@Bowerbird For one thing, there is no politics looking into " cool down " science as there is with global warming. https://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html Volcano eruption of Krakatau, Indonesia. Volcanic eruptions in the 13th and 15th centuries appear to have triggered the Little Ice Age. A mysterious, centuries-long cool spell, dubbed the Little Ice Age, appears to have been caused by a series of volcanic eruptions and sustained by sea ice, a new study indicates.Jan 30, 2012
Bwahahahahahah!!! What with all that political money floating around from big oil and big energy??? You know the ones who have been running disinformation campaigns for years??
I cannot believe people are still thinking that the science, conducted by thousands of different scientists in hundreds of diffferent institutes in over 150 different countries is still blamed on "politics!"
@Bowerbird How about the profiteering from markets expanded by claims of global warming mandated by gov't policies. @Bowerbird BTW you failed to reply to acknowledge part two of the quote you edited https://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html Volcano eruption of Krakatau, Indonesia. Volcanic eruptions in the 13th and 15th centuries appear to have triggered the Little Ice Age. A mysterious, centuries-long cool spell, dubbed the Little Ice Age, appears to have been caused by a series of volcanic eruptions and sustained by sea ice, a new study indicates.Jan 30, 2012 Doesn't that count as "Science"? Although it violates your religion.
Just look at Marijuana is dangerous, Science. It's for the grant money y'see. Then you can believe . . .
This is accepted science - you will even find it in the IPCC report (yes it is there https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6-3-2.html As for the "government" - which one? Yours? Mine? America? UK? Don't know about your government but ours is griping like you would not believe because it has to do what it hates - pay out for infrastructure - especially in South Aus. See they had this really long blackout and now are transitioning from coal fired to renewables and battery - and could not be happier So - who is benefitting? SA government? Heck no! they wanted that money for some nice rorts People of SA? Heck no! If thier electricity bills go up too much they will end up having to vote the government out of power! The Scientists? Tell me - how do they benefit? Are they getting a kickback from every battery sold?
Grant money is pitiful - always has been Meantime Inhofe is ON RECORD as having recieved over 1.3 million from vested interests. I can give you lists of moneys paid to disinformation campaigns - well up until it all went underground anyway
Completely inaccurate. hhttps://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-acti...SSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php?src=share
Of course, those are very temporary effects, on the time scale of climate. They will have less cooling effect than they would without human caused warming, and the human caused warming trend will still be there when the short term effects wear off.
Except when it's NOT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age Climate changes, just like the weather. We live in a relatively brief interglacial period. Every generation seems to think they can change the world or that "we" have Some think the world has changed on us I refuse to feel so insignificant not to take responsibility and apologize for all PeopleKind.
I'm not sure that I would characterize 8+ Billion dollars a year from federal coffers to study climate change to be "pitiful". I would assert that your unwillingness to acknowledge the business of climate change funding as pitiful. And on average, how much do you suppose that those "vested interests", ie the oil companies themselves are investing in renewables? I suppose that never even entered into your thought process at all. So, you can claim ignorance, I might find that plausible.
Just to clarify something...the effects of volcanic aerosols are said to be "temporary" because they last only a few years compared to a few hundred as a result of CO2. That's not to say a hyperactive period of volcanism cannot overcome the greenhouse effect and send us into a volcanic winter. But, unless you have convincing evidence that we are entering a hyperactive period of volcanism there's no reason to think these onesy-twosy volcanic eruptions are going to have anything other than a minor and temporary effect. Case in point...Pinatubo. It's effects in every sense of the word was temporary.
Do we have reason to believe that a swarm of Pinatubo-s is eminent? I do agree that it is possible. It's just not likely. I also suppose it's possible that an as-yet unknown tipping point in the climate system may activate as a direct result of anthroprogenic global warming that slingshots us towards the other direction; that is rapid cooling. The paleoclimate record does suggest that these tipping points may happen. But, again, it's just not likely; at least based on our current understanding of the processes involved.
False. There was no hiatus. You just changed lanes from volcanic activity to solar cycles. So I guess I will repeat myself: those cycles are temporary, in terms of climate. And a runaway greenhouse effect would greatly diminished the floor of that cooling. Furthermore, those cooling trends take a long time to manifest. The most alarming thing about man-made climate change is how quickly it's happening. So a slow cooling is not going to save our ecology from a rapid warming effect, much less a runaway greenhouse effect. And lastly -- just to completely destroy your terrible points -- those cooling periods have their own "feedback loops", due to increased albedo of Earth (as surface ice increases) and alteration of the atmosphere. These feedback loops will be diminished or eliminated entirely, in the face of a much warmer planet. None of your points here are valid.
None whatsoever. So these "what ifs" are akin to not wearing your sealt belt, because you just might be thrown clear from a crash without getting injured. Sure, it is possible, but you would be a fool to rely on such an improbable event for your safety.
LOL, so there was no hiatus that there are 60+ explanations for it until Karl et al came along years later that adjusted scientific instruments to correspond to unscientific questionable ship engine intake temperatures and bucket readings to prove there was no hiatus. Sorry, the record is clear and only the true believers in the dogma say otherwise. The real science deniers.
