A rational climate article[W:268]

[Threegoofs]

Showing why the 'global temperature pause' is a fake issue.

Who Created the Global Warming "Pause"? | Mother Jones

In true JH fashion, I'll cut and paste the initial stuff here.

"In a major report released late last month, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's leading authority on climate science, told us it was more certain than ever that humans are causing global warming. It also upgraded its projections for sea level rise by the end of the century, and even broached the subject of climate change's irreversibility: We may already have done so much harm to the Earth that some of it can't be undone in our lifetimes, or even in the lifetimes of future generations as far out as most of us can imagine.

This, you might think, would be quite a media story. Yet instead, something funny happened on the way from the scientists' heads to the public's ears, and many journalists instead embraced a very different narrative—in many ways, almost the opposite narrative. Global warming, they suggested, had "paused" or was slowing down. And scientists didn't really understand why.

How could this disconnect, this huge divergence of narratives, have happened? What follows is the story of a communications failure that is ultimately harmful to all of us. And it was brought on by combination of causes that, unfortunately, we've seen work together before to mar the communication of climate science: Misinformation from climate skeptics, false balance and just plain bad science reporting from much of the media, and to top it all off, poor communication by scientists themselves."

 

[Mithrae]

Re: A rational climate article

Showing why the 'global temperature pause' is a fake issue.

This "no warming for 15 years" falsehood I've encountered 'round these parts would be right up there amongst the most persuasive reasons to conclude that deniers and many sceptics are interested in anything but facts.

Including the average of 2013 to date, 12 of the 13 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001 (2013's average so far would put it 6th hottest overall). And it's not particularly easy to find a multi-year average which does not show a warming trend.
By decade:
1990s - -0.0393
2000s - 0.1416
2010s - 0.2250625

5-year averages:
1994-1998 - 0.0398
1999-2003 - 0.079
2004-2008 - 0.1494
2009-2013 - 0.22365
(Raw data from the site of AGW-sceptical climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer - hottest years, and 2013 temps by month - all compared against the 1981-2010 average. In my calculations here, I added 0.5 degrees to all figures to simplify the math by removing the negatives.)

One is almost left with the impression that the 'sceptics' would consider global warming a farce unless every single year is a new record high :roll: Such nonsense rhetoric might've been almost understandable in late '08 - a remarkably low year a nice round decade after the remarkable high of '98. But the otherwise-arbitrary choice of 15 years, when 2013 is shaping up to be hotter than 2012, which in turn was hotter than 2011 - and 2010 was the 2nd hottest year on record - is obviously absurd.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Re: A rational climate article

This "no warming for 15 years" falsehood I've encountered 'round these parts would be right up there amongst the most persuasive reasons to conclude that deniers and many sceptics are interested in anything but facts.

Including the average of 2013 to date, 12 of the 13 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001 (2013's average so far would put it 6th hottest overall). And it's not particularly easy to find a multi-year average which does not show a warming trend.
By decade:
1990s - -0.0393
2000s - 0.1416
2010s - 0.2250625

5-year averages:
1994-1998 - 0.0398
1999-2003 - 0.079
2004-2008 - 0.1494
2009-2013 - 0.22365
(Raw data from the site of AGW-sceptical climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer - hottest years, and 2013 temps by month - all compared against the 1981-2010 average. In my calculations here, I added 0.5 degrees to all figures to simplify the math by removing the negatives.)

One is almost left with the impression that the 'sceptics' would consider global warming a farce unless every single year is a new record high :roll: Such nonsense rhetoric might've been almost understandable in late '08 - a remarkably low year a nice round decade after the remarkable high of '98. But the otherwise-arbitrary choice of 15 years, when 2013 is shaping up to be hotter than 2012, which in turn was hotter than 2011 - and 2010 was the 2nd hottest year on record - is obviously absurd.

Do you deny that we have been in a warming trend since the last major ice age ended?

