claim that they are responsible for most of the violence in the world today. Please remain on this channel for further eccentric and informative broadcasts.”

No thanks Curtis.

[Epoetker]

It is precisely because business as usual is at risk that climate change has to be taken seriously. The problem to be solved is sustainability.

What if the most revolutionary thing is NOT taking it seriously, in the most public fashion possible? What if business as usual was never sustainable to begin with? What if grad school was all a carefully constructed set of lies?

[Jedidiah]

Sorry, John, about responding to him.

[firstfloor]

... the entire agenda of destroying the capitalist system.

It is precisely because business as usual is at risk that climate change has to be taken seriously. The problem to be solved is sustainability.

[Jedidiah]

Christianity celebrates ignorance. - . . .

Talk about ignorance . . .

Or is it just intentional lying?

[John Reece]

Wrong again Mr Reece. I just wish you would look further than your nose but ban away if you must.

“The IPCC communications office tells Skeptical Science that The Australian has not provided a transcript or audio file of the interview for verification, but it does not accurately represent Pachauri's thoughts on the subject - namely that as discussed in this post, global surface temperatures have plateaued (though over the past decade, not 17 years), and that this in no way disproves global warming.”

http://www.skepticalscience.com/aust...l-warming.html

I wonder about your intelligence if you equate that with what I referred to as off-topic in my prior post.

That is on topic, but that is not what you posted before, and not what I referred to as off-topic.

So, my request that you not take my threads off-topic stands, and I will request that you be barred from posting in any of my threads if you do so one more time.

Pachauri's admission in The Australian is just icing on the cake; it is far from being the only basis for the fact that there has been more than a decade and a half pause in global surface temperature, according to a number of scientific studies or measurements, though one such study/measurement limits the pause to 10 years.

Regardless of which study/measurement one accepts ― 10 years, 15 years, 17 years ― none such was predicted or projected by any of the IPCC reports; which indicates that the IPCC reports are not reliable predictions or projections ― certainly not reliable enough to warrant the entire agenda of destroying the capitalist system.

[firstfloor]

Your question above was a gambit to take my thread off-topic.

Wrong again Mr Reece. I just wish you would look further than your nose but ban away if you must.

“The IPCC communications office tells Skeptical Science that The Australian has not provided a transcript or audio file of the interview for verification, but it does not accurately represent Pachauri's thoughts on the subject - namely that as discussed in this post, global surface temperatures have plateaued (though over the past decade, not 17 years), and that this in no way disproves global warming.”

http://www.skepticalscience.com/aust...l-warming.html

[John Reece]

What pause?

The pause reported by the Chairman of the IPCC here.

Your question above was a gambit to take my thread off-topic.

Please cease and desist from taking my threads off-topic.

I have made this request several times before in another thread.

Do it one more time in any of my threads, and I will request that you be barred from posting in any of my threads.

Moderators: please note this request.

[firstfloor]

What pause? The intensity of tropical cyclones hitting East Asia has significantly increased over the past 30 years, according to a new study published (15th January 2014).

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-highlig...lones.html#jCp

In a society where anything not explained by science is explained by God, to denigrate science is to promote religion. – AronRa.

176 climate science myths you don’t know about.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[John Reece]

CO2 data might fit the IPCC hypothesis, but it doesn’t fit reality

From Watts Up With That?

Introduction:

CO2 data might fit the IPCC hypothesis, but it doesn’t fit reality

Posted on August 5, 2014 by Anthony Watts

Opinion by Dr. Tim Ball

I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. – Arthur Conan Doyle. (Sherlock Holmes)

Create The Facts You Want.

In a comment about the WUWT article “The Record of recent Man-made CO2 emissions: 1965-2013”, Pamela Gray, graphically but pointedly, summarized the situation.

When will we finally truly do the math? The anthropogenic only portion of atmospheric CO2, let alone China’s portion, does not have the cojones necessary to make one single bit of “weather” do a damn thing different. Take out just the anthropogenic CO2 and rerun the past 30 years of weather. The exact same weather pattern variations would have occurred. Or maybe because of the random nature of weather we would have had it worse. Or it could have been much better. Now do something really ridiculous and take out just China’s portion. I know, the post isn’t meant to paint China as the bad guy. But. Really? Really? All this for something so tiny you can’t find it? Not even in a child’s balloon?

The only quibble I have is that the amount illustrates the futility of the claims, as Gray notes, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are focused on trends and attribution. It must have a human cause and be steadily increasing, or, as they prefer – getting worse.

[BIG snip]

Conclusion:

The Truth Will Out.

How much longer will the IPCC continue to produce CO2 data with trends to fit their hypothesis that temperature will continue to rise? How much longer before the public become aware of Gray’s colorful observation that, “The anthropogenic only portion of atmospheric CO2, let alone China’s portion, does not have the cojones necessary to make one single bit of “weather” do a damn thing different.” The almost 18-year leveling and slight reduction in global temperature is essentially impossible based on IPCC assumptions. One claim is already made that the hiatus doesn’t negate their science or projections, instead of acknowledging it, along with failed predictions completely rejects their fear mongering.

IPCC and EPA have already shown that being wrong or being caught doesn’t matter. The objective is the scary headline, enhanced by the constant claim it is getting worse at an increasing rate, and time is running out. Aldous Huxley said, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” We must make sure they are real and not ignored.