Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Scientists did not predict the global mean surface temperature perfectly. Your argument here is to scrap the entire AGW theory because of it. Is your standard that all theories must make perfect predictions otherwise they are not deemed useful?

I will be the first to admit that our predictions going forward aren't going to be perfect either. There are going to be pauses in the GMST warming followed by huge leaps upward that scientists aren't going to be able to pinpoint with perfect accuracy.

And just to be clear...there is no hypothesis in AGW that says "the Earth will warm by X amount from T1 to T2 exactly and all natural variability will cease immediately" Once again, you are either misinterpreting the science or building more strawmen or more likely it's both.

 

Dude, that was so dumb I couldn't help but laugh.

 

No, it didn't warm exactly as predicted. Climate predictions are never going to be perfect. In fact, most predictions in science aren't perfect. But that doesn't mean they aren't useful.

 

What?

 

It's a crisis.... Truly...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wetherspoons-co2-shortage-heineken-beer-12809797

What will the poor children do now??

 

Wow, that does sound bad.

Without Coca-Cola I'd imagine many of them are at risk of dying of thirst.

 

Climate change takes it's first victims....

 

Ok, I seriously laughed out loud when I read that.

 

A hypothesis is proved or disproved with real world test and the hypothesis of AGW is based largely on correlation is causation. That failed big time over the last decade of exponentially increasing C02 levels and languishing rises in temperature.

 

First, CO2 did not exponentially increase. It is increasing at a steady rate of a little over 2 ppm/yr. Second, your statement assumes that CO2 is the only thing that can have an impact on the global mean surface temperature. That is patently false. Third, if we are going to play the game of cherry-picking data then I choose 2000-2016 in which the planet warmed by 0.6C or 0.38C/decade. Do I now I get to say that this proves that models are actually underestimating the warming and that CO2 is clearly the cause of all that warming? Should we keep playing this cherry-picking game? It's up to you, but I'd be willing to bet it's going to be me more fun for me and isn't going to turn out the way you think. Just saying...

 

Since you couldn't grasp it the first time. Just saying....


"A hypothesis is proved or disproved with real world test and the hypothesis of AGW is based largely on correlation is causation. That failed big time over the last decade of exponentially increasing C02 levels and languishing rises in temperature."

 

How is a rise in the global mean surface temperature of 0.4C over the last decade "languishing" and a big failure?

 

Yes i know you are in the sect of the cult that says it never stopped warming while the other sect says it did stop warming and label it a "pause in warming". Feel free to fight amongst yourselves. When you come up with one story you can stick to get back to me.

 

.4C is nothing at all. I see more variation than that daily here

 

I've never claimed that the atmosphere stops warming for short periods of time. In fact, I've posted countless graphs showing the atmosphere actually goes through many periods of warming, stagnation, and even cooling. What I'm claiming is that despite the many up and down swings in temperature the secular trend is most definitively up. And guess what...going forward there will be more short term pauses and even periods where the atmosphere cools just like what we're seeing now. I'm also trying to squash the myth that it hasn't warmed over the last decade. That is patently false. Do we need to rehash that?

 

No. We do not see variations of 0.4C/day of the global mean surface temperature. Like, not even close. And if you're trying to compare the behavior of the global mean surface temperature with the behavior of the temperature at your house then already deeply confused about the fundamental differences.

Let me try to stoke your critical thinking with a question. What is fundamentally different about the global mean surface temperature vs the temperature at your house? Let me give you some hints on what to consider here. What is the diurnal temperature range at your house? Now, compare that to the global mean temperature. Is there even a diurnal range for the global mean surface temperature? How much lower does the global mean surface temperature have to get for us to enter another ice age? Again, think critically. Don't just dismiss these questions because they're too hard or because you're afraid of the answers. Spend some time researching what it means to have a global mean surface temperature in the first place and what the implications of it are and what changes in it may tell us.

 

According to you it's false, others say different. This guy's a warmer but he has a different perspective on the pause than you do.

The death of the global warming ‘pause’ has been greatly exaggerated







6 January 2017




"The global warming ‘pause’ never existed, say the headlines. It’s a claim that has been made before, only to be refuted, yet now it’s back again. If there is one topic that sends a small subset of climate scientists’ temperature into the stratosphere, it’s the topic of the global warming ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’. This is the idea that global surface temperatures haven’t changed much for almost 20 years. Never in my experience of science have I come across a topic like it, and that’s because it means nothing, and everything."
.

"It would be fair to say that most climate scientists think the ‘hiatus’ exists and is a fascinating phenomenon that deserves study. There have been hundreds of research papers about it and over 30 explanations proffered. These range from ones focussed on heat going into the ocean, to ones which focus on the sun, or the stratosphere or even an unknown effect. The hiatus showed the importance of natural climate variability being, possibly for a while, stronger than long-term global warming. But some wouldn’t have it. The ‘pause’ had to be destroyed. That’s fair enough, but they need to make a case.

The latest evidence has just cropped up. The headlines say there is fresh doubt over the so-called global warming ‘hiatus’. This is because a new study suggests that the temperature of the oceans was being underestimated in the past 20 years or so because the ocean buoys used to measure sea temperatures were recording slightly cooler temperatures than the older ship’s intake systems. When taken into account, this new effect makes the oceans warmer in recent years and so obliterates the ‘hiatus’.