 

[KLATTU]

Re: A rational climate article

blah blah blah spin spin spni......."
One is almost left with the impression that the 'sceptics' would consider global warming a farce unless every single year is a new record high absurd.

Yes- that is exactly what the warmist models predicted. In face that is the whole AGW theory in a nutshell. Kncreased CO2 emmisions lead to increased temperatures. Except it hasn't for 15 years.
Oh wait , it HAS, but all the heat has gone to the deep oceans where, darn, we can't measure it.
{LAFF}

 

[Threegoofs]

A rational climate article

Yes- that is exactly what the warmist models predicted. In face that is the whole AGW theory in a nutshell. Kncreased CO2 emmisions lead to increased temperatures. Except it hasn't for 15 years.
Oh wait , it HAS, but all the heat has gone to the deep oceans where, darn, we can't measure it.
{LAFF}

Maybe you can't measure it. But oceanographers do.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...rs-fiddle-while-deep-ocean-temperatures-rise/


http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Heat-Content-And-The-Importance-Of-The-Deep-Ocean.html

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: A rational climate article

Maybe you can't measure it. But oceanographers do.

Senators Fiddle While Deep Ocean Temperatures Rise | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network


Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean

The amount of energy required to heat the surface air temperature a tenth of a degree can be located by measuring temperature change at the bottom of the ocean? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

 

[Deuce]

Re: A rational climate article

Do you deny that we have been in a warming trend since the last major ice age ended?

We have indeed been in one. You think this proves something, I take it.

 

[Deuce]

Re: A rational climate article

The amount of energy required to heat the surface air temperature a tenth of a degree can be located by measuring temperature change at the bottom of the ocean? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

...that's not what they're saying.

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: A rational climate article

The amount of energy required to heat the surface air temperature a tenth of a degree can be located by measuring temperature change at the bottom of the ocean? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

Kind of as ridiculous as the fact that if you drop two things off a tower they fall at the same speed regardless of what they weigh? Crazy.

 

[KLATTU]

Re: A rational climate article

Maybe you can't measure it. But oceanographers do.

Senators Fiddle While Deep Ocean Temperatures Rise | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network


Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean

Complete garbage , as factually shown here.
Introduction To The NODC Ocean Heat Content Anomaly Data For Depths Of 0-2000 Meters | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

There are extremely few observations prior to the year 2000 at depths greater than 1000 meters. This is illustrated in Figure 3. (Note that NOAA Climate Prediction Center Data Distributionwebpage breaks down the temperature profiles into depths of 0-250 meters, 250-500 meters, 500-1000 meters and 1000-5000 meters. Those depths don’t agree with the depths presented by the NODC for its Ocean Heat Content anomaly data.)

"

 

[KLATTU]

Re: A rational climate article

Maybe you can't measure it. But oceanographers do.

Senators Fiddle While Deep Ocean Temperatures Rise | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network


Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean

Complete garbage , as factually shown here.
Introduction To The NODC Ocean Heat Content Anomaly Data For Depths Of 0-2000 Meters | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

There are extremely few observations prior to the year 2000 at depths greater than 1000 meters. This is illustrated in Figure 3. (Note that NOAA Climate Prediction Center Data Distributionwebpage breaks down the temperature profiles into depths of 0-250 meters, 250-500 meters, 500-1000 meters and 1000-5000 meters. Those depths don’t agree with the depths presented by the NODC for its Ocean Heat Content anomaly data.)

"

 

[Threegoofs]

A rational climate article

Complete garbage , as factually shown here.
Introduction To The NODC Ocean Heat Content Anomaly Data For Depths Of 0-2000 Meters | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

There are extremely few observations prior to the year 2000 at depths greater than 1000 meters. This is illustrated in Figure 3. (Note that NOAA Climate Prediction Center Data Distributionwebpage breaks down the temperature profiles into depths of 0-250 meters, 250-500 meters, 500-1000 meters and 1000-5000 meters. Those depths don’t agree with the depths presented by the NODC for its Ocean Heat Content anomaly data.)