Not the reference I spent a lot of time searching but, still relevant. http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/science-reconsidered.376736/page-12#post-1064532506 The reference I was searching for was the one that indicates Global Warming causes more volcano activity. I will keep looking. While I was looking I came across http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-supervolcano-is-gonna-blow-repent.338281/ Eureka, I Found It. http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/i-knew-it-all-along.521989/
Correct, and saying so was a mistake. The only "hiatus" observed was sin surface temperatures. However, as it turns out, there is more to the climate than the atmosphere on the surface. Once the looked for the "hidden heat" in the oceans, they found it. And, as it turned out,the earths climate had warmed faster during this period than predicted. Silly myth...not that you understand a word of it....
While there was a hiatus in the atmospheric temperature there was not a hiatus in the warming of the entire biosphere. Let's now discuss Karl, Bates, and the misreported ship/buoy adjustment. First things first, you must read Karl's paper here and Huang's paper here. The gist of what's going on is that ships read too high compared to buoys. And because ARGO has sensors that are accurate to within 0.002C (that's not a typo by the way) it was concluded that the ship readings were biased high. Now, if the ERSST dataset only considered ship data and no buoy data then this wouldn't be an issue because systematic biases cancel out when doing anomaly analysis. The reason is because ΔT = (Tc - B) - (Tp - B) where Tc is the current temperature and Tp and B is the systematic bias that was determined to be 0.12C. Notice what happens here. ΔT = [(Tc-B) - (Tp-B)] = [Tc - Tp - B + B] = [Tc - Tp] such that everything reduces back to ΔT = Tc - Tp. The rub is that these new buoy data points need to be included in the ERSST dataset and everyone agrees that the buoy data is far more accurate so it should be given a lot more weight over the ship data for the years after 2000 which is when most of this high precision got incorporated. So the maintainers of that dataset must homogenize the data. There are two valid ways of doing this. You can either reduce the ship data by 0.12C or you can increase the buoy data by 0.12C. Both are equally valid methods of homogenization. And it doesn't matter which one you choose because (Tc-A) - (Tp-A) = (Tc+A) - (Tp+A) = Tc - Tp. It literally makes no difference in the warming trend because the adjustment fully cancels out. Huang explains why the later method was chosen. And it's important to note that the adjustment is only there so that the data can be homogenized and this particular adjustment had zero impact on the warming trend. The end result of this inclusion of buoy data after 2000 and which was more weighted more heavily than ship data resulted in a whopping increase of...wait for it...0.014C/decade of warming and that's only after 2000. What often gets ignored in all of this is that ERSST makes other adjustments in v4 that were not included in v3. Namely, it was determined that ships were still using bucket measurements even today. v3 of ERSST incorrectly assumed that bucket measurements had been largely replaced in favor of intake measurements after WWII. They figured out that this was a bad assumption only recently. This is what accounted for most of the changes in the ERSST dataset. So how does Bates play into all of this? Well, he's the one that made the initial claim of fraud saying Karl manipulated his data with the implied meaning that it was fraudulent. Clearly the adjustments made in ERSSTv4 are necessary and are in no way fraudulent. This then spiraled out of control when bloggers looked into Bate's claim and misinterpreted certain sections of Karl's paper. It also didn't help when congress was misinformed of Bate's false allegation. Note, that Bate's fully retracted his allegation saying "there was no data tampering of any kind", but congress was not made aware of that. As a result the press release said NOAA manipulated climate records with the implication that it was fraudulent. You can see the press release here. The irony regarding Bates is his motivation for falsely accusing Karl. See Bates was disciplined by Karl and demoted because of...wait for it...professional misconduct. And the double irony is that Karl isn't even the one that made the adjustments. It was Huang who's paper I linked to above made the ship/buoy adjustment. It's important to see what effect all of these adjustments had. This image is taken directly from Karl's 2015 paper which was the focus of the false allegation of fraud and misinterpretation by bloggers. Your eyes are not deceiving you here. The new adjustments vs the old adjustment have almost zero impact except for only a modest change that shows a greater amount of warming after 2000 only. But, if you don't like adjustments Karl happily shows you what will happen. You don't need to me to explain that doesn't bode well for skeptic/denier arguments. You can also clearly see that Karl did not remove "the hiatus" as was claimed by bloggers. Karl didn't even make a statement in his paper that could be misconstrued as thinking "the hiatus" didn't exist.
What a hoot. You really have no clue. The ONLY record that shows no hiatus is the incorporation of the Karl et al inclusion. All other records show conclusively an hiatus and you are dismissing the 60+ explanations for its existence. If you understood anything about ocean heat content you would understand your error.
False. Every study of the climate that includes the ocean temps during that period shows not only no "pause" , but that the warming progressed faster than expected. The things you are saying are factually incorrect, and easily verifiably so. There was no pause in global warming. This is a basic fact accepted by the scientific community. It doesn't matter too much if you believe it or not, as you have exactly zero education or experience in any of these fields, nor are you attempting to produce any scientific research.
I agree. This was not predicted by computer models and as a result caused a lot of head scratching in the academic community.
