Below, fierobear has cited several sources in some kind of attempt to substantiate his argument. These sources are tabloid news agencies and politically biased blogs. None of them have any scientific integrity. Obviously if legitimate contradictory evidence were available, you wouldn't be reading it from a tabloid that also reports on Kim Kardashian's butt.
These sources are acceptable to fierobear because he is an extremist. Have no doubt, he is an extremist. fierobear has advocated murder to further his political agenda.
It's just a poor attempt from fierobear to hide how much of an extremist he is.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 03-07-2014).]
"At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. There is a widespread view that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) is a contributor to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment." Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 03-07-2014).]
Natural gas take over: Annual Energy Outlook 2014 report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects more coal-fired power plant retirements by 2016 than have been scheduled. Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 03-07-2014).]
No, most of the links that are coming in here go back to previous posts in THIS thread.
So this thread is not becoming a thread about another thread.
I guess you could say that we're just having some "flashbacks" here--looping backwards in time before taking another step forward. Like the old Communist slogan from the time of Vladimir Lenin: "One step backward, in order to make two steps forward."
I'm sure that Arn is just about to post (in a publishable, peer-reviewable, and thoroughly scientific format) exactly how this ongoing spate of fiercely cold winter storms across much of Canada and the U.S. "defies" the CO2-driven global warming mechanism.
Meanwhile, back here on planet Earth, the statistics are showing that globally, January 2014 was the warmest January on record since 2007, and the 4th warmest January on record since 1880, when systematic weather data recording first got started:
All Americans heard about in January was the extreme cold and the repeated intrusion of the polar vortex. But the weather in the eastern U.S. deviated from much of the rest of the planet. Overall, NOAA reports, the global temperature in January was the warmest since 2007 and the 4th warmest on record, dating back to 1880.
January’s global temperature was 1.17 degrees above the long-term average, marking the 347th straight month of above normal warmth. You have to go all the way back to February, 1985 – almost 29 years - to find a cooler than normal month on Earth.
NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) said the warmth was most notable in Alaska, western Canada, Greenland, Mongolia, southern Russia, and northern China. The average temperature in these areas was more than 5 degrees F. above normal. In addition, southern Hemisphere land areas – on average – had their warmest January on record. . . .
There is a new paper by Gavin Schmidt et al that comes in as #10 in the growing list of explanations for ‘the pause’. Now that we have a top ten list, let’s review:
New study claims low solar activity caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return!
THE OCEANS ATE OUR GLOBAL WARMING! Trenberth and Fasullo, 2013. But the heat will come back when you least expect it. Chinese coal caused the ‘pause’, published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Science. The study blamed Chinese coal use for the lack of global warming. Global warming proponents essentially claimed that coal use is saving us from dangerous global warming. Kaufmann et al 2011.
The Montreal Protocol caused the ‘pause‘, which reduced CFC’s – but warming will return soon. Estrada 2013.
Cowtan and Way’s (2013) underrepresented Arctic stations get adjustment to fiddle the numbers so that ‘pause’ never existed, but not so fast. It seems all isn’t quite as it seems. Dr. Judith Curry doesn’t think much of it either.
Volcanic aerosols, not pollutants, tamped down recent Earth warming, says CU study – Neely et al March 2013: A team led by the University of Colorado Boulder looking for clues about why Earth did not warm as much as scientists expected between 2000 and 2010 now thinks the culprits are hiding in plain sight — dozens of volcanoes spewing sulfur dioxide.
Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming. Solomon et al, 2010 Science Magazine.: Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.’
Slower Pacific Trade winds caused the pause England Et al 2014. A paper published today in Nature Climate Change adds the eighth excuse for the ‘pause’ in global warming: strengthened Pacific trade winds, which according to the authors, were “not captured [simulated] by climate models.” On the basis of those same highly-flawed climate models, the authors predict rapid global warming will resume in a decade or so when those trade winds abate. But in 2006, we were told the opposite.
Stadium Waves. Wyatt and Curry 2013. ‘Stadium waves’ could explain lull in global warming. Not un-plausible.
“Coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends” Schmidt et al 2014. NASA’s Gavin Schmidt et al says: ‘Here we argue that a combination of factors, by coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends in the real world after about 1992. CMIP5 model simulations were based on historical estimates of external influences on the climate only to 2000 or 2005, and used scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways, or RCPs) thereafter.’
The mind-boggling coincidence hypothesis Feb 27, 2014
Also hot off the press is a new paper by Gavin Schmidt and colleagues. Doug McNeall reckons I'm not going to like it, but having taken a look (it's open access for registered users of the Nature website), I have to say I think it's lots of fun.