"

Ah yes. A brilliant post by Bob Tisdale. An "independent climate researcher' who seems to have no scientific background at all. But he's got a blog and a self published (read: couldnt get a real publisher to print it) book.


I'll stick with the oceanographers.

But its revealing to know who you belive.

 

[KLATTU]

Re: A rational climate article

Ah yes. A brilliant post by Bob Tisdale. An "independent climate researcher' who seems to have no scientific background at all. But he's got a blog and a self published (read: couldnt get a real publisher to print it) book.


I'll stick with the oceanographers.

But its revealing to know who you belive.

Oh please- don't ever question the climate gods!
lol

( You just don't see yourself do you?)

 

[Threegoofs]

A rational climate article

Oh please- don't ever question the climate gods!
lol

( You just don't see yourself do you?)

its like going to a self taught doctor for a diagnosis.

 

[BmanMcfly]

A rational climate article

Showing why the 'global temperature pause' is a fake issue.

Who Created the Global Warming "Pause"? | Mother Jones

In true JH fashion, I'll cut and paste the initial stuff here.

"In a major report released late last month, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's leading authority on climate science, told us it was more certain than ever that humans are causing global warming. It also upgraded its projections for sea level rise by the end of the century, and even broached the subject of climate change's irreversibility: We may already have done so much harm to the Earth that some of it can't be undone in our lifetimes, or even in the lifetimes of future generations as far out as most of us can imagine.

This, you might think, would be quite a media story. Yet instead, something funny happened on the way from the scientists' heads to the public's ears, and many journalists instead embraced a very different narrative—in many ways, almost the opposite narrative. Global warming, they suggested, had "paused" or was slowing down. And scientists didn't really understand why.

How could this disconnect, this huge divergence of narratives, have happened? What follows is the story of a communications failure that is ultimately harmful to all of us. And it was brought on by combination of causes that, unfortunately, we've seen work together before to mar the communication of climate science: Misinformation from climate skeptics, false balance and just plain bad science reporting from much of the media, and to top it all off, poor communication by scientists themselves."

Well, the raw data shows the warming stopped in 1998, with a slight cooking rend since 2003.

Then the "scientists" get their hands on the data and suddenly cooling becomes "record warming".

The disconnect is between the "scientists" and reality.

 

[BmanMcfly]

A rational climate article

, I added 0.5 degrees to all figures to simplify the math by removing the negatives.)

enough said...

 

[ethanUNC]

Re: A rational climate article

The amount of energy required to heat the surface air temperature a tenth of a degree can be located by measuring temperature change at the bottom of the ocean? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

EDUCATE YOURSELF.

I'm taking an ocean science course right now and the articles are correct.

 

[Muhammed]

Re: A rational climate article

Maybe you can't measure it. But oceanographers do.

Senators Fiddle While Deep Ocean Temperatures Rise | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network

Scientific American also contended that Piltdown man was the missing link in the chain of evolution between gorillas and modern humans.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: A rational climate article

Kind of as ridiculous as the fact that if you drop two things off a tower they fall at the same speed regardless of what they weigh? Crazy.

Two objects dropped off a tower will not fall at the same speed. For that matter, the same object dropped off the same place from the same tower will not fall at exactly the same speed if you measure it accurately enough. Thinking that we have the capability to accurately measure the rise in deep ocean temperatures that would correspond to a 0.1 degree rise in surface air temperatures is ridiculous, let alone the preposterous notion that you could definitively conclude the cause of the temperature increase.

Even if your objects dropped off the tower were in a perfect vacuum, they still would not fall at exactly the same speed because there are other forces and motion involved in the equation. It's really a good analogy if you wanted to discredit your argument though. Thanks for offering it.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: A rational climate article

...that's not what they're saying.

If not that, then what are they saying?

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: A rational climate article

EDUCATE YOURSELF.

I'm taking an ocean science course right now and the articles are correct.