Well, not quite. The 2015-16 El Nino has been one of the strongest on record, temporarily elevating global temperatures by a significant margin. This means that their case rests on the El Nino temperature increase and will be destroyed when the El Nino subsides, as it is currently doing. A temporary victory over the ‘pause’.

The ‘pause’ can be accommodated into global warming – but not for very much longer. The world’s temperature has to increase outside the El Nino effect. If it doesn’t there will be some fascinating new science to work on, and many questions to be asked.


https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/death-global-warming-pause-greatly-exaggerated/

 

The climate and atmosphere of our planet generally get evaluated according to geological or long term evidence of warming/cooling and this certainly comes in to play here, The primary indicator here would be that measurement are real time and looked at year to year now as well as new indicators coming into play because of advanced understanding and technology. Everything we see indeed shows relatively dramatic changes in short and long term projection which does not look good going forward.

 

It's not just me. It's everyone. Even skeptics like Dr. Christy agree. His UAH dataset also shows significant warming from the beginning of 2008 to end of 2017 which is the most recent decade. Likewise every dataset shows that 2012 was about the same or even cooler than 1998. But, 1998-2012 isn't the "last decade". There is definitely a 13 year period in which the warming of the atmosphere paused just like it's definitely the case that over the last decade it definitely warmed and just like it's definitely the case that it warmed from 1998 to 2017 which, by the way, is picking an El Nino for the start and a La Nina for the end of that range.

It is increasing outside of the ENSO cycles. That's why most El Ninos and La Ninas end up being warmer than the last. There is natural variability (a la the ENSO cycles) that cause the atmospheric temperature to swing up and down, but there's also a constant upward anthroprogenic force as well.

I mentioned this before, but ENSO cycles produce an effect similar to y = sin(x) whereas the anthroprogenic effect adds another term such that y = (0.25 * x) + sin(x). Plot each function in a graph (https://www.desmos.com/calculator). Do you see what's happening? The sine wave is still oscillating up and down, but the constant anthroprogenic term changes the slope of the oscillation from neutral to positive. Again, this is just a simplification to help illustrate what's going on.

 

Easy: when the data do not support AGW theory, they change the data. Evil AGW liars have even gone back and altered centuries-old sunspot records to remove the low sunspot counts during the Little Ice Age.

 

Who is changing the data? How is the data changed? And what do you think the "real" change in the global mean surface temperature has been since 1960?

 

Guess you missed this part.

"It would be fair to say that most climate scientists think the ‘hiatus’ exists and is a fascinating phenomenon that deserves study.

 

You do realize the "hiatus" is in reference to period from the beginning of 1999 to the end of 2012 and that this period is not the same thing as "the last decade" which is defined as the beginning of 2008 to the end of 2017 right?

And no, I didn't miss that part. In fact, that sentence echoes exactly what I said in post #869.

And remember, this whole line of conversation is in reference to your claim in post #861 that the temperature rise languished over the last decade. That claim is incorrect. Maybe you meant to say the temperature rise languished from 1998-2012?

 

You claimed there was no pause and I showed you that many on your side if not most disagree with you so quit acting like your opinion is fact. There was indeed a severe lack of warming and scientist on your side don't understand why. You are in the camp that says "the pause must be destroyed" because we'll it just doesn't look good for your hypothesis.


"It would be fair to say that most climate scientists think the ‘hiatus’ exists and is a fascinating phenomenon that deserves study. There have been hundreds of research papers about it and over 30 explanations proffered. These range from ones focussed on heat going into the ocean, to ones which focus on the sun, or the stratosphere or even an unknown effect. The hiatus showed the importance of natural climate variability being, possibly for a while, stronger than long-term global warming. But some wouldn’t have it. The ‘pause’ had to be destroyed. That’s fair enough, but they need to make a case."

 

I have never claimed that there was no pause in the global mean surface temperature...ever. On the contrary I've posted multiple graphics on this forum (and probably this thread) that clearly show the pause. What I claimed is that there was no decade long pause in the accumulation of heat in the entire biosphere. There is a difference between the atmosphere which accounts for 3-4% of the biosphere and the entirety of the biosphere itself. I've also claimed that the atmosphere warming behavior has a substantial natural variability (think ENSO cycles) component to it. This natural variability is what causes the erratic up and down behavior of the global mean surface temperature. That natural variability, while clearly apparent in the atmosphere, isn't quite so apparent when you look at the biosphere as a whole.

I agree. There was no increase in the global mean surface temperature from 1998-2012. Scientists are working to understand more about the natural variability that causes changes in the ENSO cycles and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which have a huge effect on the heat fluxes between the ocean and atmosphere and are largely responsible for the big up and down swings in the atmospheric temperature. I have never claimed otherwise.

I have never said the pause should be destroyed...ever. And as I've said multiple times on this forum there is no hypothesis in AGW that says "the global mean surface temperature will increase and only increase without ever cooling or even pausing". So yeah, if that were a hypothesis that scientists actually considered it would be easily falsified. Once again, you are building a strawman. That's fine...just don't act like climate scientists helped you build it so that you can then use that as your trump card for proving them wrong.