Schmidt and his colleagues are looking at the hiatus in surface temperature rises and considers why the CMIP5 ensemble all got it so wrong. In their new paper they explain that the reason for this is not – as wild-eyed readers at BH might think – that the models are wonky. In fact it's all down to an incredible, incredible coincidence
. Here we argue that a combination of factors, by coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends in the real world after about 1992. CMIP5 model simulations were based on historical estimates of external influences on the climate only to 2000 or 2005, and used scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways, or RCPs) thereafter4. Any recent improvements in these estimates or updates to the present day were not taken into account in these simulations. Specifically, the influence of volcanic eruptions, aerosols in the atmosphere and solar activity all took unexpected turns over the 2000s. The climate model simulations, effectively, were run with the assumption that conditions were broadly going to continue along established trajectories.
Apparently, if you go back and rework all the forcings, taking into account new data estimates (add half a bottle of post-hoc figures) and 'reanalyses' of old data (add a tablespoon of computer simulation) you can bridge the gap and explain away the pause.
. We conclude that use of the latest information on external influences on the climate system and adjusting for internal variability associated with ENSO can almost completely reconcile the trends in global mean surface temperature in CMIP5 models and observations. Nevertheless, attributing climate trends over relatively short periods, such as 10 to 15 years, will always be problematic, and it is inherently unsatisfying to find model–data agreement only with the benefit of hindsight.
So, with the benefit of hindsight, the climate modellers can fit their square peg into a round hole. It wasn't that the models were running too hot, it was just that nature has got it in for climate modellers.
Of course, they still have the problem that the energy budget estimates of TCR are all pointing to much lower climate sensitivity than the GCMs. These studies are, of course, strongly suggestive of the "mind-boggling coincidence" hypothesis being incorrect and the original supposition - that the models are overheated - is right. However, Schmidt and his colleagues make no attempt to address such minutiae, waving them aside, with characteristic bonhomie, as mere speculation:
We see no indication, however, that transient climate response is systematically overestimated in the CMIP5 climate models as has been speculated8, or that decadal variability across the ensemble of models is systematically underestimated, although at least some individual models probably fall short in this respect.
New paper shows climate modelers don't even know whether clouds cause warming or cooling From the latest issue of the NIPCC Report:
Longwave Feedbacks in Climate Models
Reference: Huang, Y. 2013. On the longwave climate feedbacks. Journal of Climate 26: 7603-7610..
In a study published in the Journal of Climate, Yi Huang - a Canadian researcher from McGill University in Montreal - addressed a pair of issues that concern the longwave climate feedbacks in transient climate change assessments. The first of these issues was that "the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases, as measured by their impact on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR), may vary across different climate models even when the concentrations of these gases are identically prescribed," which forcing variation, as he continues, "contributes to the discrepancy in these models' projections of surface warming." The second issue was that "the stratosphere is an important factor that affects the OLR in transient climate change," in that stratospheric water vapor and temperature changes may both act as positive feedbacks during global warming and, therefore, "cannot be fully accounted as a 'stratospheric adjustment' of radiative forcing."
As the Canadian researcher goes on to demonstrate in the body of his paper, "neglecting these two issues may cause a bias in the longwave cloud feedback diagnosed as a residual term in the decomposition of OLR variations." And he notes, in this regard, that his results "and the recent results of others [e.g., the estimate of Zelinka et al. (2012) based on cloud property histograms] indicate that there is, in fact, no consensus in terms of the sign of the longwave cloud feedback among the GCMs." Such sad state of affairs -- that of no consensus, not even in terms of the sign of the longwave cloud feedback -- will likely persist for some time to come, as Huang writes that in order achieve progress, "more studies are still required to understand how clouds modify global warming, even with regard to the longwave aspect alone." Additional Reference:
Zelinka, M.D., Klein, S.A. and Hartmann, D.L. 2012. Computing and partitioning cloud feedbacks using cloud property histograms. Part I.: Cloud radiative kernels. Journal of Climate 25: 3715-3735.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 03-02-2014).]
I'm sure that Arn is just about to post (in a publishable, peer-reviewable, and thoroughly scientific format) exactly how this ongoing spate of fiercely cold winter storms across much of Canada and the U.S. "defies" the CO2-driven global warming mechanism.
Meanwhile, back here on planet Earth, the statistics are showing that globally, January 2014 was the warmest January on record since 2007, and the 4th warmest January on record since 1880, when systematic weather data recording first got started:
All Americans heard about in January was the extreme cold and the repeated intrusion of the polar vortex. But the weather in the eastern U.S. deviated from much of the rest of the planet. Overall, NOAA reports, the global temperature in January was the warmest since 2007 and the 4th warmest on record, dating back to 1880.