Thanks junior. I've had a few classes in heat transfer, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, among other things. By all means, educate me.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: A rational climate article

Showing why the 'global temperature pause' is a fake issue.

Who Created the Global Warming "Pause"? | Mother Jones

In true JH fashion, I'll cut and paste the initial stuff here.

"In a major report released late last month, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's leading authority on climate science, told us it was more certain than ever that humans are causing global warming. It also upgraded its projections for sea level rise by the end of the century, and even broached the subject of climate change's irreversibility: We may already have done so much harm to the Earth that some of it can't be undone in our lifetimes, or even in the lifetimes of future generations as far out as most of us can imagine.

This, you might think, would be quite a media story. Yet instead, something funny happened on the way from the scientists' heads to the public's ears, and many journalists instead embraced a very different narrative—in many ways, almost the opposite narrative. Global warming, they suggested, had "paused" or was slowing down. And scientists didn't really understand why.

How could this disconnect, this huge divergence of narratives, have happened? What follows is the story of a communications failure that is ultimately harmful to all of us. And it was brought on by combination of causes that, unfortunately, we've seen work together before to mar the communication of climate science: Misinformation from climate skeptics, false balance and just plain bad science reporting from much of the media, and to top it all off, poor communication by scientists themselves."

The best reply to nonsense is a statement of the facts.

Pay No Attention to the Bad Data

By STEVEN F. HAYWARD

"Thought experiment: Imagine you are a national security reporter, covering the release of a massive, 2,000-page report on domestic intelligence gathering activities and future threat assessment from the National Security Agency. But instead of issuing the full report, the NSA issues a 30-page “Summary for Policymakers” (SPM) written by political appointees at the Justice Department, promising that the full 2,000-page report will be released a few days later. Would you print a front-page story based only on the 30-page summary, or would you demand to see the full report?

If you’d go with the politically massaged summary, then congratulations​—​you too can be an environmental reporter. Because that’s exactly what the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did on Friday, September 27, in Stockholm, releasing only the SPM while withholding the full report. And the media played along, generating predictable headlines over the weekend about the increasing certainty of climate scientists that humans are warming the world. . . .

It is important to understand that the IPCC report is not an original scientific inquiry but a wide-ranging literature review and “synthesis.” The technical nature of climate science is such that only other scientists can possibly follow it, and even that is doubtful, as the specialized nature of so many aspects of climate science is beyond the grasp of scientists who work in widely scattered subfields. Whether the domain of climate science can be “synthesized” in this way is a debatable question.
A close reading of some of the key passages shows that it cannot bear the weight of the sensationalized parts of the SPM, at least as rendered in the media. One of the most misleading aspects of this story is the way in which the SPM conveys a “95 percent confidence” or certainty of its findings, as though this figure represented a rigorous or robust test familiar to first-year students of statistical correlation. The IPCC’s methodology behind these conclusions is thoroughly opaque. When you strip away the fog, the IPCC admits these conclusions are “qualitative,” and based essentially on a poll of the self-selecting participants in the IPCC review process itself. . . . ":lamo

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: A rational climate article

Showing why the 'global temperature pause' is a fake issue.

In true JH fashion, I'll cut and paste the initial stuff here.

In true JH fashion, I'll ask why you haven't replied to the Nature paper I posted yesterday. Since you always proclaim your affinity for the "science" of the matter I would have expected you to be interested. eace

 

[ethanUNC]

Re: A rational climate article

Thanks junior. I've had a few classes in heat transfer, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, among other things. By all means, educate me.

So have I; no one cares.

The point is that you feel that you have the right to disagree with a Harvard oceanographer on something you know nothing about.

 

[Threegoofs]

A rational climate article

Well, the raw data shows the warming stopped in 1998, with a slight cooking rend since 2003.

Then the "scientists" get their hands on the data and suddenly cooling becomes "record warming".

The disconnect is between the "scientists" and reality.

Yes. Because the data comes from heaven and 'scientists' collect it on the ground like leaves in autumn.

You really don't know how science is done, do you?