January’s global temperature was 1.17 degrees above the long-term average, marking the 347th straight month of above normal warmth. You have to go all the way back to February, 1985 – almost 29 years - to find a cooler than normal month on Earth.
NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) said the warmth was most notable in Alaska, western Canada, Greenland, Mongolia, southern Russia, and northern China. The average temperature in these areas was more than 5 degrees F. above normal. In addition, southern Hemisphere land areas – on average – had their warmest January on record. . . .
That is pretty funny. We have the polar vortex affecting much of the northern hemisphere, we have expanded ice fields in the Antarctic, and Obama's trained seals telling us it is the warmest January on record? How much bull are you willing to believe? The NOAA will throw figures against the wall and see if it will stick. 10 years from now they'll find out they got it wrong. Just like the wild estimates of rising oceans, millions of climate refugees, and greater hurricane activity. Yeah right, it's really warmer out there.
but the polar vortex sag into the US brought welcome relief to Scandinavia
NOAA said this about their own data
quote
An omission in processing a correction algorithm led to some small errors on the Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly dataset (GHCN-M v3.2.0). This led to small errors in the reported land surface temperatures in the October, November, December and Annual U.S. and global climate reports. On February 14, 2013, NCDC fixed this error in its software, included an additional improvement (described below), and implemented both changes as GHCN-M version 3.2.1. With this update to GHCN-M, the Merged Land and Ocean Surface Temperature dataset also is subsequently revised as MLOST version 3.5.3.
In other words, they are still manipulating data.
If they know the net rise or fall of temperature, they sure aren't telling us anything accurate.Yeah, I was born yesterday
Excellent article, including published studies, on how the urban heat Island effect has muddied the temperature data sets, and how previous warmist responses are inadequate
Excellent article, including published studies, on how the urban heat Island effect has muddied the temperature data sets, and how previous warmist responses are inadequate
With this in mind, we decided it was to important to carefully investigate the urbanization bias problem, and check if it had been adequately dealt with. We have written a series of three companion papers describing the results of our investigation, and have submitted them for peer review on the Open Peer Review Journal forum we founded:
hahahahaha Do Mommy and Daddy help him with his homework I wonder?
A new discovery by scientists at McGill University suggests that heat from the depths of the ocean is being trapped under the Antarctic ice shelf -- all the result of climate change.
Dailycaller, Dailymail, and Watts have posted so much garbage that they have no credibility. It's like listening to MSNBC or Fox News talk about Obamacare - you already know what they will say, regardless of the actual truth.
Regarding this so-called global warming "pause" - it's not a pause. It uses an extremely hot starting point (1998) that is a clear outlier. Using any other starting year shows a clear warming trend.
Source: NASA GISS
Let me guess - NASA is "in" on it too, right? Just like how the oil companies are also "in" on it, along with the world's governments and climate scientists? How big does the conspiracy go?
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 03-06-2014).]
Dailycaller, Dailymail, and Watts have posted so much garbage that they have no credibility. It's like listening to MSNBC or Fox News talk about Obamacare - you already know what they will say, regardless of the actual truth.
Source, source, source. Typically weak argument. The daily caller article has quotes from CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. Evidently, you didn't bother to even read it, or didn't care.
quote
Regarding this so-called global warming "pause" - it's not a pause. It uses an extremely hot starting point (1998) that is a clear outlier. Using any other starting year shows a clear warming trend.
Source: NASA GISS
Let me guess - NASA is "in" on it too, right? Just like how the oil companies are also "in" on it, along with the world's governments and climate scientists? How big does the conspiracy go?
Seventeen years, no warming. The "starting point" argument is garbage.
Seventeen years, no warming. The "starting point" argument is garbage.
No, its not. It takes a cherry-picked extreme scenario. A single year doesn't prove anything. If you pick ANY other starting year the trends look completely different.
quote
Source, source, source. Typically weak argument. The daily caller article has quotes from CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. Evidently, you didn't bother to even read it, or didn't care.
Virtually every article or "quote from a climate scientist" is taken out of context from your sources as its been shown over and over. After awhile you realize that they have no credibility at all.
Apart from El Nino in 1998, the temperature while fluctuating, has no trend upward.
In fact, since 2012 the temperature index has been in a downward slide. If it does go up again this year, don't be surprised, but if it continues to bring us record winters, this might get a little chilly. Remember that we have had quiet sun conditions now for about 5 years and the earth is catching up.
Virtually every article or "quote from a climate scientist" is taken out of context from your sources as its been shown over and over. After awhile you realize that they have no credibility at all.
Wow, you use both the "cherry pick" argument and the "out of context" argument.
First, it doesn't matter where you START counting flat temperatures. I didn't say "declining", I said FLAT. Flat is flat, as in NOT increasing. So that argument is false.
As for a contextual error on the scientists quotes, show us the missing context. Present your evidence. The burden of proof for your argument is on YOU, not me.
Wow, you use both the "cherry pick" argument and the "out of context" argument.
First, it doesn't matter where you START counting flat temperatures. I didn't say "declining", I said FLAT. Flat is flat, as in NOT increasing. So that argument is false.
If you use 1996 as your starting point, you get an obvious warming trend.
If you use 1997, you get a warming trend.
If you use 1999, you get a warming trend.
If you use ANY year except 1998, you get a warming trend. Get the idea?
That's why using 1998 as the start point and claiming there's no warming is "cherry picking", because its using a clear outlier in the data and drawing broad conclusions from it.
quote
As for a contextual error on the scientists quotes, show us the missing context. Present your evidence. The burden of proof for your argument is on YOU, not me.
Do you not read the responses to your own posts?
Posted by yourself, November 5, 2013:
quote
Peer reviewed and published study...
Global warming 'pause' may last for 20 more years and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover
The author's actual conclusion: "While the results of this study appear to have implications regarding the hiatus in warming, the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming. The stadium wave hypothesis seeks to explain the natural multi-decadal component of climate variability."
In other words, the paper was explaining short term variability, not long term climate trends. In other words, dailymail took the paper completely out of context and severely distorted the intent.
Posted by yourself, November 8, 2013: (or should I say copy-and-posted)
quote
New paper shows ocean ‘acidification’ was naturally about the same during the last interglacial period as today – Published in Quaternary Science Reviews http://www.climatedepot.com...ary-science-reviews/
My response, which you never answered:
From the last line of the paper's abstract:
"This study confirms the findings of laboratory studies, showing enhanced shell dissolution and reduced calcification in living pteropods when surface ocean carbonate concentrations were lower. Results also demonstrate that oceanic pH levels that were less acidic and changing less rapidly than those predicted for the 21st Century, negatively affected pteropods during the Late Pleistocene.
Translation: We know that the lower pH levels of the ocean found in the Late Pleistocene harmed pteropods, and the ocean pH levels today are both more acidic and more rapidly changing.
In other words, the author's study concludes the exact opposite of what you claimed.
Remember this graph, which you posted as "proof" yourself years ago?
Remember how it was torn apart because its utter nonsense? This is why you are lacking credibility, because you will post ANYTHING that supports your argument, no matter how ridiculous.
This was from looking at 5 pages of this thread. There is plenty more that you've ignored, over and over.
It's always struck me odd that people actually attempt to depend on 'uncertainty' as a valid position. If uncertainty is your only argument, you can't be certain about it yourself!
More uncertainty fear mongering with incomplete scientific analysis!
Of course they complain about coverage as it requires absolutely zero effort to do that. Where are their projections on what ocean temperatures would have to be in the 'in-between' spots in order to offset the warming reported in the data? How does that fit against observations and physical laws? Ah, they don't tell you, because that would actually require some science to be done.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Levitus 2012 attempts to paint a scary picture (graph) using HUNDRETHS and THOUSANDTHS of a degree C.
Originally posted by masospaghetti: Remember how it was torn apart because its utter nonsense? This is why [fierobear] are lacking credibility, because [fierobear] will post ANYTHING that supports [fierobear's] argument, no matter how ridiculous.
Remember how it was torn apart because its utter nonsense?
Also interesting to keep in mind his various conflicting arguments. For this instance, he claimed PDO+AMO explained the temperature anomaly in the USHCN dataset. Yet he's also claimed "adjustments to USHCN explain all of the warming since 1973".
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 03-07-2014).]
General Electric: The Great Climate Disconnect "... the disconnect between the world’s carbon budget and global fossil fuel reserves will rise up the agenda as investors investigate the risk of stranded assets if and when climate policies tighten."
Originally posted by Arns85GT: In other words, they are still manipulating data.
In other words, 'it was cold where Arn lives, therefore the entire planet was also cold." How dare evidence from the real world contradict "Arns Fantasy World"!
"The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) named PG&E to the 2012 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index—recognizing PG&E for the quality of our reporting on greenhouse gas emissions and the business risks and opportunities from climate change. The CDP is an independent organization that maintains the largest global database of corporate climate change information."
Investors scrutinizing high carbon emissions risk: “It is probably the one (issue) that is the highest on the agenda of many of our clients,” said Linda-Eling Lee, New York-based global head of ESG research, MSCI Inc. “We're getting more questions about it and more discussion around it than probably any of the other issues.”
